> Precisely.. Because you know it's a castle!
No.... If I knew nothing about them I would study them all to develop context. If am an archaeologist 5,000yrs in the future I can study all of these "mysterious structures" to work out similarities of architecture and catalog artifacts that can infer possible if not actual functions, or at the very least, what their functions were not. I do not need to "know" they are "castles" to figure out what were rooms which depending on their size imply possible function, what were hearths, ramparts, moats, ect of which associated artifacts are part and parcel of this process. While this may not tell us "exactly" what they were it is silly to suggest we could not garner at least "some idea". I can also look at succeeding layers of occupation, or other neighboring cultures or even around the world, and compare this context to what followed which may, and often does, give further clues as to what these were. This should be common sense at this point.
> A knowledge based upon historical record.
This knowledge was derived at by accumulating context, not just of the time but human history.
> In this
> case the easily accessible internet and google.
Lol. Believe it or not, we, some of us at least, knew what these were long before the internet and Google and even if we did not know what they were we can infer if not prove much about them from what remains and the legacy they left in the cultures that followed. Surely you can understand this on some level.
> No historical record equals no knowledge of
> historical record.
Not true. Again, context creates the historical record particularly the farther you go back in time. As has been said many times, this is how history works. Its not perfect, but this notion that anything prior to AD times is "unknowable" is just plain ignorant on several levels. Just because some things cannot be readily explained doesn't mean therefore none if it can.
> No knowledge of historical record equals no frame
> of reference.
Again, not true. The "historical record" is relative to the completeness of the context which unfortunately, here, is often more predicated on one's ignorance of the subject than reality.
> No frame of reference equals no absolute
Who's "no frame of reference"? Yours? Speak for yourself.
Again, no. Its all relative and the frame of reference is gathered through discovery. Again, this should be common sense by now.
> Answer me this. Why would anyone in the absence of
> verifiable historic records assume that the great
> pyramid of Giza had any religious or spiritual
Case in point.
Who said there were no "verifiable historic records"? What is it do you think the AE wrote all over their cemetery walls? The cemetery itself isn't a "verifiable historic record"? What is the PT? The Book of the Dead? The Coffin Texts? 3,000yrs of AE writing, architecture, and culture does not count as a "verifiable historic record"? You are woefully uninformed.
And did it not occur to you that despite this absence of "verifiable historic records" this is exactly the significance it had to the AE themselves? Why did they think of it this way? Apparently you do not understand somehow that antiquarians didn't just stumble upon the pyramids one day and make all this stuff up. The PT, for example, was actually written inside of pyramids you know:
According to the AE, the pyramids, at least in the time of Unas and after, were resurrection machines and served as the engine for the pharaohs cycle of death and rebirth which in general was the foundation of their belief system for thousands of years. We impose this as "religion", and in the true sense of the word it was, but to them this was the reality of the physical world and the afterlife beyond just "faith", and was an integral component of the natural laws of the universe. Before some of your fingers start blindly clacking away to naysay without reading the rest of what is said, regardless of whether the great pyramids were built as "tombs" or not, there is no doubt the AE were convinced the purpose of these pyramids were connected to the afterlife and to facilitate resurrection. No antiquarians required.
A better question to ask- if the great pyramids (or their core structures) were in fact there prior to the OK-what was it about them that made them come to this belief? They would have went inside and seen something that had a profound effect on them that radically changed their outlook on the natural world prompting them to believe that this thing was a "machine" that could facilitate resurrection and their passage through the afterlife. Wonder what it was.
Or, to consider they built them within the Dynastic period-what the hell made them think building these things would work? For the pharoah-a living god who obviously the people knew was just a man. Yet despite the fact they kept getting robbed within decades after completion they just kept doing the same dumb thing over and over again for hundreds of years? Doesn't make much sense, does it?
> Could it be that the ONLY frame of reference
> available to them at the time was religious and
> The very same culture that identified fossils of
> millions of year old extinct species as victims of
> the great flood.
> The only frame of reference they had was religion
> and the bible, so why not?
Lol. Uhh....no. See above. And do you think the Bible was also Herodotus's, or any of the other Greek writers, "frame of reference"? Or how about the AE they got this information from? This may be your frame of reference, or antiquarian's frame of reference, but it wasn't the ancient's frame of reference who for thousands of years, right or wrong, also thought they served a funerary function. Again, antiquarians not need apply.
With that all being said, comparing pyramids to "castles" or a "castle" to a "power plant" is a pointless logic path. While ancient pyrmaids are found all over the world, which has implications of its own, the pyramids of Egypt are unique unto themselves and require their own explanation. Further still, G1 is unique among all of them in some fundamental ways which only further sets it apart. This is the context which they reside.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 17-Dec-16 05:35 by Thanos5150.