Pyramids: Why Were They Widespread / Worldwide?

kesavaross

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Oct 18, 2015
Messages
278
Location
Brighton, UK
It's worth remembering also there are numerous other pyramids in many other countries ranging from huge to small. What was their purpose? Was it the same as the ones in Egypt or different?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SimonBurchell

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 15, 2001
Messages
1,054
Location
Somewhere in the labyrinth
Many of the most impressive Classic-period Maya pyramids were funerary temples to members of the royal dynasties. Sometimes they started off quite small and succeeding generarions erected ever larger temples overlaying the older ones, used for ancestor worship. The worshipped ancestor was interred deep within, sometimes with accampanying human sacrifices.

Many later (Postclassic Period) Maya pyramids were temples serving as platforms for the worship of gods. Usually the deity in question was the patron of a particular noble lineage, who maintained the temple.
 

kesavaross

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Oct 18, 2015
Messages
278
Location
Brighton, UK
Many of the most impressive Classic-period Maya pyramids were funerary temples to members of the royal dynasties. Sometimes they started off quite small and succeeding generarions erected ever larger temples overlaying the older ones, used for ancestor worship. The worshipped ancestor was interred deep within, sometimes with accampanying human sacrifices.

Many later (Postclassic Period) Maya pyramids were temples serving as platforms for the worship of gods. Usually the deity in question was the patron of a particular noble lineage, who maintained the temple.
But why pyramids? Why that shape?

I ask the question again. Why have there been no burial remains found in pyramids yet the rhetoric is as if there has been?

How does anyone know if they started off quite small and got bigger? Some of the pyramids in China are huge. Some are so old they have covered in vegetation and grassland trees.

And how is it known that some pyramids started off small and then larger ones were built over the top of them? When were those built? How is it known they were for ancestor worship? Where is the evidence of human sacrifice in the Egyptian pyramids, excluding the Maya, and how is it known that didn't' take place after the original purpose of the pyramids was long forgotten?

I'm not disputing what historians state directly, I'm just asking questions to which I've never found answers within those historians answers to such questions.

As for the Maya, how did they build those structures from stone quarried from countless miles away and built on mountains thousand of feet up and in the middle of nowhere. And why? And how did they transport stones up those mountains sometimes weighing hundreds of tons?

We cannot now do despite technology what was done thousand of years ago and done by people, so we are told, who were technologically backward with humans sacrifices etc.

It is obvious, the answers do not fit what we have been told. What the answer is, I don't know.

It's almost as it modern scientists and archaeologists have become what they portray Egyptian high priests as. All based around stupid religion and stupid ideas. Yet these backwards idolising idiots built structures that cannot be built now? So can modern day science and technology build a replica of the pyramids now? Nope.

Nothing has changed today. Science is now the the new god. How about the Church during the Middle Ages. When everyone was expected to believe without question. Just like in today's society. No question now is answered better than when a scientist says so. Don't question, science has answered and science is proof. Today's high priests are the scientists. Their bible is the BBC, the media, books, lectures and youtube. The preachers are the advertisers for them. Religion now is in a different form. The masses still accept blindly just as they did in the Middle Ages.

As for history, history is now only defined when an archaeologist says it is so. Whether it's true or not, that doesn't matter. An expert has given the answer. The masses accept that answer without question. Over the years, nothing has changed. To question, according to the main stream media, oh, you are a conspiracy theorist.

Yet science cannot explain even the simplest of human emotions, that of love for another.
 
Last edited:

blessmycottonsocks

Antediluvian
Joined
Dec 22, 2014
Messages
7,281
Location
Wessex and Mercia
"But why pyramids? Why that shape?"

I think I can answer that part of your post (and did so a few months ago).
When ancient people decided they wanted to build something big and durable out of stone, a pyramidal shape was quite simply the most intuitive, logical and stable design possible.
Start with a square foundation, then plonk subsequent levels on top, each in the same shape but diminishing.
No real surprise that all ancient architects, whether Egyptian, Meso-American, Mesopotamian, Chinese, or even "Atlantean" (check out the crumbling pyramids on Pico island in the Azores) reached the same conclusion.
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
10,412
As for the Maya, how did they build those structures from stone quarried from countless miles away and built on mountains thousand of feet up and in the middle of nowhere. And why? And how did they transport stones up those mountains sometimes weighing hundreds of tons?

They built pyramids because it was the easiest way to achieve a tall structure, one that would be impressive and easy to see from miles away.

They didn’t move stones weighing hundreds of tons many miles. The Yucatan area is rich in the limestone the Mayans used.

The weight of the stones the Maya used has eluded a few minutes’ Googling, but the average weight of the stones in the Giza pyramid is only 2.3 tons. Ramps, sleds and enough blokes on ropes: no problem.

maximus otter
 

SimonBurchell

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 15, 2001
Messages
1,054
Location
Somewhere in the labyrinth
But why pyramids? Why that shape?

I ask the question again. Why have there been no burial remains found in pyramids yet the rhetoric is as if there has been?

How does anyone know if they started off quite small and got bigger? Some of the pyramids in China are huge. Some are so old they have covered in vegetation and grassland trees.

And how is it known that some pyramids started off small and then larger ones were built over the top of them? When were those built? How is it known they were for ancestor worship? Where is the evidence of human sacrifice in the Egyptian pyramids, excluding the Maya, and how is it known that didn't' take place after the original purpose of the pyramids was long forgotten?

I'm not disputing what historians state directly, I'm just asking questions to which I've never found answers within those historians answers to such questions.

As for the Maya, how did they build those structures from stone quarried from countless miles away and built on mountains thousand of feet up and in the middle of nowhere. And why? And how did they transport stones up those mountains sometimes weighing hundreds of tons?

We cannot now do despite technology what was done thousand of years ago and done by people, so we are told, who were technologically backward with humans sacrifices etc.

It is obvious, the answers do not fit what we have been told. What the answer is, I don't know.

It's almost as it modern scientists and archaeologists have become what they portray Egyptian high priests as. All based around stupid religion and stupid ideas. Yet these backwards idolising idiots built structures that cannot be built now? So can modern day science and technology build a replica of the pyramids now? Nope.

Nothing has changed today. Science is now the the new god. How about the Church during the Middle Ages. When everyone was expected to believe without question. Just like in today's society. No question now is answered better than when a scientist says so. Don't question, science has answered and science is proof. Today's high priests are the scientists. Their bible is the BBC, the media, books, lectures and youtube. The preachers are the advertisers for them. Religion now is in a different form. The masses still accept blindly just as they did in the Middle Ages.

As for history, history is now only defined when an archaeologist says it is so. Whether it's true or not, that doesn't matter. An expert has given the answer. The masses accept that answer without question. Over the years, nothing has changed. To question, according to the main stream media, oh, you are a conspiracy theorist.

Yet science cannot explain even the simplest of human emotions, that of love for another.
I don't want to drift too far off topic on an Egypt thread, but the Maya civilization developed in a seismically active area... a pyramid shape is the most stable shape when building in an area with so many strong earthquakes.
 

SimonBurchell

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Sep 15, 2001
Messages
1,054
Location
Somewhere in the labyrinth
They built pyramids because it was the easiest way to achieve a tall structure, one that would be impressive and easy to see from miles away.

They didn’t move stones weighing hundreds of tons many miles. The Yucatan area is rich in the limestone the Mayans used.

The weight of the stones the Maya used has eluded a few minutes’ Googling, but the average weight of the stones in the Giza pyramid is only 2.3 tons. Ramps, sleds and enough blokes on ropes: no problem.

maximus otter
Maya stones were usually quarried quite close to the construction site, and were nowhere near as large as those used at Giza.
 

Paul_Exeter

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
1,045
But why pyramids? Why that shape?

I ask the question again. Why have there been no burial remains found in pyramids yet the rhetoric is as if there has been?

How does anyone know if they started off quite small and got bigger? Some of the pyramids in China are huge. Some are so old they have covered in vegetation and grassland trees.

And how is it known that some pyramids started off small and then larger ones were built over the top of them? When were those built? How is it known they were for ancestor worship? Where is the evidence of human sacrifice in the Egyptian pyramids, excluding the Maya, and how is it known that didn't' take place after the original purpose of the pyramids was long forgotten?

I'm not disputing what historians state directly, I'm just asking questions to which I've never found answers within those historians answers to such questions.

As for the Maya, how did they build those structures from stone quarried from countless miles away and built on mountains thousand of feet up and in the middle of nowhere. And why? And how did they transport stones up those mountains sometimes weighing hundreds of tons?

We cannot now do despite technology what was done thousand of years ago and done by people, so we are told, who were technologically backward with humans sacrifices etc.

It is obvious, the answers do not fit what we have been told. What the answer is, I don't know.

It's almost as it modern scientists and archaeologists have become what they portray Egyptian high priests as. All based around stupid religion and stupid ideas. Yet these backwards idolising idiots built structures that cannot be built now? So can modern day science and technology build a replica of the pyramids now? Nope.

Nothing has changed today. Science is now the the new god. How about the Church during the Middle Ages. When everyone was expected to believe without question. Just like in today's society. No question now is answered better than when a scientist says so. Don't question, science has answered and science is proof. Today's high priests are the scientists. Their bible is the BBC, the media, books, lectures and youtube. The preachers are the advertisers for them. Religion now is in a different form. The masses still accept blindly just as they did in the Middle Ages.

As for history, history is now only defined when an archaeologist says it is so. Whether it's true or not, that doesn't matter. An expert has given the answer. The masses accept that answer without question. Over the years, nothing has changed. To question, according to the main stream media, oh, you are a conspiracy theorist.

Yet science cannot explain even the simplest of human emotions, that of love for another.
You might like this book:

How Antigravity Built the Pyramids: The Mysterious Technology of Ancient Superstructures Paperback – September 1, 2022​


https://www.amazon.com/How-Antigrav...swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1652277197&sr=1-1
 

Ronnie Jersey

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Nov 22, 2021
Messages
1,418
Nothing has changed today. Science is now the the new god. How about the Church during the Middle Ages. When everyone was expected to believe without question. Just like in today's society. No question now is answered better than when a scientist says so. Don't question, science has answered and science is proof. Today's high priests are the scientists. Their bible is the BBC, the media, books, lectures and youtube. The preachers are the advertisers for them. Religion now is in a different form. The masses still accept blindly just as they did in the Middle Ages.

As for history, history is now only defined when an archaeologist says it is so. Whether it's true or not, that doesn't matter. An expert has given the answer. The masses accept that answer without question. Over the years, nothing has changed. To question, according to the main stream media, oh, you are a conspiracy theorist.

Yet science cannot explain even the simplest of human emotions, that of love for another.
I so agree with you. I refuse to read newspapers anymore, Mr. R reads them, we subscribe to 2 different NY papers. Each gives a completely different version of events, I can understand that to a point, however it seems to have a divisive agenda, at least to me.
I question everything, especially what is being told to us by those whose interests are only financial.
It's not conspiracy theorizing, it is opening one's eyes.
Science is wonderful, but does it matter who is interpreting it?
 

PeteByrdie

Privateer in the service of Princess Frideswide
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
2,817
I'm not disputing what historians state directly, I'm just asking questions to which I've never found answers within those historians answers to such questions.

As for the Maya, how did they build those structures from stone quarried from countless miles away and built on mountains thousand of feet up and in the middle of nowhere. And why? And how did they transport stones up those mountains sometimes weighing hundreds of tons?

We cannot now do despite technology what was done thousand of years ago and done by people, so we are told, who were technologically backward with humans sacrifices etc.

It is obvious, the answers do not fit what we have been told. What the answer is, I don't know.

It's almost as it modern scientists and archaeologists have become what they portray Egyptian high priests as. All based around stupid religion and stupid ideas. Yet these backwards idolising idiots built structures that cannot be built now? So can modern day science and technology build a replica of the pyramids now? Nope.

Nothing has changed today. Science is now the the new god. How about the Church during the Middle Ages. When everyone was expected to believe without question. Just like in today's society. No question now is answered better than when a scientist says so. Don't question, science has answered and science is proof. Today's high priests are the scientists. Their bible is the BBC, the media, books, lectures and youtube. The preachers are the advertisers for them. Religion now is in a different form. The masses still accept blindly just as they did in the Middle Ages.

As for history, history is now only defined when an archaeologist says it is so. Whether it's true or not, that doesn't matter. An expert has given the answer. The masses accept that answer without question. Over the years, nothing has changed. To question, according to the main stream media, oh, you are a conspiracy theorist.
I kind of know what you're saying about science, and I think there is a problem with science literacy and communication in our society which, coupled with the fact that we are far beyond the kind of science the average person with ordinary tools can experiment with and understand from intuition. The technology that powers our civilisation is based on principles that nobody has ever actually 'seen' happening in the way one might see the components of a steam engine working. Yet, the device I'm using to post this is based on that knowledge.

In another thread we were talking about the laser, a technology predicted by quantum theory that itself makes no sense in terms of the more intuitive newtonian physics. There's an increasing distance between what science is discovering and what can be understood even by those with an enthusiasm for science, and it might seem a little like the days the Bible was written in Latin and the average person couldn't read it. It might seem like it, but it's not.

When you say;
'It's almost as it modern scientists and archaeologists have become what they portray Egyptian high priests as. All based around stupid religion and stupid ideas. Yet these backwards idolising idiots built structures that cannot be built now?'
I feel you're unfairly characterising scientists attitude to ancient people to make an ironic point. Scientists frequently laud the achievements and advancements of the ancient people they study.

The way the press reports on science is often problematic, but there's only so much control scientists have over that. The press is not the Bible of science; if such a thing exists, it's the scientific method. Science is not a closed monolithic establishment, it's a collaborative effort open to people all over the world who are all welcomed to disagree and check each other's work. Science does not say, 'Don't question, science has answered and science is proof,' as you have said. It openly admits its current limits, often enthusiastically because scientists are excited by mysteries. If you choose to look, you will find they give you the evidence that has led them to their conclusions. Science is not a religion. If you feel preached to, because you don't understand the science, you react against being told what to think or you just don't like what they're telling you, that's mostly on you, and perhaps slightly on the reporting of that science. Nobody will stop you from going to sources that tell you something you'd rather believe, or just believing what you want, unlike in religion. They'll tell you why you're wrong, but they won't stop you. This accusation of science as being the new religion, apparently because lots of people rightly think that's where the best models of reality come from and so accept them and others don't like that, is too prevalent. It comes from an emotional reaction to the role of science in our society and an ignorance of how science actually works.

As for how the pyramids were built; obviously the godkings of ancient cultures were actually human-alien hybrids and used telekinesis to move those big blocks, and that how that worked. Simple.
 

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
47,555
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
As for how the pyramids were built; obviously the godkings of ancient cultures were actually human-alien hybrids and used telekinesis to move those big blocks, and that how that worked. Simple.
That is the simplest explanation, yes. Occam's razor says so.
:D
 

BeardSprite

On the Parish Watch list.
Joined
Jun 4, 2019
Messages
104
Location
Central UK
I ask the question again. Why have there been no burial remains found in pyramids yet the rhetoric is as if there has been?

How does anyone know if they started off quite small and got bigger? Some of the pyramids in China are huge.

It is obvious, the answers do not fit what we have been told. What the answer is, I don't know.

It's almost as it modern scientists and archaeologists have become what they portray Egyptian high priests as. All based around stupid religion and stupid ideas.

Nothing has changed today. Science is now the the new god... Their bible is the BBC, the media, books, lectures and youtube. The preachers are the advertisers for them.

As for history, history is now only defined when an archaeologist says it is so. Whether it's true or not, that doesn't matter. An expert has given the answer.
So, uh, if you're not prepared to accept the answers available in the books and lectures, denigrate the word of experts, and aren't prepared to put the work in to do all new research, how do you propose to arrive at an answer you'd find acceptable?
 

maximus otter

Recovering policeman
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
10,412
But why pyramids? Why that shape?

I ask the question again. Why have there been no burial remains found in pyramids…

We cannot now do despite technology what was done thousand of years ago…

“A cenotaph is an empty tomb or a monument erected in honour of a person or group of people whose remains are elsewhere.

The English word "cenotaph" derives from the Greek: κενοτάφιον kenotaphion (κενός kenos, meaning "empty", and τάφος taphos, "tomb"—from θαπτω thapto, I bury).

Cenotaphs were common in the ancient world. Many were built in Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece and across Northern Europe (in the shape of Neolithic barrows).

The cenotaph in Whitehall, London—designed in 1919 by Sir Edwin Lutyens—influenced the design of many other war memorials in Britain…”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cenotaph

X-The Cenotaph.JPG


A tall, stepped “pyramid”, containing no human remains yet commemorating the dead. Built in 1919, in London.

maximus otter
 
Last edited by a moderator:

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
4,495
It is rare, but a few pyramids still had their intended occupants inside when excavated in modern times.

Parts of King Neferefre were found in his pyramid, (probably)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neferefre#Mummy_of_Neferefre
and the mummy of Djedkare was found in his pyramid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djedkare_Isesi
(almost certainly).

The big problem with finding mummies in pyramids is that the structure is a big signpost attracting graverobbers, so nearly every one has been cleared out. Some mummies were relocated to safer, lower status tombs by later dynasties, which is where Rameses II was found.
 

EnolaGaia

I knew the job was dangerous when I took it ...
Staff member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
27,735
Location
Out of Bounds
But why pyramids? Why that shape? ...

The concept of an elevated platform seems to have been nearly universal among ancient cultures with persistent settlements. Such elevated platforms may have served diverse purposes such as defensive structures, symbols of power / authority, etc.

Before - and in parallel with - the construction of elevated stone structures there were also mounds of various types (e.g., the Middle Eastern tells). In some cases, "pyramid" style elevated structures were sculpted out of natural hills rather than being built up from scratch.

As already noted, the most straightforward way to build up an artificial structure out of crafted parts (blocks) is to have smaller (narrower) upper layers atop larger (broader) lower layers. Using a rectilinear layout with four sides permitted using the minimum number of shapes in the manufactured or carved blocks.

The earliest monumental artificial elevated structures - e.g., Mesopotamian ziggurats - were stepped (built in layers of different breadth, like a layered wedding cake). This style persisted in some places, whereas in Egypt the earliest stepped pyramid style was supplanted by designs with smoother continuous surfaces.

The really universal theme was the general large or monumental elevated structure rather than the specific pyramidal form.
 

PeteByrdie

Privateer in the service of Princess Frideswide
Joined
Jan 19, 2014
Messages
2,817
It does strike me that, if you actually compare these 'universal' pyramids, you find they differ from each other considerably in many ways, and probably in their original uses. Any child with blocks learns quickly the the pyramidal structure is the most stable way to build high, or it wouldn't be as much fun seeing how high they can build a vertical structure with blocks (or beer cans). Ziggurats don't strongly resemble the pyramids of Giza as far as I can see. And what about the cultures that didn't bother with pyramids? And do we include pyramidal earthworks? I'll use here a phrase I've applied to many other subjects; anything becomes universal if broadly enough defined.
 
Top