>But surely you aren't suggesting that the only hard limestone
>at Giza was in a 750' strip the lenght of the three big
No of course not, what I am saying is that they built the pyramids on the same thick unit of hard homogeneous limestone of Member III and not the interbedded marly limestone of Member II which is immediately beneath it and is highly susceptible to weathering and erosion over time...... Member I is a reef and pretty limited in size and it's hard limestone too and it's deep under Member II....
>If this is the case that your point is made but my
>understanding is there are layers of soft and hard stone all
>over the plateau.
Sure..... excluding Member II, enlighten us as to were they actually are?
>Just because the pyramids are the same height doesn't by itself
>show that it was only this specific line along which the
>pyramids might be built and that there were no outlying points
>that might accomodate a pyramid. Frankly I greatly doubt this
>is the case since the builders were well aware that there was a
>tremendous fissure just north of G1 which could severely impact
>the load bearing capacity of the cliff face yet they built here
Has the pyramid or cliff collapsed yet as a result of what you have just asserted?
>Perhaps I'm still missing your point but I don't see the
>limiting factor in your words. I'm also wondering how the
>builders would have in depth informatrion about the plateau
>since it was presumably covered in sand. Vyse believed much of
>the plateau was stripped to bedrock but I think he probably
>meant the area in which they built rather than the entire
Well, even today you don't need to clear everything off to gain an understanding of stratigraphy of the Giza plateau. Just a few years ago the ancient Sphinxer crowd were claiming they could eyeball stratigraphy over 100s of meters.....
>It stillisn't established fact that they'd not build on soft
>stone I believe. They built on worse and even soft stone has
>great ability to support weight.
Where at Giza? Sphinx and Valley temple, the other 2 big constructions there, are both built on Member I limestone.......
>My understanding is that geologists believe all limestone is
>deposited horizontally and you're suggesting that it's worn
>down dependent on its hardness so the strike has a similar and
It's call differential erosion and that is quite clearly occurring a Giza just look at the Sphinx (preferably in an old image)...... you seem not to understand that the bedding at Giza is not "horizontal" it's actually dipping.... thus the use of the word strike in this discussion.
>Wouldn't a strike at higher altitude tend to
>have higher hardness yet?
Why would that be the case...... in a geologic context that is?
Archae Solenhofen (email@example.com)