Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Big Bad Voodoo

Sphinx and GP dates from 10 500 BC?

1,651 posts in this topic

Ah, but they do. A number of your misconceptions (such as those related to lithic technology and draft domestication) have already been addressed. Now, let us address other matters. Please remember some of your earlier pronouncments.

The way Schmidt sees it, Gobekli Tepe's sloping, rocky ground is a stonecutter's dream. Even without metal chisels or hammers, prehistoric masons wielding flint tools could have chipped away at softer limestone outcrops, shaping them into pillars on the spot before carrying them a few hundred yards to the summit and lifting them upright. Then, Schmidt says, once the stone rings were finished, the ancient builders covered them over with dirt. Eventually, they placed another ring nearby or on top of the old one. Over centuries, these layers created the hilltop.

You can work a soft rock with a hard one. No question. But stone tools cannot be useful as metal ones. Hence, the time required to do the same amount of work is multiplied.

If you want to use a stone tool, you need to create it. With what? What type of stone?

So, lets say they used granite. Is there granite in the area? How did they shape their granite tools? With basalt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The "ramp" mentioned in the PT is anachronistic because the PT as we know it probably

didn't exiist at that time. If the PT spoke of spiral ramps and all sorts of ramps to build pyr-

amids I'd still give you the point but it doesn't. The PT speaks of boats and flying. It speaks

of burning the king atop the pyramid.

The "cultural context" with which you are familiar is ripped from the book of the dead and im-

posed on the great pyramid builders. The real "cultural context" includes things like the tiny

workmen's village and insights that can be gleaned from the PT. The real cultural context

must be consistent with the titles and jobs of the men and women buried at Giza. You are

seeing the great pyramid builders in terms of the authors of the book of the dead and this is

illegitimate.

Which makes it irrelevant to a discussion of the Gizamids construction. :yes: Even more-so when the earliest copy of the Pyramid Texts was addressed to Pharaoh Unas.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have said repeatedly that moving them is not the problem, it is cutting them on the bottom, and placing them accurately (meaning edge to edge with another one).

You are implying that something can be scaled up from 2 tons to 800 tons. There is no evidence for that. If it is so easy why are you showing this example with one four hundredth of the size in question? In particular, how will you remove the 'sleepers' or ropes from an 800 ton rock once it is in its location? Do you know if wood will support 800 tons and not be crushed?

A possible process for leveling the surface of the stones was demonstrated in the clip.

Wooden railway sleepers will support a freight train weighing approximately 500 tonne and its not unusual to see 3 or more of these linked to haul a heavy load, I suppose it would come down to weight distribution and how well the timbers were supported, I would say yes the wood could support the weight but Im OK to be proven wrong..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not hardly since it dates to about 150 years after the fact. And you've already said that cultural context only applies to when the Great Pyramids were built. But I can see your reluctance to leave your interpretations of what the PT says out of this, as otherwise you have nothing relevant to add to the discussion.

cormac

Cladking agreed with me, in regards to the symbolism there,

He may of been referring to certain cultures changes or additions that occur over time.

But clearly the primeval mound symbolism is earlier than the PT and even before the GP.

example mound symbolism in the First Dynasty. Evidence for the cosmography is quite established earlier.

Clearly the step pyramid is like steps, as well as changes to a true pyramid can be seen to be symbolic of the primeval mound as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

http://lexiline.blog...laya-dates.html

Anothers view on the dating of Gobeki Tepe ,as with the writer I do agree in the evolution of a architecural design and believe they are totaly datng GT out of its place.

The T shape temple on Menorca looks more ruggedly built giving it a more older appearence.

Gobekli Tepe is more perfectly built, similar to the evolution of the pyramid building.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ramonduran/1638591805/

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/multimedia/photos/?articleID=30706129&c=y

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the archeologists should keep digging around the GT to looked for more evidence of housing. It seem the locals or ,someone wanted all the traces of this culture and their worship to disapear.

One does not just buried their church.

As far as the dating,one can tell the GT was a improvement of the T stones at Menorca.

http://www.spanisharts.com/arquitectura/imagenes/prehistoria/taulas.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with everything you are saying (btw, I very much enjoyed the original Gods Must Be Crazy not only for its humor but also for its insight and the portrayal of this wonderful culture). I was implying in an earlier post that they would have had to build one circle in a season, and go on to the next one maybe a few years later.

But a single person can make a Venus figure and a cave painting, and another one next week. That is hardly comparable with cutting 16 ton blocks (and doing this with stone tools, and a 50 ton incompleted one).

What's the difference between one man carving one Venus and ten men carving the equivalent of ten Venuses?

How did they lift the weight of 200 men out of the quarry? I have asked specific questions like this before and never gotten a concrete answer. So I surmise that it has not been experimentally confirmed. Maybe you think this is a minor detail. I do not think so. Why is it so difficult to round up enough, say, college students for a shcool project? Once it has been done, then we have an idea about the effort required, in terms of manpower, organization etc. But the fact that it has NOT been done indicates to me that it is a substantial effort, maybe more than you imagine.

The quarry in question: Göbekli Tepe - Klaus at a quarry

Even if they were going uphill, there doesn't appear to be a lot of slope involved. Others here have already given examples of how large stones can be moved. Other demonstrations such as you propose have already been conducted.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/easter/move/past.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc8Xio0xWUc

Only then can we determine if this is even possible. Then we can talk about what qualities or culture the people must have had to manage that accomplishment. Without experiment or observation of the challenge that this represents, what do you expect to learn from talking about the !Kung tribe? I am sorry to repeat myself, but science is observation.

Yes, and from the report, by _observing_ the !Kung, we can conclude that hunter-gatherer cultures would indeed have likely had available free time to work on projects like this, contrary to your prior assertions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who was overseer of burning the king atop the pyramid?

Satis.

812a. To say: N. is Satis who has taken possession of both lands,

812b. the burning one who has seized her two lands.

812c. N. has ascended to heaven;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which makes it irrelevant to a discussion of the Gizamids construction. :yes: Even more-so when the earliest copy of the Pyramid Texts was addressed to Pharaoh Unas.

By George, I think you got it.

Ramps do not fit into the cultural context.

Tombs don't fit in the cultural context either but once the PT is included then tombs are excluded by the cultural context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly the step pyramid is like steps, as well as changes to a true pyramid can be seen to be symbolic of the primeval mound as well.

The other great pyramids were built as steps as well.

It appears they could lift the stones only a given height at a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no ramp remnants on the GP. You are mistaken. I don't know why you've stated this many times.

There are ramp remnants on later and on little pyramids. This is irrelevant to the great pyramids. There is

virtually no evidence of any sort for ramps on great pyramids. We could go over it again and I think I could

get all the "evidence" in a single sentence.

But I don't see anyone addressing the fact that ramps are debunked. This is the fact.

Recently, remnants of ramps have been found by Dr. Zahi Hawass on the south side of the pyramid that attest that some type of ramping was indeed used in the construction of this monument.

http://guardians.net/egypt/pyramids/GreatPyramid.htm#bibliography

Remains of ramps have been discovered at Medium, Dahshur, Abu Ghurab and Abusir, thus supporting the claims of Siculus. Notable also are the Sinki pyramid at South Abydos and the Sekhemkhet pyramid where ramp remains, and even complete ramps have been discovered. Other ramp remains may have also been discovered at Giza, where excavators from the Cairo University excavated two parallel walls that may have formed the retaining framework of a ramp.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pyramidlifts.htm

Perhaps the ramp debunkers came to their conclusions a wee bit prematurely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://guardians.net...tm#bibliography

http://www.touregypt...yramidlifts.htm

Perhaps the ramp debunkers came to their conclusions a wee bit prematurely.

http://guardians.net...tm#bibliography

http://www.touregypt...yramidlifts.htm

Perhaps the ramp debunkers came to their conclusions a wee bit prematurely.

No. It's not at all premature.

No ramps exist on any great pyramid and there is no evidence they ever did.

People just keep making the vaccuos claims perpetrated by sites like touregypt. Ask yourself

why they didn't provide a picture of this. Ramps are debunked so a picture would be extremely

valuable but no pictures exist. I can show you pictures of the routes right up the side of the py-

ramid but all touregypt can do I tell you they have found ramps.

You can take my word on it and take it to the bank. No ramps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By George, I think you got it.

Ramps do not fit into the cultural context.

Tombs don't fit in the cultural context either but once the PT is included then tombs are excluded by the cultural context.

Looks to me like you purposely DIDN'T get it. So let me spell it out for you. The Pyramid Texts are irrelevant to a discussion of the Gizamids as they date to 150 years after the fact and are, in the oldest extant text, addressed to Unas. There are no extant texts from the time of Khufu, so you can't use the PT (which are religious texts anyway) as an instruction manual for structures that pre-existed it and to whom it was not addressed. Ramp remains however, regardless of where they are located, are know to exist from prior to Unas so your claim of ramps not existing because they've been debunked is bullscheise.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't we had this exact same debate before? A thousand times before? Going back years? Is it worth rehashing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't we had this exact same debate before? A thousand times before? Going back years? Is it worth rehashing?

Well, looks like somebody thinks we have a short memory and going away for a few months makes us forget the past :devil:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't we had this exact same debate before? A thousand times before? Going back years? Is it worth rehashing?

Sorry kmt_sesh. Have a low tolerance for members of the "I don't know what I'm talking about, but you're all wrong" crowd. :yes:

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should never be surprised at what people on here who spout the purely orthodox line regard as certainties :yes:.

Given the authority with which they proclaim what was the norm and what wasn't several thousand years ago, they clearly either have a time machine or actually lived through those ancient eras themselves. Which would make them roughly the same age asNancy Reagan. :no:

That's an outstanding point, Alcibiades. Everyone seems to have it figure out in their own little corrner of historical reality. Whereas the 'truth' in acutality is an everywidening assumption. Seems that anyone wtih access to practical video playback in universal fundamental sciences is mocked in consideration to what actually transpired in such given eras in time. It makes for better debate to go with the easy expalainable and widely accepted orthodox opinion, while of course not forgetting to poke fun at the inquiring mind.

Notice how noone has explained how the bottom side of these mutlitton boulders were crafted in precision. I forget who's question that was, but it was never adressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an outstanding point, Alcibiades. Everyone seems to have it figure out in their own little corrner of historical reality. Whereas the 'truth' in acutality is an everywidening assumption. Seems that anyone wtih access to practical video playback in universal fundamental sciences is mocked in consideration to what actually transpired in such given eras in time. It makes for better debate to go with the easy expalainable and widely accepted orthodox opinion, while of course not forgetting to poke fun at the inquiring mind.

Notice how noone has explained how the bottom side of these mutlitton boulders were crafted in precision. I forget who's question that was, but it was never adressed.

Where you are inaccurately assuming that because there is a detail question nobody answers all the rest is wrong too, now what boulders are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't we had this exact same debate before? A thousand times before? Going back years? Is it worth rehashing?

I believe you're missing the point.

I keep finding more corroborating evidence among the tiny bit that survives and you've

yet to really address the first points. I've actually managed to debunk ramps yet I've never

seen a refutation of it. The mere repetition of orthodoxy conclusions isn't an argument at

all. The claim that they must have used ramps in the face of overwhelming evidence that

ramps were not used is not even worth consideration. The vaccuous and wholly unsuppor-

ted claims of websites like touregypt that ramps have been found on G1 means no more than

any other unsupported and unsubstantiated claim. One can speculate about how ramps must

have been configured or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin for an eternity but

the fact is ramps are debunked. Before spending the few dollars they have available commis-

sioning studies to prove ramps are possible they should first rebunk ramps and this will require

evidence.

The same tired claim that ramps are the only possible means to lift stones using ancient tech-

nology can not legitimately be used to support the argument that they must have used ramps.

This is assuming the conclusion and it has no meaning in the real world. Rather than complain

about the facts why not just abandon the ludicrous and romanticv notion of men toiling to drag

stones up ramps. It didn't happen and has been debunked. It is facts and logic that almost al-

ways leads to truth. It is not and never has been appeals to orthodoxy or assumptions. Facts

say they used no ramps so why cling to them? Logic says ramps are the most difficult possible

means. The evidence does not support ramps.

I ask why even as more and more evidence stacks up against ramps why people still embrace

them. If you want to get frustrated with someone it's not the messenger you should be frustrated

with. It is those who refuse to gather the data that will show how they built the pyramids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ramp remains however, regardless of where they are located, are know to exist from prior to Unas so your claim of ramps not existing because they've been debunked is bullscheise.

I'm not the person suggesting the ancients were so stupid they couldn't build and operate ramps.

I'm sure a caveman could do it.

But I'm also not the one claiming that there was only one way to build a pyramid if you're an ancient Egyptian.

Can you really not see this point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, looks like somebody thinks we have a short memory and going away for a few months makes us forget the past :devil:

Ramps are debunked now. I didn't have overwhelming evidence that ramps weren't used a few

months ago. Every day more pieces fit together and I no longer even need to talk about how they

lifted the stones in order to show the rich tapestry that was apparently our ancient forebearers.

Rather than being superstitious it turns out they are merely misunderstood. We are superstitious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not the person suggesting the ancients were so stupid they couldn't build and operate ramps.

I'm sure a caveman could do it.

But I'm also not the one claiming that there was only one way to build a pyramid if you're an ancient Egyptian.

Can you really not see this point?

Aren't you supposed to be debating this stuff in a purpose-built thread of your initiation? This discussion is not about your theme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The subject is ramps. You won't hear me talk about anything but the subject at hand.

It was suggested that they had endless supplies of wood that was arranged into ramps.

If everyone gets back to the subject of the thread then I might have a thought or two on

it as well. There's lots of stuff suggested by the PT that could go back even before 10,

500 BC. It probably won't become relevant but it could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The subject is ramps. You won't hear me talk about anything but the subject at hand.

It was suggested that they had endless supplies of wood that was arranged into ramps.

If everyone gets back to the subject of the thread then I might have a thought or two on

it as well. There's lots of stuff suggested by the PT that could go back even before 10,

500 BC. It probably won't become relevant but it could.

Gated locks, much like the canals of yesteryear. Consider the Wabash-Erie Canal. Each lock would raise the entire load onto a platform of water upon a higher elevation. This series among many steps led the load upon the way upstream. Such is so at the Giza Plateau. The ancients brought in the massive boulders from many adjacent river roads, not just the quarrry next door, and raised each upon the level of construction. The evidence of the canal way is VERY evident. even to the satellite image.

There was a counterstone drop upon a series of roller crank windings that dropped to help hoist these boulders once the pyramid was raised in construction above the Kings chambers. Someone please find the video describing this procedure. It was quite inovative, and done to explain while using video game technology. I'm sure it was the discovery channel. I seen it once, but am unable to locate it. If possible would someone please provide a link?

Edited by Time Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can work a soft rock with a hard one. No question. But stone tools cannot be useful as metal ones. Hence, the time required to do the same amount of work is multiplied.

If you want to use a stone tool, you need to create it. With what? What type of stone?

So, lets say they used granite. Is there granite in the area? How did they shape their granite tools? With basalt?

Just a brief overview:

The term "lithic technology" incorporates the utilization of numerous materials and methodologies. In many cases, multiple materials and techniques may be involved in the various stages of producing a specific "product".

The knapping of high-silicate materials such as cherts, chalcedonies, and flints into sharp (and re-touchable) edges (tools) is a technology that dates back some 2.5 million years. This process is not uncommonly multi-phasic and can include the utilization of hard hammer, soft hammer (i.e. antler, etc.) percussion along with indirect percussion and pressure techniques.

The splitting of sedimentary materials such as limestone can be performed with both lithic and organic materials or a combination thereof.

Materials sourcing, depending upon circumstance and priority, can entail rather extensive trade/travel networks, even within the time period under consideration. Temporally synchronous examples in North America confirm the procurement and transport of desirable lithic materials over many hundreds of miles.

As to techniques applicable for undercutting large monoliths, you may find the following to be of interest. Note material types/techniques. You may also find specific Figures 6, 16, and 17 to be informative.

http://www.eeescienc...tedOverview.pdf

As previously presented, the workmanship associated with Rapa Nui is yet one more example of the finishing of the surfaces of concern (i.e. in all three dimensions).

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.