The Surprisingly Plausible Theory that the Pyramids were Poured from Ancient Concrete

The Egyptian pyramids at Giza are ancient, breathtaking, and mysterious. Despite centuries of study, there's a lot we still don't know about them. How did the people of ancient Egypt carve the stones so precisely, transport them, lift them, and keep such a massive structure level? Yeah, some say it was aliens from outer space, but French materials scientist Joseph Davidovits came up with a more plausible idea.

According to Davidovits’ theory, the blocks were not quarried and transported to Giza but rather cast in place in wooden molds. This would account for the extreme precision of the pyramid’s construction, as the initial liquid state of the limestone concrete would have made the blocks self-levelling and allowed for extremely thin seams between blocks. This technique was also ideal for use on the Giza plateau, which has abundant supplies of soft, crumbly limestone otherwise unsuited to large-scale construction.

Davidovits tested his idea by making blocks out of materials that would have been available to the pyramid builders. He presented his theory to the public in 1988, and immediately encountered the wrath of Egyptologists. So are the building blocks of the Great Pyramid made of stone or some composite material? Read the tale of Davidovits’ theory at Today I Found Out.

(Image credit: L-BBE)


Newest 5
Newest 5 Comments

There shouldn't even be speculation on this topic. If the blocks were poured, we would see obvious signs of that, like layering and bubbles. We would also see isotopic telltales of the wood burned to activate the lime used, and archeological evidence of the vast pits where this work was done. Instead, as noted above, we can see identifiable fossils in the blocks, and we can walk around in the quarry where they were cut.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The slave issue is being questioned as more evidence of the housing, wages, food, beer, and general logistics of the project, and the lives of the laborers is uncovered. The prevailing theory now is skilled construction workers and stone cutters. Actual papyrus writings have been found that detail the movement of supplies to the site of Khufu's pyramid.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
What a crock! OP should have consulted a geologist or at least wiki. The blocks used for construction are not poured. As Ken above noted, there are fossils in them and by studying the stone itself they have identified the quarries the stone came from.
A fallacious article like this is beneath even Neato's editorial capabilities.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
These bogus claims are so tiresome. The ancient Egyptians' knowledge of concrete is IRRELEVANT! The pyramids are made from cut blocks of limestone that have known and identified fossils that are MILLIONS of years old. It did not take alien technology or time travelers or any other bulls!t. They used decades of time and hundreds of thousands of slaves to build them. Period.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Knowledge of concrete construction was lost about the same time Rome stopped being the capital of the empire. It wasn't until 1903 that it was used once again. My opinion is that the outside blocks were quarried and the vast majority of the inside was poured.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.
Email This Post to a Friend
"The Surprisingly Plausible Theory that the Pyramids were Poured from Ancient Concrete"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More