On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 17:33:43 GMT, Doug Miller wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz wrote:

Sure, but I just think that concrete could be distinguished from natural
rock, and that theory doesn't change the fact that you still have to get
that mass up to the casting location, which doesn't change the problem
very much.

Well, the guy didn't say it was _modern_ concrete... I suppose there are other
things besides Portland cement that could work as binders. And I think that a
priori assumptions may play a part, too: if one simply takes it for granted
that the stones *must* be natural, one might tend to overlook or misinterpret
evidence that points the other way.

OK, but as others have mentioned, we've got quarries with part-finished
blocks, in native limestone.

I'm not saying that guy is right, just
that he has an interesting theory that does manage to answer the question of
how they managed to move those blocks weighing twenty thousand tons (or
whatever) all that distance -- in baskets, fifty pounds at a time.

I've been mentally playing with the problem of getting the blocks up the
sides for a while, off and on. If _I_ needed to do it, I'd build wooden
tripods. Two symmetrical legs to go onto the level the block is on, a
long leg going down a row or four. Rope from the apex of the 3 legs,
down to and around the block. When the long bottom leg is low, the rope
is fastened around the block - the block is lifted by raising that leg.
Block goes up, swings in; lather - rinse - repeat. No need for ramps
(which would have more volume than the pyramids). Then again, the
"ramps" might have been a spiral series of blocks not put in until last.

But, if they were some sort of concrete, I think someone would have
noticed. I also have a mental image of grain in some of the stones, but
can't find the corresponding photo to point you to.

Dave Hinz