Yes, the suggestion has been made, general_re, that the construction of the Great Pyramid of Khufu (Cheops) would have required a technological expertise that may not have existed in the Third Millennium B.C. It is a suggestion that IMHO rests on reasonable assumptions.
I’ve studied the article “Program Management B.C.” by Craig B. Smith, P.E. that you so kindly linked me to. It begins:
The construction of the Great Pyramid at Giza is one of the marvels of the ancient world. Originally 481 ft (147 m) high—the top 30 ft (9 m) have been lost to the ravages of time—the pyramid rests on a base that covers an area of 13.1 acres (5.3 ha), incorporates 3.4 million cu yd (2.6 million m3) of material, and is roughly two-thirds the size of Hoover Dam. For centuries mankind has wondered how the early Egyptians were able to accurately level the site, position enormous blocks of limestone and granite—some weighing as much as 20 tons (18 Mg)—and then construct the immense structure with great precision in terms of both its dimensions and orientation.
The article bears a subhead: “A process of forensic analysis that applied modern-day technology to bridge the chasm of time provides some surprising answers to the question of how the Great Pyramid at Giza was built.” I hope you won’t think I’m beating logic to death here; but I wouldn’t have the least problem with this statement, if it had said, instead of “was built,” it had merely said “may have been built.” But it didn’t. What it did was to make a conclusion the first premise of the following argument. And that argument, to my way of thinking, is an excellent example of what I earlier meant by “anachronistic back-loading of personal and cultural freight.”
Translation: We cannot reason from our knowledge of what we can do today to any kind of proof of what was actually done over four millennia ago.
Let me pull out some quotes from the article, and comment:
The Greek historian Herodotus wrote that the construction of the ramp and pyramid occupied 30 years with a workforce of 100,000 men…. Herodotus indicated that a system of levers was used. Long wooden poles were employed to elevate the blocks from one level of the pyramid terrace to the next level. Either multiple levers were used or the levers themselves were moved to each elevation as it became necessary to lift higher and higher. We determined that this approach would have been impractical. There is considerable evidence, however, to support a different approach: that of an inclined ramp…. We know that sloping ramps were constructed for other pyramids…. [citation please?]
Herodotus is considered some kind of authority in regard to the Great Pyramid. In Book II of Herodotus’ History we are told this project took 10 years for site preparation, and an additional 20 years in the actual construction of the Great Pyramid itself. Regarding the site preparation, Herodotus wrote: “…there passed ten years while the causeway was made by which they drew the stones, which causeway they built, and it is a work not much less, as it appears to me, than the pyramid: for the length of it is five furlongs and the breadth ten fathoms and the height, where it is highest, eight fathoms, and it is made of stone smoothed and with figures carved on it. For this they said, the ten years were spent…. For the making of the pyramid itself there passed a period of twenty years…. It is built of stone smoothed and fitted together in the most perfect manner, not one of the stones being less than thirty feet in length. The pyramid was made after the manner of steps which some called ‘rows’ and others ‘bases’: and when they had first made it thus, they raised the remaining stones with machines made of short pieces of timbers….” No mention of sloping ramps.
Herodotus’ History is traditionally dated 440 B.C. This passage refers to events said to have taken place more than two millennia earlier, during the reign of Khufu. Khufu’s reign has most recently been dated to 2585-2566 BC, 19 years.
Using Herodotus’ 30-year time estimate for the completion of the pyramid, assuming a 19-year reign, there would not have been enough time to complete the pyramid before Khufu’s death.
But the engineering firm consulted for this article says the project could have been completed in ten years’ time: two to three years for site preparation, five years of actual construction, and two years of “ramp removal, decoration, and other ancillary tasks.” Using their estimate, Khufu would have been able to build the thing within the period of his rulership.
But the engineering firm was basing its time estimate on a “best-guess” of how long it would take them to construct the Great Pyramid today, with all the benefit of current state-of-the-art technology.
Of course, Herodotus – as Dr. Stochastic and PatrickHenry have so kindly pointed out – was as far removed in time from the historical period under examination here, as we today are from him. His information source was Egyptian priests devoted to the cult of Vulcan. Now, the main function of the priestly class, in all historical times, is the preservation and transmission of the people’s myths. So none of the information that Herodotus received from the Vulcanian priests could be regarded by us today as “scientific evidence.”
Quoting from the article, “The first step in construction would have been to lay the ground course. This process would have consisted in placing large blocks with great precision to establish the dimensions of the pyramid. Based on a survey reported in the literature, the base is square and is oriented to the four points of the compass to standards that would be challenging to a builder today.” [Emphasis added] But apparently third-millennia Egyptians didn’t have a problem with it.
The pyramid itself is so brilliantly constructed, with the joins of stones so perfect, that it is said one cannot so much as insert a knife blade between them. However, the reputation of Egyptian construction techniques has been assessed by historians as not being up to this kind of standard. As Chester Starr writes in A History of the Ancient World: “By and large Egyptian architecture always remained most impressive for its size; the qualities of architectural synthesis, finely detailed work, and even honest workmanship, as in making a solid foundation, are rarely present.” On this score, the Great Pyramid must be considered a rare exception.
Getting back to the ten-year time estimate, I’m a little confused by what appear to be conflicting statements in the text itself. Maybe somebody can help me resolve this problem. The consulting engineers “assume an average crew of 20 men.” They also assume a ramp system, whose incline is 15 degrees traveling up the pyramid. “We estimated that a delivery rate of 180 blocks per hour was required from level 50 to level 74 and then used this rate to determine if the ramp size and number of crews were feasible. This seemed possible…. [O]ur stonecutting estimate of two man-days per block is based on our judgment. For the average block [said to weigh anywhere from 2.5 to 6 tons for the limestone blocks] we assumed that a team of 20 laborers was required to pull a sled up the ramp and onto the work area. This would require four hours on average (up to level 50), which meant that a team could move two blocks per day. Ten man-days were required, therefore, to move each block into place.” But then, for levels 51+, these teams could “deliver” 180 blocks per hour??? What am I missing here? Help!!!
Jumping to the concluding paragraph, Dr. Smith states: “While there is uncertainty as to precisely how the Egyptians built the Great Pyramid, there is certainty about the fact that it was done. The pyramid stands today as awesome testimony to the skill and sheer determination of the ancient race that built it.” Well, sure there’s “certainty about the fact that it was done.” Obviously, it is an artifact, meaning there must have been an artificer. He kind of weasels out in his next statement, stating that an “ancient race” built it. Well, sure, an ancient race must have built it, because the pyramids were already ancient by the time of Herodotus. The question that is left begging (to my mind at least, for the foregoing reasons) is: So was that ancient race the Egyptians?
The article states that “No records have been found that relate to the design of the Great Pyramid.” This is rather surprising to me, for the ancient Egyptians were famously meticulous record keepers: They recorded everything that ever happened anywhere in the kingdom. I would be more easily persuaded that they, in fact, built the pyramids if there were any extant inscription, some hieroglyphic, anywhere recording these events. If they did in fact happen, they would have been memorialized somewhere. But I am not aware that anything of this sort has yet been discovered. If anybody knows of any such source, please do let me know.
In sum, I do remain skeptical about who built the pyramids. But I don’t think my skepticism is “unreasonable.” In the end, all I can say is: I don’t know. FWIW.
Well, he's an authority on the tales that were being told 2,000 years after the building. He probably was very accurate in preserving what was told to him, but by the time he heard such accounts, they were quite possibly unreliable. He doesn't record that he saw any original documents or designs. He recorded hearsay, and he did it well. That's a very different thing from being an authority on the actual methods used.
But the engineering firm was basing its time estimate on a “best-guess” of how long it would take them to construct the Great Pyramid today, with all the benefit of current state-of-the-art technology.
I read it differently. They were making estimates based on technology available to the pyramid-builders.