The pyramids at Giza are usually described as the ultimate building project, millions of blocks stacked skyward by sheer human effort. A growing fringe of researchers and online theorists is now flipping that image, arguing that at least part of the structures may have been carved down from natural rock rather than assembled from the ground up. The idea remains far outside mainstream Egyptology, but it is forcing a fresh look at how geology, engineering and archaeology intersect on the Giza plateau.
At stake is more than a construction trick. If even a portion of the Great Pyramid began as a sculpted hill, it would reframe ancient Egyptian engineering as a hybrid of quarrying and architecture, and might explain why some expected traces of ramps and machinery remain elusive. It would also test how open the field is to bold reinterpretations that challenge long standing assumptions.
The radical “carved mountain” proposal
In its purest form, the subtraction theory imagines the Great Pyramid as a kind of colossal statue, chipped out of a limestone rise in the desert. Geologist Robert Schoch has helped popularize this vision, pointing to erosion patterns on the Giza plateau that he interprets as evidence that parts of the core were once continuous bedrock rather than stacked masonry, a claim he has framed as the pyramids being partly carved from a. In this reading, the Egyptians would have removed huge volumes of stone to reveal a stepped core, then refined and faced it with carefully cut blocks.
Online communities have seized on the idea, not just as a geological curiosity but as a way to resolve long running puzzles about missing infrastructure. One widely shared discussion in an Egyptology forum argues that a subtraction first approach could help explain the lack of clear archaeological traces for the largest ramps, scaffolds or cranes, a line of thought that frames a new pyramid theory as a solution to “missing evidence” rather than a mystery in its own right. Another thread in an alternative history community pushes the argument further, suggesting that the Great Pyramid might not fit the standard template of a purely block built monument at all, an idea explored in a long running debate.
What the mainstream record actually shows
Set against that speculative picture is a dense body of archaeological work that still points to a more conventional building story. Excavations around Giza and other royal sites have documented quarries, workers’ villages and transport routes that support the idea that the pyramids were assembled from millions of cut blocks. Syntheses of this research describe how limestone and granite were extracted, hauled and set in place, with the construction of the framed as a massive logistics operation rather than a single sculptural act.
Tour focused explainers aimed at general readers echo that consensus, describing how the most accepted view is that huge limestone blocks were carved from nearby quarries, dragged on sledges and then positioned layer by layer, with the most accepted theory emphasizing ramps and human muscle. Broader science coverage reinforces that picture, noting that the most widely accepted explanation still centers on inclined structures used to haul stones and on evidence for canals that helped move alabaster and other materials, a view summarized in recent overviews of new.
Ramps, pulleys, hydraulics – and now subtraction
Even within that mainstream framework, the details of how blocks climbed hundreds of vertical feet remain hotly contested. Some engineers have proposed that water filled devices could have helped lift stones, an idea explored in coverage of a hydraulic lift theory that treats the Pyramid as a kind of giant machine. Other researchers have modeled internal pulley and counterweight systems that would have allowed workers to raise blocks through the interior rather than along sprawling external ramps, a concept described in a recent study of.
Those mechanical ideas have been refined in follow up work that suggests an internal network of shafts could have functioned as a kind of elevator, with one analysis arguing that the builders used an internal pulley and counterweight arrangement instead of relying solely on ramps, a scenario laid out in a detailed description of the. Engineers have also floated other refinements, including a proposal that rethinks how workers might have rotated and placed heavy stones, an approach summarized in a piece where Engineers Suggest a “New Theory” about the forces acting on blocks. In that context, the carved down hypothesis is less an outlier and more one more attempt to solve the same mechanical puzzle from a different angle.
Why “missing evidence” has become a rallying cry
Supporters of subtraction first thinking often start from absence rather than presence. They point to the lack of clear, continuous remains of the gigantic ramps that some models require, and to the limited direct evidence for large scale lifting machinery. In one widely shared video discussion, a commentator describes being sent almost 10 years of research that “completely changed” his view of the problem, arguing that a different starting assumption about the shape of the underlying rock could make the logistics far more plausible, a claim that has circulated in Egyptology focused forums.
Another commentator in an alternative history space describes a theorist who “wasn’t trying to solve the pyramid, he was trying to solve the system that produces a pyramid,” suggesting that the Great Pyramid might be the output of a more general design rule that could include carving down as well as building up, a framing that has been debated in a series of posts. I think this focus on “the system” is the most productive part of the fringe conversation, because it nudges the debate away from single magic tricks and toward a more holistic view of labor, materials and terrain.
Subtraction as an engineering mindset
Where the carved down idea becomes more interesting, and less easy to dismiss, is when it is treated not as a total replacement for block building but as a complementary strategy. One essayist has argued that the key is to treat the pyramids as an engineering problem constrained by the “Weight of the stones, limits of human strength and the geometry of the site,” and that once those constraints are taken seriously, removing rock can sometimes be easier than lifting it, a line of reasoning developed in a recent analysis. That argument does not deny the existence of quarries or blocks, it simply suggests that the ground itself might have been used as a scaffold.
A related subscription essay expands on that logic, again emphasizing the “Weight of the” stones as the central constraint and proposing that ancient builders may have combined carved terraces, partial natural mounds and added masonry in a single integrated system, an approach laid out in a long form argument. If that hybrid view is right, then the real innovation is not a single technique but a willingness to treat the plateau as both raw material and construction site, a mindset that modern civil engineers would recognize instantly.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
