Archaeologica.org

As I understand it these pyramids had a temple or altar of some sort on the summit.

And yet, the Egyptians and Sudanese ( at least ) did not. It's hard to generalize about these things. Too many different cultures built them.

Minimalist wrote:

As I understand it these pyramids had a temple or altar of some sort on the summit.

And yet, the Egyptians and Sudanese ( at least ) did not. It's hard to generalize about these things. Too many different cultures built them.

Afaic the ancient Egyptians, Nubians, and pre-Columbian meso-Americans built pyramids: with a (more or less) pointy tip. The others didn't. They built structures – neatly squared mounds – with a considerable flat top, for specific purposes, that decidedly lack what makes a pyramid a pyramid: a pointy tip. So to me they're not 'pyramids'.

Afaic the ancient Egyptians ... built pyramids: with a (more or less) pointy tip. The others didn't. They built structures – neatly squared mounds – with a considerable flat top, for specific purposes, that decidedly lack what makes a pyramid a pyramid: a pointy tip. So to me they're not 'pyramids'.

Is the Djoser Step Pyramid, constructed by Imhotep, in the (more or less) category? I don't see a pointy tip.

Cognito wrote:

Afaic the ancient Egyptians ... built pyramids: with a (more or less) pointy tip. The others didn't. They built structures – neatly squared mounds – with a considerable flat top, for specific purposes, that decidedly lack what makes a pyramid a pyramid: a pointy tip. So to me they're not 'pyramids'.

Is the Djoser Step Pyramid, constructed by Imhotep, in the (more or less) category? I don't see a pointy tip.

Flat-topped mounds were built flat for a purpose. Usually as a place of worship, sacrifice, or astronomical observation, but also for the king (and his cronies) to live on (literally as "the king of the hill"). But in any case they were built flat for regular human activity.

The Djoser step pyramid obviously isn't/wasn't suitable for 'regular human activity' on its top. So it's a pyramid.

The correct conclusion but I suspect that Cogs' 'point' was that it does not have a "point." You need to refine your definition.

Minimalist wrote:The correct conclusion but I suspect that Cogs' 'point' was that it does not have a "point." You need to refine your definition.

No, I don't: squinting through your eyelashes is enough to make a point...

(Imhotep's eyesight apparently wasn't 20/20 )

The debate is easily resolved, A Pyramid is a known geometric solid, if it has no point it is defined as 'truncated!'

Roy.

Digit wrote:The debate is easily resolved, A Pyramid is a known geometric solid, if it has no point it is defined as 'truncated!'

A "truncated pyramid" implies that the initial building plan called for a pointy tip but was adapted later (during the building process? Or even after?).
The flat-topped mounds in Sumer and Peru seem to never have been intended to be built up to a pointy tip. So they were never even intended as pyramids (with a pointy tip). They were built to create a 'higher plane' for specific functions/activities. Literally.

No it doesn't. It's a technical definition that may not apply to any construction at all, just a drawing.

Roy.

Digit wrote:No it doesn't. It's a technical definition that may not apply to any construction at all, just a drawing.

FYI: here on http://archaeologica.org/, in this thread, the subject is pyramids as in constructions. Not geometry. Or art. Or philosophy. Or religion. We're talking about physical, man-made, stylized heaps of material of ancient and pre-history.

Really! So the definition changes when it suits you?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/truncated+pyramid

It's a truncated pyramid what ever you want to use it for. I suppose you could write a treatise on south American pyramids as 'Pyramids with the pointy bit missing!' if you wanted to of course.

Roy.

That's an itchy bug you've got up your arse, Roy!

Not at all. I expect people who claim to know what they are talking about to use the understood terminology. That way others know that they are all talking about the same thing. All trades, professions, technologies have an agreed language that means they don't necessarily have to spell everything out in words of one syallable, helps prevent mis-understandings.

Roy.

Correct: that, flavoured with a mind altering dose of blind contrariness, yep.

A.k.a. troll.

Or someone dedicated to improving your knowledge of the English language, at least you won't now make the same error again. Your thanks taken for granted.

Roy.