History Online

World History Online | world history with timelines | historical topics | Online resources for historians

My Photo
Location: United States

Friday, January 26, 2007

Were the Pyramids Made With Concrete?

Concrete one was spilled to construct great pyramids approximately 5,000 years ago, according to the controversial investigation, that suggests the old Egyptans predated the Romans by thousands of years as the inventors of the concrete one. Michel Barsoum, professor of materials who directs in the university of Drexel in Philadelphia, and colleagues disclose in the present application the newspaper of the society of American ceramics that the pyramids were constructed with a combination of stones and blocks carved of the concrete one stone-based.

The study, drawn in an investigation done in in the middle of the Eighties by the French materials scientific, Jose Davidovits, consists of a detailed examinaci of the samples taken from pyramids and their vicinity.

The aim was to determine if the materials of the pyramid are natural or synthetic. "Davidovits proposed that the blocks of the pyramid were thrown in situ, with a wet mixture of particles of the limestone stone and a folder, tamped in molds," wrote to investigators. In time, the demanded French scientist, the wet mixture hardened in a concrete one that offered the aspect and the characteristics of the native limestone stone. But the evidence lasts lacked theory Davidovits' and was rejected extensively by the community of Egyptologist.

The belief of many years is that the pyramids were constructed with the carved blocks of the limestone stone of next mines. The blocks were cut to form with the copper tools, they transported to the site of the pyramid and later they carried upon enormous inclines and of system in place using wedges and handles. Using the exploration and electronic microscopy of the transmission, Barsoum and its fellow workers, hug of Gilles of the aerospace agency national French of the investigation, and Adrish Ganguly of the university of Drexel, analyzed and compared the mineralogy of a number of samples of the pyramid with six diverse samples of the limestone stone of its vicinity.

They found that the samples of the pyramid offered the quotients mineral that did not exist in any sources known of the limestone stone. "The conviction of the discussion is the presence of amorphous SiO2," the news this Barsoum of the discovery. "On sedimentarias rocks, the SiO2 is crystalline almost always." It also observed that some samples of the calcite and the dolom'a taken from samples of the pyramid offered the catched interior of water molecules , he said, this is not again a phenomenon found in nature. The investigators think that a concrete one of the limestone stone, call geopolymer, was used for, at the most, 20 percents of the blocks in the external and internal covers and the superior parts of pyramids.

Davidovits, itself, stone-basing on the institute of Geopolymer in Saint proved a prescription makes specific. It concluded that the Earth diatomaceous (a ground formed by the decay of the very small organisms called the diatomeas), the dolomite and the lime was mixed in water to produce to clay-like mixture. This was what they would have spilled Egyptian the old ones in wood molds in Giza to obtain concrete blocks in some days.

In fact, with this prescription, Davidovits produced a great concrete block of the limestone stone in ten days. The investigators need that concrete one that he spills would have saved the old constructors to use escarped inclines to push stones the summit of pyramids. Zahi Hawass, head of the supreme advice of Egypt of antiques, dismissed the theory like "improbable." It observed that the concrete era widely used in pyramids in the modern work of the restoration, suggesting the equipment could have taken samples from these modern cuts.

But Barsoum rejected such critical. "It would have to be a complete and complete idiot to confuse the cement of Portland to which mountain range," he we said. Walker de David, geologist of the university of Colombia, said that Barsoum and the colleagues have a strong case when in view of the mineralogical constitution of shavings of the block they examined. "Both sides in this controversy have good points. Some blocks are definitively natural and some are not," said Walker, adding that the excess of the mystery how Egyptian the old ones could have spilled the concrete one it is "that captive more".


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home