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

Would still be interested in a citation to support your 4" annual rainfall claim, as everything I've come across suggests there hasn't been any approaching that quantity since at least 3500 BC.

I'm still looking and still not finding much but what I am

finding supports the idea that rainfall was higher during the

old kingdom;

"Recent evidence suggests that a sudden and short-lived climatic shift between 2200 and 2100 BCE occurred in the region between Tibet and Iceland, with some evidence suggesting a global change. The result was a cooling and reduction in precipitation. This is believed to be a primary cause of the collapse of the Old Kingdom of Egypt.[11]"

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

What I've really been looking for is proof that oryx were being

hunted in the pyramid building age since this would be mare than

adequate proof of higher rainfall. All I've found so far is good

indication that they weren't extinct in Egypt in 1900 BC.

Oryx, gazelles and other grazers are mentioned extensively as living

in the desert in the Pyramid Texts. This certainly implies they were

there and hunted and that rainfall was higher.

I haven't given up finding something definitive yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still looking and still not finding much but what I am

finding supports the idea that rainfall was higher during the

old kingdom;

"Recent evidence suggests that a sudden and short-lived climatic shift between 2200 and 2100 BCE occurred in the region between Tibet and Iceland, with some evidence suggesting a global change. The result was a cooling and reduction in precipitation. This is believed to be a primary cause of the collapse of the Old Kingdom of Egypt.[11]"

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

What I've really been looking for is proof that oryx were being

hunted in the pyramid building age since this would be mare than

adequate proof of higher rainfall. All I've found so far is good

indication that they weren't extinct in Egypt in 1900 BC.

Oryx, gazelles and other grazers are mentioned extensively as living

in the desert in the Pyramid Texts. This certainly implies they were

there and hunted and that rainfall was higher.

I haven't given up finding something definitive yet.

This much is already known cladking, as the already low amount of rainfall at the time was lowered even further and caused the drought in Egypt c.2160 BC, ending the Old Kingdom. This is one of the MANY facts that runs contrary to Alewyn's presentation of the Old Kingdom collapse, and other allegedly associated collapses in Eurasia in 2193/2194 BC. Don't give up though if you think you can find the citation. :tu:

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, here's something slightly better;

SAHARA

(dates in Guo et al are given in 14C years ago on the left, approximate calibrated of 'real' dates are given on the right)

Moist (10,400-9,100 ya)

Slight drying (9,100-8,900 ya)

Moist (8,900-7,900 ya)

Moderately dry (7,900-6,500 ya)

Moist (6,500-4,500 ya)..................[4500 BC to 2500 BC]

Very dry - as dry as at present (4,500-4,100 ya)

Slightly moister than present (4,100-3,700 ya)

After (3,700 ya). Remaining about as dry as at present

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercAFRICA.html

I'll study this site a little more closely as time allows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, here's something slightly better;

SAHARA

(dates in Guo et al are given in 14C years ago on the left, approximate calibrated of 'real' dates are given on the right)

Moist (10,400-9,100 ya)

Slight drying (9,100-8,900 ya)

Moist (8,900-7,900 ya)

Moderately dry (7,900-6,500 ya)

Moist (6,500-4,500 ya)..................[4500 BC to 2500 BC]

Very dry - as dry as at present (4,500-4,100 ya)

Slightly moister than present (4,100-3,700 ya)

After (3,700 ya). Remaining about as dry as at present

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercAFRICA.html

I'll study this site a little more closely as time allows.

Which, if you read further, is in reference more toward the Western and Southern Sahara. Also, as far as I can tell, this site hasn't been updated in almost 10 years (2002).

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While i agree that the pyramids doubled as a water catch, i think it was more of an ancient gutter system like we use today, only due to the lack of water, they used to there advantage. As far as why the pyramids were built, I personally think it is very obvious.

Why do we build skyscrapers? What makes a city scream power and wealth above all else? Huge buildings. As to why they chose a pyramid i think had to do with a couple of factors. They knew the pyramid shape is extremely strong, and it's strength was enforced by there own religious beliefs. The pyramid was a tool to represent how successful they were as a people, and that much is apparent even to this day.

As to how the pyramids were built, i think some people forget that the people who built the pyramids are the same as use, same intelligence, same everything. Although they did not have modern technology to help them, human ingenuity and hard work can achieve more than many will realize.

Back in the times they were built, it was important to instill intimidation into countries who would benefit from your riches, and there is no better way to let them know they are over their head than to have massive structures such as pyramids.

The last 'mystery' is what they were used for. I do not think a burial chamber even makes sense. It's like using the statue of liberty as a graveyard. I think the pyramids were used as a meeting place, either for religious services or as a form of a city hall. They would of seen there pyramids as sacred based on there beliefs. They knew the shape of a pyramid would last through the ages, and was the same reason they embalmed there dead. They knew their life was short, but immortality could be achieved not literally, but through the mark they leave in the short life they have.

I believe that is all there is to the mystery of the pyramids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While i agree that the pyramids doubled as a water catch, i think it was more of an ancient gutter system like we use today, only due to the lack of water, they used to there advantage. As far as why the pyramids were built, I personally think it is very obvious.

Many of the mastabas at Giza have what are essentially rain gutters. While

I believe these might be distinct from the water catchment at the pyramid it

does indicate that rain was on the builders' minds.

Why do we build skyscrapers? What makes a city scream power and wealth above all else? Huge buildings. As to why they chose a pyramid i think had to do with a couple of factors. They knew the pyramid shape is extremely strong, and it's strength was enforced by there own religious beliefs. The pyramid was a tool to represent how successful they were as a people, and that much is apparent even to this day.

Sure. This was probably a factor.

As to how the pyramids were built, i think some people forget that the people who built the pyramids are the same as use, same intelligence, same everything. Although they did not have modern technology to help them, human ingenuity and hard work can achieve more than many will realize.

I have to disagree. Until we know how they were built we don't know

how much hard work nor how much ingenuity went into them. I do agree

it obviously took a lot of both but would suggest it was mostly the

latter.

The last 'mystery' is what they were used for. I do not think a burial chamber even makes sense. It's like using the statue of liberty as a graveyard.

I agree fairly strongly. While a burial chamber shouldn't be ruled

out the evidence for it is weak.

I think the pyramids were used as a meeting place, either for religious services or as a form of a city hall.

Excellent point. Thisa is where the w3g-festival was held each year.

What easier directions could be provided than "over at yonder pyramid".

They would of seen there pyramids as sacred based on there beliefs.

This seems to be largely conjecture. We simply don't know anything

about the culture and orthodox beliefs are based on interpretations

of anachronistic writings.

They knew the shape of a pyramid would last through the ages, and was the same reason they embalmed there dead. They knew their life was short, but immortality could be achieved not literally, but through the mark they leave in the short life they have.

I believe that is all there is to the mystery of the pyramids.

...well, other than the unknowns which include prit near everything. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we build skyscrapers? What makes a city scream power and wealth above all else? Huge buildings.

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

The last 'mystery' is what they were used for. I do not think a burial chamber even makes sense. It's like using the statue of liberty as a graveyard. I think the pyramids were used as a meeting place, either for religious services or as a form of a city hall.

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

No, sorry, they were definitely tombs.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this really supposed to be serious? Aren't there enough nutball Great Pyramid ideas as it is? So now we can add "rain catchment" to the mix.

There are two obvious things that immediately discount the entire idea:

  • Climatological studies of the Giza Plateau establish that even by the time of Khufu the area was desert. Although it does rain in Egypt, then as now torrential rainstorms generally occur only once or twice in a decade. So the Great Pyramid as a "rain catchment" would represent a colossal cost of resources and manpower on behalf of the state to achieve something that would function only rarely at best.
  • This point is even more salient. The model in the video, as well made as it is, shows all of this water flowing down through the causeway to collect in what the videographer refers to as the "cistern." In normal circles this "cistern" is known as the valley temple, something integral to almost all pyramid complexes. Only remnants of Khufu's valley temple have been excavated due to modern urban sprawl. But the truly funny thing is, the videographer seems to think all of this colossal effort was required to collect water into a "cistern"--when several feet to the east was a huge water-filled quay the workmen had created to channel the Nile to the Plateau.

In other words, an entirely wasted effort. As it is, although Khufu's causeway is in ruins, those at other pyramid complexes are well preserved. Such is the case with the Unis pyramid complex. His causeway was made with carefully dressed and beautifully inscribed limestone masonry, but there's certainly nothing to suggest it's watertight. That's just silly. In all honesty, had such vast amounts of rain spilled down into Khufu's causeway, almost all of the water would've drained out through the joins between the blocks of masonry probably long before reaching the valley temple.

Plenty of people like to play with all sorts of bizarre ideas about the Great Pyramid, when in fact very few of these people seem to know anything meaningful about the wider context of the Plateau around it. Had this videographer even bothered to read something as simple and basic as Lehner's The Complete Pyramids, he would've realized there was no reason to develop his idea beyond his earliest thought processes. There's even a pretty overlay on Pages 110 and 115 which shows how the quay may have looked in front of Khafre's pyramid. All of the quays are archaeologically attested, including Khufu's.

And please, cladking, do not misrepresent Mr. Petrie. He did not believe the Great Pyramid had been built as a "rain catchment." :rolleyes:

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as a water catchment device at Giza or at the other "great pyramids" sites.

Mortuary temple, causeway and valey temple as part of such a device is just silly, water doesn't mix very well with limestone reliefs you know...

Mortuary temple, causeway, valey temple and enclosure wall didn't predate the pyramid, the pyramid was constructed first.

Red pyramid: no causeway, no valey temple, small mortuary temple finished in mudbrick. Menkaure's mortuary temple was also finished in mudbick. Mudbrick and water are an even worse mix than limestone and water.

The whole subject is a non starter, there's not a shred of evidence to support it; to the contrary, the evidence doesn't leave any room for such a silly notion.

Excellent points. I'm glad you brought them up. There were many carved relief sculptures inside the structures associated with a pyramid. Howver, they were protected by water in two way. One, they were always painted above the water line (3 to 4 feet). They were also painted with water-resistant paint (wax base)that could endure water for many years. Why did you mention the stuff about the construction dates of various structures? Next, I will refer you to the Complete Pyramids by Lehner, in which he shows how some of the pyramid complexes were incomplete when the king died and stopped funding the project. The Red Pyramid had an amazing "Mortuary Temple", but all that is left is the foundations. Google the pictures online. There are remnants of a causeway at this site, as well, although the valley temple is not excavated. Read the research a little closer than you have been, and you will find that the Pyreamid Rain Catchment Theory is solid as a rock. Menkaura's mort temp was unfinished when he died, but was building it out of stone entirely up to that point. It would have been used to catch rainwater, but Shepseskaf finished it with mudbrik, instead. Not a shred of evidence? You gotta be crazy to make a statement like that. A 30 foot stone wall surrounded almost every pyramid. Where did the water go? According to Hawass and many others, there was only one exit or entrance in the those walls. It led directly into the mortuary temple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to UM, patrickgiles.

Don't be surprised if we skeptics poke fun. We're skeptical for a reason--about pretty much every alternative theme.

I don't have time right now to devote an in-depth rebuttal to your own rain-catchment idea, but for the moment suffice it to say I think you're either missing or ignoring huge amounts of architectural, cultural, archaeological, and inscriptional evidence that reveal to us the intended nature of these monuments. Cladking will side with you because he enjoys practically any idea that goes against orthodoxy, but every theme cladking has proposed has been roundly disproved in many different discussions at UM. I'd take care in choosing your allies. It's one thing to dislike orthodox theories but something completely different to disprove them. To date, no alternative or fringe theme has had any effect on orthodox history.

In any case, for the moment I just wanted to comment on the above. While it remains probable based on extant evidence that the Egyptians invented the fermented product we call beer, it's quite an exaggeration to suggest they avoided water. Yes, beer was safe to drink, but it also contained many nutrients and calories, and that was its primary importance--it was an energy food and, along with bread, a staple of the diet.

But of course they drank plenty of water, and no doubt more so than beer. While the Egyptians did use wells, most of the drinking water still came from the Nile. There is no doubting this. There is a reason, after all, that schistosomiasis was one of the leading killers in the pharaonic population. Paleopathologists examining well-preserved human intestines have found within them the "mummified" parasites that led to severe and often fatal dysentery.

Also bear in mind that throughout the length of the pyramid age, the landscape of Egypt was already desert. In fact, it rains there more today than it would have in c. 2500 BCE. The average rain back then wouldn't have done more than dampen the masonry and paving stones of the pyramids. Torrential rainstorms occurred maybe once or twice in a decade, so the sort of project for which you're arguing would've represented a colossal amount of labor for very, very little result.

You're quite wrong about the ecosystem of Giza during the Old Kindgom. There was a wetter climate for sure. I could cite a lot of stuff, but I'd rather direct to to Farak Hassan's website on pollen analysis. Google it. Also, check out the research by the Oriental Institute of Chicago. They have also proven that a lot of rainfall once flooded the plateau. Where did you get your outdated climate info? Weak argument. No one is saying that the Nile was not used for beer. I'm saying the drank rainwater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
According to the deficiency of occupation

sites, regular monsoonal rains have ceased to reach

the Egyptian Sahara not later than 5300 B.C.E.

and

After 3500 B.C.E., rains ceased

even in ecological niches such as the Gilf Kebir,

and permanent occupation was restricted to

southern areas such as Laqiya (34) and Wadi

Howar in Northern Sudan (fig. S2E).

Source: Climate-Controlled Holocene Occupation in the Sahara:

Motor of Africas Evolution (www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 313 11 AUGUST 2006)

Rudolph Kuper and Stefan Kropelin

Edit to add: To patrickgiles, just so you don't embarass yourself in the future Kmt_sesh happens to work at the Oriental Institute, amongst other places.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent points. I'm glad you brought them up. There were many carved relief sculptures inside the structures associated with a pyramid. Howver, they were protected by water in two way. One, they were always painted above the water line (3 to 4 feet). They were also painted with water-resistant paint (wax base)that could endure water for many years. Why did you mention the stuff about the construction dates of various structures? Next, I will refer you to the Complete Pyramids by Lehner, in which he shows how some of the pyramid complexes were incomplete when the king died and stopped funding the project. The Red Pyramid had an amazing "Mortuary Temple", but all that is left is the foundations. Google the pictures online. There are remnants of a causeway at this site, as well, although the valley temple is not excavated. Read the research a little closer than you have been, and you will find that the Pyreamid Rain Catchment Theory is solid as a rock. Menkaura's mort temp was unfinished when he died, but was building it out of stone entirely up to that point. It would have been used to catch rainwater, but Shepseskaf finished it with mudbrik, instead. Not a shred of evidence? You gotta be crazy to make a statement like that. A 30 foot stone wall surrounded almost every pyramid. Where did the water go? According to Hawass and many others, there was only one exit or entrance in the those walls. It led directly into the mortuary temple.

Inside a sealed channel, where no-one can see them? (unlike a temple passage as used by a veneration cult) This is starting to sound more and more like a waterpark slide...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're quite wrong about the ecosystem of Giza during the Old Kindgom. There was a wetter climate for sure. I could cite a lot of stuff, but I'd rather direct to to Farak Hassan's website on pollen analysis. Google it. Also, check out the research by the Oriental Institute of Chicago. They have also proven that a lot of rainfall once flooded the plateau. Where did you get your outdated climate info? Weak argument. No one is saying that the Nile was not used for beer. I'm saying the drank rainwater.

Since there is evidence of near on 1/2 to 1 million people living along the Nile in this part of the Old Kingdom, I'd be curious as to what most of them drank? Even if there was 4" annual rainfall on Giza, that is only enough for the nearby people for a couple weeks. The idea they did not drink from the Nile is very ignorant.

Even in the last decades Egyptians used river/canal water over well water.

At the local level, a study on water and sanitation in two villages in the Nile Delta conducted in the late 1980s provides some insights into water use and hygiene behavior in rural areas at the time. The inhabitants had access to three water sources: piped water from household connections or public standpipes; shallow wells with handpumps; and canal water. Canals were used by many women for laundry and washing domestic utensils, and for cleaning vegetables and grain. Women preferred canal water to groundwater because canal water was softer and was not brackish.

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

The implication being that they didn't understand about disease being spread in the water, even in the 1980's. The idea they would not drink Nile water 4000+ years ago is almost laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and

Source: Climate-Controlled Holocene Occupation in the Sahara:

Motor of Africa’s Evolution (www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 313 11 AUGUST 2006)

Rudolph Kuper and Stefan Kropelin

Edit to add: To patrickgiles, just so you don't embarass yourself in the future Kmt_sesh happens to work at the Oriental Institute, amongst other places.

cormac

How am I embarrassing myself? Have you actually read the research from the Oriental Institute regarding rainwater floods on the Giza Plateau? You probably should. I think it was 2001 or around that time that they discovered evidence of intense floods that caused major washes across the plateau. In fact, these washes were responsible for destroying certain parts of Menkaura's mortuary temple. They also found evidence on the Wall of the Crow. In fact, there were massive mudflows that banked against the north side of the wall. They also found evidence for large mollusk colonies that depend on rainwater behind Khafra'a pyramid. You sound like an elitist. I've done the research. Have you? I challenge you to any debate on this subject. I will read the article you mentioned. You should google Farrak Hassan's pollen analysis of the Old Kingdom.It describes a much wetter ecosystem than what is accepted. Have you ever heard of the Wet Holocene Phase in the Sahara? Rainwater begins to decrease around 3200 BCE. It slowly begins to end as the Old Kingdom continues, and it finally stops around 2200 BCE. This is when the last Old Kingdom pyramid was built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inside a sealed channel, where no-one can see them? (unlike a temple passage as used by a veneration cult) This is starting to sound more and more like a waterpark slide...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

That is what I had thought.

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

Read the website of Farrak Hassan. He has done pollen analysis and discovered a lot of evidence for a wet climate during the Old Kingdom. So has the website of the Oriental Institute in Chicago. There was a time called the Holocene Wet Phase, which was ending during the Old Kingdom. It meant that rains were still there. The pyramids were built to catch rainwater for large populations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rain is the main hole in his theory, so let's see if he responds. :yes:

I have an entire chapter in my book devoted to climate studies. Where do I start? Farrak Hassan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The subject of rainfall in Ancient Egypt and North Africa has already been discussed and the evidence DOES NOT support the contention of any such 'rain catchment' device.

DesertificationofAncientEgypt.jpg

Source: Climate-Controlled Holocene Occupation in the Sahara: Motor of Africa’s Evolution by Rudolph Kuper and Stefan Kropelin (www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 313 11 AUGUST 2006)

Also, welcome to UM.

Edit because the link to my previous post wasn't working.

cormac

This is a very general study that does not take into account all the evidence. There is so much evidence for rainfall that I could site. In fact, the Oriental Institute has proven it. Look at their research. If it rained only one inch on the great pyramid, it would capture nearly 700,000 gallons of water.This is a fact that cannot be disputed by anyone of any scholarship. Where did the water go? There is only one exit in the enclosure wall that surrouned the pyramid, and it went directly into the mortuary building. You can't disprove my theory with one climate study. Mark Lehner stated many times that there were not openings in the entire enclosure wall except for the entrance to the Mort. Try to debunk that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cladking will side with you because he enjoys practically any idea that goes against orthodoxy, but every theme cladking has proposed has been roundly disproved in many different discussions at UM... ... It's one thing to dislike orthodox theories but something completely different to disprove them. To date, no alternative or fringe theme has had any effect on orthodox history.

I probably should have responded to this but since Patrick Giles has I now

feel compelled. First off what should be obvious to anyone is that I don't

believe any part of my theory has been dispelled by orthodox thinking or

knowledge. If it were it would already have been discarded as many older

parts of the theory have.

Secondly while it's true that I tend to side with any fringe thinker that

I can for strategic reasons, I most assuredly don't side with ideas that are

obviously wrong or incorrect facts. I called this theory "well supported"

because it is a theory that has ample evidence to show that it is correct in

whole or in part. I believe that the evidence strongly supports the idea that

the great pyramids did in fact collect rain water and quite possibly other wa-

ter as well. That the were designed to do this is also apparent even if this

might be much less likely to be their primary function.

I believe it's far more true to say that I've severely weakened the orthodox

assumptions. Indeed, the assumption that the great pyramids were built with

ramps is virtually debunked. There just aren't much of any ramping systems

that survive the physical evidence. Orthodoxy has painted themselves into a

corner with ramps and have no way out. They can't just keep throwing up their

hands and saying that "we know they used some ramp system" because they are

all debunked.

Here's a question for Patrick Giles; Assuming the evidence that the rain/ wa-

ter catchment was built first is relevant do you believe it's likely they would

have completely filled the catchment with ramps in order to build the pyramid

and lose this water supply for twenty years?

I believe the answer has to be "NO" and this essentially eliminates Lehner's

ramp from consideration and leaves only Houdin's ramps as possible. These will

be disproven in the near future in all probability and ramps will be completely

eliminated as a possible means of having built great pyramids. Maybe then we

can start looking for how they were actually built.

Edited by cladking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Expensive land is the primary driver of building tall but this didn't apply in

the 4th dynasty desert.

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

No, sorry, they were definitely tombs.

They were a meeting place and this is established fact and even mentioned in

the Pyramid Texts. There is no direct evidence that they were tombs. While

there are some facts that suggest a funerary purpose the strenght of the argu-

ment against it appears stronger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you actually read the research from the Oriental Institute regarding rainwater floods on the Giza Plateau?

These are floods of the Nile, which is known to have significantly moved eastward since 2600 BC, having been much closer to the Giza Plateau at that time.

I think it was 2001 or around that time that they discovered evidence of intense floods that caused major washes across the plateau.

Incorrect, they found that quays may have been closer to the Plateau than previously believed, the Nile as I've mentioned definitely was.

There is so much evidence for rainfall that I could site.

And yet you've not done so in support of your claims and it is your responsible to do so here at UM. And yes, I've read quite alot concerning climatology and the Giza Plateau and it doesn't support your contentions.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent points. I'm glad you brought them up. There were many carved relief sculptures inside the structures associated with a pyramid. Howver, they were protected by water in two way. One, they were always painted above the water line (3 to 4 feet). They were also painted with water-resistant paint (wax base)that could endure water for many years. Why did you mention the stuff about the construction dates of various structures? Next, I will refer you to the Complete Pyramids by Lehner, in which he shows how some of the pyramid complexes were incomplete when the king died and stopped funding the project. The Red Pyramid had an amazing "Mortuary Temple", but all that is left is the foundations. Google the pictures online. There are remnants of a causeway at this site, as well, although the valley temple is not excavated. Read the research a little closer than you have been, and you will find that the Pyreamid Rain Catchment Theory is solid as a rock. Menkaura's mort temp was unfinished when he died, but was building it out of stone entirely up to that point. It would have been used to catch rainwater, but Shepseskaf finished it with mudbrik, instead. Not a shred of evidence? You gotta be crazy to make a statement like that. A 30 foot stone wall surrounded almost every pyramid. Where did the water go? According to Hawass and many others, there was only one exit or entrance in the those walls. It led directly into the mortuary temple.

I appreciate all this info.

It's always nice to get a fresh perspective of the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there is evidence of near on 1/2 to 1 million people living along the Nile in this part of the Old Kingdom, I'd be curious as to what most of them drank? Even if there was 4" annual rainfall on Giza, that is only enough for the nearby people for a couple weeks. The idea they did not drink from the Nile is very ignorant.

Well... ...figure 7,000 for a year.

But I agree that's not much water.

Even in the last decades Egyptians used river/canal water over well water.

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

The implication being that they didn't understand about disease being spread in the water, even in the 1980's. The idea they would not drink Nile water 4000+ years ago is almost laughable.

The link doesn't support your contention.

If the water is bad enough it wouldn't matter if they knew it was bad or not

because they simply couldn't have lived here.

There's little doubt they know that the worse the water was the more people

who got sick. People aren't really very observant but when family is dropping

dead they will put two and two together.

One of the oldest and deepest wells in the world is nearly a stones throw from

the Giza Plateau.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're quite wrong about the ecosystem of Giza during the Old Kindgom. There was a wetter climate for sure. I could cite a lot of stuff, but I'd rather direct to to Farak Hassan's website on pollen analysis. Google it. Also, check out the research by the Oriental Institute of Chicago. They have also proven that a lot of rainfall once flooded the plateau. Where did you get your outdated climate info? Weak argument. No one is saying that the Nile was not used for beer. I'm saying the drank rainwater.

Would you be so kind asto provide a link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I probably should have responded to this but since Patrick Giles has I now

feel compelled. First off what should be obvious to anyone is that I don't

believe any part of my theory has been dispelled by orthodox thinking or

knowledge. If it were it would already have been discarded as many older

parts of the theory have.

Secondly while it's true that I tend to side with any fringe thinker that

I can for strategic reasons, I most assuredly don't side with ideas that are

obviously wrong or incorrect facts. I called this theory "well supported"

because it is a theory that has ample evidence to show that it is correct in

whole or in part. I believe that the evidence strongly supports the idea that

the great pyramids did in fact collect rain water and quite possibly other wa-

ter as well. That the were designed to do this is also apparent even if this

might be much less likely to be their primary function.

I believe it's far more true to say that I've severely weakened the orthodox

assumptions. Indeed, the assumption that the great pyramids were built with

ramps is virtually debunked. There just aren't much of any ramping systems

that survive the physical evidence. Orthodoxy has painted themselves into a

corner with ramps and have no way out. They can't just keep throwing up their

hands and saying that "we know they used some ramp system" because they are

all debunked.

Here's a question for Patrick Giles; Assuming the evidence that the rain/ wa-

ter catchment was built first is relevant do you believe it's likely they would

have completely filled the catchment with ramps in order to build the pyramid

and lose this water supply for twenty years?

I believe the answer has to be "NO" and this essentially eliminates Lehner's

ramp from consideration and leaves only Houdin's ramps as possible. These will

be disproven in the near future in all probability and ramps will be completely

eliminated as a possible means of having built great pyramids. Maybe then we

can start looking for how they were actually built.

They had other pyramid complexes that were already catching rainwater, such as Sneferu's and others such as roof top rain catchments on houses. There was certainly a desire to save the rainwater that fell on any pyramid while it was being built, but it was probably not a huge consideration. They actually made a smaller pyramid rain catchment before they started work at the same site. These are referred to a satellite or queen's pyramids. They have cisterns below their foundations that held the water. The enclosure walls of the catchment basin around the pyramid were the last thing built, so I guess they lost the water. As far as ramps go, Houdin theory is more likely correct than Lehner's, but Houdin's theory only works for the great pyramid of Khufu so far. How did they build Khafra's without an internal ramp? Or is there one.

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.