| Author | Message | ||
     michel (80.9.133.3) |
HYPOTHESIS ABOUT THE WELL-SHAFT A pyramid is constituted of superposed layers. If you dig a vertical well through the masonry of a pyramid, you must (logically) cross every layer . Therefore, every layer in the well must be as thick as the corresponding layer outside. The upper part of the well-shaft crosses a masonry and everybody thinks that the well-shaft crosses layers of the pyramid. But layers inside the well-shaft are very different that layers outside. See the picture: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/nicole.michel/Images/wellshaft_compare.gif Therefore, I think that there is a problem. MY EXPLANATION: Let's suppose that the interior hill is a lot higher (about 21 meters). If you are AE and you want to dig vertically a small shaft between the top of the hill and the grotto (about 15 x centimeters 15 x centimeters 18 meters) through a hill you must: - Dig a large well (about 2 x meters 2 x meters x 18 meters). - Build a square wall in the grotto. - Stack a lot of stones in this large well, above the square wall. Every stone has a hole to the middle (about 15 x centimeters x 15 centimeters) See the picture: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/nicole.michel/Images/puits_1.gif My hypothesis also explains why the well-shaft walks with so much precision through the masonry. (A robber saw a thin well to the ceiling of the grotto and had enlarged it since the grotto toward the GG) If I am right, the grotto is not a hole filled with concrete to the summit of the hill. It is an underground cave with probably something to find inside. My questions: What do you think about my hypothesis? How to suggest to Zahi Hawass to look at this page? Michel | ||
| michel (80.9.133.3) |
Hi everybody To compare the official explanation and mine, click here and wait a few seconds: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/nicole.michel/compare.htm | ||
| jd degreef (80.236.134.156) |
Michel, Your hypothesis doesn't take into account the following facts : 1. in pyramids damaged enough to observe their internal structure, one can see that they're not built from a succession of horizontal layers of uniform thickness. They contain a stepped structure made of fairly good but unpolished masonry. The rest is made of rather irregular, badly hewn blocks, with many crevices and empty spaces filled with sand and mortar. So comparing the heights of the externally visible backing stones with those of core masonry is interesting but doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion you've drawn. 2. There are two portions in the well-shaft : the upper one is nicely built and doesn't look as if a casing had been ripped away ; the lower portion was clearly hewn through existing, bad quality core masonry. It has huge gaps (large enough for the Edgars to store stuff in), etc. 3. the portion of the shaft going through the pocket with pebbly material needed a casing (which was later breached but has no structure resembling a door, with a lintel etc.). This wall is composed of small stones, probably so that they could be brought up or down the shaft. This shows that this portion has not been built when the pyramid was started (it would then be at the surface and large blocks would no doubt have been used as elsewhere). In other words, this structure was added later : the oblique part was hacked out of already built masonry, the part through the pebbly pocket was covered with a casing (for obvious reasons), the part in the bedrock doesn't have the nice smooth finish one would have expected if it had been carved from the onset. Most of the WS looks like an added passage, except for its upper part. So I can see three possibilities : a. the WS needed to be made after the funeral, because of problems with the automatic GG-AP closure system and the need to have people push the plugs down, people who had to be evacuated afterwards. A hidden ceremonial cavity, the upper part of the WS, a parallel of which are the air shafts, was used to make part of the passage. b. the need for a WS (for the same reasons as above) became apparent long before the pyramid was finished, when the closure system was actually tested (in the Trial Passages ???)*, its lower part was excavated and its upper part built together with the corresponding layers of the pyramid. c. the upper part was also hacked out of existing masonry, it was provided with a casing, but because of lack of time (and technical difficulties ?) the oblique portion wasn't. A reason to believe this is that if the upper portion had been built, larger stones would have been used, I think. JD *this may indicate that the GG was a later addition to the plans, which needed to be tested when the pyramid stump had already reached a considerable height ? | ||
| michel (193.248.19.102) |
Dear J.D About layers: I agree with you, the layers of the internal masonry are "made of rather irregular, badly hewn blocks, with many crevices and empty spaces filled with sand and mortar". Indeed, every layer can be constituted of one or two superposed stones (or more). But, except rare exception, a layer has always the same thickness on all its length. (In the tunnel of Al Mamun we can follow layers on a very long distance). No, the pyramid is not a heap of stones. To build a pyramid in good conditions every layer must be well leveled. Therefore, we can find more layers in the WS than outside, but at the level of every layer we should find a coincidence. It is not the case, so I think that there is a problem there. About the two parts of the WS: I don't agree with you. All the part situated above the grotto is dug through an existing masonry. About the small stones in the part that crosses the grotto. Remember, I think that the grotto is an underground cave dug in the internal hill (we are not outside) and, as you say, it is easier to move there light stones rather than heavy stones. About the lintel. You say that there is no lintel. I don't see where is the problem. I never said that the squared wall is a door. I say that it is just used to stack stones above it. In addition: If the grotto was a hole to the summit of the internal hill, why AE have filled it with concrete rather than with big stones? | ||
| jd degreef (213.177.158.103) |
Dear Michel, >About the two parts of the WS: I don't agree with you. All the part situated above the grotto is dug through an existing masonry.< From what was stated during previous discussions here, the upper part is built. >I think that the grotto is an underground cave dug in the internal hill (we are not outside)< It is generally assumed that, before the pyramid was built on top of it, this was originally either an open cavity in the bedrock, filled with natural concrete (a mix of decayed limestone = marly clay, sand, pebbles), or a cave-like pocket communicating with the surface through a fissure that had allowed the concrete to enter. Taking away the concrete and giving the cavity a regular shape so that blocks could be placed there may not have seemed necessary, since the concrete was very hard (the Dahchur pyramids are built on this kind of material). The irregular shape of the cavity in the bedrock can, be seen on plate CLXXVII : this is no man-made room, as the one shown on your drawing. JD | ||
| jd degreef (213.177.158.103) |
PS: the only reason why the WS portion traversing the pebbly concrete has a casing is to prevent the concrete from crumbling when touched. The parts going through the rock don't have a casing. Now if you look at the EDGARs' section, the WS casing starts immediately below the lowest layer of pyramid masonry*. So we can expect that there's concrete behind this part of the casing : in other words, the first layer of the pyramid rests upon this concrete, and the pyramid was thus built over an open depression or pocket filled with natural concrete, of which there are said to be examples elsewhere in the surrounding desert. JD *what we don't have is : part excavated in core masonry, then part through bedrock (ceiling of alleged room), then cased part through concrete ! | ||
| kenb (12.228.201.135) |
JD, You state in regard to the grotto, "this is no man-made room". You seem to think that this area is just a natural cavity in the bedrock. How do you know that for sure? IMO merely relying just on Edgar's drawings can't be enough to preclude the possibility of a man-made -- or perhaps a man-enlarged -- space. Michel, I think you have raised some valid points. You also seem to have, IMO, a good "nose" for the truth. The part about the levels of stone measurable through the well shaft not matching up with the levels of masonry on the outer courses of the GP is a good, logical observation that deserves attention. My take on this matter is perhaps similar to but a little different from yours. There is no question hat a natural hill forms the base of the GP (or is there?). This might have been considered an auspicious site to locate a royal tomb (especially with the vantage point of good view of the northern sky). Perhaps there was a natural fissure and cavity on this hill. But this just adds to the importance of the site as an entrance point to Rastau, the subterranean passages and chambers of the Duat. If there were a fissure and cavity, it is most likely that they were enlarged and, IMO, reconfigured to accomodate a tomb. Perhaps we might be dealing with a scenario similar to that of Djoser's pyramid, where several phases of excavation and building took place over a long period of time. If one cares, they may go to http://www.creatures-kbc.com/grotto.htm to see my hypothetical (emphasize hypothetical) version of the different phases of construction leading up to the GP pyramid/tomb/sunrise temple. Ken | ||
| jd degreef (80.236.140.93) |
Ken, I'm sure of nothing (not even of my own existence : we could be the dreams of a god or a simulation on some ET supercomputer...). But the clues we have about the cavity are : -very irregular outline of the interface between pebbly conglomerate and bedrock. -the WS doesn't seem to go through the bedrock roof of a chamber. -the conglomerate is said to be a classical feature of desert depressions, which fill with clayey limestone crumbled through erosion + sand + pebbles. This is a stone-hard mix. AFAIK different from 4th dyn. man-made concrete. So there was apparently no roof over the natural concrete at the location of the WS, but we can't say anything about other parts of the cavity : this is why I mentioned the possibility that it was either an open bowl or a cave filled through a fissure in its roof. The shallow height to me suggests a bowl, but maybe the rock underneath the GP goes up in steps and the cavity is higher than we think. Nor do I believe that there was a step pyramid there before the GP was built : -what's the sense of such a chimney through a step pyramid ? -there isn't a single example of an Old Kingdom king having taken over or incorporated the tomb of a predecessor. You may think of the W Galleries in Djoser's complex, which some, and not the least, pretend to have been a 2d dyn. tomb. But 2d dyn. tombs mostly contain storerooms, long rooms disposed as the teeth of a comb along corridors. Since, again IMHO, the W Galleries are storerooms, it's no wonder that the layout looks like that of a 2d dyn. royal tomb. -a step pyramid and the square podium in the center of Djoser's cult complex are two variants of the same thing : the Primeval Hill. Thus a step pyramid incorporating a podium (as happened at Djoser's) is logical, a step pyramid on top of an eminence isn't, IMHO. JD | ||
| michel (193.250.255.204) |
Dear J.D. About the upper part of the WS (situated between the top of the grotto and the GG): All authors (egyptologists, architects etc) are unanimous on this point, this part has been cut through an existing masonry (like the tunnel of Al-Mamun). This topic has maybe already been discussed, but you are wrong. THIS PART OF THE WS IS NOT BUILT. In accordance with recent findings of Gilles DORMION this part seems to be been cut from bottom to top, except the last part situated just near the GG that seems to be cut from top to bottom. About " It is generally assumed that...: You perfectly summarize the situation: a long time ago, it was also generaly assumed that the earth was flat. Today, we know that it is false. A collective convention is not a proof. Until today, no one before me thought that the internal hill could be higher than what is conventionally admitted and that the grotto could be an underground cave. I think that this new suggestion would deserve to be studied with care. About " this is no man-made room ". On this web - site you can see photographies of the grotto. http://www.biblestudents.org/absco/greatpyramid/index.htm Nothing allows to say if the grotto is a natural cavity or a man - made room. About " Now if you look at the EDGARs' section, the WS casing starts immediately below the lowest layer of pyramid masonry ". No stone is visible to the ceiling of the grotto, they are only visible in the upper part of the WS. The drawing that shows layers put directly on the concrete is an interpretation. The upper part of the WS crosses a masonry therefore Edgard, M&R etc think that this masonry is the one of the layers of the pyramid. As I suggest it, this is not sure. Dear Kenb Thank you very much for " I think you have raised some valid points. You also seem to have, IMO, a good "nose" for the truth. The part about the levels of stone measurable through the well shaft not matching up with the levels of masonry on the outer courses of the GP is a good, logical observation that deserves attention. " Ahhh! if everybody could think as you..... About your hypothesis: It can also explain the difference of the height of stone inside the WS and outside. I think that it is a good idea. Michel | ||
| jd degreef (80.236.134.121) |
Dear Michel, >About the upper part of the WS (situated between the top of the grotto and the GG): All authors (Egyptologists, architects etc) are unanimous on this point, this part has been cut through an existing masonry< Rainer STADELMANN, one of the most renowned pyramid specialists, states* : “Dieser quadratische Schacht von 0,68 = 1 E 1 H Seitenlänge führt von oben anfänglich 7,96 m senkrecht und gemauert, dann schräg weitere 7,90 m durch das schon bestehende und gelegte Kernmauerwerk bis zum Fels...“ Transl. : This square shaft, 0.68 [m] = 1 cubit 1 palm wide, leads from above, initially vertical and masonry-built for 7.96 m, then it continues obliquely for 7.90 more meters through the already existing and placed core masonry to the bedrock. >About "this is no man-made room ". On this web - site you can see photographs of the grotto. http://www.biblestudents.org/absco/greatpyramid/index.htm< I had posted this link here in December. It doesn’t allow one to decide either way. >No stone is visible to the ceiling of the grotto, they are only visible in the upper part of the WS. The drawing that shows layers put directly on the concrete is an interpretation.< The horizontal section from the EDGAR book shows the parts of the side walls seen to be bedrock, as opposed to pebbly concrete. The bedrock parts look completely irregular, as in a natural cavity. But you seem to neglect the clue which I mentioned before : -if the WS has a casing while crossing the pebbly concrete, this is obviously because this crumbly material would come loose and fall on people happening to be in the lower part of the WS, or the part of the WS traversing the concrete would simply not resist the passage of people. -the parts through core masonry and bedrock don’t have a casing. So the casing is a marker for an unstable substrate behind it. -when you descend through the WS, you first go through the vertical, built part ; then the oblique part cut out in existing core masonry, until you reach the last layer of blocks ; then the small blocks forming the casing of the WS when it crosses crumbly material are immediately met : there is no bedrock between the last blocks of the pyramid and the fragile, encased area. -this would indicate that the pebbly concrete starts where the pyramid layers stop, i.e. the lowest layer of the pyramid in this location rests directly on pebbly concrete. This pleads against the existence of a roof, at least in this part of the grotto. JD *STADELMANN, Rainer, “Die ägyptischen Pyramiden. Vom Ziegelbau zum Weltwunder.“, Verl. Philipp von Zabern, Mainz, 1997 ed., p. 116. | ||
| michel (80.9.133.133) |
Dear J.D About the upper part of the WS. On this point Goidin and Dormion are more explicit. (KHEOPS Nouvelle enquête) Enfin,il traverse la partie maçonnée de l'ensemble, mais d'étrange façon: en effet, au lieu de disposer les blocs autour de ce boyau pour le réaliser, les constructeurs ont posé leurs assises de pierre en l'oubliant, et sont revenus ensuite pour le creuser au travers de la maçonnerie. Translation (not for you, I know that you speak French very well) Finally, it crosses the built-part of the whole, but of strange way: instead of arranging blocks around this shaft to build it, constructors put the layers of stone while forgetting hit, and came back then to dig it through the masonry. Conclusion: The superior part of the WS SEEMS to be built first and SEEMS to have been dug through the masonry after. My hypothesis is conformable to these observations: A thin shaft has first been built and was enlarged after. About " if the WS has a casing while crossing the pebbly concrete, this is obviously because...." Not "obviously", it is just a conventional explanation or an hypothesis. There is no proof of that. About "this would indicate that the pebbly concrete starts where the pyramid layers stop" All what you see inside the grotto and inside the WS is represented on this drawing: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/nicole.michel/Images/what_you_see.gif No one can know - what is behind the big stones - what is behind the concrete - what is above the concrete All the drawings of the grotto drawn by M&R, Edgard etc are only speculations. The official explanation is conformable to observations, but my hypothesis also. Michel | ||
| michel (193.250.47.248) |
Hi everybody It is maybe very easy to verify my hypothesis. This is not sure but maybe, my small shaft could continue originally, straight ahead behind the west wall of GG. If it is the case, a plug is maybe visible as on this drawing: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/nicole.michel/Images/idea.jpg | ||
| jd degreef (80.236.134.37) |
Michel, >All the drawings of the grotto drawn by M&R, Edgard etc are only speculations< Not the horizontal section : parts of the side walls are seen to be rock, others pebbly concrete. Since they didn't know the position of the bedrock behind a portion of concrete between two rocky parts of the side wall, they even drew a decorative compass card there. And from the horizontal section the sidewalls are very irregular ! >Finally, [the WS] goes through the built part of the whole, but in a strange way : instead of arranging blocks around this shaft to build it, constructors put the layers of stone while forgetting it, and then came back to dig it out through the masonry< They forgot to build the passage ? :-) And your conclusion : > The superior part of the WS SEEMS to be built first and SEEMS to have been dug through the masonry after.< isn’t what GOIDIN & DORMION state, IMHO : they just say that the WS was excavated through existing masonry (“the built part of the whole [= the pyramid, I suppose]”). I don't really want the upper part of the WS to be built, as it complicates things. Although I've been interested in pyramids for tens of years, I didn't know the portion was built instead of hacked out, until we had discussions about the matter on this BB. Nor do the EDGARs specifically state this : they call the vertical portion smooth, and suspect the rough oblique section had its casing torn off. I think someone gave a reference on the built part during one of the earlier discussions : will the culprit please step forward ? Actually your hypothesis is compatible with one of mine, that the WS may represent a duct, analogous to the famous ones in the QC & KC. From a ritual point of view (and again IMHO) the subterranean room is linked with the QC (being the equivalent of the niched room next to the Akhet room in later pyramids). So the WS may be the remains of a model passage between the two (the QC + horizontal passage ---> the subterranean chamber + lower horizontal passage / lower DP). But the passage may have been enlarged when it became obvious that the train of plugs in the GG wouldn’t slide down and seal up the complete AP by itself, so that the presence of workmen behind these plugs, and an escape route for them, was needed. If the stones composing the model passage were then destroyed, a casing of small stones needed to be placed at the level of what has now become the Grotto (if these blocks had been planned and placed at the early stages of the building of the pyramid, they would no doubt have been much larger). But your idea that the internal hill is much larger than commonly thought has no experimental or even logical base* whatsoever, nor the presence of an oblique passage starting from the AP, nor the one that the Grotto is part of a larger, man-made chamber (its very irregular horizontal outline even strongly pleads against this ; the fact hat the pyramid blocks rest directly on the small block masonry also indicates the absence of a rocky ceiling, at least in this part), nor has any plug or small duct been described in the “ceiling” of the WS’ vertical part.. >" if the WS has a casing while crossing the pebbly concrete, this is obviously because...." Not "obviously", it is just a conventional explanation or an hypothesis. There is no proof of that.< We know that there are pebbles on the back side of this masoned part of the WS, thanks to the people who dislodged some stones and started excavating the “Grotto”. Since no such masonry can be seen anywhere in the WS, except where there’s crumbly concrete, the concrete is obviously the reason for the presence of the masonry : the WS would have been unusable without it ! Try climbing up or down such a passage with the walls crumbling under your grip or feet ! JD *by which I mean : one usually starts with material clues, things that don’t fit in, that aren’t adequately explained by current ideas. What reason do we have to believe that there’s a man-made chamber where the Grotto is, other than a romantic desire to discover mysterious things ? What observations does it explain ? The GP already has its statutory three chambers ! And you systematically ignore the few clues we have (outline of “Grotto”, absence of roof), and which I’ve stated several times now. | ||
| Erik Calero (200.38.16.20) |
Hi all, IMHO, we have some important things here : a) The presence of lower quality pebbly masonry above the grotto. b) The fact that the layers of the upper part of the Well Shaft don't coincide with the corresponding layers outside the pyramid. In the most probable case that the natural bedrock hill surface is just above the Grotto, I found strange that a pebbly-concrete masonry is around this point. Since this region is near the center base for the pyramid I would expect the highest quality development for the pyramid's platform, as the required leveling work of the hill's summit and well squared big size blocks around it for the apropiate foundation support, so a pebbly masonry seems strange. About the height differences between the outside courses and those of the upper part of the Well Shaft, I think it could be due to : 1) The inner core around the upper part of the Well Shaft was developed with different techniques than those masonry near the outside of the pyramid. 2) Due to some requirement (maybe to avoid lateral walls dislocations), the upper part of the WS was encased, without take care about line the casing blocks with those of the core around. Since the more probable function of the Well Shaft was to provide a escape route for the ancient workers after plug the ascending passage, surely It was used just one time, I found strange the encasing requirement. In other parts of the pyramid (Davidson Tunnel, Mamoun tunnel, Caviglia tunnel) we can apreciate wide perforations across the core of the pyramid without the requirement of encase the walls. So, the requirement of encasing the upper part of the well shaft must obey to a heavy requirement. From the above, IMHO the casing requirement of the well shaft was developed to ensure wall stability across the shaft because the courses of this region of the pyramid (central region) maybe were developed inwards and downwards (like in older step pyramids) instead the horizontal courses technique we can observe outside the building. The pebbly region around the Grotto reinforce this supposition, since the foundations of a small step pyramid or a mastaba didn't require a special platform, even this older building must built with more rudimentary techniques. If this is true, could be a significative prove of an older structure inside Khufu's pyramid. I think that Ken, could have a point here, and maybe Khufu built his pyramid over and older step pyramid. Maybe further explorations in the core behind the upper part of th WS and of the Queen's chambers shafts would provide more information about this suppositions. Best Regards Erik Calero | ||
| keith (213.123.64.112) |
JD, The culprit steps forward. Mara & Rinaldi state the following on the vertical upper part of the well shaft. Vol 4 page 54-56. "The space for the upper part of this shaft was left in the pyramid masonary under construction. It descends vertically for agood distance through the nucleus masonary.----- The vertical part of the shaft is made with limestone blocks and its sides are quite flat and regular:therefore,it was built and not hewn in the already existing masonary." The Edgars mention the following onthe upper part,Page 346-348 Vol 1. "..Petrie says nothing of the long section of the shaft which is not tortuous,that is, the top,vertical part, which is square in bore, and presents every appearance of having been built while the building-operations were in progress" Keith | ||
| jd degreef (80.236.134.145) |
Thank you, culprit ! :-) Erik, The feeble casing of the WS wouldn't be of much use to resist lateral pressures from the oblique masonry layers of a step pyramid ! JD | ||
| Erik Calero (200.38.16.20) |
Hi JD, You may be right here, since I have few pictures about the Well Shaft, I coldn't have notice about the quality of its casing. The Maragioglio & Rinaldi's quote from Keith's above post, sounds like if the Well Shaft's limestone casing blocks were developed with aceptable quality as they are described as "quite flat and regular". Anyway, an exploration of the masonry around the upper part of the Well Shaft will be very interesting in order to know if the inmediate courses are horizontal or oblique. I think that an exploration of the pebbly area above the Grotto will unearth valuable information about the foundations of the Pyramid Best Regards Erik Calero | ||
| michel (193.248.19.174) |
Some interrogations about the granite block in the grotto. A few days ago J.D Degreef sent me some Edgard's drawings. On the plate CLXXVII (that shows the grotto in plan we can read: "Also the mysterious drill-hold granite-block..." And on the plate CLXXVIII (that shows the botton of WS in the DP) we can read: "And on the east (right) side, the granit block with two drill holes..." (In fact, we can see on each part two half drill holes) I think that originally the granite block was bigger, and that it was drilled with two holes. Then someone broke hit, pushed the smallest part in the WS and lay down the biggest part in the grotto. Click here to see: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/nicole.michel/Images/door.gif (the reconstitution is on the left) We can also note that. - the granite block is perfectly adapted to the square wall of the grotto (compare A and 1) - the granite block is impossible to move by the bottom (2) of the WS. - the granite block is impossible to move by the top (3 and 4) of the WS. The granite block is necessarily a door or a plug. Can someone explain me? - If the square wall is only useful to avoid the fall of stones in the WS, why did AE build three faces in small stones and one face in only one very big granite block? - If the granite block is a door and if the grotto is not an underground cave, why did AE put a door to forbid the access to this place (that is completly filled with concrete). To J.D About the roof My underground cave looks like the Submediteranean Chamber, so, a roof is not usefull. It is just a hole. | ||
| jd degreef (213.177.133.18) |
Michel, Ah, if the granite block hadn't been broken ! One could have thought that it had been placed here before the first layers of the pyramid were put into place. But the block is broken and has perforations, so it must be a portcullis (or a counterweight of some sort), which got broken -one presumes when the pyramid was opened and robbed and vandalized-. And then one part was pushed into the AP and ended up high in the DP, the other part was pushed into the WS, which was filled up to the level of the Grotto with other debris coming from the GG (QC floor = 35 tons of material ? fragments of limestone plugs that may have remained in the GG and never have been descended into the AP ?). From there the portcullis (?) fragment was pushed into the Grotto (which had thus already been excavated by robbers). Pushing the heavy portcullis fragment into the narrow WS was heavy work, and the reason no doubt was to get rid of the debris filling up the pyramid rooms and passages. By somebody who knew the WS and that it didn’t lead anywhere, so that it could be filled up without problems. Could this be the trace of a Saite restoration, as in Menkaure’s pyramid ? The anthropoid stone sarcophagus allegedly found in the GP by al-Mamun may also be a clue here. Another possibility I can think of is that a portcullis was broken after Khufu's death, when the WS had to be excavated due to the pyramid closure problems. The block may have been descended into the WS and stored in the Grotto to be used as a closure stone once the workmen had left the KC and GG. And they or may not have put it into place (it could have been pushed back in the Grotto later on). To return to the problem at hand, even if the WS is rather narrow, it must have accommodated the block : there's no other way it could have gotten there (well, you'll say it was a portcullis belonging to the room which you suspect the Grotto area to be, but the outline of the bedrock as seen on the vertical and horizontal sections doesn't look like a manmade chamber. And if the portcullis came from the passage which according to you descended from the AP into the "chamber", then this passage would now be visible from the Grotto, since the portcullis is lying there.) Do we have the dimensions of the portcullis fragments and would they fit the portcullis grooves near the KC ? NB: what I call the “ceiling” of the putative Grotto-chamber is the bedrock above it, not a constructed ceiling. Since the casing of the WS when it traverses the fragile part starts immediately below the first layer of blocks of the pyramid (at this level), without a rocky portion in between, this seems to indicate that the pyramid blocks rest directly upon the pebbly concrete, at least in this location (there could be a rocky roof in other parts : the whole thing could be an irregular bowl filled with desert concretions, or a cave-like fissure which had filled up with time). JD, born sceptic :-) | ||
| michel (193.250.47.29) |
Dear J.D About "Do we have the dimensions of the portcullis fragments and would they fit the portcullis grooves near the KC ?" I didn't find the dimensions of portcullis fragments. But if the M & R / Edgard's plans are good (no reason to doubt), we can reconstitute them approximately: (with a margin of mistake of about 5 centimeters) hight = 130 centimeters (with the brocken part approximativly 170 centimeters) larg = 70 cetimeters thickness = 50 centimeters and for KC portcullises hight = 130 centimeters larg = 115 centimeters thickness = 40 centimeters We can see that the grotto portcullis is thicker than the KC portcullis of about 10 centimeters (respectivly 50 and 40). Therefore, the grotto portcullis is not a KC portcullis fragment. And as I demonstrated it previously, the grotto portcullis could not be displaced by the top or by the bottom of the WS. Therefore, the grotto porcullis was always destinated to close the grotto, it is quite certain. Why a portcullis if the grotto is not a subterranean chamber?. Michel, born to quibble.:-) | ||
| jd degreef (213.177.133.197) |
Dear Michel, >if the M & R / Edgar's plans are good < That's the question ! But looking at the EDGAR plan (plate CLXXVII), the granite block is narrower than the WS : its maximum width is 91 % of that of the WS on one plate, 94 % on the other, i.e. about 4-6 cm smaller. But the dimensions are such that they could be a problem at the junction between the vertical and oblique parts of the WS. What would have been the use of a granite door in a wall formed of small and easy to remove limestone blocks ? And are we right in calling the gap in the casing a "door" ? To me EDGAR's plate CLXIV seems to show that the stonework was broken open ? And I've never seen any allusion to door posts or a lintel. JD | ||
| michel (193.250.255.186) |
Dear J.D About " portcullis 4-6 cm smaller cm than WS casing " It is possible, but admit that, for a door, it is better than 4-6 cm bigger. About " And are we right in calling the gap in the casing a "door" ? " I don't know, but we have a portcullis and a gap in the casing whose measurements are quite well adapted. This is not a proof, just a high presumption. If the granite block is not a portcullis, what it is? Sometimes I would like to read: "This is not my opinion, but you right michel, it is possible" | ||
| jd degreef (80.236.134.191) |
Oops, I meant to write "4-6 cm smaller than the sides of the WS" ! >"This is not my opinion, but you're right Michel, it is possible"< Yes, but is it ? :-( JD | ||
| jd degreef (80.236.134.191) |
PS: also remember that a pyramid isn't built of nice horizontal layers. As can be seen in all pyramids ruined enough to reveal their internal structure, they contain a stepped structure, the masonry layers of which are independent of the ones forming the exterior casing, backing stones etc. So what you deduced from the observation which started your whole hypothesiis is wrong : you're comparing two different and unrelated sets of masonry (the ones belonging to the stepped structure, and the ones near the pyramid's surface). But what your observation does show is that the pyramid isn't built in horizontal layers continuing all through its bulk. And this is an important fact ! JD | ||
| michel (193.250.255.144) |
Dear J.D If Khufu's pyramid isn't built of nice horizontal layers, why can we follow them on a long distance in Al Mamun's tunnel ? It is a detail that I looked attentively to understand how the pyramids are built. Yes the height of one layer can be constituted of several stones (2 or 3). But a layer have almost always the same height. It is very easy to verify this. Is there someone here witch is actualy in egypt who can confirm? | ||
| jd degreef (213.177.133.47) |
Dear Michel, Maybe the al-Mamun passage isn't long enough top observe a section of the structure ? The stepped core, and the masonry between it and the casing, may be composed of nice horizontal layers, but of two systems. What I mean is, the two sets of layers don't need to have the same heights, which seems to be borne out by your observation in the WS (bearing in mind that some of the WS blocks seem to be a casing, which then represents yet a third masonry system !). JD | ||
| michel (80.9.132.249) |
Dear J.D This discussion was really very instructive. We can summarize it like this: I observe that heights of layers are different in the well-shaft and near the casing. We meditated, and we think that 3 hypotheses could agree with this observation. - The hill on which the GP is built could be higher than what is admitted conventionally. - The GP could be built above an old tomb. - The core massonry could be constituted of more than two masonry system. These three possibilities are really new and it would be very instructive to verify that. We could drill a vertical hole in the concrete, to the ceiling of the grotto, about 3 meters to the south of the WS. The depth of this hole should be about four or five meters. Then we could insert an endoscope inside the hole to observe the configuration of the limestone above the concrete. | ||
| jd degreef (213.177.133.47) |
Dear Michel, It isn't because I disagree with you that I don't enjoy our discussions. They force one to think and not to take things for granted. On drilling into the concrete, this would be very dangerous : imagine the concrete being destabilized and several tons of it crashing down on the unlucky person in the Grotto ! A hole obliquely upwards through the upper blocks of the sheathed part of the WS would be safer. JD | ||
| michel (80.9.134.86) |
Dear J.D You are right, to drill a vertical hole could be dangerous, and your suggestion is excellent. But it is a dream...... Michel who also enjoy our discussions. Thank you J.D for your patience and the relevance of your answers. | ||
| Albert (62.194.202.5) |
Hi, I just want to mention a few things regarding the pyramid blocks, the hill and the rough masonry. When we build a house, we are also not very keen that unseen walls are really nicely setup to the eye, as long as they are vertical and strong it's enough. Probably they thought the same in the case of the GP. A further point to note is that the GP has survived an earthquake without too much (apparent) damage. This hints at a thorough inner construction for such a building with quite loosely placed stones. At least this argument -could- plead for a more extending hill that would provide a solid base for the external pyramid, although I don't really see the arguments for this option. | ||
| Janine Williams New member Username: janine Post Number: 3 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 66.26.230.229 |
JD & Michel: Something I have wondered about for a while - how did the AE's know the cavern was there? -If it was a visible fissure, or hole into which animals were disappearing, they would surely test its depth and breadth before building on it. -Instead of 40 ft or so, the cavern could just as well have been 300 ft. The crooked unfinished part of the well shaft would have sufficed for this. -Later, the descending passage was to be connected to it then continued in a straight manner to the subterranean chamber. (But I will leave the engineering problems to you gentlemen.) -It seems to me,that the presence of a rocky hill under the pyramid's structure would add to its stability. Apparently they took great care to avoid 'slippage' by dovetailing the upper stones of the corners and socket. Evidently,they were aware of earthquakes and natural disasters. -A civil engineering student at Duke wrote a master's thesis on Khufu, performed all the crush tests, etc. (Although the hill was not mentioned.) The final determination, considering the way the pyramid was constructed, was that it could have withstood crush testing up to 950 ft. in height! -The duration estimated for it to remain standing was 4.2 million years, unless demolished by man. Janine | ||
| J.D. Degreef Senior Member Username: jd_degreef Post Number: 33 Registered: 02-2000 Posted From: 80.236.134.189 |
Hi Janine, Thank you for a nice posting ! The fill as seen in the "Grotto" is said to be a natural mix, as also found in depressions in the desert. It is composed of a mix of pebbles, sand and decayed limestone, which cements it into a concrete-like, hard substance. When the area for the GP was planed, there must have been a fissure, a crater-like irregular excavation, or a cave communicating with the surface, filled to the brim with the natural concrete. If there was a bad quality upper part, it would have been quarried away. Such a filled cavity could be built upon without need to transform it into a more regular excavation, filled in with masonry. On a plan*, I see that there's a narrow fissure filled with masonry in the Descending Passage, right below the "Grotto". According to the plan, this may be the continuation of the "Grotto" fissure (the material around the Grotto being the natural fill of the upper broadening of the fissure). The same plan shows a similar but broader structure right after the point where the Descending Passage enters the bedrock. Not on the plan is another fissure, which I remember seeing in the lower horizontal passage and which was also filled up with masonry. So there may be others still, lying undetected underneath the pyramid. From the top of the pyramid, deep ones can be seen on the surface of the bedrock, on the side walls of the boat pits etc. >Later, the descending passage was to be connected to it then continued in a straight manner to the subterranean chamber.<I don't understand what you mean. JD *Jean KERISEL, La pyramide de Khéops. Une anomalie dans la Chambre du Roi, Archéologia 268, 1991, p. 48-49. | ||
| Janine Williams New member Username: janine Post Number: 9 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 66.26.230.229 |
JD: Think the 'puzzlement' is in my head, not yours. -The problem is, that the rough well-shaft joins the descending tunnel just above the horizontal part of it...which later enters the cavern. -If they dug a tunnel to determine the extent of the cavity, then part of the desc. tunnel and the lower horizontal section must have been part of the original search shaft. -M & Renaldi feel that the well shaft was built from the early stages as both a service tunnel and a ventilator. They say that, upon completion, the shaft was filled from the top with debris and loose material, and a stone mortared into place in the upper end of the west ramp to conceal it. The bottom entrance was carefully camoflaged and (according to M&R) remained undiscovered until the l9th century. In my head, the problem arises here: How was the descending tunnel constructed? Did lower diggers meet upper diggers in the middle (like in the Lincoln tunnel)? -The built part, above ground is about .09 inches out of alignment (Petrie). The length of the total tunnel(~345 ft.) is about 1/4 inch out of alignment. (Tompkins ?). -The descending passage, with the exception of the horizonatal section, leads straight to the cavern! I can understand getting the above ground part alighned straight, but not the underground rock part. (Or even how they met in the middle, if they did.) -A befuddling question for engineers: HOW did they DO that???... Any theories? Janine | ||
| J.D. Degreef Senior Member Username: jd_degreef Post Number: 48 Registered: 02-2000 Posted From: 213.177.158.106 |
Dear Janine, I suppose everybody will agree that the problem of the Well Shaft can't be solved until a new cleaning, exploration and careful survey of its details are undertaken. So it's probably wiser to think that the descending passage was dug from the surface down, to the horizontal part and the lower chamber ? JD |
