Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
cladking

More water at Giza

297 posts in this topic

There's a book by John Greaves from 1638 which says that there is a round

well some 20' deep in G1. Incredibly such a well is not known today and no

one seems to be looking for it. There is a square well in the subterranean

chamber which has been cleared and even deepened by Vyse but no suggestion

that this was ever round.

It's difficult to be certain what this means since information and data about

the pyramid is difficult to come by. Even simple questions have proven diff-

icult to get definitive answers though there's no shortage of opinion and guesses.

I think I have it on fairly good authority that the entire pyramid has been

cleaned with the exception of a hole in the queens chamber and the "well" in

the grotto. If there really is a deep round well in G1 this would obviously

be the place to look.

The amount of evidence for water here just keeps getting deeper and deeper.

Egyptologists believe a moat surrounded Djoser's Pyramid. It has been reported

that there is a sewer in the workmen's village at Giza. There are reportedly

caves reaching back under the pyramids from the tomb of the birds. There's wa-

ter erosion on the Sphinx that more people are claiming is run-off from above.

Egyptologists have suggested the great accuracy in the leveling of G1 could on-

ly be accomplished by using water. There is a water collection system surrounding

G1 that delivered water right to the cliff face at the most opportune position

for counterweight runs that would lift stone up toward the G1 causeway from the

Sphinx quarry. These counterweight runs are still in evidence and are even sug-

gested by Manetho when he said that stones were moved up to the pyramids 300' at

a time. There is water erosion in man made passages under Giza! There are exten-

sive passages carved under here which quite probably followed natural caverns. There

is clear water under this area. Giza was called Rosteau by the Egyptians which

means "mouth of caverns". There is extensive and total confirmation of all this

in the Pyramid Texts which is the only writing known to have been left top us by

the PYRAMID BUILDERS. There's even a statue in the workmen's village to the "Over-

seer of the Boats of Neith". There's even water erosion in the canal that leads

to the cliff face from the base of G1.

When the Pyramid Texts talks about building pyramids they talk about getting out

the ropes and boats. Even the crews who built the pyramids were named after

parts of boats. The PT also speaks of rainbows adorning the dead king. These all

require water. There's also the missing round well that is at least 20' deep. There

are natural caves incorp[orated right into the pyramid. There's a deep fissure just

to the north of G1 that has never been excavated to the bottom. There is a cave un-

der here being excavated by Hawass.

The crested ibis represented the dead king and this bird is the closest thing on

earth to a flying rainbow.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://webdev.one365.com/dublinzoo2008_cms/dynamic/Image/wibis.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dublinzoo.ie/inside.asp%3FpageId%3D82%26sectionId%3D3%26level%3D2&usg=__sCJvGUAZSq71TNbzD4OHJp54vlg=&h=323&w=280&sz=43&hl=en&start=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=Dts9fKl4sN0rAM:&tbnh=118&tbnw=102&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcrested%2Bibis%2Begypt%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address%26rlz%3D1I7ACEW_enUS357US357%26um%3D1

This "crested akh-bird" represents the king in heaven or as Lehner says;

"Joining the stars the king becomes an akh. Akh is often translated as "spirit" or "spirit state". It derives from the term for radiant light, written with the crested ibis as though the crest transforms the ordinary ibis bird of the ba."

pg 24 -Complete Pyramids.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TUEGAAAAQAAJ&dq=greaves+pyramidographia&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=MVIm15_iM0&sig=zS4-dmDcGbhMQXIe792cmgTq0Yo&hl=en&ei=YBFVS_i2DY740wTr_oSsCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=pyramid&f=false

I can no longer even inmagine why these facts are simply dismissed. It's

probably not an unexplained mystery though because people have become more

superstitious than ever before. Only things which are agreed upon can be

true and everything else is to be dismissed.

Greaves said on page 118;

"At the end of it, on the right hand, is the well mentioned by Pliny; the which is circular, and not square; as the Arabian writers describe: the diameter of it exceeds three feet; the sides are lined with white marble, asnd the descent into it is by fastening the hands and feet into little open spaces cut in the sides within, opposite and answerable to no one other, in a perpendicular."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not exactly sure whether this has any relation to what you say but it sounds like it might. Recently while investigating Michael Collins book The Cygnus Mystery which points to ancient cultures having an even more ancient knowledge of the constellation Cygnus and I recall 2 wells being mentioned, here is reference to what the wells could mean:

The Hall of Records Entrance. Visiting Egypt to carefully examine the relationship between Cygnus and the Giza monuments, Collins was eventually led to a sacred well in a limited-access Muslim cemetery at Giza. The well, called Beer el-Samman, is located about 300 yards south of the right front paw of the Sphinx. A village elder told Collins that the well was "the entrance to Giza's Duat-underworld." The well is a carefully-formed, brick-lined, deep artisan well still used today and there is evidence that blocked passages lie at its base. Interestingly, if the remaining stars of Cygnus are placed over Giza, all of them fall on sacred sites at Giza. The star forming the mouth of the celestial bird Cygnus, Albiero, lies at Gebel Ghibli, the sacred knoll south of the Sphinx, quite close to the well of Beer el-Samman. The correspondence between the idea that the well is the entrance to the underworld and its location at the mouth of the celestial bird Cygnus is intriguing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not exactly sure whether this has any relation to what you say but it sounds like it might. Recently while investigating Michael Collins book The Cygnus Mystery which points to ancient cultures having an even more ancient knowledge of the constellation Cygnus and I recall 2 wells being mentioned, here is reference to what the wells could mean:

The Hall of Records Entrance. Visiting Egypt to carefully examine the relationship between Cygnus and the Giza monuments, Collins was eventually led to a sacred well in a limited-access Muslim cemetery at Giza. The well, called Beer el-Samman, is located about 300 yards south of the right front paw of the Sphinx. A village elder told Collins that the well was "the entrance to Giza's Duat-underworld." The well is a carefully-formed, brick-lined, deep artisan well still used today and there is evidence that blocked passages lie at its base. Interestingly, if the remaining stars of Cygnus are placed over Giza, all of them fall on sacred sites at Giza. The star forming the mouth of the celestial bird Cygnus, Albiero, lies at Gebel Ghibli, the sacred knoll south of the Sphinx, quite close to the well of Beer el-Samman. The correspondence between the idea that the well is the entrance to the underworld and its location at the mouth of the celestial bird Cygnus is intriguing.

It certainly is. I've been working on the assumption that the GP is the omphalos or navel of the world. The reason being it is almost perfectly situated at the middle of the four points of the compass. It is literally where the orient meets the occident. Therefore the presence of a well is not that surprising as it is the most common physical symbol to represent the navel. It is very possible that it could have led to the Duat or Halls of Amenti whether literally or metaphorically through the inducement of trance or alternative consciousness. Thanks to you both for bringing it up.

I can't remember where I read it, probanly on the fringe but is it possible that crcodiles rolling in silica (sand) could have produced a mild electrical charge. Crocodiles seem to have impressive propoerties, were worshipped through Sobekh and were even buried in crocodile graveyards. Can you shed light or debunk this possibility?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, forgot the link to that above piece:

http://www.mysterious-america.net/hallofrecordsa.html

It's interesting that this well is on high ground. I'm paying

a lot more attention to Andrew Collins these past several months.

I wasn't aware of this well so it's most interesting to me. The

blocked passages at the bottom sounds interesting as well.

Of course it can't be the one described by Greaves since it is

definitively within the pyramid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly is. I've been working on the assumption that the GP is the omphalos or navel of the world. The reason being it is almost perfectly situated at the middle of the four points of the compass. It is literally where the orient meets the occident. Therefore the presence of a well is not that surprising as it is the most common physical symbol to represent the navel. It is very possible that it could have led to the Duat or Halls of Amenti whether literally or metaphorically through the inducement of trance or alternative consciousness. Thanks to you both for bringing it up.

I can't remember where I read it, probanly on the fringe but is it possible that crcodiles rolling in silica (sand) could have produced a mild electrical charge. Crocodiles seem to have impressive propoerties, were worshipped through Sobekh and were even buried in crocodile graveyards. Can you shed light or debunk this possibility?

Not I, but there's far more in the world than people generally think. The

electric eel makes enough current that it can even kill. Many animals do

things that we don't understand. Perhaps crocs use an electric charge for

some purpose we can't even imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=water+egypt+pyramid+erosion&d=4947759448458945&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=1d44fc75,e391236f

I still don't believe the pyramid was a pump and this theory

has some major flaws but John Cadman does make a lot of inter-

esting points and observations. He also notes extensive water

erosion in the subterranean chamber.

One thing is sure and that's that the idea that this chamber is

merely an unfinished burialk chamber is absurd. I don't know

what it is but I know one thing it most probably was not.

Here is his summary. While I don't endorse it necessarilty it

certainly adds weight to the concept that they had water here;

SUMMARY

The walled enclosure around the Great Pyramid was a moat.

The water supply for the moat provided more water than the Great Pyramid consumed.

The causeway removed the excess water.

The subterranean chamber is not an air compression chamber. (Kunkel)1

The water-saturated subterranean chamber transmits shock waves to the ceiling.

There was an air/gas removal line in the northwest area of the subterranean chamber.

The air/gas removal line is connected to the niche in the Queen's chamber.

The air/gas removal line also perked water into Queen's chamber.

The well shaft functions as water return line from the Queen's chamber.

The well shaft minimizes the reverse pulse in the descending passage.

The grotto functioned as an expansion chamber to limit reverse pulse.

The subterranean chamber's antechamber functioned as an acoustic filter.

There is water output through the “dead end” shaft.

The water output may have been connected to with the "water shaft".

There is a check valve at the end of the ”dead end” shaft.

A gate valve was the fine-tuning mechanism for the standing wave in the wastegate line.

The pit is connected via tunnel to a wastegate in front of the "Sphinx Temple" (Nile River).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps people are missing the point here.

There is an impossibility standing right on the Giza Plateau today. It's

staring us in the face and is undeniable. When it was built there were two

impossibilities on the Giza Plateau. There was the pyramid and there was

water. Lots of water. Since this plateau is 225' above sea level there is

no known way that water might have been there.

It seems to me that two impossibilities in the same place at the same time

add up to far more than a coincidence. It seems that water on the plateau is

virtual proof that it was integral to the process of building the pyramid.

Or are we to revert to a third impossibility; aliens. Aliens might well need

a pyramid for their own purposes and might need lots of water for the long

trip home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is "You are wrong." a fourth impossibility?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps people are missing the point here.

There is an impossibility standing right on the Giza Plateau today. It's

staring us in the face and is undeniable. When it was built there were two

impossibilities on the Giza Plateau. There was the pyramid and there was

water. Lots of water. Since this plateau is 225' above sea level there is

no known way that water might have been there.

I take it you also believe there is no known way the water (at 12,500' above sea level) that makes up Lake Titicaca might be where it is as well, Cladking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I take it you also believe there is no known way the water (at 12,500' above sea level) that makes up Lake Titicaca might be where it is as well, Cladking?

It's not height that makes water impossible to exist it's the

conditions. Lake Titicaca is at great altitude and is a large

lake but the drainage basin is more than 20,000 mi ^ 2. Any

water that exists anywhere in this area at the surface by any

cause is likely to end up in the lake. If it rains or snows

then the water ends up in the lake.

Lake Khufu on the other hand is in a desert. In fact since

this desert is riddled under it with caves one has to suspect

that with no intervention any water that started puddling here

would quickly be sucked away underground to never be seen again

on the plateau. But even if the caves weren't here and there

was some means to catch ambient water like rainfall there is on-

ly about a two square mile area of desert being drained into

Giza. There's no evidence that the terrain was once different

or that the Egyptians captured and stored water and there's very

little water that can be captured and stored in a desert on a

hilltop. Yet we have all this evidence of massive quantities of

water here but no way for it to get here.

This might be an even greater impossibility than the pyramid it-

self. There is simply no known way that they might have had water.

Oh sure, there are ways it might occur in theory but most of these

are far more complex or improbable than any reason I might suggest.

There's very little chance that it was the result of mans' work since

there are no canals and no dams in evidence.

This leaves only a natural means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is "You are wrong." a fourth impossibility?

Actually this probably comes much closer to a certainty in most instances. ;)

I believe people are grossly underestimating the difficulty of building a

6 1/2 million ton pyramid with primitive technology. I believe they are

inappropriately disregarding many of the facts related to Giza and the pre-

sense of water at one time. I further believe that people are expecting there

to be a great deal of evidence for alien involvement had such occurred where

there might be very little.

At least on these first two points the facts have been shown repeatedly to

be on my side. The third one might always be an imponderable if no aliens

ever visited in the past.

We're still left with water and a pyramid. Is there some third factor

that caused them both or did one cause the other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They also had a workmen's village on the plateau that housed some

8,000. The worldwide average for water usage is 34 gal/ day per cap-

ita. That's a quarter million gallons per day or 1,000 tons of water

per day for the village alone.

Obviously people in those days wouldn't have used the quantities of

water we do unless they had ready access but it needs to be appreci-

ated that they did need vast amounts of water and if it wasn't right

there then it had to be lifted 200' from the river. This is in addi-

tion to the water that the men needed who were actually working on the

pyramid.

It seems that water is key here. Sure, there are ways they could have

worked without water but all the evidence says they did have water. The

evidence says they collected water at the pyramid base and funneled it

to the cliff face counterweights. The evidence says that the stones in

the pyramid were lifted by counterweights. If water at the pyramid base

is impossible then water 80' above the pyramid base isn't much more im-

possible so there's a tiny leap from suggesting the stones moved up ramps

to the base of the pyramid dragged by counterweights to saying the stones

moved up the side of the pyramid dragged by counterweights. Remember the

evidence says counterweights dragged the stones up the suide so why not

water for ballast?

These are simple facts. The information is all out there in the literature

and still sitting right on the plateau. It's a very logical step from the

evidence to an actual possibility of how this job was done rather than just

an assumption dating to the 19th century. We know things today that weren't

known when ramps were first assumed.

If Petrie were alive today he would be appalled by the state of egyptology;

not that they're apparently wrong but that they prefer to ignore the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the Nile one of the largest water sheds in the world? And isn't it well established that the fertile strip around the Nile was much wider in the classical era? Further, aren't the pyramids just a few miles from the river? Given all of that, why wouldn't there have been water there? Are we discussing the cold water geyser theory again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are we discussing the cold water geyser theory again?

It's wholly unnecessary to discuss it at all.

What is necessary is explaining how there can be copious quantities

of water known to have been at the base of G1. What is needed is any

sort of explanation for the actual evidence.

Egyptology has been trying to prove assumptions for 150 years and have

failed because those assumptions are in error. It's past time to try

to determine the facts of the case.

Isn't the Nile one of the largest water sheds in the world? And isn't it well established that the fertile strip around the Nile was much wider in the classical era? Further, aren't the pyramids just a few miles from the river? Given all of that, why wouldn't there have been water there?

Yes. There's always sufficient water in the Nile for anything they'd

have needed on the plateau. Perhaps they even had bucket brigades all

the way from the Nile to the pyramid top. But there are problems with

such a concept. How and why would they come up with the idea of hauling

water up to run the city, flush the sewers, and cause the copious water

erosion? The number of men and amount of work necessary to do this is

astronomincal. Sure it would be easier to build the pyramid using this

method than ramps but it's not reasonable to believe ancient people would

haul enough water to flush sewers. It's certainly not even possible to

haul enough water to cause the water erosion in man made passages.

All this suggests that the water was on the hilltop. The evidence sug-

gests that the water came up from below since this is where the water

erosion is. There's no logical reason to think that the water came from

the Nile and no evidence to support it.

We know the ramps took stones to the base of the pyramid and that they

had water at the base of the pyramid. Ramps on the pyramid have been

essentially disproven though the professionals aren't even trying to keep

up.

The Nile wasn't significantly wider since about 3000 BC and even there

it was still confined to relatively few channels in the bottom of the valley.

You have to go back a few thousand more years before you get to the point

that the entire valley was flooded. Carbon dating places the pyramids at

around 2750 BC and at that time conditions were similar to the modern era

to 1964.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's more evidence that there was water at the pyramid though

this evidence is less direct. Just because it isn't direct doesn't

mean it isn't real or doesn't count.

The passages are water tight. This means almost all the passages

except the airshafts. Form follows function; always has, always will.

The crews that built the pyramids were named after parts of a boat.

Some might see this as only evidence of the fact that the ancients

were very dependent on the Nile for transportation but we're still

left with explaining how an incomplete pyramid might function as a

boat or have any similarity to a boat. This is a massive pile of

stone high up out of the valley and they associated it with a boat!

A pile of stone in a desert could have little in common with a boat.

Even the builders were called "the bridge girderers of the desert"

who needed a boat according to Mercer. I'm trying to leave the PT

out of this discussion since this is about physical evidence rather

than what the builders of the great pyramids said.

I previously mentioned the canal with water erosion in it which con-

nects the cliff face where there are 300' steep ramps today (counter-

weight runs)with the water collection system that surrounds the pyr-

amid. I neglected to mention that at them NE corner the cliff face

has been extended outward apparently to create another counterweight

run and there is a canal leading to it as well.

Everything in this thread is a physical fact or known history. Mostly

there is no accounting for these facts by egyptology. Petrie nearly

tripped over his tongue not to call the water delivery device a canal,

ditch, or conduit. He described it in intimate detail but refused to

name it because he knew it was "absurd".

Yet all these facts have been in evidence and more keep coming up. Rem-

ember whaty I said long ago "every new fact that arioses will be consis-

tent with water and counterweights, not ramps". And this is exactly what's

been happening since I said it. Hawass is exploring caves, Collins found

new caves, a statue of the "overseer of the boats of Neith" was found in

the workmens village. And this goes on and on just as it has for the last

150 years. While it's not admitted news yet it will be news eventually that

the lines on the pyramid deny ramps.

Still people cling to ramps like a liferaft.

But more evidence will come to light and it will support water as well. This

is reality and time is on my side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a book by John Greaves from 1638 which says that there is a round well some 20' deep in G1.

Maybe... don't believe everything written in 1638?

I think the water table in Giza has probably gone up and down over the centuries. Reports of the various tunnels sometimes say they are flooded, and latter they are not.

I'd like to point out that even on a mountainside, such as in the Himalayas, there is still a water table. Water does not go horizontal after it gets into the ground, but hangs around and seeps down very slowly. A watertable on the Giza plateu is not unusual geologically at all. Go to any desert region and dig down far enough and you will find water.

I think the idea of using water to build the pyramids, or just the Great Pyramid, is complex beyond belief and you would be ascribing them skills that seem to occur in no other work that they achieved. Yet, we know they did build the other smaller pyramids using manpower, ramps and ropes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe... don't believe everything written in 1638?

I think the water table in Giza has probably gone up and down over the centuries. Reports of the various tunnels sometimes say they are flooded, and latter they are not.

I'd like to point out that even on a mountainside, such as in the Himalayas, there is still a water table. Water does not go horizontal after it gets into the ground, but hangs around and seeps down very slowly. A watertable on the Giza plateu is not unusual geologically at all. Go to any desert region and dig down far enough and you will find water.

Your points are all understood and well taken. I'm in close enough

agreement as to not comment.

I think the idea of using water to build the pyramids, or just the Great Pyramid, is complex beyond belief and you would be ascribing them skills that seem to occur in no other work that they achieved. Yet, we know they did build the other smaller pyramids using manpower, ramps and ropes.

I strongly disagree on two levels.

The first and more important is your contention that this process

would be complex or beyond the ability of ancient people. I'm not

suggesting that one day they looked at the water standing on the

Giza Plateau and said let's go pile up stone.

This was a very long and steep learning curve. But this learning

curve is extremely well evidenced. Initially they simply used wat-

er filled counterweights to move the stones into position. They

couldn't lift stones any higher than the water pressure's height.

They built structures like what they knew and this meant mastabas.

There's simply nothing complicated about filling up a bucket on the

top of a pile of stones and using its weight to lift stones up the

other side. It is not only far easier than ramps but far simpler.

Imagine an ancient describing these two means to a child. I'm sure

most children will be faster to grasp a counterweighht than a ramp

and this goes a thousand times over for stacking stones in a huge

pile. Even today our best scientists have not been able to devise

a ramp system that would suffice for building G1. But a child can

understand a balance scale and we know as fact the ancients were well

familiar with balances. There was even a standardized weight which

was used on a balance scale found iun G1!!! This is simple proof the

ancients could have used this technique!!! It is a fact and not spec-

ulation like ramps. There is no evidence whatsoever that they knew a

means to lift stones up to the pyramid tops with ramps. There is a

growing body of evidence that they did not use ramps and not even a

suggestion anywhere that they did. Try tossing a rope over your house

and pull a bucket up near to the eaves. On the other side attach a

five pound weight. Now fill the bucket with a garden hose and see what

happens.

This is simplicity and it's very well evidenced simplicity. They built

mastabas until Imhotep came up with an ingenious idea; when the build-

ing reached as high as the water pressure (they called it the "[]b[]w")

then all they had to do was to shorten the ropes and they could keep

building even higher. They needed room to work at the []b[]w so they

built a smaller mastaba on top of the first one. When it was as high as

possible they shortened the ropes again and built a third smaller mastaba

on top of the second because they still needed room to work and stage

lifts to the top. They made a step pyramid. This thing was tiny com-

pared to the later great pyramids because they were just learning how to

do it. This is the way the real world works; you start small and make

improvements to build larger and larger. Even nthough this first great

pyramid was stepped and tiny IT WAS STILL BIGGER THAN EVERY SINGLE ONE

OF THE LITTLE PYRAMIDS BUILT AFTER THE GREAT PYRAMIDS WERE ALL BUILT.

Each of the great pyramids got larger as they tweeked their systems and

learned their limitations. This is the real world. Later Egyptians

couldn't build like this because the Gods no longer stood even with natron

offerings.

Nothing else is different. They quarried, lived, breathed, and died. The

only difference is how they got the stone up on top of the pyramid. Obvi-

ously the means used was very robust since the stones average 2 1/2 tons.

Ultimately it really doesn't matter whether we see this system as simple

or complex since it is the evidenced means for building. Even the word

for good living means "balance". In later times the dead were judged by

a balance.

The simple fact is that there was water at the pyramid and this is an im-

possibilitry that is being ignored. It seems a given in the real world

that either water caused the pyramids to be there or the pyramids caused

the water to be there. Everyone should climb down off the ramps and pick

their poison. Think of it as medicine; it doesn't hurt once you get it

down and you'll feel better for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly disagree on two levels.

I agree in principle that cranes that used water as counterweight could work. But, where is the evidence of such colosal cranes and where did the materials for these cranes come from? You do realize that if they used water at a lower elevation to move stone to a higher elevation they would need either more water or a longer arm on the crane? As such, I would think they would go through literally thousands of tons of water a day. There is no way that a natural aquifer could have kept up with such demand. I guess a series of water moving temporary aquaducts could have been installed and been operated by screws to move the water uphill, but that would take as much manpower as just building the freaking ramp, and a lot more maintenance. The system of cranes would be fabulously expensive too, imported lumber of great lengths and strength. The amount of rope needed would be tremendous too. But... It could have been done. Unlikely though IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would they have filled as a counterweight, I wonder? A 6,000lb block would require a vessel that could hold about 720 gallons of water. Not a huge amount but what would have been used to hold it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if we are generous and say a treated cow skin can hold 1000 pounds, that is only 125 gallons, so you would need 6 cow skins full of water, just to move the block, more, maybe a lot more, if you wanted to lift it any real height.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would they have filled as a counterweight, I wonder? A 6,000lb block would require a vessel that could hold about 720 gallons of water. Not a huge amount but what would have been used to hold it.

This is off the topic a little but what the heck, it's my favorite topic. :innocent:

The Pyramid Texts describe these counterweights in some detail. Even Her-

odatus was on the right track here. Your question is one of the first that

people might ask when told that water filled counterweights were used; How

do you confine this much water in a movable "bucket". This is where "short

pices of wood" may have originated as a sort of canned answer. Boats of that

era displaced far more volume than a mere 720 gallons. The largest boats of

that time probably displaced 250,000 gallons; 350 times as much. Of course

a boat for the river was designed to keep the water out and the boats for the

pyramids were made to keep the water in. They did this similarly to other

boats in that they were made of timbers and ribbing but the "short pieces of

wood" were on the inside. This was then tarred or pitched so as not to leak.

It was designed something on the order of a large basket. It was bulbous on the

bottom end and vertically bifurcated. The PT describe it as the south end of

a northbound bull. It even had a tail though it's function isn't certain. My

best guess is that it was used to dump the water in the event something went

wrong.

I don't think they lifted these stones one at a time. I think they lifted them

six or eight at a time. The CW was a great deal larger than 720 gallons. This

"boat" ran in a lubricated track on the side of the pyramid. There would be lit-

tle friction and little wastage in such a system. After the water was used to

lift the stones up the pyramnid it was funneled to the cliff face where it was

used in counterweights to pull stones up to the pyramid a bowshot at a time as

described by Manetho.

The total amount of water necessary to build the pyramid was about 2.5 times the

volume of the pyramid assuming 100% efficiency. This is a mere 488 acre feet per

year in the real world assuming achievable efficiencies. There is reasonably good

evidence that some of this water was relifted using muscle power which could sig-

nificantly reduce total water needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree in principle that cranes that used water as counterweight could work. But, where is the evidence of such colosal cranes and where did the materials for these cranes come from? You do realize that if they used water at a lower elevation to move stone to a higher elevation they would need either more water or a longer arm on the crane? As such, I would think they would go through literally thousands of tons of water a day. There is no way that a natural aquifer could have kept up with such demand. I guess a series of water moving temporary aquaducts could have been installed and been operated by screws to move the water uphill, but that would take as much manpower as just building the freaking ramp, and a lot more maintenance. The system of cranes would be fabulously expensive too, imported lumber of great lengths and strength. The amount of rope needed would be tremendous too. But... It could have been done. Unlikely though IMHO.

On average they'd need almost exactly a thousand tons per day assuming

200 work days per year. This is 250,000 gallons. Unfortunately this

need is is not readily averageable in the real world. Water needs early

on are far greater and needs toward the end are much less. This would

greatly reduce the efficiency.

It can, however be overcome. Early on it would be necessary to relift

water. While the pyramid is only 15 or 20' tall this is hardly an onerous

task. It's entirely possible to use the extra pressure of the water to

do some of this lifting.

I don't believe there was much muscle work expended to lift the stones.

The water pressure did almost all the heavy lifting. With water at 80'

above the ground its weight would lift the stone. Men did little of the

lifting and what they did was mostly to lift water. They didn't need to

design a ramp system and they didn't need to build it. But most of all

they didn't need to drag a mountain up it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, aren't they still going to need dozens of Gigantic wooden cranes? What was the number? A block every three minutes, or some such. Even at five blocks at a time, you would need several of these cranes. And the structures would have to be massive, on a scale not seen in any other wood craft of the ancient world. The cranes alone would be more fantastic then the pyramid. There would have had to have been huge foundations built to support the cranes, with the large weights they would be shifting. But, we see less sign of such foundations then we do of ramp bases.

Your same arguement can be applied to the ramp theory. Since most of the stone is in the base, it would have been easiest to build using ramps. And, then latter constructing the top, a lot less workers would be needed to move stones, so they could build and maintain the ramp.

If the Egyptians had used giant cranes there would be more evidence for them IMHO. I think a lot of oblisks and columns would have been put up this way and not with the sand mound and pit technique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, aren't they still going to need dozens of Gigantic wooden cranes? What was the number? A block every three minutes, or some such. Even at five blocks at a time, you would need several of these cranes. And the structures would have to be massive, on a scale not seen in any other wood craft of the ancient world. The cranes alone would be more fantastic then the pyramid. There would have had to have been huge foundations built to support the cranes, with the large weights they would be shifting. But, we see less sign of such foundations then we do of ramp bases.

Your same arguement can be applied to the ramp theory. Since most of the stone is in the base, it would have been easiest to build using ramps. And, then latter constructing the top, a lot less workers would be needed to move stones, so they could build and maintain the ramp.

If the Egyptians had used giant cranes there would be more evidence for them IMHO. I think a lot of oblisks and columns would have been put up this way and not with the sand mound and pit technique.

These aren't true cranes that I'm proposing.

Picture a little boat about 40' long, 10' wide, and 8' high. It's hanging over the

edge of the pyramid at the top by a heavy rope. The rope goes all the way across the

top of the pyramid and is attached to a large sled full of stones on the opposite side.

This boat is designed and built to be capable of holding water. It was called the

[]nw-boat which was one of the boats of balance and was overseen by Isis.

The boat is empty when it's put into position but as soon as it is seated the ferryman

opens a weir and begins filling it with water. At the same time men are loading the

stones into the sled attached by rope. The men finish loading long before the boat is

full and stand well clear. As the boat gets heavier and heavier it eventually becomes

heavier than the sled full of stones and begins falling falling right down the side of

the pyramid lifting the sled full of stones. The stones stop on top near the edge and

the boat comes to rest upside down dumping the water. When the sled is unloaded it is

pushed back over the edge taking it to the bottom to be reloaded while the boat moves

back to the top to be refilled. There were apparently two main CW's and sleds operating

on G1 but several minor ones. You can see the route they took in the pictures because

these had to be filled in after the course was complete and the stones didn't match the

ones emplaced earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.