That’s actually the part that doesn’t impress me. Getting people to do simple things is easy.
Heck, getting people to shock other people to death is easy because they are only pushing a button and being told to.
moving the stones would be relatively easy. strap 4 arched wood structures to the stone to form a wheel and roll it up a ramp with pulleys. to imagine the arches draw a square inside a circle. It forms 4 arches. Setting the stones in place, that’s a little harder. I’m impressed by the chambers inside the pyramids. that’s impressive construction.
I think the concrete theory is interesting given how early it was used by the Romans to great effect.
While wheels would have been fairly sturdy, simply because you can build a wheel with arching and internal buttressing. My objection to that would be the axle that’s holding the rock up between the wheels. There is no evidence they had metallurgical knowledge to even think about building supports strong enough for 100 tons.
It’s sorta like the older idea of running logs to the front of the stone to “raft” the stones over. That much weight would crush logs. You’d need a forest just for the first stone. The the other stones would have to stay at a quarry.
Although… the Sahara used to be wet. Maybe they destroyed the lush forests that were there to build the pyramids. 
Wheels are out of the question. They used sledges. However they didn’t drag them across sand, dry or wet. They had a hard packed composition of clay and sand and they poured water on it to keep it from crumbling under the enormous weight. How do I know this? Because they weren’t idiots and it was the obvious thing to do with the technology they had available.
And there were no 3000 ton monoliths moved anywhere. I forget the details but there’s a maximum size of anything that can be moved using rope, wood, and manpower. 3000 tons is over that limit. You can’t get enough wood, rope, and people close enough to a 3000 ton rock to move it.
I’m not an expert on clay, but wouldn’t wet clay stick to the rock you are transporting instead of allowing easy access over top? In order for it to be a foundation surface (hard) it’d have to be dry enough to be rigid. If you are wetting it to keep it from cracking under the weight of a large stone, wouldn’t that need to be a layer of clay that hasn’t baked dry in the sun? I’d think that it’d be either sitcky or just plain mud, depending on the amount of water added.
At that point, I’d think moving it over plain sand would be easier.
They weren’t going for wet clay, just enough moisture to keep it from crumbling and turning to dust. They weren’t on the beach, pouring water on sand would have been a waste of time. They would have needed twice as many men to haul that enough water to keep the sand wet. I’m talking about a mix of materials, fine clay and sand that would form a hard packed surface. It’s the closest thing they’d have to concrete at the time. The Romans had volcano ash and dust to make something like hydraulic cement to work with, the Egyptians had fewer resources available. As it is they probably imported most of the wood they used. One of the amazing things is the amount of copper they used. All of those stones were finished with copper tools, and they would have worn down fast.
Are the clays around the Nile of that consistency, though? My experience with clays show that it doesn’t mix well with water after it dries (you have to let the water sit there until the dried clay absorbs it). And this is Egypt. The sun would rapidly dry any material on the surface of the sand, so you’d probably need just as many people to keep “wet clay wet” as you’d need to keep “dry clay composite wet”.
So we have an image (several, actually – I’ve seen them before) showing someone pouring a liquid from a jar to lubricate the movement. Why is this assumed to be water? Things would roll or slide a lot better with oil – any oil; olive or petroleum.
I could see that, but only if TriPolar’s theory about clay was correct, although I have no idea how vegetable oils interact with clay. I known petroleum oils bloat water-based clays and causes it to breaks apart easier. I think pouring oil into the sand wouldn’t lubricate anything because the oil would get squished out of the sand with a heavy weight on it.
And, in line with the discussions about getting enough water from the Nile, how much olive/vegetable oil would that need and could they produce enough and not starve their populace?
Could any modern state or society or organization complete a 200-year project, I wonder.
I don’t have any problem allocating a few pitchers of Mediterranean-sourced oil to this high-profile project once in a while. Pharaohs weren’t destitute, and Greece was just over the pond.
The Nile floods left the fields unworkable for months at a time. That leaves your workforce at loose ends for long stretches, so you put them to work on some CCC or NRA project to keep them and their families fed and their hands occupied and out of trouble, and you get a sweet tomb out of it. Basic politics.
Then there are the supposed perfections. Can’t slide a sheet of paper between two stones? Maybe they did a real nice job to make their god happy. Maybe the job wasn’t that good but there are enough points of contact to stop the paper. The Great Pyramid’s sides are accurate to a micron? How would we know–the facing stones were stripped centuries ago.
Yes, but the old kingdom predated a lot of Mediterranean commerce. At least, good evidence for widespread commerce.
And for “allocation a few pitches of oil … once in a while” realize that people are saying you’d need a complete second army of people to go to the nile and retrieve water and bring it back because of the potential volume needed. While unquantified, my imagination is strained at the idea of them dedicating the GNP of Mediterranean olive oils to monument construction.
you missed my point. The stone IS the axle. the arches are attached to each side forming a wheel. Draw a circle and then draw a square inside the circle to see what I’m talking about. the 4 segments are attached to the stone to form a wheel. One set on each side of the stone.
That only transfers the question of the material to the wheels themselves. You can’t build for resilience if your wheel’s internal space is filled with giant rock. 
There is also the problem of lifting that rock the first time to put it into the wheels as a frame.
Exactly. It chaps my ass when someone is all worshipful about Notre Dame de Paris or Chartres and dismisses the Temple of the Sun - as if because it wasn’t Jesus the people wouldn’t be reverent enough to spend a couple hundred years building temple pyramid, decorations and assorted adjunct buildings and structures. No to mention when they drag in pyramids all over the globe as an example of alien influence they just don’t seem to understand that there is really only one way to stack dirt and rock to make it tall if you are not going for the classic square/rectangular mud brick building. If yo grab a few bucket loads of dirt and dump them over a single point in a pile, it will turn itself into a rough pyramid. If you screw with the angle too much it sort of flumps parts of thanks to gravity.
ANd as to the need to way too much water, and needing more manpower than the men onsite - dudes, women and children power. May not be strong enough to grab a rope and pull, but a bucket brigade with just one gallon at a time can move one hell of a lot of water in a day. Take the wives and kids of the male workers, allowing of course for the communal aspect [apparently the workers generally lived in barracks and ate in a chow hall instead of individual hutments mainly. Upper level workers and the permanent site workers had the individual hutments.] and you have quite the little workforce of bucket brigaders.
I’m not talking about making clay pots. Clay is very fine material, finer than sand, that is composed of mineral that will tend to set after wet forming. They aren’t going to fire the surface they’re dragging things on. I’m just saying it makes no sense to belief the surface they were dragging sledges on was sand. Why would you drag something over sand wet or dry, when you can drag it over a more compact material? and the water was used to allow the surface to pack tighter under pressure instead of crumbling. It’s possible they were putting a lubricant down, but I think the cost to them would be enormous since it wasn’t recoverable, if they were putting any liguid down at all it would have to be water. Or urine possibly, if you can think of any reason it would be better than using water.
They’re 4 individual arches that attach to the sides of the stone and are banded together. The stone is not inserted.
here’s a video of one man moving stones the size of Stonehenge by himself without using any pulleys.
What Magiver is describing looks like this I think it’s a cool theory, but not sure it’s the actual method used. But it’s not like the pyramids predate the wheel - just the spoked kind, AFAIK.
I’d say we have the same software, but the data has been updated.