Rating: 
Summary: Best and most useful pyramid book I've read
Review: I wish I had read this book before going to Giza. The pyramids are to say the least an overwhelming experience. If I would have had this book with me I would have seen much more and understood much better what I was seeing. I'm taking it with me when I go back.
Rating: 
Summary: Good nuts and bolts but missed the mark for me.
Review: Lehner does what he does so well. Except for changing his tune a little from his last work, the actual building process was overdone, I think. Whether he made some miscalculations here and there is not so important to the genre. There is some evidence that the ancients knew how to forge copper into a much harder tool than we would expect today. There is better modern evidence of the overall engineering available to the reader elsewhere.
What I wanted to see was more behind the title. I wanted to see why the design was chosen and so painstakingly duplicated not only in Egypt, but also in China and South America. Also, other than elaborate busy-work, why were they commissioned in the first place? And who were the designers?
Ah, for that answer I refer you to The Ark of Millions of Years, by Clark & Agnew. The common origin of the design and the civilization it took to muster the resources are beautifully documented in great literary style. The recognition by the ancients of the significance and true use of the design is supported from so many sources it is impossible to misunderstand.
Without taking sides or preaching some philosophy, The Ark of Millions of Years may be the best book ever written on the subject of earth science and creation. I liked it so well I bought two more copies for my friends.
Rating:
Summary: This text sets a new standard for archaeological literature.
Review: Like its author, this book is completely devoted to the Pyramids of Egypt. The major premise - that the archaeological record bears witness to an evolution of pyramid design, construction and function from beginning to end of the Pyramid Age - is demonstrated brilliantly and completely. It explains without exhausting the religious significance of the conceptual Pyramid Complex, then concentrates on the 'brick and mortar' aspects of its subject. An informative review of explorations at the pyramid sites throughout the ages is equally as interesting as the detailed descriptions of the pyramids themselves that follows in a section fittingly titled "The Whole Pyramid Catalogue". This catalogue, comprising fully half the volume, is a description of each individual Egyptian Pyramid Complex presented (chronologically) with such clarity of detail that it dispels all ambiguity created by several lifetimes of sensationalist and speculative journalism surrounding its subject. In its latter pages the author discusses the role of the Pyramid Complex as administrative center and landlord in later antiquity, and gracefully addresses the more controversial of topics, including the ubiquitous "how did they do it" question, along with his own speculations on some unanswered sociological questions - the size of the work force and logistics. Quite reasoned and well-informed estimates lead him to conclusions that will in their own right prove controversial. One notable unintended consequence of this volume is that many artifacts, presented elsewhere as "Art", assume their appropriate contextual venue and so now hold much more meaning for this reader. The Narmer Palate as declarative stellae in a walled courtyard at Nekhen is one example, the gilded yet austere canopied boudoir of Hetepheres is another. The text is very well written and easily read. Heavily illustrated, the photographs are appropriate, of excellent quality and are well placed; line drawings are used throughout to clarify and supplement photographs. With this volume Dr. Mark Lehner joins the ranks of Egypt's most celebrated archaeologists, and surpasses them all in understanding and presentation of the facts concerning the Pyramids.
Rating: 
Summary: The Incomplete Pyramids: Distorting the Ancient Mysteries
Review: The author who asked readers to believe people were grotesque hybrid
beings with horse heads and human bodies when the Great Pyramid was
built, and that native Egyptians had tails and feathered legs (Mark
Lehner, The Egyptian Heritage: Based on the Edgar Cayce Readings,
1974) is proposing nonsensical information about pyramid
construction. The Complete Pyramids does not ask readers to believe
the Great Pyramid was built by Atlanteans in 12,000 B.C., or that when
people were cleansed in the temples their claws changed into hands and
their tails fell away, as he did in The Egyptian Heritage. But he does
expect readers to believe information that defies scientific
methodology and the archaeological record. For brevity, I offer only
four points with hope of helping to correct the record.First,
consider how Mark Lehner defies scientific method. He recognizes that
Giza is not known to exhibit the housing needed for the 100,000 or
more builders engineers assert were needed to build the Great Pyramid
within Khufu's reign. Lehner proposes only 25,000 men, indicating,
however, that most were miscellaneous workers. To get his reduced
number, Lehner wrongly calculates with an averaged block weight of 2.5
tons, rather than taking into account a myriad of far larger building
units of over 15 tons. Although more study of the block weights is
warranted, Lehner fails to acknowledge that the heights of the blocks
are sufficiently documented to make better calculations than he would
have readers believe. Indeed, the heights of each course were first
measured in the 1800s and as recently as the 1970s. The published
reports of these studies match (except for the loss of some upper
tiers since the 1800s) because of accurate measurements. The charts
show that many of the heaviest blocks in the outer masonry are at the
level of the King's Chamber. Some of these blocks occupy the height of
two tiers. By calculating with an averaged weight of 2.5 tons, Lehner
rids the workforce of many thousands. Furthermore, Lehner
incorrectly uses a calculation for moving blocks along level ground,
rather than one for raising blocks on a ramp! He thereby reduces the
workforce by many thousands. Second, Lehner assumes that nummulitic
limestone blocks can be leveled and otherwise shaped with copper
tools. Thus, he ignores up-to-date Egyptology. For instance, Dieter
Arnold's Building in Egypt (1993) recognizes that the mines could not
furnish enough copper for cutting millions of pyramid blocks, and
Arnold shows that copper tools are unworkable on medium-hard to hard
limestone (the Great Pyramid's blocks are mostly medium-hard to
hard). In short, the strongest metal of the Pyramid Age was too soft
to cut the blocks so as to render the Great Pyramid's extraordinary
features. Third, Lehner's estimate of the time required to quarry
blocks is useless, and his discussion of how blocks could have been
quarried is misleading. Lehner writes: "To build the Great
Pyramid in 23 years...322 cu. m (11,371 cu. ft) of stone had to be
quarried daily. How many quarrymen would this require? Our NOVA
pyramid-building experiment provided a useful comparison:...8.5
stones per day. But though they worked barefoot and without power
tools, they had the advantage of a winch with an iron cable to pull
the stones away from the quarry face. An additional 20-man team might
have been needed for the task in Khufu's day." The NOVA crew,
however, used modern steel tools! Lehner's calculation is invalid
because he utilizes the tremendous advantage afforded by steel tools
(it is incorrect for Lehner to call NOVA's tools 'iron,' although
steel is mostly iron. His use of the word iron makes NOVA's tools seem
like those of the ancient world. They are not. Furthermore, the
Egyptians did not possess iron until 800 years after the Great
Pyamid's construction, and iron does not have the capabilities of
steel). NOVA's quarrymen can be seen using steel adzes and steel pry
bars. They used heavy steel pickaxes to cut trenches to isolate
blocks. They drove steel wedges beneath blocks and hit these wedges
with steel sledgehammers. Compare Pyramid Age tools of copper, wood
and stone. If Lehner presented such methodology in the 'hard'
sciences, he would be subjected to the kind of criticism that end
careers. Lehner adds that his "figure can be expanded further
to compensate for other advantages of iron tools." With this he
admits, in a manner too subdued to alert the average reader of his
tactics, that his estimate does not involve Pyramid Age tools. Pyramid
Age tools are inadequate for quarrying or shaping good-quality
limestone blocks. No matter how many workers are employed, if the
tools are inadequate the work cannot be completed. The very existence
of the Great Pyramid suggests that a different method was
used. Fourth, Lehner's calculation of the number of men needed to
haul blocks from the quarry to the Great Pyramid is flawed and
misleading. He writes, "Let us assume that the stone haulers
could move 1 km (0.62 miles) per hour en route from the quarry to the
pyramid...The distance from Khufu's quarry to the pyramid, at c. 6o
slope, could probably be covered in 19 minutes by 20 men pulling a 2.5
ton block. Certainly, this was well within the capacities of the NOVA
team..." Again, Lehner uses averaged weights of 2.5 tons,
ignoring the need to address hundreds of thousands of 15-ton and
larger units. He insinuates that NOVA's experiment validates his
calculations! A front-end loader, however, hauled all blocks from the
quarry. Even the three or four one-ton stones raised manually for
NOVA's on-camera demonstration were hauled and placed onto the
mini-ramp by this machine. Lehner mentions the front-end loader,
implying it only set stones in the lower courses of NOVA's
mini-pyramid. ....
Rating:
Summary: The Incomplete Pyramids: Distorting the Ancient Mysteries
Review: The author who asked readers to believe people were grotesque hybrid
beings with horse heads and human bodies when the Great Pyramid was
built, and that native Egyptians had tails and feathered legs (Mark
Lehner, The Egyptian Heritage: Based on the Edgar Cayce Readings,
1974) is proposing nonsensical information about pyramid
construction. The Complete Pyramids does not ask readers to believe
the Great Pyramid was built by Atlanteans in 12,000 B.C., or that when
people were cleansed in the temples their claws changed into hands and
their tails fell away, as he did in The Egyptian Heritage. But he does
expect readers to believe information that defies scientific
methodology and the archaeological record. For brevity, I offer only
four points with hope of helping to correct the record. First,
consider how Mark Lehner defies scientific method. He recognizes that
Giza is not known to exhibit the housing needed for the 100,000 or
more builders engineers assert were needed to build the Great Pyramid
within Khufu's reign. Lehner proposes only 25,000 men, indicating,
however, that most were miscellaneous workers. To get his reduced
number, Lehner wrongly calculates with an averaged block weight of 2.5
tons, rather than taking into account a myriad of far larger building
units of over 15 tons. Although more study of the block weights is
warranted, Lehner fails to acknowledge that the heights of the blocks
are sufficiently documented to make better calculations than he would
have readers believe. Indeed, the heights of each course were first
measured in the 1800s and as recently as the 1970s. The published
reports of these studies match (except for the loss of some upper
tiers since the 1800s) because of accurate measurements. The charts
show that many of the heaviest blocks in the outer masonry are at the
level of the King's Chamber. Some of these blocks occupy the height of
two tiers. By calculating with an averaged weight of 2.5 tons, Lehner
rids the workforce of many thousands. Furthermore, Lehner
incorrectly uses a calculation for moving blocks along level ground,
rather than one for raising blocks on a ramp! He thereby reduces the
workforce by many thousands. Second, Lehner assumes that nummulitic
limestone blocks can be leveled and otherwise shaped with copper
tools. Thus, he ignores up-to-date Egyptology. For instance, Dieter
Arnold's Building in Egypt (1993) recognizes that the mines could not
furnish enough copper for cutting millions of pyramid blocks, and
Arnold shows that copper tools are unworkable on medium-hard to hard
limestone (the Great Pyramid's blocks are mostly medium-hard to
hard). In short, the strongest metal of the Pyramid Age was too soft
to cut the blocks so as to render the Great Pyramid's extraordinary
features. Third, Lehner's estimate of the time required to quarry
blocks is useless, and his discussion of how blocks could have been
quarried is misleading. Lehner writes: "To build the Great
Pyramid in 23 years...322 cu. m (11,371 cu. ft) of stone had to be
quarried daily. How many quarrymen would this require? Our NOVA
pyramid-building experiment provided a useful comparison:...8.5
stones per day. But though they worked barefoot and without power
tools, they had the advantage of a winch with an iron cable to pull
the stones away from the quarry face. An additional 20-man team might
have been needed for the task in Khufu's day." The NOVA crew,
however, used modern steel tools! Lehner's calculation is invalid
because he utilizes the tremendous advantage afforded by steel tools
(it is incorrect for Lehner to call NOVA's tools 'iron,' although
steel is mostly iron. His use of the word iron makes NOVA's tools seem
like those of the ancient world. They are not. Furthermore, the
Egyptians did not possess iron until 800 years after the Great
Pyamid's construction, and iron does not have the capabilities of
steel). NOVA's quarrymen can be seen using steel adzes and steel pry
bars. They used heavy steel pickaxes to cut trenches to isolate
blocks. They drove steel wedges beneath blocks and hit these wedges
with steel sledgehammers. Compare Pyramid Age tools of copper, wood
and stone. If Lehner presented such methodology in the 'hard'
sciences, he would be subjected to the kind of criticism that end
careers. Lehner adds that his "figure can be expanded further
to compensate for other advantages of iron tools." With this he
admits, in a manner too subdued to alert the average reader of his
tactics, that his estimate does not involve Pyramid Age tools. Pyramid
Age tools are inadequate for quarrying or shaping good-quality
limestone blocks. No matter how many workers are employed, if the
tools are inadequate the work cannot be completed. The very existence
of the Great Pyramid suggests that a different method was
used. Fourth, Lehner's calculation of the number of men needed to
haul blocks from the quarry to the Great Pyramid is flawed and
misleading. He writes, "Let us assume that the stone haulers
could move 1 km (0.62 miles) per hour en route from the quarry to the
pyramid...The distance from Khufu's quarry to the pyramid, at c. 6o
slope, could probably be covered in 19 minutes by 20 men pulling a 2.5
ton block. Certainly, this was well within the capacities of the NOVA
team..." Again, Lehner uses averaged weights of 2.5 tons,
ignoring the need to address hundreds of thousands of 15-ton and
larger units. He insinuates that NOVA's experiment validates his
calculations! A front-end loader, however, hauled all blocks from the
quarry. Even the three or four one-ton stones raised manually for
NOVA's on-camera demonstration were hauled and placed onto the
mini-ramp by this machine. Lehner mentions the front-end loader,
implying it only set stones in the lower courses of NOVA's
mini-pyramid. ....
Rating:
Summary: The Incomplete Pyramids: Distorting the Ancient Mysteries
Review: The author who asked readers to believe people were grotesque hybridbeings with horse heads and human bodies when the Great Pyramid wasbuilt, and that native Egyptians had tails and feathered legs (MarkLehner, The Egyptian Heritage: Based on the Edgar Cayce Readings,1974) is proposing nonsensical information about pyramidconstruction. The Complete Pyramids does not ask readers to believethe Great Pyramid was built by Atlanteans in 12,000 B.C., or that whenpeople were cleansed in the temples their claws changed into hands andtheir tails fell away, as he did in The Egyptian Heritage. But he doesexpect readers to believe information that defies scientificmethodology and the archaeological record. For brevity, I offer onlyfour points with hope of helping to correct the record.First,consider how Mark Lehner defies scientific method. He recognizes thatGiza is not known to exhibit the housing needed for the 100,000 ormore builders engineers assert were needed to build the Great Pyramidwithin Khufu's reign. Lehner proposes only 25,000 men, indicating,however, that most were miscellaneous workers.To get his reducednumber, Lehner wrongly calculates with an averaged block weight of 2.5tons, rather than taking into account a myriad of far larger buildingunits of over 15 tons. Although more study of the block weights iswarranted, Lehner fails to acknowledge that the heights of the blocksare sufficiently documented to make better calculations than he wouldhave readers believe. Indeed, the heights of each course were firstmeasured in the 1800s and as recently as the 1970s. The publishedreports of these studies match (except for the loss of some uppertiers since the 1800s) because of accurate measurements. The chartsshow that many of the heaviest blocks in the outer masonry are at thelevel of the King's Chamber. Some of these blocks occupy the height oftwo tiers. By calculating with an averaged weight of 2.5 tons, Lehnerrids the workforce of many thousands.Furthermore, Lehnerincorrectly uses a calculation for moving blocks along level ground,rather than one for raising blocks on a ramp! He thereby reduces theworkforce by many thousands.Second, Lehner assumes that nummuliticlimestone blocks can be leveled and otherwise shaped with coppertools. Thus, he ignores up-to-date Egyptology. For instance, DieterArnold's Building in Egypt (1993) recognizes that the mines could notfurnish enough copper for cutting millions of pyramid blocks, andArnold shows that copper tools are unworkable on medium-hard to hardlimestone (the Great Pyramid's blocks are mostly medium-hard tohard). In short, the strongest metal of the Pyramid Age was too softto cut the blocks so as to render the Great Pyramid's extraordinaryfeatures.Third, Lehner's estimate of the time required to quarryblocks is useless, and his discussion of how blocks could have beenquarried is misleading. Lehner writes: "To build the GreatPyramid in 23 years...322 cu. m (11,371 cu. ft) of stone had to bequarried daily. How many quarrymen would this require? Our NOVApyramid-building experiment provided a useful comparison:...8.5stones per day. But though they worked barefoot and without powertools, they had the advantage of a winch with an iron cable to pullthe stones away from the quarry face. An additional 20-man team mighthave been needed for the task in Khufu's day." The NOVA crew,however, used modern steel tools! Lehner's calculation is invalidbecause he utilizes the tremendous advantage afforded by steel tools(it is incorrect for Lehner to call NOVA's tools 'iron,' althoughsteel is mostly iron. His use of the word iron makes NOVA's tools seemlike those of the ancient world. They are not. Furthermore, theEgyptians did not possess iron until 800 years after the GreatPyamid's construction, and iron does not have the capabilities ofsteel). NOVA's quarrymen can be seen using steel adzes and steel prybars. They used heavy steel pickaxes to cut trenches to isolateblocks. They drove steel wedges beneath blocks and hit these wedgeswith steel sledgehammers. Compare Pyramid Age tools of copper, woodand stone. If Lehner presented such methodology in the 'hard'sciences, he would be subjected to the kind of criticism that endcareers.Lehner adds that his "figure can be expanded furtherto compensate for other advantages of iron tools." With this headmits, in a manner too subdued to alert the average reader of histactics, that his estimate does not involve Pyramid Age tools. PyramidAge tools are inadequate for quarrying or shaping good-qualitylimestone blocks. No matter how many workers are employed, if thetools are inadequate the work cannot be completed. The very existenceof the Great Pyramid suggests that a different method wasused.Fourth, Lehner's calculation of the number of men needed tohaul blocks from the quarry to the Great Pyramid is flawed andmisleading. He writes, "Let us assume that the stone haulerscould move 1 km (0.62 miles) per hour en route from the quarry to thepyramid...The distance from Khufu's quarry to the pyramid, at c. 6oslope, could probably be covered in 19 minutes by 20 men pulling a 2.5ton block. Certainly, this was well within the capacities of the NOVAteam..." Again, Lehner uses averaged weights of 2.5 tons,ignoring the need to address hundreds of thousands of 15-ton andlarger units. He insinuates that NOVA's experiment validates hiscalculations! A front-end loader, however, hauled all blocks from thequarry. Even the three or four one-ton stones raised manually forNOVA's on-camera demonstration were hauled and placed onto themini-ramp by this machine.Lehner mentions the front-end loader,implying it only set stones in the lower courses of NOVA'smini-pyramid. ....
Rating:
Summary: Highly Recommended
Review: The book delivers on what it promises. The text is intriguing and informative, and the photography is excellent. Not only does it cover the pyramids most familiar to the layman, but it also extends to the lesser-known (and less durable) Egyptian pyramids, as well as giving coverage of the efforts in Nubia to copy the Egyptian work with smaller pyramids. The level of detail was just right for a fascinated non-archeologist such as myself.
Rating:
Summary: fantastic and totally comprehensive source!
Review: The title of this book is so accurate! An overview of each major pyramid, replete with detailed illustrations, as well as a lot about Egyptian religion and all the excavations and explorations. If you have this book, you need no other Pyramid book! Ever!
|
