posted
I was asked in another thread why I don't believe that the excavations at the Great Pyramid was used necessarily or exclusively to house workers for construction.
Primarily is the small size and "barracks" type construction. Many of these workers would probably live within a few miles of the site but traversing the distance each day would be troublesome and time consuming. Privacy was not the concern in ancient times that it is in modern times no doubt but it seems unlikely that large numbers of workers would want to sleep in what were apparently extremely close quarters.
These buildings are relatively ramshackle in comparison to the great artistry shown in the pyramid. Where the descending passage would exactly enclose the north pole if extended, the barracks don't even have right angles in them. This might imply that these were just short term housing and could just be tossed together or it might imply that they were built for other purposes and not at exactly the time the pyramids were under construction.
Certainly there might be hundreds or even thousands of workers on site at times and it's entirely possible that some would be very short term or have no other option than to stay in barracks.
It does seem that there is often a rush to judgement on new discoveries even where the evidence is not strong.
I'm sure there would be several people interested in any facts, information, or conjecture about these structures.
Posts: 393 | From: NW Indiana, US of A | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
It does seem that there is often a rush to judgement on new discoveries even where the evidence is not strong.
Don't know, but what is your evidence to the contrary:
"During the construction of the sewage system of the village of Nazlet-el Samman and other villages located down the foot of the great pyramid, we found a large Old Kingdom settlement about 3 km square.
We recorded a continuous layer of mud-brick buildings starting about 165 feet south of the valley Temple of Khufu and extending about 1 mile to the south. Among the artifacts are thousands of fragments of every day pottery and bread molds, cooking pots, beer jars and trays for sifting grain and flour. Medium to large pieces of charcoal suggest that trees once grew here. Also domesticated animal bones, such as beef, pork and sheep with butchers marks on them. The workmen camp should be located on this site.
I believe that there were two types of settlement, one for the workmen who moved the stones, and the other camp for the artisans…
On April 14, 1990, the chief of the pyramid guards, Mohammed Abdel Razek, reported to me that an American tourist was thrown from her horse when the animal stumbled on a previously unknown mud-brick wall. Located to the south of the wall of the crow.
The mud-brick wall turned out to be a tomb, with a long vaulted chamber and two false doors through which the dead could commune with the living and receive offerings.
Crude hieroglyphs scrawled on the false doors identified the tomb owners as Ptah-shepsesu and his wife. At the back of the chamber were three burial shafts for the man, his wife, and, probably, their son. In front of the tomb was a square courtyard with low walls of broken limestone. While not in the style of the great stone mastaba tombs of nobles beside the pyramids, Ptah-shepsesu's tomb and courtyard are grand in comparison to others that we have uncovered around it.
Pieces of granite, basalt, and diorite, stones used in the pyramid temples, had been incorporated into the walls. Such material suggests that some tombs in the cemetery may belong to the pyramid builders or succeeding generations of workers who made use of stone left over from the construction of the pyramids, temples, and tombs. Attached to Ptah-shepsesu's tomb were small shaft burials of people who probably worked under him.
The lower part of the cemetery contains about 600 such graves for workmen and 30 larger tombs, perhaps for overseers…
We have found many false doors and some stelae attached to these tombs. Inscribed in crude hieroglyphs, they record the names of the people whose skeletons lay below: on one stela a man named Khemenu is depicted sitting at an offering table in front of his wife, Tep-em nefret; a false door is inscribed with a woman's name, Hetep-repyt (Offering to Presiding Goddess, or Hathor); another belongs to Hy, priestess of the goddess Hathor, Lady of (the) Sycamore Tree, and her son Khuwy. These women, the wives of the pyramid builders, served as priestesses of Hathor, goddess of love, music, dance, and the necropolis, and a counterpart to Horus, god of kingship…" - Zahi Hawass, 1997
Thanks for the links. I couldn't follow the second and had already seen the first however. There's nothing in the quoted text which really constitutes evidence. What is quoted is how the evidence is viewed by a single man. Hawaas is well respected in the field of orthodox Egyptology and he cites some facts which lead him to believe as he does. On this basis there's little doubt that there is some meaning to his words but except to those researching individuals there is very little of interest. Even in the link there is not much of interest except the pictures but they are not located so have much less meaning. The one tomb looks for all the world like an ancient blast furnace but I'll take him at his word that it is a tomb.
It's not that he must be wrong. He could very well be right on his conclusions that are based on the technological knowledge from the century before last. No one knows if he is right or wrong but this is at least in part because he will not allow scientists with whom he doesn't agree to have access to these sites.
Saying that something is a workmens' village doesn't make it one. Many people have very coherent pictures of life at this time that are most probably wrong. Just because he tells a good story means little without the evidence to support it.
All of us attack problems and projects with our own preconcieved notions and from our own perspective. If Hawaas' ideas are so robust why do they not stand scrutiny?
Posts: 393 | From: NW Indiana, US of A | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
They were purposefully posted to undergo 'scrutiny' by way of evidence to the contrary, which you haven't yet produced.
quote:sam p: I couldn't follow the second and had already seen the first however. There's nothing in the quoted text which really constitutes evidence.
Of course there are; just because you choose not to confront them, doesn't devalue them. Specific findings have been laid out in the article, and what have been deduced from them. You on the other hand, haven't produced any 'substance' otherwise.
quote:sam p:
What is quoted is how the evidence is viewed by a single man.
The keyword here is "evidence"; evidence is produced to derive the interpretations. That Zahi wrote the article, is immaterial to those interpretations supported by evidence.
quote:sam p:
Hawaas is well respected in the field of orthodox Egyptology and he cites some facts which lead him to believe as he does. On this basis there's little doubt that there is some meaning to his words but except to those researching individuals there is very little of interest. Even in the link there is not much of interest except the pictures but they are not located so have much less meaning.
Well, you can choose to focus on Mr. Hawass personality, and hence, turn a blind eye to specified evidential information; it only reflects on your weak credibility on the issue.
quote: sam p: The one tomb looks for all the world like an ancient blast furnace but I'll take him at his word that it is a tomb.
How about looking at 'what' has been found in these sites, as specified, and 'specifically' refute each finding on why the interpretations made of them cannot be so?
quote:sam p:
It's not that he must be wrong. He could very well be right on his conclusions that are based on the technological knowledge from the century before last.
You certainly haven't proven that he is, until you do, well you have no argument. Complaining about the man's personality is not a counter argument.
quote:sam p:
No one knows if he is right or wrong but this may be at least in part because he will not allow scientists with whom he doesn't agree to have access to these sites.
You are wrong; his case is quite legitimate, until you can provide substantial material to the contrary. That is how science works: disproving a falsifiable interpretation of evidence.
quote:sam p:
Saying that something is a workmens' village doesn't make it one.
Of course this is your "illusion". There is no such thing as "simply saying" here; actual specific concrete evidential material have been laid out, yet to be refuted...by you.
quote:sam p:
Many people have very coherent pictures of life at this time that are most probably wrong.
The onus is on you to disprove what has been presented. You have said much, but not done much to this end.
quote:sam p:
Just because he tells a good story means little without the evidence to support it.
This is a figment of your imagination. 'Nuff said.
quote:sam p:
If Hawaas' ideas are so robust why do they not stand scrutiny?
Goes back to my point about the reason for posting the material; to stand scrutiny. The real question should be, why you have failed to produce anything to disprove the interpretations made therein?
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Goes back to my point about the reason for posting the material; to stand scrutiny. The real question should be, why you have failed to produce anything to disprove the interpretations made therein? "
It seems to me that you are simply ignoring the argument and parsing words.
Let me state this one last time.
I am no expert on these subjects. I can think for myself however and it appears that all the evidence about the pyramids speaks to water not to funerals. I don't mean some of the evidence but all of it as laid out here and elsewhere over the last few months. Obviously there are gaps and holes in my theories but they do closely conform with the known facts whereas the orthodox views do not conform to these facts. I fully recognize that these people know far more about the subject than I.
My opinion on the "workers' village" is based on very scanty evidence just like Hawaas' opinion. He does have access to more info and has the distinct advantage of being expert and being able to look for himself. Still, he's basing his observations on his prejudices whether these are right or wrong, they still affect the way he sees the evidence.
I'm sure you'll now misunderstand every word in this post as well. You'll tell me I haven't proven anything as you ignore the "substantial" evidence and the fact that traditional theories leave more mysteries than answers.
I also don't care about the "workmens' village" remains because they are not fundamental to my overriding questions; How and why were the pyramids constructed.
"Goes back to my point about the reason for posting the material; to stand scrutiny. The real question should be, why you have failed to produce anything to disprove the interpretations made therein?"
Please read my first post in this thread. It contains more than you or your links have shown and is the very scanty reason for my poorly informed opinion.
If you believe reading names on tombs constitutes evidence about how the pyramids were built or what the barracks were used for then we really should avoid each other's posts.
I don't necessarily take my own advice.
-------------------- Men fear the pyramid, time fears man. Posts: 393 | From: NW Indiana, US of A | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
"Goes back to my point about the reason for posting the material; to stand scrutiny. The real question should be, why you have failed to produce anything to disprove the interpretations made therein? "
It seems to me that you are simply ignoring the argument and parsing words.
You have no argument to "simply ignore". No evidence, no argument; just wishful half-baked online chatting.
quote:sam p: Let me state this one last time.
Stating 'substance'-free gibberish multiple times doesn't change its stripes.
quote:sam p:
I am no expert on these subjects. I can think for myself however and it appears that all the evidence about the pyramids speaks to water not to funerals.
You don't say? It is safe to say that you are not an expert at producing 'substance' for your claims either.
quote:sam p:
I don't mean some of the evidence but all of it as laid out here and elsewhere over the last few months. Obviously there are gaps and holes in my theories but they do closely conform with the known facts whereas the orthodox views do not conform to these facts.
'gaps' and 'holes' would be an understatement; you have "nothing" to be considered a theorey.
quote:sam p:
I fully recognize that these people know far more about the subject than I.
Absolutely.
quote:sam p:
My opinion on the "workers' village" is based on very scanty evidence just like Hawaas' opinion.
Wrong. You have 'no' evidence, while Hawass' claims have been supported by multiple concrete evidential material, which you have yet in our lifetime to address.
quote:sam p:
He does have access to more info and has the distinct advantage of being expert and being able to look for himself.
Safe to agree with this assessment. The same cannot be said of you.
quote:sam p:
Still, he's basing his observations on his prejudices whether these are right or wrong, they still affect the way he sees the evidence.
Pseudo scientists contradict themselves; was it not you who just admitted that you are ill-equipped with info and expertise vis-à-vis Hawass, and now, you are proclaiming to be in the same boat? LOL.
You haven't disproven a single interpretation in the entire article, much less the need to be talking about 'bias'.
quote:sam p:
I'm sure you'll now misunderstand every word in this post as well.
I see your lack of evidence and incoherent postings for what they are; if you wish dellude yourself about them by sugarcoating them with red herrings, like this cited above, that is certainly your choice.
quote:sam p:
You'll tell me I haven't proven anything as you ignore the "substantial" evidence and the fact that traditional theories leave more mysteries than answers.
I'm glad you are bright enough to know that you haven't convinced anyone that you've proven anything yet. Specific findings and interpretations in the 'entire' Hawass article still need to be 'specifically' confronted, if you have the tools to do so. It is not too late.
quote:sam p:
I also don't care about the "workmens' village" remains because they are not fundamental to my overriding questions; How and why were the pyramids constructed.
Sure, contempt towards material that doesn't help your subjective and substance-free ideological ventings.
quote:sam p:
Please read my first post in this thread. It contains more than you or your links have shown and is the very scanty reason for my poorly informed opinion.
I only wish there was something of substance to read about your thread. Meanwhile, it does nothing to address the question or the matter brought forth from another thread.
quote:sam p: If you believe reading names on tombs constitutes evidence about how the pyramids were built or what the barracks were used for then we really should avoid each other's posts.
If you believe that 'names' are the only items in question and even that 'names' are immaterial, then I would urge "you" to do what you just adviced.
quote:sam p: I don't necessarily take my own advice.
With the way you post, I don't think I'd do so myself...to your advice. Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
You're being deliberately obtuse and this thread has been derailed as well as the other.
Ah, but I don't think you are being 'deliberate'; I have come to realize that you are naturally retarded as demonstrated by your sheer incapacity to transfer issues from another topic, proclaiming to address them here, only to fill the thread with hot air from your rear end.
quote:sam p: I'll probably have nothing more to add to this thread for reasons already stated.
There is nothing "to add to" from your standpoint. But...
quote:sam p:
But will respond if I have anything to add on-topic.
...it doesn't mean that you can't "start" producing something of substance at some point!
Posts: 5964 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic