Posted on 03/03/2003 8:27:25 AM PST by general_re
I thought a new thread was a good idea, and here seems to be a good place to put it, so as not to clutter up "News". The only topic available was "heated discussion", though. ;)
If any clarification about the pictures is needed, just say so, and I will try to at least highlight the part that I am interested in for you. Remember that I'm interested in the objects or structures or artifacts being represented, so don't be thrown off if the illustrations seem abstract.
To the extent that basic, elementary reason/logic is. Of course, there are people and cultures that are unreasonable.
Hello Diamond! :^) Why the heck have you been relegated to bed rest???
By the same token, even though conclusions about the construction of the pyramids are arrived at inductively, that doesn't mean they aren't testable. After examining the evidence, I conclude that the Egyptians were able to levitate blocks of stone by chanting a particular verse and waving a dead chicken over them. So I chant the chant and wave the dead chicken, and sure enough, they don't levitate. So I've tested my hypothesis and falsified it - even though I wasn't there, I can disprove the chicken chant theory of pyramid origins.
So, maybe I take a closer look at the evidence to formulate another hypothesis about the construction of the pyramids. And given that I find large camp sites near the pyramids, with food storage and bakeries and so forth, large enough to support thousands of men, and that the stones themselves have marks consistent with stoneworking tools, I hypothesize that the pyramids were built over a period of time by many thousands of men, using the tools which we know from excavation were available to them.
But I wasn't there to observe the actual building of the pyramids - can my theories on the construction techniques of the Egyptians be tested? Can we know whether it was possible for them to have built it in the way I hypothesize?
Indeed it does. All we have are inferences based on the evidence arrayed before us. The evidence may be strong, or it may be weak, but there is evidence of a some sort to support hypotheses on the origins of the pyramids, and the origins of life, for that matter. If and when we find that the evidence, as it is gathered, continues to support and buttress one hypothesis and not another, we can consider one hypothesis to be "better" than another.
Can we prove one hypothesis or another beyond any doubt at all? Of course not, but on the other hand, that's a standard almost entirely unavailable to us in anything we do - I remind everyone that we execute people based on a lower standard than absolute conclusive proof of guilt. At some point, if the evidence continues to accumulate, we can consider a hypothesis proven beyond a reasonable doubt, much as we do in the courtroom, and it becomes increasingly difficult for reasonable people to come up with reasonable objections to the hypothesis.
From what I understand, there were not just "large camp sites" near the pyramids; there was a fairly good-size town there. Meaning there was an extended period of settled habitation in the area. I gather the burial site of a chief logistical officer -- a kind of "quartermaster" -- has recently been found, with exhaustive records regarding food, supplies, etc., etc. So we know there were thousands of people living at the site over a long time period in what was pretty much a permanent settlement.
But the question remains: What, exactly, were they doing there? Were they out there raising and rolling stones (some of which have been reported to weigh in at upwards of 15 to 20 tons) along a steep incline UP the pyramid, placed on logs and pulled along by a vast team of humans.
Now, can we estimate how many humans it would take to do this? -- to raise the 15+-ton stone, put it on log rollers, and drag it uphill until it could be set in its desired position? Plus we don't really know how the stones were brought to the site (floated on barges down the Nile seems a tad unrealistic, given the weight of these stones), or where the timbers came from.
I have read that even our currently-available, state-of-the-art, high-tech lifting devices (cranes) would not be able to accomplish all this, today.
Now, if indeed the construction method explained to us by the archeologists is, in fact, an impossibility, then what were all those people doing there? Clearly, as you note, this was some kind of work site. But what was the nature of the work?
Here's a what-if: What if the pyramids were already there, and were merely being refurbished to make them fit to receive the immortal soul of the pharoah? Just refitting marble facing stones all over the pyramid surfaces would have taken decades to accomplish. Plus perhaps the inner chambers would have needed to be refurbished to make the pharoah's final earthly resting place suitable to his needs. The Egyptians would have wanted a very secure location, beyond the reach of looters, for his mortal remains, plus all the royal accoutrements and appointments to which he had become accustomed in life -- perhaps including royal barges, furniture, etc., etc. The pyramids would be highly desirable sites for this purpose, from a security standpoint.
Anyhoot, that could explain what the Egyptians were doing there, in conformance with the evidence we have; but NOT how the pyramids got built in the first place.
I'd say: We still don't know that. It remains a great, enduring mystery....
General, you wrote: "Can we know whether it was possible for them to have built it in the way I hypothesize?" To which I would reply: YES. The hypothesis is -- as far as I can tell, based on the above -- incorrect.
So, we have the archaeologists who think they've discovered the method by which the pyramids were constructed, but the suggestion is that this impossible to do with the technology and manpower of the time. But is it?
For that, we need more evidence. Perhaps we might want to consult professional civil engineers for their expert opinions on whether the methods described by the archaeologists are at all feasible. Fortunately for us, professional civil engineers have rendered their expert opinions, as described in this article from the June '99 issue of "Civil Engineering" magazine. Given their expertise in this area, I am sure you will forgive me if I am prepared to assign a somewhat greater weight to their opinions than others ;)
I read the article. You have taken all the romance out of the subject. The magic is gone. Foo on you!
Cordially,
Pshaw! You can still keep your razor blades under a magical pyramid... if you click your heels together twice, close your eyes, and really WISH to believe in Pyramid Power.
Thanks again! Hope to be back soon.
When Herodotus visited Egypt, the pyramids were already at least 1,000 years old. He heard legends, nothing more.
Assuming that Herodotus died between 429 and 413, it is reasonable to infer that he was born between 500 and 470. Perhaps we can be a little bit more precise: nowhere in The Histories does he claim to have witnessed the great Persian War (480-479 BC) that he is describing. Therefore, his date of birth can be estimated in the eighties of the fifth century BC.The best estimate for the age of the Great Pyramid I could find is -2600 to -2480 (BC). So the thing was 2,000 years old during the life of Herodotus. Doctor Stochastic is right when he says, at #592, that "The pyramids were as old to Herodotus as Herodotus is to us."
Yes, that certainly is the case. It appears (from my cursory search of The History of Herodotus, 440 B.C.) that his source of information regarding the pyramids was the Egyptian Vulcanian priests. Obviously, H. could not have been an "eye-witness observer." It's interesting to note that, so far, I have found no mention of inclined ramps or construction details, as the Smith article relates, just a referenced to the limestone quarries in the vicinity if Gizeh.
Thanks, PH!
I believe I'd consider that it could weigh a little heavier than that. If your assertions ultimately seem to be in error - IMHO, in this case a distict possibility, it means that you're either carrying so much personal or cultural freight as to be incapable of basic, elementary reason/logic, or you are just plain unreasonable, which means I have misjudged you entirely, and I just hate to be wrong.
Medved was fond of quoting the Army Corps Of Engineers to the effect that they couldn't move such stones. I think the quote was from World War I.
I searched through my archives and found an exchange in which I provided Medved with the following link.
From the link:
With a maximum lifting capacity of 1600t and 22m radius, the Demag CC 12600 is the world's most powerful crawler crane with pick-and-carry capability. The 114m main boom can be combined with a 120m luffing or fixed jib to give a maximum hook height of 234 m! All the crane components have been optimised for effective transport logistics and can be easily assembled and dismantled.
The capacity stated (1600t) is 1600 TONS! Such a load can be picked up, moved, and raised to 234 meters. So, yes, handling these stones would be easy with today's technology...
And which one gets better gas mileage?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.