This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
(Original Research on the use of ramps. "This page is to discuss the article but we can't use editors' own ideas/research." Click blue button at right to see text |
---|
Something which is missing from the various ramp illustrations is the most obvious and simple solution - four 'spiral' ramps. If you start out by aiming to build in effect a 'stepped' pyramid it can become the underlying framework on which it is possible to construct four ramps parallel to each of the pyramid's four faces, and which can be repeated on each step of the pyramid as each level is reached. All four ramps on each step can then be used simulaltaneously, with each set of four ramps spiralling up to eventually reach all the way to the top. To then complete the smooth-faced pyramid you just work backwards from the top (as per Herodatus) simply incorporating all the material from the ramps into the structure as you work downwards. (Indeed the ramps would mostly BE part of the structure from the outset anyway). Hence no remains of any ramps. Similarly this would explain the visble 'ramp lines' and the odd 'corners'. All the corners would have to be left clear at the ends of each ramp to allow room for materials to be turned at right angles at the top (and bottom) of each slope ready to be hauled up the next incline. No need for any huge external ramps, nor any complicated internal ramps. Occam's Razor - the simplest solution... Steve Ainsworth Halifax Yorkshire 6th April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.245.53 ( talk) 16:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
|
There's a couple of interesting images in the French version of this article, maybe it is something to take a look at. -- Ediug ( talk) 10:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
-- Satrughna ( talk) 06:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
A Google search reveals article after article showing that the theory that the Egyptians used mud ramps to construct the pyramids doesn't hold up to rational analysis. Yet Wikipedia continues to publish articles showing mud ramp construction as if it were a rational and realistic theory. On the other hand my article describing in detail how the pyramids could have been constructed using movable wooden ramps was rejected as "spam."
I am not trying to sell anything, and my article is NOT spam! It may reproduced at no charge. The only restriction is that I continue to be named as the author.
Wikipedia's rejection seems to me to be arbitrary, unfair, and unrealistic. The editors even removed a link to my article. Wikipedia is publishing misinformation about a theory that has been repeatedly debunked and refusing to consider a unique and reasonable alternative.
Forgive me, but this seems to me to be unreasoning prejudice. Please review this time without prejudice my article http://www.fsteiger.com/Pyramid.html
Thank you, Frank Steiger 8-19-07
```` —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Fsteiger (
talk •
contribs) 21:03:41, August 19, 2007 (UTC).
I fear you are suffering from the same problem that I have. Although no mainstream description of the building of the Great Pyramid stacks up, these same descriptions are nevertheless mainstream, frequently referenced and appear in many referenced documents. Though I believe my description ( http://www.farmhall.com/drupal/files/GPpaper.pdf ) Mehtopa ( talk) 20:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC) is viable, it is not mainstream and therefore does not merit inclusion in wiki. That is the nature of wiki. It is not unreasoning prejudice which precludes our articles but their absence elsewhere from the public domain consensus. Recognition has to precede inclusion, not the other way round. Basically, we are outsiders in the Egyptian community. Mehtopa 12:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Dec 2 1999, 3:00 am Newsgroups sci.archaeology Date 1999/12/02
- Subject Re Were Kites used to lift pyramid stones?
I'm a lay person, no expert. I've read through both of the above.... Both are about "how I would build a pyramid", not about how the Egyptians did it or would have. Whether ramps are wood, clay or rocks is far less important than the big picture of how or if ramps were used at all, and what arrangement. Or what else was done...... Just not as earth-shattering as the authors would like to believe, sorry....... Jjdon ( talk) 20:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The bald statement that '.. the stones forming the core of the pyramids were roughly cut, especially in the Great Pyramid..' should surely not go unchallenged. Where is the supporting evidence? Who has investigated the core of the GP and come to this conclusion? It is a likely conjecture but AFAIK nobody has any certain knowledge of the nature of the GP interior beyond what is visible. The wiki should only refer to knowledge or evidence in the public domain.
Mehtopa ( talk) 15:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not a Wiki regular editor/contributor but I though this might warrant inclusion in the article.
It's a site run by a retired carpenter who's figured out how, by using counterweights, large (like 10-ton) stone blocks could be moved. He's trying to sell DVDs, but there are several interesting snippets of avaiable for viewing.
http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/newpage1 http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/newpage3
In particular, his method of rolling the square blocks along semicylindrical "cradles" places on the ground is a stunningly simple idea that seems to work very well... much better than worker-drawn sledges.
http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/newpage4
Just an FYI. I leave it to the regulars to see if they can make something of this for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krispos42 ( talk • contribs) 07:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I have added a few paragraphs to summarise why the question "how were the pyramids built" is of such interest. Since the "legacy" theory of Hancock et al and the "New Age type" theories are so well publicised I thought it worth mentioning them here without addressing their credibility. The important thing, in my view, is that we really have no clue as to how some of these things were done. Thus all current experiments and published hypotheses are worth mentioning. Kigongos ( talk) 15:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Duplicates the lead? My overview and your lead say very different things! I suggest then that you redo the lead because as it stands it does not do justice to the topic. Why is this matter of enough enough interest to merit a separate article? That "there are disagreements" is not enough reason; there are disagreements on all historical questions. You give equal play to the "slave or laborer" question, but it's really the engineering questions that fascinate serious students of this matter.
Consider something like this for a lead:
The question of how the Pyramids of Giza were built has been of great interest since ancient times, and was discussed by Greek historians. When the site was examined in detail by modern engineers in the 19th century a number of facts were uncovered which still fascinate engineers and historians. The builders of the pyramids were, to our best knowledge, an iron age civilisation with no iron, no horses, no wheels or pulleys and only a basic knowledge of applied mathematics, so engineers studying the pyramids pose questions such as: -How were the Egyptians able to determine the direction of True North so accurately? -How did they lay out buildings with an accuracy in directions, angles and levels which in modern practice requires laser devices. -How were they able, without iron tools, to accurately cut out huge blocks of granite, a very hard and brittle rock? -How were they able to move and lift such huge blocks, the biggest of which weigh about 80 tons? -Why do the earliest pyramids show a much higher level of building skill than those built later? Answers to these questions fall into three broad hypotheses: The conventional view of most Egyptologists is that the pyramids were built using human labor and copper tools. Many engineers have tried to replicate some of the technical tasks involved (see below). Two alternative views have become widely known via the popular press. Graham Hancock, a British journalist, has popularised the "legacy hypothesis", which asserts that the pyramid builders had access to skills from a lost advanced civilisation. Numerous books, such as von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods" hypothesize that the pyramids were built by visitors from other worlds. Kigongos ( talk) 13:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I've seen people make a great deal about the tightness of seams between stones in the pyramids, but I'm curious: is it possible for limestone to deform significantly under pressure in 4500 years, closing the seams after the fact? Are the seams as tight at the top of a pyramid as in its base? Wnt ( talk) 21:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
i was wondering if those tight seams are an indication for the 'limestone concrete' hypothesis? i assume that if you cast a new block on top of old blocks everything will fit perfectly. while putting already-carved stones on top of each other would presumably always leaves a bit of space in between. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.246.73 ( talk) 20:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm no archeologist, so I'm not going to do any editing. I've been intrigued by this (again) after going to the new King Tut show. I found this site: http://www.touregypt.net/construction/ that has a great deal to say about pyramid construction, much of it at odds with this article. Seems to me it's the one more on the right track.... Or at least more up-to-date. Note the further links towards the bottom of the page. Interesting, if nothing else. Jjdon ( talk) 23:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
seems like a tourist-website. filled with lots of simplified and outdated information and no discussion (as not to confuse tourists). and an overabundance of pretty sunset-pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.246.73 ( talk) 21:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
It has been said and written so many times that the Egyptians and the ancient Indians in central america put up those great constructions in the shape of a pyramid because a pyramid is the most stable structure.But could it not be because they lacked suitable roofing materials? Since there were no durable or in fact any material for a big structure,they decided to build without a roof, the only building that can be constructed without a roof is in the shape of a pyramid. Turyomurugyendo ( talk) 17:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
@turyo you're joking, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.246.73 ( talk) 21:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I can't tell if anyone else wrote about this in the discussion but some time ago on a TV show (I don't remember what it was called) I saw an interesting theory on how the stones were moved up ramps. Instead of stones being put on sleds or pallets and dragged up the stones were placed in something like cylinders. Essentially, the ends were formed by these wooden round things, effectively wheels, and the stones themselves became the axles. It's a bit hard to describe in words but once you see it demonstrated, it's really quite simple. The point was that this method is much easier than sleds and you can push the stones up much steeper ramps. Does this theory merit placement in the article? I know that Wikipedia's cardinal rule is verifiability and I realize, unfortunately, that I can't provide more specific details. Nevertheless, would mention of that possibility be warranted? 150.203.110.172 ( talk) 07:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
At the end of the first paragraph: "Disagreements chiefly concern the methods used to move" Someone should probably fix that. I don't have time to figure out what it used to say. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.160.21 ( talk) 02:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The spiraling ramp supported by the pyramid (Mark Lehner) as illustrated is interesting but not the most efficent spiral ramp. The ramp illusrated begins a long way from the pyramid base - there is no need for this, it could, and logically ought, to start at the corner of the pyramid itself. Simiarly the spiral ramp is shown as a supersructure on top of the pyramid surface. This would be a gross waste of effort: the optimally efficient way to do it would be to build the ramp into the face of the pyramid as it rises, like a spiral mountain road - and no extra building materials would be needed. You could even have four separate spiral roadways, one starting in each corner. Filled in, working from the top down when work was complete, they would leave no trace. Lehner's ramp and the others (including this one too) are all speculation - but Occam's Razor says an inset spiral ramp - the simplest and most ergonomic solution - must be the most probable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.1.204 ( talk) 18:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
See diagram
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pyramidlifts.htm — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.5.15.220 (
talk)
08:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Again only orthodox obsolete view of the pyramids. Some things not or barely pointed out in Great of Giza:
-Its located in the center of earth surface land.
-Its located in the circle of latitude containing more land.
-Same line of Nazca, Angkor Watt, Eastern Island...
-Tunnels pointing to Orion
-lot more. -- Kim for sure ( talk) 17:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Everything has to be somewhere, and if this 'circle of latitude' contains more land than ? then it must have a lot of things. Everything in the world is on a line with a bunch of other things. Just pick and choose until you find something you think proves something no one else knows. Dougweller ( talk) 21:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
please have a look on "the mysterious machine of Herodotus", a movie on youtube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDVnpViHymU this solution is five to ten times more efficient than any ramp theory
levering machines have always been reported by egyptians since Herodotus this works for the common blocks, weigthing each less than 2,5 tons, but more than two millions in number, that means more than 99,9 % of the total weight of the Khufu pyramid.
the remainaing blocks, larger than the common blocks , but weighting all together less than 0,1 % of the total weight, may have been pulled on a ramp in the south face till the 42 meters level, and then hoisted with levers till the present position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.11.133.89 ( talk) 09:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
The book The Ancient Alien Question doesn't accept all the theories of aliens hook, line, and sinker. And it even takes away from the assumptions of many that the pyramids could not have been built by humans. I found especially intriguing the parts about the pyramids showing the possibility that some slabs may have been poured vs. quarried. This seem like something that can be carefully added into the article. Misty MH ( talk) 15:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
In accordance with the chronology of the pyramids of Old Kingdom, and therefore with the evolution of their architecture, my method is to build first a step Pyramid and then, to convert this initial structure in smooth pyramid.
Indeed, the first pyramid is a step pyramid (Djeser at Saqqara), the following is also a step pyramid (Huni at Meidum) that was converted immediately after into smooth pyramid by Snefru. Finally, all of the following are smooth pyramids with an internal stepped core.
This is not an umpteenth hypothesis of construction of the pyramid of Cheops. It concerns all the pyramids, the smallest and the largest.
Khoufou (
talk)
15:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
See [1]. "For the construction of the pyramids, the ancient Egyptians had to transport heavy blocks of stone and large statues across the desert. The Egyptians therefore placed the heavy objects on a sledge that workers pulled over the sand. Research from the University of Amsterdam has now revealed that the Egyptians probably made the desert sand in front of the sledge wet. Experiments have demonstrated that the correct amount of dampness in the sand halves the pulling force required." Dougweller ( talk) 18:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
The only way to do this is to actually use one (or more) of these construction methods and successfully build a great pyramid this way. Even that doesn't confirm it's the way the Egyptians did it, just one way it works, how many people have tried building a pyramid using of these techiques (I know about small ones, but ones the same size as the great pyramid, etc) The snare ( talk) 23:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Egyptian pyramid construction techniques. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
"There is also another hypothesis that they were built out of geopolymer cemen" So why does this stupid proven false and extremely illogical idea get mention let alone in the intro? -- Thelawlollol ( talk) 06:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Egyptian pyramid construction techniques. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
See this. Doug Weller talk 18:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Can this artible be a helpful addition to the state of current insights? archeology.org on the khufu pyramid and related recent decade discoveries -- Alexander.stohr ( talk) 09:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Egyptian pyramid construction techniques. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The pyramids were actually built as landing pads for alien spaceships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 ( talk) 06:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Why doesn't the article mention the theory that pyramids were built by aliens? 98.220.130.63 ( talk) 21:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The article implies that evidence for ramps is sketchy, but the Great Pyramid contains two, both internal, one going up - and one down - to chambers inside. These 26 degree ramps therefore probably indicate the practical degree of slope of all ramps used in similar construction work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.6.158 ( talk) 16:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
This is more of a question than a discussion (but it certainly can turn into one): what were the security considerations for the Egyptian pyramids in ancient Egypt? I don't know, but I REALLY need help! Anyone know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.127.227 ( talk) 08:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
@ WikiHannibal: by undoing my edit yesterday, you wrote down the reasons. Now I will give my arguments. Unfortunately, the article cannot use a YouTube link as a note. And I wanted to add this note: youtu.be/FrTLmpVKM1k?t=283 I think watching this video will be enough to restore my edit in the article! LibreOffice User ( talk) 13:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
References
I haven't seen this particular construction hypothesis discussed, but it seems something well thought out and researched, and seems the simplest method proposed so far, AFAIK, on how blocks were moved and emplaced during the construction of Kufu's pyramid.
Essentially, this method uses the slope of the pyramid itself for mechanical advantage with the assistance of a rope system which actually acts as levers rather than pulleys and doesn't seem at odds with any of the simple machines that would have been known to the Egyptians.
https://www.cheops-pyramide.ch/pyramid-building.html
Admittedly, the evidence of such a technique is shaky, but seems far more plausible than something like mile long ramps or dragging blocks up steep spiral inclines or using water to move blocks.
Valgrus Thunderaxe ( talk) 11:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Greetings, I know this seems odd at first, but has anyone actually refuted this theory? That the Great Pyramid was built by constructing a waterproof causeway from the Nile and then up the side of the pyramid, and floating the blocks.
https://blog.world-mysteries.com/mystic-places/building-the-giza-pyramids-water-shaft-theory/
https://www.amazon.com/Pyramids-Egypt-Chris-Massey-ebook/dp/B00II6RJFM
It seems as plausible as anything else. Joel J. Rane ( talk) 20:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
30/12/21 Here is a summary of this theory from the entry on Pyramidology From Wikipedia
Water shaft theory
According to the water shaft hypothesis, flotations are attached to a stone block. The first gate is opened and the block is floated into the shaft. The first gate is closed, then the second gate is opened, allowing the block to float to the top of the shaft. Finally, the second gate is closed and the third gate is opened, allowing workers to float the block out of the shaft. In 2013, archaeologists discovered a set of papyri written by individuals involved in the construction of the Great Pyramid. Among the papyri was the Diary of Merer, written by a middle-ranking official tasked with transporting blocks from the quarry to the construction site. The diary, which has been called "the greatest discovery in Egypt in the 21st century", describes a system of canals and waterways being used to transport the blocks.[39]
The water shaft theory speculates that canal-like technology may have been used not just to transport blocks to the site, but to actually raise the blocks to the top of the pyramid as well. Under this scenario, flotations would be attached to a block and the block would be floated into the bottom of a water-filled shaft. A series of locks would then allow the block to be floated up the sealed water shaft to the top of the pyramid.[40] 79.64.117.94 ( talk) 20:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Is this a euphemism for Hebrew slave? 24.51.192.49 ( talk) 16:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
From http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D2&force=y
"They said that Egypt until the time of King Rhampsinitus was altogether well-governed and prospered greatly, but that Kheops, who was the next king, brought the people to utter misery. For first he closed all the temples, so that no one could sacrifice there; and next, he compelled all the Egyptians to work for him. To some, he assigned the task of dragging stones from the quarries in the Arabian mountains to the Nile; and after the stones were ferried across the river in boats, he organized others to receive and drag them to the mountains called Libyan. They worked in gangs of a hundred thousand men, each gang for three months."
Clearly "all the Egyptians" were not "slaves". As for the "gross errors of fact", he ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE points out that he just relates what he was TOLD by those who appeared in the know. Note "They said..." above. In the article's quote: "...I leave this uncertain, as both possibilities were mentioned..". For goodness sake, he was trying to be balanced, unlike the one who's accusing him of "gross errors" in a disdainful "know better" 21 century's manner, as if he was lying or trying to invent something.
There is wealth of other info in Herodotus full narration about the pyramids, including diet and costs (with a disclaimer that it was what the interpreter reading pyramid inscriptions said) - all of it interesting, logical, entertaining and quite plausible, though obviously dependent on his source. He has spent time gathering information as it was known then, so that 2500 years later we can have the pleasure of finding about it too.
I suggest the historically qualified editors remove the incorrect references to "slaves" and "gross errors of facts" in regard to the pyramids, as I personally can't see any in the original text at the above link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.72.13.106 ( talk) 12:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
"Up to the time of Rhampsinitus, Egypt was excellently governed [124] and very prosperous; but his successor Cheops68 (to continue the account which the priests gave me) brought the country into all sorts of misery. He closed all the temples, then, not content with excluding his subjects from the practice of their religion, compelled them without exception to labour as slaves for his own advantage. Some were forced to drag blocks of stone from the quarries in the Arabian hills to the Nile, where they were ferried across and taken over by others, who hauled them to the Libyan hills. [2] Doug Weller talk 17:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
References
An other technique is the 'Tilt Levering Cage'. See also Building pyramids. Reconstructing the process of lifting stones. As I am not a native English speaker, may be someone can use this information to add to the article. Wouterhagens ( talk) 18:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
(Original Research on the use of ramps. "This page is to discuss the article but we can't use editors' own ideas/research." Click blue button at right to see text |
---|
Something which is missing from the various ramp illustrations is the most obvious and simple solution - four 'spiral' ramps. If you start out by aiming to build in effect a 'stepped' pyramid it can become the underlying framework on which it is possible to construct four ramps parallel to each of the pyramid's four faces, and which can be repeated on each step of the pyramid as each level is reached. All four ramps on each step can then be used simulaltaneously, with each set of four ramps spiralling up to eventually reach all the way to the top. To then complete the smooth-faced pyramid you just work backwards from the top (as per Herodatus) simply incorporating all the material from the ramps into the structure as you work downwards. (Indeed the ramps would mostly BE part of the structure from the outset anyway). Hence no remains of any ramps. Similarly this would explain the visble 'ramp lines' and the odd 'corners'. All the corners would have to be left clear at the ends of each ramp to allow room for materials to be turned at right angles at the top (and bottom) of each slope ready to be hauled up the next incline. No need for any huge external ramps, nor any complicated internal ramps. Occam's Razor - the simplest solution... Steve Ainsworth Halifax Yorkshire 6th April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.245.53 ( talk) 16:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
|
There's a couple of interesting images in the French version of this article, maybe it is something to take a look at. -- Ediug ( talk) 10:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
-- Satrughna ( talk) 06:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
A Google search reveals article after article showing that the theory that the Egyptians used mud ramps to construct the pyramids doesn't hold up to rational analysis. Yet Wikipedia continues to publish articles showing mud ramp construction as if it were a rational and realistic theory. On the other hand my article describing in detail how the pyramids could have been constructed using movable wooden ramps was rejected as "spam."
I am not trying to sell anything, and my article is NOT spam! It may reproduced at no charge. The only restriction is that I continue to be named as the author.
Wikipedia's rejection seems to me to be arbitrary, unfair, and unrealistic. The editors even removed a link to my article. Wikipedia is publishing misinformation about a theory that has been repeatedly debunked and refusing to consider a unique and reasonable alternative.
Forgive me, but this seems to me to be unreasoning prejudice. Please review this time without prejudice my article http://www.fsteiger.com/Pyramid.html
Thank you, Frank Steiger 8-19-07
```` —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Fsteiger (
talk •
contribs) 21:03:41, August 19, 2007 (UTC).
I fear you are suffering from the same problem that I have. Although no mainstream description of the building of the Great Pyramid stacks up, these same descriptions are nevertheless mainstream, frequently referenced and appear in many referenced documents. Though I believe my description ( http://www.farmhall.com/drupal/files/GPpaper.pdf ) Mehtopa ( talk) 20:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC) is viable, it is not mainstream and therefore does not merit inclusion in wiki. That is the nature of wiki. It is not unreasoning prejudice which precludes our articles but their absence elsewhere from the public domain consensus. Recognition has to precede inclusion, not the other way round. Basically, we are outsiders in the Egyptian community. Mehtopa 12:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Dec 2 1999, 3:00 am Newsgroups sci.archaeology Date 1999/12/02
- Subject Re Were Kites used to lift pyramid stones?
I'm a lay person, no expert. I've read through both of the above.... Both are about "how I would build a pyramid", not about how the Egyptians did it or would have. Whether ramps are wood, clay or rocks is far less important than the big picture of how or if ramps were used at all, and what arrangement. Or what else was done...... Just not as earth-shattering as the authors would like to believe, sorry....... Jjdon ( talk) 20:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The bald statement that '.. the stones forming the core of the pyramids were roughly cut, especially in the Great Pyramid..' should surely not go unchallenged. Where is the supporting evidence? Who has investigated the core of the GP and come to this conclusion? It is a likely conjecture but AFAIK nobody has any certain knowledge of the nature of the GP interior beyond what is visible. The wiki should only refer to knowledge or evidence in the public domain.
Mehtopa ( talk) 15:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not a Wiki regular editor/contributor but I though this might warrant inclusion in the article.
It's a site run by a retired carpenter who's figured out how, by using counterweights, large (like 10-ton) stone blocks could be moved. He's trying to sell DVDs, but there are several interesting snippets of avaiable for viewing.
http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/newpage1 http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/newpage3
In particular, his method of rolling the square blocks along semicylindrical "cradles" places on the ground is a stunningly simple idea that seems to work very well... much better than worker-drawn sledges.
http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/newpage4
Just an FYI. I leave it to the regulars to see if they can make something of this for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krispos42 ( talk • contribs) 07:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I have added a few paragraphs to summarise why the question "how were the pyramids built" is of such interest. Since the "legacy" theory of Hancock et al and the "New Age type" theories are so well publicised I thought it worth mentioning them here without addressing their credibility. The important thing, in my view, is that we really have no clue as to how some of these things were done. Thus all current experiments and published hypotheses are worth mentioning. Kigongos ( talk) 15:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Duplicates the lead? My overview and your lead say very different things! I suggest then that you redo the lead because as it stands it does not do justice to the topic. Why is this matter of enough enough interest to merit a separate article? That "there are disagreements" is not enough reason; there are disagreements on all historical questions. You give equal play to the "slave or laborer" question, but it's really the engineering questions that fascinate serious students of this matter.
Consider something like this for a lead:
The question of how the Pyramids of Giza were built has been of great interest since ancient times, and was discussed by Greek historians. When the site was examined in detail by modern engineers in the 19th century a number of facts were uncovered which still fascinate engineers and historians. The builders of the pyramids were, to our best knowledge, an iron age civilisation with no iron, no horses, no wheels or pulleys and only a basic knowledge of applied mathematics, so engineers studying the pyramids pose questions such as: -How were the Egyptians able to determine the direction of True North so accurately? -How did they lay out buildings with an accuracy in directions, angles and levels which in modern practice requires laser devices. -How were they able, without iron tools, to accurately cut out huge blocks of granite, a very hard and brittle rock? -How were they able to move and lift such huge blocks, the biggest of which weigh about 80 tons? -Why do the earliest pyramids show a much higher level of building skill than those built later? Answers to these questions fall into three broad hypotheses: The conventional view of most Egyptologists is that the pyramids were built using human labor and copper tools. Many engineers have tried to replicate some of the technical tasks involved (see below). Two alternative views have become widely known via the popular press. Graham Hancock, a British journalist, has popularised the "legacy hypothesis", which asserts that the pyramid builders had access to skills from a lost advanced civilisation. Numerous books, such as von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods" hypothesize that the pyramids were built by visitors from other worlds. Kigongos ( talk) 13:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I've seen people make a great deal about the tightness of seams between stones in the pyramids, but I'm curious: is it possible for limestone to deform significantly under pressure in 4500 years, closing the seams after the fact? Are the seams as tight at the top of a pyramid as in its base? Wnt ( talk) 21:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
i was wondering if those tight seams are an indication for the 'limestone concrete' hypothesis? i assume that if you cast a new block on top of old blocks everything will fit perfectly. while putting already-carved stones on top of each other would presumably always leaves a bit of space in between. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.246.73 ( talk) 20:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm no archeologist, so I'm not going to do any editing. I've been intrigued by this (again) after going to the new King Tut show. I found this site: http://www.touregypt.net/construction/ that has a great deal to say about pyramid construction, much of it at odds with this article. Seems to me it's the one more on the right track.... Or at least more up-to-date. Note the further links towards the bottom of the page. Interesting, if nothing else. Jjdon ( talk) 23:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
seems like a tourist-website. filled with lots of simplified and outdated information and no discussion (as not to confuse tourists). and an overabundance of pretty sunset-pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.246.73 ( talk) 21:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
It has been said and written so many times that the Egyptians and the ancient Indians in central america put up those great constructions in the shape of a pyramid because a pyramid is the most stable structure.But could it not be because they lacked suitable roofing materials? Since there were no durable or in fact any material for a big structure,they decided to build without a roof, the only building that can be constructed without a roof is in the shape of a pyramid. Turyomurugyendo ( talk) 17:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
@turyo you're joking, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.246.73 ( talk) 21:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I can't tell if anyone else wrote about this in the discussion but some time ago on a TV show (I don't remember what it was called) I saw an interesting theory on how the stones were moved up ramps. Instead of stones being put on sleds or pallets and dragged up the stones were placed in something like cylinders. Essentially, the ends were formed by these wooden round things, effectively wheels, and the stones themselves became the axles. It's a bit hard to describe in words but once you see it demonstrated, it's really quite simple. The point was that this method is much easier than sleds and you can push the stones up much steeper ramps. Does this theory merit placement in the article? I know that Wikipedia's cardinal rule is verifiability and I realize, unfortunately, that I can't provide more specific details. Nevertheless, would mention of that possibility be warranted? 150.203.110.172 ( talk) 07:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
At the end of the first paragraph: "Disagreements chiefly concern the methods used to move" Someone should probably fix that. I don't have time to figure out what it used to say. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.160.21 ( talk) 02:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
The spiraling ramp supported by the pyramid (Mark Lehner) as illustrated is interesting but not the most efficent spiral ramp. The ramp illusrated begins a long way from the pyramid base - there is no need for this, it could, and logically ought, to start at the corner of the pyramid itself. Simiarly the spiral ramp is shown as a supersructure on top of the pyramid surface. This would be a gross waste of effort: the optimally efficient way to do it would be to build the ramp into the face of the pyramid as it rises, like a spiral mountain road - and no extra building materials would be needed. You could even have four separate spiral roadways, one starting in each corner. Filled in, working from the top down when work was complete, they would leave no trace. Lehner's ramp and the others (including this one too) are all speculation - but Occam's Razor says an inset spiral ramp - the simplest and most ergonomic solution - must be the most probable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.1.204 ( talk) 18:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
See diagram
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pyramidlifts.htm — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.5.15.220 (
talk)
08:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Again only orthodox obsolete view of the pyramids. Some things not or barely pointed out in Great of Giza:
-Its located in the center of earth surface land.
-Its located in the circle of latitude containing more land.
-Same line of Nazca, Angkor Watt, Eastern Island...
-Tunnels pointing to Orion
-lot more. -- Kim for sure ( talk) 17:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Everything has to be somewhere, and if this 'circle of latitude' contains more land than ? then it must have a lot of things. Everything in the world is on a line with a bunch of other things. Just pick and choose until you find something you think proves something no one else knows. Dougweller ( talk) 21:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
please have a look on "the mysterious machine of Herodotus", a movie on youtube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDVnpViHymU this solution is five to ten times more efficient than any ramp theory
levering machines have always been reported by egyptians since Herodotus this works for the common blocks, weigthing each less than 2,5 tons, but more than two millions in number, that means more than 99,9 % of the total weight of the Khufu pyramid.
the remainaing blocks, larger than the common blocks , but weighting all together less than 0,1 % of the total weight, may have been pulled on a ramp in the south face till the 42 meters level, and then hoisted with levers till the present position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.11.133.89 ( talk) 09:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
The book The Ancient Alien Question doesn't accept all the theories of aliens hook, line, and sinker. And it even takes away from the assumptions of many that the pyramids could not have been built by humans. I found especially intriguing the parts about the pyramids showing the possibility that some slabs may have been poured vs. quarried. This seem like something that can be carefully added into the article. Misty MH ( talk) 15:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
In accordance with the chronology of the pyramids of Old Kingdom, and therefore with the evolution of their architecture, my method is to build first a step Pyramid and then, to convert this initial structure in smooth pyramid.
Indeed, the first pyramid is a step pyramid (Djeser at Saqqara), the following is also a step pyramid (Huni at Meidum) that was converted immediately after into smooth pyramid by Snefru. Finally, all of the following are smooth pyramids with an internal stepped core.
This is not an umpteenth hypothesis of construction of the pyramid of Cheops. It concerns all the pyramids, the smallest and the largest.
Khoufou (
talk)
15:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
See [1]. "For the construction of the pyramids, the ancient Egyptians had to transport heavy blocks of stone and large statues across the desert. The Egyptians therefore placed the heavy objects on a sledge that workers pulled over the sand. Research from the University of Amsterdam has now revealed that the Egyptians probably made the desert sand in front of the sledge wet. Experiments have demonstrated that the correct amount of dampness in the sand halves the pulling force required." Dougweller ( talk) 18:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
The only way to do this is to actually use one (or more) of these construction methods and successfully build a great pyramid this way. Even that doesn't confirm it's the way the Egyptians did it, just one way it works, how many people have tried building a pyramid using of these techiques (I know about small ones, but ones the same size as the great pyramid, etc) The snare ( talk) 23:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Egyptian pyramid construction techniques. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
"There is also another hypothesis that they were built out of geopolymer cemen" So why does this stupid proven false and extremely illogical idea get mention let alone in the intro? -- Thelawlollol ( talk) 06:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Egyptian pyramid construction techniques. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
See this. Doug Weller talk 18:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Can this artible be a helpful addition to the state of current insights? archeology.org on the khufu pyramid and related recent decade discoveries -- Alexander.stohr ( talk) 09:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Egyptian pyramid construction techniques. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The pyramids were actually built as landing pads for alien spaceships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 ( talk) 06:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Why doesn't the article mention the theory that pyramids were built by aliens? 98.220.130.63 ( talk) 21:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The article implies that evidence for ramps is sketchy, but the Great Pyramid contains two, both internal, one going up - and one down - to chambers inside. These 26 degree ramps therefore probably indicate the practical degree of slope of all ramps used in similar construction work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.6.158 ( talk) 16:29, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
This is more of a question than a discussion (but it certainly can turn into one): what were the security considerations for the Egyptian pyramids in ancient Egypt? I don't know, but I REALLY need help! Anyone know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.127.227 ( talk) 08:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
@ WikiHannibal: by undoing my edit yesterday, you wrote down the reasons. Now I will give my arguments. Unfortunately, the article cannot use a YouTube link as a note. And I wanted to add this note: youtu.be/FrTLmpVKM1k?t=283 I think watching this video will be enough to restore my edit in the article! LibreOffice User ( talk) 13:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
References
I haven't seen this particular construction hypothesis discussed, but it seems something well thought out and researched, and seems the simplest method proposed so far, AFAIK, on how blocks were moved and emplaced during the construction of Kufu's pyramid.
Essentially, this method uses the slope of the pyramid itself for mechanical advantage with the assistance of a rope system which actually acts as levers rather than pulleys and doesn't seem at odds with any of the simple machines that would have been known to the Egyptians.
https://www.cheops-pyramide.ch/pyramid-building.html
Admittedly, the evidence of such a technique is shaky, but seems far more plausible than something like mile long ramps or dragging blocks up steep spiral inclines or using water to move blocks.
Valgrus Thunderaxe ( talk) 11:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Greetings, I know this seems odd at first, but has anyone actually refuted this theory? That the Great Pyramid was built by constructing a waterproof causeway from the Nile and then up the side of the pyramid, and floating the blocks.
https://blog.world-mysteries.com/mystic-places/building-the-giza-pyramids-water-shaft-theory/
https://www.amazon.com/Pyramids-Egypt-Chris-Massey-ebook/dp/B00II6RJFM
It seems as plausible as anything else. Joel J. Rane ( talk) 20:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
30/12/21 Here is a summary of this theory from the entry on Pyramidology From Wikipedia
Water shaft theory
According to the water shaft hypothesis, flotations are attached to a stone block. The first gate is opened and the block is floated into the shaft. The first gate is closed, then the second gate is opened, allowing the block to float to the top of the shaft. Finally, the second gate is closed and the third gate is opened, allowing workers to float the block out of the shaft. In 2013, archaeologists discovered a set of papyri written by individuals involved in the construction of the Great Pyramid. Among the papyri was the Diary of Merer, written by a middle-ranking official tasked with transporting blocks from the quarry to the construction site. The diary, which has been called "the greatest discovery in Egypt in the 21st century", describes a system of canals and waterways being used to transport the blocks.[39]
The water shaft theory speculates that canal-like technology may have been used not just to transport blocks to the site, but to actually raise the blocks to the top of the pyramid as well. Under this scenario, flotations would be attached to a block and the block would be floated into the bottom of a water-filled shaft. A series of locks would then allow the block to be floated up the sealed water shaft to the top of the pyramid.[40] 79.64.117.94 ( talk) 20:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Is this a euphemism for Hebrew slave? 24.51.192.49 ( talk) 16:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
From http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0126%3Abook%3D2&force=y
"They said that Egypt until the time of King Rhampsinitus was altogether well-governed and prospered greatly, but that Kheops, who was the next king, brought the people to utter misery. For first he closed all the temples, so that no one could sacrifice there; and next, he compelled all the Egyptians to work for him. To some, he assigned the task of dragging stones from the quarries in the Arabian mountains to the Nile; and after the stones were ferried across the river in boats, he organized others to receive and drag them to the mountains called Libyan. They worked in gangs of a hundred thousand men, each gang for three months."
Clearly "all the Egyptians" were not "slaves". As for the "gross errors of fact", he ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE points out that he just relates what he was TOLD by those who appeared in the know. Note "They said..." above. In the article's quote: "...I leave this uncertain, as both possibilities were mentioned..". For goodness sake, he was trying to be balanced, unlike the one who's accusing him of "gross errors" in a disdainful "know better" 21 century's manner, as if he was lying or trying to invent something.
There is wealth of other info in Herodotus full narration about the pyramids, including diet and costs (with a disclaimer that it was what the interpreter reading pyramid inscriptions said) - all of it interesting, logical, entertaining and quite plausible, though obviously dependent on his source. He has spent time gathering information as it was known then, so that 2500 years later we can have the pleasure of finding about it too.
I suggest the historically qualified editors remove the incorrect references to "slaves" and "gross errors of facts" in regard to the pyramids, as I personally can't see any in the original text at the above link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.72.13.106 ( talk) 12:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
"Up to the time of Rhampsinitus, Egypt was excellently governed [124] and very prosperous; but his successor Cheops68 (to continue the account which the priests gave me) brought the country into all sorts of misery. He closed all the temples, then, not content with excluding his subjects from the practice of their religion, compelled them without exception to labour as slaves for his own advantage. Some were forced to drag blocks of stone from the quarries in the Arabian hills to the Nile, where they were ferried across and taken over by others, who hauled them to the Libyan hills. [2] Doug Weller talk 17:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
References
An other technique is the 'Tilt Levering Cage'. See also Building pyramids. Reconstructing the process of lifting stones. As I am not a native English speaker, may be someone can use this information to add to the article. Wouterhagens ( talk) 18:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)