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

A Well Supported Theory about Pyramids

799 posts in this topic

Try to remember all the evidence for rainwater collection that I have stated. The surface are of the pyramid is so much greater than the surface of the courtyard that surrounds it. Therefore, if it captured two inches of water, then the amount in the courtyard is at least two to four times higher (depending on the pyramid). This would be considerably higher during a harder rainstorm, such as the ones that caused tremendous flooding on the Giza Plateau. Keep in mind that the surface of the courtyard is catching rain, too. Sure, the drains you mention would be adequate to remove some of the water, but not before most of it flowed into the mortuary temple. The drains I mentioned were the ones I saw at Userkaf's pyramid and Sahura's pyramid. I also refer to the one I saw that was used to remove water from the mortuary temple courtyard of Khafra. I will point out that this drain is the same size as the other ones I saw for the courtyard around the pyramids. This is interesting because it implies that a similar amount of water was expected in the mortuary temple. However, this would be impossible unless it was used to hold tons of water. In other words, it received the water from around the pyramid. The drain was used to remove excess water that was left after the pavement was cleaned of debris. I have not been able to access the work you mentioned. Perhaps you could quote from it for those of use who don't read German. I think the drains mentioned are in the basalt pavement of the mortuary temple, as opposed to the pavement around the pyramid. Please be more specific. The fact that there was a significant drain in the basalt courtyard suggest that there was a considerable amount of water expected there. This could not have come from the open courtyard because that opening was rather small. In fact, the water from the roof did not drain into it directly. This court received the water from the catchment basin around the pyramid. The water was released to the aqueduct that led to the cistern. This is all in the archaeological record. Look at the water erosion patterns in the valley temple (cistern) of Khafra at the base of the pillars. This is spalling caused by water saturation of the granite surface. Look at my new video on youtube that shows how the water gates worked. Sorry I took so long to reply. I have a terrible internet connection.

Don't know were you got these numbers but the drains of the Khufu complex are much larger. I suggest you consult the work I mentioned before: Michael Neumann, "Kanalisationanlagen, Wasserleitungen un sanitäre Einrichtungen im pharaonishen Ägypten", Wien, 2008. http://othes.univie.ac.at/4079/

In the Catalogue part there are even pictures of the drainage channels: Katalog nr. 082 (page 249 pdf), nr 83 and 84 (page 250 pdf).

Besides, it is a good possibility that not all drains have been found / have been preserved.

A drainage channel from the Niussere complex could have been used to collect water see Katalog nr 17 (page 217 pdf), a whole other thing than the scale of water collecting you propose.

We're NOT talking about occassional monsoon rains, you are. We're talking about the occassional thunderstorm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try to remember all the evidence for rainwater collection that I have stated. The surface are of the pyramid is so much greater than the surface of the courtyard that surrounds it. Therefore, if it captured two inches of water, then the amount in the courtyard is at least two to four times higher (depending on the pyramid). This would be considerably higher during a harder rainstorm, such as the ones that caused tremendous flooding on the Giza Plateau. Keep in mind that the surface of the courtyard is catching rain, too. Sure, the drains you mention would be adequate to remove some of the water, but not before most of it flowed into the mortuary temple. The drains I mentioned were the ones I saw at Userkaf's pyramid and Sahura's pyramid. I also refer to the one I saw that was used to remove water from the mortuary temple courtyard of Khafra. I will point out that this drain is the same size as the other ones I saw for the courtyard around the pyramids. This is interesting because it implies that a similar amount of water was expected in the mortuary temple. However, this would be impossible unless it was used to hold tons of water. In other words, it received the water from around the pyramid. The drain was used to remove excess water that was left after the pavement was cleaned of debris. I have not been able to access the work you mentioned. Perhaps you could quote from it for those of use who don't read German. I think the drains mentioned are in the basalt pavement of the mortuary temple, as opposed to the pavement around the pyramid. Please be more specific. The fact that there was a significant drain in the basalt courtyard suggest that there was a considerable amount of water expected there. This could not have come from the open courtyard because that opening was rather small. In fact, the water from the roof did not drain into it directly. This court received the water from the catchment basin around the pyramid. The water was released to the aqueduct that led to the cistern. This is all in the archaeological record. Look at the water erosion patterns in the valley temple (cistern) of Khafra at the base of the pillars. This is spalling caused by water saturation of the granite surface. Look at my new video on youtube that shows how the water gates worked. Sorry I took so long to reply. I have a terrible internet connection.

I am sure somebody a little more knowledable in mathematics might correct me here, but I dont think it is rocket science and I think you are wrong for the following reason.

If an amount of water falls on a certain size area it will remain the same no matter if there is a pyramid placed inside that area. The pyramiid being there does not alter the amount of rainwater falling on any given area. What hits the sides of the pyramid would , if no pyramid was present,, fall onto the courtyard anyway.

The only way your theory would work would be if the courtyard was a mere fraction of the size of the pyramid, and the pyramid was turned upside down thus increasing the area of catchment Bit difficult to build though lol.

Hope that ,makes sense. (it does to me :) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure somebody a little more knowledable in mathematics might correct me here, but I dont think it is rocket science and I think you are wrong for the following reason.

If an amount of water falls on a certain size area it will remain the same no matter if there is a pyramid placed inside that area. The pyramiid being there does not alter the amount of rainwater falling on any given area. What hits the sides of the pyramid would , if no pyramid was present,, fall onto the courtyard anyway.

The only way your theory would work would be if the courtyard was a mere fraction of the size of the pyramid, and the pyramid was turned upside down thus increasing the area of catchment Bit difficult to build though lol.

Hope that ,makes sense. (it does to me :) )

Relatively, yes

.There could be a fractional amount more collected due to the fact that the structure height covers a little more area than the ground alone, but certainly not to the extend to justify the work of 10-15.000 people over 20 years to build the durn thing, especially as there was a large source of water right in the neighborhood that through all known history was used to take water from. But not considering little details like that it all makes sense :devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not been able to access the work you mentioned. Perhaps you could quote from it for those of use who don't read German.

You should try to download the work, even if you don't understand German, the plans and foto's of drainage systems alone are very usefull. I will try to translate / summarize some parts of the thesis relevant to this discussion, this will take some time and at the moment it's rather busy at work; it will have to wait untill the end of next week.

I think the drains mentioned are in the basalt pavement of the mortuary temple, as opposed to the pavement around the pyramid. Please be more specific.

The references I gave included both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try to remember all the evidence for rainwater collection that I have stated. The surface are of the pyramid is so much greater than the surface of the courtyard that surrounds it. Therefore, if it captured two inches of water, then the amount in the courtyard is at least two to four times higher (depending on the pyramid). This would be considerably higher during a harder rainstorm, such as the ones that caused tremendous flooding on the Giza Plateau. Keep in mind that the surface of the courtyard is catching rain, too.

I'm going to agree with Englishgent and Questionmark, the pyramid being there will not magically increase the amount of water that lands on a patch of land. The only way the pyramid could increase the amount of water collected, would, IMHO, be that if it was raining in high winds. And even then only by a small fraction.

I think you are stringing together ideas that you have no real education on and presenting some of them as facts, to try to bolster your base idea. You preface with "Remember the evidence..." yet present no evidence, only conjecture.

Sure, the drains you mention would be adequate to remove some of the water, but not before most of it flowed into the mortuary temple.

Conjecture... not evidence.

This is interesting because it implies that a similar amount of water was expected in the mortuary temple. However, this would be impossible unless it was used to hold tons of water.

Conjecture... not evidence.

In other words, it received the water from around the pyramid.

Conjecture... not evidence.

The drain was used to remove excess water that was left after the pavement was cleaned of debris.

Conjecture... not evidence.

The fact that there was a significant drain in the basalt courtyard suggest that there was a considerable amount of water expected there.

Conjecture... not evidence.

This could not have come from the open courtyard because that opening was rather small.

Conjecture... not evidence.

In fact, the water from the roof did not drain into it directly. This court received the water from the catchment basin around the pyramid. The water was released to the aqueduct that led to the cistern.

Conjecture... not evidence.

This is all in the archaeological record.

I don't think that has been demonstrated yet.

The only facts that I see in your Statement of Evidence is that you have been there and seen things yourself. Which... is something the rest of us have to take on Faith. Eyewitness testimony is one of the weakest form of evidence.

Maybe you need to write up a list of your evidence? Rather then try to tell a story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 54 meter drain on the north side of Khufu's pyramid did not go underneath the enclosure wall. It ran alongside it on the exterior.

Well, it (the 57m drainage channel) actually did go under the temenos wall, on this point the channel was cut in a single block 2,50 m long and 1,25 m wide. see: Michael Neumann, "Kanalisationanlagen, Wasserleitungen un sanitäre Einrichtungen im pharaonishen Ägypten", Wien, 2008, page 20.

The others that did actually go under the walls were smaller as you said. The purpose of these small drains was to aid in cleaning the courtyard of dust and debris. When a good rain began, it washed the pyramid surface and sent the water and dirt to the courtyard. At this point, the small drains would be opened to allow this dirty water to be removed before it entered the mortuary temple (water management building). Once the water was clear, the drain channels would be closed, and the clean water would be allowed to enter the aqueduct, etc.

Water was never supposed to enter any mortuary temple via the pyramid courtyard. There is no evidence that drains were blocked as you describe it.

As far as the other drainage systems you mentioned at Sahura, etc.--again, this actually supports my theory, and it is mentioned in my book. These do not go under the walls, though.

The drainage channels in the pyramid courtyard of the Sahure and Niuserre complex were not very deep but increase in size the closer you get to the temenos walls, they do lead the water outside underneath the temenos wall. See work mentioned above page 22.

As far as the drains in the mort. temp. courtyards, I suggest they were use to remove excess water or dirty water. They would be closed when it was desirable to prevent drainage.

Mortuary courtyards were somewhat lower than the surrounding colonnades in order to prevent water from flowing into the rest of the temple. Example of Khafre: pyramid courtyard was 5cm deeper than colonnade; in the courtyard was a drainage channel that went under the walls to the outside. See work mentioned above page 29-30.

Fifth dynasty mortuary temples had a water collection basin of sandstone (100 litres) in their courtyards, the floor of the courtyard was slightly inclined to the middle. A drain led the water to the outside. Most complete examples found in Niuserre and Pepi II complex.

See work mentioned above page 31.

By the way, I have a new youtube video that shows how the cisterns collected rainwater from the roof of the mort. Temple of Khafra. Google "khafra cisterns" if you like.

I doubt the roof of Khafre’s mortuary temple had holes in it, the roof would have been constructed to evacuate the water as quickly as possible. It probably had similar drainage systems as the roof of the valley temple, here the roof consisted of several levels, with the aid of ramps and steps the water was led to lower portions were it was collected by drainage channels that led to water spouts. See work mentioned above page 11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it (the 57m drainage channel) actually did go under the temenos wall, on this point the channel was cut in a single block 2,50 m long and 1,25 m wide. see: Michael Neumann, "Kanalisationanlagen, Wasserleitungen un sanitäre Einrichtungen im pharaonishen Ägypten", Wien, 2008, page 20.

Water was never supposed to enter any mortuary temple via the pyramid courtyard. There is no evidence that drains were blocked as you describe it.

The drainage channels in the pyramid courtyard of the Sahure and Niuserre complex were not very deep but increase in size the closer you get to the temenos walls, they do lead the water outside underneath the temenos wall. See work mentioned above page 22.

Mortuary courtyards were somewhat lower than the surrounding colonnades in order to prevent water from flowing into the rest of the temple. Example of Khafre: pyramid courtyard was 5cm deeper than colonnade; in the courtyard was a drainage channel that went under the walls to the outside. See work mentioned above page 29-30.

Fifth dynasty mortuary temples had a water collection basin of sandstone (100 litres) in their courtyards, the floor of the courtyard was slightly inclined to the middle. A drain led the water to the outside. Most complete examples found in Niuserre and Pepi II complex.

See work mentioned above page 31.

I doubt the roof of Khafre's mortuary temple had holes in it, the roof would have been constructed to evacuate the water as quickly as possible. It probably had similar drainage systems as the roof of the valley temple, here the roof consisted of several levels, with the aid of ramps and steps the water was led to lower portions were it was collected by drainage channels that led to water spouts. See work mentioned above page 11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is my rebuttal. I have translated the book pages you mentioned, and I offer them for your perusal. My German is rusty, but I believe the evidence mentioned below supports my theory. I thank you for you splendid contribution. Sincerely, Patrick T. Giles This is a translation of the pages of the book “Kanalisationsanlagen, Wasserleitungen und sanitäre Einrichtungen im pharaonischen Ägypte”, which was written by Neumann, Michael Walter (2008) Certain terms have been changed to align them with the concepts of the Pyramid Rain Catchment Theory”, but the sentiment is the same as the original German writing. This is entirely translated by Patrick Giles. I hope it is useful. These pages are from 20 to 30 (summarized).

“Catchment basins (pyramid courtyards) were comprised of stone pavements that were located between the pyramid and its surrounding enclosure wall. This area (and the strong walls) contained the rainwater that fell onto the pyramid. The surface area of the basin constituted only a fraction of the area of the pyramid and the basin. This led to the accumulation of rainwater. A typical rain of 5 millimeters led to the accumulation of several centimeters of water in the catchment basin. If drains had not been provided to remove the water, the area would have been flooded significantly during a heavy rainstorm. In fact, the pavement of the basin was not completely horizontal. It possessed an easy downward gradient that led towards the enclosure wall. The water was then removed by drainage channels.”

Catchment basins of the Old Kingdom.

Drains of the 4th dynasty

“The first evidence of a drainage system was found within the catchment basin around King Khufu’s pyramid. It is possible that drainage systems were once extant within the three catchment basins of Seneferu in Meidum and Dahshur, but according to the archeological record, gutters and drainage channels have not been found. In the WCB of Seneferu’s first Dahshur pyramid, which is called “the valley temple of the Bent Pyramid”, a gutter was found in the rubble. The channels that led to the gutter were not found.”

“Khufu’s catchment basin contained four drains. The largest one was found in the northwest corner of the catcment basin. This drain was made of stone. A channel was carved into the stone. The channel was 3 ½ feet wide and 1 ½ feet deep. This drain ran towards the north. The channel was bricked over to provide a flat cover. The blocks were plastered within the base of the channel. The drain ran under the enclosure wall. It consisted of only one block that was 8 feet long and 4 feet wide. At the terminus of the drainage channel, there was a reservoir that received the water. The reservoir at the lower section was covered by a grate. A length of 188 feet of the channel has been uncovered. (Information regarding the internal cross section of the channel (as well as its downward gradient) has not been determined, therefore its capacity cannot be computed. Part of the channel was cut at a later date. This was done to divert the rainwater around grave pits and funeral monuments. There were two drains on both sides of the cemetery that received the water.”

“In the south area of Khufu’s catchment basin, a more modest drain was discovered. This one was simply gutter that was cut into several limestone blocks. Five blocks are still in situ. Their course can still be determined visually. The quality of workmanship was different than the previously mentioned drain. Those under the wall ran were made with the best workmanship.”

“This particular wall is not the actual original enclosure wall, but a later addition that enlarged this area. It is unclear whether the gutter also ran under the more northern surrounding wall or if the water passed through to the southeast part of the catchment basin and then drained (or whether it only served to remove rainwater from the newer part of the catchment basin. A drainage system was found to the north-east and/or southwest of the courtyard basin (no more exact data is available). With a precipitation of only 1 mm, 60000 litres of water are captured. This would need to be removed by use of the drains.”

“From the 4th dynasty only one drain is well documented. A drainage for a catchment basin pavement was found at the pyramid of Djedefra. There is a roughly carved limestone-block channel that was bricked-over. The cross section of the channel was 6 inches wide and 6 inches deep (below the threshold of the enclosure wall. It is possible that it was a later addition that was put on at a later date (when the gate was bricked). Before it was built, the water simply flowed over the door limit from the pavement.”

“Inside the catchment basin of Sahura and the Wuserenra (this is a translation by Patrick Giles. The most familiar version is Niuserre.), water seems to have been shallow because the drainage system was minimal. In these catchment basins, there were gutters that intersected the pavement from the center of the pyramid to the extremity of the enclosure wall. As the water accumulated, it ran under the enclosure wall and then drained to the exterior. The dimensions of the gutter increased as its distance increased. This drain was not capable of draining the catchment basin in the event of rain. It was actually a safety divice that was used to remove rainwater whenever it flooded the mortuary temple. If this malfunctioned, there was another drain located at the top of the aqueduct (which is located at the east entrance of the mortuary temple of Wuserenra). This drain ran two feet to the north. It was cut at a 35 degree angle to the aqueduct. It was carved in red sandstone blocks. The length of the drain could be not determined. The water was probably transferred to the ground, where the water would seep. No drains were found at the southern section of the catchment basin. Egyptologist L. Borchardt stated that there must have been more drains in the vicinity in order to prevent flooding the mortuary temple with each downpour.”

“In the catchment basin of Wenis, a gutter was found at the southern corner (next to the enclosure wall). This gutter was different than Khufu’s drains (which ran from the center of the pyramid to the extremeties of the catchment basin). The section of the channel that was discovered was carved down the center of a 3 foot long paving-stone. The section under the enclosure wall is lost.”

Drains of the 6th dynasty

“A drain was found in the catchment basin of Pepi I. This drainage channel runs from the center of the pyramid to the extrementy of the catchment basin. There are also gutters in the west and south sections. The southern drain is especially interesting. The catchment basin pavement has an gentle downward gradient that descends from both sides of the catchment basin to the center of the pavement. Here the water flowed over an open area and then accumulated near a gutter (b.: 0.13 m, downward gradient 0.13 m/m). One drain led to the enclosure wall and then passed under it to a sunken, brick-lined pit. The bricks of the side panels were carved from local sandstone blocks. There were no paving stones at the base of the pit. This allowed water to seep easily into the bedrock. The capacity amounted to about 4 cubic feet, which amounted to the rainwater collection potential for a surface area of 6,600 feet if the precipitation was only 2 inches. Therefore, this pit was not able to contain larger quantities of rain. An overflow must have been present for this case. In fact, a shaft ran perpendicularly upward behind the enclosure wall to allow for overflow. The gutter at the west side of the catchment basin had a weaker downward gradient (1 foot per foot) but a larger width (7 inches).”

A further example from the mortuary temple of Wuserkaf.

“It is not certain why the Egyptians chose those connections of line dimensions and angles of inclination.”

“A sunken reservoir pit may have been at the south side, but this could not be determined. One might be available.The northern part of the catchment basin did not have a drain to remove water. Instead, it had five to rectangular basins, which would have taken up the water. They were asymmetrically distributed (four in the east, and one in the west). They had no runoffs for water, which indicates that the water was held for longer time periods so that it could be used for a ritual purpose”.

“A drain was discovered at the pyramid complex of Pepi II. It is located in the center of the northeast catchment basin. There are three water basins. The pavement is higher against the pyramid, and then it slants from all sides to the drains. Thus, it is obvious that they were intended for rainwater (or for the cleaning of the pavement stones). The northern and the southern area of the catchment basin had a stone pavement that directed the water to a narrow gutter (only 3 inches wide). The gutters led under the enclosure wall and then passed to the end of the drain.”

Cult pyramids of the 5th and 6th dynasty.

“At the pyramid site of Wenis, a gutter ran parallel to the edge of the pyramid. It was obviously used to capture rainwater at the base of the pyramid. Sahura’s satellite pyramid had a gutter in the pavement at the southern area of the enclosure wall. The catchment basin of the main pyramid also had a drain that removed rainwater.”

“A particularly unusual drain was found at the satelite pyramid of Teti. A gutter there led to two branches at the eastern area of the enclosure wall (from the transverse area of TeTi) that led to the inner courtyard and then branched out from the left side of the catchment basin. This flowed to the western area of the pavement, which led to a sunken, round quartzite basin. Additional basins were also in the pavement. There were not drainage channel leading to them, and they possessed no inlets for water. Their use may have been ritual.”

“The gutter led to a drain that ran under the northern section of the enclosure wall of the satellite pyramid of Pepi I. It was not in the center, but rather in the proximity of the northwest corner. The water might flow over the small southeast catchment basin into the southern drain which led to a drainage area where it was deposited.”

Building of stages Khenet-kaues I. The remarkable drainage system in the complex of Khenet-kaues I.

“The step-pyramid of Khenet-kaues I was built around a natual outcrop. This structure was surrounded by a wall that was made of mudbrick on the north, west and south sides. The wall in the east was made of limestone. At the northern end of the wall, there was a discharge hole for drainage, from which a gutter led into stone basins. These had the combined capacity of 20 x 17 x 10 feet. Approximately 100000 litres. That corresponds to a rain quantity of 40 mm related to the surface of the catchment area (which represents a higher rainfall than the present yearly precipitation). Even if one assumes that the climate was damper during the Old Kingdom, it is it nevertheless improbable that this basin could ever have been filled by rainwater alone. At the south side, there are two more drainage channels made out of limestone blocks. They run from the center of the pyramid to the extremity of the enclosure wall. “

Courtyard basins of the Middle Kingdom.

“Although it is generally accepted that the climate during the Middle Kingdom was drier than the 3rd millenium, one finds one in this epoch the same precautions for drainage as already mentioned. The drainage system of King Amenemhet I in Lischt (north) possessed at least three gutters. There were two in the proximity of the corners of the northern section of the enclosure wall. In the southern section of the catchment basin, there were gutters near the center. All three drain channels terminated at sunken pits that held the water as it seeped into the ground. Although they have not been discovered, it is certain that they were probably carved into the rock.”

Well, it (the 57m drainage channel) actually did go under the temenos wall, on this point the channel was cut in a single block 2,50 m long and 1,25 m wide. see: Michael Neumann, "Kanalisationanlagen, Wasserleitungen un sanitäre Einrichtungen im pharaonishen Ägypten", Wien, 2008, page 20.

Water was never supposed to enter any mortuary temple via the pyramid courtyard. There is no evidence that drains were blocked as you describe it.

The drainage channels in the pyramid courtyard of the Sahure and Niuserre complex were not very deep but increase in size the closer you get to the temenos walls, they do lead the water outside underneath the temenos wall. See work mentioned above page 22.

Mortuary courtyards were somewhat lower than the surrounding colonnades in order to prevent water from flowing into the rest of the temple. Example of Khafre: pyramid courtyard was 5cm deeper than colonnade; in the courtyard was a drainage channel that went under the walls to the outside. See work mentioned above page 29-30.

Fifth dynasty mortuary temples had a water collection basin of sandstone (100 litres) in their courtyards, the floor of the courtyard was slightly inclined to the middle. A drain led the water to the outside. Most complete examples found in Niuserre and Pepi II complex.

See work mentioned above page 31.

I doubt the roof of Khafre's mortuary temple had holes in it, the roof would have been constructed to evacuate the water as quickly as possible. It probably had similar drainage systems as the roof of the valley temple, here the roof consisted of several levels, with the aid of ramps and steps the water was led to lower portions were it was collected by drainage channels that led to water spouts. See work mentioned above page 11.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see anything in that last post by Patrick Giles to indicate that what Harte posted on page 1 of this thread is anything but true.

I can't view your vid at work.

Any large construction project has to take drainage into account.

I don't see anywhere in Petrie's writings on this where he implies water was to be collected by the pyramid.

Obviously, in the case of rain, water would be collected in the interior (and on the pavement surrounding) the unfinished G.P. This rainwater would need to be drained to continue operations.

This is what Petrie said the trenches were for.

Harte

Patrick Gile's first post in this thread on page 12 clearly shows that he thinks the Pyramids were MEANT to be used for water collection. Planned that way.

Was is illogical to build a pyramid just to catch rainwater? Keep in mind that there were 27 major pyramid complexes, and most of them had pyramids that were cheap and easy to build in comparison to those at the Giza complex and Sneferu's.Yes, it was logical. I dare anyone to drink the water from any river anywhere that is not fed by a nearby spring. Forget it. They didn't do it in Egypt either (unless they were making beer).

I think it possible (Even likely) that the Egyptians noticed that water did collect from rains and had to be drained off, and then why not dig a pit and collect it. But, that is a far stretch from Intentionally building a pyramid or an obalisk to catch rain.

Indeed doesn't the translated quotes specifically state that the large pyramids all had multiple drains?

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see anything in that last post by Patrick Giles to indicate that what Harte posted on page 1 of this thread is anything but true.

Unfortunately Harte's post on page 1 was meaningless. I tried to point

this out when I rebutted it on page 1. The "sacred apron" could not possibly

have anything whatsoever to do with drainage during construction if ramps were

used to build. If you follow Harte's link on page 1 you'll also see that it is

Petrie's writing and it can not be interpreted to support his points. Indeed, if

you read the link you'll see that Petrie never suggested that the pyramid was sacred

or was built with ramps. This is stuff dreamed up by orthodoxy that has been denied

by the evidence ever since. Indeed, the only thing Petrie said about the drainage

channel was that it could not have been used along which to sight. He did go on to

say that water must have flowed in it and this was based on physical evidence.

If you read the material closely you'll see several anomalies that put he lie to the

concepts that this sacred apron was used for anything other than water collection. This

apron (Ssm.t) varied considerably in width but was almost perfectly flat. If the build-

ers were looking for "sacred" they would have made it equally wide and wouldn't have much

cared if it were flat or not. But it was made to conduct water so flat was necessary and

looking straight was not.

I've made significant progress in the last few months though I've taken a 5 week hiatus

to allow orthodoxy another chance. There was a potentially important sidebar but it has

proven to be a dead end at the current time. Among several things I've found is the name

of the canal that leads to the cliff face which Petrie couldn't bring himself to call a

"canal". It is the knsti-canal and would have been under the jurisdiction of the "Over-

seer of Canals" who is buried right on site in all probability.

Another thing you can find on Harte's link is Petrie's words showing the pyramid was built

atop the sacred apron (water collection device); "...merely for the purpose of showing that

it really was the pavement on which the casing was found to rest on each side."

There's another huge piece of evidence proving these were for the purpose of water collec-

tion.

http://www.archaeogate.org/print/photo.php?src=18_article_677_3.jpg

Simply stated this was obviously built as an overflow to protect the walls of Saqqara from

being overtopped by "Spread Lake" or "the Lake of the Year" which surrounded Djoser's Pyr-

amid and was the level recorded on the Palermo Stone each year as the God Nhi.

This is the way things just fit together when the theory is right rather than based on as-

sumptions. Science is about the ability to make predictions and orthodoxy has failed at

this from the beginning.

I expect to have proof that they used water to build within a fairly short time and intend

to start a new thread on the subject as things start fitting together in a new model. Yes,

the old model had to be abandoned in the face of new evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've made significant progress in the last few months though I've taken a 5 week hiatus

to allow orthodoxy another chance. There was a potentially important sidebar but it has

proven to be a dead end at the current time. Among several things I've found is the name

of the canal that leads to the cliff face which Petrie couldn't bring himself to call a

"canal". It is the knsti-canal and would have been under the jurisdiction of the "Over-

seer of Canals" who is buried right on site in all probability.

So...there's no hypothetical potential missing overseers yet to be found except where you want there to be?

Edited by Oniomancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...there's no hypothetical potential missing overseers yet to be found except where you want there to be?

I don't understand the question.

The fact is there are no pyramid builders buried at Giza if you accept

orthodox assumptions. There's only a single title related to pyramid

building and these sure were not built by one man. But there are several

titles related to building with water and the one relevant here is the

"Overseer of Canals". If my theory is right there were numerous canals

along the "winding watercourse" with the "mn-canal", "Nurse-canal", and

the "knsti-canal" being among the most important but he'd also be in charge

of numerous unnamed canals as well as the "air siphon" of Serket. His job

would be very highly specific leader of masons and design so would proba-

bly be very inclusive.

Obviously, all we have is a sample of the jobs represented and this sample

is consistent with the use of water to build. There are no jobs whatsoever

consistent with ramps or any means of muscle based work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, a couple more new things relevant here that I neglected to mention; The

"’itr.t-palace;" appears to be a specific name for the "sacred apron" which

is the water collection device. "Palace", like all the "religious" words, is

mistranslated and actually means the place where men and Gods work.

The "knsti-canal" means "desert edge canal" in Egyptian. It's probably "the

canal leading to the desert edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the question.

The fact is there are no pyramid builders buried at Giza if you accept

orthodox assumptions. There's only a single title related to pyramid

building and these sure were not built by one man. But there are several

titles related to building with water and the one relevant here is the

"Overseer of Canals". If my theory is right there were numerous canals

along the "winding watercourse" with the "mn-canal", "Nurse-canal", and

the "knsti-canal" being among the most important but he'd also be in charge

of numerous unnamed canals as well as the "air siphon" of Serket. His job

would be very highly specific leader of masons and design so would proba-

bly be very inclusive.

Obviously, all we have is a sample of the jobs represented and this sample

is consistent with the use of water to build. There are no jobs whatsoever

consistent with ramps or any means of muscle based work.

You've made post after post attempting to discount ramps by pointing out the lack of titles XYZ represented in the workers' graveyard but when it's something that supports your pet theory suddenly boy howdy, we know X is there, we just haven't found him yet. Do you understand how this makes you look?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've made post after post attempting to discount ramps by pointing out the lack of titles XYZ represented in the workers' graveyard but when it's something that supports your pet theory suddenly boy howdy, we know X is there, we just haven't found him yet. Do you understand how this makes you look?

Which makes me think, is there an overseer of the ropes? And if not, did they not use any? :devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most pertinent question is: Is there really any reason to dredge up and argue this tired and tedious crap yet again?

No, there is not. It will lead to nothing new, and no orthodox theory will be disproved or altered to any degree. This frustrates the resident fringies to no end, but it's their own fault for not being able to acknowledge reality. Therefore, the vicious loop will go on.

Count me out. This silly discussion should've stayed dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the knsti-canal and would have been under the jurisdiction of the "Over-

seer of Canals" who is buried right on site in all probability.

Keep any eye open for that Overseer of Ramps, as he is probably buried right next to the Canal overseer. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep any eye open for that Overseer of Ramps, as he is probably buried right next to the Canal overseer. :tu:

You folks have misunderstood. I worded it clumsily but thought I

had it straightened out in my last post. There is an "Overseer of Canals"

buried right at Giza and in all probability he did overseer the contruction

and operation of the "winding watercourse". They didn't include a copy of

his job description but he was the "Overseer of Canals".

One can claim that the "Overseer of Canals" had no jurisdiction over the

wonding watercourse but the fact remains that without him and the other

job titles that ALL say they used water to build there are no pyramid

builders at all buried at Giza. This is an absurdity so it doesn't matter

whether he oversaw the winding watercourse or not since this is what is ac-

tually represented.

If you'll look at the earlier posts you'll see a great deal more of the wind-

ing watercourse has been identified by me or Patrick Giles. It doesn't mat-

ter even what you call it since it's still a watercourse that winds. It still

suggests that they used this water before, during, and after construction. It

still says ramps are an impossibility because they'd be in the way of the water

which is established fact rather than an assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which makes me think, is there an overseer of the ropes? And if not, did they not use any? :devil:

Excellennt question. But if you think about it you'll realize there was no

logical reason to move their rope industry to the Giza Plateau. There's al-

ready limited room here and it's not a logical place to make rope. The rope

was probably made nearby to where the constituent parts were grown. There's

no work to do after harvest except to make rope so they'd have manpower avail-

able. From wherever it was made it could easily be shgippesd all over Egypt

by boat. And, yes, there was a job at Giza related to unloading boats but it's

not one I made a point of remembering. It was something equivalent to "Pro-

visioning Overseer". There are also a few references to this task in the PT.

A great deal of provisions were necessary for the dozens of men women and chil-

dren who built the Great Pyramid. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've made post after post attempting to discount ramps by pointing out the lack of titles XYZ represented in the workers' graveyard but when it's something that supports your pet theory suddenly boy howdy, we know X is there, we just haven't found him yet. Do you understand how this makes you look?

All the jobs necessary to building the pyramid with water from the water

collection device exist at Giza though a few very minor ones are only in

the PT. This is logical since in the real world you wouldn't necessarily

expect to find the "Ferryman" if there's only a single one. We have a cross

section of the jobs in the tombs and not one of each.

What we don't have is even a single job consistent with using ramps or any

muscle based system. Some day this alone will be seen as sufficient "proof"

of my "theme". The fact that most of the components of the winding water-

course is staring us right in the face including the perfectly level but

crooked apron should convince most people who don't already have their minds

made up.

The facts are all right there but people analyze them in term of superstitious

bumpkins. People are looking past the facts to our own prejudices and beliefs.

The builders didn't must have used ramps. They probably could have come up

with myriad ways to do it but by the same token it wouldn't have ever happen-

ed if they didn't have the water and the power right on site. Say what you

will but the apron is proof of this. Look at the facts dispassionately and I

believe youmight agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellennt question. But if you think about it you'll realize there was no

logical reason to move their rope industry to the Giza Plateau. There's al-

ready limited room here and it's not a logical place to make rope. The rope

was probably made nearby to where the constituent parts were grown. There's

no work to do after harvest except to make rope so they'd have manpower avail-

able. From wherever it was made it could easily be shgippesd all over Egypt

by boat. And, yes, there was a job at Giza related to unloading boats but it's

not one I made a point of remembering. It was something equivalent to "Pro-

visioning Overseer". There are also a few references to this task in the PT.

A great deal of provisions were necessary for the dozens of men women and chil-

dren who built the Great Pyramid. ;)

As if I did not know that cladking would show up as soon as somebody posted some inanity on this thread. Now that I won that bet I will join kmt in leaving this thread to its demise.

Nice seeing you around :devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

**That's enough. Years were spent before on this exact same material, and nothing was proven then. Nothing new is being presented here, and the passage of time with no new evidence is not going to make the material magically more valid. **

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

**That's enough. Years were spent before on this exact same material, and nothing was proven then. Nothing new is being presented here, and the passage of time with no new evidence is not going to make the material magically more valid. **

I'll just move on then.

If everyone here is so resistant to actually reading what I write

that they can't even see what's new after it's even pointed out then

why bother. If everyone is so damned determined to ignore the facts

and the evidence then I can find people on thje net who do care and will

read it.

Anyone else is welcome to keepup with the facts on those sites which

aren't squelching anyone who doesn't accept orthodox beliefs.

It seems that if the so called skeptics can't win an argument here then

they respond with trying to chase you off.

I won't let the door hit me on the way out.

If you were paying attenbtion you'd know the thread that has many of

the answers to how the pyramid was actually built is still getting 100

hits per day.

I can comfort myself in the knowledge that I won virtually every argu-

ment and this site has helped me a great deal in the past. To my friends

here; so long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On that note then, topic closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.