Architect Claims to Solve Pyramid Secret

Alreadybutnotyet writes "A French architect claimed Friday to have uncovered the mystery about how Egypt's Great Pyramid of Khufu was built — with use of a spiral ramp to hoist huge stone blocks into place. The construction of the Great Pyramid 4,500 years ago by Khufu, a ruler also known as Cheops, has long befuddled scientists as to how its 3 million stone blocks weighing 2.5 tons each were lifted into place. 'The most widespread theory had been that an outer ramp had been used by the Egyptians, who left few traces to help archeologists and other scientists decode the secret to the construction. Houdin said he had taken into account the copper and stone tools available at the time, the granite and limestone blocks, the location of the pyramid and the strength and knowledge of the workers.'"

Where's the evidence?

[arbie]

Seems like this would be easy to verify. There should be the remnants of the tunnels still in place. HAs he found any?

Re:Probably a true story

[Sneakernets]

So this means I can't get modded insightful for no reason?


Damnit, I guess I'll have to try next year.

Re:History Channel

[Baby Duck]

If you go to the site, you'll see where he debunks previous ideas. One of those ideas is an *external* spiral ramp. But it would be twice the volume (I think...watch the movie for the exact multiplier) of the pyramid itself, which is infeasible for a 20 year project and harder to leave no evidence of after dismantling.

This guy's internal spiral ramp theory uses known tunnels that allow the pyramid to be built inside out while helping to keep laborers out of the sun.

He doesn't simply CGI all of this. He computer models it with physics to show how it could have been done with materials present for the time, and a reasonable workforce size, inside of 20 years.

Re:Probably a true story

[greg_barton]

The meta comment has been modded higher than the comment?

Next year can I be modded higher for the meta meta comment?

Feasible...

[Dan East]

So what we have here is a feasible theory with no supporting physical evidence. I don't know I would call this "uncovering" or "discovering", since it is completely speculative.

Personally, I think the most "obvious" method would be correct. The Egyptians would not have been able to do a computer simulation to determine if their building plans were feasible. Thus I would think they would have gone with the most obvious, full-proof method, even if it would have required more resources. The article is short on details, but any building techniques beyond a certain level of complexity would likely have been too much of a gamble for them to attempt.

Dan East

Re:Mystery?

[Score Whore]

Because he has damned 3D technology to confirm his theory as the absolutely proven method used. Goddammit! He modeled it on his computer, it is the inviolate truth.

Re:Feasible... practice?

[victorl19]

Unless the great pyramid was the first one they ever built, some of these methods (especially rope twisting scaffold to raise the capstone) may have been tried on smaller pyramids. Thus, the gamble might not have been as big.

Reed Punks

[hhawk]

Sci Fi set in the age of steam is called Steam Punk... Set in the age of Pyramids we would have to call it Reed Punk... This wasn't the first Pyramid built; however they built them, clearly the scaled up from job to job... It wasn't like they programmed "hello world" one day and the next started to create a complete OS from scratch. My guess is his solution is a little bit too neat, and relies on technology more than brawn.

Has there been any Peer review of this "discovery?"

This "prof" seems more than anything to be shilling for some 3D modeling software. The software is certainly quite impressive. The scene where the cap stone is raised by turning it, so that ropes attached to it twist and thereby lift it, is quite impressive as well; the ropes are suspended from a teepee like structure of wooden poles. I'm sure it would work once you got it moving the first ½ rotation; up to that point I'm sure you really had to push very hard...

Our good "prof" set out to find out how he could build a construction project (of the great pyramid) using only the materials of the day, based on whatever evidence there is, and of course on his modern understanding of the world.

The scenes where wooden carry frames transport major stone blocks by the aid of counter weights seemed straight out of Indiana Jones. It's certainly possible so he claimed, but the technology seems really pushed to the limit(s).

What happened to the idea that the stones were "wrapped" by four pieces of 90 degree "curves" so that when all tied together the stones could be rolled around like "wheels."

Re:Feasible...

[SnowZero]

I don't think you are right. I RTFA, and "theory" is used 3 times and "hypothesis" is used once. You can form a hypothesis that "the pyramid could be built this way", since you can test it. What you can't do is form a hypothesis that "the pyramid was built this way"; That will always be a theory since we can never know for sure. Just like mass extinction of Dinosaurs, which is a theory even though we have some pretty strong evidence it occurred.

The reason the story is annoying is that alongside "theory", the article contains claims that this work is "Ending eight years of study on the subject", and "Houdin used 3D technology to have his theory confirmed". That is more than you should claim for a theory you have yet to find physical evidence for.

Re:History Channel

[kcelery]

It is interesting to find from the website that the Egyptian were using translational method instead of rotational method. Some findings had shown the heavy rock were so heavy to be pulled. The builders prayed to their god. And so their god sent the primitive engineers to help the Egyptian. And it was the scarab.

If you happened to move an metal barrel of 2' in diameter and a height of 4', you would notice that there are two ways to do it. Either slide along the floor or lay it horizontally with the axis along the floor. It is much easier to roll it than sliding.

The exact structure of how the rectangular block was made into a cylinder is not known, and it should be studied further.

The scene around the pyramid construction site should look like scarabs pushing the 'shxt' with their hind legs.

And it was the scarab who first laughed at those who don't know what a wheel is and those who reinvented the wheel. The Egyptians were so impressed by the saving in effort, they made scarab an immortal figure.

Re:History Channel

[Proofof. Chaos]

I'm no expert, but the way I read it, it explains many anomalies. The theory explains many of the voids and passages inside the pyramid that seemed to have no practical purpose.

I have doubts

[Anonymous Coward]

As an archaeologist I have read a number of serious academic articles about the use of 3D reconstructions to present ideas. I won't get into all the gory details of archaeological theory here, but the short version is this:

Images serve as extremely persuasive representations of the past, and it often the case that a reasonably compelling image which doesn't clash do badly with out own pre-conceived notions will often be accepted without being questioned very much. A good example of this is the popular image of the Neanderthals as stooped brutish creatures - An image based upon work which was discredited more than 100 years ago (I forget the exact date). CG images can be even more persuasive due to their ability to move around and show people and systems in action.

I appreciate that this project is based upon actual engineering work, and isn't just a bunch of pretty pictures, however watching the presentation I can't help but feel that they are a little bit in love with their own images. They claim to be certain that their 'internal ramp' hypothesis is correct, and twice claim it is backed up by strong evidence, and yet they present no physical evidence whatsoever. All they have is a model which doesn't disprove their theory and a pretty 3D model. It is interesting study to be sure, but until they find physical evidence (and to be fair they have expressed an interest in looking for some) statements like 'This revolutionary idea sweeps away all the other hypotheses put forward up to now' (page 4 of the pdf) go much to far.

Simulation time

[Spackler]

Ok, I am going to start an actual simulation for building the Pyramids.

All of you guys come out of your mother's basement and be my slaves.
No wages. Bad conditions. Whips and chains. Move some heavy rocks
for me and we will build one. Move it or die.

This is going to be fun but I hope there are no uprisings.

(PS: Yes, I know that Nova did it. However, mine will be full size. None of this 9 foot tall crap.)

Re:History Channel

[cob666]

Yet they allowed the bodies to be removed?

When this pyramid was first excavated, there were no human remains inside. There were either never there or they were removed ages ago by sophisticated grave robbers.
 

Re:History Channel

[stonecypher]

Given that peasants in Egypt weren't paid, did not own their homes, had no control over their occupation, could be bought and sold with or without their families, and could be killed at the whim of any upper class citizen with no ramifications, I'm curious what you believe the distinction between peasant and slave is. Is it just the ostrich feather?

As far as I know, Carthage was the only empire in that area and timeframe which did not make significant use of slaves, and even they still traded in slaves as a luxury commodity between other empires.