http://answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20060704195516AAnrdOD
A rare instance happened in 2006 when Dr. Stephen Hawking placed this question on Yahoo ! Answers. He made us ponder about our future for a little while
How Can the Human Race Survive the Next Hundred Years?
. . . .
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
Political and social chaos has been with us for a very long time. Given the revolutions of the past and present, class warfare, and scheming of those seeking power, the human race has shown a remarkable resilience and managed to survive thus far.
The new factors in the equation of the balance of mankind and the rest of nature are the technological advances that have changed how political and social chaos can develop, and the advances in industry that have the potential to inflict serious environmental alterations.
Threats of nuclear war, biological catastrophe, and climate change now bring into question as to how humanity can continue to survive.Personally, I think that with the growth of true threats to survival, there has been growth of human ingenuity as well. We have yet to release a Frankenstein's monster of technology upon the world.
Despite the stockpiles of nuclear weapons, there has been no global warfare. Medical research is in a renaissance of advance. Climate change remains a concern, but I believe that we are an adaptable species, as we have adapted before and will again.
The larger question is how will humanity survive, which is what is asked. It's very likely that the resources of today may no longer be available in a century. But consider the resources available today that were not available a century before. As stated before, we are an adaptable species, and when one window of resources closes, it's likely that other windows will be openable. Of course, the speed that everything progresses at has increased.
Will we be able to adapt in time? Perhaps not for a lot of us, but consider that in the 14th century, the Black Death wiped out over a third of Europe's population. Yet Europe survived and prospered. We may again have a catastophe that has similarly devestating effects, but I feel confident that after the catastrophe, humankind will prosper.Why do I place this faith in humanity?
Because I must. Without the belief that we will continue to grow and overcome the pains of social chaos as we mature as a species, we might as well not have any faith at all. I'm not talking religion (although that may or may not be a part in its current forms), but simply the same belief that we will survive just as much as the sun will rise the next day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By: Stefan Anitei, Science Editor
The technology could be employed in the future
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Scientists-Prove-the-Pyramids-Were-Cast-of-Cement-55105.shtml
Scientists Prove the Egyptian Pyramids Were Cast of Cement
. . . .
. . . .
The common theory says that the Egyptian pyramids were made of carved giant limestone blocks that were carried up on ramps. But this explanation leaves a large quantity of unsolved questions. Two decades ago, Joseph Davidovits, Director of the Geopolymer Institute in St. Quentin, France, said that the pyramid blocks were made of a type of concrete made from a mixture of limestone, clay, lime, and water.
"If the pyramids were indeed cast, someone should have proven it beyond a doubt by now, in this day and age, with just a few hours of electron microscopy", said Michel Barsoum, an Egyptian born professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Drexel University and ceramics researcher.
But nobody has proven this theory till now. After one and a half year research involving also extensive scanning electron microscope (SEM), Barsoum's team discovered that the tiniest structures from the inner and outer parts of the blocks were indeed a reconstituted limestone. The binding employed for the limestone cement was silicon dioxide (the quartz mineral) or a calcium and magnesium-rich silicate mineral. The high water content of the blocks does not fit the normally dry, natural limestone encountered on the Giza plateau, either.
Moreover, the blocks have an amorphous structure (with atoms disposed in irregular arrays), while natural sedimentary limestone is normally crystalline (with atoms disposed in a regular pattern). "Therefore, it's very improbable that the outer and inner casing stones that we examined were chiseled from a natural limestone block", said Barsoum.
The presence of silicon dioxide nanoscale spheres in one sample clearly showed it was not a natural rock. The finding responds to many questions: why the blocks are so perfectly fitted that not even a human hair can be inserted between them; and why, if the blocks were carved, no copper (ancient Egyptians discovered the iron only very late) chisels have ever been discovered on the Giza Plateau.
The concrete explanation may not answer all the questions, but it’s more plausible, as it would have been almost impossible to drag the stones to the top. Moreover, the ancient technology could be even used in the future. "The basic raw materials used for this early form of concrete-limestone, lime, and diatomaceous earth-can be found virtually anywhere in the world.
Replicating this method of construction would be cost effective, long lasting, and much more environmentally friendly than the current building material of choice: Portland cement that alone pumps roughly 6 billion tons of CO2 annually into the atmosphere when it's manufactured."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25332025/
By Marcia Stepanek and Cristina Maldonado
Rockefeller 2.0: Gates Relaunches Philanthropy
Through His Foundation, Microsoft Founder is Aiming to Change Charity
. . . .
. . . .
There’s a story about Bill Gates that his wife, Melinda, likes to tell. Shortly before the couple established their philanthropic foundation in 1997, Bill carried around in his briefcase for a month an emotional letter from an American family asking him to help a sick child who needed a kidney. "Bill agonized over it," Melinda recalled at a digital industry conference last month in California. "Do you spend $20,000 on a single transplant or buy vaccines for many children in Africa?"
For the past 10 years, the Gateses have opted for the latter: "How can we do the most good for the greatest number with the resources we have?" Bill asked a sea of Harvard University graduates at their commencement ceremony last year. The answer? If you’re Bill Gates — with $37.5 billion in your foundation’s coffers and as much as $100 billion to contribute over the course of your lifetime — you do it very, very carefully, say philanthropy leaders.
With that kind of wealth comes unprecedented giving power: you have the world’s biggest foundation — the Wal-Mart of the global charity sector — and you’ve got the single most powerful leadership platform in philanthropy today. "One out of every 10 foundation dollars spent is going to have the Gates name on it, and that gives (Gates and his foundation) an influence that is impossible to calculate," says Rick Cohen, the former executive director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy.
. . . .
Adds Steve Gunderson, president of the 2,000-member Council on Foundations: "Bill Gates is now the face of philanthropy for the country, if not the world" — and like it or not, Gunderson told Contribute Media, "the Gateses will have an obligation to lead and deliver for decades to come."
Indeed, as Gates formally leaves his day job at Microsoft next week to start work full-time at his family foundation ("not to retire," Gates says, but to "reorder my priorities"), all eyes in the nation’s $300 billion philanthropy sector are focused on the man that many in the field now call "the Rockefeller of our time," the 52-year-old ex-computer nerd-turned-richest man in America (after Warren Buffett) — the guy who helped spawn the last century’s personal computer revolution and who now, with the same brainiac zeal, wants to make social problem-solving profitable, too.
The Rockefeller of his age He’s definitely got the cash. Like Rockefeller, Gates is his generation’s richest; his personal assets are valued at an estimated $50 billion, and he remains the largest single shareholder in Microsoft, with 9.6 percent of the stock, a stake currently worth $21.6 billion.
That makes for a total fortune greater, in inflation-adjusted currency, than his famous Gilded Age predecessor. Also like Rockefeller, Gates’ journey from tech-industry bad boy and cut-throat business strategist to philanthropist has been a slow and not-always-comfortable transition: Gates, early on, refused to give money away, afraid it would diminish his ability and focus on making money, he told Bill Moyers in a 2003 interview. ("I mean, is it going to erode your ability, you know, to make money? Are you going to somehow get confused about what you’re trying to do?")
. . . .
Gates Foundation by the Numbers
| 543: Number of employees at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation |
| $16.5 billion: The amount of money the Gates Foundation has pledged or given away since its 2000 inception |
| $2.007 billion: The amount of money the Gates Foundation gave away in 2007 |
| $3.5 billion: The amount of money the Gates Foundation plans to give away in 2009 |
| $37.3 billion: The total size of the Gates Foundation’s endowment) |
| $50 billion: The estimated size of Bill Gates’ personal assets |
Source: Contribute Media
. . . .
Years later, Gates still is making adjustments. During a recent trip to Africa to visit AIDS patients with Melinda, journalists wisecracked privately about Gates’ decidedly awkward "bedside manner" with patients compared to that of his wife’s during visits to the health clinics that the couple’s philanthropy is supporting. ("It’s awkward for me to be out in the field," Gates told Moyers. "I’m not, you know, particularly good at it. Maybe I’ll never be good at it … but I know it’s important. If [more] people got out like that, you know, these problems would get addressed.")
Yet also like Rockefeller, Gates believes in his own hyper-logical way that charity can and should have its biggest impact in the areas of health and education, since this can give people everywhere a better shot at overcoming their disadvantages. A Rockefeller gift led to the first successful vaccine for yellow fever: a Gates donation is supporting the quest for a vaccine against malaria, and the couple has joined fellow American philanthropist Eli Broad in his multibillion-dollar mission to reform the nation’s public school system over the next decade. Besides global health and U.S. education, the Gateses have made global development — anti-poverty work — a third key category for their giving. [....]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How long can a "Cold-Virus-Cell" live while floating around in the breeze?
I haven't been near anyone very close. I can't imagine where I would pick up my little cold... Maybe on the bus. Only God knows how many germs are living there! How long can a Cold Virus Cell live outside a "host"?
. . . .
. . . .
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
Depends on the environment. Outdoors or indoors and the temperature. Rhinoviruses prefers dark, warm, moist environments like the nose and mouth but can survive for up to several hours on most surfaces. Unless you're more or less in the direct path of a sneeze or cough, you're not likely to inhale viruses in a great enough number to cause a problem.
The viruses disperse quickly.But as I said, viruses (and bacteria too for that matter) can survive for up to several hours on most surfaces. The next time you go to the market and reach for a shopping cart, remember this. Most pathogens (disease-producing microorganisms) are transmitted by the hands.
Use the sanitary wipes (if provided) to clean the handle of the cart. Telephones are another means by which transmission is made. Handrails, doorknobs, elevator buttons. I'm sure you can think of lots of other sources. Frequent handwashing is a key factor to transmission reduction.Knowing this, I think you can better imagine where you'd pick up your little cold.
Source(s): I'm a nurse.
Asker's Comment: Perfect! Thanks for such a complete answer!
. . . .
. . . .
Depends on the the outside temperature. If someone 'spits' and they do, then the sun can start evaporation of that spit containing ? and if you walk past and inhale, sorry. I forget how fast airborne particles leave the nose when you sneeze and if they are hanging around on a nice warm day and you walk past, sorry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
timesonline.co.uk
http://digg.com/world_news/Pyramid_Stones_Were_Poured_Not_Quarried
Times Online is reporting that French and American researchers have discovered that the stones on the higher levels of the great pyramids of Egypt were built with concrete. From the article: 'Until recently it was hard for geologists to distinguish between natural limestone and the kind that would have been made by reconstituting liquefied lime.'
Pyramid Stones Were Poured, Not Quarried
. . . .
. . . .
Azur2 on 10/12/2007
This doesn't make sense. Limestone doesn't "dissolve to a slurry" in water, and even if it did, when dried again you would not get concrete. You get concrete by burning limestone (which destroys any fossils in the rock) with clay, then adding water and sand. The limestone of at least one of the Giza pyramids is fossiliferous.
. . . .
. . . .
jpwhitmore, on 10/12/2007,
Read on. The higher stones were pored thus the lower ones are natural limestone and cane be fossiliferous.
. . . .
. . . .
elraghy, on 10/12/2007,
Check this out and judge yourself. This is a presentation by the scientists www.mse.drexel.edu/max/PyramidPresentation.htm
. . . .
. . . .
ThinkBox, on 10/12/2007,
Then why didnt they just make a Giant pyramid form and pour it into that? :)
"The limestone of at least one of the Giza pyramids is fossiliferous"Certainly, sand or gravel that included fossils could have been used in the mix. Get some Portland cement, and throw a bunch of seashells and other fossils in it, along with sand...and see if it still sets up. Do this in a large container, and be sure you are standing in it at the time, just to prove your certainty that it will not set up. ;-0
. . . .
. . . .
txrat, on 10/12/2007,
Fossiliferous!
. . . .
. . . .
o0o0steve, on 10/12/2007,
Similar interesting block structures at Sacsayhuaman, in Peru:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacsayhuam%C3%A1n
. . . .
. . . .
mousy, on 10/12/2007,
Ca(OH)2 + CO2 → CaCO3 + H2O?
. . . .
. . . .
andydumi, on 10/12/2007,
Even so, pouring stones that size, that high is still a marvel of engineering.
. . . .
. . . .
hawkeye17, on 10/12/2007,
Don't buy it. It must have been the ancient aliens that built them all! It's not like humans have any capacity for creating and thinking right??!! I'm obviously joking, but is anyone else tired of cable shows speculating that ancient humans couldn't have built these great monuments without the help of some aliens or other such nonsense? Even in ancient times, humans everywhere had a vast capacity for brilliant ideas made real.
. . . .
. . . .
Azur2, on 10/12/2007,
@elraghy: Thanks. That presentation was *god-awful*. He doesn't do any detailed analysis of the stone, doesn't know which parts may be modern restaurations or whether it's using mortar, doesn't look at fossils in the stone, doesn't compare to the local stone the pyramids is supposedly built from.
He simply look at how well the blocks fit together: if they fit together well, he assumes they were cast in place, not hewn. This is particularly silly as primitive stonework without any binding material *requires* that stones fit together perfectly, cf incan stonework. It is possible parts of the stonework were cast, but I don't think these "researchers" prove anything at all.
. . . .
. . . .
ssanders, on 10/12/2007,
Hail Xenu!
. . . .
. . . .
beasty_dave_Mk2, on 10/12/2007,
Stopped reading when they said that the wheel wasn't invented by that time.
. . . .
. . . .
Photoblog on 10/12/2007
makes sense to me, you can dissolve lime and keep the fossiliferous, you just have to grind it up in larger chunks
. . . .
. . . .
Koskun on 10/12/2007
The theory that the stones of some of the pyramids being a form of concrete (I think the first commenter may be taking the definition of concrete to literally) has been around for a while now. I'm glad to see it is getting more press. How ever the pyramids were built, it is still a marvel of accomplishment, whether it was stone, concrete, whatever.
. . . .
. . . .
ghostwave on 10/12/2007
Yeah, and they used diesel fueled cranes to lift the stones in place. Sure. Concrete (cement) without steel re-bars wouldn't last 50 years dummies.
. . . .
. . . .
joeshlub, on 10/12/2007,
It's not cement. Did you even look at the article?
. . . .
. . . .
dstywho, on 10/12/2007,
how does rebar support a pyramid? Rebar is used to support concrete cantilevers and ledges where there is a shearing force. Rebar makes the concrete stronger because concrete holds better under compression rather than tension.
. . . .
. . . .
sabbac, on 10/12/2007,
Maybe you've not heard about an ancient civilization called the Romans? Most of the Colosseum is concrete, and that's a little bit older than 50 years, I think. I'm just guessing here, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
. . . .
. . . .
vuzman, on 10/12/2007,
The concrete we use today is actually not as good as the concrete the romans used. The method the Romans (and it seems others too) used to make concrete has been lost through time, and concrete was re-invented centuries later. We are still not as good as they were then.
. . . .
. . . .
OmniMe on 10/12/2007
guess it wasn't aliens after all...
. . . .
. . . .
dlown77, on 10/12/2007,
Clearly they melted the limestone with their lazors.
. . . .
. . . .
MontyZooma, on 10/12/2007,
@OmniMe, no, it was aliens, but the early concrete they used was obviously alien tech. ô¿ô
. . . .
. . . .
WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007,
"clearly they melted the limestone with their lazors."Are those anything like lasers? You know...the things sharks have on their heads.
. . . .
. . . .
betacmag4u, on 10/12/2007,
who needs aliens when you've got this guy? or maybe he is an alien? www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRRDzFROMx0
. . . .
. . . .
ThinkBox, on 10/12/2007,
Dude, it was the reptile overlords
. . . .
. . . .
ElectricKetchup, on 10/12/2007,
Obviously the aliens built the pyramids to laugh at our confusion as we try to discover how they were built.
. . . .
. . . .
Javaman74 on 10/12/2007
As the article points out, limestone was only used as an outer casing, which was smoothed and polished. The inner core, which is most of what we see today, was granite. Regardless of whether the upper layer of limestone was poured or not, the multi-ton inner stones still would have been hauled into place. Well, that or the grays lifted them into place with their spaceships.
. . . .
. . . .
WaterDragon on 10/12/2007
I encountered similar research, nearly 20 years ago, when it was suggested that that the stones in the pyramids were cast, incorporating a specific clay from a nearby riverbed, that was high in certain aluminum compounds and would make stone-casting possible. That theory, if true, was said to also explain how the pyramid builders had achieved such incredibly precise fitting of the stones, as thy were 'cast', each against the next one, instead of 'stones' having been cut and put in place. I think it appeared in the weekly Science Times section of the NY Times, around 1989. So it definitely wasn't the online version.
. . . .
. . . .
WaterDragon on 10/12/2007
I'm not saying they had it, but....if a civilization was so advanced that they had anti-gravity technology, how might they leave a record of that fact for future civilizations to find? And couldn't such an advanced civilization still be facing extinction, even as we are today, so they might want to create such a record, like a time-capsule?
. . . .
. . . .
fearofcorners, on 10/12/2007,
How might they leave a record? Easily. They sure left records of everything else. Anyway, super advanced technology like that doesn't exist in a vacuum. If they had anti-gravity they had nuclear physics, medicine, etc, etc. And they didn't. Case closed.
. . . .
. . . .
azurechaos, on 10/12/2007,
What are you talking about?
. . . .
. . . .
HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007,
Much was lost when the Library of Alexandria was burned to the ground...
. . . .
. . . .
pilgrim3970 on 10/12/2007
"the early concrete they used was obviously alien tech."Exactly! Because, afterall, it is silly to think that ancient men with their primitive minds could have built the pyramids on their own. /sarcasm
. . . .
. . . .
WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007,
But...but...couldn't the pyramids somehow have been a naturally occurring phenomenon? (Just like the 'crop circles') /sarqhazzm
. . . .
. . . .
WaterDragon on 10/12/2007
FTA, "Opponents of the theory dispute the scientific evidence. "Typical. How can you dispute 'evidence'? But still, the irrational people persist, imagining nobody will notice. .
. . . .
. . . .
VolatileWhimsy, on 10/12/2007,
True, probably because most of them are on digg.com(couldn't help myself)
. . . .
. . . .
WaterDragon, on 10/12/2007,
Digga pleeeease! (I was waiting for a chance to use that.)
. . . .
. . . .
tdhurst, on 10/12/2007,
You can't dispute fact, but you can dispute evidence.
. . . .
. . . .
jshusta, on 10/12/2007,
"How can you dispute 'evidence'?"You say, " I dispute this evidence." and what you mean when you say that is, "these things that are facts (maybe), they are irrelevant; they are not evidence of such-and-such, but of something else which i feel is unrelated."
. . . .
. . . .
mb3581 on 10/12/2007
Silly Humans....The Gou'ald built the Pyramids to have a place to land their Hatak
. . . .
. . . .
keraneuology on 10/12/2007
Old research... I first read the theory that at least some of the stones were poured over 20 years ago. Another theory that is interesting on a few levels is that the pyramids were built as giant water pumps that not only provided water for irrigation but with the help of cofferdams provided water that allowed larger blocks to be floated to higher layers of the pyramid for placement. The guy claims that if you built a fire in one of the rooms (that happens to have a lot of soot stains) and put a checkvalve in some other spot of the corridor then you'd be able to get enough suction to pull water out of an underground aquifer. http://www.thepump.org - laugh, study, mock, ignore, dismiss or embrace as you desire
. . . .
. . . .
gyneric, on 10/12/2007,
you're right; this is very old research - Prof. Michel Barsoum has been studying the pyramids and his theory for the last 26 years. Download his presentation at www.mse.drexel.edu/max/PyramidPresentation.htm
. . . .
. . . .
malhombre on 10/12/2007
And now that pour empire is no more, leaving us to ponder on whether they digg out these stones or ...
. . . .
. . . .
The0cho, on 10/12/2007,
Of course....digg out the stones...
. . . .
. . . .
felchdonkey on 10/12/2007
You left out a very important part of the headline: "scientists claim." If you read the article, it's clear that this is still a theory. A theory that is gaining ground, but "Despite mounting support from scientists, Egyptologists have rejected the concrete claim, first made in the late 1970s by Joseph Davidovits, a French chemist" Marked as inaccurate, because I know some people only read headlines on Digg.
. . . .
. . . .
The0cho, on 10/12/2007,
The headline says that they are "reporting" this meaning there could be no truth there whatsoever. Remember that one south park episode that made fun of the government with hurricane katrina called "Two days before the day after tomorrow"
Mitch: We're not sure what exactly is going on inside the town of Beaverton, uh, Tom, but we're reporting that there's looting, raping, and yes, even acts of cannibalism.
Tom: My God, you've, you've actually seen people looting,raping and eating each other?
Mitch: No, no, we haven't actually seen it Tom, we're just reporting it. Its accurate enough in my opinion just because it says that they are reporting this.. . . .
. . . .
LiveFastDieOld on 10/12/2007
In the far future, scientists will have the same type of debates in an effort to understand how the people of the early 21st century ever managed to install Zune software on a PC.
. . . .
. . . .
veektor, on 10/12/2007,
What can modern man do with all his free time when year after year, we get a bumper crop pulled up by the neighbor kid.... What do we do all day?
. . . .
. . . .
kyeetza on 10/12/2007
"It speaks to some basic human needs, that there is a tomorrow - it's not all going to be over in a big flash and a bomb, that the human race is improving, that we have things to be proud of as humans. No, ancient astronauts did not build the pyramids - human beings built them because they're clever and they work hard. And 'Star Trek' is about those things." ~Gene RoddenberryPeople often make the incorrect assumption that people in the past were somehow not as intelligent as present day people, so we concoct these crazy conclusions that aliens built the pyramids and stone henge. Seriously, if we ever are able to travel to other planets that are inhabited with intelligent life, would we build ***** and then leave without a trace?
. . . .
. . . .
kuzotz, on 10/12/2007,
Intergalactic privions 60,293, Terra is a no limits planet. MErchants, military, and civilians found i this area besides the natives of this planet, and solar system will be subjected to a tribunual in which found guilty will be executed through a strong corrosive acid(depending on the species) That will be inserted through eye sockets(or whole body dipped completely).
In which your remains will be sent into a black hole to prevent resurrection. The implications that Terra(earth), and the solar system that surrounds it is off limits. Is based from the fact that its still developing.. A place in which its truly divided.
These savages have technology, but they choose to kill each other. They like trade, but can never get over their divisions.The natives of Terra if they ever reached Mars would be devastating meaning they will ensure their immortality, and will bring the same problems they had on Terra into space..
So we shall make every effort as to prevent these natives from spreading prematurely across the universe. We must not engage in trade, commerce, show military force, or civilians of our great republic until those form Terra are ready. Though we are all ***** Sapien Sapiens in this universe. Those from Terra aren't ready to learn of the truth, and must be restricted until they are classified as a developed world.
Until that day. WE must refrain from contact. One day our bretherens will join us from Terra, but until then we let them sort out their own problems. For even though this great republic has 40 solar systems. WE are all still ***** Sapiens Sapiens.
. . . .
. . . .
jav1231 on 10/12/2007
Okay, how long have the pyramids been studied and this just now comes to light?
. . . .
. . . .
gyneric, on 10/12/2007,
Egyptologists are historians, not chemists. That said, this theory was first brought to light in 1970 by the French chemist Joseph Davidovits
. . . .
. . . .
davecor on 10/12/2007
The base stones were quarried, there must have been TONS of limestone chips and dust to get rid of. Some clever slave probably had the bright idea and popped a papyrus note into the suggestion box in the slave break-room. I'm sure they rewarded him with reduced lashings and an extra handful of millet.
. . . .
. . . .
jhshukla, on 10/12/2007,
slave didn't know how to read or write. he might have made a suggestion but not using a written form.
. . . .
. . . .
pegasus6 on 10/12/2007
I'm very familiar with this subject. Before commenting, got to www.mse.drexel.edu/max/PyramidPresentation.htm for presentaion slides and to www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQk_yBHre4 for a demonstration of the the process of making limestone concrete. The Giza plateau sits on a deep bed of limestone permeated with clay which will disperse when soaked in water.
When strong alkali and other ingredients are added it slowly becomes a stone-like binder. Like epoxy, only a little is needed, so the concrete looks like native limestone.
They Egyptians were master 'alchemists'. the supposed lost technology to build the pyramids was a materials technology for making stone. Barsoum's contribution is the use of modern materials science to show the existence of synthetic rock on the Giza plateau. This is a new and important window on Egytptian technology.
. . . .
. . . .
gyneric, on 10/12/2007,
Who is this? I'm Eric, from Barsoum's group.
. . . .
. . . .
gromnie on 10/12/2007
From the article: "Some dissenters say that levers or pulleys were used, even though the wheel had not been invented at that time." What can one say, but: God, I hate idiots.
www.touregypt.net/featurestories/chariots.htm
I miss the days when these people used to insist The Pyramids were made by aliens in flying saucers.
. . . .
. . . .
DrexelPyramid1 on 10/12/2007
Hi – I’m Alex, one of the researchers on this project at Drexel University. Many of your observations are great! I HIGHLY recommend the following two links:
1) Davidovits (who first proposed it decades ago) actually MAKING the pyramid blocks by pouring them!www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQk_yBHre4
2) Official presentation from Dr. Michel Barsoum’s group at Drexel University: www.mse.drexel.edu/max/PyramidPresentation.htm.Azur2, I agree, you wouldn’t expect limestone to dissolve in water, and you do describe the general process for Portland Cement. "Geopolymers" however, work on an entirely different chemical reaction. WaterDragon, you’re right that this was originally proposed decades ago, as Davidovits in France released a book in the late 1980s on the topic. Some more food for thought now. Here are some difficulties with the "carve and hoist" theory:
(Sorry it’s HUGE right now, we’ll be compressing it soon. We'll also be putting out a detailed White Paper soon.)
*Multi-ton blocks, up to 60 tons each and an average of about 2.5 tons, fit together so precisely that a playing card can’t be wedged between them.
*The Great Pyramid is the largest of all the pyramids. To fit into the accepted timeline for its construction, one block, weighing on average more than two tons, would have to be placed every six minutes. The number of men working in the quarries to harvest the blocks, to transport them across the desert, and to drop them into place at the site is estimated to be substantially larger than the population of the nearby city at Giza.
*Their copper tools would have blunted almost immediately when carving solid limestone.All that being said, there are also some difficulties with the "poured" theory:
*Many of the outer pyramid blocks obviously and curiously take the non-uniform shape of surrounding blocks.
*There are obvious natural grains in granite pyramid blocks. This means they’re almost certainly natural.
*Observation has shown that the lower 2/3 of the pyramid seem to be filled with rubble! (rocks which seem to have been cut and "tossed" in.
*Archeologists have discovered a quarry which shows evidence of carved blocks.So, we propose a HYBRID theory. Portions of the pyramid were cast, while others were poured. This is work involving PhDs from around the world, electron microscopes, and a couple of grad students (like myself) that make this stuff daily! Our work shows that the outer and inner casing blocks (the outermost part, and the inside hallway lining) are not natural limestone.
They are however, consistent with CASTING! Take the TEST in the presentation! You’ll be able to see with your own eyes which blocks are cast, and which are poured. Check out the links above for more information! We don’t pretend to know it all. More research is needed.
Whatever it has to do with the pyramids though, we’re SURE this geopolymer stuff will be useful as a sustainable, environmentally friendly building material. Think developing communities upgrading from grass huts and mud brick to roads and "geopolymer concrete" houses. For next to free. More details to come :)
. . . .
. . . .
Azur2, on 10/12/2007,
*As you agree limestone doesn't dissolve in water. What is your proposed mechanism the egyptians used for pulverizing the limestone?
*Have you done any comparison between the "cast" stone and limestone from the proposed quarries? I assume you've talked to some geologists; what do they say?
*Perfect fit between stones is *required* for robust masonry when not using mortar; buildings with multi tonne blocks are found in primitive architecture throughout the world, e.g. in central & south america. Frankly your argument seems to be based on personal incredulity: You can't believe a primitive people with copper and stone tools would be able to fit multi-tonne blocks together. Yet we actually know they could, cf e.g. finely crafted granite sarcophagi (and granite is much, much harder than limestone!)I'd also be very interested in hearing how these "geopolymers" are made, what the composition is, and what causes them to harden. It is not obvious to me that a watery mix of pulverized limestone and a little diatomaceous earth should harden into something resembling concrete.
. . . .
. . . .
HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007,
@AzurHYPERLINK "mailto:1@Azur"- "* Perfect fit between stones is *required* for robust masonry when not using mortar."Yes, it is required but, that statement does not tell you how to achieve that perfect fit.
. . . .
. . . .
Gyneric, on 10/12/2007,
Azur2: I'm Eric, another researcher at Drexel University from Barsoum's group. Although I am not directly involved with the pyramid project, I can answer a few of your questions.
*1. Since I am not directly involved with this project, I cannot speak for theories on how limestone was pulverized. I will ask the other researchers in my group however.
*2. We have done comparisons between cast samples and
natural limestone. Please see the presentation at www.mse.drexel.edu/max/PyramidPresentation.htm.
For a full explanation, including chemical analysis, photographs, and scanning and transmission electron microscope images. Here is the abstract, which details how the pyramid samples are different from natural samples: "Microstructural Evidence of Reconstituted Limestone Blocks in the Great Pyramids of Egypt- M. W. Barsoum1, A. Ganguly1 and G. Hug2: How the Great Pyramids of Giza were built has remained an enduring mystery.
In the mid-1980s, Davidovits proposed that the pyramids were cast in situ using granular limestone aggregate and an alkali alumino-silicate-based binder.
Hard evidence for this idea, however, remained elusive. Using primarily scanning and transmission electron microscopy, we compared a number of pyramid limestone samples with six different limestone samples from their vicinity. The pyramid samples contained microconstituents (μc's) with appreciable amounts of Si in combination with elements, such as Ca and Mg, in ratios that do not exist in any of the potential limestone sources.
The intimate proximity of the μc's suggests that at some time these elements had been together in a solution. Furthermore, between the natural limestone aggregates, the μc's with chemistries reminiscent of calcite and dolomite—not known to hydrate in nature—were hydrated.
The ubiquity of Si and the presence of submicron silica-based spheres in some of the micrographs strongly suggest that the solution was basic.
Transmission electron microscope confirmed that some of these Si-containing μc's were either amorphous or nanocrystalline, which is consistent with a relatively rapid precipitation reaction. The sophistication and endurance of this ancient concrete technology is simply astounding."
*3. Keep in mind that the pyramids were built in 26 years,and the Egyptian's tools were made of copper - a very soft and ductile metal. Take a look at the photographs in the presentation, noted above, which detail the distinction between cast stone and carved stone.
***We don't believe the Egyptians were primative; in factwe feel that the Ancients are constantly being underestimated. This is in part why the theory faces so much opposition. What if the finely crafted granite sarcophagi were also cast of geopolymers? We actually have several granitesamples we are studying.
For now, let me ask this: how do you think the Ancient Egyptians made hollow, thin walled vases of granite? If you are interested in the processes behind Geopolymers, refer to Barsoum's article in the Journal of the American Society of Ceramics, or go to geopolymers.org or more specifically www.geopolymer.org/category/archaeology/pyramids/
. . . .
. . . .
pegasus6 on 10/12/2007
Pegasus6 is the screen name I have chosen for this forum. I'm Mike Carrell, who introduced Dr. Barsoum to the work of Davidovits and Margaret Morris on the construction of Kufu and other artifacts of ancient Egypt. I'm glad that other members of the Drexel staff have joined in here. A lot of very detailed study has gone into this work which deserves thorough study and not glib brush-offs.
Dr. Barsoum and his team have made a very significant contribution to Egyptology by demonstrating unequivocally the existence of synthetic stone technology in the Giza context. The scenarios for construction of the Giza pyramids and those earlier and later are open new proposals based on the existence of advanced materials technology as proposed by Davidovits and confirmed by Barsoum. There are many remaining problems.
. . . .
. . . .
jesselee54 on 10/12/2007
Quote from article: "...the wheel had not yet been invented at that time". Use this as a guide to the rest of the "facts" presented.
. . . .
. . . .
gyneric, on 10/12/2007,
jesselee54: The following quote was made by the author of the NY Times article:
"Some dissenters say that levers or pulleys were used, even though the wheel had not been invented at that time."
Neither Joseph Davidovits, Gilles Hug, nor Michel Barsoum made this statement; you must understand that there will be innacuracies when technical information is presented by non technical journalists.
. . . .
. . . .
jesselee54 on 10/12/2007
Reply to gyneric: My apologies for my comment.
You are right, it was a line of the journalist.
. . . .
. . . .
pegasus6 on 10/12/2007
In the background of Barsoum's work is that of the historian Margaret Morris who was co-author with Davidovits of an earlier book on the pyramid construction. Hers is a meticulous analysis of ancient Egyptian history and the serious weaknesses of the 'carve and hoist' scenarios.
She clarifies exactly what technology was available, according to accepted Egytptian history, at the time of the Giza pyramid projects. It includes only levers, ramps, copper tools, and corundum as an abrasive. Bronze, wheels, pulleys, all came later but are confused by popular commentators. The first of two volumes is outlined at www.margaretmorrisbooks.com/.
. . . .
. . . .
Azur2 on 10/12/2007
OK, I've read through the given links, and these are my thoughts:
1 "Geopolymer" seems to be a very roundabout way of making a cement-based stone with fossils as filler. The whole dissolve the limestone thing (which I still don't understand), adding natron etc seem to be designed solely to produce a rock with similar characteristics of the natural stone in Giza, because then there is slaked lime added which will react with the silicates and act as binder.
While it is a feat to make rocks similar to natural rocks, that will not have been a priority for the egyptians. If they knew that burning locally occurring clay-rich limestone, pulverizing it, and then adding water and sand, produced concrete blocks of superior strength, why go through all the extra steps to create a stone similar to the naturally occurring local stone?
2 Bronze and even impure copper tools are hard enough to cut limestone. Stone and wood tools will have been used too.
3 A pyramid is the most thermodynamically stable shape there is, basically a 'heap'. This is why so many civilizations have built pyramids, and why the egyptian pyramids are still standing: they can't fall down. This has some importance wrt the irregular filler "rubble" rock you're seeing inside the finely shaped structural stones and stones used in corridors: there was no need to have perfect fit there.
4 Surely you guys are not serious about the remarks about the egyptians making cast granite?
5 The comparison of alleged natural to allleged cast stone in the presentation is simply a comparison of the over all look of irregular rocks (assumed to be natural) and finely shaped rocks (assumed to be cast). I still say you guys need to get a couple of geologists and material scientists, to compare your recreated cast rock to alleged ancient cast rock and alleged hewn rock.
. . . .
. . . .
pegasus6 on 10/12/2007
reply to Azur 2
1 Geopolymer is used in a generic sense but is also a trade name for silica-based cements sold commercially by Davidovits. The clay-bearing Giza limestone does not dissolve; in a few hours of soaking, the kaolinitic clay disperses, releasing limestone particles which are re-cemented by chemical treatment including addition of other material.
The resulting binder chemically binds to the limestone particles and very little is needed, as contrasted to Portland Cement which encloses the aggregate but does not bind to it. To build Khufu in 23 years with a reasonable work schedule means fabricating and placing multi-ton stones about twice a minute. This can be done using bucket brigades to convey small batches of cement slurry to the construction site and tamping into molds. It can be done with a few thousand men. You don't need the assumed massive ramps and legions of slaves.
2 Bronze was not available at the time of the Giza project. Copper chisels will cut limestone but are quickly blunted. A massive effort would have been necessary to supply and maintain the chisels and not one has been found in digs.
3 Pyramids were built for centuries before and after the Giza project. Methods and quality varied. Khufu is the largest and by far the most complex of them and so has been the focus of studies. Nobody has seen the *core* of Khufu. Only casing and backing stones are easily seen. At a few places irregular stones are seen, but these do no expose the core. Using limestone concrete, a highly ordered, stable core can be created with irregular stones used as a fill up to the precisely placed backing stones which define the pyramid shape.
4 Egypt has many hard stone artifacts, including statues, coffers, and elements of the King's Chamber. The means of their fabrication with the tools known to be available is an unsolved problem. The class of 'geipolymer' binders will bind aluminosilicates such as granite and may provide a way to understand how at least some of these artifacts were produced.
Much more study is needed. Scenarios for the construction of Khufu using limestone concrete also allow massive granite beams for the King's Chamber to be very slowly lifted into place without interfering with the main construction.
5 You need to think more deeply about the whole construction problem. Geologists have been consulted and Dr. Michel Barsoum is Distinguished Professor of Material Science at Drexel University in Philadelphia who has devoted several years to an intensive study of rocks from the Giza plateau.
. . . .
. . . .
FlorianN, on 10/12/2007,
Hi, At first, It's great to be able to talk to someone from the research team at Drexel. I was very interested by your theory and read a lot of stuff about it those last days (including Davidovits webpages).
Then I went to the archaeology usenet forum sci.archaeology do discuss the theory with amateur archeologist and some egyptologist. The least I can say was they did not like your theory, but I defend it the best I could and I think some are changing their mind.
That would be great if you join the discussion over there. You can certainly use google groups or any newsreader to access the sci.archaeology forum. Anyway, I had a very specific question that arises from the discussion in sci.archaeology. Davidovits says that the original limestone material for the casted stone comes from the valley downward the Giza plateau.
This limestone is part of geologic formation that is the same as the one of the sphinx body, i e, the mokkatan formation member II. But this limestone does not contain much kaolin clay (less than 1%) and can't apparently easily disaggregate in water like Davidovits claims.
So I have some doubts about the origin of the limestome. However, an easy calculation shows that for about each cubic meter of carved stones, half a cubic meter of crushed limestone is produced. Indeed, the quarry works is extremely wasteful. And these wastse are nowhere to be found. So would it not be more reasonable to think that the limestome came from the waste in the quarries rather than the Wadi downward the Giza plateau? Thanx for any comment, and I truly hope to see you on the usenet forum sci.archaeology
Regards.
. . . .
. . . .
HMTKSteve on 10/12/2007
Let's not forget how the famous Damascus steel swords have been found to contain carbon nanotubes. Many inventions are found by accident. Viagra was a discovered by accident and the original research was on a different line.What about the mechanical computer that charts the heavens that was only recently figured out? Technological advances are forgotten all over the place and every day.
. . . .
. . . .
siszam on 10/12/2007
Amazing. scientists can't prove simple things but still people put faith in them and believe in them instead of God. Sad and pathetic.
. . . .
. . . .
betacmag4u, on 10/12/2007,
There is no God. The Bible is a fairy tale. Grow up.
. . . .
. . . .
chuongster, on 10/11/2007,
siszam: Faith isn't required when findings/results can be demonstrated, reliably and repeatedly. Thus, we don't put 'faith' in scientists, but rather rely on their expertise. And what do you mean, "scientists can't prove simple things"? The technology that's all around us is the hard work and dedication of people, who use science to further our understanding of the natural world. Or excuse me, are you typing your posts on a computer that you prayed into existence?
. . . .
. . . .
needau on 10/11/2007
Even if one believes that the stones were quarried, you don't just cut a stone out, place it and expect it to be a perfect fit. There is a tremendous amount of fine tuning involved that would have contributed to a longer construction time and the moving of the same stone many times to get it right.
. . . .
. . . .
by dstywho on 12/02/06
How does rebar support a pyramid? Rebar is used to support concrete cantilevers and ledges where there is a shearing force. Rebar makes the concrete stronger because concrete holds better under compression rather than tension.
My answer: The streses supports the pyramid is mostly compression stress, a concrete block even without rebars on it, is very effective in supporting vertical compression. so no need to put rebars on the construction of blocks for pyramid. A rebar is only used if there's a moment or flex involved such as the one you mentioned which is cantilever. or a beam . but a concrete pole standing vertically needs rebar to support from flexing due to winds and wieght of the wires hanging into it. but a big blocks as the one they used in building pyramid can resist flexing by winds due to its enourmous witdh.
. . . .
. . . .
by ThinkBox on 12/02/06
Then why didnt they just make a Giant pyramid form and pour it into that? This is a very good question. anyone? well one thing i know is plywood to make forms doesn't exist that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.thesundayleader.lk/20060205/review.htm
Elephants Are Hunted For Their Meat
. . . .
. . . .
When 77 year old Gamini De Silva stepped on Sri Lankan soil 31 years ago, little did he realise that his hunting career had reached an end. Hunting since his teens in the wild African jungles, De Silva was one of the best known hunters and game rangers in the business and his talents soon spread far andwide across Zambia where he lived during most of his younger years.
When Cyrus Kalunga, one of Zambia's best known and most wanted poachers was arrested in the mid 70's, little did anyone in Sri Lanka realise that Zambia's most wanted poacher was arrested by none other than De Silva. The news of the arrest spread all over Zambia and De Silva was presented an award for his feat by the Zambian Wild Life Department . However, other than hunting and being one of the best game rangers of his time, Gamini De Silva also has another interesting story - his culinary skills in cooking elephant meat.
While De Silva spent most of his days in the forests searching for poachers in Zambia, he had a team of more than 60 people, all of whom were fed on elephant meat. "Although people wonder how I can eat the meat of an elephant, it is very tasty. If people can eat beef, chicken and all other meats, I see no wrong in eating elephant meat," De Silva said. When De Silva first arrived in Zambia he learnt that the Zambians were lovers of game meat. But little did he dream that one day he too would be feasting on the meat of a hunted elephant - something he had never thought of doing. "
Like any other Sri Lankan, I too never dreamt of eating elephant meat. The very thought made me feel very sick in the stomach. The first time I tasted it, it made me feel dizzy but I soon acquired a taste for it because it tasted very good," he said. He adds that working in a country like Zambia, in a forest with over 60 people, killing an elephant to feed on was the ideal thing as the meat lasted for over two days. Unlike other animals, elephant meat was loved by all, especially when it was cooked in special sauces and spices, De Silva said. "
All I do is boil the meat and then cook it with Jamaican coconut cream. When cooked with the appropriate spices, elephant meat curry is one of the tastiest curries anyone could ever taste," he added. While the hard flesh of the elephant is eaten by the rest of his men, De Silva says that his favourite was the elephant trunk as that was the softest. "Trunk meat lasts me for about two days and I love that part of the elephant as it is the softest and its like a tube.
Trunk meat is also the tastiest when compared to the meat in the rest of the elephant's body," De Silva said.While De Silva has never tasted elephant meat since his arrival in Sri Lanka, he says that he would love to feast on the meat once again if given the opportunity. De Silva also adds, "I am glad that Sri Lankans have never tasted elephant meat because once they get a taste of it, elephants will soon be extinct in this country." The capture of a poacher Gamini De Silva's recalls his capture of Zambia's most famous poacher of all time - Cyrus Kalunga: The Kasanka game reserve, situated in the central province of the Serenje District, covers an area of about 350 sq. miles.
This area is well known for its poaching activities, since it is very close to Congo. Poachers from either side cross over for this purpose. Once the area came under my control, I made it a point to explain to the villagers the value of game, and the revenue the government could earn by way of controlled hunting through game licences. Once this message was conveyed across to the villagers, I lost no time in meeting the village headman and the chief of the area, where I explained my plans. I also spelt to the guards that something must be done soon, to stop slaughtering animals by poachers.
I also sounded the guards to air their views and one of the senior guards briefed me that slaughtering was mostly done by none other than Cyrus Kalunga. For a few months everything was very quiet, and on a subsequent visit to the game reserve, a number of villagers informed me that elephants had raided their shambas and required immediate assistance. One of the men who visited me in this connection was none other than Cyrus Kalunga himself, in the company of others. Cyrus Kalunga said he would help me to track down the animals which caused harm to the villagers, but he wanted me to provide him with a rifle, so that both could hunt together.
This was something I expected, but had to say a firm "no" as Cyrus was a person who could not watch another shooting an elephant, when he was such a good shot. Although I had met Cyrus many a time, I could not get a clue as to his activities although it was evident how well he knew the reserve. Many months passed and Cyrus was missing from the village. Information was received at a local beer party from one of his girl friends that he had gone to Congo to purchase a rifle. I put several of the guards to cover his village, but no one dared to say a word about Cyrus.
Cyrus usually came out on his poaching trips late in the night during which he had killed eight elephants and 16 buffaloas, including a number of bucks. One night Cyrus was caught while he was resting. He was handcuffed, but before he went to sleep he requested to be chained so that we could all sleep in peace. In the morning, the boys had to cover him with their rifles for his morning wash.
Cyrus told me that his days were numbered, and all his poaching activities had come to an end. Along with his 0.303 rifles and ivory poached, Cyrus was produced before a Zambian court in the mid '70s where he pleaded guilty. Cyrus was fined 40 pounds and was enrolled to the Game Department in Zambia as a elephant control guard.
Elephant Steak; The New Ivory
I flew into Zemio in the Central African Republic (CAR) where I spent several days. The American missionary I travelled with had lived in the area for many years and was able to tell me about wildlife and poaching in the region. He explained that when he grew up, they regularly saw herds of elephants of up to 300 animals within a few minutes drive of Zemio. Today most of the school children living in the town have never seen an elephant in their lives.
We learnt of the heavy poaching - by armed gangs from Sudan - that is taking place across all of the CAR's South Eastern Region and decimating wildlife. We also heard that two French owned professional hunting camps had closed due to the lack of wildlife and how, with nothing left to hunt, some of the poachers had turned to looting and raping. At least two villages had been completely abandoned due to the insecurity associated with poaching.
My sources in the CAR explained that the UNHCR camp at Mboki (near the Sudan/DRC border), plays a major role in facilitating poaching and the bushmeat trade. Most of the refugees appear to be Azande youth who fled from forced military recruitment in Southern Sudan. When they arrive in the CAR they hide their weapons and head for this refugee camp. With little wildlife left in the CAR, many of these armed youths then embark on hunting excursions in Northern Congo.
Transport from the Eastern Region to Bangui is difficult and costly. The most reliable transporter appears to be the UNHCR which has an average of four 8 tonne lorries supplying the refugee camp every week. I was told that the UNHCR vehicles supplying the refugee camp further west could be smelled a long time before they could be seen as they head back for Bangui, the capital. The UNHCR lorries are allowed to transport local traders and the main commodity carried is elephant meat.
I was told that as the journey can take a week, elephant meat is preferred since in smoked form it lasts longer than any other meat. During subsequent days and a return visit, I interviewed traders and we filmed elephant meat in Zemio's main market. The traders confirmed that nowadays all elephant meat comes across the border from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) as there are few elephants or other wildlife remaining in the CAR.
The trade is well-organised with traders regularly visiting the areas where bushmeat is produced and making specific arrangements with hunters. The traders in Zemio estimated that 90 per cent of the meat is traded in this way and never goes onto the open marketplace.
On just one journey (from Zemio to Digba) we came across 4 separate bicycle convoys heading for the CAR and transporting hundreds of kilos of meat - mostly from elephant but also including a chimp and a forest hog in smoked pieces. We also found four young chimps in Zemio. The market traders, the chimp owners and the transporters of bushmeat all confirmed, on camera, that the source of all the meat was the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
They also stated that the transfer of the meat across the border - marked by the M'boumou river - did not present any problem whatsoever. Not even in Zemio is there any border control and pirogues cross on a daily basis. In Digba the Azanda local chief confirmed that this trade had been taking place for about two years. He also told us that the Sudanese poachers were travelling up to 100 kilometres into the DRC: this seems to be about the maximum distance the bicycle traders are willing to transport their loads of some 100 kilos of meat.
At the small port on the edge of Zemio we were stopped by police and military officials who charged us duty on various items we had bought in the CAR. The official duty list that I saw included amounts payable for sacks of bushmeat arriving from the opposite direction. Three separate authorities charge three different taxes on bushmeat entering from the DRC.
. . . .
I later established that most of the meat transporters and traders try to avoid these taxes by crossing the border some 8 kilometres away and usually crossing at night. On the CAR side of the river the meat is stored in a granary belonging to a Mme. Navige. It seems that the traders and housewives of Zemio are all fully aware of this facility and are willing to travel the 8 kilometres to buy and sell meat. I persuaded one of the local traders to monitor and film some of the activities over the course of several nights.
What he reported was the storage and sale of hundreds of kilos of elephant meat. Elephant meat comprised about 80 per cent of the meat taken across the border. The number of 5kg chunks of smoked meat was estimated to represent an average of 3-4 elephants being traded each day (only the flesh from the legs and trunk are smoked - the remainder is discarded). As we continued into the DRC we met several of the bicycle caravans taking elephant meat from the north to the border. Each bicycle carries a 100kg pannier and we were told that forest elephants each yield about 4 bags of meat.
From my interviews with many hunters I concluded that as very few savannah elephants remained as a result of poaching, the hunters were now turning to the smaller but more numerous forest elephants. I returned to the region two months later.
I had been told that Chief Selesi of Badai had several elephant hunters working for him and my time in the forests and savannah confirmed that there were healthy wildlife populations including those of buffalo and elephant. I travelled north towards Adama and at a mission school along the way I learnt that a Mr Commando, a keen elephant hunter, had sent for porters the previous day to carry smoked elephant meat and ivory.
I found Mr Commando's home and his wife told me that her husband and the porters had not yet returned from the hunting grounds some 30km away. She told me that her husband specialised in hunting elephants and that he killed one every two weeks. The meat was taken on bicycles to Adamain in the DRC and then portered to Rafai about 30 kilometres away and on the CAR side of the river. I returned towards Badai and learnt that an elephant hunter had returned from a trip the previous day. I found his hut and we began talking after I said that I wanted to buy some meat for staff at the camp.
He told me that there was little meat remaining as his sons had left that morning for Zemio, each carrying 3 or 4 baskets of the meat. Eventually he offered me two chunks, each weighing about 5 kilograms and I was compelled to buy these but I hoped this would at least give me time to ask more questions. Unfortunately my presence attracted other villagers and the hunter became a little apprehensive.
Although I was able to take photos of the meat and ivory, I felt that I had to offer him a position as my guide in order to gain more detailed information. Over the following 2 days he revealed that: On average he hunted two elephants a month. His most recent kill was a bull forest elephant - the animal yielded very little ivory, yet he said that the bull was the largest animal in the herd of five.
This seems to confirm that the largest animals have been wiped out by the ivory trade during the 1980s. He hunted with an old gun belonging to a mechanic at the Protestant mission in Bili. In return for loaning the gun he would get the ivory.
Once smoked the meat would fetch about CFA 35 000 (US$60) per 100 kg basket. The meat from this one carcass would have fetched a little over US$200.
Each tusk weighed around 2 kgs (4 kg in total) and fetched
about CFA 8,000 (US$14) per kg (big tusks can fetch a maximum of around CFA 12,000 (US$19) per kg).
The total value of the meat (about US$200)
was therefore about 4 times that of the ivory (US$50).
The hunter confirmed that this was the usual scenario - elephants are hunted for their meat and the ivory is a useful by-product. He explained that the commercial hunting of elephants had begun about three years ago as a result of the collapse of the coffee market in the region - locals had resorted to hunting and trading in meat as an alternative source of income.
I was told that the new demand from the CAR was a result of the decimation of the elephant populations on that side of the border. In one generation most of the large savannah elephants have been wiped out and the same fate now awaits the forest elephants. My guide explained that as soon as elephant hunting is no longer profitable the locals would turn to buffalo hunting instead.
This scenario is common across Africa - with a lack of regulation over hunting or the bushmeat trade, once one species has declined hunters simply turn to another species to replace it. I cross-checked the hunter's information and it became clear that his story is representative of what goes on along the length of the DRC-CAR border. It is also very clear that elephants are now a major commodity in the bushmeat trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How the Pyramids Were Built in Egypt
. . . .
. . . .
6Ol
Very nice! Now, how do you explain over 200 tons perfectly cut granite and basalt blocks???
. . . .
. . . .
ulitka3
6Ol - Don't you know? Copper chisels! It cuts granite like butter!!! The same goes for the diorite artifacts. Just for the uninitiated - diorite density is higher than that of iron. You try cutting diorite with iron, the diorite will cut iron instead. But as Joseph Davidovitz would probably claim, copper was the Egyptians' material of choice! :) Brilliant! I'd rather listen to what Oprah got to say than mister Davidovitz...
. . . .
. . . .
StephenWebb1980
Actually, compacted "cement" as they propose is definately not strong enough to maintain that kind of weight no matter how much it is dried - take the mega-ton weight of each block from the very top all the way down to the second row from the base, and there would be NO WAY that the foundation could support it - it would crumble like sand.
. . . .
. . . .
Clint945
I totally agree. It wouldn't be strong enough to hold up structures as big as pyramids. Besides, the pyramids were only lined with limestone blocks, their inner blocks were not limestone. So whatever way you look at it, this isn't a likely solution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://ebbolles.typepad.com/babels_dawn/2007/02/distributed_att.html#comment-61818492
The Toba Eruption in Indonesia
. . . .
. . . .
About 75,000 years ago the Homo genus reached its greatest crisis. The erectus species in Asia went extinct, the sapiens in Africa went through a bottleneck in which only a few thousand managed to survive, and the neanderthalensis branch in Europe began to collapse, finally dying out altogether when the last bastion of survivors, in Gibraltar, gave way 28,000 years ago.
An erectus line may have held out until 15,000 years ago by miniaturizing itself on the island of Flores in Indonesia. Meanwhile, by the time of those final flickers in Gibraltar and Flores, Homo sapiens had recovered well enough to have spread across Asia, Africa, Australia, and Europe.
They were poised to enter the American continents as well. I’ve been thinking about these extinctions, and one other matter, since going over Nina Jablonski’s presentation to the American Association of Science’s annual meeting last weekend. (Summarized here.) The one other matter I've been pondering is something Jablonski pointed out: survival of the crisis was achieved by slightly shrinking the brain and body. A two million year trend was halted. Had we gotten as smart as we could? We had probably gotten as smart as we needed any individual to be. From here on out, it's the community that gets wiser. Jablonski’s presentation did not say much about the Homo communities and nothing about the role of speech in these survivals and extinctions. She did include one slide about culture and human life histories, noting that humans have undertaken the collective care of infants, so that the attentions of females of reproductive age do not have to be focused solely on the upbringing of their own single infants.
. . . .
It is not just that our brains have been getting larger and smarter (See: Smarter is Fitter). Our attention (note that Jablonski refers to the attentions of females) has become "collective," or to use the modern, computer-oriented term, distributed, and the central tool of distributed attention has been speech. The benefits of distributed operations are easily demonstrated, but their development has to work within the severe restraints of evolutionary possibilities. A major constraint has been "selfishness," the requirement that any surviving gene prospers more than its competitors.
I have discussed this issue before on this blog, but it is worth repeating because it is central to the problem of speech origins. It is very easy to think up scenarios in which speaking to one another helps everybody in the group, but it is very hard to find ways in which the rise of speech might be supported by a system of competitive genes in which everybody is looking after number one. If it is in Henry’s interest to learn what Peter knows, why is it in Peter’s interest to tell Henry what he knows? Peter could benefit from Henry’s support, but why should Henry listen to what Peter has to say?
Questions like these are so basic they sound trivial or even cynical, but without answers the constraints of evolutionary competition cannot be surmounted. Yet, obviously, in our case they were surmounted. Jablonski’s presentation on extinction events reminds us that the bipedal ape was a very iffy experiment. Boldly going where no primate has gone before tends eventually to lead into a dead end.
The solution we hit upon was made possible by a new form of communication that enabled a distribution of attention: speech. We got around the competitive restraints by first distributing emotional attention, then meaningful attention, and finally ceremonial attention. These developments got us through the dangers of the extinctions that were wiping out our evolutionary cousins.
. . . .
Surviving the first extinction appears to have entailed giving up one of the ape’s greatest luxuries, long spacing between childbirth. Jablonski presented a table showing gibbons and orangutans both having longer average intervals between births than humans, and this blog has had an extensive discussion of work by John Locke and Barry Bogin on the way humans have shortened birth intervals by early weaning and introducing a childhood period of dependence on "baby food" until the first permanent teeth appeared. (See: The Long Parenthood) This tactic spared us the doom of the Australopithecines but added the burden of tending more than one utterly dependent youngster at a time.
The normal competitive solution for this kind of added burden would be to evolve a super-mom able to handle all this by herself. But as mothers continue to say, "I’ve only got two hands," and "There are only 24 hours in a day." Apparently, more competition wasn’t good enough, so instead, we developed community care. Children entertain one another during childhood and females as a group collectively attend to the children.
Apparently it was possible to reduce Darwinian selfishness through the development of emotional communications—babbling, music, and possibly other forms of sound making. Jablonski is a promoter of the idea that the survivors of the first hominid extinction were sweaty, long-range foragers. It makes sense, but the African savannas are vast. I have personally driven for hours across them without finding anything of note. By foot, that would have been a couple of days of fruitless travel. It requires more than an ability to cover ground to survive out there; you have to cover the ground wisely.
. . . .
Again, the normal competitive solution would be to develop individual wisdom, but that is constrained by the high costs of big brains. A different approach is suggested by folk wisdom, "Two heads are better than one." Once emotional bonds were formed, meaningful communication of the Hey,-over-here and Wait-up sorts become invaluable. Your Homo group could spread out and examine the land for clues until somebody found something.
A competitive fellow might keep the news to himself, but one with emotional ties would direct his companions’ attention to the discovery. For a million years the Homo erectus/ergaster line was probably improving its ability to distribute attention through a group by developing meaningful speech, changing the blacks of the eyes to whites, etc. The success of distributed, meaningful attention enabled hominids to spread well beyond the tropics, and yet ultimately that answer was not enough.
There was that second great extinction, the crisis of 75,000 years ago, deep in the heart of the last Ice Age, where nobody seemed to have a solution. It might appear that Homo sapiens was just lucky, passing through a bottleneck when they might just as easily have expired like the erectus line.
But Homo sapiens didn’t just survive a difficult time; they prospered while the other groups of survivors were disappearing bit by bit. And remember, some of those shrinking groups had bigger brains than our own ancestors. Here at last we have some specific archaeological evidence about what was going on.
The sapiens line had developed ceremonial communication, using drawings, sculpture, body paint, and (surely) speech to hold their groups together on the basis of some new ceremonial identity. At this point community-based altruism becomes possible; people understand their personal interests in terms of community interests.
We get the distributed attention that earlier Homo had enjoyed, plus a commitment to the group that goes beyond emotional bonding. At this point, self-sacrifice becomes a possibility and the human line has really gotten beyond the classic Darwinian constraints of competitive genes.
It might seem impossible, except that we are here and the other Homo species are not. With a committed, distributed attention we could even shrink our brains a bit, put less stress on the environment, and thrive. Since then, it has been communities that have been growing increasingly knowledgeable. The last real Renaissance Man, somebody who literally knew everything that anybody else in the group knew, was probably a Neanderthal.
By then a sapiens group already had by then somebody who knew the local plants best, somebody else who remembered the ceremonial traditions, and still somebody else who knew all about midwifery. By the way, there was another extinction that Jablonski mentioned in passing. It did not concern the Homo line directly, but about 10,000 years ago there was another mass extinction.
With the melting of the Ice Age glaciers, the Pleistocene Epoch came to an end and with it went many species that had been well adapted to those rough times. But Homo sapiens was not among the losers. We did fine, although I notice that at this time many of our ancestors gave up their millions-of-years-old history of nomadic living to become settled farmers, iron workers, and traders. Oh, and once again we expanded our communications repertoire, adding written language to the mix.
. . . .
. . . .
Comments
Some 72,000 - 75,000 years ago, the Toba Eruption in Indonesia left a crater eighty miles long by fifty miles wide. Akin to a moderate meteor-strike, this geophysical catastrophe all but extinguished modern-day primates (evolving "Homo sapiens"). We need not adduce any fancy bio-evolutionary mechanisms: All but a few hundred breeding pairs survived, huddled behind the Central African massif crowned by Kilimanjaro on the East.
This near-eradication accounts for the human species' extraordinary genetic homogeneity: From a minuscule basis, "genetic drift" over a mere 75,000 years has necessarily been minimal. More interesting, though mankind's racial diversity may be genetically marginal, it seems that qualitative aspects outweigh mere quantitative factors.
Call "qualitative" what you will, it's not just Neanderthals and perhaps related strains that suffered in relation to Homo's rapid divergence "out of Africa", filling ecological and evolutionary niches vacated in Toba's great die-off. Above the Northern Mediterranean, more challenging environments than African savannahs apparently fostered aggressive socio-cultural, even intellectual development. Fuss and grump you may, but the historical record stands.
Migration left Africa behind. Academics unaware of determining factors beyond their blinkered specialities wax over-confident inpredictable ways. Let's just say, they ignore larger realities at peril. The current contretemps over "global warming" is analogous to 60-year controversies attending Alfred Wegener's hypothesis of Continental Drift. Assuming continental land-masses were identical to ocean bottoms, geophysicists pooh-poohed Wegeneruntil the mid-1960s, when deep-ocean probes resolved that Africa had indeed split off from South America.
In brief, today's missing element is deep-ocean volcanism, dating from at least 1850 but discovered worldwide (in Arctic, Indian Ocean, Pacific Rim) only since 2001. Ocean warming drives evaporation, an air-conditioning (cooling) effect that occasions heavy atmospheric precipitation-- cold rains in summer, massive snowfalls in winter.
As a volcanic effect, surging CO2 levels aggravate cooling by pyramiding warm-water evaporation. Glaciers do not move south: They land on our heads with 90-foot snowfalls, whose albedo then shifts warm-water currents like the Gulf Stream hundreds of miles south. Bingo-- Ice Age, persisting 120,000 years. Over the last 10-million years, inter-glacials have lasted 12,000 years on average. We are now 12,500 years past the Younger Dryas... and there are other factors, intra-solar and cyclical from 1313 to 2113 which do not augur well.
Where once the Toba Eruption defined humanity's genetic makeup, we now face a perfectly standard Ice Age. If not our children, our grandchildren may face extinction as populations war for climate-zones still cultivable. But we ourselves will be dead, and the World thereby a better place. Tamam! BLOGGER: Thanks for this post. It feels like a real contribution of the sort I would love to see as a regular part of this blog.
Posted by: John Blake February 28, 2007 at 11:48 AMwww.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/Interesting
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://evomech7.blogspot.com/2006/12/great-pyramids-of-giza-building-blocks.html
Great Pyramids Of Giza - Building Blocks Made Of Concrete?
. . . .
. . . .
In partially solving a mystery that has baffled archeologists for centuries, a Drexel University professor has determined that the Great Pyramids of Giza were constructed* with a combination of not only carved stones but the first blocks of limestone-based concrete cast by any civilization. Michel Barsoum, professor of materials engineering, shows in a peer-reviewed paper to be published December 1 (2006) in the Journal of the American Ceramic Society how the Egyptian builders of the nearly 5,000-year-old pyramids were exceptional civil and architectural engineers as well as superb chemists and material scientists.
His conclusions could lead to a seismic shift in the kind of concrete used in construction and provide developing nations a way to build structures utilizing inexpensive and easily accessible materials. Barsoum will present his findings at a news conference November 30 at 5:30 p.m. (Central Europe standard time) at Le Palais de la decouverte, Avenue Franklin D. Roosevelt, in Paris, France.
The longstanding belief is that the pyramids were constructed with limestone blocks that were cut to shape in nearby quarries using copper tools, transported to the pyramid sites, hauled up ramps and hoisted in place with the help of wedges and levers. Barsoum argues that although indeed the majority of the stones were carved and hoisted into place, crucial parts were not. The ancient builders cast the blocks of the outer and inner casings and, most likely, the upper parts of the pyramids using a limestone concrete, called a geopolymer.
To arrive at his findings, Barsoum, an Egypt native, and co-workers analyzed more than 1,000 micrographs, chemical analyses and other materials over three years. Barsoum, whose interest in the pyramids and geopolymers was piqued five years ago when he heard theories about the construction of the pyramids, says that to construct them with only cast stone builders would have needed an unattainable amount of wood and fuel to heat lime to 900 degrees Celsius. Barsoum's findings provide long-sought answers to some of the questions about how the pyramids were constructed and with such precision.
It puts to rest the question of how steep ramps could have extended to the summit of the pyramids; builders could cast blocks on site, without having to transport stones great distances. By using cast blocks, builders were able to level the pyramids' bases to within an inch.
Finally, builders were able to maintain precisely the angles of the pyramids so that the four planes of each arrived at a peak. Although these findings answer some of the questions about the pyramids, Barsoum says the mystery of how they were built is far from solved. For example, he has been unable to determine how granite beams - spanning kings' chambers and weighing as much as 70 tons each - were cut with nothing harder than copper and hauled in place.
The type of concrete pyramid builders used could reduce pollution and outlast Portland cement, the most common type of modern cement. Portland cement injects a large amount of the world's carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and has a lifespan of about 150 years.
If widely used, a geopolymer such as the one used in the construction of the pyramids can reduce that amount of pollution by 90 percent and last much longer. The raw materials used to produce the concrete used in the pyramids - lime, limestone and diatomaceous earth - can be found worldwide and is affordable enough to be an important construction material for developing countries, Barsoum said.
Source: Drexel University - Dateline Drexel (Keyword: Giza - November 30, 2007). Based on the paper: M. W. Barsoum, A. Ganguly, G. Hug (2006)Microstructural Evidence of Reconstituted Limestone Blocks in the Great Pyramids of EgyptJournal of the American Ceramic Society 89 (12), 3788–3796.doi:10.1111/j.1551-2916.2006.01308.x
Abstract
How the Great Pyramids of Giza were built has remained an enduring mystery. In the mid-1980s, Davidovits proposed that the pyramids were cast in situ using granular limestone aggregate and an alkali alumino-silicate-based binder. Hard evidence for this idea, however, remained elusive.
Using primarily scanning and transmission electron microscopy, we compared a number of pyramid limestone samples with six different limestone samples from their vicinity. The pyramid samples contained microconstituents (micro-c's) with appreciable amounts of Si in combination with elements, such as Ca and Mg, in ratios that do not exist in any of the potential limestone sources.
The intimate proximity of the µc's suggests that at some time these elements had been together in a solution. Furthermore, between the natural limestone aggregates, the µc's with chemistries reminiscent of calcite and dolomite - not known to hydrate in nature - were hydrated.
The ubiquity of Si and the presence of submicron silica-based spheres in some of the micrographs strongly suggest that the solution was basic. Transmission electron microscope confirmed that some of these Si-containing micro-c's were either amorphous or nanocrystalline, which is consistent with a relatively rapid precipitation reaction. The sophistication and endurance of this ancient concrete technology is simply astounding.
*Info on current construction theories: Many varied estimates have been made regarding the workforce needed to construct the Great Pyramid. Herodotus, the Greek historian in the 5th century BCE, estimated that construction may have required 20,000 workers for 20 years. Recent evidence has been found that suggests the workforce was in fact paid [citation needed], which would require accounting and bureaucratic skills of a high order. Polish architect Wieslaw Kozinski believed that it took as many as 25 men to transport a 1.5-ton stone block. Based on this, he estimated the workforce to be 300,000 men on the construction site, with an enormous additional 60,000 off-site. [More]
[Archaelogy; alt Archeology] Egyptology info: Egyptology.com and KMT - "A Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt"]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.atlantisrising.com/backissues/issue8/ar8egypt.html
An Engineer in Egypt
by Christopher Dunn
. . . .
. . . .
Within the past three years, artifacts established as icons of ancient Egyptian study have developed a new aura. There are suggestions of controversy, cover-ups and conspiracy to squelch or ignore data that promises to shatter conventional academic thinking regarding prehistoric society. As of this writing, a powerful movement is intent on restoring to the world a heritage that has been partly destroyed and undeniably misunderstood.
This movement consists of specialists in various fields who, in the face of fierce opposition from Egyptologists, are cooperating with each other to affect changes in our beliefs of prehistory. The opposition by Egyptologists is like the last gasp of a dying man. In the face of expert analysis they are striving to protect their cozy tenures by arguing engineering subtleties that make no sense whatever.
In a recent interview, an Egyptologist ridiculed theorists, who present different view of the pyramids, claiming their ideas are the product of overactive imaginations stimulated by the consumption of beer. Hmmm. By way of challenging such conventional theories, there has been, for decades, an undercurrent of speculation that the pyramid builders were highly advanced in their technology.
Attempts to build pyramids using the orthodox methods theorized for the ancient Egyptians, have fallen pitifully short. The great pyramid is 483 feet high and houses seventy-ton pieces of granite lifted to a level of 175 feet. Theorists have struggled with stones weighing up to two tons to a height of a few feet. One wonders if these were attempts to prove that primitive methods are capable of building the Egyptian pyramids or the opposite? Attempts to execute such conventional theories have not revealed the theories to be correct! Do we need to revise the theory, or will we continue to educate our young with erroneous data?
. . . .
In August 1984 this author published an article in Analog Magazine entitled "Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt?" based on Pyramids and Temple of Gizeh, by Sir William Flinders Petrie, published in 1883. Since that article's publication, I have been fortunate to visit Egypt twice.
With each visit I leave with more respect for the industry of the ancient pyramid builders. An industry, by the way, that does not exist anywhere in the world today. In 1986, I visited the Cairo museum and gave a copy of my article, and a business card, to the director. He thanked me kindly, then threw my offering into a drawer with other sundry stuff, and turned away. Another Egyptologist led me to the "tool room" to educate me in the methods of the ancient masons by showing me a few cases that housed primitive copper tools.
I asked my host about the cutting of granite, as this was the focus of my article. He explained how a slot was cut in the granite and wooden wedges, soaked with water, were inserted. The wood swelled creating pressure that split the rock. This still did not explain how copper implements were able to cut granite, but he was so enthusiastic with his dissertation, I chose not to interrupt.
I was musing over a statement made by Egyptologist Dr. I. E. S. Edwards in "Ancient Egypt" (National Geographic Society, Washington, 1978). Edwards said that to cut the granite, "axes and chisels were made of copper hardened by hammering." This is like saying "to cut this aluminum saucepan they fashioned their knives out of butter!" My host animatedly walked me over to a nearby travel agent encouraging me to buy plane tickets to Aswan, "where" he said, "the evidence is clear. I must see the quarry marks there and the unfinished obelisk." Dutifully, I bought the tickets and arrived at Aswan the next day.
. . . .
The Aswan quarries were educational. The obelisk weighs approximately 3,000 tons. However, the quarry marks I saw there did not satisfy me as being the only means by which the pyramid builders quarried their rock. Located in the channel, which runs the length of the obelisk, is a large hole drilled into the bedrock hillside, measuring approximately 12 inches in diameter and three feet deep.
The hole was drilled at an angle with the top intruding into the channel space. (see photo number 1, drill hole at Aswan) The ancients must have used drills to remove material from the perimeter of the obelisk, knocked out the webs between the holes and then removed the cusps. While strolling around the Giza Plateau later, I started to question the quarry marks at Aswan even more. (I also questioned why the Egyptologist had deemed it necessary to buy a plane ticket to look at them.) I was to the South of the second pyramid when I found an abundance of quarry marks of similar nature. The granite casing stones, which had sheathed the second pyramid, were stripped off and lying around the base in various stages of destruction.
Typical to all of the granite stones worked on were the same quarry marks that I had seen at Aswan earlier in the week. This discovery confirmed my suspicion of the validity of Egyptologists’ theories on the ancient pyramid builders’ quarrying methods. If these quarry marks distinctively identify the people who created the pyramids, why would they engage in such a tremendous amount of extremely difficult work only to destroy their work after having completed it? It seems, to me, that these kinds of quarry marks were from a later period of time and were created by people who were interested only in obtaining granite. Without caring from where they got it.
You can see demonstrations of primitive stone cutting in Egypt if you go to Saqqara. Being alerted to the presence of tourists, workers will start chipping away at limestone blocks. It doesn’t surprise me that they choose limestone for their demonstration, for it is a soft sedimentary rock and can be easily worked. However, you won't find any workers plowing through granite, an extremely hard, igneous rock made up of feldspar and quartz.
Any attempt at creating granite, diorite and basalt artifacts on the same scale as the ancients, but using primitive methods, would meet with utter and complete failure. Those Egyptologists who know that work-hardened copper will not cut granite have dreamed up a different method. They propose that the ancients used small round diorite balls (another extremely hard igneous rock) with which they "bashed" the granite.
. . . .
How could anyone who has been to Egypt and seen the wonderful intricately detailed hieroglyphs cut with amazing precision in granite and diorite statues, that tower 15 ft. above an average man, propose that this work was done by bashing the granite with a round ball? The hieroglyphs are amazingly precise with grooves that are square and deeper than they are wide.
They follow precise contours and some have grooves that run parallel to each other with only .030 inch wide wall between the grooves. Sir William Flinders Petrie remarked that the grooves could only have been cut with a special tool that was capable of plowing cleanly through the granite without splintering the rock. Bashing with small balls never entered Petrie’s mind. But then, Petrie was a surveyor whose father was an engineer.
Failing to come up with a method that would satisfy the evidence, Petrie had to leave the subject open. We would be hard pressed to produce many of these artifacts today, even using our advanced methods of manufacturing. The tools displayed as instruments for the creation of these incredible artifacts are physically incapable of even coming close to reproducing many of the artifacts in question.
Along with the enormous task of quarrying, cutting and erecting the Great Pyramid and its neighbors, thousands of tons of hard igneous rock, such as granite and diorite, were carved with extreme proficiency and accuracy. After standing in awe before these engineering marvels and then being shown a paltry collection of copper implements in the tool case at the Cairo Museum, one comes away with a sense of frustration, futility and wonder.
. . . .
The world’s first Egyptologist, Sir William Flinders Petrie recognized that these tools were insufficient. He admitted it in his book Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh and expressed amazement and stupefaction regarding the methods the ancient Egyptians were using to cut hard igneous rocks, crediting them with methods that "...we are only now coming to understand."
So why do modern Egyptologists identify this work with a few primitive copper instruments and small round balls? It makes no sense whatsoever! While browsing through the Cairo Museum, I found evidence of lathe turning on a large scale. A sarcophagus lid had distinctive indications. Its radius terminated with a blend radius at shoulders on both ends. The tool marks near these corner radii are the same as those I have witnessed on objects that have an intermittent cut. Petrie also studied the sawing methods of the pyramid builders.
He concluded that their saws must have been at least nine feet long. Again, there are subtle indications on the artifacts Petrie was studying of modern sawing methods. The sarcophagus in the King’s Chamber inside the Great Pyramid has saw marks on the north end that are identical to saw marks I’ve seen on modern granite artifacts.
The artifacts representing tubular drilling, studied by Petrie, are the most clearly astounding and conclusive evidence yet presented to identify, with little doubt, the knowledge and technology in existence in pre-history. The ancient pyramid builders used a technique for drilling holes that is commonly known as "trepanning." This technique leaves a central core and is an efficient means of hole making. For holes that didn’t go all the way through the material, the craftsmen would reach a desired depth and then break the core out of the hole.
It was not just the holes, that Petrie was studying, but the cores cast aside by the masons who had done some trepanning. Regarding tool marks which left a spiral groove on a core taken out of a hole drilled into a piece of granite, he wrote: "the spiral of the cut sinks .100 inch in the circumference of six inches, or one in sixty, a rate of plowing out of the quartz and feldspar which is astonishing." For drilling these holes, there is only one method that satisfies the evidence.
Without any thought to the time in history when these artifacts were produced, analysis of the evidence clearly points to ultrasonic machining. This is the method that I proposed in my article in 1984, and so far, no one has been able to disprove it. In 1994 I sent a copy of the article to Robert Bauval (The Orion Mystery) who then passed it on to Graham Hancock (Fingerprints of the Gods). After a series of conversations with Hancock, I was invited to Egypt to participate in a documentary with him, Robert and John Anthony West. On February 22, 1995 at 9:00 A.M. I had my first experience of being ‘on camera’.
. . . .
This time, with the expressed intent of inspecting features I had identified on my previous trip in 1986, I took some tools with me: a flat ground piece of steel (commonly known as a "parallel" in tool shops, it is about six inches long and a quarter-inch thick with edges ground flat within .0002 inch); an Interapid indicator; a wire contour gage; a device which forms around shapes; and hard forming wax.
While there, I came across, and was able to measure, some artifacts produced by the ancient pyramid builders that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that highly advanced and sophisticated tools and methods were employed. The first object I checked for close precision was the sarcophagus inside the second (Khafra's) pyramid on the Giza Plateau. I climbed inside the box, and with a flashlight and the parallel, was astounded to find the surface on the inside of the box perfectly smooth and perfectly flat.
Placing the edge of the parallel against the surface I lit my flashlight behind it. There was no light coming through the interface. No matter where I moved the parallel, vertically, horizontally, sliding it along as one would a gage on a precision surface plate, I couldn’t detect any deviation from a perfectly flat surface. A group of Spanish tourist found it extremely interesting too, and gathered around me as I was becoming quite animated at this point exclaiming into my tape recorder. "Space age precision!"
The tour guides, at this point, were becoming quite animated too. I sensed that they probably didn’t think it was appropriate for a live foreigner to be where they believe a dead Egyptian should go, so, I respectfully removed myself from the sarcophagus and continued my examination on the outside.
There were more features of this artifact that I wanted to inspect, of course, but didn't have the freedom to do so. My mind was racing as I lowered my frame into the narrow confines of the entrance shaft and climbed to the outside. The inside of a huge granite box finished off to a precision that we reserve for precision surface plates? How did they do this? It would be impossible to do this by hand!
. . . .
While being extremely impressed with this artifact, I was even more impressed with other artifacts found at another site in the rock tunnels at the temple of Serapeum at Saqqara, the site of the step pyramid and Zoser’s tomb. In these dark dusty tunnels are housed 21 huge basalt boxes.
They weigh an estimated 65 tons each and are finished off to the same precision as the sarcophagus in the second pyramid. The final artifact I inspected was a piece of granite I quite literally stumbled across while strolling around the Giza Plateau later that day.
I concluded, after doing a preliminary check of this piece, that the ancient pyramid builders had to have used a machinery that followed precise contours in three axes to guide the tool that created it. Beyond the incredible precision, normal flat surfaces, being simple geometry, may be explained away by simple methods.
This piece, though, drives us beyond the question normally pondered...what tools were used to cut it? To a more far reaching question... what guided the cutting tool? These discoveries have more implications for understanding the technology used by the ancient pyramid builders than anything heretofore uncovered.
The interpretation of these artifacts depends on engineers and technologists. When presenting this material to a local engineers club, I was gratified by the response of my peers. They saw the significance.
They agreed with the conclusions. While my focus was on the methods used to produce them, some engineers, ignoring Egyptologists proposed uses for these artifacts, asked, "what were they doing with them?" They were utterly and completely astounded by what they saw. The interpretation and understanding of a civilizations’ level of technology cannot and should not hinge on the preservation of a written record for every technique that they had developed.
The "nuts and bolts" of our society do not always make good copy, and a stone mural will more than likely be cut to convey an ideological message, rather than the technique used to inscribe it. Records of the technology developed by our modern civilization rest in media that is vulnerable and could conceivably cease to exist in the event of a world wide catastrophe, such as a nuclear war, or another ice age.
Consequently, after several thousand years, an interpretation of an artisan’s methods may be more accurate than an interpretation of his language. The language of science and technology doesn’t have the same freedom as speech. So even though the tools and machines have not survived the thousands of years since their use, we have to assume, by objective analysis of the evidence, that they did exist.
2 comments:
It's pretty interesting that Dr. Stephen Hawking posed that question. I've come to notice on our site as well as other Q&A sites that the "religion" and existential questions are gaining in popularity--through both asking and answering.
Dara
http://www.funadvice.com
Greetings Dara, Nice to see you here. Hope you enjoy it. Lots of familiar "sensational news", in a slightly quieter atmosphere. Cocktail party rather than rave. Very pleasant, don't you think?
Post a Comment