Top Menu
Namon's Gallery Next
Articles
Subject:
Re: 200-ton monoliths in Khafre's pyramid?
(was Re: Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt)
Sun, 23 Mar 1997 01:05:55 -0800
sci.archaeology
Prof. Vincent Brannigan wrote:
A quote from Hancock:
*** These extraordinary monoliths, I was later
to discover, weighed
*** 200 tons apiece . . .
> Im not sure I get the point of this exchange.
The egyptians
could
> handle really big rocks. I've walked on the
broken unfinished obelisk
> at Aswan. we
were told it was close to 1000 tons. it
was obvious
> they intended
A professor, and he doesn't
bother with capitals? Those are simply bad manners,
which make it harder to
concentrate on what is being said.
> to carve it out of its bed, slide it down to
the river and float it
> soemwhere. At Karnak you can see severl
hundred ton+ obelisks. Its
> tricky getting them
> upright, but not beyond the obvious tools and
methods they used.
> vince
Absolutely! It is obvious that the Egyptians used Hi-Tech..
On a chance you meant that their tools were typical primitive
tools of the day, that is unlikely, for if true, there would be
nothing to stop archaeologists and aegyptologists, and their
students from getting together and replicating some of the most
daunting Egyptian achievements by the sheer force of numbers,
and by the virtue of patience. I would love to see someone
finish that 1,000-ton obelisk, and float it several hundred
miles down the Nile, and then carry it next to one of the
1,000-ton obelisks already standing in Egypt.
The absence of such demonstrations is conspicuous. It is a
glaring sign advertising the moderns' impotence in replicating
such ancient achievements.
Which is just too bad for the other side in this exchange..
Regards,
Jiri
Martin Stower wrote:
> Jiri Mruzek (for it was he) wrote:
> [. . .]
> >Actually, the largest blocks in Khufu's pyramid
don't weigh much
> >over a 'mere' seventy tons. However, several
lower courses of
> >another Great Pyramid, Khafre's, consist of
such 200-ton blocks.
> >Surprised? This tidbit of egyptiana comes
courtesy of Hancock's
> >FOG.
> >I wouldn't know otherwise, so let's mark this
bit of jealously
> >concealed tabu reality as a plus for Hancock.
> What exactly _does_ Hancock say? _Fingerprints
of the Gods_,
> Mandarin (paperback) edition, p. 312:
> . . . Skirting the
immense south-western [sic] corner of the
> Second Pyramid, our
eyes were drawn towards its summit. . . .
> We also noticed that
the first few courses above its base,
> each of which had a
`footprint' of about a dozen acres, were
> composed of truly massive
blocks of limestone, almost too high
> to clamber over, which
were about 20 feet long and 6 feet thick.
> These extraordinary
monoliths, I was later to discover, weighed
> 200 tons apiece . .
.
> Really?
> The dimensions are underspecified - 20 feet
x 6 feet - but then
> the width (or depth) wouldn't be visible.
> I'll assume 20' x 6' x 6', and 2.5 g per cm^3.
Doing the necessary
> conversions and calculations, the result I
get is 51 tonnes. Don't
> know the exact figure in tons, but it sure
as hell ain't 200.
I see. I must have gotten careless on account
of having seen
a photo on the Internet of the Second Pyramid
showing it from
some distance. In
this photo the higher courses become blurred,
whereas the blocks in the lower courses are still
distinguish-
able. Obviously, they are huge.
Hancock could be wrong in
his measurements.
> Hancock continues:
> . . . Walking due south,
parallel to the monument's scarred
> western flank, we picked
our way . . . towards the much
> smaller Third Pyramid,
which lay some 400 metres ahead of
> us in the desert.
> We need this bit to get our bearings right.
Hancock tells us
> that he and his wife Santha, having ascended
and descended
> the Great Pyramid at its south-western corner,
skirted one of
> the Second Pyramid's corners, and continued
south, parallel with
> that pyramid's western flank.
OK, the nearest corner of the Second Pyramid to
the Great
Pyramid is its North-Eastern corner. So, coming
down from
the South-Western corner of the Great Pyramid,
one has to
skirt the North-Eastern corner of the Second
Pyramid to get
to either the South-Eastern corner, or the North-Western
corner.
So here Hancock becomes inaccurate. He had to
skirt two
corners of the Second Pyramid to find himself
walking South
along its Western side (after moving mainly west).
> He says it was the Second Pyramid's
> south-western corner - but, clearly, it could
only have been the
> NORTH-western corner.
Absolutely correct, because as I am looking at
the site plan
right now, I see that the "400" metres to Menkaure's
applies
from the North-Western corner, whereas from its
South-Western
corner the distance to Menkaure's Pyramid must
be just over
200 metres.
> That's where he saw the monoliths . . .
> Why is this important? Compare what it
says in _Keeper of
> Genesis_, by Robert Bauval and - yes - Graham
Hancock. (In
> North America, this became _The Message of
the Sphinx_, by
> Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval.)
> KOG, Wm. Heinemann (hardback) edition, p. 52:
(Quote KOG)
A more spectacular and
conspicuous mixture of rock-hewn
and built-up features
occurs at the Pyramid of Khafre. It
stands on an artificially
levelled 12-acre platform cut
bodily out of the plateau
- which slopes steeply from
north-west to south-east
at this point (i.e. it is higher
in the west and lower
in the east). In consequence the
north and west sides
of the Pyramid are enclosed within
a trench that decreases
steadily in height from about 20
feet at the north-west
corner to about 10 feet at the
south-west corner -
and to zero at the north-east and
south-east corners.
The lower courses of the Pyramid
itself on the north
and west sides are contoured out
of the central mound
of bedrock that the builders left
in place after hollowing
out the trench. On the east
and south sides, however,
the slope of the plateau falls
below the level chosen
for the base of the Pyramid. The
builders solved this
problem by bringing thousands of
enormous filling blocks
to the site - average weight
about 100 tons each
- to create an unshakable horizontal
foundation. They
then went on to lay the first few
courses of the monument
on the eastern and southern sides
using the same unwieldy
monoliths. . . .
(Unquote)
Altogether, this is a pretty good description.
> Three points to consider:
> (1) In FOG, Hancock shows no awareness whatsoever
that some of
> the `massive' lower
courses are hewn out of the bedrock
> (despite it being so
`conspicuous').
True, he doesn't mention it.
> (2) Where is the bedrock highest? At
the NW corner. Were are
> most (if not all) of
the `massive' courses hewn out of bedrock?
> At the NW corner.
Where did Hancock `see' 200-ton monoliths?
> At the NW corner.
According to info, the big blocks are on the Southern
and Eastern
sides. So, the conclusion is that Hancock must
have gotten his
notes mixed up a bit. He had to have seen the
monoliths at the
South-Western corner. That was a very sharp observation,
Martin.
I'm impresed by your work ethic.
Of course, most blocks
are on the south-east, as written by
Hancock. But, he saw the
blocks in the south-west, as he describes
it - a small technical
flaw.
> (3) In KOG/MOS, talk of 200-ton monoliths in
Khafre's pyramid is
> conspicuous by its
absence. The figure mentioned is 100 tons;
> this is for the filling
blocks, but we're assured that `the
> same unwieldy monoliths'
were used in the pyramid. There's
> no reluctance here
to use impressive figures - so why no
> 200-tonners?
> Sorry, Jiri - it's another Hancock factoid.
> Martin
Very good, Martin. But thousands of such blocks,
weighing
around 100-tons apiece, likely transported over
hundreds of
metres from the Sphinx's ditch (at
the time I thought, that ditch
much larger than it is,
so, where were these thousands of blocks mined?)
that is also a wondrous achievement formerly
kept away
from the portfolio of all the achievements at
Giza, and thus
misrepresentation by omission of the entire situation.
Plus,
the cutting of the ditch for the Second pyramid,
and levelling
it amounts to another big project.
Let's keep this in perspective, and remember
that we are
talking about this extremely interesting subject
courtesy
of Bauval-Hancock. Why was the honor of breaking
the lengthy public silence left to Bauval-Hancock?
Jiri
> > > Absolutely! It is obvious that the Egyptians
used Hi-Tech..
> no
its not obvious, see below.
> > > On a chance you meant that their tools
were typical primitive
> > > tools of the day, that is unlikely, for
if true, there would be
> > > nothing to stop archaeologists and aegyptologists,
and their
> > > students from getting together and replicating
some of the most
> > > daunting Egyptian achievements by the sheer
force of numbers,
> > > and by the virtue of patience.
> There are two different issues. money
and know how.
How about a couple more issues? Honor, and
scientific integrity?
Forever shutting up dissidents like me? Pushing
Atlantis
back under water? Wouldn't this be like swatting
a tentful of
mosquitos with one fell swoop of a machinegun
- or going a
1,000 miles on one tankful of gas, in an old
Ford pickup?
Wouldn't this be a great time-saver for a large
mass of people,
a lot of whom dispute the issue endlessly on
the Internet?
Let these people get back to their own lives?
Let Gantenbrink send his Upuauts up the shaft
from Queen's
Chamber, and let West put a stethoscope to the
Sphinx's breast.
Let a small army of volunteers replicate a few
Egyptian ancient
wonders, to specs by skeptics like me.
Set everybody loose at Giza, and call it "Giza
Games of Gizmos".
The show will make lots of money, and give the
poor of Cairo a
temp-job.
If your champions win, they get to keep a brand
new, beautiful
paperthin diorite vase hollowed out with a toothbrush
and abrasive
paste, a vase which can balance on its narrow
neck, and have its
bottom up in a perfectly horizontal plane.
If your side fails, our reward will be one of
the predynastic
vases of the same precious quality.
Boasting, and not delivering - amounts to a false
ad campaign,
and a worldwide embarassment!
> > > I would love to see someone
> > > finish that 1,000-ton obelisk, and float
it several hundred
> > > miles down the Nile, and then carry it
next to one of the
> > > 1,000-ton obelisks already standing in
Egypt.
> > > The absence of such demonstrations is conspicuous.
It is a
> > > glaring sign advertising the moderns' impotence
in replicating
> > > such ancient achievements.
> > > Which is just too bad for the other side
in this exchange..
> > Who says primitive tools have to be limited
in their abilities? Is it
> > possible that the ancients had innovative
ways of using primitive tools
> > which we
> > that we have lost the ability to use simple
tools through our
> > centuries-long dependence on the products
of industrialization?
> > I don't know the answers, but I would like
to hear some opinions
> > from those who may.
How strange! Ray seems to hoist me with my own
petard. Has he read
my post to Robert Shipp from the 23rd of March,
under the heading
"Re: Paleo Speleology", by any chance? In that
post I say:
"Simple tools and principles, combined in such
a brilliant way
that their end output equals or exceeds output
of modern machines,
would actually qualify as hi-tech, as well, IMHO.
Too bad, I can't
think of a good example."
So is this an instance of rare sychronicity?
BTW, I have thought of an example - Edward Leedskalnin
- the builder
of Corral Castle.
> The thing to keep in mind is that most of egyptian
stone working
> involved the
> relentless repetion of acst which were well
within their power. If you
> can move
> one 2 1/2 ton block, you have the technology
to move 2 million such
> blocks.
> the key difference is resources, and the Egyptians
had those too.
When something dramatically increases in quantity,
the process
can lead to a qualitative change, too. One drop
of water is
nothing. Many such drops together can become
an ocean, or rain,
and so on. One miniscule portion of some poison
can be a cure.
Anymore of it, and it will kill.
One can't simplify the building of a pyramid
like the GP down to
just moving 2.3 million blocks weighing 2 1/2
ton each.
There is much, much more to a building like that.
The 17-ton
mantle blocks had to be precut on the ground,
polished to
optometrist's standards of a century ago, transported
unharmed
to great heights, and set into place with incredible
precision.
There was the matter of accurate measurements
and directional
bearings, the creation of a mathematical model
symbolizing
the Earth, embodying of the ancient measure systems,
the working
of the hardest granite to perfection on a giant
scale, and more.
> I dont know why you claim we are "impoten[t]
in replicating
> such ancient achievements."
In many cases we can create methods using
> materials
> they had. We simply do not know if we
are replicating their efforts.
> that is
> ignormance, not impotence.
Please, give us some relevant examples. We've
heard too much general
evasiveness.
I can name you an example, no one will equal
today by bare
hands. No one can do precision drafting by free-hand.
But, the engravers of La Marche could do it on
limestone tablets,
and the Nascans could engrave it on their desert
on a huge scale.
Lest they were drafting the designs.. What do
you think?
Regards, Jiri Mruzek -
> > How about a couple more issues? Honor,
and scientific integrity?
> > Forever shutting up dissidents like me?
> you confuse "shutting up" which is reprehensible
to "ignoring"
> with is the listener's right.
Forever ignoring dissidensts like me?
Well, professor, what do we have discussion groups
for?
I can be ignored, but it's just a plain shame.
It's the Ostrich psychosis.
> > If your champions win, they get to keep a
brand new, beautiful
> > paperthin diorite vase hollowed out with
a toothbrush and abrasive
> > paste, a vase which can balance on its narrow
neck, and have its
> > bottom up in a perfectly horizontal plane.
> > If your side fails, our reward will be one
of the predynastic
> > vases of the same precious quality.
> > Boasting, and not delivering - amounts to
a false ad campaign,
> > and a worldwide embarassment!
> I've watched chinese artisans make much more
complex forms out of ivory
> with simple hand tools.
A classic non-answer - I can carve forms of arbitrary
complexity
from dough - but granite?
> snip
> > When something dramatically increases in quantity,
the process
> > can lead to a qualitative change, too. One
drop of water is
> > nothing. Many such drops together can become
an ocean, or rain,
> > and so on. One miniscule portion of some
poison can be a cure.
> > Anymore of it, and it will kill.
> so what? you are simply stating that the response
of some systems
> becomes non linear at some point. this
i well known both to us and
> the egyptians.
Apply the non linear principle to the Great Pyramid,
please.
> > One can't simplify the building of a pyramid
like the GP down to
> > just moving 2.3 million blocks weighing 2
1/2 ton each.
> > There is much, much more to a building like
that. The 17-ton
> > mantle blocks had to be precut on the ground,
polished to
> > optometrist's standards of a century ago,
transported unharmed
> > to great heights, and set into place with
incredible precision.
> But once you can do one, you can do a million.
Just like eyeglasses.
> the building stones were not polished to optometrists
standards of
> a centyury ago. They are not identical
either. they fit closely, but
> that
> can be done as each stone is put in place.
Wow! Precariously balancing 200 feet up from the level ground?
> many show angles that indicate
> final dressing. the outside layers were
dressed in place.
My place, or your place?
> > There was the matter of accurate measurements
and directional
> > bearings,
> directional bearings are simply a matter of
endless tedious measurement.
True North? Etc.?
> the creation of a mathematical model symbolizing
> > the Earth, embodying of the ancient measure
systems,
> This is of course an inference.
It is. The best quality possible inference. It
is based on facts,
and meticulous measurements. The inference will
work only on
a pyramid, which not only restates the Great
Pyramid's shape, but
also its size. Otherwise, each of these significantly
numerous
ancient measures would not fit a round number
of times into the
Pyramid specs.
> the working
> > of the hardest granite to perfection on a
giant scale, and more.
>
> > > I dont know why you claim we are "impoten[t]
in replicating
> > > such ancient achievements."
In many cases we can create methods using
> > > materials
> > > they had. We simply do not know if
we are replicating their efforts.
> > > that is
> > > ignorance, not impotence.
> > Please, give us some relevant examples. We've
heard too much general
> > evasiveness.
> The sandstone blocks of the C&O canal are
finely cut, moved by hand and
> laid in very precise systems, by irish laborers.
The Irish workers had modern tools. Steel, and
a range of other
thoroughly modern gizmos, even if none of these
were power-driven.
Even so, I am sure, they couldn't have equalled
the acuracy of
fitting planes in the mantle without resorting
to special tools.
That's the point - We can do what's been done
on the Great Pyramid,
but we can only do it Our Way, i.e., with modern
tools.
I pick my gauntlet out of the wastebasket, and
I recast it to your
attention. Could you provide the C&O specs?
> The Pont du GArd in
> FRance
> is composed of large blocks of finely cut stone
hoisted high in the
> air.
> whats the big deal?
Done with what tools denied the Egyptians by
the side you
stand for?
> > I can name you an example, no one will equal
today by bare
> > hands. No one can do precision drafting by
free-hand.
Counter-Challenge
> nonsense. I have seen Kenyan workers set
up a stick and follow
> the line of the shadow of the sun to create
a fine freehand straight
> line. nothing magical
I beg your pardon? The Kenyan workers planted,
and replanted
a stick and used the shadow to draw several miles
long straight
line following the moving sun?
> > But, the engravers of La Marche could do it
on limestone tablets,
> > and the Nascans could engrave it on their
desert on a huge scale.
> > Lest they were drafting the designs.. What
do you think?
> Roman surveyors could lay out an aquaduct to
have a constand drop of
> one foot per mile for 25 miles. NOthing
magical.
I said, no one can do precision drafting by free-hand,
and
you retorted "Nonsense" then you gave invalid
examples of
precision drafting by free-hand.
What I meant by precision drafting is precision
drafting
of complex designs, proportioning objects to
the Golden Section
(PHI ratio), and so on. One can't do it by free-hand.
I have great examples available, proving that
the ancient Nascans,
and the Magdalenian cavemaen could.. Of course,
the audience
has a right to ignore the Boy Who Cries Wolf
Too Much, which to
people with fine ears sounds like Howling with
the Wolves.
But, is this desirable for the audience in the
long run? What is
this group anyway - the wrong Rock Concert?
Regards,
Jiri Mruzek-