NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/archaeol/2881

Text File | 1992-11-23 | 6.1 KB | 117 lines

Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!murdoch!kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU!crb7q
From: [e-mail] (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: The Great Pyramid of Giza
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Virginia
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:12:05 GMT
Lines: 105

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gerry Palo) writes:
>[e-mail] (Bob Forsythe)  writes
>
>>     Ever been to the National Cathedral in D.C.?  As I recall from
>>reading about it in National Geographic some years ago, it is largely
>>built of stone and kept a lot of stone masons occupied for several years.
>>Stone masonry is a dying art because stone is not that easy to work with
>>when compared to something like concrete.  That does not suggest,
>>however, that modern folks couldn't build in stone if they so desired;
>>but why should we?
>
>I agree, there is no reason why we should. I am not convinced that the National
>cathedral, or even the technically more astonishing French gothic cathedrals
>like Chartres, Rhiems, etc. (of which respected scholars of architecture have
>stated we no longer know how to duplicate them) present the same order of
>difficulties as the pyramids.  I have stated earlier that the degree of difficulty
>of the pyramids compared to later buildings has not been concretely discussed
>here.  I admit that I have taken some assertions (by non-alien believers) about
>the difficulties at face value.  But no one on the other side of this discussion
>has done anything but throw out a casual comparison and asserted, in effect,
>"nonsense, of course we could build them today. Look at x, look at y, look at
>z".  So all sides remain more or less at a standoff.

    Sure we could build them today.  The 'difficulty' is a follows:

    take the population of Washington DC.  Take away all their machinery.
    Put them in the nile valley.  Give them farms.  Give them sledges,
    and bronze tools.  Then ask them to quarry,
    move and place a massive rockpile containing over
    7 million tons of stone in about 20 years.  Further, ask
    them to move over 25 million tons of stone in 100 years.
    The difficulty is not in the construction (though they did do a rather
    nice job), it is in doing the task with the tools and people at hand.
    It is also difficult to give any definitive answers about such things
    since all we are presented with is the results of the task.

    I think we're asking too much of the poor folks.  I say give them more
    time.

    In any case, it is difficult to understand contentions that *we*
    could not do an even better job.  The base of the Great Pyramid is
    off square by several inches.  We could certainly square and level it
    to within millimeters, if not better depending on how much cash
    you're willing to fork over.

    About the National Cathedral, give me a billion dollars and
    I'll put up something (NC milled stonework included) that puts
    Riems and Chartres to shame.  For starters, how about repetitions of
    an exact replica of a Michelangelo scuplture comprising every
    interior post?   How about doing the whole thing in stainless steel
    rather than stone, with milled scuplture melting in and out
    of huge metal facades?  Our tools for this stuff have advanced somewhat
    since the middle ages.  The fact that we don't do such things says
    much more about the goals of society than the 'loss' of techniques.

>>Your suggestion that natural laws were somehow
>>different 4500 years ago borders on the nonsensical.  We can sit here all
>>day and discuss how things *might* have been done, but without any
>>evidence, I see no reason for it.
>
>My claims about the difference in the natural order are not nonsensical,

     This is silly, von Daniken-type idiocy.  There appears to be
     not only no need for changes in nature, but no evidence of them.

>order was different here, nor should it be necessary.  The issue appropriate
>to archaeology is, the construction of the pyramids themselves, and whether
>or not they defy the capabilities of construction techniques and materials
>as we understand them today. Whether we could build them today with our modern
>equipment and technology is an interesting side issue that may or may not
>through light on the main question, of how they did it then.

     They could have been built with brute force, if that is what you're
     asking.  They do not defy the capabilities of construction techniques,
     now or then.  Vascular microsurgery or manned spaceflight defied
     their most probable techniques, hefting huge cut boulders did not.

>>There is a great deal of evidence the
>>pyramids were used as tombs, including the inscriptions found on the
>>pyramid walls.
>
>>There is no evidence they were used for initiation rites.
>
>Initation rites, ancient and modern, also use the same images and descriptions
>of death and entombment.  Some Greek mysteries, some details of which have been

     It strains credulity to suggest that these massive monuments were
     built simply to impress the neophytes.

>>Consequently, your "science" does take on the air of "psuedo-science".
>
>Unsupported, my assertion may sound like it border on pseudo-science, but it
>is not essential to the discussion.  If we can establish that the pyramids do
>represent technical impossibilities, then the subject of what the natural order
>was may become appropriate.  Likewise the assertions about initiation places.

     They are certainly not technical impossibilities, today or in days past.
     Why would we expect that the 'natural order' has changed?

                               dale bass
--
C. R. Bass                                          [e-mail]
Department of Mechanical,
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              [phone]