Slashdot Mirror
Pyramid Stones Were Poured, Not Quarried
brian0918 writes "Times Online is reporting that French and American researchers have discovered that the stones on the higher levels of the great pyramids of Egypt were built with concrete. From the article: 'Until recently it was hard for geologists to distinguish between natural limestone and the kind that would have been made by reconstituting liquefied lime.' They found 'traces of a rapid chemical reaction which did not allow natural crystallization. The reaction would be inexplicable if the stones were quarried, but perfectly comprehensible if one accepts that they were cast like concrete.'"
Nothing new, other than maybe they are saying we can now confirm it was concrete with modern analysis techniques.
Which is PLENTY of reason for news, even if the theory was widely believed.
I mean, there's a theory that the Sphinx was built about 10,000 years earlier than was previously thought, by an entirely different civilization. It's not widely believed, but the guy does have some evidence.
As for the current theory, I doubt *IT* was widely believed either. I've watched a few shows on Egypt, and never heard of it before now.
Because blocks are the most practical solution?
It isnt really viable with bronze age technology to do large scale in-place casting.
So with blocks, they could be prepared nearby, and when cured be put in place.
The big advantage is not that they dont have to be lifted up, but that they dont have to be fetched from distant quarries.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
We never prove a hypothesis, we just find supporting evidence.
The difference is about the same as someone asking you to move 2000lbs of sand from your driveway to your roof using a ladder and someone asking you to lug a single 2000lb solid rock to the top of your roof. There's a big difference in logistics.
Umm, no. We accept a hypothesis after rejecting alternative hypotheses. Strictly speaking, science never proves anything. This concept is at the core of the scientific method.
Actually, that's not the main difference that's noted in this discovery. After all, the pyramids builders did achieve mind boggling feats of logistics anyhow. The main difference is that it was thought that concrete had not been invented until the Romans. That's a 2500 years difference in dating an invention that's so critical to civilisation.