Were the pyramids built from the top down?

MrKap

Ad Honorem
Aug 2011
2,353
#2
Article says...

For the Great Pyramid samples, the tests performed at the two labs initially gave very different clusterings of dates, off by several thousands of years. When certain "adjustments" in the data were applied, the resulting time frame narrowed to 3100 B.C. to 2850 B.C.
So my guess is that the adjustments involved an eraser.
 
Likes: specul8
#4
The basic evidence for this comes from carbon dating the mortar used on the Great Pyramid. Not only is the mortar from nearer the top older, but by as much as 1000 years.
Bolt guess: maybe the weather that is badest on top makes it look older... How can one deduct the value of environmental influence from the actual measurements of the age...
After all you have to consider a fluctuating environmental process over thousands of years. How can one trace back changes of moisture levels, temperature changes etc. and apply its impact to the results?
anyway, very impressive stuff though!!!
 

cladking

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
2,772
exile
#5
Yes and no.

The evidence does appear to suggest the pyramid was finished from the top down but the difference between the top and bottom was too little to be able to detect a real difference. It seems most likely that this effect being seen is simple sampling error caused by too few samples.

The great pyramids were built in steps and on G1 these steps were 70' tall. When the steps were completed the uppermost one was filled in and cladded from the bottom up and they proceeded down in the same manner with the second to the top step filled in from the bottom up.

On each step this left a narrow band around the pyramid lacking the cladding stone. This band was filled by a special group called "necklace stingers" who worked from rigging hanging from the pyramid tip.

Of course this presumes that they actually meant their words that survive literally and the physical evidence which is consistent with those words is relevant. It's almost humorous that one must make such a disclaimer when the alternative view seems to be "they mustta used ramps".
 
Jun 2010
401
Rhondda, South Wales
#6
The basic evidence for this comes from carbon dating the mortar used on the Great Pyramid. Not only is the mortar from nearer the top older, but by as much as 1000 years. So, not only was it built from the top down, it took 1000 years to do it, as well.
Radio Carbon 14 dating can only be used to date organic samples, which mortar is not. Assuming that you'd even be able to get a non-contaminated sample from the great pyramid (which given it's proximity to Cairo and all it's polution from exhaust fumes and the carbon they contain is unlikely), at best you'd be able to get a date for any inclusions in the mortar...which only proves that the shell or whatever in question is that old.
More to the point, the article itself note that the inclusions contained charcoal. There is no way you'd get an accurate dating from a sample like that, given that charcoal is wood that has been burnt...a process that would unnaturally raise the carbon content of the sample, and give you an inaccurate date.
 
Likes: Kotromanic

Davidius

Ad Honorem
Dec 2010
4,986
Pillium
#7
1) What bolero982 said. No accurate C14 dating from inorganic substances.

2) The article ignores the possibility that the masonry may have been repointed at some time. Repairs would account for the age difference.

3) Any article that ends with a reading from Edgar Cayce by way of corroboration should be viewed with extreme suspicion IMO.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
26,813
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#8
The page contains also an interesting article by Dr. Kate Spence, about the alignment of the pyramid with the true north. The calculation of the precession of the equinoxes gives us a result in accordance with the date of the construction of the Great Pyramid indicated by Egyptology.

Regarding dating the construction the page has got also a reference to the theories sustained by West and Shoch about the Sphinx.

Now the argument is incredibly wide. Shoch himself [I read his book "Voices of the Rocks. A scientific look at Catastrophes & Ancient Civilizations"] doesn't agree totally with the 10,000 BCE paradigm. In fact he makes note [correctly] that long periods of rainy weather around Giza have existed also later, so that the Sphinx [let's remember that it's made by soft stone, easy to be eroded by water] can be dated , without effort from 6,000 to 4,000 BCE [well far from 10,000 BCE, the date loved by West and company].

To this we have to add that scientists suspect that the Sphinx, covered by send, have seen an erosion by condensed humidity through the sand, during night [this would be still in accordance with the date indicated by Egyptology].
 

cladking

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
2,772
exile
#9
1) What bolero982 said. No accurate C14 dating from inorganic substances.

2) The article ignores the possibility that the masonry may have been repointed at some time. Repairs would account for the age difference.

3) Any article that ends with a reading from Edgar Cayce by way of corroboration should be viewed with extreme suspicion IMO.
It's highly improbable that the Great Pyramid was ever repaired.

The cladding stone was so carefully fitted that Herodotus couldn't even see the joints in it. Climbing the pyramid would have been impossible so scaffolding would be necessary and they had no material which would have allowed such scaffolding to carry large weights.

It was only the removal of the cladding by man or earthquake that allowed access to the charcoal inclusions in the mortar for carbon dating.

There are numerous possible explanations for the disparity in the ages of the charcoal used in the mortar but the most likely is that through sheer coincidence the samples obtained fromhigher in the pyramid was wood from the inside of extremely old trees. As a tree grows the inside is essentially "dead" and all the carbon is already fixed. The carbon inside the tree is aging even as the tree grows.

The Egyptians traded with many of their neighbors and one of the big imports was Lebanese cypress as mentioned in the Palermo Stone. In those days it's possible that extremely old stands of lumber still existed. It's also possible that there were dessicated forests still in Egypt since rainfall had decreased from 6 or 7 inches only a few hundred years earlier to less than about 4" when G1 was built. There's some chance there remained dead trees lining the wadis west of Giza and there is weak evidence some supplies came from the west. I personally find other explanations to be contrived.

There are variuous dating methods that can be employed but people seem content to just imagine there were ramps and speculate on the implications of the assumptions. There's a great deal of science not getting done.
 

Davidius

Ad Honorem
Dec 2010
4,986
Pillium
#10
It's highly improbable that the Great Pyramid was ever repaired.

The cladding stone was so carefully fitted that Herodotus couldn't even see the joints in it. Climbing the pyramid would have been impossible so scaffolding would be necessary and they had no material which would have allowed such scaffolding to carry large weights.
You didn't read the article Nyneve posted in the OP did you? If you had you would have read this:

"Actually, we have the testament of Pharaoh Khufu himself that he only did repair work on the Great Pyramid. The Inventory Stele, found in 1857 by Auguste Mariette just to the east of the Pyramid, dates to about 1500 B.C., but according to Maspero and other experts, shows evidence of having been copied from a far older stele contemporaneous with the Fourth Dynasty."

Regarding Herodotus, as an initiate into the Egyptian mystery cults, as he claimed to be, he would have been under strict instruction to conceal the secrets of the pyramids construction. He has also been described as 'the father of lies'. Perhaps the gold digging Scythian super ants he wrote about did all the repair work?

The pyramids sloping construction makes the weight limits on scaffolding significantly lower, and they obviously had strong enough scaffolding to make non sloping temples and monuments. You also say that the Egyptians did not posses sufficiently strong material for the work but then tell us where they could have obtained such material from. Which one is it?

You say "There are variuous dating methods that can be employed". Can you please tell us what these are?
 

Similar History Discussions