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 2
toyomotor

Pyramids etc-Sensible conversation

24 posts in this topic

Is it possible that we could have a sensible conversation about how ancient buildings were constructed, given the known technology of the time?

Concentrating on a narrow field for the time being, let's look at the Ancient Egyptian Pyramids, and the Ziggurats of South America.

The Egyptian pyramids discovered to date are all designed with very complex internal chambers, tunnels and other unexplained internal architectural features. The angles on which the tunnels and passageways are the subject of speculation, but not explanation. The pyramids are constructed of stone blocks, each individually weighing 100 imperial tons. There is no similar stone nearby. Each stone block is almost perfect in it's dimensions and the joins between each block are more perfect than those attained by modern day builders.

How is the precision of the pyramids explained, given the available tools?

The latest explanation of the stone blocks transportation to the sites is that they could have been dragged over wet sand. Are they serious?

Perhaps more intriguing are the Ziggurats of South America. Firstly, they are in some cases identical to ziggurats constructed in Mesopotamia-thousands of miles away. There is not historical evidence of any interchange bewteen Mesopotamia and South America-so called experts claim their similarity is coincidence. Rubbish.

The Stone Ziggurats are constructed of rock, dimensions are precise and the blocks, similar to those of the pyramids, are huge. Bear in mind that the ancient South Americans had no iron tools at the time. Try cutting granite with copper or bronze!

There has never been an explanation for the actual precision of the blocks, and the lack of evident tool marks on them.

Please, leave out the alien theories, but any other sensible ideas worthy of discussion would be appreciated.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is the precision of the pyramids explained, given the available tools?

Simple, ancient people were still people with no distractions like smart phones, interwebs or tv and spent a lot of time hitting rocks with other rocks.

They then stacked said rocks onto other rocks using complex things like a rock hanging from a rope lined up with another rock.

Ancient people were not dumber or less capable then we are. They are just underestimated by us with our Taco Bells, internal combustion engines and reality televisions.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is the precision of the pyramids explained, given the available tools?

It's a matter of perspective. Given the tools of their times, the pyramid is very precise. Given the tools of our time, an architecture student presenting a plan for the pyramid would have been failed by their professor. In other words, the first hurdle to overcome is the belief that pyramid precision was anything objectively astonishing. It wasn't. It was great for it's time (great, not incredible), being that they used rope triangles and barrel rulers, but the precision of pyramid construction is most certainly not the most impressive aspect of the pyramids. The temple of Karnak is far more impressive in terms of technology and skill required to construct than the simple pyramid.

The latest explanation of the stone blocks transportation to the sites is that they could have been dragged over wet sand. Are they serious?

One of many theories. There's so many different ways to do it, we are kind of spoiled for choice.

Perhaps more intriguing are the Ziggurats of South America. Firstly, they are in some cases identical to ziggurats constructed in Mesopotamia-thousands of miles away.

Ahh...what cases where those?

The pyramid of Djoser is definitely a step pyramid, but that's pretty much just a basic shape, inescapable in pyramid building. Once we leave the basic shape behind and start getting cultural, the Meso-American pyramids went for broad, flat, pyramids with large number of levels and emphasis on the steps, including an external staircase leading to the top, where Mesopotamian ziggurats became blockish, fortress looking affairs, with three or four levels and rampways.

There is not historical evidence of any interchange bewteen Mesopotamia and South America-so called experts claim their similarity is coincidence. Rubbish.

There's...really only so many ways you can build a pyramid with masonry technology.

The Stone Ziggurats are constructed of rock, dimensions are precise and the blocks, similar to those of the pyramids, are huge. Bear in mind that the ancient South Americans had no iron tools at the time. Try cutting granite with copper or bronze!

Incidentally, Ziggurats are specifically Mesopotamian. There are no South American Zigurrats, by definition. And they aren't all that precise.

There has never been an explanation for the actual precision of the blocks, and the lack of evident tool marks on them.

That's kind of the thing here. You are running on this basic assumption that there is something magical about the precision, probably because you've heard it over and over again from mystery websites. The claim is exaggerated. Yes, the masonry was very precise for its time. Based on the tools of their period. And yes, there are tool marks all over the place. The tool marks are what allow researchers to determine how the tools were used.

Sensible discussion needs to begin by sifting the wheat from the chaff. It isn't as romantic as the sacred mysteries, but it tends to be more rewarding in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its just one of those modern 'scientific' blindspots .... its so simple that modern speculative capabilities need not adhere to stringent modern scientific distinctions when evaluating the myriad of simplistic postulates currently applied ... ropes and stacking is all that is needed ...

Kinda like how Columbus 'discovered' the 'New World' following a 'map' .... common sense out the window just because .... its simple ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is the precision of the pyramids explained, given the available tools?

Simple, ancient people were still people with no distractions like smart phones, interwebs or tv and spent a lot of time hitting rocks with other rocks.

They then stacked said rocks onto other rocks using complex things like a rock hanging from a rope lined up with another rock.

Simple, ancient people were still people with no distractions like smart phones, interwebs or tv and spent a lot of time hitting rocks with other rocks

So why are there no tool marks?

How long did it take to build the pyramids?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a matter of perspective. Given the tools of their times, the pyramid is very precise. Given the tools of our time, an architecture student presenting a plan for the pyramid would have been failed by their professor. In other words, the first hurdle to overcome is the belief that pyramid precision was anything objectively astonishing. It wasn't. It was great for it's time (great, not incredible), being that they used rope triangles and barrel rulers, but the precision of pyramid construction is most certainly not the most impressive aspect of the pyramids. The temple of Karnak is far more impressive in terms of technology and skill required to construct than the simple pyramid.

One of many theories. There's so many different ways to do it, we are kind of spoiled for choice.

Ahh...what cases where those?

I've forgotten the name of the building in South America, but it's a well known one-and it compares very closely with the Mesopotamian building.

That's kind of the thing here. You are running on this basic assumption that there is something magical about the precision, probably because you've heard it over and over again from mystery websites. The claim is exaggerated. Yes, the masonry was very precise for its time. Based on the tools of their period. And yes, there are tool marks all over the place. The tool marks are what allow researchers to determine how the tools were used.

Sensible discussion needs to begin by sifting the wheat from the chaff. It isn't as romantic as the sacred mysteries, but it tends to be more rewarding in the end.

That's the point, I'm not following the fantasy trail at all. But I am interested in how such precision could have been achieved, block by block, and how the blocks could have been moved. Surely it would have taken hundreds of years to construct one?

Incidentally, Ziggurats are specifically Mesopotamian. There are no South American Zigurrats, by definition. And they aren't all that precise.

OK, use of the word Ziggurat was mine. I've seen them called pyramids in many articles, but as they don't taper all the way to the top, I would have thought them more alike to Ziggurats.

Yes, the masonry was very precise for its time. Based on the tools of their period. And yes, there are tool marks all over the place. The tool marks are what allow researchers to determine how the tools were used.

Sorry, I've never read that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I've forgotten the name of the building in South America, but it's a well known one-and it compares very closely with the Mesopotamian building.

Chances are that you are talking about the Pyramid of the Sun and Djoser's pyramid.

That's the point, I'm not following the fantasy trail at all. But I am interested in how such precision could have been achieved, block by block, and how the blocks could have been moved. Surely it would have taken hundreds of years to construct one?

The first step in not following the fantasy is recognizing that you are following the fantasy. Prior to determining how such precision could be achieved, you first need to determine how much precision is actually present.

Here's a hint: Look for the "no" answer. The answer that will disprove your current hypothesis. If you believe the stones are precise, you will look for sources confirming they are precise (you will look for and get "yes" answers). Instead, do a search for the lack of precision. Find out how imperfect the construction was.

OK, use of the word Ziggurat was mine. I've seen them called pyramids in many articles, but as they don't taper all the way to the top, I would have thought them more alike to Ziggurats.

They are simply called stepped pyramids, which differ from "true" pyramids in that they consist of mastabas stacked on top of each other. It is a simple progression from a single mastaba to multiple ones, which then grew to a pyramid as masonry knowledge increased. It's a fairly straightforward technology that has been individually discovered all over the world many times in history.

Ziggurats are a bit more advanced and pretty culturally specific.

Sorry, I've never read that.

Ah, but have you looked?

Edited by aquatus1
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The pyramids are constructed of stone blocks, each individually weighing 100 imperial tons. There is no similar stone nearby. Each stone block is almost perfect in it's dimensions and the joins between each block are more perfect than those attained by modern day builders.

Not quite, the average block weighs 2.5 tons, where did you get 100 tons from? And, precision. Again, its not all so precise as you have heard. At all.

See how snuggly the blocks DO NOT fit together? And notice each block is quite different from the next

Great Pyramid

909325019_4_Great-Pyramid-EG050988JHP.jpg

04_great_pyramid.jpg

Modern day builders cannot build so precisely you say? :lol:

.

Edited by seeder
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Behold the power of slave labour.. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've forgotten the name of the building in South America, but it's a well known one-and it compares very closely with the Mesopotamian building.

and the living quarters on Machu Pichu resemble closely medieval field stone construction on Ireland... given a certain material there are not many innovative ways to apply them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Here is a pic of the pyramid at Chitzen-Itza also the Ziggarut at Ur in Iraq... As you can see one resembles the other the same way an apple resembles an orange... same basic geometric shape...

088_zpsb03235a1.jpg

Ur003_zpsb5af58b0.jpg

Other than the very basic shape.. you can see that they are in no other way similar... The angle of slope is very different, the stair-ramps are drastically different not only in shape, but location,

angle, quantity and attachment to the base structure... Where the meso-American structure has a staircase on each of the four faces of the building, and the stairs hug close to the

slope of the sides, the Ziggurat has three stair cases - all on the same side, that protrude from the front of the structure, and join before merging with the pyramid slope...

As you can see - they really are not all that similar...

Edited by Taun
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another longer distance view of the Ziggurat, showing it's basic shape...

Ur071_zpscdde6b3d.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the pyramids @ Giza: many weights have been quoted for the pyramid core stones from 50-150+ tons. Most of the stones of the pyramid body weigh 2 1/2 tons or less, and most of these stones were quarried within about 300 meters of the pyramids. There are gaps between stones of the GP measuring up to 22 cm.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your comments, which have enlightened me greatly.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a problem, and thank you for being open-minded.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a problem, and thank you for being open-minded.

One must always be receptive to new information, to do otherwise is to allow the brain to wilt, starved of it's raison d'etre.

One of the reasons I started this post was that every picture I've seen of the Pyramids displays them with perfectly sized and aligned blocks, I've not seen the Great Pyramid of Giza, for example, with crumbling masonry.

As for the South American Temples, the one's I described as being very similar to the Ziggurats of Mesopotamia, if I can find the pix I used to have, and which I used to compare the buildings, I'll post them.

But regardless of the design of the South American buildings, in fact whole cities, I'm still intrigued as to how they carved the building blocks without iron implements, which they didn't get until, as far as I can remember, between 100CE and 200 CE.

Thanks for your comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But regardless of the design of the South American buildings, in fact whole cities, I'm still intrigued as to how they carved the building blocks without iron implements, which they didn't get until, as far as I can remember, between 100CE and 200 CE.

Thanks for your comments.

I read once Emery may have been used to cut the granite or at least smooth existing rocks into blocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thank you all for your comments, which have enlightened me greatly.

YW, For more enlightenment check out these Egyptian themed sites: touregypt.com (extensive info on pyramids, ETC). aeroweb.org for quarry info, etc.

osiris.net (also extensive info, and check out the site map [@ bottom] for the "Egyptian ring" a group of related sites, also site map has list of other links).

R. Birdsall's site, http://www.ronaldbir...appendices.html

Em hotep.com and narmer.pl/indexen.htm

For info on Tiawanaku search "Tiawanaku, a city lost in time" (Atlantis/bolivia site) and part 2 has many links, inc. Protzen papers on stone quarrying, cutting, building etc.

Edited by scorpiosonic
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might like to peruse the various pages at this link.

Harte

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might like to peruse the various pages at this link.

Harte

Thanks Harte, I'll take the time to read them all.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The pyramids are constructed of stone blocks, each individually weighing 100 imperial tons. There is no similar stone nearby. Each stone block is almost perfect in it's dimensions and the joins between each block are more perfect than those attained by modern day builders.

How is the precision of the pyramids explained, given the available tools?"

This is exactly why I have such a bad attitude towards the "Ancient Alien theorists". Yes, I know this poster essentially denounced AA, but, the wrong information above came from them. It's exactly why so many of us go on rants about them, their lies are pervasive, it leaks out into society and becomes assumed fact. It proves the adage "tell a lie often enough and it starts sounding like the truth"

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible that we could have a sensible conversation about how ancient buildings were constructed, given the known technology of the time?

.

probably not.

.

The pyramids are constructed of stone blocks, each individually weighing 100 imperial tons. There is no similar stone nearby. Each stone block is almost perfect in it's dimensions

.

really?

are we talking about the same pyramids??

.

and the joins between each block are more perfect than those attained by modern day builders.

.

this simply isn't true.

at. all.

.

How is the precision of the pyramids explained, given the available tools?

.

easily.

the fact that they exist is proof that it was possible to create the pyramids, given the technology of the time.

.

The latest explanation of the stone blocks transportation to the sites is that they could have been dragged over wet sand. Are they serious?

.

the fact is, they DID manage.

alien intervention not required.

.

Perhaps more intriguing are the Ziggurats of South America. Firstly, they are in some cases identical to ziggurats constructed in Mesopotamia-thousands of miles away. There is not historical evidence of any interchange bewteen Mesopotamia and South America-so called experts claim their similarity is coincidence. Rubbish.

.

why is it rubbish?

engineering principles are the same, regardless of geography.

pyramids are the easiest way to build tall structures.

we are clever enough to work that out without being told.

.

The Stone Ziggurats are constructed of rock, dimensions are precise and the blocks, similar to those of the pyramids, are huge. Bear in mind that the ancient South Americans had no iron tools at the time. Try cutting granite with copper or bronze!

.

i can cut granite with wood.

.

There has never been an explanation for the actual precision of the blocks, and the lack of evident tool marks on them.

.

yes there has.

the people building them were skilled masons.

mysteries aren't necessary.

common sense is.

.

Please, leave out the alien theories, but any other sensible ideas worthy of discussion would be appreciated.

.

you aren't really asking sensible questions....

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now lets get on to the nasty little business of 'how' those masons accomplished this fine feat of geometrical megalithic marvel shall we ?

Let's leave the elementary kindie garden version of 'lotsa people pulling with ropes and stacking them up into a stack of stones with a pointy top at the top' back at the juvenile playroom shall we ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's also make sure we skim the content of the thread, being that this is only a couple of pages long, and make sure we understand the OP's position.

3 people like this

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 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.