Ancient and ArchaeologyΜύ permalink
How the pyramids were built.
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Sunday, 22nd October 2006
OK, here's a crackpot theory for you. I've run this around for a couple months now and am sorely disappointed by the lack of response with which it is met.
It is my contention that there existed in prehistory an upwelling river near the edge of the desert at Giza. This flowed only during flooding season and was fed from a spot on the Nile about 30 Miles SW of Giza where there is a dead-end arm of the river today.
This water flowed in some quantity and emerged with some authority. During the flooding season when the fields were flooded, this river was a great convenience to the valley farmers since it was a ready source of water to irrigate the desert and grow another crop while waiting for the river to receed and leave a new layer of rich silt.
Over the centuries they learned they could pile rocks around this emerging river in oder to lift it so it could flow down to a larger area of crops. It would have wanted to just flow down to the valley but a damn around it would prevent this and lift it higher to irrigate larger areas. They would quickly learn that the great weight of the water would deconstruct any haphazardly built structure. The more tightly they restrained the water the lesser its weight.
From this came the knowledge to fit stones so tightly together that they were essentially air tight and water tight. They essentially invented a four sided dam that lifted water to a usable level. This may have had various appearance over the millinea but by 5000 BC or so was essentially a step pyramid and this structure represented a huge amount of wealth to the culture.
As more was learned about hydraulics, masonry and the various primitive technology it was seen that this water coming from this structure could also be used to do work. Water could be let down the side in baskets to work or lift heavy objects. The idea of the Great Pyramid was born.
The area was leveled and a causway built to the Nile for use as a series of locks on which they could float the first stones and the casing stone right up to the work site. A dam was constructed around the entire site to fascilitate this movement. The original pyramid remained and the water was used to fill large counterweights on the top and lift stones up the south face and up from the quarry. There were two auxiliary counterweights for the snaller pulls from the quarry and to lift men and supplies to the top of the unfinished structure. This small pre-existing pyramid rose to the very bottom of the Grand Gallery. Down its center was the route which the water took as it rose each year.
The Grand Gallery was a system of 14 shaddufs which were used to complete the central chambers of the pyramid which could be used as a pump. It was this pump which lifted water to higher levels to complete the structure as well as the two other large pyramids on the site. This was probably still used as a sort of fountain after completion. Its importance as a source of water probably faded just as the subsequent pyramids did. The back pressure allowed sediment to fill the channel and choke the flow of water. Pressure would have stayed the same as year after year there was less and less water. Eventually this entire area returned to the desert but not before significant water erosion occurred to the Sphinx downhill from this area. There is also apparent very extreme erosion in the "underground chamber" which is the souce of the water. The pit in the underground chamber is full of debris and has been for hundreds of years. -
Message 2
Posted by TheGalloway (U5972718) on Monday, 23rd October 2006
I always thought it was the aliens that built them
-
Message 3
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Monday, 23rd October 2006
Is there any archaeological evidence for this dam and channel building? I'm not arguing, just curious.
-
Message 4
Posted by Crystal Clear (U1010754) on Monday, 23rd October 2006
I second that motion. Its an interesting theory and I dont believe any are completely wrong (with the exception of aliens, small hamsters and beanie babies building them) but wheres the evidence?
-
Message 5
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Monday, 23rd October 2006
Much of the evidence is mostly circumstantial but the real beauty of it is that it ties together many known facts in ways at which other theories seem to fail.
The very fact that they developed technology that fits stones so tightly that they are air tight screams volumes. Why would people at the edge of a desert need such an ability? It's seen that these chambers are built this way but not the rest of the pyramid. This says that it required extra effort and this effort wasn't needed except in the chambers and various passageways.
It's easy to view the queens chamber at the top of the original pyramid as a distribution node to supply water to the various places at which it's needed. Mostly this would be the counterweights but they were probably still using this water for irrigation during construction so some would go to the west face. There are 28 slots in the walls of the grand gallery with no known purpose. These might well have supported the apparatus to lift the water to the higher distribution node (king's chamber). There was a complicated movable "valve" at the top of the grand gallery and the two stones at the bottom in the entrance would have constituted a one way valve using a single stone and a stopper using both.
The underground chamber and Sphinx have suffered extensive water erosion (apparently) but there's no evidence this entire area was anything but a desert. There was even a boat buried in kit form at the base of the pyramid.
Part of what makes me look for other ways to have completed this task is that it seems so implausible for it to have been done by muscle alone. The amount of exertion would require more men than would fit on the 13 acre site. Masons climbing to work would be exhausted before they got to the job. And would have a long trek home.
This also dovetails more neatly with the reports of the earliest travelers who reported that they were surrounded by water and were told that they were built with great machines. It explains how the causeways could be used to float blocks up to the structure. Without water on site it would have needed to be pumped up from the Nile. What is apparently a failed arm of the Nile is an unusual feature. It could have been a mere tributary draining a very small area (and large lake) in ancient times but it might have been carved by the extra flow of water that fed the spring at Giza. It's not normal for a tributary to meat the main river at an acute angle. I'd guess the flow is definitely "reversed" today with the control provided by Aswan.
Perhaps there are more subtle clues as well. For instance there's the fact that the great pyramid actually has eight faces. Each side is bifurcated from the top down the center. This would do several things but one is to better withstand internal pressure. It would also help to keep the sleds and counterweights on the proper path. These lines are very difficult to see from the ground and weren't discovered until the 40's when aerial photos became available. Curiously they would have been invisable after construction because they were covered with a casing stone which rendered them invisable.
I imagine the very first structure was simply rocks piled all about. Water was released on the west side for irrigation. The water often would overflow this arrangement and something resembling a mustaba was constructed. It was in this era that the Sphinx was built. The mustaba too was often overflowed or destroyed so a new, larger, container was designedusing the technology developed when building the earlier structures. This one looked like a step pyramid and worked.
It was only later that the concept of a structure for posterity's sake was born. -
Message 6
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Tuesday, 24th October 2006
There are a couple other facts which provide some hard evidence of the nature of this structure. There would have been a huge amout of water going through the queens chamber for as long as twenty years. This would have been the high point in the structure for many years as even the entire base may not have been completed before this node was used. Then they would have piled up as much stone on the incomplete structure as possible before lifting water to complete the rest of the pump. There was not only the water used in construction but the water used for irrigation also flowed through the queens chamber.
It's a six inch drop down into this area. There have been drills bored into the walls and pockets of sand are found. When this chamber was discovered a thick layer of salt covered everything. This salt could accumulate from the river water that had dried there over many years. While the kings chamber wasn't directly above, there should have been some seepage of water and sand from it as well.
This area must have been spectacular in its day. There would have been gardens and trees and people. The pyramids were a dazzling white and, if I'm right, would also shimmer with the water pouring down their sides.
Perhaps it was damaged in an earthquake and lost a lot of efficiency even as the water source was being choked off. It was eventually abandoned as was the desert and the details long forgotten. The nearby desert shows a great deal of developement though like topographical maps information is difficult to find. Today there is little in the desert except basic infrastructure like power lines, rail, and roads, but there was obviously a great deal more activity at some point in the past and it's visable in satelite photos. Whenever this activity occurred miles to the west of the pyramids they must have had ample amounts of water. -
Message 7
Posted by Dai Bath (U2444609) on Wednesday, 25th October 2006
How interesting crackpottish Clad.
There is no surplus of water there today;
was there then?
Do the satellite surveys show/suggest long distance hydro supplies? -
Message 8
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 25th October 2006
I personally like the notion - ever since I read the geologist Wunderlich's 'deconstruction' of the standard Knossos assumptions I have had plenty of time for archaeological theory being challenged by structural theorists with a pragmatic engineering background. My instinctive reaction however is to dispute the bulk requirement involved in this scenario. It would appear to me that the pyramid structures' weight and shape is tremendously greater than that which would be strictly required for the purposes you hypothesise (elevation and redirection of water flow). It would strike me also having visited the pyramids that the materials used and the surface finishing of the many chambers, ducts and passages within the structures varies considerably, not entirely in keeping with the development of an effective water restraining and channelling system as you describe.
Some questions so:
What is your own background. How much expertise regarding dam construction are you applying to your hypothesis?
Has your hypothesis included provision for the variety of geological raw material employed in the structure of the pyramids? (Not to mention the variety in standards of construction employed - in which later construction does not always imply better construction)
Other than vague reference to earthquake have you given much thought to the reason why such impressive and useful engineering would be decommissioned and essentially forgotten? -
Message 9
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Wednesday, 25th October 2006
"How interesting crackpottish Clad.
There is no surplus of water there today;
was there then?
Do the satellite surveys show/suggest long distance hydro supplies?"
The Giza plateau is right at the edge of the desert and if this source flowed only during wet season would have had a very short channel. It probably would have coincided very closely with the ultimate location for the causeway. Lake Moeris is some 25 or 30 miles to the SW and lies only a few miles from the Nile. It appears to drain only a small area of desert so there should have been insufficient flow in recorded history to carve a channel. The channel which does exist implies the water was flowing toward this lake rather than away from it.
A pre-existing construction project for the pyramid builders appears to have been a large dam across the Nile just down river from this point. Such a dam might have been a massive undertaking in itself but one has to ask what its purpose was. The flooding was surely too extensive for this dam to have stopped the flow and if it had then there would be no need to irrigate the desert. It would have delayed the onset of the flood by a few days and caused it to recede a few days sooner but would this have warranted so great a project? It's probably more likely that the dam was built to raise the level of the water coming up at Giza. This would have created more pressure and flow and gotten the water high enough for the project and their other needs. The dam would also have greatly prolonged and speeded the onset of the flow at Giza.
Unfortunately I don't know these things because I can't find topographical maps of the area and have so far been limited to finding information on the net. -
Message 10
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Wednesday, 25th October 2006
"How much expertise regarding dam construction are you applying to your hypothesis?"
Very little.
"Has your hypothesis included provision for the variety of geological raw material employed in the structure of the pyramids? (Not to mention the variety in standards of construction employed - in which later construction does not always imply better construction)"
No. It was my understanding that most of the material came from the on-site quarry and that the more exotic stone and limestone casing came from quarries upriver.
"Other than vague reference to earthquake have you given much thought to the reason why such impressive and useful engineering would be decommissioned and essentially forgotten?"
I suspect most of the reason is evidenced by the decreasing size of the pyramids; the water was slowing down. Note that these structures are aligned nearly SW which is the general direction toward the supposed source of water. It's quite possible that their success was their undoing. By controlling and slowing the flow sediment and debris could build up in the underground channel and choke the flow.
My expertise is in totally unrelated fields. My experience is with the operation and design of simple technology used to do a massive amount of complex work. Frequently this required backbreaking work so I have a deep understanding of the type of effort required to build something like a pyramid using muscle alone. It is for these reasons more than anything that I believe machines were used. -
Message 11
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Thursday, 26th October 2006
The Great Pyramid was constructed on a hill and at least some of the center portion of the hill remains. It is here nearly directly under the bottom of the grand gallery where the grotto is located. This is partially underground and partially above ground, but even the deep part is above the base of the pyramid. It is simply a small cavern with a pit in the center. This should be the oldest part of system and date back tens of thousands of years. It would be the place where the water initially emerged and the center of the step pyramid. It was abandoned after they dug the subterranian chamber.
-
Message 12
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Friday, 27th October 2006
unfortuantly your theory ignores the fact that the pyramids were the pinnicle (please ignore the pun) of funeral practices of the pre-dynastic and early dynastic practices of the low level buildings (whose name right now completly escapes me)
There is archeological evidence of the evolution of these structures into grander and larger structures by building one or more of them on top of each other. You then have the prototype pyramids. These exist up and down the Nile Valley and are not resticted to the Giza plateau. Once you have the pyramids proper you have an evolution of size till you get to the Giza pyramids.
Your theory, certainly against current archealogical evidence holds no water. And certainly Giza was the pinnicle of pyramid building as one after that diminish in size and quality.
Your river idea for the giza plateau might be right for about 10,000 BC when the Sahara was much smaller and the giza plateau was supposed to have been an oasis but it seems unlikely shall we say that your idea is correct for 5000BC
Rich -
Message 13
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 27th October 2006
Your theory, certainly against current archealogical evidence holds no water.
Μύ
Two relevantly aquatic puns in one sentence! You are an unwitting genius sir.
I get the impression that to some extent the proposer of the theory is thinking it out as he goes along and may decide himself to disown it eventually or doubt his own logistics, but in the meantime I would like to hear more of it. There is evidence that the ancients often combined function in their engineering and catered for the secular and religious with the same structures and with some degree of igenuity. This is an admirable attempt at explaining just such a conjunction of aims and its plausibility hinges, I would think, on the mechanics of the exercise (since irrigation must have been something that the Egyptian of the day did indeed think a lot about, as well as veneration of deceased nobles). It would be interesting to hear an engineer who is qualified to speak of dams and irrigation give a cold-blooded assessment of its feasability. -
Message 14
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Sunday, 29th October 2006
This really is a developing idea for me and I'll pursue it until it's shown impossible.
The Giza Plateau is formed of limestone which often gets voids right under the water table. While this process is poorly understood it appears that acids from decomposing plants and animals tends to leach minerals out of the rock. The water movement tends to be longitudinal following fault lines where the minerals in the rock were initially laid down in layers deep in the ocean. When water levels drop a cave will remain.
It is known from seismolic and sonic testing that this area is riddled with underground caves and the water table is high despite being in the desert. It is also known that there are voids under the middle pyramid. Most curiously and perhaps most telling is that the fine grain sand around the queen's chamber in the great pyramid did not come from this area!! It would seem absolutely incredible that sand would be imported to a desert. It seems more likely that this sand was inadvertant and that it was water borne.
There is also some evidence which seems to contradict this theory or possibly only the water's source. Lake Moeris is in what's called the Fayum Depression and the bottom apparently lies fifteen meters under sea level. While all fact seem to point to the nile flowing into this area in ancient times, the fact remains that the height of the lake is only 23 meters over sea level which would be far short of what's needed to reach the bottom of the Grand Gallery. This may yet prove to be the undoing of the theory but I still believe there was a dam which would have raised this at least somewhat.
More facts are needed. -
Message 15
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Sunday, 29th October 2006
An interesting tidbit is that the Jewish slaves were apparently employed at the task of creating earthen dams which raised and lowered the water in this lake in order to maintain the flow of the Nile many centuries later.
A friend who is more knowledgeable about such things has told me that the story of parting the "Red Sea" may have been mistranslated. It is now thought that it should have been translated as "The Sea of Reeds". It isn't overly difficult to imagine that they made a small breech in the dam before they made their escape across a section of reed choked Nile River. Their pursuers weren't lucky enough to make it across befor the wall of water from the collapsing dam destroyed them. -
Message 16
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Monday, 30th October 2006
Cladking
The Egyptians did know how to build dams, they also knew how to build canals (the British weren't the first to try that in Egypt
)
However, what we have here is a timeline issue. Was the plateau occupied by human settlements when it was a reletively wet area? More importantly if there were humans living there were they numerous and organised enough to have built what ended up as a colosal project of three pyramids, temple complexs the sphinx and huge quarries and builders villages.
Also that would make the whole complex predate the pre0dynastic egyptians which would also rewrite everything we know about the ancient egyptians -
Message 17
Posted by MuppetTribe (U4059070) on Saturday, 4th November 2006
Just a series of questions to consider... If a water system were used for the Great Pyramid, then what about the others, both at Giza and other sites? What about the evidence of the boat pits, the thousands of contemporary tombs, shafts and 'mini' pyramids all dug into the area surrounding the pyramids at Giza (and some with intact inscriptions) - all suggesting that this was dry, barren, non-productive land (you don't bury people in precious fertile land)? There is rain in this area (and I've got some fantastic photos of my own to show what a storm at Giza looks like), and certainly these carry sand and silt, and create their own erosion. What about the building of pyramids at Dashur, which predate those at Giza? These show the development of the true pyramid (the 'Red' of Sneferu in particular); presumably for the theory to hold, the practice of using water systems would have been developed at the site of Dashur with other innovations? There is an interesting theory that the Sphinx predates the pyramids, and I've had the opportunity to walk around the Sphinx enclosure with a geologist to examine the rock faces and erosion patterns there - they all point to a water flow down from the plateau commensurate with rainstorms. Just questions....
-
Message 18
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Saturday, 4th November 2006
The plateau should have been occupied as long as the valley itself. Initially it would have been used for farmland during the summer while the valley flooded. They would have had little foreknowledge of the severity of the floods each year so may well have simply evacuated the valley.
I've had great difficulty finding anything about what exists west and south of the pyramids. Today it is merely desert with roads and the like but there are obvious sites where the sand has blown clear evident in the satellite photos. I've yet to find any further information on these. The city was on the other side of the river and the valley was probably considered home by most so permanent structures may not have been common in this area. For the theory to hold, there must have been extensive farming for parts of the year in this area.
It's hardly impossible that counterweights were used in all or most of the ancient large building projects. Anyone with rope might used such a technique. Carrying water up for use in a counterweight is not necessarily preferable to carrying some other readily available material. Indeed, water has some negatives such as the danger of spilling, and difficulty to contain and control.
If the initial structures at Giza were mustaba shaped, it might explain the spread of these all over Eqypt. It's curious that so many of these have an underground passage. If the theory is correct all these failed and it was replaced by a step pyramid which still stands within the great pyramid.
Another little tidbit of great interest is this from Herodotus;
...Of this oppression there passed ten years while the causeway was made by which they drew the stones, which causeway they built, and it is a work not much less, as it appears to me, than the pyramid; for the length of it is five furlongs and the breadth ten fathoms and the height, where it is highest, eight fathoms, and it is made of stone smoothed and with figures carved upon it. For this they said, the ten years were spent, and for the underground he caused to be made as sepulchral chambers for himself in an island, having conducted thither a channel from the Nile. For the making of the pyramid itself there passed a period of twenty years; and...
Note the part near the end: " having conducted thither a channel from the Nile." Apparently this has been passed over as simply more of the inaccuracies of Herodotus but in that age these causeways were still standing. People had more direct connections to the old ways. This may not be so much hyperbole as simple fact. The means of this channel could not have been direct since it is uphill at this point but there are numerous other possibilities.
Herodotus did say that a great deal of work was expended in the construction of Lake Moeris. This, too, is considered just repetition of lore and legend passed to him by his hosts but that doesn't mean that there isn't at least a grain of truth to it.
I've been stuck for a while now because of the dearth of information on the usage of this area in prehistoric times. That it was eventually used for purposes other than farming is consistant with a stoppage of flow to the pyramid and with a lack of water generally. It is true that the area is believed to have been less arid in neolithic times and that even today is is not especially arid. Most of the sand is windblown from the Sahara. -
Message 19
Posted by Grumpyshakazulu (U6590497) on Sunday, 12th November 2006
Yeh I prefer David Icke's theory!!
-
Message 20
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Sunday, 12th November 2006
The pyramids exist so we know they were built. There is no evidence to support magical or extraterrestrial involvement. There is no evidence that they could make huge papyrus kites or that it would work. There is not only no evidence but if there were it would create more mysteries than it explained.
All the evidence points to water.
One of the most telling things is that the canal from the Nile river which was constructed thousands of years later to feed Lake Moeris sloped downward toward the lake. It followed natural contours which implies that the river always had flowed in this direction; into a dead end lake. Sure the lake would lose a lot of water to evaporation each year and need to be replenished but it takes a huge amount of flow for tens of thousands of years to wear a river channel. If there were flow into the lake than the implication is there was flow out of the lake. In neolithic times this was all a very marshy area with large predators and abundant wildlife. There was a large city with incredible structures as great as the pyramids on the shore and two pyramids in the lake according to Herodotus when he visited around 400BC. The bottom of this lake was below sealevel in those days and likely is still close.
Limestone tends to be dissolved by acids created by decays plant and animal life. The stone fractures longitudinally between the layers where it formed in deep water. This dissolution of stone tends to follow these fault lines near the top of the water table leaving caves when the water table drops. If these caves existed it would be easy to picture them right above low water level at Lake Moeris and turning to conduits for water to leave the lake and cause a flow into the lake wearing a channel for the river and what still appears today as a dead end arm of the Nile. To my knowledge there is no other river in the world with a dead-end arm of this nature. It might also be pointed out that there are large numbers of pyramids in Eqypt and every one is on the west side of the river and south of Lake Moeris. Herootus said he was told the ancients had built a channel from the Nile. He was also told that Lake Moeris had been constructed. Perhaps the whole sourthern end of the lake had been built after control of the inlet to these caverns had been achieved and the pair of pyramids built.
Water was also allowed out of the lake to sustain the flow of the river during dry times in the ancient days. Water was lifted from only the top of the river for irrigation in the valley and the water would become fetid when allowed to sit. Memphis (the ancient city at the time of pyramid construction) was on the east side of the river and would be nearly uninhabitable in very dry weather without flow in the river. They had constructed a dam across the river north of Lake Moeris which was likely to fill the lake. -
Message 21
Posted by thegoodbadugly (U2942713) on Tuesday, 14th November 2006
i want to put a stop to all this nonsense about how and who built the pyramids the pyrmaids were built by..................
the fairys and the lepracauns and the omphalompas did it useing fairy technology and magic dust.
the put the stones up useing magic clouds from the sky after they were floated up the nile on magic lilly pond wishing boats,
and i have a lot of evidence to back this up as well.so there. -
Message 22
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Tuesday, 21st November 2006
There was no dam across the Nile in this area. The only one ever built was much farther downstream (near Giza) and was never completed.
Here is a fascinating picture:
It is the Red Pyramid which is about half way between Giza and Lake Moeris. If you look a couple thousand feet to the SE of the pyramid you'll see what appears to be a systematic effort to dig for something. (water?) On one of the grid points is a mustaba which was likely the state of the art at the time for delivering water.
A couple miles to the NE is what appears to be a deconstructed pyramid with a candle wax looking formation under or around it. These are common throughout the desert and are seen around most of the pyramids including those at Giza. The Giza ones are just south of the quarry.
Another interesting tidbit is that the Menkaures' (small pyramid at Giza) causeway was never extended down to the river. It stopped at the point that it intersected the Khufu quarry. It would have been very easy for them to fill this quarry with water and make a short spur to the nearby causeway and save five years of work. -
Message 23
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Tuesday, 21st November 2006
By the by, the top of the grotto in the Great Pyramid is at about 225' above sea level.
-
Message 24
Posted by Dai Bath (U2444609) on Monday, 27th November 2006
also the sphinx, were built by the rulers of Egypt and under the directions of Satan the Devil..
Jehovah's witness founder Taze Russell was deeply interested in the pyramids too! -
Message 25
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Tuesday, 28th November 2006
Apparently I can't post it but I've finally found a photo of one of the natural formations around the pyramids. In the photo some of these walls approach the vertical so they must be natural stone formations. These litter the desert and look like what's left after a messy candle has burned down leaving puddles of wax. The pyramids are at the center of these. Some, notably Amenemhat I's, of these formations around the pyramids are carved into shapes resembling resembling the leaves of a palm. They look like they were intended to distribute water to various fields and irrigation ditches. They could hardly be decorative since they are only visible from above and the pyramids had no windows and were generally unclimbable.
These formations tend to be at high points in the immediate area. If you want to find these, use the above link to get to the Cairo, Egypt area. The pyramids are all on the west side of the Nile valley with the Amenemhat pyramid about 1/3 of the way to lake Moeris. It has an identifier which will make it a little easier to find. Hold your mouse over the box and it will tell you the name of what you're looking at.
There's no evidence that any burials ever took place in the pyramids. It's said that they believed their leaders became gods at death but this doesn't explain why some pyramids were taken down and the stones used elsewhere.
Water would have been very important to desert dwellers displaced from their homes by annual flooding. It would not only be cooling for swimming and bathing but also valuable for raising more food. -
Message 26
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Tuesday, 28th November 2006
"How interesting crackpottish Clad.
There is no surplus of water there today;
was there then?
Do the satellite surveys show/suggest long distance hydro supplies?"
This is a NASA topographical map of Africa. It's interesting that there is not a single river draining the entire NW part of the continent (except the Nile of course). This area averages only some 5" per year in the desert.
On the satellite picture there ois visible what looks like a very old Nile river delta just west of Lake Moeris extending nearly to the sea. This predates the pyramids by millions of years most likely, of course.
The groundwater level at all the pyramid sites is quite high. One of the pyramids has its underground chambers flooded and they've been pumping for some time to try to lower the water. -
Message 27
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Thursday, 14th December 2006
There's not much progress recently. The information needed at this point is getting increasingly difficult to find on the net and some will require sampling and experimentation.
There is another observation though and that is that almost all the entrances to the pyramids are on the north side. My guess is that this implies the means of communication was reflected sunlight (by means of polished copper mirros) on the south side and that this was where most of the construction activity took place. This doesn't negate the possibility of ramps but is consistent with the use of counterweights. It might also mean the descending passages held weights which were used as brakes on the falling counterweights. -
Message 28
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Tuesday, 19th December 2006
Hi All, peeking in for a sec...
I had a friend who came from Egypt and new the Giza plateau well and Cairo. She said in ancient times a river or canal did flow to the great Pyramids. This was how they got the stones there. Not by road.
Regards
Arto -
Message 29
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Tuesday, 19th December 2006
Was she that old?
-
Message 30
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Tuesday, 19th December 2006
Most probably. The problem is that for many thousands of years this has been uphill from the adjacent Nile valley. Herodotus was told that a canal "had been completed thither" but obviously water can't flow uphill so one is left to speculate on the exact meaning.
There is a causeway leading down to a level at which the river was known to flood so certainly boats could be brought right up to this point. In recent years they've even discovered the docks and are excavating some of the dock works. The boats could be floated right up to the pyramids through a series of locks if they had water at the higher levels. Unless there was natural flow this water would have to be pumped which would require extreme effort.
I believe that there was a natural flow (probably originating at Lake Moeris) and that the ancients had worked at improving and controlling this flow. They used it not only to do most of the physical work at the pyramid site but also used it to fill the causway which was used to lift the stones right up to the pyramid. -
Message 31
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Monday, 29th January 2007
There is a small wooden block that has been found all over the desert in the vicinity of the pyramids. Their exact location is of great interest to me but I've not been able to find any information on this. I'm guessing most are on the south sides.
These blocks are shaped like a pie segment (~1/6 of a pie). They are about one foot across and 2" thick. The outer arc has two grooves going long ways and there is a vertical 1" hole near the tip. No one knows what these were used for. They are referred to as "proto-pulleys" because they look very much like a pulley segment.
I'm beginning to suspect that they served a very similar function to the couplings on railroad cars. Each of these couplings has a couple inches of play in them. The engine would have great difficulty trying to accelerate an entire train if it had to pull each car all the way to the caboose. But with this play the cars are pulled from a stop one at a time.
The primary lifting sled was used almost solely for picking stones right up the side of the uncompleted pyramid but the smaller lifting sleds were often pulling stones along level ground or up a gentle slope from the quarry. Pulling them one at a time would have been inefficient so several stones would be lashed together. As the sled filled with water, if the stones moved as a single unit they would suddenly let go as the coefficient of friction was overcome. Since friction is a larger component of the total force required than on the straight lifts this would result in excessive strain on the ropes and, more importantly, a much greater acceleration of the line of stones.
I'm beginning to believe that these "proto-pulleys" were used like the couplings on a train. A complete one would have a peg through the hole in the center about 7" long. The stones were lashed together so that these devices were near the front of the stones on each side. Slings would go over the pegs to connect it to the stone in front. When they began to move these would tilt forward as the tension increased and slowly apply forward forces to each stone in order. All the ones which didn't break would be recovered for reuse at the base of the pyramid. If the peg broke it could be repaired but some would be thrown and lost. Hence no intact coupling/ cinchers are known. -
Message 32
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Friday, 16th February 2007
Some of my earlier ideas have been modified a little by new information but this is still a good outline of the means by which I believe the pyramid builders accomplished their task.
Essentially the great pyramid is a pump which was constructed over an earlier wellhead. The well head was in the shape of a step pyramid which extended to the bottom of the grand gallery. The grand gallery was used as a system of shaddufs to raise water to complete the working part of the pyramid.
ttt -
Message 33
Posted by thegoodbadugly (U2942713) on Monday, 19th February 2007
dear clad king i am going to nominate you for the jaffa cake egypt head of the century.
i still think though that they used pulleys and wheels to build them,and cut the blocks with sand and saws and cut them perfectly. -
Message 34
Posted by Dai Bath (U2444609) on Monday, 19th February 2007
Essentially the great pyramid is a pump which was constructed over an earlier wellhead.Μύ
I thought it was for keeping razor blades sharp. -
Message 35
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Monday, 19th February 2007
Ah, but there's no verifiable evidence that it will keep razor blades sharp.
All the real evidence seems to point to these structures being related to water. Historical accounts as well refer to water.
There were no razor blades nor pharoehs found in them.
Whatever the truth is about their real function and manufacture, it must necessarily have more to do with water then about mummies. It will have far more to do with life than death. -
Message 36
Posted by King Atur-tii (U7470590) on Monday, 19th February 2007
You are very right Cladking, the pyramids have nothing to do with the dead.
However, you must look closer at the pyramids themselves instead of focusing too much on the stories of water that surround the pyramids.
The designer is clearly trying to tell us something. For example, the grand gallery is 88 cubits in length. It also has 27 little evenly spaced notches up the sides of it. 27 notches leaves 28 spaces in between them.
88/28=Pi!
The causeways point to the sunrises at the cross quater dates during the year. Thats the dates evenly between the soltice and the equinox. Also, the sphinx points towards the constellation Leo in the night sky around the year 10,800BC.
This is interesting, but what is more is that the causeway it is next to just happends to point directly to the brightest star in that costellation on that date.
The architect deals with accurate answers. They have left us something here to be figured out. Why would anything have so much complicated mathematics within it if it was to do with the distribution of water.
Look closer, look for the clues and you will find your answer. -
Message 37
Posted by thegoodbadugly (U2942713) on Tuesday, 20th February 2007
i think that the mummys came back to life and did all of it with super glue and sticky tape they had in them days,building them was a doddle for the mummys,
this theroy is as barmy as some of the genuine theroys i have seen here
the sooner they find imothep tomb and some of his writings it will solve a big conundrum. -
Message 38
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Tuesday, 20th February 2007
Have you actually looked at this picture?
It appears that this picture is worth ten thousand words.
I'm at a total loss of how to reconcile this with traditional explanations. -
Message 39
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Tuesday, 20th February 2007
/#y=29574894&x=31224614&z=18&l=0&m=s
You'll need this suffix on the link I believe.
It's the pyramid of Amenemhat I. It is three quarters of the way from Giza to Lake Moeris on the little double peninsula. -
Message 40
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Tuesday, 20th February 2007
wikimapia.org/#y=29575034&x=31224588&z=18&l=0&m=s
OK, the other means didn't work. apparently the link is just too long since there's no indication it breaks any rules. Perhaps the software won't recognize it as a link if it's separated from the prefix.
Try pasting this prefix in and then the above.
. -
Message 41
Posted by thegoodbadugly (U2942713) on Wednesday, 21st February 2007
paste the prefix in andthen www,
is that before the bottle of whiskey or after as i get confused half way down the bottle -
Message 42
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Wednesday, 21st February 2007
I actually got it to work.
Paste in the www. and then the rest of it. My browser added the http: stuff and went straight to the pyramid.
You might need a bottle of whiskey after looking at the picture for a while.
-
Message 43
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Wednesday, 21st February 2007
what is ur problem with this particular pyramid?
-
Message 44
Posted by thegoodbadugly (U2942713) on Thursday, 22nd February 2007
i think that he is in love with it.
-
Message 45
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Thursday, 22nd February 2007
The intricate structures around it appear to be carved out of solid rock.
If you look around in this area you'll see another very similar pyramid just a little south. You'll also see what looks like rock formations in the area which resemble what's left after a candle burns down. They appear to have been deposited by water coming up from a point in the center.
It appears as though most (if not all) of the pyramids were built on these formations.
It's difficult to imagine any reason they'd carve these as a decoration since there is no vantage point they would have to view them. -
Message 46
Posted by CrusaderPete (U1811057) on Thursday, 22nd February 2007
Did'nt the Saurons of Atlantis (now hiding under the Antartic Ice Cap) build the Pyramids?
-
Message 47
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Thursday, 22nd February 2007
Perhaps.
But why would they add these designs to the surrounding terrain? What was there before the designs? How did it get there? -
Message 48
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Sunday, 11th March 2007
OK, some people might find this plan for a mastaba interesting:
I hope this link works. If not then just consider that this is a four chambered structure with opening at successively higher levels.
It's not clear from the drawings how the shaft connects to the rest of the structure
but I'm guessing it ties into all of the chambers. I'm guessing water flowed up from
the underground shaft and filled these chambers to the depth of the little slits in front.
These would have screens on the interior to exclude debris like twigs and branches
as well as fish. If a slit plugged up the water would simply rise slightly and flow through
the other slits. As more plugged up it would rise further and eventually start flowing
out the back of the mastaba. A tender would need pull the obstructions out through the
back but would be able to see from the front.
Fish could be harvested by plugging the outlets and running the water out the back into
baskets or sieves.
Most of the mastabas had a hole all the way up through the top. This might have been
to operate a plug at the bottom for maintenance or simply a reflection of the fact that
water could emerge under enough pressure to damage the structure if its flow was im-
peded. ...perhaps both. -
Message 49
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Thursday, 15th March 2007
"On Friday May 26, 1837, during the Vyse excavations at Giza, one of the excavators, J R Hill, found an iron plate embedded in the cement of an inner joint at the southern `Star Shaft' of the Kings Chamber. It was around 12 by 4 inches and 1/8th of an inch thick. More interestingly it was deeply embedded in the masonry and had to be removed by blasting apart the outer two tiers of stones.
The following day Hill showed it to J S Perring, another member of Vyse's team, who added his affidavit to the effect that the iron could not have been placed there after the construction of the pyramid. Despite the fact that Colonel Vyse forwarded this iron plate to the British Museum, together with affidavits from Hill and Perring as certificates of authenticity, archaeologists patently ignore its significance. The majority of archaeologists at best maintain an aloof silence on the subject; at worst they call it a forgery. The more conciliatory assume it to have been of meteoritic origin as specimens of such iron have been found hammered into precious objects from the earliest dynasties.
Certainly the ancient Egyptians were aware of meteoritic iron, but uncomfortably for the archaeologists, the evidence suggests that by a very early date in their history they were already sophisticated enough to differentiate between different types of iron. Loadstones were called `res mehit ba', meaning `north-south iron', and Plutarch quotes Manetho as differentiating loadstones from non-magnetic iron, calling the former `Bone of Osiris', and the latter `Bone of Typhon',..."
There was a copper smelter found recently near the Great Pyramid. While this equipment would not have been rare in ancient times there is some likelyhood that this iron was accidently made at this location which determined its use in construction. When a smelter runs out of control due to improper fuel mixture, wind, or ingredients it could easily melt some of the iron ore which would normally come out as a low density slag. Once melted it would sink to the bottom and stay for some time.
It would be interesting to know if this piece of metal matches the contour at the bottom of the smelter. -
Message 50
Posted by cladking (U6255252) on Friday, 30th March 2007
OK. here is perhaps the most interesting tidbit I've found yet. It
is from W. F. Petrie's Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh (Giza)- 1883.
"The plan of the passages was certainly altered once, and perhaps oftener, during the course of building. The shaft, or "well", leading from the N. end of the gallery down to the subterranean parts, was either not contemplated at first, or else was forgotten in the course of building; the proof of this is that it has been cut through the masonry after the courses were completed. On examining the shaft, it is found to be irregularly tortuous through the masonry, and without any arrangement of the blocks to suit it; while in more than one place a corner of a block may be seen left in the irregular curved side of the shaft, all the rest of the block having disappeared in cutting the shaft. This is a conclusive point, since it would never have been so built at first. A similar feature is at the mouth of the passage, in the gallery. Here [p. 215] the sides of the mouth are very well cut, quite as good work as the dressing of the gallery walls; but on the S. side there is a vertical joint in the gallery side, only 5.3 inches from the mouth. Now, great care is always taken in the Pyramid to put large stones at a corner, and it is quite inconceivable that a Pyramid builder would put a mere slip 5.3 thick beside the opening to a passage. It evidently shows that the passage mouth was cut out after the building was finished in that part. It is clear, then, that the whole of this shaft is an additional feature to the first plan."
This isn't necessarily consistent nor inconsistent with the theory of the purpose of water in the construction but it seems consistent with the supposition that there was an existing pyramid on the site before The Great Pyramid was built on top of it.
I've found an online version of the book and hope to find much more.
Maybe including the link without identifiers will work.
ronaldbirdsall.com/gizeh/index.htm
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.