The Surprising Truth Behind the Construction of the Great Pyramids

  • Thread starter Thread starter Evo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Construction
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The construction of the Great Pyramids involved onsite formation of limestone blocks rather than traditional quarrying methods. Research led by Barsoum revealed that the casing stones were made from a reconstituted limestone with unique chemical properties, including silicon dioxide nanoscale spheres, indicating they were not natural limestone. This challenges the long-held belief that the pyramids were built by slave labor, as the blocks could be cast in place, simplifying the construction process. The findings suggest advanced ancient Egyptian techniques in material science and construction.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of limestone and its properties
  • Familiarity with scanning electron microscopy (SEM) techniques
  • Knowledge of ancient Egyptian construction methods
  • Basic principles of material science and cement chemistry
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the chemical composition of ancient building materials, focusing on reconstituted limestone
  • Learn about the applications of scanning electron microscopy in archaeological studies
  • Explore ancient Egyptian engineering techniques and their advancements
  • Investigate the historical context of labor practices in ancient Egypt
USEFUL FOR

Historians, archaeologists, material scientists, and anyone interested in ancient engineering and construction methodologies will benefit from this discussion.

  • #31
Evo said:
Yes, it was Joseph Davidovit's theory that Barsoum was asked to verify.

Joseph is David's son.
 
Science news on Phys.org
  • #32
cyrusabdollahi said:
The pyramids were never made by jewish slaves. Thats just myth from the bible.

I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but the Bible says they made bricks. First using straw as an ingredient, then, as a punishment, without straw. That they worked on Pyramids is just another myth from the movies.

Exodus 5:5-10 -
5: And Pharaoh said, "Behold, the people of the land are now many and you make them rest from their burdens!"
6: The same day Pharaoh commanded the taskmasters of the people and their foremen,
7: "You shall no longer give the people straw to make bricks, as heretofore; let them go and gather straw for themselves.
8: But the number of bricks which they made heretofore you shall lay upon them, you shall by no means lessen it; for they are idle; therefore they cry, `Let us go and offer sacrifice to our God.'
9: Let heavier work be laid upon the men that they may labor at it and pay no regard to lying words."
10: So the taskmasters and the foremen of the people went out and said to the people, "Thus says Pharaoh, `I will not give you straw.


Check this out. Possible hints to how the heavy blocks, possibly even the 70 ton granite blocks, were manuevered:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pCvx5gSnfW4"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
chemisttree said:
Joseph is David's son.
In your own link, all references are to Joseph Davidovits. I don't find a mention of a David Davidovits anywhere and all credit for the theory appears to belong to Joseph.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Evo said:
In your own link, all references are to Joseph Davidovits. I don't find a mention of a David Davidovits anywhere and all credit for the theory appears to belong to Joseph.

Yes, of course you are correct. I don't know how I remember Davidovits' name as David... but it is wrong.
 
  • #35
Evo said:
I actually argued against someone here when they suggested the blocks were formed and not natural because I had not seen any proof otherwise, now I admit I was wrong.

You might be referring to me. From a thread a couple years ago:
zoobyshoe said:
I saw a thing on TV a few years ago in which it was claimed that when moving a pyramid block around to measure and weight it, it broke in half and they found hairs inside, sticking out of the rock. This could only happen if the blocks were cast. I have no idea if that story is true, though. Casting the pyramid blocks in place would have made the construction easier since you can transport your materials in much smaller, easier to handle quantities.

In any event, I should think it would be a fairly easy matter to settle from mineral analysis.

Evo said:
Actually, the outer limestone casing was blocks of limestone that were polished, it wasn't a layer of a cement like substance.

The earlier 5th dynasty pyramids were made with brick, perhaps the show you watched was about one of these pyramids?

zoobyshoe said:
I don't think so. This particular guy was maintaining that the Egyptians had cast all the blocks in place with a special formula. This split block incident was the main reason he seemed to think this.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=95538&highlight=pyramids
 
  • #36
zoobyshoe said:
I saw a thing on TV a few years ago in which it was claimed that when moving a pyramid block around to measure and weight it, it broke in half and they found hairs inside, sticking out of the rock. This could only happen if the blocks were cast. I have no idea if that story is true, though. Casting the pyramid blocks in place would have made the construction easier since you can transport your materials in much smaller, easier to handle quantities.

In any event, I should think it would be a fairly easy matter to settle from mineral analysis.
Eerily prophetic zoob. Yes, you were right.
 
  • #37
if the stones were cast why is their so much variation in the block sizes.
 
  • #38
ukmicky said:
if the stones were cast why is their so much variation in the block sizes.
Probably due to the multiple forms for the casting.
 
  • #39
Artman said:
I don't want to turn this into a religious debate, but the Bible says they made bricks. First using straw as an ingredient, then, as a punishment, without straw. That they worked on Pyramids is just another myth from the movies.




Check this out. Possible hints to how the heavy blocks, possibly even the 70 ton granite blocks, were manuevered:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pCvx5gSnfW4"


Wow! I love watching videos of regular guys off the street that come up with very clever ways of moving big stone blocks. Thats fantastic!

I saw another very similar thing on TV for raising Obelisks. You dig a pit, and with some ropes and a simple structure above, you let the obelisk slide into the pit and start pulling on the ropes to help tip the structure upright. Once your done you just fill the hole back up. Really ingenious stuff.

This is the kind of stuff I like. So simple, that its not simple at all, but very very clever.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #40
Evo said:
Probably due to the multiple forms for the casting.
but even in them days it would have made sense to make a standard sized cast.
 
  • #41
ukmicky said:
but even in them days it would have made sense to make a standard sized cast.
You'd think.
 
  • #42
cyrusabdollahi said:
I love watching videos of regular guys off the street that come up with very clever ways of moving big stone blocks.

:smile: your taste in videos is incredibly specific!

wow that video is amazing. I watched it without sound but that thing where he tips the stone from side to side is freakin' brilliant in a jar.

This is the kind of stuff I like. So simple, that its not simple at all, but very very clever.

I know! it always amazes me... the incredible (or frustrating if you're in the sciences or arts) thing about 99% of all brilliant ideas is that they all have that "ughh! I could've thought of that!" element to them. So simple and elegant that it never occurs to one to look there.
...
take the sliced-bread wheel, for example... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :biggrin:
some day it'll catch on.
 
  • #43
ladies and gent's ,
read this carefully

http://www.cmc-concrete.com/CMC%20Seminars/2007%20ICMA%20Pyramid.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
Well, at least we still have Stone Henge to impress us, with the earlier builders' ability to move extremely heavy objects.

[PLAIN]http://www.dailyventure.com/400x300/stonehenge_07.jpg


What about those obelisk? Aren't those evidence of quarrying at least?

[URL]http://www.richard-seaman.com/Travel/Egypt/Aswan/AroundAndAbout/UnfinishedObelisk.jpg[/URL]

Would seem stupid to mold something in a rock quarry, miles away from it's intended destination.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
FrancisZ said:
Well, at least we still have Stone Henge to impress us, with the earlier builders' ability to move extremely heavy objects.

[PLAIN]http://www.dailyventure.com/400x300/stonehenge_07.jpg


What about those obelisk? Aren't those evidence of quarrying at least?

[URL]http://www.richard-seaman.com/Travel/Egypt/Aswan/AroundAndAbout/UnfinishedObelisk.jpg[/URL]

Would seem stupid to mold something in a rock quarry, miles away from it's intended destination.

but many chemists and others of archaeology say the geopolymer is impossible because of we must have great furnaces to burn these stones and no evidence for these furnaces found
what about that?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #46
lunarmansion said:
Slaves labored at the pyramids. Hebrew means "dirty feet" in Egyptian, that is, people have no fixed home and wander looking for work. I do not see why Jews were not among the workers, if not the only workers, who labored at the pyramids.
Hebrew mean 'cross over' in Hebrew. It is not for certain that the Jews were ever slaves in Egypt, but if they were, it was 1000 years after the construction of the great pyramids at Giza.
 
  • #47
Jimmy Snyder said:
Hebrew mean 'cross over' in Hebrew. It is not for certain that the Jews were ever slaves in Egypt, but if they were, it was 1000 years after the construction of the great pyramids at Giza.

so you mean the theory of the slaved blocks of pyramids is fake >>>>>
 
  • #48
aeacfm said:
so you mean the theory of the slaved blocks of pyramids is fake >>>>>
No, I left open the possibility that they were built by Egyptian, or some other slaves.
 
  • #49
ok any way this is not my idea
i mean which is stronger :
carved blocks or geopolymer blocks that's what i want to deal .
what do you think ?
 
  • #50
Artman said:
Possible hints to how the heavy blocks, possibly even the 70 ton granite blocks, were manuevered...

Seeing videos like this, I applaud our early human ancestors! Truly amazing people, given what they had to work with.

I think some early humans were far, far more capable than we give them credit. I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover teens building palm-leaf model gliders and launching them from cliff-sides 100,000 years ago.

What I wouldn't give for a time machine...
 
  • #51
aeacfm said:
but many chemists and others of archaeology say the geopolymer is impossible because of we must have great furnaces to burn these stones and no evidence for these furnaces found
what about that?

Sorry...are you agreeing with me, or disagreeing? I mention the unfinished obelisk in Egypt (bottom picture) because I had doubts about the Egyptians using casting techniques strictly. It would seem, as in the case of the unfinished obelisk of Aswan, that they at least quarried granite blocks.
 
  • #52
seems like if you were going to make casts, you might as well also make interlocking shapes to increase structural stability.

also, where would you get all the lumber to burn to make quicklime?
 
  • #53
I had no clue about this until this thread, thanks Evo!

Oh, and for people talking about Jewish slaves in Egypt, the historical record is clear (wrong time period), but also keep in mind that the Passover story is a parable; it doesn't need to be taken literally. Unlike some religions (not naming names *cough really was a Noah's ark *cough*) fundamentalist Judaism still acknowledges that the Pentateuch was at best a divinely inspired construction of humans. AFAIK, only Islam claims that its scripture is the unaltered and literal word of god... and maybe Mormonism... I don't know.
 
  • #54
Proton Soup said:
seems like if you were going to make casts, you might as well also make interlocking shapes to increase structural stability.

also, where would you get all the lumber to burn to make quicklime?
It's granular limestone aggregate.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1551-2916.2006.01308.x/abstract
 
  • #55
Evo said:
It's granular limestone aggregate.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1551-2916.2006.01308.x/abstract

i would like to see them duplicate it, but it seems as if they are still not clear on that.
 

Similar threads

Writing: Read Only What Does Great Lakes Earth Look Like from Space?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K