Talk:Great Pyramid of Giza/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Unbelievable statement

  • Based on these estimates, building the pyramid in 20 years would involve installing approximately 800 tonnes of stone every day. Additionally, since it consists of an estimated 2.3 million blocks, completing the building in 20 years would involve moving an average of more than 12 of the blocks into place each hour, day and night. (my bolding)

This information is just presented as if there was nothing more to say about it and it's completely believable. But in truth, that speed wouldn't be even remotely possible using the most advanced modern-day technology. So, are we implicitly saying that the Egyptians had technology that was way more advanced than ours? What's the evidence for this? If not, how can this statement stand without some discussion (from the literature) of its feasibility? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 03:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

JackofOz: I'm not sure what the source is for that statement; the citation that follows it a sentence later is to Petrie 1883, but doesn't give a page number and may not apply to the construction estimate at all. There are detailed estimates in a much more recent source, Giza: The Definitive History (2017) by Mark Lehner and Zahi Hawass. On page 419 it has a detailed set of estimates for the number of people who might have been required to build the pyramid core (i.e., the part that stands today, ignoring the casing stones that were added at the end of the construction process and were stripped away in Islamic times). I'm not sure how best to summarize it without quoting it, but I'll try. The Diary of Merer, which records the shipping of the casing stones, apparently dates to Year 26 of Khufu's reign, so Lehner and Hawass start with a 23-year construction process for the pyramid core. Given a 10-hour workday—nothing about "day and night"—that requires 340 cubic meters of stone per hour, with 1 cubic meter being the average size of a core block. For the number of workers, Lehner and Hawass start from modern studies of the stonecutting process, particularly an experiment in 1991 that cut, hauled, and set stones into a small pyramid. When scaling up the number of people needed for that experiment, they include a sizable fudge factor—they assume many more people worked in the ancient construction process than would be suggested by just multiplying the volume of the experimental pyramid to the size of Khufu's. The result is 2,000 men to quarry the stones, 1,300–1,400 to deliver them to the pyramid, and a minimum of 340 to set the stones in place, though much larger setting crews may have been necessary at times. So the speed of construction isn't as wildly implausible as it first appears.
If nobody objects, sometime this week I'll replace the passage in the article that you pointed out with something based on Lehner and Hawass. A. Parrot (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 06:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@JackofOz and A.Parrot: that sentence is contradicted, with sources, in the construction section so I've deleted it. The section isn't about history at all, I'm not sure if it once contained any appropriate material or not. In any case, statements about its construction belong in the construction section. Doug Weller talk 08:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC) oops @A. Parrot: forgot the space. Doug Weller talk 12:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I should have seen that. For now I'll just add Lehner & Hawass 2017 to the further reading. A. Parrot (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Precision of measurements?

"The accuracy of the pyramid's workmanship is such that the four sides of the base have an average error of only 58 millimetres in length."

Considering the current rugged edges of the Pyramid, I frankly doubt that one can measure the length of the sides to such a precision. AIUI this would require reconstruction of the outer casing. Anyone can shed light on this? --Syzygy (talk) 07:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I recall reading somewhere that the bedrock was originally cut away to allow the lowest level of casing stones to be recessed into the bedrock, and that this allows the outer edges of the casing to be identified and measured. I don't have a reference handy, but I have seen it mentioned in various sources - it doesn't seem to be contested? Wdford (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate Dimensions Stated

I find the following to be inaccurate; "The completed design dimensions, as suggested by Petrie's survey and subsequent studies, are estimated to have originally been 280 Egyptian Royal cubits high by 440 cubits long at each of the four sides of its base. The ratio of the perimeter to height of 1760/280 Egyptian Royal cubits equates to 2π to an accuracy of better than 0.05 percent (corresponding to the well-known approximation of π as 22/7)."

In fact, Petrie stated, in The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh, a mean side length of 9068.8 British inches. He also stated a Royal Cubit length as follows, in section 141;

"On the whole we may take 20.62 ± .0I as the original value, and reckon that it slightly increased on an average by repeated copyings in course of time."

Obviously, if the sides of the base were 440 cubits then the cubit length would be 9068.8/440= 20.6109 inches. Its easy enough to find the true side length, by dividing 9068.8 by 20.62, which yields 439.806. So if the current form of the article were believed then it would mean that the builders were trying for 440 cubits and got it 4" short all four times. I find that unacceptable, on grounds of being made up out of apparently thin air. What would lead you to believe that they were trying for 440? It's pure conjecture based on the inability of anyone alive to explain the actual dimensions of the Great Pyramid of Giza. What's wrong with stating the actual dimensions instead of speculating about them being intended to have been different dimensions than what they observably are? What exactly are the "subsequent studies" given as the source of the provably false side length? I could say subsequent studies suggested that the Great Pyramid was intended to be 500 cubits, and just not bother to cite the published source of said subsequent studies. Would that be a responsible thing to do?

I can give you a very reasonable explanation for the actual dimensions. The height being 280 cubits, the base perimeter could be whatever length required to produce a 311/99 pi pyramid. The "subsequent studies" assumed a cruder rational approximation of pi, 22/7, just because it worked out well with a preconceived "seked" theory about the pyramid slopes. Here's a clue to the real pi fraction employed, see what the width of the pyramid is at the height of the King's Chamber floor. I predict it will be 311 Royal Cubits, and that the height of the top of the pyramid from there will be 198 Royal Cubits, twice 99.

Autonomicus (talk) 08:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

This isn’t the “Great Pyramid”

The Great Pyramid is the smallest of the 3 next to Cairo. It has 9 sides. Please speak the truth this is totally incorrect. Godsson203 (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Godsson203: This comment is so obviously wrong that it's hard to not see it as a joke. If joking is what you're doing, Wikipedia isn't the place for it. A. Parrot (talk) 07:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
You people are missing the bottom of the pyramid as a side and unfortunately nothing has been said to prove it differently. Not a joke. Godsson203 (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
@Godsson203: I'm still not sure what you're trying to say, but if one were to count the base of the pyramid as a "side", it would add up to five sides, not nine. And it doesn't change the fact that the Great Pyramid is the largest at Giza, hence its name. A. Parrot (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
An octahedron would have nine sides if you counted the "bottom" joining the two pyramid forms. But except for seeing one of the Egyptian pyramids reflected, there would be no significance to any pyramid in particular. Ahem, let's hope for no further discussion per WP:NOTAFORUM. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The “Great” pyramid has 9 sides not 4 and is the smaller yet oldest pyramid other than the largest.

There are 8 sides plus the bottom of the pyramid as a side on the spring equinox each perspective side is actually slanted inwards showing how it makes 8 of the 9 sides from the 4 seen without the sunlight at dawn or dusk from a birds eye view. The Great pyramid and oldest of the 3 largest on the Giza plateau and 3rd from the biggest of pyramids. Godsson203 (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The bottom isn't a side... it's the bottom. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions about authenticity of Great Pyramid (4 sided) date and being built by Khufu

Just finished reading book, The Great Pyramid Hoax by Scott Creighton, which calls in to question the veracity of Col. Richard William Howard-Vyse. Col. Howard-Vyse explored the pyramid in 1837. Creighton believes - and presents some substantial evidence - that Col. Howard-Vyse and his two closest assistants painted fraudulent cartouches with name of Khufu and his work gangs in Wellington's Chamber, Nelson's Chamber, Lady Abuthnot's Chamber and Campbell's Chamber. Another chamber, the Davison Chamber, was opened several years earlier by a different archaeologist who reported no finding of quarry marks or gang marks. Creigton calls into question Col. Howard-Vyse's veracity in some other matters. Creighton has been exploring this possibility since about 2009. He has had the opportunity to view some high resolution photographs that were not available in the past; he also located Col. Howard-Vyse's personal journal which contained information that is not in the books that Col. Howard-Vyse wrote. He used the journal and copies of the quarry marks made by the work gangs made by his assistant, J.R. Hill (who was also one of the assistants believed to have faked the quarry marks in the 4 chambers). The quarry marks that name Khufu as the pharoah who built the pyramid are considered fraudulent by Creighton. Khufu regine in the 2500s, so if Khufu didn't build the pyramid, we don't know who built it, the purpose for which it was built (no mummy was ever found in the Great Pyramid so it may not have had a funerary function), or when it was built since it has been dated to the rule of Khufu - who may not have been the builder. As Creigton stated, it is not his job to prove that Khufu did build it and, therefore, date it, but it is the responsibility of archaeologists and Egyptologist who are the custodians of the Great Pyramid to do further research with today's modern technology to either confirm or deny Col. Howard-Vyse's speculations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katrr1 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Creighton isn't the first person to have accused Vyse of forging the quarry marks, but these accusations have not been accepted by the scholarly community. Some marks would have been very difficult to forge, and one of those that names Khufu refers to a work gang that called itself "Friends of Khufu", similar to the name of "Friends of Menkaure", named in graffiti that were discovered decades later at the Pyramid of Menkaure. Vyse could not have known that the pyramid builders used work gang names like these. Moreover, multiple lines of evidence point to Khufu as the pyramid's builder, especially the Diary of Merer, a papyrus that was recently discovered at Wadi el-Jarf that documents shipments of stone to the pyramid site during Khufu's reign. Therefore, the Egyptological community agrees that the pyramid was built in Khufu's reign, and this article will treat the claims to the contrary as fringe theories, in accordance with the Wikipedia guideline on fringe theories. A. Parrot (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Needs to include summary of significance and culture

This is one of Wikipedia's most popular articles and within the top 0.01% by traffic. Readers come to this article not just for an explanation of the architecture, but because this building represents something.

Perhaps it represents ancient religion, or society, or however other cultures have responded to it for the past ~5000 years. Right now, this article contains no section on meaning, interpretation, and significance.

Does anyone know the history of this article or its talk page articles well enough to know whether and where anyone has raised similar issues before? This is an extraordinarily popular article and I feel like it merits thoughtful planning in its scope. Is anyone able to say that they have seen such past discussion here or anywhere else, or otherwise able to say that no of no such discussion? I would not want anyone to start new conversations without the context of past discussion. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@Blue Rasberry: I didn't notice anything on this topic in a cursory look at the talk page archives; in any case, I know it hasn't been discussed here since I watchlisted this page several years ago. Some of the Egyptological sources talk about the cultural impact of pyramids in general. This pyramid is the one most responsible for rendering the pyramid iconic, so it's worth talking about some of that here, but a lot of the cultural impact that's specific to the Great Pyramid is related to the fringe theories that surround it—last century's popular misconceptions become today's fringe theories. I doubt I'll have time to work on this subject myself anytime soon, but I can suggest some sources that may prove useful to anybody who does:
The Complete Pyramids (1997) by Mark Lehner (it's already in the article bibliography, but it's worth mentioning that it has a couple of pages on this subject)
The Secret Lore of Egypt (2001) by Erik Hornung
Consuming Ancient Egypt (2003) edited by Sally MacDonald and Michael Rice
Imhotep Today (2003) edited by Jean-Marcel Humbert and Clifford Price
The Egyptian Revival (2005) by James Stevens Curl
A. Parrot (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources for measurements

Can someone provide actual sources for the measurements? Petrie (1883) may be outdated and Levy's "The Great Pyramid of Giza: Measuring Length, Area, Volume, and Angles" (2005) is an actual children's math book: https://books.google.ch/books?hl=de&lr=&id=SPicjirCzpcC&oi=fnd&pg=PA4&ots=jWVjJsJIwa&sig=HkHVXZX5WDPSRWQMVlDeYhh_AyM#v=onepage&q&f=false --Usernameforuser (talk) 22:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Usernameforuser: I've cited the measurements to Giza and the Pyramids: The Definitive History by Mark Lehner and Zahi Hawass (2017), changing the numbers where needed. They don't supply measurements in cubits, and they don't state the estimated mass of the pyramid, so I left those out. It may be possible to find those details in better sources if people decide we really need them. A. Parrot (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! --Usernameforuser (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to worry about Petrie's measurements being "outdated" - the pyramid hasn't changed sizes since his day. Petrie did a thorough job, and even corrected for the effects of temperature on his instruments, so he is still a reliable source for the most part.Wdford (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2020

In section "King's Chamber" there is the literal text "5.852 metres (19 feet 2 inch)". All other measures in fractions of feet are expressed as decimal fractions, and this should follow suit for consistency, especially given the accuracy of the metric measure. I suggest {{convert|5.852|m|ft|2}} as a replacement - yielding 19.20 ft. (An accuracy of 5 decimal places yields 19.19948 ft.) 94.21.238.148 (talk) 20:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for the suggestion. A. Parrot (talk) 20:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2020

Please make the use of AD dates consistent by changing "AD 820" to "820 AD" (twice) and "AD 1303" to "1303 AD" (once). "1311 AD" is thus written twice. These are the only instances of "AD" in the article.

MOS:ERA does allow "AD" to appear either before or after the number, but I doubt its intention is to trump MOS:DATERET immediately above it. Versions from 2005 use "1300 AD", "1301 AD" and "1303 AD" (and no other), so by DATERET the placement of AD after the number should be preferred. 94.21.238.148 (talk) 21:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Number of blocks and construction time.

The article states that construction was completed over a 20 year time period. Given that there are 2.3 million blocks in the structure, this equates to 1 block being raised and placed every 5 minutes, continuously, around the clock for 20 years. I don't feel that any article which adheres to the 20-year time frame and fails to address this glaring inconsistency is complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.254.191.131 (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

It also cites a study saying it could have been done in 10 years. Read the construction theories section and the main article. There was more than one person working on it. If it had 40,000 workers at one point, where's the inconsistency? Doug Weller talk 09:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

"29.9792458°E" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 29.9792458°E. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 17:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Weasel words in the article summary

The introduction paragraph says: "SOME Egyptologists believe that the pyramid was thus built as a tomb over a 10- to 20-year period concluding around 2560 BC. " (emphasis mine)

This creates the impression that there is significant doubt and disagreement about the age and purpose of the Pyramid, which is simply false. I cannot speak for the intentions of the person who wrote that sentence, but it is very misleading.

Imagine if the sentence read "SOME scientists believe that the Moon is a natural satellite". It's not "wrong" in the absolute sense, but in general it is ungainly, sneaky and dishonest to write articles that way. I won't edit the article myself because I don't want to start an edit war, but someone should take care of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:2410:84A2:ED00:2D12:9AE5:9BC:7E93 (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Height

The box at the right gives the original height (481 feet = 146.7 m). However, in the first para under History and description the height is given as 146.5 m ... both are incorrect, because 481 feet = 146.6088 m (146.6 to one decimal place, or 146.61 to two dec places). The box at the right gives the current height (455 feet = 138.8 m) ... but 455 feet = 138.68 m — and in the first para under History and description the current height is given as 449.5 feet (137 m).
What's right? And when the correct figure is known, can it be used consistently? The difference between the current and original heights is 9.7 m ... did the white limestone casing stones add nearly 30 feet to the height?
[The side of base is given as 756 feet = 230.34 m. (Why one decimal place for height but two for base?)]
Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 29 April 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: replace disambiguation page with primary redirect and hatnote. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

– The title here is more concise and this is clearly the primary topic for the article. Interstellarity (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

So support the first? Khestwol (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Not sure about that. Same ed, new IP 62.165.227.49 (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
The Great Pyramid of Cholula is the only other one, but that one is lesser known. Khestwol (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and WP:CONCISE. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose but support a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT of the base name Great Pyramid to this article. Sources consistency call it the Great Pyramid of Giza. cookie monster (2020) 755 06:28, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Instead PRIMARYREDIRECT Great Pyramid to target Great Pyramid of Giza, with hatnote to Great Pyramid of Cholula, and delete the disambiguation page, per cookie monster. buidhe 06:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose although we prefer concise titles we don't remove half of the name but we could have a primary redirect [[1]]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not really convinced removing the qualifier is even the WP:COMMONNAME, and I'm having trouble finding a reliable way to measure whether it is or isn't. At least page views provides a metric to substantiate the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT mentioned above. -2pou (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The current name is precise. Changing it is not an improvement. Jusdafax (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - My gut feeling (I haven't exhaustively checked sources) is that the 'of Giza' bit would be part of the COMMONNAME. Don't see a problem with the status quo, but wouldn't argue against a primary redirect as mentioned above. GirthSummit (blether) 17:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose first, support second. Great Pyramid should certainly be a redirect to Great Pyramid of Giza, but that article is better being at its current title, which is its common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seked

I am a longtime editor, and a well-educated native speaker of English. I consulted the Oxford English Dictionary, the Marriam-Webster's Dictionary, and the Random House dictionary. None of them have the word "seked." The sentence said, "…were cut to what is approximately a face slope with a seked of 5+1/2 palms…". I removed the unclear phrase. If you know what it means, please rewrite to explain, and return the revision to the article. Thanks, Nick Beeson (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Record height surpassed by Lincoln Cathedral(?)

When did the Great Pyramid cease to be the tallest man-made structure in the world? According to the infobox on the current iteration of this page it was surpassed by Lincoln Cathedral in 1311. Says who? I marked claims regarding this as needing substantiation and @Dark Clouds of Joy has since removed them from the article, though the claim is still present in the infobox. I raised similar issues on the Lincoln Cathedral talk page because any existing sources seem rather flimsy, typically either coming from news articles (leading me to fears of WP:CITOGENESIS) and trade books. Until proper sourcing can be found, I think any references to Lincoln Cathedral on this page should be removed. Tkbrett (✉) 15:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with removing the Lincoln cathedral material for now. It isn't clear which (if any) medieval cathedral surpassed the pyramid. Other candidates include Old St Paul's Cathedral (C13th, 149m height disputed by Wren) or St. Mary's Church, Stralsund (1549, 151m), both of which no longer stand at that height. It may not have been surpassed until Rouen Cathedral (1876, 151m). Given the lack of confidence in the medieval spire heights, plus the fact that the pyramid lost its benben at an unknown date, it would be unwise to state firmly any date for the tallest structure. It is safe to say, if something of a fudge, that the Great Pyramid was tallest for thousands of years or until the building of the great cathedrals in Europe, but if it's going to be mentioned, a lengthy footnote would be needed to clarify the situation. Dark Clouds of Joy (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Petrie related the precision of the casing stones as to being "equal to opticians' work of the present day, but on a scale of acres" and "to place such stones in exact contact would be careful work; but to do so with cement in the joints seems almost impossible" - It should be noted in this quote that it was made 140 years ago, and doesnt compare current optician standards. To not explain this is very misleading 2A00:23C4:215:C500:0:D2CA:4AE1:57B3 (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I've removed the first of these two quotations. A. Parrot (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

What happened to the 3RR rule?

Dark clouds of joy has recently made 30+ edits to this article in a single day, for a few days in a row. No consensus, no discussion on the talk page, and showing signs of trying to own the article. Can someone please look at these edits and tell me why this obvious multi-edit attack was allowed?2A00:23C4:215:C500:0:D2CA:4AE1:57B3 (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The three-revert rule applies to reversions of other people's edits, not to edits in general. Rapid series of edits have never been discouraged on Wikipedia, as long as the edits themselves are constructive. If this were a cohesive, well-maintained article, it might be a problem, but this one has always been a bit disorganized and piecemeal, as high-traffic articles often are. Quickly skimming the diffs of Dark clouds of joy's edits, I don't notice any that look problematic. Do you have any specific objections to them? A. Parrot (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, sometimes people criticize large edits and say there should have been a series of small ones so that they can be examined individually. Thincat (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Number of workers

The "Construction Theory" section states there may have been 100,000 workers. Presumably there would have been some type of support staff for functions such as food/water and medical, etc. for the workers. Does the 100,000 number include this additional staff, or is it solely representative of the people directly involved in the construction? 139.138.6.121 (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I checked the source the sentence was cited to, and it didn't support the claim, so I corrected the wording and used a different source. In the following paragraph there's a sentence cited to this study, which implies, but doesn't quite explicitly state, that its estimate (13,200 workers) is for "site preparation, quarry operations, transportation of the finished limestone from Tura and granite from Aswan, the creation of a workers' village for permanent skilled staff, construction of the ramps, performance of the finish work, and removal of the ramps at the end of construction". A. Parrot (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into this, and I think the ~13K number is more realistic -- If we go on the assumption that ramps (be it long linear ramps or spiral ramps) were employed, the 100,000 number begins to seem nonsensical. I'm not proposing anything metaphysical, but am looking at this purely logistically. If we look at an average American sports stadium (let's try Hard Rock Stadium) which seats approximately 65,000 persons, or even the Colosseum, which is hypothesized to have roughly the same seating capacity, the problem begins to become apparent --
Here's a picture from Hard Rock Stadium that shows approximately 1/4 of the seating area, or just over 16,000 seats which is closer to the 13,200 number suggested in your link (I don't know the proper way to link an image on WP from within WP).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dolphinstadiumint.JPG
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there were 100K persons directly involved in the construction of the pyramid. Workers have to rest, there would be injuries and personal issues, people have to eat, etc. So, let's say out of 100K workers, 1/5 of this, or 20,000 workers were directly involved with placing blocks at any one time. The blocks were hauled up on wooden sleds (there's an example in the Egyptian Museum), and these sleds have to come back down, eventually. Water would have to be hauled up in containers, and presumably, the containers would have to come back down, etc., and this is true of all the accoutrements that went into building the pyramids.
What you end up having, are traffic jams going up and down the ramps (think of the sleds going back down passing the blocks going up). Now, back to the Dolphin Stadium example -- There's 8 "spiral ramps" that give access to this 65K person stadium. Imagine if this stadium only had two ramps, and you had to deal with two-way traffic with persons hauling blocks up to the top while also bringing the sleds back down.
Something just doesn't make sense with this construction hypothesis if we assume that ramps and large numbers of laborers were used. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Demande de modification semi-protégée le 18 décembre 2020

Can you add this book on the bibliography ? https://www.amazon.com/GREAT-PYRAMID-EGYPT-disturbing-truths/dp/1716425905/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=the+great+pyramid+lheureux&qid=1608285182&sr=8-1 2A01:CB08:137:AC00:45B7:1F32:8989:E8C5 (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. What for? The books in there are used as references in the article. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Date of construction

Radiocarbon dating of recently refound wood from the Queens Chamber came to 3341-3094 BC which is maybe 500 years earlier than the official date. Only a matter of time until someone notices that and wants to go with it as an actual date for the structure. The researchers were understandably not wanting ANY part of this: "This may be because the date relates to the age of the wood, maybe from the centre of a long-lived tree. Alternatively, it could be because of the rarity of trees in ancient Egypt, which meant that wood was scarce, treasured and recycled or cared for over many years." Ploversegg (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

So they just happened to find wood in the Queens Chamber, after 100's of thousands of people have been through it in just the last 150 years alone? 139.138.6.121 (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

It was found in 1872. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-55315623 Ploversegg (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

This issue is a well known problem. Doug Weller talk — Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
OK, so the wood was part of the stick from the Dixon artifacts. I'm not sure how that would constitute a "problem", if by "problem" you're referring to dating of the pyramids. It doesn't seem likely those artifacts were emplaced during the construction. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
It's a dating problem because the wood was found in a place (the so-called "air-shafts") which were sealed up by the construction process. It must have been dropped into the shaft from above during the construction process. There are three possible explanations to this "problem" - 1) the construction of the Great Pyramid took place 500 years or so earlier than Khufu, so Khufu did not build the Great Pyramid after all, or 2) the Great Pyramid was built in stages, an earlier stage where the "air-shaft" was left open, and then a later phase in the time of Khufu, and somebody dropped the stick down the shaft somewhere in between, or 3) Khufu constructed the Great Pyramid using wooden poles that were already 500-odd years old at the time of the construction (ie hundreds of years older than the oldest pyramid.) Egyptologists really don't like options 1 or 2, so they came up with the "old wood" theory. Other C14 tests done of charcoal embedded in the gypsum mortar also gave dates hundreds of years too early, which is an interesting coincidence, and again the Egyptologists used the "old wood" explanation. Producing gypsum requires a lot of energy, so they must have burned a million tons of wood to build just the Great Pyramid alone. Wdford (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Really, what they need to do first is radiocarbon date the Diary of Merer (unless that has already happened). It has lots of blank space. They wouldn't miss a small sliver of papyrus. Then if nothing else you could pin down the Khufu build date a bit. The gypsum dating was I think done back in the 80s. That was even before INTCAL existed maybe. It showed dates of 400 years before Khufu but who knows what that would look like with current calibration or with modern accelerator dating. The idea of an incremental build is interesting. Sort of like they did in MesoAmerica, building each pyramid on top the last one. I guess I'm mostly comfortable with the "old wood" idea. Getting cedar logs from the Levant is not That hard but it would have been much easier to just knock down a few pre-dynastic temples and repurpose the pieces. Cedar is Very durable, especially in large beams.Ploversegg (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Fair points. The stepped Pyramid of Djoser was also built incrementally, in the model of the Sumerian ziggurats, as was the Pyramid of Meidum, and possibly other early pyramids as well. The Pyramid of Menkaure was expanded after being almost completed - the original entrance was blocked off by being encased in further layers of stone, and the original chamber had to be deepened to accommodate the new entrance passage - so maybe it was originally a stepped pyramid as well.
Cedar from Lebanon was apparently worth its weight in gold, so its hard to see them importing and burning wood worth a million tons of gold for firewood - even if Lebanon had forests enough to meet this demand. I don't know what the "old temples" were made from - I always pictured mud-brick - but would they have recovered millions of tons of wood out of that exercise? And then what did they use to make the subsequent pyramids, once all the 400-year-old "old wood" was used up on the Great Pyramid?
There is also ancient cedar wood inside the Bent Pyramid - wonder why that wood has never been dated? If it turns out to be centuries older than their assumed dates for Sneferu, they can always just claim its more "old wood"? Wdford (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
All evidence aside from the carbon dates indicates that each pyramid was the product of a single reign (aside from possible hasty finishing-up work by the builder's immediate successor), so incremental construction wouldn't explain a discrepancy of this size. The specific evidence for the Great Pyramid indicates it was Khufu's. So if the carbon dates are correct, that leaves two options: the absolute chronology for the Old Kingdom is an underestimate, or the wood was old when the pyramid was built. Although I don't know the detailed reasons why, the general trend in Egyptian chronology seems to be downward—some recent sources even put Narmer at 2950 or 2900 BC, whereas the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt from just 20 years ago puts him before 3000, and older sources tend to put him further back—and there doesn't seem to be enough flexibility in the relative chronology to move Khufu's reign back by 500 years. So the people doing the estimates presumably went with "the wood was old" as the least radical option.
That said, is there anything in this article that should change as a result of this news? A. Parrot (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Lets see. Wow, in Nov 2019 someone added a SLEW of citation needed wiki notes to this article. Bit of overkill there. Anyway, in perfect world a short subsection on the dating stuff we discussed would be nice but I'm not sure it all adds up to something solid enough to wiki. One thing, maybe when I added in about the newly refound wood I should have appended a brief caveat sentence on the radiocarbon date. PS I meant to correct something I said earlier. The radiocarbon date of Great Pyramid organic material was later calibrated in 2009 using OXCAL. https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/3563/3077 Ploversegg (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the Arizona paper. :)
I am not a statistician, so I struggle with these technical terms. It seems to me that they acknowledge that the 4th Dynasty data showed a huge amount of variation, so they started with the King List assumptions, then they labelled all the results that strayed from the King List assumptions as "outliers" and eliminated them, and once they had eliminated all the results that disagreed with the King List assumptions, all the remaining results agreed with the King List assumptions. What am I missing here?
In other sources I saw that many of the 4th Dynasty results came from the ovens etc of the workers' village. It is not clear from this paper if the "Khufu results" included only those taken from the pyramid itself, or if associated sites were included here as well. Does anybody perhaps know?
The "incremental construction" idea is that some kings may have adopted an existing structure which had "power", and modified it to serve their own requirements. They may have completed the current structure in their lifetime, but much of the work may have been done before they came along. There is no direct evidence that they did this, but there is no direct evidence that they did not do this. Some of the more convincing evidence includes that the Khufu quarries on the Giza plateau were dug around the Sphinx Causeway, as though it already existed in Khufu's time, and that Sneferu built three huge pyramids from scratch in his single reign, dragging zillions of stones many miles through the desert each time rather than cannibalizing cut stone from a "failed" project to build the next attempt right next door. Not conclusive, but very interesting. Especially when you factor in the highly-variable C14 dates. Wdford (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

It's a dating problem because the wood was found in a place (the so-called "air-shafts") which were sealed up by the construction process. It must have been dropped into the shaft from above during the construction process. There are three possible explanations to this "problem" -

There's a fourth option, and that is, Dixon fabricated some of his data. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

German Wiki

I noticed that the German wiki has a ton of info on this topic. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheops-Pyramide Might be worth translating and including.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

If anyone is interested, I've started to translate some of the chunks on my sandbox page. Folks are welcome to drop by and help out! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gen._Quon/sandbox#Pyramids --Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I've moved that content over.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

2.3 million blocks

Does this mean the great pyramid is constructed entirely from blocks, or is there a chance that inner portions that weren't meant to be structural (or be seen) could be filled with rubble or sand? Using rubble like this would be more expedient than using blocks throughout. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering this too. I don't know if they really know, unless they were to drill into it. But I expect that if there was a lot of rubble use, the structure might have settled and shifted, which I don't think has happened.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
It appears the core blocks were less regular and precise than those on the outside, with the gaps between them filled up with rubble. But in essence the core of the pyramids was still built from blocks. Read all about it! (This seems to be an excellent, albeit unfortunately abandoned resource.) --Syzygy (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Syzygy: Thanks for the link! This is really cool.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2021

I would add the Arabic name الهرم الأكبر as Arabic is official language of Egypt and the ancient name is already mentioned but no mention of the modern Arabic name 64.222.180.90 (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't see why not. We do similar elsewhere e.g. Great Pyramid of Cholula. Is there a source with a translation? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

See Arabic Wikipedia

Not being an Arabic reader, when I look at the Arabic Wikipedia page, it's hard for me to tell if it's "The Great Pyramid" or the "Pyramid of Khufu". Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
I have no problems identifying the Arabic translation, and anyone can do it by hovering over the Arabic version link on the left sidebar and confirming it’s the exact same writing. The question is: where best to use the Arabic name? How about: “The Great Pyramid of Giza (also known as the Pyramid of Khufu or the Pyramid of Cheops, الهرم الأكبر in Arabic)…” ? Ferkijel (talk) 19:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
No objections. If I read that I would assume that the literal translation of الهرم الأكبر into English was "Pyramid of Cheops". Is that correct? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The Arabic page has الهرم الأكبر أو هرم خوفو I believe هرم خوفو is "The Pyramid of Khufu", أو=or and الهرم الأكبر is The Great Pyramid. This is going from google translate which I trust but would rather have a native speaker confirm. In terms of formatting, I think The Great Pyramid of Giza (Arabic: الهرم الأكبر), also known as the Pyramid of Khufu or the Pyramid of Cheops, is the oldest and largest of the pyramids... could work but that is only translation for "The Great Pyramid" for The Great Pyramid of Giza, would be الهرم الأكبر بالجيزة according to Google Translate. So Maybe: The Great Pyramid of Giza (Arabic: الهرم الأكبر بالجيزة),..... WikiVirusC(talk) 21:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks WikiVirusC, that looks very promising. Let's hope a native speaker can confirm. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm closing the edit request because it seems there's consensus to include this as soon as a native speaker verifies, and there are enough people watching to make the edit once confirmed. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2021

Remove the extraneous period from "Many varying scientific and alternative hypotheses.attempt to explain the exact construction techniques." 96.236.206.99 (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2021

To my knowledge and according to my research, no physical remains have ever been found inside the great pyramid. I would strongly suggest that the claim that the Great Pyramid of Giza is a Tomb constructed for Khufu be reduced to a [theory] and that the whole notion that the pyramid is a Tomb be reduced to a theory, even if that theory has tremendous support by academia. The Nazi's had tremendous support too, but something isn't true just because it has support. Carbon dating is unreliable because [it only dates organic matter]. The fatal flaw with that is that it only tells us the last time organic matter was in the vicinity. If in ten thousand years a civilization found our organic matter inside the Colosseum, would that mean our current civilization erected it? No. If we scribbled on the Colosseum that "Jesus was here in 2021" would that make it true? No.

Why is it so taboo to question the legitimacy of the dating of Egypt as a whole? Why is it unreasonable to think we have too quickly assumed too much about Egypt.

After the discovery of Göbekli Tepe and it's deliberate burial 12,000 years ago, I wholeheartedly believe that we need reevaluate certain sites throughout our planet. It is clear that there was a devastating cataclysm, likely from a kilometer-wide asteroid or a comet hitting Greenland around 12,000 years ago. What if certain structures were built prior to this cataclysm and then discovered by later civilizations and then those civilizations worshipped the structures/artifacts. If certain things in Egypt are older than this cataclysm than human beings had a tremendous amount of time to evolve and advance and if we assume humans haven't changed much in intelligence in the last 30,000 or so years, why is it unreasonable to think we might be missing something? What if the glacier over North America erased some of the history that could have filled in some gaps in the timeline? What if a cataclysm about 12,000 years ago erased vital data/artifacts?

Education should be irrelevant to emotion and feelings, education is the pursuit of truth, whatever that may be.

I strongly recommend that the "tomb hypothesis" be reduced to a theory/hypothesis until such a time as it is incontrovertible, just like any other field of science. It should remain the hypothesis with the most academic support, however, an incomplete hypothesis. It does not explain the levels of advanced engineering and absurdly high precision that is present in artifacts like the Statues of Ramses, the squareness; flatness; or perpendicularity of the 100 ton Granite boxes at Serapeum of Saqqara; or the palm shaped red granite columns of Sahure accredited to the Old Kingdom. Not to mention the fact that the Sphinx was buried in sand for much of its life, so that could be far older.

There are things that need to be reevaluated and it starts with the lack of accuracy with dating the structures that cannot be directly dated with any genuine precision.

I highly suggest you take a closer look at this book: https://archive.org/details/ltoaecd

This book is written by Christopher Dunn who is a manufacturing engineer who visited Egypt no less than half a dozen times analyzing it as a manufacturing engineer with a background in precision engineering and CNC machining.

The complex curves that exist in some of the Statues alone warrant further investigation, but when a precision right angle that is flat and square to 0.0002" or better shows no light when pressed up against certain artifacts in Egypt, the flint tools and copper chisel and slave labor hypothesis truly begins to break down.

I suggest the tomb theory be reduced to a theory until it is incontrovertible. I do not believe that is the case today. Kevin.Delaney93 (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Wikipedia reflects the scientific consensus of today; see WP:FRINGE. If such consensus changes, Wikipedia will reflect that in due time. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Contemporary volume

Both the original and contemporary heights are given, so I would suggest the same be done for the volume. It currently only shows the original volume. PopeRigby (talk) 21:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

age

new studies say that it's at-least 6,400 years old. maybe add this to the article?

Which studies, and on what grounds? A. Parrot (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Some one may want to edit this:

"Egyptologists conclude that the pyramid was built as a tomb for the Fourth Dynasty Egyptian pharaoh Khufu and estimate that it was built in the 26th century BC during a period of around 27 years." 24.24.187.216 (talk) 07:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 12 October 2021

The (solitary) link to Trestle is incorrect; that is a redirect to trestle bridge.

Please change the link to target trestle support. I think that is fine unpiped.

Thanks. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources on the weird beliefs surrounding the Great Pyramid of Giza

I don't know if I'll ever be able to edit this article extensively, but I've been delving into the esoteric and fringe ideas about the Great Pyramid for a long time, and I now have enough sources about it to have formed a fairly complete picture. There's a long history of esoteric beliefs about the Great Pyramid, which are largely responsible for inspiring the "alternative" ideas about the pyramid that circulate today. Some of this stuff is covered in the current section titled "historiographic record", but although the real dimensions and history of the pyramid should of course be the main focus of the article, I think the esoteric stuff can be covered in a more well-rounded way, even if the total text about it doesn't increase. The topic may, in fact, merit an article of its own. I thought I'd note the most significant sources here for anyone who has the interest, time, and resources to make use of them.

The most comprehensive source about the evolution of these esoteric beliefs is The Legends of the Pyramids (2021) by Jason Colavito. One of the few influential beliefs about the pyramids that Colavito doesn't discuss is the belief that the Great Pyramid's interior was used for mystery initiations, which, as described at Mysteries of Isis#Influences in modern times, derives from the 18th-century novel Séthos and then passed into Masonic lore. As Erik Hornung points out in The Secret Lore of Egypt (2001), this is one of the major beliefs that inspired Harvey Spencer Lewis and the AMORC to claim that there's a network of secret passages linking the pyramid to other places on the Giza Plateau, in which esoteric lore was stored and initiation took place. As Colavito and others have said, Lewis's ideas seem to have been the inspiration for the belief in the "Hall of Records", which fed into the Orion correlation theory, the most recent fringe belief about the pyramids to make a really big splash. The two best sources on the OCT are Giza: The Truth (2000) by Ian Lawton and Andrew Ogilvie-Herald (which is currently listed in this article's bibliography but not actually cited) and "Alternative Egypts" by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, in Consuming Ancient Egypt (2003), edited by Sally MacDonald and Michael Rice. (Lawton, Ogilvie-Herald, Picknett, and Prince are all fringe-adjacent, but their work in these sources is pretty level-headed—Consuming Ancient Egypt is actually published by UCL Press—and nobody with better academic qualifications seems to have discussed the history of the Orion correlation theory as comprehensively as they do.) A. Parrot (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Would be good to add to the main article: Pyramidology
Hypnôs (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Although that article does discuss pseudoarchaeological beliefs about the pyramids, I'm not sure it's actually correct to do so. My understanding of the word "pyramidology" is that it refers to what the article calls "metrical" and "numerological" pyramidology—the belief that the pyramid's dimensions encode mystical meanings—rather than to the whole complex of fringe ideas surrounding the pyramid (e.g., that's how Merriam-Webster defines it). A. Parrot (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
From what I gathered is that many sources include any other fringe/pseudoscience/new-age claims, as the wiki article does, for example, the BBC article[2] or Encyclopedia.com article[3]
Also, Merriam-Webster has 1924 as earliest known use, when Smyth used it as early as 1865-70.[4]
Hypnôs (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree that WP:PROFRINGE belongs in Pyramidology with other various religious or pseudoscientific speculations regarding pyramids, and that real dimensions and history of the pyramid should remain the focus of the article. The concentrated fringe section of the WP:POVFORK Mysteries of Isis ethnocentric fantasy article (see Talk:Mysteries of Isis/GA2) is derived largely from the work of Lefkowitz (1997) (and Macpherson who cites her). Lefkowitz's work has been characterized (not my claim) as ethnocentric, favoring speculation over eyewitness accounts and as representing a singular view (Howe, 1998; Keita, 2000; Conyers, 1996).
The present article is not the place for personal opinions about the Great Pyramid of Giza, WP:PROFRINGE and WP:VOTESTACKING (see Talk:Eleusinian Mysteries#Relationship with other mystery rites) agendas. Seeking (below) to attribute claims to an editor rather than the RSes from which they originated, misattributing sources (such as Assmann, Hornung, and Spieth) towards personal unsupported POV pushing, insistence on viewing history under the lens of ethnocentric views and debate, favoring single author sources over reliable encyclopedic literature, and the admission (below) that the main source material for the desired edits has been heavily criticized by reliable RSes all raise obvious red flags. Charles Bélanger Nzakimuena (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
This again? Your claim that Lefkowitz is "fringe" has been rejected by every other editor who discussed it. While aspects of her work have been criticized by other RSes, the only one I can find that challenges what she says about Sethos is Howe, who does treat Sethos as a major influence on mystical beliefs about Egypt (p. 122) while pointing out that it was not the only source for such ideas among Afrocentrists (p. 135) and that Lefkowitz overlooks many of the steps in the chain of transmission between Sethos and the Afrocentrists (p. 72). None of what Howe says contradicts any of the text at Mysteries of Isis, and once again you ignore the four other reliable sources in that article (Assmann, Hornung, Macpherson, and Spieth) that also treat Sethos as a major influence on later esoteric beliefs. (In any case, whether it goes here or in Pyramidology, Sethos should only receive two or three sentences in this context, at most.) A. Parrot (talk) 03:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


There is not one reference or mention to how to build this structure in a tangable world. This is old rehashed ideas that makes the reader think that becouse they are given dimentions of all the chambers and what not, that some how this constitues how this structure was built, Just another redundent artical that have wiki editor patting themselves on the back. 70.190.172.188 (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Alan B Christ

Is the reliance on royal cubits in #Interior useful?

Is the use of egyptian royal cubits (and one use of egyptian feet) really the best way for describing the measures of the tunnels and chambers? In my opinion it's unwieldy to read, and its used in a quite inconsistent manner sometimes giving way to metric or imperial measurements, and is arbitrarily converted to 1 cubit equaling either 0.50m or 0.52m as it happens to fit.

I'd suggest changing it to a uniform "[metric] ([imperial])" and "[metric] ([imperial]; [cubit])" where appropriate.

Any notes or opinions? SkSlick (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

The Great Pyramid is not 6500 years old.

More evidence has been discovered proving the Pyramid is closer to 10,000 years or older. 2601:601:517:364F:9533:E936:114A:2C8D (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

What source(s) do you have for that? It's current age is given as approx 4590 years. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

2.3 stone used to build the Great Pyramid

This number was made using an estimation based on the bulk divided by a standard sized block of stone. I believe this calculation was done before the realization that a substantial amount of the volume of the pyramid was made up by the incorporation of the a portion of the ridgeline within in it. The estimation is 23%. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00319586/document. I believe also that the volume of pyramid did not take into account the 500,000 tons of gypsum mortars used within and general sloppiness of the core stones.

The average side measurement, at the base = 759.3 ft. The height used was 201 steps high, or 480 feet. (This is minus the height of the Capstone, which was one piece in itself. The number reached by the Pascal computer program was 603,728 blocks used. The solid core takes up the space of 13,016 stones. So, the actual number of stones used to build the Great Pyramid is 603,728 - 13,016 = 590,712. This figure is (2,300,000 - 590,712) = 1,709,288 blocks less than the often published 2.3 million value. Hanslune Hanslune (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

This isn't the place to share original research or debate one's own theories. We base all our articles on published material from reliable sources. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The 2.3 is stated as an estimate with no citation - where exactly did it come from then? Here is the problem that number 2.3 is used alot but no one ever looks at when it was made and how? It doesn't appear to have incorporated in that calculation the inclusion of the ridgeline? So, if no one know where the number came from why is it in this wikipedia page? Oh, and not I'm not a fringe nut I'm someone who has notice we are using a number that doesn't appear to be correct or come from a scientific source. I believe we should challenge it and determine if it is scientifically valid or just a case of repeating information because it was being used in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanslune (talk • contribs) 06:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Hanslune Of course it's cited - to John Romer. We can't do our own calculations, see WP:NOR. Also see [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=2.3+million+blocks+great+pyramid&btnG=]. Doug Weller talk 09:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Doug we use to debate at Hall of Ma'at and few other places. The link worked and here is what one said: Most books and encyclopedias stated that there were 2.3 million stone blocks in the Great Pyramid,
without mentioning the method used to calculate this figure [4,6,7,11]. The British astronomer Charles
Piazzi Smyth estimated that there were about two hundred floors of blocks on the pyramid and that the
number of blocks in the Great Pyramid was about 2.69 million [2]. Socrates [6] determined the size and
weight of a standard block and ran a Pascal computer program to obtain an estimate of the number of
blocks used, which was about 600,000 blocks.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dominic-Thibault/publication/360089118_Mathematical_Equation_for_Determining_the_Number_of_Blocks_in_an_Egyptian-like_Square-Based_Pyramid_of_Equilateral_Type/links/62619a93bca601538b5cd66a/Mathematical-Equation-for-Determining-the-Number-of-Blocks-in-an-Egyptian-like-Square-Based-Pyramid-of-Equilateral-Type.pdf
Yeah so we have a basis but what hasn't been done is take into account the incorporation of the ridgeline into the structure (https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00319586/document) which estimates it takes up 23% of the volume plus the general slop of the core tiers and the gypsum mortar all of which effects a pure mathematically volume calculation. For slop we have an aerial image of the top tier of GP. https://i.imgur.com/RMTkLMf.jpg. for the lower core stones we have what I believe is the NE corner. https://i.imgur.com/PwCpoI6.jpg, so some slop and irregular fitting leaving gaps. Now shouldn't the solid volume calculation be redone to include the ridgeline, mortar and slop? Thanks Hanslune (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Honestly I don't know the answer, all I know is that we need reliable sources, and neither Smyth nor Socrates are. Doug Weller talk 09:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
So, what is the way forward? I believe you'd agree that our present number of 2.3 is flawed and incorrect especially in regards to the incorporation of the ridge line into the structure and the number being subject to what size of stone you want to count, cut the size you get more, increase the size you get less. What can we do with the ridge line study? Is it too speculative or can we get a substantial estimate from it? Any suggestions Doug? 2600:6C55:7E3F:26A:99FC:C68C:8751:F89B (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Our only choice is to find academic sources. Doug Weller talk 18:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I tried looking this up in the most detailed recent book about the Giza complex, Giza and the Pyramids (2017) by Mark Lehner and Zahi Hawass, but it still uses the 2.3 million estimate. They're well aware of the interior massif and the slop factor; indeed, they mention them both on the exact page (p. 143) where they give the estimated number of blocks. A. Parrot (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
So how to get the scientific folks to understand we are using an outdated number not supported by anything but being a 'traditional' number i.e., a 'dogma'? The XIIIth International Congress of Egyptologists (ICE) is to be held 6-11 August 2023, in Leiden, (the Netherlands) under the auspices of the International Association of Egyptologists (IAE). I mean it's not a major issue but it is certainly a glaring error. 2600:6C55:7E3F:26A:A1F7:8EFB:DE68:37E9 (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

G.k

Where is the Great Pyramid of Giza located 106.207.9.187 (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

IN EGYPT. 24.51.192.49 (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
There should be a map. 104.187.66.104 (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Position of the pyramid

Exact information on the pyramid's position should be added following the GPS measurement carried out by Glen Dash in 2018. source : https://aeraweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/aeragram19_1.pdf Darkdvd (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The GPS coordinates currently in the article are based on the survey you linked already. Hypnôs (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. The GPS coordinates (WGS 84) are: 29°58'44.44" N 31°7'57.08" E
You can check in the document on page 17. Darkdvd (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
29.979011, 31.132522
not
29.979167, 31.134167 Darkdvd (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Page 17 has the wrong coordinates: "The published coordinates for the center of the top of the Great Pyramid plotted on Google Earth place it more than 180 meters west of its true location."
The results of the survey are on page 19: "...find that the center of the base of the mast [on top of the Great Pyramid] rests at Latitude 29° 58' 45.05570" North and Longitude 31° 08' 03.11209" East." Hypnôs (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, Sorry, my mistake.
Would it be possible to refer to this work?
Glen Dash's mission on 26 February 2018, with the agreement of the local authorities, has climbed the Cheops pyramid with his team in order to take a GPS measurement from its summit revealed a 180-metre discrepancy between the pyramid's published coordinates (29°58'44.44" N 31°7'57.08" E) and its actual position in the current reference frame (WGS 84). The "E1 station", which serves as a reference point on the Giza plateau, has thus been accurately repositioned(ref.)
ref AERAGRAM 19-1,Where in the World Is the Great Pyramid? https://aeraweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/aeragram19_1.pdf (p. 19)"
(excuse my bad english ;-) Darkdvd (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I added the link as a source for the coordinates. But your explanatory paragraph is of undue length as it does not add any useful information about the pyramid. It's just that different reference systems produce different coordinates for the same location. Hypnôs (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
OK, I understand, thank you! Darkdvd (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Construction

The Great Pyramid consists of an estimated 2.3 million blocks. Approximately 5.5 million tonnes of limestone, 8,000 tonnes of granite, and 500,000 tonnes of mortar were used in the construction.[81]

I remember seeing something on YT about a French team in the '80s drilling into the interior of the great pyramid expecting to find a hollow area but sand came pouring out of the drill hole.

Do we know how much of the interior is actually composed of blocks vs. being backfilled with sand or rubble? 24.51.192.49 (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Workforce

The Greeks believed that slave labour was used, but modern discoveries made at nearby workers' camps associated with construction at Giza suggest that it was built by thousands of conscript laborers

What's the practical difference between a conscript and a slave? If the Pharaoh tells you you're going to work on his pyramid, can you really just refuse, and that's that? 24.51.192.49 (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The practical difference is that the period of service was limited and they didn't become anyone's property. As I understand it, each village and town would be expected to produce a certain number of conscripts for each building season (which was limited to the innundation, when agricultural work ceased while the fields were flooded), and it was up to the community to decide how to select its quota of conscripts. The work would last half a year, then when the floodwaters receded the conscripts would get to return home, and next flood season their communities would probably select a different batch for a turn at working for the king (which, with their religious beliefs, including that their king was divine, they would no doubt have seen as an honour in any case). Also, technically the king wasn't known as Pharaoh yet; that term dates to a later period in Egyptian history. ENEvery (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Also, technically the king wasn't known as Pharaoh yet; that term dates to a later period in Egyptian history.
Fair enough, but the first sentence in this article refers to Khufu as Pharaoh -- "The Great Pyramid of Giza[a] is the largest Egyptian pyramid and the tomb of Fourth Dynasty pharaoh Khufu." 24.51.192.49 (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Well I can be overly pedantic about these kinds of things. I am aware that in common usage "Pharaoh" refers to basically any ancient Egyptian king, but it still grates me. ENEvery (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
My understanding is that a Pharaoh is the religious ruler and is not necessarily the head of state, but commonly was. I think it's safe to put Khufu into this role, vs. the early Ptolemaic or Nubian rulers, which were Kings (and queens), but not Pharaohs. I think it's very well understood Khufu was a Pharaoh and King. If we acknowledge the pyramids have a religious function, it's hard to discount the builders role as simply a head of state. 24.51.192.49 (talk) 09:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
That's incorrect. The term "Pharaoh" derives from the ancient Egyptian "Per-aha", referring to the royal palace (it translates literally as "great house"). In the New Kingdom (more than a thousand years after the time of Khufu) it came to be seen as rude to refer to the king as "the king"; instead, it became conventional to refer to the king metonymically as "the palace" or "Per-aha". It's from this term that the ancient Greeks later borrowed the term as "Pharaoh", and from there the term entered various European languages. The Pharaoh (as well as earlier Egyptian kings) was always both the head of state and the chief priest (in theory, the chief priest of all the temples; the various "high priests" throughout Egypt were, at least nominally, the king's deputies). But the point here is that in Khufu's time no one would have referred to any king of Egypt as Pharaoh. ENEvery (talk) 17:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
ENEvery is correct. But I pointed out a few months back, here, that the Egyptological sources use "king" and "pharaoh" more or less interchangeably, and WP generally follows the usage of the relevant reliable sources.
(Moreover, I would argue that "king" is even less reflective of ancient Egyptian usage than "pharaoh". "King" is a generic term that can apply to the monarch of any land, whereas "pharaoh" applies only to a monarch of ancient Egypt. The Egyptian word nswt, the original term for that monarch, similarly applied exclusively to him, not to any other ruler, no matter how powerful. Nobody else compared to the divinely endorsed son of Ra. By historical happenstance, the English language settled on a similarly unique term for the Egyptian monarch, which treats him as distinct from any other ruler. Should our terminology be bound by the ancient Egyptians' chauvinist worldview? No, but neither should it be bound by quirks of ancient Egyptian etymology. We follow the usage of the sources.) A. Parrot (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
The article on Khufu also states he was pharaoh. The article on Cleopatra states she was queen. So there's some differentiation here so I don't think I'm wrong. There were Egyptian rulers that were not pharaohs, but rather heads of state (Kings and Queens, rather than religious rulers). 24.51.192.49 (talk) 04:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Stating Khufu wasn't a Pharaoh is a strange position given that title is very well sourced here in multiple articles. 57.135.233.22 (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2023

BoschA (talk) 08:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

It might be nice to add this sketch of the grand gallery (since the wiki has a section specifically devoted to the gallery) made in 1698 by Cornelis de Bruyn who visited the inside of the Great Pyramid on a guided tour, carrying a blowtorch. The sketch was made afterwards, from his own recollection.

Bruy004reiz03ill129

The digitzed version of the original book which contains this drawing can be found here.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2023

I wanted to add more info to egypt Vnnghghg (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_Pyramid_of_Giza/Archive_5&oldid=1222519740"