Pyramids built from concrete blocks

[M. Porcius Cato]

From today's NYT:

 

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.

 

 

[Pertinax]

I presume this will now produce a great re-calculation of build time, and a re-evaluation of the conventional wisdom as regards the use of slave labour.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I hope you're right. The notion that the pyramids were built with slave labor richly deserves to be re-considered.

[Primus Pilus]

And it shows that the Egyptians were not as smart as the ancient inhabitants of modern Bosnia... who let the earth build their pyramid for them.

 

(Sorry I couldn't resist )

[Pertinax]

And it shows that the Egyptians were not as smart as the ancient inhabitants of modern Bosnia... who let the earth build their pyramid for them.

 

(Sorry I couldn't resist )

 

I feel that I now hold the moral high ground, having firmly ignored the Bosnian use of turf and plants as a pyramid facing material.

 

 

So , the idle thought flickers across the mind , was mass concrete a more widely used technology in the Ancient World than we suppose? Especially in the consideration of very large volume/resource intensive (people and goods) projects.

[Marcus Caelius]

I presume this will now produce a great re-calculation of build time, and a re-evaluation of the conventional wisdom as regards the use of slave labour.

 

Read further, in the same article:

 

Zahi Hawass, secretary-general of antiquities in Egypt and director of the Giza Pyramids excavations, said in an e-mail message,

Edited December 1, 2006 by Marcus Caelius

[Pantagathus]

Zahi Hawass, secretary-general of antiquities in Egypt and director of the Giza Pyramids excavations, said in an e-mail message,

[Marcus Caelius]

Hawass may be right but he doesn't just let scientists just go out on their own and take chuncks off of pyramids to study at their whims. His office had to have approved the study. Right?

 

So? Approving a study does not inherently require assent to its findings. I don't see your point.

[Pantagathus]

So? Approving a study does not inherently require assent to its findings. I don't see your point.

From what I understand of Hawass it usually does.

 

Either way , all I'm saying is that Hawass' statement is odd in that he says: "where did he get the samples he is working with, and how can he show that the samples are not taken from areas that have been restored in modern times"

 

I assume that means that Hawass isn't implying that the study was illegal or done without his consent, just that he hasn't seen the full data; which I would imagine would have indeed cataloged the exact locations around the pyramid where samples were taken (since it says in the article the samples came from numerous locations). This leads me to conclude that Hawass (as usual) is already dismissive of the report without having actually seen the whole thing.

[DecimusCaesar]

This is pretty funny in a way. I posted a while ago about 'The New Chronology' hypothesis in the Pseudohistory thread, about how history only began a thousand years ago, and that the The Romans should have existed in the Middle Ages. Now we have one group of archaeologists claiming that the famous statue of the Wolf suckling Romulus and Remus to be dated from the Medieval era.

 

The New Chronologists also claimed that the Pyramids were made out of concrete. Now we have archaeologists saying the same. The New Chronologists must be proud. But then again they say that Archaeology is useless, so they can't claim that these ideas for their own. I bet they regret saying that about archaeology right now. And I'm sure they will still take these ideas and claim that they are the truth, and that their hypothesis is right.

[Marcus Caelius]

I assume that means that Hawass isn't implying that the study was illegal or done without his consent, just that he hasn't seen the full data; which I would imagine would have indeed cataloged the exact locations around the pyramid where samples were taken (since it says in the article the samples came from numerous locations). This leads me to conclude that Hawass (as usual) is already dismissive of the report without having actually seen the whole thing.

 

I still don't get your concern. I'm not acquainted with the personalities concerned, but it's bad science to adopt an attitude one way or the other until the evidence is in and analyzed. Forgive me for saying so but, not being acquainted with you, either, it appears from my vantage point that you could be judging the argument by the proponent.

 

Just thinking it through, I'm always leery of test results and such that initially appear to challenge or invalidate an accepted position, especially if I have some sort of investment in that position. If I'm eventually proven wrong, well, I'm proven wrong. However, I really dislike those occasions where I've admitted error too soon.

[Pantagathus]

I still don't get your concern. I'm not acquainted with the personalities concerned, but it's bad science to adopt an attitude one way or the other until the evidence is in and analyzed. Forgive me for saying so but, not being acquainted with you, either, it appears from my vantage point that you could be judging the argument by the proponent.

 

I'm really not concerned as I have no vested interest in either side of the coin. But you are correct in presuming that I am judgmental of Hawass!

 

Really not a big deal MC, please forget I made a fuss over it.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Frankly, I'd never even heard of Hawass before, and I thought his argument was fishy-sounding too. The samples taken were clearly not limestone given the patterning, whereas they were completely consistent with concrete. Additionally, the concrete patches that were added later were external rather than internal, whereas those of the new analysis seemed to have been taken internally. Finally, there is the circumstantial evidence: the motive for using concrete was present (it's easier to work with than giant limestone blocks); the means for producing concrete (all the ingredients were present on site); and the opportunity for producing concrete was present (they had plenty of skilled laborers on hand to do the work). Sure, if we had a comprehensive record of every repair ever done, we could rule out cross-contamination, but that's really in Hawass' court not the authors'.

[Marcus Caelius]

Sure, if we had a comprehensive record of every repair ever done, we could rule out cross-contamination, but that's really in Hawass' court not the authors'.

 

Err, no.

 

Guys, I am quite literally a card-carrying skeptic, and the rules of evidence are the same for debate, science, law, archaeology, etc. The person making the claim bears the onus of persuasion. If the possible use of concrete in the original construction of the pyramids is something new, then it is up to the proponent to present and argue the meaning of the evidence. If a more prosaic explanation for the presence of the concrete exists, then that explanation must be overcome by the new evidence.

[Rameses the Great]

I really don't care for these theories. Until we start making facts instead of making myths and possibilities, I don't see the reason in making this a big deal.

 

Besides I highly doubt concrtete blocks can last in the desert for more then 5,000 years.

 

 

I say get some fact and data, until then Egypt as always is the Land of Mystery.