> Those of us working on an alternative
> history of humanity need to hold ourselves to
> standards of evidence AT LEAST AS HIGH as is
> demanded of mainstream scholars if we are ever to
> get history rewritten. Graham
I get a kick out of how you recently started to use Graham Hancock to quote a standard that I've been hailing all along.
But I respectfully reject what seems to be, in reality, your lower standard for "evidence": That you seem to prefer soft evidence (clothing, food, bones) that might be reflective of more recent adaption while rejecting the durable physical evidence in stone reveals your traditionalist bias. Sorry, but despite any inconvenience it may present to your own hypotheses, the pyramids do, in fact, qualify as a rather significant motherlode of evidence that provides a very compelling argument that they weren't built during the 3rd millennium BC.
The simple truth is that no one has been able to present a compelling narrative that provides an explanation of how the 3rd (or 4th) millennium BC was able to conduct such a massive 200 year construction project to build all of those monolithic pyramids. The volume, precision, stonework, complexity, and scope is far beyond what is considered to be the capabilities of any known ancient culture. Other than a few light duty copper chisels and some rope, no tools or methods have been discovered that speaks to such a provenance.
The dynastics as well as other known ancient cultures have proven to be lacking in their engineering prowess, the ancient record shows that it took a millennium for the AE to just figure out how to turn a hand-powered potters wheel into a foot-powered device, and they didn't have access to any wheeled vehicle until the Hyksos brought them the 2-wheel chariot during the New Kingdom (even the Romans didn't have wheeled vehicles that could haul more than about 10 tons, and they hadn't developed any steering mechanism until late in the Empire). Not only do we not have any records from the 3rd millennium BC that there was any knowledge about how to achieve such work, there isn't any indication that the AE acknowledged such work was even done. There is no mention of any of those monolithic structures at all in any artiffacts or documentation attributed to the Old Kingdom.
No one has presented any project plan to plausibly demonstrate how such a massive project could have been achieved by a culture that was known to have such limited means (none are known to have had such capabilities). There is no evidence today that provides a sound rationale for attributing all of those pyramids to the 3rd millennium BC. Meanwhile, the composition of those pyramids, the forces that need to be overcome in procuring, shaping, transporting, and installing those massive blocks (especially the Aswan granite), the math and physics knowledge that went into those structures, the known history of far simpler technology such as the potters wheel and the chariot, all conflict with the attribution of the pyramids to any known culture.
This is all very compelling evidence that the pyramids were built before that time, and significantly before if we allow time for technology development, execution of the work, and subsequent total amnesia and obliteration from all known cultures. In fact, there is virtually no hard evidence that they were built anywhere near the 3rd millennium BC.
The stonework itself is the smoking gun of evidence. Meanwhile, "cultural" evidence is only tenuously circumstantial at best if for no other reason than the high risk of contamination by adaption since their construction.
In my opinion.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 13-Jul-16 13:00 by Origyptian.