top | item 7687391

Egyptians may have moved massive pyramid stones on wet sand

41 points| era86 | 12 years ago |washingtonpost.com | reply

30 comments

order
[+] AlexMuir|12 years ago|reply
"[A team of eight researchers led by Daniel Bonn] placed a laboratory version of an Egyptian sledge in a bin of sand that had been dried in the oven. Then they threw down some water, and measured the grains’ stiffness."

Surely the way to test this theory isn't to make a model of a sledge, and bake some wet sand in an oven in your lab in Amsterdam! Go to Cairo, build a wooden sledge, get some water and fifty men for an hour and see whether one can sledge two tons across wet sand. I quite fancy testing it out myself. Perhaps I could run a Kickstarter to build a pyramid.

[+] DanBC|12 years ago|reply
But doing the lab experiment is a useful first step, before you get on a plane and travel a few thousand miles!

Egypt today is probably quite different to the Egypt of 4,500 years ago. Would that influence the experiement at all?

[+] afarrell|12 years ago|reply
Why Cairo? Why not Fort Mohave, Arizona?
[+] junto|12 years ago|reply
The picture is quite convincing indeed... once I was biased by the explanation!

For those of you that haven't read the article yet, I suggest you study the picture with the hieroglyphics in detail first and then read the conclusion!

Edit:

Just to be clear, I wanted others to have the benefit of seeing the picture before the explanation, because after the fact I had no idea whether I had been biased by what I had read first! I wasn't trying to suggest it was biased per se! I have no idea whether I was biased or not. I can't undo history.

[+] chc|12 years ago|reply
OK, I did that. Still haven't read the article yet, actually. It looks like a statue on sled with a guy pouring something out in front of it. And having now read the article, it appears that's exactly the same conclusion it reaches.
[+] eurleif|12 years ago|reply
I think it's quite convincing once you know the scientific fact that dragging an object requires half the work on wet sand. What's the alternative: that the Egyptians did at some point drag objects on wet sand, but that they didn't know it made things easier? Wouldn't they immediately learn that the first time they tried it, even if they first tried it for a different reason?
[+] kabdib|12 years ago|reply
In 3,000 years, I'd love to see what archeologists have to say about our code (assuming any of it survives, which IMHO is a long shot):

"Ancient engineers used text editors to write machine language."

"But how did they construct network packets?"

"With Emacs macros. And purification rituals involving Python."

"No way. It had to have been aliens."

[+] te_platt|12 years ago|reply
I love seeing how clever people figure out ways to solve problems with the tools they have. Also good to remember hacking didn't start with and doesn't only apply to computers.
[+] whoismua|12 years ago|reply
computers have only been around for a few decades, "people" have been solving their daily problems for millions of years.
[+] amalag|12 years ago|reply
Stephen Colbert tweeted:

A new theory says wet sand was used to build the pyramids. But where did the aliens get all that wet sand???

[+] maw|12 years ago|reply
If the water had the appropriate level of wetness, something called “capillary bridges” — extremely small droplets of water that glue together individual grains of sand — would form.

I wonder what happened when the water wasn't wet enough.

[+] eurleif|12 years ago|reply
I like this part, in reference to a painting that shows water being poured on the sand in front of a sled:

>“In fact, Egyptologists had been interpreting the water as part of a purification ritual, and had never sought a scientific explanation. And friction is a terribly complicated problem; even if you realize that wet sand is harder – as in a sandcastle, you cannot build on dry sand — the consequences of that for friction are hard to predict.”

Makes me wonder what other practical things we might be misinterpreting as rituals. Are we constantly ignoring ancient cultures' innovations because we assume they have no practical purpose?

[+] alex_doom|12 years ago|reply
Well technically, the slaves built the pyramids. They just don't get the credit in the README.
[+] aspidistra|12 years ago|reply
Unless Bertolt Brecht is writing it.
[+] unknown|12 years ago|reply

[deleted]

[+] bri3d|12 years ago|reply
That's a terrible summary; even the strong proponent of the Egyptian concrete theory quoted in the article suggests 10-20% of the blocks were cast of a synthetic material.

That means that there's still reason to go looking for the method of transport for the other 80-90% of the blocks.

[+] zyxley|12 years ago|reply
> In all, the scientists say, “the Egyptians were probably aware of this handy trick.”

Wheelwrights hate him! Use this one weird old trick to make your pyramid bigger!

[+] mrbill|12 years ago|reply
How many times is someone going to discover yet another way the Egyptians built the pyramids?
[+] whoismua|12 years ago|reply
OK, but how did they move the water? I can't load the Uni page to see how much water was needed but if we're talking miles or tens of miles, we should be talking about a lot of water. Water that dries very quickly so the path has to be wet again for the next load.
[+] venomsnake|12 years ago|reply
I think that egyptians had access to irrigation technology. And from what I remember as a kid on the beach you don't need that much water - you only need to create a film.

A few ways come to mind - a channel from nile parallel to the hauling route. On the barge itself.

Although I would have used combination of highly polished wood, leather/hides on wood planks and cooking oil. And crews that just take the back pieces and move them in front.