How were the Egyptian Pyramids Built?

  • Thread starter extraordinarygirl
  • Start date
In summary: The Second theory is that the Egyptian slaves built them. But there are some flaws in this theory because, how were all the workers fed for the 4000 years it took to build them. How did they transport that many stone blocks to the top of the pyramid (which was 4000 ft high). If they had ramps, the slight angle of the ramp would have made the ramp bigger than the pyramids. There was no rope to pulll the blocks up the ramp. As well, trees were scarce in Egypt and were needed for shade and food. Although, they could have imported wood from Alexandria, and floated it down the Nile.The Third theory is that they composed a formula of natron and silt in the Nile that would
  • #1
extraordinarygirl
18
0
Hey, I'm working on the theories for how the pyramids in Egypt were built and I just wanted to know if you guys had any other points to add to what I have written.

The first theory is that Aliens built them because they were so precise. The raitio of height to length equaled pi. They pointed to different constalations and to this day, no one has been able to make an exact replica of the pyramids. But, there are no traces of aliens existing, landing on Earth etc.

The Second theory is that the Egyptian slaves built them. But there are some flaws in this theory because, how were all the workers fed for the 4000 years it took to build them. How did they transport that many stone blocks to the top of the pyramid (which was 4000 ft high). If they had ramps, the slight angle of the ramp would have made the ramp bigger than the pyramids. There was no rope to pulll the blocks up the ramp. As well, trees were scarce in Egypt and were needed for shade and food. Although, they could have imported wood from Alexandria, and floated it down the Nile.

The third theory is that they composed a formula of natron and silt in the Nile that would dry as rocks.( Has been tested by scientists.)Therefore they could pour the molds, then put them into the pyramid which would mean they wouldn't have to feed as many workers and wouldn't need the large ramps. But, how can we be sure they had the knowledge to think of this?


If you have any imput what so ever on any of these theories I would greatly appreciate it. :smile:
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #2
extraordinarygirl said:
The third theory is that they composed a formula of natron and silt in the Nile that would dry as rocks.( Has been tested by scientists.)Therefore they could pour the molds, then put them into the pyramid which would mean they wouldn't have to feed as many workers and wouldn't need the large ramps. But, how can we be sure they had the knowledge to think of this?
We know that the Jews were employed as brickmakers in Egypt before Moses lead them away. Since brick was a common structural material, it follows that experiementing with other formulas would be natural for them. Natron and silt wouldn't require any particular genius to discover as a cement; I believe they had lots of both.

I saw a thing on TV a few years ago in which it was claimed that when moving a pyramid block around to measure and weight it, it broke in half and they found hairs inside, sticking out of the rock. This could only happen if the blocks were cast. I have no idea if that story is true, though. Casting the pyramid blocks in place would have made the construction easier since you can transport your materials in much smaller, easier to handle quantities.

In any event, I should think it would be a fairly easy matter to settle from mineral analysis.
 
  • #3
Here is where knowing some history can clear things up. Nothing mysterious, no aliens. The city that housed the builders has been excavated. Information on the workers has been found along with their gravesites, etc...

The pyramids were a slow, natural progression in tomb building. Ancient tombs in Egypt started out as pits dug in the sand, then covered with rocks. Then someone added a stone slab on top of the rocks, as time went by, this became larger and more elaborate, they were called mastabas. The tops were flat. They started having layers (like a wedding cake) and this lead to the "step pyramid", the first attempt at a true pyramid was a failure, it is the "bent pyramid", they finally worked the design out and ended up with the final pyramids.

Here are examples of the progression of Egyptian tombs.

http://www.westga.edu/~rtekippe/slides2201/mastaba-pyramid.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • #4
another one of these types...
 
  • Like
Likes kein zaron
  • #5
Here is some evidence of Elephants in Egypt 2000 to 8000 BC, Elephants were very plentyful at the time:

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/egam/ho_59.101.1.htm

It's to bad the Egyptions didn't leave pictures of how they built the pyramids, seems like it was unimportant or maybe they wanted it to be a mystery.

I wouldn't rule out these big mammals for moving stone since one Mature bull Elephant can out pull over a 100 men in a tug of war and can out pull a team of horses.:smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #6
The first theory is that Aliens built them because they were so precise. The raitio of height to length equaled pi. They pointed to different constalations and to this day, no one has been able to make an exact replica of the pyramids.

The ratio isn't really that precise, and could be a coincidence. I don't know what you mean about pointing to different constellations. Nobody has tried making an exact replica; it's not that it would be impossible, but it would take a lot of work and materials, and for what?

The Second theory is that the Egyptian slaves built them. But there are some flaws in this theory because, how were all the workers fed for the 4000 years it took to build them.

Most people think it wasn't slaves who built the pyramids these days, but ordinary Egyptians. Egypt is a fertile country, fed by the flooding of the Nile delta every year, so feeding people wasn't a problem.

How did they transport that many stone blocks to the top of the pyramid (which was 4000 ft high). If they had ramps, the slight angle of the ramp would have made the ramp bigger than the pyramids.

Some people have postulated ramps which wrapped around the outside of the pyramid, rather than just going up to it in a straight line. That would require much less sand.

There was no rope to pulll the blocks up the ramp. As well, trees were scarce in Egypt and were needed for shade and food. Although, they could have imported wood from Alexandria, and floated it down the Nile.

There is evidence that stone was quarried from far away and floated down the Nile to the construction sites.

There's a lot of information on this kind of stuff on the web, which a brief google search should uncover.
 
  • #7
The easiest technique would be to build the Pyramid in steps, just like the first Pyramids were built, (Stepped Pyramid), Then building small acute
sand stone Ramps between each step so the design looks like a square spiral ramp case, the smaller ramps were covered up as the finishing touches of limestone cement filled the steps into a smooth surface feature, The Ramps would of been masoned into place as limestone cement Ramps, Same material used to make the smooth surface of the pyramid, as the smooth face was added the ramps became apart of the face material and not detectable because the ramp material blended into the cement.
Simple Masonry.:smile:
http://images.google.com/imgres?img...images?q=giza+pyramid&svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&sa=G
The Pyramids were built one foundation layer at a time from the ground up.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
zoobyshoe said:
I saw a thing on TV a few years ago in which it was claimed that when moving a pyramid block around to measure and weight it, it broke in half and they found hairs inside, sticking out of the rock. This could only happen if the blocks were cast. I have no idea if that story is true, though. Casting the pyramid blocks in place would have made the construction easier since you can transport your materials in much smaller, easier to handle quantities.
In any event, I should think it would be a fairly easy matter to settle from mineral analysis.

I thought it was fairly well established that the giza pyramids were made of nummulitic limestone of eocene age, The presence of large fossils of now extinct foraminifera more or less rules out casting of the blocks by man. I don't know if every block of every pyramid has been checked, so I suppose its possible that some cast blocks could have gone unnoticed. Do you know what pyramid this block belonged to?
 
  • #9
matthyaouw said:
I thought it was fairly well established that the giza pyramids were made of nummulitic limestone of eocene age, The presence of large fossils of now extinct foraminifera more or less rules out casting of the blocks by man. I don't know if every block of every pyramid has been checked, so I suppose its possible that some cast blocks could have gone unnoticed. Do you know what pyramid this block belonged to?
No, but what Intuitive said about everything being faced with limestone cement makes me think they might have been dealing with two blocks still cemented together. The hair would only have been in the cement bond layer. If the story's even true. They simply interviewed the guy who told the story: no shots or evidence of this hair in the rock was presented.
 
  • #10
Actually, the outer limestone casing was blocks of limestone that were polished, it wasn't a layer of a cement like substance.

The earlier 5th dynasty pyramids were made with brick, perhaps the show you watched was about one of these pyramids?
 
Last edited:
  • #11
Evo said:
The earlier 5th dynasty pyramids were made with brick, perhaps the show you watched was about one of these pyramids?
I don't think so. This particular guy was maintaining that the Egyptians had cast all the blocks in place with a special formula. This split block incident was the main reason he seemed to think this.
 
  • #12
There have been many theories about the "capstone" of the Great Pyramid.

Has it ever been proven that the Great Pyramid, in fact, did have a physical capstone at any point?

o:)
 
  • #13
as far back as 60,000 BC, bitumen (oil) had already become a useful substance for early man.It was used to seal dwellings, and it uses were mentioned in the bible as a sealant used to construct the raft moses was found on "cradles sealed with bitumen." around 3500 BC the first genuine city was founded on the bank of the euphrates in iraq, this city, "Ur" or "Urkuk" is where cuneiform developed and some of the earliest translations show the production (simply gathering it up in clay pots) and export of petroleum was very common. perhaps they used oil to lubricate the logs and surfaces.
 
  • #14
guido said:
as far back as 60,000 BC, bitumen (oil) had already become a useful substance for early man.
I'd believe 6000 BC, but not 60,000.
 
  • #15
guido said:
as far back as 6,000 BC, bitumen (oil) had already become a useful substance for early man.It was used to seal dwellings, and it uses were mentioned in the bible as a sealant used to construct the raft moses was found on "cradles sealed with bitumen." around 3500 BC the first genuine city was founded on the bank of the euphrates in iraq, this city, "Ur" or "Urkuk" is where cuneiform developed and some of the earliest translations show the production (simply gathering it up in clay pots) and export of petroleum was very common. perhaps they used oil to lubricate the logs and surfaces.
thanks for the correction
 
  • #16
"(which was 4000 ft high)." ? ?
under 400 feet high

it did not take 4000 years eathor more like less then 20 years each for the big ones

they are just a big pile of rocks no need for UFO BS

quaries have been found
http://www.harvard-magazine.com/on-line/070391.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #17
extraordinarygirl said:
The first theory is that Aliens built them because they were so precise. The raitio of height to length equaled pi. They pointed to different constalations and to this day, no one has been able to make an exact replica of the pyramids.

You will want to be checking your facts, and checking the sources of those facts, before you go too far down this road.

There is a lot of misinformation of this type out there - people are not above forcing the numbers to fit their wild ideas and then spreading those deceptions far and wide. von Daniken made a living off doing this.
 
  • #18
I have taken a number of art history classes, and how the pyramids (great pyramid Giza) were (was) built was never a topic. Although, we did discuss how the Pantheon and the Colosus of Rhodes were built. The Pantheon is extrodinary, I think a much greater wonder than the pyramids simple because of the size of the dome. How did they build the dome?

Well, the best theory I have heard is that they constructed the walls of the Pantheon first, and all but the dome, filled the inside with dirt and molded this to fit a dome. It seems elaborate and time consuming. But, when we got to the Colosus of Rhodes a similar theory arose. We argued that scapuls(?) were not constructed as the structure grew higher and instead a huge mound of dirt was introduced to the sides of the Colosus and various pieces taken up by workers and assembled. The mounded growing proportional to the structures height.

I also argued that the mounds of dirt in each project must have consisted of some sort of previous construction to prevent the dirt from sliding off due to weight, earthquake or rain (whether it be inside or outside the perimeters). The Pantheon already had a natural barrier, but was it strong enough? I could never figure this out.

My theory on the pyramids would be similar. Use of elephants, other animals and humans to haul massive amounts of stones and likewise sand (I think dirt was too important for egyptians to waste). Sand is not as firm as dirt, so maybe they used something else, or they reinforced it somehow (this I am not certain). As various layers were constructed, various levels of materials were added around the pyramids.

No aliens.
 
  • #19
A version of "Occams' Razor" for this discussion would be -
don't invoke aliens as a source of pyramid building until you've proven that humans could not do it.

The reason is that you'd need to have evidence of aliens -
I have to admit aliens would be fun. For a while. At least we could stop worrying about what we're doing to each other down here. And start worrying about what they're doing up there...

You need to be careful about citing your sources. Always cite wherever you found something.
 
  • #21
DaveC426913 said:
von Daniken made a living off doing this.
made?
Are you saying that ultra-cheat is finally dead?
What a relief..:smile:
 
  • #23
Aliens built them because they were so precise.

Common sense and the "bent pyramid" of Senefru would argue against that.

They pointed to different constalations

I don't know about pointing to constellations, but the arrangement of the pyramids at Giza resembles the Orion consellation.
 
  • #24
You guys should consider reading the book "How the Great Pyramids were built" by ?, I forgot the name.

The book flat out explains how it is to be carried out, and it is totally possible at the time.

The ideas put forward here seem primitive compared to those accepted today. Aliens are not even a possibility.

Note: Slaves did not build the pyramid.
 
  • #25
Tojen said:
I don't know about pointing to constellations, but the arrangement of the pyramids at Giza resembles the Orion consellation.

Actually its the placement of the foundations of the Giza Pyramids that resembles the Orion constellational configuration. However, the orientation of that configuration suggests that the foundation was planned 12,000 years ago when Orion was positioned in such a way that resembles the arranged configuration of the Giza Plateau Pyramid Complex.

It is thought that the foundations were laid during antiquity (12,000 y ago) then completed during more recent times... ie: 4000 to 3000 years ago.

Orion Correlation Theory
Although hypotheses put forward by Robert Bauval are universally regarded by mainstream archaeologists (Lehner 1997) and historians as a form of pseudoscience, Robert Bauval and Adrian Gilbert (1994) proposed that the three main pyramids at Giza form a pattern on the ground that is virtually identical to that of the three belt stars of the Orion constellation. Using computer software, they wound back the Earth’s skies to ancient times, and witnessed a ‘locking-in’ of the mirror image between the pyramids and the stars at the same time as Orion reached a turning point at the bottom of its precessional shift up and down the meridian. This conjunction, they claimed, was exact, and it occurred precisely at the date 10,450 BC[citation needed].

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giza_pyramid_complex

There have been several methods contrived and utilized that show humans could have built the Giza pyramid complex. The baffling and most fascinating methodology of the construction is how such precise measurements were kept in the lithic description of the Egyptian culture's knowledge of mathematics, astonomy and geomancy.

Also, some of the granite and marble that's been lifted into precise interior locations of the Great Pyramid ("King's Chamber") are 30 tons in weight.
see:http://www.mines.inpl-nancy.fr/laego/Crozat/uk/4.html [Broken]

Today we can move 90 tonnes of weight with a 300 tonne Crane

as seen here: http://www.cranes4hire.com/images/435_N4%20bridge%20300%20ton.JPG [Broken] this is a 90 tonne section of bridge being moved in Africa.

If the Egyptians were using a 300 tonne crane to build the Giza Plateau Complex there would still be a few of those monster cranes parked in parking lot beside the Sphynx.

Some people also speculate that water was used to raise the blocks into place... by controlled flooding and barges.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
quantumcarl said:
It is thought that the foundations were laid during antiquity (12,000 y ago) then completed during more recent times... ie: 4000 to 3000 years ago.

I couldn't go through all of Robert Bauval's site, but I have a couple of questions. By foundations, does he mean for the actual pyramids, or did they have a different purpose originally? It seems a long time to wait to build the house after pouring the basement.

Also, was there agriculture in Egypt that long ago? It's hard to imagine hunter/gatherers doing all that.

Why, with all that we know of ancient Egypt through papyrus rolls, heiroglyphics, etc., is there absolutely nothing of how their greatest physical achievements were accomplished? (okay, that's three questions)
 
  • #27
Tojen said:
I couldn't go through all of Robert Bauval's site, but I have a couple of questions. By foundations, does he mean for the actual pyramids, or did they have a different purpose originally? It seems a long time to wait to build the house after pouring the basement.

Also, was there agriculture in Egypt that long ago? It's hard to imagine hunter/gatherers doing all that.

Why, with all that we know of ancient Egypt through papyrus rolls, heiroglyphics, etc., is there absolutely nothing of how their greatest physical achievements were accomplished? (okay, that's three questions)

About the laying of a foundation then continuing the work much later.

There is speculation and research into the hypothesis that the Sphynx ("a statue, with a man's head and a lion's body, standing 66 feet high and 240 feet long. The head measures 19 feet from forehead to chin. Each paw extends 56 feet forward of the body. The face is over 6 yards wide") is believed to have been built around the same time as the foundations of the rest of the Giza complex I mentioned earlier.

Allusions to this theory will be found on Bauval's site to be sure.

"In 1979, though, an amateur archaeologist named John Anthony West wrote a book entitled Serpent in the Sky. In the book West suggested that the Sphinx was far older than the pyramids and its severe erosion was the result of rain, not blowing sand. Therefore, concluded West, the Sphinx must have been built thousand of years earlier when the land was much wetter.

Nobody gave West's theory much attention until West brought in a trained geologist from Boston University named Robert Schoch. Schoch examined the Sphinx and thinks some of the fissures in the rock were indeed created by running water or rain.

Schoch's conclusion is that the front and side of the Sphinx dated from 5000 to 7000 BC and was remodeled during Khafre's era to give the likeness of the pharaoh. Other Egyptologists argue that the original estimate is still right and that the fissures found by Schoch were the result of wet sand being blown up from the Nile river, not rain."

I have to note here that the Sphynx and the Foundations for the three pyramids of the Giza Complex are all carved out of the natural stone of the Giza Plateau. This is one reason to surmize that both the 3 pyramid's foundations and the Sphynx may have been built simultanieously or... in association.

According to the hypothesis the initial sculptural work on the Sphynx was done between 7000 and 9000 years before present. If that work was done at the same time as the foundations of the pyramid sites then there seems to have been an interuption between this activity and the building of the actual, above-ground pyramidal structures (with Pi incorporated into their design).

There are cuniform Summerian records of a great flood from before 4000 ybp. There are cities off the coast of India and under many meters of sea water that are being dated to around 7000 to 9000 ybp.

See this site: http://s8int.com/water4.html

"There's a huge chronological problem in this discovery. It means that t he whole model of the origins of civilization with which archaeologists have been working will have to be remade from scratch," Graham Hancock.

Source:BBC

This evidence of advanced technological construction in the same region and (proported) time period as the Egyptian Sphynx's construction may suggest that the work was halted by wide spread flooding (caused by... ?). In the persevering manner of the Egyptian people it appears the whole project was continued at a much "later date" once things became managable again.

The original purpose for the whole Giza Complex and its monumental architecture is anyone's guess. We'll have a better understanding of the utilization of the Chinese, Egyptian, Bosnian, South American and Central American megalithic pyramids, observatories and great causeways when the "professionals" stop defending their own, worn-out time-lines and out dated theories. When we all begin developing a model of the birth of civilization that is based on investigated facts from the past and the more sofisticated investigations and findings of present and future discoverys we may actually find out how pyramids were utilized... among other things.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
It is thought that the foundations were laid during antiquity (12,000 y ago) then completed during more recent times... ie: 4000 to 3000 years ago.

If it was so, it would actually agree with my theory.

If you have any imput what so ever on any of these theories I would greatly appreciate it.

Since any input would be appreciated I just want to ask you whether own theories based on the religion are also accepted? I don't want to talk that God built the pyramids but rather base the theory on historical records written in religious scripts.

Thanks,
 
Last edited:
  • #29
Carl, I finally got around to reading about the submerged city off the Indian coast and I was astounded. Over 9,000 years old! Twice as old as the Mesopotamian civilizations.

I think I see where you're coming from now: Not only did ancient humans cover more ground than we thought, but it's looking like they developed "civilization" a lot earlier than we thought. The fact that the first cities were forgotten makes sense if the sea levels rose dramatically at times, as seems to have happened, and ties in with the myth of Atlantis and stories of great floods in religious mythologies around the world. Amazing.

Many thanks for the link. I'm still trying to wrap my head around it.
 
  • #30
Tojen said:
Carl, I finally got around to reading about the submerged city off the Indian coast and I was astounded. Over 9,000 years old! Twice as old as the Mesopotamian civilizations.

I think I see where you're coming from now: Not only did ancient humans cover more ground than we thought, but it's looking like they developed "civilization" a lot earlier than we thought. The fact that the first cities were forgotten makes sense if the sea levels rose dramatically at times, as seems to have happened, and ties in with the myth of Atlantis and stories of great floods in religious mythologies around the world. Amazing.

Many thanks for the link. I'm still trying to wrap my head around it.

I can dig it.:redface: Why not try reading Graham Hancock (scourge and scoundrel to the elite archaeologist). He just wrote "UNDERWORLD" which is a highly detailed account of all the underwater archaeological sites on this planet. Here's a link to it:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1400049512/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Amazon said:
Book Description
What secrets lie beneath the deep blue sea? Underworld takes you on a remarkable journey to the bottom of the ocean in a thrilling hunt for ancient ruins that have never been found—until now.

In this explosive new work of archaeological detection, bestselling author and renowned explorer Graham Hancock embarks on a captivating underwater voyage to find the ruins of a mythical lost civilization hidden for thousands of years beneath the world’s oceans. Guided by cutting-edge science, innovative computer-mapping techniques, and the latest archaeological scholarship, Hancock examines the mystery at the end of the last Ice Age and delivers astonishing revelations that challenge our long-held views about the existence of a sunken universe built on the ocean floor.

Filled with exhilarating accounts of his own participation in dives off the coast of Japan, as well as in the Mediterranean, the Atlantic, and the Arabian Sea, we watch as Hancock discovers underwater ruins exactly where the ancient myths say they should be—submerged kingdoms that archaeologists never thought existed. You will be captivated by Underworld, a provocative book that is both a compelling piece of hard evidence for a fascinating forgotten episode in human history and a completely new explanation for the origins of civilization as we know it.

He figures civilization was starting more at around 17,000 years ago. the Japanese temple underwater and off the Japan's south coast is really cool. Everyone tacks the name Atlantis to any thought of a much older civilization. But, the way cultural influence spreads around, I think there ended up being a number of civilized centres around the globe.

Note: the idea and structure of a pyramid, not matter how it is constructed, is pervasive on this planet. It's showing up in unexpected areas the way a coke bottle shows up in Inuvik. It is merely a sign of exported and adaptive culture.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
quantumcarl said:
Why not try reading Graham Hancock (scourge and scoundrel to the elite archaeologist). He just wrote "UNDERWORLD" which is a highly detailed account of all the underwater archaeological sites on this planet.

I'd love to but it'll have to wait. As I said in the other thread, I just got Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, and I'm pressed for time these days. But I'll get to it eventually.
 
  • #32
Tojen said:
I'd love to but it'll have to wait. As I said in the other thread, I just got Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings, and I'm pressed for time these days. But I'll get to it eventually.

I've got Underworld. I'm at about 10 pages every 5 weeks. His use of past reference, present references, scholars and professionals to verify his conjecture is really heartening to see. It becomes very easy to get as excited as he is about his "work". Not that he doesn't spend incredible amounts of money and energy on his endevours, its just that he totally enjoys the occupation.

No boney fingers on that guy.

I saw the french pyramid you posted on the Bosnian Pyramid thread. Its construction is completely different from all the other pyramids. But so is the construction of each pyramid in each of the different regions they are situated, around the world.
That's why I call them a sign of an adaptive, exported technology and culture. The idea of the pyramid is consistent but the method of construction/expression varies greatly throughout the world.

Jung may have said that the pyramid is a "collective image" or "universal symbol" and that the pyramids all happened independent of one another. But I say the proof is in the pudding.

When is Canada going to cough-up a damn pyramid? Or did all the baseball-sized hail and 6 foot mosquitos do away with them!?
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Yes, the French pyramid is drastically different than Bosnia's. Same, it turns out, for the sixteen pyramids in Greece! But if you've heard about the "new" Italian pyramids andn seen the photos, I think you'll agree that they bear a striking resemblance to the Bosnian pyramids, on the surface at least, which is all there is to go on right now.

It's beginning to look like Jung was wrong and you're right. Good one! :smile: As for pyramids in Canada, why don't we just dig in our own backyards? They seem to be everywhere. Maybe even in http://public.fotki.com/edpafoff/the_olyphant_pyrami/?cmd=slideShowFlash" [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
Tojen said:
Yes, the French pyramid is drastically different than Bosnia's. Same, it turns out, for the sixteen pyramids in Greece! But if you've heard about the "new" Italian pyramids andn seen the photos, I think you'll agree that they bear a striking resemblance to the Bosnian pyramids, on the surface at least, which is all there is to go on right now.

It's beginning to look like Jung was wrong and you're right. Good one! :smile: As for pyramids in Canada, why don't we just dig in our own backyards? They seem to be everywhere. Maybe even in http://public.fotki.com/edpafoff/the_olyphant_pyrami/?cmd=slideShowFlash" [Broken]

Walk like a Pennsylvanian?:uhh:

All these claims need excavating. Where are the freakin' archaeologists of the world? Carumba!

Tojen, you're right about the rock associated with the Italian Pyramids. Its conglomerate much like the Bosnian claim.

Italy and Bosnia aren't that far apart either. And the condition is relatively the same for both sites. Both are covered in substrate and vegitation. Both are said to have a configuration of THREE pyramids. The Italian ones match the Orion configuration like Giza and I don't know about the Bosnian ones. Really quite striking... "I must say"! (Ed Grimley)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
Here's a really short and good article about the Giza Plateau pyramids in Egypt.

Here's a bit of it:

Three massive stone structures pierce the sky in the middle of the hot desert of Egypt. The Pyramids of Giza.

These wonders were built as mortuary monuments for three different Pharaohs of the 4th Dynasty in the Old Kingdom: Cheops and his two sons, Chephren and Mycerinus. The largest, "The Great Pyramid", was built for Cheops and originally stood the tallest at approximately 146 meters.

Many mysteries surround the construction of these pyramids. The Great Pyramid's faces are positioned, almost exactly, in the directions of the four cardinal points (north, south, east and west) with less than one degree of error! It is also built at the exact center of the Earth's landmass, which means that it lies in the center of all the worlds land area, dividing the Earth's landmass into approximately equal quarters.

A structure this heavy would require an extremely strong foundation to support its weight. It just so happens that the pyramid is built directly on top of a flat solid granite mountain, which easily supports its immense weight.

And the rest is at: http://www.fazeteen.com/fall2001/pyramids.htm [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<h2>1. How did the ancient Egyptians move such heavy stones to build the pyramids?</h2><p>The ancient Egyptians used a combination of ramps and sledges to move the huge blocks of stone. They would use wooden rollers and ropes to pull the sledges up the ramps, which were built at an angle. The ramps would be extended as the pyramid grew taller, allowing the workers to continue moving the stones to higher levels.</p><h2>2. What tools did the Egyptians use to cut and shape the stones for the pyramids?</h2><p>The Egyptians primarily used copper and bronze tools to cut and shape the stones. They would first score the stone with a chisel and then use wooden wedges to break off the excess stone. They also used saws and drills made of copper to create more precise shapes and designs.</p><h2>3. How long did it take to build a pyramid?</h2><p>The construction of a pyramid could take anywhere from 10 to 20 years, depending on the size and complexity of the structure. The Great Pyramid of Giza, for example, took around 20 years to complete. This was due to the large number of workers needed, as well as the time it took to quarry and transport the stones.</p><h2>4. Were slaves used to build the pyramids?</h2><p>Contrary to popular belief, there is no evidence to suggest that slaves were used to build the pyramids. The workers who built the pyramids were skilled laborers who were paid for their work. They were also well-fed and housed in nearby villages during the construction process.</p><h2>5. How were the pyramids aligned so precisely with the stars?</h2><p>The ancient Egyptians used a tool called a merkhet, which was used to align the corners of the pyramid with the North Star. They also used the position of the sun and other stars to accurately align the pyramids with the cardinal directions. This precise alignment was a reflection of the Egyptians' advanced knowledge of astronomy and mathematics.</p>

1. How did the ancient Egyptians move such heavy stones to build the pyramids?

The ancient Egyptians used a combination of ramps and sledges to move the huge blocks of stone. They would use wooden rollers and ropes to pull the sledges up the ramps, which were built at an angle. The ramps would be extended as the pyramid grew taller, allowing the workers to continue moving the stones to higher levels.

2. What tools did the Egyptians use to cut and shape the stones for the pyramids?

The Egyptians primarily used copper and bronze tools to cut and shape the stones. They would first score the stone with a chisel and then use wooden wedges to break off the excess stone. They also used saws and drills made of copper to create more precise shapes and designs.

3. How long did it take to build a pyramid?

The construction of a pyramid could take anywhere from 10 to 20 years, depending on the size and complexity of the structure. The Great Pyramid of Giza, for example, took around 20 years to complete. This was due to the large number of workers needed, as well as the time it took to quarry and transport the stones.

4. Were slaves used to build the pyramids?

Contrary to popular belief, there is no evidence to suggest that slaves were used to build the pyramids. The workers who built the pyramids were skilled laborers who were paid for their work. They were also well-fed and housed in nearby villages during the construction process.

5. How were the pyramids aligned so precisely with the stars?

The ancient Egyptians used a tool called a merkhet, which was used to align the corners of the pyramid with the North Star. They also used the position of the sun and other stars to accurately align the pyramids with the cardinal directions. This precise alignment was a reflection of the Egyptians' advanced knowledge of astronomy and mathematics.

Similar threads

  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
657
Replies
1
Views
762
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
8K
  • Materials and Chemical Engineering
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
30K
Back
Top