> To review:
> The exterior of the tower core is finely finished,
> including the tops of the steps, in the same
> manner as were casing stones. There is no point in
> doing this if it were not meant to be a finished
> product independent of the outer pyramid layer.
> The builders of the outer pyramid layer depicted
> the tower core in essence as we see it today:
> Meaning there can be no doubt that at the time as
> they themselves documented this was the state of
> the structure before the outer pyramid
> layer was added.
> More proof the tower core was built independent of
> the outer pyramid layer, as well as I argue
> evidence that this is the finished structure as
> original intended, are the casing stones just a
> few feet from the bottom rough band:
> Obviously, regardless of all the rest of the
> evidence that says the same thing, it is not
> possible the outer pyramid layer was built
> simultaneously with the tower core when the lower
> section of the tower core was cased with finely
> cut finished stone which seems to clearly have
> been meant to reach the height of the rough band
> completing the finish of the tower core.
> Reinforcing this is the fact a second layer of
> casing stones are found just a few feet away which
> again would not be there if built in conjunction
> with the true pyrmaid layer:
> Also, again (which you did not respond to of
> course), the tower core was built using the
> accretion layer method (the 3rd Dynasty
> way). The collapsed pyramid conversion layer was
> built using horizontal courses (the 4th
> Dynasty way). You cannot build a tower core using
> accretion layers at the same time you are building
> horizontal coursed steps. Apples and oranges.
> It was not lost on Egypotologists either that the
> tower core of Meidum was built independently of
> the outer pyrmaid layer and meant as a finished
> structure. According to Verner (The Pyramids
> Each of the two stages, which Borchardt
> designated E1 and E2, was intended to be the final
> structure. This makes it all the harder to explain
> why they ultimately rebuilt (E3) in order to
> transform them into a genuine pyramid. In contrast
> to E1 and E2, the extension E3 rested not on a
> solid rock foundation, but on three layers of
> limestone blocks laid on sand.
> As I have noted elsewhere, Petrie, which I agree,
> did not believe there was such a thing as "E1 and
> E2" with both phases being one and the same
> comprising what we see today.
> Regardless, more evidence they were not built at
> the same time as the outer pyramid layer (E3) is
> that it was not built on the same bedrock
> foundation, but rather outside of this area made
> up of limestone blocks set on sand. Also speaking
> to this is that the baseline of the outer pyramid
> layer is 2.5 meters above the rock
> foundation of the tower core meaning up to this
> point there is no other way to make either without
> starting with the tower core first.
> More evidence, though implied, is the location of
> the satellite pyramid:
> Not lost on Egyptologists either:
> "Another significant point raised by the
> Italian architects was the unusual proximity of
> the satellite pyramid to the main pyramid of less
> than 5 m. Again I share their opinion when they
> dated the satellite pyramid’s construction to
> before the so-called ‘E3’ stage of the main
> pyramid’s construction, that is to say shortly
> after or during one of the first two stages which
> are known as ‘E1’ and ‘E2’".
Another thing to consider regarding the veracity of horizontal vs vertical construction is that examples of the latter are found en mass in mastabas which we can look at numerous 4th Dynasty examples (West Field):
Like a field of tower cores:
An interesting photo that shows the layers of construction:
The way these were built is the interior chambers were made and built over top of with roughly finished blocks. The exterior wall was laid out around the perimeter and the area in-between was filled with rubble as the wall was raised. Up and up they went.
I am reminded once again of the 3rd Dynasty (or earlier) mastabas at Beit Khallaf which clearly illustrate the same technique of perimeter wall with interior filled with rubble:
No "steps" required. No "funiculars". The "courses" are little more than slight insets at best meaning they had no function related to the lifting of the blocks. We can also see the massive outer casing stones, set last not first, were also laid in this vertical fashion so no, its not just "small" blocks. Again, if one wants to understand how pyramid blocks were moved and set you first need to understand how they did this:
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 20-Apr-20 22:15 by Thanos5150.