Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The mysterious mysteries of the Ancients!

1101113151618

Posts

  • edited August 2009
    ACSIS wrote: »
    Boy, if you research crop circles you are always in "dubious distinction" as you are walking into a treat supporting AAT by the way. Or if you pull out some crystal slambs with markings from an impact side. And no ammount of scientifick backup or evidence or scientific grade is going to save you. Its changing the view of the world. People do not like that. You can be expected to be outright attacked from all sides. Again: discredition is not a working mechanic of science. This is very unscientific. Almost dogmatic.

    This is very curious, isn't it? To see mainstream science behave in such an unscientific way.
    So the only refutation you would possibly accept is if people went through every paper and set about refuting every one of its claims?

  • kdrudykdrudy Registered User
    edited August 2009
    ACSIS wrote: »
    Boy, if you research crop circles you are always in "dubious distinction" as you are walking into a treat supporting AAT by the way. Or if you pull out some crystal slambs with markings from an impact side. And no ammount of scientifick backup or evidence or scientific grade is going to save you. Its changing the view of the world. People do not like that. You can be expected to be outright attacked from all sides. Again: discredition is not a working mechanic of science. This is very unscientific. Almost dogmatic.

    This is very curious, isn't it? To see mainstream science behave in such an unscientific way.

    It does beg the question why the only people that tend to verify this stuff are scientists already involved with verifying this kind of stuff. You don't gain credibility by only working on fringe ideas that your credible peers can not verify.

    tvsfrank.jpg
  • edited August 2009
    L|ama wrote: »
    ACSIS wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    OK, lets talk solely about Stonehenge in the UK. There are three things which are odd about stonehenge.

    1) Massive rocks not from the local area.
    2) Very good alignment with the location of astronomical bodies at the equinoxes.
    3) Very good placement on a location where the stones form a square rather than a parallelogram.

    My explanations

    1) With enormous manpower, and the application of simple tools as shown in earlier videos it is possible for people to move enormous weights with little difficulty without pulleys and cranes. Furthermore, with the use of religion it is possible to inspire people to work at things for many years.

    2) The rocks when initially placed were in OK, but not great alignment. Over the course of some centuries multiple generations of druids and so forth got people together to align the stones better, they are no better than can be done by eye.

    3) Numerous similar henges exist, all with similar plans to align with the equinoxes. Druids travelling between ones north of stonehenge and south of stonehenge would have noticed that the shape shifted from one paralellogram to another and became squarer and squarer. Thus it makes sense they might build their greatest henge at stonehenge, or that the henge with the best alignment might eventually become the most important one.

    You would imply there is more mystery to it. Why?

    Many peoples have many questions so that will be impossible but i will divide as much attention as i can.
    1) I also think this is the work of humans. But not the design.
    2) On the contrary. The choice of the site alone implies in depth planetary&astronomical knowledge wich is impossible to come up without math (the latitude has to be precise considering doing sun and moon observations at one site). I would also be very careful about labeling Stonehenge as "inaccurate". There is a process called global axis tilt wich repeats every 44,000 years if i remeber it correctly. Stonhenge has become indeed MORE accurate over the years.
    3) Possibly. But this fails to explain the double use to predict solar eclipses - again i insist on math as a requirement. Coincidence? On a structure like that? The ONLY possible site? I don't think so.

    2) No it doesn't, just because some phenomenon only occurs at one small area on the globe doesn't mean that you have to know what that area is to discover it. There were many henges built up and down the British isles, stonehenge just became the most important because it was in the best place.

    And why would aliens design a site to be inaccurate at the time of building?
    Yeah, I'm not quite following ACSIS here. Apparently one of the many henges across Western Europe is in a place that can be construed as geographically important, but only several thousand years later when the Earth's rotation has tilted slightly, and that's an interesting or noteworthy fact about that henge?

    Surely this must be another numerology-esque situation where if you look hard enough you can find patterns in anything.

  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    bongi wrote: »
    L|ama wrote: »
    ACSIS wrote: »
    tbloxham wrote: »
    OK, lets talk solely about Stonehenge in the UK. There are three things which are odd about stonehenge.

    1) Massive rocks not from the local area.
    2) Very good alignment with the location of astronomical bodies at the equinoxes.
    3) Very good placement on a location where the stones form a square rather than a parallelogram.

    My explanations

    1) With enormous manpower, and the application of simple tools as shown in earlier videos it is possible for people to move enormous weights with little difficulty without pulleys and cranes. Furthermore, with the use of religion it is possible to inspire people to work at things for many years.

    2) The rocks when initially placed were in OK, but not great alignment. Over the course of some centuries multiple generations of druids and so forth got people together to align the stones better, they are no better than can be done by eye.

    3) Numerous similar henges exist, all with similar plans to align with the equinoxes. Druids travelling between ones north of stonehenge and south of stonehenge would have noticed that the shape shifted from one paralellogram to another and became squarer and squarer. Thus it makes sense they might build their greatest henge at stonehenge, or that the henge with the best alignment might eventually become the most important one.

    You would imply there is more mystery to it. Why?

    Many peoples have many questions so that will be impossible but i will divide as much attention as i can.
    1) I also think this is the work of humans. But not the design.
    2) On the contrary. The choice of the site alone implies in depth planetary&astronomical knowledge wich is impossible to come up without math (the latitude has to be precise considering doing sun and moon observations at one site). I would also be very careful about labeling Stonehenge as "inaccurate". There is a process called global axis tilt wich repeats every 44,000 years if i remeber it correctly. Stonhenge has become indeed MORE accurate over the years.
    3) Possibly. But this fails to explain the double use to predict solar eclipses - again i insist on math as a requirement. Coincidence? On a structure like that? The ONLY possible site? I don't think so.

    2) No it doesn't, just because some phenomenon only occurs at one small area on the globe doesn't mean that you have to know what that area is to discover it. There were many henges built up and down the British isles, stonehenge just became the most important because it was in the best place.

    And why would aliens design a site to be inaccurate at the time of building?
    Yeah, I'm not quite following ACSIS here. Apparently one of the many henges across Western Europe is in a place that can be construed as geographically important, but only several thousand years later when the Earth's rotation has tilted slightly, and that's an interesting or noteworthy fact about that henge?

    Surely this must be another numerology-esque situation where if you look hard enough you can find patterns in anything.

    Confirmation bias, what a show, confirmation bias, here we go. That's exactly it.

    Here, do an experiment- next time you are having a 'bad day', keep track of every appearance of the number 13.

  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    MikeMan wrote: »
    if i type "stonhedge" i won't get much, will I?
    Well if you type Stonehenge you will find something... possibly in german. I am sorry. Are we talking about typos now? Is this important?
    MikeMan wrote: »
    and you didn't address the last part of my post. why not?
    No. And i did not intent to. But it seems i have to.

    1) No witness, no matter how credible will stay credible if he/she claims aliens landed in front of him/her. even if this is true. We have witnesses in the ancient past. And the concept of UFOs was entirely unknown to them. How credible can it get? For the record: i have not made such a claim ^^
    2) There is no technology leftover... but there are indicies for interferance... i was getting to the cargo cult concept in any case.
    3) True but it gets suspicous if people tell the same storys. I got a lot more examples here than i showed you.
    MikeMan wrote: »
    1) Ancient cultures, who existed a long time ago but had people as anatomically smart as our people today, figured out things and were able to accomplish things that surprise or befuddle us. Ancient cultures also told stories about things that did not occur or were wild embellishments of things that did occur, because storytelling is an indelible part of being human.
    2) Aliens landed in every historical site that we cannot, right now, explain with 100% certainty. Ancient writings and tales are direct evidence for alien landings.
    1) Absolutely but there has been a progressive evolution of knowledge. Back in the time of Stonhenge people made cave drawings and not astronomic calculations. They had not even mastered writing. Same goes for the stonemasonery of Puma Puncu. Seriously: MELTING diorite? Making it laser accurate? With that level of technology? Thats a big no. If you have another opinion i want an explaination for milimeter-perfect boreholes in diorith and the molten repairs.
    2) No. but sites wich require superior knowledge or technology to create wich was not aviable at the time are highly suspicious. Or devices.

    machine.jpg

  • L|amaL|ama Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Somewhat ironically, I just saw an angry face in this picture of the brain on the wikipedia article for confirmation bias.

    Amyg.png

  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User
    edited August 2009
    ACSIS wrote: »
    1) Absolutely but there has been a progressive evolution of knowledge. Back in the time of Stonhenge people made cave drawings and not astronomic calculations. They had not even mastered writing. Same goes for the stonemasonery of Puma Puncu. Seriously: MELTING diorite? Making it laser accurate? With that level of technology? Thats a big no. If you have another opinion i want an explaination for milimeter-perfect boreholes in diorith and the molten repairs.

    People are smarter than you thought and/or lucky. That's certainly a simpler explanation than aliens from outer space, isn't it?
    ACSIS wrote: »
    2) No. but sites wich require superior knowledge or technology to create wich was not aviable at the time are highly suspicious.


    People are smarter than you thought and/or lucky. That's certainly a simpler explanation than aliens from outer space, isn't it?

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Holy h-scroll rape.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Sorry, not satisfactionary. Its not THAT easy. But case in point it was good to ignore you and a big mistake answering your questions. I could present you spectral analysis charts of stars dating back to stoneage and you would still claim thats perfecly normal for that era.

  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    ACSIS wrote: »
    1) Absolutely but there has been a progressive evolution of knowledge. Back in the time of Stonhenge people made cave drawings and not astronomic calculations. They had not even mastered writing.

    How do you know they couldn't do astronomic calculations? Assuming you even need them, which you probably don't.
    If you have another opinion i want an explaination for milimeter-perfect boreholes in diorith

    Doing stuff slowly and patiently over very long periods of time.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User
    edited August 2009
    So now you're basically just pointing to every example of a curious or fascinating historical artifact and saying Aliens Did It.

    Great.

    Do you even have a thesis? What are you claiming? When did they come, what did they do when they came, and when did they leave? To support this, what specific pieces of evidence do you have?

    Do you see the questions up there? Those are the questions actual scientists ask. And they do that because those sorts of questions immediately weed out crackpot theories that are unassailable behind their vague, almost meaningless claims.

    Take a step back and think. You are scouring the internet for examples of things from the ancient world that confuse or shock us, and using that to make a claim that aliens from space visited. Do you see how there is absolutely no way for us to disprove you? There will ALWAYS be things we don't understand about the past. It's a long fucking time ago and a lot happened. There will ALWAYS be things you can point to and say "curious, huh?"

    THAT DOESN'T MEAN ALIENS DID IT

    Nor is that how rational inquiry works. That's how crackpot theories work. That's how the fucking timecube guy works. Don't be the timecube guy. Please.

    HOW DO YOU FUCK UP BAGELS. YOU BOIL THE WATER. PUT IN THE NOODLES
  • DuffelDuffel Registered User
    edited August 2009
    ACSIS wrote: »
    Well if you type Stonehenge you will find something... possibly in german. I am sorry. Are we talking about typos now? Is this important?


    No. And i did not intent to. But it seems i have to.

    1) No witness, no matter how credible will stay credible if he/she claims aliens landed in front of him/her. even if this is true. We have witnesses in the ancient past. And the concept of UFOs was entirely unknown to them. How credible can it get? For the record: i have not made such a claim ^^
    2) There is no technology leftover... but there are indicies for interferance... i was getting to the cargo cult concept in any case.
    3) True but it gets suspicous if people tell the same storys. I got a lot more examples here than i showed you.


    1) Absolutely but there has been a progressive evolution of knowledge. Back in the time of Stonhenge people made cave drawings and not astronomic calculations. They had not even mastered writing. Same goes for the stonemasonery of Puma Puncu. Seriously: MELTING diorite? Making it laser accurate? With that level of technology? Thats a big no. If you have another opinion i want an explaination for milimeter-perfect boreholes in diorith and the molten repairs.
    2) No. but sites wich require superior knowledge or technology to create wich was not aviable at the time are highly suspicious. Or devices.
    The problem is that there are no sites for which we can credibly claim the people who built them did not have the technology to do so.

    For instances, pseudoarchaeologists usually focus on the Great Pyramids at Giza as "evidence" of alien interaction. In doing so, they usually act as though these pyramids existed in a vacuum, that the pyramids were mysteriously built out of nowhere by people without the capabilities to do so.

    But this simply isn't the case. Egyptians had been building monumental tombs for centuries, and the Great Pyramids are simply the culmination and most impressive example of technological achievements which had been advancing, slowly but surely, over a span of centuries, beginning with flat "mastaba" style tombs in very ancient Egypt. Psuedoarchaeologists never point to, for instance, the more deteriorated and eroded pyramid at el-Lahun as evidence for their claims; it would be difficult to claim an advanced alien civilization built such a structure because it's obviously suffered the effects of time much more than the Giza pyramids.

    Pseudoarchaeological claims about other sites face similar problems. In short, if the work of ancient people surpasses our expectations, it simply means that ancient people were more advanced than we expected. It does not mean that aliens existed and interacted with these people.

  • ProPatriaMoriProPatriaMori Registered User
    edited August 2009
    Selner wrote: »
    Just like all the folks claiming to see "artificial" stuff in the Mars Rover pictures.

    I finally get to make a non-trollish, if perhaps not useful, post in this thread.

    Shortly after the Mars and Me blog was started, Scott posted one of the pictures from the rover...HAZCAMs, I think. Anyway, I look at it and clearly see a bunch of bleachers and such maybe 10m from the rover, and think "oh, this is from some test/presentation," and note the caption says that it's one of the initial shots from Mars.

    I'm thinking wtf for maybe 10 seconds before I realize that I'm looking at the underside of Spirit's deck, the edge of which was closely aligned with the horizon.

    Can't find the picture anymore, but the point is...even skeptics are good at seeing crazy shit sometimes.

  • kdrudykdrudy Registered User
    edited August 2009
    So it's more satisfactory that creatures that had the ability to cross interstellar distances came to Earth and the only thing they left behind were the crude monuments they taught the natives to build?

    tvsfrank.jpg
  • ProPatriaMoriProPatriaMori Registered User
    edited August 2009
    HamHamJ wrote: »
    How do you know they couldn't do astronomic calculations? Assuming you even need them, which you probably don't.

    People tend not to realize that the ancient night was darker than most people, especially in the developed world, will ever see. You can do some pretty good astronomy when you can see so clearly into space and you don't have much else to do.

  • Armored GorillaArmored Gorilla Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    ACSIS wrote: »
    2) No. but sites wich require superior knowledge or technology to create wich was not aviable at the time are highly suspicious. Or devices.

    machine.jpg

    This is exactly what people are talking about, you knucklehead. Don't just say "suspicious devices" and then link a picture with the file name of "machine.jpg" and not say anything about where you found the picture, what it purports to be of, where it was found, etc. That could be a widget that fell into a bog 30 years ago for all we know or care.

    And don't tell me to go to the site it's linked from, because it's in a foreign language and the front page shows pictures of people on a beach, dead spiders, and run down towns.

    "I'm a mad god. The Mad God, actually. It's a family title. Gets passed down from me to myself every few thousand years."
  • Zetetic ElenchZetetic Elench Registered User
    edited August 2009
    ACSIS, please, what superior knowledge or technology was necessary to create stonehenge? Specifically?

    edit: Armoured Gorilla, that's the Antikythera mechanism. To be fair to ACSIS, he might think that because it was posted and talked about on page three, he doesn't need to re-identify it.

    nemosig.png
  • EgoEgo Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    ACSIS, why do you believe that pre-history civilizations didn't keep track of the stars? Lots of stars and planets stand out in the night sky due to their relative inrensity compared to other heavenly objects. Plenty stand out by virtue of the formations that they assume to the human eye, when viewed from the earth.

    Why do you think people, even illiterate people, didn't pay attention to this? You don't think it's realistic for a human being to notice the positions of stars or planets like venus at the times of the year most significant to them (the shortest days, longest days, times of best harvest, deepest of drought, times of planting) as a simple side-effect of being a huge part of the observable world?

    I think people have been far too dickish to you given that if they actually believe their arguments they should be trying to convince you, not belittle you (sadly your entrance into the no-FTL thread did bias people against you -I was one of the orion drive supporters / participants in that thread.) I'd genuinely appreciate it if you took a hard look at your personal opinions of humans in pre-history and addressed my question above so we all had more of an idea of where you're coming from.

    I personally am a big believer in the idea that a lot of people in the past had a pretty good idea of how things around them actually worked as compared to the amount of knowledge we give them credit with today, and so from my point of view it doesn't seem surprising that a small percentage of humans even in pre-history britain would have noticed the patterns present in the sky and world around them and built calendars to that effect. Calendars surely were very important to ancient civilizations that struggled to survive from one year to the next, and it's kind of sensible for calendar systems to predate writing, isn't it?

    Erik
  • BehemothBehemoth Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    The Antikythera Mechanism?

    Really?

    You're going to point to an object that was used to make astronomical predictions using a geocentric model as evidence of alien interference? And that only tracked 5 planets? It's a fascinating artifact, and centuries ahead of it's time, but it's certainly not evidence of any outside interference.

    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
  • edited August 2009
    How is the Antikythera mechanism evidence of aliens. They travelled across the stars and left behind pieces of clockwork?

  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Duffel wrote: »
    The problem is that there are no sites for which we can credibly claim the people who built them did not have the technology to do so.

    I disagree. And besides: A tomb? Pure speculation.

  • Armored GorillaArmored Gorilla Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    ACSIS wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    The problem is that there are no sites for which we can credibly claim the people who built them did not have the technology to do so.

    I disagree. And besides: A tomb? Pure speculation.

    You mean like your "aliens helped design it" theory that you ADMITTED was speculation?

    "I'm a mad god. The Mad God, actually. It's a family title. Gets passed down from me to myself every few thousand years."
  • edited August 2009
    ACSIS wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    The problem is that there are no sites for which we can credibly claim the people who built them did not have the technology to do so.

    I disagree. And besides: A tomb? Pure speculation.
    Well, the chambers inside of the Great Pyramid had sarcophagi inside. So yes, unless you can think of a better explanation, tombs.

  • OptimusZedOptimusZed Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Ok. Seriously.

    Stonehenge

    Antikutheyra Mechanism

    Pyramids

    Pick one, stick with it. This rolling non-debate is pointless.

    We're reading Rifts. You should too. You know you want to. On Hiatus!

    Any gamers in the Danville, PA area? PM me if you're interested in some tabletop gaming.
  • ZeroCowZeroCow Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Ancient people had a lot of free time and no tv. I'm guessing for many of them that the night sky was a great program to watch. After awhile (and your grandpa telling you about how he's already seen this show) you get to learn the programing and when reruns will be on.

    PSN ID - Buckeye_Bert
    Magic Online - Bertro
  • edited August 2009
    The whole thing is just one big Argument from Personal Incredulity, with confirmation bias thrown in for fun.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    bongi wrote: »
    How is the Antikythera mechanism evidence of aliens. They travelled across the stars and left behind pieces of clockwork?
    A geocentric piece of clockwork. Clearly, aliens subscribed to the Ptolemaic system. Unless... PTOLEMY WAS AN ALIEN! Think about it. People in that era built crude stone structures, a clear evidence of space-age alien intervention. Also, they knew about triangles. It's all falling into place!

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • DuffelDuffel Registered User
    edited August 2009
    ACSIS wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    The problem is that there are no sites for which we can credibly claim the people who built them did not have the technology to do so.

    I disagree. And besides: A tomb? Pure speculation.

    The idea that the pyramids were built as tombs to house the bodies of the Pharaohs is not "pure speculation". As I pointed out earlier, Egyptians had been developing monumental tombs to house the bodies of their dead royalty for centuries. Early on, these were flat structures called mastabas. Eventually, as technology advanced, they began placing these mastabas on top of each other in increasingly small sizes, creating what is known as a "step pyramid", which in turn gave rise to the more geometrically and aesthetically pleasing pyramids we see at Giza.

    Eventually the pyramid model was abandoned and they began cutting tombs out of rock, which are the sort of tombs we see at the Valley of the Kings much later in Egyptian history.

  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    bongi wrote: »
    ACSIS wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    The problem is that there are no sites for which we can credibly claim the people who built them did not have the technology to do so.

    I disagree. And besides: A tomb? Pure speculation.
    Well, the chambers inside of the Great Pyramid had sarcophagi inside. So yes, unless you can think of a better explanation, tombs.
    To modern, post-Enlightenment people, constructs like the Great Pyramids make no sense. They probably consumed most of the labor and assets of Egypt over the course of a number of years. They involved a long-term, concerted effort of an entire society.

    To some people, that means they couldn't have possibly been human-made, since the motivations of their construction are so alien to us.

    But, in the context of an absolute theocratic monarchy, where the people believed that Pharaoh was genuinely a god, the effort makes much more sense. The workmen were literally laboring for the edification of their god. It's not surprising that, in such a context, they were able to build something so impressive.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    bongi wrote: »
    ACSIS wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    The problem is that there are no sites for which we can credibly claim the people who built them did not have the technology to do so.

    I disagree. And besides: A tomb? Pure speculation.
    Well, the chambers inside of the Great Pyramid had sarcophagi inside. So yes, unless you can think of a better explanation, tombs.

    Plus we know the general time of the construction matches up to what happens to be a fairly powerful king who would have been able to make his people dedicate time and energy to building a huge monument to their god-king. People have recovered a few non-stolen valuable items buried right next to the pyramid. There is also the whole necropolis built around the same time next to it. There are also the smaller pyramids near by built in the same way that are known to have been used for the royal family.

  • BehemothBehemoth Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    bongi wrote: »
    ACSIS wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    The problem is that there are no sites for which we can credibly claim the people who built them did not have the technology to do so.

    I disagree. And besides: A tomb? Pure speculation.
    Well, the chambers inside of the Great Pyramid had sarcophagi inside. So yes, unless you can think of a better explanation, tombs.
    To modern, post-Enlightenment people, constructs like the Great Pyramids make no sense. They probably consumed most of the labor and assets of Egypt over the course of a number of years. They involved a long-term, concerted effort of an entire society.

    To some people, that means they couldn't have possibly been human-made, since the motivations of their construction are so alien to us.

    But, in the context of an absolute theocratic monarchy, where the people believed that Pharaoh was genuinely a god, the effort makes much more sense. The workmen were literally laboring for the edification of their god. It's not surprising that, in such a context, they were able to build something so impressive.

    And the reason they built tombs instead of palaces is because their religion said that the afterlife was where real life began. They wanted to glorify their leaders after death, not during life.

    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
  • DuffelDuffel Registered User
    edited August 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    To modern, post-Enlightenment people, constructs like the Great Pyramids make no sense. They probably consumed most of the labor and assets of Egypt over the course of a number of years. They involved a long-term, concerted effort of an entire society.

    To some people, that means they couldn't have possibly been human-made, since the motivations of their construction are so alien to us.

    But, in the context of an absolute theocratic monarchy, where the people believed that Pharaoh was genuinely a god, the effort makes much more sense. The workmen were literally laboring for the edification of their god. It's not surprising that, in such a context, they were able to build something so impressive.
    Actually, with a system of corvee labor it might have been more beneficial to build the pyramids than not to build them, as paradoxical as that sounds.

    Basically, the pharaoh drafted Egyptian laborers to work on the pyramid during the agricultural off-season. It reinforced the central authority of the pharaoh and kept the population from getting into trouble when they were sitting around waiting for the Nile to flood, plus the farmers got guaranteed food and work, reinforcing social stability. Not a bad system, when you think about it.

  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    Ok. Seriously.

    Stonehenge

    Antikutheyra Mechanism

    Pyramids

    Pick one, stick with it. This rolling non-debate is pointless.

    I was just answering questions.
    Duffel wrote: »
    The idea that the pyramids were built as tombs to house the bodies of the Pharaohs is not "pure speculation". As I pointed out earlier, Egyptians had been developing monumental tombs to house the bodies of their dead royalty for centuries. Early on, these were flat structures called mastabas. Eventually, as technology advanced, they began placing these mastabas on top of each other in increasingly small sizes, creating what is known as a "step pyramid", which in turn gave rise to the more geometrically and aesthetically pleasing pyramids we see at Giza.

    They also built the Valley of Kings. And there you find mummys. But what specific feature makes you belive the pyramids are tombs i wonder? Careful. This question is so obviously retarded that it should be easily answerable. It is not. And thats exactly my point.

  • ElitistbElitistb Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I like the Bent Pyramid, which has an angle change about midway. If aliens helped make that particular pyramid, I'm surprised we don't find the wrecks of their vehicles all over the place, because they were evidently not the best at planning their feats of engineering.

    steam_sig.png
  • Modern ManModern Man Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Duffel wrote: »
    Basically, the pharaoh drafted Egyptian laborers to work on the pyramid during the agricultural off-season. It reinforced the central authority of the pharaoh and kept the population from getting into trouble when they were sitting around waiting for the Nile to flood, plus the farmers got guaranteed food and work, reinforcing social stability. Not a bad system, when you think about it.
    And it has the added benefit of intimidating any neighboring civilizations. A kingdom that can mobilize to build something like that is not one you will lightly mess with.

    Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
    Rigorous Scholarship

  • DuffelDuffel Registered User
    edited August 2009
    Modern Man wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    Basically, the pharaoh drafted Egyptian laborers to work on the pyramid during the agricultural off-season. It reinforced the central authority of the pharaoh and kept the population from getting into trouble when they were sitting around waiting for the Nile to flood, plus the farmers got guaranteed food and work, reinforcing social stability. Not a bad system, when you think about it.
    And it has the added benefit of intimidating any neighboring civilizations. A kingdom that can mobilize to build something like that is not one you will lightly mess with.

    Not only that, but one can only imagine the impact it would have had on one's own population. Because of the corvee system, just about everyone would either have seen the pyramids or knew someone who had. Who could doubt the supremacy of a leader who had brought such things into being?

  • edited August 2009
    ACSIS wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    The idea that the pyramids were built as tombs to house the bodies of the Pharaohs is not "pure speculation". As I pointed out earlier, Egyptians had been developing monumental tombs to house the bodies of their dead royalty for centuries. Early on, these were flat structures called mastabas. Eventually, as technology advanced, they began placing these mastabas on top of each other in increasingly small sizes, creating what is known as a "step pyramid", which in turn gave rise to the more geometrically and aesthetically pleasing pyramids we see at Giza.

    They also built the Valley of Kings. And there you find mummys. But what specific feature makes you belive the pyramids are tombs i wonder?
    Well, like I said, the sarcophagus is a pretty good piece of evidence:

    http://visopsys.org/andy/photo/img/egypt/1996/ja29-072a.jpg

  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    There are an awful lot of inscriptions on that "sarcophagus" considering we talking about burying a god-king in a monumental grave here. Strange, isn't it? And there are also none on the walls in the chamber. Also not in the entire pyramid...

  • BehemothBehemoth Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    ACSIS wrote: »
    There are an awful lot of inscriptions on that "sarcophagus" considering we talking about burying a god-king in a monumental grave here. Strange, isn't it?

    I'm... not sure what you mean?

    How is that strange?

    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    ACSIS wrote: »
    There are an awful lot of inscriptions on that "sarcophagus" considering we talking about burying a god-king in a monumental grave here. Strange, isn't it?

    No? I would rather expect inscriptions on a sarcophagus.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Sign In or Register to comment.