Proof that the ancients used concrete

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
It is my opinion that those who still claim that it is not possible that most of the blocks used in ancient-Egyptian temple and pyramid building could be concrete/cement/re-agglomerated geopolymers aren't looking into the possibility enough.

If I was able to pour concrete to create building materials, I would possibly use forms and create blocks that were uniform, making the entire process much easier. The lack of uniformity in the pyramid stones suggests to me that this was definitely a "rocks bashing rocks" kind of endeavor.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: suicideeddie

It is my opinion that those who still claim that it is not possible that most of the blocks used in ancient-Egyptian temple and pyramid building could be concrete/cement/re-agglomerated geopolymers aren't looking into the possibility enough. I'm far away from being an expert, but when scientific results show that there are differences in how the shell fossils in Egyptian blocks are randomly aligned, but natural blocks show a directional alignment, that should at least cause one's mind to open to the possibility.

Closed minds are the problem in modern Egyptology--I'm not saying that every possible theory must be believed, but I'm saying that some bring with them evidence that should cause people to at least pause and think.

There's much more to the argument than (disputed) 'geopolymer" findings.
Are you suggesting that the AEs actually built hundreds of thousands of different-sized forms and poured concrete in them, let them set, then dragged the resulting concrete blocks up into a pyramid?

Because that's what you're saying when you claim the pyramid is concrete.

Otherwise, show me how you get a form out from around a block already placed in the pyramid while simultaneously slathering AE mortar in the spaces between.

Harte

a reply to: Harte


They could have just molded them in situ. vwww.youtube.com...

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Harte


They could have just molded them in situ. vwww.youtube.com...

Considering the ease of this concrete method. It's 99% certain the Ancients did it this way, and 1% chance hammer and chisel method.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Harte


They could have just molded them in situ. vwww.youtube.com...

And they would have, if they had used concrete, no doubt.

However, the blocks are clearly not molded in situ, since there is ample space between them filled with mortar.

www.egyptorigins.org...

Harte

a reply to: Blue Shift

That is called deductive reasoning, but it's not exactly a foolproof way of coming to a conclusion.

While the geopolymer/concrete/cement/poured-stone theory is certainly disputed, as Harte points out (ironically, since the poured-stone theory, which does have published papers and scientific analyses to back up the theory disputes the carved-stone claim), one cannot say that just because the blocks aren't uniform that it means that they were carved.

a reply to: Harte

Just watch the first eight minutes of the video if you're so inclined to receive a more detailed answer. If it interests you, watch more, like the portions that discuss examination via electron microscopes, and chemical analyses, and all of it.

Look, I understand your position, but look, IF they had the technology (which it appears that they could have) to do it this way, one may want to consider the Occam's Razor approach to the problem than just to disregard it outright.

As for the use of mortar, I don't know--maybe if they used the geopolymer approach, it was a way to keep wet or curing poured stones from binding together with each other, or maybe many different molds were used that weren't exactly the same, and then the stones were placed after using mortar (which would make absolutely no sense to do at that size...the molding-in-place approach in the video is much more logical).

In any event, this makes much more sense to me from a workforce and efficiency standpoint than does carving massive blocks and forcing more than 2.5 million of them into place through relatively back-breaking work in the intense heat of the Egyptian desert. Of course, like any intelligent person, I will say that I could be wrong, and the theory could have too many holes that I don't understand to be considered probable.

But I would also argue that so does the claim that every stone in the pyramid was hand-shaped from giant quarried blocks of bedrock and transported a relative long distance (for the size and mass of the object) uphill and up ramps and positioned relatively perfectly into place.

Seriously, take 80 minutes out of your lifetime to check out that video, and if you still think that it's not a possible theory, then oh well--no harm, no foul, and you can still latch on to your carved-stone method without anything in the world having been altered. What do you have to lose, other than 80 minutes (and five seconds)?

But, if you're unwilling to watch a video, at least check out this Live Science article from 11 years ago:

"What started as a two-hour project turned into a five-year odyssey that I undertook with one of my graduate students, Adrish Ganguly, and a colleague in France, Gilles Hug," [Michael] Barsoum said.

A year and a half later, after extensive scanning electron microscope 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.

The stones also had a high water content — unusual for the normally dry, natural limestone found on the Giza plateau — and the cementing phases, in both the inner and outer casing stones, were amorphous, in other words, their atoms were not arranged in a regular and periodic array. Sedimentary rocks such as limestone are seldom, if ever, amorphous.

The sample chemistries the researchers found do not exist anywhere in nature. "Therefore," Barsoum said, "it's very improbable that the outer and inner casing stones that we examined were chiseled from a natural limestone block."

More startlingly, Barsoum and another of his graduate students, Aaron Sakulich, recently discovered the presence of silicon dioxide nanoscale spheres (with diameters only billionths of a meter across) in one of the samples. This discovery further confirms that these blocks are not natural limestone.

Here is a video of him giving a lecture concerning his findings...this one is "only" 67 minutes long!

the poured stone idea is just another desperate attempt to explain how the EA built pyramids.
actually more precise only the great pyramid of Khufu..because everyone can visit the forerunners at Meidum and Dashur.
..it like the out-of-date discussions like unlimited workforce vs only 21 years of construction etc etc

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Harte


They could have just molded them in situ. vwww.youtube.com...

Considering the ease of this concrete method. It's 99% certain the Ancients did it this way, and 1% chance hammer and chisel method.

If they'd poured it from concrete, it would have taken far longer to build... over a hundred years.

A block the size of the lower level stones would take most of a year to cure since you can't just pour and start the next layer. So if you've got a thousand stones for the lowest layer, you have to make all the forms because they're different sizes, then mix the concrete (don't let any start hardening), pour the concrete... and wait... and wait... and wait..


Actually, the concrete in the Hoover Dam is still curing 75 years later.

..and then there's the heat from that curing concrete. Do it wrong and you've ruined a whole layer's worth of blocks.

originally posted by: Byrd
..and then there's the heat from that curing concrete. Do it wrong and you've ruined a whole layer's worth of blocks.

Well, of course, they had practice and became experts at that, as evidenced by... uh... nothing. Maybe there was some experimentation, or by chance they came up with a crude concrete mix when they were working with all the other stuff. But the evolution of the pyramids, clearly shown in other pyramids around Egypt, doesn't seem to show that they developed and became proficient at working with concrete enough to actually use it for anything significant.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey


But I would also argue that so does the claim that every stone in the pyramid was hand-shaped from giant quarried blocks of bedrock and transported a relative long distance (for the size and mass of the object) uphill and up ramps and positioned relatively perfectly into place.

There's your straw man.
No one with any knowledge of the subject has ever claimed such a thing. But I suppose you have to have some outrageous thing (fabricated or not) to argue against, else your position has no standing at all.

Harte

a reply to: anti72


What makes sense is that the stones and blocks were worked with copper tools, only if the blocks were in a state where they were still soft enough, in the first vid. where a stone is bored through with the tool marks still in their spiral pattern inside the hole. What seems to have been missed is that the bored out portion and their are quite a few of them in museums, have slumped, where they have been discarded as waste, wider at the bottom and curved from top to bottom. This suggests some plasticity in the material at some stage.



Here Forester shows us some basalt, with obvious air inclusions, the air would have been compressed out when it was laid down, if it was natural.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: anti72


What makes sense is that the stones and blocks were worked with copper tools, only if the blocks were in a state where they were still soft enough, in the first vid. where a stone is bored through with the tool marks still in their spiral pattern inside the hole. What seems to have been missed is that the bored out portion and their are quite a few of them in museums, have slumped, where they have been discarded as waste, wider at the bottom and curved from top to bottom. This suggests some plasticity in the material at some stage.

Here Forester shows us some basalt, with obvious air inclusions, the air would have been compressed out when it was laid down, if it was natural.

Neither you, Foerster, nor I are geologists.

But I am aware that gas pockets can and often do form in igneous rock - expecially when it's extrusive like basalt.
The "air" would not have been compressed out. Probably wouldn't have been air at all, in fact.

Sawing holes in stone with copper was demonstrated by Stocks, as was stated. But it was also demonstrated on "Ancient Aliens by none other than Christopher Dunn - the fringe's favorite go-to guy for ignorant pyramid claims.

Perhaps you didn't know that basalt has many forms - most of them softer than the granite we know the AE drilled with tube saws. Some of them soft enough to carve with a spoon.

Harte

Wow since when did this thread become about the pyramids? But naysayers, its quite obvious that yes you can build a pyramid using a cement method, not saying the eqyptians did it that way, I really could give to #z about the pyramids or how they were build.

But its obvious you could build one using cement, not sure why anybody would want to, but not far from out of the realm of possibility, all you would have to do is just build up, set up the bottom layer and with careful planing just use the layers of the bottom block as a mold for the next blocks, and yes mortar in between them so that way it does not turn into one solid block concrete pyramid block and crack right down the middle at the first earthquake or the weight of the stone alone would crack it if it were one solid concrete peace,it would be rubble in a few years if it were one solid piece. And while its curing you could mold it, drill, sand, whatever, and do all kinds of things, like I said with a careful plan from top to bottom, its far from impossible.

But anyways, its stupid to build pyramids, there totally useless, this fascination with those lumps of rocks in Egypt is redundant. The fact that you can make concrete stronger over time by seawater alone, that is a way more important fact then all the pyramids put together and there supposed mysteries. Concrete that gets stronger with age in seawater? Now that is super useful. Surprised nobody has used it so much more, the applications to such a thing are pretty dam high.

Great work thanks for your sharing this information it brakes open our history!a reply to: SlapMonkey

If someone really digs in into the concept of 'poured limestone' it quickly gets clear that these ( theoretical) quantities of needed water woud have been insane.

The used quarries are all still visible there ( I think some still used today).
The fine white Tura limestone is ( relatively) soft when cut but hardens during transportation processes.

originally posted by: anti72
If someone really digs in into the concept of 'poured limestone' it quickly gets clear that these ( theoretical) quantities of needed water woud have been insane.

The idea that they crushed the limestone from the quarries also becomes insane when you dig into that concept.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

Wow...I don't think that you're using "straw man" properly, but you do whatever you want to.

Obviously, you're either unwilling to watch the videos and/or discuss the material contained within. If you did watch them, you would realize that the first video acknowledges that some of the blocks are natural stone, while others show both visual and microscopic evidence of being a poured stone. The second video elaborates greatly on the microscopic aspect of examining some of the stones, but it also acknowledges that some, if not most, of the stones in the pyramids are natural stone.

But, by all means, please tell me the theories of how the stones were shaped that do not say that they were done by means of human hands from quarried stones (yes, that means tools can be used), because as much as I have researched the pyramids (from the time that I was in single-digit ages all the way up until now), that has always--ALWAYS--been the accepted method according to claimed authorities on the subject.

So, if you are seriously interested in a discussion (which, at this point, it's not looking that way, as you referenced nothing of substance in response to my comment to you), then let's have one, but if you're not willing to even look at a video--I only asked that you watch eight minutes of one--and consider that it could be possible, even if you don't see it as probable, then this is a pointless conversation.

So I ask again, if no one with any knowledge on the subject has ever claimed that all of the stones in the pyramids are quarried, hand-shaped stones (again, which includes using copper and stone tools), then why is that the accepted hypothesis as to how the stones ended up where they are in the shapes that they are?

But to respond directly to your claim, my position has standing because it was possible with the tools and materials available at the time, and scientific analysis corroborates the use of such a method. Again, you might understand that this was possible IF you were willing to watch what I posted for you. As someone who speaks with such authority on archaeological threads, your responses thus far in this one have been disappointing at best, and show quite the unwillingness to consider anything other than that which you have already apparently made yourself certain.

NOTABLE QUOTABLES FROM THE VIDEO

"Without modern technology, workers lifted blocks weighing an average of 2-and-a-half tons each, and put them in place at a rate of one about every two minutes."

"There would have been a cacophony of sounds: You would have heard the clink-a-chink of stone masons cutting the stones; tool sharpeners sharpening the copper chisels; and probably the chanting of thousands of men. They had to be doing this in a real rhythm if they put one block in place every two-and-a-half minutes."

"The stone came from right here--a quarry within site of the Great Pyramid."

Now, I know that this is National Geographic, and maybe they don't consult with people who have any knowledge on the subject before making documentaries, videos, articles, or when producing their magazines, but let's just pretend for a second that what they're citing as the method of building the pyramids aligns with what you are calling my "straw man."

Then you get into Wiki entries (that cite sources from people with knowledge on the subject, claiming exactly what I noted as being the accepted way of creating the pyramids. It even notes the "limestone concrete hypothesis" being discussed, even if it notes that there are those who are "far from accepting even as a remote possibility a 'man-made' origin of pyramid stones." (and that's okay)

But even so, at least they did some in-depth research into it before coming to that conclusion--but so did the people in the videos that I embedded for you.

By all means, conclude what you will on the topic and choose to ignore things posted by others that actually discuss very scientific issues concerning the theory at hand, but to pretend that the well-known and generally accepted theory of quarry-cut-hoist-place (at one stone every 2 minutes, no less) is a straw-man argument, and that it's some "outrageous thing" necessary to point out in order to give this theory some standing is laughable.

So, if you're so inclined, please share with all of us the currently accepted theory of how the pyramids were built and their stones shaped that differ from what I said, otherwise, play your silly straw-man games with someone else who might not understand what a straw man actually is.

a reply to: Harte

crushed? ..or quarried?

originally posted by: Harte

The idea that they crushed the limestone from the quarries also becomes insane when you dig into that concept.

This is also discussed in the videos that I provided.

But I suppose "insane" is a relative term. I see it as "insane" to have 10s-of-thousands of people doing backbreaking labor quarrying, shaping, dragging, and placing 2.5-ton stones in relatively perfect alignment just to house the dead body of a god-king, but that's just me, I guess (actually, it's not, but you know...). But since that's the accepted theory, I guess that makes it "sane?"

Like I already said in this thread, I'm convinced that the geopolymer/concrete hypothesis is a valid one, given the facts that (a) in-depth study into actual ancient stones in Egypt indicate this possibility at the microscopic level and (2) the research into this possibility has led to a relative breakthrough in a new type of concrete that uses much more eco-friendly manufacturing processes than modern Portland cement, but I'm not saying that it was used on every stone at every stage of ancient-Egyptian construction--that would be insane, wouldn't it?

Just like in modern times, where we build with different materials in the same structures, if it was possible at that time, why wouldn't they have, especially when there are some valid indicators that they did?