Why have Egyptologists devoted so much time to the examination of tombs rather than settlements?

Answer 1

Because tombs and palaces were originally seen as offering the greatest source of information, purely because they were rich, largely intact megalithic structures.

This method of archaeology follows on from the 'classicism' of the 19th Century and was prevailant right up until the 1960s.

Since then archaeology has realised that more can be gleaned from well-preserved settlement sites, even down to written records and graffiti. A prime example of this is the Theban 'workers village' of Deir el Medina. Such domestic sites offer a superb insight in to the roles of gender, crime and punishment and the social infrastructure of ancient Egypt that tombs and temples do not.

How much would you learn about our world just from visiting castles and cathedrals? Not as much as you would from looking through a library, or your house.

Hope this helps- again, email if you need more!

Answer 2

If you think about, you will realize that the Egyptians built the tombs with longevity in mind. The structures are huge, the funeral goods are protected from the elements and there is often writing or hieroglyphics about the person.

Settlements are not constructed in a way to last a long time. If a settlement was used for hundreds of years, then succeeding generations would tear down and rebuild at need, and much would be lost. This makes it very difficult to reconstruct everyday life of everyday people.

A city like Pompei is unusual because the volcanic ash captured the city in a moment and preserved everything for centuries.

Answer 3

Settlements of the common man in the Middle East in the time of the Pharaohs (and later) tended to be built from sun baked mud - adobe. This does not last very well and eventually just crumbles back into the soil from which it came. The larger palaces and temples have been excavated - Luxor, Karnak, Abu Simbel, for example. It's also a class thing. Until very recently archaeologists, like most historians, were only interested in the powerful and famous. The exploration and discussion of the history of the ordinary people of any time in history has only become fashionable very recently.

Answer 4

Snobbish class differences. The snobs, such as Lord Carmarthen [not a drop of Welsh blood in his veins] was only interested in Kings and lords such as himself.

The houses of the workers who built the great pyramids are for the most part intact. We even know from wall paintings, painted by themselves, how they carried out their work and the kinds of tools they used.

Failure to know about the construction methods used has lead to all kinds of nonsense coming from the middle and upper middle classes, none of whom have ever done a days work in their lives.

I recall being in the Cairo Museum many years ago when a group of Egytian workers arrived and were told to move a heavy granite statue, probably about ten tons, from one side of the large room where it stood to the other. These men simply rocked it back and forth and walked it across the room. I've never seen anything like it. No machines, no ropes, just hands, lots of shouting, lots of singing and grunting but the job was done and very quickly.

Until you seen how it's done, you simply cannot know or guess. It was all done by hand. Forget all that A-Frame waffle and cranes - they did not exist.

Answer 5

The tombs are better preserved and easier to find. And don't forget, many of those early "archaeologists" were really rich treasure seekers. So they weren't really all that concerned with the broader picture that an ancient settlement would provide.

Answer 6

Probably because the ancients believed in the supernatural alot therefore for them the examination of tombs played a big role in society.

Answer 7

The question should really be, "Why did the ancient Egyptians spend so much of their time to the furnishing of tombs?"