Who built the Pyramids?

Gustav, could you show me the contradiction?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes it is proven that egyptians built some of the pyramids, but is it not odd
that the oldest pyramids are architectually superior to the later attempts.
If there wasn't any assistance with the first pyramids why are there not any
"rough draft" pyramids which show their ancient progression to perfection. How do you skip straight to the final draft? Why did the art of pyramid building seem to take a huge step backwards at one point instead of further
progression. Did they forget how their ancestors did it? This also seems to
be eerily similar to mystery of human social evolution. The same type of regression can be seen in ancient cultures who transformed from a culture of advanced farming and pottery making to a more primitive culture of hunting with crudely fashioned weaponery seemingly over-nig :m: ht.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You appear to be adhering to a debunked view of the sequence of pyramids that is rejected by just about every Egyptologist on the planet.
There is a progressive line from the step pyramid at Saquara, through the Bent Pyramid, to those on the plateau at Giza.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The later pyramids were indeed of lesser quality than the earlier Great Pyramid at Giza. This does, indeed, seem counter-intuitive at first, but the explanation is purely economical. The later dynasties were more economically challenged than those of the Fourth Dyanasty. There was a revitalist effort in later Dynasties, but Egypt's expansion into the world created a serious deficit in its ability to pull together the capital needed to build monumental architecture.

Later Pharaoh's built marvelous and grandiose structures, some even built pyramids out of nostalgia, but the pyramids were built with more efficient and less labor/material intensive methods, albeit methods that would not create structures that would withstand the test of time. Many pyramids were made with mudbrick, some were even built with a "frame" of solid limestone blocks which were filled in with mudbrick or sand and then faced with stone.

The later Pharaohs concentrated their efforts on temples and temple-tombs rather than pyramid tombs, however. The temple Medinet Habu and the Temple of Osiris at Abydos or the Temple at Karnak had grand hypostyle halls with columns so large that one column could hold 50 people if they were to stand on the capital.

Grandiosity didn't disappear, it simply changed.

[quote="M"thearie]The same type of regression can be seen in ancient cultures who transformed from a culture of advanced farming and pottery making to a more primitive culture of hunting with crudely fashioned weaponery seemingly over-night.[/quote]

Which cultures are these? Perhaps you could be a bit more specific.

 

I question their method of debunking the age of the pyramids of Giza, simply because as has been stated their is NO true way of aging these pyramids. What we do have is circumstancial but none-the-less intruiging. I'm speaking of the alignment being exact to the alignment of Orions belt. Most egyptologist adhere to an egyptian religion byass which will never accept the older dating of the pyramids despite the fact that Orions belt did not line up
exactly unless you go forther back in time. This contradicts egyptian history and religion so I'm not suprised mainstream egyptologist do not accept it.

 

Read up on cultures existing around 1500 bc and you can clearly see an immeadiate drop in advanced civilizations. One of the foremost intelectuals in this area is Graham Hancock. I'm sure many people disagree with him, but we must keep an open mind to all possibilities and not let our own agendas, whether they be religous or scientific, skew our opinions.

 

[QUOTE="M"thearie]I question their method of debunking the age of the pyramids of Giza, simply because as has been stated their is NO true way of aging these pyramids. [/QUOTE]

Poppycock. Kings lists such as the Turin Papyrus list the kings in good order and are supported by other, similar lists. Add to this the dendrochronological and radiocarbon datings conducted on various artifacts recovered from monuments, including the pyramids of Giza (Lehner 1997), and the dating of them is extremely accurate. Dendrochronology and radiocarbon are absolute dating methods and they compliment cooroborate each other. Thermoluminescence dating of pottery in Dynasty IV contexts (Abdel-Wahab et al 1996) are consistent with the established ages of the pyramids at Giza.

[QUOTE="M"thearie]What we do have is circumstancial but none-the-less intruiging. I'm speaking of the alignment being exact to the alignment of Orions belt. Most egyptologist adhere to an egyptian religion byass which will never accept the older dating of the pyramids despite the fact that Orions belt did not line up
exactly unless you go forther back in time. [/QUOTE]

This is more pseudoscientific poppycock. I could go into depth about why, but you haven't even stated what you mean by "line up" with Orion's Belt, or why this is necessary.

[QUOTE="M"thearie]This contradicts egyptian history and religion so I'm not suprised mainstream egyptologist do not accept it.[/QUOTE]

"Mainstream" is a derisive word used by those that aren't educated in archaeology to refer to the alleged "establishment" that rejects their unsupported speculations.

[quote="M"thearie]Read up on cultures existing around 1500 bc and you can clearly see an immeadiate drop in advanced civilizations. [/QUOTE]

Please. Be specific. There were a lot of cultures in existence around 1500 BCE. There are several reasons for their subsequent collapses. Some even progressed. Random and general statements on the subject have little meaning.

[QUOTE="M"thearie]One of the foremost intelectuals in this area is Graham Hancock. [/QUOTE]

Not even close. Hancock is one of the foremost dumb-asses in the area. His wild speculations and pseudoscientific nonsense are far-reaching and appeal very nicely to the under-educated. Those educated in ancient history and archaeology often laugh at the nut.

[QUOTE="M"thearie]I'm sure many people disagree with him, but we must keep an open mind to all possibilities and not let our own agendas, whether they be religous or scientific, skew our opinions.[/QUOTE]

This is a rhetoric that Hancock and his under-educated followers would like us all to accept, but being of an open mind doesn't include a lack of critical thinking and a casual approach to evidence. Hancock finds appeals to the ancients to be a very effective marketing tool and has sold many pseudoscientific books and hosted many pseudoscientific television programs, lining his pockets quite well. But I've yet to see a single one of his major claims about ancient civilizations hold up. Not a one. He's good at painting himself as an underdog to the 'big, bad establishment of mainstream science,' but he absolutely sucks at providing any evidence. He's the modern day Von Daniken. Both are a joke.

References:

Abdel-Wahab, M.S.; El-Fiki, S.A.; El-Fiki, M.A.; Gomaa, M.; Abdel-Kariem, S.; and El-Faramawy, N. (1996) Annual Dose Measurements and TL-Dating of Ancient Egyptian Pottery. Radiation Physics and Chemistry, 47(5), 697-700

Lehner, Mark (1997) The Complete Pyramids. Thames and Hudson

 

"Poppycock. Kings lists such as the Turin Papyrus list the kings in good order and are supported by other, similar lists. Add to this the dendrochronological and radiocarbon datings conducted on various artifacts recovered from monuments, including the pyramids of Giza (Lehner 1997), and the dating of them is extremely accurate. Dendrochronology and radiocarbon are absolute dating methods and they compliment cooroborate each other. Thermoluminescence dating of pottery in Dynasty IV contexts (Abdel-Wahab et al 1996) are consistent with the established ages of the pyramids at Giza."

Believe what you want, I could care less but the carbon dating you are speaking of only dates objects found inside of the pyramids not the pyramids themselves and You know what I'm reffering to with regard to Orions belt, that is if you have done your homework as you say you have, you don't believe it is true because it doesn't fit into your belief system. Basically, I believe it is possible the Pyramids were built before advanced human civilization where as to you it is irrelevant because of it is a impossibility.

 

The cultures I spoke of center around ancient Sumaria around 1500 bc.

 

I'm not replying to anyone specifically, but do you not find it is odd egyptian hieroglyphics illustrate "pharoahs" who can fly and live nearly 200 years. They
are spoke of as "Divine" and who's offspring are only "Semi-divine". Also it seems odd that Egyptians would paint around their eyes with black paint so they would appear larger. Does that not remind you of anything. But I guess
these things are only based in egyptian mythology, not fact as the painting of egyptians building the pyramids clearly are. ITS EASY TO PICK OUT THE HEIROGLYPHS THAT FIT IN WITH YOUR BELIEFS AND TO DISMISS THE REST.
I'de rather try and make sense of it all not just what works for me.

 

[QUOTE="M"thearie]Believe what you want, I could care less but the carbon dating you are speaking of only dates objects found inside of the pyramids not the pyramids themselves [/QUOTE]

Except that there are carbon containing objects such as woods like date palms and cedars which are used *in* the construction of the pyramids which are dated. To be a part of the pyramid structure itself, the wood must have died before the construction. In addition, there are many texts that are dated via their contexts which mention the pyramids and their construction as well as the kings. Basic inferrence is all that is needed to place the texts and the pyramids themselves in contexts with dates. Moreover, the pottery that was left in the temples and pyramids of Giza are also dated via TL-dating. The only objects that provide dates beyond what is determined to be Fourth Dynasty in the 3rd Millenium BCE are wooden objects that are re-used from earlier wooden sources -wood is scarce in Egypt, particularly that which isn't of date palm sources. But even then, the dates aren't on the order of pre-dynastic which nutters like Hancock suggest.

[QUOTE="M"thearie]and You know what I'm reffering to with regard to Orions belt, that is if you have done your homework as you say you have, you don't believe it is true because it doesn't fit into your belief system. [/QUOTE]

I temper my beliefs with evidence. I know what I'm talking about, but I want to see if you do or if you're simply repeating some vague nonsense you read in one of Hancock's or Bauval's novels. Be specific with regard to what you assert (or, more accurately, what others assert and you are repeating without understanding) and if it's wrong, I'll refute it with considerable ease. Until then, you've made a general and vague statement that has little meaning.

[QUOTE="M"thearie]Basically, I believe it is possible the Pyramids were built before advanced human civilization where as to you it is irrelevant because of it is a impossibility.[/QUOTE]

Oh, no. It is possible. To that I will concede. But since there is absolutely no evidence that the pyramids at Giza existed prior to the Fourth Dynasty, and considerable evidence to suggest that they they were constructed *in* the Fourth Dynasty, I dismiss the woo-woo hypothesis of "an earlier advanced civilization." The Egyptians left many records, both intentionally and unintentionally. None mention or suggest a previous, advanced civilization. This alleged civilization left no trace. None. Not a pot sherd. It exists only in the minds of woo-woos like Hancock and Bauval.

[quote="M"thearie]do you not find it is odd egyptian hieroglyphics illustrate "pharoahs" who can fly and live nearly 200 years. They
are spoke of as "Divine" and who's offspring are only "Semi-divine". Also it seems odd that Egyptians would paint around their eyes with black paint so they would appear larger.[/quote]

Be specific. What texts precisely. Cite the source and others can comment on it. Otherwise, it is a vague and meaningless statement.

I'll post on the Sumerians after supper.

 

In response to the topic title, It would not be difficult to imagine alien intervention if egyptians suddenly had video cameras, but I am sure they were perfectly capable of putting one rock on top of another rock without the aid of super-intelligent beings

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

i don't know but i believe the biggest hoopla here is how.

 

http://www.ufoevidence.org/photographs/section/post2000/Photo397.htm

 

So what? Why is a picture of a static dot noticed after the fact on a UFO website? UFO, means Unidentified FLYING Object. There is nothing to suggest this dot was 'Flying', is there?

 

Perhaps he's attempting to imply that dust motes are responsible for the building of the pyramids? Why not? Every other nonsensical suggestion has been made.

 

Agent51, who told you that the Egyptians needed superior technology to construct the pyramids? What about just hard work? I once read that they must have needed lasers to create such fine blocks, but that doesn't make it true does it?

 

Well, they are quite dusty inside, maybe that's the bodies of the worker motes that were sealed alive in the pyramid, to prevent the secrets of the construction becoming known? ;-)

I shouldn't say this stuff, someone might take it seriously!

 

Equally, I should not make the observation that dust motes is an anagram of modest su; or that su, is an obvious abbreviation for spacetravelling uberalien. The use of the adjectival preface indicates that the construction methods of the pyramid have been concealed not out of secrecy, but a simple modesty and shyness, so common amongst our alien neighbours.

 

Modest stu - space travelling uberalien

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!