The Surprising Truth Behind the Construction of the Great Pyramids

Source

According to the caller, the mysteries had actually been solved by Joseph Davidovits, Director of the Geopolymer Institute in St. Quentin, France, more than two decades ago. Davidovits claimed that the stones of the pyramids were actually made of a very early form of concrete created using a mixture of limestone, clay, lime, and water. A year and a half later, after extensive scanning electron microscope (SEM) observations and other testing, Barsoum and his research group finally began to draw some conclusions about the pyramids. They found that the tiniest structures within the inner and outer casing stones were indeed consistent with a reconstituted limestone. The cement binding the limestone aggregate was either silicon dioxide (the building block of quartz) or a calcium and magnesium-rich silicate mineral.

This is a pretty amazing story that may shatter every other theory on how the pyramids were constructed

I doubt it myself based on all the discriptions of the blocks to date, but there still is the issue of water, sand and aggregates and how to lift them up quite high using crude technology.

Also, unless I am mistaken all concrete requires forms, so where is the evidence of such?

It's an interesting theory and may in fact be true, but doesn't explain how the Egyptians cut and transported the granite, it only speaks to how limestone may have been utilized in pyramid construction. In light of the evidence, I would still say the Egyptians had access to technology we usually don't think of them having access to.

en.wikipedia.org...

You know I heard about this on discovery or some other channel years back. They said no it was not poured concrete, and i believe them, even though it made perfect sense.
After reading that article im practically convinced now it was cast.
And where are all those chisels anyway ?

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
I doubt it myself based on all the discriptions of the blocks to date, but there still is the issue of water, sand and aggregates and how to lift them up quite high using crude technology.

Also, unless I am mistaken all concrete requires forms, so where is the evidence of such?

Jeez if you just lined the people up like putting out a fire you could transport that material quickly up the side of the pyramids in bags or buckets.

Forms dont last long even in todays construction forms are gone quickly. Fires, recycled for other things ect.

As far as the granite im not sure but maybe if you had teams working 24/7 it might not take as long as you would think. Not sure what tool they used maybe granite against granite. If I was there thats the first thing I would have tried. Unless there is a harder material then I would have used that.

Give mankind the benifit of the doubt, we are very creative. We dont need no stinking alien help.

Listen, If they are saying that this is a Limeston Granite mixture, then why couldn't they have just mixed the cement right there on the spot? They could have easily built wooden supports in the shape of the block added the mixture and the water, let it harden, take away the wood and presto, a huge block that didn't have to be moved very far.

Wow. This is definately a different theory. Why has no one thought of this before now? I'd love to see some more testing done. My guess would be that we haven't heard this idea is bcuz Hawass has control over the goings on there. Most testing done is kept quiet and subject to His approval. Access to the site is through Hawass and He has the last say on what is and what isn't 'officially' released to the public. If I were to believe this theory I'd say the items and materials used to make these blocks could be hauled up by a pulley system. Yes, still ridiculously heavy but not as heavy as the carved stones. A concrete mixture doesn't necessarily need a form to hold shape- think adobe-but, since these blocks are so precise in their placement it would have been as simple as wooden forms. Just like We use today. The forms would have broken down a long time ago. Thanks for posting this, it's different, and different is good. I'm almost disappointed to hear a theory that could be plausable. It could take the 'magical-ness*' away from it all. I choose to shun this idea and cling to My previous but less plausible belief in their origin.

* another word I'm not sure is real.

Peace. K*

Although Barsoum's research has not answered all of these questions, his work provides insight into some of the key questions. For example, it is now more likely than not that the tops of the pyramids are cast, as it would have been increasingly difficult to drag the stones to the summit. Also, casting would explain why some of the stones fit so closely together. "How energy intensive and/or complicated can a 4,500 year old technology really be? The answer to both questions is not very," Barsoum explains. "The basic raw materials used for this early form of concrete-limestone, lime, and diatomaceous earth-can be found virtually anywhere in the world,"

I think that is what they are kinda getting at here.

Originally posted by denythestatusquo
I doubt it myself based on all the discriptions of the blocks to date, but there still is the issue of water, sand and aggregates and how to lift them up quite high using crude technology.

Also, unless I am mistaken all concrete requires forms, so where is the evidence of such?

....and also how could you possbly say the word CRUDE, my god man they built one of the 7 wonders.

This theory is not new, it has been around awhile now, at least a few years that I'm aware of...Its possible but then there are obvious areas and blocks that are chiseled, chisel marks etc. Also the quarrys have been found that are the possible source for much of the limestone used to build the pyramids.

In addition, LIMESTONE is composed primarily of calcite from marine organisms, so the microscopic traces can be found in limestone formed over time in layers as opposed to limestone crush and mix as may be found in concrete from limestone...

BTW, here is a video that shows concrete build example of a mini pyramid

Yes the theory has been around for about 20 years, but this story talks about the new findings that come a little closer to that theory.

and Barsoum got his samples from the originator of the idea Davidovits
so really
its a non starter
heres why
doernenburg.alien.de...

link

Professor Michel Barsoum, Distinguished Professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Drexel University, and colleagues have found scientific evidence that parts of the Great Pyramids of Giza were built using an early form of concrete, debunking an age old myth that they were built using only cut limestone blocks.

OK, so this is no mere speculator who has presented this theory.

It certainly would explain a lot of the problems associated with the construction.

has no one seen the other alternative offered recently?

French architect Jean-Pierre Houdin suggested a controversial theory on how ancient Egyptians built the pyramids: from the inside-out!

Last month, however, in an announcement that has divided the academic community, French architect Jean-Pierre Houdin revealed a compelling new hypothesis that the Great Pyramid was built from the inside out. In an unusual departure from the archaeological techniques usually deployed by Egyptologists, he arrived at his theory with the help of engineering software typically used to design cars and aircraft.

Houdin believes that a smaller, long, straight ramp consisting of two carriageways was used to build up to the 43m mark of the pyramid (about 73 per cent of its volume). Then the frontal ramp was systematically dismantled and the blocks that formed it used to complete the upper part of the pyramid through a ramp that spirals around the inside of the structure. According to Houdin’s calculations, the volume of rock used in the external ramp would have been exactly the volume of rock required to construct the pyramid above the 43m mark.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

[edit on 19-5-2007 by junglelord]

Originally posted by masqua
It certainly would explain a lot of the problems associated with the construction.

Not really. Physical labour was never really a problem in ancient times.

But I like the theory. It would mean that it was certainly easier than we think. In particular I like the theory because this means they could make stones *on top* of the layer they are working on. No need to bring so many stones up vertically anymore (which obviously require much more force than horizontally).

In answer to the question posed by Earth2

and where are all those chisels anyway?

Just put 'Ancient Egyptian chisels' into a search.

Here's one reference:
www.touregypt.net...

The tools used by workmen in quarries and mines depended, of course, on the type of material being removed. The types of tools used for the quarrying of softer stones during the Pharaonic Period has not been definitively determined. However, judging by the marks on walls, some type of axe or pointed pick, perhaps made of a hard stone such as basalt or dolerite and weighing between one and three kilograms, was probably used in the Old and Middle Kingdoms. During the New Kingdom and later periods, the workmen employed pointed chisels that were hammered with a mallet. The very wide grooves on the surface of a few stone blocks suggest that a very large stone chisel was sometimes used. It is also possible that soft stone was sometimes cut with copper saws that had a toothed edge embedded with grains of sand during the forging.

Some Egyptologists have argued that most of the tool marks were made by soft copper chisels in the Old and Middle Kingdoms, and harder copper or bronze chisels were used from the New Kingdom onward. However, others have pointed out that harder alloys would have already been available during the Old Kingdom. Chisels that have survived at ancient construction sites usually have a broad, flat cutting edge rather than a point. Chret and flint tools were also used for stone working.

image from the above site:


Nebankh

I read about this theory in Omni magazine, in the eighties.

Surprised noone has heard of it.

I think it's a possibility.

Lex

Originally posted by junglelord
has no one seen the other alternative offered recently?

French architect Jean-Pierre Houdin suggested a controversial theory on how ancient Egyptians built the pyramids: from the inside-out!

I actually did hear about that! I think that its entirely possible that both theories are correct! Built from the inside out using a concrete mixture of limestone and granite! I don't think that anyone has proposed that maybe both theories are correct and were used in conjuction.

[edit on 20-5-2007 by kleverone]

Yes I agree, they probably used all kind of ways to build them. Whatever worked best for each block placed.
These guys had plenty of food, plenty of help and plenty of time to think of easier ways to build.

Originally posted by kleverone

Originally posted by junglelord
has no one seen the other alternative offered recently?

French architect Jean-Pierre Houdin suggested a controversial theory on how ancient Egyptians built the pyramids: from the inside-out!

I actually did here about that! I think that its entirely possible that both theories are correct! Built from the inside out using a concrete mixture of limestone and granite! I don't think that anyone has proposed that maybe both theories are correct and were used in conjuction.

Well we are thinking the same thing then. I also saw an idea once of massive movement of sand being piled around the Pyramid and then being taken away....that was a good idea too.

Probably it too was used as a way to elevate things to a certain degree