Giza

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 6:59 pm

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the GP was not built on a flat surface but, rather, incorporated some hill within it.

I also seem to recall that Mayan Pyramids also were built over some Holy Spot.

Perhaps the Bosnian Pyramid is similarly built over a natural hill?

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 8:44 pm

Well.....all I can say is get a load of this one.

http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/Article/ ... Built.html

No one in the world really knows how the Great Pyramid of Giza was built – that is, of course, except for myself! Such is how I start a lecture or speech on this controversial subject. As an attention grabber, it works well, but it is nothing compared to the subject matter at hand.

There are about as many proposed methods of construction as there are people who propose theories on the subject, with the informed reader aware of most. The following brief and condensed explanation of the Great Pyramid’s construction is one of the most fantastic and unconventional methods ever proposed. With some consideration, this is possibly the method that makes the most sense.

stan · Post by **stan** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 7:07 am

http://www.geopolymer.org/category/archaeology/

This site represents the work and ideas of a scientist named Davidovits
who believes that many of the large blocks we've been talking about
were CAST in place. That would explain how the blocks could become so large.
He also says that the "cast" stones in the Pyramids show a jumbled conglomerate inside instead of parallel sedimentary layers.
He says that this is how the irregular blocks at
Sachsayhuaman were fitted together.

If he is correct, that would account for all four of the elements that seem problematic: Quarrying, Transportation, Fitting, Lifting.

I would think that it would be pretty easy for a geologist to determine whether the blocks were cast or cut from a quarry.

Another interesting parallel is the method used to fill the Peruvian
pyramids at Caral: Bags of small rocks rather than single large stones.
It suggests that early "engineers" were thainking of a variety of methods, and that someone before the romans figured out how to make
"Sakrete."

On the other hand, maybe you know of the work of Flinders Petrie, who
specifically studied the consruction methods of the Egyptians, and published his book in 1883. The whole book is online at the following url, but this particular page is the chapter on cutting techniques.

http://www.touregypt.net/petrie/c19.html

Here is an article and a bunch of photos of various saw an drill marks:

http://www.sunship.com/egypt/articles/hrdfact2.html

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 3:51 pm

Stan, I think I've heard the concrete idea before and if it were true it would answer a lot of questions. But by now some geologist must have examined the rocks to check out that theory. However, I've not seen the concrete idea disproven anywhere.

The interior of the GP has granite blocks however. So the original builders, if there was more than one builder, definately didn't use concrete.

I also think they have found one of the quarrys, showing cut marks for extracting the blocks. That doesn't really mean anything though.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:01 pm

I don't think there is any significant doubt that the bulk of the GP is made out of limestone.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:11 pm

I agree. What do your instincts tell you? A form of poured concrete or cut limestone?

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:17 pm

Cut, limestone, blocks....unless the geologists from Bosnia can make a case for these being a 'natural formation.'

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:21 pm

Yeah, the concrete theory was tempting in it's day but just doesn't make sense.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:25 pm

BTW, the "Red Pyramid" supposedly the forebearer and immediate predecessor of The Great Pyramid seems to be built of much smaller stones.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:28 pm

They may well be, I don't know and I don't think Schoch mentioned it on his website. Wouldn't surprise me though.

Post by **Minimalist** » Sun Jun 25, 2006 8:30 pm

There are people in both photos to give it some scale. And the stones in the GP seem to have a certain uniformity of size in comparison as well.

stan · Post by **stan** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:00 am

Mini and Beagle:

I wrote

his site represents the work and ideas of a scientist named Davidovits
who believes that many of the large blocks we've been talking about
were CAST in place. That would explain how the blocks could become so large.
He also says that the "cast" stones in the Pyramids show a jumbled conglomerate inside instead of parallel sedimentary layers.
He says that this is how the irregular blocks at
Sachsayhuaman were fitted together.

What about his claim that some of the rocks are of jumbled conglomerate rather than sedimentary layers? Are you saying that's like coquina in Florida? Do you think that there are any cast Eqyptian stones?
How about Sachsayhuaman? That would make those 11-faceted fitted rocks a lot easier.

On the other hand.....if you could cast stones, why would you have to saw them?
I have a feeling someeont would have to do a new, updated detailed chronology of constructions in Egypt to get this straight. Petrie did his a long time ago, but I haven't read the entire book.

What about the saws fitted with diamond cutters? Mini and Beagle, do you accept this as the cutting techniques of the Egyptians?

Those are good pictures, Minimalist. It is intersting that the later stones are larger....

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 11:13 am

Yeah, up to a point they are larger. Then there is this, the pyramid of the 5th Dynasty pharoah, Unas.

Ignoring for the moment the obvious fact that it fell down, it once again seems that the Egyptians reverted to smaller stones, except at the bottom where they wouldn't have had to lift them. Thus from the 4th Dynasty to the Fifth, the Egyptians seem to have lost the secret of how to move large stones via sled over sand and build ramps.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 1:00 pm

Back to Sneferu and Dashur, here is a close up of the Bent Pyramid. Once again, fairly small stones which could have been handled by a few men working as a team.

BTW, Sneferu apparently thought he would live forever as he kept building pyramids.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:21 pm

Minimalist wrote:Back to Sneferu and Dashur, here is a close up of the Bent Pyramid. Once again, fairly small stones which could have been handled by a few men working as a team.

BTW, Sneferu apparently thought he would live forever as he kept building pyramids.

I'll bet the workers thought he was gonna live forever, but wished he'd hurry up and die so they could stop building those damn rock piles.