Who built the Pyramids?

Give'em hell SkinWalker. You're right on track and those other postings don't know beans! Keep telling them to read a book rather than posting worthless rubish.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Read books. Avoid rubbish.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wow, this is still going on? The Egyptians built the pyramids, regardless of alien intervention or any other sort of thing which is commonly in speculation and means nothing. If you want a true answer to your thoughts, you should ask, "Who were the Egyptians?" and then study them for your entire life making absolutely no progress into your inquiry until the day you die. And, if you do so, and when you have put more study into it and you have more evidence than the rest of it, then you can assert your belief and maybe only get laughed at behind your back and not to your face. Not that I myself am laughing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You mean they weren't the people of Upper and Lower Egypt?

I studied them closely for a few weeks. The Egyptians seem no more or less mysterious or clear than the other major civilizations of antiquity.

 

No, I think he's right on in what he's saying: "Wow, this is still going on?" Like some people still think that the Egyptians didn't build the pyramids??? "Then study them for your entire life" if that's how long it takes for you to realize this!

 

Though the Pyramids may have a purpose that we do not yet understand I think the question that we should be asking, rather than Who Built the Pyramids is Who Built the Sphinx. Geological evidence suggests that the Sphinx at the Giza complex is much older than is generally believed and also that the head of the Phinsx may have been added after the original structure was built (which is what Egyptians often did). Another interesting factor is that the Shinx is the only monument in Egypt that doesn't seem to have a purpose (tomb, palace, etc...). Another interesting theory that I heard (not that I beleive it) is that there is a secret Atlantean records chamber hidden under the left paw of the Sphinx. What does you think about that?

 

Since there was no Atlantis, there isn't much to think of it. The sphinx was likely built as a monument to Khafre and it's face even resembles other statuary that was created for him. Most likely it was an existing hill of limestone near the Valley Temple at the end of Khafre's causeway and converted by a creative Vizier/planner to the monument we see today.

No mystery here.

 

The geological evidence Wingmaker refers to arising from observations by Schuh(?) does raise a few doubts as to the age of the monument. While his conclusions (as to age) are the subject of some debate I would not rule them out entirely.
Wingmaker - a statement such as "the Sphinx is the only monument in Egypt that doesn't seem to have a purpose" is just silly.
1) Have you heard of monuments.
2) It is sitting a few yards away from a mortuary temple. Might they be related by more than geography? Do you want to tell me the figures outside the pylon at Karnak 'don't seem to have a purpose'? After all they are not, of themselves, a temple or a burial chamber.

 

Oh my God! And all my life I believed the pyramids were built by Africans...

 

SkinWalker, I believe you misunderstood me. I was combining skepticism and sarcasm with honest desire to inspire a conspiracist into putting some thoughts into what they were saying. And, moreover, studying someone for a few weeks is hardly a way to gain psychological, physical, cultural, and intellectual understanding of their history. There are a great deal of things that not you, or I or anyone else knows about them. If there weren't, they wouldn't still be studied.

 

Lemme think...the PEOPLE OF EGYPT.
Jesus H. Tittyfucking Tapdancing Christ on a stick, Arquibus, you cannot be that fucking retarded as to seriously be asking that question, can you?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

In respose to SkinWalker, perhaps I should explain this theory. The Sphinx is built in the Giza complex (which you probably know). On the side of the Sphinx, though, there are weathering "lines" (indentations) which is understandable, if they were caused by sand. But, it is becoming evident that this erosion was not caused by sand, but by water (and this thoery is accepted by many geologists). The last (known) time that flooding occured, to the extent that it would have needed to in ored to cause those marks, was well before the Egyptian civilization sprung up. Wo, what is theorized is that Khafre placed his head on a pre-existing monument, which was done quite a few times in Egypt.


Ophiolite- perhaps, I should have been more detailed. Monuments in ancient Egypt generally are temples and tombs, for pharaohs and gods. But both temples and tombs have rooms (poetry moment). What interests me is that, though located near a mortuary temple, this is seemingly an unrelated and non purposeful monument. Statues, in Egypt, were generally built to serve as an entranceway to a temple or tomb which had rooms. The Sphinx had no rooms, and, if built as an aforementioned statue, then why would they build it larger then the actual temple? Keep in mind that the stones used to build the Sphinx were larger thant the ones used for the pyramids. It just seems like too big of a projec for one king to undertake, for no specific reason (ie. it is not a temple or a tomb, it doesn't have any astrological importance *Orion*, and it is vasically useless). I just find it interesting.

 

Yet you cite none. Don't worry, I'll cite them for you. Schoch (1992;1992a) has written some fanciful speculations about this, but it would appear that he cannot back them up. Other geologists have pointed out that Schoch needs the seismic data of the layers below the Sphinx floor to be of weathered limestone, but that he has not the data to support this -only a hope. The data that is available indicates a different type of strata (Aigner 1983).

Poppycock. There were major floods of the Nile in both 1873 and 1938 which resulted in water rising over 1 meter above the floor of the Sphinx enclosure. But this is trivial with regard to the erosional forces that the Sphinx has endured since its construction during the time of Khafre. The geologists who actually study the region and the Sphinx itself agree that the major erosional problem that the Sphinx faces at the moment is from condensation and capillary action of dew which pulls salts from the interior of the stone (Chowdhury et al 1990; Gauri et al 1988; Gauri et al 1990). The constant and consistent expansion of salts on the surface of the stone cause exfoliation.

But this isn't the primary cause for the weathering we see on the Sphinx's body today. This was done, quite simply, by rainfall. The Giza plateau is in a desert, but it still receives intense bursts of rainfall every few years. Climate data indicates that it was so in the last few hundred years (Sutton 1949). Indeed, when the Sphinx was excavated, the matrix of sand removed was said to be "soaked" and wet (Gauri et al 1986).

The best, most reasonabled speculation that exists is that the person responsible for designing the Khafre Pyramid complex -which includes the pyramid itself, the adjacent mortuary temple, the valley temple and its adjacent sphinx- noticed a small hill or knoll that he either had to do something with. Perhaps the hill already had the body shape and the designer decided to work with what he had to create the body of the sphinx and add the head itself.

The Sphinx stands as a very clear and obvious guardian at the end of the causeway.

The monumental architecture you're familiar with, probably. But this overlooks the multitudes of stelae and obelisks as well as staturary. There are far more of these in existence than the pyramids, temples, and mastabas. To ignore that and bitch about not being able to "go inside" the Sphinx is nonsensical. The Sphinx really isn't all that large. It always looks large in photos because most photographers try to give it context with a pyramid in the background or from a low angle with a sky background. Its grandeur is largely an illusion.

The stones were larger? How large were the largest stones of Khufu's pyramid and how large were the largest stones of the Sphinx? Please cite a reference as well as the dimensions in cm, inches, feet, whatever. In addition, your comment that "it seems too big of a projec[t] for one king to undertake" is meaningless. You need to clarify this as to why a king can motivate tens of thousands of subjects to move enough stone to build a pyramid that is, perhaps, comprised of about 6 million tons of stone but not a monument of only 66 feet high. One that was probably just a converted hill.

Stop reading garbage by myster-mongers like Hancock, Schoch, and Bauval and start reading the works of actual researchers. Shoch is proof that even Ph.D.'s can be woo-woos.

references:

Aigner, T. (1983) Facies and origin of nummulitic buildups - an example from the Giza pyramids plateau Neus Jahrbuch Geologie und Palaeontologie Abhandlung 166 347-368.

Chowdhury, A. N., A. R. Punuru and K. L. Gauri (1990) Weathering of limestone beds at the Great Sphinx. Environmental Geology and Water Science, 15(3) 217-223.

Gauri, K. L., G. C. Holdren and W. C. Vaughry (1986) Cleaning efflorescences from masonry, in J. R. Clifton (ed.), 'Cleaning Stone and Masonry': ASTM Special Technical Publication 935, Philadelphia, 3-13.

Gauri, K. L., A. N. Chowdhury, N. P. Kulshreshtha and A. R. Punuru (1988) Geologic features and the durability of limestones at the Sphinx; in Marinos and Koukis (eds.), "Engineering Geology of Ancient Works, Monuments and Historical Sites": A. A. Balkema: Rotterdam, pp 723-729.

Gauri, K. L., A. N. Chowdhury, N. P. Kulshreshtah and A. R. Punuru (1990) Geologic features and durability of limestones at the Sphinx. Environmental Geology and Water Science 16(1) 57-62.

Sutton, L. J. (1949) "Rainfall in Egypt - statistics, storms, runoff", Ministry of Public Works, Physical Department Paper No. 53, Government Press, Cairo.

Schoch, R. M. (1992) A modern riddle of the Sphinx. Omni 14(11) 68-69.

Schoch, R. M. (1992a) Redating the Great Sphinx of Giza. KMT 3(2) 52-59.

 

SkinWalker, you have gone further than the facts merit on one point. I have not read Schoh's writings on the topic - so I do not know what other fanciful thoughts he has concocted. However, having stood by the Sphinx on several occasions I would concur that the erosion surely looks like water erosion. [Remember of course I am not an expert in geomorphology.] As noted above this erosion raises the possibility that the Sphinx may be older than the other items on the Giza plateau. (Strictly speaking, as I'm sure you know, it is not on the plateau.)
Certainly, the rare, but occasional downpours that effect the desert might be responsible, but I see no problem with the idea that pre-pyramid building Egyptians could have fashioned the sphinx from a pre-existing 'mound', while Cheops mob could have carried out later modifications. The erosion does not prove this: independent evidence woudl be required for that, but it suggests it as a possibility.
Just because the erosional features and possible earlier date for construction are tied in with some bizarre concepts, does not invalidate the thesis.
And while I'm on a roll: shame on you. You say, "The geologists who actually study the region and the Sphinx itself agree that the major erosional problem that the Sphinx faces at the moment is from condensation and capillary action of dew which pulls salts from the interior of the stone." Wingmaker was not disputing that. You have erected a strawman and blasted it down. You've been hanging around woo-woos so long you are starting to pick up their habits.

 

Hey... it's a problem that I was just recently reading on. They're actually considering the use of various methods of sealing the Sphinx in order to preserve it. The exfoliation of the surface is that much of a problem.

But mentioning it here is justifiable because when looking at the sphinx and the effects of erosion -either past or present- you have to take the entire system into consideration.

Moreover, it goes to what Gauri was saying in one of his papers:

But Ian Bordeaux's hypothesis might be the one to take seriously out of them all. http://www.ianlawton.com/as6.htm

He is less inclined to accept the "wet sand" hypothesis that I outlined, which originated from Jim Harrell & others, but I'm still reminded that the Sphinx was buried for much of it's existence, the strike of the plateau is toward the Sphinx from the Giza plateau, chemical weathering is a powerful process, and the "sand was wet" when originally excavated. We shouldn't expect the head to show the same weathering since it wasn't buried and it's of a better quality limestone.

Perhaps it was a combination of chemical and physical erosion. But one thing's for sure, the neolithic hypothesis is the weakest mainly because we don't see evidence of neolithic peoples on the Nile or elswhere engaged in monumental architecture.

 

Mea Culpa! Taken just over a year ago by yours truly;

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And no, it isn't that big up close. I mean it's big, but nothing compared to the pyramids.

 

locked

 

Dwayne, just 'cos you can't see a reason, doen't mean there wasn't one.

 

Absolutely worthless thinking. We know why they were built and who ordered the construction. The pictographs inside were figured long ago and present the whole story.

As you do so often, you've once again ignored clear evidence and simply made up your own - perhaps wishful? - version about parts that present no mystery whatsoever.

Actually, you should turn your efforts towards trying to sell fiction stories - since that's all you write anyway.

 

Rabon, not only are your posts nonsensical and out of touch with reality, but the reveal your true ignorance on the subject. I find it amazing that people constantly toss out speculations about the things that they see as amazing and mysterious without bothering to actually educate themselves.

Not only have you failed to acknowledge that the purposes of the pyramids are actually recorded (though not inside them as Light suggested -no hieroglyphs there except graffiti), the evolution of the the elite tomb of neolithic Egypt to the mastaba to the earliest attempts at pyramids is very clear in the archaeological record. Many of the same features find themselves in each.

Instead of educating yourself on reality, you speculate on nonsense about "capturing energies" and other New Age poppycock.

Elites in ancient societies built monumental architecture because they were gods on earth and the people responded to them as such.