Just Ancient Egypt

Corvidius

Ad Honorem
Jul 2017
2,909
Crows nest
Back when the negative results of the latest scans inside KV62 were released, no mention was made of the voids detected in the vicinity of the tomb. Though when I say the results were negative, I'm going by the statement by SCA that voids inside the tomb had not been found. In the extract below it can be seen that the actual results have still not been released. Mention of these voids came out via a leak before the the scan "results" and I think that we all just discounted these voids as "fake news". Well, it wasn't, and it seems that the case is not closed for KV62, or at least it's immediate vicinity. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1296207418303479?via=ihub

I'm going to repost the conclusions that Lutz posted on ED

From the Conclusions:

"(..) The first anomaly, denoted by Anomaly 1, lies below the hill where the tombs KV62 and KV9 have been carved. Given its location and depth below the ground level, it is unlikely that the area where Anomaly 1 is located was
interested by recent excavations or recent human activities. Therefore, if anthropic, the origin of this Anomaly should be associated with Ancient Egypt. The anomaly’s enhanced resistivity may indicate a void volume. Anomaly 1 does not appear to be directly connected with KV62.The second anomaly, denoted by Anomaly 2, is also particularly interesting, although care is in order as it is located close to an area interested by previous archaeological excavations. We exclude at this stage that Anomaly 2 can be linked directly with KV62. (..)"

From the Main Text:

"(..) The aim of the research reported in this article was to carry out preliminary geophysical prospections in the area surrounding Tutankhamun’s tomb in the Valley of the Kings (Luxor, Egypt), using electrical resistivity tomographic (ERT) methods. This ERT investigation, carried out in May 2017, was considered as preparatory to ground penetrating radar (GPR) surveys that were later performedby our Team from the inside of Tutankhamun’s tomb in February 2018 (and whose results are yet to be published). (..)

(..) Of more interest are two high resistivity anomalies evidenced in the maps and in the sections. They do not appear to be correlated with known underground cavities.

The first, denoted by Anomaly 1 in Fig. 8a and b, defines a resistive body extending, at 174 m a.s.l., about 5 m in the NE-SW direction and about 8 m in the NW-SE direction. The centroid of this anomaly is roughly at about 6 m b.g.l.

The second, denoted by Anomaly 2 in Fig. 8c and d, has the shape of an elongated ellipsoid roughly centered at depth of about 5 m below the valley floor. Its extension, at 167 m a.s.l., is about 15 m in the NE-SW direction and about 4 m in the NW-SE direction. ERT sections in Fig. 9b and c allow to further appreciating the horizontal extensions and the vertical positions of these two anomalies.

Anomaly 1 is located at a horizontal distance of about 12 meters from the North wall of the KV62 funerary chamber (Fig. 8b). In the EW section shown in Fig. 9c, its elevation ranges between 170 m and 178 m a.s.l. Therefore, the lowest level of this anomaly is slightly above the elevation of
the ceiling of KV62 (166 m a.s.l.), while its highest level is about 12 meters above it. Anomaly 2 is located under the flat area between the foot of the cliff and the modern-day KV62 entrance. If these anomalies are of anthropic origin, their high resistivity may indicate void volumes, with potentially interesting implications. These anomalies are close to KV62, but do not appear to be directly connected with it. It is interesting to note that the centroid of the volume corresponding to Anomaly 1 appears to be located roughly along the same NS alignment of the antechamber and the funerary chamber of KV62 (see, in particular, Fig. 9c).
The depth and size of Anomaly 1 appear consistent with a void having an extension comparable with the one of KV62.

Anomaly 2 is also particularly interesting. It is located North-East of the KV62 burial chamber, about 5 m below ground level, and it extends somewhat beyond the hill to the flat section between the modern-day entrance of KV62 and the shade canopy. The interpretation of this Anomaly is at present rather dubious, as it is located in an area interested by previous archaeological excavations. We exclude at this stage that Anomaly 2 can be linked directly with KV62. (..)"
 
Last edited:

John B

Ad Honorem
Mar 2016
3,836
Canada
Back when the negative results of the latest scans inside KV62 were released, no mention was made of the voids detected in the vicinity of the tomb. Though when I say the results were negative, I'm going by the statement by SCA that voids inside the tomb had not been found. In the extract below it can be seen that the actual results have still not been released. Mention of these voids came out via a leak before the the scan "results" and I think that we all just discounted these voids as "fake news". Well, it wasn't, and it seems that the case is not closed for KV62, or at least it's immediate vicinity. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1296207418303479?via=ihub

I'm going to repost the conclusions that Lutz posted on ED
This is a study using resistivity? As far as I know that method has issues with a lack of moisture. I would like to see the machine's tech data and the probe spacing through the area.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
26,586
Italy, Lago Maggiore
I cannot say, the article makes reference to july 2018. As for I know the Italian team who run the last scanning activity has considered definitive the results saying that no further chambers are present.

Anyway, if Gianluca Cantanzariti had doubts, I can allow myself to have doubts [even if, being he a National Geographic cooperator, he is "useful" for the American corporation which has invested a lot in the possibility to find Nefertiti's tomb ... but I'm not that malicious to underline this].
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,285
Australia
How long is it supposed to have taken to build TGP ? I have heard the standard historical 20 years , various postulations, modern engineers assessments , some claiming less time than 20, references to 'Egyptologists' saying less than 20 (both unreferenced ), 'marks' on the stone indicating time periods .

What information and or research or sources are available on this. What s the view of Egyptology on this and for what reasons or sources.

Surely it must be more than Herodotus ?
 

Corvidius

Ad Honorem
Jul 2017
2,909
Crows nest
23 years based on 340 stones, at average weight, being delivered per day during a ten hour working day employing 2,000 men in the quarry, 1,311 hauling the blocks and a setting crew of 1,000 in the initial stages diminishing to 160 in the final stages. This was calculated by Mark Lehner during experiments done using modern workers with iron tools, and then the added time and extra work involved using copper tools and rope instead of iron tools and steel cables factored in. Also factored in was just how many men could be on site and not be getting in each others way, and tens of thousands at any one time, which is a common view, just won't fit. With others involved on site but not in working or moving stone, for instance the logistics of feeding everybody, and those involved in the logistics of working and bringing in stone from further afield, the total could be as high as 10,000. This from Giza and the Pyramids by Mark Lehner and Zahi Hawass

A period of 25 years has been floated for many years before anybody thought to do experiments and seriously look at the logistics, so not a bad guess, and of course there has to be a plus or minus factor of a few years. The workers town at Giza seems to have been able to house about 2,000 probably core workers, with temporary camps set up for others when needed. If it took less than 23 years I would not be surprised as that was worked out on a ten hour day, and at the height of summer there are about 18 hours of daylight.
 
Last edited:
Likes: specul8

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,285
Australia
Thanks C.

Roughly one every 2 minutes ? Cut out, transported trimmed and fitted How long would it have taken to cut and form a block ? I am assuming the cutting was done by splitting and or pounding ? More finer work with copper tools ?

I cant conceive how so many finished blocks could be delivered in such a short time . I imagine the numbers of people working on a block would be restricted due to size and space, so there must be a maximum number of people. The experiments I watched using a copper saw and sand took hours to cut a few centimeters . It doesn't seem to add up, what am I missing or misunderstanding ?

I am also wondering what the time difference is between between iron and copper tools being used, how do you calculate that ?

Also, is it just mentioned in in that book or is the calculation process explained? If it is explained I will go to that source and read it .

( I do have a book in storage about it written by a modern engineer, I read it years back. I think he was going on the standard 20 year view - I will have to dig it up. )
 

Corvidius

Ad Honorem
Jul 2017
2,909
Crows nest
..... I should probably read that book anyway .
Absolutely get hold of a copy, maybe one of the 1 star reviewers of the book on Amazon will give you their copy of what they describe as basically crap. Oh, none of them has a verified purchase...

So, otherwise, the book does not go into how long it takes for a single block to be cut out, but does state the blocks were removed by pounding with dolerite and copper chisels to achieve the spilt, which we already know. While the example of the giant unfinished obelisk is not used, we can see they were not shy of this very hard work. Experimentation by Denys Stocks gets a mention, and from that information that for every 3mm of stone cut into, 1mm of copper was lost, and while figures for the amount of copper chisels needed are not given, it is clearly on a vast scale, and I would suggest that for the third millennium BC, a task that deserves admiration in it's own right. In fact the entire logistics operation was AAA+.

I don't want to reproduce the book, but a few other facts pertinent to how long things may have taken. The distance from the quarry to the SW edge of the pyramid was 320m. By the time 50% of the total mass of the pyramid had been constructed, a ramp with a 6 degree slope extending to 30m above the pyramid base would be needed. Moving a block at 1 kph, 20 men could make the trip from the quarry to the top of the ramp in 19 minutes. I believe that is somewhat quicker than we usually imagine, and while in this calculation cattle are not factored in, it is stated elsewhere that as we know cattle were used for haulage, why not at the pyramid. This usually never gets mentioned and illustrations and movies only show vast hordes of men, not a mere twenty, or four cattle which would provide the same power. But cattle have not been factored in, which may be an error and mean that G1, and all the others, were built even faster than we thought, though there will I think be a limit to how steep a slope cattle will tolerate, and turning them if they ever got them to higher levels on Houdin's theory of an internal spiral ramp. Though I think that was generally thought that the lower courses, even if half the total mass, would have been far easier than the remaining mass.

Logistics of cattle as primary stone haulers for at least 50% of the mass of G1? Anybody want to be the first to take this on. Here's some areas to be investigated. Does the workman's town, or any other excavated area show that cattle were present, and not just for food as we know they were. How do you deal with a large amount of poop on the ramp from the quarry to the pyramid, well, it's a thing isn't it, and it's not easily swept away like horses. And there's a secondary logistics operation to feed and water the cattle. How many of them?

The more you think about building a pyramid the more there is to think about....
 
Last edited:
Likes: specul8

Corvidius

Ad Honorem
Jul 2017
2,909
Crows nest
A point about why there are no texts in the early pyramids, a point disingenuously used by the wretches of the fringe to say they were never tombs. No non royal tomb in Egypt has texts in the burial chamber, they are in the mortuary chapel. The mortuary chapels for the early pyramids, including the gizamids, have been destroyed over four millennia of time. Had they survived and the texts could be read, there would be no room for doubt about them being tombs. Clearly, by the time we see the first PT, a change in burial practice had taken place and texts were uniquely put in the burial chamber of a king. The PT would not have come from nowhere in the few centuries after the gizamids, and I do not doubt that early versions of them existed in the mortuary chapels, even if only in the form of papyrus rolls. The reason they later appeared in the king's burial chamber being that they had already become a "roadmap" to what happens after death, here in the PT principally the king, and it was over the course of the next millennia that the emphasis changed to them being about Osiris and the journey of Ra through the Duat to be resurrected during the sixth hour and so rise again as the reborn Sun at the next dawn. The king not appearing in the texts, but it being understood that it was also about his resurrection, and later about the resurrection of all. This, the various books of the Netherworld, principally the Amduat and the Book of Gates, are the direct descendants of the PT and of now vanished texts before them.

So, if a fringe-ist, I'm sure there must be a better word, oh, there is... blathers on about the early pyramids not being tombs as there are no texts or decorations in the burial chamber, ask the blockhead/s in question were the texts and decorations are in the burial chamber of a non royal, which, in their convoluted "logic", mitigates against any tomb being a tomb as if it's the case, for them, in G1, then it must be the same for all. Blockheads Wa-en-re, or something...
 
Last edited: