Ma: Small People (2nd of 2)
John Pastore
In the dwarfish Mayan fairyland that is the 'Ruins of Xel-Ha', every
aspect of its many edifices, including its observatory and 'Jaguar
Temple', attest to the fact that a dwarf race of Maya existed and
flourished. In dormitories, notches for curtain rods (of feathers?)
are set at less than a quarter of the height now set by modern-day
Maya -who are, themselves, hardly giants. Doorwasy are some two and a
half feet high. Only the tomb of the so-called "Toltec Priest"
(apparently a sole over-lord) runs contrary to the scheme.
Minute people are often depicted in the glyphs of the Maya and distant
Mexican tribes like acrobats balanced on the arms of normal sized
personages -yet many explain them as statuettes of gods. On the rare
occasions when skeletal remains from Mayan tombs or cenotes are
recovered, what may be small people are always assumed to be children.
Copernicus revolutionized science not just by replacing Earth as the
center of the Solar System with the Sun, but by replacing a more
cumbersome set of theories requried to explain the celestial motions
with a single theory which explained the same. The scientific
revolution is: that it is the explanation based on the lower common
denomniator which is closer to the truth -no matter how, seemingly,
implausible. If 'small people' alone explains all the phenomena
described, then why do so many refuse this explanation?
Could it be that, if one accepts the past-existance of a dwarf Mayan
race, the next step would be having to confront the possibility of
their present existance? Is it safe to assume that those described as
"Aluxes" by the present-day Maya are merely forest spirits?
There is more physical evidence.
* The mention of Xcaret as a dwarf community is not intended to
encourage its promoters to embrace the theme. The unfortunate
commercialization of Xcaret has both ignored and totally obscured the
legacy described. The "nature" aspect of the, now, theme park has,
for example, been characterized by Arabian stallions, donkeys and
sea-turtles from beaches which had never existed in Xcaret as the sole
exhibits of its much vaunted "wildlife" themes.
Mike Lowndes
(John Pastore) wrote:
snip
> On the rare
> occasions when skeletal remains from Mayan tombs or cenotes are
> recovered, what may be small people are always assumed to be children.
snip
A fascinating post. However, in common with many of these interesting and
original posts, you don't back it up with any REFERENCES, there's no
bibliography or pointers to photos/documents. Please post more details.
The above exerpt at least provides something- Using modern archaeological
techniques it is not difficult to distinguish between children and adults.
What was the state of the teeth? Cranial fossae?
Mike
Peter Szabo
Obviously you have deeply researched your material. But did you
realize that if you trace the alignments of ancient Babel and Giza you
undoubtably get a Babbling Geazer!
Actually I think you suck!
George Henry
jaap van der meulen (vander...@cdai.azr.nl) wrote:
: >About great pyramid of Giza
: Why does everybody looks at the alignement of the shaft!?
: In fact the biggest marker of the pyramid is the top itself
: which points each 314125 years (As one can see,
: by using any modern astronomical program) exactly to
: a star in NG6991. It does so exactly at midnight at march 21
: or nowadays some 11 days later do to precession of the earth.
: This is a star of magnitude 15 and thus invisible to
: the human eye. In fact we it can be only seen by using
: the Hubble Space Telescope. This clearly indicates that
: the early egyptians had in fact the technology to make a space
: telescope or had contacts with a alien race that did.
: This may seem al little overhyped at first but it can be proved
: by noting the unbelievable precise instruments the egyptions had.
: They used them daily for normal production means. One of
: the shoes found on the tomb of toetanchamon was measured as
: being 8.217681246197 inches long, even today we can not match
: such precise production quality.
: One other point is the translation of the hieroglyphs:
: When looking at this deeper there seem to be all kinds of
: inconsistencies an redundant symbols. The translators
: would have use to believe that hyroglyps can be written
: from left to right, from right to left, from top to
: bottom, from bottom to top, with transversed words,
: with left out words, with added words. All this so
: they can get their preconcieved meaning out of the
: writings.
: Is this Science ?. No, and it can all
: be explained by looking at the Rosseta stone. In
: fact the idea i propose came to my mind when
: someone in this group tried to use UUdecoded messages.
: Now assuming the egyptians had better instruments than
: us and already a space telescope up there or aliens to help
: them. It would not be far fetched to presume that they also
: had coding technology , and uuencode would be quite familiar
: to them. Now if one uses uuencode on the rossetta stone and
: then tries to map the hieroglyps an astounding pattern emerges.
: In fact I translated many texts using this new protocol and
: all becomes clear. For instance in the book of the dead
: there is a figure called the shabti who is supposed to do
: all the work in the afterworld. The original translation
: of the hieroglyps is:
: SPEECH OF THE USHABTI FIGURE [THE CHAPTER OF NOT DOING WORK IN KHERT-
: NETER]. Illumine the Osiris Ani, whose word is truth. Hail, Shabti
: Figure!
: If the Osiris Ani be decreed to do any of the work which is to be done
: in Khert-Neter, let everything which standeth in the way be removed from
: him- whether it be to plough the fields, or to fill the channels with
: water, or to carry sand from [the East to the West]. The Shabti Figure
: replieth: I will do it, verily I am here [when] thou callest.
: Now using the new protocol translation it becomes:
: SPEECH OF THE USHABTI FIGURE [THE CHAPTER OF NOT DOING WORK IN KHERT-
: NETER]. M#0I34$5%0T@@3T8@5$A%(%532$%"5$D@1DE'55)%(%M42$4@0TA!4%1%4B!/
: M1B!.3U0@1$])3D<@5T]22R!)3B!+2$525"T-"DY%5$5272X@26QL=6UI;F4@
: M=&AE($]S:7)I<R!!;FDL('=H;W-E('=O<F0@:7,@=')U=&@N($AA:6PL(%-H
: M86)T:2!&:6=U<F4A#0I)9B!T:&4@3W-I<FES($%N:2!B92!D96-R965D('1O
: M(&1O(&%N>2!O9B!T:&4@=V]R:R!W:&EC:"!I<R!T;R!B92!D;VYE(&EN#0I+
: M:&5R="U.971E<BP@;&5T(&5V97)Y=&AI;F<@=VAI8V@@<W1A;F1E=&@@:6X@
: M=&AE('=A>2!B92!R96UO=F5D(&9R;VT@:&EM+0T*=VAE=&AE<B!I="!B92!T
: M;R!P;&]U9V@@=&AE(&9I96QD<RP@;W(@=&\@9FEL;"!T:&4@8VAA;FYE;',@
: M=VET:"!W871E<BP@;W(-"G1O(&-A<G)Y('-A;F0@9G)O;2!;=&AE($5A<W0@
: M=&\@=&AE(%=E<W1=+B!4:&4@4VAA8G1I($9I9W5R92!R97!L:65T:#H@20T*
: M=VEL;"!D;R!I="P@=F5R:6QY($D@86T@:&5R92!;=VAE;ET@=&AO=2!C86QL
: &97-T+@T*
: `
: Now clearly who ever this ushabti figure was, he was not from
: this world. So in fact it where the aliens all along that
: helped the egyptians with their daily work and build
: the great pyramid. They were even supposed to help in the
: afterlife. In fact after translation of other texts all
: the other egyptian gods are proved to be from outside this
: world. Some may have come from the moon since it was closer
: to earth in ancient times. Others can be proved to have
: used space travel since they are from later times.
: Some of them might still be around in these times
: given the number of believable records of ufo's
: from around the world.
: Some more discoveries will be forwarded in a coming
: post later on. Greetings to all!!
: Hope to give new insight to the world
: Jaap van der Meulen
: --------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Homage to thee, O great God, Lord of Maati! I have come unto thee, O my
: Lord, and I have brought myself hither that I may behold thy beauties. I
: know thee, I know thy name, I know the names of the Forty-two Gods who
: live with thee in this Hall of Maati, who live by keeping ward
: over sinners, and who feed upon their blood on the day when the
: consciences of men are reckoned up in the presence of the god Un- Nefer.
: --------------------------------------------------------------------------
MATTH...@ymv5.ymp.gov
>Whatever you do.. don't leave school.. (sorry..didn't mean to wake you)
>>jaap van der meulen (vander...@cdai.azr.nl) wrote:
[snip Jaap's text]
George, listen closely, you may hear the sound of your leg being pulled.
Read it again with your tongue in your cheek. YHBT.
Regards,
August Matthusen
Paul Lyon
I have only been lurking in this newsgroup for a few weeks, but from this
and a previous comment on "News from Giza", I surmise that the situation
therein is worse than the propenents of s.a.m. claim. I thought it
unfortunate that Jaap van der Meulen had to go as far over the top as he
did to make sure his posting would be read as satire. Yet it would seem
that for some, he did not go far enough. Blech!
Ciao,
Paul
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Paul Lyon | "Without true justice
Liberal Arts Computer Lab | there can be no peace."
University of Texas at Austin | Lucretia Coffin Mott
email: p...@la.utexas.edu |
'phone: 512-471-5121 *** fax: 512-471-1061 |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
jaap van der meulen
Thanks, I like you too!
Could not resist the opportunity, but rereading my post
the used logic seems to not far from that used in 90%
of the postings in this group.
. Same melodramatic babbling
. No references
. Semi scientific facts
. Blatant lies
. Ufo's and aliens
. Three years old logic
. Conclusions to stupid to consider a reply
If I would have put more textual glue in it and did not
make reference to 1st of april, I might by now even
have got some followers in this group. Maybe the shoe
would have given me away, should have been the angle
of piramid you know.
Hey, this is a news group with "science" in front of it!
And everytime I look for some news, most of it is fiction.
Some others seem to have noticed, but instead of posting
more science they are babbling on about how to filter
the incoming post (moderate?). Fools, just increase
the science posts. For every "moderate or not" post of
a hunderd lines or more you might have actually contibuted
to contents of this group by posting some of your knowledge!
To get some of the weight from this and other groups,
I like to propose to add for each "sci.xxxxx" group a few shadow groups
called:
"sci.xxxxx.fools.who.do.not.know.what.they.are.talking.about"
"sci.xxxxx.people.who.should.post.on.soc.support.depression.manic"
"sci.xxxxx.unrelated.babbling.until.my.mother.comes.home"
"sci.xxxxx.sorry.should.be.posting.to.sci.fiction.xxxxx"
"sci.xxxxx.ufo's.and.aliens"
"sci.xxxxx.star.trek"
"sci.xxxxx.cold.water.fusion"
"sci.xxxxx.saying.people.suck.is.bad.for.your.health"
Automatic cross-posting!
Actually, I don't know much about Archaeology
but would have liked to learn some more here.
Fool, should have looked in
alt.ufo.denial.freaks.science
Bye, Jaap van der Meulen.
Peter Szabo
Ok. Sorry, dude! Perhaps you don't suck.
I'd like to say, though, that you are right about how you could have
developed a following from your posts. It's tragic. The same people
that need to read the talk.origins FAQFI (FAQ for idiots).
The problem is that there is a lot of validity to certain aspects of
the "ufo" etc. contraversy (and other related contraversies). This is
exactly why so many a-holes are able to exploit it! They can do a
little resaearch and instantly write a neat sounding book.
It's often hard to find objective evidence in this vein, but it
exists. You just have to look for it.
Ok. Now that I've lost any serious audience....
I was going to go on about open mindedmess, but I won't.
To Jaap Van Der,
(all within 1/2 a percent)
-The (supposed) pyramid of Khafre has a height that is 2pi of the
perimeter. (similar to a circle's radius = 2pi of circumferace)
-Same pyramid can be equated to 1:4320 scale model of the northern
hemisphere of earth (43,200 is (ideally) the number of years for 2
precessional cycles
-The largest pyramid at Tiahunaco has a height that is 4pi of the
perimeter
-Norse poem: 500 doors and 40 there are
I ween, in Valhalla's walls;
800 fighters through each door fare,
When to war with the wolf they go.
Do the math and it equals = 432,000
I know these are very questionable to a skeptic, however there is a
lot more. There is an incredible amount of ancient knowledge pointing
to the advent of precession (most of it within myths), linking
precession with catastrophes (floods etc.).
I also find that conventional science seems to have extremely good
arguments in its favour.
The point is: keep an open mind. Don't think you know it all.
Peter Szabo
> quarry-marks.) Why supposed? Well, sorry, I think the "quarry amrks" are a hoax.
At the least they are highly questionable. Obviously this is not
something to continue discussing.
If you subtract that "evidence." what are you left with? Not much.
There are a few references to Khafre found in surrounding areas, which
suggest he was indeed present in the area. There is the statue of him
found buried next to the Valley Temple which suggests... not much.
Why is it that one of the first human endeavors in mass architecture
is also one of their greatest? Why are the pyramids from directly
before and after the Giza bunch so poorly constructed in comparison?
What does this say about linear gradual development?
> The more accurate the pi ratio, the less likely this is, since the
> earth isn't a perfect sphere.
It's theoretically the IDEA being transmitted thru the architecture,
not the exact measurements. I am intrigued by the idea that the pyramid
is huge 3d puzzle, inviting people to speculate and wonder of its
origin. This would be to provoke thought and understanding, and
eventually the deciphering of all the "signals" evident (and not
evident) in relics of days past (ie: architecture and myths).
Martin Stower
>To Jaap Van Der,
>
> (all within 1/2 a percent)
>
> -The (supposed) pyramid of Khafre has a height that is 2pi of the
> perimeter. (similar to a circle's radius = 2pi of circumferace)
Pyramid of Khufu. The pyramid of Khafre has a steeper angle,
height:perimeter about 1:6.
There's no compelling evidence that the value of pi is more accurate
than 22/7, i.e. the height would be 280 cubits, and the base
440 x 440 cubits.
And why `supposed' pyramid? (Suggestion: don't mention `forged'
quarry-marks.)
> -Same pyramid can be equated to 1:4320 scale model of the northern
> hemisphere of earth (43,200 is (ideally) the number of years for 2
> precessional cycles
The more accurate the pi ratio, the less likely this is, since the
earth isn't a perfect sphere.
Martin
Doug Weller
Peter Szabo <pet...@iceonline.com> wrote:
> > And why `supposed' pyramid? (Suggestion: don't mention `forged'
> > quarry-marks.)
Why supposed? Well, sorry, I think the "quarry amrks" are a hoax.
> At the least they are highly questionable. Obviously this is not
> something to continue discussing.
No, I think you should explain why you think they are a hoax.
--
Doug Weller
***'De Chelonian Mobile!'***
... Inside small problems a large problem struggles to get out.
Peter Szabo
>
> In article <31375D...@iceonline.com>
> Peter Szabo <pet...@iceonline.com> wrote:
>
> > > And why `supposed' pyramid? (Suggestion: don't mention `forged'
> > > quarry-marks.)
> Why supposed? Well, sorry, I think the "quarry amrks" are a hoax.
> > At the least they are highly questionable. Obviously this is not
> > something to continue discussing.
>
> No, I think you should explain why you think they are a hoax.
>
> --
> Doug Weller
It seems open to a lot of speculation. I can't remember the names
and dates, but I do remember that the marks were found right before the
archaeologist in question had made no major discoveries and was likely
not going to have his funding renewed.
The marks were badly misspelled (including Khafre's name), suggesting
only a passing knowledge of hieroglyphics. No other writings were ever
found within the entire building.
I read a detailed explanation backing the mark's legitimacy but found
it so convoluted and complex (and long) that I ascribed to B.S.
It's contraversial. No amount of discussion is going to clear this
one up. Let's not discuss this much furthur or I will be forced to
waste time digging up info on it again.
George Black
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <31375D...@iceonline.com>
> Peter Szabo <pet...@iceonline.com> wrote:
>
>> > And why `supposed' pyramid? (Suggestion: don't mention `forged'
>> > quarry-marks.)
>Why supposed? Well, sorry, I think the "quarry amrks" are a hoax.
>> At the least they are highly questionable. Obviously this is not
>> something to continue discussing.
>
>No, I think you should explain why you think they are a hoax.
hoax.
George Black Hamilton New Zealand
gbl...@midland.co.nz
3:774/605.112
If you think you have a problem
GROOVE YOU
from aliens but from thousands of years of studing the movement of the
stars..they invented the wheel..look in the tomb of ramses III he shows
the exact measurement of Pi... anyone saying that it was aliens, say that
because their knowledge is alien but not from outer space ...but it is
alien to the culture that attempts to study there legacy
Martin Stower
Peter Szabo <pet...@iceonline.com> wrote:
>Doug Weller wrote:
>>
>> In article <31375D...@iceonline.com>
>> Peter Szabo <pet...@iceonline.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > And why `supposed' pyramid? (Suggestion: don't mention `forged'
>> > > quarry-marks.)
>> Why supposed? Well, sorry, I think the "quarry amrks" are a hoax.
>> > At the least they are highly questionable. Obviously this is not
>> > something to continue discussing.
>>
>> No, I think you should explain why you think they are a hoax.
>>
>> --
>> Doug Weller
>
> It seems open to a lot of speculation.
Yes . . .
>I can't remember the names and dates,
>but I do remember that the marks were found right before the
>archaeologist in question had made no major discoveries and was likely
>not going to have his funding renewed.
1837, and the discoverer, Col. Howard(-)Vyse, was self-funded.
> The marks were badly misspelled (including Khafre's name), suggesting
>only a passing knowledge of hieroglyphics.
Khufu's name, and the `misspelling' is a fiction. The marks suggest
an expert knowledge of old hieratic palaeolography.
>No other writings were ever
>found within the entire building.
In common with the other 4th Dynasty pyramids. So what?
> I read a detailed explanation backing the mark's legitimacy but found
>it so convoluted and complex (and long) that I ascribed to B.S.
Sorry, I'll try to dumb it down for you.
> It's contraversial. No amount of discussion is going to clear this
>one up. Let's not discuss this much furthur or I will be forced to
>waste time digging up info on it again.
No comment necessary.
Martin Stower
Martin Stower
[stuff about quarry-marks addressed elsewhere]
> If you subtract that "evidence." what are you left with? Not much.
>There are a few references to Khafre found in surrounding areas, which
>suggest he was indeed present in the area. There is the statue of him
>found buried next to the Valley Temple which suggests... not much.
Khufu and Khafre are not the same . . .
There's the Inventory Stela, highly touted by the authors you've been
reading. Contrary to what they'd have you believe, it _states_ that
Khufu built his pyramid at Giza.
There's the Westcar Papyrus, with its interesting story about Khufu
wanting to reproduce the Chambers of Thoth in his own `Horizon'.
That (in case you don't know) is the name of Khufu's pyramid. The
whole necropolis was known as the Pyramid Town of Khufu's Horizon.
The fact that the tombs of Khufu's family, officials and priests surround
the pyramid is _suggestive_ . . .
There's Herodotus, much maligned for no good reason.
> Why is it that one of the first human endeavors in mass architecture
>is also one of their greatest? Why are the pyramids from directly
>before and after the Giza bunch so poorly constructed in comparison?
Before: the preceding 4th Dynasty pyramids aren't that poorly constructed.
The Dashur pyramids are of good quality. The Meydum pyramid is in a bad
way because it was used as a quarry. (Mendellson's theory has been
convincingly refuted.) Excavation of the mound reveals good quality
masonry.
After: pyramid-building on the 4th Dynasty scale was a drain on the resources
of the state. The 5th Dynasty opted for less ambitious projects.
>What does this say about linear gradual development?
That the Egyptians were right not to believe in Progress.
>> The more accurate the pi ratio, the less likely this is, since the
>> earth isn't a perfect sphere.
>
> It's theoretically the IDEA being transmitted thru the architecture,
>not the exact measurements. I am intrigued by the idea that the pyramid
>is huge 3d puzzle, inviting people to speculate and wonder of its
>origin. This would be to provoke thought and understanding, and
>eventually the deciphering of all the "signals" evident (and not
>evident) in relics of days past (ie: architecture and myths).
I'm also intrigued by the way people feel compelled to speculate
about the pyramids, especially the Giza ones, which seem to invite
all kinds of projection.
Martin Stower
Charlie Rigano
(snip)
>> 1837, and the discoverer, Col. Howard(-)Vyse, was
>> > The marks were badly misspelled (including Khafre's name), suggesting
>> >only a passing knowledge of hieroglyphics.
>>
>> Khufu's name, and the `misspelling' is a fiction. The marks suggest
>> an expert knowledge of old hieratic palaeolography.
>
>I'm almost positive that not true. When I have time I'll look into this
>but I seem to remember Khufu's symbol being upside down or something.
>
The assertion - by Sitchen - is that in the cartouche there
was a circle with a dot (RA) when there should have been a
circle with crosshatches representing a sieve (KH).
Sitchen plained lied about this. If you look at what is
actually on the wall - it has been shown in a couple
educational TV shows that were not addressing the forgery
question - there is definitely a sieve. Alittle research
will point to other problems with the forgery and Sitchen's
interprtation. Almost everything Sitchen says about this
subject is fiction.
>
>> >No other writings were ever
>> >found within the entire building.
>>
>> In common with the other 4th Dynasty pyramids. So what?
>
>And all others before. No similar "quarry marks" have ever been found
>anywhere else.
>
There are quarry marks on other pyramids. I have just been
going through Petrie's report on Meidum and he shows about
20 of them. The unfinished pyramid at Abu Rawash also has
them. I believe, though don't remember for certain - that
these quarry marks are fairly common. What is common in
the 4th Dynasty pyramids is the lack of writing
for decorative purposes or lists of titles or spells
inside the pyramids.
Charlie
Martin Stower
>Martin Stower wrote:
>
><snip>
>> >: There's the Inventory Stela, highly touted by the authors you've been
>> >: reading. Contrary to what they'd have you believe, it _states_ that
>> >: Khufu built his pyramid at Giza.
>> >
>> >
>> >already existing structure].
>>
>> We could play `it does say, it doesn't say' endlessly. I refer
>Even if it does say Khufu built his pyramid at Giza, couldn't his
>pyramid be one of the smaller ones surrounding the great pyramid.
This is how Hancock tries to get round it (without actually producing
any argument). The inscription doesn't spell out that it was the _big_
one--but why would the scribe labour the obvious? And we'd expect a
Pharaoh to have a bigger pyramid than that of his queen (Henutsen).
I'm addressing this topic more fully in my Web pages--work in progress.
>> `I built the Great Pyramd.'
>>
>> `I'm convinced! Where do I pay the money?'
>>
>> I'd expect Khufu to gain the reputation of the biggest liar in history.
>
>Where did Khufu say "I built the GREAT pyramid"? I don't think he did.
I doubt he needed to . . . but it was Clayton who seemed to imply that
Khufu had (falsely) claimed credit for the pyramid.
Again, the name of the necropolis--the pyramid town of Khufu's Horizon--is
suggestive. Also, contrary to Clayton's point (that this was an unreliable
royal boast), we know this from inscriptions within tombs--not meant for
public consumption.
>> >: The fact that the tombs of Khufu's family, officials and priests surround
>> >: the pyramid is _suggestive_ . . .
>> >
>> > The area was used just for such purposes for generations.
>>
>> Yes, in a systematic plan, centred on Khufu's pyramid.
>
>Centered on Khufu's pyramid? Are you sure? (I think this is referred
>to as circular logic.)
Yes, I'm sure. That's why I call it Khufu's pyramid. I see no reason
to make the concession of calling it something else.
The important point was the systematic character of the cemetery plan:
Khufu's elder relatives (who held administrative posts) to the west of
the GREAT Pyramid, Khufu's immediate family, including sons (not in line
to the throne) and daughters, to the east--also where those satellite
pyramids are found.
>> >: > Why is it that one of the first human endeavors in mass architecture
>> >: >is also one of their greatest? Why are the pyramids from directly
>> >: >before and after the Giza bunch so poorly constructed in comparison?
>> >
>> >: Before: the preceding 4th Dynasty pyramids aren't that poorly constructed.
>> >: The Dashur pyramids are of good quality. The Meydum pyramid is in a bad
>> >: way because it was used as a quarry. (Mendellson's theory has been
>> >: convincingly refuted.) Excavation of the mound reveals good quality
>> >: masonry.
>> >
>> > Doesn't address the question he asked.
>>
>> The question he asked was presuppositionally challenged. Anyway, it
>> does address the question he asked.
>
>The question I asked was essentially "Why such an amazing feat of
>architecture so early in mans history of architecture?" Doesn't this
>contradict linear development and evolutionary progress?
So much for Progress. The Egyptians didn't believe in (the 19th Century
idea of inevitable) Progress. Perhaps they were right not to. Progress
(in this sense) also
has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution (although the two are often
confused). You seem to be labouring a point that no-one is actually
disagreeing with.
>By the way, more points that would extend the time of building:
>
> -If this unquestionably impressive feat of megalithic architecture was
> effected without a hitch, it would require significant intelligence
> and planning(time).
>
> -If there was error (as there is possible evidence of) there would
> have to be re-planning and correction(time).
>
> -Most scholars believe the building was done only 3 months of the
> year, during the flood season.
I think you've been consulting the wrong scholars. The current view
(even among those who differ on details) is that work continued
throughout the year.
> -As anyone who has tried to coordinate human employment (especially on
> a large scale) (or even more specifically employment for building
> construction) surely knows, even with modern tools and understanding
> a project rarely is completed on time.
The assumption being that modern tools and understanding would have been
of benefit (itself suggestive of an unquestioning belief in Progress). I
think the starting point has to be that the way _they_ did it was the best
way of _building pyramids_.
The quarry-marks themselves reveal a canny insight into _motivation_; apart
from the royal slogans:
(The crew) Khufu inspires love!
(The craftsmen crew) The White Crown of Khnum-khufu is powerful!
there are names like
Enduring gang
suggestive of an element of group pride and inter-group competition.
Besides, what do the likes of Hancock and Sitchin contribute to our
understanding of these issues? Nothing.
> -The great pyramid also shows many interesting features that would
> extend aspects of building time (IE: Grand gallery corbelling,
> multiple rooms, and strange alignments (see previous posts by
> myself),
Yes.
> -In order to place the highest blocks using a makeshift (dirt?) ramp
> at less than 15° gradient, the ramp would be extremely long and would
> take a long time to construct on its own.
You might be right. Personally, I think the proposals of Peter Hodges
and (independently) Martin Isler are worthy of attention. Again, it's
a problem _whoever_ you think built the pyramids. There mere invocation
of aliens/Atlanteans/(your choice goes here) doesn't solve it.
>If my suppositions are at least partly valid, and the Egyptians
>completed the pyramid in less than 20 years, my opinion is that they are
>almost worthy of god status.
I'd suggest that your more crucial suppositions are invalid . . . but
no-one's suggesting that the pyramid isn't a remarkable achievement.
>The fool doth think he is wise,
>but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.
> -William Shakespeare
Martin
Whittet
>
>Martin Stower (mar...@dcs.shef.ac.uk) wrote:
>: Hello again Clayton . . .
>
> Hello
>
>: cco...@freenet2.scri.fsu.edu (Clayton Conway) wrote:
>: >Martin Stower (mar...@dcs.shef.ac.uk) wrote:
>
>: [some stuff gone]
>
>: I refer you to two sources: Breasted, _Ancient Records of Egypt_, Selim
>: Hassan, _Excavations at Giza, volume 8_. Get a decent photo of
>: the stela and you can see for yourself. It's on the raised margin,
>: right-hand side. The stem of the verb meaning `build' is a little
>: picture of a man building a wall. The logogram for pyramid is a
>: picture of . . . (guess).
>: >: There's the Westcar Papyrus, with its interesting story about Khufu
>: >: wanting to reproduce the Chambers of Thoth in his own `Horizon'.
>: >: That (in case you don't know) is the name of Khufu's pyramid. The
>: >: whole necropolis was known as the Pyramid Town of Khufu's Horizon.
>: >: The fact that the tombs of Khufu's family, officials and priests surround
>: >: the pyramid is _suggestive_ . . .
.., in a systematic plan, centred on Khufu's pyramid.
>
> Well before Khufu and after by rulers and staff. People of
>importance in their times.
In discussing whether or not the Great Pyramid was built by Khufu
if you discard the instances of his cartouche exterior to the structure
and references in the literature of the time to his building project,
and the burials of his family around it and the architectural organization
of his necropolis around the pyramid you are still left with the presence
of quarry marks which use his cartouche interior to the structure which
pretty much put the icing on the cake.
>
>: >: > Why is it that one of the first human endeavors in mass architecture
>: >: >is also one of their greatest? Why are the pyramids from directly
>: >: >before and after the Giza bunch so poorly constructed in comparison?
The pyramid of Djoser which is the first attempt starts with a mastabah form
and adds layers. This one evidences a learning curve. Once you have built
one pyramid you have the body of experience of half a lifetime to draw on and
trained and experienced workmen to do the work.
>: >
>: >: Before: the preceding 4th Dynasty pyramids aren't that poorly constructed.
>: >: The Dashur pyramids are of good quality. The Meydum pyramid is in a bad
>: >: way because it was used as a quarry. (Mendellson's theory has been
>: >: convincingly refuted.) Excavation of the mound reveals good quality
>: >: masonry.
>
snip
The pyramids do show a progression of construction ideas. While the
Giza pyramids are distinguished by their architecture and engineering
the primary difference is one of design intent. The construction practices
are influenced by the design intent but the traditional lineage remains clear.
>: >But I have one for any
>: >one who thinks they know all the answers. The so called Khufu
>: >marks found give his year - 17th.
>
>: No, they don't. This is a persistent error in the Egyptologicial
>: literature. Goyon exposed it in his _Le Secret des Batisseurs des
>: Grandes Pyramides Kheops_. The inscription `year 17' is at Dashur.
>: In Lepsius' _Denkmaeler_ it's reproduced on the same print as the
>: Khufu inscriptions. Someone forgot to check the key, and made a
>: wrong assumption.
>
>
> If true it still doesn't let them off the hook. Khufu ruled
>for 23 years. If you don't include the 20 years it took to build
>the pyramid (traditional period) with the 10 years it took to build
>the causeway, Khufu lacks the number of years to do both and you
>can't do the pyramid before the causeway.
You can in fact do both simultaneously. As a considerable portion of
the work of the pyramid was in leveling the site and excavating the
descending passages, starting the quarry, building barges to carry
the stone, assembling timber for the machines used to lift the stones
building housing for the workers; what we call staging the job.
If you include the
>causeway, that leaves only 10 years for the whole pyramid to keep
>the 20 year traditional period.
That may well have taken 10 years. Piling the stones up using light
tripods with booms (standard technology on boats of the period for
moving palletised cargo around) and 2 or 3 workmen per stone
could cut it, move it by barge and install it on the pyramid in a month.
With traditional work habits known
>to exist during the time your not going to make it.
To move 2,500,000 stones in 10 years is 250,000 stones a year
with an army of 200,000 men thats not a big deal
As the pyramid rises, fewer and fewer men can set stones on it,
but plenty of work remains in polishing and painting the casing.
> Conclusion: Khufu didn't build the pyramid because he lacked
>the time and resources to do so.
your conclusion is demonstrably wrong
>
>
>: >This is interesting as it is
>: >stated clearly that the causeway was a work in itself and took 10
>: >years to clear and build it before any work on the pyramid could
>: >start.
The causeway was probably built in stages starting as a construction
road surfaced with raw concrete (pulverised marl, limestone and sand
wet with water and allowed to set up in the sun) While it was being built
and blocks were being cut in the quarry and barges built to haul them,
the site was surveyed, trenches were cut across an area of 13 acres
and filled with water with the stone being cut down to the water line.
Now, how long does it take to prepare to build a structure
>: >like the pyramid?
Not as long as you seem to think. Assuming each stone takes 3 men a month
from start to finish and there are 2,500,000 stones and 200,000 men, the
job of building the pyramid, exclusive of staging the project would take a little
over 3 years. The three men a month figure comes from such reconstructive
efforts as this old pyramid. If we assume that only 1/3 of those 200,000 men
were actual workmen and the rest were logistical support if would take about
9 1/2 years. The United States Army provides the ratio of combat arms to
logistics and it is also used by the AGC (Associated General Contractors)
in its project management seminar.
The previous king has his own concerns and does
>: >not help so you can only begin preparing when you start to reign.
>: >It is going to take some time to get the machinery set up and going
>: >like preparing the labor force and organizing and such. At least
>: >two years and I would say three is more practical if he started
>: >working the first day he became Pharaoh. First year gets his staff
>: >ready and the second year getting the labor force organized. Best
>: >he can do is start building the causeway in his third year which
>: >takes to his 13th year to finish. Does any one begin to see the
>: >problem? The Khufu marks are near the top of the pyramid so he has
>: >at most 4 years to build to that point. More time the more you
>: >trim his time to organize, but it is clear that this is not
>: >acceptable. At this point many start telling us how they mass
>: >produced and organized the labor as we do in modern times, but
>: >mass production is a modern concept and was not available as it
>: >was against their cultural understanding.
You are making some assumptions which do not reflect a very deep
investigation of construction practices in antiquity.
The assumption that no work would proceed on preparing the site
for the the pyramid while the causeway was being built, or that this
preparation would not be counted as a part of the pyramids time
to construct seems oddly contrived to say the least
>
>: The evidence of the pyramid suggests otherwise.
>
> Doug asked what I meant by modern concept of mass production.
>Mass production is a technic where consolidated materials both
>raw and finished are brought together to form a complex product
>in a centralize local. This is an idea that didn't exist in
>ancient times
Well that is simply wrong. Look at the evidence of the pyramid itself
a quarry was built and stones were transported to the site
lumber was required to be brought to the site
before this could happen barges had to be built to transport the materials
worker housing had to be built
all the support infrastructure, the causeway, docks and wharves had to be built.
this happened not just on the pyramids but all over the world where
monumental building projects were undertaken.
and workers in teams does not satisfy the
>requirement.
why? teams of workers were common everywhere from the
military table of organization to the crew of a boat. Particularly
in construction crews of workmen commonly work in teams
of from 2 to ten men.
It is necessary to work in mass production to
>maximize efficiency of work performed. Even the smallest of
>efficiencies saves significant time needed to perform a mass
>project. Khufu only has a maximum of ten years to finish the
>pyramid. It simply is not enuff time with team workers with all
>the inefficiencies involved with the way they worked.
One crew carves the block and takes it to the boat, a crew
on the boat transports it to the construction site, a crew at the
construction site drags it up to the pyramid, a crew at the pyramid
raises it with a tripod and boom from course to course, another
crew drags the block to its position in each course.
At any given time, if each of these crews is 3 men on average
and there are five distinct operations here thats 15 men
each of whom we allow to work on the block 6 days to do
their job; thats 90 man days per block
2,500,000 blocks x 90 man days is 225,000,000 man days
divided by 200,000 men thats 1125 days. Figure 300 working
days per year and the ratio of work days spent on construction
to work days spent on logistical support comes out to about
1 to 2.66 which seems to fit the usual model for skilled work
rather well.
> The problem involves how many workers in *teams* you can have in the
>same location without them running into each other.
Lets allow that at some stages small crews combine to all haul together
by the previous calculations we have about 28,500 men working on
the pyramid. Let them work in shifts with frequent rest breaks say two hours on
1 hour off two hours on so that a work force of 3 shifts is staggered to do 8 hours
work each over 12 hours
> How much finishing work was required to perform on site and how they
>organized the work force.
At any given time from 9,500 to 19,000 men are available to work
The perimeter of the pyramid starts at 1760 cubits and diminishes
while perhaps 10 2 cubit high courses are underway at any given time
( aside from the very start and the very end of the project)
plus the top surface of the pyramid where the stones are being laid.
You can't solve the problem by brute
>force by adding to the work force as there is only so much room.
That spreads 14,250 people over 3132800 square cubits of area
giving each workman about 22 square cubits to work in 7' x 7'
Thats if we assume they were not clustered into long trains
pulling blocks up or building ramps which would give them
even more room.
This is comparable to the number of men involved in fighting a
battle and would require about the same degree of
organization.
>There is a maximum number that you can use to perform the job
>and the work habits we know they used has too many
>inefficiencies. The maximum local on site workers is about 6,000
>at 10 feet per worker.
Not really enough of a difference to argue about, but I would
be interested to see where your number comes from.
Any more and they get into each others
>way. Another problem is how close to a finished product can
>support workers get each unit (block) to construct the building.
>The bottle neck is the 6,000 workers. They can only do so much a
>day and ten years is insufficient and even 20 years work would
>require non stop *flawless* performance by our own standards.
>The numbers just don't match reality.
Actually, as shown, the numbers work out to a pretty effective
work force.
>
>Four teams with one team for each side need to work flawlessly
>with all the other teams.
That seems a rather inadequate level of analysis. Why would the
number of sides affect the number of teams?
If one team is slower than the rest,
>the other teams can't continue until the slowest team is
>finished with their portion to know that the building is
>correctly level.
Not if many teams are working individually on a block by
block basis. If 15,000 workers in 3 man crews are on the job
and 1/2 of these are powering the machinery on the ground
of the remaining half the work force 1/2 are walking
back and forth between trips up the pyramid there are only
3,750 men actually moving stones at any given time
of these half are raising and half are placing stones
so perhaps 625 stones are in motion at any given time
thats about 15 stones per face per course or one
crew at work every 50 lineal feet.
Any problems like a worker getting hurt puts
>all teams off schedule until the team affected can finish its
>portion.
Not if you have a large number of small teams at work
using equipment that looks a lot like what the Egyptians
still use to raise water out of a well. its called a shaduf.
All such problems have solutions in mass production
>but not with team workers as such lacks any significant method
>to keep on schedule for the maximum performance.
Workers get paid by the piece, gangs compete, overseers
oversee...
Teams are
>dependent on every worker performing to their top level at all
>times to perform at the best rate possible. In mass production
>reliance on any one worker is minimized. Teams depend on
>highly skilled workers that can't be replaced without taking
>a resource from another team.
it really depends on the size of the team. If you look at modern
construction projects you will see that this table of organization
is the norm.
>
>In ten years you have 3000 days to finish and move into place
>two million blocks at 2 to 5 tons each. Good luck and too
>bad you don't believe in giants. Remember the teams can't be
>too big as asigning each worker too little space to move makes
>him unable to perform any useful work.
I don't think it would be a problem. If the project had a competent
architect and or master builder which seems to have been the case,
organizing the work assignments so as to have as many stones as
possible installed at the same time would have been desirable,
don't you think?
>
>--
>Respect - It's the only place to go.
>
>Chronology and issues of import
>http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/kjh/
steve
Mike Tittensor
Hmm. This article is just a little too logical and well thought out.
Something of a rarity, in fact. Sorry Steve, with the hunting season soon
approaching, I \'m afraid that we're just going to have shoot and stuff you
and put you a museum case.
"Last rational person on sci.archaelogy".
Then on Sundays, school teachers will lead their juvenile charges past your
case and point out that
"He was too logical. So he stuck out. So they shot him."
:-)
--
Mike Tittensor (mi...@heridoth.demon.co.uk)
Martin Stower
[some very sound comments]
>A long time ago I made a post that said that of course the pyramids weren't
>strictly "tombs". They were part of a pyramid complex which included temples
>and pyramid towns. Why hasn't anyone denouncing pyramids-as-tombs (Not done
>in this particular post, I'm just venting here) tried to look at the pyramid
>in its context?
>
>Steve Thurston
The problem is that `alternative' theories, more often than not,
actively deny that context.
Martin Stower
Whittet
>
>BTW, points not responded to are largely agreed upon.
wishful thinking?
>
>
>> >The question I asked was essentially "Why such an amazing feat of
>> >architecture so early in mans history of architecture?" Doesn't this
>> >contradict linear development and evolutionary progress?
>> snip
>> > -Most scholars believe the building was done only 3 months of the
>> > year, during the flood season.
>>
>> I think you've been consulting the wrong scholars. The current view
>> (even among those who differ on details) is that work continued
>> throughout the year.
>
>Actually, I was consulting the recent National Geographic issue focusing
>on Ancient Egypt and modern (rocksolid) understanding.
>I'll admit that it's hard to find the "right scholars" to consult.
Ask for bibliographies, you should recieve enough to deluge your
favorite librarian for weeks to come.
>
>
>> > -As anyone who has tried to coordinate human employment (especially on
>> > a large scale) (or even more specifically employment for building
>> > construction) surely knows, even with modern tools and understanding
>> > a project rarely is completed on time.
snip
>
>
>Well, you and Whittet make some good points. I'm glad you pointed out
>some major problems with Clayton's claims.
>I have to say though, that I have major problems with the picture
>painted by Whittet in his last post. He describes this very organized
>process facilitating a very do-able great pyramid.
>
>1) The tripod and boom. What evidence is there of this advanced concept
>in engineering?
What you are talking about is the same mast and boom used on boats
buried in pits around the Great Pyramid. To raise the sail of a boat
100 feet long you are required to lift 100 yards of heavy canvas or leather
plus its boom up a mast. A boom 50 feet long and 8" in diameter weighs
at least a half a ton and with the canvas is comparable to the weight of
a typical stone used in the pyramids construction.
For more info on boats of the period try reading "A History of Seafaring,
the Underwater Archaeology" by George F Bass.
Sailors frequently employed their booms in raising cargo to the
deck of a ship.
We're talking circa 3,000 BC! 500 years before then it
>was practically "Planet of the Apes"! No cities, no writing, no large
>boats, no need for civilization, and certainly no machines.
Yes, the advances were remarkable achievements and are
as a result quite well remarked on in the literature.
>Has proof of this device been established?
When you say certainly no machines check out some of
the Egyptian wall paintings from the old kingdom illustrating
the Egyptian industries. By the 3rd millenium BC there were
presses to squeeze olives and grapes. There were forges
and kilns and potters wheels; wheeled carts and boats
throughout the middle east.
>
>2) National Geographic was matter of factly stating the method used for
>building the pyramid. Whittet's ideas are quite different.
National Geographic is a magazine.
>
>3) How is it that 4th Dynasty Egyptians (again 3000 BC!) were able to
>dumbfound succesive man for 5000 years?! We still can't say with any
>degree of certainty how exactly they did it! These people were very
>primitive (by scientists own definition)!
I would disagree. Most archaeologists consider the Egyptians
achievements to be anything but primitive, even by our own
standards. Egyptologists are still figuring out how they did things
true, but that merely points to them still being a step or too
ahead of us. We can't dismiss the technology that built the
pyramids just because we don't completely understand it.
>
>4) Why have no other Pharoahs (with their Oh so big egos) ever
>endeavored to build another Pyramid even vaguely as big as the giza
>bunch (after the 4th dynasty).
There are many pyramids in Egypt of comparable size. The Great pyramid is
something like 230 m sq, Khepherens is 214.5 m sq
the pyramid of Zawyet al Aryan is 209 m sq
and was unfinished.
Snofru built two, one of 220 m sq, the shining pyramid or Red pyramid and
one of 183,5 m sq the bent pyramid
It's not that difficult, remember? It's
>not like they didn't have the gold or the power/influence. And
>certainly they would have had the desire, no?
>
>
>(rhetorical question) (you can anwer if you wish)
>How did hieratic writing evolve so much in 500 years or less?
Hieratic writing is present in a pretty fully evolved form
right from the start of the Old Kingdom. What evolved
was the hieroglyphic form with the addition of many
new glyphs in the New Kingdom.
>
>
>--
>The fool doth think he is wise,
>but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.
> -William Shakespeare
>
steve
Peter Szabo
> >The question I asked was essentially "Why such an amazing feat of
> >architecture so early in mans history of architecture?" Doesn't this
> >contradict linear development and evolutionary progress?
>
> So much for Progress. The Egyptians didn't believe in (the 19th Century
> idea of inevitable) Progress. Perhaps they were right not to.
And yet they progressed so much in 500 years.
(you will see a theme developing. Just helping you along...:) )
>
> >By the way, more points that would extend the time of building:
> >
> > -If this unquestionably impressive feat of megalithic architecture was
> > effected without a hitch, it would require significant intelligence
> > and planning(time).
> >
> > -If there was error (as there is possible evidence of) there would
> > have to be re-planning and correction(time).
> >
> > -Most scholars believe the building was done only 3 months of the
> > year, during the flood season.
>
> I think you've been consulting the wrong scholars. The current view
> (even among those who differ on details) is that work continued
> throughout the year.
Actually, I was consulting the recent National Geographic issue focusing
on Ancient Egypt and modern (rocksolid) understanding.
I'll admit that it's hard to find the "right scholars" to consult.
> > -As anyone who has tried to coordinate human employment (especially on
> > a large scale) (or even more specifically employment for building
> > construction) surely knows, even with modern tools and understanding
> > a project rarely is completed on time.
>
> The assumption being that modern tools and understanding would have been
> of benefit (itself suggestive of an unquestioning belief in Progress). I
A fair (even obvious) assumption, I think, considering the 5000 years of
development between us.
Well, you and Whittet make some good points. I'm glad you pointed out
some major problems with Clayton's claims.
I have to say though, that I have major problems with the picture
painted by Whittet in his last post. He describes this very organized
process facilitating a very do-able great pyramid.
1) The tripod and boom. What evidence is there of this advanced concept
in engineering? We're talking circa 3,000 BC! 500 years before then it
was practically "Planet of the Apes"! No cities, no writing, no large
boats, no need for civilization, and certainly no machines.
Has proof of this device been established?
2) National Geographic was matter of factly stating the method used for
building the pyramid. Whittet's ideas are quite different.
3) How is it that 4th Dynasty Egyptians (again 3000 BC!) were able to
dumbfound succesive man for 5000 years?! We still can't say with any
degree of certainty how exactly they did it! These people were very
primitive (by scientists own definition)!
4) Why have no other Pharoahs (with their Oh so big egos) ever
endeavored to build another Pyramid even vaguely as big as the giza
bunch (after the 4th dynasty). It's not that difficult, remember? It's
not like they didn't have the gold or the power/influence. And
certainly they would have had the desire, no?
(rhetorical question) (you can anwer if you wish)
How did hieratic writing evolve so much in 500 years or less?
--
Benjamin H. Diebold
: 1) The tripod and boom. What evidence is there of this advanced concept
: was practically "Planet of the Apes"! No cities, no writing, no large
: boats, no need for civilization, and certainly no machines.
I don't care much about the tripod and boom, but this idea that it was
Planet of the Apes time ca 3500 is dead wrong. This is about 5000 years
AFTER people had started living in sedentary, settled villages with
architecture and domesticated plants and animals. There are some pretty
substantial Halaf and Ubaid settlements in the Near East, and those are
closer to 5000BC. By 3500 BC you're already in the Uruk expansion, and
the city of Uruk itself is in the process of growing to some 400 hectares
in area. In short, it's enormous, and it's not alone.
These example are from the Near East, because that's mostly what I study,
but while Egypt does not experience the early urbanism of Mesopotamia,
they're also not a bunch of wild-eyed hunter-gatherers, either (not that
that's such a bad thing...).
There may not be much in the way of writing, but this idea that
civilization came out of nowhere ca 3000 BC is not supported by the evidence.
A nice approachable general reference for the ancient near east, by the
way, is A Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia, by Michael Roaf. A brilliant
work, and wonderfully illustrated. Kind of pricey, but a real treat.
Ben
Whittet
>
>A nice approachable general reference for the ancient near east, by the
>way, is A Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia, by Michael Roaf. A brilliant
>work, and wonderfully illustrated. Kind of pricey, but a real treat.
>
>Ben
It is one of the few books I have seen on Mesopotamia which includes
adjacencies to other cultures from Catyl Hyuk in Turkey and Jehrico
in the Jordan valley to Tepe Yaha in Pakistan and Shari Sokhfe in Afghanistan.
Iots of useful maps including one which shows finds of Indus style
etched carnelian beads from the Indus and mesopotamia to Iran and Oman,
and another which shows where Hittite inscriptions have been found.
comparative king lists spread across eight major mesopotamian city states
a useful book
steve
Peter Szabo
Disregard my email about losing this post. It came up again.
> What you are talking about is the same mast and boom used on boats
> buried in pits around the Great Pyramid. To raise the sail of a boat
Was it the boat + boom found, or just the boat?
Has one of these old kingdom boom/tripod things ever been found?
What evidence is there to support besides the fact that it was logically
needed to raise the mast and unload the cargo. IE: written references to
it, pictures of it, or one actually having been found.
Also, you would be dscribing a rather large device for use in lifting
2-5 ton stones to the top of the pyramid. I am envisioning a large
crane more or less. Has this large device ever been found? Is there
any real evidence for it?
> 100 feet long you are required to lift 100 yards of heavy canvas or leather
> plus its boom up a mast. A boom 50 feet long and 8" in diameter weighs
> at least a half a ton and with the canvas is comparable to the weight of
> a typical stone used in the pyramids construction.
>
> For more info on boats of the period try reading "A History of Seafaring,
> the Underwater Archaeology" by George F Bass.
>
> Sailors frequently employed their booms in raising cargo to the
> deck of a ship.
>
> We're talking circa 3,000 BC! 500 years before then it
> >was practically "Planet of the Apes"! No cities, no writing, no large
> >boats, no need for civilization, and certainly no machines.
>
> Yes, the advances were remarkable achievements and are
> as a result quite well remarked on in the literature.
>
> >Has proof of this device been established?
A simple yes or no would have been preferable.
(although I hadn't thought of some of the "machines" you mentioned.)
>
> When you say certainly no machines check out some of
> the Egyptian wall paintings from the old kingdom illustrating
> the Egyptian industries. By the 3rd millenium BC there were
> presses to squeeze olives and grapes. There were forges
> and kilns and potters wheels; wheeled carts and boats
> throughout the middle east.
> ahead of us. We can't dismiss the technology that built the
> pyramids just because we don't completely understand it.
I'm glad to hear you admit this. I'm not too fond of people that think
they have all the answers (you noticed?). However, I _am_ fond of
people that have most of the answers. :)
> There are many pyramids in Egypt of comparable size. The Great pyramid is
> something like 230 m sq, Khepherens is 214.5 m sq
> the pyramid of Zawyet al Aryan is 209 m sq
> and was unfinished.
> Snofru built two, one of 220 m sq, the shining pyramid or Red pyramid and
> one of 183,5 m sq the bent pyramid
OK. Sounds impressive. But I suspect Khufu's is still significantly
larger (and better). What happened to the (thus far rapidly
progressing) pyramid industry? Why could they never quite parallel or
surpass the Great Pyramid. As far as egos are concerned, there are no
points for second best.
One explanation is that the people wouldn't tolerate the tough labour
again. This is the best answer suggested by scientists that I've seen.
But taking into consideration the relative ease of building them
(according to most of your ideas) it would only be a matter of money and
resources. Obviously they had resource enough to build "comparable"
pyramids, but not quite as big.
I suggest that money wasn't the problem, technology was.
> It's not that difficult, remember? It's
> >not like they didn't have the gold or the power/influence. And
> >certainly they would have had the desire, no?
> >
> >
> >(rhetorical question) (you can anwer if you wish)
> >How did hieratic writing evolve so much in 500 years or less?
>
> Hieratic writing is present in a pretty fully evolved form
> right from the start of the Old Kingdom. What evolved
> was the hieroglyphic form with the addition of many
> new glyphs in the New Kingdom.
Why didn't it take much, much longer to develop hieratic script? Why
isn't there a slow development beginning with simple object depictions
that graduates (noticably) to the relatively advanced hieratic?
Since you like my following quotation so much, here it is twice!!
I dare you to quote it thus.
Charlie Rigano
>
>
>> There are many pyramids in Egypt of comparable size. The Great pyramid is
>> something like 230 m sq, Khepherens is 214.5 m sq
>> the pyramid of Zawyet al Aryan is 209 m sq
>> and was unfinished.
>> Snofru built two, one of 220 m sq, the shining pyramid or Red pyramid and
>> one of 183,5 m sq the bent pyramid
>
>OK. Sounds impressive. But I suspect Khufu's is still significantly
>larger (and better). What happened to the (thus far rapidly
>progressing) pyramid industry? Why could they never quite parallel or
>surpass the Great Pyramid. As far as egos are concerned, there are no
>points for second best.
>
>One explanation is that the people wouldn't tolerate the tough labour
>again. This is the best answer suggested by scientists that I've seen.
>But taking into consideration the relative ease of building them
>(according to most of your ideas) it would only be a matter of money and
>resources. Obviously they had resource enough to build "comparable"
>pyramids, but not quite as big.
>
>I suggest that money wasn't the problem, technology was.
>
>
Khufu called it the Horizon of Khufu. If someone else had
built a bigger one, it would probably be known as the GP.
Doesn't it make sense that pyramids would not continue to
get bigger and better. At some point the biggest would be
built. At some point our present skyscrapers will not get
any taller. Someone 4000 years from now may point to one
and call it the Great Skyscraper and wonder why noone built
a taller one.
Actually Khufu's father, Snofru built more cubic feet of
pyramids, and several built more complicated ones.
Charlie
Peter Szabo
So, due to your war against `alternative' theories you have a problem
with those arguing the "pyramid not tomb" theory because it resembles
that which you are against?
Is that really a problem?
What would you do all evening without `alternative' theories to address?
<g>
Whittet
>
>To Steve:
> Disregard my email about losing this post. It came up again.
>
>
>> What you are talking about is the same mast and boom used on boats
>> buried in pits around the Great Pyramid. To raise the sail of a boat
>
>Was it the boat + boom found, or just the boat?
Good question. While I remember seeing a photo of the pieces in the
vault I couldn't tell from the photo if the mast and boom were present
but I do belief at least one solar bark was in the range of 100 feet long
so a mast and boom would have been required.
Other illustrations of pieces of a boat found in one of the pits of which
the hull has been reassembled show just the hull. This appears to
be a somewhat smaller craft and no mast or step for a mast is evident.
from "History of Seafaring, the Underwater Archaeology", George F Bass
"A cedar vessel built during the reign of Sneferu was said to be 100 cubits
or 172' long"
"Relief in the tomb of Abibi at Saggara c 2500 BC showing men lowering a
typical bipod mast of the old kingdom."
Relief in the tomb of Ipi at Saqqara c 2500 BC shows a mast two yards,
pulleys, numerous fore and backstays.
" Both this ship and those from the pyramid of Sahure returning to Egypt with
Syrian prisoners show the typical bipod mast"
(two posts with cross bar over which the bipod mast is slid to a vertical position)
"A bas relief of Queen Hatshepsets expedition to Punt shows that by 1500 BC
the Egyptian sail had become broader than it was high"
"Atlas of Ancient Egypt", Baines and Ma'lek
"Our knowledge of ancient Egyptian shipping derives from representational evidence
(reliefs and paintings) model boats found in tombs, and isolated discoveries of
buried funary boats (at Giza and Dashur)"
"Old Kingdom, usually bipod mast probably trapezoidal sail usually more tall than wide"
"wooden model of boats are common finds from rock cut tombs of Moddle Egypt,
sailing boat from Beni Hasan, 12th Dynasty" (illustrates sail being raised from
masthead block)
"Cleopatras Needle" E A Wallis Budge
"We know from the Palermo stone that in the reign of Sneferu the Egyptians
were able to build sea going boats of great length and beam and of great
carrying capacity"
"They found no difficulty in building barges or lighters that were able to
transport blocks of stone weighing 900 to 1000 tons from the quarry to the temple"
The Egyptians hogged their boats with twisted cables much like those used
to power medieval catapults. Their balances or scales are shown in some
illustrations as the height of a man, the use of the shaduf is documented back
to the the Naquada culture. All these machines and engines (to use the terms
Vitruvious favors) might have been used to lift heavy loads.
>Has one of these old kingdom boom/tripod things ever been found?
Most of the evidence is from the bas reliefs, models and paintings
>What evidence is there to support besides the fact that it was logically
>needed to raise the mast and unload the cargo. IE: written references to
>it, pictures of it, or one actually having been found.
see above
>
>Also, you would be dscribing a rather large device for use in lifting
>2-5 ton stones to the top of the pyramid. I am envisioning a large
>crane more or less. Has this large device ever been found? Is there
>any real evidence for it?
I would not envision a large device, but rater a series of small devices.
In my own experience I had occasion to move a number of large solid
granite stones forming a monumental stair to a library. I put a considerable
amount of money into my bid to cover the cost then was fascinated to watch
the ease with which my masons manuvered the stones. (each of which
was 12' long and probably weighed a ton and a half.)
First they levered up one end of each stone to get a chain under it then
using a steel beam as a rail they slung the stone by the chain under the rail.
Using a come along (winch) they easily manuvered the stones along the rail
to wherever they wanted them to go
Herodotus describes them as either a series of small machines or
one small machine used over and over
>
>
>> 100 feet long you are required to lift 100 yards of heavy canvas or
>>leather plus its boom up a mast. A boom 50 feet long and 8" in diameter
>> weighs at least a half a ton and with the canvas is comparable to the weight
>>of a typical stone used in the pyramids construction.
>>
>> For more info on boats of the period try reading "A History of Seafaring,
>> the Underwater Archaeology" by George F Bass.
>>
>> Sailors frequently employed their booms in raising cargo to the
>> deck of a ship.
>>
>> We're talking circa 3,000 BC! 500 years before then it
>> >was practically "Planet of the Apes"! No cities, no writing, no large
>> >boats, no need for civilization, and certainly no machines.
>>
>> Yes, the advances were remarkable achievements and are
>> as a result quite well remarked on in the literature.
>>
>>
>Has proof of this device been established?
It is shown in use on the bas reliefs c 2500 BC, and then it is described in
considerably more detail in the writings of classical authors at much later dates
>
>A simple yes or no would have been preferable.
>(although I hadn't thought of some of the "machines" you mentioned.)
A lot of Egyptologists have proposed the use of such machines
I don't know if they have been tested in the building of a pyramid.
>>
>> When you say certainly no machines check out some of
>> the Egyptian wall paintings from the old kingdom illustrating
>> the Egyptian industries. By the 3rd millenium BC there were
>> presses to squeeze olives and grapes. There were forges
>> and kilns and potters wheels; wheeled carts and boats
>> throughout the middle east.
>
>
>> ahead of us. We can't dismiss the technology that built the
>> pyramids just because we don't completely understand it.
>
>I'm glad to hear you admit this. I'm not too fond of people that think
>they have all the answers (you noticed?). However, I _am_ fond of
>people that have most of the answers. :)
A good approach to debunking bad ideas is to be properly meticulous
Either the evidence is there or it is not. In most cases it is not.
Here, the speculation requires us to show that a demonstrated
technology used in one application _would_ have been used in
a different application. The fact that it _could _have been is only
a single step toward that goal.
>
>
>> There are many pyramids in Egypt of comparable size. The Great pyramid is
>> something like 230 m sq, Khepherens is 214.5 m sq
>> the pyramid of Zawyet al Aryan is 209 m sq
>> and was unfinished.
>> Snofru built two, one of 220 m sq, the shining pyramid or Red pyramid and
>> one of 183,5 m sq the bent pyramid
>
>OK. Sounds impressive. But I suspect Khufu's is still significantly
>larger (and better). What happened to the (thus far rapidly
>progressing) pyramid industry? Why could they never quite parallel or
>surpass the Great Pyramid. As far as egos are concerned, there are no
>points for second best.
My assumption is that each pyramid served a different purpose and
that they were not "just tombs" but also expressed the sorts of concepts
we see expressed in each Pharoahs different cartouche. Size was
qualitative and proportionate to an ideal not quantitative and not an
ego trip.
It was just what was right and proper, harmonious and balanced.
>
>One explanation is that the people wouldn't tolerate the tough labour
>again. This is the best answer suggested by scientists that I've seen.
I think the pyramids were built by skilled workmen taking pride in their work.
Most workmen "work smart" and expend no more labor than is required
to get the job done.
>But taking into consideration the relative ease of building them
>(according to most of your ideas) it would only be a matter of money and
>resources. Obviously they had resource enough to build "comparable"
>pyramids, but not quite as big.
>
>I suggest that money wasn't the problem, technology was.
I would suggest that neither was a problem, but that there was a shift
from the importance of kings to the importance of middle managers
in the seventh and eighth dynasties. We go from one king ruling for
a century to 70 ephemeral kings ruling in a period of 150 years.
Monumental architecture simply was replaced by an early version of
the bauhaus school...
>
>
>> It's not that difficult, remember? It's
>> >not like they didn't have the gold or the power/influence. And
>> >certainly they would have had the desire, no?
>> >
>> >
>> >(rhetorical question) (you can anwer if you wish)
>> >How did hieratic writing evolve so much in 500 years or less?
>>
>> Hieratic writing is present in a pretty fully evolved form
>> right from the start of the Old Kingdom. What evolved
>> was the hieroglyphic form with the addition of many
>> new glyphs in the New Kingdom.
>
>Why didn't it take much, much longer to develop hieratic script? Why
>isn't there a slow development beginning with simple object depictions
>that graduates (noticably) to the relatively advanced hieratic?
Why because the Egyptians were given it all worked out as a system
by the brilliant Thoth of course...
>
>
>
>Since you like my following quotation so much, here it is twice!!
>I dare you to quote it thus.
I prefer this
"Nothing is impossible for the man who refuses to listen to reason"
dialog of Maynerd G Krebs , "Dobie Gillis"
steve
Peter Szabo
>
> Most of the evidence is from the bas reliefs, models and paintings
>
> >What evidence is there to support besides the fact that it was logically
> >needed to raise the mast and unload the cargo. IE: written references to
> >it, pictures of it, or one actually having been found.
>
> see above
I hate to say it, but I don't yet see any evidence of wooden devices fit
to lift more than a ton, never mind 5 tons. The masts could be raised
and lowered with ropes and pulleys, but this is a lever action. Most of
the weight is on the base of the mast.
Just how they moved large stones on and off the boats I'm not clear on,
although I can picture methods that don't require raising the stones off
from the ground.
I'll tell you what though. I'm going to read up on this at the library
and hopefully then I can contribute better to this discusion.
> >
> >Also, you would be dscribing a rather large device for use in lifting
> >2-5 ton stones to the top of the pyramid. I am envisioning a large
> >crane more or less. Has this large device ever been found? Is there
> >any real evidence for it?
>
> I would not envision a large device, but rather a series of small devices.
There would have to be many in order to be efficient (and in order to
complete the pyramid in less than 50 years!) as a stone has to be placed
every X number of minutes....
> Herodotus describes them as either a series of small machines or
> one small machine used over and over
> >
> >
> >> 100 feet long you are required to lift 100 yards of heavy canvas or
> >>leather plus its boom up a mast. A boom 50 feet long and 8" in diameter
> >> weighs at least a half a ton and with the canvas is comparable to the weight
> >>of a typical stone used in the pyramids construction.
> >>
> >> For more info on boats of the period try reading "A History of Seafaring,
> >> the Underwater Archaeology" by George F Bass.
> >>
> >> Sailors frequently employed their booms in raising cargo to the
> >> deck of a ship.
> >>
> >> We're talking circa 3,000 BC! 500 years before then it
> >> >was practically "Planet of the Apes"! No cities, no writing, no large
> >> >boats, no need for civilization, and certainly no machines.
> >>
> >> Yes, the advances were remarkable achievements and are
> >> as a result quite well remarked on in the literature.
> >>
> >>
> >Has proof of this device been established?
>
> It is shown in use on the bas reliefs c 2500 BC, and then it is described in
> considerably more detail in the writings of classical authors at much later dates
I don't recognize any reference to it in your post but, as I said, I'm
going to read about this myself soon.
> A good approach to debunking bad ideas is to be properly meticulous
> Either the evidence is there or it is not. In most cases it is not.
>
> Here, the speculation requires us to show that a demonstrated
> technology used in one application _would_ have been used in
> a different application. The fact that it _could _have been is only
> a single step toward that goal.
If after reading about this, I see demonstrable evidence of the first
application (in old kingdom) I will be more than willing to apply it to
the second application. (one benefit to not being a scientist is I
don't have to meticulously prove everything!) >:)
> My assumption is that each pyramid served a different purpose and
> that they were not "just tombs" but also expressed the sorts of concepts
> we see expressed in each Pharoahs different cartouche. Size was
> qualitative and proportionate to an ideal not quantitative and not an
> ego trip.
I'm interested to hear your theories on possible (aesthetic?) functions
of the pyramids, especially relating to Pharoahs cartouche(s).
> >Why didn't it take much, much longer to develop hieratic script? Why
> >isn't there a slow development beginning with simple object depictions
> >that graduates (noticably) to the relatively advanced hieratic?
>
> Why because the Egyptians were given it all worked out as a system
> by the brilliant Thoth of course...
I am compelled to agree!
BTW. What have you to say about those fellows that fictionalized you
explaining the movement of the 150 ton sphinx rocks?
(You know. That post commenting on Bauval's symposium.)
Do you have an explanation for that?
Do egyptologists?
> I prefer this
>
> "Nothing is impossible for the man who refuses to listen to reason"
>
> dialog of Maynerd G Krebs , "Dobie Gillis"
Still trying to decide if I agree with that.
Til then,
Whittet
>
>> >Has one of these old kingdom boom/tripod things ever been found?
>>
>> Most of the evidence is from the bas reliefs, models and paintings
>>
>> >What evidence is there to support besides the fact that it was logically
>> >needed to raise the mast and unload the cargo. IE: written references to
>> >it, pictures of it, or one actually having been found.
>>
>> see above
>
>I hate to say it, but I don't yet see any evidence of wooden devices fit
>to lift more than a ton, never mind 5 tons. The masts could be raised
>and lowered with ropes and pulleys, but this is a lever action. Most of
>the weight is on the base of the mast.
Even though both involve moments and couples, pulleys and levers
are two different types of machine
The wind load on a sail of area 20 cubits by 50 cubits is something like
37,500 pounds, almost 19 tons. If this is transfered by the yards to the mast
as an eccentric point load at the mast head, the reaction at the mass step
would be about 750 tons. (M= PL) If the bottom yard is a boom attached to
the mast the formula is (M=PL/4) and with L reduced from 30 to 10 the
maximum moment which now occurs a third of the way up the mast is
just under 47 tons. If you use two masts the load is divided in half and
the maximum moment is 23 1/2 tons.
That is how the Egyptians indeed designed their masts and booms.
The maximum moment would reguire a section of ( S = M/Fb) 39
(S= bd^2/6) , two 6 x 8 masts and a boom tapering from a 4 x 4 at
its end to an 8 x 12 dimension at the mast.
Such a boom could lift 3 tons 20 feet and if counter weighted with rocks
could be operated by a crew of three with no difficulty.
The stones used in building the Great Pyramid were in that range
with the exception of the relieving gables and those were probably raised
by the combined efforts of several (20 or 30) teams.
Hauling one 700 ton stone up a ramp let alone 70 of them would be
a daunting task. Lifting them with a series of masts and booms short
distances as the construction proceeded would be easier.
>
>Just how they moved large stones on and off the boats I'm not clear on,
>although I can picture methods that don't require raising the stones off
>from the ground.
Masts and booms already present on the boats seem like the
most reasonable explanation. A boat or barge of 100 feet in length
is built on land and moved into the water. Ocasionaly it has to be
hauled out to make repairs. If you can move something as heavy
as a water logged 70 ton boat you can move a 3 ton rock.
>I'll tell you what though. I'm going to read up on this at the library
>and hopefully then I can contribute better to this discusion.
That sounds like a great idea, I encourage you to do so.
>
>
>> >
>> >Also, you would be dscribing a rather large device for use in lifting
>> >2-5 ton stones to the top of the pyramid. I am envisioning a large
>> >crane more or less. Has this large device ever been found? Is there
>> >any real evidence for it?
>>
>> I would not envision a large device, but rather a series of small devices
>.
>
>There would have to be many in order to be efficient (and in order to
>complete the pyramid in less than 50 years!) as a stone has to be placed
>every X number of minutes....
Yes, that is the general idea.
>
>
>> Herodotus describes them as either a series of small machines or
>> one small machine used over and over
>> >snip
>> >Why didn't it take much, much longer to develop hieratic script? Why
>> >isn't there a slow development beginning with simple object depictions
>> >that graduates (noticably) to the relatively advanced hieratic?
>>
>> Why because the Egyptians were given it all worked out as a system
>> by the brilliant Thoth of course...
>
>I am compelled to agree!
>
are you really? <g>
>
>BTW. What have you to say about those fellows that fictionalized you
>explaining the movement of the 150 ton sphinx rocks?
>(You know. That post commenting on Bauval's symposium.)
>Do you have an explanation for that?
>Do egyptologists?
>> "Nothing is impossible for the man who refuses to listen to reason"
>>
>> dialog of Maynerd G Krebs , "Dobie Gillis"
>
>Still trying to decide if I agree with that.
<g>
>Til then,
(peter)
>
steve
Stella Nemeth
>Well, you and Whittet make some good points. I'm glad you pointed out
>some major problems with Clayton's claims.
>I have to say though, that I have major problems with the picture
>painted by Whittet in his last post. He describes this very organized
>process facilitating a very do-able great pyramid.
>1) The tripod and boom. What evidence is there of this advanced concept
>in engineering? We're talking circa 3,000 BC! 500 years before then it
>was practically "Planet of the Apes"! No cities, no writing, no large
>boats, no need for civilization, and certainly no machines.
>Has proof of this device been established?
Try wall paintings. I know I've seen at least one showing peasants
dipping water from the Nile into the fields. Egyptian farmers still
use the same mechanism today.
The Egyptians didn't do much in the way of big cities at any point.
You don't need writing to build megalithic buildings. Lots of other
civilizations did it without writing. Please define "large boats."
Please define "machines."
>2) National Geographic was matter of factly stating the method used for
>building the pyramid. Whittet's ideas are quite different.
There are a lot of differing ideas on how the pyramids were built.
Whittet was opining based on his professional capacity as an
architect. He knows how building crews are organized, because it is
his buisness to organize building crews.
Who wrote the article in National Geographic? And what did he base
his information on? Was it a general overview of Egyptian history as
a whole? If so, it isn't surprising that some areas might be out of
date.
>3) How is it that 4th Dynasty Egyptians (again 3000 BC!) were able to
>dumbfound succesive man for 5000 years?! We still can't say with any
>degree of certainty how exactly they did it! These people were very
>primitive (by scientists own definition)!
Primitive doesn't mean stupid. The reason we don't know how they
built the pyramids is that they didn't write down how they did it. It
isn't that we couldn't build one for ourselves if we wanted to.
>4) Why have no other Pharoahs (with their Oh so big egos) ever
>endeavored to build another Pyramid even vaguely as big as the giza
>bunch (after the 4th dynasty). It's not that difficult, remember? It's
>not like they didn't have the gold or the power/influence. And
>certainly they would have had the desire, no?
They built other things. They didn't have the gold or the
power/influence. The country ran out of money. After a while, the
government of Egypt collapsed. And in part, it was an economic
collapse.
>(rhetorical question) (you can anwer if you wish)
>How did hieratic writing evolve so much in 500 years or less?
How does anything evolve in 500 years? Take a good look at the
history of European handwriting. I think you might be amazed at how
much it changed between the years 500 and 1000.
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
NLFRANCO
Eyes of the Sphinx" states:
"The painted marks used symbols which did not even exist in Khufu's time.
Over the centuries, the picture symbols of ancient Egypt turned into a
'hieratic language'--long after Khufu. Even Richard Lepsius, the
(presumed) discoverer of the Labyrinth, wondered about the brush-painted
red symbols because they resembled the hieratic language."
"Vyse, a military man, not an Egyptologist, knew only one standard book
about hieroglyphs: the textbook 'Materia Hieroglyphica' by John Gardner
Wilkinson, published in 1928. It was discovered later that the name
'Kufu' is misspelled in Wilkinson's textbook. The consonant 'Kh' was
mistakenly shown as the sun symbol 'Re.' The impostors Vyse and Perring
not only used a language which did not develop until many centuries after
Khufu, they also copied the orthographic mistake from Wilkinson's
textbook."
Ok, so the one and only marking is a hoax. Does this prove that Khufu was
not the builder? Absolutely not. Is there anything that proves he was
the builder? No, not really, just a desire to make all the pieces fit so
the problem will go away. But the problem won't go away until we change
our way of thinking. It's like trying to find burried treasure by looking
only in your backyard. Sure, you will get all the credit, and certainly
your ability to control every aspect of the discovery will insure you
receive maximum benefit. But it's unlikely you will find any real
treasure. We should be examining everything as highly significant unless
it is found to be otherwise. For instance there is a strange rock in the
pyramid that contains a measure in the form of a relief 1 unit by 5 units
in dimension. One is to five as five is to twenty five, and there are
365.2422 of these 25 represented in the length of a side at the base of
the pyramid. What of this rock? It certainly isn't the rubble one would
perceive. Heck, maybe the sarcophagus isn't a sarcophagus. How much
would the contents weigh if we filled it water? There isn't anything
about this structure that we can treat as insignificant. You don't put
something like this together without representing its higher purpose in
simplistic detail.
It's entirely possible that the structure was never intended as a tomb.
It's entirely possible that it was built thirty thousand years ago and has
always been the enigma for successive millenia that it is today.
Certainly a coveted piece of real estate. A holy ground where ancient
beliefs could be studied and acted out as faithfully as possible--always
stopping short of desecrating the site with inscriptions depicting an
erroneous origin.
Whittet
>
>Whittet (whi...@shore.net) wrote:
>Date: 12 Mar 1996 15:19:15 GMT
>
>:In article <4i28k0$m...@freenet3.scri.fsu.edu>,
>: cco...@freenet2.scri.fsu.edu says...
>
continuing the discussion of how a large workforce
could be organized to work together in antiquity.
snip
>... That is not the problem tho it has to be done to keep the builders
>supplied so that their productivity is not affected.
>You don't have 200,000 workers from the population to
>use as it is too small. To use that many workers you
>can't work year round nor does the economy allow it as
>taking that many workers out of work force makes them
>tax expenses instead of contributers.
As previously addressed the available workforce is 1,750,000 men
of whom 200,000 work 100,000 at a time in three month shifts
according to Herodotus Book II Euterpe'
>
>:> The problem involves how many workers in *teams* you can have
>:> in the same location without them running into each other.
Yes, that is a good issue.
>
>:Lets allow that at some stages small crews combine to all haul
>:together by the previous calculations we have about 28,500 men
>:working on the pyramid. Let them work in shifts with frequent
>:rest breaks say two hours on 1 hour off two hours on so that
>:a work force of 3 shifts is staggered to do 8 hours work each
>:over 12 hours
>
> You can only work when it is light out and the weather
>isn't too bad. On average 9 hours a day and about 200 days
>a year - 250 days if you want to ride ruff on your workers.
The length of a day in antiquity was dawn to dusk and
12 hours was probably a pretty average day. This is indeed
the case through most of history up until the modern labor
movements. There were no weekends, paid vacations or
Holidays, but we are told the men worked in shifts three
months on and three months off.
That gives 36,524,000 man days per year.
>You have a problem with organizing that many workers to a
>structure not 800 feet per side. It is the size of the
>structure that limits how many can work on it at one time.
>Brute force calculations simply fail here for any practical
>effort in placing the blocks in place.
Not really as shown below. Of the total workers
A.)some are in the quarries
B.)some haul blocks to the Nile
C.)some ferry them across the Nile
D.)some haul them up to the pyramid
E.)some work the engines (shadufs) which raise them
F.)some put the blocks in place on the pyramid.
G.)some are working on the causeway
H.)some are working on the mortuary temple
I.)some are architects, project managers, overseers and engineers
J.)some are purchasing agents, cooks, bakers, gophers
The table of organization is also a pyramid. Of the 100,000 men
working on the pyramid in any given shift only 20 % are actually
working anywhere near the pyramid itself and only fifty % of that
number are on the pyramid at the same time
>
>:> How much finishing work was required to perform on site and
>:> how they organized the work force.
>
>:At any given time from 9,500 to 19,000 men are available to work
>:The perimeter of the pyramid starts at 1760 cubits and diminishes
>:while perhaps 10 2 cubit high courses are underway at any given
>:time (aside from the very start and the very end of the project)
>:plus the top surface of the pyramid where the stones are being
>:laid.
>
> 2.5 to 5 thousand per side? A little crowded since you only
>have about 750 feet per side. It would be too crowded at 1.5
>thousand per side. How are you organizing it to allow that many?
>If you use multiple teams, how do they get out of the way for the
>other teams to do their job? Your too crowded already to move
>them out of the way in time not to interfer with the pace you
>need to finish on time.
>
>:> You can't solve the problem by brute force by adding to the
>:>work force as there is only so much room.
>
>:That spreads 14,250 people over 3132800 square cubits of area
>:giving each workman about 22 square cubits to work in 7' x 7'
>
> Having people in front of you and in back pushing you to
>finish so they can get on is not what I would call safe. Are
>you assuming there are works all over the complex at all times?
>Teams in front and teams in back? Just being able to put
>workers on the site is not proof of doing so is effective in
>building the complex.
Interestingly enough that compares favorably to the space
allotted to workers in a modern office or factory. You need
to realise that each team forms a somewhat denser cluster
with perhaps 50 feet of separation between teams. The image
which comes to mind is the pictures of chinese coolies working
on the Panama canal or any of a number of dams, roads or
railways for which we have old news footage.
>
>:Thats if we assume they were not clustered into long trains
>:pulling blocks up or building ramps which would give them
>:even more room.
>
> No archeological evidence for ramps (been looked for)
>and tradition said they used mobile tripods.
Yes, tripods (shadufs) were probably what Herodotus describes
as " 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 recieved the stone upon its
arrival and conveyed it to the second step, whence a third machine
advanced it still higher."
>
>:This is comparable to the number of men involved in fighting a
>:battle and would require about the same degree of organization.
>
> Moving a stone into place is not comparable to the free
>movement of a wall of warriors.
Sure it is. Both require the use of force to achieve an objective.
The number of men required is proportional to the resistance
offered.
The most advantageous use of men often breaks down armies
into battalions with different objectives,
companies with different responsibilities,
platoons which work in shifts providing some relief
and squads trained in specialized procedures.
>
>:>There is a maximum number that you can use to perform the job
>:>and the work habits we know they used has too many
>:>inefficiencies. The maximum local on site workers is about
>:>6,000 at 10 feet per worker.
>
>:Not really enough of a difference to argue about, but I would
>:be interested to see where your number comes from.
>
> The 6,000 number comes from a twenty man team with a total
>of ten feet wide space for the team (750 feet per side). Even
>this not practical as there is not enuff space. A more
>practical example is below.
Why would you organize workers into a twenty man team?
What is each mans responsibility?
What is he doing at any given time?
How far does his responsibility extend?
Does he quarry the stone, transport it across the river, haul it to the
pyramid, raise it up and put it in place?
If these functions are performed by different teams does it take
as many men to transport a stone across the Nile as it does to
haul it up the hill from the river to the site?
What about the other related work, who does that?
>
> 30 twenty man teams per side that can work at any one time
>which gives each team ten feet on both sides of themselves and 5
>feet for the block.
This seems like a somewhat shallow analysis to me.
The real questions are things like
How much time gets spent dead heading back to the point of origin
after you have made your delivery?
How much time do we allocate to providing 100,000 men with rations
and who does that work?
Herodotus
"There is an inscription in Egyptian charecters on the pyramid
which records the quantity of radishes onions and garlic consumed
by the laborours who constructed it and I perfectly well remember that
the interperter who read the writing to me said that the money expended
in this way was 1600 talents of silver"
A talent was 60 minahs and a minah 60 sheckels. It weighed 66 pounds
and was about 1 cubic foot of silver 1600 x 66 pounds of silver = 52.8 tons
of silver, 576,000 sheckles (at a time when 20 sheckles would buy a slave)
expended on condiments for the workers lunches.
Less room than that and it becomes unsafe
>making it possible another team could harm another and not be
>able to get out of the way in time from any accidents. Too many
>accidents and you can't get any one to work. Slave labor will
>not do as these are skilled workers.
We are agreed that the workers were skilled workers doing the
work because they felt it was important. I would submit that
the function of tomb is inadequade to explain the commitment
of the workforce to the work.
>(cconway)
steve
Whittet
>
>With respect to the quarry-marks controversy the explanation given in "The
>Eyes of the Sphinx" states:
>
>"The painted marks used symbols which did not even exist in Khufu's time.
>Over the centuries, the picture symbols of ancient Egypt turned into a
>'hieratic language'--long after Khufu. Even Richard Lepsius, the
>(presumed) discoverer of the Labyrinth, wondered about the brush-painted
>red symbols because they resembled the hieratic language."
>
>"Vyse, a military man, not an Egyptologist, knew only one standard book
>about hieroglyphs: the textbook 'Materia Hieroglyphica' by John Gardner
>Wilkinson, published in 1928. It was discovered later that the name
>'Kufu' is misspelled in Wilkinson's textbook. The consonant 'Kh' was
>mistakenly shown as the sun symbol 'Re.' The impostors Vyse and Perring
>not only used a language which did not develop until many centuries after
>Khufu, they also copied the orthographic mistake from Wilkinson's
>textbook."
Anyone really concerned that the quarry marks in the Great Pyramid
are forgeries should check out Martin Stowers homepage. He has taken
the time to track down the source of this rumour and debug it.
Why should we be suprised to find Sitchin once again features prominently?
This ought to be among the topics which head the FAQ Doug.
>snip
We should be examining everything as highly significant unless
>it is found to be otherwise. For instance there is a strange rock in the
>pyramid that contains a measure in the form of a relief 1 unit by 5 units
>in dimension. One is to five as five is to twenty five, and there are
>365.2422 of these 25 represented in the length of a side at the base of
>the pyramid.
This would be an interesting comment to see properly cited and sourced.
The measurements of the Great Pyramid have interested generations of
egyptologists for centuries.
To my knowledge there is still no agreed upon list of accepted mathematical
or other relationships incorporated in its dimensions except:
1.) That the base was intended to be 440 royal cubits of 28 fingers
2.)and the height 280 cubits of 28 royal fingers
3.)giving a slant side or apothem of 356 cubits.
A.) From this you can derive Pi, and Phi with little argument
B.)a whole bunch of other neat stuff with a lot more argument
Including but by no means limited to,
a.)relations to the length of a year
b.)and the circumference of the Earth
4.)The position of the Great Pyramid seems intentionally placed
A.) Near the Niles Delta,
B.)on a north South axis; where it forms
C.)one point of an equilateral triangle encompasing the Delta.
D.)In a number of other more contraversial relationships limited
only by the imagination, of which the recent proposal of allignment
with Orion suggested by Bauval is but one in a long list
> What of this rock? It certainly isn't the rubble one would perceive.
>Heck, maybe the sarcophagus isn't a sarcophagus.
Maybe not. The best way to determine this is to compare it to other sarcophagi
of the same period and tell us what it is that makes a sarcophagi what it is and
what it is that makes the coffer something else. You could compare dimensions,
inscriptions, its location in the pyramid, the type of room it is found in, other
characteristics of burials usually found in such a room including an inventory
stella in a niche, canopic jars, wall paintings, all the necessary acoutrements
of burials besides the sarcophagi which are usually found in association with it.
comparisons to burials in other pyramids...
I have yet to see this really well done with proper cites.
snip
>It's entirely possible that the structure was never intended as a tomb.
Yes that is possible, but remains to be proven.
>It's entirely possible that it was built thirty thousand years ago
No, that is not possible and is the sort of spurious association which calls
other conjectures into question.
snip
steve
Doug Weller
cco...@freenet2.scri.fsu.edu (Clayton Conway) wrote:
[SNIP]
> blocks a year. Mind telling us where you get 200,000 men to
> work? The population of ancient Egypt is not a given and is
> known to be much less in acient times than the big population
> of Ptolemic times of 2 to 3 million total. The man labor
> power at any time is 1/7 of living people. I'll be generous
> nd give you 1 1/2 million population and 1/5 work force.
> Total labor force of 300,000, but that is total of which 9
> out of 10 have to work on the farm to feed the population.
I presume then that you also reject the Biblical figures
for the exodus of 600 000 men of fighting age plus dependents,
as that would have meant more Jews than Egyptians!
(I'm quite happy to reject the figures myself, by the way).
[SNIP]
--
Stella Nemeth
>Whittet (whi...@shore.net) wrote:
>Date: 12 Mar 1996 15:19:15 GMT
>:In article <4i28k0$m...@freenet3.scri.fsu.edu>,
>: cco...@freenet2.scri.fsu.edu says...
>:>Martin Stower (mar...@dcs.shef.ac.uk) wrote:
I'm not getting into the main discussion of this, because I am clearly
not qualified to discuss moving huge blocks of rock around. I only
have a few comments that I think all the participants ought to look
at.
>:>: >acceptable. At this point many start telling us how they mass
>:>: >produced and organized the labor as we do in modern times, but
>:>: >mass production is a modern concept and was not available as it
>:>: >was against their cultural understanding.
>:You are making some assumptions which do not reflect a very deep
>:investigation of construction practices in antiquity.
> Cite mass production. You can't as it only developed starting
>with Ford in the 20th century.
I think you are all using differing definitions of "mass production".
You might want to define the term so you are sure you aren't arguing
about something that you actually agree with each other on.
>:> Doug asked what I meant by modern concept of mass production.
>:>Mass production is a technic where consolidated materials both
>:>raw and finished are brought together to form a complex product
>:>in a centralize local. This is an idea that didn't exist in
>:>ancient times
>:Well that is simply wrong. Look at the evidence of the pyramid
>:itself a quarry was built and stones were transported to the site
>:lumber was required to be brought to the site before this could
>:happen barges had to be built to transport the materials worker
>:housing had to be built all the support infrastructure, the
>:causeway, docks and wharves had to be built. this happened not
>:just on the pyramids but all over the world where monumental
>:building projects were undertaken.
> The above is not mass production.
Yup, you definately need to agree to a term that all of you can use
for the idea above.
> You can only work when it is light out and the weather
>isn't too bad. On average 9 hours a day and about 200 days
>a year - 250 days if you want to ride ruff on your workers.
You are discussing an outdoor building project in Egypt. They don't
have "weather" in Egypt. It doesn't rain there. They do have
variations in heat. The people working outdoor jobs in Arizona handle
that by being on the job at first light and finishing their day
extremely early by the standards of the rest of the country. The
Egyptians probably did that too.
I would expect that professional archaeologists working in Egypt today
could tell you a lot about how to deal with the weather related
working conditions in that climate. Does anyone know how it is
handled today?
>:it really depends on the size of the team. If you look at
>:modern construction projects you will see that this table of
>:organization is the norm.
>The great pyramid is not the norm.
From what has been said on this thread, it isn't all that different,
even in size, to lots of other pyramids out there. What made the Gaza
pyramids a Wonder of the World in ancient times was the complete
complex, which included three big pyramids, several small ones, a sea
of mastabas, temples attached to each of the pyramids, a huge sphinx,
and causeways to the river lined with sphinx kittens. It is also one
of the most aesthetically awesome sights in the world even today and
must have been even more so when the pyramids and temples gleamed in
the sun.
The thing that has to be remembered is that there weren't just three
pyramids. Just about every king for well over 1000 years built at
least one of the things. It had to have been possible to build them,
since they DID get built. Over and over and over again.
Please remember that you are arguing about HOW to get the building
built in an average of 20 years, because let me remind you again that
they DID BUILD at least one of the silly things every 20 years for
centuries.
> Yes, and with a century you could do it right which was
>obviously done. To be able to do it right quicker would require
>more workers than was available to Khufu who would have needed
>more money in taxes than was possible especially if he used all
>his worker base as income outflow.
They obviously didn't take a century to build one pyramid because they
actually built between 5 and 8 of them during that century. (I am NOT
counting the small attendant ones.)
>Khufu has not the manpower, money, nor a culture willing to
>work at mass production rates. It is possible for man to do
>anything but he has to have supports in his culture to
>consider it worth his while. Ancient Egypt did not have it.
Even if Ancient Egypt didn't have the manpower, money nor the culture
to do the job, they obviously did it anyway. Time to spend the energy
in figuring out how.
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
Whittet
>: by Khufu if you discard the instances of his cartouche
>: exterior to the structure and references in the
>: literature of the time to his building project, and the
>: burials of his family around it and the architectural
>: organization of his necropolis around the pyramid you
>: are still left with the presence of quarry marks which
>: use his cartouche interior to the structure which
>: pretty much put the icing on the cake.
>
>:> With traditional work habits known to exist during the
>:> time your not going to make it.
>
>
>:To move 2,500,000 stones in 10 years is 250,000 stones a year
>:with an army of 200,000 men thats not a big deal
>
>
> I was letting the brute force figures off the hook but
>since you insist to put this problem on the table so be it.
>I'll give you the 20 years working year round or only 125,000
>blocks a year. Mind telling us where you get 200,000 men to
>work?
This figure is from Herodotus Book II Euterpe
"A hundred thousand men laboured constantly and were replaced
every three months by a fresh lot" Thus 200,000 men worked on
the project in shifts.
The population of ancient Egypt is not a given and is
>known to be much less in acient times than the big population
>of Ptolemic times of 2 to 3 million total.
The figures given by Budge place the population in antiquity
at 7 to 10 million "The Nile" E A Wallis Budge
> The man labor power at any time is 1/7 of living people.
where does this figure come from???
>I'll be generous and give you 1 1/2 million population and 1/5 work force.
>Total labor force of 300,000, but that is total of which 9
>out of 10 have to work on the farm to feed the population.
These figures look pretty off the cuff to me, can you cite something
to back them up?
If we assume a population of 7 million and of that fifty percent are
women and of the remaining population another fifty percent are
either too old or too young to work; that leaves 1,750,000 workers
available to do the work. Using 100,000 of them at any given time
takes about 5 -6 % of the available workforce leaving 95% to do
other things.
snip
> The causeway stones were much larger than those used in
>the pyramid. The 13 acres is just the base of the great
>pyramid and does not count the entire project.
>
>
>:>: > Now, how long does it take to prepare to build a structure
>:>: >like the pyramid?
>
>:Not as long as you seem to think. Assuming each stone takes 3
>:men a month from start to finish and there are 2,500,000 stones
>:and 200,000 men, the job of building the pyramid, exclusive of
>:staging the project would take a little over 3 years. The three
>:men a month figure comes from such reconstructive efforts as
>:this old pyramid. If we assume that only 1/3 of those 200,000
>:men were actual workmen and the rest were logistical support if
>:would take about 9 1/2 years. The United States Army provides
>:the ratio of combat arms to logistics and it is also used by
>:the AGC (Associated General Contractors) in its project
>:management seminar.
>
>
> Using the values of modern logistical technics is not
>reasonable. I'll give you the 3 men a month figure, but only
>in getting the bock to the site. The problem at site is the
>unresolve one.
The three men a month includes the entire scope of work
furnished and installed
Herodotus again
"Some were required to drag blocks of stone down to the Nile from
the quarries of the Arabian range of hills; others recieved the blocks
after they had been conveyed in boats across the river and drew them
to the range of hills called the Libyan"
>
>
>:>: >acceptable. At this point many start telling us how they mass
>:>: >produced and organized the labor as we do in modern times, but
>:>: >mass production is a modern concept and was not available as it
>:>: >was against their cultural understanding.
>
>:You are making some assumptions which do not reflect a very deep
>:investigation of construction practices in antiquity.
>
> Cite mass production. You can't as it only developed starting
>with Ford in the 20th century.
>
>:The assumption that no work would proceed on preparing the site
>:for the the pyramid while the causeway was being built, or that
>:this preparation would not be counted as a part of the pyramids
>:time to construct seems oddly contrived to say the least
>
> If the causeway serves no useful purpose, why construct it?
Its purpose is architectural rather than a construction facility.
>
>:> Doug asked what I meant by modern concept of mass production.
>:>Mass production is a technic where consolidated materials both
>:>raw and finished are brought together to form a complex product
>:>in a centralize local. This is an idea that didn't exist in
>:>ancient times
>
>:Well that is simply wrong. Look at the evidence of the pyramid
>:itself a quarry was built and stones were transported to the site
>:lumber was required to be brought to the site before this could
>:happen barges had to be built to transport the materials worker
>:housing had to be built all the support infrastructure, the
>:causeway, docks and wharves had to be built. this happened not
>:just on the pyramids but all over the world where monumental
>:building projects were undertaken.
>
> The above is not mass production.
It fits your definition. "a technic where consolidated materials both
raw and finished are brought together to form a complex product
in a centralize local. "
>
>:>and workers in teams does not satisfy the requirement.
>
>:why? teams of workers were common everywhere from the
>:military table of organization to the crew of a boat.
>:Particularly in construction crews of workmen commonly
>:work in teams of from 2 to ten men.
>
> Mass production is making a finished complex
>product by workers needing no skill except assembly.
Ok, you wish to redefine your terms. I don't think the concept
of unskilled workers is applicaple and thus the definition
is a poor one.
>In teams a worker can't perform until a skilled
>worker finishes their part. A team has to wait
>until all the other teams are done with their part
>to start their own work.
Why? Most construction projects are organized a lot like battles
Armies of men are broken down into companies. Platoons of
laborers and squads of skilled specialists. Construction
project management is the science of using them effectively.
> This is not true for assembly as all parts are already at the dispose of
>the worker. That was not how ancient workers worked.
The pyramids were a construction project not a manufacturing operation.
>:> It is necessary to work in mass production to
>:>maximize efficiency of work performed.
The real question is what is it necessary to do to utilize the various skills
of an army of men effectively? Generally a team approach seems to be
both what is described by Herodotus and what modern project managers
have found to be the most effective use of human resources.
>:> Even the smallest of
>:>efficiencies saves significant time needed to perform a mass
>:>project. Khufu only has a maximum of ten years to finish the
>:>pyramid. It simply is not enuff time with team workers with
>:>all the inefficiencies involved with the way they worked.
If you start with false assumptions you will reach false conclusions
To assure your assumptions are not false you should check them
against the available evidence. In this case that check fails.
>
>:One crew carves the block and takes it to the boat, a crew on
>:the boat transports it to the construction site, a crew at
>:the construction site drags it up to the pyramid, a crew at
>:the pyramid raises it with a tripod and boom from course to
>:course, another crew drags the block to its position in each
>:course.
>
>:At any given time, if each of these crews is 3 men on average
>:and there are five distinct operations here thats 15 men
>:each of whom we allow to work on the block 6 days to do
>:their job; thats 90 man days per block
>
>All acceptable.
>
>:2,500,000 blocks x 90 man days is 225,000,000 man days
>:divided by 200,000 men thats 1125 days. Figure 300 working
>:days per year and the ratio of work days spent on construction
>:to work days spent on logistical support comes out to about
>:1 to 2.66 which seems to fit the usual model for skilled work
>:rather well.
>
> That only gets the block to the site.
No, that gets the block furnished and installed.
>(cconway)
steve
Peter Szabo
explain they're knowledge of Pi when the Egyptians had barely learned to
write (required to perform geometric math).
Thoth right?
(please noone argue my interpretation of "barely", gawd!)
> >It's entirely possible that it was built thirty thousand years ago
>
> No, that is not possible and is the sort of spurious association which calls
> other conjectures into question.
Could you, very briefly (w/o citations), say exactly why that is not
possible. Carbon dating is almost irrelevant, and as far I know
contextual dating is what is used (which by no means completely "proves"
it can't be ANY date)...
Natural weathering would limit it, I realize.
Whittet
>
>I agree that a large amount of "overseeing"
Not really, of 2, 500, 000 blocks most were the same size and shape
placed with the same methods by the same people. After a while it
would get to be pretty repetitive like shingling a roof.
>or logistical support
Logistical support means providing the onions, radishes and garlic
for 10,000 mens lunch every day
> would be required to make sure mistakes weren't made placing blocks
That part is no different than any other construction project. If you do it
every day it becomes more of a job than an adventure pretty quick.
>to make sure workers weren't slacking,
work crews tend to be a bit competitive, its not like factory work,
people probably took a lot of pride and got a lot of satisfaction
out of seeing the thing rise up.
>and to coordinate intricate elements of the job such as tunnels,
>grand gallery corbelling, those 45 degree
>shafts, leveling, measuring, etc.
Nothing out of the ordinary, look at all the mastabahs, mortuary temples,
and obelisks you see all over Egypt. People did this every day just like
we do. If you looked at a carpenters tool kit from the time the pyramids
were built you would find saws, chisels, hammers, squares, levels
and planes that look just like those a Greek, or Roman or English
carpenter had in his box. Masons the same way.
>
>But how could the ancient Egyptians put together a huge team of
>literate, skilled, and coordinated logistical support members
How does any society begin to socially stratify itself so as to acomplish
something which requires a large scale united effort.
A far more impressive feat performed even earlier in Egypts history
is Narmers changing of the course of the Nile to create Memphis.
Do you have any idea what that involves in terms of engineering?
>(unfailingly adhering to the same detailed plan)?
That is what construction is all about, but if you study on it a bit
the evidence of changes is there to see. What purpose does the
descending passage serve? When you get down there everything
is unfinished. Why are some of the cracked blocks daubed with
mortar if not to repair a deficiency? Even the Egyptians made mistakes.
And according to
>Whittet's explanation we're talking about thousands.
>
>In addition to technical skills they would have to be smart,
>trustworthy, reliable, and dedicated.
Most workmen are all of the above
> (leaving important jobs to chance would surely result in disastrous errors)
The job was clearly well planned
> These fellows would be directly answerable to the master architect.
Djosers pyramid (the prototype) is signed by Imanhotep the architect
whose name translates as "I am thankful"
> (unless you envision a hierarchical system,
The system was definitely hierarchical, like most systems there has
to be a chain of command
> but that kind of a system could not be trusted to be 100% error free)
Most systems aren't. Contractors are fond of saying
"it isn't the mistakes you make, it's how you fix them"
>
>Regarding technical skills, many would need related experience/skills
>that I might assume would be hard to come by. (What building project
>within 20-30 years previous to Khufu's reign utilized 100s of thousands
>of workers, many of whom were logistical, with the same level of
>technical requirements?
How about all the other pyramids which preceeded it?
Obviously none.)
Well, there was Djoser, Sekhemket, Kha'ba, Huni, and Snofru
who had built pyramids prior to Khufu, the biggest difference is the
change from step pyramid to true pyramid and that was Snofru not Khufu.
>
>Possibly related experience is not necessary, but I think this is worth
>a moments thought.
>
>With this extra responsibility they would require extra compensation of
>some sort (remember how cheap slaves are and contrast that with the
>extra requirements needed).
Non material rewards. If you buy into the reason for building
a pyramid it becomes a team effort. The analagous example
is the kind of effort men make in fighting a war. Do they risk
their lives purely for pay? I don't think so.
>
>
>I think the key here is acknowledging how important it was to be 100%
>free of errors. One small screw-up could undermine (literally<g>) the
>entire colossal project. If you agree with this you have to acknowledge
>that the logistical people would need to be 100% trustworthy.
Try building something. Nothing is free of errors, people make
them all the time. If it is a serious problem the architect goes
back to the drawing board and changes the design. Thats
how you get things like the bent pyramid.
If you look closely at the core masonry of the Great Pyramid you will see all kinds
of gaps between the blocks.
>
>It is possible, I suppose, that these overseer people could be
>prioritized to the importance and specialization of tasks.
>
>But anyway, I don't see it very likely that they could trust 2/3 of the
>workers to take important logistical roles.
The logistical roles are important but not particularly demanding.
A country growing enough food to feed itself is a form of logistical support.
Nor do I think it likely
>that ancient Egyptians would have recognized the value of such vast
>numbers of "non-workers". (I had a modern day boss who was so cheap
>setting up his computer inventory system that after 5 years he was still
>at square one.)
Logistical support people are not "non workers"
modern office workers are all logistical support
including your boss.
>
>What I am getting at is that it would be a truly difficult task for
>ancient man/woman, as we know of him/her, to find, train, trust, and pay
>for such a specialized and large team to supervise the intricate
>portions of the great pyramid project.
What makes you think people were any different then than they are now?
As far as finding trained people to do the work, at the time of Khufus
project the Egyptians had been building pyramids for almost a century.
That is about the same amount of time we have been building skyscrapers.
If you have any questions about their level of sophistication look at
the furniture they made, or their jewelry, embroidered linens, glassware,
boats or any of their other industries. What has come down to us through
the filter of the Greeks (whose most impressive achievements were all
borrowed from Egypt) is still the standard for what we think of as culture
and refinement.
>
>Personally, I prefer to chuck Occam's Razor (or whatever) out the window
>and attribute the intelligence of coordinating and masterminding the
>great pyramid (and it's non-tomb function) to an advanced journeyer or
>survivor of an "as yet unidentified civiliation", to steal Hancock's
>favorite phrase.
>
>Hah hah. I made you read this far just to be delivered THAT conclusion,
Are you proud of that?
>
(Peter)
steve
Charlie Rigano
>Whittet (whi...@shore.net) wrote:
>Date: 12 Mar 1996 15:19:15 GMT
>
>: by Khufu if you discard the instances of his cartouche
>: exterior to the structure and references in the
>: literature of the time to his building project, and the
>: burials of his family around it and the architectural
>: organization of his necropolis around the pyramid you
>: are still left with the presence of quarry marks which
>: use his cartouche interior to the structure which
>: pretty much put the icing on the cake.
>
>
>than just what you have suggested. The existence of catouche from
>the exterior are not uncommon but do not prove that the king built
>what he used to write on. It is not unknown for a king to take
>an existing structure and fix its defects. Khufu did make the
>structures a big part of his rule, but as a son of the god Ra,
>creator of all things, it was his right to lay claim to all his
>creations over any time. As for the interior marks they have
>always been questionable.
>
If you will do just alittle bit of research you can easily
determine that the interior cartouches are not questionable
- unless of course you have your head clearly up
and locked in Sitchen's butt - OK I apologize for getting
carried away here.
The Great Pyramid does not sit by itself in the desert as
the only example of this form, but represents one example
of which there are many. You cannot address the
possibility or impossibility of the GP without addressing
the other examples.
While certainly bits of evidence might point away from
Khufu building the GP, the great weight of evidence points
to him building it. Most of the rest of your post was just
arguing the details of how it was done.
Just a small point. It was Herodotus who said the causeway
took 10 years. Frankly, I never thought his sources were
very good. I believe he got his information from the
locals 2000 years after the event for which there was no
written record - not a great source. The causeway was
between the Valley Temple and the Mortuary Temple and must
have been quite a piece of work. I might accept Herodotus
on this point. However, there is no eveidence, and no
reason to believe that this was used as the path for moving
the stones to the GP, it was merely a seperate
construction.
Charlie
Peter Szabo
be required to make sure mistakes weren't made placing blocks, to
make sure workers weren't slacking, and to coordinate intricate elements
shafts, leveling, measuring, etc.
But how could the ancient Egyptians put together a huge team of
literate, skilled, and coordinated logistical support members
(unfailingly adhering to the same detailed plan)? And according to
Whittet's explanation we're talking about thousands.
In addition to technical skills they would have to be smart,
trustworthy, reliable, and dedicated. (leaving important jobs to chance
would surely result in disastrous errors) These fellows would be
directly answerable to the master architect. (unless you envision a
hierarchical system, but that kind of a system could not be trusted to
be 100% error free)
Regarding technical skills, many would need related experience/skills
that I might assume would be hard to come by. (What building project
within 20-30 years previous to Khufu's reign utilized 100s of thousands
of workers, many of whom were logistical, with the same level of
technical requirements? Obviously none.)
Possibly related experience is not necessary, but I think this is worth
a moments thought.
With this extra responsibility they would require extra compensation of
some sort (remember how cheap slaves are and contrast that with the
extra requirements needed).
I think the key here is acknowledging how important it was to be 100%
free of errors. One small screw-up could undermine (literally<g>) the
entire colossal project. If you agree with this you have to acknowledge
that the logistical people would need to be 100% trustworthy.
It is possible, I suppose, that these overseer people could be
prioritized to the importance and specialization of tasks.
But anyway, I don't see it very likely that they could trust 2/3 of the
workers to take important logistical roles. Nor do I think it likely
that ancient Egyptians would have recognized the value of such vast
numbers of "non-workers". (I had a modern day boss who was so cheap
setting up his computer inventory system that after 5 years he was still
at square one.)
What I am getting at is that it would be a truly difficult task for
ancient man/woman, as we know of him/her, to find, train, trust, and pay
for such a specialized and large team to supervise the intricate
portions of the great pyramid project.
Personally, I prefer to chuck Occam's Razor (or whatever) out the window
and attribute the intelligence of coordinating and masterminding the
great pyramid (and it's non-tomb function) to an advanced journeyer or
survivor of an "as yet unidentified civiliation", to steal Hancock's
favorite phrase.
Hah hah. I made you read this far just to be delivered THAT conclusion,
Gary Weishaupt
as being representative of moving 'time' in 'unit qualtities' from
one place to another in responce to perceived changes in the apparant
location (geographical ground point) of significant stars or other
celestial bodies as a function of religous expression and you can get
some idea of whay and how the whole
process of building pyramids began. Building the structure itself was
only a small part of the overall project. The quarries were equally
if not more important.
Gary Weishaupt
respect to the precessional shift represented by the character of
Khufu and the number of stones and most importantly the volumn of the
structure should add up to some calendrically signifinant number.
Serge Rosmorduc
The figures are about 20000 men (for a mining expedition going to the
desert.
the administrative people number about 80 there, not counting the chiefs
among the workers.
The bulk of the workers listed is enlistee, numbering 17000,
used for moving the blocks.
The rest are skilled workers.
The exemples of the mining expedition show that the egyptian were able
to use large workforce in very harsh conditions.
The commander of the expedition claims in this case he lost no-one,
but in some other cases very high casualty figures are known.
The egyptian were certainly ready to devote much energy to building
projects.
Remember that religion was the fuel of their civilisation. And at time also
the key of the redistribution system.
As for Kheops, and the alledge lack of previous experience, I would just
refer you to the pyramids of Snefrou !
Bureaucracy was a central feature of the egyptian system; and one thing
that bureaucracy is able to do is working at collossal projects.
regards,
--
Serge Rosmorduc,
ros...@lifac1.ens-cachan.fr
lifac
ENS de Cachan
61, avenue du Pr\'esident Wilson
94235 Cachan Cedex
tel (16 1) 47 40 24 93
fax (16 1) 47 40 24 64
http://weblifac.ens-cachan.fr/Portraits/S.ROSMORDUC
Peter Szabo
>
> In article <314D49...@iceonline.com>, pet...@iceonline.com says...
> >
> >I agree that a large amount of "overseeing"
>
> Not really, of 2, 500, 000 blocks most were the same size and shape
> placed with the same methods by the same people. After a while it
> would get to be pretty repetitive like shingling a roof.
This is not what I what I was referring to. If you reread my post I
referred to the intricate aspects of the job. (and I do see a smaller
group than 2/3 needed for the roles, which also explains our different
interpretations of logistal support.)
> >to make sure workers weren't slacking,
>
> work crews tend to be a bit competitive, its not like factory work,
> people probably took a lot of pride and got a lot of satisfaction
> out of seeing the thing rise up.
Over 20 years? Actually, having worked in VERY large scale grocery
store (groc. dept) of which manual labour was predominant, I found a
supervisers job was almost entirely motivating the slacking workers
(most were slackers). And, yes, the competitive workers receive the
most attention and praise.
Then again, they didn't have unions back then, and they may have offered
incentive bonuses.
> If you looked at a carpenters tool kit from the time the pyramids
> were built you would find saws, chisels, hammers, squares, levels
> and planes that look just like those a Greek, or Roman or English
> carpenter had in his box. Masons the same way.
Once again I wonder how it is that they were as enlightened then, almost
as we are now.
> A far more impressive feat performed even earlier in Egypts history
> is Narmers changing of the course of the Nile to create Memphis.
> Do you have any idea what that involves in terms of engineering?
Not really, except to say the Egyptians attributed that to Thoth too.
[trustworthy/honest/reliable/hard-working,etc.]
> Most workmen are all of the above
Not at all. You've been extremely lucky up until now with your work
aquaintances. Or, more likely, you haven't worked directly with
low-level worker on a daily basis much. In any case, ancient workers
were probably more subjective about things and more willing to overlook
what they thought were minor errors.
> > (leaving important jobs to chance would surely result in disastrous errors)
>
> The job was clearly well planned
>
> > These fellows would be directly answerable to the master architect.
>
> Djosers pyramid (the prototype) is signed by Imanhotep the architect
> whose name translates as "I am thankful"
Thankful to whom, I wonder?
> > (unless you envision a hierarchical system,
>
> The system was definitely hierarchical, like most systems there has
> to be a chain of command
I just thought it would have to be a more direct chain of command for
important aspects.
> > but that kind of a system could not be trusted to be 100% error free)
>
> Most systems aren't. Contractors are fond of saying
> "it isn't the mistakes you make, it's how you fix them"
That is a good point.
> >Regarding technical skills, many would need related experience/skills
> >that I might assume would be hard to come by. (What building project
> >within 20-30 years previous to Khufu's reign utilized 100s of thousands
> >of workers, many of whom were logistical, with the same level of
> >technical requirements?
>
> How about all the other pyramids which preceeded it?
So which ones specifically were within 20 years previous utilizing 100s
of thousamds of people?
> >With this extra responsibility they would require extra compensation of
> >some sort (remember how cheap slaves are and contrast that with the
> >extra requirements needed).
>
> Non material rewards. If you buy into the reason for building
> a pyramid it becomes a team effort. The analagous example
> is the kind of effort men make in fighting a war. Do they risk
> their lives purely for pay? I don't think so.
Men fight wars because they are forced to, or because they want to
protect their homeland. A few fight for glory. Almost none fight from
some sense of higher purpose.
Which again begs the question, what was the pyramid for?
> Nor do I think it likely
> >that ancient Egyptians would have recognized the value of such vast
> >numbers of "non-workers". (I had a modern day boss who was so cheap
> >setting up his computer inventory system that after 5 years he was still
> >at square one.)
>
> Logistical support people are not "non workers"
> modern office workers are all logistical support
> including your boss.
I misunderstood your idea of logistical support. I have been referring
to supervisors, specialists, and people employed for they brains.
> What makes you think people were any different then than they are now?
> As far as finding trained people to do the work, at the time of Khufus
> project the Egyptians had been building pyramids for almost a century.
>
> That is about the same amount of time we have been building skyscrapers.
Perhaps this needs a more detailed look at what intricate tasks were
involved in order to establish what kind of brain work would be
required. Of course this would be almost impossible partly because
noone can agree on what mathematical symbolism is existant.
> >Personally, I prefer to chuck Occam's Razor (or whatever) out the window
> >and attribute the intelligence of coordinating and masterminding the
> >great pyramid (and it's non-tomb function) to an advanced journeyer or
> >survivor of an "as yet unidentified civiliation", to steal Hancock's
> >favorite phrase.
> >
> >Hah hah. I made you read this far just to be delivered THAT conclusion,
>
> Are you proud of that?
Actually, yes.
[now you either wonder why, or you think I'm an a-hole]
[or both] ;>
Doug Weller
pet...@iceonline.com (Peter Szabo) wrote:
> > >It's entirely possible that it was built thirty thousand years ago
Sorry, attribution cut out of this presumably by Peter:
> > No, that is not possible and is the sort of spurious association which calls
> > other conjectures into question.
>
> Could you, very briefly (w/o citations), say exactly why that is not
> possible. Carbon dating is almost irrelevant, and as far I know
> contextual dating is what is used (which by no means completely "proves"
> it can't be ANY date)...
Is it likely that Egyptian civilization would have developed
without mentioning the pyramids if they were already there? I
would have expected them to feature in their mythology if
they were really so old. And of course this ignores the
development line from mastabas, let alone everything else.
--
Doug Weller
Whittet
>
>If you finally acknowledge the Pi ratio, how can scholars possibly
>explain they're knowledge of Pi when the Egyptians had barely learned to
>write (required to perform geometric math).
Try "Mathematics in the time of the Pharoahs", Gillings, MIT Press, cambridge, 1972
This discusses the EMLR, as well as the Moscow Papyrus, the Rhind
Mathematical Papyrus and the Reisner Papyri and shows how the Egyptians
could perform equations of the first and second degree, calculate squares and
square roots, determine the area of a rectangle, a triangle, a circle, not to mention
a cylindrical granary, the area of a semi cylinder and the area of a hemisphere.
also "The Exact Sciences in Antiquity", Oscar Neugebauer, Harper Torchbooks,
New York, 1962
"A History of Mathematics" Carl B Boyer, John Wiley, New York, 1968
Also review a few of Milo Gardiners posts on the the Egyptian formula
for calculating unit fractions
snip
(Peter)
steve
Clayton Conway
Date: 17 Mar 1996 18:25:04 GMT
I will respond to this part but not others as
I do not have that much time.
:In article <4ifln6$l...@freenet3.scri.fsu.edu>,
: cco...@freenet2.scri.fsu.edu says... >
:>Whittet (whi...@shore.net) wrote:
:>Date: 12 Mar 1996 15:19:15 GMT
:>
:>:In article <4i28k0$m...@freenet3.scri.fsu.edu>,
:>: cco...@freenet2.scri.fsu.edu says...
:>
:>:>Martin Stower (mar...@dcs.shef.ac.uk) wrote:
:>
:>:> Any more and they get into each others way.
:The issue is how to most effectively distribute a workforce.
:So far we have shown that 200,000 men were divided into
:two shifts spelling each other in 3 month intervals.
:Of the remaining 100,000 there were some ten separate areas
:which required work reducing the pyramid work force to about
:10,000 men actually available to work on the pyramid.
The availability of this many is questionable and is
contingent on your uncited 7 million population figure.
My own uncited 1 1/2 million came from earlier debates and
posts just on this very subject. An egyptologist gave it
so I simply took it as what it is. I do know the figures
for Ptolemic times is better known and used by egyptologists.
How your going to hold onto a 7 million figure when only
3 million tops is used for a time two and a half millennium
closer to our own time I don't know.
:These men were probably also divided into shifts spelling
:each other at the work so that only about 5,000 men were
:actually working on the pyramid at any one time.
This is the figure of importance and what makes my point.
I think it too large but will take it so that we can make our
points based on it.
:> It doesn't but those are the number of teams that have
:> come down to us.
:Where do you get that statistic from?
It's the number of teams with mason marks. You can
disagree that they were not so organized.
:> But it makes sense since they all pit themselves against
:> each other. What better than each side since all sides had
:> to finish the same level at the same time?
:Why? The pyramid probably had about 10 courses going at any one
:time thus providing something like stair steps according to Herodotus.
The requirement that each corner be at the same height. You
can't just build without regard to the height of the other levels.
If you do, the corners will be of different heights.
:"The pyramid was built in steps, battlement wise it is called, or
: according to others, altar wise"
Never heard of this nor what you mean exactly.
:> You can't start another level until all sides are finished or
:> do you suggest differently?
:I suggest differently
Amazing! All corners are of the same level to less than one half
of an inch off on every level (200) by the official egyptian survey.
To suggest that they simply built without checking each level to be
sure the corners matched each other is nonscience. Even to make
each block the same *exact* (to within 1/4 inch) is too much which
is the minimum required of the assembly. Even then every stage has
to be checked against each other.
:> BTW this is what is going to slow you down. You can't start a new
:> level until the newly finished level is found to be level with the
:> whole structure.
:Why? The plumb, square and level of the pyramid was probably checked
:just as masons do it today using trigits and water levels. At least one
:archaeologist has documented how a builders level can be fashioned
:from a pot mounted on a tripod with holes on three sides to level it
:and a top running through the pot to allow a sighting to be taken.
Being level *from the ground* does not make you level with the same
stage of a building hundreds of feet away to withing 1/2 inch. That
requires a physical check to all areas which you can't do with other
materials on it. But the needed production rates for a 20 year period
may require it.
:> That is going to take a lot of time. If you don't do this the four
:> corners are not going to be level with each other as only a 1/4 inch
:> off will result in being feet off from each other.
:While I agree that it is impressive that they managed such accuracy, I
:don't think it would have been particularly time consuming. After doing
:a job for twenty years most people become pretty good at it and this was
:not the first pyramid these people had built.
If your off half the time by 1/4 inch your going to be off by
more than two feet from the other corners. I am not so much as
impressed but know that such careful leveling of the whole structure
takes significant time and you can't build more than one stage at a
time. If you do, you have to make some of the stones measurably
different in size for corrections. This has never been found in the
structure.
:>:> If one team is slower than the rest, the other teams can't
:>:>continue until the slowest team is finished with their portion to
:>:>know that the building is correctly level.
:>:Not if many teams are working individually on a block by
:>:block basis. If 15,000 workers in 3 man crews are on the job
:>:and 1/2 of these are powering the machinery on the ground
:>:of the remaining half the work force 1/2 are walking
:>:back and forth between trips up the pyramid there are only
:>:3,750 men actually moving stones at any given time
:>:of these half are raising and half are placing stones
:>:so perhaps 625 stones are in motion at any given time
:>:thats about 15 stones per face per course or one
:>:crew at work every 50 lineal feet.
:>
:> Each side 750 feet or 15 teams per side. No way are
:>go going to get 625 stones being put in place at the same time.
:Why not? That works out to 15 stones per face per course or about
:one stone every 50 lineal feet. With the courses staggered so that
:10 courses are available to work on you would get something like
:this (looking at one half of one face)
:______[]_________[]________[]______[]________[]________[]__
:___[]________[]________[]________[]________[]________[]________
:[]________[]________[]________[]________[]________[]________[]___
:______[]________[]________[]________[]________[]________[]________
:____[]________[]________[]________[]________[]________[]________
:_[]________[]________[]________[]________[]________[]________[]___
:_______[]________[]________[]________[]________[]________[]________
:____[]_______[]_________[]________[]________[]_________[]________[]
:__[]_______[]_________[]________[]________[]_________[]________[]
:________[]________[]________[]________[]________[]________[]________
:> With each block at 5 feet long puts 150 blocks side
:>by side at the base, but you suggest each side is moving
:>more than 130 into place at one time by 15 teams. But I
:>don't know how your organizing your teams.
Are you really suggesting they built ten stages at the
same time? The first ten stages at 3 feet or a total of 30
feet tall and two feet the rest of the way or 20 feet tall?
I would have to see it to believe it. Not impossible just
uncheckable with its levelness and has its own inefficiencies.
:3 men per shaduf team raise the block one course at a time
:the base requires 15 blocks per face to feed the first course
:be present at any given time. In practice a stockpile of blocks
:would be staged as they became available from the docks.
:>
:>Rule 1: One team one block
:Wrong. Each block actually receives the work of about 10 separate
:teams (including logistical support) by the time it is in place.
We don't disagree as long as a team does not work more
than one block at a time.
:>Rule 2: One path one team
:Wrong again. Each team stays where it is as much as possible
:and receives the work of another team which it then passes on.
No problem as long as a path is not used by more than one
team with one stone at a time. BTW this is not how the traditions
give that they worked it. One team moved the block from start to
finish on site with a mobile tripod.
:> You can't break rule 1 and the only way to break rule 2 is
:>to provide a path for the first team to use to get out of the
:>way of the next team coming up behind them instead of using that
:>space for another team to move a block.
:Linear thinking, try a more synergistic approach.
Cite the work method of ancient workers that agrees with your
synergy.
:> At 50 feet per team you do have room for moving them out of the
:> way from the team behind. The question is is that the most
:> efficient way to use the space.
:OK, how would you organise the work?
By the known work habits and methods egyptians used,
which isn't going to give you mass assembly rates needed
for a 20 year period to complete the project as far as I
can calculate.
Despite your citing a reference for Khufu's reign that I
knew was 23 years the length Herodotus gave Khufu was 50 years.
The previous king was also given a rule of 50 years to hold to
the traditions that the project took from the beginning to the
end a century. It also has the interesting story of the king
putting his daughter in a whore house to help pay for the thing.
:> How long it takes you to put into place a block becomes
:> an all important calculation to prove it possible or practical.
:> The difference of a hour to a quarter hour is the difference of
:> a century to 20 years.
:Sharpen your pencil. The difference of an hour to a quarter hour
:is the difference of eighty years to 20 years. It also ups the
:estimate of manhours per block which has been experimentally
:verified and which you agreed with, from 90 man days to 360 man
:days.
:If you wish to make this argument, show where the extra time is
:required.
:> Take the middle of the pyramid. It is 375 feet from
:>any side and 200 feet high. How long is it going to take
:>your team to put the 5 ton block in place?
:Sharpen your pencil. The blocks are 3.5 tons tops
:dimensions for core blocks in cubits of 20 fingers (15")
:say 2 cubits x 3 cubits x 4 cubits or 30" x 45" x 60"
:AISC (Manual of steel Construction) Eighth edition
:(Limestone at 150 lbs per cubic foot)
No problem.
:Since each team receives a block from the team below and moves
:it up to the team above the question amounts to how long does it
:take to disconect one shaduf from the block and connect the next
:raise it about four feet and slide it along to the next lift
:point about five or ten feet away. My guess is a couple of hours
:per block per course allowing for breaks.
Then you can sharpen your pencil all you want as your dead
in the water. With a limited amount of workers possible on the
pyramid structure and requiring a couple of hours per block you
can't put down enuff stones a day to do it *right* in 20 years.
:>Another question is would working at that pace be culturally
:>acceptable to that society.
:I would be in accordance with current work expectations
Current work expectations are far from what an ancient
culture values are as they have very different ideas about
what work is let along what acceptable time frames are for
that work. You know they used ritualistic markings in the
way they brought out the stones. It is clear that this way
of working isn't the fastest way but they might not have
cared so much about that as pleasing their god in how they
perceived their god wanted the stones taken out of mother
earth.
:> Your not addressing what would keep the team on schedule
:>if an accident did occur. Moving 2.5 million blocks makes
:>for a lot of opportunity.
:Frankly, even on modern projects in the mideast, workers
:are considered somewhat expendable. The work doesn't
:come to a grinding halt when an accident occurs, believe me.
A broken bone today is not much of a matter *today*, but
in the past death from what are considered minor injuries were
possible or at least poverty was your lot most likely if your
injury lasted. You are not considering the cultural standards
of the times. Accidents are more important to avoid and that
is going to take any operation longer to perform.
:> The word is inefficiency.
:Not really, the point is they did get built and quite well at
:that. If they were so inefficient how did they manage such
:accuracy?
You can be quite inefficient and not affect quality at all.
In fact some methods of quality are measured by their inefficient
methods of production.
:The accuracy of their construction does not suggest inefficient
:methods but rather, a highly skilled, well organized workforce.
Accuracy and efficient are not necessarily related.
:> Yes, and with a century you could do it right which was
:>obviously done. To be able to do it right quicker would
:>require more workers than was available to Khufu who would
:>have needed more money in taxes than was possible especially
:>if he used all his worker base as income outflow.
:As has been shown this is an unsupported assumption
The numbers can be calculated as they have been done
before using the 20 year and 200,000 man figures. I remember
it being 480,000 talents a year cost just for the pyramid.
The maximum production for Egypt is a quarter of that at most
for the whole Kingdom.
:>Khufu has not the manpower, money, nor a culture willing to
:>work at mass production rates. It is possible for man to do
:>anything but he has to have supports in his culture to
:>consider it worth his while. Ancient Egypt did not have it.
:Ancient Egypt not only had it ...
:(the pyramids were built by ancient Egyptians)
:but they had it at a level we still find incredible millenia later.
:steve
The ancient Egyptians built many things but not the great pyramid
complex. Population, economy, and work methods do not support it.
--
Respect - It's the only place to go.
Chronology and issues of import
http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/kjh/
Stella Nemeth
>> >Regarding technical skills, many would need related experience/skills
>> >that I might assume would be hard to come by. (What building project
>> >within 20-30 years previous to Khufu's reign utilized 100s of thousands
>> >of workers, many of whom were logistical, with the same level of
>> >technical requirements?
>>
>> How about all the other pyramids which preceeded it?
>So which ones specifically were within 20 years previous utilizing 100s
>of thousamds of people?
The one built immediately before the Great Pyramid, which was the
second largest one ever built. (Information gotten off the Web last
night from a CNN story about a "Pyramid Platform" that is being opened
up to the tourist trade for the first time in nearly 50 years.)
Stella Nemeth
s.ne...@ix.netcom.com
John Ritson
<pet...@iceonline.com> writes
[snip]
>
>Regarding technical skills, many would need related experience/skills
>that I might assume would be hard to come by. (What building project
>within 20-30 years previous to Khufu's reign utilized 100s of thousands
>of workers, many of whom were logistical, with the same level of
Well, for starters, Khufu's father Seneferu had two pyramids built at
Dahshur. Bases 620 ft sq and 722 ft sq (as compared to Khufu's 756 ft
sq)
>
>Possibly related experience is not necessary, but I think this is worth
>a moments thought.
>
>With this extra responsibility they would require extra compensation of
>some sort (remember how cheap slaves are and contrast that with the
>extra requirements needed).
Yes, the workers graves at Giza show that they received medical
treatment.
>
>
>I think the key here is acknowledging how important it was to be 100%
>free of errors.
With something as basic as a pyramid it is possible to correct for
errors in mid-project. Thus after the disaster at Meidum the angle of
the Bent Pyramid was reduced.
> One small screw-up could undermine (literally<g>) the
>entire colossal project. If you agree with this you have to acknowledge
>that the logistical people would need to be 100% trustworthy.
No, if logistics gets something wrong it causes delay and expense.
Usually a logistical screw-up causes disaster only in wartime.
>
>It is possible, I suppose, that these overseer people could be
>prioritized to the importance and specialization of tasks.
>
>But anyway, I don't see it very likely that they could trust 2/3 of the
>workers to take important logistical roles. Nor do I think it likely
>that ancient Egyptians would have recognized the value of such vast
>numbers of "non-workers". (I had a modern day boss who was so cheap
>setting up his computer inventory system that after 5 years he was still
>at square one.)
After building several earlier pyramids, not to mention experience of
irrigation schemes and military campaigns, they had probably learned
about logistics.
>
>What I am getting at is that it would be a truly difficult task for
>ancient man/woman, as we know of him/her, to find, train, trust, and pay
>for such a specialized and large team to supervise the intricate
>portions of the great pyramid project.
It is also difficult to raise and despatch an army, but most ancient
peoples seemed to manage it.
>
>Personally, I prefer to chuck Occam's Razor (or whatever) out the window
>and attribute the intelligence of coordinating and masterminding the
>great pyramid (and it's non-tomb function) to an advanced journeyer or
>survivor of an "as yet unidentified civiliation", to steal Hancock's
>favorite phrase.
>
>Hah hah. I made you read this far just to be delivered THAT conclusion,
>
>
But how can you rule out the possibility that the pyramids were caused
by billions of blunt razor-blades warping the space-time continuum?
John
heinrich
>
> In article <314D49...@iceonline.com>, Peter Szabo
> <pet...@iceonline.com> writes
> [snip]
> >With this extra responsibility they would require extra >
> >compensation of some sort (remember how cheap slaves are
> >and contrast that with the extra requirements needed).
>
> Yes, the workers graves at Giza show that they received medical
> treatment.
My favorite theory concerning this was that they were not slaves,
but unemployed citzens. Essentially, Mendelssohn argued that the
pyramids were nothing more than a giant, Eygption equivalent of
the Works Progress Administration. It was argued that the workers
were paid in food to work while unemployed between harvests.
Workfare Egyption style?
Also, he suggests that the pyramids were also part of a
deliberate plan by the government to create a sense of common
identity among the different peoples in Egpyt at that time. It
was a one tool used in their version of nation-building.
Regardless of their credibility, they are fun ideas to consider.
Too bad there is not anyway to test these hypotheses.
The book is _The Riddle of the Pyramids_ by Kurt Mendelssohn.
(Praeger Publishers). Regardless of what a person thinks of it,
makes a lot more sense then the sloppy and slipshod scholarship
that characterizes _Fingerprints of the Gods_.
Yours,
Paul V. heinrich
heir...@intersurf.com
Baton rouge, La 70808
Standard Disclaimer Applies
Frank Joseph Yurco
the Inspector for Giza and Saqqara, in which he presented some of latest
research at Giza, that should be of interest to all the pyramid posters.
First, regarding the Great Pyramid and its associated pyramids, he showed
slides of the new fourth small pyramid. It is largely destroyed, but he
did find blocks of the upper part and the pyramidion that topped it all.
Also, he found interesting evidence of how the lowest course of the pyramids
was sculpted out of the bedrock. More interesting still, was his evidence
of the major quarry on the south side of the pyramid. There, he found actual
traces of the ramp used to haul the blocks from this quarry to the site
This has led him to propose a fresh approach to the question of the ramp
system. From the quarry end, a network of feeder ramps led to the single
central ramp. That led up to the southwestern corner of the pyramid, where
feeder ramps wrapped around each face. Again, he pointed out that the tafla
clay topped the ramps and that this made moving the blocks much easier. He
also had a good slide of the Khufu work gang inscription above the burial
chamber, and it undoubtedly reads Khufu. So much for doubters of this
ascription. Again, he showed fascinating slides of the workmen's tombs, both
the common workmen and the professional staff. The professionals had better
tombs, with interesting statues of themselves, some recovered by Hawass,
and other inscriptions recording their names and titles linking them to the
pyramid project. Again some names incorporate Khufu, verifying the ascription
and date of the project. Mark Lehner found evidence of the bakery where the
bread for the workmen was prepared. Again, some bodies of the workmen were
recovered, and Hawass mentioned injuries evident on the skeletons that re-
sulted from accidents in the work on the pyramid. All this was very fascin-
ating material. He also showed wotk on the Great Sphinx, and convincing
demonstrated how it fit architecturally with the pyramids, the whole, forming
the image of Re-Horakhty, the deity associated with the sphinx. He also
demonstrated how the bedrock of the sphinx was already deeply grooved in
the middle layer of inferior rock, and how the masons had filled in those
grooves with stone masonry in which the body details were then sculpted. He
also showed three tunnels carved into the sphinx body, none very long and
ending in a void ending. He also had a slide of the probe used to investigate
one of the airshafts in the pyramid, still blocked by an original stone
door block. All this was a most fascinating presentation, plus also some
fresh material from Saqqara, in the Tety pyramid cemetary, where he located
the burial of Tety-ankh-kem, a son of King Tety, apparently assassinated!
As he concluded, 70 percent of Egypt's antiquities still lie under the sand
undiscovered. He likewise found traces of the dockyard for the Khafre Valley
Temple, and paved underpasses, under the ramp leading into the temple. Also
he mentioned finding Khufu's Valley Temple under the nearby village that has
grown up ad hoc just beneath the Giza Plateau, as well as traces of the
pyramid worker's village under the modern town that sits in front of the
Great Sphinx. All this is extremely interesting data, by the scholar who
has devoted his professional life to Giza and its monuments. There is a healthy
dose of skepticism here in all this evidence for some of the more outlandish
claims that have been posted about Giza. The Great Pyramid was Khufu's tomb,
no more, no less. It was called the Horizon of Khufu, as the pyramid was
the place where the king expected to be resurrected to join the circum-polar
stars, or to join Re in his celestial barque, in Lightland, as the Pyramid
Texts call it, the esatern horizon of heaven, where the daily resurrected
sun-god himself rose each morning.
Hawass is on a lecture tour through the United States, so watch your local
museum postings and do make every effort to catch this dynamic, fascinating
lecturer, and master archaeologist who has given his career to Giza and Saq-
qara. Lastly, I will add that he found interesting Late Period statues of
the God Sokar, who gave his name to Saqqara.
Most sincerely,
Frank J. Yurco
University of Chicago
--
Frank Joseph Yurco fjy...@midway.uchicago.edu
Charlie Rigano
>
>
>>> >Regarding technical skills, many would need related experience/skills
>>> >that I might assume would be hard to come by. (What building project
>>> >within 20-30 years previous to Khufu's reign utilized 100s of thousands
>>> >of workers, many of whom were logistical, with the same level of
>>> >technical requirements?
>>>
I am not sure who wrote the post quoted above since I am
taking it from an answer written by Stella - I'm pretty
sure it wasn't her.
However, the author of the statement obviously doesn't even
have the most basic of knowledge about pyramids. There was
a continuous history of pyramid building going back about
100 years before the GP and continuing for several hundred
years after it. Here is a partial list of the pyramids
built over a continuous period preceeding the GP - Zoser,
Sekhemkhst, Layer (Khaba), Unfinished (Nebka), Meydum,
Bent, and Red. During this period, quite a bit of
expertise in logistics, organization, movement, and
building methods was developed. The GP does not stand as a
single event, but as a piece of a much larger series.
Charlie
Michael L. Siemon
+Yesterday, March 19th, there was a fascinating lecture by Dr. Zahi Hawass,
+the Inspector for Giza and Saqqara, in which he presented some of latest
+research at Giza, that should be of interest to all the pyramid posters.
And even to many non-posters! Thanks.
[various stuff elided; go read Frank's post!]
+...Again some names incorporate Khufu, verifying the ascription
+and date of the project...
+As he concluded, 70 percent of Egypt's antiquities still lie under
+the sand undiscovered.
Good; that means unplundered (at least by the moderns), with hopes
of our (or better equipped successors, hopefully honest ones :-))
getting not mere treasures, but data.
--
Michael Siemon "We must know the truth, and we must love
m...@panix.com the truth we know, and we must act
according to the measure of our love."
-- Thomas Merton
Paul J. Gans
: Yesterday, March 19th, there was a fascinating lecture by Dr. Zahi Hawass,
: the Inspector for Giza and Saqqara, in which he presented some of latest
: research at Giza, that should be of interest to all the pyramid posters.
[deletions]
Thanks for a fascinating posting. I really appreciated it.
----- Paul J. Gans [ga...@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]
Nigel Strudwick
> This figure is from Herodotus Book II Euterpe
>
> "A hundred thousand men laboured constantly and were replaced
> every three months by a fresh lot" Thus 200,000 men worked on
> the project in shifts.
1) Don't trust Herodotos on this sort of thing. But that time (in fact by
the late Middle Kingdom) Khufu was marked down as a tyrant for whatever
reason and stories like this just aren't objective. And would anyone
expect an oral history 2000 years after the event to be accurate anyway?
> The population of ancient Egypt is not a given and is
> >known to be much less in acient times than the big population
> >of Ptolemic times of 2 to 3 million total.
>
> The figures given by Budge place the population in antiquity
> at 7 to 10 million "The Nile" E A Wallis Budge
2) Don't use Budge. The figures are hopelessly out of date now, like
anything which Budge wrote. I believe current estimates for the OK are in
the region of 1-2 million (try Butzer, Hydraulic Civilization in Egypt).
> The real question is what is it necessary to do to utilize the various skills
> of an army of men effectively? Generally a team approach seems to be
> both what is described by Herodotus and what modern project managers
> have found to be the most effective use of human resources.
The key to the efficiency of pyramid building is organisation, something
the OK had in abundence. There were lots of officials concerned with
overseeing works. I can't recall the source, but there are those who
believe the number of workmen working all year round was not large, and
was perhaps supplemented as necessary. If you look at the barracks
excavated by petrie near the pyramid of Khafre, there's no way they could
have held the Cecil M Demille numbers of workmen suggested by Herodotos.
Nigel Strudwick
Serge Rosmorduc
Khufus> (4) And what about the 2000 odd (?)
Khufus> diorite Vases apparently found at Sokkara, fashioned internally
Khufus> with quite THIN walls. how dyou think they did that ?
We are rather lucky in this case, because we have scenes in mastabas that
show the drilling of such vases. The drill was indeed used as the
hieroglyph for the word "Artisan", "Hemou". The drills head which have been
found were in silex.
I've been told (but I would welcome any reference) that a sculptor recently
tried (and succeeded) in making a statue using Egyptian method as they are
currently imagined. That is, making heavy use of dolerite balls (There are
scenes in Rekhmire's tomb for this) and sand. I was told he made the statue
in 3 weeks (man-sized).
regards,
--
Serge Rosmorduc,
ros...@lifac1.ens-cachan.fr
lifac
ENS de Cachan
61, avenue du Pr\'esident Wilson
94235 Cachan Cedex
tel (16 1) 47 40 24 93
fax (16 1) 47 40 24 64
)
Hi frank,
}March 19th, there was a fascinating lecture by Dr. Zahi Hawass,
***We are all appreciative of reports such as yours, and may they continue,
but
you are obviously aware of inserting gaping silences about the aspects in
which
Pyramidologists are MORE interested, and currently awaiting news.
***namely (1) what progress in looking under the Stargate door ?
(2) are the three Sphinx tunnels the TOTAL of suspected
chambers nearby ?
No doubt those dead ends were simply the work of earlier
treasure
hunters, but what about UNDER the sphinx ?
}slides of the new fourth small pyramid.
***can you kindly say exactly what its location is relative to the main three
?
}and the pyramidion
***what sort of markings are on that ?
}major quarry on the south side of the pyramid, and ramp used to haul the
blocks
}to the site. network of feeder ramps to the single central ramp that led up
to the
}southwestern corner of the pyramid, where feeder ramps wrapped around each
face.
***credible engineering scheme.
}tafla clay topped the ramps and that made moving the blocks much easier.
***someone in Czecheslovakia was experimenting on the TV with primitive
moving
methods for the Easter Island statues, and showed conclusively that
(1) direct haulage across grass was virtually impossible, despite using a
sledge.
(2) scattering potatoes (or any lubricant) ahead DID improve things, but
not much.
(3) the most dramatic progress was made on wooden rollers, and one could
immediately envisage shifting 10 ton blocks many miles if you had
the patience
and manpower.
(4) putting the TopKnot on only required Ingenuity and a ramp + Lever
mechanism
(5) also of course the Rocking Walk was possible with ropes and careful
management, but the likelihood of the statue falling over was high.
***So all in all,- problem solved for Easter Island. no "mysteries" needed
whatsoever.
[i still wonder tho, why so many statues faced *inland*. seems
intuitively contrary]
Obviously (most of) the GP could similarly have been built, but there
remains to my mind
still a couple of questions:
(1) despite there being some evidence of it, i cant believe that mere
"pounding
trenches around Obilisks (etc) with hand held lumps of Diorite"
could be any
*adequate* explanation for the sheer quantity involved. So what
other sensible
methods could you suggest ? weve heard of "Cord Saws in bitumen",
and
im well aware that might get thru a few MERE limestone blocks, since
they are
relatively very soft, but Granite (and in quantities), is a
completely different story.
What do you think ?
(2) Also there seem to have been found some "Cores" of granite, as tho
the result of
vertical cylindrical DRILLING. but what of their Tools,- why so
few ever found ?
i dont believe either that they did not have IRON, and heard of a
Wadi 100miles
NW (?) that showed evidence of smelting ?
(3) And what about the huge 200 ton limestones used in Valley Temple and
in the
Oseirion at Abydos. need a *far* more clever method for trundling
such about ?
(4) And what about the 2000 odd (?) diorite Vases apparently found at
Sokkara,
fashioned internally with quite THIN walls. how dyou think they
did that ?
}good slide of the Khufu work gang inscription above the burial chamber, and
it undoubtedly
}reads Khufu. So much for doubters of this ascription.
***yes ill go along with that. no reason to doubt khufu, especially in view
of the 2450bc
date derived from the Angle of the southern shaft from KC
***but of course i therefore think Egyptologists are going to Have to come to
terms with the
Stellar Worship and Orionic Layout of the pyramid Fields, as researched
by Bauval.
so i suggest you make sure youve read his book, otherwise youll all feel
left behind in
the next couple of years :)
}convincingly demonstrated how the Sphinx fits architecturally with the
pyramids,
}and the whole forming the image of Re-Horakhty, the deity associated with
the sphinx.
***what (in more detail) was the method of convincing ?
}Hawass mentioned finding Khufu's Valley Temple under the nearby village that
has
}grown up ad hoc in front of the Giza Plateau
***i thought the Valley Temple was the one with the 200 ton blocks. is there
another ?
}There is a healthy dose of skepticism here in all this evidence for some of
the more
}outlandish claims that have been posted about Giza.
***yes i agree. not being a UFO nor "Laser Beam" supporter myself !
(kindly note this does NOT rule out Atlantis having existed)
}The Great Pyramid was Khufu's tomb,
***i also expect that to be true IN A SENSE, but *not excluding* the
Mystical
Function in the minds of its Designers. my point all along has been to
Emphasise
that only by studying their Anthropological motivations, will we ever get
the full
picture, and that to pour disdain on such is both futile *and* NOT
"scientific".
}no more, no less. It was called the Horizon of Khufu, as the pyramid was the
place
}where the king expected to be resurrected to join the circum-polar stars, or
to join
}Re in his celestial barque, in Lightland, as the Pyramid Texts call it, the
eastern
}horizon of heaven, where the daily resurrected sun-god himself rose each
morning.
***well i wont waste time on that paragraph today, but most of its wrong in
my opinion.
Anyway thanks a lot Frank, and we look forward to Egyptologists (in general)
coming up
with More explanations to support their own perspectives, instead of leaving
the public
to stew in imaginations for decades. best wishes,
------------------------------------------------------------
Hatred and the construction of "Gods",
are the cowards substitute for Vengeance.
kaman
*****************************************************************************
****************
su...@opus1.com
> OK. Sounds impressive. But I suspect Khufu's is still significantly
> larger (and better). What happened to the (thus far rapidly
> progressing) pyramid industry? Why could they never quite parallel or
> surpass the Great Pyramid. As far as egos are concerned, there are no
> points for second best.
>
> One explanation is that the people wouldn't tolerate the tough labour
> again. This is the best answer suggested by scientists that I've seen.
> But taking into consideration the relative ease of building them
> (according to most of your ideas) it would only be a matter of money and
> resources. Obviously they had resource enough to build "comparable"
> pyramids, but not quite as big.
Well, I don't know that Steve was exactly implying that building a pyramid
was easy. It did take a whole pot load of resources. I can easily think of
two reasons to stop. 1)Policitical instability could make it hard to organize
the resources required. Personally, I think that some of the great times in
Egyptian art and architecture that we see are during times of relative stability,
with the exception of Akhenaton, but even he was existing on his father's
stability. 2)Pyramids were tombs, and the builders discovered that they were
not particularly secure tombs being so obvious.
I think the fact that we find many pyramids made rubble in the hunt by
Egyptians to purloin building material points to political instability. When
we find the Egyptians in a once again more stable economic and political
environment, they were deciding to build more secure rock tombs. Some
of these pyramids in rubble were quite large.
Great leaps in technology can usually be traced to certain brilliant individuals
throughout history. Einstein comes to mind in the modern era. What is wrong
with believing Imhotep was one of these people? And why wouldn't he
be thankful to his gods for providing him with his gifts?
Pyramids were a reflection imvho of the Atum creation myth. Why wouldn't the
populace be proud to partake in their part of the glory? Especially considering
it was work that would feed them and their families?
-sueZ
____________________
Sue Zirbes
su...@opus1.com
Whittet
>>
>> "A hundred thousand men laboured constantly and were replaced
>> every three months by a fresh lot" Thus 200,000 men worked on
>> the project in shifts.
>
>the late Middle Kingdom) Khufu was marked down as a tyrant for whatever
>reason and stories like this just aren't objective. And would anyone
>expect an oral history 2000 years after the event to be accurate anyway?
You have to look at each source of information individualy. Herodotus is
a good place to start. He lived in Egypt for a number of years and apparently
was considered among the better historians of his era. Generally he tells us
whether something comes from personal observation or gives a source.
He does mention that cheops or khufu was considered a tyrant because he
closed the temples to focus his peoples energies on his projects. It may be
that this was a history written by later generations, but as others have mentioned
there is evidence to show that there were tens of thousands of men employed
in the quarries and in transporting the stones.
A labor force of 100,000 men spread over a dozen different operations; all ongoing
at different sites (but still necessary to the ultimate completion of the project) is in line
with the staffing of similar labor intensive third world projects in modern times such
as the Great African Railway.
>
>> The population of ancient Egypt is not a given and is
>> >known to be much less in acient times than the big population
>> >of Ptolemic times of 2 to 3 million total.
>>
>> The figures given by Budge place the population in antiquity
>> at 7 to 10 million "The Nile" E A Wallis Budge
>
>2) Don't use Budge. The figures are hopelessly out of date now, like
>anything which Budge wrote. I believe current estimates for the OK are in
>the region of 1-2 million (try Butzer, Hydraulic Civilization in Egypt).
The population density of the Nile,its delta and the Faiyum basin west to
Al Kharge has been shown to have been about 200 people per kilometer
with a total of some 11,200 sq km under cultivation along the Nile, another
2450 sq km in the delta and that much again in the western oasis.
thats a total agricultural population of 3,220,200 people with as many again
in Urban areas. Each of the 42 nomes had three or more cities with populations
in excess of 25,000 people. That gives a population of at least 6 1/2 million
not including Nubia, the Sinai, Libya or Palestine all of which were to some
degree allied with Egypt to the extent of providing a skilled workforce in about
the same way Saudi Arabia gets workers from India, Pakistan, Yemen, Egypt
Palestine and the Phillipines.
>
>
>> The real question is what is it necessary to do to utilize the various
>>skills of an army of men effectively? Generally a team approach seems to be
>> both what is described by Herodotus and what modern project managers
>> have found to be the most effective use of human resources.
>
>The key to the efficiency of pyramid building is organisation, something
>the OK had in abundence.
We are agreed on this, though the increasing number of middle managers
and administrators toward the end of the Old Kingdom may have contributed
greatly to the end of the pyramid age in much the way petty beaurocrats with
sharp pencils and a lack of vision are able to cut science projects out of our
present budget in the US.
> There were lots of officials concerned with
>overseeing works. I can't recall the source, but there are those who
>believe the number of workmen working all year round was not large, and
>was perhaps supplemented as necessary.
I have seen this proposed but am skeptical because the greatest costs
to any project are mobilization and demobilization of the workforce. The
most efficient schedule maintains as flat a line as possible. However,
while the seasonal dismissal and replacement of workers would have
been a disater their replacement in shifts, much as an army sends
replacements of troops to the front would have worked.
To extend the analogy, imagine an army fighting a battle, taking three months
off to go home, then returning to fight some more. Their adversaries would
clearly claim the field in their absence. On a construction site, boats leak,
tools rust, ropes fray, stored food spoils, the wind covers the pyramid with
sand, thieves make away with the equipment, ...regular intervals where
there was no progress on the work would not have been a good idea.
If you look at the barracks
>excavated by petrie near the pyramid of Khafre, there's no way they could
>have held the Cecil M Demille numbers of workmen suggested by Herodotos.
Herodotus does not claim there were 100,000 men on the site at Giza, indeed
the number at work on the pyramid itself may have been between 10,000 and
20,000, but at the same time there was also work in the quarries, transporting
the blocks to the Nile, building boats to carry the blocks across the Nile, manning
the boats, logistical support, people feeding the workers and providing them
sustinence along with tools, lumber, rope, bitumen, metal, abrasives, mortar, etc;
>
>Nigel Strudwick
steve
Rodger Whitlock
>The book is _The Riddle of the Pyramids_ by Kurt Mendelssohn.
>(Praeger Publishers).
Ever since I first read Mendelssohn's book, I have been curious about the
response of professional Egyptologists to his theories. Can someone
please post a pointer into the literature so I can follow this interest
up? I have access to a medium-sized university library.
Please, no crank replies.
----
Rodger Whitlock
su...@opus1.com
> Yesterday, March 19th, there was a fascinating lecture by Dr. Zahi Hawass,
> the Inspector for Giza and Saqqara,
Lot's of really interesting stuff snipped out. I just wanted to thank Frank for making
it worth my while to read this newsgroup. Sometimes, amongst the really crazy posts,
one of great interest with real information shows up!
I'm just a lover of egyptology, lacking in professional knowledge. But some of you
people should just get a life. Interesting philosophical discussions are one thing.
All these posts about Atlantis and the mystic theories on the basically fantastic
real accomplishment of humankind like the pyamids and matching biblical events to
real "recorded" history with maximum rearranging of history to sate your faith....
well, you guys need a real life :-) Real history is more fascinating than crackpot
ideas!
Sorry, just that I've been kind of disappointed with the quality of posts here lately.
But then I forget some of the crosspostings of these messages.
-sueZ
>>>>
____________________
Susanne DeLay Zirbes
su...@opus1.com
John Fowler
Rodger Whitlock <toto...@guild.bc.ca> writes:
> Please, no crank replies.
> ----
> Rodger Whitlock
I too would like to to hear what Egyptologists think of Mendelssohn's
theories. His book made a great impression on me when I first read it.
John. (john....@zetnet.co.uk)
Clayton Conway
In a previous article, Charlie Rigano <cri...@bdm.com> says:
Date: 18 Mar 1996 23:20:44 GMT
:cco...@freenet2.scri.fsu.edu (Clayton Conway) wrote:
:>Whittet (whi...@shore.net) wrote:
:>Date: 12 Mar 1996 15:19:15 GMT
:>
:>:In article <4i28k0$m...@freenet3.scri.fsu.edu>,
:>: cco...@freenet2.scri.fsu.edu says...
:>
:>:>Martin Stower (mar...@dcs.shef.ac.uk) wrote:
:>
:>: In discussing whether or not the Great Pyramid was built
:>: by Khufu if you discard the instances of his cartouche
:> I do not discard references only they suggest other things
:>than just what you have suggested. The existence of catouche from
:>the exterior are not uncommon but do not prove that the king built
:If you will do just alittle bit of research you can easily
:determine that the interior cartouches are not questionable
:- unless of course you have your head clearly up
:and locked in Sitchen's butt - OK I apologize for getting
:carried away here.
Apologizing after the fact when you have all the power
to delete? Is it your logic that anyone who dares disagree
with your own view is a supporter of all the fringe in the
world? Who gives a rats ass about Sitchen? What does he
have to do with anything? Just because he has his own view
of things does not mean there are no questions of validity
about it. This is a tactic used by academic evolutionists
that label anyone who disagrees with all of the tenents of
evolutionary theory that anyone who so dares is a literalist
creationists as they define it. There are questions of
validity and it is naturally so. Not everyones going to
agree. Big so what. Why would anyone want it to have to
be otherwise? Except that some can't stand to be
contradicted in what they *believe*.
My own objections are from calculations of how long
such a structure would take to be built by that culture
(which is not the same as todays standards) and the
traditions that have come down to us. There is also the
age of the structures associated with the GP that are
measured in millennium and not centuries. It is the
second that indicates the impossibility and the
calculations support that Khufu was not the king
responsible as there is insufficient population and labor,
economic considerations, and building time at site in his
reign alone. All Khufu did was build a temple for his
*wife* next to the structure and bury his staff next to
the structure. Something kings had done for long ages.
What your saying is if I had enuff money to bury all my
kin next to the Empire State building and called it my
horizon for my own edification and worshiped my god by it
that when no other documents survived except my grave
stone that I was the obvious builder.
:The Great Pyramid does not sit by itself in the desert as
:the only example of this form, but represents one example
:of which there are many. You cannot address the
:possibility or impossibility of the GP without addressing
:the other examples.
The difference of ages for the structures known to be
built by the kings and the GP complex indicate that they
were not done contemporarily. Buildings built nearly the
same time have the same decay rates. When buildings of
like *materials* are in substancially different condition
in the ware and tear they can be known to have been built
in different times. Known Khufu buildings and the GP do
not match. It is as simple as that.
:While certainly bits of evidence might point away from
:Khufu building the GP, the great weight of evidence points
:to him building it. Most of the rest of your post was just
:arguing the details of how it was done.
:Just a small point. It was Herodotus who said the causeway
:took 10 years. Frankly, I never thought his sources were
:very good. I believe he got his information from the
:locals 2000 years after the event for which there was no
:written record - not a great source. The causeway was
:between the Valley Temple and the Mortuary Temple and must
:have been quite a piece of work. I might accept Herodotus
:on this point. However, there is no eveidence, and no
:reason to believe that this was used as the path for moving
:the stones to the GP, it was merely a seperate
:construction.
:Charlie
The only known factor that is in your favor is that
Herodotus named Khufu as the builder, but you dismiss him as
unreliable. The time of ten years for the causeway is
reasonable and it is not a separate structure. The causeway
is an intergrated structure of the complex. Ever try running
in sand? It is far more difficult which is why many runners
train in it. Would you want to move 3.5 ton stones thru sand
if you had a choice? Just a practical question not an answer.
I don't care if the causeway was used or not but it is given
that it was built first and I go by that as it makes sense.
The only thing that does not make sense is the 20 year
figure as the total time needed to build it and even here
there is a tradition of a century that better fits the
scenario except for those that insist for it to have been
Khufu himself.
I hope this can be resolved by an earlier record that
indicates the GP complex in the records before Khufu so
we can get on with what is important instead of did so
did not arguments.
Larry Orcutt
>
>heinrich <hein...@intersurf.com> wrote:
>>The book is _The Riddle of the Pyramids_ by Kurt Mendelssohn.
>>(Praeger Publishers).
>
>Ever since I first read Mendelssohn's book, I have been curious about
the
>response of professional Egyptologists to his theories. Can someone
>please post a pointer into the literature so I can follow this interest
>up? I have access to a medium-sized university library.
>
>Please, no crank replies.
>
>----
>Rodger Whitlock
>
I.E.S. Edwards writes a short response to the theory in the Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology 60 (1974), p. 251. Christopher Davey offers further
remarks later in the same journal, JEA 62 (1976), p. 178, and Mendelssohn
responds to those remarks, p. 179. There was an interesting two-part
article on the subject in the magazine KMT, Summer 1993 (v.4 no.2), p. 65,
and Spring 1994 (v.5 no.1), p. 73.
There are a few problems with Mendelssohn's theory, but I don't think
that it has been wholly discounted by Egyptologists.
-
LARRY ORCUTT RXU...@prodigy.com
Jon Haglund
> would the contents weigh if we filled it water? There isn't anything
> about this structure that we can treat as insignificant. You don't put
>
Unlike many others who post items on this subject, I have seen, walked
around, rubbed, photographed and touched the "sarcophagus" in the Great
Pyramid.
You can be assured from this observer that it is completely and totally
a box carved from stone, damaged only slightly, for use as a container
for the remains of a dead person. We usually call this a sarcophagus.
Timo Niroma
>
>In message <1996Mar22....@venus.gov.bc.ca>
> Rodger Whitlock <toto...@guild.bc.ca> writes:
>
>> heinrich <hein...@intersurf.com> wrote:
>>
the
>> response of professional Egyptologists to his theories. Can someone
>> ----
>> Rodger Whitlock
>
>
>I too would like to to hear what Egyptologists think of Mendelssohn's
>theories. His book made a great impression on me when I first read it.
>
>John. (john....@zetnet.co.uk)
>
>
would like to join those who ask Egyptologists to comment it.
My choice between Egypt and Sumer to the pro Sumer was much based on the
different opinions about pyramids and all that is associated with old
Egypt which looked like an endless war between opinions not scientific
facts.
The debate about Akhenaten for example in this newsgroup has been a good
example of this mess plus its accompanying debate about the birth of
monotheism.
Timo
Greg Reeder
Rodger Whitlock <toto...@guild.bc.ca> wrote:
>heinrich <hein...@intersurf.com> wrote:
>>The book is _The Riddle of the Pyramids_ by Kurt Mendelssohn.
>>(Praeger Publishers).
>
>response of professional Egyptologists to his theories. Can someone
>up? I have access to a medium-sized university library.
>
>Please, no crank replies.
>
>----
>Rodger Whitlock
>
"The Pyramid of Meidum", by George Johnson is a two part series that
appeared in KMT: A MODERN JOURNAL OF ANCIENT EGYPT, Summer 1993 and
Spring 1994. It disagrees with Mendelssohn's conclussions and offers a
thorough examination of all the problems and theories involved.
--
Greg Reeder
on the WWW at
REEDER'S EGYPT PAGE
---------------->http://www.sirius.com/~reeder/egypt.html
ree...@sirius.com
Ptahhotep
It's a pity these Atlantis-theorists WON'T TAKE A HINT AND GO TO
ALT.ARCHAEOLOGY!!!!!!
Martin Stower
>With respect to the quarry-marks controversy the explanation given in "The
>Eyes of the Sphinx" states:
[quote from Erich von Daeniken deleted]
>Ok, so the one and only marking is a hoax.
[the rest deleted]
. . assuming that von Daeniken is to be trusted . . .
I've added some material on von Daeniken's treatment of this topic under
http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/
(Follow the `other authors' link.)
Von Daeniken relies entirely on Sitchin. (No surprise there.)
His arguments have no merit whatsoever. (No surprise there, either.)
Martin
Mark Anthony Iommi
In article <31540C...@sprynet.com>, Jon Haglund (hag...@sprynet.com) writes:
Snip
>Unlike many others who post items on this subject, I have seen, walked
>around, rubbed, photographed and touched the "sarcophagus" in the Great
>Pyramid.
>You can be assured from this observer that it is completely and totally
>a box carved from stone, damaged only slightly, for use as a container
>for the remains of a dead person. We usually call this a sarcophagus.
I unfortunately have not walked around, rubbed or touched the "sarcophagus"
in the Great Pyramid as you have. At the time I visited the pyramids I was
not as interested in them as I am now and it was a very hot day and I was
tired and I had had too much to drink the night before.....So I did not enter
any of the pyramids. What a mistake! Anyway, I have seen a number of
photographs of the so called sarcophagus and I am afraid that I do not possess
your conviction that that is what it was.
You see, if it had been found to contain Khufu's body then I would be as
convinced as you that it is a sarcophagus. Failing that, if had been inscribed
with this names and titles then I would be convinced. Given the absence of
either of these perhaps if the room it was in had been decorated and inscribed
like a burial chamber or if the pyramid had other rooms which were decorated
with reliefs or inscribed as is the case with Zoser's Step Pyramid at Saqqara
then yes, I would be convinced that it was indeed a sarcophagus. Failing all
of this, if the remains of some form of funeral offerings had been found in
the pyramid then I would concede that it was more than likely a sarcophagus.
But do you see my dilemma? We have none of this hard factual evidence in
support of it being a sarcophagus. It appears very roughly finished and not
at all the kind of thing you would expect to see housing a kings body. So how
can we say with any conviction that it is in deed a sarcophagus?
Sure we can say that it resembles a sarcophagus but then lots of things
resemble sarcophagi without actually being coffins such as a large blanket
box or a chest freezer for instance. Now I know that a chest freezer has a
few things which distinguish it from a sarcophagus (a flex with a plug on the
end and a motor for a start) But, suppose one was unearthed in 3,500 years
time. Would the discovers have any idea what function these to compoments
served if indeed they were still attached to the main body of the freezer?
Now I am not suggesting for one minute that the object in the Great Pyramid
is some form of ancient chest freezer. I merely use the analogy as an example
of the dangers of jumping to a conclusion soley on an objects shape.
Mark
.
Martin Stower
>Martin Stower wrote:
>>
>> srth...@quads.uchicago.edu (Steve Thurston) wrote:
>>
>> [some very sound comments]
>>
>> >A long time ago I made a post that said that of course the pyramids weren't
>> >strictly "tombs". They were part of a pyramid complex which included temples
>> >and pyramid towns. Why hasn't anyone denouncing pyramids-as-tombs (Not done
>> >in this particular post, I'm just venting here) tried to look at the pyramid
>> >in its context?
>> >
>> >Steve Thurston
>>
>> The problem is that `alternative' theories, more often than not,
>> actively deny that context.
>>
>> Martin Stower
>
>So, due to your war against `alternative' theories you have a problem
>with those arguing the "pyramid not tomb" theory because it resembles
>that which you are against?
>
>Is that really a problem?
No, it's not really a problem.
(If you read what you wrote, quite carefully, you might see what I mean.)
You seem to have missed the quotes I put around `alternative'.
Most of this stuff isn't (IMO) a genuine alternative at all, more an
alternative orthodoxy, with its own dogmas and standard texts. People
read the stuff and imagine they're being bold, independent thinkers,
when in fact they lack one single original idea. You don't really
know what I think about (genuinely) alternative theories.
The tendency is to remove the pyramids from their real context, and
put them in some other, preferred context, more often than not of
prior ideas, sometimes of an explicitly religious nature; the
Biblical Pyramidologists and the Caycean faithful provide examples.
More generally, the pyramids are treated as a blank screen onto
which some congenial fantasy is projected.
Denying that the pyramids were tombs doesn't amount to a theory; it's
the mere indeterminate negation of a theory. Lets see the supposed
alternatives stated clearly.
It may occur to you at some point that my `war' (sic) is with people
who tell lies to make money, and in the process soften people up
for more dangerous deceptions.
>What would you do all evening without `alternative' theories to address?
>
><g>
Something else. <g>
>The fool doth think he is wise,
>but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.
> -William Shakespeare
My other signature is a Porsche.
-Martin Stower