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….