Scientists may have solved the mystery behind transporting some of the materials to the pyramid site: a dried-up a river
Fixed the title for you.
The construction of the Giza pyramids is still baffling. Some of the stones are purported to weigh 80 tons. That’s four or five times more weight than what modern trucks can pull on paved roads.
It’s not so farfetched to presume that this ancient civilization employed technology that is lost to time. I’m not talking about aliens and laser beams, but good ol’ fashioned mathematics. They could have exploited a principle of leverage and incline that we simply don’t understand or recognize. Or perhaps something entirely different from our six simple machines…
The problem with this theory, of course, is that we like to believe that humanity is always progressing and that we are superior to our forebears by default. That is ultimately a subjective opinion.
Yes. I’m familiar with this image. Some scientists claim that when just the right amount of water is poured over sand it reduces the friction by about 30%.
Some also claim that there were not hundreds of thousands of laborers at the Giza pyramids, based on evidence discovered in the work camps near the site.
I’m 38 years old and I think I’ve read about a new theory every year of my life…
“The study was done by Christian Wagner and colleagues at Saarland University in Germany, along with researchers in the Netherlands, Iran and France. The team was inspired by an ancient Egyptian wall painting showing a huge statue being hauled across the sand on a sledge in about 1800 BC. The painting has a detail that has long puzzled Egyptologists: a worker who appears to be pouring water onto the sand in front of the sledge while others appear to be carrying water to replenish his supply.”
I notice you don’t post the names of any of the scientists who believe only a small workforce built the pyramids. Why is that? That’s really the one I was curious about.
Because, again, it’s kind of hard to argue against what they literally carved into a rock.
Again, there are hundreds of articles about the adjacent work camps. Please look at the publications of Zahi Hawass, chief archeologist of Egypt, and Amihai Mazar, a professor of archeology in Jerusalem.
Most claim that there could have been up to ten thousand workers. Some claim that the number of workers was as low as 1600.
I’m not sure why you think 1600 workers mean they couldn’t just drag large stones over land on sledges using a significant number of those 1600 workers. I’m not even sure why you think ten thousand workers would have been necessary. Can you explain please?
Because, again, it’s kind of hard to argue against what they literally carved into a rock.
Not arguing with you here, cuz I have no dog in this fight, but you’re seemingly ignoring the possibility of the emperor bragging about crowd size the number of slaves workers utilized?
So you’re saying that they used some unknown means of pulling big stones over rocks, but rather bragged about one they didn’t use even though it would have worked?
Can’t go doing that m8, that’d suggest they might have known what they were talking about, and they talked about a lot of stuff that’s very unpopular these days
For the record we do understand how they built it.
They used log rollers, ropes and lots and lots of people hauling. They brute forced it… which, the reason our trucks can’t haul that much has far more to do with the weight on the suspension and fuel efficiency. They said fuck-all to efficiency and literally threw bodies at it.
It’s a fairly common solution- the Moai heads on Rapa Nui (easter island) and stone henge also come to mind. In the case of Egypt, they used a sled (or sled and rollers.)
For getting it up the face, they used packed earth ramps that they later removed. Actually, we still use this technique in construction today. (Specifically to get vehicle access up otherwise too-steep slopes)(and again, threw bodies at it. Lots and lots of bodies.)
There’s really only a few things that are impressive about the pyramids. The first is the sheer ego it took to order it built. Then there is the celestial alignment between all of them. And finally the sheer scale of the project and vast amounts of human labor that went into it.
What they determined is that the river allowed the blocks to be floated much closer than previously thought (even today barges are superior to trains, never mind trucking.)
I lot of people look at this and say its just too much material for it to have happened.
But we know of projects that have used more man power. The London to Birmingham railway line took 5 years to build and moved more material than the great pyramid and we know exactly how that was done. The size of individual pieces does add complication, but the absolute quantity and manpower is not unexplainable.
I wonder if there’s a bit of not wanting to believe what people can accomplish if a massive number of us all teamed up to do something.
Because then they’d feel guilty for not getting up out of their armchair and going to support whatever cause they claim they’re supporting from the comfort of home.
So it’s not just me. Maybe the discovery here was just the exact and complete layout, and the BBC misunderstood it the way journalists usually do with science stories?
Scientists may have solved the mystery behind transporting some of the materials to the pyramid site: a dried-up a river
Fixed the title for you.
The construction of the Giza pyramids is still baffling. Some of the stones are purported to weigh 80 tons. That’s four or five times more weight than what modern trucks can pull on paved roads.
It’s not so farfetched to presume that this ancient civilization employed technology that is lost to time. I’m not talking about aliens and laser beams, but good ol’ fashioned mathematics. They could have exploited a principle of leverage and incline that we simply don’t understand or recognize. Or perhaps something entirely different from our six simple machines…
The problem with this theory, of course, is that we like to believe that humanity is always progressing and that we are superior to our forebears by default. That is ultimately a subjective opinion.
You’d have a point if the Egyptians didn’t already tell us how they moved giant, heavy things over land.
Lots of human labor.
(Relief from the tomb of Djehutihotep in el-Bersheh)
How many horsepower is that? Also, what is a horse? (bronze age Egypt joke)
Yes. I’m familiar with this image. Some scientists claim that when just the right amount of water is poured over sand it reduces the friction by about 30%.
Some also claim that there were not hundreds of thousands of laborers at the Giza pyramids, based on evidence discovered in the work camps near the site.
I’m 38 years old and I think I’ve read about a new theory every year of my life…
Who are these “some scientists?” Names please.
I’d suggest arguing against what they literally showed us they did is an uphill battle.
“The study was done by Christian Wagner and colleagues at Saarland University in Germany, along with researchers in the Netherlands, Iran and France. The team was inspired by an ancient Egyptian wall painting showing a huge statue being hauled across the sand on a sledge in about 1800 BC. The painting has a detail that has long puzzled Egyptologists: a worker who appears to be pouring water onto the sand in front of the sledge while others appear to be carrying water to replenish his supply.”
https://physicsworld.com/a/did-slippery-sand-help-egyptians-build-the-pyramids/
There are hundreds of articles about this theory. It was all the rage a few years ago.
I notice you don’t post the names of any of the scientists who believe only a small workforce built the pyramids. Why is that? That’s really the one I was curious about.
Because, again, it’s kind of hard to argue against what they literally carved into a rock.
Again, there are hundreds of articles about the adjacent work camps. Please look at the publications of Zahi Hawass, chief archeologist of Egypt, and Amihai Mazar, a professor of archeology in Jerusalem.
Most claim that there could have been up to ten thousand workers. Some claim that the number of workers was as low as 1600.
I’m not sure why you think 1600 workers mean they couldn’t just drag large stones over land on sledges using a significant number of those 1600 workers. I’m not even sure why you think ten thousand workers would have been necessary. Can you explain please?
I never suggested that they couldn’t.
Personally, I don’t think that the “brute force” argument is the best. I think it’s arguing from ignorance.
Not arguing with you here, cuz I have no dog in this fight, but you’re seemingly ignoring the possibility of the emperor bragging about
crowd sizethe number of slaves workers utilized?So you’re saying that they used some unknown means of pulling big stones over rocks, but rather bragged about one they didn’t use even though it would have worked?
Can’t go doing that m8, that’d suggest they might have known what they were talking about, and they talked about a lot of stuff that’s very unpopular these days
For the record we do understand how they built it.
They used log rollers, ropes and lots and lots of people hauling. They brute forced it… which, the reason our trucks can’t haul that much has far more to do with the weight on the suspension and fuel efficiency. They said fuck-all to efficiency and literally threw bodies at it.
That said, We do sometimes need much heavier loads
It’s a fairly common solution- the Moai heads on Rapa Nui (easter island) and stone henge also come to mind. In the case of Egypt, they used a sled (or sled and rollers.)
For getting it up the face, they used packed earth ramps that they later removed. Actually, we still use this technique in construction today. (Specifically to get vehicle access up otherwise too-steep slopes)(and again, threw bodies at it. Lots and lots of bodies.)
There’s really only a few things that are impressive about the pyramids. The first is the sheer ego it took to order it built. Then there is the celestial alignment between all of them. And finally the sheer scale of the project and vast amounts of human labor that went into it.
What they determined is that the river allowed the blocks to be floated much closer than previously thought (even today barges are superior to trains, never mind trucking.)
I lot of people look at this and say its just too much material for it to have happened.
But we know of projects that have used more man power. The London to Birmingham railway line took 5 years to build and moved more material than the great pyramid and we know exactly how that was done. The size of individual pieces does add complication, but the absolute quantity and manpower is not unexplainable.
Yeah, it’s a failure of imagination, probably combined with wanting to believe.
I wonder if there’s a bit of not wanting to believe what people can accomplish if a massive number of us all teamed up to do something.
Because then they’d feel guilty for not getting up out of their armchair and going to support whatever cause they claim they’re supporting from the comfort of home.
Armchair activism is indeed a scourge.
Isn’t this old news? I heard this when Assassin Creed Origins came out and thought it was somewhat historically accurate.
So it’s not just me. Maybe the discovery here was just the exact and complete layout, and the BBC misunderstood it the way journalists usually do with science stories?