• fossilesqueOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      It’s true, though often unintended, people get excited. It sucks because the past is filled with such vibrant and cool things people have done. Cheapens it… People are neat.

        • fossilesqueOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          30
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques

          In addition to the many unresolved arguments about the construction techniques, there have been disagreements as to the kind of workforce used. The Greeks, many years after the event, believed that the pyramids were built by slave labour. Archaeologists now believe that the Great Pyramid of Giza (at least) was built by tens of thousands of skilled workers who camped near the pyramids and worked for a salary or as a form of tax payment (levy) until the construction was completed, pointing to workers’ cemeteries discovered in 1990.[1] For the Middle Kingdom pyramid of Amenemhat II, there is evidence from the annal stone of the king that foreigners from Canaan were employed.[2]

          That’s a common myth. :) People didn’t have to enslave each other to do magnificent things, we should take note.

          • MonkRome@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            8 days ago

            Wait, that’s only 2 of the sites, that doesn’t really prove anything. Also the Canaanites were what would become the Jews, you know, the people that made a whole religion out of freeing themselves from slavery in Egypt. I get that religion is an unreliable historian, but it seems plausible to me that the cornerstone of the entire religion had a basis in reality. Some myths are very often loosely rooted in historical events even if they get magical after that point. Some think Robin Hood basically meant John Doe Criminal in old England or was possibly even a person at some point. Many religions feature a great flood. There is evidence of a historically large flood in Africa that basically created much of the northern deserts.

            I don’t think it makes sense to dismiss it as myth anymore than it makes sense to claim it’s assuredly true, imo. Egypt was a continuous civilization for 3000 years before Christianity even appeared. 3000 years of history we no very little about. There are 118 identified pyramids… But, considering how distressingly common slavery features in old texts, it seems unlikely a civilization spanning 3000 years built none of their pyramids with slaves.

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 days ago

      Why? The people around the Mediterranean are the same people

      No one questions Divinci

      It’s about time period not race

      • MBM@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        9 days ago

        The people around the Mediterranean are the same people

        Racists would definitely disagree

      • Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 days ago

        It’s racist against the human race. They’re basically saying humans were too stupid and incapable of engineering feats like these so they obviously had help from extraterrestrials to build their giant stone pyramids.

        • fossilesqueOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          Nah, there’s a reason why we don’t talk about Stonehenge in the same ways.

          • Baggie@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 days ago

            You are correct about the race bias, and it’s to a much lesser extent, but people do also say Stonehenge was built by aliens. As early as 1968 apparently.

            • fossilesqueOPM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 days ago

              Some people really want to believe, and why not? It is human not to want to be alone. It’s a terrifying prospect. :)

  • the_doktor@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    9 days ago

    How that damned television show is still on the air is beyond me. Every single point they make is easily debunked and all it’s doing is injecting lies and garbage information into people, making them conspiracy theorists and deniers of other truths. It’s a joke.

    • fossilesqueOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      9 days ago

      It’s cheaper to do bullshit than the right thing.

  • NutWrench@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    9 days ago

    LISTER: What makes you think these aliens exist?

    RIMMER: They must do, Lister! There’s so many things that are strange and odd. So many things we don’t have any explanation for.

    LISTER: Like, um, why do intelligent people buy cinema hot dogs? Do you mean that sort of weird and mysterious thing?

    RIMMER: No, Lister, I mean like the pyramids. How did they move such massive pieces of stone without the aid of modern technology?

    LISTER: They had massive whips, Rimmer. Massive, massive whips.

  • Kiosade@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    9 days ago

    How come they switched sides for a panel then switched back? Was it also because of aliens?

    • psud@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 days ago

      They had multiple virtual cameras and could change angles between panels

      • Kiosade@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 days ago

        Well i meant Babuthep starts standing left of the other guy, then he’s on the right, then back to the left. Maybe they were doing some dancing :)

        • psud@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          Clearly he was walking around getting better perspective on the work

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    Shoch: The Sphinx is much older than originally estimated because the water erosion around the figure must have come from the time when Egypt was very temperate and rainy, sometime before 3500-3200BCE, which is much earlier than we originally thought.

    Egyptologists: But we have no artifacts from that era! No pottery, no barns! There’s no way to prove that!

    Shoch: I mean, that’s just what the rocks

    Egyptologists: LIES!!

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        9 days ago

        The Sphinx water erosion hypothesis is a fringe claim, contending that the Great Sphinx of Giza and its enclosing walls eroded primarily due to ancient floods or rainfalls, attributing their creation to Plato’s lost civilization of Atlantis

        (Italics added, because - what? I’ve never seen that)

        Here’s another example of this type of argument from the larger article:

        The Orion correlation theory posits that it was instead aligned to face the constellation of Leo during the vernal equinox around 10,500 BC. The idea is considered pseudoarchaeology by academia, because no textual or archaeological evidence supports this to be the reason for the orientation of the Sphinx

        (Italics added) Whether it is or is not; the countervailing argument is “no, because we have no proof it is”. Well no proof is just that - no proof either way. Isn’t it? This theory of astronomical alignment is based on solid empirical facts, though it is just a theory. Saying, “no it can’t be because we haven’t found a book from the time period” is a weird argument to say it disproves it. At best it says it can’t prove it.

        That’s not to say a core sample test isn’t a good indicator, or some of the other causes-for-erosion aren’t as-or-more likely in the case of dating the Sphinx structure. It’s just that the particular argument that “we haven’t dug up definitive proof” is - not a great argument to base an unchallengeable assertion on. At best one has to allow alternate theories which have not been empirically disproven are possible.

        • fossilesqueOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          9 days ago

          A borehole survey is pretty empirical, my dude. It’s basic geoarchaeology and used heavily in geoscience and engineering. Most responsibile construction projects use them and you know they’re not spending money on things that aren’t tried and true. It is how I hunt extinct rivers and other watercourses in other parts of the world. They don’t just go poof. Plus the palaeo record would show what lived in and around it.

          Archaeology works backwards from the known to the unknown. We bring our own biases to science, so that’s why we have to build our case for theories brick by brick, to avoid those and check ourselves. He’s welcome to provide proof, but so far he hasn’t had any that fits the data. We welcome these ideas when there’s proof. Rivers with the ability to carve rock like that leave large footprints. Multiple people’s careers would be made if there was such evidence, but there isn’t. Large discoveries are good for archaeology and bring funding. Science with a capital S isn’t perfect, but the data disproves it, if anything.

        • psud@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 days ago

          just a theory

          Just a theory? A theory is a pretty well supported thing

        • Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

          I think the counterveiling argument is that there is a lot of evidence of large stone construction and similar cultural activities at much later dates.

          And 10,000BC would be an impossibly ancient thing. You’d need a smidgen of proof to get anyone to think that was likely compared to all the circumstantial evidence we have for conventional estimations.

            • Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 days ago

              A very different, impressive structure, build on a different way in a different environment.

              That’s like saying the Chinese had paper in 100BC, so Europeans must have as well - we just haven’t found any evidence of it yet. Despite all the evidence to the contrary.

              • Optional@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 days ago

                well, should the dating of 12,000 BC hold up (I don’t have the actual date, apologies) but it’s roughly before the oldest time suggested by the erosion theory of the Sphinx, and one of the arguments against it was that there was NO civilization at that time.

                Well, now we know there was. So - that particular argument against the theory has to be thrown out, right?

                • Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  Sure, if one of the arguments against it was that there was no civilisation in the world (or fertile crescent and adjacent areas) then yes, that’s not a valid counterpoint.

                  I was thinking of using the evidence of megastructure building culture in Egypt that there is that matches the, according to the other person, water rising up (if I recall correctly).

                  It’d be fun and interesting if you’re theory is right. But there’s a lot of burden of proof it needs to overcome. Still, who knows?

            • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              8 days ago

              Looks nothing like the much more complex stone work that was done on The Sphinx.

              In fact it is reasonable that those improvements could take around 5500 years of development since they had to invent copper, tin, and bronze smelting in that interval.

              • Optional@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 days ago

                You mean the head or the body of the Sphinx? Head, I’ll agree, body - mmmm - doesn’t seem to be that complex but maybe I’m missing something.

                • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 days ago

                  The stones above the base. The head and body primarily. The base was carved out of stone in situ, but as I understand it, they had to build up the rear of the body and head. To be fair, I’m remembering this from a paper I read in college in 98 or 99.

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        9 days ago

        Furthermore, various structures securely dated to the Old Kingdom show only erosion that was caused by wind and sand (very distinct from the water erosion).

        So where’s their water erosion then?

        Just to save the downvoters some trouble, I’m only suggesting that theories which are not supported by direct anthropological evidence are worth considering. I’m not saying aliens - or Atlanteans or whomever - carved the Sphinx. The erosion theory was just the first thing I thought of as an example.

        Back in the early 1990s, when I first suggested that the Great Sphinx was much older than generally believed at the time, I was challenged by Egyptologists who asked, “Where is the evidence of that earlier civilization?” that could have built the Sphinx.

        They were sure that sophisticated culture, what we call civilization, did not exist prior to about 3000 or 4000 BCE. Now, however, there is evidence of high culture dating back to approximately 12,000 years ago, at a site in Turkey known as Göbekli Tepe. A major mystery has been why these early glimmerings of civilization and high culture disappeared, only to reemerge thousands of years later.

        https://www.robertschoch.com/sphinx.html

        • Uruanna@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          9 days ago

          I’m only suggesting that theories which are not supported by direct anthropological evidence are worth considering

          You can consider an idea and build a theory around it, but once your basic idea is disproven, your whole theory disappears. And the idea that the Sphinx erosion doesn’t match the agreed upon age has already been proven wrong - as in, it has been explained that the observed erosion is perfectly compatible with what rock types are there and with the data that we know since the actual period it was built in, the mid third millenium BCE. So you don’t have your premise that the erosion doesn’t match the official age, and that means there is nothing left to consider here until you actually have something new, anything else is fanfiction.

          Considering new idea is perfectly fine, no one disagrees with that, but you are not considering new ideas, you are considering old ideas that were proven wrong and not listening when someone tells you why it’s wrong. Get new material.

          • Optional@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            9 days ago

            it has been explained that the observed erosion is perfectly compatible with what rock types are there and with the data that we know since the actual period it was built in, the mid third millenium BCE

            Is it the case then that we should see similar erosion in contemporary local structures? My understanding was that we didn’t, is that not right?

            • Uruanna@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              9 days ago

              https://youtu.be/DaJWEjimeDM?si=rwX4eZZQvGV22iiR first half is citing two guys who think the Sphinx is older than we think (including your guy); third guy and after show that the erosion and the faults didn’t come from rain from outside, but water infiltration from below, from before the Sphinx was carved into the rock, and that yes, we do see it in other places in the same rock layer. Other buildings above it don’t have that erosion from below. So the erosion is indeed old, but it didn’t happen from rain falling after the Sphinx was carved out, so you can’t use it to determine when the Sphinx was carved out of the ground.

        • fossilesqueOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 days ago

          You can date rock like that with luminescene dating… My dude, it’s great to wonder about the past. It’s a beautiful thing but this guy isn’t who you should be fixating on.