Posted on 12/31/2001 12:33:44 PM PST by John Farson
Like millions of tourists, from the Ancient Greeks on, the Blairs may have been victims of one of the world's oldest confidence tricks when they walked round the Pyramids on the Prime Minister's holiday trip to Egypt.To the uninitiated eye, the 2.3 million blocks of stones rising to a 146-metre peak on the 4,500-year-old Great Pyramid near Cairo look as solid as pure granite. But French architects and scientists believe they are nothing more than weathered concrete blocks, moulded on the spot, stone by stone and layer by layer, from the ground upwards.
The theory, being explored by scientists at Montpellier University, has thrown Egyptology into turmoil. It could destroy thousands of years of speculation on the greatest of all riddles of the sands, one that has fascinated Hollywood and made fortunes for novelists such as Christian Jacq. Researchers believe that only the reluctance of the Egyptian authorities to allow more samples to be examined stands between them and final proof.
Joël Bertho, an architect and specialist in trompe-l'oeil, used his expert knowledge of reconstituted stone to explain how easy it was to pass off concrete and mortar for real carved stone. 'It needs a trained specialist to identify the basic material,' he said.
'The Egyptians had mastered many techniques of plaster and mortar and knew all about making bricks. 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. I have even been able to identify frame marks left by some moulds.'
The theory, set out in a book called La Pyramide Reconsti tuée (Unic), is largely based on the precision of the joints between the stones. 'Joints are invisible and it would be impossible to pass a cigarette paper between them. To carve blocks of solid stone to tolerances of hardly a millimetre would need incredible skill without the benefit of machine tools.'
Montpellier was drawn into the research because Bertho is designing a scientific park in the city. At its Laboratoire de Tectonophysique, Suzanne Raynaud has cut samples of stone from the Great Pyramid into thin slices to examine under a microscope. 'I went from surprise to surprise,' she said. 'The arrangement of micro-fossils had been disturbed, which could be explained by the manipulation of reconstituted stone. The components of what appears to be solid stone could have been crushed or passed through a sieve before being put into moulds.'
Other tests are under way but another top scientist, Claude Gril, said they were unlikely to be conclusive without comparisons between the blocks of stone in the pyramid walls and material from quarries where they are found. 'Unfortunately, the Egyptian Antiquities office is opposed to more detailed research, which we are carrying out with a Belgian nuclear laboratory, and will not allow more samples to be gathered for comparison,' he said.
As a result, a hunt has started among Egyptology collections in Europe, including a Rouen museum which has a rock from the Great Pyramid in its reserve. A Paris laboratory has declared that the stone is a form of mortar, but there have been protests from several Egyptologists who say Bertho's theory is nonsense.
If the claim is proved, it would destroy pages of speculation on how the pyramids were built. But until the mould theory is proved or shattered, the dominant opinion will remain Cecil B. De Mille's images of slaves and whips.
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.
My thoughts too.
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.
the Mafia cement contractors from New Jersey.
A friend from my teenage years had a cousin 'Tony' who was the stereotype!
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.
The Aztecs, the Maya and the Incas did it. Why not the Egyptians?
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.
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.