NationStates Jolt Archive

Chalk this up as one more thing I have to relearn--the ancient Egyptians didn't actually haul huge ass blocks up to the top of the pyramids. They cast the blocks in place (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2480751,00.html)
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.
Fascinating stuff.

Chalk this up as one more thing I have to relearn--the ancient Egyptians didn't actually haul huge ass blocks up to the top of the pyramids. They cast the blocks in place (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2480751,00.html)

Fascinating stuff.

NOOOO!!! What about the aliens building the pyramids, then?

Another score for humanity, I guess.

Wow, I would have never believed it ...still not sure i do but i believe it alot more then i did five minutes ago.

Chalk this up as one more thing I have to relearn--the ancient Egyptians didn't actually haul huge ass blocks up to the top of the pyramids. They cast the blocks in place (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2480751,00.html)

Fascinating stuff.

It's an interesting idea, but it is far from conclusive.

I'd be interested what they thought about things like the multiple-hundred ton obelisks at Karnak - after all, if they can carry hundreds of tons of raw rock, and precisely erect it on it's narrowest side... why would they need 'concrete' rocks?

Chalk this up as one more thing I have to relearn--the ancient Egyptians didn't actually haul huge ass blocks up to the top of the pyramids. They cast the blocks in place (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2480751,00.html)

Fascinating stuff.
Fascinating indeed. http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Egypt.gif Thank you for the article!

I wonder where they took the samples.

didn't they try to "restore" the pyramid by repairing damage done due to erosion and torists by using a limestone baised concrete in the late 60's early 70's?

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Egypt.gif
where do you get all those smileys?

I don't care what science or history says, the Pyramids were built by the sorcery of the enslaved Jewish people.

!!! This just in !!!! The Pyramids were made from swiss cheese and NOT from a mild cheddar as had been previously reported. That is all.

where do you get all those smileys?

:eek: watch your mouth boy your talking to the smiley king!!!

Given that the Romans had concrete that could set underwater and that the secret was lost for about a thousand years, I can certainly believe the ancient Egyptians could have had advanced masonry as well. Very Cool!

Chalk this up as one more thing I have to relearn--the ancient Egyptians didn't actually haul huge ass blocks up to the top of the pyramids. They cast the blocks in place (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2480751,00.html)

Fascinating stuff.

Surely it would be easier to transport a block of limestone than a load of wet clay like material?

:eek: watch your mouth boy your talking to the smiley king!!!

not until he answers my questions

Surely it would be easier to transport a block of limestone than a load of wet clay like material?

no

Cool and interesting stuff. I'm sure there will be more research about this theory.

no

Why not? I mean, you could divvy up the clay among your slaves, but surely it would dry out on route, or something.

I imagine it would be easier to use for certain tasks. Most likely, the concrete was used for the non-structurally vital parts to cut down on the amount of stone needed and to use up some of the leftovers without having to take the time to cut another block and transport it.

It also was likely a good use of the waste limestone left over from quarrying; for every huge block there was probably enough small pieces and blocks chipped away to make another block out of limestone concrete.

Why not? I mean, you could divvy up the clay among your slaves, but surely it would dry out on route, or something.

Have you ever dealt with wet concrete? You could do exactly what is being proposed that the Egyptians did without any extraordinary effort.

Have you ever dealt with wet concrete? You could do exactly what is being proposed that the Egyptians did without any extraordinary effort.

yes, and no you wouldn't. well, not by yourself anyway... :p

NOOOO!!! What about the aliens building the pyramids, then?

Another score for humanity, I guess.

Clearly the aliens taught them how to make it. You seriously think humans could come up with concrete?

Clearly the aliens taught them how to make it. You seriously think humans could come up with concrete?

Yeah, I mean we only discovered how to irrigate the Nile river valley and make it in to fertile farmland by controlling the yearly inundations. Concrete is way too difficult for dumbasses like us.

Clearly the aliens taught them how to make it. You seriously think humans could come up with concrete?

obviously

what's always interested me is the nature of the stone and concrete spaceships the aliens must have been driving around back then. they must have been truly impressive sights.

Why not? I mean, you could divvy up the clay among your slaves, but surely it would dry out on route, or something.How slow do you walk? It's suggested that such a mix of lime would take 10 days to dry. The Pyramids are only 5 miles west of the Nile. And about 1 mile from the nearest water source.

Take a look for yourself. Use google or something with these coordinates 29°58′33″N, 31°07′49″E

The Pyraminds are so close the Nile that the nearby conurbation of Cairo has encroached within metres (hundreds of) of the monuments.
http://www.delange.org/Giza_Pyramids_Sphinx/GC.jpg

Duh. The concrete was synthesized in the Martian Communist's space ships.

I can accept the outer blocks so that the pyramids would have a nice exterior, but for the structure, not a chance.

I can accept the outer blocks so that the pyramids would have a nice exterior, but for the structure, not a chance.
The article says that the bottom part and the granite stone in the center was stone--it was only the topmost stones that were concrete.

yes, and no you wouldn't. well, not by yourself anyway... :p


Well when I said "you". I mean you as a slave overlord with hordes of slaves at your disposal. ;)

Yeah, I mean we only discovered how to irrigate the Nile river valley and make it in to fertile farmland by controlling the yearly inundations. Concrete is way too difficult for dumbasses like us.

Irrigation was also taught by aliens including anything else the Egyptians knew. Humans are dumbasses as is well demonstrated on NS.

Well when I said "you". I mean you as a slave overlord with hordes of slaves at your disposal. ;)

oh well, then, no. after all, as a Slave Overlord, I would probaby like watching the wretched Refuse struggling with a huge ass block of Limestone. makes the day go by faster. :p

The article says that the bottom part and the granite stone in the center was stone--it was only the topmost stones that were concrete.
I'm talking about the surface, back in the day when it was smooth.
Not the current surface, which i would call the structure.

where do you get all those smileys?
I've told you before: They're all available for free on the interwebtubenet http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Interwebtubenet.gif. You just need to look in the right places and really move your lazy http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/donkey.gif over to google and search for yourself!
:eek: watch your mouth boy your talking to the smiley king!!!
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/king.gif (The King is pleased with you! Carry on... ;))
not until he answers my questions
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/Sonicht.gif I've answered your question before. Besides, I don't like your tone of voice, kid...

that's cool. i never heard that theory before. they'd still have had to get the ingredients for their concrete up there though. i guess that would be easier that lugging a huge one-piece block. but it's still the same (if not greater with the water needed for making concrete) mass so would require the same amount of work to reach the top. i guess this idea only solves the engineering problems and not any question of the time taken to construct the pyramids. still very interesting though.

So it was Earth all along! I mean, so it was StarGate all along! Guess I'd better get my "anti-alien parasite spray" back from Batman. I really don't see the big diff here. Cast-in-place or pre-fab, neither can hold the were-devil mummy zombies.

And wasn't there proof of some earlier civilization using a kind of plaster or something like it as a finish material. Concrete couldn't be far behind. A very old invention and very useful to boot.

The Pyramids were built with the very bones of jewish slaves!!!

It happen cause moses failed to free them....

The Pyramids were built with the very bones of jewish slaves!!!
They were so not, have you ever tried to build something out of bones? Well, let me tell you, they don't last a year, let alone a couple thousand.
It was Jew Magick, as I have already stated.

Chalk this up as one more thing I have to relearn--the ancient Egyptians didn't actually haul huge ass blocks up to the top of the pyramids. They cast the blocks in place (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2480751,00.html)

Fascinating stuff.

Many chinks in the armor of people like Graham Clark have suddenly appeared.

Quite interesting really. Makes sense to, considering the technology of the time, though it still doesn't explain the tinier pyramids next to the Great Pyramids.

Quite interesting really. Makes sense to, considering the technology of the time, though it still doesn't explain the tinier pyramids next to the Great Pyramids.
all building projects have to have a to scale model... ;)

you would think that something such as history would be near 100% already known. but it seems they update history books faster then they update science books

The egyptians didn't practice slavery in the old kingdom. The pyramids were built by contractors and volunteers (different for each pyramid). [/nitpick]

Interesting. But not convincing as yet. The theory would have to explain the tight fit of the blocks, which if they were cast using modern methods, it can not yet do.

I can think of how it can be modified to explain it, but ......

Also, the energy cost of making the lime.

Some dissenters say that levers or pulleys were used, even though the wheel had not been invented at that time.
If the same person who researched the concrete story also researched the history of the wheel, I'd say this article is more than a little suspect. They may not have used wheels with axles, but the concept of using cylinders (such as logs) as rollers surely predated any kind of significant stonework.

It's also been noted that the value of pi can be found in construction ratios of the pyramids. Either they were exceptionally gifted mathemeticians who cleverly incorporated hidden math in their designs, or they used a wheel as a measuring device. The latter seems more probable.

I'm thinking 'load of crap' here.

As am I. It's either a complete load of crap or whoever wrote the article just doesn't know what they are talking about.

The first paragraph refers to "the two-tonne limestone blocks that dress the Cheops and other Pyramids." There are no such blocks on two of the three pyramids. The only casing stones that could have been examined are those that remain near the top of Khepren's pyramid since they are the only exterior limestone blocks that have survived. Cheop's (the great) pyramid was completely stripped of its casing in antiquity and the only casing blocks to have survived on Mycerinus' pyramid are the lower courses that were made of granite (and therefore of no use to the people who stripped off the limestone blocks to burn for lime.) To draw the conclusion that the top courses were manufactured while the lower ones were quarried would seem to me to require some of the lower stones to examine.

Besides, the chemical composition of the surviving casing stones on Khepren's pyramid has been matched with the stone from the Tura quarries decades ago.

As am I. It's either a complete load of crap or whoever wrote the article just doesn't know what they are talking about.

The first paragraph refers to "the two-tonne limestone blocks that dress the Cheops and other Pyramids." There are no such blocks on two of the three pyramids. The only casing stones that could have been examined are those that remain near the top of Khepren's pyramid since they are the only exterior limestone blocks that have survived. Cheop's (the great) pyramid was completely stripped of its casing in antiquity and the only casing blocks to have survived on Mycerinus' pyramid are the lower courses that were made of granite (and therefore of no use to the people who stripped off the limestone blocks to burn for lime.) To draw the conclusion that the top courses were manufactured while the lower ones were quarried would seem to me to require some of the lower stones to examine.

Besides, the chemical composition of the surviving casing stones on Khepren's pyramid has been matched with the stone from the Tura quarries decades ago.I think this is an error on the part of the journalist. Whilst only one pyrmind remains with part of its limestone casing, all three at giza were built with a limestone casing.

The scientists are also operating from the assumption that the limestone casing theory in place was already partially correct. So, from the pyramids, only the limestone at the top could have been examined, but if you assume the limeston did come from Tura then you can analyse that limestone as if it were the same from the lower casing.

The article states that geologists, until recently, have been unable to tell the difference between normal limestone and reconstituted limestone. Therefore the top casing would have early been identified as having been normal limestone coming from Tura. Now scientists, with more accurate measuring devices could be able to examine both the structure and composition of the limestone, both the casing and at Tura. They claim to have found a difference, a difference that suggests the casing had been dissolved and reconstituted later.
Interesting. But not convincing as yet. The theory would have to explain the tight fit of the blocks, which if they were cast using modern methods, it can not yet do.

I can think of how it can be modified to explain it, but ......

Also, the energy cost of making the lime.I'm not sure what you mean by tight fit. But the limestone could easily be cast to the sizes that are appropriate then chizled into a tight fit (such as the the stone work at Machu Picchu). If any gaps remain then some of the liquid limestone may have been pasted into the gaps.

What about the energy cost? Limestone is paritally dissolvable in water. All they would have needed to do is crush the limestone into a finer pieces or even a powder and let them sit in manmade pools that were filled by the Nile. Considering the construction time of the pyramids and the overall ratio of limestone to plain stone you'd think they'd have had plenty of time to just let the limestone sit.

I think this is an error on the part of the journalist. Whilst only one pyrmind remains with part of its limestone casing, all three at giza were built with a limestone casing.

As I said... whoever wrote the article didn't know what they were talking about. I would like to read the original study, but finding a copy of the Journal of the American Ceramic Society around here might be a problem.

The scientists are also operating from the assumption that the limestone casing theory in place was already partially correct. So, from the pyramids, only the limestone at the top could have been examined, but if you assume the limeston did come from Tura then you can analyse that limestone as if it were the same from the lower casing.
True. But you cannot then determine that the blocks at the top, which were examined, were manufactured while those at the bottom, which were not available for examination, were quarried.

The article states that geologists, until recently, have been unable to tell the difference between normal limestone and reconstituted limestone. Therefore the top casing would have early been identified as having been normal limestone coming from Tura. Now scientists, with more accurate measuring devices could be able to examine both the structure and composition of the limestone, both the casing and at Tura. They claim to have found a difference, a difference that suggests the casing had been dissolved and reconstituted later.
From the article it seems clear that their conclusion were drawn based on the crystalline structure of the samples examined, although the mention of x-rays does imply some sort of flourescence testing was also used. I would like to know if they compared their samples directly to the limestone at the Tura quarries to see if they were different in structure. Note that the method stated in the article for creating the blocks required the addition of salt and ash to the slurry. This would change the chemical composition of the manufactured blocks even if they were made from crushed Tura limestone so they would no longer match. And of course if the blocks were manufactured from limestone quarried on site at Giza the compositions would never have matched with Tura in the first place.


I'm not sure what you mean by tight fit. But the limestone could easily be cast to the sizes that are appropriate then chizled into a tight fit (such as the the stone work at Machu Picchu). If any gaps remain then some of the liquid limestone may have been pasted into the gaps. Agreed, although pasting up the gaps should be easy to detect on the surviving blocks.

What about the energy cost? Limestone is paritally dissolvable in water. All they would have needed to do is crush the limestone into a finer pieces or even a powder and let them sit in manmade pools that were filled by the Nile. Considering the construction time of the pyramids and the overall ratio of limestone to plain stone you'd think they'd have had plenty of time to just let the limestone sit.True again, although it seems like an awful lot of work to crush all that stone down to powder just to make it back into stone again. Seems like it would be easier to just carve out the blocks and haul them into place as is.
As I said earlier it is obvious that whoever wrote the article doesn't know what they are talking about... typical for journalistic coverage of scientific findings. I would like to read the original study to see how the scientists performed their study and drew their conclusions.