Posted on 12/01/2006 3:55:23 PM PST by Rodney King
The Ancient Egyptians built their great Pyramids by pouring concrete into blocks high on the site rather than hauling up giant stones, according to a new Franco-American study.
The research, by materials scientists from national institutions, adds fuel to a theory that the pharaohs’ craftsmen had enough skill and materials at hand to cast the two-tonne limestone blocks that dress the Cheops and other Pyramids.
Despite mounting support from scientists, Egyptologists have rejected the concrete claim, first made in the late 1970s by Joseph Davidovits, a French chemist.
The stones, say the historians and archeologists, were all carved from nearby quarries, heaved up huge ramps and set in place by armies of workers. Some dissenters say that levers or pulleys were used, even though the wheel had not been invented at that time.
Until recently it was hard for geologists to distinguish between natural limestone and the kind that would have been made by reconstituting liquefied lime.
But according to Professor Gilles Hug, of the French National Aerospace Research Agency (Onera), and Professor Michel Barsoum, of Drexel University in Philadelphia, the covering of the great Pyramids at Giza consists of two types of stone: one from the quarries and one man-made.
“There’s no way around it. The chemistry is well and truly different,” Professor Hug told Science et Vie magazine. Their study is being published this month in the Journal of the American Ceramic Society.
The pair used X-rays, a plasma torch and electron microscopes to compare small fragments from pyramids with stone from the Toura and Maadi quarries.
They found “traces of a rapid chemical reaction which did not allow natural crystalisation . . . The reaction would be inexplicable if the stones were quarried, but perfectly comprehensible if one accepts that they were cast like concrete.”
The pair believe that the concrete method was used only for the stones on the higher levels of the Pyramids. There are some 2.5 million stone blocks on the Cheops Pyramid. The 10-tonne granite blocks at their heart were also natural, they say. The professors agree with the “Davidovits theory” that soft limestone was quarried on the damp south side of the Giza Plateau. This was then dissolved in large, Nile-fed pools until it became a watery slurry.
Lime from fireplace ash and salt were mixed in with it. The water evaporated, leaving a moist, clay-like mixture. This wet “concrete” would have been carried to the site and packed into wooden moulds where it would set hard in a few days. Mr Davidovits and his team at the Geopolymer Institute at Saint-Quentin tested the method recently, producing a large block of concrete limestone in ten days.
New support for their case came from Guy Demortier, a materials scientist at Namur University in Belgium. Originally a sceptic, he told the French magazine that a decade of study had made him a convert: “The three majestic Pyramids of Cheops, Khephren and Mykerinos are well and truly made from concrete stones.”
The concrete theorists also point out differences in density of the pyramid stones, which have a higher mass near the bottom and bubbles near the top, like old-style cement blocks.
Opponents of the theory dispute the scientific evidence. They also say that the diverse shapes of the stones show that moulds were not used. They add that a huge amount of limestone chalk and burnt wood would have been needed to make the concrete, while the Egyptians had the manpower to hoist all the natural stone they wanted.
The concrete theorists say that they will be unable to prove their theory conclusively until the Egyptian authorities give them access to substantial samples
... with that much concrete gettin' poured ,...
. . . those jodsites had to have been All Mobbed Up
but that wasn't prehistoric.
Oh, I'd wager the ancient Egyptians were plenty smart enough to build the pyramids with either technology. The modern Egyptians, however, are certain evidence of de-evolution. Stupid and degraded are two adjectives that come to mind.
Heads up! This could get interesting...
ggg ping
He was not in Europe at the time, I believe. In those days he was living it on the hog from the patent royalties on his loincloth invention. And bow and arrows prior to that.
That is an understatement. Hasn't the author ever seen the 10 Commanements?? What were those chariot thingies riding on that chased Charlton Heston?? Duh! ;-)
"...according to a new Franco-American study."
Gee, I think I ate that spaghetti which was about the consistency of concrete.
Was that before or after he invented tobacco? I don't know why he wasn't elected president, a man of his vision, his complete power.... Heck, he should have ran for God.
"It's Raining Men"?
That was my first thought as well, either way the logistics are mind boggling.
If you tried to build any of them in California today with modern heavy equipment, good roads and a quarry next door it would take ten times longer (even after the paperwork and payoffs).
TT
Art Bell and George Noory aren't going to like this development.
What I don't get is why it would have been any easier to haul wet cement up the pyramid. How are they supposed to have done that?
BWAHAHAHA!
If they can get one of the scientists on their show they will do it.
You wouldn't have to take a huge amount of cement in one shot. A bunch of people with baskets of the stuff could use their loads to fill one mold.
The original problem was how they cut the blocks so they fit so tightly. The concrete would supposedly take care of that, but maybe too well.
I suppose the mix and pour could have been done at the apex as they went and the sand and cement could have been transported by back via 11 million laborers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.