Complete Pyramids (Hardcover)

First,
consider how Mark Lehner defies scientific method. He recognizes that
Giza is not known to exhibit the housing needed for the 100,000 or
more builders engineers assert were needed to build the Great Pyramid
within Khufu's reign. Lehner proposes only 25,000 men, indicating,
however, that most were miscellaneous workers.

To get his reduced
number, Lehner wrongly calculates with an averaged block weight of 2.5
tons, rather than taking into account a myriad of far larger building
units of over 15 tons. Although more study of the block weights is
warranted, Lehner fails to acknowledge that the heights of the blocks
are sufficiently documented to make better calculations than he would
have readers believe. Indeed, the heights of each course were first
measured in the 1800s and as recently as the 1970s. The published
reports of these studies match (except for the loss of some upper
tiers since the 1800s) because of accurate measurements. The charts
show that many of the heaviest blocks in the outer masonry are at the
level of the King's Chamber. Some of these blocks occupy the height of
two tiers. By calculating with an averaged weight of 2.5 tons, Lehner
rids the workforce of many thousands.

Furthermore, Lehner
incorrectly uses a calculation for moving blocks along level ground,
rather than one for raising blocks on a ramp! He thereby reduces the
workforce by many thousands.

Second, Lehner assumes that nummulitic
limestone blocks can be leveled and otherwise shaped with copper
tools. Thus, he ignores up-to-date Egyptology. For instance, Dieter
Arnold's Building in Egypt (1993) recognizes that the mines could not
furnish enough copper for cutting millions of pyramid blocks, and
Arnold shows that copper tools are unworkable on medium-hard to hard
limestone (the Great Pyramid's blocks are mostly medium-hard to
hard). In short, the strongest metal of the Pyramid Age was too soft
to cut the blocks so as to render the Great Pyramid's extraordinary
features.

Third, Lehner's estimate of the time required to quarry
blocks is useless, and his discussion of how blocks could have been
quarried is misleading. Lehner writes: "To build the Great
Pyramid in 23 years...322 cu. m (11,371 cu. ft) of stone had to be
quarried daily. How many quarrymen would this require? Our NOVA
pyramid-building experiment provided a useful comparison:...8.5
stones per day. But though they worked barefoot and without power
tools, they had the advantage of a winch with an iron cable to pull
the stones away from the quarry face. An additional 20-man team might
have been needed for the task in Khufu's day." The NOVA crew,
however, used modern steel tools! Lehner's calculation is invalid
because he utilizes the tremendous advantage afforded by steel tools
(it is incorrect for Lehner to call NOVA's tools 'iron,' although
steel is mostly iron. His use of the word iron makes NOVA's tools seem
like those of the ancient world. They are not. Furthermore, the
Egyptians did not possess iron until 800 years after the Great
Pyamid's construction, and iron does not have the capabilities of
steel). NOVA's quarrymen can be seen using steel adzes and steel pry
bars. They used heavy steel pickaxes to cut trenches to isolate
blocks. They drove steel wedges beneath blocks and hit these wedges
with steel sledgehammers. Compare Pyramid Age tools of copper, wood
and stone. If Lehner presented such methodology in the 'hard'
sciences, he would be subjected to the kind of criticism that end
careers.

Lehner adds that his "figure can be expanded further
to compensate for other advantages of iron tools." With this he
admits, in a manner too subdued to alert the average reader of his
tactics, that his estimate does not involve Pyramid Age tools. Pyramid
Age tools are inadequate for quarrying or shaping good-quality
limestone blocks. No matter how many workers are employed, if the
tools are inadequate the work cannot be completed. The very existence
of the Great Pyramid suggests that a different method was
used.

Fourth, Lehner's calculation of the number of men needed to
haul blocks from the quarry to the Great Pyramid is flawed and
misleading. He writes, "Let us assume that the stone haulers
could move 1 km (0.62 miles) per hour en route from the quarry to the
pyramid...The distance from Khufu's quarry to the pyramid, at c. 6o
slope, could probably be covered in 19 minutes by 20 men pulling a 2.5
ton block. Certainly, this was well within the capacities of the NOVA
team..." Again, Lehner uses averaged weights of 2.5 tons,
ignoring the need to address hundreds of thousands of 15-ton and
larger units. He insinuates that NOVA's experiment validates his
calculations! A front-end loader, however, hauled all blocks from the
quarry. Even the three or four one-ton stones raised manually for
NOVA's on-camera demonstration were hauled and placed onto the
mini-ramp by this machine.

Lehner mentions the front-end loader,
implying it only set stones in the lower courses of NOVA's
mini-pyramid. ....