Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Secret Chamber In The Great Pyramid? 87

Posted by michael from the grave-robbing dept.
ferkelparade writes "The Guardian reports that two French amateur archaeologists believe they have located a secret chamber in the Cheops pyramid using microgravimetry and radar. The team believes that this might be the pharaoh's burial chamber - as the chamber seems to be unopened, it might still house the complete burial treasure. More coverage from abc."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Secret Chamber In The Great Pyramid? More

Secret Chamber In The Great Pyramid?

Comments Filter:

  • Be careful! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 31, 2004 @01:15PM (#10120052)

    I saw a documentary just a few weeks ago about the hidden dangers of secret pyramid chambers. Walls can start shifting around for no reason and for God's sake stay the hell away from any pod-shaped living structures attached to the ground!

    • Re:Be careful! (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      One thing they should look out for are giant ring-like structures. These devices, according to one documentary I saw, are examples of how technologically advanced the Egyptians were and were part of an elaborate transportation system where people could go some fairly great distances at speed.
    • Hidden dangers indeed! If they find what looks like a deck of playing cards, they should probably put them back in the box and leave them alone...

      GTRacer
      - Sorry, my son has got me into the game of the King of Games

      • I love watching that show just to see how much drama they can get out of a trading card game. Last time I watched it some guy was trying to get all three in a set of really good cards so he could "rule the world."
  • Let's hope we have another curse on the tomb to revitalize the 50's mummy movies craze.

  • Unfortunately... (Score:5, Funny)

    by keiferb ( 267153 ) on Tuesday August 31, 2004 @01:16PM (#10120071) Homepage
    It's behind a small door, so the robot can't get in.

  • Don't open it! (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The gods will be very pissed!

    • Re:Don't open it! (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Okay. Two words I don't like right off the bat: tomb and unearthed. People, you've got to leave your tombs earthed! -- Cordelia
  • What's the difference? Just a few thousand years?

    I really start to wonder about disturbing the graves of others. I guess the fact that they aren't from a current religion means they don't deserve respect, right?

    • Re:Archaeologist... Grave robber.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tickenest ( 544722 ) on Tuesday August 31, 2004 @01:31PM (#10120256) Homepage Journal

      For what it's worth, a grave robber wants to loot the objects in the grave to make money.

      An archaeologist seeks knowledge. Now, yes, his actions can lead to fame and fortune, but that isn't (shouldn't) be his primary goal (and it almost always isn't.)

      And I think that that's worth a lot.

      • Trying to open a pharoh's grave site is not going to advance our knowledge much. We know about as much as we are going to about the ancient Egyptian culture. So this is more a treasure hunting expedition then a pursuit of knowledge. It's cool how the did it, but high tech grave robbing is still grave robbing.

        • We know about as much as we are going to about the ancient Egyptian Culture.

          Read this [grahamhancock.com] and tell me if you change your mind. You may not like his answers, but that's not the point. The questions he asks are the real brain-teasers.

          • I agree. I think Hancock's answers are probably full of bologna, but the elements leading up to those conclusions are fascinating. Like the drilling process used to hollow out the sarcophagi and the 15th century maps of antarctica so on.

            Interesting stuff. There may never have been an Atlantis, and aliens certainly didn't build anything, but there's a hell of a lot of absolutely LOST and intentionally destroyed human history.

            I think it's our duty to explore this stuff.

            • For those who haven't read it (and you should anyway) - Basically his theory is that there was an advanced civilization that predated the Egyptians and taught them (as well as some of the other ancient races) much of what they know. Now, if you take, say, the last 4000 years of "western" civilization, we went from basically being barbarians, to being advanced enough to turn ourselves back to barbarians with naught more than an accidental push of a button (read: nuke), is there anywhere in the pre-Egyptian t

              • If we destroy ourselves for the next 50000 years our descentdant archeaologists will find our detritus. Transistor radios. TV's. Silicon chips. Large factories. Machines. Mines. Bridges. Skyscrapers.

                We have not found ANYTHING of that sort that predates us here on earth. Guess why. Maybe because they were not there?

                • No argument here. Certainly our plastics will survive, though I'm less confident about our concrete and metal works. I'd guess that 10 thousand years would still see our works, but geological turnover and time itself would erase us after 20 thousand.

                  Anyway, I'm not saying the egyptians had cars or factories. Just that there's quite a bit of mechanical evidence that they had much better tools than we credit them with.

                  After all, how well do you think a bronze tool could cut diorite? It wouldn't last an hour
                • Transistor radios. TV's. Silicon chips. Large factories. Machines. Mines. Bridges. Skyscrapers.

                  The last 5 on your list would easily be long gone in much less than 50,000 years. Mines collapse, bridges and buildings fall and the metal inside them rusts and the glass and concrete deteriorates. If we spent those 50,000 years destroying ourselves we'd make the first three either non-existent or very hard to find as well. Given that there were a lot less people around 5000 years ago and they mostly lived in pl
                  • We are still digging out neolithic sites that are pretty old and while you cannot find any detail there are some things to discover. And we are 6 billion people, in those days there were perhaps a couple of million. So they simply left much less to discover since there were less of them.

                    The other thing is that an advanced civilisation requires lots of people to sustain itself. with 1 million people you simply cannot build a large civilisation of the same magnitude as ours.

                    Ok, that does not discount the id

        • Re:Archaeologist... Grave robber.... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by RsG ( 809189 ) on Tuesday August 31, 2004 @02:51PM (#10121232)
          "We know as much as we're going to"? That, my friend is a logical fallacy. With any sort of scientific investigation, there is no convienient last page to tell you that you've reached the end. Now, granted, we certainly are looking at diminishing returns; I doubt that there are revolutionary breakthroughs in our understanding of ancient Eqypt waiting behind that door. The _important_ discoveries have _probably_ already been made. But we don't know for sure.

          Now I will grant that there is a fine line between grave robbery and exploration. But ask yourself: do you object to grave robbery because it's vandalism and theft, do you object becasue it's disrespectful of the dead, or do you object on religious grounds? If it's the first reason, then really any expediton mounted for scientific gain doesn't merit objection. If you think it's disrespectful, bear in mind that these tombs are _ancient_. You have to draw the line somewhere, and these dead are long forgotton. If it's a religious objection then thats another matter, but not everyone will agree with you on this one.

          Anyway which is worse: letting ancient Egypt be forgotton, or studying what remains of it? I'm sure that we wouldn't mind our graveyards being studied by future generations in three thousand years time, in fact we'd probably want to be remembered.
          • I look at this as science for science's sake, and in my mind that is dangerous. Sometimes what you learn is not worth what you've destroyed. I think the Egyptians should use the fact that this may be the final resting place of one of their ancient pharohs as a reason to protect it. It is one of the few *known* natural treasures they have in it's pristine condition. Who are we to say they should open it up for exploration? Especially when in the past the great treasures of their past have been stolen and now
            • I look at this as science for science's sake, and in my mind that is dangerous. Sometimes what you learn is not worth what you've destroyed.

              Hmm... I'm bretty sure that somewhere in pre-history that same argument was used on some guy experimenting with that newfangled fire thing....
          • and these dead are long forgotton.

            Who forgets history, is doomed to repeat it.

            Bring out the new pharaos and let's build pyramids again! :-)

      • Good Point (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Undefined Parameter ( 726857 ) <fuel4freedomNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Tuesday August 31, 2004 @01:49PM (#10120506)
        And I'd like to add to it, if only a little. The knowledge that an archaeologist seeks is not simply for himself, but for the greater interest and good of mankind. It sounds high-handed and trite, I know, but it's the truth. In fact, most archaeologists (and historians in general) act much like the Open Source community does: They share information as if it were a responsibility to do so, and make their goal the discovery of new information to be shared and/or the reinterpretation of old information which would reveal new information. (I hope that wasn't too confusing.)

        For what it's worth, most archeological artifacts end up in museums and the protective-but-publicly-accessable vaults (though you sometimes need a reason better than "I just wanted to find out if any Joanne Schmoe can look at ancient pottery shards"), rather than in private collections and on the auction block. For the archaeologist (and, again, historians in general), knowledge alone is its own treasure.

        ~UP

        [Note: To establish my own credibility on this subject, I submit that I am a student and History Major at a university noted within academic circles for its history department; just as an example of this, we had a visiting professor, last year, who was one of the top five asian-history historians on the planet.]

      • An archaeologist seeks knowledge

        ...and then sells the rights to the official opening to TV.

      • Re:Archaeologist... Grave robber.... (Score:4, Funny)

        by Tumbleweed ( 3706 ) * on Tuesday August 31, 2004 @01:57PM (#10120609)
        Hey, some archaeologists seek ancient treasures to defeat Nazis with!

      • Re:Archaeologist... Grave robber.... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Dread_ed ( 260158 ) on Tuesday August 31, 2004 @02:09PM (#10120736) Homepage
        Furthermore...

        I would think that a long dead king would be pleased by the thought of having his name and burial site discussed all over the world thousands of years after his death. Lump in the increased population, the television coverage, and newspapers and knowledge of him would likely be many orders of magnatude more now than when he was alive.

        If someone had discribed the phenomena that surrounds the pyramids today to the pharos in the past I would think that the more megalomaniacal would find that sufficient reason to create the pyramids, regardless of the religious ramifications. Amazing feats of architecture and megalithic construction, secret chambers with undiscovered riches, and mysterious curses will do alot to keep your name in circulation over the ages. Putting these things into the pyramids is like serving notice on the future that you were there first and best.

        You know, kind of like a inter-temporal multi-millenial easter egg.
        • Given that the ancient Engyptions of that time period believed that they needed to have all the crap they were buried with in the afterlife, and that mantaining the sanctity of the tomb was necessary for them to be able to exist in the next life, I'd say that, assuming that they actually believed the above, an ancient Egyptian king's interest in millenia of fame would stop short of anything that would ruin his afterlife.

          • Re:Not if it kills you (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Dread_ed ( 260158 ) on Tuesday August 31, 2004 @03:07PM (#10121412) Homepage
            This brings up the question of whether or not everyone, specifically the pharos themselves, actually believed 100% in the religion of the day.

            Did you ever wonder if there was a pharoh that was uneasy at the thought of having their body put through the embalming process? What with their brains being pulled out of their nose and their organs being put into jars I would expect that some of them were not to excited about the prospect.

            The ancient Egypitans also believed that the pharohs were gods. It was central to their religion. I think that *maybe* the pharohs themselves knew whether or not they were actually gods, and this knowledge might have had some bearing on their perception of their religious beliefs.

            Not to mention marrying and having sex with their sisters. I bet that some pharohs were kind of upset about that, but did it anyways because it was not only expected, but required to make sure that the power system continued to function. The believers knew that this was proper according to the religion and it would be improper to change it, possible weakening the strength of the pharoh who tried to do it. Fear of the population's reaction to violating their belief system could have been a motivator, as easily as the actual belief itself.

            Also, I find it strange that with the current climate of acceptable atheism and self directed spiurituality that varys wildly from person to person as a cultural refrence point that almost everyone seems to have the impression that past cultures' populations were all 100% believers, completely succeptible to religious indoctrination.

            These are the cultural archaelogy questions that may (probably will not) ever be answered. Pity too, because what REALLY caused people to act in a certain manner is infinitely more interesting to me than the plausible or probably answer.

            • Re:Not if it kills you (Score:3, Interesting)

              by Bastian ( 66383 )
              If we can get our hands on enough documents from a given culture it gets easier to figure these things out. If I recall right, we know that the Golden Age Greeks didn't really believe any of their mythology, even if they did believe in their gods, which is what you'd expect from such a scientifically-minded culture. Sort of like how most modern-day Christians don't really think that Hell is a physical place in the way it is described in the Bible and would be pretty skeptical if the evening news were to c
            • I don't think your observations are really all that fair. You are looking at that through our culture. That is the way things were done in that culture.

              Did you ever wonder if there was a pharoh that was uneasy at the thought of having their body put through the embalming process? What with their brains being pulled out of their nose and their organs being put into jars I would expect that some of them were not to excited about the prospect.

              Perhaps they would be horrified that they could just be plac
            • I bet that some pharohs were kind of upset about that

              Why? There's nothing in the uncivilized brain that makes that an untenable aspect--if there were, civilizations wouldn't need the laws we have against it.

              Also, I find it strange that with the current climate of acceptable atheism and self directed spiurituality that varys wildly from person to person as a cultural refrence point that almost everyone seems to have the impression that past cultures' populations were all 100% believers, completely succe
      • um, hello - I think you are forgetting about a little something called THE CURSE OF THE MUMMY! [unmuseum.org]
      • The archeologist (vs. the grave robber) is there because the treasure belongs in a museum, where everyone can study it and learn from it, instead of locked away in a private collection where only one person can see it... plus if the Nazis get to this treasure first, they'll try to use it to take over the world!

    • Well, I am an archaeologist ... and every-time I excavate a grave I deal with serious moral problems. But archaeology today (real one, not fancy stories like this one) is mainly about saving graves from bulldozers. The only dilemma we face in reality is weather ancient ground will be excavated by archaeologist (which treat and study human remains with respect and share the knowledge) or destroyed by capital driven bulldozers, preparing ground for new shopping mall.

      However, I do believe that right of [liv.ac.uk]

      • Only indigenous? So my grave, as a descendent of white Europeans, is fair game in the future? I think it is, but I'm just saying, why not believe that non-indigenous people have the right to undisturbed graves, too?

        • Your right to undisturbed grave is granted by law -- if not by moral standards of people who might disturb it, of course (in my experience most people deal with human remains graves ... with respect and fear).

          But I am talking here mainly about burial places that were lost, forgotten and buried under modern sediments -- burials under modern playgrounds, streets, buildings... When they are eventually discovered (usually during earthworks of some kind) and excavated, local indigenous groups claim right to

  • What do they find? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Yeechang Lee ( 3429 ) on Tuesday August 31, 2004 @01:17PM (#10120095)
    Is it the Ark of the Covenants?

    Is it the Holy Grail?

    No; they find an even rarer, more legendary, and more precious [google.com] treasure.

  • How did they measure in the first place? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by macz ( 797860 ) on Tuesday August 31, 2004 @01:20PM (#10120123)
    If, as the story says, they are being denied access to the site on the grounds that they are not professional Egyptologists, how did they find out all of the information they base their theory on?
    Did they use some Star Trek Sensor array from high above the surface of the earth?
  • It's nice to know someone found Bin Laden's hideout - he's been hangin with Khufu!

    Now the Egyptian Gov't just needs to stall long enough to let him make his way to the great wall of China.

    -Adam

  • Finally (Score:2, Funny)

    by nes11 ( 767888 )
    It's about time we find that other dialing device.
  • "...as the chamber seems to be unopened, it might still house the complete burial treasure".

    In other news today, Geraldo Rivera announced that he's discoverd Al Capone's secret vaults!

  • Can you blame them? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stefanlasiewski ( 63134 ) * <slashdotNO@SPAMstefanco.com> on Tuesday August 31, 2004 @01:35PM (#10120299) Homepage Journal
    But the French researchers are being denied access to the pyramid to test their theory.

    Well, given that numerous cultural sites have been desecrated and priceless Egyptian artifacts have been stolen from Egypt by European and Egyptian "researchers" over the last couple centuries (and millenia), can you blame the Egyptian officals?

    If the French researchers really want access to the pyramids, maybe they can petition the French, British and other governments to return some of the artifacts as a sign of good will.

    Hey, scientific progress is great, but so is maintaining your cultural heritage.
    • If the French researchers really want access to the pyramids, maybe they can petition the French, British and other governments to return some of the artifacts as a sign of good will.

      Either that or commence a full scale invasion.
    • I agree with you, but i think their real motives are the fact that they don't want 'outsiders' to discover anything, but do it themselves. Or perhaps at least ask for more funding from outside resources so they can pursue this further... The egyptians (in charge) care about their culture about as much as the Iraqis who robbed their own museums during the initial mess.
      • I think you're right on. Egypt probably wants to do the dig, but on their own terms.

        I would argue that the Egyptians in charge of such a dig are mostly composed of people who want to maintain their cultural heritage, and who also want the glory and maybe a bit of profit.

        The Iraqis who robbed their own museums probably mostly just wanted the money and a piece of history for themselves.
    • Actually, France, England etc. once colonized or conquered Egypt. At the time, it was very common to import artifacts of the newly conquered lands to the home country. Some countries even exposed the local (uncivilised) people of their newly conquered territories.

      Instead of taking a picture of an obelisk, you would just take the obelisk with you (the obelisk on the "place de la concorde" in paris is an original specimen brought by Napoleon on his Egyptian campaign) to be able to show your mom where it was
      • to be able to show your mom where it was you were.
        those "stolen" atrifacts have contributed much much more to mankind and science than they would possibly have could while buried in a grave...

        How does "show your mom" contribute to mankind and science?

        How do you know that colonization was better then letting Egypt develop on their own?

        Imagine if a horde of Egyptians invaded the United States and took the corpse of Thomas Jefferson, the wreckage of the Santa Maria, tons gold from Fort Knox and some priz
    • A former circus strongman and giant, turned egyptologist, Giovanni Battista was the first to enter the sarcophagus chamber in modern times. I've been there: he left his graffiti still very visible in big black letters on the wall of the inner chamber, a foot high: "Belzoni 1818". He opened a number of other tombs as well. His favorite tool was dynamite.
      • Howard Carter smashed his way through a few priceless historical artifacts, too. Battering rams were easier to obtain and safer to use than black powder charges (dynamite not having been invented yet, black powder was the explosive most commonly used by European treasure hunters).

        I'm not trying to defend Belzoni, just making a minor correction on your post. Belzoni was responsible for the loss of many irreplaceable artifacts, and like most treasure hunters of his time he was no different from a grave rob
    • Also, at the time, Egypt was under colonial rule by the British from 1882 until 1922, thus the English had no trouble getting permission from the English to export artifacts to England.

      Also, perhaps the Egyptians know it's really home to a Goa'uld Symbiote [gateworld.net].

  • it's where they keep the Zats.
  • "Huzzah!" should be the cry from all Harry Potter fans as this news must mean that they have finally found the real "Chamber of Secrets."
  • why are we bickering about whether it's for knowledge or fame or fortune? Everybody knows in the end, boys just want their mummy. =)
  • The Egyption Antiquites always has some excuse not to let people in to test, it won't hurt anything and the Egyptian authorities can decide whether or not to proceed further....

  • Microgravimetry (Score:4, Informative)

    by TeaQuaffer ( 809857 ) on Tuesday August 31, 2004 @06:21PM (#10123270)

    I was not familiar with microgravimetry. The Federal Highway Administration has an article on using it to find old mines [dot.gov]

    It looks like basicaly you use Newton's law of gravatation to measure the local density of the earth, and just look around for a dip.

    Microgravimetry is also used in the study of thin films [aip.org]

    • this is cool. Maybe fun to like metal detecting... can I buy one?
    • It appears that the abstract you linked to, while it uses a techniqe called microgravimetry is actually a TOTALLY different technique. The former, the kind used in the pyramid investigation measures small gravitational fluctuations in the induced by varying small and large masses in the earth's crust while the latter chemistry experiment does not measure changes in the earth's gravity but measures tiny mass fluctuations in a sample exposed to a constant gravity of earth. This is much more simillar to techni
  • I don't have the energy to dig up old links (try google) but isn't this essentially old news?

    Weren't both kooks and serious people yahooing 4-5-8 years ago about secret tunnelling and hidden chambers, both the "air shaft/star shaft" group and the "echolocation/GPR" people back then? Or am I mixing and matching paleocliology?

    Do we all have such short attention spans?

    Though if this ends up being a room holding a statue of Osiris holding an Ankh, I'm giving money to the kooks, same day.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close