The case for poured pyramids

This is very interesting material. Thank you for sharing it.

So... how does one haul concrete to the top of the pyramid?

Maybe some of the stones were carved and some were poured. Several sources on the net seem to think that at least a portion of the stones in the pyramids were poured from a local formulation of concrete.

Interesting hypothesis. Thanks.

So... how does one haul concrete to the top of the pyramid?

In buckets. Has to be easier than hauling multi-ton carved stones to the top of a pyramid.....

I think this is the first Gunga topic I found genuinely interesting Thanks gunga!

This is a good one, I'd never heard of the poured pyramids theory and it's a compelling one.

You're kidding right? Is this some kind of gullible society hoax?

Fountainofignorance added to ignore list along with parados and setanta.....

For disagreeing with you? Hardly a way to debate. I too dont find the evidence compelling because samples of the face stones and gallery stones have been analyzed under polarized light and found to be sandstones all. These SS's were common varieties from the surrounds of the plateau. COncrete was pretty much a Roman invention because of the addition of flyash to achieve a pozzolonic reaction like Portland Cement. Im open to convincing data but Im skeptical at this point.

The Czechs advanced this theory in the 1960s when they were closely examining the pyramids. This was at the time that Nasser was trying to get the UAR off the ground, and sucking up to the Soviets for aid. The Czechs also made extravagant claims about the "preservation properties" of pyramids (as though being in a desert weren't explanation enough), and were also trying to sell little pyramids in which you keep your razor blades so that they'd be eternally sharp.

I believe their theory forty years ago was poo-pooed for much the same reasons that FM has just given.

For being an idiot.

We should start two pools. One will be for how long it takes Gunga Dim to put everyone on ignore. The other can be for how long after that it takes him to realize there's no one for him to talk to.

I did a quick search for the geological maps of the Egyptian plateau. The limestones that would have to be used for concrete are not (IMHO) conducic=ve to wearable concrete. When we mine limestone for concrete, we look for rock with high Calcium Oxide and LOW Magnesium Oxide. The reason is that, when the stuff is crushed and baked, the two different oxides develop different crystal system when rehydrated and dried to form concrete. Magnesium concrete forms crystals in an orthorhombic matric. Ortho.. xls are quite "Soluble". In the industry its called "Mexican Concrete" (Any of you whove ever traveled to Mexican Riviera hotels will notice that they are always patching the stucco walls of the hotels. Thats because theyve used a High Mag cement.
All the limestones around the palteau are dolostones , or Magnesian limestones and dolomites, thats not great cement rock. In fact, with any rains at all, the pyramids would be rubbleized in 2500 years.

The argument that the Romans made concrete first is more compelling to me. They had good and bad limestones in Italy and (by dumb luck because they didnt have AA machines). They did have dry vocanic ash deposits that can be mined and fluffed and baked to form a very good quick set concrete that even set under water, when mixed with baked limestone powder.

Im not saying that theres no evidence of any concrete in the Pyramids but Im dubious that it would even have the strength to act as bearing frame. Im puzzled by the "hair" found inside a pyram id rock. I think that this needs better documentation than the article posted. The pyramids are massive structures and in many areas the inner and outer structures are filled with ordinary rubble, so was some of this rubble a kind of early concrete "adobe"? reclaimed from another site?
Its interesting and worth discussing but, call me unconvinced.

I wanna be on gunga's ignore list !!!! WAAAAAAAH!!

This theory has been discussed in history magazines (again) about three years ago, since a French magazine ("Science et Vie") had a main story about it.

Some material (in French) from the Institut Géopolymère: a report, the "prove for the theory" and "the concrete stones' formula".

Thanks walter. (Im really bad in French, I only got main sentences). However, the NMR data and the reactions presented are not greatly different from low temp curing of adobe. The minerals listed are all evaporitic deposits .

WhT NEEDS TO BE DONE IS A MAP OF WHERE THESE SUUPOSED CEMENT ROCKS WERE FOUND. tHERE MAY BE A PATTERN WHERE "CEMENTITIOUS STUFF" WAS USED TO SAVE TIME
iM REALLY DUBIOUS OF workers hauling buckets of wet concrete up and down ramps and then being form set without any evidence of "bad batches" or even the tools. How about kilns and mixing areas (you wouldnt need a big area if you were only making an adobe). COncrete blocks of a ton or more would leave a big working area . Wheres a "dump area"? I think that, to credibly pose this argument, some srcheologists had better come up with tools and some signs of the industry. Im willing to consider the adobe concept and surface ardonemnet or tunnel liners , because there is ample evidence of plastering and painting of temple interiors from Old Kingdom sites, and theres plenty of anhydrite around for a weak concrete that would give those high Aluminum readings in the NMR.

The fact is, the roman concrete industry has left great big feetprints of quarries, kilns, and pozzoloni sites. These can be seen from air photos for Chrissakes. Where are they in Egypt?

My usual disclaimer is that I have no dog in this fight. Im just a skeptical bystander whose used to a little more rigor in "settled science" pronouncements/

Surely there would be archaeological evidence of moulds. Plus instructions on how to mix concrete. None of these have been found I assume. I mean in the real world.

My GUESS as to what was going on...

I'd assume that they were simply pounding stone out in chunks up to around 50 lbs, loading it on wagons to be pulled to the site by oxen or elephants, filling framers with it, and then pouring some sort of liquid in which congealed the whole to resemble a carved stone to some extent.

Davidovitz and others believe the Egyptians may have had technologies for dealing with stone which surpassed ours. They had, for instance, vases made of diorite and similar stuff too hard to work even with steel tools at a time when they supposedly didn't even have steel.
'

pozzolonic cements need to be baked first so they can quickly hydrate and set up. Otherwise youd just have adobe and thats already known to have been available by all the fresco plaster panels on temple walls. Cement is not just smashing rocks and mixing with water.
Working stone jugs (like diorite or basalt) has been an industry that was available in the Middle Kingdom where there was evidence of large pole lathes that were similar to the mechanisms used in shadoofs. Lathing is an interesting industry because, though it presupposes the wheel, many civilizations had pole lathing and wheel pottery but did NOT have the wheel for vehicles. Egypt did have wheel carts and then later, chariots and large conveyance skids and carts

Cracking rock with other rocks is not really "advanced" technology, rock is easily worked no matter how hard(anyway diorite isnt very hard because its got a lot of feldspar that is relatively soft to working.

Abrasion of rock was a way to get very accurate fit in masonry walls (think Inca walls at Machu Pichu). Its a labor intensive but accurate way to make close tolerance fits.

Olmec stones are, to me, even more remarkeable.