(February 7, 2011 at 12:46 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Sorry for taking so long to get back to you, Chuck. Busy weekend.
Anyway, let's assume for the moment that what the Egyptologists say is correct. These pyramids were the egotistical expression of reverence for the pharaoh and meant to be his tomb for eternity. We already see, in the Pyramid of Menkaure, a smaller version of a pyramid. It's about half the size of the two large Giza Pyramids but every bit as technically proficient in execution. The last two rulers of the 4th Dynasty ( Shepseskaf and Khentykawes) built mastabas not pyramids. Then comes Userkapf founding the 5th Dynasty and we are back to pyramids and by the end of the 5th Dynasty we see the growth of the cult in the form of the pyramid texts being written on the walls and ceilings. Put yourself in Userkapf's position. He's the KING. He's got legions of priests telling him that he's a god. Perhaps they lacked the resources to build a pyramid as big as the earlier ones but why would they build a pile of junk? Could the knowledge have dissipated that quickly? The presumption is that there were masters teaching apprentices and in such a way maintaining the knowledge of the craft. It could have been written down but we have no example of such a document but it was a literate society so it is not impossible. I don't see the "trend away" from pyramids. They became more closely identified with the cult of the pharaoh in the 5th ad 6th dynasty and cultures usually waste lots of time and treasure on 'holy buildings' that could be better spent on other tasks. The apparent rise in the religiosity of the pyramids is in contrast to the poor quality of the buildings themselves and that is a mystery..
I meant a trend away from making the same scale of investment in pyramids. The knowledge certainly didn't dissipate. The size of the stones and proficiency of masonry work seen in later Egyptian construction projects such as the mortuary temples and oblisks certainly equalled in all and exceeded in most technical respects found in pyramids. A single monolithic oblisk can be more massive than the combined weight of all the supposedly implausibly massive relieving masory found over the king's chamber in the great pyramid. I believe a single monolithic1400 ton oblisk was attempted. The only point of appearent regression is in the mass of and total investment in single structures. Hence my statement about declining relative importance of the pyramids. As mark of genuine commitment, pyramid text and cultish practices is no substitute for willingness to invest economic resource. I might even venture to suggest that the appearent increased devotion to the pyramid cult following end of 4th dynasty to be a reflection of the priesthood's reaction to the decreased devotion of resources to the pyramid by the pharoah.
(February 7, 2011 at 12:46 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I agree completely...especially since we have the marks of copper chisels on the stones themselves. The only problem I have is the time constraint. There is no way in hell that the GP and the Khafre pyramids could have been constructed in 20 years unless they had a fleet of helicopters ferrying the stones in. As Brier says, there are significant impediments to every ramp idea, even though he was pushing for an internal ramp which has some pretty serious problems, too.
We don't need aliens to explain the GP. We just need a lot more time to do the job.
I need to see a single decisive unanswerable objection to pyramid being built in 20 years, not a lot of "it's awefully hard for us to imagine it being pulled off with techniques we can dream up in our complacent but utterly inexperienced minds while sitting in our armchairs". I think the main challenge is one of organization, not technology. And I believe a brilliant organizer from 5000 years ago can come quite close to modern standard of efficient organization.
