What would you say is the origin of the three Great Pyramid's of Egypt?

To the best of my understanding, the most widely accepted theory is that The Pyramids and The Sphinx were built in the Old Kingdom Fourth Dynasty. They claim the Sphinx was built by Khafre, but the only reason they think this is because of one word "Khaf" found inscribed on the granite stela at the paws of the Sphinx. This is very suspicious, because it lacks many of the things that all inscriptions regarding pharoes had at the time (such as a cartouche)

Secondly, the stones used to make the Sphinx and Pyramids were enourmous-as much as 200 tons-each. Few cranes today could lift stones of that weight. It is thought that the pyramid stones were dragged on ramps, but the ramp required to push a 200 ton block 418 feet high would have to be 4800 feet long, and three times as massive as the pyramid itself. These blocks would be dragged across these ramps by no less then 1800 men strong.

Thirdly, we have suspicious water marks on the Sphinx. Marks that indicate rainfall, not flood water. The last time sufficient rainfall happened in that area is thought to be 7000b.c., when the area was thought to be populated only be neolithic hunter-gatherers.

The accuracy of the joints of the pyramids is also astonishing. Their straightness is equal to most modern straight edges. The accuracy of the measurements and alignment of the Pyramids can scarcely be matched by modern techniques.



That said, who could have built the pyramids, and when? If you are an expert of sorts on the subject and my information is incorrect somehow, please let me know.

As far as the ramp being 4,800 feet, it makes more sense to picture it wrapping around the pyramid as it ascends rather than it being absolutely straight out from one side. How would you support a (wooden I assume) ramp of that length?

What would you say is the origin of the three Great Pyramid's of Egypt?
To the best of my understanding, the most widely accepted theory is that The Pyramids and The Sphinx were built in the Old Kingdom Fourth Dynasty. They claim the Sphinx was built by Khafre, but the only reason they think this is because of one word "Khaf" found inscribed on the granite stela at the paws of the Sphinx. This is very suspicious, because it lacks many of the things that all inscriptions regarding pharoes had at the time (such as a cartouche)

The reason people think the Egyptians built the pyramids is because they did; that is the obvious answer, the archaeology supports it, and to claim any other builder you have to make up evidence that has no basis in fact. If it wasn't the Egyptians, who do you want it to be? Space aliens from Orion? Atlanteans? Lemurians? The lost tribes of Israel? Your options are limited.

The accuracy of the joints of the pyramids is also astonishing. Their straightness is equal to most modern straight edges. The accuracy of the measurements and alignment of the Pyramids can scarcely be matched by modern techniques.


More crap. If you stretch a string tight you will get a very straight line. If you tie a weight to a string and hang it, it will hand straight and provide a very nice line to keep things plumb. Now, if you can convince me that the
Egyptians didnt know how to make string, we can move on from there.

Just because we cannot explain everything about a structure built 4500 years ago, does not mean aliens built it. Should we assume that because we cannot recreate greek fire, that the greeks didn't figure out either and they got the recipe from Atlantis or Alien visitors? Spare us all the torment of having to explain history to a bunch of idiots.

If you want to discuss a truly strange and unexplained artifact start a thread about the Phaistos disk.

There was a very interesting show on French TV one. Archeologists were trying to figure how workers of the time managed to bring huge blocks up the pyramid. Was it a straight ramp? Was it a ramp going around?
And then a Egyptian who was leading the team of workers helping the archeologists asked : "What do you want? Take this big stone over there and put it on top of the other one? You think we need a ramp to do that? Let me show you". He assembled his team (half a dozen guy), they took big strong sticks... And in a few minutes, using proper level force, they had put raised a HUGE stone up 1.5 meters, over the other one.
They demonstrated the pyramids could have been build just using a stair shap on the outside, raising the stones step by step.

Remember Archimede "Give me a level and a point where I can stand, and I can move the World".

Beside, eveyrbody knows the Pyramids have been build by Goa'uld as landing plateforms for there ships

Oh boy! One of my favourites. (Hi all, I'm new around here.)
As far as ascribing the Great Pyramif to Cheops (Khufu, the slightly smaller one is ascribed to his son Chephren/Khafre) its is based on the fact that the ancient Egyptians named these structures and ascribed them light that. (I think the actual translation of the Pyramid's name, yes they were individually named, was "The Shining Ka-Soul of Khufu".) Furher confirmation of this might be the stone masons' mark (upsaide down, they must have flipped the block) one one of the stones inside the Pyramid identifying it as belonging to Khufu.
The archeologists have by now scraped a large part of the Giseh platteau down to the rock. Lots of stuff was found, including the remains of the original living quarters of the builders of Khufus pyramid, all of it consistent with such a dating.

Problem is sort of that the world is full of folk who very much would like the pyramids to be older, and pre-Egyptian. The fact that the masons mark is only in paint means that people have claimed that it must be a later addition. Since the pyramids of the 4th dynasty (the really big ones) are all completely undecorated, there is nothing in them telling you whou built them and why. (By the 5th dynasty the pyramids were plastered with texts and pictures.) Now, even if they hade been full of carvings I'm pretty sure that some people would have claimed these to be later additions as well.

I don't see any reason to assume that the pyramids were built by anyone except the old Eejits, especially since we have a good knowledge about the architectural development leading up to these perfect pyramids, and beyond to the pyramids of later dynasties the following 1000 years or so. It goes from mastaba to step pyramid (built by Ijemhotep, first non-royal individual known to history, for Zoser), to the three pyramids of Khufus father Snofru (one is the Collapsed pyramid, so named for obvious reasons, one is the Broken Pyramid, where they started out with too steep an angle and had to change the design halfway by flattening the inclination towards the top, and finally a true pyramid, the Red. (And Snofru was still burried somewhere else in a more traditional kind of tomb.)

Problem with the Pyramids and the Sfinx is that whatever explanation the egyptologists have come up with its either to esoteric (i.e. so fundamentally ancient-egptically weird it is hard to access for us) or so mundane (i.e. boring) that most people still feel they are "mysteries". The assumption surrounding these things always seems to be: "It can't be that simple, there must be more to it." Back in the 19th century when they were simply described as "tombs" (modern egyptologists have a more complex interpretation of what they "meant" and how they were used) I can understand that it was felt to be somehow unsatisfactory. And that was when the great "pyramidologists" like Howard Vyse and the Royal Astronomer of Scotland Charles Piazzi Smyth wrote their great classics in the genre. All of them pretty much claimed that the secrets of the universe were locked away in the pyramids. Actually they were, but it was the secrets of the ancient Egyptians (how the dead king becomes a god and lives forever sort of). What I mean to say is that there is such a massive amount of wishful thinking re. the pyramids around, that the original point of the ancient Egyptians gets drowned out by later hopes of finding A Great Message. (And anytime anyone claims to have decoded it people quite soon get bored with it and start looking for the Real Great Message, again.)

As for the Sfinx and the question of water erosion, that one is trickier, but only because there is a lot of erosion on it. This is the hypothesis advanced by Adrian West and the geologist Robert Shoch (sp?), as part of their claims that there are lost advanced human civilisations much older than the Egyptian and Mesopotamian ones.
Well, that might actually be the case (I've always thought were give ancient humanity to little credit, and witness here how they try to rob the Egyptians ;-)), but why look for it in Egypt then? Seems a bit unlikely. Lots of good places to buld av civ were NO ONE has yet tried to find any remains of one. Finding somtehing in such places would be more convincing than trying to claim that the Egyptians superimposed themselves of some other people.
As far as the erosion goes we have Shoch and a bunch of like-minded telling us it's water doing that, and another gang (of course broght around to the question by Mark Lehner and Zahi Hawass) saying: "Nope, that's wind and sand that done that, that is." Hard to tell which bunch is right as a non-professional. Still, the Sphinx makes sense from the point of view of Ancient Egypt. If one assigns it to a completely unknown, wastly older civ. it makes absolutely no sense at all. But since this civ. is completely unknown, that doesn't matter to its supporters. (Nice one: Demand outrageosly detailed accounts of the Sphinx' history, symbolism, use etc. from the Egyptologists, who have never claimed to know it all, then find fault with them and invent an unknown civ. about which you have no knowledge, so you cannot be attacked in turn.)
Actually it MAY BE water erosion they have found. Thing is, there was rainfall in Egypt all trough the end of the Old Kingdom (dyn 3 to 6). The climate got dryer (with famine and political instability) towards the end of that period. Certain carvings in tombs suggest that Egypt wasn't yet surrounded by desert, but by a kind of dry steppe with shrubs, tufts of grass, animals etc. I.e. depending on were you look at the sphinx you find rocksurfaces that was hit by some precipitation for about 500 years between the carving of the face and the new dry climate. And assuming that this rock was considered sacred even before the pyramids and the face getting put on it (people had been living in the Nile valley for att least some 10.000 years before that, with a continuous cultural development) then part of it, and maybe the enclosure carved out of the rock, may be older still, with more precipitation working away at it. In any case, there is no real need to assume an outlandish pre-Egyptian civ. The Eejits are still the prime suspects for all the stuff left for us to ponder.

(Couldn'a help meself, sorry about the rant-off.)

@ Verbose. Nice post :thumbs
Regarding the Sphinx. I normally think that Zawi Hawass knows what he is talking and he is THE foremost expert on pyramids and mummies. However, I saw a documentary once that talked about the rain/erosion question about the sphinx. They had a geologist (dont know who) come and look at the sphinx and he said that it was older then Hawas said it was, Hawass didn't want a bar of the geologist and stuck to his guns about him being correct.
Even though that documentary was interesting, one thing it didn't do(this is indicative of most modern day documentaries) is give reasons's for why the geologist believed what he did and why Hawass believed what he did. Instead it focused on the reaction of the 2 parties.
It's very frustrating because it would be good to hear the Geologist reasons and findings about the Sphinx.

Was Charlton Heston hosting the documentary you saw? (One of my weirder TV-experiences in recent years.) If so, then the water-erosion-geologist you saw was Robert Schoch.
And I absolutely agree that documentaries like this often leaves the viewer in the lurch by not even attempting to present the how scientists make their interpretations. (Which is kind of the rub concerning the sphinx.)

(Hi all, I'm new around here.)Oh no! Another Vrylakas... :ack: Joking. ;)

Welcome to CFC, Verbose! :)

Oh, having poked around for a while before joining, I've read quite a bit of Vrylakas postings with great interest.
I don't mind the comparison in the least. :blush:

@Verbose- good post :goodjob: . I enjoy reading from someone who
obviously knows what they are talking about ;) . I hate these docs
that give you a whole lot of possibilities but never a valid conclusion :mad: .
Welcome to the forums :cool: :D .

I actually don't wan't to kill this thread in the least, even if I've made a massive submission above and I'm not convinced by Schoch/West et alia.

Though, what interests me is less attempts to get a definite answer to the question "What is the origin of the sphinx at Giza?", than the question "What kind of answers to that question are accetable?", and "How do we think about something like the ancient Egyptian civilisation?" I think its obvious that there are very definite limits to what kind of ideas that are acceptable to etablished science. I firmly believe that is with good reason, but I've actually spent more time reading all of the "independant researchers" who "think outside of the box".

What is the fascination? Why is the sphinx somehow "better" if its pried loose from the context of the ancient Egyptian civ.? Why are explanations involving ancient, since then lost high-tech used to build the pyramids more interesting than the explanationions involving back-breaking hard work and a talent for organisation over long periods of time?

And I apologise to Holden for jacking his thread in this manner.

My obvious answer to his question would still be to give a rundown of the conventional scientific wisdom re. the pyramids and the sphinx, and I actually don't think that is as interesting as the flora of alternative explanations that have sprang up.

To the best of my understanding, the most widely accepted theory is that The Pyramids and The Sphinx were built in the Old Kingdom Fourth Dynasty. They claim the Sphinx was built by Khafre, but the only reason they think this is because of one word "Khaf" found inscribed on the granite stela at the paws of the Sphinx. This is very suspicious, because it lacks many of the things that all inscriptions regarding pharoes had at the time (such as a cartouche)

Weathering. The Sphinx was buried in and for much of its career.

Secondly, the stones used to make the Sphinx and Pyramids were enourmous-as much as 200 tons-each. Few cranes today could lift stones of that weight. It is thought that the pyramid stones were dragged on ramps, but the ramp required to push a 200 ton block 418 feet high would have to be 4800 feet long, and three times as massive as the pyramid itself.

The ramp could wrap around the pyramid, with sufficiently rounded corners required for turning.

These blocks would be dragged across these ramps by no less then 1800 men strong.

They're called animals.:p

Thirdly, we have suspicious water marks on the Sphinx. Marks that indicate rainfall, not flood water. The last time sufficient rainfall happened in that area is thought to be 7000b.c., when the area was thought to be populated only be neolithic hunter-gatherers.

The Sphinx may have been carved. Nuff said.

The accuracy of the joints of the pyramids is also astonishing. Their straightness is equal to most modern straight edges. The accuracy of the measurements and alignment of the Pyramids can scarcely be matched by modern techniques.

I think CarlosMM posted a very easy and pratical way to get a very straight edge; use a bit of string pulled tightly between 2 pegs and Bobs your uncle, you have a straight edge.

I think CarlosMM posted a very easy and pratical way to get a very straight edge; use a bit of string pulled tightly between 2 pegs and Bobs your uncle, you have a straight edge.

See post #3.

Was Charlton Heston hosting the documentary you saw? (One of my weirder TV-experiences in recent years.) If so, then the water-erosion-geologist you saw was Robert Schoch.

I cant be sure. I dont remember seeing Charlton Heston at all.


And I absolutely agree that documentaries like this often leaves the viewer in the lurch by not even attempting to present the how scientists make their interpretations. (Which is kind of the rub concerning the sphinx.)

This happens a lot. How many times do you see documentaries hinting at possible alien builders for the Pyramids? I cant believe that they would take that line in this day and age. It's pure sensationalism designed to appeal to the ill-informed, and it breeds more BS rather then getting serious and drawing some real conclusions.

See post #3.
Sorry Birdjaguar. my apologies. :blush:

I think CarlosMM posted a very easy and pratical way to get a very straight edge; use a bit of string pulled tightly between 2 pegs and Bobs your uncle, you have a straight edge.

D'oh! I meant to quote and answer that, but I forgot to put the [quote] tags around it.:blush:

It's not an issue for me, Sir Eric.

Another claim for aliens builders is that the pyramids are built on a very level platform and the structure is so large that the Egyptians did not have the tools to make such an area so level. A simple problem to solve: build a low wall around the area for the base, fill it with water and mark the water height with a sharp stick or charcoal, drain the water and fill the area up to the line with rocks or gravel or sand and its level!

Or you clear the dirt down to bedrock, make some canals from the river in the bedrock, and level the bedrock off to water level. Viola!:D

Works for me.