Tabloids have seized on the most headline-friendly takeaway - “pulleys built the pyramid” - but the underlying claim is more specific: the pyramid may have grown “inside-out,” using internal sloped passages as sliding-ramps to generate force, then transmitting that force through rope-and-beam mechanisms to lift blocks upward.
- Archaeologists Say They've Solved Mystery of How Pyramids were Built
- Beyond the Pyramid Ramp: Unravelling Egypt's Most Elusive Enigma
Side-view (North–South) of the Great Pyramid with internal structures, i.e., King’s Chamber, Queen’s Chamber, Grand Gallery, Ascending Passage, Descending Passage, Horizontal Passage, Subterranean Chamber, as labeled. Note, Grand Gallery and Ascending Passage form a continuous sliding-ramp. Inset: Schematic of forces related to a hanging block and a block on an inclination of ~26.5° (Scheuring 2025/Nature)
What the New Study Actually Proposes
The study’s author, Simon Andreas Scheuring, points to the long-accepted construction timetable - often summarized as roughly 20 years for the pyramid’s completion - as a logistical pressure test. With an estimated ~2.3 million blocks, even generous assumptions imply an extraordinary placement rate. That pace, Scheuring argues, is difficult to reconcile with hauling heavy blocks up long exterior ramps alone.
Instead, he proposes a system where counterweights slid down an internal sloped route, reinterpreting the Ascending Passage and Grand Gallery as one continuous “sliding-ramp” to generate pulling force. The key mechanical “hub,” he suggests, was the Antechamber near the King’s Chamber, traditionally described as part of a portcullis or blocking system. Scheuring argues the Antechamber is better understood as a pulley-like lifting station used during construction, and later sealed.
Mainstream reporting has echoed this interpretation, describing how the Grand Gallery’s surfaces may show wear consistent with repeated heavy movement rather than only foot traffic reports the Daily Mail.
- Ancient Egyptian Logbook of Inspector Who Helped Construct the Great Pyramid
- Hidden Chamber Found? Cosmic Ray Tech Reveals Large Void in Great Pyramid
The Grand Gallery’s steep incline and long, straight geometry are central to the new “sliding counterweight” proposal. (Keith Adler/CC BY-SA 4.0)
Evidence Cited: Grand Gallery Wear, Antechamber “Machine” Features
Scheuring’s argument leans heavily on architecture as “frozen engineering.” The Grand Gallery and Ascending Passage align in direction and share the same steep slope (about 26.5°), which he interprets as a functional design choice for force generation. The paper also emphasizes marks and polishing that could be explained by heavy sledges moving repeatedly along the same route.
For the Antechamber, the study contends that features long explained as anti-robber devices make more sense as parts of a working mechanism. In this view, the chamber’s grooves and unusual construction details supported ropes, beams, and braking/anchoring functions while raising blocks - potentially including extremely heavy granite elements used in the King’s Chamber.
Notably, the author frames the model as testable: one prediction is that if the Antechamber floor slabs could be lifted (hypothetically, under careful archaeological control), signatures of a filled-in shaft or heterogeneous rubble consistent with a former lifting route might be found below.
Critique: What the Theory Explains—and What It Still Has to Prove
A strength of Scheuring’s proposal is that it tries to match physics to pace. Ramp-only models have long faced “scaling” problems: ramps shallow enough to haul multi-ton blocks efficiently become extremely long and massive, and clear archaeological traces of such mega-ramps at Giza remain debated. The paper’s internal-mechanism concept attempts to reduce dependence on huge external earthworks, while also offering reasons for certain internal layouts that appear off-center or atypical if pure symmetry had been the goal.
But there are real weaknesses and open questions. First, the model relies on wooden components (rollers, beams, rope management) that have not survived, so the case is necessarily circumstantial - architecture and wear patterns can sometimes be read in more than one way. Second, turning interior corridors into active “machine lanes” raises practical issues: traffic management, safety, and how the system would coexist with ongoing masonry placement in a confined space. These constraints are not impossible, but they require careful engineering reconstruction to demonstrate feasibility beyond diagrams.
A further caution is that “new” doesn’t always mean “overturning.” Egyptologists already accept that multiple methods may have been used at different stages - ramps, levers, lubrication, and highly organized labor. The real contest is whether the proposed pulley-and-counterweight system was central to construction or one of several localized solutions. Even popular coverage acknowledges the idea remains provisional pending further verification.
Top image: The Great Pyramid of Giza on the Giza Plateau, Egypt. Source: Vladyslav Siaber/Adobe Stock
By Gary Manners
References
Scheuring, S. A. 2025. Construction of the Great Pyramid with pulley-like systems using counter-weights on sliding-ramps. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s40494-025-02018-w
Whelan, E. 2018. Archaeologists Say They've Solved Mystery of How Pyramids were Built. Available at: /news-history-archaeology/how-were-pyramids-built-0010936
Whelan, E. 2020. Beyond the Pyramid Ramp: Unravelling Egypt's Most Elusive Enigma. Available at: /artifacts-ancient-technology/pyramid-ramp-0013516
