Slashdot Mirror


How the Ancient Egyptians (Should Have) Built the Pyramids

KentuckyFC writes The Great Pyramid of Giza in Egypt is constructed from 2.4 million limestone blocks, most about 2.5 tonnes but some weighing in at up to 80 tonnes, mostly sourced from local limestone quarries. That raises a famous question. How did the ancient Egyptians move these huge blocks into place? There is no shortage of theories but now a team of physicists has come up with another that is remarkably simple--convert the square cross section of the blocks into dodecadrons making them easy to roll. The team has tested the idea on a 30 kg scaled block the shape of a square prism. They modified the square cross-section by strapping three wooden rods to each long face, creating a dodecahedral profile. Finally, they attached a rope to the top of the block and measured the force necessary to set it rolling. The team say a full-sized block could be modified with poles the size of ships masts and that a work crew of around 50 men could move a block with a mass of 2.5 tonnes at the speed of 0.5 metres per second. The result suggests that this kind of block modification is a serious contender for the method the Egyptians actually used to construct the pyramids, say the researchers.

29 of 202 comments (clear)

  1. Corroborating Hieroglyphics? by SydShamino · · Score: 5, Informative

    While the science may not be settled, the "drag on sled while someone wets the sand" method is corroborated with available records:
    http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-...

    http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014...

    --
    It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    1. Re:Corroborating Hieroglyphics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Everyone knows aliens built the pyramids.

    2. Re:Corroborating Hieroglyphics? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, yes and no. The aliens did build it, but they used cheap human labor for the grunt work. Sure, they could have just moved the giant blocks with their minds, but aliens are so lazy.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:Corroborating Hieroglyphics? by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...and the Easter Island heads "walked" into place.

      They actually could have. A team of scientists actually worked out how this could be done and did a trial run with one of the heads.

      The "walked it" down one of the roads from the stone quarries.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:Corroborating Hieroglyphics? by flyingfsck · · Score: 5, Informative

      Anyone that actually lived in the middle east knows that sand is everywhere. They simply stacked the blocks while building up a sand pile around it, then eventually dug the sand away again, while dressing the stone from the top down to the bottom. There are actually some unfinished spots in Egypt where the tools of the trade and the gravel heaps surrounding the still partially dressed stone remained. There is no mystery about it in reality - only on TV.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    5. Re:Corroborating Hieroglyphics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I don't see what the big deal is. You can store up to 64 blocks of any kind of stone in each inventory slot. It is trivially easy for one person to carry lots of these around. And to stack them.

    6. Re:Corroborating Hieroglyphics? by stjobe · · Score: 5, Informative

      simply stacked the blocks

      I think this is the part you mistakenly think is easy.

      There's roughly 2.4 million stones in the Great Pyramid of Giza, some of which weigh up to 80 tons. "Simply stacking" them is anything but.

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    7. Re:Corroborating Hieroglyphics? by Livius · · Score: 3, Informative

      Basic fact that any hypothesis needs to allow for:

      Dragging things across sand is easy.

      Rolling things on sand is hard.

    8. Re:Corroborating Hieroglyphics? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Informative

      some of which weigh up to 80 tons.

      The average core stone weighs something like two tons. That's the majority of them. The humongous ones are a few granite pieces.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    9. Re:Corroborating Hieroglyphics? by raque · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That point of view is being argued. Read "The statues that walked" by Terry Hunt and Carl Lipo. They postulate that rats introduced by the colonists did most of the damage. The Easter Islanders dealt with this by eating the rats.

      NPR article: http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulw...

    10. Re:Corroborating Hieroglyphics? by raque · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not in the Old Kingdom. The great extents of the Egyptian Empire are New Kingdom, 2000 or so years later. The Old Kingdom was early Bronze Age. Stone Tools were still the rule, not the exception. Bronze was difficult to make and copper tools were more common in the rare instances when metal tools were used. There are records of the gangs whose job it was to sharpen the copper chisels that were used.

      We should remember that this was not the first, or the second, or the third, huge pyramid they built, it was the sixth. They had an extensive knowledge to stone and had to deal with it. The Egyptologist Cyril Aldred had an illustrative story. He was traveling down a side branch of the Nile with a local boat crew. They found their way blocked by a rock fall. He assumed that they would have to go all the way back and find a new way. The crew said they could have it cleared in a few hours and it wasn't a big deal, they do this all of the time. He was astonished to watch then use techniques that he hadn't seen before to clear the stones. They would use mud backs to hold fires in place and either splash or pour cold water on the heated stone to shatter it. That, a few levers, and their knowledge was all that was needed to move tons and tons of stone out of the way.

  2. They made the blocks into wheels by myowntrueself · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~jas...

    using wooden 'cradles' shaped like circle segments, 'wrapped' around each end of the block making them a lot easier to roll than the proposition in this article.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    1. Re:They made the blocks into wheels by careysub · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Did you read this article you linked to? It refutes this theory:

      "However, even though this method is feasible and workable, it is unlikely that the GP's builders used it. The segments used by Bush had holes drilled into them to accommodate ropes which held the segments onto the block, yet none of the ancient segments found have such holes in them. How these alternative proposals fail is most clearly seen by considering the extreme case. Neither theory accounts for the movement of the fifty-ton granite slabs used in constructing the internal chambers of the GP. Considering the immense size of these monoliths, the flexible pole method would be rendered even more awkward. Forward motion would be extremely tedious--assuming that these monoliths could even be lifted by this method. Bush's idea would also be problematic. The dimensions of these slabs are not uniform, so each slab would have needed specialized circle segments. The largest monolith is about 27' x 4' x 8' at its ends.

      The key failing of the cradle and the (actually extremely similar) pole theory is that it does not explain how they moved the far larger slabs that were not square blocks.

      Also we have actual evidence of their methods - dragging on sledges. We have sledges, sledge tracks, and pictures of giant statues being dragged on sledges. They took the time to draw us a diagram, and people still look for other answers.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  3. If you like damaged blocks ... by oneiros27 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Their 'rolling' method is going to damage the corners of the blocks, and the surface of the path it rolls on.

    Now, it's possible that the blocks were finished on site, and so they could use this trick to move the blocks from the quary to the worksite ... but it shouldn't be used to move finished blocks into their final location.

    (and then you've got to roll all of the logs back to the quary ... assuming they're strong enough to survive this process ... which probably isn't as much work as what's needed for moving the stones, but it cuts into your energy savings ... as does transporting larger stones so you can finish them once they're at the worksite)

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
  4. How did they build the pyramids by fermion · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Nice Explaination: Lots of beer and bread

    Not so Nice:Whips and violence

    Some of the confusion seems to come from an unwillingness to accept that humans can be very self absorbed and mean. While some form of simple machinery must have been used, the basic resource for the pyramids was an expendable supply of labor. People tend to accept harder or more dangerous work if that is the life they know. We saw that recently in coal mining disaster where many people died because the owners did not have a practice of clearing the mine between shift changes. It increases profits and make coal cheaper, but is a huge risk to the workers. Raising the pyramids was probably not different.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:How did they build the pyramids by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh, no, we have more than enough historical evidence to know that Khufu was an absolute asshole to his people. At least a couple different almost contemporary historians wrote about it. That Khufu was a vile tyrant isn't something that has a lot of denial.

    2. Re:How did they build the pyramids by Livius · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The labour was not expendable. When the River Nile floods and your whole population is 1) homeless and 2) unemployed, and public works projects in the desert start to sound like very good ideas, but you needed that labour in good condition to return to the farms once the annual flood ended.

  5. Re:So, is there any shred of EVIDENCE? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, this method comes from physicists. So one can assume that whatever they used, it was perfectly spherical.

    Problem solved.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  6. Stupid theory... by internet-redstar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They where moved by irrigation.
    the flats around the pyramids are perfectly flat. And where flooded with water when the Nile was at a yearly peak.
    The water was trapped inside. The fence to keep the water inside is still standing
    A corridor in the middle towards the pyramid was build and had dams to move the ships upward
    The signs of the dam plates are still there in the corridors
    The pyramid itself was a water basin, with the outside walls keeping the water inside
    That's why they are all perfectly level
    The ships moved the bricks in and lowered them to fill the pyramid. as a result the water rises.
    However, water evaporates, and the movement of the ships upwards needs a water displacement at least equal to the mass moved up
    So the ancient egyptians left clues everywhere to explain how they did it: everywhere, in the tombs in the pyramids, and even in New Kingdom in the Valley of the Kings, they drew how they accomplished it: by carrying buckets of water on their head.
    That's how they build the pyramids; by putting water in the top of the pyramid, till all the ships with the stones where there.
    Now, was that so hard to figure out? Stupid archeologists!

    1. Re:Stupid theory... by geekoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      ", the pyramid gets less wide towards the top. "
      That's what I've been doing wrong!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  7. Not all the blocks by Lorens · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Saw a television documentary where they showed some blocks that seemed to have been poured like concrete, complete with marks of wooden crating. See http://www.visual--media.com/w... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

  8. Wrong by lucm · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Egyptians did not move those blocks into place. They did like those companies we know and admire, they made plans and outsourced the backbreaking work to unscrupulous partners in countries where labor is cheap and workers safety is not a priority. And then pretended they were not aware of the abysmal work conditions in the pyramid factories.

    I'm pretty sure that if someone was to raise the pyramid there would be a Made in China label at the bottom.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  9. Slave labor is still the best explanation by physicsphairy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Surely the physicists should have just made their grad students move them?

    1. Re:Slave labor is still the best explanation by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Informative

      Regarding slave labor:

      "Slave" is a hard term to use. It evokes American chattel slavery, where on person owns another, and we're more likely talking about agricultural workers(peasants) who didn't have work to do during the floods of the nile.

      In ancient Egypt, the food reserves were controlled by the temples and thus by priests and other upper class members of society.

      So there was a socially powerless labor class, and a means to control them. Certainly they also had force, but it wasn't the "main" means of control. The line between "peasant" and "slave" in ancient societies is a vague one.

  10. A little late by ebno-10db · · Score: 4, Funny

    Isn't this suggestion for a design modification just a little late?

  11. Re:So, is there any shred of EVIDENCE? by Gorobei · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For most blocks, they just strapped four quarter-circle cradles around the stone and rolled them up earthen ramps using ropes. The remains of the ramps still exist around some pyramids, and some original cradles are on display in the Cairo museum. Pretty much considered solved by the archeologists; it's just armchair physicists who want to invent problems and propose new solutions.

  12. It's not that difficult by rabtech · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Anyone remember that guy who was moving Stonehenge size concrete blocks around his back yard and erecting them in place, single-handedly? To stand them upright he would fill the pit with loose sand and slope one side of the pit, then he kept dumping water in. The mud was soft enough to be compressed and ejected from the pit as the stone slowly sank into place.

    If you counter-balance the blocks you can move them fairly easily with just a few people. Or put them on a sled and use logs to roll them. Or flood the basin using Nile flood water and float them into place.

    It doesn't take super-geniuses or fancy technology, it just takes dedication and some manpower.

    These dumb "How did the Egyptians do it?!?!?!" stories are highly annoying. They did it first and foremost by deciding they were going to do it, trying and failing several times, then perfecting their techniques. Same damn way we got to the moon. The hardest part is step 1.

    --
    Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
  13. String Theorists by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, this method comes from physicists.

    Clearly string theorists since, according to the summary, it creates a "dodecadron" cross-section. So having a cross-section somewhere between a 2D dodecagon and a 3D dodecahedron it clearly relies on converting the block into some multi-dimensional object with a strangely dimensioned cross-section.

  14. Re:So, is there any shred of EVIDENCE? by Oligonicella · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Earliest Egyptian pyramid 2630 BCE. Earliest verified vehicular use of wheel is Mesopotamia around 3200 BCE and Egypt developed the spoked wheel around 2000 BCE. These are just records, it's rather obvious the wheel goes back much further. So yes, the Egyptians had the wheel when the pyramids were built. Did they use them for that? Probably not, due to weight. We *know* they used sledges, so why come up with more complicated methods based solely on supposition?