pre pyramid plateau

a reply to: Harte

well, they need to try a little harder, because things do not build themselves, no matter how much hyperbole is inserted

a reply to: Harte

well, they need to try a little harder, because things do not build themselves, no matter how much hyperbole is inserted

a reply to: username74

sorry doubled

a reply to: username74

"Around here, this article is usually presented after a poster makes the claim that the AE's "couldn't have built" it."

just the usual enquiry of how.?
i know its not appreciated, but thats beside the point.

a reply to: username74

"You seem to think the article is an attempt to show how the Great Pyramid was built. I suggest you read it more carefully.
It clearly states that they considered how they think it could have been built.

Around here, this article is usually presented after a poster makes the claim that the AE's "couldn't have built" it.

Harte "

may i suggest some straight explanations may be offered, vis a vis technique, instead of a series of cryptic philological assumptions, it may go some way to disparaging the more creative responses to the official line, which is, at best, apparently just something to throw in when the questions get tight !?!
thats how, if you read back, it appears!
i have not suggested they were not capable, because, of course, there it is.
that it is suggested they were capable of such feats only within the narrow timeframe presented so as to support the philology which is that the feats of engineering, could be only achieved by said pharaohs, thus vindicating the simple grant paying version of historical hierarchical structure within our civilisation.

now having written such, i know it is an extreme perspective.
and i am a little more conservative. though i may hide my light under the bushel
but you do your case no favours by avoiding direct inquiry!
what was wrong with my demand that such a scheme must be validated by method.!!!!?
am i to be witless; to accept any timescale that comes with no technique?

a reply to: Byrd

hmmm.
you are a practical person.
that is another issue, and i seem to be falling under the idea that there is a geographical and climatic, despite variation, elastic capacity, for this geographic area, a reason population was bigger than is estimated and on a basic level there was probably room for expansion at most epochs.
certainly there were options to travel to work abroad if there were too many workers at home.
this must have been a stabilising factor in the demographic for this and the mediterranian regions.
always work in the merchant navy as it were. on the rivers or seas.
always seasonal work in the fields.
always fishing.
the centre of its time.
a hub.

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte

well, they need to try a little harder, because things do not build themselves, no matter how much hyperbole is inserted

I would suggest you actually read the entire article.
You'll see that is was not an attempt to definitively show HOW the G.P. was built.

The article itself tells you that the methods outlined were chosen by the writers, not by examining any specific evidence. Those pesky "assumptions" I was talking about before explain all that.

The whole thing started out as a lark, considering the project management aspect of the construction. The engineers went more deeply into than that once they got started on it.

All that is mentioned in the article.

So, no, "they" don't need to try a little harder. They accomplished their goal.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

so how was it built, what were the techniques used, as stated in the source?

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte

so how was it built, what were the techniques used, as stated in the source?

Series of ramps. With mortar.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

"the methods outlined were chosen by the writers"
what chosen methods?
there are none!
"You'll see that is was not an attempt to definitively show HOW the G.P. was built."
but it was presented in the thread as such, and i argued as such!
what other choice do i have?
"The whole thing started out as a lark, considering the project management aspect of the construction. The engineers went more deeply into than that once they got started on it."
yeah, but thats not the case.
they talked about it, but they solved nothing. well, actually they discussed alot that is pertinent, but reached no solid conclusion.
so a worthwhile discussion, and a welcome assimilation of past investigation, but not what it claims, in regard to the context of the thread (although we range far and wide on this thread due to my ill advised choice of title) or what was claimed about its claim.
it makes no solid verifiable claims, except after groundwork, 5 years schedule, no method.
NO METHOD!, the whole #ing point!
we can all draw a schedule without having to provide any method. its a plan. a 'future memory' (important distinction in regard to human psychology and perception)
for me , on a personal level this thread is partially about, why, when the grey areas are discussed, there is never any uncertainty, and when i purvey the suggested supporting evidence i do not see the same certainty.
i am not looking for existential reassurance, i just want to see why certain persons are certain of cetain things without cetainty.
thats everything you hate! no due process, no working out.
its a direct doublestandard.
and yet its defended.
not because it has any integrity, but because it was presented in a certain light.
in itself its fine for a tuesday afternoon read but there are two salient questions;
1: when?
2: how?
failed on 2
2 is dependent on 1 if we adhere to any kind of developmental progress, which we must.

so if they cant say for sure the methods involved how can they estimate the time it took?

"So, no, "they" don't need to try a little harder. They accomplished their goal."

they surely did (whatever that was beyond advertising) but that sheds no light on this discussion.

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte

"the methods outlined were chosen by the writers"
what chosen methods?
there are none!
"You'll see that is was not an attempt to definitively show HOW the G.P. was built."
but it was presented in the thread as such, and i argued as such!
what other choice do i have?
"The whole thing started out as a lark, considering the project management aspect of the construction. The engineers went more deeply into than that once they got started on it."
yeah, but thats not the case.
they talked about it, but they solved nothing. well, actually they discussed alot that is pertinent, but reached no solid conclusion.

There can never be a complete solution, without time travel.
However, to try to say that they made no conclusions is just untrue.

We determined, however, that some type of ramp structure was probably used given the remains of ramps at other sites and our assessment of available construction methods. A single large ramp to level 50 of the pyramid would have been of reasonable height and volume; it would have permitted two-thirds of the blocks to be put in place. The team postulated that after level 50 a square helical ramp would have been constructed on the pyramid itself to reach the upper layers. At this point the number of blocks decreases and constraints on block delivery are not as restrictive. At the apex of the pyramid—the last 10 to 20 levels—the number of blocks is very small. The team suggested that an internal
"staircase" was created and that levers were used to place the capstone and the last remaining blocks.

originally posted by: username74so a worthwhile discussion, and a welcome assimilation of past investigation, but not what it claims, in regard to the context of the thread (although we range far and wide on this thread due to my ill advised choice of title) or what was claimed about its claim.

What it claims:

Initially, our goal was simply to identify the major steps that a hypothetical program manager would have undertaken to construct the Great Pyramid at Giza. We asked the team of construction managers to visualize the work that would be required so that we could prepare logic diagrams, schedules, and other tools of the program manager. But as the project unfolded a strange transformation took place: Members of the team became absorbed by the challenge. How would you build the Great Pyramid?

The article is not, nor does it try to be, what you are claiming. What it does, though, is verify the legitimacy of some of the proposed methods for pyramid construction. That is, it shows such methods are possible which is what I already said - the paper refutes the claim that "it couldn't have been built by Egyptians."

Harte

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Byrd

hmmm.
you are a practical person.

Not necessarily.

I'm taking courses in Egyptology from the University of Manchester - in my third year with one to go for the full Bachelors degree. I have read thousands of articles over these three years on a lot of details, so I'm familiar with what's known. Not as familiar with it as my teachers, but far more familiar than many people.

a reply to: Harte

"There can never be a complete solution, without time travel.
However, to try to say that they made no conclusions is just untrue. "
no supported conclusions!
i do not expect time travel, nor a complete solution.
please list conclusions.
"The article is not, nor does it try to be, what you are claiming."
all i am claiming is its not fit for purpose, as presented.
as previously stated. repeatedly.
"What it claims
Initially, our goal was simply to identify the major steps that a hypothetical program manager would have undertaken to construct the Great Pyramid at Giza. We asked the team of construction managers to visualize the work that would be required so that we could prepare logic diagrams, schedules, and other tools of the program manager. But as the project unfolded a strange transformation took place: Members of the team became absorbed by the challenge. How would you build the Great Pyramid? "

may i draw your attention again to "a strange transformation took place: Members of the team became absorbed by the challenge."
and proposed nothing except a schedule and no technique.

" What it does, though, is verify the legitimacy of some of the proposed methods for pyramid construction. That is, it shows such methods are possible which is what I already said - the paper refutes the claim that "it couldn't have been built by Egyptians."
well i am not quite sure how it verifies such, but it does discuss them.
well, who the # were eygyptians in 4000bc before egypt existed.
people are people. if you classify people by their retrospective geographical location by the existing archealogical standards and they appear counter intuitive then you play deus ex machina, surely?
in any case why cant it just be admitted that this source is not in context as an explanation for how and by whom the g p was constructed, despite its wisdom.

a reply to: username74

its neccesary we review the assumed progression of human manufacturing base.
initially timber is the most predictable and obedient servant or base material.
bones good, if you need sharp or hard.
but it comes in small stock.
small pieces to clarify.
good for fine sharp work.
good to work softer materials such as timber.
lightweight, a good analogy to our ceramics for edge or carbon fibre in the aspect of structural strength
so timber for example seemed to be the thing for a long time, but we will only be seeing the rare pieces that had the conditions to be preserved such as the shigur idol.
is it older, probably
it is reasonable to assume that these techniques migrated to stone, but ....,in light of what?
why???? how?????
what are we to attribute this to?
do they discover metallurgy?
do they feel they have to go extra hard to put things in stone because of some (to us) unseen parameter?
is it easier to work stone for them?
do they suddenly have massive manpower?
does the symbolic affectation of such structures outweigh the hardship?
do they have some trick of manipulation or manuvere we have not cottoned onto?
was it simply a gradual migration of skill set onto new base material as a result of better cutting tech, if so what was the driver?
admittedly in this location it could be pointed out that there is not much timber but how recent is that effect in relation to construction?
could it even be the result?
are we, in what is now egypt, working on the assumption, that construction started in stone and adobe and never evolved, or rather evolved then devolved! and all setting out skills were lost?

wood and metal were not there , except copper whose electric potential was unnoticed, despite the fact it degrades, only because it was soft and yet hard when workhardened, a hard enough metal to chisel granite (which it still is not!), and no pi, no wheels except in pulleys, because thats not the same concept as a wheel, apparently, funereal cult who built all large constructions, to mimic esoteric ideals yet failed in any existential urban infrastructure, with the exception of large scale hydrology which was apparently a breeze. even the romans put in plumbing, stoic as they were.
and yet it looks from certain perspectives like a bunch of shepherds living in an abandoned waterworks claiming kudos.
pending explainatory methodology ?!!
well, probably not!
however, one key to aspects of this would be to explain how a society appears on the scene, and in two attempts, hits the pinnacle of human architechtural achievement with unexplainable accuracy and then starts building everything wrong apparently, and doesnt care, despite the massive perfections lying before them.
the bent pyramid, a completed mistake.
the architechtural style changes, the material changes, granite casing to limestone casing.
ashlar to block course,
either alot of time passed between techniques or perrogotives fluctuated.
clearly stages of rennovation to revive past glory, in the appropriate zeitgiests.
so how do we differentiate rennovation from construction in this context.
why do we expect scant literary evidence to trump the physical reality regardless of variable antquity.
and whats the original format.
was the great pyramid originally covered in ashlar granite like menkares and renovated for khufu in limestone, because thats the older tech, and if the g p is older than the little pyramid then why is this so.
or is it proposed that the granite is somehow more efficient than the softer lighter limestone or is it a symbolic choice?
the implication of these, and many other questions bears large pressure on the existing philology, and that is all it is....until someone can put something a little more concrete this way..
if thats not possible , that is understandable but it dosent give leave for even the most established egyptologist to claim contrary, what cannot be supported on reputation and secondary evidence, which is what i seem to be facing in context to the older a.e..
if it was so simple i would be presented with a list of corroborated sources and evidence.
this is ok for later dynasties, but not so for the earlier.
if we are to reverse engineer another past races sociology can we not at least try and reverse engineer their building techniques too?
i see no link between the older and younger methods of construction, and choice of material, or at least there was a loss of certain technique.
maybe there was a tectonic factor or a finally recognised absence of..
theres certainy more to this than we are savvy to
why do we have ashlar in two continents?

Granite wasn't chiseled. It was quarried with pounding stones. Then it was either sawn or simply smoothed with large rubbing stones.
Limestone could be quarried into almost the exact shape and smoothness required - with very little dressing of the stone.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
Granite wasn't chiseled. It was quarried with pounding stones. Then it was either sawn or simply smoothed with large rubbing stones.
Limestone could be quarried into almost the exact shape and smoothness required - with very little dressing of the stone.

Harte

I visited the quarries in Egypt... you can see the marks of the pounders and the saws, actually. The undercutting looked like pretty scary work - but the workers were criminals (for the most part) so nobody really cared how dangerous it was. (In later dynasties, slaves were also used.)

BTW, "granite" is a misleading term; they had several types of granite plus granidorite (and quarried other igneous rocks) - their stony building material was Mohs scale of 2.5 (soft limestones) to 6 (hardest granites.)

a reply to: username74

so no talkie talkie on subject matter regarding the posts you reply to.
no fun.
no discussion.
just obfusification every time a nerve is touched.
what about forming a linked discussion about validity regarding the information put up as evidence then disregarded?
what about any discussion without some one throwing their ideological toys out of the pram every 3 replies?

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: username74

so no talkie talkie on subject matter regarding the posts you reply to.
no fun.
no discussion.
just obfusification every time a nerve is touched.
what about forming a linked discussion about validity regarding the information put up as evidence then disregarded?
what about any discussion without some one throwing their ideological toys out of the pram every 3 replies?

So, you want ATS to drop its motto.
Should they create a bobblehead forum for people like you that simply want to nod and wink knowingly at each other?

Harte

a reply to: username74

oh please really?
if ats is is to fulfill its motto?
cmon, i am not a religious person and i am sure you will not allow emotion to trump reason, well i would hope so...
and if i wanted ats to drop its motto i would state as such, in a thread entitled "why ats should drop its motto!"
i mean how much obfusication should i have to wade through to get people to look at certain points.
whats the problem? you are clearly literate but yet seemingly retarded in some conceptual manner.
how difficult can it be to process my uncomplicated questions.
they are answered by questioning my reason and not the questions.
surely it would be easier to answer the actual questions with answers?
to the best of your abilities; no small task i am sure!
"a bobblehead forum"?
are you sure thats not where you are?
because i didnt post here because i imagined i was surrounded by qualified individuals,
and after the integrity of the last post i am pretty sure that this view is supported by the content of the thread
and as to who i am winking and nodding knowingly at, i have no idea.
i think your statements need some substantiation.
i think you are making a bit of an idiot of yourself.
none of this matters here as you surely know but i would be interested in your reply.
why didnt you discuss presented subject matter?
why am i a (bobblehead forum for people like you) bobblehead? what is a bobblehead?
what kind of a #wit do you imagine me to be?
#ing hillarious!
if you feel this document (project management bc) is any kind of reflection of past reality then you must justify your position!
since said document is happy to provide a very precise schedule for construction yet not so happy to describe and produce evidence of methods by which said construction was achieved, does this qualify as a "bobble head" proposal?...
because thats how it looks at first glance "bobblehead" !
try sticking to the point
if i dont understand your explanations, try typing them into your computer, so i and others can read it.
if ive missed it you could reiterate it for me, and anyone else reading!

a reply to: Byrd

well, i havent really got a qualm with the quarrying methods, it had to come out and there it is, and technology with no power source doesnt work for me either.
its still a fairly tenuous argument as to quarrying granite with diorite boulders though i found a couple of sources in a squabble with harte about this, that have me convinced they did it.
but the by product of this labour is high quality mortar materials, so i am sure this was a reason to conduct labour in this manner.
and for sure this labour would only be undertaken by those under duress.
just for info the two arguments that won me over were,
1 the boulders you find are the used ones so they never started off as smooth, rather angular.
2 they were dropped, bounced and caught so as to make it possible to absorb the neccesary shock created through mechanics with sufficient force to erode granite, on a short timescale (verticle surfaces aside).
to boot the arguments are not generally accepted, it appears, being done by a less prestegious chap, but they are the only ones that make practiclal sense.