Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Caltech Team Raises 6900-Pound Obelisk, By Kite 209

Posted by timothy from the pyramidiots-savant dept.
Paintthemoon writes: "So, this crazed entrepreneur and Caltech buddies this weekend staged a successful test of using a 30-foot kite to raise a 6,900 pound concrete obelisk in the Mojave. The theory behind this is that the ancient Egyptians could have used such wind power to raise obelisks and build the pyramids ... " The article is from earlier this month. It's been a lot longer than that since scientists started trying to figure out how the Egyptians moved and righted some of their obelisks.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Caltech Team Raises 6900-Pound Obelisk, By Kite More

Caltech Team Raises 6900-Pound Obelisk, By Kite

Comments Filter:

  • well, y'know. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    i live in miami, and it's really cool looking ;)
    but... some people do think it's a hoax, built for the tourists. who knows? here's a link to support yer argument ;)

    http://www.parascope.com/en/articles/coralCastle .h tm

  • Re:Uhh yeah except.. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    To my knowledge there aren't any hieroglyphs depicting sex either, but I'm fairly certain that they used it to reproduce.

    Your knowledge is sorely lacking, then.

    In particular, the Earth God Geb and the Sky Goddess (Nuti?) were often pictured as having sex, in full detail. (As you can easily guess, woman was on the top).

    Though the pictures above are strictly not hieroglyphs but carvings, the hieroglyphic determinative for "maleness" in general was an erect penis, again in graphic detail.

  • Re:Records (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Firstly there is very little evidence of slaves bulding. Most Egyptologists believe that they did not keep slaves, that people worked part time on the large construction projects and would be farmers or fishermen or whatever the rest if the time. Secondly the Egyptians left no records at all of how they built the pyrmaids or raised monuments. Thats one reason for all the speculation.
  • Actually from what I recall of the old testament it mentions the building of a storage and treasure city or two, nothing about pyramids at all...
  • Actualy there is, here is an article that highlights it. Archaeology and the Bible [aish.com]

    And it is fairly certain that the Torah was written down within a generation or two after the arival in Israel.
  • Warning theology follows...

    The start of Jewish thought is the Exodus. The Torah tells us that we should act in every generation as if we personaly were brougt forth from Egypt. And the Midrash says that the soul of every Jew ever born was there when G-d presented the Torah at Mt Saini. So while it happened 3313 years ago and I'm only 28, I can quite truthfully say that the Lord G-d brougt me out from Egypt, and that if G-d had not brought us out we might still be slaves to this day.

    For more information find a copy of a good Passover Haggada.
  • It should be noted that the book of Exodus does not say that we built pyramids, it says we built Pithon and Ra-ameses (I probably have the spelling wrong. The pyramids were a 1000 years old by this time.
    As for the archaological stuff see this link: http://aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/Archaeol ogy_and_the_Bible_-_Part_2.asp
  • It was part of a "Nova" miniseries called "Secrets of Lost Empires". Personally, I felt the episodes focused too much on the theorist's constant bickering. They also had some really strange theories:

    "I believe the Incas used thermo-deagregation to build their stone walls, said one such theorist. He then proceeded to use a concave mirror in an attempt to "melt" the stones into place.
  • Maybe they called them magic flying carpets
    instead of kites, and didn't bother documenting
    them because it's such a no-brainer.
  • This is kind of self-evident, but a demonstration that wind power *can be* used for such purposes is entirely different from a demonstration that is *was* used. This only shows that the theory is not totally impossible, not that it is probable or true.
  • ... are neat.

    Check this [kitestailstoys.com] out: it (or larger versions) was used to lift radio aerials during WWII. I had one about 8 years ago but I broke its balsa spars. I'll probably buy a new one and keep an eye out for fiberglass or carbon fiber spars ;)

    (here's another interesting [wireservices.com] lifting kite link..


    Your Working Boy,
    - Otis (GAIM: OtisWild)
  • The modern view is that all Egyptians were required to give up a month or so for "national service". Considering the leader of the country was a god, it was the least they could do :)

    Slaves were probably not the major builders of the pyramids and temples, it was done by ordinary citizens. Of course, you could call them serfs, since their work on the pyramids was basically required, a tax of sorts. True slaves (owned, bought, sold) were rare before the Ptolemaic period, and were mainly house servants.

    About four thousand expert stone sculptors worked on the pyramids year round. During the Nile floods, ninety-five thousand citizens did the heavy work.
  • "A lot of Third World countries without a lot of resources don't have bulldozers and heavy equipment," Clemmons said. "Maybe they can use kites for heavy construction."
    I think this is where the work shows value; hypothesising about how the Egyptians raised their obelisks and pyramids is conjecture, but at least there may be some value to the work if it helps poorer nations build bridges, houses and hospitals.

    Also, it could be used as a "greener" way to do building in richer nations!
    --

  • It was Nova. I don't think any of the obelisks were nearly as large as the ancient obelisks they were mimicking. Here's the link to the Nova web site:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostempires/obelisk/ [pbs.org]
  • Obelisks couldn't be built from "the bottom up" because they were each made of one solid piece of granite.
  • I also saw a program on one of the Discover channels recently, describing methods of moving these large, cube-like stones for pyramids. They tied a piece of wood to each of the four sides of the stone, and each piece of wood had a curved face on the outside, such that when you would look at the stone-surrounded-by-wood, it appeared as a square inscribed within a circle. Tilted on its side, it became a "wheel", which was much easier to move up the ramps. Brilliant stuff.


    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
  • You are aware of the Cocain Mummies, are you not??? (as for the contact with the americas)
  • In his book The Ancient Engineers, L. Sprague DeCamp hypothesized that they used simple earthen ramps to right the stones, and that they transported them by dragging them through mud. In the ancient world, dirt was a LOT cheaper than timber, especially the kind of quality timber that could hold up Stonehenge blocks.

    He thought they got the crosspieces in place by burying the uprights in a huge mound, then dragging the crosspieces into place on top and excavating the supports.

    This kite thing is cool, but far-fetched, especially since the researcher has been using modern materials to build her kite. It also leaves you very dependant on the weather.

    What are the hieroglyphs for "Keep it simple, stupid?"

    Jon Acheson
  • The point is not whether that's how the Egyptians did it - the point is that they COULD have done it this way, as well as in many other ways. We should not get stuck in our mental image of ramps and countless slaves which isn't based on much concrete evidence, either.

    This reminds me of a wonderful experiment [fourmilab.ch] which shows that Archimedes could have suspected the universality of gravity and prove it with tools and materials available at the time.

    -
  • Strangely seems to be almost the same as this 1999 Time Article [time.com]

    Same person, mostly same words and phrases, just a brief mention that they lifted something heavier.

    Lando

  • Professor Abraham Malamat of Hebrew University infers from this that the Hebrews were forced to build the city of Ramasses. "This evidence is circumstantial at best," notes Malamat, "but it's as much as a historian can argue."

    I do not think the website you cited says what you think it says. The evidence that the Israelites were in Egypt is extremely poor. I don't find it convincing at all. The fact that the majority of the record is in the Bible only adds to my skepticism.
  • There's actually no good evidence that the Israelites were actually in Egypt. There's no Egyptian records of it, and they wrote a lot of stuff on their buildings. The Israelite written record was probably created about 580BC. Before that, it was an oral history, which could have been embellished.
  • but hemp is often used to make ropes and other textiles.

    What, somebody does NOT know this?? Geez, hemp rope was a HUGE business once - used on most sailing ships, etc. Another victim of the 'safe' perverted revisionist history promulgate by the WOD crowd.
  • "... scientists started trying to figure out how the Egyptions [sic]"

    errr. which planet are they from? and where is Egyptio? or is it a new wireless company?

  • I saw this program too, it was on a broadcast network, I believe PBS.

    But as I remember, the large-scale test (30 ton obelisk) using the elaborate tilting mechanism failed when using man-power. There was a cylindrical log underneath the obelisk which they couldn't keep from being dragged instead of rolled (too much downward pressure from the weight of the obelisk). They eventually had to use an industrial crane to get the obelisk in place, which obviously was unavailable to Egyptians.

    The sandbox test worked perfectly, and though it was a smaller obelisk (6-tons or so) it was done totally man-powered. The Egyptians have raised obelisks that weight up to 100 tons, and the sandbox theory seems the most likely one that could have been scaled up for obelisks of this size.

    "I can only show you Linux... you're the one who has to read the man pages."

  • Hm. Why don't these people ask an engineer how the pyramids got built instead of other archeologists. Engineers know how to build things. Archeologists dig them up. That said, if these kites are indeed lifting such large weigts, then they could easily lift a man. This would provide an explanation for how the pictures were drawn that everyone says are only visible from up in the air (plains in South America, can't remember name right now). They could easily have been made simply for the amusement of royalty. After all, who else would be honored with the ability to fly?
  • The Sphinx predates the Pyramids however they do not show the same erosion patterns as it does. Ergo they were built much later than the Sphinx. Besides that the excavations of the settlements around the Big Three you see in history books has shown that people working on the Pyramids were not in fact slaves but hired help. Hired help isn't that hard to believe in an area where your biggest crops only need your attention for part of the year. Not only do you have an abundance of cheap labour sitting around while fields are fallow but their religion is based on the assertation that the Pharoh is indeed a reincarnation of Amon-Ra on Earth. Look at all the shit people do in contemporary history because they think some god somewhere told them to or wants them to. The labour contractors went to the farms and said "hey want some work to bring in some extra cash this next winter, oh yeah, your god on Earth would REALLY appriciate your help" and that was that. Maintaining a mass of slaves in any one area is a pretty dumb thing to do besides. You can't trust slave labour (especially opressed slave labour) to do much of anything so you need lots of guards to oversee them and ocassionally beat the shit out of them. Thats an army of guards for an army of slaves that require an army of logistical personelle. Every year for 30-40 years? That's sort of ludicrous to suggest. Nor an army of volunteer labour which acts as its own logistical unit is threefold more efficient than an army of slaves. I'm talking mostly about the Big Three at Giza of course. I bet there was probably a pyramid or two built by slaves for some bastard Pharoh at some point. But don't extrapolate too much from the Sphinx's erosion patterns, it's been buried in sand and whatnot over the course of however many thousands of years. Egypt was alot more complex than we thought it was in 1901 and will only continue to grow in complexity as we find out more about it but making extrapolations and assertations doesn't get you much farther than the end of your nose which is practically where you started from.
  • We all know the aliens from another Stargate set up the pyramids!

    Speaking of which, my wife and I were very disappointed after we saw the beginning of a trailer for "Atlantis" with just the stylized 'A' sticking above the waves - we both mistook it for a stargate chevron, and leaped to the conclusion that a stargate movie was in the works. Imagine our disappointment to find out it was just another Disney flick.

    Another stargate movie, of course, with the TV cast. Not that the original wasn't pretty good too.

    Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!

  • Lookout, the wind is dropping!

    Huh? _*SPLAT*_
  • Re "proves nothing", the kite exercise does prove something: that it's possible to lift large, heavy objects with kites (7000 lbs!!) It doesn't prove that the Egyptians did it, of course.

    Aside from the lack of direct documentary evidence, this actually doesn't seem that unlikely to me. After all, sail technology was presumably well established at the time. Whether or not it actually happened, it *could* have! :)

    I like your .sig, where's it from?

  • Thank you! A thought-provoking quote - for me anyway, having a tendency to focus on those great, general views. I'll have to get my act together if I ever want to be Emperor of Rome... ;)

  • Nephythys (Nebthet) Goddess of the dead; sister and wife of Set.

    'Mistress of the palace', she wears on her head the ideogram of her name, Neb ('a basket') and Het ('a palace'). Daughter of Geb and Nut, Nephythys was married to her brother Set. They had no children. Nephythys seduced her other brother Osiris by making him drunk; their child was Anubis. When Set killed Osiris she deserted him in horror and helped Isis to embalm the murdered god. She and Isis are the protectresses of the dead; they are shown with winged arms, for in order to mourn Osiris they changed themselves into kites. Nephythys helped Hapy to guard the embalmed lungs of mummified people.



    Being that this was/is written in the hyrogliphs
    and she was the goddess of the dead, I kind of can put two and two together.
  • Here is another arguement [thepump.org] on another slightly "out there" way the pyramids could have been raised.

    --
  • Could you be MORE of a quack?
  • You make it sound like they're attaching a huge object to the bottom of a kite and flying it around. They're not, they're pulling on ropes with the kites, and the ropes go through a pully system on a firmly anchored scaffold. How is that dangerous?
  • It's been a lot longer than that since scientists started trying to figure out how the Egyptions moved and righted some of their obelisks.

    Really? I thought that exploration into the ideas of how the pyramids were built was a new area of science. Thank goodness I have Slashdot, that bastion of excellent journalism, to straighten me out.




  • NOVA had a whole hour on raising obelisks. One method (overly complicated and stupid) failed, one method (sand pits with sand removed from bottom) succeeded. And they have heiroglphyic evidence backing up their method.

    NOVA Obelisk Episode [pbs.org]

    They also did one on raising the Easter Island statues.

    NOVA Easter Island [pbs.org]

  • Admittedly, it is only a theory, but it seems to have more weight to it than using kites...

    I have a book (unfortunately, not nearby, so I can't quote the title and such - maybe I will follow up later with a reply) detailing how the blocks used in the construction of Egyptian monuments could have been cast, in situ.

    The author of the book is an inventor who developed a type of concrete that looks and "works" like natural stone - in fact, comparing it with the blocks used in the pyramids, he found the compositions nearly identical. He then goes on to find local (to Egypt) sources of the chemicals and materials needed for this special "concrete", then uses those materials to perform experiments to cast blocks from the resulting mix (mixing the material and casting blocks).

    To me, this idea seems to have the most weight, especially given the evidence the author presented. This doesn't mean that this had to be the way, but it makes a lot of sense...

    Worldcom [worldcom.com] - Generation Duh!
  • This is talked about in the book, IIRC. I don't remember off hand what the reasoning was, but I do remember it being sound and well thought out. I will have to find the book tonight, post the details, and let you know what the reasoning behind the found quarries are...

    One thing the story about the kites got right is that all attempts to build pyramids and other structures based on the currently accepted theories have tended to fail. Plus, these theories don't explain how it was possible for other societies to build extreme megalithic structures (start looking into it - you will find one account of a solid stone "foundation" stone - of several hundred tons, sitting up on the side of a mountain!)...

    Here is a link - look into geopolymers [geopolymer.org] and "agglomerated stone"...

    OH! OH!

    Here is the book - available in electronic format, out of print now (I found mine only a couple of years ago in the discount section of a local Bookstar, so you might check), but cheap: The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved [geopolymer.org] - plus, the first chapter is online, as well...

    Want some more fun? Look into the history and stories behind the Coral Castle [parascope.com] - a fascinating site in Florida, that is stranger than fiction, if only because it involves megalithic proportion construction on a massive scale, built by a single man, who not only was in poor health and only weighed 100 pounds, but who also had only a fourth-grade education!!! The site was started in 1920, and completed in 1940. Yet no one knows how he did it...

    This is a site I plan to visit later this year (along with Gibtown)...

    Worldcom [worldcom.com] - Generation Duh!
  • First off, a link:

    Geopolymers [geopolymer.org]

    Also, look into "agglomerated stone"...

    The man who (re?)discovered this technique, was one Prof. Joseph Davidovits [geopolymer.org].

    Here is his book (unfortunately, it is out of print. I found my copy only a couple of years ago in the discount section of a local Bookstar, so you might check), which is available in PDF format (for the price of 9 euros, which is reasonable):

    The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved [geopolymer.org]

    The first chapter is available for free online as well - so check that out...

    Worldcom [worldcom.com] - Generation Duh!
  • Egyptions? Hmmm, free radical north africans?

    I just saw an exhibit on Napoleon and his stay in Egypt. There was a number of sketches of the egyptians showing him how they moved large blocks around, with 1/4 circular wooden 'arches' strapped to the blocks.

    Napoleon's thie^H^H^H^Harcheologists then used the same techniques to remove a number of obelisques and other large stones. They even removed a number of large palaces back to France for the wealthiest supporters of the little corsicain. Yup, stone by stone, until the brits sank the french in alexandria harbor. I had a dinner in one of those egyptian palaces a few years ago near Toulon.

    So the egyptians already knew of this technique back in the early 1800's, and presumably the 'arches' found in a number of digs date back to the creation of the pyramid.

    the AC

  • Re:Pictures (Score:3)

    by QuantumG ( 50515 ) <qg@biodome.org> on Monday June 25, 2001 @01:48AM (#130392) Homepage Journal
    Dude, they didn't have cameras back then :)
  • True, but there are plenty of hieroglyphs depicting people wearing makeup.


    ---

  • Re:well, y'know. (Score:3)

    by The Original Bobski ( 52567 ) on Monday June 25, 2001 @03:20AM (#130394) Homepage Journal
    here's a link to support yer argument ;)

    And here's the "Official" site:
    Coral Castle [coralcastle.com] :)

    ---

  • Uhh yeah except.. (Score:4)

    by The Original Bobski ( 52567 ) on Monday June 25, 2001 @12:49AM (#130395) Homepage Journal
    There are no hierglyphs depicting kites

    nice try though.
    ---

  • Re:Uhh yeah except.. (Score:4)

    by The Original Bobski ( 52567 ) on Monday June 25, 2001 @01:18AM (#130396) Homepage Journal
    No, but very recently (in geographic time) there was a man (Ed Leedskalnin) who single handedly built an entire home from massive blocks of coral here in Florida (Coral Castle). It took him twenty years to complete, but he never let anyone see him at work. He claimed he used the same techniques used to build the pyramids, but of all the times people tried to spy on him through the years never once had anyone reported seeing kites.


    ---
  • Of course they don't have written records of what happened. That's why there is so much conjecture about how the damn things were built in the first place.
    -----
    They don't have written records of how the pyramids were constructed. It makes more sense that they would have more personal records on the fact that they were enslaved.

    Doubtful. There don't exist many records of ancient cultures who saw value in teaching slaves how to read & write. I'm not saying it's impossible, just unlikely that you would ever find the personal memoirs of one of Pharoa's slaves.

  • answer (Score:2)

    by joq ( 63625 )

    What happened in the past always gives an insight of which way to move ahead in the future. For example I was watching a tv show called Frontline on Friday in which the state of the world was being discussed, and how man has destroyed much of it (animals going extinct, plants, algae, etc.) and the scientist predicted that at the rate we're going with global warming, tree deforestation, fishing overkill, that the world is in some serious shit.

    In Mongolia as it stands, many of the country's natural grass is barely growing due to the country's collapse, and the boom of farmers raising goats, and not switching to other parts of the land to allow the fields to grow back. In China they faced the same problem years ago, and now within the next 5 years they have to destroy hundreds of thousands of animals in order to avoid losing many resources.

    Paleontologists explained how essential things are nowadays, how they're being destroyed, and how this compared to the repeating occurances of extinction with the dinosaurs, and other stuff like algeas, and crap like that.

    History is repetitive, and scientist up to this date have still not mapped out means to re-create faster than we destroy. It's expected within 100-200 years a major shortage on things we take for granted unless change happens now. Since they stated their is no more time to waste.

    Anyways I would rather see this being studied than missle defense programs, technological bs like Echelons, Carnivores, etc., I think it's more important to understand what happened in the past to gain insight into the future.

  • Someone set us up the kite (Score:4)

    by joq ( 63625 ) on Monday June 25, 2001 @01:00AM (#130406) Homepage Journal

    We all know the aliens from another Stargate set up the pyramids!

    Ok so it wasn't funny. Anyways there was a recent (semi recent about 4 months ago) documentary on PBS depicting how this may have worked which knocked off many theories and made sense. According to the doc., slaves were not used and this was judged based on evidence from an excavation, that showed what were supposedly slaves, were treated like royalty. (Judging from the medical care they received)

    Leading engineers calculated block by block how it was done, and their theory was, ramps were made, and the stones were hauled up these ramps by many workers who traveled to Egypt to honor the kings. Enigneers, doctors, you name it supposedly assisted raising the blocks until it was done.

    According to the scientists and Engineers I think it took about 30-40 years per pyramid, in which many felt honorable to do. This again was based on evidence from excavation which showed no one was a prisoner, or slave, engineers who recreated the scenario (nice SGI graphics too).

    Also in the documentary it showed how ancient medical techniques were used to heal broken bones, etc.

    What is Shadowstorm Intelligence Layer [antioffline.com]?
  • WHat did she make her kites out of? Probably, ripstop nylon or some other modern, lightweight, strong fabric.

    Now, if she can make her kites out of materials the ancient Egyptians had, using techniques they had, and perform the same feat, then I'll be impressed. Not before.
  • I did read the article, and that's why I'm making this point - the article said nothing about the materials the kite was make from. It's one thing to lift 3.5 tons with a kite that weighs in at a quarter ton. Now, if the kite weighs 2.5 tons but has the same lift area, how much rock can you lift?

    Also, I'm sure this kite was designed with modern areospace engineering knowledge. Given what the Egyptians knew at the time, could they have made an equivilent kite?

    Lastly, even if she makes a kite out of materals known to the Egyptians, with a design known to be available to the Egyptians, that does not prove that it would have occurred to the Egyptians to make such a kite and use it in such a way.

    There is a goodly body of archeological evidence supporting the "ramps and ropes" method. There is no evidence of a kite.

    With respect to the Japanese: they made their kites out of silk, a very strong and light material. Did the Egyptians have access to the quantitites of silk needed to make a kite like this?
  • Near the end of the article...:
    Plans are in the works to duplicate the experiment using linen, hemp and other materials common to ancient Egypt.
    And which kind of use do our "scientists" plan for these materials? Given their theories, one has to wonder whether they'll really use the hemp to make a kite...
  • Don't let Charlie Brown build pyramids.
  • How ironic.. Just few days ago I saw a documentary on tlc/dsc/pbs (one of them anyway) where people were trying to put up obelisks..

    One way was to have a huge platform over the landing area and then use ropes to tilt the obelisk over the platform and hopefully land it in it's place.. This experiment took a full day to set up, another day to try and work out and in the end modern machinery to save the day.

    There was also a separate experiment going on at the same time(although, with a minitaure obelisk) where a sand box was used.. It worked beatifully. They had a high platform with a sand box in front of it and as the sand was removed the obelisk tilted down gracefully onto it's place.

    Later in the show they did an experiment with a full size obelisk at a granite mine in usa (first part was filmed in egypt) using first miniature prototypes and after a full size obelisk and a sand box(with dry sand vs. the damp one used in egypt).

    Once the old-style(no modern machinery used here, except to set up the box and obelisk) ropes were gently released the obelisk practically pushed the sand away from underneath it and lowered itself into the right place. Final adjustement of about 15 degrees was performed by pulling the ropes.. Everything worked beautifully..

    I believe the program was called Secrets of the Angient Egyptians, etc..

  • In the end of the program they did try the sandbox method on a large obelisk(probably 30ton) and it worked. They had a quite a few people working at an american granite mine pulling it up the last 15 degrees...

  • Hi!

    Regardless of whether the amateur Egyptologists are correct or not, this is a significant piece of work for reasons only alluded to at the bottom of the DailyNews article: using kites affords low-tech (or no-tech) societies the means to achieve substantial power. They demonstrated substantial lift capacity in the Mojave Desert--but think about applying that lift to a lever, or using blocks (systems of pulleys) to lift, pry, or drag.

    That's substantially more important than most /. readers might think. While we're living in a high-tech world that seems to only be getting that much more sophisticated, there are vast parts of the world that are still farming, building, and lifting with oxen. The Rodale Institute International Program [rodaleinstitute.org] has worked to get international food organizations away from a North American mindset that focuses on capital-intensive (and diesel-fuel-intensive) methods with big tractors and combines. Instead, they've applied a lot of what's been learned about farm implements to traditional means of propulsion (oxen). They're making a lot of headway--showing that a lot can be accomplished using low-tech methods.

    This nice and neatly fits into the same scheme. Nobody's hoisting obelisks these days--but if you're building a road in Senegal, or upstream from the Three Gorges Dam, you may have a multi-ton rock to move. Instead of tackling the problem of finding earth movers big enough to solve your problem, you can drag it out of the way with kites. A vastly simpler, less expensive, more feasible solution.

  • Today in Egypt and other places not so blessed with resources to match their populations, people still build the way they have for centuries. They move concrete and fill one bucket load at a time to it's destination. Off site mixing fails where roads are not good enough or empty enough to move trucks quickly. Conveyor and cranes are difficult to maintain and power. Labor is cheap where people don't eat well.

    So will this help out? I doubt it. It sounds unwieldy, dangerous, and impractical.

    This thing will kill people who take it seriously. Let's imagine our big block is up and we want to put it down someplace. Contoling loads suspended from modern cranes is difficult enough when the wind blows. A kite has no firm foundation, twice the line to contend with and is utterly dependent on the will of the wisp. I would not want to be under or even around a heavy load lifted by kite.

    Power is still needed to control the kite. Even with clever contorls built into the kite for elevation and swing, how do you control radius? It would take lots of work to haul your line in. OK, someone brings a big deisel engine. Great! Now that you have spent all that money, why don't you just buy yourself some angle iron and plate so you can make a boom and a proper crane?

  • Heyyyy, who modded this down? Someone give the AC an informative point, huh?

  • Records (Score:3)

    by Dr_Cheeks ( 110261 ) on Monday June 25, 2001 @01:13AM (#130430) Homepage Journal
    OK, it's a great theory. But do we have any evidence of this? After all, the Egyptians were one of the most literate ancient civilisations; the evidence that Clemmons cites - "everything from hieroglyphs to wings etched in ancient tombs to kite-flying stances in classic Egyptian poses" - seems rather ambiguous. And I'm sure I recall seeing prints of hieroglyphs of slaves being forced to drag blocks about (or maybe that was just in The Mummy or something).

    I'm all for elegant solutions, but do we have any solid (or more convincing) evidence, other than the fact that it works? Let's not forget that the Egyptians had a lot of slaves, and didn't much care if a hundred died trying to lift an obelisk the hard way.

  • This is an interesting view, but I think there's a bunch of people living in Israel (not to mention other parts of the world) that would strongly disagree. I'm pretty sure they have the written records to adequately describe their slavery at the time.

    Your history is a bit out of whack. The pyramids were built in the Old Kingdom and the Hebrews were slaves in the New Kingdom. There's over 1000 years of time between the two; the pyramids were older when the Hebrews came to Egypt than the Gothic Cathedrals in western Europe are today.

    Of course the thing under discussion in this example are obelisks, not the pyramids anyway. Obelisks were nowhere near the work to put up that the pyramids were. An obelisk is a single large block of stone that needed "only" to be lifted upright, rather than a huge pile of stones. Of course some obelisks were 100 feet or more tall, so this is not exactly a trivial task, but it's more a matter of tricky engineering than brute force labor like the pyramids.

  • Important point:

    Pyramid != obelisk

    The pyramids were, in a real sense, not engineering marvels. They're just really huge stacks of rocks. There are a number of possible brute force approaches to getting the stones to the top that would be doable using even very simple technology. (Remember that the pyramid builders didn't even have wheels!) The pyramids are incredible more because they're huge and mobilizing the labor to build them was a tremendous political and administrative feat.

    Obelisks, OTOH, are more of an engineering challenge. They're very large single stones (as much as 100+ feet tall) raised upright. It's getting them upright in one piece that's the tricky bit. They didn't require anything like the labor that the pyramids did, but how exactly they were raised up remains something of a mystery. There are a number of possible approaches, but all of them have problems, and in that sense they're much more interesting to modern engineers.

  • The other view I have heard expressed is that they used ramps.

    The ramps were made of mud bricks, and the obelisks were dragged up them. There were holes on the ramps filled with sand where the obelisks were to go. On getting the obelisk in place, the sand was removed from the bottom. Ther obelisks eventually sank onto place. The sand and brick ramps were then removed, leaving no visible signs of how the obelisks got there.

    Personally, I would prefer the kite theory to be true, purely on grounds of elegance.
  • Exactly. There is no historical evidence to even suggest kites might have been used. So for all their time, money and sweat, all they've proved is that there's more than one way to raise an obelisk.

    They're not even the first to do it! The Discovery Channel (or maybe History Channel?) has aired a show a bazillion times where a researcher raised a larger obelisk. The top half rested on rock, the other half rested on sand enclosed by a wall. They just removed the sand from a small hole and as the sand escaped, the obelisk fell into position. It's similar to the levers used in this PBS Nova [pbs.org] show, except it didn't require any heaving or pulling to bring the obelisk upright.

  • Ramps - yes, and another fantastically simple idea.

    I saw a program that, strangely, only mentioned the simplest and most logical (once you figured it out) way of building a pyramid...only as a footnote. This was very recent; maybe 2-3 months ago.

    It turns out archaeologists found sets of wooden arches with strapping. These 'arches' (don't know of a better way to describe them) would be strapped to the four sides of a block, on each end, thus making a square into a circle. (Think of drawing a circle around a square...The blocks ended up looking like a spool of thread, without the thread.) This solved the problems of resistance and provided an incredibly simple and elegant way for Egyptians to roll their blocks up the Pyramid ramps using significantly less manpower.

    I would've figured they could've done an ENTIRE program on just this! As I said though, had I not been paying attention, it would've passed me right by.

    Still, ancient aliens is a lot more fascinating than simple, practical solutions! :-)

    sedawkgrep
  • We should not get stuck in our mental image of ramps and countless slaves which isn't based on much concrete evidence, either.

    Indeed. Ingenious labor saving devices are common across all cultures. Ramps and slaves sounds about the dumbest way to approach the construction task. Nobody is that dumb.

    As a witness we have the frozen stone man which had an ingenious collection of tools and gadgets to fix and repair his arrows and bow.

  • My friend, Obelix, does this as a day job. When he was a baby, he fell in to a pot of magic potion created by our village druid that gave him permanent super strength. Although he is classified as a "menhir delivery man" by our village chief, he is essentially a obelisk installer. For all you ladies out there, he is available. His hobbies include eating wild boar and beating the snot out of those crazy Romans.
  • Coral is stone, and it can be pretty damn heavy. Coral Castle is built of huge heavy pieces of coral. Like the nine ton revolving door. Nine tons. Heavy door, but he constructed its axis so that it swung at the touch of a finger. However he did it, it is a feat of pure genius. This article [naplesnews.com] gives a brief overview of it; search for more information [google.com] if you want. It's fascinating; definitely worth checking out if you get to Florida.

  • Pictures (Score:4)

    by Fredge ( 186975 ) on Monday June 25, 2001 @12:49AM (#130454)
    Did nobody at this event bother to photograph it? Anyone have a link with pictures?

  • Re:Someone set us up the kite (Score:4)

    by Elvis Maximus ( 193433 ) on Monday June 25, 2001 @01:43AM (#130456) Homepage

    Believe it or not, the slaves-built-the-Pyramids thing is very political in Egypt. The concern is that the Israelis will lay claim to Egypt based on the historical theory that Hebrew slaves built the Pyramids.

    If that sounds far out and paranoid, that's because it is. But given that many Israelis take the Bible to be a divine land deed, it's not entirely inconsistent with the weirdness on the ground.

    That doesn't mean those who worked on the Pyramids were slaves, it just means that Zahi Hawass, the head of the Egyptian Department of Antiquities, is under a lot of pressure to find (and allow excavation permit-seekers to find) evidence that supports certain theories more than others. As long as the modern political influences are there it will be difficult to get good objective data.

    -

  • Don't be silly. Everybody knows Egyptions are "missing matter" particles, used by ancient cultures to build big, huge mounds of carved rocks, and also to raise big, tall carved rocks.

    However, no archaeologist / quantum physicist has ever seen one of these particles (ergo, their "missing matter" classification), and that's why no one has ever tried to build a pyramid or raise an obelisk using them.

    I mean, really. It's all so simple once you think about it.

    Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
  • I remember trying to fly cheap kites as a kid, fifteen years ago - it wasn't a very successful pastime. The ones I fly these days have hemp cored carbon fibre poles and all kinds of high tech fabrics which is what makes them so much easier to fly.

    Even with the best will in the world, I'm kind of curious how the Egyptians, with their technology, could have got a kite of that size to stay together in thirty mile an hour winds, let alone fly in any controlled fashion. And then have the strength to lift a several hundred ton obelisk?

    As Willeke Wendrich, associate professor of Egyptian archeology at the University of California, Los Angeles said in the article, "The kite project seems like a lot of fun, but it doesn't prove the pyramids were built that way."

    It is a really cool geek achievement and certainly a lot of fun, but you have to wonder how much would be possible without modern materials?

    I guess I'll just go back to believing in the entirely more reasonable Silent Bob and his Jedi Mind Trick moving the stones. "Fly fat boy, fly."

  • Might it be because record keeping was much better and more easily available for periods 100 years ago then 5000 years ago? I can find all kinds of documents on the American Civil War, the Industrial Revolution, etc. but it is much harder to find good documentation of things that happened in 3000 B.C.

    And it is that much more interesting because we don't know all the answers...

    Kierthos

  • Socially the "Egyptians had a lot of slaves" theory is a little hard to swallow.

    Mathematics proves that even a significant advantage over enemies in combat will be nullified if the enemy has overwhealming numbers. Simply put, if your army can kill two of the enemy for every one you lose, the enemy does not need to be anywhere near twice your number to win.

    Even if mathematics was not at the forefront of slave minds, it is (and has been throughout human conquests) seemingly obvious to the minds of the repressed that sheer numbers and will can overcome a stronger foe.

    So work the numbers a little. If the slaves were so weak compared to the Egyptians, they would hardly be capable of lifting obelisks. Ropes and pullys can only "scale" so far before throwing more bodies at the problem does not improve the chances of solving it. Space also allows a limited number of people to occupy it at once. Besides which, lifting stones builds muscle. Basically, the slaves were not weaklings.

    If the slaves were so numerous, whether weak or strong, they would have an advantage of numbers over the Egyptians. Even with weapons, a limited number of Egyptians would be no match for an angry slave mob.

    We have no reason to believe that the Egyptians had any knowledge of slave repression the surpasses what we know today. All in all, there is no way that Egyptian society could have been stable if it had so many slaves.

  • Of course, you're assuming the egyptology argument in stating that the Pharoahs built the pyramids.

    Ignoring the precession argument (which is interesting but hardly scientific proof) there is a wealth of geological evidence that the pyramids are a lot older than the Egyptian civilization. The erosion patterns on the Sphinx alone are enough to rebut most "accepted" theories about ancient Egypt.

    The hieroglyphics found so far do not contain a wealth of information on the building of the pyramids. They strongly imply the presence of slave labour and the use of slaves in matters regarding the pyramids, but this could indicate maintenance or conversion into a tomb, rather than building (from scratch).

    Of course, if the pyramids do predate Egyptian civilization, there will be no record of ramps or kites or another other building method to explain them, in hieroglyphics ...

  • Stonehenge is a rather different problem to the pyramids.

    For a start, the source of the stones used in Stonehenge is known, and it is from several hundred miles away (Southern Wales IIRC). This means that the biggest "wow" in the building of Stonehenge was the transport of the stones, and not erecting them.

    Stonehenge is a group of discrete, freestanding stones, with the exception of the cross-pieces. Moving a stone into an upright position is a relatively simple exercise, even if it involves lots of gym. Upright timbers and ropes would have been more than sufficient, when combined with manpower, to lift the stones.

    Placing the crosspieces, too, is more simple than the problems faced by the pyramids. For starters you only have to elevate the stone three meters. Given the amount of timber available in Britain (as opposed to the massive amount you will find lying all over in Egypt ...), it would not be difficult to build a strong enough scaffold. The Stonehenge crosspieces are also signifcantly smaller than the blocks used to build the pyramids.

    It should be noted that Stonehenge is the largest and most well known of the ancient British monuments, but not the only one. There are several similar, but smaller, examples within a few miles of Stonehenge itself, and may others scattered around the countryside.

    The pyramids were larger (on a massive scale), the stones used were larger (in general), and the structure consisted of many more than two layers of stone. In Egypt it is assumed the ramps were made of sand and mud, rather than timber, but significant amounts of timber would still be required as uprights either for scaffolding or simply to get leverage to raise (turn over, turn upright) blocks.

  • People often wonder how the Egyptians moved things of that weight with such precision.

    Here's how.

    They had lots of expendable slaves, and huge whips :)
  • He claimed he used the same techniques used to build the pyramids,

    So you're assuming that he somehow knows how the Egyptians built the pyramids while everybody in the academic community who has researched it doesn't? I find that doubtful.
  • Yes, this was a fantastic idea. I saw the same program. Oly one problem with this: if the "spool" gets loose on the ramp...look out! :-)

    Wait a minnit...did hte Egyptians also invent the first wheel chocks?
  • There are no hierglyphs depicting kites

    To my knowledge there aren't any hieroglyphs depicting sex either, but I'm fairly certain that they used it to reproduce. Once again, absence of proof != proof of absence.
  • While you're technically correct in the modern American sense of the word "slave" (someone who is physically forced into manual labor and beaten as encouragement), keep in mind that in ancient times slavery need not have been the way that Americans exploited it.

    Slavery is basically enforced servitude. There's nothing in it that requires physical abuses. It was not uncommon at all in ancient times for the citizenry of conquered lands to become slaves to the new rulers, and Egypt did a lot of conquering. Egyptians weren't (as a society) stupid. The conquered people could be marked (branded, tatooed) as a member of a slave caste who are then bought or sold for service. If the slave caste believes that it is their lot in life to serve, then they will serve (provided that they don't have a greater impetus to revolt).

    If you believe all that biblical clap-trap about Joseph, he was sold to the Egyptians as a slave but he rose to a position of great power even though he was still a slave. Only a moron would give a leadership role to a person who they had abused (especially if they are made leader over others who you have abused).
  • I remember trying to fly cheap kites as a kid, fifteen years ago - it wasn't a very successful pastime. The ones I fly these days have hemp cored carbon fibre poles and all kinds of high tech fabrics which is what makes them so much easier to fly.

    Interesting. I recall having no problems flying traditional balsa wood and cloth kites when I was a kid 2-25 years ago. I've even built some kite-like devices of my (basically wings that generate life) from paper and wood today, though only small ones. In ancient Japan, kites were regularly built from light wood and paper. The Japanese have a very long tradition of flying kites.

    Even with the best will in the world, I'm kind of curious how the Egyptians, with their technology, could have got a kite of that size to stay together in thirty mile an hour winds, let alone fly in any controlled fashion. And then have the strength to lift a several hundred ton obelisk?

    I think that you are assuming that they used a kite in the traditional way, only they tied an obelish to it instead of holding onto the kite string to lift it up. This is not what the article proposed.

    The technique that they mentioned involved building a tower next to the obelisk and attaching the kite to the obelisk via a rope that runs through network of pulleys in the tower. Then the kite is moved to the top of the tower where it can catch the wind and it takes off. The lift of the kite pulls the rope through the pulleys, which magnify the amount of force that the kite is exerting (which minimizes the size of the kite that is needed). They don't need to control where the kite goes. It doesn't matter which direction or how far off-center the kite goes as long as it is always pulling the rope through the pulleys to lift the obelisk. The only real problem is that if the wind dies down the obelisk may drop and shatter. I imagine that a few well-placed ratchets (of the type used in primitive trebuchets and catapults) would probably be helpful here.
  • i also remember that i heard she lost all of here funding because the ultra prejudiced director of the cairo museum made it his personal mission to destroy her reputation because he believes that ramps were used and that its the only possible option... this guy is the same one who refuses to allow a robotic camera into the uncharted shaft in the great pyramid, simply because "there's nothing there", even though its hasn't been explored beyond measuring its length, which isn't even necessarily accurate.

    I distinctly recall seeing a program where a crawler with a camera attached was sent up the shaft of the great pyramid and it turned out to be a dead end. I wonder if that was very recently done? Or maybe it wasn't the great pyramid after all. But somebody did once sent a robotic crawler up the shaft of one of the larger pyramids once to see what was there. I remember watching with great anticipation.
  • actually when the pyramids line up with some of the stars in the Orion constellation (presumbably not all, I'm sure Orion wasn't one of THEIR constellations

    Getting closer. The three main pyramids at Giza line up (once you wind back the sky to the time that the pyramids were built) almost perfectly with the three main stars in "Orion's belt." This is not only in geographical alignment but also in relative size, i.e., the size of the pyramid is proportional to the relative brightness of its corresponding star.

    Then there are seveal other pyramids that were built far away from Giza that also match up to stars in the constellation of Orion. According to the Egyptologists, what we refer to as the constellation of Orion was referred to by the Egyptians as the constellation of Osiris, the Egyptian deity that governed death and rebirth. Since the pyramids were tombs and the Egyptians believed that death was a transition to another world, it only made sense that if you were to build pyramids that lined up with any stars you would choose the ones that were related to Osiris.
  • Another example of someone forgetting that if a simple explanation and a complicated explanation exist, then the simple one is almost always right. So when you have a situation where there's sand and a lot of people available, a solution that uses those elements makes more sense than kites, aliens, or cantilevered structures that take calculus to design.

    I think that's a bit of an oversimplification of Occam's Razor. But what's more important is to remember that there were definitely engineers present. That is obvious from the math involved in the ratios of the pyramids sides and their alignment, etc. There really is a lot of complicated geometry and trigonometry in there. Take a look at the so-called "bent" pyramid, and you will see the learning process that the engineer went through once he determind that his original design wasn't done properly (or perhaps he predecessor's design).

    At any rate, if engineers in ancient Egypt were anything at all like their modern brethren, then you can screw Occam's Razor. They would have done it the most efficient and clever way that they could devise, not by using the K.I.S.S. method. And then they would have bragged about it down at the pub afterwards. :-)
  • WHat did she make her kites out of? Probably, ripstop nylon or some other modern, lightweight, strong fabric. Now, if she can make her kites out of materials the ancient Egyptians had, using techniques they had, and perform the same feat, then I'll be impressed. Not before.

    This is a common post for this article. In the article (you did read the article, didn't you?) it stated that their next step was to replicate the experiment with kit made from materials that would have been available to the ancients. Just keep in mind that the Japanese have been flying kits (and some really big ones) for a couple thosand years now, so it's not as far-fetched as all that.

    I wonder if you could do the same thing with a windmill instead...
  • Lookout, the wind is dropping!

    Huh? _*SPLAT*_

    Put a simple ratchet system (ever seen a trebuchet or a catapult?) in your pulley/scaffold system and then if the wind dies the obelisk stays in its semi-erected state.
  • OK, so my specific example probably wasn't the best, but you've still done nothing to contradict the concept that I was trying to get across. Not every action in the life of Egypt was recorded in hieroglyphs or carvings. Not all of the hieroglyphs and carvings ever made have survived to the present day. Lack of a depiction in known current-day hieroglyphs or carvings does not mean that something didn't exist in ancient times.

    There are specific examples where carvings and hieroglyphs have been intentionally destroyed by the ancient Egyptions in order to obliterate any reference to a particular person or topic, so even if such carvings had existed they could easily have fallen prey to personal prejudice, weather, or numerous other destructive forces.
  • Simply put, this whole idea runs back into the same problem that lead scientists to believe that the ancient Egyptians used mud instead of wood for scaffolding- that there just wasn't enough timber available.

    I think that people overplay the lack of timber. Egypt was a large kingdom that traded with many other people in the Mediteranean. Lebanon was reknowned for their trees. Lebanon is not that far away from Egypt, especially if you wanted to ship overseas and then up the nile. For such an extravagant project, I can't imagine that they'd spare much expense. Especially if it would make things easier.
  • But with that same reasoning you can also postulate that the ancient Egyptians also crossed the Atlantic since they were capable of building large boats. They certainly had the materials, the tools and the manpower to do it. You CAN demonstrate using materials in the region and establish a proof of concept. BUT THAT DOESN'T PROVE they went to the Americas.

    You may find it interesting to note that there are some cultural similarities between ancient Egyptians and Ancient South Americans, not to mention that there is evidence of having been cocao plants, the source of choclate and cocaine, in ancient Egypt. Please note that these plants are indigenous to South America, not Africa. So there does appear to be some evidence to indicate that the Egyptians, or somebody that the Egyptians traded with, did in fact travel to and from South America.

    Lack of proof means just that. LACK OF PROOF. That's the scientific method.

    I almost agree with you, with one exception. The scientific method allows that what is currently accepted as truth or fact may in fact be incorrect. The scientific method is a method by which we can challenge accepted theory and hopefully prove new theories. It is not a method by which we can just sit back and say, "we already know everything about this topic and future postulation is therefore useless."

    You're using the proof of one concept to demonstrate proof of another. It may be possible to demonstrate the building a kite-powered lifting scaffold - and THAT may prove it was possible, but it doesn't mean the Egyptians actually did it.

    That's exactly what I've been saying. It doesn't prove that it *DID* happen, it merely proves that it was possible. Since we don't have any concrete evidence to the contrary nor do we have any concrete documentation as to how they were built, any reasonable speculation is perfectly acceptable. What I deem reasonable speculation is that which is a) proven to be technically feasible and b) that which isn't plainly proven by some sort of evidence to be untrue. The kite theory certainly fits that profile.

    The absence of proof doesn't make an idea automatically crackpot. It's the continued pushing of that idea in spite of an absence of proof that makes it crackpot.

    This is incorrect in principle and as it applies to this discussion. As it applies to this discussion, I am not "pushing" this theory. I am merely pointing out that it would be wrong to eliminate it from possibility just because it is unconventional. In principle, it's the wrong approach because it eliminates a lot of basic thinking that goes into research. When a scientist sees unexplained phenomena, he tries to make theories to explain the phenomena based on other knowledge that he has of similar situations. Then he tests his theories. If he waited until he had hard facts or evidence that explained the phenomena, there would be no such thing as theory. Theory is based on speculation, the same kind of speculation that the kite-flyers have offered here.

    Actually, Cleopatra was a 7th generation incestual descendant of Ptolomy, a general of Alexander the Great's. She (probably) wasn't related to any of the people she ruled.

    Good for her, but I think that it was obvious to anybody who read the post that I wasn't speaking in a strictly genetic since but in a cultural sense. Though she "probably" wasn't genetically Egyptian, she is considered by most to be Egyptian and for my purposes of comparing generations of Egyptians and Greeks made a good reference point. And since you're such the historian, shame on you for not knowing that the pyramid-builders were not contemporaries with Greek historians.

  • Re:Kites are NONSENSE (Score:3)

    by ocbwilg ( 259828 ) on Monday June 25, 2001 @08:57AM (#130498)
    WHY is it so hard to believe that ancient Egyptians used their brains and muscle to build these things.

    It's not. But why is it so hard to believe that they used their brains more than they used their muscles?

    Beyond that, you make the same mistake as about 99% of the Slashdot posters here. You ASSume that they tied a rock to a kite, flew the kite, then skillfully positioned the kite to drop the rock where they wanted it. That's not what the article described. It only touched on the concept, but they built a tower where they wanted the obelisk. They ran a rope through the tower (via a network of pulleys) down to the obelisk. The kite was at the top of the tower (where there was more wind) and was presumably launched from there. With the kite tethered in this manner, you don't need to control where the kite goes so long as it keeps going up or in a direction away from the tower. This will pull the ropes, thus lifting the stone (or the obelisk). Stacking stones in this case is even simpler because the tower will allow the stones to be lifted to nearly the exact same location on the horizontal plane.

    Why is it that nobody ever reads the articles anymore before shooting off their mouth? It plainly talks about pulleys and scaffolds.

  • Re:It's STILL nonsense (Score:3)

    by ocbwilg ( 259828 ) on Monday June 25, 2001 @11:58AM (#130499)
    The advantage of using any tool lies in the ability of it to project a controlled amount of force along a certain direction. The wind is unstable at best; you can't control it and you can't predict it. That means it's force waxes and wanes. It also changes direction. This scafford not only holds the rock, it also holds the kite. The kite places a certain amount of force in a certain place on the scaffold as it lifts the rock. If that force changes, you stand a chance of demolishing your scaffold. All of this uncertainty makes it unworkable.

    It certainly doesn't appear to be all that unworkable, especially seeing as someone has already done it. If you'll recall, that was the point of the article.

    Besides, just WHERE is it in the culture? If they actually used kites, where is the literature describing them? To the ancients, it would have seemed like the power of the gods (the wind) was helping them to raise their buildings. This theme would have been repeated in their literature and described by foreigners (ie Greek historians). There would have been wind and kite festivals (like in China). Little children of today would still be flying kites, like their ancestors. But none of this exists. There is NO ancient cultural tradition of kite flying in egypt - at least that I'm aware of. Show me EVIDENCE of such a tradition and I might believe it.

    I'm not saying that the Egyptians built it this way. I merely pointing out that it is certainly quite feasible. You see an absence of concrete proof and automatically write it off as some crackpot idea that is impossible. I see a proof-of-concept experiment that demoinstrates the feasibility of an idea and think, "Hey, it's possible."

    Just because there is no evidence that Egyptians flew kites 6000 years ago doesn't mean that they didn't fly kites. There are very large portions of the historical record that did not survive until the present day intact. If we did have all of the historical records, we would know for a fact how it was done. Remember that when we speak of the pyramid builders we aren't talking about a people who were contemporaries with Greek historians (or any other historians from whom we have writings). We are talking about a civilization that predates the Greeks by several thousand years. These are not the Egyptians of Cleopatra. They are the ancient ancestors of Cleopatra.
  • Korg, 70,000 years ago, could have created the microprocessor. I mean, he had the atoms at his disposal. All he had to do was stack the boxes, get the bananas, and induct from there.

    --Blair
  • "The kite project seems like a lot of fun, but it doesn't prove the pyramids were built that way," said Willeke Wendrich

    I completely agree with ( him ? her ? What's a Willeke ? .) Both in the "lot of fun" and in the "proves nothing" part of it.

    That said, I consider this kind of research as very thought-provoking (it has provoked at least two thoughts in myself, close to a record), and worthwhile in itself. Well done!

    --

  • Of course they don't have written records of what happened. That's why there is so much conjecture about how the damn things were built in the first place.

    They don't have written records of how the pyramids were constructed. It makes more sense that they would have more personal records on the fact that they were enslaved. Most of the written records would have been created after they left and would have focused more on their experience rather than the technology of pyramid making.

    GreyPoopon
    --

  • Ok so it wasn't funny. Anyways there was a recent (semi recent about 4 months ago) documentary on PBS depicting how this may have worked which knocked off many theories and made sense. According to the doc., slaves were not used and this was judged based on evidence from an excavation, that showed what were supposedly slaves, were treated like royalty. (Judging from the medical care they received)

    This is an interesting view, but I think there's a bunch of people living in Israel (not to mention other parts of the world) that would strongly disagree. I'm pretty sure they have the written records to adequately describe their slavery at the time. Perhaps some of these pyramids and other items were erected after their departure from Egypt, but it's safe to say that slaves were used at some point during pyramid construction.

    GreyPoopon
    --

  • Consider the materials necessary for flight alone.

    For a kite that size to sustain it's structural integrity under even light-moderate winds requires very strong materials in the wing itself (like nylon) and the assembly that shapes the kite (more than likely tubing from an aluminium alloy). The moments produced around assembled components would be surprisingly high, especially near the center if the wing.

    Although the Egyptians were known for managing huge loads, it seems to me they wouldn't have anything strong or light enough to support these kinds of forces. (My point being, if they did construct a wing, the freakin' Kite would most likely weigh several hundred pounds itself)
  • ...what were supposedly slaves, were treated like royalty. (Judging from the medical care they received)

    Isn't it possible that because this was such an important task, the authorities of the day deemed it best to keep the slaves in good health? If the ancients were smart enough to build the pyramids, they might have had the brains to decide that a healthier and happier group of slaves was simply more efficient.
    Not that I have any authority here, these are just my thoughts.
  • And have you ever heard about hieroglyphs displaying ramps?

Slashdot Top Deals

Any program which runs right is obsolete.

Close