Second, thanks for providing the answer to the mystery of the device. I had read about the device over fifty years ago, but the sources that I had read did not have the information that appears in this article.

[quote]Zoltan said: “The ramp theory is certainly one of the theories put forward to account for the ability of the ancient Egyptians to build the Great Pyramid. But it is only one of at least a dozen that I am aware of. The problem is, it has no more evidentiary support than any of the others. To be sure, it has the beauty of a good theory: it is simple, it could be repeated if one was of a mind to build another great pyramid, and it is loveable; i.e., people are happy with it. But it is no more supported by evidence than my personal favorite, which has to do with the use of hot air balloons tied to the huge blocks of stone to provide, if not sufficient total lift capacity for the enormously massive blocks, at least a kind of neutral bouyancy that made them relatively easy to move. So far we have discovered no mention of the use baloons — more’s the pity — by the Pharo’s engineers; but neither is there any mention of ramps, even though there is extensive documentation of other Egyptian building techniques. But, oddly, there are many references to making things “float” in the air. By the way, there is no evidence to suggest that the pyramids were built by slave labor. Quite the contrary. They appear to have been built by eager volunteers. Let us not be too arrogant in our certainty. As Charles Fort suggested, science is merely ignorance surrounded by laughter.”[/quote]

There is also another theory: a highly plausible one gaining recognition among reputable scientists, albeit slowly. From the Times article:

[quote] “The Ancient Egyptians built their great Pyramids by pouring concrete into blocks high on the site rather than hauling up giant stones, according to a new Franco-American study.

The research, by materials scientists from national institutions, adds fuel to a theory that the pharaohs’ craftsmen had enough skill and materials at hand to cast the two-tonne limestone blocks that dress the Cheops and other Pyramids.

Despite mounting support from scientists, Egyptologists have rejected the concrete claim, first made in the late 1970s by Joseph Davidovits, a French chemist.

The stones, say the historians and archeologists, were all carved from nearby quarries, heaved up huge ramps and set in place by armies of workers. Some dissenters say that levers or pulleys were used, even though the wheel had not been invented at that time.

Until recently it was hard for geologists to distinguish between natural limestone and the kind that would have been made by reconstituting liquefied lime.

But according to Professor Gilles Hug, of the French National Aerospace Research Agency (Onera), and Professor Michel Barsoum, of Drexel University in Philadelphia, the covering of the great Pyramids at Giza consists of two types of stone: one from the quarries and one man-made.

“There’s no way around it. The chemistry is well and truly different,” Professor Hug told Science et Vie magazine. Their study is being published this month in the Journal of the American Ceramic Society.

The pair used X-rays, a plasma torch and electron microscopes to compare small fragments from pyramids with stone from the Toura and Maadi quarries.

They found “traces of a rapid chemical reaction which did not allow natural crystalisation . . . The reaction would be inexplicable if the stones were quarried, but perfectly comprehensible if one accepts that they were cast like concrete.”

The pair believe that the concrete method was used only for the stones on the higher levels of the Pyramids. There are some 2.5 million stone blocks on the Cheops Pyramid. The 10-tonne granite blocks at their heart were also natural, they say. The professors agree with the “Davidovits theory” that soft limestone was quarried on the damp south side of the Giza Plateau. This was then dissolved in large, Nile-fed pools until it became a watery slurry.

Lime from fireplace ash and salt were mixed in with it. The water evaporated, leaving a moist, clay-like mixture. This wet “concrete” would have been carried to the site and packed into wooden moulds where it would set hard in a few days. Mr Davidovits and his team at the Geopolymer Institute at Saint-Quentin tested the method recently, producing a large block of concrete limestone in ten days.

New support for their case came from Guy Demortier, a materials scientist at Namur University in Belgium. Originally a sceptic, he told the French magazine that a decade of study had made him a convert: “The three majestic Pyramids of Cheops, Khephren and Mykerinos are well and truly made from concrete stones.”

The concrete theorists also point out differences in density of the pyramid stones, which have a higher mass near the bottom and bubbles near the top, like old-style cement blocks.

Opponents of the theory dispute the scientific evidence. They also say that the diverse shapes of the stones show that moulds were not used. They add that a huge amount of limestone chalk and burnt wood would have been needed to make the concrete, while the Egyptians had the manpower to hoist all the natural stone they wanted.

The concrete theorists say that they will be unable to prove their theory conclusively until the Egyptian authorities give them access to substantial samples.”[/quote]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article656117.ece

Actually I’m surprised there hasn’t already been a Damn Interesting article on this hypothesis – theory? – or maybe there has and I just haven’t seen it.

A new analysis, though, suggests that the device was cleverer than Price thought, and reinforces the evidence for his theory of an ancient Greek tradition of complex mechanical technology.

So what does this new analysis actually suggest that the device did/can do?

MissMrs: it’s not modern arrogance in this case. The Greeks said that of themselves. They wanted to be seen as pure thinkers. They explicitely held handiwork in contempt as a lower form of expression of human intelligence.

Chances are that Stonehenge was built much the same way, again using logs to roll stones.
The statuary on Easter Island were done this way, too, although you wouldn’t think it possible by the size of the trees remaining on the island. For an interesting read, google “Easter’s End” by Jared Diamond. It’s a good lesson in more than the arrogance of thinking we’re smarter than the ancients, but I won’t spoil it.