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.


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

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 07:02 PM
Very interesting read, thank you.

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 07:02 PM
Very interesting read, thank you.

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 07:26 PM
Here are more references lending strong credence to Davidovits geopolymer theory of pyramid construction:

"US Air Force satisfied with geopolymer developments"

"MIT supports Davidovits' Pyramid Theory"

"Cutting-Edge analysis proves Davidovits' theory"

On November 30, the Journal of the American Ceramic Society has released a very important scientific research carried out on the pyramid stones, which confirms the theory developed by Professor Joseph Davidovits on agglomerated (artificial) limestone concrete (ancient geopolymer).

The references of this paper are :

Barsoum, M. W., Ganguly, A. & Hug, G. (2006), Microstructural Evidence of Reconstituted Limestone Blocks in the Great Pyramids of Egypt. Journal of the American Ceramic Society 89 (12), 3788- 3796.

And finally, this looks like the nail in the coffin that confirms the artificiality of the Giza pyramid blocks ... here's a video of Davidovits' group actually demonstrating how easily these blocks would have been for the ancient Egyptians to make !

[edit on 30/9/09 by tauristercus]

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 03:37 AM
The only thing for sure is that we will never know how or more importantly When the pyramids were built - that is until someone invents a time machine.

posted on Sep, 30 2009 @ 10:24 PM

Originally posted by ShadoMan
The only thing for sure is that we will never know how or more importantly When the pyramids were built - that is until someone invents a time machine.

Sorry, have to disagree on the "how" part ... looks like the evidence is starting to stack up in the favour of the pyramids having been partially constructed using "artificial limestone" ... take a look at some of the references that have been cited in this thread.

posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 08:54 PM
reply to post by tauristercus

I found this very intresting. I have heard som e out there thories about the pyrimides but this is by far the most believable.

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 04:36 AM
Interesting thread. S&F (and bookmarked).
I recall reading a while back that one of the Great Pyramid's limestone blocks which had cracked was found to have a human hair trapped within its matrix. Unfortunately I cannot recall where I read this but perhaps someone can find the reference.

However, according to a report by the National Science Foundation, 5 years of research by Professor Michel Barsoum of the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Drexel University, tend to support the idea that some of the limestone blocks were made of a geopolymer mix. Rather than quote bits and pieces of the report I'll just give the link to it for anyone to peruse. (Also at the moment I can't recall how we correctly quote from an external source on ATS these days.)

So, here's the link to the NSF's report entitled The Surprising Truth Behind the Construction of the Great Pyramids. (The OP has referenced to Prof Barsoum but as this link gives another source for reference I've mentioned it.)

Regarding the logistics, I don't see it as such a great problem as some might suggest. The materials may well have been transported to where the mixing was to be done and then poured directly into the molds. When doing concrete work I have found it easier to mix near to where I want to use the stuff rather than cart the slurry many yards. Such was the case when pouring the floor for a second story at a friend's house. We didn't use concrete pumps; we moved everything up to where it was needed then did the mixing and pouring right there.

If the Egyptians had used some kind of additive to accelerate the hardening of their mix then that would have been helpful but it wasn't essential. If not mixed in situ, they could have moved the slurry in wooden or even woven buckets (suitably lined) if needs be. They had ropes and basic pulleys so it's not like they had to build great long ramps for the purpose if they were moving smaller, more manageable amounts of material at one time. They could even have used ladders or crude scaffolding and carried the stuff upon their backs, as is still done in some parts of the world when they build higher structures. However, even if they used ramps, they would more likely run them around the pyramid's levels rather than have a single ramp that stretched off into the distance.

As to the argument that there are unfinished carved obelisks nearby, I don't see how their existence is supposed to deny the possibility that some of the Pyramid's blocks were made from a mix of prepared materials. The presence of one type of building or construction technology does not mean the non-existence of others. There are buildings in my own city here that are made partly from bricks and concrete, but which include carved stone as well. And I don't recall the OP saying that the Great Pyramid was made entirely of man-made, cast blocks, only that there is evidence that some of the blocks were not quarried, but were made from a mix. The evidence seems to suggest that this was the case, and I for one have no problem with that.

Edit to add: how they managed to dress and then position the huge granite slabs is still unknown. But their existence still doesn't deny the evidence that some of the "limestone" blocks were man-made. Maybe they had access to knowledge or techniques that have been lost to us, or had some "outside" help. I dunno, but all the same it's something that has fascinated me for over 40 years since I first started reading up on the Great Pyramid when I was a kid.

[edit on 3/10/09 by JustMike]

posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 05:00 AM

Originally posted by JustMike
Interesting thread. S&F (and bookmarked).
I recall reading a while back that one of the Great Pyramid's limestone blocks which had cracked was found to have a human hair trapped within its matrix. Unfortunately I cannot recall where I read this but perhaps someone can find the reference.

Here's a similar example taken from Davidovits' book where a number of anomalies were found in a sample of "limestone" from Giza. Laboratory analyses were performed and here's the conclusion reached ...

posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 12:38 PM
reply to post by tauristercus

Thank you for that reference.
It was some time ago that I read about this matter of hair in the "stone" (from another source), so it's good to know my memory was not entirely playing tricks on me.

Even without the possible hair inclusions, the nanotechnological analysis mentioned in my reference link (above) makes the fact of man-made blocks practically inarguable.

posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 05:20 PM
reply to post by JustMike

That is exactly what I maintain too JM, but folks can't seem to bend their minds around a wrap around ramp and different methods used in different stages of construction, each evolved to a very high degree of specialization. And no one else that I have seen here has picked up on the use of oxen, even though one poster did concede camels were used, except in the construction of the GP.

Is it so simple it is too hard to see? Are we watching a case of the collective mind playing tricks on itself?

posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 05:50 PM
Also on the Geopolymer site is a video of Davidovits rendering the soft limestone taken from a quarry near the GP into a soluble state by mixing it with water and applying some agitation.

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:59 AM
reply to post by Matyas

Yes, the Ancient Egyptians used cattle as working animals and they were (and remain) far more practical than camels when it comes to heavy hauling on reasonably firm terrain. (Camels have certain physiological advantages for crossing large swathes of sandy desert but they're not the ideal animals for pulling heavy objects.)

Here's a quote:

It would seem that the long-horned cattle (ngiw), on the basis of artistic representations, were the oldest domestic cattle bred in Egypt. They were used both in religious sacrifices and for their meat, and long horned castrated (oxen) appear to have been working animals of choice.

The source for the above quote gives a nice summary of cattle in Ancient Egypt and also lists several references.

As for what you say about using various techniques, again I concur. The people of this part of the world were quite adept at building structures of various kinds and for larger works usually had what we'd now call project managers; they called them "chiefs of construction" and they were usually the actual architects of the structures.

Frankly, I think some people these days are reluctant to give these older cultures their due when it comes to their intelligence and inventiveness.

One of the points that needs to be mentioned is that these building projects had to be financed. These things cost a load of money to build. The largest ones were most often paid for from the royal treasury, along with "gifts" from wealthy citizens, but even in those cases the projects had a budget and the work was done in the most efficient way possible. There was a bureaucracy and all the money spent had to be authorized and accounted for (minus any bribes of course
). The chiefs of construction had to find ways to reduce costs. So, if it was cheaper to use a "mix" to make "stones" for some structural work and structural constraints allowed it, that was preferable to carving them out of a quarry.

This is also why it was more likely that they'd use oxen for much of the hauling. It worked out cheaper, with the added bonus that the animals could either be sold on after the work was completed or used for food. It's even possible that they could rent oxen from farmers when they weren't being used for ploughing. Yes, they grew crops in Ancient Egypt, folks! It wasn't all just endless, sandy desert.
(Okay I know pretty well everyone knows that already.

Someone commented a little way back in the thread that the Ancient Egyptians had no way to grind stone to powder in large quantities. Actually the principle for grinding pieces of stone to powder is identical to that used for grinding grain to make flour for their bread -- namely by using quern stones (eg rounded stone on a concave stone surface) or even large pestle stones. There would be a fair supply of stone fragments available from chipping and carving actual stone that was used in either the same project or other constructions. Larger grindstones could have been made and powered by cattle but I'd have to do research to confirm this conjecture and right now I'm pushed for time. But for large projects they'd surely find the most cost-effective way to do it.

[edit on 5/10/09 by JustMike]

posted on Oct, 7 2009 @ 08:21 PM
I'm pretty positive they weren't designed or built by the Egyptians. Considering structures like these are all over the world, Mexico, Egypt, etc. There's even a few on Mars for one thing.

posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 04:32 PM
From Rev isiting the construction of the Egyptian pyramids - Guy Demortier

It's a 3MB pfd file, goes into a little more depth.

posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 04:44 PM
without going through all the pages i have to ask, it took them THIS LONG to figure this out?!?!

it took me 25 years, its taken them, 100's. wow.

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 01:51 AM
Here is an interesting link. They tried to include a lot of theories, but I don't believe they got them all.

As far as overland transportation, I believe the seasons played an important role as to which methods were used. Sleds during the wet seasons, cradles when it was dry. And there is a famous illustration depicting oxen pulling a sled.

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 05:00 AM
It is too bad that the theory is absolutely wrong...

...first it says this:

Davidovits was not convinced that the ancient Egyptians possessed the tools or technology to carve and haul the huge (2.5 to 15 ton) limestone blocks that made up the Great Pyramid.

So then I asked myself, "What about the granite blocks?". Then they say this:

The 10-tonne granite blocks at their heart were also natural, they say.

...another theory down the drain.

The granite blocks in the Giza pyramids are natural. It is really easy to test that too. Here is a neat fact:

The largest granite stones in the pyramid, found in the "King's" chamber, weigh 25 to 80 tons.

Why would they doubt they can move 2.5 to 15 tons, then totally ignore the natural granite that weighs more than twice that?

The hole in this theory is bigger than the grand canyon.

If you want to understand how they made the pyramids, research Ed Leedskalnin, he moved 30 ton blocks by himself.

[edit on 20-10-2009 by ALLis0NE]

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 11:16 AM
reply to post by ALLis0NE

Yes. Ere long before the pyramids, Neolithics moved a 350 ton stone several kilometers in presently France. It stood four stories tall. And the population was too sparse to support slaves. Probably a large tribe that could spare 72 strong men. The significance was:

1. Religious
2. Strength

1 The act of moving had a meditative aspect, 64 "oarsmen" synchronized to the cadences of a drum, that's 32 per side with two per "oar", six to move the track, one to drum, and the foreman.

2. Invaders could marvel and have second thoughts regarding the giants within the territory.

Capstones were easy to emplace, by the same method but vertically resulting in a kind of cage.

When the ice age hit, migration south brought the stone age technology, eventually culminating in pyramid construction. The copper age had a minor impact, such as the deployment of lever/pulleys, counter balances, and ratcheting mechanisms replacing the older methods for the great blocks and 60 ton statues.

Leonardo would have had a field day.

posted on Nov, 27 2009 @ 08:17 PM
EDWARD LEEDSKALNIN proved this theory back in the 20s and 30s with building of the CORAL CASTLE in Homestead, Florida. He once said the EGYPTIANS came to him in a dream and told him how to build the castle (2 million plus pounds of ROCK by 1 man)!! How did HE do it? To me this dovetails perfectly into the work of DAVIDOVITZ and company.

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 09:56 PM
I'll briefly give you my qualifications. I have an undergraduate degree in Geological Sciences at Penn State University (1977) with a 3.90 GPA in my geological science classes.

I attended The University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana for graduate school in paleeocology. I took Dr. Albert Carozzi's sedimentary petrology class. In that class we studied thin-sections of every sedimentary rock imaginable including carbonates, phosphates, and galauconitic rocks. He had very sedimentary rock imaginable! He even had several thin-sections of cement/concrete. Anybody with even limited intelligence can easily tell the difference between a real carbonate rock and cement/concrete in thin section in about two seconds. It isn't hard. It's very easy. I have to believe that sedimentary petrologists have already thin-sectioned the pyramids and studied them. It is hard for me to believe that they mistakenly identified the rock as a carbonate rock instead of cement/concrete.

And it really isn't THAT complicated. I could walk up to the pyramids, and very likely immediately tell you whether it was cement or a carbonate rock. If visual inspection of the pyramids didn't suffice, I would only need an hour or so at some of the local outcrops where the rocks supposedly came from to determine whether that is where they actually came from. Each limestone has its individual suite of fossils, its individual colors and textures. Plus, put very simply, limestone doesn't look anything like cement/concrete. But thin-sectioning the rocks or making acetate peels of the rocks would be a more thorough way to proceed.

Link to my published paper which I did completely by myself:

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in