Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Raudskeggr t1_j6upjw5 wrote

>“They… knew what substances they needed to put on the skin — antibacterial, antifungal substances — to keep the skin best possibly preserved without having any microbiological background, without even knowing about bacteria. This enormous knowledge was accumulated over centuries.”

It's hard for the human mind to conceive of just how old ancient Egypt was. Even when the pyramids were being built, Egypt was already thousands of years old. It really was one of the first "civilizations", in the formal sense of the word.

390

o_MrBombastic_o t1_j6vbrt6 wrote

Cleopatra lived closer to the time of the Moon Landing than the building of The Pyramids

179

checkseguy t1_j6vfzv9 wrote

I found it fascinating when I found out that she was lovers with Caesar and then married his second Marc Antony, before the two of them committed suicide. She wouldn’t have such a prominent place in history if it weren’t for that yet I had always assumed as a child that it was a completely different period of events.

60

JhnWyclf t1_j6vni78 wrote

Have you seen the HBO series Rome?

22

Shivy_Shankinz t1_j6vnw02 wrote

Got it on my list to watch, any good?

8

JhnWyclf t1_j6vokr3 wrote

I really liked it. It came out before had the funds to do epic stories justice. As a result the creators had to jam what was going to be multiple seasons into the final season and speed run the rise Octavius.

The cast is great and I really like how the focal point of the story wasn’t just the “great men” ( Caesar, Pompey, Octavius, Cicero). They use Mckidd’s character to view Rome and the events of the time period through multiple lenses which I really enjoyed.

I wish they could have had the full run but it’s good as-is.

21

Iohet t1_j6vpx7z wrote

Rome and Deadwood were Sopranos hangover victims at HBO. Expensive to produce but didn't bring in the subscribers like Tony and co did

At least Deadwood got a finale movie of sorts

18

drfakz t1_j6vtchq wrote

The Deadwood movie isn't great but it ties things up I suppose.

I get why they did it, but I really didn't like the flash backs in the movie. Especially having just watched the show but I recognize they had a huge gap in time. I still think most viewers would have rewatched for a refresher instead of trying to force a movie that could stand on its own.

7

blazenl t1_j6ydj7t wrote

Really good, too bad they canceled it

2

Remainderking t1_j6w9n81 wrote

Cleopatra went to Sugar Daddy Julius Caesar because the native Kemetians sided with her brother. Caesar wanted a post in Egypt long before he became Caesar. Caesar was in his youth a member of the priesthood of Apollo, who was identified back then as a version of Ra, the Sun God. He really wanted Egypt. Cleopatra was an added side chick bonus.

5

minneapolisblows t1_j6vqizi wrote

Cleopatra was a potolemy not an actual ancient Egyptian.

First mummified egyptians occurred in 3500 BCE.

19

msut77 t1_j6wc8od wrote

I think they found some naturally mummified because the dry sand.

3

capitaine_d t1_j6x9p2w wrote

My favorite Fun Fact she was technically the last of Hellenic royalty. Of what was the ancient greek world, only influences in Egypt were left after the Romans started doing what Romans do best.

2

Welshhoppo t1_j6xpgdy wrote

Not quite the last. There was Ptolemy of Mauretania who was her grandson.

Famously he was killed by Caligula because apparently he turned up one day with a better looking purple cloak and Caligula took offense at it.

5

Remainderking t1_j6w9sg3 wrote

By some 3x or more, even without disputing the official ages of the Great Pyramids. Egypt/Kemet is just about the longest lasting continuous civilization ever

−1

gnit2 t1_j6vn599 wrote

Well, one of the first civilizations thats recent enough to still have relics left standing. There must have been plenty of prehistoric civilizations who used much more temporary materials like wood for most of their structures and they left little to nothing to show for their great achievements.

28

Raudskeggr t1_j6vnya8 wrote

Maybe? Like I said, the "Formal" definition of civilization, which is a fairly specific and biased towards western style civilizations; we know virtually nothing of a civilization if it left behind no relics.

Almost any place where human lives will leave behind some traces though, even if at first they are not obvious. Things like pottery last forever; bone fragments and tools are almost ubiquitous. And of course, the hallmark of homo sapiens vs. pre-modern hominins, art. Beads, figurines, musical instruments, and drawings/carvings.

Though there do exist some cases where we have identified ancient human presence due to a lack of something being there; remains of wooden post-holes in neolithic sites at europe suggested wooden henges and large buildings. In stone-age China, we find remarkably few stone tools. It is believed that this is because they were using bamboo instead, which was easier to obtain and to work. But also left behind little in the way of evidence.

14

Remainderking t1_j6wa0to wrote

Facts. Civilizations are supply chains, not the race based structures that Western definitions use to promote Western cultures to the detriment of others. A quick read of Herodotus would show that at the beginning of what we call ‘Western Civilization’, the Greeks learned philosophy and religion from Kemet.

−4

Sensitive_File6582 t1_j6x2op2 wrote

It’s not just the west. Humans are trible to a somewhat arbitrary degree. It is a struggle for the species not just a society.

0

WhatsHupp t1_j6whm9z wrote

Just read an article about some archaeology on California’s Channel islands, one thing that stood out was their mention of the islands’ lack of burrowing rodents. Over decades and centuries those things can really churn up the soil, making it impossible to find less permanent physical evidence that would otherwise tell us a lot about who used to live there.

4

Jacareadam t1_j6w4kgi wrote

Egypt was as ancient to the Roman Empire as the Roman Empire is to us

4

Individual_Ad2579 t1_j6v1i7c wrote

So they really taught themselves about bacteria? I wonder how they found out this research

2

Raudskeggr t1_j6v1qq1 wrote

They didn't know about bacteria. But they did know "this stuff works better than this stuff to preserve" through many iterations of trial and error.

120

STEELCITY1989 t1_j6v57ek wrote

Exactly. They knew it worked but not why in the literal sense with no paradigm of bacteria.

34

Angdrambor t1_j6v82dj wrote

They did have some kind of paradigm. it may not have been as complex or complete as our modern study of microbiology, but it would have at least been isomorphic to the truth.

In much the same way, our modern understanding of microbiology will seem woefully inadequate to the people of the future.

29

nzdastardly t1_j6vlyp3 wrote

"Can you believe those barbarians used SOAP AND HOT WATER instead of a biofilter in the transporter?"

  • some smug 24th century person
16

[deleted] t1_j6wsh3q wrote

[removed]

1

ECrispy t1_j6x2i6j wrote

Or physics, biology and basically every science.

1

lt_spaghetti t1_j6v8rmg wrote

I mean, at the end of the day we made rocks think and information travel through blinky glass strands, electric airwaves and copper wires.

200 000 years of human lifetime is a long time

19

GammaGoose85 t1_j6v6nop wrote

Yeah theres alot of knowledge and ancient wisdom that knew the what but didn't know they why or the right why. Makes u wonder what we think we know now but don't really.

16

Angdrambor t1_j6v7nk4 wrote

Pure observation. Even if you don't have a microscope to see the bacteria, you can see(and smell) their work.

10