Pacific Pyramids

All points south!

Moderators: Minimalist, MichelleH

Re: Pacific Pyramids

Postby Minimalist » Sat Aug 21, 2010 9:25 am

As I understand it these pyramids had a temple or altar of some sort on the summit.



And yet, the Egyptians and Sudanese ( at least ) did not. It's hard to generalize about these things. Too many different cultures built them.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin
Minimalist
 
Posts: 15395
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Pacific Pyramids

Postby Rokcet Scientist » Sun Aug 22, 2010 11:54 am

Minimalist wrote:
As I understand it these pyramids had a temple or altar of some sort on the summit.


And yet, the Egyptians and Sudanese ( at least ) did not. It's hard to generalize about these things. Too many different cultures built them.


Afaic the ancient Egyptians, Nubians, and pre-Columbian meso-Americans built pyramids: with a (more or less) pointy tip. The others didn't. They built structures – neatly squared mounds – with a considerable flat top, for specific purposes, that decidedly lack what makes a pyramid a pyramid: a pointy tip. So to me they're not 'pyramids'.
Rokcet Scientist
 

Re: Pacific Pyramids

Postby Cognito » Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:34 am

Afaic the ancient Egyptians ... built pyramids: with a (more or less) pointy tip. The others didn't. They built structures – neatly squared mounds – with a considerable flat top, for specific purposes, that decidedly lack what makes a pyramid a pyramid: a pointy tip. So to me they're not 'pyramids'.


Image

Is the Djoser Step Pyramid, constructed by Imhotep, in the (more or less) category? I don't see a pointy tip.
Natural selection favors the paranoid
User avatar
Cognito
 
Posts: 1562
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:37 am
Location: Southern California

Re: Pacific Pyramids

Postby Rokcet Scientist » Tue Aug 24, 2010 7:08 am

Cognito wrote:
Afaic the ancient Egyptians ... built pyramids: with a (more or less) pointy tip. The others didn't. They built structures – neatly squared mounds – with a considerable flat top, for specific purposes, that decidedly lack what makes a pyramid a pyramid: a pointy tip. So to me they're not 'pyramids'.


Image

Is the Djoser Step Pyramid, constructed by Imhotep, in the (more or less) category? I don't see a pointy tip.


Flat-topped mounds were built flat for a purpose. Usually as a place of worship, sacrifice, or astronomical observation, but also for the king (and his cronies) to live on (literally as "the king of the hill"). But in any case they were built flat for regular human activity.

The Djoser step pyramid obviously isn't/wasn't suitable for 'regular human activity' on its top. So it's a pyramid.
Rokcet Scientist
 

Re: Pacific Pyramids

Postby Minimalist » Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:33 am

The correct conclusion but I suspect that Cogs' 'point' was that it does not have a "point." You need to refine your definition.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin
Minimalist
 
Posts: 15395
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Pacific Pyramids

Postby Rokcet Scientist » Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:52 am

Minimalist wrote:The correct conclusion but I suspect that Cogs' 'point' was that it does not have a "point." You need to refine your definition.


No, I don't: squinting through your eyelashes is enough to make a point... :lol:

(Imhotep's eyesight apparently wasn't 20/20 :lol: )
Rokcet Scientist
 

Re: Pacific Pyramids

Postby Digit » Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:09 am

The debate is easily resolved, A Pyramid is a known geometric solid, if it has no point it is defined as 'truncated!'

Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
User avatar
Digit
 
Posts: 6618
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Wales, UK

Re: Pacific Pyramids

Postby Rokcet Scientist » Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:31 am

Digit wrote:The debate is easily resolved, A Pyramid is a known geometric solid, if it has no point it is defined as 'truncated!'


A "truncated pyramid" implies that the initial building plan called for a pointy tip but was adapted later (during the building process? Or even after?).
The flat-topped mounds in Sumer and Peru seem to never have been intended to be built up to a pointy tip. So they were never even intended as pyramids (with a pointy tip). They were built to create a 'higher plane' for specific functions/activities. Literally.
Last edited by Rokcet Scientist on Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Rokcet Scientist
 

Re: Pacific Pyramids

Postby Digit » Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:33 am

No it doesn't. It's a technical definition that may not apply to any construction at all, just a drawing.

Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
User avatar
Digit
 
Posts: 6618
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Wales, UK

Re: Pacific Pyramids

Postby Rokcet Scientist » Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:40 am

Digit wrote:No it doesn't. It's a technical definition that may not apply to any construction at all, just a drawing.


FYI: here on http://archaeologica.org/, in this thread, the subject is pyramids as in constructions. Not geometry. Or art. Or philosophy. Or religion. We're talking about physical, man-made, stylized heaps of material of ancient and pre-history.
Rokcet Scientist
 

Re: Pacific Pyramids

Postby Digit » Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:47 am

Really! So the definition changes when it suits you?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/truncated+pyramid

It's a truncated pyramid what ever you want to use it for. I suppose you could write a treatise on south American pyramids as 'Pyramids with the pointy bit missing!' if you wanted to of course.

Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
User avatar
Digit
 
Posts: 6618
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Wales, UK

Re: Pacific Pyramids

Postby Rokcet Scientist » Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:02 am

That's an itchy bug you've got up your arse, Roy!

:lol:
Rokcet Scientist
 

Re: Pacific Pyramids

Postby Digit » Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:07 am

Not at all. I expect people who claim to know what they are talking about to use the understood terminology. That way others know that they are all talking about the same thing. All trades, professions, technologies have an agreed language that means they don't necessarily have to spell everything out in words of one syallable, helps prevent mis-understandings.

Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
User avatar
Digit
 
Posts: 6618
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Wales, UK

Re: Pacific Pyramids

Postby Rokcet Scientist » Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:14 am

Correct: that, flavoured with a mind altering dose of blind contrariness, yep.

A.k.a. troll.
Rokcet Scientist
 

Re: Pacific Pyramids

Postby Digit » Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:35 am

Or someone dedicated to improving your knowledge of the English language, at least you won't now make the same error again. Your thanks taken for granted.

Roy.
First people deny a thing, then they belittle it, then they say it was known all along! Von Humboldt
User avatar
Digit
 
Posts: 6618
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Wales, UK

PreviousNext

Return to Australia & Oceania, Antarctica

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest