These buildings, and monuments were built centuries ago, most of the records have been lost due to the decay of time and by human destruction. (many of the Aztec & Inca records were destroyed by the Spaniards during colonization of the Americas)
We as a species (when inspired or forced, as in many cases of the creation of these monuments) can build just about anything if we set our minds and hearts to it.
MY THEORY:(not to be take seriously)
I like to think that thousands of years ago, a great fleet of Goa’Uld ships came into orbit and the System lords created all the monuments with the force labor of the human population and their Jaffa soldiers
Or we are the lost tribe of Man according to Battle Star Galactica !
For the record, "the largest pyramid is the 3.3 million-cubic meter (4.3 million cubic yd) Quetzalcóatl Pyramid at Cholula de Rivadia, southeast of Mexico City, Mexico.
Text taken from the crappy Guinness World records cite I can’t seem to link to.
But Giza is, I believe, larger than the Sun / Moon pyramids at Teotihuacan. Just not larger than this baby.
In terms of height, the Great Pyramids are still the winner (among pre-modern buildings, anyway). The Pyramid of Khufu originally stood 481 feet tall (with the original limestone casing that Burnt Sugar mentioned; today it’s 449 feet tall). It was therefore taller than the Lighthouse at Alexandria (around 400 feet tall), the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan (about 63 meters, or 206 feet, tall), or the pyramid at Cholula (at 203 feet tall, nearly the same height as the Pyramid of the Sun),
Overall size, however, is a different story. The Mesoamerican pyramids often have much wider bases than do the Egyptian pyramids, and their ascension isn’t nearly as steep (much lower than the sharp angles of the Giza pyramids). So the Mesoamerican pyramids win for overall size, and can be considered the largest pyramids… but Giza wins for height, and get the “tallest” label.
Yes, Aladdin told us Khufu’s pyramid was the tallest building in the world until the Eiffel Tower was built. I thought that was pretty cool .
I think the pyramids are pretty incomparable simply because of the time difference. Kind of along the lines of: “Oh, those buildings built in medieval England are really shoddy. Want a building? See the Empire State Building.”
Welllll… not quite. According to Eburacum45 over in GQ, the spire on the Lincoln cathredral was higher (at 524’) for a while until being toppled in 1545.
By Jove, he was right. It looks like the pyramids were indeed surpassed in height by Lincoln Cathedral’s spire. And then by the medieval cathedral of St. Paul’s, which featured a whopping 527 foot tall spire (until it was hit by lightning in 1561).
In fact, it appears that several Gothic churches featured spires that topped Khufu’s pyramid in height, including Beauvais cathedral and Nikolaikirche in Hamburg. However, you must keep in mind that in building these structures, the Gothic architects were assisted by angels sent from God. They therefore had an unfair advantage over the ancient Egyptians.
I like how people pretend that this forum is about fighting ignorance when in reality it seems more about ignorance by consensus.
The truth is, the theories on how old the great pyramids at Giza are range so wildly that we simply don’t know how old they actually are. Some people say 10,000 years, and some people say 4000 years. Some say they are the oldest intact structures known to man, and others say they are not.
The simple truth is, we have no fucking clue. I’ve read some interesting stuff about the astrological significance to the Pyramids, and I don’t think it’s too far fetched to think that they were some massive device dedicated to that calculation. In the book “Fingerprints of the Gods” by Graham Hancock, he says that they calculate the location of the belt of Orion during certain epochs. While I don’t know whether or not this is true, and don’t claim either way, I don’t think it’s any farther fetched than any other idea.
If you’re going to fight ignorance, you can’t accept one bald-faced assumption over another bald-faced assumption just because one fits your phenomenological field better than the other. Well you can, but you’re not fighting ignorance anymore than anyone else. The truth of the matter is you don’t know, as much as the person you are claiming to be ignorant doesn’t know.
Personally I’d rather talk to the fool with the wide-eyed wonderment who doesn’t know what they are talking about than the fool saying “pshaw” who equally doesn’t know what they are talking about.
To me, the idea of an advanced race in the past is as plausible as the idea that it was built by the pharaohs or the gods, or aliens or any other manner of ways. The truth is, I do not know how they were built, and they’re pretty fucking incredible. As incredible as the fact that the A comes before the O in Pharaoh even though it’s an english approximation of a non-English word.
Aliens are the mythology of modern times. It’s uncouth to claim polytheistic reasons for things happening, so now we say they are aliens. The story is the same, “Master race from some far off place of wonderment and fantasy that we cannot comprehend because we are puny mortals/humans.”
So my problem isn’t so much the ideas presented by the OP, just the implication that somehow his opinion is more or less ignorant than those claiming it’s done by aliens, because he’s equally as baffled by their construction as anyone else, and the simple fact is that Smiling Bandit has No F’ing Clue how they were built just the same as anyone else.
So unless you actually KNOW how they were built, any statement on their construction is mere conjecture on your part and claiming it as “more true” than another is propagating ignorance.
Sorry, but we landed on the Moon on July 20th, 1969, not 1967 (though the US and the Soviets did land some robotic probes before this).
A lot of the “The pyramids/other ancient structure aren’t that great” comments remind me of the folks who watch Citizen Kane and say, “What was so great about that movie? I’ve seen the same thing hundreds of times before!” Yes, but Citizen Kane was the first. The pyramids and other such buildings are marvels simply because of how much effort must have gone into them. The closest modern equivalent would be the Apollo missions or the building of the WTC. Both of those efforts stretched human knowledge to it’s limits.
And calling the pyramids a big pile of rocks is like saying Samoans are big. Until you’ve met a Samoan, you’ve got no idea how freakin’ huge those folks can be. The time I met one, it was like staring up at the WTC, he just went on and on, utterly dwarfing a friend of mine who is 6’ 4" and 400 lbs.
Sure, some people say such things. The consensus amongst archeaologists is for a much narrower range of possible dates. With good reason. For a start, there are the radiocarbon dates.
There are also water erosion marks on the Sphinx that date it at far older. In my layman’s opinion, many opposing theories make lots of sense.
Now I don’t know much about radiocarbon dating, but I’d say the rocks are probably millions of years older than the Pyramids. Not to mention, I’ve read convincing evidence that carbon dating is inefficient.
So if I want, I can go back and find lot’s and lot’s of arguments and counter arguments that will inevitably point to the same argument, that there is no reliable consensus regarding this particular topic.
And what has that to do with the age of the pyramids?
Yes, it’s usually argued that both the Sphinx and the Great Pyramid were built by Cheops, but, even if plausible, how would redating the Sphinx impact the dating of the latter?
They didn’t try to date the rocks.
And what convincing evidence about carbon dating being “inefficient” would that be?
Again, the mere fact that some people dissent from it does not necessarily make a particular consensus unreliable. That entirely depends on the quality of the arguments for and against.
No, there is reliable consensus between experts, just not between experts and lay people that have read a book and think they know more than the experts.
If I recall correctly, the Sphinx is actually carved out of a natural outcropping of rock that had always been there at Giza–in other words, it’s carved from “living” rock as opposed to being constructed from quarried stone.
The natural age of the rock might account for those signs of erosion (if there is indeed any evidence of really ancient, pre-dynastic erosion).
Besides, the face of the Sphinx matches perfectly with other sculptures of Khafre (AKA Chefren), indicating that it is a portrait of the pharaoh. Unless Khafre was a space alien, I think it’s safe to date his pyramid, the sphinx, and his temple structures (after all, Giza consists of more than just the pyramids) to the dates of his reign (2520 - 2494 B.C.E.).
Well as it regards the Sphinx. The Sphinx is made up of layers of rock. Some softer layers are more susceptible to erosion. These layers are then measured against the harder rock to determine the age. It is then matched up to historical records regarding flooding in the area.
Now I claim to be no expert. I am just pointing out something that is pointed out in EVERY documentary on Giza these days, that the “accepted” theories vary wildly. So while I might defer to an expert who has dedicated their lives to this study, I don’t think there is one in this group. At least no one has self-identified as an expert. I believe we are ALL lay people who’ve read a book proclaiming which expert we agree on.
As to how the Sphinx dating relates to the Pyramids. It calls into question our assumptions on the pyramids. THat’s all it does. It doesn’t comment upon the conclusiveness of evidence on the pyramids, but the inconclusiveness that we once thought to be rather conclusive. We question the date of the pyramids BASED upon the requestioning of the Sphinx.
So if you are an egyptologist, and an expert, please let me know, otherwise, if you are not, then you are just another layperson who’s read a book, like myself, and I maintain based upon documentaries I’ve seen and books I’ve read, that this is a mystery yet to be solved, and that making fun of the alien theory while presenting another theory that has been called into question, is equally ignorant. That’s all I am trying to point out.
It’s true that, as far as I know, no professional egyptologist is a regular poster on the SDMB. (As usual, we have plenty of physicists and linguists, but where’s an egyptologist when someone calls for one …) Yet that’s irrelevant to the point at issue. Are you pretending that professional archaeologists believe that the pyramids were built in 10,000 BC? Neither you, I nor anybody else has to be an expert to establish that point. Simply name one who believes that.
I repeat, the “accepted” theories don’t vary wildly.
More generally, you’re adopting a naked appeal to authority (though it’s an authority that disagrees with you). On the whole, arguments about the pyramids aren’t that complicated. If you don’t want to address the specifics, then this really isn’t the forum to blather.
Waffle. The thread is about the pyramids, not the Sphinx. Argue about the evidence. Like the cabon dating. Which is only one out of several lines of evidence.
No, I’m not an egyptologist either. But you seem to be adopting the position of “I’m not an expert, what do I know” to avoid engaging with the evidence at all. Read the link I provided above. For starters.
Over there I have provided information on most if not all the “issues” raised by the Atlantideans/Alien proponents – I was unaware of the existence of this thread until now. It is usually the Sphinx that crackpots claim is 10,000 years old or more, but the pyramids are sometimes thrown in for good measure – the people making these claims are not exactly reliable, and the people that make use of them tend to be outright ignorant so it’s no surprise the two claims should be conflated.
The pyramids are just glorified piles of rock? Good grief, only if you have no appreciation whatsoever for human achievement and lasting architecture. A trip to Egypt is highly suggested. The sheer antiquity and mass of the pyramids is like a palpable effect. And wait until you experience them from the inside and have millions of tons of rock pressing down on you, and realize what a labour this was. Mountains where there were no mountains.
This brings up the interesting point of the abysmal level of scientific awareness and critical thinking skills. As it happens, the first time I came across the Sphinx is 10k years old claim, I was astounded. Very serious news, if true, and quite inconceivable. If memory serves the first half-sensible claim came from Dr. Shoch around 1992. Some fellow called De Lubicz had, I think, suggested something along these lines earlier.
The problem was that this rainfall erosion hypothesis relied almost entirely on one observation, that the Sphinx appeared to have signs of water erosion – and since Giza hasn’t seen sustained torrential rains in thousands of years, bingo, you reach the idea that the Sphinx is older than recorded history.
However, it is at this point that critical thinking has to kick in. For example, did you check the claim that the wear on the Sphinx was indeed caused by water, or did you accept this claim without question? The claim of water erosion is the weakest link in that chain of reasoning, and it is therefore the first that must be examined. Could certain scars on the Sphinx have been caused by anything else, or are we absolutely sure that they were caused by flowing water?
As it turns out, the erosion patterns that look like the work of a lot of flowing water are actually caused by salt exfoliation in a hot and dry climate. The hypothesis that the damage to the Sphinx was caused by water now becomes entirely unnecessary, and even cumbersome.
According to geologists there was a period of heavier rains between 4000 - 3000 BC in Egypt. But Shoch’s calculations showed that the erosion on the Sphinx required a longer exposure time, and he therefore pushed back the creation of the Sphinx to before 5000 BC, in the period that would have afforded enough sustained rainfall to account for the weathering he observed.
That makes the Sphinx according to Dr. Shoch at least 7,000 years old, but I’m guessing his claim was sensationalized and exaggerated in books, newspapers, and documentaries, with the result that the claim I usually see today is age of Sphinx > 10k years. Whatever, both figures are not supported by the evidence.
As recently as a couple of years ago, I saw a documentary on the Discovery channel spreading this same misinformation about the Sphinx, and even tying it in with Angkor Wat (a complex in Cambodia that is thousands of years more recent that anything on Giza). It’s appalling, but this misinformation is the nature of popular media. What sells is almost always of a sensational nature. Additionally, media people usually do not enjoy a solid knowledge of science, and may take whatever they are given by whatever “expert” comes along. Therefore we have the Sphinx twice as old as it really is and the hare-brained links to the totally fictional Atlantis, the shrill suggestion that we never actually landed on the moon, and interminable televised rubbish relatng to psychic powers, ghosts, medical effects of prayer, etc. It’s not information, it’s entertainment.
.