Jump to content

Talk:Construction of the Egyptian pyramids

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.20.80.41 (talk) at 18:13, 16 September 2008 (→Alternative history relevance). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:AncientEgyptBanner

Page started

A reader's note:

Construction techniques here are horribly short. no pictures. It needs to be broadened. i read an article on Encarta, they have huge one.

Feel free to move sections on contruction from Great Pyramid of Giza article! Markh 11:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friends,

I developed a new theory regarding the method of construction of the Pyramids in Egypt. I received a patent for the method in 2003. I have written the method on my website at www.spacetimepyramids.com

Hope you like it. Sorry could not include the method in the original wikepedia article because I am the author of the theory and I gather that I can not include myself. Enjoy!

why is this its own page?

I think that this page should be a section of the Egyptian pyramids page. At the very least, the Egyptian Pyramids page should link to this! Stagefrog2 05:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First Paragraph???

Okay so this first paragraph needs work:

Two major theories surround the construction of the pyramids of Egypt. The first theory, suggested by the Greeks, posits that slaves were forced to work until the pyramid was done. Current consensus among Egyptologists also is that the head of the Great Sphinx at Giza is that of Khafre, who is believed to have built the pyramid next to Khufu's in the Pyramids of Giza.

First of all, it only mentions one theory. Second, the "Current consensus..." sentence doesn't seem to have anything to do with construction techniques. Perhaps it belongs in the Egyptian pyramids page? Stagefrog2 06:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internal ramp theory

In August 2004 two amateur French Egyptologists, Gilles Dormion and Jean-Yves Verd'hurt, claimed that they had discovered, using ground-penetrating radar and architectural analysis, a previously unknown corridor inside the pyramid. If their claim is true, the corridor is unlikely ever to have been violated and could possibly lead to a chamber containing the king's remains. But, as of yet, the pair have been refused permission by the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities to follow up their findings and, they hope, prove the room's existence.

I excised this from the page because it does not belong in an article about construction techniques; perhaps someone can find a better place for it? Bushing 09:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeology Magazine has an article online about an internal ramp being used: "How to Build a Pyramid"

I feel I cannot accept the implication in '..the theory, which according to Houdin makes his theory the only one "proven" to be a viable technique.' Is anyone prepared to "prove" the technique described at http://www.farmhall.com/drupal/files/pyramid.pdf is not viable? Mehtopa 10:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I wrote does not say that I or Wikipedia considers Houdin's theory to be the only one "proven" (and note I put the word "proven" in appostrophies, implying we're stretching the usual meaning of the word), what I wrote was that Houdin says that he's claiming his theory is the only one "proven". I think what he's implying is that the CAD software they used was able to actually simulate the building of the pyramid, one stone at a time, and that such a simulation can be considered a proof that it could also be done in reality.
Anyway, you're welcome to edit my contribution and we'll see what other contributors think. --RenniePet 11:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian pyramid ramps

A Google search reveals article after article showing that the theory that the Egypti;ans 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/pyramid.pdf ) 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)[reply]

Peter C. Sundt

As far as I've been able to determine, Sundt is not a recognized authority on pyramid construction techniques, so his self-published essay should not be referenced in the article per WP:EL and WP:RS. Further, the editor that has been adding the link appears to be Sundt himself, in violation of WP:COI. --Ronz 21:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Building the pyramids from quarried stones

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)[reply]

aliens

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) Interesting thing to say so, except I don't see how a pointed pyramid can act as a landing pad. Even Sitchin Zecharia did not have the nerve to say so...Adixit4476 (talk) 05:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From your comments there it seems like you have been watching to much Stargate. 81.149.82.243 (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Probability of lifting 80 ton stones by the ancient egyptians.....

I would like to raise this point since nobody seems to give any attention to the heavy stones included in the construction. Everybody just keeps on explaining about the 2.5 ton stones. How do you lift an 80 ton stone, even today, let alone 3000 years back ?Adixit4476 (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the one and only reference to 80 ton stones is within a caption to an image where someone is asking for a citation—so your central fact may be in dispute. Given that Cleopatra's Needle is estimated at 180 tons, this is not necessarily a stretch for whatever technology was used. Captmondo (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree except Cleopatra's Needle was not raised to a height of over 135ft which represents an entirely different technology.thanos5150

Use of word "fringe" to describe Noone is POV

Use of the word "fringe" to describe Noone is POV and is not acceptable under Wiki rules. "Fringe" is not an accepted category of writer, like "sports writer" or "alternative history author/researcher", and is used in this instance as an arbitrary derogatory adjective to advance Doug Weller's POV. thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.80.41 (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:FRINGE before making such comments. And as my edit said, this was all worked out some time ago on this page as a way of keeping in what is an unreliable source. Doug Weller (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, not on this page, sorry. But we either toss the paragraph out, or describe Noone accurately (he's the guy who didn't understand Newton and predicted 3 miles of ice covering Antarctica in 2000. Doug Weller (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read it Doug-where does it say you as an editor allowed to use it as an adjective to label an author in a manner that under any other circumstance is unacceptable? It doesn't-this is you. How is the reasoning any different that allows you to remove the word "uncanny" but ok to use the word "fringe" when it suits your purpose? You are using a double standard to advance your opinion. If a notable person referred to Noone as "fringe" you could cite that person's opinion giving credit as such, but otherwise it is not appropriate for you as an editor to make that determination. It is used by you in this context with the sole purpose of demeaning the author to discredit the idea to support your own POV. I am not defending or discrediting Noone which as an editor is not my place, but you must use the same objective set of rules for things you agree with as the things you don't. Worked out by whom? You and some other like minded individual? I disagree. That section is about alternative ideas which come from alternative researchers in which Noone is a notable figure and therefore acceptable reference in this context.thanos5150
The oops is yours. And who is we? You? And then you delete my previous comment? Wow. You are so militant about choosing the appropriate semantics of a word yet don't follow your own rules if it furthers your own POV. Alternative History is the generally accepted term for the genre, not "fringe". As much as you want to trash these ideas, you are an editor of a public forum and must be objective and respectful which you constantly are unwilling to do to the point of being offensive. To eliminate Alternative Hypothesis altogether is not your personal call, for one, but more importantly it is censorship to promote a singular POV.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.80.41 (talk) 22:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down there buddy. No one deleted any comments of yours. Fringe remains an appropriate term. Check out the guidelines at WP:Fringe. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok there, "buddy". I thought it was deleted and restored. It's happened before. Regardless, no, "fringe" is not an appropriate term as this is not the term used for the genre, but is rather most commonly referred to as Alternative History. For example: [1][2][3][4]. If you go to the bookstore and look under the category of "fringe authors" there will be none. It is not a category. If you look under "alternative history authors" this is where they will be, including Noone. The use of the word "fringe" in this section is derogatory and used for the sole purpose of discrediting any name and idea in it and you know it as does Doug which is why you persist. I am certain this is not the spirit of Wiki's use of the term as it uses "fringe" as a general term for ideas not accepted by the mainstream, but does not condone it's use as a label when a more appropriate term is already accepted by the general public. For example, Christianity and Creationism is as fringe as fringe can be, but authors who support Creationism are not referred to arbitrarily as "fringe authors", despite being an apt description, they are referred to as "Creationists".thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos5150 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ironic, as Thonos5150 deleted my comment. Noone's book is not a reliable source - WP:RS. Noone is a little known author, known mainly for his book arguing that the alignment of the planets will cause an upset of the earth's axis on May 5, 2000, a date which he also finds as an 'end date' in a calendar in the Great Pyramid I believe (yes, I know the book is about much more than his non-existent and scientifically impossible catastrophe. Noone is insignificant - compare his Ghits to West's, Bauval's, Hancock's, etc. There is something drastically wrong with the study as we know Sneferu's Red Pyramid. 2/3 the volume of the GP took 10 years, 7 months to build. Probsbly some mistaken assumptions fed to Booker by Noone. A discussion took place here [5]. I am now leaning towards the total removal of this as Noone is such an unreliable source.
The entire 'Alternate History' section ought to go actually. Undue weight to fringy material from bad sources. Sort of a triumvirate of reasons there. This is to be an encyclopedia, not just the random thoughts of some discredited author.Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Riighttt...I deleted nothing, sorry. And that's "Thanos". This has nothing to do with Noone's ideas, it's about Booker's study which Noone provides more than adequate documentation which no reasonable person would dispute is genuine. Because you don't like Booker's conclusion, you relentlessly attack Noone to discredit Booker by association going so far as to say Noone forged the document and even that Booker wasn't a real person. Both are quite desperate considering the facts and context. Please provide the link or source to the commentary on Noone your comments are taken from because you have said you have never seen the book so you must be getting your opinions from somewhere.
Regardless, Booker, not Noone, clearly says what parameters he used for the study which are a gross simplifiation of the actual construction process and really has nothing to do with building a pyramid, but rather how long would it take for the ILI to quarry and move that much stone. Booker's conclusion must stand on it's own merits despite of Noone being the source because there is no credible dispute Booker's correspondence and study document is not genuine. It is only because of Noone as the source that it gets relegated to the alternative section, which I agree it should be, but because Booker is the author of the study itself it has every right to be included in context. Arguing that Booker's study is invalid because it was published in Noone's book is pretty lame.
The point of this whole thread here that is lost is that "fringe" is not an appropriate word. You are saying if you can't use the words you want to support your POV then you'll just get rid of the whole thing. Good for you. Sounds like the scientific method to me. thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.80.41 (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you denying deleting my comment? See [6]. This has been rehashed before, and you left fringe in at that time. Now for some reason you want to start all over again. Doug Weller (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are talking about. I thought it was my edit that was deleted. Whatever. No, I did not leave fringe in that time I just left the site for several months because I was sick of this same crap. My position hasn't changed. All I am asking is that you do the right thing and hold the same standards for the things you agree with as the things you don't. There is no such thing as a "fringe author" and to label an author as such when the genre is referred to as something else is POV. It is. As far as leaving the Booker stuff in there-just admit it;the only reason you don't want it there is because you don't like what it says. You can claim some higher ground because of the source, but it is as simple as that. The Booker inclusion is in context.
Is this your inclusion?: " Despite precautions such as covering the entrance hole with casing and the portcullises, thieves had bypassed all the barriers even before the Old Kingdom had ended, digging through the soft limestone and breaking a corner of Khufu's sarcophagus. By the time it was next seen in the 9th century AD all that was there was an empty sarcophagus without a lid.[1]
This statement is being passed off as fact when even the obscure author, REVEREND James Backie who lived from 1866-1931, doesn't even make these specific claims. Who ever put this in there basically picked an obscure out of date source, made something up loosely based on what this author said and passed it off as fact to support their POV. Tunneled though the soft limestone and broke off the end of the sarcophagus? Really? I've been there, there is no other tunnel or evidence of forced entry other than the Arabs. Regardless, where does he say this (it's not on p.79) and if he does say it why isn't he given credit for his theory as there is no evidence to support it? Pure bunk. BUT, apparently this is a-ok if it supports your POV. You do back flips to suppress an alternative point of view even down to the semantics of a word though it is 100% factual without OR in it's context, yet do nothing about something like this? And by the same token, Doug, you have argued and removed direct quotes from Petrie no less and other prominent turn of the century Egytologists only because they suggest something beyond the mundane or other than what is currently accepted by the mainstream arguing their comments are "dated" (though comments they make which support the mainstream are ok) when nothing could be further from the truth. The double standard is shameful. I'm sure if I cared to check other references I would find the same.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.80.41 (talk) 05:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative history relevance

The entire section on "alternative history" probably does not belong in this article. In order to keep it here, we must establish the following:

  1. That mainstream academics have acknowledged these views are either common or in some other way notable.
  2. That these views are weighted appropriately according to their prominence in the relevant sources. This means that if you pick up a random source or text from a library on construction techniques of the pyramids, you should see, proportionally, the same amount of text as is seen in this article.

As it is, I'm making a quick judgment that this entire section is definitely too long and may not belong here at all. Please comment below addressing these concerns.

ScienceApologist (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can start by noting that no one seems to have mentioned Booker who isn't obviously taking their information from this article. This means it has no prominence and doesn't belong here. Doug Weller (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Alternative History in the last 20 years especially has become a major component of public perception and opinion regarding the Great Pyramid and the Sphinx. The theories derived from it, right or wrong, have become and intergral part of popular culture. So much so that several prominent Egytologists including Zawi Hawass and Mark Lehner have engaged in several well publicized ongoing debates with these authors on these topics. The redating of the Sphinx for example garnered world wide media coverage and is a common acknowledgment of plausible theory based on the evidence by independent researchers and the public at large. These ideas deserve their due because of their widespread acceptance by popular culture. This section as it stands is not POV but an objective offering of the most credible ideas related to the topic. If anything, I think it should be expanded of receive a page all of its own with link.
Noone's book, regardless of his personal theories, is still in bookstores today, such as Barnes and Noble, which gives it relevance. Noone was the one who requested the study from Booker for publication in his book, therefore it is only natural his book would be the original source. Noone provides more than adequate documentation of his correspondence of Booker and the study itself is not quoted from Booker but is verbatim from a photo of the document itself. Booker, deceased, was a leading authority in the modern field of quarrying and transporting limestone and no one has challenged his findings or credentials. His very existence, title, and likelihood the document is genuine have been independently verified from ILI for inclusion in this article. Booker makes no claims as to how the pyramid was built or to any consideration of how it was constructed in which the only purpose of the study is to determine how long it would take for the ILI to quarry and transport the materials needed based only on calculating the volume. I believe Booker's study belongs here as it is in context and stands on it's own merit regardless of the perception of Noone.thanos5150. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.80.41 (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That the book is in bookstores does not give it weight on Wikipedia. It isn't the book that is the only source I can find on the web, it is this article (you can try and find quotes that don't come from this article, feel free, I may have missed one, who knows?). Whether the report is authentic or not, whether Noone quotes the assumptions used, etc., is not relevant to this specific point - it has zero prominence. Doug Weller (talk) 07:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, this is covered by WP:FRINGE- "In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, a fringe idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." And "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a subject appear more notable than it actually is.[2] Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant theories." The only way Booker's report is getting on the web appears to be through this article. Doug Weller (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have said you have never seen Noone's book-again I ask please provide the reference that has given you your opinion. You change your argument from one thing to another. Here is a few:[7], [8]. A Google search of the actual book 5/5/2000 will produce pages of hits which is really more relevant to it's notoriety than the Booker study itself as it is part of it. As to everything else you just said, I just answered all of the criteria. Alternative History regarding the Great Pyramid, this "fringe idea", has been "referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." Hancock, Bavaul, West/Schoch in particular have generated a huge amount of scholarly debate including, AGAIN, with the likes of Hawass, Lehner, and Krupp, just to name a few. These writers theories have appeared in not one major publication but several repeatedly worldwide. The NBC documentary "Mysteries of the Sphinx", which included Hawass, Lehner and others, was viewed by over 30,000,000 people and is one of the most successful documentaries ever made. You whisking this away as insignificant is dishonest and irresponsible. Alternative ideas regarding the Great Pyramid have been around since the western world first saw it and has been an integral part of its history. Pietre, Budge, Gaspero, and the like all supported to some degree the possibility parts of the Giza plateau were older than accepted and not built by who it was ascribed to. You know this is not true. The genre itself is significant on a global scale, and to some degree probably more so than the field of Egyptology itself.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.80.41 (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bad idea to call editors dishonest, I suggest you read WP:CIVIL. I agree there should be an alternative history section, but Noone clearly doesn't have the same status as the other authors you mention. I haven't suggested whisking them away -- can you quote an edit of mine that backs you up? I have no idea what reference you are asking for, you've given a link to an article by Chris Dunn that doesn't mention Noone and another one by someone with no notability on a theosophy site whose relevancy I don't see. Noone has no prominence. The others do. Doug Weller (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying you are dishonest, but to remove the section as if it were irrelevant would be which is what I thought you were trying to say as it is the subject of this topic. Isn't this what you just wrote: "And "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a subject appear more notable than it actually is.[2] Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant theories." You have said several times you want to remove the section entirely, but now you say it warrants inclusion. This topic is about the inclusion of the whole section so I assumed this is what you are talking about. I am just trying to understand what you are saying. Booker's study is not Noone's theory, which I agree would not warrant inclusion if it was, so I am not sure what your point is. Booker's study is to lend further context to the general topic and notable proponents such as Hancock. The Alternative section is about the idea in general and not those 4 writers though noting them is critical.thanos5150 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.80.41 (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What don't you understand? You said you didn't read the book but you know what it's about? Where is the reference your info from? Not a big deal, I would jsut like to see what it says. Also, is this your edit:"Despite precautions such as covering the entrance hole with casing and the portcullises, thieves had bypassed all the barriers even before the Old Kingdom had ended, digging through the soft limestone and breaking a corner of Khufu's sarcophagus. By the time it was next seen in the 9th century AD all that was there was an empty sarcophagus without a lid.[2]"thanos5150
  1. ^ Baikie, James, Glamour of the Near East Excavation (1927), Kessinger Publishing Co (7 April 2003). ISBN: 978-0766149120 p. 79
  2. ^ Baikie, James, Glamour of the Near East Excavation (1927), Kessinger Publishing Co (7 April 2003). ISBN: 978-0766149120 p. 79
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Construction_of_the_Egyptian_pyramids&oldid=238852712"