World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
"The study was done by Christian Wagner and colleagues at Saarland University in Germany, along with researchers in the Netherlands, Iran and France. The team was inspired by an ancient Egyptian wall painting showing a huge statue being hauled across the sand on a sledge in about 1800 BC. The painting has a detail that has long puzzled Egyptologists: a worker who appears to be pouring water onto the sand in front of the sledge while others appear to be carrying water to replenish his supply."
https://physicsworld.com/a/did-slippery-sand-help-egyptians-build-the-pyramids/
There are hundreds of articles about this theory. It was all the rage a few years ago.
I notice you don't post the names of any of the scientists who believe only a small workforce built the pyramids. Why is that? That's really the one I was curious about.
Because, again, it's kind of hard to argue against what they literally carved into a rock.
Not arguing with you here, cuz I have no dog in this fight, but you're seemingly ignoring the possibility of the emperor bragging about ~~crowd size~~ the number of slaves workers utilized?
So you're saying that they used some unknown means of pulling big stones over rocks, but rather bragged about one they didn't use even though it would have worked?
I'm not saying they didn't have a lot of slaves, just thinking that they might be exaggerating slave count (as a metric of how powerful they were) while using something like this river (something innocuous that they wouldn't need to brag about) to augment the bodies in use.
You are making the mistake that slaves built Egyptian religious monuments. They did not. Egyptians did it, not their slaves. They did it out of religious obligation.
Which makes sense. You don't want slaves building your sacred places when slaves can sabotage things.
I mean, he could lie about it, but is there really any doubt a pharaoh could conscript a few hundred guys?
It's just an easy, obvious solution, and probably the one they used because they weren't dumb. We also have a lot of surviving paperwork from the organisation of pyramid building, including things like worker's comp.
Again, there are hundreds of articles about the adjacent work camps. Please look at the publications of Zahi Hawass, chief archeologist of Egypt, and Amihai Mazar, a professor of archeology in Jerusalem.
Most claim that there could have been up to ten thousand workers. Some claim that the number of workers was as low as 1600.
I'm not sure why you think 1600 workers mean they couldn't just drag large stones over land on sledges using a significant number of those 1600 workers. I'm not even sure why you think ten thousand workers would have been necessary. Can you explain please?
I never suggested that they couldn't.
Personally, I don't think that the "brute force" argument is the best. I think it's arguing from ignorance.
How is it arguing from ignorance when, yet again, they showed us that they did just that.
Are you saying the carving is a lie? Why would it be?
They also depict gods with the heads of jackals and birds, beings from other planets, their conception of the afterlife, pornography, and obviously exaggerated claims about the power and influence of the Pharoahs.
I'm saying that we should be skeptical. dubitante omnibus, as Descartes would say...
Not that one, no.
But why would the carving be a lie? What would the benefit be about lying about a lot of people dragging huge pieces of stone on a sledge when a lot of people dragging huge pieces of stone on a sledge would work?
I don't know, my friend. I'm not an archeologist or Egyptologist. I'm just an enthusiast who has read a dozen conflicting theories.
Which of those theories say that large numbers of people did not move large blocks of stone in Egypt and which scientists make those claims?
This is a great resource for looking up published research and also unpublished theories.
In other words, no such theories exist.
Believe it or not, it is not my job to prove that you say true things.
It seems like you're out for blood, my friend.
I've cited three academic scientists in this conversation. You're welcome to check them out if you want.
None of your cited scientists make the claim that Egyptians did not move large blocks of stone by pulling them. That was your claim.
Wow, you really got bodied in this debate. This dude came with actual info and you kinda went full debate bro on him.
I'm sure I'll see you picking up some wins in another thread.
His "actual info" didn't prove what he claimed. Did you actually look it up or did you just assume he was telling the truth about it?
I think you might be one of those expert on everything types, it works really well with political garbage, but when you're talking about historical studies of the Egyptian old kingdom that they base on modern calculations of physics using pictographs as a reference... Like it's just sounds silly I guess.
You are arguing for a heterodox interpretation of labor based on pictures drawn by the ruling party that has potentially tens of thousands of people building a giant stone monument, when modern scientists JUST discovered a river they only JUST realized might be there.
Like you just really really need to be right about a field of study that's had like 15 sea changes over the last couple hundred years. It's odd!
So you didn't actually look it up.
Yeah, if that's your take away I guess posting a pictograph and saying "nuh uh" being the crux of your argument on a body of study who's modern history goes back to sprinkling mummy dust on your breakfast makes perfect sense.
Keep up this good!
My takeaway was that the scientists he claim support this idea that they weren't dragged do not say they weren't dragged.
I'm not sure why you think "their claim about what those scientists said isn't true" isn't good enough...
I'm not even sure where you've developed that strawman from what the dude said, his original statement or his future back and forth with you. He said that the brute force argument isn't the best one based on research like the water experimentation on dry sand. That doesn't mean they didn't use brute force in labor, just that it may have been supplemented by techniques we're still investigating. He's not saying they used magic.
Now we know they not only had a easy source of water, we know they had enough water to supplement the power of human labor. You just really wanted to argue so you focused on whatever points you could find disagreement.
The whole argument is based on you really wanting to be unequivocally right about your understanding of how something was built when the article you posted is about a literal groundbreaking discovery that may change our understanding of how it was built. Just seems silly on this one I guess.
No, just a simple machine that no one has ever discovered since.
Which is pretty close to magic.
Unlikely, yes. More likely an implementation of principles in ways we just don't have reference for in documentation, we just discovered that Roman concrete was mixed hot with quick lime. This shit always seems crazy until we figure it out.
Although I don't see anyone saying there were as low as 1,600 workers on the great pyramid. So you right to question that one.
Actually I bet this is where that number came from lol:
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna46485163
You're caught up in the argument and not paying attention to what the other person is saying.
Think of it this way, that carving might be totally accurate snd still not represent the whole story. It doesn't even really show that many people, I've worked jobs where for a few days there are hundreds of people it's very impressive and the photos always end up somewhere. This could just be intended to capture one key stage or big event, if it could be combining lots of things into one image to show 'there was a huge workforce' it's not a lie or deception but it's also not the whole story.
Brute force was part of how they did it but it certainly wasn't all of it, and most people who've never pulled a big rope don't really think about how hard it is - plus we take it for granted now but having rope that a hundred men can pull on is a feat of engineering in itself.
We know they used boats to transport them most the way, we know they used complex pullies and levers to get them into position, we know they used work teams and various other methods but none of those really solve all the questions which is why it's such an interesting subject to think about.
And yes I know people get silly and talk about aliens or magic acoustic whistles or whatever but that's not what the person you were talking to was doing, things like wet sand and forgotten infrastructure are realistic and logical ideas.
The person I was talking to said that they probably came up with a type of simple machine which has never been rediscovered since.
I mean, it's probably both. They would have used a bunch of guys, and maybe oxen, because that was their source of mechanical energy for nearly everything. To make is easier, they would add the cleverest engineering you can do with no formal science and bronze age materials.