Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Riddle Of The Great Pyramids Of Giza

In partially solving a mystery that has baffled archeologists for centuries, a Drexel University professor has determined that the Great Pyramids of Giza were constructed with a combination of not only carved stones but the first blocks of limestone-based concrete cast by any civilization.

The longstanding belief is that the pyramids were constructed with limestone blocks that were cut to shape in nearby quarries using copper tools, transported to the pyramid sites, hauled up ramps and hoisted in place with the help of wedges and levers. Barsoum argues that although indeed the majority of the stones were carved and hoisted into place, crucial parts were not. The ancient builders cast the blocks of the outer and inner casings and, most likely, the upper parts of the pyramids using a limestone concrete, called a geopolymer.

The full article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061209122918.htm

Well I guess we don't need the UFOs anymore. <g>

Hi DA,

Now this is a find! I have always wondered why people that worked extensively with stone, had an involved pharmacopeia, navigated the seas, understood astronomy and mathematics never figured out concrete.

Don't worry DA, I'm sure that someone will soon realize that it was outer space aliens that taught the ancient how to make concrete. Didn't the Egyptians (or space aliens as the case may be) also invent beer? ( )

Dr. R.

P.S. After the recent technical(?) problems I'm back. I was able to get the same handle. I've lost my rating and member number - but it's still me!

Well if they were smart enough to make concrete ... how big a stretch would it have been to put a wooden box in the center and make them hollow too?

Less concrete.
Less weight.
Less work.
Less cost.
Hmmmm.

Hi:

You have touched on a pet study of mine. My book, ?Egypt?s Great Pyramid of Knowledge? should be published by the end of the year. I have some preliminary copies I rushed to have my ideas protected. I am self publishing the item with Author House and the thing should have been done months ago except for some pictures I incorporated that gave me and them a problem.

Note that the concrete idea is not new albeit very likely not as detailed as your link source. A book I had; ?The Pyramids an Enigma Solved? by Dr. Joseph Davidovits and Margie Morris, 1990, publish by Dorset books Press, argues in favor of poured concrete blocks. They offered nothing new by way of why or as to the means of construction. I did not care for the idea.

Your source must come up with some important advantages to using castings instead of quarry stones. My personal view is that the casting process, hardening, containment and liquid requirements out weigh the abundant availability of quarry stones that did not require precision. I saw some long stones at the base of the Great Pyramid that felt to the touch like the surface was rough enough to result from casting but I was also well aware that on top of the stones I saw and touched there had been a surface casing stone with light mortar between them that had been removed.

Anyway there is still a major difference of the work required to create a casting work force with proper mold making and then having to do all the same things that were done with quarried rocks. It does sound interesting. I will read the article some more to see if they get specific as to where concrete blocks would be superior to the quarried blocks.

My efforts deal in the first chapter with my work on trying to decipher some dates incorporated in battle scenes. The main thrust of the book is the total construction methods I argue were used up to the top of about 480 feet. A lot of other stuff and my disclosure of where I contend the hidden chambers will be found and why. It was a long rangs hooby escape thinking about it over many years.
jjw

A second look at the source:

"Barsoum's findings provide long-sought answers to some of the questions about how the pyramids were constructed and with such precision. It puts to rest the question of how steep ramps could have extended to the summit of the pyramids; builders could cast blocks on site, without having to transport stones great distances. By using cast blocks, builders were able to level the pyramids' bases to within an inch. Finally, builders were able to maintain precisely the angles of the pyramids so that the four planes of each arrived at a peak.

Although these findings answer some of the questions about the pyramids, Barsoum says the mystery of how they were built is far from solved. For example, he has been unable to determine how granite beams -- spanning kings' chambers and weighing as much as 70 tons each -- were cut with nothing harder than copper and hauled in place."

The suggestion that poured concrete blocks provides for more precise construction is not well taken. Assuming the shrink factor was very cleverly accomodated, that the molds were very precise there is also the mix required to make the concrete. So we grind up limestone blocks to make a coarse powder so we can reconstruct limestone blocks.

Barsoum should read about Sir Flinders Petre and his careful investigation of the (alleged) granite sarcophagus in the so called King's chamber. It is hollowed out of a solid block of granite of a particulatly dense and hard variety with square interior corners and flat interior surfaces. Drill marks could be seen with the aid of optics.

From what I read of this conclusion the author has decided it is easier to obtain precision in construction with poured concrete blocks that with carefully cut stones. To sustain this view we must have a reasonable suggestion as to how many poured blocks versus cut blocks per level would offer this precise advantage. The base line is 754 feet per side. I question the makeup of each layer of different blocks to get the desired precision that would be less likely with cut blocks. I respect the investigation that has been conducted so far but I think they have a long way to go. So do I.
jjw

Keep on investigating jjw. Pyramidology is a facinating subject.
I found some info on Prof:J Davidovits, specific to his findings upon Pyramid blocks.

German Doctor Degree in Chemistry (PhD)
Professor and founder of the Institute for Applied Archaeological Sciences, IAPAS, Barry University, Miami ,Florida, (1983-1989).
Visiting Professor, Penn State University, Pennsylvania (1989-1991).
Professor and Director of the Geopolymer Institute, Saint-Quentin, France (1979 to present).
Honorary Professor, Xian Universtity of Architecture and Technology, China (1999).
Fluent in six languages, plus Hieroglyphics

He is a-
World expert in Modern and Ancient Cements.
World expert in Geosynthesis and man-made rocks.
Inventor of Geopolymers and the chemistry of Geopolymerization.

Proceedings of the Science in Egyptology Symposia, Manchester, U.K., pp. 511-520, 1984.

He stated that- Samples of Pyramid stone blocks were compared with samples from six different sites at the traditionally associated quarries of Turah and Mokattam using thin-section, chemical X-Ray analysis and X-Ray diffraction.
The quarry samples are pure limestone consisting of 96-99% Calcite, 0.5-2.5% Quartz, and very small amount of dolomite, gypsum and iron-alumino-silicate. These results were in agreement with the Pyramid stones of Cheops, Tetin, and Seneferu.
HOWEVER tests on the (remaining) casing stones of Cheops, and Teti showed they consisted of calcite 85-90% and a high amount of special minerals such as Opal CT, hydroxy-apatite, a silico-aluminate, which are not found in the quarries. The Pyramid casing stones are light in density and contain numerous trapped air bubbles, unlike the quarry samples which are uniformly dense.
X-Ray diffraction of a casing stone coating is proof consistent to demonstrate the fact that complicated man-made geopolymeric castings were produced, in Egypt 5000 years ago.

Nice Mike:

I said I did not like the idea. I did not challenge any bodies qualifications.

There are differences in the stone work used in the GP. The outer coating was a fine white kind of limestone. The "casing" stone to which he refers could very well be of a completely different source, manufactured or not. The article offered by DA deals with interior blocks in the main to support the idea there was more precision available that way.

The casing stone was multi-faceted with a flat backside, a partially flat bottom with a potential projection to go over the edge of the suppporting block and intersect the casing stone below it. Admittedly the block need not have all the complex angles formed at first. The slanted surface making up the visual part is believed to have been scraped to contour in the construction process.

The point I guess is that you want me to understand how knowledgable the gentleman was. I am duly impressed. The mechanics are still a point to be considered. A complex mold, a very large object (the casing stones were uniformly larger than the interior stones), the need for a reason to pour large stones which then had to be manhandeled like all the other stones.

I have no personal prejudice against ideas that give the ancient Egyptians (or?) the ability to make very pure limestone castings. While we are at it what is so bad about aliens doing the job. Also, those deorite statutes may be castings as well; you can not carve them with copper tools.

I get your point Mike, more poohs?
jjw

Hello jjw,
Yes I take your point about the outer coating. It was written about in antiquity that ' it was so smooth and polished,
that the Pyramid shone in the sun like a mirror'.
Could it have been that it was the outer coating stones that were cast? They would have been exceptionaly smooth, if that was so.
There are very few, if any, of the 'outer coating' stones left on the ground, by the Great Pyramid, all were stripped and used for other purposes a thousand years ago or more.
I would be very interested to see a 'close up'photo of an 'outer casing' stone. Do you know if such photos exist?

The Egyptians were certainly able to cut and smooth stone from the quarrys.
But I am amazed at the granite sarcophagus cut, hollowed out and shaped smooth that is in the so called Kings Chamber.
Being so large it was almost certainly placed in that chamber while the Pyramid was being built.
As to whether it was worked just using hardened copper tools.... I have my doubts.....since working copper against granite will always leave flecs of copper ingrained within the surface of stone, especially granite. So what was actually used remains a mystery. I am thinking more of the inside surface of the coffin, since large blocks of stone were separated at the quarry face using a shallow drilling technique, or cutting to start.
Then splitting the block using the power of wooden slivers that were rammed in the crevises and wet with water. Power of expansion did the rest.