The archaeological information that we have on the human resources of the project is scarse The best information available to date from the excavations of the city of workers on the site of Heit el Ghurab at the foot of the Giza plateau was given by the director of these excavations Mark Lehner who reports a maximum workforce of 2000 workers on the site of the pyramid

Labor and the Pyramids The Heit el-Ghurab “Workers Town” at Giza Mark Lehner  University of Chicago and Ancient Egypt Research AssociatesExerp: A Colloquium held at Hirschbach (Saxony), April 2005Volume V, page 471

Vizier Ankh Haf, half brother of Cheops, was cited as the great organizer of the works , and as architect, Hemiunu ,   also a  member of the royal family, whose mastabas were found around the pyramid containing their statues.

Unlike the totally empty chambers of the pyramid, their tombs housed their statues and some inscriptions and wall engravings, but no indication of the pyramid.

---

Through his excavations of the city of workers who stand on an area of ​​around 150,000 M², Lehner unearthed dwellings of different kinds, luxury villas for executives and dormitories for workers, then called NFRW (neferou ) which we learned were organized by “Gang” of 4 “phyles” grouping 5 “divisions” of ten individuals,200 people in all, which gives 21 supervisory staff for 200 workers or 10%.

Taking into account the accommodation in collective dormitories of the workers, through various cross-checks Lehner reached a number of 1,600 to  2,000 workers accommodated in this city.

In the city of Heit el Ghurab for 1,600 to 2,000 workers, there are almost as many in supervision, food logistics, administration, care, entertainment.
While the NFRWs were arguably single, the staff around most likely came with their families with the children, bringing the population up to

around 3-4,000 in all.

According to Lehner, the excavations cover 10% of the entire site, which gives a population density of around 4 to 5,000 inhabitants per km²

Figure to be compared with the population densities of medium-sized towns in Bangladesh, for example:

The density ** is of the order of 3 to 4000 inhabitants per KM², for towns of the order of 140,000 inhabitants.

** http: //sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/set/gpw-v3-population-density/data-download

According to Lehner’s commentary, the figure of 1,600 to 2,000 workers is rather a high limit.

The site of Giza at the time was far from any center of life, At the time, no roads and metro, the staff lived on site, the city had its supply logistics, we found traces of facilities ports and numerous meal reliefs, which show that the workers were very well fed, a nearby necropolis allowed to understand that they were also well cared for in case of injuries.

It emerges from all this that the workers of the pyramid were ultimately few in number with regard to the task, but well supervised, well fed and well motivated.

Debunking Inflated Workforce Estimates

Many scholars and archaeologists, including Borchardt and Croon (1937) and Stadelmann (1985), have estimated that 36,000 workers were involved in the pyramid’s construction—some even going as high as 100,000, as Herodotus claimed, with workers rotating in shifts. These figures raise serious questions: Where were these people housed? Who managed such a massive workforce? These estimates, which are unsupported by archaeological evidence, often reflect more the authors’ assumptions than empirical data—hence the wide variations from one researcher to another.

A New Perspective: Energy, Efficiency, and Human Output

This study emphasizes a minimalist approach to energy consumption during construction: friction against the ground, stone cutting, block elevation, and the actual physical effort required for each task.

The key question: what level of strength and energy output could reasonably be expected from a population of 2,000 NFRW?

Physical Force and Working Conditions

The prevailing orthodoxy in pyramid construction theory assumes that workers hauled blocks by walking and pulling sledges along lubricated paths. In such a system, each worker’s effective pulling force is limited to about 20% of their body weight—and even less when ascending ramps. Beyond that point, the worker risks slipping backward, reducing traction and making movement inefficient.

As a result, the combined weight of the pulling team needed to move a single block would approach the weight of the block itself—essentially doubling the mass to be moved. With the pyramid comprising an estimated 6 million tonnes of stone, such a method becomes grossly inefficient.

In contrast, the method I propose allows each worker to exert optimal force, using the full support of their legs while positioned securely

—either horizontally on a course

or anchored by rope while standing on the pyramid face.

In this configuration, a worker can exert force equivalent to their own body weight.

More importantly, since they work in a fixed position, no energy is lost to locomotion.

Working at a fixed station also provides shelter from the scorching Egyptian sun—an important factor for sustained productivity.

Human Energy as a Measurable Resource

Although archaeological data remains limited, the findings from the workers’ town suggest that these men were well-nourished, well cared for, and well organized. It is reasonable to assume that they were selected for their physical aptitude, with body types suited to demanding manual labor. In many respects, they could be compared to professional athletes.

Sports science indicates that, under such conditions, a worker could produce a peak output of 200 to 300 watts over a few minutes. However, to avoid exhaustion during prolonged daily work, their average sustained output should not exceed 80 watts over a 12-hour shift.

A realistic schedule would alternate 4 hours of intense labor with 8 hours of rest and meal breaks. Under these conditions, the average worker could generate approximately 1 kWh per day.

This yields a human-powered “engine” with a peak output of 600 kW, an average power of 160 kW, and a daily production capacity of 2,000 kWh.

With such a resource at their disposal, the challenge becomes devising tools and methods capable of using this energy efficiently to extract and assemble 6 million tonnes of stone in 5,000 days.

Reassessing Conventional Theories Through Energy Loss

Conventional theories assume that teams of haulers pulled blocks placed on sleds sliding along lubricated tracks, with a friction coefficient of about 0.2. The average journey of a block, from the quarries to its final position in the Great Pyramid, was approximately 1 km.

Transporting 6 million tons of blocks horizontally using this method would have dissipated around 3.3 MWh of energy due to friction, while elevating them to the pyramid’s center of gravity would have required only 0.6 MWh. In other words, this method would result in five times more energy lost to friction than needed to lift all the blocks into place.

Over 5,000 days, this equates to 660 kWh of energy wasted daily, mobilizing 1,000 workers in this inefficiency, while additional manpower was still needed to quarry the blocks and then lift them into the pyramid.

This example highlights the inefficiency of conventional methods, leading to overestimated workforce estimates compared to archaeological realities.

---

,

Allow me to introduce the idealized neferu: Mr. kWh, “recruited” from the land of Punt.