Two Cairns StudioPyramid Field Notes

About the research and this website

See where the answer
comes from.

A useful explanation should make it easy to see how it was reached. These notes show the sources, the relevant passages, what was available to read and where the answer remains uncertain.

How the research is put together.

Each piece starts with a specific question. The next step is to read accessible primary papers and accounts from the research projects, then record the dates and passages that matter to the answer.

A diary entry, a physical trace and a laboratory experiment tell us different things. The published explanation distinguishes what was recorded or measured from what researchers infer. If only an abstract was available, the note says so; it does not imply that the full paper was read.

Who is behind Pyramid Field Notes?

This site is published by Two Cairns Studio, Fraser Hainey’s independent project. Fraser’s practical background is in CAD and teaching. He is not presenting himself as an archaeologist or as an archaeology institution. AI assists research and drafting, while the explanation remains tied to checked sources.

The first articles began with search-demand research and a source-reading exercise. Search volume can help identify a question people are asking; it does not establish the answer, guarantee an audience or prove a business will make money. The creator research service is an early proposal to test.

Where do the images come from?

The pyramid illustration was generated for this website and revised during visual review. The lines over it are decorative. It is not a photograph, a survey or a reconstruction of a measured structure.

The building-stage diagram helps organise the questions. The length bars compare the measurements reported for two discoveries. Neither graphic reproduces a paper figure or shows a proven construction plan. No third-party archaeological photographs, maps or scans have been copied into the site.

Corrections and updates.

The initial source review was completed on 6 October 2026. No material correction has been recorded for this first version. A substantive update should explain what changed and retain its date.

If you spot a problem, email twocairnsstudio@gmail.com with the page, the statement and the relevant source passage. A precise reference makes the concern easier to check.

Privacy and advertising.

Two Cairns Studio, operated by Fraser Hainey, is responsible for this website. There are no visitor accounts or visitor analytics. Advertising is inactive in this release: no Google or Adsterra advertising script runs.

The enquiry form prepares text in your current browser tab. Copying uses your clipboard; downloading creates a text file on your device. Neither action sends the enquiry to us. If you choose to email, Gmail processes the information you send so we can respond. Please do not include passwords, private access links or sensitive personal records.

Cloudflare’s hosting service processes request information such as IP addresses and browser details for delivery and security, under its privacy policy. Links to source publishers open other websites with their own policies.

Google’s public publisher identifier and the ads.txt entry identify the intended AdSense account; they do not load an advert. Advertising requires the applicable network approval and consent setup before activation. This notice will need to reflect any advertising that is enabled.

For questions about information you have emailed, including a request for access or deletion, contact twocairnsstudio@gmail.com. This privacy notice was updated on 6 October 2026.

Sources for the building questions

Five sources, answering different questions.

S1 · Contemporary record / modern edition

Merer’s cargo diary

2017 edition · Old Kingdom record

What it tells us: The diary records stone-loaded boat journeys from Tura through named stops to Akhet-Khufu, the pyramid project.

What it leaves unanswered: The editor identifies fine limestone; casing use is a probable interpretation. The diary does not record construction techniques or explain every block.

Where to check it: Papyrus B: BI 26–27 and BII 5–6, linked PDF p. 6; editor’s summary, printed p. 151 / PDF p. 7.

Access and rights: English annex read; not the complete French volume. Pierre Tallet; English translation Colin Clement. No open reuse licence verified.

Open the source (new tab)

S2 · Controlled laboratory experiment

Wet sand and sled friction

29 April 2014

What it tells us: A small PVC sled pulled over three prepared sands showed lower force under appropriate wetting conditions. Too much water could increase resistance.

What it leaves unanswered: The reported force reductions are experiment-specific. They do not measure ancient labour savings, full-size hauling, ramps or block placement.

Where to check it: Fall et al., Physical Review Letters 112, 175502: p. 175502-1, methods; Fig. 2; p. 175502-4, conclusion. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.175502.

Access and rights: Full paper read. © American Physical Society; no Creative Commons reuse licence verified. No paper figures reproduced.

Open the source (new tab)

S3 · Landscape reconstruction / interpretation

The Ahramat river branch

16 May 2024

What it tells us: Satellite and topographic work, an approximately 1.2 km geophysical profile and two sediment cores support reconstruction of parts of a former branch extending roughly 64 km.

What it leaves unanswered: Pyramid, causeway and valley-temple alignments support the authors’ water-transport interpretation. They are not direct observations of cargo journeys or lifting methods.

Where to check it: Ghoneim et al., Communications Earth & Environment 5, 233: Results, position/morphology (Fig. 1); subsurface/sedimentology (Figs. 2–3); Discussion. DOI: 10.1038/s43247-024-01379-7.

Access and rights: Institutional full-paper copy read. CC BY 4.0 metadata verified; third-party map rights are separate. No source illustrations reused.

Open the source (new tab)

S4 · Physical traces / proposed mechanism

Hatnub’s quarry hauling route

2018 excavation report

What it tells us: The Hatnub calcite-alabaster quarry preserves a central route, flanking steps, postholes and wall notches. Inscriptions and tool marks place the hauling system no later than Khufu.

What it leaves unanswered: Ropes, posts and descending teams form a reconstruction of its operation. This is a different quarry and material; adaptation to Giza does not establish its ramps or a complete placement sequence.

Where to check it: IFAO report, section 17134, Hatnoub; printed pp. 196–201 / PDF pp. 205–210, especially printed pp. 197–199. Gourdon and Enmarch campaign.

Access and rights: Relevant full report section read. No open reuse licence verified. The report’s theoretical illustrations are not reproduced.

Open the source (new tab)

S5 · Archaeological traces / project account

The Great Pyramid quarry

AERA project account · 2009

What it tells us: Quarry channels and lever sockets are observed near the pyramid. Proximity and an approximate volume comparison support a nearby source for core limestone.

What it leaves unanswered: The account’s suggested ramp debris is speculative. Quarry traces do not establish the whole lifting sequence; Tura should not be treated as the source of every block.

Where to check it: AERA, “The Great Pyramid Quarry”: quarry channels, lever sockets and volume comparison sections.

Access and rights: First-party project page read. Project archive date 13 October 2009. All rights reserved; no source images reproduced.

Open the source (new tab)

Sources for the ScanPyramids comparison

What was read, and where to check it.

F1 · Muon imaging / inferred geometry

The ScanPyramids Big Void

Journal publication online 2 November 2017

What it tells us: Three muon-detection technologies, with independent analyses, supported a large low-density space above the Grand Gallery, at least 30 m long.

What it leaves unanswered: One space or several adjacent spaces, its orientation and its function remained unresolved. Muon measurements are not a camera view of the space.

Where to check it: Morishima et al., Nature 552, pp. 386–390. Author manuscript PDF p. 1 (abstract), p. 3 (final main paragraph), Figs. 2–4. DOI: 10.1038/nature24647.

Access and rights: Full arXiv pre-submission manuscript read, not the final journal layout. arXiv v1 posted 5 November 2017; v2 21 November 2017. No third-party image reuse licence verified.

Open the source (new tab)

F2 · Peer-reviewed paper / abstract access

Precise corridor characterisation

2 March 2023

What it tells us: The paper’s abstract describes the North Face Corridor as about 9 m long and about 2 × 2 m in transverse section.

What it leaves unanswered: Only the abstract and bibliographic metadata were verified here. This dossier does not claim a full-text or figure review of the 2023 paper.

Where to check it: Procureur et al., Nature Communications 14, 1144: abstract. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-36351-0.

Access and rights: Abstract and metadata only. CC BY 4.0 confirmed in bibliographic metadata. No paper images reused.

Open the source (new tab)

F3 · First-party collaboration report

CEA’s corridor report

2 March 2023

What it tells us: The CEA team describes the 2016 detection, focused work from 2019, a roughly 9.5 m corridor with average 2 × 2 m section, and later endoscopy.

What it leaves unanswered: No connection to the Big Void was detected; a small or blocked connection was not excluded. The approximate 9 and 9.5 m reports should not be given an invented reconciliation.

Where to check it: Opening chronology; “Défis techniques…”; final measurements and endoscopy paragraphs.

Access and rights: Full institutional report read. First-party source from the same collaboration. No open licence verified for web imagery; no images copied.

Open the source (new tab)

F4 · First-party institutional report

TUM’s camera confirmation

2 March 2023

What it tells us: TUM describes radar, ultrasound and an endoscope guided through a joint opening to confirm the north-face corridor.

What it leaves unanswered: The camera observed the corridor, not the Big Void. Former purpose and any space behind its wall require further investigation.

Where to check it: “Assumption confirmed”; “Chamber larger than expected”; “New chamber calls for further research”.

Access and rights: Full institutional report read. Image availability for editorial use is not blanket commercial permission. No source images reused.

Open the source (new tab)

F5 · First-party report / model comparison

Nagoya’s discovery chronology

3 March 2023

What it tells us: The report separates the 2016 North Face Corridor finding from the 2017 Big Void discovery, and distinguishes measured muon counts from fitted models.

What it leaves unanswered: A fitted model is not a photograph. This is a report by a participating institution, not independent corroboration simply because it is another web page.

Where to check it: Japanese report pp. 1–2: chronology; pp. 3–4: model and measurements; Fig. 5 on p. 7: locations; Fig. 8 on p. 8: measured versus modelled counts.

Access and rights: Relevant full 14-page report read. English notes are a working summary, not a certified translation. No source figures reused.

Open the source (new tab)