Египетские пирамиды (из камня или бетона?)

soft, marly kaolinitic limestone of Giza that was readily disintegrated in water and mixed with locally available lime and natron.

 

Fakir> Хотя... не удивлюсь, если есть кто-то, кто выдумал и геополимерный "бетон" из какого-нибудь экзотического вяжущего, и убеждает, что он по свойствам и виду схож с гранитом

These synthetic stones are in fact re-agglomerated materials. The process is explained in more detail later in the book. Basically, the principle is as follows: starting with a mineral substance such as eroded, disintegrated or naturally disaggregated rock – such as the limestone found everywhere in northern France – we give it a compact structure using a binder, a geological glue that will agglomerate (or re-agglomerate) the mineral particles. The result is a rock that looks perfectly natural: in our case, for example, an extremely solid limestone similar to certain types occurring naturally. A geologist would notice nothing unusual. Only a very close observation of the binder can reveal the synthetic nature of the rock, because the particles themselves are without question limestone
– or granite or whatever you like.

 

PSS> И здесь сразу возникает новая большая проблема. Дело в том, что древние Египтяне были не дураки. И известняк для больших пирамид добывался из карьеров всего в нескольких километрах от них.

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu

// Download Limit Exceeded

 

Analysis done by the German geochemist D.D. Klemm [1] showed that 97 to 100% of the blocks come from the soft and argillaceous limestone layer located in the Wadi, downwards the Giza Plateau. According to the Egyptologist Mr. Lehner [2], the Egyptians used a soft and crumbly limestone, unusable for hewn stones. The workmen did not choose the hard and dense limestone located near the pyramids, with rare exceptions for later restorations. The geologist L. Gauri [3] showed that this limestone is fragile, because it includes clay-like materials (in particular kaolinite clay) sensitive to water which explains the extreme softness of the Sphinx body, whereas its head, cut in the hard and dense geological layer,resisted4000 years of erosion.This soft argillaceous limestone, too fragile to be a hewn stone, is well adapted to agglomeration. Moreover, it naturally contains reactive geopolymeric ingredients, like kaolinitic clay, essential to manufacture the geological glue (a binder) and to ensure the geosynthesis.

It was not required to crush this stone, because it disaggregates easilywith the Nile water during floods (the Wadi is filled with water at this time) to form a limestone mud. To this mud, they added reactive geological materials (mafkat, a hydrated alumina and copper silicate, overexploited at the time of Kheops in the Sinai mines) [4], Egyptian natron salt(sodium carbonate, massively present in Wadi Natrum), and limecoming from plants and wood ashes [5]. They carried this limestone mud in baskets, poured it, then packed it in moulds (made out of wood, stone, crudebrick), directly on the building site. The method is identical to the pisé technique, still in use today. This limestone, re-agglomerated by geochemical reaction, naturally hardens to form resistant blocks. The blocks thus consist of 90 to 95% of natural limestone aggregates with its fossil shells, and from 5 to 10% of geological glue (a cement known as "geopolymeric" binder) based on aluminosilicates.

 

According to Guy Demortier [12], re-agglomerating stones on the spot greatly simplifies the logistic problems. Instead of 25,000 to 100,000 workmen necessary for carving [13], he deduces that the site occupancy never exceeded 2,300 people, which confirms what the Egyptologist Mr. Lehner discovered with his excavations of the workmen’s village at Giza.

 

The geochemical study mentioned earlier,
for instance, by D. D. Klemm, a German geochemist from the
University of Munich, presents an unusual new dimension to
the puzzle [14].
Klemm presented data at the Second International
Congress of Egyptologists, held in Grenoble, France, in 1979.
As mentioned, he attempted to determine which quarries
provided blocks for the Great Pyramid. His team sampled
twenty different building blocks from the Great Pyramid. The
team also sampled twenty geological sites along the Nile,
excluding those of Tura and Mokattam on the east bank, which
are in a restricted area. The team then compared trace
elements in the pyramid samples with those of the quarry
samples.
Based on his analyses, Klemm reported that the twenty
pyramid blocks he sampled came from the different
geological sites he visited. In other words, he concluded that
blocks for the Great Pyramid were hauled from sites hundreds
of miles away from the pyramid itself. This presents a
dramatic conflict. Legend has it that the blocks came from
Tura and Mokattam (not tested by Klemm). Geologists who
have performed petrographic analyses affirm that the blocks
for the Great pyramid were quarried at Giza. Now a
geochemist has determined that the blocks came from sites
hundreds of miles away. The paramount problems Klemm’s
study poses threaten all logistical studies made so far on the
Great Pyramid. In 1988, at the Fifth International Conference
of Egyptologists, Cairo, Egypt, Klemm presented new data
obtained with different and less sophisticated tools. He was
able to show that the stones match those of the Giza quarries
(see for more details in Appendix II: The Circuit at Giza).

 

According to Guy Demortier [12], re-agglomerating stones on the spot greatly simplifies the logistic problems. Instead of 25,000 to 100,000 workmen necessary for carving [13], he deduces that the site occupancy never exceeded 2,300 people, which confirms what the Egyptologist Mr. Lehner discovered with his excavations of the workmen’s village at Giza.

[12] G. Demortier, La construction de la pyramide de Khéops, Revue des questions scientifiques, Bruxelles, 2004, Tome 175, p. 341-382
[13] M. Lehner, The Complete Pyramids, Thames and Hudson, 1997, p. 224