|

|

|
Comments
Set 7, posted March 20, 1999
previous set
|
next set
Question:
If I were given the job and the resources to do it, what
better way than to use water?
-
They obviously had the shipbuilding technology to
transport such items, so they could reverse this
procedure and build a dry dock at the site.
-
Provide the monolith with flotation collars at optional
locations. The collar should be located at just
overcenter (lengthwise) and the secondary flotation
collar located toward the base.
-
Close the container and fill it with water and when the
desired elevation is achieved, flood the base.
Dennis Scott-Jackson Burnaby, British Columbia
Response from Roger Hopkins, stonemason:
Dennis, the Egyptians were really great at building canals
and dams, but they seem to be lacking in putting all the
hydraulics into transferring water from one place to
another. It's doubtful that they would have been filling
chambers with water. To use this flotation idea, they would
have had to have mastered moving great quantities of water,
because no matter what they built it would have leaked quite
rapidly.
Question:
I read your dispatch about the pulling progress. (See
'Pulling Together'.) If the pullers cannot maintain the dragging, then maybe
the approach is just a few feet at a time. Try anchoring the
ends of the ropes, then attach ropes to the middle and pull
perpendicular. You increase your mechanical advantage. Your
advantage finally drops to just 2X when the ropes hit 30
degrees from the direction you are trying to pull (at 10
degrees it's more than a 5X advantage, 20 degrees it's
3X—try the math).
Andrew Kulich Rochester, Minnesota
Response from Roger Hopkins, stonemason:
Andrew, I agree with you that there is a lot of mechanical
advantages to pulling rope perpendicular, but in my own
personal opinion, I believe that they only pulled the
obelisks very short distances. They would bring the obelisk
by boat as close as possible and then they would have
probably used rollers and a very firm rope—a
combination of rollers and levers and
rope—pulling—because it's a little easier to
control. If you're depending entirely on ropes, they can act
unfavorably at times.
Question:
After carefully observing the obelisk, it seems as if it was
carved after being raised. It is very possibly easier to
raise the obelisk in an "un-careful" state (not wanting to
damage the carving) using a vertical drop. Being pulled
carefully by rope over the drop (as seen in many Egyptian
demonstrations), the obelisk would be pulled and standing at
a vertical state.
(name witheld by request)
Response from Roger Hopkins, stonemason:
It's always best when you're carving into a block of granite
to be working on the flat. So, it's probably likely that
they did the carvings and rotated it on the ground. On the
vertical, you could do some changes there, but it requires a
lot of staging and it's more difficult work when the granite
is in a standing position. As for being careful, they would
had to have been careful whether it was carved or uncarved,
because they went to a lot of trouble to get that block of
stone there.
Question:
You almost had it the first time. Why couldn't you raise it
with oxen? I would suggest the A-frame to be tilted more
towards the pulling team from the start or set up two
shorter A-frames in a series.
(name witheld by request)
Response from Henry Woodlock, Whitby Bird & Partners:
You are right. When the rest of the team did their first
attempt, A-frames in series would have helped. However, when
you consider the largest obelisks, the use of A-frames
becomes less appealing. The forces involved require enormous
frames. The key to using this technique is getting elevation
height above the object and reducing the force required by
tilting the obelisk to a steep angle first.
Question:
As far as I could tell from your program, the problem is
essentially one of controlled descent. Two methods were
used, and a combination of the two seems to be reasonable: A
very steep ramp (steeper than that used in the program),
with raised blocks built into the ramp that guide the sled
in its descent. These blocks could even be placed at an
angle or shaped for the purpose of catching and guiding the
sled. It would seem that these blocks, or even the whole
ramp structure, could be reused, so it's conceivable that
most of the work that you would have to do in raising an
obelisk would be a matter of fabricating stonework that the
Egyptians had on hand from past projects.
Markers would have to be placed at the runway at the top of
the ramp to guide the sled; the blocks that physically guide
the sled will, of course, be buried in the sand used to
control the descent of the sled. The sled would be pulled
onto the bed of sand to the point of balance, the sand would
be released, and the sled would slowly slide down the (very
steep) ramp. The descent is controlled by a combination of
sand removal and support ropes from behind. The bottom of
the obelisk could be fitted into the turning groove in this
manner. The sled runners, the height of the block, the
location of the turning groove, and the base of the obelisk
would have to all be coordinated, but this should not
require any great feat of math (not that I pretend to be an
expert in either math or the ancient Egyptians' grasp of
it).
Anyway, setting the base of the obelisk, I believe, is a
matter of a sand-controlled, block-guided descent down a
very steep ramp to a pre-measured destination. The steeper
the ramp, the better (I would guess), because this would put
the obelisk at such an angle so that getting it upright
would be easier.
Once this was done, many possibilities present themselves. A
long structure could be built at a right angle from the top
of the obelisk before it is erected: It would look like an
inverted "L." The beam perpendicular to the obelisk would
have to be supported from the end of the beam farthest from
the obelisk to the base of the obelisk, creating a
triangular structure laying against the side of the obelisk
and attached to it; the widest part of the triangle at the
top of the obelisk and a pointy end at the bottom. (The
obelisk itself would form one of the longest sides of the
triangle, with its base at the most acute angle of the
triangle at the base of the obelisk.) I don't know if the
Egyptians from that period understood the idea that a
triangular brace will make a structure stronger, or if they
had material which would make such a structure possible.
Assuming that such a structure is feasible, it would be
attached to the obelisk before it was lowered into the pit.
The obelisk would be lowered as before, and the sandpit
would be disassembled around the obelisk and its attached
structure once the sand was drained. Many ropes would be
attached to the end of the beam perpendicular to the top of
the obelisk on the end of the beam farthest from the
obelisk.
Someone would then have to climb out onto the end of the
beam and start hoisting up sandbags. As a practical touch, a
little seat could be built onto the end of the beam for this
purpose. This would add comfort and efficiency, because I
contemplate a slow pace in this phase—about 10 to 20
pounds at a time. Since we are talking about such huge
weights, this would take a good deal of time, but by the
same reasoning, a platform with three men could work pretty
steadily at the end of the beam.
This method would, of course, present the problem of
enormous torsion at the base of the obelisk if the
counterweight were not balanced along the midline of the
obelisk. Also, if the whole contraption were not balanced
properly, the structure would likely collapse; it is not
built to take lateral strain in one direction. Lateral
strain in two directions, however, would have the net effect
of balancing the whole contraption. The balancing could be
done in the following manner. Ropes would be placed like guy
wires on each side if the obelisk and structure. These would
be "paired" ropes, two ropes to each support. The ropes
could then be twisted with large poles to control the
lateral movement of the obelisk and the counterweight.
Further, the ropes could be stretched over A-frames to make
them more manageable. Someone could "eyeball" the structure
from a distance, and with either runners or hand signals,
fine-tune the raising of the obelisk.
The whole would, of course, have to be supported from behind
in order to keep it from toppling forward once the
counterweight went past the point of balance. These support
ropes would be pre-twisted in a manner that the tension on
them could be slowly released. Once the obelisk was upright,
the sandbags would be cut away one by one, and the tension
on the ropes slowly released, and the obelisk would be left
standing once the structure was cut away from it.
A theoretically similar method to the above involves the use
of A-frames. Instead of one A-frame, however, an array of
A-frames would be used, much in the same manner as a very
large team of horses is arrayed from a very heavy load. Some
of the A-frames would be closer to the "load" and some would
be farther away, but in the end, all would pull in the same
purpose. Again, lateral guide ropes would be twisted to
control lateral movement, and sandbags would be used to pull
the A-frames.
I really think this would work. The ropes could be attached
to the obelisk and then stretched over the A-frames.
Sandbags could then be attached to the ends of the ropes
after they are stretched over the A-frames. Again, the
sandbags would be attached one at a time. A few bags could
be attached in the beginning to make the A-frames stand up,
and then two people could be stationed at each frame to
hoist sand bags. Note that this would not require cruelly
heavy labor on the part of anyone, and the methods used
would be only moderately dangerous. Further, it would not
require huge crews, and could be accomplished with about a
hundred people (assuming that each frame can pull a ton).
The A-frames could probably not lift the whole obelisk at
once, and would have to be moved several times in order to
bring it all of the way up. The obelisk, of course, would
have to be supported from behind each time it was lifted a
little. This would probably change their relative positions,
and they would have to be initially spaced so that they will
not interfere with each other throughout the whole of the
project. Again, the ascent of the obelisk would be
controlled laterally and from behind with twisted ropes.
Once the obelisk was upright, the sandbags would be slowly
cut away from the A-frames and the tension on the ropes
would be released.
To sum up, I would raise the obelisk by sand-controlled and
block-guided descent down a very steep ramp and then use a
large counterweight balanced by ropes to help in raising the
obelisk. Or, I would use several A-frames to slowly pull the
obelisk into position once it was placed in the turning
groove by the controlled descent described above. Again,
sand, and not brute human pulling power, would be used as
both the force and control needed to raise the extremely
heavy obelisk once it was in the turning groove.
Marcus Vise New Orleans, Louisiana
Response from Henry Woodlock, Whitby Bird & Partners:
The difficulty with the sand method is twofold. First, there
is the size of the construction required to get the height
of the ramp. Sandbanks are naturally at quite a shallow
angle, and if it is banked up high enough for the big
obelisks, the pile would cover an enormous area. I sometimes
feel that the implications of this have not been considered.
In the temples, monuments are closely spaced and all would
be covered in sand during the erection of the latest
obelisk.
The second difficulty with sandpits is control. How do you
let sand out of a chamber evenly to avoid the obelisk going
off course? We saw the difficulties on the last NOVA
program, and that was with a tiny obelisk. A 'sand-box' has
been suggested by some archaeologists. The suggestion has
been that mudbrick was used to enclose the sand. I remain
skeptical about the ability of mudbrick walls to resist the
lateral pressures of the huge height of sand. Sand control
makes sense to me for cuboid heavy objects like a
sarcophagus or some statues, but not for the shape of the
obelisk.
The raising methods you describe are all feasible from a
steep angle. The reason I hesitate to use an A-frame to pull
the obelisk the last few degrees to vertical is the risk of
overturning the obelisk. It may be easier to pull in a less
direct way at the front by 'swigging' (pulling horizontally
on anchored vertical ropes) and brake the obelisk at the
back to achieve fine control.
Question:
How were the mummies wrapped?
Alexis Reading, Pennsylvania
Response from Rob Meyer, NOVA:
Alexis, that's an interesting question. I would suggest
checking out
Mummies of the World,
part of NOVA's Web site
Ice Mummies of the Inca, in
which we explore that very issue.
Explore Ancient Egypt
|
Raising the Obelisk |
Meet the Team
Dispatches |
Pyramids |
E-Mail |
Resources
Classroom Resources
| Site Map |
Mysteries of the Nile Home
Editor's Picks
|
Previous Sites
|
Join Us/E-mail
|
TV/Web Schedule
About NOVA |
Teachers |
Site Map |
Shop |
Jobs |
Search |
To print
PBS Online |
NOVA Online |
WGBH
©
| Updated November 2000
|
|
|