> The quarries in question lay down below the
> Pyramids, above the Nile. It would be far easier
> to move the stones downhill, placed on a barge
> (which they did on a regular basis up on the
> Nile), and then move them back uphill, on a hard
> lubricated polished surface, ie. The Causeway.
> For me, this is just common sense. There were
> plenty of stones which arrived into the harbor,
> and made their way up to the Pyramids. Why would
> it be any different for the quarry stones just
> below the Pyramids?
> Number one rule in Pyramid building. When
> available, use gravity to your advantage, and
> never to your disadvantage.
Oh, I see now.
I agree with what you say but not your conclusions. Yes, it would be very easy to move the quarried stones to the port that is called the Valley Temple". The biggest obstacle is merely that it's so far. Even this can be mitigated by moving the stone straight down the evidenced route (G2 causeway) and then floating the stones to the G1 causeway. Once they are in the "Valley Temple" they can ride the funicular up to the pyramid where they arrive at the Mason's Shop euphemistically known as the "Mortuary Temple".
I have a few problems with this. First it is "easier" but there are far simpler and easier means. Why wouldn't they build a second funicular causeway right to the quarry and avoid all this handling? It might even be noted that such a secondary causeway is actually in evidence though it's not spoken of in polite Egyptological company. It is directly N/S and lies between the so called queens pyramids and the adjacent mastabas.
I'm sure rigging and stone handling was a very huge amount of work in building pyramids and would always have been avoided.