All  

Welcome to the Ancient-Origins.net Forums. In order to avoid spam messages, we require all users of the forum to register first.

If you are not registered please click on the Register link from the top menu. If you are registered LOGIN here.

1 post / 0 new
Pyramid Construction

In a response to The Great Pyramid at Giza largely cast in place using concrete of limestone and granite.

Casting in place would suggest casting molds producing duplicate stones, all stone sizes and their fittings are random in nature. Lets apply logic of an architect to a limestone quarry. Water level a plateau, this datum is your first side and why the pyramid is on the same curvature as the earth (the water follows that law). Layout the perimeter of the pyramid row, trench down both sides such as the left obelisk, in a square like manner. Layout your verticals and saw cut (in an illustrated sense). Undercut and breakout. Thus, you have one flat datum and two perfectly mated sides. Place your datum side on the water leveled plateau and lock it in a keep (possibly a channel for higher efficiency) and mill. From here the keep sets height. Depth is achieved in the next series of keeps/channels. In short, each tier quarried in place. Multiple rows could be accomplished simultaneously. Since tiers get smaller, the left insides could be re-utilized. This set perimeter produces high precision, production and repeatable mates. You cannot apply practical to one stone at a time. Also, the most important thing in a foundation, a perk test. Khufu's unfinished room- a place that can be observed during construction. One could say that the 1st Bent Pyramid during construction started to fail perk. The architect ended it with an abrupt angle.
In Further, the time savings alone would justify this change order of the project. Construction is straightforward resolutions other than early forms of pyramid. I am not ruling it out; it could have been very well overseen by other origins. However, I would make these points: If the stones were cast this would have been a huge technological advancement, revolutionary. Unless the stone masons (in a manner of speaking) HenryFord'ed Tesla and succeeded, they for surely would have applied it to columns and sculptures. Remnants of splash or beat out cleans of mixers, tools left casting covered (such as every home built has broken tool somewhere earthed around its vicinity) located either on site or at the quarry would have been found (such as the copper slag near Petra). Concrete in a modern sense is one of the harshest conditions applied to tools. It is a huge procession to continuous pour not to mention the draft required or in releasing a mold as well as Porosity. Without a duplicate stone, this would suggest non-reusable custom molds that had high precision in length,width and height. In addition, you would also have to include the resolve to hold all that material until cure. Although, a good way to support this theory would be to find a limestone statue or structure with the right amount of draft. I would also suggest the outer edges or voids of a natural deposit has a lot of impurity (such as straw), irregularity and different molecular arrangements. Also, being towards the top of Pyramid Khufu, the stone quality standards may have dropped due to time constraints, not needing a high structure content or just getting rid of previously rejected stones. (As all projects of this magnitude recycle into production.) The discipline for this project was to make it beyond. So, did they? To answer that you have recycle back to math for the last question. Was their cubital math correct? - Frank A.Tytar