|
Telsa Cola posted:Please tell me you aren't a classical arch. Historian actually, but I worked on a couple of field excavations as an undergrad.
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Dumb question but: why was monolith building so much earlier and so much BIGGER in Egypt than anywhere else in history? Ancient Egypt was the perfect environment for megastructure construction. Huge agricultural surplus thanks to the Nile which also flooded annually leaving farmers with nothing to do. The Egyptian heartland along the Nile was generally free from foreign invasions in all but the worst times and unified early on, and developed from previous local cultures which put lots of emphasis on burial ceremony. So you have a rich, sizeable population with the central government, easy access to quality stone, and plenty of spare time. Pretty easy to see how some clever Egyptian decided to see how high he could stack the rocks and eventually even the Pharaoh wanted in on the whole monumental architecture passtime.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2024 23:34
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Dumb question but: why was monolith building so much earlier and so much BIGGER in Egypt than anywhere else in history? It's hard to give a definitive answer to this since there is a great deal we don't know, but there are a few factors that may have been relevant. For one, Egypt was unified under a centralized state earlier than nearly anywhere else in the world. The conventional dating for the beginning of the Old Kingdom is 2686 BCE, but the precision of this date (which is based on the beginning of Third Dynasty), hides the fact that Egypt had been increasingly centralizing for centuries before this. Because Egyptian populations are so densely packed around the Nile, and the Nile is also the main means of travel through Egypt, the geography of Egypt makes it easier for a state to centralize power than it is elsewhere. (This isn't inevitable, and there are plenty of times when Egypt is not centralized, but the geography does make it a lot easier for a king to move armies around or to collect taxes.) So by the time monumental architecture construction really takes off in Egypt in the 2500s BCE, Egypt already had centuries of state development behind it. This is in sharp contrast to most other parts of the world in the 2500s BCE. A second factor is the unusual degree of focus on royal tombs in the Old Kingdom, particularly in the 4th dynasty. Temples dedicated to deities were generally very small in the Old Kingdom. There are not a lot of excavated examples of Old Kingdom divine temples, but the temple of Satet at Elephantine is a case where the development of the temple over time can be traced archaeologically. In the Old Kingdom, the temple at Satet is only a few rooms. During the Middle and New Kingdoms, it expanded into a sprawling temple complex under royal patronage. But in the Old Kingdom, the temple received little, if any, royal resources. So resources that later on in Egyptian history were used for temples were used for royal tombs in the Old Kingdom. There is an ideological impetus that goes along with this. The religious and ideological ideas that were dominant at the royal court of the 4th dynasty were clearly exceptionally focused on the funerary cult of the king. Why this is the case is hard to say. We lack any literature from the 4th dynasty that might shed more light on these ideas. In fact, there may not have been any written literature in the era of the 4th dynasty. The Egyptian writing system was not very sophisticated in the 4th dynasty, in fact the earliest known conjugated verb in an Egyptian text dates to papyri recording the transport of stones for the Great Pyramid of Khufu. It is possible that written literature in Egypt post-dates the construction of the Great Pyramids of Giza. Third, the earliest pyramids in Egypt did not contain that much else other than the pyramid. The Great pyramid of Khufu does have subsidiary burials that go along with it, where family members and courtiers were buried, as well as two funerary temples where offerings to the deceased king would be made, but the rest of the pyramid complex was not really the focus. By contrast, the kings of the 5th and 6th dynasties put a greater share of resources into the funerary temples in the pyramid complex, and their funerary temples were larger and more architecturally complex than those of the 4th dynasty. 5th dynasty kings also built large sun temples to Ra in their necropolis at Abusir (where they were buried), which would have also reduced resources for pyramid size. For the kings of the 4th dynasty, who built the Great Pyramid, raw size was the most important part of their tomb. However, later kings spread their resources around more, and prioritized making a more varied necropolis complex. The Great Pyramids at Giza aren't super complex structures. A solid pyramid is a really basic idea (which is why there are hundreds of examples of this type of structure from all over the world). The internal chambers certainly required some sophisticated engineering to build, but for the most part, the biggest challenge a king would face in building one of the Great Pyramids of Giza was mobilizing labor, and that was something that the Egyptian state figured out how to do at a mass scale sooner than anyone else did. CrypticFox fucked around with this message at 00:27 on Feb 24, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 00:03
|
|
|
I think the Egyptians wanted to be able to pick which government they had before they developed the proper tech so they rushed the pyramids.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 00:23
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Dumb question but: why was monolith building so much earlier and so much BIGGER in Egypt than anywhere else in history? Not much else to do before television.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 00:28
|
|
|
They asked about monoliths which the pyramids are not an example of. Unless we are taking a broad definition of monolith The Egyptians had huge obelisks I would guess Becuase of the quality of their masons and quarries. But lots of cultures produced huge rocks euphronius fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Feb 24, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 00:32
|
|
|
euphronius posted:They asked about monoliths which the pyramid is not an example of. Unless we are taking a broad definition of monolith It's a bunch of monoliths piled together.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 00:33
|
|
|
Obelisks often have a small pyramid on top of them. Has anyone checked under the great pyramids?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 00:37
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:It's a bunch of monoliths piled together. That'd be a polylith.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 00:37
|
|
|
euphronius posted:They asked about monoliths which the pyramids are not an example of. Unless we are taking a broad definition of monolith I had assumed the question was referring to pyramids, but it its specifically about obelisks then I'm not really sure, I guess they liked the shape? Not really sure on that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 00:44
|
|
|
There was also likely survivorship bias, since I think Egypt's proximity to good stone both made it easier to build the things and meant that they were less likely to get torn apart by later generations of inhabitants. Wasn't this the fate of many of the original Seven Wonders -- scavenged by the local residents? As for the shape, obviously they learned it from the aliens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 00:49
|
|
|
Myrialith? I love how Stargate made the pyramids a landing pad for an alien spaceship because it sounds cool and then when you think about it for two seconds you realize how insane that is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 01:10
|
|
|
Pyramid is a featherless biped
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 01:15
|
|
|
Just land on the bottom of the pyramid duh
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 01:16
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I love how Stargate made the pyramids a landing pad for an alien spaceship because it sounds cool and then when you think about it for two seconds you realize how insane that is. And yet who turned out to be right? Checkmate, Apophis. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 01:16
|
|
|
Follow up question- why didn’t Egypt just conquer….everyone? You had later empires much larger in size but no one else is around at the start.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 01:38
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Follow up question- why didn’t Egypt just conquer….everyone? You had later empires much larger in size but no one else is around at the start. Not really much point. Conquering is what you do when you need something to do. They had all the food and thus were pretty well set in the ancient world. They kept their people busy building poo poo when not farming. When you don't need taxes to support you and you're at maximum employment, you have little incentive to invade elsewhere to take their poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 01:41
|
|
|
15th century Egypt expanded pretty far. The Hittites were able to stop them going into Asia Minor. I don’t know why they didn’t go into Iraq. Where else was there ? Greece and rome weren’t much then
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 01:44
|
|
|
euphronius posted:15th century Egypt expanded pretty far. The Hittites were able to stop them going into Asia Minor. I don’t know why they didn’t go into Iraq. Where else was there ? Greece and rome weren’t much then
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 01:45
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Follow up question- why didn’t Egypt just conquer….everyone? You had later empires much larger in size but no one else is around at the start. I mean they sorta did in the New Kingdom Period. At least conquered most of the Levant. Which from their perspective was most of the world (or the parts of it worth paying attention to anyway).
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 01:53
|
|
|
And Nubia
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 02:03
|
|
|
Nessus posted:There was also likely survivorship bias, since I think Egypt's proximity to good stone both made it easier to build the things and meant that they were less likely to get torn apart by later generations of inhabitants. Wasn't this the fate of many of the original Seven Wonders -- scavenged by the local residents? Hanging gardens: burned down for immortality Great lighthouse: fell over after earthquake Colossus: fell over after earthquake Mausoleum of Halicarnassus: fell over after earthquake Temple of Artemis: destroyed by Christians Statue of Zeus: destroyed by Christians Pyramids: still ticking
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 02:20
|
|
|
Egypt was going for a cultural victory not domination.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 02:25
|
|
|
So what I'm gearing is that Christians are two thirds as destructive as earthquakes but twice as destructive as fire
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 02:26
|
|
|
Although initially at odds, the Christian-fire alliance accomplished many of their shared goals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 02:37
|
|
|
Well during the heyday of the Assyrians and Sumerians and Babylonians, Egypt was often mentioned in the same breath as yet another of the great regional powers of that era. Egypt could project power, but it could also be conquered by other powers and have its vast productive capacity be siphoned out in the form of tribute. A more interesting question to me is, why was Egypt so rarely capable of self rule from an Egyptian metropole, especially after the Ptolemies? Was it a case of Egypt no longer having any kind of military competitive advantage, and surrounded by stronger imperial powers who treated Egypt more as a province from which wealth could be extracted?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 03:14
|
|
|
Also keep in mind that with ancient technology and infrastructure, there's probably a hard limit to how much you can meaningfully conquer and actually administrate. Even Egypt ended up dividing the kingdom at one point.Elden Lord Godfrey posted:Well during the heyday of the Assyrians and Sumerians and Babylonians, Egypt was often mentioned in the same breath as yet another of the great regional powers of that era. Egypt could project power, but it could also be conquered by other powers and have its vast productive capacity be siphoned out in the form of tribute. Probably, yeah. I wonder if it wasn't helped by the Ptolemies spending more time making sure their subjects didn't rebel against rulers still considering themselves foreign conquerors, but at that point Egypt might have what we call the 'resource curse' with having incredible agricultural capacity that every major empire around would want, especially Rome with its huge urban population that needs feeding. They weren't ever again given the breathing room to organise themselves as an independent power, as technology and infrastructure developed that let other empires develop, all of which see Egypt as a great prize.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 03:30
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Myrialith? yeah it's crazy because their spaceships have three sides on the bottom and our pyramids have four
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 03:31
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:yeah it's crazy because their spaceships have three sides on the bottom and our pyramids have four Those are Ha'taks. The Cheops class has four sides and lands on pyramids. Read a history book, christ. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 03:35
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Also keep in mind that with ancient technology and infrastructure, there's probably a hard limit to how much you can meaningfully conquer and actually administrate. Even Egypt ended up dividing the kingdom at one point. Well, Egypt was always fairly insular. They were Egyptians, and thus superior to everyone else. They didn't really want to associate much with the lesser beings in other civilizations. They never developed a particularly strong military, nor did they pursue much naval power. They did a bit of exploration, but mostly weren't interested in the non-Egyptian parts of the world. Their relative isolation in the desert was their main defense. That eventually caught up with them as other civilizations were interested in strong armies and conquest. Egypt was a rich treasure-trove very much worth conquering.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 03:39
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Those are Ha'taks. The Cheops class has four sides and lands on pyramids. Read a history book, christ. they land a hatak on a four sided pyramid in Double Jeopardy, presumably there was a lot of scraping
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 03:42
|
|
|
I haven't watched stargate but I hope the tetrahedron aliens won. Tetrahedrons are far superior to square pyramids
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 03:45
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:I haven't watched stargate but I hope the tetrahedron aliens won. Tetrahedrons are far superior to square pyramids not for the Egyptian end user
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 03:55
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:they land a hatak on a four sided pyramid in Double Jeopardy, presumably there was a lot of scraping motherfucker cheetah7071 posted:I haven't watched stargate but I hope the tetrahedron aliens won. Tetrahedrons are far superior to square pyramids You should, it's a good show. The first season or two has a lot of fun archaeology stuff that unfortunately disappears, but it's still good after that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 04:02
|
|
|
sullat posted:Hanging gardens: burned down for immortality The Temple of Artemis was burned down for immortality (which worked). Not sure what happened to the Hanging Gardens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 04:24
|
|
|
Comstar posted:Follow up question- why didn’t Egypt just conquer….everyone? You had later empires much larger in size but no one else is around at the start. so, i really dont want you to think im making fun of you or belittling you for this, but this is fundamentally a video game mentality. like map painting in a garbage paradox game or something from the perspective of a 20th century BCE leader who could levy significant troops in ancient Egypt, what on earth would the point be? what would you gain from moving into the arid wasteland of the Sinai? There were fringe areas in the west that could be valuable, but mostly it was arid wasteland on the way there, too. What was your goal? Eventually, the Egyptians would come into contact with peoples from the Levant and Anatolia, and Greece, and yes Carthage and Rome, and then these calculations may be different or not. But spending a ton of money, lives, food, risking your position, for.. nothing? literally nothing? not even glory? What's the point
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 05:05
|
|
|
In addition to what Radia just said, Egypt is also bigger than you are probably imagining. This is modern day Egypt imposed over Europe. Now, this isn't perfect because it's modern day Egypt rather than what the Egyptian kingdoms ruled, and it doesn't include areas like parts of the Levant that the ancient Egyptians exerted control over, but you can see that today it's roughly equivalent to most of central Europe. This is a big state, which is a lot to govern in a pre-modern society. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 05:24
|
|
|
it's not a square state. most of that land is worthless desert, the actual valuable bits are the nile and the banks only. riverine transport is 2-5x cheaper than land transport and has been for millennia
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 05:25
|
|
|
bob dobbs is dead posted:it's not a square state. most of that land is worthless desert, the actual valuable bits are the nile and the banks only. riverine transport is 2-5x cheaper than land transport and has been for millennia Yea for sure, it's most definitely not a perfect 1:1 example, but if you look at a map of the ancient Egyptian kingdom, it's maybe around 1/2 of what modern Egypt is, plus much of modern day Israel, Syria, etc. It's a lot of land to rule. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 05:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:53 |
|
|
Elden Lord Godfrey posted:
"Self-rule" has to be defined here, the Fatimid and Mamluk Caliphate were both ruled from Cairo, by people who lived in Cairo, and who often had deep roots in Egypt. As Egypt became more and more Arab over time, one has to ask when the Arab rulers who had their capital in Cairo stopped being foreign rulers and started being Egyptians, especially if their ancestors had lived in Egypt for centuries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2024 05:31
|
|