I can understandably see how Dr. Zahi Haiwass would have pride in his race and culture, but I really think he needs to consider other explanations of who built the pyramids. He is reluctant to even consider that anyone other than the Egyptians built the pyramids. We know that the blocks were cut with precision, and were placed to create the pyramids with precision, but this says nothing as to who created the pyramids.

http://ashiana.conforums.com/index.cgi

~ Isis

Sorry Cladking but I'm not really sure what you mean. Are you saying that the Egyptians built the Pyramids using water or are you saying the Pyramids were build to dam water or something like that?

Okay, wait, I need this clarified. Ancient Egyptians, in the sense that we normally use the term, meaning conventional history, were not responsible for the building of the Great Pyramid (according to you)? But they were around?

Were they responsible for building the other pyramids in Egypt?



For starters, just because it was simpler to design than the Great Pyramid does not make it simple to design. And second, since you missed the entire point of using him as an example, the reason I brought him into this is to illustrate how incongrous the thought is of a normal, albeit extremely intelligent man gets worshipped as a god, and yet beings with laser torches and anti-gravity powers are completly ignored in history.



Why do you think I am afraid? Are you afraid that no such people ever existed? Do you really think calling someone else a scaredy-cat is going to make you sound more credible? More adult?

So that you can't accuse me of being afraid of answering you, or of avoiding what is essentially an irrelevant and, frankly, childish, question, I am not afraid of people before our time being able to cut and lift rock with such ease. I simply have seen absolutely nothing to support the idea that they existed.



No, just a dabbler. Most of my interest in in the engineering, not the culture.

I simply do not find the claims you make supportable. After all, all you are doing is making claims; you aren't providing explanations, you aren't providing links, you aren't doing anything to support your statement. When I gave my opinion on why the passage masonry had such tight seams, I explained it. When I claimed I didn't believe mummification had any bearing on the air-tightness, I gave the reason why. You haven't done any of that. It is not acceptable to me as evidence because it is not evidence. It is nothing more than an unsupported claim made by a stranger on the internet.



I already did. And I already pointed out how there are multiple ways in which it could have been done, from the conventional method of using sleds, to the ludicrous theory of using kites. There are multiple solutions to the problems that the Egyptians faced, and pretending there aren't isn't going to get you anywhere. Whether the solutions are correct or not is a different matter.

That being said, one also has to admit that a man who has studied, researched, and been in the field as long as Haiwass has, deserves a certain amount of respect for his knowledge, and his ideas have the credibility of factual support. The man is hardly a tinkerer, or an armchair researcher.

The pyramids evolved from a means to shunt water into the desert. The water was coming up out of a hole in the ground on the Giza plateau and flowing through where the Sphinx would later be and back down into the flooded valley.

This only occured during the flooding season starting in June or July. They couldn't farm the valley because it was flooded but by piling rocks all around the water coming up they could force it into the desert to irrigate and grow crops. As time went on they found increasingly effective ways to control this water and even built structures at the inlet at Lake Moeris to control this water and the water in the Nile River.

The water coming out of the ground at Giza was eventually used to fill large "buckets which were attached by ropes to sleds full of stones on the opposite side of the pyramid. When the bucket at the top of the pyramid was sufficiently filled its weigh would bring it down and lift the sled on the opposite side. The great pyramid employed three such sleds. The largest was in the center and was used exclusively to make lifts of about 25 tons normally. There would have been additional counterweights that could be attached to the system for the heavier pulls. Normally it would lift about ten of the smaller stones on each lift. The two smaller couynterweights were equidistant from the center on both sides. These were used primarily to pull "trains" of stones up out of the quarry to the pyramid. Working in tandem they could place stones right up on the center lifting sled. These smaller counterweights would also have been used to lift supplies and men to the worksite on the uncompleted pyramid.

The first "permanent" structure on this site resembled a mustaba. This system failed so a step pyramid was built. This worked perfectly however, the concept of the great pyramid evolved when their understanding of hydraulics became sufficiently advanced so the great pyramid was built right on top of the step pyramid. This step pyramid has it's pyramidian right at the bottom of the grand gallery. It is also aligned on a north-south axis. It's base is a few feet higher than the base of the Great Pyramid and the grotto is at the bottom of it. The grotto is the original hole in the ground where the water came out.

Most of the work done on Lake Moeris and the Nile River in that area was to fascilitate construction of the pyramids and irrigation of the desert. Later, when the water no longer flowed on the Giza Plateau the work was done only to regulate the flow of water in the Nile.

Much of the reason I developed this theory is my inability to believe traditional explanations. I can believe 100,000 men had a hand in the construction only if you cound the scribes at the Aswan quarry and everyone who had even the most passing hand in the effort. The idea of even getting 100,000 men on site is ludicrous. It would require tremendous tactical effort since the city is on the opposite side of the river. Perhaps more importantly is the concept that people would learn to do such things for almost no reason and then commit a large percentage of the treasury to the effort flies in the face of human nature. Men don't live to work willingly and few men ever would be willing to put out the tremendous effort required to drag stones with tens of thousands of others at his front and back. And this assumes it were even possible. Remember that there is no evidence of ramps. Indeed the evidence squarely says that there were no ramps since there isn't room for them between the quarry ant the pyramid. There would be several teams of masons working on the pyramid to dress and place stones but a mam clamoring up the side of this structure to get to work would be exhausted before he got there. Then he'd have the long and more dangerous climb back down. And, of course, his home where he can rest for another day's work is across the river.

I've never known more than a handfull of men who would work this way and none would do it day in and day out. This simply led me to a reexamination of what was known. When I started I simply posited the underground river and then discovered all the evidence points in this direction. These people learned about hydraulics very early because it was necessary to their livelyhood. In the early days they were dependent on a second crop from the desert each year because they hadn't learned a great deal about food storage and crops were variable due to the degree of valley flooding. In years of very low floods the crops would be small because of the lack of a fresh layer of silt and huge floods could devastate crops by shortening the growing season.

It's hardly surprising such people would learn about water and its control. They would learn how to cut through rock and they'd learn how to build water tight enclosures. Of course this all presupposes the existence of an initial water source.

It also raises questions about why it stopped. Perhaps an earthquake collapsed the pyramids at Lake Moeris and these were the inlets for the water. Perhaps restricting the flow at the outlet for their massive construction projects caused sedimentation to accumulate in the underground channels and choked off the flow. An earthquake might have reduced the pumping capacity of the pyramid so it was mostly just abandoned.

It would seem the first order of business would be to dig out the pit in the underground chamber and in the grotto and confirm or deny this theory. The evidence will probably be fairly conclusive and point to the next step but if not then the other testing should be done.

The Great Pyramid at Giza is built to a standard that has had Archeologists, Engineers, Historians, Scientists, Geologists and even Egyptologists (bless them) scratching their heads. It is not known how it was built, it is not known why it was built, it is not known when it was built and it is not known who built it. It is one of the most accurate building ever built, it is one of the biggest buildings ever built. It is THE most wonderous building in the World.
According to Wikipedia, there are between 80 and 110 Pyramids in Egypt and they all fade into insignificance when compared to the Giza Pyramids. The other Pyramids are mere copies of the original made from small stones and mud bricks. Some have collapsed and some have fallen down completely and all are in a worse state of repair. A great civilisation they were but they were not able to build the Giza Pyramids... I know this because they tried between 80 and 100 times.

Make up your mind, earlier you were saying that the Pyramid was a simple design and could be built in less than three years and now your saying that the Step Pyramid is not simple to design but simpler than the Great Pyramid.

Try this page if you want evidence of machine tooling.

http://www.gizapower.com/Advanced/AdvancedMachining.html


In return can you send me a link that can explain how the Ancient Egyptians built the Great Pyramid?

Why is it ludicrous?

Yes it does require great tactical effort, but why is that so difficult to imagine back then unless you equate the workings of that civilization to todays? If you knew anything at all about ancient Egyptian history, you would know that the treasury was established based on a taxation of each and every producer, that said taxation was a percentage of the production--yes the tithe, into the treasury of the Great House, that is--the meaning of pharaoh, and all citizens were provided for from that treasury, except for individual barter. You would also know that this was in the days before coinage upon which you subconsciously base your position. Mass taxation/tithing then, was the earliest method for providing for those who were not endowed with land or animals to earn their keep. Let us call it the first social assistance if you will.

Trade via expansion, then became international, and as with today, the cost of goods rose exponentially. No longer could the king dictate what he or she would or would not pay the local tradesmen, but he or she had to pay the rivals and foreign exporters for materials based on prices outside of the king's control.

On the contrary! the majority today do work just to support themselves and/or their families.

You've never known even one man who worked at the sole discretion of a king.

"Why is it ludicrous?"

Because the population was too small to support such a task. Up until nearly this time most men had to work or hunt most of the time to have enough to eat. There still weren't good means of preserving foods for the summer when the flooding occurred. People had animals to feed and plenty of work to support themselves. Only suplus effort could go into constructing the pyramids whether they were used for irrigation or as homage to their Gods. The alternative is starvation and then they couldn't have built them.


"On the contrary! the majority today do work just to support themselves and/or their families."

Yes. They work, and often work long hours. But almost no one work at back breaking work. People balk at this type of work and simply refuse to do it. You can't even find people to do this work and have no choice but to use machinery. Fifty years ago there were a few people who worked like this but not today. Even in the past though, people didn't work like this day in and day out. Indeed, most worked a few hours and then got some job that required less effort. 16 tons of coal was considered a fair days work for a 1900 coal miner but this can be done in an hour or two by someone accustomed to hard work. Even pirates with their small crews could dig tremendous holes to stash loot. Try finding even a small army that would do this today.

Just reporting to work on the top of the pyramid would be well more than the effort required by today's laborers. Imagine getting on a boat for the long trip to the plateau, the long walk from the shore, and then climbing a thirty story building. And this would be a worker who wasn't expected to get together with six thousand other people and drag an 80 ton stone up with them with no ramp and no known means to accomplish it.


"You've never known even one man who worked at the sole discretion of a king."

People are the same everywhere. They work harder for themselves than for anyone else.

The pyramids are testament to the human spirit. They are a labor of love. While some of the individuals may have felt coerced in their role, this was not the norm. They had a sense of purpose and were paid in some form. And it seems highly improbable that any means to build these whioch employed back breaking work for most involved was used. It seems highly improbable they could feed themselves and commit so many resources to this project.

It seems far more likely that a full work crew consisted of fifty riggers, three hundred men in the quarry and a few hundred masons on the pyramid. There would be twenty or thirty machine operators, a couple hundred laborers, several jouneymen and architects. There would be brakemen on some lifts and a score of gophers. When the causeway was in operation there would be a few dozen men operating the locks and boatmen delivering stone. There would be far flung quarries and entire enterprises to make the rope and supplies needed. There would be a dozen people moving food for the workers and some employed at getting rid of waste. The place would have been teeming with busy, very hard working people but no groups dragging stone with no ramps. There wouldn't be a hundred thousand men working nearly cheek to jowl on a 13 acre site with hardly any elbow room.

Perhaps over a thirty year period there were 100,000 men who contributed to this effort. But some may have never set foot on site.

I don't know the source of your information, cladking, but it does nor jive with the known information and population extrapolations. Perhaps though you can tell us what that population was, and what the various classes were up to in support of your claim.

This also requires that you support these claims.

But then again, you contradict yourself here by suggesting they were farming animals but spending most of their time hunting. If they were farming, they had no need to hunt.

So they were busy farming but hunting too to support their hunger, and during spare time, worked on the pyramids? When was it feasible to leave the herds, hunting, farming and preserving to build anything as is supported by the quarries and workmen camps? What did architects, scribes, envoys, militia, builders, priests do when not engaging in these activities?

I ask too for your sources that they could refuse, and also did no back-breaking work. For example, the evidence of which I am aware points to severe spinal trauma on the part of those remains recovered from the workmen's camps. Do you have some alternate findings you can share?

The rest of your post is non related o egyptian life of 5,000+ years ago, so I won't bother responding.

I said up until nearly this time they spent most of their time hunting and gathering food. Farming would have been a huge change oin the way of life of a people but keep in mind that societies are composed of individuals. All individuals didn't suddenly lay down their spears and grab a plow. The first farmers would probably fair little better than their brothers who hunted since there was a great deal to learn. If they did far better than all the hunters would quickly convert to farming and this seems highly improbable in all cultures but moreso in the Nile valley where crop yields had so much variation and there was so much more to learn since they had an annual flood and much less well defined seasons. Even here a calender was critical to effective farming and the lack of seasons and proximity to the equator would lenghten the learning curve to develope a calender.

By the time the great pyramid was begun there was probably very little game left in the valley. Most of the arable land would have been farmed and this is not condusive to large game.

All work which doesn't directly and immediately result in more food production requires "surplus effort" by definition. One can't build things with no food whether the date is 2006 or 2570BC. Today we have little estimation of the importance of food because we are so productive and so wealthy that this represents a fraction of our efforts but this was not true to hunter/ gatherers nor to the early farmers. Populations would grow as fast as productivity increases so the only thing standing between starvation and good times for primitive cultures were food stockpiles and regular harvests. Obviously there were great projects and culture for these people which shows they possessed wealth but much of this culture is seen somewhat after the pyramids were built. Even with an extra crop grown in the desert each year it seems unlikely that the population in those days might exceed 50% of current population of the valley. This would exclude most of the metropolitan Cairo since it's not in the valley. I'm referring to farmers here not skyscrapers.

People balk at heavy work. This is a fact of life and is based on a great deal of observation. I've known many dozens of men employed to do heavy work who simply never did it. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. This is the nature of the beast. Perhaps people were different in those days and maybe rabbits were trained to move stones. I'm sticking with my observation that people are the same everywhere.

Thats not true. The Neolithic Revolution occured in Sumeria long before the Egyptian Society.

As such hunter/gatherer Societies were a thing of the past.

As for preserving food... They had discovered the wonders of salt long before the pyramids were built as well.

As for the rest of that. I am sure that Aquatus is far more qualified to answer it then I.

Not at all. What people are wondering about is which method was used to build the pyramids, not that they were built to a given set of standards.



We have pretty good evidence telling us when it was built, why it was built, when it was built, and who had it built.



Depends, depends, and definitely.



Except that you haven't given us any reason to doubt the current dating of the pyramids and the order in which they were built (did the various dozens of laboratories, the Egyptologists, and the geologists which did the dating all make mistakes 80 to 100 times?).



That is correct. What part of that do you not understand?



Well, there are obviously hundreds of aspects and opinions, but a good start would be Hawass's site, which has many article with the latest and greatest. He has sections in there about the construction of the pyramids, including the latest discovery of the ramp used to drag blocks, and of a new theory proposed by a guy who believes notches found in certain areas of the pyramid were lever holes, used to push blocks up the side of the pyramid once the ramp became too steep to be useful.

Egyptology

One thing I find interesting is that no one has thought of the one thing that might make sense for an explanation. Does anyone know one particular flaw in the egyptian culture that would explain how the Pyramids could exist? Well if you look around Egypt in most of the temples and monuments you will see hyrogliphics. And what most people don't know is that a lot of these glyphs are not in their original form. They have been altered, in some instances more than once. Each alteration done to reflect a person's glory. Now why would that happen you ask. Well each new pharoh becomes in essence a god, and what good is being god if everywhere you look there is all this great stuff with other people's name on it. And how do you fix that, why you change a glyph here and a glyph there and voila, you become the pharoh that subjugated the ethiopians. Egyptian culture is about revision, from the top guy down it wasn't odd to take credit for others people's actions, it wasn't considered a character flaw, it was just good sense to do it. Each successive ruler had to leave a testament to his greatness, one guy built an entire new capital and changed the religion of the whole country. When they got rid of him, the new guy had every glyph of the previous guy obliterated to make it as if he never existed. And it wasn't that hard to make someone disappear into oblivion, for the most part people were not literate, literacy was for the top guys and the priests, so someone could be removed very easily.

Now what i Egyptians didn't build the pyramids, what if they were there already? Think about it your nomadic people you come to the nile valley and see these structures, but also a lusch area ripe for settling.. So you stay and make yourself at home. Eventually people forget where they come from, then people start to believe they put them there because they are there for so long. And over time maybe the smarter ones figure out how it was done and decide to do their own great monument too. Then it becomes common practice, and due to all the other "similar" examples of architecture, the pyramids become grouped with all the other monuments even though there is evidence of their much earlier arrival.
So if they were there before who put them there you ask?
Aliens?
Giants?
Dinosaurs?
Nothing as amazing as that no, it was other humans. What other humans? Those that had lived and circumnavigated the globe before our ancestors drew buffalos on the cave wall. A pre civilization that has not been confirmed as yet but has left behind clues to their existence. This civilization was probably predominately a seafaring nation that was all over the globe. They were probably intimately familiar with celestial progressions, mathematical principals we give ourselves credit for, and agriculture. They would have been for the most part located on coasts f most temperate climate continents. They would have had to have a central government system of some type. And would have been particularly vulnerable to any natural disaster involving flooding on a global scale which has happened many times in the past. They would be of moderate building skill, and for the most part would have known stone was ideal for construction of important buildings. They may have even incorporated some of their most important mathematical concepts within their construction. Sort of like a lost chapter of human history.

Interesting stuff and a great many people including quite a few serious archeologists have suggested that the Great Pyramids were there before Djozer's etc and built by an entirely different people. There is however no evidence for this other than a claim that at some time in the past, long before the arrival of the Egyptians, the great Pyramids had been partially submerged in sea water to a depth of about 10 metres. In fact, evidence was found that at some time water had reached the foot of the Pyramids whether from an unusually high flooding of the Nile or some other climatic event.
It is a fact that the great Pyramids were standing when the volcano on the island Of Santorini exploded and there could have been some excessive flooding of the Nile region from that event but alas there is no record of it.

One of the things that always bothered me was that Cheops was given credit for the main pyramid. To the south of Ghiza near the border with Ethiopia Cheops supposedly built another pyramid, but it was an unsuccessful attempt, in that its method of construction was different from that of the Ghiza plateau. This allegedly early sample was more beehive than pyramid, so much so that it looked almost exactly like an example of some other nations construction (ethiopia?). Its a severe jump from the early example to the ghiza building. If they were so off track the first time how did they make such a dramatic turn? Unless what we see there is an example of them trying to "duplicate" a great work without a complete understanding of its construction. Its distance would also be explained by it being an experiment, if it went wrong like it did then, no body would know.

The Archeologists, Engineers, Historians, Scientists, Geologists, Egyptologists and anybody else who has ever looked at it, DO NOT KNOW HOW THE GREAT PYRAMID WAS BUILT AND NEITHER DO YOU!

Thank you Contactismade... here is some one talking sense.

The Ancient Egyptians are frauds, taking credit for the work done by a Human Civilisation thousands of years before.

I have always thought that there was a pre civ, unfortunately there is little proof except for a few ooparts and other strange coincidences. Also time wise I have always thought egyptians made a pretty big stride forward all of a sudden that does not appear to have a identifiable catalyst. That and the common use of pyramids all across the world. Some would argue that its structure is a natural for pre-industrial construction of large buildings, that the method is the only way to do it so more than one group in more than one time line would come up with the same answer. If that was the case then you would not get what happened in ethiopia. Why would they build so many flawed buildings if they had a guideline just up the river to go by? Why use an inferior design when a more efficient and uniform one existed for the copying?

Unless they are just copies of work that could not be reproduced. If the three pyramids were so hot then why were more not built elsewhere by the same dynasty? All other construction does not exhibit the same characteristics as the pyramids. Besides the obelisks name one other site whose materials were aquired form such a far distance from the site. Looking at the other great buildings you can see that the majority of the material was already on site and in no need of huge logistics trains. The pyramids represent an investment of material and man power that is staggering for its time. And the simple fact that needs the most explanation is who was the pyramid built for? There are no royal cartouche signifying ownership. Egyptians are the biggest braggards of the ancient world. Is it really believable that whoever was responsible didn't put their mark down to tell others about their great acievement?

"Also time wise I have always thought egyptians made a pretty big stride forward all of a sudden that does not appear to have a identifiable catalyst. "

Perhaps this occurred when they placed some identifiable objects in the inlet at Lake Moeris and saw them come out at Giza.




There are many different means of preserving many different foods. No doubt in the modern age with the advent of things like sodium nitrite, most of these have been lost.

One thing that all have in common though is the necessity to keep out rodents and insects. This is a tropical enviroment and very moist most of the time. Until construction of the Asawn High Dam in 1964 there was not complete control of the river. Certainly at the time of construction there would be terrible insect infestations in some years. It's possible it was this need to keep insects out of the graineries that the technology of fitting stones closely was developed. But, even if this were the case, one must still ask why it would be employed in the pyramid and only on the chambers and passages.

Didn't say they did. I said, and you quoted, so I don't know how you missed it

That you choose to ignore it is up to you, but it won't make it go away. The simple fact of the matter is that the conventional explanation has a very good body of evidence supporting how it was built. Other than a claim, what do you have? All you have done is claim that all these various different people from various different times and researching various different sites have somehow all made the same identical mistakes.

We still cannot positively date the age of the great Pyramids. If there is proof of their age I would certainly like to see it. In fact the only method used for dating the Great Pyramids is demographic - the fact that there were only enough people in the region during the 4th dynasty that could have undertaken such a task.
I still contest the accepted period for the construction of the Great Pyramids. My own calculations show a construction period of at least 110 years but more likely 150.
It is assumed that construction continued without break for 20 years with the work crews labouring 10 hours a day 365 days a year. this is impossible.
I include the following:

"In contrast, a Great Pyramid feasibility study relating to the quarrying of the stone was performed in 1978 by Technical Director Merle Booker of the Indiana Limestone Institute of America. Consisting of 33 quarries, the Institute is considered by many architects to be one of the world’s leading authorities on limestone. Using modern equipment, the study concludes:

“Utilizing the entire Indiana Limestone industry’s facilities as they now stand [for 33 quarries], and figuring on tripling present average production, it would take approximately 27 years to quarry, fabricate and ship the total requirements.”
Booker points out the time study assumes sufficient quantities of railroad cars would be available without delay or downtime during this 27 year period and does not factor in the increasing costs of completing the work.[8]

The entire Giza Plateau is believed to have been constructed over the reign of five pharaohs in less than a hundred years. Beginning with Djoser who ruled from 2687-2667 BCE, three other massive pyramids were built - the Step pyramid of Saqqara (believed to be the first Egyptian pyramid), the Bent Pyramid, and the Red Pyramid. Also during this period (between 2686 and 2498 BCE) the Wadi Al-Garawi dam which used an estimated 100,000 cubic meters of rock and rubble was built.[9]

The accepted values by Egyptologists bear out the following result: 2,400,000 stones used ÷ 20 years ÷ 365 days per year ÷ 10 work hours per day ÷ 60 minutes per hour = 0.55 stones laid per minute.

Thus no matter how many workers were used or in what configuration, 1.1 blocks on average would have to be put in place every 2 minutes, ten hours a day, 365 days a year for twenty years to complete the Great Pyramid within this time frame. This equation, however, does not take into account designing, planing, surveying, and leveling the 13 acre site the Great Pyramid sits on."

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

Thats pretty impressive for a projected workload. Taking the problem like this starts to illustrate more problems in the stock explanation.

Man……..just read few the first few pages of this thread, and then skimmed the last few.
This is a hot debate!

"aquatus1" I think you are talking the most sense my friend…

The trouble with the Pyramid enigma is that people 'want' to believe!
The kinds of people who visit these types of forums (like me ;-) do not want to believe that it was so simple, that it was not as straight forward as; an advanced ancient civilization that were master craftsmen?

I have read sooo much literature on the pyramids: from ‘Acoustic Devices’ to ‘Power Plants’, ‘Electromagnetic antigravity levitation’ devices, Built by ‘Pleadians’? Built by ‘Atlantians’, connections to “Cydonia” on Mars? There are a lot of theory’s out there, and they are all very convincing when you read the books on each theory.

After reading Graham Hancock’s “Fingerprints of the Gods”, I was preaching to everyone about how marvelous the pyramids are, and how they could not be built in this day in age.

But we cant be too “way out” with our speculation as to how they were built, just after reading a conspiracy book.
Some peoples posts on this thread talk like they actually know how the pyramids were built.

I really do hope that some solid answers do come about within my lifetime, but for now, ive given up on speculation..

Well, yes, but the problem with that is that it doesn't really show the problem in context.

For instance,

The claim is made that it is impossible, but really, why would it be? Even if the claim was accurate, which it isn't (I can't think of a single Egyptologist that has made this claim, anyway), a claim such as this makes one think that there is only one group of people working, as opposed to multiple shifts of people. It is similar to the "One block every forty seconds" claim, which, at face value, sounds ludicrous, but when one thinks about it, isn't. It is simply because the claim implies that only one block was being placed every forty seconds that it sounds impossible, but the simple fact of the matter is that in any building project, there are multiple teams working on the same things. The pyramid was a huge area, and there was more than one team laying blocks down at any given time.

Another example,

The question is, then, does the output of Indiana's quarries, even tripled, come close to equaling the output of a society who was used masonry as the standard construction method? We just don't use limestone as much as we used to. The Egyptians used it for pretty much everything. Similarly,
Makes transportation seem like a major thing, but the vast majority of the stone was dug pretty close to the site. Transportation only became an issue with the cladding, and compared to the interior mass of the pyramid, the exterior surface was minimal. Still a logistical nightmare for the ancient Egyptians, to be sure, but hardly impossible.

One has to be careful when looking at equations and comparisons. They often sound very good, but an example is, ultimately, only an example. An examp0le helps clarify an claim, but unless a claim has been presented and has supporting evidence, it doesn't matter how good the example is, it doesn't make the claim any stronger.

Then why would there be no other examples like the pyramids after their construction. Unless I am missing some pyramids, its strange that something that must have still been a big hit after Kafre and his brother was never attempted again. Why is this do you think Aquatis1?

What the hell was his brother's name again, I think its M something.

Honestly? In my personal opinion, and based on little more than speculation of what was going on in Egypt at the time and soon after, it is my belief that the three great pyramids, as well as the entirte Giza complex, finally drove home to the Egyptians, even the pharoahs, that there is a certain limit to what one can demand from people simply because one is a god, and that at some point, economics come into the picture. I do not believe we see anymore incredible architecture after this point because this was the last of the "oneupmanship" projects, the one that you manage to pull off, but that makes you realize that you might have gone just a little too far.

Yes it is impossible for the Egyptians to have worked 365 days of the year on construction for the simplest of all reasons: the national economy, which was entirely dependent upon the Nile and its seasonal flooding. Crops had to be sewn and reaped and processed and stored. This seasonal occupation would have required the participation of the majority of the population. The nation's wealth depended upon those crops. Ypou cannot seriously be suggesting that the King could afford to maintain a work crew numbering some 50-100,000 personnel on a project 365 days a year when the vast majority of those workers would also have responsibilities such as working their own parcel of land - a fact upon which all Egyptologists now agree upon.

The vast majority of Egyptians lived in mud brick homes not stone.

The stone for the Giza complex came from a number of quarries some of which were upto 500 miles downstream of the Giza complex.

You then state: "The question is, then, does the output of Indiana's quarries, even tripled, come close to equaling the output of a society who was used masonry as the standard construction method"?
You cannot be serious? How many of the hypothetical Limestone blocks produced by the Indiana quarries would have been cut with copper chisels and dragged to the site on sledges? The comparison was drawn on the basis that the Indiana quarries would be using modern blasting, machine tool cutting and mechanical transportation.

Makes sense aquatis1, it was just confusing if you study their history, it is as you said a oneupmanship culture.

Honestly, I haven't the faintest idea. My forte is in engineering and construction. All I have to indicate that the gathering of the crops would have required the participation of the majority is the claim of a stranger on the internet. I personally do not see why not. Egypt was thriving, and there was a lot of food and a lot of people. Why couldn't 20-30,000 people be found in the entire kingdom that could work on the project, while other's took up their slack at home? Egypt was a big place, and people had to pay their taxes.



I was, and I thought it would be obvious, referring to the complexes, the temples, the pyramids, the tombs, and all the various incredible feats of engineering that all used masonry.



Yes, it did, but, like I said, the vast majority of the stone used for the core construction came from the Khufu quarry, a small distance away.



It was also based on the current output, which is what I based my point on. If the ancient egyptians produced 100 blocks a year, and Indiana only produces 20 blocks a year simply because there is less demand, then it doesn't matter if Indiana triples its output to 60 blocks, it still won't be producing as much as Egypt in its heyday. As I said, this argument sounds impressive, but unless it is put in context, as in compared to the production of ancient Egypt, it is, ultimately, meaningless.

If there were a 1000 ton stone produced by an Idiana quarry it would be impossible to get it out of the quarry except doing it like a bucket brigade using giant cranes. There is no rail road car made to handle such weight. Even if there were most bridges and beds couldn't handle it.

Obviously this job was done. They moved such stones around by the Sphinx and they lifted 80 ton stone a hudred feet in the air. These are givens; the question remains how they did it. Traditional explanations fly in the face of what's known about physics, human nature, and the abilities of ancient people.

In light of the evidence, why is it so far fetched to believe they had the help of water flowing under pressure? This is where ALL THE EVIDENCE seems to point. This is the only explanation which solves more mysteries than it creates. This is the ONLY theory which isn't contradicted by evidence.

The only thing missing is the water flowing under pressure but even this is confirmed by the evidence that they quit farming the desert. Finding the conduit for this water shouldn't be overly difficult since all the chambers point straight to it.

Why are we talking about 1000 ton stones?



What do you mean, given? Who claims that an 80 ton stone was lifted into the air? All the conventional theories I know about have it dragged along the ground.



Honestly, I haven't really read your theory to closely. Would you like me to see if I can find any points that might indicate it wouldn't be valid, or that it might not be possible?

"Honestly, I haven't really read your theory to closely. Would you like me to see if I can find any points that might indicate it wouldn't be valid, or that it might not be possible?"

Yes. Please do.

No one really knows how they got the stones above the king's chamber 100 feet straight up in the air resting on the base of the pyramid and covering the chamber but they are 80 tons. I didn't mean to imply any specific means for doing this job.

I don't think 'primative' is really a good choice of word to use for 'ancient technology'.

My personal belief is that the Pyramids at Giza were built long, long before the Egyptologists will have us believe. I have absolutely no idea when... could be 10,000 years ago, could be 20,000, maybe 50,000 years ago. I believe they were built by a human civilisation that had technologies that we haven't come up with yet, maybe Anti-Gravity technology for one. They had advanced machining abilities, possibly Sonic, I really have no idea. There is little evidence to support this thinking but sometimes though you have to follow your nose.

No matter how hard Egyptologysts try, they will never be able to convinvce anybody that the Sphynx is only 4500 years old as they believe. Evidence from Dr Robert Schoch is overwhelmingly in favour of a far older Sphynx. Schochs evidence points to a Sphynx that is at least between 7000 and 9000 years old, it could easily be much older. The Valley temple, which was built at the same time as the Sphynx, (this has been proved and even accepted by the Egyptologists) is built with hundreds of perfectly fitting Limestone blocks weighing over 200 tonnes each. Blocks that were cut, dressed and perfectly installed up to 12m in the air.
The Temple of Seti at Abydos is built above the Osirion, the Osirion is made from huge limestone blocks similar to the Valley Temple but the Seti Temple is made from much smaller blocks. The Seti Temple is covered in Glyphs but not the Osirion.
The Ancient Egyptians put their mark on everything they built but no Inscriptions were found inside the Great Pyramid.

Now I know this particular forum is to debate how the Pyramids were built and the consensus of opinion is that they were built by the Ancient Egyptians and the difference of opinion is how they managed it. I think the time has come when the idea of who built them has to be re-assessed.
Like I have said before, these Temples and Pyramids were built by a civilisation that was able to cut Granite like it was butter, machine and dress it like it were plasticene, measure and guage it with optical accuracy and move huge blocks of it as if it were polystyrene. I don't know how and I don't know when but they did it because these huge blocks are found all over the World.
The idea that they were built by thousands upon thousands of men over 20, 30 or however many years using cooper tooling just doesn't hold water. I'm sorry Cladking but I don't think your idea does either.

Cladking,

I'm having a little bit of trouble understanding the basics of your theory. Tell me if I got it right:

1) During the annual flooding of the Nile, due to the raised water level, intermittent (in this case, seasonal) springs spontaneously formed in certain locations.

2) Ancient Egyptians build walls around these springs in an effort to raise the water level up, so that it could gravity feed to other locations.

3) The walls built to raise the water in the springs eventually evolved into the pyramids we know of today.

Is that correct?

I really hope thats not it.

Just out of curiousity, how do you account for the graphiti in the relieving chambers?



Hmm...are you aware that pretty much the entire academic world considers the conventional dating to be reasonably accurate? You're a little out of touch, there.



Then why are there quarry marks on the stones?



Sooo...instead of understanding that masonry is a skill so relatively easy to develop that pretty much every culture around the world was able to come up with it, you decide that it is so utterly beyond the ability of ancient man it had to, instead, be introduced to us by a super-civilization with lasers and sonics and global dominance and technology up the wazoo...yet inexplicably used stone as their major building material?

Doesn't that insult your sense of logic?

Yes. That is exactly correct.

Further, I believe that the water was under sufficient pressure to rise to the bottom of the grand gallery once the dam on the Nile was complete and that this dam extended the lenght of time that the water rose so high. The weight of the water was used in counterweights to lift stones to begin the building of the Great Pyramid.

There was probably a step pyramid already in place (and still there) when construction was begun on the Great Pyramid.

Wait, where was the pressure coming from? What dam are we talking about?

What about the Graffiti? ....Do you mean the Graffiti done by Howard Vyce in the 19th century?
There is no Hieroglyph or Cartouche proclaiming anything within the Pyramid.

Sticking with the old school thinking as you do is 'out of touch' so I don't know why you say this. The dating of artifacts found in Egypt is not and never has been agreed and ever since Robert Schoch announced his theory on the age of the Sphynx the academic world is in even less agreement. This is 'Flat Earth' thinking!

There are quarry marks on the top sides of the stones, the marks are there because the stones were quarried!

The Ancient Egyptians were very skilled Masons just as other Ancient cultures from all over the World were but being good at carving stone doesn't make you proficient in moving 50 tonne blocks over 500 miles.

Anyway, who said anything about Super-Civilisations, global dominance and Lasers...certainly not me. Using ridicule to deflect away from your weak argument is a well used tactic, used a lot by the Egyptologist Establishment.

Lake Moeris' bottom was likely about 45 meters below sea level in 2700 BC. In 400 BC Herodotus Said the lake was 50 fathoms deep in most places. (300 feet). The pressure would be determined by it's deepest point but one has to suspect no point is probably deeper than perhaps 350 feet. The Nile was lower at this point in those days due to the continual layers of silt and heavier material being washed down from above over the centuries.

There is a branch of the Nile which fed this lake. This is still in existence but is likely dredged frequently or it wouldn't still exist. It is presumed this flowed only in the wet season in ancient and neolithic times because there was a channel dug to the lake in about 2300 BC. This channel gave them control of the flow into and out of the lake which allowed them to kkep good water levels and flow at Memphis all year.

I believe that a river channel can only be cut if there is significant flow. I don't believe that a river channel can be cut to flood a large area even with annual flooding. This is mere conjecture and is an area where even expert opinion has little validity. I suspect experts would generally agree with this contention anyway. In any case, if there were a real flow into this area then there had to be a real flow out.

Bear with me here; Caves form in limestone because acids in the water leech out rock near the top of the water table. (This is the level at which voids in soil and rock are filled with water. It tends to be fairly flat in a given area since water is always falling) This water table is quite high all the way from here to the Giza plateau because of the existence of this lake. For millions of years there would be a flood each year which would raise the water level in the lake to a point higher than the normal water table. This area could be riddled with caves just as the Giza Plateau is known to be.

I believe that when man finally came to this area there was a single source of water coming from Lake Moeris. It was this outflow from the lake which caused the river channel into the lake to be cut. The outflow was from the grotto area of the great pyramid. Obviously the pyramid was not standing when man first arrived in the neolithic era. He found the river emerging from the ground and running almost straight down into the flooded valley (it flowed only in flooding season). There was a large "Sphinx" shaped rock it flowed by on the way to the valley. In the dry season they would crawl back into the caves and explore them.

While this flowed they couldn't tend their crops because of the flooding. They got the idea to pile rocks up and divert this water into the desert and grow crops there. Around this time (5000 BC?) they also discovered the source of the water and began other steps to control it. Initially there was probably little done but to cut a channel to the inlet and practice their masonry skills in building the rocks around the emerging water so that they wouldn't collapse and send the water back down the original channel. As time went on they gained control and carved the "Sphinx" shaped rock into... well... ...The Sphinx. This was likely in the vicinity of 4000BC or a little later. By 3000BC they had a well constructed step pyramid on the site of the upwelling river. At first the water had been diverted to the desert over the surface and the initial structures were likely to accomplish the same purpose, but the step pyramid probably used natural and man made conduits to transport the water to more distant locations in the desert underground.

When the Great Pyramid was concieved a dam was constructed across the Nile just north of Lake Moeris to raise the water level and pressure at Giza. I can't find hard evidence of this dam but have seen references to it. The satelite picture shows a possible location about 3 miles north of the latitude of the present day lake on the river.

Whether or not other pyramids or mustabas were used for this purpose I have not begun to investigate, but the terrain is such that it's not impossible that some or most north of lake Moeris were. It would have been no mean feat for them to tunnel down in just the right place to hit the underground river but the accuracy with which the pyramids a Giza were built hints at their ability to achieve just this.

Again, I understand that there is absolutely no evidence to support this theory. The theory's only strenght is that it sheds light on so many of the mysteries and might not create any new ones while other theories all seem to create more mysteries than they solve. Perhaps the best part of this theory is that it should be relatively easy to prove or disprove. When I started I really expected someone to know something which made it impossible but there have been no such data so far. I knew very little of this when I started, indeed, about the only thing I knew when I started was there has never been and never will be a period or place in human history that you can find 100,000 men to lug around stones for thirty years.

Okay, I'm still having some trouble understanding; it is almost like you are thinking faster than you are typing, and kind of skip certain parts.



The height of a spring will be equal to the height of the body of water that is supplying it. If the surface of Lake Moeris is at 45 meters below sea level, the head of the spring will never rise above 45 meters above sea level, no matter how deep the lake goes. Water balances itself out. I don't know why you included the part about the Nile being lower. I don't get the relevance.



Not quite sure if all is as you assume. Water tables tend to be on a slope, as the non-permeable rock tends to follow the lay of the continental shelf. There will, of course, be "puddles" of aquifers, but you aren't talking about aquifers, but of seasonal springs. Also, the geology of the area doesn't really support the idea of large quantities of water flowing through the area. Karst formations would be readily apparent throughout the area,and there simply aren't. At most, you have a few cavities here and there in the limestone. There aren't even sinkholes, the tell-tale sign of an area with karst drainage.



The problem here is that the signs of the drainage system would be very visible. Karst drainage is fairly blatant (I live in Florida, so I'm pretty familiar with it). The plataeu would be riddled with caverns, and there would be no way in which it would be able to support the weight of a pyramid. Another problem is the height of the grotto. If the grotto is higher than the level of the lake, the water will not flow.



Except that the Sphynx came after the pyramid. Stones quarried from the niche the Sphynx sits in were used in the construction of the pyramid. This has been confirmed by striation and composition patterns. After the pyramid was built, they had a niche in which they continued to carve into the sphynx. They had to modify it a little, on the western side, the wall is slanted) to avoid undermining the existing pathway to the other pyramid, something they would not have had to do if the niche came before the pyramids.



That's...not really a strength. I can claim that Dumbledore went back in time and created the pyramids, and that pretty much answers every question too, but without supporting evidence, why even bother considering it? And, of course, it isn't as if your solution does not create even more mysteries than it solves. It requires us to assume the existence of technologies we have no reason to assume the Egyptians had. I don't know why you think the existing explanations create more mysteries than they solve. As far as I can tell, the only objections that have been brought up against them in this forum is nothing more than personal incredulity.

Yes, I do. Please support your claim.



Never said there was.



No, it is sidestepping. You claimed that Egyptologist would never be able to get people to think they were correct. I pointed out that they already did. That you decide you don't agree with the conventional dating does not give you leave to claim that the rest of the academic world does not either.



The people who were "able to cut stone like butter" did so using copper tools?



And yet, multiple civilizations all over the world somehow seemed to figure it out for themselves.



I must have mistook you for Fantazum. My apologies. I'm flattered that you consider me part of the Egyptian establishment, but I am just a dabbler.

Wow this is an interesting thread. I have been to the pyramids and they are truly humbling. However, although I have a passing interest in them I do not profess to know much about them at all. I am of the opinion that they could easily have been constructed by a civilization before the ancient Egyptians. Not saying that they were but that they may have been.

I like cladking's theory regarding them originally being used as a way of transporting water - I think I have a grasp of what you are implying. Just wondering whether or not a spring would have the force to fill up the chambers and passages in order to build up the water level so that it could come out of the side of the pyramid. Im not sure how it works - I mean would the spring continue to feed a chamber that has a higher water level than its source? Or would the water stop at a certain level. Is it possible that a bottle neck in the spring would mean that during a flooding period there would be enough pressure to force the spring above the level of the source? Surely it is, which would mean the cladking's theory is at least possible.

I haven't figured out the "quote" function here.

Aquatus; I'll try to answer the questions I can.

It's tough to get any good topographical maps of Egypt. The best I can figure is that initially the head at Lake Moeris would not have been sufficient to push the water very high on the nearly 100 meter high plateau if it's really 100 meters high. But this is making some assumptions that may not be true. First it assumes that the plateau is at the same level. More importantly it doesn't take into account the level that they might have been able to get in the lake using a dam. By building a dam they would have slowed the flow of water in this branch and it would have deposited more silt raising the bottom of the river. This wouldn't affect the height at Giza so much as affect their ability to get water into the lake.

I'm not familiar with the karst formations but obviously you are correct that excessive numbers of caves would lead to the types of sinkholes as seen in Florida and so far as I know these don't exist here. This is a ridge here and this might affect the way the caves form. Certainly it is counterintuitive to imagine a cave forming more along the ridge than elsewhere but nature does stranger things. (note the dead end arm of the river for example).

The best I can tell, it would be unresonable to think that the lake level would ever get more than ten feet over the level of the grotto in the most massive flood without the dam. But there is a great deal of supposition and this is another area I need to investigate. It's really tough to get much off the net and the surrounding desert has been of more interest recently. The grotto is at a very high level.

"Stones quarried from the niche the Sphynx sits in were used in the construction of the pyramid. This has been confirmed by striation and composition patterns. "

I wasn't aware of this.

To me the mysteries are why put so much effort into something, how can it be done with ancient tecnology, why do it the way they did, why the chambers, boat. How did they farm the desert and why are there so few signs today. If they irrigated how did they get water so high. Why was there a dam around these pyramids and a causeway down to the river. Why the "groove" down the center of each face.

There are no complicated technologies involved that aren't demonstrated right in the pyamid. A counterweight is one of the simplest machines possible and really requires nothing more than rope. A dam is so simple it's not even considered a machine. Obviously they had a good understanding of math so this would allow them to use simple machines to their greatest effectiveness and in the right place. Masonry is an art and a skill but there's no doubt they possessed it to a large degree.

The water would be very close to the same level as its source. With the dam in place on the Nile I'm postulating that this level would be at the bottom of the grand gallery. At this point it would flow into the queens chamber.

Unfortunately a bottle neck would not create more pressure, merely lower flow.

Of course I may be all wet and the water simply didn't make it this high. But even this wouldn't preclude the possibility that the water was brought up from the grotto by buckets and shaddufs for use in counterweights.

I'm hardly an expert in geology or hydraulics, but I had some exposure to them while studying engineering.



It doesn't work quite that way. A bottleneck would only result in greater pressure right at the bottleneck, like a sprayer does when it bottlenecks a hose. Once the water passes the bottleneck, the pressure returns to the original, and in the case of a spring, the weight of the water in a column tends to cancel out any sort of temporary pressure.

What makes this theory difficult is that Cladking is describing an ephemereal spring, also known as an intermittent spring, and one that is caused by standing water. This means that the pressure on the water is always going to be equal to the pressure of the atmosphere on it, which means that as soon as the water level balances out, it will not go any higher. Now, there is a type of spring known as an artesian spring, which is the result of an underwater aquifer having an opening to the surface. The pressure on this water is the weight of the ground on top of it, which is higher than that of the atmosphere, and because of that, the water does actually rise above the water table. Not by a lot (it depends on the geological situation), but it does go higher. Certainly not, however, the dozens of feet that make up a pyramid.

I'm afraid that the only way in which water would appear out of the pyramid's grotto would be if the water was at the level of the grotto or higher. That would mean that the plateau the pyramid sits on would have become an island, or that there is an underground shaft leading to the grotto (which is not supported by the geology) running from the grotto to some source of water higher than the grotto or under higher pressure from a large, confined aquifer (which Egypt municipal would love to have, but simply don't). Egypt's aquifer reflects it's geology; it is loosely filtered by the sand, and fairly permeable, which doesn't result in pressure being formed.

It's easy, just basic HTML.

The basic command (ignore the *; they are only there to keep this example from being activated)is [*QUOTE] to indicate the beginning of a quote and [/*QUOTE] to indicate the end of the quote. Everything between these two commands will be in a quote box. So, the message [*QUOTE]I love pyramids![/*quote] would appear (again, remove the *, as they are only there to keep it from activating) as

Another option is, in the toolbar above the reply box, you will see, along with the spell check, bold, italicize, etc, a picture of a text balloon. Clicking on this picture will cause the opening QUOTE command to appear. Clicking on it again will cause the closing QUOTE command to appear.

The same applies to all the other commands: [*B] [/*B] will bold anything in between, [*i] [/*i] will italicize, [*u] [/*u] will underline, etc.

The / indicates the end of a command.

EDIT: Forgot to add. At the bottom of the posts, on the right side, there are buttons as well. the QUOTE button here will take the entire post and insert it in a quote box in your reply. Use this sparingly, and try and edit the post in your reply, as it is often unnecessary to quote the entire post just to add a small comment.

Apparently you don't believe it's possible that the level at Lake Moeris could have exceeded the top of the grotto.

I've not given up on this for a few reasons. The minor ones are that Herodotus was told that the ancients had constructed a channel from the nile and obviously it couldn't come straight up from the valley. The very fact that the arm feeding the lake is higher now implies the dam existed. Using the lake merely to control Nile flooding would have tended to lower this section since sediments would collect in the lake.

Do you have other problems with the theory?

My knowledge of these subjects is extremely shallow and extremely recent. The net is a very poor tool for research. Any input is most appreciated.

Cladking,

I've been looking again at your theory and I'm still a bit confused about the way it works, I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself.
If you are saying that the Pyamids were built as 'ballast' to raise the water level of the Giza Plateau when it was flooded, then I hope I have got the wrong end of the stick.
I have been reading that Lake Moeris was possibly used as a resevoir to control the flood waters of the Nile, the volume of all the Pyramids put together would be inconsequential compared to the volume of the flood waters.
Have I not read you correctly?