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

Aug 2018
439
london
That’s still just a mound, not a pyramid. It has a perfectly circular base.
It's built on a stepped structure made from chalk, it's not just a pile of earth.

"Silbury Hill is a prehistoric artificial chalk mound near Avebury in the English county of Wiltshire. It is part of the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites UNESCO World Heritage Site. At 39.3 metres (129 ft) high,[1] it is the tallest prehistoric man-made mound in Europe[2] and one of the largest in the world; similar in size to some of the smaller Egyptian pyramids of the Giza Necropolis.[3]"
Silbury Hill - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

Corvidius

Ad Honorem
Jul 2017
2,910
Crows nest
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.

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
The arch was invented by the Egyptians. They didn't use it in temple construction, but the storage buildings in the temple complexes had arched roofs.
 
Jan 2015
884
England
It's built on a stepped structure made from chalk, it's not just a pile of earth.

"Silbury Hill is a prehistoric artificial chalk mound near Avebury in the English county of Wiltshire. It is part of the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites UNESCO World Heritage Site. At 39.3 metres (129 ft) high,[1] it is the tallest prehistoric man-made mound in Europe[2] and one of the largest in the world; similar in size to some of the smaller Egyptian pyramids of the Giza Necropolis.[3]"
Silbury Hill - Wikipedia
Indeed, it’s an impressive construction. But that just further supports the point that if they had wanted to build a pyramid, they clearly had the ability to do so. But they didn’t. Nor did the Romans, accept when they were imitating the Egyptians. So this idea that a pyramid is an obvious structure to make is clearly not the case.

Therefore, like I said before, I believe that pyramids do, at least in the majority of cases, provide evidence of cultural transmission.
 
Aug 2018
439
london
Indeed, it’s an impressive construction. But that just further supports the point that if they had wanted to build a pyramid, they clearly had the ability to do so. But they didn’t. Nor did the Romans, accept when they were imitating the Egyptians. So this idea that a pyramid is an obvious structure to make is clearly not the case.

Therefore, like I said before, I believe that pyramids do, at least in the majority of cases, provide evidence of cultural transmission.
In America there are circular/conical earth mounds in the north, rectangular earth mounds in the south of what is now the USA, and stone pyramid/ziggurats in central america. This mirrors the circular mounds in northern Europe and rectangular pyramids/ziggurats in the middle east/ north africa/ mediterranean.
 
Jan 2015
884
England
In America there are circular/conical earth mounds in the north, rectangular earth mounds in the south of what is now the USA, and stone pyramid/ziggurats in central america. This mirrors the circular mounds in northern Europe and rectangular pyramids/ziggurats in the middle east/ north africa/ mediterranean.
What are you suggesting?
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,509
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).
I dont necessarily disagree but additionnally to your points you need to consider the environment.... even the egyptians build only ONE great pyramid... Why ? probably because ... opportunity..... They had the Giza plateau with natural rock formations that probably they used to minimize the amount of material (i.e. they built the great pyramid and the other 2 + the sphinx by using rock formations and building around them - or sculpting in the case of the sphinx), they had plenty of rocks and they had the manpower, there and then.... later they either lacked manpower, or funds, or easily accessible natural rock formations etc... to build more great pyramids

In Britain they probably lacked some of the above .......

Plus no one said that pyramids are "natural to build", the point was that IF one decided to build a grand structure, the pyramid is the easiest to make (the egyptians could not very well built an Eiffel tower for example with the tech of the time, building a cube instead of a pyramid requires much more material and introduces some additional engineering complexities, building anything of stone that is rounded , more complicated etc....)
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
34,489
T'Republic of Yorkshire
I dont necessarily disagree but additionnally to your points you need to consider the environment.... even the egyptians build only ONE great pyramid... Why ? probably because ... opportunity..... They had the Giza plateau with natural rock formations that probably they used to minimize the amount of material (i.e. they built the great pyramid and the other 2 + the sphinx by using rock formations and building around them - or sculpting in the case of the sphinx), they had plenty of rocks and they had the manpower, there and then.... later they either lacked manpower, or funds, or easily accessible natural rock formations etc... to build more great pyramids

In Britain they probably lacked some of the above .......

Plus no one said that pyramids are "natural to build", the point was that IF one decided to build a grand structure, the pyramid is the easiest to make (the egyptians could not very well built an Eiffel tower for example with the tech of the time, building a cube instead of a pyramid requires much more material and introduces some additional engineering complexities, building anything of stone that is rounded , more complicated etc....)
Well, one of them had to be the biggest. The Pyramid of Khafre is only 10 metres shorter than the Great Pyramid.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,509
Well, one of them had to be the biggest. The Pyramid of Khafre is only 10 metres shorter than the Great Pyramid.
Not necessarily... You could envisage a "standard" for great pyramids, and several of them being built to the exact same specs... Like the nubians seemed to do for their small pyramids

 
Aug 2019
19
United Kingdom
Some things ARE mysteries. If you expect an easy answer to questions that have been disputed for ages, you're out of reckoning. Theories abound but hard facts are skimpy enough to generate many theories. Now, you get yourself some extensive training in the field and SOLVE that mystery--and let us all know![/QU
With the greatest respect, and admitting that I know almost nothing about ancient history, can I please make an observation, and making it, not wishing to offend:

Who would I seek my extensive training from? Who knows what was really happening in ancient Sumeria? Even the experts are unsure. How can we even try to understand the day to day life of this ancient culture, until we’ve translated the entirety of the cuneiform tablets, but most importantly, translate them from source, not then using later languages as direction.

We cannot translate the original cuneiform texts based solely upon later forms of written information, that could have bias, opposing beliefs, mistakes, misrepresentation, etc etc. We have to look at how the cuneiform tablets were written, and how THEY influenced all later civilisation. If we did that, then maybe we would have a far clearer view of our earliest recorded organised ancestors. Let’s be honest, if we could give an Elizabethan scribe, a copy of a modern Science Journal, how much of it would that person understand, and how would he transcribe the same with only a 500 year difference? Think about how the current interpretation would be mismatched over many millennia. Languages change over generations.

Maybe it takes a little “thinking outside of the box”, because no one has been able to answer my initial question. Maybe someone like myself who is uninformed about current research etc, who knows no constraints, can ask a question that sparks an interest in someone who is involved in this subject. Maybe it is you that can solve this mystery. I have to work to pay my bills in a completely field, and cannot spare the time. This does not, and should not stifle my curiosity. Anyone thinking otherwise have no right to castigate, ridicule, or dismiss
 

Similar History Discussions