Back to Index ~ Theories of Dr. Clemmons

Wind, Pyramids & Obelisks

The simple expedient of using wind to lift, transport

and raise Megalithic Monuments of Antiquity

By

Dr. Maureen Johnson Clemmons

Thus, the task is not so much to see what no one yet has seen,

but to think what nobody yet has thought

about that which everybody sees.

Schopenhauer

A challenge exists to understand how the Egyptians transported and raised massive monuments using primitive technology before the advent of domesticated horses, elephants and camels. Experiments have been conducted using pulleys, ramps, sand and manpower without a definitive solution. How did the ancient Egyptians raise heavy stone obelisks with simple technology? Why is there no evidence of the implements used to achieve these engineering marvels? An article from the January, 1997 Smithsonian reviewed the attempt of a dedicated crew to raise a 40-ton obelisk resting in an ancient quarry in Aswan, Egypt. Even though the obelisk was relatively light in monument terms (40 ton obelisk compared to others weighing 100-300 tons), the crew was unable to achieve the lift needed to raise the obelisk upright. The story also referenced the raising of a 340-ton obelisk at St. Peter’s cathedral, which was accomplished using 74 horses, 900 men and wrought-iron pulleys. Since the Egyptians were able to raise heavy stones before the advent of domesticated animals, and there is no evidence of wrought-iron pulley-systems used in their engineering, this article incited my curiosity, and haunted me to come up with a simple, expedient solution.

What resources did the Egyptians have at their disposal? Well, lots of sand, the Nile River, and an extensive labor pool. I questioned the efficiency of using manpower as the principal method to erect this type of monument. It would require the extensive coordination of a dedicated and complex labor force, supported by expensive logistics. This is extremely wearing on an economy over twenty years. Herodotus explained that the Egyptians were impressed into pyramid building for a period of three months a year, and the pyramids were constructed by lifting the stones from one level of the pyramid to the next, maneuvered by levers:

This is how the pyramid was made: like a set of stairs, which some call battlements and some call altar steps. When they had first made this base, they then lifted the remaining stones with levers made of short timbers, lifting them from the ground to the first tier of steps, and, as soon as the stone was raised upon this, it was placed on another lever, which stood on the fist tier, and from there it was dragged up to the second tier and on to another lever. As many as there were tiers, so many were the levers; or it may have been that they transferred the same lever, if it were easily handeable, to each tier in turn, once they had got the stone out of it.

(Herodotus, Section 2.125, p. 186).

How did these people of limited technology lift two-and-a-half ton stones from one level to the next? Is Herodotus the father of history or the father of lies? In this instance, I think he was absolutely correct. My perception is that the Egyptians were master engineers who used their minds, rather than reliance on brute force. The engineers I associate with seem to delight in understanding challenging goals, and then applying various principles in order to efficiently resolve engineering dilemmas. This same passion and curiosity characteristic of engineers of my personal acquaintance I project were idiosyncratic of their ancient counterparts.

Reflective of their ancestors, today’s Egyptians use simple sailboats called feluccas, to navigate the Nile river. Back into antiquity, Egyptians harvested the power of the wind to transport trade goods up and down the Nile river. Sails were made of linen, not one piece but patches sewn together for added strength (Casson, 1991, p. 40). Very early in her history Egypt had the ability to use the wind, and a strong understanding of the simple technology involved in this process.

Other ancient cultures constructed massive stone monuments, and indicated divine power in their erection. The Celts maintain Stonehenge was built by "gods". This theme of involving the heavens suggested that somehow invisible forces residing in the sky participated in the construction process.

In looking at the natural resources of Egypt, three things come to mind. Egypt is blessed with lots of sand, the Nile river, and plentiful, ubiquitous and abundant wind. Obviously, wind is easily harvested by using sails. In antiquity, this technology harnessed gaseous fluid to propel ancient sailboats, or feluccas, through liquid fluid. A classic example of moving heavy objects through the desert using wind was demonstrated by the Vikings, who tradition claims put their long-ships on wheels, and raised their square sails in order to cross the desert to Constantinople. Wind could resolve the Celtic hypothesis of the forces of heaven rearing their megaliths.

For all the conversation of modern man that revolves around the weather, as an amateur, backyard scientist I found a dearth of material on the topic for ancient Egypt. I researched many books that discussed everyday life in ancient Egypt - food, wine, women and song - however information on the weather was difficult to find. What I did find out about the climate was there was a definite windy season, used extensively for transportation:

The Nile offered the best and easiest form of transport, and was endowed with a prevailing wind that blew from the north. Wind has the ability to create a force strong enough to uproot trees, blow semi-trucks across freeways, and blow down houses. If you compare this invisible force to manual labor, you are struck by intriguing comparisons. How many men would it take to manually uproot an oak tree? How many people would it take to pull down a house? Perhaps the harvesting of this energy can be applied to the raising of the monuments of antiquity.

Just as the Vikings used wind to cross the desert, I believe the Egyptians used their sail technology to move stones from quarries to temples. Pulling objects over ground is tedious work, but moving stone through air using lift is simple and energy efficient. Just like the Vikings millennia later, I believe the intense desert winds of Egypt were harnessed by ancient engineers to both move and raise these heavy stones to a critical point from whence they settled onto the ground. The various vectors used by reinforced linen sails would augment and enhance the erection process, as in a high wind an almost vertical 90* force-vector could be achieved. I conjecture this would be the methodology of preference for the Egyptians, as moving heavy stone on barges down the Nile would include working in and around mud, a difficult substance to work in even under the best of conditions, let alone when trying to maneuver cumbersome and heavy monuments.

In viewing the form of an obelisk, it is very easy to see that the mass of the top of the obelisk is less than that of the base. The structure of this monolith lends itself to a concept of lifting the top while the base grounds the monument. In addition, in looking at the construction of ancient obelisks, I noticed that the bottom of the monument is rounded. This would mitigate friction as the obelisk is raised. I also noted the changes in the shape of the obelisk are subtle rather than radical. I conjecture that this design afforded facility in rigging the monument for lift. The logs the obelisks rested on would provide a fulcrum upon which the monument turned.

This theory is congruent with Herodotus. Using the wind to provide lift, the stones of a pyramid could be lifted from one level to the next, maneuvered by levers. I suggest that the Egyptians were conscripted to work quarrying stone, after which the construction team transported the stones to and on the pyramids. During the period of inundation when the land was flooded and all routine agricultural work ceased, they provided an unemployed work-force available to work on major state projects such as the building of royal monuments (Tyldesley, 1996, p. 38). Once enough stone was quarried, I believe they were placed on wooden sledges and transported to the construction site during the windy season. I suggest the bosses on the dressed stones were used to fasten sails/kites to the rocks, rather than for attaching pulleys.

No dressed blocks in position show any traces of slots for "lewises" or other marks which would presumably be present if the Egyptians had used lifting tackle. Traces of recesses, however, for receiving the points of levers are frequent in large Egyptian blocs from the IVth dynasty onwards. (Clarke and Engelbach, 1990, p. 86).

Such recesses would allow the Egyptians to use levers to control the setting of the large and cumbersome stones, and explain why no traces of block and tackle have been found. This is compatible with the statements of Herodotus when he stated that levers were used in the construction of the pyramids.

There is evidence that water channels were cut close to the location where obelisks were quarried, for transportation to the monoliths destination. It is suggested that the stones and megaliths were transported down the Nile to the construction site. But how were these stones loaded into the boats? Working around riverbanks means mud, a difficult substance to work in even under the best of conditions. There are two plausible suggestions on how the Egyptians used the wind to transport stones and monuments. Perhaps the quarried obelisks were put into the channel (without logs), and harnessed to the wind for pull. This way, when the winds died down, the obelisk would settle and rest on a soft bed of sand until the winds kicked up again. Granite has the potential to crack, and this technique may have protected the column until enough wind re-surged to recommence transportation. The other suggestion is that the wind was used to lift the stones onto barges, and were subsequently sailed to their destination.

One of the critical elements of the theory of using wind is ensuring that the Egyptians had the appropriate material to make kites. What forms did these kites take? Parachutes? Para-sails? Kites? This article does not resolve this question, however it is important to understand that the Egyptians did have the tools to do the job. Sails were chiefly of linen, usually of oblong blocks of cloth sewn together; the edges were secured by a boltrope and the corners reinforced by leather patches. Ropes were of flax, hemp, papyrus, or esparto grass (Casson, 1991, p. 193).

If a kite-type design was employed, what did they use for a frame? Did the Egyptians have a native wood they would have employed? I don’t think so:

From the fertility of the Egyptian soil we might expect a specially rich flora, but notwithstanding the luxuriant vegetation, no country in the same latitude has so poor a variety of plants. There are very few trees. The sycamore or wild fig and the acacia are the only common forest trees, and these grow in an isolated fashion somewhat s the lime or chestnut tree grows with us. Besides these there are fruit trees, such as the date and dom palms, the fig tree and others. The scarcity of wood is quite a calamity for Egypt (Erman, 1971, p. 11).

Although there was a dearth of wood along the Nile, the Egyptians did have access to the cedar through trading expeditions as early as the reign of Pharaoh Snefru. Some three thousand years before the birth of Christ a fleet of forty vessels slipped their moorings, sailed out of a Phoenician harbor, and shaped a course for Egypt to bring there a shipment of Lebanese cedar (Casson, 1991, p. 6). Forty boats full of lumber is quite a load, but I am not convinced all of it was turned into rollers as many theorists maintain. It would take an extraordinary amount of rollers to build pyramids, perhaps cedar had other characteristics more conducive to monument construction. There are interesting properties associated with cedar - it is lightweight, strong, and easily split into lengths. This would provide a lightweight, flexible and strong frame for any kites that could have been built. 40 shiploads of cedar, split into lengths for kites or para-sails, would provide a better use for this unique wood than mere rollers.

For a massive construction job employing linen, it was imperative that the crown have a plentiful supply available. There were two important industries which were controlled by the pharaoh:

The ancient world’s writing paper was either papyrus or parchment; papyrus was cheaper, practically all of it came from Egypt, and its manufacture and sale belonged to the crown. So too did the textile industry, which, using native flax, produced for export not only fine fabrics but very likely much of the linen that went into sailcloth (Casson, 1991, p. 159).

I suggest the revenue of the sale of papyrus assisted in funding the costs of pyramid construction, while controlling the linen industry ensured that the resources of the nation were available for the sowing, harvesting and weaving of flax into linen and sailcloth.

Knowing that the raw materials were available, we can begin to conjecture the feasibility of their use. The July 8, 1967 Science News profiled a kite design by William Rock of Portland, Oregon patent number 3,326,392. Rock proposes a multi-layered cluster of giant kites for transporting logs from forests to sawmills (Science News, 1967, p.26). Each of these logs weigh several tons, and their shape is not far removed from that of an obelisk. He is quoted in the article as saying that "the kites could carry any load in the world". This modern application of wind as a transport mechanism could reflect a basis for kite design used by the Egyptians to carry and lift weights of several tons.

The use of kites in construction would have been a spectacular and vivid sight. Such images we should see reflected in Egyptian art. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of any portrayal of pyramid construction techniques in the hieroglyphs. There is, however, one image that I believe represented to the Egyptians the force of the wind, one that I happened across accidentally. I passed a Museum Store in the Topanga Mall in Woodland Hills, California. In the window was a museum replication of a statue of the Winged Isis. This portraiture of Isis, the Egyptian goddess of magic and the mother of the sky god, had her arms outstretched - and attached to her arms were a magnificent set of wings. How do you represent power like wind that is invisible? It may be that the magic of this force was personified by Isis. I immediately went back to my reference material, and found many images of the winged-Isis in the hieroglyphs. In each of these representations, the musculature and presentation of Isis do not mirror a bird, rather she looks like a kite. The museum replication shows her holding her wings cocked forward, as if waiting for a stiff breeze. this image is contrasted to birds, who are typically represented as holding their wings folded, raised, flying, etc.

This inspired me to look at the hieroglyphs with a new perspective. In searching a book of plates commissioned by Napoleon Bonaparte, I started to see the theme of "wings" everywhere. This is especially true when looking at the top-center of monuments. This important position in monuments is usually filled by a picture of outstretched wings. Does this represent the force that actually raised the monument? I also looked at photographs of King Tut's sarcophagus, and noticed that wings were folded over his body. Why invest god-kings with such a totem? Why not lions or cheetahs? I feel the Egyptians associated the invisible, heavenly power of wind with their pharaohs. A final observation involves their pantheon. Thoth, the scribe, is an Ibis, Horus represented as a falcon, and Isis with wings. I find it intriguing that the principle gods in the Egyptian pantheon are associated with the sky.

Was there a regular season that could be depended on by ancient engineers to transport stone and construct the pyramids? Engineering logicians would need a reliable calendar of when to harness the wind in order to plan for the construction force, and ensure that the proper materiel was available for the task at hand. The western Mediterranean is swept by northwest winds during the summer months, which made up the ancient mariner’s chief period of activity (Casson, 1991, p. 65). I believe that these weather patterns, used for transportation by the ancient mariners, were well known to the engineers and architects who built the pyramids.

If the weather conditions were predictable, then we can start to conjecture the construction schedule. Egypt lies to the southeast of Rome. The winds that prevail over the waters between, during the summer months when the ancient mariners sailed, are northwesterly (Casson, 1991, p. 207). As mentioned earlier, when the Nile flooded, a period of forced unemployment ensued. During the inundation, much of the country was under water. In August, September and much of October, no work in the fields was possible (Bagnallo, 1993, p. 21). From December to March the air is cool, and at night sometimes the temperature may almost go down to freezing point, but during eight months of the year it is very hot, and in July the thermometer rises to 110* Fahrenheit in the shade (Erman, 1971, p. 9). Herodotus mentions that the Egyptians were conscripted for three months every year to build pyramids. I suggest that this labor pool was conscripted during the inundation and cool weather to carve and stockpile materiel until the summer windy season ensued.

This theory has other applications as well. We need to extrapolate the feasibility of transferring the concept underlying this experiment to the building of Stonehenge, Easter Island, South American monuments, and the massive monuments of Malta. These massive stone monuments raise as many construction questions as do the pyramids.

If in fact the Egyptians and Ethiopians used wind energy, why did they stop? (My personal hypothesis is that once reliable and available animals became domesticated, our ancestors increasingly relied on horses, elephants and camels for hauling, and the use of seasonal wind for lift and land transportation was gradually abandoned.) Why would such a powerful and effective method for moving monuments be discarded for other means?

Field Tests

One this hypothesis was studied, the next step was to conduct field tests. Following Goddard’s example of testing hand-held kites in his aunts cabbage field, we took a 400-pound obelisk (a garden monument) to a park in Northridge, California for preliminary tests. On December 10, 1997, and again on December 12, 1997, my family and friends conducted simple field experiments to test the theory on a small scale. Bringing a variety of large, store-bought kites, we realized parafoil kites gave the greatest lift. Starting off with an 8’ redwood log, we attached a 4’x3’ kite to the top of the log and raised it easily. Then, attaching a parafoil to either end of the log, we lifted the log off the ground, demonstrating that perhaps monuments were lifted off the ground by the wind and transported by guiding the stones to their final destination.

Once finished with the log, we transferred our attention to an obelisk (purchased from a lawn and garden store). Attaching two of these kites to the top of a 4’8” tall concrete obelisk, when the wind hit 25 M.P.H., the obelisk was erected from 40-degree angle to the vertical using wind. The goal of this experiment was designed to illustrate that perhaps wind was used to augment the efforts of the masons. A second experiment was done with the obelisk in a supine position, with its nose on the ground. Even in a bracing wind, the obelisk would not stand up. They realized that the angle of the kites could not overcome the resistance vector, and that the kites were actually trying to drag the obelisk backwards along the ground. They then laid the obelisk horizontal, where the nose of the obelisk was level with the base. Attaching two parafoils, the mini-monument was erected in a matter of seconds. These simple field experiments do not conclusively prove wind was employed, however they did open a completely new field of study, the possibility of using wind in antiquarian construction.

The next step was to test the project on a larger scale. I contacted Dr. Mory Gharib, an aeronautics professor at the California Institute of Technology. According to his numbers, the idea was within the realm of possibility, but serious engineering hurdles had to be overcome. He recruited an engineering student, Emilio Graff, to attack critical control issues. Under Gharib’s mentorship, GraffEmilio designed a simple system consisting of a kite, pulleys, scaffolding, and a rope break. This system affords pull (kite), mechanical advantage (pulleys), control (scaffolding) and safety (rope brake). The material we used for this feasibility study were all modern, as we thought that if the theory did not work with modern materials, it would not work with ancient materials.

Once the system was designed, it was sent to Daniel Correa, the president of IncaBlock, Inc. in San Diego. Daniel and his crew made a 3.4-ton obelisk out of rebar and cement, and the scaffolding out of steel. Graff ordered a 425-square foot parafoil, six sailboat pulleys and then used his carpentry skills to make a rope-brake. After testing the scaffolding, pulleys and rope-brake in Tecate, Mexico in October 2001, we were ready to attempt to raise the obelisk with a kite. All we needed was a certified large kite expert, so I recruited Eric May, a kite surfer certified in the use of large kites. He trained Correa, Graff, GharibDaniel, Emilio, Mory and myself on the basic elements of the use and control of large kites. He focused constantly on safety.

So we tried it. On June 23^rd, 2001 in Quartz Hill, our team of kite flyers convened for our important field test. The wind had to be just right. Anything less than 13 mph, and the obelisk would not raise. If the wind exceeded 20mph, the handling of the kite would be too dangerous to risk. Anemometers were constantly in the air, waiting for the perfect conditions. At 1:05 pm, wind speed was perfect. Battle stations! The kite launchers held the kite steady, GraffEmilio and MayEric held the control lines, and the rest of us got out of their way. The team launched the kite, and stood back. As the kite flew into the air the obelisk was pulled upright. Between two kite launches, the 6,900-pound monument was lifted off the ground in a total flight time of less than one minute. Pretty spectacular. This gave us our “proof of concept”. The next step was to make an even larger monument, and use ancient materials. Through a process reverse engineering, we did just that.

Daniel Correa, who also doubles as a visiting professorprofessional to the University del Sol in Cuernavaca, Mexico designed a scaffolding over thirty feet tall made of telephone poles. Realizing the Egyptians had access to pine from Lebanon; this scaffolding was designed to hold the weight of 16-tons. Correa also designed the obelisk, which was constructed out of concrete and rebar. Troy Chaput joined the team, and with his knowledge of rigging, this ironworker provided valuable expertise in rigging the system.

During the field tests, Gharib discovered that by harnessing the unsteady force of wind would result in capturing 8 to 10 times the energy of using steady force. To that end, he needed to have a system that would do this. To enhance field safety and to give Gharib his unsteady force, I took some clues from the hieroglyphs and designed a control system that would allow Gharib to harness the "impulse" aspect of wind. The very first field tests of this guidance system resulted in a surprise - no one was needed to launch the kite. The kite is rigged to the system, put on the ground, and the team walks away. The kite launches itself, and gently, gracefully and quickly lifts 32,000 pounds skyward. An amazing feat. No human help is needed to erect the obelisk. All the work is done by the kite.

This system was first tried with an obelisk in October 2003. At that time, the system was enhanced by a hand-carved marble rope-brake. Realizing the ancient Egyptians did not have modern rope brakes (used to hold the obelisk in place in the event the wind died), a rope brake conserves work. I realized a common hieroglyph that resembled a clam cleat - a simple rope brake used by modern mariners. She took the hieroglyph and a clam cleat to Art City in Oxnard. There a rock carver carefully hand-carved a blood red marble brake. In October 2003, this brake was installed and threaded with 20-mm hemp rope, materials available to the Egyptians. The obelisk was placed on a wooden sled, log rollers, and wooden runners underneath her wooden scaffolding. Pulleys were used, but this time the materials were downgraded to wooden blocks with either bronze or wooden sheaves, and rigged by Chaput Pulleys were indeed available to the Egyptians in the New Kingdom, the golden age of building obelisks. The October 2003 field test resulted in the obelisk being raised 40-degrees before one of the pulleys gave way. The team regrouped, found another pulley, and waited for wind.

In the meantime, plans to build a mini-pyramid were underway. Suggestions were offered by the University del Sol, and a planning meeting held at Caltech with a desktop model. The plan was then put into action. 2-Ton stones were donated by Prime Building Materials and delivered to the field. Chaput designed and built an A-frame and rigged pulleys and rope to the kite. A 2-ton stone was dragged along log rollers, up a wooden ramp, and carefully and gently placed atop two other stones, using just two men to position the stone in place.

Then, on January 31, 2004 a final test was conducted with the 16-ton obelisk. A 420-square foot nylon parafoil was rigged to the obelisk using nylon rope. (A linen kite that was commissioned was delivered with incorrect rigging, so the team used the available nylon kite from previous lifts.) Nylon rope and a modern rope brake were employed for this test, as the scaffolding had been damaged by vandals, and the structural integrity compromised. The obelisk was on its wooden sled, log rollers and wooden runners, and the hieroglyph-inspired guidance system in place. The system had been designed to harness the predicted west wind, but the wind shifted to north west. Chaput quickly used two 2-ton stones as anchors to redirect the guidance system.

The team set the kite on the ground, and stepped away, watching. The wind fluctuated between 15 and 24 mph. The team waited and watched as the kite struggled to overcome the initial friction. Then, after a few anxious moments, the obelisk started to move! It gracefully and elegantly nosed its way upward. The system is designed so that even in a courtyard with limited space, the kite system can be used. The kite was brought down, brought closer, then launched again. Again the obelisk easily moved upward. After re-launching the kite a half dozen times, the obelisk was raised to an almost upright position. The settling of the heavy telephone poles resulted in the scaffolding being 4-inches too short to erect the obelisk to her full 90-degrees.

Did the Egyptians use kites? I don’t know for certain, but I know moving a 3.4-ton stone with two men and a kite seems a logical way to harness an abundant resource using simple technology. The Egyptians were master sailors, and I believe they were capable of applying their nautical knowledge to moving monuments.

Personally, this experience has been extremely rewarding. There is nothing like working with a cohort of professionals and amateurs testing a novel idea. The excitement, camaraderie, and passion of discovery have made each of our field tests sheer fun, and could perhaps open up new uses for wind in our society of limited energy resources.

Reference List

Bagnall, R. (1993). Egypt in Late Antiquity. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

Burnett III, Fred. (1997). Interviews - Summer 1997. Mr. Burnett is a Certified Engineering Geologist and Registered Geologist with the State of California.

Casson, L. (1991). The Ancient Mariners. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey.

Clarke, S. and Engelbach, R. (1990). Ancient Egyptian Construction and Architecture. Dover Publications, Inc. New York. Reprinted unabridged from the work originally published in 1930 by Oxford University Press" Humphrey Milford, London, under the title Ancient Egyptian Masonry: The Building Craft.

Erman, A. (1971). Life in Ancient Egypt translated by H.M. Tirard. Dover Publications, Inc., New York.

Hadingham, E. (1997). A Nova crew strains, and chants, to solve the obelisk mystery. Smithsonian Magazine, January 1997. Washington, D.C.

Hawkins, G. (1965). Stonehenge Decoded. Barnes and Noble Books, New York.

Herodotus. (484c - 424c B.C.). The History. Translated by David Grene, The University of Chicago Press, 1987.

Johnson, Loering M. (1997). A series of Interviews (June/July 1997). Mr. Johnson is a Professional Engineer (retired) licensed in the state of Connecticut and an IEEE Fellow.

Kernan, M. (1997) Around the Mall and Beyond. Smithsonian Magazine, June 1997. Washington, D.C.

Lehner, M. (1996). The Pyramid. In Barnes, Brightwell, von Hagen, Lehner and Page Secrets of Lost Empires. 1996. Sterling Publishing Co., Inc., New York.

Science News. (1967). Volume 92, No. 2, page 26. Forestry: Logging by Kite.

Tyldesley, J. (1996). Hatchepsut - The Female Pharaoh. Viking, New York.