How do you know this?
It is not logical to have a significant presence at an industrial site (a place that cuts and lifts stone on an industrial scale) when no work (cutting and lifting stones) can be done. This would have been a large waste of resources.
> It was during the inundation that there was an
> influx of additional 'grunts'.
How do you know this? Not only are you supposing they needed grunts but that they needed them only seasonally. You're putting the cart before the horse.
You're also presuming that the ancient references to the "inundation" were in reference to what they actually called "high Nile". We would call it a flood so I know exactly where you're getting the term. It's another assumption.
Egyptologists paint a picture of people who never existed doing jobs that never happened for reasons that exist only in our minds. They started with the answers and are now working back to the questions. How would barracks work to support stinky footed bumpkins dragging tombs up ramps.
> The village itself
> would have had no great need for roofing/cover.
> Canopies spread between walls would have sufficed
> much of the time.
Why wouldn't they use something substantial so it wouldn't have to be replaced frequently? Why presume there wasn't something substantial? Why figure these were for habitation at all?
> Extreme organisation would have been the main
I'm not sure what this means. Very complex processes can run just by each individual knowing the nature of his job. Since we know the nature of NONE of the jobs then why presume they needed "extreme organization"?
Once you start making assumptions then, yes, you can speculate about the nature of anything even if you have no knowledge.
> 2.5 million blocks do not just leap out of the ground
Yet we don't even have a single quarry worker in evidence! Nevermind that the only surviving source says the stones actually flew like the fledglings of swallows and historical accounts agree that the stones flew after having a paper put on them. Until we know who, why, or how these stones came from the ground it's just speculation to say they didn't leap out; reasonable speculation in this specific case but speculation nonetheless.
> Chisels and adzes do not grow on trees
Adze handles certainly grow on trees as did the fuel to smelt these tools.
> the workers need new footwear on a regular basis
Their gods were shod in sandals and footwear so they likely were as well. I doubt Imsety wore such clothing.
I suppose it's hard to have stinky feet without shoes. ;)
> they have to be fed
Most people after the age of 1 feed themselves.
These last points I'm in general agreement with. I don't like the perspective and they are still somewhat presumptive as evidenced by that perspective.
There's just not much to suggest these structures were used as barracks. There is a perfectly good builders village that would comfortably hold all two thousand workers safely behind the Wall of the Crow. So why do we need adzes that don't grow on trees and mindless laborers who only work during high Nile?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06-Mar-17 01:10 by cladking.
|I think the barracks were problably tents||479||molder||03-Mar-17 11:32|
|Re: I think the barracks were problably tents||93||Warwick||04-Mar-17 18:55|
|Re: I think the barracks were problably tents||110||DUNE||04-Mar-17 19:13|
|Re: I think the barracks were problably tents||102||Eddie Larry||04-Mar-17 19:54|
|Re: I think the barracks were problably tents||128||molder||04-Mar-17 20:49|
|Re: I think the barracks were problably tents||101||Warwick||04-Mar-17 22:06|
|Re: I think the barracks were problably tents||127||cladking||04-Mar-17 22:54|
|Re: I think the barracks were problably tents||98||Warwick||05-Mar-17 18:57|
|Re: I think the barracks were problably tents||197||cladking||06-Mar-17 01:06|
|Re: I think the barracks were problably tents||91||magisterchessmutt||05-Mar-17 21:18|