# Thousands of ancient tombs and settlements found in Egypt with IR mapping



## twilyth (May 25, 2011)

article

You have to watch the video and look at the sat. images.  They look like a virtual street map of ancient settlements buried under the sand.  The find includes 17 lost pyramids.

Ancient Tannis







excerpt



> Seventeen lost pyramids are among the buildings identified in a new satellite survey of Egypt.
> 
> More than 1,000 tombs and 3,000 ancient settlements were also revealed by looking at infra-red images which show up underground buildings.
> 
> ...


----------



## AltecV1 (May 25, 2011)

cool


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 25, 2011)

truly incredible. we like to brag about our advanced society but look what these people did with only freaking wood and rocks.


----------



## the54thvoid (May 25, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> truly incredible. we like to brag about our advanced society but look what these people did with only freaking wood and rocks.



And slaves.  Thousands upon thousands of slaves.  All the ancient empires were built with the unpaid labor of the enslaved.  The IR mapping is a good tool for archaeology though.


----------



## erocker (May 25, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> truly incredible. we like to brag about our advanced society but look what these people did with only freaking wood and rocks.



With the loss of these once great societies, I'm quite positive technologies were also lost that rival some of our tech today. I remember watching some videos that suggest people were flying in planes (fighter aircraft even) thousands of years ago.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 25, 2011)

the54thvoid said:


> And slaves.  Thousands upon thousands of slaves.  All the ancient empires were built with the unpaid labor of the enslaved.  The IR mapping is a good tool for archaeology though.



sure but that doesnt take away from their ability to create and plan out massive structures inside massive cities using only wood and rocks.


----------



## erocker (May 25, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> sure but that doesnt take away from their ability to create and plan out massive structures inside massive cities using only wood and rocks.



We currently do that. The rock is just crushed and formed.


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 25, 2011)

erocker said:


> We currently do that. The rock is just crushed and formed.



yup. and we use steel to support our structures and hard plastics molded to fit certain specs. they used rocks they found on the ground, pounded them into shape with other random rocks, used very little math to do so, and created awesome things. pretty impressive.


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 25, 2011)

twilyth said:


> article
> 
> You have to watch the video and look at the sat. images.  They look like a virtual street map of ancient settlements buried under the sand.  The find includes 17 lost pyramids.
> 
> ...



Read about this earlier today. Whilst I am impressed that they have found so much, and impressed that the even built it to be found, one must ask... should we really dig all that sand up?

I know it's an archaeologists wet dream, but that's an awful lot of sand.


----------



## kajson (May 25, 2011)

time to find atlantis?


----------



## the54thvoid (May 25, 2011)

kajson said:


> time to find atlantis?



Found.

The Greek Island of Santorini was once a massive volcano.  It erupted catastrophically, obliterating the native and quite well advanced population.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060823-thera-volcano.html


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (May 25, 2011)

I cant see the pyramid


----------



## Easy Rhino (May 25, 2011)

Bjorn_Of_Iceland said:


> I cant see the pyramid



where's waldo?


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (May 25, 2011)

Incredible. This Sarah Parcek's wikipedia page has not been updated yet, surprisingly enough. Who wants this? 

The last of just two paragraphs:



> From 2003 to 2004, Parcak used a combination of satellite imaging analysis and surface surveys in the detection of 132 new archaeological sites, some dating back to 3,000 B.C..[2] In her latest work, Parcak tested several different types of satellite imagery to determine and isolate water sources within the arid region of the Sinai, East Delta and Middle Egypt, potentially determining probable archaeological sites.[2] This new process greatly decreases the time and cost for determining archaeological sites compared to the older method of local surface detection.[3]


----------



## Benetanegia (May 25, 2011)

Wow, that's a nice find. It goes to show how little we know about the psat and how much we (humanity) thinks that is so much more intelligent and advanced than the people who preceeded us.



the54thvoid said:


> Found.
> 
> The Greek Island of Santorini was once a massive volcano.  It erupted catastrophically, obliterating the native and quite well advanced population.
> 
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060823-thera-volcano.html



Santorini was not Atlantis. The most probable place is exactly where Plato said it was located: beyond the Pilars of Heracles, that is, outside Gibraltar. 

IMO there's a lot of evidence that places it there, and every evidence or reason given to not place it in that place or 12000 years ago, or the reason that it's very existence it doubted is that there could not existed such an advanced civilization (that's what they say), because we have not found evidence of civilizations so old. It's really stupid to think that we know everything about the past when we don't even know things for sure that happened just 100 years ago. I mean the discovery presented in the OT (and partly some of the comments, the surprise factor on them) already demostrates how little we know and how much we assume about how behind they were. And Troya was also a myth until they discovered it, and not only one but at least 13 of them, one below the other...

Some of the evidences that Atlantis existed and where Plato said are IMO:

1- There's a sunken island there, 50 m below sea surface, which was sank 12000 years ago (when plato said). It's also in the conjuntion of two tectonic plates, so that can be the reason for not finding many evidences. Although it's not as if they had searched, until now not a single search has been made there, that I know.

2- Plato said Atantis was divided in some regions that were given to each of the sons, between them two were Atlas to the south and Gadeira on the north. Well we have the Atlas mountains there and Gadeira was the very old name (before Romans got there) for what now is Cadiz.

3- The most advanced metallurgy and sword crafting on the entire ancient world were found in the Iberian peninsula. So much that Romans were impressed and copied the design, not to mention that there's oficial documents where generals on campaign in the peninsula asked the Roman Republica a total and massive renewal of the shields and armor, because they were absolutely innefective against the falcatas used by iberians. They also had very good boats apparently, way more advanced than their other technology would suggest. The fact they had such advanced technologies while they were still pretty much barbarians in everything else, IMO shows that they might have inherited all that from another place. When a civilization advances on it's own it usually has similar levels of technology on every front. Seing those barbarians with so advanced swords and boats its like looking at those african tribes hunting with AK47s.

4- The most ancient megalithic constructions to date have been found in north Africa, Portugal and Great Britain, all of them on the Atlantic ocean, not where the first great civilizations where supposed to have generated.


One of the main reasons that most "experts" give for not locating Atlantis in place and in time is that according to them a civilization can not survive without agriculture or domestic animals, which is entirely false, because many civilizations have survived from fishing and reclection. And on top of that the reason that it is said that they had no animals or no agriculture is that there's no evidence of related tools until much later in Mesopotamia, which is IMO completely bonkers, because we also have very little evidence of tools from any era and/or place including the middle age, which is so much closer and ultimately they could do everything with their bare hands, which is true for many tribes in Africa and Australia. I could also argue that humanity has been decimating wildlife since a long time ago, much more than we usually think and that hunting and fishing was much easier 10k years ago than it has been in the last 2k years. For instance, we know that happened to whales and that has been in the last 500 years, to assume that an ancient civilization could not do the same to many other especies is estupid.

Another reason is the buildings, as in many "experts" still mantain that ancient egiptians could not create the pyramids, which is stupid because, well they did. And hell, even the existence of many of the 7 wonders is put into question, despite the documentation, because "they simply lacked the technology to create those things".


----------



## AphexDreamer (May 25, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> Another reason is the buildings, as in many "experts" still mantain that ancient egiptians could not create the pyramids, which is stupid because, well they did. And hell, even the existence of many of the 7 wonders is put into question, despite the documentation, because "they simply lacked the technology to create those things".



They didn't have cell phones, therefore they couldn't have long distance communications.


----------



## Red_Machine (May 25, 2011)

AphexDreamer said:


> They didn't have cell phones, therefore they couldn't have long distance communications.



You ever hear of snail mail?


----------



## AphexDreamer (May 25, 2011)

Red_Machine said:


> You ever hear of snail mail?



Of course!


----------



## micropage7 (May 25, 2011)

very interesting when technology works on this case, especially in pyramid things
i ever read that the structur of it is pretty accurate so you cant put credit card between the granit stones
not just about accuracy, how they construct it, how they cut the stone and how they transport and their placement is amazing when they do it manually


----------



## the54thvoid (May 26, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> Santorini was not Atlantis. The most probable place is exactly where Plato said it was located: beyond the Pilars of Heracles, that is, outside Gibraltar.



Umm, that's not what I said.  Granted I wasn't clear but the Nat Geo article references the Minoans (Crete).  Searches for Atlantis can't be based too much on what the ancient Philosophers and historians wrote, they tended to use massive amounts of hyperbole.  I read the Iliad and Herodotus at Uni and we were always told - 'pinch of salt'.

Point is pointless anyway.  Atlantis, as people believe it in popular culture is a whimsical fantasy, much like Arthurian Britain or Beowulf or even Robin Hood.  It's not history, it's mythtory.


----------



## twilyth (May 26, 2011)

I think Egypt and Mesopotamia (Akkadia, Assyria, etc) could be shadows of the Atlantean race.  Supposedly there is a book of the knowledge of Thoth buried between the front paws of the Sphinx and ground penetrating radar has show a void there.  Something like that might provide a link.

The fact that these ancient cultures apparently understood astronomical phenomena like the 26000 year period of earth's axial precession makes you wonder if some of their knowledge wasn't "inherited".


----------



## HTC (May 26, 2011)

erocker said:


> With the loss of these once great societies, *I'm quite positive technologies were also lost that rival some of our tech today.* I remember watching some videos that suggest people were flying in planes (fighter aircraft even) thousands of years ago.



Dunno if it were the Incas, the Mayans or someone else but i seem to recall seeing a documentary where they stated rocks were "assembled together" (dunno better term), forming structures. They did it in such a way that you can't even stick the edge of a knife between two rocks and, to this day, nobody can say how they did that.

Though there have been many theories, the exact way the Ancient Egyptians built the pyramids still isn't known.

EDIT

When i say rocks, i'm referring to very heavy ones: think over one ton each.


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (May 26, 2011)

If not more than a ton, I'm pretty sure that the pyramids used rocks weighing up to 10 tons :O


----------



## HTC (May 26, 2011)

1Kurgan1 said:


> If not more than a ton, I'm pretty sure that the pyramids used rocks weighing up to 10 tons :O



I was referring to the line where i mentioned the Incas and the Mayans: not where i mentioned the pyramids.


----------



## Benetanegia (May 26, 2011)

the54thvoid said:


> Umm, that's not what I said.  Granted I wasn't clear but the Nat Geo article references the Minoans (Crete).  Searches for Atlantis can't be based too much on what the ancient Philosophers and historians wrote, they tended to use massive amounts of hyperbole.  I read the Iliad and Herodotus at Uni and we were always told - 'pinch of salt'.
> 
> Point is pointless anyway.  Atlantis, as people believe it in popular culture is a whimsical fantasy, much like Arthurian Britain or Beowulf or even Robin Hood.  It's not history, it's mythtory.



One of the theories about Atlantis says that Plato based his story on the destruction of the Minoans. I thought you were talking about that. It's a posibility, but IMO it is a stupid one and very shortsighted, as it assumes that historians back then, Plato himself and the pupils that the story was supposedly created for, completely lacked any knowledge about the recent story of an island so close to them, while they knew Egypt so well and they knew something, although not as much, about the Iberian peninsula (to the point they supposedly traded wit them). Hell there's apparently even some mention to Britain islands. So they knew a fair bit about the surroundings as to Plato needing to invent a story about a civilization that didn't exist, when with the same purpose of teaching morals, he could have just mentioned the Minoans. There's no need to place the event in another place.

Regardng the accuracy of ancient historians, it's the same I said earlier, we assume they always used the hyperbole and that their claims were overly exagerated, but IMO that's too much assumption with no single proof. One example is when the number of soldiers brought to battles are mentioned. Historians always say the actual number was probably 10 or 20 times lower and on what do they base their claims? On the number of soldiers brought to battle in middle age, and between many other stupid "evidences", the notion that population has always always been on the rise.

As if population had not been halved twice during the middle age due to plagues and war. And that was during a span of around 800 years and very localized, while just before the rise of the Greeks as a power, a longer, widespread and probably blodier dark age happened, which probably decimated all the civilizations beyond what it's conceivable today. The very existence and nature of Sea People suggest a massive devastation. (ironically though, many historians say Sea People are another myth too, whatever)

But it's always the same, as we move into the future we must be more intelligent, we must be stronger and we must be simply more of us and we don't see the truth even when part of this truth could be explained by this very notion of the superiority of "today". For example, you would say that after the democratic Greeks extended a more elaborated diplomacy around their area of influence, the need for war and the required defense forces would decrease dramatically, but apparently this simple notion is not even considered. 

Greeks themselves often talked about themselves as a nation made of slaves of some other civlization that escaped after a glorious victory. An story that resembles a lot the failed attempt made later by Spartacus and his men some centuries later. In this one many died too and I don't think it's too far fetched to think that a bigger "anything" (in this case a revolt) has ever happened before we have records, for the simple reason that we do not have records. It's stupid but a norm no matter which modern historian you read... I'm kind of sick of that actitude whenever I read history.


----------



## micropage7 (May 26, 2011)

actually for atlantis is kinda not clear, it may fact, it may myth or blend of it, coz until now theres no one can reveal it


----------



## Mussels (May 26, 2011)

this thread interests me. continue your tales of long lost civilisations.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (May 26, 2011)

^ Indeed. I want to hear more from erocker about fighter aircraft 20K years ago! 

My Dad raised a good point--there are probably many, many lost cities and civs underground of which we have no clue especially in areas where the climate has changed the landscape and it appears no one could have lived. Under what's now ocean floor as well.


----------



## streetfighter 2 (May 26, 2011)

Mussels said:


> this thread interests me. continue your tales of long lost civilisations.


Archaeological Dig Uncovers Ancient Race Of Skeleton People


----------



## AphexDreamer (May 26, 2011)

streetfighter 2 said:


> Archaeological Dig Uncovers Ancient Race Of Skeleton People



Its the Skeleton Creature I've killed so many many times before in Oblivion. 

They are an aggressive bunch and will fight till the death.

On slightly more related note. Can they use this to find oil under the ground?


----------



## cheesy999 (May 26, 2011)

AphexDreamer said:


> On slightly more related note. Can they use this to find oil under the ground?



they already do

they also use gfx cards http://www.nvidia.co.uk/object/cuda_energy_uk.html


----------



## Mr McC (May 26, 2011)

the54thvoid said:


> And slaves.  Thousands upon thousands of slaves.  All the ancient empires were built with the unpaid labor of the enslaved.  The IR mapping is a good tool for archaeology though.



That remains speculation and is most likely a falsehood: many of the builders of the pyramids were buried in their shadows, showing that they were highly venerated in ancient Egyptian society and if you have ever visited the pyramids it is hard to imagine that they are anything but a labour of love.


----------



## MilkyWay (May 26, 2011)

One theory says they made blocks on site using moulds, they made their own limestone using a special concrete type mix. These man made blocks are supposed to look natural.

They way they extracted stone was to pound on the outside and put wooden pegs into cracks and then pour water in to make the peg expand and crack the stone. They used massive oiled slipways to move the stone.

Mainly the pyramids are made from limestone and granite. Be that slaves or not the ancient Egyptians used mass labour to build the pyramids, they even had villages for the workers to live in near the sites and the quarries. I think they took just over 20 years to build the great pyramid.

A little fact; Napoleons army shot the nose of the sphinx but others have said it could have been Arab conquerors or Mamelukes that did it before. Other theories include the weather just naturally destroying the soft limestone.

EDIT: The pyramids where not made from "rocks" just stone cut blocks or man made materials.
Ever heard of the Baghdad battery? Apparently we knew about electricity thousands of years ago. Possibly even using it to create lightbulbs. Its speculated that they couldn't have used flame torches to build inside the pyramids due to lack of oxygen but then i wonder how people can walk through them if there is a lack of oxygen?


----------



## Mr McC (May 26, 2011)

MilkyWay said:


> One theory says they made blocks on site using moulds, they made their own limestone using a special concrete type mix. These man made blocks are supposed to look natural.
> 
> They way they extracted stone was to pound on the outside and put wooden pegs into cracks and then pour water in to make the peg expand and crack the stone. They used massive oiled slipways to move the stone.
> 
> ...



Yes, but archaeological evidence has allowed us to piece together the lifestyles of the builders: they had bakeries and other amenities that simply would not be afforded to slaves. As ingrained as the image of a stern and oppressive pharaoh might be, largely the product of Judaic/Christian tradition, with regards to the building of the pyramids, it appears to be untrue.

I have read the theory of moulds being used to create the blocks. This would explain the logistics enigma and the manner in which the blocks fit together almost perfectly, but brings up the problem of how they produced the temperatures required to melt granite. Still, it wouldn't be the first time that we underestimated the technological capabilities of ancient civilisations.


----------



## WhiteLotus (May 26, 2011)

This one confuses the fuck out of me. Why carry that much rock, all that way. Makes no sense.


----------



## cheesy999 (May 26, 2011)

WhiteLotus said:


> This one confuses the fuck out of me. Why carry that much rock, all that way. Makes no sense.



you don't need a reason to carry rocks, people have done much more stupid things then that with no real reason behind it


----------



## Yukikaze (May 26, 2011)

cheesy999 said:


> you don't need a reason to carry rocks, people have done much more stupid things then that with no real reason behind it



You need a pretty good reason to invest such a gigantic amount of time and effort. It usually just looks silly in hindsight. Then again, people pray to a wall, a rock, a holy ghost, and thousands of gods, and yet that seems to many modern people like a good enough reason to go to war, commit atrocities, rape, pillage, burn, steal, oppress and maim.

Who's to say they didn't have a good reason to move rocks, eh?


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (May 26, 2011)

Easy Rhino said:


> yup. and we use steel to support our structures and hard plastics molded to fit certain specs. they used rocks they found on the ground, pounded them into shape with other random rocks, used very little math to do so, and created awesome things. pretty impressive.



probably not a fair estimation of their mathmatical abillities their dude topdocumentories.com have some obv top docs on egypt etc and the maths tied up in the big three pyramids is bewildering they apparently knew about Pye and many other things we only discovered in the last 2000 years, i say discovered as theorised surely dosnt apply.

amazing stuff, who wants to be indy more then me now, no one i tell thee


----------



## Sasqui (May 26, 2011)

WhiteLotus said:


> http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_vEVVS_c2J...U/s1600/msugame_stonehedge_bath_101_sized.jpg
> 
> This one confuses the fuck out of me. Why carry that much rock, all that way. Makes no sense.



LOL, why lug a computer all the way to a LAN party.  Why overclock?


----------



## Hayder_Master (May 26, 2011)

I hope they do same research in iraq, we have old citys more than any other country never be discovered.


----------



## HTC (May 26, 2011)

streetfighter 2 said:


> Archaeological Dig Uncovers Ancient Race Of Skeleton People



Found a live one: http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTBStNCnBdHEQ0dYA8N5VQq45LBtjRMqQt_NCApvg81YqjU4adt_A

On a more serious note:

Along the Great Wall of China, there are fortresses. The architect of one of these planned how many bricks he was going to need and ordered a specific amount to be made. When asked if he took into account broken bricks, or other similar problems, he agreed and ordered *one extra brick*: to this day, the extra brick is still ... being extra ... in that fortress.

Tried to google it but, without knowing it's name, couldn't find it


----------



## Peter1986C (May 27, 2011)

In the Dutch edition of Historia (year 2011, issue 4), it is said that the architect calculating the amount of bricks exactly right while ordering one extra upon request was called Yi Kaizhan.


----------



## HTC (May 27, 2011)

Chevalr1c said:


> In the Dutch edition of Historia (year 2011, issue 4), it is said that the architect calculating the amount of bricks exactly right while ordering one extra upon request was called *Yi Kaizhan*.



Googling that name got me there: thanks!

This is the famous extra brick:






It's not like what i saw in the documentary: this legend wasn't mentioned in it.


----------



## Hayder_Master (May 27, 2011)

Imagine just an havey rain before  25 days‏ slide the clay and discover a hole city in AL-Mousel north of iraq,


----------



## yogurt_21 (May 27, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> One of the theories about Atlantis says that Plato based his story on the destruction of the Minoans. I thought you were talking about that. It's a posibility, but IMO it is a stupid one and very shortsighted, as it assumes that historians back then, Plato himself and the pupils that the story was supposedly created for, completely lacked any knowledge about the recent story of an island so close to them, while they knew Egypt so well and they knew something, although not as much, about the Iberian peninsula (to the point they supposedly traded wit them). Hell there's apparently even some mention to Britain islands. So they knew a fair bit about the surroundings as to Plato needing to invent a story about a civilization that didn't exist, when with the same purpose of teaching morals, he could have just mentioned the Minoans. There's no need to place the event in another place.
> 
> Regardng the accuracy of ancient historians, it's the same I said earlier, we assume they always used the hyperbole and that their claims were overly exagerated, but IMO that's too much assumption with no single proof. One example is when the number of soldiers brought to battles are mentioned. Historians always say the actual number was probably 10 or 20 times lower and on what do they base their claims? On the number of soldiers brought to battle in middle age, and between many other stupid "evidences", the notion that population has always always been on the rise.
> 
> ...



Alos if you read Plato's "The Republic" he's very much against fiction or any imperfect copy of the truth.


----------



## Mr McC (May 27, 2011)

yogurt_21 said:


> Alos if you read Plato's "The Republic" he's very much against fiction or any imperfect copy of the truth.



What I find interesting is that Plato's writings, Juadaism, Christianity and Islam all stem from Akhenaten's monotheistic cult. I say that without wishing to offend any devout souls or Platonists, it is simply a historical fact: some of the psalms have no meaning until compared to the original Egyptian source. More to the point, who's to say that they all weren't talking about the same thing? 

Who knows what we will learn about ourselves once we begin to uncover ancient Tanis?


----------

