Pyramids built from concrete blocks

[M. Porcius Cato]

I say get some fact and data, until then Egypt as always is the Land of Mystery.

 

And what do you do with the facts and the data? You have to interpret it. What do you think archaeologists do? Just dig up old stuff and haul it to a museum?

[Rameses the Great]

And what do you do with the facts and the data? You have to interpret it. What do you think archaeologists do? Just dig up old stuff and haul it to a museum?

 

No, but at least make an effort to make some sort of truth or validation. I don't care about what could have happened and the probability, because with Egypt when one theory arises a hundred more take its place.

[M. Porcius Cato]

No, but at least make an effort to make some sort of truth or validation. I don't care about what could have happened and the probability, because with Egypt when one theory arises a hundred more take its place.

Think about this Rameses. The paper in question was published in the Journal of the American Ceramic Society, an organization that cares deeply about materials science, couldn't give a whit about Egypt, and gets far more serious submissions than they could possibly publish. Now what is the likelihood that they're going to publish a paper that is nothing but speculation on the pyramids? It's about as likely as the Journal of Roman Studies publishing a paper on the electrical conductivity of zirconia at 26 degrees centigrade. That is, absolutely zero. Get real.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

No, but at least make an effort to make some sort of truth or validation. I don't care about what could have happened and the probability, because with Egypt when one theory arises a hundred more take its place.

Think about this Rameses. The paper in question was published in the Journal of the American Ceramic Society, an organization that cares deeply about materials science, couldn't give a whit about Egypt, and gets far more serious submissions than they could possibly publish. Now what is the likelihood that they're going to publish a paper that is nothing but speculation on the pyramids? It's about as likely as the Journal of Roman Studies publishing a paper on the electrical conductivity of zirconia at 26 degrees centigrade. That is, absolutely zero. Get real.

You seriously sound like a Philosopher Cato!

Just how you know all these humbles me so much and probably everyone else. Is it part of your vocation?

 

Anyways, Hawass seems genuinely compassionate in many theories about Egyptian civilization, however, it seems that any find or suggestion of something "mesmerizing" is blown out of proportion by him. Some Egyptologists seriously resent his style of involvement in some digs, probably because he's the one who approves what gets taken out or dugged.

[Skarr]

I guess with all the archaeological hoaxes that have been perpetuated over the years, any sample must be properly validated before you can conclude on anything.

 

As someone already suggested, we need to make sure that all the evidence is in before speculating on this. No one has a crystal clear idea on how exactly the pyramids were built and what kinds of techniques were used. There is a lot of archeological evidence though and it would take literally years to wade through the hundreds of theories around this. Egyptology is a lifelong study for those who are seriously interested as there is so much to cover and it would take more than a few posts even to cover the basics.

 

I did read the article. It is interesting but then again, it is not written from an archaeological point of view but merely restricts itself to the analysis of the samples from a materials perspective.

[Pertinax]

Deep bore samples are needed from a statistically significant number of sites-easily done without without major damage or disruption.( except possibly to some large egos).

 

No, but at least make an effort to make some sort of truth or validation. I don't care about what could have happened and the probability, because with Egypt when one theory arises a hundred more take its place.

Think about this Rameses. The paper in question was published in the Journal of the American Ceramic Society, an organization that cares deeply about materials science, couldn't give a whit about Egypt, and gets far more serious submissions than they could possibly publish. Now what is the likelihood that they're going to publish a paper that is nothing but speculation on the pyramids? It's about as likely as the Journal of Roman Studies publishing a paper on the electrical conductivity of zirconia at 26 degrees centigrade. That is, absolutely zero. Get real.

Quite.

[Pantagathus]

RtG:

 

Stick this in you ear: The suprising truth behind the construction of the Great Pyramid

 

"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.

 

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...."

[Northern Neil]

You seriously sound like a Philosopher Cato!

Just how you know all these humbles me so much and probably everyone else. Is it part of your vocation?

Well, all Cato did in the first instance was to draw our attention to an interesting peice of research, sharing it with like minded people on this forum. If the slightly pedantic ripping apart of this thread and rigerous intellectual treatment of minor points and semantics on a popular forum has exasperated him, then good luck to him for responding likewise.

 

As a non - academic myself, even I was capable of making the distinction between the significance of concrete found inside the pyramid, and concrete (no doubt of varying grades and mix) used to repair the exterior.

 

EDIT: By gum, I have just read the dates on these posts and found I have jumped in on an old thread! Anyway, thanks Pan for giving us an update on this.

Edited May 21, 2007 by Northern Neil

[Rameses the Great]

RtG:

 

Stick this in you ear: The suprising truth behind the construction of the Great Pyramid

 

"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.

 

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...."

 

I don't care for this, 'hey we discovered and are probably right about the pyramids' theory. If I can take you to Egypt with me you will seriously see all these theories and ideas with all their 'information' placed in them and we'll still be clueless. Your criticizing of Hawass and your idea that we know more then what is actually presented to us is somewhat confusing to me. This is his life and he has had a hard time defending his job from outsiders who pop up with new 'theories' and ideas of the pyramids.

 

If you want to listen to this go ahead but I'll reserve my ideas until after the facts are presented more then just an obscure article with an agenda tagged unto it. I really wonder why people try to develop new ideas and why they are held so valued to people if an accomplished Egyptologist(s) speak out against it.

 

Prove me wrong, prove me wrong.

[Viggen]

And it shows that the Egyptians were not as smart as the ancient inhabitants of modern Bosnia... who let the earth build their pyramid for them.

 

(Sorry I couldn't resist )

 

I know this is a bit off topic but i found this article about real archaeologist and their real possible findings in Bosnia and what challenge they face...

Bosnia archaeologists fight red tape, looters

[caldrail]

I presume this will now produce a great re-calculation of build time, and a re-evaluation of the conventional wisdom as regards the use of slave labour.

Egyptians didn't use slaves to build the pyramids - there wasn't enough labour to go around. They employed out-of-work farm labourers to haul stone (or concrete) blocks.