1 of 2
1
Great Pyramid of Giza
Posted: 09 April 2007 05:33 AM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

deleted by the author

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2007 05:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

Great Pyramid of Giza

deleted by the author

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2007 06:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4108
Joined  2006-11-28

I suspect you’re right. This link is to an article regardinga new theory about the construction. I have no idea how widely accepted the various theories are by the experts in the field, but it doesn’t seem there’s a solid consensus yhet.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2405133.ece

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2007 06:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14

Not sure what you mean, George. Whether it was two or eight minutes (or more, if it was completed after the Pharaoh’s death), it was certainly doable.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2007 07:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  19
Joined  2006-10-12

I don’t quite get your point. Quoting from your own Wiki entry…

The Egyptologists’ calculations suggest the workforce could have sustained a rate of 180 blocks per hour (3 blocks/minute) with ten hour work days for putting each individual block in place. They derived these estimates from construction projects that did not use modern machinery.

Of course, this is just the placement of the stones, and not the cutting, but it seems like your own reference resolves the conflict you’re talking about.  :?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2007 07:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

deleted by the author

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2007 07:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

deleted by the author

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2007 07:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14

Sorry, I don’t believe Merle Booker; or at the very least his quote was taken out of context. The american portion of the Panama Canal was built in ten years, which is orders of magnitude larger than the Great Pyramid. So the notion that it would take 27 years to build such a thing right now is simply a non-starter. My guess is that it could be done very quickly, if we really wanted to get it done ... and by “very quickly” I mean in a couple of years.

NB: work on the Panama Canal showed the capability to remove more than “512,500 cubic metres of material in the first three months of 1907” . The total volume of the Great Pyramid is believed to be around 2.6M cubic meters. And although the canal was built with dynamite, it was with a workforce of ~39,000 and quite primitive materials in very poor conditions—disease was rife. That should allow some reason to believe that a century ago with ~100,000 workers they should have been able to quarry the requisite rock in a year or so. Of course, things would go faster now.

Further, pyramids of similar or larger size have been built in Mexico as well ...

I’m hoping you’re not getting back on the UFO bandwagon again here, George. If the question is one of simple amazement at the capabilities of the ancients, I am in total agreement. They were very smart and industrious peoples. Certainly more research needs to be done about them. But there is no doubt that they did construct these pyramids, and in relatively few years’ time.

HERE is a webpage by the leading antiquities person in Egypt, Dr. Zahi Hawass, with information on the archaeological evidence of how the builders lived and worked.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2007 08:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

deleted by the author

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2007 08:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14

[quote author=“George Benedik”]Again? Remember, Doug, I didn’t say Daniken’s theories were right. All I said was that his comments were not racist and Nickell’s explanations were not based on evidence.

Well, I think we can agree to disagree on that ... :wink:

[quote author=“George Benedik”]I find it fascinating and I understand they had to do it somehow, but I don’t think we have the slightest idea (including Nickell) how.

Seems to me from the evidence Hawass and others have presented that we know a great deal about how it was done.

[quote author=“George Benedik”][quote author=“dougsmith”]Further, pyramids of similar or larger size have been built in Mexico as well ...

Hmm, maybe the pyramid of the Sun in Teotihuacan. But we don’t know much about this one either.

Actually, I’m talking about the Great Pyramid of Cholula , although the Pyramids of the Sun and Moon at Teotihuacan, as well as the pyramids at Tenochtitlan (destroyed by the Spanish) and those of the ancient Maya were all of really very impressive size and construction.

... and then there’s the Great Wall of China ... built in large sections over many years.

[quote author=“George Benedik”]Re Panama Canal: it is certainly easier (and faster) to remove than to create.

Quite so, but I was talking about a proof-of-concept here: 36,000 people in 1907 were able to move a great deal of stone in three months ... so it isn’t so far fetched at all to assume that 20 years is enough time to construct Giza. Also recall that the “creation” of Giza was basically the creation of a pile of stones. Only the interior passageways and the skin needed any sort of fine treatment.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2007 09:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

deleted by the author

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2007 02:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

deleted by the author

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2007 03:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14

[quote author=“George Benedik”]Herodotus claims that the Great Pyramid of Giza was built in twenty years. The pyramid accounts for roughly 24 million of stone blocks, average weight 1.5 tons. This tells us that one stone had to be put in place every two minutes (+/-). These two minutes include the quarry, fabrication, and delivery (500 miles: distance from Toronto to New York City!).

Sorry, the Hawass paper says: “Lehner located the quarry of Khufu’s pyramid to the South side of the pyramid base, and South of the causeway of Khafre.” Not exactly 500km distance.

See also HERE . The quarry was right next door to the pyramids.

[quote author=“George Benedik”]1. Herodotus was wrong. It took hundreds of years to build the pyramid: the purpose of the pyramid wasn’t a tomb.
2. It took twenty years (or a lifetime): the technology to perform this unthinkable task is unknown to us.

Neither of those is plausible. The pyramid was built in a relatively short span of time (decades) using technologies roughly understood today (ramps and pulleys).

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 April 2007 04:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29

deleted by the author

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 April 2007 12:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14

Well, the webpage I cited above says there were 2000 workmen in the quarry ... 30 blocks per hour would mean 66 workmen per block per hour, which sounds plausible to me. (That is, let’s say there were say 11 workmen per block and it took them six hours to excavate one).

The rest of the large workforce (thousands or tens of thousands) would have been involved with carting and placing the blocks.

I’m not finding this hard to envision.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 April 2007 04:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4108
Joined  2006-11-28

I also don’t find the idea that people constructed the pyramids with great effort and with a large workforce in a short time using relatively simple technology hard to imagine. Though I can’t answer specific objections since I don’t know anymore than wikipedia tells me, I am frequently amazed at what people can do on a smaller scale with simple tools and sufficient effort. It would be interesting to know the details of how such monuments were constructed, but I don’t find the general idea that it was done on the timescale of a lifetime expecially implausible.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1