Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Perhaps off-topic - method of Egyptian pyramid construction

Expand Messages
  • minnesotastan
    Suggestion that the upper layers of pyramid blocks are poured concrete rather than cut stone - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2480751,00.html
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Suggestion that the upper layers of pyramid blocks are poured concrete
      rather than cut stone -

      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2480751,00.html


      Text in case the link breaks -

      The Times December 01, 2006

      Pyramids were built with concrete rather than rocks, scientists claim
      Charles Bremner, Paris
      # Method used only at higher levels
      # Blocks set using a limestone slurry
      How the Egyptians really built a Pyramid

      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.
    • mobydoc
      A great posting minnesotastan (O/T) no :-) ; The methured spoken about in the French findings is not unusual . I have used Calcium added to a pour .to
      Message 2 of 2 , Dec 2, 2006
      • 0 Attachment

           A great  posting  minnesotastan    (O/T)    no J ;  

         

           The methured spoken about in the French findings is not unusual …

           I have used Calcium added to a pour …to get a batch of  Cement to harden

           quickly …I spoke once to Dr Robert  Sch----k… re a  hardened casing stone

          on the Sphinx …which had a notch in the hard casing stone which matched

          the notch in the original stonework …and I asked him (RS)  why the notch …

          wouldn’t it be simpler for the Mason to clip the soft original stone face straight

          before placing the hardened stone against the soft original stonework …to which

         he replied …a Ancient Pharaohs Mason would not dare to do such a thing on pain

          of death …for doing such a thing … but in my eyes the question still remains …could

        the hardened  casing been caste  …myself… I say yes  …but that was then    and they

         did (dead im) J  

            The Romans had about seven different Cement Formula’s …which they

          would have pried out of Egypt  …methinks J

           I am pleased that the posts to this group are of really original in content …

         

         

                  Regards           Pat/Moby

        -----------------------------------------------------------------

         

        -----Original Message-----on Behalf Of minnesotastan
         
        Subject: [Precolumbian_Inscriptions] Perhaps off-topic - method of Egyptian pyramid construction

         

        Suggestion that the upper layers of pyramid blocks are poured concrete
        rather than cut stone -

        http://www.timesonl ine.co.uk/ article/0, ,13509-2480751, 00.html

        Text in case the link breaks -

        The Times
        December 01, 2006

        Pyramids were built with concrete rather than rocks, scientists claim
        Charles Bremner, Paris
        # Method used only at higher levels
        # Blocks set using a limestone slurry
        How the Egyptians really built a Pyramid

        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.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.