Great Pyramid 20 year construction

Ive seen that same show and you should note he was using steel tools. Steel chisels and steel sledge hammers. The egyptians had nothing close to that strong in the tool department. That stone wasnt really even that big and they still had problems moving it, Only when they wet the path of the stone were they able to move the stone in any reasonable fashion.

They moved it what a few yards and gave up? Try doing that for miles with much bigger stones.

[edit on 26-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]

Yeah but did you hear the one where they think they build all kinds of barges and floated the stones using canals right up to the building site. It coulda happened it the pyramids were built like 12,000 years ago! That's when there was any kind of water around there if not earlier.

Shadow -

I think you are correct on the lack of steel tools. I posted in haste on that due to the lateness of the hour. It is niggling at the back of my mind though that Berenstein was using a copper chisel??? Not sure, as I watched that program a while ago.

If I use the speculation of some of the links listed above, they claimed that up to 50 men were used to pull/push/whatever the block along. That would make a difference on how easy it would be to move, but yes, I do remember that they could barely move it in the beginning until they acquired water to lubricate its passage.

I think the OP mentioned moving the blocks about 500 miles. From what I read on those links, that limestone was quarried only for the "doorway" (I can't think of the correct word), so only a small percentage of the limestone had to be transported that far. The rest of it was about 18 miles away, which is still an incredible feat.

Thank you for your feedback and correcting me.

JDub

That show was on a while ago one of his earlier shows. But he was using modern steel tools because he used the tools the real deal workmen that do this every day were using. Bronze or copper would work but it would have been harder.

Your right about the quarrys that where located hundreds of miles away. Those I believe were where the harder and heavier granite stones came from, Those were used in the Kings chamber. Most of the limestone the bulk of the material came from much closer but still miles away. Keeping miles of roads wet to move these blocks in the desert would have been impressive.

I do think ancient man could have done this I just find the 20 year timesale alittle hard to swallow. If archaeologists said that even some of the prep work was done during Khufus father Sneferu reign it would make alot more sense IMO.

But we are told he was building his own pyramid during his 24 year reign. Or rather completing the pyramid of Huni at Meidum, transforming it from a step pyramid to a true pyramid, the first of its kind.

This is where archaeologists have backed themselves into a corner with this 20 year span they pretty much have to stick too.

[edit on 26-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]

Originally posted by dgtempe
I saw the show on Discovery that said that it would have taken over the span of 20 years, 1 of those slabs had to be laid out with perfect presicion every 1.5 minutes.

There;s no way on earth.

That's the problem, they're not even "perfect". Many of the interior stones have gaps in them, it's just the outside that's placed perfectly along with where the passages and rooms are...wish people would read what I post. :|

Shadow, I'll hunt out the information for you. I only have it in a hard-copy.

They say the outside slabs were often close to perfection.. not sure if they used an early set square to make the cubes almost identical. Underneath the surface the blocks are often mis-shapes and not as perfect as people may think.

If i recall rightly, this was further proven when there was a war of somesort in Egypt and the inside of a pyramid was revealed.. top layer was blown away for some reason revealing uneven blocks

See here for an image of the Pyramids. If you open it up and zoom in, they're not as perfect on the outside as people desire to claim. It was the blocks [cap-stones] that were. Many of the blocks, were just cut roughly and slotted into place. Only the stones on the outer-side, were smooth and well made.

ShadowXIX, my point wasnt that the Empire State Building is just as amazing as the Great Pyramid in terms of construction. I was refering to the scale of work that had to be done per day. They built it in 410 days. During a 20 year period, they could have built an additional 17 of them. It still doesnt come close to the pyramids, but then again a massive amount of the US population wasnt building it, was they? If a million US people walked out to build as many Empire State Buildings they could in 20 years we are talking thousands of buildings. Stack them next to each other and you'd have quite an amazing sight

But then again we'd run out of steel and building material before that.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Ive seen that same show and you should note he was using steel tools. Steel chisels and steel sledge hammers. The egyptians had nothing close to that strong in the tool department. That stone wasnt really even that big and they still had problems moving it, Only when they wet the path of the stone were they able to move the stone in any reasonable fashion.

They moved it what a few yards and gave up? Try doing that for miles with much bigger stones.

[edit on 26-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]

Well, it turns out that, according to the PBS.org site you linked, quarrying and transportation wouldn't have been the problem:

One of the things that most impressed me, though, was the fact that in 21 days, 12 men in bare feet, living out in the eastern desert, opened a new quarry in about the time we needed stone for our NOVA Pyramid, and in 21 days they quarried 186 stones. Now they did it with an iron winch, you know, an iron cable and a winch that pulled the stone away from the quarry wall, and all their tools were iron. But other than that they did it by hand. So I said, taking just a raw figure, if 12 men in bare feet -- they lived in a lean-to shelter, day and night out there -- if they can quarry 186 stones in 21 days, let's do the simple math and see, just in a very raw simplistic calculation, how many men were required to deliver 340 stones a day, which is what you would have to deliver to the Khufu Pyramid to build it in 20 years. And it comes out somewhere between -- I've got this all written down -- but it comes out in the hundreds of men. Now I was bothered by the iron tools, like 400 men, 4 to 500 men. I was bothered by the iron tools, especially the iron winch that pulled the stone away from the quarry walls, so I said, let's put in a team of men, of about say 20 men, so that 12 men become 32. And now let's run the equation. Well, it turns out that even if you give great leeway for the iron tools, all 340 stones could have been quarried in a day by something like 1,200 men. And that's quarried locally at Giza. You see most of the stone is local stone.

My emphasis (Source - The same PBS page you linked to. )

Given the fact that stone was one of the major building materials at the time, isn't it just possible that there were people like stone merchants that kept a supply of these nicer, more exotic stone slabs from Aswan or wherever (the "500 miles away" source) on hand to sell to an aspiring Pharoah or some other rich guy for his tomb?

Why do we have to suppose that from the onset, every single step had to be taken after Khufu said "Build me a pyramid"?

Originally posted by ShadowXIXDo you have any links to more information on this Civil Engineering magazine article. 10 years timescale even on paper that I would really like to look into that more even though they left out some important aspects like you mentioned.

Here is a link to the article in Civil Engineering Magazine. I don't know if the actual analysis is to be found online, but from this you might be able to glean some phrases for a google search. I'd be interested to hear about what you find.

Harte

Originally posted by Harte


Well, it turns out that, according to the PBS.org site you linked, quarrying and transportation wouldn't have been the problem:


My emphasis (Source - The same PBS page you linked to. )

These guys were using Iron tools and Winches.

They never even moved the stones without the winches just estimations on how that would work. Thats what I hate about these studies most never even do the real work the way it had to be done according to them. Quarry without Iron tool and move them 8 plus miles without winches and you will find you run into a whole bunch of problems basic math equations dont factor in. Like having to wet the whole 8 miles to move the stone or then you realise these people arent machines and have to rest along the way a bunch of times.

I also have some problems with him saying " 340 stones a day, which is what you would have to deliver to the Khufu Pyramid to build it in 20 years" That true but they also had to be transported many miles and be put into place in that time as well not just deliverd to make the construction time.

He also says this is "local stone at Giza." He doesn't say local stone still had to travel 8 plus miles. This guy is also only talking about quarrying not transportation of miles and construction which had to be done in that time. Cutting the stone is perhaps the least labor intensive step compared to transport and putting the Pyramid together.


I linked to the Technical Director of the Indiana Limestone Institute of America that said using 33 modern quarries running at triple production levels using all modern tools and equipment for transportation and he said it would 27 years to quarry, fabricate and ship the total requirements for the Great pyramid.

So we have experts that disagree vastly on just how hard the quarry and transport would have been. Niether is the and all be all and you will find opinions vary alot.

Why do we have to suppose that from the onset, every single step had to be taken after Khufu said "Build me a pyramid"?

Because thats how egyptologist tell us it was done. We are told the whole process from start to finish was done in that 20 years span.

Given the fact that stone was one of the major building materials at the time, isn't it just possible that there were people like stone merchants that kept a supply of these nicer, more exotic stone slabs from Aswan or wherever (the "500 miles away" source) on hand to sell to an aspiring Pharoah or some other rich guy for his tomb?

This might make sense but egyptologist tell us no such thing. Not of any surplus of stone material keep in stock for the rich. I dont think any even claim there were "stone merchants" the economy didnt really work that way. That stone was Khufu's he didnt have to pay anyone for it. Khufus father was also busy with his own massive building projects during his reign just as the others before him.


[edit on 27-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]

Originally posted by merka
If my googles skills are accurate, the Empire State Building was built in 1 year and 45 days (410 days).

It has 10 million bricks in it. That means they had to put down 24,390 bricks per day, 7 days a week, for 410 days.
[edit on 26-3-2006 by merka]

But does each of these bricks weigh between 2.5 and 70 tons? And can you build such a huge building without using iron or steel tools?

ARGH! Thread necromancy! Sorry - forgot to look at the date...

[edit on 11-6-2009 by nethawk]