Reconstructing the Great Pyramid

Welcome to History for Granite. Join me to explore ancient Egypt. Please subscribe, and together we'll uncover secrets from the past written in stone. When looking at the destruction wrought upon the pyramids of Giza, it's easy to get frustrated about all the information we have lost due to this carnage. Adding insult to injury, most of this damage was inflicted recently Most notably, the casing stones on these pyramids remained almost entirely intact until the large-scale plundering of them began about 700 years ago. Even the core summit of the Great Pyramid remained mostly intact until two centuries ago, and I recommend my video on that subject, which traces the exact year the destruction occurred. As satisfying as it was to prove when and probably why the Great Pyramid was flattened, I still felt a bit sad about the lost parts of the pyramid which could no longer be scrutinized. Both the summit and the casing stones of a pyramid are some of the most important clues in figuring out how they were constructed. We will need every last bit of data if a true understanding of how they were built can be established. So, with a feeling of annoyance about the damage and a head start on how to investigate what was lost, it was time to start reconstructing the missing pieces from any testimony that could be found. In this video, we're going to talk about what the missing summit of the Great Pyramid can teach us about its construction. The most important clue from the missing summit of the Great Pyramid was clearly the oversized course number 206. There is no doubt that this course was dramatically larger than the others near the top because several independent testimonies provide measurements of it. Additional descriptions by other visitors also corroborate the oversized blocks at that level. Why make a course of the Great Pyramid so much thicker near the top? The general pattern of pyramid courses is to trend thinner as you go up, especially towards the higher elevations. Course 206 was at least the twentieth thickest course on the entire pyramid, and you must go all the way down to course 99 until you find a thicker one. So confounding was this thick course that Egyptology has never addressed Nathaniel Davison's measurement of it, even though it was widely published by Robert Walpole in 1817. There is a long history of dismissing inconvenient data about the Great Pyramid, going all the way back to Strabo's account of a doorway at its entrance in 23 AD. Egyptology has greatly underestimated the reliability of past accounts of the pyramids, and so many important clues have been discarded to fit modern narratives about them. Perhaps the most important known account of course 206 comes from Johann Michael Wanslebun in the year 1672. Wanslebun was the first explorer to accurately count the courses of the Great Pyramid at 206, even pointing out how other explorers had counted two courses twice, giving the wrong total of 208. Wanslebun's observations at the summit led him to believe a statue was once placed on top of it. He likely concluded this based on Herodotus' account that statues were on top of pyramids at Lake Maris. On this point, Herodotus was likely incorrect because no pyramids had been found at Lake Maris, and Wanslebun was simply trying to reconcile what he observed in the context of known ancient history in his time. No doubt this misinterpretation by Wanslebun has caused his testimony to be overlooked, compounded by poor translations of his original manuscript. The 1678 English translation of his testimony says that the summit had great pits, which were to keep a colossus from falling over, and shown here is a reconstructed diagram of the summit. But in fact, Wanslebun's original Italian manuscript shows this diagram, stating, quote, The top is not flat even, but made in this manner, which clearly shows that in these depths were formed the bases of the statue that was placed on top. End quote. Wanslebun is likely describing the phenomenon we see at the summit of Khafre's pyramid, whereby summit casing stones are cut with protruding bevels to lock a higher course into a lower one. Indeed, Edward Montull in 1819 climbed Khafre's pyramid to the level of casing stones, and described the underside of this teetering stone as, quote, worked like the pediment of a Greek temple, or rather like the inverted pedestal of a colossal statue. End quote. Wanslebun's testimony is thus a clue that course 206 was the lowest course locked into the Tura limestone casing stones above it, or may even have been made from Tura limestone itself. Perhaps someday endoscopes inserted into the upper courses of Khafre's pyramid may reveal more information about how this was done. About 25 years after Wanslebun's visit, between 1693 and 1699, half of course 206 was destroyed, and nobody else noticed the indentations at the top of it. I was elated to discover Nathaniel had sketched a plan of the remaining six stones in his diary from 1765, in addition to measuring the thickness of course 206 as 3 feet 2 inches in size. Another traveler named James Dawkins in 1751 measured course 206 as 3 feet 1 inch thick, and so the data on course 206 was proving reliable. Dawkins, however, would drop the biggest bombshell of all time about the summit when he mentions that one of the stones on course 206 was 6 feet 6 inches square in size. This would make the block weigh about 20,500 pounds, or 9,300 kilograms. So incomprehensible is the size for a block so high on the pyramid that I knew it would be dismissed out of hand like so many other inconvenient testimonies. Knowing the importance of this discovery, and with the help of my amazing channel members, we tracked down two more testimonies that corroborate James Dawkins' account of this oversized stone. First comes Michael Inaman in 1711, who measures it at 6.5 feet by 6 feet by 3 feet, making it about 18,500 pounds. Even more remarkable is Giovanni Battista Bora, who sketched and measured every angle of the top three courses of the Great Pyramid in 1751. This drawing was unlabeled in his sketchbook, and thus nobody in modern times knew what was depicted or its great importance. However, by comparing it to Nathaniel Davison's simple drawing of Course 206, we can be certain about what Bora has documented here. It's difficult for me to put into words how amazing this find is. This is a technical drawing of a missing piece of a wonder of the ancient world. It would be like finding an illustration of the Colossus of Rhodes or the Temple of Artemis. Here we see again, at the top of the Great Pyramid, on Course 206, is this oversized stone that contradicts almost every pyramid construction theory. Bora's measurements for the large stone are 6 feet 4 inches by about 6 feet 3 inches, and so this data conforms to what other explorers had recorded. Bora's handwriting is suboptimal for legibility, but after carefully studying it, I have reconstructed his measurements for a model that closely resembles the drawing. The only number I can't reconcile is this measurement of 3 feet, which should be closer to 6 inches based upon other measures. My best guess is the decimal is missing, and it's 3 inches instead of feet. With that one adjustment, we get a beautiful scale model of the missing summit that conforms to Bora's drawing. There are also two small spacer blocks here that James Dawkins describes as irregular and stuck into cement. Many thanks to independent researcher Keith Hamilton for his 3D reconstructions of this space. It's interesting to take this reconstruction and compare it to the only known painting of the earlier summit. Luigi Meyer painted the top of the Great Pyramid between 1786 and 1794, right before its destruction. Meyer was precise in depicting exactly six stones at the top, and his scale is close, but the arrangement of stones is altered with artistic license. Back to the hard data, we have a range of 18,500 to 20,500 pounds for the largest stone, and Bora's measurements are right in the middle of that range. Therefore, 19,500 pounds, or 8,800 kilograms, is a safe estimate for it. I must emphasize that this single block contradicts many pyramid construction theories, including those put forth by famous Egyptologists. This model, proposed by Mark Lehner, relies upon increasingly steep ramps near the top with 90-degree turns along the edges. Such a design relies upon the assumption that blocks near the top were always smaller and could be managed with steeper grades and sharper angles. But this assumption was as incorrect as ancient aliens, and anyone attempting to solve the mystery of how the Great Pyramid was built needs to bring a nearly 10-ton stone 456 feet above the base. This is a far more difficult problem than maneuvering the largest blocks on the pyramid, which are the granite beams that cover the king's chamber. The largest of these may be close to 80 tons, but almost all of the others are about half that weight. However, these large beams are still low enough on the pyramid that you could deliver them using a long, relatively straight ramp. If the work is not constrained by space, then you can scale up conventional models of ropes and sleds, moving in a linear fashion. A recent TV show demonstrated how about 25 people could pull a two-ton block up a 10% grade in a sled. However, this does nothing to help solve the mystery of the blocks at course 206. If you multiply the weight by 5, then you need 125 stone pullers to fit on a ramp built up here, where space is extremely limited. I love when archaeology does experiments like this, and it has my full encouragement, but this demonstration is a long way off from solving the biggest challenges. The deeper mystery isn't even how such a large block could be brought to course 206, but why the ancient Egyptians would choose to do so in the first place. There's nothing special about this large block. It wasn't part of the king's chamber. It wasn't a casing stone. It was never even meant to be seen. It was just a core block of the pyramid that did not need to be so large, and could easily have been five separate two-ton blocks instead. This block demonstrates the ancient Egyptians had a greater mastery of While the blocks on the pyramid trend smaller as you get higher, this was a matter of convenience and not a building requirement. The Egyptians had the engineering capability to build the entire Great Pyramid out of blocks similar to stones at the bottom. This shakes the very foundation of how the building of the Great Pyramid should be evaluated. In a recent book by For years, it has been one of our principal pyramid preoccupations that theorists of all kinds do not recognize or acknowledge the actual fabric of the pyramid core. As it turns out, they didn't recognize the actual fabric of the pyramid core either. Whether or not they will acknowledge it remains to be seen, but that will require crediting my independent research. The era of analyzing the pyramid's construction using average-sized blocks is over. The mystery is not about moving blocks of this size. We have a bigger obstacle on our hands, an obstacle that weighs about 10 tons. This is not a problem to be lamented, but rather a challenge to be celebrated. I find it strange how Egyptologists frequently downplay these mysteries. In a recent TV documentary, Egyptologist Pierre Tellet states, In fact, there are no mysteries of ancient Egypt, just missing pieces of the puzzle. This statement implies any mystery can be solved because the missing clues may eventually be found. However, sometimes the destruction of but one stone in a pyramid can make it impossible to The reason so many people love the Great Pyramid is because of this mystery, and despite the proclamations of Egyptology, it has yet to solve the question that everyone yearns to answer. Perhaps this question was best articulated by Michael Inaman from his visit in 1711. After inspecting and measuring the largest block on course 206, he writes, One must well ask about, and wonder, how anyone could have brought them so high up in the air. It's a great question and a great mystery. So, in bringing to light this important piece of the puzzle, I hope everyone can wonder in awe about what we have yet to learn about ancient Egypt's biggest accomplishment. Thanks to everyone who watched this video to the end. Please subscribe to the channel to see more of this content. Give a like or comment as you see fit. And above all, remember to ask your friends if they take their history for granted.