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.'"

Comments

Re:It has to be said

[Anonymous Coward]

If you prove a hypothesis, it becomes a law rather than a hypothesis. In that sense, the hypothesis is proven and is no longer called a hypothesis.

Re:Casting Vs Forming

[DerekLyons]

My dad always used to tell me that when Alexandria was burned, all the publications holding the Roman recipe for concrete went with it. That, he claimed, was why all concrete poured was inferior to the Roman Aqueducts.

That's a nice theory - but the aqueducts were built of stone, not concrete.
 
 

The fact that the some of the aqueducts still hold their accuracy within inches of their architectural specifications after 2000 years is nothing to overlook.

Given that we don't have the architectural specifications - that's a claim utterly without support. (And given how few miles out of the original number still stand and are capable of carrying water....)
 
 

In all honesty, if you were to ask me to construct a pyramid today--knowing what I know, I would build the core of the pyramid out of laid brick. And then I would, starting from the bottom, form up the angled sides and fill in those areas. If you're wondering why I would take this route, try it with paper. Cut out blocks of paper from a notebook without making marks and try to make a perfect angled edge between them. Pretty difficult. Now try it in three dimensions with 2000 year old tools.

That says more about your [lack of] knowledge of ancient tools and building methods than it does about pyramid building techniques.
 
They had tools for both measuring and marking stone - and tools to measure angles. The had wood and tools from which to build jigs, and metals from which to build measuring rods. Using those tools - it's far, far easier to build the interior from large blocks of stone (as they did) than by forming and casting an order of magnitude more bricks.

Re:It has to be said

[ruffnsc]

It's ok, it doesn't matter if it is actually limestone or concrete. The important issue is if the British can still keep all their stolen artifacts.