Pyramid construction explained and the carnage that follows., page 5

Originally posted by Marchimedes
Do you all understand what I'm saying? I control the place with text.

That's there.

This is here. Two different locations. WE control this location with text.

Back to topic...

In fact, it's been known for some time that blocks were levered in place to some extent in building the pyramids. This 1978 journal article mentions it: links.jstor.org...(197803)37%3A1%3C3%3ABCP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-B

However, they weren't dragging the stones atop a "road" of other pyramid blocks. The friction of stone on stone is higher than stone on mud, so they'd be doing a lot more work. And if one of the stones fell off another, the limestone is brittle enough to shatter. That means going back to the quarry and cutting more rocks.

In order to make a smooth surface, they would have to lay the "road" in with a lot of precision, adjusting the blocks on the sand so that there weren't any gaps in them. The "road" would have to be at least two blocks wide, otherwise they'd fall off the sides when you pulled them forward.

The road would also be resting on soft sand that doesn't compress evenly under weight. Sand shifts (remember the Biblical injunction about building a house on shifting sands.)

Not to mention the wear and erosion on the "pavement" blocks after 20 years of stone being constantly dragged across them. Our own modern roads (built of more fleible material on a better engineered substrate) crack and have problems after 8 years of use.

I doublechecked on the intestine idea. Are you aware of just how fragile these intestine membranes are? They aren't waterproof (sausages take in water as they cook, and animal skin condoms aren't as bulletproof as latex) and they do rip easily. Coating them with something (wax) makes the contents unviewable.

So setting this hypothetical device of yours on a block of stone would simply suck the water from the membrane pores. You'd be left with a very flat and limp looking bladder -- if you didn't rip it to shreds when you slid it across the surface of the stone.

That's not a useful tool.

The tools that they do have pictured are made out of wood and very durable. They are consistant (unlike things manufactured from animal products, which can vary according to the age and weight of the animal as well as the breed and the physical condition) and they don't shrink.

So: levers moving pyramid blocks is an old idea. They wrote about hauling the blocks with human effort and oxen and boat.
* The ancient Egyptians failed to show stone roads being made, to write about stone roads being made, to give men the title of "Royal road maker" (every overseer had a title, and we know what they are. Any road built would have had an overseer).
* You're assuming a perfectly smooth stone (which they weren't) and all of equal size (they aren't) and a coeficient of friction that's actually lower than mud. You will have to supply proof that the ancient Egyptians polished the stones so smoothly that you could easily slide another stone over it.
* You seem to be assuming that animal intestine bladders are about the same sort of durable, watertight container as latex. They aren't.

In order to make a viable concept, you'll have to go to the original hieroglyphic texts and to the paintings themselves and look for the clues that support your idea. Otherwise, it's as viable as "a flock of My Little Ponies descended and put it all together with the help of the Care Bears."

Soooooooo.... start trotting out your supporting points from Ancient Egypt. Personal experience doesn't count -- my ability to do calculus and to move things with pully systems doesn't mean that THEY did it.