The Construction of the Pyramids

Despite the photographic evidence below, I’m still on the side of human construction for the pyramids. I’ve blogged previously about Wallace Wallington, the contractor who moves 20 ton blocks by himself, in earlier posts. This time around I thought I’d expose readers to a scholarly article I came across as I prep for my ancient Egypt course that I’ll be teaching this Spring. It’s an insightful piece from the Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians called “Building Cheops’ Pyramid.” Enjoy, earthlings.

Careful with that, ET!

72 thoughts on “The Construction of the Pyramids

  1. i would suggest reading (or more effectively, watching a presentation on) what has been discovered about the pyramid with regards to its resemblance of the earth.

    by the way, the height of the pyramid is exactly the mean altitude of all land above sea level. not arbitrary. pointing out how the least compelling points of interest have a potentiality to be coincidence or arbitrary doesn’t come close to refuting ancient intelligence theorists. it’s simply response for the sake of responding.

  2. i believe this elevation was spoken of in books published by bonnie gaunt, david childress, graham hancock, and i think it’s even referenced in the canon of the hebrew bible.

    my side of the argument has posed questions unanswerable until ancient intelligence is taken seriously. which questions has your side posed that are unanswerable until ancient intelligence is NOT taken seriously?

    only a couple of all of the “factoids” i have brought forth have been addressed, and i haven’t even mentioned nazca, machu picchu, puma punku, tiahuanaco, teotihuacan, easter island, the mayans or the olmecs.

  3. Jeff 23 May 2010 at 7:09 PM.
    “by the way, the height of the pyramid is exactly the mean altitude of all land above sea level. not arbitrary. pointing out how the least compelling points of interest have a potentiality to be coincidence or arbitrary doesn’t come close to refuting ancient intelligence theorists. it’s simply response for the sake of responding.”

    Perhaps you have confused some of my comments. With regard to your assertion that the height of the pyramid is equal to the “mean altitude of all land above sea level”, I made no claim or assumption about the validity of your assertion, neither did I call it arbitrary (oddly, you did). Indeed, I just asked if you could source the scientific data proving that the mean altitude at the time of the pyramid construction was equivalent to its height.

    If there is no such data then the “ancient intelligence theorists” who hold to such an assertion are incorrect. If there is such data, please source it.

  4. Jeff @ 23 May 2010 at 7:27 PM.
    “i believe this elevation was spoken of in books published by bonnie gaunt, david childress, graham hancock, and i think it’s even referenced in the canon of the hebrew bible.”

    Bonnie Gaunt has zero academic credentials listed.
    David Childress has zero academic credentials.
    Graham Hancock was a journalist.

    (Really, that is the best you can do?) Not sure why you fear credible data, since it could quite possibly prove your assertion.

    Only scientific data can objectively support the answer to what the mean-altitude was. Such an answer would be subject to scrutiny and the data available for inspection.

    Here are some examples of sources that I looked at, and none had the desired information:

    United States Geological Survey, or the USGS
    The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, or theJEA
    The Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans, or the JGR
    NASA Earth Observatory, or the EOS
    The National Science Foundation NSF

    Re: the “canon of the Hebrew bible”, please site the chapter and verse. How cool is it that Dr. Heiser is the host of this site and has a Ph.D.in Hebrew Bible and Semitic Studies (!).

    • thanks; there is nothing in the Bible about pyramid measurements. I just don’t know where things like that start (other than not reading the Bible or searching through it with software or a hard copy concordance).

  5. Jeff, there are assertions like the ones you have made, that are all over the internet and on television specials. What I have found, is when challenging such assertions, the premises supporting them are often false, missing, or in the case of acting as exculpatory evidence, ignored.

    I do apologize if you feel like I am picking on you, but you did make several assertions without supporting them. I gave you credit (and still do) as being an intelligent, open-minded person who is interested in the wonder of real history and archeology.

    Jeff, I do not wish to be a mean-guy, but you are making me feel like I’m telling a 7-year-old there is no Santa Claus, as opposed to discussing/debating someone who is in a serious pursuit of knowledge. I am not an expert and was hoping you could seriously defend your assertions and objectively take apart my challenges, as I am truly interested in archeology and seek to better understand the subject. My mistake. Between your lack of objective sourcing, and your commenting on my challenges without fully reading them (save one), what is the point of your replying?

    Re: lost civilizations — I would love to believe in them. Here is an intriguing possibility, but note the evidence or at least the clear indications that make such a belief justifiable. No unsupported assertions are needed.

    Certainly, there is nothing wrong with believing in profound assertions, even when unable to support them. If such is the case here, Jeff, then by all means please do not feel any obligation to seriously reply to the challenges made to your assertions. Feel free to remain secure in your beliefs and satisfied with the validity of those assertions that make you most comfortable in your beliefs. (Of course, when an assertion is proven invalid, and one still chooses to believe in it, well… that’s a different story…).

    Respectfully, Jeff, you may not want to continue to read my future comments on this thread, as I intend to challenge every such assertion you made in your comment @ 3 May 2010 at 12:16 AM (provided, of course, that such a privilege is continued by the host and as time allows).

  6. MSH@ 25 May 2010 at 7:01 PM.

    Thanks for the verification Dr H.

    In my short foray into examining some of these assertions, it appears that a positive-feedback mechanism is at work.

    Once a profound assertion is made, it is repeated (often verbatim, although sometimes with “enhancements”) without regard to any sort of fact-checking. These unchecked assertions are eventually accepted as factual by some, which in turn are used to support a given theory. The given theory then supports the original assertion. In short, the assertions prove the facts, the facts prove the theory, and the theory proves the original assertions. The scholarship of modern science is largely dismissed.

    Typically, those who believe in such facts are not willing to debate in objective terms or even mention that their “facts” might be in error (other than lip service to being “open-minded”). In my experience, such individuals quote self-proclaimed “experts” who typically turn out to be laymen. Sometimes, these “experts” are the original sources of the assertion. It seems that for some, the rules of logic and intellectual integrity are summarily ignored (and even looked upon with contempt).

  7. Jeff @ 3 May 2010 at 12:16 AM.
    “more specifically, the relationship of its circumference to its height is the same as that of the earth’s circumference to its radius from the north pole.”

    Given:

    * circumference of the Earth is 40,076 km or 40,076,000 m.
    * mean polar radius of the Earth is 6,356.7523 km or 6,356,752.3 m.
    * each original base length was 230.37 m.
    * orignial height of the Great Pyramid of Giza was 146.478 m.

    Ratio of Earth’s circumference to its polar radius = 40,076,000 m / 6,356,752.3 m = 6.30
    Ratio of Pyramid’s circumference to its height = perimeter to its height* = 4 X 230.37 m / 146.478 m = 6.29

    This constitutes a match; however there are other relationships that are similar:

    Venus’ eq circumference to its polar radius = 38,025,000 m / 6,052,000 m = 6.28

    Here are some more (Mars and Moon used equatorial circumference / polar radius, all others utilized mean averages):

    15,326,200 / 2,439,700 = 6.282 about 6.28 for Mercury
    21,334,900 / 3,376,200 = 6.319 about 6.32 for Mars
    10,907,400 / 1,738,140 = 6.275 about 6.28 for Moon
    16,171,000 / 2,575,500 = 6.279 about 6.28 for Titan
    11,398,000 / 1,815,000 = 6.280 about 6.28 for Io

    So, to state that the Great Pyramid was displaying the ratio for the Earth and not Venus (or Mercury, Mars, Moon, Titan, or Io for that matter) requires speculative interpretation. These types of ratios exist on other contemporary structures as well, but are meaningless.

    Some other ratios:
    75.6 inch lamppost / 12 inch lamp = 6.30
    24.4 inch cat / 4 inch collar = 6.11 (Jupiter’s circumference to polar radius ratio).

    Bottom line: any ratio where “this” is divided by “that” can equal a meaningful relationship if one looks for a matching result. In this case, speculative interpretation is required as this ratio can mean or represent anything (as demonstrated above). In short, multiple solutions make all of them trivial.

    * Ratio of Pyramid’s circumference to its height = 2 PI (230.37 / 2) / 146.478 = 4.94 which is not even close, so I substituted Pyramid’s perimeter. There are many theories attributing circle properties to the base of the Great Pyramid. I took Jeff’s assertion at his most literal because it is more often repeated and yielded results more favorable to his assertion.

    Other theories:

    *The radius of pyramid = height of pyramid –> circumference of 2 PI 146.478 m, which divided by its height is 2 PI = 6.28. Again, since the perimeter to height ratio was slightly closer to the Earth’s Circumference/Polar radius ratio, I elected to use the perimeter.

    *The radius is equal to half of 8/9 of a side of the Pyramid’s base length. The ratio (eventually) evaluates to 4.39. Not even close to the assertion.

  8. Jeff @ 3 May 2010 at 12:16 AM.
    “furthermore, if one divides the perimeter of the pyramid by its height, one gets 2pi.”

    Given:
    * each original base length was 230.37 m.
    * orignial height of the Great Pyramid of Giza was 146.478 m.
    * (2 PI) = 6.2832

    Then:

    Perimeter / Height = (4 X 230.37 m) / 146.478 m = 6.2909

    Results:

    The perimeter/height ratio is within 0.062% of (2 PI).

    This makes sense when using the Pizza-Cutter Theory cited above (@ 19 May 2010 at 4:13 PM). Recall, if the circumference of a measuring wheel were (say) 1 cubit and was used to measure the base of the pyramid, then:

    Each base of the pyramid leg = 440 revolutions (or 440 X 2 PI radians) = 440 cubits.

    For the height, take 2 diameters of the measuring wheel and multiply by a scaling factor of 440, or:

    Height = scaling factor X 2 X d = 440 X 2 X (1 cubit / PI) = 280.11 cubits

    So:

    Perimeter / Height = (4 X 440 cubits) / 280.11 cubits = 6.2832

    Results:

    This perimeter/height ratio is within 0.00048% of (2 PI).

    Bottom line: This result is a property of using a measuring wheel (or similar, or spooled measured rope, etc) to measure the base and derive a height of the pyramid (as explained in the earlier comment). There are other theories, but in this manner, PI and other notable ratios would be incorporated into the pyramid without any conscious planning or intent — or even knowledge. It is an expected and elementary result and is therefore trivial.

    (Kinda like 2 + 2 = 4).

  9. Jeff @ 3 May 2010 at 12:16 AM.
    “each of the sides of the great pyramid is cuved inward at its base. this slight curvature matches precisely that of the earth.”

    If true, then the radius of the Earth and the radius of the facial arcs of the pyramid must be equal. Let’s test.

    (Quick note: I have attempted to post this comment twice before, but my guess is it was flagged by the filter due to length or number of links or something like that. To that end, I have divided it into two parts).

    PART I

    Given two things:

    * Sir Flinders Petrie’s observation that refer to the concavity of the pyramid core, which “had dips of as much as 1/2 deg to 1 deg.”

    * The formula for a radius of an arc, given its chord length (or width) and its segment height is: r = ( h / 2 ) + ( w^2 / (8h) ).

    And let,
    R: Mean Radius of the Earth = 6.3 million meters.
    r: radius described by the concavity of the Great Pyramid, of each layer.
    w: chord (or width) of the arc.
    h: segment height of the arc.

    From Sir Petrie, we can solve for h:

    * At the start-point of w, draw a new line (call it hyp) projecting from the start-point and form a 0.5 deg angle with w (the 0.5 deg comes from Petrie’s observation, 1 deg will also be tried).

    * At the midpoint of w, draw a perpendicular line that intersects the hyp. This perpendicular line is h.

    * The hyp, h and 1/2 w form a right triangle where all the angles are known: 90 deg, 0.5 deg, 89.5 deg, respectively.

    * Using the Law of Sines: h is to (sin 0.5 deg), as 1/2 w is to (sin 89.5 deg); or solving for h:

    * h = (1/2 w) X (sin 0.5 deg) / (sin 89 deg).

    To solve for w:

    * the length of the base (call it base_line) will serve as the chord, so –> chord = base_line = w.

    To solve for r:

    * The lowest layer of the pyramid is not concave according to notable surveyors such as Sir Petrie, but the upper layers are. Since the mean length of the lowest base_line is about 230 m, it can be safely excluded. Moving up the Pyramid means shorter and shorter base_lines.

    * Each layer of the pyramid must be tested (except the base). Either interpolation or exact chord lengths are required to determine the exact radius for a layer of the pyramid.

    * Plugging in w-values yields h-values, and plugging both of those into the first formula yields the r-values:

    (w, h, r) –> where all values are in meters.

    (225, 0.9824, 6442),
    (220, 0.9605, 6299),
    (215, 0.9387, 6156),
    (210, 0.9169, 6013),
    (205, 0.8950, 5870),
    (200, 0.8732, 5726),
    (195, 0.8514, 5583),

    (…, ……, ….),

    (100, 0.4366, 2863), …etc…

    * Here is a calculator (scroll down) that is set-up to make these types of calculations, select “Chord & Segment Height” (which are w and h).

    * The observed angle of 1 deg was also tried, but it actually made the r values even smaller, starting at w = 225:
    r: 2773, 2712, 2650…, 1233 m.

  10. PART II

    The comparison of R to r:

    One can see, as the base_line gets shorter (going up the pyramid), the r values get shorter.

    Since the radius of the Earth is about 6.3 million meters, there is a difference of three orders of magnitude between the radius of the concave arcs and the actual value of the Earth’s radius. Arguably, one could take the r value of a particular layer, scale it by a factor of a 1,000, round it off and claim it corresponds to the radius of the Earth, but such a claim would be meaningless in light of all the other r values.

    In addition, to account for the entire face to emulate the earth’s curvature, each layer would require a slightly different offset angle which is not in evidence with the data so far presented.

    In short, R != r.

    For fun, getting R = r:

    * Keep w at 225 m and change the offset angle from 0.5 to 0.000000155 deg —
    (225; 0.001; 6,300,000).

    So, to have a 225-m-long-object emulate the curvature of the earth, that object would need a 1 mm dip from its chord (h or the segment height). The offset angle for such a construct would be 0.155 micro deg — six orders of magnitude difference from the 1/2 deg observed by Sir Petrie.

    * Keep the offset angle at 1/2 deg and change w to 220,000 m —
    (220,000; 960; 6,300,000)

    To maintain the 1/2 deg offset, the object would need a length of 220 km and have an indentation of almost 1 km.

    Bottom line: I freely admit that my solutions or the numbers I used could be incorrect — please feel free to provide better solutions or sourcing. Absent any proof to the contrary, I submit the assertion is false that the Great Pyramid’s concave sides match the curvature of the Earth (“precisely” or otherwise).

  11. Jeff @ 3 May 2010 at 12:16 AM.
    all three of the pyramids at giza are a ground map of orion’s belt, each corresponding perfectly to angle, position and size of each of the three stars (alnitak, alnilam and mintaka). the position of these three stars in the sky locked perfectly over head in the southern sky in 10,500bc (with the nile river lining up to illustrate the milky way).

    This theory was originally proposed by Mr. Robert Bauval and later enhanced in combo with Mr. Graham Hancock.

    Some problems:

    * In the sky, facing say north, the curve in Orion’s Belt (OB) is “concave up”, while the corresponding curve in the Giza Pyramids (GP) is “concave down”.

    * If one mentally inverts the sky, the third pyramid (Menkaure) is not aligned with the third star (Mintaka) at all — hence the need to find a calender date that corresponds to a better agreement.

    * The brightest star in OB is Alnitan, which is the middle star. The largest pyramid of the GP is Khufu, which is not the middle pyramid.

    Finally, this (my emphasis) from http://www.eridu.co.uk/Author/egypt/lost.html:

    “But Bauval too was criticised for being careless in his calculation of the 10500 BC alignment between the Giza Pyramids and the stars of Orion’s Belt. To the shock and horror of Bauval’s followers, the BBC claimed that the accurate 10500 BC ‘lock-in’ between the Giza pyramids and Orion’s Belt was not quite so accurate after all. Worse still, in the ensuing furore, Bauval and Hancock actually conceded the point and admitted that the alignment was not precise.”

    And this, a BBC special where Dr. Ed Krupp dissolves the theory:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3EiiUMRNo4 (starting at about 6:17)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssEim2WO-RU (Mr. Hancock admits to discrepancy at 2:58)

    The second video continues Dr. Krupp’s argument and initiates the BBC’s and Dr. Farrel’s (sp) arguments.

    Bottom line: The correlation may (sorta) exist if the sky is inverted, the calendar changed, and the apparent magnitudes ignored. Without such manipulations, the assertion fails. There are much better theories that do not require such manipulations and are solely based on evidence.

    Dr. Heiser linked one such theory here:
    http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2010/05/new-scholarly-paper-on-archaeoastronomy-and-pyramid-alignment/

  12. My pleasure Dr. H.

    Jeff @ 3 May 2010 at 12:16 AM.
    this may sound like a coincidence, but this happens to be the same age from which the sphinx (originally a lion) is dated due to water erosion (occurring no later than 10,500bc) and position.

    The Sphinx is not really the subject of this thread, but I will note that Dr. Robert M. Schoch cites the same water erosion and comes up with a date of around 5,000 BC.

    (Dr. Schoch was contacted by John Anthony West who was the among the first to beleive the Sphinx was built in 10,500 BC. Mr. West was not a geologist, and that is why he contacted Dr. Schoch.)

    Here is are some challenges to Dr. Schoch’s theory:
    http://www.catchpenny.org/sphinx.html

    by position, i mean that as the sphinx gazes east, and as it is in the form of a lion, it would have been absurd to construct a monument in the form of a lion in the age of taurus, when egyptologists say it was built. the age of leo was last seen in, yep, 10,500bc. it was an equinoxial marker gazing at its own constellation as the sun rose in front of it.

    There appears to be several different interpretations of the Age of Taurus:

    * 3814 BC to 1658 BC

    * 4300 BC to 2150 BC.

    * 4525 BC to 1875 BC

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrological_age

    Ironically, these dates are within the range of what evidence-driven and peer-reviewed archeology widely hold as the construction period of the Sphinx.

  13. My apologies — I misread Jeff’s assertion.

    He was writing about the Age of Leo, which does indeed fall in the range he cited:

    * 10,500 BC to 8000 BC
    * 10,970 BC to 8810 BC

    (guess I’m fired as an astrologer)

    The larger point, however, remains; the physical evidence of such a construction-date is lacking.

    There are some other problems as well.

    From http://www.antiquityofman.com/Krupp_Sphinx_Blinks.html

    “In fact, the zodiacal Lion was not even an Egyptian constellation. We find it in Egypt only in the Ptolemaic era and in the last half of the 1st century B.C., when Dendera Temple was built. This is long after the Pyramid Age and really long after 10,500 B.C.

    A lion constellation is depicted on the astronomical ceilings of pharaonic tombs of the New Kingdom, but that lion is not Leo. It is part of Egypt’s indigenous Northern Group of constellations, and the paintings show a crouched lion near what we now recognize as the stars of the Big Dipper.”

    And

    “In the sky, Orion is located to the west of the Milky Way. Leo is on the other side of the celestial Nile, east of the Milky Way, and it faces Orion. On the ground, however, the Sphinx, the terrestrial reflection of Leo, is west of the Nile and on the same side of the river as the pyramids that allegedly symbolize the Belt of Orion. It also faces away from Orion. The Sphinx is on the wrong side of the river and facing the wrong way to match the sky.”

  14. Great website. Its great to see some popular theories debunked. It’s always fun to read about the intervention theories, especially as these days some of them come across quite scientific and convincing. But, its just as fun to find website like this that can debunk them, and then to see people offer yet more support and evidence to the theories. Its awesome and it keeps life interesting.

    The one thing that has puzzled me for a while is the Cheops pyramid… the main one at giza. What was it actually built for? Is that still a mystery or is there some scientific reason avaiable now? Because, the inside has got some wierd chambers and none of it really makes sense. Ive only been exposed to the intervention theories that say its some kind of alien design. The other theory I heard was that its a tomb, or an observatory, but it doesnt seem like thats what it was originally built for.

    • The tomb argument for pyramids in general is actually well placed. There are several reasons. Here are two: (a) it is an easy, discoverable thing to see and know that pyramids evolved in shape and size from pre-Old Kingdom tombs known as mastabas. Mastabas in turn evolved from pit graves. There is a clear sequential evolution here; (2) Pyramid texts in Old Kingdom tombs — they are about the passage of the king (his mummy) from one part of the pyramid to the outside to the sky to join the stars/ his predecessors. That would make no sense if pharaohs weren’t buried in them. Pyramid texts were later superseded by coffin texts (same spells carved / painted on coffins) and then books of the dead.

  15. You may have being pyramids made by humans but waht about Nazca Lines in south america? You cn only see them from the air and at that time no one had air vehicles so aliens built it as a an ancient airport. Have you consider watching the documentary film Chariots of the Gods?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariots_of_the_Gods_(film)

    It shows evidence that we were visited by aliens and we worship them as gods.

    Might want to wathc this too! It and it reveal the truth!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Aliens

    • The Nazca lines are actually one of the oldest, most regularly trodden and explained “anomalies” in mainstream archaeology. There are a number of viable explanations. My favorite is the one that involves the use of a balloon (http://www.nott.com/Pages/projects.php). Their creation is not difficult to explain (balloon or not – I root for that one!), and a full scale sample is reproducible without aliens: http://www.onagocag.com/nazca.html. See also http://www.nazcamystery.com/nazca_science.htm. This one is actually pretty easy, so try again for the alien nonsense (and my apologies to the scientists whose work took years to demonstrate so that now the explanations for Nazca look easy!).

  16. I recall in ’73 or so in my early teens all excited about Erich von Däniken’s Chariots of the Gods.
    Then fate or whatever put a copy of The Ancient Engineers by L. Sprague De Camp in my hands. Set me straight.
    I don’t think I am doctrinaire in my thinking, I am quite Fortean, but; aliens making humans to mine gold to save their planet’s atmosphere?

  17. Wow…been almost two years since i posted in this thread and it seems that nothing has changed, Still the same general contentions from both sides. I still feel that those who believe the pyramids were built by the Egyptians of 4000-6000 years ago (as opposed to men of a past epoch, or alternatively, more advanced “men”) are looking at this topic in isolation. As Jeff correctly points out, there IS a bigger picture here, which is largely ignored by the academics, seemingly because they can’t explain it. Of course im talking about significant sites like nazca, machu picchu, puma punku, tiahuanaco, teotihuacan, easter island, the mayans or the olmecs plus the countless anomalous artefacts like the Piri Reis toname but one.

    @ Pons Asinorum: its all well and good to postulate figures and hypothetical models till the cows come home (we allknow a model can be made to output anything you want), but your comment about academic credentials undermines your cause. Rather than attacking the validity of someone’s work on the basis of their professional qualifications or lack thereof, i consider the smarter money would respond to the content of their hypothesis. Academia is an institution, just like high school, and there are established heirarchies, structures and processes. I think these days its pretty widely accepted that failure to conform to mainstream academic mantras in contentious issues such as the origins of man can validly be regarded as professional suicide. This is why many just choose to go with the flow rather than risk being ostracised. Bear in mind that Einstein was a desk clerk when he came up with the theory of relativity…

    @MSH: im very interested to hear your thoughts on Vimaana’s as detailed within the ancient vedic Vymaanika Shaastra text. It seems that here is a text, indeed a religious text, which sets aside an entire section to go into remarkable detail on the topic of ancient flying machines. I’m no religious scholar, but i struggle to understand how this portion of the overall text (dealing with the so called “flying machines”) ties in to what is otherwise considered a religious text. Given the level of detail it reads more like a flight manual, taking in such topics as diet, clothing, construction and metallurgy, and even operating instructions. I understand how the ancients used metaphors and allegorical devices to convey meaning, but the detail in this section suggests a more literal interpretation.

  18. In reading the posts here I’ve learned how solid both sides of the argument are. One is supported by math and science, the other by more faith and critical (or non-critical) thinking. But I do have several questions. Given that the quarry for the stones for the pyramid are on the opposite side of the Nile, has it been established what type of loading dock and water craft were used to float these stones across the Nile? Also, has any objective study been done on the acres and acres and acres of flax for ropes and how many people it would have taken to just weave the ropes? On a final note, has anyone on this site witnessed a “team” or workgroup of men dragging a 20 ton block across the desert with only ropes ? I’ve been inside the great pyramid and ran my hand across the granite walls. Has anyone ever hand sanded a slab of stone to that smoothness before? At the rate at which ropes would have worn out, it boggles my mind the shear quantity of ropes it would have taken to drag these blocks across the desert. Their ship building techniques with reeds and cedar must have been supperb, and I truely don’t think there’s a workteam alive today that could cut one of these granite blocks, hand sand it smooth as glass, drag it with ropes across the ground, load it one a reed or cedar boat, float it across the river, unload it, drag it another couple miles, then up a ramp and use something (????) to leverage it in place. Mind boggling, just mind boggling. I swing steel and I don,t think we could drag a 1000 steel beam across the desert several miles.

    • how can one side be “solid” when based on faith and uncritical thinking?

      Yes, there are studies on all of these items. Have a look at the recommended books (the one entitled “Egyptian Building” is especially good).

  19. One more note on the ropes. If the ancients did in fact drag these stones with ropes, used copper chisles, etc. Shouldn’t we have found a stash of some 2 or 3 million ropes or a whole store room full of copper chisles? I’m just asking the question. Maybe millions of ropes all disinigrated over the millenia but I’d think there should be tons and tons and tons of copper tools somewhere or something else made from all that copper. How many chisles you think they went through in 20-30 years? A million or more? Do we know the deteriation rate of those chisles when used on this type of stone? And how often you figure each one had to be sharpened? They must have had a huge area to sharpen those chisels. Have they found the sharpening stones cause they would have had a bunch of them. I’m a pretty simple guy – and the details it takes to run a project of this size are just mind boggling. Someone had to mine the copper and smelt it. They had plantation size farms growing flax and an industrial size factory weaving ropes. They must have had tousands of men logging timber from somewhere and floating it down the nile unless there was a forest close by. Truely a engineering feet I don’t believe we could replicate today (using their same techniques).

Comments are closed.