Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Ancient History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Ancient History Ancient History Forum - Greece, Rome, Carthage, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and all other civilizations of antiquity, to include Prehistory and Archaeology discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 23rd, 2012, 09:43 AM   #31

cladking's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 684

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreFerarum View Post
It is true that Egyptology is considerably less advanced than the study of classical history. I think we have to keep in mind that the pyramids are some of the oldest man made structures, there isn't much information about how they were constructed at all. This is especially the case because under the absolute rule of the kings at the time, manpower was just another resource like a physical material.
Due to their antiquity there is less physical evidence but this evidence is not being collected and analyzed. There are dozens of simple scientific experiments and measurements that could be getting made but Egyptology appears to be frightened of the facts. They could do a microscopic forensic analysis of the interiors of these structures. They could do a photographic study of the exteriors and infrared/ ultraviolet studies of the outside several feet. There are just countless tests not being done because they assumed long ago they had all the important answers.

Quote:
A lot of sources I have read say only a small percentage of workers were permanently employed building the pyramids. Others worked a few months of the year. Similarly, I've also read that these builders were 'conscripted' from all areas of Egypt.
What you report here does apply to the later little tiny things that Egyptologists euphimistically refer to as pyramids. How they built these tiny little structures in later times is of very little interest to me personally since there are a nearly infinite number of ways they could be done. It's the great pyramids which Egyptologist demean through creative block counting and massif imaginings that primarily interest me.

There is almost no information of any sort from the great pyramid building age. Egyptology intimates there's some "mountain of evidence" where, in fact, almost nothing at all exists.

It's probable that the Egyptians actually had the manpower available to use some muscle based system of building but the simple fact is that there's huge difficulty in finding a means to get so so many men on the job site working. Each man had to have room to work and the number of men required would consume more room then there was a place to work.

Quote:
It's a shame that there are still so many things we do not know about ancient Egypt, however unfortunately a builder wouldn't have had the same burial as a member of the elite so we may never know their stories, there are no writings from them nor are there drawings about their lives building such monuments.
There are a few "common laborers" with more elaborate burials. One was the "Overseer of the Boats of Neit" who was an acquaintance of the king among his other titles. But like all the titles everywhere in Egypt and at Giza this title is not consistent with Egyptological assumptions. Why would any worker oversee boats unless they were used to build just as the builders said.

445d. It is our brother who is bringing this (boat) for these bridge-girderers (?) of the desert.

The Pyramid Texts: The Pyramid Texts: 12. The Ferryman and the Deceased King's Ascension, Utterances 300-311

The evidence is remarkably consistent; it simply is at odds with Egyptological assumptions.
cladking is online now  
Remove Ads
Old November 23rd, 2012, 10:18 AM   #32

MoreFerarum's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Kent, UK
Posts: 7

Quote:
Originally Posted by cladking View Post
Due to their antiquity there is less physical evidence but this evidence is not being collected and analyzed.

What you report here does apply to the later little tiny things that Egyptologists euphimistically refer to as pyramids. How they built these tiny little structures in later times is of very little interest to me personally since there are a nearly infinite number of ways they could be done.
Unfortunately, what I reported there was actually in regards to the larger pyramid structures, again, it's just another source I've read but how does one learn if one does not read.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cladking View Post
There is almost no information of any sort from the great pyramid building age. Egyptology intimates there's some "mountain of evidence" where, in fact, almost nothing at all exists.

It's probable that the Egyptians actually had the manpower available to use some muscle based system of building but the simple fact is that there's huge difficulty in finding a means to get so so many men on the job site working. Each man had to have room to work and the number of men required would consume more room then there was a place to work.
I'm not quite sure what your point is here seeing as it's basically retelling what I've asserted previously. During the time of the early pyramids things like that weren't recorded as much, why would the government write how many men built a pyramid when the workforce was seen as nothing more than a resource they had at their command? They were people employed to do a job, it can hardly be said that the pharaoh would have recognised every man's efforts. "there's huge difficulty in finding a means to get so so many men on the job site working. Each man had to have room to work" in regards to that assertion, I suppose that's where the idea of a workers village had to come into things. I didn't say it was a luxurious place to live, but it would have been a community for at least some of the workers. Who knows how many areas like this there would have been, the sand has hidden the first workers village for thousands of years. Evidence may be lying hidden under current towns and cities, who knows.

I think the purpose of this thread was to discuss the best builders of ancient times, I put forward my point but if we're going to get picky into how the pyramids were built I don't think this is the place to do it.
Right now all we have to go by is evidence and sources we can access ourselves until our long lived opinions are either proven or disproven, people used to believe the sun travelled around the earth, Lord knows of the struggle that was undertook to prove otherwise. At the moment Egyptology is a little bit like that.
MoreFerarum is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 11:34 AM   #33

cladking's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 684

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreFerarum View Post
Unfortunately, what I reported there was actually in regards to the larger pyramid structures, again, it's just another source I've read but how does one learn if one does not read.
Your source is incorrect. This is a very common problem. It's not really caused so much by Egyptologists except where it concerns word meanings but is caused by misunderstanding and the great interest in the pyramids. There is almost no evidence at all of any type that applies to either the great pyramids or their builders. I often say a single sentence survives from the era and it is incomprehensible and open to interpretation. It is actually more likely supposed to be a title than a sentence; "Nefermaat is he who makes his Gods in words that can't be erased". It is Egyptology's fault and no one else's that people think there's extensive evidence for their assumptions. This misdirection is caused by word games and the means they use to argue their beliefs.

There is in actuality a little more writing but it is very open to interpretation and the meaning is not clear. Almost everything believed about the great pyramid builders comes from later people. The book of the dead is projected back onto the Pyramid Texts and the PT are assumed to be relevant to the builders. There is simply a void of data being filled with projections and assumptions.

Quote:
I'm not quite sure what your point is here seeing as it's basically retelling what I've asserted previously. During the time of the early pyramids things like that weren't recorded as much, why would the government write how many men built a pyramid when the workforce was seen as nothing more than a resource they had at their command? They were people employed to do a job, it can hardly be said that the pharaoh would have recognised every man's efforts.
It's simply irrelevant that they had the resources and manpower to lift all the stones in G1 if there was no means to transfer the muscle power to lifting. If it takes one man to lift a 50 pound sphere and two men to lift a 100 lb sphere this doesn't mean that twenty men can lift a 1000 lb sphere because there is no possible way for twenty men to put their hands on an object smaller than the room occupied by twenty men. This is just the concrete world and the concrete world is brutal to theories and pencil whippers.

Quote:
Each man had to have room to work" in regards to that assertion, I suppose that's where the idea of a workers village had to come into things. I didn't say it was a luxurious place to live, but it would have been a community for at least some of the workers. Who knows how many areas like this there would have been, the sand has hidden the first workers village for thousands of years. Evidence may be lying hidden under current towns and cities, who knows.
...And the next place they dig they might find cranes or aliens who really did the job. Even if they were looking for evidence (and they aren't) we can only go with the evidence available. This evidence doesn't support any of the assumptions. The evidence is not only non-supportive but very often tends to contradict the assumptions.

Quote:
I think the purpose of this thread was to discuss the best builders of ancient times, I put forward my point but if we're going to get picky into how the pyramids were built I don't think this is the place to do it.
You're probably right here and I'll avoid pursuing this line of debate. It's the assumption that the means must have been primitive that started this. The evidence says it was not primitive and this evidence is fairly extensive.

I haven't updated this thread in a while and I've learned a few things in it aren't entirely accurate;

http://www.historum.com/ancient-hist...-mountain.html

Quote:
Right now all we have to go by is evidence and sources we can access ourselves until our long lived opinions are either proven or disproven, people used to believe the sun travelled around the earth, Lord knows of the struggle that was undertook to prove otherwise. At the moment Egyptology is a little bit like that.
There really isn't any evidence of the type most people believe exists. There isn't one single hard and fast fact about the builders or how pyramids were built and they are each and everyone open to interpretation. Current assumptions simply don't mesh with the evidence well but these assumptions seem so obvious and certain that they haven't been investigated with modern science.
cladking is online now  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 12:43 PM   #34

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 8,988
Blog Entries: 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoreFerarum View Post
Well as they were the final resting places for the Pharaohs they had to be completed during their reigns. I've heard the Great Pyramid took about 20 years with 1 block laid every 2 minutes working 10 hours a day. I'm not sure at all how this was calculated, but that's just figures I've read from one source.

Some kings had to build more than one pyramid during their reign if there were issues with their first attempt. Like the Bent Pyramid of Sneferu. When problems with that structure arose he had to complete because if he didn't it would have been humiliating but as a backup plan he tried to construct smooth walls on a step pyramid at Meidum as well as building a new pyramid entirely - the Red Pyramid. Essentially, during his reign Sneferu had 3 construction projects going on at once.

I'd really love to research ancient Chinese building projects, I've never really seen many to make an honest evaluation!
The matter of the 20 years is more in later historians than in Egyptian tradition. Anyway I would underline that 20 years was a large part of a generation for people of that time [life span was around 35 years ...].

This underlines the symbolic value of the Pharaoh in the society of the land.

Regarding Chinese architecture, I suggest to make a comparison between China from 14th to 16th century and Europe in the same period. Europe would make a really poor figure ...

The architectural realization of the Ming dynasty are still there and they makes it clear how was advanced that civilization in that moment.
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 01:14 PM   #35

Aulus Plautius's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: Florida
Posts: 1,459

Quote:
Originally Posted by SNascimento View Post
Romans. Hands down.

I look at the pyramids and no matter how awe-inspiring they are, they are useless. It serves almost no pratical purpose. I don't like this.

The romans got engineering right.
What separates the Romans engineering and architectural marvels of the ancient world was the practicality and usefulness of their projects. Even the Romans back then would compare their projects to the pyramids would make the same comments as you did as to the grandness of the pyramids, but we're not very useful otherwise.

Also, it should be noted that the Romans also excelled in dam and reservoir building, not to mention the forums, baths and water mills.


List_of_Roman_dams_and_reservoirs List_of_Roman_dams_and_reservoirs
Aulus Plautius is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 02:07 PM   #36
Archivist
 
Joined: May 2012
From: On the move again.
Posts: 144

For me at least the Egyptians demonstrated mastery in constructing truly great buildings that survive to this day, some so incredible and monumental that no one after so many thousands of years can even compete with their greatness.
But other ancient peoples did not do bad either, the Romans and their great public works, the Greeks built great theaters and temples, the Chinese built great palaces and fortifications among others, in fact all over the world ancient men build great buildings.
I was impressed by the size of Angkor Wat, the fortifications of central Xian, the beauty of Bodobudur, the perfectness of the theater of Ephesus and even the massive size of the pyramid of Cholula, still the pyramids of Egypt are just perfect and been perfect for more than 4,500 years, probably longer and larger than any other construction on the face of the earth.
Pelu is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 10:51 PM   #37

anmol's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: chandigarh
Posts: 710

IVC for their urban planning and creating the most urbanized and planned cities in ancient world and egyptian civilization for the grandeur of the pyramids, sphinx
anmol is offline  
Old November 14th, 2013, 04:56 PM   #38

Vkent's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: Nov 2013
From: At my college
Posts: 84

The Chinese for the Forbidden Palace
Vkent is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Ancient History

Tags
ancient, builders, times


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.