Archaeologists, Engineers, Scientists, Mathematicians, and Builders, have argued for many years about the construction methods employed during the erection of the Pyramids – the best known of which, is the Great Pyramid, and is the oldest of the seven wonders of the ancient world, and the only one that remains mainly intact.

The Great Pyramid is also the oldest and the largest of the three pyramids in the Giza Necropolis, bordering what is now El Giza, Egypt.

So how were they constructed?

According to the Daily Mail, who on the 30th of April 2014, published a story which alleged that the mystery of how the massive blocks used in the construction were transported, had finally been ‘solved’ – by using ‘Wet Sand’.

The BBC Wales website, on the 17th of December 2013, published a story about Peter Jones, an engineer from Newport, Wales, who’s Company, Cintec has been restoring the Egyptian pyramids for the last 18 years.

He alleged that from what he has observed from working deep inside the structures, that they were built from the ‘inside out’, as they are so gargantuan that ramps at least a quarter of a mile long would have been required to reach the required height.

He also says that if that had been the case, then there would still be visible evidence that the ramps had been there, which he has found no trace of.

Those two stories are among literally hundreds of theories published by the mainstream, both in print and online, and all but a few, work on the premise that the pyramids were constructed from quarried stone and transported by some means or another to the places they occupy today.

Theories as diverse as being rolled on Palm logs, dragged by thousands of captured slaves, being pulled by camels, transported on reed ‘stretchers’ and even ‘floated’ into place by damming and re-routing the Nile at strategic points – have all been presented, among many others by way of a possible explanation.

All of these theories have their supporters as well as their detractors, and some of these, however bizarre and inaccurate they may appear to be, have persisted for many years.

But what if the pyramids were not constructed of quarried granite, locally sourced or otherwise – at all?

And what if the massive blocks were somehow ‘Cast in Place’, as opposed to being manually hauled overland from, as some theories suggest, quarries situated many miles away?

Would that answer one of the most enduring questions of the ancient world?

Some eminently qualified people have certainly considered that idea, as the respected American Concrete Institute in 1991, definitely looked at the possibility of such a method being used

“Overview of the case for the cast-in-place theory of pyramid construction which proposes that Egypt’s Great Pyramids are made of geopolymeric limestone concrete blocks rather than of natural, quarried limestone. Archaeological, engineering, geological, and chemical arguments are presented, along with conclusions from stereomicroscopic examination and thin section analysis. A new and impartial engineering study is called for that will determine whether or not building the Great Pyramid was possible assuming the blocks were carved and hoisted.”

Twelve years previously, in 1979, a Dr. Klemm, a qualified mineral expert, analysed 20 different rock samples from the Great Pyramid and concluded that each stone came from a different region of Egypt.

However, each sample contained a mixture of ingredients from the various regions.

Also, during the test processes he used, he found too many air bubbles and that the density of the granite was massed to the original base of the block.

The Director of the Institute for Applied Archaeological Science at Barry University, Miami, Professor Joseph Davidovits thinks that the historical arguments about scaffolding, ramps, sleds, ropes, pulleys and tree trunks are completely irrelevant.

He has suggested that the builders of these monuments used material, ‘not unlike concrete’.

Davidovits, in the ‘Revue des Questions Scientifiques 1986’ stated that the Great Pyramid has also been subjected to electromagnetic readings, where high frequency waves were shot through the rock, which scientists believed to be completely dry.

They expected to receive ‘bounce-back’ from the waves (which are used to discover anomalies and/or additional passageways.)

What they did not expect was that the rock would completely absorb the HF waves, which showed that the blocks that the Great Pyramid was constructed from, contained more moisture than natural rock.

Therefore, it was the conclusion of Professor Davidovits, that the monuments were built from ‘artificial stone’Concrete.

Davidovits then experimented with ancient Egyptian recipes in order to recreate the cements and concretes he believes were used.

He found that the result was a quick drying, well-balanced concrete, which made it far more resistant to the Egyptian environment – than any similar product currently in use.

As for the true purpose of the Great Pyramid?

That may, in all probability, turn out to be something altogether different to what the mainstream media outlets, archaeologists, and specialist historians, have argued about for so long and so passionately about also….

12 thoughts on “CONCRETE EVIDENCE

  1. Brilliant JJ – opens up the way to so many more hypotheses. I believe the main reason for the ‘building from the inside out’ theory is that the granite sarcophagus in the Kings Chamber could not possibly have ben sited after the Pyramid was completed. PS. whatever became of the ‘shaft to the stars’ that was discovered about 10 yrs ago. The last I remember is that there was a small door -complete with metal hinges – found about half way down ! I would have thought there was ample evidence by now for there to be many more rooms and passageways within the pyramid, yet to be discovered (or should that be re-discovered).

  2. The ‘concrete’ theory would make much more sense than dragging / moving heavy blocks of stone, surely even back then people would take the ‘path of least resistance’ ? It’s like the equivalent of making a cob building I would imagine, and those skills people had slowly became eroded and forgotten as newer modern methods came into play. I’m sure the concrete mix would have been perfected years before the pyramids and would have been a normal method of construction but because they were so large they had to be made into the shape they are, a bit like making a sandbag house today, you start with a larger base and work your way in as you go up because this arrangement gives the building it’s strength rather than ‘modern’ buildings which have 4 vertical walls and a roof.

    Obviously a circular building would have been the strongest shape but concrete type composite materials normally need shuttering otherwise it ends up in a mess which could justify them looking like they were built of blocks.

    Something else which I wonder about is what lies beneath the sand? Cities have been lost under that stuff.

  3. Just a thought. We’re told that the pyramids were built by thousands of slaves.

    If these blocks were transported via sled using sand there must have been a plentiful supply of sand. If there was a good supply of sand then that suggests desert like conditions much as it is today.

    How could that terrain supply the food requirements of thousands of slaves?

  4. They were not slaves – they were well-fed farmers and labourers. Working in times of great food production and excess production in the most advanced country in the world at the time.
    They actually held the earliest known industrial action in demand for more pay, beer and steaks. The insctiption is carved into one of the quarries (guess what – the workers got their increase!).
    You could not get weak, underfed slaves to build those monuments, they would be incapable. They needed to be co-operative, strong, skilled teams of stone masons, builders, labourers and designers. The maths was pretty easy – even for then.
    The stone was quarried on site and the quarries are still visible (even on Google Maps). Half-cut and uncut blocksd are still in situ. Moving stones was not a problem to these guys, the whole of Ancient Egypt’s temples and obelisks and statues bear testimony to that!

    Even in Medieval times in Europe we could build towering elaborate cathedrals with little more than hammers, block and tackle and some planks.
    Now what were the pyramids for?
    Now THAT is the very interesting question. Let us get into that one please!

    1. We do know they were NOT built for burial purposes Pluto, and YES, the real purpose why they were constructed?

      Now that is where the main interest should be concentrated and the questions aimed 🙂

      1. What is the curiousity of another culture greatness? Is it to learn all their secrets and continue to take credit for their work? Peace until transition should be a goal in admiring such greatness. If they were not built for burial only, then present other facts.

  5. One reason for building them could have been to demonstrate the POWER of the Pharoahs.”Look upon my works ye mighty & despair”.A very human thing for the ruler of most powerful nation on Earth (in those days).I.E.,”I ,Pharoah, have built this BECAUSE I CAN!!.”

  6. To me, the more important question which must be considered in all of this, is the racial mixture of those who built these Pyramids? For a long time the liberals have tried to claim the builders of the pyramids, and indeed the Egyptians, were black. But many people who are in the know, most of whom are afraid to identify themselves because of anti-white racial prejudices tend to err on the side of caution, but secretly they know that the ancient Egyptians were white. I remember a quote that was attributed to Charles Darwin, whether it was from him or someone else, it remains as true today as it will in 100 years….

    Since the dawn of history the Negro has owned the continent of Africa – rich beyond the dream of poet’s fancy, crunching acres of diamonds beneath his bare black feet and yet he never picked one up from the dust until a white man showed to him its glittering light.

    His land swarmed with powerful and docile animals, yet he never dreamed a harness, cart, or sled.

    A hunter by necessity, he never made an axe, spear, or arrowhead worth preserving beyond the moment of its use. He lived as an ox, content to graze for an hour.

    In a land of stone and timber he never sawed a foot of lumber, carved a block, or built a house save of broken sticks and mud.

    With league on league of ocean strand and miles of inland seas, for four thousand years he watched their surface ripple under the wind, heard the thunder of the surf on his beach, the howl of the storm over his head, gazed on the dim blue horizon calling him to worlds that lie beyond, and yet he never dreamed a sail.” — Charles Darwin

    1. Blind or misguided Prejudice and/or fears of being seen as ‘Racist’ has prevented the truth emerging on far too many issues in my opinion Konigstiger, it has effectively kept entire nations, under the most brutal of regimes.

      Apparently, even in a ‘historical’ content, it’s still frowned upon by the Marxist/Fabian/Liberal Government policy and law makers that infest otherwise great countries.

  7. really interesting theory I find the pyramids fascinating and have visited them many times

Comments are closed.