There are problems obviously with both timeframes:
If we look to original constrution in the 4th dynasty, many of the elements of the current explanation are exceedingly improabable....the economic dynamics do not feel right at all for a project of the scope of the giza pyramids....also the rationale that it was only a burial chamber...from an economic standpoint defies reason....why would such a large portion of their economic capacity be committed in such a manner????
The alternate...that original construction predates the dynastic period has its own (significant) problems.....If we use this approach to get out from under the economic problems presented by a 4th dynasty construction....it requires us to presume a very large...likely global society....with highly advanced technologies....what I cannot get comfortable with is that there is no real archealogiocal support for this approach (atleast that I am aware of)....if there was such a culture they most certainly would have left behind evidence of their technologies in stratum aged say 6,000 to tens of thousands of years in age....borrowing from the catastrophe mythology....perhaps an asteroid impact could have vaporized these remnants and that is why nothing has been found...but surely something survived.....The best that I have right now is that one of these two alternates is correct...the problems with the 4th dynasty construction seem to cause it to be the less likely answer....
Responses To This Message
© Charles N. Pope, US Library of Congress. All rights reserved.