The Zigzag Ramp Theory

The argument

Like other ramp explanations, this theory fits with the existing evidence found at other pyramids that ramps were used in construction, and with the writings of Diodorus Siculus. In order to create a ramp on one side which takes up minimal space, a ramp that zigzags back and forth down one face could have been used. The ramp would be constructed as the pyramid grew and would need to zig-zag at least seven times to reach the top and remain at a sensible gradient. In the event that a zig-zag ramp was used on all four faces, the operation would have moved quite quickly compared to a long ramp model. A zig-zag ramp accounts for the evidence of a small ramp at the Great pyramids base, and the lack of evidence for a long perpendicular ramp. A zig-zag ramp accounts for the evidence of ramps but would have taken up minimal space, unlike a long ramp.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The zigzagging ramp model would have had particularly tight corners. Maneuvering the large 2-ton bocks around these corners even with leavers would have been very difficult and moving the 60-ton beams used in the king’s chamber would have been impossible. The number of turns needed to keep a sensible gradient for the zigzag ramp would compromise the stability of the zigzagging ramp, which like the long ramp would end up being enormous and potentially unstable. Applying the limestone finish would be difficult with four huge earthworks covering the face of the pyramid.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The evidence is thinner than the claim. Ramps are attested at other pyramid sites, which shows ramps were used somewhere rather than that this configuration was used at Giza, and Diodorus wrote some two thousand years after construction from sources he did not witness. "Minimal space" is also a virtue only relative to the straight-ramp model; a zigzag ramp at a workable gradient still requires an enormous volume of material. [Rejecting P2] Both supports are weak in the same way. A small ramp at the base is consistent with several reconstructions, including a short ramp used only for the lower courses, and the absence of evidence for a long perpendicular ramp is equally an absence of evidence for this one. That four faces would have sped construction assumes the corners work, which is exactly what the counter disputes for the two-tonne blocks and the granite beams of the King's Chamber. [Rejecting C] The conclusion is stated with more confidence than the material allows. Several reconstructions — external, spiral, internal and combinations of them — remain compatible with the surviving evidence, and this one is distinguished from the others by no direct find at Giza.