[junto]

The picture is quite convincing indeed... once I was biased by the explanation!

For those of you that haven't read the article yet, I suggest you study the picture with the hieroglyphics in detail first and then read the conclusion!

Edit:

Just to be clear, I wanted others to have the benefit of seeing the picture before the explanation, because after the fact I had no idea whether I had been biased by what I had read first! I wasn't trying to suggest it was biased per se! I have no idea whether I was biased or not. I can't undo history.

[chc]

OK, I did that. Still haven't read the article yet, actually. It looks like a statue on sled with a guy pouring something out in front of it. And having now read the article, it appears that's exactly the same conclusion it reaches.

[junto]

Cool. Glad to know. I was worried I might have been biased by the text. Good to know it was obvious before reading the text as well.

[eurleif]

I think it's quite convincing once you know the scientific fact that dragging an object requires half the work on wet sand. What's the alternative: that the Egyptians did at some point drag objects on wet sand, but that they didn't know it made things easier? Wouldn't they immediately learn that the first time they tried it, even if they first tried it for a different reason?

[jacquesm]

Maybe all that happened is that they tried picking up their work after some rain had fallen (this does happen, even there) and they found the work to go much easier. Then when it dried up again they found it got harder, so they re-created the conditions artificially.

[junto]

I imagine many discoveries are made in this manner. I.e. accidental. Sometimes it can take centuries though for someone to see something obvious and realise its potential.