pre pyramid plateau

a reply to: Byrd

"Those people were a thousand miles away and there is no evidence they were in contact with Egypt."
and what kind of obstacle is that to people who can build a pyramid on this scale and live on sea routes?

a reply to: Byrd

Yes, I know about science and how it's done and the various disciplines. I'm not sure why you felt I needed the explanation.

yeah, sorry byrd, trying to write for all reading (if any) not directed at you

a reply to: Byrd

None of them show signs of being an advanced civilization or being in contact with an advanced civilization."

and to clarify, i think thats basically correct, within our definition of civilisation, its just theres more than one way to skin a cat, as it were. they dont show these signs. but we are beginning to see something. all new knowledge alters the body of existing knowledge. so (unless you are a mathematician) there is technically never a definitive viewpoint until you are dust and bones and even then the person assessing you will soon be up for revision

a reply to: username74

In order to have a ram pump, you have to have pipes for water and you have to have valves. There are numerous examples of stone water systems but none from that time in Egypt (or elsewhere that I know of.)

So you will have to show that:
* they knew how to make leak proof water pipes and were using them around
* the location of the water source above the pump (Giza's the high point of the area)
* what their purpose was (people don't just build them to look at them)
* evidence for that use
* why the best place to build it is in the middle of a cemetery that would be used for a thousand year period
* why they didn't continue to build them after the Middle Kingdom and then resumed late in the New Kingdom and up until the Hellenic Period... and why the Greeks (Hero, who lived in Alexandria) didn't use or expand on them (and why the ever-efficient Romans, who inherited Egypt and all its libraries and scholars didn't use them)
* why pyramid-ram-pumps are found in only a few places (and cemeteries, not next to towns or in the middle of towns)
* the purpose of the other structures near them (temples, etc)

Heck, I could say "they're actually giant ovens for baking bread for the Annunaki" as a counter example. If you're going to say "ram pump" then you have to explain the above.


(for folks like me who don't want to waste time on videos (which far too often give too little information) here's the Wikipedia page for the "quick and dirty" and the "How Stuff Works" page (with an easier to understand explanation) and for us geekly nerds, a PDF with All The Maths, including work and distance calculations

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Byrd

" Schoch wasn't interested in reviewing the history and documentation of digs and research on the plateau"
hes a geologist.
lehner wasnt that interested in his findings
pretty tit for tat .no?

Nope. Actually, Lehner and others work with geologists. One of the FIRST things you learn in archaeology is to get a grasp of the local soil profiles and rock layers. Before uncovering artifacts, you have to dig a trench and measure the depth of the various layers.

Standard Operating Procedure on archaeological digs.

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Byrd

Yes, I know about science and how it's done and the various disciplines. I'm not sure why you felt I needed the explanation.

yeah, sorry byrd, trying to write for all reading (if any

) not directed at you

Don't underestimate the folks reading and posting in this section. I know that at least three (probably more) have archaeological dig experience and I long ago gave up counting how many there were with degrees and advanced degrees reading and replying here. There's several who don't have formal degrees but who are respected by others because they're very meticulous researchers.

...also, the moderators frown on copying and pasting lots of material. They prefer you rephrase it so it doesn't run into copyright wrangles.

a reply to: Byrd
* they knew how to make leak proof water pipes and were using them around
* the location of the water source above the pump (Giza's the high point of the area)
so the gist is, the retaining wall holds the water and it falls (the high point) into the descending passage (the pipe)
the waste valve is the pit and goes to the nile and the output line is the blocked passage running from the sub chamber. the level and salinity of lake moeris could also be a factor
* what their purpose was (people don't just build them to look at them)
one of the features of limestone terrain is if there is a surface water source (it goes to ground quite quickly through the bedrock) it s usually bad.
* evidence for that use
well, for this to be a legitimate machine i need to see two more minor features, which i am pretty sure are provided in the properties of the terrain (keep it simple for the mo)
there is a not fully considered possibility of it working back to front so maybe i wouldnt know where to start
it has one property that i would consider unusual for a system of this type.
the subterranean chamber is designed for a certain form of inefficiency translating the wasted energy into wdter hammer directed vertically up (its worth pointing out here that this is where the fringy stuff comes in)
* why the best place to build it is in the middle of a cemetery that would be used for a thousand year period
incidence of terrain
* why they didn't continue to build them
thats a very interesting question, and it looks to me that they tried, but had only inherited a dead one to learn from
* why they are found in only a few places (and cemeteries, not next to towns or in the middle of towns)
* the purpose of the other structures near them (temples, etc)
have no reason to doubt egyptology per se. just that working my way through all accounts of great pyramid, on Diodorus Siculus at the minute, fascinating. but one thing is becoming clear, no one knew then.

a reply to: Byrd

Don't underestimate the folks reading and posting in this section. I know that at least three (probably more) have archaeological dig experience and I long ago gave up counting how many there were with degrees and advanced degrees reading and replying here. There's several who don't have formal degrees but who are respected by others because they're very meticulous researchers.

...also, the moderators frown on copying and pasting lots of material. They prefer you rephrase it so it doesn't run into copyright wrangles.

dont worry , i am sure the mods are quite capable of contacting me thamselves if its deemed neccesary.
and i dont underestimate anyone i dont know

a reply to: Byrd



Standard Operating Procedure on archaeological digs.
as you say, but was this not a team of geologists and geophysists?

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Byrd



Standard Operating Procedure on archaeological digs.
as you say, but was this not a team of geologists and geophysists?

No. It was a handful of people beating on a steel plate with a hammer in 10 or 11 spots around the sphinx enclosure.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

so, yes, then
( sounds like a bunch of geologists to me.)

originally posted by: username74
. just that working my way through all accounts of great pyramid, on Diodorus Siculus at the minute, fascinating. but one thing is becoming clear, no one knew then.

Siculus certainly didn't know about them.

Remember, he's writing about them almost 2,000 years after they were constructed. He never visited Egypt and in fact used sources that were convenient and secondary (things written in Greek about things people were told.)

So why do you think he's so accurate?

(I should add that he DOES present a clear and most likely accurate picture of Egyptian beliefs and practices of his own time period and he's one of the sources used by Egyptologists. So is Herodotus...but both are taken with a grain of salt.)

a reply to: Byrd

"So why do you think he's so accurate? "
well you are misrepresenting my position again. in fact i said it was fascinting and that the people he was asking appear not have known much the same as his contemparies

"have no reason to doubt egyptology per se. just that working my way through all accounts of great pyramid, on Diodorus Siculus at the minute, fascinating. but one thing is becoming clear, no one knew then."

"Remember, he's writing about them almost 2,000 years after they were constructed. He never visited Egypt and in fact used sources that were convenient and secondary (things written in Greek about things people were told)."
yes he states this in his introduction to book 1

a reply to: Harte

on a less flippant note i would like to point out: firstly (and this approaches the point made earlier by byrd,[" Schoch wasn't interested in reviewing the history and documentation of digs and research on the plateau" ])
On the Saqqara Plateau there are fragile mudbrick mastabas that are indisputably dated to the first and second dynasties that exhibit no evidence of the precipitation-induced weathering seen in the Sphinx enclosure. They have been preserved by being buried in dry, wind-swept sand, indicating that extremely arid conditions have persisted in this part of Egypt since early Old Kingdom times.other comparable structures are cut from the Eocene Mokattam Formation like the sphinx ,identical sequences of limestone and they exhibit well-developed wind-induced weathering features but lack significant precipitation-induced weathering features. For these reasons it can be concluded that the well-developed precipitation-induced weathering features seen on the Great Sphinx and associated structures predate Old Kingdom times, and in fact may well predate dynastic times.
also to note the haloclasty theory, in respect to the sphinx (Gauri, 1984) (migration of salts, under the influence of watercausing exfoliation) would have to have eroded over a metre of rock in some places
and colin reader, one of the geologists contending shochs theory point sout the weakness of many of the proposed mechanisms of his opponents, and merely prefers a date within the early dynasty period, which i would like to point out still puts it outside khafres and possibly khufus dates
there are later studies to support shochs conclusions
david coxhill 1998
"Nevertheless, it [the Sphinx] is clearly older than the traditional date for the origins of the Sphinx ‑‑ in the reign of Khafre, 2520‑2490 BC." page 17 of his report
and in the interests of fairness, he qualfies his position "Absolute dates for the sculpturing of the Sphinx should be taken with extreme caution and therefore dates should be as conservative as possible ‑‑ until more conclusive evidence comes to light."
and colin reader once more, here is his paper
www.academia.edu...
dont beleive its formally published though, and interestingly, reader also concludes that the so‑called "Khafre's" causeway (running from the area of the Sphinx , Sphinx Temple, and Khafre Valley Temple up to the Mortuary Temple on the eastern side of the Khafre pyramid), part of "Khafre's" Mortuary Temple (which Reader refers to as the "Proto‑mortuary temple"), and the Sphinx Temple predate the reign of Khufu

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte

on a less flippant note i would like to point out: firstly (and this approaches the point made earlier by byrd,[" Schoch wasn't interested in reviewing the history and documentation of digs and research on the plateau" ])
On the Saqqara Plateau there are fragile mudbrick mastabas that are indisputably dated to the first and second dynasties that exhibit no evidence of the precipitation-induced weathering seen in the Sphinx enclosure.

Weathering on the sphinx cannot be shown to have been "precipitation-induced."
It can be fully explained by exfoliation caused by salt dissolution and recrystallizatuion, a process easily observe on the sphinx and enclosure walls to this day.

Besides, Schoch didn't base his theory on precipitation - he reached the date he published through analysis of the weathering of the bedrock, which is not affected in any way by water, rather by exposure to air.

Schoch actually states that the front of the sphinx is older than the rear - that the rear dates to the 4th Dynasty while the front is thousands of years older.

His problem is that the limestone bedrock there has various levels of integrity as you go down, and all the levels are tilted.

Also, he only had one, single, sample location in the area of the rear.

Also, his own data would support the theory that the oldest parts are the sides, not the front.

Harte

originally posted by: username74
a reply to: Harte

on a less flippant note i would like to point out: firstly (and this approaches the point made earlier by byrd,[" Schoch wasn't interested in reviewing the history and documentation of digs and research on the plateau" ])
On the Saqqara Plateau there are fragile mudbrick mastabas that are indisputably dated to the first and second dynasties that exhibit no evidence of the precipitation-induced weathering seen in the Sphinx enclosure.

I find this to be a really odd statement.
* mud brick and limestone aren't even vaguely the same, nor do they have the same erosion rates.
* limestone needs to be compared to limestone.
* Giza is not in the middle of the Saqqara cemetery (where the mastabas are.) The weather isn't the same.
* Giza and Saqqara aren't the same elevation.

...and at any rate, as you can see from the Buried Pyramid (that predates Khufu's pyramid), the monuments are in worse shape: en.wikipedia.org... (unless they've been restored, and many have.)

a reply to: Harte

uuhhgh, look, i understand
"Weathering on the sphinx cannot be shown to have been "precipitation-induced."
It can be fully explained by exfoliation caused by salt dissolution and recrystallizatuion, a process easily observe on the sphinx and enclosure walls to this day. "
ok well in a nutshell, yes this is true, but the amount of exfoliation, it still puts the chronology out. if you can account for that much erosion, under sand, as a result of dew, and the capillary processes causing salt migration (the mechanical aspect), creating the proposed relative exfoliation, to over 1 metre and other areas up to almost 2 metres in depth. the aeolian weathering (horizontal weathering) and the fluvial (vertical fissures) are not comparable. it is merely, theoretically, a matter of sequence, so why if this is correct, do we not have same characteristics on other structures of comparable antiquity with the same material, exibiting the same degree of weathering. as attested to by Reader, one of shoch's critics, although also a geologist.
and i contest this to the first point you raise
"Weathering on the sphinx cannot be shown to have been "precipitation-induced."
well, some of it certainly is.

"Besides, Schoch didn't base his theory on precipitation - he reached the date he published through analysis of the weathering of the bedrock, which is not affected in any way by water, rather by exposure to air."
shoch was invited by west(an egyptologist) to investigate something for wests curiosity and inquiry, he had no dog in this fight. the geophysical results are not approached by reader and i dont blame him.
and yet through his analysis he concurs the primary assertations of shochs study in that it predates the era of the relative monarchs, but much morre conservatively, and considering the circumstances, who can blame him/them.
it may be of some suprise to the public not all academics wish to be regarded as firebrands or mavericks within their local environs

"schoch actually states that the front of the sphinx is older than the rear - that the rear dates to the 4th Dynasty while the front is thousands of years older."
but the rrear was quarried or exposed at a later date, how is this problematic?
"Also, he only had one, single, sample location in the area of the rear."
i am not sure of your emphasis, here. what kind of sample?
"Also, his own data would support the theory that the oldest parts are the sides, not the front."
sorry to query again, just that the study and various following studies covered the spninx itself and the surrounding walls and i have no specification


"His problem is that the limestone bedrock there has various levels of integrity as you go down, and all the levels are tilted"
i am not sure i understand this fully.
the strata of the bedrock is at an angle. different stratas of rock have different properties of composition in relation to erosion.


so besides comparing a geologists concept of time to an archeaolog

a reply to: Byrd

oh well, you did try to point out that schochs study appeeared to be localised which is a valid and essential premise.

* mud brick and limestone aren't even vaguely the same, nor do they have the same erosion rates.
well exactly! what it does imply is the builders were not expecting heavy rain anytime soon.
* limestone needs to be compared to limestone.
eh? i dont get it
Giza is not in the middle of the Saqqara cemetery (where the mastabas are.) The weather isn't the same.
it 10 miles as the crow flies isnt it?
* Giza and Saqqara aren't the same elevation.
almost irrelevant, i never suggested they were physically connected or am i just missing something?


...and at any rate, as you can see from the Buried Pyramid (that predates Khufu's pyramid), the monuments are in worse shape: en.wikipedia.org... (unless they've been restored, and many have.)
well, yes . what do you feel trhe implications of this imply?

a reply to: username74

and just to break this down a little
so why if this is correct, do we not have same characteristics on other structures of comparable antiquity with the same material, exibiting the same degree of weathering.
in short why doesnt all the stuff built at the same time as the sphinx and the pyramid have the same erosion as the sphinx.
c'mon, you think its differential, within such a massive tolerance?
wanna buy a bridge?
i have two for sale, one in london the other in nigeria.

a reply to: Byrd

* mud brick and limestone aren't even vaguely the same, nor do they have the same erosion rates.

yeah sorry, missed again. the implication that these things were buried in sand for the same alledged time as the sphinx and yet as adobe survived intact compared to the sphinxs exfoliation (difference in erosion/time) subject to the prevailing local conditions within this timeframe (influence of atmospheric precipitation) (dew) visavis its relative geographical location, its radical, to say the least