Forums - pyramids

Forums (http://www.abandonia.com/vbullet/index.php)

- Blah, blah, blah... (http://www.abandonia.com/vbullet/forumdisplay.php?f=14)

- - pyramids (http://www.abandonia.com/vbullet/showthread.php?t=1598)

Topic Split.

@anabis: try to stay on topic next time (just create new one instead of going of topic.)

Quote:

Originally posted by Data@Dec 6 2004, 02:36 PM
Topic Split.

@anabis: try to stay on topic next time (just create new one instead of going of topic.)

At the time did not believe that Stroggy is so much against scientific and logical way of study of history. :blink:

Only posted this as example how much Hollywood can be wrong. :)

Sorry, will try not to repeat that. :ok:

theres a theorey the pyramids where alien spaceship landing pads :| :borg: :borg: :eeeeeh:

Quote:

Originally posted by Anubis@Dec 6 2004, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Only in Hollywood everybody speaks the same language. :D Not so true. it all depends from where slaves where. ;) At that time even tribes had their own dialects and different languages.

Everybody knew egyptian, you are forgetting Egypt was a gigantic empire. Every city had its own dialect so that argument is moot

Quote:

You a bit funny here. LOL

people still use "lol" :eeeeeh: ?!

Quote:

Now you are mixing a bit. You are biased toward Israel, and you don't believe any other news except Israel's. What that has to do with me and Egypt? Me being biased towards old Egypt and their religion (my nick is one of the gods, which surely proves it LOL) See, here you are wrong.

Sure if you concider albawaba and AEL.org pro-israel
It was a joke at your expense, don't crack your face.

Quote:

If they prove that this theory is wrong, I will accept what archeologists conclude. And till that, there is no reason why I should not believe that new findings are not fine?

The archeologists who oppose don't need to prove its wrong. The archeologists who support the theory should prove its right. Until they come up with some good evidence I'll hold to my own standpoint.

Quote:

Image is every day more complete, as they dig more and more from the workers city site,

Oh they sure are digging, but they aren't exactly finding any evidence that I know of.

Quote:

which used to be a home for about 20000 people.

Whats this, random trivia info or just flaunting your 'knowledge' :D

Quote:

What Allah has to do with this?

I'd say god but you'd accuse me of racism

Quote:

You are starting again with all those lies. (they might become true if you just repeat them enough :D) This only shows what kind of stress you live under, and how assume that anybody who does not think the same as you is anti-Zionist.

Once again you didn't notice I was joking. again: don't crack your face.

Quote:

Time will (and is already showing) who cracked here. :not_ok:

Didn't Nasser say that once?

OK - so a word from a historian...
First off - Stroggy and Anubis - you are arguing about wheather the pyramids were built by slaves or not - remember?
The first claim was made that the slaves built them. On what was this claim made? The evidence supporting this claim is not stronger then the one saying they were built by paied workes. There are in fact more evidence saying the people weren't slaves - but these evidence must fight against a set way of thinking. That's a real problem historians have - not just regarding pyramids.
So about the pyramids - R Havell told you - they were built by people that were recruted to build them while the Nile flooded.
Of course these people were payed workers. But it's unrealistic to think that the builder - the Pharao would rather pay people to build something then to use his free work force - the slaves. So the theory is as follows - they recruted as many payed workers they needed - after using slaves. So both were working on the pyramids.
When you explore the history of the payed workers - and the craft work needed was probably done only by experianced craftsmen - not slaves - then you get a story of well fed and cared for workers that achieved a monumental structure. When you look at the work that needed pure man power - pulling the block,... Well not much experiance needed for that one,...
You must also know that slavery had many different levels!
There were people that were inslaved because they couldn't pay depts (basically forced labour) and were set free after they have done enough work!
Then you had slaves that were brought back from wars - these were used for pure menpower - but theri number was not really big. You must keep in mind that these are only people, who were captured during a combat (most of them fled or died - and the oposing armies rarely counted more then 5000 men - both sides).
There was also the third kind of slavery - or better to say hostages. These were importaint poeple from an enemy tribe, nation,... This was to insure them peace. The idea was - if you have four sons of the king you were at war yesterday at your court (at a point of the sword) the king will not dare to attack. After a number of years these people were returned (again not without thought) - they were shown the best way of life - in order to want them to be like the people who held them hostage (or were offered to marry into their families). So after taking their leading posistions they would not wage war on Egypt.

In any case - a workforce of slaves alone would not be big enough to build the pyramides - so they had to hire workers too!

Quote:

Everybody knew egyptian, you are forgetting Egypt was a gigantic empire. Every city had its own dialect so that argument is moot

They spoke the same language only if they enslaved their own people or that they already rule that region long enough so that they speak same language. (again the same people) At the time regions @ today’s Middle East is where they enslaved a lot of people. Do you really believe that they spoke the same language?

Quote:

The archeologists who oppose don't need to prove its wrong. The archeologists who support the theory should prove its right. Until they come up with some good evidence I'll hold to my own standpoint.

That's exactly what are they doing with latest discoveries, and that's how old guess about who built pyramids will be replaced with current theory, only if proven to be right.

Quote:

I'd say god but you'd accuse me of racism

Funny again. LOL

Quote:

Didn't Nasser say that once?

No idea. My teacher of history used to say the same.

You missed to say would you accept the theory true if majority of archeologist accept it as true?

Quote:

Originally posted by Stroggy@Dec 6 2004, 04:16 PM
fishbones, a grave belonging to an architect and communal sleeping halls are far from substantial evidence that all those who built the pyramids were indeed workers.

So I was correct when I said that?

Quote:

Originally posted by Sebatianos@Dec 6 2004, 02:59 PM
OK - so a word from a historian...
First off - Stroggy and Anubis - you are arguing about wheather the pyramids were built by slaves or not - remember?
The first claim was made that the slaves built them. On what was this claim made? The evidence supporting this claim is not stronger then the one saying they were built by paied workes. There are in fact more evidence saying the people weren't slaves - but these evidence must fight against a set way of thinking. That's a real problem historians have - not just regarding pyramids.
So about the pyramids - R Havell told you - they were built by people that were recruted to build them while the Nile flooded.
Of course these people were payed workers. But it's unrealistic to think that the builder - the Pharao would rather pay people to build something then to use his free work force - the slaves. So the theory is as follows - they recruted as many payed workers they needed - after using slaves. So both were working on the pyramids.
When you explore the history of the payed workers - and the craft work needed was probably done only by experianced craftsmen - not slaves - then you get a story of well fed and cared for workers that achieved a monumental structure. When you look at the work that needed pure man power - pulling the block,... Well not much experiance needed for that one,...
You must also know that slavery had many different levels!
There were people that were inslaved because they couldn't pay depts (basically forced labour) and were set free after they have done enough work!
Then you had slaves that were brought back from wars - these were used for pure menpower - but theri number was not really big. You must keep in mind that these are only people, who were captured during a combat (most of them fled or died - and the oposing armies rarely counted more then 5000 men* - both sides).
There was also the third kind of slavery - or better to say hostages. These were importaint poeple from an enemy tribe, nation,... This was to insure them peace. The idea was - if you have four sons of the king you were at war yesterday at your court (at a point of the sword) the king will not dare to attack. After a number of years these people were returned (again not without thought) - they were shown the best way of life - in order to want them to be like the people who held them hostage (or were offered to marry into their families). So after taking their leading posistions they would not wage war on Egypt.

In any case - a workforce of slaves alone would not be big enough to build the pyramides - so they had to hire workers too!

Impressive

Can you tell as also a bit about languages?

Did all of them speak only one language, or there is a trace of language barrier between these people?

Thanks for nice and well made answer!

since Egyptian is related to Hamitic (North African languages) and Semitic (languages such as Arabic and Hebrew) most if not all people in or around the Egypt spoke the language or some variation of it.

Stroggy,
sebatianos language and my language belong in the same language group, and believe me, they are well different.