|
Pyramids - Construction Theories
Note: Don't miss
these subject related articles:
| Theory 1 |
Theory 2 |
Theory 3 |
Theory 4 |
More Theories |
|
More about Construction |
In Control at the Pyramids - an architect's and builder's answer
to how the pyramids were built
There are many theories about how the pyramids were built. One of
the most outrageous theories it that aliens built the pyramids.
Fortunately we have proof that the Ancient Egyptians built the
pyramids. Unfortunately there are many theories about how the
Egyptians built the pyramids. Below we present few of the most popular ideas about how were
the pyramids built.
Various Ramp Styles
Jean-Pierre Houdin
Theory >>
Simple ramp style.
Click here to view the
construction sequence.
Another example: Pyramid of the Sun, Teotihuacan
In Control at the Pyramids - an architect’s and builder’s answer
to how the pyramids were built
Domenic A. Narducci III and Michael T. Lally
In its purest form, a
true pyramid consists of four identical triangles, which “spring”
from a square base and culminate at a common point. When reduced to
its plane geometric components, it is an easy form to comprehend.
It is a far more daunting task to create the form
in the built environment.
Imagine that you are charged with the construction of a
true pyramid, whose square base will cover 13 acres. Perhaps your
most daunting task will be ensuring that after decades of
construction, the pyramid’s four sides will meet precisely at a
point almost fifty stories above the ground.
Imagine further that as the builder you have no laser levels,
transits or other sophisticated measuring devices at their disposal
to aid in the construction process. Well, don’t worry; it’s already
been done! Almost 5000 years ago, the ancient Egyptians
accomplished this very feat at the Great Pyramid in Giza.
This paper discusses the construction control procedures
used in modern building and how important the same control would
have for the building of the Egyptian pyramids. Also included is a
step-by-step formula that puts forth a set of specific, simple
control procedures that illustrate how those ancient Egyptians could
have done. This paper is keenly focused on how
and where to position the stones in order to create the pyramidal
geometry. It is not interested in the quarrying,
transporting or handling of stones or in the myriad of other issues
regarding pyramid development.
To date, many pyramid researchers have acknowledged in their work
that “control” of the pyramidal form would have been a most
important aspect of the construction process. I.E.S.
Edwards wrote “… imperfections in the setting of the stones
would not only mar the outside appearance, but, unless counteracted,
would lead to irregularity in the pyramidal form”1.
Yet, few have put forth any theories which “standup” when subjected
to practical construction analysis. Besides presenting the
fundamental concepts, our step by step “how to” formula specifically
shows the control procedures which “counteracted” the potential
affects of the “imperfections” as stated by Edwards. These
solutions are grounded in an understanding of the construction
process (which basically has not changed from ancient times
to today) and an enthusiasm for problem solving. Surely, those are
human qualities, which were as prevalent among the Egyptian pyramid
builders as they are among the builders of today.
Read the entire article >>
Transport Theories
One of the most elegant pyramid building theories has been
suggested by Polish engineer and inventor
Andrzej
Bochnacki. In his book
Different
Story about Pyramids,
he proposes very ingenious technology used to move the pyramid
blocks from the quarries to the construction site.
NOTE: The following quotations from the book
Different
Story about Pyramids are Copyright by Andrzej Bochnacki.
All Rights Reserved. Reprinted with permission of the author.
”Light, made out of papyrus, boats were put on the top of blocks
and tided up with ropes. These transport boats ware waiting for
raising water of the Nile and they could be easily towed to a
chosen destination. The simplest way was to haul them to the west
side of the Nile where water flooded the fields. Here they were
left in the mud to be transported on the land after the flood was
over”.
"How, in ancient times, the difficult problem of boats loading
and unloading process was solved explains the animation and
drawing below”.
Animation showing phases of
transporting stones from the tunnel to the ramp.
CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO VIEW ANIMATION
Copyright 2005-2006 by Andrzej Bochnacki.
Websites:
http://www.swbochnacki.com/
http://republika.pl/bochnacki/
Presented with permission.
>>>
READ MORE >>
Was the Nile used in construction of the Pyramids?
Is it possible that the pyramids were built with help of the
river Nile?
This image is based on information from David Jeffreys,
Institute of Archeology, University College, London; Oriental
Institute Computer Laboratory, University of Chicago and
Archeological Graphic Services. NOTE: Vertical scale exaggerated to
show ancient Nile river channel (on the left).
This computer generated image shows probable course of Nile in
Old Kingdom (the left channel). Note that Nile at flood stage pushed
very close to the feet of major pyramid sites. This would make
transportation of huge stone blocks from the quarries to the
construction sites much easier.
Construction of the Great Pyramid according to Herodotus
The following description of the construction of the
pyramids comes from a Greek historian Herodotus
(484?-425 BC):
Till the death of Rhampsinitus, the priests said, Egypt
was excellently governed, and flourished greatly; but after him
Cheops succeeded to the throne, and plunged into all manner of
wickedness. He closed the temples, and forbade the Egyptians to
offer sacrifice, compelling them instead to labour, one and all, in
his service. Some were required to drag blocks of stone down to the
Nile from the quarries in the Arabian range of hills; others
received the blocks after they had been conveyed in boats across the
river, and drew them to the range of hills called the Libyan. A
hundred thousand men laboured constantly, and were relieved every
three months by a fresh lot. It took ten years' oppression of the
people to make the causeway for the conveyance of the stones, a work
not much inferior, in my judgment, to the pyramid itself. This
causeway is five furlongs in length, ten fathoms wide, and in
height, at the highest part, eight fathoms. It is built of polished
stone, and is covered with carvings of animals. To make it took ten
years, as I said - or rather to make the causeway, the works on the
mound where the pyramid stands, and the underground chambers, which
Cheops intended as vaults for his own use: these last were built on
a sort of island, surrounded by water introduced from the Nile by a
canal. The pyramid itself was twenty years in building. It is a
square, eight hundred feet each way, and the height the same, built
entirely of polished stone, fitted together with the utmost care.
The stones of which it is composed are none of them less than thirty
feet in length.
The pyramid was built in steps, battlement-wise, as it is called,
or, according to others, altar-wise. After laying the stones for the
base, they raised the remaining stones to their places by means of
machines formed of short wooden planks. The first machine raised
them from the ground to the top of the first step. On this there was
another machine, which received the stone upon its arrival, and
conveyed it to the second step, whence a third machine advanced it
still higher. Either they had as many machines as there were steps
in the pyramid, or possibly they had but a single machine, which,
being easily moved, was transferred from tier to tier as the stone
rose - both accounts are given, and therefore I mention both. The
upper portion of the pyramid was finished first, then the middle,
and finally the part which was lowest and nearest the ground. There
is an inscription in Egyptian characters on the pyramid which
records the quantity of radishes, onions, and garlic consumed by the labourers who constructed it; and I perfectly well remember that the
interpreter who read the writing to me said that the money expended
in this way was 1600 talents of silver*. If this then is a true
record, what a vast sum must have been spent on the iron tools used
in the work, and on the feeding and clothing of the labourers,
considering the length of time the work lasted, which has already
been stated, and the additional time - no small space, I imagine -
which must have been occupied by the quarrying of the stones, their
conveyance, and the formation of the underground apartments.
The wickedness of Cheops reached to such a pitch that, when he had
spent all his treasures and wanted more, he sent his daughter to the
stews, with orders to procure him a certain sum - how much I cannot
say, for I was not told; she procured it, however, and at the same
time, bent on leaving a monument which should perpetuate her own
memory, she required each man to make her a present of a stone
towards the works which she contemplated. With these stones she
built the pyramid which stands midmost of the three that are in
front of the great pyramid, measuring along each side a hundred and
fifty feet.
Cheops reigned, the Egyptians said, fifty years, and was succeeded
at his demise by Chephren, his brother.
Chephren imitated the conduct of his predecessor, and,
like him, built a pyramid, which did not, however, equal the
dimensions of his brother's. Of this I am certain, for I measured
them both myself. It has no subterraneous apartments, nor any canal
from the Nile to supply it with water, as the other pyramid has. In
that, the Nile water, introduced through an artificial duct,
surrounds an island, where the body of Cheops is said to lie.
Chephren built his pyramid close to the great pyramid of Cheops, and
of the same dimensions, except that he lowered the height forty
feet. For the basement he employed the many-coloured stone of
Ethiopia. These two pyramids stand both on the same hill, an
elevation not far short of a hundred feet in height. The reign of
Chephren lasted fifty-six years.
Thus the affliction of Egypt endured for the space of
one hundred and six years, during the whole of which time the
temples were shut up and never opened. The Egyptians so detest the
memory of these kings that they do not much like even to mention
their names.
* 41,884 kilograms
From The Histories
by Herodotus
Translated by George Rawlinson
Read the entire book online:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/herodotus/
It is interesting to note that Herodotus makes reference to an
underground burial chamber, but no reference to the "King's
Chamber" or "Queen's Chamber" as burial chambers.
Four centuries after Herodotus, the historian Diodorus of Sicily
(1st century B.C.) visited Egypt. His account speaks of all three
pyramids which he presents as being a funerary ensemble of the
fourth dynasty. He also evaluated the sum spent on horse-radish,
onions and garlic for the labourers on the Great Pyramid at 1600
talents. He disagreed with Herodotus in that he believed the
pyramids did not contain the bodies of the pharaohs, which according
to him, had been buried in safe and secret hiding places.
"Machines formed of short wooden
planks" for raising the stones
Polish engineer,
Andrzej Bochnacki, proposes the following interpretation of the
method of raising pyramid's stone blocks described by Herodotus:
CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO VIEW ANIMATION
Copyright 2005 by Andrzej Bochnacki.
Website:
http://www.swbochnacki.com/
Presented with permission.
"After laying the stones for the
base, they raised the remaining stones to their places by means of
machines formed of short wooden planks. The first machine raised
them from the ground to the top of the first step. On this there was
another machine, which received the stone upon its arrival, and
conveyed it to the second step, whence a third machine advanced it
still higher. Either they had as many machines as there were steps
in the pyramid, or possibly they had but a single machine, which,
being easily moved, was transferred from tier to tier as the stone
rose - both accounts are given, and therefore I mention both."
-- Herodotus
An introduction (in English) to an e-book about
construction of the pyramids:
A NEW SLANT ON THE PYRAMIDS by Andrzej Bochnacki and
the Polish version of the entire e-book (PDF) are available
here>>
Related links:
More great links on this subject:
A New and Unique Theory on the Movement of Heavy
Stones
A pyramid can be constructed without the use of ramps, heavy stones
can be moved without dragging them along and with 75% less manpower
than is presently thought necessary. This article reveals how. It
has been compiled as a result of actual experiments conducted in
backyard of Gordon Pipes with a 4 ton block of concrete made
expressly for this purpose and hopefully it will lead to properly
conducted experiments that will prove this theory beyond doubt.
-
How to elevate a 50ton stone to the upper levels of
a pyramid
without the use of ramps, ropes or extensive manpower.
-
How the ancient Britons could have transported the
sarsen stones
to Stonehenge without dragging them along.
-
How to erect a 40 ton stone without the use of
ramps, ropes
or 'A' frames and with less than 25 men.
-
How to place the lintel stones on the uprights at
Stonehenge
with less than a dozen men.
READ
MORE >> (local link)
Another movement theory by
Robert Rossi >>
More
theories about pyramid building >>
The Forgotten Technology?
The following segment is © 2003-2004 Wallace T.
Wallington All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission. The use
or republication of this content is forbidden without the written
consent of the author.
I am a retired carpenter with 35 years experience in
construction. In my work experience, over the years, many times I
had to improvise on tools that were not at hand in order to get the
job done.
At one of these times, about 12 years ago, I had to remove some
1200 lb. saw cut concrete blocks from an existing floor. The problem
was that we did not have a machine that could reach some of the
blocks. The only obvious answer was to break the blocks into smaller
pieces with a sledgehammer and load them into a wheelbarrow. To me,
this seemed to be too much labor at the time, so I improvised.
Using a few rocks and leverage, I removed the blocks from below the
floor to an area that the machine could reach them for removal.
After doing this several times, the technique became very easy and
quick. This experience had me consider the possibility that people
may have used this technique before modern day equipment was
available.
I have found that ancient legends from around the world are true.
Some megaliths could have been set in place by as few as one man. I
could build The Great Pyramid of Giza, using my techniques and
primitive tools. On a twenty-five year construction schedule,
(working forty hours per week at fifty weeks per year, using the
input of myself to calculate) I would need a crew of 520 people to
move blocks from the main quarry to the site and another 100 to move
the blocks on site. For hoisting I need a crew of 120 (40 working
and 80 rotating). My crew can raise 7000 lb. 100 ft. per minute. I
have found the design of the pyramid is functional in it’s own
construction. No external ramp is needed.
I have began to build a replica of Stonehenge with eight 10 ton
blocks on end and 2 ton blocks on top. One man, no wheels, no
rollers, no ropes, no hoist or power equipment, using only sticks
and stones. In the future, either myself, sons, or grandsons will be
able to show this and other forms of The Forgotten Technology to the
world. I believe that I have learned to use the laws of physics to
my advantage.
© 2003-2004 Wallace T. Wallington
The main block tips the scales at 19,200 lbs, the counter weight
block, which is needed to move the main block, weighs 2,400 lbs.
The small counter, counter weight block weighs 300 lbs.
© 2003-2004 Wallace T. Wallington
In order to stand the block on end, I first needed to raise it 3
feet vertically.
© 2003-2004 Wallace T. Wallington
The block standing on end.
Upcoming Project Spring 2004
The Egyptian Hoist: During experiments, I have found that a ramp
constructed with a unit rise of one and a unit run of two gives me
an advantage in hoisting or dragging a sled. This ramp has an ideal
angle of slightly more than twenty-six degrees, and can be laid out
with a string and a stone. Hoisting alone, I could raise one hundred
eighty-five pounds at the speed of one hundred vertical feet per
minute with little effort. It is more difficult to return to the
start position than the actual hoist itself. I could easily drag a
one-ton block on a sled over a flat and level surface at one hundred
feet per minute.
Theorizing: If this hoisting technique was used at the Great
Pyramid during construction, it would take twenty seven men one
minute to hoist a five thousand pound block at a rate of one hundred
vertical feet per minute. The external ramp that a block would ride
on is the same angle as the outside of the pyramid.
I believe that there is enough room in the Grand Gallery (if
ropes were strong enough) to hoist fifteen-ton blocks at a rate of
one hundred feet per minute. Larger blocks could use the walking
technique described earlier.
In phase one of construction, the descending ramp would have been
used until the ramp in the Grand Gallery was completed. Then the air
shafts in the King’s chamber and anti-chamber were used to transfer
power to the outside. A serviceable roller would be necessary at the
bend in the air shaft leading from the king’s chamber. In order for
hoisting to be continued, the rope had to be cycled through the
queen’s chamber and through the air shafts therein to return to the
outside.
A raised floor is also necessary in the Grand Gallery to
accommodate the workmen and give access to cycle the work force
below the floor and back to the start position. In order to use this
ramp, the start position is at the top. The workmen can use a
harness around the lower back to attach to the main rope, which runs
between their feet. The workmen must face the top of the ramp and
lean backward to apply pressure to the main rope. Now the workmen
simply walk backwards down the ramp while maintaining pressure to
move the loads. The headroom in the descending ramp is adequate for
this.
I have found that one man, myself, can produce as much as .56
horsepower using this technique. Using this number, the total number
of men needed to move stones from the quarry to their place in the
Great Pyramid is eight hundred. (Side note: The aide of levitation
or extra terrestrial assistance is not necessary.)
I will be constructing my second and larger hoist in the spring
of 2004. I quit working outside in the Michigan winter when I
retired.
The hoist requires two ramp angles that appear to me to be the
same as The Great Pyramid.
The segment above (text and images) is © 2003-2004
Wallace T. Wallington.
All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission. The use or
republication of this content is forbidden without the written
consent of the author.
To find more about
lifting and moving heavy stone blocks using
methods suggested by Wallace T. Wallington, visit his web site:
http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/Page1.htm
The Following articles are
© 2000 by Larry Orcutt,
Catchpenny
Mysteries
Reprinted with permission
How were the Pyramids built?
© Copyright Dieter Arnold, Building in Egypt,
p. 278
The pyramid blocks were hewn from quarries using stone and copper
tools. There are examples of each stage of block extraction at
existing ancient quarries. Granite was quarried using pounding
stones of dolerite, some of which have been found laying about the
quarries. The blocks were transported to the pyramid site from
remote quarries using barges, and from local quarries using wooden
sleds. The Egyptians did not use the wheel during the Pyramid Age,
an invention that would have been of limited used on softer ground
under heavy loads. The sleds were dragged manually, sometimes with
the help of beasts of burden, over smoothed roads. Some of the
existing pathways were equipped with transverse wooden beams to lend
support to the sled. A lubricant may have been poured upon the road
to reduce friction. (For more information, see Moving
Large Objects.)
Cedar sled from Lisht.
© Copyright Dieter Arnold, Building in Egypt, p. 276
How the massive blocks were raised to the height of the rising
pyramid is not understood for certain. Earthen ramps were used at
least in the initial stages of construction. Extant ramps have been
found at the pyramids of Amenemhat I and Senwosret I at Lisht (see
photos below), as well as at several other sites. Traces of
disassembled ramps at pyramid sites are even more common. The ramps
were made of brick or earth and rubble dressed with brick for
strength. They were built up as the pyramid progressed upward, and
removed as the pyramid was finished downward.
 
Inclined brick construction ramps with transverse
timbers at the pyramids of Amenemhat I and Senwosret I.
© Copyright Dieter Arnold, Building in Egypt, pp. 87, 88
The ramps likely took the form of an inclined plane at the
beginning of work, but the configuration in later stages has long
been a matter of conjecture. Some Egyptologists propose a straight,
gently sloping, linear ramp, some propose a steep staircase ramp,
and others propose a ramp that spiraled up the four sides of the
pyramid. In most ramp scenarios, the volume of the ramp exceeds the
volume of the pyramid structure itself, raising the possibility that
the stones of the upper reaches were placed using levers, or perhaps
a modified ramp of some sort. In the case of the Great Pyramid at
Giza, the upper half of the total vertical pyramid height represents
only 12.5% of the mass of the entire pyramid. The mass of the top
quarter of the pyramid's height is a mere .0386% of the whole. Thus
the mass of the ramp is in inverse proportion to the mass of
building material it is meant to convey. Extending a ramp to the
upper reaches of a pyramid to service such a small volume of stone
would appear to be inexpedient.
But whatever the configuration of the ramps, the fact remains
that the Egyptians successfully completed the most massive building
projects in all of history. There is nothing magical or supernatural
in the means by which they achieved their goals. By all indications,
they retained their knowledge of construction throughout their
history, but they were limited after the Fourth Dynasty not by the
lack of technology but rather by the lack of the abundant resources
that were previously available. More than two thousand years later,
the Romans would move huge stones, some weighing nearly 1,000 tons,
using similar techniques at Baalbek.
More impressive than the mechanics of moving huge masses of
building material are the logistics involved: choreographing teams
of foremen, multitudes of workers, and a profusion of supplies, all
within the rigid constraints of a blueprint for design and a
timetable for completion. It is hard to imagine that such a feat
could be possible, but the pyramids themselves provide mute
testimony that it was not only possible but actually accomplished.
There remains no known written record hinting at how the pyramids
were built, nor have any reliefs depicting the procedure been found.
Most of what Egyptologists believe to be true of the methods
involved is based on tangible archaeological evidence. Some is based
on theory and is open for debate. What is known for certain is that
the Egyptians used simple but effective tools to quarry the stones,
to move them to the pyramid site, and to place them in the desired
location.
For a more detailed and technical treatment of pyramid
construction techniques, see Bonnie Sampsell's articles on the role
of accretion
layers in pyramid design and on how the Egyptians managed to
control the
shape of the pyramid while building it.
© 2000 by Larry Orcutt,
Catchpenny
Mysteries.
Reprinted with permission
Other related link:
Building the Great Pyramid
Who Built the Pyramids?
© Photo copyright Larry Orcutt
The Egyptians built the pyramids. The best of the pyramids,
erected in the Fourth Dynasty, were built during a small window in
history when the means, motive, and opportunity were all present, a
situation that would not be repeated for the remainder of Egypt's
history. Tombs before this time evolved from archaic-period pit
tombs covered by simple mounds to underground tombs with rectangular
superstructures, the prototype of the grander "mastaba"
tombs. By the Second Dynasty, mastaba tombs had developed into low
but massive rectangular structures. At least one of these, mastaba
3038 at Saqqara, has sides made up of eight steps rising at a 49°
angle, lending to it a definite pyramid appearance. It was not a
great leap in architecture to decide to stack mastabas one atop the
other to form a stepped pyramid, and thereafter to smooth the sides
into a true pyramid shape.
Most of the common labor force that worked on the pyramids were
Egyptian citizens. Because Egypt had a non-monetary economy, taxes
had to be paid in kind. If not livestock, produce, or manufactured
goods, taxes were extracted by a demand of corvée labor.
Most of the brute pyramid workforce was comprised of such laborers,
working off their obligation to the king. These "peasant
conscripts" were divided into teams and divisions and were
provided with the basic necessities of life during their term of
duty. Skilled builders and craftsmen were in the permanent employ of
pharaoh and lived together in villages near the pyramid site.
Slavery was rare in Egypt before the Ptolemaic Period. The class
usually referred to as serfs existed throughout Egypt's
history of course. These might have variously been born into their
common position, captive foreigners, or even prisoners serving their
sentence. The serfs served as workers for pharaoh, as helpers in the
temples, and as servants for wealthier citizens. True slaves
in the classical sense owned nothing at all and were considered
chattel to be bought and sold at will. They did not play a part in
the building of the pyramids.
Egyptian workmen dressing limestone blocks
(from the tomb of Rekhmira, TT100).
© Copyright Percy E. Newberry, The Life of Rekhmara, plate
XX
There is ample evidence throughout Egypt's history that the
Egyptians themselves designed and built the monuments that still
stand today. To ascribe these feats to some other people, Atlanteans
or Martians or whomever, is both a denial of an overwhelming body of
data and an attempt to rob the ancient Egyptians of what is among
their most enduring accomplishments.
© 2000 by Larry Orcutt,
Catchpenny
Mysteries.
Reprinted with permission
Why were the Pyramids built?
In about 450 B.C. the ancient historian Herodotus reported that
there were underground chambers beneath the Great Pyramid at Giza.
"These chambers," he wrote, "King Cheops [Khufu] made
as burial chambers for himself ..." (History, 2:124).
Diodorus (c.80-20 B.C.) added more detail:
And though the two kings [i.e. Khufu and Khafre] built the
pyramids to serve as their tombs, in the event neither of them was
buried in them; for the multitudes, because of the hardships which
they had endured in the building of them and the many cruel and
violent acts of these kings, were filled with anger against those
who had caused their sufferings and openly threatened to tear
their bodies asunder and cast them in despite out of their tombs.
Consequently each ruler when dying enjoined upon his kinsmen to
bury his body secretly in an unmarked place. [Library of
History, 1:64]
Strabo also wrote that the pyramids served as "tombs of
kings" (Geography, 17.1.33). After the Arab conquest,
knowledge that royal burials were accompanied by a wealth of gold
and jewels motivated treasure-hunters to invade the pyramids using
any measure necessary. Apocryphal tales of pyramid riches abound,
such as Masoudi's description of early plunderers of the Great
Pyramid: "They also discovered, in a large hall, a quantity of
golden coins put up in columns, every piece of which was of the
weight of 1,000 dinars [c. 9 lbs. or 4 kg.]. They tried to take the
money, but were unable to move it." (In Vyse, Operations
Carried On at the Pyramids of Gizeh in 1837, Vol. II, p. 329)
Most Egyptologists also believe that the pyramids were meant to
serve as tombs for the pharaohs. There are many reasons why they
hold this to be true. One is that the pyramid structure represents
just one point in the long continuum of the evolution of tomb
design. Long before dynastic kings ruled Egypt, tombs were little
more than open pit graves. In time, modifications were made. The pit
was lined with crude brick and roofed with wood, and the number of
chambers increased. The tomb was surmounted by a modest
superstructure: a mound of gravel with an outer layer of mud,
probably in imitation of the Primal Mound, the epitome of creation
and regeneration. By the 2nd Dynasty, brick corbel roofs had been
introduced as building technique advanced. Such a roof took the
appearance of a dome or vault. At this time, the "mastaba"
superstructure (so called because of its bench-like shape) was
common. These were rectangular in plan, with flat roofs and walls
that slope outward to the ground. By the end of the 2nd Dynasty,
royal tombs were subterranean chambers cut deeply into the stone,
accessed by stairways, with mastaba structures above them. The 3rd
Dynasty saw the true pyramid-shaped superstructure take form, first
as a stepped pyramid (successive tiers of mastabas built upon one
another and descending in size to the top; see photo above) and then
as a true pyramid with smooth sides. The "Pyramid Age"
reached its apex at the beginning of the 4th Dynasty with the
construction of the pyramids at Dashur and Giza, but by the end of
that dynasty, pyramids had become smaller until its last pharaoh,
Shepseskaf, reverted to the mastaba shape for his tomb. Though
pyramids would again be built in the 5th Dynasty, they would be of
inferior quality and materials. Pyramid tombs remained popular
through the 13th Dynasty, though none would rival those of the
Pyramid Age in size or endurance. By the 18th Dynasty and on,
following several pyramid revivals, royal tombs had largely become
underground tombs with no superstructure.
The pyramid did not exist as an isolated structure. It
represented only one element, though a primary one, of the pyramid
complex. Other elements commonly included a satellite pyramid, other
small pyramids for queens, a mortuary temple, a valley temple, and a
causeway between them, and also offering shrines, funerary boat
pits, and mastaba tombs for other family members and nobles. The
main complex was surrounded by a temenos wall and was frequently a
part of a larger necropolis, or "city of the dead." Thus,
its location was another indication that the pyramid was intended as
a tomb.
In the 5th Dynasty, beginning with perhaps Unas, the walls of
pyramid chambers were decorated with the Pyramid Texts, a
collection of utterances that served as spells with certain
functions for the dead (such as protection from harm, various
rituals performed at the royal funeral, etc.) These text would later
become the Coffin Texts and finally the Book of the Dead
that was placed with the deceased. The purpose of these utterances,
wrote W. Stevenson Smith, were "to aid the king in the
transition between his earthly functions and the position which he
was to assume amongst the gods after death." (The Art and
Architecture of Ancient Egypt, p. 440 n. 31). Such texts are
clear indications of the pyramid's funerary function. Smith added
that "the function of the pyramid temple, on the basis of its
architecture, wall reliefs, statuary, and relevant inscriptions, is
the promotion of the corporeal afterlife of the dead king through
the funerary cult, his continued victories over his enemies in the
hereafter, the continuance of his kingship, and his deification, all
achieved through the building and decoration programme of the
pyramid complex." (P. 440, n. 31)
Another reason why Egyptologists believe that pyramids were tombs
is because the ancient Egyptian record explicitly states as much.
For example, the Papyrus Abbott describes the inspection of "sepulchers
of former kings" under Ramesses IX. The pyramid of 17th Dynasty
Sobekemsaf II was inspected:
It was found, that the thieves had broken into it by mining work
through the base of its pyramid, from the outer chamber of the
tomb of the overseer of the granary of King Menkheperre (Thutmose
III), L.P.H., Nebamon. The burial-place of the king was found void
of its lord, L.P.H., as well as the burial-place of the great
king's-wife, Nubkhas, L.P.H., his royal wife; the thieves having
laid their hand upon them. The vizier, the nobles, and the
inspectors made an examination of it, and the manner in which the
thieves had laid their hands upon this king and his royal wife,
was ascertained. [Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt,
IV.517]
Much has been made of the fact that of all the pyramids of Egypt
that have ever been explored, never once has the mummy of a pharaoh
been found within. Mummy parts have been found in pyramids. Such
discoveries include part of a mummified foot in the pyramid of
Djoser; a right arm, skull fragments, and various other bones in the
pyramid of Unas; an arm and shoulder in the pyramid of Teti;
fragments of a mummy in the pyramid of Pepi I; mummy wrappings in
the pyramid of Pepy II, and charred bones in the pyramid of
Amenemhet III. In the center satellite pyramid of Menkaure, Perring
and Vyse found a skeleton of a young woman in the sarcophagus
within. They also found, in the main pyramid, part of a wooden
coffin believed to be Menkaure's along with some mummy fragments.
But never has an extant mummy been found in any pyramid, nor have
any parts of a mummy been identified with certainty as those of a
king. Critics of the pyramid-as-tomb theory claim that such mummy
parts, rather than being detritus left after the robbers hacked away
the mummies for jewels and gold, represent parts left from intrusive
burials made long after the pyramid was built. Burials of this type
are common in areas and tombs around the various pyramids.
The absence of mummies has invited all manner of odd theories
about the pyramids' function. It has been claimed that they served
as power plants, water pumps, astronomical observatories, sources of
ill-defined "pyramid power" energy vortices, guidance
beacons for alien spacecraft, and sites of mystery initiation
ceremonies. In order to hold such a view, however, it is necessary
to ignore the provenance of the pyramid and its place in the context
of the overall pyramid complex and necropolis.
"To suppose that the pyramid's only function in ancient
Egypt was as a royal tomb," wrote Miroslav Verner, "would
be an oversimplification." (The Pyramids, p. 45)
Alexander Badawy observed that "The main incentive in the
evolution of the tomb was the fear from plunderers." (A
History of Egyptian Architecture, p. 37) It is notable that some
kings had more than one tomb; indeed, some had more than one
pyramid. Amenemhet III, for example, had two pyramids built for
himself, one at Dahshur (containing his granite sarcophagus) and one
at Hawara (containing his quartzite sarcophagus). There is a type of
tomb called a cenotaph (from the Greek kenotaphion, or
literally, "empty tomb"), a symbolic false tomb never
intended to be a repository for the king's actual material body. The
cenotaph served every function as a real tomb, and also provided an
additional location for the perpetuity of the king's funerary cult.
Taking all these factors into consideration, one might be tempted to
conclude that, if the pyramids were not meant to be the literal
tombs of the pharaohs, they were meant to be cenotaphs, and the
king's mummy was buried elsewhere.
In any case, that the pyramids were tombs is clear, and to deny
this observation is to ignore a substantial body of corroborating
evidence.
© 2000 by Larry Orcutt,
Catchpenny
Mysteries.
Reprinted with permission
Some Alternative Theories of Pyramid Construction
There are many who feel that the theories of
"mainstream" Egyptologists on how the pyramids were built
are in error, or perhaps even deceptive. This is usually based on
the supposition that it would have been impossible for the ancient
Egyptians to have built the pyramids themselves with the primitive
means that are generally ascribed to them. Based on this premise,
rather than on archaeological or historical evidence, interesting
theories on how the pyramids were built have been proposed.
Unfortunately, all of these theories are based on assumption and
speculation, and have little or no tangible support. Even so, many
of these theories have found some degree of popular support.
Workmen pouring blocks.
© Copyright Davidovits &
Morris, The Pyramids: An Enigma
Solved, p. 72. Some details of the relief have been omitted
and
altered by the authors to better suit their theory.
Perhaps the most prosaic of these theories was described in
detail in The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved by Dr. Joseph
Davidovits and Margie Morris (Dorset Press, 1988; see also Pyramid
Illusions: A Journey to the Truth by Moustafa Gadalla, 1997).
Davidovits provides a brief summation:
I will demonstrate that the pyramid blocks are actually
exceptionally high-quality limestone concrete -- synthetic stone
-- cast directly in place. The blocks consist of about ninety to
ninety-five percent limestone rubble and five to ten percent
cement. They are imitations of natural limestone, made in the
age-old tradition of alchemical stonemaking. No stone cutting or
heavy hauling or hoisting was ever required for pyramid
construction. [p. 68]
The blocks were not quarried but rather made of a geopolymeric
cement. Limestone blocks did not have to be cut, finished, or even
moved at all. Instead, buckets of slurry were simply toted up the
pyramid by men who poured it into a wooden mold. Davidovits writes:
One of the characteristics of geopolymeric concrete is that there
is no appreciable shrinkage, and blocks do not fuse when cast
directly against each other. Although it would have been
impossible to achieve the close fit (as close as 0.002 inch) of
the 115,000 casing stones originally on the Great Pyramid with
primitive tools, such joints are easily achieved when casting
geopolymeric concrete. Once cast, within hours or even less,
depending on the formula (minutes using today's formula), a block
hardened. The mold was removed for reuse while a block was still
relatively soft. [p. 75]
The theory is very nice and well-described. Unfortunately, it
totally ignores a huge body of evidence. Davidovits works hard to
explain away the existing quarries, the abundance of tools found
during the Third and Fourth Dynasties, and the decrease in pyramid
quality after the Fourth Dynasty. He ultimately declares that
"This issue, however, is a matter of hard science, which must
be confirmed or disputed by qualified scientists. It is not
ultimately for Egyptologists, who are specialized historians, to
approve or reject." (p. 239) He adds that he finds no support
for his thesis among other geologists for two reasons. One, his
sampling of pyramid limestone was very small. He used a single
specimen of questionable provenance: Jean-Phillipe Lauer told
him that it came from the Great Pyramid at Giza. Two, some of
Davidovits' information is "highly confidential" thus
preventing him from sharing certain of his technical details with
others. (These reasons are related on p. 239.) The geological
evidence against the geopolymeric concrete theory are too complex
for this forum; for details see a series of articles by R.L. Folk
and D.H. Campbell, J.A. Harrell and B.E. Penrod, and Margie Morris
in Journal of Geological Education, vols. 40 (1992), 41
(1993), and 42 (1994).
There are a few obvious questions that Davidovits and his theory
cannot answer. If wooden molds were used and reused, why are the
dimensions of the pyramid blocks so varied? Wouldn't they be
expected to be of somewhat uniform shape? Where is the evidence of
the molds? None have ever been found or depicted on reliefs (save
the small molds used for mud brick). The core stones of the pyramids
are sloppily and roughly finished, many with well-defined tool
marks, as they were meant to be hidden by the casing stones and
never seen. They are loosely packed, often with rubble in between
them. These stones were obviously not "cast." Why not? Why
did the Egyptians bother to quarry and hoist these stones to the
height of the pyramid if they could have instead been cast? Wouldn't
ramps have had to have been built anyway for these stones? The
theory just does not conform to known details.
Ron Wyatt's "machine" used to raise pyramid blocks.
Photo © copyright Ron Wyatt, Wyatt
Archaeological Research
In about 450 BC, the historian Herodotus wrote of the Great
Pyramid:
This is how the pyramid was made: like a set of stairs, which some
call battlements and some altar steps. When they had first made
this base, they then lifted the remaining stones with levers [lit.
machines] made of short timbers, lifting them from the
ground to the first tier of steps, and, as soon as the stone was
raised upon this, it was placed on another lever, which stood on
the first tier, and from there it was dragged up to the second
tier and on to another lever. As many as there were the tiers, so
many were the levers; or it may have been that they transferred
the same lever, if they were easily handleable, to each tier in
turn, once they had got the stone out of it. I have offered these
two different stories of how they did it, for both ways were told
me. [History, 2.125]
The theory that levers were used to lift pyramid stones is
perhaps the most tenable of the alternate theories on how the
pyramids were built (see Martin Isler, "On Pyramid
Building," JARCE 22:129-142, 1985, and "On Pyramid
Building II," JARCE 24:95-112, 1987; also Peter Hodges, How
the Pyramids Were Built, Element Books, 1989). That the
Egyptians used levers would be very difficult to refute. Large stone
blocks had recesses, or sometimes projecting bosses (that were later
removed) built into them to facilitate the use of levers. Even with
the use of construction ramps, blocks would have had to have been
levered on and off the sleds. But as a means of raising large
numbers of blocks vertically up tiers of stone in as short a time as
possible, levers do not appear to be as practical as ramps.
Personally, I believe that ramps were used to perhaps ½ or so of
the pyramid's total vertical height, after which levers may have
been of more use for the smaller volume of material.
Two antennae between which a solitron
field (or "vortex") levitated pyramid stones.
© Copyright Hardy & Killick, Pyramid Energy,
p. 165.
According to the authors of Pyramid Energy: The Philosophy of
God, the Science of Man (Delta-K, 1987), the above pictured
"Caduceus Coil" was used to levitate the stone blocks that
were used to build the pyramids. Pathways were built, flanked by
rows of sphinxes, along which a solitron field spiraled, powered by
coil generators. Priests used tuned coils (misidentified by
Egyptologists as djed pillars), one passive (on the left, above) and
one active (on the right, above). The active coil was grounded to a
"Sacred Spot" and tapped into the planetary energy grid.
The reason present-day scientists cannot duplicate this simple feat
is because "they have not studied the power source called the
world grid." Hardy & Killick further explain:
The ancient people used the grid to achieve levitation and
worldwide communication. This is why pyramids are found all over
the world. The Cheops pyramid in Egypt is a coil generator and was
built to tap into the grid. The main control panel for this grid
was the Ark of the Covenant. [p. 169]
This theory may sound silly but an amazing number of people
propose similar explanations. Andrew Collins, author of Gods of
Eden: Egypt's lost legacy and the genesis of civilisation
(Headline, 1998), cites a 10th-century Arab historian who recorded a
folk tale about the origin of the Great Pyramid. According to the
story, the builders struck the stone blocks with a special rod,
causing them to levitate and float through the air for the distance
of "one bowshot." Collins insists that "the ancient
Egyptians were able to set up some kind of sustained sound vibration
that enabled the building blocks to defy gravity." He adds,
"Although simply a legend, there are traditions from all around
the world that speak of the movement of stone blocks and the
construction of walls and buildings by sonic levitation."
Of course, there is no archaeological or historical evidence that
any of this activity occurred at all. Such fancies are based on folk
tales and undisciplined speculation.
Map of Atlantis.
© Copyright Richard Ellis, Imagining Atlantis, p. 50.
If ancient Egyptians couldn't have built the pyramids, why not
attribute the feat to some advanced, but vanished, race? When Plato
wrote Timaeus and Critias in the fourth century BC, he
made used of a literary device called allegory and invented
an island nation to illustrate his thesis of social ideals. He
called this island "Atlantis." Unfortunately, time has
sanctified Plato's fiction in some people's minds, and many read it
as Gospel Truth. Had Jonathan Swift been his contemporary,
expeditions would be launched searching for Brobdingnag, Luggnagg,
and Glubbdubdrib.
Whether or not Plato's idea was inspired by a real event (such as
the volcanic catastrophe at Thera) is quite beside the point.
Atlantis never existed until it sprang forth from Plato's fertile
imagination. This is based on the material remains found in the area
in which Atlantis was supposed to have existed. One would expect an
advanced civilization to have left quite a noticeable mark,
particularly in trade goods. Not a single shard of "Atlantean"
pottery has ever been found. There are no ruins of an Atlantean
outpost, there is no mention of Atlantis in the historical record,
there remains no hint of an Atlantean language. There is no evidence
at all of such a civilization until Plato wrote of it. Yet for
reasons unknown, there are those who would have had the fictitious
inhabitants of a fictitious continent sail to Africa to build
towering pyramidal structures of stone that had no contemporary
counterpart anywhere else in the world, only to mysteriously abandon
them and leave them for a primitive race of indigenous savages to
drool in wonder over.
The face on Mars (Viking 1 Orbiter).
© Photo copyright NASA
If ancient Egyptians couldn't have built the pyramids, and if
there was no vanished, technologically superior human race
that could, then why not attribute the feat to Martians or some
other interplanetary extraterrestrial beings? There has been a
continuing abundance of books that have put forth this very theory: The
Morning of the Magicians by Louis Pauwels and Jacques Bergier
(Stein and Day, 1964), Chariots of the Gods? by Erich von
Däniken (GP Putnam's Sons, 1970), The Stairway to Heaven by
Zecharia Sitchin (St. Martin's Press, 1980), Mars Mystery: The
Secret Connection Between Earth and the Red Planet by Graham
Hancock (Three Rivers Press, 1999), and Gods of the New
Millennium: Scientific Proof of Flesh & Blood Gods by Alan
F. Alford (Hodder & Stoughton, 1999).
Again, these theories are not based on any scientific evidence or
on the known archaeological record, but rather on fantasy firmly
grounded on false supposition. Many of the above authors agree with
von Däniken when he wrote, "If we meekly accept the neat
package of knowledge that the Egyptologists serve up to us, ancient
Egypt appears suddenly and without transition with a fantastic
ready-made civilization." (Chariots of the Gods?, p.
74.) Obviously, Mr. von Däniken has never studied the prehistory of
Egypt, of which much has been written. "There are many problems
connected with the technology of the pyramid builders and no genuine
solutions," von Däniken added (p. 75), referring to what could
only have been the inferior knowledge of the natives of Africa.
"With what power, with what 'machines,' with what technical
resources was the rocky terrain leveled off at all?" he cried
in wonder at the Giza Plateau, awed at the thought of a level
surface (p. 77-78). Then, as a coup de grâce to conventional
Egyptology, von Däniken proclaimed that "Today, in the
twentieth century, no architect could build a copy of the pyramid of
Cheops, even if the technical resources of every continent were at
his disposal." (p. 78) An absurd comment, of course, but he can
smugly rest assured that it can never be put to the test, and he
likely hopes that in consequence we will be naive enough to accept
his words as axiomatic. Unfortunately for von Däniken and others,
most of us are still capable of critical thought.
The face on Mars (Mars Global Surveyor).
© Photo copyright NASA
© 2000 by Larry Orcutt,
Catchpenny
Mysteries.
Reprinted with permission
Moving Large Objects
The heaviest known blocks to be brought from Aswan to Giza were
the massive granite stones used for the roof of the King's Chamber
in the pyramid of Kufu. Each weighed about 50 tons. 5th and 6th
Dynasty pyramids included gabled roofs with blocks weighing up to 90
tons. The mortuary temple of Menkaure included limestone blocks
weighing 200 tons. In the 18th Dynasty, two colossal statues of
Amenhotep III (the "Colossi of Memnon"), each weighing
more than 700 tons, were moved an overland distance of 700 km.
Fragments of statues in the Ramesseum (built under Ramesses II)
suggest an original weight of 1,000 tons. How was it possible for
objects of this size to have been moved?
Hatshepsut's obelisk barge.
Herodotus described moving the 580 ton "Green Naos"
under Nectanebo II: "This took three years in the bringing, and
two thousand men were assigned to the conveying of it ..." (History,
2.175) Pliny wrote of the transportation of an "eighty
cubit" obelisk under Ptolemy II:
According to some authorities, it was carried downstream by the
engineer Satyrus on a raft; but according to Callixenus, it was
conveyed by Phoenix, who by digging a canal brought the waters of
the Nile right up to the place where the obelisk lay. Two very
broad ships were loaded with cubes of the same granite as that of
the obelisk, each cube measuring one foot, until calculations
showed that the total weight of the blocks was double that of the
obelisk, since their total cubic capacity was twice as great. In
this way, the ships were able to come beneath the obelisk, which
was suspended by its ends from both banks of the canal. The blocks
were unloaded and the ships, riding high, took the weight of the
obelisk. (Natural History, 36.14)
Moving a statue in 12th Dynasty Egypt.
Moving large stones over land was more involved. Sledges and
rollers (the latter being of a more limited value) were available in
pharaonic times, and workers were in great supply. Friction was the
main obstacle. An 800 ton block measuring 4x4x20 m would create a
ground pressure of 1 kg over each square centimeter of its base. A
force of at least 400 tons would be required to overcome the
friction. Modern engineers working under primitive conditions found
that, while moving blocks weighing 6 tons on a sledge, friction
could be reduced to nearly zero by wetting the track with a
lubricant (in this case, water). In the relief pictured above, from
the tomb of Djehutihotep, a man can be seen on the leading end of
the sledge pouring a liquid on the ground in front of it. Modern
reenactments also demonstrated that a friction "seal" is
formed beneath a static load that is broken when the load begins to
move. An Assyrian relief (below) shows the use of a lever at the
back of the sledge, possibly used to break such a "seal,"
or perhaps to propel it forward.
Moving a stone in Assyria.
It has been estimated that a ratio of two men per ton would be
required for moving loads over flat surfaces; nine men per ton would
be required for moving loads up a 9° slope. Practical experiments
moving loads on a sledge over a lubricated track have shown that one
man could pull one ton. Thus, the 1,000 ton colossus of Ramesses II
could have been moved by 1,000 men (or 200 oxen).
The movement of large stones was not confined to Egypt in ancient
times. The Romans moved the so-called Trilithon, weighing 800 tons,
from the quarry to the Temple of Jupiter at Baalbek (in eastern
Lebanon) in the first century AD. Another stone weighing 1,200 tons,
the Hajar el Hibla ("Stone of the Pregnant Woman"), was
never separated from its base and lays abandoned. Though the Romans
left no record of their methods, it is obvious that the Egyptians
did not have a monopoly on any "secret" technique of
moving large stones.
The "Stone of the Pregnant Woman,"at the quarry near
Baalbek.
© Copyright Friedrich Ragette, Baalbek, p. 114
It has been claimed by some that moving the largest of the
Egyptian blocks would be beyond our modern-day technological
capacity, even with the use of cranes and other heavy equipment.
Such arguments are false. In 1999 it became necessary to move the
208-foot tall Cape Hatteras lighthouse to a location more than a
half-mile away. The lighthouse weighs 4,830 tons and had to be moved
in one piece in its upright position. How was this achieved?
Moving the Cape Hatteras lighthouse.
Moving the Cape Hatteras lighthouse.
© Copyright U.S. Department of Transportation
The use of cranes was impractical, and the actual technique used
was very similar to that ascribed to the ancient Egyptians. First,
the lighthouse was undercut and shored using timber (see photo
below). One hundred hydraulic jacks were installed on rollers to
slide along steel track beams placed beneath the lighthouse. A road
was made by compacting the natural sands, overlaid with crushed
stone, and finished with steel mats. Five hydraulic push jacks
slowly shoved the lighthouse along the track beams in five-foot
increments. The track was lubricated with soap shavings to reduce
friction. The move, from start to finish, took 23 days.
Wood shoring beneath lighthouse.
National Park Service photo
With hydraulic machinery to replace human and animal muscle, and
hardened steel substituting for wood, it is well within our
modern-day ability to perform the mechanics of constructing the
Great Pyramid. What we lack today is the motivation to put the plan
into effect and the resources to carry it out, both abundant in
ancient Egypt during the Pyramid Age.
© 2000 by Larry Orcutt,
Catchpenny
Mysteries.
Reprinted with permission
|
