Hello Anthony,
You write, ‘That is generally the result when one focuses on one pyramid instead of all of them.’
Do you read a post through to the end before you respond to it?
The fact that I refer to Khafre’s pyramid in my post suggests that you do not.
You write, ‘The dressing of the casing stones was the last part of the project, after the pyramid was completed structurally.’
So it is believed by some.
Nobody knows that this is in fact what the Pyramid’s builders did.
It’s a speculation, Anthony; a very sound, perfectly reasonable, and IMO totally acceptable speculation, but a speculation all the same.
You write, ‘It is also reported that they were dressed from the top down (which makes sense, since the shavings and debris would damage already finished blocks if they did them from the bottom up).’
Oh, dear, another speculation, but again one that is very sound, perfectly reasonable, and, IMO, totally acceptable, but still a speculation.
You write, ‘ The first order of business, however, would be to begin near the entrance (making it perfect from a close inspection as one entered the pyramid proper) and would expand the dressing around the pyramid based on time available before the king's death.’
Goodness me, yet another speculation, but not one, IMO, as sound, reasonable, and acceptable as the previous two.
You write, ‘Since the blocks we see are far removed from the entrance, and near the bottom, it is almost certain that the pyramid itself was structurally completed, and in all likelihood, finished from a dressing point as well.’
There is absolutely nothing even remotely certain about this.
Yet again you speculate without admitting to it.
You write, ‘The evidence for this sequence of completion is available in the two pyramids that sit next to Khufu's on the plateau.’
So would you now care to explain why Khafre’s pyramid has most of its remaining casing at its top.
Are you, perhaps thinking that this is evidence for Khafre’s pyramid not being completed, rather than being stripped from the ground up?
You write, ‘You are incorrect in that conclusion then, for reasons clearly cited above.’
The reasons you give are speculations.
How do you justify reaching a conclusion on nothing more than a series of speculations?
BTW, I was not and am not drawing any conclusions here, Anthony.
I am merely speculating, much as you are, on what the remains of the pyramids at Giza are possibly telling us about whether or not they were completed.
I wrote, ‘If we look closely at the interior of Khufu's pyramid in and around the King's Chamber area
(particularly the Antechamber) we see comparatively shoddy workmanship (see Petrie).
Is this evidence that the "site foreman" wasn't around when this part of the Pyramid was being
constructed?’
You reply, ‘Of course not. It is evidence that the fine dressing of this part of the pyramid was not important to the builders.’
This is yet more speculation on your part, Anthony.
Here we have an apparently roughly finished small chamber purportedly intended to act as a portcullis system (which, incidentally, wouldn’t have worked anyway) sitting between two of the most magnificent and beautifully finished pieces of OK architecture known (the Grand Gallery and the King’s Chamber) and you claim it “was not important to the builders”.
As a matter of interest, have you ever given any consideration to the idea that what we see here is a chamber undergoing last minute alterations and being abandoned unfinished?
And have you taken a long, hard look at the top of the 'Granite Leaf'?
You write, ‘Not likely, for the reasons cited above.’
Please do allow me to correct this erroneous statement for you.
“Not likely, for the
speculations cited above.”
Regards,
MJ