Giza

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:33 pm

Bob said:

But they didn't know that when they started. And is Lehner suggesting that as soon as ole Khufu dropped dead the laws of time, space and physics suddenly stopped functioning so that they could finish the thing and bury Khufu's old ass in the required 70 days?

I said:
Maybe that's why there are three burial chambers. They moved him up as the pyramid progressed. I have proposed this theory before and no one replied. Say the bottom course of stone were set and the old fart died. They dug a tomb underneath the pyramid and stuck him in there. Then at about halfway done they put another chamber and moved him there and finally they finished the one they wanted to put him in from the beginning and then moved him there. Maybe sons bult the pyramids for their fathers....hmmmmmm, that just occured to me. Waddya think?

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:38 pm

There seems to be a difference of opinion about that NOVA program.

But that is exactly what the academic promoters of the "primitive method" theory have done. Oddly enough, the public seems to have bought into the hoax. In 1994 NOVA sponsored a team of experts that wanted to prove the old theory, dispose of "alternative theories" and lay the debate to rest. As NOVA writers framed it: "In 1995, the NOVA team dared to demonstrate firsthand what has mystified historians for millennia: how to raise an obelisk using only materials and techniques the ancient Egyptians might have used."

The team included an archeologist, a master stonemason and one of Egypt's foremost specialists in moving heavy statues, Aly el Gasab. They chose to quarry, dress and lift a 35-ton obelisk. That was a cheat right away. The largest Egyptian obelisks weigh 400 tons.

The problem is even more complex than people generally suppose. Setting the finished stone in place is only one part of the building process. The first step involves cutting the stones away from the matrix rock at the quarry. Then it has to be dressed into a transportable shape. Next it has to be transported, sometimes great distances, from the quarry to the construction site and then lifted.

With what tools did the ancient Egyptians free the stone from the matrix rock? According to the archeologist they used dolorite hammers. How were the stones transported? Gasab said they would use ropes and wooden sledges. The first problem, and it proved insurmountable, came when they soon realized the dolorite hammers could not do the job. That "ancient method" was quickly abandoned.

The whole article is back on page 2 or 3.

Katherine Reece · Post by **Katherine Reece** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:46 pm

You have to take into consideration that the modern workers and archaeologists do not have hundreds of years experience in doing this work. The archaeologists attempting to do these experiments also do not have the manpower available to them that the Egyptian Kings had.

Did you read the last bit of information I posted from Lehner's book?

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:49 pm

Frank Harrist wrote:Bob said:

But they didn't know that when they started. And is Lehner suggesting that as soon as ole Khufu dropped dead the laws of time, space and physics suddenly stopped functioning so that they could finish the thing and bury Khufu's old ass in the required 70 days?

I said:
Maybe that's why there are three burial chambers. They moved him up as the pyramid progressed. I have proposed this theory before and no one replied. Say the bottom course of stone were set and the old fart died. They dug a tomb underneath the pyramid and stuck him in there. Then at about halfway done they put another chamber and moved him there and finally they finished the one they wanted to put him in from the beginning and then moved him there. Maybe sons bult the pyramids for their fathers....hmmmmmm, that just occured to me. Waddya think?

From the outhouse to the penthouse, Frank?

As I recall the pyramid was entered in the 9th century by Ma'mun...then reigning in Cairo as Caliph or something with a team of workmen. They dug through the limestone around two big granite plugs and came out behind them into the ascending corridor. They found the pyramid in the condition it is today. Undecorated, without any evidence of a burial and with no treasure or ancient wisdom....which Ma'mun claimed to be more interested in than 'treasure' (yeah, right.)

Further, unlike other tombs such as Tut's where the efforts of tomb robbers were clearly seen and, in that case, repaired by the ancients, there did not seem to be any way for tomb robbers to have entered the GP and carry off whatever goodies were allegedly entombed with Khufu.

Ma'mun seems to have felt that the GP was never filled with anything.

Kat, do you know of an entry point for robbers?

Katherine Reece · Post by **Katherine Reece** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:50 pm

Frank Harrist wrote: Maybe that's why there are three burial chambers. They moved him up as the pyramid progressed. I have proposed this theory before and no one replied. Say the bottom course of stone were set and the old fart died. They dug a tomb underneath the pyramid and stuck him in there. Then at about halfway done they put another chamber and moved him there and finally they finished the one they wanted to put him in from the beginning and then moved him there. Maybe sons bult the pyramids for their fathers....hmmmmmm, that just occured to me. Waddya think?

A freind of mine (an amateur I really must add here

) has presented at two academic conferences recently a theory regarding the shafts that uses that same argument. I'm hoping we'll see something published from him soon.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:52 pm

It was ramps and ropes and using previously pulled up stones as counterweights to pull up more stones as they were lowered into place. They built up one side and then down the other. That would explain the older dates at the higher levels at least on one side. It's really hard to explain, but I can see it in my mind exactly how it was done. I wish I could draw on here.

Katherine Reece · Post by **Katherine Reece** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:52 pm

Undecorated, without any evidence of a burial and with no treasure or ancient wisdom....which Ma'mun claimed to be more interested in than 'treasure'

Undecorated btw seems to be the norm at this point in pyramid construction. It wasn't until Unas in the Vth Dynasty that we see the PT's on the walls for example.

As for Ma'mun there are conflicting stories ... I'll try to find in the Ma'at archives this information for you.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:54 pm

You have to take into consideration that the modern workers and archaeologists do not have hundreds of years experience in doing this work.

Wait just a goldarn minute, Kat. Neither did the 4th Dynasty Egyptians.

Judging by the scope and scale of Sneferu's efforts (and the Step Pyramid for that matter) immediately preceeding, the GP was terra incognita for the Egyptians. They had never built anything of that scale before so they did not have "hundreds of years" of experience.

As Hart suggests in his essays, just because a man can pick up 10, 100 pound stones does not mean he can pick up one, thousand-pound stone.

Katherine Reece · Post by **Katherine Reece** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 1:57 pm

Minimalist wrote: Wait just a goldarn minute, Kat. Neither did the 4th Dynasty Egyptians.

They didn't have hundreds of years of experience in carving and moving heavy stone?

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:03 pm

Katherine Reece wrote:
Minimalist wrote: Wait just a goldarn minute, Kat. Neither did the 4th Dynasty Egyptians.

They didn't have hundreds of years of experience in carving and moving heavy stone?

They had been bulding with stone for centuries. Mastabas, temples, step pyramids etc. They knew WTF they were doing. It is no longer a mystery to me at all how they did it. I have it figured out. It would have taken a long time on the first half, but the second half would go fast. A pulley would have been nice, but not absolutely necessary. Build the first half to it's total height and the ramps too as it went up then lower the stones over the top to build the second half. I know this doesn't make any sense without any illustrations, but I can't draw here. Can't really draw anywhere, but I could show you how it worked. Damn! it's frustrating!

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:03 pm

Define "heavy."

Because the stones in Sneferu's pyramids look a hell of a lot smaller than those in the GP.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:06 pm

Minimalist wrote:Define "heavy."

Because the stones in Sneferu's pyramids look a hell of a lot smaller than those in the GP.

Size doesn't matter, Bob. I know you've heard that before.

They used the weight of one stone to help move the next.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:07 pm

I know this doesn't make any sense without any illustrations, but I can't draw here

Do your drawing. Scan it. Get yourself a photobucket.com account (free) upload it to there and post the url here.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:09 pm

They used the weight of one stone to help move the next.

Seems to me that's just exchanging one stone for another. Unless I'm not following you.

Katherine Reece · Post by **Katherine Reece** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:11 pm

Frank Harrist wrote: They had been bulding with stone for centuries. Mastabas, temples, step pyramids etc. They knew WTF they were doing.

A pulley would have been nice, but not absolutely necessary.

Have you seen the "proto-pully"?