The Pyramids Of Egypt: Relics Of An Advanced Prehistoric Civilization?

originally posted by: toysforadults
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Having spent half of my life working I'm in construction one thing I find preposterous is that there is nothing left behind that shows how they were built

Such a massive massive 100,000 construction had to require planning among other things

There is an entire workers village was found. They have records of payment and how much food they consumed. Many were even buried with the tools they used. Problem is there are websites out there that wish to hide this from you. They want it to seem the pyramids were built by magic.

Yeah there is a constant agenda to try and make the pyramids - especially the Giza ones - more mysterious than they actually are. I constantly see comments about there being no writing in them, so complex that no mere ancient Egyptian could have made them, high precision in their construction, the mortar used cannot be duplicated today, they ARE 10,000 years old, they have cosmic or other kinds of rays coming out of them, etc., etc.

originally posted by: Hanslune
Yeah there is a constant agenda to try and make the pyramids - especially the Giza ones - more mysterious than they actually are. I constantly see comments about there being no writing in them, so complex that no mere ancient Egyptian could have made them, high precision in their construction, the mortar used cannot be duplicated today, they ARE 10,000 years old, they have cosmic or other kinds of rays coming out of them, etc., etc.

The other side of that coin is when they are portrayed as knuckle dragging morons that barely knew how to smash two rocks together, and made up for their dim witted lack of sophistication by throwing sheer numbers of man power and resources at the problem.

Quite literally claiming the granite obelisks were cut by smashing into the quarry with diorite pounders. (Although diorite was almost certainly used for the finish).

If we are to be fair to the builders, we should also give them credit for their innovations. Not just for their hard work.

The mystery is why they built something so large, which appears to have "being big" as its only function. (Also a tomb, of course, but seriously you don't need something that big to bury someone.)

And they did it multiple times. The GP is only a little bit bigger than the second biggest pyramid.

The pyramids found elsewhere on Earth usually weren't tombs. They were used for ceremonial purposes. So they were built and then used.

The Pyramids of Egypt appear to have been built and then left out in the desert. Although perhaps people made pilgrimages to them? Maybe Egyptians thought of a "tomb" differently than we do today, and didn't consider it disrespectful to hold community events at someone's grave?

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Hanslune
Yeah there is a constant agenda to try and make the pyramids - especially the Giza ones - more mysterious than they actually are. I constantly see comments about there being no writing in them, so complex that no mere ancient Egyptian could have made them, high precision in their construction, the mortar used cannot be duplicated today, they ARE 10,000 years old, they have cosmic or other kinds of rays coming out of them, etc., etc.

The other side of that coin is when they are portrayed as knuckle dragging morons that barely knew how to smash two rocks together, and made up for their dim witted lack of sophistication by throwing sheer numbers of man power and resources at the problem.

Quite literally claiming the granite obelisks were cut by smashing into the quarry with diorite pounders. (Although diorite was almost certainly used for the finish).

If we are to be fair to the builders, we should also give them credit for their innovations. Not just for their hard work.

I not aware of any scientist or Egyptologist who holds to a belief they were morons - at least not since the 19th century. Can you quote one or more such professions who had made such statements in the last 50 years?

That pounders - the percussion method of stone working - was used - not just by the AE - but by other ancient civilizations up to the Inca is a fact. Hey they didn't understand germ theory or the importance of sanitation and they believed in magic.....but we think highly of them for what they did and what they knew and not for what they didn't.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
The mystery is why they built something so large, which appears to have "being big" as its only function. (Also a tomb, of course, but seriously you don't need something that big to bury someone.)

And they did it multiple times. The GP is only a little bit bigger than the second biggest pyramid.

The pyramids found elsewhere on Earth usually weren't tombs. They were used for ceremonial purposes. So they were built and then used.

The Pyramids of Egypt appear to have been built and then left out in the desert. Although perhaps people made pilgrimages to them? Maybe Egyptians thought of a "tomb" differently than we do today, and didn't consider it disrespectful to hold community events at someone's grave?

Hey BM you might want to go visit Egypt - its a great trip - the Giza pyramids were across the the river from the city and right on the embankment of Nile - where the ancient Egyptians had been burying their dead for thousands of years.



People do crazy things in regards to religion and absolute rulers oft times do ego expanding things too.

Why did a Chinese Emperor have his entire army duplicated with full size statues? Pure nuttery.

Why did a French King built Versailles?

Why did Christians build 3,000 cathedrals - ever seen St. Peter? Why would European build that in 1506 and spend well over a century doing so?



Why did the Islamic Civilization built over 10,000 mosques?

Why did the Maya build thousands of temples and pyramids in the jungle? I've worked on those sites and it is beastly hot most of the time...

Why did the Hindu's built over 2 million temples (yep two million) to a variety of Gods?

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
The mystery is why they built something so large, which appears to have "being big" as its only function. (Also a tomb, of course, but seriously you don't need something that big to bury someone.)

And they did it multiple times. The GP is only a little bit bigger than the second biggest pyramid.

Everyone seems to forget that by the time they built the Great Pyramid, Egyptians had been building true pyramids for around 100 years... so they had an expert workforce and a lot of stone of the right size.

The pyramids found elsewhere on Earth usually weren't tombs. They were used for ceremonial purposes. So they were built and then used.

Not true, I'm afraid. The Chinese ones are certainly tombs (they found burials inside), as are the Egyptian ones. MesoAmerican ones were of two types... mostly ceremonial with larger interior spaces and some that were used as tombs (the tomb of Pacal is a pyramid.)

The Pyramids of Egypt appear to have been built and then left out in the desert. Although perhaps people made pilgrimages to them? Maybe Egyptians thought of a "tomb" differently than we do today, and didn't consider it disrespectful to hold community events at someone's grave?

Giza was a necropolis (cemetery) on the edge of the Nile, with people (mostly nobles) buried there before and after the building of the Gizamids. And yes, in fact, they DID hold festivals in cemeteries... only not at the Giza site, which wasn't considered that important. They held them in the cemetery at Abydos and there's many tomb references about visiting Abydos in the afterlife to participate in the festivals. Even the barques (shrines) of the gods visited Abydos.

But no ancient Egyptian source mentions visiting Giza any more than they mention visiting other cemeteries. Just Abydos.

Oh... and, as Hans said, the Gizamids are on the edge of the Nile - there's a dock just below them where the boats landed with their loads of granite for the interior chambers. When the Nile was in flood, the edge of the river would have only been a few hundred yards from the work site.

originally posted by: Hanslune


People do crazy things in regards to religion and absolute rulers oft times do ego expanding things too.

Why did a Chinese Emperor have his entire army duplicated with full size statues? Pure nuttery.

Why did a French King built Versailles?

Why did Christians build 3,000 cathedrals - ever seen St. Peter? Why would European build that in 1506 and spend well over a century doing so?

Giant things like those are done as a show of power. Not directly superstition. (Although perhaps as a way of giving power to their superstitious institutions.)

Let people see the inside of the Basillica, and they are going to wonder "if they could build this, what else can they do?" And probably they won't come looking for a fight.

Qin Qi Huang's massive burial was a way for his magistrates to show that, even after his death, they still had the power to exact gigantic tax loads, and mobilize huge work forces to do something basically ego driven. A test of the power still held by the imperial bureaucracy and military. If the peasants didn't want to remain under this rule, now would be when they would demonstrate as much. But they didn't.



That is why I find it odd that the AE built the pyramids while the leader was still living. It seems like it would be a greater show of power for the successor to build the tomb. I mean: the whole point in having a monarchy is to create the impression of a stable rule. A power that will endure after the current regent's death.

Requiring that the tomb must be finished while the monarch still lives does exactly the opposite of that. It makes their rule look flimsy and temporary.

But they did build them that way. At least the parts they did build.

Anwyay, it is interesting to note that St Peter's Basilica follows the same pattern as that proposed for the GP.

en.wikipedia.org...

The building that now stands there today is not the first to be there, nor even the first to be called "St Peter's Basilica". They basically rebuilt the whole thing in the 15th century after the first, older, structure fell into disrepair. (And with the intention to make it a Pope's tomb, no less.)

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

It was their custom for a Pharaoh to build his own tomb and sometimes they were caught short by mortality and it was not finished. They also tended to extend and build them up - again a tendency to leave them unfinished. An odd ritual indeed. However one should never look for logic and reason when dealing with religions.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Anwyay, it is interesting to note that St Peter's Basilica follows the same pattern as that proposed for the GP.

en.wikipedia.org...

The building that now stands there today is not the first to be there, nor even the first to be called "St Peter's Basilica". They basically rebuilt the whole thing in the 15th century after the first, older, structure fell into disrepair. (And with the intention to make it a Pope's tomb, no less.)

I'm not aware of any Pharaoh taking over the tomb of another Pharaoh and rebuilding it for his use. That would not fit easily with their culture - while their was no tradition against doing so with churches and at that time ancient classical pagan temples were often rebuilt.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Anwyay, it is interesting to note that St Peter's Basilica follows the same pattern as that proposed for the GP.

en.wikipedia.org...

The building that now stands there today is not the first to be there, nor even the first to be called "St Peter's Basilica". They basically rebuilt the whole thing in the 15th century after the first, older, structure fell into disrepair. (And with the intention to make it a Pope's tomb, no less.)

I'm not aware of any Pharaoh taking over the tomb of another Pharaoh and rebuilding it for his use. That would not fit easily with their culture - while their was no tradition against doing so with churches and at that time ancient classical pagan temples were often rebuilt.

The reason expressed is what is likely to be common here: "In 1505 Julius made a decision to demolish the ancient basilica and replace it with a monumental structure to house his enormous tomb and "aggrandize himself in the popular imagination".

en.wikipedia.org...


Rulers like to build palaces, sure. But the real palace they want to build (and need to build if they are to continue ruling for long) is the one in peoples' hearts and minds.


When choosing a site upon which to build anything, the first question a ruler is going to ask is: what meaning does this site hold for my people? Sites of great ancient battles are good. Sites that are already considered holy are good. A site that you drew out of a hat? --- probably not so good.

originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

It was their custom for a Pharaoh to build his own tomb and sometimes they were caught short by mortality and it was not finished. They also tended to extend and build them up - again a tendency to leave them unfinished. An odd ritual indeed. However one should never look for logic and reason when dealing with religions.

You should ALWAYS look for logic and reason in the behavior or rulers. They got to where they got to for a reason.

Just don't expect their reasoning to be altruistic. Having once gotten powerful, their goal is usually to stay powerful.

It's possible that pharaohs were accustomed to having their successors try and claim power early. Or perhaps they feared assassination. So setting up a huge public works project, and requiring that their own life must last the duration of that project for religious reasons would be a good self defense measure. (The assassin would offend the religious fervor of the people.)

Kind of like the tendency of American presidents in recent years to choose absolute idiots as their vice presidents. If you assassinate them, that moron becomes the president. Not good for stability overall (like if the president's health were to fail). But great for personal odds of survival.


But all religious narratives are the product of design. Someone is telling the story. And that someone has reasons for why they are telling it the way they are telling it.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

The building that now stands there today is not the first to be there, nor even the first to be called "St Peter's Basilica". They basically rebuilt the whole thing in the 15th century after the first, older, structure fell into disrepair. (And with the intention to make it a Pope's tomb, no less.)

The reason expressed is what is likely to be common here: "In 1505 Julius made a decision to demolish the ancient basilica and replace it with a monumental structure to house his enormous tomb and "aggrandize himself in the popular imagination".

They had to build there as it was were Saint Peter was buried

Rulers like to build palaces, sure. But the real palace they want to build (and need to build if they are to continue ruling for long) is the one in peoples' hearts and minds.

They already had that they were god kings

When choosing a site upon which to build anything, the first question a ruler is going to ask is: what meaning does this site hold for my people? Sites of great ancient battles are good. Sites that are already considered holy are good. A site that you drew out of a hat? --- probably not so good.

All of the west bank was considered holy, now there may have been something there but there is no present sign of it

You should ALWAYS look for logic and reason in the behavior or rulers. They got to where they got to for a reason.

In this case Khufu and Khafre and Menkaure were all Pharaoh because of who their father was - they didn't take Egypt away from anyone they were handed it due to 'blood right'.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Anwyay, it is interesting to note that St Peter's Basilica follows the same pattern as that proposed for the GP.

en.wikipedia.org...

The building that now stands there today is not the first to be there, nor even the first to be called "St Peter's Basilica". They basically rebuilt the whole thing in the 15th century after the first, older, structure fell into disrepair. (And with the intention to make it a Pope's tomb, no less.)

I'm not aware of any Pharaoh taking over the tomb of another Pharaoh and rebuilding it for his use. That would not fit easily with their culture - while their was no tradition against doing so with churches and at that time ancient classical pagan temples were often rebuilt.

The reason expressed is what is likely to be common here: "In 1505 Julius made a decision to demolish the ancient basilica and replace it with a monumental structure to house his enormous tomb and "aggrandize himself in the popular imagination".

en.wikipedia.org...

Let's not assume that the motives of one culture are the same as the motives of a different culture.

When choosing a site upon which to build anything, the first question a ruler is going to ask is: what meaning does this site hold for my people? Sites of great ancient battles are good. Sites that are already considered holy are good. A site that you drew out of a hat? --- probably not so good.

Giza was chosen because it was near another large cemetery (with pyramids) and there was already a cemetery at the site. It is not a particularly significant site to the ancient Egyptians... not the resting pace of one of the parts of Osiris' body nor the site of an important festival (unlike Abydos, one of the most sacred sites in Egypt)

It's possible that pharaohs were accustomed to having their successors try and claim power early. Or perhaps they feared assassination.

Before the time of the Ptolemys (about 2,000 years of history) there were only two total assassination attempts on a legitimate ruling pharaoh of the Two Lands (not true during the Intermediate periods when the land had a number of competing people who said that THEY were the pharaohs.)

So setting up a huge public works project, and requiring that their own life must last the duration of that project for religious reasons would be a good self defense measure. (The assassin would offend the religious fervor of the people.)

Each pharaoh had his or her own public works projects. To get in the good graces of the people (and the gods) they rebuilt temples extensively. Building on their own tombs was a minor project.

Kind of like the tendency of American presidents in recent years to choose absolute idiots as their vice presidents. If you assassinate them, that moron becomes the president. Not good for stability overall (like if the president's health were to fail). But great for personal odds of survival.

The ancient Egyptian governmental structure was pretty solid and nothing like what you imagine.

One example I've seen is that the AE may have thought of the Pharaoh in the same way modern Thai's considered their monarch and how the pre-WWII Japanese revered the Emperor (they still do to a great degree)

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
Anwyay, it is interesting to note that St Peter's Basilica follows the same pattern as that proposed for the GP.

en.wikipedia.org...

The building that now stands there today is not the first to be there, nor even the first to be called "St Peter's Basilica". They basically rebuilt the whole thing in the 15th century after the first, older, structure fell into disrepair. (And with the intention to make it a Pope's tomb, no less.)

I'm not aware of any Pharaoh taking over the tomb of another Pharaoh and rebuilding it for his use. That would not fit easily with their culture - while their was no tradition against doing so with churches and at that time ancient classical pagan temples were often rebuilt.

The reason expressed is what is likely to be common here: "In 1505 Julius made a decision to demolish the ancient basilica and replace it with a monumental structure to house his enormous tomb and "aggrandize himself in the popular imagination".

en.wikipedia.org...

Let's not assume that the motives of one culture are the same as the motives of a different culture.

One thing all cultures have in common is Darwinism. If they don't do what it takes to succeed, then they usually don't succeed.

There really isn't a possible way to consolidate rule under one person without engaging the public's imagination.

The mere fact the Pharaoh allowed the people to believe he was a god tells us he was aware of the need to build a palace in their imagination. He probably knew he was a mere mortal.

Kind of like the tendency of American presidents in recent years to choose absolute idiots as their vice presidents. If you assassinate them, that moron becomes the president. Not good for stability overall (like if the president's health were to fail). But great for personal odds of survival.

The ancient Egyptian governmental structure was pretty solid and nothing like what you imagine.

I'm sure the Pharoahs' official records claimed it was solid. What else were they going to say about themselves?

Try and remember that these guys were, in very fact, politicians.

originally posted by: Hanslune

Rulers like to build palaces, sure. But the real palace they want to build (and need to build if they are to continue ruling for long) is the one in peoples' hearts and minds.

They already had that they were god kings

Even the Pope has to keep building palaces in the public mind. And he is the "Vicar of All Mighty God".

When choosing a site upon which to build anything, the first question a ruler is going to ask is: what meaning does this site hold for my people? Sites of great ancient battles are good. Sites that are already considered holy are good. A site that you drew out of a hat? --- probably not so good.

All of the west bank was considered holy, now there may have been something there but there is no present sign of it

Now that is very interesting. And it makes sense.

originally posted by: Hanslune
One example I've seen is that the AE may have thought of the Pharaoh in the same way modern Thai's considered their monarch and how the pre-WWII Japanese revered the Emperor (they still do to a great degree)

Uhm... not that I'm aware of. I realize that those cultures also thought of their rulers as divine, but I believe that this is pretty much were the similarities end.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

Let's not assume that the motives of one culture are the same as the motives of a different culture.

One thing all cultures have in common is Darwinism. If they don't do what it takes to succeed, then they usually don't succeed.

I don't think this idea is well supported. Does "succeed" mean "last for awhile? For how long? What's a successful culture to you?

There really isn't a possible way to consolidate rule under one person without engaging the public's imagination.

Sure there is: fear, military force, political alliances, intervention of a third party (ala Emperor Claudius, elevated to the throne by the Praetorian Guard), etc, etc.

The mere fact the Pharaoh allowed the people to believe he was a god tells us he was aware of the need to build a palace in their imagination. He probably knew he was a mere mortal.

I don't think it was a case of "allowed the people to believe." Nor am I certain that they thought of themselves as "mere mortals." Akhenaten (if the verses of the Great Hymn to the Aten are an example) certainly didn't.

Kind of like the tendency of American presidents in recent years to choose absolute idiots as their vice presidents. If you assassinate them, that moron becomes the president. Not good for stability overall (like if the president's health were to fail). But great for personal odds of survival.

The ancient Egyptian governmental structure was pretty solid and nothing like what you imagine.

I'm sure the Pharoahs' official records claimed it was solid. What else were they going to say about themselves?

Actually, it was so solid that when conquerors (Persia, Greece, Rome) took over Egypt, they adopted the Egyptian form of government because it was so efficient and so well run.

All of the west bank was considered holy, now there may have been something there but there is no present sign of it

Actually, all of the west bank was NOT considered holy. Only certain spots were.

They discovered that the pyramids were pretty good for storing coffins inside, so they put coffins in them. Some were newly built, some came from the distant past. This has made today’s people unable to figure out which period they really came from. History has been messed up."

The Ancient Egyptians who Mummified bodies Practiced Necrophillia,

Its messed up imo