Riddle of the Pyramids: Why De Mille didn't need all those slaves

The Observer ^ | Sunday December 30, 2001 | Paul Webster in Paris

[lonevoice]

Agreed. In fact, what I most like about this theory, is the fact that the debate continues. We still don't know.

[Restorer]

Where did they purchase the rebar or other structural steel for the pyramids?

Darn good point! Large blocks of cast concrete tend to crack and split unless reinforced heavily with steel or some other material. I doubt modern technology could built blocks this way without reinforcing them.

[ambrose]

Home Depot.

[My2Cents]

So, what's the article trying to say? That the slavery of Hebrews is a myth? This should fit-in well with those who think the Holocaust was fantasy....

[aculeus]

Hmmm. Basically I like it!

[dennisw]

I assure readers that one can readilly tell the difference between cut stone and concrete.

My thoughts too.

[Carry_Okie]

Where would they get the energy to make steel? Really. The trick to a rammed-earth structure, (as this would be) is to use a LOT of cement and keep down the water content during forming. The material would continue to hydrate by gas-diffusion and get stronger with time. They had several factors going for them to extend the life of the structure: minimal deep freezing, good mechanical contact to improve internal conductivity and temperature stability, bajllions of minor expansion joints, few internal tensile stresses (or means to propagate them), minimal water erosion or infusion, and few earthquakes.

By contrast, how do you propose that they would split and finish thousands of large igneous blocks to 1 mm and then transport them without damage? Are they all the same size? I doubt it. It is unlikely that one could measure and replicate a block of that size to such tolerances because thermal variation in the instruments alone! Consider that a 2m copper rod would vary in length by a half millimeter on a daily basis just because of thermal variation and that assumes perfect replication in the instruments.

The interesting question about this theory is one of chemistry. Careful internal examination of a single block and some 3D modelling of any internal stratification might well be conclusive. The problem is that it would be a destructive test.

[StriperSniper]

LOL!

the Mafia cement contractors from New Jersey.

A friend from my teenage years had a cousin 'Tony' who was the stereotype!

[fish hawk]

Has anyone figured out how many yards of concrete that would be. It's about $100 a yard here on Maui. Would be fun for one of you Mathematicians to figure it out. Be sure to ping me or let me know. I'm in construction.

[mad_as_he$$]

ummm a couple of things.

1. This theory comes around about every 20 years. It has been discounted everytime by scientific evidence. The stuff is rock not concrete.

2. Nearatleast one of the pyramids the quarry pits and the remains of the ramp to the top have been found and excaveted by the scientists.

3. I believe that Grahm Hancock has the whole thing right in his books. all "believers" need to read his writings. Check Amazon under Hancock.

[uglybiker]

There is no reason why they could not reconstitute stone into blocks weighing two or three tonnes layer by layer rather than try to heave huge weights up several hundred feet without even the benefit of crude cranes.

The Aztecs, the Maya and the Incas did it. Why not the Egyptians?

[PatrickHenry]

it's an interesting idea - the whole shebang poured in situ in concrete. I'm not enough of a civil engineer to know if it were possible at that period, but it's fun to speculate.

The Romans used concrete. True, they were more than 1,000 years after the pyramids, but still, they weren't all that advanced, technologically, over the Egyptians.

[SwinusMaximus]

Read L Sprague DeCamp's book "The Ancient Engineers". It 'splains everything.

[fnord]

exactly .... just as much weight has to be moved, regardless.

[TexanToTheCore]

The fitting of blocks is eaily accomplished using a harder sand between the blocks and moving them back and forth until they fit. Using water as a measuring device, it is not at all difficult to make a flat surface. We are just used to big machinery, rather than clever use of hand implements. This is one of those theories that make the rounds every few years and is claptrap.