
New discovery throws light on mystery of pyramids' construction - HillaryBriss
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/06/new-discovery-throws-light-on-mystery-of-pyramids-construction
======
rando444
I always like seeing discoveries about the pyramids, but I don't get the
feeling this tells us as much as the article wants the reader to believe.

 _the job of hauling into place the huge blocks of stone used to build the
monuments may have been completed more quickly than previously thought_

There is no current timeline for how the great pyramid was built. The only
frame of reference that we have is the assumption that the pyramid was built
in Kufu's lifetime and all other estimates are derived from that.

We really have no idea how long it took the original builders to move those
stones.

Each stone weighs an average of 2.5T (up to 10T) .. and the stones were
quarried from hundreds of kilometers away..

With a total of 2.5 million giant stones coming from such extreme distances, I
don't get the feeling we're much closer to coming up with an actual timeline
for how long this took.

~~~
acqq
> With a total of 2.5 million giant stones coming from such extreme distances

Afaik most of the stones were quaried very near the pyramids. Most of the
stones aren’t the “quality stones” and didn’t have to travel distances:

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza)

“The Great Pyramid consists of an estimated 2.3 million blocks which most
believe to have been transported from nearby quarries.”

~~~
6d6b73
If we assume 40 years (350400) to build the pyramids they had to quarry,
deliver and setup 6.5 blocks every hour of every day.

Seems doable, especially in a country with population probably below 1mln at
that time. /s

~~~
gameswithgo
distance to quarry would only affect stone latency, not stone throughput,
anyway :D

~~~
sbov
Not really true. In networking throughput vs latency rely on two different
things. When it comes to moving huge stone blocks they rely on the same
limited resource (humans).

~~~
cryptonector
They would have used boats on the Nile to carry stones long ways. They
probably only did that for the finish blocks (the polished limestone most of
which is gone).

------
blancheneige
I'm 90% sure I remember watching a documentary from 10+ years ago about a
French egyptologist postulating the same mechanism and finding evidence for
these ramps on site. I remember specifically how it solved a major puzzle
pertaining to the transportation of such heavy blocks within the upper levels
of the pyramid as it was being constructed.

~~~
e40
I watched a Nova about it, where the did experiments. Had to be 5+ years ago.

------
matt-attack
I wasn't expecting a photo, so I wasn't disappointed.

~~~
rando444
here is a photo i came across while researching this more:

[https://news.sky.com/story/great-pyramids-discovery-sheds-
li...](https://news.sky.com/story/great-pyramids-discovery-sheds-light-on-
construction-in-ancient-egypt-11546095)

~~~
lostlogin
I can’t tell if you’re joking. Is the second photo showing something
important?

~~~
jaysonelliot
The second photo shows the ramp that they discovered.

~~~
lostlogin
Yes, but it’s not exactly an informative image.

~~~
cryptonector
The angle isn't great, yeah, but you can see a) steps, b) one post hole.
That's what's described in TFA.

------
olivermarks
'Egyptologists stumble across ramp' given the incredible amount of research,
mapping and unanswered questions about the 'mystery' this seems pretty flimsy
stuff to me.

~~~
empath75
they didn't stumble across the ramp, they stumbled across the post holes in
the ramp.

------
gumby
Interesting that they discuss pulling via human labor but not with bullocks,
which the pharaonic Egyptians did have. Could it be there are no such pictures
of animals pulling stones?

~~~
bluGill
Nothing beats a human for long distance travel ability on land. Birds go
farther, but they fly. Many animals can sprint faster, but on the timescale of
a few days all land animals would drop dead trying to keep up with a human
walking. Sure the pace is slow, and the amount a single human can do is less
than other animals. However for long distances humans do better than any other
animal.

The bullock might have been useful for hauling a short hard distance (out of
the quarry for example). However if the quarry is a long ways away (this might
or might not be true) humans are the best labor choice.

~~~
kieckerjan
Can you give some references to back up that claim? What about horses, camels,
elephants, to name just a few obvious examples? Thanks.

~~~
merdreubu
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=826HMLoiE_o)

Persistence hunt in the Kalahari.

~~~
strig
That's a very different workload than pulling a heavy weight for long
distances though.

~~~
bluGill
It is important to point out that heavy is relative. Heavy to a human is light
to a bullock.

------
LyndsySimon
If I'm reading this correctly, they found post holes and a steeper ramp than
expected, which leads them to believe that they both pushed the blocks up the
slope and pulled them, through a "pulley system".

I'm not so sure. I remember from high school that the pulley was one of the
five simple machines noted by Hero of Alexandria, but he lived over 2000 years
after the Great Pyramid was built. I have no idea if the pulley was possessed
by the ancient Egyptians - absent additional evidence, I would assume that
they likely just wrapped ropes around the vertical posts. That wouldn't
qualify as a pulley (which is by definition a wheel and axle) but would
explain the holes and the steeper slope, but wouldn't require a drastic change
in how we understand that the pyramids were built.

~~~
RandallBrown
People have proposed a pulley that the Egyptians could have had. Not sure if
there is any evidence that they did have it beyond what's mentioned in the
article.

[https://egyptianpulley.com](https://egyptianpulley.com)

------
onetimemanytime
how about a drawing or two. 3d even better. Maybe my sinuses are making my
head explode but reading about how...just not doing it.

------
givan
But why do we insist to think that the the pyramids were built with such
primitive tools?

It's not only the weight of the stone blocks and the distance but also the
mathematical precision, the perfectly round holes drilled in some stones, the
puzzle shaped carved stones to stand earthquakes and the perfectly chiseled
pharaoh stone statues and all the amazing things there that it makes me wonder
why do we insist they used chisels and ropes and all that things that we
associate with primitives?

Why is so hard to admit that they had some kind of advanced technology that
for some reason has been lost?

Is this so scary to admit for a culture that wants to think is the pinnacle of
human history? The same thinking that we are the center of the universe type
of mentality.

~~~
gameswithgo
>but also the mathematical precision

How precise exactly? What are you talking about exactly? You can do incredibly
precise things without "advanced" tools.

> perfectly round holes

A perfectly round anything isn't even possible. What exactly do you mean?
Round is one of the easier things to accomplish. A very precise square hole or
ellipse would be more interesting!

~~~
cryptonector
Precision was easy. The great pyramid's east and west sides are very well
aligned with the meridians they lie on. Impressive? Not really. They surveyed
well and they used the two near-polar circumpolar start available to them at
the time. The would wait until those two stars were aligned vertically to the
horizon and then they laid down ropes/strings/markers along the sides and at
the corners, then they built within those constraints and the north side
necessarily came out shorter than the south side. They might not even have
noticed that the north and south sides came out to be different lengths, who
knows.

There were simple, primitive, and basic astronomic techniques trivially
available to the ancient Egyptians for precise layout of large objects like
the pyramids. This may seem surprising to us now, but if you think about it,
it becomes obvious.

