Archaeologists Discover 'Lost Golden City of Luxor'(dw.com)
dw.com
Archaeologists Discover 'Lost Golden City of Luxor'
https://www.dw.com/en/archaeologists-discover-lost-golden-city-of-luxor/g-57141238
52 comments
Theres a good nat geo article on it too. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/lost-gold...
That article adds `style="overflow-y: hidden; position: fixed"` to the main body tag when you scroll down (once); you'll need to delete that to reenable reading it.
Thanks, that's a much better article.
Thank you!
> The ancient city, reported to be the largest ever found in Egypt, dates back to the era of king Amenhotep III, who ruled the ancient kingdom from 1391 to 1353 BC
To give some idea of how old Egypt is, Amenhotep III was the 9th king of the 18th Dynasty. By the time he ruled, the Great Pyramid of Giza was over 1000 years old.
Also what is interesting is that some of our greatest finds are because of the Egyptian ruling class trying to erase the "apostasy" of Akhenaten from their memory. Thus Luxor and king Tut were heavily censored which probably led to their being passed over by grave robbers, which meant when they were finally discovered, we had a more intact find. I find it ironic that the pharaohs and cities that the ancient Egyptians tried to censor, may end up being the most well known as we go forward.
To give some idea of how old Egypt is, Amenhotep III was the 9th king of the 18th Dynasty. By the time he ruled, the Great Pyramid of Giza was over 1000 years old.
Also what is interesting is that some of our greatest finds are because of the Egyptian ruling class trying to erase the "apostasy" of Akhenaten from their memory. Thus Luxor and king Tut were heavily censored which probably led to their being passed over by grave robbers, which meant when they were finally discovered, we had a more intact find. I find it ironic that the pharaohs and cities that the ancient Egyptians tried to censor, may end up being the most well known as we go forward.
Can you tell me what censored means in this context?
In short, later rulers attempted to wipe out all memory of Akhenaten after he tried to abandon the traditional Egyptian polytheistic model. It's pretty fascinating stuff.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten:
> As a pharaoh, Akhenaten is noted for abandoning Egypt's traditional polytheism and introducing Atenism, or worship centered around Aten. The views of Egyptologists differ as to whether Atenism should be considered as a form of absolute monotheism, or whether it was monolatry, syncretism, or henotheism. This culture shift away from traditional religion was not widely accepted. After his death, Akhenaten's monuments were dismantled and hidden, his statues were destroyed, and his name excluded from lists of rulers compiled by later pharaohs. Traditional religious practice was gradually restored, notably under his close successor Tutankhamun, who changed his name from Tutankhaten early in his reign. When some dozen years later, rulers without clear rights of succession from the Eighteenth Dynasty founded a new dynasty, they discredited Akhenaten and his immediate successors and referred to Akhenaten as "the enemy" or "that criminal" in archival records.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten:
> As a pharaoh, Akhenaten is noted for abandoning Egypt's traditional polytheism and introducing Atenism, or worship centered around Aten. The views of Egyptologists differ as to whether Atenism should be considered as a form of absolute monotheism, or whether it was monolatry, syncretism, or henotheism. This culture shift away from traditional religion was not widely accepted. After his death, Akhenaten's monuments were dismantled and hidden, his statues were destroyed, and his name excluded from lists of rulers compiled by later pharaohs. Traditional religious practice was gradually restored, notably under his close successor Tutankhamun, who changed his name from Tutankhaten early in his reign. When some dozen years later, rulers without clear rights of succession from the Eighteenth Dynasty founded a new dynasty, they discredited Akhenaten and his immediate successors and referred to Akhenaten as "the enemy" or "that criminal" in archival records.
After his death, Akhenaten's monuments were dismantled and hidden, his statues were destroyed, and his name excluded from lists of rulers compiled by later pharaohs. Traditional religious practice was gradually restored, notably under his close successor Tutankhamun, who changed his name from Tutankhaten early in his reign. When some dozen years later, rulers without clear rights of succession from the Eighteenth Dynasty founded a new dynasty, they discredited Akhenaten and his immediate successors and referred to Akhenaten as "the enemy" or "that criminal" in archival records.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhenaten
It is quite obnoxious that this slideshow doesn't have a date on it _anywhere_.
Funny, ancient Egypt has the same issue!
Actually, from the Nat Geo article it seems this is a case where that is not true:
> Though the size of the city has yet to be determined, its date is clear thanks to hieroglyphics on a variety of items. A vessel containing two gallons of boiled meat was inscribed with the year 37 — the time of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten’s speculated father-son reign.
Therefore i'm afraid i must condemn your joke as inaccurate.
> Though the size of the city has yet to be determined, its date is clear thanks to hieroglyphics on a variety of items. A vessel containing two gallons of boiled meat was inscribed with the year 37 — the time of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten’s speculated father-son reign.
Therefore i'm afraid i must condemn your joke as inaccurate.
I stand by my joke, as everything is dated according to the current pharaoh, but it’s not like they signed their letters with the position of the planets - the dates relative to today are reconstructed in various ways as one pharaoh being so many years after another.
The wiki on Egyptian Chronology explains various scenarios where the dates have had to be changed sometimes by hundreds of years according to new evidence: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_chronology
The wiki on Egyptian Chronology explains various scenarios where the dates have had to be changed sometimes by hundreds of years according to new evidence: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_chronology
It's dated 09.04.2021. Hidden away in a weird spot at the top right corner
How cool is this? Whenever cities of ancient civilizations are revealed, it kind of gives me shivers. It makes one wonder what else is out there, buried under the sands for thousands of years.
Atlantis is maybe still waiting for its Schliemann.
And who know what else undersea, in the jungle or dessert.
And who know what else undersea, in the jungle or dessert.
> Atlantis is maybe still waiting for its Schliemann.
What do you mean? Everybody knows Professor Jones found it already - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Jones_and_the_Fate_of_...
What do you mean? Everybody knows Professor Jones found it already - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Jones_and_the_Fate_of_...
Zahi Hawass, the archaeologist who found it has an interesting past based on past comments.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26974453
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26974453
[deleted]
photo slideshow mentions this parade from April:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-56508475
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-56508475
I wonder if there's any written records to be found. Written sources from that time is rather scarce since they were systematically destroyed a few decades later.
Why were they destroyed?
The next Pharao wanted to erase all traces of his father, and ordered the destruction of a lot of the documentation regarding his reign, including a lot of inscriptions and monuments.
He also prohibited the worship of most of the Egyptian pantheon, declared that he was the only one who was allowed to pray to the remaining one. Basically, he grabbed a lot of power from the priests. That, of course, also resulted in some destroyed religious texts.
Furthermore, many of the more mundane texts were on clay tablets that were occasionally wiped and re-used.
He also prohibited the worship of most of the Egyptian pantheon, declared that he was the only one who was allowed to pray to the remaining one. Basically, he grabbed a lot of power from the priests. That, of course, also resulted in some destroyed religious texts.
Furthermore, many of the more mundane texts were on clay tablets that were occasionally wiped and re-used.
As i was reading several sources about that, i didn't see any written artefacts, only mummies, pottery, masks and walls itself
I always wanted to ask something from archeologists: why did ancient people bury these cities instead of e.g. living in them, or demolishing them?
I want to point out the survivorship bias present here too. Only buried cities can survive millennia to be discovered later. Abandoned cities that were in erosion prone places are in little bits at the bottom of the slope. Cities that weren't abandoned can have buildings that are thousands of years old and actively lived in and maintained.
I spent some time in an Italian hill town that has been continuously inhabited since the Romans. At the same time I visited Pompeii. Most of the buildings in the center were Roman and had identical construction to Pompeii. They were living "ruins" and therefore could not be discovered because they had never been lost. There was a Roman Theater in that town that had been partially built into homes and partially quarried for building materials. There had been a set of giant marble masks originally in the theater, but now scattered around the town built into other building. Conservation of matter, it doesn't go anywhere unless someone carries it away.
I spent some time in an Italian hill town that has been continuously inhabited since the Romans. At the same time I visited Pompeii. Most of the buildings in the center were Roman and had identical construction to Pompeii. They were living "ruins" and therefore could not be discovered because they had never been lost. There was a Roman Theater in that town that had been partially built into homes and partially quarried for building materials. There had been a set of giant marble masks originally in the theater, but now scattered around the town built into other building. Conservation of matter, it doesn't go anywhere unless someone carries it away.
What is the name of town?
As the sibling comment says, cities are not buried - they are subsumed by material that accretes on top of existing structures.
Say you lay a road in a town, then the road starts developing holes; to even it out, you place a new layer on top. Over decades, this process raises the road so significantly that, when buildings are demolished, they get rebuilt at a higher level or their ruins are simply covered by new roads. Rinse and repeat for centuries, and you end up with Rome.
If instead you just abandon the settlement (like it happened in many Egyptian / Greek / Roman towns, like Volubilis in Morocco), then nature will do its thing, pushing detritus over the ruins, or growing plants that will slowly create new layers of organic material that eventually turns to dirt. Towns near rivers or coasts might be claimed by waters once people stop maintaining their protection. Etc etc.
Say you lay a road in a town, then the road starts developing holes; to even it out, you place a new layer on top. Over decades, this process raises the road so significantly that, when buildings are demolished, they get rebuilt at a higher level or their ruins are simply covered by new roads. Rinse and repeat for centuries, and you end up with Rome.
If instead you just abandon the settlement (like it happened in many Egyptian / Greek / Roman towns, like Volubilis in Morocco), then nature will do its thing, pushing detritus over the ruins, or growing plants that will slowly create new layers of organic material that eventually turns to dirt. Towns near rivers or coasts might be claimed by waters once people stop maintaining their protection. Etc etc.
https://www.exurbe.com/the-shape-of-rome/
I think post has what you need.
I think post has what you need.
That was fascinating, and informative!
Not sure about this particular city, but for cities in general I think it's usually because they're just absolutely destroyed. I was just listening to Dan Carlin's King of Kings podcast and in there is the poignant story of a greek general traveling through what is modern Syria I believe. While traveling through the desert the general comes across an abandoned city unlike he's ever seen, and unrivalled by any city of his time. Its 11 miles of walls were 10 meters thick and 30 meters high. There was no one around to inform him of what the city was named.
Now it is believed that the city was the capital of some (Assyrian?) kingdom, that just 200 years earlier was basically the capital of the civilised world and had stood for hundreds of years. It was destroyed by a particularly cruel horde, and everyone in it was slaughtered, the fields around it salted, the goods and artefacts taken.
It was so thoroughly destroyed that 200 years later a well read and knowledgable general couldn't even place it or find anyone to tell him about it. The only thing that remains were the basically indestructible stone walls.
I don't really have the mind for remembering history details, so I'm probably way off on some details, but I thought it was a cool story about how we've come to find these ancient ruins just all abandoned without even locals knowing what they are. Dan Carlin makes it really come alive, highly recommend listening to his stories.
Now it is believed that the city was the capital of some (Assyrian?) kingdom, that just 200 years earlier was basically the capital of the civilised world and had stood for hundreds of years. It was destroyed by a particularly cruel horde, and everyone in it was slaughtered, the fields around it salted, the goods and artefacts taken.
It was so thoroughly destroyed that 200 years later a well read and knowledgable general couldn't even place it or find anyone to tell him about it. The only thing that remains were the basically indestructible stone walls.
I don't really have the mind for remembering history details, so I'm probably way off on some details, but I thought it was a cool story about how we've come to find these ancient ruins just all abandoned without even locals knowing what they are. Dan Carlin makes it really come alive, highly recommend listening to his stories.
I think you're referring to the city of Ur, the "capital" of Mesopotamia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur
And the guy who rediscovered it (from a European perspective) was an Italian called Pietro Della Valle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietro_Della_Valle
And the guy who rediscovered it (from a European perspective) was an Italian called Pietro Della Valle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietro_Della_Valle
Tinco is referencing a famous story by Xenophon who was a Greek mercenary who fought for the Persians. The city being references is believed to be Nineveh(1), which was indeed a capital of the Neo-Assyrian Empire at one point. The ruins of Nineveh still exist, but they are in northern Iraq, not Syria.
1 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg...
1 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:abo:tlg...
Oh! Then indeed it better fits the description. So many lost cities in the cradle of civilization...
toldinstone on YouTube did a video on this about why ancient time is buried. 3m51s watch, and interesting enough I remembered it to recommend to you :)
“Why Ancient Rome Is Buried”: https://youtu.be/fz4ZdXpri04
“Why Ancient Rome Is Buried”: https://youtu.be/fz4ZdXpri04
In most cases, those ancient cities and temples weren't buried by the people. Egypt is a desert country. Over time, the wind carries the sand over everything. Also, many old cities and temples were flooded by the Nile.
Is every place being slowly buried likewise? Is the planet slowing getting thicker? Where does all this material come from?
Replying your specific question, actually the planet is slowly getting rounder.
A simplification of the process:
Tectonic plate movements create mountains, as they climb on top of each other (and where space was opened, lava there turns into new rock)
Then erosion carry material from high places, to low places.
Thus over time places in high areas get "shorter", while places in low areas get "taller".
Meanwhile some parts of tectonic plates are sinking again and melting again.
But as the planet core cools down, this process get slower and slower, and erosion speed remains "constant", so over time the tendency is the planet get rounder and rounder, eventually the planet would have cooled 100% and no new mountains would form, while erosion would make all mountains become flat over time.
A simplification of the process:
Tectonic plate movements create mountains, as they climb on top of each other (and where space was opened, lava there turns into new rock)
Then erosion carry material from high places, to low places.
Thus over time places in high areas get "shorter", while places in low areas get "taller".
Meanwhile some parts of tectonic plates are sinking again and melting again.
But as the planet core cools down, this process get slower and slower, and erosion speed remains "constant", so over time the tendency is the planet get rounder and rounder, eventually the planet would have cooled 100% and no new mountains would form, while erosion would make all mountains become flat over time.
In the case of Egypt it's mostly wind-blown sand and dust. But deposition can also be caused by river sedimentation during floods.
In non-desert areas, dead biomass (fallen leaves, etc.) creates soil. My parents had a stone path through their yard that they didn't maintain, and within a decade it was covered over with soil and grass grew over it.
Over the course of a few thousand years, structures can be buried by several meters of earth.
In non-desert areas, dead biomass (fallen leaves, etc.) creates soil. My parents had a stone path through their yard that they didn't maintain, and within a decade it was covered over with soil and grass grew over it.
Over the course of a few thousand years, structures can be buried by several meters of earth.
The speed of deposition is super variable. In fluvial environments, I've seen reports of feet per year, which put recent sites (i.e. medieval) under 40+m of sediment. On the other hand, I've worked sites with long term 'stable surfaces', where layers thousands of years old were within centimeters or less of modern contexts.
Organic matter largely comes from the air.
Inorganic matter largely gets blown from other places, or washed down from mountain tops.
Inorganic matter largely gets blown from other places, or washed down from mountain tops.
Human skin is 99.9% of the dust in most homes.
(had to reply with a gross out amusement, it's not sand, it's dead people!)
(had to reply with a gross out amusement, it's not sand, it's dead people!)
I used to believe that too. However, apparently there is more to it https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/what-is-dust-made-of/
Also this video by Derek is very informative https://youtu.be/jn5M48MVWyg
Also this video by Derek is very informative https://youtu.be/jn5M48MVWyg
>Human skin is 99.9% of the dust in most homes.
Sure, ever since Thanos.
Sure, ever since Thanos.
They didn't. The cities are buried by the natural accumulation of dirt. Nobody would do it on purpose - what would be the point?
I read it as ‘Lost Golden City of Linux’
If only...
I mean, they did name it LuXOR.
Ahem, its full name should properly be RA/Luxor, since the distribution consists of a Ra system with a Luxor kernel.
Who does their spell check? I found 4 errors so far and I'm not even done with the slideshow.
Turn off! when headline has "ancienct" as part of their headline tells me something is wrong.