cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nemtinakht Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There is plenty of archaeological evidence
> which
> > supports the existence of ramps.
>
> Again, the problem is one of interpretation.
>
> The evidence says stones were taken to the base of
> the pyramid which would be an illogical place for
> ramps to start. Far worse is the evidence itself;
> no evidence supports the concept that men dragged
> stones on ramps. Logic dictates they'd use an
> easy means and ramps would be the hardest possible
> means. The evidence says they pulled the stone
> straight up the side. the word "ramp" isn't even
> attested from the great pyramid building age.
>
> Every sloped surface is not for men to drag
> stones. The one "ramp" that actually is in
> evidence at Giza (between the queens pyramids and
> the mastabas) is exactly where one would need to
> be to utilize counterweights and doesn't even
> point toward the pyramid.
>
> What's lacking is any sort of evidence any stone
> was ever dragged on any ramps by men.
>
> > You also need to bear in mind that only the
> > relatively small core of skilled workmen
> were
> > buried at Giza.
>
> No. There is also a "workers cemetery" of mostly
> unmarked graves but there are such occupations in
> it as "Overseer of the Boats of Neith" and
> "Overseer of Sculptors". Meanwhile there isn't a
> single inscription anywhere consistent with using
> barbaric/ muscle based systems to move or lift
> stones. All of the inscriptions depict a rather
> sophisticated economy and pyramid building. There
> are titles like "Overseer of the Metal Shop".
> There is nowhere an overseer of stone draggers or
> overseer of ramp builders.
>
> Interpretation is wrong.
>
> > The stone draggers and overseers
> > of ramps would have been peasant conscripts
> and
> > buried in their local necropolis. These men
> were
> > sent home after their term of service much
> like
> > soldiers in modern conscript armies.
>
> No, overseers were more likely to be nobles or low
> level functionaries.
>
> If there had been stone draggers then there would
> be an overseer and there would necessarily be
> accommodations for the thousands of men required.
> There would have also been depictions of ramps
> and a god of ramps. There would be sloped lines
> on the great pyramids and in the thermal imaging.
> There would be evidence rather than
> interpretation. The word "ramp" would be
> attested. They'd have icons depicting ramps and
> their gods.
>
> The cultural context does not support ramps.
>
>
> This thread is really more about what's under the
> Great Pyramid. Or for the purists, what's between
> the ground under the pyramid and the pyramid. All
> we know with certainty is that there is a passage
> heading straight in south of the NE corner. What
> does this passage lead to other than proof that
> ramps were never used on any great pyramid?
>
> Perhaps you know some other reason the powers that
> be refuse to release basic data or gather it. I'm
> merely GUESSING that they aren't releasing this
> specific data because they know it's inconsistent
> with ramps. Perhaps it's inconsistent with the
> pyramid being a tomb or its builders
> superstitious. They have said no data will be
> released that is inconsistent with the paradigm.
> No data is being released from tests that are
> known to have finally been completed with century
> old technology so it's easy to leap to the
> conclusion that it is inconsistent with current
> beliefs. What did they find under the Great
> Pyramid???
>
> ____________
> Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.
I agree we you about the workmen's titles. What we can infer from these is that it was indeed the skilled workmen who were buried at Giza. The titles overseer of metalurgists etc are consistent with this hypothesis.
The overseers of stone draggers would not have been nobility per say, rather they likely would have been drawn from the local village headmen. Along with the peasant conscripts who made up the tremendous bulk of the unskilled workforce, these men would have returned to their villages after their term of service and would have been buried in their local necropolis. To be buried next To the sovereign was a privilege granted only to the royal family, favored court officials, and skilled workmen who helped build the ruler's tomb. I fail to understand how this is so difficult for anyone to fathom. Perhaps the fringe considers real history too "mundane" and wants to add their own fantastical elements to make it in their own minds more "interesting."
I'm not say you are guilty of this yourself, but it seems to be a common fringe motive. David Hatcher Childress is in fact on record stating this as his personal motive.
Regarding the dilapidated state of the internal ramp revealed in the gravimetric scan. There are several possible reasons for this. Not the least of which is the fact that this ramp was constructed using recycled limestone from the quarries blocks and external ramps.