Open mind Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the door is open to the possibility that not
> every decision made in the building of G1 was
> practical and some of it was for symbolism or what
> ever else one might suggest to explain the
> observable inefficiencies, based on the
> limitations of a presumed low tech approach, then
> I struggle to see where the certainty comes from
> that any of these theories can be falsified.

This is the beauty of the current approach. So long as any superstition might give rise to any specific process then it's not even necessary to do any testing. We can simply assume any irregularities, gaps, and anomalies are the result of some unknown superstition. Heads Egyptologists win, tails Egyptologists win. It's all good and they already know they mustta used ramps anyway.