| Author | Message | ||
     Tibor Hoffmann New member Username: tibor Post Number: 4 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.56.251.208 |
I tried to build up the inside structure of the GP, and I've found some interesting things: 1/ First bend in the Northern shaft of KC: This section is very complicated, and seem's to be an integral part of both KC and Antechamber. 2/ Northern shaft of QC: The shaft extends behind the wall of G.Gallery before the first bending point. 3/ Horizontal Passage to QC: Unusual joints on side walls and floor. Any comments?  | ||
| Steve Brabin Junior Member Username: steve_b Post Number: 58 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 62.252.224.5 |
Tibor, First of all...nice graphic ! 1) The deliberate bends in the upper chamber northern shaft are are an integral part of the design of this shaft, and seem to serve the purpose of hiding the main section of the shaft from anyone attempting to access it from the chamber. The bends also appear to be a deliberate indication from the architects that the straightness of the shaft is not as important as its angle and position. (On modern drawings we use a very similar method to indicate long straight lines, by placing a zig zag section in the drawing) 2) Indeed it does, showing that the bend in the shaft has no architectural justification, and must therefore have some other meaning. Since the bend can be found a very long way up a very narrow shaft, and therefore by definition can only be seen by use of modern technology, your guess is as good as mine as to what was intended here by the designers. Perhaps they expected people with modern technology to have a look up the shaft ?  3) What do you mean by 'unusual joints'? As far as I can see the whole building is full of unusual joints, bearing in mind it was built by bronze age man ! How did you construct the drawing - is it on a CAD system ? Rgds Steve B | ||
| Tibor Hoffmann New member Username: tibor Post Number: 5 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.56.1.248 |
Steve, Unusual joints in Hor.Passage: In the first section of the Hor.Passage side walls consist of two layers of blocks, without mesh. I think it's more difficult to build, and less stable than the "standard". Angled floor joints are also strange, the splitted floor blocks too.  I wonder, why they choose this method. (I use ProDesktop CAD program, but unfortunately files are very big... You can get ProDesktop from www.ptc.com free of charge.) Best regards Tibor | ||
| Janine Williams Senior Member Username: janine Post Number: 662 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 66.26.67.221 |
Tibor: What is the source for these drawings? I do have the drawings of Maragioglio & Renaldi but only for the ascending passage. (There are some odd "bandaid" stones in the floor of that.) Steve: Welcome back. Janine | ||
| Tibor Hoffmann New member Username: tibor Post Number: 6 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.56.2.94 |
Janine, I got from Michel (thanks for him), I think you can find at www.la-grande-pyramide.fr.st . Could you send me something from the Asc.passage floor? Best regards Tibor | ||
| Janine Williams Senior Member Username: janine Post Number: 664 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 66.26.67.221 |
Tibor and Bernie: Tibor: Would be glad to, but it will be a couple of days. Also will have to scan it and e-mail it because Maragioglio and Renaldi are not on the net. (Are they Kemo?...And if not, is there a problem with copyright infringement by doing this?) I could not find the horizontal passage sketch of the stone layering on the site above. (Maybe it's my fractured French.) Sincerely, Janine | ||
| bernhard a. grundl Advanced Member Username: bernhard_grundl Post Number: 391 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 193.27.50.74 |
DEAR JANINE and TIBOR, i made a fast search, without any sophisticated tricks, and i found the following links of some interest : http://www.mars.sphere.ne.jp/p-inpaku/Pyramid/sub6.htm and some videos at: http://sphinxtemple.virtualave.net/videos/videos.html and : http://www.gizapyramid.com/overview.htm and : http://www.ianlawton.com/pc2.htm and: http://www.catchpenny.org/accretion.html and: http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/building/building_in_stone.htm well, there is a lot more, but i could NOT find some the original drawings in relation with the ascending passage of the GP, produced by these well known italian authors. ( may be to be found on italian written webpages ) here a list of these books: MARAGIOGLIO, Vito and Celeste RINALDI. L’Architettura delle Piramidi Menfite (APM). 1964. APM, Parte III, Rapallo: Tipografia Canessa. 1965. APM, Parte IV, Rapallo: Tipografia Canessa. 1966. APM, Parte V, Rapallo: Tipografia Canessa. 1967. APM, Parte VI, Rapallo: Officine Grafiche Canessa. 1970. APM, Parte VII, Rapallo: Officine Grafiche Canessa sorry, that's for today ! best regards: BERNIE | ||
| bernhard a. grundl Advanced Member Username: bernhard_grundl Post Number: 392 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 193.27.50.73 |
DEAR JANINE and TIBOR, you need exactly this volume (no 4) : Maragioglio/Rinaldi 1965. Vito Maragioglio, Celeste Ambrogio Rinaldi. L'architettura delle piramidi menfite 4. Le grande piramide di Cheope. Torino -- best regards: bernie | ||
| Janine Williams Senior Member Username: janine Post Number: 665 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 66.26.67.221 |
Bernie and Tibor: Kemo - Thankyou! Those are excellent posts. As usual, you went straight to it. Tibor: The patched floor of the ascending passage is shown in Bernie's first post, (...mars.sphere...) scroll until you run into it... It follows #4, Comparison. Note the "bandaid" insert near the center of the picture, and the 2 "postage stamp" inserts further up the passage. Do you not think that they are odd? The single 'postage stamp' nearest the 'bandaid' is not an insert in the stone, but a stylized letter "A" in bold print on the manuscript. (Maybe a location reference - the drafted prints are about 2 ft. square.) Otherwise, the copy above is fairly accurate. If you would still like a copy of the above, I will e-mail what I have. The 1965 copyright has probably expired. These books are extremely expensive, but are available at a few Universities and can be had through inter-library loan. The written title on Vol 4, is: "L'Architettura Delle Piramidi Menfite"...Parte IV. (Sub-title, "La Grande Piramide di Cheope") Sincerely, Janine | ||
| Tibor Hoffmann New member Username: tibor Post Number: 7 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.56.2.208 |
Dear Janine and Bernie, This drw. (...mars.sphere..) shows the cross-section of Asc.Passage, I can't see the floor joints there. Here is the drw. of the Hor.Passage floor joints I got from Michele:  Best regards, Tibor | ||
| Janine Williams Senior Member Username: janine Post Number: 666 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 66.26.67.221 |
Thankyou Tibor, I notice that there are 'postage stamp' sized inserts in the horizontal passage floor too, like in the ascending passage floor. (Unless it is something on the drawing.) This strikes me as very odd, because they would have to cut a square hole in an already existing slab to do it. Sincerely, Janine | ||
| Jon Bodsworth Junior Member Username: jon_b Post Number: 99 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.92.168.174 |
I omitted this diagram from the Edgar brothers when I scanned most of the plates from their book for my website. It might be of interest here: http://www.egyptarchive.co.uk/pix/plate_cx.jpg The other material can be found at: http://www.egyptarchive.co.uk/his_html/historic_index.html Jon B www.egyptarchive.co.uk | ||
| Janine Williams Senior Member Username: janine Post Number: 668 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 66.26.67.221 |
Tibor: Jon's first URL shows the peculiar 'bandaid' on the west wall, not the floor. I don't read Italian, so I must be wrong about which elevation it is. Note: Jon's print shows another one just like it on the east wall! Janine | ||
| Janine Williams Senior Member Username: janine Post Number: 669 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 66.26.67.221 |
Tibor: Jon's first URL shows the peculiar 'bandaid' on the west wall, not the floor. I don't read Italian, so I must be wrong about which elevation it is. Note: Jon's print shows another one just like it on the east wall! Janine | ||
| Tibor Hoffmann New member Username: tibor Post Number: 8 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.56.2.164 |
Jon, thank you very much, this is I was looking for. Janine: 'bandaid' means the rectangular recesses on the walls nearby the rings (girdles) ? I thought, that these recesses are in pairs on the west and east walls near every rings, but Edgar's drw. shows another arrangement. I think the holes on the Hor.Passage floor are cylindrical. Best regards, Tibor | ||
| Daniel Gerardo Advanced Member Username: daniel Post Number: 41 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 200.40.211.227 |
These are interesting details to analyze how was those corridors before the closed of the pyramid. Daniel | ||
| Mel Coldwell New member Username: melco Post Number: 39 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 136.8.159.11 |
Anyone notice how the diagram on the EDGARS site showing the crossection through the passage intersection isn't realistic. From the photos its evident that the roof of the ascending passage doesnt extend to the line of the roof of the descending passage. I find it intriguing how this was blocked with a limbstone slab as there appears no ledge for it to rest on and it seems dubious to support such a large mass with cement. Its also apparent that the ascending passage is narrower than the descending. An inserted slab would leave a tell-tail rim as clue. | ||
| Tibor Hoffmann New member Username: tibor Post Number: 9 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.56.250.188 |
Mel, I think there is a relationship between the rectangular recesses on the Asc.Passage side walls and the blocking slabs. Best regards, Tibor | ||
| Daniel Gerardo Advanced Member Username: daniel Post Number: 42 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 200.40.211.227 |
Mel, I agree, we are seeing as are these passages now, but we do not know as were they before and after of the pyramid closed. Tibor, I agree, the blocked of an ascendant passageway is not usual in the pyramids, these details are not usual neither and is logic to think that they are related. John, Excellent information! Daniel | ||
| Jon Bodsworth Junior Member Username: jon_b Post Number: 100 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.92.194.12 |
Hi Mel I've put another of my photos of the granite plug viewed from below at: http://www.egyptarchive.co.uk/pix/plug_below.jpg Those two slots into the walls either side of the plug are intriguing... I'm assuming the lost limestone plug would have been fixed in place from below after the granite plugs had descended and jammed into the narrowing shaft. Given that the Egyptians demonstrated elsewhere that they were fully capable of very fine joint lines indeed and given the proven strength of their cement I don't really see a problem with the limestone being fairly well hidden. If this stone really did fall and alert Al-Mamun's tunnelers then perhaps that's evidence that the joints were just too fine and not enough cement could be used. Jon B www.egyptarchive.co.uk | ||
| Daniel Gerardo Advanced Member Username: daniel Post Number: 43 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 200.40.211.227 |
Jon, It is not easy to make a tunnel from the exterior on the right direction that intercepts the ascending passageway, without to know the interior distribution of the pyramid. I do not know if the history about the noise of the fallen block that alerts Al-Mamun´s tunnelers is legend or true history. But I think that it is not sufficient to make the tunnel on the right direction. And I think that the only way that Al-Mamun could to make the tunnel on the right direction was to enlarge a shaft existing there. And he made the tunnel there because found the shaft. Daniel | ||
| Janine Williams Senior Member Username: janine Post Number: 673 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 66.26.67.221 |
Daniel: Have often wondered about that. As you say, it is not easy to determine the right direction to tunnel toward a sound heard in a large pyramid...yet Mamun went straight to it. Janine | ||
| Mel Coldwell New member Username: melco Post Number: 40 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 136.8.159.11 |
Thanks for the picy Jon. Your usual great quality. I'd like to see a view looking up the descending passage. There apears to be a step change in the roof where the ascending and descending join but its hard to make out the proportions. (Right where the trial passage has the vertical slot). I'm also unclear how the sloping roof joind the descending passage. The 2 holes by the blocking stones are very regular so I assume they are a later addition. Possibly due to wories the blocks may slip. It's easy to associate the 3 blocking stones with the 3 'ring stones' (forgot what to call them). Indeed we could assume that the blocking stones were associated with the ring stones to the point of being fitted there. Then an obvious assumption is that the band-aids provide the 'lock' that prevents them moving untill required. However I find it unclear what the size/shape of the ascending passage was. Any clues that it allowed a gap around the blocking stones (allow access/activation of the lock)? | ||
| Jon Bodsworth Member Username: jon_b Post Number: 102 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.92.194.17 |
Hi Mel I haven't got any more photos in the descending corridor I'm afraid. The new one I posted and the ones on my website are all I've got. Before I saw the two slots in the wall on either side of the granite plug I had read that there were slots in the plug itself. This is not the case as I looked very carefully. I don't think you could cut the slots that accurately so close to the granite and I think they were already there when the plug was dropped into position. Also why would you cut the slots so square if they were just to check for slippage or indeed a later attempt to inspect the plug? There shouldn't have been any doubt about the plug staying safely in place as the ascending passage narrows sufficiently to make it a tight fit. It occurs to me that when the ascending passage was in use before it was plugged it would have been difficult to climb from the descending to the ascending passage. Perhaps the slots are part of a fixing point for a wooden staircase or something similar? This would have been removed once the corridor was plugged and the limestone covering stone fitted into place. Jon B www.egyptarchive.co.uk | ||
| Mel Coldwell New member Username: melco Post Number: 41 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 136.8.159.11 |
The slots seem very presisely located relative to the block. Presumably if the slots were original they would have to put the first block in place to work out where to cut them. Then push the block back. (I know they achieved a lot but its extremely difficult to calculate the location of the block given the tapered walls of the passage) The shape of the slots is very well defined given the state of the rest of the walls. I can't think of any other use for the slots. If they were there to hold anything they would partially block the passage and make entrance even harder. They don't appear in the trial passage (not that that means much). | ||
| Daniel Gerardo Advanced Member Username: daniel Post Number: 44 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 200.40.211.227 |
Janine, Is the tunnel straight or there is a change of direction to determine when Al Mamun listen the sound of the stone? If he made a straight tunnel from the exterior (inclined toward the east), just to the right direction to intercept the ascending passageway, then he listens the sound from the exterior. Or was he a man with a lot of luck because the pyramid is very big, the passageway very little and is not in the central plane. I do not know but a little shaft on that position was a powerful reason to make a tunnel and the direction of that tunnel would be the direction of the shaft. Accidental tunnels were a true problem for pyramid builders. It is logic to think that as they could not avoid accidental tunnels then they opted by orienting them. It is a method very effective and when Al Mamum found the ascending passageway, all the hard work that he made later was predictable and inoffensive. Al Mamun never returned to the pyramid and skepticism about find something there is very strong yet. Jon, Seems that there is some deterioration caused by humidity on the west wall below the granite plug and it is not on the east wall. http://www.egyptarchive.co.uk/pix/plug_below.jpg The origin of that humidity could be the water used by Al Mamum to break the blocks with brusque change of temperature. Is there a step on the floor of the descending passageway? (just where is the rule) http://www.egyptarchive.co.uk/his_html/edgar_48.html Daniel | ||
| Janine Williams Senior Member Username: janine Post Number: 680 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 66.26.67.221 |
Daniel: The thing that puzzled me is that Mamun managed to align his tunnel to enter the ascending passage above the three plugs. If tapped with a metal object, do you think a nearby tunnel or passage might produce a hollow sound? If so, perhaps that guided him. Otherwise, it sounds to me like he might have been familiar with the internal layout. Janine | ||
| Daniel Gerardo Advanced Member Username: daniel Post Number: 45 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 200.40.211.227 |
To make the puzzle is necessary to have a theorist model based on some hypothesis because our information is limited and is necessary to reconstruct the history, because the time is a variable to analyze too. I proposed the little shaft in that position because is a logic explanation to understand the tunnel and because it is inside of the context of my theorist model. But to explain this is necessary to make research in the pyramid, because we can not add speculation over speculation without to make research to confirm first the hypothesis. Research is not possible for we and we only can make theorists speculations and our possibilities are limited. We can not add speculation over speculation because we lose the reference and there are many paradigms too. For example, one hypothesis that I use in my model is that Great Gallery was finishing just where are the granite plugs, where is the tunnel. Why? Which research is possible to make to confirm this? I will continue......and I will comment your opinion too. Daniel Seems that only you can understand my English (LOL) | ||
| Daniel Gerardo Advanced Member Username: daniel Post Number: 46 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 200.40.211.227 |
Why did I use the hypothesis of that Great Gallery was finishing where begin the granite plugs, when the pyramid was finished? If we are observing the ascending passage diagram, the little size of the blocks used, the complex disposition of the junctions, the existence of rings, etc, we can not understand those unusual details inside a passage. Why? We are supposing that they built the ascending passage when they built the pyramid. If they built the ascending passage when they built the pyramid, the size of the blocks, the junctions, would be very similar to the existing in the descending passage. If we analyze first the problem to build the ascending passage inside the Great Gallery and later how to make the blocked, we can understand better those unusual details. Then, north wall of the Great Gallery was exactly were it is in the trial passages. Blocks existing on the floor of the horizontal passage entrance, with unusual junctures, are another examples of a sector that was not built with the pyramid or was restored later. Which research is possible make to confirm or to discard it ? In this point we can analyze if Mamum could listen some thing or not. I will continue........... Daniel | ||
| Jon Bodsworth Member Username: jon_b Post Number: 107 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.92.194.12 |
Daniel wrote: Jon, Seems that there is some deterioration caused by humidity on the west wall below the granite plug and it is not on the east wall. http://www.egyptarchive.co.uk/pix/plug_below.jpg The origin of that humidity could be the water used by Al Mamum to break the blocks with brusque change of temperature. Is there a step on the floor of the descending passageway? (just where is the rule) http://www.egyptarchive.co.uk/his_html/edgar_48.html Hi Daniel I think it's very difficult to deduce much from the staining on the walls of the Pyramid as so much cleaning and work has been done over the years. There's also the leeching of salt from the limestone which at times has produced as much as a 6inch crust on the walls of the Queen's Chamber. I was only in the descending passage for a short time but I don't remember any step and I think I would have had it been there. I'd rather lost track of this discussion and I've just posted some comments about Al-Manun's tunnel, which are also relevant here, to the 'Niches' thread. Jon B www.egyptarchive.co.uk | ||
| Daniel Gerardo Advanced Member Username: daniel Post Number: 49 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 200.40.211.227 |
Janine, Then.....which research it is possible to progress about this. If we are observing the large corbelled built in Daschurt, they are very high, the top of those corbelled are in the union of the walls. They are excellent, very beautiful. http://www.guardians.net/egypt/cyberjourney/dahshur/bentpyramid/bent_pyramid_int erior.htm http://www.guardians.net/egypt/red2.htm Why did not finish they the top of the Great Gallery of this way, why did they use a horizontal roof if they could continue the corbelled? http://www.guardians.net/egypt/gp2.htm If we think about architectural design seems more compatible with pyramid design the corbelled without horizontal roof. It is possible also that the explanation is structural. I remembered that before Meidum discovery, we were analyzing with John Degreff the descending passage. My impression was that descending passage section was reduced when they closed the pyramid. It is that, before pyramid closed, descending passage was a corbelled and afterwards the pyramid closed, it is a little passage built inside that corbelled. See entrance pyramid: http://www.guardians.net/egypt/gp1.htm According John, it is possible that there is a corbelled ceiling up the descending passage by structural reasons. We do not know yet details about this discovery to determine which opinion is more appropriate. If before pyramid closed, descending passage was a corbelled, then distance between walls was more important and corbelled was necessary by structural reason. We do not know yet if the corbelled discover in Meidum is supported over the wall of the descending passage or the passage is inside the corbelled. If they made a corbelled up descending passage of Meidum pyramid it is logic to think that they continue the corbelled of the Great Gallery up the horizontal roof because pressures are similar. Later, Great Gallery is a corbelled very long, built on an inclined plane and horizontal roof was necessary to reinforce it. There is another reason to think that the corbelled of the Great Gallery finish up to the horizontal roof and it is related with the shaft of the Queen chamber. I will continue..... Jon I agree about the difficulty to analyze those details but there are some points to progress. That leeching of salt were characteristics of that sector (the horizontal passageway). Layer of salt is related in modern times, with the condensation inside the pyramid by the respiration of the tourists. The question is why those leeching of salt were concentrated in that sector? For example, according Belzoni, when he opened Khafre´s pyramid found on the surface of the passage a layer of salt like a skin of lamb, he comment this as unusual thing. Seems it is not related with the respiration of the tourists. I think that the origin of these layers of salt is related with some ancient humidity and it is my impression about the Sphinx’s erosion too. The question is which could be the origin of that humidity, of that water? To erode the Sphinx was not necessary rains 10500 years old, was not necessary a lot of water, was sufficient with a pool. The Sphinx is inside a dish and would not be it the only statue inside of a pile with water in the history, it was very frequent in all time. Later the stone of the statue is softened by the humidity, because with the time loses salt and other substances related with the hardness of the stones. The wind with sand makes the erosion over the stone weakened. The head of the sphinx is more resistant because the humidity could not arrived so high. According some archaeologists the explanation of the Sphinx’s erosion is that different layers of limestone are in the sphinx with different hardness. I think that as they made the Sphinx using one stone, is more probable that humidity determine the different hardness on the different sectors. I will continue....... Daniel | ||
| J.D. Degreef Senior Member Username: jd_degreef Post Number: 772 Registered: 02-2000 Posted From: 213.177.133.190 |
Dear Daniel, Corbel vaults don't need to be as high and as complete as in the Dahchur pyramids, see Dahchur mastaba I/2 :  (STADELMANN, Pyramiden und Nekropole des Snofru in Dahshur, Dritter Vorbericht..., MDAIK 49, 1993, plate 56 b, c). JD | ||
| Daniel Gerardo Advanced Member Username: daniel Post Number: 50 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 200.40.211.227 |
Hi John, There are two aspects to analyze, one is aesthetic and other structural. Which corbel vaults was aesthetically better for they, to make inside a pyramid or inside a mastaba, because their forms are different too? Other aspect is structural, which corbel was more sure for they, to build inside a mastaba, where tensions are not important or inside a pyramid, where tensions are important? Which decision could make they about this? It is not possible for me find the answers without knowing more details about Meidum´s discovery. It is necessary to evaluate which was their confidence as builders. Did they build a corbel over a little passage in Meidum or the passage was built inside the corbel? I do not know! Meidum is a discovery some years old, (do you remember) but I can not find information about this yet! Jon, Another effect that increases the Sphinx´s erosion is the difference of temperatures between the day and the night in Egypt. With the high temperature of the day limeston stone is like a sponge absorbing water, capillarity increase this phenomenon. In the day, pores of the stone are filled with vapor of water and later are condensed by low temperatures of the night, originating internal pressures. Those pressures produce microfissures and with the time weaken the material, later appear fissures and split zones that the winds with sand detach. Which could be the highness of the water inside the pool? The existing stairway is good reference to determine it. I will continue.... Daniel | ||
| Janine Williams Senior Member Username: janine Post Number: 695 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 24.162.236.176 |
Dear Daniel, During excavations at the wall of the crow, Mark Lehner ovserved an odd combination of sediments and called in geologist Karl Butzer. Butzer is a specialist in the geology of the Nile as well as the geology of ancient sites in Egypt and elsewhere. They found that the Giza plateau had been flooded several times after the complex was built. Some floods were evidently due to rapid runoff from flash floods on the desert (which could not absorb it). Walls were built, apparently to deflect the flow...But all floods need not have been from that source. Salt crystals or encrustation has been found in several locations: >Salt was found on the walls of the Queen's Chamber, and up to the top of the first two laps on the QC niche, but none on the other three. (Petrie). The top of the second lap is about 77.8 ft. (23.7 meters) above the pavement. >In 1993 the "Pyramid Rover" found the shafts of the QC covered with salt crystals. >Dark spots and salt stains were found on the chamber walls of Khufu's satellite (Queen's) pyramids when they were opened in 1998. >Petrie reported, "a good deal of salt on the INSIDE of the coffer of Khafre." >There was some salt in the subterranean pit. >Salt crystals were found on the walls and ceiling of the horizontal passage. >Some salt was found on the lower levels of the grand gallery. >And a new one, (thankyou Daniel): Belzoni commented about opening the pyramid of Khafre and finding "a layer of salt like the skin of a lamb" on the surface of a passage. I agree Daniel. There seem to be too many reports of salt in odd places to attribute all of them to an increase in humidity. Although, today, Zahi says the respiration of visitors is causing a problem. (Each exhales about 20 grammes of vapour.) From the combined effects of humidity and salt, cracks have appeared in the pyramid's inner walls. There are about 300 cracks in the grand gallery." Some say, "From the look of it, the plateau was flooded by sea water sometime after the Great Pyramid was built. The encrustation implies slow evaporation.". (Incidentally, the same flood would have hit the Sphinx.) This has been refuted, insofar as limestone, itself, was once an ancient sea bed and will leach salt under certain conditions. The water table has risen since Old Kingdom times and is said to be causing the flaking and deterioration of the Sphinx. With or without salt leaching, I would hesitate to state that a sea-water innundation of the plateau was not possible. Mean sea level had risen quite high before the first I.P. and the Mediterranean would rise right along with it. -Violent storms surely occurred. But when?... Sometime after the 5th Dyn. vast flood destruction is reported to have washed away a 5th Dyn. temple completely, leaving only the doorway standing. (Petrie). I am anxious for additional findings by Butzer and Lehner to be continued next season and published. Maybe a little more geological information will come to light. As long a speculation about sea water is going on, there are a couple of questions: If the salt encrustation on the walls of the QC is due to the slow evaporation of sea water ~ how did THAT much water get trapped in the QC?...(And is it built tight enough to hold 8 feet of water?) How did salt crystals ever get in the QC "air" channels? Were they not always sealed? (Perhaps this might have occurred from visitors' breathing vapours in later times after the walls were pierced. Perhaps not.) If the salt is due only to humidity leaching it out of the limestone, why was there no salt on the top 3 laps of the QC niche? That is limestone, too. As usual, one Egyptian question presents five others that have to be answered first! Any other views on this? Janine | ||
| J.D. Degreef Senior Member Username: jd_degreef Post Number: 773 Registered: 02-2000 Posted From: 213.177.133.156 |
Dear Daniel, The 4th dyn. builders seem to have been obsessed by structural security : low, small passages apparently for reasons of stability ; extensive relieving systems (many of which may remain undiscovered inside the GP) ; vaults... Your idea of a prior stage with larger passages clashes with this, IMHO. And I can see no clues for this hypothesis. Janine, A 60+ meters maritime flood at the historic period ??? I prefer KERISEL's idea, that rain water enters the pyramid masonry now that the casing has been removed, and that this water leaches salts out of the mortar abundantly used to fill gaps in the bad quality core masonry. This mortar is a mix of stone fragments and sediments from dried-up lakes, i.e. salts. JD | ||
| michel michel New member Username: michel Post Number: 38 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 193.248.19.209  |
Dear Daniel, You can find very great information about meïdoum here: www.egyptologues.net/pdf/pyramides/meidum.pdf Michel | ||
| Janine Williams Senior Member Username: janine Post Number: 697 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 24.162.236.176 |
JD: Ah, How nice to have you back on the board. LOL! Yes, if mean sea level (m.s.l.) rose 60 meters in a period of ~400 years, it would be a total disaster...worse, it would have to rise 74.3 meters to reach the top of the second lap of the niche! That did not happen. During the period from about 2800 to 2200BC or so, m.s.l. only rose about 1.7 meters, with a rate of rise increase during the latter 400 yrs. However, about 5500 BC, m.s.l. rose roughly about 3.4 meters over a 250 yr period. This had serious results and was enough to cause the Mediterranean to flood the Black sea, raising the water level there about 140 -168 meters higher. Pitman and Ryan believe the Med. broke through the Bosporus Straits. I did not envision anything as disasterous as that for the 2800~2200 BC sea level rise. What I had more in mind, were violent storms and earthquakes in the Mediterranean with 300 ft. storm surges. (SOMEthing washed away a 5th dynasty temple...) We know Giza has been flooded several times. Unfortunately, we don't know when, how high, and from which direction. Or much else. Overall, it seems to me that Kerisel's hypothesis is the simplest and most sensible... But it does not explain why salt exudation stopped after the second lap of the QC niche, while there is none on the top three laps. (Maybe that is the maximum 'vapour' height reached by the breathing of less than 8 ft. tall tourists.  ) There is another reason for taking an interest in this, and the Wall of the Crow, which involves more than salt, -curious as it is. It is more concerned with climatic dating discrepancies...and ONLY at this one sea level peak (out of 13) which occurs near the First I.P. Elsewhere, the graph and reports are in 7500 yr. agreement. Either Moerner's graph is off a couple of hundred years on this particular peak, or perhaps the I.P. chronology is...If so, it could affect the scientific dating results if ever used in the past as part of a dating proxy. Cheers! Good to have you back in the fray! Janine | ||
| J.D. Degreef Senior Member Username: jd_degreef Post Number: 776 Registered: 02-2000 Posted From: 213.177.133.79 |
Hi Janine ! The rain water entering the core masonry may follow certain paths, much as a brook does in a landscape. It would then reach certain chambers and parts of certain walls more than others. BTW the QC lies closest to a plumb line descending from the denuded upper platform of the GP. The KC may have been protected by its carefully built granite relieving system (and granite isn't porous like limestone). Flash floods from wadis and higher-than-normal Nile floods could have been responsible for the damages observed at Giza and elsewhere. No need to hypothesize catastrophic flooding by sea water ! JD | ||
| Janine Williams Senior Member Username: janine Post Number: 700 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 24.162.236.176 |
JD: "No need to hypothesize catastrophic flooding by seawater": True. Unless.... Herodotus (d.~430 BC) reported that the Egyptian delta was flooded during the first dynasty (Dynasties?) His report refers to 2500 yrs. earlier. Somewhere between the 5th and 7th dynasties, a flooded delta is possible. (That particular sea level rise was also preceded and followed by a drought.) So, you see, I picture very salty, turbulent Mediterranean waters mixing with those of the already innundated delta. (Ph on request...  ) Yup! A storm surge of this salt combination belted the plateau, piled up 8 feet high in the QC, and didn't evaporate for years!! Aliens, who can see around corners, were studying Orion at the time through the bent KC "air" shaft.- Alas! Trapped! Oo-ooops! Better behave. Janine | ||
| Daniel Gerardo Advanced Member Username: daniel Post Number: 51 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 200.40.211.227 |
Hi Michel, Thanks for the information, it is the report about Meidum´s discovery from World Congress of Egyptology! Excellent! But like shafts research in Kheop, are necessaries to continue with the researches because there are questions without answers yet. For example: Which were the dimensions of the passage before the closed of the pyramid? But with this information we can analyze this better now! John If the 4th dynasty builders were preoccupied by structural security, my opinion it that would be sure that they completed the corbel of the Great Gallery up to the horizontal roof, because it is the most sure. If they made a relieving corridor up to the little passage in Meidum, because they had fear of a structural collapse, what could think they about the horizontal roof of the Great Gallery? My doubt is if they made the corbel up to the entrance corridor in Meidum, thinking about structural security or because the corridor before of the pyramid’s closed was more high and more wide that the actual corridor. It is, the called relieving corridor was the ceiling of the original corridor or not? I have a new doubt later to read Meidum’s report, if the “relieving chambers discovered” were the ceilings of the “recess” before the pyramid’s closed. There are some evidences about it. Which are the evidences about that the sections of descending passages before the closed of these pyramids (Meidum, Kheops)were the passages section that we see now? Janine, To finish with my opinion about the Sphinx: The impression of that the Sphinx is older that the pyramid is a false impression, determined by the comparison of their erosion. Is not possible to compare the erosion to determine the antiquity of a stone very softened large time by the humidity (Sphinx) with blocks that never the humidity affected of this way (pyramids). It is as think that a tomb of the Kings Valley that was affected by the humidity is older that other without humidity, because it is more deteriorated. About the incrustation saline in some sectors of the pyramids, I will continue... (there are some details about the tunnel to explain yet) Daniel | ||
| bernhard a. grundl Senior Member Username: bernhard_grundl Post Number: 434 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 193.27.50.73 |
DEAR JANINE, not to forget the effects and consequences of an possible meteor-IMPACT in southern IRAQ over 4200 years ago ! (about 2300/2200 BCE ? / i provided the related info some month ago ). here the iraq-impact and SOME other big disasters in earth history: http://www.humanunderground.com/ELE.html and more at: http://personal.eunet.fi/pp/tilmari/tilmari2.htm best regards: Bernie | ||
| Daniel Gerardo Advanced Member Username: daniel Post Number: 52 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 200.40.211.227 |
PD: John,do not forget you that Osiris died drowned in the sea. (LOL) | ||
| Janine Williams Senior Member Username: janine Post Number: 702 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 24.162.236.176 |
Daniel: Going back to the Sphinx, many are of the opinion (as I am) that the Sphinx was carved from an already existing yardang. There are several similar ones out in the desert. When carved, a court was deepened to surround it. Under these conditions, the sphinx knoll is indeed older and would have undergone much ancient weathering BEFORE it was carved. (Schoch says this is visible under the old casing blocks, and considers it proof that the Sphinx was carved at a far more ancient time.) This might explain why water penetration was deeper at the front of the Sphinx than at the back court, which puzzled Schoch. Although not an expert in water penetration depths, this would happen if the original knoll were on a slope and the back court wasn't dug, yet. Otherwise, if the Sphinx enclosure had been completed at a time of ancient flooding, the hypothesized 7500 yr. old flood water penetration should have reached about the same depth in both areas. After the Sphinx was completed, it would be subject to the same floods, erosion, windstorms, etc. as the rest of the complex. Petrie says the uneven erosion of the Sphinx, which produces a horizontal "layering" appearance, is because sediments laid down long before the knoll was formed were of a different composition, leaving some layers softer than others. After the knoll was formed, the softer layers eroded faster. He says that the head is a harder form of rock. Legends say the stone for the head was brought there by man...(which I have read only in Tompkins!)...Petrie says, "No". It was there before the Sphinx was carved. Janine | ||
| Janine Williams Senior Member Username: janine Post Number: 703 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 24.162.236.176 |
Daniel: Going back to the Sphinx, many are of the opinion (as I am) that the Sphinx was carved from an already existing yardang. There are several similar ones out in the desert. When carved, a court was deepened to surround it. Under these conditions, the sphinx knoll is indeed older and would have undergone much ancient weathering BEFORE it was carved. (Schoch says this is visible under the old casing blocks, and considers it proof that the Sphinx was carved at a far more ancient time.) This might explain why water penetration was deeper at the front of the Sphinx than at the back court, which puzzled Schoch. Although not an expert in water penetration depths, this would happen if the original knoll were on a slope and the back court wasn't dug, yet. Otherwise, if the Sphinx enclosure had been completed at a time of ancient flooding, the hypothesized 7500 yr. old flood water penetration should have reached about the same depth in both areas. After the Sphinx was completed, it would be subject to the same floods, erosion, windstorms, etc. as the rest of the complex. Petrie says the uneven erosion of the Sphinx, which produces a horizontal "layering" appearance, is because sediments laid down long before the knoll was formed were of a different composition, leaving some layers softer than others. After the knoll was formed, the softer layers eroded faster. He says that the head is a harder form of rock. Legends say the stone for the head was brought there by man...(which I have read only in Tompkins!)...Petrie says, "No". It was there before the Sphinx was carved. Janine | ||
| Janine Williams Senior Member Username: janine Post Number: 704 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 24.162.236.176 |
Bernie: Thankyou for the URL's. I have read both of those, but do not agree with them. So far, the only thing found in common with all five extinctions is a severe drop in eustatic world sea level. Not ice ages, not impacts. He's selling a book. Such a sea level drop is apt to be accompanied by extremely long periods of drought and marine anoxia. I had also read the paper theorizing that an impact caused the destruction/abandoment of towns and settlements about 2300/2200 BC. An interesting historical collection, perhaps climatically usable, but since he, too, is selling a theory (for a book?), I do not fully accept it. I feel he may have confined his dates somewhat, to stay in the duration range of an impact. Something did happen to these cities. One was abandoned for 300 years! However, this also occurred during the same period of a sea level rise (and fall) near the first I.P. It might have been the flood that cause them to move away, or the long drought that followed...or yet a third reason. Obviously, the earth has had many meteor impacts. Everybody wants to jump on the bandwagon, but there are too many other climatic factors in the mix, to accept reports of catastrophe causing impacts verbatim... even though there may or may not have been an impact. Thankyou anyway, Kemo... at least I'm finding something I haven't missed. Sincerely, Janine | ||
| bernhard a. grundl Senior Member Username: bernhard_grundl Post Number: 435 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 193.27.50.73 |
DEAR JANINE, the links i provided were only for some more informational stuff, but do not represent my opinion or proposal in context with the debate above. for the moment i have not the time to share and follow this interesting discussion. ok, luckily no problem, because there are other well informed and interested members "on board" ! one last proposal: there exist new informations (dr. benny Peiser)referring to other meteor impacts in ARGENTINA, timely corresponding to the southern iraq-impact (from about 2300-2200 BCE) ! this would establish the possibility of severe consequences for human culture, not only in the mediterranean area (esp. NILE-delta and so on) ! as usual a final link: http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/11/04/wmet04.xm l&sSheet=/news/2001/11/04/ixhome -- scroll some pages down ! -- Sincerly: Bernie | ||
| Janine Williams Senior Member Username: janine Post Number: 706 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 24.162.236.176 |
Bernie: Thankyou, Kemo. Will look a little further into Peiser. Sincerely, Janine | ||
| Jon Bodsworth Member Username: jon_b Post Number: 116 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.92.194.15 |
Some stuff about Pyramid salt: "At present, the pyramid is dry inside, even in the passage and chamber beneath the ground level. Measurements by Sutton (1945) show a humidity within the pyramid of only 47 to 61 percent, part of which is contributed by the perspiration of tourists. A 1mm to 3mm thick coating on the blocks was noted on the walls of the so-called Queen's Chamber: and in the horizontal passage leading to it. None was found elsewhere. This material consists of two to eight layers of salt of the following composition: Sodium - 35.22% Potassium - .02% Calcium and magnesium - .40% Chlorine - 54.14% Sulfate - 1.01% Water-insoluble - 9.21% The water-soluble portion is thus about 99% halite, NaCl. Presumably, the salt was deposited during the few years that elapsed after the chamber was completed and before the pyramid was finished and faced. During this period the top was probably relatively flat (Lauer 1952) and able to collect rain water which could seep through the joints, dissolving some salts in the rock for later deposition in the open space of the chambers. The absence of the coating in the King's Chamber may result of the fact that the pyramid was finished so soon after this chamber was built that there was no time for leaching and deposition of salt, or that the salt was derived only from blocks that immediately line the chamber walls. In the King's Chamber these blocks are of granite not limestone." K O Emery, Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, March 1960. Jon B www.egyptarchive.co.uk | ||
| J.D. Degreef Senior Member Username: jd_degreef Post Number: 785 Registered: 02-2000 Posted From: 80.236.134.64 |
Excellent, Jon ! 99 % NaCl is astonishing (lakebed sediments used in mortar would contain more sulfates, carbonates etc, IMHO !). So : seawater after all ??? JD | ||
| Janine Williams Senior Member Username: janine Post Number: 708 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 24.162.236.176 |
Daniel: You said, "Do not forget that Osiris drowed in the sea"... interesting comparison. Come to think of it, Osiris was first mentioned in the pyramid texts of the Vth and VIth dynasties. (Although both the stories and Osiris are thought to be older.) Geocities writes that his origins are unclear, but it is likely that he was a primitive fertility god, Anedjty, in Busiris and associated with the yearly innundation of the Nile. I know you knew that, but it does place the first mention of Osiris at the "scene of the crime" (flood?)... during the Vth and VIth dynasty... Interesting... Unfortunately, no conclusions. Janine | ||
| Janine Williams Senior Member Username: janine Post Number: 709 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 24.162.236.176 |
Musing further...Osiris was "resurrected" by Isis. Might this story refer to after the flood receded and the Nile returned to normal? Janine | ||
| Daniel Gerardo Advanced Member Username: daniel Post Number: 53 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 200.40.211.227 |
Jon, Excellent explanation and very consistent. I have some confusion with the information that I read in this string and some difficulty to read it in English. According your information: “There's also the leeching of salt from the limestone, which at times has produced as much as a 6inch crust on the walls of the Queen's Chamber.” “ A 1mm to 3mm thick coating on the blocks was noted on the walls of the so-called Queen's Chamber: and in the horizontal passage leading to it. None was found elsewhere.” According Janine information: “Salt was found on the walls of the Queen's Chamber, and up to the top of the first two laps on the QC niche, but none on the other three. (Petrie). The top of the second lap is about 77.8 ft. (23.7 meters) above the pavement.” “Some salt was found on the lower levels of the grand gallery.” It is possible that Lehner´s research can give us more detailed information. Do you have some photograph about the level of the salt in the niche? Janine, About the Sphinx’s erosion, there are different reasonable explanations, but the most important (I think) was the humidity as factor to accelerate the erosion caused by the wind with sand. Because the sphinx is inside a ditch and is logical to think that was accumulated water inside the ditch. They could avoid the accumulation of water in the ditch because the humidity was affecting the hardness of the stone. But they made a gutter together the Khafre´s footwear to send more water there, from his pyramid. I remember some article that Hawass wrote when discovered that gutter. Why? The explanation could be religious, because the water was the fountain of life, etc. John made an excellent explanation some years ago. Osiris, god of the Nile could not die drowned in the river, it would be inconsistent. But it is curious that the sarcophagus could float in the river but could not float in the sea. We can analyze later Plutarc´s legend it is very interesting. Daniel | ||
| Jon Bodsworth Member Username: jon_b Post Number: 118 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.92.194.16 |
Hi Daniel The quote about 'six inches' of salt comes from Piazzi Smyth who complained that it was so thick that it made proper measurements impossible. I've not seen another mention of such a thick deposit of salt from any one else. The only photos I have of the Queen's Chamber are the old ones on my website as I've not been able to get into this area for many years as it has been closed on all my recent visits. The Edgar brother's reported: "...but beyond this, on to the Queen's Chamber, the thick and hard encrustation of salt which entirely covers the walls of this passage, made it impossible for us to locate the joints with any certainty. This salt encrustation is peculiar to the horizontal Passage and Queen's Chamber, although a little of it may also be seen on the walls of the First Ascending Passage." However Smyth mentions: "...slight traces of it in the Grand Gallery..." Jon B www.egyptarchive.co.uk | ||
| Jon Bodsworth Member Username: jon_b Post Number: 119 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.92.194.18 |
This is odd. I've just come across this in 'The Great Pyramid Decoded' by John Lemesurier. He describes the gabled roof of the top (5th) releaving chamber above the King's Chamber as: "..salt encrusted limestone..." Jon B www.egyptarchive.co.uk | ||
| Janine Williams Senior Member Username: janine Post Number: 717 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 24.162.236.176 |
Jon: Petrie or other early explorers mentioned the 6 places already described, but not the 5th relieving chamber of the KC, although Petrie did investigate it. Perhps a mite of extrapolation by Lemesurier? Janine | ||
| J.D. Degreef Senior Member Username: jd_degreef Post Number: 789 Registered: 02-2000 Posted From: 213.177.158.50 |
Hi Jon & Janine, The upper relieving chamber is one location where one would expect water seeping down from the denuded top of the pyramid ! Does anyone have an analysis of Saharan lake sediments and the salts they contain ? JD | ||
| Daniel Gerardo Advanced Member Username: daniel Post Number: 54 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 200.40.211.227 |
Jon and Janine, thank newly for your kind information. If the cause of the humidity were rains, the question can be: Why there is not humidity now inside the pyramid ? According information: “Presumably, the salt was deposited during the few years that elapsed after the chamber was completed and before the pyramid was finished and faced. During this period the top was probably relatively flat (Lauer 1952) and able to collect rain water which could seep through the joints, dissolving some salts in the rock for later deposition in the open space of the chambers.” This is an explanation to analyze about why there is not humidity now inside the Queen’s chamber. Why never was found layers of salt inside the King´s chamber? According information: “The absence of the coating in the King's Chamber may result of the fact that the pyramid was finished so soon after this chamber was built that there was no time for leaching and deposition of salt, or that the salt was derived only from blocks that immediately line the chamber walls. In the King's Chamber these blocks are of granite not limestone." This is other good explanation to analyze but, according Lemesurier, “the gabled roof of the top (5th) releaving chamber above the King's Chamber as: "..salt encrusted limestone..." And according Petrie, there is not salt encrusted there..... It is necessary to make inspections of the entire pyramid to determine where there is salt layers and the thickness. Later according to the chemistry composition of the layers, to determine which could be the origin of each layer. It is necessary to compile historic information about this and find some explanation about why were 6 inches before and now are 4 mm. Later to make this study in the other pyramids and to compare them. It is possible that it is the study that is doing Marc Lehner. I think that is very probable that Queen´s chamber was coated with stone of good quality too and a stairway in the inferior part of the niche. It is possible that the layer of salt that lack was retreat together with the stairway. My opinion is that the principal origin of those encrusted of salt was water filtration. When some authorities evaluated my theory about the method used to build the top of the pyramid, they objected the possible water filtration that this method would produce in the pyramid. To lift those objections, I thought some ways to avoid that filtration, but they were not convincing. Now we are thinking about some way to explain those filtration. In this point I am very disoriented... Daniel | ||
| Janine Williams Senior Member Username: janine Post Number: 721 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 24.162.236.176 |
Daniel: Oh! Do you raise some interesting questions! Starting with Osiris "drowning' in a flood being inconsistent...if taken literally, the rest of this legend is highly questionable too! You should hear some of the flood legends from other cultures...they are not nearly as inventive and embroidered with detail as those of the imaginative Egyptians... but just as far fetched. One Indian legend says that only one couple escaped a flood by holding onto a large gourd. When they reached a mountain top, the gourd broke open and the 5 races came out. It struck me as curious that Osiris is first mentioned in writing during this period. No theories, however. Petrie did not say that "there was no salt in the 5th relieving chamber"(as he did about the upper three laps of the niche. He measured the 5th relieving chamber from stem to stern, made notes of the all masons marks and corrections. He made no mention at all of salt. Why Piazzi Smith found 6 inches of encrustation and later explorers (1945) found only a few cm, I can't imagine...unless perhaps the chamber was cleaned in the meantime. Could it be residue that is still surfacing? Lemesurier is a pop writer who published, "The Great Pyramid Decoded" shortly after the publication of "Stonehenge Decoded". Many pop writers are very interesting, but sometimes the source of their facts is a little sketchy, or they are not given at all. I would think that Petrie would have mentioned the presence of salt in the 5th Rel.Ch. if he had found it, although he could have been busy with other things. Jon: Did Lemesurier give any sources in his book? Not being an engineer, I don't know what is meant by "water infiltration"? Would that the the slow seeping through of water from above, which might fliter down leaching salt from the limestone over the centuries, to accumulate the encrustations? (In the manner of mineral encrustion from seeping water that forms stalagmites and stalactites.) In the case of a wall encrustation, even if cleaned, the salt encrustation seems to still recur with humidity. Residue from long saturation? Sincerely, Janine | ||
| Daniel Gerardo Advanced Member Username: daniel Post Number: 55 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 200.40.211.227 |
Janine, You explained better the layers of salt that an engineer! It is possible that Osiris´ legend is related with true history. I think that is a beautiful history, an example of religious unification unique in the history of the humanity. But speaking about waves and about your opinion of the Mamun tunnels: “The thing that puzzled me is that Mamun managed to align his tunnel to enter the ascending passage above the three plugs. If tapped with a metal object, do you think a nearby tunnel or passage might produce a hollow sound? If so, perhaps that guided him. Otherwise, it sounds to me like he might have been familiar with the internal layout." Use of the sound is old method to detect empty places. Modern non-destructive techniques of detection use waves with high frequency as for example ultrasound. Ultrasound waves had betters capacity of penetration in materials that sound. I studied and worked with ultrasound and radiation waves but in metals. The problem with the use of those techniques of detection in the pyramid is that waves capacity of penetration is limited and thickness or longitudes of stones very big. For example those techniques never detected empty spaces in Khafre and if we analyze the evolution of the interior distribution it is very improbable that they do no exist. Belzoni found the chamber but using a theoretical speculation. Those methods can be useful for example to determine if exist an empty space up to the roof of the Great Gallery, as we analyzed, because it would not be distant. Specialists are working to make method more effective, the problem is that specialist do no know some particularities of these topics and archaeologists do not know some particularities existing in the techniques of detection. Archaeologists can not lend their vision to the specialist and vice versa. Exist an empty space in the ensemble of their knowledge, it is frequent in teams, when different specialties have to function together. It is very evident also in theories about pyramid construction. I never would insist about the existence of secret chambers in Daschurt and Giza´s pyramids (that some authorities are accepting now), if would not be possible finding those chambers. I will reserve my opinion about the method to use. (I can not make this affirmation without be sure and can not make joke about my profession.) About Al Mamum or who made the tunnel, I think that he only could listen some internal sound if was a little shaft there. That sound only could be rebound waves inside the shaft by external sound if it was not blocked. Daniel | ||
| Janine Williams Senior Member Username: janine Post Number: 724 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 24.162.236.176 |
Daniel: About Al Mamun: The Great pyramid has undergone some serious earthquakes. The beams above the KC are cracked. Al Mamun cracked his way in and then chopped further. What if... Somewhere during the vibrations and noise of his excavation, loose earthquake debris became dislodged - tumbling into the empty space above the plugs? It could not go further. Could they have heard this? If so, and large enough to be loud enough to hear, is it still there? It also could have been an audible 'land-slide' of smaller debris, that continued for a few moments. If not, the other options are tapping for hollowness, or Mamun knew the layout. (How he was led in that direction has always puzzled me.) I believe they found the shafts in the QC by tapping on the walls. But that was a thin, 4" thick covering of limestone over the mouth of the shaft. The walls of the ascending passage could be much thicker. Mamun might pick up a sound quicker from something going on INSIDE the shaft, than from an echo. How does sound behave in these conditions? Which is louder? Janine | ||
| bernhard a. grundl Senior Member Username: bernhard_grundl Post Number: 448 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 193.27.50.74 |
Dear JANINE and DANIEL, some stuff about the physical properties of SOUND running under different environmental circumstances (esp.: solid material) and the resulting effects. for example: when penetrating limestone or granite, sound has a speed of some thousand meters per second (material-dependent) ! now more details: http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/sound/u11l2c.html and: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/soundv.html and : http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~jmelosh/ShockViscosity.pdf and finally : http://www.iastate.edu/~CYBERSTACKS/GeoViewer.htm best regards: Bernie | ||
| Janine Williams Senior Member Username: janine Post Number: 727 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 24.162.236.176 |
Bernie and Daniel: Thankyou Bernie. Excellent sites. This is not my area, but it seems like sound traveling rapidly from INSIDE the passage, making only one trip, would be more audible than an echo which had to return. Daniel? According to reports, one of Mamun's men found a ceiling stone in the descending passage that was dislodged. (Mamun's entry may have contributed to what severe earthquakes began centuries earlier.) Apparently, they removed it, and heard something else in the process... (with all the excited chatter and the digging noise, I don't know how they heard ANYthing)...Maybe the tumbling sound was quite loud or vibrated. Or...maybe Mamun DID know the plugs were there and the general location, from ancient persian manuscripts or legends. He was an educated man with a very inquiring mind. If the ceiling stone was dislodged by digging or vibrations, I tend to go with the noise theory, because there would be other parts of the pyramid already off balance from earthquakes. ? Janine | ||
| J.D. Degreef Senior Member Username: jd_degreef Post Number: 794 Registered: 02-2000 Posted From: 80.236.134.23 |
Dear all, Al-Mamun's passage lies on the midline of the pyramid (as if he didn't know where the real entrance was, 7+ meters towards the east ; if he had, he would have gone for it ?). Then his passage doesn't aim straight towards the plugs, if I remember well (Jon will know this !), but curves to the left : this would tend to show that the quarrymen who were digging the passage were somehow guided towards the empty spaces, the corridors, presumably by echoes or a difference in sounds. Since a curved passage is longer than a straight one, and thus more difficult to excavate, this would tend to show that al-Mamun's men didn't plan to intercept the lower Ascending Passage when they started digging, but were guided towards it thanks to their being able quarrymen. JD | ||
| James M. Vance Senior Member Username: jmvance Post Number: 52 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 12.212.108.54 |
Al-Mamun didn't know where the original entrance was--that's why he thought the logical place was in the middle. While the quarrymen were digging, a block fell(portcullis?) and the sound showed the men they were too far to the left; so as they dug they curved to the left and broke into one of the original passages. | ||
| Jon Bodsworth Member Username: jon_b Post Number: 123 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.92.194.15 |
Some of my thoughts on the Al-Mamun tunnel can be found in this thread: http://egyptologist.org/discus/messages/8/7616.html?1054794716 Which was interupted by Guardian's recent disappearance. Jon B www.egyptarchive.co.uk | ||
| J.D. Degreef Senior Member Username: jd_degreef Post Number: 795 Registered: 02-2000 Posted From: 213.177.133.131 |
Dear Jon, Sorry, didn't know about the other thread, and I can't but agree with your statements there. JD | ||
| michel michel New member Username: michel Post Number: 39 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 193.248.19.199 |
 Hello Jon There are two turns in the tunnel. The second is the one that you describe in the other topic. But the first is very interesting because a plug seems to be encrusted in the wall (in yellow). To see better: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/nicole.michel/Images/tunnel.jpg My idea: A long time before Al-Mamun someone drills a tunnel exactly in the W / E axes of the pyramid. He finds a chamber (the grotto). inside, he finds a vertical well that leads toward the DP. He finds the DP, and drill a vertical tunnel just before the granit plugs. He finds the AP and visit all the pyramid. He decides to hide something in the grotto. He fills the grotto with mortar. He digs a tunnel between AP and the initial tunnel. He embeds a plug in the wall. Now, the tunnel seems to turn. (red line) He plugs the entry of the tunnel. Later, Al - Mamun drills 9 meters to the entry and find a tunnel that turns toward the AP. He doesn't find anything because the pyramid has already been visited. | ||
| Jon Bodsworth Member Username: jon_b Post Number: 124 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.92.194.14 |
Hi Michel I'll have to think about that one. Give me time to review my photos. Jon B www.egyptarchive.co.uk | ||
| Jon Bodsworth Member Username: jon_b Post Number: 128 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.92.194.15 |
Hi Michel I have to confess that I'm rather confused by your post. The photo you show with the colouring is looking North back towards the entrance of the Great Pyramid it's actually one of the niches that I wrote about in the other thread. The niches were never finished so it's difficult to count them as one is split in half and could be counted as two and the first one you come to is not much more than a shallow depression. So the one in your photo could be described as the first niche on the right as you go forward into the pyramid. You can see the same point, but from the other direction, in my photo: http://www.egyptarchive.co.uk/pix/006_2003.jpg It looks to me to part of the original stonework that's been left as they were cutting the niche. This is the point at which the passage widens out and the walls and ceiling are much smoother and flatter than the preceding section. I don't think that it's a plug at all, just part of the structure. And isn't it too far along (if I understand your point) to be part of your proposed earlier tunnel anyway? Jon B www.egyptarchive.co.uk | ||
| Tibor Hoffmann New member Username: tibor Post Number: 10 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.56.4.17 |
Just another thought  Granite plugs: I've found, that 22 or 23 plugs can be stored in the Grand Gallery, - 22 plugs can fill the Asc.Passage starting with he first plug exist today, - 23 plugs can fill it if there was another plug in the Desc.passage  Well shaft: I think, the underground part of the well shaft was made by the pyramid builders, but the upper part in the masonry was made by the first robbers (That's why the Grotto is full with chips?). I'm sure they knew the internal layout of GP, and they didn't choose this way, if there was only 3 plugs defending the Asc.passage. In this case there was free entrance to the Desc.passage (max.22 plugs), or the one plug in the Desc.passage was destroyed.. Al Mammun: I think he had no idea about the internal layout, and I don't know, why did he miss the original entrance. Best regards Tibor | ||
| Daniel Gerardo Advanced Member Username: daniel Post Number: 56 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 200.40.211.227 |
Janine: There are same references about salt formations in the report of Meidum discovery in this string. I remember some information published in this board about unusual substances like tar, discovered inside the junctures of the horizontal passage in Kheop. Another origin of the humidity could be the ramp built on the south face of the pyramid. About Al Mamun tunnel, I think that to understand the pyramid’s aperture we need to understand first the pyramid’s closed. For example, if some ceiling stone was dislodged in the descending passageway and it made the sound that Al Mamun men listened, them it was not blocked when pyramid was closed. Them anybody could go inside the great gallery without remove the plugs of the ascending passage. Anybody could go from the entrance to great gallery without obstacles! They made the obstacle (blocked of the ascending passage) and the solution to avoid the obstacle (auxiliary shafts). All this is very inconsistent, we need to analyze this with more details. Khafre´s pyramid was a solid pyramid without chambers, before that Belzoni found the entrance. Nobody could listen empty spaces from the exterior, all are very sure that this pyramid was solid. Belzoni found first an old tunnel and later the true entrance but he did not use sound, only logic comparison. In Kheop it is probable that the mouths of the King’s chamber shafts were visible in Al Mamun´s times and the situation was different. Why did he make the tunnel there? He used a comparative method (like Belzoni) or he reopened an old tunnel (like Belzoni) or he enlarged a little shaft that found there (all shafts have some curve!). We can start analyzing Edgar diagram about the ascending passageway. Bernie, Thank for the information, you can find more about researches with those techniques in Waseda University. http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=pyramid%2Bwaseda&ei=UTF-8 I remember twenty years ago a possible empty space detected with ultrasound near Queen’s chambers, on the wall of the horizontal passage, a hole was drilled there. The possible empty space was a space fill with sand. That hole was a true problem, an earthquake for SCA authorities and all research in Kheop was closed. Do you remember the fringe opinion about the pyramid power? This started with the experimentation of a new technique of detection inside the Queen’s chamber. It is not as medicine, those techniques applied in pyramids are experimental yet. My impression is that archaeologists use those reports as some additional information. First would be necessary that authorities recover the confidence about those methods and it only is possible with discoveries in places where authorizations are not critical. Tibor: As Khafre´s entrance it is possible that Kheop´s entrance was below masonry falling down and accumulated centuries there. Daniel | ||
| michel michel New member Username: michel Post Number: 40 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 193.250.255.78 |
Hi Jon Thanks to your pictures, I know that I was wrong. While referring to photographs and videos, I tried to reconstitute the plan of the end of the tunnel.  Here is what I observe: 1°) In the purple zone the tunnel seems to cross the layers of the pyramid. 2°) In the green zone, the tunnel seems to cross compact rock as if the internal hill began here. 3°) All niches (yellow zone) seem oriented in the same direction. Maybe is there a link between these observations and the turn of the tunnel? An idea: Quarrymen detected niches easily because they were dug in compact rock and because they were initially deeper. | ||
| J.D. Degreef Senior Member Username: jd_degreef Post Number: 806 Registered: 02-2000 Posted From: 80.236.140.92 |
Nice drawing, Michel ! The orientation of the "niches" could be explained if the remaining parts of half-destroyed blocks had been neatly pulled out of the "wall" left by al-Mamun's excavation*. JD *possibly modified by the abundant use of concrete (to make the passage useable by tourists). Compare the state of the excavation on the EDGAR brothers' pics posted on Jon's excellent site and the present state ! | ||
| Daniel Gerardo Advanced Member Username: daniel Post Number: 57 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 200.40.211.227 |
Nice drawing and good explanations too. Is the tunnel straight from the exterior? Is there only one curve? Are not there junctures of stones to use as reference to change the direction of the tunnel´s excavation? There are some interesting junctures to analyze in the ascending passage. Daniel | ||
| Daniel Gerardo Advanced Member Username: daniel Post Number: 58 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 200.40.211.227 |
Edgar’s diagram about the first ascending passage as he said “is showing the peculiar but symmetrical system of this masonry”. I think that the most peculiar is just that those junctures are symmetrical. If there are some thing more peculiar that see irregular junctures on one wall of the passage is see that those junctures are symmetrical with the other wall in some sectors. Also is peculiar that they used little blocks when could use big blocks to build the walls but that those junctures are symmetrical I think is the most peculiar. Which can be the explanation? http://www.egyptarchive.co.uk/pix/plate_cx.jpg Daniel | ||
| Daniel Gerardo Advanced Member Username: daniel Post Number: 60 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 200.40.211.227 |
Here another diagram: http://www.mars.sphere.ne.jp/p-inpaku/Pyramid/sub6.htm | ||
| Daniel Gerardo Advanced Member Username: daniel Post Number: 61 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 200.40.211.227 |
Helmut and Tibor: I agree and never could imagine the funeral cortege crawling inside the passageways. We will analyze this in this string also, because just it is related with the pyramid closed. If you see the page 16 of the Medium’s report: www.egyptologues.net/pdf/pyramides/meidum.pdf  Those beams in that corbel only can work in compression and there are not efforts of compression because there is a corbel up the beams. Those beams can not work and are not necessaries there. I think in Medium’s pyramid the passage’s section was reduced when was closed the pyramid.  The passage is inclined 26 degrees to make that work easier, it is just the friction angle of the stone, it is the inclination where a stone can be moved freely. The angle where the effort to move a block is minimum. Daniel | ||
| michel michel New member Username: michel Post Number: 41 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 193.250.47.136 |
An interesting observation by GOIDIN and DORMION in their book: KHEOPS "Nouvelle enquête" Original text: Il est maçonné en calcaire fin de Tourah sur toute sa longueur, à l'exception d'un bloc ceinture, situé peu après les bouchons de granit en calcaire jaune local. Les traces de martelage qui apparaissent sur ses parois indiquent qu'il bouchait vraisemblablement le passage lors de la construction. Translation: It is built in fine Tourah limestone on all his length,except a girdle block in local yellow limestone, situated shortly after granit plugs. Traces of hammering that appear on its walls indicate that he plugged the passage presumably at the time of the building. | ||
| Daniel Gerardo Advanced Member Username: daniel Post Number: 63 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 200.40.211.227 |
Michel, Very interesting. My interpretation is that funeral chamber and burial chambers are different things. Funeral chamber is where the funeral cortege arrived and some religious royal ceremonies to dismiss the pharaoh were realized there. For example, King’s chamber is the funeral chamber of the Kheop´s pyramid. Burial chamber is the chamber where the pharaoh’s mummy was hidden, it is a secret chamber, that chamber was excavated and could not be built, just because was secret. There are not funeral chambers in the little mastabes, only burial chambers, because that religious ceremony was realized in the temples. Pyramids incorporated some functions of the temples and this is the principal difference with the mastabes. My opinion also is that the Queen’s chamber was the royal offering room, where the royal family was realizing the religious offering. When the pharaoh died, was closed the burial chamber, but was not necessary to close the pyramid. The pyramid is a tomb but also fulfilled functions of funerary temple. Pyramids were closed before the times of the civilian wars or invasions and some closed were not good. It is my interpretation,(I not specialist about religion)thinking about internal distributions of the pyramids and their closed. According Petrie, plugs could not be on the floor of the Great Gallery because will be an obstacle for the funeral cortege, but as they could not be in other place... I think that they were out the pyramid.  Guardian´s Photograph If we see the door of Kheop´s pyramid, seems evident that was a great door before the closed. That door’s wide (it is like the descending passage’s wide) was like Great Gallery’s wide. With all respect by all opinions- When there is a discovery, science can progress because some paradigms fall down. Archaeology of the pyramids is very peculiar science. When there is a discovery,(and is not easy to make a discovery there) paradigms go up. Daniel | ||
| Daniel Gerardo Advanced Member Username: daniel Post Number: 64 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 200.40.211.227 |
There are two ways to make a pyramid closed, permanently and transitory. The way to close a pyramid permanently is the passage’s blocked. The way to close a pyramid transitory is the installations of portcullises or other door system. Those ways to close pyramids (permanently and transitory) are present in Daschurt and Giza’s pyramids. Portcullises were not to make more effective the permanent pyramid’s closed. I think that those methods to close were not complementary, because they were used in different times. First transitory and later permanent closed was present in those pyramids. For example the antechamber of Kheop, was a system of portcullises used to close transitory the King’s chamber. Later when the pyramid was closed permanently, the portcullis system was blocked too. It is like Menkure´s pyramid. How long was the transitory closed of the pyramids? We do not know, but that transitory closed of the pyramids existed some time. The transitory closed of the pyramid was necessary when people enter and leave of the pyramid. For example if Khafre made royal religious offering to his father inside the Queen’s chamber was necessary that the entrance of the pyramid was open. It is logic to think that he would not accept to enter crawling to make the religious offering. When the pyramid was permanently closed was not possible to make offerings. Royal decree about religious offering contemplated the impossibility to make offering. Portcullises topic is very interesting, I will finish first with my opinion about the permanent closed of the passages. Daniel | ||
| Mel Coldwell New member Username: melco Post Number: 42 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 136.8.159.11 |
Heres something to keep you thinking. While its a generaly held belief that the 3 blocking stones were intended to seal the pyramid this is a very risky method which makes it seem unlikely. Its fairly obvious to assume the plug stones were stored in the GG since otherwise there is no way past them. However this makes movement in the GG very difficult. It also means the entrance to the QC has to be covered to enable the blocks to get into the ascending passage. Blocking. If you have one block you can possibly control its travel down the passage from below. But we have 3 blocks. If you release the blocks one at a time then whoever releases the 2nd and 3rd is traped in the GG. It could be argued that the passage down to the grotto is the escape route. However the 2nd and 3rd block would have to travel right down the passage without jamming and uncontrolled. It could be suggested that the desent rate was controlled by the rate of air expelled from between the blocks as it desended. Given the risk why not use one large block? One reason is the size of the block - could be too big to move/control. In order to ensure the passage remained useable before sealing the pyramid I would suggest that relieving chambers exist above it. Any distortion/passage movement would prevent the blocks sliding. The use of 3 blocks remains an issue to me. I feel it may be relevant that there are 3 frame stones in the passage each with associated wall features (band aids). It may be that the blocking stones were "stored" here and not in the GG. That would require access between the stones to release them - so far undiscovered. However it would infer that there is another entrance and that the GG was accessible after the stones were in the passage. It would also allow the blocks to be controlled, rubble cleared etc. Another thought was that the stones blocked another passage. That is that there is a passager on the East side behind the 2nd block. The first block was a seal to the ascending passage, the 2nd block a "door" that sealed the new passage. This doesn't explain the 3rd block. Its also unusual to have structures on the East side. It is possible that al-Mamun's passage actually broke into a chamber on the West side which he then made appear new. However the pictures seem to indicate otherwise. However if al-Mamun's did do this he may then have heard the noise in the ascending passage that indicated he had to move south to get round the blocks. A further possability is that the blocking stones are in there current possition as the last/failed condition. That is they were intended to be used for something else first and when the time came that the pyramid wasn't required for that function they seal it by default. This implies they may have been used in the GG as part of some other function and were not and obstacle. Just thought I would leave you with this while I go and spend 2 weeks on a deserted island. | ||
| J.D. Degreef Senior Member Username: jd_degreef Post Number: 839 Registered: 02-2000 Posted From: 80.236.134.118 |
Hi Mel ! Things are probably even worse ! The Grand Gallery is a large open space inside the pyramid, which is astonishing, as the builders seem to have preferred small passages, no doubt for reasons of solidity / stability. I can't see a ritual need for such a large corridor. It is true that most pyramids have an offering room next to the portcullises, but this doesn't warrant a chamber of the size of the GG. POCHAN thought that the three plugs had been stored in a niche in the W wall of the lower AP, a niche which was destroyed and engulfed by al-Mamun's passage. But the general opinion is that the three plugs had been stored in the GG. Yet, this still doesn't explain the GG's size. In fact the GG is slightly longer than the AP, so that it may have been designed mainly to accomodate a sufficient number of plugs to block the whole AP : this would have been a genius design on the part of the GP's architect ! But wouldn't it have been simpler to place the various chambers at the bottom of the DP, and to let the plugs descend the DP after having pushed them in through the entrance ? This is the design in 5-6th dyn. pyramids. So there must have been a reason for the complex structures (GG & AP) in the GP. If the GP's portcullises near the KC could indeed descend quasi automatically, as seems indicated by our calculations on this BB in January (2003), then maybe the train of blocks stored in the GG was an automatic closure system also. Such a system existed in the satellite pyramid of the Bent at Dahshur, built by Khufu's father, Snefru. When Khufu was crowned and the plans for the GP were drawn, the builders already had at least 30 years' experience in handling large blocks on ramps. If the planned the GG-AP system the way they did, they must have been confident that such a system would work, based on their hands-on experience. How they would cause the train of blocks to slide down the passages without jamming I don't know : maybe by greasing the floor and side-walls ? Or using a mix of grease and small hard stone beads on the floor ? The advantage of the GG-AP system over one where the blocks would have been entered through the pyramid's entrance is that in the latter case a large ramp and a number of crewmen would be needed, when the king knew that his successor would be impatient to move them to his own pyramid building site. With an automatic system, one would only need to pull a couple of strings or use a few levers, and the passages would close themselves. Quickly and without the need to keep a lot of workmen on the site. There may be archaeological evidence for the existence of such an extensive plugging of the AP : the walls of its lower part are much more damaged than elsewhere in the GP or in other pyramids, to the point that the AP is here transformed into a rounded passage with irregular walls. This shows that blocks had to be forcefully removed by tomb robbers. The upper part of the AP is much less damaged, which leads one to suspect that not all the plugs descended into place, and that some of them remained in the GG. What happened to all these plugs ? If they had all been granite, as are the lower ones, there would be granite fragments all over the place. So our best bet is that the upper blocks were limestone. They were hacked to pieces and vanished from the GP the same way the KC sarcophagus lid, the canopic box and the portcullises did... JD | ||
| Charlie Rigano Senior Member Username: charlie Post Number: 518 Registered: 06-1999 Posted From: 24.164.94.107 |
The following seems obvious to me: - The GG held a number of plugs - about 25, I'd have to check my calculations to determine the exact number - which plugged the length of the AP. - The plugs were released from within the GG. - The releasers escaped through the Well Shaft to the bottom of the DP. - The lower end of the DP was to be closed by filling much of the DP with plugs (see the shape and angle of the bottom of the DP). - The GG is wide due to the need to secure the plugs. - The width of the GG, determined the required height of the corbelled ceiling. - The builders could have hid the corbelled ceiling above a false ceiling - like at Maidum - but there was really no reason to do this. - The length of both the GG and AP was based on optimizing the filling of the AP and the storage of those blocks in the GG. - The GG was nothing more than a functional space - we are the ones that call it grand - which by the way it is. | ||
| J.D. Degreef Senior Member Username: jd_degreef Post Number: 845 Registered: 02-2000 Posted From: 213.177.158.61 |
Hi Charlie ! Agreed ! One point though : the escaping via the Well Shaft clashes with the pyramid's grand design and may have been something of a second thought (but we've discussed this in great detail, hope these discussions haven't yet vanished from Andrew's disk space !). JD | ||
| Charlie Rigano Senior Member Username: charlie Post Number: 520 Registered: 06-1999 Posted From: 24.164.94.136 |
JD, I don't mean to restart an old discussion. My reasoning that the Well Shaft was the escape shaft and part of the design which included the GG is that there is a vertical section built of laid blocks near the Grotto. The blocks hold back some gravel-like fill. The only way to construct this section was as part of the original construction, not cut later through laid masonry. Also this section is above the external ground level so could have been built a few years after the pyramid was started. The progression of pyramid building (consider the previous pyramids) would indicate that a burial in the pyramid core was likely planned. However, the Sub Chamber or another chamber intended for the end of the Cul de Sac could have been planned and abandoned as the original burial, than the planned changed after only a few years and the upper chambers built. Charlie | ||
| J.D. Degreef Senior Member Username: jd_degreef Post Number: 847 Registered: 02-2000 Posted From: 213.177.158.41 |
Dear Charlie, There's a fair possibility that the original GP chambers had indeed been planned to lie underground, at the end of the DP, with a 3d dynasty-like layout. Clues to this are the large size of the subterranean chamber and the existence of a southern corridor, apparently destined to lead to other rooms. Although against this hypothesis there is the fact that the canonical position of the rooms relative to the pyramid's E-W plane, as it appears at the Red, couldn't be respected with the present lower chamber lying where it does. Astonishingly, this room seems to have been enlarged westwards, if the "bench" now visible is indeed the lower part of the primitive chamber's west wall. But these plans were changed very soon, as the AP-DP crossing lies very low in the pyramid core (unless a trench was excavated in the core, to add the lower part of the AP, as I believe was done to build the lower part of the western passage system at the Bent). But I can't believe that the Well Shaft was part of the original design : wouldn't it be silly to isolate the two upper chambers by blocking the whole AP, but to leave the Well Shaft open (it would be like bolting the door and leaving the window open, as one author stated –don't remember who-) ? One could reply that if the whole DP had been blocked, the Well Shaft wouldn't have been accessible to robbers. But then another pyramid layout relying solely on the blocking of the DP would have been as secure and much more economic ! Other, material clues which we have are : -the mid-upper part of the WS has been dug in existing core masonry. This would be completely unexpected if the WS had been built together with the corresponding core courses. -the masonry which you allude to, and which prevents the gravel from falling into the WS, is made of small blocks. But the pyramid core is made of large blocks (except for the small ones used to fill irregularities). So I don't believe the WS "casing" dates from the early stages of the pyramid (large blocks would no doubt have been used !). If the blocks are small, it is because they had to be brought up or down through the narrow WS ! -at its lower end, the WS seems to almost "miss" the DP. This could indicate that it was dug downwards, although this is very subjective. The only problem with the hypothesis that the WS was dug fairly late is its upper portion, near the Grand Gallery, which is vertical and the walls of which are said to be good (although unpolished) masonry, made of large blocks. This could indicate that the WS was built fairly early, when the height of the pyramid stump was, say, halfway to the level of the QC. But there are other possibilities : *the quality of the walls could be determined by that of the masonry in which the WS was excavated : rough core masonry for the mid-upper part, so that the walls are rough ; good masonry as used near the passages and chambers (see profile of QC robbers' passage), giving smooth WS walls in the upper part near the GG. It could even be, as my friend and correspondent Cristina WADDINGTON once suggested, that parts of the removed good quality blocks were used to make the casing of the part through the gravel. *the good quality vertical part had been a ritual structure, a pit hidden in the original masonry (you know that New Kingdom royal tombs contain such a pit). As the layout of the GP is more explicit than in other Old Kingdom pyramids, the absence of such a pit elsewhere, though annoying, must not be a reason to discard the present hypothesis. The vertical pit was known to the builders, who decided to use it when they needed to excavate the WS. The main reason for the WS's existence must have been difficulties with what I believe was the automatic GG-AP closure system. Workmen were suddenly needed to push the blocks into place, and the WS became necessary so that they could get out of the pyramid afterwards. From the fact that only the walls of the lower part of the AP are severely damaged (from removing the plugging), I deduce that not all the plugs were lowered, and some of them left in the GG. But the annoying thing is that AFAIK the DP doesn't show traces of the damage which would have been caused if plugs had been removed from it. So I suppose the work to excavate the WS and close the AP had taken quite some time, that Djedefre became fed up with the whole matter and just had the DP filled with rubble before sealing it. Ironically, the GP builders may have expected such a reaction from Khufu's successor and this was the whole rationale behind their installing the two automatic closure systems ! Only a small number of blocks would originally have been needed to be descended to the bottom of the DP (up to the level of the WS's lower entrance ?). JD | ||
| Daniel Gerardo Advanced Member Username: daniel Post Number: 66 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 200.40.211.227 |
Dear John, It is not usual in the pyramids the ascending passage blocked and you made reference about some satellite pyramid in Daschurt. Have you some drawing or more information about this to analyze here? About the well shaft it is my impression too, like you said: “But I can't believe that the Well Shaft was part of the original design : wouldn't it be silly to isolate the two upper chambers by blocking the whole AP, but to leave the Well Shaft open (it would be like bolting the door and leaving the window open, as one author stated –don't remember who-) ? One could reply that if the whole DP had been blocked, the Well Shaft wouldn't have been accessible to robbers. But then another pyramid layout relying solely on the blocking of the DP would have been as secure and much more economic!” I thought just that example too, “it would be like bolting the door and leaving the window open.” I think that pharaoh never could accept that way to close his pyramid, unusual, complicated, ineffective, with risks...... illogical?! We analyze Bourchard theories because our proposal is to make the puzzle and not to close our pyramid (this is my humble interpretation). When I see the entrance of the pyramid I think about other example, it is like a house where there is a big door and house’s people do not use the big door to go inside their house, they use the little dog´s door. Later, I can not imagine a those little passage between a Great door and a Great Gallery before the pyramid’s closed. Seems more logic for me think that they reduced those section of those passage when made the pyramid´s closed. I think also that the time is a variable to analyze and there are a series of event to reconstruct here, because all have a logic explanation. Hi Charlie, we are very happy to listen about you! What do you think about the circles or called square ring existing inside the ascending passage? If you can not understand my English, please tell me... Daniel | ||
| J.D. Degreef Senior Member Username: jd_degreef Post Number: 849 Registered: 02-2000 Posted From: 80.236.150.85 |
Dear Dniel, Here's the layout of the Bent's satellite pyramid, apparently based on the same principle as the GG.  JD | ||
| Janine Williams Senior Member Username: janine Post Number: 751 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 66.26.67.114 |
All: Several other pyramids have two entrances. That of Khafre is north of the building and at ground level, but none has ever been found for the GP. It would certainly solve some problems if one exists. Janine | ||
| Tibor Hoffmann New member Username: tibor Post Number: 13 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.56.4.58 |
Dear Charlie, you wrote: - "The GG was nothing more than a functional space - we are the ones that call it grand - which by the way it is." I'm afraid you are wrong. See a Small Gallery cross section in red...  Changing the plan, unfinished chambers: We should be very careful, there are too much 'abandoned' chambers and 'redesigned' layout in the pyramids. Best regards, Tibor | ||
| Daniel Gerardo Advanced Member Username: daniel Post Number: 67 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 200.40.211.227 |
Dear John, Thanks, very interesting, I understand now your opinion, it is very good reference. Seems evident that they thought to put those plugs inside the passage. Why did not they put the plugs inside the passage? Have you the dimensions of the passage’s section and the plugs? Dear Janine, Two entrances in Khafre is other part of the puzzle, but where do we put it? My impression is that we are thinking about Kheop´s pyramids closed as a unique event and they were a succession of events. For example, the closed of the pyramid was a first event, later the pyramid was open by the tunnel excavation, it was a second event. A third event was to close the pyramid newly and the four events when Al-Mamum opened the pyramid newly. Daniel PD: Fortunately is not necessary to solve puzzles to determine if there are hidden chambers. Will not be necessary to be optimistic or pessimistic, fringe or orthodox. There is a detecting technique adequate to use in the pyramids and very effective. I will reserve my opinion because there are other colleagues working. | ||
| J.D. Degreef Senior Member Username: jd_degreef Post Number: 852 Registered: 02-2000 Posted From: 213.177.133.37 |
Hi Tibor, What is the "Small Gallery" which you placed on your graph ? JD | ||
| Tibor Hoffmann New member Username: tibor Post Number: 14 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.56.4.21 |
JD, I would like to show a possible "minimal" design of GG. It would enough to store the plugs, and would serve as a passageway too. I think there is no answer for the question yet; why this grandiose building here. Btw, the "automatic closure system" of GG-AP: -I think there are relationship between the stored plugs and the recesses on the side walls of GG, but most of the recesses are filled. Were they filled in ancient time? Best regards, Tibor | ||
| J.D. Degreef Senior Member Username: jd_degreef Post Number: 854 Registered: 02-2000 Posted From: 80.236.140.94 |
Yes, Tibor, but your minimal design isn't as wide as the GG (hence possibly problems to move the plugs, and you only leave a 50 cm bench for walking, neglecting the beams or cables crossing the bench for anchoring the plugs). The actual width of the GG appears as a minimum already : 2 cubits width for the plugs, twice a half cubit for the benches, not much really. ! IMHO the holes in the benches and walls were used : 1. to anchor cables (not beams) holding the plugs. 2. to hold upright and oblique beams supporting (gilded ?) wooden plates decorated with panelled recesses. JD | ||
| Tibor Hoffmann New member Username: tibor Post Number: 15 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.56.1.183 |
Sorry, JD, but I can't agree neither on min.width nor on min.height (plugs could be held by vertical beams, for example), and the difference between the real and the minimal is too big. If the holes were not filled at that time, I can imagine that they were used to fix the plugs temporary, but I can't imagine, that somebody was left inside to free the plugs. Best regards, Tibor | ||
| Daniel Gerardo Advanced Member Username: daniel Post Number: 68 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 200.40.211.227 |
There are some affirmations that we can make about this: 1) To build the Great Gallery was indispensable first to build a wooden structure to support the walls. As all corbel ceiling, was not a stable structure when was building. They could not build the Great Gallery without that wooden structure! When Great Gallery was finished, yes it is a stable structure and the wooden structure could be removed. My impression is that the holes existing are related with that wooden structure. The rectangular form of those holes is ideal to put rectangular wooden braces. (I will add a drawing that I made for Lauer fifteen years ago.) 2) If they made the Great Gallery to put plugs why is the first step of the walls so high? I think that our error is thinking that the closed of the pyramid was a unique event, then we ask: Why did they close the pyramid of this way? But think you that the pyramid was open like is open now and you need to close it newly. All... HOW DO YOU CLOSE THE PYRAMID NOW? Daniel | ||
| J.D. Degreef Senior Member Username: jd_degreef Post Number: 858 Registered: 02-2000 Posted From: 80.236.134.78 |
Dear Daniel, An interesting idea ! To check it we must consider parallels : Snefru also built corbelled ceilings : where are the holes there ? Well, as a matter of fact there are round holes filled up with plaster in the vault of the lower chamber of the Bent. But not at the Red ? Why is the first step of the walls so high ? -because this is where people had to move, where more room was needed to carry the funerary goods over the stored plugs ? -because this is where the putative wooden panelled walls would be placed (and planks would be placed horizontally between the grooves in the second corbel, forming a kind of roof which also prevented the vault from buckling inwards) ? JD | ||
| Daniel Gerardo Advanced Member Username: daniel Post Number: 69 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 200.40.211.227 |
Dear John, Interesting observation too! I do not know, it is a topic to analyze, but we can affirm that is impossible to build a corbelled ceiling without wooden structure and is necessary to anchor it to the floor. Great Gallery was the first great corbelled ceiling inclined and with additional difficulties and precautions. About the closed of the pyramid, I think that the first problem is how the tunnel´s close can be sure? Will be necessary to make the blocked of the ascending passage! Daniel | ||
| Paolo Scopa New member Username: explorer Post Number: 19 Registered: 10-2002 Posted From: 62.77.169.29 |
Daniel, why do you need to anchor the blocks to the floor? You can just insert something between the left and right blocks to avoid them to collapse inside, or, even easier, you can use wider blocks. Anyway, to close the pyramid now I think I would put a gate with a big locker at the entrance ;-) More seriously, I always wonder why the AE used granite to block the AP (did I ask this before?). If you don't want people to find their way through it, you just use the same limestone as the other blocks around. It will be very difficult to find the AP (e.g. nobody would have noticed, in recent times, that there is one...) and, if you try to dig through it, you will get lost, unless you know already the internal layout. Using granite is like marking the way, to tell visitors: "hey, folks, come here, there is more to see upstairs". I know that, maybe, there was a stone in the DP ceiling, to hide it, but we are not sure of this, and anyway it didn't work very well, did it? Is there another possible reason for the granite to be there? JD, does it have any religious meaning, or can you think at a possible symbolic reason for it? Paolo | ||
| Daniel Gerardo Advanced Member Username: daniel Post Number: 70 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 200.40.211.227 |
Paolo, Sorry, there is confusion about my opinion because my English is not good. I think that to build the Great Gallery, as all corbelled ceiling, was necessary to build first a wooden structure. That wooden structure would be anchor to the floor and it is more necessary because the corbel is inclined. About the plugs, I agree with Petrie that the only place where could be those plugs (inside the pyramid) was on the floor of the Great Gallery. But my opinion is that those plugs were out the pyramid because Great Gallery fulfilled another function. About how do you close the pyramid now? I will ask this better You was a pharaoh and found the pyramid open with the tunnel and you needed to close the pyramid newly. With a gate with a big locker at the entrance you only can avoid that tourist can go inside but you need to avoid that Al-Mamun or other like him can go inside. How do you close the pyramid newly if the tunnel is there? Do you close the descending passage that is the usual or the ascending passage? Very interesting your questions! We can analyze this the next week. About Tibor and John opinions, I will add a detail to analyze. The relation between the high and the wide of the corbelled ceiling in Meidum (Passages and Chambers) is 1,7. It is, was necessary 1,7 centimeters of high to diminish each centimeter of wide. In the Great Gallery the relation is 4. My impression is that the wide of the Great Gallery can not justify the high. I’m not considering in the calculation the possibility (I think it is very probable) of that Great Gallery corbel continues over the horizontal roof. Daniel | ||
| J.D. Degreef Senior Member Username: jd_degreef Post Number: 861 Registered: 02-2000 Posted From: 213.177.133.17 |
Dear Daniel, Why do you believe that a wooden structure was needed to build a vault such as that of the GG ? Imagine the lower portion of wall built. Then you place the first vault blocks : these stick out a bit relative to the wall, but they won't fall, of course, since most of their width lies on the wall. Now you repeat this higher up. As long as the gravity center of the vault blocks lies above the lowermost portion of wall, the whole structure is stable and shouldn't fall. As Paolo suggests, this can be attained using long blocks. In the case of the GG, the distance spanned by the GG is only one cubit, so using blocks slightly more than two cubits long will do the trick, although even longer blocks would be better. This doesn't sound like an unreasonable size ! We have a pretty straightforward model with blocks stored in the GG, destined to block the AP, a model specifically attested at the Bent's satellite –with some plugs still in place in the proto-GG !- and, carved in the rock in the "Trial Passages" –there you certainly can't speak of broad passages narrowed down secondarily !-. I see no reason to replace it by a more complicated one, unless the simple model is shown not to work ! Dear Paolo, Granite is sometimes said to have a solar aspect (preferred material for obelisks ; Khafre's temples according to Luc DELVAUX's idea modified by me on the second point : floor = alabaster with wavy lines = Primeval Waters / columns = granite = solar Creator lifting the sky / roof = sky as in classical temple ?) or it can represent Upper Egypt (see colossi in courtyard of Amenhotep III's cult temple at the Kom el-Heitan : northern ones = quartzite from Gebel el-Ahmar near Heliopolis, southern ones = granite from Aswan). But in our case the stone was probably used for its hardness. The mistake the builders made was not to make the AP walls of granite too (as later kings will do when using granite portcullises or plugs). The often stated fact that the AP entrance in the roof of the DP was hidden remains unproven. One may even wonder how the prismatic camouflaging stone, weighing as much as a small car, would be held up in position ! I don't even know the source of the often stated fact that it was the dropping of this block which was heard by al-Mamun's quarrymen and which directed them to the AP. The builders probably didn't feel compelled to hide the AP : they probably didn't think individual grave robbers would ever be able to quarry through 30 m of AP plugs, the first ones being of granite ! JD | ||
| Janine Williams Senior Member Username: janine Post Number: 759 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 66.26.67.114 |
All: Here is a nice site on the GP, with excellent numbered identifications of the positions. http://www.gizapyramid.com/newtour4.htm Janine | ||
| J.D. Degreef Senior Member Username: jd_degreef Post Number: 863 Registered: 02-2000 Posted From: 213.177.133.87 |
Thank you, Janine, some nice pics on the site, such as : http://www.gizapyramid.com/oldpyramid3.jpg (shows the colossal scale of the vault system above the entrance passage). http://www.gizapyramid.com/oldpyramid5.jpg (right at center, the ruins of Khufu's causeway). JD | ||
| Paolo Scopa New member Username: explorer Post Number: 20 Registered: 10-2002 Posted From: 62.77.169.29 |
Daniel, your english is good, I was only joking about the way to close the pyramid. It's strange the way that the AP is blocked, and I wanted to highlight that the use of granite makes it even more strange: do you have an answer to your question? Jd, you say that a symbolic meaning is unlikely, so was it only a mistake? With all the time that they had to think about it, it sounds a bit strange. But I dont have a better idea. Another bizarre thing I keep reading is that the main purpose of the GG was to hold these granite plugs. It's like building the Colosseum to keep lions in cages. Little time today, will be back.. Paolo | ||
| J.D. Degreef Senior Member Username: jd_degreef Post Number: 868 Registered: 02-2000 Posted From: 80.236.150.78 |
Dear Paolo, The people who drew the plans for the GP had this fantastic idea : an extensive and nearly automatic closure system (at least this is what they hoped to obtain). For this they needed a space to store the AP plugs. For maneuvering these (etc.) they needed a space broader than a normal passage, so that a vault was needed. The new type of vault which they had just invented, the gable vault, was difficult to use because the storeroom had to be inclined. So they used the old corbel vault, which already existed in the burial chambers of the 2d dyn. brick mastabas at Naga ed-Deir near Abydos. You seem to find such a model astonishing : I wonder why ? The vault and GG walls seem to have been damaged by their very builders, so that the aesthetic or sacred aspect seems indeed to have come second, yielding for the technical function.} JD | ||
| Daniel Gerardo Advanced Member Username: daniel Post Number: 71 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 200.40.211.227 |
Dear John, “Why do you believe that a wooden structure was needed to build a vault such as that of the GG ?” We can analyze the possibility to build a corbelled ceiling without a wooden structure as a theorist speculation, but which can be the advantage to assume those risks? Yet thinking the Great Gallery as two high walls, all builder that make those walls, very long, on a inclined surface, think about to support one wall against the other wall by means of a wooden structure. To put a block on the wall is necessary to make a perpendicular effort to the wall. If the block is big, will be more important the vertical effort to put it in place. It is easier to put the block in the just position if there is a wooden structure as reference. The walls are very long and can be bent walls if there are not a wooden structure. Many risks without advantage. The relation between the high and the wide in the Great Gallery (if we do not consider the horizontal roof) is 8 when the usual was 1,8. Was necessary 8 meters of high to reduce 1 meter of wide. Then in each wall to reduce 0, 5 meters were necessary 8 meters of high, those are almost vertical walls! The Great Gallery is too high and can be higher yet because is very probable that continues above the horizontal roof. Great Gallery is great justly because is high and is not possible to justify it with the wide. Great Gallery is very long and could be more long too, as we can see in the trial passage. If there is a empty space above the horizontal roof, (I think it is very probable) the original longitude of the Great Gallery would be the longitude of that empty space. I think that the most important of all theory is the explanation about the research necessary to accept or to reject that theory. I will continue... Thank Paolo, but I have assumed that I never will learn English and my wife never will learn to drive. Daniel | ||
| J.D. Degreef Senior Member Username: jd_degreef Post Number: 870 Registered: 02-2000 Posted From: 80.236.150.78 |
Dear Daniel, A wooden support while building the walls is OK, but does it need to be anchored ? Did you calculate the width / height ratio of the rooms in Snefru's Dahchur pyramids ? JD | ||
| Janine Williams Senior Member Username: janine Post Number: 760 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 66.26.67.114 |
Daniel: Your English is not a problem. As for your wife's driving: if driving in Montevideo is anything like driving in Los Angleles or New York... she's a smart lady and better off not knowing. Los Angeles freeways are wing-tip-to-wing-tip formation, and in New York, cars don't acknowledge traffic lanes on one-way streets, so cars bunch up like the Kentucky Derby. Los Angeles can be handled, even if you sail past a few turns. But in New York: One has to keep one eye on the turns, one on crazy horn-blowing drivers , and politely return their "friendship signals". (At least that is what my son said they were). One can not possibly do all three. I don't drive there, either. Janine | ||
| Helmut Fritz Junior Member Username: helmut Post Number: 57 Registered: 09-2002 Posted From: 195.93.65.4 |
JD, I agree with a wooden support not being needed to build the GG. The centre of gravity of the 'overlapping' blocks is sufficiently far away for them to not be in danger of falling down. Although, sometimes I think we may be blinded by what we know today. Did people know then about things like centre of gravity and things I wonder. The picture of the entrance (your post no. 863) raises another question for me: why would such a 'colossal vault system' be necessary above the entrance? There is no particularly high stress on the entrance and I assume you wouldn't want to attract attention to the entrance by building this (although, of course, it was hidden then by the casing). Regards, Helmut | ||
| J.D. Degreef Senior Member Username: jd_degreef Post Number: 873 Registered: 02-2000 Posted From: 80.236.140.18 |
Hi Helmut, They may have feared that the casing as a whole would settle and slide down over the core faces, thereby bearing upon and risking to destroy the entrance ? This could also explain why they made the casing thicker on the midline of the four faces, so that it had a wider footing where it rested on the ground ??? JD |
