It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Egyptian Pyramids packed with seashells

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 08:54 AM
reply to post by Skyfloating

ah right - appologies - i missed the refference to ` pre flood pyramids ` - in your second post

i guess its now time to lay out a rebutall to the notion that the area has been flooded - after the pyramids were built

firstly - the folsilized shells within the pyramid - are a part of the limestone blocks used to build them - so they are not evidence of flooding after the pyramids were built

second - the structure of the pyramid - would if flooded retain evidence of such an event - the grat pyramid is not made of solid blocks througout its construction - large secitoions of the interior are rubble fill - these cointain voids - as do other key areas - like the lintels above the kings / queens chambers - and the ` shats ` - if the putamid was flooded - these would retain silts etc - they do not - ergo they pyramid has never been under water

the giaza plateou shows zero signs of recent [ by recent i mean the last few thousand years ] flooding - if it had been flooded - again the receeding waters would leave a distinct sediment layer - look at the flood evidence uncovered by Leonard Woolley @ ur in iraq - floods leave clear evidence - that is not present @ giza - ergo no recent flood @ giza

i could make other points - but time is short so i will leave you to consider my claims

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 08:56 AM
reply to post by Skyfloating

Nonsense.... the pyrimids are made from limestone so of course they have fossil seashells and the likes embedded in them... thats what limestone is... that being said an architect has recently suggested that the pyrimids weren't carved from quarries at all but were a primitve form of concrete and that they were cast in place, an argument which he bases on the chemical analysis of the stones. It would make sense then that they would use shells and whatever else they could get their hands on to bind the morter... anyway Cairo and Gaza is not so far from the sea.

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 09:06 AM
Found this reference as I recalled the story of the Valley of the Whales (Egypt's Wadi Hitan) in the Sahara. It definitely was once much wetter than it is now.

As recently as 4,000 to 6,000 years ago, the Sahara was covered with grasslands, trees, lakes, and rivers. Hippopotamuses, elephants, giraffes, ostriches, crocodiles, and other animals splashed in the water and roamed across the rich, green landscape.
Why did the climate change? Scientists aren't sure. One theory is that small changes in the rotation and tilt of the earth altered the pattern of wind and rainfall. Before this devastation took place, many more people lived here. These mysterious tribes left behind the weapons, tools, arrowheads, jewelry, and bones that scientists now find.
And long before there were humans, sea creatures swam in what was to become the Sahara. Recently, scientists found a 50-foot-long skeleton of an ancient whale in a desert valley in Egypt known as Wadi Hitan, or the Valley of the Whales. Hundreds of fossil whale skeletons have been found there, along with bones of sharks and other fish. They lie trapped in the sandstone of an ancient sea bed, and are being exposed by the desert wind. The whale, perhaps 40 million years old, didn't have a blowhole, but it did have tiny legs, feet, and toes, signs that the ancestors of whales once dwelled on land.

Wadi Al-Hitan

[edit on 29/4/2008 by Pilgrum]

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 09:07 AM

The term ‘cement’ dates back to the Latin ‘cæmentium’, meaning rough stone. The Romans found that crushed rock mixed with burnt lime and water formed a mixture which hardened to a stone-like consistency. It was an invaluable construction material, and there are many buildings from the Roman era made (partially) with this cement that are still standing today, including the Pantheon and Colosseum (Flavian Amphitheatre) in Rome. (Technically this is ‘hydraulic cement’ because of the hardening action of water in forming it; mud and clay were used in early cements, but these are non-hydraulic and quickly worn down by water). Cement mixed with more stone is concrete and can be used for making building blocks.

Different recipes for cement were discovered independently by the Mesopotamians, Egyptians and Romans. For some reason, the technique kept getting lost – perhaps because of stonemasons’ desire to protect their trade secrets – and the method of producing high-quality mortar was not discovered again in Europe until the 14th century. Modern cement owes a great deal to the chemists of the 18th and 19th centuries. Many great Victorian buildings, including the Houses of Parliament, were made with Portland cement, which was patented in 1824 and is still the basis for most modern cement and concrete. 3

But while the Roman buildings have endured 2,000 years or more, modern cement does not survive so well. Modern concrete can decay dangerously within decades. The problem was particularly significant in the Eastern bloc, where planners had seized on concrete as the ideal material to rebuild cities shattered by the war.

In 1957, Ukrainian scientist Victor Glukhovsky investigated why the ancient recipes were so much more durable than modern ones. From the earliest times, various additives were found to make a difference, and the ancients seem to have tried just about everything. The Romans are known to have used animal fat and milk, and more gruesomely, blood. Modern research has found that the blood altered the texture of the cement and introduced air bubbles, which help it to withstand the effects of freezing and thawing. It would be interesting to know whether the practice of making an animal or human blood sacrifice when laying the foundations of a new building is related to this. The tradition of foundation sacrifices is known across Europe, Asia and North Africa. 4

Glukhovsky discovered that superior cement could be obtained by mixing alkaline activators based on sodium and potassium, which occur in many natural minerals. His findings were quickly taken up in the Ukraine, but attracted little attention elsewhere. However, his work was important in inspiring Joseph Davidovits, a French chemical engineer. Davidovits developed a theory that the Egyptian pyramids were not constructed by assembling stone blocks as had always been assumed, but that the blocks were a type of artificial stone, made using reconstituted limestone, which had been cast in place.

If correct, Davidovits’s theory would solve a number of mysteries concerning the building of the pyramids. Small barrels of liquid concrete would be much easier to move than multi-ton stone blocks, and the casting process would explain how some of the blocks fit together so precisely. It would also remove the need to explain how the Egyptians worked huge quantities of stone using just stone and copper tools. This theory would require the Egyptians to be capable of manufacturing a material that is every bit as strong and resilient as natural limestone, capable of withstanding over 4,000 years of weathering. In other words, far better than any modern cement. Davidovits set out to re-create such a material. The startling thing is that he succeeded.



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

Michel Barsoum, professor of materials engineering, shows in a peer-reviewed paper published Dec. 1 in the Journal of the American Ceramic Society how the Egyptian builders of the nearly 5,000-year-old pyramids were exceptional civil and architectural engineers as well as superb chemists and material scientists. Barsoum wrote the paper with Adrish Ganguly, a an alumnus who received a doctoral degree in materials engineering from Drexel, and Gilles Hug of the National Center for Scientific Research in France.

Their conclusions could lead to a seismic shift in the kind of concrete used in construction and provide developing nations a way to build structures utilizing inexpensive and easily accessible materials.

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.

To arrive at his findings, Barsoum, an Egypt native, and co-workers analyzed more than 1,000 micrographs, chemical analyses and other materials over three years. Barsoum, whose interest in the pyramids and geopolymers was piqued five years ago when he heard theories about the construction of the pyramids, says that to construct them with only cast stone builders would have needed an unattainable amount of wood and fuel to heat lime to 900 degrees Celsius.

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 type of concrete pyramid builders used could reduce pollution and outlast Portland cement, the most common type of modern cement. Portland cement injects a large amount of the world’s carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and has a lifespan of about 150 years. If widely used, a geopolymer such as the one used in the construction of the pyramids can reduce that amount of pollution by 90 percent and last much longer. The raw materials used to produce the concrete used in the pyramids — lime, limestone and diatomaceous earth — can be found worldwide and is affordable enough to be an important construction material for developing countries, Barsoum said.

[edit on 29-4-2008 by grover]

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 09:15 AM
Okay, I should have read the news story properly in the first place

Basically we have a new study which shows that the limestone blocks forming the pyramid contain fossils shells dating to the Eocene and that their distribution and condition shows that the blocks cannot have been made from cement, as proposed by Davidovits.

So there's not much else to say on the matter.

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 12:24 PM

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
i could make other points - but time is short so i will leave you to consider my claims

No, your rebuttal was well layed-out and show that it is unlikely that the Pyramids were flooded in the last few thousand years.

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 01:09 PM
Sorry wrong post.

[edit on 29/4/08 by spacevisitor]

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 01:25 PM
reply to post by Skyfloating

Hey there 'Sky',

Now this is extremely weird !
Are you saying that this is something that has only just been discovered (marine shells in / around the pyramids)?

Because I'm absolutely certain that I read about this a long time ago (at least a decade ago).

Or have I got it wrong ? I'm confused.


posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 01:26 PM
reply to post by woodwytch

No...its old information actually. But its been under-reported.

posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 01:45 PM
reply to post by Skyfloating

Phew, that's a relief ... thought I'd had some knd of premonition for a minute.

Thing that worried me (going by the majority tone of the replies here), no-one would have believed me.

Some things never change 'hey ho' ! But keep up the good work I always enjoy your threads.


posted on Apr, 29 2008 @ 07:14 PM

the giaza plateou shows zero signs of recent [ by recent i mean the last few thousand years ]

Could this then add fuel to the other age old debate as to when the pyramids were actually built?
If they are considerably older than the 6000 odd years reported then could it possible they were at some stage underwater.

I know the shells etc found ‘within’ the stone argument does not suggest this but other factors like erosion patterns maybe?

Another thing Ape, is it possible that evidence of marine life in the Himalayas and other mountain ranges is from the movement of the earth and were pushed up when the mountains were formed not necessarily that the water level was that high? Or is that already a given?

I am not stiring the pot here, just throwing about some ideas.

[edit on 29/4/2008 by VIKINGANT]

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 03:42 AM
What I find odd about this whole thing is that no one noticed it sooner!!!

We all know from Elementary Social Studies that the Nile Delta gets flooded every year, or it did during the Dynastic periods of the Egyptian Empire. Why then is it at all odd that the very ground that the pyramids sit on are covered in shells?

The pyramids are also composed, to some small degree, of marine shells because they were at one point underwater as well.

All of this said, it still doesn't shed any light on the age of the pyramids, and doesn't bring us any closer to figuring out who, where, and when they were built.

Good catch though!! Star and Flag from me!!!



posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 05:04 AM

Were Egypt's great ancient monuments carved from stone or cast like concrete? New fossil evidence, found intact and embedded in the monument walls, reignites the debate.

First I am surely not an AE building expert, so these remarks I made are my personal thoughts only.

I reed the whole article Skyfloating provided and I therefore think that my first thought of floods are not correct.
Because the fossils are largely undamaged and are distributed in a random manner within the stone, in accordance with their typical distribution at sea floors.
So I must assume that the original sources/places of the used blocks are formed far back in Earth history when that enormous sandbox was a sea.

[I absolute believe there where some floods in our history, but those floods are/ could in my opinion not be the real reason for the forming of those fossils in the used stone as describe above.]

But both theories have their extreme difficulties in my opinion when you claim that one of them where used by building for instance the Great Pyramid.
If they where carved from quarries they had five major problems because of the available tools then.

1. The carving of those blocks itself.

2. The exceptional precision of the carving.

3. The necessary speed of carving because of the claim of a construction management study (testing) carried out by the firm Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall in association with Mark Lehner and other Egyptologists, were their calculations suggest the workforce could have sustained a rate of 180 blocks per hour (3 blocks/minute) with ten hour work days for putting each individual block in place.

4. The handling and manoeuvring and transportation of those hundred of thousands of blocks from 1.5 to 4 tonnes, and especially those of 15 tonnes to 60-80 tonnes.

5. The handling and manoeuvring and transportation of those blocks to the building site and to get them then up to a height of about 480 feet.

If they where made of cast like concrete, there where obvious different kind of problems, because of the available tools then and besides the fact that most of the fossils are intact and preserved.

1. Making the concrete blocks, because there are no references of, buckets or other casting tools in early Egyptian paintings, sculptures or texts.

2. Transporting and making that obvious needed enormous amount of concrete.

3. You can’t make concrete that fast in my opinion to sustain a rate of 180 blocks per hour (3 blocks/minute) with ten hour work days for putting each individual block in place as claimed.

4. They obviously must make those blocks first before they good have placed them at the building side itself.

5. Then you have the same handling and manoeuvring and transportation problems of those blocks up to a height of about 480 feet at the building site itself.

6. Then if they where made of concrete must there be not many cracks found also?

Please give your take or your criticism on these points I make here.

[edit on 30/4/08 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 30/4/08 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 30/4/08 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 30/4/08 by spacevisitor]

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 05:18 AM
My intuition is that there were no floods (well perhaps there were, but not during the great Egyptian Era), except the normal periodical flooding of Nile. Ignorant Ape provided good info about the fossils in the stones, but that doesn't remove the chance that the climate in ancient Egypt was once very different. In Sahara there were lakes, grass and trees, but once the past civilization used artificial irrigation too much and the climate changed, the Sahara turned into how we know it today.

According to few egyptologists, there are erosion marks on sphinx that could be caused due the rainfall... and how often it rains in Sahara? Well surely once in a hundred years perhaps, but could it be enough to cause that erosion in the long run?

And more, could the erosion be caused by falling sand or something?

Sorry if these questions and possibilities were already speculated, I didnt have time to read the thread throughoutly. If someone could point me on these, I'd be grateful-

Originally posted by woodwytch

Because I'm absolutely certain that I read about this a long time ago (at least a decade ago).

And I am glad that there are some eldery people with good memory here on ATS, otherwise we would be inventing wheel all over again
Good note Woody!


[edit on 30-4-2008 by v01i0]

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 03:28 PM
reply to post by v01i0

erm, ok ... thanks for that.

The aged-one. Woody

posted on Apr, 30 2008 @ 04:29 PM
theres to many bigheads who think they know everything there is about Egypt's history and any evidence that could possibly prove them wrong is quickly shot down and just have too look at the pyramids in Europe to see they look identical to those of the Incas... p.s. if you havent heard of the hidden pyramids in europe try google...

[edit on 30-4-2008 by fatdad]

new topics

<< 1   >>

log in