The True Origins of Giza: Cover-up or Complacency? | Ancient Architects
发布时间 2023-04-17 18:01:50 来源
Hello everybody and welcome to Ancient Architects. Please subscribe now to get the latest Ancient History news and independent research from around the world.
大家好，欢迎来到古代建筑师节目。请立即订阅，以获取来自世界各地的最新古代历史新闻和独立研究。
In my last video I presented the most recent information and expert opinions concerning the Chroma Dump, which for those that don't know is a present shaped ancient trashy located south of the Pyramids of Giza. First excavated in the 1970s by Col Chroma and then again by the Ancient Egypt Research Associates or AERA in 2018.
在我上一个视频中，我介绍了关于克罗马垃圾堆的最新信息和专家意见。那些不知道的人，它是一个位于吉萨金字塔南部的古老垃圾堆，形状像礼物。在20世纪70年代，克罗马上校进行了首次挖掘，然后在2018年又被古埃及研究协会（AERA）再次发掘。
From their recent excavations, the AERA believed that this dump was created in the 4th dynasty, and although this is a tentative interpretation based on limited new excavations, there is an elephant in the room that needs addressing. Yes, this dump could well have been created in the 4th dynasty, as they state, and as an amateur historical researcher, I can't really critique their excavations, analysis and conclusions.
从他们最近的挖掘中，AERA相信这个垃圾堆是在第四王朝时期创建的。虽然这是基于有限的新挖掘而得出的初步解释，但有一件非常明显的问题需要解决。是的，这个垃圾堆很可能是在第四王朝时期创建的，就像他们所说的那样。作为一名业余历史研究者，我不能真正评价他们的挖掘、分析和结论。
But the age of the creation of the dump is just one part of it. The other is the age of the actual material inside it. Chroma's excavations in the 1970s were extensive, and he firmly believed the dump contained material that dated from the 1st to 4th dynasties, maybe even earlier. With pottery shards reminiscent of the pre-dynastic, as well as a number of early claselylings that looked to have predated the Giza Pyramid Builders, they were pre-4th dynasties and hence pre-coufu.
但垃圾堆的建造年代只是其中一部分。另一部分是垃圾堆内部实际物质的年代。克罗马在1970年代进行了广泛的挖掘，他坚信这个垃圾堆内包含的物质可以追溯到第一王朝至第四王朝的时期，甚至可能更早。这些陶瓷碎片让人想起前王朝时期，还有一些早期的紧密结构，看起来早于吉萨金字塔建造者，它们是在第四王朝之前，因此是在库夫前的时期。
The implications of this discovery were huge, because in the 1970s it was fresh evidence for Giza having early dynastic origins that people were on the plateau before the pyramids. In his 1972 publication Chroma wrote, quote, after the results of the first excavation, I would therefore like to suggest the following interpretation of the discovery as the most probable. There was an extensive settlement on the site of today's Pyramid District of Giza. The life of the settlement probably extended from the 1st dynastie to the 3rd dynastie. At the beginning of the 4th dynastie, the rock plateau on which the settlement was located was declared a burial precinct in the settlement was demolished. This is a history of Giza that isn't mentioned today by the experts.
这一发现的含义非常深远，因为在20世纪70年代，它是吉萨早期王朝起源的新证据，人们在金字塔建成之前就已经在高原上了。在1972年的出版物《柯罗马》中写道，引用：“在第一次挖掘的结果出来后，我认为以下解释是最有可能的：吉萨金字塔区今天的位置曾经是一处广阔的定居点。该定居点的历史可能从第一王朝一直延续到第三王朝。在第四王朝初期，定居点所在的岩石高原被宣布为埋葬区，定居点也被拆除了。”这是一个专家们今天没有提到的吉萨历史。
I don't hear many or any Egyptologists talking about the possible existence of an extensive early dynastic settlement on the plateau, predating the pyramids. Even though at Giza there is plenty of evidence for both the pre-dynastic Maddyculture as discussed in a previous video as well as the fact there are early dynastic tombs just south of the main pyramid field. In all honesty, finding an old dump with early dynastic and pre-dynastic finds would not even be all that surprising because we do know that people were there. We have the material evidence.
我很少或根本听不到埃及学家们谈论高原上可能存在的早期王朝定居点，早于金字塔。尽管在吉萨，有足够的证据证明先王朝麦迪文化（在之前的视频中有讨论），还有位于主金字塔群南部的早期王朝陵墓。老实说，发现早期王朝和先王朝的发现多半是旧垃圾堆并不令人惊讶，因为我们知道那里有人。我们有物质证据。
Chroma believed he'd found more evidence and his opinion on the material he found does need to be taken seriously because he wasn't an amateur, he was an experienced professor of pre and early history. So I was surprised to read the following paragraph in the spring 2018 edition of Erragram, an AERA publication. It says, and I quote, For decades scholars have thought the material excavated by Chroma dated to quite a long stretch of time, perhaps even hundreds of years. But based on our work at Hyde El Gharab, which is the city of pyramid builders located to the east of the dump, we suspect this not to be the case. We hope to prove conclusively that the Chroma material actually dates to a much smaller window of time, perhaps just a few decades covering the reins of Kufu and Kafehré. End quote.
Chroma相信他找到了更多的证据，他对他所找到的材料的看法需要被认真对待，因为他不是业余爱好者，而是一位有经验的史前和早期历史的教授。因此，我很惊讶在2018年春季版的AERA出版物Erragram中读到以下段落。它说：「几十年来，学者们一直认为Chroma挖掘出的材料可以追溯到相当长的时间段，甚至可能长达数百年。但根据我们在位于垃圾场东部的金字塔建造者城市Hyde El Gharab的工作，我们怀疑情况并非如此。我们希望能够最终证明，Chroma的材料实际上只能追溯到一个更小的时间段，可能仅仅覆盖了库夫和卡费赫雷的统治时期。」引用结束。
So, it seems that even before the new excavations began, the AERA were skeptical. They seem to believe that Chroma was wrong in the dating of the finds. Why? I don't know. But I had made the logical assumption that Chroma's evidence for an early dynastic settlement was reexamined and reassessed and was deemed inconclusive and debatable.
所以，看起来即使在新的挖掘开始之前，AERA也持怀疑态度。他们似乎认为Chroma在物品的年代上是错误的。为什么呢？我不知道。但我做出了合乎逻辑的假设，即Chroma的早期王朝定居点的证据已经重新审查和重新评估，并被认为是没有结论和有争议的。
In their no excavations, the AERA only dug two trenches as opposed to Chroma's 10, and although the archaeologists said they found no evidence of early dynastic material, in the main they were covering old ground, parts that had already been excavated by Chroma, and although they did extend the research area, they only looked at a very small part of the dump. They found only Kafehré clay ceilings, they found evidence of a royal palace, and they didn't find anything that they believed predated the fourth dynasty. Fair enough.
在他们的非挖掘中，AERA只挖了两个沟槽，而不是Chroma的10个，虽然考古学家说他们没有发现早期王朝物质的证据，但他们主要是在覆盖早已被Chroma挖过的旧地，虽然他们扩大了研究区域，但只研究了垃圾堆的一个很小的部分。他们只发现了Kafehré的粘土天花板，他们发现了皇家宫殿的证据，而且他们没有找到任何他们认为早于第四王朝的东西。挺好的。
But in the next edition of AERA Gram, dated 4, 2018, the Chroma dump is referred to as a fourth dynasty demolition and trash deposit. The archaeologist believed the earliest dump material was consistent with the demolished fourth dynasty royal rest house or small palace. But looking back over the recent publications, what I do find strange is that Chroma's evidence for early dynastic material was not mentioned. There is no mention as to whether or not it had been reexamined, and Chroma's interpretation of these early dynastic finds were not debated or debunked.
在AERA Gram的2018年4期中，对克罗马垃圾场进行了描述，被称为一处第四王朝的废墟和垃圾堆。考古学家认为，最早的垃圾材料与被拆除的第四王朝皇家休息屋或小宫殿一致。但回顾最近的出版物，我发现奇怪的是，克罗马的早期王朝物质证据未被提及。未有提及是否重新检验过，也未对克罗马对这些早期王朝发现的解释进行辩论或批驳。
As stated, I had assumed in good faith that Chroma's finds and analysis must have been reexamined, and that they must have deemed as interpretation wrong or debatable. Examining previous work is surely the first thing anyone would do before re-excavating and re-evaluating a site. But there is nothing published to say that this work was done.
就像我说的一样，我曾经以善意的心态认为Chroma的发现和分析已经被重新审查，并且他们肯定会认为我的解释是错误的或有争议的。在重新挖掘和重新评估一个场所之前，检查之前的工作肯定是任何人都做的第一件事。但是没有发表任何文章表明这项工作已经完成。
So in hindsight, to exclusively call the Chroma dump a fourth dynasty demolition and trash deposit is mere opinion, not fact. Yes, the trash heap could have been created in the fourth dynasty that could well be when the clearance and physical dumping took place, but just because no early dynastic discoveries were made in 2018, it doesn't mean that all the material inside the dump is fourth dynasty, not unless the AERA have fully reviewed the finds from the 1970s and successfully debunked Chroma's claims.
所以说，从现在回顾当时，仅仅把Chroma垃圾倾倒场称为第四王朝的拆除和垃圾堆并不是事实，只是个人观点而已。是的，这个垃圾场可能是在第四王朝时期被创建的，那么清理和物理倾倒也很可能在那个时期发生了。但是，仅仅是因为在2018年没有发现早期的朝代遗址，就不能认为所有倾倒场内的物质都是第四王朝的，除非AERA已经全面审查了1970年代的发现并成功揭穿了Chroma的说法。
You can't just sweep them under the rug, especially when we have annoying YouTubers bringing them to everyone's attention. Making bold statements and conclusions based on a new selective and limited dataset without thoroughly reviewing all the documented finds from the 1970s is, well, unscientific and biased.
你不能就把它们藏起来，特别是当我们有一些讨厌的 YouTuber 把它们带到每个人的注意力中时。基于一个新的选择性和有限的数据集，而不彻底审查 1970 年代所有记录的发现就进行大胆的陈述和结论，这是不科学和有偏见的。
If this is a fourth dynasty dump made exclusively a fourth dynasty material, then great, but we need to know what was wrong with Chroma's analysis. So far, no counter-arguments have been published. Questions do need answering, and so all I can do is keep asking. Of course I'm under no illusion, I'm just an amateur historical researcher.
如果这是一个只由第四王朝的材料制作的第四王朝垃圾堆，那太好了，但我们需要知道Chroma的分析出了什么问题。至今还没有发表反驳的论点。必须回答这些问题，所以我只能不停地问。当然，我没有幻想，我只是一个业余历史研究者。
I'm not qualified to question the latest findings by the AERA, but I think it's fair to me to ask why the older claims have been dismissed, why they have not been addressed. Maybe Chroma was wrong, perhaps his work was reexamined and reinterpreted, but where is this important analysis? Because the other option is that Chroma was correct, and it's not being mentioned because the idea of an early Dynastic settlement at Giza goes against the current narrative.
我没有资格质疑AERA的最新发现，但我认为问一下为什么旧有的看法被否定了，为什么它们没有被处理，这也是公平的。也许Chroma是错的，或者他的工作被重新审查和重新解释了，但是这个重要的分析在哪里呢？因为另一种可能性是Chroma是正确的，但因为在吉萨早期王朝定居点的想法与当前的历史叙述不符，所以这一点并没有被提到。
After making my last video, I have since learned that the claims made by Chroma do have substantial merit, and it's once again thanks to Friend of the Channel Keith Hamilton that I've learned a lot more in the past few days. As he pointed me to more obscure publications I couldn't even find before.
在制作完我的上一个视频后，我意识到Chroma所提出的声明确实有很大的价值。这多亏了我们频道的好朋友Keith Hamilton，他在过去几天里教给我更多知识。他把我指向了一些我以前甚至找不到的晦涩出版物。
He told me about a publication by Karl Butzer, written in 1982, where the author reviewed Chroma's work on the dump, and although he is critical towards Chroma for not properly recording and analysing the strata, he doesn't query the artifacts themselves. Butzer says, and I quote, My impression is that several settlements may well have been incorporated in the dump, including Drift Sand removed from the Pyramid platform.
他告诉我，卡尔·布特泽在1982年写了一篇文章，回顾了 Chroma 对垃圾堆的工作。虽然他批评了 Chroma 没有正确记录和分析地层，但他没有质疑文物本身。 布特泽说，我个人的印象是，垃圾堆中可能包含几个定居点，其中包括从金字塔平台上取下的风化沙。
Butzer does say that the excavation stand as an example of what can be lost by inadequate procedures, so there is disapproval of the way Chroma worked, but interestingly he does say, quote, The 1580 Inventorid finds indicate settlement during the first four dynasties and suggest specialise workmen's quarters related to the building activities of Kefran, aka Kefran.
布策尔说，这次挖掘是一个例子，说明不完善的程序可能会导致失去什么，因此对于 Chroma 的工作方式是不赞成的，但有趣的是，他说：「在 1580 年的发现清单中显示，前四个朝代就有定居证据，并且建议与 Kefran 建筑活动相关的专业工人住宅区。」
This is backed up by the website of the University of Vienna who have a page dedicated to what they call the Chroma collection, and they say, and I quote, that the material is mixed, and ranges from the first to fourth dynasties. Chroma suspects that it is rubble from settlements that were not only levelled for the construction of the Pyramids but also transported away. End quote.
这得到了维也纳大学网站的支持，他们专门有一页关于所谓的Chroma收藏，并且他们说，我引用他们的话：“这些材料是混合的，从第一到第四朝”。 Chroma怀疑这是被夷平用于建造金字塔的定居点的残骸，也被运走了。完。
So, we have Karl Chroma, an experienced archaeologist and prehistorian who excavated the dump extensively, and we also have Karl Butzer, an experienced geographer, ecologist and archaeologist, and they both agree the dump finds indicate there was a settlement at Geesa, and it existed between the first and fourth dynasties, an idea credibly enough to be published on the website of the University of Vienna.
我们有经验丰富的考古学家和史前学家Karl Chroma，他广泛地挖掘了垃圾堆。我们还有经验丰富的地理学家、生态学家和考古学家Karl Butzer，他们都认为垃圾堆的发现表明在Geesa存在一个定居点。这个点存在于第一至第四朝代之间，这个观点足以在维也纳大学的网站上发表。
But the AERA did not mention the 1580 Inventorid finds when they reassessed Chroma's dump and rebranded it fourth dynastie. Again, maybe the AERA did examine the finds, and maybe they did debunk by Chroma and Butzer. Who knows? But Keith Hamilton next pointed me to the work of Merer Torsier-Vigillo, a scholar who specialises in ancient clay ceilings, and she examined 239 ceilings found in Chroma's 1970s excavations.
但AERA在重新评估Chroma的垃圾堆并将其重新定名为第四王朝时，并没有提到1580份发明家的发现。再次强调，也许AERA确实检查了这些发现，并且可能证明了Chroma和Butzer的观点是错误的。谁知道呢？但Keith Hamilton接下来向我指出了Merer Torsier-Vigillo的工作，她是专门研究古代粘土天花板的学者，并且检查了Chroma在1970年代挖掘出的239个天花板。
In her summary, she found seven with a name kufu and a further four assigned to the same period. She then found 55 assigned to Kaephré, 16 to an unknown king, 53 in side signs, and a large group of 104 ceilings, each having figurative ceil impressions. Based on the form and figure of the ceilings, she was an agreement with Chroma and Butzer, saying, and I quote, all the materials testify the long, even if not continuous life at the settlement.
她总结道，她找到了七个叫库夫的王名和另外四个被分配到同一时期。她随后发现了55个归咎于凯普里的王，16个是归属于未知的国王，53个是在建筑物中的标志，还有一个大型的团体共有104个天花板，每个都有图像天花板的印象。根据这些天花板的形状和图案，她认同了Chroma和Butzer的说法：引用她的话，所有材料都证明了定居地长久存在的事实，即使不是持续的。
It goes back to the proto-dynastic period, through the Thinite dynasties and the Shosa Age, all the way to the fourth dynastie. The last evidence belongs to the Keffrin kingdom, during which the site was in full working order.
这个地方的历史可以追溯到原王朝时期，经过第一王朝和苏斯亚王朝时期，一直延伸到第四王朝。最后的证据来自凯夫林王国时期，在那个时期，这个地方还是运转完好的。
She continues, since the site was present in the proto-dynastic period, we deduced that it was not built to follow the first great pyramid construction. Probably this pre-existing site was used on purpose.
她继续说，因为这个遗址出现在原始王朝的时期，我们推断它并不是为了追随第一座大金字塔的建造而建造的。很可能这个已经存在的遗址被有意使用了。
Regillo is an expert in ancient clay ceilings, and writing in the year 2003, she fully agreed with Chroma and Butzer, that the finds from the dump were evidence for intense activity at Giza in early dynastic times, that Giza was home to a thriving town, and that it was not originally a necropolis.
Regillo 是一个古代陶质天花板的专家，她在2003年写作时完全同意 Chroma 和 Butzer 的观点，即垃圾堆中的发现是早期王朝时期吉萨活动繁忙的证据，吉萨是一个繁荣的城镇，而不是最初的墓地。
Before the pyramids it was a place for the living, not the dead, and Regillo believed there was a long occupation at Giza, from the late pre-dynastic all the way to the time of Kafre. She believed that Giza could have been a hub in the trade network from Upper Egypt to the Near East, at the centre of the Nikada-Cordre expansion into the delta in proto-dynastic times.
在金字塔建成之前，吉萨是一个用于居住而非葬礼的地方。Regillo认为吉萨有着长期的居住历史，从伊始王朝晚期一直到卡夫拉时代。她认为吉萨可能是一个从上埃及到近东的贸易网络的中心，处于尼卡达-科德尔扩张进入原王朝时期的三角洲的中心。
So really all I want to say in this video is yes, the dump could well have been created in the 4th dynasty. Yes it may well contain the remains of a small royal palace used by Kufu and Kafre, as discussed in my last video, and yes this palace could have been located close to Mn Correys Valley Temple, but this is just part of the story.
其实我在这个视频中想说的就是，是的，那个垃圾堆很有可能是在第四王朝时期创建的。是的，这个垃圾堆很有可能包含库夫和卡夫拉使用过的小型皇家宫殿的遗骸，就像我上一个视频中讲的那样。是的，这个宫殿很可能就在曼·科雷斯谷神庙附近，但这只是整个故事的一部分。
Chroma and Regillo and also likely Butzer all agree there is dateable pre-4th dynasty, probably dynastic and proto-dynastic archaeology in the Chroma dump, and this would indicate there was ever part of Giza was cleared, it had a much older history than Kinkufu, which would make sense.
Chroma，Regillo和可能的Butzer都同意在Chroma倾倒场有可追溯到第四王朝以前，可能是王朝和原始王朝考古学的证据，这表明之前的吉萨的某个部分曾被清理，这里的历史比金库夫更古老，这是有道理的。
Giza would have always been a prime location. Until somebody can explain to me why Chroma and Regillo are wrong, and until I see some radio-carbon dates from the organic material in the dump, I have no option but to trust the experts that as well as a 4th dynasty royal palace, the Chroma dump also contains solid evidence for people living at Giza for many centuries before the first stone of the Great Pyramid was laid.
吉萨一直是一个黄金位置。除非有人能够向我解释为何Chroma和Regillo是错误的，除非我看到垃圾中的有机物的放射性碳测定日期，否则我只能相信专家的观点：除了第四王朝的皇宫外，Chroma垃圾中还包含了在大金字塔的第一块石头被放置之前，数个世纪以来吉萨有人居住的确凿证据。
Thank you very much for watching this episode of Ancient Architects. If you enjoyed the video, please subscribe to the channel, please like the video, and please leave a comment below. Thank you very much.
非常感谢您收看古代建筑师的这一集视频。如果您喜欢这个视频，请订阅我们的频道，点赞这个视频，同时在评论区留下您的宝贵意见。非常感谢。