Archaeologica.org

Posted: **Sun Feb 17, 2008 12:36 pm**

Odd, eh?

Posted: **Mon Feb 18, 2008 1:48 pm**

You know, why don’t we get into the same arguments over the ones in SA?
The Inca and Aztec didn’t use small stones.
How did they build them?
How long would it take?
The mud brick ones in Peru are so big they thought for years they were natural hills, not man made.
How much labor does that take?

Posted: **Mon Feb 18, 2008 2:05 pm**

[/quote]How much labor does that take?[quote]

One man plus the necessary time.

Posted: **Mon Feb 18, 2008 2:17 pm**

The Egyptologists have a virtual equation, kb.

4th Dynasty Egyptians + minimal copper tool technology + tomb for one man + 20 years = pyramid

Any term of the equation can be attacked because the evidence for any of it is so minimal.

The cathedrals of Europe are massive stone structures built over the course of centuries which block and tackle technology. In spite of the fact that there are people buried in them, no one suggests that they were built as tombs and tombs only. I haven't seen where SA archaeologists have painted themselves into this kind of a corner.

Posted: **Mon Feb 18, 2008 2:29 pm**

Can someone post some pictures of the ones we're talking about in SA, please?

Posted: **Mon Feb 18, 2008 2:39 pm**

We don't need to attack the equation Min it's as stupid as 1+2 =5.
This is the problem with the 'Club', they seem incapable of seeing what the rest of us see.

Posted: **Mon Feb 18, 2008 2:55 pm**

Here's a Mayan pyramid, Ish.

Posted: **Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:52 am**

The most astronomical pyramid in the world.

Posted: **Tue Feb 19, 2008 9:50 am**

Digit wrote:We don't need to attack the equation Min it's as stupid as 1+2 =5.
This is the problem with the 'Club', they seem incapable of seeing what the rest of us see.

If Zahi sees that post, Dig, you'll be banned from Giza for life!

Posted: **Tue Feb 19, 2008 12:59 pm**

Oh sh*t! I've done it again. Next week I'l be thrown out of the Boy Scouts if I'm not careful!

Posted: **Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:10 pm**

Minimalist wrote:
Digit wrote:We don't need to attack the equation Min it's as stupid as 1+2 =5.
This is the problem with the 'Club', they seem incapable of seeing what the rest of us see.
If Zahi sees that post, Dig, you'll be banned from Giza for life!

Zahi would be doing you a great service, Dig! Giza nowadays is a regular dilapidated Disney park with yabbering camel drivers and screaming, dirty little kids pestering you for a ride or baksheesh every step of the way. It's not funny.

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:10 pm**

http://www.thecheers.org/news/World-new ... oject.html

A new study by Italian researchers has determined that two of the pyramids of Giza in Egypt, were conceived as a single project.

According to a report in Discovery News, it is widely believed that the pharaohs Khufu, his son Khafre and grandson Menkaure built their pyramids on the edge of a desert plateau at Giza between 2600 and 2450 BC.

But, according to Giulio Magli of the mathematics department at Milan's Polytechnic University, astronomical alignments and the landscape indicate that the two main pyramids, those identified with the tombs of Khufu and Khafre, were not built in different stages.

On the contrary, they were planned as a single, grand project.

"Khufu was the mind behind the project. He conceived both pyramids to have strong symbolic meaning. He wanted to state forever that his soul had joined the sun god," Magli told Discovery News.

The study suggested that Khufu planned the construction of two pyramids, exactly as his father, Snefru, did in Dahshur. Only later did Khafre claim for himself the slightly smaller pyramid.

Another pyramid construction theory emerges.

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:36 pm**

Strange. My earlier post (above) got in, but not treated as a new post evidently.

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:53 pm**

So would that now be two pyramids in twenty years then?

Posted: **Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:57 pm**

Zahi will still shit a brick.

We had a little system glitch a while ago, Beags. Seems okay now.