Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Great Pyramid of Giza. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Footnote 23

why does it have a url to "Your The Man Now Dog (ytmnd.com)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.195.218.25 (talk • contribs) 08:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

-- whoops ment footnote 23

Vyse Forgery?

I think this article needs to pay more attention to the fact that the entire Pyramid is devoid of any kind of authentic Egyptian hieroglyphics except for one cartouche discovered in the uppermost antechamber by Richard William Howard Vyse. There is doubt about whether this hieroglyph came from the time of Khufu and whether it was left by Egyptians at all. The article needs more focus on this since without this single hieroglyph then there is not one authentic Egyptian inscription inside the entire Pyramid... which is odd considering how every other structure built by Egyptians are covered in writings and hieroglyphs. Looking back at the above I decided my wording was perhaps a little hasty and unprofessional, however I would like this avenue to be pursued nonetheless. A link from which to start further research: http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/uvwxyz/vyse_richard.html HuronKing.

This is already mentioned in the article. Also there are other incsriptions, all in the stones of the reliever chambers, altough only one mentions khuffu. Because of the akward position they are, it is unlikely to be a forgery. Éven Hanckock conceded that, after Dr Hawwas let him examine the inscription. The lack of oficial inscriptions is an interesting anomaly, but keep in mind that little is left of the original casing of the GP. While Sitchin seems to know something about old languages, he is hardly a master, since he has only a degree in economic history as the experts insists on remind us.. Nanahuatzin 19:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

From vyse discussion ...

Read Miroslav Werner's book The Pyramids – Their Archaeology and History p.455 "From a paleographic, grammatical and historical point of view, there is not the slightest doubt as their authenticity". However, he would say that wouldn't he ;-). Markh 08:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Old talk

"Additionally, it has been alleged (notably by the "sleeping prophet" Edgar Cayce?) that the dimensions and details of the great pyramid, properly interpreted, provide prophecies of events in modern times."

No, Cayce said a lot of ... questionable things, but I think the "dimensions giving prophecy" schtick was somebody else's. I'll look and let you know. Some Italian guy .... not Schiaparelli. More later.

- Here

http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/paramyth.htm

Invented by John Taylor, elaborated by Charles Piazzi Smyth, Astronomer Royal for Scotland (my "Italian guy" - don't know what his ethnicity was really.)

Yeah, I may be misremembering that, but I'm pretty sure he at least commented on it (but then he commented on just about every other bit of psychic nonsense of his time). --LDC

I see Cayce "readings" on the Web that mention the idea, but it's difficult to pin down Cayce's language as to what he's really trying to say.

-- Here

http://www.nhne.com/specialreports/srpyramid.html

a "reading" about a secret hall of records of *ancient* events, not specifying whether this includes prophecies or not.

LOL - http://www.margaretmorrisbooks.com/xcerpt08.html

- the following "shows that some of the claims associated with this idea are too strange to take seriously".

We should have something in the page about the astronomical alignments, also.

Kate Spence has a theory on astronomical alignments. Unfortunately her Nature article of 11 Nov 2000 seems unavailable, but a google search of "Kate Spence" reveals a cached page with the article; look for header "Feature of the week > Pyramid precision".

I have a copy of the paper. Spence figures several pyramid baselines were set in

    Snofru-Meidum  2585 BC ±  7
    Khufu          2479    ±  5
    Khafre         2447    ±  5
    Mankaure       2414    ± 10
    Sahure         2371    ± 25
    Neferikare     2358    ± 25

How long it took to finish them is another question. Also, it's been several years; I don't know what the current thinking about Spence's work is.

--wwoods 00:29, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I seems Hanckok claims Spence copied his work... Anyway, i found it enough interesting to include it in the main article. Nanahuatzin 08:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The statement that the pyramid has moved 4 kilometers South could also mean its original alignment has also shifted. Is there a reference concerning the 4 kilometer shift?

Petrie, the first to measure the pyramids with precision, reports a diferent orientation in the core and in the outher casing. He asumes this as a mistake of the builders, who recalculate the north. It would be interesting to compare the diferent orientation with the precesion of th stars. Nanahuatzin 08:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Date of completion: I've just changed 2680 to 2570. 2680 is about 100 years too early, particularly in light of the dates given for Khufu's reign in his article. 2570 would place completion in the final years of K's stint in the top spot.

So, what are the dimensions of the pyramid? The imperial and metric measurements don't exactly agree with each other (only accurate to 2 s.f.).

Also, where does 52 degrees come from? If we take h as 146m and s as 235m, my calculations show that it is approximately 41 degrees:

$\tan ^{-1}\left({\frac {\frac {h}{\sin \left(45^{\circ }\right)}}{s}}\right)\approx 41.303^{\circ }$

-Zhen Lin 16:23, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A cross-section of the pyramid containing the peak and parallel to opposite sides of the base will be a triangle of height 146.5 m and base 230.5 m. Therefore, the slope of the sides of the pyramid is

\tan ^{-1}\left({146.5 \over 230.5/2}\right)\approx 51.81^{\circ }.

—Bkell 04:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Great Pyramid - The Speed of Light in Stone

The definitive work on the measurements of The Great Pyramid is "The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh" by William Matthew Flinders Petrie, 1883. It is an exhaustive study of the most measured structure (Great Pyramid) in the world. All of Petrie's most revlevant and accurate information regarding physical measurements/dimensions of The Great Pyramid can be found at [[1]]

Additionally, The Great Pyramid's height is in perfect relationship to the sum of its base sides as is the radius of a circle to the circle (1/2 Pi). The radius/circle relationship incorporated into the pyramid introduces the concept of squaring the circle.

For a complete summary of The Great Pyramid's correspondence to the speed of light (you can easily verify the math - please remember that "c", referencing the speed of light, is the speed of light in a vacuum) please see, [[2]] http://www.templeofsolomon.org/Reticulum.htg/Reticulum.htm Be aware that the links provided here raise serious questions about the origin of The Great Pyramid unless information can be provided about how the ancient Egyptians (in the very least) knew the speed of light and incorporated that information into a structure that present day technology can not duplicate (in a desert environment). See, also [[3]] http://www.templeofsolomon.org/Pyramids/pyramid_symbolism.htm John_Charles_Webb July 19th 2005

References?

I'd be interested to see some references for the following statements in the article:

The chamber which is most normal in its situation is the subterranean chamber; but this is quite unfinished, hardly more than begun.
...there is very credible testimony to a sarcophagus having existed in the queen's chamber, as well as in the king's chamber.
It was previously believed that slaves were used as labor, but that view is now rejected by almost all modern-day scholars.

For (1), it's unclear to me what "normal" standard of reference is being used. Other pyramids? And by "unfinished", are we assuming that the chambers within the pyramid were intended for use as tombs? (I find it somewhat unlikely that anyone would go to all the trouble to build the Great Pyramid and then not bother "finishing" the inside.) For (2), what is the "very credible testimony"? And for (3), some more explanation about who, in particular, devised and supported the slave-labor theory, and maybe the names of a couple of the "almost all" scholars who have since rejected that theory. I'll see if I can't find some references for these myself, in the meantime... -- Wapcaplet 21:48, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Unfinished Chamber

This unfinished subterranean chamber, an unfinished chamber within Khufu's Pyramid, lies 90 feet (30 meters) below the surface of the plateau, and is closed to the public. Standing alone inside this oxygen-deficient space is quite an experience; 2.3 million blocks of stone weighing some 6.5 million tons loom overhead. Workers down here chipped away at the limestone bedrock to build what is thought to be the original burial chamber for King Khufu. Egyptologists believe the chamber is 'unfinished' because Khufu suddenly decided he wanted his burial chamber to be higher in the pyramid, and ordered the workers to stop. Khafre's Pyramid follows a similar pattern, with an unfinished subterranean burial chamber.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/khufuunflo.html

Queen's Chamber

Although it is called the 'Queen's Chamber,' Egyptologists believe this space was meant to be the final resting place for King Khufu, until he changed his mind yet again and opted for a burial chamber even higher. The roof of the chamber is raised at its center.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/khufuqueenhi.html

--wwoods 00:29, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Queen's Chamber. Petri (p217) says this: "Edrisi, in his accurate and observant account of the Pyramid (1236 A.D.), mentions an empty vessel in the Queen's Chamber; and that this was not a confused notion of the coffer now known, is proved by his saying that in the King's Chamber "an empty vessel is seen here similar to the former", Whether any fragments of a coffer remained there, among the great quantity of stone excavated from the floor and niche, it is almost hopeless to inquire, since that rubbish is now all shot away into various holes and spaces. Caviglia, however, did not find a coffer when clearing the chamber, but fragments might have been easily overlooked." McKay 14:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Those are good, though almost as vaguely worded as what we already have. I did find a fairly thorough source on construction, labor force, orientation, etc. [http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pyramids.htm here] (skip past the lame touristy introduction to the links at the bottom), including some great [http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pyramidlifts.htm illustrations] about how possible ramp configurations used to get blocks up the side. Lots of references to the specific people who came up with various theories. I think I'll build on those when I find some time.

Also, I've been thinking about that claim to a pi ratio. It all boils down to the exact angle of the slope; if my math is correct, a slope of 51°51'14.306" would yield pi accurate to six decimal places. Most of the measurements I've seen indicate that the slope is closer to 51°50'40", giving pi accurate to 2 decimal places (3.142668...), closer to 22/7 than pi. I've seen varying estimates of the slope, though; less than 1 minute of error makes all the difference. -- Wapcaplet 04:41, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

New image addition

The recently-added image Image:Pyramids of Egypt.jpg does not appear to resemble anything now standing on the Giza plateau. Unless the illustration really is of the Giza pyramids, particularly the Great Pyramid (albeit a quite liberal interpretation), I don't think it belongs on the article. -- Wapcaplet 19:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

After looking around a bit, it appears that this image is by 16th-C. Dutch artist Maerten van Heemskerck. [4] Judging by the resemblance, I'd say he must have done the engraving based on verbal description alone. I still don't think it belongs here. Maybe on Seven Wonders of the World, since it needs an image. -- Wapcaplet 19:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree, and said as much on its talk page. If no one objects by the end of the week I'm going to change the image text or delete it entirely. I don't care if I orphan it. If it's near and dear to someone's heart you'd better come to its rescue. — Clarknova 03:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Close-up picture

That's Khafre, not Khufu.

So it is. And someone also removed the "right" indicator in the caption to the other image showing all three. I've fixed to clarify (kept the image, though). -- Wapcaplet 19:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is beginning to need a neutrality overhaul. I started, but there's much left to do. For instance:

"As has been proven by papyrus documents, each side measured in Antiquity 440 Old Royal Cubits (230.5 m)." -- Reference is needed. What papyrus documents?

For the reference: Look to this document (section 2.1) of the Director of the Berlin Geodesic Institute: He mentions in his article Mr. Petrie who found this papyrus document in 1934.

-- Paul Martin 22:42, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

P.S. The metrologist Livio C. Stecchini wrote: "It is agreed amount serious scholars that the side was calculated as 440 Egyptian royal cubits."

"The grand gallery also contained some sort of mechanism for the release of a huge stone block which plugged the ascending passage." -- I don't doubt that this is true, but some evidence for and better description of such a mechanism would be useful.
"The entire upper part of the pyramid was thus sealed after the burial of the king." -- Again, how do we know this? As far as I know, no evidence exists that a king was even buried here. We need references one way or another. There are other references throughout to "burial chamber of the king", "king's burial chamber", etc. which should probably be rendered as simply "King's chamber," given the dispute over whether a king was actually buried here.
An oddity about the "graffiti" on the relieving stones in the King's chamber: that it is "the only evidence which proves that pharaoh Hor Medjedu Khnum Khufu had the Great Pyramid built." If this is the only evidence, then it's hardly proof of the pyramid's builder; this matter is under dispute, and maintaining neutrality requires that we try to avoid such unilateral statements.
In the section detailing various estimates of the labor force required, the section "Nevertheless, given the subsequent absurd implications of these theories ... they fall terribly short of providing a satisfactory explanation" is in serious need of rephrasing. Whether a theory is absurd or satisfactory is rather subjective; put the notion of absurdity in context, and make note of who finds the various theories absurd or satisfactory (or, better, simply note some of the theories, are those who dispute them, and let readers make their own judgments).
The article is arguing with itself. "Second, if huge quantities of earth were dug and moved to support the ramps instead, geological indications would undoubtedly reveal this today. (Present day studies do yield such a revelation! But the ramp size uncovered is too small. See external links below.)" This is bad. It gets even more ridiculous in the sentences that follow.
"Some sort of ancient Steam engine is undeniably and absolutely required for a reasonable time period within which to carefully construct such a monument of this size." This is qualified in previous sentences, but it still comes across as being a statement of fact, especially with the excessive emphasis used.
Finally, the image at the very bottom showing "RJ or RL-shaped supports" needs some kind of reference. I couldn't find anything about these supports via Google.

The total effect of the above is to make the article seem non-credible. Let's see if we can clean it up. -- Wapcaplet 20:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, in a second crack at culling the POV, I've removed some things. First, this paragraph:

Nevertheless, modern estimates for ancient Egyptian population size around the time that the pyramid was constructed fail at lending substantial credence for these assertions. (See http://www.etext.org/Politics/World.Systems/papers/modelski/geocit.htm .) And there are other serious technical questions posed as well, discussed as follows.

The article referenced makes little mention of Giza, and none whatever regarding the population estimate being in conflict with various labor force size estimates for the Great Pyramid. I have also removed:

Nevertheless, given the subsequent absurd implications of these theories -- ... in 2600 BC ... covering an area of seven city blocks and weighing six and a half million tons ... in less than thirty years, the workers had to raise over two million blocks to a height of forty stories at the rate of one block every three minutes ... [using] only the simplest technology (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/1915mpyramid.html) -- they fall terribly short of providing a satisfactory explanation.

Indeed, this article does not provide a very convincing explanation of how this may have been accomplished, and this is one area that could use some work. However, this part of the article is merely noting some of the estimates that have been made regarding the labor force needed. It's not our job (as authors of this article) to point out flaws in the reasoning of those who did the estimates. If you need to point out flaws, please find another publication that does it for you, and reference it.

The next removal:

Though this "ramp theory" is the popular perception today, it is not without some serious fundamental problems. First, there remains considerable debate over exactly what kinds of ramps might have been used, because various ramp designs implicate technological advances that the ancient Egyptians clearly did not have. (See Civil engineering.) Second, if huge quantities of earth were dug and moved to support the ramps instead, geological indications would undoubtedly reveal this today. (Present day studies do yield such a revelation! But the ramp size uncovered is too small. See external links below.) Third, given even adequate resolutions to these first two problems, the most serious fundamental problem still remaining is that of time. Even if we were to multiply the given time period above (i.e., 30 years) many, many times over, we would still fail once again at reaching a workable conclusion. Only by lengthening the given time period to several millennia (!) may we arrive at an adequate time frame with which to cut (with chisels?), transport (miles!), lift (human muscle?), maneuver (with boards and rope?) and fit (smoothing/reshaping some) each of the over two million stone blocks! Note that some of the stone blocks weigh several tons!!

It was much easier to remove this paragraph than to edit out all the exclamation points (both literal and metaphorical). This was cut for the same reasons as above. Articles shouldn't make unsupported assertions (that is, assertions backed up only by patchwork arguments, rather than by references). Ditto for the following:

Modern day Revisionists speculate that there could be only one logical conclusion to explain all the above. (See also origins of chess and Silk Road: Origins, bottom paragraph, for an adequate understanding.) The only way possible that the ancient Egyptian laborers could have accomplished this monumental feat in anything resembling a reasonable amount of time is with chains/cable and some sort of Ancient crane. The conclusion may run contrary to popular perception, but the facts point only in this direction. Some sort of ancient Steam engine is undeniably and absolutely required for a reasonable time period within which to carefully construct such a monument of this size. See external links and image below.

The end result is that this section of the article is more or less as it was at the beginning of November 2004. I don't deny that this section is in need of much work, but the above paragraphs do more harm than good, in my estimation. If anyone is interested in restoring these paragraphs, please back them up with references: facts, publications, and who, especially, has made these assertions. -- Wapcaplet 04:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Coordinates

I suspect that anon's recent change of the latitude and longitude of the Great Pyramid is correct, or more nearly so; it gives a location near Giza, while the earlier number (where did that come from?) gave a location a good ways north of Cairo. -- Infrogmation June 28, 2005 18:35 (UTC)

I fixed the coordinates for the Great Pyramid. I got the coordinates from the Google Earth program that was just released to the public. The old coordinates (29|97|60|N|31|13|22|E) were incorrect, and in fact not even valid latitude/longitude values.

-Josh (June 28/05)

How come the alteration mentioned above was reverted? The new coordinates are much closer to Giza than the old ones (plus, they're actually valid lat/long coordinates). I don't know if the new coords are correct, but the (29/97/60, 31/13/22) are definitely wrong. -- Wapcaplet 29 June 2005 18:22 (UTC)

When I use Google Earth to check out the coordinates, it reveals that wikipedia's coordinates for this page and for Khafre's Pyramid both take me to the same pyramid, which is Khafre's. So I am changing the coordinates of this page from (29°58′33.11″N, 31°07′49.19″E) to (29°58′44.68″N, 31°08′02.58″E), which is where Google Earth shows this pyramid. Does anybody know what kind of error to expect from Google Earth's data? It's not exact, but it seems to be close enough for something this big. -- MiguelMunoz 02:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Rushing to Defend an Erroneous Deletion

Dear Mr Wapcaplet:

We understand your point of view. History says one thing, but rational logic says another. Historical revisionism always begins this way.

History is repeating itself, because this same sort of affair happened in March of 2004 at Origins of chess when we first proposed an ancient Egyptian origin to the game. Needless to say, the proposal was blasted off the web page and moved to "Talk." Nevertheless, we sat quietly and watched as everyone pondered it over ... and what do you know? Have you read Origins of chess lately? There's even a photograph of the Sphinx and the Great Pyramid of Giza at the very top of that web page now!

So, here we go again .... :)

The following discussion is rooted in web links that I've been able to find on the Internet.

NUMBER 1: To respond to your earnest request,

If anyone is interested in restoring these paragraphs, please back them up with references: facts, publications, and who, especially, has made these assertions,

let's start by quoting ... Wikipedia!!!

Scientific method: Our earliest records of anyone (much less a scientist) adhering to this strict process comes from ancient Egypt.

The Edwin Smith Papyrus (ca 1600 BC), an ancient textbook on surgery, describes in exquisite detail the examination (characterization), diagnosis (hypothesis), treatment (experiment), and prognosis (review) of numerous ailments (Encyclopædia Britannica). Additionally, although the Ebers papyrus (ca 1550 BC) is full of incantations and foul applications meant to turn away disease-causing demons and other superstition, in it there is also evidence of a long tradition of empirical practice and observation.

You see. The ancient Egyptians were using the scientific method millennia before Francis Bacon even knew how to write. And see here: Bridge: History and Cement. We could pile one astounding advance on top another. Take a look at the pyramids: Millions of stone blocks ... some weighing several tons.

Ancient history proceeds in probabilities. The ancient Egyptians knew the scientific method millennia before anyone else did. What are the implications? Francis Bacon lived and died only a few hundred years ago. Isaac Newton, around the same time. English history records only a short span of time (relatively speaking) between scientific processes and mathematical advancement.

Here are some others you'd likely find interesting:

Demographics of Egypt: Archeological findings show that primitive tribes lived along the Nile long before the dynastic history of the pharaohs began. By 6000 B.C., organized agriculture had appeared.

Figurine: Read the bit on Morocco.

NUMBER 2: Moscow and Rhind Mathematical Papyri

In summary, we cannot prove that the ancient Egyptians knew calculus. We can say however that the evidence suggests so.

In addition to these two historical texts, there is other evidence demonstrating an ancient Egyptian knowledge of basic mathematics and even surveying as early as 3000 BC. [1] See also Timeline of mathematics.

Besides describing how to obtain an approximation of

\pi

accurate to within less than one per cent, it also describes one of the earliest attempts at squaring the circle and in the process provides persuasive evidence against the theory that the Egyptians deliberately built their pyramids to enshrine the value of

\pi

in the proportions. Even though it would be a strong overstatement to suggest that the papyrus represents even rudimentary attempts at analytical geometry, Ahmes did make use of a kind of an analogue of the cotangent. Furthermore, quoting Mathpages.com,

... the 2/n table of the Rhind Papyrus, which dates from more than a thousand years before Pythagoras, seems to show an awareness of prime and composite numbers, a crude version of the 'Sieve of Eratosthenes,' a knowledge of the arithmetic, geometric, and harmonic means, and of the 'perfectness' of the number 6. This all seems to suggest a greater number-theoretic sophistication than is generally credited to the ancient Egyptians. (The Rhind Papyrus 2/N Table)

NUMBER 3: Population Size

Many varied estimates have been made regarding the labor force needed to construct the Great Pyramid. Herodotus, the Greek historian in the 5th century BC, estimated that construction may have required the labor of 100,000 slaves for 30 years. Polish architect Wieslaw Kozinski believed that it took as many as 25 men to transport a 1.5-ton stone block; based on this, he estimated the workforce to be 300,000 men on the construction site, with an additional 60,000 off-site.

The key number here is 300,000, because it has been argued that the ancient Egyptians could have supplemented their work force with slaves. Here are a couple references you'd likely be interested in:

Timeline 3300 to 1300 BCE: ca 2800BCE - Khufu commanded the building of the Great Pyramid. It took an estimated 100,000 people 30 years to construct. (WH, 1994, p.12)(K.I.-365D, p.122)(HT, 5/97, p.26)

Encyclopædia Britannica: ...three 4th-dynasty (c. 2575–c. 2465 BC) pyramids erected on a rocky plateau on the west bank of the Nile River near Al-Jizah (Giza), northern Egypt; in ancient times they were included among the Seven Wonders of the World. The ancient ruins of the Memphis area, including the Pyramids of Giza....

Encyclopædia Britannica: Capital of ancient Egypt during the Old Kingdom (c. 2575–c. 2130 BC) ... [Memphis'] ruins include the great temple of Ptah, royal palaces, and an extensive necropolis. Nearby are the pyramids of Saqqara and those at Giza.

Encyclopaedia of the Orient: The main urban places of Egypt through the main part of the history of Ancient Egypt, were Memphis and Thebes.

To pause before continuing,

100,000 is too small a number. Herodotus, who lived in the 5th century BC, didn't know what he was talking about. Kozinski calculated a better number, but his number is too big, as evidenced by Professor Modelski's paper.
As Encyclopædia Britannica points out, the Pyramids of Giza are included in a consideration of "the Memphis area," and I believe you will find Memphis clearly noted in several places within Professor George Modelski's paper.
Even if you don't consider Memphis' proximity to the Great Pyramid of Giza significant, you must yield to its prominent status in ancient Egyptian history as capital and main urban place.

Nevertheless, as pointed out, population size is NOT the most serious fundamental problem. This is an important point, as said before Ancient history proceeds in probabilities. We may spend an entire day arguing both sides, but if we recognize what is most likely true, we may then proceed with a reasonable assumption, just to see where it leads. If it leads nowhere (i.e., a contradiction) we immediately drop it and pick up the opposing argument to see where it might lead us. And so forth.

NUMBER 4: Suez Canal

Around the 13th century BC, the Suez Canal was dug between the Nile River and the Red Sea.

Why? Why would the ancient Egyptians dig a canal for ships to pass in the 13th century BC? But wait ... there is more ... (posted at Silk Road: Origins, bottom paragraph)

A maritime "Silk Route" opened up between Chinese-controlled Jiaozhi (centred in modern Vietnam, near Hanoi) probably by the first century CE. It extended all the way to Roman-controlled ports in Egypt and the Nabataean territories on the northeastern coast of the Red Sea. However, it is unclear whether this route circumnavigated the African continent (unlikely) or made passage through a temporarily maintained Suez Canal (more likely). The Hou Hanshu records that the first Roman envoy arrived in China by this maritime route in 166 CE.

How long would it take to paddle (against the wind, against the currents, but sometimes with the wind) from Rome to Vietnam? Or do you think they had something more than just muscle-power on board? My muscles get sore just thinking about it.

See also Bridge: History, Cement, and Origins of chess to think about. Some of this is also posted at Roman Empire.

You'd likely find Latin alphabet: Evolution interesting as well.

Do you believe Wikipedia is a reliable encyclopedia? Must we really provide you with more???

This is a bit off-topic for this talk page, but: one does not need to postulate ancient steam engines to explain the trade between Rome and China. Navigation and shipbuilding being what they were in that era, the trade necessarily went in stages: from China to Southeast Asia, from Southeast Asia to the eastern coast of India and Sri Lanka; from there to the west coast of India, whence it was traded, through the Red Sea ports, to Rome. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 12:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let me go through your points one at a time:

First, it is quite obvious that the builders of the Great Pyramid were astute craftsmen and very likely methodical observers of the heavens. That they had science is not the issue here; my major nitpick with the above removals is that they are presented in a non-neutral fashion. They proceed from a form of argument and criticism, rather than from the neutral perspective of reporting on arguments and criticisms. Articles can present conflicting theories, but they must do so in an unbiased fashion, without showing preference for one theory or another. The amount of coverage each theory gets should be relatively proportional to the amount of acceptance they have (both scientific and metaphysical), but there's no hard rule on that either; the only hard rule is the neutral point of view.

Second, I agree that the builders of the Pyramid most likely knew of Pi, or at least a very good approximation of it. I wrote much of the section about the Pyramid's expression of Pi, and you may note how, even though I personally think there is an obvious and accurate Pi expression in the Great Pyramid, I made every attempt to keep this point of view in terms of reporting on it, rather than arguing for it.

Third, the references you have given here (at least the Britannica ones) strike me as very good examples of why Wikipedia is often better than Britannica. Not only is Wikipedia more easily available (along with the references used in writing the article, where applicable), it covers a broader range of conflicting theories than Britannica does. We can do better than Britannica: we need not state the most well-accepted theories as though they were universally accepted. But in order to do that, we need to stick to the neutral point of view.

Fourth, I agree with Charles P. that it needn't be necessary to have steam engines to make such a journey feasible. Whether the builders of the Great Pyramid had steam power or not, this article shouldn't lead readers into believing that's the only logical conclusion. Present it neutrally, and I have no problem with this content. -- Wapcaplet 23:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The general formula for a frustum was evidently known to the Egyptians.... Speculate on how the Egyptians could have known the formula for a frustum, given that its derivation depends on the methods of modern calculus.

Allen, G. Donald, Professor, Director of Technology Assisted Instruction, Associate Head for Undergraduate Studies. Department of Mathematics, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, U.S. April 2001. The Moscow Papyrus.

If by "modern calculus" Mr. Donald is referring to calculus as we know it (via Newton and Leibniz), then modern calculus is by no means necessary for deriving a generalized formula for the volume of a pyramid. Archmimedes did it using the method of exhaustion, and Liu Hui did it in the third century A.D. At any rate, I don't dispute that the Great Pyramid builders may have known a form of calculus, but I don't see how this reference (the speculative opinion of one professor) offers much by way of supporting the text that was removed from this article. -- Wapcaplet 02:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Date of Construction

I have reverted some anon edits making what appeared to be wildly specultaive claims about the date of construction for the pyramid. Does anyone know if these claims are legitimate, referenced scientific viewpoints, or are they crackpottery? --Scimitar ^parley 16:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Charmed, i'm sure. No they are not 'crackpottery'. Wildly speculative? My, what a great debating style.

I have added a couple of easy to find references to long published books. One might rather question whether the original assertion that some random late Pharaoh built the pyramids and sphinx, without more than the smallest circumstancial evidence (and no history) to back it up, is not more suspect.--Genesis 11:24, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to debate. I was conveying my impression of the insertions- that they seemed extremely speculative. Incidentally, I just spent the last hour doing a little bit of research on your references. Forgive me if I point out that Mr. Hancock, along with the whole "advanced aliens built the pyramids, unless maybe it was people from Atlantis" argument doesn't get a whole lot of credence in scientific circles. I'm not going to remove the insertions until I see what others think about them. --Scimitar ^parley 15:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, although its hard to comment on something when it has been deleted. You can chose to take one aspect of Mr Hancocks work out of context, but the science and logic behind these specific arguments are a different kettle of non-alien fish. Alot of people have not thought much about the commonly-given line about the building of the pyramids, and have accepted the supposed 'scientific' version as fact, yet there is little science in dating only by circumstancial rather than available data. An alternative perspective to the narrow 'accepted' version would benefit the entry, I think. That is the only reason for me to have done it.--Genesis 15:57, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I've left some comments on the talk pages of people who regularly contribute to the article, to get some more perspective. I worry mostly about concerns about the article's credibility if it lists these sources as references. Surely, if the scientific theory has that many flaws, there's a less controversial work advocating an alternative? --Scimitar ^parley 16:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Back in 2000, there was an interesting article in Nature, dating the Great Pyramid to 2480±5 B.C--about a century later than the conventional date for Khufu's reign. The article isn't available on the magazine's website (though I've got a .pdf), but the abstract is here, and a more-informative press release is here. I don't know in what regard it's held generally.
—wwoods 22:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been watching with increasing disappointment as this article has grown; I keep meaning to come help tidy it up, but just don't have the motivation to give it a proper treatment right now. I think my main complaint (indeed, my only complaint) is reflected by my past talk page comments above: it's not very NPOV. In a way, the article argues with itself, ruining what might otherwise be a coherent narrative. I'll give the article a more thorough looking-over when I get the chance, and see if I can offer some more useful suggestions. -- Wapcaplet 11:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Authority is a problem. A side problem with that is that anything that challenges a long-time accepted theory is viewed as less authoritative or just provocative. New theories are often perceived badly. If you read Ellis' books there is nothing outlandish or alien in them, just alternative. Additionally, although it could probably be better constructed as an article, a discussion of different opinions is important since the truth is neither agreed on or really known. Maybe it just needs to be more cohesive.--Genesis 09:53, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

8/27/05 NPOV is one thing, but blatant pseudoscience is another. Giving equal mention to ancient astronaut "theories" and so forth in the name of "being fair" does a huge disservice to not only the reader who might come here looking for serious information, but also to Wikipedia itself, whose reputation is tarnished. The article needs to be cleaned up and then frozen so no more cranks and crackpots can edit it. My last edit told the reader to leave the site and visit external (mainstream archaeological) links in the second paragraph-- a violation of article formatting & usual layout that I freely admit should've been edited away on those bases, but better that than the reader be misinformed. User:Jerryb1961

What a joke! who mentioned ancient astronauts, or anything else outlandish. DO you know how long it would have taken the pyramid to have been built using the 'accepted version' of events? longer than the pharoah who supposedly commissioned it would have been pharaoh! The accepted version is incorrect. Anything that encourages people to question and re-examine the evidence is a benefit to this article. Mention of alternative theories does not detract from this article, but adds more depth to it. As more people use this site as a starting platform for their own investigations, supplying a range of theories is increasingly valuable. That you, Jerry, or others haven't bothered to spend the time looking at the FACTUAL evidence (which the accepted theories casually overlook) doesn't mean this article should. I could argue the point at far more depth, if you wish, but seeing the word 'Atlantis' (something written by a greek philosopher, if i recall) doesn't mean it contains only insubstantial or unrealistic theories. On the contrary, in this instance, in fact.--Genesis 13:24, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Having read some very intriguing articles alone questioning the origins of the pyramids, it'd be nice if this article discussed these debates, radical or not, and provided some references to support the arguments. The current version pretty much states that it was made during the Third Millennium BC without giving any mention to other theories, disproved or not. Moogle001 04:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Opening paragraph?

The opening paragraph has this comment ..

"Though no pharaoh has ever been found buried in an Egyptian pyramid"

I think this is wrong as Vyse and Perring found a basalt sarcophagus in Menkaure's burial chamber (as well as a later 'replacement' sacrophagus from the Saite Period). However both of these were lost when being transported to Britain in 1838. There is also a sarcophagus in the pyrmaind of Teti in Saqqara.

At any rate, statements made to support absurd Graham Hancock nonsense ought to be avoided as much as possible. john k 05:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

'absurd Graham Hancock nonsense' eh? more nonsensical than the common 'accepted' truth of the building and purpose of the pyramid being a tomb for which there are no essential burial markings - no factual base, just assumption? no evidence that it was tomb, yet that is the accepted 'fact'. Sarcofigi are sometimes for ceremonial purposes, rather than as burial. Indeed, some secret groups that are considered linked to Egypt, such as the Freemasons, involve acted out death and rebirth, for which in Egypt Osiris (Orion) was the godly representation. Coincidence?

do you really think the freemason are really linked to egypt???.. Let me ask something. Hanckok correlates orion to osiris and links to a date 10,000 thousands earliers, but forgets to point that there are no representations of osiris older than the fourth dynast... Now, myths of death and resurection are common throug all the world, and this not means they are all from egypt. It was to do with seasons and climate. Nanahuatzin 21:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

definately. The imagery they use smacks too much of Egyptian myth for me. However, when i say linked i don't mean that they literally possess ancient secrets or something. At least, not necessarily. I would say that most esoteric groups, or those who utilise esoteric mythology and symbolism, are linked to Egypt and the old civilisations. Yes, it was a common theme, and possibly a common central point, the wider locale and region being the birthplace of civilisation. Depends on your belief really. I would say that Christianity is so linked as well, and that maybe the myths are based on some much older actual events, just as with Noah's story being in much older Sumerian mythology too with more information. If you want to talk on it more, maybe somewhere else is more appropriate... --Genesis 10:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Crosses in churches represent the cross Jesus was stuck to, rather than exist as means of crucifixion... don't just knock or delete something just because you haven't done the research or don't know better. Give it its own section in the article if you must, but full deletion is no more than censureship of alternative ideas that have at least as much right to be mentioned. --Genesis 13:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the opening paragraph, to reflect the above. I have tried to keep alternative (or non-mainstream) theories mentioned in the opening, as not too stifle debate. Markh 12:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

John K, i trust you can find the time (since you could find the time to unilaterally delete it) to explain what exactly is incorrect in the following deleted text, which you removed from the opening paragraph:

"However, although this is the widely accepted age and ownership of the Great Pyramid and its sisters, it is by far not the only one. There are many discrepancies with the above account. First, the problem for any dating is that the age of the rock is of no help. Dating is usally a result of circumstancial evidence: what artifacts, marks or other clues that are found in close proximity to the site.

Second, there is no evidence at all to suggest that the pyramids were built as tombs. No funeral contents have ever been found, nor is there the common markings and painting on the inside of the building that always accompany a burial.

Third, there is very limited evidence of any connection with the respective pharaohs of Khafre, Khufu and Menkaure, let alone any connection with this dynasty to the Sphinx (which is considered by many to be far older than the pyramids). The evidence is limited to small markings, the type of which often accompanied repairs by subsequent rulers. Architects and builders consistently marked their creations with the insignia of their Pharaoh as well as that of the god to which it was offered. Neither is the case with any of these huge constructs. That the pyramid has been granted little restoration since Khufu (4500 years) and has survived so well might point to a date of maybe double that. It would certainly be reasonable to contend that the work of the original architect might have lasted longer than a subsequent patch-up.

Either way, much that is written about any of these buildings is only hypothesis and conjecture, and it is clear they will not give up their mysteries easily."

It is clear that you disagree, but bearing in mind the complete failure of any archeologist to put forward strong evidence that connects Khufu with the great pyramid, i question why the alternative at least arguable and defendible standpoint is incorrect. Revise perhaps, but delete? You missed your vocation in the Ministry of Information. --Genesis 14:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Mainly because the alternative theories have a lot less litle substance. Even Hanckcock accepted the the names of Khufu could have not put there after the construction. Also, as stated in the article the age was determined with the organic content of the fillings between the rocks. The people who do this dating, were trying to probe the pyramids were 10,000 years old, but the evidence could not suport their claim, now the stydy is rejected by those who ordered it because it coudl not suporter their claim... And While one geologist (Robert M. Schoch,) insist the erorion paterns indicate and much early date fot the sphynx, not all his colleatges agree( he presented his work at the Geological Society of America), dating based on erosion has a very high imprecition, In mexico, the dating of Cuicuilco piramid based on erosion yield to a date 1000 years older than C14 date. Dr Shoch can calim smoe parts of the sphynx show old wathering patters, but since the Sphynx was build mostly froma single rock, he cant prove this dates the construction of the sphynx, specially since there it has been excavete around extensivelly and no archeological evidence has been found. No even a single pice og garbage (even hunter gatherers leave garbage...). The ausence of inscription is not so strange, but mostly inconvenient. Writting was used to keep records, and originally writting was not deemed worthy enoguh for the king. until the fouth dynasty, Writting was used only on low level tombs. Most of the alternative theories are rejected, not because they are alternative, but because their are too weak. Once they are suported, they would become "mainstream", and then probalby denied by suporting of alternative theories :) Nanahuatzin 21:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

... and so here we go round again, because there is no strong evidence at all to link the accepted version of Khufu (there are alternative theories as to who might have gone by this name, but naturally, as alternatives they can't be considered mainstream ;0 ) with this pyramid. No cartouches on the pyramid, except in the manner one might expect to see of a later pharoah performing basic maintainence to an existing building. That it be an existing building in need of work suggests a certain (but unspecific) age to have passed previously. It should be noted also that Khufu was not wealthy enough to afford to build this magnificent pyramid, and also that it is apparent the technology of the time was lacking as it had passed away millenia previously. Fact, Man could not easily build the pyramid now, with such a high degree of accuracy as witnessed in its construction, without huge expense, and the use of its most potent building technologies. We know a reasonable amount of Khufu, and his era (within Egypt at least) absolutely lacked the necessary skills and wealth. So why should the version of events that allows Khufu to be donated the authorship of the Great Pyramid, against evidence, be allowed to remain considered mainstream and accepted. P.S. The sphynx does show erosion consistent with water and not sand. It was discredited because it meany that the Sphynx had to be considered much older than fitted into the understanding of too many narrow minded archeologists, not because it wasn't supported by evidence. According to these people, people 10,000 years ago were savages. How could they be considered able to build the Sphynx without it requiring a complete overhaul of the accepted truth of human civilisation? the majority opinion is that we are the most technically advanced civilisation earth has had. That the facts MAY discredit or undermine this opinion was reason enough to ignore the FACTS in favour of common misunderstanding. And so, as philosophers have said down the years (paraphrased), human pride is the greatest obstacle development of human civilisation. --Genesis 10:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

BY the way.. can someone get a copy of "Thomas L. Dobecki and Robert M. Schoch, "Seismic Investigations in the Vicinity of the Great Sphinx of Giza, Egypt," Geoarchaeology, Vol. 7, No. 6 (1992), pp. 527-544.", so we can discus it? Nanahuatzin 21:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Pyramid construction as an article on its own ?

Currently the construction / labour sections outweigh the 'facts' section by a long way. There is also a section on construction in the Egyptian pyramids article - anyone got any thoughts on merge these 2 articles, and allowing this article to 'run-free' as it were? Obviously different construction techniques were used, but a single article for this could highlight these changes Markh 12:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the theories of its construction may be too relevant to the truth regarding the Great Pyramid to place in another article, especially when the construction techniques mentioned in the Egyptian pyramids may not be applicable. But the Labor section needs to be better divided into differing theories and complimented with more historical notes and legends. Come to think of it, I'm surprised there aren't sections on the nation of Egypt's views on them, tourism, or anything else. Moogle001 16:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The whole contruction element of the article is speculation, where is the evidence that any of the theories are actually factual ? You are right about the lack of any other aspect, such as tourism, modern culture, national view. Markh 10:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- What does 2600 words on the various theories of construction and 250 actually on the monument itself ACTUALLY tell us about the Great Pyramid of Giza ? Nothing in my view, and it should be split off (in my view) - there is stuff in the construction section that should be in the main article. Markh 12:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I thing the articles should be merged, and a small resume added. There is a lot of recent archeological that although related to

contruction, is more important to the egyptian society a a whole, not merely the pyramid. I think this article should concentrate on the kwnon history round the piramyd, Khufu, the opening and exploration of the pyramyd, and the recent Hisytory, the robot exploration of the shafts. A bit of history of the alternate hipotesis and fringe theories could be interesting, but keeping focus on known facts.

- Exactly Markh 21:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

the construction of the pyramid is fundamental to the core article, much as the origin of the stones from Stonehenge are fundamental to understanding of it. Maybe they could be trimmed and the bulk moved, but reasonable and balanced (i.e. both or the range opinions) statements should be made, because they are core evidence to support (or undermine) the purported ages given for its construction (bearing in mind cost and labour, and technological requirements). The essence of construction also gives weight to other ideas, including those about why it was built, since more effort is put into building religious buildings than any tomb (maybe with the single exception of the Taj Mahal - and that for the 'owners' wife not himself). --Genesis 13:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I have written a paper outlining a practical, non-cranky way in which the Great Pyramid could have been built. Is this the correct forum for my ideas? (30/1/06)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.92.168.169 (talk • contribs) 30 January 2006.

If you mean that these ideas are your own, then unfortunately no, this is not the place. Pls see WP:NOR, wikipedia is not intended for original research and theories which emanate from general members of the public such as we, however intriguing they may be. If however you have research materials on this written by some source which could be accepted as being a notable one, that's a different matter.--cjllw | TALK 06:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The link to the paper referred to is in section 25 'Insert your own pyramid theories here'. Mehtopa 09:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Carved Stone or Concrete?

"According to the theory of materials scientist Joseph Davidovits, the blocks that form the pyramid are not strictly carved stone, but mostly a form of limestone concrete (not moved, but) 'cast', as with modern cement blocks, except -- because of the blocks huge 2.5-15+ tons size -- each in situ." What is it? It cannot be two things at the same time. Concrete would explain many problems.

This is has little sense.. Most of the blocks are low quality and plain limestone rock, some of the even have fosils... the blocks show clearly the marks of tools and were taken from a nearby quarry, where still can be seen block half cutted, showing the metod of work. Most of the blocks of the core are crudelly made, with gaps of several inches. The gaps are filled with a mixture of gipsum and rubble. And blocks of 2.5 are not huge. Egyptians (and romans) had technology to move blocks up to 900 tones, that was huge. The bigest blocks in the piramyd are 80 tones, but most of them are about 2.5 tones. The biggest are at the base and the smallers are at the top. Nanahuatzin 08:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete the Quick Facts section

The quick facts section merely repeats information found elsewhere in the article, adds random factoids, and all in a sensationalistic fashion. Would anybody mind if I just deleted the whole bit? Or would somebody like to rewrite it with references? jet57 (u∴t) 10:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC) 17:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete it, although it does fit in with the style of the rest of the article! Markh 21:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Deleted, with extreme prejudice. :) jet57 (u∴t) 10:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC) 14:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

nice to see you didn't bother to discuss it with anyone else or for more than two days... i think that is pretty poor behaviour, unless of course you own all rights on revising the article. Do you? --Genesis 13:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoarchaeology

Dear 70.162.188.62, thanks for your edits to this article, but I've had to revert them. Wikipedia is not original research so we must defer to other sources, and we have little choice but to choose the mainstream sources. If you wish to write more about alternative theories regarding pyramid construction, perhaps you'd like to start an article, e.g. Alternative theories regarding the Great Pyramid of Giza, although that's a horrid name and any suggestions for a (heh) alternative, would be welcome.

done. --Genesis 12:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, this (the selection of sources) is an unresolved issue with wikipedia, but fortunately in this particular case, Graham Hancock's theories are quite undeniably pseudoscience. The article still needs attention though. jet57 (u∴t) 10:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC) 12:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

what a great shame, that mistakes and misinterpretations must override more recent research, just because some people don't like some authors or their ideas. No matter than the ideas don't necessarily belong to that blackmarked author, but were only reinforced by his subsequent work. The edits were not, alas, original research as indicated, but part of a growing body of more 'eyes open' research on the issues, examining not just of the age of the buldings and the identity of their builders (where some concrete questions are asked which terminally undermine the standard and now once again given 'truths') but also the way in which they were built, based on actual archeology rather than perceived but eroneous 'wisdom'. Deletion even of mention of the existence of alternative and well based views, amounts to an undermining of the validity of the article, and thus the entire website. Where substantially incorrect statements are offered as fact, how can the article at all be considered in any way valid? --Genesis 13:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is it Graham Hancock's theories are "undeniably" pseudoscience? I'm curious if you've actually read any of his books?

NPOV, part III

I replaced a line calling the evidence for the mainstream theories "flimsy". I also removed a line claiming that new theories are automatically branded pseudoscience (or something to that effect). Can the original author of that line back it up?Mystman666 11:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, indeed I can back it up with the evidence of this very talk page. I have attempted to raise the reasonable questions about the alternative theories, and let there be at least acknowledgement of their existence and how they rival and compete (in some areas very strongly) with the 'accepted' line, and have heard and seen them deleted and branded pseudoscience 4 times myself. Now, again, you have deleted it. How about editors examine the evidence rather than quick-clicking delete every time?! or is the principle shoot first, second, third and then if they're still alive, ask them some questions? The evidence for the branding of the pyramid as having been built under Khufu is flimsy at best. It would not even make it to trial in a court of law. Should this be overlooked just to maintain the equalibrium or is it possible to question, with evidence, these eroneous statements. I have accepted the main page is not the place to discuss them in detail; however, mention of them here is at least necessary and adds to the validity of the page through accepting the existence of weaknesses in the current assertions. --Genesis 12:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I won't claim to be an expert on this matter (since I'm not), but I do think that using the word "flimsy" (meaning Lacking plausibility; unconvincing according to dictionary.com) when describing the evidence for the mainstream theory clearly violates NPOV. Mentioning that there are alternate theories is fine ofcourse. Mystman666 15:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

agreed, it does contradict NPOV. My bad. However, i would suggest that stating much as fact about this pyramid, at least regarding who, when and how it was build, would also be little more than opinion that covers a range of quality from 'educated' through 'not-so educated' to 'based on nothing at all except wild conjecture', and thus is also pretty much outside the NPOV, even if it IS the common point of view. Many scientific 'facts' are later discredited, and this is just another going through the process and resisting it hard. All i would like to see is a balance of opinion. If one set of 'soft facts' are asserted, the alternative should also be stated for comparison. If that isn't the purpose of this article, then all such soft facts should be removed, but that would pretty much degrade the entire article... maybe i should just take a long walk of a short cliff. --Genesis 16:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Scientific facts are not discredited. Science does not work that way. Facts does not change, they can be corrected or made more precise. Theories can be challenged , but only with facts. The peer review system may be called "stablishment" by it,s detractors, but so far is the best system we have. So far, most of the compelling alternative theories, just can´t stand a critical review. I agre they shoudl be mentioned, since they form the modern floklore around the pyramids, but they should be also criticised.Nanahuatzin 18:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

... and that's the rub; I have slightly tweaked the relevant statements in the opening of the article to clear up some of the bedding of assertions from around facts. I will now attempt to do so to the 'alternative' page. --Genesis 13:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

how do you prove the negative? When logic is the only defence, but is very clear and strong, is that 'fact' enough to counter circumstantial evidence? say someone shows you a picture of me performing yogic levitation a few inches off the ground. Do you believe it? or do you contend that reasonable logic would argue that the evidence is not as it seems? There is a widespread misunderstanding of the principle of NPOV. Neutral implies not siding with one or the other, but considering both sides on their merits. it doesn't mean standing with the mainstream view only.--Genesis 09:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

well, the answer to this question is: you delete the offending issue, and pretend it isn't there (see deleted 'alternative theories' article. The world is flat, remember! Don't let more recent evidence to the contrary be allowed to stand - it might make you seem less knowledgeable. Pathetic --Genesis 13:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Wind-power ?

Where is the evidence that wind-power was used ? Markh 13:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

section to consider

The following section used to be in the article, I paste it here for your consideration --Alf ^melmac 00:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

In 1984, the Edgar Cayce Foundation, endeavoring to research the claim that the pyramids were about 10,000 years old, funded the "David H. Koch Pyramids Radiocarbon Project". The project took organic material from several places in the core of the pyramid of Giza and other pyramids so as to date their radiocarbon. This yielded results averaging 374 years earlier than the accepted date by egyptologists but much more recent than 10,000 years. A second dating in 1995 with new material obtained a date about one hundred years earlier than the historic record but with dates scattered by 400 years. This put forward interesting questions on the origin of the wood; massive quantities of wood were used and burned, and possibly old wood was used. Most of the pyramids of the old kingdom have this anomaly. Dating of more short-lived material around the pyramid (cloth, small fires, etc) yield dates nearer historical records. An astronomical study, by Kate Spence (see below), suggests a date of 2467 BC.

Why was this erased? the reference is "Dating the Pyramids Volume 52 Number 5, September/October 1999 by members of the David H. Koch Pyramids Radiocarbon Project" http://www.archaeology.org/9909/abstracts/pyramids.html. The Kate Spence study was published at Nature, (vol 408, p 320).

RE: Removal of follow up paragraph to this study. In reference to this article, the studies own findings state that the dates yielded for the pyramids are 100-400yrs older than expected. There are 3 possible conclusions for this either stated or implied by the source cited: 1) the dates are incorrect 2) old wood is responsible 3) the pyramids are 100-400yrs older than expected. How can it be POV or original research to state the obvious based on the references own data? I would suggest it is POV not to. thanos5150

It is entirely your own opinion what is "obvious". The conclusions you're drawing are your own and cannot be included in Wikipedia as such. If another published source makes them, then you can include it. Read WP:NOR. That section reads like it was written by someone with an axe to grind. This article should include the commonly accepted date, why it is commonly accepted (or who proposed it and when), and then tell about people who disagree with that date. Tenebrous 02:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact and not my opinion that the study (which believes its data to be accurate) dated the pyramids at 100-400yrs earlier than expected. Whether this is the result of "old wood" or not remains to be seen. Regardless, this is the "obvious" result of the study in which the article actually says:"The 1984 results left us with too little data to conclude that the historical chronology of the Old Kingdom was wrong by nearly 400 years, but we considered this at least a possibility." I have added this quote in context and a follow-up reference illustrating an alternative credible interpretation of the data which further suggests this possibility. --Thanos5150 00:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)thanos5150

Reorganization

Remember that this is the main article on the Great Pyramids. It's the first article many students will read when introduced to this subject. As a result, I think this article's details should stick with generally accepted theories regarding the pyramids' construction dates, construction methods, and purpose. I also think it would be appropriate to create the following lists within this main article (and possibly more than these) in order to more fully inform readers.

Alternative theories on the Great Pyramid's construction dates
Alternative theories on the Great Pyramid's construction methods
Alternative theories on the Great Pyramid's purpose or meaning (mathematical, astronomical, astrological, metaphysical, sociological, etc.)
History of alternative theories

Authors so inclined can then create articles for each of these alternative theories complete with supporting evidence, logic, and illustrations. This approach would also help remove the debates so unfortunately engrained within the main article at present. After all, even if someone completely disagreed with a prevailing theory, they aren't as likely to deny that theory's current status. It would also provide them a suitable platform to present their own views to the extent they deem appropriate and within generally accepted bounds. -Rklawton 20:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

(actually, experience would say that you can't write an article on the alternatives without being flamed but...) i think it is important that where there are questions about the 'mainstream theories' they should be mentioned not ignored. It is clear that this article is not the place for detail on them, but at least a mention allows wouldbe students to research themselves rather than the apparent pretending there is no problem. Certainly the usage if not the rest. There has never been any evidence except speculation that it was a tomb. None at all. --Genesis 12:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that any info or alleged evidence in support (or to refute) 'alternative' speculations (ie those outside the realms of mainstream scholarship) ought to be quarantined away from the main body of the article and appear in some appropriately-titled section at the end. Mixing up standard and non-standard/pseudo accounts in the same paras only confuses matters. It also clouds whether a particular debate is within the scientific community, or a speculative claim made from outside. --cjllw | TALK 00:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It's becoming rather evident that the "Alternative theories" section has almost limitless scope for growth in claim and counterclaim, and as such is beginning to become distracting and make the whole article more unwieldy than it already is. What say ye all to breaking all this stuff out into a separate article, leaving behind a sentence or two and a link for the curious to follow?--cjllw | TALK 08:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I quite liked the idea, but when i tried it earlier, it was deleted without much consideration. I think it is important to recognise that there are reasonable questions that remain about the veracity of the standard claims, which are no more nor less than a mixture of interpretations, some less relable than others. Naturally, the same goes for the alternatives, but shouldn't they at least be heard. People have discarded these conjectures as pseudo-science, but they are not more so than probably a 3rd of most egyptologists' assertions. After all, they assert (and teach in schools) that the pyramid was a tomb - yet they have scant evidence to back their assertions up: no body, few markings, no treasures, (no evidence of treasures) no explanation for the internal workings - it is unlike any other tomb, and more like any other relgious building. Yet it is pseudo-science to call it a relgious building and 'science' to call it a tomb!?! I'll help, but i'll not lead on this one - if anyone is interested.--Genesis 11:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Why limit "Alternative Theories" to a sentence or 2 when regardless of your bias has always been such an intergral part of the subject? This is an encyclopedia (and an opensource one at that) which is ultimately a source of information-not opinion. When you unreasonably delete, inscesantly limit, or constantly qualify any credible alternative idea or differing opinion as "psuedoscience" or "psuedoarcheology", what you are engaging in is intellectual censorship which inherently promotes a singular POV which is exactly what you claim you are trying to avoid. There are as many questions as there are answers concerning the Great Pyramid (among other things) which are equally part of its history and is a disservice to the reader to exclude or limit them from the discussion. Why? Because you dont agree? Who cares what you think. This is about information-plain and simple.Thanos5150

I am not sure that anyone is actually going to do what you are suggesting they are going to do. This whole article is a total mess and rather an embarrassment to wikipedia in my view &ndash not for the presence of alternative theories, but on the style of writing and lack of references (also original research). If there are alternative views to the 'currently accepted' views, then these need to be give equal weight, if they can be supported by reference. Each of these alternatives could then have a break-out article if there is enough to be put on one. However, I think we should move quite a lot of the construction section to Egyptian pyramid construction techniques, just to make the article shorter. Perhaps the term "Alternative Theories", should not be used, as this seems to be a term that shows these in a derogatary light. Anyway – have fun everyone Markh 12:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Relax, Thanos5150, I don't see anyone advocating for the wholesale removal of these speculations from wikipedia, or even the present article. What is being called for is a more rational, proportional, and clear presentation of the differing arguments which separates them one from the other, rather than the present intermingled hodge-podge which Markh rightly points out is rather a mess and an embarrassment. I think Rklawton's reasoning and approach given above are eminently sensible.

The accusations of 'bias' and 'intellectual censorship' can be left for others to judge, but note that if describing what 'mainstream' science has to say on a given topic, and providing the arguments given by scholars against these other speculations constitutes bias, then that is no more biased than seeking to present the speculative material uncritically and in the absence of such refutations. "Who cares what I think?" - It is not me whose critical opinion or disagreements with the "alternatives" who is being cited here, and the arguments are not my own- these are the statements, views, and opinions held by a majority of the notable scientific community. Whether you like it or not, the fact remains that the views of Hancock et al are not given any degree of credence by the mainstream view, and it is a perfectly legitimate exercise to note this fact, and to note why they (not me or any other editor here) disagree with them. You're welcome to your view that the scientific community's dismissal of these ideas is an arbitrary or unjustified one; but as you point out this is an encyclopaedia we are writing and we can only report the fact and not editorialise on it, one way or the other.

Re how these other theories are referred to, I think that "alternative theories" is about as neutral a term as could be agreed upon. They have been called by quite a few rather less complementary descriptions, but describing them as 'mainstream' simply won't do either.--cjllw | TALK 14:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am relaxed and at peace my friend. When I said "who cares what you think" I was reffering to you in the 3rd person. You could be you or me.

What or how something is edited or included is often biased on the editor's belief which for the reader is not always required. I think they get the idea these are "alternative theories" without being constantly reminded at every turn that the mainstream considers them "psuedoscience", ect. or having to explain why the mainstream doesn't agree.

Actually if you read above, people have suggested the alternative theories subject be removed entirely and you yourself wish it to be limited to a few lines-a side note more or less-as if it were not worthy of serious inclusion. This is your opinion.

"if describing what 'mainstream' science has to say on a given topic, and providing the arguments given by scholars against these other speculations constitutes bias, then that is no more biased than seeking to present the speculative material uncritically and in the absence of such refutations"

While this is true, it works both ways hence the need for the inclusion of alternative theories and as such worth pointing out where warranted (outside of the alternative section as well) that many of these mainstream ideas are not fact (though they are passed off as such) and being ultimately built on a loose foundation of fact-fitting interpretation have equally sound "refutations". By your logic shouldnt this be a proportionately legitimate exercise to note this fact as well? It is a bias to be compelled to rebutt every idea with the mainstream point of view when all that is being offered is information. The fact the idea is in the Alternative Section alone instructs the reader it is not part of the mainstream so why within that section are point for point counter-arguments required?.

Of course mainstream egyptologists don't give any degree of credence to alternative ideas as they often do the same to members of their own community who offer differing opinions. This is commonplace throughout history for any academic or scientific discipline. No one likes to be told they are wrong. This doesnt mean the differing opinion always is wrong, but often only that the person, in this case the mainstream, has a vested interest in making you believe otherwise. Thanos5150

Comment re new section ordering

Nice work in converting the in-text references to the footnote referencing style. I'm not sure the section reordering also undertaken works quite as well, though- perhaps it's just familiarity with the previous ordering, but it would seem that in the present ordering the reader is led without warning straight into some lengthy and rather heavy-going paras on construction details, and the initial paras of the --dating-- section which gave a more general overview and context are now well down the page. Anyone else in favour of a return to the earlier order?--cjllw | TALK 03:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to work this into a featured article, thanks for the thanks! As for the re-ordering, I tried to take the logical path, which was the request when I worked on Cheers. I went Lead-Construction-Description of the Pyramid-Alternative theories, and I may add on a Popular culture section. The idea is to go logically and chronilogically from building the thing, to the thing, to what the thing means. Staxringold 03:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. Fine with that approach, but I think that we need to provide more high-level context for the pyramid up-front, so that the casual reader at least gets some idea of the whole picture early on, before delving into the detail its construction, purpose, etc. I suggest moving the current --Age and location-- section (but not the ---dating evidence--- subsection) to immediately after the lead, since this does give a reasonable summary of the pyramid's historical context. The section can be retitled to something like --Overview-- or --Historical context--. The ---Dating evidence--- section can remain where it is.

The goal of FA status is a laudable one, but will need a good deal of work. Although the article is reasonably lengthy as-is, there are a few aspects which probably should be covered in more detail, or are not covered, while other treatments may be over-long at least in proportion to the rest of the material. I think that, once it is knocked into some sort of shape, a request for peer review would be the next step. --cjllw | TALK 04:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree. As it is it's like walking around a short corner and getting whacked in the head with a 2x4. The new order of topics seems in reverse to me and I would vote the layout be reverted. Why should the reader be be thrust immedietly into construction techniques when they have no physical or historical context to put it in?

If a more indepth lead in were added I would suggest a retrospective of it's history to the present day mentioning the likes of how it looked originally, the 14th century earthquake, Napoleon's encounters and the state in which it was found, early explorer's like EA Wallis Budge and the like, up to it's present day status in popular culture and as a world tourist destination. --Thanos5150 05:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

A fine idea Thanos, re including a sort of potted history of the monument, by way of introduction. The meat and bones of each particular sub-topic can be expanded upon in subsequent sections. For now, I'll move the 'Age&Location' section up front, and see how that sits.--cjllw | TALK 06:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Gracias. Moving age and location is definitely wise. I would also suggest in the least that layout be put before construction as to actually know what it is they're constructing other than this big ol' stone triangle shaped thingie. Its beyond my ability at the moment to re-arrange entire sections and though I can appreciate the person's effort, the edited arrangement of the sections seems to defeat the purpose of what the person was trying to acomplish. Hopefully someone smarter than me will fix it. --Thanos5150 18:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Except that particular movement doesn't follow any of the traditional patterns Wiki articles follow. They almost universally go chronilogically, not describing the object and then how it came about (for example, all bio articles start with birth and growing up, even if the event that made the person notable happened when they were 70. Staxringold 20:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Dating evidence and Schoch

Re the recently-inserted para in the 'Dating evidence' section:

Does Schoch really say that "…the data implies the pyramid was built from the top down", and so "it can only make sense" that the lower levels were restored in more recent times, and the top levels are pretty much as they were first constructed? One would have thought that at least as likely an explanation would be that as construction continued, the builders found themselves running short of supplies of new wood, and increasingly had to rely on recycling older materials for burning. The referenced Koch study itself accepts the possibility (or even likelihood) that some proportion of 'old wood' was used ("The pyramid builders were likely recycling their own settlement debris"), a possibility Schoch does not appear to address. In a revised extract the study's authors note: "Because of the scarcity and expense of wood, the Egyptians would reuse pieces of wood as much as possible", and "Radiocarbon dating can only tell us when a tree died, not when it was last used. Wood may lay around for centuries before being burned, especially in a dry climate like Egypt".
If Schoch mentions that the study returned a date from the upper levels of c. 1400 yrs earlier than the historical estimate, this datum does not appear to be reflected in the study (or its abstract, at least), which mentions that for the 1995 dating of materials associated with this period, the dates only "…scatter over a range of about 400 years", and the Giza pyramid samples tended to be only 100-200 years older than their respective pharaohs' historical estimates. Does Schoch mention whether that particular date is an anomaly, and the bulk of the dates are much later?
Not sure what the relevance of the last sentence is to the article. Is it trying to show that Schoch hints at some sort of academic "cover-up" with the non-publication of the full results? Does he explicitly make such a charge? The results were published in Archaeology, were they not?

--cjllw | TALK 06:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"If we assume that the Great Pyramid was built all at once, then this finding implies that the structure was built from the top down"...."The older samples at the top do make sense, however, if we assume the Great Pyramid was built, rebuilt, and rebuilt yet again in stages". He goes on further, but this is his alternative explanation of the curious dating which he supports with other ideas. This was how I took it (as well as the possibility of rebuilding over an existing structure), but given he doesn't actually state it as such I have edited it to reflect that. I would defer you to your original treatment in reference to the Thief In the Night article as to how this kind of interpretation works on both sides of the fence when you stated as fact to prove a point something that not only wasn't in the article, but was actualy the opposite of what they were saying. What I offered was an elucidation to the gist of the idea, but in fairness the new edit more accurately reflects what is said and not implied.

He starts by noting the Inventory Stelle suggests the possibility that Khufu only added to or repaired the G.P. as an existing structure offering the data from these studies in support but also gives the "old wood" theory suggested by egytologists as an alternative explanation for the dating discrepency even going so far as to give other examples not mentioned in the study of where Egyptians apparently reused old wood.

He examines the data and problematic dates of the 1st study simply citing the source later giving a brief explanation of the technical difficulties of carbon dating which may be a contributing factor but further points out that in this case "some of the material used to arrive at dates included reeds and other "short-lived materials", which would be unlikely to yield the same results as presumably old wood." (though they did). He then cites the 2nd study explaining the new dates offered are closer to what is expected reiterating their old wood opinion but notes the full results of the study have not been released.

To answer your question, no, the actual data of the 2nd study has never been released to the public and the brief Archaeology article was all that was offered. As you well know, when scientists employ studies based on raw data it's customary (if not required) to offer said data for peer review, which unlike the 1st study, curiously isn't the case here. Shoch doesn't explicitly make the charge of a cover up despite being compelled to make note of it (which implies as a point of reference him not being able to fully assess the data), and neither does my entry, but the fact they haven't seems worthy of note when considering both studies. Especially given the 1st study provided wildly different dates which could be confirmed by the raw data, where as the 2nd study's summary leaves us solely relying on what they say it says without the benefit of the actual data itself. The Archaeology article doesn't claim the 1984 dates were later found to be in in error regardless of the newer study nor are they more or less accurate, which in no way discounts the upper ranges of dates given. For all we know the full data hasn't been disclosed because of them not wanting to address that possibly more "historical" friendly sites or material were choosen or that less upper ranges were included to arrive at more palatable range averages. Interesting as well, regardless of the upper ranges or which study is cited, is the fact that NONE of the dates from ANY sample from the G.P. were less than 100yrs older than what was expected and for both the earlier Khufu and Khafre pyramids the dates range wildly, but not for Djoser and Menkaure, implying they were around much longer requiring generations of patches and repairs.

What the study says is that the middle kingdom dates were extremely close (sometimes younger) than what was expected, yet the more ancient Old Kingdom dates were still much older. So, how is it the later more historically datable middle kingdom used wood mostly from their own day if not only a little older (or younger?), but the much older less confirmable Old Kingdom could only find wood 100-1400 years older to burn? Shouldn't the opposite be true especially considering the increasingly dry climate? At that point I would think all they would have left to burn would be sand and farts. Also, in response to running out of old wood having to use even older wood (1400yrs no less) as they neared completion of the G.P., how is this possible considering it was the the 1st of the 3 pyramids built on the Giza plateau yet gave by far the oldest ranges of dates? If they were running out of wood wouldn't this only apply if the oldest wood were found in Menkaure's or even Khafre's? Also, its not like the G.P. was the 1st thing they needed tons of wood for. 500+ years prior of civilised Egyptian occupation in the area including scads of burnt-wood eating equally monumental structures. Given monumental construction continued for 1000+yrs after the fact, it would stand to reason the old wood phenomenon would be a constant throughout egyptian history only having to use even older wood but it seems only the opposite is true. Obviously they reused old wood, this isnt a question, but to suggest this is the case for one of the oldest structures in which the oldest wood is found seems beyond reason just to uphold the staus quo.

Also, how much old wood could a wood-chuck chuck if a wood-chuck could chuck old wood?--Thanos5150 00:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting.. but I found very unlikely the process described by Schoch. If the top layes is older, then the pyramid would have been contructed like a tower... and expanded at the sides. Most of the pyramids in Mexico were contructed by layers.. and always the top layer is the younger. On the other hand.. if the top layers are older, i would be more easily explained by a depletion of local wood, requiring to strip old contructions of their wood. Here in Mexico is not dificult to find wood older than 100 years in old houses... (by the way... the article i never mentioned wood 1400 older...) so the concept is less problematic thatn it seems. Also, we know that egyptians import wood from Lebanon, this is another ponit to considerer. Also not all egyptian contructions used the gypsum in the quantities used in the GP. In this case, it was necesarry to fill the spaces in the blocks. Remember that the blocks of the core were crudelly cut... And finnaly, a diferences of 100 to 200 years in the estimates dates of the dinasties is not uncomon, . Nanahuatzin 01:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think he's saying the bottom shows younger because it was repaired and rebuilt at a later date with the less accesible upper sections being relatively untouched in conjunction with the idea that ancient structures were often built on top of one another, almost as a rule, with the core structure obviously the oldest, which in the case of Mexican pyramids in particular is almost always the case. This doesnt mean it was built as a "tower" but more that a "second coat" was applied to the existing shape. I don't think this is the case here in regards to the dating, though there may certainly be a more ancient underlying structure. If I'm not mistaken, ancient Egyptian records suggest the G.P. was built on the site of a sacred mound.

The 1400yr date is from a piece of wood charcoal tested in the 1st study as are both dates he provides.

The use of old wood is not an issue as I said, especially 100yr old wood, but using tons of it as much as 1400yrs old as well as the discrepencies in dating from structure to structure and era to era does stretch the imagination. Again, all of the wood dated in the G.P. was older than excepted dates averaging 200-400yrs depending on which study is used. This suggests that they used old wood exclusively which given this wasnt necessary at any other point in egyptian history makes it highly unlikely this was the case. They got the wood from somewhere, but as much of a possibility that old wood is the answer, which all things being equal in my opinion is the least likely answer, it is equally possible and arguably the least path of resistence to assume at least most of the wood used was contemporary with the time of construction, a conclusion suggested by the article itself.

The wood imported from Lebanon was almost exclusively highly prized cedar wood which they used in the 4th Dynasty to build the boats buried in and around Giza. Not that they couldnt have got it from another as yet unknown source, but it seems highly unlikely they would burn such a prize as cedar wood which says nothing of the logistics and expense of such an endeavor.

The most problematic dates (and really the only problematic dates) cited in the study are those specifically associated with the Old Kingdom, the pyramid age, of which these structures all used gypsum. Obviously a temple generally does not require such a thing, but people still burned wood which as time progressed from the 4th Dynasty does not prove to necessarily be "old wood" and by this study's finding only the contrary.--Thanos5150 03:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)--User:Thanos5150 02:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks, But i still find odd that process. In one of the original articles, the autor describe how they search for samples, they imply that the samples were taken from the outside layer, not from the interior, I am an engineer and i cannot vision how they could add a second outer layer, while keeping the top intact. With a structure as step as the GP this would lead to a very unstable structure, something like the Meiudum pyramid. Even more, this would imply that the Gp was constructed withouth the outher casing o that this outer casing was taken out and put again, something like that would be clearly visible in the actual structure.... Schoch is replacing a problematic scenario.. for a more much more problematic scenario... clearly the dates are troublesome, unfortunately there seems not to be any other study to address this... But i found more likey that either it was old wood.. or we have the dates of Khufu reign, wrong... It would not be the first time that radiocarbon dating is at odd with accepted dates. Nanahuatzin 07:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, I think he's reffering to Khufu being a restorer more so than a rebuilder, but gives the idea to further the notion it was common for ancients to often repair or rebuild upon pre-existing structures.

In the absense of core samples, the samples taken from the outside layer unfortunately don't really say much either way. Not all the samples were wood, but short-lived, renewable materials as well (which the old wood theory would not apply), and yet all give roughly the same range of dates.

Definitely a good point that it was originally covered in casing stones. Is it possible sections were already damaged in Khufu's time leaving this part of the extensive repairs he performed? Being they used roughly 115,000 precision-laid stones weighing roughly 10 tons each, I wonder if it was common over history, and probably incredibly annoying, for sections of these "tiles" to keep popping whenever a sizable earthquake hit exposing sections of the outer layer requiring constant subsequent repairs to both over the years. The 14th century earthquake, which I'm sure wasnt the only up until that time, supposedly loosened most of the casing stones created massive piles of debris only adding to the large quantities of sand that constantly accumulates at its base. It's quite possible Khufu had his work cut out for him when he arrived inheriting an extensive amount of repair work and clean up, not just for the G.P. for the giza plateau as a whole. This alone would require a massive still, though much smaller, labor force. I wonder if the, in my opinion, proportionally small adjecent workers camp is more of a reflection of restorers than of the actual builders.

Another quick thought about the wood-if tons of wood were required to burn the gypsum, if either ramp, roller, sled, scaffolding or whatever made of wood were used to move the blocks, these would require ever exponentially greater quantities, as much or more than what was required for the gypsum. I dont have an answer, but we sure are talking a lot of wood here for a desert or for import. How much old wood (or any wood for that matter) could there possibly be?

Carbon dating is obviously not infalliable despite the best attempts at calibration and seems to be really more of a guide especially considering the large +/- factor of the results. I think what bears attention here is that all of the dates for the G.P. Old Kingdom were older where as later structures were more or less as expected. --Thanos5150 18:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Age incorrect?

According to Cambridge University egyptolgist Kate Spencer computer backtracing the position of two stars in the Big Bear constellation reveals the great pyramid's north direction was surveyed in 2478BC, add or take 5 years. I think her article was printed in The Nature. 195.70.32.136 08:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Number of stone blocks incorrect

In December 2002 Zahi Hawass, chief of the Egyptian High Council or Archeology and Artifacts announced that the Great pyramid contains only slightly more than one million cubes, which is much less than the previously assumed 2.3 million. This means most previous estimates and calculations targetting the time it took to complete the pyramid must be incorrect. 195.70.32.136 08:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The only source I can find for this is a Discovery Channel report [5]. I think we need a more scholarly source before adding this to the article. Anyone know where such a report might be? McKay 03:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that the number of blocks used in the article is only an assumption, and that the choice of a high number by some quarters seems to be done for the effect of imputing some degree of implausibility for the conventional view of its construction. It'd be worthwhile and notable to mention Hawass' figures- would you have a reference?--cjllw | TALK 09:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

And yet the 1999 study cited here by Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall in association with Mark Lehner estimates the # of stones between 2-2.8 million (an average of 2.4 million), reaffirming the generally accepted numbers. How can 2.3 million be considered a "high number" (Nova Online, as mainstream of a rag if there ever was one, gives the number at "over 2.3 million")when this is the figure universally offered by egytologists themselves?Thanos5150

Well, if the study by Daniel, Mann et. al. gives a range of blocks from 2-2.8 million (i.e., a variance of just under a third), it would only seem to demonstrate the uncertainty by which that number is held. As for the universality of agreement, if the attribution to Dr. Hawass is correct (I've not seen the source), then there is at least one dissenting and notable egyptologist who reckons on about half that number - and Dr. Hawass would have to be the most prominent egyptologist around these days (and not just because of his gift for publicity).--cjllw | TALK 13:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If 2.3 million is the universally accepted estimate given by egyptologists I'm not understanding who you are reffering to that is holding the uncertainty. 2.3m is a working average and given the inherent variables in the calculations of such a large volume a range of even 1/3 would be expected, but what this person has suggested for Hawass is he supports a total of 1/2 of the lowest estimate equalling 1 million stones? If its even true, which I havent found anything on the web that makes mention of it, I would think there is a reason no one has given the idea any serious thought regardless of it allegedly coming from Hawass or not. Regardless, this study only reaffirms what is commonly agreed and is endorsed by the arguably equally eminent Mark Lehner. Its been suggested as a way of imputing plausibility of a 20yr contruction period that the # of stones could be substantially less if it is assumed the G.P. is actually filled with huge piles of sand or rubble eliminating vast sums of man hours, but there seems little evidence to support this on several fronts. --Thanos5150 06:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I know that I am being Captain Obvious, but even if the number of actual stones is 1/2 of the usually accepted count, the number of years for construction should not be re-estimated at anywhere close to 1/2 of the currently estimated time.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(esperanza) 2006-04-19 22:22

Comment Re: 1,000,000 blocks (stones?). The one million blocks estimate makes symbolic sense as a ratio (1,000,000 = 1 pyramid) as many of the mathematical attributes of The Great Pyramid, when increased by 'powers' (math), have significant astronomical associations. However, the one million blocks does not make geometric sense. The casing stones alone total 144,000 slabs of granite (or 14.4% of 1,000,000). The area of the base of the GP approximates 13 acres (756 feet square) or 571,536 square feet of area. It would take 114,307 blocks (5 feet length x 3 feet width) just to construct the first course or level. The first three levels alone (based up the 5 x 3 estimate) would require 342,921 blocks not even counting the 144,000 casing stones! The Great Pyramid has over 200 courses or levels, albeit of diminishing area. My conclusion is the the 1,000,000 number is ridiculously low. I have 'guess-timated', based upon significant research, that the total number of stones used is a factor of the 25,920 year cycle of The Precession of The Equinox and that the total number of stones is 2,592,000. This figure is slightly more than the generally agreed upon estimates, however, the figure makes astronomical sense as do most of the other numerical relationships incorporated into the pyramid's design and execution. In other words, in astronomical symbolism, The Great Pyramid is composed of 2,592,000 individual stones representing "1" Great Year of Precession, a unity. John Charles Webb 23:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new article section: Fictional References to the Great Pyramid

Books, television, movies and games of all sorts have used the Great Pyramid in their stories for decades. I think a new section documenting these references would be appropriate.

I can think of two off-hand: "Tomb Raider: the Last Revelation" (video game) and "Otherworld" (a short-lived TV series)

Please add more. Jinxmchue 15:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Such a section is commonplace and definetly worth it, though i would work up a slightly longer list before adding it. The stlye is usually to call it something like "References in popular culture". Staxringold 15:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the better section title. I'll have to look for more references and I will mention them here before I add them to the article. I still invite others to bring up any references they can think of. Jinxmchue 20:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Related to this, a while back I created the categories Category:Fictional works about ancient Egypt and Category:Fictional works related to ancient Egypt and added them to a few articles. Please add the most appropriate of those two to fictional work articles that you encounter as this will help future "fictional references" additions to this and other ancient Egyptian articles.

Cripes, someone stomped on the categories. After a few name changes, it seems that Category:Ancient Egypt in fiction is the result of merging the categories I listed above.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 10:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to a fictional references sections unless they get larger than the rest of the content in the article :)

Also, note that Project ancient Egypt is available and needs help from those interested in improvements to ancient Egypt related articles in general.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(esperanza) 2006-04-28 16:17

How long will they last?

Is there any estimate on the decay rate of the three gizeh pyramids? Sandstorms, earthquakes, acidic rains, etc. Will they be around in another 5,000 years or a million years or until Sun expands into a red giant? This could go into the article. 195.70.32.136 09:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Very good proposition! Can anyone dig up accurate information on this? --cslarsen 09:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, but likely impossible. After all, for example, people (in general, not Wikipedia) cannot come to a consensus about Global warming which would greatly effect any estimates.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 10:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Insert your own pyramid theories here

Some guy wrote this on the top: I have written a paper outlining a practical, non-cranky way in which the Great Pyramid could have been built. Is this the correct forum for my ideas? I don't think this is the appropriate forum, but you could always put up some links under this heading if you want to. --cslarsen 09:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am the guy referred to and my paper may be read at: http://www.farmhall.com/pyramid.pdf I claim sole authorship of this theory and sole rights of publication for the material contained in my paper. 23/7/06 Mehtopa 11:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)mehtopa

OT: Structure being uncovered in Bosnia

In the article, there is a reference to a bigger structure (in either volume or mass, I guess) that is currently being uncovered in Bosnia. Does anyone have any more information about this? --cslarsen 09:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, found some by googling... See e.g. http://www.bosnianpyramids.org/ for info. Fascinating. --cslarsen 09:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Construction Method Theories: Errors and Omissions

The pyramid construction article, subsection construction method theories, has numerous errors and omissions: notably with Herodotus, ramping and levering methods. For the most part, this article will deal with techniques to lift blocks up the superstrucure, but should provide an overview of the entire process. Primarily, the consensus within the academic community is that there is good information concerning the location of the quarries, tools used to cut stone, and transportation of the stone to the monument. The unknowns revolve around the lack of information regarding the methods of moving the blocks up the superstructure. Therefore, the article should cover the general academic consensus of these well known steps then seek to explain the unknown process of moving the blocks up the pyramid.

Information dealing with lifting the blocks up the superstructure deal with limited historical and archaeological accounts, and experimental tests that attempt to explore plausible techniques in functional terms. Historical accounts for the construction of the Egyptian pyramids do little to point directly to definitive methods to lift the blocks; yet most Egyptologists refer to these accounts when discussing this portion of pyramid construction. The first historical accounts of the construction of these monuments come centuries after the era of pyramid construction, by Herodotus in the 5th century BC and Diodorus Siculus in the 1st century BC. Siculus' discussion dealing with ramp unfortunately is not online. Reference to Herodotus' accounts can be found here [6]. His account is This pyramid was made like stairs, which some call steps and others, tiers. [2] When this, its first form, was completed, the workmen used short wooden logs as levers to raise the rest of the stones1 ; they heaved up the blocks from the ground onto the first tier of steps; [3] when the stone had been raised, it was set on another lever that stood on the first tier, and the lever again used to lift it from this tier to the next. [4] It may be that there was a new lever on each tier of steps, or perhaps there was only one lever, quite portable, which they carried up to each tier in turn; I leave this uncertain, as both possibilities were mentioned. [5] But this is certain, that the upper part of the pyramid was finished off first, then the next below it, and last of all the base and the lowest part. [6] This description clearly describes levering and not "scaffolding" as mentioned in the main page.

Most Egyptologists acknowledge that ramps are the most tenable of the methods to move the blocks up the superstructure, yet they acknowledge that it is an incomplete method which needs to be supplemented by another method; the method most accepted for assisting ramps is levering (Lehner 1997: 222). Ramping methods are varied and proposed by many academics. There is a considerable amount of discrepancy regarding what type of ramp was used to build the pyramids. One of the widely discredited is the large straight ramp. It is routinely discredited on functional grounds for its massive size. However, it is the only design that can effectively build the entire monument, without considering the incredible amount of labor needed to construct the ramp itself. Other ramps serve to correct these problems of ramp size, yet either run into critiques of functionality, limited archaeological evidence, or the inability to construct the entire monument. There are zig-zagging ramps, Straight ramps utilizing the incomplete part of the superstructure (Arnold 1991), Spiraling ramps supported by the superstructure and spiraling ramps leaning on the monument as a large accretion. These widely cited ramping methods should be listed on the page along with the following issues: The archaeological record gives evidence of only small ramps and inclined causeways, not something that could have been used to construct even a majority of the monument. To add to this uncertainty, there is considerable evidence demonstrating that non standardized or ad hoc construction methods were used in pyramid construction (Arnold 1991: 98, Lehner 1997: 223).

Levering methods, which are not listed at all on the main page and curiously omitted within Herodotus' description (replaced with scaffolding?) is considered to be the most tenable solution to complement ramping methods, partially due to Herodotus' description; and partially to the Shadoof, a New Kingdom irrigation device, found concomitantly with the Old Kingdom in Mesopotamia. In Lehner's (1997: 222) point of view, levers should be employed to lift the top 3% of the material of the superstructure. It is important to note that the top 4% of this material comprises of 1/3rd of the total height of the monument. In other words, levers should be employed to lift a small amount of material and a great deal of vertical height of the monument.

In the milieu of levering methods, there are those which lift the block incrementally, as in repeatedly prying up alternating sides of the block and inserting a wooden or stone shims to gradually move the stone up one course; and there are other methods that use a larger lever to move the block up one course in one lifting procedure. Since the discussion of construction techniques to lift the blocks attempts to resolve a gap in the archaeological and historical record with a plausible functional explanation, you might want to only add experimentally tested methods. Isler's method (1985, 1987) is an incremental method and, in the Nova experiment (1992), used wooden shims or cribbing. Isler was able to lift a block up one tier in approximately one hour and 30 minutes. Peter Hodges’ and Julian Keable’s method is similar to Isler's method and instead small manufactured concrete blocks as shims, wooden pallets, and a pit where their experimental tests were performed. Keable was able to perform his method in approximately 2 minutes. Scott Hussey's (2005) method [7]uses a simple levering device to lift a block up course in one movement. This method was tested with materials of less strength than historical analogs (tested with materials weaker than those available in ancient Egypt), a factor of safety of 2, and lifted a 2500 pound block up one course in under a minute. This method is presented as a levering device to work complimentary with Isler's idea of a combined ramp and levering techniques.

It is important to place these more academic references within the article to complement widely discredited methods, such as "wind power and Davidovitz" to make this entry considerably more academic and reflective of a summary of the academic mainstream. It is also important to correct mistakes, such as the misinterpretation of Herodotus, to improve the quality of this entry.

Some suggested reading Arnold, Dieter. 1991. Building in Egypt: Pharonic Stone Masonry. Oxford University Press. New York, New York.

Clarke, S. and R. Engelbach. 1990. (Originally published in 1930) Ancient Egyptian Construction and Architecture. Dover Inc. Mineola, New York.

Fitchen, John. 1978. Building Cheops’ Pyramid. The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. Vol. 37, No. 1 (March 1978), 3-12.

Hodges, Peter. (Julian Keable ed.) 1989. How the Pyramids Were Built. Dotesios Printers Ltd. Trowbridge, Wiltshire.

Hussey-Pailos, R. Scott 2005. Construction of the top of the egyptian pyramids [electronic resource] : an experimental test of a levering device. Gainesville, Fla.] : University of Florida http://purl.fcla.edu/fcla/etd/UFE0009424 or http://www.scott.hussey.com/R_Hussey.PDF

Isler, Martin 1985. “On Pyramid Building.” in Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt. XXII: 129-142. 1987. “On Pyramid Building II.” in Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt. XXII: 95-112. 2001. Sticks, Stones, and Shadows: Building the Egyptian Pyramids. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Keable, Julian 1993. UK Architect Responds to Latest Pyramid-Ramp Theory. KMT 4, No. 1 (1993): 3-4.

Lehner, Mark 1997. The Complete Pyramids. Thames and Hudson. New York.

Lepre, J.P. 1990. The Egyptian Pyramids: A Comprehensive Illustrated Reference. McFarland & Co. Jefferson, North Carolina

Murphy, Edwin. 1990. The Antiquities of Egypt: A Translation with Notes of Book I of the Library of History of Diodorus Siculus. Transaction Publishers. New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Nova 1997. This Old Pyramid: Transcript. Electronic Document, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/1915mpyramid.html Last Visited on 12/05/04

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anthro (talk • contribs) 14 May 2006.

If you see errors and ommisions worthy of correction please go right ahead. I would note that Herodotus's writings concerning the G.P. and his credibility in general have been cast in doubt on several fronts over the years despite continuing to be embraced by the mainstream. The priests who told him this were more removed from the time of the G.P. than we are to Herodotus today and nothing had been built even close to it's magnitude since up until their time. For all we know this story could be complete conjecture on all counts having little to do with the actual methods used but an extrapolation of known construction methods at the time that they superimposed on the G.P.'s construction. This seems resonable considering this is exactly what egytologists attempt to do today.

I have been to Egypt and all of its pyramids as well as many other megalithic sites around the world and from what I have seen the G.P. (as well as other sites in Egypt and elsewhere around the world) defy traditional explanation on many levels. Ramps, rollers, and known archaic construction methods as we know them simply wont do. When you look at the Mexican pyramids or the works of the Greeks, Minoans ect., as interesting as they may be, the thought that strikes you is "this is what people do." We see it today in ourselves. How they built it, though at times ingenious, is easy to see. This isnt to say humans didnt build it obviously, but the G.P. is of such an exponentially higher order it requires an alternative explanation. I have nothing to offer as I have no idea how it could be done and the massive amount of research I've done mainstream and alternative alike all fall woefully short. Theres no doubt in my mind, especially when considering megalithic architecture on a global scale, that we are missing a key peice of the puzzle. thanos5150

I did edit the article. Admittedly, this was hastily done. I will then take the time and write a better article that addresses the issues I outline here.

Your note about Herodotus' (and, consequently Siculus, since he is routinely accused of borrowing from Herodotus) writings are that they both are known to contain gross errors and fact. Herodotus' description of slave labor is one of the most persistent myths of the construction process, and Siculus' description of the shipment of the stone from Arabia is wildly incorrect. Since both accounts are known to be both false and true, it is impossible to select either technique from historical documents. But what these documents do is give credit to both levering and ramp methods.

What is not representative of the wider accepted academic accounts of the translation of Herodotus' accounts is to interpreted the repeated use of the term lever and steps as simply just scaffolding. Its incorrect and ignores a large portion of the literature on levering techniques.

You should take the time to read some of the entries listed here. Your statement that I have nothing to offer as I have no idea how it could be done and the massive amount of research I've done mainstream and alternative alike all fall woefully short. would change if you read all of the entries here, at least on a functional level. All levering methods presented here were tested experimentally, though not all are equal. Isler's experiment was not fast nor safe, and uses a considerable amount of space. Keable's experiment does not use historically appropriate materials in his test, and still requires a large amount of space to lift the block. Hussey-Pailos looks at complementing the widely accepted ramping methods with a large scale experimental test with historically appropriate technology and materials weaker than those available to the ancient Egyptians; and with a factor of safety to lift 2 times the weight over the peariod of 10 years. it also operates on the space given by the rise and run of the superstructure, solving the limitations of space at the top.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anthro(talk • contribs) 16 May 2006.

I see that now, it looks very good. I would agree by the way that the "wind power and Davidovitz" theories, though warranting inclusion if only as a point of interest, need to be mercillesly edited if not combined into one paragraph. I shortened the Davidovitz to about 1/2 already.

I will follow up on some of your suggested reading though I'm already familiar some and others I'm sure I've seen elsewhere in the same veign. Why they fall "woefully short" is not that in principle they are not plausible methods (though usually historically unknown which is inherently a problem in and of itself), but the fact they completely ignore the "unexplainable" aspects about its construction mainly it's uncanny precision, the use of blocks weighing 10-80 tons, or the placing and fitting of the casing stones to name a few. These create a completely different set of variables and challenges that are never addressed by these methods. What is offered exclusively to the unwitting public are theories and demonstrations using 1-2 ton stones which is extrapolated to the G.P. as a whole and presto-mystery solved. Its easy to see how a 1-2 ton block can be moved a short distance or raised with relative ease and how these methods would apply, yet to consider the G.P. as a whole, still explains nothing. They do not explain how 60-80 ton blocks were raised 134ft(if I remember correctly) and placed together (as a ceiling) so perfectly you can't put a pin between their joints. Or how these methods allow for the placing of 10-15 ton casing stones polished to 1/50th of an inch off true plane at all let alone with such precision? What ramps or how they were configured or whatever methods offered do not provide an explanation for this and only by ommision of these most curious facts do they appear plausible.

When considering the G.P., I would suggest, it must be realized this is only part of a larger whole. Whatever methods used inextricably links the G.P. (as with other egyptian sites such as the Sphinx Temple and Oserion) to similiar structures found all over the world that employ the same megaton stones and precision architecture. Whatever theory devised needs to apply to Baalbek and Peru for example as well because no matter where you look the same problem exists. These sites use stones weighing as much as 400-2000 tons with the same precision which clearly defies any plausible conventional wisdom yet all things considered are one and the same. It is silly to think that all around the world ancient man was independantly breaking the laws of mechanical physics as we know them exclusively in the most ancient of times with such striking similarity. This is where we fall "woefully short".thanos5150

I see. I agree that there is room for more full-scale experiments on ramping methods need to be performed; these experiments (ramps) that look at 1-2 ton blocks are truly not representative of all the blocks and ignore some of the very large stones. Of course, these blocks reduce in size and density at the top, and the average size decreases. Levering methods that look at the top of the structure can get away with using 1-2 ton blocks for an adequate experiment, but the ramping method needs a better test to be sure. To say that it is "easy" to lift a 1-2 ton block using historically and archaeologically appropriate materials and technology ignores the centuries in which this was attempted and failed.

I will disagree on another point. To look at any Egyptian method to raise the blocks needs to look at pyramid-era Egyptian culture in a historically particularistic sense. To include New World cultures on monument construction in any method implies extreme cultural diffusion that has no basis on any modern archaeological academic context. Cultures around the world behave differently and imply different technologies, not just based on the dissimilar materials available to them, or to the different logistical problems, but history, ideology and culture also bind and influence the methods in which these monuments were constructed. Cultures themselves also change through time. To state that these methods need to address cultures separated by huge expanses of space and time, there must be credible evidence that there should be such a direct cross-cultural connection. anthro

Right. "Easy" in the sense that it is easily explainable and demostratable not to say it is actually an "easy" task. 1-2 ton stones are common place through out ancient world architecure leading to more modern times so it is something that is expected and understandable. Beyond that is what these methods fail to explain.

"To include New World cultures on monument construction in any method implies extreme cultural diffusion that has no basis on any modern archaeological academic context".

I would completely disagree on this point for several other reasons, but to the point, what can be clearly seen whether it be New World constructions or ancient Europe and the meditteranean, is an almost "overnight" reduction if not elimination of the use of megaton stones the more one is removed from the most ancient of times. In this instance, the idea of diffusion or lack there of is a mute point because all over the world it is the same. The largest most unexplainable stones are found at the beginnings of these civilisations all around the same time period and yet after (except in a few instances in egypt which is only the use of a single stone for obelisk or statue) this kind of construction dissapears from the historical record continuing to the present day. It is no mystery why New World cultures didnt use megaton stones because no one else anywhere in the world at the time was using them either and hadnt for 1000's of years.

To apply what you have said, then this phenomenon was not a result of separate but equal cultural changes, differences, or differing materials, but of a time worldwide where these methods were no longer needed and/or known and abruptly ended within a finite global timeframe. Granted, it would stand to reason cultures would use materials readily availiable and easily usable (which only begs the question why did the ancients ever need to use such large stones at all), yet this never stopped any builders of the most ancient world who would often bring megaton stones from as far as 100's of miles away for construction. It goes beyond that it was just that important to do so, but more so that they were technologically capable where the cultures that followed (such as ourselves) were not.

The point I was trying to make is that what we are dealing with is a common problem. Its not how do the egyptians transport and lift megaton stones using archaic methods (not to mention placing with such precision), but rather how does anyone then or now? To explain how Egyptians moved 60 ton stones (or 200 ton for that matter) is inextricably linked in the least as a matter of mechanical physics to the 50-500 ton stones in Peru, the 50-1000 ton stones in Lebanon or Jeruselem, Nan Madol, Stonehenge, Malta, and so on. Given the uncanny similarity of the unwieldy size of stone used and herto unknown methods, the construction techniques and structures themselves in which as a rule incorporated astronomical alignments, it defies logic to suggest diffusion from a single earlier source is not responsible. For this not to be the case, what is being said is that independantly and spontaneously all over the world a legion of geniuses sprung up exclusively at the same relative most ancient time employing different techniques of moving megaton stones (despite the striking similarities) in which we are not able to duplicate without the use of modern machinery (if even then). And then nobody did it any more. Ever.

This is why I say showing how 1-2 ton stones were moved is irrelevant in any sense and solves nothing. Its only by knowing how to move 60-1000 ton stones that any of these riddles can be solved.

thanos5150

The engineering to move megatones was described by Vitruvious and Archimedes, although i am not aware if they had been tried in practice, like this sugested method for 2 ton blocks [[8]]. Now, the bigest weight in the piramids was just about 40 ton. So i think to discuss bigger weights in this article is a bit irrelevant (but it deserves an article by itself). Now, really big weighh were not so common. In stonghenge the largest were 50 ton. The bigest weigth moved in ancient times were about 950 ton. In Balbek, the roman moved 800 ton blocks for their temples and tried to move a 1,200 ton block.. but the block is still a few meters of where it was cutted.. They could not move it (note: by a mistake, this block has been reported as 20,000 ton.. but it,s a wrong calculation). The bigest block in maerica (cuzco ) were about 100 ton (there is a report of a 20,000 block.. but it seems nobody has seen it..). Also We must remeber that the french move egiptiona obelisc of about 300 ton as souvenirs a moved them thousand kilometers to PAris. It would be interesting to kwnow how they did it. Nanahuatzin 04:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I see your point on Easy. I would like to add that the only levering method that developed a historically appropriate functional explanation is Hussey-Pailos 2005. The rest of the people presenting levering methods either fail on functionality, historically appripriate materials, a lack of testing, or all three. Its difficult to even demonstrate how to lift one of these blocks considering all the failures. That it solves "nothing" is incorrect. There is a great demand in the academic literature for an archaeologically and historically appropriate functional levering device to move blocks to complement ramping methods - with all the constrictions of space of working at the top. As of 2005, this exists.

For this not to be the case, what is being said is that independantly and spontaneously all over the world a legion of geniuses sprung up exclusively at the same relative most ancient time employing different techniques of moving megaton stones

This is, in fact, exactly what the scientific community says - with the exception of legion; All sorts of tremendous events have developed independantly of diffusion. On one hand, there is evidence of diffusion e.g. Egypt and Meroe pyramids, its just that diffusion is not happening just not on the scope you suggest. A good example of profound independant discoveries is between the the Old World and pre-contact New World and agriculture and the development of state level society. For instance, the birth of agriculture occurred in the New World and Old World independantly [9]. The development of state level society occurred independantly in the New World and the Old World.[10] (see pages 45-48 on monumentality and state level society and how it differs from old world examples) Likewise, the construction of these Old and New world monuments happened independently. There is no proof of diffusion between these two areas concerning these issues. Moreover, there are vast time differences of centuries between the different monuments you mention and there are differences in the size and type of materials used just within Egyptian funeary monuments, not to mention ones separated by centuries in time and thousands of miles.

Re-reading your post a few times, I got the impression that phrases like It is no mystery why New World cultures didnt use megaton stones because no one else anywhere in the world at the time was using them either and hadnt for 1000's of years. and an almost "overnight" reduction if not elimination of the use of megaton stones the more one is removed from the most ancient of times. imply a belief in unilinear evolution. Ill leave this point alone since I am not sure this is what you mean. If it is, I should just get something out of the way now. Have you read up on archaeological theory to see just how concepts like extreme diffusion, cross cultural analysis, and biological determinism (read: no culture) were proven to be wildly fallacious? People have already argued these points in the past, its no use to reinvent the wheel here. I would recommend -Matthew Johnson 1999 "Archaeological Theory: An Introduction" Blackwell- as a start with a good bibliography. At any rate, the onus is on you to prove that extreme diffusion (or possibly unilinear evolution) are even valid topics, worthy of discussion. Until you or someone else comes up with evidence to revive these extreme diffusionistic (although I get a sense in your post that you might think its not just culture, but biological) ideas and cross cultural similarities (and possibly unilinear evolution), this viewpoint stands. The onus is on you to prove your point.

Your point in how all of these construction projects are inextricably linked in mechanical terms makes a point about the commonality of the natural world, but ignores the differences of human culture and how cross cultural comparisons are not viable. The central problem with this is - Humans do not behave functionally. In other words, under a given problem, humans do not choose a solution under logical parameters that can be measured under cross cultural functionality. There are many examples of this even in our own culture. However, as I mentioned above, even the strictly mechanical properties are not the same. Certainly though, there is something to be learned from, mass and forces, difficulty of dragging a block on a stone surface, but since humans do not behave functionally, and incorporate ideology and other cultural ideosyncracies in problem solving, you must look at this in a historically particularistic manner. In other words, looking at a purely mechanical element, like force and the modulus of rupture on a lever is useful cross culturally because these things will happen equally across the globe; however, looking at the employment of a specific technology (that must be determined through historic and archaeological avenues) from cultures separated by thousands of miles and centuries of time is not appropriate.

Now, there are things to be explained cross culturally, like -sometimes- there is the construction of monuments in the creation of the state

which only begs the question why did the ancients ever need to use such large stones at all

serves to look at this in the sense of Egypt: See the difference between this and the stanish pdf I list above. The construction of the Egyptian monuments were, of course, an effort to achieve things like control and co-opt labor, control an redistribute resources. In other words, it is effective to view pyramid constriction in how the pyramids built Egypt. Some of these theoretical issues like the construction of monuments ant the construction of the state are looked at across cultures, such as in the pre-contact New World. But make no mistake, there are vast, not minute differences between cultures and how they employ this phenomenon.

To sum up, it seems as you have framed the question in extreme diffusionistic terms and unilinear evolution. I am not sure. I would recommend an examination of the changes in 19th century diffusionism and unilinear concepts to more modern archaeological principles, and look at processual archaeology and the employment of middle range theory and cross cultural analogs. If this is true, then I believe this would be a good start. Anthro

NanahuatzinThe largest stones in the G.P are estimated at 60-80 tons with several used in the Valley and Sphinx temples around 100-200 tons. Big is a relative term which I offer is anything over 10 tons in which the ancient world is litttered with such structures. The stones in question at Baalbek were not constructed by Romans or the Greeks that preceded them. The Romans as well as the Sumerians nearly 2000 years earlier write (or dont write) about how the foundation structure (the stones in question) were already ancient in their time built by who they presumed were the gods. The French moved the 250 ton oblelisk in 1833 using "modern" iron machinery.

Arqueological excavation UNDER the foundations of the Temple of Bacchus, have only found Roman trash. There is no Archeological evidence to date it before roman times. There is a lot of speculation about it, but no evidence. Also remember that Balbeka (the correct name) is a Modern name given after the roman ocupation. The largest stones in the GP are those in the so called reliever chambers. The estimates i have found for those are about 40 ton. But even 60 ton cold be moved by a (relativelly...) simple brute force aproch, as shown in this egyptian ilustration: http://members.aol.com/aditt48670/Fig2.html where 170 men move a 60 ton statue,. If we compare moving the thousands of block for the core, a "few" 60 ton, were relatively trivial, even if we take in consideration the distance involved. What i found problematic to explain is how they moved the 900 ton obelisc ot later ages. Thanks for the info about the french, i have been wondering since i saw the obelisc.

Now, my point is that stones up to 60 or 100 tones can be move by brute force, and in this case each culture can do it by many variants. So i see no mistery involved. The stones at Stonhenge were moved one by one, by several generations. What probalby involved a good engineering were the "BIG Stones" over 200 tones...Nanahuatzin 06:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Nanahuatzin:You may want to research Baalbek a little more. The Temple of Jupiter, with its platform wall know as the "Trilithon", is really the main section of ruins that are in question containing at least 24 stones in the 300-500 ton range at the base with the 800-1000 ton stones placed on top (all with uncanny precision)and excavations under its foundations have found remains as old as 2,900 B.C.. So to use your logic, which is sound, the Temple of Jupiter (clearly only its foundations) were built at least around 2,900B.C..

The Temple of Bachus was a later construct as is evidenced among other things by the dead give-away differing architectural style and as you say the dating of remains under its foundation. Also, though there's no doubt Romans were capable at best of moving stones in the 200-300 ton range as is evidenced by the transport of several particularly massive obelisks from Egypt, but its clear this was their upper limit well below stones in the 400-1000 ton range at Baalbek as is evidenced by their noted failure to move obelisks above approximately 300 tons and the fact they didnt use blocks of such size in any other structure. Interestingly, the only stones of such size were the already erected obelisks created by Egyptians over 1000yrs before.

Keep in mind as well, Roman technology was of a completely different order than say ancient Egyptians, being not much different in their own right than the French in 1833, using all form of metal tools and wooden machinery as well as varying forms of wheeled transport, winches, pulleys, levers, ect, and even used concrete in many of their largest building making the need for such large stones unecessary. Not to mention the paramount use of beasts of burden such as horse and ox. Romans, quite simply, were never builders of megaton architecture.

I have, and have not found references to anything older than roman "under the fountaions" of Bal Bekaa . Can you cite your sources? i want to read more about it, i just found "A German expedition dug 1904/1905 through to the foundations of the temple. The temple platform is through and through of Roman origin. They found typical roman masonery, roman trash and so on, down to the bedrock. Nothing un-Roman was found! Btw: The temple platform was not built from massive stone, but typically roman honeycombed. Only the outer shell looks like a massive building. " (Wiegand, TH; Baalbek 1-3; Berlin/Leipzig 1921-1925 (the original digging report) ). Modern excavations by the "Direction Générale des Antiquités and the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut." also had falied to find anything older than roman. There are references in the time of Theodosius, of romans moving an obelisk of 900 tone block using only 264 men and with 12 winches. ( Bruns, G. "Der Obelisk und seine Basis auf dem Hippodrom zu Konstantinopel", Istanbuler Forschungen Bd. 7 ). Nanahuatzin 11:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[11] [[12] [13] Here's a few web pages to get you started. They also discuss the moving of Egyptian obelisks you might find interesting.thanos5150

The Romans built on the site last so its understandable that we would know it by a Roman name which is common for just about any foriegn place they occupied.

60-80 tons are usually what I see refenced for the G.P. though I have seen as little as 40. 60 seems like a happy medium. The thousands of casing stones were at around 15 ton each with many interior blocks mainly for the 1st 35 courses being as much or more as well. The kings chamber as a whole and not just the relieving chambers are use these massive stones 40-80 ton stones as I'm sure other features of the interior the stones would be roughly the same, so its not really a "few" stones, but 10's of thousands that would fall in the 15-60 ton range nearly all raised to multi-story elevations, 100's of feet, and placed with perfect precision. The logistics of the G.P. do not apply to the reference you give of the large statue on the sled being moved on a flat surface to its destination and is a perfect example of brute force where the G.P. is based solely on precision at its most critical stages. The largest stones on the Giza plateau were transported over 500 miles and not over generations as you say for stonehenge, but like clockwork within 20 year construction period.thanos5150

I seems your are inflating numbers. The heaviest casing stones, are 15 ton limestone blocks and they are in the lower sections. There is no lifting of 60 ton blocks over 100 feet. You can not invoque unkwnon structures to invoke thousands of 40-60 ton pecision cut blocks. The Egyptians were practical men. The blocks in the interior of the pyramid were very rough cut. And some sections seem to be filled with sand. Yes, the largets stones (granite) were transported from 500 miles, but they were a dozen at most, over a period of 20 years. Nanahuatzin 11:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I did imply "at around" 15 tons, and actually the blocks at the base are estimated around 20 tons in which roughly 144,000 total casing stones were used. Regardless, the G.P. is 481 ft high and would possibly be 100's of feet before they would drop below 10 tons. Even the top 1/4 would still be in the tonnage range given the base stones are 6ft deep which needed to be maintained to the top as to keep the angle. If you look at the top of the 2nd pyramid the casing stones are still intact and as you can see they're still quite thick comparable to the base. Also, would each course be uniformly smaller or would they remain roughly the same size with only the last few on the ends being cut to conform to the edges?

To state the obvious fact, they did lift 60 ton blocks to a height of over 100ft being they are located in the highest known chambers (the kings and relieving chambers) which is approximately 134ft above ground level. Assuming construction did take only 20yrs, being placed at 134ft of a 481 ft structure that was later encased in time consuming optically precise casing stones, however many were used would have had to be put in place within what, the 1st 5-7yrs? This is besides the point really, just pointing out the flawed logic.

Have you ever been to a sand desert like Egypt? Sand gets everywhere even when there's no wind-its in your hair, shoes, clothes, teeth, and even pockets. There's no crevice a peice of sand won't find. Given centuries without casing stones being pumelled year after year by sandstorms and just every day blowing sand coupled with gravity, wind, and an occasional rain to wash it all down towards the interior, how much of this sand was actually used as construction material (if it was at all) and how much is only an accumulation of natural occurences? The sphinx its known was buried up to its head in sand repeatedly over its history and when europeans first visited the G.P. in the 17-1800's sand (and rubble) was piled stories high all around it base. Also, the interior chambers of the G.P. are a perfectly flush closed system and when the Arabs blasted through the exterior creating their own tunnel through solid block, to my knowledge they didnt report getting deluged with sand as would have been the case if sand were used with as filler. What makes this theory possible to some are the reported large gaps between blocks, which given 5000 yrs and who knows how many earthquakes of which we know of a least one that was particularly large causing major damage, how could there not be gaps? Pile up a stack of blocks in a pyramid shape and hit the table a few times and gaps will quickly appear. Also, given there were over 500 pyramids built in Egypt nearly all now exposed piles of rubble, you would think the it would be a forgone conclusion by now sand was used as filler, but instead as far as I've seen its only bandied about as a possibility to make the G.P. conform easier with accepted dogma.thanos5150

Anthro (the boy Anthro from DC comics I presume):It is human nature to "diffuse" and only by this mechanism have we populated the earth. From town to town, continent to continent, and planet to planet, this is what Homo Sapiens have always done and will continue to do. It's ironic to me without difusionism current athropological theory would not exist, yet by the same token with it archeological theories dissapear as well. How are we believe that as a species we have always had a driving urge to "difuse" yet only with the advent of civilisation (not to mention having invented a vehicle able to traverse open waters) do we suddenly stop? Wouldnt common sense suggest only the opposite to be true? Our species did not pop up around the world independantly and simultaneously so why would civilisations be any different especially when there are so many glaring similarities unexplainable by independent invention?

Concerning the New World, we typically find the oldest prehistoric settlements in the most southern reaches of the hemisphere where given the Bering Strait theory, only the opposite would be true. Recent theories suggeest given this fact as well as there was not enough time for these populations to have migrated such huge distances, early New world man must have sailed by pogo-ing along the coast line in boats. Aborigines migrated across water 50,000 years ago and Pacific Islanders have migrated to and island hopped for thousands of years to the most remote of locations using primitive craft. See the works of Thor Heyerdal.

Sereral implied instances of contact with the New World by the Romans, Phonecians, Nordics, and Chinese have been well documented. More importantly, the Mayans, Aztecs, Incas, and presumably Olmecs in their own words speak of a white bearded civiliser who sailed from the east giving them civilisation whereas before they were but primitives. Given their continued bloodthirsty and barbaric ways it seems they were inheritors of a high level of knowledge that most of the populace couldnt begin to understand and were unable to improve upon any technology that came before. It is also no coincidence which at first stunned their Spanish conquerors that they share identical flood myths with middle eastern cultures. Asian (Chinese) influence is clearly seen in the biology of true indigineous peoples as well as cultural influences such as their uniquely shared reverence of jade, the stylized serpent (or dragon), sililiar artistic and writing design (archaic chinese), and the yin yang icon to name a few. The Chinese also built pyramids in ancient times. Read Voyages of the Pyramid Builders Robert M. Shoch PHd. The Olmecs of 2000-100 B.C., the progenitors of mesoamerican culture and presumably the New World pyramids, shaped stone heads in their earliest times weighing upwards of 40 tons depicting characters with sophisticated head gear unknown at the time as well as having strikingly negroid features.

Obviously there is no evidence to suggest the idea that New World populations are the direct decendants and benefactors of difusion from the old world especially biologically, but if we take their words alone which who are we to say otherwise, indeed the high technology, astonomy, mathematics, and likely the obsession with the pyramid shape, which as a rule are cardinally and astronomically aligned like their old world counterparts, was a result from a direct intervention of a seafaring civilisation from the east. Cultural difusion is not required as it was not imposed, but rather only the difusion of knowledge which is evidenced by the lack of qualified progenitors to the Olmec civilisation or Peru for that matter. The lack of megaton stones does not imply cultural differences resulting in lesser technological advancements or need to use such materials, but more so the fact they never had the knowledge (or were never given) the knowledge to begin with, and by all rights neither did these "civilisers" if we are to assume they came after 2000 B.C.. No civilisation in the world at that time other than a few isolated instances in Egypt were capable of utilizing megaton stones, so it would stand to reason neither would they.

On the other hand, the ruins of Peru and surrounding areas are of a completely different order employing the only precision-cut megaton stones in the western hemisphere. Though attributed to the Mayans, given the astonomical and geological evidence as well as stark contrast in artistic motif, inspite of mainstream opinion, this is highly unlikely given the age gap which both methods have dated to thousands of years before the accepted dates. The megaton stones used in these structures is of the highest order with uncanny similarity in precision and design to Old World megaton builders right down to identical metal "I" joint clamps, unique cyclopean architecture, and single block curved corner stones.

I classify megaton architecture in 2 types: "rough-hewn" (known commonly as megalithic architecture-stonehenge, Carnac, menhirs, dolmens and the like), and "precision-cut"(Egypt, Peru, Ballbek, ect.) Though both part of the same puzzle they are disinctly different despite the use of megaton blocks. In my opinion, there are separated by millenia of time and not just by design.

I recently returned from the ruins of Malta and was immedietly struck by the similarities to worldwide megalithic ruins such as noted above which in some instances being identical beyond coincidence. What struck me even more curious was the nearly identical spiral engravings found on many of the stones to those of the megalithic "Groove Ware" Peoples of Europe, most notably Ireland an island as well. I discussed this idea with the arhceologist on site which at first I got a "WTF" look, but to our small group he agreed this was a growing thought in the field that they must certainly be related though they have been wary to promote the idea due to its far reaching implications. The ruins of Malta and its sister island of Gozo are the oldest known megalithic megaton structures on earth dated to 3,500 B.C.. To link them to European cultures means that 5,500 years ago megalithic builders were sailng the seas traversing thousands of miles to islands in the middle of nowhere.

Another curious feature of the islands are their "cart tracks", equidistant parallel groves which criss-cross both islands seemingly serving some unknown purpose. Many of these tracks lead right into the sea and even off of cliffs and clearly link both islands. The problem here is that the island were separated by water up until at least 5,500 BC meaning of course the only explanation is our understanding of geological time for the mediterranean is completely off kilter (which given the strong data is unlikely) or our archeological dates are off by over 2,000 years if not more. Also worth noting is the reverence on Malta of the "fat lady" or "Venus" goddess found in prehistoric times as early as 30-40,000 years ago whose last traces are found around 7,000-8,000 B.C.. For these Groove Ware Peoples to have travelled either which way form Ireland to Malta or vise versa by mostly foot this could not have occured no ealier than 10,000-15,000 B.C, and even then some sailing would have been required. I believe what this is called is "difusion".

What is seen worldwide are uncanny similiarities of these 2 types of architecture that are only found in the most ancient of times bordering if not passing prehistory even by the most conservative estimates. This to me is beyond independent invention. If we look at the primitive jungle tribes in existance today, they have lived unchanged for 10's of thousands of years if not longer. They have not evolved. There is no math or architecture or any thing remotely pertaining to what we classify as "civilisation". This would stand as a point of fact that "independent invention" is a myth used to uphold the status quo. How could they spontaneously and independently not develop given the current linear model? It is impossible for them not to and in effect without difusion our world would be typical of them and not by us.thanos5150

There is no myth to uphold any status quo. Outside of a discussion of Khunian paradigm or Feyerabend, which is not the direction of this discussion, these conspiratorial claims are used by those who see arduous road to promoting your hypothesis "theory" as exclusionary. Well, it is for a reason. All scientific progress requires hard data; the road is hard for everyone and the onus is on you to prove your claim.[14] [15]. Your post contains paragraphs of Correlation implies causation and Spurious_relationship's that looks very similar to Graham_Hancock's, Uriel's Machine, or other views of a global connection with a 'mother culture'. As I have repeatedly stated, these concepts (hyper diffusionism and unilinear evolution, and in your last post, culture history) have been thoroughly dealt with in the available literature, and it is a waste of time to have me repeat this. Your posts do not provide proof that hyper diffusionism, unilinear evolution, or a mother culture exists beyond correlative evidence. You are right when you state that Obviously there is no evidence to suggest the idea that New World populations are the direct decendants and benefactors... As of now, there isnt. Please provide some non specious evidence to support your claims. Anthro

Yes there is, which is changing, and yet has nothing to do with any "conspiracy" theory so for you to term it that way is your own misconception. If youre interested in the knowledge filter inherent in archeology in particular I suggest Forbidden Archeology by Cremo and Thompson.

Also, nowhere have I suggested "unilinear evolution" and considering you actually read what I have said I'm confused as to why you feel the need to keep "stating it repeatedly" unless you're not actually familiar with what the term means. "Hyper diffusionism" or "diffusonism"- take your pick. I only assume you use the former to imply a more derogatory sentiment towards ideas you may not agree with or fully understand. Again, the works of Thor Heyerdal or Joseph Campbell as a start would enlighten you to the ideas of diffusionism.

Spurious? Have you made this determination because you've actually read authors like Hancock yourself or are you merely relying on what someone else tells you to think about it who already supports your point of view? You say "dealt with" as being adequately dismissed, which leads me to believe you have very few original thoughts of your own instead merely relying on reguritation of what you've read from the mainstream passing it off as gospel laced with profuse amounts of technical jargon as to confuse the reader beyond any doubt that what you say just must be true. This is often the case as well with "born again" type biblical religious pundits who overwhelm their audience believer and non alike with obscure and nearly unintellible recitings of latin scripture to lend credibility to their teachings. Nothing personal by any means, as is often the case with such arguments, just an observation.

Irony. Shouldnt any mainstream idea regarding the moving of pyramidal stones without explaining the 10-80 tons blocks be considered "specious"? Much of mainstream archeology and anthropology if not already is just a turn of the spade away from being specious itself which is the impass that has been reached creating the need for alternative theories to explain the whole of the data and not what is pallatably necessary to maintain accepted dogma.

Actually travel to these places and read books of those you disagree with equal veracity as the ones you do. Concerning megalithic/megaton architecture, before you've completely lose your open mind, you'd be well served to realize our ocean levels have risen 400-600ft in the last 7,000-15,000yrs (remember Malta?). The overwhelming majority of the ancient populations (as well as today) lived a mile or less from coast lines. We get lulled into complaceny with mainstream dogma being told all things worthwile concerning the origins of civilisation have all been discovered (as with anthropology as well), yet the oceans have for the most part been sadly ignored by funding remaing as a whole unexplored though there are an estimated 7,000 known sunken ancient sites worldwide. Not to mention many of the land sites remain only partially excavated if at all with new discoveries all the time by satelite for example going unexplored. This is understandable given the limits of funding and the narrow interests of benefactors. Unfortunately we must wait and hope they will someday get the attention they deserve.

You would be well served to remember the lesson "unilinear evolution" taught being dealt its deathblow with the "discovery" of Egypt and later obliterated with the unearthing of Sumer. Historians were certain Greece must be the apex and most ancient of civilisations. Then, oops, here comes Egypt. Now, Egypt must be the apex and most ancient civilisation. Oops, here comes Sumer. Uh, oh, here comes India. Who's next?

This topic has taken up way to much space so far my part I will move on.thanos5150

OT

(please eares it if you find irrelevant...) - Just for the record (since it was mentioned here)... There is no myth in nahuatl of maya tradition that speaks of "white bearded men coming form the east" and there is no surviving myths from the Olmec to sustain any posible claim. Somehow, writters have meesed up the myth of Ce Acatl Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl, priest of Quetzalcaotl and ruler of Tollan Xicotitlan, born in 947 DC. According to legend, he tought his face was so hideous, that he decided to let his beard grow to hide it, Later he replaced it with a mask (froma desctiption in a Mixtec codex it has been sugested he had a tumor in his face). AND acording to nahua legends, he did not come from the east.. he WENT to the east - In mesoamerican tradition, we live in the 5 creation, the other creations were destroyed by floods, eartquakes, fire, wind, so you can pick your choice and find it similarities with any other legend... Nanahuatzin 07:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The Great Pyramid cannot be a tomb

Just to point out, not only have no funereal artefacts been found within the Great Pyramid, but there has been no evidence of successful penetration. Now, there are other pyramids (outside of Giza) which were obviously used as tombs, but I think that the reference to the Great Pyramid being a tomb needs to be removed from this article in order to preserve its integrity. Furthermore, I challenge all relevant contributors to find the intial historical references for the theory that the Great Pyramid is a tomb. I think we won't find any such references until the 17th century. -z42

Context is important in this case, z42. What do you propose the massive structure at the center of an acknowledged "necropolis" -- literally, City of the Dead -- might be? Why is a sarcophagus inside? Why did the pyramid of Menkaure also contain a sarcophagus (lost at sea)? What purpose might its chambers serve? Why were funerary barques buried outside? Why were the funerary goods of Khufu's mother, Hetepheres, interred very close by? And let us not forget that, save the tombs of Amenhotep II (KV35), Maiherpri (KV36), Yuya and Thuyu (KV46), Tutankhamun (KV62), various "Unknowns" (KV50s, KV63), every tomb in the Valley of the Kings is utterly without "funereal artefacts [sic]". Six out of sixty three? That's less than ten percent, bub. Funny, though -- before we knew how to read hieroglyphics, before we had discovered inhabited tombs -- hm, say, the 17th century? when Egyptology began -- we were already callin' 'em tombs. Guess those time traveling god-aliens were busy, huh? Sincerely, your pal, Tut.

"time traveling god-aliens"? "bub"? Is it possible to give an argument without being an ass? Huh? ::I dont think this is what z42 is suggesting.

The fact is, several pyramids in Egypt have been found undisturbed since they were constructed, including the Great Pyramid, with "sarcophagi" in them all but with no bodies. If they were built as "tombs" and "tombs only", which is unlikely, apparently it was symbolic at best. A large stone box, with or without lid. Thats it. The Great Pyramid is not in the "center" of Giza but actually to the far edge left or right depending on your perspective, and is just one part of a master planned complex. The center it could be argued is the 2nd pyramid which though slightly smaller in size actually sits higher on the plateau. Indeed, what purpose do its chambers serve and how is this relevant to the pyramid being a tomb? Especially in the Great Pyramid, the chambers and galleries give the distinct impression of serving a completely different function other that just a place to put a dead body. Ah, "funerary barks". Are you sure thats what they are? 35 no less which showed signs of use. You know, the Nile ran right by Giza at that time with water causeways leading right to it. When standing at Saqquara you can look down the desert and see how all the 4th dynasty pyramids lined the ancient Nile. Could there be another more practical explanation of why it was necessary to bury 35 boats other than religious? And why would there not be similiar boats buried at other pyramids? Saquarra? The Bent Pyramid? Red Pyramid? No, strangely just here. The reason the tombs (not pyramids) in the Valley of the Kings are without funerary artefacts is because they were all robbed. This is well documented and seems to only contradict your argument. The few that were not robbed as you point out all had stuff in them. The ones that were did not. Sounds reasonable. If the G.P. were never robbed then why was nothing found inside of it? What you find at Giza are 3 pyramids, 2 temples, the Sphinx, and causeways all part of a grand design. All the known funerary structures like Khufu's mother's tomb were an afterthought and obviously not part of the overall plan giving the distinct impression these were actually much later structures and really more of an "encampment" along side an already existing site. The pyramids are assumed to be tombs lacking all other evidence only because of these secondary structures and the fact empty boxes similiar to sarcophagi were found inside. Without this there would be no idea what they were for and has nothing to do with the Valley of the Kings which came well over 1000 years later at time when the pyramid age was long gone. You seem to be comparing apples to oranges. thanos5150

Visibility from a distance

I replaced this:
"and even in the evening under moonlight they were visible from mountains in the south of Egypt as far away as 200 miles (300 km)"
because it is highly dubious (quite apart from the fact that 200 miles doesn't even get to the middle of Egypt let alone the south). Due to the curvature of the earth, to see the tip of the pyramid from 200 miles would need a mountain of about 20,000ft but there isn't one of that height in Egypt. The only possibility for making this claim true would be a mirage but I don't think mirages happen "in the evening under moonlight". Anyway, this claim needs a citation to a source that explains how it is possible (not just to a source recalling the story). 13:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a famous source -- possibly Herotodus -- who describes their soft glow as being visible something like six miles out, at night. Alas I have nothing concrete. (Renyseneb 13:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

Lock

It is great that you put a lock on it. Pyramids of Giza shouldn't be subject to vandalism. I am a major Egypt fan and I think the almighty Khufu deserves better than that. Thank you to whoever put the lock on. User:Natvvgal 6:55 PM, May 14, 2007

Automatic peerreview

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[1]
Consider adding more links to the article; per WP:MOS-L and WP:BTW, create links to relevant articles.
Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.^[2]
Per WP:MOSNUM, when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.
Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.^[3]
Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at WP:GTL.
There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view. For example,
- is considered
- are considered
- might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please ~~strike~~ this comment).^[4]
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”
As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. ^[5]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Markh 20:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The hight

It seems that the article is inconsitent about the hight of the pyramid:

In the fact box, the hight is listed to 146 meters. In the text, the hight is stated as 146.6 meters, which should be 147 when written without decimals.

Fully Habitable?

Would I be correct in assuming that the succession box referene to the pyramid being a fully habitable building, is purely a term of art? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 12:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Section "Historical Context" - Bizarre Estimate of Time Required For Construction

The opening of the section "Historical Context" reads as follows: Believed by mainstream Egyptologists to have been constructed in approximately 20 years and 20 days... Does it strike anyone else as odd, that we have this degree of precision of the time taken to construct a building, when the constuction methods used, and the size and skill of the workforce employed, and the actual structure of the building, are all either quite unknown or known only with great uncertainty, and which therefore must be guessed at. In other words, "20 years" might well be acceptable as an estimate, but the addition of the "20 days" can not be taken seriously. Who put that in there, I wonder. I am taking it out. Hi There 01:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence for casting of stones rather than quarrying

I ran across this article [16]. Should this theory at least be mentioned in the article somewhere? --NoahElhardt 00:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, I came across either that same article or a similar one reporting the same facts, linked via the Anomalist, a day or two ago. I actually came here to find out what WP had about such a theory, which was completely new to me. However, I was so astounded by the "20 years and 20 days to build the pyramid" claim that I completely forgot about it. Anyway, to me, the source is reputable and both the source and the researchers seem credible. My opinion is that, it should be mentioned in the article, but I would prefer if someone more involved in the article than I am, would work it in. I do not like just kinda jetting in, making changes to other people's work, and then going on my merry way. Unless, of course, no one seems to either care, or be paying attention. So we will see. If we get no response in a few days, we will make the changes ourselves. Hi There 12:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Found another article claiming the stones of the pyramids have been casted. The article claims an early form of concrete is used — limestone, lime, and diatomaceous earth (maybe there's an article on this type of cement among these (Category:Cement)? The construction technique is mentioned here: Egyptian pyramid construction techniques#Limestone concrete theory --Brz7 21:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Slope

Why is the slope of 51 degrees close to the ideal for a stable pyramidal structure? What is the ideal slope? Kenta2 06:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

RJ hook feasibility?

The hook rigged exactly as depicted (6/1/07) seems unlikely to work safely. Straining the rope would tend to unhook it from the hole. If the hook design is well-established and without a shaft in the direction of the arrow (the holes are well-known), there must have been some other kind of rigging, maybe also involving a bridle and/or a plank. 86.129.161.204 10:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Casing stones

I printed out this article and noticed that the casing stones were described in two different places. It threw me for a loop because the first time they were mentioned, it was a bit more specific. Am I the only one that noticed that? Lauren^whisper 19:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Confusing numbers

"Egyptologist Miroslav Verner posited that the labor was organized into a hierarchy, consisting of two gangs of 100,000 men, divided into five zaa or phyle of 200 men each, which may have been further divided according to the skills of the workers"

Either these numbers are incorrect, or someone has worded this sentence very poorly. --Wafulz 03:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding two zeros to the number 200 gives us 20,000, and then the math works out. Although I do not know if this is exactly what was meant. (I have assumed that what is meant is "two gangs of 100,000 men EACH, and not "two gangs of 100,000 men TOTAL.) Hi There 05:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Units

The units used in this article are a touch confusing, such as a lenght given as 5ft 16inchs, unless a typo has crept in, wouldn't this usually be expressed as 6ft 4in?

Also there's a figure given as 0.523/4m. What does this mean?

And the angle of 51.50.40 should be 51 degrees, 50 minutes 40 seconds (51°50'40), or expressed as decimal.

84.64.194.247 16:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Dave

Inconsistent statements of dimensions. Sometimes meters followed by feet are stated. Other times only meters, and others only feet. Should be consistent throughout. In general, the technical aspects of this article are a mess. 71.195.12.6 01:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

References

The references need work - some of them are simple external hyperlinks with no further info.Burns flipper 08:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I added the Citecheck tag. In general it looks like the sources could use a going over with WP:SOURCE in mind, and ones not meeting the criteria either be removed or moved to External links as appropriate. --Ronz 19:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Caboose

There seems to be a message that says "Caboose was here bitch" next to "See also" at the bottom of the article that should be removed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.115.220.74 (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Vandalism

When adding content to this page, please provide citations - especially if you are changing the facts. Markh 11:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have now added a protection request for this article, due to the high amount of vandalism. Markh 21:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This page was vandalised straight after the end of the page protection, so I may ask for it protection again. Please don't edit this page without discussing it. Markh 07:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have asked for semi-protection AGAIN. Please stop reverting the changes and pushing WP:FRINGE theories Markh 19:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Cayce

I was suprised to see Cayce's speculations included in the main article's "Dating evidence" section rather than exclusively under "alternative theories", especially since the paragraph states that dating techniques (the actual evidence) do not support these. I recommend that this paragraph (beginning "The Edgar Cayce Foundation") be moved into the alternative theories section. Hgilbert 13:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I put it, mainly because the Cayce foundation funded the C14 study. I think the reason to make this study should be included in the paragraph. Specailly since the results of the study, did not suport the claims of the foundation. Nanahuatzin (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright free photos

The french version of this page has some really good images that were obtained from http://www.egyptarchive.co.uk/ their copyright licenses are free. i'm pretty sure they would make a good addition to this article. yakuzai 13/06/2007

Formatting problem with engraving picture

The picture of the engraving by the 16th century artist is overlapping the text above it, at least on the latest Firefox browser. Perhaps someone with the key to the lock could fix this. Pete Jacobsen 04:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I have fully protected this page. You guys will need to bring your differences to the talk page and work it out among yourselves. JodyB_talk 16:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have not doubt that as soon as protection is lifted this editor will be back in one guise or another as they have been doing for some time now.--Alf ^melmac 17:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you revert the article back to the generally accepted facts, and not the WP:FRINGE theory that is being pushed please. Markh 17:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That's rule no 75 isn't it - always protect an article in the wrong version ;) I have attempted to communicate with the editor in question more than enough times. Most of his ten socks working today had a long paragraph from me, all to no avail, not one single edit on this here talk and plenty plenty reverts, hence I have no problem in going way over 3rr here against ten sock creations for the specific purpose of keeping that one revision, despite decent work on it today by another (regular) editor.--Alf ^melmac 17:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. Markh 17:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand the editor has been blocked. After discussion with other admins the page is now semi protected again. JodyB_talk 17:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Interior diagram

It strikes me that this article could benefit from even a simple diagram of the interior tunnels and chambers. I'd make one myself, but others could probably do a much better job. Mycroft7 18:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Let me know any suggestions for improving the diagram. Jeff Dahl 17:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Lincoln Cathedral

Do we really think that the Great Pyramid is surpassed by Lincoln Cathedral, except in the sense that the cathedral is of more recent construction? At best, this is surely a matter of opinion? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 11:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't too obvious, but that information is part of an "Infobox Skyscraper" template, and is only comparing the height of various buildings, sorted into a historical sequence of highest building at any point in time. --RenniePet 19:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The list is extraordinarily stupid in its concept. The list is about so-called "entirely habitable" buildings. Not structures. It doesn't include the Eiffel Tower which is deemed "not habitable, despite the fact that it has always had habitable enclosed spaces. It DOES include the Pyramid, which has presumably never been inhabitted, except by corpses, and a number of cathderals, Lincoln, Cologne and Ulm, which have enclosed spaces, but have never been "entirely habitable" as you cannot live in an open-work spire, or even in an enclosed spire like the one at Lincoln.

RenniePet is correct in saying that it means "surpassed in height".Amandajm 08:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

My suggestions: Remove that information completely. Failing that, put it in a separate small infobox with a relevant title, and following the main infobox and the "seven wonders" infobox. --RenniePet 08:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

seven wonders template

We now have a seven wonders template at the bottom of the page instead of the infobox. Jeff Dahl 03:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

How can there be no reference to the book "Secrets of the Great Pyramid" by Peter Tompkins. This book is reveals historical facts that are of PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.139.202 (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Add this

Preceded by Red Pyramid	World's tallest structure -2570—1300 146.6 m	Succeeded by Lincoln Cathedral

Citation Needed

The casing stones of the Great Pyramid and Khafre's Pyramid (constructed directly beside it) were cut to such optical precision as to be off true plane over their entire surface area by only 0.5 mm. They were fitted together so perfectly that the tip of a knife cannot be inserted between the joints even to this day.^{[citation needed]}

The passages inside the pyramid are all extremely straight and precise, such that the longest of them, referred to as the descending passage, which is 107 m long, deviates from being truly straight by less than 6 mm, while one of the shorter passages with a length of just over 15 m deviates from being truly straight by a mere 0.5 mm. ^{[citation needed]}

The frequency modulation calculates into a amplidtude modultion which gradually forms into a racoon. the co-enteering angles are usually used for a highly recoomended

                                Written by: Piran Nanthakumar  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.115.138 (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Great Pyrimad

Did you know the pyramid symbolize the third eye- pineal gland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andre Jackson (talk • contribs) 20:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Grat Piramuid

Did you know the pyramid is the exac geametry of the piece of paper now stick out under my kb? Surely this cant be a coencidence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Great Pyramid of Giza. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

^ See footnote
^ See footnote
^ See footnote
^ See footnote
^ See footnote

[lead-1] See footnote

[nbsp-2] See footnote

[spellnum-3] See footnote

[awt-4] See footnote

[copyedit-5] See footnote

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]