05-06-12, 08:25 PM #21
[QUOTE=guthrie;1221272]The pyramids are dated to over 3,000 years ago, I forget the exact date.
Yes. You do. The Giza pyramids are more that 4500 years old.
The "poured" pyramid theory makes complete sense. Great advances have been made in the theory concerning the building of the pyramids in the past 50 years. It is a shame that so-called "scientists" will not even entertain the idea for simple pride.
05-07-12, 04:53 AM #22Lime from fireplace ash and salt were mixed in with it. The water evaporated, leaving a moist, clay-like mixture. This wet “concrete” would have been carried to the site and packed into wooden moulds where it would set hard in a few days. Mr Davidovits and his team at the Geopolymer Institute at Saint-Quentin tested the method recently, producing a large block of concrete limestone in ten days.
05-07-12, 10:35 AM #23
What surprises me that in the 21st century we can't even figure out how they built these structures. I always thought there has to be a simpler way, because the kingdom couldn't have stand to use 10s of thousands of builders for a basicly useless idea. So I go with the concrete theory...
05-07-12, 02:26 PM #24
05-07-12, 02:30 PM #25
Labor is exactly what was plentiful in ancient Egypt. We do know in general how these were made, it's not like it's a complete mystery, it's just masonry. We might not know every detail, but basically rocks were stacked up.
05-08-12, 01:44 AM #26
Although there was a permanent workforce of artisans/specialists, most of the general labor was accomplished by peasants drafted via a corvee system. Most of the pyramid construction was accomplished during the period when the Nile was high and the agricultural fields were flooded. When the Nile finally receeded, the workers were released to return home and tend to the crops. This on/off cycle would be utilized until pyramid construction was complete.
05-08-12, 03:28 PM #27
The whole reason for this thread is the new theory of how they were built.
But if you explain the logistics of the building process and how to feed a 20-30K work force for a basicly useless project, I am all ears.
We do know in general how these were made, it's not like it's a complete mystery, it's just masonry. We might not know every detail,
05-08-12, 03:35 PM #28
05-08-12, 03:46 PM #29
OK, I will summarize my problems with the accepted version of pyramid building:
1. First, building pyramids is a completely useless project. It will be used by only dead people. With churches at least we have usage by common people when worshiping. Not with the pyramids. Why is it a problem? Because generally food and labor hasn't been plentiful through the centuries in any society, so making a worthless project that uses up a huge workforce and lots of resources is dangerous for the ruling class >>> revolution. Not to mention, the society probably can't afford it. Somebody has to provide the resources. I don't think the Egyptian society was able to waste 20-30K laborers' work for centuries, not to mention feeding them, but hey, I could be wrong.
2. If the workforce was actually much smaller, let's say only 3-5K workers, how could be the project be done in time? They had to finish it in 20-30 years at top, because that's when the pharao died and needed the tomb. Also, if so little workforce was able to do the job, how come that 3000 years later we still can not replicate it? See next point:
3. How come a small number of workers today (let's say 10-20 people) can not move a heavy rock in a short time to a rather far distance? We can put a man on the Moon, but can't figure out how they did it? Now one of those pyramids has 2.5 million rocks in it. Do the math just how much time or workers need to move that many rocks. The logistics just doesn't add up. Oh yes, and let's not forget of the mining/making of the rocks, that adds up to the time, and could have taken actually longer than transferring them.
4. How did they cut the rocks?? Today we still can not replicate it using their available tools.
There are more if I think about it, but for starters these are enough. Now if the rocks were actually poured or made on site, that would help a lot with the logistics, because they had to move smaller sized material. So that's why the poured limestone makes more sense...
Last edited by Syzygys; 05-08-12 at 04:16 PM.
05-08-12, 03:53 PM #30
1. Egypt was not merely a society, but a powerful empire. The pyramids were tombs and were extremely important to their culture.
2. These buildings were started long before the guy died.
3. We can't do it today mostly for insurance reasons.
Where are the molds? And how would they create a mold strong enough to hold concrete but light enough to make them easier to transport than a rock? And where are the impressions from the molds in the rocks?
Concrete takes a lot of water to mix and to cure. I don't think it solves any logistical problems, in fact it introduces many more.
05-08-12, 03:57 PM #31
Even in present day Egypt,...I saw a TV program about it where they built an ancient Egyptian boat.
Maybe it took months to carry a rock there on barges (very little friction), but they had time.
But just run the numbers. 1 million rocks, 1 rock takes 1 month to mine and transfer for 10 people(assumption). So 10K people can deliver 12K rocks a year, so a pyramid containing 1 million rocks had to be build for 83 years.
Mind you, even today we cant do this with 10 people, we simple have no idea, they might needed 100 people for 1 rock....
If they used concrete, where did they get all that firewood?
05-08-12, 03:59 PM #32
According to the video, the quarry was 600+ miles away. Transfering a 2 ton rock that distance is a bitch....
Last edited by Syzygys; 05-08-12 at 04:17 PM.
05-08-12, 04:11 PM #33
I don't think they had to get it done on time, they mummified the dude and buried him later.
Did you know it took entire cities of people to accomplish this work? And also that we found the cities? And the houses of the workers, and documents relating to things like worker pay and injuries?
05-08-12, 04:25 PM #34
05-08-12, 04:34 PM #35
Did you know it took entire cities of people to accomplish this work?
05-08-12, 04:37 PM #36
Still I wonder how long it took just the water transportation. I guess if they were going 24/7, they could have made it in a week....
But here is another question. They never dropped a rock, while transfering 4-5 million? I don't think a sunk rock was ever found in the river bed....
05-08-12, 04:42 PM #37
The exercise was only useless to you. It was central to the religion of the area, where the rulers were considered gods themselves.
Secondly, food was not scarce. It was one of the most productive areas of the world. And it created a civilization. One of the major aspects of civilization is that it can support specialized trades.
05-08-12, 05:36 PM #38
Here is BBC's explanation of the building process:
Go to 5:20 where they show the spiral ramp being used. The funny part is that the pullers with the stone are at least 4 times longer than the little turning point at the corners.
In plain English, there is no fucking way they could have made the turn on the ramp.
Earlier they show the largest stones that required 200 workers to pull. Again, I don't see where the workers go once they reach the top, but the stone is still behind by 80-100 yards...
05-08-12, 05:39 PM #39
Obviously they found a way. This isn't rocket science, it's just rock and stone and rope. Many old trades are lost. How do you make a wagon from wood? I'm sure that would be a mystery to you and me, but there were techniques.
05-08-12, 07:26 PM #40
By the way the point of showing that clip was, that even a well respected channel like the BBC is spreading bullshit when it goes to 3000 years old technology. Half of the stuff in that documentary is made up....
They didn't even have iron tools. The bronze ones lost their sharpness after 100 or so hit by the hammer and had to be resharpened in the quarry, according to the documentary....