Talk:Pyramid/Archive 1

Archive 1

Picture of the Pyramide in front of Le Louvres in Paris

We can't use pictures from this pyramid since its architect holds a copyright on it.

definition of a pyramid

A pyramid can have any polygon as its base, not merely trilateral/quadrilateral shapes.

references are essential to geometric discussions

The lack of references is a serious issue here; wikipedia is now mirrored so far and wide as the definitive source that when my wife asked (while helping the kids with homework) "must the normal to the of a pyramid be within the base?" I could not find anything but this un-referenced definition.

I do think this current definition is correct, but it would not surprise me to learn that, like trapezium and trapezoid, my well-meaning education had mis-informed me again :) and the real definition would require skewed pyramids to be called by some other name.

Esotericism

I don't know, but it seems sort of strange to talk about the "esoteric properties" of pyramids as if they were fact. AFAIK, scientific research hasn't proven this stuff, and my BS detector spikes on the mention of blades being dulled by moonlight. Zetawoof 22:35, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It was all added by a single author (an anon): [1]. Maybe that's why the one-person style looks a bit idiosyncratic. --Menchi 23:33, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I deleted it. Trekphiler 21:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive

Architecture of Africa is currently nominated on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Come to this page and support it with your vote. Help us improve this article to featured status.--Fenice 08:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

My edit

Since this article is about pyramids in general, not monuments, I merged all sections about acient monuments in one. I removed large section about Pyramids of Egypt because it was too large, pyramids of Egypt were alredy mentioned in this article and it seemed to be POV -- Xil - talk 20:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Two pages?

What's the point of having two disambiguation pages? Fredrik Johansson 16:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Oyam's Pyramid

Hi all, Theres an article Oyam's Pyramid which is proposed for deletion. The article refers to an intersting way of constructing a pyramid, and there is one souce for this [2], however the source does not mention the name Oyam and there are 0 google hits for it.

Has anyone come across such a construction, and has anyone got a name for the constructor? --Salix alba (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Georgia & Ukraine Pyramids

I removed these for the following reasons: I'm unable to find any references to any pyramid-shaped structures in Georgia. The "report" of pyramids in the Ukraine provides no source information for confirmation. --Ronz 17:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

re Ukraine Pyramids

I was the one who added the information about pyramids in Ukraine. Type "Ukraine" and "pyramids" in Google and you will find a number of sources. It was on TV this and last week too (French TV5 for example) with a footage of the structures. 8 September 2006.

I haven't found any verifiable, reliable sources yet, specifically reports with names of who is making the claims or who has examined whatever evidence exists. --Ronz 23:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It's true that nothing conclusive has been reached, yet; but the BBC and The Guardian have both reported on the possible finds - just something to watch. --Jugbo 02:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I just found this as well. Again, it's just something to watch. --Jugbo 02:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Lugansk_Pyramid --Ronz 14:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

beginning

i added to the beginning, because it didn't give a clear definition of what a pyramid was or its significance. --The Lizard Wizard 04:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Just one point re this: the external surfaces of a pyramid are not vertical, but i know what you are saying, and can't think of a better way of putting it. Lyswim 20:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Reability of Article

I have recommended the Wikipedia website to my students, who are aged 16-19, for research purposes, however they have struggled to understand some of the articles. This is mainly due to the complexity of the language used. The readability score of the article is 13.71, which is the years of education needed to be able to understand this article on first reading, meaning it would require graduate level education to read and understand the article effectively. The article could be improved by reducing the length of the sentences, reducing the length of the paragraphs and replacing difficult words with more commonly used ones which would make the article more accessible to a wider and perhaps younger audience. Would any of the editors be prepared to review the article to make it easier to read and thus more accessible to more users? Sarahhcfe 14:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a special version of wikipedia written for those whose grasp of english is shaky. The articles are much easier to read, relying on simple vocabulary and grammatical constructs. Go to "simple.wiki.x.io". yandman 17:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Truly, if your 16-19 year old (English-speaking) students are unable to process this article, I think that they should be focusing on improving their grasp of the English language rather than reading Wikipedia. This is worrisome.

The caption to picture of the Pyramids of Giza "The 7000 years old building The Pyramids Of Giza" links ( http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Egyptian_pyramids ) to a page ( http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Egyptian_pyramids ) with the same picture with a different caption: "The 5500 year-old Pyramids Of Giza."

Polynesia

There should be at least some mention of the pyramids in polynesia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.229.221.138 (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

You mean Pulemelei Mound? --Ronz 03:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nubian mixup...

Violetrinity 00:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC) The following 2 paragraphs are completely contradictory! The former states that Nubian pyramids were constructed as tombs, while the latter states that they were NOT tombs, but rather monuments. What's the deal???

Nubian pyramids were constructed (roughly 220 of them) at three sites in Nubia to serve as tombs for the kings and queens of Napata and Meroë.

The Nubians built far more pyramids than the Egyptians, but they are much smaller. The Nubian pyramids were constructed at a much steeper angle than Egyptian ones and were not tombs, but monuments to dead kings.

demand for adding weblink in external links of pyramid

http://users.pandora.be/kenneshugo/index.html Pyramids Scientific Sacred Geometry. This website contains translations of representative topics out of the 10 books in Dutch of Prof. Thijs , Engeneering , Belgian University and High School of Hasselt. Those books describe the pyramids sacred geometry as full compatible with the laws of our positive sciences. Prof. Thijs gives a mathematical-geometrical and astronomical explanation of the pyramidal model. He also decodes the explicit number metaphors in the Bible Ancient and New Testament, reflecting exactly the astronomical maths and geometry of the Egyptian Great Pyramid model. Hugo.kennes 18:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Mayan Pyramids

There is absolutely no mention of Mayan Pyramids in the main article. An article on pyramids not mentioning Mayan pyramids at all is almost completely ineffective. The only mention of North American pyramids are platform mounds which aren't really even pyramids since they aren't structures. I see that there are pictures of Mayan Pyramids but if there is anyone who is knowledgeable enough about the subject I think they should improve the article and add it.

There's already a link to Mesoamerican_pyramids, which has a section on Mayan pyramids which includes a list of articles on specific Mayan pyramids. -- Ronz  23:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Phenomena

I remember reading somewhere before that pyramids exert some strange cooling phenomena. i.e. if u put butter in a paper pyramid it will stay cool. I think I later read that this was untrue. It would be nice to see a reference here, right or wrong. 195.213.112.110 13:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Complex of pyramids from San Petersburg (Russia)

The information on architecture and details of a complex of pyramids has been received by means of a framework (dowsing) and channelling.. In work materials results of researches in the field of alternative medicine where it is revealed are in more details stated, that the architecture of pyramids can is applied in the medical purposes. In this work it is shown, how the physical form of a matter influences movement of the radio form of a matter (the Spirit substance). And all it is carried out by means of architecture of making components of a pyramid. In work photos of development of architecture of a complex of pyramids are presented. The analysis and comparison to existing systems of clearing of a substance of Spirit is led. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shatilov Konstantin (talk • contribs) 13:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, the South Indian Chola Empire pyramids are overlooked

It seems that even on wikipedia the achievements of the Chola are overlooked.....including their giant granite pyramids. I'll add some info about them and hopefully more wikipedians can become educated in more than what they are taught about history in the West. It's surprising because this article has so many edits and is quite old and yet not a single mention of their magnificent pyramids. Zachorious 00:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Start with some references please. --Ronz 01:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed sentence about Indian pyramids

I have removed the following sentence concerning Indian pyramids from the "India" section of the article: "They are comparable to the Great Pyramid of Giza". I cannot see how they are comparable in any way. Indian pyramids are built in an entirely different, much more decorative, style than the Great Pyramid. Indian pyramids were built for a different purpose - worship rather than burial. Indian pyramids are not comparable in size to the Great Pyramid - the Gopuram at Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple is 236 feet high, whereas the Great Pyramid is 455 feet high. This is not a value judgement - they are just completely different types of buildings.

If someone wants to reinstate the sentence, please expand it to explain exactly how these buidlings are comparable with one another. Gandalf61 09:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The lead image

I felt that the image on the right was very ambiguous looking, with the only 3D cue being the dimension lines. The one on the square pyramid page (left) may not be ideal, but it's less 2D looking. Should we draw a new svg to get the best of both? I could adapt the one below that I made a while back for golden ratio. Dicklyon 23:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What?????

What Is the Material That the Egyptians made the Pyramids with???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.194.122 (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

permoda triangle

Omnisaur (talk) 06:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)The pyramidal shape if taken as four triangles combined, can be proved to be basically a triangular shape with an insulator or earthing on top of it. Compare it with the 'basic yantra' according to the Vedas in Indian Yoga, it would be just the same, only the triangle being bottom to top shape, with a similar line from above, which is the same as 'permoda triangle'. The three vertices of the triangle in Indian Yoga, specifically in Vedas, are labeled as 'preservation, creation, and destruction' and the top line is label as God. In Brahmanism, not Bramhanism; there is a difference between Brahma and Bramha, God Brahma would deliver the spirit, the body would be created by Bramha, as science have proven that the body is made out of carbon, dust, warmth for fire and some more elements, then the living body with the spirit in would be placed and preserved by the preserver Vishnu, and Shiva would destroy the body and the spirit would receive Moksha (Nirvana) i.e. salvation. Maybe the Egyptian believed that when the spirit leaves the body, then if they can please their deity primarily it was the Sun, was it Utu??? would sent the spirit back to the body through lighting from the sky and the body, rather bodies, inside the pyramid somewhere in the center of the pyramid, according to the 'basic yantra' the 'navi' (center) and the lighting pass through the insulator above would resurrect the body, after the proper spells from the 'book of the bead' would be gifted to God. So I believe no alien or dragon have been destroyed in creating the pyramid. No animal killing!!! Milan KB

huh? (You might do better in your own language first.)

Mexican Pyramids

Please add:

• El Castillo, Chichen Itza
• High Priest's Temple, Chichen Itza
• Pyramid of the Sun,Teotihuacan
• Pyramid of the Moon, Teotihuacan
• Temple of the Feathered Serpent, Teotihuacan
• The Great Pyramid of Cholula, Puebla
• Pyramid of the Magician in Uxmal

The link to Mesoamerican_pyramids is not enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.162.124 (talk) 07:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Pyramid of the Sun

Hi I wonder if you can put a picture and a reference of the biggest pyramid of the americas: The piramid of the sun in teotihuacan, mexico: [3] [4] [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.94.153 (talk • contribs)

I'll look into doing that. Dicklyon (talk) 17:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a link to List of ancient pyramids by country where it was missing. The pyrammid article is already a bit crowded with images in that region. And I haven't found any confirmation that it was the biggest. Dicklyon (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you are right. It is not the biggest but it base is just 3% smaller than the great pyramid of giza [6]. That make it the 3rd largest in the world. (The biggest one in the world is also in mexico, Great Pyramid of Cholula, but is parcially covered and have a church in the top...) August 5, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.162.124 (talk) 08:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is about buildings

The lead section should be moved to Pyramid (geometry). I suggest to use the following text instead. Ske (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Khafre's Pyramid

A pyramid is a building where the upper surfaces are triangular and converge on one point. The base of pyramids are usually quadrilateral or trilateral (but generally may be of any polygon shape), meaning that a pyramid usually has three or four sides.

A pyramid's design, with the majority of the weight closer to the ground, means that less material higher up on the pyramid will be pushing down from above. This allowed early civilizations to create stable monumental structures. For thousands of years, the largest structures on Earth were pyramids: first the Red Pyramid in the Dashur Necropolis and then the Great Pyramid of Khufu, the only remaining Wonder of the World. The largest pyramid ever built, by volume, is the Great Pyramid of Cholula, in the Mexican state of Puebla. This pyramid is considered the largest monument ever constructed anywhere in the world, and is still being excavated.

I copied these in, well done for writing a great lead section! As a mathematician I feel it's a little dubious for this article to be under the "pyramid" title, but the last thing anyone wants is a lead section that says one thing and an article that's completely different. I think the polyhedra are sufficiently important that I referred to them explicitly as well as the disambig page.

If anyone wants "pyramid" to point at the geometric meaning (or disambig page) primarily then that is a reasonable idea, but should be made as a move request. The content (as opposed to the location) of the current article should be consistently preserved as referring to pyramid shaped buildings. Quietbritishjim (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know which title is better. In the French WP we have fr:Pyramide for geometry and fr:Pyramide (architecture) for buildings. Ske (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 07:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Great Pyramid

The first paragraph has been edited, as the Great Pyramid is the Pyramid of Khufu (not Kefren). It is apparently a common mistake to think that the Pyramid of Kefren is the Great Pyramid, because it is on slightly higher ground and so appears to be the largest pyramid. But the Pyramid of Khufu (or Cheops) is the Great Pyramid. The image also needs to be changed accordingly. The same source has an image of the Great Pyramid: http://www.egyptarchive.co.uk/html/great_pyramid_01.html which is already on Wikimedia at: http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Cheops_pyramid_01.jpg It is copyright free but Jon Bodsworth, the photographer, needs to be contacted at post@egyptarchive.co.uk (I'd do it myself but am not authorised to change images) Perhaps the Pyramid of Kefren can be shown elsewhere on the page to avoid further confusion.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartgenes (talk • contribs) 16:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC) 

Egyptian Pyramids Capped with Gold

I removed this from the article, as there is no citation and I was told flat-out by an archaeology professor (Sarantis Symeonoglou of Washington University in St. Louis) that this belief was false. If someone can find a source for the claim, put it back in. Phaethon 0130 (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Order or Presentation

I think this article would be a lot better if things were put into context. The obvious way to do this would be to present the pyramids in the order they were built, with some description of any connections between the different pyramids. Rm999 (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC) The slawes builds the pyramands —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.186.190 (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Visible from the moon?!

I removed the sentence "The pyramid's features are so large they can be seen from the moon." which is completely ridiculous, I wasn't aware that people actually believed that to be true.

Should a note be added to dispel the myth? A link to http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Great_Wall_of_China#Visibility_from_the_moon, where it is mentioned that the resolving length scale is ~70 miles when viewing the earth from the moon could be added. DeSelb (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Not one mention of Peruvian Pyramids?

Pretty bad. Considering the oldest pyramids in the Americas are in Peru. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.68.134 (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Faces of a building?

I have edited the opening paragraph, since the original sounded absolutely wrong:

The base of a pyramid is usually trilateral or quadrilateral (but may be of any polygon shape), meaning that a pyramid usually has four or five faces.

This correlation of "trilateral = 4 faces" and "quadrilateral = 5 faces" is correct when speaking of the geometric pyramid (as per pyramid (geometry), but surely not of a building? The bottom "face" (i.e. floor) can never be seen for a building, thus the edited version seems more correct:

The base of a pyramid is usually trilateral or quadrilateral (but may be of any polygon shape), meaning that a pyramid usually has three or four faces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NvB1967 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. I'm a mathematician, and even I think counting the base of the pyramid as a "face" is overly pedantic. Such a face is isn't a physical object, but just the theoretical concept of where the pyramid intersects the Earth. We can't lift up (even in principle) a pyramid and have a look a look at it, since pyramids are built indistinguishably into the ground (for example, the Great Pyramid has a subterranean chamber below where the base "face" is).

I removed all but one references to pyramids having 1+n faces from the lead section (where n≥3). I ended up calling n the number of "outer surfaces", which is what it was called at the start of the article. I'm not really happy with this though: I think it was fine to use the phrase once, but using it three times seems a bit wordy. Anyone have any better ideas? I thought about using the following, but none of them seemed right:

• faces: someone will likely object that this is not the correct definition of face (which of course is technically true).
• exposed faces or triangular faces: this makes it obvious that we don't mean all faces, which will be confusing to non-mathematicians who may not realise that we are counting the base as a face.
• sides: sounds much better, but not quite right because it sounds like the surfaces should be perpendicular to the ground and be finished off with a "top".
• walls: this is just clearly not correct.

Quietbritishjim (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Newly discovered tombs further prove Egypt's pyramids weren't built by slaves

This Israeli site: [Haaretz] shows that Egypt's pyramids weren't built by slaves.Agre22 (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Japan

Please could you do a section on one in Okinawa, Japan. [[7]] OSXfan (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Or how about the Kofun, of the Kofun period? The ancient burial mounds in Japan were about the same size as the great Egyptian pyramids.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.251.226.41 (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC) 

Corrections that should be done to the section of the Lemma related to Greece

The lemma mentions: There are many researchers who have given dates to the structures that pre-date the pyramids at Giza, but the method to obtain these dates was thermoluminescence of the stone.[citation needed] Normally this technique is used for dating pottery, but here researchers have used it to try to date stone flakes from the walls of the structures.
-in the end of this paragraph there are many references on the use of Thermoluminescence. Also this method is applied on sediments

The lemma mentions: his has created some debate about whether or not these ‘pyramids’ are actually older than Egypt, which is part of the Black Athena controversy.
- No citation on these issues has been raised at least by the authors of luminescence dating of these pyramids.

The Lemma mentions The basis for their use of thermoluminescence in order to date these structures is a new method of collecting samples for testing
- No this is not new method. Since 1993 several applications of this novel idea have been presented in international journals and the procedure has been coined SURFACE DATING. See google and also the list of papers below

The lemma mentions Scientists from laboratories hired out by the recent excavators of the site
-This is not true. Scientists conceived the idea of re investigating the two pyramidals, and not hired.

The lemma mentions Mary Lefkowitz has criticised this research
-misleading comments and assumptions without scientific evidence. She, arbitrarily and without knowledge of the subject's physics, embodied this issue to her thesis for avoiding preconceived and precooked results and theories

The lemma mentions She suggests that some of...
-suggestions are not a proof, thus suggestions or working hypotheses are not scientifically sound to be cited in official journals and/or Wiki lemmas. Only sound scientific proofs either by solid archaeological evidence of by physical methods must be accepted.

The lemma mentions ...but to back up an assumption of age and to make certain points about pyramids and Greek civilization.
-this is an assumption never cited by the authors. Thus it is a misleading hypothesis and should be withdrawn

The lemma mentions She notes that not only are the results not very precise...
-in physics all measured parameters inhere an error. The quoted errors still are beyond the suggested classical/Hellenistic age. Thus is is not a matter of precision but as a whole a novel approach already for years accepted by international scientific community

The lemma mentions a tomb alleged to be the tomb of Amphion and Zethus near Thebes, a structure at Stylidha (Thessaly) which is just a long wall
-this was a review of what call pyramids and never there is a reference to Stylidha…obviously Mary Lefkowitz is confused with other work

The lemma mentions She also notes the possibility that the stones that were dated might have been recycled from earlier constructions
-Obviously she is not expert. In fact any possible dismantling of a older structure and reuse of slabs to another monument the age of slabs represents the last use not the initial one due to their light exposure prior to their setting on the wall

The lemma mentions She also notes that earlier research from the 1930s, confirmed in the 1980s by Fracchia was ignored.
-the research of 1901 and 1930 is not ignored. And this was the only excavation done in the site. All other comments are based on these earlier excavations. Nevertheless a third excavation work in collaboration with the local Dept of Antiquities has revealed more ceramics that reinforce earlier findings. This is ignored by Mary Lefkowitz. The reference of this new work is Theocaris et al., 1997 Geophysical prospection and archaeological test excavation and dating in two Hellenic pyramids, Surveys in Geophysics 17, 593-618

The lemma mentions She argues that they undertook their research using a novel, previously untested methodology in order to confirm a predetermined theory about the age of these structures.
-This is not correct. The method has been tested before any application; by doing in the laboratory simulation experiments and by dating other well know monuments of recent, classical and Hellenistic ages

Few references:
-Liritzis 1994, A new dating method by thermoluminescence of carved megalithic stone building. Comptes Rendus (Academie des Sciences), Paris, t.319, serie ii, 603-610
-Liritzis, I, Guibert, P, Foti, F and Schvoerer, M 1997, The Temple of Apollo (Delphi) strengthens new thermoluminescence dating method. Geoarchaeology, Intern., 12, 5, 479-496
-Greilich., S, Glasmacher and G.A, Wagner, G.A, 2005. Optical dating of granitic stone surfaces. Archaeometry 47(3): 645-665
-Habermann, J, Schilles,T, Kalchgruber,R, Wagner, G.A, 2000. Steps towards surface dating using luminescence, Radiation Measurements 32: 847-851
-Morgenstein, M.E, Luo, S, Ku, T.L. and Feathers J., 2003. Uranium series and luminescence dating of volcanic lithic artefacts. Archaeometry 45: 503-518

Under the present state of the art and gathered information the lemma should be shortened focusing purely on the critique based on assumptions.
I propose the following:
Mary Lefkowitz [15] has criticised this research but on purely theoretical assumptions, while in several points she mixes up methodological aspects obviously due to her lack of expertise in dating methods, or refers to other work not cited.

77.49.7.196 (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be against our core policies regarding original research and the use of sources, see WP:OR. Sources must directly discuss the topic, ie any sources must discuss her criticisms specifically. We can't take sources that don't discuss her criticisms or the pyramid claims and use them in the way you suggest. That's a common misunderstanding inexperienced editors have, thinking our articles are similar to essays or journal articles. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

So even that I prove, with scientific evidences, that the assumptions of Lefkovitz mentioned in the lemma are just criticism without any scientific base you suggest me to find sources that discuss her criticism in order to accept my proposed corrections. Have I understood well your comment?

For example in the wiki lemma for Optical dating we read Optical dating is a method of determining how long ago minerals were last exposed to daylight. On the other hand the Lemma contains the Lefkowitz's assumption that She also notes the possibility that the stones that were dated might have been recycled from earlier constructions.
Don't you think that this sentence of Lefkowitz is misleading. The author of the Lemma contradicts an other wiki lemma.

I will try to find sources that discuss Lefkowitz's assumptions. But it is kindly suggested to re-evaluate the lemma. 77.49.7.196 (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That's correct. Your own criticisms, however logical, can't be part of the article (though you can express them here). You need to find a published criticism, and report what it says. Dbfirs 17:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Pyramid size

The sentence in the introduction "The largest pyramid in the world ever built, by volume, is the Lost city of Mirador[3], in Guatamala's Mirador Basin." seems to be wrong, since the Great Pyramid of Cholula is about 1.5 the size (by volume) of the one in Mirador.

Agreed, and this site [8] has it quite a way down the list. Dougweller (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

pyramid volume

Since a 4 sided pyramid could vary in height, many different pyramid volumes could be built on a same area 4 sided pyramid. And the volume would be proportional to the area and the height. What proportion of the area and the height is the volume of a 4 sided pyramid?WFPM (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

This page is for discussing improvements to this article. Questions such as this would be better asked here Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics. Heiro 17:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I found where it's 1/3rd the height times the base area for any configuration and think that's worthy of note. It is interesting to speculate on how they managed the preliminary plans for the various sizes and types. And some of them were oriented astronomically.WFPM (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Location of Nsude pyramid in Nigeria

Please change the location of the Nsude pyramids in Nigeria from "Nigerian town of Nsude, in Abuja" to "Nigerian town of Nsude, in Enugu State".

I'm from Igboland in Nigeria, I live in Nigeria. Abuja is NOT in Igboland.

Sources: Google maps: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&nfpr=1&q=abaja+nigeria&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41524429,d.d2k&biw=1280&bih=702&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&ei=Eh0EUZGJHeLM0AXPkYDoAQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAA

Wikipedia map of Igboland: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Template:Igbo_land_labelled_map (Notice: "Enugwu", the native name of Enugu state)

Wikipedia page for Igbo people: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Igbo_people

Wikipedia page for Abuja: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Abuja

Namzo (talk) 18:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

From the sources you've provided, including Google Maps, I believe you are correct. However, I note that Igbo people repeats the error (if it is an error), and after some further Googling I find myself a bit confused. I'd like a second opinion and am leaving your edit request open. Rivertorch (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. Keep in mind that other Wikipedia articles don't qualify as reliable sources and that Google Maps can sometimes be a bit ambiguous. I'll bet you can find a reliable secondary source stating that Nsude is in Enugu State. That would be ideal. Rivertorch (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Order

Unsure of whether there was any order, if the order was supposed to be geographical (in which case China made no sense), or if it was supposed to be chronological, I chose the latter and made the country sections follow a general timeline of when their pyramids were constructed. Anti-racialpropaganda (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Construction

Don't know if it merits mention, but c 1978, some French researchers published a theory in Omni that the pyramids wera actually made of a synthetic that resembled granite, which they'd produced in their lab. Comment? Trekphiler 21:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC) Why would anyone want to synthesise something you can did out of quarries quite easily?

Hi, It's a well put-together article. I wonder if it could include more about pyramids as a convergent construction solution. Sadly, there are lots of people out there that believe that pyramids are proof that early civilisations all around the world were in contact with each other. Often this includes wacky theories about alien visitations, Atlantis etc. The article, with it's long list of pyramids from all over the world is likely to unintentionally fuel such thoughts. E.g. how could so much pyramid-building be a co-incidence? Obviously, you and I know that pyramids are an architectural solution to the problem of building large structures. Pyramids are the logical result of this common architectural problem. But currently I don't think this really comes out in the article. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozchris2 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Pyramid Power

I think we need to include at least a short description of this, and link it to the wikipedia entry for it. The point is to include information that is relevant. For many pyramid power theories go back thousands of years, Ie, its something thats been contemplated for centuries, not just a new thought in the new age movement. At least a link to sacred geometry, which has been used in antiquity to build several structures, including pyramids. (ie, lets be inclusive people, thats one of Wikipedia's strong points, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.201.13.150 (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The pyramids built in Russia in 1990 or thereabouts by Aleksander Golod should be mentioned here or perhaps have their own section.

http://www.pyramids.ru/english.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.53.93 (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed such content several months ago. If it gets added (and I'm not persuaded it should be), it needs to be neutrally written and reliably sourced, with no unverifiable claims. Rivertorch (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Link for Sunpyramid in Bosnia and Herzegovina

http://www.piramidasunca.ba/eng/default.asp

Virtually everyone aside from Osmanagic (sp?) believes the Bosnisan pyramid claims to be a farce. They should most definitely not be included in this article, posting links in the talk section doesn't make it so...

There are many Wikipedia articles about things that most people think are farces, for example, John Titor. As long as it's clearly noted in the article that most people dispute the theory, shouldn't it still be included? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bengl (talk • contribs) 21:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Especially given the amount of "press" the Bosnian pyramids are receiving, I think it only appropriate to add something to this article. I've added summaries of the various arguments for/against these being "real" pyramids, but even most archeologists aren't yet willing to definitvely say yes or no, without visiting themselves. Kutulu 00:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

See Bosnian pyramids. The archeologists say it's a hill and that the "excavations" of the hill are destroying real archeological and paleontological artifacts. --Ronz 00:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue over some mounds of dirt in Bosnia that I haven't personally even seen, but I believe you are being rather disingenuous by stating that "archaeologists" (implying all of them) are in agreement over this mess, or if are arguing that there's no reason to even mention the controversy in the Pyramid article. Either they are real pyramids, and thus belong here in their entirety, or else they're phony pyramids, and belong here as an example of "structures since proven not to be pyramids." In fact, it appears that any time someone comes here and adds anything about a pyramid or pyramid-like structure that's not in Egypt, you shunt it off to another article and delete it. But, of course, this is typical Wikipedia "it's my article, stop making it different" mentality. Kutulu 18:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've explained myself on your talk page. I'm happy to do it here as well:

I removed your discussion of the Bosnian pyramids because there is separate article on the topic. It's not being added to Pyramid because it's unproven. The same discussion occurred with the Ukrainian pyramids.

--Ronz 22:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

They should be mentioned at least in passing, as controversial.66.10.26.253 22:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It already has it's own article and numerous links to it. --Ronz 22:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

How about the Pyramids of Güímar? They're controversial, too, but all these have been called "pyramids", so it makes sense to link to them in the "see also" section, a section "controversial claims" or mention them shortly somewhere in the text, with an appropriate qualification.

Even if those are all just curiosities, they have gained a certain amount of notoriety and someone reading an article about pyramids might want to know about these cases. A small mention won't hurt anybody and won't make this article get bogged in pseudoscience, or swamped by crackpot edits. Instead, the interested public will be educated about the problems archaeology has with sensationalist press stories.

I believe this is the proper way of dealing with pseudoscientific claims. Don't give them undue weight, but don't simply pretend they don't exist, either. Just give them their proper place and qualification. Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The pyramids of Güímar do exist as man made structures, that's quite a big difference. They aren't really pyramid shaped, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.52.211 (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Cambodian pyramids?

I wonder why the Cambodian structures aren't included? They much more pyramidal than many of the other structures on this page - they resemble the Mesoamerican pyramids in general layout. I mean Structures such as Prang temple at Koh Ker, Baksei Charnkrong and many other Angkor structures. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Koh_Ker http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Baksei_Chamkrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.52.211 (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Another pyramid shaped structure from Cambodia, Bakong http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Bakong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.52.211 (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

• The Donkin Memorial, erected on a Hill above the anchorage line in 1820 by Cape Governor Sir Rufane Donkin in memory of his late wife Elizabeth, in Port Elizabeth, South Africa. The pyramid is used in many different coats-of-arms associated with Port Elizabeth. Adjacent to the Pyramid is the lighthouse (1863) that houses the Nelson Mandela Bay Tourism office, as well as a 12x8m South African Flag flying from a 65m high flagpole. It also forms part of the Route 67 Public Art route.

105.224.170.21 (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: That content already appears in the article. If there is a change you would like, please express it in a "please change X to Y" manner. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Pyramids were constructed utilizing imported icebergs

Icebergs were towed in from the arctic and used to build an ice road in the river and up the wall of the pyramids to move the huge limestone blocks. As the blocks were slid across the ice the weight of the stones against the ice (another super hard element) resulted in the smooth fine finish we see today. The ice road also enabled less men to pull heavier rocks as they would have slid with very little resistance. As the ice melted by day from the sun god all evidence of it simply washed down river. evidence of this will be found in the silt at the end of the river. Also the ice served a dual purpose as to help irrigate around the pyramids and supply builders with an abundant supply of water. Again examination of the river and river outflows will reveal evidence of these construction practices in the sedimentary silt. Check it out.

A little logistics analysis could make this notion a little more credible.
Wikidity (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Intro to Archeological Pyramid shape

As far as I know, all archeological pyramids are rectangular (including square) based. Unless there are others, the intro paragraph of this article (vs discriminator) should be simplified accordingly.
Wikidity (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Origins

I'm guessing that before everyone migrated, the ancestors of the Sumerians developed the ziggurat, and that's where the Babylonians, Egyptians, and Mayas all got pyramids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.89.169.114 (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I rather doubt the Mayans needed ancient Sumerian know-how to be able to put rocks on top of other rocks. 62.172.108.24 (talk) 11:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Theory: many cultures view pyramids as the home of the god[s]... consider what in nature looks like a pyramid and would give the impression of godlike power? a volcanoe. Jiohdi (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2014

sunway pyramid should added into modern pyramid list 202.133.106.219 (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

it's already in there Cannolis (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Obligatory talk page section

Obviously, 10,500 BCE is wrong, as a cursory glance at the sourced information in this article and Giza necropolis reveals. Any reason not to block the IP who made the linked edit as a vandal, or include his information? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

They have been reported. We'll see what happens. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 19:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I saw when I went to report there and WP:3rrnb. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I keep blocking him, seems to be Ararat Arev, he's been doing Orion related stuff for several months. Article protected, once again. Dougweller (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Thank you! @Ian.thomson:Hey btw I think I missread the IP's talk page and I thought that you skipped the level 3 warning in addition to to skipping level 1. As a result I reported the user much earlier than I should have. It turns out the IP was so persistent that didn't really matter in the end. Thanks! --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 20:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

If it's WP:ARARAT Arev, doesn't matter. I usually do skip level 1 unless the edit was an accident, but I didn't skip 3. Posted 4 and the 3rr warning at the same time, which does make the page a little harder to read. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Point of this article

This article seems to require a lot of work on it. The layout of many of the images is poor and there is little information that doesn't simply appear on the dab page or in more comprehensive articles. I think the reason this article is so poor is that others already exist covering these topics in more depth. We should either decide on a format/purpose for this page or else consider redirecting-it-to/merging-it-with the dab page. Opinions? Lewis 20:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC) I noted that the section on Greek pyramids states that they are 4th century for instance but does not state whether that's BC or AD and there is no real clue in the text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.202.145 (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Conical pyramids?

The intro defines a pyramid as a structure with three or more triangular faces, yet there is a photo of a "conical pyramid" in the article. By the given definition, this cannot be defined as a "pyramid", since it has no triangular faces.AnnaGoFast (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I've edited the caption to avoid confusion. The word "pyramid" used for ziggurats and similar architectural structures is less strictly defined than in the mathematical sense. Dbfirs 11:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dbfirs and AnnaGoFast: after looking at Madghacen and reliable sources for it (also under the name Medracen), it seems that this is only called a pyramid by some Wikipedia editor, plus one recent book that probably copied it and isn't a reliable source in any case. So, I've removed it. This source says it resembles a tumulus. Doug Weller talk 14:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the research, and for the correction. Dbfirs 21:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Number of sacrifices at Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan

Not trying to correct this, since I don't know what is correct, only pointing out a seeming impossibility...

This article - Pyramid - says "the Aztecs reported that they sacrificed about 80,400 people over the course of four days".

On the other hand, the article linked to in the same sentence, just before that - Great Pyramid of Tenochtitlan (Templo Mayor) - says "some 4,000 victims were reportedly sacrificed over a four-day period"...

As I said, a seeming impossibility - and things like this presumably one reason why, as is said elsewhere on this Talk page, "other Wikipedia articles don't qualify as reliable sources"...

-)

KenThuHuong (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Peru and South America are missing

Where are the pyramids of Peru, such as those of Caral Valley? And the extinct pyramids of Bolivia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.55.45.5 (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Please put new talk page messages at the bottom of talk pages and sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

Wikipedia is yours, so please wp:FIXIT. - DVdm (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox pyramid

Template:Infobox pyramid has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox building. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Roman pyramids

Article currently [9] reads in part The 27-metre-high Pyramid of Cestius was built by the end of the 1st century BCE, and a reference is given.

But see [10]

The pyramid's purpose and exact origins are unknown. Though it had been suggested that it may have been constructed by Roman legionaries involved in [[Egypt]]ian cult practices, more recent research indicated that it was actually built between 1803 and 1812.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ipaam.fr/ |title=La pyramide de Falicon et la grotte des Ratapignata |accessdate=2008-09-06 |work= |publisher= |year=2007 }}</ref>

This needs resolution... possibly by citing both opinions and sources, in both articles. Andrewa (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hm, didn't see this and simply removed it. It would belong under France, not Roman, in any case. And I can't figure where - not an ancient monument, so under 'Modern pyramids'? Dougweller (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

But the reference to Fr:Henri Broch should also be taken seriously, see https://www.google.com.au/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Henri+Broch%22 for some of his publications. Andrewa (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The pyramid in your reference is NOT the pyramid of Cestius, but a completely different pyramid in France. It has nothing to do with the pyramid of Cestius. The pyramid of Cestius is not modern, it's right in Rome and has been seen by people for aeons. In fact the city wall was built AFTER the pyramid, and they are from the third century! 109.59.16.247 (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)