Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ronald Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Hi All,
> >
> >
> > If water-channels were used in the> > construction/transportation of obelisks, imo,
> it
> > is not unreasonable to assume that water and
> > water-channels could have been used in far
> bigger
> > enterprises, such as building Khufu's Great
> > Pyramid ...
> >
>
>
> Yes, except for that pesky problem that the
> pyramids were often built on high plateaus... well
> above the level of the Nile.


I know that Giza is a plateau.


>
> There are no such canals at Giza, as we find at
> Aswan.


Yes, but maybe the canals where from a different kind, such as a series of sluices. The AE were very ingenious. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they found a way to solve the problem of bringing water to a higher topographic level. Maybe the causeway is an altered supply-watercanal.



Take a look at this picture I took. I'm
> standing just southeast of the Sphinx, which can
> be seen in the bottom left of the picture. From
> this, you get an idea of the considerable slope up
> the plateau to the pyramid.


I already knew it is a fairly considerable slope.



> Suffice it to say, there would have been no canals
> dug here that wouldn't still be visible today.


That indeed is the problem. A canal from the Nile or from the vicinity of the Nile to the construction-site would have left its traces. I don't know how deep the causeway's fundaments go, but, yes, if it once was a supply-canal with sluices, it, imo, should still be visible today and traceable with the survey-methods we now have. But remaining fact is that the course of the causeway still IS visible ...



> And, although the Nile does flow "backwards" (from
> south to north), it does not, as far as I know,
> extend that particular trait to flowing uphill.


That is why Man invented the system of consecutive sluices ...


Ronald.