First, I very much appreciate your passion about the ancients. I appreciate all the research you've done and all the material you keep presenting to us, including your OP here. I've never belittled any of your thoughts (although I've certainly disagreed with you on occasion!). When I've taken issue with them, my position is based on my own (sometimes lack of) knowledge along with what seems to be contradictions in the physical evidence which need to be reconciled. I apologize if what follows is already a deflection from your OP in this new discussion, but it is relevant to the segue from our previous discussion...
Regarding the previous discussion that inspired you to start this one ("Evidence for the lost civilisation !") I previously read that the ancient Romans focused on quarrying and constructing segmented columns, that the solid granite columns were appropriated from prior stonework in Egypt, and that the Romans merely resculpted the surfaces of those pre-existing solid granite columns. This is generally accepted for Renaissance Rome, and I've seen nothing compelling that leads me to believe Romans in the 1st millennium BC had the tools and methods to do so either. I'm not insisting they didn't do it, I'm only looking at the evidence I've seen so far. If you have compelling evidence about solid granite columns I'd love to see it and I will adjust my perspective accordingly.
Meanwhile, I've never doubted that ancient Rome was capable of all that magnificent bronze work and the stonework in marble, limestone, serpentine, and alabaster. I've only taken issue with granite. Their wonderful craftmanship with those softer stones and bronze artwork has virtually nothing to do with the engineering required to quarry, transport, and shape 50-ton granite monoliths into structural columns.
I think I've demonstrated repeatedly that I'm open-minded to hard evidence and I appropriately respect the knowledge and skills of others. While I do try (and succeed at) my hand at researching many topics, sometimes I am unable to glean as much information as I'd like to, but I do not "cling" to any belief. You mentioned we have evidence of tools Romans used to quarry granite, but i'm not aware of them. I hope to find that evidence. But when I see you replying to me with a tone that sounds like you've received an honorary degree from the MJT School of Indignance, you need to understand that I don't feel the urge to propose many details of my own harebrain hypotheses to you.
Meanwhile, virtually every single tenet we have investigated here is loaded with inconsistencies and contradictions and so you cannot be surprised that some of us (e.g., me) gravitate to preferring to "verify" rather than blindly "trust" when someone issues a decree of fact. Wherever we go, be it Peru, Egypt, Lebanon, any anywhere else, the traditional thoughts often do not hold up very well. And so I have entered a phase of extreme doubt; doubt about virtually everything that was once thought to be true. Shedding our preconceived notions that have been based on repetition or bad presumptions is the first step to new discovery. I also continue to investigate each of these topics. The internet is essentially an infinite source of information and it is impossible to fully research anyone one topic quickly when we are engaged in so many different discussions about various topics.
So please excuse me if you know of evidence that I've not come across yet (e.g. tools and methods used by ancient Romans to quarry and shape solid granite columns). I express doubt about ancient Rome's ability to quarry granite until I come across evidence they did it. Hadrian's claim to have commissioned the columns from the quarry does not constitute physical evidence that solid granite columns were actually quarried by his command. Invoking earthquakes, erosion, presumed methods, historic accounts, Chersiphron's contraption, etc., does not constitute physical evidence and therefore leaves room for reasonable doubt just as reasonable doubt has eaten away at the ramp hypothesis and is putting a rather large dent into the tomb hypothesis too. Likewise, the more we scrutinize the dynastic timeline with abominations like the "intermediate periods" and their "70 kings in 70 days" hand waving, the more it becomes clear that the timeline is rather off.
Your hand waving of the quarry procedures doesn't make the contradictions go away. We need scientific analysis of the quarry in terms of whether it is big enough to provide all those stones (the quarry is not really a quarry, but rather is an open field with very sparse outcroppings here and there, whether tool marks can be gleaned from the surfaces despite the acid rain deterioration, explanations of the methods for drilling/hammering/shaping as well as lifting and transporting those cores, evidence of the purpose of the central holes in some, but not all, of those cores, and if they were meant to hold connecting pins, proof of such pins, including possible rust stains in the holes, or if such holes were used to hold the drilling tool such as that by Cherisiphron, then physical evidence of such a drilling tool (I apologize for not being able to envision a working device based on the description you offered in that discussion).
Yes, I'm extremely skeptical at this point, perhaps overly so, but for very good reason based on the increasingly failed track record of orthodoxy to provide enough compelling evidence to support its tenets.
So I understand your frustration whenever I hold the line and express so much doubt. I only hope you understand and acknowledge that the source of such skepticism is firmly based on real events in which orthodoxy has not done well to hold up its part of the bargain.
Now, regarding your OP in this discussion...
The currently accepted pyramid sequence is primarily based on which pharaoh claimed it. But I do not believe those pyramids were built by those pharaohs in the OK because there are far too many contradictions in the physical evidence to support that notion and there really is no direct evidence to date those structures. Rather, I believe it's quite possible that those pyramids existed in full regalia already by the appearance of the 4D.
Sneferu claimed his trophies (THREE of them!), and then he claimed what looked to be the grandest on Giza for his first son; perhaps he was even inspired to use the name traditionally given to that location as the namesake for his own son: Khufu. The 2nd grandest pyramid was claimed for Khafre, and Menkaure basically got sloppy thirds. But my investigations strongly indicate a reverse sequence for their actual construction:
...and in your OP you've included an excerpt from my previous post regarding some of the areas on which I based that proposed sequence.Quote
G3 -> G2 -> G1
I'm continuing to collect evidence, and I'm doing my best to fill in the blanks where there are blanks in the evidence. Meanwhile, if someone presents hard evidence that contradicts my own hypotheses, I'm very willing and able to adjust my own thoughts in order to reconcile the contradiction.
Post Edited (15-Jun-15 02:31)
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?