(30) Having discussed the possible methods of removing the obelisk from the quarry, the next thing to be considered is whether it was rolled over and over down to the river bank, or whether it was pulled along on rollers.
The first way is not without its advantages, as it is almost fool-proof. The width of the embankment or track, of which there are many about the quarries, need only be about one-third the length of the obelisk, and the tendency for the obelisk to roll in a circle would be to a large extent neutralized if it were of soft sand, where the heavy end would sink in to a greater depth than the point end. However, the turning would be a most laborious process, and the general progress very slow and requiring an enormous number of men. It is obvious that the obelisk was brought into the temple precincts lengthways, so if it was moved a little that way it is quite possible that the greater part of its journey on land was so made.
(31) Plate [VII] gives a rough plan of the quarry in which the obelisk lies. It is accurate as regards the obelisk, embankments and the rock faces A, B and C. It will be seen that the rock at B, which is also shewn on plate [III], no. 2, has been partly cut away, presumably to let the point of the obelisk pass out of the quarry. It may be only a coincidence, but, strangely enough, the distance A C (from both ends of which rock has been removed), is almost exactly the length of the obelisk. My opinion is that the obelisk was only rolled sideways for a very short distance until it was very little higher than the level of the floor of the valley, and was then put on to rollers running on heavy baulks of limber, the process being:
- (1) Track prepared before the obelisk has reached its lowest level.
- (2) Track and rollers covered over with soft sand, the line of the track being marked by sighting poles.
- (3) Obelisk rolled down on to the sand above the track.
- (4) Sand dug away from under the obelisk. In the end, I think that this way would be quicker than levering the obelisk up by horizontal levers—but that is still a possibility.
It has been doubted that the Egyptians knew rollers, but without them I do not see how a thousand-ton block can be transported. After all, the Assyrians were familiar with them in the 8th century B. C. at latest (section [29]), and there was extensive communication between them and the Egyptians for centuries before that. Are we to assume that the discovery was made between the probable 15th century of our obelisk and the 8th?
The Luxor obelisk, in the course of its removal to Paris, was dragged along a specially prepared wooden track after it had been mounted on a wooden ‘cradle’, the track being well greased. The pulling was done by capstans and blocks and tackles. It was found that a pull of 94 tons was required to pull the obelisk up the slope leading to the pedestal. This was with a 227‐ton obelisk. Since friction with average-sized blocks is about proportional to the weight, to pull the Aswân obelisk would need (1168/227 × 94) = 485 tons, which would require about 11,000 men. I cannot believe that all these could have been arranged so as to pull the obelisk up an embankment (see sections [35] and [37]). {32}
The great advantage of rollers is that comparatively little space is required and a minimum of pulling force; its disadvantages are that there is always a risk of the rollers becoming jammed, and that, even on a slight incline, the obelisk is liable to get out of control.
As to the sizes of the rollers required, I can only say that the top of the fallen obelisk of
atshepsôwet now rests on 20 cent. diameter pitch-pine rollers, spaced one metre apart, and there is not the faintest sign of crushing. The worst stress with the Aswân obelisk might rise to 11 times as much as the example cited.