Question on construction of Pyramids of Giza

[Antilles]

I can't talk about the interior of the Great Pyramid. I've only been inside the smallest of the 3 and it wasn't anything to write home about. Granted, the Egyptian workforce had probably had a gutful of making pryamids by the time they got around to the smallest one. I didn't see any great care taken with the blocks of the Great Pyramid. They were placed according to the architects' instructions and let's face it, it hasn't fallen down. I don't think budgets had anything to do with the construction. The blocks were always intended to be covered with facing. What we see is the brick before the stucco goes on.

I stay with my original point. The Pharoah was a living god and building the Pyramid was a way to worship him and provide him with the tomb he needed to ascend to the stars and continue to perform the rituals that would make Egypt great and the Nile fertile. 20-30 years to get it built in his lifetime.

[Dontlisten2me]

Are you saying you visited the Pyramids of Giza? That's neat. I wish I could. I was fortunate enough to visit Chitzen Itza.

You know what they say... 20 dollars is 20 dollars... ha

I respect your point. My point is that "Gods" who looked like everyday people spoke with the King and they decided to do it together. I can't prove it at least yet.

Edited December 12, 2012 by kampz

[Antilles]

Like a lot of tourists, I've been to Giza. I've also been to Chitzen Itza. And the Pyramids of the Sun and the Moon at Teotehuacan. I know I haven't spelt that correctly.

All built by humans to worship the gods. Except the Egyptians had a living god and they weren't sacrificing humans. Then.

[+DieChecker]

There's lots of evidence for the Great Pyramids being built in around the time they say? Why is it being explained different a lot? I guess that's when they made it and there's more evidence for it being completed in 30 years? Then I see myself explaining this way still even if bogus real evidence is made up.

Why is it being explained in different ways? Because no one was there and there is no record. So all we have is the archeological evidence. And that points to all the Giza pyramids being built in a certain timeframe. It is that simple.

How they did it is up to debate. But evidence for this also is fairly abundent and there are many good ideas, that are really not so far apart, about how they did it.

If it's for Khufu or whoever I bet that King would go around explaining something along the lines like I did. Now were at 30+ years for construction. Not enough time for it. If it took 30+ years to make a perfect and smooth Great Pyramid then there should be 100 other Great Pyramids if it's that easy.

100 pyramids would be 3000 years! That ignores the facts that the several kingdoms and dynastys that came up all had different fashions. Some built nothing and some build temple complexes and some focused on war/conquest.

The Red Pyramid took approximately 17 years to complete according to Rainer Stadelmann and approximately 10 years and 7 months according to John Romer. Now I need to know how many guys. The Red Pyramid is a pyramid that resembles the Pyramids of Giza. I got this information on Wiki.

The different estimates on how long it took to build are probably based on different assumptions. Assumptions on how many people were invovled, how they were managed, how long each year they worked... and so on. No two experts will individually come up with the same sets of numbers.

[kmt_sesh]

The inside has the best work.

The Pyramids were put together pretty well. They just had to keep replacing stones over time to keep it perfect. Wait... How could you fix something at the top if the surface of the Pyramids are smooth? Were they smooth? And you mentioned time. Time is the most important part. What does everyone say if they added a 0 to 10 or 20 years? That would screw a lot of other evidence right?

On the contrary, the inside of the Great Pyramid seems to have the most haphazard work. It's true that there are some very big stones deep in there, but on average, as best as can be observed, the farther in one goes the more jumbled and irregular the masonry is. Here is a photo of Bob Brier exploring an interior cavity that exists high up on one corner of the pyramid:

Except where masonry was meant to abut the stones defining chambers and passages, the interior matrix is definitely not precise in many if not most areas. It's a hodgepodge of blocks of limestone of irregular sizes, gravel, rubble, and mortar.

Who cares about there King because he's dead. Screw his sons I say. What made him so special? He's not lasting 100+ years. Life expectancy was short. Rebel easy fits there and it would be easy to rebel. There's lots of evidence for the Great Pyramids being built in around the time they say? Why is it being explained different a lot? I guess that's when they made it and there's more evidence for it being completed in 30 years? Then I see myself explaining this way still even if bogus real evidence is made up

....

The pyramid—or any royal tomb from any point in pharaonic history—was a great deal more than just a place to stick his corpse. In the ancient Egyptian mind a king's funeral had to follow exacting religious protocols, and his tomb was an essential part of the process; moreover, the cult of the deceased king had to go on (ideally) in perpetuity at the site of his burial, which is why royal tombs like pyramids were associated with funerary temples. So the Egyptians very much cared about their king because they believed he would go on to watch over them, as a god, in the afterlife. If the king was not properly buried, if his tomb and temples were not properly built, and if his funerary cult was not properly practiced, the deceased king might abandon his mortal followers and the very cosmos would be in peril.

The average for the building of the Great Pyramid is around 20 years. I've seen figures suggesting less and figures suggesting more, but 20 is the base average. It's an entirely reasonable figure, as far as that goes, and was well within the means of the Egyptians of that time to complete. Obviously a pyramid had to be finished in time for a king's funeral, which means it needed to be at least mostly completed within that king's lifetime. There is no reasonable argument against the fact that the Great Pyramid was built for Khufu, who was on the throne a long time, and no pyramid would've taken a century or more to make.

[Dontlisten2me]

I got you guys. I know I placed my money on the Pyramids being made similar in this fashion with the help of "Gods". Money has no value. I wouldn't care if I lost. But just as long as this World claims they were made around in 25 years I can't change my mind until new evidence tells different. If it was built in 100 to 200 years then I'd agree with Zahi and others. 100 years still seems shady in my mind right now. Time is money and money is time.

[+DieChecker]

I don't think they even had money....

[Antilles]

I don't think they even had money....

They had gold.....

[Djedi]

The odds that someone will die is higher with each year of life after infancy.

Logically if they built the pyramids over a long span of time for a particular person and stopped

if he died and did this repeatedly then it should follow that some great pyramids would be left in

a nearly completed state.

This is not what we actually see so you can say the evidence is not consistent with the theory.

This alone can't prove the theory wrong in this case but it still weighs against it.

Still refusing to adress Djedefre's and Khaba's...not a surprise really...

[Vincennes]

I'm not sure what guy you are looking for but I saw a show not too long ago on one of the unsolved mystery type this regarding an immigrant who, after being rejected by a girlfriend built a massive structure using a size of block no one could move by themselved. He was a hermit and no one assisted him. He did state that he had uncovered the secret the Egyptians used to move blocks with mental power. I'm sorry I can't remember his name - or the name of the site he built. It is now a tourist attraction in Florida.

Does this sound like what you are looking for ?

[Eldorado]

I'm not sure what guy you are looking for but I saw a show not too long ago on one of the unsolved mystery type this regarding an immigrant who, after being rejected by a girlfriend built a massive structure using a size of block no one could move by themselved. He was a hermit and no one assisted him. He did state that he had uncovered the secret the Egyptians used to move blocks with mental power. I'm sorry I can't remember his name - or the name of the site he built. It is now a tourist attraction in Florida.

Does this sound like what you are looking for ?

Legoland?

http://minnemom.com/2011/10/17/legoland-florida-near-orlando/

(only kiddin)

Edited December 13, 2012 by Eldorado

[Quaentum]

I'm not sure what guy you are looking for but I saw a show not too long ago on one of the unsolved mystery type this regarding an immigrant who, after being rejected by a girlfriend built a massive structure using a size of block no one could move by themselved. He was a hermit and no one assisted him. He did state that he had uncovered the secret the Egyptians used to move blocks with mental power. I'm sorry I can't remember his name - or the name of the site he built. It is now a tourist attraction in Florida.

Does this sound like what you are looking for ?

You might be thinking Ed Leedskalnin and Coral Castle. If you are, there is plenty of evidence he used simple machines (Levers, etc...) to move the blocks into place.

[Dontlisten2me]

I'm not sure what guy you are looking for but I saw a show not too long ago on one of the unsolved mystery type this regarding an immigrant who, after being rejected by a girlfriend built a massive structure using a size of block no one could move by themselved. He was a hermit and no one assisted him. He did state that he had uncovered the secret the Egyptians used to move blocks with mental power. I'm sorry I can't remember his name - or the name of the site he built. It is now a tourist attraction in Florida.

Does this sound like what you are looking for ?

Others have posted about that show too. I'm sorry but that's not it! I think I was hallucinating..My mistake. It must of been a Bigfoot thing. Whoops. But the shows theories are similar. Whoopsie theory can fix the World..That's another story.

Edited December 13, 2012 by kampz

[Dontlisten2me]

Maybe the Nile flooded before and it reached the Great Pyramids then they opened it and saw that it was dry then maybe then they decided to stick themselves inside it. That could of happened without a flooded Nile too. They could of repaired it back then too so that's why there's no evidence of flooding. The Spinx on the other hand does have weathering from water I heard. I could be wrong. The River(tributaries) had to be closer to the Pyramids at least when they built it. That's why ignored water but not the food. The King and others during the time could of had there separate tomb rooms inside. If it's 10 to 30 years to build these I can accept that they were meant for the King and astronomical things.

Edited December 14, 2012 by kampz

[Antilles]

If you visit Giza, you'll find that the suburbs of Cairo are virtually on top of the plateau. The Nile has long since changed its course - there's no water near Giza but the Pharoahs built mortuary temples on the river banks.

The Eygptians had a couple of centuries of pyramid building - the Step Pyramid, the Red Pyramid, the Bent pyramid and as they went along they became better and better and cha ching. The majestic Great Pyramid. But what can you do to top that? The son had a go but naah, the grandson virtually gave up and then the pyramid building phase was gone.

You can't top perfection.

[+DieChecker]

I thought the Giza Plateau was like 150 feet higher then the river bank? A flood that reached the pyramids would flood/drown every single living thing in Egypt.

[Dontlisten2me]

The river was still closer.

The Great Pyramid was only around 150 years after the first pyramid(step pyramid, but Gisr el-Mudir seems to predate it) was built. Strange. Something must of been going around maybe because of Caral, Peru was around the same time.

[Quaentum]

The river was still closer.

The Great Pyramid was only around 150 years after the first pyramid(step pyramid, but Gisr el-Mudir seems to predate it) was built. Strange. Something must of been going around maybe because of Caral, Peru was around the same time.

Anything lower than the plateau would have flooded before the flood waters covered the plateau. Closeness to the river is irrelevant.

[Dontlisten2me]

It's a shorter trip to put water in barrels and bring them back to the build site compared to now is all I'm saying. I've heard people claim the Nile was flooded during the time of the build. That would explain how 100,000 men worked on the project for each 3 months continually (Said Herodotus) because peasants wouldn't of had any work to do in the fields. They probably were more welcoming to the idea of "slave" building the Pyramids. It's not ideal to lay food and drink on that many men. Bread, fruit and usually meat once and a while is it. You would think you would need a decent supply of meat to keep there bodies strong because of all the lifting.

Accept theories today have around 4,000 to 6,700 men working on it on any given time.

Dr. Heribert Illig and Franz Löhner calculate a total number of 6'700 workers, which were necessary to build Khufu's pyramid. Most of those were highly skilled craftsmen and artisans, not unskilled workers or even slaves.

Modern Egyptologist say 20,000 to 25,000 men working on it on any given time.

Herodotus wrote about 2000 years later: "For this, they said, the ten years were spent, and for the underground chambers on the hill" and "For the making of the pyramid itself there passed a period of twenty years" and "they worked by a hundred thousand men at a time, for each three months continually"

Nowadays most people think that number is exaggerated and that such a number of builders in one spot is difficult to manage. They would need a village nearby to live in(People didn't or haven't found any trace of it)

Edited December 15, 2012 by kampz

[Harte]

Nowadays most people think that number is exaggerated and that such a number of builders in one spot is difficult to manage. They would need a village nearby to live in(People didn't or haven't found any trace of it)

Well, except for that large workers village right there on the site, you mean.

Harte

[Dontlisten2me]

I actually meant a town that held 100,000 men.(Herodotus) I would think there would be something there. People have always been living near it and still do. My mistake. There was probably more then that town.

[+DieChecker]

I thought they had found 3 villages. One next to the build site and two other satalite villages a couple miles into the nile valley?

30,000 would have been more than enough. 10,000 might have even done it. I don't think there are any actual experts that still think 100,000 is number that should even be discussed. It has been thrown out.

Also, Kampz, when quoting something, like you did with Dr. Heribert Illig and Franz Löhner, it is required for you to post your sources, so we all can check if what you are quoting is true.

[questionmark]

I thought they had found 3 villages. One next to the build site and two other satalite villages a couple miles into the nile valley?

30,000 would have been more than enough. 10,000 might have even done it. I don't think there are any actual experts that still think 100,000 is number that should even be discussed. It has been thrown out.

Also, Kampz, when quoting something, like you did with Dr. Heribert Illig and Franz Löhner, it is required for you to post your sources, so we all can check if what you are quoting is true.

There are 3 villages but not all from the same time as far as we can tell at this point in time. And yes, 10,000 plus support (blacksmith and tool makers) would have been enough.