pre pyramid plateau

originally posted by: jeep3r

originally posted by: Harte

Only up for speculation if you ignore the evidence such as sealed chambers bearing Khufu's cartouches.

Harte

Wasn't there a controversy surrounding Vyse's discovery and the origin of the cartouche?

No. There was a poorly constructed fictional version of Vyse's findings perpetrated by a fringe writer (Sitchin) to support his inane claim that the Pyramids were landing sites for extraterrestrial crafts - a use that was copied in the movie Stargate.

originally posted by: jeep3r
And an ongoing debate about the purpose of the pyramid shafts?

Of course. It's not known at all what they were for.

originally posted by: jeep3r
A lot of things seem to be open to debate: regarding the internal structure, for instance, some people even attempted to find a good explanation for the subterranean chamber.

Without explicit details from Ancient Egypt, nothing can be known for certain.

originally posted by: jeep3r
And didn't Houdin raise some questions about the structural purpose of the relieving chambers?

I don't remember this. However, whatever the chambers were for, most exhibit writing that could not have been done by anyone but the builders, and the writings are in Egyptian.
Same goes for the shafts, wherein there are also a few glyphs to be found.
Similar quarry marks and graffiti, by the way, have been found in scores of other pyramids and monuments in Egypt.

originally posted by: jeep3r
Not to mention the various discussions around tool marks that were allegedly not caused by the conventional AE toolkit (chisels, pounding stones, basic copper saws), for example here and here.

Chisel marks abound at Giza, and ancient methods for drilling stone have been duplicated in the modern era by archaeology. Your source for this claim (Dunn) is an engineer, not a stone worker or an archaeologist. Like Sitchin, he sells fringe books too, and makes the rounds of paid "conferences" along with his occasional appearances on "Ancient Aliens."

originally posted by: jeep3rBut all that is probably just being spread by ignorant uneducated charlatans trying to sell books as opposed to serious Egyptologists who are of course only interested in pure and unbiased evidence /*sarcasm off*/.

Egyptology doesn't ignore evidence the way the fringe does, nor do they lie about it like the fringe does. Obviously, there are differences of opinion or in interpretation of some evidence by various people/groups that are professional Egyptologists. But that is because of what I said above about the lack of detailed historical information dating to the Old Kingdom. There's plenty of physical evidence, but there are several ways of looking at the evidence.

Harte

This thread has gone completely off the deep end LOL.

There are at least some incontrovertible facts about the Great Pyramid that destroys any ancient "pre-Egyptian" super civilization/Atlantis or Ancient Aliens cockamamie theories;

1) Radiocarbon dating. This was covered extensively already on this site, just look up that thread. Quick summary: radiocarbon dating was done on the mortar found throughout the GP, specifically the bits of charcoal & wood left in the mortar from the firing process. The dating points to exclusively 4th Dynasty (2500BC).

2) Worker graffiti & quarry marks. Again already covered on this site in other threads, but these marks are found in inaccessible places (inside the "air" shafts and the "relieving" chambers). The marks were written in a form of hieroglyphs not understood until long after their initial discovery.

This left the Atlantean and Alien theorists in a quandary as it undermines their suspect claims. Sitchin went so far as to fabricate an entire "forgery" episode by one of the earliest Egyptologists (Vyse).

Proposing the pyramid MUST be older than its established dates without a single shred of evidence, not one iota, is plain and simply BAD SCIENCE. In fact it's not even science, its just BS.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer

This left the Atlantean and Alien theorists in a quandary as it undermines their suspect claims. Sitchin went so far as to fabricate an entire "forgery" episode by one of the earliest Egyptologists (Vyse).

No worries, I don't intend to promote Sitchin's ideas in this thread. Believe it or not, I'm also part of the "requires evidence" fraction.

When checking your link I noticed a reference on aeraweb mentioning the "David H. Koch Pyramids Radiocarbon Project" which sounds like they released a major publication with a more detailed documentation (in addition to the article).

I assume this is the correct journal paper? Or is there any additional material available? Thanks.

originally posted by: jeep3r

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer

This left the Atlantean and Alien theorists in a quandary as it undermines their suspect claims. Sitchin went so far as to fabricate an entire "forgery" episode by one of the earliest Egyptologists (Vyse).

No worries, I don't intend to promote Sitchin's ideas in this thread. Believe it or not, I'm also part of the "requires evidence" fraction.

When checking your link I noticed a reference on aeraweb mentioning the "David H. Koch Pyramids Radiocarbon Project" which sounds like they released a major publication with a more detailed documentation (in addition to the article).

I assume this is the correct journal paper? Or is there any additional material available? Thanks.

That's the most recent C14 survey. There was an earlier one (in 1984,) and several smaller samplings before that as well.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

The 1984 and 1995 samples seem to be included in that paper. They took 45 charcoal and one reed sample from different locations at the GP and obviously also took into account the old-wood-effect, interesting.

Surely it's all independently verified by labs in the US, Germany etc. and their methodology incl. sample preparation and delivery corresponds to best-practice? Got some more reading ahead of me now and I'll try hard to suppress any feelings that this author collective (Lehner, Hawass etc.) might have had an agenda of their own.

originally posted by: jeep3r
a reply to: Harte

The 1984 and 1995 samples seem to be included in that paper. They took 45 charcoal and one reed sample from different locations at the GP and obviously also took into account the old-wood-effect, interesting.

Surely it's all independently verified by labs in the US, Germany etc. and their methodology incl. sample preparation and delivery corresponds to best-practice? Got some more reading ahead of me now and I'll try hard to suppress any feelings that this author collective (Lehner, Hawass etc.) might have had an agenda of their own.

They mention the 1984 and 1995 samplings, but I've never found them specifically cited in the data as such (maybe I'm not looking close enough.) I've read that pdf dozens of times though. But I'm usually just looking at specific dates from the analysis.

Harte

The worker´s bakeries. The worker´s breweries. The craftsmen barracks. The tomb of (one of the) foreseers.
etc etc.

Why hasn´t a pyramid of that size and building quality ever been built again ?
Khufus expensive experiments exhausted egypt´s economy .
Khafre´s pyramid is a huge stack of stones im comparison. NO complicated upper chambers, only a subterranean one like the previous builders.

all later kings built smaller pyramids/ complexes again ( and moved from giza)

That´s enough evidence.

originally posted by: Harte

They mention the 1984 and 1995 samplings, but I've never found them specifically cited in the data as such (maybe I'm not looking close enough.) I've read that pdf dozens of times though. But I'm usually just looking at specific dates from the analysis.

Harte

In their overview of C14 dates, they indicate that the mean value for the pyramid of Khafre is 4174 - 4173 BP, making it older than the GP (4147 - 4157 BP). Made me wonder if that's of any significance, since it should be the other way around IIRC ...

According to the article, the samples were taken from different courses from the exterior of both pyramids. Was the same kind of gypsum mortar also used anywhere inside the GP or that of Khafre? I also asked myself whether the mortar was a structural necessity and in which quantities it had been applied to the not so finely shaped interior blocks?

ETA: The core text (minus the sample overview) is rather brief but there's a plethora of references and other links to follow, makes for a lot of additional reading ... so bear with me

a reply to: jeep3r

There is a brief overview of the radiocarbon findings here: abstracts: Dating the Pyramids (archaeology.org)

Among some of the reasoning I've read from AERA it was noted that the 1st in any of the old kingdom dynastys had the widest discrepancy in dating owing to how long a gap lay between building projects, and the cultural impact a new dynasty would usher in. For instance, Khufu took numerous old temples as resources for their wood, pottery, etc. 200 years of Egyptian culture was likely cleared away by Khufu in the ushering in of his dynasty (my interpretation: Khufu was much more of a dick to the older customs and temples than his father was, and temples that may have stood for centuries got turned into firewood for Khufu's building ambitions). Khafre had fewer such resources to draw upon and so had to make do with newer materials. Whereas Khufu's fires burned woods that may have been centuries old, Khafre's had to utilize younger woods and more reliant on imported woods. Not to mention the concept they were "recycling their settlement debris." Even so, the 1995 testing showed about the dating of the Great Pyramid to be about 200 years older than its established dating.

and yet,
the evidence submitted is not to be discussed?
may i refer all gentlefolk to previously submitted exihbit
i.e. the 5 year plan
that would be
"program management bc"
just in case the link got deleted with marduks' invective

a reply to: username74

www.ekt.bme.hu/CM-BSC-MSC/ProgramManagementBC.pdf
there ya go

a reply to: anti72

"That´s enough evidence. "
too much of a good thing, eh?

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

so for example if the great pyramid is 200 yrs out of date then your philology is screwed and your radio carbon dates are within their parametres.
a fleeting pass at reconstruction

a reply to: username74

so on this pre pyramid platform we are led to assume that it occurred that the most perfect of buildings was built, a place with no significance, and then society fell to a funereal cult with no respect for previous engineering ability.
and basically devolved into replications worthy of someone working off sightlines and strings, only, to replicate what they see before them.
and then failed on numerous accounts to reproduce their spiritual/material inheritance.
well there must have been reasons and it seems there were many sociopolitical events recorded, alot in respect to fresh water rights, over vast periods of time.
so it seems to come down to that there was an infrastructure, but was it functional or esoteric?
it certainly is a monument in a very enigmatic position from many perspectives.
i certainly resent the contradictory ideology, much favoured by the academically inclined, presented within this thread.
and then the evidence submitted is never revisited.
so we can look at its troublesome existance in two ways
its physical prescence, and its cultural suggestion.
so if intelligence is a social construct, then some of us are not walking the line, and i would assume that this was the same for them, in their time.
where again is a comprehensive, or at least adequate explanation of how the gp was built existant that is not dependent on the loose chronology of this one leaders lifespan?

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

so for example if the great pyramid is 200 yrs out of date then your philology is screwed and your radio carbon dates are within their parametres.
a fleeting pass at reconstruction

Do you just spout random gibberish with an occasional big scientific sounding word thrown in to make it seem like you know what your talking about? Philology: the study of literature and of disciplines relevant to literature or to language as used in literature. This is not relevant to anything being discussed here.

As to the radio carbon dates, they do not upset the accepted chronology of the 4th Dynasty or the established order of dynastic rulers. It proves the Great Pyramid is from the 4th Dynasty, and not any ancient lost civilization.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

"Do you just spout random gibberish with an occasional big scientific sounding word thrown in to make it seem like you know what your talking about? Philology: the study of literature and of disciplines relevant to literature or to language as used in literature. This is not relevant to anything being discussed here."

try the definition again, philology
in europe, ancient egypt is philology, in the u.s. this is not the case.

" In British English usage, and in British academia, "philology" remains largely synonymous with "historical linguistics", while in US English, and US academia, the wider meaning of "study of a language's grammar, history and literary tradition" remains more widespread.[8][9] Based on the harsh critique of Friedrich Nietzsche, US scholars since the 1980s have viewed philology as responsible for a narrowly scientistic study of language and literature.[10]"

and to boot, if you are translating ancient writings, in their language, then it has everything to do with philology

the current topic of G P is a construction issue, and i am well qualified to discuss.

may i also point out, you have replied to my post, and still managed to avoid my direct request to review the submitted counter evidence, i.e. the five year plan of project b c

"As to the radio carbon dates, they do not upset the accepted chronology of the 4th Dynasty or the established order of dynastic rulers. It proves the Great Pyramid is from the 4th Dynasty, and not any ancient lost civilization."

200 years of tolerance would give you a possible miss in dealing with human lifespans.

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Blackmarketeer
may i also point out, you have replied to my post, and still managed to avoid my direct request to review the submitted counter evidence, i.e. the five year plan of project b c

It's ten years, and that old pdf has been the subject of posts here a great many times over the years.

Based on our program management approach and our informed guesses we concluded that the total project required an average workforce of 13,200 persons and a peak workforce of 40,000 and that it required two to three years of site preparation, five years of pyramid construction, and two years of ramp removal, decoration, and other ancillary tasks.

Program Management B.C.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

thats the rascal !
marduk submitted that. i still have the pdf but had no link. it got wiped with his invective, is that a valid tactic or coincidence?
how am i expected to respond to such pish?
or perhaps i am not expected to.
not directed at you, obviously, harte.
thanks!

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

so for example if the great pyramid is 200 yrs out of date then your philology is screwed and your radio carbon dates are within their parametres.
a fleeting pass at reconstruction

Do you just spout random gibberish with an occasional big scientific sounding word thrown in to make it seem like you know what your talking about? Philology: the study of literature and of disciplines relevant to literature or to language as used in literature. This is not relevant to anything being discussed here.

As to the radio carbon dates, they do not upset the accepted chronology of the 4th Dynasty or the established order of dynastic rulers. It proves the Great Pyramid is from the 4th Dynasty, and not any ancient lost civilization.

You might also wish to add that languages do not change that significantly in a 200 year period.

I'm not sure what's intended here, either -- whether what's meant is Manetho's history and other material written 2,000 years later or the Kings' list of Ramesses II at Abydos (which was written about 1500 years after the pyramids were built) or the inscriptions there on the plateau, which cover a period of several hundred years and include the ostrika and other workmen's details as well as the tombs of the overseers and so forth.

It's possible to work out much of the material using (for instance) Middle Egyptian - so Middle Egyptian is commonly taught to Egyptology students because you can read enough to confirm inscriptions from the Old Kingdom as well material from Cleopatra's time - a 3,000 year span.

And of course, the ones who actually study the language (Allen right now is one of the foremost ones for Old Kingdom Egyptian) put the rest of us in the shade.