> Yes, well done Audrey; a brilliant observation.
> I (along with several others here, I suspect) am now mentally
> kicking myself for not seeing this for myself.
> I think that if we now add to Audrey’s point the line or groove
> (known as Borchardt’s Line) that runs underneath the casing
> stones within 35 or so millimetres of the centre of the north
> side (and thus marking the base’s N-S axis?), and the enigmatic
> corner sockets (one of which is almost just a series of grooves
> cut into the pavement), then we could be looking at parts of
> the Pyramid’s surveyors reference points, markers or whatever
> is the correct term.
> In a previous post to this thread
> I wrote:
> Diodorus Siculus described the Giza pyramids’ casing stones as,
> ‘complete and without the least decay’.
> On G1 he wrote, ‘… it is built entirely of solid stone, of a
> different workmanship, but eternal duration; for in the
> thousands of years said to have elapsed since their
> construction . . . the stones have not moved from their
> original position, but the whole remains uninjured.’
> Herodotus wrote of G1, ‘It is composed of polished stones and
> jointed with the greatest exactness.’*
> Now, if G1 was missing a substantial number of its casing
> stones at the times Diodorus Siculus and Herodotus were in
> Egypt (1st Century B. C. and 5th Century B. C. respectively)
> wouldn’t these Greek historians have said so?
I thought about the accounts of the Greeks as well, but choose to disregard them for sake of arguments and just focus on the evidence applying a few heaping helpfuls of common sense along the way as well regarding what would it really take to remove them and what would happen if they all fell. It does place doubt on the veracity, or at least exactitude of the Greek tales.
> I am now wondering if I am reading into the accounts by
> Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus more than they were saying, and
> GI was not finished with casing stones after all.
> I now recall, somewhat vaguely, that it has been suggested that
> Herodotus never visited Giza.
I am in the same boat. I have always found their accounts frustratingly nebulous as to the state of the casing stones and their lack of description seem to contradict what one would think the most impressive thing about them. For G1 to have been completely covered in polished white limestone it would have shone like a lighthouse in the day sun seen for miles away yet they make no mention of this inherent brilliance.
Diodorus Siculus says of G3:
...and for fifteen courses he built the walls of black stone like that found at Thebes, but the rest of it he filled out with stones like that found in the other pyramids.
Ho hum regarding G1 and G2. Doesn't even mention their casing stones in detail leaving one to wonder what does " filled out with stones like that found in the other pyramids" really mean? And why would one consider G1 and G2's to be "the same"? Quite different actually which he would have seen for himself. Siculus does make an interesting point however saying that some believed the pyramids were built more than "3,400 years" before his time which would just to happen so put it at the time Thuban, the polestar of this epoch, which would have lined up with the descending passage of at least G1.
Herodotus implies they could be there but not really and makes no mention if it is completely covered or not. Herodotus it is suggested as you say didn't even go there and got the story from another historian (the name escapes me at the moment) so what does that say about later writers who mostly seem to be paraphrasing what Herodotus said. I'm not willing to completely disregard what Greek and later writers say at this point, but it does seem there is something incomplete about what they are saying.
Post Edited (22-Jun-15 00:41)