Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Weight/Mass of the GP

The article now has the claim that 807.6 tonnes of stone would have to be installed daily to complete the pyramid within 20 years. If it is going to have such an exact figure, then it needs an equally exact measurement of the weight/mass of the pyramid itself, something that I don't think exists. But clearly we can't have the output without an accurate input... and I've found an engineer who thinks it could have been done in a year and comfortably in less than 5 years (I hasten to add I have no idea how he gets these figures and am not suggesting he is correct, but he is published!).[1] Doug Weller (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the costruction time frame section above It is just a matter of math. I didn't mean to imply that it was exact I just didn't round the numbers. I have changed it to say it is based on the figures stated and that it is aproximate. The input is simple if a few facts can be confirmed. HxWxD/3 minus the volume of the chambers = volume of pyramid. Multiply by density and you have weight. Er sounds simple but getting these exact figures is another story. The 65 years given by Manetho was posted on khufu's page, I'm not sure of the source on that. I am curious to know about the internal hillock though this is the first I heard of it. How do they know it exists? "in a year and comfortably in less than 5 years" The whole pyramid? I'd be sceptical of this source unless he did a damn good job showing the work and it was replicated. I can site at least 5 published sources that imply a much more difficult time building it and most of them do a fair job showing the work. They don't specificaly adress the great pyramid but they do adress moving colossal stones.

Zacherystaylor (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the year thing, I was just amused and amazed to discover it! I think I've persuaded someone I know to buy it and report on it. The knoll is reported in various places, I'll find some more info on it but maybe not until later today. I think one problem is the density, eg there are some sand filled chambers, but we aren't sure how many. Then there is a lot of mortar. The GP, like those built by Sneferu, consisted of casing and core stones, laid in horizontal courses, with packing blocks in between. Large quantities of gypsum mortar were poured into the often wide interstices between the core stones" (TCP p.109)

"A pyramid is basically, two separate constructions: it's an outer shell of very fine polished limestone with great accuracy in its joints, but most of that's missing; and the other construction is the inner core, which filled in this shell. Since most of the outer casing is missing what you see now is the step-like structure of the core. The core was made with a substantial slop factor, as my friend who is a mechanic likes to say about certain automobiles. That is, they didn't join the stones very accurately. You have great spaces between the stones. And you can actually see where the men were up there and they didn't, you know, they may have like four or five, even six inches between two stones. And so they'd jam down pebbles and cobbles and some broken stones, and slop big quantities of gypsum mortar in there." (from an interview with Mark Lehner on Nova Online). I've seen a calculation of 5 million tons based on these aspects. Complicated. See Maat. Doug Weller (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The 5 million ton estimate would lower daily production to just over 660 tons per day for the 20 year period or 210 million tons per day for the 65 year period. I'm not pretending I can explain this but the official version just doesn't seem to make sense therefore I think it is a good idea to consider other explanation without going off the deep end as some do. Going to extremes in either direction is just a waste of time. The Palace of Senecherib at Ninevah used a combination of Mud brick and stone to build an enormous foundation it could be simalar to that for all I know but that isn't what anyone who examined the pyramid seems to be claiming so I doubt it. Angkor and Borobudur both used excesive amounts of sand and they are washing away. That doesn't seem to be happening here and it's much older. The experts that examine it aren't claiming either of these have happened in Egypt. There's an explanation for it but for now all I can think of is to try to narrow it down and hopefully someone will figure it out.

Zacherystaylor (talk) 05:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

According to Rainer Stadelmann, based on quarry marks found on the blocks, they have deduced it took at least 17 years to build the Red Pyramid [2][3]. Doug-you quote Romer as saying it took 10 years and yet I can't find any source from Stadelmann that says anything less than 17. On the Red Pyramid page, maybe you, quote Romer at 10yrs which is what his book says, but your GP reference says 14yrs. Regardless, I would think Stadelmann would be the clear authority here over Romer in which Romer gets his data directly from Stadelmann.

Logistically, if it took 17 years to build the smaller less precise and complicated Red Pyramid at the hand of a much more prominent pharaoh, what is the likelihood of completing the GP in 20 under Khufu let alone the 14years Lehner suggests? Also what must be considered is that in the 70 or so years allotted between the rule of Khufu and Menkuare, the entire Giza plateau was supposed to have been completed: 3 pyramids, the Sphinx, causeways, temples, boat pits, satellite pyramids and structures, not to mention square miles of massive paving stones. Also during this time they built the Al Wadi dam which is millions of cubic tons and they say the missing pyramid Abu Rawash as well. If you removed the 3rd party sourced King's list from the equation, which is the only thing that dictates the time of completion for the monuments, I doubt there would be much of an argument that the construction of the GP was well beyond 20 years using the tools and methods available to the Egyptians at the time.Thanos5150 (talk) 23:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Photo requests

It would be neat to see the casing stones and the concavity of the sides. -- Beland (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added an image to the page, if this is not what you are looking for please reinsert the reqphoto again.Traveler100 (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed some gibberish

I removed "also the othe pyramids were made of sand stone not just lime stone:)" from the end of the Casing Stones section since it looked like it was an accidental cut-and-paste from a discussion.Wolfhound668 (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge

There's a section at Giza Necropolis#Construction of the Great Pyramid that seems to duplicate what's in this article. Is there any reason for that? Seems to me they should be merged. 86.161.40.162 (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC).

Reverted talk page

To remove gibberish from the header. Wolfhound668 (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Not even bronze?

I was just reading the book Understanding Early Civilizations by Bruce G. Trigger and here on page 340 it would seem to indicate that bronze was not widely used in Egypt even in the late Middle Kingdom nearly a thousand years after the construction of Khufu's pyramid, if all of the dates I just looked up are right? And so not only was all of the stonework in the pyramid done either with soft copper or stone tools but even all of the carpentry to make wooden structures and wooden equipment used in the course of construction would have been done with such tools? That completely amazes me and it seems like a good detail to add to the article if it's true. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 09:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

New file File:The Great Sphinx, Pyramids of Gizeh-1839) by David Roberts, RA.jpg

Recently the file File:The Great Sphinx, Pyramids of Gizeh-1839) by David Roberts, RA.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 11:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Egyptian pyramid construction techniques

Does anyone have Verner's The Pyramids. Their Archaeology and History (2003)? I am still trying to locate it to verify the source Verner uses to obtain an angle "precisely 51º 50' 35"" as quoted in the main article and whether this is the new accepted slope, or merely what the slope "should" be based on 22:7.

To my knowledge, Smyth measured the angle as 51º 49', which differed from Herschel's 51º 52' 15.5". Because Smyth's main aim was to prove Taylor's claim of the existence of π within the proportions, Smyth "chose" 51º 51' 14.3" as an "average" of the two figures available to him (which was merely calculated from π directly and not an average at all -- the inverse tangent of 4/π gives 51º 51' 14.306").

Petrie's survey found that the angles he was most confident in ranged from 51º 49' 0" ±1' to 51º 53' 20" ±1', and felt the best approximation was given by 51º 52' 0" ±2', which is the value given by I.E.S. Edwards in The Pyramids of Egypt. However, Petrie had elsewhere reported 51º 50' 40" ±1'05" as the slope of the north face, and certainly by the time of Lehner's The Complete Pyramids, the slope of 51º 50' 40" was taken as definitive by Egyptologists, along with Cole's survey of side lengths.

Although the angles are all "identical" within the margins of error, I've never seen the 51º 50' 35" in print, and was still under the impression that 51º 50' 40" was the "official" slope for the casing stones.

Until I, or someone else, can confirm a new survey of the structure and the casing stones, or otherwise explain the source of Verner's "precise" data, I am changing the "precisely" to "approximately" for neutrality and verifibility.

Also, in the later sub-section on casing stones, since many stones were so worn/damaged that Petrie had no faith whatsoever in what angle they might have been constructed to, and of the ones he did place some confidence in he noted a 4'20" variation, it seems to rather run contrary to Wikipedia's neutrality and language rules to state that "these were carefully and consistently cut with a face slope with a seked of 5 1/2 palms." I see no evidence in any literature of such "consistency" in the angles found on extant casing stones. As this appears to be merely promoting Verner's pet theory, the language of this passage has been edited to conform with Wikipedia's rules. 216.138.230.98 (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. This is part of an attempt by some parties to describe various aspects of the GP as 'exact' or 'precise' and then go on to make various conclusions from that, from aliens to lost arts. Dougweller (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I realize that Verner is considered a leading expert, but I'm still trying to check his numbers. I haven't found The Pyramids. Their Archaeology and History (2003) yet, but I do note that in The Pyramids: The Mystery, Culture, and Science of Egypt's Great Monuments‎ (2002) he lists 51º 50' 35" in Appendix I for the slope, and writes "Jomard assumed... the wall's angle of inclination [was] 51º 19' 4" (in fact, it is 51º 50' 34")..." but I still find nothing in the book as to who exactly came up with this number (and I do note the fact that 51º 50' 33.984" is the angle that 22:7 generates mathematically through the inverse tangent, analogous to Smyth's so-called "average" derived from the inverse tangent of the sought result). I also note that, while hardly authoritative, Alan Winston's write-up for TourEgypt.net is aware of Verner's work and writings, and even references them, but still chooses the Lehner et al angle of 51º 50' 40" over Verner's. 216.138.230.98 (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I *believe* the two Verner books are in fact the same book with slightly different sub-titles; go to Amazon.com [4] for his work and you'll see both versions of the book there with the exact same cover illustration, though by different book publishers. I think it is safe to say they are one and the same book, especially since the page reference given in the article leads to info about the slope of the tomb in the "other" book of his.

When the scholars are in dispute, it is only fair that the article reflect this. I also have a publisher's proof of the recent Bob Brier and Jean-Pierre Houdin book which came out that has an appendix which looks at the angles of the casing stones that were carved, and references the angle as "52 degrees". Not as precisely accurate, but leaning more to Lehner's figures (if you think of the number as being "rounded up"). Captmondo (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, Captmondo. If it eventually ends up on my shelf, that's one thing, but I didn't really want to rush out and buy a book just to verify an entry on a Wikipedia page.

It still remains that I have no problem with Verner's learned opinion that 22:7 approximation for pi (a sekhed of 5 palms 2 fingers) was the design intent. This is only a few seconds of arc different from the angle Lehner and others use, which is nothing when the block measurements have a minimum error of one minute of arc. I only have issue with Verner elevating the target angle to "fact" status in a popular book, as if all extant blocks have been re-measured and Petrie's surveys superceded. Petrie's measurements are "facts", Verner's 51º 50' 34" is his educated interpretation of those facts, and I felt the language used in the article was a tiny bit too strong, putting it in violation of the rules. That's why I was harping on, semi tongue-in-cheek, about trying to find what new survey he'd used to support his "fact" statement. :D 216.138.230.98 (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Manetho King List

The Manetho King List is referenced on Khufu's page. This paragraph seems to use 'R. Kuper and F. Forster, "Khufu's 'mefat' expeditions into the Libyan Desert", Egyptian Archaeology 23, Autumn 2003, pp 25-28' as a source. I didn't check this myself but it seems more credible than the 23 year time frame for the construction which is why I mentioned the possibility. I could transfer the reference to the pyramid page but I chose not to do that since I didn't personally check it and I can't be sure it was the reference to the whole paragraph instead I put a link to Khufu's page in the sentence. If there is no further objection I'll put it back later. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Since there has been no further objection I'll restore the reference to the Manetho king list above. I believe the longer time frame is also supported by a close look at the NOVA pyramid building experiment, however I'll lead that up to the discretion of those who choose to look at it. Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Being referenced on some other page is an interesting variation on Verifiability. After you tried to explain it to me I went off to Khufu's page where I discovered it said that Manetho's list gives his reign as being 23 years in length. I was bold enough to make the correction there because the mistake was so blatant - what say you we edit accurately in this case? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Idealy it would be best if someone checked the source cited on the Khufu page and then it could be added to this page with confirmation. I don't mean to present it as a fact but I just don't belkieve it is credible to present the short time frame as fact either especially since the experiments to replicate it simply don't support the short time frame. I'm suprised there isn't more people saying this from the academic community. Even with the longer time frame it is an amazing acomplishment. It is also worth noting that none of the kings list were made until hundreds of years after the fact but I don't have a specific source for that on the top of my head. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you read Romer's book yet? He's supportive of a short time frame and goes into a lot of detail. Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Manetho says 63 years, not 65, but this doesn't seem to be considered reliable. Most sources stick with the Turin dates it appears. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia By Geoffrey W. Bromiley (which I wouldn't normally use as a source for this, but is just reporting Manetho with a reasonable comment) says "According to Manetho, Khuphu (Suphis) reigned sixty-three years, and his son Khafre (also called Suphis) reigned sixty-six yean. Between them. another son Ra'djedef is named in the king list. Menkaure is also credited by Manetho with a reign of sixty-three years. We may assume that these figures either are exaggerated or include co-regencies. I don't think we can just plop Manetho down in the middle of the discussion, among other things that's becoming OR. Dougweller (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read Romer's book on this subject yet, I will when I get a hold of a copy and the time to read it. So far all I've read of him is "Ancient Lives" about Deir El Medina. I don't think we should present Manetho's list as absolute any more than other lists. I know that the shorter list is generaly considered more reliable but I can't understand why since the experiments don't support it. If you don't amend it to 63 years with your source I'll do it later. My point is that many experts try to present it as an absolute explanation when it is clear that there isn't a consensus on it. Co-regencies sounds like a possibility as well as starting the pyramids before they rise to power which will allow to increase the construction time frame and reduce congestion since different crews could work at different locations at the same time. But I haven't heard much discusion about this from the experts. Regards Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the Manetho time frame again. I fail to understand why there is so much opposition to this. Experiments to move megaliths haven't even come close to supporting the 20 year time frame quite the contrary they overwhelmingly rebut this construction time frame. Some of these are listed on the construction page including a pyramid building experiment by Mark Lehner in which he admits he had to cheat by using a backhoe to speed up the process to meet screening deadline. I'm not saying this is fact but it is more reasonable than the 20 year estimate. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

23 years is the generally accepted view as it should be for several obvious reasons. Manetho is a much later source based on other later equally unreliable Christian sources and is often highly suspect for his accuracy despite it being used by Egytologists when convenient. A little bit of common sense here: given the average life span on an Ancient Egyptian was 30, maybe 40 if they were particularly lucky or affluent, what is the likelihood of someone living to be 63 years old, let alone, even if he became pharaoh as a boy of say, 13, that would make him 76 years old when he died which even then assumes he died the last year of his reign and didn't hand the torch of to his son the last years of his life. If this were the case, it would realistically make him one of the oldest, if not the oldest, person to have ever lived in ancient times. And what does this say about the life spans of Khafre, Djedefre, and Menkuare? If we accept Khufu was 70 years old, then the time line of Giza disappears as well as what came before. Regardless, what do you think is more likely:that he actually ruled only 23years and that Manetho and Herodotus got some bad info because their sources couldn't reconcile the G.P. being built in such a short time, or that he actually lived to be 76+ years old when he died making him probably the oldest person who ever lived at that time?Thanos5150 (talk) 06:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You do have to watch throwing what's "likely" around. If you look at Baines and Malek's dates for the Old Kingdom, we see reign lengths of Dyn 3: 20, 19, 8, 4, 24; Dyn 4: 24, 23, 8, 26, 18, 5, so 20-ish years does seem "average", but on the other hand within 300 years, Pepy II had his 94 year reign. I'd think Pepy II's reign length, in any era, would be even more unlikely than one of 63 years. ;) 216.138.230.98 (talk) 01:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell which king list is more reliable based on historical evidence that is passed on by others without taking a closer look, this leves me with no choice but to trust the work of others, however the experiments do indicate a longer construction time frame whether in the life of 1 or more pharaohs. This is based on the assumption that the pyramids were made as tombs and therefore they were built during the reign of just 1 Paraoh. My point is to declare that it couldn't have been done in more than 23 years in spite of the evidence of the experiments is inaccurate. The reason I mentioned the Manetho king list is because it was something to go on which is better than nothing. Combined with the evidence of the experiments leaves a more credible theory than the 23 year time frame. This is still no gaurentee but until something better comes along I think the possibility should be mentioned. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 13:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Atomic Bomb?

I heard somewhere that the pyramid is one of the few man made structures that could survive a direct hit from an atomic bomb. (because it's built so solidly) Could anyone verify that? It would be an interesting piece to add to the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.149.233 (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(I read somewhere the pyramids have some sorta defense mechanism with lasers and nuclear missiles :D )Nope never heard that It would be interesting though.. --Notedgrant (talk) 09:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

How big is the nuclear bomb being dropped? I assume that some of the bunkers constructed across the world to protect "our" leaders are designed to withstand atomic attack, there are probably a few other structures that could also survive but I am not sure how this could be tested except by bombing them. This question seems to be in the realm of speculation not encyclopedias. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Dates

Previously one of the BC dates was changed to BCE but the rest of the article was left as BC/AD, and for obvious continuity I reverted the one date back to BC.

According to the Wikipedia Manual Of Style's section on dates

Years

·Years are normally expressed in digits; a comma is not used in four-digit years (1988, not 1,988).

·Avoid inserting the words the year before the digits (1995, not the year 1995), unless the meaning would otherwise be unclear.

·Years are numbered according to the western calendar eras based on the traditionally reckoned year of the conception or birth of Jesus.

·AD and BC are the traditional ways of referring to these eras. However, the CE and BCE is becoming more common in academic and some religious writing. No preference is given to either style.

·Do not use CE or AD unless the date would be ambiguous without it. e.g. "The Norman Conquest took place in 1066." not 1066 CE or AD 1066.

·BCE and CE or BC and AD are written, in upper case, spaced, and without periods (full stops).

·Use either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE notation, but not both in the same article. AD may appear before or after a year (AD 106, 106 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (106 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC).

·Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors.

[emphasis added]

I've never seen a recent discussion about switching the dates from BC/AD to BCE/CE, let alone a consensus amongst the page's editors, nor has any substantial reason for switching dating systems been suggested.

216.138.230.98 (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

π as a coincidence

There is an article at http://www.math.washington.edu/~greenber/PiPyr.html by Ralph Greenberg trying to explain the slope 280/220 (= 28/22 = 4*7/22 ~ 4/π) as a result of coincidence (22/7 ~ π) and the fact of dividing one unit of measurement (the cubit) into 7 equal units (palms). If it was not coincidence other pyramids would have the same slope. On the contrary, their slopes are - as he states - different: e.g. Pyramid of Khafre is 21/28, Bent Pyramid is 20/28.

I would recommend to add the link into the article. --88.212.6.39 (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Answer to above: There are many articles and books written by mathematicians like that, such as the one by Herz-Fischler (2000) "The Shape of the Great Pyramid", written by people who do not know about Egyptian history and culture, and who have not read the full facts of the matter as derived and published from surveys by Petrie, Edwards, Cole and others. Here is a reference to Petrie's first full analysis of various theories way back in 1883. http://www.ronaldbirdsall.com/gizeh/petrie/c21.html He did further analysis into the 30s and 40s and correctly concluded the circular symbolism was the defining factor. The references to these proper analyses, and the facts about the deliberate inclusion of circular symbolism are already included in the article should anyone want to reference them. Greenberg and Herz-Fsichler were wrong, Petrie, Edwards, Verner etc were correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave Light (talk • contribs) 12:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Religious theories concerning the GP

There is a significant body of religious literature purporting that the Great Pyramid is a "Bible in Stone" and that its internal passageways, when measured with a "pyramid inch", will yield a chronology of important events in Christian history, dating from the creation of Adam to the Return of Christ. Though I personally disagree with this theory, I do believe that the volume of this literature and its persistence across many religious groups (Jehovah's Witnesses, Dawn Bible Students, William Branham, Christian Identity groups, British Israelism, etc.) merits some mention of this esoteric theory concerning the Great Pyramid.

This system usually entails some type of scheme of eschatological dating, and comes with a theory that the Great Pyramid must have been constructed by one of the biblical patriarchs (Enoch, Methusalah, etc.).

I notice that there is a "see also" link to the Pyramid inch, but nothing in the body of this article describing this aspect of what is called pyramidology. I am not advocating that we list every crank theory, but neither do I think one should ignore this persistent fascination with the Great Pyramid as a prophetic calendar. For instance, Martin Gardner addressed this theory in chapter 15 of his book, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. Feedback, anyone? EricP (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Drilling

"The National Geographic Society filmed the drilling of a small hole in the southern door, only to find another larger door behind it."

What happened then? Did they try to drill through the second door? Are there (or were there) any plans to do so? Esn (talk) 02:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Most likely they only had permission to drill the one hole, and would have been required to re-apply for further investigation. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 23:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw this live when it happened and, although it is not explicit in the article, after the "door" which is simply a huge stone, the tunnel continues in the dark and after a short distance, another huge stone blocks the path. These were proven to be intended, they were lowered to their specific spot and had some metal handles on the sides which made moving them after the pyramid was complete practically impossible. The important part is that it proves that it is keeping something hidden intentionally. Even if they had clearance to drill through the second door it would have been impossible though; the hole through the first door was just so they could push a telescopic camera through it and film the other side (they were expecting a room). To drill through the second one, you'd need to fully break / drill the first door which will not happen very soon sadly. The people who were there on the show were baffled and didn't really know what to do or say so after a few minutes the show ended. Hopefully, we'll get to see this "unlocked" in our lifetime.195.88.182.2 (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Wording

Why exactly does it say in the introduction that it is a "historical irony" that the great pyramid is the oldest of the seven wonders? If the intent was to indicate that it is odd that being the oldest it outlasted the others, then it needs to be rephrased or re-arranged. Rafajs77 (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This would be better: "Interestingly, it is the oldest of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World and the only one that survives substantially intact." --Jpicco (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

These edits do not appear to be constructive can someone review them NotedGrant Talk 08:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, full of original research, for a start. Dougweller (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought about rolling back all his edits, but he seems to have made more than 60 edits on the page perhaps reverting all his edits would be fine ,he seems to be an WP:SPANotedGrant Talk 09:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the recent batch, he also edited in December and perhaps as an IP, I'll look at these later after I've eaten. Dougweller (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dougs move. A number of these changes falsified what was presented.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been keeping track to much lately but this article seems to have gone downhill a lot over the last month or so. Actually it started sooner when increased emphasis was placed on the relationship of Pi without a clear explanation of what if anything it means. More recently in addition to adding material that means little or nothing conclusive hard facts about the construction have been deleted. To the best of my knowledge this is one of the last reasonably good versions of this article. I think the sourced and conclusive aspects about the construction should be restored and the confusing things about Pi, Phi and the golden mien should be clarified or if there isn't anything to it from a reliable source it should be removed. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As I removed some material earlier than that edit also by the same editor, I wouldn't want to revert to that. Here's the difference between the version you suggest and the current version [5] - I think it would be better to work on the current version while looking at the version you mention. Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Not particularly wishing to stir the pot on this ... but I was just consulting this article for info about the shaft-blocking "doors". My geologist's internal spelling checker lit up on seeing "dioriate" (should be "diorite", if it refers to a dark green-grey to near black, fine-grained igneous rock). Just a tiny spelling mistake, but it makes me suspect that a large part of the material introduced by KendallKDown as revision 336870081 (2010-01-09T21:38:14) has been copied from another source. Googling that spelling mistake brings up several hundred copies in much the same context. Would the WP article would get auto-copied to that extent in a couple of months ? KendallKDown's revision seems reasonable enough material - typos excepted - and it seems to have survived several bouts of vandalism/ revision wars, so other editors seem to think so too. But I do have a suspicion that a lot of it has been cut'n'pasted from some other sources. Got to go just now.

Aidan Karley (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

tomb of my mom?

under "pyramid complex" someone has edited article to say "The Gizeh pyramid complex, which includes the pyramids of your mom, Khafre and Menkaure."

i'd fix it, but i haven't edited wikipedia before, and maybe the same editor has done other edits that need to be reverted, and i haven't the slightest how to do that! thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.110.141 (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• Got it - feel free to fix it yourself next time. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Where are all the hieroglyphics?

Or any real evidence that would connect this pyramid to Khufu or the ancient Egyptian civilization? And not something earlier? 174.16.108.193 (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't seem to mention it, but the cartouche of Khufu was found painted crudely on of the stone blocks used to plug the access to the burial chamber, which suggests it was painted by the workers that blocked the entrance. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this statement?Thanos5150 (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It is in I.E.S. Edwards, The Pyramids of Egypt, Penguin Books, 1952, p. 96. It was not the plugs actually (it has been a long time since those egyptology classes), but some of the stones in the relieving compartments above the chamber. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why the hieroglyphics placed where they could only have been placed on construction aren't in the article, they even convinced Graham Hancock, here's a drawing of two "work+gang"+khufu+pyramid&hl=en&ei=F9-wS7O0LIu64gbHudGxDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=graffiti&f=false. The C14 dating of course, the fact that it is obviously related to earlier pryamids which are related to mastabas, it's integration with the rest of the funerary complex, all should be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that doubt was cast over the aforemoentioned hieroglyphics, in that accusations of forgery were made. The article also provides no evidence that the pyramid was built during Khufu's reign (nor do I know of any such conclusive evidence), yet merely states that it is believed (by who?) that the tomb (again, evidence?) was built at the time. On the mathematical side, I think that too much emphasis has been placed merely on the builder's knowledge of pi and phi, and nothing has been mentioned of the piezoelectric effect of certain materials inside the pyramid. The following article gives a more detailed analysis on both the historical, mathematical and geophysical perspectives: http://www.sacredsites.com/africa/egypt/great_pyramid.html . Andrew.murphy1 (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Pyramid power and razor blades? That definitely doesn't belong in this article, and your source comes no where near our criteria for a reliable source, see WP:RS. Sure, Sitchin accused Vyse of forgery, but Sitchin believes in aliens from Nibiru also. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I would have to second andrew.muphy here, as it would be extremely helpful to have evidence backing the dates. Now I am no propenent of conspiracies, however, science is science and if the dates cannot be empirically verified then it should be at least noted. Wikipedia is meant to present as much facts as possible and the reasoning behind why we are inclined to believe some theories over others, and this page does not do that in the slightest. Hopefully an expert on the subject can shed a little more light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonfon2347 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys, all the evidence is there...for decades. You are not the first ones asking these questions. In fact, you are probably number 100000. All of this has been answered, countless times, in any depth you could ask for. I think you'll find answers even in the archive of this discussion site because, again, you are not the first.

Just don't expect that someone is explaining AGAIN here basics of hieroglyphs, what Vyse could not have known, why noone else could have put the graffiti there but the builders, the fact that a sarcophagus has been placed during build time and so on. Again, it's all on google. Read first, understand, think, then post your contrary evidence or just accept that many people studied the subject thoroughly and probably found the right answers before you. So long! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.137.253 (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Pyramid Complex: boats/boat Pits

It's swell and all that this section mentions the boats, as it should, but it does not seem appropriate that there are 3 full paragraphs devoted to it. Given there is an external link to "Giza Pyramid Complex" this information seems superfluous to the main article and could be summed up better in a sentence or two. In general, it seems this whole section is a bit long winded straying with unnecessary detail unrelated to the main article leaving out more pertinent material not to mention there are no sources cited. Thanos5150 (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

OR?

Saddhiyama keeps replacing my edits on the Great Pyramid of Giza page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza#Materials which are based on a reliable source, Flinders Petrie, with his erroneous information based on a source, some guy named "Dilke", who has never surveyed Giza to my knowledge and whom I have never even heard of. He keeps stating that the Great Pyramid base was 440 royal cubits when it was very accurately surveyed by Petrie, Smyth and Cole and found to be 439.8 royal cubits. If Saddhiyama persists in his disinformation campaign I will have no choice but to report him as a vandal, after editing out his bogus information for the umpteenth time. What the heck is your problem with using reliable primary sources and factual information and who the heck is Dilke anyway, Saddhiyama, your cousin? When did he take measurements of the Great Pyramid? Try using an actual survey as your source, Siddhiyama. Since Petrie is used as a source elsewhere in that page, why did you choose not to use his survey data as the source for the Great Pyramid dimensions but instead went to some guy nobody ever heard of and certainly never surveyed Giza? This is what gives Wikipedia a bad name, people posting tripe like that instead of actual facts. I guess you just figured actual survey data from the worlds foremost Egyptologist, Flinders Petrie, would be entirely inappropriate on Wikipedia, so you opted for the far more qualified Dilke.Northstar2595 (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be mistaking me for someone else, or at least have misunderstood something along the way. I have not stated anything about cubits or the pyramid, but only reverted your additions that included unencyclopedic and OR content. For example this wording: "No author has ever presented an explanation for the choice of this dimension by the pyramid designers but it is a scientific fact, not requiring a published reference because it is simple mathematics, that 439.8 royal cubits is 311 "double remens", 310.9855624 to be precise... You can draw your own conclusions as to which unit of measure was more likely to have been employed to lay out the sides of the base. It is another mathematical fact that the number 311 is the numerator of the fractional approximation of pi 311/99" is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Secondly, it is preferred that you use secondary sources, not primary sources, when it comes to reliable sourcing, and any conclusions should be made through the conclusions stated in those sources, not your own.

Dilke by the way is a respected scholar in ancient history and mathematics, and while I am not familiar with his work on the pyramids, I have enjoyed his work on Roman land surveyors very much, but he is alas not any relation of mine.

Also, while Petrie was certainly the most respected archaeologist on ancient Egypt as well as a pioneer regarding the establishment of the historical chronology of the different dynasties, it would be preferable if someone more contemporary was cited. Not all of Petrie's conclusions has aged well. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: I do not want to be dragged into an edit war over this, so I will refrain from reverting again, though it should be noted that it is not because I have been persuaded by any argument of yours. You should however yourself be wary of reinserting your edit again, you have already done so 4 times (more if counting the previous edit removed by Dougweller, which shows a remarkable similarity to your editing style), which is clear on its way to be a violation of the three revert rule. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I came here after seeing some of the vandalism elsewhere, while obviously unacceptable I'm not sure his criticisms are entirely unfounded regarding sourcing. While it is true secondary sources are preferred, that's only the case if they are reliable, e.g if there is a clear indication where figures are coming from in this case. If Dilke's figures contradict primary sources, without any stated reason, that would indicate Dilke isn't a reliable source in this instance and so shouldn't be used. I also fail to see why contemporary sources are preferred when there's no indication of the providence of what is being cited anyway. ChiZeroOne (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(Found this via Northstar's WP:EAR complaint) I don't think there really is much contradiction if one source says it's 440 royal cubits and another says it's 439.8 royal cubits - a difference of .2 cubits is only about 10.5 cm, so if anything they're confirming each other's measurements. --Six words (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Why no section on purpose or use?

This entry lists nothing regarding the pyramid's use or purpose. I assume there are a number of theories and it seems that that would be a logical topic to cover. While I understand that other Egyptian pyramids served as some kind of tomb for royalty etc., it seems that the Great Pyramid of Giza had no such purpose. Please expand if possible.

The presence of a sarcophagus makes it certain that it was a tomb - other theories are purely speculative, if you think they should be covered then maybe a link to another page on Great Pyramid Theories?Apepch7 (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the sarcophagus was never used for a burial, makes it doubtful that the GP was ever used as a tomb. The fact that there were never any funeral inscriptions or paintings in the pyramid at all, makes it further doubtful that it should be considered as a tomb. Herodotus (who alone mentions that Khufu built the GP at all) also says that Khufu was buried elsewhere. The GP may have been intended originally as a tomb, but seemingly was never employed as such. Wdford (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

According to Mark Lehner, no original burial has ever been found in any Egyptian pyramid. Several pyramid "sarcophagi" sealed from the day they were made were found empty when opened in modern times not to mention most of the pyramids don't even have sarcophagi. Some pharaohs are even credited with building multiple pyramids. Also, pyramids have virtually nothing in common with any known Egyptian burial chamber, including mastabas which they are "alleged" to be derived from and were still in use in Khufu's time. Mastabas always had many rooms, sometimes dozens, and functioned more as a "dead man's house" rather than a "tomb". The interiors were always adorned with numerous carvings, art, and writing; as elaborately as could be afforded. And more importantly, they actually have been found with dead bodies in them. Pyramids on the other hand have absolutely none of this. Egyptologists explain this saying they had all been "robbed", but regardless of other facts to the contrary, it is unlikely these robbers would have stolen all of the carvings, art and writing associated with every other Egyptian noble burial ever found and scrubbed and sanded all of the walls so clean that any evidence of it ever having existing, or their efforts to do so, would have completely disappeared. Compare the interior of a typical mastaba here [6] to the interior of the Great Pyramid King's Chamber here [7]. One for a vizier of a minor pharoah, the other for a living God responsible for building the greatest monument the world had/has ever known. Hmmm. While the associated necropolises seem to prove beyond doubt that the Egyptians associated death and burial with pyramids, it is pure speculation contradicted by the facts to suggest they themselves were built as tombs. Many Mid-evil European churches have burials inside them and many churches in general have associated cemeteries, but of course no one would say that they were ever built as "tombs".

The reason why there are no entries in the article regarding other use or purpose for the Great Pyramid beyond being anything but a tomb is because no Egyptologist has ever offered one so therefore any idea to the contrary is by default deemed as "psudoscience" and cannot be included. There used to be an "alternative theories" section, but that has been destroyed and removed by overzealous debunker editors who don't even want anyone to even see such "nonsense".Thanos5150 (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Where any hieroglyphics found inside the pyramid?

I see all kinds of maps and pictures of the Great Pyramid as well as the Sphinx and there's plenty of hieroglyphics outside of them miles away but where there any actual tablets inside either of them? 184.96.239.191 (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

See here (for example): http://doernenburg.alien.de/alternativ/pyramide/pyr03_e.php - 213.39.132.152 (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

No tablets were found. But workman's inscriptions on the blocks placed inside the pyramid, among them the cartouche of Khufu. It seems various pseudohistorians, fringers and new-agers claim they are fake because it would obviously destroy their more fantastical theories, but real egyptologists and archaeologists accepts the authenticity of the hieroglyphs. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There seems little doubt the quarry marks are authentic, however, this does not in and of itself provide proof it was Khufu who built the Great Pyramid. The hieroglyphic cartouche "Khufu" was a holy symbol and powerful charm completely unrelated to the pharaoh and is possible this is why Khufu took the name, or was named such, to give the power of the word to himself. Herodotus is the only ancient source to claim Khufu, the pharaoh, built the GP whereas several other ancient sources before Herodutus's time state that, like the Sphinx, it was already built before Khufu's reign. If we accept the Egyptologist's dating of the kings list then this conclusion is clearly supported by carbon dating, now conveniently removed form this article. To accept this would date the GP at least 100 to as much as 1400yrs before Khufu. Also, the carbon dates are progressively older the further up the pyramid you go, for both studies, which is impossible unless it was already built suggesting, as do the ancient sources, that the GP was already there and that Khufu was not the builder of the GP, but rather only the restorer. Furthermore, the quarry marks are found only in the relieving chambers-why? The easy answer would be that this was never meant to be seen so they didn't care, yet on several other pyramids quarry marks are found on many exposed interior blocks and casing stones also not meant to be seen yet for the GP it is only found there.

A simple way to prove the provenance of the quarry marks is to carbon date them, but Hawass will not. Why? Because as he says he does not want carbon dating to confuse people because Egytologists already have everything worked out. It is interesting to me that in any other scientific field carbon dating is almost beyond reproach, yet with the GP it is completely dismissed-twice-for the only reason it does not support the accepted paradigm. And yet by the same token, if the dating did support the status quo there is no doubt they, and all of you "debunkers", would be holding them high as exhibit A to support Egyptologists claims. And if they did support it then that would say a lot, but they don't so this means nothing? How is this science? I suspect the real reason Hawass won't let the quarry marks be dated is because he has already done so and did not like the answer.76.115.37.36 (talk) 05:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)thanos5150

This seems to be your own interpretation, and is such is original research - see WP:OR. Talk pages aren't an appropriate place to discuss the subject of the article, they aren't a forum. I doubt that you have any reliable sources for your claim about Hawass. Carbon dating is always a tricky thing, but I will point out that if the old wood hyypothesis is correct, the further up the pyramid the builders went the more likely it is that they are using older wood. I'll also point out something you already almost certainly know, that even the dates of these rulers are uncertain. Dougweller (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Pffft. Whatever Doug. I am paraphrasing Zahi's own words from an article in response to the direct question of why does he not carbon date the quarry marks. "Reliable source" for that? Please. Regardless, carbon dating is always tricky isn't it especially when it doesn't go your way. The "old wood" hypothesis is pure desperation. Embarrassing really. I would believe aliens built the GP before I'd believe "old wood" could in some way explain what is actually found in the data.

To get back to the topic-the Khufu cartouche, though seemingly genuine, does not give conclusive provenance to Khufu as the builder if at all and without carbon dating it does nothing to date the pyramid.76.115.37.36 (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)thanos5150

Feel free to write a scholarly article on the subject and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. If you should then manage to change the current academic consensus that Khufu built the pyramid, you are more than welcome to add it to this article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I made no mention of adding it to the article Sanjaya, but regardless I do not need you to welcome me to do anything. "A lie told often enough becomes truth". Sorry, but I took the Redpill a long time ago.Thanos5150 (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You really need to edit logged in, you know - I'd assumed you were a new editor. Saddhiyama's point remains valid however much you don't like it. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize I wasn't until after I'd posted, sorry to confuse you, but would your response have been any different? Saddhiyama's point is what? That unless I am repeating what a consensus Egyptologist has told me what to think or say it can't be said in the discussion section? Unless your goal is to censor dissenting opinion then I do not see how his point is valid here. Regardless, the topic was hieroglyphs and why are they not included. The fact is there are serious disagreements about the hieroglyphs, not about their authenticity, but their interpretation all of which have nothing to do with Sitchin, Hancock or the like. There is only one cartouche that refers to a "Khufu" whereas several others refer to a "Khnum-Khufu" or other royals entirely, none of which may or may not refer to an actual pharaoh Khufu if at all.

William Fix says: “There are just not enough historical markers for anyone to describe that era. There is no clear and solid evidence of any kind that there was a pyramid building 4th Dynasty King called Khufu…The entire pattern of evidence suggests, on the contrary, that if there ever was a King Khufu he lived long after the Pyramid was built and was named after the pyramid – not the other way around.”

Joyce Tyldesley (2003) also comments:"“In fact, there is no contemporary evidence to suggest that Khufu ever opposed his people, but then, leaving his prodigious building achievements aside, there is virtually no evidence of his reign, good or bad.”

The point is that to include the hieroglyphs in the article they must be put in their proper context. Passing off an opinion as fact without context will not do. I'm sure if one so desired they could find many acceptable references that will state as "fact" the cartouche of Khufu "proves" he built the GP, but this is not honest and only further abuse of passing off as fact consensus opinion source material to support a particular POV. No different than the sources that would be cited.Thanos5150 (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"First of all they say that only inscribed is the second room—it's not true. All the five relieving chambers are inscribed. Number two, there are some inscriptions there that cannot be written by anyone except the workmen who put them there. You cannot go and reach there. It has to be the man who put the block above the other one to do that." Zahi Hawass.[8] Dougweller (talk) 11:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What Zahi could have also mentioned, yet did not, is that the bulk of the "inscriptions" are just levelling lines and other construction marks - the "names" form a small minority of the markings. Also, those markings that are "out of reach" are the construction lines - the "names" are on open surfaces. See [9] and [10] and [11] for photos. Wdford (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Who are "they" that says this? I don't see anyone here that is saying quarry marks were only found in the second "room", which I assume you mean "chamber". And actually, quarry marks were only found in the 4 chambers above Davidson's chamber, not all 5. Wdford is correct that the only marks that are inaccessible are leveling lines and quarry marks, i.e. not writing. Also, no where are there "inscriptions" as all of the marks have been found to be made on the surface of the block in red ocher paint, the same red ocher paint used in the area today. Regardless, there is no doubt that the quarry marks are genuine, at least those between the blocks, so without definitive proof to the contrary, we must be willing to accept the others are genuine as well, though to be fair, they are not without their curiosities. BUT, the real question is not if they are genuine, but what do they really mean? There is only one cartouche that refers to a "Khufu", which is highly debatable it even refers to the actual pharaoh, but also several others that refer to other royals including his brother Khafre. So, the same logic that credits the GP to Khufu based on this one cartouche can also be equally applied to attribute it to several other royals including his younger brother. As Gaston Maspero says: "The existence of the two cartouches of Khufu and Khnem-Khufu on the same monument has caused much embarrassment to Egyptologists." And yet to preserve the time line created by modern Egyptologists these little facts are completely ignored.Thanos5150 (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You really should go find a forum for your comments about what and why Egyptologists say what they say. Dougweller (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

20 years

The time frame often thrown around is that the pyramid took 20 years to construct. I tracked down where that number came from: Herodotus of Halicanassus. Herodotus was visiting Egypt around 450BCE, some 2000 years after the construction of the pyramids, and asked one of his guides about it. The guide said it took 20 years and 100,000 men and that's what went into the history books.

I'm in no position to say Herodotus was wrong, but perhaps this number was the creation of some anonymous camel-herder who didn't have all the facts about this 2000 year old structure. After all, according to that figure:

"building this in 20 years would involve installing approximately 800 tonnes of stone every day. Similarly, since it consists of an estimated 2.3 million blocks, completing the building in 20 years would involve moving an average of more than 12 of the blocks into place each hour, day and night."

Herodotus is even known to some as 'the father of lies' for his fanciful stories. However, the John Romer estimates are even more fantastic. By transposing the build rate of the Red Pyramid, he estimates that the pyramid could have been constructed in 14 years, working 300 days a year, 10 hours a day. He himself says that this required 5 blocks to be put into place every other minute of every working hour of every working day.

Rather than put original research into the article, I thought I'd bring this to discussion. It seems to me that these build rates are unreasonable and I don't really see why it would be necessary to cite such a frantic pace. I guess I'm wondering if there are any other sources who have looked into this. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Although it is appreciated that you are wary of every detail added, especially to this article, which is prone to contentious edits, your objection indeed seems to be original research, mostly based on what I can only presume is a great underestimation of the effectiveness of the building crews involved in the construction. As long as the figure is mentioned in reliable sources, and since it is generally accepted that the each pyramid was commissioned and built within the span of the rulership of the pahraoh it was designated for, I don't see big problem here. After all Khufu reigned 23 years (2589–2566 BC),more than most pharaohs, so it had to have been commissioned and built within that timespan. --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, so rather than editing the article (because I haven't found any reliable sources), I'm putting forward what I found so that it can hopefully be verified somewhere and added to the article. The overall point being, regardless of my personal doubts: there is little historical evidence to support the time line of 20 years. I don't know how great an underestimation is would be to suggest that it took longer than 20 years to set that 2.3 million stones accurately into place without pulleys, wheels, or iron tools. Not my place to decide, but there wouldn't be entire articles devoted to alternative theories if I were alone in this thought.Scoundr3l (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The "historical evidence" needed for this article is reliable secondary sources made by experts on the subject, for example someone like John Romer. If you question his veracity then you could find other reliable (and notable) sources and add their views to the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's not 'historical' evidence, but I understand what you're saying... mostly because it's what I just finished saying. With all due respect, I'm not on the discussion page because I need help with Wikipedia policy, I'm here because I found information that could be valuable once it's verified and this is the best place to put it until it's ready to be added to the article. If I didn't understand reliable sources, I would have just added it to the article. I appreciate the help, though.Scoundr3l (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Found a reference, but don't have time to add it just now:

http://wadsworth.com/history_d/special_features/ilrn_legacy/wawc1c01c/content/wciv1/readings/herodotus_bk2.html

Warthomp (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

John Romer

I think that it is now professor Romer.

Anyway, he has recently published a book about the Great Pyramid which seems to review all the available information. I didn't think that anything new came out of it with one small exception.

Some two thirds of the stonework used in a pyramid is for the lowest third. At the top of the Ascending Pasage at about this level there is a large block which he calls the Great Stone. He speculates that this may have been the marker point from which most of the final measurements were taken.

By that stage the final dimensions and angles must have been obvious and adjusted accordingly on the lines drawn from the Great Stone.

In contrast to the various arguments that have raged over this building this certainly seems to one of the more likely explanations.

AT Kunene (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Although we can't comment on it, it's worth adding to the article. His timeline is interesting and is in the article. Dougweller (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Geological Evidence of the Giza pyramids' true age

I'm not sure whether this has been raised before but I think it is about time the front information is changed to show that the building of the pyramids by Khufu in 2560 needs to be changed to a THEORY. Geological evidence, supported by dozens of other geologists around the world, have shown that the pyramid, sphinx and temple of Osiris are ore than 12,000 years old. As is known, astrological evidence has shown for over a decade now that the pyramids and the lion (sphinx) align to the stars of Orion and the constellation of Leo in 10,500BC. The Sphynx's original head was a lion not a man's at all.

So much evidence points to the fact that they were not burial chambers at all. As no mummies or bodies have ever been found in the pyramids themselves - they are always buried at the valley of the Kings - I think this also needs to be changed to a theory.

It is widely known that if Egyptologists don't like something that interferes with their specific line of history for the Egyptians they ignore it; this is not good science. The companies that have taken over the excavations of the internal chambers at the pyramid and sphinx are still not providing us with any information - the media blackout from the Egyptologists and the corporations still involved, especially the head curator (Zahi Hawass), means we cannot find out what is hidden in those chambers. As usual they leave us in the dark.

I think it would be a good idea to have both 'theories' on the front page so people can investigate on their own and then make up their own minds form the evidence they find. Having only one side is not a fair argument for the oldest structure on the planet. These structures belong to the entire planet, Egypt is just the stewards for the monuments, they don't own them.

Please let me know your thoughts; and don't just delete this if it makes you uncomfortable.

--0s1r1s (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that this theory is not currently present in the article. To include it, we would need reliable sources to cite; however, I don't see anything specific enough to go look up in your comment above. —C.Fred (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Building times

I cannot now recall the complete reference but some years ago there was an expedition that excavated around one of the pyramids of Seneferu. One dated block was found near the base and another dated four years later was found near the top. As Seneferu lived long enough to have constructed three large pyramids it doesn't seem too unlikely that Khufu could build one large pyramid in an estimated reign of 23 years.AT Kunene (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

i thought they were 30N 30E.. google maps for example says something different too, please re-check, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.84.214 (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The 30/30 figure sounds like a rough round. I think it's big enough that Google maps could be pointing to one corner (or the center), and Geohack (what we're using for the coordinates) could be pointing to another (or the center if Google maps isn't). Ian.thomson (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

missing heiroglyph

There are two possibilities fo the missing heiroglyphs. In his book Herodotus mentions visiting the pyramid site when most of it was still intact.He describes ascending what may have been the covered causeway, originally the building ramp. He mentions that the inside of this causeway was covered with "carvings of animals".

With the wholesale destruction of the site and the removal of the causeway, the heiroglyph went with it. If the village of Nazlet Al Samman, that now covers the valley temple, is removed and the area excavated more inscriptions could be recovered.

The Arabs removed the stonework from the Great Pyramid to build their new city of Cairo. Forty years ago during my time in Cairo, some of the heiroglyh marked stonework could still be seen embedded in the walls of later constructions.

AT Kunene (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Missing? No. This pyramid was built before they started using hieroglpyhs. It started shortly after. --27.33.105.42 (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Alignment

How do they justify these claims, when theres meters of the pyramid missing from all side?--27.33.105.42 (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

heiroglyph/Herodotus

The earlier pyramids of Seneferu and Djoser have examples of heiroglyph carved in various places and there are the masons marks in the upper chamber of the Great Pyramid.

I still think it reasonably certain that the Great Pyramid did have carved heiroglyphs in various places but heiroglyph does seem to have come into far more widespread use as the 4th and 5th dynasties advance. AT Kunene (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Astronomy

I once saw a lecture by a professor whose name I sadly do not recollect that justified that the three pyramids of Giza where not in fact constructed as tombs, but as an "astronomical message". Apparent evidence of this is the perfect north-south alignment of the three pyramids and the fact that these three pyramids correspond with the three stars in Orion's belt up in the sky, both in position with one another and in magnitude (how bright each star is- I'm not sure about the word); the brightest star of the three is the biggest pyramid, and so on. The professor also concluded that the Sphinx is actually the constellation of Leo on Earth. If someone else has also seen this lecture (I saw it on TV and sadly never found it again) and has a link to it, I believe it would be absolutely necessary to include such findings in a so well organized encyclopedia as Wikipedia. Apostolos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.6.92 (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are the reliable source guidelines - half remembered lectures do not count. What was this professor a professor of?

Here are the guidelines on using reliable sources neutrally - which would identify this professor's theory as fringe.

Here are the guidelines for dealing with fringe theories - which explains how pseudoscience is to be included, if at all.

It sounds kinda like the sort of pot the History Channel is now showing. Just because a professor said it on TV does not make it true. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't read all of these guidelines, but I was already sure that it would be something like that, that's why I started a section on the discussion thread instead of editing the main article, and that's also why I pleaded to someone else who maybe also saw what I saw but had more data. If no such person exists, then so be it. No need to state the obvious, but thanks anyway. Apostolos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.6.92 (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This idea is the infamous Orion Correlation Theory, advocated primarily by Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval. An examination and, for the most part, refutation of the theory by a qualified Egyptologist can be found here. A. Parrot (talk) 06:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Looting Section: candidate for removal or expansion

The looting section seems irrelevant in it's current form and the sources cited are poor as both are only passing one sentence statements that simply repeat popular opinion as fact and offer no details or insight as to how they believe it was looted. I suggest it be deleted or expanded to explain how this was actually possible.

Obviously nothing was found inside by the Arabs and "tombs" in general are known to suffer from extensive looting in Egyptian times. This, ergo, is why it is assumed it was looted despite the fact there is no clear way as to "how" it was done. Though it is somehow "known" the GP was looted in ancient times, as Tyldesly says, in reality this is an assumption as it is also "known" that the ascending passage was blocked when the Arabs arrived leaving the only entrance to the upper chambers through the very small and vertical "well shaft" found in the 1800's to be plugged with several feet of rubble. This doesn't even take into account the logistics of scaling its full length let alone being able to lug any "loot" of any size back down it. Furthermore, there is no evidence that this was ever down as the rubble appears to be from the time of construction with no discernible source. Also, Roman graffiti is found in the subterranean chamber, but no where in the upper chambers so it stands to reason if they could have entered from the well shaft they would have and left graffiti there too, if they even knew the shaft was there at all. In fact, if they upper chambers were ever entered, other than it being empty, there is no evidence anyone was there prior to the Arabs.

The moral is despite the fact nothing was found, there is no proof that there was anyway in, so if this is the case then there was never anything in there to begin with which seems unlikely as well.

This is not to say it wasn't looted per se', anything is possible, but the how is a mystery in and of itself that should be addressed in detail and if it can't be then this section is irrelevant and should be removed. Can anyone provide a reference by an acceptable source that explains how Egyptologists think it was possible the GP was looted? I can't find one as of yet.Thanos5150 (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There is only circumstancial evidence at best, and I'm afraid there will never be conclusive proof of the matter. That said:

• Petrie speculates on page 217, although he has no evidence to offer: Violation of the Pyramid
• M&R go into a little more detail, pdf available here, page 144-148:Maragioglio and Rinaldi Volume 4
• A quite comprehensive publication on the subject -with lots of interesting citations from ancient and antique sources- is difficult to get a hold on: Kákosy, László: The Plundering of the Pyramid of Cheops. in: SAK 16, 1989, P. 145-169. You can purchase a copy here.

In general, all royal tombs of ancient egypt were looted, most of them in ancient egyptian times, even the carefully hidden ones in the valley of the kings - Tutankhamen being the exception, which is probably why you have heard about this rather insignificant king in the first place. I can't think of a single incidence where the looters left their "scrawl", as you said below, but if you got any sources, I am ready to learn!

It seems quite unlikely that from all tombs, the most visible and famous one remained untouched until Al-Mamun, that noone was able to either find the service shaft or dig his way through masonry. But you are right, the absence of antique graffiti in the upper chambers is intruiging, but that could be the result of numerous restorations in ancient egyptian times, for which some evidence exists (albeit circumstantial, again) - Strabo's stone being one of them, it's unlikely that this is a feature of the original design.

The various renarrations of Al Mamuns' story are IMHO not at all reliable. They were written at least a 100 years after the digging, and are told as a ferrytale rather than a scientific account. All of them, however, talk about findings of various sorts, even a description of a wooden sarcophagus (another hint to a restoration and reburial). The most reliable writer in my opinion is Edrisi in his book of Pyramids, but that was almost 500 years after Al Mamun.

The reasons why Al Mamun should have dug that tunnel remain enigmatic. It's not only at the right face, but almost at the exact height of the junction between ascending and decending passage. Whoever made this tunnel must have known where it should lead to. But if Al Mamun knew, he could have simply dug around the blockings. Starting to dig from outside doesn't make sense unless this is the tunnel the very first looters used in ancient time.

The primary suspect of the first looting would be someone with insider knowledge, so within a short time frame after Khufus death (and perhaps close to the pyramid, such as the inhabitants of the pyramid city), and the timing would be during a period of little or no federal guarding of the tomb- the first intermediate period. Consider Ipuwers words in the papyrus Leiden: "what the pyramid concealed has become empty", embedded in a general admonition of how chaos was reigning during those times.

Again, there is and never will be proof of this, just suspicions, which is why IMHO egyptologists have strong suspicions, rather than treating it as a fact.--82.113.99.48 (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Good sources IP. Thanks for taking up the challenge. Ironically I have the Petrie link bookmarked, just hadn't made it that far. I'll be interested to read the others. You are highlighting the point I am trying to make here in that for the article to say the GP is "known" to have been looted in ancient times is not true, it is "assumed", "surmised" to have been. It may well have been and there is good reason to believe this, but like you say, there is no proof and likely never will be which is what needs to outlined in the looting section. The evidence is circumstantial at best, some even contradictory, and though details of Al Mamun's story have no doubt been mythologized, regardless, there is little doubt he forcibly entered the GP and was responsible for the tunnel in it's present form we see today. The only real point of contention is whether or not he blasted the tunnel from scratch or merely followed an already existing one.

Some suggest the latter because he knew exactly where to dig his tunnel to meet up with the descending passage, but it also seems implausible that he did not know of the original entrance. "Al Mamun's hole" cannot be missed by even the casual observer and even if it had been covered up it would still have been quite obvious to a keen eye. If it were much smaller when he found it, it is still unlikely it could have eluded detection by the Greeks and Romans for nearly a thousand years before his time, but regardless, the tunnel still only leads to the descending passage, no different than the original entrance, so it makes little sense it was there before his arrival and used by previous looters. If for some reason he didn't know of the original entrance and used this pre-existing looters tunnel, he still would not have been able to access the upper chambers without a tunnel to go around the granite plugs which prior to his arrival there is no evidence if only to the contrary to suggest there was one.

This is supported by Strabo among others, writing 800+ years before Al Mamun's time, who makes no note of such tunnels and knows only of the original entrance. He describes the descending passage and subterranean chamber in detail but says nothing of the upper chambers or a tunnel leading around the plugs blocking the ascending passage. Even it it were blocked, or "repaired", this still would have been obvious that something was there and would have been the likely first place to dig. The only conclusion is that in Strabo's time these tunnels did not exist and the upper chambers were unknown to them. This also explains, among other things, why Roman graffiti is found in the subterranean chamber but no where else as there was no where else. The well shaft is well hidden and most likely only the initiated knew it existed and was probably long forgotten even to the Egyptians.

Take it for what you will, but it is also interesting to note at this point that the GP is the only Egyptian pyramid with an ascending passage and elevated chambers. All other pyramids have descending passages only that lead to either subterranean and/or ground level chambers.

True, all things worth the time in Egypt were looted and it stands to reason the GP was no different. This still does not explain the how as all things considered, until something new is discovered, it appears the well shaft was the only way in or out of the upper chambers prior to the Arabs.

I refer to Roman graffiti, not the first looters themselves, but in general one would expect after nearly 2,000 years before the Arabs arrived that someone at some point in time would have scrawled something somewhere in the upper chambers. Here is a book devoted to Egyptian Grafiti . The Petrie reference you give section 176 he specifically talks about graffiti, or the lack thereof.Thanos5150 (talk) 02:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I would also make the note, something never mentioned for some reason, is that what was the state of the casing stones in Strabo's time in relation to Al Manun's hole? The casing stones were mostly intact on all 4 faces up until the 14th century, so is it not reasonable to assume that if the tunnel was made prior to Mamun there would have been a few missing in that spot? Imagine a white puzzle sitting on a black table with a piece or two missing in the same spot. A little hard to miss. Just a thought.Thanos5150 (talk)

I'm not clear why you keep trying to remove this. If it's removed, sooner or later it will come up again. Strabo refers to a movable stone, perhaps that should be added. Dougweller (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought I made my reasons pretty clear above Doug, as I have before. Why do you keep insisting it be included without explanation? If it is to continue to be included it needs to be expanded to actually be meaningful to the article otherwise it should be removed as in it's current form it is irrelevant and misleading. Strabo also said "It [the GP] seemed like a building let down from heaven, untouched by human hands." Regardless, the hidden door Strabo was referring to was the door to the original entrance on the exterior of the GP, hence the likely reason the Arabs couldn't find it. The fact you even mention the Strabo door makes me believe you don't understand what the problem is as it is irrelevant as to how the upper chambers were entered prior to the Arabs. For some reason the mention of the original entrance was edited out of the Entrance section so this should be included again and the Strabo door could be mentioned there.

The Arabs found nothing so the assumption is someone else got there first, which is logical, the question is how. It is known repairs were made to the Kings chamber, likely after completion, so the only way for this repair crew to go was through the "well shaft" theorized made specifically for initially leaving the GP when the plugs were first set. The question that needs to be asked about this repair crew is why? Once the pharaoh was supposedly buried in the Kings chamber and the GP sealed for eternity-how would they ever know there was damage unless they had a reason to periodically go back in there, which they wouldn't if it were "just" a tomb. Obviously they cared a lot about the integrity of the chamber as much as what was inside of it. If looters built the well shaft they wouldn't have used finished masonry and made chamber repairs on their way out, but the assumption is they found this access after the GP was abandoned.

Regardless, the well shaft is awfully small and given what is typically found in a royal burial, especially what would be expected for the builder of the Great Pyramid, it is unlikely they could have gotten all of the loot down the shaft, and if so they would have had to break it up and stuff it down no doubt leaving a mess or at least some evidence of there effort behind if not only their own trash, like spent torches or broken ropes and the like. It is unlikely they would have cleaned up every single scrap, even their own trash, or that later looters would have found much value if any in this trash as to completely remove any trace of it. And, of all this parade of looters, not a one thought to scrawl "Kilroy was here"? This is just human nature in any age so it's absence it curious.Thanos5150 (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I would have to get my hands on Mark Lehner's Complete Pyramids again, but he says that there are conflicting accounts about the entry into the pyramid in the reign of Al-Ma'mun; some of the observers said that the Arabs cleared out an already-existing passage. A. Parrot (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I don't remember there being a major discrepancy in the accounts, but rather only a theory raised to help explain away the problem which surmises that because the Arabs knew exactly where to dig, right under the original entrance, that the possibility exists they were only following an existing tunnel otherwise how would they know where to go. Though some dispute the details, in general it seems that the Arab's account is genuine. Given it puts the Caliph in an unflattering light it seems unlikely they would make up such a story and the details the give, like the sound of the massive plugs shifting, is pretty specific and unlikely to be included in the tale if it didn't actually happen.

There are several reasons it is unlikely the tunnel was there prior to the Arabs, mainly because this would mean it would have been there prior to the Romans as well and is unlikely they would not have found it. And if they did, or they dug it themselves, they would have made some record of it or at least left graffiti as they liked to do. What people don't realize is that the Romans were quite active on the Giza plateau even going so far as to dig out the Sphinx and make repairs and add infrastructure, like steps, leading to the Sphinx pit.Thanos5150 (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not our role to discuss how likely or unlikely prior looting was, nor to make our opinions on that a reason to include or remove it. We go with what the sources say. And speaking of sources, do I gather you haven't read what IES Edwards says about the subject? I don't think I have time today to include it properly, but I will soon. And yes, I know about the Romans.Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Obviously you didn't read this Edwards either otherwise you would have quoted him when you first wrote this section instead of the likes of Briar, Hobbs, and Tyldesley, which has been part of my point all along. Sources like that, though legitimate in their own way, are bunk for something like this and you know it. Is it really "known" the GP was looted prior to the middle kingdom or is this just an opinion because it was found empty by the Arab's therefore it must have been looted prior? And if it was looted prior, then how was it looted? Do we even know? All they are doing is repeating in passing as fact the opinion of the likes of Edwards, but offer no original thought of their own. But at least Edwards actually says what you say he does, but now that you have Edwards you can take it one step further and remove the other sources as they are now irrelevant.

It is my role to discuss it here in discussion to give context as to why expanding the looting section is necessary. Your edits, however, though now better sourced, do little to clarify the issue and Edwards is only employing the same logic as others in that because it is empty it must have been robbed prior to the Arabs, which all may be true but is just an opinion as the truth is we don't really know. Regardless, again, Strabo's door is located at the original entrance and does not resolve the problem of HOW one is to get around the plugs blocking the ascending passage. Does Edwards discuss this? If so, what does he say and would it not be important to note what he says? No one really disagrees that the Arab's cut the passage past the plugs, therefore in ancient times the only way to get to the upper chambers is by going all the way down the descending passage and going up the well shaft which is extremely difficult. While it's great that you at least found a real source for these statements, if Edwards doesn't acknowledge the plugs then this edit must be tempered with other opinion. I know that Petrie discusses the plugs and makes note of one of the plugs having signs of being cemented to the floor. You are the creator of this section Doug so when you do find the time you should take it upon yourself to properly outline the problem and find appropriate sources.Thanos5150 (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure we can expand it so long as we don't add any original research. My point was that it shouldn't be deleted, and you seem to agree with this now. If I find the time and sources I'll expand it, but the first bit that needs expansion is to sort out the known Arab exploration. Dougweller (talk) 08:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

As the discussion topic says I suggest it be expanded and if not deleted. I favor expansion as it is an interesting part of the GP's history but as it was it's meaningless and misleading. I would further suggest changing the title from "looting" to something that would encompass the more broader scope of historical GP accounts. Why would we add OR?Thanos5150 (talk)

Thanks to the IP who just posted up towards the top of this section with some more sources. He's right of course, we are unlikely ever to know exactly what happened, but it's pretty clear almost everyone who has considered the issue think it was entered long before the Arab exploration. Dougweller (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey Doug, the IP here, you're welcome. I just would like to point out the wikipedia article on Menkaures Pyramid and the anthropoid sarcophagus found in there, which is in the British Museum today. The sarcophagus is dated to the Saite period (roughly 2000 years after Menkaure), both by carbon dating and the content of the hieroglyphs. Interestingly, the bones which were found within got carbon dated to the early christian period (Source: Edwards again!).

Bottom line, we have no written accounts about both the apparent reburial during Saite times and a re-reburial, presumably between 100-600 AD- so perhaps during roman times, but both Herodotus and Strabo must have seen Menkaures pyramid after the Saite reburial. Who knows how many more similar manipulations of the original content might have happened without us ever having a clue? At least this has to be considered when reading the accounts of Herodotus, Strabo and Al-Mamun: They might have opened again what has been opened before, and they might have not seen what has been re-closed before.--89.204.153.75 (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanos, please stick to sources and don't use this as a forum for speculations about what might have happened, problems you see, etc. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you even read anything Doug? Please stick to the sources and not take every opportunity to be such a tool. You have a line leading directly from IP's post to your comment, directly under it, though you address me as if I wrote it. Why don't you take your issue up with IP and while your at it why not take him to task for not signing in.Thanos5150 (talk) 20:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I was referring to your latest edit which wasn't in chronological order. And IPs do not have to create accounts and sign in. I have no idea who it is or if they have an account. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Update

Where is the section dealing with recent research projects related to this pyramid? Mazarin07 (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Breaking in.

There were several books published in the 1960s, including by Cottrell which included sections about the early Arab attempts to break into the Pyramids. One such included heating the rocks of the pyramids and pouring vinegar on them to break up the stones. One such partially moved stone is apparently still clearly visible.

Cottrell also tells how the Arabs were trying to find their way into the Great Pyramid with a battering ram when they heard an internal dislodged blocking stone fall down and burrowed their way towards the sound of where the stone had fallen and thus gained access to the Grand Gallery.

The story of how the Arabs eventually broke into the Great Pyramid seems to be confused and needs to be clarified.AT Kunene (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It is confused as the sources are not contemporary and don't agree. Some sources that can be used: [[12]],

[[13]], [[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=O5bWAAAAMAAJ&q=pyramid+al-mamun&dq=pyramid+al-mamun&hl=en&ei=bsvkTZCXCNHF8QPBifmABw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFUQ6AEwCA [[14]], [[15]], [[16]]. Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)