Building the Great Pyramid

[A rather obscure Bassoon]

Who says the Egyptians were more ignorant than us Cladking,from what i see they built some amazing structures and because we can't explain how they built them,people then invent Aliens to bridge the gap.Now thats ignorance.

[The_Spartan]

Who says the Egyptians were more ignorant than us Cladking,from what i see they built some amazing structures and because we can't explain how they built them,people then invent Aliens to bridge the gap.Now thats ignorance.

You dont know cladking.

His pet theories are

Egyptians used Geysers to build the Pyramids

The Pyramids were built by Aliens

etc etc

His theories have been beaten to death, many times over, but cladking goes with his ~fingers in his ears...na na na i cant hear what you are telling~ routine and keeps at it, with eternal hope.

[Winterwind]

Voted "Other" for the same reason as Harte.

As for the people that voted "Aliens"... No disrespect but why would any extra-terrestrial race, with advanced technology, travel light years just to teach us how to pile rocks in nice shapes? Hell, Scotty showed us how easy it was to just casually give primitive man in the 1980s transparent aluminum. Couldn't the aliens have given us something just a little fancier than limestone?

I supposed it could all have been part of an interesting sociological study on their part. If so, looking in on us now, with all of our wild zany theories on pyramid construction, must be comedy gold.

[Arbitran]

So?

Their kings were actually said to be descended from the gods. They made the distinction between the pharaohs and the gods.

[Arbitran]

Voted "Other" for the same reason as Harte.

As for the people that voted "Aliens"... No disrespect but why would any extra-terrestrial race, with advanced technology, travel light years just to teach us how to pile rocks in nice shapes? Hell, Scotty showed us how easy it was to just casually give primitive man in the 1980s transparent aluminum. Couldn't the aliens have given us something just a little fancier than limestone?

I supposed it could all have been part of an interesting sociological study on their part. If so, looking in on us now, with all of our wild zany theories on pyramid construction, must be comedy gold.

You people don't seem to realize how useful a material stone actually is. You don't have to mine and smelt it like metals, it's far more abundant (obviously), and stands up to weathering and environment for far longer. The gods used stone as a primary building material--though they did have impressive metallurgic skills. And the pyramids had function--it isn't just stacking rocks.

[Winterwind]

You people don't seem to realize how useful a material stone actually is. You don't have to mine and smelt it like metals, it's far more abundant (obviously), and stands up to weathering and environment for far longer. The gods used stone as a primary building material--though they did have impressive metallurgic skills. And the pyramids had function--it isn't just stacking rocks.

"You people" can be construed as offensive. Choose your words with more care. I was at least polite enough to preface my comments with a disclaimer that I wasn't seeking to offend anyone.

But please, do enlighten me. What "gods" are you referring to and what function did the pyramids have according to you and "your lot".

Edited March 24, 2012 by Winterwind

[Arbitran]

"You people" can be construed as offensive. Choose your words with more care. I was at least polite enough to preface my comments with a disclaimer that I wasn't seeking to offend anyone.

But please, do enlighten me. What "gods" are you referring to and what function did the pyramids have according to you and "your lot".

I sincerely apologize for any tone of hostility my previous post may have carried.

The gods I refer to are well-known, are they not? They go by such names as Thoth, Rama, Shiva, Zeus... You are familiar, no?

[Winterwind]

Yes, I am familiar with them. I simply don't believe in them as actual beings. I see gods, basically, as simply names given to collective ideals and values but not the actual embodiment of such.

[Arbitran]

Yes, I am familiar with them. I simply don't believe in them as actual beings. I see gods, basically, as simply names given to collective ideals and values but not the actual embodiment of such.

I can't say that I am surprised that you don't believe in them. Very few people do nowadays...

[Winterwind]

I can't say that I am surprised that you don't believe in them. Very few people do nowadays...

From where I sit, I'm surprised people still believe in gods. And again this is not intended to offend but to me, believing in gods makes as much sense as believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. I can understand the belief. I've experienced enough trying times in my life where appealing to a higher power that watches over us would indeed be comforting, especially if that power were listening and willing to lend a hand. But I don't have that belief.

Honestly, I find the AA view that the gods were aliens impressing simple folk with stone knives and bearskins more plausible than mythical fantasy beings with divine powers. Not that you've skimmed my previous posts but that would be at least my third Star Trek reference. I was born and raised on Star Trek and Doctor Who. I want to believe we're not alone. I simply don't see any empirical evidence yet that we've be visited or that they're among us now. Accepting aliens on faith would be like almost like accepting gods on faith. And I simply require some proof.

Should they ever land I'll be queueing up to greet them and begging for a lift off this rock. Assuming they're not here to enslave us of course.

[questionmark]

From where I sit, I'm surprised people still believe in gods. And again this is not intended to offend but to me, believing in gods makes as much sense as believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. I can understand the belief. I've experienced enough trying times in my life where appealing to a higher power that watches over us would indeed be comforting, especially if that power were listening and willing to lend a hand. But I don't have that belief.

Honestly, I find the AA view that the gods were aliens impressing simple folk with stone knives and bearskins more plausible than mythical fantasy beings with divine powers. Not that you've skimmed my previous posts but that would be at least my third Star Trek reference. I was born and raised on Star Trek and Doctor Who. I want to believe we're not alone. I simply don't see any empirical evidence yet that we've be visited or that they're among us now. Accepting aliens on faith would be like almost like accepting gods on faith. And I simply require some proof.

Should they ever land I'll be queueing up to greet them and begging for a lift off this rock. Assuming they're not here to enslave us of course.

[Arbitran]

From where I sit, I'm surprised people still believe in gods. And again this is not intended to offend but to me, believing in gods makes as much sense as believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. I can understand the belief. I've experienced enough trying times in my life where appealing to a higher power that watches over us would indeed be comforting, especially if that power were listening and willing to lend a hand. But I don't have that belief.

Honestly, I find the AA view that the gods were aliens impressing simple folk with stone knives and bearskins more plausible than mythical fantasy beings with divine powers. Not that you've skimmed my previous posts but that would be at least my third Star Trek reference. I was born and raised on Star Trek and Doctor Who. I want to believe we're not alone. I simply don't see any empirical evidence yet that we've be visited or that they're among us now. Accepting aliens on faith would be like almost like accepting gods on faith. And I simply require some proof.

Should they ever land I'll be queueing up to greet them and begging for a lift off this rock. Assuming they're not here to enslave us of course.

That you make a distinction between "gods" and "aliens" is hardly surprising; but wholly unnecessary. Just know: what I call "gods", it would be more equivalent to what you call "aliens".

[Swede]

You people don't seem to realize how useful a material stone actually is. You don't have to mine and smelt it like metals, it's far more abundant (obviously), and stands up to weathering and environment for far longer. The gods used stone as a primary building material--though they did have impressive metallurgic skills. And the pyramids had function--it isn't just stacking rocks.

The above is so riddled with error and presumption that it is difficult to address.

1) Do you actually wish to engage in a serious discussion of lithic technology? If so, please proceed.

2) While religious/spiritual beliefs are not a personally preferred topic, are you somehow suggesting that the various pantheons of past civilizations are to be taken at their face value as depicted by those respective civilizations? Would you be proposing that, for example, Pan was an actual, physical entity?

3) And what would your speculated functions of the pyramids be, besides their well documented purpose? Please be specific, as you have a tendency to be rather vague in regards to the specifics of your position. And kindly do not involve "eminent sorcerers".

.

[A rather obscure Bassoon]

You people don't seem to realize how useful a material stone actually is. You don't have to mine and smelt it like metals, it's far more abundant (obviously), and stands up to weathering and environment for far longer. The gods used stone as a primary building material--though they did have impressive metallurgic skills. And the pyramids had function--it isn't just stacking rocks.

These so called gods who you say had impressive metallurgic skills,why didn't they teach the Egyptians these impressive skills you say they had? but it seems they just let them carry on using copper tools.

Edited March 24, 2012 by shaddow134

[The_Spartan]

I sincerely apologize for any tone of hostility my previous post may have carried.

The gods I refer to are well-known, are they not? They go by such names as Thoth, Rama, Shiva, Zeus... You are familiar, no?

You Sir, are definitely misinformed. When did Rama or Shiva or even Zeus have anything to do with the pyramids???

[kmt_sesh]

ABSOLUTELY. At long last, someone who believes the ancients!

You're probably not familiar with the poster named cladking, Arbitran, but take care whom you support. Cladking is a deep thinker but as another poster pointed out, pretty much every one of his themes has been systematically disproved and shredded on the pages of UM. His idea that the Egyptians believed the gods built the pyramids, comes from his personal interpretations of the corpus of religion recitations known as the Pyramid Texts. While these Texts do in fact relate in detail how various deities helped the soul of the deceased king to ascend into his afterlife, the Texts certainly do not speak of how deities built pyramids.

How Egyptian pyramids were built was of no practical concern to the king upon his death, nor to the priests and administrators who tended to his funeral. What mattered to the Egyptians was not the "how" but the "why." The Pyramid Texts were deeply complex religious texts that worked in concert with the pyramid itself to cause the king's resurrection.

I spent years debating cladking on the finer details of this stuff. I even went so far as to perform translations of the Pyramid Texts to demonstrate how cladking's interpretations of them were incorrect. It's a done deal, no question about it. I don't wish to speak ill of cladking because personally I like him, but his escapades at UM were brought to a halt for a good reason.

Did the Egyptians believe gods and goddesses worked together to aid the king once his body was interred in a pyramid? Absolutely, no doubting it. Did the Egyptians believe the gods and goddesses did all of the manual labor to erect pyramids? Of course not.

I'd be willing to take part in another discussion of pyramids so long as it retains some degree of rationality. But if this one delves into the absurdity of old that used to clutter this particular forum, I'll be making a quick exit.

[Arbitran]

The above is so riddled with error and presumption that it is difficult to address.

1) Do you actually wish to engage in a serious discussion of lithic technology? If so, please proceed.

2) While religious/spiritual beliefs are not a personally preferred topic, are you somehow suggesting that the various pantheons of past civilizations are to be taken at their face value as depicted by those respective civilizations? Would you be proposing that, for example, Pan was an actual, physical entity?

3) And what would your speculated functions of the pyramids be, besides their well documented purpose? Please be specific, as you have a tendency to be rather vague in regards to the specifics of your position. And kindly do not involve "eminent sorcerers".

.

To respond to each of your inquiries:

1 ~ I would welcome a discussion of stone-based technology.

2 ~ I would indeed insist that, for instance, Pan was a physical person--as much as you or I (unless of course you happen to be an incorporeal spirit?).

3 ~ The so-called "well-documented purpose" attributed the pyramids by Egyptologists is largely speculative--no less speculative than the suggestion that they were, for example, alchemical transmutation machines.

[Arbitran]

These so called gods who you say had impressive metallurgic skills,why didn't they teach the Egyptians these impressive skills you say they had? but it seems they just let them carry on using copper tools.

They did indeed teach the ancient Egyptians of metallurgy--it is however quite plain that comparatively few useful metals existed in the region of ancient Egypt which they had to work with. Stone was the most effective building material--and it was often crafted using non-substantial means; the few copper implements which have been uncovered were used for alternative purposes.

[Arbitran]

You Sir, are definitely misinformed. When did Rama or Shiva or even Zeus have anything to do with the pyramids???

I was not exclusively referring to the pyramids in this statement. However, Rama and Shiva (I reserve judgment on Zeus) may have had links to Egypt in the distant, pre-dynastic times.

[Arbitran]

You're probably not familiar with the poster named cladking, Arbitran, but take care whom you support. Cladking is a deep thinker but as another poster pointed out, pretty much every one of his themes has been systematically disproved and shredded on the pages of UM. His idea that the Egyptians believed the gods built the pyramids, comes from his personal interpretations of the corpus of religion recitations known as the Pyramid Texts. While these Texts do in fact relate in detail how various deities helped the soul of the deceased king to ascend into his afterlife, the Texts certainly do not speak of how deities built pyramids.

How Egyptian pyramids were built was of no practical concern to the king upon his death, nor to the priests and administrators who tended to his funeral. What mattered to the Egyptians was not the "how" but the "why." The Pyramid Texts were deeply complex religious texts that worked in concert with the pyramid itself to cause the king's resurrection.

I spent years debating cladking on the finer details of this stuff. I even went so far as to perform translations of the Pyramid Texts to demonstrate how cladking's interpretations of them were incorrect. It's a done deal, no question about it. I don't wish to speak ill of cladking because personally I like him, but his escapades at UM were brought to a halt for a good reason.

Did the Egyptians believe gods and goddesses worked together to aid the king once his body was interred in a pyramid? Absolutely, no doubting it. Did the Egyptians believe the gods and goddesses did all of the manual labor to erect pyramids? Of course not.

I'd be willing to take part in another discussion of pyramids so long as it retains some degree of rationality. But if this one delves into the absurdity of old that used to clutter this particular forum, I'll be making a quick exit.

I acknowledge and respect the fact that you know the Pyramids Texts, and I agree with your assessment. However, it cannot be denied the implications of the Inventory Stela (Stella?).

[kmt_sesh]

They did indeed teach the ancient Egyptians of metallurgy--it is however quite plain that comparatively few useful metals existed in the region of ancient Egypt which they had to work with. Stone was the most effective building material--and it was often crafted using non-substantial means; the few copper implements which have been uncovered were used for alternative purposes.

This was not in reply to a post of mine but I wanted to weigh in. Actually quite a lot of copper tools have survived from the Old Kingdom, mainly in the form of chisels of different sizes. Stone tools also were commonly used, so I agree with you there, but fine angles and fittings in masonry were achieved with chisels. In addition, from all periods the Egyptians used pull-saws for cutting blocks of masonry. Copper deposits in Egypt contained natural high quantities of arsenic, which produced rather hard and durable copper implements. Perhaps even by the Middle Kingdom bronze tools were becoming more common. Although tin deposits in Egypt were uncommon for the smelting of bronze, Egypt either directly controlled or traded with polities in Syro-Palestine to get the tin they needed for bronze production. Bronze was definitely a common part of life in Egypt by the New Kingdom. But prior to this time copper was used in all sorts of things, including tools, weapons, furniture, and jewelry.

I acknowledge and respect the fact that you know the Pyramids Texts, and I agree with your assessment. However, it cannot be denied the implications of the Inventory Stela (Stella?).

I've discussed the Inventory Stela quite a few times in threads at UM through the years, but what do you mean specifically by its implications?

[Arbitran]

This was not in reply to a post of mine but I wanted to weigh in. Actually quite a lot of copper tools have survived from the Old Kingdom, mainly in the form of chisels of different sizes. Stone tools also were commonly used, so I agree with you there, but fine angles and fittings in masonry were achieved with chisels. In addition, from all periods the Egyptians used pull-saws for cutting blocks of masonry. Copper deposits in Egypt contained natural high quantities of arsenic, which produced rather hard and durable copper implements. Perhaps even by the Middle Kingdom bronze tools were becoming more common. Although tin deposits in Egypt were uncommon for the smelting of bronze, Egypt either directly controlled or traded with polities in Syro-Palestine to get the tin they needed for bronze production. Bronze was definitely a common part of life in Egypt by the New Kingdom. But prior to this time copper was used in all sorts of things, including tools, weapons, furniture, and jewelry.

I've discussed the Inventory Stela quite a few times in threads at UM through the years, but what do you mean specifically by its implications?

I must say, I agree with you on each point you made in regards to the presence of various metals in ancient Egypt.

In regards to the Inventory Stela, I was merely noting that, while indeed the Pyramid Texts do not supply an account of gods building the Great Pyramids, the Inventory Stela certainly does.

[The_Spartan]

I was not exclusively referring to the pyramids in this statement. However, Rama and Shiva (I reserve judgment on Zeus) may have had links to Egypt in the distant, pre-dynastic times.

This word "May" changes the complete equation.

They may have had links, they may not have had links.

bottom fact is that you don't know.

If you don't know something, admit it. don't beat around the bush. or state it as a possibility, which is nil.

[lakeview rud]

Regarding the poll, I couldn't figure out how to "explain" within the poll so here's the explanation. The AE's were very practical people so it stands to reason that they would have used whatever technology available to them to construct the GP (and the others). The time frame of roughly 20 years has been decetly established so you need to come up with theories that fit in that timeframe. If you rule out intervention by "gods" or "aliens" you are left with the fairly daunting task of stacking something close to 2 million large stone blocks with a crew of roughly 10,000 men and you can only work them in daylight so perhaps a ten or twelve hour shift. The various technologies;

a. ramps (external) This would be fine for the lower levels, perhaps up to the height of the starting "hill" that the GP was built around but not too much higher. Perhaps if that first ramp went to the top of that hill it would be logical to then continue with an internal spiral type ramp and perhaps

b. use levers and some sort of "rocking" device to lift the blocks one level at a time

c. the other theories like some sort of ratcheting device to take blocks straight up the sides might have some merit but there's not much evidence. Same goes for the counterweight theories. There was at one time evidence that a rope pull was used at the top of the main gallery but the Modern Egyptians decide to "repair" that so its no longer visible. The various indentations in the side of the main gallery corridor indicate that some type of fairly substantial wooden devices were placed there so its possible that that corridor was used to elevate a number of stones; perhaps the very large ones.

d. There was also some type of anomoly found at one of the upper corners which migh be an indicator of an internal spiral ramp or even a crane type idea but there's not much left.

e. all in all there's not enough evidence left to substantiate any one theory.

[Swede]

To respond to each of your inquiries:

1 ~ I would welcome a discussion of stone-based technology.

2 ~ I would indeed insist that, for instance, Pan was a physical person--as much as you or I (unless of course you happen to be an incorporeal spirit?).

3 ~ The so-called "well-documented purpose" attributed the pyramids by Egyptologists is largely speculative--no less speculative than the suggestion that they were, for example, alchemical transmutation machines.

Re - #1. Good. Where would you wish to begin. The Oldowan Tradition would be a rational starting point. Please state your thoughts on this technology and its evolutionary and socio-cultural implications.

Re - #2. This now firmly places you one step left of the fringe. Kindly supply biological/archaeological support for such silliness.

Re - #3. Given the volume of supportive data in regards to the function of the pyramids, utilizing the term "largely speculative" would appear to indicate a lack of understanding in this regard. Kindly (an clearly) state your alternative speculations and provide credible supportive citations. The rhetorical blather is notably unproductive.

.