A new idea on how the pyramids were constructed

Taking this further, they have excavated, explored and catalogued the builders' village surrounding the Giza Necropolis - there are inscriptions that outline particular workers roles in the construction crew. I do agree that there is no specific historical outline on the day to day construction - but once again, with 20 000 men over 20 years - it was done.

Sorry guys having problems with the quote function

1. The purpose of great Pyramids still unknown.

Hans: The guys who built them, the Egyptians built them as tombs

2. How they were built still unknown.

Hans: We know a great deal about with what they were built but we don't know the exact methodology, we know how the quarries worked and we know some aspects of how they moved and fitted them. The rest is a mystery.

3. Architecturally, nothing similar before and after them. No purpose revealed in their architecture. Human architecture always has some utilizing purpose.

Hans: They developed pyramid building up over 3 generations, peaked at the Giza ones (they probably used to many resources) and then built less impressive ones later on

4. Documentation, almost none. For a huge project like that, incredible.

Hans: Ah it was 4,500 years ago, how much documentation would you expect them to have? Think ancients not modern concepts of 'paperwork'

5. Buried bodies in great Pyramids: placed later.

Hans: Possibly the remains in Sneferu and elsewhere could be secondary burials - but why put sacrophagus in them? Why is the hieroglyph for tomb a pyramid with a mortuary wall around it?

6. Transporting those blocks on papyrus rafts from the opposite bank of the Nile, there should be huge number of blocks at the bottom of the river from those rafts that fell apart. Did anyone look for that?

Hans: I don't know if anyone has done that, but as they know the quarry locations and where they came to rest I'm not sure what finding them would prove.

7. Coordinating 25.000 workers on such a gigantic construction site is extremely difficult.

Hans: Yes, and yet they did it. If you get organized you can do it. As was proved numerous times in later history-note the Chinese efforts.

8. Lack of written evidence and mentioning of great pyramids: they simply do not fit into the belief system. They are a foreign body.

Hans: Sorry but you seem to know nothing about Egyptian religion, they fit completely. I can only suggest you read up on that religion - or ask Byrd who knows it very well.

9, They could have been built as a place for pilgrims to come, but where is the evidence.

Hans: Yes they did have that very secondary function and were built in necropolis with large complex structures of tombs and temples around them.

10. Even as a bank of knowledge they are still useless, there is still so much nuclear about them. They were never used as universities of this kind. No evidence.

Hans: Don't quite understand your point here.

Howdy Photon Effect

You are incorrect, I sent you to the Hall of Ma'at because you insisted everything I said or pointed to was wrong. Denialism is hard to debate. Did you take your concerns to the Hall of Ma'at and ask them? There are Egyptologist there who might be able to answer your deep concerns with greater clarity. What was the result of these discussions?

You are concerned about the location of where the samples were taken. If I remember correctly you refused to make the effort to find the original report - did you do so? In it is a list of were the samples were taken - have you seen this list?



Welll dang quote working now..

Yes you do seem fixated on those few dates. How do you explain them again since you reject all other explanations?

I suggest you get to ARE and ask them why they ran these tests.



Ah, Proton the average is what you are seeking, its the whole point of the methodology. I know you refuse to understand or believe that but then that is the beauty of your position.



Puting on the evil conspriacy hat......well why not just 'date' them and come back with the date they want? The same applies to the C14, since you think they are hidding stuff why didn't they just put out the dates they wanted - why include unusual dates? So, so clever these conspiracy masters....joking aside. I have no idea - did you ask the Egyptologists?




[edit on 14/12/08 by Hanslune]

Howdy Mozzy

Ah I don't quite understand the request? Information for free - delighted to give out information for free...but what information?

Do you mean a time line of the construction of the various pyramids? If so Lerner and others have already done so.

If not give me a sample/example of what you mean.

One consideration, I'm overseas at the moment and will start traveling again tomorrow. It will probably be Wed or Thursday before I can get back here.

[edit on 14/12/08 by Hanslune]

reply to post by spacevisitor

---

Howdy Spacevistor

As far as I know. For that piece of trivia we might want to search thru the volume of materials at Hall of Ma'at, there are people there who care deeply about those types of numbers. I'll ask the question there and report back.

I would note that the massive series of coffins that were used for later burials like Tut were a later development. Maybe he was a dwarf? LOL

It might be interesting to compare Menkaure, Khufu and Khafre's sacrophagus. Menkaure's of course is laying on the ocean bottom near Spain but measurements do exists. I'll see if we can find a comparison between the three.

I'll be away for a few days so you might want to check there yourself to speed the process along.

The question thread at the Hall of Ma'at


Good question

reply to post by Hanslune

---

Denialism? Oh come on now... I was merely pointing out inconsistencies in the methodologies that have been used to establish, amongst other things, a chronology for Giza. It's a chronology that has become the currently accepted and established paradigm which is being propagated by the likes of you. It's a paradigm which I have found problems with and we've debated about. I've disagreed with you, but I didn't necessarily insist that you were wrong on everything.

You believe the evidence which has been brought forth without questioning it. I've looked at the same evidence and see inconsistencies. It has nothing to do with denial Hans, although these are ideas you like to entertain yourself with I know.



The short answer is no. However in light of my rekindled interest I will take it to the experts. I said I would and I will.



It seems that your memory is not serving you well. Please show me where I refused to make an effort to find the original report. Actually never mind, you won't be able to. Don't make false accusations when you've no clue what I've done.

AAMOF I actually have the entire report downloaded to my computer. I've looked it over quite a few times. And again no samples were taken from inside the GP. They're mostly teeny tiny pieces of charcoal from fires used to make gypsum mortar that were found in cracks on the outer most layers. Those dates are older than the purported historical data by some 300 or so years. And yes that goes for the calibrated dates as well.

It also seems to indicate that Khafres pyramid (or G2) is older than Khufu's (or G1) How do you explain this? Actually this seems to corroborate another theory which I've always been interested in. Are you familiar with Colin Reader?



I can't explain them dude, hence it's an anomaly to me. But I suppose you can.



LOL- I'm not questioning, nor have I ever questioned why they ran c14 tests. That would be beside the point. You must be confusing that with my actual question: "why are the dates off by hundreds of years?" But their own site can't even explain it, although they do offer the "old wood problem" as a possible explanation.



Ah Hansolo- it doesn't even matter. Yes I understand that within statistical sampling averages are taken. Fine. My gripe is that this tended to mask the anomalous dates that were coming up. It's these dates that are at the heart of my argument.



Why is that how you would do it?

[edit on 14-12-2008 by PhotonEffect]

in those times, Man in power had the advantage
of having sheep labor and a lot of them...

reply to post by Hanslune

---

you pretty much just did. i just wanted a list of all the factual evidence in relation to the discussion from your point of view so we can get a better idea. then we can compare it to the other theories and see how it matches up.

This is what scholars regard as the way they were built. They have no doubt!

I posted a link to a website that this group might find interesting on a thread in the Science forums titled "How the ancients could have moved large stones"
I found the practical demo to be cleverly done.

Howdy Proton

Well Excellent. If you do have an electronic copy of the report please post it here. Good luck on your posting at the Hall of Ma'at. I'm interested in seeing if any new information will come out of it.

Hans

reply to post by Hanslune

---

If you can explain to me how to post a 24 page report in PDF format, then I'd be more than happy to.

Cheers

reply to post by PhotonEffect

---

Where did the pdf come from? Just link to that site or upload the pdf to another site then link from there to here.

reply to post by Hanslune

---

I paid for mine...

The free one-

Here you go

reply to post by PhotonEffect

---

Many thanks!!