Moderators: MichelleH, Minimalist, JPeters
They did use a type of mortar, in fact they've been dated by the organic components of that mortar.Minimalist wrote:I actually had never heard of the Egyptian pyramids using mortar before the comments attributed to Barakat. IF I were interested enough I'd go looking around to confirm that.
After checking for a while it seems that Lehner dated the Great Pyramid to 374 yrs before Khufu. Later tests came closer but still outside current accepted dates. His conclusion is that very old wood had been used that had been stored by the Egyptians.The Egyptians used gypsum mortar ... it was what was used by Mark Lehner to date the GP by C14 (charcoal bits in the mortar you see).
Lehner was just a member of the team. An article on their 2nd report is here:Beagle wrote:After checking for a while it seems that Lehner dated the Great Pyramid to 374 yrs before Khufu. Later tests came closer but still outside current accepted dates. His conclusion is that very old wood had been used that had been stored by the Egyptians.The Egyptians used gypsum mortar ... it was what was used by Mark Lehner to date the GP by C14 (charcoal bits in the mortar you see).
eratoh wrote:stan wrote:
His conclusion is that very old wood had been used that had been stored by the Egyptians.
No, it wasn't Lehner, it was a couple of geologists. Lehner may have used their work, I'm not sure, but I could give you cites to the geological papers that argue that position.Minimalist wrote:That is the kind of shit that drive me nuts about Egyptologists!His conclusion is that very old wood had been used that had been stored by the Egyptians.
So they stored up wood for 4 centuries because they knew that Khufu would need it and the other pharoahs who were ruling and building things in the meantime could go screw themselves?
Lehner is the same guy who ventured outside his field to try to show that the erosion on the sphinx was due to salt being leeched out of the sphinx by ground water.
One of the problems is that there are real archaeological sites with real man-made, i.e. Roman, structures lie on the hills being dug up. Thus, the Bosnian "pyramids", as visualized and interpreted by Sam Osmanagich, are chimeras, much like Archaeoraptor, composed of unrelated parts, i.e. jointed bedrock and man-made tunnels. In this case, the supporters have no real evidence that the tunnels, possibly ancient copper mines, and real man-made structures are connected specifically with the hills, which they claim to be pyramids, in any direct way. They are making assumptions about such connections and then claiming them to be fact without any real evidence.DougWeller wrote: What is worrying is that I have seen photos of bits of real ruins dug up from the 'Pyramid of the Sun' where we know the Romans, for instance, built.
This is the primary reason that the majority of conventional archaeologists are concerned about the digging done by Sam Osmanagich. Nobody worries about the "research" being done by Greg Little on the Bimini Wall because no conventional archaeologist accepts it as being man-made. As long as alternative archaeologists are not trashing real archaeological sites in their work and wasting only their time and money, conventional archaeologists (and geologists) have better things to do with their time to comment on every psuedoarchaeological site, which appears on the Internet and are quite content to let them work away undisturbed.Doug also wrote:I will bet that they are not keeping the information archaeologists need, sketches, exact locations of everything they find, etc.
