Learning from the Past: The Ancient Egyptians and Geotechnical Engineering

8/12/2019 Learning from the Past: The Ancient Egyptians and Geotechnical Engineering

1/32

Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering

38

Learning from the Past: The Ancient Egyptians and

Geotechnical Engineering

Sherif W. Agaiby1, Moustafa K. El-Ghamrawy2, Sayed M. Ahmed3

1Director, Geotechnical and Heavy Civil Engineering Dept., Dar Al-Handasah

Consultants (Shair and Partners).2Professor Emeritus of Geotechnical Engineering; Faculty of Engineering,

Al-AzharUniversity, Cairo, Egypt.3Assistant Professor of Geotechnical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,

Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.

ABSTRACT

There are numerous evidences that the Ancient Egyptians were

pioneers in Geology and Geotechnical Engineering. Some examples of

their revolutionary works are presented in this paper to show their genius

in mining, quarrying, tunneling, choice of the locations of their structures,

and introducing innovative solutions for dealing with problematic soils.

Engineers, especially geotechnical engineers, may consider returning to

the roots of civilizations and reevaluating the achievements of the ancients

by modern means such as Forensic Engineering. This could open the doortounderstanding how the ancients built their wonders and why these wonders

survived millenniums. The study of old civilizations could introduce new

engineering and construction concepts that benet the profession today.

This paper, which focuses primarily on the Ancient Egyptian engineering

achievements, raises questions rather than answers as to what geotechnical

engineers actually know about, and from, this great civilization; the authors

believe that we know very little despite it being the subject of numerous

in-depth studies that date as far back as the fth century B.C. (the work of

Herodotus)and continued till the present day.

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ARCHEOLOGY

Studying and preserving antiquities requires, among other disciplines,


2/32


39

engineers with considerable skills. In this regards, geotechnical engineering

is one of the elds that can provide effective tools forevaluating the methods

used in the construction of historic monuments, determiningthe reasons for

the destruction of some, as well as providing rational explanations for the

survival of others to this present day.

One of the well-known examples of the benets that Geotechnical

Engineering can provide is the stabilization of the leaning Tower of Pisa.

The efforts of the involved geotechnical engineering committees were

intensively reported by Professors Burland andJamiolkowski collaborated

with other prestigious geotechnical professionals,(e.g., Jamiolkowski etal., 1993; Burland, et al., 1998; Jamiolkowski, 1999; Jamiolkowski, 2001;

Burland, 2008; and Burland et al., 2009) to documentthe geotechnical

investigations, the geotechnical instrumentation, the numerical back-

analyses of the performance and behavior of the tower considering the soil

nature and the events associated with increased ratesof tilt, all with due

consideration to time.After determining the mechanism responsible for the

movement, a number of solutions were considered,from which the most

practical and convenient remedy was implemented.

To many, the input of geology and geophysics, which lie within

the domain of Geotechnical Engineering, is indispensible in archeology.

Geophysical investigations are one of the primary toolsused in detection

of buried monuments. Geology can provide invaluable help to enhance the

survival of old monuments especially if they are built from stone or rest on

rock.

FORENSIC ENGINEERING AND ARCHEOLOGY

By denition, Forensic Engineering is associated with failures and

courts of law(Rao, 2009;Day, 2011). Nevertheless, relooking at the technical

aspects and the approaches of investigation associated with Forensic

Engineering, one can easily conclude that they can be used to study the

engineering aspects of the survival, non-failure, of old monuments.

In the authors opinion, the same geotechnical aspects of Forensic

Engineering can be adopted not only in detection of the reasons for the

vanishing of some monuments but to investigate the reasons behind the

long good performance and survivalof some old monuments.The below

is an attempt to explore some geotechnical aspects that can be considered


3/32


40

associated with Forensic Engineering, to explore the Geotechnical

Engineering in the Great Egyptian Pharaonic Civilization.

THE OLDEST GEOLOGICAL MAP

The Papyrus of Turin, currently kept at the Egyptian Museum of Turin,

is an ancient sketch discovered between 1814 and 1821 at Deir el-Medina

near Luxor that is believed to be the oldest geological map (Figure 1). The

papyrus was drawn about 1160 BC for Ramses IVs quarrying expedition

to Wadi Hammamat in the Eastern Desert where the Precambrian rocks of

the Arabian-Nubian Shield outcrop. The purpose of the expedition was to

obtain blocks of bekhen-stone (metagraywacke sandstone) to be used for

statues of the king.

The Papyrus of Turin depicts a 15-kilometer stretch of Wadi

Hammamat and shows this wadis conuence with Wadi Atalla and Wadi

El-Sid, the surrounding hills, the bekhen-stone quarry, and the gold mine

and settlement at Bir Umm Fawakhir. The quarry was utilizedsince the

Early Dynastic period till the Roman times (about 3000 BC to 400 AD).

The gold mine was active during the New Kingdom and in the Ptolemaic

through Early Byzantine periods (about 1500 BC to 600 AD).

Turin papyrus accurately shows, with numerous annotations, the

spatial distribution of different rock types (black hills with siliciclastics, and

the pink hills with volcanics, serpentinite and granite) and the lithologically

diverse wadi gravel (the brown, green and white dots within the main valley

that represent different kinds of rocks), and it also contains information onquarrying and mining (Figure 2).

Figure 1.Papyrus of Turin.Top:Left half of the Turin papyrus map.Bottom: Right half

of the Turin papyrus map


4/32


41

Turin papyrus is considered the oldest known geologic and topographic

map in the world. It is remarkable that it would be another 2900 years

before the next geologic map was drawnin France in the 1700s (Harrell

and Brown, 1992; Janssen1994).

Figure 2. Extracts of the Papyrus of Turin showing annotations and identication of the

various topographic and geological features

THE EGYPTIAN PYRAMIDS

Egypt and the Pyramids are, to many, synonymous. Millions of people

travel from all over the world to see the Egyptian Pyramids, the largest

stone structures ever built. Giza Pyramids (Figures 3 and 4) are considered

the greatest tombs in the world. They are tombs of great kings who, nearly

5000 years ago, prepared gloriousresting places for their bodies irrespective

of effort, cost or time involved in its construction. They are considered by

many to be the greatest buildings ever constructed.

It is a well known fact that the Giza Pyramids are the descendants of

earlier trials by the Ancient Egyptian to successfully build tombs having

apyramid shape. Imhotep, who was the rst famous architect and engineer

in the Old Kingdom, envisaged the step Pyramid for his king Zoser about

2686 - 2613 B.C. Later, king Sneferu, who reigned Egypt from 2613 BC to

2589 BC, built three pyramids (viz., the Meidum Pyramid, the Bent Pyramid

and the Red Pyramid) in pursuit of the complete pyramid shape. These

pyramid shape. These pyramids are shown in Figure 5.

The Great Pyramid of Giza (aka, the Pyramid of Khufu or Cheops)

is the last surviving of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. The

Great Pyramid was constructed in the third millennium before chirst (its

construction was completed in 2560 BC).


5/32


42

It is believed that this pyramid was built as a tomb for the fourth dynasty

Egyptian Pharaoh Khufu (Cheops in Greek) and took approximately 20

years to construct. The below depicts some astonishing facts that are related

to the Great Pyramid (Petrie, 1883; Fakhry, 1961; Lehner, 1997, Jackson &

Stamp, 2003; Parry, 2005; Houdin, 2006; Hawass, 2006; Hawass, 2010):

1. Originally its height is believed to be 146.5 meter (about 50 oors) but

Figure 3. Giza Pyramids Figure 4. Map of the GizaPyramids

Figure 5.Predecessors of Giza Pyramids.

From Top: Zosers Step Pyramid, Meidum Pyramid, Bent Pyramid and Red Pyramid


6/32


43

with erosion and the loss of its pyramidion, its current height today

is 138.8 meter. It remained the tallest man-made structure till the

Construction of Lincoln Cathedral in 1300 A.D. (i.e., over 3800 years).

2. Its side is about 230.4 meter in length. The four sides of the base have

an average error of only 58 millimeters in length. The nished base was

squared to a mean corner error ofonly 12 seconds of an arc. The base is

horizontal and at to within 15 mm. The sides of the square base are

closely aligned to the four cardinal compass points (within 4 minutes of

an arc) based on true north (not the magnetic north).

3. The ratio of the perimeter to height equates to 2 to an accuracy of betterthan 0.05%. Petrie(1883) concluded: but these relations of areas and of

circular ratio are so systematic that we should grant that they were in the

builders design.

4. The mass of the pyramid is estimated at 5.9 million tons. Its volume

is roughly 2,500,000 cubic meters. The building materials include

limestone and granite blocks and mortar.

a. 2.3 million Limestone blocks (i.e., about 5.5 million tons of limestone)were used in its construction. Mostly, the limestone blocks were

transported from Giza quarries that lie only a couple of hundred meters

south of the Great Pyramid (Figure 6).

b. The pyramid builders used stones of different sizes and heights for the

different layers. The stone blocks of Khufus pyramid were very large

in the lower layers (1.0m x 2.5m base dimensions and 1.0-1.5m high,

6.5-10 tons). For the layers that are higher up, it was easier to transportsmaller blocks (1.0m x 1.0m x 0.5m, appx 1.3 tons). For calculations

most Egyptologists use 2.5 tons as the weight of an average pyramid

stone block.

c. 8,000 tons of granite, were imported from Aswan located at more than

800 km away. The largest granite stones in the pyramid, found above the

Kings chamber, weigh 25 to 80 tons each.

d. About 500,000 tons of mortar were used in the construction of the Great

Pyramid.

e. Based on the common assumption that it took 20 years to build (it should

be noted that there are so many theories on this), it would requirethe


7/32


44

handling of approximately 800 tons of stone every day, and to lay 12 of

these blocks into place each hour, day and night.

f. Many of the casing stones and inner chamber blocks of the Great Pyramidwere t together with extremely high precision. Based on measurements

taken on the north eastern casing stones, the mean opening of the joints

is only 0.5 millimeters wide (1/50th of an inch).

5. There are three known chambers inside the Great Pyramid(Figure 7) as

follows: a. The lowest chamber is cut into the bedrock upon which the

pyramid was built and was unnished. b. The so-called Quens Chamber

and Kings Chamber are higher up within the pyramid structure. 6. TheGreat Pyramid of Giza is the only pyramid in Egypt knownn to contain

both asccending and descending passages. 7. Originally, the Great

Pyramid was provided with a stone cladding that formed a smooth outer

surface; what is seen today is the underlying core structure. The cladding

can still be seen arround the top part of the Pyramid.

Buiilding the Pyramids

Ho did the ancient Egyptians build the Pyramids? This question has

been the subject of speculations throughout the ages. There have been many

and varying theories about the Great Pyramids construction techniques in

particular. In fact, no certain conclusions have ever been reached in tthis

regard even with the modern investigations.

Figure 6. Quarries and harbors for the Pyramids. Orange = Limestone quarries on the

Giza plateau. Harbor facilities (exact position is not known)


8/32


45

The oldest explanation was put forward by Herodotus in the fth

century B.C. based on tales told to him by the Egyptian dragomans. Most

common hypotheses support the idea that it was built by moving huge

stones from quarries in Giza/Cairo and in Aswan and then dragging/lifting

them into place. It is believed that the Ancient Egyptians cut stone blocks

by hammering wooden wedges into the stone which were then soaked with

water. As the water was absorbed, the wedges expanded, causing the rock tocrack. Once they were cut, they were carried by boat either up or down the

Nile River to the pyramid construction site. Anearby quarry is believedto

have provided an adequate supply of limestone for the pyramids core. A

supply ramp was essential to allow the transport of stone onto the pyramid

as it was built. A harbor and/or canals were needed for the transport and

unloading of non-local materials (Figure 6). Fine white limestone for

the cladding, basalt for the temples, alabaster for statues, granite for the

burial chambers and temples, and the materials necessary to construct theworkmens village were brought by this route. Each of the above elements

had to be located and transported/handled in such a way as to ensure efcient

ow of men and materials. Harris (2010) assembled some conguration

for the ramps and stone lifters that could have been used in building the

Pyramid. Some of these congurations are illustrated in Figures8thru. 10.

Davidovits (2009), a leading pioneer in geo-polymers (the contemporary

branch of chemistry that deals with synthetic minerals and rocks), proposeda theory that the Pharaohs were conversant with techniques similar to

those used in manufacturing geopolymers (a science known to the modern

civilization only in the 1970s).He proposed that the limestone blocks in the

Pyramids were re-constituted blocks using geo-chemical reactions to form

hard and durable re-agglomerated blocks.He proposed that the Ancient

Figure 7.Diagram of the Great Pyramid


9/32


46

Egyptian did not build the Pyramid from naturally durable limestone; they

used soft argillaceous limestone that contained naturally-occurring reactive

geopolymeric ingredients, like kaolinitic clay;this rock disaggregates easily

with the Nile water during oods to form a limestone mud. Pharaohsmixed

reactive geological materials (mafkat, a hydrated alumina and copper

silicate, overexploitedat the time of Cheops in the Sinai mines), Egyptian

natron salt (sodium carbonate, massively present in Wadi Natrum), and lime

coming from plants and wood ashes with the limestone mud. They carried

this limestone mud in baskets, poured it, then packed it in molds (made out

of wood, stone, crude brick), directly on the building site. According to

Davidovits theory, the blocks thus consist of 90 to 95% natural limestoneaggregates with its fossil shells, and 5 to 10% of geological glue cement

known as geo-polymeric binder based on aluminosilicates.

Davidovits uses a vase resembling an ashtray that has astonishingly

thin walls folded at the edges (Figure 11) to demonstrate the Pharaohs

practical knowledge of the use of geopolymers. Anybody not knowing that

it is made of stone would believe it to be of some exible material yet,

remarkably, the vase was made of one of the hardest rocks known to existin nature (anorthositic gneiss). Such a vase could never have been hewn

out this type of rock using a sculptors chisel even with extreme care. It

is possible that the Pharaohs used a stone paste produced by a chemical

reaction to form a rock.

Figure 8.A full ramp model in the Egyptian Museum (after Harris,2010)

Geotechnical Considerationsinthe Egyptian Pyramids

Giza pyramids came after many trials by the Ancient Egyptians to

reach a stable structure. The rst trial was the Step Pyramid which wasbuilt in stages starting from a square mastaba to an inner step pyramid (aka,

pyramid 1); this pyramid was further amended to have a bigger pyramid

(aka, pyramid 2) as shown in Figure 12.

King Sneferu, in his endeavor to reach the perfect pyramid, constructed


10/32


47

three pyramids. The rst one, the Meidum Pyramid, failed during

construction due to the weak friable rocks used in its construction and due

to the outside thrust resulting from the great inclination (74 deg.) although

it was built in stages, with residue of rock cuts in-between, apparently toreduce this thrust (Figure 13).Despite this failure, this staged approachmay

indicate that the Ancient Egyptians were aware of the stability of slopes

constructed by rock blocks.

Sneferu also learnt from the cracks in his second pyramid, the Bent

Figure 9.Concept of the dual construction ramp for the Great Pyramid to its maximum

ramp height of 64 m (after Harris,2010)

Figure 10.North-south cross-section illustrating a two-stage construction method with

construction ramp to the 64-metre level and stone lifters above (after Harris,2010)


11/32


48

Pyramid, which appeared as the construction of the lower part was in

progress with an inclination of 54 degrees. The inclination of the upper part

was adjusted to 43 deg. (Figure 14). Sneferu used the same inclination (43

deg.) in his last pyramid (the Red Pyramid).

Figure 11. A vase from the ancient Egyptian Empire (3000 to 2400 BC)

(after Davidovits, 2009)

Figure 12.A sketch showing a cross section in the Step Pyramid with its elements

(M: Mastaba, P1: Pyramid 1 and P2: Pyramid 2)

It is interesting to note that the steep inclinations adopted by Sneferu

in his rst two pyramids, were not attempted in the Giza Pyramids; Khufus

Great Pyramids has an inclination of 51.8 deg. The detail shown in Figure15 illustrates that rock keys were used to stabilize the slope against slippage

in the Great Pyramid (very functional especially during earthquakes). To

date, many researches are still investigating the secrets of the stability of

the Giza Pyramids including its associated geotechnical aspects (Sasaki et

al., 2011).


12/32


49

The approach adopted bythe 4th Dynasty to determine the safe slope

for the pyramids is knownnowadays as the Geotechnical Observational

Method. In its simplest denition, it is a method to ll the gaps in theavailable information and method of analysis by observations (Peck, 1969).

Regardless of the unsolved riddles for the reason for building the Pyramids

and the technique(s) employed to build these massive structures, different

geotechnical failures would have been inevitable had the Pharaohs chosen

to build the Pyramids along the Nile valley where they lived. It is amazing

to note that the maximum static stress under the Greater Pyramids is abbout

3500 kPa; yet this huge stress value did not entail any observed or likely

foundation failurre (bearing capacity or excessive settlement). Geologically

speaking, the site of the Giza Pyramids is refered to as the Gizza Plateau

and is located west of Cairo (29.97922 N, 31.13442 E) on the west side

of the Nile in keeping with the Pharaohs religious beliefs during that

era. Geological studies (Said, 1990)show that the huge monuments of

Figure 13.Stages of construction of the

Meidum Pyramid

Figure 14.Inclination of the bottom and top

parts of the Bent Pyramid

Figure 15.Rock key to stabilize slopes in the Great Pyramid


13/32


50

the fourth dynasty of the platteau of Gizza are buillt on a seddimentary

sequence that consists mainly of carbonaterock formations deposited in

a marinenvironment of variable deepths. These seddimentary layers have

the characteristics of the Mokattam formation and Madi formation, from

Middle to Late Eocenne age which is formed of masive limestones and

dolomites. This formation is considered a suitable foundation that can safely

support the massive rock structure. This choicce of locatiion is impressive

and demonstrates knowledge of foundatioon engineeriing known only to

engineers and scientists 5000 years after building the Pyramids (Kerisel,

19855). The selection of the site for Giza Pyramids was geologically and

economically sound. The quaries of good rocks are located near the Pyramids(Figure 6). Moreover, areccent study dedicated too the monuments of the

fourth dynasty (Raynaud, et al., 20008)indicates that the rock outcrops

were put to good engineering use by the fourth dynasty builders.The

study showed the existencee of a hill of large volume at the location of

the two great pyramids prior to their construction. The volume of this hill

is estimated to account for at least11.5% of the pyramid of Chephren and

aboout 23% for the pyramid of Cheops. It is only recently that engineers

couldanticipate that the most critical stresses and deformations inside earth

structures may actually not be at its bottom but located inside it. Kulhawy

and Duncan (1972) modeled Oroville Dam and found that the most critical

stresses and deformations are located inside its core and above the base.

Curriously, the authors compared the point of maximum deformation in

Oroville Dam depicted by Kulhawy and Duncan with the location of the

burial romm inside the Great Pyramid and found that the location of the

burial room coincides with the most stressed point in a normalized plot(Figure 16). Could this have been envisaged by the Pyramid builder who

deliberately placed the burial room at that locatiion to relax the stresses

inside the Pyramid?

ROCK EXCAVATIONS AND TUNNELS IN THE THEBAN

NECROPOLIS

The Theban Necropolis near Luxoris one of the largest archaeologicalsitesin the world.The tombs of the great Pharaohs of the New Kingdom

(1570 to 1070 BC) including the famous Tutankhamenweresituated in the

Valley of the Kings (Figure 17) within the Necropolis. Figure 18shows

the Structural Geology Setting Map for the Theban Necropolis. The well-

known Pharaonic Necropolis is shown in relation to the structural geologic


14/32


51

elements of the Theban Mountain. Thedark blue dashed line shows the

limit of the alluvial plain of the Nile; green dotted linesdelineate the listric

fault separating the tabular structure from the tilted compartments while the

yellow dotted line shows the limit of the northern basin.

Figure 16. The Settlement contours of Oroville Dam vs. the location of the kings burial

room in the Great Pyramid

The rocksunderlying the Valley of Kings area are of sedimentaryorigin

of Lower Eocene age; two formationshavebeen dened: the upper

Thebeslimestone formation andthe lower Esna Shale formation (El Salam,

2002). They are both at lying. In the area where most of the tombs have

beenexcavated, the Esna Shale is deep blow the surface. It is possible that

the tomb builders were looking for sites to hide the tombs in the massive,

tabular, at-lying beds of Eocene limestone. The tomb locations were

chosen to be in massive rock formations to support the galleries, shafts,

and the roofs of the burial chambers. Most of the tombs in the valley have

been cut andconstructed in the limestone of Thebes formation. Onlyfew

tombswere dug deep enough so that they encounteredthe underlying Esna

shale (Figure 19). The tombs located in Esna Shale are suffering from somedistressas a result ofthe increased moisture which causes the Esna shale to

swell(Piguet et al., 1988; Cobbold et al., 2008).

Cobbold et al. (2008) found a number of faults, cutting the Eocene

limestone and separated by veins of crystalline calcite that have precipitated

in the intervening spaces. The calcite is brous and forms overlapping

bundles, which give the direction and sense of the slip. Interestingly,

Cobbold et al. noted that the Ancient Egyptians recognized the striated faultsurfaces.

1. In the burial chamber of Tomb KV9 (Ramses VI), the builders

accommodated a sloping calcite vein that lines an oblique-slip fault

by integrating the vein into the design of the chamber and cut an arch


15/32


52

through it (Figure 20). The vein is fragile and the builders must have

taken care not to destroy it completely. Moreover, the builder painted

lines characterizingthe upper surface of the vein and tracing the lines of

the oblique structure;this could be one of the earliest known mappings

of tectonic structures.

2. A striated more at-lying fault was found to form part of the ceiling

of the burial chamber (J2) of tomb KV47 (Siptah). The builders again

integrated the fault surface into the design of the tomb, and may even

have adjusted the height of the ceiling accordingly.

Guillaume and Piau (2003) studied for the effect of Esna Shale on a

tomb in the Valley of the Kings. They noted that excavations in Esna shale

were covered with limestone powder and they suggested that Pharaohs used

that to mitigate the swelling of this stratum when it is exposed to moisture.

Figure 17. The Valley of Kings Figure 18.The Structural Geology Setting

Map for the Theban Necropolis (after Aubry

et al., 2009)

Figure 19.Conceptual geological Section of the Valley

of Kings (after El Salam, 2002)

Figure 20.Burial chamber

of Tomb KV9 (Ramses VI)

(Cobbold et al.,2008)


16/32


53

STONE QUARRYING

The Ancient Egyptiansarewell-knownfor the utilizationof stones

forbuilding, as ornaments, gems, and utilitarian applications. These stonescame mainly from the Nile Valley andEastern Desert (with some also from

the Western Desert), where over 200 quarries have been discoveredspanning

about 3500 years from the Late Predynastic Period to the Late Roman Period

(Harrelland Storemyr, 2009). Limestone and sandstone were the main

building stones of ancient Egypt,from the Early Dynastic times onward.

Limestone was the material of choice for the Pyramids, mastaba tombs, and

temples within the limestone region. From the late Middle

Kingdom onward, sandstone was used for all temples within the

sandstone region as well as many of those in the southern part of the

limestone region(Arnold, 1991;Nicholson & Shaw, 2000).

Ornamental stones were used in the construction of statues and other

sculptures; they used the most durable rocks and blocks of intact rock free

of joints or other defects for such monuments. Statues, stone vessels and

temple columns were made of granite quarried from Gabal el Asr in Nubia

and Tombos in modern Sudan whileblack granite was mined in Aswan

(Figures21&22). The statues of Ramses IIand king Khafre and other

obelisks were sculpted from the diorite rocks of Aswan (Figures23&24).

Fine sculptures werealso made of Egyptian alabaster that wasextracted from

the caves along the Nile valley and from the eastern desert;Figure25shows

the magnicent Tutankhamens Alabaster Boat.

Figure 21.Granitic head of

Amenhotep III

Figure 22. Granitic columns of the ValleyTemple in the

Giza Pyramids area


17/32


54

Many of the quarry sites used during the Pharaonictime still show

distinct signs of their ancient use. The use of a quarry spanned many

years and the reigns of many kings. Inscriptions found at the sites provide

chronological information about the periods when each quarry was active.

At the moment of a quarrys opening, or rst use, an ofcial event would

often be held, commemorated by an inscribed and dated rock-cut stele.

An example of the use of different stones in one building is the

Temple of Karnak (Sullivan, 2008). Sandstone, limestone, and red granite

were the primary types of stone used for constructingthe large decorative

features. Other rocks, like red quartzite, black granite, and travertine

(calcite or Egyptian alabaster) were utilized in much smaller quantities.

High quality limestone was shipped to Thebes from the quarries in Tura

and Massara, near modern Cairo. Gebel el-Silsila, located 160 km Southof Thebes, was the main source for the temples sandstone. The obelisks,

lintels, door thresholds and colossal statues of red granite decorating

Karnak were supplied from the area around modern Aswan. Material for

the calcite/travertine shrines and chapels (such as the one-room chapels of

Amenhotep I orAmenhotep II) originated from Hatnub, in Middle Egypt.

Figure 23.Dioritic statues of Ramses II Figure 24.Dioritic statues of Khafre(aka, Khafre Enthroned)


18/32


55

Quartzite, used in the redchapel of Hatshepsut, came from Gebel Ahmar,

in the Middle Egypt.

Until the much later advent ofsuitable roadways and wagons rugged

enough to transport them in the GrecoRoman Period, thelarger pieces of

quarried stone were carried on sledges, often along prepared roads, and

probablypulled by teams of men to the building sites or to the Nile River

for shipping.

Ancient quarries aremore than just sources of stones;they are also richarcheological sites with valuable informative ruins and culturalremains.

Their study and preservation could provide a unique perspective onrock

engineering in the ancient days.

Quarrying Techniques

Techniques for quarrying softer types of rock (limestone, sandstoneand

travertine) differed from those for the harder types (granite, quartzite, anddiorite). In either case, quarrying was both a time and labor-intensive

process(Arnold, 1991; Nicholson & Shaw, 2000; Sullivan, 2008; Harrell &

Storemyr, 2009).

Soft rocks were usually extracted from an open quarry located along

Figure 25.Tutankhamens Alabaster Boat


19/32


56

the top or face of a natural rock cliff. Workers removed the weathered

surface layers and rubble to exposethe massive rock of the desired size

and then marked off a series of spaces that would form trenches between

the intended blocks (Figure 26). Trenches were then excavated in sections

around the future block after checking it to conrm that the stone was not

awed. The stones were excavated with copper and, later, bronze picks

and chisels during the Dynastic Period,and with iron tools replacing the

earlier ones by the end of the Late Period.If the material appeared sound,

the trenches around the entire block perimeter were completed, freeing the

blocks from the surrounding mass. The removal of the blocks at their base

may have been accomplished using wooden

levers (Figure 227).Once the entire system of trenches had been

brought down to the needed depth, the block then had to be detached along

its base. For smaller blocks, this may have been done using wodden wedges,

hamered or weted too crack the stone free. A quarry for limestone is shown

in Figure 28.

Figure 26 . Excavation by trenches (after Arnold, 1991)

The previously described technique was found to be inappropriate for

blocks possessing large aspect ratios, such as obeliskswhich could snap

along its length. Instead, trenches would be extended below the level of

the blocks base and the stone would be undercut. Very large blocks, such

as those used in obelisks, were too heavy to be lifted from the surrounding


20/32


57

stone. A section of the bedrock would therefore be excavated around the

block, to facilitate sliding or levering the monolith from its location.

Figure 27. Releasing rock blocks by

levers (after Arnold, 1991)

Figure 28.A limestone quarry at Zawyet El-Amwat

(after Harrell& Storemyr, 2009)

Soft rocks were more frequently sent to the work site undressed

(unpolished), with the sides often dressed only after the block was laid into

a wall or building. This labor saving technique allowed workers to smoothonly those sides that would be visible.

Hard rocks (nearly all the igneous and metamorphic rocks plus

silicied sandstone and chert) were even more difcult to quarry. They

were quarried using stone tools aided by re setting and wood levers up

until the Late Period, when the stone tools were replaced by iron ones. The

techniques involved in extracting granite are well known from the remains

of the quarries at Aswan. Workers used a process involving pounding harddolerite balls on the rock bed as the metal tools used during most of the

Pharaonic period were not sufciently hard to excavate such hard materials

Figure 29.Hardstone quarrying at Aswan. (after Harrell& Storemyr, 2009)


21/32


58

like granite. Hundreds of these balls, approximately 0.13-0.30m in diameter

and weighing about 5.5 kilograms each, have been found at the quarrying

sites. Using a mixture of hard grinding stones and sand, the blocks were

then polished on the quarrying site. In some hard rock quarries, blocks have

been found abandoned with polishing and inscriptions already complete.

The difculty involved with such an undertaking explains the limited use of

this type of rock in building construction. A quarryfor hard rocks isshown

in Figure 29.

Figure 30.Abandoned obelisk in Aswan

The unnished obelisk in Aswan (Figure 30) gave a clear example

of the quarrying technique used by Pharaohs. This obelisk, if completed,

would have been the largest known ancient obelisk (42m long) and would

have weighed nearly 1,200 tons. It is believed that Queen Hatshepsut had

ordered its construction. The length of the trenches around the unnished

granite obelisk measured a total of 91 meters with each trench having adepth of more than 0.75m. Such trenches could accommodate up to fty

workers. Within these trenches, each worker would squat or kneel, hewing

out a section of rock about 60cm long, shifting position as each section was

lowered. The resulting excavation pattern can clearly be seen around the

abandoned obelisk. The obelisk was carved directly out of bedrock when

cracks appeared in the granite (a hidden aw appeared or the quarrying

process itself allowed the cracking to develop by releasing the stress) and,hence, it was abandoned. The bottom side of the obelisk is still attached

to the bedrock. The unnished obelisk offers unusual insights into ancient

Egyptian stone-working techniques, with marks from workers tools still

clearly visible as well as ocher-colored lines marking where they were

working.


22/32


59

FOUNDATIONS ON NILE ALLUVIUMS IN KARANAK TEMPLE

The Karnak temple was built in the river valley. It is known that

inundation of the Nile alluviums, before the completion of the Aswan HighDam in 1960s, destabilized soil, especially with the presence of swelling

clays. Egyptian builders at Karnak adopted special techniques to ensure

that foundations will not be affected adversely by the inundation (Sullivan,

2008).

These techniques involved, initially, the excavation of a trench to a

specied depth below the natural ground level. The trench was then partly

lled with clean dry sand which served as a bedding layer for blocks that

were then laid down and leveled to provide a level surface for the columns

(Figure 31). In addition to the benecial effect of the sand by providing a

replacement layer that averts the seasonal changes of the Nile formations

with the annual oods, the use of layers of sand as a bedding layer under

the rock blocks forming the foundation effectively distributes weight and

absorbs vibrations or shocks during construction.

Figure 31.Trenches under the columns in Karnak Temple (after Arnold, 1991)

The foundations for the great hypostyle hall consisted of one-half meter

of sand cushion that is contained within an outer stone lining and topped by

a layer of stone. The columns stood for over 3000 years. When the columns

began to lean and eventually fell in 1899, some archeologistspointed the

nger at the use of small sandstone blocks (found crushed by the weight

of the huge columns) for the upper foundation layer. They suspected thatthese blocks had been weakened from years of exposure to groundwater.

More recently, it has been suggested that the intervention of archaeologists

who dug trenches in the area to drain water from the ooded hall is what

disturbed the sand layers beneath the columns, destabilized the foundation,

and caused the columns to topple.


23/32


60

SADD EL-KAFARA (KAFARA DAM)

This dam was built around 2650 BC in Wadi Garawi (30 km south of

Cairo next to the First Pyramid of Sakkara) by the ancient Egyptians forood control and is the oldest dam of such size in the world (Garbrecht,

1985; Shenouda, 1994; Mays, 2008;Fahlbusch, 2009; Mays, 2010).

The dam was about 110m long and 14m in height with a base width of

98m and crest width of 56m. The dams core was 32m wide and consisted

of 60,000 tons of earth (currently considered as the impermeable core) and

rock-ll shoulders (Figure 32). The downstream wall was about 37m wide,

the upstream wall about 29m wide and together involving about 2,900

m3 of material. Upstream and downstream slope protection for the dam

consisted of limestone ashlars(nely dressed masonry stone blocks). The

ashlars were set but not mortared in stepped rows (each was roughly 30 cm

high, 45 cm wide, 80 cm long and 23 kg weight).

Figure 32. Sadd El-Kafara (after Schnitter, 1994)

The dam was under construction for 10 to 12 years before being

destroyed by a ood probably because of erosion on the downstream face

of the incomplete dam and its lack of a spillway, or a division trench or

tunnel that would have diverted water to the wadi around the construction

site. Construction on the upstream side of the dam was mostly complete

but the downstream side was much less developed. The crest of the dam

sloped towards the center which the engineers may have intended to use

as a spillway. However, as the top of the dam was not nished, it was notprotected from ood water that would over-top the crest.

If it had been completed, the Kafara dam would have stored 465,000

m3 625,000 m3 of water and ooding would have caused the reservoir to

ood into adjacent parallel wadis. The failure of the dam most likely made


24/32


61

the Ancient Egyptian engineers reluctant to construct another for nearly

eight centuries.

TUUNNELING

The Ancient Egyptians were pionerrs in the construction of shafts,

ttunels and underground spaces mainly because of their religious rituals.

Lasing (1933) described in detail the technique used by the Ancient

Egyptians to construct vertical shafts; these techniques are very close to

our construction techniques for shafts today. Many engineers, researchers

and archeologists have marveled on the achievements of the Pharaohsin

the eld of tunneling (e.gg., Malek, 19983; Kerisel, 1985, Kerrisel, 1988;

Weeeks, 2000; EEl Salam, 20002)

Before the era of the Old Kingdom andd the Pyramids, kings and nobles

used mastabas (berms) as burials. A mastabais a heap of stonesor mud bricks

covered with at blocks to protect a narrow shaft that leads down to a small

burial chamber in the rock (Figure 33). Affter the burial, the chammber

would be sealed annd the shaftt lled with rubbble; the mastaba would then

become the gathering point for the dead persons friends and relatives who

would bring offerings and recite scripts (Gardiner, 19664).The mastaba and

its associated works, maybe the rst rock tunneling project ever undertaken

by mankind. Mastabas are the predecessors of Pyramids.

Figure 33. Structure of a Mastaba

Thee rst pyramid is the Step Pyramid in Sakkara that was builtby the 33rd Dynasty King Zoser about 2650 B.C.The Step Pyramid has

sixstepsaboveground made up of layers inclined against a steep sided core.

Under the step pyramid is a labyrinth of tunneled chambers and galleries that

total nearly 6 km in length and connect to a central square shaft 7mx7mm

and 28m deep. These spaces provide room for the kings burial, the burial


25/32


62

of family members,, and the storage of goods for the life after death and

offerings to the gods. On the east side of the pyramid eleven shafts 32 m

deep each were constructed and anexed to horizontal tunnels for the royal

harem (Figgure 12).

Under the Great Pyramids lies an underground chamber that is

considered an abandoned burial room as it is replaced by the above

ground Kingschamber (Figure 34). The underground chamber could be

reached from the opening of the pyramid (55 feet above ground level) by a

descending passage (tunnel) cut in the plateau of Giza rock with a length of

82 m and ending in a chamber.

Figure 34. A cross section in the Great Pyramid showing the underground excavations

Sakkara Serapeum, which was discovered in 1851, is one of Saqqaras

most famous archaeological features. It is located north west of the Step

Pyramid and has rock cut corridors and burial chambers that were excavated

for the burial of the Apis bulls. It was believed that the bulls became

immortal after death as Osiris. The most ancient burials found at this site

date back to the reign of Amenhotep III. The corridors extend for hundreds

Figure 35. Entrance to Sakkara Serapeum


26/32


63

of meters (Figures 35&36). The stone sarcophagi weigh as much as 70

tons and average some 4m in length and 3.3m in height. Twenty chambers

still contain sarcophagi. The Serapeum was in use from the New Kingdom

through to the Graceo-Roman period.

The tomb of King Seti I (19th Dynasty; 1294 - 1279 B.C.) was

discovered in 1817. It is the longest deepest and most completely decorated

of all tombs in the Valley of Kings. The depth of the burial chamber from

the entrance level is 26 m and the depth of the farthest accessible point in

the far underground passage is more than 100m (Figures 37 & 38).

Tomb of the soons of Ramses II (19thdynasty 1279 - 1212 B.C..) is

Figure 36. One of the corridors

tunnels in Sakkara Serapeum

Figure 37. Seti I tomb

Figure 38. Decoration in Seti

I tomb

Figure 39. Tomb of the sons of Ramses II


27/32


64

located in the main wadi of the Valley of the Kings. It is unique in size, plan

and purpose (Figure 39). The entry is formed by an inclined tunnel which

leads to two small similar chambers (1 and 2) and a large chamber(3) that

is 16mx16m with its roof supported by 16 stone pillars. The tomb has so

far revealed 121 corridors and chambers. It is likely that the number of

discovered chambers will increase to reach 150 or even more. It is largest

tomb in the Valley of Kings; pillared chamber 3 is the largest chamber of

any tomb there.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The Ancient Egyptians left a wealth of knowledge behind them that we

are still discovering and trying to unravel. In this paper, some of the well-

known Pharaonic monuments and engineering achievements are presented

and discussedfrom a geotechnical perspective.

Geology is the base of geotechnical engineering. This paper shows

how the Ancient Egyptians knew geology and made use of it. They drew

the rst geological and topographic map, identifying different lithological

units. Their knowledge of geology allowed them to mine, tunnel, quarryand

make best use of rock discontinuities as well asavert/accommodate many

distressing effects on their tunnels and extracted rock blocks.

Choice of locations for their great buildings and temples is a

geotechnical marvel. The locations were selected at such geotechnically

appropriate locations that they allowed the structures to stand the challenge

of time and live thousands of years.Large/full scale models and phasing were used to enable the

construction of large unparalleled structures safely. This was the precursor

to the Geotechnical Observational Method we, much later, re-discovered

Not all their construction was on good rocks or favorable soil/

ground conditions;Ancient Egyptians also knew of problematic soils, their

treatment/stabilization and developed foundation measures that enabled

them to found on these soils safely.Erosion and water control structures are

still seen today in the remains of Sadd El-Kafara, the oldest dam known

to mankind. Despite its failure as a result of lack of diversion provisions

during construction, this dam attests to the engineering capabilities they

used to have.


28/32


65

The aim of this work istohighlight the importance of studying the

reasons of success (and not just failure) and learn from them. Surviving

ancient monuments provide a living story that can tell us a lot. The

authorsbelieve that Forensic Engineering as a scientic tool, and apart from

its legal connotations and ramications, can be of great use and benet and

can provide us with valuable insight as to why these monuments survived

the challenge of time.It is an invitation to learn from success.

AKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to acknowledge the pioneering work done

by the late Professor Abdel-Rahman Helmi El-Ramli in studying the

geotechnical marvels of the Ancient Egyptians. It is Prof. El-Ramlis early

studies and work that inspired and provided the nucleus of this paper.

REFERENCES

Arnold D., 1991, Building in Egypt: Pharaonic Stone Masonry, Oxford

University Press, p. 336.

Aubry, M.P, Berggren, W.A., Dupuis, C., Ghaly, H., Ward, D., King, C., Knox,

R. O. B., Ouda, K., Youssef, M. & Hassan, W. F., 2009, Pharaonic

Necrostratigraphy: A Review of Geological and Archeological Studies

in the Theban Necropolis, Luxor, West Bank, Egypt, Terra Nova,

Volume 21, Issue 4, pages 237256, available on http://onlinelibrary.

wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-3121.2009.00872.x/full.

Burland, J. B., 2008, Stabilising the Leaning Tower of Pisa: the Evolution

of Geotechnical Solutions, Transactions of the Newcomen Society,

Volume 78, No. 2, July 2008, pp. 173-205.

Burland, J. B., Jamiolkowski, M. B. & Viggiani, C., 1998, Stabilising

the leaning tower of Pisa, Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the

Environment, Volume 57, Issue 1, pp. 91-99.

Burland, J. B., Jamiolkowski, M. B. & Viggiani, C., 2009, Leaning Tower of

Pisa: Behaviour after Stabilization Operations, International Journalof Geoengineering Case histories, http://casehistories.geoengineer.

org, Vol.1, Issue 3, p.156-169.

Cobbold, P.R., Watkinson, J. & Cosgrove, J., 2008, Did the Pharaohs of

Egypt Make their Tombs in Solid Rock on the Theban Plateau?,


29/32


66

Geoscientist 18, 6 (2008), http://hal-insu.archives-ouvertes.fr/insu-

00299728.

Davidovits, J., 2009, Why the Pharaohs Built the Pyramids with FakeStones, 2nd Revised Ed., Geopolymer Institute, p. 288.

Day, R., 2011, Forensic Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering, 2nd

Ed., McGraw-Hill Professional, p. 528.

El Salam, M.E.A., Construction of underground works and tunnels in

ancient Egypt, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 17

(2002), pp. 295 304.

Fakhry, A., 1961, The Pyramids, 2nd Ed., University of Chicago Press,

p. 260.

Fahlbusch, H., 2009, Early Dams, Proceedings of the ICE - Engineering

History and Heritage, Volume 162, Issue 1, , pp. 13 18.

Gardiner, A, 1964, Egypt of the Pharaohs, Oxford University Press,

p.57.

Garbrecht, G, 1985, Sadd-el-Kafara: the World s Oldest Large Dam,

International Water Power and Dam Construction Vol. 37, No. 7, pp

71-76.

Guillaume, A. & Piau, J., 2003, Stability of the tomb of Ramses II (Valley

of the Kings, Luxor, Egypt): Numerical models and reality, Bulletin

des Laboratoires des Ponts et Chausses, 242, Janvier-Fvrier, Rf.

4450, pp. 1547.

Harrell, J. A. & Brown. V. M., 1992, The oldest surviving topographical

map from ancient Egypt (Turin Papyri 1879, 1899 and 1969), Journal

of the American Research Center in Egypt 29 (1992), pp. 81-105.

Harrell, J.A. and Storemyr, P., 2009, Ancient Egyptian QuarriesAn

Illustrated Overview, In Abu-Jaber, N., Bloxam, E.G., Degryse, P.

and Heldal, T. (eds.)

QuarryScapes: ancient stone quarry landscapes in the Eastern Mediterranean,Geological Survey of Norway Special Publication,12, pp. 750.

Harris, T., 2010, How Did They build the Great Pyramid? - An Architects

Proposal, https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j24_3/j24_3_60-

66.pdf.


30/32


67

Hawass, Z.A., 2006, Mountains of the Pharaohs: The Untold Story of the

Pyramid Builders, Doubleday, p. 213.

Hawass, Z.A., 2010, Wonders of the Pyramids: The Sound and Light ofGiza, American University in Cairo Press, p. 88.

Houdin, J., 2006, The Secrets Behind the Building of The Great Pyramid,

Farid Atiya Press, 2006, p. 160.

Jackson, K. & Stamp, J., 2003, Building the Great Pyramid, Firey

Books, p. 191.

Jamiolkowski, M., 1999, The Leaning Tower of Pisa. The XIV LicaoManuel Rocha 1997. Geotecnia Journal, N.85, pp. 9-42 , Portuguese

Geotech. Soc., Lisbon.

Jamiolkowski, M., 2001, The Leaning Tower of Pisa: end of an Odyssey.

Terzaghi Oration, Proc. XV ICSMGE, Istanbul. Vol 4, pp. 2979-2996.

Balkema, Lisse.

Jamiolkowski, M., Lancellotta, R. & Pepe, M., 1993, The Leaning Tower

of Pisa Updated information. III International Conference on CaseHistories in Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis, Missouri, 1-4 June

1993, SOA3.

Janssen, J.J., 1994, An exceptional event at Deir El-Medina (P. Turin 1879,

verso II), Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt, Vol. 31,

pp. 91-97.

Kerisel, J., 1985, The history of geotechnical engineering up until 1700,

Proceedings of the eleventh International Conference on Soil mechanics

and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, 1985, pp. 1216.

Kerisel, J., 1988, A Glimpse of Geotechnical Engineering during the Fourth

and Third Millenia B.C., Engineering Geology of Ancient Works,

Monuments and Historical Sites, Eds. Marios & Koukis, Balkema,

pp. 1641-1651.

Kulhawy, F.H., & Duncan, J. M., 1972, Stresses and Movements in OrovilleDam, Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol.

98, No. 7, July 1972, pp. 653-665.

Lasing, A., 1933, Shaft-sinking by Caissons in Ancient Egypt, Engineering

News-Record, Vol. 111, Issue 23, pp. 675


31/32


68

Lehner, M., 1997, The Complete Pyramids: Solving the Ancient Mysteries,

Thames and Hudson, p.256.

Malek, J., 1983, Who Was the First to Identify the Saqqara Serapeum?,Chronique dEgypte Bruxelles, 58(115-116), pp. 65-72.

Mays, L., 2008, A very brief history of hydraulic technology during

antiquity, Environmental Fluid Mechanics, Volume 8, Issue 5-6, pp.

471-484.

Mays, L., 2010, Water Technology in Ancient Egypt, in Ancient Water

Technologies,Springer, p. 275

Nicholson, P.T., & Shaw, I., 2000, Ancient Egyptian Materials and

Technology, Oxford University Press, p.702.

Parry, D., 2004, Engineering the Pyramids, Gloucestershire, Sutton

Publishing, p. 195.

Peck, R.B, 1969,Advantages and limitations of the observational method

in applied soil mechanics, Geotechnique, 19, No. 1, pp. 171187

Petrie, W. M. F., 1883, The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh, available

on http://www.ronaldbirdsall.com/gizeh/. Piguet, J.P, Helal, H. &

Imam, E., 1988, Geotechnical phenomena in sites and monuments

of Egyptian antiquity, The engineering geology of ancient works,

monuments and historical sites, Preservation and protection,

Proceedings of an international symposium, Athens, 19-23 September

1988, , Vol. 1: engineering geology and the protection of historical

sites and monuments, Publisher: A.A. Balkema, pp. 153-160. Rao,V.V.S., 2009, Introduction to Forensic Geotechnical Engineering,

Chapter 1 in Forensic Geotechnical Engineering, A Workshop on

FGE by ISSMGE TC 40, Editor:

Rao, V.V.S., Bangalore on 12th Sept.2009.

Raynaud, S., Boisse, H., Makroum, F. M. & Bertho, J., 2008, Geological

and Geomorphological Study of the Original Hill at the base of

Fourth Dynasty Egyptian Monuments, http://hal.archives-ouvertes.

fr/docs/00/31/95/86/PDF/PyramidsSR.pdf.

Said, R., 1990, The Geology of Egypt, 1st Ed., Taylor & Francis, p. 734.

Sasaki, T., Hagiwara, I., Sasaki, K., Yoshinaka, R., Ohnishi, Y., Nishiyama,


32/32


S., and Koyama, T., 2011, Stability Analyses for Ancient Masonry

Structures using Discontinuous Deformation Analysis and Numerical

Manifold Method, Int. J. Comput. Methods 08, 247 (2011)

Schnitter, N. J., 1994, A History of Dams, The Useful Pyramids, A.A.

Balkema: Rotterdam, Netherlands, p.266.

Shenouda, W.K., 1994, Background and history of Dam Construction in

Egypt, International water power &dam construction, Vol. 46, pp.

17-23.

Sullivan, E., 2008, Construction Methods and Building Materials, On

Digital Karnak, Los Angeles. http://dlib.etc.ucla.edu/projects/Karnak

Weeks, K.R., 2000, Atlas of the Valley of the Kings(The Theban mapping

project), American University in Cairo Press, p. 144.

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	sayed-elaraby
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Learning from the Past: The Ancient Egyptians and Geotechnical Engineering

Documents