Blocks in the Great Pyramid

[booNyzarC]

If I was going to cut a corner, of course you make sense. But can you say that you would build the Pyramids not knowing everything about the foundation?

I'm not sure how you construe this to be any form of cutting corners, except maybe in the literal sense of tiering the existing stone in preparation of adding more stone atop. Cutting corners implies making irresponsible decisions in order to make ones work faster and easier. Although utilizing the existing stone of the massif means moving less stone in construction, it is hardly irresponsible.

Keep in mind that before the pyramids at Giza were constructed a significant amount of working with stone had been done in Egypt and a significant amount of limestone had been quarried. They were familiar with how solid quarry sites were, why would they assume that the massif would be any less solid?

[W Tell]

I'm not sure how you construe this to be any form of cutting corners, except maybe in the literal sense of tiering the existing stone in preparation of adding more stone atop. Cutting corners implies making irresponsible decisions in order to make ones work faster and easier. Although utilizing the existing stone of the massif means moving less stone in construction, it is hardly irresponsible.

Keep in mind that before the pyramids at Giza were constructed a significant amount of working with stone had been done in Egypt and a significant amount of limestone had been quarried. They were familiar with how solid quarry sites were, why would they assume that the massif would be any less solid?

Let me concede the point since I'm not on the same page with you. Let's say they decided to build Khufu's Pyramid, (this is the one we're talking about right?) in the spot they had chosen that has the massif and maybe because of the massif itself. Is their any evidence they did this with any of the other pyramids? (Remember, I'm not talking regular abodes) How about any other "major structure in the world? I don't mean to ask so many questions, but I still have to wrap my mind around using existing rock as part of the base (I believe Leonardo specified it was 36% of the base)vs. starting from scratch with a level base on a project so immense.(Level foundation being superior in my mind.)

I'm still asking. Would you build the great pyramid, not knowing what is's base consisted of 100%?

If it's yes, we're done. If no, then I would be interested in why.

[booNyzarC]

I'm still asking. Would you build the great pyramid, not knowing what is's base consisted of 100%?

If it's yes, we're done. If no, then I would be interested in why.

I guess I'm trying to say that they were most likely convinced that the massif was solid after they had spent so much time and effort quarrying other similar sites previously. Could they, or we, be 100% certain that there is/was no flaws or gaps within the massif? No, I suppose not. But I'd say that they and we could determine to a fairly accurate degree how likely it was that the massif was solid. And that estimation is that it was quite solid indeed.

I'm no geologist, so I'm probably not the best voice for this, but we are talking about a great deal of time that the ancient Egyptians had been working with stone in that same general area before the construction of the Great Pyramid. With all that experience I'm certain that they had a very good understanding of just how solid the massif was likely to be.

So I suppose that the answer to your question is no and the why is that the odds of it being anything less than solid were quite small.

(My initial thought when I started to write this was to start with something snarky like "Do you think that there might be cream filling in the center or something?" but I thought better of that response considering that your questions are completely valid and I didn't want to give the impression that I was brushing them off. I'm only sharing that detail in the hopes that it can garner a chuckle or two. )

[Swede]

Let me concede the point since I'm not on the same page with you. Let's say they decided to build Khufu's Pyramid, (this is the one we're talking about right?) in the spot they had chosen that has the massif and maybe because of the massif itself. Is their any evidence they did this with any of the other pyramids? (Remember, I'm not talking regular abodes) How about any other "major structure in the world? I don't mean to ask so many questions, but I still have to wrap my mind around using existing rock as part of the base (I believe Leonardo specified it was 36% of the base)vs. starting from scratch with a level base on a project so immense.(Level foundation being superior in my mind.)

I'm still asking. Would you build the great pyramid, not knowing what is's base consisted of 100%?

If it's yes, we're done. If no, then I would be interested in why.

A rational question. There is, in fact, evidence for the practice of utilizing pre-existing formations earlier (than G1) in the 4rth Dynasty. Abu Rawash pyramid ~ 44% of total volume. Queen Kentkawes mastaba ~ 64% of total volume. Have presented the following on a number of occasions, but you may have easily missed it amongst all the pages. It should answer a number of your concerns. Enjoy.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:iZVycF8vmdwJ:hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/31/95/86/PDF/PyramidsSR.pdf+Raynaud+geological+pyramids&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgiE7a1HYVEfgBW3TBENd0MTQ382jL3dRhOtDaXvc5WmuJQwr4-N2DlXv3wa1UURDyR-VJJTKRMy9XowIFlfE_eX6sadDOrPiStROJwrWFgGrxgWP5wdOWG8B7HL8TTaHH1kfgL&sig=AHIEtbQV6bbpRXfuGWH8BOJBD8R4QT--UQ

.

[cormac mac airt]

Let me concede the point since I'm not on the same page with you. Let's say they decided to build Khufu's Pyramid, (this is the one we're talking about right?) in the spot they had chosen that has the massif and maybe because of the massif itself. Is their any evidence they did this with any of the other pyramids? (Remember, I'm not talking regular abodes) How about any other "major structure in the world? I don't mean to ask so many questions, but I still have to wrap my mind around using existing rock as part of the base (I believe Leonardo specified it was 36% of the base)vs. starting from scratch with a level base on a project so immense.(Level foundation being superior in my mind.)

I'm still asking. Would you build the great pyramid, not knowing what is's base consisted of 100%?

If it's yes, we're done. If no, then I would be interested in why.

Rock foundations of the Kephren and Kheops pyramids are examined in comparison with other Fourth

Dynasty monuments: the Sphinx, Queen Kentkawes mastaba and the Abu Rawash pyramid. This

study is based on geological and geomorphological observations, visual observation, and

photomontages. Results, correlated with those of former studies, demonstrate the existence of natural

hills used as substrata in the construction of the two great pyramids. The minimum volume of these

hills can be estimated at 12% and 23% respectively of the volumes of the Kephren and Kheops

pyramids. The use of worked rock hills appears to be a characteristic of the construction methods

under the Fourth Dynasty.

Source:

Geological and Geomorphological study of the original hill at the base of Fourth Dynasty Egyptian monuments

Suzanne Raynaud, Henri de la Boisse, Farid Mahmoud Makroum, Joël Berth

So the answer is YES, right next to Khufu's pyramid. That being the pyramid of Khafre.

cormac

Edited February 22, 2011 by cormac mac airt

[TheSearcher]

Let me concede the point since I'm not on the same page with you. Let's say they decided to build Khufu's Pyramid, (this is the one we're talking about right?) in the spot they had chosen that has the massif and maybe because of the massif itself. Is their any evidence they did this with any of the other pyramids? (Remember, I'm not talking regular abodes) How about any other "major structure in the world? I don't mean to ask so many questions, but I still have to wrap my mind around using existing rock as part of the base (I believe Leonardo specified it was 36% of the base)vs. starting from scratch with a level base on a project so immense.(Level foundation being superior in my mind.)

I'm still asking. Would you build the great pyramid, not knowing what is's base consisted of 100%?

If it's yes, we're done. If no, then I would be interested in why.

The purely architectural aspect of the question has been well met by most earlier posts. The other aspect would be the cultural one, the fact that there might have a reason for them to build it just there, other than a purely functional one. For all we know the Pharaoh had a dream and needed to have his pyramid build just there, or an augur predicted that building his pyramid there would bring luck. Maybe the priests decided this was the place to build it.

I've often noticed that the builders and architects have had to work around the wishes of religion or rulers, so yes, I think they did "cut corners" as you say. Although I wouldn't call it that per se, but rather creative problem solving.

One thing you need to remember, is to not look at the problem with the 21st century mind set, because then yes, it will make no sense.

[Essan]

I thought the pyramids were mostly full of rubble?

[lightly]

I thought the pyramids were mostly full of rubble?

∆ May i take a guess about that? I would guess no. The main reason being, Stability. I would think that building on a pile of rubble would not be stable enough. In the case of the great Pyramid.. the shafts and chambers couldn't be expected to maintain their integrity being built in surrounding rubble?

A question please ... Is the King's chamber located on top of the Massif being discussed? Because.. the largest structural pieces are above that chamber? I would also guess that the Massif would have been altered/leveled in steps perhaps? .. to promote the stability of what was built upon it?

Edited February 23, 2011 by lightly

[cormac mac airt]

Is the King's chamber located within the Massif being discussed?

No, lightly, both the King's and Queen's Chambers are located well above the massif.

cormac

Edited February 23, 2011 by cormac mac airt

[lightly]

Thank You cormac... i had fiddled with/ my question while you were answering it .. but answered it has been.

[Harte]

∆ May i take a guess about that? I would guess no. The main reason being, Stability. I would think that building on a pile of rubble would not be stable enough. In the case of the great Pyramid.. the shafts and chambers couldn't be expected to maintain their integrity being built in surrounding rubble?

Mesoamerican pyramids are mostly rubble and they're still here.

Harte

[SHaYap]

Mesoamerican pyramids are mostly rubble and they're still here.

Harte

but the difference in size and weight ?

too much rubble will impact the overall stability of G1 don't you agree ?

[ShadowSot]

but the difference in size and weight ?

too much rubble will impact the overall stability of G1 don't you agree ?

The largest MesoAmerican pyramids are larger than the Egyptian pyramid.

[SHaYap]

The largest MesoAmerican pyramids are larger than the Egyptian pyramid.

but those are "stepped" or ziggurat in design,

structurally speaking they are different when the question of stability in taking the amount of rubble believed to be beneath them are being brought into consideration, wouldn't it ?

[Abramelin]

Mesoamerican pyramids are mostly rubble and they're still here.

Harte

Lol, they are like 3500 years younger than the GP.

[exterminar]

One assumption that needs to be looked at closely is how many less blocks are estimated to be subtracted due to the various Chambers and Passageways. One needs to consider that in order for those various Chambers and Passageways to be supported, numerous smaller blocks had to be put in place. What about underground blocks that may or may not exist? Based on some speculation for structural integrity, there are probably a few layers deep of a large number of structural blocks underneath that may not be in these calculations... Who's to say that the "massif" is a natural phenomenon underneath the pyramid? Could it be an integral construction project of the support structure for the pyramid?

Edited February 23, 2011 by exterminar

[Cryptozological Mascot]

Holy Cow... I'm ready to pull the whole thing apart by hand just to shut you guys up! lol.

[booNyzarC]

One assumption that needs to be looked at closely is how many less blocks are estimated to be subtracted due to the various Chambers and Passageways. One needs to consider that in order for those various Chambers and Passageways to be supported, numerous smaller blocks had to be put in place. What about underground blocks that may or may not exist? Based on some speculation for structural integrity, there are probably a few layers deep of a large number of structural blocks underneath that may not be in these calculations... Who's to say that the "massif" is a natural phenomenon underneath the pyramid? Could it be an integral construction project of the support structure for the pyramid?

I think you raise some good questions here regarding known empty pockets. I'm sure someone has calculated the volume of those open spaces we already know about, but I'm not sure what the total volume is.

In terms of the massif, I believe that this stems from a geological survey. Here is a link to the survey. There may be other information I'm unaware of as well.

Edit... Spam filtered the word v o l u m e? Odd...

Edited February 23, 2011 by booNyzarC

[Harte]

Lol, they are like 3500 years younger than the GP.

So true.

However, they're still standing as of now. Most of them, anyway.

Some Egyptian pyramids have collapsed, you know.

harte

[exterminar]

So true.

However, they're still standing as of now. Most of them, anyway.

Some Egyptian pyramids have collapsed, you know.

harte

The Egyptian pyramids didn't have to battle rainforest rains, trees, weeds and other vegetation growing amongst them. Hence why some of the coolest pyramids are still being discovered amongst the rainforests from southern Mexico to Brazil.

[Abramelin]

So true.

However, they're still standing as of now. Most of them, anyway.

Some Egyptian pyramids have collapsed, you know.

harte

Heh, yeah, but these Egyptian pyramids, the ones that collapsed, are still at least 2500 years older than the Meso American ones.

And we should not forget: if archeologists would not have discovered those Meso American pyramids, and if they had not cleared these pyramids of vegetation, the roots of trees and shrubs would no doubt have crumbled these pyramids within another 1000 years.

[lightly]

Mesoamerican pyramids are mostly rubble and they're still here.

Harte

Good Point Harte

Lol, they are like 3500 years younger than the GP

.

Good Point Abramelin

but those are "stepped" or ziggurat in design

Good Point third_ eye ... and, the Biggest are not as steep?¿?

[Harte]

The fact is, we already know what the inner core of the pyramid looks like, and it's not rubble. Pics from inside were posted here. I think it was in this thread, wasn't it?

It's mortared-together stones of various sizes and shapes. Not rectangular (necessarily) like the exterior stones.

I just wanted to point out that Mesoamerican pyramids are made by encasing rubble in squared-off stones.

Harte

[Flashbangwollap]

Rather than post a windy explanation of the film about finding an under water well or whatever have a gander at this.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-artesian-well.htm

[W Tell]

A rational question. There is, in fact, evidence for the practice of utilizing pre-existing formations earlier (than G1) in the 4rth Dynasty. Abu Rawash pyramid ~ 44% of total volume. Queen Kentkawes mastaba ~ 64% of total volume. Have presented the following on a number of occasions, but you may have easily missed it amongst all the pages. It should answer a number of your concerns. Enjoy.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:iZVycF8vmdwJ:hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/31/95/86/PDF/PyramidsSR.pdf+Raynaud+geological+pyramids&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgiE7a1HYVEfgBW3TBENd0MTQ382jL3dRhOtDaXvc5WmuJQwr4-N2DlXv3wa1UURDyR-VJJTKRMy9XowIFlfE_eX6sadDOrPiStROJwrWFgGrxgWP5wdOWG8B7HL8TTaHH1kfgL&sig=AHIEtbQV6bbpRXfuGWH8BOJBD8R4QT--UQ

.

Both you and Cormac both answered that pretty definitively. Thanks to both of you.