A Well Supported Theory about Pyramids

[patrickgiles]

Right? No one would drink contaminated river water today, because everyone knows about micro-organisms. But the Ancient Egyptians would have had no idea of this, and perhaps would have collected river water, let it settle the silt and then drank it. There is no reason to doubt they did. Indeed even today, millions drink water from the Ganges right from the river. They bath in it, wash their clothes in it, bath their animals in it, toss the remains of their dead into it, use it for making their food, drink it directly, ect... even today.

That is what I had thought.

Maybe patrickgiles has some evidence of more intensive rain in that region during that time period?

You know, I could cite all kinds of data that proves rainfall. However, it is more important to realize what happened when it rained on a pyramid complex. If it rained one inch on a large pyramid during a torrential downpour, the amount of rain captured would have been incredible. One inch equaled nearly 600,000 gallons of water, and all of it was deposited at the base of the pyramid, where it was held within stone block enclosure walls. I challenge anyone to find a study that cites that there were any drainage holes in the enclosure walls. In fact, all Egyptologists agree that there were no openings whatsoever except in on place. I hope the learned are listening right now. The only opening in the wall leads directly into the so-called mortuary temple, and this has to be considered. There was only one exit in the mortuary temple. One only. No windows. Where did the water go? It went out the exit and flowed into a long corridor called a causeway. Its so obvious to me, of course. It rained enough to cause great flooding problems on the Giza Plateau according to the research reports of the Oriental Institute. Check it out.

[patrickgiles]

While you might actually hold that opinion, I suppose, it certainly has nothing to do with why skyscrapers are built.

A meeting place with a sealed entrance and a mortuary temple attached?

No, sorry, they were definitely tombs.

Harte

Definitely tombs. You are definitely not a scientist. A true scientist relies on truth and evidence to support it. I dare you to cite 10 items total that have been found in all the Old Kingdom pyramids combined. I know you can't because I've done the research. Please cite your evidence for tomb theory other than a sarcophagus. Keep in mind that two sealed sarcophagi have been found. One in the giant trench of the unknown king, and the other at Saqqara ( Sekhemket). Not to mention Queen Hetepheres empty box in her shaft tomb at Giza. The lack of any type of tomb items in a pyramid suggests that they were not used for tombs. Who are you? Zahi Hawass. I am willing to admit that the pyramids could have been used incidentally as cenotaphs. Perhaps for the burial of the ba spirit. That's why they were sealed. This also kept rainwater from seeping in. If it rained on a pyramid, the rain would go into the so-called mortuary temple. You will not be able to disprove this, so give it up. That's not a good place for embalming someone.

[cladking]

The enclosure walls of the catchment basin around the pyramid were the last thing built, so I guess they lost the water.

I don't believe you can support this contention.

I believe it is strictly orthodox belief and is based solely on the observation it would be damaged by the ramps.

[Oniomancer]

It was lit from the roof through slits, so they could be seen. The presence of reliefs was not common to all the pyramid complexes.They probably represent the wealth of a king rather than practicality. Some of them represented boats, which could symbolically sail on the river of water in the aqueduct. By the way, very few people were allowed inside a pyramid complex without cleansing themselves properly. This is documented.It doesn't matter who saw the relief sculpture.

The causeway and slit in question: http://cache2.artprintimages.com/lrg/21/2149/721CD00Z.jpg

Are you suggesting this was adequate to permit viewing from outside? Or are you also implying the waterway itself was intended to be traversable? Otherwise as I said, covering the inside of a water-filled conduit where no-one would ever go with carvings seems taking ornamentation to excess even for royalty. It makes more sense in a religious context, as later European cathedrals sometimes had hidden carvings meant only for the eyes of god, but in a purely utilitarian construct?

A water park slide? How so?

A covered tunnel filled with water? lots of pictures of AE and actual corpses with their arms crossed over their chests? Come on, Isn't it obvious?

[cormac mac airt]

You know, I could cite all kinds of data that proves rainfall.

There's nothing stopping you and the fact that you haven't so far tends to suggest otherwise.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

Obviously, you have not been to Egypt. Believe me, when you look at the Unis causeway (aqueduct) and feel the joints in the stones(which are also mortared), you can see that they are water tight. There is no doubt.

You sound like our friend Scott over in the Analyze This discussion: you get some idea in your head and focus on it to the exclusion of all other possibilities. So now Unis' pyramid complex was a rain catchment, too? Why would they even bother to decorate the masonry of the causeway with such elaborate reliefs if all it was meant to do was channel water? And what of the inscriptional material in Unis' temple, which are strictly ritual and funerary in nature? This includes one of the false doors from the mortuary temple. And one must wonder why so many family members and high-ranking courtiers would situate their tombs around the pyramid of Unis. They wanted to be buried near a rain catchment?

No, I have never been to Egypt. My counter-arguments to your theme do require that I have been there. My twenty-plus years of researching pharaonic Egypt are more than sufficient to the cause. In one of the museums where I work we have the tomb of one of Unis' highest officials, so over the years I have become very familiar with that pyramid complex. If you want to debate Unis' burial ground with me, go ahead.

Where did you get that? Actually, climate studies by Farak Hassan and Mark Lehner have both confirmed the occurrence of significant rainfall during the Old Kingdom.

I am not aware of such studies. I'm not sure why Lehner would be involved, given he's not a climatologist. I cannot discount it outright, however, so I invite you to share the full citation of the paper. I would wager your word "significant" constitutes an exaggeration, however. Were Giza that well watered, it would've become cultivatable land. And yet, from the Early Dynastic Period and down through the end of the Old Kingdom, it was a frequent site of burial for untold hundreds of people. The Egyptians rarely buried their dead in cultivatable land.

Please quote your source of climate studies. And by the way, you can forget about any studies that were done before 10 years ago. They're already antiquated.

I certainly don't have the time to pour through my library to provide a bunch of quotes for something so basic. The end of the Neolithic Subpluvial is too well evidenced and understood to be ignored. As one example, however, I can cite Toby Wilkinson's explanation of desertification in Genesis of the Pharaohs (2003). On page 60 he describes how desertification was taking place "in earnest" by about the time the Great Pyramid was being built. I recall that David Wengrow's The Archaeology of Early Egypt (2006) also contains a lot of information on ancient climatological changes and their impacts on migrations and flora and fauna in the prehistoric Near East. Also consider that another well-proven climatological phenomenon, the so-called 4.2 Kiloyear Event, was devastating all of North Africa, the Levant, Mesopotamia, and up into the Hindu Kush by 2200 BCE. This widespread drought was one of the key factors in the collapse of the Egyptian Old Kingdom. Essentially, then, what you're trying to argue is that an area that was already desert became a lush, tropical paradise for a few years and then all of a sudden dried up in a way no Near Easterner had ever seen. This is why I'm skeptical. Well, one of numerous reasons, anyway.

As far as the water-filled quay. You have missed the point, which is that no one would drink the Nile River, which filled the quay.

No, I didn't miss it. I observed it and commented on it in Post 178, where I welcomed you to UM. You were suggesting that beer was the main drink of pharaonic Egypt. It was certainly a widely consumed beverage and a staple of the diet, but water still would've been the most commonly consumed drink. That's true now as it was then. And unless one had access to a well, which relatively few did, the main water source was, of course, the Nile. Paleopathological studies have demonstrated that a leading killer in pharaonic Egypt was schistosomiasis (Nunn 2002: 68-69; Filer 1995: 11-12). The parasite is carried chiefly by water snails; hence, the obvious source and transference. The disease is evident in instances of well-preserved livers and bladders and in some cases calcified ova have been found (Nunn 2002: 68). This same disease is one of the leading killers today, second to malaria, in many undeveloped countries, even as easy as it is to treat in modern times.

I've read the Complete Pyramids, and I used it extensively. This is a very basic book with a lot of information, but it is not up to date because Lehner is unaware of the Pyramid Rain Catchment Theory.

The Complete Pyramids is a terrific book. It should be in the library of anyone who has an interest in ancient Egypt. It is also far too basic to be a primary research source. You need to read others such as Miroslav Verner's and John Romer's, not to mention Dieter Arnold's seminal work on stone masonry in pharaonic Egypt. I would also recommend Craig Smith's book on how the Great Pyramid was built. Yet, no book written by any historian, Egyptologist, or other specialist would argue the Great Pyramid or any other such monument was built as a rain catchment. Don't expect that to happen.

You would have to explain, for example, why the temples you describe as "cisterns" and such were heavily decorated with relief carving, and fitted with statues and false doors. You would have to explain why so many thousands of officials and family members were buried in adjacent tombs contemporary to these pyramids. Et cetera.

Are you like ten years old? You sound close minded and under-educated. But thanks for the comment. It's inspiring.

With respect, I would avoid name calling. This is not a schoolyard and we are not children. I have called your rain-catchment idea to task, yes, but I did not ridicule you. The more you resort to such tactics, the less credible you will be. And the shorter lifespan you will have in this forum. If you wish to debate me, do so on the merits of the argument and address my points one by one with a properly corroborated and cited approach. That would be more productive, not to mention more useful of your time and my time.

In closing for now, I saw in one of your earlier posts (in a reply to cormac, I think) your mention of the Oriental Institute. This is one of the museums where I work as a volunteer. I do not claim to be a professional historian, but over the years I have spent countless hours in the Archives there. I am not aware of any holdings in the collections of the O.I.'s professional literature that would support your argument.

[questionmark]

Obviously, you have not been to Egypt. Believe me, when you look at the Unis causeway (aqueduct) and feel the joints in the stones(which are also mortared), you can see that they are water tight. There is no doubt. Where did you get that? Actually, climate studies by Farak Hassan and Mark Lehner have both confirmed the occurrence of significant rainfall during the Old Kingdom. Please quote your source of climate studies.And by the way, you can forget about any studies that were done before 10 years ago. They're already antiquated. As far as the water-filled quay. You have missed the point, which is that no one would drink the Nile River, which filled the quay. I've read the Complete Pyramids, and I used it extensively. This is a very basic book with a lot of information, but it is not up to date because Lehner is unaware of the Pyramid Rain Catchment Theory.Are you like ten years old? You sound close minded and under-educated. But thanks for the comment. It's inspiring.

Well I have, at least a dozen times professionally to Giza too, and if those things are watertight I am the pope. I doubt there was a single "watertight building" on the plateue, but then again with an average rainfall of .1 inches a year you don't need anything watertight.

[Djedi]

I don't believe you can support this contention.

I believe it is strictly orthodox belief and is based solely on the observation it would be damaged by the ramps.

Mortuary Temple causeway and valley temple (as part of a so called "water catchment device" according to some) were built after the pyramid, I already gave you the evidence for this but you didn't seem to understand. I'll try again:

Red Pyramid was completed, it's small mortuary temple (within the enclosure wall) had storerooms in mudbrick, no trace of a cult pyramid, the causeway was never completed, few remains of a valley temple, never investigated. Enclosure walls were already being built during pyramid construction (at least in some cases), Sekhemkhet's Pyramid and the "Big Trench" were never finished but already had at least a partially completed enclosure wall. The pyramid enclosure walls at Giza are much closer to the pyramids than the two examples I gave. It's not unlikely that the enclosure walls at Giza were built after the pyramids, because they would have hampered construction work.

[docyabut2]

The water lines were found at the base, the base was built frist, so there is a possablity the pyraimd was flooded while it was being built up in the center.

[cladking]

And unless one had access to a well, which relatively few did, the main water source was, of course, the Nile.

I'm not familiar with any evidence to corroborate this. It's hardly an

unreasonable assumption and virtually certain that most water for most

purposes originated there. But the assumption that it was the primary

source of drinking water is more tenuous.

Paleopathological studies have demonstrated that a leading killer in pharaonic Egypt was schistosomiasis (Nunn 2002: 68-69; Filer 1995: 11-12). The parasite is carried chiefly by water snails; hence, the obvious source and transference. The disease is evident in instances of well-preserved livers and bladders and in some cases calcified ova have been found (Nunn 2002: 68). This same disease is one of the leading killers today, second to malaria, in many undeveloped countries, even as easy as it is to treat in modern times.

Interesting I didn't know it was associated with snails. I believe it

is rarely acquired in drinking water and usually by walking into the wa-

ter to the waist or wading.

You would have to explain why so many thousands of officials and family members were buried in adjacent tombs contemporary to these pyramids. Et cetera.

298c. and will let loose an inundation over the Ancients;

[docyabut2]

hey guys the great pyramid had to be frist with a base with the under ground chambers, then up in the middle to build the upper queen and king chambers, then all fill in all around with ramps. They had to do it that way in order to put the shafts in. I believe the pyramid was flooded when they built the base mainly from putting in the water canels to ship in the large stones. The water lines found were at the base.maybe the shafts were a purpose to keep the pyramid from any further flooding and keep old khufu secret tomb dry.

Edited November 20, 2011 by docyabut2

[docyabut2]

The islamists pull the casings off the pyamid to build their temples when the water lines were found.How else would the pyramid had been flooded before. it had to be before the added casings stones were put on the whole pyramid

Edited November 20, 2011 by docyabut2

[cladking]

Mortuary Temple causeway and valley temple (as part of a so called "water catchment device" according to some) were built after the pyramid, I already gave you the evidence for this but you didn't seem to understand. I'll try again:

Red Pyramid was completed, it's small mortuary temple (within the enclosure wall) had storerooms in mudbrick, no trace of a cult pyramid, the causeway was never completed, few remains of a valley temple, never investigated. Enclosure walls were already being built during pyramid construction (at least in some cases), Sekhemkhet's Pyramid and the "Big Trench" were never finished but already had at least a partially completed enclosure wall. The pyramid enclosure walls at Giza are much closer to the pyramids than the two examples I gave. It's not unlikely that the enclosure walls at Giza were built after the pyramids, because they would have hampered construction work.

The watercachment device is underneath the pyramid. It is simply impossible

for the pyramid to have been built first.

Without knowing how the pyramids were built any statement at all about what

would or would not be in the way is mere supposition.

[cormac mac airt]

You would have to explain why so many thousands of officials and family members were buried in adjacent tombs contemporary to these pyramids. Et cetera.

298c. and will let loose an inundation over the Ancients;

On top of the fact that you continue to use the PT in an anachronistic fashion as some sort of construction manual for the GP, you've effectively shot yourself in the foot with this passage. Particularly as the people buried in adjacent tombs contemporary to those of the pyramids would have to have been dead quite some time before they would have been considered "Ancients". Also, according to your interpretation of this passage the inundation would have to have occurred AFTER they were dead and buried. Meaning that anything they may or may not have done while alive happened BEFORE an inundation.

cormac

[+DieChecker]

If it rained one inch on a large pyramid during a torrential downpour, the amount of rain captured would have been incredible. One inch equaled nearly 600,000 gallons of water, and all of it was deposited at the base of the pyramid, where it was held within stone block enclosure walls.

A gallon equals 231 cubic inchs, so that would be around 1000 feet by 1000 feet and assume no losses. But, even if that happened and every drop was collected, it takes 2 liters just to survive, and 4 liters if physical activity is required. So assuming there was construction (Other pyramids) at Giza for 50 more years, then they'd need 30,000+ people. So just these people alone would require 120,000 liters a day. A gallon is 3.8 liters, so that 600,000 gallons would last 19 days. If we assume that they caught all 4 inches that we suspect they got and that there were only 10000 people building the complex, then we get 228 days, still not even enough for 10,000 people for a full year.

If it worked so well, we'd see all the hills around the Nile littered with these rain capturing enclosures, and the fact we don't would indicate that this theory is either untrue, or that the water was not just for regular consumption.

[+DieChecker]

I dare you to cite 10 items total that have been found in all the Old Kingdom pyramids combined. I know you can't because I've done the research.

It's called Tomb Robbers. I beleive all the pyramids were broken into and looted at some point, before modern archeology was developed.

Please cite your evidence for tomb theory other than a sarcophagus. Keep in mind that two sealed sarcophagi have been found. One in the giant trench of the unknown king, and the other at Saqqara ( Sekhemket). Not to mention Queen Hetepheres empty box in her shaft tomb at Giza.

There is an Open Sarcophagus in Khufu's pyramid. It clearly is a sarcophagus and damaged by looters also.

The lack of any type of tomb items in a pyramid suggests that they were not used for tombs.

Or, more appropriately and true, the lack of items indicates Looters.

Joyce Tyldesley states that the Great Pyramid itself "is known to have been opened and emptied by the Middle Kingdom", before the Arab caliph Abdullah al-Mamun entered the pyramid around AD 820.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza

[Oniomancer]

A gallon equals 231 cubic inchs, so that would be around 1000 feet by 1000 feet and assume no losses. But, even if that happened and every drop was collected, it takes 2 liters just to survive, and 4 liters if physical activity is required. So assuming there was construction (Other pyramids) at Giza for 50 more years, then they'd need 30,000+ people. So just these people alone would require 120,000 liters a day. A gallon is 3.8 liters, so that 600,000 gallons would last 19 days. If we assume that they caught all 4 inches that we suspect they got and that there were only 10000 people building the complex, then we get 228 days, still not even enough for 10,000 people for a full year.

If it worked so well, we'd see all the hills around the Nile littered with these rain capturing enclosures, and the fact we don't would indicate that this theory is either untrue, or that the water was not just for regular consumption.

I was going to raise a point along these lines myself. It seems to me that given it's height and the fact that even with a reflectice stone like tura, the thing would make for a marvelous heat sink, you'd be getting a fair amount of evaporation before the rain ever reached the ground basin. And the one only covers 13 acres. The others, less, and feed into a comparitively small area. A bare fraction of the available real estate. It's be much more efficient both work expenditure wise and productivity wise to've made a "water farm" sort of arrangement of many much smaller sheltered structures over more area, to catch as much water as possible.

[Harte]

Please cite your evidence for tomb theory other than a sarcophagus.

Am I the only one to see how ridiculous the above sounds? LOL

Please cite the evidence for your exiatence, other than your physical presence.

Harte

[kmt_sesh]

Definitely tombs. You are definitely not a scientist. A true scientist relies on truth and evidence to support it. I dare you to cite 10 items total that have been found in all the Old Kingdom pyramids combined. I know you can't because I've done the research.

This comment was directed at Harte but I'd like to chime in. Your criteria of "all the Old Kingdom pyramids" gives us some nice leeway. Most scholars are in agreement that the human remains found in the burial chamber of the Step Pyramid are those of Djoser (1). The same is true for the human remains found in the burial chamber of the pyramid of Unis (2). I grant that most human remains found in other Old Kingdom pyramids are contested and believed to be from later, secondary burials, so I won't count them. We can also add sarcophagi to the list, whether or not you like them, and this alone would exceed your minimum of ten items. But let's move on.

Moreover, there are the Pyramid Texts inscribed into the chambers and corridors of the pyramids of Unis (3), Teti (4), Pepi I (5), Merenre (6), Pepi II (7), Queen Neith (8), and the pyramid of Queen Behenu (9), a secondary wife of Pepi II, whose inscribed burial chamber was found only several years ago in Saqqara. The Pyramid Texts were inscribed and addressed to each royal specifically and thus were made unique for each. Their funerary nature, many references to the place of burial, the burial chamber, burial equipment, and standard royal burial rituals of that period leave no doubt as to their intent and purpose. I would suggest consulting the translations conducted by Raymond Faulkner and especially those published by James Allen.

Then there are the Abusir papyri, found at the complexes of Neferirkare (10) and Neferefre (11). These papyri are critical for our understanding of the roles and functions of royal mortuary priests who worked in pyramid complexes for the cults of kings in the late Old Kingdom.

So in a couple of minutes of typing, and working just from memory, I was able to provide not ten but eleven examples demonstrating the mortuary roles of Old Kingdom pyramids. I imagine I could considerably expand this list were I interested in digging through my library for more examples, but I am not particularly interested at the moment. The above is sufficient and answers your challenge. However, should other posters have further examples, I'd be interested in seeing them, too.

Please cite your evidence for tomb theory other than a sarcophagus. Keep in mind that two sealed sarcophagi have been found...

You cannot ignore sarcophagi, as though somehow they can be removed from the list of evidence. They have to be addressed, observed, and understood for what they are and for why the Egyptians built them. I've already addressed this issue with cladking in Post 277 in the Analyze This discussion, so I needn't repeat myself. The question has been answered and the link is there to corroborate my argument. Suffice it to say, sarcophagi in not just royal tombs but numerous private tombs, some containing human remains, make it obvious what they were for.

Not to mention Queen Hetepheres empty box in her shaft tomb at Giza.

You might have shot yourself in the foot with this example. Yes, Hetepheres' sarcophagus in the shaft tomb did not contain her body, but you neglected to mention her canopic chest. It was found intact in the burial, and contained three of four of her eviscerated and mummified internal organs (Ikram & Dodson 1998: 110). The fourth did not survive. Her canopic chest is a widely known fact because it stands to this day as the oldest definitive evidence for the removal of internal organs in the mummification process.

In citing Hetepheres' sarcophagus, you probably should also have mentioned the fact that most Egyptologists are in agreement that her shaft burial at Giza is a secondary burial. Her original burial site is unknown but Meidum is widely argued; other family members of Sneferu were buried there. It's obvious the burial at Giza was secondary because everything about it was covert, as though a deliberate attempt was made to hide her burial equipment. It stands to reason her original tomb was thoroughly raided and her body perhaps destroyed; hence, the empty sarcophagus at Giza. Her shaft burial there was found entirely by accident.

The lack of any type of tomb items in a pyramid suggests that they were not used for tombs. Who are you? Zahi Hawass.

Harte is not Zahi Hawass. Nor am I. I don't consider Hawass a primary source for my own research in most cases, but aside from the bizarre and sometimes inappropriate things he has said in public interviews, his body of written work is solid and has contributed a lot to our knowledge of Giza and its monuments. A simple book he wrote is Mountains of the Pharaohs (2006) but I like it because the book contains more details than most other written material on the nature of the relief carvings and inscriptions of Khufu's temple structures. These reliefs and inscriptions are strictly funerary in nature, and make it clear the entire complex existed for the cult of the dead king.

I am willing to admit that the pyramids could have been used incidentally as cenotaphs. Perhaps for the burial of the ba spirit. That's why they were sealed. This also kept rainwater from seeping in. If it rained on a pyramid, the rain would go into the so-called mortuary temple. You will not be able to disprove this, so give it up. That's not a good place for embalming someone.

Some kings did make cenotaphs, although I am not aware off the top of my head of any definitive examples that predate the Middle Kingdom. If I am wrong, feel free to direct me to the proper information. But if the mortuary temple was used to collect water, why did they go through the time and expense to carve the reliefs and inscriptions on its walls? Why did they equip the mortuary temple with numerous chambers, not to mention a columned courtyard? Any why did they go through the time and expense to go to other quarries to cut a costly stone like basalt to pave the floor of the temple? This all seems like a hell of a lot of work for a purely utilitarian and prosaic giant stone bucket.

[SHaYap]

same as a hell of a lot of work just for a prosaic tiny stone coffin?

Just for the the sake of knockin' some heels out of stride, mind you

Been a while last i saw a group hug

[kmt_sesh]

same as a hell of a lot of work just for a prosaic tiny stone coffin?

Just for the the sake of knockin' some heels out of stride, mind you

Been a while last i saw a group hug

Ah, but in the Egyptian mind there was nothing prosaic about coffins or sarcophagi.

There have been no group hugs for a while. They do not sit well with Harte and he refuses to join in, so it ain't the same.

[docyabut2]

Why would the pyramid be built as rain bucket,when they were trying to keep the water out after the flooding not from rain, but from building the cause ways, the cause ways were water canels from the nile to ship in the big stones

http://earthmilkancientenergy.com/ch4.htm

[SHaYap]

Ah, but in the Egyptian mind there was nothing prosaic about coffins or sarcophagi.

There have been no group hugs for a while. They do not sit well with Harte and he refuses to join in, so it ain't the same.

Heh, you just have to fill Mr Harte up with bucketfuls of beer, preferably giant stone buckets...

Top form as ever Sesh man, tip top i must say

[kmt_sesh]

Why would the pyramid be built as rain bucket,when they were trying to keep the water out after the flooding not from rain, but from building the cause ways, the cause ways were water canels from the nile to ship in the big stones

http://earthmilkancientenergy.com/ch4.htm

I'm not sure I would put much stock in that page. Below is the topmost photo with description:

(69) Aerial photo of Giza Plateau. The dark blue represents the Nile. The red circles show a system of holes, shafts,

and deep wells. The yellow spots show large holes large enough to drop houses into. The wells and shafts that

permeate all around the pyramids have always been a great curiosity to me...

The dark blue would not be the Nile, which was off to the east. There were quays arrayed along the edge of the Plateau, but never that large. A quay fronted each valley temple and communicated with the Nile via a canal the Bronze Age workmen had cut. The red circles are not "holes, shafts, and deep wells" but mastaba fields. These were the tombs of royal family members and elite members of the courts of the kings buried in the main pyramids. The yellow spots are not large holes but individual mastaba tombs.

It gets a bit confusing, however, because then the author of the web page presents these photos and their description:

(70) Photo from the top of the Cheops pyramid. Red oval shows systems of elevated mounds with

rectangular holes open to the sky.

(71) Photo from top of Cheops looking south. Red oval shows more mounds.

So now, in these two closer shots, the author acknowledges that the yellow spots from the first photo are not holes "large enough to drop houses into" but elevated mounds with holes open to the sky. These are actually the mastaba tombs in somewhat closer detail. And as was the case with many mastaba tombs, the burial shafts started on their roofs and were chambered through the mass and masonry all the way down to the subterranean burial chambers.

There is more on the web page following the above but I don't think it's necessary to continue. The author of the web page is not using archaeological evidence or an argument framed from the culture that built these monuments, but is instead resorting to pure imagination. None of this is evidenced on the ground. It's altogether possible the original tracks of the causeways were used to transport stones up to the building sites, but that would've been it. Once the causeways were dressed, framed, inscribed, and in some cases possibly roofed, they would've been of no use for stone delivery. And no pyramid causeway of which I'm aware would've even been wide enough to fit the barges that hauled large masonry brought in from distant quarries.

Also remember that from the quays to the feet of the pyramids, the elevation rises. Such a scenario is not even possible.

[cormac mac airt]

Why would the pyramid be built as rain bucket,when they were trying to keep the water out after the flooding not from rain, but from building the cause ways, the cause ways were water canels from the nile to ship in the big stones.

http://earthmilkancientenergy.com/ch4.htm

No they weren't either. This is quite easily evidenced by the fact that the Giza Plateau sits at about 200+ feet above sea level with the area just east of the plateau dropping to under 100 feet above sea level. The causeways descend in elevation from west to east. Even if there was water at the eastern end of any of the causeways, it would have NEVER made it to the pyramids.

cormac