Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Building Pyramid
Building Pyramid
net/publication/259753032
Learning from the Past: The Ancient Egyptians and Geotechnical Engineering
CITATIONS READS
3 2,487
3 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Sayed Mohamed Ahmed on 18 January 2014.
ABSTRACT
There are numerous evidences that the Ancient Egyptians were
pioneers in Geology and Geotechnical Engineering. Some examples of
their revolutionary works are presented in this paper to show their genius
in mining, quarrying, tunneling, choice of the locations of their structures,
and introducing innovative solutions for dealing with problematic soils.
Engineers, especially geotechnical engineers, may consider returning to
the roots of civilizations and reevaluating the achievements of the ancients
by modern means such as Forensic Engineering. This could open the door
tounderstanding how the ancients built their wonders and why these wonders
survived millenniums. The study of old civilizations could introduce new
engineering and construction concepts that benefit the profession today.
This paper, which focuses primarily on the Ancient Egyptian engineering
achievements, raises questions rather than answers as to what geotechnical
engineers actually know about, and from, this great civilization; the authors
believe that we know very little despite it being the subject of numerous
in-depth studies that date as far back as the fifth century B.C. (the work of
Herodotus)and continued till the present day.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ARCHEOLOGY
Studying and preserving antiquities requires, among other disciplines,
38
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
39
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
Figure 1.Papyrus of Turin.Top:Left half of the Turin papyrus map.Bottom: Right half
of the Turin papyrus map
40
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
Figure 2. Extracts of the Papyrus of Turin showing annotations and identification of the
various topographic and geological features
41
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
It is believed that this pyramid was built as a tomb for the fourth dynasty
Egyptian Pharaoh Khufu (Cheops in Greek) and took approximately 20
years to construct. The below depicts some astonishing facts that are related
to the Great Pyramid (Petrie, 1883; Fakhry, 1961; Lehner, 1997, Jackson &
Stamp, 2003; Parry, 2005; Houdin, 2006; Hawass, 2006; Hawass, 2010):
1. Originally its height is believed to be 146.5 meter (about 50 floors) but
42
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
with erosion and the loss of its pyramidion, its current height today
is 138.8 meter. It remained the tallest man-made structure till the
Construction of Lincoln Cathedral in 1300 A.D. (i.e., over 3800 years).
2. Its side is about 230.4 meter in length. The four sides of the base have
an average error of only 58 millimeters in length. The finished base was
squared to a mean corner error ofonly 12 seconds of an arc. The base is
horizontal and flat to within ±15 mm. The sides of the square base are
closely aligned to the four cardinal compass points (within 4 minutes of
an arc) based on true north (not the magnetic north).
3. The ratio of the perimeter to height equates to 2π to an accuracy of better
than 0.05%. Petrie(1883) concluded: “but these relations of areas and of
circular ratio are so systematic that we should grant that they were in the
builder’s design”.
4. The mass of the pyramid is estimated at 5.9 million tons. Its volume
is roughly 2,500,000 cubic meters. The building materials include
limestone and granite blocks and mortar.
a. 2.3 million Limestone blocks (i.e., about 5.5 million tons of limestone)
were used in its construction. Mostly, the limestone blocks were
transported from Giza quarries that lie only a couple of hundred meters
south of the Great Pyramid (Figure 6).
b. The pyramid builders used stones of different sizes and heights for the
different layers. The stone blocks of Khufu’s pyramid were very large
in the lower layers (1.0m x 2.5m base dimensions and 1.0-1.5m high,
6.5-10 tons). For the layers that are higher up, it was easier to transport
smaller blocks (1.0m x 1.0m x 0.5m, appx 1.3 tons). For calculations
most Egyptologists use 2.5 tons as the weight of an average pyramid
stone block.
c. 8,000 tons of granite, were imported from Aswan located at more than
800 km away. The largest granite stones in the pyramid, found above the
“King’s” chamber, weigh 25 to 80 tons each.
d. About 500,000 tons of mortar were used in the construction of the Great
Pyramid.
e. Based on the common assumption that it took 20 years to build (it should
be noted that there are so many theories on this), it would requirethe
43
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
Figure 6. Quarries and harbors for the Pyramids. Orange = Limestone quarries on the
Giza plateau. Harbor facilities (exact position is not known)
44
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
45
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
Egyptian did not build the Pyramid from naturally durable limestone; they
used soft argillaceous limestone that contained naturally-occurring reactive
geopolymeric ingredients, like kaolinitic clay;this rock disaggregates easily
with the Nile water during floods to form a limestone mud. Pharaohsmixed
reactive geological materials (mafkat, a hydrated alumina and copper
silicate, overexploitedat the time of Cheops in the Sinai mines), Egyptian
natron salt (sodium carbonate, massively present in Wadi Natrum), and lime
coming from plants and wood ashes with the limestone mud. They carried
this limestone mud in baskets, poured it, then packed it in molds (made out
of wood, stone, crude brick), directly on the building site. According to
Davidovits theory, the blocks thus consist of 90 to 95% natural limestone
aggregates with its fossil shells, and 5 to 10% of geological glue cement
known as “geo-polymeric” binder based on aluminosilicates.
Davidovits uses a vase resembling an ashtray that has astonishingly
thin walls folded at the edges (Figure 11) to demonstrate the Pharaohs’
practical knowledge of the use of geopolymers. Anybody not knowing that
it is made of stone would believe it to be of some flexible material yet,
remarkably, the vase was made of one of the hardest rocks known to exist
in nature (anorthositic gneiss). Such a vase could never have been hewn
out this type of rock using a sculptor’s chisel even with extreme care. It
is possible that the Pharaohs used a stone paste produced by a chemical
reaction to form a rock.
Figure 8.A full ramp model in the Egyptian Museum (after Harris,2010)
46
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
Figure 9.Concept of the dual construction ramp for the Great Pyramid to its maximum
ramp height of 64 m (after Harris,2010)
three pyramids. The first one, the Meidum Pyramid, failed during
construction due to the weak friable rocks used in its construction and due
to the outside thrust resulting from the great inclination (74 deg.) although
it was built in stages, with residue of rock cuts in-between, apparently to
reduce this thrust (Figure 13).Despite this failure, this staged approachmay
indicate that the Ancient Egyptians were aware of the stability of slopes
constructed by rock blocks.
Sneferu also learnt from the cracks in his second pyramid, the Bent
47
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
Figure 11. A vase from the ancient Egyptian Empire (3000 to 2400 BC)
(after Davidovits, 2009)
Figure 12.A sketch showing a cross section in the Step Pyramid with its elements
(M: Mastaba, P1: Pyramid 1 and P2: Pyramid 2)
48
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
Figure 13.Stages of construction of the Figure 14.Inclination of the bottom and top
Meidum Pyramid parts of the Bent Pyramid
The approach adopted bythe 4th Dynasty to determine the safe slope
for the pyramids is knownnowadays as the Geotechnical Observational
Method. In its simplest definition, it is a method to fill the gaps in the
available information and method of analysis by observations (Peck, 1969).
Regardless of the unsolved riddles for the reason for building the Pyramids
and the technique(s) employed to build these massive structures, different
geotechnical failures would have been inevitable had the Pharaohs chosen
to build the Pyramids along the Nile valley where they lived. It is amazing
to note that the maximum static stress under the Greater Pyramids is abbout
3500 kPa; yet this huge stress value did not entail any observed or likely
foundation failurre (bearing capacity or excessive settlement). Geologically
speaking, the site of the Giza Pyramids is refered to as the Gizza Plateau
and is located west of Cairo (29.97922° N, 31.13442° E) on the west side
of the Nile in keeping with the Pharaohs’ religious beliefs during that
era. Geological studies (Said, 1990)show that the huge monuments of
49
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
50
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
elements of the Theban Mountain. Thedark blue dashed line shows the
limit of the alluvial plain of the Nile; green dotted linesdelineate the listric
fault separating the tabular structure from the tilted compartments while the
yellow dotted line shows the limit of the northern basin.
Figure 16. The Settlement contours of Oroville Dam vs. the location of the king’s burial
room in the Great Pyramid
51
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
through it (Figure 20). The vein is fragile and the builders must have
taken care not to destroy it completely. Moreover, the builder painted
lines characterizingthe upper surface of the vein and tracing the lines of
the oblique structure;this could be one of the earliest known mappings
of tectonic structures.
2. A striated more flat-lying fault was found to form part of the ceiling
of the burial chamber (J2) of tomb KV47 (Siptah). The builders again
integrated the fault surface into the design of the tomb, and may even
have adjusted the height of the ceiling accordingly.
Guillaume and Piau (2003) studied for the effect of Esna Shale on a
tomb in the Valley of the Kings. They noted that excavations in Esna shale
were covered with limestone powder and they suggested that Pharaohs used
that to mitigate the swelling of this stratum when it is exposed to moisture.
Figure 17. The Valley of Kings Figure 18.The Structural Geology Setting
Map for the Theban Necropolis (after Aubry
et al., 2009)
52
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
STONE QUARRYING
The Ancient Egyptiansarewell-knownfor the utilizationof stones
forbuilding, as ornaments, gems, and utilitarian applications. These stones
came mainly from the Nile Valley andEastern Desert (with some also from
the Western Desert), where over 200 quarries have been discoveredspanning
about 3500 years from the Late Predynastic Period to the Late Roman Period
(Harrelland Storemyr, 2009). Limestone and sandstone were the main
building stones of ancient Egypt,from the Early Dynastic times onward.
Limestone was the material of choice for the Pyramids, mastaba tombs, and
temples within the limestone region. From the late Middle
Kingdom onward, sandstone was used for all temples within the
sandstone region as well as many of those in the southern part of the
limestone region(Arnold, 1991;Nicholson & Shaw, 2000).
Ornamental stones were used in the construction of statues and other
sculptures; they used the most durable rocks and blocks of intact rock free
of joints or other defects for such monuments. Statues, stone vessels and
temple columns were made of granite quarried from Gabal el Asr in Nubia
and Tombos in modern Sudan whileblack granite was mined in Aswan
(Figures21&22). The statues of Ramses IIand king Khafre and other
obelisks were sculpted from the diorite rocks of Aswan (Figures23&24).
Fine sculptures werealso made of Egyptian alabaster that wasextracted from
the caves along the Nile valley and from the eastern desert;Figure25shows
the magnificent Tutankhamen’s Alabaster Boat.
Figure 21.Granitic head of Figure 22. Granitic columns of the ValleyTemple in the
Amenhotep III Giza Pyramids area
53
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
Many of the quarry sites used during the Pharaonictime still show
distinct signs of their ancient use. The use of a quarry spanned many
years and the reigns of many kings. Inscriptions found at the sites provide
chronological information about the periods when each quarry was active.
At the moment of a quarry’s “opening,” or first use, an official event would
often be held, commemorated by an inscribed and dated rock-cut stele.
An example of the use of different stones in one building is the
Temple of Karnak (Sullivan, 2008). Sandstone, limestone, and red granite
were the primary types of stone used for constructingthe large decorative
features. Other rocks, like red quartzite, black granite, and travertine
(calcite or “Egyptian alabaster”) were utilized in much smaller quantities.
High quality limestone was shipped to Thebes from the quarries in Tura
and Massara, near modern Cairo. Gebel el-Silsila, located 160 km South
of Thebes, was the main source for the temple’s sandstone. The obelisks,
lintels, door thresholds and colossal statues of red granite decorating
Karnak were supplied from the area around modern Aswan. Material for
the calcite/travertine shrines and chapels (such as the one-room chapels of
Amenhotep I orAmenhotep II) originated from Hatnub, in Middle Egypt.
54
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
55
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
the top or face of a natural rock cliff. Workers removed the weathered
surface layers and rubble to exposethe massive rock of the desired size
and then marked off a series of spaces that would form trenches between
the intended blocks (Figure 26). Trenches were then excavated in sections
around the future block after checking it to confirm that the stone was not
flawed. The stones were excavated with copper and, later, bronze picks
and chisels during the Dynastic Period,and with iron tools replacing the
earlier ones by the end of the Late Period.If the material appeared sound,
the trenches around the entire block perimeter were completed, freeing the
blocks from the surrounding mass. The removal of the blocks at their base
may have been accomplished using wooden
levers (Figure 227).Once the entire system of trenches had been
brought down to the needed depth, the block then had to be detached along
its base. For smaller blocks, this may have been done using wodden wedges,
hamered or weted too crack the stone free. A quarry for limestone is shown
in Figure 28.
56
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
Figure 27. Releasing rock blocks by Figure 28.A limestone quarry at Zawyet El-Amwat
levers (after Arnold, 1991) (after Harrell& Storemyr, 2009)
Soft rocks were more frequently sent to the work site undressed
(unpolished), with the sides often dressed only after the block was laid into
a wall or building. This labor saving technique allowed workers to smooth
only those sides that would be visible.
Hard rocks (nearly all the igneous and metamorphic rocks plus
silicified sandstone and chert) were even more difficult to quarry. They
were quarried using stone tools aided by fire setting and wood levers up
until the Late Period, when the stone tools were replaced by iron ones. The
techniques involved in extracting granite are well known from the remains
of the quarries at Aswan. Workers used a process involving pounding hard
dolerite balls on the rock bed as the metal tools used during most of the
Pharaonic period were not sufficiently hard to excavate such hard materials
57
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
58
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
Figure 31.Trenches under the columns in Karnak Temple (after Arnold, 1991)
The foundations for the great hypostyle hall consisted of one-half meter
of sand “cushion” that is contained within an outer stone lining and topped by
a layer of stone. The columns stood for over 3000 years. When the columns
began to lean and eventually fell in 1899, some archeologistspointed the
finger at the use of small sandstone blocks (found crushed by the weight
of the huge columns) for the upper foundation layer. They suspected that
these blocks had been weakened from years of exposure to groundwater.
More recently, it has been suggested that the intervention of archaeologists
who dug trenches in the area to drain water from the flooded hall is what
disturbed the sand layers beneath the columns, destabilized the foundation,
and caused the columns to topple.
59
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
60
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
Thee first pyramid is the Step Pyramid in Sakkara that was built
by the 33rd Dynasty King Zoser about 2650 B.C.The Step Pyramid has
sixstepsaboveground made up of layers inclined against a steep sided core.
Under the step pyramid is a labyrinth of tunneled chambers and galleries that
total nearly 6 km in length and connect to a central square shaft 7mx7mm
and 28m deep. These spaces provide room for the king’s burial, the burial
61
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
of family members,, and the storage of goods for the “life after death” and
offerings to the gods. On the east side of the pyramid eleven shafts 32 m
deep each were constructed and anexed to horizontal tunnels for the royal
harem (Figgure 12).
Under the Great Pyramids lies an underground chamber that is
considered an abandoned burial room as it is replaced by the above
ground King’schamber (Figure 34). The underground chamber could be
reached from the opening of the pyramid (55 feet above ground level) by a
descending passage (tunnel) cut in the plateau of Giza rock with a length of
82 m and ending in a chamber.
Figure 34. A cross section in the Great Pyramid showing the underground excavations
62
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
Figure 38. Decoration in Seti Figure 39. Tomb of the sons of Ramses II
I tomb
63
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
located in the main wadi of the Valley of the Kings. It is unique in size, plan
and purpose (Figure 39). The entry is formed by an inclined tunnel which
leads to two small similar chambers (1 and 2) and a large chamber(3) that
is 16mx16m with its roof supported by 16 stone pillars. The tomb has so
far revealed 121 corridors and chambers. It is likely that the number of
discovered chambers will increase to reach 150 or even more. It is largest
tomb in the Valley of Kings; pillared chamber 3 is the largest chamber of
any tomb there.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The Ancient Egyptians left a wealth of knowledge behind them that we
are still discovering and trying to unravel. In this paper, some of the well-
known Pharaonic monuments and engineering achievements are presented
and discussedfrom a geotechnical perspective.
Geology is the base of geotechnical engineering. This paper shows
how the Ancient Egyptians knew geology and made use of it. They drew
the first geological and topographic map, identifying different lithological
units. Their knowledge of geology allowed them to mine, tunnel, quarryand
make best use of rock discontinuities as well asavert/accommodate many
distressing effects on their tunnels and extracted rock blocks.
Choice of locations for their great buildings and temples is a
geotechnical marvel. The locations were selected at such “geotechnically
appropriate” locations that they allowed the structures to stand the challenge
of time and “live” thousands of years.
Large/full scale models and “phasing” were used to enable the
construction of large unparalleled structures safely. This was the precursor
to the Geotechnical Observational Method we, much later, re-discovered
Not all their construction was on “good” rocks or favorable soil/
ground conditions;Ancient Egyptians also knew of problematic soils, their
treatment/stabilization and developed foundation measures that enabled
them to found on these soils safely.Erosion and water control structures are
still seen today in the remains of Sadd El-Kafara, the oldest dam known
to mankind. Despite its failure as a result of lack of diversion provisions
during construction, this dam attests to the engineering capabilities they
used to have.
64
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
65
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
66
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
Hawass, Z.A., 2006, “Mountains of the Pharaohs: The Untold Story of the
Pyramid Builders”, Doubleday, p. 213.
Hawass, Z.A., 2010, “Wonders of the Pyramids: The Sound and Light of
Giza”, American University in Cairo Press, p. 88.
Houdin, J., 2006, “The Secrets Behind the Building of The Great Pyramid”,
Farid Atiya Press, 2006, p. 160.
Jackson, K. & Stamp, J., 2003, “Building the Great Pyramid”, Firefly
Books, p. 191.
Jamiolkowski, M., 1999, “The Leaning Tower of Pisa”. The ‘XIV Licao
Manuel Rocha’ 1997. Geotecnia Journal, Nº.85, pp. 9-42 , Portuguese
Geotech. Soc., Lisbon.
Jamiolkowski, M., 2001, “The Leaning Tower of Pisa: end of an Odyssey”.
Terzaghi Oration, Proc. XV ICSMGE, Istanbul. Vol 4, pp. 2979-2996.
Balkema, Lisse.
Jamiolkowski, M., Lancellotta, R. & Pepe, M., 1993, “The Leaning Tower
of Pisa – Updated information”. III International Conference on Case
Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis, Missouri, 1-4 June
1993, SOA3.
Janssen, J.J., 1994, “An exceptional event at Deir El-Medina (P. Turin 1879,
verso II)”, Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 31,
pp. 91-97.
Kerisel, J., 1985, “The history of geotechnical engineering up until 1700”,
Proceedings of the eleventh International Conference on Soil mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, 1985, pp. 12–16.
Kerisel, J., 1988, “A Glimpse of Geotechnical Engineering during the Fourth
and Third Millenia B.C.”, Engineering Geology of Ancient Works,
Monuments and Historical Sites, Eds. Marios & Koukis, Balkema,
pp. 1641-1651.
Kulhawy, F.H., & Duncan, J. M., 1972, “Stresses and Movements in Oroville
Dam”, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol.
98, No. 7, July 1972, pp. 653-665.
Lasing, A., 1933, “Shaft-sinking by Caissons in Ancient Egypt”, Engineering
News-Record, Vol. 111, Issue 23, pp. 675
67
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
Lehner, M., 1997, “The Complete Pyramids: Solving the Ancient Mysteries”,
Thames and Hudson, p.256.
Malek, J., 1983, “Who Was the First to Identify the Saqqara Serapeum?”,
Chronique d’Egypte Bruxelles, 58(115-116), pp. 65-72.
Mays, L., 2008, “A very brief history of hydraulic technology during
antiquity”, Environmental Fluid Mechanics, Volume 8, Issue 5-6, pp.
471-484.
Mays, L., 2010, “Water Technology in Ancient Egypt”, in “Ancient Water
Technologies”,Springer, p. 275
Nicholson, P.T., & Shaw, I., 2000, “Ancient Egyptian Materials and
Technology”, Oxford University Press, p.702.
Parry, D., 2004, “Engineering the Pyramids”, Gloucestershire, Sutton
Publishing, p. 195.
Peck, R.B, 1969,“Advantages and limitations of the observational method
in applied soil mechanics”, Geotechnique, 19, No. 1, pp. 171–187
Petrie, W. M. F., 1883, “The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh”, available
on http://www.ronaldbirdsall.com/gizeh/. Piguet, J.P, Helal, H. &
Imam, E., 1988, “Geotechnical phenomena in sites and monuments
of Egyptian antiquity”, The engineering geology of ancient works,
monuments and historical sites, Preservation and protection,
Proceedings of an international symposium, Athens, 19-23 September
1988, , Vol. 1: engineering geology and the protection of historical
sites and monuments, Publisher: A.A. Balkema, pp. 153-160. Rao,
V.V.S., 2009, “Introduction to Forensic Geotechnical Engineering”,
Chapter 1 in “Forensic Geotechnical Engineering”, A Workshop on
FGE by ISSMGE TC 40, Editor:
Rao, V.V.S., Bangalore on 12th Sept.2009.
Raynaud, S., Boisse, H., Makroum, F. M. & Bertho, J., 2008, “Geological
and Geomorphological Study of the Original Hill at the base of
Fourth Dynasty Egyptian Monuments”, http://hal.archives-ouvertes.
fr/docs/00/31/95/86/PDF/PyramidsSR.pdf.
Said, R., 1990, “The Geology of Egypt”, 1st Ed., Taylor & Francis, p. 734.
Sasaki, T., Hagiwara, I., Sasaki, K., Yoshinaka, R., Ohnishi, Y., Nishiyama,
68
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
S., and Koyama, T., 2011, “Stability Analyses for Ancient Masonry
Structures using Discontinuous Deformation Analysis and Numerical
Manifold Method”, Int. J. Comput. Methods 08, 247 (2011)
Schnitter, N. J., 1994, “A History of Dams, The Useful Pyramids”, A.A.
Balkema: Rotterdam, Netherlands, p.266.
Shenouda, W.K., 1994, “Background and history of Dam Construction in
Egypt”, International water power &dam construction, Vol. 46, pp.
17-23.
Sullivan, E., 2008, “Construction Methods and Building Materials”, On
Digital Karnak, Los Angeles. http://dlib.etc.ucla.edu/projects/Karnak
Weeks, K.R., 2000, “Atlas of the Valley of the Kings(The Theban mapping
project)”, American University in Cairo Press, p. 144.
69