> I really don't think dead lifting is a rational
> explanation. I think the most credible method is
> that they used water in conjunction with a
> counterweight system such as the funicular which
> is why I like your system. I admit, though, that I
> don't accept the traditional timeline. I don't see
> any evidence that the Dynastics had the
> wherewithall to achieve that kind of work. As I've
> said many times, I think it's very likely that the
> Dynastic culture with its funerary context was
> layered over structures that were already ancient
> by the 3rd millennium BC.
But using ropes and timbers are congruent with a time frame of 2500 b.c. They are the methods, tools and equipment the AE of that time would have.
If you believe, as I do, that the time frame is way off, then ropes and timbers are not the obvious method of construction. In fact, they would be incongruent with an older construction time because we do not know what an older culture would have developed. And judging by the stonework, they had much more sophisticated methods than rope and timber.
Besides, ropes and wood frames are not going to life the 50+ ton stones. Neither will a geyser. And how much water would be needed to float a 50+ ton stone? How large would the raft have to be to hold such tonnage?
Funiculars do not answer the problem of the moving the larger stones into place. They had the equipment to make extraordinary stone cuts but used basic primitive ropes and timbers? This is a contradiction not only in skill, but also in method and equipment.
And there is nothing to show they had pulleys. I should believe they had pulleys but not the wheel? A pulley goes round and round. Oh damn it, the pulley came off and look at it roll across the stones. Gee, wonder if we could use that rolling thing in other ways. They didn't think of that! Not very observant, were they?