The development of the Egyptian pyramid can be traced with a certain amount
of clearness. The earliest known is the Step Pyramid of Saqqara, which has
definitely been attributed to King Zoser of the IIIrd dynasty. It is not square,
but oblong in plan, and seems to show evidence of changes of design. What is
clear, however, is that it consists of skins of masonry, one within the other,
each skin being apparently faced throughout down to the ground level, the
masonry between successive skins being of poorer quality. The angle of the faces
of these skins, or "accretion faces" as they are commonly called, is
approximately a rise of 4 on a horizontal distance of 1, this being the angle
found on most of the mastaba faces in the Old Kingdom. This pyramid has been
described as a compound mastaba, and its construction has been vaguely explained
by saying that there was a primitive mastaba which has been successively
heightened and enlarged.
The next pyramid seems to be that of Meidum, which was built for king Sneferu of
the IVth dynasty, though he is believed to have had another at Dashshur. Whether
the Meidum pyramid was ever completed is still a matter of conjecture. Unlike
the Step Pyramid, it is square in plan and of an accuracy of squareness of base
and of level not much inferior to that of the Great Pyramid. It shows, with
certain variations, the same internal structure as that of the Step Pyramid, but
it was covered with an outside facing of very good masonry at an angle of 14 on
a rise of 11, thus being, as far as we yet know, the first true pyramid.
It might well be imagined that, once the form of a pyramid had been established,
the internal skins of masonry would disappear, but they do not. Though the Giza
pyramids of Cheops, Chephren and Mycerinus are not sufficiently destroyed to
make their internal construction certain, all the queens' pyramids of the same
date on the Giza plateau show internal faces, and so do the pyramids of the Vth
dynasty at Abusir. The tendency among students is to assume that these
"accretion-faces" played an essential part in the process of building.
For example, in HOLSCHER, Das Grab denkmal des Konigs Chephren, a pyramid is
shown under construction in the form of stages, brick ramps leading up against
the masonry from one stage to another. This has been reproduced in BREASTED,
Ancient Times, together with a brief explanatory note on this suggested method
of construction.
Before discussing the merits of certain of the modern theories of pyramid
construction, two points established in previous chapters must be given the
fullest consideration; first, that in Egyptian building, the blocks were handled
from the front during the process of laying; secondly, that no lifting tackle,
other than levers, was used.
The theory that pyramids were constructed in stages, with ramps running from
stage to stage against the masonry, has, for its main objection, the fact that
the blocks could bot then be handled from the front while they were being laid.
Further, it leaves unsolved the questions of the method of putting on the
casing.
Another theory, which, strangely enough, still has supporters, is based on a
statement of Herodotus, which is of sufficient interest to quote at length.
In Book II, Cap. 125, he states:
"This (the Great) pyramid was built thus; in the form of steps...when they
had first built it in this manner, they raised the remaining stones by machines
made of short pieces of wood: having lifted them from the ground to the first
range of steps, when the stone arrived there, it was put on another machine that
stood ready on the first range, and from this it was drawn to the second range
on another machine; for the machines were equal in number to the ranges of steps
(or, they removed the machine, which was only one, and portable, to each range
in succession, whenever they wished to raise the stone higher, or I should
relate it in both ways, as it is related). The highest parts of it, therefore,
were first finished, and afterwards they completed the parts next following; but
last of all they finished the parts on the ground and that were lowest."
The finding of the wooden appliances known as "rockers" in foundation
deposits of the New Kingdom, has been seized on by certain scholars to prove
that the method outlined by Herodotus was that actually used. Let it be assumed
that there were rockers, in unending numbers, strong enough to support blocks up
to 10 tons in weight, and that the blocks were rocked up step by step and laid.
When the top was reached, the appearance of the monument would be very much like
that of the Giza pyramids to-day. In the putting on of the facing two
possibilities present themselves; either the top casing-blocks were also rocked
up and the lower courses in some mysterious manner slipped in below them, which
is a mechanical impossibility or that the appearance of the casing-blocks,
before their faces were dressed, was also that of a series of steps-for by no
other means could they also be rocked up. This is directly contradicted by the
appearance of the unfinished casing-blocks in the Third Pyramid, and also by all
other known examples of unfinished masonry.
The third theory is that a primitive mastaba was successively heightened and
enlarged. Such a method is a possibility; but successively to enlarge, or widen,
the primitive mastaba means the shifting back both of the supply embankments and
the foothold embankments all round the courses after each widening, which would
be about the most wasteful method of construction, as regards labour, which
could be conceived. Observation of the ancient methods always tends to show that
the Egyptian was a most efficient organizer of work, though changes in design,
not uncommon on the part of the old architects, must sometimes have involved
much extra labour.
Since the assumption that the "accretion faces" were a necessity for
the construction of a pyramid seems to lead to a conclusion which is impossible
or unlikely, it is justifiable to ask whether such faces may not have been
considered by the Egyptians an aid to the stability of the structure,
particularly since it is known that the core of all of them, apart from the
accretion faces, is of rough masonry, or even whether it was their intense
conservatism-or even a religious motive-which made them retain the mastaba angle
in the internal masonry of their royal tombs. It is possible that both these
factors played a part. Once this admitted, the problem of the order of
construction becomes very much more simple, for it can then be assumed that a
pyramid was, as a rule, laid out to its full length and width at the outset, and
that the building process consisted merely of heightening parallel skins of
masonry. Thus there would be no moving back of the main supply-and
foothold-embankments at all.
In the pyramids of Zoser and Sneferu, the "accretion faces" are
dressed smooth, and the masonry is of nearly the same quality as that of the
outer casing; on the other hand, in the queens' pyramids at Giza and in the
pyramids of Abusir, the "accretion faces" are not dressed at all.
Here, at the outset, is a feature in the earliest pyramids which was
discontinued-as far as is yet known-in all the later pyramids. The explanation
of the discontinuance of this practice seems to be that, in order to dress the
accretion faces smooth, they had to be kept at a considerably higher level than
the rest of the course, and that, if he dressing of these faces was abolished,
the whole pyramid could be built course by course-or nearly so- throughout.
For the sake of definition, the masonry of a pyramid may be divided into four
classes; these are: (1) the core, which lies between successive "accretion
faces", and which is of rough masonry; (2) the internal or
"accretion" faces; (3) the packing-blocks between the outermost
accretion faces and the casing-blocks; and (4) the casing-blocks.
If the internal faces of a pyramid are to be dressed, a considerable number of
courses would need to be exposed at a time, since the dressing of each
individual course to a batter of 4 on 1 would result in bad cumulative errors.
In the Meidum Pyramid, the error out of the square of one of the internal faces
is as much as two feet. It need not therefore be assumed that more than some
twenty feet of a facing was ever exposed. A confirmation of this is that, though
it was obviously intended to dress all the internal faces of this pyramid, a
series of eight courses of blocks was left undressed in what is now the
uppermost face but one. This can perhaps be explained by assuming that it was
soon to be covered over with the core-blocks, and the omission may well have
been due to lack of inspection or to haste in that period of the construction.
It has been shown that embankments in front of the course are necessary in
masonry involving blocks of any size, and where good laying is required, and
this must have applied to the inner facing of the pyramids as well as to the
casing-blocks, particularly if they were to be fine-dressed. Thus if, for
example, ten courses of internal facing had to be constructed above the level of
the main course of the pyramid, there would have to be secondary embankments all
round each face. These would have to be moved back for each successive facing
and so on until they became part of the main embankments round the pyramid. This
would be a waste of labour, but not to be compared with that involved in moving
back the main embankments. If, on the other hand, the internal faces were to be
left rough, the construction would be much simplified, since the whole pyramid
could then be constructed almost course by course, the angle of the
"accretion faces" being maintained accurately by measurement in from
the outer casing. It is therefore possible that the Egyptians, perhaps after
their work on the pyramid of Meidum, dispensed with the useless fine-dressing of
the internal faces in order to simplify their task; it is a development in
pyramid masonry which is quite comprehensible.
It may justifiably be asked whether the Great and Second Pyramids of Giza
possess internal facings. By all analogy they should, since every pyramid of the
Old Kingdom before and after them has these facings, as far as can be gathered
from those which have become sufficiently destroyed to permit an examination of
their interior. It has been suggested by certain scholars that the presence of
internal facings is proved by the existence of the so-called
"girdle-blocks" in the ascending passage leading to the grand gallery.
This passage passes, at intervals of 10 cubits (17 feet 2 inches), right through
the middle of single blocks of limestone, and partly through the blocks of
masonry between. The passage has been driven through already laid masonry, and
it has been held that the "girdle-blocks" are the faces of internal
accretions. Four arguments can be brought against this theory; (a) the relative
closeness of successive faces, if evenly spaced through the pyramid, would
amount to there being no less than fifteen of them, which is at variance with
the proportions of the internal facings in all the other known pyramids; (b) if
the passage were cut at a slope through already laid masonry-was a change of
plan, in fact-it would hardly be expected to pass through the middle of a block
each time it met one of the internal facings; (c) it is against all analogy that
the masonry between successive facings should be good, and in this case the
masonry is wonderfully fine, though in the places where the true core-blocks can
be seen they are, like those of all other pyramids, of rough, ill-laid blocks;
(d) most of the rising joints between the girdle-blocks and those next to them
are very nearly vertical, and some are perfectly so, which would certainly not
be the case if the girdle-blocks were the faces of internal
"accretions". The purpose of this unique and extraordinary method of
construction is quite unknown.
If a pyramid were built in the manner suggested, the passages and chambers would
be constructed by means of small subsidiary embankments, the blocks forming the
sides of a passage, for example, being laid to a convenient height above the
general level of the course, and the roofing being put on and the passage
extended as the main course became higher. If a passage with the girdle-blocks
described above were deliberately sought for, no particular difficulty would be
encountered; the Egyptians were no strangers to driving a tunnel through rock
and making it straight. The blocks would, however, have to be arranged to give
the "girdles" at regular intervals; it is most unlikely that this is
the result of chance.
On the order of laying of the core-blocks-the more or less rough masonry which
forms the main bulk of a pyramid-information is very scanty. It appears,
however, that the principle of cutting down into the rock into already laid
masonry, observed in pavements and the later walls, to receive that of the
course above, was freely used.
How the Egyptians dressed the enormous surfaces which form the faces of the
pyramids, how they made them meet accurately in a point, and how they avoided
twist, are problems rather difficult of solution. The most that can be done is
to attempt to determine the principles underlying the process without entering
into too many refinements. It must be realized that, to put a batter on the face
of a piece of masonry, a plumb-line must be used; further, it must be remembered
that in all unfinished masonry in Egypt, which has come down to us, the blocks
were laid with their faces rough and fine-dressed afterwards. This dressing
could be carried out in two ways, either by covering the whole surface with
scaffolding, or by reducing it to the plane of facing-surfaces, made when the
masonry was being constructed, which would presumably be done, in the case of a
pyramid or pylon, when the constructional embankments were being removed.
Scaffolding could only have been used for work moderate size. In the case of the
Great Pyramid, each face is some five acres in area, and rises to a height of
160 yards, and to cover such an area with scaffolding would be impracticable
mechanically, especially since no traces of "pot-lugs" are found in
the casing at the top of the Second Pyramid at Giza or in that of the South
Pyramid of Dahshur into which the butts of the scaffold-poles could have
engaged, and the whole kept steady. During the removal of the embankments,
however, light scaffolding, with the butts of the poles buried in the rubble,
may well have been used to cover a height of some thirty feet above them, since
it cannot be believed that the dressing of the blocks to the facing-surfaces, if
done little more than a man's height at a time, could give the almost perfect
flatness observed in the pyramid whose casing has been preserved.
Twist in the pyramid could have been avoided by a very elementary method, namely
by establishing points outside the base of the pyramid in line with both
diagonals and axes, and projecting these lines up the embankments on to the
course under construction by sighting-poles or plumb-lines. Great accuracy is
possible by such methods. The obtaining of the true pyramid angle is however a
much more difficult matter. Two possibilities present themselves; one is that
the size of the square at the height of the course was calculated, and a square
of the calculated dimensions was described on the already established diagonals
and axes; the other is that it was found by plumbing and measurement. In the
records left to us by the ancient masons, dimensions and levels are indicated by
a triangle (generally in red ochre) with either the base projected out or a
second line drawn parallel to the base, accompanied by indications of the number
of cubits, palms, and digits. In such marks the base of the triangle or the
parallel line usually shows whence the measurements was to be taken and the apex
of the triangle the direction of measurement. These levels show no great
pretensions to accuracy. Since there is no evidence, from any of the partly
destroyed pyramids, that vertical pits were left in the masonry from which the
height of the work could be a accurately obtained at any course, and since the
use of the rough level-records found on the blocks would involve very large
cumulative errors, it is fairly safe to assert that the size of the square at
any particular course was not calculated. The alternative solution is that a
plumb-line was used in the embankments outside the course and the necessary
proportion of 11 to 14 measured in from it. From these measurements, the
facing-surfaces could be established to which the whole of the casing would
afterwards be dressed when the embankments were being removed. This seems to be
the only solution which meets the observed facts, and it is worth examining more
closely. In the case of the Great Pyramid, it appears that the error of the
square at what is now the top cannot have exceeded a foot. If the angle of the
casing for each of the 200 courses had been separately obtained by plumbing, the
observed accuracy could never have been obtained. From the writer's experiments,
it appears that plumbing cannot be carried to an accuracy of much more than 1/5
inch with the Egyptian plumb-bobs which have been preserved, even if the
plumb-line is sheltered from the wind and all the obvious precautions taken.
With 200 repetitions, the cumulative error could well be three times as great as
that observed. If, on the other hand, the plumbing-point on any course could be
kept open for some seventeen feet, only about thirty shifts of the
plumbing-point would be necessary during the construction of the pyramid, and
the observed accuracy could well be attained.
Since it appears likely that the plumbing was done from a point outside the face
of the pyramid and that this plumbing was not done consecutively at each
separate course, it must necessarily follow that there were pits or trenches in
the embankments. What the exact from of these pits or trenches was we have no
idea, neither can we determine how many of them were used for each face.
The foothold-embankments round the course under construction cannot have had a
breadth, at the top, of much less than forty feet, if parties of men had to
manipulate large levers for the laying of the casing-blocks, and it is not
without interest to determine how far, by means of pits or trenches in the
embankments, the plumbing could be carried before a new plumbing position would
have to be used. Since the angle of the casing of a pyramid is a rise of 14 on a
horizontal distance of 11, if the pit were commenced close to the face, it would
be fifty-one feet deep by the time it reached the edge of the embankment higher
up. Thus only ten shifts would be necessary in the construction of the Great
Pyramid. Although these figures are merely tentative, they serve to show that
the observed accuracy could be obtained by simple methods. A practical
application may make matters more clear.
Let it be imagined that a pyramid is under construction and that the base has
been set out to the necessary accuracy, and, after laying the blocks of the
first course, the line of the base has been exposed (where the edge of the
casing will touch the pavement) at, say, two points on each side and some forty
feet in from the corners, the top of the course having been truly levelled.
Having measured in from a plumb-line over the exposed points on the base, on the
first course, two points can be obtained on each side on the plane to which the
whole of the surface of the face will afterwards be reduced, by measuring in
11/14 of the length of the plumb-line. From these points, which become the
facing-surfaces of the course, a square can be established which can be checked
by measuring its sides (and sometimes its diagonals) and by ascertaining if it
lies on the diagonals of the pyramid which have been projected up on to the
course (V W, X Y). The accuracy of the square can be further checked by
ascertaining, by measurement, if the axes of the pyramid base, when also
projected up on to the course (R S,T U), pass through the middle of each side,
and thus avoid the possibility of the would-be square becoming a rhombus. With
such precautions, a square of very great accuracy is possible. The process would
be repeated for the higher courses from the same plumbing-point on the pavement,
until the top of the plumb-line had reached the extreme edge of the
foothold-embankment; it would then be shifted in to the exposed facing surface
of the course last laid.
In the case of the pyramids, there is no evidence on the precise form taken by
the facing-surfaces before they were covered up by the constructional
embankments for the next courses. In later times, two forms are known.
In the Third Pyramid at Giza the sixteen lowest courses are cased with granite
blocks, which were never dressed, though there is evidence to show that the
dressing of the limestone casing-now broken up-which covered the upper part of
the pyramid was completed. It is likely that the granite courses were left
unfinished owing to the enormous labour necessary to dress the hard rocks. The
granite casing has no visible facing-surfaces on it; perhaps the intention had
been to dress the granite courses, at leisure, to the plane of the finished
limestone casing above. Some base must however have been set out at
ground-level, and since the granite blocks show no trace of facing-surfaces on
to which plumbing could have been done, we can infer that the Egyptians were
capable of plumbing, in one operation, for a height of at least fifty-four feet
up a pyramid, which in one operation, for a height of at least fifty-four feet
up a pyramid, which would mean that the top of the plumbing-pit, or trench,
could be forty-two feet out from the face of the masonry.
Most pyramids have individual peculiarities which are as yet difficult to
explain. For instance, in the Great Pyramid, as possibly in certain others, a
large depression in the packing-blocks runs down the middle of each face,
implying a line of extra thick facing there. Though there is no special
difficulty in arranging the blocks of a course in such a manner that they
increase in size at the middle, there is no satisfactory explanation of the
feature any more than there is of the "girdle-blocks" already
discussed. To assume that vertical lines of blocks were laid from the top of the
pyramid to the bottom, to serve in some manner as a guide, is incompatible with
the deduction that large embankments were used, without which many of the
peculiarities of ancient Egyptian stonework are inexplicable. Another reason
which can be advanced against such a strange order of laying having taken place
is that the height of the casing-blocks of the Great Pyramid shows a periodical
decrease for a certain number of courses up the face, which must surely mean
that the available stone (or perhaps that from one quarry) was worked out before
a new supply was drawn upon. The assumption that such vertical lines of blocks
were laid would mean that the amount of periodic decrease in the height of the
courses was exactly foreseen. Other considerations, such as the levelling of the
tops of the courses after laying, are also against such a supposition being
true.
In conclusion, the reader is again reminded that the foregoing notes on pyramid
construction are not to be regarded as a complete and final exposition of the
many problems hitherto unexplained, but rather as preliminary deductions which
seems to follow from the information at present available, and which may have to
be considerably modified in the light of future research.
Language: Aspects of writing | Linguistic Features | Hieroglyphs etc.Gods
Gods: Isis | Ra | Set | Osiris | Qebhsennef | Maat
Pyramids: Building stones | Egypt Land of the pyramids | Canstruction of Pyramids | Huni's Pyramid | Zoser's step Pyramid | Sneferu's Pyramid | The solar Boat | The grest pyeamid of cheops | Chephren's pyramid | Senusert I's pyramid | Sphinx
Paint: Introduction | Subjects of paint scenes
sports: Introduction | Chariots-training horses | Running | Combating sports | Aquatic sports | Competition | Games and toys | Acrobtics
jewellery: Introduction | Gold | Silver | The precious & semi-precious Stones | The substitutes of precious stones | Same kinds of jewellery | Discoveries of jewellery
Sculpture: Introduction | Old kingdom statues | Middle kingdom statues | New kingdom statues