3 ms·

I'd be interested in seeing whether some of the new dating methods could be used to scientifically date the Pyramids. Because there's more than one reason to th

I'd be interested in seeing whether some of the new dating methods could be used to scientifically date the Pyramids. Because there's more than one reason to think it might be -a lot- older than 4,600 years ... an anecdotal number. For one easy reason, you don't just build one from scratch without a lot of experience. A lot of artifacts of that period are -way- too impressive for the same reason. Where's the evidence for prior art of that calibre? And when will the chemistry of the blocks be analyzed? Were they cut (how) or manufactured (how)? I haven't seen the book delineating these studies; if it doesn't exist, how long should the present fairy tales?

xenadu02 6y ago
There is plenty of evidence for earlier pyramid efforts, including much smaller ones and even some botched efforts. You seem to be implying some kind of "aliens did it" conspiracy theory but there is ample evidence that empires lasting thousands of years are easily able to build such structures. There's nothing all that complicated about it and we don't need aliens to explain it.
Ozzie_osman 6y ago
The timelines are pretty well-established. https://www.ancient.eu/timeline/pyramid/ https://www.ancient.eu/timeline/pyramid/ It did take decades of years for pyramid-building to improve (possibly longer), but the date of the Great Pyramids is known with pretty high confidence and aligns with particular dynasties and rulers. The big ambiguity is around the actual techniques that were used to transport the material and build the pyramids, not around the timeline.
AlotOfReading 6y ago
Archaeologists realized long ago that there were other methods of dating things and that they corroborate. IEEE isn't exactly a cutting edge archaeology journal, so hopefully we can forgive them for not explaining this in a popsci piece. There's also about a century of prior art demonstrating the evolution of pyramid construction from Djoser through Khufu. It's fine to question popsci narratives, but it seems a bit premature to call them fairy tales before you've looked at the relevant wiki page.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago
> For one easy reason, you don't just build one from scratch without a lot of experience. A lot of artifacts of that period are -way- too impressive for the same reason. Where's the evidence for prior art of that calibre? Snefru, who was the Pharoah before Khufu (which is the one that build the Great Pyramid) provides a nice example of failure and progression. He first started with the Meidum Pyramid. This pyramid collapsed during construction. The he did the Bent Pyramid. This is like it's name in that the angle changes as you go up the pyramid. Finally, he did the Red Pyramid which looks like what we think of when we think of a pyramid. So yes, even right before the Great Pyramid, you can see evidence of a learning process. This article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneferu#Building_projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneferu#Building_projects provides a nice summary with pictures.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  It is plausible that these projects were done first. It is equally plausible that they were clumsy attempts to copy the big guys, a thousand years after. The closer you look at the evidence, that far back, the more slippery it gets. Tour groups want a nice, simple story, and the pros are happy to provide one, but the support is very limited, subject to interpretation, opinion, out-and-out guessing, and fraud.

xenadu02 6y ago

There is plenty of evidence for earlier pyramid efforts, including much smaller ones and even some botched efforts. You seem to be implying some kind of "aliens did it" conspiracy theory but there is ample evidence that empires lasting thousands of years are easily able to build such structures. There's nothing all that complicated about it and we don't need aliens to explain it.

Ozzie_osman 6y ago

The timelines are pretty well-established. https://www.ancient.eu/timeline/pyramid/ https://www.ancient.eu/timeline/pyramid/ It did take decades of years for pyramid-building to improve (possibly longer), but the date of the Great Pyramids is known with pretty high confidence and aligns with particular dynasties and rulers. The big ambiguity is around the actual techniques that were used to transport the material and build the pyramids, not around the timeline.

AlotOfReading 6y ago

Archaeologists realized long ago that there were other methods of dating things and that they corroborate. IEEE isn't exactly a cutting edge archaeology journal, so hopefully we can forgive them for not explaining this in a popsci piece. There's also about a century of prior art demonstrating the evolution of pyramid construction from Djoser through Khufu. It's fine to question popsci narratives, but it seems a bit premature to call them fairy tales before you've looked at the relevant wiki page.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y ago

> For one easy reason, you don't just build one from scratch without a lot of experience. A lot of artifacts of that period are -way- too impressive for the same reason. Where's the evidence for prior art of that calibre? Snefru, who was the Pharoah before Khufu (which is the one that build the Great Pyramid) provides a nice example of failure and progression. He first started with the Meidum Pyramid. This pyramid collapsed during construction. The he did the Bent Pyramid. This is like it's name in that the angle changes as you go up the pyramid. Finally, he did the Red Pyramid which looks like what we think of when we think of a pyramid. So yes, even right before the Great Pyramid, you can see evidence of a learning process. This article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneferu#Building_projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneferu#Building_projects provides a nice summary with pictures.

ncmncm 6y ago
It is plausible that these projects were done first. It is equally plausible that they were clumsy attempts to copy the big guys, a thousand years after. The closer you look at the evidence, that far back, the more slippery it gets. Tour groups want a nice, simple story, and the pros are happy to provide one, but the support is very limited, subject to interpretation, opinion, out-and-out guessing, and fraud.