Ancient Egyptian Forum

PharoahKel · Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2003 7:21 pm Post subject: Great Pyramid

i heard once before that the great pyramid was built over a mountain that was under the sand and that was the only spot in the whole desert that couldve supported all that weight, have you heard about that?
_________________
Yea, Im gonna need you to come in on Sunday...

Google · Sponsor

Tash · Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2004 9:44 am Post subject:

Um, can u explain that to me, was it like they encased the mountain in limestone?

PharoahKel · Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2004 9:06 pm Post subject:

im really not sure, I just heard that they found that under the Great Pyramid there was a natural mountain that was the only spot in the sahara that could support that weight
_________________
Yea, Im gonna need you to come in on Sunday...

Ford Prefect · Guest

Makes sense, usually when you put something heavy on sand it sinks, right?

Tash · Posted: Sat May 01, 2004 2:08 am Post subject:

Yeah, but i thought they cleared away all the sand right down to the bedrock, then, as thoght by flinders petrie (i hope his names spelt right) they built a small wall around the perimiter and filled it with water and cut out any islands to level it,
i think it is an interesting view, but i dont think it would have worked out, for endles reasons, the only thing that seems to me that they would have supported the theory is the fact that it would have supported the weight.
_________________
I like people,

The little ones are Chewy

Ford Prefect · Guest

They wouldn't have been able to keep the bedrock uncovered for long, it's almost impossible to keep the wind from blowing sand all over the place.

Tash · Posted: Sat May 01, 2004 2:25 am Post subject:

yeah, good point, but they would have had to cut the limestone specialy to case the hill so that there would be no gaps. if there was an earthquake, and there were alot od gaps the whole pyramid wold shatter. or fall apart.
_________________
I like people,

The little ones are Chewy

Ford Prefect · Guest

yeah, thats what leads me to believe the Pyramids were built a lot earlier then thought, back when Egypt was a flourishing grassland.

Tash · Posted: Sat May 01, 2004 2:34 am Post subject:

i too beleive that they were built alto further back, but realy there is no way to tell, no CONCLUSIVE (<thats emphasis not yelling) shows us that the pyramids were built at the thought time
_________________
I like people,

The little ones are Chewy

Ford Prefect · Guest

Does water damage count as conclusive?

Tash · Posted: Sat May 01, 2004 3:04 am Post subject:

the warter damage dates back before the thought time of the pyramids being built, it counts against the orthodox views
_________________
I like people,

The little ones are Chewy

Sekhmet · Posted: Sun May 02, 2004 6:45 pm Post subject:

PharoahKel · Posted: Mon May 03, 2004 12:54 am Post subject:

Its funny, when you read all these things about ancient history, about people thousands of years ago, and then you see that Aswan Dam was built in 1950, it seems so recent, but then you realize that you werent even alive then, lol.
_________________
Yea, Im gonna need you to come in on Sunday...

Si-amun · Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2004 10:04 pm Post subject:

I do not believe that the pyramids are older than previously thought but I do have an unorthodox view here, (Yes Sekhmet, i have an unorthodox view! lol) that Egyptian civilisation goes back much further than generally accepted. I think that unity was achieved far further back, or if not then when it was achieved there was already a very sophisticated nation in existence. I think that the civilisation goes back at least a further thousand years than we currently think. I knoe Egypt was advanced, but they could not have made such leaps forward in so short a time and then spend the next three thousand years trying to keep everything unchanging, e.g art, kingship, architecture etc.
_________________
Thou dost appear beautiful on the horizon of heaven, oh living Amun, he who was the first to live.

Sekhmet · Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2004 2:07 am Post subject:

Nothing wrong at all with an unorthodox view... especially if it can be backed by respected sources Cool

Are you perhaps thinking about the Naqada Period ca. 3800 BCE, or even further back into the Badarian Period ca. 4,500 BCE, where Upper Egypt is beginning to show signs of being a hierarchical society with its own identifiable cultural traits? That isn't unorthodox at all Si-Amun that is proven. Or pehaps you consider the Nile Valley in its late Neolithic state ca. 6,200 BCE. Here we find 4 seperate and different societies developing lifestyles along the Nile River in what we later recongize as Lower Egypt, Upper Egypt, Lower Nubia, and Upper Nubia? Again not unorthodox at all, just proven.

As for even earlier Neolithic settlements the experts are working on it Smile

i am willing to wait for them.

I suggest two really great books on these time periods in Ancient Egypt. It is hard to beat Toby A.H. Wilkinson's book Early Dynastic Egypt. Very poor on pictures but very rich in pure data. i am not kidding here it is very hard reading but well worth it if you really want to know about this period.
The next best is Oxford's History of Ancient Egypt edited by Ian Shaw. Rich in pictures, adequate in information, and not limited to just the early stages of Ancient Egypt but its full rich history.

Today it is recongized that Egypt's unity, unification period is almost completed by the Late Gerzean Period ca 3,200. So you are right Si-Amun it did happen earlier than most folks think it did. Again, not unorthodox but proven Smile

You all have a great day! Ancient Egypt rules! and i mean really Ancient Egypt
Wink

_________________
[img]http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:ygpdGun0X_wJ:www.temoata.org/temoata/lotus.jpg[/img]
how beautiful the lotus flower is! selected 4-4-04