I just saw a good documentary about ancient Egypt. One question I have always had: were the size of the stone blocks (used to build the pyramid) optimized in terms of labor and time used to cut, transport, and place the blocks? For example, would smaller blocks have been easier to cut and transport, but be inefficient in terms of placement?
Of course, the Egyptians didn’t have the mathematics of linear programming-but did they learn by experience that 7-ton blocks were the most efficient way to build them?
I don’t have the answer to your specific point. The larger the pyramid the more important it became that the stone by cut and fit in order to maintain the integrity of the structure!
In some respects the didn’t know what they were doing when they built the pyramid at Dashur. The core column is still standing surrounded by the stone from the collapsed balance of the material surrounding it. The bent pyramid which was partially completed has a sudden change in angle to prevent it suffering the same fate, i.e. plastic flow type collapse of the rubble like fill between the core and the casing, as was the case with the Dashur pyramid. I cannot find my documentation for this but it was written up in Scientific American in the early 50’s, and a book followed some time later and a second one on the pyramids of Central America.
I finally located the book. It indicates that the Egyptians were master builders and engineers for their time and background. They of course learned and they went along.
For the best story of the building of the Pyramids of Egypt see a book by Kurt Mendelssohn, titled “The Riddle of the Pyramids”
Originally appeared as an article in “Scientific American” magazine and copyright in London, 1976.
The design, construction, and details is well covered. All of the major pyramids were built over a span of about 200 years. He draws some rather startling conclusions.
Hanging around with Peter Weller, were we? 
Us too. Great show, and he’s doing Greece this week.
Don’t believe everything they show on the History Channel.
I have read more books full of fancy as well as downright BS about the pyramids and they have it all wrong.
Kurt Mendelssohn is the first one that even comes close to a logical explanation of the when, whys and wherefores of pyramid building
Well, as i say I’m interested in knowing if the size of the blocks used was optimal 9in terms of cutting labor, moving labor, setting time, etc.). I believe the builders used 8-ton blocks-probably at the limit of what human musclepower could move. Would they have been better off building with mortar and brick? With smaller blocks, you would have more cutting/dressing time at the quarry, but transport would be much easier. I read once that the largest stone blocks ever used in building construction (in Antiquity) were the 22-ton blocks that the Romans used on the Temple of Jupiter in lebanon. 22 tons is a LOT of weight to move!
So, have any modern industrial engineers evaluated the pyramid-building process? what were their conclusions?
An extremely interesting theory. This requires as many explanations as it solves or perhaps more. Manufacturing the concrete materials on site (or off) requires an entirely different technology than quarrying stone, floating it on barges downriver, etc. Very fine aggregate, fired bonding cement, etc., and lots of each one, requires rather sophisticated equipment to achieve the presently preserved end result.
The art of pyramid building progressed from one to the next. See Kurt Mendelsonn’s book for the details of the early examples and the developments & improvements from one to the next. All of the pyramids were built in a span of about 200 years.
My recollection of all of the historical date indicates that many blocks of stone had quarry marks, work gang marks etc. Also the stones had been traced to the quarry sites from which they came. This would contradict the latest theory.
Had there been a poured concrete technology in anciet egypt they kept it a very closely guarded secret. No written record of such. But the accepted constrution methods are shown.
I find this theory very intriguing…it would explain the excellent squaring-off of the blocks. supposedly, the Egyptians had only bronze hammers and chisels-shaping 7-8 ton blocks would have taken a LONG time. The cement theory also explains why the Egyptians would not have needed a giant ramp 9to slide the blocks up). The cement mix could have been transported up via “shadoofs” (counterweighted cranes). I wonder if the secret of making concrete was KEPT a secret, on pupose-otherwise, hisrians like Herodotus, would have mentioned the technique. Incidentally, the Romans made great use of concrete-how did they mix large batches of concrete?
Roman Concrete & Pozzolona
The rock base of the three pyramids a Gaza were leveled with channels filled with water. The large stone blocks were cut with various methods including sand saws, i.e. cutting with a metal blade and sand as an abrassive. Making surfaces flat by visual gages and pounding out the high places with storne tools.
As I suggested earlier the theory raises more questions than it answers. All of the earlier books re: pyrimids and their construction were mosty flights of fancy and pure bull.
Name your poison and take your choice.
Why does the entire pyramid complex of Giza resemble the constellation Orion? Why does the Great Sphinx show water erosion from a period much wetter than the time it is thought that these monuments were built? The Great Sphinx was buried under sand for thousands of years. Could it be that these monuments are much older than popular belief has made them out to be? I simply do not belive that a race from thousands of years ago could build these monuments no matter what they happen to show on the History Channel.
Settle down, Graham.
As for the concrete theory, Pre-Columbian Americans have stone joints more complicated in shape than the Egyptians and just as precise, and the American stones aren’t flat on the sides. Isn’t there cut stones still at the quarry sites? Plus, the stones of at least some pyramids, including the Great Pyramid I think, get smaller as they go up. Why would that be necessary?
To the OP: big, giant blocks, however they’re made, have more inertia for stability, and fewer joints to fail. If you’re building for absolute permanancy without maintanance, use big, giant stone blocks.
The “Collapsed Pyramid” is at Meidum. Probably a lot of the rubble has been carted away. (The ancients recycled old stone whenever they could. Lazy bastards.)
For the concrete theorists: Here is a photo of the quarry used for the pyramid of Khafre. How does this fit in with the theory?
I’ve heard it doesn’t-- at least the way Orion would have been at the time the complex was built.
I’m not fully convinced that it’s water erosion, though it may look like it. The damn thing’s been rebuilt so many times, it’s hard to tell what happened.
Why? They weren’t any dumber than we are. Years ago, a team of scholars actually built a smaller-scale pyramid using only the technologies available to the ancient Egyptians. They showed that it’s possible, even for a bunch of guys who weren’t professional builders.
Those last two bits of your post seem to contradict each other:
“Could it be the monuments are much older than we think?” and then . . . “I don’t believe ancient people could have done it.”
So, were they built in modern times, or in really, really ancient times? If the Sphinx is actually “much older” than believed, would even MORE ancient of people have to have been the ones building it?
Yes those two bits did condradict each other. For that I offer my apologies. Now back to buisness.
Yes I do in fact belive that the pyramids are much older than popular belief has them to be. Just a gut feeling from a little incident that happened to me and some friends while I was living on the Navajo rez 12 years ago.
Most optimal way to build the Pyramids? First, build The Oracle, take Metal Casting as your free tech. (Make sure you have Pottery and Bronze Working first.) Build a Forge, assign an Engineer to accumulate Great Engineer points, then use the Great Engineer to rush-build the Pyramids in one turn. (The tricky part is getting the Forge built in a second city, if you build it in the same city as the Oracle, you might get stuck with a Great Prophet instead.)
Or maybe I’m playing Civilization too much??
Interesting to me at least, if you look at the pyramids via Google Earth, they are not very symmetrical, or at least the image looks very skewed. Was not aware of this till I saw the overhead views.
And 50 years ago I learned that the blocks floated through the air because of a wand rubbed on the head of a duck! Just a little incident that happened in a wondrous book set down in pictorial form by the sages of Disney!
Not to mention that much harder stones where used; if I remember correctly the Incas sanded the stone blocks with sand to give them the final trimming. Some stone walls are extraordinarily precise on the fit of the blocks, they look more like solid stone with engraved lines than individual blocks.
Thanks for the correction. My faulty memory and not going through Kurt Mendelsonn’s book at the librarymay be the cause.
As to the age of the pyramids it is said that they were already old when Joseph and Moses were in Egypt!
[He can raise a 19,200 lb concrete block 3 feet off the ground and stand it upright singlehanded, with out the use of pulleys or rollers, just levers and fulcrums.
[URL=http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/Page1.htm]His website is fascinating](]How about a clever carpenter?[/url), and he has calculated how long his crew would take to build the Great Pyramid using no modern tools: