Blocks in the Great Pyramid

[kmt_sesh]

Upload your PDF to a file sharing site (there are free sites around, although they probably still require registration), then you can paste the URL to the PDF here. That should solve your problem.

I've used only Photobucket for storing and sharing photos but I'm pretty sure it doesn't allow PDFs or other such files. Is there a particular site you (or anyone else) might recommend? I'd appreciate the assistance.

[exterminar]

I've used only Photobucket for storing and sharing photos but I'm pretty sure it doesn't allow PDFs or other such files. Is there a particular site you (or anyone else) might recommend? I'd appreciate the assistance.

Is there a way you can find a direct link to it on the web? Specially since some work firewalls prevent access to websites with file sharing capabilities. Thanks!

[cormac mac airt]

I've found a way to make it easier, kmt_sesh. At least for me. After saving a PDF, open it up and use the "sticky note" function to post the URL you got it from.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

I've found a way to make it easier, kmt_sesh. At least for me. After saving a PDF, open it up and use the "sticky note" function to post the URL you got it from.

cormac

This sounds promising, cormac, but I'm not familiar with the process. The only "sticky note" with which I'm familiar is the "notes" you can add to PDF pages, such as for comments. Do you mean something else by "sticky notes"? Is it a UM forum function?

Sorry to be a pain. I've noticed many posters doing the same thing and I've never been able to figure it out. Could you elaborate and lend some aid to a doddering old man?

[cormac mac airt]

This sounds promising, cormac, but I'm not familiar with the process. The only "sticky note" with which I'm familiar is the "notes" you can add to PDF pages, such as for comments. Do you mean something else by "sticky notes"? Is it a UM forum function?

Sorry to be a pain. I've noticed many posters doing the same thing and I've never been able to figure it out. Could you elaborate and lend some aid to a doddering old man?

Once you've downloaded and saved your PDF, whatever it is, open it up. At the top of the screen you'll see a balloon type icon for 'sticky notes'. Click on it and place it anywhere on your file you want it. It'll have an open box along with it where you can type whatever you want. Place the URL in that box and then resave your PDF. Now any time you need the URL you can copy it from the sticky note and never have to worry about losing it. Simple.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

Once you've downloaded and saved your PDF, whatever it is, open it up. At the top of the screen you'll see a balloon type icon for 'sticky notes'. Click on it and place it anywhere on your file you want it. It'll have an open box along with it where you can type whatever you want. Place the URL in that box and then resave your PDF. Now any time you need the URL you can copy it from the sticky note and never have to worry about losing it. Simple.

cormac

Okay, I see what you're saying. Yes, you and I are talking about the same feature in a PDF. I was hoping you were talking about something that could actually retrieve the URL from which the PDF was originally downloaded. Unfortunately I never retained the URL for that geological report so I have no idea what it was.

Obviously I can just copy and paste the title of the report and Google it, and it appears at the top of this page.

But for the convenience of posters, how do you paste a link so that a poster can click on it and immediately download a PDF right from the posted link instead of going through Google?

I really do appreciate your patience and assistance and I'm sorry for being a bother.

[ShadowSot]

Does this work?

I right clicked on the link, selected copy link locations, and then used that link.

[Leonardo]

I've used only Photobucket for storing and sharing photos but I'm pretty sure it doesn't allow PDFs or other such files. Is there a particular site you (or anyone else) might recommend? I'd appreciate the assistance.

I googled "free file sharing sites" and this one popped up at the top of the list. It requires registration, but seems to have a fair amount of storage capacity. I don't know the site, and I haven't used file sharing sites online so I can't say I particularly recommend any one, but it seems okay.

[kmt_sesh]

For the sake of reference I'm referring to what you yourself did, cormac, in Post 121 at the very top of this page.

You have the title...

Geological and Geomorphological study of the original hill at the

base of Fourth Dynasty Egyptian monuments

...and when I click on it I download the PDF right to my computer. As stupid as it sounds, I can't figure out how to do this in my own posts.

[kmt_sesh]

I googled "free file sharing sites" and this one popped up at the top of the list. It requires registration, but seems to have a fair amount of storage capacity. I don't know the site, and I haven't used file sharing sites online so I can't say I particularly recommend any one, but it seems okay.

Thanks for the suggestion, Leonardo. I've never used file sharing on the Web for things like PDFs so I registered for a free account with 4shared just to see how it works. I'll see if I can figure out how to share a PDF in a post here.

[cormac mac airt]

For the sake of reference I'm referring to what you yourself did, cormac, in Post 121 at the very top of this page.

You have the title...

Geological and Geomorphological study of the original hill at the

base of Fourth Dynasty Egyptian monuments

...and when I click on it I download the PDF right to my computer. As stupid as it sounds, I can't figure out how to do this in my own posts.

Don't worry about it, you're not bothering me at all. All I did was get to the link for the PDF, downloaded and saved it to my computer, and while the URL was still active I copied it, reopened my downloaded file and placed it inside a sticky. When I was ready to post, I acquired the link from my sticky and placed it in the "insert link" function here. Voila.

cormac

[SHaYap]

without taking the heels off ?

kmt is right ~ "show off"

or is it "shoe off" ?

[cormac mac airt]

without taking the heels off ?

kmt is right ~ "show off"

or is it "shoe off" ?

The "Ruby Slippers" came in handy. Welcome to OZ and don't mind the man behind the curtain.

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

You're the man, cormac. It's easier than I thought. I've experimented with three useful articles that all discerning people should want to read and from which all fringe fans would likely flee in terror:

Radiocarbon Dates of Old & Middle Kingdom Monuments

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

EVIDENCE FROM DETAILED PETROGRAPHIC EXAMINATIONS OF CASING STONES FROM THE GREAT PYRAMID

That 4shared site Leonardo mentioned seems to be very useful and I've been playing with it for a little while. The forum tags for connecting to the files don't seem to work, however, so I'm probably doing something wrong. All told, your method is indeed quite a bit easier.

Thanks much!

[SHaYap]

The "Ruby Slippers" came in handy. Welcome to OZ and don't mind the man behind the curtain.

cormac

as long as the munchkins keep their hands to themselves i'll stay for dinner

@kmt

You're the man, cormac. It's easier than I thought. I've experimented with three useful articles that all discerning people should want to read and from which all fringe fans would likely flee in terror:

party pooper

Edited February 28, 2011 by third_eye

[cormac mac airt]

Always glad to help.

cormac

[exterminar]

I wonder what the cliff face looked like before the pyramid was build on top of it...

[ShadowSot]

I wonder what the cliff face looked like before the pyramid was build on top of it...

[exterminar]

[kmt_sesh]

I wonder what the cliff face looked like before the pyramid was build on top of it...

That's discussed in the following paper by Mark Lehner:

The Development of the Giza Necropolis: The Khufu Project

[kmt_sesh]

See, cormac, I've already put the technique to good use!

[cormac mac airt]

See, cormac, I've already put the technique to good use!

And this time, you get the Gold Star.

cormac

[W Tell]

My apologies for arriving so late to the party, but better late than never. I'm here and am wearing my prettiest party dress--er, I mean fanciest suit--so I'd like to join the debate. I presented my invitation at the door, where a brutish-looking fellow named Harte gruffly appraised my looks and suitability and said that I was ugly and my momma dresses me funny. I don't know how he knows that, but he let me enter. His mistake.

In all seriousness, I tip my hat to cormac. His handiwork in the OP is truly impressive stuff. I admit upfront to being mathematically inept and I had to study cormac's chart for a long time, but I believe I get the gist of it.

The figure of 2.5 million stones in the Great Pyramid is an old figure based largely on guesstimation, and even though I still see it in modern literature, it is no longer considered reliable in much of the professional literature. In more recent years I've seen the figure whittled down to around 2.3 million stones, and at the very lowest around 2 million stones. This decrease in stone-count is due to much more discerning examination of the pyramid in more recent years. We certainly have a more sound understanding of the monument today than researchers did 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago.

Cormac's mathematical deductions have helped me, personally, to obtain a better understanding of why the overall theoretical number of stones has been decreased in recent years. To be sure no one can know the precise number of stone blocks that comprise the Great Pyramid, but closer examination of the monument can provide us a working theory that stands more or less reliable. I think cormac's work illustrates this.

I am joining the debate only now but I've been in the background all along, reading posts and spying on everyone. I've noted with a certain degree of humor that one or two posters have a lot of doubts about the massif in the interior of the pyramid. I find this amusing because there can be no doubt it's there, and that it's more than a mere bump. To deny it is akin to an idiot standing before a mountain and saying the mountain isn't there. Do we believe the idiot or the experts who can measure the mountain? The choice is yours. I tend to believe the experts in the case of the Great Pyramid, considering they're the one's who've been there, studied the monument, and arrived at figures and deductions from their practical field experience.

True, the massif within the Great Pyramid is not a mountain, per se, but it's sizable. That the Egyptians would employ this massif in their engineering of Khufu's pyramid should mystify no one in the least. Egyptian builders tended to use the landscape to their advantage, from the beginning to the end of pharaonic history. It's logical that they would. Facing so monumental a task as the Great Pyramid, it only makes sense that the workmen would not remove the entire mass down to the foundation when the mass itself would help to reduce the overall building process, and therefore cut back the overall amount of time to build the pyramid.

I concur that we cannot know the precise dimensions of the central massif, but enough of it is visible to arrive at a working theory. It is critical to understand as much about the massif as we can, if we're interested in knowing some idea of the number of stones that comprise the Great Pyramid. In some places around the lowest courses of the pyramid the massif is plainly visible, and some of it is even visible from the inside of the pyramid (more on this presently). All told, the massif occupies probably an uneven area within the pyramid to the height of the pyramid's seventh course of masonry (Romer 2007: 314). Estimates on the highest point of the massif vary, but a common figure is around 30 feet (ibid; and Jackson & Stamp 2003: 27, 68). Cormac's sources range in height from around 22 feet (Dormian) to around 40 feet (Eyth). (I know that cormac uses meters in his chart, but I'm not that smart so I have to convert everything to feet so I can gain a better understanding.)

It must be understood that the workmen in 2500 BCE didn't just throw stones up against the massif. The exposed areas of the massif reveal that it was cut and trimmed just like the masonry blocks stacked around it. In other words, the massif became a functional and foundational part of the Great Pyramid. It's estimated that in total the massif occupies around 23% of the total volume of the pyramid (Raymond et al 2008: 20).

The massif can also be examined from inside the pyramid, albeit to a lesser extent. Plummeting from the ascending corridor all the way down to the descending corridor is a rough-cut, meandering tunnel variously called the escape shaft or well shaft (see "4" in this plan). It's precise purpose remains unknown, although the most common theory is that it provided a means of extrication to those priests and officials who were sealing the pyramid's corridors as they were retreating after the funeral of Khufu was finished. A minority of researchers has argued that the unfinished subterranean chamber ("3" in the above link) was actually begun after most of the rest of the pyramid was finished, and the meandering shaft provided them a means of fresh air. This theory has not gained wide acceptance for obvious reasons.

In any case, the well shaft plunges right through the massif on its way to the descending corridor. The entire length of the shaft wasn't even cleared until the courageous and risky efforts of G.B. Caviglia in the early nineteenth century (Jackson & Stamp 2003: 161), but this feature is much better understood today. Flinders Petrie was one of the first to provide a careful study of the shaft, in the late nineteenth century. Within the shaft comes a point where it is obvious to see the join between quarried blocks and the living rock of the massif.

Near the high point of the massif, near the join between quarried stone and living rock, is a tiny chamber that's been called the Grotto. I've seen some discussion of it in above posts. This is one of the most inaccessible places in the Great Pyramid, and one of the least visited. It's dangerous to access. Petrie himself found the Grotto to be a rather unpleasant place. This little chamber was clearly worked by the builders in 2500 BCE, but it's clear the Grotto never served an important function in the ritual spaces of the pyramid. It would seem to have been a utilitarian feature that never received much if any use (Romer 2007: 325). There were attempts to dress the space with stone, but the dressing was rough and unfinished.

Closer examination of the Grotto has shown that it began as a natural pocket within the limestone massif. The well shaft passes very nearby so the workmen who were cutting the shaft perhaps noticed a sizable fissure and widened it, to find the pocket. Why they attempted to cut it larger and dress it is unclear. Until the fissure was widened, the Grotto was an entirely sealed feature. In the very least, it reveals more of the structure of the massif in the lower courses of the Great Pyramid.

The important thing to understand is, the Egyptians used the massif to their advantage. It facilitated a lesser overall number of stones. I simply cannot understand why anyone would deny or ignore something so obvious. It's also important to know that, without disassembling the Great Pyramid to count each and every stone, we can never know precisely how many blocks of masonry comprise it. I think that cormac's chart, however, helps to explain why there would not be more than around two million stones and perhaps something slightly less than that. Cormac is also right to remind us that the math doesn't include the chambers within the Great Pyramid. The overall volume represented by these chambers would not constitute a significant reduction in the overall number of stones, but it bears consideration. In my own twenty-plus years of research I've never come across an estimate at what volume these chambers might represent, but to some extent they would affect stone-count. Moreover, the pyramid certainly is not solid masonry through and through. Despite some people's odd reluctance to admit it, the pyramid contains many voids and loose joins in which tons of mortar and rubble were used as fill. This, too, affects stone-count. There are simply too many variables for a precise understanding, but cormac's mathematical study provides a very nice working theory.

Good job, cormac. You get a gold star.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I must go find a comfortable place to sit. These high heels--er, I mean wing tips--are killing me.

Except for the insinuation that I'm an idiot, your post was informative. I wasn't trying to question the number of stones used in the pyramid, I'm trying to incorporate the new information (to me) that it was built on a massive. As someone who builds in the 21st century, I'm sure our styles are different than the Egyptians were. Okay, so it's there. I can deal with it. But in my view, not only does it make it a lot harder to build, they potentially set themselves up for a collapse. I'm glad it didn't happen, and I'm with Clad king about it being an impressive achievement no matter what.

[kmt_sesh]

Except for the insinuation that I'm an idiot, your post was informative. I wasn't trying to question the number of stones used in the pyramid, I'm trying to incorporate the new information (to me) that it was built on a massive. As someone who builds in the 21st century, I'm sure our styles are different than the Egyptians were. Okay, so it's there. I can deal with it. But in my view, not only does it make it a lot harder to build, they potentially set themselves up for a collapse. I'm glad it didn't happen, and I'm with Clad king about it being an impressive achievement no matter what.

Rest assured, W Tell, I wasn't trying to imply that you're an idiot, so I apologize if it seemed that way. Sometimes I'm a bit extreme and don't take into account that some of this information is not commonly known and understood. But the massif is well known, even if we can't determine it's entire physical mass. It has been observable in the manner explained in my post since people first tried to apply a discerning eye to the pyramid.

I really don't see how the massif would compromise the integrity of the structure in any way. Indeed, I'm confident it would help to make the pyramid even more stable. The massif is physically part of the Mokkatam Formation that comprises the bedrock of the Plateau, and the Great Pyramid is physically anchored to the massif by its enormous weight. The important thing to remember is that the massif wasn't just left as a big limestone bump below the mass of masonry, but rather it was cut and dressed to receive the surrounding masonry. This is well evident in the exposed portions of the massif below the seventh course of blocks.

I also agree that at the end of the day, after all of our quibbling and debating, the simple fact will always remain that the Great Pyramid was one of the greatest--if not the greatest--achievement of Early Bronze Age man.

[cladking]

I also agree that at the end of the day, after all of our quibbling and debating, the simple fact will always remain that the Great Pyramid was one of the greatest--if not the greatest--achievement of Early Bronze Age man.

Yes! And the Panama Canal is the most important creek in the world.

Did you notice that Mark Lehner in your last link neglected to include

even the tiniest massif. This is pretty easy to overlook really but

still it's surprising one of the most knowledgeable experts on the Giza

Plateau in the world isn't on the same page.

Of course he might have omitted it for practical reasons like we have no

idea what it looked like or even if it was there.