Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza

Old talk

"Additionally, it has been alleged (notably by the "sleeping prophet" Edgar Cayce?) that the dimensions and details of the great pyramid, properly interpreted, provide prophecies of events in modern times."

No, Cayce said a lot of ... questionable things, but I think the "dimensions giving prophecy" schtick was somebody else's. I'll look and let you know. Some Italian guy .... not Schiaparelli. More later.

- Here

http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/paramyth.htm

Invented by John Taylor, elaborated by Charles Piazzi Smyth, Astronomer Royal for Scotland (my "Italian guy" - don't know what his ethnicity was really.)

Yeah, I may be misremembering that, but I'm pretty sure he at least commented on it (but then he commented on just about every other bit of psychic nonsense of his time). --LDC

I see Cayce "readings" on the Web that mention the idea, but it's difficult to pin down Cayce's language as to what he's really trying to say.

-- Here

http://www.nhne.com/specialreports/srpyramid.html

a "reading" about a secret hall of records of *ancient* events, not specifying whether this includes prophecies or not.

LOL - http://www.margaretmorrisbooks.com/xcerpt08.html

- the following "shows that some of the claims associated with this idea are too strange to take seriously".

We should have something in the page about the astronomical alignments, also.

Kate Spence has a theory on astronomical alignments. Unfortunately her Nature article of 11 Nov 2000 seems unavailable, but a google search of "Kate Spence" reveals a cached page with the article; look for header "Feature of the week > Pyramid precision".

I have a copy of the paper. Spence figures several pyramid baselines were set in

    Snofru-Meidum  2585 BC ±  7
    Khufu          2479    ±  5
    Khafre         2447    ±  5
    Mankaure       2414    ± 10
    Sahure         2371    ± 25
    Neferikare     2358    ± 25

How long it took to finish them is another question. Also, it's been several years; I don't know what the current thinking about Spence's work is.

--wwoods 00:29, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I seems Hanckok claims Spence copied his work... Anyway, i found it enough interesting to include it in the main article. Nanahuatzin 08:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that the pyramid has moved 4 kilometers South could also mean its original alignment has also shifted. Is there a reference concerning the 4 kilometer shift?

Petrie, the first to measure the pyramids with precision, reports a diferent orientation in the core and in the outher casing. He asumes this as a mistake of the builders, who recalculate the north. It would be interesting to compare the diferent orientation with the precesion of th stars. Nanahuatzin 08:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Date of completion: I've just changed 2680 to 2570. 2680 is about 100 years too early, particularly in light of the dates given for Khufu's reign in his article. 2570 would place completion in the final years of K's stint in the top spot.

So, what are the dimensions of the pyramid? The imperial and metric measurements don't exactly agree with each other (only accurate to 2 s.f.).

Also, where does 52 degrees come from? If we take h as 146m and s as 235m, my calculations show that it is approximately 41 degrees:

$\tan ^{-1}\left({\frac {\frac {h}{\sin \left(45^{\circ }\right)}}{s}}\right)\approx 41.303^{\circ }$

-Zhen Lin 16:23, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A cross-section of the pyramid containing the peak and parallel to opposite sides of the base will be a triangle of height 146.5 m and base 230.5 m. Therefore, the slope of the sides of the pyramid is

\tan ^{-1}\left({146.5 \over 230.5/2}\right)\approx 51.81^{\circ }.

—Bkell 04:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Great Pyramid - The Speed of Light in Stone

The definitive work on the measurements of The Great Pyramid is "The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh" by William Matthew Flinders Petrie, 1883. It is an exhaustive study of the most measured structure (Great Pyramid) in the world. All of Petrie's most revlevant and accurate information regarding physical measurements/dimensions of The Great Pyramid can be found at [[1]]

Additionally, The Great Pyramid's height is in perfect relationship to the sum of its base sides as is the radius of a circle to the circle (1/2 Pi). The radius/circle relationship incorporated into the pyramid introduces the concept of squaring the circle.

For a complete summary of The Great Pyramid's correspondence to the speed of light (you can easily verify the math - please remember that "c", referencing the speed of light, is the speed of light in a vacuum) please see, [[2]] http://www.templeofsolomon.org/Reticulum.htg/Reticulum.htm Be aware that the links provided here raise serious questions about the origin of The Great Pyramid unless information can be provided about how the ancient Egyptians (in the very least) knew the speed of light and incorporated that information into a structure that present day technology can not duplicate (in a desert environment). See, also [[3]] http://www.templeofsolomon.org/Pyramids/pyramid_symbolism.htm John_Charles_Webb July 19th 2005

References?

I'd be interested to see some references for the following statements in the article:

The chamber which is most normal in its situation is the subterranean chamber; but this is quite unfinished, hardly more than begun.
...there is very credible testimony to a sarcophagus having existed in the queen's chamber, as well as in the king's chamber.
It was previously believed that slaves were used as labor, but that view is now rejected by almost all modern-day scholars.

For (1), it's unclear to me what "normal" standard of reference is being used. Other pyramids? And by "unfinished", are we assuming that the chambers within the pyramid were intended for use as tombs? (I find it somewhat unlikely that anyone would go to all the trouble to build the Great Pyramid and then not bother "finishing" the inside.) For (2), what is the "very credible testimony"? And for (3), some more explanation about who, in particular, devised and supported the slave-labor theory, and maybe the names of a couple of the "almost all" scholars who have since rejected that theory. I'll see if I can't find some references for these myself, in the meantime... -- Wapcaplet 21:48, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished Chamber

This unfinished subterranean chamber, an unfinished chamber within Khufu's Pyramid, lies 90 feet (30 meters) below the surface of the plateau, and is closed to the public. Standing alone inside this oxygen-deficient space is quite an experience; 2.3 million blocks of stone weighing some 6.5 million tons loom overhead. Workers down here chipped away at the limestone bedrock to build what is thought to be the original burial chamber for King Khufu. Egyptologists believe the chamber is 'unfinished' because Khufu suddenly decided he wanted his burial chamber to be higher in the pyramid, and ordered the workers to stop. Khafre's Pyramid follows a similar pattern, with an unfinished subterranean burial chamber.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/khufuunflo.html

Queen's Chamber

Although it is called the 'Queen's Chamber,' Egyptologists believe this space was meant to be the final resting place for King Khufu, until he changed his mind yet again and opted for a burial chamber even higher. The roof of the chamber is raised at its center.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/khufuqueenhi.html

--wwoods 00:29, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good, though almost as vaguely worded as what we already have. I did find a fairly thorough source on construction, labor force, orientation, etc. here (skip past the lame touristy introduction to the links at the bottom), including some great illustrations about how possible ramp configurations used to get blocks up the side. Lots of references to the specific people who came up with various theories. I think I'll build on those when I find some time.

Also, I've been thinking about that claim to a pi ratio. It all boils down to the exact angle of the slope; if my math is correct, a slope of 51°51'14.306" would yield pi accurate to six decimal places. Most of the measurements I've seen indicate that the slope is closer to 51°50'40", giving pi accurate to 2 decimal places (3.142668...), closer to 22/7 than pi. I've seen varying estimates of the slope, though; less than 1 minute of error makes all the difference. -- Wapcaplet 04:41, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

New image addition

The recently-added image Image:Pyramids of Egypt.jpg does not appear to resemble anything now standing on the Giza plateau. Unless the illustration really is of the Giza pyramids, particularly the Great Pyramid (albeit a quite liberal interpretation), I don't think it belongs on the article. -- Wapcaplet 19:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

After looking around a bit, it appears that this image is by 16th-C. Dutch artist Maerten van Heemskerck. [4] Judging by the resemblance, I'd say he must have done the engraving based on verbal description alone. I still don't think it belongs here. Maybe on Seven Wonders of the World, since it needs an image. -- Wapcaplet 19:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree, and said as much on its talk page. If no one objects by the end of the week I'm going to change the image text or delete it entirely. I don't care if I orphan it. If it's near and dear to someone's heart you'd better come to its rescue. — Clarknova 03:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Close-up picture

That's Khafre, not Khufu.

So it is. And someone also removed the "right" indicator in the caption to the other image showing all three. I've fixed to clarify (kept the image, though). -- Wapcaplet 19:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is beginning to need a neutrality overhaul. I started, but there's much left to do. For instance:

"As has been proven by papyrus documents, each side measured in Antiquity 440 Old Royal Cubits (230.5 m)." -- Reference is needed. What papyrus documents?

For the reference: Look to this document (section 2.1) of the Director of the Berlin Geodesic Institute: He mentions in his article Mr. Petrie who found this papyrus document in 1934.

-- Paul Martin 22:42, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

P.S. The metrologist Livio C. Stecchini wrote: "It is agreed amount serious scholars that the side was calculated as 440 Egyptian royal cubits."

"The grand gallery also contained some sort of mechanism for the release of a huge stone block which plugged the ascending passage." -- I don't doubt that this is true, but some evidence for and better description of such a mechanism would be useful.
"The entire upper part of the pyramid was thus sealed after the burial of the king." -- Again, how do we know this? As far as I know, no evidence exists that a king was even buried here. We need references one way or another. There are other references throughout to "burial chamber of the king", "king's burial chamber", etc. which should probably be rendered as simply "King's chamber," given the dispute over whether a king was actually buried here.
An oddity about the "graffiti" on the relieving stones in the King's chamber: that it is "the only evidence which proves that pharaoh Hor Medjedu Khnum Khufu had the Great Pyramid built." If this is the only evidence, then it's hardly proof of the pyramid's builder; this matter is under dispute, and maintaining neutrality requires that we try to avoid such unilateral statements.
In the section detailing various estimates of the labor force required, the section "Nevertheless, given the subsequent absurd implications of these theories ... they fall terribly short of providing a satisfactory explanation" is in serious need of rephrasing. Whether a theory is absurd or satisfactory is rather subjective; put the notion of absurdity in context, and make note of who finds the various theories absurd or satisfactory (or, better, simply note some of the theories, are those who dispute them, and let readers make their own judgments).
The article is arguing with itself. "Second, if huge quantities of earth were dug and moved to support the ramps instead, geological indications would undoubtedly reveal this today. (Present day studies do yield such a revelation! But the ramp size uncovered is too small. See external links below.)" This is bad. It gets even more ridiculous in the sentences that follow.
"Some sort of ancient Steam engine is undeniably and absolutely required for a reasonable time period within which to carefully construct such a monument of this size." This is qualified in previous sentences, but it still comes across as being a statement of fact, especially with the excessive emphasis used.
Finally, the image at the very bottom showing "RJ or RL-shaped supports" needs some kind of reference. I couldn't find anything about these supports via Google.

The total effect of the above is to make the article seem non-credible. Let's see if we can clean it up. -- Wapcaplet 20:48, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, in a second crack at culling the POV, I've removed some things. First, this paragraph:

Nevertheless, modern estimates for ancient Egyptian population size around the time that the pyramid was constructed fail at lending substantial credence for these assertions. (See http://www.etext.org/Politics/World.Systems/papers/modelski/geocit.htm .) And there are other serious technical questions posed as well, discussed as follows.

The article referenced makes little mention of Giza, and none whatever regarding the population estimate being in conflict with various labor force size estimates for the Great Pyramid. I have also removed:

Nevertheless, given the subsequent absurd implications of these theories -- ... in 2600 BC ... covering an area of seven city blocks and weighing six and a half million tons ... in less than thirty years, the workers had to raise over two million blocks to a height of forty stories at the rate of one block every three minutes ... [using] only the simplest technology (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/1915mpyramid.html) -- they fall terribly short of providing a satisfactory explanation.

Indeed, this article does not provide a very convincing explanation of how this may have been accomplished, and this is one area that could use some work. However, this part of the article is merely noting some of the estimates that have been made regarding the labor force needed. It's not our job (as authors of this article) to point out flaws in the reasoning of those who did the estimates. If you need to point out flaws, please find another publication that does it for you, and reference it.

The next removal:

Though this "ramp theory" is the popular perception today, it is not without some serious fundamental problems. First, there remains considerable debate over exactly what kinds of ramps might have been used, because various ramp designs implicate technological advances that the ancient Egyptians clearly did not have. (See Civil engineering.) Second, if huge quantities of earth were dug and moved to support the ramps instead, geological indications would undoubtedly reveal this today. (Present day studies do yield such a revelation! But the ramp size uncovered is too small. See external links below.) Third, given even adequate resolutions to these first two problems, the most serious fundamental problem still remaining is that of time. Even if we were to multiply the given time period above (i.e., 30 years) many, many times over, we would still fail once again at reaching a workable conclusion. Only by lengthening the given time period to several millennia (!) may we arrive at an adequate time frame with which to cut (with chisels?), transport (miles!), lift (human muscle?), maneuver (with boards and rope?) and fit (smoothing/reshaping some) each of the over two million stone blocks! Note that some of the stone blocks weigh several tons!!

It was much easier to remove this paragraph than to edit out all the exclamation points (both literal and metaphorical). This was cut for the same reasons as above. Articles shouldn't make unsupported assertions (that is, assertions backed up only by patchwork arguments, rather than by references). Ditto for the following:

Modern day Revisionists speculate that there could be only one logical conclusion to explain all the above. (See also origins of chess and Silk Road: Origins, bottom paragraph, for an adequate understanding.) The only way possible that the ancient Egyptian laborers could have accomplished this monumental feat in anything resembling a reasonable amount of time is with chains/cable and some sort of Ancient crane. The conclusion may run contrary to popular perception, but the facts point only in this direction. Some sort of ancient Steam engine is undeniably and absolutely required for a reasonable time period within which to carefully construct such a monument of this size. See external links and image below.

The end result is that this section of the article is more or less as it was at the beginning of November 2004. I don't deny that this section is in need of much work, but the above paragraphs do more harm than good, in my estimation. If anyone is interested in restoring these paragraphs, please back them up with references: facts, publications, and who, especially, has made these assertions. -- Wapcaplet 04:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Coordinates

I suspect that anon's recent change of the latitude and longitude of the Great Pyramid is correct, or more nearly so; it gives a location near Giza, while the earlier number (where did that come from?) gave a location a good ways north of Cairo. -- Infrogmation June 28, 2005 18:35 (UTC)

I fixed the coordinates for the Great Pyramid. I got the coordinates from the Google Earth program that was just released to the public. The old coordinates (29|97|60|N|31|13|22|E) were incorrect, and in fact not even valid latitude/longitude values.

-Josh (June 28/05)

How come the alteration mentioned above was reverted? The new coordinates are much closer to Giza than the old ones (plus, they're actually valid lat/long coordinates). I don't know if the new coords are correct, but the (29/97/60, 31/13/22) are definitely wrong. -- Wapcaplet 29 June 2005 18:22 (UTC)

Rushing to Defend an Erroneous Deletion

Dear Mr Wapcaplet:

We understand your point of view. History says one thing, but rational logic says another. Historical revisionism always begins this way.

History is repeating itself, because this same sort of affair happened in March of 2004 at Origins of chess when we first proposed an ancient Egyptian origin to the game. Needless to say, the proposal was blasted off the web page and moved to "Talk." Nevertheless, we sat quietly and watched as everyone pondered it over ... and what do you know? Have you read Origins of chess lately? There's even a photograph of the Sphinx and the Great Pyramid of Giza at the very top of that web page now!

So, here we go again .... :)

The following discussion is rooted in web links that I've been able to find on the Internet.

NUMBER 1: To respond to your earnest request,

If anyone is interested in restoring these paragraphs, please back them up with references: facts, publications, and who, especially, has made these assertions,

let's start by quoting ... Wikipedia!!!

Scientific method: Our earliest records of anyone (much less a scientist) adhering to this strict process comes from ancient Egypt.

The Edwin Smith Papyrus (ca 1600 BC), an ancient textbook on surgery, describes in exquisite detail the examination (characterization), diagnosis (hypothesis), treatment (experiment), and prognosis (review) of numerous ailments (Encyclopædia Britannica). Additionally, although the Ebers papyrus (ca 1550 BC) is full of incantations and foul applications meant to turn away disease-causing demons and other superstition, in it there is also evidence of a long tradition of empirical practice and observation.

You see. The ancient Egyptians were using the scientific method millennia before Francis Bacon even knew how to write. And see here: Bridge: History and Cement. We could pile one astounding advance on top another. Take a look at the pyramids: Millions of stone blocks ... some weighing several tons.

Ancient history proceeds in probabilities. The ancient Egyptians knew the scientific method millennia before anyone else did. What are the implications? Francis Bacon lived and died only a few hundred years ago. Isaac Newton, around the same time. English history records only a short span of time (relatively speaking) between scientific processes and mathematical advancement.

Here are some others you'd likely find interesting:

Demographics of Egypt: Archeological findings show that primitive tribes lived along the Nile long before the dynastic history of the pharaohs began. By 6000 B.C., organized agriculture had appeared.

Figurine: Read the bit on Morocco.

NUMBER 2: Moscow and Rhind Mathematical Papyri

In summary, we cannot prove that the ancient Egyptians knew calculus. We can say however that the evidence suggests so.

In addition to these two historical texts, there is other evidence demonstrating an ancient Egyptian knowledge of basic mathematics and even surveying as early as 3000 BC. [1] See also Timeline of mathematics.

Besides describing how to obtain an approximation of

\pi

accurate to within less than one per cent, it also describes one of the earliest attempts at squaring the circle and in the process provides persuasive evidence against the theory that the Egyptians deliberately built their pyramids to enshrine the value of

\pi

in the proportions. Even though it would be a strong overstatement to suggest that the papyrus represents even rudimentary attempts at analytical geometry, Ahmes did make use of a kind of an analogue of the cotangent. Furthermore, quoting Mathpages.com,

... the 2/n table of the Rhind Papyrus, which dates from more than a thousand years before Pythagoras, seems to show an awareness of prime and composite numbers, a crude version of the 'Sieve of Eratosthenes,' a knowledge of the arithmetic, geometric, and harmonic means, and of the 'perfectness' of the number 6. This all seems to suggest a greater number-theoretic sophistication than is generally credited to the ancient Egyptians. (The Rhind Papyrus 2/N Table)

NUMBER 3: Population Size

Many varied estimates have been made regarding the labor force needed to construct the Great Pyramid. Herodotus, the Greek historian in the 5th century BC, estimated that construction may have required the labor of 100,000 slaves for 30 years. Polish architect Wieslaw Kozinski believed that it took as many as 25 men to transport a 1.5-ton stone block; based on this, he estimated the workforce to be 300,000 men on the construction site, with an additional 60,000 off-site.

The key number here is 300,000, because it has been argued that the ancient Egyptians could have supplemented their work force with slaves. Here are a couple references you'd likely be interested in:

Timeline 3300 to 1300 BCE: ca 2800BCE - Khufu commanded the building of the Great Pyramid. It took an estimated 100,000 people 30 years to construct. (WH, 1994, p.12)(K.I.-365D, p.122)(HT, 5/97, p.26)

Encyclopædia Britannica: ...three 4th-dynasty (c. 2575–c. 2465 BC) pyramids erected on a rocky plateau on the west bank of the Nile River near Al-Jizah (Giza), northern Egypt; in ancient times they were included among the Seven Wonders of the World. The ancient ruins of the Memphis area, including the Pyramids of Giza....

Encyclopædia Britannica: Capital of ancient Egypt during the Old Kingdom (c. 2575–c. 2130 BC) ... [Memphis'] ruins include the great temple of Ptah, royal palaces, and an extensive necropolis. Nearby are the pyramids of Saqqara and those at Giza.

Encyclopaedia of the Orient: The main urban places of Egypt through the main part of the history of Ancient Egypt, were Memphis and Thebes.

To pause before continuing,

100,000 is too small a number. Herodotus, who lived in the 5th century BC, didn't know what he was talking about. Kozinski calculated a better number, but his number is too big, as evidenced by Professor Modelski's paper.
As Encyclopædia Britannica points out, the Pyramids of Giza are included in a consideration of "the Memphis area," and I believe you will find Memphis clearly noted in several places within Professor George Modelski's paper.
Even if you don't consider Memphis' proximity to the Great Pyramid of Giza significant, you must yield to its prominent status in ancient Egyptian history as capital and main urban place.

Nevertheless, as pointed out, population size is NOT the most serious fundamental problem. This is an important point, as said before Ancient history proceeds in probabilities. We may spend an entire day arguing both sides, but if we recognize what is most likely true, we may then proceed with a reasonable assumption, just to see where it leads. If it leads nowhere (i.e., a contradiction) we immediately drop it and pick up the opposing argument to see where it might lead us. And so forth.

NUMBER 4: Suez Canal

Around the 13th century BC, the Suez Canal was dug between the Nile River and the Red Sea.

Why? Why would the ancient Egyptians dig a canal for ships to pass in the 13th century BC? But wait ... there is more ... (posted at Silk Road: Origins, bottom paragraph)

A maritime "Silk Route" opened up between Chinese-controlled Jiaozhi (centred in modern Vietnam, near Hanoi) probably by the first century CE. It extended all the way to Roman-controlled ports in Egypt and the Nabataean territories on the northeastern coast of the Red Sea. However, it is unclear whether this route circumnavigated the African continent (unlikely) or made passage through a temporarily maintained Suez Canal (more likely). The Hou Hanshu records that the first Roman envoy arrived in China by this maritime route in 166 CE.

How long would it take to paddle (against the wind, against the currents, but sometimes with the wind) from Rome to Vietnam? Or do you think they had something more than just muscle-power on board? My muscles get sore just thinking about it.

See also Bridge: History, Cement, and Origins of chess to think about. Some of this is also posted at Roman Empire.

You'd likely find Latin alphabet: Evolution interesting as well.

Do you believe Wikipedia is a reliable encyclopedia? Must we really provide you with more???

This is a bit off-topic for this talk page, but: one does not need to postulate ancient steam engines to explain the trade between Rome and China. Navigation and shipbuilding being what they were in that era, the trade necessarily went in stages: from China to Southeast Asia, from Southeast Asia to the eastern coast of India and Sri Lanka; from there to the west coast of India, whence it was traded, through the Red Sea ports, to Rome. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 12:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let me go through your points one at a time:

First, it is quite obvious that the builders of the Great Pyramid were astute craftsmen and very likely methodical observers of the heavens. That they had science is not the issue here; my major nitpick with the above removals is that they are presented in a non-neutral fashion. They proceed from a form of argument and criticism, rather than from the neutral perspective of reporting on arguments and criticisms. Articles can present conflicting theories, but they must do so in an unbiased fashion, without showing preference for one theory or another. The amount of coverage each theory gets should be relatively proportional to the amount of acceptance they have (both scientific and metaphysical), but there's no hard rule on that either; the only hard rule is the neutral point of view.

Second, I agree that the builders of the Pyramid most likely knew of Pi, or at least a very good approximation of it. I wrote much of the section about the Pyramid's expression of Pi, and you may note how, even though I personally think there is an obvious and accurate Pi expression in the Great Pyramid, I made every attempt to keep this point of view in terms of reporting on it, rather than arguing for it.

Third, the references you have given here (at least the Britannica ones) strike me as very good examples of why Wikipedia is often better than Britannica. Not only is Wikipedia more easily available (along with the references used in writing the article, where applicable), it covers a broader range of conflicting theories than Britannica does. We can do better than Britannica: we need not state the most well-accepted theories as though they were universally accepted. But in order to do that, we need to stick to the neutral point of view.

Fourth, I agree with Charles P. that it needn't be necessary to have steam engines to make such a journey feasible. Whether the builders of the Great Pyramid had steam power or not, this article shouldn't lead readers into believing that's the only logical conclusion. Present it neutrally, and I have no problem with this content. -- Wapcaplet 23:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The general formula for a frustum was evidently known to the Egyptians.... Speculate on how the Egyptians could have known the formula for a frustum, given that its derivation depends on the methods of modern calculus.

Allen, G. Donald, Professor, Director of Technology Assisted Instruction, Associate Head for Undergraduate Studies. Department of Mathematics, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, U.S. April 2001. The Moscow Papyrus.

If by "modern calculus" Mr. Donald is referring to calculus as we know it (via Newton and Leibniz), then modern calculus is by no means necessary for deriving a generalized formula for the volume of a pyramid. Archmimedes did it using the method of exhaustion, and Liu Hui did it in the third century A.D. At any rate, I don't dispute that the Great Pyramid builders may have known a form of calculus, but I don't see how this reference (the speculative opinion of one professor) offers much by way of supporting the text that was removed from this article. -- Wapcaplet 02:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Date of Construction

I have reverted some anon edits making what appeared to be wildly specultaive claims about the date of construction for the pyramid. Does anyone know if these claims are legitimate, referenced scientific viewpoints, or are they crackpottery? --Scimitar ^parley 16:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charmed, i'm sure. No they are not 'crackpottery'. Wildly speculative? My, what a great debating style.

I have added a couple of easy to find references to long published books. One might rather question whether the original assertion that some random late Pharaoh built the pyramids and sphinx, without more than the smallest circumstancial evidence (and no history) to back it up, is not more suspect.--Genesis 11:24, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to debate. I was conveying my impression of the insertions- that they seemed extremely speculative. Incidentally, I just spent the last hour doing a little bit of research on your references. Forgive me if I point out that Mr. Hancock, along with the whole "advanced aliens built the pyramids, unless maybe it was people from Atlantis" argument doesn't get a whole lot of credence in scientific circles. I'm not going to remove the insertions until I see what others think about them. --Scimitar ^parley 15:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, although its hard to comment on something when it has been deleted. You can chose to take one aspect of Mr Hancocks work out of context, but the science and logic behind these specific arguments are a different kettle of non-alien fish. Alot of people have not thought much about the commonly-given line about the building of the pyramids, and have accepted the supposed 'scientific' version as fact, yet there is little science in dating only by circumstancial rather than available data. An alternative perspective to the narrow 'accepted' version would benefit the entry, I think. That is the only reason for me to have done it.--Genesis 15:57, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I've left some comments on the talk pages of people who regularly contribute to the article, to get some more perspective. I worry mostly about concerns about the article's credibility if it lists these sources as references. Surely, if the scientific theory has that many flaws, there's a less controversial work advocating an alternative? --Scimitar ^parley 16:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2000, there was an interesting article in Nature, dating the Great Pyramid to 2480±5 B.C--about a century later than the conventional date for Khufu's reign. The article isn't available on the magazine's website (though I've got a .pdf), but the abstract is here, and a more-informative press release is here. I don't know in what regard it's held generally.
—wwoods 22:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching with increasing disappointment as this article has grown; I keep meaning to come help tidy it up, but just don't have the motivation to give it a proper treatment right now. I think my main complaint (indeed, my only complaint) is reflected by my past talk page comments above: it's not very NPOV. In a way, the article argues with itself, ruining what might otherwise be a coherent narrative. I'll give the article a more thorough looking-over when I get the chance, and see if I can offer some more useful suggestions. -- Wapcaplet 11:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Authority is a problem. A side problem with that is that anything that challenges a long-time accepted theory is viewed as less authoritative or just provocative. New theories are often perceived badly. If you read Ellis' books there is nothing outlandish or alien in them, just alternative. Additionally, although it could probably be better constructed as an article, a discussion of different opinions is important since the truth is neither agreed on or really known. Maybe it just needs to be more cohesive.--Genesis 09:53, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

8/27/05 NPOV is one thing, but blatant pseudoscience is another. Giving equal mention to ancient astronaut "theories" and so forth in the name of "being fair" does a huge disservice to not only the reader who might come here looking for serious information, but also to Wikipedia itself, whose reputation is tarnished. The article needs to be cleaned up and then frozen so no more cranks and crackpots can edit it. My last edit told the reader to leave the site and visit external (mainstream archaeological) links in the second paragraph-- a violation of article formatting & usual layout that I freely admit should've been edited away on those bases, but better that than the reader be misinformed. User:Jerryb1961

What a joke! who mentioned ancient astronauts, or anything else outlandish. DO you know how long it would have taken the pyramid to have been built using the 'accepted version' of events? longer than the pharoah who supposedly commissioned it would have been pharaoh! The accepted version is incorrect. Anything that encourages people to question and re-examine the evidence is a benefit to this article. Mention of alternative theories does not detract from this article, but adds more depth to it. As more people use this site as a starting platform for their own investigations, supplying a range of theories is increasingly valuable. That you, Jerry, or others haven't bothered to spend the time looking at the FACTUAL evidence (which the accepted theories casually overlook) doesn't mean this article should. I could argue the point at far more depth, if you wish, but seeing the word 'Atlantis' (something written by a greek philosopher, if i recall) doesn't mean it contains only insubstantial or unrealistic theories. On the contrary, in this instance, in fact.--Genesis 13:24, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Having read some very intriguing articles alone questioning the origins of the pyramids, it'd be nice if this article discussed these debates, radical or not, and provided some references to support the arguments. The current version pretty much states that it was made during the Third Millennium BC without giving any mention to other theories, disproved or not. Moogle001 04:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph?

The opening paragraph has this comment ..

"Though no pharaoh has ever been found buried in an Egyptian pyramid"

I think this is wrong as Vyse and Perring found a basalt sarcophagus in Menkaure's burial chamber (as well as a later 'replacement' sacrophagus from the Saite Period). However both of these were lost when being transported to Britain in 1838. There is also a sarcophagus in the pyrmaind of Teti in Saqqara.

At any rate, statements made to support absurd Graham Hancock nonsense ought to be avoided as much as possible. john k 05:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'absurd Graham Hancock nonsense' eh? more nonsensical than the common 'accepted' truth of the building and purpose of the pyramid being a tomb for which there are no essential burial markings - no factual base, just assumption? no evidence that it was tomb, yet that is the accepted 'fact'. Sarcofigi are sometimes for ceremonial purposes, rather than as burial. Indeed, some secret groups that are considered linked to Egypt, such as the Freemasons, involve acted out death and rebirth, for which in Egypt Osiris (Orion) was the godly representation. Coincidence?

do you really think the freemason are really linked to egypt???.. Let me ask something. Hanckok correlates orion to osiris and links to a date 10,000 thousands earliers, but forgets to point that there are no representations of osiris older than the fourth dynast... Now, myths of death and resurection are common throug all the world, and this not means they are all from egypt. It was to do with seasons and climate. Nanahuatzin 21:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

definately. The imagery they use smacks too much of Egyptian myth for me. However, when i say linked i don't mean that they literally possess ancient secrets or something. At least, not necessarily. I would say that most esoteric groups, or those who utilise esoteric mythology and symbolism, are linked to Egypt and the old civilisations. Yes, it was a common theme, and possibly a common central point, the wider locale and region being the birthplace of civilisation. Depends on your belief really. I would say that Christianity is so linked as well, and that maybe the myths are based on some much older actual events, just as with Noah's story being in much older Sumerian mythology too with more information. If you want to talk on it more, maybe somewhere else is more appropriate... --Genesis 10:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crosses in churches represent the cross Jesus was stuck to, rather than exist as means of crucifixion... don't just knock or delete something just because you haven't done the research or don't know better. Give it its own section in the article if you must, but full deletion is no more than censureship of alternative ideas that have at least as much right to be mentioned. --Genesis 13:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the opening paragraph, to reflect the above. I have tried to keep alternative (or non-mainstream) theories mentioned in the opening, as not too stifle debate. Markh 12:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John K, i trust you can find the time (since you could find the time to unilaterally delete it) to explain what exactly is incorrect in the following deleted text, which you removed from the opening paragraph:

"However, although this is the widely accepted age and ownership of the Great Pyramid and its sisters, it is by far not the only one. There are many discrepancies with the above account. First, the problem for any dating is that the age of the rock is of no help. Dating is usally a result of circumstancial evidence: what artifacts, marks or other clues that are found in close proximity to the site.

Second, there is no evidence at all to suggest that the pyramids were built as tombs. No funeral contents have ever been found, nor is there the common markings and painting on the inside of the building that always accompany a burial.

Third, there is very limited evidence of any connection with the respective pharaohs of Khafre, Khufu and Menkaure, let alone any connection with this dynasty to the Sphinx (which is considered by many to be far older than the pyramids). The evidence is limited to small markings, the type of which often accompanied repairs by subsequent rulers. Architects and builders consistently marked their creations with the insignia of their Pharaoh as well as that of the god to which it was offered. Neither is the case with any of these huge constructs. That the pyramid has been granted little restoration since Khufu (4500 years) and has survived so well might point to a date of maybe double that. It would certainly be reasonable to contend that the work of the original architect might have lasted longer than a subsequent patch-up.

Either way, much that is written about any of these buildings is only hypothesis and conjecture, and it is clear they will not give up their mysteries easily."

It is clear that you disagree, but bearing in mind the complete failure of any archeologist to put forward strong evidence that connects Khufu with the great pyramid, i question why the alternative at least arguable and defendible standpoint is incorrect. Revise perhaps, but delete? You missed your vocation in the Ministry of Information. --Genesis 14:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly because the alternative theories have a lot less litle substance. Even Hanckcock accepted the the names of Khufu could have not put there after the construction. Also, as stated in the article the age was determined with the organic content of the fillings between the rocks. The people who do this dating, were trying to probe the pyramids were 10,000 years old, but the evidence could not suport their claim, now the stydy is rejected by those who ordered it because it coudl not suporter their claim... And While one geologist (Robert M. Schoch,) insist the erorion paterns indicate and much early date fot the sphynx, not all his colleatges agree( he presented his work at the Geological Society of America), dating based on erosion has a very high imprecition, In mexico, the dating of Cuicuilco piramid based on erosion yield to a date 1000 years older than C14 date. Dr Shoch can calim smoe parts of the sphynx show old wathering patters, but since the Sphynx was build mostly froma single rock, he cant prove this dates the construction of the sphynx, specially since there it has been excavete around extensivelly and no archeological evidence has been found. No even a single pice og garbage (even hunter gatherers leave garbage...). The ausence of inscription is not so strange, but mostly inconvenient. Writting was used to keep records, and originally writting was not deemed worthy enoguh for the king. until the fouth dynasty, Writting was used only on low level tombs. Most of the alternative theories are rejected, not because they are alternative, but because their are too weak. Once they are suported, they would become "mainstream", and then probalby denied by suporting of alternative theories :) Nanahuatzin 21:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... and so here we go round again, because there is no strong evidence at all to link the accepted version of Khufu (there are alternative theories as to who might have gone by this name, but naturally, as alternatives they can't be considered mainstream ;0 ) with this pyramid. No cartouches on the pyramid, except in the manner one might expect to see of a later pharoah performing basic maintainence to an existing building. That it be an existing building in need of work suggests a certain (but unspecific) age to have passed previously. It should be noted also that Khufu was not wealthy enough to afford to build this magnificent pyramid, and also that it is apparent the technology of the time was lacking as it had passed away millenia previously. Fact, Man could not easily build the pyramid now, with such a high degree of accuracy as witnessed in its construction, without huge expense, and the use of its most potent building technologies. We know a reasonable amount of Khufu, and his era (within Egypt at least) absolutely lacked the necessary skills and wealth. So why should the version of events that allows Khufu to be donated the authorship of the Great Pyramid, against evidence, be allowed to remain considered mainstream and accepted. P.S. The sphynx does show erosion consistent with water and not sand. It was discredited because it meany that the Sphynx had to be considered much older than fitted into the understanding of too many narrow minded archeologists, not because it wasn't supported by evidence. According to these people, people 10,000 years ago were savages. How could they be considered able to build the Sphynx without it requiring a complete overhaul of the accepted truth of human civilisation? the majority opinion is that we are the most technically advanced civilisation earth has had. That the facts MAY discredit or undermine this opinion was reason enough to ignore the FACTS in favour of common misunderstanding. And so, as philosophers have said down the years (paraphrased), human pride is the greatest obstacle development of human civilisation. --Genesis 10:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BY the way.. can someone get a copy of "Thomas L. Dobecki and Robert M. Schoch, "Seismic Investigations in the Vicinity of the Great Sphinx of Giza, Egypt," Geoarchaeology, Vol. 7, No. 6 (1992), pp. 527-544.", so we can discus it? Nanahuatzin 21:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid construction as an article on its own ?

Currently the construction / labour sections outweigh the 'facts' section by a long way. There is also a section on construction in the Egyptian pyramids article - anyone got any thoughts on merge these 2 articles, and allowing this article to 'run-free' as it were? Obviously different construction techniques were used, but a single article for this could highlight these changes Markh 12:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the theories of its construction may be too relevant to the truth regarding the Great Pyramid to place in another article, especially when the construction techniques mentioned in the Egyptian pyramids may not be applicable. But the Labor section needs to be better divided into differing theories and complimented with more historical notes and legends. Come to think of it, I'm surprised there aren't sections on the nation of Egypt's views on them, tourism, or anything else. Moogle001 16:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The whole contruction element of the article is speculation, where is the evidence that any of the theories are actually factual ? You are right about the lack of any other aspect, such as tourism, modern culture, national view. Markh 10:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- What does 2600 words on the various theories of construction and 250 actually on the monument itself ACTUALLY tell us about the Great Pyramid of Giza ? Nothing in my view, and it should be split off (in my view) - there is stuff in the construction section that should be in the main article. Markh 12:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thing the articles should be merged, and a small resume added. There is a lot of recent archeological that although related to

contruction, is more important to the egyptian society a a whole, not merely the pyramid. I think this article should concentrate on the kwnon history round the piramyd, Khufu, the opening and exploration of the pyramyd, and the recent Hisytory, the robot exploration of the shafts. A bit of history of the alternate hipotesis and fringe theories could be interesting, but keeping focus on known facts.

- Exactly Markh 21:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the construction of the pyramid is fundamental to the core article, much as the origin of the stones from Stonehenge are fundamental to understanding of it. Maybe they could be trimmed and the bulk moved, but reasonable and balanced (i.e. both or the range opinions) statements should be made, because they are core evidence to support (or undermine) the purported ages given for its construction (bearing in mind cost and labour, and technological requirements). The essence of construction also gives weight to other ideas, including those about why it was built, since more effort is put into building religious buildings than any tomb (maybe with the single exception of the Taj Mahal - and that for the 'owners' wife not himself). --Genesis 13:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carved Stone or Concrete?

"According to the theory of materials scientist Joseph Davidovits, the blocks that form the pyramid are not strictly carved stone, but mostly a form of limestone concrete (not moved, but) 'cast', as with modern cement blocks, except -- because of the blocks huge 2.5-15+ tons size -- each in situ." What is it? It cannot be two things at the same time. Concrete would explain many problems.

This is has little sense.. Most of the blocks are low quality and plain limestone rock, some of the even have fosils... the blocks show clearly the marks of tools and were taken from a nearby quarry, where still can be seen block half cutted, showing the metod of work. Most of the blocks of the core are crudelly made, with gaps of several inches. The gaps are filled with a mixture of gipsum and rubble. And blocks of 2.5 are not huge. Egyptians (and romans) had technology to move blocks up to 900 tones, that was huge. The bigest blocks in the piramyd are 80 tones, but most of them are about 2.5 tones. The biggest are at the base and the smallers are at the top. Nanahuatzin 08:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Quick Facts section

The quick facts section merely repeats information found elsewhere in the article, adds random factoids, and all in a sensationalistic fashion. Would anybody mind if I just deleted the whole bit? Or would somebody like to rewrite it with references? jmstylr 17:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete it, although it does fit in with the style of the rest of the article! Markh 21:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted, with extreme prejudice. :) jmstylr 14:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

nice to see you didn't bother to discuss it with anyone else or for more than two days... i think that is pretty poor behaviour, unless of course you own all rights on revising the article. Do you? --Genesis 13:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoarchaeology

Dear 70.162.188.62, thanks for your edits to this article, but I've had to revert them. Wikipedia is not original research so we must defer to other sources, and we have little choice but to choose the mainstream sources. If you wish to write more about alternative theories regarding pyramid construction, perhaps you'd like to start an article, e.g. Alternative theories regarding the Great Pyramid of Giza, although that's a horrid name and any suggestions for a (heh) alternative, would be welcome.

done. --Genesis 12:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, this (the selection of sources) is an unresolved issue with wikipedia, but fortunately in this particular case, Graham Hancock's theories are quite undeniably pseudoscience. The article still needs attention though. jmstylr 12:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

what a great shame, that mistakes and misinterpretations must override more recent research, just because some people don't like some authors or their ideas. No matter than the ideas don't necessarily belong to that blackmarked author, but were only reinforced by his subsequent work. The edits were not, alas, original research as indicated, but part of a growing body of more 'eyes open' research on the issues, examining not just of the age of the buldings and the identity of their builders (where some concrete questions are asked which terminally undermine the standard and now once again given 'truths') but also the way in which they were built, based on actual archeology rather than perceived but eroneous 'wisdom'. Deletion even of mention of the existence of alternative and well based views, amounts to an undermining of the validity of the article, and thus the entire website. Where substantially incorrect statements are offered as fact, how can the article at all be considered in any way valid? --Genesis 13:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV, part III

I replaced a line calling the evidence for the mainstream theories "flimsy". I also removed a line claiming that new theories are automatically branded pseudoscience (or something to that effect). Can the original author of that line back it up?Mystman666 11:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, indeed I can back it up with the evidence of this very talk page. I have attempted to raise the reasonable questions about the alternative theories, and let there be at least acknowledgement of their existence and how they rival and compete (in some areas very strongly) with the 'accepted' line, and have heard and seen them deleted and branded pseudoscience 4 times myself. Now, again, you have deleted it. How about editors examine the evidence rather than quick-clicking delete every time?! or is the principle shoot first, second, third and then if they're still alive, ask them some questions? The evidence for the branding of the pyramid as having been built under Khufu is flimsy at best. It would not even make it to trial in a court of law. Should this be overlooked just to maintain the equalibrium or is it possible to question, with evidence, these eroneous statements. I have accepted the main page is not the place to discuss them in detail; however, mention of them here is at least necessary and adds to the validity of the page through accepting the existence of weaknesses in the current assertions. --Genesis 12:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't claim to be an expert on this matter (since I'm not), but I do think that using the word "flimsy" (meaning Lacking plausibility; unconvincing according to dictionary.com) when describing the evidence for the mainstream theory clearly violates NPOV. Mentioning that there are alternate theories is fine ofcourse. Mystman666 15:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

agreed, it does contradict NPOV. My bad. However, i would suggest that stating much as fact about this pyramid, at least regarding who, when and how it was build, would also be little more than opinion that covers a range of quality from 'educated' through 'not-so educated' to 'based on nothing at all except wild conjecture', and thus is also pretty much outside the NPOV, even if it IS the common point of view. Many scientific 'facts' are later discredited, and this is just another going through the process and resisting it hard. All i would like to see is a balance of opinion. If one set of 'soft facts' are asserted, the alternative should also be stated for comparison. If that isn't the purpose of this article, then all such soft facts should be removed, but that would pretty much degrade the entire article... maybe i should just take a long walk of a short cliff. --Genesis 16:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific facts are not discredited. Science does not work that way. Facts does not change, they can be corrected or made more precise. Theories can be challenged , but only with facts. The peer review system may be called "stablishment" by it,s detractors, but so far is the best system we have. So far, most of the compelling alternative theories, just can´t stand a critical review. I agre they shoudl be mentioned, since they form the modern floklore around the pyramids, but they should be also criticised.Nanahuatzin 18:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... and that's the rub; I have slightly tweaked the relevant statements in the opening of the article to clear up some of the bedding of assertions from around facts. I will now attempt to do so to the 'alternative' page. --Genesis 13:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how do you prove the negative? When logic is the only defence, but is very clear and strong, is that 'fact' enough to counter circumstantial evidence? say someone shows you a picture of me performing yogic levitation a few inches off the ground. Do you believe it? or do you contend that reasonable logic would argue that the evidence is not as it seems? There is a widespread misunderstanding of the principle of NPOV. Neutral implies not siding with one or the other, but considering both sides on their merits. it doesn't mean standing with the mainstream view only.--Genesis 09:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wind-power ?

Where is the evidence that wind-power was used ? Markh 13:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]