Thanos5150 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Origyptian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I might have missed it in your previous posts,
> but
> > where do we see a central tower in G3?
>
> You did. A photo of the gash:
> HERE. See
> Rigano, again,
> The Stepped Core Within p.2-7. See table 1 p4 which he has
> verified the "stepped" cores of the 4th-6th
> Dynasties. Medium is referred to often as a
> "stepped core" which I do not think is necessarily
> apt and prefer "tower core" in which I believe the
> steps seen in other pyramids were added after the
> tower core was laid first. Regardless, "tower" or
> "stepped" core, take your pick.
>
> > Bonnie Sampsell writes that Lepsius, and by
> > association Borchardt, were wrong about the
> broad
> > application of accretion and that many OK
> pyramids
> > were built strictly in horizontal layers as
> their
> > final design with no indication of an inner
> > perimeter that would define a central tower.
>
>
> I have shown pyramid after pyramid with tower
> ("stepped" if you prefer) core that shows this is
> clearly not the case. Again, refer to Rigano table
> 1. The only ones left are either "ruined" or
> "unknown".
>
> > She
> > cites that M&R didn’t find any evidence of
> > accretion in many OK stone pyramids including
> the
> > 3 Gizamids as well as Red, Userkaf, and Sahure.
> > According to Sampsell:
> >
> >

Italians Vito Maragioglio and Celeste
> > Rinaldi studied the architecture of many Old
> > Kingdom pyramids in great detail. They paid
> > particular attention to the issue of accretion
> > layers. They found that for the most part the
> > major pyramids at Dahshur and Giza were too
> well
> > preserved to reveal much about their interior
> > structure, but in every place where they could
> > examine portions of the nucleus of these
> pyramids
> > they saw only blocks laid horizontally rather
> than
> > on a slant. In fact, they found no evidence for
> > any internal faces that could be associated
> with
> > accretion layers in any Dynasty IV or V
> > pyramid.
> > [www.catchpenny.org]

>
> Accretion layers are vertical rows of blocks added
> in layers. Like so:
> [www.catchpenny.org]
>
> This changed to adding horizontal rows, a
> "horizontal accretion layer" if you will, yet
> still around a tower core. Hence why when this
> layer has fallen and/or been removed time and
> again we are left with somthing like this:
> [fr.academic.ru]
> Or any number of pyramids I have posted pictures
> of the least of which the one I just posted from
> Saqqara from the 5th/6th Dynasty.
>
> > Also:
> >
> >

Miroslav Verner excavated the
> unfinished
> > pyramid of Dynasty V king, Raneferef
> [Neferefre].
> > Verner reported that this pyramid provides
> > absolutely no evidence of building by accretion
> > layers saying: “If the [accretion] theory was
> > valid, then...it should have been possible to
> find
> > -- as in cross section -- stone masonry
> arranged
> > on all four sides in parallel layers. It would
> be
> > as if an onion not circular, but square, had
> been
> > sliced across horizontally.

>
> I think you are confused. I have used Neferefre's
> pyramid as one of many examples of a tower core:
> [upload.wikimedia.org]
>
> It makes no difference whether the outer pyramid
> layer was laid vertically as an accretion layer or
> horizontally in rows.
>
> > and
> >
> >

The reports of Maragioglio, Rinaldi, and
> > Verner, taken in conjunction with personal
> > observations made during several trip to Egypt,
> > make me confident that the Dynasty IV pyramids
> at
> > both Dahshur and Giza were constructed using
> the
> > new method of horizontal courses rather than
> with
> > inclined accretion layers.

>
> And...?
>
> > Where do you see a central tower as being
> ‘the
> > only standard’ design in the OK pyramids?
>
> This would be one of the reasons now wouldn't it?
> Whether the outer pyramid layer was added in
> vertical or horizontal rows there is still a tower
> core at its center.

Thanks. Now I think I see your point. The disconnect I see is that a "step" pyramid doesn't require a central "core tower" structure and vice versa. Djoser is a step but not a core tower pyramid. That satellite strikes me as a two or three step pyramid but not a core tower structure, and the other satellites show less hint of a core tower design, despite their state of disrepair. A central core tower requires a 'seed within the fruit' perimeter which have not been identifed in all OK pyramids (afaik).

You say that all of the major pyramids with the internals sufficiently exposed show a central core tower design. I think it's interesting that not all OK pyramids' outer skins have collapsed, so perhaps the remaining pyramids that have not collapsed or degraded to reveal such internal core tower construction are still standing relatively intact because the builders opted for a strictly horizontal, and not core tower, design for those pyramids?

And to be clear, I have no vested interest in whether any or all of them have the core tower design. In fact, such a design better supports adaption which I do strongly support, based on the physical evidence. It's just that I don't see the data as compelling for the core tower design being as widespread as you're suggesting.

But assuming for the moment that most, if not all, of them do indeed have the core tower feature, what do you make of that? What are the implications to you if that were true?




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 28-Mar-18 03:42 by Origyptian.