New research strongly suggests the Giza pyramids were constructed using artificial stone

reply to post by Lastone


I just saw your post, thanks for posting that video (I hadn't seen it before). I've only just begun reading about this topic, it's very interesting.

THe above picture is a picture of the unfinished obelisk. I think they forgot to explain why they carved this in the ground and left it after it cracked. They could have poured such a structure or even repaired it if they were so experienced in using types of concrete.




The above picture is of a map from egypt and is discribed as a map of stone quarries.

The map was drawn about 1160 BC by the well-known Scribe-of-the-Tomb Amennakhte, son of Ipuy. It was prepared for Ramesses IV's quarrying expedition to the Wadi Hammamat in the Eastern Desert, which exposes Precambrian rocks of the Arabian-Nubian Shield. The purpose of the expedition was to obtain blocks of bekhen-stone (metagraywacke sandstone) to be used for statues of the king.

[edit on 27-9-2009 by JBA2848]

reply to post by tauristercus


your posts are always my favorite. you should really write a book combining a bunch of mathmatical and scientific things you come across.

reply to post by Anti-Evil


Surely, a testing of his theory can be supported or unsupported by an analysis of the stones versus where the blocks were supposedly quarried. And we must know, also, if the catalyst materials were available from any place in sufficient amounts to round out his theory. Otherwise, it doesn't work with a missing critical element no matter how slick it seems.

And, heck, if he can show that, I'll give up my favorite "The aliens did it," theory.

reply to post by micpsi


Really interesting,had never seen that before,but doesnt explain what saw or drill they used.considering that the drill would have had to been diamond tipped,and the saw of similar nature,the plot thickens.
neither had been invented at that time,with no evidence that these tools were left behind at any point.
Also unanswered how on earth did they move these massive amounts of granite.have you seen how big the statue of ramses the 2nd is

well this would certainly explain how the egyptians managed to build them. The idea that 14k to 40,000 egyptians worked for 10-20 years on a project seemed like a stretch.

Heck its one the main reasons people probably think atlanteans or aliens built the pyramids instead !

You would think egyptologists would be happy this puzzle was solved. It would end all that alien speculation and finally give egyptians the credit they want.

I think its quite strange that the egyptologists are fighting this theory. Its almost as if they think this cheapens the monumental effort it took to achieve these structures.

So what if it was 20 guys pouring limestone cement blocks instead of 14,000 people dragging stones up a ramp. Its still an amazing achievement

wow what an incredible plethora of information. Very informative! Information all comes together and makes alot of sense... yet another theory to ponder.

Now you have ruined the magic of it all. The mystery is finally solved!! NOOOO!!!

Even if they did use this method of construction it doesn't take away anything with regards to art and engineering. They were very smart back then.

I didn't read all of this thread so sorry if this has been mentioned. But I have a hard time believing that any type of conrete without some sort of rebar in it would hold together underneath all of that weight. Not to mention the amount of time that has passed. Concrete gets very weak after long periods of time. I personally believe the ancient advanced civilization or alien theory myself.

I want to add a couple of afterthoughts....

As for the base of the pyramids being cut stone, that's very possible. Now everyone seems to wonder how they managed to lift the stones progressively higher but I want to posit this....

Stones were cleft and put in place for the first "level". Once those were in place, local sand / dirt / whatever you want to call it was piled up against one wall forming a ramp of sorts to allow stone to be lifted to the next level. As the pyramid(s) grew higher, the ramp was added to in height and width as well as length in order to maintain a constant grade from the level being worked to 'ground level'. As the pyramid grew taller, it would require exponentially more sand or dirt to create the ramp and at that point, construction turned from cut stone to 'pour in place' blocks.

Not sure how many here are familiar with trenching and the like, and sorry for derailing a moment but.... Generally, when trenching, you do not apply any significant load to ground on the side of the trench unless the load is as far from the trench as the trench is deep in order to avoid cave-ins- basically at a 45 degree angle. So, to be safe, a 1 meter deep trench requires no load be applied to the surrounding dirt within 1 meter of the edge or the risk of cave-in increases. The same would apply to the ramp. If the ramp were 40 meters tall, the ramp's sides would extend out approximately 40 meters, probably more actually since made of sand, so that the ramp 'road bed' itself wouldn't slough off. Make sense? Anyhow, back on topic....

The large number of people required to move the cut stone would shift from moving blocks to moving smaller quantities- perhaps 5 gallons or so- of slurry / concrete / whatever you want to call it, and to building and relocating forms. Since their 'crete' wouldn't "go off" as quickly as modern concrete, delays in pouring mixes into the forms wouldn't result in the blemishes we get today when we try to pour new concrete next to older concrete. Plus, since they are pulling it all from a common, perpetual mix, changes in composition would be minimal resulting in an overall consistant composure.

Then remove the sand ramp from around the pyramid and voila, a pyramid.

Now back to the pots:
Make a central mold (the void of the pot) out of basic materials such as sand, dung and water (similar to adobe) then put that upside-down on a surface. Make the body out of the "Egyptian concrete" and let it set up to the point it is 'clay like' but still workable and can be molded around the central mold. Once that's done, apply another layer of 'adobe' around it, put it in the furnace and fire it... or don't- just let it cure naturally. Once it's hardened, remove the outer molding and the inner molding- shouldn't be too difficult to wash off some mud, should it? And you're left with a concrete vase, bottle, whatever. A little finish work on it and 'poof' ancient pre-cast concrete pottery. If you're really good, you could probably line the inner section of the cast with lambskin, sheep stomach or something, to keep the 'crete from affecting / interacting with it thus requiring little to no work on the inside of the vessel.

Most people fail to realize the ramp theory is not that weak. Other temples were constructed thusly, and half moon wooden cradles were used to roll the blocks. It proceeds at a much faster rate and with significantly greater ease to use the cradles instead of the old log rollers. After the stones are in place, the cradles could remain dismantled, leaving no traces of wheels.

Also the hydraulics theory makes a great amount of sense, allowing very large tonnage to be quarried from a great distance and transported downstream in the Nile, a situation requiring massive timbers as floats. The timbers could then be used as levers at the construction site to hand off blocks up the stepped sides after the lock was enclosed, using the flow of rubble in the downward direction as counterweights. With this method the ramps can be used for the larger stones, and the levers for the smaller ones, and the lock for the very great stones.

Large blocks that need polishing could be subjected to a milling type of operation, where a handful of oxen turn the stone upon another harder one until the right specs are arrived at. This would also produce the powder needed from rubble to make the concrete, which I suspect was used in the finishing process, such as the topmost blocks and casing.

So we then find a scenario where all parts of the construction process has multiple uses. Also upon this kind of close examination many more possibilities emerge for stone age (or copper, your preference) technology to rival our modern techniques.

Edit to add one has to realize that these people did not work for a wage, in the sense that we know of work. If you were a worker, your whole life revolved around the pyramid, you would live, marry, and raise children in its shadow, and if you were productive enough the most you would get is a loaf of bread and some beer for your day's worth, maybe a sack of wine on special occasions. If you had an accident like a broken leg, they would fix you right there, without anesthetics, and you could cry out to the god of your preference to ease the pain. And there were no gods that could ease the pain of your bad teeth. So no bitin' on wooden spoons.

Meanwhile for the bosses there was no such thing as a career choice. Either you got it done or your head rolled. So they always competed and were open to new ideas. It is amazing how creative one can get when faced with such a simple option.

These were national projects, vital to the welfare of the nation. The pyramids originally functioned as precessional clocks, allowing their kingdoms to gain an advantage with the neighbors by timing long range planning for agriculture. All the other trappings were to the glory of Pharaoh.

I know, it sounds as if I were there. Of course that is a silly notion, even hypothetically. But I can say I would have been a builder, if I lived then and there with the right opportunities.

[edit on 9/27/2009 by Matyas]

Originally posted by 68eric86
I didn't read all of this thread so sorry if this has been mentioned. But I have a hard time believing that any type of conrete without some sort of rebar in it would hold together underneath all of that weight. Not to mention the amount of time that has passed. Concrete gets very weak after long periods of time. I personally believe the ancient advanced civilization or alien theory myself.

Rebar is usually used to allow concrete to be spread out and have some flexibility. Think of your driveway, highways, etc. They are of limited 'thickness' and also need to flex somewhat due to a variable load being placed on them. Rebar allows some displacement in some direction without fracturing (hopefully). Likewise, rebar also allows less concrete to be used without sacrificing strength- that's why it's called "reinforcing bar".
In a free standing structure that utilizes basic transference of force, rebar is unnecessary. For instance, a retaining wall built to hold back a hill would work fine without rebar if the wall were allowed to have a base twice as wide as it is tall: 10' tall wall extends 10' to the left and 10' to the right, and the sides sloped at a 45.

reply to post by abecedarian

I don't disagree with what you answered. I guess to put it shortly I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around this theory. Just like I have a hard time with the ramp and cutting of stones with ropes, copper or whatever else the mainstream comes up with. By the way I like your signature.

about 10yrs ago I knew someone 'in the know' on this. Their claim- Egyptian gov full well knows the stones were poured but violently fights anyone trying to prove it. They feel if this got out it would be a blow to the mystery that surrounds the pyramids and thus a blow to tourism in general.

This is not new information to any Christian. It's in the book of Exodus.

Exodus 5:4-12

4 But the king of Egypt said, "Moses and Aaron, why are you taking the people away from their labor? Get back to your work!" 5 Then Pharaoh said, "Look, the people of the land are now numerous, and you are stopping them from working." 6 That same day Pharaoh gave this order to the slave drivers and foremen in charge of the people: 7 "You are no longer to supply the people with straw for making bricks; let them go and gather their own straw. 8 But require them to make the same number of bricks as before; don't reduce the quota. They are lazy; that is why they are crying out, 'Let us go and sacrifice to our God.' 9 Make the work harder for the men so that they keep working and pay no attention to lies." 10 Then the slave drivers and the foremen went out and said to the people, "This is what Pharaoh says: 'I will not give you any more straw. 11 Go and get your own straw wherever you can find it, but your work will not be reduced at all.' " 12 So the people scattered all over Egypt to gather stubble to use for straw.

Anatoly Fomenko thinks that those Pyramids were built in the 1500's.

Did they know how to make artificial stone and/or concrete in those years B.C.?

Not the first time I have seen this postulated, very interesting indeed. And yes I feel if this got out Egypt would in fact see a new surge of tourism of not just to see for themselves.

Bravo on your post - BM'd and noted and a star for you!

-Mus

Originally posted by 68eric86
reply to post by abecedarian

 

I don't disagree with what you answered. I guess to put it shortly I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around this theory. Just like I have a hard time with the ramp and cutting of stones with ropes, copper or whatever else the mainstream comes up with. By the way I like your signature.

The point being that gravity pulls straight down. So a solid block transferring weight from anywhere between vertical to up to 45 degrees from vertical, if of sufficient density, should have little problem withstanding compression. This is also why the pyramids get smaller as they grow taller- less weight on top. If they didn't, they'd have wind-loading to deal with as well, which could shift the COG sufficiently to easily topple a solid structure like these.
It's when the vector (direction of motion) from weight transference goes more horizontal than vertical that shear (sideways motion) in the concrete / block becomes a significant factor- if the block is being 'stretched' horizontally, it becomes weaker and is more easily subject to failure.

This principle is part of 'arches' and such. Where the load applied to the top of the arch is distributed down through the sides and the arch isn't able to compress / shrink at the top, which would result in the arch failing, since it is confined / bound by the shape of the arch, the 'keystone' and the other stones around it. You may be able to look at structures like self-supporting radio towers, the Eiffel Tower even, and see a 'reverse arch' of sorts where tension as opposed to compression is what holds it together, but that's another topic.

And thanks for the compliment on my sig.

[edit on 9/27/2009 by abecedarian]

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

 

There were several "dark ages" between the building of the pyramids and the Romans...

specifically there were 3 periods between the old kingdom...the middle kingdom and the new kingdom in which apparently the whole social order of ancient Egypt broke down.

Just like the dark age between the Mycenaean (Achaean) and the the people we know as the Greeks...much was lost in those centuries.

Consider that perhaps there were no dark ages.
That they were made up to stretch time.
Which makes much of history a lie.

Check out this site. There are many interesting articles that should cause to to wonder.
history is a lie told by people who were not there.

Originally posted by tauristercus
...
The main problem being that it's difficult to understand how the huge volume of rock/stone material from the inside of the jar/urn was removed if the only access was down the inside of the very narrow neck.
How would you go about grinding away that material to form the inside of the jar/urn ?

Lost wax?