Scientists Have an Answer to How the Pyramids Could Have Been Built
daily.jstor.org
daily.jstor.org
In other words, people don't read comments. This is why the best practice is to build self-documenting pyramids.
but it is cute that they 'figured it out with science'.
My guess is that the number of people in the picture will turn out to be exactly the right number needed to pull a full sized replica of the sled
And thank you HN - obscure reference to Pyramid tomb art, "oh here is a link to the very image, three minutes later."
Gotta love HN !
Edit I expect water pourer was the cushy number right up until the sled got stuck because you poured wrong - whips were probably involved then.
Having scientific evidence that wetting the sand ahead of the sledges -could- have eased transport is pretty nice evidence that that's what the picture depicts, but without something corroborating its efficacy, it was just a plausible interpretation.
However, that schematic appears strongly interpretative. In the original image I can't see any ropes [that could just be a bad photo]. Also if the slaves are pulling the sled to the right, why are half of them looking left?
The posture is all wrong for pulling on ropes, whilst the posture of the single person pouring water is more natural.
Would a single water pourer be enough. If not why wouldn't they have used the "stacked" technique they've used elsewhere to show there were more than one? At least there appear to be suppliers bringing water on yokes.
To me the figures to the right of the sled seem more like they're walking backwards and forwards, perhaps they're compressing the sand, but they don't seem to be pulling. Contrary to that the single figure on the far right appear to be holding a rope over their shoulder, which is weird if everyone else is holding it at waist height.
Lastly, what are all the "soldiers" doing at the top? They seem to be carrying beams or statues or somesuch in the original, quite different to the swords[?] in the schematic interpretation.
It would be nice to see a cleaned up processed image of the wall that perhaps had used some microscopic or other capture methods to ascertain pigment missing in blank areas.
Is there a reference for what the text on the original image says? That seems like it would be pretty pertinent to the point at hand? Would this whole system work on sloped sand?
On the other hand the number of people looking back in the schematic is 0, 2, 11 and 8 for each row.
They're obviously pulling the rope, but since the drawings are out of perspective it looks weird.
There are also three water carriers along with the water pouring guy: http://www.thebookofdays.com/months/sept/images/water_carrie...
Their conclusion, naturally, was that space aliens had done it. (Although this was silly on the face of it, because the rest of the construction was not particularly accurate.)
This nonsense persisted until some archaeologist figured out that such a fit could be obtained in about 30 minutes by banging and rubbing the two rocks together, and demonstrated this on camera.
That was the last I heard of the South American monuments being built by space aliens.
I figure most of the ancient construction puzzles would be head-smackingly obvious if we just saw what they were doing. We often mistake primitive societies for being stupid, when in fact they were remarkably clever in finding solutions within the severe limitations of their technology.
Remind me how much the rocks weighed?
There also turn out to be sites where this work was in progress when it was abandoned.
So feel free to believe in space aliens if you like :-) I subscribe to the notion that the simplest explanation is the most likely.
Boring straw-man. I was refuting the fact that this could have been done in 30 minutes with rocks of that size. Nobody is suggesting the existence of extra-terrestrials, (other than you).
As for ancient alien explanations, see:
http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2009/07/stone-masonry-...
We don't know if aliens built the pyramids. We can only say that there is no existent proof that would point us in that direction.
What we do know that the Egyptians didn't bang together 80 ton granite blocks to make them smooth. That's a more ridiculous notion than space aliens (which is saying something).
The article above is also nonsense. We don't know. We have no idea how they constructed the pyramids. And it's OK to say that. Scientists need to learn that it's OK to leave problems unsolved and to say, "We don't know," rather than to grab at the first available explanation and say, "This is it." It embarrasses the entire profession.
If I see a brick building in the street, I don't know how it has been done, but I can make reasonable guesses on what's most probable, based on the apparent age of the building, maybe I passed by a construction site where a similar building was being built, I can go to the library to check architecture books, I may try to ask a construction worker...
Do I know how that particular building has been done? Probably not, we haven't seen it, but I'll get a good idea on how it may have been.
Of course, this doesn't mean that it's impossible that an alien ship came in the night and drop the whole thing. It's just not a probable explanation.
We know a lot of things about the pyramids, given that it has been a while. But we know similar constructions, how that evolved, some documentation, materials, etc... Do we know for sure how they were build? Not really. But we know a lot about what are the most likely ways (and they don't include aliens or lost civilizations). Is this subjected to revision? Of course... Is "We just don't know" a good description? I don't think so.
We have an idea on some aspects of the pyramid's construction, but how they cut the stone "in situ" to that level of perfection, currently has no good explanation. Not "we know 80% but are missing 20%." It's "we don't know 100%."
My reaction was "duh, but why didn't I think of that?"
We don't know if the Egyptians actually did it that way, but just because we are accustomed to think in terms of modern surveying equipment doesn't mean there aren't simple, low tech, accurate and effective solutions.
As for how to cut a rock accurately in situ, the usual way is to use a carpenter's square, jig, or form tool. Low tech and easy.
No one's asking how they got a level foundation. That might be unclear to you, but it wouldn't be to most people, certainly not experts.
But no one knows how they cut that stone as well as they did. Not experts in any field. No one. I'm not saying they didn't have some amazing low tech solution we just don't know. I'm saying we don't know what it was.
And rather than saying, "We don't know," to say, "They rubbed the 80 ton stones together," or "They used the world's most massive jig," is just mind beggaring. Just say, "We don't know." It's not that hard.
Actually, I take that back. Evidently, for some people, it's impossible.
No, it's how you get the shape correct. You don't need a massive jig, either. I'm just pointing out there are many simple, low tech ways of doing it accurately.
> No one's asking how they got a level foundation.
Actually, that question was asked on one of those Egypt shows in the "how could they possibly have done that" way. I just used it as an example.
As for stone rubbing, that was in reference to how the Incas shaped stone.
1. Attach ring through nose of large animal
2. Attach rope to ring
3. Attach animal to large object
4. Pull on the ring in the direction you want large object to go
The important part is that they merely proved that the theory of pulling blocks over wet sand makes sense, but not how the pyramids themselves were built (blocks elevated, aligned, etc.).
Here's a NYtimes link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/africa/23iht-pyramid...
And the geopolymer institute: http://www.geopolymer.org/archaeology/pyramids
edit// and the geopolymer papers download page: http://www.geopolymer.org/formulaire/download-articles
I'll show myself out.
There needs to be a lot more collaboration between scientists and archeologists/historians on questions like this. Experimental archeology is an interesting subset of this, but my impression is that it's been fairly moribund since the 70s and 80s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_archaeology
just blogspam from JSTOR.
Original Dutch: http://www.dayralbarsha.com/node/184
You'd think, that out of all the disciplines of human knowledge, an architect would have been consulted on the puzzle of the pyramids' construction much earlier, but this is surprisingly not the case. I mean, who better to help decipher how something was built then a person who designs structures?
Something tells me the laborers who built the pyramids weren't working voluntarily...
'''An inscription on a tomb of a priest judge buried near the pyramid builders city read: “I paid them in beer and bread, and I made them make an oath that they were satisfied.'''
On topic: I read about that probably being how they moved the materials in second grade.
Edit: I swear I wasn't trying to be pedantic Internet one-up guy. It really was meant in an "Oh hey, that's a very common misconception but the real story is actually more interesting" way, sorry :/
Also, before the industrial revolution (or perhaps the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Revolution) states didn't actually have that much influence on the daily lives of people.
Massive, massive whips.
Not that it matters, because the article is about dragging the blocks through wet sand on sleds - did you even read that?