It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ancient statue found buried at Egypt Giza pyramids

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   

CAIRO (Reuters) – Maintenance workers at Egypt's Giza Pyramids have found an ancient quartzite statue of a seated man buried close to the surface of the desert, the culture ministry said on Tuesday.


Ancient statue found...




This is a new discovery of a statue found in Giza, Egypt. It was found near the surface of the sand, just north of the tomb of Mycerinus (4th dynasty). They assume the statue is from a similar time period.

The statue has absolutely zero inscriptions, making it hard to identify. Any ATSers with some insight into this discovery?




posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Nope. But nice find though. I love that they still find stuff.

This statue almost looks sphinx like. Or is it just me?



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   
i can kind of see what you mean when you say sphinx, the faces look pretty similar



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Very cool find. I wonder who it is?

Amazing that something this ancient was found only 16 inches below the sand. You barely have to dig to find artifacts over there... makes you wonder what else lies below....

From my understanding, archaeologists have only scratched the surface of what's been found to date... IOW there's still a ton of stuff buried in the sands...

Can't wait to see what they find within Hawass' wall.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Unfortunately for us (if you like this sort of subject) we will never be privvy to any of those discoveries that change the commonly held belief of those 'celebrity' archeologists - especially the one's with 'governmental' titles.

Archeology, and anthropology are two of the most skewed and contrived disciplines of study, where the 'discoverer' MAKES the discovery important, and to the devil with any who disagree.

This statue seems reminiscent of the sphinx at first glance, but tell me, how does a 4th dynasty statue 'rise' to about 16 inches under the surface? Seems counter-intuitive, no?



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Its a nice statue, well over 75% of Egypt hasn't been surveyed properly yet

Howdy Max



Unfortunately for us (if you like this sort of subject) we will never be privvy to any of those discoveries that change the commonly held belief of those 'celebrity' archeologists - especially the one's with 'governmental' titles.


Hans: Actually Max I say looking at 150 of archaeology that you are wrong - poor old Hawass doesn't control the rest of the world ya know!



Archeology, and anthropology are two of the most skewed and contrived disciplines of study, where the 'discoverer' MAKES the discovery important, and to the devil with any who disagree.


Hans: indeed? LOL



This statue seems reminiscent of the sphinx at first glance, but tell me, how does a 4th dynasty statue 'rise' to about 16 inches under the surface? Seems counter-intuitive, no?


Hans: Not at all, one we don't know exactly when it was made and we don't know when it was abandoned in the sand? Do you know? Where would a 21st and 2nd dynasty statue be located in regards to this --- to be inituitive for you?



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   
That was a fast post! Reuters have it breaking just three hours ago.


The man was wearing a shoulder-length wig and was seated in a simple chair, his right hand clenched on his knee and holding an object. His left hand was resting on his thigh.

The culture ministry said the statue had a number of cracks in a shoulder, its chest and base, and some facial features had been worn away.


The statue could have spent a lot of time exposed to the elements to wear away the facial features. The head was described as being closer to the surface (16 inch) so maybe it was just partially exposed for a period of time?

I guess it's not the only thing in Egypt that hasn't been covered up



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I wonder what they would find if they really checked our deserts and caves.

Oh, that's right they don't want to find anything here. That would be way too messy.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by NightSkyeB4Dawn


I wonder what they would find if they really checked our deserts and caves.

Oh, that's right they don't want to find anything here. That would be way too messy.



Ah NightskyeB4dawn. Egyptology is one of the busier sides of archaeology there is constant work and discovery going on.

Gues who gets grant money - those who find nothing or those who find stuff?

If nothing is going why did they find this statue??



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by kawz1
The statue has absolutely zero inscriptions, making it hard to identify. Any ATSers with some insight into this discovery?


You can't tell much from the pictures, actually, but what they are saying about it does make sense (dating it to about 2600 BC.) It appears to be wearing a wig (not the Nemes headdress that the sphynx wears)

Here's some info on the headdresses -- check out the links on the pages which go to more pictures and info: www.touregypt.net...

It appears to be badly damaged, which might be caused by a later ruler deciding to take over the temple or area for his own temple and having the statues of the real owner buried or defaced. It could have been damaged hundreds or thousands of years later.

I can't say for sure because we don't have good closeups of it.

The pose appears to be on of the formal poses but I can't see enough of it to determine if there's any regalia shown that indicate more about the man's status.

The names and titles may have been painted on the statue, but it would be unusual for paint to preserve in those conditions for thousands of years.

I'd love to see more closeups and get an idea of how damaged it was. It might also have been something abandoned in the Giza complex workyards when the owner or overseer decided that he didn't want the statue after all.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Originally posted by NightSkyeB4Dawn


I wonder what they would find if they really checked our deserts and caves.

Oh, that's right they don't want to find anything here. That would be way too messy.



Ah NightskyeB4dawn. Egyptology is one of the busier sides of archaeology there is constant work and discovery going on.

Gues who gets grant money - those who find nothing or those who find stuff?

If nothing is going why did they find this statue??


Of course there is plenty going on in Egypt and because it is viewed as the cradle of civilization it is well funded for research,

It is a pretty sure bet since they have found so many things there already but I bet you that a field in the mid west, a river bed in Mexico or a cave in Arizona would yield some startling finds.

I just don't think we would be as comfortable with those finds so close to home.

We like to keep the deep dark mysteries far from where we lay our heads at night.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Thanks for the info, Byrd, you always drop some serious knowledge on us!


It might also have been something abandoned in the Giza complex workyards when the owner or overseer decided that he didn't want the statue after all.


I think this might be a very real possibility. From the very limited pictures that are available, the statue gives off a sense of being unfinished. Perhaps it is simply worn down...4600 years in the desert can do that to you.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by NightSkyeB4Dawn
 





It is a pretty sure bet since they have found so many things there already but I bet you that a field in the mid west, a river bed in Mexico or a cave in Arizona would yield some startling finds.

I just don't think we would be as comfortable with those finds so close to home.

We like to keep the deep dark mysteries far from where we lay our heads at night.


Hans: The US has both a robust professional and amateur archaeological groups - not to mention the looters. Areas where little is going on are places like Africa where poverty and war prevent professional archaeology.

In the US competition for grant money is fierce so those that find stuff get more money. You seem to be hinting at dastardly deeds and suppressed research, not so in my experience. It's a favorite excuse of the fringe to explain the lack of evidence but the reality is very different.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by kawz1
 


Look either unfinished or sand blasted for thousands of years. A closer investigation will supply the answer.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by NightSkyeB4Dawn
It is a pretty sure bet since they have found so many things there already but I bet you that a field in the mid west, a river bed in Mexico or a cave in Arizona would yield some startling finds.


We find things out here, too, all the time. A lot of states (like my home state of Texas) have archaeological societies. You can go to their presentations and you can go along on the digs. You don't have to toe any line or do anything but show up with a mat and tools and be ready to learn!

In fact, you might be amazed at what we find.


I just don't think we would be as comfortable with those finds so close to home.

I bet you'd change your mind if you went to some field schools.


We like to keep the deep dark mysteries far from where we lay our heads at night.


(grin) You just don't know enough scientists. Their heads are CONSTANTLY full of mysteries and problems that need researching.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   
I looks like a seated scribe to me.

second line.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join