If you are really interested, there is a sci.archaeology
newsgroup where this may be discussed with people who
actually know a burro from a burrow.

Dave Hinz wrote:


... 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.

Current theory is that the ramps were make
of rubble from the quarry and local soil, a
combination called, IIFC tufla, which spiraled
around the pyramid to keep its volume to a
minimum. According to this model after the
last of the supporting (interior) blocks were
laid the casing stones were laid from the top
down, cantelevering the outer edge of each out
from the interior stones so that the next layer
down could slide in underneath. As the casing
stones were laid, the ramp was disassembled.

At any rate, there is considerable evidence
for the existance of a ramp in the form of a
layer of tufla, which is subtantially different
from the natural soil, spread out over the
surface at Giza.

--

FF



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.

Additionally some of the stones were put
into place using mortar, not really necessary
if the blocks were cast in place next to each
other.

Besides, if they were casting in situ, you'd
think that they would have cast the concrete
in long horizontal layers instead of discrete
blocks, right?

Rather than a letter to the editors in that
crappy rag Omni (_The Magazine of Fantasy and
Science Fiction_ was _so_ much better than
Omni it was really pathetic) I recall the
'concrete' notion being advanced by a French
chemical engineer, though maybe it was the
same guy. 'Twas the French guy who appeard
in _This Old Pyramid_ on PBS.

--

FF