If Pyramids not tombs where are the pharaohs?

[cladking]

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

No, the PT does not say that the king was not buried, that is your opinion based on your interpretation of anothers translation of the PT.

As I said, it doesn'rt say a single thing that isn't contradicted if you interpret it as puns, metaphor, and superstition.  

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

The evdence that a mortuary temple is a mortuary temple most certainly does apply to all of them. You cannot rule out those at Giza just because you have a contrary opinion.

There ARE NO MORTUARY TEMPLES at Giza.  There are foundations of buildings that once stood there that Egyptologists BELIEVE were mortuary temples.   

 

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

To prove this you will need to go into quite some depth to show what they were like in the OK, and what they were like by the Late Period, and show some quite profound differences.

That's funny that you can find no direct evidence of any sort that any great pyramid was a tomb but you want me to show conclusive proof not only of what the builders were but how this differs from us.   

There is no proof and no understanding.  I am merely suggesting this lack of understanding is caused by the widespread dismissal of the literal meaning of what they said.  They said the king was the pyramid and NOT that he was buried in the pyramid.  They said his tomb was in the sky to which he ascended on the smoke of incense.

2009a. The tomb is open for thee; the double doors of the coffin are undone for thee; 2009b. the double doors of heaven are open for thee.

1361a. The double doors of heaven are open for thee; the double doors of ḳbḥ.w are undone for thee; 1361b. the double doors of the tomb are open for thee; the double doors of Nut are unfastened for thee.

572d. The double doors of heaven are open for thee; the great bolts are drawn back for thee;

 

616d. Thou art given over to thy mother Nut, in her name of "Grave"; 616e. she has embraced thee, in her name of "Grave"; 616f. thou art brought to her, in her name of Maṣṭaba."

 

 

 

 

[cladking]

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

No, we are studying them in their own context as best as possible.

This is still no excuse for inserting later anachronistic ideas.   It simply doesn't matter why the methodology is flawed, the fact that it is flawed is still prone to generate error. 

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Do you reserve ammo for those utter fantasies, or only for the hard work done by professionals, work that if they had not done would leave all the fringe with nothing to discuss as they know nothing of any value that is not the work of Egyptologists.

I don't support every alternative theory and no new age claptrap.   But as a matter of strategy I don't point out their errors in most cases.  If the reader is unable to discern for himself whether a pyramid can sharpen razor blades then he is not my audience anyway.   I am trying to get through to people who are logical, scientific, and knowledgeable, not the gullible.  

[Thanos5150]

6 hours ago, cladking said:

"The Great Saw Palace" is even mentioned in the ancient literature. 

Quoting myself to you from elsewhere:

Quote

In this passage (the only reference in the PT of the "Great Saw Palace"?), there is no context whatsoever relating this place to stone working though there are several references to boats. This is not to say the DE did not cut stone with saws, as they clearly did, and it stands to reason they almost certainly had a central location at the quarries and on site devoted to this work, but there is also no reason whatsoever to believe what the PT refers to involved stone working. It is more likely, particualrly given the context of the passage and the PT as a whole, that this "Saw Palace" was the place where they cut the wood to make boats.

 

[Swede]

2 hours ago, cladking said:

   I am trying to get through to people who are logical, scientific, and knowledgeable...

An attempt at which you have failed in rather spectacular manners for over a decade. Perhaps there is something to be learned from this?

.

[cladking]

29 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Quoting myself to you from elsewhere:

 

 

I understand your position here.  

The problem might be that EVERYTHING is meant literally.  If we pick and choose the literal from the metaphoric then we warp the meaning of the words.   "Set" is what powers the saws.   Set serves under osiris.   People hate it when I explain these utterances so I just don't want to do it.   Suffice to say they had very very few words and a very very large number of different types and kinds of boats.  They had one "saw palace" for each job site.  "Palace" is simply mistranslated just as is "set", "osiris", "isis", and "nephthys".  "Gods" are natural phenomena, not magical imaginary entities.  They are very very real.

The "saw palace" simply isn't often relevant to the rituals that were read at the ascension ceremonies.   This is why it gets only one mention but it is actually mentioned.   It is used as it is to identify the specific attribute of "set" relevant to the perspective of the sentence.  This technique was used dozens of times where it says "in its name of".   Simply stated words weren't defined and meaning wasn't assumed as in the language of the "book of the dead".  Rather words referenced only a single thing and were "named".   When the name of a word wasn't apparent in context it was spelled out "in its name of".   "Set's" attribute being spelled out is his ability to power the saws.      

The language is not complex but it is alien to the way we talk and think.  

The ONLY logical place to put the saw palace is exactly where evidence says there was a saw palace.   It was adjacent to the great pyramids where the stone arrived from the river on the causeway.   There was no "mortuary temple" because the pyramids were not tombs or in any way "funerary".  The king lived forever as the pyramid and cemeteries were built around him.  The king ascended to heaven on the smoke of incense.   This is what the literature says repeatedly, coherently, literally, and consistently.   

626d. they put for thee thine enemy under thee.

627a. Carry thou (him who is) greater than thou, said they to him, in thy name of "He of the Great Saw Palace."

627b. Lift (him up who is) greater than thou, said they, in thy name of "He of the Great Land Nome."

628a. Thy two sisters Isis and Nephthys come to thee; they heal thee

 

[cladking]

16 minutes ago, Swede said:

An attempt at which you have failed in rather spectacular manners for over a decade. Perhaps there is something to be learned from this?

.

I've had to adjust many of my beliefs to account for this.   

I used to believe people (especially scientists) were far more desirous of being right than finding their beliefs were wrong.   I was wrong.  People are so wrapped up in their beliefs they can't even see anything that doesn't support them.   If they do see something anomalous they'd rather write it off as an unexplained mystery than examine their beliefs and premises.   Of course there are numerous other reasons people don't see this.   Ancient thought and language is wholly alien to us.  We don't understand animals and we don't understand pyramid builders.  It's far easier to just believe they were highly superstitious than to consider it is we who are superstitious rather than they.  So nobody has much problem with the lack of bodies and lack of evidence that they were tombs.  Neophytes are simply told there is a mountain of evidence to support our assumptions so there's no need to examine them in detail.   

This situation can't last because young people form new beliefs based on new research and new ideas.  Things change demographically or "one funeral at a time".   Eventually someone will stumble on the proof just as I stumbled on the literal meaning through reverse engineering and the solution of words in context.   

[Wepwawet]

It's not "Great Saw Palace", that's an out of date translation. It's "Great Saw Shrine" and refers to a shrine of Osiris.

"He of the Great Land Nome" is a way of saying "He of Abydos", and refers again to Osiris.

That Isis and Nephthys are then mentioned in a healing capacity may, and only in my opinion, mean that the Great Saw Shrine could reference the dismembering of Osiris. And a little later the text refers to the union of Isis and Osiris and the creation of Horus. Chronologically it fits with the dismemberment of Osiris, his "reconstruction" and then the creation of Horus.

No stones were used in the creation of these specific texts.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Wepwawet

[M. Williams]

3 hours ago, cladking said:

 

I understand your position here.  

The problem might be that EVERYTHING is meant literally.  If we pick and choose the literal from the metaphoric then we warp the meaning of the words.   "Set" is what powers the saws.   Set serves under osiris.   People hate it when I explain these utterances so I just don't want to do it.   Suffice to say they had very very few words and a very very large number of different types and kinds of boats.  They had one "saw palace" for each job site.  "Palace" is simply mistranslated just as is "set", "osiris", "isis", and "nephthys".  "Gods" are natural phenomena, not magical imaginary entities.  They are very very real.

The "saw palace" simply isn't often relevant to the rituals that were read at the ascension ceremonies.   This is why it gets only one mention but it is actually mentioned.   It is used as it is to identify the specific attribute of "set" relevant to the perspective of the sentence.  This technique was used dozens of times where it says "in its name of".   Simply stated words weren't defined and meaning wasn't assumed as in the language of the "book of the dead".  Rather words referenced only a single thing and were "named".   When the name of a word wasn't apparent in context it was spelled out "in its name of".   "Set's" attribute being spelled out is his ability to power the saws.      

The language is not complex but it is alien to the way we talk and think.  

The ONLY logical place to put the saw palace is exactly where evidence says there was a saw palace.   It was adjacent to the great pyramids where the stone arrived from the river on the causeway.   There was no "mortuary temple" because the pyramids were not tombs or in any way "funerary".  The king lived forever as the pyramid and cemeteries were built around him.  The king ascended to heaven on the smoke of incense.   This is what the literature says repeatedly, coherently, literally, and consistently.   

626d. they put for thee thine enemy under thee.

627a. Carry thou (him who is) greater than thou, said they to him, in thy name of "He of the Great Saw Palace."

627b. Lift (him up who is) greater than thou, said they, in thy name of "He of the Great Land Nome."

628a. Thy two sisters Isis and Nephthys come to thee; they heal thee

 

"He Of The Great SAW Palace" 

 

I like that one ,CK.

[M. Williams]

3 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

It's not "Great Saw Palace", that's an out of date translation. It's "Great Saw Shrine" and refers to a shrine of Osiris.

"He of the Great Land Nome" is a way of saying "He of Abydos", and refers again to Osiris.

That Isis and Nephthys are then mentioned in a healing capacity may, and only in my opinion, mean that the Great Saw Shrine could reference the dismembering of Osiris. And a little later the text refers to the union of Isis and Osiris and the creation of Horus. Chronologically it fits with the dismemberment of Osiris, his "reconstruction" and then the creation of Horus.

No stones were used in the creation of these specific texts.

The PT describe the remodeling of a pyramid after the death of a Pharoah . It clearly describes the process. It's called 'The Eye of Horus'. Check it out.

[Hanslune]

5 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

In this passage (the only reference in the PT of the "Great Saw Palace"?), there is no context whatsoever relating this place to stone working though there are several references to boats.

 

That particular PT isn't (as far as I can tell) in the PT  from Unas' Pyramid it comes from another source. It might be useful for context to determine where that inscription comes from. I would ask Cladking about it but in the past he goes into hissy fits when asked about context. The question is to Thanos, Wepwawet and any one else who might know.

[Hanslune]

Cladking stated:   I am trying to get through to people who are logical, scientific, and knowledgeable...

Cladking you have failed spectacularly at this for 14 years. This is because you approach logical, scientific and knowledgeable people with irrational pseudo scientific crapola with no basis in reality, then you refuse to:

Provide evidence beyond your opinion

Refuse to supply your research and data

Refuse to document any of your claims - such as "The ancient Egyptians had no religion"

You refuse to answer questions

You refuse to provide diagrams, simulations or drawing to support technical engineering claims

Make claims that go against existing evidence and when challenged simply repeat the same claim

 

[Hanslune]

4 hours ago, cladking said:

The "saw palace" simply isn't often relevant to the rituals that were read at the ascension ceremonies.   This is why it gets only one mention but it is actually mentioned.   It is used as it is to identify the specific attribute of "set" relevant to the perspective of the sentence.  This technique was used dozens of times where it says "in its name of".   Simply stated words weren't defined and meaning wasn't assumed as in the language of the "book of the dead".  Rather words referenced only a single thing and were "named".   When the name of a word wasn't apparent in context it was spelled out "in its name of".   "Set's" attribute being spelled out is his ability to power the saws.      
 

Oh and where is that inscription from? You know the context?

[Hanslune]

4 hours ago, cladking said:

I've had to adjust many of my beliefs to account for this.   

I used to believe people (especially scientists) were far more desirous of being right than finding their beliefs were wrong.   I was wrong.  People are so wrapped up in their beliefs they can't even see anything that doesn't support them.   If they do see something anomalous they'd rather write it off as an unexplained mystery than examine their beliefs and premises.   Of course there are numerous other reasons people don't see this.   Ancient thought and language is wholly alien to us.  We don't understand animals and we don't understand pyramid builders.  It's far easier to just believe they were highly superstitious than to consider it is we who are superstitious rather than they.  So nobody has much problem with the lack of bodies and lack of evidence that they were tombs.  Neophytes are simply told there is a mountain of evidence to support our assumptions so there's no need to examine them in detail.   

This situation can't last because young people form new beliefs based on new research and new ideas.  Things change demographically or "one funeral at a time".   Eventually someone will stumble on the proof just as I stumbled on the literal meaning through reverse engineering and the solution of words in context.   

So is that why when you suggested that people substitute upwards for Shu in the PT - and it then failed to make any sense in the majority of cases - is that why, because of your beliefs, you will not discuss the falsification of your ideas?

No one is going to stumble onto your idea. You've made very sure that there are no documents anywhere that explain what your idea was. Gibberish is not usually found more than once.

[Hanslune]

4 hours ago, cladking said:

626d. they put for thee thine enemy under thee.

627a. Carry thou (him who is) greater than thou, said they to him, in thy name of "He of the Great Saw Palace."

627b. Lift (him up who is) greater than thou, said they, in thy name of "He of the Great Land Nome."

628a. Thy two sisters Isis and Nephthys come to thee; they heal thee

 

...ah more out of context cherry picked sentences - again utterly worthless - sill afraid to link to your source and to show the full statements in context uh? LOL

[Wepwawet]

6 hours ago, M. Williams said:

The PT describe the remodeling of a pyramid after the death of a Pharoah . It clearly describes the process. It's called 'The Eye of Horus'. Check it out.

The Eye of Horus is his left plucked out by Seth and then restored by Thoth. As the Eye of Ra is the Sun, so the Eye of Horus is the Moon. The eye is also called a wadjet when used as a protective good luck charm. So, the Eye of Horus duly checked out.

Edited May 16, 2020 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

4 hours ago, Hanslune said:

That particular PT isn't (as far as I can tell) in the PT  from Unas' Pyramid it comes from another source. It might be useful for context to determine where that inscription comes from. I would ask Cladking about it but in the past he goes into hissy fits when asked about context. The question is to Thanos, Wepwawet and any one else who might know.

It's from the PT of Teti under the collection known as "Spells for entering the Akhet", and the specific texts in question are from recitation 366 found in Allen page 84. The series of recitations from 364 to 374 with 712 tagged on are a retelling of the Osiris myth, though with the dead king as Osiris, and other elements to fit with him entering the Akhet. There are also references to the colour of Osiris, black as the Great Black Wall, the eastern Delta border fortifications, as green as The Great Green, the Mediterranean, and as large as the Great Round, the ocean surrounding the known world, and having huge feet that he may traverse the Great Bed, the sky.

[Wepwawet]

For reference I am using the 2015 edition of James Allen's The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts

This edition has some major differences from the 2005 first edition, notably the numbering system. I'll link to the PDF of the first edition where the relevant texts can be found beginning on page 80, and with the reference to the "Great Saw Shrine" on page 81 recitation 198. Now that we can all read this sequence of texts in context, it can be seen that there is no mention, or allusion, to the sawing of stone or wood.

James Allen PT first edition

This is a good resource for the PT for those who don't already know

https://www.pyramidtextsonline.com/tools.html

Within that page we can find a link to all the hieroglyphs in the pyramid of Unas, but the texts being discussed at the moment are from Teti, who does not have a designated page. However, the hieroglyphs from the pyramid of Teti can be found in this PDF of Gaston Maspero's Les inscriptions des pyramides de Saqqarah beginning on page 87, titled La Pyramide Du Roi Teti

Maspero PT

There, I opened the ways again.

Edited May 16, 2020 by Wepwawet

[Alchopwn]

20 hours ago, cladking said:

  Yes! This would be very high grade evidence they are tombs but no such thing exists.  But no such thing exists.  

BUMP

[M. Williams]

5 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

The Eye of Horus is his left plucked out by Seth and then restored by Thoth. As the Eye of Ra is the Sun, so the Eye of Horus is the Moon. The eye is also called a wadjet when used as a protective good luck charm. So, the Eye of Horus duly checked out.

So what you're saying with your Wiki-Retort is the Eye had many meanings?

We have no idea of the origins of the myth,  the depth of its meaning to the AE or the true extent of its use in the OK. So, I propose it describes a pyramid remodel, among other things. No biggie, just the greatest insight of all time,lol.

 

 

[Wepwawet]

31 minutes ago, M. Williams said:

So what you're saying with your Wiki-Retort is the Eye had many meanings?

We have no idea of the origins of the myth,  the depth of its meaning to the AE or the true extent of its use in the OK. So, I propose it describes a pyramid remodel, among other things. No biggie, just the greatest insight of all time,lol.

 

 

Aside from your childish snide comment about a "wiki-retort", would you care to provide some evidence that the Eye of Horus "describes a pyramid remodel". It's easy to just say things, it's another matter to bring some evidence to the table. What do you have.

[cladking]

2 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

BUMP

There is no direct evidence any great pyramid was built, intended, or used as a tomb.  While a wide array and variety of evidence might have survived there is none.  

The writing repeats over and over that the pyramids were not tombs and were actually the king himself but we don't believe it.

1932 (Nt. 763). He, he is a pyramid, he protects;

We take nothing they said literally.   

The words are are a virtual soup of meaning as metaphor and each translator takes a different meaning.  People want to force these words to agree with the "book of the dead" so every single translator finds the same superstitions that exist in a book written 1000 years later.   Maybe the people who wrote the "book of the dead" didn't understand the ancient writing any better than we do.   Maybe they made the exact same errors in parsing the text that we do.   Maybe something changed over the 1000 years.

[cladking]

15 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

It's not "Great Saw Palace", that's an out of date translation. It's "Great Saw Shrine" and refers to a shrine of Osiris.

"He of the Great Land Nome" is a way of saying "He of Abydos", and refers again to Osiris.

That Isis and Nephthys are then mentioned in a healing capacity may, and only in my opinion, mean that the Great Saw Shrine could reference the dismembering of Osiris. And a little later the text refers to the union of Isis and Osiris and the creation of Horus. Chronologically it fits with the dismemberment of Osiris, his "reconstruction" and then the creation of Horus.

No stones were used in the creation of these specific texts.

It's of no consequence whether they mistranslated "palace" or "shrine".   Neither word is appropriate in the English language for the place on a job site that stones were cut and shipped to where they were laid in the structure under construction.   

It is my contention that it is impossible to translate anything between these language because their fundamental natures are different; we define words and they named them.   The closest English equivalent to "he of the great saw palace" would simply be "that which powers the saws in the mason's shop".   

Remember there is logic and tangible evidence which places the mason's shop at the east side of the great pyramids.   There is no logic or evidence for these missing structures to be "mortuary temples".   And this cuts across the board because everything we see is actually infrastructure used to build the pyramids.   They didn't need a mortuary temple to build a pyramid and they would not have needed it at all if the pyramid was not a tomb as the evidence and builders suggest.   They didn't need "holy precincts", "temples", and holy causeways either.   They needed more mundane things like ramps, ports, and work shops.   I suggest the "mason's shop" and all the structures in the area were temporary and constructed of tura limestone.  They spent ten years building all these structures because they needed to spread the demand on the Turah mines out over thirty years.  It was impossible to put in an order for 100,000 tons of cladding stones at the end of the project.   It was impossible for the mines to produce so much, the maritime industry to transport so much, or the "valley temple" (river port) to receive so much.   All these structures were cannibalized to finish the pyramid at the end.   There are no mason's shops because the builders tore them down to finish the bottom of the pyramid.  

They "rebuilt the dead king that he might live every day" but we don't believe anything they said.  We believe they were just like the builders of the tiny little piles of rubble that are euphemistically called "pyramids".  They are not pyramids and the builders of the rubble piles are nothing at all like the men, women, and children who rebuilt the dead king and said so.   

[cladking]

http://www.ancient-wisdom.com/egyptxtremasonry.htm

It is apparent that they used counterweighted pendulum saws right here on the east side of G1.   These saws sometimes ran out of control and cut the blocks that supported the work or through the floor.   

This was a "mason's shop" and not a "mortuary temple".  You sim,ply don't build a river port and a long ramp up to a "mortuary temple" when you need to transport and cut 120,000 tons of Turah Limestone.  Remember there are huge numbers of cuts that were necessary to build the air shafts as well.   They had to keep the mines, saws, and all the infrastructure running CONTINUALLY for 30 years to build these.  They had to have 30 years to transpoort all these stones.  Theuy first built the infrastructure ibncluding the pavement (ssm.t-apron) along with the knsti-canals, boat pits, trial passages, and sundry other infrastructure.   There was lots of work to prepare the site and build the infrastructure so they could build it exactly as they told to Herodotus.  

"The pyramid was built in steps, battlement-wise, as it is called, or, according to others, altar-wise. After laying the stones for the base, they raised the remaining stones to their places by means of machines formed of short wooden planks. The first machine raised them from the ground to the top of the first step. On this there was another machine, which received the stone upon its arrival and conveyed it to the second step, whence a third machine advanced it still higher. Either they had as many machines as there were steps in the pyramid, or possibly they had but a single machine, which, being easily moved, was transferred from tier to tier as the stone rose — both accounts are given and therefore I mention both. The upper portion of the Pyramid was finished first, then the middle and finally the part which was lowest and nearest to the ground"

And remember they also told Herodotus that the Great Pyramid was NOT A TOMB! 

 

[Wepwawet]

16 minutes ago, cladking said:

It's of no consequence whether they mistranslated "palace" or "shrine".   Neither word is appropriate in the English language for the place on a job site that stones were cut and shipped to where they were laid in the structure under construction.   

It is my contention that it is impossible to translate anything between these language because their fundamental natures are different; we define words and they named them.   The closest English equivalent to "he of the great saw palace" would simply be "that which powers the saws in the mason's shop".   

Remember there is logic and tangible evidence which places the mason's shop at the east side of the great pyramids.   There is no logic or evidence for these missing structures to be "mortuary temples".   And this cuts across the board because everything we see is actually infrastructure used to build the pyramids.   They didn't need a mortuary temple to build a pyramid and they would not have needed it at all if the pyramid was not a tomb as the evidence and builders suggest.   They didn't need "holy precincts", "temples", and holy causeways either.   They needed more mundane things like ramps, ports, and work shops.   I suggest the "mason's shop" and all the structures in the area were temporary and constructed of tura limestone.  They spent ten years building all these structures because they needed to spread the demand on the Turah mines out over thirty years.  It was impossible to put in an order for 100,000 tons of cladding stones at the end of the project.   It was impossible for the mines to produce so much, the maritime industry to transport so much, or the "valley temple" (river port) to receive so much.   All these structures were cannibalized to finish the pyramid at the end.   There are no mason's shops because the builders tore them down to finish the bottom of the pyramid.  

They "rebuilt the dead king that he might live every day" but we don't believe anything they said.  We believe they were just like the builders of the tiny little piles of rubble that are euphemistically called "pyramids".  They are not pyramids and the builders of the rubble piles are nothing at all like the men, women, and children who rebuilt the dead king and said so.   

So, stepping back on the treadmill in Hell, which will not last long btw, while I provide properly referenced texts from the PT, and link to the adjoining texts for context, you provide not a single shred of evidence other than your own opinion. Did you bother to read PT texts 364 - 374 to see that there is not the slightest reference, even in the most nuanced terms, to stone or wood sawing. How do you explain this, particularly as neither Mercer, Faulkner or Allen translate the original hieroglyphs as mentioning stone or wood sawing. As neither of the three mentioned provide anything that backs you up, what then are your refences. I suggest that the only reference outside of those three is the heiroglyphs themselves, and, if they backed you, it would make Mercer, Faulkner and Allen wrong, and you right, even though you cannot read Old Egyptian. Treadmill in Hell is about right I think.

[Wepwawet]

7 minutes ago, cladking said:

http://www.ancient-wisdom.com/egyptxtremasonry.htm

It is apparent that they used counterweighted pendulum saws right here on the east side of G1.   These saws sometimes ran out of control and cut the blocks that supported the work or through the floor.   

This was a "mason's shop" and not a "mortuary temple".  You sim,ply don't build a river port and a long ramp up to a "mortuary temple" when you need to transport and cut 120,000 tons of Turah Limestone.  Remember there are huge numbers of cuts that were necessary to build the air shafts as well.   They had to keep the mines, saws, and all the infrastructure running CONTINUALLY for 30 years to build these.  They had to have 30 years to transpoort all these stones.  Theuy first built the infrastructure ibncluding the pavement (ssm.t-apron) along with the knsti-canals, boat pits, trial passages, and sundry other infrastructure.   There was lots of work to prepare the site and build the infrastructure so they could build it exactly as they told to Herodotus.  

"The pyramid was built in steps, battlement-wise, as it is called, or, according to others, altar-wise. After laying the stones for the base, they raised the remaining stones to their places by means of machines formed of short wooden planks. The first machine raised them from the ground to the top of the first step. On this there was another machine, which received the stone upon its arrival and conveyed it to the second step, whence a third machine advanced it still higher. Either they had as many machines as there were steps in the pyramid, or possibly they had but a single machine, which, being easily moved, was transferred from tier to tier as the stone rose — both accounts are given and therefore I mention both. The upper portion of the Pyramid was finished first, then the middle and finally the part which was lowest and nearest to the ground"

And remember they also told Herodotus that the Great Pyramid was NOT A TOMB! 

 

This is smoke and mirrors. Of course they did saw stone and wood, but you are saying that PT recitation 366 references, basically, a stone cutters workshop. To avoid repetition, see my posts above.