Jump to content

Talk:Construction of the Egyptian pyramids/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Ramps

Pictures in French article

There's a couple of interesting images in the French version of this article, maybe it is something to take a look at. --Ediug (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, good pictures. You can find most of them here:
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Construction of the Pyramids of Egypt.

--Satrughna (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Egyptian pyramid ramps

A Google search reveals article after article showing that the theory that the Egyptians used mud ramps to construct the pyramids doesn't hold up to rational analysis. Yet Wikipedia continues to publish articles showing mud ramp construction as if it were a rational and realistic theory. On the other hand my article describing in detail how the pyramids could have been constructed using movable wooden ramps was rejected as "spam."

I am not trying to sell anything, and my article is NOT spam! It may reproduced at no charge. The only restriction is that I continue to be named as the author.

Wikipedia's rejection seems to me to be arbitrary, unfair, and unrealistic. The editors even removed a link to my article. Wikipedia is publishing misinformation about a theory that has been repeatedly debunked and refusing to consider a unique and reasonable alternative.

Forgive me, but this seems to me to be unreasoning prejudice. Please review this time without prejudice my article http://www.fsteiger.com/Pyramid.html

Thank you, Frank Steiger 8-19-07


```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fsteiger (talk • contribs) 21:03:41, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

I fear you are suffering from the same problem that I have. Although no mainstream description of the building of the Great Pyramid stacks up, these same descriptions are nevertheless mainstream, frequently referenced and appear in many referenced documents. Though I believe my description (http://www.farmhall.com/drupal/files/GPpaper.pdf ) Mehtopa (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC) is viable, it is not mainstream and therefore does not merit inclusion in wiki. That is the nature of wiki. It is not unreasoning prejudice which precludes our articles but their absence elsewhere from the public domain consensus. Recognition has to precede inclusion, not the other way round. Basically, we are outsiders in the Egyptian community. Mehtopa 12:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Objections to ramps and alternatives to them were discussed in sci.archaeology between 1994 and the present. One of the ideas mentioned in the article, the use of kites, was discussed there in 1999 and proved by scientists from caltech in 2001. Another idea, the use of water rams to or locks and barges to lift the stones hydraulically was also discussed there.
Dec 2 1999, 3:00 am Newsgroups sci.archaeology Date 1999/12/02
Subject Re Were Kites used to lift pyramid stones?
We have archaeological evidence for ramps (i.e. there are remains of some), nothing for any other hypotheses. dougweller (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm a lay person, no expert. I've read through both of the above.... Both are about "how I would build a pyramid", not about how the Egyptians did it or would have. Whether ramps are wood, clay or rocks is far less important than the big picture of how or if ramps were used at all, and what arrangement. Or what else was done...... Just not as earth-shattering as the authors would like to believe, sorry.......Jjdon (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Building the pyramids from quarried stones

The bald statement that '.. the stones forming the core of the pyramids were roughly cut, especially in the Great Pyramid..' should surely not go unchallenged. Where is the supporting evidence? Who has investigated the core of the GP and come to this conclusion? It is a likely conjecture but AFAIK nobody has any certain knowledge of the nature of the GP interior beyond what is visible. The wiki should only refer to knowledge or evidence in the public domain.

Mehtopa (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Shirley you jest! It can be thoroughly contrived, via the exposed surfaces in chambers with poor interior design, that many interior stones lack fine finishes! 173.164.86.190 (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wallington Theories to pyramid construction

Hi, I'm not a Wiki regular editor/contributor but I though this might warrant inclusion in the article.

It's a site run by a retired carpenter who's figured out how, by using counterweights, large (like 10-ton) stone blocks could be moved. He's trying to sell DVDs, but there are several interesting snippets of avaiable for viewing.

http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/newpage1 http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/newpage3

In particular, his method of rolling the square blocks along semicylindrical "cradles" places on the ground is a stunningly simple idea that seems to work very well... much better than worker-drawn sledges.

http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/newpage4

Just an FYI. I leave it to the regulars to see if they can make something of this for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krispos42 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Overview

I have added a few paragraphs to summarise why the question "how were the pyramids built" is of such interest. Since the "legacy" theory of Hancock et al and the "New Age type" theories are so well publicised I thought it worth mentioning them here without addressing their credibility. The important thing, in my view, is that we really have no clue as to how some of these things were done. Thus all current experiments and published hypotheses are worth mentioning. Kigongos (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this, but it duplicates the function of the lead, see WP:LEAD "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. ". It isn't quite true that 'all current experiments & published hypotheses are worth mentioning', see WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Even though I've reverted it, your efforts are appreciated. Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Duplicates the lead? My overview and your lead say very different things! I suggest then that you redo the lead because as it stands it does not do justice to the topic. Why is this matter of enough enough interest to merit a separate article? That "there are disagreements" is not enough reason; there are disagreements on all historical questions. You give equal play to the "slave or laborer" question, but it's really the engineering questions that fascinate serious students of this matter.

Consider something like this for a lead:

The question of how the Pyramids of Giza were built has been of great interest since ancient times, and was discussed by Greek historians. When the site was examined in detail by modern engineers in the 19th century a number of facts were uncovered which still fascinate engineers and historians. The builders of the pyramids were, to our best knowledge, an iron age civilisation with no iron, no horses, no wheels or pulleys and only a basic knowledge of applied mathematics, so engineers studying the pyramids pose questions such as: -How were the Egyptians able to determine the direction of True North so accurately? -How did they lay out buildings with an accuracy in directions, angles and levels which in modern practice requires laser devices. -How were they able, without iron tools, to accurately cut out huge blocks of granite, a very hard and brittle rock? -How were they able to move and lift such huge blocks, the biggest of which weigh about 80 tons? -Why do the earliest pyramids show a much higher level of building skill than those built later? Answers to these questions fall into three broad hypotheses: The conventional view of most Egyptologists is that the pyramids were built using human labor and copper tools. Many engineers have tried to replicate some of the technical tasks involved (see below). Two alternative views have become widely known via the popular press. Graham Hancock, a British journalist, has popularised the "legacy hypothesis", which asserts that the pyramid builders had access to skills from a lost advanced civilisation. Numerous books, such as von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods" hypothesize that the pyramids were built by visitors from other worlds.Kigongos (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller is correct in saying that the lead paragraphs are there to summarize the main points that appear on the rest of the page devoted to the subject. Your proposed revision seems more suited for a separate, non-encyclopedic article or essay on the subject than an encyclopedic entry, and it is not supposed to introduce new material which is then not picked up elsewhere in the present article. Some of your questions are highly subjective, and "Why do the earliest pyramids show a much higher level of building skill than those built later?" is demonstrably untrue if you are comparing the things like the Great Pyramid to its predecessors, and ignores the fact that later pharaohs opted for building other monuments, while sometimes keeping the pyramid style in a much smaller form. And while you are right about the claims by von Däniken et al. they are considered WP:FRINGE by the academic community. It is worth mentioning, especially since the theories appear in popular culture, but please note that this would mean some expansion of the existing article so that it could be summarized in the lead. Hope that helps. Captmondo (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Deformation of limestone?

I've seen people make a great deal about the tightness of seams between stones in the pyramids, but I'm curious: is it possible for limestone to deform significantly under pressure in 4500 years, closing the seams after the fact? Are the seams as tight at the top of a pyramid as in its base? Wnt (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The oldest trick in the book is to make only the seams tight, and the surfaces both a little concave; or, as seen elsewhere in the pyramid, to carve two blocks, place them close together and then insert a saw blade and saw along the joint. after this one of the block is shifted closer to the other, leaving a very tight joint. Of course in granite this was probably not possible at that time, but for limestone it has been used. Of course the surface may weather and blocks expand and contract minute amounts due to salt and moisture, but actual deformation as in syrup is not likely. Under tremendous pressure small irregularities possibly may shatter a little bit, so that blocks end up closer than before --Satrughna (talk) 08:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

i was wondering if those tight seams are an indication for the 'limestone concrete' hypothesis? i assume that if you cast a new block on top of old blocks everything will fit perfectly. while putting already-carved stones on top of each other would presumably always leaves a bit of space in between. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.246.73 (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Egyptian site about pyramid construction

I'm no archeologist, so I'm not going to do any editing. I've been intrigued by this (again) after going to the new King Tut show. I found this site: http://www.touregypt.net/construction/ that has a great deal to say about pyramid construction, much of it at odds with this article. Seems to me it's the one more on the right track.... Or at least more up-to-date. Note the further links towards the bottom of the page. Interesting, if nothing else. Jjdon (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

seems like a tourist-website. filled with lots of simplified and outdated information and no discussion (as not to confuse tourists). and an overabundance of pretty sunset-pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.246.73 (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Why did Egyptians build in the shape of a pyramid

It has been said and written so many times that the Egyptians and the ancient Indians in central america put up those great constructions in the shape of a pyramid because a pyramid is the most stable structure.But could it not be because they lacked suitable roofing materials? Since there were no durable or in fact any material for a big structure,they decided to build without a roof, the only building that can be constructed without a roof is in the shape of a pyramid.Turyomurugyendo (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

  • What are you talking about? Pyramid's weren't fantasy castles, like you may have picked up from whatever video game you've been playing, they were burial tombs. Solid rock with only a few chambers. They didn't need a roof. 87.210.202.129 (talk) 23:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

@turyo you're joking, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.246.73 (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

New Method Suggested

I can't tell if anyone else wrote about this in the discussion but some time ago on a TV show (I don't remember what it was called) I saw an interesting theory on how the stones were moved up ramps. Instead of stones being put on sleds or pallets and dragged up the stones were placed in something like cylinders. Essentially, the ends were formed by these wooden round things, effectively wheels, and the stones themselves became the axles. It's a bit hard to describe in words but once you see it demonstrated, it's really quite simple. The point was that this method is much easier than sleds and you can push the stones up much steeper ramps. Does this theory merit placement in the article? I know that Wikipedia's cardinal rule is verifiability and I realize, unfortunately, that I can't provide more specific details. Nevertheless, would mention of that possibility be warranted? 150.203.110.172 (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I've read about that, and seen it on tv a long time ago. Basically eight banana-shaped pieces of wood are clamped around an oblong block, making it round by adding two wheels. I believe it was mentioned that several of these wooden elements have been found near the pyramid. As long as we don't have any reliable references, this cannot be included in the article, I'm sorry...--Satrughna (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

First paragraph

At the end of the first paragraph: "Disagreements chiefly concern the methods used to move" Someone should probably fix that. I don't have time to figure out what it used to say. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.160.21 (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, a quick look at the history shows some missed vandalism last month, fixed now. Dougweller (talk) 07:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Economy of Effort - Spiral Ramp

The spiraling ramp supported by the pyramid (Mark Lehner) as illustrated is interesting but not the most efficent spiral ramp. The ramp illusrated begins a long way from the pyramid base - there is no need for this, it could, and logically ought, to start at the corner of the pyramid itself. Simiarly the spiral ramp is shown as a supersructure on top of the pyramid surface. This would be a gross waste of effort: the optimally efficient way to do it would be to build the ramp into the face of the pyramid as it rises, like a spiral mountain road - and no extra building materials would be needed. You could even have four separate spiral roadways, one starting in each corner. Filled in, working from the top down when work was complete, they would leave no trace. Lehner's ramp and the others (including this one too) are all speculation - but Occam's Razor says an inset spiral ramp - the simplest and most ergonomic solution - must be the most probable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.1.204 (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


See diagram http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pyramidlifts.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.15.220 (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Extraordinary planing and design MISSING

Again only orthodox obsolete view of the pyramids. Some things not or barely pointed out in Great of Giza:

-Its located in the center of earth surface land.

-Its located in the circle of latitude containing more land.

-Same line of Nazca, Angkor Watt, Eastern Island...

-Tunnels pointing to Orion

-lot more. --Kim for sure (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

See Geographical centre of Earth. Um, located in the circle of latitude containing more land?

Everything has to be somewhere, and if this 'circle of latitude' contains more land than ? then it must have a lot of things. Everything in the world is on a line with a bunch of other things. Just pick and choose until you find something you think proves something no one else knows. Dougweller (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I recommend reading about Wikipedia's requirement for reliable sources. (Just click on that link to find it.) It explains the standards we demand before new ideas can be added here. We tend to like "orthodox", but not "obsolete". See what you can find. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
*Men, you should be more open minded for the good of the wiki. As u point, yes, the pyramid is itself in the center of the land surface. And his meridian crosses more land than any other. To believe that all this is a coincidence is at least a poor poor consideration. It is well documented (Piazzi, Porter,(1)... *** 83.40.253.96 (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
These are dis-proven claims, but do provide some sources if you want to suggest any actual content changes based upon them. --Ronz (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Not disproven. They are inside wikipedia. Sources are cited yet. They are documented inside wikipedia. Its a notable fact. Someone must add it. Ghiza is remarkable in many ways and silencing this is giving wings to conspiracionists. --83.34.33.71 (talk) 04:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
"Inside Wikipedia"? I have no idea what you mean. If you are going to be cryptic then obviously no one is going to do anything. Dougweller (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

/* Levering machine, very efficient, and complying with Herodotus' description */

please have a look on "the mysterious machine of Herodotus", a movie on youtube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDVnpViHymU this solution is five to ten times more efficient than any ramp theory

levering machines have always been reported by egyptians since Herodotus this works for the common blocks, weigthing each less than 2,5 tons, but more than two millions in number, that means more than 99,9 % of the total weight of the Khufu pyramid.

the remainaing blocks, larger than the common blocks , but weighting all together less than 0,1 % of the total weight, may have been pulled on a ramp in the south face till the 42 meters level, and then hoisted with levers till the present position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.11.133.89 (talk) 09:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The Ancient Alien Question book

The book The Ancient Alien Question doesn't accept all the theories of aliens hook, line, and sinker. And it even takes away from the assumptions of many that the pyramids could not have been built by humans. I found especially intriguing the parts about the pyramids showing the possibility that some slabs may have been poured vs. quarried. This seem like something that can be carefully added into the article. Misty MH (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

A new simple way to build all Egyptian pyramids by using lateral ramps made of stone and bricks.

In accordance with the chronology of the pyramids of Old Kingdom, and therefore with the evolution of their architecture, my method is to build first a step Pyramid and then, to convert this initial structure in smooth pyramid.
Indeed, the first pyramid is a step pyramid (Djeser at Saqqara), the following is also a step pyramid (Huni at Meidum) that was converted immediately after into smooth pyramid by Snefru. Finally, all of the following are smooth pyramids with an internal stepped core.
This is not an umpteenth hypothesis of construction of the pyramid of Cheops. It concerns all the pyramids, the smallest and the largest.
Khoufou (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I've removed your link and the image. New users often misunderstand articles and talk pages. Your work is what we call original research (see WP:NOR and can't be used in the article. This talk page is not for discussion of pyramid discussion but discussion of the article. If you ever get published in an academic publication, please let us know. Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

New report from the University of Amsterdam - wet sand the secret

See [1]. "For the construction of the pyramids, the ancient Egyptians had to transport heavy blocks of stone and large statues across the desert. The Egyptians therefore placed the heavy objects on a sledge that workers pulled over the sand. Research from the University of Amsterdam has now revealed that the Egyptians probably made the desert sand in front of the sledge wet. Experiments have demonstrated that the correct amount of dampness in the sand halves the pulling force required." Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Confirming one of these theories

The only way to do this is to actually use one (or more) of these construction methods and successfully build a great pyramid this way. Even that doesn't confirm it's the way the Egyptians did it, just one way it works, how many people have tried building a pyramid using of these techiques (I know about small ones, but ones the same size as the great pyramid, etc) The snare (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Egyptian pyramid construction techniques. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Link didn't load for me. I have re-worked the reference. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

There is also another hypothesis that they were built out of geopolymer cemen

"There is also another hypothesis that they were built out of geopolymer cemen" So why does this stupid proven false and extremely illogical idea get mention let alone in the intro? --Thelawlollol (talk) 06:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Egyptian pyramid construction techniques. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

New link doesn't lead anywhere. I will rework reference. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Logbook describing construction of the GP

See this. Doug Weller talk 18:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

more modern findings

Can this artible be a helpful addition to the state of current insights? archeology.org on the khufu pyramid and related recent decade discoveries --Alexander.stohr (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Egyptian pyramid construction techniques. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

aliens

The pyramids were actually built as landing pads for alien spaceships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 (talk) 06:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting thing to say so, except I don't see how a pointed pyramid can act as a landing pad. Even Sitchin Zecharia did not have the nerve to say so...Adixit4476 (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
From your comments there it seems like you have been watching to much Stargate. 81.149.82.243 (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't the article mention the theory that pyramids were built by aliens?98.220.130.63 (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The theory that the pyramids were built by aliens is a fringe conspiracy; there is no real evidence for it. --Azuefeldt (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Evidence of ramps

The article implies that evidence for ramps is sketchy, but the Great Pyramid contains two, both internal, one going up - and one down - to chambers inside. These 26 degree ramps therefore probably indicate the practical degree of slope of all ramps used in similar construction work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.6.158 (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Security Considerations

This is more of a question than a discussion (but it certainly can turn into one): what were the security considerations for the Egyptian pyramids in ancient Egypt? I don't know, but I REALLY need help! Anyone know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.127.227 (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Nippon Corporation pyramid-building experiment

@WikiHannibal: by undoing my edit yesterday, you wrote down the reasons. Now I will give my arguments. Unfortunately, the article cannot use a YouTube link as a note. And I wanted to add this note: youtu.be/FrTLmpVKM1k?t=283 I think watching this video will be enough to restore my edit in the article! LibreOffice User (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, even if your addition to the article were treated as sourced, what does it say about Egyptian pyramid construction techniques (which is the topic of this article)? The gist of your text is that a smaller copy of the Cheops pyramid was built using cranes and other modern tools. It does not say anything about how the pyramids were built. I see no reason why it should be in the article, sorry. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@WikiHannibal: The essence of the article is that it expresses both historical and structural hypotheses about how the Egyptian pyramids were built. There are many different versions. But in fact, no one knows for sure. And to this day it remains a mystery. Therefore, in 1978, the Nippon Corporation tried to build a smaller copy of the Cheops pyramid, to get answers to some questions:
“And many secrets may be solved,” promised their press release. “How many workers were needed to pull a four‐ton stone block? What size rollers were used? What was the method used to synchronize the workers’ efforts? The rhythmic beat of drum or a chant? How were the thousands of workers and slaves organized into effective working groups?[1]
Sajuki Yoshimura, an archeologist from Waseda University. He thought that a do‐it‐yourself pyramid might help answer the riddles about the manner of the pyramid construction[1]
In this video youtu.be/FrTLmpVKM1k?t=300 hired workers are seen manually dragging the top of the pyramid (pyramidion) to the pyramid. But they could install it on the very top of the pyramid only with the help of a truck crane. Also in the same video youtu.be/FrTLmpVKM1k?t=283 you can see that at least one block of the pyramid is installed using a truck crane.
In my opinion, it is obvious that the Nippon Corporation tried to build a pyramid using manual labor as in 1997 NOVA.
Here is an English video in which the pyramid is visible: youtube.com/watch?v=OHOgtQa7LVw
Here are excerpts from the above video description: …research scientists from Japan (Nippon Corporation) who began to undertake a reconstruction of the Great Pyramid on a smaller scale. This film is one of the few documents of this attempt to use basic tools (basic tools, ramps, local labor force) to create sophisticated fittings of the limestone blocks. In the end, it proved too difficult to continue with primitive methods and they resorted to modern means to create their small model.
So why can't you write about it on Wikipedia? Moreover, Nippon Corporation built a pyramid on the Giza Plateau! I think that this experiment should be written in an article on Egyptian pyramid construction techniques. — LibreOffice User (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
So what are the answers to the questions you cite above? The (sourced) answers can easily fit in the article, especially when adhering to WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. WikiHannibal (talk) 12:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@WikiHannibal: The problem is that there are no answers in the article. There is not even a mention of this building experiment Nippon Corporation! Theory is good, but practice is different! Now we see that in 1978 and in 1997 two experiments were carried out and in both cases the builders were dealing with small blocks weighing several tons. But there are blocks weighing tens of tons. It's sad that you don't want to mention the 1978 experiment in the article. — LibreOffice User (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I meant the answers the Nippon Corporation presented in your sources. Seems this disussion is going nowhere, please stop pinging me. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b "Japanese 'Pyramid' Rises in Egypt". The New York Times. March 8, 1978. Retrieved May 18, 2021.

"Rope Roll" hypothesis

I haven't seen this particular construction hypothesis discussed, but it seems something well thought out and researched, and seems the simplest method proposed so far, AFAIK, on how blocks were moved and emplaced during the construction of Kufu's pyramid.

Essentially, this method uses the slope of the pyramid itself for mechanical advantage with the assistance of a rope system which actually acts as levers rather than pulleys and doesn't seem at odds with any of the simple machines that would have been known to the Egyptians.

https://www.cheops-pyramide.ch/pyramid-building.html

Admittedly, the evidence of such a technique is shaky, but seems far more plausible than something like mile long ramps or dragging blocks up steep spiral inclines or using water to move blocks.

Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Chris Massey Water Shaft Theory

Greetings, I know this seems odd at first, but has anyone actually refuted this theory? That the Great Pyramid was built by constructing a waterproof causeway from the Nile and then up the side of the pyramid, and floating the blocks.

https://blog.world-mysteries.com/mystic-places/building-the-giza-pyramids-water-shaft-theory/

https://www.amazon.com/Pyramids-Egypt-Chris-Massey-ebook/dp/B00II6RJFM

It seems as plausible as anything else. Joel J. Rane (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I attempted a write-up, but it was removed for reasons I understand. At some future date, the hypothesis may merit inclusion in this article, but likely not yet.22:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feoffer (talk • contribs) 22:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

30/12/21 Here is a summary of this theory from the entry on Pyramidology From Wikipedia

Water shaft theory

According to the water shaft hypothesis, flotations are attached to a stone block. The first gate is opened and the block is floated into the shaft. The first gate is closed, then the second gate is opened, allowing the block to float to the top of the shaft. Finally, the second gate is closed and the third gate is opened, allowing workers to float the block out of the shaft. In 2013, archaeologists discovered a set of papyri written by individuals involved in the construction of the Great Pyramid. Among the papyri was the Diary of Merer, written by a middle-ranking official tasked with transporting blocks from the quarry to the construction site. The diary, which has been called "the greatest discovery in Egypt in the 21st century", describes a system of canals and waterways being used to transport the blocks.[39]

The water shaft theory speculates that canal-like technology may have been used not just to transport blocks to the site, but to actually raise the blocks to the top of the pyramid as well. Under this scenario, flotations would be attached to a block and the block would be floated into the bottom of a water-filled shaft. A series of locks would then allow the block to be floated up the sealed water shaft to the top of the pyramid.[40] 79.64.117.94 (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Floating blocks on relatively level rivers and canals seems quite possible, and that part of the theory is sourced to the Smithsonian at Pyramidology. However, containing a column of water, potentially hundreds of feet high, that is large enough to contain 2 1/2 ton blocks and allows for entrance of such blocks where hydrostatic pressure is greatest, would take some proof that Egyptian masonry techniques were up to the task, in order to be convincing. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

foreigners from Canaan

Is this a euphemism for Hebrew slave? 24.51.192.49 (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

No. There is no evidence that the Hebrew or Israelite ethnicity existed as early as the Middle Kingdom. A. Parrot (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Slander of Herodotus (in regard to "slaves" and "gross errors of fact")

From http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D2&force=y

"They said that Egypt until the time of King Rhampsinitus was altogether well-governed and prospered greatly, but that Kheops, who was the next king, brought the people to utter misery. For first he closed all the temples, so that no one could sacrifice there; and next, he compelled all the Egyptians to work for him. To some, he assigned the task of dragging stones from the quarries in the Arabian mountains to the Nile; and after the stones were ferried across the river in boats, he organized others to receive and drag them to the mountains called Libyan. They worked in gangs of a hundred thousand men, each gang for three months."

Clearly "all the Egyptians" were not "slaves". As for the "gross errors of fact", he ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE points out that he just relates what he was TOLD by those who appeared in the know. Note "They said..." above. In the article's quote: "...I leave this uncertain, as both possibilities were mentioned..". For goodness sake, he was trying to be balanced, unlike the one who's accusing him of "gross errors" in a disdainful "know better" 21 century's manner, as if he was lying or trying to invent something.

There is wealth of other info in Herodotus full narration about the pyramids, including diet and costs (with a disclaimer that it was what the interpreter reading pyramid inscriptions said) - all of it interesting, logical, entertaining and quite plausible, though obviously dependent on his source. He has spent time gathering information as it was known then, so that 2500 years later we can have the pleasure of finding about it too.

I suggest the historically qualified editors remove the incorrect references to "slaves" and "gross errors of facts" in regard to the pyramids, as I personally can't see any in the original text at the above link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.72.13.106 (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This has been (unsourced) in the article for more than 4 years. I added the citation needed tag. I will remove the two sentences when no source supporting the critizsm is found in a month or two. Is it OK? WikiHannibal (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
He wrote long after the events and depending on the equivalent of today's tourist guides. It should be easy to find sources commenting on his reliability. Doug Weller talk 16:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
From Herodotus where you can find the references:"The reliability of Herodotus' writing about Egypt is sometimes criticized.[1]{{efn|Herodotus claimed to have visited Babylon. The absence of any mention of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon in his work has attracted further attacks on his credibility. In response, Dalley has proposed that the Hanging Gardens may have been in Ninevah rather than in Babylon.<ref name="Dalley"/>}} Alan B. Lloyd argues that, as a historical document, the writings of Herodotus are seriously defective, and that he was working from "inadequate sources".<ref name="Lloyd"/> Nielsen writes: "Though we cannot entirely rule out the possibility of Herodotus having been in Egypt, it must be said that his narrative bears little witness to it."<ref name="Nielsen"/> German historian Detlev Fehling questions whether Herodotus ever traveled up the Nile River, and considers doubtful almost everything that he says about Egypt and Ethiopia.<ref>{{harvp|Fehling|1994|pp=4–6}}</ref><ref name="Baragwanath_19"/> Fehling states that "there is not the slightest bit of history behind the whole story" about the claim of Herodotus that Pharaoh [[Sesostris]] campaigned in Europe, and that he left a colony in Colchia.<ref name="Marincola_34"/><ref name="Fehling_13"/>{{efn|Fehling concludes that the works of Herodotus are intended as fiction. Boedeker concurs that much of the content of the works of Herodotus are literary devices.<ref name="Marincola_34"/><ref name="Boedeker"/>}}" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 18:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Herodotus' description of pyramid construction agrees aptly with the live tested method of pyramid construction with a Tilt levering Cage with two box cribs (Herodotus: machine made of pieces of short wood) combined with platforms (Herodotus: platforms or some call it battlements) that are equidistant in line (Herodotus: flight of stairs on the piramide) enlarged pyramid steps through a temporary niche in the pyramid. Extensively described and depicted in Pyramid-Building-Principles.com with a reference to a stop motion about pyramid building made in collaboration with National Geographic Bernard Mullers (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Herodotus explaining that Khufu/Cheops used slaves

"Up to the time of Rhampsinitus, Egypt was excellently governed [124] and very prosperous; but his successor Cheops68 (to continue the account which the priests gave me) brought the country into all sorts of misery. He closed all the temples, then, not content with excluding his subjects from the practice of their religion, compelled them without exception to labour as slaves for his own advantage. Some were forced to drag blocks of stone from the quarries in the Arabian hills to the Nile, where they were ferried across and taken over by others, who hauled them to the Libyan hills.[2] Doug Weller talk 17:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Dalley 2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  • The Greek text is just "μετὰ δὲ ἐργάζεσθαι ἑωυτῷ κελεύειν πάντας Αἰγυπτίους" ("and then [they say that] he ordered all the Egyptians to labour/work for himself.") [3]. Furius (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Building pyramids using a 'Tilt Levering Cage'

An other technique is the 'Tilt Levering Cage'. See also Building pyramids. Reconstructing the process of lifting stones. As I am not a native English speaker, may be someone can use this information to add to the article. Wouterhagens (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

This method is speculative, although it does reference Herodotus' mention of a wooden mechanism, which I thought would mean a horizontal crane rather than a vertical device, where the pieces of wood don't seem "short". It seems that the continual change of elevation by adding and removing wooden blocks, as proposed, is too labor intensive to be an efficient method. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Ls, Propping is done not with wooden blocks but with pole through box cribbing. With the knowlegdge in ship building and repair they may have constructed a Tilt Levering Cage from a sturdy loading floor and two bipod shipmasts. Using ropes at the top, this Tilt Levering Cage could be tilted back and forth in the same time accurate propping up with every lift. This would place the Tilt Levering Cage on top of two steadily ‘growing’ struts.These struts were made of stacked poles at right angles in layers. In five complete cycles of about 12 degrees tilting the TLC, just over two metres height could easily be reached. Once at the correct height, the Tilt Levering Cage with roller poles could be pulled down slightly for convenience onto a platform on the pyramid for eventually another lift run. 2A02:A44E:400E:1:A9B4:CEBB:9A58:B32C (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Pyramid-Building-Principles.com 2A02:A44E:400E:1:A9B4:CEBB:9A58:B32C (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Herodotus' description of pyramid construction agrees aptly with the live tested method of pyramid construction with a Tilt levering Cage with two box cribs (Herodotus: machine made of pieces of short wood) combined with platforms (Herodotus: platforms or some call it battlements) that are equidistant in line (Herodotus: flight of stairs on the piramide) enlarged pyramid steps through a temporary niche in the pyramid. Extensively described and depicted in Pyramid-Building-Principles.com with a reference to a stop motion about pyramid building made in collaboration with National Geographic Bernard Mullers (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

Geopolymer casing theory

Why is this theory not mentioned at all if it has already been a proven method of construction? 2806:2F0:5121:F0B9:7141:E03E:72CC:AD24 (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

It is already mentioned: Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques#Geopolymer Hypnôs (talk) 08:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Pounders vs copper chisels for quarrying limestone

In construction this phrase is being used, "Most of the construction hypotheses are based on the belief that huge stones were carved from quarries with copper chisels", I thought consensus was that the quarries showed that for limestone it was bashed out with pounders? Hanslune (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

From what I understand, is that limestone is soft enough to work with copper chisels. The granite is too hard to be worked with copper tools, they had to use dolomite pounders for that. The pounding is a rather slow proces. MichielOvertoom (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Construction_of_the_Egyptian_pyramids/Archive_2&oldid=1258162568"