Jump to content

Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

longitude: 31.13 N, latitude: 29.97 E

how about mentioning some coordinates somewhere? --Charlesrkiss (talk) 06:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation Needed

Recent evidence has been found that suggests the workforce was in fact paid[citation needed], which would require accounting and bureaucratic skills of a high order.

The workers from the pyramid were mostly farmers, who came for other work during the inundation of the Nile. As their fields were filled with water, they could not do anything. They went to work at the pyramid amongst others, like the Abu Simbel Dam. They were paid in three kinds of beer and four kinds of wine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.184.45 (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Supernatural Claims

Although this date contradicts radiocarbon dating evidence, it is loosely supported by a lack of archaeological findings for the existence prior to the fourth dynasty of a civilization with sufficient population or technical ability in the area. -> It is loosely supported by 95% of egyptologists, by the way. So I think that this sentence, as is, it's not NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.163.57 (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


Another Alternative Theory

Check out this link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070330/ts_nm/egypt_pyramid_dc;_ylt=Ag6zRgHvzHkbv_2fjh9cFyRg.3QA It seems pretty feasible. Anyone think it's worthy of putting into the article? 70.118.119.96 18:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a longer article on the same guy [1], but I believe we should wait until there is better evidence before putting in anything more than a passing mention. -Ravedave 05:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Archaeology Magazine has an article online: "How to Build a Pyramid" --Ronz 00:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It should go into the Egyptian pyramid construction techniques article. Markh 08:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this is specific to the Great Pyramid, and includes an explanation for there being three burial chambers, some mention should be here, especially if the theory is further supported. --Ronz 18:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If alternative theories without evidence are to be allowed then I think http://www.farmhall.com/drupal/files/pyramid.pdf is equally deserving. Mehtopa 20:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added a small section, "Jean-Pierre Houdin's "internal ramp" theory", to the Egyptian pyramid construction techniques article. --RenniePet 13:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph which someone previously deleted, about pyramidologists, a serious branch of study of the Pyramid with an intellectual history and wide following. This is part of the human tale of the Pyramid and is totally appropriate for a public encyclopedia. These books and authors are real, their scholarship serious, grounded in the measurements of the Great Pyramid. It includes C. Piazzi Smyth, the astronomer royale for Scotland. Please do not delete this paragraph. This is a legitimate ALTERNATIVE theory Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrpahl (talk • contribs) 14:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with it being included, I was surprised when it was deleted by someone who doesn't seem at all happy with mainstream ideas!--Doug Weller (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


Missing Evolution?

'John Anthony West writes in reference to Egypt in particular: "How does a complex civilization spring full blown into being? Look at a 1905 automobile and compare it to a modern one. There is no mistaking the process of 'development'. But in Egypt there are no parallels. Everything is right there from the start."'

Anybody with some remote knowledge of egyptology knows that the pyramids in particular were the result of an evolutionary process from Mastabas to Djosers step pyramid to the direct predecessor of the Great, Sneferus' red pyramid. Same for the temples and hieroglyphs and I could continue this list for a long time. When Cheops lived, the unified kingdom of upper and lower Egypt was already approx. 1000 years old. So the notion that "Everything is right there from the start" is utterly baseless, and I suggest to remove this part. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.176.64.24 (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Regardles of your opinion, the quote given is in context by an acknowledged author to summarize the position and warrants inclusion as it is with reference. thanos5150
In what sense is John Anthony West an "acknowledged" author? He's definitely an author (as is Erich von Daniken) but his ideas are derided by more or less everybody who's read any pertinent material written since about 1890. Jamrifis (talk) 11:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Acknowledged in the sense he is generally respected in his field whereas someone like von Daniken is not respected in any field. It is not West's ideas in themselves that are "derided", but by default any one who does not agree with mainstream opinions-opinions contradicted by their own data. As far as "anyone" is concerned, I suppose you mean cranks like Budge, Petrie, and Maspero to name a few-the guys who wrote the vast amount of "pertinent" material written since 1890 that you speak- who all believed at least some aspects of the Giza plateau, like the Sphinx, predated the 4th dynasty.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos5150 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Generally respected in what field? Saying that Budge, Petrie or Maspero reached conclusions that are different than they might have reached had they the information Egyptologists have today isn't the same thing as saying they are cranks. Budge is not considered a reliable source today but people don't think he's a crank. Keeping West's nonsense in there (and it is nonsense if you read modern Egyptologists about preDynastic and early Dynastic Egypt) is fine so long as it is qualified with a statement about what Egyptologists think today. Oh, and whoever put the link where West compares Darwin unfavourably to Stalin, thanks -- I've learned a bit more about West (although having had direct internet exchanges with him I think I know enough already).--Doug Weller (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
As a writer of alternative history. West is obviously not without his faults and I do not particularly favor him either way, but he is no where near in the same league as a Von Daniken. As I have said, his statement does not need a qualifier as it is understood what Egyptologists think today. I believe the reader smart enough to figure this out without being smacked in the face. I have seen nothing from modern Egytologists that would change the minds of the likes Budge, Petrie or Maspero because to this day the fundamental argument is the same. If anything, I think the lack of discovery would only strengthen their opinions. Even Rainer Stadelmann believes the Sphinx to be made by Khufu and not Khafre. If all I did were believe what Egytologists tell me to believe without the ability to have an original thought of my own I would certainly think the way some people here do, but I have done more than read what someone else tells me, mainstream or alternative, I have been there myself. It is one thing to read about ancient history, but to see it with your own eyes as a traveler and not a tourist with the knowledge to put it into historical perspective; it is easy to see, if only as a matter of common sense, there is more to the history of civilization than we are willing to admit. Regardless of West, Hancock, or for that matter Lehner or Hawass-there is something not right here. Something is missing. I have been to the most ancient sites around the world, read all the books alternative and mainstream, and though the strangely similar sophistication and use of large stones with such precision I believe is beyond coincidence, one thing is also the same; it is that these things are always found at the beginnings of civilizations with little or no precedent, and after there is a clear and fundamental change. There is a finite period of history around the world that such megalithic architecture appears and as quickly as it came it is gone. An explanation does not require aliens or even Atlanteans for that matter, but the mystery remains and as of yet the mainstream has not provided a credible answer. To suggest otherwise is to blind ourselves to the truth which to me is what makes Wikipedia great is because it allows for a responsible outlet of information from all points of view.thanos5150

Alternative Theories

As John West was making a claim about Egyptian civlization which is not part of this article, I have reinstated the point (sadly widely believed in public opinion) that Egyptian civilization does not emerge full blown.--Doug Weller (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources

The book quoted by Thanos is an unreliable source. Robert Schoch is a Professor of Geology and is writing outside his field here -- his interested changed and he is now even writing about the paranormal. This is not a criticism, just a factual statement. This book Voyages of the Pyramid Builders is not a reliable source and has numerous inaccuracies. See for instance Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public by Garrett G. Fagan. Richard Noone is fringe of the fringe, and his books are also full of inaccuracies which makes him an unreliable source. As I pointed out in my edit, he is the only source of the Booker story.--Doug Weller (talk) 07:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So, you are saying that carbon dating is out of the field of expertise for a geologist, but not an Egyptologist? Really? Schoch is obviously more than qualified to interpret the results and his conclusions are completely consistent with the data whose only source is the study itself. Other than the fact you do not agree with some of his conclusions, how is it that a tenured professor of 23 years at Boston University with two Ph.D's from Yale is not reliable enough to reproduce accurate data from a test result?
As far as the "Booker story" is concerned, Richard Noone is the first hand source because it was Richard Noone who commissioned Merle Booker to conduct the study in the first place. Right or wrong, your opinion of Noone is irrelevant because the authenticity of Booker's credentials and fully documented conclusion are indisputably authentic regardless of any other inaccuracies some other author has told you is in there. Unless you believe Booker himself is somehow unqualified to speak of such things then your point is moot.
Other edits in the Materials and Workforce section: this is simple math based on the facts provided by Egytologists and do not require reference. For example: 1+1=2 does not require reference. Nor, which I assume is your point in removing it, is it POV to represent such facts whereas on the other hand it is obvious POV that you do feel the need to remove it. What is wrong with letting the facts speak for themselves? And Dr. I.E.S Edwards...I suppose you think he is an unreliable source as well?
West Comment: This comment is in the alternative section and by default is understood it in not accepted by mainstream Egytologists and does not require a qualifying statement or removal. Regardless of his broader conclusions, West is referring to among other things the disparity of Egypt's technological capacity before and after Djoser, which if you have ever been to Egypt, if only Memphis (pre-4th dynasty) and Saquarra, this conclusion is painfully obvious. The leap from simple mudbrick mastabas and huts to master planned stone works and temples on an unprecedentedly massive scale with no reasonable intermediary is too great to be reconciled without the infusion of an outside source. This does not have to mean aliens or Atlanteans, and for me at least it seems to have been a clear result of Sumerian influence.
Wikipedia is not meant to be Encyclopedia Britannica and therefore all verifiable facts must be represented fairly regardless of opinion. This is what makes Wikipedia great.thanos5150
Nonetheless, you yourself have just admitted that the math is OR, which means it doesn't belong here. And the first hand source for Booker's report is not Noone but Booker, whose existence, let alone the report, hasn't been proven. So far, we only have Noone's word for it and as he isn't a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, let alone anyone else's, the inclusion of this claim isn't acceptable. Your comment on West is one showing your personal belief, which is fine, but how is that relevant? And West does require a qualifying statement because in my experience too many people don't know that there is a lot of research to show that that particular statement is wrong. It isn't the case that comments can't be made on it. PhDs don't mean someone can't be dreadfully wrong, Barry Fell was a distinguished Professor of marine biology at Harvard but when he went out of his field he wrote nonsense. Schoch is a geologist, not an Egyptologist, and C14 dating (in which he also has no expertise) needs always to be interpreted by a specialist in the relevant field. I need to correct you on Schoch. He has one PhD, not two, he is not a full professor, and the College he teaches at is the College of General Studies at Boston University, 'adult education' with a two year curriculum and does not grant degrees.

As for the Edwards quote, not only is it out of date (just as if he was quoted saying the Pyramids was built by slaves) it might be appropriate as showing the development of thinking about the building of the GP, but not where it was. Please read the relevant Wikipedia policies WP:NOR and WP:RELIABLE.--Doug Weller (talk) 08:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe this math qualifies as OR because any statement of fact without reference would qualify as OR which is unreasonable. I would say that 1/2 of this entire article falls under that category and yet it is interesting you do not take exception to that, or at least not to what supports your POV. Regardless, it is interesting to note the study above by Lehner and co. that says they must have put in place 180 blocks/hr, or 2 blocks more per minute than the equation cited, to complete the project which seems even more implausible. But, I guess if an Egytologist says it it must be true.
It is true that Noone himself is not a reliable source, but as you said Noone is not the source-Booker is. On page #105 of 5/5/2000 Noone reproduces Booker's original signed and dated correspondence on company addressed letterhead in it's entirety. You are saying that Noone could have forged this document and invented Merle Booker? Now that I would say is nonsense. I would not argue against Noone's greater lack of credibility, but in this matter he has provided sufficient documentation to show that Booker's correspondence and station, let alone his actual existence, are genuine. Booker's finding are clear and unaltered by Noone and must stand on it's own merit regardless of the source. Case in point is the David H. Koch Pyramids Radiocarbon Project funded by the Cayce foundation. The Cayce foundation is obviously not a reliable source by themselves either but the experts they employed are and no one doubts the validity of the tests or whether they were actually real people.
Shoch's bio says he has degrees in both Geology and Geophysics which would be a double major would it not? It is true a PhD does not grant immunity to being wrong or even credible, but to argue on your points then how is an Egyptologist qualified to speak of geology whereas an actual geologist is not? The only reason for this is because the geologist does not agree with the Egyptologist, therefore though geology is well beyond the field of Egyptology, the geologist is wrong regardless of the data. An Egytologist is an expert of Egytptian culture, ie. language, art, economics, ect-nothing more. They are not "real" scientists or materials experts-they are culturalists and anything beyond that is their own speculation or interpretation of data provided by others. And yet any other branch of science is discredited and considered not a "reliable source" when they enter the field and do not agree simply because they are not experts in Egyptian culture? What does this have to do with weathering patterns on rock or radio carbon data? The study of radiometric dating is an intergral part of geological studies so to say Shoch has no expertise in this field is odd to say the least. Granted, he is not a "specialist", but one cannot become a geologist without advanced study in this field. Regardless, he is not making any interpretation of the data-this data is the end result of the study and speaks for itself.
The Edwards quote is just as true then as it is today. Nothing has been discovered to contradict his statement and if you read it all he is saying that Khufu must have made significant advances in technology to complete the task in that time frame. I do expand my comments on West to my personal belief for my own satisfaction, but regardless a qualifier is not required as is neither your experience. If any such statement is needed it is at the beginning of the alternative section and is not required point by point. A comment on the Creighton stuff-all I can say is who the hell is this guy? He is so obscure as to make me wonder if he didn't put the link in himself to promote his book.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos5150 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I have removed Noone again as it seems impossible to verify his claim about Booker or Booker's credentials. If you can do that I guess it can go in alternative theories. There's no comparison with the Cayce Foundation funding research.
'Major's are undergraduate degrees, a PhD is a long paper, he has only one PhD. There is no requirement for geologists to do advance study in organic radiocarbon dating, but in any case, as you say about Egyptologists, it always needs interpretation. Geology isn't hard science either, although it's 'harder' than Egyptology :-) This is about the use of organic material in the mortar of the Great Pyramid, and clearly requires interpretation. (As for weathering patterns on rock, if you meant the Great Sphinx, Schoch is out on his own about his age claims - even the 2 geologists who think it is older than the conventional dates don't back his dating).
The use of math to back an argument is OR unless it comes from a reliable source.
You have a good point about Scott Creighton. He hasn't published a book even. And he's perfectly capable of putting that in hmself. I'll take it out.
If you think anything else in the main section is from nonreliable sources or is really OR, then try to improve it. Remember, NPOV means the article should be balanced, not that different viewpoints shouldn't be there.--Doug Weller (talk) 05:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Noone provides sufficient documentation to be included in this article. I will concede only because of the source it can be relegated to the alternative section.
The source of that data is this article itself and it's references. These figures are spoke of by Mark Lehner in a Nova article and is common knowledge.
The Schoch thing has been beat to death and for me the reference stands. Schoch may be "out on his own" with the age but the support remains that the accepted dating by Egytologists is incorrect and if we accept the more modest dates of the other 2 geologists their dating lines up nicely with the radio carbon dating of the Giza plateau.
There is a serious problem however with the 1984 David H. Koch Pyramids Radiocarbon Project in that the data is not available to the general public. Nowhere can the actual data be found and the only possible source I found in the past (which I can't seem to find anymore) requires purchasing the article and says that any reproduction is prohibited. The full data of the 1995 data was not released as well and the anomalous dates for Giza in both studies were tossed out when the averages were made. This is highly dubious and really only shows the strength of the evidence against mainstream thought in that no matter how much the data is watered down and withheld it is still much older than what is accepted.thanos5150
Have I got this right? Noone, an unreliable source, tells us about a study that can't be found anywhere else, by someone I can't find and whose credentials I don't know. There is no independent source for this. You seem to be trying to give it credibility by writing "the Institute is considered by many architects to be one of the world’s leading authorities on limestone." which looks like OR to me (I see you claim that my statement that many fringe writers ignore the research done on Predynastic and early Dynastic Egypt to be OR). The original report doesn't seem to exist anywhere that can be verified, nor can Booker be verified.

On the other hand, you complain about the radiocarbon stuff, despite the fact that there are at least 3 public articles by the people who actually did it. And what do you mean by full data? (Tell me, is the full data for the 'Booker report' in Noone?). Read this [2] and tell me what is missing that you think is needed.

I won't remove Noone right yet, as I've opened a discussion here: [3]--Doug Weller (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you call the Indiana Limestone Institute and ask if Merle Booker was their director in 1978? The phone # is right there on the original signed and dated correspondence with Indiana Limestone Institute letterhead reprinted in in its entirety. PG#105. you have the book right? Or here-go to their website:http://www.iliai.com/. Ask about Merle Booker. The book is the verification-what you are saying is that Noone is so unreliable as to have made up Merle Booker and forged the document. Is this what you are telling me? Please. Booker data is right there in his letter-read it for yourself.
Where's the 1984 data? Where exactly did they take the samples from in 1995 study? I want the data for each sample-what it was and exactly where it was taken from. This data has not been released has it? Where is it? It's not in your link.
Who are you to decide what to remove or leave in? These edits have been here for almost 2 years with no objections and now you come in and burn it all. At this point I am tempted to revert everything-indefinitely but I will join your discussion.thanos5150
Who am I? What does that have to do with this. I imagine there is stuff in Wikipedia that has been there longer with no objections but is rubbish. How long was the pyramidology stuff there before you released it?

There is a lot of data in the article.

The Booker report in Noone's book is just a letter? I don't have the book and don't intend to buy it. I am interested in the entire original report. You've rewritten the other study in a way that I think denigrates it, but you don't report anything from the Booker report except the conclusion, why is that?

The footnotes are now an unreadable mess by the way.

As for the sample information, Appendix 1 Appendix 1 Listing Of Dated Samples By Dynasty And Monuments This lists the samples individually, their composition, where they came from, the results, etc. For each sample. That's the link I provided, you clearly haven't read it and nor did Schoch.I should have checked first and trusted my memory rather than your statement--Doug Weller (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be injecting your POV on this entire article rather heavy handedly and many of your arguments are lacking or at least a matter of your opinion. Most of what you take exception to you haven't even read so your arguments are based on your prejudices derived from other sources. Your agenda is clear so please don't pass yourself off as an objective participant. In fairness so are mine, but I am only defending the question and am not trying to suppress any information to achieve a desired result, if only the contrary. The pyramidology stuff was in there for a few days before I caught it and edited it unmercifully to it's present form. I never thought it should have been in there in the first place but was at least respectful enough to allow it's inclusion. This is a community after all. Regardless, it obviously has no relevance and felt enough time had passed to remove it.
I read the study but did not see the appendix below. When I looked for this information a few years ago it was not published on the net and from what I could tell was only available for purchase and could not be reproduced. Schoch's book was published 5 years ago so given the testing was done in 1995 and the report was not finished until 2001, let alone when it was actually released to the public, his statement I am sure was true at the time. But now it has been so that is a good edit on your part. If I would have seen this before I would have removed it myself at it is no longer valid. But being you have never read the book you wouldn't know either way. Regardless, the studies findings are clear with the dates being on average much older that what is believed which is the point to be illustrated. After this never ending diatribe with you and in light of your recent edits, I do not find your arguments valid about Schoch in this matter and will continue to restore it to that section until someone from Wikipedia in an official capacity can rule on it inclusion.
I have confirmed Booker's existence so go to the other conversation for my findings. Booker's correspondence is a conclusion of ILI's findings and gives 2 paragraph's of detailed figures and parameter's on how it was derived based on the base, height and slope taking into account known hollowed spaces. If you feel it is necessary to include 2 paragraph's of data please do. The quote referenced in this article is directly from that letter, not Noone. The edits I have made reflect the true nature of the the other studies findings in their own words. If such contradictions are there it is irresponsible to not make note of it and to do anything less is more propaganda than science.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos5150 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Page 1305 of the article has 2 C14 dates for the top of the pyramid, one 4330 BP, the other 4068 BP (both uncalibrated). The oldest date is from the 189th course and is 5020 BP. So where is Schoch getting 3809 from? Why should Schoch's dates be in the article and not the report's dates, which have the benefit of having all the detail you could want?

How many stones does Booker estimate, by the way? The problem is, we know the assumptions of the Civil Engineering report, we have no idea what assumptions were made by Booker or his qualifications to make them. And although I am sure you are telling the truth about his existence, we still have only Noone as a source.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Schoch is referring specifically to the 1984 study and without going down stairs and getting his book again for the umpteenth time, I am sure he is referring to the calibrated dates of these #'s. If you have an issue with Schoch's #'s I would say to read the book and check his source or contact him directly. I am not Schoch's keeper or advocate, but can find no reasonable argument that an active Professor at Boston College with a PHd from Yale, not to mention from his published opinions are several books, that he is not a reliable source at least as far as the reproduction of data from a scientific study. Hawaas and Lehner by no means think Schoch is a crank or fraud they just strongly disagree with his findings. With all due respect, you are by no means qualified to make this determination yourself let alone interpret the data from the study and pass judgment on your own merit. You have judged Schoch based on your prejudices which are to be found here: http://www.ramtops.co.uk/ and now seek to refute his data with your own OR. Not good. Unless you can find an accredited source, and not your interpretation of that source, that refutes the #'s given by Schoch then your point is moot. It is a sad world we live in where anyone otherwise credible and qualified who does not agree with an accepted dogma is discredited and considered "unreliable" for no other reason than their dissension of opinion.
So now you're sure he's a real person? Yeesh. I'll continue this on the other thread. We are taking up way too much space here.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos5150 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to refute Schoch, I'm trying to place his statements in the larger context, which so far hasn't been done. I'm not doing any OR here by making that point. I don't understand why the first reports dates should come from Schoch rather than the original report, do you think that is the way it should be referenced? If you want to put Schoch back in under alternate theories, making it clear that he is responding to the first report and not the second, ok. I'm still not happy that there seems no way to find out how Booker got his figures, whereas people can read the Civil Engineering article. Or on relying on an unreliable source for it.

Schoch and I agree on some things and I have an article on Colette Dowell's website, by the way.--Doug Weller (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving over to the other place to talk about Booker, but briefly, you are right, it would be ideal to reference the 1984 report itself but this would require our interpretation of it if we even have the data as I am still not sure if the uncalibrated data you referred to earlier is from the 1984 or 1995 report. If it is from the 1984 report then that should be referenced instead but I am worried that being they are uncalibrated would be misleading without explaining what calibration is and why it is necessary. Before you trashed it, the Schoch reference specifically stated he was responding to the first report. This was very clear. As I have it now, Schoch's name and any hint of his interpretation is removed from it and put benignly in the 1984 paragraph. What is stated are the upper date ranges and briefly how it relates to Khufu's reign- nothing more or less. This is a worthwile addition. I am confident Schoch is credible as it relates to this data and the reference sound and should remain exactly where it is. It is not alternative theory to state the data. If the actual study can be referenced by all means do so but this should not discount Schoch. Anyhoo, on to the other thread...thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.85.234 (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Manetho a revisionist?

Egyptologists don't consider Manetho a revisionist, although I guess Biblical literalists might. But you need something better than that to call him one (if that's the basis of the claim, it may not be).--Doug Weller (talk) 11:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanos5150 still has failed to find any evidence that Manetho is called a revisionist by Egyptologists. His reference to http://www.ancient-egypt.org/index.html doesn't say that, and the historical revisionism article's first paragraphs is about modern historians. Nor does he seem to want to discuss this, he simply continues to impose the label.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not "fail" at anything. It is not saying Manetheo is a revisionist, it is saying Aegyptica is revisionist history which by definition it is. This was the whole point of what Ptolemy was trying to do. To argue against is to not understand the meaning. You only understand it for it's negative connotation which is what you take exception to and does not a matter if it it done by a modern or ancient historian as the mechanism and purpose are the same.
Doug-your edits are getting offensive. You delete whatever you don't like making it impossible to retrieve and it is becoming very clear your only motive at this point if to impose your will where only you see fit. My edit of the Chamber and Passages section was perfectly sound and long over due. It is poorly written with incorrect facts and some of the assertions are uncredited opinions. thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos5150 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
This is getting beyond a joke. You are now placing personal opinions in the article, querying references in footnotes, claiming that something is independently verified (yes, you checked it, but you can't add that to the article). Some of your edits are fine, but you are trying your best to edit the article to place doubts on anything mainstream you don't like, instead of putting it int he appropriate section.
You cannot use the word revisionist to describe the Aegyptica just because that's your view of it, you need to back that up by a reliable source. Your definitions don't matter.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
All histories revise others to some extent, but to describe a historian as "revisionist" is to make a specific claim. We don't have sufficient information about pre-existing histories of Egypt and indeed about Manetho's own work to say this with any confidence. However, if his work were consistently labeled as such by ancient historians we could use the term. Paul B (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I would say the same about you Doug. I categorize it more as an apt description by definition than an opinion to say Aegyptica is revisionist. The historian is not being described as such, it is the work itself. Anyways, it is your right to disagree or think it needs to be referenced, but it is customary to place a citation needed tag and allow sufficient time for it to be provided than to just hack at it out the first site of it because the word offends you. My comment about verifying Booker was meant to be short lived to put the matter at rest. To have to argue that Booker was even a real person or that Noone would have faked such a thing is just plain stupid. Especially when you have to debate against people who haven't even seen it.thanos5150
But you were asked for a citation, no tag was required. And I see you are putting tags all over the place -- this is in fact the way this whole article has been handled, with a cursory acknowledgement of some of the real ideas of real Egyptologists but with a lot of doubts raised in various ways (sometimes just by placement of something), and now with these tags. This article does a bad job of representing what Eygptologists think. It's clear that a lot of it has come from Noone - I just found that the Petrie quote did, and little from reading any Eygptologists first hand.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that you deleted it first as is your way and asked for a reference later.
You require the same reference for all the things you do not support yet don't require it for the things you do? These quarry marks have been translated differently by more than one Egyptologist so to give a reference is warranted if only to show they actually exist. Also, are there quarry marks in all 5 chambers? I did not think there was.
This is an interesting comment. You put in a reference to a canal that was discovered in such a way to say the canal was used to transport the red granite from the pyramid, but the article doesn't say anything of the kind. It doesn't give a date for the canal, which could have easily been built in the middle kingdom which are the only period of stones moved the article refers to. Nowhere does it say the stones from the GP were transported using this canal. Personally, I think it is highly likely there was such a canal, but regardless you have interpreted it to suggest something it clearly was not intended to to somehow denigrate the feat of moving the stones from Aswan.
2 minor references are from Noone, regardless the Petrie reference was one of convenience, but I have found the original source and restored your edit accordingly.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos5150 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I love it. You replace one fringe writer with another one, and tell me that's the original source? So Petrie never wrote that himself? And are you going to tell me 'uncanny workmanship' isn't POV? Sorry, it is. And you've not found a reliable source.
And how in the world is moving stones by river denigrating anyone?
Why not do some research to see what real Egyptologists say about the quarry marks? Go a bit further than fringe writers?
As for the canal, you agree that it might have been used, so what's the problem?
And a sentence shouldn't be in the article twice unless there is a good reason for it. In this case it is the concluding sentence of a paragraph about mathematics. It's completely redundant.
I'm off for a few days, I shudder to think of what might happen while I'm gone.--Doug Weller (talk) 05:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying it is not uncanny workmanship? That it is completely unremarkable or even worthy of note? So now it is against Wiki rules to use adjectives? That is the original source and NO ONE disputes that Peitre made these comments. NO ONE. The onus is on YOU to find a claim anywhere that disputes this. Even the management study makes the claim the builders used laser like precision-do you really think such a thing was lost on Petrie?
The why did you put it there? It doesn't matter if I agree or not Doug-a point lost on you-the article does not make the claim but you pass it off as it does.
It is redundant but the one you deleted is actually in the chamber section. I guess there is no reason to mention it there huh?
This has become a complete and utter boor. I for one am done with responding to you. You are clearly bent on making this Doug's approved guide to the Great Pyramid so you just go right ahead. Good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos5150 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy of this article

Looking at the article more closely, I've realized just how bad it really is. One of the references on some of the mathematics nonsense was the personal web page of some therapist (dead link and now deleted). The main bit of the article should represent what most Egyptologists think, and at the moment all of it seems to have been filtered through some fringe writers. I don't have time right now to rewrite it (I'm away for a few days and in any case just dealing with the amount of vandalism I encounter on Wikipedia -- 'Johnny loves Jean, this is poo', etc keeps me busy. But it needs a lot of attention. I'm not picking on this article, I did it to the Jomon article a while ago which was way out of date relying on obsolete work (not fringe, just outdated stuff). Anyway, that's the reason for the accuracy template. The measurements section is bad. A lot of it (all the Pi stuff) belongs in the alternative section. Then there is stuff like this: " Recent evidence has been found that suggests the workforce was in fact paid[citation needed], which would require accounting and bureaucratic skills of a high order." Now first of all, it shouldn't have been hard to find a citation instead of the tag. Secondly, note the bit after the tag. That is a personal comment, and what's the point of it? To show the skills of the Ancient Egyptians? Or to raise doubts? Whichever, it doesn't belong there. Much of the whole article is like that.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not necessarily the latter comment, it is that it suggests that the only reason to believe this would be because they were paid. It is kind of a lame thing to say.
Pi is no doubt, as the article says, incorporated into the pyramid, but the question is whether or not they did it on purpose. The piece you edited now says:"these proportions equate to 2 x Pi to an accuracy of better than 0.05%, this was and is considered to have been the deliberate design proportion, by Professors Flinders Petrie, I.E.S Edwards and Verner who wrote "We can conclude that although the ancient Egyptians could not precisely define the value of pi, in practise they used it." Not exactly the most coherent sentence, but regardless, they are saying it is agreed they deliberately used proportions to produce Pi, but just didn't do it on purpose? Umm...yeah. There is no reason to put it in the alternative section. Pi is there, we all know it is, but as stated Verner doesn't think they did it on purpose so what's the problem? It's interesting to note that no other pyramid before or after used even close to such a ratio of base and slope to produce Pi. Given the builders were consistently so precise down to fractions of an inch over literally acres, not to mention the other mathematic constants that just seem to "pop up everywhere", it is really hard to believe they did anything by accident particularly when all they had to do was be off by a few feet and they wouldn't have come even close.thanos5150
Why are you changing my spelling? "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting." And my spelling is correct, it's just a difference between American and British English.
It was by accident you tool. Don't flatter yourself to think I would bother taking the time to correct your spelling.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos5150 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable--Doug Weller (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I was being flattering.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos5150 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
A figure approximating Pi is there, but there are other ways of getting to that. I don't have time right now but the idea that the Egyptians actually knew Pi is 'alternative'.--Doug Weller (talk) 05:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The use of the word 'uncanny' to describe the workmanship

It's not a quote, so how is it not clearly POV?--Doug Weller (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there's a easy way out of this, I'm replacing 'uncanny' with 'remarkable'. 'Uncanny' means strange or mysterious, according to my Oxford Dictionary. It's POV, but remarkable is not I think.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sources of Quotes

I see that Noone has been replaced by Piazzi-Smyth as the source of the Petrie quote. If I buy Noone, will I find that in fact he is still the source and that thanos5150 has just copied Noone? I suspect I will, because Amazon.com has allowed me to discover that the source of the IES Edwards quote is most likely not in fact Edwards, but Noone (who in turn is citing Edwards). I'm not disputing the accuracy of the quote, but it is still Noone that is the source where the quote was found if I'm correct. At least, however, Noone gives the page numbers, which is the way it should be done. I wonder where Noone gets his idea that the GP is 6000 years old?--Doug Weller (talk) 06:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Perfect numbers

The egyptian way of computing led to knowledge of the perfect numbers. A numbers in which the divisors added = the number.The first perfect number is 6 = 1+2+3. The second is 28 and the third is 496. Of course theese numbers are interesting as the first is 6. This number is the only natural number related to the circle (the sun) because 6 radii forms at hexagon inside a circle. Diodorus (old historian) tells that the pyramidion measured 6 x 6 royal cubits!

The pyramid measures 440 x 440 royal cubits. At this time measures meant something. The quadrature of the circle was also interesting. The circle having a diameter 496 (3rd perfect number) royal cubits covers the same area as the pyramid.

The 5th perfect number 33550336 royal cubits is half the perimeter of the earth at the latitude of the pyramid. This may show that the builders knew the size of the earth and this may be the reasom why the pyramid is called: "The pyramid of sunrise and sunset" - the length of 1 day.

If you are interested I can tell you what the 2nd, the 4th and the 6th perfect numbers is referring to.

Remember that Pythagoras, Nichomachos and Euklid lived in Egypt and they found the first perfect numbers.

Runefinkisaksen (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for change

Would someone who can edit this page care to add the following link to the first paragraph?:

The tallest man-made structure in the world for over 3,800 years, ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.160.75 (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Done.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Status

I've asked why it has this status, and evidently when it achieved it the criteria were much laxer. Elsewhere I've said "No mention of the Caliph el Ma'mun, John Greaves, Nathaniel Davison, Howard Vyse, etc. I also think that the boats, causeway and temples should be in the article, it wasn't built as an isolated monument but part of a complex." Archaeology should always be consider context. The criteria are at WP:WIAGA It doesn't match those criteria today. It isn't that well written and referenced. It is definitely not broad enough in its coverage. I still do not think it reports mainstream views neutrally, I think the mainstream bit is written to an extent still from the POV of someone who disagrees with it. And given the past few weeks of disagreement, I think it is fair to say it isn't stable as there is a content dispute.

The good thing is that fixing it is now a project of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt

I've done some work on it but I've got other projects on the go so I don't know how much more I can do right now, but I will do what I can and try to think of what else needs including. I might be able to help with references also.--Doug Weller (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Same. -- Secisek (talk) 05:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Messy end

I'm no expert, but the External Links it of this page is very muddled. I don't want to try and change it, because I haven't the knowledge of how to change layout of an article, so this is more of a request for someone 'in the know' to sort out the final section and make it a bit easier on the eye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uranium grenade (talk • contribs) 03:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for spurring me on to doing this, it's been bothering me also (as does the editorial bit in at least one link). I just deleted the bits about div.Doug Weller (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Be bold, remove more. -- Secisek (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

More what?Doug Weller (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Links. The EL section is in bad shape. -- Secisek (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done a bit of work on them. The problem is, I think, that most of the article was created by someone who doesn't agree with the mainstream arguments on dating, construction, etc, and put emphasis on those aspects both in the article itself and the links (which is why I guess so many of the links are about construction, with few about anything else other than views). I'm sure there are a number of links that should be included and are not.Doug Weller (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, work must continue to preserve the GA rating. -- Secisek (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


GA

Following revision, the article would likely pass GAR as is. Any new material added must be cited with reliable sources to maintain this status. -- Secisek (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions that the design reason for the small 'sockets' at regular intervals in the gallery has not been found. This is incorrect as the sockets was used to arrest the granite blocking stones now residing in the lower part of the ascending corridor (the lower extension of the gallery). The gallery was simply a necessity if you wanted to store the 'door-stones' inside the pyramid while at the same time being able to pass them before the final closure of the pyramid. This also explains the vertical shaft between the lower corridor and the base of the gallery. This shaft was the exit for the workers who sealed the pyramid (it would be extremely difficult (if not impossible) to ascend the shaft thus making it an effective 'one way exit' for the workers. It is also interesting to note that the 'grave robbers corridor' (The modern entrance) ends exactly behind the last of the blocking stones in the ascending corridor indicating that the people making the corridor had inside information (pun intended) about the internal arrangement of the corridors and thus likely the corridor was made less than 100 years after the pyramid was finished (possibly by the same workers who made the pyramid of relatives of officials with access to the archives where information of the pyramid may have been kept). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yazeran (talk • contribs) 17:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


Inside the Great Pyramid: Needs More!

The Great Pyramid is such a unique, interesting building. I say we need sub-sections on:

  • The ascending passage
  • The gallery
  • The graverobbers’ corridor
  • The well shaft & grotto
  • The antechamber
  • The relieving chambers ...

... and perhaps the shafts, you know, the ones with ”Gantenbrink’s ’door’” and all that hoopla. I see they’re mentioned in some paragraph but a lot of the above, like the well shaft, doesn’t even get a mention.

I’m not very knowledgable about the pyramid, and I don’t have any reference books, so I’m not in the best position to write this myself ... Bossk-Office (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


yeah sub sections would be really great for kids with projects and stuff like that —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meiskool4skool (talk • contribs) 07:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"Limestone concrete"

'A recent theory proposes that the building blocks were manufactured in-place from a kind of "limestone concrete".'

Surely such an unlikely sounding theory needs a citation and indeed should be from a reputable source - after all there are a myriad of strange theories about the pyramids and their construction etc and we cannot and should not include every fringe theory in the article.
This theory sounds very unlikely to me because I am sure a geologist or other scientist would be perfectly capable of distinguishing limestone from a man-made material. Booshank (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It is where I think it belongs, in the Egyptian pyramid construction techniques article. Doug Weller (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Please remove this silly theore about limestone concrete from the theory section, as it is a fringe theory, having no evidence and no point. The blocks of stone used in the construction of the pyramids have a definite source, the quarries close by, that according to Bob Brier, can be seen from Giza. The Pyramid of Khufu is not built of limestone, only the casing was, which was removed to build mosques.
 November 2008 Thanks, good spot. ϢereSpielChequers 18:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

Looking over the article quickly, I'm impressed with what I see and I think it will remain listed with a little bit of work. I made some fixes myself (general copyediting as well as formatting the book and internet references). At present, my concerns are:

  • A "citation needed" tag in the "King's Chamber" section.
  • Does the video in the "Media" section really contribute to the article (I'm flexible on this one, as I don't think it hurts anything)?
  • The book in the first citation (Edgar) needs more information, including a page number.
  • In the "Construction theories" section, it would be nice if at least a couple of the theories on how the stones were "conveyed and placed" were mentioned, rather than just stating that theories exist. No need to go into a lot of detail on them, though, as there is a separate article.
  • There is a comment on the article's talk page (see Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza#Inside the Great Pyramid: Needs More! that subsections should be added about various locations within the pyramid. For GA level, I don't think this is the case, but I would be interested in hearing from a contributor to this article about whether mentioning (at least some of) these places in the article would make sense.
  • Just to clarify, the Queen's Chamber is a misnomer because it was not the burial place for the queen, right?
  • From the beginning of the "Inside the Great Pyramid" section: "ingenious corbel halloed" — "ingenious" is point of view, and I'm confused about "halloed" (should it be "haloed")?
    • Note: I took out the word "ingenious", as it isn't sourced (feel free to add it back with a source). I also changed the other word to "haloed" (feel free it back with an explanation if "halloed" was correct). GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • The lead section should summarize the article, but it currently contains information that isn't included later in the article. I think that most of the second paragraph (starting at "Despite..." and going to the end of the paragraph) would be better if it was moved to the relevant section(s) of the main text.
  • The title of the "Wonder of the Ancient World" section doesn't seem particularly appropriate, as it doesn't deal with the pyramid's status as a wonder of the ancient world. Something along the lines of "Construction" or "Building the pyramid" would be better, in my opinion.

I am willing to keep this listed if these changes are made, but I did feel as I read the article that more detail would have been nice. For example, is the inside of the pyramid decorated? Has anyone found out what is behind those doors? This doesn't need to be included now, but I recommend adding more detail if you plan to nominate this as a possible Featured Article.

I will place this reassessment on hold for seven days to allow for these changes to be made. If more time is needed, the reassessment can be extended if progress is being made. Please feel free to respond here with comments or questions, as I have this article and this reassessment on my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I won't be home for a week, but when I get home I've got the resources to help if I remember! Doug Weller (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I am out of wiki-work right now, but would like a final 24 hour warning if the article is to be de-listed, perhaps I can bring it up to standard. It already passed a review earlier this year in more or less the same condition it is in now. -- Secisek (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Per Dougweller's request, I have extended the hold to allow more time for the fixes. To summarize what remains to be done:

  1. Cite the last paragraph in the "King's Chamber" section.
  2. Briefly mention a couple more theories in the "Construction theories" section.
  3. Either confirm that the misnomer is the fact that the queen isn't buried there or clarify what it is.
  4. Reply with thoughts about whether any other parts of the structure should be added at this time.

I will allow one week for work to be done; if needed, an extension will be granted at that time if progress has been made. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Due to lack of progress, I have delisted the article. I urge editors to address the remaining concerns regarding breadth of coverage and to renominate the article once these have been addressed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

I've removed the world's tallest buildings infobox from this article. Not only is the really most notable information about the pyramids not the fact it was once, several millenia ago, the world's tallest building, but is also carries the rider "Fully habitable, self-supported, from main entrance to highest structural or architectural top;" which just makes no sense whatsoever.--Joopercoopers (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Cost?

It might seem like a rather odd question, but has anyone got an idea of what the cost (in modern USD) would be, for instance if a construction company were comissioned to build an exact replica, what would be the likley cost? 81.149.82.243 (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rj2.JPG listed for deletion

Image:Rj2.JPG has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Construction Time Frame

The Pyramid of Cheops has sides measuring 230 meters long and it is 146 meters high. the volume is aproximatly 2,500,000 cubic meters. Limestone is aproximatly 2.5 tons per cubic meter. The weight is aproximatly 6,250,000 tons

Cheops ruled for 23 years He alledgedly built the Pyramid of Cheops while ruling. In order to build his Pyramid while he ruled he had to carve move and install 744 tons of stone every day for 23 years.

Some experts address doubts about his ability to do this by saying it was built in 100 years which would mean it wasn't built by just 1 pharoah. This would mean it was built by at least 3-4 pharoahs. It would still involve installing 171 tons per day.
In order to explain the pyramids this way it would also mean that either the 4 biggest Pyramids were made in different centuries or that at least 2 or 3 of them were under construction at the same time. It's just a simple matter of math you can easily check it yourself.

I don't have a source for these specific estimates but it is very close to most official estimates which vary slightly. The math can easily be adjusted for other estimates.

I don't know whether it is necissary to put this in the article people can figure it out themselves if they want to. Putting it in the article would be for people that don't bother which is most people. If ther is no objection I'll do a version based on a specific source. However if there are objections I won't. Zacherystaylor (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any recognised experts believe it took a century. We know the Red Pyramid took 10 years 7 months from graffiti (Romer, p. 71). Khufu probably used some of the workers who worked on it, so a time scale from that can be estimated (not by us), and Romer gets 14 years from that.p 74 with a schedule on pp 456-460.

I've heard that some experts have said that but I think it may have been vague statements about "experts say". If I find a more specific source I'll cite it. Zacherystaylor (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

A closer look at Khufu raises further doubt about the time frame of his rule and potential construction time frame of the Great Pyramid. According to the Turin King List he ruled 23 years but according to Manetho he ruled 65 years. Herodotus gives him 50 years. These figures are provided on Khufu's page. A look at the sources seems to imply that the records are not as solid as many Egyptologists including Zahi Hawass seem to imply. If the records are not conclusive it would be far more credible to admit it than pretend they are especialy when there is so much work being atributed to such a short time period. Does anyone know more about how they concluded Khufu ruled only 23 years and the construction time frame is only 20 years? Putting out an official story that seems no more credible than the pseudoscientists gives pseudoscientists credibility by default. If traditional scholars want to critisize pseudoscientists (as they should) the first thing they should do is review their own work better. Zacherystaylor (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

citation request

I added some information about the kings chamber including the assumption that they were hauled from Aswan on barges and then towed to the pyramid. I cited Scarre 70 Wonders of the ancient world. Someone requested additional citation. If this isn't sufficant I can check it again the next time I go to the library but I'm pretty sure it was all in the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacherystaylor (talk • contribs) 06:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

RE; New Section added on Global placement of the Great Pyramid

In reading carefully through the whole article upon the Great Pyramid, I did note that there is no mention at all as to its placement within Egypt per se in terms of the reasoning behind the selected site i.e. Giza. And yet, practically every text book that mentions the structure by way of introduction, does point out that it is so close to being almost exactly 30 degrees north. And that this fact has led quite a number of researchers to at least ponder whether there is any significance to this point.

As a result of this, I have added a further section to the article as a whole, generally of the size of the other main sections, which at least addresses the basic research thread on this point, by citing two particular theories that point to some sort of special relevance to the latitude placement. I have then counted them with the simple facts that A) There are many pyramids all over Egypt at different latitudes, and B) In selecting a site for the pyramid, the basic necessity of obtaining a solid foundation would have been the primary motivation.

I have tried to keep the sources quite solid in terms of reference materials in terms of books and so forth. However, upon the matter of the geology of the Giza site I have only one book reference noting the unsuitability of a site to the north of Giza by Hancock and Bauval. The wording in their book itself that I paraphrase does appear to be somewhat weak. If anyone knows of a stronger one I think it would be well worth adding.

On another point altogether, my own view of the article of the Great Pyramid is that all of the sections need to be added to just slightly to make them more in-depth, and I especially agree with the poster who said that the ending was ‘messy’. In my view, the last section that extends the discussion of the Great Pyramid to a wider look at the Giza complex is a good way to go to end the article. However, this last section itself I think needs a lot more added to it and it needs to be well rounded off.

Sincerely

Robert Arch (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Robert-you raise an interesting point about the fact the pyramid is located on the 30th parallel which many have argued was planned. I think however a new section is not required and what you have written could be summed up in a small paragraph better included in the "Building the Pyramid" section as it probably does not warrant a section of its own.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos5150 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
As it stands, it is original research. The only source is a personal website which can't be used. Robert, would you please read WP:OR, WP:SYN and WP:SPS? I think then you will understand the problem with this. If you can source from Bauval or Hancock it can be put back, but I am removing it. I'll also note that the footnote saying " It is a fair estimate that a 1 second of arc sweep over the earth = about 101 feet in distance" would need to be sourced, it is a personal comment. The discussion would also need to meet WP:UNDUE - whichis more or less what Thanos is saying. Doug Weller (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


Dear Doug & Thanos

Thank you for your comments.

On the point you raise first of all Thanos, I did indeed try to keep the article as short as possible, and I did think that it was quite compact. However, compared to the general overall size of the Great Pyramid article it is probably in retrospect too large.

Doug, when I first signed up for Wikipedia I did read some of the guidelines and I did think that the section overall I added was decent enough in terms of research, and that the quality of the sources that I gave was good. However, on the issue of Original research, it seems I was mistaken in my judgement. I looked first at the work of Smyth which began in the late 19th century on the ‘latitude issue’. I identified a ‘research thread’ so to speak, and in my mind I thought that – due to the age of this research thread – this meant that the topic as a whole ‘passed the Original Research’ test. However, I have looked again on the Synthesis segment of Wikipedia and the part about drawing conclusions that you suggest. On this point, I think that yes indeed it does fall foul of these guidelines; the part about drawing conclusions, even from cited ‘facts’. And thus I can see the reasons for its removal.

On the general topic of the article on the Great Pyramid per se, I will say that though the article does appear to be decent enough, it does suffer somewhat from massive repeated editing. It is a most unstable article, as is clearly evident from a careful look at the past history of the article. It does not seem to be solid hardly at all from one day to the next. One of the most recent major edits; the complete removal of the entire notes and references section, I found unbelievable. Some of the editing is clearly malicious, but I think too that a lot of it is people trying to put forward good research material, and falling foul of the strict guidelines of Wikipedia. I will not though argue with the guidelines, or indeed any of you. They are what they are, and from a more detailed look, I do understand them, and the purpose behind them. However, I think that they are primarily to blame for the disputes over what should be included in the article on the Great Pyramid. The result is simply that the article is nothing more than a statement of ‘just the facts’ concerning the structure via ‘established’ research. Now, there is nothing wrong with this as such, because this is the character of the encyclopaedia that the Wiki-people are trying to create. It is what it is.

In parting, I will thus end by saying that overall, I have misjudged Wikipedia and that it is not what I thought it was. I do not see myself contributing further to any more articles. I do thank you Thanos and Doug for your comments, and I hope that things do get better with this particular article. But my guess is that they will not. The future that I see is that you two, and a few others, will be in this Great Pyramid article ‘fire-fighting’ indefinitely and editing and re-editing ad infinitum. For me, life is just too short to be involved in that kind of activity. Doug, I understand that you are an administrator. If it is possible to get some sort of protection for this article, perhaps that could be the answer. Who knows?

Sincerely

Robert Arch (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I hate to see you go. I can understand your frustration. Articles can have various sorts of problems. Well known article titles lead to simple vandalism, from swearing to removal of large junks or even complete page blanking. I think I missed the removal of the entire notes and references section, but I spend so much time simply fixing vandalism even on articles where I'm not involved that I might have been the one that replaced it and forgotten. Then you get content disputes, as has happened here, when an editor disagres with some of the content, wanting to either remove or add content. They are complicated and our policies and guidelines are, as you understand, there to help regulate such disputes. We also have some formal ways of discussing content disputes. They can get messy at times, and this disagreement has been, sadly, mild. You should see the ones that involve some form of nationalistic disputes. In this case I'm obviously of the opinion that Thanos wants to insert an argument that falls below our significance threshold by quite a bit and would end up basically as a way of publicising it on the web.
As for protection, the only protection I could give if it starts getting a storm of vandalism by IP editors - those without usernames. I could protect it temporarily against that. As I'm involved in editing the article it would be wrong for me to protect it against established users.
Please reconsider. You write well and I'm sure you could be an asset. There are plenty of articles where there aren't the sort of problems there are here, and I can point you to some. What are you interested in? Doug Weller (talk) 06:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


Dear Doug,

I think that it is the philosophy of the Encyclopaedia per se that perhaps I am wary of. Good research does not necessarily conform to the guidelines of Wikipedia. Good research may well in fact be in direct opposition to the guidelines. Indeed, in your previous comment before last, you noted that I placed a note in the notes section of the Great Pyramid article: “It is a fair estimate that a 1 second of arc sweep over the earth = about 101 feet in distance.” With regard to this, I simply do not have an explicit source for this point. And it would be difficult to obtain one in an actual published work. However, I could of course easily produce a source for the circumference of the earth, and also one that there are 1296000 seconds of arc in a full circular sweep. But then, I would have to say, “And if one were to multiply 1/1296000 by the circumference (in feet) the answer is 101.4 feet or so. But, this last point is synthesis, is it not, and against Wikipedia guidelines? Even though it is true, and eminently reasonable, it is not allowed.

In another part of the section I submitted, I made a general comment that there are many pyramids in Egypt that are not located close to the 30 degree latitude north. Trying to find an explicit source for this point would prove almost impossible. I could though, with great effort, have collected the Latitude-Longitude co-ordinates of a sample of pyramids, with indeed explicit (published) statements as to their geodetic locations, by way of supporting this point. But of course, in doing so this would be drawing a conclusion would it not? Not allowed.

I think what I am trying to say Doug, is that contributing to Wikipedia under these guidelines would be very frustrating to someone like me; to not be able to draw conclusions which are very reasonable, and which, carefully put forward, would constitute good research. As I said above, it is the philosophy of the encyclopaedia itself that makes me pause when thinking of further contributions. And thus, upon this point, I think that if I did in the future seek to make any more contributions, it would probably be with the minor addition of certain new points, or minor editing. I do not see myself ever again spending hours of time producing and then adding a significant section of new text to an article, knowing that it could be so easily removed with the click of one button by another, even if their intentions were pure. I would be far happier (and I’m thinking of my mental health here in the long run) contributing such passages to an article directory that I know cannot be edited by anyone but me.

It is as I said previously Doug, Wikipedia is not what I thought it was. And I am not going to fight it or anything. Because, I can indeed see how very solid articles of interest can be created by conforming to the Wikipedia guidelines. It is just that, such articles, are not of the type that I myself in my academic career am used to producing.

Sincerely

Robert Arch (talk) 19:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Robert-Do not let DougWeller discourage you from contributing here. I do not understand how or why he is an administrator for the simple reason he himself does not follow Wiki rules and though as an administrator he is supposed to be objective, he constantly hides behind Wiki rules to promote his own POV. Several times he has included his own OR and passed mainstream opinion off as fact and has even given credit to obscure sources to legitimize his own OR though they did not actually say what he wrote. He will fight till the cows come home to remove any subject or source he doesn't like simply because he does not like the conclusion, including those of Peitre and Gaspero, but does not hold his own edits to the same scrutiny. He is a self proclaimed (amateur) skeptic and has a website devoted to debunking alternative archeology [4]. He mercilessly edits any information he does not agree with regardless of the facts yet does little to nothing to police things that support his own POV. Your article is a perfect example which was left in for over a week until I removed the counter arguments section, which only then prompted him to remove the whole thing. The reason I removed the counter argument section was because, among other things, it was wholly the opinion of the editor, you I guess, without sources. Its one thing to write something with verifiable sources, which need to be checked, but you can't just give your opinions. What Doug will do is give his opinions and then credit it to someone who didn't actually say or use material from a different subject, passing it off as fact, and impose it on this article as if the GP is what they were talking about when it is clear they were not.
Your "pro" section, however, did include sources but because he removed it instantly there was no way to check your them. No one can argue the GP sits on the 30th parallel because it is still there and many have promoted the idea it was chosen for a reason. As an administrator, what he should have done, which is what I noted in my edit, is let the matter be discussed first before it was removed. This is what democracies do, but DougWeller for some reason believes his opinion is the only one that matters. You should be given a chance before it is removed to alter your sources and edit it. The fact you were not given this opportunity is a perfect example of the frustration you feel which is not so much Wiki rules, but the prejudices of a certain individual(s).
Doug makes this statement:"In this case I'm obviously of the opinion that Thanos wants to insert an argument that falls below our significance threshold by quite a bit and would end up basically as a way of publicising it on the web." For one, he has no idea what he is talking about, but the fact is I do not know you and did not write this article and it was I that actually edited a large portion of your article that had no sources because at first glance it obviously did not conform to Wiki rules, which is what an editor is supposed to do, but never got the opportunity to check your sources because he removed it. He "lets" it be in the article as long as there is a counter argument, which is wholly unsupported, because he apparently he agrees with it, and yet he removes the whole thing sayings its all OR because the discrediting part gets removed. Doug does not want people to know or think anything but what he wants in which he has once again shown he is not interested in fairness or truth but only in promoting his POV and censoring anything that does not blindly support it. I think Doug has proven time and again he is not objective or responsible enough to be an administrator here. I welcome you here Robert and hope you will stick around.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.80.41 (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Yawn. We need sources discussing the significance of the location if we want to have a section on the significance of the location. Sources about the location and our comments are not. Robert understands this. And I have the greatest sympathy with him when he writes "such articles, are not of the type that I myself in my academic career am used to producing." They definitely aren't the sort of articles I would have wanted to write during my academic career, they don't give the same adrenalin rush of trying to develop new ideas. Thanos, as I'm involved, I'm giving you a lot of slack, but attacking other editors the way you are attacking me is a clear breach of WP:CIVIL. I don't expect any POV editor is going to think I'm fit to be an administrator or even an editor. That goes with the territory. Whining about me isn't going to impress anyone. How about being more constructive? I'm reinstating the section about the GP after it was built, the article needs it. You could help build that. Doug Weller (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you didn't understand Doug, my comments were directed specifically at you as an administrator, not other editors. I am not trying ot "impress" anyone, as if I care, but rather am trying to impress upon you to understand that it is not ok for you as an administrator to dominate this article based on your own POV which you have made more than clear especially when you ignore erroneous or misrepresented content you agree with. I know on some occasion you do this because you are the one who wrote it, but when an administrator, like you, consistently rejects anything that does not support their own POV regardless of the source, like Pietre or Gaspero, all the while injecting their own OR crediting sources that never actually said those things or said them in a different context, I think this is a serious problem. Wouldn't you agree? I may have a POV, but at least I keep the OR to myself and accurately represent the source provided. I would also add that I have defended the integrity of mainstream POV as much as the alternative and have made many edits to correct misleading or incorrect information. If you can't hold yourself to the same standards you impose on others with differing POV's, then yes, you are not responsible enough to be an administrator. I am going to leave you alone Doug, but you have got to take a chill pill and realize that for someone in a position of authority you need to be more objective in your edits as well as more accurate in the content you want to add.
Like I said, I saw that Robert had sources, but you removed it so quick there was no way to confirm them and didn't even get to read it entirely. Strange.Thanos5150 (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
My removal shouldn't stop you from reading it. If you think there should be a section on the significance, then we need sources that discuss the significance -- reliable sources.
Here's the bit you are talking about:
On the Global Latitudinal Placement of the Great Pyramid
It is of note that the Great Pyramid is almost exactly 30 degrees north, or 1/3 of the distance up from the equator to the North Pole. In light of this, several researchers have over the years suggested that the latitude placement of the pyramid was not arbitrarily selected; the most basic idea thus being that the builders deliberately sought to position the structure at precisely 30 degrees north. Though indeed, there are certain variations upon this theme.-
According to an early survey conducted by Piazzi Smyth in 1865, the Great Pyramid was found to stand upon the latitude parallel of 29 Degrees, 58 Minutes, and 51 Seconds of arc north. [1]. Though a significant deviation from an exacting 30 degrees, Smyth noted that if one were to observe the pole of the sky from the foot of the Great Pyramid, at an altitude of 30 degrees; then with the refraction of the atmosphere taken into account, it would necessitate that the structure itself was built upon the parallel of 29 Degrees, 58 Minutes, and 22 Seconds of arc north. [2]. Under this consideration, an error in latitude placement is given of about 29 seconds of arc, or approximately 2900 feet[3], from the surveyed position of Smyth. Of course, the significance of such an association as noted by Smyth rests purely upon geometry, and of a supposed harmonious angular connection. There is however a second theory that does go beyond a pure geometrical association; one that links the latitude placement of the Great Pyramid directly to a well known ancient Egyptian myth involving two prominent gods of the Egyptian pantheon; namely Geb and Nut.
Of these two noted deities under the Egyptian schema, Geb was a male god held to be representative of the earth, with Nut a goddess held to represent the sky [4]. According to the relevant myth, at one time the earth was thought by the Egyptians to have possessed 360 days per year, but due to a ‘coupling’ of these two deities, Nut became pregnant and ‘gave birth’ to 5 extra days of the year to bring the total to 365 [5]. Now, it is of note that the modern and exacting value of the earth year (tropical year) is 365.2421897 days [6]. And, dividing this value by 360, one achieves 1.014561638 for the ratio of the earth-year change. From a careful study of the position of the Great Pyramid, it is to be found that under the modern WGS84 earth ellipsoid model, the ‘small circle circumference’ of the earth at the latitude of the structure (parallel to the equatorial circumference), divided by the arc length up from the equator to the centre of the pyramid, is almost exactly ten times the ratio of the proposed earth year increase, being about 10.14567. The error in this particular analysis for the latitude placement is less than 60 feet [7]; an exceptional refinement over the noted geometrical association of Smyth.
Besides the editorial 'it's of note', can you see the problem? And of course the last source isn't a WP:RS Doug Weller (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Astronomical observatory theory of the shaft

Closely related to the question of the 30 degree placement is the theory that the shaft leading to the so-called King's Chamber served an astronomical purpose before the Pyramid was completed.

Removing all the stone above the shaft leaves an extremely interesting structure whereby the shaft can be used to reliably sight stars. Some of these may have been used, in this theory, to spot certain prominent stars or constellations that signalled the onset of important religious and agricultural dates. In Egypt, these were closely linked because of the Nile flooding cycle.

According to this theory, the shaft was the main purpose of the structure, and the bottom half of the Great Pyramid served this astronomical purpose for many years. It was accordingly two very different projects, one to build an astronomical observatory and another to build the pyramid cap possibly generations later. After stellar precession moved the important stars, which would have taken many years, the shaft was useless. Egyptians were definitely aware of such precession as were most societies that lasted long enough to see it actually occur (it's the basis of such concepts as the Age of Aquarius, Age of Pisces etc.). Obviously the significance of an observatory at 30 degrees north exactly wouldn't be lost on experienced astronomers even today - in fact without star sighting exactly as careful and repeatable as the shaft would enable, it's probably impossible to discover you are at 30 degrees north.

The geometry of the shaft can neutrally be said to point at certain stars as of the dates of its construction, and so this theory can be discussed without seeming to validate any theory other than the one explicitly raised.

You mean hypothesis, but in any case, this page is not for discussing the Great Pyramid but for discussion of the article and how to improve it using reliable, verifiable sources. Please concentrate on that, not on the pyramid itself. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 05:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Section on Thieves, tourists and excavators

Thanos, now what do you want? Why have you removed a sourced section? You know our opinion of truth doesn't count here, only good sources, which I have. What does this mean? "Tyldesley, 2007 p.38 is cited but what is a "Tyldesley". This section, with help, should cover the history of the GP after its construction. Now you may think it wasn't looted before the Arabs, but my sources, and I'm sure I can find more, say they all were. I don't know why this is so contentious, but it feels as though it has to do more with me than anything else. Doug Weller (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Doug, I promise you I did not remove it to spite you and quite frankly could care what you do as long as you are objective and honest.
For one, a section "Thieves, Tourists, and Excavators makes as much sense as a section about "apples, oranges and unicorns". To be constructive, I would suggest separating tourists from excavators, relating it to modern tourism today; visitors per year, evolution of the site as a tourist destination, future plans if any, the effect of modern pollution, ect. I would also point out there is a 2 story Pizza Hut/KFC directly across the road in front of the Sphinx which provides a surreal yet spectacular view. There's also a golf course right over the edge of the plateau by the GP which also gives a spectacular and unique view. I would also suggest the focus of excavators be on early excavation as this is more relevant to its history.
Anyhoo, what you are amazingly saying here is that it doesn't matter if something is true just as long as somebody says it that you can quote despite the fact you offer no evidence to support these source's claims saying it is my job as opposition to provide evidence to the contrary. I fail to see why the onus is on me to disprove a false positive when the burden all along is on you to provide the evidence in the first place. Two guys saying "all the pyramids were robbed" is hardly evidence. You cite Tyldesley as well, but the quote you give (stated as fact and not offered as the opinion of the authors which I have changed) is only the opinion of the 2 authors and not her. Unless she says exactly the same thing or has some new information to add I fail to see why she is relevant unless you want to strengthen your opinion by including more than one source to say "some suggest" instead of just those 2 guys. Her book is not about specifically about the GP so I suspect whatever her statement is in a general statement in passing as well with no evidence to back up her claim either.
I removed this before with the Backie quote is because you just made up the text and attributed to Backie who didn't even say what you wrote. Your solution was to find other sources to say the same thing which they really don't and offer no evidence to support their claims in which neither is directly related to the GP. What you need to provide here Doug is a direct quote from a qualified source that says specifically the Great Pyramid was looted PRIOR to the Arabs. This source also needs to give evidence or opinion such as how and where they broke in and the evidence that remains. I'm sure you will find many sources that say "all the pyramids were robbed", or the Great Pyramid must have been looted before the Arab's because we know as a fact they found nothing inside, but find me just one that says the GP was robbed prior to the Arabs with evidence to support this claim. Otherwise, anything less is irrelevant.
As to evidence against the GP being looted before the Arabs, among many others, we have the written stories of the Arabs themselves (which can be quoted at length) as well as the actual site which is seen by 100's of thousands of people every year. There are now 2 entrances to the GP: the original entrance unknown to the Arabs at the time they broke in and the entrance the Arabs made, which is the entrance tourists use today. The Arabs tunneled in several meters and heard a loud noise of blocks shifting above them which led them to believe there was a chamber or opening above. They turned their tunnel upwards in hopes of meeting up with this opening and eventually made their way to the original entrance shaft. Much to their chagrin however, the shaft was blocked by impenetrable massive granite plugs denying any access to what was beyond it. Their solution was to tunnel around the plugs through the softer limestone in which they met up with the shaft on the other side leading to the Grand Gallery. They were even more bummed to find there was absolutely nothing inside. No pharaoh, no gold, nothing. So the evidence as it now stands, is that other than the original opening that is still blocked FROM THE INSIDE by massive granite plugs, the only other entrance into the GP and around those granite plugs, as documented by the Arabs, is what they made. So, your quote needs to provide someone that will actually say specifically how the GP was entered prior to the Arabs and what evidence remains of this. It also must be noted that several pyramids have been found undisturbed since they were completed and the "sarcophagus" inside opened for the first time by modern excavators only to find nothing inside.Thanos5150 (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been through this before with someone saying that a reliable source has to be verified or explained or justified. I gave three sources basically to make you happy. Tyldesley is writing specifically about the GP. Go to the reliable sources noticeboard if you don't like my sources. I'm not saying that it doesn't matter if something is true or not, I'm saying that this is an encyclopedia whose goal is to report what reputable and verifiable sources have to say, not a forum for arguing about 'the truth', very often an elusive and sometimes an impossible goal. Your comments and edits, on the other hand, do seem to be trying to prove that the pyramids were not tombs and that their construction was beyond what one could reasonably expect of the population. If those are not your beliefs, I apologise, but that is how I read your edits and talk page comments. Btw, what OK pyramids were found undisturbed? Doug Weller (talk) 06:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Kathryn Bard believes that "most of the Old Kingdom pyramids were probably robbed after the collapse of the state in the First Intermediate Period." We can only use what reliable sources have to say, and you are welcome to add any reliable/verifiable sources that say the opposite. Doug Weller (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The 3 sources are so general though, wouldn't you agree? I was really hoping for something more substantial. They do say it, but lets be honest, its really meaningless and like I said, you could probably find 100 that say the same thing in which all they are doing is getting general information from another source and repeating it. A more accurate assessment of the facts would be: "though Egytologists believe that most of the Old Kingdom pyramids were probably robbed after the collapse of the state in the First Intermediate Period" (source, source), it is still unclear how or if the interior of the GP was penetrated prior to the Arabs who upon entering found nothing blah, blah, blah." To Bard's credit, note she says "most" and "probably" which is a far cry from the definitive "all were robbed". Isn't it important to explain how the GP was supposedly robbed before the Arabs or at least acknowledge that the question exists? The only reason Egyptologists say the GP was robbed prior to the Arabs, and I stress only, is because when the Arabs entered the GP they found nothing, ergo to Egyptologists this must mean that someone else got their first. The problem, however, is that this is not supported by the facts not just for the GP but for ALL the pyramids. This is a perfect example of how a theory unsupported if not contradicted by the direct evidence is repeated by enough "experts" that it becomes "fact". Like the pyramids were built as tombs. Off the top of my head, one of the smaller pyramids near Meidum was found undisturbed and I know a few others of note were found elsewhere.
Yes, for the record I am of the opinion the GP was not built as a tomb and that the builders employed methods currently unknown to us. And also for the record, I do not believe it was built by aliens or Jesus. I have traveled all over the world studying megalithic ruins, including several sites in Egypt, so my opinions are tempered with experience and 1st hand knowledge beyond just what I have read in a book. Regardless, it's a strange thing to have to provide evidence the GP was not built as a tomb when no evidence exists it or any other pyramid was ever was a tomb if only to the contrary.Thanos5150 (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
We can only report what reliable sources say, so " it is still unclear how or if the interior of the GP was penetrated prior to the Arabs who upon entering found nothing blah, blah, blah." unless it can be sourced is OR. What smaaller pyramid near Meidum? OK? MK? I never thought you believed aliens or Jesus were involved, just that you don't seem to think the AE could have done it with the abilities we know they had. Doug Weller (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the OR type, but when I get the time, finding an opposing view or at least a sober qualifying statement will not be too hard. That's why I would rather you not even go this route because in the end the point will be moot. Tyldesley's statement is bunk. They know there was nothing there before the Arabs, but when no evidence exists to support forced entry prior to them how can you say you "know" just because there was nothing in there? Also, I am curious: why is it looters have stolen the dead bodies of every pharaoh supposedly buried in a pyramid yet this is rarely the case at other grave sites? No one want bones. And also, here you have someone who is a living God able to mobilize an entire country to build his tomb, the most amazing thing ever built in that age or any other (and picture it when it was finished), yet all he's worried about is that no one steals his stuff after he's dead? Really? I could go on. I'm sorry, but the tomb and tomb only thing is about as stupid as could be if only as a matter of common sense. Anyhoo, one starts with an "S". I don't mean to leave you hanging, I just need the time to find it for you. We know how the AE likely built many of their large monuments, as most any other ancient culture, but there is a point given the optical tolerances and precision and weight of the stones among other things where any proposed model is insufficient. Bigger ramps, more rollers or more workers do not solve these problems. I will be traveling to China next week to view the Chinese pyramids of X'ian (among other things) so I won't be catting around here for a while. I know, don't be sad.Thanos5150 (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Have a good time, I'm jealous. Pyramids were far more than tombs. And a lot of body parts have been found in OK pyramids, including perhaps Sneferu's mummy in the Red Pyramid. I don't understand the bit about him worrying about stealing his stuff, unless you mean that you don't think either that we have a clue about Egyptian religion, or that Egyptian kings (not Pharaohs at that point) didn't take it seriously. Doug Weller (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Light dawns. Are you asking why they stole mummies? Because there were valuable objects, eg precious stones, in the wrappings. Doug Weller (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
It will be interesting. One more site to mark of the list. Remains have been found in a few OK pyramids, but have often proven to be later intrusions or at best unceremoniously not a pharaoh. I have yet to see any serious takers on the idea the body in the red pyramid was actually Snefuru. There is also no sarcophagus there and as Egytologists tell us he built at least 3 pyramids. Seems a bit overkill to build 3 tombs for yourself. I have to say, regardless of the smell which for some reason is nasty, I found the interior of the Red Pyramid very fascinating from a technical perspective. Its hard to walk out of there without the feeling it did not serve a technologically functional purpose. Like the GP, which is very similar. The 2 definitely seem connected in some way. No, I'm not saying we don't understand Egyptian religion, but we are also talking about the OK and not the MK which times were much different. My point is that if the pyramid building pharaoh had to go to such lengths to protect against looters, with literally no success, then obviously no one took them seriously. Seems a bit at odds with a culture capable of building such massive complexes in a stable society who supposedly revered their kings as gods. Why steal the whole body when you can just take whatever was there out of the wrappings, but regardless, I didn't think this was the practice as the objects were placed on the outside of the mummy. At least that is all that I have seen.Thanos5150 (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
With all respect, it takes some effort to ignore the fact that a large sarcophagus is placed in the GP until this day, even showing clear signs of being opened, exactly at the edge where you would start to place a crowbarish tool regarding to the relative position of the sarcophagus in the chamber. Any attempt to give this structure a different meaning should be very convincing to be taken serious. You also ignore the fact that the pyramids stand in a field of graves of the respective pharaos' royal suite, and that all ancient sources refer to the pyramids as "tombs of kings" in one way or the other. There is nothing at odds here given the time frame of several thousand years with all the intermittent political chaos happening every now and then. Grave robberies have happened at all times, even the grave of Khufus mother seems to be relocated after her burial. People are and have been the same forever, there never were "happy times" with no crime. The builders knew that robbery attempts were likely, they did not know wether a gigantic building would prevent that. History has already shown to the AE that it doesn't work, hence the hidden graves in later times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.171.18.221 (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Smyth, P. (1978), p.79
  2. ^ Smyth, P. (1978), p.80
  3. ^ It is a fair estimate that a 1 second of arc sweep over the earth = about 101 feet in distance
  4. ^ Gahlin, L. (2003), p.80
  5. ^ Gahlin, L. (2003), p.80
  6. ^ Seidelmann, P. Kenneth (1992), p.698
  7. ^ The Great Pyramid of Giza: Global Positioning Respecting Latitude: A Decisive Solution
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Pyramid_of_Giza/Archive_2&oldid=1148681227"