If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Scientists have pinpointed a new date for the reign of Egypt's first king, in what they are calling a real Aha moment   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 36
    More: Interesting, Egypt, carbon datings, chronology, archaeological evidence, ceramics, timelines, Niles, archaeologists  
•       •       •

1971 clicks; posted to Geek » on 04 Sep 2013 at 12:06 PM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



36 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-04 12:11:05 PM
Ra!
 
2013-09-04 12:16:34 PM
So does this change the dates of the Jewish year?
 
2013-09-04 12:17:30 PM

StoPPeRmobile: Ra!


Hail to the Sun God! He  is a Fun god Ra! Ra! Ra!

So I'm a bit confused by what the article is saying,  is it that the first Egyptian king, Aha,  came to the throne at a different time than they previously thought, or that Egypt was settled later than they thought so the nation developed more rapidly than they used to think?
 
2013-09-04 12:22:38 PM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-09-04 12:22:38 PM

JolobinSmokin: So does this change the dates of the Jewish year?


No reason why it should, they didn't really have anything to do with Egypt.  (No, they weren't enslaved to build the pyramids).  Those books were written during the time period when they were slaves in Babylon.
 
2013-09-04 12:24:26 PM
Maybe I missed something -- my Egyptian history is somewhat rusty -- but wasn't the first Pharaoh Menes? ...in 3100 BC or somewhere thereabouts? Is that in dispute now, or have they found an earlier dynasty?
 
2013-09-04 12:28:32 PM

Magorn: StoPPeRmobile: Ra!

Hail to the Sun God! He  is a Fun god Ra! Ra! Ra!

So I'm a bit confused by what the article is saying,  is it that the first Egyptian king, Aha,  came to the throne at a different time than they previously thought, or that Egypt was settled later than they thought so the nation developed more rapidly than they used to think?


The second. Egypt went from the introduction of farming to a kingdom much more quickly than previously thought. It only took them a couple of hundred years compared to the thousand years of older estimates. Egypt was a kingdom for so long that early Egyptian history is pretty vague.

Clearly that pyramid wonder worked out well for them.
 
2013-09-04 12:34:26 PM

Ishkur: Maybe I missed something -- my Egyptian history is somewhat rusty -- but wasn't the first Pharaoh Menes? ...in 3100 BC or somewhere thereabouts? Is that in dispute now, or have they found an earlier dynasty?


The point at which you define a unified nation versus a bunch of independent tribes is actually pretty blurry.
 
2013-09-04 12:35:43 PM
I've heard he was a real Bastet case.
 
2013-09-04 12:37:39 PM

Ishkur: Maybe I missed something -- my Egyptian history is somewhat rusty -- but wasn't the first Pharaoh Menes? ...in 3100 BC or somewhere thereabouts? Is that in dispute now, or have they found an earlier dynasty?


Menes may or may not have existed, kind of like Romulus. His name doesn't show up in Egyptian records until much later and Menes may have been the same person as Narmer or his son. It's been a couple of years since I studied this so someone may correct me if I'm wrong.
 
2013-09-04 12:38:03 PM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: Clearly that pyramid wonder worked out well for them.


Granary in every city and it never expires!
 
2013-09-04 12:42:22 PM
Nice headline, subby
 
2013-09-04 12:42:58 PM

dj_spanmaster: [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x362]


Exactly what I was thinking...
/TAKE ON ME!
 
2013-09-04 12:43:43 PM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: Menes may or may not have existed, kind of like Romulus. His name doesn't show up in Egyptian records until much later and Menes may have been the same person as Narmer or his son. It's been a couple of years since I studied this so someone may correct me if I'm wrong.


I just did some wiki-rushing... holy shiat, they got the Scorpion King there. That was an actual person-thing? That happened? I thought it was just some silly shiat they made up for the movies.

/hey guys what's going on
 
2013-09-04 12:46:02 PM
So he was the first human ruler after throwing out the Goa'uld or was he a Goa'uld?
 
2013-09-04 12:54:56 PM
Of course it was earlier. Needed those slaves, and all that...
 
2013-09-04 12:55:36 PM
So much to learn.  Very cool.
 
2013-09-04 12:56:21 PM

dj_spanmaster: [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x362]


came here for this
 
2013-09-04 01:05:23 PM

whosits_112: Of course it was earlier. Needed those slaves, and all that...


Well that didn't work. Let's try again...

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
INDEED
 
2013-09-04 01:23:44 PM
And now every Ptah, Dikt and Hari will know....
 
2013-09-04 01:40:25 PM

StoPPeRmobile: Ra!


Ra! Rasputin, lover of the Russian queen
 
2013-09-04 01:43:03 PM
Children of the Nile lied to me.
 
2013-09-04 02:31:02 PM

Summercat: Children of the Nile lied to me.


The older game "Pharaoh" was more historical, but less realistic.
 
2013-09-04 02:32:32 PM

Fano: StoPPeRmobile: Ra!

Ra! Rasputin, lover of the Russian queen


Link
 
2013-09-04 03:07:47 PM
A lot of the dating in Egyptology is based on the young earth creationist notion that nothing existed before 4000 BC, which was still taken seriously in the 19th century. I would bet that there was indeed civilization there, and even a king before 4000, but no one is bold enough to buck tradition, and they insist on placing it later.
 
2013-09-04 03:47:44 PM

ikanreed: Ishkur: Maybe I missed something -- my Egyptian history is somewhat rusty -- but wasn't the first Pharaoh Menes? ...in 3100 BC or somewhere thereabouts? Is that in dispute now, or have they found an earlier dynasty?

The point at which you define a unified nation versus a bunch of independent tribes is actually pretty blurry.


And 6,000 years later, they are back to tribes.
 
2013-09-04 04:31:35 PM

macdaddy357: A lot of the dating in Egyptology is based on the young earth creationist notion that nothing existed before 4000 BC, which was still taken seriously in the 19th century. I would bet that there was indeed civilization there, and even a king before 4000, but no one is bold enough to buck tradition, and they insist on placing it later.




Yeah, it was aliens.
 
2013-09-04 04:44:25 PM

ikanreed: Summercat: Children of the Nile lied to me.

The older game "Pharaoh" was more historical, but less realistic.


I can't ever spell that right, so I didn't mention it on my phone while on the bus, because fark autocorrect.
 
2013-09-04 05:05:40 PM

macdaddy357: A lot of the dating in Egyptology is based on the young earth creationist notion that nothing existed before 4000 BC, which was still taken seriously in the 19th century. I would bet that there was indeed civilization there, and even a king before 4000, but no one is bold enough to buck tradition, and they insist on placing it later.


Hmmm no. Despite what Stargate would have you believe, any archaeologist who discovered evidence of earlier civilization or dynasty would have their career made. Historians have spent a century uncovering the beginnings of Egypt and have a pretty firm idea of what happened, if not the details. Outside of crazy people who claim the Sphinx is 10,000 years old there's just no evidence to support any signs of an older civilization. There were hunter/gatherers in the area but not a civilization. And this new evidence points to Egyptian civilization not even being as old as previously thought.

Also the 4000 BC number isn't a bad estimate for working off of biblical and historic sources available in the 19th century. In fact if you reexamine their sources, the reason that that number was arrived at was because it's roughly the start of recorded history.
 
2013-09-04 05:39:46 PM

Ishkur: To The Escape Zeppelin!: Menes may or may not have existed, kind of like Romulus. His name doesn't show up in Egyptian records until much later and Menes may have been the same person as Narmer or his son. It's been a couple of years since I studied this so someone may correct me if I'm wrong.

I just did some wiki-rushing... holy shiat, they got the Scorpion King there. That was an actual person-thing? That happened? I thought it was just some silly shiat they made up for the movies.

/hey guys what's going on


Oh yeah, he was totally real.

Anyhow, what they're saying here is that they have refined a previous estimate for the date of united Egypt's first king. This is nifty because the rest of the information we have seems to suggest the formation of a large, complex state in a much shorter time frame than was previously understood.

However, some of you and the article itself seem to suggest that the kingdom of the first dynasty just sort of came into being one day and THAT'S the lede. This isn't true. There were pre-dynastic Egyptian kingdoms before that, but they were smaller and didn't last very long.
 
2013-09-04 08:30:13 PM

LewDux: Fano: StoPPeRmobile: Ra!

Ra! Rasputin, lover of the Russian queen

Link


FTFY
 
2013-09-04 09:09:50 PM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: macdaddy357: A lot of the dating in Egyptology is based on the young earth creationist notion that nothing existed before 4000 BC, which was still taken seriously in the 19th century. I would bet that there was indeed civilization there, and even a king before 4000, but no one is bold enough to buck tradition, and they insist on placing it later.

Hmmm no. Despite what Stargate would have you believe, any archaeologist who discovered evidence of earlier civilization or dynasty would have their career made. Historians have spent a century uncovering the beginnings of Egypt and have a pretty firm idea of what happened, if not the details. Outside of crazy people who claim the Sphinx is 10,000 years old there's just no evidence to support any signs of an older civilization. There were hunter/gatherers in the area but not a civilization. And this new evidence points to Egyptian civilization not even being as old as previously thought.

Also the 4000 BC number isn't a bad estimate for working off of biblical and historic sources available in the 19th century. In fact if you reexamine their sources, the reason that that number was arrived at was because it's roughly the start of recorded history.


Geologists have said that the Sphinx and surrounding wall were worn by water. Climate data tells us it was a desert after 8-9 thousand years ago. Therefore, it has to be older than that to show water wear. If it was created that long ago, and archeologists are correct in the timing of the Egyptians, then the Egyptians didn't build it. You don't have to be crazy to wonder about that. If there had been a civilization there when it wasn't a desert, could the climate changing to a desert erase them from history? Stonehenge shows us that there was some kind of civilization that built it, but that civilization has always been a mystery.
 
2013-09-04 09:37:57 PM

MarkEC: To The Escape Zeppelin!: macdaddy357: A lot of the dating in Egyptology is based on the young earth creationist notion that nothing existed before 4000 BC, which was still taken seriously in the 19th century. I would bet that there was indeed civilization there, and even a king before 4000, but no one is bold enough to buck tradition, and they insist on placing it later.

Hmmm no. Despite what Stargate would have you believe, any archaeologist who discovered evidence of earlier civilization or dynasty would have their career made. Historians have spent a century uncovering the beginnings of Egypt and have a pretty firm idea of what happened, if not the details. Outside of crazy people who claim the Sphinx is 10,000 years old there's just no evidence to support any signs of an older civilization. There were hunter/gatherers in the area but not a civilization. And this new evidence points to Egyptian civilization not even being as old as previously thought.

Also the 4000 BC number isn't a bad estimate for working off of biblical and historic sources available in the 19th century. In fact if you reexamine their sources, the reason that that number was arrived at was because it's roughly the start of recorded history.

Geologists have said that the Sphinx and surrounding wall were worn by water. Climate data tells us it was a desert after 8-9 thousand years ago. Therefore, it has to be older than that to show water wear. If it was created that long ago, and archeologists are correct in the timing of the Egyptians, then the Egyptians didn't build it. You don't have to be crazy to wonder about that. If there had been a civilization there when it wasn't a desert, could the climate changing to a desert erase them from history? Stonehenge shows us that there was some kind of civilization that built it, but that civilization has always been a mystery.


Just FYI, only one geologist -- Robert Schock -- has ever made this claim, and he's been pretty roundly lambasted by other geologists who study surficial processes. I remember the Geological Society of America meeting in the 90s where he first presented the idea, which basically consisted of "Look, the rock on this side of the Sphinx enclosure is smooth, therefore it must have been worn down by water rushing over the edge on that side." It's an overly simplistic interpretation of landscape processes that made him sound like an undergrad with only Geology 101 under his belt, and he got hammered in the discussion time after his talk.

It also doesn't help that to keep the spotlight on himself, Schock has basically aligned himself with people like John Anthony West, who's big on ancient mystical woo. One of the other things that Schock got himself involved in (along with West) was an "analysis" of the "underwater monument" in Yonaguni, Japan; originally he stated clearly (and correctly) that the basalt formation is just the product of natural processes, but in more recent years Schock has taken to waffling and saying it could be something created by an ancient civilization. Before that reversal, I was willing to give him some benefit of the doubt for trying to think outside of the box, but now I think he just rolls where the woo and money take him.
 
2013-09-05 09:00:24 AM

StoPPeRmobile: Ra!


Darnit, came here to say that.
 
2013-09-05 10:42:17 AM

Lydia_C: Link


Not a fan of dubtrap?
 
2013-09-05 01:09:02 PM

LewDux: Lydia_C: Link

Not a fan of dubtrap?


Just wanted to link to the song that Fano was alluding to with that snippet of lyric. At least, that's what I assume they meant - it was the first thing that came to my mind.

/next thing was "holy crap, somebody else actually remembers that song!"
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report