Many people feel that the propositions of mainstream Egyptologists concerning the manner of construction of the pyramids of Giza are in error, or albeit deceptive (Malkowski, & Schwaller, 2007). The rationale for such arguments is the existence of the idea that it would not have been easy for the Egyptians of ancient times to have constructed the pyramids. Additionally, the idea of the mystery of the construction process revolves around the fact that the technologies of the ancient Egyptians do not equal the architectural designs of the pyramids (Malkowski & Schwaller, 2007, p. 56). Using the mentioned ideologies rather than the historical and the archeological evidence, there are a number of theories put forward to explain the construction of Egypt’s landmark, the Pyramids of Giza. Therefore, this work describes two theories that explain the mystery of the construction of the pyramids.
The first theory is the work of Margie Morris and Dr. Joseph Davidovits, who propose that the pyramids were built of exceptionally high-quality concrete and limestone, which they suppose was synthetic stone. They argued that the blocks used in the process were made of more than 90% limestone rubble and nearly 10% cement (Orcutt, 2000, p. 45). Therefore, the two academicians suggested that the characteristics of such blocks were beyond those of natural limestone of the time.
There was also no requirement for stone hauling or cutting for the construction process (Orcutt, 2000, p. 45). The two writes further explain that the building blocks of the pyramids were not quarried and did not require cutting or movements. How they moved up the whole height of the pyramids is explicable from the reasoning that workers lifted buckets of slurry to the places of making the limestone blocks atop the pyramids. From such a perspective, there is the conclusion that the theory explains the fact that the construction blocks did not require moving nor cutting.
Another theory is the development of the ideas of Martin Isler in his book, On Pyramid Building, and Peter Hodges in his writings in the book, How the Pyramids Were Built. Their ideas provide a school of thought that ancient Egyptians constructed the Pyramids of Giza by the use of levers in lifting the building blocks to the required elevations. They based their ideas on the fact that some of the rocks found on the pyramids had bosses at their bottoms that would facilitate the use of levers but were later removed (Rigano, 2014, p. 67). They also suggest the idea that the architects of the time combined ramps with levers to ensure that the blocks reached the required heights.
The theory advanced by both Margie Morris and Dr. Joseph Davidovits is more plausible than the other theory because of two reasons. It is noteworthy that the reasoning provided for the choice of theoretical bases on their strengths and weaknesses. First, there is evidence that the blocks used in the construction were uncut. From such a perspective, there is a rational thought that the blocks were made to fit into one another in a jig saw.
Had such blocks been moved from anywhere else, they would prove difficult to fit without re-sizing. Another reason is the idea that the levels of technology that existed at that time could not have allowed the constructors to move such huge blocks to the levels required with the ease supposed. Therefore, the possibility of the use of technologies such as levers does not suit the argument to such a level.
References
Malkowski, E. F., & Schwaller, L. R. A. (2007). The Spiritual Technology of Ancient Egypt: Sacred Science and the Mystery of Consciousness. Rochester: Vermont. Web.
Orcutt, L. (2000). Some Alternate Theories of Pyramid Construction. Web.
Rigano, Charles. (2014). Pyramids of the Giza Plateau: Pyramid Complexes of Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaure. Bloomington: Authorhouse. Web.