- Series: Egyptology S
- Paperback: 168 pages
- Publisher: Liverpool University Press (January 1, 1993)
- Language: English
- ISBN-10: 085668600X
- ISBN-13: 978-0856686009
- Product Dimensions: 11.6 x 0.6 x 8.2 inches
- Shipping Weight: 1.8 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
- Average Customer Review: 4 customer reviews
- Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #6,768,115 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
How the Pyramids Were Built (Egyptology S)
Use the Amazon App to scan ISBNs and compare prices.
What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?
Top customer reviews
screaming, to the guillotine. If the nation Egypt could build a ramp, almost three times bigger than the
great pyramid, just to complete construction of the monument, why didn't they deconstruct the pyramid
and leave the ramp. With a base length of over a kilometer, a height the same and a width at least as great
as the Khufu Mastiff, it would have dwarfed the finished pyramid in all respects..
Being someone who has to resort to the materials available to lift or move heavy loads, my logic and mind often
turns to the lever. I've used mini ramps for mini lifts. But big lifts require either the wheel, pulley or a lever. Our
knowledge says the early Egyptians had access only to the latter.
I noted an earlier review that says there was no (or not enough) detail to explain the lifting and placing of
finished granite used in the various chambers,..see page 30. Simple. Get more levers on the job. If 4 levers
can lift 2 tons, 8 can lift 4, 16 can lift 8 etc.
Great book, go outside and start pushing bricks around. Our modern day apparatus, cranes are a type of lever (the wheel),
and they can build anything.
The "levers" method is simple, ideal in terms of efficiency, easy to implement, and above all : allowing thousands of simultaneous "levering" workshops (teams of probably 6 workers) spread across the pyramid at all levels.
By far, today's most convincing theory ! No phantom ramp cumulating all possible drawbacks (poor efficiency, useless ramp construction, major bottleneck induced by the ramp itself ...) ! No sophisticated machine unexpected at these early times !
Plus it happens to be the method described by Herodotus (5th century BC) !
Sadly, the book is not of great quality. It does not focus on the essential aspects of the theory and contains a lot of information that can be found anywhere else, usually better explained.
Probably due to the fact it was not written by Peter Hodges himself.
Question : When will a wise scholar have the courage, against the archeologists intelligentsia and against the medias (not sexy enough) to look at this simple theory from a pragmatic and scientific point of view ?
The text is not as comprehensive as I'd hoped. The third pyramid at Giza is barely explored, nor does the text address placing the large granite stones found in the "King's Chamber" and elsewhere. Nevertheless author Peter Hodges does a convincing job (and I needed to be convinced!) that indeed four guys and some jacks could muster the effort and, given enough time and teams, could construct these giant monuments.
As a bonus the book is full of diagrams and pictures demonstrating the author's ideas in many stages, all the way from table top model to lifting a car using his principles. I'm not sure this theory explains every bit of pyramid construction but it does a credible job in defending that portion of it far better than the often proposed ramps. (Ramp theories are effectively reduced to rubble both in the text and in additional material included by editor Julian Keable.)
Somewhat dated in language and tone, the material is still accessible and worthwhile for any seriously study of these magnificent human accomplishments.
It is great to see people from different professions/trades put forward different ideas .... but not sure this one provides us with a good alternative.