Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A coherent story of Stonehenge may be beginning to emerge

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 25 posts

Re: A coherent story of Stonehenge may be beginning to emerge

#11

Post by mustacheemperor »

fluxby wrote: post #7
fluxby wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Which pyramids are you talking about? What we have are some lukewarm explanations which do not hold up to scientific scrutiny of all the historic sources. If you are talking about the Great Pyramyd of Cheops in Giza then plenty of evidence show that Cheops had nothing to do with building that pyramid. He was a Stone Age monarch at the time when writing and mathematics have not been developed in Egypt. The…

The idea that pyramid belonged to Cheops comes from Herodotus who travelled to Egypt long after Cheops, and in fact what he wrote down is an urban legend from the local folk, because no historic Egyptian documents could verify who built the great pyramid. There are other much earlier historic accounts about the great pyramid from Arab historians. Who have a very different story about the pyramid.

>a very different story about the pyramid.

Do you have any sources or articles? I'm a huge ancient Egypt nerd and would love to read more about it - as is unfortunately usually the case with nuanced historical topics, Wikipedia just breezes through the common assumptions (that it was built for Cheops).

Re: A coherent story of Stonehenge may be beginning to emerge

#12

Post by twic »

bahjoite wrote: post #10

> In other words, the landscape was used in religious or ceremonial processions related to the monuments. Surely it was the Glastonbury Festival venue of the day. There were even sounds wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats.

Not to mention bearded patriarchs delivering messages of spiritual renewal to the rapturous masses [1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rN07fnvGomo

Re: A coherent story of Stonehenge may be beginning to emerge

#13

Post by pvg »

fluxby wrote: post #7
fluxby wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Which pyramids are you talking about? What we have are some lukewarm explanations which do not hold up to scientific scrutiny of all the historic sources. If you are talking about the Great Pyramyd of Cheops in Giza then plenty of evidence show that Cheops had nothing to do with building that pyramid. He was a Stone Age monarch at the time when writing and mathematics have not been developed in Egypt. The…

The idea that pyramid belonged to Cheops comes from Herodotus who travelled to Egypt long after Cheops, and in fact what he wrote down is an urban legend from the local folk, because no historic Egyptian documents could verify who built the great pyramid. There are other much earlier historic accounts about the great pyramid from Arab historians. Who have a very different story about the pyramid.

The evidence is not limited to what Herodotus wrote. But that doesn't matter much, we know they are tombs, we know a great deal about the civilization that built them. We know far less about who built Stonehenge and why. They're not in the same category of knowing at all.

Re: A coherent story of Stonehenge may be beginning to emerge

#14

Post by sbmassey »

fluxby wrote: post #6
pvg wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We heave a pretty good idea who built the pyramids and why since they wrote about it.

Not really. Which pyramids are you talking about? What we have are some lukewarm explanations which do not hold up to scientific scrutiny of all the historic sources. If you are talking about the Great Pyramyd of Cheops in Giza then plenty of evidence show that Cheops had nothing to do with building that pyramid. He was a Stone Age monarch at the time when writing and mathematics have not been developed in Egypt. The…

Well, if he was a monarch before writing had been developed, he would have had a hard time putting his name on it.

Re: A coherent story of Stonehenge may be beginning to emerge

#16

Post by fluxby »

mustacheemperor wrote: post #11
fluxby wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that pyramid belonged to Cheops comes from Herodotus who travelled to Egypt long after Cheops, and in fact what he wrote down is an urban legend from the local folk, because no historic Egyptian documents could verify who built the great pyramid. There are other much earlier historic accounts about the great pyramid from Arab historians. Who have a very different story about the pyramid.

>a very different story about the pyramid. Do you have any sources or articles? I'm a huge ancient Egypt nerd and would love to read more about it - as is unfortunately usually the case with nuanced historical topics, Wikipedia just breezes through the common assumptions (that it was built for Cheops).

Few historical points that we know for certain:

- Cheops lived in 26th century BC. This is Stone Age territory. A time where humans still didn't master metalworks, and understanding of mathematics and written language was very poor.

- Herodotus traveled to Egypt and later made his claim in 5th century BC. This is about 2100 years after the rule of Cheops! To say that his historic account can be deemed as verifiable is a joke.

- Up until 820 AD the pyramid was completely closed off by the granite plates that covered all external walls, and an Arab caliph Al-Mamoun broke most of them and found a way in.

- The architectual complexity of the Great Pyramid is unbelievable. On top of everything that most people know, it also has an underground chambers with an artificial lake (water comes from underground sources) and a really big sarcophagus submerged in the water. The sarcophagus is larger than the walkways leading up to the underground chamber.

- All the consequent pyramids that came after the great pyramid are much smaller and much less sophisticated. We know that Egyptian empire was growing substantially in wealth and power at that time, so why the pyramids are less sophisticated? Shouldn't we see technological progression, not regression in a rich developing society?

What I think is that we have a serious case of Cargo Cult where emperors try to emulate the greatness of the pyramid.

- The Arab historians I mentioned refer to the legend of Enoch.

Re: A coherent story of Stonehenge may be beginning to emerge

#17

Post by fluxby »

sbmassey wrote: post #14
fluxby wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Which pyramids are you talking about? What we have are some lukewarm explanations which do not hold up to scientific scrutiny of all the historic sources. If you are talking about the Great Pyramyd of Cheops in Giza then plenty of evidence show that Cheops had nothing to do with building that pyramid. He was a Stone Age monarch at the time when writing and mathematics have not been developed in Egypt. The…

Well, if he was a monarch before writing had been developed, he would have had a hard time putting his name on it.

He would have had even harder time designing the pyramid

Re: A coherent story of Stonehenge may be beginning to emerge

#18

Post by deepsun »

fluxby wrote: post #17
sbmassey wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if he was a monarch before writing had been developed, he would have had a hard time putting his name on it.

He would have had even harder time designing the pyramid

Well, children can design pyramids using sand.

Re: A coherent story of Stonehenge may be beginning to emerge

#19

Post by fluxby »

deepsun wrote: post #18
fluxby wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He would have had even harder time designing the pyramid

Well, children can design pyramids using sand.

Yeah. Only those pyramids are about knee high and last for about a day. :) The great pyramid stood for at least 5000 years.

Re: A coherent story of Stonehenge may be beginning to emerge

#20

Post by sbmassey »

fluxby wrote: post #16
mustacheemperor wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>a very different story about the pyramid. Do you have any sources or articles? I'm a huge ancient Egypt nerd and would love to read more about it - as is unfortunately usually the case with nuanced historical topics, Wikipedia just breezes through the common assumptions (that it was built for Cheops).

Few historical points that we know for certain: - Cheops lived in 26th century BC. This is Stone Age territory. A time where humans still didn't master metalworks, and understanding of mathematics and written language was very poor. - Herodotus traveled to Egypt and later made his claim in 5th century BC. This is about 2100 years after the rule of Cheops! To say that his historic account can be deemed as verifiable i…

According to http://archive.archaeology.org/9909/abstracts/pyramids.html carbon dating makes the old kingdom pyramids older than their historical dates, although they suggest they may have been using old wood.
Post reply on HN