| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Ancient Architecture
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Ancient Architecture

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Ancient Architecture
    Posted: 20 Apr 2014 at 08:06
The Ancient Pyramids of Egypt are based on a square, with steps on all sides leading to the peak.
 

 
Ziggurats were massive structures built in the ancient Mesopotamian valley and western Iranian plateau, having the form of a terraced step pyramid of successively receding stories or levels.Wikipedia
 
They differ in the fact that ziggurats don't rise to a single peak, but are usually flattened. 
 

 
But, as explained by Wiki, ziggurats were built in the Mesopotamian Valley etc.
 
But not all of them were.
 

The photo immediately above is the Pyramid of Kukulkan, a temple built to honour the feathered serpent god, still stands in Chichen Itza.
 
Note the similarity in the style of it's exterior, compared to the one above it which is Iranian.
 
The similarity of construction in all three is remarkably similar. It's feasible that the Iranian ziggurat was designed on the basis of the pyramid, but how is it explained that a civilisation (not simply a culture) thousands of miles away has buildings identical to those in Iran?
 
Isn't this too much of a coincidence?
 
The Mayan cities also had houses, roads and aqueducts similar to those in Northern Africa and Europe. How can this be, when other indigenous South Americans lived in rudimentary huts?
 
Is there evidence of ancient travel between, for example, Iran and South America?
 
How else can this be explained?
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Apr 2014 at 08:50
No. There is no evidence of contact between Egypt, Mesopotamia and Mesoamerica. Not at all.
How to explain trivial similarities? Quite simple, all these people belong to the same species. And also, it is quite clear than when human populations surpass the tribe level of a few hundreds and they develop agriculture and permanent buildings, they follow similar paths to create complex societies.
By the way, above you don't have a picture of a ziggurat but two pictures of mayan pyramids. A zigurat looks like this.


Here, another picture of the remain of a Ziggurat... With some "tourists" on it.






Edited by pinguin - 20 Apr 2014 at 08:58
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Apr 2014 at 11:58
I failed to get my own comment on the post, so here is an edited version:
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

The Ancient Pyramids of Egypt are based on a square, with steps on all sides leading to the peak.
 

 
Ziggurats were massive structures built in the ancient Mesopotamian valley and western Iranian plateau, having the form of a terraced step pyramid of successively receding stories or levels.Wikipedia
 
They differ in the fact that ziggurats don't rise to a single peak, but are usually flattened. 
 

 
But, as explained by Wiki, ziggurats were built in the Mesopotamian Valley etc.
 
But not all of them were.
 

The photo immediately above is the Pyramid of Kukulkan, a temple built to honour the feathered serpent god, still stands in Chichen Itza.
 
Note the similarity in the style of it's exterior, compared to the one above it which is Iranian.
 
The similarity of construction in all three is remarkably similar. It's feasible that the Iranian ziggurat was designed on the basis of the pyramid, but how is it explained that a civilisation (not simply a culture) thousands of miles away has buildings identical to those in Iran?
 
Isn't this too much of a coincidence?
 
The Mayan cities also had houses, roads and aqueducts similar to those in Northern Africa and Europe. How can this be, when other indigenous South Americans lived in rudimentary huts?
 
Is there evidence of ancient travel between, for example, Iran and South America?
I am not so convinced of the similarities if we go into details. "Pyramids" are in principle very simple forms (though cirkular or rectangular are even simpler), so with variations it is perhaps a part of the explanation.
 
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

How else can this be explained?
 
 
If we look upon it from a purely hypothetical point of view and ask for any possible explanation we can ask if there could be something more to the  "human mind" than we know of or usually think about. Some structural similarities, that may tend to lead to some similar patterns of thought and behavior. But that is purely hypothetical - as is the idea of any direct contact as long as we have no convincing evidence of the later, even if people like Thor Heyerdahl long ago tried to show there is. But frankly: how can travels made in the 20.th century over the Atlantic in Papyrus boats or over the Pacific in Balsa rafts in any way "prove" such voyages was made millenia ago?
some time ago I watched a TV-program about peruvian "pyramids" on the dessert coast, that were vastly different from any other known pyramids, both in form and function.


Edited by fantasus - 20 Apr 2014 at 16:42
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Apr 2014 at 12:06
Pinguin wrote:"No. There is no evidence of contact between Egypt, Mesopotamia and Mesoamerica. Not at all.
How to explain trivial similarities?
 Well, the similarities aren't trivial imo. The ziggurat from Mesopotamia is, from the pictures available, identical to the South American Temple.
 
Quite simple, all these people belong to the same species.
 
Yes, they're human being, that's where it finishes. How in the bloody hell can you say that Iranians and Indigenous South Americans are the same people?
 
And also, it is quite clear than when human populations surpass the tribe level of a few hundreds and they develop agriculture and permanent buildings, they follow similar paths to create complex societies.
 
Are you off your head pinguin? It's within the bounds of human intelligence to find many different solutions to similar problems. The climate and, terrain and vegetation in Iran, for example, is vastly different to that of South America. Using your irrational thought patterns, why aren't there thousands of ziggurat design buildings all over the world, Papua New Guinea for example?
 
By the way, above you don't have a picture of a ziggurat but two pictures of mayan pyramids.
 
No I don't. The second pic is of a Mesopotamian Ziggurat, the third is of a South American Temple.
 
You've lost the plot AGAIN!!! 
 
 


Edited by toyomotor - 20 Apr 2014 at 12:07
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Apr 2014 at 16:32
Your second and third pictures despict the same Mayan temple, of Chichen-Itza, if I am not wrong. Your mistake is like confusing the Sistine Chapel with the Kremlin´s churches LOL. Even more, a Ziggurat is made of bricks, mud bricks actually, and a Maya Pyramid is made of stone.

By the way, unlike Australia, South America and the Americas in general have not a single climate but all the climates you find everywhere else on Earth. In here you find from freezing climates in the upper Andes and Patagonia to tropical weather, and from the driest desert on Earth to the Mediterranean superb weather that  today produce wines, fruits and vegetables in global scale.

Now, instead of finding similarities between ziggurats and maya pyramids, you should better compare those middle east buildings with Moche pyramids, which are closest in materials.

But, no way! Amerindians weren't influenced by Sumerians or other Middle Easterners. Our ancestors were smart enough to invent everything they had by themselves, without external influences.




Edited by pinguin - 20 Apr 2014 at 16:39
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Apr 2014 at 03:53
Pinguin wrote:
Your second and third pictures depict the same Mayan temple, of Chichen-Itza, if I am not wrong.
 
But you are wrong, I sourced the photographs from entirely different places.
 
Even more, a Ziggurat is made of bricks, mud bricks actually, and a Maya Pyramid is made of stone.
 
OK, but people use what is available to them. What is important, imo, is the remarkable similarity between the two constructions design, thousands of miles apart.
 
By the way, unlike Australia, South America and the Americas in general have not a single climate but all the climates you find everywhere else on Earth. In here you find from freezing climates in the upper Andes and Patagonia to tropical weather, and from the driest desert on Earth to the Mediterranean superb weather that  today produce wines, fruits and vegetables in global scale.
 
Mate, you're displaying your ignorance AGAIN. Australia has exactly that same range of climates. Please do some research before posting garbage like this.
 
Now, instead of finding similarities between ziggurats and maya pyramids, you should better compare those middle east buildings with Moche pyramids, which are closest in materials.
 
So, you're saying that similar buildings can't be built of different materials? Are you serious?
 
But, no way! Amerindians weren't influenced by Sumerians or other Middle Easterners. Our ancestors were smart enough to invent everything they had by themselves, without external influences.
 
I've never said anything to the contrary, but I have remarked on the close similarity of the two constructions. And when it comes down to it, why were the South American buildings designed on the square base, the same as the pyramids? Why not on a rectangle, or a triangle?
 
I don't accept that two civilisations, separated by distance and time could come up with exactly the same design of building, without some external influence. Or at least I'd need better arguments than you've put forward.
 
Headline News:
 
South America was not, is not, and never will be the centre of the world and all of it's achievements.
And to quote a man called Ripley BELIEVE IT OR NOT!
 


Edited by toyomotor - 21 Apr 2014 at 03:55
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Apr 2014 at 02:15
Well, you better accept that two different civilizations could came to the same results. It is called parallel invention, and it is something very well known to exist, in the past and in present cultures. Otherwise, wouldn't make sense to patent ideas.

And with respect to South American achievements, the point is not to be the center of the universe (for that exist the english-speaking people; for now at least). To be the focus of the world is something we don't care, and we don't want. At least, for me, the single important thing is that outsiders don't rob us the heritage of our ancestors with wild ideas that don't have any ground. Got it?

What's next? Comparing maya script to chinese characters? Or comparing patolli to backgammon? Or claiming that Peruvian hydraulic toys were invented by Hero of Alexandria? Or that Chinese brought paper to the Americas? Or that Indians (from India) thought the zero to mayans? Confused Just baloney!

 







Edited by pinguin - 22 Apr 2014 at 02:19
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Apr 2014 at 03:42
[QUOTE=pinguin] Well, you better accept that two different civilizations could came to the same results. It is called parallel invention, and it is something very well known to exist, in the past and in present cultures. Otherwise, wouldn't make sense to patent ideas.
 
Oh, I do. But you must agree that the similarity in design is striking.

And with respect to South American achievements, the point is not to be the center of the universe (for that exist the english-speaking people; for now at least). To be the focus of the world is something we don't care, and we don't want. At least, for me, the single important thing is that outsiders don't rob us the heritage of our ancestors with wild ideas that don't have any ground.
 
I wasn't making disparaging remarks about the South Americans, but commenting on your Amerocentric refusal to see other options.
 
Got it?
 
You probably don't realise it, but your frequent use of the words "got it?" come across as aggressive, and tend to provoke rude or aggressive responses.

What's next? Comparing maya script to chinese characters? Or comparing patolli to backgammon? Or claiming that Peruvian hydraulic toys were invented by Hero of Alexandria? Or that Chinese brought paper to the Americas? Or that Indians (from India) thought the zero to mayans? Confused
 
Now you're being deliberately silly.
 
Just baloney!

 
I've never tried Baloney, is it like Salami?



 


Edited by toyomotor - 22 Apr 2014 at 03:46
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Apr 2014 at 05:35
Pyramid forms must be some of the most simple to use to make "high structures". That could be one reason they were made many places on the planet in times were there is no good evidence for direct contact. And i think it is easy to overlook differences, especially if we judge only from a few photographs.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Apr 2014 at 07:00
fantasus
 
Pyramid forms must be some of the most simple to use to make "high structures".
 
Yes, that's true, but the buildings we're talking about could have just as easily been rectangular or rhomboid.
 
That could be one reason they were made many places on the planet in times were there is no good evidence for direct contact.
 
Could be, could be. But I don't really believe in serendipity.
 
And i think it is easy to overlook differences, especially if we judge only from a few photographs.
 
If we look at every available photograph of Mesopotamian Ziggurats, and every available photograph of the South American Temples, what will change? Nothing! The similarities in design will still be there.
 
Where else in the world are their two different locations so divided by distance but having the same architecture, having had no contact?
 
Sure, in primitive tribes there are similarities in housing etc., but in South America, for instance, these cities were well ahead of their time. In fact, some European cities were not as advanced at the time.
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Apr 2014 at 07:13
fantasus wrote:
If we look upon it from a purely hypothetical point of view and ask for any possible explanation we can ask if there could be something more to the  "human mind" than we know of or usually think about.
 Some structural similarities, that may tend to lead to some similar patterns of thought and behaviour.
 
Again, "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."      -Sherlock Holmes
 
 
But that is purely hypothetical - as is the idea of any direct contact as long as we have no convincing evidence of the later, even if people like Thor Heyerdahl long ago tried to show there is. But frankly: how can travels made in the 20.th century over the Atlantic in Papyrus boats or over the Pacific in Balsa rafts in any way "prove" such voyages was made millenia ago?
 
 Certainly, Thor Heyerdahl, imo, only demonstrated how primitive ocean travel may have been accomplished.
 
some time ago I watched a TV-program about peruvian "pyramids" on the dessert coast, that were vastly different from any other known pyramids, both in form and function.
 
“All things are possible until they are proven impossible.”
Pearl S. Buck
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Apr 2014 at 07:25
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

fantasus
 
Pyramid forms must be some of the most simple to use to make "high structures".
 
Yes, that's true, but the buildings we're talking about could have just as easily been rectangular or rhomboid.
What came before the egyptian Pyramids was Mastabas, rectangular one store structures. When they began put one (square) Mastaba upon another bigger one that lead to the  pyramids of Egypt.



 
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:




That could be one reason they were made many places on the planet in times were there is no good evidence for direct contact.
 
Could be, could be. But I don't really believe in serendipity.
 
And i think it is easy to overlook differences, especially if we judge only from a few photographs.
 
If we look at every available photograph of Mesopotamian Ziggurats, and every available photograph of the South American Temples, what will change? Nothing! The similarities in design will still be there.
 
Where else in the world are their two different locations so divided by distance but having the same architecture, having had no contact?
i think there is differences too, so it is not "the same". In particular if we look at the purpose and functions. Central American pyramids were places for sacrifice. In particular human sacrifices.
I don´t think that was the case for messopotamian ziggurats.
 
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Sure, in primitive tribes there are similarities in housing etc., but in South America, for instance, these cities were well ahead of their time. In fact, some European cities were not as advanced at the time.
 
 
South, central and North American cultures changed much over time. So what period (and areas and peoples) do we discuss here? In precisely what respects were they "ahead of their time" (whatever that means in this context)? the last sentence comparing "some" european and "some" ancient american cities are not at all very clear. How is "advanced" measured by you?
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Apr 2014 at 07:50
fantasus
 
 
What came before the egyptian Pyramids was Mastabas, rectangular one store structures. When they began put one (square) Mastaba upon another bigger one that lead to the  pyramids of Egypt.


OK.
 
i think there is differences too, so it is not "the same". In particular if we look at the purpose and functions. Central American pyramids were places for sacrifice. In particular human sacrifices.
I don´t think that was the case for messopotamian ziggurats.
 
I've never discussed purpose, it's irrelevant. I'm talking about the similarity of basic design.
 
 South, central and North American cultures changed much over time. So what period (and areas and peoples) do we discuss here? In precisely what respects were they "ahead of their time" (whatever that means in this context)?
 
When compared with contemporaries, some of the South American cities were very much more sophisticated. Please look as some current Amazonian Tribes living conditions, and then compare with the Mayans
 
 
the last sentence comparing "some" european and "some" ancient american cities are not at all very clear. How is "advanced" measured by you?
 
I'm tiring of your semantic arguments. Check the Oxford Dictionary for the definition of "advanced"
 
This quote from Wiki might also help you.
 
The Maya is a Mesoamerican civilization, noted for the only known fully developed written language of the pre-Columbian Americas, as well as for its art, architecture, and mathematical and astronomical systems. Initially established during the Pre-Classic period (c. 2000 BC to AD 250), according to the Mesoamerican chronology, many Maya cities reached their highest state of development during the Classic period (c. AD 250 to 900), and continued throughout the Post-Classic period until the arrival of the Spanish.
 
and this could also help you-
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Apr 2014 at 09:25

 
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

I've never discussed purpose, it's irrelevant. I'm talking about the similarity of basic design.

For me porpose seems very relevant.



 
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

When compared with contemporaries, some of the South American cities were very much more sophisticated. Please look as some current Amazonian Tribes living conditions, and then compare with the Mayans
 

The most populous  and fertile areas of ancient ages are now "Civilised" (more or less modern "western"), so only areas "left over" are for "tribal life" I think. 
 
 
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

 
I'm tiring of your semantic arguments. Check the Oxford Dictionary for the definition of "advanced"

This is not  - not only - about "semantics" as You put it. You claim that there were ancient American cities more advanced than european ones. It is hard to give any sensible answer as long as You don´t follow up. What period are we discussing? Which towns, cities, cultures? What kind of technologies or societies or else was more advanced?
  
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

This quote from Wiki might also help you.
 
The Maya is a Mesoamerican civilization, noted for the only known fully developed written language of the pre-Columbian Americas, as well as for its art, architecture, and mathematical and astronomical systems. Initially established during the Pre-Classic period (c. 2000 BC to AD 250), according to the Mesoamerican chronology, many Maya cities reached their highest state of development during the Classic period (c. AD 250 to 900), and continued throughout the Post-Classic period until the arrival of the Spanish.
 
and this could also help you-
 
 
Eurpean writing, cities, monumental architecture and art are often far older than 250 AD.



Edited by fantasus - 22 Apr 2014 at 09:26
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Apr 2014 at 13:20
fantasus
 
I've never discussed purpose, it's irrelevant. I'm talking about the similarity of basic design.[/QUOTE]

For me porpose seems very relevant.

Can't you get it into your head that I'm not talking about the purpose for which the buildings were erected, simply the similarity in design.
 
When compared with contemporaries, some of the South American cities were very much more sophisticated. Please look as some current Amazonian Tribes living conditions, and then compare with the Mayans. 

The most populous  and fertile areas of ancient ages are now "Civilised" (more or less modern "western"), so only areas "left over" are for "tribal life" I think. 
 
 And some of those tribal villages are very rudimentary. AND some of the most fertile land in the Americas has not yet been colonised.
 
I'm tiring of your semantic arguments. Check the Oxford Dictionary for the definition of "advanced"

This is not  - not only - about "semantics" as You put it. You claim that there were ancient American cities more advanced than european ones. It is hard to give any sensible answer as long as You don´t follow up. What period are we discussing? Which towns, cities, cultures? What kind of technologies or societies or else was more advanced?
 
Again, study the architecture, plumbing and innovation of, for example the Mayan cities, and then look at Central to Eastern Europe, at the same time (~2000BCE).
 
This quote from Wiki might also help you.
 
The Maya is a Mesoamerican civilization, noted for the only known fully developed written language of the pre-Columbian Americas, as well as for its art, architecture, and mathematical and astronomical systems. Initially established during the Pre-Classic period (c. 2000 BC to AD 250), according to the Mesoamerican chronology, many Maya cities reached their highest state of development during the Classic period (c. AD 250 to 900), and continued throughout the Post-Classic period until the arrival of the Spanish.
 
and this could also help you-
 
 
Eurpean writing, cities, monumental architecture and art are often far older than 250 AD.

(c. 2000 BC to AD 250) is what is stated in the extract. It wasn't until the arrival of the Spanish that these civilisations "vanished". I know that European cities etc. are often far older than 250AD, but that's not the point.
 
The point is that, as far back as ~2000BC, the South American civilisations were far more advanced than many of the European cities-AT THAT TIME!!!
 
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or is it your normal condition?
 
 
 


Edited by toyomotor - 22 Apr 2014 at 13:23
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Apr 2014 at 14:16
The main issue You have raised in this thread is as I understand  it wether or not the pyramids of the civilizations (and other traits of those civilizations) in the Americas, and those in egypt and Messopotamia developed independently or if there was direct connections. If I am right about that, whatever that may support either the one idea or the opposite, is relevant.

Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

fantasus
 
I've never discussed purpose, it's irrelevant. I'm talking about the similarity of basic design.

For me porpose seems very relevant.

Can't you get it into your head that I'm not talking about the purpose for which the buildings were erected, simply the similarity in design.
 [/QUOTE] If we are discussing the origin of pyramids, not only "design", or wether or not objects (pyramids) look similar on photos are relevant. That does not necessarily tell us if they were made the same way, or if the details in construction, material, etcetera is similar. But perhaps You will ask if I "can not get into my head" that the only relevant thing in Your opinion is apparent similarities of photographic pictures, or visual "likeness"? And no. I can not get it "into my head" that the question wether or not pyramids were "used" in the same way or not is relevant for answering wether or not they had the same origin.

 
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

 And some of those tribal villages are very rudimentary. AND some of the most fertile land in the Americas has not yet been colonised.
What fertile ares? I admit I have som doubts, if those areas are not used for other purposes.

 

 
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

Again, study the architecture, plumbing and innovation of, for example the Mayan cities, and then look at Central to Eastern Europe, at the same time (~2000BCE).
 
According to one of the wikipedia links You gave, mayan citiesemerged later, between, in the first millenium BCE.  Early in that millenium Greek and later Italic cities (re) emerged.


 
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

and this could also help you-
 
 
Eurpean writing, cities, monumental architecture and art are often far older than 250 AD.

(c. 2000 BC to AD 250) is what is stated in the extract. It wasn't until the arrival of the Spanish that these civilisations "vanished". I know that European cities etc. are often far older than 250AD, but that's not the point.
 
The point is that, as far back as ~2000BC, the South American civilisations were far more advanced than many of the European cities-AT THAT TIME!!!
 
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or is it your normal condition?
 
 
 
As I wrote above, one of Your links says otherwise:"During the Middle Preclassic Period (1000-400 BC), small villages began to grow to form cities.[22] By 500 BC these cities possessed large temple structures decorated with stucco masks representing gods.[23] Nakbe in the Petén Department of Guatemala is the earliest well-documented city in the Maya lowlands,[24]where large structures have been dated to around 750 BC.[22] Nakbe already featured the monumental masonry architecture, sculpted monuments and causewaysthat characterised later cities in the Maya lowlands.[24]"
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1079
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Apr 2014 at 16:42
Quote
Isn't this too much of a coincidence?

Not really. It represents an expression of the human psyche. It's why we all build skyscrapers as prestige projects these days, which I'm sure will be the subject of an internet discussion a couple of thousand years in the future as intelligent evolved cockroaches debate the probability that homo sapiens once had a global governemtn because of all the skyscraper ruins around the world.
 
Quote The Mayan cities also had houses, roads and aqueducts similar to those in Northern Africa and Europe. How can this be, when other indigenous South Americans lived in rudimentary huts?

The same reason you live in a fairly modern house while an african reading this might be living in a tin shack. Those few jungle tribesmen still eking out a living in the Amazon don't have access to the internet of course.
 
Quote Is there evidence of ancient travel between, for example, Iran and South America?

Nothing you'd want to pin a reputation on. Thor Heyedahl proved it was possible for Egyptians to have crossed the Atlantic - though he knew where he was going and had modern day help if he got into trouble - and there's persistent claims that vikings in small numbers had reached the South American coastline (legends of white skinned bearded gods were part of central american myth and indeed one reason why the conquistadors found conquering the new world such a breeze).
 
Quote How else can this be explained?

It's the way we are. If you have a powerful civilisation and the time to create monuments, you build big things that you're capable of. Central american pyramidical temples and Egyptian pyramid tombs served a different social purpose of course, besides saying "gosh, look how important we are".


Edited by caldrail - 22 Apr 2014 at 16:45
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Apr 2014 at 03:00
fantasus:
1. Do the buildings in the photos appear to be very similar?
 
2. Are they separated by vast distance?
 
3. Do you believe that the similarities are purely coincidental?
 
And I think we now agree that there was no human connection between the two civilisations concerned.
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Apr 2014 at 03:07
caldrail:
 
Quote The same reason you live in a fairly modern house while an african reading this might be living in a tin shack. Those few jungle tribesmen still eking out a living in the Amazon don't have access to the internet of course.[quote]
 
I don't agree with this comment, there is the small difference in culture between Australia and Africa.
 [quote]How else can this be explained?

[quote]It's the way we are. If you have a powerful civilisation and the time to create monuments, you build big things that you're capable of. Central american pyramidical temples and Egyptian pyramid tombs served a different social purpose of course, besides saying "gosh, look how important we are".[quote]
 
But there is still the similarity of design.
 

 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Apr 2014 at 04:42
The web site below answers all of my questions, I think. I've just found it.
 
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Northman View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
~ Scylding ~

Joined: 30 Aug 2004
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 10426
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Northman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Apr 2014 at 07:05
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

The web site below answers all of my questions, I think. I've just found it.
 
 
 

Well - maybe this will raise more questions - they forgot these pyramids in the article.

BTW - the Egyptian pyramids were built with a smooth surface, now eroded and leaving the underlying stones as steps on the sides.
In example, the Cheops pyramid was 8-10 meters higher than it is now due to erosion.



   






Edited by Northman - 23 Apr 2014 at 07:05
   
   If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.    (Albert Einstein)
Back to Top
fantasus View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07 May 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 1943
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote fantasus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Apr 2014 at 07:05
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

fantasus:
1. Do the buildings in the photos appear to be very similar?
Yes, on the photos. Then we should not forget that appearance may be somewhat "desceptive", and so much more photographs from places were most of us have never been (though I saw those pyramids in egypt).
 
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

2. Are they separated by vast distance?
Yes. Relative to the means of those days.Their technology for seafaring - at least for all we know. 
 
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

3. Do you believe that the similarities are purely coincidental?
I must admit here I am no firm believer in anything relevant for this discussion, or only in the negative sense I find some possible ideas unbelievable. Any "orgainised" and intended voyages over vast stretches of oceans before the norse I find unlikely, though not to be completely ruled out.  Much more unbelievable I find any "alien"("E.T.") intervention.

 
Originally posted by toyomotor toyomotor wrote:

And I think we now agree that there was no human connection between the two civilisations concerned.
Ok.
I have the suggestion, though it is not a true "belief", some "inherited" human psychological patterns we still do not understand well could be at play. People can get to the same ideas, seemingly independently. that amy be because it is "the obvious next step" in a given context
("when You have machinery, why not use it for transport instead of horses or sails?").
 
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Apr 2014 at 10:45
fantasus:
 
Finally, we're in agreement, sort of.
 
I would not thought it probable that two different cultures, separated by thousands of miles, could have come up with the same (or very similar) design. But as there's no evidence to the contrary, I accept that they were coincidental.
 
And I could not have believed that sea travellers provided an answer to the question, not in those days.
 
 
 
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Apr 2014 at 01:54
Well, mountains and hills are all over the world. Those are the natural models of pyramids. So, no wonder that people everywhere followed that structure.

There are very interesting concepts that ended lost in this thread. I recall a comment about the standard of living of Amerindians in pre-columbian times. Yes SOME societies in the Americas had high standards of living, like the Mayan aristocracy (while people was living in shanty towns). I bet, one of the few societies in the Americas that had a really high standard of living were the Toltecs, which had apartment buildings. The Inca also lived well, in a sort of socialist paradise, but the common people were servants under a tyranny. And what about the bloody Aztecs, that controlled people by terror and continuous human sacrifices, and that make them so hated the subjugated tribes preferred to fight on the Spanish side.
If I had lived in pre-contact times in the Americas, I would prefer to live among the Iroquois that, no matter being a simpler society, was the single democratic society the Americas ever knew.




Edited by pinguin - 24 Apr 2014 at 01:55
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 4945
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Apr 2014 at 03:58
 
penguin:
Well, you've got that off your chest mate.Smile
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.