Re: Egyptian monuments, Pyramids packed with fossil shells

On Apr 28, 10:08 pm, "Peter Jason" <p...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Well, I dunno!  Didn't the Romans and others
throw all sorts of debris into their
hydraulic concrete?

"Jack Linthicum"
<jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
messagenews:11f433bc-b11a-4010-80c9-817624986f58@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Random distribution of fossil shells in the
blocks that made up the
Egyptian monuments imply the creation of
the blocks from natural stone
rather than molded as some scholars
contend.

"To further their argument, the scientists
say the x-ray patterns
detect no presence of lime, which would be
expected along with the
salt natron, which would indicate cast
materials."

Pyramids packed with fossil shells

Monday, 28 April 2008 Jennifer Viegas
Discovery News
Sphinx and pyramid

Were Egypt's great ancient monuments carved
from stone or cast like
concrete? New fossil evidence, found intact
and embedded in the
monument walls, reignites the debate

Many of Egypt's most famous monuments, such
as the Sphinx and Cheops
pyramid at Giza, contain hundreds of
thousands of marine fossils,
according to a new study.

Most of the fossils are intact and
preserved in the monument walls,
giving clues to how the monuments were
built.

The authors suggest the stones that make up
the Giza plateau, Fayum
and Abydos monuments must have been carved
out of natural stone as
they reveal what chunks of the sea floor
must have looked like over
4000 years ago, when the buildings were
erected.

"The observed random emplacement and
strictly homogenous distribution
of the fossil shells within the whole rock
is in harmony with their
initial in situ setting in a fluidal sea
bottom environment," write
Professor Ioannis Liritzis and his
colleagues from the University of
the Aegean and the University of Athens.

The researchers analysed the mineralogy, as
well as the chemical
makeup and structure, of small material
samples chiselled from the
Sphinx Temple; the Osirion Shaft; the
Valley Temple; the Cheops,
Khefren and Menkaure pyramids at Giza;
Osirion at Abydos; the Temple
of Seti I at Abydos; and Qasr el-Sagha at
Fayum.

X-ray diffraction and radioactivity
measurements, which can penetrate
solid materials to help illuminate their
composition, were carried
out.

Granite, sandstone, limestone

The analysis determined the primary
building materials were pinky
granites, black and white granites,
sandstones and various types of
limestones.

The latter contained numerous shell fossils
of the genus Nummulites,
simple marine organisms whose name means
'little coins'.

"[At Cheops alone they constituted] a
proportion of up to 40% of the
whole building stone rock," the researchers
write in the latest issue
of the Journal of Cultural Heritage.

Nummulites that lived during the Eocene
period around 55.8-33.9
million years ago are most commonly found
in Egyptian limestone.

Fossils have also been unearthed at other
sites, such as in Turkey and
throughout the Mediterranean.

When nummulites are bisected horizontally
they appears as a perfect
spiral. Since they were common in ancient
Egypt, it's believed the
shells were used as coins, perhaps
explaining their name.

Fossils of their ancient marine relatives -
sand dollars, starfish and
sea urchins - were also detected in the
Egyptian limestone.

Intact fossils throughout the stone

The fossils are largely undamaged and are
distributed in a random
manner within the stone, in accordance with
their typical distribution
at sea floors.

So, Liritzis and his team argue that the
large building stones used to
construct the monuments must have been
carved out of natural stone
instead of cast in moulds.

To further their argument, the scientists
say the x-ray patterns
detect no presence of lime, which would be
expected along with the
salt natron, which would indicate cast
materials.

They also point out there are no references
of moulds, buckets or
other casting tools in early Egyptian
paintings, sculptures or texts.

Carved or cast?

Joseph Davidovits, professor and director
of France's Geopolymer
Institute, formulated the theory that
natural limestone was cast like
concrete to build the pyramids.

Davidovits says that Liritzis and his team
"should have taken into
account the scientific analysis" he and
other researchers conducted
before backing the carved-not-cast
hypothesis.

Robert Temple, co-director of the Project
for Historical Dating and a
visiting research fellow at universities in
the US, Egypt and Greece,
has also studied Egypt's monuments.

He agrees with Davidovits about the
casting.

"There is no evidence known that suggests
the ancient Egyptians had
cranes," he says. "Without cranes, it is
difficult to imagine how they
could have lifted giant stones, some as
heavy as 200 tonnes."

Temple, however, agrees about the
importance of the fossils.

"Egyptian pyramid blocks of limestone tend
to contain fossil shells
and nummulites, often huge quantities of
them, many of them intact,
and many of them of surprisingly large
size," he says.

"Frankly, not many people pay attention to
the shells, which I have
always thought was a shame. 'Seashells in
the desert' - a good story."

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/04/28/2229383.htm?site=sc....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Romans used aggregates mainly for the purpose of
lessening the density of concrete at points where
stress was reduced. The concrete of the dome of the
Pantheon, for example, becomes gradually lighter as
the elevation increases by the use of various
aggregates; the area around the apex is a mixture of
concrete and tufa.

The Romans, however, used pozzolana, a high quality
concrete much like modern Portland cement, which sets
by combining chemically with water. This is different
than simple lime mortar, which is produced by adding
water to a mixture of quicklime and sand, and sets when
all the water has been evaporated into the atmosphere
or absorbed into the surrounding masonry.

Christopher Ingham

.

Relevant Pages