cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


> It was merely an observation that before the end
> of the 4th dynasty
> that pyramids seemed to follow a sort of natural
> evolution. They
> tended to get progressively larger and have more
> technology in them.
> After this they were always much smaller and often
> made in less ex-
> pensive materials.
>
> Perhaps the Great Pyramid was intended to be a
> launchpad for all
> future kings. Or maybe it is exactly the tomb you
> imagine but there
> were even more important reasons to build it. The
> Pyramid Texts of-
> ten seem to imply that there other
> interpretations.
>
> It doesn't take a lot of effort to read
> translations of the pre-5th
> dynasty written material.
>
> There doesn't seem to be as much information here
> as there is built
> into the monuments themselves.
>
> You said yesterday that a theory has to start with
> evidence. While
> there is truth to this it seems to an outsider
> that the traditional
> explanations for the evidence does not rise to the
> level of being a
> real theory. It appears to outsiders that
> traditional explanations
> are substantiation of the ideas of Sir WF Petrie
> who based his ideas
> on his understanding of 19th century science and
> what he could actua-
> ly see. Of course he omitted a great deal of old
> evidence in the for-
> mulation of his theory. Since then a great deal
> has been learned but
> a great deal of hard evidence is still being set
> aside. New knowledge
> may not disprove Petrie's theories but it often
> doesn't fit well with
> it either.
>
> Yes, orthodoxy is built on mountains of
> circumstantial evidence which
> tends to fit with things that are known about the
> culture. This is
> apparent even to me. What it doesn't seem to do
> very well at all is
> fit with the known facts. Obviously this doesn't
> mean it's wrong but
> it's difficult to understand why more effort isn't
> devoted to finding
> facts which would make things fit.
>
> I think of it this way. If everything that was
> known and everything
> that was probably true were tossed in a hat then
> one would get diff-
> erent ideas about a lot of what the ancients
> intended. Perhaps a true
> theory of the inspiration and means for building
> the pyramids wouldn't
> be possible with so little information, but a
> fresh look would imply
> we're digging in the wrong places.
> tempus fugit

Well said! Very well said indeed!
I too find it difficult to understand why more effort is not devoted to finding facts that makes things fit.

What I have noticed is if a new theory is proposed there seems to be much more effort directed towards disproving it, dismissing it as coincidence, or ignoring it with no real interest or effort to give a fair evaluation of the theory. I wonder why it is this way?

Regards,
Jacob