Pyramid Construction Theory
by Daniel Gerardo
Reprinted with Permission
The pyramids, a monument of human strength and intelligence,
have caused awe and curiosity among men at all times. Cheops's
Pyramid - also called the Great Pyramid -, which was raised on the
Gizeh plateau during the ancient Egyptian Empire, is the
masterpiece of builders. The construction techniques applied for
carrying out this work and the explanation of the reasons for its
unique inner layout are both vast and debatable matters.
In this article I shall refer to two issues which have attracted
the attention of archaeologists from Borchardt's time to our days:
a) the method used for lifting the blocks of stone;
b) the purpose of the Grand Gallery.
Traditionally, the two questions have been analysed separately
without ever gathering enough evidence in either case. I shall
briefly outline the existing scientific views on each one of them
and will then formulate a different approach whose uniqueness lies
in the fact that the two are assumed to be related.
The Purpose of the Grand Gallery
Flinders Petrie was the first archaeologist to express the
opinion that the Grand Gallery had been used for storing the three
granite blocks blocking the upward corridor - where they had been
placed after the Pharao´s funeral (see Fig. 1).
Borchardt shares this idea, yet he points out that it can explain
neither the slots carved in the lower part of the third row of
stones on the side-walls of the gallery, nor the blocks mounted on
each one of the twenty-eight holes carved in the wall benches at
regular intervals (see Fig. 2). He also believes that the blocks of
stone on the floor of the gallery might have hindered the funeral
procession, and postulates that they were placed on a wooden
platform mounted on the side-wall slots which was supported by logs
embedded in the bench holes. He completes his hypothesis with the
theory of the successive stages of the construction, based on the
assumption that during the building process three changes were made
in the layout plan. This might cast a new light on the existence of
three chambers in the pyramid. According to Lauer, the second layout
plan provided that the intermediate chamber would act as a chapelle
ardente while the gallery would be built as a dead-end hall for
storing the large granite blockswhich would obstruct the whole
upward corridor. In the end, this idea might have been discarded by
the builders. The upper- and antechambers were furnished with a
built-in blocking system which provided sufficient safety for the
upper storey, so the builders may have deemed it unnecessary to
obstruct the whole upward corridor and thus limited the number of
blocks to three. The remaining granite stones were used for building
the upper chamber. They mounted a scaffolding akin to the one
formulated by Borchardt - and consistent with the various details
found in the gallery - in order to raise the blocks of stone to the
upper chamber.
Techniques for Lifting the Stone Blocks
The average weight of the blocks of stone in Cheops's Pyramid
amounts to 2,500 kilogrammes - except for the huge slabs on the
68-metre-high roof of the granite chamber and its outlet rooms, near
the centre of the building. There was but one way in which ancient
Egypcians could lift those enormous slabs: the use of the straight
ramp made of bricks and earth. Considering that vestiges of ramps
were found during archaeological explorations, the straight ramp
theory formulated by Borchardt and completed by Lauer was
unanimously accepted at that time. However, the use of a straight
sloping path proves extremely laborious when it comes to reaching
heights like those in this pyramid, as the volume of the material on
the ramp could only be compared with that of the pyramid itself.
The use of a spiral ramp might have helped overcome this
difficulty. Even though no archaeological evidence has confirmed it,
the spiral ramp theory has been widely accepted among scientific
circles.
J.F. Lauer, an archaeologist who has greatly helped elucidate
this issue, suggested a variant to his straight ramp model. He
postulates that ramps of increasing steepness were placed one on top
of the other, taking into account both the gradual average-height
decrease in the courses as they approached the peak, and the fact
that the huge stone slabs are not found above the height of 68
metres in this pyramid. Furthermore, superimposed ramps make it
possible to limit their length from the foot of the pyramid to 300
metres. The great advantage of this system is that the ramps in the
lower levels of the pyramid are extremely wide, providing vast
building surfaces. Their width decreases slightly as each new row of
stones is placed. The outer path, on the other hand, lengthens
towards the south and towards the north, where a system of large
counterbalance baskets filled with sand, descending along the face
of the building, may have helped lift the heavier blocks of stone.
A Different Proposal
It is clear that one of the objectives of pyramid builders was to
increase the height of their constructions. In the case of Cheops's
Pyramid they achieved the maximum height of 147 metres - surpassing
by far that of the proceeding South Pyramid (103 metres) and North
Pyramid (92 metres) of the Dahshur Group. This remarkable increase
in height entailed growing difficulties. Builders had to solve a
number of structural problems which were apparent both in Meidum and
in the South Pyramid, and they also had to confront ever-increasing
difficulty when raising the blocks of stone to much higher
positions.
Most probably, as construction evolved the block-lifting
techniques also varied. Thus, the difficulties that the old
construction methods entailed could finally be overcome. Coinciding
with the unprecedented height of Cheops's Pyramid there is also an
unprecedented feature in its inner layout: the Grand Gallery.
Let us consider that both phenomena are connected, that is to
say, that the remarkable increment in height has been achieved by
applying a block-lifting method which calls for the existence of an
inner ramp with the characteristics of the Grand Gallery.
In order to clarify my thesis, I shall adopt the hypothesis that
the gallery was used as an inner ramp whereon a counterweight would
slide (see Fig. 3).
To illustrate the practical application of the method I am
postulating, let us imagine that the pyramid has been built up to
the height of 100 metres; its upper surface is a square platform
where the next row of blocks is about to be placed. Inside the
building, the sloping gallery is divided by a wooden platform
mounted on the existing slots along the third tapering of the
side-walls. Under this platform a counterweight container filled
with small stones is sliding along the wooden rails fixed to the
benches. The holes at regular intervals make it possible to fit the
logs to the benches by means of wooden pegs, while the blocks
embedded in the walls, acting as bumpers, halt the counterbalances
at intermediate positions.
A vertical conduit connects the south wall of the gallery
with the upper surface of the building. The effect resulting from
the counterweights sliding movement is transferred by means of ropes
and lubricated props thus helping lift the blocks of stone outside.
By the time a block has been lifted, the counterweight reaches the
end of its run, next to the north wall of the gallery, where it is
unloaded. A group of men standing on the platform in the gallery
raise the unloaded counterweight back to its initial position in the
upper part of the gallery by means of ropes. Once the counterbalance
has been loaded again, another block of stone can be lifted. As we
can see, the apparently inexplicable details and features in the
gallery can now be explained in the light of the roles they have
been assigned. The greatest virtue of this new way of visualising
this Question is that it is susceptible of proof. As a matter of
fact, in order to describe the method I am postulating I assumed
that there existed a vertical conduit connecting the south wall of
the gallery with the building platform, and that this conduit made
it possible to transfer the kinetic energy generated during the
sliding movement of the counter-balance to the building platform
outside. Let us now imagine that the construction of the pyramid -
including the surfacing - has been completed.
The next task to be performed is the obstruction of the vertical
conduit. If we assume that this conduit did exist and that it was
obstructed by means of small blocks, evidence of this should
necessarily be found in the upper lock of the building.
Fig. 4 shows a drawing of the upper lock made by E.W.Laner a
professional draftsman, in his work "Exhaustive Description of
Egypt" (British Museum, add. MS. 34,083, f.24) -first published in
C.W. Ceram´s book "In Search of the Past". Three small blocks of
stone placed one next to the other can be seen on the east face of
the building, near the centre of the platform (see arrow).
Fig. 4
I shall point out two facts that can prove the existence of the
aforementioned obstruction. In the first place, the size of these
three blocks differs from that of the rest of the stones in the
platform. Secondly, the stones which still remain from the previous
course are placed along the edge of those small blocks and do not
form the lock, as one would suppose they should. This detail, which
will be analysed in due course, makes it possible to prove in one
way or another the alternative theories I have formulated.
The Chephren Pyramid was built right after Cheops's Pyramid and
is slightly lower in height; it is logical to deduce that its inner
layout should be similar to the one we have just analysed, as
suggested by different archaeologists. In short, the use of an inner
counterweight during the construction may have helped lift the
blocks of stone to unprecedented heights, thus supplementing the
existing building methods. Furtbermore, it makes it possible to
explain both the use and the unique characteristics,of the Grand
Gallery.
Copyright by Daniel Gerardo
All Rights Reserved
danielgerardo@hotmail.com
|
