How were the pyramids at Giza Constructed Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

How were the pyramids at Giza Constructed - Essay Example The great pyramids consist of huge stone blocks, carefully measured out and carved, and then slotted in to fit a perfect geometric shape on a truly colossal scale. Scientists today are still trying to figure out how a nation without modern lifting equipment and mechanized transportation could possibly have had the technical skill and physical power to construct these tall edifices in the sandy ground. The fact that the Egyptians possessed such a capability is undeniable, since the pyramids are still standing there as evidence. How these people managed this great feat is, however, a deep mystery. It has long been recognized that the ancient Egyptians used ramps and wooden sleds to transport huge blocks of stone from the quarries to the building site, and that there is no evidence that they knew about the wheel, the pulley or the derrick (Dunham, 1956, p. 161). It seems that they just built ramps and used many thousands of workers, and this simple explanation is widely accepted. Another, much more radical theory has been advanced by Danish scholar Erich von Dà ¤niken who argues that it would have taken human beings some 600 years to build the great pyramid of Cheops, the largest of the pyramids at Giza, shifting more two and a half million blocks of stone (Von Dà ¤niken, 1970, p.96) and using tens of thousands of workers at any one time. He theorized that there was insufficient food and shelter for such a number of workmen in the largely desert land around the area, and that therefore the ancient Egyptians must have had help from some supreme god-like beings from outer spac e. Assembling arguments gathered from other massive structures across the planet, and from legends about Egyptian gods such as Ra, who â€Å"travelled through the heavens on a bark† (Von Dà ¤niken, 1970, p. 94), the theory of ancient aliens helping to build the pyramids emerged. The two theories outlined above argue on very different principles. Von Dà ¤niken’s argument is based on vivid