Giza

stan · Post by **stan** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:12 pm

Well, do I wonder what happened to my proposed common knowledge between the pyramids...

Whether some of the pyramids did not withstand the ravages of time is irrelavent to
the fact that they knew how to put them up.

It appears they kept experimenting...but as I said before, there were big chunks of the process that must have been known by a lot of people.

They tried something and it didn't work. (We still do that. New Orleans levees, for example.)
Maybe the old architects/engineers who had sophisticated knowledge died or were kicked out of the shop. Maybe the sophisticated information was kept within a close knit circle of elites.

Maybe it would help to define the areas where they screwed up.
Could be poor choice of materials or poor engineering.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:17 pm

this is like some ancient world consipracy theory for you Min isn't it
not only is there some secret about pyramid building thats the AE hid
but the global archaeological conspiracy to cover up our technological ancient past knows the truth and is hiding it too
maybe at some point you'll stop researching at pseudo sites and you'll realise that the only real consipracy theory going on was the one with princess margaret and the queen mother
but until then...........

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:45 pm

Could be poor choice of materials or poor engineering.

Could be almost anything including the use of shady contractors with ties to the mob.

Still....the Romans managed to maintain the skill of building aqueducts, roads and amphitheaters over centuries....and it just seems odd that the Egyptians lost such a unique skill so quickly.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:47 pm

yes but what have the Romans ever done for us

stan · Post by **stan** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:43 pm

Could be almost anything including the use of shady contractors with ties to the mob.

Maybe they forgot what a cubit was!
Maybe their budget was cut.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:10 am

Hey stan, the royal cubit was derived from the rate of precession, that is the "lost" knowledge of which you speak.

oldarchystudent · Post by **oldarchystudent** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 7:56 am

Of related interest - TV series starting this week on how monumental buildings were constructied:

http://www.archaeology.org/online/revie ... index.html

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:20 am

Where are the Great Pyramids of Giza?

Simple. They don't know HOW such monuments were made. Even better!
I'll be home in time to watch it.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 4:36 pm

Me too. Sounds good.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:35 am

http://dailygrail.com/node/3727

Bauval has a new book out - "The Egypt Code". The folks at The Daily Grail have obtained an early copy and have provided a review for anyone interested.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:04 pm

In all likelihood, the orthodox opposition to Bauval’s research comes not so much from that core theory, but from the other subjects associated with him from the ‘alternative history’ genre throughout the 1990s – the Age of the Sphinx controversy, the 10,500 BCE date

Or, the "Club's" notorious reluctance to accept anything from an outsider.[/code]

DougWeller · Post by **DougWeller** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:53 pm

Minimalist wrote:
stan wrote:Yes, Bob. obviously a lot of the information is lost to us.
THose engineers went to school, though....and the knowledge was taught and otherwise passed down. The students probably went on field trips to the old pyramids to study how it was done. And think of all the sculptors and architects involved in the temple design and construction.

I guess the implication of my train of thought is that there was a large common knowledge base related to monument construction, in addition to the speciailized engineering component.

Anything wrong with that?

Elsewhere on the board is a long discussion, complete with photographs, of the pyramid history of Egypt.

We are asked to believe that Djoser's Step pyramid was the first and then things progressed to Meidum (which collapsed) and the Bent Pyramid and the Red Pyramid....then the GP, Khafre's and Menkaure's were built in rapid succession, the first two dwarfing the earlier ones and Menkaure's smaller but still retaining the technical excellence exhibited. Then, starting in the 5th Dynasty, they suddenly forgot everything they knew and started building shitty little pyramids again that collapsed in ruins. Moreover, from some of the photos I posted earlier, it appeared as if some of the later pyramids had "regressed" to the Step Pyramid model.

So, while it may indeed be possible that certain members of the elite classes did indeed take field trips to study the old works of excellence, it appears they did not learn their lessons very well.

Perhaps, they got into school as a legacy and spent all their time getting drunk at frat parties?

No one asks you to believe that anyone forgot everything they knew. Or at least I don't think you can quote any serious archaeologist to that effect.

Think about it -- to build huge monuments you need a bit more than the knowledge of how to built them, you need the resources -- a powerful Egypt, a powerful centralized government, etc.

I know Trigger and others argue that, and a quick Google turned this up:
http://i-cias.com/e.o/egypt_dyn05.htm

"The smaller pyramids of this dynasty indicate a decline in central power compared with the 4th. Still, from this it may not be deducted that the national economy was weakened. People and nobles in the 5th Dynasty were painfully aware of the national cost the great pyramids had represented, and a king may no longer have had the position of forcing gigantic projects through. This on the other hand, may well have led to better living conditions for the common man.
Still, in one field the 5th excels the 4th; decorations in the funerary temples are of higher quality than ever before."

DougWeller · Post by **DougWeller** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 1:59 pm

Minimalist wrote:
In all likelihood, the orthodox opposition to Bauval’s research comes not so much from that core theory, but from the other subjects associated with him from the ‘alternative history’ genre throughout the 1990s – the Age of the Sphinx controversy, the 10,500 BCE date

Or, the "Club's" notorious reluctance to accept anything from an outsider.[/code]

There's no club. But there is a problem with the idea that a scattered group of centres are based on something in the 12th millenium bce. I'd say you need evidence for a culture that would both want to memorialise something from then and could keep it alive for about what, 9000 years?

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 5:42 pm

The Club always says that there is no club, Doug....we've been down this road before.

spacecase0 · Post by **spacecase0** » Fri Oct 06, 2006 10:14 pm

has anyone seen coral castle, one tiny guy made the whole thing, he said that it was easy if you knew how to do it.
http://www.coralcastle.com/home.asp

I also like this theory of how they could have done so much,
I wonder if this is where they found out how to make big things.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/aa.htm