Archaeologica.org

The answer to most of those is "probably."

In one of his books, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein lays out 4 criteria for "state formation". One of them was record keeping...another was monumental architecture. I'll have to go look up the others. His point is that every nation which evolved from a primitive state reaches certain milestones.

Writing begins as a need for a king to keep track of his kingdom and presumably is not needed until things develop in such a way as to prevent the king from checking his property in the course of an afternoon ride. It should not be confused with widespread literacy which seems to be a comparatively recent idea.

I read all of Von Daniken's books, borrowed, I wasn't going to waste money buying them, and the man was an out and out crook.
Hancock of course could just be correct in a way the Daniken never could be.

Von Daniken could never answer the question, "why would an advanced civilization come here" and even more important "why would they stop?"

AT a time when the whole planet could have conquered by two guys with revolvers you would think that the "aliens" would have made more of an impact.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/issues/20 ... andria.php

Hogarth was spectacularly wrong. Empereur and other scientists are now uncovering astonishing artifacts and rediscovering the architectural sublimity, economic muscle and intellectual dominance of an urban center that ranked second only to ancient Rome. What may be the world's oldest surviving university complex has come to light, along with one of the Seven Wonders of the World, the Pharos, the 440-foot-high lighthouse that guided ships safely into the Great Harbour for nearly two millennia. And researchers in wet suits probing the harbor floor are mapping the old quays and the fabled royal quarter, including, just possibly, the palace of that most beguiling of all Alexandrians, Cleopatra. The discoveries are transforming vague legends about Alexandria into proof of its profound influence on the ancient world.

Cleopatras' palace? Alexanders' tomb? The sunken city holds a lot of history. Interesting article but long.
From the Daily Grail.

The big question about Pharos was, what was the fuel source?

My guess would be oil.

http://www.archaeology.org/0705/etc/pyramid.html

The Internal Ramp Theory
A radical new idea has recently been presented by Jean-Pierre Houdin, a French architect who has devoted the last seven years of his life to making detailed computer models of the Great Pyramid. Using start-of-the-art 3-D software developed by Dassault Systemes, combined with an initial suggestion of Henri Houdin, his engineer father, the architect has concluded that a ramp was indeed used to raise the blocks to the top, and that the ramp still exists--inside the pyramid!

More on the internal ramp theory.
From Archaeology.

Beagle wrote:My guess would be oil.

In Egypt?

Brier is a prime proponent of the "tombs-and-tombs-only" school of thought....a/k/a The Club. Still, it could be that there is an internal passageway but that would seem to be a complication for the tomb theory. Handling blocks inside a small tunnel would appear, on first observation, to be an even less efficient mechanism for moving blocks than an external ramp.

Again, in order to explain the GP all you have to do is lose the time limitation. If you allow yourself 40 or 50 years to build it it is completely doable with the technology available. It's only when you stick with the idea that it was a tomb for one man that you are forced into the 20 year limitation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_lamp

An oil lamp is a simple vessel used to produce light continuously for a period of time from a fuel source. The history of oil lamps extends for about 10,000 years,[citation needed] from prehistory to as late as the 19th century, or even until now in some rural remote communities.

Oil seems more likely than wood. And at the time of the lighthouse of Pharos, huge amounts could have been imported from nearby countries.

Wood seems impossible, given the lack of wood in Egypt. Likewise oil, which at the time was almost exclusively olive oil would also have needed to be imported and would have been quite expensive as a result.

Just guessing, but I imagine that quite a lot of olive trees were grown in the delta region. Even then, Egypt was rich, and imported many things, including Lapis for cosmetics.

Besides, what other options are there for fuel?

I don't know. It seems to me that olive trees grow in drier climates; Palestine, Turkey, Greece, Italy. I've never heard Egypt mentioned as a major producer. What Egypt produced was grain and lots of it.

Another thing always bothered me about Pharos. Ancient sailors rarely sailed at night. They tended to sail along the coast anyway and it was easier to just put into shore rather than blunder along in the dark.

Hawass having another shit hemorrhage about nothing.

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Story.as ... ueID=30031

After the competition was announced, Egyptian antiquities supremo Zahi Hawass said that the pyramids "are the only one of the seven wonders of the ancient world that still exists. It's ridiculous, they don't need to be put to a vote."

The move has done little to dim his anger over what he calls a crass "publicity stunt."

"We didn't ask anything from these people and we reject the tourist company that is trying to choose the seven wonders. They are cheating the Egyptians," said Hawass.

Minimalist wrote:I don't know. It seems to me that olive trees grow in drier climates; Palestine, Turkey, Greece, Italy. I've never heard Egypt mentioned as a major producer. What Egypt produced was grain and lots of it.

Another thing always bothered me about Pharos. Ancient sailors rarely sailed at night. They tended to sail along the coast anyway and it was easier to just put into shore rather than blunder along in the dark.

And 440 feet? That defies imagination. Also, whether oil or wood, any fuel would all have to be hauled up there. Stair climbing porters is unlikely. It wouldn't be a reliable enough – steady and permanent, with no let-up ever – supply system to keep a considerable fire burning throughout every single night. Unless they had a viable tackle system. Did they then? Was that technology common enough for something like this?

Seems like a stretch of the imagination all round, to me.

Where does "440 feet" come from? "440 Herz" would have been more logical for a 'lighthouse', pointing towards a fog horn...
Wasn't it 44 feet?
And why burn a fire all night every night if sailors didn't sail at night?
(However, didn't they? Growing theorizing on pre 1,000 BC global trade routes asssumes ocean crossing sailing, with astronomical navigation. Which somehow works best at night )
So much more likely they didn't 'burn a fire all night every night', but just occassionaly. And then, obviously, for some other reason than as a maritime beacon.
Well, on land, there were a hundred thousand people in all of Alexandria that could see it. So it's likely any such fires were meant as some kind of beacon, message, to them. Not to sailors.