The Giza Power Plant Page 9
Being objective about the whole debate of whether the methods of building the pyramids were those proposed by Egyptologists or other more advanced methods, and considering the experiments undertaken to obtain conclusive proof one way or another, we would have to question the motives of the experimenters. It seems that if the Japanese team were out to prove that pyramid building should be left to those with access to modern techniques and equipment, they succeeded. But this does not mean that their conclusions were irrefutable, and it does appear that they gave up easily when trying to move their one-ton blocks of limestone. However, the records show that they did attempt the construction of a pyramid (one that was small compared to the originals) and failed to complete it using primitive methods. It now remains for those who are absolutely convinced that the ancient Egyptians constructed the pyramids using primitive techniques to build a pyramid themselves, using those same techniques that they propose the Egyptians used. As part of such an attempt, it would help if they cut out just one seventy-ton block of granite from the Aswan quarry, which is located five hundred miles away, using their hardened copper chisels or dolerite balls and then transported the block to the Giza Plateau with their barges, ropes, and manpower. If the proponents of traditional theories of constructing the pyramids are able to accomplish this feat, then we should give serious consideration to their proposals about pyramid construction.
A more recent attempt at building a pyramid was carried out by a team from the television program NOVA that included Egyptologist Mark Lehner and Massachusetts stone mason Roger Hopkins. Their pyramid reached a height of twenty feet and took three weeks to build using steel tools, and front-end loaders, and the valiant effort of laborers, who, under the direction of Hopkins and for the benefit of the cameras dragged the final stones into place. As Dr. Lehner honestly described the small scale of this undertaking, "It would have fitted neatly on to the top of the Great Pyramid, in whose shadow we built it."10
Considering the immense size of the Great Pyramid, the precision with which it was built, the materials that were used, and the uniqueness of its interior passages and chambers, we are faced with a structure that has no parallel in modern times. Theories of primitive methods of construction are invalidated by the proponents' own tests and demonstrations; and considering the time in which the proponents of these theories have had to develop a watertight case, it appears they will never figure it out. The passing years have significantly weakened the traditional views, perhaps not in the eyes of Egyptologists, but certainly in the eyes of people like myself. We are beginning to learn the true significance of alternative theories that have, for the most part, been ignored. Meanwhile, credibility of the old theories has been undermined by highly questionable armchair speculations that are passed on as facts—such as the idea that the Egyptians used copper chisels to shape hard, igneous rock.
The most compelling evidence for the likelihood that the Great Pyramid was constructed by craftspeople with specialized knowledge and advanced techniques is the precision with which it was built. This precision reveals more about the true nature of its builders than any inscription or cartouche. There is no way to ignore the accuracy of this stonecutting, despite Egyptologists' interpretations of the inscriptions found in pyramids or temples in Egypt. After all, hieroglyphics, like any language, has the potential to be misunderstood.
After discussing much of the preceding information with the artisans at today's building sites, machine shops, and quarry mills, I became aware of the reason why we are still influenced by ideas that are not compatible with practical application. The artisans of today are too busy making a living to give serious thought to scholarly theories, and even when gross inequities are presented to them, they respond with a cynical shrug. When told that giant limestone casing stones, which were cut to within 1/100 of an inch, were cut with hammer and chisel, a typical response was a shake of the head.
As for the general public's lack of interest in the technological mysteries surrounding the Great Pyramid, the fact is that the majority enjoy the use of technology without regard to its creation. We buy tools, utensils, and appliances with little thought about the skill and ingenuity that played a part in the production of just one little component. We appreciate the final product but have little knowledge of how it was made.
Because I have had technical experience in the procedures that created some modern conveniences, I have examined the evidence in a new way and I sum up my thoughts regarding the construction of the Great Pyramid as follows: It has been said many times that the Great Pyramid was built with tolerances that modern opticians would be hard-pressed to match. In analyzing the reason for this high degree of perfection, I consider two possible alternative answers. First, the building was for some reason required to conform to precise specifications regarding its dimensions, geometric proportions, and its mass. As with a modern optician's product, any variation from these specifications would severely diminish its primary function. In order to comply with these specifications, therefore, greater care than usual was taken in manufacturing and constructing this edifice. Second, the builders of the Great Pyramid were highly evolved in their building skills and possessed greatly advanced instruments and tools. The accuracy of the pyramid was normal to them, and perhaps their tools were not capable of producing anything less than this superb accuracy, which has astounded many over the years. Consider, for example, that the modern machines that produce many of the components that support our civilization are so finely engineered that the most inferior piece they could turn out is more accurate than what was the norm for those produced one hundred years ago. In engineering, the state of the art inevitably moves forward.
Of course, there might be a third alternative. It could always be said that those who built the Great Pyramid did not really know what they were doing, and that the end result of their labors was achieved purely through trial and error—the Great Pyramid's precision was just a stroke of luck. Yes, I know that reasoning sounds ridiculous, but it has been suggested by Egyptologists and other researchers, actually more than a few times. If we pass the achievement of the builders of the Great Pyramid off as pure coincidence, we need say little more. However, if curiosity gets the better of us, we can look a little more closely and consider the notion that perhaps there is some significance behind the Great Pyramid's mathematical sophistication.
Today we do not invest the time and effort to finish modern artifacts to a precision of .0002 inch, unless we must. As a general rule, when estimating the cost of manufacturing an object, if the tolerance box has an extra zero in it—that is, not .001 but .0001—the price of the object increases significantly. The more precise the object, the more it costs, because the labor is more expensive. Tool and instrument makers earn more money per hour than machine operators. Therefore, it follows that for cost purposes, an engineer will design a machine or tool with the greatest amount of tolerance allowable while at the same time still providing for the machine's or tool's proper function. The measurements of any given object are simply a means to an end, and, while being related to the object, they are not the object itself. It is not unreasonable for us to assume, then, that the dimensions and precision embodied in the Great Pyramid are means by which the builders created a product that had to function in a way that a product of lesser precision could not.
If the builders were intelligent enough to figure out the engineering aspects of quarrying, hauling, and erecting millions of tons of masonry with such precision, then is it logical to assume that this feat was achieved with primitive methods? Would the degree of practicality evident in the structure have been limited to just the comprehension of its final form, or would it have been applied to solving all constructional aspects? Wouldn't any group of individuals who could build such an advanced and unique product have the capacity to develop advanced and unique tools to produce it? With the Great Pyramid, the achievement of its final form was undoubtedly a group effort; and since the evidence available suggests the bu
ilders used sophisticated methods of machining, they would have developed the necessary advanced and unique tools to do the job. With this in mind, perhaps we should speculate that they also had an advanced and unique purpose for building the Great Pyramid.
As I have suggested, if we look at the history of manufacturing, we will find that the evolution of machine tools has resulted in a quality of product that was not possible one hundred years ago. The accuracy and repeatability of these machine tools is such that the accuracy and replicability of some of the work they produce may not be necessary for the product to function properly. The machines are built to produce highly accurate and consistent products without regard to the level of importance each feature may have in the final product. One viewpoint may be, therefore, that the pyramid builders had created machinery with a "state of the art" in cutting and dressing stone that was incapable of producing low-quality work. This may seem a far-fetched idea on the surface, but as I will show in the next chapter, advanced methods of machining stone are clearly evident in artifacts from that period.
With the Great Pyramid, we are faced with an artifact that exhibits a state of the art in manufacturing and construction that we do not find necessary for specification of modern buildings. In fact, artisans who provide materials and erect modern buildings do not even relate to the tolerances that must have been imposed on the creators of the Great Pyramid. It was with this realization that I continued my study and tried to imagine what recreating it would take. The Great Pyramid speaks of a highly skilled and intelligent body of people who conceived and executed a design with an attention to detail that is utterly astounding. A tremendous amount of resources must have been made available for it. Graham Hancock said it very nicely in a documentary I had taken part in. "The builders of the pyramids speak to us across the centuries and say 'We are not fools. . . . Take us seriously!'"11 His comment sums up exactly the conclusions I had reached in 1977: The pyramid builders were as intelligent as we are. How they applied their knowledge may have been different, but it is obvious that they possessed sufficient knowledge to create an artifact having a distinct feature that, so far, we have not been able to repeat. The bald fact is that the Great Pyramid—by any standard old or new—is the largest and most accurately constructed building in the world.
The discoveries at the Great Pyramid that have most interested me are those that involve the methods the ancient builders used to cut the material used to construct it—primarily the granite. Because I am involved in manufacturing, I have noticed many inconsistencies between what Egyptologists have taught regarding the tools that were supposedly used and the evidence that can be drawn from the masonry itself. In other words, the stones of the Great Pyramid tell me a different story than they have other observers. The stones tell me that they were cut using machine-power, not manpower as orthodox Egyptologists theorize.
Chapter Four
ADVANCED MACHINING IN ANCIENT EGYPT
In August 1984, Analog magazine published my article, ''Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt?" It was a study of Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh by Sir William Flinders Petrie. Since the article's publication, I have visited Egypt twice, and with each visit I leave with more respect for the ancient pyramid builders. While in Egypt in 1986, I visited the Cairo Museum and gave a copy of my article, along with a business card, to the director of the museum. He thanked me kindly, threw it in a drawer to join other sundry material, and turned away. Another Egyptologist led me to the "tool room" to educate me in the methods of the ancient masons by showing me a few cases that housed primitive copper tools. I asked my host about the cutting of granite, for that was the focus of my article. He explained that the ancient Egyptians cut a slot in the granite, inserted wooden wedges, and then soaked them with water. The wood swelled, creating pressure that split the rock. Splitting rock is vastly different than machining it, and he did not explain how copper implements were able to cut granite, but he was so enthusiastic with his dissertation that I did not interrupt. To prove his argument, he walked me over to a nearby travel agent, encouraging me to buy airplane tickets to Aswan, where, he said, the evidence is clear. I must, he insisted, see the quarry marks there, as well as the unfinished obelisk (see Figure 14).
Dutifully, I bought the tickets and arrived at Aswan the next day. (After learning some of the Egyptian customs, I got the impression that this was not the first time that my Egyptologist friend had made that trip to the travel agent.) The quarry marks I saw there did not satisfy me that the methods conventional theorists describe were the only means by which the pyramid builders quarried their rock (see Figure 15). For example, located in the channel which runs the length of the estimated 3,000-ton obelisk, I saw a large, conical hole drilled into the bedrock hillside that measures approximately twelve inches in diameter and three feet deep. The hole was drilled at an angle, with the top intruding into the channel space (see Figure 16). To my eye, it seemed likely that the ancients might have used drills to remove material from the perimeter of the obelisk, knocked out the webs between the holes, and then removed the cusps.
FIGURE 14. Quarry Marks at Aswan
The Aswan quarries were educational, although after returning to Cairo the following day and while strolling around the Giza Plateau later in the week, I started to question the quarry marks at Aswan even more. South of the Second Pyramid I found an abundance of quarry marks of similar nature. The granite casing stones that had sheathed the Second Pyramid were stripped off and lying around the base in various stages of destruction. Some of the stones were still in place, though sections had been split away from them, and there I found the same quarry marks that I had seen earlier in the week at Aswan. This was puzzling to me. Disregarding the impossibility of Egyptologists' theories on the ancient pyramid builders' quarrying methods, I wondered if these theories were valid even from a nontechnical, logical viewpoint. If those quarry marks distinctively identify the people who created the pyramids, why would they engage in such a tremendous amount of extremely difficult work only to destroy the work after having completed it? It seemed to me that the quarry marks at Aswan and on the Giza Plateau were made at a later time and that they were created by people who were interested only in obtaining granite without caring about its source.
FIGURE 15. Quarry Marks on Khafre's Pyramid Granite
FIGURE 16. Drill Hole at Aswan
As I pondered this revelation, I wondered about William Flinders Petrie, who had walked this plateau one hundred years before me. What drove him? What were his private thoughts about his studies that he did not share with the Royal Society or his colleagues? Being a pioneer in the field of Egyptology, his work greatly influenced the archaeological profession. It goes without saying that-archaeology is largely the study of history's toolmakers, and that archaeologists understand a society's level of advancement from its tools and artifacts. The hammer was probably the first tool ever invented, and hammers have forged some elegant and beautiful artifacts. Ever since humans first learned that they could effect profound changes in their environment by applying force with a reasonable degree of accuracy, the development of tools has been a continuous and fascinating aspect of human endeavor. The Great Pyramid, however, leads a long list of artifacts that have been misunderstood and misinterpreted by archaeologists, who have promoted theories and methods about its construction that cannot be explained using the tools they have excavated.
For the most part, archaeologists consider the primitive tools they discover as contemporaneous with the artifacts of the same period. During the pyramid building period in Egyptian history, artifacts were produced in prolific numbers and a great many have survived—but there are precious few tools that survive to explain their creation. Consequently, the ancient Egyptian artifacts cannot be explained in simple terms. What is more, the tools that have survived do not fully represent the state of the art that is evident in the artifacts themselves. The tools displayed by Egyptologists as instruments for the creation of many of these incredible a
rtifacts are physically in capable of reproducing them. After standing in awe before these engineering marvels, and then being shown a paltry collection of copper implements in the tool case at the Cairo Museum, I came away bemused and frustrated. In spite of ancient Egypt's most visible and impressive monuments, we have only a sketchy understanding of the full scope of its technology.
Petrie recognized that these tools were insufficient to explain Egyptian artifacts. He explored this anomaly thoroughly in his book, and he expressed amazement about the methods the ancient Egyptians used to cut hard, igneous rocks. He credited these ancient craftspeople with methods that we are only now beginning to appreciate. So why do modern Egyptologists insist that this work was accomplished with a few primitive copper instruments?
I am not an Egyptologist, I am a technologist. I do not have much interest in who died when, whom they may have taken with them, and where they went. I intend no disrespect for the mountain of work and the millions of hours of study conducted on this subject by intelligent scholars (professional and amateur), but my interest—thus my focus—is elsewhere. When I look at an artifact to investigate how it was manufactured, I am not concerned about its history or chronology. Having spent most of my career working with the machinery that actually creates modern artifacts—such as jet-engine components—I am able to analyze and determine how an artifact was created. I also have had training and experience in various nonconventional manufacturing methods, such as laser processing and electrical discharge machining. Having said this, I should state that, contrary to some popular speculations on the cutting of stone for the pyramids, I have not seen evidence of laser cutting on the Egyptian rocks. A variety of people have speculated that to erect a structure as perfect as the Great Pyramid, the builders must have possessed supernatural powers. Some even speculate that the builders used lasers to cut the masonry and then levitated the stones into place in the pyramid. While I cannot speak authoritatively regarding the builders' powers of levitation—whether the implementation of those powers was through the use of the mind or through the use of technology—I can say with reasonable confidence that no lasers were used in cutting the materials that went into building the Great Pyramid. Although the laser is a wonderful tool with many uses, its function as a cutting tool is limited to economically viable applications, such as cutting small holes in thin pieces of metal and refractory material. As a general purpose cutting tool, it cannot compete with the machining methods that were available before its inception.