|
Great Pyramid of Giza Great Pyramid of Giza
Great Pyramid of Giza was the world's tallest building from ~2570 BC to
~1300 AD. *
Previous tallest Red Pyramid of Sneferu, Egypt
Surpassed by Lincoln Cathedral
Location Giza, Egypt
Height (m) 146
Height (ft) 481
Stories n/a
Built ~2570 BC
Destroyed n/a
Emporis page
* Fully habitable, self-supported, from main entrance to rooftop; see
World's tallest structures for other listings.
Great Pyramid of Giza from a 19th century stereopticon card photo.
The Great Pyramid of Giza (29°58′33.11″N, 31°07′49.19″E) is the oldest and
last remaining of the Seven Wonders of the World. Most Egyptologists agree
the pyramid was constructed over a 20 year period concluding around 2560
BC.[1] It is generally believed the Great Pyramid was built as the tomb of
Fourth dynasty Egyptian pharaoh Khufu (Cheops), after whom it is sometimes
called Khufu's Pyramid or the Pyramid of Khufu.[2] Khufu's vizier, Hemon,
is credited as the architect of the Great Pyramid.[3]
Historical context
Believed by mainstream Egyptologists to have been constructed in
approximately 20 years, the most widely accepted estimate for its date of
completion is c. 2560 BC.[1] This date is loosely supported by
archaeological findings which have yet to reveal a civilization (of
sufficient population size or technical ability) older than the fourth
dynasty in the area.
The Great Pyramid is the oldest and largest of the three pyramids in the
Giza Necropolis bordering what is now Cairo, Egypt in Africa. It is the
main part of a complex setting of buildings that included two mortuary
temples in honor of Khufu (one close to the pyramid and one near the
Nile), three smaller pyramids for Khufu's wives, an even smaller
"satellite" pyramid, a raised causeway connecting the two temples, and
small mastaba tombs surrounding the pyramid for nobles. One of the small
pyramids contains the tomb of queen Hetepheres (discovered in 1925),
sister and wife of Sneferu and the mother of Khufu. There was a town for
the workers, including a cemetery, bakeries, a beer factory and a copper
smelting complex. More buildings and complexes are being discovered by The
Giza Mapping Project.
A few hundred meters south-west of the Great Pyramid lies the slightly
smaller Pyramid of Khafre, one of Khufu's successors who is believed to
have built the Great Sphinx, and a few hundred metres further south-west
is the Pyramid of Menkaure, Khafre's successor, which is about half as
tall. In modern day, the pyramid of Khafre is the tallest of the three
pyramids since the Great Pyramid has lost about 30 feet of material from
its tip. In ancient times, Khufu's pyramid was indeed taller, but even
then, Khafre's pyramid appeared taller because its sides are at a steeper
angle than Khufu's pyramid and it was constructed on higher ground.
Construction
RJ or RL-shaped supports possibly used to raise several-ton stone blocks.
For additional information see Egyptian Pyramid construction techniques.
Materials and workforce
Many varied estimates have been made regarding the workforce needed to
construct the Great Pyramid. Herodotus, the Greek historian in the 5th
century BC, estimated that construction may have required 20,000 workers
for 20 years. Recent evidence has been found that suggests the workforce
was in fact paid, which would require accounting and bureaucratic skills
of a high order. Polish architect Wieslaw Kozinski believed that it took
as many as 25 men to transport a 1.5-ton stone block. Based on this, he
estimated the workforce to be 300,000 men on the construction site, with
an enormous additional 60,000 off-site. 19th century Egyptologist William
Flinders Petrie proposed that the workforce was largely composed not of
slaves but of the rural Egyptian population, working during periods when
the Nile river was flooded and agricultural activity suspended.[4]
Egyptologist Miroslav Verner posited that the labor was organized into a
hierarchy, consisting of two gangs of 1000 men, divided into five zaa or
phyle of 200 men each, which may have been further divided according to
the skills of the workers.[5] Some research suggests alternate estimates
to the accepted workforce size. For instance, mathematician Kurt
Mendelssohn calculated that the workforce may have been 50,000 men at
most, while Ludwig Borchardt and Louis Croon placed the number at 36,000.
According to Verner, a workforce of no more than 30,000 was needed in the
Great Pyramid's construction.[4]
A construction management study carried out by the firm Daniel, Mann,
Johnson, & Mendenhall in association with Mark Lehner and other
Egyptologists, estimates that the total project required an average
workforce of 13,200 people and a peak workforce of 40,000. Without the use
of pulleys, wheels, or iron tools, they surmise the Great Pyramid was
completed from start to finish in approximately 10 years.[6] Their
critical path analysis study reveals estimates that the number of blocks
used in construction was between 2-2.8 million (an average of 2.4
million), but settles on a reduced finished total of 2 million after
subtracting the estimated area of the hollow spaces of the chambers and
galleries.[6] Most sources agree on this number of blocks somewhere above
2 million.[7] The Egyptologists' calculations suggest the workforce could
have sustained a rate of 180 blocks per hour (3 stones/minute) with ten
hour work days for putting each individual block in place. They derived
these estimates from construction projects that did not use modern
machinery.[6] This study fails to take into account however, especially
when compared to modern third world construction projects, the logistics
and craftsmanship time inherent in constructing a building of nearly
unparalleled magnitude with such precision, or among other things, the use
of up to 60-80 ton stones being quarried and transported a distance of
over 500 miles.
In contrast, a Great Pyramid feasibility study relating to the quarrying
of the stone was performed in 1978 by Technical Director Merle Booker of
the Indiana Limestone Institute of America. Consisting of 33 quarries, the
Institute is considered by many architects to be one of the world’s
leading authorities on limestone. Using modern equipment, the study
concludes:
“Utilizing the entire Indiana Limestone industry’s facilities as they now
stand [for 33 quarries], and figuring on tripling present average
production, it would take approximately 27 years to quarry, fabricate and
ship the total requirements.”
Booker points out the time study assumes sufficient quantities of railroad
cars would be available without delay or downtime during this 27 year
period and does not factor in the increasing costs of completing the
work.[8]
The entire Giza plateau is believed to have been constructed over the
reign of five pharaohs in less than a hundred years. Beginning with king
Djoser who ruled from 2687-2667 BC, three other massive pyramids were
built - the Step pyramid of Saqqara (believed to be the first Egyptian
pyramid), the Bent Pyramid, and the Red Pyramid. Also during this period
(between 2686 and 2498 BC) the Wadi Al-Garawi dam which used an estimated
100,000 cubic meters of rock and rubble was built.[9] Beginning with
Saqqara, Egyptologist Barbara Mertz estimates nearly 700 pyramids were
constructed in Egypt during a roughly 500 year period .[10]
The accepted values by Egyptologists bear out the following result:
2,400,000 stones used ÷ 20 years ÷ 365 days per year ÷ 10 work hours per
day ÷ 60 minutes per hour = 0.55 stones laid per minute.
Thus no matter how many workers were used or in what configuration, 1.1
blocks would have to be put in place every 2 minutes, ten hours a day, 365
days a year for twenty years to complete the Great Pyramid within this
time frame. To use the same equation, but instead assuming the time of
completion to be one hundred years instead of twenty, it would require 1.1
blocks to be set every ten minutes. This equation, however, does not
include the time and labor required to design, plan, survey, and level the
13 acre site the Great Pyramid sits on. Nor does it include the
construction time for the two other main pyramids on the site, the Sphinx,
the temples, networks of causeways, several square miles of paving stones,
the leveling of the entire Giza plateau, the 35 boat pits carved out of
solid bedrock, or several other highly laborious features.
Construction method theories
Example of a large straight ramp
From left to right: Zig-zagging ramp (Holscher), ramp utilizing the
incomplete part of the superstructure (Dieter Arnold), and a spiraling
ramp supported by the superstructure (Mark Lehner)
There is good information concerning the location of the quarries, tools
used to cut stone, transportation of the stone to the monument, leveling
the foundation, and leveling the subsequent tiers of the developing
superstructure. Workmen used copper chisels, drills, and saws to cut
softer stone, such as most of the limestone. On the harder stones, such a
granite, granodiorite, syenite, and basalt, could not be cut with copper
tools alone; instead they were worked with time consuming methods like
pounding with dolerite, drilling, and sawing with the aid of an abrasive,
like quartzite sand. Blocks were transported by sledge lubricated by
water. Leveling the foundation was accomplished by the use of water filled
trenches.
The unknowns of pyramid construction revolve around the question of how
the blocks were moved up the superstructure. There is no known accurate
historical or archaeological evidence that definitively resolves this
question. Therefore, most discussion on construction methods involves
functional possibilities that are supported by limited historical and
archaeological evidence.
Historical accounts for the construction of the Egyptian pyramids do
little to point directly to definitive methods to lift the blocks; yet
most Egyptologists refer to these accounts when discussing this portion of
pyramid construction. The first historical accounts of the construction of
these monuments come centuries after the era of pyramid construction, by
Herodotus in the 5th century BC and Diodorus Siculus in the 1st century
BC. Herodotus' account states that [6].
This pyramid was made like stairs, which some call steps and others,
tiers. [2] When this, its first form, was completed, the workmen used
short wooden logs as levers to raise the rest of the stones1 ; they heaved
up the blocks from the ground onto the first tier of steps; [3] when the
stone had been raised, it was set on another lever that stood on the first
tier, and the lever again used to lift it from this tier to the next. [4]
It may be that there was a new lever on each tier of steps, or perhaps
there was only one lever, quite portable, which they carried up to each
tier in turn; I leave this uncertain, as both possibilities were
mentioned. [5] But this is certain, that the upper part of the pyramid was
finished off first, then the next below it, and last of all the base and
the lowest part. [6]
Diodorus Siculus' accounts states:
And ‘tis said the stone was transported a great distance from Arabia, and
that the edifices were raised by means of earthen ramps, since machines
for lifting had not yet been invented in those days; and most surprising
it is, that although such large structures were raised in an area
surrounded by sand, no trace remains of either ramps or the dressing of
the stones, so that it seems not the result of the patient labor of men,
but rather as if the whole complex were set down entire upon the
surrounding sand by some god. Now Egyptians try to make a marvel of these
things, alleging that the ramps were made of salt and natron and that,
when the river was turned against them, it melted them clean away and
obliterated their every trace without the use of human labor. But in
truth, it most certainly was not done this way! Rather, the same multitude
of workmen who raised the mounds returned the entire mass again to its
original place; for they say that three hundred and sixty thousand men
were constantly employed in the prosecution of their work, yet the entire
edifice was hardly finished at the end of twenty years (Murphy 1990)
Map of Giza pyramid complex.
Both Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus' writings are known to contain gross
errors of fact and Siculus is routinely accused of borrowing from
Herodotus. Herodotus' description of slave labor is one of the most
persistent myths of the construction process, and Diodorus Siculus'
description of the shipment of the stone from Arabia is wildly incorrect.
Since both accounts are known to be both false and true, it is impossible
to select either technique from historical documents. However, these
documents do give credit to both the levering and ramp methods.
Most Egyptologists acknowledge that ramps are the most tenable of the
methods to raise the blocks, yet they acknowledge that it is an incomplete
method which needs to be supplemented by another device. The method most
accepted for assisting ramps is levering [11] (Lehner 1997: 222). The
archaeological record gives evidence of only small ramps and inclined
causeways, not something that could have been used to construct even a
majority of the monument. To add to the uncertainty, there is considerable
evidence demonstrating that non-standardized or ad hoc construction
methods were used in pyramid construction (Arnold 1991: 98 [12], Lehner
1997: 223).
Therefore, there are many proposed ramps and there is a considerable
amount of discrepancy regarding what type of ramp was used to build the
pyramids.[13] One of the widely discredited ramping methods is the large
straight ramp, and it is routinely discredited on functional grounds for
its massive size, lack of archaeological evidence, huge labor cost, and
other problems (Arnold 1991: 99, Lehner 1997: 215, Isler 2001: 213[14]
However, the large straight ramp, seen in the picture above, is the only
ramp design that can effectively build the entire monument. Other ramps
serve to correct these problems of ramp size, yet either run into
critiques of functionality, limited archaeological evidence, or the
inability to construct the entire monument, mostly due to the limited
space available at the top of the monument. There are zig-zagging ramps,
Straight ramps utilizing the incomplete part of the superstructure (Arnold
1991), Spiraling ramps supported by the superstructure and spiraling ramps
leaning on the monument as a large accretion, and spiraling ramps
supported by the superstructure. Mark Lehner speculated that a spiraling
ramp, beginning in the stone quarry to the southeast and continuing around
the exterior of the pyramid, may have been used.[15] The stone blocks may
have been drawn on sleds along the ramps lubricated by water or milk.[16]
Yet each of these ramps are criticized for their inability to construct
the entire monument. In other words, ramping methods work fine for most of
the superstructure, but cannot create the top or the entire monument.
Levering methods are considered to be the most tenable solution to
complement ramping methods, partially due to Herodotus' description; and
partially to the Shadoof; an irrigation device first depicted in Egypt
during the New Kingdom, and found concomitantly with the Old Kingdom in
Mesopotamia. In Lehner's (1997: 222) point of view, levers should be
employed to lift the top 3% of the material of the superstructure. It is
important to note that the top 4% of this material comprises of 1/3rd of
the total height of the monument. In other words, in Lehner's view, levers
should be employed to lift a small amount of material and a great deal of
vertical height of the monument.
In the milieu of levering methods, there are those which lift the block
incrementally, as in repeatedly prying up alternating sides of the block
and inserting a wooden or stone shims to gradually move the stone up one
course; and there are other methods that use a larger lever to move the
block up one course in one lifting procedure. Since the discussion of
construction techniques to lift the blocks attempts to resolve a gap in
the archaeological and historical record with a plausible functional
explanation, the following examples by Isler, Keable, and Hussey-Pailos
[17] list experimentally tested methods. Isler's method (1985, 1987) is an
incremental method and, in the Nova experiment (1992), used wooden shims
or cribbing. Isler [18] was able to lift a block up one tier in
approximately one hour and 30 minutes. Peter Hodges’ and Julian
Keable’s[19] method is similar to Isler's method and instead small
manufactured concrete blocks as shims, wooden pallets, and a pit where
their experimental tests were performed. Keable was able to perform his
method in approximately 2 minutes. Scott Hussey-Pailos's (2005) method
[17] uses a simple levering device to lift a block up course in one
movement. This method was tested with materials of less strength than
historical analogs (tested with materials weaker than those available in
ancient Egypt), a factor of safety of 2, and lifted a 2500 pound block up
one course in under a minute. This method is presented as a levering
device to work complimentary with Mark Lehner's idea of a combined ramp
and levering techniques.
It has also been suggested that Egyptians might have moved the stones with
wind power, relying on kites and pulleys rather than huge numbers of
slaves. On June 23, 2001, Caltech aeronautics professor Mory Gharib and a
small team of undergraduates working in the California desert raised a
6900 lb (3.1 tonne), 3 metre tall obelisk into a vertical position in 22
mph (35 km/h) winds in under 25 seconds. They used only a kite, a pulley
system, and a support frame to demonstrate that wind power can be
harnessed to create large lifting forces. Maureen Clemmons first thought
of this idea after seeing an image in Smithsonian of some men raising an
obelisk. Clemmons also found a frieze that showed an unidentifiable wing
pattern directly above some men and possible ropes.[20]
Limestone concrete theory
Materials scientist Joseph Davidovits has posited that the blocks of the
pyramid are not carved stone, but mostly a form of limestone concrete and
that they 'cast' as with modern cement[21]. According to this theory, soft
limestone with a high kaolinite content was quarried in the wadi on the
south of the Giza plateau. The limestone was then dissolved in large,
Nile-fed pools until it became a watery slurry. Lime (found in the ash of
cooking fires) and natron (also used by the Egyptians in mummification)
was mixed in. The pools were then left to evaporate, leaving behind a
moist, clay-like mixture. This wet "concrete" would be carried to the
construction site where it would be packed into reusable wooden moulds and
in a few days would undergo a chemical reaction similar to the 'setting'
of cement. New blocks, he suggests, could be cast in place, on top of and
pressed against the old blocks. Proof-of-concept tests using similar
compounds were carried out at a geopolymer institute in northern France
and it was found that a crew of ten, working with simple hand tools, could
build a structure of fourteen, 1.3- to 4.5-ton blocks in a couple of days.
[22]
Davidovits' method is not accepted by the academic mainstream. His method
does not account for the stones in the monument not made from limestone:
such as granite stones weighing well over 50 tons. Geologists have heavily
scrutinized Davidovits results and concluded that his came from natural
limestone quarried in the Mokattam Formation. [23] The evidence is
overwhelming that the stones used in the monument come from natural
formations.
Layout
Papyrus documents and existing cubit measuring rods give us the units of
measure used to specify the plan of the pyramid and so it is thought that,
at construction, the Great Pyramid was 280 Egyptian Old Royal Cubits tall
(146.6 metres or 481 feet), but with erosion and the theft of its topmost
stone (the pyramidion) its current height is 455.21 feet approximately
138.8 m and that each base side was 440 (20.63 inch) royal cubits.[24]
Thus, the base was originally 231 m on a side and covered approximately
53,000 square metres with an angle of 51.50.40 degrees (seked = 5½)—close
to the ideal for a stable pyramidal structure. Today each side has an
approximate length of about 230.4 meters(755.8 feet). The reduction in
size and area of the structure into its current rough-hewn appearance is
due to the absence of its original polished casing stones, some of which
measured up to two and a half metres thick and weighed more than 15 tonnes.
In the 14th century (1301 AD), a massive earthquake loosened many of the
outer casing stones, which were then carted away by Bahri Sultan An-Nasir
Nasir-ad-Din al-Hasan in 1356 in order to build mosques and fortresses in
nearby Cairo; the stones can still be seen as parts of these structures to
this day. Later explorers reported massive piles of rubble at the base of
the pyramids left over from the continuing collapse of the casing stones
which were subsequently cleared away during continuing excavations of the
site. Nevertheless, many of the casing stones around the base of the Great
Pyramid can be seen to this day in situ displaying the same workmanship
and precision as has been reported for centuries.
The first precision measurements of the pyramid were done by Sir Flinders
Petrie in 1880–82 and published as "The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh".[25]
Almost all reports are based on his measurements. Petrie found the pyramid
is oriented 4' West of North and the second pyramid is similarly oriented.
Petrie also found a different orientation in the core and in the casing (
– 5 ft 16 in ± 10"). Petrie suggested a redetermination of north was made
after the construction of the core, but a mistake was made, and the casing
was built with a different orientation. This deviation from the north in
the core, corresponding to the position of the stars b-Ursae Minoris and
z-Ursae Majoris about 3,000 years ago, takes into account the precession
of the axis of the Earth. A study by egyptologist Kate Spence, shows how
the changes in orientation of 8 pyramids corresponds with changes of
position of those stars through time. This would date the start of the
construction of the pyramid at 2467 BC.[26]
For four millennia it was the world's tallest building, unsurpassed until
the 160 metre tall spire of Lincoln Cathedral was completed c. 1300 AD.
The accuracy of the pyramid's workmanship is such that the four sides of
the base have a mean error of only 58 mm in length, and 1 minute in angle
from a perfect square. The base is horizontal to within 15 mm. The sides
of the square are closely aligned to the four ordinal compass points to
within 3 minutes of arc and is based not on magnetic north, but true
north.
Khafre's Pyramid. Unlike the Great Pyramid, Khafre's Pyramid has some of
its smooth outer casing limestones intact.
The pyramid was constructed of cut and dressed blocks of limestone, basalt
or granite. The core was made mainly of rough blocks of low quality
limestone taken from a quarry at the south of Khufu’s Great Pyramid. These
blocks weighed from two to four tonnes on average, with the heaviest used
at the base of the pyramid. An estimated 2.4 million blocks were used in
the construction. High quality limestone was used for the outer casing,
with some of the blocks weighing up to 15 tonnes. This limestone came from
Tura, about 8 miles away on the other side of the Nile. Granite quarried
nearly 500 miles away in Aswan with blocks weighing as much as 60-80
tonnes, was used for the portcullis doors and relieving chambers.
The total mass of the pyramid is estimated at 5.9 million tonnes with a
volume (including an internal hillock) believed to be 2,600,000 cubic
metres. The pyramid is the largest in Egypt and the tallest in the world.
It is surpassed only by the Great Pyramid of Cholula in Puebla, Mexico,
which, although much lower in height, occupies a greater volume.
At completion, the Great Pyramid was surfaced by white 'casing stones' –
slant-faced, but flat-topped, blocks of highly polished white limestone.
These caused the monument to shine brightly in the sun, making it visible
from a considerable distance. Visibly all that remains is the underlying
step-pyramid core structure seen today, but several of the casing stones
can still be found around the base. The casing stones of the Great Pyramid
and Khafre's Pyramid (constructed directly beside it) were cut to such
optical precision as to be off true plane over their entire surface area
by only 1/50th of an inch. They were fitted together so perfectly that the
tip of a knife cannot be inserted between the joints even to this day.
The Great Pyramid differs in its internal arrangement from the other
pyramids in the area. The greater number of passages and chambers, the
high finish of parts of the work, and the accuracy of construction all
distinguish it. The walls throughout the pyramid are totally bare and
uninscribed, but there are inscriptions — or to be more precise, graffiti
— believed to have been made by the workers on the stones before they were
assembled. All the five relieving chambers are inscribed. The most famous
inscription is one of the few that mentions the name of Khufu; it says
"year 17 of Khufu's reign". Although alternative theorists have suggested
otherwise, given its precarious location it is hard to believe it could
have been inscribed after construction; even Graham Hancock[27] accepted
this, after Dr Hawass let him examine the inscription. Another inscription
refers to "the friends of Khufu", and probably was the name of one of the
gangs of workers[28]. Though this doesn't offer indisputable proof Khufu
originated the construction of the Great Pyramid or when building began,
it does appear however to clear any doubt he at least took part in some
phase of its construction (or later repairs to an existing building)
during his reign.
There are three known chambers inside the Great Pyramid. These are
arranged centrally, on the vertical axis of the pyramid. The lowest
chamber (the "unfinished chamber") is cut into the bedrock upon which the
pyramid was built. This chamber is the largest of the three, but totally
unfinished, only rough-cut into the rock.
The middle chamber, or Queen's Chamber, is the smallest, measuring
approximately 5.74 by 5.23 metres, and 4.57 metres in height. Its eastern
wall has a large angular doorway or niche, and two narrow shafts, about 20
centimeters wide, extending from the chamber towards the outer surface of
the pyramid. These shafts were explored using a robot, Upuat 2, created by
Rudolph Gattenbrink. Upuat 2 discovered that these shafts were blocked by
limestone "doors". During Pyramids Live: Secret Chambers Revealed,
National Geographic filmed the drilling of a small hole in the southern
door only to find another larger door behind it. The northern passage
(which was harder to navigate due to twists and turns) was also found to
have a door. Egyptologist Mark Lehner believes that the Queen's chamber
was intended as a serdab—a structure found in several other Egyptian
pyramids—and that the niche would have contained a statue of the interred.
The Ancient Egyptians believed that the statue would serve as a "back up"
vessel for the Ka of the Pharaoh, should the original mummified body be
destroyed. The true purpose of the chamber, however, remains a
mystery.[29]
At the end of the lengthy series of entrance ways leading into the pyramid
interior is the structure's main chamber, the King's Chamber. This chamber
was originally 10 x 20 x 5V5 cubits, or about 17 x 34 x 19 ft, roughly a
double cube.
The other main features of the Great Pyramid consist of the Grand Gallery,
the sarcophagus found in the King's Chamber, both ascending and descending
passages, and the lowest part of the structure mentioned above, what is
dubbed the "unfinished chamber".
The Grand Gallery (49 x 3 x 11 m) features an ingenious corbel halloed
design and several cut "sockets" spaced at regular intervals along the
length of each side of its raised base with a "trench" running along its
center length at floor level. What purpose these sockets served is
unknown. The Red Pyramid of Dashur also exhibits grand galleries of
similar design.
The sarcophagus of the King's chamber was hollowed out of a single piece
of Red Aswan granite and has been found to be too large to fit through the
passageway leading to the King's chamber. Whether the sarcophagus was ever
intended to house a body is unknown, but it is too short to accommodate a
medium height individual without the bending of the knees (a technique not
practised in Egyptian burial) and no lid was ever found.
The "unfinished chamber" lies 90 ft below ground level and is rough-hewn,
lacking the precision of the other chambers. This chamber is dismissed by
Egyptologists as being nothing more than a simple change in plans in that
it was intended to be the original burial chamber but later King Khufu
changed his mind wanting it to be higher up in the pyramid.[30] Given the
extreme precision and planning given to every other phase of the Great
Pyramid's construction, this conclusion seems surprising.
Two French amateur Egyptologists, Gilles Dormion and Jean-Yves Verd'hurt,
claimed in August 2004 that they had discovered a previously unknown
chamber inside the pyramid underneath the Queen's Chamber using
ground-penetrating radar and architectural analysis. The believe the
chamber to be unviolated and could contain the king's remains. They
believe the King's Chamber, the chamber generally assumed to be Khufu's
original resting place, was not constructed to be a burial chamber.[31]
Dating evidence
The Edgar Cayce Foundation, researching claims that the pyramids were at
least 10,000 years old, funded the "David H. Koch Pyramids Radiocarbon
Project" in 1984. The project took samples of organic material (such as
ash and charcoal deposits) from several locations within the Great
Pyramid, and other pyramids and monuments from the Old Kingdom period (ca.
3rd millennium BC). These samples were subjected to radiocarbon dating to
produce calibrated date-equivalent estimates of their age. This yielded
results averaging 374 years earlier than the estimated historical date
accepted by Egyptologists (2589 — 2504 BC) but still more recent than
10,000 years ago.[32] An astronomical study by Kate Spence suggests the
pyramid dates to 2467 BC.[26]
A second dating in 1995 with new but similar material obtained dates
ranging between 100-400 years earlier than those indicated by the historic
record. This raised questions concerning the origin and date of the wood.
Massive quantities of wood were used and burned, so to reconcile the
earlier dates the authors of the study theorized that possibly "old wood"
was used, assuming that wood was harvested from any source available,
including old construction material from all over Egypt. It is also known,
given the poor quality and relative scarcity of native Egyptian woods,
that King Sneferu (and later Egyptian pharohs) imported fine woods from
Lebanon and other countries such as Nubia for the creation of decorative
furniture, royal boats (as found buried around the Giza plateau), or other
luxuries generally reserved for royalty[33]. Mark Lehner points out that
this was not without "great cost"[34]. It is unknown, given the expense,
effort, and value of such woods, if they were ever imported as an
expendable source of industrial fuel, especially on such a large scale.
Project scientists based their conclusions on the evidence that some of
the material in the 3rd Dynasty pyramid of Pharaoh Djoser and other
monuments had been recycled, concluding that the construction of the
pyramids marked a major depletion of Egypt's exploitable wood. Dating of
more short-lived material around the pyramid (cloth, small fires, etc)
yielded dates nearer to those indicated by historical records. As of yet
the full data of the study has yet to be released[35] in which the authors
insist more evidence is needed to settle this issue. In the absence of the
"old wood" theory, the study admits "The 1984 results left us with too
little data to conclude that the historical chronology of the Old Kingdom
was in error by nearly 400 years, but we considered this at least a
possibility." [32]
In his book Voyages of the Pyramid Builders [35], Boston University
geology professor Robert Schoch details key anomalies in both radiocarbon
studies; most notably that samples taken in 1984 from the upper courses of
the Great Pyramid gave upper dates of 3809 B.C. (± 160yrs), nearly 1400yrs
before the time of Khufu, while the lower courses provided dates ranging
from 3090-2723 B.C (± 100-400yrs) which correspond much more closely to
the time Khufu is believed to have reigned. Given that the data imply the
pyramid was built (impossibly) from the top down, Dr. Schoch argues that
if the information provided by the study is correct, it makes sense if it
is assumed the pyramid was built and rebuilt in several stages suggesting
later Pharaohs such as Khufu were only inheritors of an existing monument,
not the original builders, and merely rebuilt or repaired previously
constructed sections.
Alternative theories
In common with many other monumental structures from antiquity, the Great
Pyramid has over time been the subject of a great number of speculative or
alternative theories, which put forward a variety of explanations about
its origins, dating, construction and purpose. In support of these claims
such accounts either rely upon novel reinterpretations of the available
data from fields such as archaeology, history and astronomy, or appeal to
mythological, mystical, numerological, astrological and other esoteric
sources of knowledge, or some combination of these.
Such ideas have been part of popular culture since at least the turn of
the 20th century and can be traced back among others to such figures as
the early-twentieth century American psychic Edgar Cayce, whose "psychic
channeling" of "Ra Ta" purports to have conveyed that the pyramids were
built by refugees from Atlantis, and even to his predecessor Ignatius
Donnelly. In recent years, some of the more widely-publicized writers of
alternative theories include Graham Hancock, Robert Bauval, Adrian Gilbert
and Boston University geology professor Robert M. Schoch. These have
written extensive alternate theories about the age and origin of the Giza
pyramids and the Sphinx. While many Egyptologists and field scientists
tend to dismiss such accounts out of hand as being a form of
pseudoarchaeology if only because the subject material does not conform to
conventional wisdom, other specialists such as astronomy professor Ed
Krupp who have been involved in debate surrounding their ideas have
attempted (though his claims have been rebutted by the authors and several
others [36] [37][38]) to offer astronomical refutations based on analyses
of the presented evidence for several of their claims. [39]
A common theme found in many of the alternative theories put forward
concerning the Giza pyramids and many other megalithic sites around the
world, is the suggestion that these are not the products of the
civilizations and cultures known to conventional history, but are instead
the much older remnants of some hitherto unknown advanced ancient culture.
This progenitor civilization is supposed to have been destroyed in
antiquity by some devastating catastrophe brought about by the end of the
last ice age, according to most of these accounts sometime around 10,500
BC. For the Great Pyramid of Giza in particular, it is maintained
(depending on the theorist) that either it was ordained and built by this
now-vanished civilization, or else that its construction was somehow
influenced by knowledge (now lost) acquired from this civilization. The
latter point of view is more common among recent theorists such as Hancock
and Bauval, who have acknowledged that the Great Pyramid incorporates star
shafts 'locked in' to Orion's Belt and Sirius at around 2450 BC, though
they argue the Giza ground-plan was laid out in 10,450 BC. [40]
The a priori existence of such a civilization is postulated by such
theorists who believe this is the only reasonable explanation how the most
advanced of ancient historical cultures, such as Egypt and Sumer, were
able to reach such high levels of unequaled technological advancement from
their very beginnings with what might appear to be little or no precedent.
This precedent they argue is not unknown, but found all over the globe in
the form of megalithic ruins discovered at the beginnings of history but
too complex they argue to have been constructed by the cultures they are
ascribed to by the mainstream. As another of these theorists John Anthony
West writes in reference to Egypt in particular: "How does a complex
civilization spring full blown into being? Look at a 1905 automobile and
compare it to a modern one. There is no mistaking the process of
'development'. But in Egypt there are no parallels. Everything is right
there from the start."[41] |