Slashdot Mirror


Ancient Papyrus Finally Solves Egypt's 'Great Pyramid' Mystery (newsweek.com)

schwit1 was the first Slashdot reader to bring us the news. Newsweek reports: Archaeologists believe they have found the key to unlocking a mystery almost as old as the Great Pyramid itself: Who built the structure and how were they able to transport two-ton blocks of stone to the ancient wonder more than 4,500 years ago...? Experts had long established that the stones from the pyramid's chambers were transported from as far away as Luxor, more than 500 miles to the south of Giza, the location of the Great Pyramid, but had never agreed how they got there. However, the diary of an overseer, uncovered in the seaport of Wadi al-Jafr, appears to answer the age-old question, showing the ancient Egyptians harnessed the power of the Nile to transport the giant blocks of stone.

According to a new British documentary Egypt's Great Pyramid: The New Evidence, which aired on the U.K.'s Channel 4 on Sunday, the Great Pyramid, also known as the Pyramid of Khufu, was built using an intricate system of waterways which allowed thousands of workers to pull the massive stones, floated on boats, into place with ropes. Along with the papyrus diary of the overseer, known as Merer, the archaeologists uncovered a ceremonial boat and a system of waterworks. The ancient text described how Merer's team dug huge canals to channel the water of the Nile to the pyramid.

15 of 253 comments (clear)

  1. Water pump theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
  2. Re:Thanks Science! by mcrbids · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's easy to suspect and hypothesize. It's quite another thing to prove it.

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  3. Re:Alternate theory by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 4, Informative

    The workers were not slaves. There are payroll records to prove it.

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  4. Re:Great. Now prove it. by stephanruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Water locks and water channels are already proven technologies. Even ancient China had them.

    Once the water is level, it doesn't take much energy to pull a vessel on a channel. For instance in France, I've seen a horse pull a multi-ton vessel with no working motor without much effort at all.

    And once the vessel is inside the pyramid and assuming the pyramid acts like a giant water reservoir, then filling up that reservoir and raising the water level, and then pulling the vessel to the side where you need the blocks shouldn't take much energy either.

    The only tricky part might be the ancient water pumping mechanism and how efficient it was before the water would evaporate or seep away.

  5. Cast in place? by Miamicanes · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Personally, I think the most obvious theory is likely to be the closest to the correct explanation: that the blocks WEREN'T quarried, but are some form of manmade cast stone made from ancient concrete.

    If they were cast instead of directly quarried, the builders could have just built the whole thing like a modern freeway embankment... build the perimeter, backfill the inside with sifted & graded crushed rock & sand. Maybe put down an occasional layer of cloth to stabilize it horizontally (knowing the cloth will eventually decay, but only really NEEDING it for stabilization during construction). Cast the next row of stones, move them horizontally into place, and backfill the interior up to the next level. Stir, rinse, and repeat until you're done. Modern retained-earth construction obviously goes quite a bit further, (like using steel cables to pull the retaining walls inward so they can be vertical instead of sloped, and using precast wall segments instead of casting them on-site), but the basic idea is the same.

    Moving big, heavy things HORIZONTALLY is fairly straightforward. So is moving crushed-rock cementious slurry up a hill in small buckets. If they're cast stone, the pyramids' construction basically just becomes a matter of having lots of money, immense HR management resources, and good supply-chain management.

    From what I've read, Egypt's antiquities ministry is part of the reason why relatively little is known about the "nuts and bolts" construction details of the pyramids. It WANTS to preserve the aura of mystery, because the official narrative drives tourism and brings enormous amounts of money into Egypt. From their point of view, the absolute WORST thing that could happen is if someone were to demonstrate that the pyramids were no more special than a random freeway embankment.

    1. Re:Cast in place? by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Except it is known the blocks used are quarried limestone and granite, not concrete.

    2. Re:Cast in place? by Ramze · · Score: 5, Informative

      The granite is absolutely quarried. No one denies this. The limestone is debatable, but it matches what's found in a quarry in its consistency. The theory you mention is interesting, but it was mostly dismissed a decade ago.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      The biggest problem with the theory is... it's limestone. Limestone is a sedimentary rock made from fossilized sea creatures, and it's loaded full of fossils. Pulverizing limestone to make a mixture to re-form into stone would destroy most of those fossils. The pyramids blocks are full of such fossils -- most tiny and in clusters, but some are quite large. That's why no one takes this limestone concrete theory seriously. It'd be impossible to have so many completely intact fossils -- some larger than an average sized hand -- embedded in the "concrete."

      While it's possible they had the technology to do it and maybe even used it in some areas, the evidence strongly suggests that at least most of the blocks were cut and hauled... just like the heavy granite stones.

  6. Re:Thanks Science! by evilbessie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am aware of this, but they got the stone from near a river and they built the pyramids near the same river. It's impressive that they did it at all I grant and the technical details are interesting. But I'd really like to know how they built Stonehenge with Welsh stone. No river there.

  7. Re:Comments Section by dow · · Score: 4, Funny

    They're just waiting, watching for a time when the universe might need them again.

  8. Re:Great. Now prove it. by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No...."Prove what was said in the papyrus can be done" was the challenge. All it takes is showing that it is physically possible.....you are asking a different question "Prove they did it". OK....The papyrus said so....that's all you get from archaeology.

  9. Re:Fake News by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 5, Informative

    Whatever race they were, they were using slaves. We should hate the Egyptians solely because they used slavery.

    Well, Yul Brunner notwithstanding, the currently accepted theory is that the pyramids were not built by slaves, but by paid labourers.

    --

    Stephan

  10. Re:Fake News by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually there is DNA evidence that the original founders of Egypt were Indo-European.

    Since Indo-European is a language, part of a cultural complex that spread over many different populations, I find that hard to believe. Do you have any reliable sources? Of course there is European DNA in Egypt - it was very much part of the Greek and Roman worlds. However, I'm not aware of any linguistic evidence for PIE ever playing a role in Egypt before Alexander's conquest.

    --

    Stephan

  11. Re:Fake News by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Informative

    Islam is not a threat. Extremist Islam is a threat, it's not the same thing. Extremist Christianity is a threat as well, like any extremist sect or ideology.

    I have not seen Obama being a communist sympathizer, though that's a phrase seldom heard these days, invented by the anti-commie extremist of Joe McCarthy who I thought was still dead.

    As for Trump, he's automatically dangerous because he's the president and is far more dangerous than any other single person in the US. He's also showing plenty of signs of being a lunatic; an out of control ego, and sees hallucinations of things that aren't there. Now putting his own personal foibles ahead of the good of the country isn't necessarily a sign of madness, it is more evidence of being dangerous. So, dangerous lunatic is not necessarily an incorrect description.

  12. Re:Fake News by Scarletdown · · Score: 4, Informative

    There has been no historical or archeological evidence found that the Egyptians ever enslaved the Jews.

    --
    This space unintentionally left blank.
  13. Re:Great. Now prove it. by vtcodger · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Water channels probably would work. However, there may be a bit of a problem. The Sphinx, pyramids, etc at Giza are built on top of a limestone plateau. It looks like the Giza Plateau is at least 30 meters (100feet) above the peak level of the Nile back in pre-Aswan Dam times. I would think that any system of engineering works capable of lifting boats, innumerable BIG rocks, and prodigious amounts of water up to the top of the plateau would have left some pretty obvious traces.

    --
    You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey