Were the ancient Sumerian’s the architects of the Great Pyramid?

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
26,599
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#91
Wait ...

the pyramid is a construction which comes to mind to children if they haven't got soft material to use. In a desert sand is not suitable to build great structures ... you need blocks of stone ... give blocks to a child ... sooner or later he will make a little pyramid.

And the real problem, from the perspective of a child, wouldn't be how to build a pyramid, but how to carry the block higher and higher. That wasn't childish, not the pyramid itself [which is a childish architectural structure].
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
34,492
T'Republic of Yorkshire
#92
But that's the point I am trying to make. Virtually any culture can master the art of piling stuff on top of stuff. Yes the Egyptians did it with remarkable finesse, but we can see their basic and primitive starting point which was not much different to an earthen mound.
But did they though? We can see that what they started with was a rectangular building. Then they stuck another smaller, rectangular building on top of that (the mastaba). Then they stacked a few mastabas on top of each other to become the Step Pyramid. Then they built the Bent Pyramid and then the straight sided pyramids. Did they begin with earthen mounds?

Compare this then with the ability to build arches and domes. Not many cultures mastered either and that can be a real way to differentiate 'secret' knowledge from intuitive building processes
Well, I don't disagree that not many cultures built arches and domes, but equally, that doesn't necessarily equate to a simple intuitive building process. China has relatively few arches and no domes as far as I'm aware but they had other structures suited to their particular needs and circumstances.
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
34,492
T'Republic of Yorkshire
#93
Wait ...

the pyramid is a construction which comes to mind to children if they haven't got soft material to use. In a desert sand is not suitable to build great structures ... you need blocks of stone ... give blocks to a child ... sooner or later he will make a little pyramid.
That sounds like a challenge... give a kid a pile of Lego and see what he builds.
 
Jan 2015
884
England
#94
there are plenty of pyramids around the world...

for the particular pyramids of Egypt, the Egyptians had easy access to plenty of rocks (of different kinds), and a free highway (the Nile) to deliver them

they also had a larger population at the time (due to plenty of good arable land along the Nile) than other regions of comparable size (bar the other river valley civilizations.....which - in the case of Mesopotamia- also built pyramids)

there is no magic or advanced technology involved
I'm not saying that magic or advanced technology was involved. I am perfectly satisfied with the internal ramp theory that is generally accepted nowadays. That isn't my point.

What I'm saying is that, contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, pyramids are not necessarily natural things for a society to build. My earlier comment regarding the distinct lack of pyramids in Britain, despite the fact that the ancient inhabitants of this island built many things using stone, is one piece of evidence of that.

As seen from one of the links you provided in a subsequent reply, the Romans built pyramids sometimes. But only sometimes, and only as imitations of the Egyptian pyramids. If pyramids are just natural structures to make because they are the easiest things to build, then why did the Romans not build more of them? And unlike the ancient Britons, the Romans had a comparable level of technology and organisation to the ancient Egyptians. So why did they only build pyramids when they were imitating someone else?

The point I'm making is that I believe that pyramids can be used as evidence for cultural transmission. I believe that the various pyramids in the world, or at least many of them, ultimately derive from the ancient Mesopotamian pyramids. I do not believe that all these cultures simply constructed pyramids because they were just natural to make, because that is transparently not the case, as is shown by the distinct lack of pyramids in places like Britain and Rome (except for when the Romans were copying the Egyptians, which really just proves my point of cultural transmission).
 
Aug 2018
439
london
#95
I'm not saying that magic or advanced technology was involved. I am perfectly satisfied with the internal ramp theory that is generally accepted nowadays. That isn't my point.

What I'm saying is that, contrary to what a lot of people seem to think, pyramids are not necessarily natural things for a society to build. My earlier comment regarding the distinct lack of pyramids in Britain, despite the fact that the ancient inhabitants of this island built many things using stone, is one piece of evidence of that.

As seen from one of the links you provided in a subsequent reply, the Romans built pyramids sometimes. But only sometimes, and only as imitations of the Egyptian pyramids. If pyramids are just natural structures to make because they are the easiest things to build, then why did the Romans not build more of them? And unlike the ancient Britons, the Romans had a comparable level of technology and organisation to the ancient Egyptians. So why did they only build pyramids when they were imitating someone else?

The point I'm making is that I believe that pyramids can be used as evidence for cultural transmission. I believe that the various pyramids in the world, or at least many of them, ultimately derive from the ancient Mesopotamian pyramids. I do not believe that all these cultures simply constructed pyramids because they were just natural to make, because that is transparently not the case, as is shown by the distinct lack of pyramids in places like Britain and Rome (except for when the Romans were copying the Egyptians, which really just proves my point of cultural transmission).
There's Silbury Hill in Britain, dated to 2400 BC:



 

Similar History Discussions