Giza

[alrom]

Hancock catalogued some 30 different theories for pyramid construction. I'm sure each looked good on paper and compelling arguments can be made. Yet, when a Japanese team tried in the late 70's to build a 60 foot replica of the GP using 'ancient methods' they failed totally. Perhaps they should try one of the other 29 methods?

I think again that this kind of experiments can't take into account the experience that the ancient egyptian workers had on moving stones. I don't really know how much experience that japanese team had so I'm just wondering here...

But let's do a thought experiment: some archaeologists in the future read about this ancient technique called 'barn raising' that some tech-hating guys used to build barns. But their technique is lost... how did they do it? So they form a team and try to build a barn using ancient tools, no electrical tools etc. It ends up taking two weeks to build a barn, and they even had to resort to some cheats to do it. They end up knowing as much as they knew before doing this experiment, and on top of it now there's a couple of crazy guys that conclude that the amish had magical superpowers.

[Minimalist]

That's a fair comparison, alrom.

Again, I don't know what the parameters of the Japanese test were. It was before the internet which certainly inhibits research. Then again, the Japanese had all these experts explaining exactly how things were done and how long does it take to learn how to pull a rock?

[stan]

Okay, Stan, at your insistence I went back and read it. There are an awful lot of unsubstantiated statements there....and moving the lighthouse is apples and oranges compared to lifting an enormous weight up in the air, but let's stick to the boat.

First off, they seem to be quoting ancient sources for that one (I couldn't tell if it were Herodotus or someone else because it was poorly written.)

Herodotus claimed 100,000 slaves for 20 years but Egyptologists reject that but they accept this? It is the same kind of picking and choosing that I blast arch for doing.

I am glad you read the page from catchpenny, but I was disappointed by your response. Your response above, i thought, was rather dismissive. You used expressions like
"apples and oranges"
"unsubstantiated statements"
And what is wrong with using ancient sources?
Furthermore, we are all pickers and choosers, I think.

Clearly, if you had been in charge of building the pyramids, they would have never have been built, because you would not have believed it possible. The obelisks coldn't have been moved because you would have sunk the boat. But what that page and some others cited shows is that the Egyptians knew how to do a lot of stuff, and that if they ran into a problem, they were smart enough to figure it out, using their own methods. THey manifestly figured out the boat/obelisk thing, and it may have involved a simple solution that you nor I can think of.
These pages cited show that the authors, including Petrie, more than a hundred years ago, know a hell of a lot about what happened, mainly because they went there and studied the monuments up close and personal, and they have discovered thousands of archeological artifacts upon which to build their claims.

(BTW, I hate to be drawn in to arguments, because essentially I am interested in learning stuff on this bulletin board. Plus i have a weak heart. BUt I especially hate to argue with you, because you have done a lot of good work on
this board.)

At great personal risk I will say that your attitude toward these construction issues seem to parallel arch's attitude toward evolution and "nonbiblical" archaeology.

He is the one that accepts nothing and demands proof for everything in his disputes with us.
You are the one that seems to accept nothing and demand proof for every assertion made by others about these pyramids and the abilities of the Egyptians, assertions made by people who have studied this stuff for years and amasssed a great deal of real evidence.

Well, I suppose there's a right path somewhere between
skepticism and naivete.

[Minimalist]

The difference is that the pyramids are there and they were built by someone. So clearly it was possible.

But was it possible in the timeframe allotted?

I don't see it....not by the methods discussed.


(The problem with all ancient sources is that in many cases they tend to merely repeat legend and folklore. Read Livy for an example). Not their fault, there were no standards of history for Herodotus but you have to realize that Herodotus was writing in 500 BC. Two millenia after it is claimed that these structures were built. He is as far separated from his subject as we are from Livy.)

Whoever wrote that page makes a statement that the Romans moved one of the Baalbek stones but provides no backup for that statement. I consider that "unsubstantiated."

What did I miss?

[stan]

[Beagle]

(BTW, I hate to be drawn in to arguments, because essentially I am interested in learning stuff on this bulletin board. Plus i have a weak heart. BUt I especially hate to argue with you, because you have done a lot of good work on
this board.)

Stan, firstly, I hope that the comment that you made about a "weak heart" was in metaphor my friend. If true, I feel badly for you Stan. I expect that you have a good team of professional people with you all the way. If you feel that you do not, please PM me.

I can't speak for Bob, but I will go ahead and say that, that after posting here for awhile he feels as I do. True friendships are not so fragile that they cannot endure disagreements. Don't worry Stan - you have been a most valuable stabilizing presence in this forum.

Take care of yourself Stan.

[stan]

Thanks, Beagle...you are very kind, but I was
just kidding about the heart!
I guess I was saying that sometimes this forum is
not "for the faint of heart."

Of course, among retired people, when we say such things....you have to wonder.
What you said about true friendshiip is correct, but these internet communications have that "virtual quality," where anyone can pretend to be anyone or anything.

Best wishes to all.

[Minimalist]

Stan, let's try it this way.


Lot's of very smart people have picked up paper and pencil and tried to figure out how the pyramids were built. Hancock refers to 30 theories and those are just the ones that have been published because Frank came up with #31. How many more of those have there been?

Whether it's by levers, or ropes, or ramps, or sleds I have no doubt that it is possible to move a 2.5 ton block of limestone. As the saying goes, "any problem can be solved given enough time, money and manpower." We are all accepting the notion of a megalomaniac king who has the time, money and manpower.

The issue is, and remains, can any of these methods do it fast enough to meet the time constraints that the Egyptologists have established?

That's the part that I do not see.

Now originally I had put forward a 1 block in 4 minutes math computation just to show the scale of the problem but that assumed working 24/7 365 days a year for 20 years and that is absurd.

Even allowing for 1 day off in 10 and working 12 hours a day the problem becomes much much worse.

Giving the workers 36 days off of a 365 day year gives you 329 workdays.

Assuming 12 hour workdays (and I have no idea what the average length of sunlight was in an Egyptian day) gives you 3,948 work hours per year.
(12 x 329 = 3,948)

Let's round that up to 3,950 and 20 years of that gives you a total of 79,000 work hours.
(3,950 x 20 = 79,000 hours)

Dividing 2.5 million blocks by 79,000 yields 31.6 per hour (round it to 32)and you get slightly less than 2 minutes per stone. Even that is asinine because it assumes that they worked all day without meals or rest periods and these were not slaves. It also assumes that there was never an accident or a production bottleneck...there was never a sandstorm; there was never a religious festival, etc., etc. Oh, and last but not least, while all of this is going on they still have to build the ramps.

I am just looking at both sides of the equation, Stan. Just because someone devises a method for moving a block of stone does not mean it could be moved fast enough to complete the pyramid in the time allowed.

Does that help?

[Minimalist]

While reviewing the above I just had another thought about the ramps.

The ramp would have imposed its own production bottleneck because everytime you finished a tier of stone you would have to raise the ramp.
That not only means raising it but also lengthening it because you have to maintain the 10 degree slope. And, you can't start raising the ramp until you have delivered the last block to the current tier.

True, while they were building the ramp the quarry workers could keep cutting and finishing blocks so in that sense they could stockpile but at some point the ramp becomes a bigger project than the pyramid.


I have to think about this idea some more.

[stan]

Thanks, Bob. I do see your point about the years it took to build the GP.
Thinking of the size of each stone and installing them so fast sort of beggars the imagination.
But maybe it would be more fruitful to figure out what the actual period of time of the construction was. It seems manifestly obvious, if you are correct, that the periods you site are impossible. Do you think there is any way of really determining it other than speculation? Maybe that is the real "mystery" of Giza.

I had an idea that was suggested by Katherine's descriptions of the ramps. She or someone said that in some cases the ramps were perpendicular to one side of the pyramid. That led me to think that
the levels or courses might have build one at a time, sort of filling up a flat surface, or loading the deckof a ship, all supplied by the same ramp, built up a little more for each course. The area and number of blocks would have gotten smaller as they got higher, and the wider lower courses could have provided greater support for the ramp.
Still, it's hard to imagine those last few blocks getting up there. Talk about a dangerous job!

[Minimalist]

Stan,

Do you mean any of these possibilities?


http://www.digitalegypt.ucl.ac.uk/pyramids/ramps.html

[stan]

Yes, BOb. Thanks!
This is what I was thinking of. I see you were right about the ramp being larger than the pyramid! (BUt they had plenty of mud) The wide ramp surface of this alternative would have enabled them to work faster, get more rocks and people up there.

[Minimalist]

I, too, envision this type of ramp...well maybe not that wide on top, but definitely a single straight ramp at a 10 degree slope (max) which seems to be much shallower than what is represented in the picture.

The notion of wrapping ramps around the pyramid seems shaky and how does one pull the stones around the corners?


The obvious problem with the single ramp is that if the GP was one of the 7 wonders of the world the ramp would be the 8th. I'm lousy at geometry but I read where someone claimed that such a ramp would have 3 times the bulk of the pyramid itself....18 million tons. That's a LOT of mud.

But still.....how else?

[Frank Harrist]

Why does the ramp have to have a 10 degree slope? With my counterweight method up to 45 degreees could be used with some help pulling by about 16 workers.

[stan]

I still don't understan, Frank. Wouldn'tyou have to carry up twice as many rocks? How do you get that counterweight up there?