A unorthodox theory about ancient pyramids

Status
Closed
Apr 2014
22
Portugal
Hello guys!

Today my girlfriend showed me this article on the internet about the Egyptian pyramids, because she knows how much i like history!

The article itself talks about a supposed new theory about how the pyramids could have been constructed, proposed by Peter James. It happens that i don't have the necessary knowledge to know if it is a reasonable theory. It basically says (quoting from the article if you don't want to read it) "Peter James said he believes ancient Egyptians formed the structures by piling up rubble on the inside and attaching bricks later.".
Perfectly reasonable at first glance i suppose.
So that is my first question, how believable is this theory?

My second question is about the video they posted, which was made by a different person (not Peter James) and it has a very "interesting" view on how the pyramids could have been constructed. I don't really know why they would post this video since i doesn't have much to do with the article, asides from being about the pyramids. Basically it says that the blocks of the pyramids could've been transported to the site of the construction, and even to the top of the pyramids, by making them float on water. Personally i find it to be to far fetch, more in a common sense basis. But like i said earlier, i don't really know a lot about ancient Egypt, that is to say, their technology, specially because i don't know in practice how much water they would need or how much did the blocks weight, etc. I basically that is my question; is this theory as clowny as it sounds, or i has some truth to it?

I found the video really strange and not to be taken seriously, but because i haven't posted anything yet in this forum i decided to shared with you guys. Worst case scenario we have a few laughs.
 
Apr 2014
67
Canada
A unorthodox theory about ancient pyramids
When I saw this title...I was...like is it that theory about an ancient civilization leaving a legacy to the next civilization to aware them against global catastrophes....it was not after all. :lol: And it's very interesting. Thanks. :)
 

dreamregent

Ad Honorem
Feb 2013
4,410
Coastal Florida
Short answer: complete nonsense. This theory is not unique or new. It is built upon a number of crackpot theories that have been presented before. For one thing, the explanation for the source of the water is completely ridiculous. If you watch the second video (a link to the 2nd video is overlaid on top of the first video near its end), you see the "hydraulic ram" theory has been recycled. The primary reason this is complete nonsense is that we know, from the Osiris shaft, the water table today is significantly higher than the water table in ancient times. Further, the enclosure wall around the base of the pyramid was built after the pyramid was constructed. Therefore, a lake of water surrounding the base of the pyramid is also nonsense. Now, there are certain aspects of the theory that I can buy...like the idea that some of the blocks were floated in flood waters between the quarry and the end of the causeway. However, the idea that the causeway was a sealed water pipe through which the blocks floated is not believable.

Now, if you want to see a plausible theory, see this one:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws4O5LOCI68"]The Great Pyramid Mystery Solved - National Geographic Documentry - YouTube[/ame]

Certainly, more research is necessary to sustain or disprove this theory's feasibility but this is the most promising idea I've ever seen.

Also, I would caution you against trying to find a universal theory of pyramid construction because they were not all built the same way. There are very significant differences between step pyramids and "true" pyramids. However, there are also very significant differences between the various generations of true pyramids as well.
 
Last edited:

cladking

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
2,772
exile
Hello guys!
"Peter James said he believes ancient Egyptians formed the structures by piling up rubble on the inside and attaching bricks later.".
Perfectly reasonable at first glance i suppose.
So that is my first question, how believable is this theory?
The theory is at least mostly wrong. It might have some applicability to Djoser's Pyramid (the stepped first great pyramid) but it doesn't apply to any significant degree to most or all others. The biggest problem I have with this theory is that it actually would cause even more material to need to be lifted since loose material on a pile will fall down the sides. This could be minimized but it would still increase total work.

If the stone were merely a veneer then the gravimetric scan of G1 would show lower densities at the bottom where it penetrated only 33' and higher densities at the top where only the stone would be detected. The reverse is true.

I doubt it really applies to Djoser's Pyramid either but this is where he found fill at altitude.

Basically it says that the blocks of the pyramids could've been transported to the site of the construction, and even to the top of the pyramids, by making them float on water. Personally i find it to be to far fetch, more in a common sense basis. But like i said earlier, i don't really know a lot about ancient Egypt, that is to say, their technology, specially because i don't know in practice how much water they would need or how much did the blocks weight, etc. I basically that is my question; is this theory as clowny as it sounds, or i has some truth to it?
I like the water based theories of construction because they are the best evidenced. But I do doubt they had the tremendous volume of water that would be required to lift 6 1/2 million tons to 150'. It wouldn't require nearly as much water using a more efficient means but floating stones can't be done efficiently.

The only way they could float stone is if they had ample water AND were able to lift it by some means. Of course if the pyramid were a pump this couldbe the means. The pyramid has most of the gross characteristics of a ram pump so this isn't impossible.

The evidence seems to suggest they used various natural means to lift stones with the most important being the weight of water at altitude. It is virtually certain that by some means they pulled the stones up one step at a time. I believe they used water filled counterweights to do this.

Ramps are debunked.
 

cladking

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
2,772
exile
The primary reason this is complete nonsense is that we know, from the Osiris shaft, the water table today is significantly higher than the water table in ancient times.
This is speculative. None of the caves and fissures have ever been explored or excavated. Even if they were carefully studied it might be impossible to determine the height of the water at any given time.

Further, the enclosure wall around the base of the pyramid was built after the pyramid was constructed.
This is probably untrue and is contra-evidenced. These bases were built long before the pyramids were built and the pyramid sits on them. They even carved out the "pavement" around G2 before construction.






Also, I would caution you against trying to find a universal theory of pyramid construction because they were not all built the same way.
Actually, they were likely all built exactly the same way. This is evidenced by the fact that each gets larger and finer. They obviously were learning how to build great pyramids and kept getting much much better at it. Either that or they loved and feared Khufu 45 times as much as Djoser. I'm guessing they kept getting better.
 

caldrail

Ad Honorem
Feb 2012
5,357
We are talking about a civilisation that in one instance created a brand new city in the desert, and in another, transported an entire city stone by stone to a new site. You can argue how successful the results were, but they did it nonetheless. Whilst they were no less intelligent than modern human beings, they didn't have the same education or engineering database to draw upon. I've seem some interesting items about pyramids. I don't know about the hydraulic theory (though despite comments concerning the water table, it's evident that a canal was built to link the pyramids at Giza which is now filled in), but one guy evolved some means of balancing and moving huge stones with minimal effort. It took a lot of believing watching a single person shift a ten block without breaking sweat and as far as I know there's no evidence that the Egyptians did anything else than harness large numbers of idle farming volunteers as manual labour.
 

dreamregent

Ad Honorem
Feb 2013
4,410
Coastal Florida
The theory is at least mostly wrong. It might have some applicability to Djoser's Pyramid (the stepped first great pyramid) but it doesn't apply to any significant degree to most or all others.
No way... The idea they created a 200-foot mound of rubble prior to trying to install any of the casing at Djoser's pyramid is ludicrous.

I like the water based theories of construction because they are the best evidenced.
They're only evidenced by your fantasies. Please don't start into your geyser theory again.

The pyramid has most of the gross characteristics of a ram pump so this isn't impossible.
Yeah...except for any evidence it was ever filled with water.

Ramps are debunked.
Except for the extant examples of ramps you can still go see in Egypt...

This is speculative. None of the caves and fissures have ever been explored or excavated. Even if they were carefully studied it might be impossible to determine the height of the water at any given time.
What's speculative is the idea that the AEs possessed scuba-diving equipment and the ability to swing hammers hard enough underwater to carve out the chambers at the bottom of the Osiris shaft.

This is probably untrue and is contra-evidenced. These bases were built long before the pyramids were built and the pyramid sits on them. They even carved out the "pavement" around G2 before construction.
We're not even talking about G2. Further, leveling the ground around the base of the pyramid doesn't, in any way, provide any indication that water was used to construct the pyramid.

Actually, they were likely all built exactly the same way.
You flat don't know what you're talking about. As I've told you in the past, you really need to go take an up-close look for yourself.

I don't know about the hydraulic theory (though despite comments concerning the water table, it's evident that a canal was built to link the pyramids at Giza which is now filled in), but one guy evolved some means of balancing and moving huge stones with minimal effort.
Those have actually been excavated. However, the canal links harbors below the plateau (to the east of the main quarry and G1 valley temple)...there are no large-scale planned water projects like that on the plateau itself.
 

Belloc

Ad Honorem
Mar 2010
5,418
USA
Com'on we all know Aliens built the pyramids. :lol::deadhorse:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj86Q_OYjTI"]The Pyramids - AA Debunked - YouTube[/ame]
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
14,268
Could parts of it be true ?

The floating of blocks where possible, to facilitate transport ?.... and some sort of hydraulic lift to carry blocks and other building material up as high as possible to minimize effort ?
 

cladking

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
2,772
exile
No way... The idea they created a 200-foot mound of rubble prior to trying to install any of the casing at Djoser's pyramid is ludicrous.
That's what I said.



Yeah...except for any evidence it was ever filled with water.
It is a known fact that it was filled with water. The canals could not have run water in them unless the water collection device around the pyramid had water in it;

"Hence it runs on, till, close to the edge of the basalt pavement, it branches in two, and narrows yet more; one line runs W., and another turning nearly due S., emerges on the pavement edge at 629.8 to 633.4 from the N.E. corner of the pavement, being there only 3.6 wide. From this remarkable forking, it [p. 50] is evident that the trench cannot have been made with any ideas of sighting along it, or of its marking out a direction or azimuth; and, starting as it does, from the basalt pavement (or from any building which stood there), and running with a steady fall to the nearest point of the cliff edge, it seems exactly as if intended for a drain; the more so as there is plainly a good deal of water-weanng at a point where it falls sharply, at its enlargement."

You can hide facts in a verbose 92 word run on sentence but they are still facts. This shows beyond doubt that the water collection device caught water. Since it exists underneath the structure of the pyramid it is a logical conclusion that it caught water even before the pyramid was built.

Facts are brutal to beliefs and some beliefs crumble in their face. "Ramps" were born of 19th century ignorance and bigory and they are now debunked and dead.

What's speculative is the idea that the AEs possessed scuba-diving equipment and the ability to swing hammers hard enough underwater to carve out the chambers at the bottom of the Osiris shaft.
There's ample evidence to suggest the water level was seasonal.

We're not even talking about G2. Further, leveling the ground around the base of the pyramid doesn't, in any way, provide any indication that water was used to construct the pyramid.
The great pyramids were obviously all built the same way. Each had a water collection device around it so logically they water was connected to th construction or use.
 
Status
Closed