Ancient and ArchaeologyΜύ permalink
The pyramid of rectangular base
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Saturday, 24th February 2007
By what way that design-model did reach the American continent? The Red pyramid in Dahshur (Egypt) is the oldest of that design model on earth.
-
Message 2
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Sunday, 25th February 2007
Dunno Hossam, afterall its not like the Mesoamerican pyramid builders could not have plotted such a complex shape as a square without the aid of some insight from Egypt is it? Still they took their time working out what a square was, eh, over three thousand years apparently by which point arches were more de rigour in the Nile valley.
-
Message 3
Posted by anteos (U4228723) on Sunday, 25th February 2007
I think graham hancock tried to formulate an erroneous idea that the pyramids of egypt, mesoamerica and cambodia were all releated because they had a similar design.
In reality with the availability of materials and level of technology, the square based pyramid was the largest structure they could build.
In eqypt there is also archaelogical evidence of the evolution of the design process. They tried a design , it failed and collapsed and they went back to the drawing board. -
Message 4
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Sunday, 25th February 2007
Do not know Lolbeeble, the pyramids that have rectangular bases are perfect design models.
-
Message 5
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 26th February 2007
"By what way that design-model did reach the American continent? The Red pyramid in Dahshur (Egypt) is the oldest of that design model on earth."
By the way of European colonists' history books in the C19th. Said colonists must have been rather surprised to find the locals had been building these themselves for centuries.
I'm always amazed that people think the indiginous Americans were too stupid to independently discover that you can pile stuff up and it forms a sort of pyramid shape. Let's face it, pyramid-design is just a formalized artificial hill, plenty of inspiration all round the world for that.
There are plenty of examples of very old, basic stone mounds in Central America showing the clear local evolution of the pyramid structure. -
Message 6
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Monday, 26th February 2007
Are these artificial hills have perfect geometrical bases (square or rectangular) and aligned to north?
-
Message 7
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 26th February 2007
I assume that pyramids with circular bases (ie. cones) could never have been popular with either culture since it was just too darned difficult to work out afterwards which 'side' faced north.
Likewise, polygons were completely out - the maths were just too complicated and besides, they'd just look silly.
Triangular bases might have been a runner if it weren't for the extraordinary number of stones that would then have to be hewed with an acute angle at the point of juncture of at least two of their plains. Try doing that even once with a rudimentary set of stone cutting tools and you'll see immediately why both the Egyptian and Mayan Masonry Guilds would have told their overlords to go stuff it.
What amazes me is that no one came up with the 'upside down pyramid' idea. Eminently feasible since it is in effect a simple balancing trick and one has all those spaceships at one's disposal for hoisting the stones anyway ... -
Message 8
Posted by Stoggler (U1647829) on Tuesday, 27th February 2007
Come off it Hossam, it architectural terms a square-based pyramid is hardly the most difficult design so why are you impying that the Egyptians influenced the pyramids in the Americas (I assume this is what you are implying!). Considering that arches arose in different parts of the world independently, why do you consider it strange that pyramids arose independently?
On the other hand, zigurats in Mesopotamia were square and pyramid-shaped, maybe we should be asking how did these influence Egypt...? -
Message 9
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Tuesday, 27th February 2007
I did not mean that at all; in the architectural field and may be this also the case in other fields too, it is always valid to say that people may get that same thought and translate it in architectural products, while they never met before, i.e., the material of thought may be immortal.
-
Message 10
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 27th February 2007
"Are these artificial hills have perfect geometrical bases (square or rectangular) and aligned to north?"
At La Venta, the mound certainly does have straightened sides. This may be the first pyramid where the meso-americans moved from the mound design to the rectangular base design.
Aligned to north? No, virtually no pyramids in Meso-america are aligned to compass points. Another difference to those in Egypt. -
Message 11
Posted by Hossam-Aboulfotouh (U2914961) on Tuesday, 27th February 2007
Nordmann, in 1955, the known Architect Oscar Nismeyer used the up side down model in his famous work: Modern Art Museum in Caracas Venezuela.
-
Message 12
Posted by malacandran (U1813859) on Sunday, 4th March 2007
It's interesting that no pyramids were built in Europe.
The builders of Stonehenge, probably could have erected a scaled-down version of an Egyptian pyramid.
But they chose not to.
A pyramid after all, is just a boring heap of stones piled on top of each other.
So instead the Europeans used fewer stones, to construct an intricate and imaginative artefact.
Doesn't this show that even in a world of stone-age technology, Europe was more advanced? -
Message 13
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Monday, 5th March 2007
Perhaps it shows that what passed as 'Europeans' in those days were simply crap at building pyramids.
Or else they had begun the rudiments of what was to become football and just hadn't got the 'goalpost thingy' quite sorted out yet.
Btw - what is the seemingly inescapable attraction of theory based on pure stupidity to right-wing 'thinkers'? You would think having (literally) gone out on a wing politically they would be rather circumspect about being identified with daft and totally subjective crapology. But the opposite - without fail - is always the case. -
Message 14
Posted by malacandran (U1813859) on Wednesday, 7th March 2007
Btw - what is the seemingly inescapable attraction of theory based on pure stupidity to right-wing 'thinkers'? You would think having (literally) gone out on a wing politically they would be rather circumspect about being identified with daft and totally subjective crapology. But the opposite - without fail - is always the case.Μύ
That does seem to be true, when you think of the Nazis embracing loony "Hollow Earth" theories, and Hoerbinger's WEL "World Ice Doctrine".
To the point where the Nazi regime, supposedly had to reassure its more rational adherents, by stating officially that it was possible to be a good Nazi, without believing in WEL.
Daft theories have sometimes been championed by extreme left-wing regimes. Like in the USSR, with Lysenko's Marxist version of genetics.
But the real loopiness seems to be a preserve of us right-wingers.
Perhaps we think, that when we've cleared away the ashes after a good rousing book-burning, we're free to believe in anything. -
Message 15
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 7th March 2007
"Btw - what is the seemingly inescapable attraction of theory based on pure stupidity to right-wing 'thinkers'? You would think having (literally) gone out on a wing politically they would be rather circumspect about being identified with daft and totally subjective crapology. But the opposite - without fail - is always the case."
I assume you mean extreme right-wing, not just anyone to the right of Menzies Campbell?
The extreme left are also attracted by crackpot theories. Though the right do tend to crap-history, whilst the left tend towards crap-socio-economics (for want of a better word). -
Message 16
Posted by malacandran (U1813859) on Wednesday, 7th March 2007
Pyramids look like left-wing constructions.
They conform to the Marxist class-view of the hierarchical society in history.
The pyramid shamefully represents the Pharaoh, or Stalin, at its apex. Supported by a middle-layer of merchants/capitalists/Red Army generals.
Pressing down on a base of peasants/industrial proletarians.
Like the nightmare left-wing pyramid society of 1984, with its BB, Party, Proles.
But these dumb pyramid ideas have always been abhorrent to right-wing European Man.
That's why no huge ostentatious sticking-up stone pyramids were ever built in Europe.
Stonehenge lies level on a British plain. Compact, neat, intricate, with its outer stones respectfully encircling, but not subjugated by, the meritorious centre, which remains on their level.
The ideal of right-wing democratic society.
Which is more worthy of study, ancient British Stonehenge, or a pyramid of old stones in Egypt? -
Message 17
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Wednesday, 7th March 2007
[quote]"That does seem to be true, when you think of the Nazis embracing loony "Hollow Earth" theories, and Hoerbinger's WEL "World Ice Doctrine".
To the point where the Nazi regime, supposedly had to reassure its more rational adherents, by stating officially that it was possible to be a good Nazi, without believing in WEL.
Daft theories have sometimes been championed by extreme left-wing regimes. Like in the USSR, with Lysenko's Marxist version of genetics.
But the real loopiness seems to be a preserve of us right-wingers.
Perhaps we think, that when we've cleared away the ashes after a good rousing book-burning, we're free to believe in anything."[/quote]
Right wingers may come up with daft ideas but they prefer to believe that it's because left wingers are just accepting of orthodoxy without any consideration; how else could such ideas be accepted?
On the same general precept, perhaps there were no massive structures in Europe because there was less excess wealth with which to construct such things. This would be more complicated than mere poverty since population shifts were much more pronounced in ancient times. A few good harvests would result in a baby boom in an area with lots of land but few people and a few bad harvests could result in dramatic population decline. This might have been less of a problem, at least for long periods, in those areas where such structures were made. -
Message 18
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 7th March 2007
Which is more worthy of study, ancient British Stonehenge, or a pyramid of old stones in Egypt?
Μύ
Both, if your interest is in history and not pseudo-intellectual claptrap. -
Message 19
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Wednesday, 7th March 2007
Malacandran
perhaps there is one in Europe
Warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 20
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 8th March 2007
Hi Paul,
<quote>Semir Osmanagic, the project leader, initially made the suggestion the Visocica hill could be a pyramid.</quote>
If he is correct, it would be the first pyramid discovered in Europe.
He has already named the three hills the pyramids of the Sun, Moon and Dragon.</quote>
They admit that they don't know that they're pyramids (at the time the article was written), yet the project leader gives they names that will appeal to the mystical-mumbo-jumbo-claptrap brigade. Until they know that they are pyramids and what they're for, wouldn't it be a better idea to just call them "Pyramids 1-3"?
Cheers,
RF -
Message 21
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 8th March 2007
Sorry - the last message should have had the following in quotes!
Semir Osmanagic, the project leader, initially made the suggestion the Visocica hill could be a pyramid.
If he is correct, it would be the first pyramid discovered in Europe.
He has already named the three hills the pyramids of the Sun, Moon and Dragon.Μύ
Cheers,
RF (who will preview his messages in the future...) -
Message 22
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 8th March 2007
"If he is correct, it would be the first pyramid discovered in Europe."
Depends on what you mean by pyramid surely? Is Silbury Hill much more than a circular pyramid? The Olmecs built circular mounds before they decided to start straightening the edges - not that that means there's a link, just a common development of different people being faced with the same problem.
"He has already named the three hills the pyramids of the Sun, Moon and Dragon.
They admit that they don't know that they're pyramids (at the time the article was written), yet the project leader gives they names that will appeal to the mystical-mumbo-jumbo-claptrap brigade."
Charitably, one could argue that he gave them names because otherwise someone pyramid-nutter will jump in and name them and those names will stick. But, realistically, I suspect your explanation is correct - naming them makes them true pyramids in the minds of the public ("specutlative mound B" may be more scientific, but less news-worthy or sponsorable). The choice of names is cleary meant to reflect the three major pyramids at Teotihuacan, which in ten years time will be used by somebody to prove that Bosnians fled to Mexico to build pyramids there. -
Message 23
Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Thursday, 8th March 2007
Hi cloudyj,
"If he is correct, it would be the first pyramid discovered in Europe."
Depends on what you mean by pyramid surely? Is Silbury Hill much more than a circular pyramid? The Olmecs built circular mounds before they decided to start straightening the edges - not that that means there's a link, just a common development of different people being faced with the same problem.Μύ
I agree. That was a quote from the article on the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ website that I meant to enclose in quotes. Unfortunately it managed to slip out - in the same way that some people believe that the spirit of Khufu slipped out of his pyramid so he could travel back to his home planet near Betelgeuse.
The choice of names is cleary meant to reflect the three major pyramids at Teotihuacan, which in ten years time will be used by somebody to prove that Bosnians fled to Mexico to build pyramids there.Μύ
I have it on reliable authority that the Bosnian pyramids were built by aliens who got lost en route from Egypt to Mexico to collect cocaine to hide in Giza. I saw it on a documentary with Graham Hancock so it must be true.
Cheers,
RF -
Message 24
Posted by malacandran (U1813859) on Thursday, 8th March 2007
My thanks to Paul for his #19 link about the (possible) Bosnian pyramids.
It shows one should be wary of saying something "never" happened!
But even if those lop-sided Bosnian hills, do turn out to contain actual pyramids, they seem only a curious early aberration in Europe.
Perhaps Europeans did experiment with pyramids, as their first attempt at monumental architecture.
If so, they soon progressed beyond this primitive stage of simply piling stones on top of each other in a pyramidal heap.
The Greeks quickly advanced pillar-and-slab stone architecture to build the Parthenon. Then Roman engineers came in with bricks and cement to produce arches, vaults and domes.
So making possible impressive public buildings like the Colosseum.
All this brilliant progress happened in Europe.
So why, back in Egypt, despite thousands of years of civilisation, did the Egyptians just go on piling up (increasingly inept) pyramids? -
Message 25
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 8th March 2007
Then Roman engineers came in with bricks and cement to produce arches, vaults and domes
Μύ
Brick technology honed in Mesopotamia, Africa and the Far East long before the Romans - arches and vaults likewise - bonded with cement which the Romans learned how to make from its North African innovators, including the blend that dried under water - culminating in domes much inferior in structure than many of those already erected throughout the Mediterranean and the Middle East by earlier civilizations and which the Romans could only copy through 'sticking' the bricks together during construction and praying that the glue held long enough to reach the capstone layer (those canny inhabitants of the reaches along the Lower Nile had perfected the technique in drystone construction hundreds of years earlier but had obviously been 'too backward' to share their technological prowess with those 'clever' Europeans).
I wonder sometimes how much of the content of your posts malacandran is motivated by a desire to sh!t-stir. If that is a cruel assessment however and your rather weird interjections are genuinely meant to reveal a 'right wing proof' based on a knowledge of history - even basic stuff - then I would suggest your drawing board beckons. Aren't there internet sites financed by shady US private militias and such like these days who teach you guys how to do it properly and not make such eejits of yourselves? -
Message 26
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Thursday, 8th March 2007
Experiment with pyramids, what were they trying to do, sharpen razor-blades or something? Not sure about the never bit, you appear get by never thinking.
There doesn't appear to be much difference between the construction techniques used in the Parthenon and that of constructions at Karnack or even Stone Henge for that matter. The arch had been used in construction in the Indus valley arround 2000 years before the Romans started using them. They were used in the construction of underground pasages such as drains and vaults by practically anyone with access to a few stones and that includes the Egyptians.
Rome's Claoka Maxima was constructed using techniques employed by the Etruscans. The Roman arch was not that good at transmitting the weight of masonry down to the ground and had to be reinforced by masses of stone or brickwork on either side to stop them bulging outwards, hence why Roamnesqure churches are so dark with such small windows. This is as opposed to the pointed syle of arch such as those employed in the construction of Gothic style chiurches that allow much more light to flow into the building. Similar styles of arch had been employed by the Assyrians when Rome was barely beyond being a collection of villages. All the Romans seem to have dones is start to use arches above ground. Even then the inception of the typically Romanesque style of bricks and arches appears to be developed by the increase in civic construction in the towns of Italy during the late Republic. Places like Pompeii rather than the city of Rome itself. Rome had no permanent constructions for housing public entertainment until the the first century BC and early aqueducts were far less likley to have exposed water courses running above ground because of the danger of contamination of the supply by hostile groups Hydraulic cement appears to have been used in the construction of Carthaginian harbours before it was adopted by the Romans for that matter. -
Message 27
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Friday, 9th March 2007
"Then Roman engineers came in with bricks and cement to produce arches, vaults and domes"
A professional engineer with an interst in Roman architecture once told me that the Romans massively over-engineered their buildings showing that they only had a basic grasp of the principles of the maths behind building.
"So why, back in Egypt, despite thousands of years of civilisation, did the Egyptians just go on piling up (increasingly inept) pyramids?"
They didn't. They built some very impressive temples and palaces as well. Oddly, those Greeks and Romans indulged in a late surge of pyramid building when they settled in Egypt, long after the locals had given it up. -
Message 28
Posted by malacandran (U1813859) on Friday, 9th March 2007
Oddly, those Greeks and Romans indulged in a late surge of pyramid building when they settled in Egypt, long after the locals had given it up.Μύ
Well, of course - after the locals had given up pyramids, owing to ineptitude, the Greeks and Romans had to show them how a proper job is done. -
Message 29
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 9th March 2007
And failed.
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 Μύto 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
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ 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.