Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza

Where are all the hieroglyphics?

Or any real evidence that would connect this pyramid to Khufu or the ancient Egyptian civilization? And not something earlier? 174.16.108.193 (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The article doesn't seem to mention it, but the cartouche of Khufu was found painted crudely on of the stone blocks used to plug the access to the burial chamber, which suggests it was painted by the workers that blocked the entrance. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this statement?Thanos5150 (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It is in I.E.S. Edwards, The Pyramids of Egypt, Penguin Books, 1952, p. 96. It was not the plugs actually (it has been a long time since those egyptology classes), but some of the stones in the relieving compartments above the chamber. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why the hieroglyphics placed where they could only have been placed on construction aren't in the article, they even convinced Graham Hancock, here's a drawing of two "work+gang"+khufu+pyramid&hl=en&ei=F9-wS7O0LIu64gbHudGxDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=graffiti&f=false. The C14 dating of course, the fact that it is obviously related to earlier pryamids which are related to mastabas, it's integration with the rest of the funerary complex, all should be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that doubt was cast over the aforemoentioned hieroglyphics, in that accusations of forgery were made. The article also provides no evidence that the pyramid was built during Khufu's reign (nor do I know of any such conclusive evidence), yet merely states that it is believed (by who?) that the tomb (again, evidence?) was built at the time. On the mathematical side, I think that too much emphasis has been placed merely on the builder's knowledge of pi and phi, and nothing has been mentioned of the piezoelectric effect of certain materials inside the pyramid. The following article gives a more detailed analysis on both the historical, mathematical and geophysical perspectives: http://www.sacredsites.com/africa/egypt/great_pyramid.html . Andrew.murphy1 (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Pyramid power and razor blades? That definitely doesn't belong in this article, and your source comes no where near our criteria for a reliable source, see WP:RS. Sure, Sitchin accused Vyse of forgery, but Sitchin believes in aliens from Nibiru also. Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I would have to second andrew.muphy here, as it would be extremely helpful to have evidence backing the dates. Now I am no propenent of conspiracies, however, science is science and if the dates cannot be empirically verified then it should be at least noted. Wikipedia is meant to present as much facts as possible and the reasoning behind why we are inclined to believe some theories over others, and this page does not do that in the slightest. Hopefully an expert on the subject can shed a little more light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonfon2347 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys, all the evidence is there...for decades. You are not the first ones asking these questions. In fact, you are probably number 100000. All of this has been answered, countless times, in any depth you could ask for. I think you'll find answers even in the archive of this discussion site because, again, you are not the first.

Just don't expect that someone is explaining AGAIN here basics of hieroglyphs, what Vyse could not have known, why noone else could have put the graffiti there but the builders, the fact that a sarcophagus has been placed during build time and so on. Again, it's all on google. Read first, understand, think, then post your contrary evidence or just accept that many people studied the subject thoroughly and probably found the right answers before you. So long! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.137.253 (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Where any hieroglyphics found inside the pyramid?

I see all kinds of maps and pictures of the Great Pyramid as well as the Sphinx and there's plenty of hieroglyphics outside of them miles away but where there any actual tablets inside either of them? 184.96.239.191 (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

See here (for example): http://doernenburg.alien.de/alternativ/pyramide/pyr03_e.php - 213.39.132.152 (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Tablets were found. But workman's inscriptions on the blocks placed inside the pyramid, among them the cartouche of Khufu. It seems various pseudohistorians, fringers and new-agers claim they are fake because it would obviously destroy their more fantastical theories, but real egyptologists and archaeologists accepts the authenticity of the hieroglyphs. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There seems little doubt the quarry marks are authentic, however, this does not in and of itself provide proof it was Khufu who built the Great Pyramid. The hieroglyphic cartouche "Khufu" was a holy symbol and powerful charm completely unrelated to the pharaoh and is possible this is why Khufu took the name, or was named such, to give the power of the word to himself. Herodotus is the only ancient source to claim Khufu, the pharaoh, built the GP whereas several other ancient sources before Herodutus's time state that, like the Sphinx, it was already built before Khufu's reign. If we accept the Egyptologist's dating of the kings list then this conclusion is clearly supported by carbon dating, now conveniently removed form this article. To accept this would date the GP at least 100 to as much as 1400yrs before Khufu. Also, the carbon dates are progressively older the further up the pyramid you go, for both studies, which is impossible unless it was already built suggesting, as do the ancient sources, that the GP was already there and that Khufu was not the builder of the GP, but rather only the restorer. Furthermore, the quarry marks are found only in the relieving chambers-why? The easy answer would be that this was never meant to be seen so they didn't care, yet on several other pyramids quarry marks are found on many exposed interior blocks and casing stones also not meant to be seen yet for the GP it is only found there.

A simple way to prove the provenance of the quarry marks is to carbon date them, but Hawass will not. Why? Because as he says he does not want carbon dating to confuse people because Egytologists already have everything worked out. It is interesting to me that in any other scientific field carbon dating is almost beyond reproach, yet with the GP it is completely dismissed-twice-for the only reason it does not support the accepted paradigm. And yet by the same token, if the dating did support the status quo there is no doubt they, and all of you "debunkers", would be holding them high as exhibit A to support Egyptologists claims. And if they did support it then that would say a lot, but they don't so this means nothing? How is this science? I suspect the real reason Hawass won't let the quarry marks be dated is because he has already done so and did not like the answer.76.115.37.36 (talk) 05:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)thanos5150

This seems to be your own interpretation, and is such is original research - see WP:OR. Talk pages aren't an appropriate place to discuss the subject of the article, they aren't a forum. I doubt that you have any reliable sources for your claim about Hawass. Carbon dating is always a tricky thing, but I will point out that if the old wood hyypothesis is correct, the further up the pyramid the builders went the more likely it is that they are using older wood. I'll also point out something you already almost certainly know, that even the dates of these rulers are uncertain. Dougweller (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Pffft. Whatever Doug. I am paraphrasing Zahi's own words from an article in response to the direct question of why does he not carbon date the quarry marks. "Reliable source" for that? Please. Regardless, carbon dating is always tricky isn't it especially when it doesn't go your way. The "old wood" hypothesis is pure desperation. Embarrassing really. I would believe aliens built the GP before I'd believe "old wood" could in some way explain what is actually found in the data.

To get back to the topic-the Khufu cartouche, though seemingly genuine, does not give conclusive provenance to Khufu as the builder if at all and without carbon dating it does nothing to date the pyramid.76.115.37.36 (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)thanos5150

Feel free to write a scholarly article on the subject and submit it to a peer-reviewed journal. If you should then manage to change the current academic consensus that Khufu built the pyramid, you are more than welcome to add it to this article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I made no mention of adding it to the article Sanjaya, but regardless I do not need you to welcome me to do anything. "A lie told often enough becomes truth". Sorry, but I took the Redpill a long time ago.Thanos5150 (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You really need to edit logged in, you know - I'd assumed you were a new editor. Saddhiyama's point remains valid however much you don't like it. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize I wasn't until after I'd posted, sorry to confuse you, but would your response have been any different? Saddhiyama's point is what? That unless I am repeating what a consensus Egyptologist has told me what to think or say it can't be said in the discussion section? Unless your goal is to censor dissenting opinion then I do not see how his point is valid here. Regardless, the topic was hieroglyphs and why are they not included. The fact is there are serious disagreements about the hieroglyphs, not about their authenticity, but their interpretation all of which have nothing to do with Sitchin, Hancock or the like. There is only one cartouche that refers to a "Khufu" whereas several others refer to a "Khnum-Khufu" or other royals entirely, none of which may or may not refer to an actual pharaoh Khufu if at all.

William Fix says: “There are just not enough historical markers for anyone to describe that era. There is no clear and solid evidence of any kind that there was a pyramid building 4th Dynasty King called Khufu…The entire pattern of evidence suggests, on the contrary, that if there ever was a King Khufu he lived long after the Pyramid was built and was named after the pyramid – not the other way around.”

Joyce Tyldesley (2003) also comments:"“In fact, there is no contemporary evidence to suggest that Khufu ever opposed his people, but then, leaving his prodigious building achievements aside, there is virtually no evidence of his reign, good or bad.”

The point is that to include the hieroglyphs in the article they must be put in their proper context. Passing off an opinion as fact without context will not do. I'm sure if one so desired they could find many acceptable references that will state as "fact" the cartouche of Khufu "proves" he built the GP, but this is not honest and only further abuse of passing off as fact consensus opinion source material to support a particular POV. No different than the sources that would be cited.Thanos5150 (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"First of all they say that only inscribed is the second room—it's not true. All the five relieving chambers are inscribed. Number two, there are some inscriptions there that cannot be written by anyone except the workmen who put them there. You cannot go and reach there. It has to be the man who put the block above the other one to do that." Zahi Hawass.[1] Dougweller (talk) 11:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

What Zahi could have also mentioned, yet did not, is that the bulk of the "inscriptions" are just levelling lines and other construction marks - the "names" form a small minority of the markings. Also, those markings that are "out of reach" are the construction lines - the "names" are on open surfaces. See [2] and [3] and [4] for photos. Wdford (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Who are "they" that says this? I don't see anyone here that is saying quarry marks were only found in the second "room", which I assume you mean "chamber". And actually, quarry marks were only found in the 4 chambers above Davidson's chamber, not all 5. Wdford is correct that the only marks that are inaccessible are leveling lines and quarry marks, i.e. not writing. Also, no where are there "inscriptions" as all of the marks have been found to be made on the surface of the block in red ocher paint, the same red ocher paint used in the area today. Regardless, there is no doubt that the quarry marks are genuine, at least those between the blocks, so without definitive proof to the contrary, we must be willing to accept the others are genuine as well, though to be fair, they are not without their curiosities. BUT, the real question is not if they are genuine, but what do they really mean? There is only one cartouche that refers to a "Khufu", which is highly debatable it even refers to the actual pharaoh, but also several others that refer to other royals including his brother Khafre. So, the same logic that credits the GP to Khufu based on this one cartouche can also be equally applied to attribute it to several other royals including his younger brother. As Gaston Maspero says: "The existence of the two cartouches of Khufu and Khnem-Khufu on the same monument has caused much embarrassment to Egyptologists." And yet to preserve the time line created by modern Egyptologists these little facts are completely ignored.Thanos5150 (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You really should go find a forum for your comments about what and why Egyptologists say what they say. Dougweller (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

OR?

Saddhiyama keeps replacing my edits on the Great Pyramid of Giza page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza#Materials which are based on a reliable source, Flinders Petrie, with his erroneous information based on a source, some guy named "Dilke", who has never surveyed Giza to my knowledge and whom I have never even heard of. He keeps stating that the Great Pyramid base was 440 royal cubits when it was very accurately surveyed by Petrie, Smyth and Cole and found to be 439.8 royal cubits. If Saddhiyama persists in his disinformation campaign I will have no choice but to report him as a vandal, after editing out his bogus information for the umpteenth time. What the heck is your problem with using reliable primary sources and factual information and who the heck is Dilke anyway, Saddhiyama, your cousin? When did he take measurements of the Great Pyramid? Try using an actual survey as your source, Siddhiyama. Since Petrie is used as a source elsewhere in that page, why did you choose not to use his survey data as the source for the Great Pyramid dimensions but instead went to some guy nobody ever heard of and certainly never surveyed Giza? This is what gives Wikipedia a bad name, people posting tripe like that instead of actual facts. I guess you just figured actual survey data from the worlds foremost Egyptologist, Flinders Petrie, would be entirely inappropriate on Wikipedia, so you opted for the far more qualified Dilke.Northstar2595 (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be mistaking me for someone else, or at least have misunderstood something along the way. I have not stated anything about cubits or the pyramid, but only reverted your additions that included unencyclopedic and OR content. For example this wording: "No author has ever presented an explanation for the choice of this dimension by the pyramid designers but it is a scientific fact, not requiring a published reference because it is simple mathematics, that 439.8 royal cubits is 311 "double remens", 310.9855624 to be precise... You can draw your own conclusions as to which unit of measure was more likely to have been employed to lay out the sides of the base. It is another mathematical fact that the number 311 is the numerator of the fractional approximation of pi 311/99" is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Secondly, it is preferred that you use secondary sources, not primary sources, when it comes to reliable sourcing, and any conclusions should be made through the conclusions stated in those sources, not your own.

Dilke by the way is a respected scholar in ancient history and mathematics, and while I am not familiar with his work on the pyramids, I have enjoyed his work on Roman land surveyors very much, but he is alas not any relation of mine.

Also, while Petrie was certainly the most respected archaeologist on ancient Egypt as well as a pioneer regarding the establishment of the historical chronology of the different dynasties, it would be preferable if someone more contemporary was cited. Not all of Petrie's conclusions has aged well. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: I do not want to be dragged into an edit war over this, so I will refrain from reverting again, though it should be noted that it is not because I have been persuaded by any argument of yours. You should however yourself be wary of reinserting your edit again, you have already done so 4 times (more if counting the previous edit removed by Dougweller, which shows a remarkable similarity to your editing style), which is clear on its way to be a violation of the three revert rule. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I came here after seeing some of the vandalism elsewhere, while obviously unacceptable I'm not sure his criticisms are entirely unfounded regarding sourcing. While it is true secondary sources are preferred, that's only the case if they are reliable, e.g if there is a clear indication where figures are coming from in this case. If Dilke's figures contradict primary sources, without any stated reason, that would indicate Dilke isn't a reliable source in this instance and so shouldn't be used. I also fail to see why contemporary sources are preferred when there's no indication of the providence of what is being cited anyway. ChiZeroOne (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

(Found this via Northstar's WP:EAR complaint) I don't think there really is much contradiction if one source says it's 440 royal cubits and another says it's 439.8 royal cubits - a difference of .2 cubits is only about 10.5 cm, so if anything they're confirming each other's measurements. --Six words (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Pyramid Complex: boats/boat Pits

It's swell and all that this section mentions the boats, as it should, but it does not seem appropriate that there are 3 full paragraphs devoted to it. Given there is an external link to "Giza Pyramid Complex" this information seems superfluous to the main article and could be summed up better in a sentence or two. In general, it seems this whole section is a bit long winded straying with unnecessary detail unrelated to the main article leaving out more pertinent material not to mention there are no sources cited. Thanos5150 (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Why no section on purpose or use?

This entry lists nothing regarding the pyramid's use or purpose. I assume there are a number of theories and it seems that that would be a logical topic to cover. While I understand that other Egyptian pyramids served as some kind of tomb for royalty etc., it seems that the Great Pyramid of Giza had no such purpose. Please expand if possible.

The presence of a sarcophagus makes it certain that it was a tomb - other theories are purely speculative, if you think they should be covered then maybe a link to another page on Great Pyramid Theories?Apepch7 (talk) 07:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the sarcophagus was never used for a burial, makes it doubtful that the GP was ever used as a tomb. The fact that there were never any funeral inscriptions or paintings in the pyramid at all, makes it further doubtful that it should be considered as a tomb. Herodotus (who alone mentions that Khufu built the GP at all) also says that Khufu was buried elsewhere. The GP may have been intended originally as a tomb, but seemingly was never employed as such. Wdford (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

According to Mark Lehner, no original burial has ever been found in any Egyptian pyramid. Several pyramid "sarcophagi" sealed from the day they were made were found empty when opened in modern times not to mention most of the pyramids don't even have sarcophagi. Some pharaohs are even credited with building multiple pyramids. Also, pyramids have virtually nothing in common with any known Egyptian burial chamber, including mastabas which they are "alleged" to be derived from and were still in use in Khufu's time. Mastabas always had many rooms, sometimes dozens, and functioned more as a "dead man's house" rather than a "tomb". The interiors were always adorned with numerous carvings, art, and writing; as elaborately as could be afforded. And more importantly, they actually have been found with dead bodies in them. Pyramids on the other hand have absolutely none of this. Egyptologists explain this saying they had all been "robbed", but regardless of other facts to the contrary, it is unlikely these robbers would have stolen all of the carvings, art and writing associated with every other Egyptian noble burial ever found and scrubbed and sanded all of the walls so clean that any evidence of it ever having existing, or their efforts to do so, would have completely disappeared. Compare the interior of a typical mastaba here [5] to the interior of the Great Pyramid King's Chamber here [6]. One for a vizier of a minor pharoah, the other for a living God responsible for building the greatest monument the world had/has ever known. Hmmm. While the associated necropolises seem to prove beyond doubt that the Egyptians associated death and burial with pyramids, it is pure speculation contradicted by the facts to suggest they themselves were built as tombs. Many Mid-evil European churches have burials inside them and many churches in general have associated cemeteries, but of course no one would say that they were ever built as "tombs".

The reason why there are no entries in the article regarding other use or purpose for the Great Pyramid beyond being anything but a tomb is because no Egyptologist has ever offered one so therefore any idea to the contrary is by default deemed as "psudoscience" and cannot be included. There used to be an "alternative theories" section, but that has been destroyed and removed by overzealous debunker editors who don't even want anyone to even see such "nonsense".Thanos5150 (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)