Could we build the Giza Pyramid today?

Bozo Erectus

Master Baker
Joined
Jan 22, 2003
Messages
22,389
It originally contained approximately 2,300,000 separate blocks of stone, each weighing an average of 2.5 tons.

According to the Turin Papyrus the whole structure was built in twenty-three years or less. Other sources imply 30 years or even slightly more. A rough calculation based on a 10 hour working day suggests that 34 stones (2.5 tons each) would have been laid in place every hour – this is, slightly more than one block every two minutes.

When it was built, the Great Pyramid rose to 481 feet (146.6 metres) – the top 31 feet (9.45metres), including the capstone are now missing.

Its total weight was almost 6 million tons.

The horizontal cross section of the Pyramid is square at any level, with each side measuring approximately 756 feet (230.42 metres). The side lengths of the Pyramid are identical to within
less than 2 inches.

The four corners of the Pyramid are almost perfect right angles and the sloping angle of its sides is a remarkably exactly 51 degrees 50 minutes and 40 seconds.

Some blocks were much larger than the average 2.5 tons. The limestone casing blocks which once covered its exterior weighed 10 tons or more and there are granite blocks in the Pyramid’s
interior known to weigh up to 50 tons.

Workers would need to have quarried just over 11,000 cubic feet (or a little more than 300 cubic metres) of stone every day

It is estimated that total labour force of cutters, haulers and stone setters would have numbered approximately 4,000 men. The single largest crew of labourers working on the Pyramid at any one time would have been around 2,000 men.

I dont believe the pyramids were built by aliens from another planet or dimension or what have you. I firmly believe they were built by humans. But I find it hard to believe that it was built using the primitive technology they had in ancient Egypt. I read somewhere recently that its even debatable whether we today could build it. Do you think we could build the Giza Pyramid today with our much more advanced technology?
 
Of course we could build it with modern day technology, and with much less manpower, too. Each of the blocks is 2.5 tons - for comparison, an average car weighs about a ton. A modern ship-loading crane can carry several times that weight. Engineering-wise, skyscrapers and suspension bridges are far harder to build than pyramids. A pyramid has a stable design: wide bottom, narrow top, whereas a skyscraper is far less stable, subject to sway, and wind forces, must withstand earthquakes, and must withstand compression from the weight of the building. The pyramid is impressive looking, but the stability of the design comes with a price: very little available interior space. That's why we don't build them today.
 
How about the ancient Egyptians? Do you think its plausible that they could have built it with the technology available to them?
 
Originally posted by Dumb pothead
How about the ancient Egyptians? Do you think its plausible that they could have built it with the technology available to them?

Someone (Thor Heyerdahl) once showed how the ancient Easter Islanders carved and situated their big head-statues, and how South American Incas could have made it to Polynesia in balsa rafts. It'd be nice if he could have a go at this one.

I think the builders of the pyramids had more technology available to them than we give them credit for.
 
Originally posted by Dumb pothead
How about the ancient Egyptians? Do you think its plausible that they could have built it with the technology available to them?

Going back to the car analogy, a single block would weigh twice and half more than a car. A ton may seem like a lot, but a mere handful of people are able to push a car at walking speed, because of the wheels on it. Roll a large limestone block on a train of logs, have a ramp to move it higher, and use a larger group of people for the same effect.
 
I once saw a very interesting documentation about it. A team of western archaelogists/engineers tried to build a much smaller pendant right next to the pyramids - they failed. The underground was too slicky, so it sank and looked a bit like the tower of Pisa afterwards. Also they couldn't get the stones so tight together and had great problems transporting them on the Nile. And many other problems arose, so I guess we couldn't build the Pyramids - at least not without experience

(if you are interested, it was a BBC docu IIRC)
 
Originally posted by Dumb pothead
How about the ancient Egyptians? Do you think its plausible that they could have built it with the technology available to them?

Well, the pyramids are there, aren't they? This means the people back then made done with bronze picks, ropes and wooden sleds. There is no proof creatures from another dimension had any involvement :crazyeye: ;)
 
I read a fairly recent theory about the making of the pyramid, it seem the old egyptien use a ''special home made concrete" insteed of cuting stone. Microcrystalography show some evidence in favor of the concrete theory, the crystaline structure of the pyramid block are not the same of natural rock.

So it mean they find a way to ''cook and dry" some special sand or dust, and then when mixed with water, it solidified like concrete.

It much easier to carry sand bag and cast stone, then to cut natural stone. It also explain why they fit perfectly togheter, the mussel made the form perfectly similar.

I dont know if this theory is still valide, but it make a lots of sens to me.
 
I see no reason to believe that Egypt wasn't able to build these pyramids. You'd be amazed to find out what a few decades and a large army of workers and slaves can do. And a few skilled engineers could probably think of a solution, using logs, ropes, etc.

If anything, I would say that a modern day democracy wouldn't be able to build such a structure, as putting resources into such an expensive and uselss project is not something that can last long in our current situation.
 
Is it not someone, I belive I've seen it on Discovery that claims the pyramids are a lot older, or at least the Spinx, and that it was a lion and the Egyptians only carved out a new head on the spinx?
 
vonork, thanks for mentioning that, I was going to later. I found a page that explains the theory more fully:
The original site, where the Sphinx is located, was a gently sloping plane with an outcrop of harder rock. The head of the Sphinx was carved out of this outcrop. To form the body of the Sphinx, the stone has been quarried away from all around the soon-to-be body.

The main features of the Sphinx are comprised of different geological conditions.

The head of the Sphinx was made of a hard strata which is resistant to the effects of the natural elements. The present damage to the face was caused by soldiers who used the Sphinx as an artillery target in the 18th century.


The body of the Sphinx was made of a softer limestone strata which in turn consists of alternate harder and softer layers. These alternate layers are visible on site as weathered corrugation, which is about two feet deep into the bedrock.


The base of the Sphinx, as well as the bottom of the original quarry site are made of a harder limestone which is resistant to the effects of the natural elements.



The Eroded Body
The question is: what caused the erosion of the body?

There are two possible causes:

Possible weathering by wind and sand.
Since the body of the Sphinx is located in a hollow, it takes less than twenty years to fill the hollow and cover the body totally. The Sphinx has been covered, for most of its time, by sand since the time it was created thousands of years ago. Therefore the Sphinx was not subject to weathering exposure to wind and sand, instead it was actually protected from such natural elements. Additionally, the concave shape of the corrugation cannot be the result of wind and sand storms.


Possible water erosion.
Most scholars have resigned themselves to the fact that the water caused the erosion to the body of the Sphinx. Geologists agree that Egypt was subject to severe flooding, at the end of the last Ice Age, c. 15,000-10,000 BCE.

So, if the erosion was caused by water, the Sphinx must have been carved before Egypt was under water i.e. more than 12,000 years ago. This, in turn, is too radical for scholars to swallow, as they prefer not to change their theory that Khafra (Chephren) built the Sphinx. As a result, those unfamiliar with scientific principles, suggested that the ground water, and not direct flooding, caused such erosion.
Never mind the egos, let us study the evidence regarding the cause of this water erosion.



The Repaired Paws
Researchers have found out that the extended front paws of the Sphinx were repaired three times in three distinct operations. The research also concluded that each repair operation was intended to replace or reinforce prior repair operations. In other words, the eroded condition of the paws has never worsened since the earliest repairs were made, i.e. it was a single event, and not a continuous process, which caused this erosion. The question is, what was this single event?

The study by Mark Lehner, Field Director for the American Research Center in Egypt, showed that no substantial damage occurred to the Sphinx since its original weathering event. Lehner wrote:

"It seems necessary to conclude ... that the core-body of the Sphinx was already in a severe state of erosion when the earliest level of masonry was added ....
If we assume that a sand covering would act more to protect than to erode the statue, this leaves less than a millennium, or perhaps half a millennium, for the core to have eroded to the conditions shown by the profiles under the added masonry."
Lehner estimated that the earliest of the three repairs occurred during the New Kingdom. He, however, never provided any historical or physical evidence to support his suggested time era. Some scholars are inclined to believe that the earliest repair was done by Khafra(Chephren) who was more of a restorer of the Sphinx than its builder.



Did the Ground Water Do It?
Many academicians have resigned themselves to the fact that the water caused the erosion to the body of the Sphinx. However, contrary to scientific principles and/or rationale, it was suggested that ground water may have risen, through capillary action, to react with the limestone of the Sphinx body causing this one-time erosion event. After 500 years the ground water dropped back down, and this phenomenon was never to occur again!

The evidence is overwhelming against the ground water theory. Here is why:

Over the course of thousands of years, the inundation of the Nile had gradually deposited additional silt, on the ground of the Nile valley. Whenever the ground rises, so does the ground water table. It is estimated that the ground water table was thirty feet lower in Khafra's (Chephren’s) time than its present level.
It is impossible for the ground water:
to rise from a much deeper level than its present level,
to erode two feet deep channels into the body of the Sphinx, and the walls of the quarry pit, in the span of five hundred years, and
to drop, after this 500 years, and not ever rise again.


Additionally, why didn’t this ground water theory have any effect at the following places:
The bedrock of the quarry pit where the Sphinx rests? This area was never eroded and therefore was naturally never repaired.
Any other structure which was built during the Old Kingdom, and there are scores of them throughout Egypt?



The Pyramid (so-called Mortuary) Temple of Khafra (Chephren) stands 150 feet (46m) above the Giza plateau, and had a similar erosion pattern to the body of the Sphinx. There was definitely no ground water in the case of this temple. So how do we explain the similar erosion pattern?

There is no other rational answer except that the water erosion occurred at the end of the last Ice Age c. 15,000-10,000 BCE.
http://www.egypt-tehuti.com/sphinx.html

IMO, Giza and the Sphinx are relics of an advanced civilisation that was destroyed around the end of the last Ice Age. Ok everybody, Im ready for the onslaught of ridicule! You may fire when ready!:eek: :lol:
 
Watch out stonesfan. Im focusing all my Chakra energy through an Atlantean Crystal Prism, one false move and youre going up like the Hindenburg:lol:
 
@DP: I have asked myself this question a thousand times.

Unfortunately, I am neither a civil engineer or a Egyptologist (the key fields of knowledge that you require to comment on this subject meaningfully.

Does anyone over here know how you would go about building the pyramids today?

However, i can say one thing. Even if technologically feasible an enterprise like that would never be completed in our technologically advanced society. After all who will pay for all the materials and labor. The pharaohs didn't have to pay for it. But we will have to (and I cannot see how our investment will have any ROI). :)
 
Originally posted by betazed


Does anyone over here know how you would go about building the pyramids today?


With concrete, like the old egyptien did, they didnt use stone cutting technic, but concrete technic. Did you still read my post ?;)
 
betazed, Ive got more questions than answers here, Im no engineer or Egyptologist either. I dont know, I think even today building a 13 acre pyramid would be beyond our resources, if not beyond our technology. But when I ask if we could build it today, I dont mean with modern, light weight building materials, I mean using the same heavy stone blocks that the ancients used. How long would it take us to stack 6 million tons of stone into a perfect pyramid?
 
Ok, i did an extensive reasearch on google ( 2 second),


Since the early eighties, Prof. Joseph Davidovits is proposing that the pyramids and temples of Old Kingdom Egypt were constructed using agglomerated limestone, rather than quarried and hoisted blocks of natural limestone.

The casting and packing agglomerated stone theory instantly dissolves the majority of the logistical and other problems.


More on the concrete theory:http://www.geopolymer.org/archaeo1a.html
 
Originally posted by Tassadar
With concrete, like the old egyptien did, they didnt use stone cutting technic, but concrete technic. Did you still read my post ?;)
Tassadar, Ive heard that theory, but IIRC its been disproved. I'll see if I can google anything on it later.

edit: guess I wont have to google it after all:lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom