The Linear Ramp Theory

The argument

The Roman Greek writer Diodorus Siculus (1st century BC) claimed that the Egyptians used ramps because they had not yet invented cranes needed to lift the blocks. That leaves open which kind of ramp was used, and on this argument an external ramp is the most likely method used by the Egyptians — a simple linear one rather than any of the more elaborate schemes that have been proposed. The case rests first on evidence rather than on inference. Simple linear ramps have been found at other sites in Egypt, and were used to construct other smaller step-style pyramids, such as the pyramid of Sekhemkhet at Saqqara. A technique already attested elsewhere within the same building tradition requires no assumptions about methods that have left no trace. The second consideration is practicality. The easiest way of constructing a pyramid is to create one straight ramp leading up to the pyramid out of rubble, stone, or earth, supported by wooden scaffolding. This ramp can be adjusted for height as the building continues, so a single structure serves the whole project rather than having to be replaced at each stage, and the ramp would be wide enough to accommodate the growth of the pyramid as the courses rise. It also meets the hardest requirement the building sets. A long-wide ramp would be short enough and shallow enough to allow for the 60-ton blocks used in the King's chamber — the heaviest elements in the structure, and the ones any proposed method has to be able to move. A design capable of carrying those can carry everything else the construction required. A linear ramp is a simple solution that is supported by archaeology at other pyramid sites in Egypt, which is why proponents prefer it to the alternatives.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The linear ramp theory has been rejected by most modern archaeologists and engineers. The ramp would need to be more than 1.5km long to stay at the gradient needed to roll the blocks uphill. This would make the ramp bigger than the pyramid itself by volume. It would have been continuously rebuilt to adjust the height, which would have made the process extremely time-consuming. The ramp would have been huge, but there is no evidence for such a large ramp. There is also a quarry and two cemeteries blocking three of the pyramid sides. Although simple ramps may have been used at some sites in Egypt, they were only used for small pyramids. By some estimates, an earthwork ramp is only structurally stable at a height of up to 120 meters. It would need extensive scaffolding or stone blocks to support it in order to reach the heights needed to build the pyramids. There are many problems with the linear ramp model. It would have been impractically long and structurally unstable. There is little evidence for such a long ramp, and no space to build one.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Evidence that ramps were used somewhere does not establish that a single linear ramp built the Great Pyramid. The surviving examples come from much smaller step pyramids, and Diodorus was writing some two thousand years after the event, reporting rather than observing. [Rejecting P2] The simplest solution on paper is not simple at this scale. To hold a workable gradient the ramp would have to run well over a kilometre and exceed the pyramid itself in volume, be rebuilt continuously as the structure rose, and stand on ground occupied by a quarry and two cemeteries. No trace of an earthwork of that size has been found, which is why the model has been rejected by most modern archaeologists and engineers.