Were the pyramids built from the top down?

cladking

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
2,772
exile
#11
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."
I've seen it before and am singularly unimpressed with the interpretation. While I wouldn't discount the possibility that Khufu repaired the pyramid there simply is not good evidence for this and virtually conclusive proof that he built the pyramid. That he did both is possible, but again, we are left with mere interpretation for the latter. That Khufu is actually two or more individuals is possible but evidence for this is very inconclusive.

Almost no evidence at all survives from the great pyramid building age so it behooves us to weight the little that does exist very heavily. That a Khufu built G1 is a fact. The fact that the inventory stelae can be interpreted to mean the pyramid was already there is interesting but requires substantiation.

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 actually made a pretty good description of buildingpyramids with counterweights but did leave out the nature of the ballast which did the work. He told the truth and nothing but the truth but not the whole truth.

The pyramids sloping construction makes the weight limits on scaffolding significantly lower,...
Using the smooth side of the pyramid to support the scaffolding they could probably build one all the way to the top. The problem is that such scaffolding would fail to be able to support its own weight by a very wide margin. Even the slightest slippage caused by an earthquake or trying to move a heavy weight on it would bring the entire structure crashing to the ground. They did not have the tools to make repairs on the outside of G1 except on the lowest courses.

... and they obviously had strong enough scaffolding to make non sloping temples and monuments.
I'mnot sure this is obvious. But even if it's true there's a huge difference between a 20' scaffold and a 480' scaffold.

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?
Wood will not suffice for structures over about 70'. You can almost double that on the sloping side of the Great Pyramid.

You say "There are variuous dating methods that can be employed". Can you please tell us what these are?
They can be googled easily enough. I believe the most appropriate one in this case involves an isotope (I believe) of strontium.
 

Davidius

Ad Honorem
Dec 2010
4,987
Pillium
#12
He actually made a pretty good description of buildingpyramids with counterweights but did leave out the nature of the ballast which did the work. He told the truth and nothing but the truth but not the whole truth.
Unfortunately 'sounds right to me' doesn't constitute an acceptable standard of proof. And how is leaving out the nature of the ballast important? The main thing about ballast is the mass involved and it is irrelevant if that mass is rocks, timber or dead Smurfs. Herodotus is either lying to his readers or betraying his oath.

Using the smooth side of the pyramid to support the scaffolding they could probably build one all the way to the top. The problem is that such scaffolding would fail to be able to support its own weight by a very wide margin. Even the slightest slippage caused by an earthquake or trying to move a heavy weight on it would bring the entire structure crashing to the ground. They did not have the tools to make repairs on the outside of G1 except on the lowest courses.
But the thing about a pyramid is that it is wider at the bottom than at the top. If you make the scaffolding wider at the bottom too , copying the delta shape of the pyramid, then the scaffolding can support it's own weight. If the principle is true for a three dimensional shape (pyramid) then it also applies to an effectively two dimensional construct layered over the solid shape (scaffolding)


I'mnot sure this is obvious. But even if it's true there's a huge difference between a 20' scaffold and a 480' scaffold.
I don't think it is a difference that can't be overcome with a massive labour force and the resources of a massively rich kingdom. Luckily the Pharoahs had just these things to hand.

Wood will not suffice for structures over about 70'. You can almost double that on the sloping side of the Great Pyramid.
Pantheon (Rome) 142 ft high
Coliseum (Rome) 157 ft high
Colossus of Rhodes 107 ft high

Are you suggesting that scaffolding was not used to build these? Or did they use non wooden scaffolds?


They can be googled easily enough. I believe the most appropriate one in this case involves an isotope (I believe) of strontium.
'Google it' will not do when one is challenged to provide a source.
You made the statement, I challenged it, the onus is on you to provide proof.
 

cladking

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
2,772
exile
#14
And how is leaving out the nature of the ballast important? The main thing about ballast is the mass involved and it is irrelevant if that mass is rocks, timber or dead Smurfs. Herodotus is either lying to his readers or betraying his oath.
Possibly.

But I don't believe the Egyptians remembered how the ballast got to heaven by the time Herodotus showed up. The ancient manuscripts were mostly already lost because no attempt was made to preserve them when the people could no longer translate them. It wasn't merely that the language had changed so dramatically but the way people thought had changed as well. They knew "Osiris towed the earth by means of balance" but didn't understand just exactly what Osiris was. Even if they had Herodotus might not have believed it and omitted it from his reports.

The fact remains his reports are accurate even if incomplete.

But the thing about a pyramid is that it is wider at the bottom than at the top. If you make the scaffolding wider at the bottom too , copying the delta shape of the pyramid, then the scaffolding can support it's own weight. If the principle is true for a three dimensional shape (pyramid) then it also applies to an effectively two dimensional construct layered over the solid shape (scaffolding)
This is not true. It would be like saying a 1000' boat could be constructed of wood if it were the right shape. Obviously you're right that the triangular shape would allow a little more height but for ALL practical purposes the capacity a solid can support is determined by the total weight of what's above it and the shape of the surroundings are nearly irrelevant. By the exact same token the weight of the pyramid above a supporting stone will cause it to collapse if it becomes too great or the height of a column of water is directly proportional to its pressure.

I don't think it is a difference that can't be overcome with a massive labour force and the resources of a massively rich kingdom. Luckily the Pharoahs had just these things to hand.
No!

This is a physics issue not a political one. A thousand 20' scaffolds might be easy to make but a single 100' is impossible.

'Google it' will not do when one is challenged to provide a source.
You made the statement, I challenged it, the onus is on you to provide proof.
It's a statement of fact. I don't need to google to see if the sun will come up tomorrow.

I'd do it but I just cleaned all of the cookies off this machine and don't want it reinfected.
 

Davidius

Ad Honorem
Dec 2010
4,987
Pillium
#15
The fact remains his reports are accurate even if incomplete.
But you have yet to prove that to anyone's satisfaction, excepting your own. Until you can do that they will remain opinions, not fact.



This is not true. It would be like saying a 1000' boat could be constructed of wood if it were the right shape. Obviously you're right that the triangular shape would allow a little more height but for ALL practical purposes the capacity a solid can support is determined by the total weight of what's above it and the shape of the surroundings are nearly irrelevant. By the exact same token the weight of the pyramid above a supporting stone will cause it to collapse if it becomes too great or the height of a column of water is directly proportional to its pressure.
But the point of a pyramid is that there will always be less mass and weight in successive layers. You do not take the supportive capacity of a single stone into account when determining how much weight can be borne, you use the weight bearing capacity of all stones in that course of stones. It being a pyramid there will always be less weight on higher layers, this is why pyramids are so stable. Using a water column is irrelevant because it is a column, not a cone.
Regarding the 1000' boat; I have no idea if this is feasible, not being a boat designer. Can you provide a source for the claim that this is impossible?

This is a physics issue not a political one. A thousand 20' scaffolds might be easy to make but a single 100' is impossible.
And yet the Romans, Greeks and Egyptians routinely constructed buildings well over your proposed 70' limit. You have yet to say how this is possible.


It's a statement of fact. I don't need to google to see if the sun will come up tomorrow.

I'd do it but I just cleaned all of the cookies off this machine and don't want it reinfected.
No one is arguing that the sun will not come up tomorrow. If they do then I will challenge the assertion and I will still not accept 'google it' as corroboration. Quote your sources if you want to be taken seriously.
To repeat the question, what dating methods are you refering to?
 

cladking

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
2,772
exile
#16
But you have yet to prove that to anyone's satisfaction, excepting your own. Until you can do that they will remain opinions, not fact.
I thought it was clear that in my opinion the pyramid was actually built in a way that exactly matches the description. I certainly understand that it is not yet proven water was used. My point is merely that all the evidence supports it and this evidence includes Herodotus' description.

But the point of a pyramid is that there will always be less mass and weight in successive layers. You do not take the supportive capacity of a single stone into account when determining how much weight can be borne, you use the weight bearing capacity of all stones in that course of stones. It being a pyramid there will always be less weight on higher layers, this is why pyramids are so stable. Using a water column is irrelevant because it is a column, not a cone.
Regarding the 1000' boat; I have no idea if this is feasible, not being a boat designer. Can you provide a source for the claim that this is impossible?
The shape of the structure is irrelevant. Just as the cliff face has to support the entire weight of the pyramid without collapsing every stone in the pyramid has to be able to support the entire weight of the stones above it. Courses of masonry are simply irrelevant as each stone has to support the weight above.

And yet the Romans, Greeks and Egyptians routinely constructed buildings well over your proposed 70' limit. You have yet to say how this is possible.
I know nothing of their construction techniques.

Structures of wood can be made taller than 70' but such structures are not considered sufficiently stable to be permanent. 70' but about the tallest buildings that were made before the advent of steel framing. The concept of a 480' tall scaffolding on which they could move heavy weights around simply doesn't work.

To repeat the question, what dating methods are you refering to


  • [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_dating"]Absolute dating[/ame]
  • [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acanthochronology"]Acanthochronology[/ame]
  • [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amino_acid_dating"]Amino acid dating[/ame]
  • [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appearance_Event_Ordination"]Appearance Event Ordination[/ame]
  • [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_chronology"]Astronomical chronology[/ame]
B

  • [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochronology"]Biochronology[/ame]
D

  • [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datestone"]Datestone[/ame]
  • [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_methodologies_in_archaeology"]Dating methodologies in archaeology[/ame]
  • [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology"]Dendrochronology[/ame]
F

  • [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorine_absorption_dating"]Fluorine absorption dating[/ame]
H

  • [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbchronology"]Herbchronology[/ame]
  • [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic_paint_analysis"]Historic paint analysis[/ame]
L

  • [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_superposition"]Law of superposition[/ame]
M

  • [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_isotope_stage"]Marine isotope stage[/ame]
O

  • [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsidian_hydration_dating"]Obsidian hydration dating[/ame]
  • [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_dating"]Optical dating[/ame]
  • [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optically_stimulated_luminescence"]Optically stimulated luminescence[/ame]
  • [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_tuning"]Orbital tuning[/ame]
O cont.

  • [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidizable_carbon_ratio_dating"]Oxidizable carbon ratio dating[/ame]
P

  • [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_faunal_succession"]Principle of faunal succession[/ame]
R

  • [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehydroxylation_dating"]Rehydroxylation dating[/ame]
  • [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_dating"]Relative dating[/ame]
S

  • [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletochronology"]Skeletochronology[/ame]
T

V

  • [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varnish_microlamination"]Varnish microlamination[/ame]
W

  • [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiggle_matching"]Wiggle matching[/ame]
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dating_methods]Category:Dating methods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

That took about ten seconds.
 

Davidius

Ad Honorem
Dec 2010
4,987
Pillium
#17
I thought it was clear that in my opinion the pyramid was actually built in a way that exactly matches the description. I certainly understand that it is not yet proven water was used. My point is merely that all the evidence supports it and this evidence includes Herodotus' description.
No, some of the evidence supports it, and that evidence is actually only your opinion, there is no independent academic corroboration.

The shape of the structure is irrelevant. Just as the cliff face has to support the entire weight of the pyramid without collapsing every stone in the pyramid has to be able to support the entire weight of the stones above it. Courses of masonry are simply irrelevant as each stone has to support the weight above.
Your understanding of physics and the rules of architecture are obviously flawed. Please do not attempt to build your own home any time soon, I fear for your safety if you do!



Structures of wood can be made taller than 70' but such structures are not considered sufficiently stable to be permanent. 70' but about the tallest buildings that were made before the advent of steel framing. The concept of a 480' tall scaffolding on which they could move heavy weights around simply doesn't work.
The structures I listed are all over 70' and are all made of either stone or metal. The Romans used wooden scaffolding, according to Vitruvius, and the Pantheon and the Coliseum are still standing to this day. Do you deny the existence of these buildings?

A 480' scaffold is perfectly feasible when laid on a slope with decreasing width relative to height. Certainly strong enough to support the weight of a few workers and their mortar hods.


That took about ten seconds.
Of course it did, all you did was copy and paste a list from Wiki.

Why don't you show us that you know what you are talking about by telling us which of the dating methods from that very long list are actually applicable to the dating of masonry mortar?
It is slapdash methodology like this which leads people to decry your work. Whilst I am more than prepared to entertain the ideas you propose, you will have to show that you understand the evidence you use and present it in the proper context, anyone can copy and paste after all.

I took the trouble to read the articles you linked to so I feel that I know which ones are relevant, I ask that you do the same.
 
Mar 2011
1,367
Florida
#18
There's only one modern day person that knew how the pyramids were built and he died along with the secret. The man was Edward Leedskalnin, builder of Coral Castle in Homestead, Florida.

Working alone Leedskalnin was able to construct a structure with stones weighing up to 30 tons.

Read this
 

cladking

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
2,772
exile
#19
No, some of the evidence supports it, and that evidence is actually only your opinion, there is no independent academic corroboration.
No.

I did not claim my theory was independently supported by anyone. I said that Herodotus' description perfectly matches my theory except he didn't say what ballast was used or how obtained.

The evidence does support my theory. The fact that the evidence is so thin is something we all have to deal with. But there is very gross evidence that Egyptology simply ignores. For instance there was a huge water collection device built here before G1 was even started and this device actually caught water. This thing is even bigger than the pyramid itself yet it is ignored by orthodoxy. They also ignore the titles of the builders and all of the historical accounts. They ignore great swathes of evidence.

Your understanding of physics and the rules of architecture are obviously flawed. Please do not attempt to build your own home any time soon, I fear for your safety if you do!
Don't try to make a 480' tall wooden scaffold.

The structures I listed are all over 70' and are all made of either stone or metal. The Romans used wooden scaffolding, according to Vitruvius, and the Pantheon and the Coliseum are still standing to this day. Do you deny the existence of these buildings?
I have no knowledge of this.

I suppose if you had timbers of sufficient lenght you would have more options but you can't simply put lumber together into tall structures.
Of course it did, all you did was copy and paste a list from Wiki.
There's a great deal of science not being done at Giza.

I've listed many of the most important measurements and testing not getting made at one time or another. It's not necessarily relevant to me personally what isn't being done. While I value all data there is specific data which I especially require. Dating of the pyramid is close enough for my immediate needs since the two tests indicate it was built around 2750 BC and even the most precise dating will probably not answer the order in which the casing was laid in the lifetime of anyone alive today. It would be nice to know but we need to plan to work around it and answer those questions that can be answered with the technology we have now.

Whilst I am more than prepared to entertain the ideas you propose, you will have to show that you understand the evidence you use and present it in the proper context, anyone can copy and paste after all.
I'll defend anything that is important.

I took the trouble to read the articles you linked to so I feel that I know which ones are relevant, I ask that you do the same.
That was a mere copy and paste. I'm actually surprised the links remained intact and formatted in a usable manner. I tried to copy and paste the link to wiki from a google search on "dating methods" (first hit) but it didn't appear for some reason. I simply have no interest here since we aren't going to make any determination using any dating method.

The question remains "did Khufu only repair the pyramid" and my opinion remains wholly unaffected. There is solid evidence someone named "Khufu" built the pyramid since his work crew names appear in places that are undisturbed since construction. There's also evidence that the cladding was intact in 400 BC suggesting it didn't need repair in 2750 BC shortly after it was built. And we know it was built then because carbon 14 dating proves it beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm not entirely discounting your interpretation of the stelae but rather suggesting that there was no exterior repair work done to the pyramid ever. The Romans did probably paint (red) the bottom 75' at one time and there might have been an original red surface at the bottom. Even the heiroglyph for "pyramid" had the bottom colored red.

I seriously doubt repair was feasible or possibe since the cladding stones were simply too massive to remove or replace. The idea of using cement patches of some sort is far more likely and far more likely to be needed especially if there had been an earthquake. But this would be irrelevant to dating since only the material in the core stones behind the cladding was dated and this would be unaffected by any cosmetic repair.
 

cladking

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
2,772
exile
#20
There's only one modern day person that knew how the pyramids were built and he died along with the secret. The man was Edward Leedskalnin, builder of Coral Castle in Homestead, Florida.

Working alone Leedskalnin was able to construct a structure with stones weighing up to 30 tons.

Read this
Moving heavy weights even alone is not necessarily difficult.

Lifting 6 1/2 million tons to an average of 120' might not even be possible for humans.
 

Similar History Discussions