Ancient Logbook Documenting Great Pyramid's Construction Unveiled

Mar 2014
451
Lost in Yharnam
#1



A logbook that contains records detailing the construction of the Great Pyramid of Giza has been put on public display at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo.

The Great Pyramid of Giza was built in honor of the pharaoh Khufu (reign ca. 2551 B.C.-2528 B.C.) and is the largest of the three pyramids constructed on the Giza plateau in Egypt. Considered a "wonder of the world" by ancient writers, the Great Pyramid was 481 feet (146 meters) tall when it was first constructed. Today it stands 455 feet (138 meters) high.

The logbook was written in hieroglyphic letters on pieces of papyri. Its author was an inspector named Merer, who was "in charge of a team of about 200 men," archaeologists Pierre Tallet and Gregory Marouard wrote in an article published in 2014 in the journal Near Eastern Archaeology.

Tallet and Marouard are leaders of an archaeological team from France and Egypt that discovered the logbook at the Red Sea harbor of Wadi al-Jarfin 2013. It dates back about 4,500 years, making it the oldest papyrus document ever discovered in Egypt.

"Over a period of several months, [the logbook] reports — in [the] form of a timetable with two columns per day — many operations related to the construction of the Great Pyramid of Khufu at Giza and the work at the limestone quarries on the opposite bank of the Nile," Tallet and Marouard wrote.

Merer recorded the logs in the 27th year of Khufu's reign. His records say that the Great Pyramid was near completion, with much of the remaining work focusing on the construction of the limestone casing that covered the outside of the pyramid, Tallet and Marouard wrote.

The limestone used in this casing, according to the logbook, was quarried at Tura near modern-day Cairo, and was brought to the pyramid site by boat along the Nile River and a system of canals. One boat trip between Tura and the pyramid site took four days to complete, the logbook notes.

The logbook also says that in Khufu's 27th year, the construction of the Great Pyramid was being overseen by the vizier Ankhaf (also spelled Ankhhaf), the half- brother of Khufu. (A vizier was a high official in ancient Egypt who served the king.)

The papyri also reveal that one of the titles Ankhaf held was "chief for all the works of the king," Tallet and Marouard wrote in the journal article.

Though the logbook said Ankhaf was in charge during the pharaoh's 27th year, many scholars believe it's possible that another person, possibly the vizier Hemiunu, was in charge of pyramid building during the earlier part of Khufu's reign.

In the press release museum representatives did not specify how long the logbook will be on public display.

Ancient Logbook Documenting Great Pyramid's Construction Unveiled
 
Last edited:

cladking

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
2,772
exile
#2
Merer recorded the logs in the 27th year of Khufu's reign. His records say that the Great Pyramid was near completion, with much of the remaining work focusing on the construction of the limestone casing that covered the outside of the pyramid, Tallet and Marouard wrote.
This is a false statement. A translation of this "logbook" was released a couple years back and what it actually says doesn't support many of the interpretations present in the article. They have taken facts from this source and interpreted them in terms of previous assumptions. It is merely assumed that the pyramid was wrapping up and it is merely assumed that the tura casing arrived last. There is no evidence to support these assumptions. That construction was occurring in the 27th year of his reign shows that they were mistaken about the lenght of his reign which they had believed was shorter.

The only important new detail really from this source isn't even mentioned; that stones were inspected on a nearby island before shipment to Giza. There is no known order of building nor even means of building G1 and current thinking is based on assumptions. That stones were inspected before arriving at Giza (probably the "valley temple) implies the harbor here was tiny and could accomodate only a single ship at a time.

It was already known that stones arrived by ship through deduction. The quarry was on the other side of the river and no other means existed to transport them.
 
Jun 2016
1,561
Oregon
#3
...sniped...



Yes its a very important discovery but I believe the final and complete translation has not yet been published. If it has I have not seen it. I'm sure the fringe who hold that the pyramid was built by aliens or Atlantis have already denounced it as a fake, lol!
 
Oct 2009
3,610
San Diego
#4
This is a false statement. A translation of this "logbook" was released a couple years back and what it actually says doesn't support many of the interpretations present in the article. They have taken facts from this source and interpreted them in terms of previous assumptions. It is merely assumed that the pyramid was wrapping up and it is merely assumed that the tura casing arrived last. There is no evidence to support these assumptions. That construction was occurring in the 27th year of his reign shows that they were mistaken about the lenght of his reign which they had believed was shorter.

The only important new detail really from this source isn't even mentioned; that stones were inspected on a nearby island before shipment to Giza. There is no known order of building nor even means of building G1 and current thinking is based on assumptions. That stones were inspected before arriving at Giza (probably the "valley temple) implies the harbor here was tiny and could accomodate only a single ship at a time.

It was already known that stones arrived by ship through deduction. The quarry was on the other side of the river and no other means existed to transport them.
E Gods but you ARE a doofus.

The evidence that the Tura casing arrived last is that it was ON THE OUTSIDE.

since you MENTIOn 'deduction' try USING it.

By definition, the stones on the inside had to be placed before the stone on the outside could be placed.

It can also be shown that the ONLY means available to place the smooth outer stones and finish them to the fine level of exterior smoothness achieved was to place them and do the final finishing In Place.
You can DEDUCE that this would be easiest to accomplish from the top down, since they HAD to have built ramps or scaffolding gradually higher to reach the top, and then would have had to remove the ramps or scaffolding from the top downwards.
Ergo- all of the final casing stones would have been positioned and polished using the scaffolding, and then the scaffolding taken down as they went to leave no trace of the scaffolding or ramps used to place the exterior Tura.

Thus- it can be known thru deduction that the Tura was placed LAST.



Additionally- you have ZERO evidence of how large any port was- like your other statements you are pulling that directly out of your butt.

The document says that it took four days for the boats to transport the cargo to the site... That means that EIGHT boats could operate the circuit, landing a full boat load of stone every day... and still not need facilities for more than one boat at a time.

But as far as you know, they had 64 boats landing 8 boats per day at the same time.


And you are entirely wrong about the Means for building the great pyramid. It could easily have been built in any of several ways. That we are not certain exactly which method or which combination of methods they used to build it is not the same as not having any idea how it could have been built.

It is NOT A COMPLICATED STRUCTURE.
It is stacked, square rocks.

It is simply a lot of work, and could be built by ANY early society with the WILL to see it thru. All over the world, similar structures were built... because a symmetrical mountain like pile of stone is the SAFEST monumental structure to build. Every mountain is perfect proof that that a sloping pile of stone will stand.

Moving heavy stones is not mysterious... its just hard work. And the fact that any stone mason has more smarts than you as regards to how to work stone is NOT evidence of anything "mysterious".
 
Jun 2016
1,561
Oregon
#5
E Gods but you ARE a doofus.

The evidence that the Tura casing arrived last is that it was ON THE OUTSIDE.

since you MENTIOn 'deduction' try USING it.

By definition, the stones on the inside had to be placed before the stone on the outside could be placed.

It can also be shown that the ONLY means available to place the smooth outer stones and finish them to the fine level of exterior smoothness achieved was to place them and do the final finishing In Place.
You can DEDUCE that this would be easiest to accomplish from the top down, since they HAD to have built ramps or scaffolding gradually higher to reach the top, and then would have had to remove the ramps or scaffolding from the top downwards.
Ergo- all of the final casing stones would have been positioned and polished using the scaffolding, and then the scaffolding taken down as they went to leave no trace of the scaffolding or ramps used to place the exterior Tura.

Thus- it can be known thru deduction that the Tura was placed LAST.



Additionally- you have ZERO evidence of how large any port was- like your other statements you are pulling that directly out of your butt.

The document says that it took four days for the boats to transport the cargo to the site... That means that EIGHT boats could operate the circuit, landing a full boat load of stone every day... and still not need facilities for more than one boat at a time.

But as far as you know, they had 64 boats landing 8 boats per day at the same time.


And you are entirely wrong about the Means for building the great pyramid. It could easily have been built in any of several ways. That we are not certain exactly which method or which combination of methods they used to build it is not the same as not having any idea how it could have been built.

It is NOT A COMPLICATED STRUCTURE.
It is stacked, square rocks.

It is simply a lot of work, and could be built by ANY early society with the WILL to see it thru. All over the world, similar structures were built... because a symmetrical mountain like pile of stone is the SAFEST monumental structure to build. Every mountain is perfect proof that that a sloping pile of stone will stand.

Moving heavy stones is not mysterious... its just hard work. And the fact that any stone mason has more smarts than you as regards to how to work stone is NOT evidence of anything "mysterious".
Cladking like to pretend he is an expert in all things pyramid and ancient Egypt and yes he does pull a LOT of stuff out of his nether regions. If you want a bit of fun demand he provide links to support his declarative statements - and watch him run! lol
 
Jan 2015
2,950
MD, USA
#6
By definition, the stones on the inside had to be placed before the stone on the outside could be placed.
Most of your post I entirely agree with, for starters! Especially clodking being a doofus--okay, that's actually a lot more polite than I've been thinking, but...

However, I'm not sure the placing and finishing of the casing stones is that clear-cut (so to speak). It might have been on Houdin's site, have to dig around, but I saw an engineering analysis that concluded that the casing stones were the *first* stones of each layer to be put in place, then the filling stones added. Which makes all kinds of sense if you are using the previous layer as your worksite. But I think he even pointed out that some of them were *overlaid* by the filler stones above, which makes it obvious that the casing stones were placed first. Lemme see if I can track that down, when I have a chance.

The casing stones would also be cut to shape in the quarry, because there's no point in cutting a stone twice if you can do it once. You *might* do some final trimming and polishing once it's in place, but at that point it's very easy to do without any scaffolding. Remember that any external spiral ramps or scaffolding will probably obscure the corners and much of the faces, which need to be visible in order to keep everything smooth and square.

It is NOT A COMPLICATED STRUCTURE.
It is stacked, square rocks.
On the contrary, it includes a number of complicated and interlocked internal structures, all of which had to be designed to withstand enormous stress and pressures. The "air shafts" alone are startlingly complex, being built in place with sloped floors, walls, and ceilings. They weren't just chiseled through stones already in place. They are proof of an incredible amount of careful and detailed planning that went into the construction of a pyramid. If only because every stone that touched the floor or roof of an "air shaft" had to be cut to a specific slope. And the same for all the other passages, rooms, and other features.

But yes, a LOT of work, and amazingly well done! Like I said, these are mostly nuances, and we're certainly on the same team otherwise.

I've got cladking "blocked", but can someone please report his posts to the moderator where he claims that anyone here on this board thinks of the Egyptians as "stinky footed bumpkins"? He has been repeatedly told that none of us think that, so he is repeatedly lying about us. It's offensive, on top of his other EXTREMELY tiring ridiculous and unsupportable assertions. I don't like people openly telling lies about me.

Thanks!

Matthew
 

cladking

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
2,772
exile
#7
The evidence that the Tura casing arrived last is that it was ON THE OUTSIDE.

By definition, the stones on the inside had to be placed before the stone on the outside could be placed.
No, this is not logical and is also unevidenced. Indeed, it is even contradicted by evidence. Herodotus said that the pyramid was finished from the top down. Logically the ancients would not have wanted to flood the quarry with a huge order for stone to be delivered over a brief time. It would stress the quarry and the shipping industries. The scan shows how they built it. Stones were pulled up 81' 3" at a time but you'll also see numerous half steps and one third steps. These were built partially to support the steep step side but primarily To use excess lifting capacity as they went higher and fewer stones were needed. These partial steps also provided a means to emplace the tura as they built higher to keep the quarry busy. All the infrastructure including the mehet weret were built of tura so it could be consumed as cladding at the end.

It can also be shown that the ONLY means available to place the smooth outer stones and finish them to the fine level of exterior smoothness achieved was to place them and do the final finishing In Place.
I don't know but I'd be interested in your evidence for this. Everything I know says they were cut by saws on the ground in the "Great Saw Palace" on the east side of the pyramid. The evidence here isn't stong but they certainly sawed a great number of stones.
You can DEDUCE that this would be easiest to accomplish from the top down, since they HAD to have built ramps or scaffolding gradually higher to reach the top, and then would have had to remove the ramps or scaffolding from the top downwards.
See how your assumptions always come back to you? When you assume they mustta used ramps, dragged stones, and been changeless and highly superstitious primitives then each assumption always affects everything you see. This is the way modern minds work. Things on the outside come last is caused by semantics just like that ancient people were primitive and believed in imaginary consciousnesses that controlled man's destiny.

Additionally- you have ZERO evidence of how large any port was- like your other statements you are pulling that directly out of your butt.
So... You're suggesting that the ancients went to all the work of putting 10 ton stones onto boats and then sailing them across the river to an island to inspect them before being transshipped to Giza because there was no reason. I would grant these people could have done things like this and Egyptologists certainly say they did many things the hard way but then maybe there was a logical reason. The only logical reason I can think of is the port was too small for multiple ships to be operating. Why don't you suggest a good reason?

I won't accept an idea based on them being superstitious and primitive though.

The document says that it took four days for the boats to transport the cargo to the site... That means that EIGHT boats could operate the circuit, landing a full boat load of stone every day... and still not need facilities for more than one boat at a time.
There were 100,000 casing stones.

But as far as you know, they had 64 boats landing 8 boats per day at the same time.
I don't know.

I believe they they worked nine months per year and 81 hours (9 days) per ten days for 20 years. Ship unloading occurred everyday. There were two or three stones per ship and two or three ships per day. Shipping rate was highest at the beginning but total flow was highest at the last couple years. Quarry work was nearly unaffected.

And you are entirely wrong about the Means for building the great pyramid. It could easily have been built in any of several ways. That we are not certain exactly which method or which combination of methods they used to build it is not the same as not having any idea how it could have been built.
The question isn't how it could have been built. The question is how was it actually built.

The only means offered by Egyptologists has been disproven, or at the very least debunked. The evidence does not support Egyptological beliefs.
It is NOT A COMPLICATED STRUCTURE.
It is stacked, square rocks.
Study the structure and the other great pyramids.

It is simply a lot of work, and could be built by ANY early society with the WILL to see it thru. All over the world, similar structures were built... because a symmetrical mountain like pile of stone is the SAFEST monumental structure to build. Every mountain is perfect proof that that a sloping pile of stone will stand.
It was a staggering amount of work that required science. All science has a metaphysics and no metaphysics and no science is known. There is no cultural context that supports the ability to do this. They also had very advanced medicine that set broken bones and performed brain surgery and it's not known how this was discovered either. Indeed, by the time of the pyramids agriculture was already ancient and its origins lost in antiquity and we don't know how it was invented. Cities had risen and fallen yet all this technology and human knowledge is said to be rooted in superstitions and religion according to Egyptologists because there was no science and no metaphysics.

Our current beliefs will be seen as the highest order of superstition. You can't invent complex technology or processes through belief unless you're an Egyptologist.
 
Last edited:
Jun 2016
1,561
Oregon
#8
No, this is not logical and is also unevidenced. Indeed, it is even contradicted by evidence. Herodotus said that the pyramid was finished from the top down. Logically the ancients would not have wanted to flood the quarry with a huge order for stone to be delivered over a brief time.
They had years to prepare again a false dilemma, additionally whether they went top down or down up or did it at the same time is immaterial. They did do it, one can speculate but not prove.

It would stress the quarry and the shipping industries.
Really still pretending to be an expert on this? Show us your research then?

The scan shows how they built it. Stones were pulled up 81' 3" at a time but you'll also see numerous half steps and one third steps.
Nope not at all and 81'3" is something you pulled out of your butt.

I don't know but I'd be interested in your evidence for this.
Chuckle - what you asking other people for evidence when you scream and yell you will never provide anything? Why?

I won't accept an idea based on them being superstitious and primitive though.
..but I (Cladking) will make up stuff and pretend it is real without supporting evidence - right Cladking!!!!

The question isn't how it could have been built. The question is how was it actually built.
...and you have the made up answer for that now don't you?

The only means offered by Egyptologists has been disproven, or at the very least debunked. The evidence does not support Egyptological beliefs.
Oh really ---- so we just have to take your word for it? Why? Why do you have no body of research at hand to support this? Is it because you just make stuff up?

Cities had risen and fallen yet all this technology and human knowledge is said to be rooted in superstitions and religion according to Egyptologists because there was no science and no metaphysics.

Our current beliefs will be seen as the highest order of superstition. You can't invent complex technology or processes through belief unless you're an Egyptologist.
Oh then how did the Sumerians, Harappa, Han, Minoans, Bablyonians, Assyrians, Maya, Aztecs and Inca (to name but a few) do it - they had religions they had no science yet they built cities too and some of them pyramids and other great works.

Cladking tries and tries to pretend that the AE existed in a world where only they existed. There are many examples of other societies and civilizations developing stone work and having a religion - however he is completely blind to this. Yes Cladking even lies to himself and yep he laps it up.

His ideas - due to his extreme bias are therefore laugh at.
 

cladking

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
2,772
exile
#9
All science has a metaphysics and no metaphysics and no science is known. There is no cultural context that supports the ability to do this... ...Indeed, by the time of the pyramids agriculture was already ancient and its origins lost in antiquity and we don't know how it was invented. Cities had risen and fallen yet all this technology and human knowledge is said to be rooted in superstitions and religion...

Our current beliefs will be seen as the highest order of superstition. You can't invent complex technology or processes through belief unless you're an Egyptologist.
Apropos of nothing in particular, there was obviously a science that we can't see. Cities rose and fell long before the pyramids were built and these required science as well. All knowledge derives from science and no knowledge derives from superstition and magic. This is a simple tautology that is invisible to us because language is the operating system of the human brain and from the perspective of our operating system it is invisible that knowledge derives only from metaphysics and the science it defines.

But ancient people had a different operating system which is why they "talked funny". They not only used such strange words that they called "the words of the gods" but they necessarily thought differently as well. This language was the metaphysics and it was universal; there was only one single language spoken by all people! There was a single grammar and a single vocabulary which had some dialects. This language wasn't like our language even though the words were the same. The language became more complex as more and more knowledge was added to it and it collapsed. This collapse gave rise to all modern languages which were called "confused" when they arose because each listener takes unique meaning from statements. Proper communication became impossible.

Since all knowledge existed only in the ancient language and all knowledge could be generated only through observation and the metaphysical language all science collapsed at the same time as the "tower of babel" leaving only the ancient technology.

This event is difficult to see because of the way we think and our beliefs. We simply don't think of "science" in terms of ancient people. But the fact is this is exactly what all the evidence suggests. This perspective eliminates all the mysteries and makes accurate predictions about what will be discovered next. It explains the facts.

Meanwhile orthodox beliefs demands they used ramps which are now debunked. In other words orthodoxy has been shown to be wrong and that stones were pulled up step pyramids one step at a time. This was only seen by the comparison between the meaning in the ancient language and the physical evidence which all supports this meaning.

This suggests several new paradigms are at hand. This wasn't caused by the messenger but by what is apparently the reality. This reality is testable, ie- the theory is falsifiable but Egyptologists have refused to do real science at Giza for decades now. They refuse to address this theory at all since 2010 when Dr Zahi Hawass referred to it as "other unscientific theories on the net".

What are they so afraid of?
 
Jun 2014
1,221
VA
#10
No, this is not logical and is also unevidenced. Indeed, it is even contradicted by evidence. Herodotus said that the pyramid was finished from the top down. Logically the ancients would not have wanted to flood the quarry with a huge order for stone to be delivered over a brief time. It would stress the quarry and the shipping industries. The scan shows how they built it. Stones were pulled up 81' 3" at a time but you'll also see numerous half steps and one third steps. These were built partially to support the steep step side but primarily To use excess lifting capacity as they went higher and fewer stones were needed. These partial steps also provided a means to emplace the tura as they built higher to keep the quarry busy. All the infrastructure including the mehet weret were built of tura so it could be consumed as cladding at the end.



I don't know but I'd be interested in your evidence for this. Everything I know says they were cut by saws on the ground in the "Great Saw Palace" on the east side of the pyramid. The evidence here isn't stong but they certainly sawed a great number of stones.


See how your assumptions always come back to you? When you assume they mustta used ramps, dragged stones, and been changeless and highly superstitious primitives then each assumption always affects everything you see. This is the way modern minds work. Things on the outside come last is caused by semantics just like that ancient people were primitive and believed in imaginary consciousnesses that controlled man's destiny.



So... You're suggesting that the ancients went to all the work of putting 10 ton stones onto boats and then sailing them across the river to an island to inspect them before being transshipped to Giza because there was no reason. I would grant these people could have done things like this and Egyptologists certainly say they did many things the hard way but then maybe there was a logical reason. The only logical reason I can think of is the port was too small for multiple ships to be operating. Why don't you suggest a good reason?

I won't accept an idea based on them being superstitious and primitive though.



There were 100,000 casing stones.



I don't know.

I believe they they worked nine months per year and 81 hours (9 days) per ten days for 20 years. Ship unloading occurred everyday. There were two or three stones per ship and two or three ships per day. Shipping rate was highest at the beginning but total flow was highest at the last couple years. Quarry work was nearly unaffected.



The question isn't how it could have been built. The question is how was it actually built.

The only means offered by Egyptologists has been disproven, or at the very least debunked. The evidence does not support Egyptological beliefs.


Study the structure and the other great pyramids.



It was a staggering amount of work that required science. All science has a metaphysics and no metaphysics and no science is known. There is no cultural context that supports the ability to do this. They also had very advanced medicine that set broken bones and performed brain surgery and it's not known how this was discovered either. Indeed, by the time of the pyramids agriculture was already ancient and its origins lost in antiquity and we don't know how it was invented. Cities had risen and fallen yet all this technology and human knowledge is said to be rooted in superstitions and religion according to Egyptologists because there was no science and no metaphysics.

Our current beliefs will be seen as the highest order of superstition. You can't invent complex technology or processes through belief unless you're an Egyptologist.
Care to back that up with a reliable source?

As long as you are discussing science

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/The_Scientific_Method_as_an_Ongoing_Process.svg

Hypothesis is not the final step, you have formed an opinion that everybody else is wrong about ancient Egypt, now you need proof for it (through sources).

Nobody expects proper term paper references on this history chat site, but we do expect sources and proof for a claim literally nobody else believes (particularly when slamming an entire field of academia as a fraud).
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions