You are on page 1of 32

Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering

38
Learning from the Past: The Ancient Egyptians and
Geotechnical Engineering
Sherif W. Agaiby
1
, Moustafa K. El-Ghamrawy
2
, Sayed M. Ahmed
3
1
Director, Geotechnical and Heavy Civil Engineering Dept., Dar Al-Handasah
Consultants (Shair and Partners).
2
Professor Emeritus of Geotechnical Engineering; Faculty of Engineering,
Al-AzharUniversity, Cairo, Egypt.
3
Assistant 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 door
tounderstanding 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 beneft 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 ffth 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,
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
39
engineers with considerable skills. In this regards, geotechnical engineering
is one of the felds 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 benefts 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 et
al., 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 defnition, 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
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
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 confuence 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 on
quarrying 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
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
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 identifcation 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 frst 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).
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
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 foors) but
Figure 3. Giza Pyramids Figure 4. Map of the Giza
Pyramids
Figure 5.Predecessors of Giza Pyramids.
From Top: Zosers Step Pyramid, Meidum Pyramid, Bent Pyramid and Red Pyramid
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
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 fnished base was
squared to a mean corner error ofonly 12 seconds of an arc. The base is
horizontal and fat 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 better
than 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 transport
smaller 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
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
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 Pyramid
were ft 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 unfnished. b. The so-called Quens Chamber
and Kings Chamber are higher up within the pyramid structure. 6. The
Great 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)
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
45
The oldest explanation was put forward by Herodotus in the ffth
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 to
crack. 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 the
workmens 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 effcient
fow of men and materials. Harris (2010) assembled some confguration
for the ramps and stone lifters that could have been used in building the
Pyramid. Some of these confgurations 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), proposed
a 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
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
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 foods 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 limestone
aggregates 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 fexible material yet,
remarkably, the vase was made of one of the hardest rocks known to exist
in 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 frst trial was the Step Pyramid which was
built 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
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
47
three pyramids. The frst 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 to
reduce 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)
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
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 frst two pyramids, were not attempted in the Giza Pyramids; Khufus
Great Pyramids has an inclination of 51.8 deg. The detail shown in Figure
15 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).
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
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 defnition, it is a method to fll the gaps in the
available 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
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
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 archaeological
sitesin 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
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
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 defned: the upper
Thebeslimestone formation andthe lower Esna Shale formation (El Salam,
2002). They are both fat 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, fat-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 some
distressas 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 fbrous 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 fault
surfaces.
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
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
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 fat-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)
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
53
STONE QUARRYING
The Ancient Egyptiansarewell-knownfor the utilizationof stones
forbuilding, as ornaments, gems, and utilitarian applications. These stones
came 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 magnifcent Tutankhamens Alabaster Boat.
Figure 21.Granitic head of
Amenhotep III
Figure 22. Granitic columns of the ValleyTemple in the
Giza Pyramids area
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
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 frst use, an offcial 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 South
of 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)
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
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 rich
archeological 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, and
diorite). 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
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
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 confrm that the stone was not
fawed. 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
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
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 smooth
only those sides that would be visible.
Hard rocks (nearly all the igneous and metamorphic rocks plus
silicifed sandstone and chert) were even more diffcult to quarry. They
were quarried using stone tools aided by fre 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 hard
dolerite balls on the rock bed as the metal tools used during most of the
Pharaonic period were not suffciently hard to excavate such hard materials
Figure 29.Hardstone quarrying at Aswan. (after Harrell& Storemyr, 2009)
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
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 diffculty 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 unfnished 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 unfnished
granite obelisk measured a total of 91 meters with each trench having a
depth of more than 0.75m. Such trenches could accommodate up to ffty
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 faw 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 unfnished 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.
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
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 High
Dam 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
specifed depth below the natural ground level. The trench was then partly
flled 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 benefcial effect of the sand by providing a
replacement layer that averts the seasonal changes of the Nile formations
with the annual foods, 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
fnger at the use of small sandstone blocks (found crushed by the weight
of the huge columns) for the upper foundation layer. They suspected that
these 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 fooded hall is what
disturbed the sand layers beneath the columns, destabilized the foundation,
and caused the columns to topple.
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
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 for
food 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-fll 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(fnely 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 food 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 fnished, it was not
protected from food 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 fooding would have caused the reservoir to
food into adjacent parallel wadis. The failure of the dam most likely made
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
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 feld 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 fat 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 flled 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 frst rock tunneling project ever undertaken
by mankind. Mastabas are the predecessors of Pyramids.
Figure 33. Structure of a Mastaba
Thee frst pyramid is the Step Pyramid in Sakkara that was built
by 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
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
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
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
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 (19
th
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 (19
th
dynasty 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
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
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 frst 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.
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
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 scientifc tool, and apart from
its legal connotations and ramifcations, can be of great use and beneft 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 Journal
of 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?,
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
66
Geoscientist 18, 6 (2008), http://hal-insu.archives-ouvertes.fr/insu-
00299728.
Davidovits, J., 2009, Why the Pharaohs Built the Pyramids with Fake
Stones, 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.
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
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 of
Giza, 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, Firefy
Books, p. 191.
Jamiolkowski, M., 1999, The Leaning Tower of Pisa. The XIV Licao
Manuel 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 Case
Histories 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 Oroville
Dam, 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
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
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,
Fourth International Seminar on Forensic Geotechnical Engineering
69
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.

You might also like