The Stepped Pyramids of Ancient Iran-Jiroft culture c. 2500BC.

[Thanos5150]

The Ubaid of greater Mesopotamia had been building monumental mud brick stepped platforms as early as c. 5,500BC which it is said these structures were the inspiration for later ziggurats. The oldest ziggurats are believed to have been built c. 3000BC in Sialk, Elam (Iran):

And Uruk, Mesopotamia (Iraq):

And yet despite this long tradition it is often claimed ziggurats did not become common place until after the ziggurat of Ur c. 2100BC:

(As an aside, note the ramp system-not bad for building pyramids, no?)

The cultural peak of Iran's Jiroft culture is typically dated from c. 2500-2200BC. Though artifacts have been found at Jiroft sites dating as early as c. 4000BC, contemporary with early Elam and Sumer, in general the Jiroft appear to date back to at least c. 2900 BC. Some may be familiar with the Jiroft from their prolific curious stone "handbags":

Depicted on some of these handbags and objects, however, are clearly stepped pyramid/ziggurats:

In the Jiroft areas, 2 massive mounds were identified as archeological sites, Konar Sandal A and Konar Sandal B, with A being a ziggurat and B a large fortress of some kind. RCD gave a date range of 2880 to 2200BC.

The Jiroft culture is a relatively recent discovery (2000) in which mass looting of the sites occurred before the authorities were tipped off and archaeological excavations began. Read HERE. On a positive note, the perpetrators were sentenced to death. 

Dating of these sites has been contentious, but again by and large it appears the Jiroft culture date back to at least c. 2900BC with a peak between c. 2500-2200BC. Though stepped platforms pyramid like structures appear in the 1st Dynasty, for context the Old Kingdom "pyramid age" of Egypt dates to c.2700-2200BC (conventional dates, not RCD). The first was a stepped pyramid built by the 3rd Dynasty pharaoh Djoser:

Jiroft pottery in context with some of the stone objects found in situ, however, has been found identical to other sites dated to c. 2800BC giving further context to earlier beginnings. It would seem the Iranians want this site to be a old as possible and Western scholars want it to be younger. 

More interesting reading: Jiroft and the Aratta Kingdom. The Jiroft as Arrata theory is also hotly debated, but personally it seems like a leading candidate at the very least.

Sorry, no Atlantis or fake cartouches. Just actual "mysteries" of history. 

Edited March 29, 2023 by Thanos5150

[Antigonos]

“Sorry, no Atlantis or fake cartouches.  Just actual “mysteries” of history.”

Bullseye. Thank you. There are so many legitimate unanswered questions about history that deserve more attention. Weeding out the nonsense is the first priority. I had no preconceived notions about history when I first began reading about it as a teenager. Keeping an open mind as I educated myself I considered some of the theories being offered by alternative authors. But they’re  mostly just not where the archaeological evidence led to. Nor did other related sciences like anthropology, geology or paleontology. But I always enjoyed speculative leaps of thought. 
 

Likewise there were many initial professional opinions that have through the passage of time become considered fact merely through the act of repetition, without alternative interpretations of the original archaeology being promoted or even considered. You yourself have drawn attention to many. When re-examining original sources, noticing how things were phrased, noting facts and being mindful of separating opinion from those facts seems to be the only logical path forward. 

Your method of separating opinion from the archaeology as well as your dedication to sharing the knowledge you have accrued throughout  your years of travel and research are very much appreciated. By many more than you might think. There are lots of lurkers who read but never comment. Do not ever get discouraged.
 

 The truth, wherever it leads, is all that matters. It’s often lonely being in the middle, but that is where I like you believe the answers most likely lie. 

This is an excellent post my friend.  As an ancient history buff what I enjoy the most about it (amongst many things) is the way you emphasize connections between contemporary or near contemporary cultures. None exist in a vacuum. History is a giant puzzle, and the more pieces that are fit together the more the greater whole comes into focus. 
 

Where in your research did you first come across the Ubaid? When I first began collecting ancient history books long ago it was always Sumer that was touted as the first true civilization. What led you to them? Just curious as a fellow researcher. Regardless their history and accomplishments, especially the specific area of time they occupy within the chronological timeframe of civilization is intriguing and its implications are very interesting. The postulated earlier civilization that stimulated both Sumer and Egypt would seem to be them. No lost advanced civilizations necessary. As you have said more than once, all roads lead through Mesopotamia. 

Judging by the RCD tests that show Abu Roash being as old as 3000BC, and the RCD test results showing Jiroft/Iran being slightly younger, would the First Dynasty of Egypt have had an influence on the latter, or was it the other way around given the earliest traces date to 4000BC being as you said contemporary with Sumer and Elam? Or is there really no way to tell? I know there are no concrete answers, just asking for your opinion.

 

BTW… unrelated, but you have suggested the White Temple may have been the inspiration for the Great House of early Dynastic Egypt. I wonder if the archaic Egyptians not only pictured  it in their serekhs and tombs, and used the palace facade architecture in their First Dynasty Saqqara tombs… may they have actually gone further and recreated the actual building itself somewhere in Egypt? Perhaps Thinis as you have suggested?  Another fascinating topic you have discussed for many years. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2023 by Antigonos

[cladking]

5 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

 

(As an aside, note the ramp system-not bad for building pyramids, no?)

 

There is no means of dragging stones up ramps that is efficient.  Great amounts of heat is produced with all the friction, and the men and dragging materials must be hauled back down to the bottom meaning all the work to lift them is wasted.  Of course you also have to build the ramps.  

Even if a ramp system were not highly inefficient, as they are by definition, they also require extensive work to build.  And if the ramp isn't part of the finished design then all this work is wasted as well.  

Then there is the simple fact that most "pyramids" are stepped and ramping systems are not consistent with stepped structures.  

 

The existence of what appear to be "ramps" on the ziggurats hardly proves that teams of men dragged stone up to build them.  This can't be discounted as a possibility especially on these structures that required very little lifting compared to great pyramids, but it does not prove such highly inefficient means were used.  There are numerous ways stones could travel up these inclines that don't involve men dragging them.   The men could simply have stayed on the top and dragged the stones with long ropes, for instance.  This is far more efficient.  

 

Edited March 29, 2023 by cladking

[Trelane]

Right on cue....

[Thanos5150]

20 hours ago, Antigonos said:

Bullseye. Thank you. There are so many legitimate unanswered questions about history that deserve more attention. Weeding out the nonsense is the first priority. I had no preconceived notions about history when I first began reading about it as a teenager. Keeping an open mind as I educated myself I considered some of the theories being offered by alternative authors. But they’re  mostly just not where the archaeological evidence led to. Nor did other related sciences like anthropology, geology or paleontology. But I always enjoyed speculative leaps of thought. 

TS...?!

Right there with you.

Quote

Likewise there were many initial professional opinions that have through the passage of time become considered fact merely through the act of repetition, without alternative interpretations of the original archaeology being promoted or even considered. You yourself have drawn attention to many. When re-examining original sources, noticing how things were phrased, noting facts and being mindful of separating opinion from those facts seems to be the only logical path forward. 

It was surprising to me how much of this there was and how it continues to this day. For example: G1 and the Merer Diary-Separating Fact from Fiction. Its nothing exclusive to archeology though, humans are just this way. 

Quote

Your method of separating opinion from the archaeology as well as your dedication to sharing the knowledge you have accrued throughout  your years of travel and research are very much appreciated. By many more than you might think. There are lots of lurkers who read but never comment. Do not ever get discouraged.

Thank you for the kind words. A wise man told me the same thing a while back when I needed to hear it which I appreciated more than he knows and will never forget.  

Quote

The truth, wherever it leads, is all that matters. It’s often lonely being in the middle, but that is where I like you believe the answers most likely lie. 

I'm in good company then. 

Quote

This is an excellent post my friend.  As an ancient history buff what I enjoy the most about it (amongst many things) is the way you emphasize connections between contemporary or near contemporary cultures. None exist in a vacuum. History is a giant puzzle, and the more pieces that are fit together the more the greater whole comes into focus. 

Indeed. Very well said. 

Quote

Where in your research did you first come across the Ubaid? When I first began collecting ancient history books long ago it was always Sumer that was touted as the first true civilization. What led you to them? Just curious as a fellow researcher. Regardless their history and accomplishments, especially the specific area of time they occupy within the chronological timeframe of civilization is intriguing and its implications are very interesting. The postulated earlier civilization that stimulated both Sumer and Egypt would seem to be them. No lost advanced civilizations necessary. As you have said more than once, all roads lead through Mesopotamia. 

Sumer led me to them. Just like the Egyptian Old Kingdom led me to the early and predynastic periods. To understand the history and origin of a thing you need to understand what came before so as a matter of common sense this is always my logic path. The Fertile Crescent. But where did the Ubaid come from?  Or the Cucuteni-Trypilian + HERE? The Gobekli Tepe culture didn't just fall out the sky the most advanced from the beginning-where do they come from? On and on it goes. 
 

Quote

Judging by the RCD tests that show Abu Roash being as old as 3000BC, and the RCD test results showing Jiroft/Iran being slightly younger, would the First Dynasty of Egypt have had an influence on the latter, or was it the other way around given the earliest traces date to 4000BC being as you said contemporary with Sumer and Elam? Or is there really no way to tell? I know there are no concrete answers, just asking for your opinion.

I see no reason for them to be related as there was plenty of the like to draw inspiration from in Mesopotamia at the time like the Sailk ziggurat noted in the OP.  Konar Sandal B:

This was only discovered in 2000 and only then by accident. There are many unexcavated/unrecognized tells (mounds) that today look like natural hills dating to the 5th-3rd millenniums. My expectation is that several will be discovered to be stepped platforms/ziggurats. Also, ziggurats have the distinction of being rebuilt over again and again for centuries so the possibility some dated to later times are actually built on significantly older ones is always interesting to me.   

With that being said, I do believe it is possible the late 1st Dynasty "pyramids" may have drawn inspiration from Mesopotamian stepped platforms. 

Quote

BTW… unrelated, but you have suggested the White Temple may have been the inspiration for the Great House of early Dynastic Egypt. I wonder if the archaic Egyptians not only pictured  it in their serekhs and tombs, and used the palace facade architecture in their First Dynasty Saqqara tombs… may they have actually gone further and recreated the actual building itself somewhere in Egypt? Perhaps Thinis as you have suggested?  Another fascinating topic you have discussed for many years. 

Definitely. I am certain the Great House (serekh building) was an actual building that had its origin/inspiration in Sumer which the White Temple is an excellent candidate whose significance to the DE was clearly related to the afterlife. Quoting myself from elsewhere:

The White Temple could have been seen for miles and was no doubt one if not the most stunning pieces of architecture of its time. There is no doubt to me the serekh building was modeled after a Mesopotamian temple and may have actually been a direct representation of one.

Thinis seems a likely candidate for its original location which I think (speculation) is that it was restored/rebuilt at some point in the 3rd/4th Dynasty. Emery said the serekh mastabas of the 1st Dynasty were largely eroded/obscured by the time of Djoser but obviously there was enough left to emulate. I have to wonder if the serekh building was no different and was restored to its former glory as evidenced by the striking detail which it is ubiquitously depicted particualrly beginning in the 4th Dynasty from Dejedfre (perhaps late Khufu) onward.  The Mesopotamian style geometric pattern motif was unique to the 1st Dynasty serekh mastabas which was only emulated in later times when depicting the serekh building so there is no doubt they knew what it was from seeing an actual example.    

 

[Thanos5150]

On 3/29/2023 at 9:51 AM, Thanos5150 said:

 More interesting reading: Jiroft and the Aratta Kingdom. The Jiroft as Arrata theory is also hotly debated, but personally it seems like a leading candidate at the very least.

ENMERKAR AND THE LORD OF ARATTA...? No one? Bueller? Other than being a legendary lost city which Elam (Iran) is one of its likely locations there is also the written account itself that is quite interesting. The earliest copies date to c. 2100BC, a few passages that may interest some: 

My sister, let Aratta fashion gold and silver skilfully on my behalf for Unug. Let them cut the flawless lapis lazuli from the blocks, let them ...... the translucence of the flawless lapis lazuli ....... ...... build a holy mountain in Unug. Let Aratta build a temple brought down from heaven -- your place of worship, the Shrine E-ana; let Aratta skillfully fashion the interior of the holy jipar, your abode; may I, the radiant youth, may I be embraced there by you. Let Aratta submit beneath the yoke for Unug on my behalf..."

...Enki, the lord of abundance and of steadfast decisions, the wise and knowing lord of the Land, the expert of the gods, chosen for wisdom, the lord of Eridug, shall change the speech in their mouths, as many as he had placed there, and so the speech of mankind is truly one."

Sound familiar? Like most Biblical stories the origins are found in the tales of other cultures, namely Mesopotamia and in at least one instance Egypt, well predating not only the Hebrew tales but the existence of the Hebrews themselves. No doubt it was not lost on later Hebrew scribes, probably common knowledge, that the "holy mountain/temple" was most certainly a ziggurat, i.e. "Tower of Babylon".

As to Arrata's location, the key to for me is the source of lapis lazuli which is noted in the Sumerian tales to be in close proximity. In the ancient world the primary source of lapis lazuli was Afghanistan. The cultures of this time substantial enough to be Arrata and in close proximity to Afghanistan would have been the Jiroft of east Iran or the Mehrgarh culture of north Pakistan, which all things considered I vote for the Jiroft.

[Antigonos]

Hey brother! 

What gave me away, was it my undeniable charm or my irresistible  magnetism? LOL!

Yep,  after years lurking here I was finally considering de-cloaking and actually setting up an account to respond, and possibly post something of my own. Only one of your threads could have given me that final push.

Didn’t intend to be quiet for so long, sorry about that. Can’t PM here yet, but hopefully soon. The other site is pretty much a dead place for the most part. I only go there to re-read your threads.

Quality answers to my inquiries as usual, thank you. 

Speaking of some of the responses in your excellent G1 and the Merer Diary thread, I just don’t understand it. I’ve re-read what was written numerous times. There is just no way to spin the information into it conclusively saying those stones were specifically meant for G1. Sure, as part of Akhet-Khufu, that MAY have been what they were for. (Although your argument that chronologically they were more likely to be used for certain ancillary structures in the pyramid complex seems much more likely). So what is the big deal about taking the writings at face value? That all we know for sure is that the stones were being brought to be used for somewhere inside the pyramid complex? By itself the information is fascinating enough. A glimpse, a snapshot in time from a long lost but key period of OK history. Why try to make it into something it isn’t? Is that not what some of these people always scold the fringe for doing? Seemingly two sides of the same coin. I’ve noticed a handful of the same people doing such things throughout your threads. As you say, it’s a human thing, not confined to any scientific or historical discipline.
I always like reading through your detailed and systematic breakdowns of their responses.

 

 I thoroughly enjoyed the article by Richard Covington, thanks for the link. I’ll respond to that and your latest post as soon as I get a chance. Great stuff, a lot to unpack there.

 

Edited March 31, 2023 by Antigonos

[Abramelin]

On 3/29/2023 at 6:51 PM, Thanos5150 said:

The oldest ziggurats are believed to have been built c. 3000BC in Sialk, Elam (Iran):

Some say the oldest ziggurat was built in Sardinia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_d'Accoddi

[Abramelin]

On 3/29/2023 at 6:51 PM, Thanos5150 said:

Sorry, no Atlantis or fake cartouches. Just actual "mysteries" of history. 

And please keep them coming.

[Thanos5150]

22 hours ago, Antigonos said:

Hey brother! 

What gave me away, was it my undeniable charm or my irresistible  magnetism? LOL!

Welll.....

Great to see you my friend.  

Quote

Yep,  after years lurking here I was finally considering de-cloaking and actually setting up an account to respond, and possibly post something of my own. Only one of your threads could have given me that final push.

Awesome. Looking forward to it. 

Quote

Quality answers to my inquiries as usual, thank you. 

Speaking of some of the responses in your excellent G1 and the Merer Diary thread, I just don’t understand it. I’ve re-read what was written numerous times. There is just no way to spin the information into it conclusively saying those stones were specifically meant for G1. Sure, as part of Akhet-Khufu, that MAY have been what they were for. (Although your argument that chronologically they were more likely to be used for certain ancillary structures in the pyramid complex seems much more likely). So what is the big deal about taking the writings at face value? That all we know for sure is that the stones were being brought to be used for somewhere inside the pyramid complex? By itself the information is fascinating enough. A glimpse, a snapshot in time from a long lost but key period of OK history. Why try to make it into something it isn’t? Is that not what some of these people always scold the fringe for doing? Seemingly two sides of the same coin. I’ve noticed a handful of the same people doing such things throughout your threads. As you say, it’s a human thing, not confined to any scientific or historical discipline.
I always like reading through your detailed and systematic breakdowns of their responses.

The problem is still doing it even after one knows better. At that point it's just lying. As are those of like mind when these people are exposed as being the hacks/liars/frauds they are and not only do they do nothing but often encourage it. I just don't get it. 

[Thanos5150]

31 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

Some say the oldest ziggurat was built in Sardinia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_d'Accoddi

Who says this?

The characterization of Monte d'Accoddi as a "ziggurat" is an optimistic interpretation at best, incorrect if not misleading more like it, and with good reason obviously not a term shared by all.  

"Previous studies have defined Monte d'Accoddi as an altar, a ziggurat, a temple, or a step pyramid, and a wide debate has been generated about its hypothetical genetic relationship, reconstructive hypothesis, and significance." 

Regardless, from the OP:

The Ubaid of greater Mesopotamia had been building monumental mud brick stepped platforms as early as c. 5,500BC which it is said these structures were the inspiration for later ziggurats. 

I don't think it is beyond even the most casual observer to understand that Monte d'Accoddi clearly more resembles a stepped platform, a "platform temple", rather than a ziggurat:

Which we note the upper part (restored) is a later addition dating to c.3,000-2800BC.

To that end, no, it is not the "world's oldest ziggurat" and a latecomer as far as Ubaid style stepped platforms go.

History keeps repeating itself: Jiroft Culture Stepped Pyramid Ziggurats c. 2500BC, Iran

Wow. Now I have proof senility is setting in, though luckily so is Alzheimer's so I'll forget, but my response to you then when you posted about MdA: 

Quote

The OP is about ziggurats in Iran and the historical implications which instead of actually discussing the topic your response is to try and create your own OP by copy and pasting a previous post  about Monte d'Accoddi. What is your point? Obviously this interests you, it was discussed at some length in that thread, but if you want this to be a topic why not just start your own thread? You even said yourself: "Ancient Sardinia is worth a thread on itself." which I agreed. 

 

[Tom1200]

3 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Which we note the upper part (restored) is a later addition dating to c.3,000-2800BC.

To that end, no, it is not the "world's oldest ziggurat" and a latecomer as far as Ubaid style stepped platforms go.

I love history!  I love that a 5000-year-old structure is (paraphrasing you) "a recent renovation" and hardly worthy of mention.

Round our way there are 50-year-old apartment buildings that are already condemned and scheduled for demolition.  But places 100 times older are just "a later addition" to an exant site?  Incredible!

What percentage of ancient sites have been explored?  How many others are there, awaiting a proper and scientific analysis?  I struggle with this concept but: here and now, in the 21st century, in a world on the cusp of unimaginable technological acceleration, there is so much of our 'recent' past that remains unknown.

I don't want to go down the route of other threads, with endless pointless speculation on the ideas and motives of our ancient ancestors. Let's stick to evidence? and consider matters such as:

• What are the oldest known built structures?  By category: e.g. ditch, wall, enclosure, roofed building, dedicated building, ceremonial building, etc.
• How precisely can we date sites?
• Can we construct an accurate chronology that shows development and influence, or are we unable to draw such conclusions?
• Did the builders leave sufficient evidence for us to interpret their thoughts and intentions?
• What percentage of ancient sites have been lost forever?  What knowledge has been lost with them?
• Can we reject speculation by the likes of Graham Handcock, or do those folks raise valid questions that deserve intelligent responses?
• Is there any reason to believe that anything built in antiquity required advanced science or technology?

I know I'm offering far more questions than 'answers' here, but I've never been to these ancient places nor have I studied history or archaeology.  Those of us who lack degrees or years of dedicated study, ought (IMO) to defer humbly to the experts when they reach educated conclusions based on decades of careful analysis. 

[Thanos5150]

7 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

I don't want to go down the route of other threads, with endless pointless speculation on the ideas and motives of our ancient ancestors. Let's stick to evidence? and consider matters such as:

• What are the oldest known built structures?  By category: e.g. ditch, wall, enclosure, roofed building, dedicated building, ceremonial building, etc.
• How precisely can we date sites?
• Can we construct an accurate chronology that shows development and influence, or are we unable to draw such conclusions?
• Did the builders leave sufficient evidence for us to interpret their thoughts and intentions?
• What percentage of ancient sites have been lost forever?  What knowledge has been lost with them?
• Can we reject speculation by the likes of Graham Handcock, or do those folks raise valid questions that deserve intelligent responses?
• Is there any reason to believe that anything built in antiquity required advanced science or technology?

I know I'm offering far more questions than 'answers' here, but I've never been to these ancient places nor have I studied history or archaeology.  Those of us who lack degrees or years of dedicated study, ought (IMO) to defer humbly to the experts when they reach educated conclusions based on decades of careful analysis. 

1) Manmade structures, simple dwellings made of wood and tusks etc. date back at least 27,000yrs to Dolni Vistonice. The oldest monumental architecture is the Gobekli Tepe sphere with the rub being the most sophisticated is the oldest with no precedent clearly implying there is older still yet to be found. From GT onward monumental architecture becomes increasingly and relatively rapidly ubiquitous. 

2) Relative and Absolute Dating Methods in Archaeology. RCD, for example, is reliable only to about 55,000yrs which is being continuously calibrated more often than not revising dates older by decades or centuries, in some cases millennia the farther back in time you go. Even then there is always a date range depending on the sample and age that can be as much as +/- 400yrs or more i.e. a span of 800yrs. It's a useful tool but not without its variables. Relative dating and other methods have their own inaccuracies but overall we can ball park things pretty good, particularly the younger the site, but "precise" as in within a few years-no. But even though it may be only a few centuries off, this can be quite meaningful within the historical period. 

With that being said, what many do not realize is Egypt is the lynch pin for dating of the historical period which the dating scheme, the Sothic Cycle (1460yrs), was so flawed it was not only revised early on several times but outright abandoned in the 1960's-70's yet they still kept the dates. Kind of kooky but despite RCD has shown they have still gotten things mostly correct within a few to several centuries at worst. Quoting myself from elsewhere: 

In 1949 the Egyptologist Selim Hassan gave the dates of the 4th Dynasty as 2900BC, the OK at 2900-2675BC, and the 1st Dynasty at 3400BC.

This was the general consensus of Hassan's day which means that as late as 1949 Egyptologists at large had a much different chronology than we have today.

Sourcing Emery from 1961 regarding the length of the 1st-2nd Dynasties from various which I edit for brevity:

Breasted (1921)- 3400-2888BC
Hall (1924)- 3500-3190BC
Weigall (1925)- 3407-3190BC
Drioton and Vandier (1938)- 3197-2778BC
Sewell (1942)- 3188-2815BC
Frankfort (1948)- 3100-2700BC
Hayes (1953)- 3200-2780BC

For what it is worth being from 1961, Emery notes that wood samples RCD'd from the 1st Dynasty tomb 3035 gave dates of between 3112-2592BC and 3250-2770BC.

Emery concludes:
"At the present stage of our knowledge we cannot with safety go beyond a tentative estimate that the Unification of Egypt took place within the period 3400-3200BC; there we must leave it."

So to answer my own question, it would appear that for whatever reason these dates were revised more in line with current estimates sometime in the late 1930's though many still did not agree. Apparently Hassan was one who did not and choose to stick with an early set of dates.

One thing that greatly influenced the revision of the dating of Egypt were discoveries being made in Mesopotamia in the early 20th century which Egypt was pushed forward in time to accommodate an older Mesopotamia. Which begs the question is Mesopotamia even dated remotely correctly as well. I suspect this where the revisions begin with the likes of Drioton and Vandier which I know that this was heavy on Frankfort's mind in 1948 which his dates of 3100-2700BC would seem to be the reference of many later Egyptologists as these are the dates most commonly used.

Kingship of the Gods, Frankfort 1948.

Ok. So here we have it. If we scroll down to the chronological table we can see Frankfort's dates are based on the work of Smith, Jacobsen, and Parker who Thorkild Jacobsen was one of the eminent Assyriologists of his day author of the seminal Treasures of Darkness. Smith is an Assyriologist as is apparently Parker.
 

Skimming through Frankfort he gives no justification for this new dating and takes it at face value. From here we go to The Sumerian King List by Jacobsen, 1939. One thing we can gather rather quickly is Sumerian chronology is a total rat's nest in and of itself. On p189 he notes Egyptian chronology citing Meyer, who I believe is the same Meyer who revised the use of the Sothic cycle for AE chronology in the early 1900's which I referenced in passing in the OP, who gives a date for Menes of 3197BC +/- 100-200yrs, and Scharff who favors a lower date, shortly before 3000BC, based on his own interpretation of the Sothic Cycle.

So here we have it- Jacobsen is talking about the Mesopotamian finds in Egypt which are agreed to have been imported from Jamdat Nasr (Uruk) which they date the corresponding period in Mesopotamia to the few centuries prior ending in 3050BC. He says:
 

Quote

There is very noticeable agreement between Egyptian chronology, which places the end of the interrelations in the centuries immediately before 3000BC, and our Mesopotamian chronology, which places the end of those interrelations in the period which ended ca 3050BC.

Regarding Meyer's dating:

Quote

“Meyer proposed that the Egyptian calendar, having no leap year, fell steadily behind until it corrected itself during the year of the ‘rising of Sothis’ [Sothis is a star we call Sirius]. The theory says that the Egyptians knew that 1,460 years were necessary for the calendar to correct itself because the annual sunrise appearance of the star Sirius corresponded to the first day of Egypt’s flood season only once every 1,460 years (like a broken watch that is correct twice a day) and that the Egyptians dated important events from this Great Sothic Year.”

As early as 1961 Emery notes that the use of the Sothic Cycle for AE chronology is completely bogus. Meyer says using the Sothic Cycle:

"I do not hesitate to call the introduction of the Egyptian calendar on July 19, 4241 BC the first certain date n the history of the world."

Oops. So Jacobsen is relying on Meyer who we know is bull*** to line up their chronology and further still Alexander Scharff, who favors a date of "directly before 3000BC" for the founding of Egypt. Scharff came up with this date because he believed, based on the scope of archeological evidence he knew of at the time, that AE history spanned only two Sothic cycles and not three. Source.p39.

To conclude, to answer my own question, the dates of c. 3100BC for the beginning of Dynastic Egypt was derived by the now debunked Sothic Cycle chronology which was bolstered by reckonings of Sumerian chronology despite the fact the Sothic Cycle chronology was bogus to begin with. This was repeated and refined by the likes of Frankfort, who cited Jacobsen who was erroneously citing Meyer and Scharff, and voila there we have the beginning of chronology of Egypt c. 3100BC. All based on nonsense. I would also note it is interesting that when Jacobsen picked his sources he choose Meyer and Scharff whose opinions were not shared by the majority of the Egyptology luminaries of the day i.e. Petrie, Budge and the like. Meaning Jacobsen cherry picked sources that agreed with his own conclusions at the expense of ignoring the more prominent conventional wisdom of the day. Hmmm. And ironically, no matter what source he choose, based their dates on the bogus Sothic Cycle so they were all wrong no matter what. Yet here we are today using the same bogus dates despite the fact it has been known for quite some time the chronological use of the Sothic Cycle was debunked and even admitted to in the 1970's edition of the Cambridge Egyptian History. Very strange.

What I still have not answered, however, is why Hassan used these particular dates which seem to in general jibe more with the likes of Sir Arthur Weigall whose chronology is quite interesting and in JP Lepre's opinion (The Egyptian Pyramids, 1979) the most reliable chronological source who puts the formation of Dynastic Egypt at 3400BC and the beginning of the 4th Dynasty at 2813BC. Which is right in line with the averages of the RCD dates.

So "humble readers"-if you thought you were confused before you are welcome.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

More of the same:

Prior to the Ebla tablets the oldest reference to Harran was c.2000BC and the city was believed to have been founded towards the end of the 3rd millennium which would be sometime between 2300-2000BC. Obviously, in context of the noted text, it stands to reason this would have occurred at least a few centuries before meaning sometime c.2300-2200BC. This should not be that hard for you to comprehend.

The Ebla tablets were discovered in the 1970's and translations offered in the decades that followed. The texts that mention Harran are dated to the last few generations before Ebla was sacked which is most commonly dated by way of the Near East "Middle chronology" of 2334-2154BC corresponding to the Akkadian Empire The "c.2300BC" is just a placeholder date rounded up for convenience with the more common date used c.2250BC which itself is rounded up from the average of the high and low of these dates which would be 2244BC. This is but one chronology used. The Low chronology is 2270-2083BC which would date these tablets on average to c.2177BC. If the Ultra-low chronology is used the average is then 2109BC. So while you are clinging to a date of "c.2300BC" it is actually c.2244BC and is only worse if other chronologies are used being c.2177BC and c.2109BC respectively.

Middle chronology is derived from fixing the two dates of the reign of Hammurabi (by way of Ammisaduqa), 1792-1750BC, and the sack of Babylon to 1595BC. The reign of Hammurabi, for example, is derived from highly contested interpretations of the the "Venus Tablet" which vary more than 200yrs where some suggest it is bunk in the first place. To make matters worse, the Venus Tablet dates to the 8th century BC and is said to be copies from earlier documents from the reign of Ammisaduqa, the 4th ruler after Hammurabi. Physicist Wayne Mitchel, for example, provides a "Venus Solution" which redates Ammisaduga's rule to 1419BC meaning Hammurabi would have first ruled c.1565BC, over 200yrs later than the accepted Middle chronology date. Meaning, this would also pull the Ebla tablets forward in time by over 200yrs as well, i.e the Ultra low chronology of c.2109BC. Oops. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

On and on it goes. "Precise" is a relative term even in the historical period though this is to mean within decades and centuries, not millennia. When you see exact dates like 2589–2566 BC for the reign of Khufu and the like they are nonsense. Despite this uncertainty, though it may be just a few centuries, there is no goof that is going to make the Giza pyramids, for example, magically 8,000+ years older which I think it what you are getting at.   

Bed time. Try to do more tomorrow time permitting. Excellent post though Tom. 

Edited April 2, 2023 by Thanos5150

[Antigonos]

 Regarding your Jiroft post and article:

   The archaeological history of the site,  although not long relatively speaking as of yet, is an intriguing study on multiple levels. 

The discovery of the site itself was dramatic, with the flooded river uncovering tombs nobody knew were there. (Although not the same circumstances, it reminds me of the tombs at Nineveh that had been washed away by a violent flooding of the Khosr during the neo-Assyrian period).

That idea in and of itself I find irresistible, that a site written about in ancient records but then lost gets exposed to the modern day by natural phenomena. It absolutely sucks that thieves were on the scene so quickly, looting artifacts and destroying their context within the tombs. To think that the site lay undisturbed for so long only to have it pillaged as soon as it sees the light of day is both heartbreaking and infuriating. But at least the authorities eventually got the situation under control. 

Madjidzadeh certainly seems like the right man to be heading the excavations. From what I read in the article  he’s one of those people you mentioned who is pushing for the “far older/most influential of the area” claim. I think it’s too soon to be making such definitive statements when so much of the site still needs to be excavated and studied. (And I can’t believe how much there still is to go). But I certainly can’t fault him for his passion and enthusiasm.

I will say though when it comes to the idea of Jiroft being the previously undiscovered center of production for chlorite vessels the evidence, though not yet conclusive seems pretty good. A place that had only been known indirectly from its products found in other areas has itself been unearthed. I love the thought. Interesting too that chlorite artifacts like bowls and cups weren’t ever put to practical use, only being manufactured apparently for being grave goods. 
 

The observation that in those artifacts there was a high level of artistic quality that seemingly appeared from nowhere caught my eye. It reminded me of the eye lenses on the Egyptian statues of Rahotep and Nofret. The peak of the craft that appeared so suddenly then bizarrely disappeared afterwards never to be seen in Egypt again.

I found the part about Jiroft’s agriculture possibly being more advantageous than Mesopotamia’s interesting although I’m not yet sure how much weight to give it. One of the things I need to research more. The discovery of their use of artesian wells reminded me of the Assyrian use of qanat systems. The common theme to both being creative use of the natural landscape to supplement their main river water supply.

Konar Sandal A and B… what else can I say but wow. These are beyond impressive!

The article says that KSA being a ziggurat  “like its Sumerian counterparts was probably a sacred structure”. In the next paragraph it’s stated that “little is known of the beliefs and rituals of the Jiroft inhabitants”. Given what is known it’s a reasonable enough deduction, but I’m reminded of every monumental building in Egypt being termed either a temple or tomb, and the ever present “it was symbolic” go-to default whenever there are no clear answers. Were ALL ziggurats religious, or were some for administrative purposes? (Four to five million blocks- just unbelievable!).

KSB is a huge two story windowed citadel with a base spanning 33 acres. I would love to have seen this bad boy when it was just finished and brand new.
 

I agree with your deduction that the key to determining the location of Aratta are the location of the lapis lazuli mines. Among other things, the written description of  “battlements fashioned from green lapis lazuli” really makes clear how prized it was, that is a positively enormous amount. You favor Jiroft over Mergarh as the location of Aratta. Knowing you, something specific must have tipped the scales for you in favor of the former. What was it?

As an aside, I’m drawn to the historical information in the song. The king of Uruk corresponds with the ruler of Aratta telling him to send his craftsmen and architects to work his gold, silver and lapis lazuli for him. (Orange alabaster too, never had heard of it before this article). As noted in the article this really speaks to how well known Aratta’s artisans were throughout the area; an area already full of talented craftsmen which only highlights just how renowned the Arattans were. It will be very interesting to see if in the future they will be able to trace the artifacts in the royal treasure of Ur back to Jiroft’s workshops.

I’m fascinated by any surviving written correspondence (or in this case a record of such) between ancient rulers. I read Hellenistic correspondence and my copy of The Amarna Papers is beat to crap. These bring out the human factor that is so often disregarded when reading history. I have an article about an Egyptian papyrus that tells the story of a farmer who is bringing a complaint against a policeman, because the policeman confiscated a load of bread the farmer was bringing to a prisoner he was related to. Little things like this remind us that even thousands of years ago, people were still just everyday people.

I found this ending part of the article striking:

”…the possibility of earlier remains buried by tectonic activity suggested by aerial photos showing evidence of past ground shifts.”  Fascinating!  Apparently there is much more to be discovered, in addition to the other mounds that you mentioned which dated to the 5th-3rd millenia.

Do you ever get frustrated knowing we won’t live long enough to get the entire story out of all these ancient sites? It bugs the hell out of me personally. Now to be sure, we’ve read about many fantastic past discoveries and every day in the present our understanding of the past  keeps increasing. But I want ALL the answers before I go, bro. It’s always in the back of my mind that that will never happen. It’s the same thing with the exploration of Mars. We should already have had manned scientific expeditions going there. As it is, it’s going to take centuries for the planet to be explored and studied to understand the geological history of the planet. I want to know NOW dammit.
 

Ah well. A story for another time.

To conclude, although the fact that these sites are being stripped, robbing Humankind of its past as fast as we can put it together (to say nothing of wholesale destructions of sites like Nimrud and Nineveh which had never been fully excavated, true archaeological crimes against humanity), I found the small secondary article at the end, “Iran’s Archaeological Renaissance” to be uplifting.

There’s hope for the future.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 2, 2023 by Antigonos

[Antigonos]

Thank you for that exhaustive breakdown of the history of Egyptian chronology. The fact that Weigall’s date range is the correct one being validated by the RCD studies should have been enough to light a fire under the ass of Egyptologists to return to the pre-Sothic cycle conclusions within the profession. I’d like to know why this isn’t happening.

Leave it to Emery to call bs on it. Archaic Egypt needs to be made required reading. It’s that simple. I quite like Weigall too. My most recent acquisition of his work is his Tutankhamun and Other Essays.

[Thanos5150]

1 hour ago, Antigonos said:

 Regarding your Jiroft post and article:

   The archaeological history of the site,  although not long relatively speaking as of yet, is an intriguing study on multiple levels. 

The discovery of the site itself was dramatic, with the flooded river uncovering tombs nobody knew were there. (Although not the same circumstances, it reminds me of the tombs at Nineveh that had been washed away by a violent flooding of the Khosr during the neo-Assyrian period).

That idea in and of itself I find irresistible, that a site written about in ancient records but then lost gets exposed to the modern day by natural phenomena. It absolutely sucks that thieves were on the scene so quickly, looting artifacts and destroying their context within the tombs. To think that the site lay undisturbed for so long only to have it pillaged as soon as it sees the light of day is both heartbreaking and infuriating. But at least the authorities eventually got the situation under control. 

Madjidzadeh certainly seems like the right man to be heading the excavations. From what I read in the article  he’s one of those people you mentioned who is pushing for the “far older/most influential of the area” claim. I think it’s too soon to be making such definitive statements when so much of the site still needs to be excavated and studied. (And I can’t believe how much there still is to go). But I certainly can’t fault him for his passion and enthusiasm.

I will say though when it comes to the idea of Jiroft being the previously undiscovered center of production for chlorite vessels the evidence, though not yet conclusive seems pretty good. A place that had only been known indirectly from its products found in other areas has itself been unearthed. I love the thought. Interesting too that chlorite artifacts like bowls and cups weren’t ever put to practical use, only being manufactured apparently for being grave goods. 
 

The observation that in those artifacts there was a high level of artistic quality that seemingly appeared from nowhere caught my eye. It reminded me of the eye lenses on the Egyptian statues of Rahotep and Nofret. The peak of the craft that appeared so suddenly then bizarrely disappeared afterwards never to be seen in Egypt again.

I found the part about Jiroft’s agriculture possibly being more advantageous than Mesopotamia’s interesting although I’m not yet sure how much weight to give it. One of the things I need to research more. The discovery of their use of artesian wells reminded me of the Assyrian use of qanat systems. The common theme to both being creative use of the natural landscape to supplement their main river water supply.

Konar Sandal A and B… what else can I say but wow. These are beyond impressive!

The article says that KSA being a ziggurat  “like its Sumerian counterparts was probably a sacred structure”. In the next paragraph it’s stated that “little is known of the beliefs and rituals of the Jiroft inhabitants”. Given what is known it’s a reasonable enough deduction, but I’m reminded of every monumental building in Egypt being termed either a temple or tomb, and the ever present “it was symbolic” go-to default whenever there are no clear answers. Were ALL ziggurats religious, or were some for administrative purposes? (Four to five million blocks- just unbelievable!).

KSB is a huge two story windowed citadel with a base spanning 33 acres. I would love to have seen this bad boy when it was just finished and brand new.
 

I agree with your deduction that the key to determining the location of Aratta are the location of the lapis lazuli mines. Among other things, the written description of  “battlements fashioned from green lapis lazuli” really makes clear how prized it was, that is a positively enormous amount. You favor Jiroft over Mergarh as the location of Aratta. Knowing you, something specific must have tipped the scales for you in favor of the former. What was it?

As an aside, I’m drawn to the historical information in the song. The king of Uruk corresponds with the ruler of Aratta telling him to send his craftsmen and architects to work his gold, silver and lapis lazuli for him. (Orange alabaster too, never had heard of it before this article). As noted in the article this really speaks to how well known Aratta’s artisans were throughout the area; an area already full of talented craftsmen which only highlights just how renowned the Arattans were. It will be very interesting to see if in the future they will be able to trace the artifacts in the royal treasure of Ur back to Jiroft’s workshops.

I’m fascinated by any surviving written correspondence (or in this case a record of such) between ancient rulers. I read Hellenistic correspondence and my copy of The Amarna Papers is beat to crap. These bring out the human factor that is so often disregarded when reading history. I have an article about an Egyptian papyrus that tells the story of a farmer who is bringing a complaint against a policeman, because the policeman confiscated a load of bread the farmer was bringing to a prisoner he was related to. Little things like this remind us that even thousands of years ago, people were still just everyday people.

I found this ending part of the article striking:

”…the possibility of earlier remains buried by tectonic activity suggested by aerial photos showing evidence of past ground shifts.”  Fascinating!  Apparently there is much more to be discovered, in addition to the other mounds that you mentioned which dated to the 5th-3rd millenia.

Do you ever get frustrated knowing we won’t live long enough to get the entire story out of all these ancient sites? It bugs the hell out of me personally. Now to be sure, we’ve read about many fantastic past discoveries and every day in the present our understanding of the past  keeps increasing. But I want ALL the answers before I go, bro. It’s always in the back of my mind that that will never happen. It’s the same thing with the exploration of Mars. We should already have had manned scientific expeditions going there. As it is, it’s going to take centuries for the planet to be explored and studied to understand the geological history of the planet. I want to know NOW dammit.

Ah well. A story for another time.

What a treat to wake up with my morning coffee and read something like this for a change. Just excellent. 

Busy day so a few quick thoughts.  

Madjidzadeh says he's found 250 more sites so this is just a start, which is crazy. Wonder how far they've made it in 20+ years. People are always looking for "lost civilizations", well Jiroft is one that has been found. The systematic widespread looting of Near East sites is absolutely devastating. 

I love me some Mehrgarh, one of the most important archeological sites of the period for several reasons, but Mesopotamian tales describe the way to Arrata as through Susa and Anshan which Jiroft is the next stop. 

Mehrgarh is still quite a ways away. The Jiroft are showing to be such a substantial a culture it seems hard to believe they would be omitted from these tales if Mehrgarh were Arrata as they would have basically had to have gone right through Jiroft to get there.  

Archeology, space exploration, science breakthroughs. I am still at an age where I will probably/hopefully see a lot of amazing things discovered but may not be around to see what next. To infinity and beyond! 

Edited April 2, 2023 by Thanos5150

[Antigonos]

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

I love me some Mehrgarh, one of the most important archeological sites of the period for several reasons, but Mesopotamian tales describe the way to Arrata as through Susa and Anshan which Jiroft is the next stop. 

Mehrgarh is still quite a ways away. The Jiroft are showing to be such a substantial a culture it seems hard to believe they would be omitted from these tales if Mehrgarh were Arrata as they would have basically had to have gone right through Jiroft to get there.  

 

I knew there was a convincing and logical reason for you choosing Jiroft. This is great, thanks.

[Thanos5150]

On 4/1/2023 at 2:08 PM, Tom1200 said:

• Can we construct an accurate chronology that shows development and influence, or are we unable to draw such conclusions?
• Did the builders leave sufficient evidence for us to interpret their thoughts and intentions?
• What percentage of ancient sites have been lost forever?  What knowledge has been lost with them?
• Can we reject speculation by the likes of Graham Handcock, or do those folks raise valid questions that deserve intelligent responses?
• Is there any reason to believe that anything built in antiquity required advanced science or technology?

3) In general we can, but as Gobekli Tepe showed us, and will continue to show when their progenitor sites are found, we are definitely still in for some surprises. I have posted link to Dolni Vestonice several times which is very significant site. For example:

Text below translated from the display:

In July 1996 it was shown that the ceramic fragments from Pavlov had preserved the oldest known preserved imprints of textiles in the world. To enable people to use this technology, there had to be a sufficiently stable living area, and they needed to be very familiar with their surroundings.

They probably used nettles for thread fibres, and if they were able to spin and weave thread and textiles, they undoubtedly had related skills such as basket weaving, making fish and animal nets, and traps.

The ethnographic observation is clear that the treatment of organic materials could well be more important in their daily life than we usually conclude from the better preserved stone and bone. Additionally, it provides information about an activity probably attributable exclusively to women.
 

Dexterity of the First Weavers

A decade ago, experts did not dare to think about people living in the last ice age making textiles.

However, on a lump of fired clay from the Dolní Věstonice / Pavlov area were found the impressions of substances from plant fibres. The whole process of picking nettles, crushing the dried stem, preparation of tow, spinning the thread and then weaving was tested and shown to be possible using tools of the time by M. Bunatova. Urbanová (ca 1999)

Source: Display, Dolní Věstonice Museum

From Buňatová (1999) and Sosna (2000):

The new and surprising discovery of textile imprints at Pavlov I and Dolní Věstonice I,II attracted attention and opened discussions. As was the case with ceramics, the textile technologies were also tested experimentally.

Soffer et al. (2000) note the following:

The weavers of Upper Paleolithic Moravia were not only manufacturing a variety of cordage types but, more important, also producing plaited basketry and twined and plain woven cloth which approach levels of technical sophistication heretofore associated exclusively with the Neolithic and later time periods

Unfortunately, much of this technology is evident only to those who have considerable experience with perishable material culture and have examined the original evidence firsthand. Regrettably, most Paleolithic archaeologists have not been trained to do so or have lacked access to the original specimens.

This weaving is about 15,000yrs older then the next oldest found in Peru dated to c.10,000BC. That's a big gap. 

As far as how your question pertains to the rise of civilization, there are many questions about the true extent of the interconnectedness of known cultures and their influences on one another, diffusion, and also in many cases their origins. We don't know where the Ubaid came from or Naqada for example. Again, Jiroft is a whole culture that was discovered by accident barely 20yrs ago. The short of it is while new discoveries might make for a more complex ancient past which might change the minutia of various narratives, timelines, etc, for as much as we know there is still quite a bit we don't but by any appearances as of yet not enough to radically change the general chronology of human development. 

4) We can infer meaning, right or wrong, but more often than not it is not explicit if even known at all. Hence why archeology often classifies everything as a "tomb" or "temple" when the fact is often we do not know for sure. This is code speak for "don't know". 

5) Of course no one can say but personally I think across the world the number of ancient sites big and small yet to be discovered would be in the thousands. As far as how much knowledge has been lost, the DE, for example, said not one word about how they built pyramids and here we are still wondering how they did it nearly 5,000yrs later. I don't think it is even "lost knowledge" per se' but rather more so the historicity of it is lost to us. For example, this 3rd Dynasty temple at Saqqara:

   

They are not just slapping up blocks hoping for the best. A lot of engineering and mathematics were required to make this. Drawings, plans. I wish I could find the paper again, but this temple originally had a curved roof which the mathematics and engineering behind it was quite impressive. There are no papyri to be found that shows us how they did it, its "lost", but the fact it is there shows they did do it which includes the required engineering and mathematics. Hopefully that makes sense.  

6) I think most of the questions are valid, it's the answers they come up with that are the problem. 

7) No. I think this what confuses the issue though-"advanced technology". Compared to what? As amazing as they are, if the pyramids, for example, were built by the Greeks or Romans there would be much less mystery to it. Is Roman technology "advanced technology"? No and in fact not any different than what the DE had or within the realm of possibility they did or at least could have had as inferred once again by the structures and work themselves. Not sure what the push back was by some, but this is ultimately what this thread was trying to address: Megalithic Strangers Passing in the Night. And this: 19th Century Stone Working-Secrets of the Ancient World Revealed

 

Edited April 3, 2023 by Thanos5150

[Kenemet]

59 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

4) We can infer meaning, right or wrong, but more often than not it is not explicit if even known at all. Hence why archeology often classifies everything as a "tomb" or "temple" when the fact is often we do not know for sure. This is code speak for "don't know". 

While this was true to some extent up to the (approx) 1930's, archaeology has come a long way.  Nowadays it would be likely to be described as "a building" or "a structure" and details noted but no assignment given unless there was clear indication that something was going on.  Gobekli Tepe can be seen as a temple because of ritual figures and so forth... you wouldn't find them in a house and the structure is not "liveable" enough to be a palace.  There's no layers of dung to indicate it was an animal pen (and so on and so forth.)

In the case where burials are done INSIDE a home (common practice in some areas of the ancient world) the structure (which has living areas and a cooking hearth) is described as a house and not "tomb" or other - as shown here in this article about in-home burials at Catalhoyuk: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna43580320

Quote

 Of course no one can say but personally I think across the world the number of ancient sites big and small yet to be discovered would be in the thousands.

More likely a number approaching hundreds of thousands.  Sadly, many of the early sites are in areas of modern conflict and are likely to have been damaged or destroyed in modern times.

Quote

They are not just slapping up blocks hoping for the best. A lot of engineering and mathematics were required to make this. Drawings, plans.

I'd dispute this.  I've seen buildings done by people who can't read and wouldn't know a floorplan from a fractal.  Trial and error -- and apprentices and masters seem to be the key.  Look at the longhouses of the Pacific northwest.  They're complex and beautifully crafted by cultures that were illiterate.

They need to know how to cut and shape, they need to know how to stack and chink (or mortar) but they don't need math to tell them how to haul things.  Cut too many blocks and they can be used for other things.  Too few blocks and you send to the quarry for another load.  Anything that's the wrong shape can be filled in or cut to size as you get it into place.

And if you look at ancient structures, there's no way (given that no two stones are alike) they could have been doing anything more than "we need three columns so cut me nine sections of this size".

European settlers to the Americas built all kinds of things (elaborate log cabins with dog trots and multi-room bars) without architectural plans or sitting down and doing any sort of math.  There's no evidence that anyone used math in building stave churches (the Norse were generally illiterate) or even the rock-cut chapels and rooms at Petra.  And then there's all the Harappan buildings (they didn't have writing.)

No one has yet come up with an explanation for why you'd need anything more than basic addition and subtraction for building a pyramid or a temple. 

 

[Hanslune]

43 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

More likely a number approaching hundreds of thousands.  Sadly, many of the early sites are in areas of modern conflict and are likely to have been damaged or destroyed in modern times.

I'd dispute this.  I've seen buildings done by people who can't read and wouldn't know a floorplan from a fractal.  Trial and error -- and apprentices and masters seem to be the key.  Look at the longhouses of the Pacific northwest.  They're complex and beautifully crafted by cultures that were illiterate.

They need to know how to cut and shape, they need to know how to stack and chink (or mortar) but they don't need math to tell them how to haul things.  Cut too many blocks and they can be used for other things.  Too few blocks and you send to the quarry for another load.  Anything that's the wrong shape can be filled in or cut to size as you get it into place.

And if you look at ancient structures, there's no way (given that no two stones are alike) they could have been doing anything more than "we need three columns so cut me nine sections of this size".

European settlers to the Americas built all kinds of things (elaborate log cabins with dog trots and multi-room bars) without architectural plans or sitting down and doing any sort of math.  There's no evidence that anyone used math in building stave churches (the Norse were generally illiterate) or even the rock-cut chapels and rooms at Petra.  And then there's all the Harappan buildings (they didn't have writing.)

No one has yet come up with an explanation for why you'd need anything more than basic addition and subtraction for building a pyramid or a temple. 

 

I've seen Arab Dhows being built by hand with no plans just a master builder's expertise. They were using some modern power tools but measurements were by eye.

Sites, less than 1000th of 1 percent of the world's land has been excavated properly. The number of untouched mounds in the fertile crescent number in the thousands. With current technology we should be digging for thousands of years...... In the 80s I walked over a significant portion of the south-eastern Cyprus and detected some 330 possible sites, ranging from masonry outlines to just collections of sherds and lithics.

[Thanos5150]

1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

While this was true to some extent up to the (approx) 1930's, archaeology has come a long way.  Nowadays it would be likely to be described as "a building" or "a structure" and details noted but no assignment given unless there was clear indication that something was going on.  Gobekli Tepe can be seen as a temple because of ritual figures and so forth... you wouldn't find them in a house and the structure is not "liveable" enough to be a palace.  There's no layers of dung to indicate it was an animal pen (and so on and so forth.)

It still goes on today all the same.

Quote

In the case where burials are done INSIDE a home (common practice in some areas of the ancient world) the structure (which has living areas and a cooking hearth) is described as a house and not "tomb" or other - as shown here in this article about in-home burials at Catalhoyuk: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna43580320

And? No one is saying just because burials were done under the floors of homes therefore they are tombs or temples.  

Quote

More likely a number approaching hundreds of thousands.  Sadly, many of the early sites are in areas of modern conflict and are likely to have been damaged or destroyed in modern times.

So thousands. 

Quote

I'd dispute this.  I've seen buildings done by people who can't read and wouldn't know a floorplan from a fractal.  Trial and error -- and apprentices and masters seem to be the key.  Look at the longhouses of the Pacific northwest.  They're complex and beautifully crafted by cultures that were illiterate.

Its not an opinion. Building in Egypt Pharaonic Stone Masonry, Dieter Arnold.

I'm going with Arnold (and the Egyptians) on this one. See HERE.

Edited April 3, 2023 by Thanos5150

[Thanos5150]

19 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Its not an opinion. Building in Egypt Pharaonic Stone Masonry, Dieter Arnold.

I'm going with Arnold (and the Egyptians) on this one. 

Lest I forget:

The Rhind Mathematical papyrus dates to c. 1650BC and was copied from an original dating to sometime between c. 1985-1795 BC. The document solves 84 math problems:
 

Quote

They include methods of measuring a ship’s mast and rudder, calculating the volume of cylinders and truncated pyramids, dividing grain quantities into fractions and verifying how much bread to exchange for beer. They even compute a circle’s area using an early approximation of pi. (They use 256/81, about 3.16, instead of pi’s value of 3.14159....)

[www.nytimes.com]
[www.britishmuseum.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]

The Moscow papyrus dates to c. 1800BC and has 25 math problems:

One of the problems is figuring out the volume of a frustum:

The solution is given meaning the AE knew the correct formula to solve it:
HERE

Another problem calculates the surface area of a hemisphere with the formula needed for the answer:
HERE
[www.math.tamu.edu]
[planetmath.org]

Many more.

Other mathematical tablets of note include the:
Akhmim wooden tablets c. 1950BC:
[en.wikipedia.org]
Egyptian Mathematical Leather Roll c. 1700BC:
[en.wikipedia.org]
Reisner Papyrus c. 1800BC:
[planetmath.org]

These documents all cluster around 1800-1900BC, but there is little reason to doubt they were derived or copied from earlier originals. The temples and pyramid of Saqqara as an example require all of these mathematics for construction.

Algebra, geometry, fractions, approximation of Pi. Calculating slopes, volumes, and surface area of all shapes, including pyramids; the very foundation of advanced engineering. There is nothing beyond a culture that knows and understands these things which these papyri [and structures themselves] are proof the AE did. 

Edited April 3, 2023 by Thanos5150

[Kenemet]

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

Algebra, geometry, fractions, approximation of Pi. Calculating slopes, volumes, and surface area of all shapes, including pyramids; the very foundation of advanced engineering. There is nothing beyond a culture that knows and understands these things which these papyri [and structures themselves] are proof the AE did. 

Developed over time, yes.  However, it's not proof that they used them in constructing buildings.  The Aztecs, Incas, Olmecs, and others in the Americas also built pyramids and they did not have that kind of math available.  If math was necessary to build things, then it seems that we'd see them with geometry and so forth.

Also, the book doesn't seem to talk about them actually using anything more than direct measurements (disclaimer... all I am doing is searching for topics using the Google Books view, which doesn't show everything.)

Edited April 3, 2023 by Kenemet

[Thanos5150]

15 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Developed over time, yes. 

Which from the 1st Dynasty onwards it is clear it did. 

Quote

However, it's not proof that they used them in constructing buildings.  

The structures themselves are the proof. You can't build these things without some fundamental form of applied mathematics and architectural engineering which the structures clearly show this was the case. This shouldn't even be a discussion. This may be reduced to "arithmetic" or intuitive geometry which becomes more complicated over time but it was still there.  

3rd Dynasty Saqqara Ostracon (noted by Arnold):

(D. I. Lightbody and Fr. Monnier), An elegant vault design principle identified in Old and New Kingdom architecture, JAEA 2, 2017, p. 55-69

"This evidence indicates that the ancient Egyptians were already able to carry out relatively systematic and sophisticated geometric research and architectural construction during the 3rd dynasty."

 

Quote

The Aztecs, Incas, Olmecs, and others in the Americas also built pyramids and they did not have that kind of math available.  If math was necessary to build things, then it seems that we'd see them with geometry and so forth.

One example: 

The classic Maya utilized geometry extensively in constructing their homes and buildings without the use of modern measuring devices. By using simple knotted measuring cords, they were able to form right angles and rectangles with sides in special ratios which they noticed appearing in nature, especially in flowers. These special ratios included square roots of small integers, as well as the golden mean.

Quote

Also, the book doesn't seem to talk about them actually using anything more than direct measurements (disclaimer... all I am doing is searching for topics using the Google Books view, which doesn't show everything.)

Not sure what you mean. 

[Antigonos]

On 3/29/2023 at 12:51 PM, Thanos5150 said:

The Ubaid of greater Mesopotamia had been building monumental mud brick stepped platforms as early as c. 5,500BC

I have to think that your observation concerning the base of G2 not being individual blocks but actually carved as a stepped platform right out of the plateau itself is connected to the Ubaid, either as a contemporary structure or a legacy of those who came afterwards yet preceded dynastic Egypt. Do the original platform of G2 and the megalithic components of other nearby structures at Giza predate the earliest dynastic cemeteries we know were there before the 4th dynasty? I would love to have seen Giza in its earliest iteration.

It would be great if we could put into proper sequence the chronology of the occupation at Giza using what remains archaeologically. It’s all right there in front of us. The first step would be to officially acknowledge there are multiple layers of occupation preceding the 4th dynasty and that the idea of one ruler per pyramid complex is outdated. You’ve done a remarkable job breaking things down. Among other things, I find the idea that the flat topped back of the Sphinx suggests it originally had a strictly practical use particularly compelling.
 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by Antigonos