Scientist Says Concrete Was Used in Pyramids
Tom McDonald
some of the stones in the Great Pyramid might have been cast. This will
be published in the December issue of The Journal of the American
Ceramic Society. Anyone have access?
>From the New York Time article: http://tinyurl.com/un5lp (Free
registration might be required--but is really, really worth it.):
----------------------------
In new research on the Great Pyramids of Giza, a scientist says he has
found more to their construction than cut natural limestone. Some
original parts of the massive structures appear to be made of concrete
blocks.
If true, historians say, this would be the earliest known application
of concrete technology, some 2,500 years before the Romans started
using it widely in harbors, amphitheaters and other architecture.
Reporting the results of his study, Michel W. Barsoum, a professor of
materials engineering at Drexel University, in Philadelphia, concluded
that the use of limestone concrete could explain in part how the
Egyptians were able to complete such massive monuments, beginning
around 2550 B. C. They used concrete blocks, he said, on the outer and
inner casings and probably on the upper levels, where it would have
been difficult to hoist carved stone.
"The sophistication and endurance of this ancient concrete technology
is simply astounding," Dr. Barsoum wrote in a report in the December
issue of The Journal of the American Ceramic Society.
Dr. Barsoum and his co-workers analyzed the mineralogy of samples from
several parts of the Khufu pyramid, and said they found mineral ratios
that do not exist in any of the known limestone sources. From the
geochemical mix of lime, sand and clay, they concluded, "the simplest
explanation" is that it was cast concrete.
Dr. Barsoum, a native of Egypt, said in an interview that he expected
his interpretation to be controversial - and it already is.
------------------------------
While this is someone who one might think would have a clue about the
issue, here is his testimonial for Margaret Morris' two-volume work, _
The Egyptian Pyramid
Mystery Is Solved!_:
"In this Volume 2 of a 2 volume set, Morris answers the question of
how the Great Pyramids, and indeed much of the hard stone artifacts of
Ancient Egypt, were fabricated. In her first volume she methodically
addresses and demolishes the currently accepted theory - the
so-called carve-and-hoist theory - on how the Great Pyramids of Giza
were built. That such a theory still prevails over the much more
plausible alternate geopolymeric theory, first proposed by Davidovits
more than 20 years ago, is truly astonishing. These two volumes by
Morris are a must read for anybody genuinely interested in Egyptology."
- MICHEL W. BARSOUM, DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR,
DEPARTMENT OF MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING,
DREXEL UNIVERSITY
MARCH 17, 2004"
So any chance this guy might be on to something? I know anything on
this line I've read before about Giza pyramids has suffered from the
'Since I have a hammer, this problem is clearly a nail'ism. He says he
found stone compositions that do not match that of any of the limestone
in the region.
But he does seem to think it would be easier to build frames and fill
with concrete made of crushed limestone than raising the stones
themselves, which I thought ignored the fact that not only the mass of
the concrete, but the mass of the water, and the frames themselves,
would make more work in the raising.
Florian
> So any chance this guy might be on to something? I know anything on
> this line I've read before about Giza pyramids has suffered from the
> 'Since I have a hammer, this problem is clearly a nail'ism. He says he
> found stone compositions that do not match that of any of the limestone
> in the region.
>
> But he does seem to think it would be easier to build frames and fill
> with concrete made of crushed limestone than raising the stones
> themselves, which I thought ignored the fact that not only the mass of
> the concrete, but the mass of the water, and the frames themselves,
> would make more work in the raising.
Its no news.
Davidovits reached the same conclusion (Pyramid are partially made of
concrete) years ago.
http://www.geopolymer.org/archaeology/pyramids/are-pyramids-made-out-of-
concrete-1
Some videos to illustrate the method:
http://www.geopolymer.org/archaeology/pyramids/pyramids-4-videos-downloa
d-chapter-1
--
Florian
"Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles"
Voltaire vs Leibniz
Uwe Müller
"Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1164936059.9...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
My question would be, how much energy would be needed to burn the needed
amounts of limestone, where did the wood for burning come from and where was
the ash deposited.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
>
IE_Json
"Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote in message
news:ekpi6k$v6i$1...@online.de...
There was a program on Discovery today telling that most of the deserts in
north eastern Africa was savann 10000 years ago. Do we know that there
weren't trees around the Pyramides when they were built. If not how would
they have transported the stones without stocks?
Inger E
>
> have fun
>
> Uwe Mueller
> >
>
>
Florian
> My question would be, how much energy would be needed to burn the needed
> amounts of limestone, where did the wood for burning come from and where was
> the ash deposited.
You don't need to burn the limestone see Davidovits, you need ashes,
though. Watch Davidovits' videos for an explanation:
http://www.geopolymer.org/archaeology/pyramids/pyramids-4-videos-downloa
d-chapter-1
Jean
IE_Json a écrit dans le message <3AYbh.25045$E02....@newsb.telia.net>...
Ancient Egypt is considered by many to have been part of the fertile
crescent of Bronze age and somewhat later. This area, the fertile crescent
and Egypt or the fertile crescent to include Egypt , was considered the
bread basket of the ancient world.
There were trees in sufficient number for boat building for war and
commerce as well as other building needs. The climate was not as today and
the area while somewhat dry was not a desert. The various factor that
caused desertification of this area is a subject of much study and debate at
universities.
Someone asked where would the ashes go from a project to make cement. I
guess they could be found in the same place that the ashes for thousands of
years of cooking, heating and smelting went.
JL
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Uwe Müller <uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
>
>> My question would be, how much energy would be needed to burn the needed
>> amounts of limestone, where did the wood for burning come from and where was
>> the ash deposited.
>
>You don't need to burn the limestone see Davidovits, you need ashes,
>though. Watch Davidovits' videos for an explanation:
Unwrapped URL:
>
>http://www.geopolymer.org/archaeology/pyramids/pyramids-4-videos-download-chapter-1
>
>Florian
>
>"Tout est au mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles"
>Voltaire vs Leibniz
Eric Stevens
spiznet
So, reminicent of Easter Island, the ancient Egyptians used up all the
wood on the Nile, and caused, in the course of several thousands of
years, the Sahara Desert.
Hmmm...
Florian
Florian
> So, reminicent of Easter Island, the ancient Egyptians used up all the
> wood on the Nile, and caused, in the course of several thousands of
> years, the Sahara Desert.
> Hmmm...
Actually, There's no need of a lot of ashes.
Here is a quote of Davidovits book on his theory (free chapter there
<http://tinyurl.com/ygtspl>)
>>
The most important material is limestone. Analysis done by the German
geochemist D.D. Klemm [1] showed that 97 to 100% of the blocks come from
the soft and argillaceous limestone layer located in the Wadi, downwards
the Giza Plateau. According to the Egyptologist Mr. Lehner [2], the
Egyptians used a soft and crumbly limestone, unusable for hewn stones.
The workmen did not choose the hard and dense limestone located near the
pyramids, with rare exceptions for later restorations. The geologist L.
Gauri [3] showed that this limestone is fragile, because it includes
clay-like materials (in particular kaolinite clay) sensitive to water
which explains the extreme softness of the Sphinx body, whereas its
head, cut in the hard and dense geological layer, resisted 4000 years of
erosion.
This soft argillaceous limestone, too fragile to be a hewn stone, is
well adapted to agglomeration. Moreover, it naturally contains reactive
geopolymeric ingredients, like kaolinitic clay, essential to manufacture
the geological glue (a binder) and to ensure the geosynthesis.
It was not required to crush this stone, because it disaggregates easily
with the Nile water during floods (the Wadi is filled with water at this
time) to form a limestone mud. To this mud, they added reactive
geological materials (mafkat, a hydrated alumina and copper silicate,
overexploited at the time of Kheops in the Sinai mines) [4], Egyptian
natron salt (sodium carbonate, massively present in Wadi Natrum), and
lime coming from plants and wood ashes [5]. They carried this limestone
mud in baskets, poured it, then packed it in moulds (made out of wood,
stone, crude brick), directly on the building site. The method is
identical to the pisé technique, still in use today.
This limestone, re-agglomerated by geochemical reaction, naturally
hardens to form resistant blocks. The blocks thus consist of 90 to 95%
of natural limestone aggregates with its fossil shells, and from 5 to
10% of geological glue (a cement known as "geopolymeric" binder) based
on aluminosilicates.
>>
--
Matt Giwer
> An actual study by an actual professor of materials management suggests
> some of the stones in the Great Pyramid might have been cast. This will
> be published in the December issue of The Journal of the American
> Ceramic Society. Anyone have access?
>>From the New York Time article: http://tinyurl.com/un5lp (Free
>>registration might be required--but is really, really worth it.):
> ----------------------------
> In new research on the Great Pyramids of Giza, a scientist says he has
> found more to their construction than cut natural limestone. Some
> original parts of the massive structures appear to be made of concrete
> blocks.
This is a rather old whacko claim and has been around for decades that
I know of. It is rather odd one has to go to such lengths of analysis
and such when it is difficult to imagine it takes more than visual
inspection to tell the difference. If it is concrete, fine with me.
But what does not make sense is why they would go to the effort of
hauling it up that high and thing forming it into individual blocks.
Were they deliberately trying to confuse people 4500 years later?
I mean if you want concrete construction all you have to do is pour it
like layers of sidewalk. It cures faster than in large blocks so
construction goes faster and much easier as only wood forms are needed
to make layers where needed. They didn't need to create huge blocks,
wait longer, and then still have to move them into place. And from what
I have seen of blocks at all levels they would have had to take their
cured blocks and rough them up so they looked quarried.
Kendall K. Down
"Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An actual study by an actual professor of materials management
I think you meant to write:
An actual study by an actual professor of actual materials management
> suggests
> some of the stones in the Great Pyramid might have been cast.
An old theory, adequately debunked many times over.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
Florian
> But what does not make sense is why they would go to the effort of
> hauling it up that high and thing forming it into individual blocks.
Probably for the same reason today's houses are made of concrete blocks
or bricks (at least in Europe). It's easier to make (to dry) and
manipulate.
> I mean if you want concrete construction all you have to do is pour it
> like layers of sidewalk. It cures faster than in large blocks so
> construction goes faster and much easier as only wood forms are needed
> to make layers where needed. They didn't need to create huge blocks,
> wait longer, and then still have to move them into place.
The experience of Davidovits shows that 1-2 tons block can be uncast
after a few hours and are dry enough to allow further construction on
top of it the next day.
> And from what
> I have seen of blocks at all levels they would have had to take their
> cured blocks and rough them up so they looked quarried.
1st all blocks were not cast
2nd erosion affect the aspect of the blocks.
Doug Weller
>spiznet <ma...@spiznet.com> wrote:
>
>> So, reminicent of Easter Island, the ancient Egyptians used up all the
>> wood on the Nile, and caused, in the course of several thousands of
>> years, the Sahara Desert.
>> Hmmm...
>
>Actually, There's no need of a lot of ashes.
No, but you do need a lot of moulds to make individually shaped blocks.
Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/
prd
by Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> . . . :
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 01:03:31 +0100, in sci.archaeology, Florian wrote:
>
>>spiznet <ma...@spiznet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So, reminicent of Easter Island, the ancient Egyptians used up all the
>>> wood on the Nile, and caused, in the course of several thousands of
>>> years, the Sahara Desert.
>>> Hmmm...
>>
>>Actually, There's no need of a lot of ashes.
>
> No, but you do need a lot of moulds to make individually shaped blocks.
You don't need mounds, you need forms. The whole point of concrete would
be too pour the block in situ. There are no form marks on the pyramid
blocks, and they know where the blocks were carved from.
Secondarily it would be a huge waste of concrete to build pyramids since
the material is best used on complex structures such as places, temples,
etc.
BTW if you a building a pyramid out of concrete you don't need blocks,
simply
form the edges and begin pour concrete keep the process going until
complete.
Florian
> You don't need mounds, you need forms. The whole point of concrete would
> be too pour the block in situ.
That's wrong. It's much easier to make blocks using small moulds.
For the same reason that people use small bricks to build walls.
> Secondarily it would be a huge waste of concrete to build pyramids since
> the material is best used on complex structures such as places, temples,
> etc.
Waste of concrete? There was plenty of argillaceous limestone next to
nile river. I also imagine that the tomb of the king was more important
than everything else.
That was certainly not a waste of time either to cast blocks rather than
drag them. Though, not all parts of the pyramid were mold.
BTW, There were no more than 2,500 people working on the pyramid (See
Lehner's works). That is perfectly compatible with predominant molding
process, not with carving ones which would need 10 to 40 time more
people. Right?
Florian
> No, but you do need a lot of moulds to make individually shaped blocks.
You don't need much moulds because you can remove the cast only a few
hours after pouring the concrete.
Doug Weller
Working *on* the pyramid, that doesn't include people doing the quarrying
for a start.
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pyramidworkforce.htm
20000 to 25000 that says.
George
Kendall K. Down wrote:
> In message <1164936059.9...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>
> "Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > An actual study by an actual professor of materials management
>
> I think you meant to write:
> An actual study by an actual professor of actual materials management
>
> > suggests
> > some of the stones in the Great Pyramid might have been cast.
>
> An old theory, adequately debunked many times over.
>
One might wonder as to why they bothered to quarry stone when they had
concrete.
A thousand quarry workers could be replaced by a hundred concrete
workers and production would increase !...
Kendall K. Down
"Jean" <jean....@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Someone asked where would the ashes go from a project to make cement. I
> guess they could be found in the same place that the ashes for thousands of
> years of cooking, heating and smelting went.
We've found them; we haven't found cement works.
David Johnson
news:1165087226....@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
Not really. Because you'd still need that thousand quarry workers to,
well, quarry the raw materials. And still more workers to build and
later remove the wooden forms...
...and you'd _still_ need all the workers you would use to drag stones
to and up it to drag the bags of concrete to and up it - except, now
you'd need twice as many because along with one pyramid's weight of
concrete, they'd need to bring up one pyramid's weight of water.
I think you've just doubled your work here!
You know, at this level of technology, there isn't a whole lot of time
savings using concrete instead of stone. I'd say "none" right off the
top of my head.
David
--
_______________________________________________________________________
David Johnson home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan
"So many of you come time and time again to watch this final end of
everything which I think is really wonderful and then to return home to
your own eras and raise families and strive for new and better societies
and fight terrible wars for what you know is right, it gives one real
hope for the whole future of lifekind...
...Except of course we know it hasn't got one."
prd
207.217.125.201 by David Johnson <trolleyfa...@earthlink.net> . . .
:
Not only that you have to drive off the CO2 in the limestone with
heat, large amounts of heating, you would have to search out various
materials, Sand and cement = Mortar. Sand, Aggregate + Cement = Concrete.
Mortar does not have the same strength as concrete. Someone also has to
pound the blocks into chips for the firing process. It has to be cooled
down. etc.
Now if I am a pharoah and I realize someone amoungst my followers
discovered concrete, he would not be building pyramids, but sewage
systems, water supplies, irrigation canals, hanging terraces in my
palace, swimming pools fed by those water supplies. Of course fortresses
and buttresses for my protection. I might even have him training
assistances and hauling ash off to far off lands to build new
high end fortifications in Sicily, Minos, Syria, Arabia so that
I could establish a chain of permanent colonies surrounded by crop
land with enough capacity to store pastoral animals and feed during
prolonged seiges. What would be my targets, areas in europe that had
lots of trees and limestone near by, because it is a hell of alot more
efficient to make a hard mortar from cement and use that for fortifications
than to build a reinforced concrete wall.
The analogy is here in San Antonio, the San Antonia area has alot
of limestone, before the age of heating and air condition they used to take
concrete block, some over 1 meter cubed and use these to construct
buildings out of, the limestone kept the building cool in the summer and
warm in the winter, you only needed modest amounts of mortar, and they were
generally fire resistant. Of course San Antonio has some of the biggest
concrete and cement works in the Country, so why would they make
buildings out of limestone blocks?
The Hilton Hotel on the Riverwalk was assembled out of a concrete frame
in which each room was built out of prefabricated concrete and inserted in
place for the 1967 world fair. This work set of a new construction culture
for prefabricated concrete structures, including bridge beams, parking
garages, warehouses and even a few houses. The object of this process is
that a refined product built with computers and engineers can be assembled
off site, carried to the construction site, and a lowly welder spotwelds
the pieces in place, the actual work done on site is relatively small.
The stategy itself is great, there is alot more quality control in a
factory than with various and sundry workers coming and going in the feild.
The problem is transportation, and post construction modifications. You
cannot simply grab a saw and cut a hole for a door or window. So that the
focus of these prefabricated concrete structures is typically for bridges
and highly industrialized applications.
Tom McDonald
Kendall K. Down wrote:
> In message <1164936059.9...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>
> "Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > An actual study by an actual professor of materials management
>
> I think you meant to write:
> An actual study by an actual professor of actual materials management
I was afraid of running into an actual actuarial problem if I did
three.
> > suggests
> > some of the stones in the Great Pyramid might have been cast.
>
> An old theory, adequately debunked many times over.
I am very much aware of that. That's part of why I mentioned his
support of Morris' book. But this is a newly-published paper, and I
wanted to know whether this guy had anything new.
Archae Solenhofen
wrote:
>spiznet <ma...@spiznet.com> wrote:
>
>> So, reminicent of Easter Island, the ancient Egyptians used up all the
>> wood on the Nile, and caused, in the course of several thousands of
>> years, the Sahara Desert.
>> Hmmm...
>
>Actually, There's no need of a lot of ashes.
>Here is a quote of Davidovits book on his theory (free chapter there
><http://tinyurl.com/ygtspl>)
_snip text>
All I have seen of this so far is a 57 mb 36 page PDF slide show by
one of the authors of ths new paper.... it resorts to the "copper
chisels, the only tool the AE ever had" strawman at various places. A
ridiculously common fringe archeology ploy that I have seen so many
others use in the past. Not a very good sign at all. It also seems to
suggest that clearly weathered limestone masonry is cast because it
looks different from the somewhat freshly exposed and less weathered
blocks nearby. I hope that their "strange" chemical analysis is not
based on detritus from salt weathered rock surfaces... I like the
section on the granite blocks as well... since they are natural rock
the AE clearly had the ability to move heavy weights to great heights
and carve hardrocks with the tools and technology attributed to them
during the OK. Invalidates all those "how would they/you carve this"?
proclamations on the previous slides with strange shaped limestone
blocks. Instead the slide show resorts to "true and incomprehensible
mystery" innuendo in an apparent attempt to sidstep that fact... why
because the ancient Egyptians only had "soft copper" to cave the
granite, etc. I always get a good laugh from these people.... never
ever fails It's good to know the poured-rock crowd has finally
started to realize that the granite in the GP cannot be claimed to be
synthetic without them looking like complete fools.
Quite remarkable just how susceptible the rocks of Member II are to
agglomeration in water considering the solution widened joints and
colour bands present in them (El Aref & Refai 1987, Gauri &
Bandyopadhyay 1999). I guess none of these people realize that during
the Pliocene the Mediterranean Sea transgressed into the Nile valley
causing the Giza Plateau to become a peninsula. There are 2 levels of
30 m high shoreline eroded cliffs on the north and west Mokattam
escarpments just a short distance (the closest a few hundred meters or
so) from the Pyramids (Aigner 1983). That is, most of these rocks
around the Sphinx were below sea level for a very long time during
this period. It's remarkable that that completely non-existent 12 foot
thick bed of "kaolin-rich" limestone that Morris (1994) asserts exists
in Member II didn't turn in to mud and squirt away under the weight of
the overlying rock.... truly remarkable!!! I don't know what's more
remarkable that lack of squirting agglomeration mud or that someone
would think that a piece of weathered detritus sitting on the surface
is a representative sample of in-situ unweathered rock on the Giza
Plateau.
Aigner, T. (1983) A Pliocene cliff-line around the Giza Pyramids
Plateau, Egypt. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 42,
313-322.
El Aref, M. M., & Refai, E. (1987) Paleokarst processes in the Eocene
limestones of the Pyramids Plateau, Giza. Egypt. J. Afr. Earth Sci.,
6, 367-377.
Gauri, K.L. & Bandyopadhyay, J.K. (1999) Carbonate stone: chemical
behavior, durability, and conservation. Wiley, New York, 284 p.
Morris, M. (1994) Response (to Harrell in letters to the Editor).
Journal of Geological Education, 42, 198-203.
57 mb PDF file
http://www.drexel.edu/univrel/media/pyramid.pdf
Archae Solenhofen
Florian
> Working *on* the pyramid, that doesn't include people doing the quarrying
> for a start.
> http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pyramidworkforce.htm
>
> 20000 to 25000 that says.
>
"However, Lehner seems to believe that an entire crew of 2,000 men would
have been employed."
These 2,000 men are the primary workers. Actually, the estimates range
from 2,000 to 6,000. Anyway, Lehner assumes they were quarry workers,
hauliers and masons.
The other 15,000-20,000 belong to the "supporting teams".
Florian
> One might wonder as to why they bothered to quarry stone when they had
> concrete.
> A thousand quarry workers could be replaced by a hundred concrete
> workers and production would increase !...
The truth is probably a mix of quarrying and molding.
Molding may have been used when hauling the stone to the top was too
costly.
Florian
> Not really. Because you'd still need that thousand quarry workers to,
> well, quarry the raw materials.
The limestone used disaggregates by itself in water. No need to quarry
it.
> And still more workers to build and
> later remove the wooden forms...
It does not represent a lot of workers since the cast can be used again
over and over.
> ...and you'd _still_ need all the workers you would use to drag stones
> to and up it to drag the bags of concrete to and up it - except, now
> you'd need twice as many because along with one pyramid's weight of
> concrete, they'd need to bring up one pyramid's weight of water.
One weight of concrete for one weight of water? The concrete did not
contain so much water. See Davidovits demonstration in its movie.
Florian
> Not only that you have to drive off the CO2 in the limestone with
> heat, large amounts of heating,
It' was not necessary. You should watch the movie to figure it out.
> you would have to search out various
> materials, Sand and cement = Mortar. Sand, Aggregate + Cement = Concrete.
> Mortar does not have the same strength as concrete. Someone also has to
> pound the blocks into chips for the firing process.
Nope. Again, watch the movie.
David Johnson
firs...@lastname.net:
> David Johnson <trolleyfa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Not really. Because you'd still need that thousand quarry workers to,
>> well, quarry the raw materials.
>
> The limestone used disaggregates by itself in water. No need to quarry
> it.
If that was true, then no limestone would exist on Earth, because it
would have all dissolved away in the rain, rivers, seas, etc. Ever see
the White Clifts of Dover? Made of limestone. Washed by the sea. Washed
by England's rather abundant rains. _Not_ "disaggregated" (other than by
standard geological wearing).
Got another theory here?
>> And still more workers to build and
>> later remove the wooden forms...
>
> It does not represent a lot of workers since the cast can be used again
> over and over.
Still needs to be built the first time - still needs to be replaced when
they wear out (which they will do, especially over the course of a
project as big as this) - still _adds_ to the total amount of work you
need to do.
>> ...and you'd _still_ need all the workers you would use to drag stones
>> to and up it to drag the bags of concrete to and up it - except, now
>> you'd need twice as many because along with one pyramid's weight of
>> concrete, they'd need to bring up one pyramid's weight of water.
>
> One weight of concrete for one weight of water? The concrete did not
> contain so much water. See Davidovits demonstration in its movie.
The exact ratio is irrelevant. Unless the total weight of water is zero,
you've _increased_ the total weight of material you need to move. When
everything you move has to be moved by hand, you've increased the total
number of people who have to do the moving if you want to have the same
size structure.
George
Florian wrote:
> David Johnson <trolleyfa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Not really. Because you'd still need that thousand quarry workers to,
> > well, quarry the raw materials.
>
> The limestone used disaggregates by itself in water. No need to quarry
> it.
>
> > And still more workers to build and
> > later remove the wooden forms...
>
> It does not represent a lot of workers since the cast can be used again
> over and over.
Why bother with casting forms. Just carry the dry ingredients to the
top, add water and fill all the gaps between the sides.
This is all very hypothetical as nowhere in Egyptian construction is
concrete used !
For concrete you have the Romans to thank
Matt Giwer
> Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote:
>> No, but you do need a lot of moulds to make individually shaped blocks.
> You don't need much moulds because you can remove the cast only a few
> hours after pouring the concrete.
The thicker the more hours. If you like 2x2x4 foot blocks you are
talking a week or three. The concrete in the center of the thickest
parts of Boulder damn still has not set.
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>> But what does not make sense is why they would go to the effort of
>> hauling it up that high and thing forming it into individual blocks.
> Probably for the same reason today's houses are made of concrete blocks
> or bricks (at least in Europe). It's easier to make (to dry) and
> manipulate.
The claim is it was easier to carry concrete to the top and mix it
there. There is no point in making them on the ground and hauling up
with limestone can be used directly saving the time and cost of making
it into concrete first.
>> I mean if you want concrete construction all you have to do is pour it
>> like layers of sidewalk. It cures faster than in large blocks so
>> construction goes faster and much easier as only wood forms are needed
>> to make layers where needed. They didn't need to create huge blocks,
>> wait longer, and then still have to move them into place.
> The experience of Davidovits shows that 1-2 tons block can be uncast
> after a few hours and are dry enough to allow further construction on
> top of it the next day.
I have no idea how big a block of that weight is. Do you?
However layers of "sidewalks" would do the same thing obviating the
need for casting all that would be needed are side forms. That is faster
and cheaper.
>> And from what
>> I have seen of blocks at all levels they would have had to take their
>> cured blocks and rough them up so they looked quarried.
> 1st all blocks were not cast
> 2nd erosion affect the aspect of the blocks.
If all blocks are not cast what is the point of this exercise?
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Unwrapped URL:
>
>Try this one:
>
><http://tinyurl.com/ygtspl>
Better still, you try it. :-)
Eric Stevens
Doug Weller
>Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Working *on* the pyramid, that doesn't include people doing the quarrying
>> for a start.
>> http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pyramidworkforce.htm
>>
>> 20000 to 25000 that says.
>>
>
>"However, Lehner seems to believe that an entire crew of 2,000 men would
>have been employed."
>
>These 2,000 men are the primary workers. Actually, the estimates range
>from 2,000 to 6,000. Anyway, Lehner assumes they were quarry workers,
>hauliers and masons.
>The other 15,000-20,000 belong to the "supporting teams".
Let's clarify this again. The 2000 (I saw 2500) or whatever are the
people at the pyramid. That doesn't include the people doing the quarrying
or anything else.
That was my point.
Eric Stevens
<trolleyfa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>firs...@lastname.net (Florian) wrote in news:1hpqrub.qaoglsexstyiN%
>firs...@lastname.net:
>
>> David Johnson <trolleyfa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Not really. Because you'd still need that thousand quarry workers to,
>>> well, quarry the raw materials.
>>
>> The limestone used disaggregates by itself in water. No need to quarry
>> it.
>
>If that was true, then no limestone would exist on Earth, because it
>would have all dissolved away in the rain, rivers, seas, etc. Ever see
>the White Clifts of Dover? Made of limestone.
Chalk, actually.
>Washed by the sea. Washed
>by England's rather abundant rains. _Not_ "disaggregated" (other than by
>standard geological wearing).
>
>Got another theory here?
>
>>> And still more workers to build and
>>> later remove the wooden forms...
>>
>> It does not represent a lot of workers since the cast can be used again
>> over and over.
>
>Still needs to be built the first time - still needs to be replaced when
>they wear out (which they will do, especially over the course of a
>project as big as this) - still _adds_ to the total amount of work you
>need to do.
>
>>> ...and you'd _still_ need all the workers you would use to drag stones
>>> to and up it to drag the bags of concrete to and up it - except, now
>>> you'd need twice as many because along with one pyramid's weight of
>>> concrete, they'd need to bring up one pyramid's weight of water.
>>
>> One weight of concrete for one weight of water? The concrete did not
>> contain so much water. See Davidovits demonstration in its movie.
>
>The exact ratio is irrelevant. Unless the total weight of water is zero,
>you've _increased_ the total weight of material you need to move. When
>everything you move has to be moved by hand, you've increased the total
>number of people who have to do the moving if you want to have the same
>size structure.
>
>David
Eric Stevens
Uwe Müller
"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:g945n2hm0ck9memug...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 23:42:58 +0100, in sci.archaeology, Florian wrote:
>
> >Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Working *on* the pyramid, that doesn't include people doing the
quarrying
> >> for a start.
> >> http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pyramidworkforce.htm
> >>
> >> 20000 to 25000 that says.
> >>
> >
> >"However, Lehner seems to believe that an entire crew of 2,000 men would
> >have been employed."
> >
> >These 2,000 men are the primary workers. Actually, the estimates range
> >from 2,000 to 6,000. Anyway, Lehner assumes they were quarry workers,
> >hauliers and masons.
> >The other 15,000-20,000 belong to the "supporting teams".
>
> Let's clarify this again. The 2000 (I saw 2500) or whatever are the
> people at the pyramid. That doesn't include the people doing the quarrying
> or anything else.
>
> That was my point.
There are a few additional infos to be had from an article in the Chicago
Tribune.
http://tinyurl.com/ye268p
There are questions about where the tested samples came from, Zahi Hawass
implies, they were not recently taken from the pyramids themselves, older
samples may have been taken from places that had been reinforced with
concrete. "Barsoum said in his report that samples from the Khufu pyramid
included chips and a small block from the outer casing and an inner casing
slab, as well as "small chunks" from another pyramid." So as yet there is no
info about who took the samples, when and where were they taken and what
happened to them between sampling and testing. Could these have been chunks
'lying around' in some universities or museums collection, having been taken
as touristy souvenirs (or having been bought by tourists as genuine pieces
of pyramid), only to be donated to a museum decades later?
"David Walker, a Columbia geologist who has read the report, said that the
microscopic examination of the blocks "certainly revealed things you
wouldn't expect to find in normal limestone." " That statement is full of
different possible interpretations.
If Barsoum's findings are true, and if the tested samples are from the
sources he mentions, they would still leave the pyramid builders with having
to mine, shape and transport the building material as believed before, only
the inner and outer covering would in parts have been made by artificial
stones.
If the little about geology and chemistry I know about the matters touched
is true (Wasserglass in German?), the resulting surfaces would have been
bright and shiny (as could have been intended), but highly vulnerable to
moisture and pressure. It would do for an inner casing, especially if that
was supposed to be sealed off from outside interference quickly. It would
have deteriorated quickly on the outside. Maybe some of the residing
geologists, or people with more than basic knowledge on chemistry, can
correct me on that.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Florian
> Let's clarify this again. The 2000 (I saw 2500) or whatever are the
> people at the pyramid. That doesn't include the people doing the quarrying
> or anything else.
Actually, it does include the quarry workers:
"most agree that the Great Pyramid was built by approximately 4,000
primary labourers (quarry workers, hauliers and masons)."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/pyramid_builders_02.shtml
Florian
> Why bother with casting forms. Just carry the dry ingredients to the
> top, add water and fill all the gaps between the sides.
Because the technic used does not allow mixing the ingredient rigth
before pouring the concrete:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQk_yBHre4
Florian
> If that was true, then no limestone would exist on Earth, because it
> would have all dissolved away in the rain, rivers, seas, etc. Ever see
> the White Clifts of Dover? Made of limestone. Washed by the sea. Washed
> by England's rather abundant rains. _Not_ "disaggregated" (other than by
> standard geological wearing).
You have a lot of different kind of limestone. The putative limestone
disagregate easily:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQk_yBHre4
> Still needs to be built the first time - still needs to be replaced when
> they wear out (which they will do, especially over the course of a
> project as big as this) - still _adds_ to the total amount of work you
> need to do.
It does not take much time to build one hundred wooden moulds, right?
> The exact ratio is irrelevant. Unless the total weight of water is zero,
> you've _increased_ the total weight of material you need to move. When
> everything you move has to be moved by hand, you've increased the total
> number of people who have to do the moving if you want to have the same
> size structure.
How can it be irrelevant?
if the ratio is 5% water that is only 5% more work needed, i e,
negligible effort.
Florian
> ><http://tinyurl.com/ygtspl>
>
> Better still, you try it. :-)
Actually, it's also on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQk_yBHre4
Florian
> The claim is it was easier to carry concrete to the top and mix it
> there. There is no point in making them on the ground and hauling up
> with limestone can be used directly saving the time and cost of making
> it into concrete first.
Carrying is one issue, the size of the mould and drying time should be
considered first.
> I have no idea how big a block of that weight is. Do you?
Watch it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQk_yBHre4
> If all blocks are not cast what is the point of this exercise?
Apparently, you need a lot of water to disagregate the limestome. May be
the technic was available only during flooding period?
Note that it was also during that time period that peasant had enough
"freetime" to work on the pyramid.
prd
firs...@lastname.net by firs...@lastname.net (Florian) . . . :
> David Johnson <trolleyfa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Not really. Because you'd still need that thousand quarry workers to,
>> well, quarry the raw materials.
>
> The limestone used disaggregates by itself in water. No need to quarry
> it.
No it doesn't, not at least in meaningful time frames. Limestone
are degraded over time by soil acids and acidic rainfall. Very slowly.
The only thing you are doing here is throwing out whimsical brain-farts
when ever your ideas are confronted with valid critiques.
There is a thermodynamic issue here, why would these builders
degrade blocks into powder when they have all the structure
they need in the original blocks?
The reason the concrete is used is to provide a load-bearing
structures which generally do not rely on gravity by itself to
hold the correct position (or alternative need to endure forces
much greater than gravity, such as an 18 wheeler traversing
a stretch of freeway). The pyramid itself is basically is
a very conservative design the does not require buttress because
the exterior is always falling toward the center (european churches
that often require buttress on the side to support columns with
wide spanning roofs).
In the case of the pyramid the very high density an incompressibility
of the center stones and the sloping angles of the exterior stones
provides an adequate structural support and the benefits of concrete
would be lost, even given the fact the reinforcement of the time would
inaquately preserved stretch and flex strength. Worse than that
weaknesses in concrete, created in the mixing and pouring can cause less
dense area of stone which would compress as the concrete aged, where as the
limestone blocks are precompressed and the errors would be uniform.
Therefore from a thermodynamic point of veiw the energy put in to block
increases rapidly and the advantages of further manipulation decrease, and
any builder would quickly realizes diminishing returns on energy input.
This is sort of like the saturn V rocket and the moon. Why we don't often
go to the moon. Its possible, its a great feat, but if you go to NASA
in JSC you see a huge building at the entrance with a saturn V rocket
and at the one end of that rocket is the realtive tiny entry capsule that
returns to earth. Basically after all the moon missions we left a coupled
of go-carts a flag, miscilaneous space junk, and we brought back some rocks
and sand. The Saturn V rocket is impressive, it is the most impressive
thing at JSC, IMHO, but it is incredibly expensive for a gain of a few
grains of sand and rock, and the utility of increased gain has to be weight
by the margin of increased compared by the cost. And so the US abandoned
its manned moon missions and went for lower cost unmanned missions were
more gains could be made. Its definitely _possible_ to have a saturn
V rocket going to the moon every month, but if you go to the JSC you will
note that the S V rocket was not a 'planned' rocket for display, but
parts from rockets that were being built, planned to be built or
had other functions. What other societies have build similar rockets
to the moon since the moon program was abandoned?
The fact that only three great pyramids were made says something, right.
After three structure built, the utility of the more pyramids with a full
time staff of 1000s that need to be fed, housed, cared for, could be
building their own houses with the same materials, could be used as an
invasion army, could be securing trade. During the following period no
comparable structures have been built, not in 5000 years. We can basically
argue that the structures themselves were very costly, so costly that
competition for bigger or greater structures was out of reach for just
about any group of people for 1000 of years.
We could, right now, in the US build much bigger pyramids, 10 times
higher, reinforced concrete. There is a pile of concrete rubble (actually
several), I call it the concrete mountain, where all the waste concrete
goes, but the issue is why would someone want to waste 12,000,000,000 lbs
of concrete. (concrete is about $90 per yard) (4000lbs/yard)= $270,000,000.
The current cost of concrete in real dollars is about as cheap as it has
ever been, if we assume the cost 5000 years ago was 3 to 30 times as high.
the cost would be in their surrogate value system -
$1,000,000,000 to 10,000,000,000 just for materials.
Do some factoring.
These pyramids (3) and other
projects constructed over 100 year period of
time . . . . . .
5 to 50 billion dollars over 100 years is about
50 to 500 million dollars per year of project.
Per household the cost of such projects would
be 50 to 500$ per year.
Assuming there were 1 million household in Egypt at the
time, In the undeveloped third world this (50$/year) would
be comparable to the total disposable trade capacity in a
single year of subsistence farming, meaning this is about
the total amount of excess goods a farmer could
produce, and these goods, either grain, metal
chopped wood, etc could be contributed to the system.
We assume that most of these farmers are subsistence farmers
that contribute its excess to the political system but provides
for its own meat production.
Basically we could argue that under a best case
scenario the 'concrete pyramid' would only
be a sustainable effort during a period of perfect
agricultural production.
The hewn stone model is somewhat cheaper. Assuming the transportation
cost of hewn stone and concrete is identical, we have to factor in
the cutting cost of a stone of about 1 yard in size, It would be cut in 3
directions. There are six sides, the freeing of 3 sides is accomplished
by the previous cycle, therefore only 3 sides need to be cut. This can be
accomplished by saws and chisels over about a 1 hour period of time for
each side. Let us assume that the individual was subsistence value labor
force, his worth per hour is about 1.00 to 3.00 per hour, therefore he
is going to put about 3 to 10 dollars into each stone, this lowers
the cost of that 1 yard of material from 90 to about 6$ per stone.
[3 hours for one block, Impossible!, check out the sites below,
this low density limestones is much more easily cut than typical
hard feild limestone most encounter]
Economics and Ecology are driven by kinetic and thermodynamics. Evolution
is driven by thermodynamics, therefore we have to consider that while
the task of building a pyramid is not logical or thermodynamic, that the
builders of the pyramid will act in a logical manner while building
even if the reasoning for the structure is not logical in an economic
or ecological framework (After-all that greater decision was made 100 years
later, for analogous situation, GWB-faith based reasoning for going
into war in Iraq). The builders need both a healthy workforce for agrarian
and building, the level of net economic output of the society is low,
generally restricted to rare raw materials, textiles, and occasionally
perishable commodities such as grain. Not only that but the climate
is unpredicatable, and storage for bad years is required.
A constant burden of >$50 (surrogate value in trade goods) per family is
too great, and a burden of 10-20$ per family is more appropriate for the
more appropriate since a larger portion can be used on building, repairing,
or furnishing residences, medical expenses, ceremonial etc.
>> And still more workers to build and
>> later remove the wooden forms...
>
> It does not represent a lot of workers since the cast can be used again
> over and over.
For concrete the casts have to be cleaned and the cement weakens the wood
on each use, so that forms can only be used a few times each.
> One weight of concrete for one weight of water? The concrete did not
> contain so much water. See Davidovits demonstration in its movie.
Concrete does not contain much water, that is correct. but hewn limestone
of the period is much lighter than concrete, as concrete contains the
heavier silicon.
Density of limestone used in pyramid = 1.8 g/cm2
(this type of soft limestone is more easily cut than hard limestone)
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-57/iss-12/p14.html
Densite of Concrete = 2.4
density of Granite used in pyramids = 2.7
The fact of the matter is that this author is calling
and your Davidovits a liar, he is saying that the interior
of the pyramid is build of low density limestone, no concrete
of this density is known since sand component of concrete >2.
Concrete, Gravel 2.403
Concrete, Limestone with Portland 2.371
Mortar, wet 2.403
Sand, wet, packed 2.082
http://www.natural-stone.com/limestone.html
Only low-density limestone fits the observation
and is consistent with the process which archaeology can
support how the pyramids were made. Similar processes of cutting
soft limestone have been employed since that time and are still
employed in many parts of the world in durable building construction
, albeit on a less wasteful more functional scale.
Let's see how you are going to lie and wiggle you way out of
these facts, this time.
Doug Weller
>Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Let's clarify this again. The 2000 (I saw 2500) or whatever are the
>> people at the pyramid. That doesn't include the people doing the quarrying
>> or anything else.
>
>Actually, it does include the quarry workers:
>
>"most agree that the Great Pyramid was built by approximately 4,000
>primary labourers (quarry workers, hauliers and masons)."
>
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/pyramid_builders_02.shtml
So the 2000 includes the 4000? You have a different take on math than I
do.
George
Florian wrote:
> George <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote:
>
> > Why bother with casting forms. Just carry the dry ingredients to the
> > top, add water and fill all the gaps between the sides.
>
> Because the technic used does not allow mixing the ingredient rigth
> before pouring the concrete:
Ever mixed concrete in a wheelbarrow or on the ground ?
The hypothetical Egyptian concrete worker would have that sussed in two
seconds
Florian
> So the 2000 includes the 4000? You have a different take on math than I
> do.
Nope. I simply can read better than you do :-p.
I precised in the previous message that the estimate of primary workers
range from 2,000 to 6,000.
For sure, among the 25,000 people involved in the pyramid building, less
that 6,000 were quarry workers, hauliers and masons.
Florian
> No it doesn't, not at least in meaningful time frames. Limestone
> are degraded over time by soil acids and acidic rainfall. Very slowly.
>
> The only thing you are doing here is throwing out whimsical brain-farts
> when ever your ideas are confronted with valid critiques.
As you know, there are different kind of limestones. The one we are
talking about is loosely bound and easily disaggregate.
Watch the movie?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQk_yBHre4
>
> There is a thermodynamic issue here, why would these builders
> degrade blocks into powder when they have all the structure
> they need in the original blocks?
I suppose this is much easier to carry concrete in bags than carrying 2
tons blocks.
> The reason the concrete is used is to provide a load-bearing
> structures which generally do not rely on gravity by itself to
> hold the correct position (or alternative need to endure forces
> much greater than gravity, such as an 18 wheeler traversing
> a stretch of freeway). [...]
I don't think the benefits of using concrete in pyramid building would
be about material strenght but about the ease of use (carrying).
> The fact that only three great pyramids were made says something, right.
> After three structure built, the utility of the more pyramids with a full
> time staff of 1000s that need to be fed, housed, cared for, could be
> building their own houses with the same materials, could be used as an
> invasion army, could be securing trade. During the following period no
> comparable structures have been built, not in 5000 years. We can basically
> argue that the structures themselves were very costly, so costly that
> competition for bigger or greater structures was out of reach for just
> about any group of people for 1000 of years.
Building a pyramid was also about faith and devotion. Those things are
hardly consistent over long period of time. A lost technic could also
prevent further gigantic building.
Pyramids were also a display of wealth as you correctly stated it:
> Basically we could argue that under a best case
> scenario the 'concrete pyramid' would only
> be a sustainable effort during a period of perfect
> agricultural production.
Those wealthy period don't last forever either.
I found you're demonstration about the cost of concrete pyramid very
interesting and not humourless.
I have a few remarks about the cost of a pyramid entirely made of quarry
stones, though.
> The hewn stone model is somewhat cheaper. Assuming the transportation
> cost of hewn stone and concrete is identical,
How can it be identical??? moving a 2 stone blocks to the top of a
pyramid can't be compared to moving limestone concrete in bags.
> we have to factor in
> the cutting cost of a stone of about 1 yard in size, It would be cut in 3
> directions. There are six sides, the freeing of 3 sides is accomplished
> by the previous cycle, therefore only 3 sides need to be cut. This can be
> accomplished by saws and chisels [...]
Just to for information: They were using copper saws and chisel as well
as pick made of hard stone (dolerite).
> [...] over about a 1 hour period of time for each side. Let us assume that
> the individual was subsistence value labor force, his worth per hour is
> about 1.00 to 3.00 per hour, therefore he is going to put about 3 to 10
> dollars into each stone, this lowers the cost of that 1 yard of material
> from 90 to about 6$ per stone. [3 hours for one block, Impossible!, check
> out the sites below, this low density limestones is much more easily cut
> than typical hard feild limestone most encounter]
3 hours a block? I did not see any clues about the time needed to quarry
a block in the link you cited. I'm interested in any reference on the
subject proving your point.
> For concrete the casts have to be cleaned and the cement weakens the wood
> on each use, so that forms can only be used a few times each.
No cleaning necessary and nothing very agressive like modern cements was
used for limestone based concrete. Moreover the wood was protected from
moisture with oil.
> Concrete does not contain much water, that is correct. but hewn limestone
> of the period is much lighter than concrete, as concrete contains the
> heavier silicon.
Your mistake here. Nobody claimed that the concrete stones were made of
actual sand (i. e. silicon). Davidovits claims that they are made of
reagglomerated limestone (nummulites shells). Therefore, the density is
not different that the one of natural limestone (<2).
> Let's see how you are going to lie and wiggle you way out of
> these facts, this time.
You're welcome. But calling me a liar won't help the debates. right?
Anyway,I have absolutely no interest in defending Davidovits theory, but
I found it quite interesting since it was clearly demonstrated that
casting stones was possible using local materials.
Florian
> That is sooooo obvious, it's not even funny to argue otherwise.
>
> Instead of posting a 190 lines reply, you could simply call the Florian
> an idiot and be done with it. At least it would be the truth, and Florian's
> opinion is not going to change one way or another either way.
Ok, that is very smart of you.
Florian
> Ever mixed concrete in a wheelbarrow or on the ground ?
Modern concrete yes. But it does not work with limestone concrete
described by Davidovits.
Doug Weller
>Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> So the 2000 includes the 4000? You have a different take on math than I
>> do.
>
>Nope. I simply can read better than you do :-p.
>
>I precised in the previous message that the estimate of primary workers
>range from 2,000 to 6,000.
>
>For sure, among the 25,000 people involved in the pyramid building, less
>that 6,000 were quarry workers, hauliers and masons.
So you've dropped your first figure of 2500.
Good.
prd
> prd <X_he...@address.net> wrote:
>
>> No it doesn't, not at least in meaningful time frames. Limestone
>> are degraded over time by soil acids and acidic rainfall. Very slowly.
>>
>> The only thing you are doing here is throwing out whimsical brain-farts
>> when ever your ideas are confronted with valid critiques.
>
> As you know, there are different kind of limestones. The one we are
> talking about is loosely bound and easily disaggregate.
>
> Watch the movie?
I also am not going to watch the 'passion of the christ', either nor any
number of movies recommended by idealistic pundits. I go to movies to be
entertained, not educated, for education you better to read the
peer-reviewed primary literture.
Otherwise you would tend yourself to Mel Gibson like faiths in
life, living someone elses problems.
> I suppose this is much easier to carry concrete in bags than carrying 2
> tons blocks.
They would have carried it in trays, when water was added, mixed and the
with two men dumped into a form, the trays carried back and reloaded.
>> The reason the concrete is used is to provide a load-bearing
>> structures which generally do not rely on gravity by itself to
>> hold the correct position (or alternative need to endure forces
>> much greater than gravity, such as an 18 wheeler traversing
>> a stretch of freeway). [...]
>
> I don't think the benefits of using concrete in pyramid building would
> be about material strenght but about the ease of use (carrying).
Why blocks, consider slicing a piece of wood, say a tree, consider the
waste involved. Let's idealize the problem, a stock of tree is 100 M tall
and 1 meter square. therefore it is 100 cubic meter in area or 100,000,000
cm. Now suppose each time I cut the tree my saw takes out 1 cm. I need 100
pieces in that tree. Let us suppose that I cut across the tree 100 times
for my resulting blocks are 1M sq x 99cm or 0.99M^3 per block, I have
wasted 1%, actually 0.99% since I only needed 99 cuts for 100 pieces.
Now let us suppose I would cut the piece 100 longways each cut (99) takes 1
cm. By the time I have finished I have consumed 99% of the tree leaving
1% in 100 cuts or 0.01% per cut ~ 0.1 mm x 1 meter wide x 100 meter long.
basically, if the slabs were stable I could fly them to the pyramid, which
might be very entertaining to me fellow worker, however the forman at the
site is scrowling at all the wasted.
Translation: when cutting to preserve bulk, cut to produce cubes generally
result in the least waste when, as part of the cutting process, the saw
waste material.
Let us just argue that there is a mountain, a virtually unlimited amount of
limestone, just incredibly close to the jobsite, so close that use of
optimal limestone does not appreciably disable further transportation
efficacy.
Each amount of cut, doesn't mater the direction result in the conversion
of energy (Millet + beef + beer + O2 ----> CO2 + feces + urine). Also each
cut removes a certain amount of Cu and Ni from the bronze saw.
Therefore Cu2+/Ni+ + Energy ------> Bronze + Energy ----> Saw.
Therefore a cut that generates a block from three basic cuts 1 meter, 1
meter and l meter has cut through essentially 30,000 cm. For this analogy
let us assume we are filling a 10 x 10 meter pyramid. Each block is 1
meter. For the first layer I need 100 blocks, right? Each block has 30,000
cm^2 of cut as a measure of energy, right? So that for my pyramid level of
1 meter I need 100 x 30,000 cm of cut or 3,000,000 cm of cut energy.
Now suppose I do the same thing in 1 cm layers, very easy to haul since
each of 1000 guys can carry the slab right over his head and they can
simply tilt it in place. 1 cm thick x 10,000 cm/square meter x 100 =
1,000,000 square cm x 1.8 gram/ cm = 1,800,000 grams per layer.
divid by 100 individuals = 18 kg per individual. No problem, you just carry
that slab and tilt it and lye it down and you have a perfectly triangular
sides, next to a poured slab it is perfect.
What about thermodynamics.
To make the first layer you have:
10 meters x 100 cm/meter = 1000 per side by 2 sides = 1,000,000 centimeters
we can discount the other two cuts into the slope reductions. For the sake
of argument. I need 100 cuts to generate 1 meter in hieght same as the
previous, therefore I need what? 100 x 1,000,000, but also because it is
sloping let us say 92% (2 percent for the sides we discounted) = 92,000,000
cm of cut energy per meter height.
Let us go back to our equation
Each amount of cut, doesn't mater the direction result in the conversion
of energy (Millet + beef + beer + O2 ----> CO2 + feces + urine).
If a builder uses blocks he generates 1X amount of bullshit and piss
on the jobsite, but if he uses slabs he generates 100 fold more
bullshit and pissyness on his site. Somewhere else
(Seed + Sunlight + Water + CO2 --Farmer---> Grain + chaff + O2)
(Grain + Grass + calf + 02 --Shepherd or cowboy --> Cow or sheep + C02 +
Crap and urine, Cow + Sheep --butcher--> Meat + waste)
This process of production is a fraction as efficient as consumption, so we
allow 5 to 10 hours of food production for every hour spent burning
construction calories.
We have to look at motivations for structure, implimentation of structure
not result, the pyramid is made from blocks, the blocks are motivated
by a readily available material, soft limestone and energy required to cut.
There is a 2 fold dynamic for each moment of mass in the structure, outside
that 2 fold range too much energy is being exerted on the job site, each
amount of energy exerted requires food to be brought in and waste to be
removed. Therefore we can argue that transportation is _NOT_ the primary
motivating factor in block shapes or sizes (Up to a limit) but the energy
put into cutting the stone.
So now we have a motivation for blocks in cutting but no motivations
for pouring in situ.
What about solubilization of limestone, you say limestone fall apart with
water, but the limestone is on a plateau, and ash is scattered across a
fairly wide area, sand is close by. Suppose you were correct, you would
need to transport large amounts of water to flush off the concrete, and
energy involved in exposing the faces of aggregates (again sawing). This
believe has not precedent in fact.
The dispersibility of CaOH2 is about 1/2 teaspoon in 1 gallon of water (
from the aquarium trade which I used to be involved in) [CaOH never
completely dissolves, its maximal pH is about pH 10 which means it reaches
a final disolved concentraion of about 10^-4 molar or about 0.1 millimole
per liter]. One mole of CaOH2 is about 76 grams per mole meaning at
complete solubility it reaches a concentration of about 7.6 mg and this is
about 1000 times more soluble than CaCO3, which at equilbrium with CaCO3
reaches a pH of about 8.0, in fact the C02 in air was a major problem for
Dosing CaOH2 into reef aquariums Ca2+ + 2OH2- + CO2 + 2H20 ---> CaC03 + H20
and the resulting CaC03*?H20 salt clogs up the dosing apparatus.
IOW to liberate CaOH2 from such a deposit, if it existed with water would
require a volume of water 132000 times greater than the amount of CaOH2
liberated, and, the water used would need to be heated to close to boiling
first to liberate the CO2. So this water hypothesis for generating CaOH2
is also a farce.
How is 'Lime' generated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_oxide
CaO + H20 ----> Ca(OH)2
CaC03 --Heat---> CaO + C02 Temperature of 825'C
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcination
[Calcination is also involved in the conversion of anatase to rutile,
jogging some old memories]
Therefore we assume that calcium carbonate was cut into modest
peices at least down to gran sized peices before burning for uniform
heat transfer: Too hot on the outside calcium melts or fuses, to cold on
the inside the calcium does not decarbonate.
To achieve these peice sizes efficiently the
carbonate would first have to be broken or cut into smaller pieces
problably less than 2 feet thick. It could then be crushed by mallet
to the desired peice sizes and small peices removed and large peices
resmashed. We are going to assume that for each mass of CaCO3 added
we will need 2 times as much charcoal, requiring 2 times as much tree. So
about 4X wood per 1X CaC03; The molecular weight of CaCO3 = 40 + 12 + 48 =
100, molecular weight of CaO = 40 + 16 = 56, therefore for 0.56 mass of CaO
generated we need 1 lb of crushed limestone and 4 lbs of tree charcoal.
or to convert.
Ask yourself the question, why is dense agregate added to concrete?
CaO is expensive to make. CaO + H20 = CaOH2, CaOH2 + Sand-Si-OH =
Ca.Si~Sand~Si-O.Ca.O-Si-Aggregate........ = Concrete. The more sand
you have the more cement you need because the more surface are of sand
you have to coat with cement, therefore aggregate displaces cement and
sand, saves money. Concrete reaches maximum strength after about 50 years
of age (assuming a certain level of humidity) whereas aggregate, natures
concrete reached maximum strenth millions of years ago, so aggregate need
not be aged, and it is small enough when mixed with cement to be _Formed_
so, if you were going to be pouring concrete in situ, your best back for
the buck would be to throw in as large and as dense boulders as possible
into your concrete. Boulders taht could be rolled and dumped into the
slurry. But then the density is 2.5 to 2.7. Dense aggregate is used to
increase immediate strength and bulk of concrete, it saves all the crushing
and heating need to make cement, and in modern terms, 50 year old crushed
slab is aged enough to be used as aggregate for concrete. increasing the
bulk for minimal price. The other factor is strength, with 2 inch average
agregate the strength is about 3500 PSI and with 1/2 pebble its only 2500
PSI, again the aggregate is aged, stronger. The other reason for adding
aggregate is that in a soft mortar the larger the aggregate the higher
the viscosity, sot that if the material is put under deforming stress, it
will react only slowly to that stress. A small particle aggregate reacts to
stress, essentiall by spontaneous disintegration.
So we address the next part of your theory, loose limestone versus silicon
or silicon/calcite aggregate (rocks). Do you use wash limestones from low
quality quarry with poor strength, or other aggregates. The reason for
using aggregate is that it is coated with a reactive weak acid, such as
silicon oxide to crosslink Ca with sand, etc. A loose limestone is neither
reactive with limestone (as it would take 1000 years for it to adsorbe C02)
adequate to cross-link it, nor would it be immediately reactive, and
because the peices were of such poor constitution, the concrete would
simply crumble along the lines of packing of the aggregate in the settling
slurry. Finally at a density of >1.7, the limestone aggregate would float
to the surface of the 1 meter cubes it was formed in, since it is much
lighter than the density of CaO and sand.
>> The fact that only three great pyramids were made says something,
right.
>> After three structure built, the utility of the more pyramids with a
full
>> time staff of 1000s that need to be fed, housed, cared for, could be
>> building their own houses with the same materials, could be used as an
>> invasion army, could be securing trade. During the following period no
>> comparable structures have been built, not in 5000 years. We can
basically
>> argue that the structures themselves were very costly, so costly that
>> competition for bigger or greater structures was out of reach for just
>> about any group of people for 1000 of years.
>
> Building a pyramid was also about faith and devotion.
Faith does not produce offspring, faith does not feed a family, faith
does not plant grain or irrigate it, faith cannot make the sun come up
nor go down. Faith is something fools follow and has no business in
science, unless you want to talk about the science of myth, but then
that is not an engineering science is it.
The building of the pyramids was a display of wealth and power, it was
designed to make people from far off lands fear the Egyptians and their
gods in the same way the biblical story of the great flood and the Mosaic
exodus are designed to make their followers and others fear god. It is
basically a play on peoples animistic and childish instincts. If these
mounds were built simply for the sake of the Egyptians, would they not be
built at Thebes? They were built on the nile, close to where travelers
entered and exited from the north and east. The Egyptians put alot of
effort into maintaining the god 'image' so much so they did not let
their trade partners from Canaan and Mesopotamia take their women as mates.
> Those things are
> hardly consistent over long period of time. A lost technic could also
> prevent further gigantic building.
But technically a pyramid is easy to build. You can buy sqaure cobble
at just about any material yard, start with one stone on one corner, begin
adding one layer of stone at a time, morter between the joints, you can
keep doing this indefinitely (albeit not here in houston as the ground we
call gumbo would begin to crumble the structure at about 20M in height).
In fact the pyramid is one of the easiest structures to build, in
principle. Provided you buy reasonably flat sided stones and provided you
put at least some adherant between peices, you can keep building it until
you can breath (i.e. Mt Everest), tough you might need at least one more
supplier and a few more hands.
> Pyramids were also a display of wealth as you correctly stated it:
>
>> Basically we could argue that under a best case
>> scenario the 'concrete pyramid' would only
>> be a sustainable effort during a period of perfect
>> agricultural production.
>
> Those wealthy period don't last forever either.
Maybe 2 decade of years in one century.
> I found you're demonstration about the cost of concrete pyramid very
> interesting and not humourless.
> I have a few remarks about the cost of a pyramid entirely made of quarry
> stones, though.
>
>
>> The hewn stone model is somewhat cheaper. Assuming the transportation
>> cost of hewn stone and concrete is identical,
>
> How can it be identical??? moving a 2 stone blocks to the top of a
> pyramid can't be compared to moving limestone concrete in bags.
You assume that the scalar problem cannot be worked out. Consider
1 man can carry, repeatedly 1 50 lb bag of concrete.
If I give that man a wheel burrow he can carry 300 lbs of concrete.
If I put 4 men on a cart they can carry a ton of concrete. If I put
10 men on a massive cart, they can carry 20 tons of concrete. Bags are
no longer of any importance. In fact, at 20 tons a stack of bags takes
on fluid like properties that make carrying somewhat troublesome whereas a
stone braces its own internal structure. find a way to latch the stone
and you have a nice little package.
The tractor trailors that carry the bridge beams here have the front
assemblage and a small cable attacted to the rear wheels, the rear wheels
are actually attached to the concrete beam that is being carried. and needs
to be reconnected to the front wheels of the trailer once the beam is
removed. You cannot do that with a similar mass of concrete.
Some builder of the pyramids adjusted the size of blocks as a tradeoff
between the fewest number of cuts and the most convinient size to
transport.
>> we have to factor in
>> the cutting cost of a stone of about 1 yard in size, It would be cut in
3
>> directions. There are six sides, the freeing of 3 sides is accomplished
>> by the previous cycle, therefore only 3 sides need to be cut. This can
be
>> accomplished by saws and chisels [...]
>
> Just to for information: They were using copper saws and chisel as well
> as pick made of hard stone (dolerite).
Copper and bronze are only matters of degrees of contamination, look at
the level of contamination in their copper. Many authors don't distinquish
the copper and bronze ages any more, as in some areas no pure copper age
exists and in others the transition was more or less continuous.
>> [...] over about a 1 hour period of time for each side. Let us assume
that
>> the individual was subsistence value labor force, his worth per hour is
>> about 1.00 to 3.00 per hour, therefore he is going to put about 3 to 10
>> dollars into each stone, this lowers the cost of that 1 yard of material
>> from 90 to about 6$ per stone. [3 hours for one block, Impossible!,
check
>> out the sites below, this low density limestones is much more easily cut
>> than typical hard feild limestone most encounter]
>
> 3 hours a block? I did not see any clues about the time needed to quarry
> a block in the link you cited. I'm interested in any reference on the
> subject proving your point.
This is based on my experience. Although I would need a sample of the
stone to be more accurate, assuming that their limestone was similar in
hardness to the limestone we used to have to cutthrough in our remodeling
projects.
>> For concrete the casts have to be cleaned and the cement weakens the
wood
>> on each use, so that forms can only be used a few times each.
>
> No cleaning necessary and nothing very agressive like modern cements was
> used for limestone based concrete. Moreover the wood was protected from
> moisture with oil.
All concrete (except asphalt concrete) is limestone based.
Limestone --Heat--> CaO (see below)
CaO + Ash + Sand + Aggregate + Water = Concrete.
Some of the more silty sand and ash are some of the harder
ancient concretes.
>> Concrete does not contain much water, that is correct. but hewn
limestone
>> of the period is much lighter than concrete, as concrete contains the
>> heavier silicon.
>
> Your mistake here. Nobody claimed that the concrete stones were made of
> actual sand (i. e. silicon). Davidovits claims that they are made of
> reagglomerated limestone (nummulites shells).
Then it is not concrete, because in ancient Aluminum poor cements the
reaction that gives rise to concretes strength is between the CaOH, the
Ash, and the Si-O, also known as Alkali-Silicon Reaction. In modern
concrete the reaction is largely performed in a kiln which preforms
Ca3SiO5(s). The ASR reaction in concrete formation is actually undesirable
because ASRs expand while curing concrete contracts, over time ASR
causes concrete cancer. However when ancient cements contained primative
ashes the alkali reaction was the predominant one.
One of the problems with all ancient mortars that was corrected with
modern cement is interesting problem, because with ancient mortars
there was always an excess of alkali, and CO2 was adsorbed on the surface
first, so that the surface stone set first and the interior reached maximum
size often much later depending on thickness, decades later, this causes
rupturing. Modern concrete sets pretty much at the same time, but
residual CaOH2 in the mixture adsorbes CO2 or which then makes
it further reactive with Si-OH causing the a rupturing of the surface.
MOdern concrete engineers spray the concrete with water for several
days at a time to keep the concrete from fully setting while
allowing the surface to fully expand, thus preventing chipping on the
surface. Such measures are taken in dams and water supply lines
where the laminar flow of fluids across the surface of the concrete
is important.
In some ways roman concrete is superior to modern concrete, but for the
most part it was a luxory.
http://www.romanconcrete.com/docs/spillway/spillway.htm
"
A chemical reaction took place between the chemicals in the wall of
volcanic ash (silica and small amounts of alumina and iron oxide) and the
layer of lime (calcium hydroxide) applied to the wall. Later they found
that mixing a little volcanic ash in a fine powder with the moist lime made
a thicker coat, but it also produced a durable product that could be
submerged in water- something that the plaster product of wet lime and
plain sand could not match.
"
Right because the sand has a flat surface area and the solubility
of Ca(OH)2 is low, so it balls up into lime, so something needs to be added
to the lime as it is being hydrated to disperse it, as one disperse
collagen in a gel.
http://www.romanconcrete.com/docs/spillway/spillway.htm
The rest of the article is worth reading.
"
The ancients hand mixed their components (wet lime and volcanic ash) in a
mortar box with very little water to give a nearly dry composition; carried
it to the job site in baskets placing it over a previously prepared layer
of rock pieces; and then proceeded to pound the mortar into the rock layer.
Fortunately, we have proof. Vitruvius, the noted Roman architect (cir. 20
BC) mentioned this process in his history formulas for his concrete, plus
the fact that special tamping tools were used to build a cistern wall. Is
this important? Yes, close packing of the molecular structure by tamping
reduced the need of excess water, which is a source of voids and weakness.
But also close packing produces more bonding gel than might be normally
expected. Again, we have a similarity in the ancient and roller compacted
concrete practices, which is that of tightly compacting the materials in
their placement.
"
basically what the ancients are doing is activating the concrete in the
same way we add water and mix modern concrete. A soft mix in preparation
then pound the aggregates to get new active sites exposed and then forming
the concrete to allow the process to complete, hardening. This is exactly
the type of concrete the romans used in their waterworks, it is improved
over modern concrete because the final reaction is uniform throughout, and
no ASR expansion occurs.
> Therefore, the density is
> not different that the one of natural limestone (<2).
It is because soft limestone is the product of non-compression, take
a look at soft limestone the next time you get a chance, you will
see shells and air pockets between shells, etc. It is not compressed
if you look at honey-comb stone or cave stone you will notice
a major difference, there is almost no visible shells and no visible
cavities. This has result because one set of limestones was compressed over
much of the geological time frame, whereas the other was not.
Because soft limestone is full of air pockets. When that structure is
decomposed and recomposed it is similar to the geological processes
of compression. I used to use river stone, essentially hard limestone
pebbles for shot, not as good as meteorites, but still hard enough to kill
little varmits I used to shoot at. Soft limestone, by the same token
makes a nice little explosion effect when it hits a hard object, without
much penetration capacity (like the difference between buck shot and rock
salt).
To make a concrete you need particles the either fuse or interlock
when settled or reacted. Recrushing CaCO3 will not result in cement.
Even adding sand to CaOH2 will result in concrete after a fairly long
period in which the finally product is neither strong nor resistent to
water. Note below that the major reaction in Cement occurs not in
the concretization process, but in the kiln at 1350'C.
The egyptians used a form of mortar called gypsum mortar, FYI, it was
relatively soft and not water tolerant. Such mortars are still used around
the world in dry climates, for example where adobe is suitable. Provide
that moisture content was maintained for a long period, and provided
that the packing of silican was fairly dense, and provided aggregate
such as bamboo strips or cedar strips could be added to the mortar
it can be induced to form a stable concrete, the process would take several
years to cure and it would need to be fixed from the exterior to prevent
subsequent moisture penetration.
>> Let's see how you are going to lie and wiggle you way out of
>> these facts, this time.
>
> You're welcome. But calling me a liar won't help the debates. right?
No, but it points out a fact, when confronted with critiques you
respond with falsitudes and inaccuracies (see post by D. Weller for
but another obvious example of your tailspin). To give credit
where credit is due we had another kook, the late L. Athy, who
aspired such crap. It was attacked in 2002 ---
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.archaeology/msg/68bfdf7381a516e7?
dmode=source [watch the wrap see header X-linkout] -- apparently not worthy
of any further attention.
Concrete and lime based cements are an interesting topic of archaeological
discussion, even on my very strict standards, but more often than
not we don't discuss the archaeology of concrete, but the debunking of
some kooks theory. As you will read above.
BTW the oldest cements are also interesting, if you want to discussed
the use of tree resins and laquer in stool tool composites. Lime is also
of interest, it was used by native in the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixtamal a process that is fairly unique in
indigeonous cooking. We never enter the discussion with actually an intent
on talking about the evolution and archaeology of concretes and cements,
we often end up discussing the archaeology as an effort to debunk the
original misguided intent, an intent that is easily corrected with some
reading.
> Anyway,I have absolutely no interest in defending Davidovits theory, but
> I found it quite interesting since it was clearly demonstrated that
> casting stones was possible using local materials.
There are alot of interesting kook theories, and alot of motivations
for interesting kook theories. Before you look at the theory of
interest you should look at the motivation of interest, and who is bringing
these things up. I have people around who are egyptians who believe the
Jews built the pyramids, course they also beleive the world began 6000
years ago. Many people have many motivations for what they believe, and
scientist are often mislead by the facts, but as facts accumulate it
becomes clear that some hypotheses must be discarded.
There are also alot of people on the UseNet, and alot of people who have
long histories on the UseNet, and alot of people who have engaged in
debates you THINK may be new to the UseNet. Before you go running off
with a fascinating brain-fart you might want to use the [group] section of
the drop down goggle toolbar just to see what the people you are debating
with know and have discussed on the issue, right, otherwise you could
end up looking like a fool and having to fib your way out of precarious
position.
Had you done that you would have read the following:
"
Perhaps the most prosaic of these theories was described in detail in The
Pyramids: An Enigma Solved by Dr. Joseph Davidovits and Margie Morris
(Dorset Press, 1988; see also Pyramid Illusions: A Journey to the Truth by
Moustafa Gadalla, 1997). Davidovits provides a brief summation:
I will demonstrate that the pyramid blocks are actually exceptionally high-
quality limestone concrete -- synthetic stone -- cast directly in place.
The blocks consist of about ninety to ninety-five percent limestone rubble
and five to ten percent cement. They are imitations of natural limestone,
made in the age-old tradition of alchemical stonemaking. No stone cutting
or heavy hauling or hoisting was ever required for pyramid construction.
[p. 68]
"
IOW, he believes the stones were built in Situ, which means why do
they build the structure in blocks at all. you have 4 guys hauling a cart
1 guy hauling water, they mix the cement and spread it out over a fill
in area. There is no need for blocks. Secondarily the density of concrete
is 2.3 to 2.5 and the density of the pyramids is 1.8.
He does not give any justification why the pyramids would be
poured in blocks in situ, versus slabs as concrete is traditionally
poured, nor with the ability to increase block sizes to 10 or 100 times
the actual size (concrete can be continually added to while wet without
weaking its structure). If we go by prd who with 40lb back of concrete
a hoe and two pickle buckets can mix one bag per 3 minutes on site and we
have say 10 guys working an 8 hour day. At the end of the day how much
concrete would we have, let us assume that the chain of guys carrying trays
is unlimited, we don't care how the powder gets there, and let us assume
there is a 30% efficiency so let us say 10 minutes per 40lbs. 8 hours *
10 * 6 = 480 * 40 = 19200 lbs per block. If you had two shifts per day
the block size would be 40,000 lbs or 20 tons. Why stop however you could
have 3 shifts per day and you could fill in an entire floor layer?
What is the reason they used blocks at all if they had pourable concrete.
BTW just because limestone is soft does not mean if falls apart in water.
There are limestones in texas so soft you can imprint them with your fist
and have survived the 'flash flood capital of the world' for 50 million
years.
IOW, the theory is a misstep.
You stumble along to have done all but the most superficial internet
research and think it is interesting. I think GW Bush 'yellow cake'
hypothesis is interesting, but the question is whether it is a reason for
going to war, a fabrication, or extremely poorly researched information.
Lots of kook theories in the world, very few people willing to take enough
time to study the problem, dot their theoretical "i"s and cross their
"t"s. Anyone can make an error, and with Dougy, he has made quite a few,
but, he is more familiar with the issue and history thereof than you are,
which means you should have attempted to find out what he knew, and google
and google groups should be familiar with everyone, Right? Use it, then ask
questions about issues you don't understand or don't agree with. [You'll
put Dougy on the defensive anyway, he doesn't liked to be researched, he
likes to be the one researching others].
prd
by Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> . . . :
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 23:02:21 +0100, in sci.archaeology, Florian wrote:
>
>>Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> So the 2000 includes the 4000? You have a different take on math than I
>>> do.
>>
>>Nope. I simply can read better than you do :-p.
>>
>>I precised in the previous message that the estimate of primary workers
>>range from 2,000 to 6,000.
>>
>>For sure, among the 25,000 people involved in the pyramid building, less
>>that 6,000 were quarry workers, hauliers and masons.
>
> So you've dropped your first figure of 2500.
>
> Good.
I see your standards are falling. lol.
Archae Solenhofen
wrote:
>prd <X_he...@address.net> wrote:
>
>> No it doesn't, not at least in meaningful time frames. Limestone
>> are degraded over time by soil acids and acidic rainfall. Very slowly.
>>
>> The only thing you are doing here is throwing out whimsical brain-farts
>> when ever your ideas are confronted with valid critiques.
>
>As you know, there are different kind of limestones. The one we are
>talking about is loosely bound and easily disaggregate.
Really....
What unweathered in-situ bedrock on the Giza Plateau undergoes
agglomeration in water overnight or whatever the geopolymer-pyramid
time frame asserts? As well, please provide a primary geologic source
to back up this claim...
Archae Solenhofen
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>> The claim is it was easier to carry concrete to the top and mix it
>> there. There is no point in making them on the ground and hauling up
>> with limestone can be used directly saving the time and cost of making
>> it into concrete first.
> Carrying is one issue, the size of the mould and drying time should be
> considered first.
As I said, a sidewalk thick slab is the best solution for every issue you raise.
>> I have no idea how big a block of that weight is. Do you?
>
> Watch it:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQk_yBHre4
Not possible at the moment for OS reasons.
>> If all blocks are not cast what is the point of this exercise?
> Apparently, you need a lot of water to disagregate the limestome. May be
> the technic was available only during flooding period?
The Nile is always there. If the region was flooded no one was working there.
That is what we call dangerous and stupid.
> Note that it was also during that time period that peasant had enough
> "freetime" to work on the pyramid.
Then the region was not flooded and hauling water is hauling water.
But again the extraordinary claim is concrete so it is required to first prove
it is concrete not merely to invent "plausible" reasons it could have been.
Because of the burning concrete was expensive. Rome did not use it every place.
Rome only used it where stone was not practical.
chazwin
Tom McDonald wrote:
> An actual study by an actual professor of materials management suggests
> some of the stones in the Great Pyramid might have been cast. This will
> be published in the December issue of The Journal of the American
> Ceramic Society. Anyone have access?
>
> >From the New York Time article: http://tinyurl.com/un5lp (Free
> registration might be required--but is really, really worth it.):
>
> ----------------------------
> In new research on the Great Pyramids of Giza, a scientist says he has
> found more to their construction than cut natural limestone. Some
> original parts of the massive structures appear to be made of concrete
> blocks.
>
> If true, historians say, this would be the earliest known application
> of concrete technology, some 2,500 years before the Romans started
> using it widely in harbors, amphitheaters and other architecture.
>
> Reporting the results of his study, Michel W. Barsoum, a professor of
> materials engineering at Drexel University, in Philadelphia, concluded
> that the use of limestone concrete could explain in part how the
> Egyptians were able to complete such massive monuments, beginning
> around 2550 B. C. They used concrete blocks, he said, on the outer and
> inner casings and probably on the upper levels, where it would have
> been difficult to hoist carved stone.
>
> "The sophistication and endurance of this ancient concrete technology
> is simply astounding," Dr. Barsoum wrote in a report in the December
> issue of The Journal of the American Ceramic Society.
>
> Dr. Barsoum and his co-workers analyzed the mineralogy of samples from
> several parts of the Khufu pyramid, and said they found mineral ratios
> that do not exist in any of the known limestone sources. From the
> geochemical mix of lime, sand and clay, they concluded, "the simplest
> explanation" is that it was cast concrete.
>
> Dr. Barsoum, a native of Egypt, said in an interview that he expected
> his interpretation to be controversial - and it already is.
> ------------------------------
>
> While this is someone who one might think would have a clue about the
> issue, here is his testimonial for Margaret Morris' two-volume work, _
> The Egyptian Pyramid
> Mystery Is Solved!_:
>
> "In this Volume 2 of a 2 volume set, Morris answers the question of
> how the Great Pyramids, and indeed much of the hard stone artifacts of
> Ancient Egypt, were fabricated. In her first volume she methodically
> addresses and demolishes the currently accepted theory - the
> so-called carve-and-hoist theory - on how the Great Pyramids of Giza
> were built. That such a theory still prevails over the much more
> plausible alternate geopolymeric theory, first proposed by Davidovits
> more than 20 years ago, is truly astonishing. These two volumes by
> Morris are a must read for anybody genuinely interested in Egyptology."
> - MICHEL W. BARSOUM, DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR,
> DEPARTMENT OF MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING,
> DREXEL UNIVERSITY
> MARCH 17, 2004"
>
>
> So any chance this guy might be on to something? I know anything on
> this line I've read before about Giza pyramids has suffered from the
> 'Since I have a hammer, this problem is clearly a nail'ism. He says he
> found stone compositions that do not match that of any of the limestone
> in the region.
The whole thing seems fishy to me.
If the Egypians were happy with nearly all of their stones being
limestone why have a few concrete blocks included? Is there any design
morphological reason why this could have been useful. Where are these
particular "stones" found?
I can imagine that using concrete for unusual shaped/size gaps might
have been useful.
Concrete is different from limestone how is it that he cannot tell by
looking. Just becasue the compostion ratio does not match other
limestone deposits is not a reason to say a bit of "limestone" is
concrete.
Has it occurred to Barsoum that these "rocks" might represent the last
examples from a particular stratum of limestone that is now all
included in pyramids, or that there are still examples of this stratum
as yet not revealed?
He will need to find a bubble. Without vibration machines it is very
difficult to remove all bubbles from concrete. Show me the bubbles!
>
> But he does seem to think it would be easier to build frames and fill
> with concrete made of crushed limestone than raising the stones
> themselves, which I thought ignored the fact that not only the mass of
> the concrete, but the mass of the water, and the frames themselves,
> would make more work in the raising.
Florian
> Not possible at the moment for OS reasons.
Too bad. It very hard to understand the limitation/advantage of the
technic without watching the movie.
> > Apparently, you need a lot of water to disagregate the limestome. May be
> > the technic was available only during flooding period?
>
> The Nile is always there. If the region was flooded no one was
> working there. That is what we call dangerous and stupid.
Actually, my point is that the Wadi where the nummulite limestone is
found is on higher ground. The level of water is not high
enough to easily soak the limestome of the wadi outside of flooding
period.
> > Note that it was also during that time period that peasant had enough
> > "freetime" to work on the pyramid.
>
> Then the region was not flooded and hauling water is hauling water.
>
> But again the extraordinary claim is concrete so it is required to
> first prove it is concrete not merely to invent "plausible" reasons it
> could have been.
Davidovits claims that some stones of the pyramid are made of
reaggregate limestones because of the following clues:
- you can find air buble or vegetable debris in some of them
- the nummulites shells do not lay in strates (no sedimentation)
- the density of the stones is higher at the bottom
- the amount of water is much higher than in natural limestone
- the microstructure of the reconstituted limestone is diffrent from
natural one.
I think these point can't be addressed outside the "concrete hypothesis"
right? To quote Dr Barsoum:
": We hereby acknowledge that nature is quite resourceful and could have
- however unlikely - produced all the microstructures examined herein.
We believe, however, that our work presents enough evidence to entertain
the possibility that crucial parts of the Great Pyramids are indeed made
of reconstituted limestone; only more research will tell."
> Because of the burning concrete was expensive. Rome did not use it
> every place. Rome only used it where stone was not practical.
Again. The process described by Davidovits does not involve as much
extensive burning.
Florian
> > Watch the movie?
>
> I also am not going to watch the 'passion of the christ', either nor any
> number of movies recommended by idealistic pundits. I go to movies to be
> entertained, not educated, for education you better to read the
> peer-reviewed primary literture.
> Otherwise you would tend yourself to Mel Gibson like faiths in
> life, living someone elses problems.
Frankly, it won't kill you to watch a 4 min movie on the internet.
Especially when it helps to understand the point of view of a person.
> > I suppose this is much easier to carry concrete in bags than carrying 2
> > tons blocks.
>
> They would have carried it in trays, when water was added, mixed and the
> with two men dumped into a form, the trays carried back and reloaded.
Nope. The water can not be added in situ, just before pouring in the
cast.
The limestone has to be soaken for days before it is usable.
It's just silly. if you watch that tiny movie you'll understand
immediately that your view of the process is wrong.
> > Building a pyramid was also about faith and devotion.
>
> Faith does not produce offspring, faith does not feed a family, faith
> does not plant grain or irrigate it, faith cannot make the sun come up
> nor go down.
May be not. But it certainly push believer to make extraordinary (some
will say silly) things.
> > Those things are
> > hardly consistent over long period of time. A lost technic could also
> > prevent further gigantic building.
>
> But technically a pyramid is easy to build. You can buy sqaure cobble
> at just about any material yard, start with one stone on one corner, begin
> adding one layer of stone at a time, morter between the joints, you can
> keep doing this indefinitely
> > How can it be identical??? moving a 2 stone blocks to the top of a
> > pyramid can't be compared to moving limestone concrete in bags.
>
> You assume that the scalar problem cannot be worked out. Consider
> 1 man can carry, repeatedly 1 50 lb bag of concrete.
> If I give that man a wheel burrow he can carry 300 lbs of concrete.
> If I put 4 men on a cart they can carry a ton of concrete. If I put
> 10 men on a massive cart, they can carry 20 tons of concrete. Bags are
> no longer of any importance. [...]
You missed the point. The issue here is moving the thing up. It is
faster to move reconstituted limestone in bags to the top of a 100
m-high pyramid than use levee to elevate a 2 tons block.
> > 3 hours a block? I did not see any clues about the time needed to quarry
> > a block in the link you cited. I'm interested in any reference on the
> > subject proving your point.
>
> This is based on my experience. Although I would need a sample of the
> stone to be more accurate, assuming that their limestone was similar in
> hardness to the limestone we used to have to cutthrough in our remodeling
> projects.
OK. Your experience. I rather like another estimate (actually quite hard
to find on the web).
> All concrete (except asphalt concrete) is limestone based.
>
> Limestone --Heat--> CaO (see below)
> CaO + Ash + Sand + Aggregate + Water = Concrete.
> Some of the more silty sand and ash are some of the harder
> ancient concretes.
Sorry. That is not the chemistry involve in reconstituted limestone.
there is no heating or CaO involved.
Chemical reaction1:
Si 2O5,Al2(OH)4 + 2NaOH = > Na2O.2SiO2Al2O3.nH2O
kaolinite clay + soda = > hydrosodalite
Chemical reaction 2:
Na 2CO3 + Ca(OH)2 = > 2NaOH + CaCO3
Sodium carbonate (Egyptian natron) + lime = > soda + limestone
Summary of the re-agglomerated stone binder chemical formula:
clay + natron + lime = > feldspathoids + limestone (i.e. a natural
stone).
> Then it is not concrete, because in ancient Aluminum poor cements the
> reaction that gives rise to concretes strength is between the CaOH, the
> Ash, and the Si-O, also known as Alkali-Silicon Reaction.
Don't call it concrete if you want. May be "reconstitued limestone" is
more appropriate.
I stripped the following text because, although very interesting it does
not apply to the chemistry of "reconstitued limestone".
I hope you don't mind :-)
> > You're welcome. But calling me a liar won't help the debates. right?
>
> No, but it points out a fact, when confronted with critiques you
> respond with falsitudes and inaccuracies (see post by D. Weller for
> but another obvious example of your tailspin).
I may be inaccurate sometimes, but that is because I don't know the
subject very well. I learn while reading the different posts and looking
for more information on the internet.
My point with D. Weller was that Lehner considered the quarry worker as
part of the 2500 primary worker, i. e., they were not thousands of
quarry workers.
> Concrete and lime based cements are an interesting topic of archaeological
> discussion, even on my very strict standards, but more often than
> not we don't discuss the archaeology of concrete, but the debunking of
> some kooks theory. As you will read above.
I don't feel concern by those kooks theory.
My interest in the concrete theory just arise from the later paper of Dr
Barsoum.
I thought his work was very interesting and deserved to be taken in
consideration even if more research is needed to confirm his findings.
Then I figure out that another scientist (Davidovits) made similar
obervation using X-Ray analysis and developed a complete theory based on
original geopolymer chemistry.
that's all.
> IOW, he believes the stones were built in Situ, which means why do
> they build the structure in blocks at all. you have 4 guys hauling a cart
> 1 guy hauling water, they mix the cement and spread it out over a fill
> in area. There is no need for blocks.
The process is different than mixing water and concrete then pouring
right after mixing. I already offer some possible answers for
blocks-vs-large area:
- evolution of the previous brick technology that involves casting of
clay.
- drying time
- crew size
- ergonomy of cast size
- mix of quarry stones and reconstituted stones
- size of the batch of reconstituted limestone
- all of the above
> Secondarily the density of concrete
> is 2.3 to 2.5 and the density of the pyramids is 1.8.
One more time. 2.3 to 2.5 density is for sand concrete, not for
reconstituted limestone.
> BTW just because limestone is soft does not mean if falls apart in water.
> There are limestones in texas so soft you can imprint them with your fist
> and have survived the 'flash flood capital of the world' for 50 million
> years.
The limestone in question contains a lot of kaolin clay. that's why it
disagregates easily.
Florian
> So you've dropped your first figure of 2500.
Actually it is not "my" figure. It is the figure recurently given by
Lehner in its last estimations.
But when you consider all estimations from different specialists, they
do effectively range from 2,000 to 6,000.
Florian
> Really....
>
> What unweathered in-situ bedrock on the Giza Plateau undergoes
> agglomeration in water overnight or whatever the geopolymer-pyramid
> time frame asserts?
Not agglomeration, but disaggregation.
> As well, please provide a primary geologic source
> to back up this claim...
I'm not a specialist but I can quote Davidovits:
Analysis done by the German geochemist D.D. Klemm (1) showed that 97 to
100% of the blocks come from the soft and argillaceous limestone layer
located in the Wadi, downwards the Giza Plateau. [...] The geologist L.
Gauri (2) showed that this limestone is fragile, because it includes
clay-like materials (in particular kaolinite clay) sensitive to water.
(1) Klemm, Steine und Steinbrüche in Alten Ägypten, Springer Verlag
Berlin Heidelberg, 1993.
(2) L. Gauri, Geological study of the Sphinx, Newsletter American
Research Center in Egypt, No 127, pp. 24-43, 1984.
Florian
> The whole thing seems fishy to me.
> If the Egypians were happy with nearly all of their stones being
> limestone why have a few concrete blocks included? Is there any design
> morphological reason why this could have been useful. Where are these
> particular "stones" found?
> I can imagine that using concrete for unusual shaped/size gaps might
> have been useful.
Barsoum thinks that the outer casing, backing blocks - i. e. outer skin
- inner casing and architecture and the top half are probably cast. I
guess that at a certain height, it was easier to move up the
reconstituted limestone in bucket than hauling 2-tons blocks.
> Concrete is different from limestone how is it that he cannot tell by
> looking.
Actually he says the opposite in his presentation available from Drexel
university (55 MB ouch!):
http://www.drexel.edu/univrel/media/pyramid.pdf
That presentation is full of picture of the stones. They are very
telling. It does also show the mineralogic proofs that some of the
stones were casted.
i precise that is not concrete based on sand. It is reconstituted
limestone from soft limestone riched in kaolin clay (easily disaggregate
in water). Therefore it is hard to make the difference between the
natural and artificial stone just by looking.
> Just becasue the compostion ratio does not match other
> limestone deposits is not a reason to say a bit of "limestone" is
> concrete.
The difference in composition ration concerns the artificial cement
between the nummulites shells for details I suggest you to read the
presentation linked above.
> He will need to find a bubble. Without vibration machines it is very
> difficult to remove all bubbles from concrete. Show me the bubbles!
He actually found bubbles :-)
But it does not seem to be a valid proof since prd, in this thread, said
that soft limestone is not tighly compressed and contain bubbles. I
quote him from message
<IjMch.419212$QZ1.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
"It is because soft limestone is the product of non-compression, take a
look at soft limestone the next time you get a chance, you will see
shells and air pockets between shells, etc. It is not compressed if you
look at honey-comb stone or cave stone you will notice a major
difference, there is almost no visible shells and no visible cavities.
This has result because one set of limestones was compressed over much
of the geological time frame, whereas the other was not. Because soft
limestone is full of air pockets. "
Anyway, that battle reminds me the fight between Cleland and Raushel in
the Enzymology field :-)
You have two opposed "schools" with radical point of view fighting
eachother. But most of the time the battle is pointless because the
truth is a mix of both views.
In this case you have Lehner (and the majority of Egyptologists) on one
side who says pyramid stones we entirely made of carved stones.
Davidovits on the other side says that the entire pyramid is made of
cast stones.
But now, we have Barsoum that says that the bottom part is carved while
the top is casted. The later is probably the closest to the truth.
Kendall K. Down
d...@no.email.thankstospam.net (DK) wrote:
> Instead of posting a 190 lines reply, you could simply call the Florian
> an idiot and be done with it. At least it would be the truth, and Florian's
> opinion is not going to change one way or another either way.
No doubt, but there are other people reading this besides Florian and
*their* minds are susceptible to reason.
Ken Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
Kendall K. Down
firs...@lastname.net (Florian) wrote:
> Building a pyramid was also about faith and devotion. Those things are
> hardly consistent over long period of time. A lost technic could also
> prevent further gigantic building.
So you are suggesting that between the death of Mycerinus and the accession
of his son, this technique, used by thousands of builders, was suddenly
lost? Collective amnesia, perhaps?
> Anyway,I have absolutely no interest in defending Davidovits theory, but
> I found it quite interesting since it was clearly demonstrated that
> casting stones was possible using local materials.
Demonstrating that something is possible is not the same as demonstrating
that it was done. I imagine that one could build a hang glider out of palm
wood and Egyptian linen, but that tells us nothing at all about whether the
ancient Egyptians had hang gliders. Thor Heyerdahl never appeared to grasp
this basic fallacy.
David Johnson
news:1hpthn3.1rp5ev4z773gyN%firs...@lastname.net:
> prd <X_he...@address.net> wrote:
>
>> > Watch the movie?
>>
>> I also am not going to watch the 'passion of the christ', either nor
>> any number of movies recommended by idealistic pundits. I go to
>> movies to be entertained, not educated, for education you better to
>> read the peer-reviewed primary literture.
>> Otherwise you would tend yourself to Mel Gibson like faiths in
>> life, living someone elses problems.
>
>
> Frankly, it won't kill you to watch a 4 min movie on the internet.
> Especially when it helps to understand the point of view of a person.
Oh, we understand the POV quite well, movie or no.
This may be all new to you, but the earliest post on "building pyramids
out of concrete" (at least as far as Google is concerned - and it
probably predates this a bit) goes back to October 1st, _1992_!
(http://tinyurl.com/yjabey)
We've HEARD of this all before. It's not new. It's an _old_ theory that's
been disproved, well, for decades.
Try to keep up.
David
--
_______________________________________________________________________
David Johnson home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan
"So many of you come time and time again to watch this final end of
everything which I think is really wonderful and then to return home to
your own eras and raise families and strive for new and better societies
and fight terrible wars for what you know is right, it gives one real
hope for the whole future of lifekind...
...Except of course we know it hasn't got one."
Florian
> So you are suggesting that between the death of Mycerinus and the accession
> of his son, this technique, used by thousands of builders, was suddenly
> lost? Collective amnesia, perhaps?
It is just a suggestion among others but I don't think it is unlikely.
For example, the correct mixture ratio could be a secret detained by
only a few people. It won't be the first time that advanced technics are
lost (see the Antikythera).
> > Anyway,I have absolutely no interest in defending Davidovits theory, but
> > I found it quite interesting since it was clearly demonstrated that
> > casting stones was possible using local materials.
>
> Demonstrating that something is possible is not the same as demonstrating
> that it was done. I imagine that one could build a hang glider out of palm
> wood and Egyptian linen, but that tells us nothing at all about whether the
> ancient Egyptians had hang gliders. Thor Heyerdahl never appeared to grasp
> this basic fallacy.
That's true. Demonstrating that it is possible does not mean that it was
done.
But doesn't Barsoum give some evidence that it was actually done?
At least, it deserves certainly more research and an authorization from
the egyptian authorities to let them check the theory. Don't you agree?
Florian
> We've HEARD of this all before. It's not new. It's an _old_ theory that's
> been disproved, well, for decades.
That's true. It's quite new to me. (I'm currently googling through past
articles)
But the theory that Barsoum is pushing is a actually new (mix of carved
and cast stones).
In contrary to Davidovits and his "all cast stones" theory, this one
should make everybody happy.
Doug Weller
>Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> So you've dropped your first figure of 2500.
>
>Actually it is not "my" figure. It is the figure recurently given by
>Lehner in its last estimations.
No, he doesn't included the people working the quarry in it, you did.
>But when you consider all estimations from different specialists, they
>do effectively range from 2,000 to 6,000.
--
David Johnson
news:1hpu3ap.8ohvb4j3jvcvN%firs...@lastname.net:
> David Johnson <trolleyfa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> We've HEARD of this all before. It's not new. It's an _old_ theory
>> that's been disproved, well, for decades.
>
> That's true. It's quite new to me. (I'm currently googling through
> past articles)
>
> But the theory that Barsoum is pushing is a actually new (mix of
> carved and cast stones).
> In contrary to Davidovits and his "all cast stones" theory, this one
> should make everybody happy.
Why? It just shows they couldn't prove Davidovits's theory and hoped
that, if they lower the number of blocks involved, they can always claim
the Established Archaeologists (or geologists or whatever) tested the
wrong block.
"See! It's Easy! That's how you missed it: It's only these few blocks,
ummm, over here somewhere."
Now, explain _why_ if they can build 90-95% of the pyramid with cut
blocks, they suddenly feel the urge to do a handful of concrete ones,
just for fun. Especially since they've got that nice big workforce that
by now is _expert_ at making and using cut blocks.
The theory's dumb, lacking in evidence, and just a last chance grasping
at straws to save at least a _part_ of Davidovits's theory so that his
supporters can say "see, we _were_ right after all!"
Archae Solenhofen
wrote:
>Archae Solenhofen <solen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Really....
>>
>> What unweathered in-situ bedrock on the Giza Plateau undergoes
>> agglomeration in water overnight or whatever the geopolymer-pyramid
>> time frame asserts?
>
>Not agglomeration, but disaggregation.
I stand corrected....
>> As well, please provide a primary geologic source
>> to back up this claim...
>I'm not a specialist but I can quote Davidovits:
>Analysis done by the German geochemist D.D. Klemm (1) showed that 97 to
>100% of the blocks come from the soft and argillaceous limestone layer
>located in the Wadi, downwards the Giza Plateau. [...] The geologist L.
>Gauri (2) showed that this limestone is fragile, because it includes
>clay-like materials (in particular kaolinite clay) sensitive to water.
None of these report any unweathered rocks that are so soft they are
going to fall apart when saturated in water overnight.
Klemm & Klemm (1993) determined Khufu's quarries for core masonry to
be mostly from the Central Mastaba Field directly S-SW of the Sphinx
enclosure. Those rocks were below sea level during the Pliocene when
the Mediterranean Sea transgressed into the Nile valley creating a
gulf that extended as far south as Aswan and causing the Giza Plateau
to become a peninsula. There are 2 levels of 30 m high shoreline
eroded cliffs separated by a terrace on the north and east Mokattam
escarpments just a short distance (the closest a few hundred meters or
so) from the Pyramids (Aigner 1983). The GP is built on the
wave-eroded terrace between these 2 levels of shoreline cliffs. The
rocks claimed above to disaggregate in water were saturated in water
for hundreds of thousands of years in both micro and macro porosity.
It did not turn into mud then... its certainly not going to turn into
mud now.
As for Gauri (1984), which can be read in the link below, no where
does he say that the rocks of Member II in the Sphinx enclosure are
fragile to the point where they disaggregate in water in the timeframe
suggested by Davidovits. Gauri & Bandyopadhyay (1999) give the
durability factor values that Gauri and others have calculated for the
7 beds of Member II. The weakest bed portions are 2i, 1i, and 3i and
the rest of them are considerably harder, which is clearly reflected
in their susceptibility to weathering and erosion. Beds are 2i, 1i,
and 3i contain less than 0.76% clay minerals, see below. I should
point out that Morris (1994) claims that bed portion 1i was 12 feet
thick (that is certainly not even remotely the case see photo below)
and contained 5-10% kaolinite. Gauri & Bandyopadhyay (1999), tell us
on page 198 that X-ray diffraction of the sand and silt fraction of
the rocks indicates only quartz being present. Now take a look at
Table 2 in Gauri (1984) that means that the clay fraction in almost
all beds makes up less than 1% of the rock as kaolinite and illite
(with kaolinite being predominate, and some montmorilloinite is
present in bed 3 only). Montmorilloinite is the only clay of the 3
clay minerals present that would expand on hydration and influence
stone disintegration (Gauri & Bandyopadhyay 1999). Since there is not
much of it in these rocks (as well as kaolinite for that matter) it
plays very little role in influencing durability factor. If you're not
sure what beds we are discussing here they are illustrated on these
photos of the south wall of the Sphinx enclosure and the Sphinx's
chest.
Stratigraphy of the southern enclosure wall:
http://www.thehallofmaat.com/ug/images/southren_enclosure_wall_geologic_strata.jpg
Front of Sphinx:
http://www.thehallofmaat.com/ug/images/front_sphinx_geologic_strata.jpg
(Photographs by Jon Bodsworth http://www.egyptarchive.co.uk/)
So far you have provided absolutely nothing to support the assertion
that any in-situ unweathered bedrock on the Giza plateau disaggregates
in water in the timeframe of the geopolymer-pyramid suggest.... they
have had almost 20 year or so to find it and have not. This area has
been extensively geologically studied by Gauri, Harrell, Aigner, the
Klemm's, and may others and none have noted what must exist for the
geopolymer's claims to be valid. It does not exist and claiming a bed
is 12 feet thick and asserting it contains 6 to 13 time the amount of
kaolinite it actually has does not do anything to change that fact.
Aigner, T. (1983) A Pliocene cliff-line around the Giza Pyramids
Plateau, Egypt. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 42,
313-322.
Klemm, R. and Klemm, D.D. (1993) Steine und steinbrüche im alten
Ägypten. Spring-Verlag, Berlin.
Gauri, L. (1984) Geological Study of the Sphinx, Newsletter American
Research Center in Egypt, 127, 24-43.
http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=43
Gauri, K.L. & Bandyopadhyay, J.K. (1999) Carbonate stone: chemical
behavior, durability, and conservation. Wiley, New York, 284 p.
Morris, M. (1994) Response (to Harrell in letters to the Editor).
Journal of Geological Education, 42, 198-203.
Archae Solenhofen (solen...@hotmail.com)
Archae Solenhofen
<trolleyfa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>firs...@lastname.net (Florian) wrote in
>news:1hpu3ap.8ohvb4j3jvcvN%firs...@lastname.net:
>
>> David Johnson <trolleyfa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> We've HEARD of this all before. It's not new. It's an _old_ theory
>>> that's been disproved, well, for decades.
>>
>> That's true. It's quite new to me. (I'm currently googling through
>> past articles)
>>
>> But the theory that Barsoum is pushing is a actually new (mix of
>> carved and cast stones).
>> In contrary to Davidovits and his "all cast stones" theory, this one
>> should make everybody happy.
>
>Why? It just shows they couldn't prove Davidovits's theory and hoped
>that, if they lower the number of blocks involved, they can always claim
>the Established Archaeologists (or geologists or whatever) tested the
>wrong block.
>
>"See! It's Easy! That's how you missed it: It's only these few blocks,
>ummm, over here somewhere."
This is reminiscent of Schoch's "weak form of the geopolymer
hypothesis" from Schoch (1992; i.e. instead of all blocks, it's
possible that some blocks could be geopolymer).
Schoch, R. M. (1992) Comment. Journal of Geological Education, 40, 34.
Archae Solenhofen (solen...@hotmail.com)
>
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
<aoEch.416796$QZ1.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
X_he...@address.net (prd) wrote:
> The fact that only three great pyramids were made says
> something, right. After three structure built, the utility of
> the more pyramids with a full time staff of 1000s that need to
> be fed, housed,
The problem there is that pyramids built, before and after the
great pyramids with some approaching them in size. Besides
pyramids were not isolated buildings, they were the centre of a
complex that included at least two temples and a causeway. While
we no there were cults set up to continue rites for each pharaoh
it is not known how many people were involved.
Miroslav Verner gives dimensions for 57 pyramids (The Pyramids
page 461). This does of course include some subsidiary pyramids
but it proves that the Giza pyramids can not be treated in
isolation.
Ken Young
chazwin
I can understand, if Egyptians had the know-how, that they might have
used concrete to infill, or block-off, BUT the thread suggests that
some of the "blocks" might have been concrete. Why on earth would they
make discete concrete blocks rather than shutter existing structures?
There is something fishy about this suggestion. It has the smell of an
attempt to credit Egytians with the invention of concrete long before
the Romans.
>
>
>
> >
chazwin
chazwin
Limestone and concrete are very different things. They are easy to
distinguish.
If they cannot find examples of a particular limestone's composition
then they have not looked far enough. This is NO reason to attribute it
as concrete.
I can understand, if Egyptians had the know-how, that they might have
used concrete to infill, or block-off, BUT the thread suggests that
some of the "blocks" might have been concrete. Why on earth would they
make discete concrete blocks rather than shutter existing structures?
There is something fishy about this suggestion. It has the smell of an
attempt to credit Egytians with the invention of concrete long before
the Romans.
prd wrote:
> In sci.archaeology message news:1hptr9z.1wa7yrk5lnywjN%
> firs...@lastname.net by firs...@lastname.net (Florian) . . . :
>
> Well, I am not denying they may have used wet mortars. look at the distance
> between stones, that is an awful lot of 'chaff' that chaff could have been
> heated, treated, and used a mortar, mortar does not have to be strong. You
> said the blocks were fragile an broke, also possible, but when they broke
> they may have been recut for other uses or used for mortar. Nobody said
> that the egyptians did not make 'cements' for use in their pyramid. The
> argument is over the logic of grinding down "Obvious" attempts to make
> stone blocks, and then to convert those blocks into a cement as a base
> for a pourable concrete. I am not arguming about the egyptian fear of
> making cements, I am arguing about your compulsion to interject unneccesary
> diverticulations into the construction process when:
>
> 1. It is clear they identified a soft limestone they could could, dispite
> its fragile nature at times.
> 2. A light limestone that was easy to carry and set.
> 3. The shape of the stones was such as to minimize cut energy, why do
> you care if you are going to bash and wash the stone to aggregate.
>
> You have avoided these issues like they are the plaque, and instead
> focused on 'alternative' chemistry as your explanation.
>
> That is excusive and evasive, now you are arguing I am an extremist.
> Let me put it to you clearly, within the hypothesis testing there are two
> key facts.
>
> 1. One theory is based on cubic structures with mortar infills.
>
> 2. one theory is based on reconstitution and the logic of filling
> or internal (foirmative) design is not defined.
>
> Therefore comparing hypothesis means energy minimization of
> cubic production and construction. Reconstitution means energy minimization
> of the disintegration and synthesis. Then we compare energies.
> Making a mortar once a material has already, as a byproduct of something
> else, formed is not the same as arguing that making an entire structure
> of that byproduct is equally as feasible. Since the internal design of the
> second is not designed by the hypothesis former, except by saying the
> concrete was poured in place, leaves an open ended energy minimization
> scheme. When you define the logic as to why they would have poured cubes
> instead of slabs,etc and show evidence that support a formative nature
> of the structure as opposed to a assemblative nature then we can have a
> better energy debate.
>
> Finally, anyone who works with concrete knows one basic fact, concrete is
> poured into forms, the forms leave a tell-tale obvious marks on the
> concrete, and includes air pockets at the margins and the visual appearance
> of the grains of wood in the concrete itself and leaves a glassy appearance
> in the edge, cut stone results an a granular or sandy appearance and no
> wood grain markings and no formative airpockets (air pockets in soft lime
> stoner are border by shell and other geological markers). IOW any fool
> looking at afew stones would quickly be able to distinquish a poured stone
> from a carved stone.
>
> You have not addressed this basic issue.
>
>
> > In this case you have Lehner (and the majority of Egyptologists) on one
> > side who says pyramid stones we entirely made of carved stones.
>
> That's bullshit, most agree that some form of mortar was also used.
>
> > Davidovits on the other side says that the entire pyramid is made of
> > cast stones.
>
> Have you ever seen anyone cast granite? You presented the sides, you
> misrepresented one side, and the side you introduced has at least one
> obvious flaw.
>
> > But now, we have Barsoum that says that the bottom part is carved while
> > the top is casted. The later is probably the closest to the truth.
>
> Possibly true, in an energy minimization scheme since most of the mass is
> on the bottom. But here again, if stone weight is a problem getting it to
> the top, reduce the mass of the stone and use a different method.
>
> You forget one thing, when close to the top you have more workers to add
> much less mass, therefore more workers can be used to move each structure.
> This can involved pushing and pulling very heavy stones up sharp angles as
> long as you can use the pyramid itself as leverage.
>
> Consider this, you are adding a wet concrete layer on layer, the the cement
> is not strong and viscosity will increase as it dries, you are adding in
> the center one wet block after another, eventually the weight of the center
> will compress the lowest blocks and the center of the pyramid will sag.
> If your concrete does not set quickly, what is the point, you have as the
> pyramid gets higher more people waiting around for the previous layer to
> dry.
Florian
> > 3 hours a block? I did not see any clues about the time needed to quarry
> > a block in the link you cited. I'm interested in any reference on the
> > subject proving your point.
>
> This is based on my experience. Although I would need a sample of the
> stone to be more accurate, assuming that their limestone was similar in
> hardness to the limestone we used to have to cutthrough in our remodeling
> projects.
I found an interesting comment from Lehner about a possible more
accurate estimation:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/builders.html
"12 men in bare feet, living out in the eastern desert, opened a new
quarry in about the time we needed stone for our NOVA Pyramid, and in 21
days they quarried 186 stones."
So that's about 3/4 of a block per day per carver. That's probably a
higher estimate since they used iron chisels and an iron winch to pull
the stone away from the carry wall.
Florian
> None of these report any unweathered rocks that are so soft they are
> going to fall apart when saturated in water overnight.
So there is no limestone rich in kaolin clay at this site?
> [...] The
> rocks claimed above to disaggregate in water were saturated in water
> for hundreds of thousands of years in both micro and macro porosity.
> It did not turn into mud then... its certainly not going to turn into
> mud now.
Again, I'm not a specialist and I don't follow some parts of your
reasoning. I need some clarification for my understanding.
When loose limestone is undersea, is it automatically soaked with water?
Doesn't the pression help to maintain the stone in place?
I understand these layers are on the Giza plateau itself. Are these the
very same layers of limestone in the Wadi downward the Giza plateau?
Florian
> No, he doesn't included the people working the quarry in it, you did.
Here are Lehner's words from an interview to NOVA:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/builders.html
"Well, it turns out that even if you give great leeway for the iron
tools, all 340 stones could have been quarried in a day by something
like 1,200 men."
"So now we've got 1200 men in the quarry which is a very generous
estimate, 2,000 men delivering. And so that's 3,200."
That's1,200 men carving the stones. Not thousands like you previously
claimed.
Florian
> Well, I am not denying they may have used wet mortars. look at the distance
> between stones, that is an awful lot of 'chaff' that chaff could have been
> heated, treated, and used a mortar, mortar does not have to be strong.
The microscopic analysis does not show any heating of the sample. but it
shows that the chemistry occured at basic pH (because of the shape of
some microsturctures). This fits with the chemistry described by
Davidovits.
> You said the blocks were fragile an broke
Nowhere. The genuine limestone is loose not the final blocks.
> You have avoided these issues like they are the plaque, and instead
> focused on 'alternative' chemistry as your explanation.
I insist. This is not MY explanation. I just report others findings.
>
> That is excusive and evasive, now you are arguing I am an extremist.
> Let me put it to you clearly, within the hypothesis testing there are two
> key facts.
>
> 1. One theory is based on cubic structures with mortar infills.
>
> 2. one theory is based on reconstitution and the logic of filling
> or internal (foirmative) design is not defined.
>
> Therefore comparing hypothesis means energy minimization of
> cubic production and construction. Reconstitution means energy minimization
> of the disintegration and synthesis. Then we compare energies.
> Making a mortar once a material has already, as a byproduct of something
> else, formed is not the same as arguing that making an entire structure
> of that byproduct is equally as feasible.
Apparently not the entire structure according to Basroum.
> Since the internal design of the
> second is not designed by the hypothesis former, except by saying the
> concrete was poured in place, leaves an open ended energy minimization
> scheme. When you define the logic as to why they would have poured cubes
> instead of slabs,etc and show evidence that support a formative nature
> of the structure as opposed to a assemblative nature then we can have a
> better energy debate.
I advance some hypothesis in
<1hpthn3.1rp5ev4z773gyN%firs...@lastname.net> but you apparently
don't want to consider them. I can't do nothing more.
> Finally, anyone who works with concrete knows one basic fact, concrete is
> poured into forms, the forms leave a tell-tale obvious marks on the
> concrete, and includes air pockets at the margins and the visual appearance
> of the grains of wood in the concrete itself and leaves a glassy appearance
> in the edge, cut stone results an a granular or sandy appearance and no
> wood grain markings and no formative airpockets (air pockets in soft lime
> stoner are border by shell and other geological markers).
When davidovits made a few samples he show that the casted stones looked
not much different than natural stones. There were no specific marks
from the wooden cast.
> IOW any fool
> looking at afew stones would quickly be able to distinquish a poured stone
> from a carved stone.
Actually. That's what Barsoum is saying "when you look carefully you can
say which stones are casted and which are carved" See the big pdf
mentionned in <1hptr9z.1wa7yrk5lnywjN%firs...@lastname.net>
Isn't that funny?
> You have not addressed this basic issue.
I tried.
> > In this case you have Lehner (and the majority of Egyptologists) on one
> > side who says pyramid stones we entirely made of carved stones.
>
> That's bullshit, most agree that some form of mortar was also used.
Certainly. I meant the big blocks were carved.
>
> > Davidovits on the other side says that the entire pyramid is made of
> > cast stones.
>
> Have you ever seen anyone cast granite? You presented the sides, you
> misrepresented one side, and the side you introduced has at least one
> obvious flaw.
I don't think so. I clearly said that Davidovits think that the WHOLE
thing is made of concrete. I certainly don't share his extremist view.
>
> > But now, we have Barsoum that says that the bottom part is carved while
> > the top is casted. The later is probably the closest to the truth.
>
> Possibly true, in an energy minimization scheme since most of the mass is
> on the bottom. But here again, if stone weight is a problem getting it to
> the top, reduce the mass of the stone and use a different method.
Like casting the stones? ;-)
> You forget one thing, when close to the top you have more workers to add
> much less mass, therefore more workers can be used to move each structure.
> This can involved pushing and pulling very heavy stones up sharp angles as
> long as you can use the pyramid itself as leverage.
Except if you want to spare some money and reduce the size of the crew
when you get closer to the finished worked?
> Consider this, you are adding a wet concrete layer on layer, the the cement
> is not strong and viscosity will increase as it dries, you are adding in
> the center one wet block after another, eventually the weight of the center
> will compress the lowest blocks and the center of the pyramid will sag.
> If your concrete does not set quickly, what is the point, you have as the
> pyramid gets higher more people waiting around for the previous layer to
> dry.
According to Davidovits, it takes days to soak the limestone for
disaggregation but when it's ready to get casted, it does not take more
than a day to dry under the egyptian sun.
Florian
> Why? It just shows they couldn't prove Davidovits's theory and hoped
> that, if they lower the number of blocks involved, they can always claim
> the Established Archaeologists (or geologists or whatever) tested the
> wrong block.
My understanding is that those are two completely different groups that
found the same results. Although there conclusion about the extent of
use of casted stones is not the same.
> Now, explain _why_ if they can build 90-95% of the pyramid with cut
> blocks, they suddenly feel the urge to do a handful of concrete ones,
> just for fun. Especially since they've got that nice big workforce that
> by now is _expert_ at making and using cut blocks.
May be for practical reason. it's easier to pour blocks than move them
to the top of the pyramid when this one is too high.
> The theory's dumb, lacking in evidence,
Lacking evidence may be. But there are some. More research needed.
that's for sure.
> and just a last chance grasping
> at straws to save at least a _part_ of Davidovits's theory so that his
> supporters can say "see, we _were_ right after all!"
And you would hate that wouldn't you? LOL :-)
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>> Not possible at the moment for OS reasons.
> Too bad. It very hard to understand the limitation/advantage of the
> technic without watching the movie.
And I presume people who have never layed concrete are impressed with the first
discussion of it.
>>> Apparently, you need a lot of water to disagregate the limestome. May be
>>> the technic was available only during flooding period?
>> The Nile is always there. If the region was flooded no one was
>> working there. That is what we call dangerous and stupid.
> Actually, my point is that the Wadi where the nummulite limestone is
> found is on higher ground. The level of water is not high
> enough to easily soak the limestome of the wadi outside of flooding
> period.
You mean they had to be rolled downhill first?
>>> Note that it was also during that time period that peasant had enough
>>> "freetime" to work on the pyramid.
>> Then the region was not flooded and hauling water is hauling water.
>> But again the extraordinary claim is concrete so it is required to
>> first prove it is concrete not merely to invent "plausible" reasons it
>> could have been.
> Davidovits claims that some stones of the pyramid are made of
> reaggregate limestones because of the following clues:
> - you can find air buble or vegetable debris in some of them
> - the nummulites shells do not lay in strates (no sedimentation)
> - the density of the stones is higher at the bottom
> - the amount of water is much higher than in natural limestone
> - the microstructure of the reconstituted limestone is diffrent from
> natural one.
What does characterizing this kind of limestone have to do with showing it is
concrete?
> I think these point can't be addressed outside the "concrete hypothesis"
> right? To quote Dr Barsoum:
> ": We hereby acknowledge that nature is quite resourceful and could have
> - however unlikely - produced all the microstructures examined herein.
> We believe, however, that our work presents enough evidence to entertain
> the possibility that crucial parts of the Great Pyramids are indeed made
> of reconstituted limestone; only more research will tell."
One would expect visual inspection to be sufficient to establish whether or not
it is in fact concrete.
>> Because of the burning concrete was expensive. Rome did not use it
>> every place. Rome only used it where stone was not practical.
> Again. The process described by Davidovits does not involve as much
> extensive burning.
Any burning is more expensive. Anything thicker than a sidewalk slab takes much
more wood.
Archae Solenhofen
wrote:
>Archae Solenhofen <solen...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>>None of these report any unweathered rocks that are so soft they are
>>going to fall apart when saturated in water overnight.
>So there is no limestone rich in kaolin clay at this site?
Not according to Gauri (1984) analysis of Member II. Only bed portion
5i contains <4.1 kaolinite everything else tested by Gauri is
considerably less than this. Bed 5i has a much higher durability
factor than 1i, which is expressed by the degree of erosion that has
occurred over the last 4500 yeas of potential exposure to the
atmosphere. That is, it's not that soft of a rock, which is not
surprising since the lithology changes considerably as strata becomes
younger in Member II, becoming harder.
>>[...] The
>>rocks claimed above to disaggregate in water were saturated in water
>>for hundreds of thousands of years in both micro and macro porosity.
>>It did not turn into mud then... its certainly not going to turn into
>>mud now.
>Again, I'm not a specialist and I don't follow some parts of your
>reasoning. I need some clarification for my understanding.
>When loose limestone is undersea, is it automatically soaked with water?
If it's at the surface yes for loose sediments. The rocks of the
Mokattam formation (the bedrock which Member II is apart of, and the
pyramids are built on) formed millions of years before the
Mediterranean Sea experience an increase in sea level and flooded the
Nile valley during the Pliocene, they were not loose sediments during
this time, but solid rock. In the case of the rocks of Member II that
were at or near the surface the micro and macroporosity (joints and
paleokarst structures) would be saturated with water as a result of
the flooding of the Mediterranean Sea.
>Doesn't the pression help to maintain the stone in place?
Not much pressure for rocks at the surface. The Giza Plateau has a
paleokarst terrain (i.e. calcite solution producing minor caves, vugs,
solution widened joints etc. by flowing meteoric water (i.e. rain
runoff & ground water table). In the past these rocks were soaked, not
only when this area was under a sea that transgress into the Nile
valley a few million years ago, but also before and after this
occurred with rainwater that percolated down through the rocks to the
water table. These rocks are not disaggregating as the Geopolymer
claims tells you even though they are continually exposed to water
over millions of years. They are behaving like typical limestone that
very slowly dissolve in the raised acidity of rainwater. If the rocks
behave like the geopolymer claims assert they would long since have
eroded away.
<snip>
>I understand these layers are on the Giza plateau itself. Are these the
>very same layers of limestone in the Wadi downward the Giza plateau?
Yes, since those are the rocks Morris (1994) identified as kaolin
rich. I suspect the wadi they are talking about is the Lesser Wadi
that is near the Sphinx. Of course, she incorrectly claims that bed
portion 1i was 12 feet thick instead of 2-3 feet, and it's not kaolin
rich either (<0.76%).
Archae Solenhofen (solen...@hotmail.com)
Doug Weller
>
>Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> No, he doesn't included the people working the quarry in it, you did.
>
>Here are Lehner's words from an interview to NOVA:
>
>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/builders.html
>
>"Well, it turns out that even if you give great leeway for the iron
>tools, all 340 stones could have been quarried in a day by something
>like 1,200 men."
>
>"So now we've got 1200 men in the quarry which is a very generous
>estimate, 2,000 men delivering. And so that's 3,200."
>
>That's1,200 men carving the stones. Not thousands like you previously
>claimed.
>
Look, this started with your writing:
>BTW, There were no more than 2,500 people working on the pyramid (See
>Lehner's works). That is perfectly compatible with predominant molding
>process, not with carving ones which would need 10 to 40 time more
>people. Right?"
It's clear that you include carving and moving the stones in your 2500.
You claim it would take at least 25000 people to carve the stones.
And my number included moving them.
So will you please acknowledge that you were wrong and stop this faffing
about?
Doug
Doug Weller
So you don't think that experience and perhaps different techniques would
have made any difference? And I wonder how many hours they worked a day?
prd
news:7c2an2p4rej92vc16...@4ax.com by Doug Weller
<dwe...@ramtops.removethis.co.uk> . . . :
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006 01:27:43 +0100, in sci.archaeology, Florian wrote:
>
>>prd <X_he...@address.net> wrote:
>>
>>> > 3 hours a block? I did not see any clues about the time needed to
>>> > quarry a block in the link you cited. I'm interested in any
>>> > reference on the subject proving your point.
>>>
>>> This is based on my experience. Although I would need a sample of the
>>> stone to be more accurate, assuming that their limestone was similar
>>> in hardness to the limestone we used to have to cutthrough in our
>>> remodeling projects.
>>
>>I found an interesting comment from Lehner about a possible more
>>accurate estimation:
>>
>>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/builders.html
>>
>>"12 men in bare feet, living out in the eastern desert, opened a new
>>quarry in about the time we needed stone for our NOVA Pyramid, and in 21
>>days they quarried 186 stones."
>>
>>So that's about 3/4 of a block per day per carver. That's probably a
>>higher estimate since they used iron chisels and an iron winch to pull
>>the stone away from the carry wall.
>
> So you don't think that experience and perhaps different techniques
> would have made any difference? And I wonder how many hours they worked
> a day?
Not to mention saws and chisels specifically designed for
cutting that type of stone. Also not to mention the jibs and scaffolds
the egyptians had inplace to remove the stone and get it out of the work
areas.
prd
by ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk . . . :
That was not what I meant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza
The khufu pyramid was the tallest structure built and remained
so from 2570 BC to 1300 AD a period of almost 4000 years. In terms
of block/mortar structure building it is the largest ever built.
The only competitive structures are out of the cultural context
of the region (meso america, finished several thousand years later) and
therefore the success or failure of the strategy is not evidenced by these
distal structures.
The basic argument is not whether smaller megalithic structures were made,
the argument is that no attempt was made to surpass the height or, more
particularly, the mass in any of the region of influence of the egyptians
for a perion of ~4000 years. Within Giza/Dahshur necropoli there are many
contemporary pyramids probably the highest density for any time period,
with a trend toward increasing maximum decadal size and then markedly
decreasing size. While this does not prove the load was unbearable, it
appears to have satisfied the need to build such structures over a wide
region for many 1000s of years.
Eric Stevens
Whatever it is proposed the ancient Egyptians did, it was not using
any material resembling in a chemical what is now regarded as
concrete. The source materials and their chemistry is entirely
different. The name of the subject of this thread is entirely
misleading.
Eric Stevens
Kendall K. Down
firs...@lastname.net (Florian) wrote:
> Lacking evidence may be. But there are some. More research needed.
> that's for sure.
True, but at the moment we are too busy researching these ideas about
perpetual motion and how to extract gold from sea water. Then there are
those ideas about aliens from Atlantis building the sphinx. Gosh! Life is
too short.
Kendall K. Down
firs...@lastname.net (Florian) wrote:
> It is just a suggestion among others but I don't think it is unlikely.
> For example, the correct mixture ratio could be a secret detained by
> only a few people. It won't be the first time that advanced technics are
> lost (see the Antikythera).
But that technology - if indeed it was lost - disappeared following the
invasion of the barbarians. You are proposing the loss of technology in a
time of peace with no change in society.
> At least, it deserves certainly more research and an authorization from
> the egyptian authorities to let them check the theory. Don't you agree?
No. Not without some actual evidence that the Egyptians could make this
"concrete".
Kendall K. Down
firs...@lastname.net (Florian) wrote:
> In contrary to Davidovits and his "all cast stones" theory, this one
> should make everybody happy.
That's true - in the same way that a mix of genuine and forged bank notes
should make everyone happy.
George
Kendall K. Down wrote:
> In message <1hpu2sp.1a0ayf2mxi6cvN%firs...@lastname.net>
> firs...@lastname.net (Florian) wrote:
>
> > It is just a suggestion among others but I don't think it is unlikely.
> > For example, the correct mixture ratio could be a secret detained by
> > only a few people. It won't be the first time that advanced technics are
> > lost (see the Antikythera).
>
> But that technology - if indeed it was lost - disappeared following the
> invasion of the barbarians. You are proposing the loss of technology in a
> time of peace with no change in society.
>
> > At least, it deserves certainly more research and an authorization from
> > the egyptian authorities to let them check the theory. Don't you agree?
>
> No. Not without some actual evidence that the Egyptians could make this
> "concrete".
>
Of course there are always the mud brick pyramids as per (The Abu Roash
Lepsius Mudbrick Pyramid)
Scarcely concrete :-)
Florian
> Look, this started with your writing:
> >BTW, There were no more than 2,500 people working on the pyramid (See
> >Lehner's works). That is perfectly compatible with predominant molding
> >process, not with carving ones which would need 10 to 40 time more
> >people. Right?"
>
> It's clear that you include carving and moving the stones in your 2500.
> You claim it would take at least 25000 people to carve the stones.
I stand corrected, that was wrong.
> And my number included moving them.
So that's 5,000 (see NOVA interview) not 25,000 like you claimed:
"Working *on* the pyramid, that doesn't include people doing the
quarrying for a start.
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/pyramidworkforce.htm
20000 to 25000 that says."
> So will you please acknowledge that you were wrong and stop this faffing
> about?
Only idiot dont change their mind. I read more stuff and got a better
grasp at the estimates. I was wrong. You did not better by defending an
extreme view with thousands of carvers.
Florian
> Whatever it is proposed the ancient Egyptians did, it was not using
> any material resembling in a chemical what is now regarded as
> concrete. The source materials and their chemistry is entirely
> different. The name of the subject of this thread is entirely
> misleading.
Indeed. "Reconstituted stone" is probably more appropriate.
Florian
> > So you don't think that experience and perhaps different techniques
> > would have made any difference? And I wonder how many hours they worked
> > a day?
>
> Not to mention saws and chisels specifically designed for
> cutting that type of stone. Also not to mention the jibs and scaffolds
> the egyptians had inplace to remove the stone and get it out of the work
> areas.
I just reported that Lehner worried the reproduction was not completely
accurate because of the iron tools used. But I suppose it is still a
better estimation than your experience. Right?
Florian
> And I presume people who have never layed concrete are impressed
> with the first discussion of it.
that reconstituted limestone can't be handle like concrete because it is
simply not concrete. as someone pointed out, the term concrete is
misleading.
> You mean they had to be rolled downhill first?
No. I mean that there is no water inthe wadi outside of flooding period.
> What does characterizing this kind of limestone have to do with
> showing it is concrete?
There are no natural limestone with these characterics (except for the
bubbles according to prd). Personally, I've never seen natural
limestones with bubbles.
> One would expect visual inspection to be sufficient to establish
> whether or not it is in fact concrete.
That's what Barsoum is actually claiming. You have too look carefully,
though.
> > Again. The process described by Davidovits does not involve as much
> > extensive burning.
>
> Any burning is more expensive.
Davidovits says that the bakery itself provided enough ashes for the
reconstituted limestone.
Florian
> Yes, since those are the rocks Morris (1994) identified as kaolin
> rich. I suspect the wadi they are talking about is the Lesser Wadi
> that is near the Sphinx. Of course, she incorrectly claims that bed
> portion 1i was 12 feet thick instead of 2-3 feet, and it's not kaolin
> rich either (<0.76%).
OK, now I read Barsoum's paper and I got a bit confused. According to
his paper, the soft limestone comes from the maadi formation which (if
I understood correctly) is a different geologic formation than the Giza
plateau (mokkatan). Is that correct?
Secondly, he gave some details to explain why the limestones disagregate
in water:
"According to Davidovits, the concrete is made by mixing kaolinitic
limestone (like that found within the Giza plateau) with lime, plant
and/or wood ash, and water. The water separates the clay from the
limestone, and the basic solution, resulting from the lime/ash,
dissolves the alumino-silicates. With time, the alumino-silicates react
with the alkali hydroxide to form sodium and/or potassium poly-silico-
oxo-aluminates, a glue he labeled a geopolymer"
Now that's a bit more sophisticated than simple disaggregation in water.
You should read Barsoums paper. The evidences from the microstructure
analysis are very strong.
I have another question, since you seem to have great expertise in
geology, do you confirm prd's claim, that it is possible to find bubbles
in natural limestones?
Florian
> No. Not without some actual evidence that the Egyptians could make this
> "concrete".
I read Barsoum's paper today and the actual evidence you're asking for
are in there. But did you read it?
prd
> Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> Whatever it is proposed the ancient Egyptians did, it was not using
>> any material resembling in a chemical what is now regarded as
>> concrete. The source materials and their chemistry is entirely
>> different. The name of the subject of this thread is entirely
>> misleading.
>
> Indeed. "Reconstituted stone" is probably more appropriate.
Its not reconstituted stone either, is basically dried
calcerous mud with aggregate. Compress it, overlay it with
other minerals wait several million years, then its stone.