From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: The Great Pyramid of Giza
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 19:19:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.152257.13322@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:
>n article <1992Nov20.085557.26808@reed.edu> odlin@reed.edu (Iain Odlin) writes:
>>
>>  [Iain silently beats his head against a brick wall.]
>>
>>  There's plenty of evidence, and it's available to the public.  If you're so
>>  inclined, you can go look it up as opposed to being spoon-fed misinformation
>             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>  based on inaccurate (or no) research from hopefuls or crackpots who cannot
>                                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>  let go of their alien fetishes.  [A marvellous example is a "scientist"
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>  who insisted that the blocks of the pyramids were poured in place (using
>>  some cement unknown to us) because he found a butterfly trapped in one.
>>  The fact that the blocks are fossil-bearing limestone never entered the pic-
>>  ture, of course...]
>>
>>  Now, if I could figure out why I keep bothering to address this "question",
>>  I'd be money ahead...
>
>I have read the opposite, that the only evidence ever found were empty stone
>coffin structures with no material evidence that they were used for burial of
>a corpse.  Because the ancient mystery rites in both hemispheres often involved
>taking the neophant through a process of mystic death that actually involved
>placing him in a tomb, the mere presence of a stone sarcophagus type structure
>leaves open the question as to what it was used for.

     Identification of them as sarcophagi is contingent on identification
     of the structures as tombs, which is contingent on there being a
     sarcophagus ...

     As far as being built to scare the pledges, that strikes me as somewhat
     far fetched.

>>> you can go look it up 
>
>This is the lazy taunt that characterizes all of us.  We are all quoting from what
>we remember reading somewhere.  The problem is that no one takes his adversary's
>arguments seriously enough to provide a specific citation.  Iain, if there is
>plenty of evidence available to the public, then give us a quote or two. Likewise,
>Zerxes, do you know of a summary of dissenting scholarly opinion that points out
>the inconsistencies in the case for the pyramids being tombs?  I'm just as guilty
>as the rest.  We all have our work to do.  But any concrete evidence would be
>a much bigger help than simply assertions.  I have a secondary source or two and
>will see if I can come up with anything.

     Geez.  Just about any recent source has a discussion of whether they 
     were tombs or not.  For an elementary secondary source try "The Riddle of
     the Pyramids" by Mendelsson.  The arguments for boil down to funereal
     writings on the walls, the fact that they were associated with 
     graveyards, the resemblance to actual tombs.  The arguments against
     boil down to the fact that no bodies of the appropriate age
     have even been found in one, half of the large ones do not have even 
     traces of 'sarcophagi'.  The only sealed sarcophagus ever found (in 
     Sekhemket's pyramid) was empty.  Also, Snofru appears to have built 
     *three* of them.  Why would one build three tombs?  There are other 
     subsidiary arguments, but these are probably most central.

     It is entirely possible that this tomb fixation got started
     with the fact that bodies *were* discovered in several of the large
     pyramids (Zoser's, for example) as the result of Saite 
     intrusions two thousand years later.

     To me, the most compelling evidence that they are monuments and not
     burial pits comes from a stela from the Eighteenth dynasty
     found by Petrie at Abydos.  In the words of Mendelssohn:

     "It records a reply of the pharoh Ahmose, founder of the XVIII
     dynasty, to his wife, Queen Ahmose-Nefertari.  The passage is
     important enough to be quoted verbatim in translation (apparently
     King James's translators: dale)

         His sister spoke and answered him: 'Why have these things been 
         recalled?  What has come into thy heart?' The King's own person
         said to her: 'I have recalled the mother of my mother and the mother
         of my father, king's great wife and king's mother, Tetisheri,
         deceased.  A tomb chamber and a sepoulchre of hers are at this 
         moment upon the soil of the Theban and Abydene nomes, but I have 
         said to thee because My Majesty has wished to make for her a
         pyramid and a chapel in the Sacred Land close to the monument
         of My Majesty' ... His Majesty spoke thus, and these things
         were accomplished at once.

     We are thus faced with the contemporary statement of a New Kingdom
     pyramid builder the Queen Tetisheri, consort of the pharoh Senakhtenre
     Tao, already possessed two tombs, in one of which she must have been 
     buried, when a pyramid was built for her as well."

     This is the most contemporaneous statement of the pyramids' purpose
     made roughly a millenium after the great Old Kingdom activity.     
     It does have the advantage of being from the ruler's mouth himself.

>>  Now, if I could figure out why I keep bothering to address this "question",
>>  I'd be money ahead...
>
>Indeed.
>
>Now, can anyone here throw some specific light on the technical aspects of the
>joining and cementing of the blocks?  Those who contend that the question is not
>worth discussing need not reply.

     First 'Extant Egyptian records, whether written or pictorial, throw
     no light on the methods employed by the builders of the pyramids, either
     in planning or in constructing their monumental works.' (The Pyramids
     of Egypt, I.E.S. Edwards)

     So all we have is supposition and examination of the objects themselves.
     That said, for laying the casing blocks we have:

     "Even after making such careful preparations, the laying of the 
     casing-block was still a difficult task, especially if it were a large
     block weighing perhaps more than 10 tons. ... The block would then be
     levered sideways off the sledge until it rested on battens placed ready 
     to receive it on top of the casing-stone in the course below; in order
     to enable levers to be used, bosses were left by the masons on the outer 
     face of every casing block.  While it stood in that position, a thin 
     layer of mortar would be spread over both the begging joint and the
     rising joint about to be formed.  The main purpose of the mortar
     was to provide a kind of lubricant so that the casing block, after
     being lowered to its bed, might be slid first into contact with the
     block of casing perviously laid and the back against the packing
     blocks. ..." (Edwards)

     Not having read this thread (or indeed this newsgroup) until a 
     sci.physics discussion spilled over here, I don't know if that
     is what you were asking for.  Keep in mind, though, that this is
     still mostly speculation, based on examination of the remaining
     casing-blocks.  It does, however, seem a bit ridiculous to 
     assert that they were either a) poured concrete or b) mortar
     was poured between them after placement.  If you've ever seen them,
     it becomes pretty apparent that a) they're cut stone and b) they're
     sitting very very close together.

                                dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                          crb7q@virginia.edu        
Department of Mechanical, 
     Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering
University of Virginia                              (804) 924-7926
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology