Archaeologica.org

First Question:
Does anyone think the "Pyramid" in Bosnia is the real deal?
The photos do suggest a man-made structure...geometrical, straight
lines, rectangular base....
However, all the other pyramids Ihave seen seem to have been built
on a wide, flat plain, so they stood out dramatically.
The one in Bosnia seems to have been "built" on a pre-existing mountain
at the edge of a range of montains, that ties into them. Seems odd to me.
BY the way, it is BIG, too. For picture, see

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/fo ... read=80951

Second Question:
Does The co-existence of pyramid construction in Egypt and Peru
(Caral) imply similar religious developments...branching from
a single source? Or does it imply "contemprary" communications between
the Egyptians and the Caral-ians via sea travel?

http://www.niu.edu/pubaffairs/presskits ... phics.html

Thank you.

I think that pyramids were so widespread because it's the simplest structure to build that can be tall and very stable. Just stack layers up in ever decreasing size until you come to a point. Not everything has religious significance.

One of the areas we talk about over a dew drinks when we together at a lecture is religion and culture.The question being discussed being are the two seperate?in other words could say pyramids have cultural similarities but and its a big but they not have religous.
One of the main areas i personaly have been studying for several years is the possibility of seeing not only cultural ideals in lithics but also is it possible to view religous and communicational changes and directions from the artifacts?.
let me simplify by looking at tools we see material and stylistic changes if it is possible within those changes to also see cultural ,communicational or belief changes then the world of lithics studies changes dramaticaly.
For example my own work involves looking into homo erectus lithics with the hope of seeing some sign of such changes.My peers in the most part ascribe erectus tool construction to use their terms as monkey see monkey do, something i do not agree with,and believe we are not so much seeing to little in lithics as seeing but being unable to read what we see. cheers hope that sort of clear

I realize I have bundled a bunch of other questions in the two that
I have asked.
Mr. Harrist, I don't quite understand your comment. Of course, not everything is of religious significance, but a pyramid? Aren't they usually
tombs or temples, i.e., religious?. And, considering the scale of the
undertakings, don't they imply a large cultural (i.e., religious) investment
in their construction?
Mr. Fossil Trader, thanks for your interesting reply. I have similar thoughts about the Clovis points. Are they only a hunting technology?
Someone might say, "How can we talk about a Clovis "culture" when it seems primarily to be defined by killing mammoths with beautiful spearpoints?"
Well, maybe there was an apprenticeship involved in training young hunters to make the points...fantasizing here....perhaps initiations...which
are usually in a religious context.
But about this Bosnia thing??

"[...] there is evidence that it contains rooms and a monumental causeway"

OK, Stan, let's see those excavated, examined and confirmed then.
Shouldn't be too much of a problem, should it?

[quote="stan gilliam"]Second Question:
Does The co-existence of pyramid construction in Egypt and Peru
(Caral) imply similar religious developments...branching from
a single source? Or does it imply "contemprary" communications between the Egyptians and the Caral-ians via sea travel?
http://www.niu.edu/pubaffairs/presskits ... phics.html
[/quote]

"Co-existence"?
Weren't they built at least 2,000 years apart?

Obviously further excavations are required but if it turns out to be true it will set the world of archaeology on its ear....which is probably not a bad thing.

Here is a brief summary of findings at Caral, claiming
it is a city as old as the Egyptian Pyramids...give or take...

http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smiths ... caral.html

There are other articles with more details.
If you do a google image search under "caral" there are quite a few
nice photos and maps.[/img]

I've always found it entertaining that Egyptologists can work themselves into sheer hysterial tantrums whenever anyone suggests that the Giza pyramids were not built by the 4th Dynasty pharoahs, Khufu, Cephren and Menkaure. In fact, the actual evidence that they rely on to sustain those attributions as well as the Great Sphinx is almost comical.

Yes, straws.

stan gilliam wrote: Mr. Harrist, I don't quite understand your comment. Of course, not everything is of religious significance, but a pyramid? Aren't they usually
tombs or temples, i.e., religious?. And, considering the scale of the
undertakings, don't they imply a large cultural (i.e., religious) investment
in their construction?

Probably so, but it seems that archaeologists are very quick to assign religious explanations to things. It seems to have become the most convenient thing to do. It saves having to find the real reason for something's existence. It also makes a find seem so much more significant. Whether or not religion was the reason for building monumental structures it was the leadership which used religion as an excuse to put people to work on these projects for whatever reason. Perhaps to keep them busy so they didn't fight amongst themselves or maybe so they didn't have time to think about how dumb the religion was and that the leaders were using it as a tool to manipultae the people. Religion was invented for political purposes. It's as simple as that and maybe we should see beyond the facade and find the real reasons for such projects. Someone said that in a million years they'll find Mt. Rushmore and assume these men were our gods. What would they assume about the Washington monument or the Lincoln Memorial? Are all the great, grandiose buildings we build religious? Maybe the pyramids are just memorials, "The Khafre Memorial"?

That was me!^^^^^^^^ Forgot to log in.

Thanks, Mr. Harrist, for your explanation. I understand your point. I am not myself religious, but I have the feeling that most people are and have been, down through history, including rulers.
I wonder when you think the ruling classes first stopped being afraid of the gods and began to use the people's superstitions to keep them busy and under control? It sounds as though you think that happened pretty early on. I am open to the idea, if you can provide a good example.
Maybe this arose with the city-states, with the establishment of stratified
societies?

For a society which seemed to have decorated or at least inscribed every flat surface with hieroglphys in tribute to their gods or pharoahs, the passageways in the Great Pyramid seem totally devoid of purpose. I've seen subway tunnels with more decoration.

The entire thing has an almost 'industrial' feel about it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10335950/

It sounds pretty convincing so far, but it's too soon to be sure.

stan gilliam wrote:Thanks, Mr. Harrist, for your explanation. I understand your point. I am not myself religious, but I have the feeling that most people are and have been, down through history, including rulers.
I wonder when you think the ruling classes first stopped being afraid of the gods and began to use the people's superstitions to keep them busy and under control? It sounds as though you think that happened pretty early on. I am open to the idea, if you can provide a good example.
Maybe this arose with the city-states, with the establishment of stratified
societies?

I think it was Hamurabi (sp)? the early Assyrian king who wrote the first recorded laws, from which the ten commandments are almost copied verbatum. It was probably around that time or shortly afterwards that religion started being used to help enforce the laws of man. I may be wrong about the king. If anyone knows more on this let me know.