> In ancient times these would have been far less
> important than now days but a lot of the work
> entailed a great deal of skill. Even withing a
> specialty like masonry there are some who are
> better at some aspects than others and these men
> would naturally gravitate to what they did best or
> most enjoyed. Some would shape stone and some
> would set it. Others might feel more comfortable
> mixing and applying mortar or making the last
> configurations to get the block into place.


After a stage of the ramp is build, there is no good reason for the work force to stand idly by and wait for the next stage.


So
> what would the "Overseer of the side of the
> Pyramid" do? Stand around and report when the
> ramp fell?


Be in charge that the side of each course of the pyramid is in the right place, for example?

> Ramps would have entailed a great deal of effort
> and resources to build and operate as well as a
> huge amount of knowledge. Getting the surface as
> slick as possible that loads could move up and not
> so slick that they'd slide down would require
> specialists to build and maintain. Somebody needs
> to inspect and repair these on a regular basis.
> With so much work going on it would require
> several inspectors and a small army of repairmen.


It doesn't need a specialist in anything other than construction in general, at that time. I fail to see the logic that people at that time would such specialication. The construction happens in phases, and a lot of people must have taken part in many phases.

Again, there is no reason in seeing the ramp itself as significant, no matter how much effort was used to build it.



> There's also evolution. In order for ramps to
> have been the means to lift stones we have to
> believe either enough advancements were made in
> ramp technogy over a couple hundred years to go
> from Djoser's to one that required 15 times the
> work or that the Egyptian state increased in size
> or willingness to build so much larger.


It's perfectly logical that each king would try to surpass the efforts of the former one. Each one is just trying to find new ways to maximise the workforce and effort. And the experience from former building projects doesn't hurt either, saying that it must be an increase of the efficiency of a ramp is too much of an oversimplification.



> But it always comes back to a lack of evidence.
> Building even one of these without leaving
> evidence seems a feat in itself. But one is left
> to assume that they spent a huge percentage of the
> GDP to build ramps and use them but no one thought
> to record it and no one was in charge of doing it.


Lack of evidence does not mean there were no ramps, and that is what you were claiming.



Regards,
Tommi

"In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
-Homer J. Simpson