Talk:Osireion

weight contested
The following is a quote from http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/setiabydos.htm :

"Upon the island were built massive pillars made of five Aswan rose colored granite monoliths about 2.4 meters square by a little over 3.5 meters high and weighing, on average, around 100 tons, to support the ambulatory atop the equally massive architraves."

They provide dimensions and wieght however the math is wrong. The density of Granite is about 3 tons per cubic meter. These dimensions add upto about 20 cubic meters or 60 tons. They also cite John Anthony West as a source. I have seen pictures that seem to confirm the dimensions but the wieght is wrong.

Zacherystaylor (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've changed the article a bit, and removed the weight claim. I can't find a source right now for the weights and West is not a reliable source. dougweller (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of any other estimates either however I suspect the estimate I made is close. I can't rule out the 100 ton estimate but the dimensions he used to arrive at that estimate don't add up as I said. If JA West isn't reliable Ancient mysteries probably isn't either since he is their source as well. So if there are no objections I'll just remove it. Unfortunately I don't have time to expand this now either. Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Art and architecture Egypt ISBN 3-8331-1935-7  originally  Kunst und Architektur. Agypten ISBN 3-8331-1424-X by Matthias Seidel and Regina Schultz c Tandem Verlag GmbH 2005 p293 - The Osireion - states - "two rows of five enormous granite pillars each weighing 55 tons". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merlin-UK (talk • contribs) 17:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

reference deleted
The volume by Amélineau, Le tombeau d'Osiris, is not concerned with the cenotaph of Seti I but rather with the tomb of Djer at Umm el-Gaab. The reference has been deleted. For the discovery of Seti's cenotaph, see Petrie's "Preface" to M. Murray, The Osireion at Abydos.Bespantheos (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Osireion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080724170034/http://www.egyptarchive.co.uk/html/osireion_index.html to http://www.egyptarchive.co.uk/html/osireion_index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

temple?
Nobody disputes that this is an ancient Egyptian building. Nobody agrees it was an ancient Egyptian temple. 2001:8003:6E25:300:923D:10AF:1AAA:5135 (talk) 05:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Added external link
I added this link to offer some recent info on the Osireion. So little recent info on the site. Hope this meets wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Bfsplk (talk • contribs) 20:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The Osireion "is possibly built to resemble an 18th Dynasty Valley of the Kings tomb.[1] "
How so and which tomb exactly? This is speculative information lacking any details of the presented theory and thus not being informative at all. Until 2017, this article contained hypothetical information that was correctly presented in a hypothetical manner and then deleted due to its hypothetical nature. This was clearly a political act (not necessarily intentional though) against the likes of alternative historians, or "pseudo-historians" as Wiki insultingly labels them, as Graham Hancock. The theories in these deleted parts were no less scientific and no more speculative than those presented in the reversed version. For a site that lacks any confirmable historical information, you have to present either any science-based theory or none.

Now, in essence, this article is a representation of what someone thought to be true – with that someone being a person who likes to blank out opposing views. Why not present both/all views including their respective concrete arguments and let the reader make up his or her own mind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:3032:407:20C4:EC69:5EFA:77C:E577 (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems a joke
The data is very contested if not clarly wrong. The floor level was not there at the time of the suposed construction. Nothing about the laser like figures or the strange heavy blocks. Again, info is stuck in XVIII century. A pity. JKim (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I will make some changes even that they probably will be deleted. Its interesting to see who blocks current knowledge JKim (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)