cladking wrote:

>
> It is not in the least inconsistent with a staged build. I
> doubt it was necessary to do it in such stages but there would
> be no reason not to and no evidence they didn't.
>
> Until we have some data points it's entirely possible that the
> pyramid itself served a useful purpose during or after the time
> it was built. We have no data points because Egyptology
> restricts this site to real scientists. They have presumed only
> ramps could havwe been used and won't let anyone in to get data
> that will prove them wrong. So we're all stuck in
> Egyptology's rut. We have a stalemate where all the evidence
> weighs against them but they can only analyze this evidence in
> terms of their beliefs. There are no data points other thanthe
> religion of egyptology that hold the builders out as gobblety
> gook speaking bumpkins who dragged tombs up ramps. This is the
> rut. More people seem to be getting tired of it.
>
There are plenty of pyramids around the world that are thought to have been built in stages. I guess u are right if egyptologists insist on it being built during a single reign then they will never look for the evidence. Not sure what the evidence is for the others, but I assume its improved building materials or evidence of skins. From what I can gather there is already such evidence at Giza. there is a tiered structure with rubble filler which is then coated in a nice outer layer of geometric stones.

> > I agree with you here. The smaller pyramids were likely built
> > to deal with the lesser pressure. They also appear to have
> > deeper levels added as the water table dropped.
>
> That does make a lot of sense. I'm gonna steal it.
> It's funny how things like this aren't obvious until someone
> thinks of it. Everything I've found is obvious or I wouldn't
> have thought of it.
>
Feel free Ck, I owe you more than that. I would have never realized that the plateau pyramids were not always pyramidal. Your note from the PTs on the king being carried to the summit and cremated, leads to the conclusion that Cheops at least had a platform on the top at some point.

> > I do not think they had all the function of the great pyramid. Clearly
> without the shafts they are limited, but the passageways and
> > subterranean chambers could degas and send the water to the
> > reservoirs. They would work even if the water level dropped.
> > Clearly at a point they stop just like a normal geyser does.
>
> Yes, it's quite possible that the purposes were different.
> Form follows function and a vastly different form implies a
> vastly different function. I suspect the difference was more
> subtle but with bo data points at all because they won't do the
> science we don't know.
>
> > No causeway suggests a lot less water, if any excess at all.
>
> It's entirely possible they had no water at all or very little
> water for G3. Egyptologists can't even find the boat of 770
> cubits that is almost adjacent to it and could be instrumental
> in answering the question. Because the G3 "water collection
> device" is uneven and couldn't even function as a water
> collection device I'm inclined to believe that water was no
> more than secondary to how it was built. I'm thinking they had
> a little water on the plateau for leveling and drinking but
> they used sand or gravel ballast to lift G3. Even though this
> pyramid required only about 2 1/2% as much lifting as G1 it
> might have required just as much human effort to build. I
> wouldn't be surprised if, disregarding queens pyramids, all the
> pyramids after S1 required about the same amount of effort.
> The tiny little 180' pyramids from the 5th dynasty could have
> been more taxing to build that the great pyramids which could
> require fifty times or more more lifting. Logically as the
> economy expanded and they became more adept at making pyramids
> they should have been able to make larger and larger ones if
> they had really used ramps.
>
They had to have some water there during construction otherwise it would have to be shipped in and that would have added immensely to the construction overheads. I agree it was unlikely as much as originally. Why would they have built it if there was no water, as a tomb? ;)

Without water they would have had to turn to something nasty like ramps, but I am inclined to think the canals still ran even at the building of the smaller structures. That gets the stone to the plateau, but not necessarily up the side too easily. Sand ballast is an awkward solution too, since presumably it would be lifted to height first. Overall a lot more taxing than Cheops imo.

Chris