The Great Pyramid Of Giza And Why It Was Probably Not A Tomb

originally posted by: solve
a reply to: Harte

We are also just barely scraping the surface (as far as the Romans go) about what methods they used around the buildings to make them earthquake proof.

They somehow figured out that they couldn't make them too regular and that they needed to be a bit more loose in the construction, possibly because they determined that a more rigid construction would break apart with the shock and harmonic vibrations of an earthquake, whereas a looser construction filled with irregular blocks wouldn't do that. It would also be faster and easier. I think that also helps explain why the Great Pyramid has eight sides, which was so the force in the facing stones would deflect inward and hold them in place if there was an earthquake rather than cracking and sliding off.

a reply to: Blue Shift

And not to forget the "seismic invisibility cloaks", they had very advanced techniques.

Most likely these will be found around Giza also, it will serve as further proof, that all ancient cultures worked together, and if we can dig deep enough, we might find remnants of the last golden age.

Your claim was that they had "no viable explanation." I gave you a viable explanation that "they" have. Obviously, not every Egyptologist agrees (nor on much of anything else that is unevidenced.) Nobody is saying it was definitely done that way. But you move the goalposts once again, demanding AE records of how it was constructed when you know full well such things don't exist for ANY AE construction. Please note that even the Romans left very little evidence on exactly how they constructed any particular building. The Jupiter Temple at Baalbek shows they traced out their plans on the very stones they used to construct it - there's no central blueprint, if there ever was one.

Once again, click bait king, you take a portion of what I said to waste your time making a post out of . If you’d have bothered to quote me fully , others here would see I said it was a ‘logical ‘ explanation yet Egyptology doesn’t accept it as ‘the way’.
But you didn’t want to quote me fully, did you?
Pseudo Academia again from the great pretender.
Setting up your own arguments using portions of quotes, good one.
And Houdins theory is not accepted by ‘them’ either.
I’ve moved no goalposts, just using the parameters and goalposts upon which you treat others , “ show me the proof” but somehow it’s unacceptable when it doesn’t come out of your rude mouth; but as with all people who ‘give it’ , you plainly can’t ‘take it’.
Fact of the matter is, there’s no definitive answer on the movement of the 60+ tonne granite megaliths that we were talking about . None .
A bit silly of you to try to defend Egyptology’s ‘definitive answers’ when there plainly are none.
There’s no definitive answers on the movement of large statues when you delve into it,either. None.

The object I was interested in is either a form of lever, or part of a ‘rail ‘ system that was laid down in front of the statue , for it to be pulled on top of , but that might infer they were pouring a different lubricant , maybe oil onto the wood ‘rails’.
What’s your view on the object ?


As usual , with your click baiting self, you move the narrative on to Baalbek , now if YOU don’t even know that the gigantic foundation stones there are controversial regarding whether the Romans actually cut and moved them or came upon them in situ, then there’s no point in ascribing them to the Romans .
But I’m not going into Baalbek here, nor allowing you to control the narrative as you always try to do . Snooze fest Harte, as usual.
a reply to: Harte

... just as an afterthought , Byrd, has there ever been any fragments of rope found underneath/sticking out from underneath any large blocks from AE?
One would imagine that once a block had been dragged/manoeuvred into position, a certain amount of rope from dragging would be trapped/left under a large granite slab.
This infers the loss of some material every time a large megalith was laid.
I’m not sure if rope was an ‘expensive’ material for the AE, but surely some would be lost in the processes Egyptologists believe occurred when moving these great lumps of stone?

here is a very interesting docu about the latest discoveries at the ancient Wadi Al-Jarf harbours and elsewhere at the gulf of Suez, going back to the old kingdom of Khufu and even Djoser.

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: bluesfreak
... just as an afterthought , Byrd, has there ever been any fragments of rope found underneath/sticking out from underneath any large blocks from AE?

Not that I know of, no.

One would imagine that once a block had been dragged/manoeuvred into position, a certain amount of rope from dragging would be trapped/left under a large granite slab.
This infers the loss of some material every time a large megalith was laid.

Undoubtedly... but this would mean you have to dismantle something.

Now... if it was previously dismantled (earthquake, reconstruction), the fibers would likely blow away... if they hadn't rotted away over the course of 4,000 years or so. We do find fibers and woven cloth and so forth, but not a lot of it.

I’m not sure if rope was an ‘expensive’ material for the AE, but surely some would be lost in the processes Egyptologists believe occurred when moving these great lumps of stone?

It wasn't that expensive, and there's certainly rope that ended up in collections. But before "modern archaeology" (which only dates to 1900 or so), "unimportant" material would be tossed. Egyptians who made a living from robbing graves or selling items for the antiquities trades would only take things that Europeans would buy... and they're not going to buy fragments of roope.

So... not a lot of it survives.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: bluesfreak

They aren't "a logistical nightmare for Egyptologists." Someone's confabulating that. Remember, they'd already done this for several other pyramids before Giza and they had a system in place.

I disagree. They ARE a logistical nightmare as no egyptologists have any proof, or a viable explanation of how it was done.
What system did they have in place ?

Other than the sleds and the shadoufs and manpower they had to move other objects? Why aren't these "viable explanations" for you?

They lack viability insofar as there is no reason to believe they would work.

The trouble with questions like these is they are cross-disciplinary. An archaeologist who isn't crossed trained in civil engineering can only go off of existing records and some cultural context to decide what happened. And may be apt to simply assume "Well,.... they must have managed it somehow!"

But people whose training lies more on the other side of that question shouldn't be expected to be entirely happy with that.

I’d love to see an AE sledge capable of taking 60-80 tonnes of weight and not turning into matchwood.

See the tomb of Djeutihotep Notice the size of the foreman on the leg of the statue.

I'm thinking they probably built their sledges out of reeds, since that's what they turned to for almost everything else the rest of the world uses wood for.




... Which reminds me: doesn't it seem odd that there is wood charcoal residue in the mortar they used on the outer casing stones?

Why burn wood to make the charcoal? Why not reeds? Given that reeds were a great deal more abundant, and all.

originally posted by: bluesfreak
... has there ever been any fragments of rope found underneath/sticking out from underneath any large blocks from AE?

Remains of rope - about 3 cms. in diameter - were found at Wadi el-Jarf.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
...

I'm thinking they probably built their sledges out of reeds, since that's what they turned to for almost everything else the rest of the world uses wood for.

Nails (iron) were employed in making sledges, so it seems doubtful that they were made of reeds.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
... Which reminds me: doesn't it seem odd that there is wood charcoal residue in the mortar they used on the outer casing stones?

Why burn wood to make the charcoal? Why not reeds? Given that reeds were a great deal more abundant, and all.

Energy density.

Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: bluesfreak

They aren't "a logistical nightmare for Egyptologists." Someone's confabulating that. Remember, they'd already done this for several other pyramids before Giza and they had a system in place.

I disagree. They ARE a logistical nightmare as no egyptologists have any proof, or a viable explanation of how it was done.
What system did they have in place ?

Other than the sleds and the shadoufs and manpower they had to move other objects? Why aren't these "viable explanations" for you?

They lack viability insofar as there is no reason to believe they would work.

Is this a guess from just "eyeballing" something? Or do you have experience doing work in Egypt and working with their low tech processes?

The trouble with questions like these is they are cross-disciplinary. An archaeologist who isn't crossed trained in civil engineering can only go off of existing records and some cultural context to decide what happened. And may be apt to simply assume "Well,.... they must have managed it somehow!"

Have you ever watched "Time Team"? If so, that program series will quickly disabuse you of this idea. Archaeologists work with all kinds of specialists (including engineers and craftspeople) and they also work with the local populations and study their records.

But people whose training lies more on the other side of that question shouldn't be expected to be entirely happy with that.

...particularly if those people haven't ever gone on an archaeological dig, talked to an archaeologist, or watched "Time Team."

I'm thinking they probably built their sledges out of reeds, since that's what they turned to for almost everything else the rest of the world uses wood for.

Is this a systems analyst/engineer concept? Because Egyptologists would simply point you to the mortuary sledge of Senwosret I (2000 BC) that's 5 feet long and 3 feet wide (and has clearly been used for hauling things). Or this photo by Howard Carter of Tutankamun's shrine on the sledge that had been used to move it into his tomb (where it lay untouched until Carter found it.) Or the multiple images here of Apis bull statues being dragged on sledges - some modeled, some drawn.

...etc.

... Which reminds me: doesn't it seem odd that there is wood charcoal residue in the mortar they used on the outer casing stones?

Why burn wood to make the charcoal? Why not reeds? Given that reeds were a great deal more abundant, and all.

It was used to make the mortar for the pyramids. They didn't just stack rocks. They "cemented" them together with a simple mortar. The charcoal comes from the ash when wood was burned to make lime for mortar.

originally posted by: Byrd

... Egyptologists would simply point you to the mortuary sledge of Senwosret I (2000 BC) that's 5 feet long and 3 feet wide (and has clearly been used for hauling things). Or this photo by Howard Carter of Tutankamun's shrine on the sledge that had been used to move it into his tomb (where it lay untouched until Carter found it.) Or the multiple images here of Apis bull statues being dragged on sledges - some modeled, some drawn. ...

Great photos, Byrd!

originally posted by: Byrd

The trouble with questions like these is they are cross-disciplinary. An archaeologist who isn't crossed trained in civil engineering can only go off of existing records and some cultural context to decide what happened. And may be apt to simply assume "Well,.... they must have managed it somehow!"

Have you ever watched "Time Team"? If so, that program series will quickly disabuse you of this idea. Archaeologists work with all kinds of specialists (including engineers and craftspeople) and they also work with the local populations and study their records.

I've been debating for a long time whether to give them a chance. I didn't know they were up to that level of thoroughness.

I think they've got some episodes on Prime, so I will give a look.

If I can see a plausible scenario proposed, any at all, then I'm willing to consider the 20-40 years time table during the life of a ruler scenario.

That's what has been the problem so far. Nothing I can find or read ever pans out. I'd love for Khufu to turn out to be the guy who actually did it.

But people whose training lies more on the other side of that question shouldn't be expected to be entirely happy with that.

...particularly if those people haven't ever gone on an archaeological dig, talked to an archaeologist, or watched "Time Team."

I don't think you're going to get anything useful out of the dig for a question like this. It's simple physics.

Moving large stones is very difficult.

I'm thinking they probably built their sledges out of reeds, since that's what they turned to for almost everything else the rest of the world uses wood for.

Is this a systems analyst/engineer concept? Because Egyptologists would simply point you to the mortuary sledge of Senwosret I (2000 BC) that's 5 feet long and 3 feet wide (and has clearly been used for hauling things). Or this photo by Howard Carter of Tutankamun's shrine on the sledge that had been used to move it into his tomb (where it lay untouched until Carter found it.) Or the multiple images here of Apis bull statues being dragged on sledges - some modeled, some drawn.

...etc.

Mostly a blind guess. But I've seen some very interesting videos that describe the impressive ways the Egyptians were able to use reeds for things you wouldn't think possible.

Additionally: the fact a reed constructed sledge would consist of many reeds pressed together, instead of just one big log, gives it additional strength.

It's sort of like how a steel cable made from many small wires woven together can be stronger than a single steel beam of the same diameter.

... Which reminds me: doesn't it seem odd that there is wood charcoal residue in the mortar they used on the outer casing stones?

Why burn wood to make the charcoal? Why not reeds? Given that reeds were a great deal more abundant, and all.

It was used to make the mortar for the pyramids. They didn't just stack rocks. They "cemented" them together with a simple mortar. The charcoal comes from the ash when wood was burned to make lime for mortar.

Yeah. But even if dried reeds are harder to get charcoal from, their very abundance would make up for that a thousand fold.

If you're an Egyptian in the old kingdom era burning wood to get charcoal, that's one very costly lump of coal. Might as well throw some gold in the joints instead.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Byrd

The trouble with questions like these is they are cross-disciplinary. An archaeologist who isn't crossed trained in civil engineering can only go off of existing records and some cultural context to decide what happened. And may be apt to simply assume "Well,.... they must have managed it somehow!"

Have you ever watched "Time Team"? If so, that program series will quickly disabuse you of this idea. Archaeologists work with all kinds of specialists (including engineers and craftspeople) and they also work with the local populations and study their records.

I've been debating for a long time whether to give them a chance. I didn't know they were up to that level of thoroughness.

While they're not as thorough as the formal university digs (and they are on smaller projects), you can see how they call on people who are experts in pottery and other things as well as using reenactors and craftsmen to get a sense of how things are used and how processes are done.

It's kind of fluffy, but it does give you a small sense of what a dig is like (and it's fun, really.)

If I can see a plausible scenario proposed, any at all, then I'm willing to consider the 20-40 years time table during the life of a ruler scenario.

You will probably have to go back and look at videos on how stone was quarried in ancient times and transportation. Tony Robinson (who does the Time Team presenting) has a fun series (I think it's called "Timeline") that goes over "The Worst Jobs In History" and some other things -- he tries out technology and shows how these things work. Many of the things you see are tools and evidences found initially by archaeology.

That's what has been the problem so far. Nothing I can find or read ever pans out. I'd love for Khufu to turn out to be the guy who actually did it.

Now, I'm not a complete expert on this (undergraduate degree doesn't qualify one for that kind of knowledge) but I might be able to point you toward some specifics.

Mostly a blind guess. But I've seen some very interesting videos that describe the impressive ways the Egyptians were able to use reeds for things you wouldn't think possible.

And there is actually the problem. You're getting your information from videos. Not academic publications (now, some of those are in languages other than English... which makes it a real pain to go through.)

Yeah. But even if dried reeds are harder to get charcoal from, their very abundance would make up for that a thousand fold.

Oh, they have plenty of small trees as well as somewhat fragile woods like palm wood. Here's a video of someone in modern Egypt making charcoal (which produces the most heat) in modern Egypt ....in the same way they've been doing it since prehistoric times. You'll notice that the wood he's burning (which I think is mostly acacia... there's lots of it in Egypt (and it was all over the place in ancient Egypt) is too small for a decent sledge.... only about the thickness of your wrist.

Here's an Egyptologist's web page on trees in ancient Egypt.

A blog article on the GP as a tomb.

originally posted by: Byrd

Mostly a blind guess. But I've seen some very interesting videos that describe the impressive ways the Egyptians were able to use reeds for things you wouldn't think possible.

And there is actually the problem. You're getting your information from videos. Not academic publications (now, some of those are in languages other than English... which makes it a real pain to go through.)

That is true, but I'm only using the video as a base to get started.

Think of how strong a thick roll of paper is.

A sledge made from reeds wouldn't necessarily be as weak as we are intuitively inclined to believe.

If it were many layers of thin reed, pressed together, it would be very strong, but also have the advantage of being able to flex a little bit. There might be nails driven through the entire stack, in a few places, to keep the angle of the curve of the sledge.

Furthermore, the sledge would actually be STRONGER when it has a heavy load on it, because the reeds would be pressed closer together.


This is not way too different from the way Japanese Katanas were made from many thin layers of steel, as opposed to European swords usually being just one thick piece of steel.


The trouble with a wooden sledge is it can crack. And it's a huge waste of good lumber if it doesn't make the whole trip.

Yeah. But even if dried reeds are harder to get charcoal from, their very abundance would make up for that a thousand fold.

Oh, they have plenty of small trees as well as somewhat fragile woods like palm wood. Here's a video of someone in modern Egypt making charcoal (which produces the most heat) in modern Egypt ....in the same way they've been doing it since prehistoric times. You'll notice that the wood he's burning (which I think is mostly acacia... there's lots of it in Egypt (and it was all over the place in ancient Egypt) is too small for a decent sledge.... only about the thickness of your wrist.

Here's an Egyptologist's web page on trees in ancient Egypt.

I see.

I always hear about how scarce lumber was in Egypt. But I guess that only refers to trees large enough to get large pieces of wood from. So smaller wood was more abundant?

I always wondered what they used in their fire places.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
...

A sledge made from reeds wouldn't necessarily be as weak as we are intuitively inclined to believe ...

Bas reliefs at Deir-el-Bahari show obelisks transported by wooden sledges.

Byrd referred to the mortuary sledge of Senwosret (evidently of wood). The funerary sledge of Khonsu (son of Sennedjem, from Deir el-Medina) was also of wood.

Looks like they also found small scale sledge models that were made out of wood at Deir-el-Bahari

www.nms.ac.uk...

Although this does not tell us the real sledges were necessarily wooden, the shape does look like it would be hard to create using reeds, no matter how you configured them.


I'm thinking wood would be used in Pharoah burials precisely because it was deemed to be precious.

For example: the two funerary boats found near the Great Pyramid were made of wood, even though it is known that most of the boats used by Egyptians on the Nile were made of reed.