Pyramids were built with concrete rather than rocks, scientists claim

[Watser?]

The Ancient Egyptians built their great Pyramids by pouring concrete into blocks high on the site rather than hauling up giant stones, according to a new Franco-American study.

The research, by materials scientists from national institutions, adds fuel to a theory that the pharaohs’ craftsmen had enough skill and materials at hand to cast the two-tonne limestone blocks that dress the Cheops and other Pyramids.

Despite mounting support from scientists, Egyptologists have rejected the concrete claim, first made in the late 1970s by Joseph Davidovits, a French chemist.
Continued here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2480751,00.html?pasta)

[Abdul Alhazred]

You mean they didn't use flying saucers, after all? :mindblow:

[Shelli]

The Ancient Egyptians built their great Pyramids by pouring concrete into blocks high on the site rather than hauling up giant stones, according to a new Franco-American study.
Well, that would make a helluva lot more sense.

[Clutch Munny]

From what I can tell, the "mounting support" claim seems rather overstated.

[Freddy]

Here is a story where Dr. Zahi Hawass, Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities and Director of the Giza Pyramids Excavation, refutes the claim of concrete being used. When he signs on I will believe it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/01/science/01pyramid.html?ref=

[scorch]

my intuition tells me to doubt the concrete claim

I believe it was limestone, moved using ropes, lotsa men, levers and pullees :)

[JackDog]

This is the first that I've heard of this theory, but it totally makes sense to me--especially when you consider that the Pyramids were originally covered in marble.
:wornpyr:

[Suds]

I heard the pyramids were originally coated in plaster which then had heiroglyphs painted on it. I think there is a bit left on the tip of one of them. I may be wrong.
I'm sure they would have done this but can't you just analyse lots of bits of the blocks from various parts of the pyramid and then tell if it's solid stone or a type of concrete?

[Dragar]

I believe that is exactly what is being done. However, the reason the issue is not yet resolved is due to two reasons

1. The Egyption government won't allow them to take enough 'bits' off the pyarmids to run tests on.

2. Scientists (and historians) can argue over anything, and it's only when there is enough evidence that this seems to stop.

[Mendeh]

PEPI JUNIOR: "Okay, dad, so... Whereas before we hoisted up thousands of tonnes of carved limestone blocks, and moved them into position, now we're going to hoist up thousands of tonnes of wet cement, shape them into limestone blocks at the top, and let them all dry before we lift another finger. How the hell will we ever finish the job?"

PEPI THE PYRAMID BUILDER: "At last, my boy, you're beginning to understand government building contracts."

Sounds perfectly plausible to me.

[godfry n. glad]

Hmmm...I'm no Egyptologist, for sure.

What I understand them to be saying is that rather than haul rather large, solid objects upwards, they effectively broke the stone into smaller discrete bits (lumps of soft, malleable limestone concrete) so that the project would not depend on more workers to move more mass upwards. If they could reduce the size of the discrete object, they could use fewer workers and not be dependant upon large gangs of workers.

It would also seem that those living and working along the Nile would have had plenty of opportunity to experiment and test with chunks of muck...they were probably using something similar on smaller scale projects.

Massive things have been built with mud brick, and have been for millenia. The Egyptians on this project just seem to be dealing in larger result products...Shaped mud slabs, formed in place, rather than bricks, with the happy happenstance of using a high quantity of limestone dust (perhaps tailings from the shaping process of the lower limestone facing slabs?) making them a concrete, the result.

By the way....I've worked with concrete in its semi-fluid slurry form (it sounds here like they were using a drier mix on the pyramids) and forms can be made that slide and adjust, allowing workmen to build up quite a segment from smaller portions....but I was doing flatwork. Gravity has a great deal to do with what one do, especially on tilted surfaces like those of the pyramids.

[JackDog]

I heard the pyramids were originally coated in plaster which then had heiroglyphs painted on it. I think there is a bit left on the tip of one of them. I may be wrong.
It turns out that we were both wrong. From Wikipedia:
At completion, the Great Pyramid was surfaced by white 'casing stones' – slant-faced, but flat-topped, blocks of highly polished white limestone. These caused the monument to shine brightly in the sun, making it visible from a considerable distance.

[Dingfod]

A few questions about this construction method arise after I just watched a Discovery HD program on the building of the pyramids.

Did they use granite-crete to make the huge blocks that make up the ceilings in the burial chambers themselves?

If they used concrete, why is most all of the fill material of interior of the pyramids made up of quite irregular stones, most with visible chisel marks?


Plaster, my aster.

[Mendeh]

I think I'm being thick, but I can't see the advantage in using concrete, since presumably the main problem is getting the weight of material up to the top to start with?

[JackDog]

I think that the main advantage is that they're dividing up the weight. This is an overly-simplistic example, but it would be much easier to bring up 10 loads of 10 pounds of cement rather than a single 100 pound stone.

[IRON MAN]

Somehow I wouldn't be particularly surprised by anything those guys did.

I mean what makes you think for a second that a bunch of guys who, (either way), spent their lives building those humungous godforsaken pyramids just to bury one guy, were even slightly interested in efficiency?

In addition, sites have been found with obelisks partially chiseled by hand from solid rock, (abandoned when they developed fractures). Even the stones they used as tools to do it are still present.

http://www.egipto.com/obeliscos/604.html

Now that doesn't prove they didn't use another method for building pyramids, but it does prove these guys had the motivation and ability to work with solid rock, no matter how much fucking around it is.

Also makes you wonder why they didn't use concrete to zip up their obelisks, if the result looks the same.

[Mendeh]

Hey JackDog, Merry Xmas!

Would it be simpler, though? 10 loads of 10 pounds require 10 journeys. Put a 100 pound weight on a lubricated surface and a couple of men could shift it in one go.

Assuming concrete came after stone, the Egyptians would START by cutting out blocks that were the best size to transport and build with. So the size of stone block we actually observe in the pyramids ought to be the best size to use.

And remember, those blocks would never be seen - they were hidden beneath a polished limestone shell. So the size of them wasn't about what would look good. The only factor operating would be ease of construction.

Heavier blocks require more men per block to transport. Lighter blocks require fewer men, but more journeys to shift the same amount of weight. The architect would have to calculate the best trade-off. Presumably, whatever size blocks they actually cut would BE that best trade-off.

We don't know exactly how the Egyptians built the pyramids. So how do we determine what the best size of block is without knowing their methods? They knew more about building pyramids than we do - can't we assume that they knew what size blocks were the most efficient to transport?

[JackDog]

[W]hat makes you think for a second that a bunch of guys who...spent their lives building those humungous godforsaken pyramids just to bury one guy, were even slightly interested in efficiency?
[...]
[T]hese guys had the motivation and ability to work with solid rock, no matter how much fucking around it is.
Heavier blocks require more men per block to transport. Lighter blocks require fewer men, but more journeys to shift the same amount of weight. The architect would have to calculate the best trade-off. Presumably, whatever size blocks they actually cut would BE that best trade-off.
These are very good points. I don't really have an opinion on the stone/concrete debate, but I sure do like to read about it.
:nerdy:

[Angakuk]

Apparently the were not built by slave labor either.

Egypt discovers workers' tombs near pyramids
Burial sites are next to king, suggesting laborers were paid and not slaves (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34794254?GT1=43001)

"These tombs were built beside the king's pyramid, which indicates that these people were not by any means slaves," said Hawass in the statement. "If they were slaves, they would not have been able to build their tombs beside their king's."

Evidence from the site, Hawass said, indicates that the approximately 10,000 laborers working on the pyramids ate 21 cattle and 23 sheep sent to them daily from farms in northern and southern Egypt.

He added that the workers were rotated every three months and the burial sites were for those who died during the construction.

[Dingfod]

Were they paid in concrete?

[Angakuk]

Each worker received a brand new pair of concrete overshoes and a trip down the Nile. Deep down.

[BrotherMan]

Dat's a nice pyramid. Be a shame if sometin were to happen to it.
:boss:

[Sauron]

Apparently the were not built by slave labor either.


NOT TRUE I SAW IT ON TV. CECIL B DEMILLE SEZ SO.

YouTube- The Ten Commandments (1956) Trailer