In the same papyrus (§ XII), there is a reference to an embankment, which may well have been intended for the erection of a monument, perhaps an obelisk, as the problem immediately following concerns the transport of an obelisk from the quarry. The scribe

ori puts the problem: “There is made a ramp of 730 cubits, with a breadth of 55 cubits, consisting of 120 com­part­ments (?) filled with reeds and beams with a height of 60 cubits at its summit, its middle of 30 cubits, its batter (?) 15 cubits, its base (?) of 5 cubits. The quantity of bricks needed for it is asked of the commander of the army . . . . . . . Answer us as to the quantity of bricks needed. Behold its meas­ure­ments (??) are before thee; each one of its com­part­ments (?) is of 30 cubits long and 7 cubits broad.”

Since the words trans­lated by “com­part­ment” and “base” are very doubtful in meaning, it is dif­fi­cult to obtain any definite idea as to the internal con­struc­tion of the ramp. Borchardt supposes the words “the middle” to mean the space filled with rubbish in the inside of the embankment as a means of econo­mising the bricks.

The ‘com­part­ments’ may refer to the long­i­tud­inal divisions in the middle of the embankment, which can still be seen in the con­struc­tion ramp inside the South Ptolemaic (?) pylon at Karnak. Choisy, in his L’Art de bâtir chez les Égyptiens, p. 86, gives rather a good little sketch of this, apparently made when the ramp was newly cleared. Borchardt, on the other hand, imagines the compartments to be transverse divisions. It is certain, however, that there is a mistake in the measurements given in the Anastasi papyrus, as it seems quite impossible to {36} divide up the embankment according to the data, even if we take ‘compartments’ to mean the sections or towers into which nearly all brick enclosure walls and embankments were divided (see SOMERS CLARKE, J. Eg. Arch., vol. VII, p. 77).

It seems to me that Borchardt is right as to the em­bank­ment being, as it were, a brick box filled with earth; other­wise there is a great re­dun­dance of data. Obviously, the only meas­ure­ments neces­sary for an em­bank­ment (built of plain brick­work or in towers like the great temple walls), if solid, are: Hor­i­zon­tal length of ramp (L); highest part (H); width at top (W); and the batter (B). Then the num­ber of bricks re­quired will be, to a close approx­i­ma­tion: ½⁠L⁠⁠H⁠(W + B) divided by the volume of one brick, plus a factor for waste bricks.

It may be remarked that if the Aswân obelisk were pulled up an em­bank­ment of the slope given here, it would need (neglecting fric­tion) over 2000 men.

Classical authors tell us next to nothing; as an example I give Pliny’s account of an erection done by the Egyptians. In his Natural History, book XXXVI, chap. 14, he tells us: “Rhamsesis, who was reigning at the time of the capture of Troy, erected one 140 cubits high (73 metres). Having left the spot where the palace of Mnevis stood, this monarch erected another obelisk 120 cubits (63 metres) in height, but of prodigious thickness, the sides being no less than 11 cubits in breadth (5.77 metres). It is said that 120,000 men were employed upon this work, and that the king, when it was on the point of being elevated, being apprehensive that the machinery employed might not prove sufficiently strong for the weight, and with a view of increasing the peril that might be entailed by the want of precaution on the part of the workmen, had his own son fastened to the summit, in order that the safety of the prince might at the same time ensure the safety of the mass of stone . . . . . ”

(36) Mediæval and modern writers have speculated freely on the ancient method of erecting obelisks, their ideas ranging from fairly sound theories to the assertion constantly made to me by the less responsible spiritualists, that it was done by levitation!

Of modern theories two seem to be popular; the first suggests that the obelisk was laid flat, with one side of its base just above the notch, which in nearly all cases runs along one side of the pedestal, and that it was gradually levered up, and at the same time banked from below, being assisted when it had become sufficiently high by pulling with head-ropes, and similarly checked by ropes when on the point of tilting over on to its base. This with slight modifications, was the method used for the erection of the obelisk of Seringapatam, and is described by Gorringe in his Egyptian Obelisks (p. 157), and by Commander Barber, in The Mechanical Triumphs of the Ancient Egyptians on page 102. It must be remembered, however, that the whole obelisk weighs only about 35 tons. To assert that this method was that to be used for the Aswân obelisk is not justifiable. The reasons against this method may be summed up as follows: