Giza

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:52 pm

Listen, if we can determine the constituent chemical/physical elements and their relationships of exo planets 3,000 light years away, what's the fff-ing problem with a heap of stones in a big sand box, hey?

That's really a very good point.

Rokcet Scientist · Post by **Rokcet Scientist** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:57 pm

But what difference does it make whether those blocks were hewn or cast? Assuming they were concrete doesn't get us any closer to the how-they-fff-ing-built-them-pyramids! It would still involve schlepping those blocks 450 feet up a steep incline. Or are you suggesting they cast them in situ? In which case horrendous amounts of dry concrete and water would have had to have been schlepped up that steep incline... Naaah, not a likely scenario.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:07 pm

True. They could have made it out of mud brick and would still face the problem of humping it 450 feet up.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 11:34 am

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/04/2 ... egypt.html

The study's authors suggest that the stones that make up the examined monuments at Giza plateau, Fayum and Abydos must have been carved out of natural stone since they reveal what chunks of the sea floor must have looked like over 4,000 years ago, when the buildings were erected.

"The observed random emplacement and strictly homogenous distribution of the fossil shells within the whole rock is in harmony with their initial in situ setting in a fluidal sea bottom environment," wrote Ioannis Liritzis and his colleagues from the University of the Aegean and the University of Athens.

The researchers analyzed the mineralogy, as well as the chemical makeup and structure, of small material samples chiseled from the Sphinx Temple, the Osirion Shaft, the Valley Temple, Cheops, Khefren, Osirion at Abydos, the Temple of Seti I at Abydos and Qasr el-Sagha at Fayum.

X-ray diffraction and radioactivity measurements, which can penetrate solid materials to help illuminate their composition, were carried out on the samples.

Today we have an article on a study done on some of the Giza rocks. It doesn't say if the the stones tested in the Pyramids were from the upper teirs or not. But the ones tested were the original rock cut limestone, full of sea shells.

kbs2244 · Post by **kbs2244** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:35 pm

I think the argument is that the concrete stones were cast in place.
That is why they fit so close.
And even though they are big, the material could have been brought up in relatively small multiple batches and poured into a common mold.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:41 pm

kbs2244 wrote:I think the argument is that the concrete stones were cast in place.
That is why they fit so close.
And even though they are big, the material could have been brought up in relatively small multiple batches and poured into a common mold.

That's the way I understand it also, KB. But the article I posted above refutes the theory about concrete. That is, if they tested the right blocks.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:53 am

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articl ... atest+news

"It could be they used less sweat and more smarts," said Linn W. Hobbs, professor of materials science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Maybe the ancient Egyptians didn't just leave us mysterious monuments and mummies. Maybe they invented concrete 2,000 years before the Romans started using it in their structures."

That's a notion that would dramatically change engineering history. It's long been believed that the Romans were the first to employ structural concrete in a big way, although the technology may have come from the Greeks.

A handful of determined materials scientists are carrying out experiments with crushed limestone and natural binding chemicals - stuff that would have been readily available to ancient Egyptians - designed to show that blocks on the upper reaches of the pyramids may have been cast in place from a slurry poured into wooden molds.

MIT? Those guys don't fool around. This article has more info on the concrete pyramid issue than I've heard before.

Cognito · Post by **Cognito** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:29 am

From the article:

"Zahi Hawass, head of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, minced no words in assailing the concrete idea. "It's highly stupid," he said via a spokesman. "The pyramids are made from solid blocks of quarried limestone. To suggest otherwise is idiotic and insulting."

Well, there's an open mind for you.

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:47 am

One wonders what the back story to the MIT report is, though. Have they examined the structure and concluded that the big-stones-up-a-ramp theory is patently impossible and started looking for reasonable alternatives?

The one thing that cannot be denied is that the Giza pyramids exist. I've yet to see a convincing theory on how they were built.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:48 am

So exactly who is insulted, and why would inventing concrete be a cause for an insult? Am I missing something?

Cognito · Post by **Cognito** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:42 pm

So exactly who is insulted, and why would inventing concrete be a cause for an insult? Am I missing something?

You're missing nothing - but you are watching arrogance in action. Apparently, Zahi considers his opinions superior to the scientific process.

I really don't give a rat's ass whether the MIT experiment works out or not, but it is in the best interest of knowledge to test any hypothesis. At issue is whether it was possible to bind materials available to the Egyptians into large blocks. To call the MIT experiment "stupid" is, in itself, ignorant. The professor is on record as saying he doesn't care about the outcome one way or another - something that a biased Zahi might want think to about before he shoots off his mouth.

Who gives a crap whether the Egyptians poured a small portion of the pyramid or not? It won't change ancient history - after all, the pyramids will still be there no matter what we believe about their construction. Poured or not, they are a miracle of engineering in the distant past.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:47 pm

Cogs, I couldn't agree more. In fact, I would be even more impressed with the AE's if they were the first to invent concrete.

BTW - don't miss the new study by Bednarik in the Out of Africa Busted thread. I look forward to your opinion.

Thanks for the pmail.

kbs2244 · Post by **kbs2244** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:40 pm

My finding out about of the ego of Zahi I owe it to this site.
I had some idea about the influence of ego in the Israel archeological world, but just never thought about it elsewhere.
MIT vs. An Egyptian political appointee may be an interesting contest to watch.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:42 pm

That contest is No Contest!

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat May 24, 2008 9:36 am

A long and multi-faceted discussion of Sirius, the Great Pyramid and math from Al-Ahram in Cairo.

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/898/heritage.htm

A problem of interest therefore is to be able to calculate approximately the epoch when the Great Pyramid was erected, given the culmination of Sirius at that time. Since the maximum altitude of the star is given from the relation: Amax = 90 -- latitude angle of the pyramid + declination of Sirius, where Amax is taken as the complement of the pyramid face angle, and the latitude angle of the Great Pyramid is 29.97921389 (from Google Earth and matching with M. Lehner results on the Giza Plateau), it follows that the declination of the star at the time of erection equals approximately -21:52. From the table of Sirius declination, the Great Pyramid must have been erected in c. 2825 -- 2800BC; offsetting Al-Falaki's results.