Ancient Astronaut Theory

[Rayaan]

There is also evidence that the builders of the pyramids used to do heavy labor because autopsy studies of their bodies have shown that there are signs of stress on their spine and backbones (and also in the knee and leg joints). This means that the workers had to physically push and/or pull the weights with their own bodies even though they may have used other equipments as well.

Degenerative arthritis occurred in the vertebral column, particularly in the lumbar region, and in the knees. It was frequent and more severe than in the skeletons from the mastaba cemetery. Skeletons of both men and women, particularly those from the lower burials, show such signs of heavy labor.

This is also interesting:

The pyramid builders were not slaves but peasants conscripted on a rotating part-time basis, working under the supervision of skilled artisans and craftsmen who not only built the pyramid complexes for the kings and nobility, but also designed and constructed their own, more modest tombs.

Source: http://www.guardians.net/hawass/buildtomb.htm

[Minimalist]

I draw your attention to these 3 photos which I used in a post on another board some time ago.

The first photo is from the Great Pyramid in Giza and the others are from the Red Pyramid in Dashur.

As the story goes, the Red Pyramid was the 3d pyramid built by Sneferu, father of Khufu. It is far shorter (345 ft versus 480 feet) than the Great Pyramid and also squatter being built at a shallower angle. Nonetheless the Red Pyramid has been determined to be the immediate precursor.

Now, look at the first picture and note the height of the blocks relative to the man in the photo. The blocks come to his shoulders. Next observe how many levels of stones are visible in relation to the people in those pictures at the Red Pyramid. The stones in the Red Pyramid are much smaller. Finally observe the quality of the stonework in the first picture as opposed to the others. Again there is no comparison even though both are made of limestone.

The Great Pyramid is a quantum leap over the Red Pyramid and the workmanship in the later pyramids of Khafre and Menkaure is equal to the GP in precision. Yet, here is a photo of what is left of the pyramid of Userkaf, founder of the 5th Dynasty.



Author Graham Hancock considered these facts ( built over the course of basically 1 century) and suggested essentially that the modern equivalent would be a society going from a horse and buggy to a Lamborghini and back to a Model T. I agree with him....but there is no evidence for "aliens" building it either. It is a mystery particularly if one binds oneself into the terms and conditions that the Egyptology club insists upon.

[Anomalocaris]

I think it's more of a case of a society going from building modest houses to suddenly splurging to building a mansion, then finding mansion living, when all expenses are tallied, to not be all that it's cracked up to be, went back to modest houses. The point is I see no significant gap in required technique and technology between the red pyramid and the bent pyramid on the one hand, and the great pyramids of Giza on the other. The main difference is the magnitude of investment.

[Minimalist]

As someone once noted, "moving 100 one-ton stones is child's play compared to moving one, 100-ton stone."

The technological problems are significant. Besides, why would the knowledge disappear? You can build a smaller structure but why build it like shit?

[thesummerqueen]

Is it possible that during that time period...the economy really just need them to, as Lewis Black said, build "a great big fucking thing!"? In this case, several big fucking things. And then they moved on? [shrugs] if they weren't just tombs, then perhaps they were the equivalent of Arlington Cemetary, which is both a tomb and a park with its own monuments, built according to our symbolism and aesthetics?

[Minimalist]

Anything's "possible" but they didn't just "move on." Monumental pyramid building continued in Egypt throughout the Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom. It was only in the New Kingdom that pyramids went out of fashion.

[Anomalocaris]

As someone once noted, "moving 100 one-ton stones is child's play compared to moving one, 100-ton stone."

There is likely a inflection point above which scaling existing technologies without fundamental changes would not be feasible. But what is the reason to place that point at between the block sizes in the red pyramid and those in the pyramid of Korfu?

The technological problems are significant. Besides, why would the knowledge disappear? You can build a smaller structure but why build it like shit?

Because you no longer think it worthwhile to invest in extravagant quality surpassing what is needed to serve immediate needs as you choose to redeploy resources away from a previous focus of fixation. Look at how much shabbier might the quality of underlying construction of the typical modern wood frame and drywall suburban home appear when compare to the brick and masonry houses that might be built in 1920s. Also look at the extravagant quality of construction found in the main part of the palace at Versaille built in the 1660s and compare to the shabby painted papier mache decorations on the opera house added to Versaille in the 1750s

[Minimalist]

Chuck, let's remember the stated purpose of these buildings. The Egyptologists SWEAR that they were for housing the body of the pharaoh for eternity.


Even if he was a complete putz he was still the friggin' king and why would he decide to skimp on "eternity?" You see, the whole problem with the "tombs and tombs only" reasoning is that it can't survive removal of any of its component parts. It's a house of cards in the respect that you have to buy the whole premise or none of it works.


The reason for placing "inflection point" ( nice term ) is the obvious difference between the size of the stones as well as the quality of workmanship between the Red Pyramid and the Great Pyramid. Post Giza pyramids are largely rubble. Pre-Giza pyramids were of varying types and quality. But the story being put forth by the Egyptologists is Red Pyramid-Great Pyramid-Khafre-Menkaure-Userkapf... and that really runs the gamut in terms of quality. The question is even odder if you extend it on the older end and cite Meidum (which collapsed apparently during construction) and the Bent Pyramid which was an engineering disaster.

With all this, we still haven't discussed ramps and even the Egyptologists can't come up with a satisfactory explanation for that issue.

[thesummerqueen]

Also lets not forget that there was plenty of shoddy construction throughout the ages - if you had the goods and the means, you did it well. If you didn't, you didn't. Hence why it's hard to tell what average people's lives were like so long ago. Not to mention that a particular style or material could have been used simply because it was fashionable at the time - not necessarily because it would last.

[Anomalocaris]

Chuck, let's remember the stated purpose of these buildings. The Egyptologists SWEAR that they were for housing the body of the pharaoh for eternity.


Even if he was a complete putz he was still the friggin' king and why would he decide to skimp on "eternity?" You see, the whole problem with the "tombs and tombs only" reasoning is that it can't survive removal of any of its component parts. It's a house of cards in the respect that you have to buy the whole premise or none of it works.

There is clearly a trend away from pyramids in Egyptian history. Certainly by the New Kingdom pharohs were buried in the Valley of the Kings, and no more royal pyramids were built. I think there can certain be a long transition period when the theological basis of the Pyramid weaken to the point where the king no longer judge the trade off needed to build his pyramid up to Korfu standard to be worth it, but not weaken so much that pyramid construction stops all together.

It is also possible that extravagant construction well fitted and massive pyramids of the 4th dynasty brought about some major political or economic crisis that served as a lesson for later pharohs and warned successors off from undertaking similarly massive undertaking. Once it became clear that labor and cost of building a pyramid can become a source of instability and threat to royal authority, while the imposing edifice of a completed pyramid can still serve to enhance royal and dynastic prestige, then the temptation must be there to cheapen the construction of the pyramid to obtain the most outwardly imposing edifice at the most reduced cost and labour. In this case shabby construction must result.

The reason for placing "inflection point" ( nice term ) is the obvious difference between the size of the stones as well as the quality of workmanship between the Red Pyramid and the Great Pyramid. Post Giza pyramids are largely rubble. Pre-Giza pyramids were of varying types and quality. But the story being put forth by the Egyptologists is Red Pyramid-Great Pyramid-Khafre-Menkaure-Userkapf... and that really runs the gamut in terms of quality. The question is even odder if you extend it on the older end and cite Meidum (which collapsed apparently during construction) and the Bent Pyramid which was an engineering disaster.

With all this, we still haven't discussed ramps and even the Egyptologists can't come up with a satisfactory explanation for that issue.

Actually, it seems to me the progression from Zoser to Meidum, to Bent, to Red, to the Giza Pyramids illustrates perfectly the gradual evolution of constructional technique and progressive increase in willingness to invest. Prior to Zoser there were no pyramids in Egypt. Kings and nobels were buried in single step rectangular mastabas made of roughly shaped stones covered by a smooth casing. Zoser decided to square off his mastaba and stack a series of successively smaller mastabas on top of the first one, thus making the first stepped pyramid. The construction of the step pyramid was essentially 6-7 familiar mastabas stacked on top of one another. Each step remains roughly shaped stones covered in a dressed case. The only major advancements seem to have been:
1. Devising a means to get the stones up to the top of the pyramid.
2. Build load bearing well dressed internal walls into the lower mastaba to support the weight of the upper mastabas
3. Invest a lot more material and labor

Meidum definitely started out as another stepped pyramid, built just like the Zoser pyramid, only larger. In its current state the top 3 steps and the lower retaining wall supporting the 3rd steps still remain. It appears that when the stepped pyrmaid Meidum was nearly finished, the king changed his mind and had the steps filled in to achieve a smooth exterior. Again, increased labor and material investment.

When Meidum collapsed is highly debatable. Arab records indicates Meidum still had 7 steps in the middleages, suggesting the stepped pyramid core inside Meidum remained intact through the middle ages. When the filling that converted the Meidum from step to smooth collpased is also debatable, some sources suggests the collapse happened during the New Kingdom, not during construction. But let's accept the early collapse scenario, granting the filling might have slid off of Meidu during construction. This should teach the Egyptians a lesson about the inadaquacies of simply filling in the steps of a stepped pyramid to achieve a smooth pyramid.

Evidence of this lesson learned is found in the Bent Pyramid. This pyramid was built as a real smooth pyramid, not a stepped pyramid with steps filled in. Trail by error, no quantum leap. But bent pyramid had its own problems. Like the earlier step pyramids, it was made from roughly shaped stone fillings spaces between smoothly dressed internal load bearing retaining walls and external filling. Only bent pyramid was larger than any previous pyramid. Roughly shaped stones are not ideal for load bearing because of limited contact area between stones and internal voids into which stone can deform under load. The inside of the bent pyramid shifted and cracked, evidence of the internal subsidance can be seen inside the chambers of the bent pyramid. Bent pyramid made it clear that Eqyptians were pushing the limits of how big pyramid filled with small roughly shaped stone filling and steep external side can get before the rough stones crush under overlying weight and the pyramid subsides internally. The Egyptians again appreciated the steepness issue right away and tackled it methodically. First they reduced the steepness of the sides of the top of the bent pyramid, thus reducing the top load inside the bent pyramid. Second they built the next pryamid, the red pyramid, with reduced steepness. But appearently they also appreciated the structural weakness of using poorly dressed dillings between well dressed walls. Hence the great pyamids of Giza with their well shaped, load bearing filling stones. Again, trail by error, accompanied by increasing investment in labor and material.

It seems to me the pyramids preceeding the Giza giants illustrate without even a missing link the systematic progresses the Egyptain made that brought them from Mastabas to the ultimate form of pyramid construction.