Ancient and ArchaeologyÌý permalink
Pyramids represnt of map of the sky
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by mvarennes (U2373372) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
have any of you heard about the hypotetic "map of the sky" which the Egyptians tried to represent on earth with the Pyramids ?
For e.g. Giza would represent the Orion Bell.
Has anybody seen the same documentary ? Is there any "updates " ? -
Message 2
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
I have seen a documentary on this before but it was a few years ago. I do remember that it was based on Orion's Belt, as you mentioned, and the scientists involved in the programme were able to show that it was the Orion's Belt of the day (that is they were able to calculate the relative position of each star in the sky at the time the pyramids were built).
Other than that, I'm afraid that my memory is a little hazy on the subject -
Message 3
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
have any of you heard about the hypotetic "map of the sky" which the Egyptians tried to represent on earth with the Pyramids ?
For e.g. Giza would represent the Orion Bell.
Has anybody seen the same documentary ? Is there any "updates " ?Ìý
There is a book called 'fingerprints of the gods' that covers this. How accurate or realistic the scholarship of the book is I can't say, but it does refer to this in part.
Elistan -
Message 4
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
yes I watched the programme and have the book in the house
Graham Hancock
Its all a rather nice idea, all tied up with the Atlantis myth
however the Orions Belt theory is pretty much smashed up once you realise that the other pyramids required for the constelation arent there.
He also tries this theory with amounst other places Ankor Wat (consti Draco) with similar results in that there is a superficial pattern that then falls apart once you actually map out the location and realise that the lines of orientation are wrong and that there are too many or not enougth pyramids/temples to complete the map
like I said, nice theory though -
Message 5
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
Yeah, it was a nice theory. Felt he lost the run of himself on the significance and ever egged his pudding. Never finished book in the end as it was all beginning to jar as too pat, too much the GUT to have any truth at all.
Elistan -
Message 6
Posted by pavan21us (U2377736) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
It was interesting to know that the pyramids are built based on the calculations of stars.I heard people from South-East Asia(Indians) helped egyptians in building the pyramids.
Indians are the first one's who used to calucalate the movements of the stars.They still have a religious calandar which they use for rituals.This calander is still calucalted only based on the movement of the stars.Also there are many temples in india built on the basis of the movement of stars.All these constructions are very ancient. -
Message 7
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Wednesday, 2nd November 2005
There was a celestial alignment for individual pyramids but I gather that this was in order for the pharoah's Ka to be sent to a specific point in the sky. Other than that the plateau of the Great pyramids is not a true alignment of Orions belt, Thornborough henge has a much more accurate representation of the predicted position of the stars but was built thousands of years later, not that it has much bearing on Hancock given his evidence for Ankor Watt's alignment with Draco. Mind you the last thing the people of Yorkshire need telling is that they are bestowed with ancient wisdom, their heads are rather inflated as it is.
A transcript of the Horizon episode that debunked Hancock was in the progeramme's archives on the Â鶹ԼÅÄ website, otherwise you might try looking up the Hall of Ma'at. -
Message 8
Posted by growling-badger (U1109874) on Thursday, 3rd November 2005
Go measure all the different aspects of the Pyramids for yourself and then get hold of the appropriate star maps and computer programmes that can calculate the position of the stars for the last 10,000 years.
Those maps and programmes will show you that the Pyramids do reflect "some of the stars" in the Orion constellation, namely the belt - that it is not a complete map is neither here nor there because no one claims it is a "complete map" - the Pyramids that are in place reflect Orion's belt as it was over 10,000 years ago. Do the maths and you'll see. The position of the inner channels that cut through the walls of the Pyramid also target specific stars too - again, do the maths and all becomes apparent. It's not a matter of opinion - the maths will show you that the Pyramids reflect the sky of 10,000 years ago.
What's difficult to decide is what they were originally used for. The Pyramids may have been used as tombs by certain Pharoahs but no coffin was ever found inside and no markings exist inside the Great Pyramid to indicate its true and original purpose.
You might also want to look at the myths and religion of Egypt so that you understand why they built the Pyramids in such a fashion. -
Message 9
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Thursday, 3rd November 2005
woah there badger
as has been pointed out earlier yes there are channels cut out through the walls of the pyramids that line up with, if memory serves, Venus and the Pole Star. They are there so that the Ka can travel and return.
Hancock was trying to claim that there was a complete ground map of Orion and on that basis he was wrong (also the alignment of the "belt" is also out)
There is also an experiment preparing to start that is searching the Great Pyramid for a burial chamber, it has recently been given the go ahead by the Egytpian Chief of Antiquities (whose name right now is beyond me)
I have looked at te myths and religions and one thing I can be quite happy on is that they did not build ground constellations -
Message 10
Posted by mvarennes (U2373372) on Thursday, 3rd November 2005
So ...it's a no I presume...
-
Message 11
Posted by mvarennes (U2373372) on Thursday, 3rd November 2005
Have you got any link showing that actual proofs of Indians presence were found in Egypt on that matter ? I just can't see Asiatic/Indians helping Egyptians at that time ?
It sounds wrong to me... -
Message 12
Posted by growling-badger (U1109874) on Thursday, 3rd November 2005
The alignment is mathematically correct. Read the relevant pages in Graham Hancock's book - Keeper of Genesis.
Even if they are looking for a burial chamber that doesn't mean it's a tomb, or was originally a tomb. Look again at the mythology of the ancients - star gazing (and calculating precession in particular) was their primary concern as was re-connecting their souls with the stars, or cosmic centre. This could mean that the building was used in all sorts of ways, least of all that it was a tomb (and again, no coffin or mummy was ever found inside when it was opened).
Additionally, if it was simply a burial chamber then there would be no need at all for the complex interlocking of the stones inside the pyramid - which no one would ever, ever see and wouldn't need to be there for the sake of the structure. That would be a monumental waste of time and effort, excuse the pun.
Furthermore, the Pyramid could not have been built 3000 years ago because of manpower and physics. There are millions of blocks, each weighing at least 2 tonnes (some up to 70 or 80), and for the Pyramids to have been built in 20 years by a team of workers (paid, unpaid, or whatever) would have meant that they needed to lay four blocks every 15 seconds. Even if they could have built all year round then they'd still have to lay 1 block every minute. That level of output simply wasn't possible with ramps and ropes.
With the knowledge they had 3000 years ago that type of complex construction simply wasn't possible. Orthodox suggestions defy the rules of physics. Some other method and/or form of technology must have been used if they were built 3000 years ago.
Why so-called "professional" Egyptologists continue to ignore the rules of physical science, which manage to hold the rest of the planet together quite happily, is beyond me.
The fact that the marks left by exposure to heavy rainfall on the Sphinx could not have been made less than 10,000 years ago also serves to indicate the age of the site as a whole and that some other form of ancient technology/knowledge must have been used - something we don't know about...yet.
All these things demonstrate that the current ideas about the Pyramids have gapping holes in them. This is not to say what I have written is the "right" answer but current orthodox ideas are seemingly an evidencial hotch potch at best. -
Message 13
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Thursday, 3rd November 2005
all i see is that you are simply repeating Hancocks ideas. Most of which are wistful thinking.
The Star "tubes" are indeed correctly aligned. It is the constelation idea that I have problems with
Likewise the 10,000 year timeline. What were we doing inbtween the building of these structures and the dawn of recorded history?? Again we end up tramping back to Atlantis.
The mystery of the construcion is just that, a mystery.
The internal complexity may well have had significance to the builders even within a tomb setting.
With the Sphinx and the "rain" marks, no answer is satisfactory. Some say it is sand damage, others like yourself point to rain and as you say the last time it was wet enough for that was 10,000 years ago, so therefore there must be another answer that we havent found yet.
The day that Hancock can present scientific evidence that can stand is the day that i will buy his fantasy. I too dream of atlantis and all the hidden mysteries of history, the times and places and happenings that we dont understand or simply dont know about, but Hancock is a fantasist, a damn good fantastit but one all the same -
Message 14
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Thursday, 3rd November 2005
Eh? manpower and physics, so far as I can see you are suggesting that there are over 168 million blocks in the great Pyramid alone on the basis that 16 stones a minute were laid contiuously for 20 years. Somehow I think you have grossly overestimated their volume but I've heard pyramids play havoc with time and space in any case. How come they had the ability to build them 10,000 years ago and not 3000 years ago, what happened? Never seen any Mastabas that predate the end of the Ice Age. The marks on the sphynx are probably caused by mineral salts eroding the loose limstone geology of the body from the time spent under the sands.
-
Message 15
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Thursday, 3rd November 2005
Indians are the first one's who used to calucalate the movements of the stars.They still have a religious calandar which they use for rituals.This calander is still calucalted only based on the movement of the stars.Also there are many temples in india built on the basis of the movement of stars.All these constructions are very ancient.Ìý
No doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought it was the ancient Sumerians who were the first to map the stars. -
Message 16
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Thursday, 3rd November 2005
I'd guess having names for celestial bodies predates writing and is probably a universal human trait.
-
Message 17
Posted by pavan21us (U2377736) on Thursday, 3rd November 2005
please read the following link.Some information on what your looking for?
Indians are the first one's who used to calucalate the movements of the stars.They still have a religious calandar which they use for rituals.This calander is still calucalted only based on the movement of the stars.Also there are many temples in india built on the basis of the movement of stars.All these constructions are very ancient.Ìý
No doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought it was the ancient Sumerians who were the first to map the stars.Ìý -
Message 18
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Thursday, 3rd November 2005
please read the following link.Some information on what your looking for?
Indians are the first one's who used to calucalate the movements of the stars.They still have a religious calandar which they use for rituals.This calander is still calucalted only based on the movement of the stars.Also there are many temples in india built on the basis of the movement of stars.All these constructions are very ancient.Ìý
No doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought it was the ancient Sumerians who were the first to map the stars.Ìý Ìý
Thank you. The quote from there is, "In India the first references to astronomy are to be found in the Rig Veda which is dated around 2000 BC". I think this rather supports my view tah the indians were not the first, as the Sumerian civilisation flourished at least one thousand years before that. -
Message 19
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Thursday, 3rd November 2005
The sumerians may have been the first, but thanks to light pollution we are the last
-
Message 20
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Thursday, 3rd November 2005
The sumerians may have been the first, but thanks to light pollution we are the lastÌý
Nice one. -
Message 21
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Thursday, 3rd November 2005
Possibly, but the gradual moistening of the atmosphere and the increased cloud cover may have encouraged some groups to concentrate more on the underworld than the heavens?
-
Message 22
Posted by pavan21us (U2377736) on Friday, 4th November 2005
Here is an interesting link that mentions abt the resemblances of egypt and ancient indian civilisations..might be this will add one more confusion that indians are involved in building egyptian pyramids
Have you got any link showing that actual proofs of Indians presence were found in Egypt on that matter ? I just can't see Asiatic/Indians helping Egyptians at that time ?
It sounds wrong to me...Ìý -
Message 23
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Friday, 4th November 2005
all i see is that you are simply repeating Hancocks ideas. Most of which are wistful thinking.
Ìý
Richie,
Its the enthuasism with which these theories are embraced that you have to admire, even if you wish people would employ a bit more of their own critical faculties.
No-one argues a point like a convertee.
Elistan -
Message 24
Posted by mvarennes (U2373372) on Friday, 4th November 2005
My knowledge of Ancient Egypt is limited when it concerns the Predynastic Period (3500 BC). Can anyone complete my lack of info and let me know who could have build the Sphynx in 10000 BC like our friend Growling-Badger suppose?
-
Message 25
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Friday, 4th November 2005
Space Aliens I think is favoured resultant of Hancock's theories. Personally, I think it was the flying spagetthi monster - Long Live Pastafarianism!
-
Message 26
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Friday, 4th November 2005
lol,
no it is the lost race of the Atlanteans, who's beginings arent really worried about its just that they built all these imense cities and all these message carrying precessional temple complexes and who then mysteriously died out
on second thoughts, Ha Ha me hearties, the FSM is a wonderous Gos -
Message 27
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Friday, 4th November 2005
Yes, just remember when faced by the complexities of Hancock's world view, WWFSMD is all you really need to know.
All praise his noodliness, for it is he who created history, for a goof, cause he was bored one saturday, now the footie had gone to sky, he doesn't have to explain himself anyway.
Elistan (High Priest of the Meatballs Schism) -
Message 28
Posted by growling-badger (U1109874) on Friday, 4th November 2005
Hancock's ideas are not wistful thinking at all and so what if I am repeating the theory? Repeating or supporting a theory is no crime, nor is challenging one.
I agree that no one knows how or why these buildings were made for sure but since we have not been able to replicate them or find conclusive proof of any theory there are obviously massive missing links that are not capable of being filled by ideas about ramps and ropes and tombs because the maths and physics do not add up.
As for the constellation idea why is it so unbelievable? At worst it's as believable as the idea of ramps and ropes being used to build the pyramids. I'm a product designer and it's simply not possible for the Egyptians 3000 years ago to have built them using ramps ropes and manpower alone. Ask any engineer how they would lift a 200 tonne block up to 50 metres and see what they say - you need a huge crane or a lot of dynamite - not ropes, men and ramps.
The internal complexity of the blocks may well be relevant within a "tomb" setting - I never implied it couldn't be, I simply meant it seems "unlikely" given the amount of effort required to put those in place.
As for what we would have been doing between 10 and 3000 years ago - who knows! Just because we don't know does not imply that we weren't doing anything. "Recorded" history may have begun 3000 years ago on paper but that doesn't imply by any logic that we weren't doing anything meaningful beforehand. Knowledge could easily have been lost.
As for the Sphinx I agree - the jury may still be out - there are many theories but since sand doesn't corrode limestone whilst it's stationary, and even when it does wear limestone it has a different effect found to that on the Sphinx - sand as a cause of the markings is unconvincing. The "others" that support the "rain induced markings" theory are qualified geologists - who else is better qualified to comment on the origin of markings on stone?
Atlantis has nothing to do with this and neither does fantasy. Simply because I talk about one set of ideas about the pyramids does not necessarily mean I support any other idea about anything else. All you seem to be doing is assuming "guilt, or ridiculousness, by association". A cheap, lazy and cynical way of debating.
Ultimately, a lack of evidence (on either side) is only evidence of a lack of evidence. At one time many people thought the earth was flat and they laughed at the men who suggested otherwise - Hancock's ideas may smack of fantasy in your humble opinion but the alternatives you might suggest could be no less fantastical in my humble opinion - so where does that leave us?
Up the Nile without a paddle!
Hooray. Anyone for tea? -
Message 29
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Friday, 4th November 2005
growling-badger,
Spot on, mate! and well said. May his noodliness bless you!
Elistan -
Message 30
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Friday, 4th November 2005
Err, Atlantis has everything to do with Hancock's output, where does he get the idea of a complex civilisation 10,000 years ago in Egypt if not indirectly from Plato's Timeus? It may be cheap and lazy, but one suspects that you wouldn't listen if we provided evidence to refute Hancock so why make the effort, its not like you have brought anything new to the table. Never the less...
I suspect you do not understand that a desert is not static sand but is constantly n a state of flux much like a body water has currents. Furthermore dew sinks throgh the sand to the base rock where it acumulates. Thus we have an abrasive substance moving across a moist limstone scree of the main body. Add to that the acidid nature of sand which would accelerate any limestone erosion, especially less compact geological formations like those between the head and feet of the Sphynx and one can see how a few thousand years under the dunes might have resulted in what looks like water running off its back. As for the other supporters of the theory, there was only one geologist prepared to back up Hancock's point and he has since proved reluctant to reaffirm this, not because he is worried about his acedemic position simply because Hancock was being rather selective with the eidence he put to him before asking for a snap judgement on what caused the erosion.
As for engineers, well they seem to think wide ramps and possibly counterweights would be useful to minimise effort. I have seen a hypothosis that suggests the central gallery of the great pyramid, with its slope and series of holes in the wall may have been used to help raise the objects to such dizzying heights. Other than that it depnds how wide and steep the incline of the proposed ramp or ramps would be. It might be noted none of the really huge blocks had to be raased above half the stucture's height.
Nobody thought the earth was flat in the last few thousand years, save for precursors of the Creationists like Protestants in fifteenth century Germany, the argument was more about the size of the globe and its position in the universe. I hardly see how making such a statement should convince us that you and Hancock are on the right track. As such I think it leaves us with the conclusion that you have read a few books by one author about Egypt and feel you are sufficiently well informed to take on all comers. -
Message 31
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Friday, 4th November 2005
lolbeeble,
I'm telling ya, his noodliness inverted his favoured goblin collection to hid a celestial meatball. And lo! we have pyramids. Surely he is marvelous!
Elistan (Drunk High Priest of the left Meatball schismisc schismers) -
Message 32
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Friday, 4th November 2005
I know, but we have to maintain the lies we tell to children.
-
Message 33
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Friday, 4th November 2005
If it is not possible for humans to have built the Egyptinan pyramids using ramps and manpower, presumably the same applies to the earlier ziggurats of Sumeria and the much later stepped pyramids of the Maya and Aztecs? Those guys with the cranes sure got around both in time and space.
However , if we concede that the pyramids must have been built using enormous cranes, has anyone found the remains ofthe massive machines? Or were they dismantled and packed away for future use in Mexico?
I actually think FSM is more likely, but you never know. -
Message 34
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Sunday, 6th November 2005
Badger - Hancock is a charlatan and a liar. there are plenty of them, spread across many time periods, although many inhabit the prehiostoric era, since they can always say "ah, but you cannot prove otherwise". That is appalling technique and goes against any rational human approach - since we naturally scan for poitive evidence.
Indeed, Hancock's claims about Orion were simply discredited when it was pointed out that Orion rises the opposite way round. As for his claims about a civilisation in Antarctica, it has been under ice for 3m years! Consider pyramids too - I have been to the giant peruvian pyramids and they are simply large mass burial mounds, whereas those ion Central America are smaller and were used for religious purpsoes. It is all nonsense, but what these people rely on is that you do not have the knowledge to question heir skewed view of things. Remember the buildings udnerwater off Malta and the claims about those? Well, ifr you go to Malta, you will find many cartracks simply stop on a cliff - a clear sign of seismic activity dropping bits into the sea and nothing to do with prevailing sea levels. -
Message 35
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 6th November 2005
Re: Message 27.
Elistan,
while I am reading your tongue in cheek comments in this thread...
I read all your messages on these new boards with esteem. And I dare to say a new star is born. I mean it in the serious sense... I remember somewhere a comment about history to a 31 year old woman, an apart thread you started on the never ending polemics of the Greek-Macedonian question.
I had no time yet in the last days to reply to all the interesting threads I wanted to reply to. Lack of time caused by a combination of workload and "festivity-load"...
You are however already in my favourite list of contributors as a lol beeble, a Steve P and others too numerous to call them all. Not to forget all those new ones as you(?) and a lot of others as a Hoi polloi and many others where you feel reading their contributions, that you have to do with honest would-be historians and/or historians.
I wanted to interfere in your discussion concerning the territorial principle vis à vis the personality's priciple with the example of the Belgian entity. While I am grown up since my childhood in that controversy, I want to add the typical Belgian situation while it can, in my humble opinion, be extrapolated to any situation in the world of the same kind...
I will explain the concept of the word: "personality", while it is so important for the understanding of my message and while I didn't find the Dutch word "personaliteit" in my big Dutch-English dictionary. So, while the Dutch word wasn't there, I couldn't translate it in English. But in my English dictionary I found the word "personality" and the concept of the English word seems to cover the concept of the Dutch word "personaliteit"... So...See you back in my reply to your thread about that theme...
With esteem. -
Message 36
Posted by growling-badger (U1109874) on Tuesday, 8th November 2005
I never said that "I" subscribed to the Atlantis idea - it has nothing to do with what "I" think is true or false about the pyramids.
My point about the flat earth was merely to demonstrate that ridiculing and insulting people and their ideas has happened before and if that's all you're going to do then I have no time for you.
The Sphinx sits in a pit, the pit fills up with sand - that sand does not move and therefore no erosion due to movement is possible except maybe on the head. Water seeping through the sand though might cause some erosion but I wonder if it's enough to cause the amount of erosion present... I've asked the Geological Society of America to comment and I'm waiting for their reply.
Why did Khufu and his architects have the knowledge to build 3 great pyramids, that have lasted at least 2500 years in extremely good condition, when his predecessors and descendents didn't? Where did he get that knowledge? And where has it gone? How do you explain this? Many of the other pyramids built before and after the 3 great ones have fallen into such disrepair that it is obvious to see, by inspection, that they do not bear the same construction or complexity.
What engineers have supported the idea of ramps and ropes? -
Message 37
Posted by growling-badger (U1109874) on Tuesday, 8th November 2005
Here are a couple of interesting sites:
-
Message 38
Posted by growling-badger (U1109874) on Tuesday, 8th November 2005
Also, consider this site - it shows the alignment with Orion's belt in pictorial form and other relevant facts concerning the great pyramids construction with reference to cosmology.
-
Message 39
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 8th November 2005
This is all speculation. Of course his predecessors built worse pyramids, it's a learning experience. Just because my ancestors couldn't build cars 300 years ago doesn't prove they got car-making ability from a mysterious Atlantean civilization. All the earlier pyramids show the clear steps building up to the great pyramid.
The fact that his successors built worse pyramids has more to do with human factors such as cost and effort for what you get out. The new houses round the corner from me are built to a lower standard than my Victorian house, but that doesn't mean we have forgotton how to build good quality housing. It just shows that we feel we don't need to.
I never said that "I" subscribed to the Atlantis idea - it has nothing to do with what "I" think is true or false about the pyramids.
My point about the flat earth was merely to demonstrate that ridiculing and insulting people and their ideas has happened before and if that's all you're going to do then I have no time for you.
The Sphinx sits in a pit, the pit fills up with sand - that sand does not move and therefore no erosion due to movement is possible except maybe on the head. Water seeping through the sand though might cause some erosion but I wonder if it's enough to cause the amount of erosion present... I've asked the Geological Society of America to comment and I'm waiting for their reply.
Why did Khufu and his architects have the knowledge to build 3 great pyramids, that have lasted at least 2500 years in extremely good condition, when his predecessors and descendents didn't? Where did he get that knowledge? And where has it gone? How do you explain this? Many of the other pyramids built before and after the 3 great ones have fallen into such disrepair that it is obvious to see, by inspection, that they do not bear the same construction or complexity.
What engineers have supported the idea of ramps and ropes?Ìý -
Message 40
Posted by growling-badger (U1109874) on Tuesday, 8th November 2005
Yes, it's all speculation - given the lack of any absolute evidence concerning this whole issue that's all we're doing on this site. Speculating.
Yes, I would expect the pyramids "before" the Great Pyramids to be of a lower standard but not those that followed. Why would you build a Model T Ford, then a Porsche 911 and then a Model T Ford again? Why revert? It doesn't make a lot of sense.
Even if you wanted to revert to a cheaper, less hassle model of pyramid then that still leaves the question of how the knowledge got lost, and why it was never recorded in any way (that we know of).
I agree that economics might be a factor as to why no other pyramids in the same style were built afterwards but that doesn't help us locate the knowledge. And how can people that knew how to build the Great Pyramids couldn't build a wheel? Don't you think that's more than odd?
I never suggested that a "mysterious Atlantean" race built the pyramids - you made that connection on your own. -
Message 41
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Tuesday, 8th November 2005
Just because later pyramids were not of the scale or standard of the great pyramids doesn't necessarily mean that knowledge was lost. What was missing may well have been the desire.
-
Message 42
Posted by growling-badger (U1109874) on Tuesday, 8th November 2005
You're right, it doesn't necessarily mean that knowledge was lost, but since we don't have a record of how they were built what other conclusion is there to draw? Do you think that someone would throw away that kind of knowledge if they had it?
The Egyptians liked to record significant events so why not record what is supposedly the most significant building in that era? It doesn't make sense "not" to record such an event. -
Message 43
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Tuesday, 8th November 2005
Why did Khufu and his architects have the knowledge to build 3 great pyramids, that have lasted at least 2500 years in extremely good condition, when his predecessors and descendents didn't? Where did he get that knowledge? And where has it gone? How do you explain this? Many of the other pyramids built before and after the 3 great ones have fallen into such disrepair that it is obvious to see, by inspection, that they do not bear the same construction or complexity.
Ìý
One theory to that is that the Priests were a jealous lot who tended to guard their secrets. If someone died without passing on or telling someone where sacred building texts were kept or if theft or fire were involved it could wreck great damage.
You must remember that the mummifcation process degraded with time, with the later mummies preserved in poor condition compared to earlier attempts -
Message 44
Posted by growling-badger (U1109874) on Wednesday, 9th November 2005
Interesting enough but I wish it were more substantial than a personality trait - the existence of which would be very difficult to prove or disprove.
It's entirely possible that the knowledge was destroyed somehow or stolen (but for what gain?) or only kept and transmitted in oral form and was lost when the keepers of such knowledge died.
Can you tell me more about the degradation of the mummies - if you have a website reference that would be helpful. Thanks. -
Message 45
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Wednesday, 9th November 2005
Its less to do with personality types than that the various cults were mystery cults. Each temple tended to be jealous of its secrets and guarded/hoarded them. Egyptian religion was not an open faith. The common people had very little to do with the temple practices. The Solar boat would be brought out on feast days but apart from that the temples were not places that the common person went
In that sort of atmosphere secrets are natuaral
I forget which text I read it in but there was an account somewhere of the last heirglyphic reading priest. It is in the Roman era and he is the last person to be able to read the monumental inscriptions prior to the Victorian era. It was a secret priestly writing that died when priest either could not or did not pass it on.
With regards to the mummies, I read of this in a couple of books, have never actually tried to google it. It was also on a tv programme (but that was years and years ago).
Basicaly, it takes about 70days to prepare a body for mumification. There are a lot of stages, includnig drying out the body, packing it with salts, resin, removing the sacred organs etc.
Bodies like Ramesses or Tut had the full treatment, and in the case of Ramesses was so well mumified that locks of his hair have survived something like 3500 years. As we move into the late new Kingdom and certainly into the Persian and final pre-Greek dynasties the Royal tombs have started to move towards the delta, which tends to damage the quality of the mummies, but also the time and effort taken in the mumification process starts to noticable drop.
Organs might be left in, or the drying stage not done or not done properly, maybe the body not stuffed with the resin.
Certainly by the Greek period and the Roman period mumification is available to any who can afford it but the process has been shortened, corners cut or abandoned completely.
Now whether or not this is down to commerical pressure or simple knowledge evaporation i can't answer, but it does show how even something that by 200 AD which had some 3000 years of practice behind it could be so radically different from its starting and later high water mark -
Message 46
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Wednesday, 9th November 2005
Just because later pyramids were not of the scale or standard of the great pyramids doesn't necessarily mean that knowledge was lost. What was missing may well have been the desire.
Ìý
the desire might have been there, just not the capital to build such an ediface
cos they must have been damned expensive and Egypt went through periods of not being that rich
and temples cost a lot -
Message 47
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Wednesday, 9th November 2005
Growling Badger,
To take this in a little more serious vein than my references to FSM heretofore. I employed the language of Pastafarianism specifically because the blight of Intelligent Design comes in many forms. One should bear in mind Occam's Razor when trying to explore mysteries of the past, in that
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate"
or "Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler."
The rational that before the last ice age existed a pan-global civilisation that had superior construction techniiques that enabled it to build vast monumental structures which were/are a perfect representation of heavenly constaellations upon the earth is, I suggest, not the simpler of the two predictive theories. The lack of subsidary eveidence for any such civilisation implies that they were not our linear descendents; and here the clue is in the title of Hancock's book. Whilst Hancock does not (if memory serves me right) directly invoke the arrival of aliens, the implications of 'Gods' is that a force outside of Humankind was responsible for the creation of these structures, for we lacked the wherewithal and know-how to achieve these ends (or at least our 3000 year old progenitors suffered such a lack).
Let us look at this from the more 'orthodox' view, and I am willing to accept that some individual points that I make here may targetable, but allow me to develop this point. If we take these structures as the pinnacle achievement of civilisations that had come to prize the ability to place one block upon another to a rational and coherent pattern as evidence of the divinity within mankind itself, we can look on these structures in a differnet li8ght. The earliest civilisations that we know of existed along rivers with flood plains that required construction techniques to harnass. In Egypt, in Mesopotamia and along the Indus river this similarity was marked. In each of theses cultures the line between architect and priest was blurred to point of almost (if not really) being irrelevant.
It has been said of the cities of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro are as much a testament to an ability in construction as the pyramids, with the perfection of their grid system, and urban planning repeated city to city. The ziggurats of Mesoptamia also bear testament to central importance that construction ability played within these societies. LIkewise, then, the pyramids stand testament to the Egyptians', of the same period, relationship to construction as an expression of man's power over his envirnoment.
The metaphysical and ritualistic elements of any construction that is intrinsc to a faith based authority are always going to be highly esoteric, even when there is continuity. Do we know all the secrets of the Cathedral buildings of eleventh century Europe on their choses of location and alignment? The pyramids builders may, and probably were, influence by the passage of the stars, and I dare anyone who has been to the desert and seen the milky way pass with light pollution on a moonless night not to be influenced by the experience.
As to the diminution of the art of Pyramid construction, the end of the Old Kingdom in 2134BC, the century and a half of effective anarchy, and the inability of the Middle Kingdom to present as unified a political or cultural face, probably aided in this. Coupled to the fact the period of Anarchy saw the tombs ramsacked as authority failed to restrain through either fear of retaliation in this world or retribution in the next it is not hard to see why the political motivation to undertake construction projects of this nature went by the by.
This is the simpler hypothesis, and it is probably flawed in a number of areas. We cannot know for certain the motivations and/or personality traits of the individuals involved, we can only conjecture. But deny the validity of this conjecture and replace it with any even more unlikely hypothesis based on some patchy and unsubstantiated arguments does not bring anything to the table. Like the 'Intelligent Design' theorists, it becomes a distraction as we are left theories that only defence is that we can't disprove them adequately. Well, you can't disprove the existence of the Flying Spagetthi Monster either.
Elistan -
Message 48
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 9th November 2005
Why would you build a Model T Ford, then a Porsche 911 and then a Model T Ford again? Why revert? It doesn't make a lot of sense.
Even if you wanted to revert to a cheaper, less hassle model of pyramid then that still leaves the question of how the knowledge got lost, and why it was never recorded in any way (that we know of).
I agree that economics might be a factor as to why no other pyramids in the same style were built afterwards but that doesn't help us locate the knowledge. And how can people that knew how to build the Great Pyramids couldn't build a wheel? Don't you think that's more than odd?
Ìý
In several ways the model T is better built than then many modern sports cars. If you can find one of each, try ramming them into each other. The Model T is structurally more sound.
Knowledge gets lost if people don't use it as they see no reason to perpetuate it. Knowledge of thatching used to be quite widespread in Britain, but has almost died out since few need to know about it.
You don't need wheels to build pyramids. If you have enough manpower you can easily drag stones. Actually it's probably better to use rollers than a wheel and axle because the pressure is spread evenly across a roller whereas it's concentrated through the limited wheel width. Maybe there wasn't enough spare labour to build impressive pyramids later on, so they built smaller shoddier ones. -
Message 49
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 9th November 2005
Forgot to add that if you look at the decline in pyramid building, it goes pretty much had in hand with the improvements in temple architecture. It may be that they simply decided that the temples were more important (they clearly put more material and physical effort into them).
-
Message 50
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 9th November 2005
Re: Message 47.
Elistan,
great message. Also from Richie. The good old days seem to come back, or even better (smile).
With esteem to both.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.