©2009 by Raymond Alexander Kukkee
The Great Cheops Pyramid of Egypt
"The way of human nature is to do the impossible in the easiest possible way." Build a huge pyramid in part by forming concrete stones? "
How were the Great Pyramids in Egypt really built? Estimated to be over 4500 years old, it has been proudly postulated and historically promoted that to build the ancient megalithic structures, great stones, some weighing as much as 70 tons, were quarried, sawn from solid rock, and then hauled, carved, and fitted together so tightly a piece of paper cannot be inserted between them. The likelihood of that process being successful 4500 years ago naturally inspires much skepticism and logically encourages healthy debate and scientific challenge. Were the stones of the pyramids cut or cast? A gargantuan construction project, by any standard, the size of the pyramids and the engineering concept required almost defies thought, and rightfully invokes wonder, pride and suspicion . The Great Pyramid alone covers almost 13 acres, is about 454 feet in height (40+ stories in modern terms) and is estimated to be built of some 2.5 million blocks of stone that occupy a total volume of approximately 90,000,000 cubic feet. That pyramid, however constructed, is an astounding accomplishment by ancient builders using considerably more primitive tools and methods than are available today. The construction method has, however, been brought under new scrutiny and drawn much further into question by research conducted by Michel Barsoum, a professor at Drexel University's Department of Materials Science and Engineering in Philadelphia . ( The fascinating story " Pyramid Scheme" was reported by Patrick Rapa in Philadelphia's CityPaper, Jan 21, 2009 ) ¹ Citing substantial and inexplicable differences in the makeup of the stones themselves, Professor Barsoum has suggested that the stones were cast on site using a form of reconstituted limestone cement, a material suggested to be far superior to modern Portland cement. The only materials needed would be water, lime (manufactured by heating limestone) limestone rubble, and diatomaceous earth. The unique consistency of the cast stones may be an anomaly in history. Chances are good that Michel Barsoum, at Drexel University for 20 years, has the concept right that the great pyramids were built, at least in part, by casting a type of cement to create the huge "stones". That possibility has been raised in spite of the reportedly strenuous, not unexpected and vitriolic objections of Egyptologists that insist upon the traditional and romantic building theory as the only possible building method. There are a number of additional, interesting, and significant reasons why Professor Barsoum's concept may be reasonable and far more important than just dabbling in wet concrete, even though Egyptologists may express much dismay at the thought. 1. Concrete Forming " The way of human nature is to do the impossible in the easiest possible way." Build a huge pyramid in part by forming concrete stones? Forming of concrete block is not difficult regardless of size. The materials need merely to be mixed with water to a thick consistency, placed in a form, and allowed to set. For purposes of large numbers of blocks or a structure, one block formed and allowed to set would simplify the casting of the second adjacent block and subsequent blocks, which could easily, and quickly be "poured" using adjacent and previous blocks as the "form". The resulting joints between the "stones" would, indeed, be tight, narrow and perfect, defined only by the shrinkage of the drying material. Logically, carrying baskets of concrete mix, dry or wet, somehow seems much easier and more logical than pulling 70 ton stones for miles across soft desert sands and 400 feet atop a structure using primitive sledges, rollers and ramps. 2. Current and Previous Knowledge of Rubble Fill Concrete Construction Methods: It has been known for centuries that field stone, virtually any suitable stone made available, trimmed or not, or "laid up" dry brick has been used as rubble fill in hollow concrete wall and brick structures to act as filler, ballast and a load-bearing component. This economical practice minimizes the amount of concrete, brick, or finished block required to build a masonry structure. It may be more than coincidence that a hole blasted in the south face of the Great Pyramid by a British Egyptologist H. Vyse (ref. Vyse's Hole)² in the 1800's reveals substantially irregular inner stones, with erratic, uneven and very loose jointing, as compared to the perfectly formed and jointed interior passage lining stones, the exterior stones, and particularly , the magnificent casing stones and their paper-thin jointing. 3. Work with Concrete: Dedicated doubters and other critics may quickly expound the theory that "form marks" are absent from the pyramid stones. That objection is without foundation. Any capable, modern mason can confirm that for the initial period after concrete first solidifies, if a form is removed, the surface can be reworked , troweled, filled, corrected, carved, and smoothed to perfection. forming marks may be completely and easily removed. After concrete sets hard and has achieved full strength, it can be also substantially ground, cut, and even polished to a very high degree of lustre if desired. Modern polished and ground terrazzo might be a fine example of the closest modern equivalent. 4. Mineralization of the "Stone" It could be reasonably predicted that stones formed of concrete made with various available components such as lime, diatomaceous earth, Nile river mud and crushed limestone, to the naked eye, would appear to be virtually indistinguishable from, and as durable as natural stone after 4500 years in desert heat. Mineralization, a rock-forming and continuous process, is indistinguishable except by microscopic study, and can be clearly differentiated to compare artificial (cast) and natural stone. A technology unavailable in 19th century evaluations, modern X-ray diffraction and thin-section petrology is capable of discerning differences and the chemical makeup of cementaceous materials in comparison to that of natural stone. Concrete continues to harden for many years as a result of mineralization processes, which makes the concrete harder and more durable. As an aside, durability of cast stone is not the issue; even ordinary wood infused by siliceous solutions, or preserved by lime is highly durable. Examples of "stack wall" buildings, an ancient technique in which short lengths of dry wood were piled and assembled to form structural walls using lime mortar, still exist in parts of Europe and are known to be over 1,000 years old. A lime mortar was used to assemble the "stack walls" and even hide the exposed ends of the logs. The wood is preserved by the penetrating, mineralizing, preserving effect of lime. Petrified wood is another example of the same 'mineralizing' effect. 5. Rammed Earth Techniques used on Older Pyramids Rammed earth involves pounding, "ramming" or compressing a dampened mix of earth and sand into a wooden form. Commonly used in the past, and even now returning as a form of environmentally friendly wall construction, rammed earth walls are ancient technology, and were invariably protected by overhanging roofs, or in the alternative, coated with a "mortar", a limestone "stucco" or a "casing stone" to prevent the erosion of the earth wall. Older, unprotected and poorly preserved pyramids in Egypt built using a similar process have deteriorated into "heaps" of crumbling blocks seemingly ill-constructed and were more likely built of a combination of early rammed earth construction, a mix of sand, soil, clay, and water, or even earlier versions of unproven concrete mixes. A fine example of poor construction is the Pyramid of Unas, which is little more than a heap of crumbling blocks and mud. Considering the eternally hopeful, reasonable and evolution deemed necessary in civilization's construction and engineering techniques, it can be easily hypothesized that builders of subsequent pyramidal construction projects were most likely to use existing, known and successful techniques --but also include new and "better"materials and techniques as well. As a matter of the advancement of civilization alone, the use of improved "cement" instead of rammed earth may be easily hypothesized to be a natural evolution, an improvement, and a substantial advancement in building technique. 6. Protective Sheathing Stones, or a Thick Masonry Coating?
The Pyramid of Unas
