Manu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> See Mark Lehner "Archeology of an Image" Ph.D.
> thesis page 140 citing Edwards (1985) that the
> pyramid causeway was called a ramp or Ra-st3w for
> "entrance of the haul".

Lol!

I have little doubt.

In the old days they translated "Rosteu" as "Mouth of Caves".

> They clearly were dragging not only lifting. Of
> course the compromise is weight. Once the blocks
> became smaller they could be lifted.

By "lift" I mean to raise the height of something/ to increase its potential energy. Dragging a stone "lifts" the stone by the difference in elevation of its ends.

I am aware of no study that shows stones high up in the pyramid are "smaller. I am aware the the thickness of the average course decreases a little at higher levels and the thickness of the thick courses decreases markedly. I suspect the belief in small stones at the top is caused chiefly by perspective since the upper stones are so far away from where they are usually viewed. Be this as it may a ton of stone at the top still requires far more lifting than a ton of stone at the bottom. The size of the top of the pyramid is still defined by the size of the bottom and the use of smaller stones would have saved no work at all. This is another of the smokescreens generated by Egyptology.

> The best thing to do is to look at Petrie's course
> thickness and the construction speed data by Rolf
> Krauss I gave to Steve to exactly pin point the
> height when they switched from ramp to elevator.

I've studied this for years. I don't believe they switched the means of building at any height.

Of course there is data that can be interpreted as you suggest but in my opinion there is a simpler explanation related to the underlying steps. Above 320' lifts would have become "standard" and smaller due to the the specific means used to pull them straight up the side.

Without knowing how the stones were lifted any consideration of construction speed is highly speculative. Krauss' numbers are likely reasonable for just about any method EXCEPT ramps. This is because almost any ramp configuration would get geometrically more difficult as altitude increased.


I believe the older translation of "Mouth of Caves" is pretty interesting since there are so many caves popping up here the last several years. It's also interesting that the PT refers to caves and caverns and that even the descending corridor and the "workmen's escape tunnel" incorporate caves and natural fissures. The grotto itself is almost certainly a natural fissure and another large fissure lies just 10' north of the pyramid. The valley was an enormous canyon a mile and a half deep all the way to Aswan at one time and since caves form at the water table there are caves under "Rosteau" all the way down a mile and a half. "Mouth of Caves" indeed. It could lead one to think there was water coming out of these caves and this is how they knew of their existence and why water is known to have flowed away from the pyramids.

1551a. To say: This thy cavern there is the broad-hall of Osiris N..

Lehner not only says that there were ramps and it was named for ramps but that men slept on them.

Let me ask you this simple question, "If it's true that the word meant "entrance of ramps" then what was the name of this place BEFORE they built the causeway?".

I believe Egyptologists are wrong. Early Egyptologists weren't quite as wrong but they were wrong as well.