The Pyramids Of Egypt: Relics Of An Advanced Prehistoric Civilization?

Here's a pretty good site that details the problems the AE would face if they wanted to quarry granite. It doesn't appear to be trying to put forth any alternative theories, however the obstacles it brings up are pretty severe issues.

www.reshafim.org.il...


A couple of exerps:

"Petrie did not take into account that you do not need a material harder than the one you are cutting. While today we are using diamond studded saws and drill bits to work hard rock, sand used as an abrasive which gets imbedded in soft copper tools, may be less efficient, but works as well [8]. According to Denys A. Stocks when drilling or cutting hard stone, diorite, granite or the like, for every three millimetres of depth cut one should expect to lose one millimetre of the copper tool. For soft stone such as calcite or limestone the ratio is much more favourable, estimated to be greater than one hundred to one."


In other words, if you use copper and an abrasive, you basically lose copper in a 1 to 3 ratio. So you would need to have quite a lot of copper! Or use a different substance.



In describing an expedition sent by Ramesses IV to quarry some stone it says:

"While they were on the job, food was scarce and water scarcer, some bread and beer and water doled out carefully. The gods were not forgotten and thanks were given to Min, Osiris and Horus"

So one problem the AE faced is that many of these quarries were located out on a desert. You'd need to bring an awful lot of water out there with you in order to keep a large crew of men hitting a granite slab with diorite pounders all day and not have them dying of heat exhaustion. But softer stones cut faster and more easily.

(But during the Green Sahara epoch, this might not have been an issue.)



At this point I would take it as a virtual certainty that diorite pounder was NOT the way they cut the granite. But only a virtual one. It's not absolutely certain. Just hard to imagine transporting that much water by wagon.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
At this point I would take it as a virtual certainty that diorite pounder was NOT the way they cut the granite. But only a virtual one. It's not absolutely certain. Just hard to imagine transporting that much water by wagon.

Check out how easy it is to grind granite with one of those pounders:
www.youtube.com...

Harte

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Hey BM

Sorry for the delay in responding. I'll be back mid week once I get some more free time.

People have been working stone for millions of years. Making stone tools did give mankind an in depth knowledge of the characteristics of stone.

Now they were able to use that (probably) to understand how to later work larger pieces of stone. The first uses of stone to build building came much later. They also figured out how to use mud bricks which are very easy to make and work well.

A modern mud brick maker can produce between 1000 and 2000 bricks a day. One may assume that ancient workers were about as efficient. Five days' work should therefore have sufficed to make about 5000 bricks needed for a worker's one story house of 60 to 80 m² with 40 cm thick walls. Around 99%+ of building in AE were built of mud brick

Working with stone to make building probably began in pre-dynastic times around 3200 BC.

originally posted by: Harte
The 2.3 million stones comes from the fact that the average visible stone on the outside is approximately one cubic meter. Note that the volume of the GP is 2.5 million of those.
The estimate, which comes from early Egyptology, took into account the known voids of the time, but did not account for the voids behind the backing stones.

Please note also the estimate requires the entire pyramid to be built of the backing stone type of blocks, when we know for a fact it is not. They didn't know this when the estimate was made.

The actual core isn't regular like the outside. A lot of it is made up of stones varying in size from a minivan to a football, and the stones aren't even really stacked - they're slopped together with scads of mortar.

Of course, we can't see the entire core, we can only see a very small part of it. So nobody knows exactly how many stones were used, and nobody ever will unless they break that core apart and count those stones.


Harte

The best estimates I've seen are between 600,000 and 900,000 stones. That incorporates all which you noted above and the inclusion of the hill.

I think you remember this pdf that discusses the hill

hal.archives-ouvertes.fr...

Its conclusion is: The volume of this original hill is about 64% of the total volume of the monument for the mastaba of Kentkawes, 11.5% for the pyramid of Khephren and about 23% for the pyramid of Kheops.



Yes the endless chronic astonishment(TM) at ancient people being able to work granite.....hey remind them that the Sumerians could work granite (diorite) too - and they didn't have a secret invisible civilization to help them out.

Busy the last few days but will get back here once the pressure eases up - not that you really need my help.

originally posted by: Hanslune
Yes the endless chronic astonishment(TM) at ancient people being able to work granite.....hey remind them that the Sumerians could work granite (diorite) too - and they didn't have a secret invisible civilization to help them out.

No, they had their alien gods, the Anunnaki.

So... I don't bring it up where it's not required.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
At this point I would take it as a virtual certainty that diorite pounder was NOT the way they cut the granite. But only a virtual one. It's not absolutely certain. Just hard to imagine transporting that much water by wagon.

Check out how easy it is to grind granite with one of those pounders:
www.youtube.com...

Harte

That is very impressive. Granite is a strange substance. Due to its crystal nature, it can be fractured. So smoothing out the surface is certainly possible. But what do you do once it is smooth, and your diorite stone is smooth? There's no longer anything for it to drag on. You'd need to find rough edged diorite stones to cut into it with, perhaps? (As what is happening here is rough edged granite is trying to dig into smooth edged diorite, and failing.)

It is all academic, however, since we have evidence of sawing type cuts elsewhere. (The saw mark depicted is in basalt, which is in the same ballpark as granite, depending on what type it is.)

www.theglobaleducationproject.org...

That and the drill holes that have been found.

www.theglobaleducationproject.org...


These guys seem to believe it was done using copper and emery ground up and applied by a copper cylinder and a water/oil slurry. Based on being able to reproduce the results using that method, and some obscure reference by Pliny the Elder saying that emery or "noxium" was available from a place called "Noxos".

www.penn.museum...



This guy is showing how they cut it in medieval times. Although it looks like he is using iron. He is purposefully making a fracture down the middle.

www.wimp.com...

I don't see any reason why the method he's wouldn't still work if those tools had been made out of copper or something similar to it.




I don't doubt the possibility of doing this all with ancient technology. Not one bit. What I doubt is that the AE were the ones who did it.

It troubles me that there are so many pyramids, but only 4 with granite cores. Doesn't that seem odd to you?

a reply to: LitriumGem
Well that finally solves the mystery of the pyramids. It wasn't aliens, it was just 16 foot tall people from Sirius who got kicked out of there home planet, and ended up making them some few millions of years ago, and then they to were buried for a long time, then they came up when the land masses shifted. Then they killed off of by higher beings for some odd reason or other.

To tell the truth. As good an explanation as any. Better then most in fact.

But not quite as wacky as that one explanation that they were build to put dead mummified human jerky inside. I like that theory, it makes me giggle every time I hear it.

If the AE's depictions of working in granite don't show them using a method similar to the one this guy on wimp.com is using..... then odds are they didn't cut the giant slabs.

Because if they didn't use a gradual fracturing method, they probably weren't very familiar with the way granite breaks and how to break it so it remains useful rather than all fractured up and too fragile to build with.

to repost that link:

www.wimp.com...


On the other hand, a group of people who did know this guy's secrets could cut those stones with only a handful of workers, making it so the hard part is moving them.

And, 6,000+ years ago there was also a much wider variety of large animals available, if they could domesticate them enough to use them. And more water available for the workers not to die of heat exhaustion (and for the emery sand cutting slurry.)

www.livescience.com...


I like how on this site, they describe the Diorite quarry at Idamet, which is where you'd have to go to get your diorite pounders, which will wear out over time and need to be replaced. (You'd still want to use Diorite to finish the outer surface of the steles after you cut them.)

"diorite at a three days' march distance west of Idahet in barren desert terrain, abandoned during the Middle Kingdom, which even the Ramessides, with abundant slave labour available, did not reactivate,"

www.reshafim.org.il...


But it wasn't always a barren desert.

The early Egyptians were masters of adhesives...

In ancient Egypt (about 3500 years ago) bonding was even a profession: the occupation of adhesive-maker was born (Kellopsos). The art of boiling glue which the ancient Egyptians had developed was later taken up by the Greeks and Romans.

Linky:Adhesives.org

They would have been able to fuse quartz sand onto objects like copper disks and twine to make some very useable saws. It is a wonder that we have never found any remnants of them.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

I am pretty sure that if they had even a faction of the whole 100,000 workers working for months to try to cut even soft stones and transport them how many miles. They would have likely starved to death or died of heat stroke or exhaustion trying to build a 2 story house complex.

Now does anybody know what the actual building that Egyptians in that time period lived in? Not all that grand right, even the Pharaohs place was no such thing, even today, the surrounding complexes are anything but complex. So yes, you have people living in tents and dung brick coves, making giant pyramids on the off season.


It was at most a grand attempt at a renovation. One which failed miserably, they even left there graffiti everywhere. Though now a days we call them hieroglyphs. But whats in a name right? The most consistent thing across time in any culture and civilization is there bull#.

It seems at this point, all it takes to cut granite is the ability to bore a hole, and then the ability to hammer a wedge into that hole, and the knowledge to fracture it gradually by driving the wedge deeper inch by inch.

Stone aged cultures would have had a good chance to understood fracturing, because it relies on principles similar in nature to those required to flake tools out of flint. The AE would probably have still had enough cultural memory to do whatever stone aged people did.

So essentially both groups could do it.

The trouble is, if the Egyptians did it, then asking why didn't they do a lot of other similar things?

originally posted by: charlyv
The early Egyptians were masters of adhesives...

In ancient Egypt (about 3500 years ago) bonding was even a profession: the occupation of adhesive-maker was born (Kellopsos). The art of boiling glue which the ancient Egyptians had developed was later taken up by the Greeks and Romans.

Linky:Adhesives.org

They would have been able to fuse quartz sand onto objects like copper disks and twine to make some very useable saws. It is a wonder that we have never found any remnants of them.

These guys experimented with gluing abrasives to a saw, but the process seemed to fail unless they used diamond. Admittedly they were using pretty basic glue, and the paper suggests that better results might be achieved with better glue than the basic stuff they were using.

And actually it's not so much that other stuff didn't work. But other stuff didn't produce the same kind of cut as those which have been found.

www.penn.museum...


"While we were able to glue emery to a copper rod and while lines were produced in granite, it did not advance fast enough in our experiment to produce concentric lines on side walls. There are many reasons for this, such as loss of the cutting edge of the fixed particles, wear of the glue, etc. Our gluing was done using a combination of hide glue and water glass (sodium silicate), both of which were within the technology of the ancient Egyptians. It is possible that there are methods of creating fixed points that we have not tried as yet, such as embedding abrasives in a melt of copper to produce the equivalent of a contemporary sintered drill. Further research is needed."

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Hanslune
Yes the endless chronic astonishment(TM) at ancient people being able to work granite.....hey remind them that the Sumerians could work granite (diorite) too - and they didn't have a secret invisible civilization to help them out.

No, they had their alien gods, the Anunnaki.

So... I don't bring it up where it's not required.

Harte

Dang you played the Sitchin card - darn you to heck

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

It troubles me that there are so many pyramids, but only 4 with granite cores. Doesn't that seem odd to you?

Howdy BM

I meant to ask you why you think four have granite cores? Which four and what is the evidence of that?

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

It troubles me that there are so many pyramids, but only 4 with granite cores. Doesn't that seem odd to you?

Howdy BM

I meant to ask you why you think four have granite cores? Which four and what is the evidence of that?

I can answer that none all cores were made with irregular sized rocks piled on top of each other. Its simply not true when you here the average stone was 2.5 tonnes. There are seams and gaps in the stepped core blocks, and through these we can see limestone chips and rubble. So baskets would have been used to transfer stone.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

It troubles me that there are so many pyramids, but only 4 with granite cores. Doesn't that seem odd to you?

Howdy BM

I meant to ask you why you think four have granite cores? Which four and what is the evidence of that?

I can answer that none all cores were made with irregular sized rocks piled on top of each other. Its simply not true when you here the average stone was 2.5 tonnes. There are seams and gaps in the stepped core blocks, and through these we can see limestone chips and rubble. So baskets would have been used to transfer stone.

Oh yeah fully agree. I've examined the remains of a number of pyramids and like any contractors building stuff for the government they cut corners - things never changed. What is interesting about the 'granite core' claim is that I've not heard of it before.

originally posted by: charlyv
The early Egyptians were masters of adhesives...

In ancient Egypt (about 3500 years ago) bonding was even a profession: the occupation of adhesive-maker was born (Kellopsos). The art of boiling glue which the ancient Egyptians had developed was later taken up by the Greeks and Romans.

Linky:Adhesives.org

They would have been able to fuse quartz sand onto objects like copper disks and twine to make some very useable saws. It is a wonder that we have never found any remnants of them.

Um, perhaps because they never existed? That's how mainstream archaeologists argue against advocates of advanced machine technology. By the same reasoning they will dismiss your suggestion. Unproven theories are no good. You must provide evidence, not speculate.

There's no question that the AE's used copper tube saws to saw holes in stone.
They cut granite and limestone with them, as well as many other types of stone.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

They would have found an optimum tooth pattern by trial and error fairly quickly with the crew size they had to experiment with different designs.

hiddenincatours.com...

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

It troubles me that there are so many pyramids, but only 4 with granite cores. Doesn't that seem odd to you?

Howdy BM

I meant to ask you why you think four have granite cores? Which four and what is the evidence of that?

I was wrong. There are a few more that use granite. All dated to the same era.

Here's a list: www.cheops-pyramide.ch...


There is a technology, however, that does only appear in those 4 : the Corbelled vault.

www.cheops-pyramide.ch...

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

It troubles me that there are so many pyramids, but only 4 with granite cores. Doesn't that seem odd to you?

Howdy BM

I meant to ask you why you think four have granite cores? Which four and what is the evidence of that?

I can answer that none all cores were made with irregular sized rocks piled on top of each other. Its simply not true when you here the average stone was 2.5 tonnes. There are seams and gaps in the stepped core blocks, and through these we can see limestone chips and rubble. So baskets would have been used to transfer stone.

I think perhaps we're looking at "core" differently. I don't mean everything under the outer casing stones.

I mean the support structure. Like the iron beams in a modern high rise, the granite in the center of the Pyramid holds up a lot of mass above it.

It might be there just to reinforce a chamber. Or it might go deeper into the structure below. It's a guess whether there is more granite inside. Maybe there isn't? Limestone and granite have approximately the same density, so they could probably be used interchangeably in construction.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

Thanks for the clarification yes mostly used on the outside with a few notable exceptions. Too bad they didn't figure out how to built a true arch.