Updated ideas of how the great pyramids were built

dreamregent

Ad Honorem
Feb 2013
4,410
Coastal Florida
Again this "approach" (alleged melting) would only be used for a few stones (such as granite for sarcophagi, small rooms , statues) , not the 2.5 mio or so "regular" blocks of the pyramid
The problem is the same for these cement or concrete blocks...the blocks are unique so they would all require custom molds as well. It just doesn't make sense.

Regarding the "cement" approach, what about the casing stones (I realize many or most are now gone).... Were they all different as well ?
Well, there isn't much to speak of in terms of casing stones on the Giza plateau except for sections near the top of Khafre's pyramid. However, the Bent Pyramid at Saqqara has a significant amount of the casing left near the ground. Part of it is missing, so you're able to see the remaining blocks around the periphery of this area...and these casing stones also each appear to be unique. See the photo here. Enlarge the photo and note along the right edge of the area where they are missing in the near corner of the pyramid...the extant casing stones along this edge seem to possess varying widths, heights and depths.

Yep

Which brings up a question.... Why were those blocks different ? One would perhaps expect that they had some sort of measurments for desired block size....

Some time back, I read something saying that having different size blocks in a structure may help it be more resistant to earthquakes... Not sure how much truth there is to that, and whether it was the (a) reason for those differences... Or it was simply down to luck and not so good organization ?

and then I found this site


The exact number of stones was orginally estimated at 2,300,000 stone blocks weighing from 2-30 tons each with some weighing as much as 70 tons. Computer calculations indicate 590,712 stone blocks were used in its construction.

which would basically put the number of blocks at roughly only a quarter of previous estimates

There are supposedly 144,000 casing stones, all highly polished and flat to an accuracy of 1/100th of an inch, about 100 inches thick and weighing about 15 tons each with nearly perfect right angles for all six sides. Computer calculations indicated 40,745 casing stones were used averaging 40 tons each before the face angle was cut.

The average casing stone on the lowest level was 5 ft. long by 5 ft. high by 6 ft. deep and weighed 15 tons. The casing stones weighing as much as 20 tons were placed with an accuracy of 5/1000ths of an inch, and an intentional gap of about 2/100ths of an inch for mortar.


and then this ?

The mortar used is of an unknown origin. It has been analyzed and it's chemical composition is known but it can't be reproduced. It is stronger than the stone and still holding up today.

Um, no sources are cited so it seems impossible to verify any of this. I didn't read the page in great detail but I did notice a couple of claims I know to be false in the "Miscellaneous" section near the bottom when I was looking for sources:


The interior temperature at 62 degree Fahrenheit.
I guess you'll have to take my word for it but the interior of the Great Pyramid seemed rather stifling when I was inside it. The temperature certainly seemed far higher than 62 degrees. This was during the month of June.


No mummy has ever been found in a pyramid in Egypt. Mummies have always come from mastabas or tombs in the Valley of the Kings.
I don't think this is true as I believe Maspero found a mummy inside one of the pyramids.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Todd Feinman

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
14,301
on the internal ramp and Jean Pierre Houdin here is a good documentary.......

definite proof is still not there though

 
Dec 2019
1
Chicago
A crackpot without much education. Basing the metric system on an unchangeable drop of water is as dumb as it can be.
The dude has the theory and wants someone to test it for him. LOL More dull than Von Dänicken, he bores. And if the melting lens was not enough, he is the humanitarian who discovers the brilliant traveling Africans, the discreet masons and he appeals to all of us to join hands and love each other.
I just wonder how he expects to make money ?
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
14,301
A crackpot without much education. Basing the metric system on an unchangeable drop of water is as dumb as it can be.
The dude has the theory and wants someone to test it for him. LOL More dull than Von Dänicken, he bores. And if the melting lens was not enough, he is the humanitarian who discovers the brilliant traveling Africans, the discreet masons and he appeals to all of us to join hands and love each other.
I just wonder how he expects to make money ?
Yeah, the second part is basically total cr*p....

Yes, it was technically feasible to sail the atlantic from Africa to the americas, Thor Heyerdhal proved it with RA 2 in 1970... (sailing a reed boat based on ancient egyptian models some 6100 km from Morocco to Barbados - the coast of Morocco can be reached from Egypt by sailing along the med coast from the Nile to the med, along Lybia, Tunisia, Algeria and finally Morocco)


But if it ever happened, it must have been an extraordinary event, not a regular happening .... and in any case , south american pyramids are several millenia older than egyptian ones, so it is not like american indians were hiring experienced egyptian engineers who had "I helped build Khufu's pyramid" on their CV, to help them build their own pyramids...

However the first part is more intriguing , and in particular it is a "remake" of Joseph Davidotis , who posited a while back that the pyramids were made of concrete - though his "theory" remains a fringe one...


So it is interesting whether at least PART of the pyramid stones and other egyptian buildings could in fact have been made of a local concrete..... ( which of course would beg the question how and why such a useful invention could have been "lost" )

Melting stones with lenses sounds somewhat wild, but it seems to work here

But even if not melting it, could they have used similar techniques to "soften" the stone, thus making it easier to carve ?


 

dreamregent

Ad Honorem
Feb 2013
4,410
Coastal Florida
So it is interesting whether at least PART of the pyramid stones and other egyptian buildings could in fact have been made of a local concrete..... ( which of course would beg the question how and why such a useful invention could have been "lost" )

Just because something of this sort is technically feasible is not an indication of it actually happening. I once saw a documentary featuring experimental archaeologists demonstrating that it was possible for the Ancient Egyptians to construct kites capable of using wind to lift stones into place. However, the Egyptians didn't depict themselves doing either of these things. In contrast, they did depict themselves dragging colossal stones manually. We also have extant remains of ramps, even some which were definitely constructed in association with pyramids. Hence, the only actual evidence we have points to an elaboration along this line, even if we don't know the exact details of how they did it.


Melting stones with lenses sounds somewhat wild, but it seems to work here

But even if not melting it, could they have used similar techniques to "soften" the stone, thus making it easier to carve ?



In your example, the guy is using a type of lens invented in modern times. Ancient Egyptians had no such lens and, quite frankly, there's no evidence they had lenses of any kind during the period in question. In fact, these pyramids had already stood for ~2000 years before the most extant artifact anyone thinks is a lens was even fabricated.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,614
Italy, Lago Maggiore
The urban legend about the "lens" of the early dynasties has been probably generated by the crystal eyes of Rahotep and Nofret ... but they wanted to represent human eyes, not to produce lenses to concentrate solar light ... [Rahotep was a Prince of the IV dynasty].
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
14,301
More on lenses (at least those used for statues)

Ancient (in fact, first known) lenses (ca. 4600 years ago) mainly from the IVth and Vth Dynasties of Egypt had truly remarkable and unique optical properties. These were parts of equally fascinating eye structures. These structures were fabricated as separate assemblies for insertion into funerary statues during certain brief windows of time (roughly from 2620-2400 BC, and 1750-1700 BC). These "eyes" appear to follow the observer as he/she rotated in any direction about these statues



The first lenses (ca. Vth Dynasties of the Old Kingdom of Egypt. These lenses are found in The Louvre Museum in Paris and the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. They were components of extraordinary eye constructs in statues which had unique qualities. Namely, the "eyes" appear to follow the viewer as he/she rotates about these statues in any direction. This effect can be photographed and reproduced 2620-2400 B.C., 4620-4400 Before Present=B.P.) appeared mainly during the IVth and optically. This effect has been modeled here. The lenses were ground from high quality (!) rock crystal (a form of quartz, n approximately 1.46). Each had a convex and highly polished front "corneal" surface. Thus, in a sense, these were multifocal lenses. The iris aperture may or may not have been open to a substantial posterior "vitreous" cavity formed largely by curved copper plates which extended forward to create the lid structures of these eyes. Were these a form of schematic eyes? Could such fine quality and complex (sophisticated) lenses be the first lenses? Clearly, the observer was intended to look at these eyes and follow their apparent movements. The total structure of these eyes indicated an advanced understanding of ocular anatomy and a surprising knowledge of optics


 

dreamregent

Ad Honorem
Feb 2013
4,410
Coastal Florida
More on lenses (at least those used for statues)

Ancient (in fact, first known) lenses (ca. 4600 years ago) mainly from the IVth and Vth Dynasties of Egypt had truly remarkable and unique optical properties. These were parts of equally fascinating eye structures. These structures were fabricated as separate assemblies for insertion into funerary statues during certain brief windows of time (roughly from 2620-2400 BC, and 1750-1700 BC). These "eyes" appear to follow the observer as he/she rotated in any direction about these statues



The first lenses (ca. Vth Dynasties of the Old Kingdom of Egypt. These lenses are found in The Louvre Museum in Paris and the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. They were components of extraordinary eye constructs in statues which had unique qualities. Namely, the "eyes" appear to follow the viewer as he/she rotates about these statues in any direction. This effect can be photographed and reproduced 2620-2400 B.C., 4620-4400 Before Present=B.P.) appeared mainly during the IVth and optically. This effect has been modeled here. The lenses were ground from high quality (!) rock crystal (a form of quartz, n approximately 1.46). Each had a convex and highly polished front "corneal" surface. Thus, in a sense, these were multifocal lenses. The iris aperture may or may not have been open to a substantial posterior "vitreous" cavity formed largely by curved copper plates which extended forward to create the lid structures of these eyes. Were these a form of schematic eyes? Could such fine quality and complex (sophisticated) lenses be the first lenses? Clearly, the observer was intended to look at these eyes and follow their apparent movements. The total structure of these eyes indicated an advanced understanding of ocular anatomy and a surprising knowledge of optics


These are not lenses in the sense of tools a living person might use, what I assumed we were talking about. Rather, these are fake eyes, and not fundamentally different from those made for dolls today. There are a number of pieces from Ancient Egypt with inlaid eyes made from various materials.
 
Last edited:

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
27,614
Italy, Lago Maggiore
If we talk about lenses as optical instruments, archaeology has found Carthaginian exemplars from 4th century BCE [with a quality of +5.50D]. The most ancient Egyptian lenses could be the objects from 2nd century BCE found in a tomb at Hawara [now at UCL London]. It seems they were able to give a direction to light, so that they can be considered optical instruments.

For more ancient candidates we need to take a look at Crete, but scientists are not sure they were proper lenses. Ancient lenses
 

Matthew Amt

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
3,074
MD, USA
Why are we still talking about lenses?? It simply does not matter at all if the Egyptians could make something lens-like or not--we already know there is not a single stone in Egypt or anywhere else in the ancient world which was cut with lenses or mirrors. None. Zero. Zippo. Nada. Zilch. To keep pleading "But MAAAAYYYYBBEEEEEEE...." is simply ludicrous. It's the opposite of history.

I'm just baffled.

Matthew