Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.
Flabbergasted
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Wed Sep 18, 2019 7:57 pm

Paradigms, paradigms. Modern science (or whoever acts behind the scenes in the name of “the scientific community”) has adopted paradigms in nearly every field of knowledge. Some of the modern scientific paradigms are intended to replace creation myths, but unfortunately they are metaphysically invalid and devoid of psychological and spiritual benefits, if not outright harmful to society.

One of the most glaring examples of a bad paradigm is the Copernican world-view foisted on humanity without having been sufficiently tested, let alone proven. Another good example is the evolutionary concept of human origins, which envisages ape-like pre-humans leaving Africa for the Far East, morphing into Homo erectus, then migrating to Europe and becoming Neanderthals or Cro-Magnon in the process, or whatever labels anthropologists have concocted. In my opinion, the Out-of-Africa theory is simply 19th century racial bias dressed up as science. But I will leave that for another post.

Once a paradigm is in place, it is incorporated in the design of all subsequent studies, and collected facts are made to conform to it. If the facts are recalcitrant, they can be twisted, cherry-picked, explained away with bizarre theories or simply swept under the rug. The latter category was referred to as ‘the damned’ by Charles Fort.

A very deeply rooted paradigm is the belief that civilization began around 4,000 BC, roughly coinciding with the Kali-Yuga of the Hindus, and then ‘evolved’ towards modern times in a somewhat linear fashion discernible in increasingly sophisticated systems and tools. The fact that quite similar cultures existed simultaneously on different continents with no documented physical contact and the fact that several cultures are now known to have thrived before the magic ‘time barrier’ of 4,000 BC (Göbekli Tepe and Harappa, for example) does not seem to discourage the advocates of the paradigm.

But there is more. Ancient and well-preserved archeological sites, such as in Peru and Egypt, show a perfectly consistent pattern, not of ‘evolution’, but of loss of technological skill by degrees. Sites which have been occupied on and off by different cultures over the millennia invariably have the most sophisticated structures at the lowest/earliest level. Here is an example showing building techniques from different periods:

Image
1 - remains of ancient and technologically advanced megalithic construction; 2 - authentic Inca work, relatively crude but of good quality; 3 - clumsy repair work probably done by the Spanish; 4 - Spanish colonial-style plastered brick wall; 5 - recent repair work using small stones and plenty of mortar; 6 - modern, low-quality hollow adobe brick wall.

Why do we say megalithic constructions are ‘technologically advanced’?
1 - Generally, the stone blocks are huge and have often been transported over uneven terrain from quarries very far away. For example, the quarry in Aswan, Egypt, is hundreds of kilometers away from the sites where the blocks or objects were installed. We have no clue how single-piece statues and obelisks weighing between 500 and 1,200 tons were moved. The megalithic builders wanted very specific building materials (despite the availability of local sand or limestone) and it apparently didn’t matter how far they had to go to get them, nor did they think it would be better to use standardized blocks of a smaller and more manageable size.
2 - All technologically advanced megalithic constructions are made of granite, diorite, basalt or andesite. At a hardness of 7 on the Mohs scale, these types of stone could not have been cut, let alone shaped, with the tools available to the Incas, dynastic Egyptians or any other ancient people studied by mainstream historians. However, this does not seem to bother the ‘experts’.
3 - The remnants of technologically advanced megalithic constructions display unmistakable signs of machining, such as huge circular saw marks, mirror-perfect cuts at right angles and high-speed tube drill holes. Some of these feats would be difficult to replicate with today’s stone-cutting technology. This also does not seem to bother the ‘experts’.
4 - Building blocks are all of different size and shape (even when disposed in straight horizontal rows) and fit together with eerie perfection, without any mortar. In some locations, huge blocks form incredibly resistant three-dimensional puzzles in an almost playful way. Handling the heavy blocks was obviously not a big deal.
5 - Stone surfaces show signs of having been “softened” for easier extraction or fitting; for example, scoop marks in quarries and on blocks suggest the stone was extracted by scraping, not by impact.

Image
Circular saw marks on large block in Egypt. Based on the curvature of the lines, the saw blade would have measured 6 m.

Image
Clearly machined blocks from Puma Punku in Bolivia.

Image
Roofed box cut out from a single granite block in Egypt.

Image
Detail of clearly machined Egyptian stone box.

Image
Left: one of more than twenty 70-ton stone boxes in an underground complex at Saqqara. The lid weighs 30 tons and was cut from the same block as the box.
Right: hole made with high-speed tube drill advancing 2 mm per rotation. The stone split during the drilling and was discarded.

Image
Example from Peru of uncannily perfect fit, almost marshmallow-like.

Image
The wood and bronze tools we are expected to believe were used to produce the above pieces in granite and basalt.

So, if not within the conventional historial period, when were those technologically advanced pieces produced? Here we move into speculative waters, but I tend to agree with amateur archeologists like Brien Foerster that a transcontinental and technologically advanced megalithic civilization existed which came to an abrupt end sometime around 12,000 years ago. In addition to the five items listed above, the technologically advanced megalithic sites have other things in common:

1 - They bear no inscriptions (I am looking into a possible exception).
2 - They appear to have been made for strictly practical purposes, not ceremonial or religious use. The "temple" and "tomb" designations they are given by archeologists are misnomers.
3 - Those which have not been disinterred recently show signs of extreme weathering.
4 - They appear to have very peculiar magnetic and/or acoustic properties.
5 - Shapes and structures are often radically different from anything in recorded history, making it very difficult to guess what purpose they served.
6 - Sites all over the world were destroyed, apparently around 12,000 years ago, as if by violent explosions or extreme heat; huge blocks were shattered and scattered; yellowish-purplish ‘scorching’ marks are seen on selectively damaged statues and blocks, especially in Egypt.

Image
Scoop marks in a quarry in Egypt and on a wall in Cusco.

Image
Left: characteristic discoloring on megalithic wall in Peru likely caused by extreme heat.
Right: single granite block from Egypt with relatively preserved surface and ‘cooked’ core.

Some have raised suspicion that the machined pieces were created in modern times. We cannot rule out this possibility, considering the countless examples of fakery in the fossil and relics departments, but in the majority of cases of technologically advanced megalithic constructions it would be more difficult to explain the fakery than the existence of advanced stonecutting capabilities in remote times.

In any case, the scenario of cave-dwelling ice-age hominids needs some serious revision!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almost all the pictures in this post are screengrabs from videos by Brien Foerster: https://www.youtube.com/user/brienfoerster/videos

edit: date corrected.

sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 150
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by sharpstuff » Thu Sep 19, 2019 4:11 pm

Dear Flabbergasted,

An excellent piece of research most enlightening and informative. Fascinating.

It would be wonderful to know how all 'ancient' structures could thus have been created. The mind boggles at the artistry of creativity and from whence it comes. One wonders how even 'modern' structures are so created. I was (and still am) boggled by the stone walls in Northern England (and elsewhere) and also the house in which I live (in rural France) how they put the stones together. Does time matter, or is it the skill of the artisans?

But people ask, how did one compose that book, essay, piece of soul-lifting music, that painting?

We might wonder, also, how ants produce their monoliths (for example) or how the human animal can produce a device (such as the one I am using) can come about.

Where the problem can arise, in my view, is the dating of the events. We might talk about B.C. or A.D. but what do they mean? In other words, how can we describe the 'dates' of anything? How can we know anything of the past that is beyond our comprehension? Are not 'dates' a form of deception? How is it possible to give a number to a date that 'fixes' it to an event?

How can we age anything? Dating techniques are as much as a deception as most everything else we might ponder. I want evidence that dating techniques work without the use of biblical, carbon dating and all the other ploys to describe time.

For example, who says 'carbon' dating has any relevance? Where is the reproducible evidence? Is ‘carbon dating’ even a science without other notions of a probably false ‘atomic’ theory? Is it based on a 'theory' which cannot be tested to the satisfaction of those not indoctrinated with the notion and have a degree to prove their indoctrination?

Older structures are still available in varying degrees of decay (since everything decays back to its origins (bricks eventually go back to dust, flora and fauna return to the earth from whence they came).

Let us face it. We do not know any time-scale other than which we can attribute to our own life-time at any given moment. We can imagine only a few years ago, why should we be able to imagine a million years? How can you imagine that ‘light’ (whatever that is!) travels (as I learned at school) at 286,232 miles per second (or whatever unit strikes your fancy or language).

They have deceived us with numbers, big numbers we cannot comprehend and that makes them pretty significant!

Numbers are the inflationary devices of those who wish to deceive us with their machinations of the past, present and future and for whatever purpose they are peddling at the moment of which, they apparently have control.

We can only know of the past events on this planet by all the means we have of the comprehension of such.

To understand the past (forgetting the 'time' factor) can only be by describing (as you have so ably shown) what you have observed.

Personally, I await any further developments on your work. A new thread on archaeological lines might be useful (given the 'dinosaur' thread).

Be well.

Flabbergasted
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:53 pm

sharpstuff wrote:But people ask, how did one compose that book, essay, piece of soul-lifting music, that painting?
We might wonder, also, how ants produce their monoliths (for example) or how the human animal can produce a device (such as the one I am using) can come about.
This ability to wonder at all things leaves no room for boredom in life. I rub my eyes in disbelief every time I see an airliner rising in the sky :)
sharpstuff wrote:Where the problem can arise, in my view, is the dating of the events. We might talk about B.C. or A.D. but what do they mean?
I agree the BC/AD calendar system makes little sense in this context. In any case, there is a so-called historical period for which we have an abundance of written records, making it pretty easy to date events, but it doesn´t go back very far. I have mentioned the existence of 'time barriers' a couple of times, one at around 600 BC and one at around 4,000 BC. Most events between the present and 600 BC can be determined to the day, but historians operate with century-wide margins when dating events between 600 and 4,000 BC. Beyond that, in the so-called prehistoric period, things get very vague, to say the least.

From the ice age and back, we use geological observations or laboratory-based dating methods, but these are highly questionable and easily manipulated. As you say, there are unsolvable problems with assumptions, embedded beliefs and circular reasoning.
sharpstuff wrote:Personally, I await any further developments on your work. A new thread on archaeological lines might be useful (given the 'dinosaur' thread).
I would be happy to add to the topic, but I figured it was too far removed from our focus on media fakery to become a thread.

fbenario
Member
Posts: 2232
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by fbenario » Fri Sep 20, 2019 7:32 pm

Flabbergasted » September 20th, 2019, 10:53 am wrote: I agree the BC/AD calendar system makes little sense in this context. In any case, there is a so-called historical period for which we have an abundance of written records, making it pretty easy to date events, but it doesn´t go back very far. I have mentioned the existence of 'time barriers' a couple of times, one at around 600 BC and one at around 4,000 BC. Most events between the present and 600 BC can be determined to the day, but historians operate with century-wide margins when dating events between 600 and 4,000 BC. Beyond that, in the so-called prehistoric period, things get very vague, to say the least.

From the ice age and back, we use geological observations or laboratory-based dating methods, but these are highly questionable and easily manipulated. As you say, there are unsolvable problems with assumptions, embedded beliefs and circular reasoning.
A great post on the seemingly modern machining of ancient stone blocks. Does the potential falsity of their dating provide any support for Fomenko's New Chronology, which basically theorizes that ancient times weren't as long ago as we've been taught?

See our previous discussion at viewtopic.php?f=29&t=1116&hilit=fomenko

Peter
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:46 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Peter » Fri Sep 20, 2019 8:16 pm

Very interesting post Flabbergasted. I can offer an alternative explanation to some things.

Why do we say megalithic constructions are ‘technologically advanced’?
1 - Generally, the stone blocks are huge and have often been transported over uneven terrain from quarries very far away. For example, the quarry in Aswan, Egypt, is hundreds of kilometers away from the sites where the blocks or objects were installed. We have no clue how single-piece statues and obelisks weighing between 500 and 1,200 tons were moved. The megalithic builders wanted very specific building materials (despite the availability of local sand or limestone) and it apparently didn’t matter how far they had to go to get them, nor did they think it would be better to use standardized blocks of a smaller and more manageable size.


I think impossible to move them that distance and carry them up a pyramid. If they were stone. Young western men have (illegally) climbed up the Egyptian pyramids with a GoPro attached to their head and put the videos on youtube. It seems the blocks are composite ie something similar to modern concrete. Composite is much lighter than stone and doesn't have to be taken up in one go. A wooden cast in place and the composite poured in.

No paintings or writings about these pyramids before about 1800. Not even mentioned in the Bible. Napoleon and his army were in Egypt about 1800. Likely built up by them on some hills.

5 - Stone surfaces show signs of having been “softened” for easier extraction or fitting; for example, scoop marks in quarries and on blocks suggest the stone was extracted by scraping, not by impact.


What looks like scraping on stone is possibly from wood grain from the wooden cast into which the composite was poured.
Roofed box cut out from a single granite block in Egypt.
The edge of one wall has its length chipped away. Doesn't look like granite which would have a smooth cut and is too strong to chip so easily anyway. Looking at that broken edge it looks like coarse composite.

Flabbergasted
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:40 pm

Peter wrote:I think impossible to move them that distance and carry them up a pyramid. If they were stone. Young western men have (illegally) climbed up the Egyptian pyramids with a GoPro attached to their head and put the videos on youtube. It seems the blocks are composite ie something similar to modern concrete. Composite is much lighter than stone and doesn't have to be taken up in one go. A wooden cast in place and the composite poured in.
It´s an attractive idea and it would go a long way to explain the perfect fit in general and the flamboyant shapes of Peruvian stone blocks. However, we run into a problem here: stone is defined by both composition and grain (crystal alignment and texture). To assign a stone block to a given quarry, its composition and grain have to match that of the local bedrock. If the material were quarried as grit, transported to a faraway construction site and poured as a composite into a wooden cast, it would no longer display the original grain.
Peter wrote:No paintings or writings about these pyramids before about 1800. Not even mentioned in the Bible. Napoleon and his army were in Egypt about 1800. Likely built up by them on some hills.
I believe Herodotus wrote about the three large pyramids on the Giza plateau as early as 450 BC. The mistaken association of these pyramids with three dynastic pharaohs (Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure) is to my knowledge based on Herodotus' writings. Many other sites (like the Osirion) were covered by sand for centuries. Even the Sphinx was almost entirely covered by sand very recently.
Peter wrote:What looks like scraping on stone is possibly from wood grain from the wooden cast into which the composite was poured.
If wooden casts were used, it would have been at the building site, not in the quarry. Also, let's not forget that some unfinished pieces were left behind in quarries.

Image
Unfinished obelisk estimated at 1,200 tons in Aswan, many hundred kilometers from where it would have been installed.

Image
Largest stone block in the world, Baalbek, Lebanon, estimated at 1,200 tons, and still attached to the bedrock. Recent excavations have revealed other and perhaps even larger blocks below this one.

Image
Observe the scoop marks below the obelisk, which is still attached to the bedrock. Extraction, not molding.
Peter wrote:The edge of one wall has its length chipped away. Doesn't look like granite which would have a smooth cut and is too strong to chip so easily anyway. Looking at that broken edge it looks like coarse composite.
Brien Foerster explores megalithic sites together with a geologist (Susan Moore, from Alberta, Canada). I don´t remember her questioning the appearance and quality of the granite or being puzzled about the breakage patterns (very hard stone can be surprisingly brittle if hit by an equally hard object), but she is not very talkative so I could be wrong.

SacredCowSlayer
Administrator
Posts: 656
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 9:44 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by SacredCowSlayer » Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:50 pm

Peter » September 20th, 2019, 3:16 pm wrote:Very interesting post Flabbergasted. I can offer an alternative explanation to some things.

Why do we say megalithic constructions are ‘technologically advanced’?
1 - Generally, the stone blocks are huge and have often been transported over uneven terrain from quarries very far away. For example, the quarry in Aswan, Egypt, is hundreds of kilometers away from the sites where the blocks or objects were installed. We have no clue how single-piece statues and obelisks weighing between 500 and 1,200 tons were moved. The megalithic builders wanted very specific building materials (despite the availability of local sand or limestone) and it apparently didn’t matter how far they had to go to get them, nor did they think it would be better to use standardized blocks of a smaller and more manageable size.


I think impossible to move them that distance and carry them up a pyramid. If they were stone. Young western men have (illegally) climbed up the Egyptian pyramids with a GoPro attached to their head and put the videos on youtube. It seems the blocks are composite ie something similar to modern concrete. Composite is much lighter than stone and doesn't have to be taken up in one go. A wooden cast in place and the composite poured in.

No paintings or writings about these pyramids before about 1800. Not even mentioned in the Bible. Napoleon and his army were in Egypt about 1800. Likely built up by them on some hills.

5 - Stone surfaces show signs of having been “softened” for easier extraction or fitting; for example, scoop marks in quarries and on blocks suggest the stone was extracted by scraping, not by impact.


What looks like scraping on stone is possibly from wood grain from the wooden cast into which the composite was poured.
Roofed box cut out from a single granite block in Egypt.
The edge of one wall has its length chipped away. Doesn't look like granite which would have a smooth cut and is too strong to chip so easily anyway. Looking at that broken edge it looks like coarse composite.
Thank you for that type of thoughtful feedback. The 30 ton granite lid on the box is really interesting to me. Also, the numbered stones (1–6) alone (I think) are worth exploring further. Perhaps even more fascinating is how those enormous stones fit together so well. I like the description of “marshmallow-like”—it’s apt.

My 13 year old son and I were just going through that post by Flabbergasted, and the conversation veered into a discussion about the differences/changes in the quality of appliances and housing construction in the United States in just the last 60 years.

I’ll elaborate on that more later.
_____________________________

I’m usually pretty good at coming up with topic names—but I’m a little stumped on this one.

Flabbergasted
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Fri Sep 20, 2019 10:41 pm

fbenario wrote:Does the potential falsity of their dating provide any support for Fomenko's New Chronology, which basically theorizes that ancient times weren't as long ago as we've been taught?
I went over the Fomenko thread back then, but I need to refresh my memory. I remember having dismissed Fomenko´s thesis, but I will get back to you on it.

The problem with the official dating of the technologically advanced megalithic constructions is that different periods of civilization are assigned to the same 'dynasty' in order to preserve the civilization-is-a-recent-phenomenon paradigm. In reality, after a long hiatus, most ancient sites were taken over by other peoples and races who sometimes venerated the ancestral builders and tried to imitate their style or added crude inscriptions to perfectly polished surfaces. It´s a very interesting phenomenon and much care is needed to distinguish the original pieces from the later imitations.

Peter
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:46 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Peter » Sat Sep 21, 2019 7:21 am

It looks like the knowledge of "concrete" pyramid blocks is being allowed to go mainstream (although still maintaining the 4000 year old myth):

"Geopolymer "Concrete" - How the Pyramids Were Built"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJfB_ZAIGYo

Peter
Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:46 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Peter » Sat Sep 21, 2019 12:29 pm

This sphinx is ludicrous in that there is no consistancy in quality, style or material from top to bottom. For a long while just the head was showing. Then they dug down and "discovered" more. In reality as they dug down they were creating it - keeping the interest alive and the tourist dollars flowing.

https://www.google.com/search?q=EGYPTIA ... sch#imgrc=_

Flabbergasted
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:42 pm

Peter wrote:This sphinx is ludicrous in that there is no consistancy in quality, style or material from top to bottom. For a long while just the head was showing. Then they dug down and "discovered" more. In reality as they dug down they were creating it - keeping the interest alive and the tourist dollars flowing.
Nobody denies that the lower part of the sphinx is a reconstruction. No attempt was made to disguise the masonry as bedrock. So, could the the entire body have been created in the 20th century? Maybe. I would have to look into the history of the excavation and recovery to see what proof of antiquity there is.

Image
This picture would be from the early 20th century, but I can´t vouch for its authenticity.

On the other hand, if the body is of truly ancient origin, then the whole statue would have been a lion, not a half-feline, half-human. In support of this hypothesis is the incompatibility between the head and the body in terms of size, style and weathering. The head is clearly of much more recent making. Since the unprotected head has been much more exposed to erosion it should be in a worse condition than the body, unless it was re-sculpted in dynastic times, making use of what was left of a heavily damaged megalithic lion´s head.

Image

The egyptologist Robert Bauval also claims that the vertical marks on the body of the sphinx are evidence of erosion from centuries of heavy rainfalls, millennia before dynastic Egypt when the climate in the region was the opposite of what it is now. I just mention it for the sake of information.

It turns out that there are shafts/rooms/galleries under the sphinx to which the public is not allowed access. If you are right, Peter, these could be the quarters of the workers who dug out and shaped the rock into a body. But they could also be pre-dynastic structures. In fact, the entire Giza plateau is connected by underground shafts and galleries. Recently, authorities gave small groups of amateur archeologists permission (for 2,000 dollars) to enter the so-called "Osiris shaft" which is about 70 m deep and gives access to different floors. On one of these floors we find megalithic stone boxes like those in Saqqara, though smaller and less shiny.

Image

Flabbergasted
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Sat Sep 21, 2019 9:54 pm

It may be relevant to add that the badly eroded rectangular enclosure in front of the sphinx was erected with blocks cut out from the natural rock which makes up the sphinx's body. Many of these blocks weigh around 200 tons. Why use blocks of this size if you can make them any size you want?

Image

The old photograph below is quite intriguing: the small bricks used to make the lion's paws are certainly not megalithic, but they were already there when the sand was removed and show signs of age and decay.

Image

Kham
Admin
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:30 am

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by Kham » Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:27 am

Building on the Built

Robert Bauval mentions that the Great Pyramid in Egypt, Khufu, was built on an old volcano cone. Why waste a perfectly good solid core? I often have thought that there could have been several additions to Khufu, even if not built on a volcano cone. Building on a previous structure might resolve the issues about the time it took to build the pyramid and the number of workers needed.

Robert also mentions the sight was a place of worship or ceremony before the pyramids were built, which of course is why certain spots were chosen in the first place. Today, when we want a bigger cathedral, we tear down the old one and build a new one in its place. I imagine with the density of those ancient masonry built structures architects would certainly want to make use of material already at the site.

Flabbergasted
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:33 pm

Kham » September 22nd, 2019, 2:27 am wrote:Building on the Built

Robert Bauval mentions that the Great Pyramid in Egypt, Khufu, was built on an old volcano cone. Why waste a perfectly good solid core? I often have thought that there could have been several additions to Khufu, even if not built on a volcano cone. Building on a previous structure might resolve the issues about the time it took to build the pyramid and the number of workers needed.

Robert also mentions the sight was a place of worship or ceremony before the pyramids were built, which of course is why certain spots were chosen in the first place. Today, when we want a bigger cathedral, we tear down the old one and build a new one in its place. I imagine with the density of those ancient masonry built structures architects would certainly want to make use of material already at the site.
How does Bauval know what existed before the Great Pyramid was built? We still don´t know the whens, hows and whos of any megalithic site, and the chances of finding out one day are pretty darn small. However, Bauval's proposition is not unreasonable: many temples are built upon the ruins of earlier temples. It may be because the original location has important energetic properties (though, how do you prove that?), or because of the visibility of and easy access to the location, or because it saves time and money to use the existing foundations, or because it prevents people from perpetuating an older cult supplanted by the current religion while allowing them to frequent their habitual place of worship.

As for volcanoes, the western coastline of the Red Sea is on a tectonic plate boundary and Ethiopia has 57 volcanoes (against 173 in the US). But how does Bauval explain the internal structures of the Great Pyramid if it was built on the cone of an extinct volcano?

When I look at the pre-dynastic pyramids of Egypt, I see consistent and high-precision engineering from foundation to capstone, not a patchwork. Take for example the 'acoustic' chambers in the Red Pyramid. They were hardly added at a later date.

Image
One of the chambers in the Red Pyramid.

Image
This is how perfect the huge stone blocks inside the Red Pyramid fit together.

Flabbergasted
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Mon Sep 23, 2019 3:23 am

5 - Shapes and structures are often radically different from anything in recorded history, making it very difficult to guess what purpose they served.
A couple of examples of spooky Peruvian "doorways" leading nowhere.

Image
"Doorway of the Devil" (Amaru Muru), in the middle of nowhere. This does not show unequivocal signs of machining, but it is very un-Incan and, as far as I know, is the only one of its kind in the world. Like many other ancient structures it is not shaped to fit the human body. What was it used for?

Image
"Ñaupa Iglesia" is definitely machine-cut. It is located at the entrance of a cave high up on a steep mountain-side. Some have suggested it is a portal for long-distance communication (a prehistoric phone booth?) or for the inducement of altered states of consciousness. But again, if you possess this level of cutting technology and wish to create a structure for human use, why not shape it to fit the human body? Or was it just a fancy niche for a flowerpot?

Image
On the right, steep slope below the "Ñaupa Iglesia" with ruins of a conventional Inca wall.

But it gets even weirder.

Image
Right in front of the Ñaupa "doorway" is this "station" which is also definitely sculpted with advanced stone-cutting technology. No hand tools known to historians could have precision-cut stone of this hardness. But what is it? It is almost as if the megalithic builders had an entirely different way of reasoning.

(The images are screenshots from videos by Brien Foerster)

Post Reply