From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: The Great Pyramid of Giza
Date: 23 Nov 92 16:43:53 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

rcf@netlink.cts.com (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.

>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,
but it would take us too far way from this newsgroup to discuss them here.
I mentioned them only to point out that my viewpoint does not include
alien space ships and the like.  I don't expect to prove that the natural
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.

>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
recorded, had the neophant placed in an actual tomb. Some Central American Indian 
tribes do this today.  I can think of one book by a trained egyptologist that
makes a case for it in detail, "Der Mensch und sein Tempel" by Frank Teichmann.
Unfortunately it is very expensive and has to be ordered from Germany.  I did
hear some lectures by Teichmann, whose specialty is the evolution of temple 
architecture, about fifteen years ago in Stuttgart.  I remember his remarkable
grasp of detail, especially of the inscriptions on the tombs of the much later
New Kingdom pharaohs.  He also showed some detailed reconstructions of the
architecture of the buildings surrounding the pyramids and built up a picture
of how the whole effect of the architecture built up to the central activities
inside the pyramids.  Teichmann most definitely does not believe in aliens
and he is well versed in the structural and cultural aspects of this area of 
history and art history. As I recall, his book(s) cover the topic from the
Old Kingdom in Egypt through the history of Christian architecture, at leas
up to the gothic cathedrals.  In any case, "no evidence" is an impossible claim
to prove, and it begs the question.  There is a lot of evidence, and the
question is one of interpretation.

Given our modern attitudes towards religion and spiritual attitudes, it is hard
to grasp the great importance that ancient peoples laid on their mysteries
and mystery temples.  We shouldn't make too many projections of our own psychology
on to humanity of ages past (anthropologists know this quite well when dealing
with non-civilized aboriginal peoples).   In this sense, the use of the pyramids
in connection on a daily basis, as what they saw as an indespensible part of life 
itself, is at least as reasonable an explanation for the enormous expenditure as
the idea that they were used as the idea of posthumous glorification of the remains
of egomaniac pharaohs.  In our age of skepticism, which believes that all forms
of religious or spiritual activity is mere smoke and illusion, neither interpretation
should really make sense.  But what the real significance was then is, like the
topic of the changed natural order, a topic that ranges too far from archaeology, at
least for the moment.

>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.
If we can make a case for it, the next question would be, why would so many 
structures of such great size and mass be necessary for an initiation rite?
This is just as legitimate as questioning the expenditure of such enormous
resources for mere tombs, even of the most exalted Pharaohs with absolute
power over the people to satisfy their megalomania.

In any case, the existentialist argument that the issue is resolved simply
because the pyramids are there, and therefore Q.E.D. whatever, and everyone else
is clearly a crackpot, does not get us anywhere except into flame wars.

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)