Posted on 12/01/2006 3:55:23 PM PST by Rodney King
The dressing could not be soft cast chalk- with the blowing sand from the desert next door it would be eroded away in a nick of time. If anything, the pyramid exterior needed to have been made of the hardest materials available, for the whole point of having a pyramid is its extreme durability. To cast the pyramid interior [the bulk of its volume] would take a lot. And allowing the soft castings to settle and harden to the depth of the pyramid dimension would take longer than the whole reign.
That surprises you...WHY? What good would their TIVO have been to them, without TVs?
Did you read the article?
The theory is that limestone concrete (limestone slurry mixed with lime from ash and salt) was used near the top of the pyramids. The pyramids were covered with a veneer of limestone slabs originally, IIRC, and are long gone. Recycled into other stuff.
I read it, and see it as bunk. limestone concrete is about as hard as classroom chalk, which is an extremely lousy building material.
I agree with you.
The last people on the planet I'd ask how to move a giant heavy object using only muscle power and simple tools would be some egghead scientist that has never lifted anything heavier than a full size webster dictionary.
I've seen these silly shows on cable where so called expert historians recreate the moving and setting of stonhenge or statues of easter island or some such silliness. They are very funny. These clowns should stick to books. They don't know jack about manual labor. You'd get much better theories from a grizzly old retired master rigger.
I would argue that hauling a block up there isnt' any harder than hauling that much concrete up there. I think this is all quackery and only morons would buy it.
Actually, the more I think about it, I think hauling the block would be easier.
You are probably correct. I imagine they pondered this thought. Now, when we speak of now, it is interesting, but why does it matter? It really is not that anyone any more has learned from past mistakes or from past successes! Heh heh
The Egyptians used a limestone based mortar or cement, but did not use concrete per se..
IIRC, while there was some use of the egyptian cement in casting, such castings were decorative, not structural..
Natural progression of an architectural style of building..
Take a look at the earlier "Step Pyramid" which closely resembles the remains of the Great Pyramids we see today..
Likewise, the pyramids of South and Central America, and those of Mexico..
Additionally, the "Ziggurat" of the Sumerians or Babylonians.. ( thought by many to be the original "tower of babel" design )
When viewed through the eyes of history and architecture, it becomes fairly obvious how the pyramid's form came to be..
As for curved or round line and form, the Egyptians were pretty much confined to what may have been termed "megalithic" construction.. much like stonehenge, but on a grander, more complicated scale..
Regardless, it was still beam on pillar.. straight lines..
The concepts of the arch and dome came later..
Not only that, it was Redi-Mix. They found the trucks.
Roman concrete is also not the same as our concrete. I studied concrete in college. I remember reading somewhere that no one knows how the romans made concrete. THat technology was lost. Modern concrete was discovered/invented in England or Scotland during the industrial revolution if I remember correctly, and it is different than roman concrete.
I've never heard of egyptian concrete untill reading this thread. I'm concluding that it isn't really concrete at all but more like a high strength plaster that can be ground up and re-used over and over again just like plaster of paris. You can't do that with concrete. It is an irreversable chemical reaction with H2O. ONce its hard, adding water wont soften it up, and grinding it up and mixing with water will only give you wet rocks and sand.
Here's a thought for you ~ it was undoubtedly mud, and the mold had a large block of limestone in it.
The limestone would "float" on the mud and thereby be lifted to a higher elevation.
The Egyptians would not have had to have thought much about the matter to adapt the hydraulics they saw in front of them every day to the moving of stone. They invented trigonometry without having to go through the tedium of first inventing algebra and geometry.
Exactly..
As noted in the article, the Egyptians used a type of "cement", not "concrete"...
It was the Romans that discovered / invented the use of an "aggregate" to make concrete..
History does not show the Egyptians making that crucial step..
This would be a totally new use of cement for Egypt, as so far their cement was used for decorative castings of statues, and small ornamental architectural features...
It is, however, possible..
Commonly referred to as the "Ziggurat".. An advanced form of step-pyramid..
This form was also common in ancient Babylon / Sumeria / Assyria..
The Mob back then, must have made a killing off that much concrete.
A pyramid is nothing more than a really nice pile. There's nothing amazing about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.