> Hi Thanos / Lee
> Maybe take a little chill pill? It seemed like a
> somewhat aggressive request.
I didn't realize Merrell was such a fragile flower above reproach. Pointed, not "aggressive", but maybe I have my reasons, you ever think about that? If my attitude towards another poster puzzles you, which only applies to mainstream types for some reason, then how about give me the benefit of the doubt for once and ask me why first?
> It was clear Merrell (note She) was
> merely briefly addressing some rather
> outrageous claims made by the OP.
By yet once again uncritically repeating and misapplying as fact mainstream opinion. Sorry, but intellectual honesty and integrity applies equally to both sides of the isle. Blind debunkery in my opinion qualifies.
> In isolation the quarry marks do only establish
> that fact.
And as such therefore you agree then that to say the quarry marks "prove" G1 was built by Khufu from start to finish is a false statement? This does not mean Khufu did not, but it is not in and of itself proof he did as Merrell is erroneously stating as fact. What is the harm in being honest and recognizing this fact and why is it ok to present it as such when it is not?
> there being some considerable
> corroborating stuff
That Khufu originated the building of G1 and finished it? Please, go on....
> However, the contrary or any elaboration of such ,
> of a pre existing structure, is merely
> speculation or conjecture.
"there being some considerable corroborating stuff" would also apply to this "conjecture" or "speculation" does it not? The notion this is true only because some cannot accept the DE could not do such things is not enough. There has to be positive evidence to support the claim which I have long endeavoured to find, and have- enough to create a circumstantial case.
> It seems as you wish to discuss the elaboration?
That was not the point of my comments to Merrell, but since we are at it I'd say its a lot more interesting and productive course of action than opining ad infinitum why Cladking is an idiot and the like.
> M Stower also provided a very brief statement
> addressed to the OP that might be worthy of your
Which OP? Where?
> Anyway, over the years I am aware that you have
> speculated that perhaps some original older
> structure of some sort was placed on the site of
> I am inclined both previously (and still) to
> consider there might be some valid basis for such
> Not limited to, but including, other points you
> have raised long ago such as:
> Indication that
> - Djosers Step pyramid shows almost indisputable
> signs (evidence) of staged development or
> - G3 has somewhat similar but less extensive
> - Almost un disputed that Meidum supposedly
> Snefru's first effort, clearly at some stage was
> further developed.
> - There are others like Bent (maybe, but maybe
> In order to challenge Merrell's statement
> concerning G1 - have you got any evidence or
> reason to positively endorse such speculation that
> there was some original structure?
The statement of Merrell's that I have challenged, corrected actually, is only what was stated above-that the quarry marks in the RC are "proof" the construction of G1 began and ended with Khufu. Again, this is not true and proves nothing either which way other than Khufu took part in its construction. This fact by the same token does not "prove" or even "imply" Khufu did not do these things. It is not warranted to conflate this with your comments above.
But to your question, the hill G1 was built over is a "pre-existing structure" is it not? Of course we do not know as of yet if it was manipulated before the construction of G1, but as part of the circumstantial evidence offered is establishing the fact there was a pre-4th Dynasty presence at Giza before Khufu making such a thing within the realm of possibility. The least of which the Wadi Cemetery that was cleared away to make room for the Western Cemetery next to G1. It has also been suggested a few of the Eastern Cemetery tombs date to the 3rd Dynasty. The tombs of Khentkawes and Kai have also been argued to predate the 4th Dynasty and of course the South Field has tombs dating from the 1st-3rd (and later). And so on.
> If so, what sort of pre existing structure?
There are several possibilities which it too may have changed over time before being converted to a true pyramid. As to what it may have been we have to look to what came before, or argued to have come before, as possibilities. It may have been a stepped pyramid structure akin to what is seen in the late 1st Dynasty, something like what is at Abu Roash or Zawyet El Aryan, or perhaps a tower core like what is seen at Meidum which if the latter I think it possible this was a conversion at a later date of one of these other forms. The lower section of the descending passage and subterranean chambers were a part which given the state of the latter this suggests it was never finished.
> Do you think some form of mastaba centered around
> the remnant plateau solid rock mound?
Whatever it was integrated the hill into its construction.
> Perhaps an
> earlier smaller stepped pyramidical structure?
The DE were certainly no strangers to such having built stepped pyramids going back the 1st Dynasty:
> What about a Mesopotamian style smaller Ziggurat?
The Ubaid built monumental stepped platforms at least as far back as the 5th millennium. The Sailk ziggurat in Iran c. 3000BC is interesting:
Ziggurat of Uruk and White Temple c. 3000BC:
Given the time it would have been made, i.e. the late 4th/early 3rd millennium, it would not be related to what is considered as a traditional Mesopotamian ziggurat as they were not built as such in this time.
This is what we are here for is it not?
> In contemplating such possibility one of two
> possible indicators would be the make up of G1's
> ascending passage. It hardly could have escaped
> your notice the elaborate colourful 3D drawings
> made by and offered by Jon Ellison.
> They somewhat
> indicate to me a compacted rubble fill core, which
> is unlike even the more external rubble fill
> exposed by Col Vyse (ok reckless blasting ) on the
> South side of G1. However I disagree with Jon in
> that he presents it as a regular rectangular
> profile of VERY faint joint marks on a very eroded
> or damaged roundish profile shape. Joints that
> were hard to detect or identify as early as Edgar
> Bros detailed survey but almost exactly copied by
> M & R later.
> So referring to whatever you believe existed* It
> is clear that any such original structure could
> only rise to the level of QC before and speculated
> renovation and enhancement by Khufu.
Agreed. The first incarnation of this structure may have not been much larger than the peak of the hill itself. Regardless, the 35th course appears to be a clear delineation for some purpose which lies directly above the roof of the QC:
My thought is that the earlier structure reached a hight to roughly the floor level of the QC, something like this denoted in green:
I imagine the left side to not have extended as far and proportional the the right with the subterranean chamber effectively the center. The 35th course would have been part of building over and expanding the structure to create a secure foundation above it.
> It would be
> somewhat ridiculous to suggest higher but perhaps
> as a total height of KC. Not including the series
> of RC's.
> Perhaps you think something like the shrine type
> top as is speculated on Ziggurats ? or sometimes
> atop Sth American pyramid structures?
Maybe maybe not. We do not know what its function was. It is interesting though to contemplate early Dynastic images of the stepped platforms and their relationship with the Sed Festival.
> The introduction of granite occurs at KC level. It
> as you know contains and the RC's the most
> amazing sized 60-80 ton granite slabs and no
> primitive builder put them there.
I do not think the DE were "primitive". Quite the opposite. Not to mention the 4D Egyptians were not separated from the dynasties that came before, ergo a legacy of something already established. If a higher technology is attributed to these monuments, which something at least on par with the Romans and Greeks is warranted, who is to say the DE were not the inheritors of this legacy in both real time and after the fact? Look at monuments from the NK, for example, no doubt built in the period. This is legacy, not invention.
Over 35 tons of finely cut granite was used in Djoser's complex including a vault inside the pyramid. Granite portcullis doors weighing upwards of 15 tons were used in the 1st Dynasty. Among others.
> If we concede
> they did???? then later the RC's were total sealed
> and enclosed and includes the writing which
> conclusively indicates Khufu. It is found totally
> sealed could not possibly have been intrusively
> transported via any known opening of G1. Even side
> sealing limestone blocks.
As an aside, granite is used to case the already eroded massive limestone blocks of the Valley Temple and to make the temple set inside this massive enclosure. To me this is an indicator of two different construction eras.
> Thereafter whatever structure you or I imagine was
> embellished from either 50 metres or so height for
> a further height of 89 metres. The most scary and
> difficult (albeit not the most quantity) BUT
> quality finishing job. Then cased the project and
> enclosed it uber quality . HIGHEST TECHNOLOGY or
This same style of casing stone with the same precision is found on some mastabas at Giza as well the satellite pyramids.
> Did it get finished before his death. You know
> more about AE than I, and would/ ought/ certainly
> be aware of such basis for the conjecture.
> Particularly possible touches by son Djedefre.
Djedefre had a role in finishing the project which may have lasted well after his reign.
> Not only that but the engineering marvel of a
> incredibly square base (casing/socket) and the
> incredible mind numbing orientation due North
> pole was obvious completed by Khufu!
> Tell me where I am wrong so far?
How do we know the alignment and base were set by Khufu? There are two issues here that should not be conflated: for one the idea of a pyramid building over a pre-existing structure. Two, did the pyramid conversion begin and end in Khufu's reign. Though I disagree and think it was 3rd Dynasty or older, the Wadi cemetery is though to date to the early reign of Sneferu. Keep in mind what I said about the other tombs as well as the fact there are several burials at Giza that the people have a contemporary connection with Sneferu. Sneferu is credited with building 3 pyramids which does not seem plausible unless in reality he was building over already existing structures like I have argued was the case at Meidum. How do we know G1 was not part of this conversion program which for all we know may have begun before Sneferu which may explain why the 3rd Dynasty between Sekhemet and the beginning of the 4th is a veritable black hole-they did not build pyramids for themselves as they had already started on the conversion projects.
Keep in mind as I noted recently (ignored) that the eastern corner core block area around the base of G1 were heavily repaired with fill blocks and mortar in ancient times when there could only have been no casing stones. At any rate, I do not think the idea that one pharaoh died and the next started building their pyramid and they just so happened to finish before they died, and this just magically kept happening over and over again. It is more likely that building the great pyramids and their complexes in particular took multiple generations of pharaohs to complete and at various times were worked on concurrently.
As far as when any of the Giza pyramids were finished, nearly 80% of the mastabas at Giza date to the 5th and 6th Dynasties. The so-called pyramid worker's cemetery does not date to the 4th Dynasty, but rather to the 5th including to the end of it. They do not even bother to mention any of the 4th Dynasty pharaohs. The pyramid kilt guild begins at the end of the 4th/beginning of the 5th Dynasty. The harbor and port talked about so much over the last several years dates to the reign of Menkaure.
It is incredulous to think all that is attributed to Sneferu through Menkaure was begun and finished within each of their reign all of which completed in barely 100yrs. No way.
> Clearly the most signifigant and most awe
> inspiring part of the project. Mastabas and
> Ziggarats are trivial in comparison ???
In its own way, sure.
> In your thread below I quickly scan read it again
> just to see whether (I erred and did not comment?-
> (LOL! not only for that reason) you state that you
> are aware of the extensive tomb robbing that
> occurred right throughout Dynastic Egypt even
> something like "even sons from fathers" so we
> ought not be surprised that bodies are no longer
> there - IF they were ever there?
As stated, its not just about the bodies or not. A large part of the argument.
> Your previous seemingly long held conjecture was
> 'cenotaph'. I am not sure.
What else then do you suggest?
> However mountains of
> corroborating evidence indicates it was entirely
> related to what we would call religious (dare I
> suggest 'superstitious') and dealt with the
> afterlife of the deceased king.
You sure about that...? It goes without saying the DE placed pyramids within a funerary context which further had an association with the pharaoh. But you will find little of this contemporary with the building of the great pyramids including Saqqara. So much so for the most part it seem they really didn't give a shit. To the people buried around the pyramids the pyramid itself had no stated meaning for them with the overwhelming iconic meme being the serekh building and false door. As talked about HERE.
> As above . No there isn't any mummies ,only some
> parts (maybe), nor dead intact undisturbed
> Is absence, conclusive evidence? If so, of what?
Again, its all absent.
> You obviously was aware of where Merrell may have
> obtained such a date. You detail it later!
I do not know where she got it from I am just noting where it comes from to the general public that only starts getting repeated after 2017.
> I refer you to her first post in reply to the OP
> Author: Merrell ()
> Date: August 25, 2017 07:49AM
> But, for example, there are crewmarks in
> Campbell's Chamber in the GP based on the name of
> the king, Khufu (d. 2566 BC).
> Not everyone has an Encycopedic mind of dates of
> deceased pharaohs.
Including those who pretend to know what they are talking about and think themselves qualified to tell others what is what? Even then I would not expect someone like that to know "exact dates" but obviously a red flag should pop up when someone is telling you Khufu died after 2500BC. So what does that tell you about Merrell that she uncritically cites two different sources that give significantly different dates but does not realize or understand the problem?
> Also you ought with your
> extensive knowledge know or be aware that even in
> what some claim to so called " fixed rigid
> Egyptology " there is constant conjecture and
> modification of the periods based on new proposals
> unfortunately based on conflicting Kings lists
No shit. This is not the point. The date offered is unusual and lies outside these accepted parameters regardless of the minutia of the dates. I am not sure what you are defending here as putting Khufu in a time that is otherwise reserved for the 5th Dynasty no matter what is an issue is it not worthy of explanation?
> I hope this is of some value to someone
> Thanks but you know the "quarry marks or
> "graffiti" or "rudimentary hieratic glyphs"
> discovered by Col Vyse were at least mostly (more
> likely certainly entirely) original (not forged)
> and dated to the 4th Dynasty reign of King Khufu.
> You surely do not need convincing of that.
Second Khufu Cartouche Exists on North Side of Campbell's Chamber
> At least you got a contribtion and reply.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12-Apr-19 15:31 by Thanos5150.