Because the engineering and architectural designs for the pyramids are no longer accessible and thus engineers and architects would be ill-equipped to explore that question (especially the "why" which implies judging knowledge about ancient cultures, beliefs, religions and practices, something that is ALSO beyond the purview of engineering).
I disagree with both your points. As for the “how”; it is precisely because the engineering and architectural designs for the pyramids are no longer accessible that engineers and architects would be the best qualified specialists to “reverse engineer” how it was ‘most likely’ done, or
not done, as is the case more often.
Of course, some dialogue with archeologists and Egyptologists would be useful, but mostly in the negative sense, by eliminating erroneous notions by said archeologists and Egyptologists about the level of technology and/or the presumed mindset the builders may or may not have had. Thus eliminating highly unlikely scenarios such as using copper chisels to cut granite, which is like trying to cut a knife with a stick of butter, instead of the other way around?
As to “why”; after -and only after- a proper reverse engineering analysis by qualified individuals has been done, would archeologists and Egyptologists be in the best position to judge how an ancient cultures
presumed beliefs and religions practices relate to a given monument, or vise versa, or whether those presumptions need to be re-evaluated. All too often in archeology, and especially in Egyptology, the theories and assumptions come first, then the facts are interpreted in light of the theories, instead of the reverse, as it should be.
The question of HOW they were built is an academic exercise for engineers, but not much more than that, because the engineer can only guess at possible techniques that would have been available or that would have worked the best.
Perhaps, but it would be an educated guess, which is more than what an archeologists and Egyptologists could offer on the subject.
The archeologist has to figure out what the builders ACTUALLY DID, for which consultation with engineers will be useful, but not definitive in and of itself.
Well, we find ourselves in rare agreement. I never said consultation with engineers would be definitive in and of itself.
Actually, it's a fact that there's never been a shred of convincing evidence that the pyramids were built for anything else. They otherwise serve no purpose except to entomb the bodies found within them; if they served another purpose at some point, archeologists have not been able to determine it
Sorry, but here’s where you’re flat out wrong and misinformed. The fact is
no bodies have ever been found in any pyramid that are an original (that is non intrusive) burial! Even sealed pyramids with sealed sarcophagi have proven –when opened by Egyptologists- to be completely empty! Now, I accept that some pyramids may have been tombs, but as for others, I doubt this is the case. In any event, it’s not that archeologists have been unable to determine if they were used for some other purpose, it’s that they have been unwilling to try, or even to consider the possibility.
(and contrary to your claims, the academic world is inundated with theories as to what those alternate claims might have been, including some rather outlandish theories about Pharaoh's using them to fake their own deaths and/or pretend to be reincarnated in the personages of their offspring).
I never made any claims about the academic world
not being inundated with theoriesas to what those alternate claims might have been! Where did you get this from?
I'm not sure who was "embarrassed" by that particular revelation, but I'm equally unsure that the geologists' findings are as relevant as you think they are, especially since geologic timescales are FAR too short to determine differing ages with that kind of precision. The only sources (not from ancient-aliens websites) I've found conclude that the body was constructed using different stone as the face, which suggests two different stages of construction for each.
I was referring to Robert Schoch’s analysis of the water erosion on the Sphinx and its enclosure, indicating that the monument is at least several millennia older than Egyptologist thought. It has nothing to do with the geologic timescales you're thinking of.
And yet it was the research of archeologists that lead to the discovery that astronomy was even relevant, hence they eventually consulted them themselves.
Again I think your wrong on this one. It was, I believe, Sir Norman Lockyer –an astronomer- who first brought astronomy to the attention of archeologists as a means of dating and otherwise interpreting ancient monuments. Archeologists still have not fully embraced archaeo-astronomy, mainly because it suggests much older dates than they had heretofore surmised. The most they will concede is that some ancient monuments are aligned to the sun and/or the moon.
I can tell you without equivocation that Atlantis is of great interest to archeologists, and "ancient aliens" is a subject of interest to both archeologists and anthropologists.
Bullshit! A few perhaps, but most avoid them like the plague.
But the overwhelming lack of empirical evidence for either theory means few people within those disciplines take them seriously and instead relegate them to an era of fantasy
First of all, in the case of Atlantis and other such civilizations, the lack of evidence isn’t overwhelming. Second, as I said; again using Atlantis for an example, the evidence is spread out over many disciplines such as Paleo-Anthropology, Oceanography, and climatology to name just a few, so this
is the problem. The lack of evidence seems overwhelming only when archeology
alone is consulted.
As for ancient aliens; this is another matter, I only mentioned it in an attempt to remain somewhat on topic.
You're conflating two different things here. Skeptical ARCHEOLOGISTS are not the source of most of those criticisms; THEY criticize the theory more on its merits and the ways in which it contradicts empirical data they already have available.
It may seem that way due to my attempt at brevity, but not really. But what
empirical data do archeologists have available from their own field that would be contradicted by “aliens did it”? I’m not even sure archeology qualifies as an empirical science, at least not in the strict definition of the term? It’s not really repeatable; you can only dig a site once. And it’s not really testable for the same reasons.
The criticisms you cite are most likely to be encountered by other people who ALSO lack any expertise in scientific disciplines. Which, as I pointed out before, is why you need to be careful not to confuse "evidence that would stand up in a court of law" with "evidence that would be persuasive to posters on a message board."
I harbor no illusions about persuading people on message boards, which is why I don’t post often in this forum, too many here suffer from “Paradigm paralysis” and “materialistic fundamentalism” two debilitating diseases of the mind for which there is, sadly, no cure.
Because if aliens visited Earth in the pre-historical past, archeologists are best equipped to find out.
I disagree, but as I said, I was just trying to be topical.
If aliens visited Earth during the historical past, archeologists and historians in combination are best equipped to find out.
Dido.
If aliens are visiting us NOW, then astronomers and/or astronauts are best equipped to find out.
Dido.
The only people who AREN'T going to be useful in solving those questions are internet hobbyists who lack a solid background in any of those fields or have experience in a field that is totally unrelated to them.
Like yourself, for example?
