A Well Supported Theory about Pyramids

[cladking]

Although I've certainly spent considerable time studying Sumer, I am much better versed in Egypt.

I apologize. I misunderstood something.

[patrickgiles]

I'm always confused when someone says they read hieroglyphic texts. In my experience, it is almost impossible to understand the meaning of a hieroglyph until I take into account all the other glyphs and then piece the sentence together. Once I understood the sentence, I could read it. So, my point is that I cannot look at a wall and read it unless I've seen certain phrases before, such as funeral stuff. So anyway, what's your point?

Kmt_Sesh is more than a mere "amateur" Egyptologist. This may be how

he describes himself but his knowledge is more extensive than this. His

specialty is more toward Sumeria. He reads heiroglyphs.

[patrickgiles]

Are those Catholick holidays or Jewish? I don't follow anything related to modern deities.

Yeah! Why, I'll bet he's not even qualified to discuss Ash Wednesday let alone Good Friday!

[cladking]

You understand Clad, that dragging stones up the side of the pyramid is still using a ramp... the side of the pyramid.

Yes, indeed. Ironic is it not.

Ultimately it's very improbable that the stones ever left the ground

hence they really "mustta used ramps". But people have the silly and

romantic notion that teams of men struggled to drag stones behind them.

They have the concept that massive ramps clinging to the pyramid side

or anchored at a distance must have existed. This is an uphill fight

to dispel these notions. Such ramps were likely impossible to have been

built and almost certainly impossible not to have left any evidence any-

where at all.

But their language is replete with allusions to a "ladder" that leads

to heaven and logic dictates they had to have used a simple method that

was efficient and supported by evidence. I simply choose not to call

this ramp that the builders referred to as a ladder by the term "ramp".

It was a specially made track that could support the henu boat and was

composed of heavily greased tura limestone blocks. This "ladder" was

dismantled on completion and used right where it sat for cladding stones.

This is the source of the vertical lines visible even today.

The main difference you insist on is that counterweights were used.

I'd love to get to the point counterweights were used but everyone chooses

to be hung up on ramps. I can show counterweights and their evidence still

on the pyramid and in the words of the pyramid builders. Counterweights are

a logical adjunct to pulling stones straight up the side.

A sand/rubble ramp would only add mechanical advantage to the men pulling the stone.

Technically it has mechanical advantage but in the real world you

have to build a ramp, deal with the friction, and then remove it.

The so called mechanical advantage of such ramps is negative. If they

actually needed ramps what they would have done is make much smaller

stones and carried them up by another means. There were no ramps.

It would add advantage to a counterweight too. So if you had a moderate ramp, you could use a much simpler, smaller counterweights system.

Mechanical advantage always increases total work load. Using counter-

weights and "moderate ramps" would most likely provide the worst of

both worlds. Total work would be far higher. This project needed a

means to tame total work.

I'll admit it might be possible that the counterweights were powered by people pulling down on them from below, but now, again we are getting into unevidenced hypotheticals, and a much more technical building site.

Excellent.

The evidence is right before your eyes. There are vertical lines all

over the great pyramids. These are the routes of their "ladders".

http://www.puretravel.com/uploadedresources/continents/subcontinents/countries/Giza%20pyramids%20Egypt_20090218143916.jpg

Ramps are evidenced and straightforward.

There is no evidence at all for ramps. People did not walk up the pyramid

dragging stones and there is ample evidence against it.

I've friends with 10-14 year olds. Do you want me to poll them and see what they think is more likely? Ramps or counterweights?

It's a shame they teach kids that they mustta used ramps but this is changing.

Even Wikipedia has changed their presentation and gotten rid of "they mutta

used ramps". We don't know how they were made and they did not mmustta done

anything.

I believe what most Egyptologists say is, that the preponderance of evidence and the most likely theory at this time, is that they used some kind of ramp system.

Actually, most Egyptologists don't care how they built the pyramids and

just assume that men dragged stones up on ramps.

Yet your own ideas are based on more assumptions then Orthodoxy.

I make no assumptions. I do tend to assume the builders weren't insane but

would give this up pretty readily if I ever saw any evidence to the contrary.

Correct. Only the river offered a clear supply of water. If it were possible to live off wells and rain catchment, then clearly the peoples would not have been forced to live next to the river, and they would have spread out over the surrounding open lands. So, either wells were not abundant, or not efficent, or... rain was not easily caught. Or both.

I think the primary need for the river was to water crops.

I doubt all titles are known. I also doubt that the titles that are known are a clear cross section of the population and employment. There is still digging going on with this.

They are a sample. They are a sample taken right at the place the pyramids were

built so should be overrepresented by pyramid builders. But only one single pyramid

builder definitively exists. And the pyramid builder in the workmen's cemetery is

"the Overseer of the Boats of Neith".

The evidence simply doesn't fit the theory. The evidence actually fits my theory.

I see what you are saying, but there is really no clear way to show if that is correct. There is no way to know if the catchment was built before or after construction on the pyramid began and finished. What is known is that rocks were dragged all over the place on the plataeu and these walls would have made it difficult to do so if they were built first.

It would be clear if water filled counterweights can be proven.

Determining how these were built would be a summer project for a smart young engi-

neering intern. This is not rocket science and just doing the obvious tests would

answer all the questions.

[patrickgiles]

Who needs a degree? I did not receive a degree in Near Eastern studies. I have already stated that I am not associated with any institution. Nor do I wish to be. I am an Egyptologist because I earned it my own way. Sorry you cannot accept this.

Yeah! Why, I'll bet he's not even qualified to discuss Ash Wednesday let alone Good Friday!

Edited November 28, 2011 by patrickgiles

[patrickgiles]

Are you the last person that said "tomb robbers"? Please...be logical. The lack of something does not imply that it exists. We cannot see air, but we can prove it exists. We cannot find mummified Old Kingdom kings, and we cannot prove that they exist. You see the problem?

Tomb Robbers. Also following pharaohs would commonly desecrate the remains of preceeding pharaohs to reduce their influence and to raise up their own.

[patrickgiles]

I agree, I think Piazzi was very beneficial to the science of pyramidology. His accurate measurements are invaluable. He was a little too religious, but maybe that was just a front.

I think you do the man a grave injustice.

He was no Imhotep but he was critical in advancing science and progress

at a time when the competition to do so was extremely stiff. He was a gen-

ius and could have succeeded in many fields. He was a scientist first, foremost,

and always. He accomplished a great deal in his lifetime.

[cladking]

As for being a factor on the limestone casing, wasnt it you who said it was saying that water would not be able to be absorbed by the stone due to the salt content?

I was joking.

I was just speculating that with all the things in there that aren't

2 1/2 ton stones there wouldn't be any room for water. Of course you're

correct that the stone would get wet and total collection would be affected.

I doubt this would be a major factor since water just tend to roll right off

of stone.

Actually Virga, which is sometimes refered to as Jellyfish cloud for obvious reasons, is precipitation (rain) but you are right when you say that it does not reach the ground. Unless of course you believe that it only becomes rain once it hits the ground. (See attached pic of Virga cloiud which I took over Bangkok)

When rain is measurded virga is not included. If it rained 1" then it rained

one inch. It doesn't matter how much if any evaporated before it hit the ground.

You are wrong in insisting that the humidity needs to approach 100% for it to rain. Rain depends on various meteorological conditions. Yes, at 100% humidity it will rain as the air cannot hold any more moisture. But that doesnt mean it has to be anywhere near 100% to rain. I live in a tropical country and every year we have the monsoon, or rainy season. W get torrential rain and have regular and violent thunderstorms, but rarely does the reading on my humidity gauge (or the local weather station readout on the computer) ever reach anywhere near 100% humidity. In fact the highest I have ever seen it in four years of living here was 96% and that is rare !

If I said that it was unintentional. What I intended to convey is that the rain

in Egypt tends to fall when it's cool and humidity will be high. Obviously it can

rain with extremely low humity even in Egypt but this is less often the case here

than some other places.

I am not referring to summer rains or virga. Summer rain is pretty uncommon in

Egypt.

[Oniomancer]

Who needs a degree? I did not receive a degree in Near Eastern studies. I have already stated that I am not associated with any institution. Nor do I wish to be. I am an Egyptologist because I earned it my own way. Sorry you cannot accept this.

Read the sentence I quoted again carefully.

[patrickgiles]

OK, I will admit that I have heard this argument a million times, and that I was actually just prodding you to try to understand your viewpoint. Sadly, I was wrong about you. I thought you would drop this whole thing and actually answer a difficult question about a complicated subject. I know you, and all others like you. You are predictable, and I toyed with you. I apologize. Yes, I agree. According to academia, I will never be considered an Egyptologist. However, I will continue to delude myself that I am. My theory is already accepted by so many. Actually, I will become famous for finally proving what the pyramids were used for. My book will be studied. Even you will one day have to study it if you wish to keep up with the times. "You have no thesis" is a desperate statement by a beaten man (or woman). You lose this round, but I will give you another chance. Academic variety is not something I strive for as far as your type is concerned. This is an alternate theory category. I agree. You won't read my book because you are arrogant. That is the real reason. We're all busy.

as far as orthodox research--I only use that type for my book, and I am a great fan. I am adding to it. In fact, my research is entirely orthodox. So, here is the question once again. If the great pyramid was in florida during a tropical storm that dumped 10 inches of rain on the surface, and it all went to the base and got held within the enclosure wall, where would it go next? That is the question. Get outside of your head, man.By the way, I do not consider the word Egyptologist to be an accolade. It is a description of a person in a field of study. Only an academic fool would consider it an accolade. For me, its just a practicality.

You're theory will not be accepted, Mr. Giles. I am not saying this to be cruel because I have neither motivation nor desire to be cruel to you. I am merely stating a fact. I have no doubt that you passionately believe in your rain-catchment theme, but why don't we all just wait and see what transpires? In ten years time, let us see if students taking up Egyptology will be studying Lehner and Verner and Arnold and the other experts in ancient Egyptian pyramids, or if your book will be the standard. That will be the defining moment, won't it? And that's all that matters.

You have no thesis. This would imply a formal academic process. You are either self-publishing or have found some publisher who's willing to support you, but it will not be of an academic variety. Don't pretend otherwise. I know fully well how easy it is for pretty much anyone to be published nowadays, so let's keep it realistic and honest.

No, I probably will not read your book. It has nothing to do with you personally. I just have very limited time and read very, very little alternative history. I started learning hieroglyphs more than a dozen years ago and it doesn't matter to me if I don't impress you. I'm not here to impress you. I'm confident in my own background and experience, and I am even more confident in the theories and principles of orthodox research. Whether or not you understand it, you're here to impress us. I think you actually understand this very well because otherwise you wouldn't bother posting here at all. And I understand you probably weren't expecting such stiff resistance, but trust me, it's only a shadow of what you'll encounter in the real world.

I don't know what question I failed to answer. If you asked something of me earlier, I missed it and apologize. Please feel free to ask your question again.

"Self-proclaimed Egyptologist" is acceptable. Such modifiers are commonly used by alternative writers because it makes the case clear that you are not a professional, vetted Egyptologist. You are not, of course. Keep it honest. It bothers me personally when people throw accolades at themselves which they have not earned, but my feelings are immaterial. What should matter to you is that it will shatter any credibility you think you have. Keep it honest. Always.

Edited November 28, 2011 by patrickgiles

[Oniomancer]

Mr. Giles, Your position hinges on the verticality of the pyramids as contributing somehow to the capture of water. This has become sidetracked in the course of the discussion. Given that, to my knowledge, the same amount of water falls on a given area whether it's slanted or flat, I fail to see the advantage. Would you care to elaborate?

[cladking]

I believe he has speculated in the past that this was a quarry ramp, from the quarry to the base of the pyramid.

I believe there were two major ramps for G1. There were probably dozens of subsidiary

and incidental ramps used over the decades of construction. There was even an hydraulic

elevator near Khetkawes Pyramid but this too was largely incidental and was used just

because the water was handy and it reduced the workload on the eastern cliff face counter-

weight. Water was usually in short supply and it pained the builders to see it fall

without lifting something up. This used the water that was spread in the main quarry to

suppress dust.

The longer ramp's route is visible in this picture;

http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=29.9778736&lon=31.1375928&z=16&l=0&m=s

It was due N/ S between the satellite pyramids and the adjacent mastabas. Earlier in

the construction process this ramp originated at the same place on the cliff face but

went to the SSSE to a point near the Sphinx rump. It had to be moved when construction

began on the mastabas of the eastern cemetery.

The larger yet shorter ramp filled almost the entire area between the main quarry and

the south side of the pyramid to a depth of 80'. This is the ramp that was pushed back

into the quarry. It was in two major parts with an eastern and western half. It was not

even begun until the pyramid reached the 80' level though the western segment was completed

with each level. The two ramps connected to one another on the pyramid side and an ascen-

der loading device was here. This was a simple and ingenious device that operated just

like the one on the east side visible here;

http://www.wikimapia.org/#lat=29.9791607&lon=31.1354819&z=19&l=0&m=s

This is a double pit filled with water that had large "boats" sitting in it supporting

the empty ascender (with a distant fulcrum). As stones were loaded on the ascender it

sank allowing the entire "boat" to be easily loaded from a single level. The bouyancy

of the ascender reduced stresses on the system when it lifted off from the earth like a

heron.

While these are true ramps in every sense of the word no men ever dragged stones up them.

The stones were dragged by the counterweights. "Osiris tows the earth by means of balance

in his name of Seker". Men did not lift any of these stones. When they went home at night

they might have felt like they individually lifted every stone but the water did the real

work. Men had specific jobs and few were charged with moving stones at all. Mostly when

men moved them they used leverage and slid them DOWN into position. They lifted no stone.

It would be virtual insanity to try to lift 6 1/2 million tons using muscle power alone.

[+DieChecker]

Are you the last person that said "tomb robbers"? Please...be logical. The lack of something does not imply that it exists. We cannot see air, but we can prove it exists. We cannot find mummified Old Kingdom kings, and we cannot prove that they exist. You see the problem?

We don't see the poachers making Africas rhinos extinct, but we know that they are killing rhinos and they are selling the horns to Saudi Arabia or China. What is missing is sometimes as important as what is found.

What is logical is that the pyramids were all opened in ancient times, well before the Romans... And that light was poor and time limited, and thus everything... mummy, wood, cloth, jars, shards, rocks... were carried out to be examined under the sun. Any or all of it might have had gold attached to it, which is what robbers want, right?

We can't find the remains of the kings because they are gone. Taken.

You mentioned a foot that was found, right... Djoser? Well where was the rest of his body? Did they bury just the foot? What about Unas pyramid? they found remains in that too. True, they speculate that it might have been a latter burial and not Unas, but again, where was the rest of the body? Clearly these pyramids were robbed again and again.

My other example was the Valley of the Kings. Hidden tombs that were either cleaned out to the matchstick or chock full of relics. That is proof of robbers and their thouroughness right there. The Valley of the Kings was used for the express purpose of trying to foil Robbers. But failed in most cases.

And you did not address the Egyptian pharoanic tradition of trying to erase the memory of past pharoahs. The Valley of the Kings suffered this same exact issue.

Tomb robbersAlmost all of the tombs have been ransacked.[89] Several papyri have been found that describe the trials of tomb robbers; these date mostly from the late Twentieth Dynasty. One of these (Papyrus Mayer describes the robbery of the tomb of Ramesses VI and was probably written in Year 9 of Ramesses IX:

“ The foreigner Nesamun took us up and showed us the tomb of King Ramesses VI ... And I spent four days breaking into it, we being present all five. We opened the tomb and entered it. ... We found a cauldron of bronze, three wash bowls of bronze ...[90] ”

The valley also seems to have suffered an official plundering during the virtual civil war, which started in the reign of Ramesses XI. The tombs were opened, all the valuables removed, and the mummies collected into two large caches. One in the tomb of Amenhotep II, contained sixteen, and others were hidden within Amenhotep I's tomb. A few years later most of them were moved to the Deir el-Bahri cache, contained no less than forty royal mummies and their coffins.[91] Only those tombs whose locations were lost (KV62, KV63 and KV46, although both KV62 and KV46 were robbed soon after their actual closure[92]) were undisturbed in this period.

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

I mean, I'm quoting Wikipedia here and what I learned in college, and I'm no Egyptologist. Surely you already knew these things if you are as experienced as you claim?

[+DieChecker]

Mr. Giles, Your position hinges on the verticality of the pyramids as contributing somehow to the capture of water. This has become sidetracked in the course of the discussion. Given that, to my knowledge, the same amount of water falls on a given area whether it's slanted or flat, I fail to see the advantage. Would you care to elaborate?

Yeah... what would be the purpose of the catchment anyway? Wouldn't it work better to just screen off dams on every valley and then aquaduct the water in pipe back to the towns? Isn't that close to what the Romans did?

It just seems such a big construction for little or no purpose, right?

Does anyone know which way the prevailing winds go? That would also show if it was wiser to catch water/rain on the East or West side of the Nile.

[+DieChecker]

While these are true ramps in every sense of the word no men ever dragged stones up them.

The stones were dragged by the counterweights. "Osiris tows the earth by means of balance

in his name of Seker". Men did not lift any of these stones. When they went home at night

they might have felt like they individually lifted every stone but the water did the real

work. Men had specific jobs and few were charged with moving stones at all. Mostly when

men moved them they used leverage and slid them DOWN into position. They lifted no stone.

It would be virtual insanity to try to lift 6 1/2 million tons using muscle power alone.

So now there are some ramps, but the stones were moved by the counterweights and not men?

Interesting. We might be able to fit you into Orthodoxy yet Clad.

[cladking]

OK, I will admit that I have heard this argument a million times, and that I was actually just prodding you to try to understand your viewpoint. Sadly, I was wrong about you. I thought you would drop this whole thing and actually answer a difficult question about a complicated subject. I know you, and all others like you. You are predictable, and I toyed with you. I apologize. Yes, I agree. According to academia, I will never be considered an Egyptologist. However, I will continue to delude myself that I am. My theory is already accepted by so many. Actually, I will become famous for finally proving what the pyramids were used for. My book will be studied. Even you will one day have to study it if you wish to keep up with the times. "You have no thesis" is a desperate statement by a beaten man (or woman). You lose this round, but I will give you another chance. Academic variety is not something I strive for as far as your type is concerned. This is an alternate theory category. I agree. You won't read my book because you are arrogant. That is the real reason. We're all busy.

as far as orthodox research--I only use that type for my book, and I am a great fan. I am adding to it. In fact, my research is entirely orthodox. So, here is the question once again. If the great pyramid was in florida during a tropical storm that dumped 10 inches of rain on the surface, and it all went to the base and got held within the enclosure wall, where would it go next? That is the question. Get outside of your head, man.By the way, I do not consider the word Egyptologist to be an accolade. It is a description of a person in a field of study. Only an academic fool would consider it an accolade. For me, its just a practicality.

I anxiously look forward to the book or CD.

It matters little to me whether someone is a world renouned expert or a

blithering idiot to whether or not I accept the contentions.

In some things experts don't even have a particularly good track record.

I have very little doubt there will be some great observations and some

things I didn't know. But, then, I have little doubt that Patrick Giles

is largely correct. And since he arrived from a different angle should

see things I don't.

[cladking]

Does anyone know which way the prevailing winds go? That would also show if it was wiser to catch water/rain on the East or West side of the Nile.

Out of the SSW to SW until high Nile and then out of the NW until early winter.

[cladking]

So now there are some ramps, but the stones were moved by the counterweights and not men?

Interesting. We might be able to fit you into Orthodoxy yet Clad.

Nope!!! No more than you might fit me for a harness.

Ain't gonna happen.

[Englishgent]

OK, I will admit that I have heard this argument a million times, and that I was actually just prodding you to try to understand your viewpoint. Sadly, I was wrong about you. I thought you would drop this whole thing and actually answer a difficult question about a complicated subject. I know you, and all others like you. You are predictable, and I toyed with you. I apologize. Yes, I agree. According to academia, I will never be considered an Egyptologist. However, I will continue to delude myself that I am. My theory is already accepted by so many. Actually, I will become famous for finally proving what the pyramids were used for. My book will be studied. Even you will one day have to study it if you wish to keep up with the times. "You have no thesis" is a desperate statement by a beaten man (or woman). You lose this round, but I will give you another chance. Academic variety is not something I strive for as far as your type is concerned. This is an alternate theory category. I agree. You won't read my book because you are arrogant. That is the real reason. We're all busy.

as far as orthodox research--I only use that type for my book, and I am a great fan. I am adding to it. In fact, my research is entirely orthodox. So, here is the question once again. If the great pyramid was in florida during a tropical storm that dumped 10 inches of rain on the surface, and it all went to the base and got held within the enclosure wall, where would it go next? That is the question. Get outside of your head, man.By the way, I do not consider the word Egyptologist to be an accolade. It is a description of a person in a field of study. Only an academic fool would consider it an accolade. For me, its just a practicality.

Wont read the book because he is arrogant? Hark who;s talking ! Having seen your posts I cannot see any other person in here more arrogant than you appear to be Mr Giles

Edited November 28, 2011 by Englishgent

[patrickgiles]

Mr. Giles, Your position hinges on the verticality of the pyramids as contributing somehow to the capture of water. This has become sidetracked in the course of the discussion. Given that, to my knowledge, the same amount of water falls on a given area whether it's slanted or flat, I fail to see the advantage. Would you care to elaborate?

I had the same question. There are three reasons. One, during a rainstorm, high winds tend to blow the wind sideways or slanted. Imagine thrusting a 400 foot wall into a rainstorm. It will certainly capture more rain than a large pavement of the same size laying flat. Two,the surface area of a pyramid is greater than its base.Take a square piece of paper and crease it so that it can form a pyramid when you lift the center. Lay the paper on another piece of paper and outline it. Now raise the center of the pyramid. As you do so, the edges of the paper pull away from the outline. The more you lift, the greater the gap. This gap represents the increased surface area of the pyramid as compared to its base. The increase is about 20 to 30 percent. However, I do not see this as a true advantage. The real advantage, third, is the the mass of the pyramid itself displace the rainwater to the edges of the pyramid, where it collected in a convenient channel. The channel was ideal for containing water, whereas a giant, flat basin was certainly difficult to maintain (and water would evaporate too fast in a wide basin as compared to a channel. Any shape could have been used instead of the pyramid, and in fact other shapes were used, but I'll get into that later. The pyramid was the best shape because it did not have any flat areas that would collect water. For instance, a mastaba shape was popular, but it's too difficult to make it very high as compared to its base.

Edited November 28, 2011 by patrickgiles

[patrickgiles]

Has he answered the question yet? I', trying to get to bed. Even if I sound arrogant, I'm not. I'm just brutally honest. I was reacting to his arrogance. I think most of my posts were nice.

Wont read the book because he is arrogant? Hark who;s talking ! Having seen your posts I cannot see any other person in here more arrogant than you appear to be Mr Giles

[patrickgiles]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when the New Kingdom tombs were excavated, didn't a whole lot of them contain mummies in all sorts of conditions? I'm referring to the ones that were robbed. Why are they still there. Was there better lighting for those tomb robbers. In fact, they stripped mummies in the tomb sometimes. This is a fact that makes Hawass really mad when he finds one. Also, you mention that the foot, etc could be later interments. Why are those bodies still there? Did you know there were two pyramid found with sealed by empty sarcophagi? Why? Your rhino analogy is a little off because as you say, the horns are in China. That means they exist. The bodies of Old Kingdom kings do not exist as far as we know.

We don't see the poachers making Africas rhinos extinct, but we know that they are killing rhinos and they are selling the horns to Saudi Arabia or China. What is missing is sometimes as important as what is found.

What is logical is that the pyramids were all opened in ancient times, well before the Romans... And that light was poor and time limited, and thus everything... mummy, wood, cloth, jars, shards, rocks... were carried out to be examined under the sun. Any or all of it might have had gold attached to it, which is what robbers want, right?

We can't find the remains of the kings because they are gone. Taken.

You mentioned a foot that was found, right... Djoser? Well where was the rest of his body? Did they bury just the foot? What about Unas pyramid? they found remains in that too. True, they speculate that it might have been a latter burial and not Unas, but again, where was the rest of the body? Clearly these pyramids were robbed again and again.

My other example was the Valley of the Kings. Hidden tombs that were either cleaned out to the matchstick or chock full of relics. That is proof of robbers and their thouroughness right there. The Valley of the Kings was used for the express purpose of trying to foil Robbers. But failed in most cases.

And you did not address the Egyptian pharoanic tradition of trying to erase the memory of past pharoahs. The Valley of the Kings suffered this same exact issue.

http://en.wikipedia....ey_of_the_Kings

I mean, I'm quoting Wikipedia here and what I learned in college, and I'm no Egyptologist. Surely you already knew these things if you are as experienced as you claim?

Edited November 28, 2011 by patrickgiles

[patrickgiles]

The catchment is much more organized and easier to maintain than a desert system. The sand was the greatest problem for clean water systems because it clogged it. That's why the enclosure walls of the pyramid were 30 feet high. That kept sand out. Sand does not flow over sand, so your proposition wouldn't work. They'd still have to build a massive system of cisterns and aqueducts. It seems like a big construction project, but it only had to be done once, and it might last for hundreds of years. A cathedral is a big construction project, but it matters to some people, so they do it. I forgot to mention that a wind tunnel study was done for the great pyramid imitation in Memphis Tennessee, and they discovered that a great amount of turbulence is created by wind. This caused an effect that stalled the wind and dropped more rainwater on the surface. Therefore, it does not matter which direction the wind came from.

Yeah... what would be the purpose of the catchment anyway? Wouldn't it work better to just screen off dams on every valley and then aquaduct the water in pipe back to the towns? Isn't that close to what the Romans did?

It just seems such a big construction for little or no purpose, right?

Does anyone know which way the prevailing winds go? That would also show if it was wiser to catch water/rain on the East or West side of the Nile.

[cladking]

Yeah... what would be the purpose of the catchment anyway? Wouldn't it work better to just screen off dams on every valley and then aquaduct the water in pipe back to the towns? Isn't that close to what the Romans did?

It just seems such a big construction for little or no purpose, right?

...A couple more little things here. Any rain event less than half an

inch would tend to just soak into the desert and there would be no run-

off. Large rain events would create so much runoff that they'd destroy

any dam in their path.

There are some dams on some wadis upstream so this probably was the purpose.

[+DieChecker]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when the New Kingdom tombs were excavated, didn't a whole lot of them contain mummies in all sorts of conditions? I'm referring to the ones that were robbed. Why are they still there. Was there better lighting for those tomb robbers. In fact, they stripped mummies in the tomb sometimes. This is a fact that makes Hawass really mad when he finds one. Also, you mention that the foot, etc could be later interments. Why are those bodies still there? Did you know there were two pyramid found with sealed by empty sarcophagi? Why? Your rhino analogy is a little off because as you say, the horns are in China. That means they exist. The bodies of Old Kingdom kings do not exist as far as we know.

Hornung 1990a. Erik Hornung. The Valley of the Kings: horizon of eternity 1990. New York

and

Weeks 2000. Kent Weeks. Atlas of the Valley of the Kings: The Theban Mapping Project. Cairo

Seem to be good catalogs of what has been found in the Valley of the Kings. I'll see if I can get them and check, but really, I think that nothing other then post Roman trash was found in most of these tombs.

Does the lack of anything in the tombs mean they are not tombs? Given their locational reference, surely you can admit they are tombs, empty or not. Then is it such a stretch that the Pyramids in the Giza necropolis are tombs also? The satelite pyramids and mastabas and other tombs provide a reference that the pyramids were tombs.