In my previous post, I discussed some of the coincidences of pyramid structures around the planet and some of the background into concrete.  To keep the posts shorter, I didn’t speculate into the construction methods used to construct these massive structures.

The current accepted timeline is that Khufu’s pyramid (the largest of the Giza Pyramids) was constructed in 23 years (2589 – 2566 BC).  There is endless debate on the work force and construction methods used to create these majestic wonders.  Each debate involves a series of assumptions.  What we have learned (recently) is that the pyramids were not built with slave labor.  The effort was a massive public works project.  Egyptian citizens worked on temple structures during of ‘off-season’ of an agricultural society.  During planting and harvesting, the populace worked the fields and farms.  The remainder of the year, the masses worked (for pay and subsistence) on these structures.  The debates surrounding the workforce look at maximum numbers working maximum hours.  Again, countless assumptions.

The field of archeology knows that the ancient Egyptians had forms of concrete and mortar from wall paintings dating well before the construction of Khufu’s pyramid (from wall art and plaster in Djoser’s burial chamber).

An alternative proposal has surfaced over the years and has merit (with a lower number of assumptions).  By using a formed rock substitute (a concrete like material), the construction of these large pyramids fits the documented timeline and workforce.  This method would still require some blocks to be quarried and placed, but most of the structure would be made from the materials locally available (water, sand, and a reactive material such as lime and natron).  The resulting compound would resemble a sandstone or limestone substitute with the properties of being formable and easy to transport in smaller quantities.  Such a compound would allow a number of workers to carry baskets of ‘wet concrete’ like materials and deposit them in-place.  This would allow that number of workers to cast a block of many tons, one basket load at a time.

Again, using Ockham’s Razor as a test, this now starts to put clarity into the questions of how the pyramids were constructed.  It also answers the dilemma concerning the quality of stonework with copper tools and the fineness of fitted joints between the massive stone blocks.

Pyramids

Around the planet there are examples of ancient cultures constructing large monuments.  In many cases these take the shape commonly referred to as pyramids.  The notation that the structures are ‘commonly referred to’ rises from the fact that we do not know what ancient peoples called those structures.  The currently accepted explanation is that of a worldwide coincidence.  This explanation is tenuous at best.  Such a wide spread practice is not coincidence.  This practice indicates cross cultural contact and communication deep into antiquity.  With the broad geographical range that these structures are found, the cross cultural communication spans both massive land masses and the largest of oceans.

Pyramids have been found in Europe, Asia, South America, and North America.  The ages of the structures span the millennia back to over 15,000 years ago.  Beyond the wide spread occurrence of such structures, other details scream of a common design.  Beyond the general shape of the structures, details such as size, and compass orientation are among the most common details shared by pyramids throughout the planet.

Concrete

This might seem like an odd topic for discussion of very ancient history.  There is significant documentation to show the Roman’s used this type of material in their construction only 2,000 years ago.  The concrete of today is called Portland Cement Concrete.  The name is derived from an attempt to mimic rock formations found and quarried on Isle of Portland.  With the concrete of today, the construction of massive structures are possible.  Portland Cement (the reactive ingredient in concrete) is hydraulic, it reacts with water to change during a chemical reaction.  After the initial reaction, the substance resembles a rocklike substance.  Concrete (and other Portland Cement products) continue to cure and harden over time.  The initial curing time is a month, but the curing can continue for many decades.  All the time, the concrete material hardens and becomes stronger.  I have personally tested concrete designed to a strength of 3,000 psi (pounds per square inch) of compressive strength.  After more than 50 years, the concrete tested at over 6,000 psi.  This is an example of the materials used today.  The concrete used by ancient Roman construction is similar in the strengthening over time.

There has been some ‘fringe’ speculation that many ancient structures used a similar construction method.  Even the Smithsonian Museum has an exhibit discussing the use of a formed rock substitute in the construction of the Egyptian Pyramids.  Again, using Ockham’s Razor as a test, this might not be as farfetched as the mainstream academia makes it sound.  Too many assumptions have been made in speculation of the exact methods used to move such massive stones during construction of those ancient structures.  The timeline and population of the ancient Egyptian society do not support construction of the massive structures built in antiquity.

If such structures were built today, the current methods used would support the documented timeline.  Of course to do so would either require massive equipment or a change in materials.  The reported 20 year duration to build the great pyramids neither supports the quantity or size of the stone blocks used in the construction.

There are three basic ingredients to modern concrete.  Aggregate, water (for reaction), and cement make up concrete.  The aggregate is a filler and provides volume.  The cement and water are combined, through a chemical reaction, to form a strong and solid rock like compound.  Modern concrete was developed to resemble naturally occurring stone.  If ancient man were to view a modern monolithic structure such as the Hoover Dam, he might speculate it was built from massive blocks of quarried stone.  In a similar view, the pyramids of ancient Egypt might have been made by casting a concrete like rock replacement material.  By using sand as a filler, the concrete would resemble sandstone.

As far as a supply for the material, the Nile Valley does contain an ample supply of sand and water.  The only missing ingredient is a cement (power) substance.  If made from lime (a traditional reactive material), the third ingredient is also abundant in the region.

Ockham’s Razor - is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving.  It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.  In simple terms, the simplest answer is usually the correct answer.  Much of main-stream academia wants absolute proof before rendering an opinion.  Often, the simplest answer is the best answer.  Of course, these simple answers are often dismissed as fringe theory.  Back in history, the main-stream was convinced the earth was the center of the solar system.  More recently, the majority accepted that the earth was flat.  In each case, additional assumptions were required to prove those theories.  As we learn more, we discover that what we took to be an undisputable fact to be wrong.

Recently an article was released stating that the general IQ of humans has been dropping over the vast millennia.  Early humans needed a higher IQ to simply survive the danger and harsh conditions of everyday life.  When we compare that theory to the view of our recent advancements, one can only wonder why we are not more advanced that we are.  Maybe we have been.

I use Ockham’s Razor as a test for a hypothesis.  If the answer is simple and lacking in additional assumptions to yield proof, it is worth further investigation.  With the exploration to answers of those many unanswered questions throughout history, simple answers are good answers (even without hard evidence).  Since we are looking into 200,000 years of human history, the lack of written evidence or large structures does not indicate that something didn’t exist.  Even today, most of our knowledge and information would not exist even a few days or weeks after the power keeping the computers humming was shut down.  So a lack of hard evidence does not indicate something or someone never existed.  We keep looking for logical and simple answers.

Several questions have come to my attention about the ancient crystal skulls.  This is a bit out of order and will lack some of the background, but have is my take on these objects.

Like all unanswered questions throughout history, the mainstream archeology community is too quick to dismiss these items, even to the point that the National Geographic Society has said (in a blanket statement) that all ancient crystal skulls are fakes.  Again, without solid undeniable proof, the academic world takes the easy way out and dismisses these items.

A little background is necessary at this point.  Native American and Mezzo-American legend tells that there are twelve ancient crystal skulls hidden around the planet (it is believed that six have been found to date).  At some time, in the future, when humanity is in need, the crystal skulls will make themselves known and provide needed answers and information.  The same legends hold held that the ancient crystal skulls contain the collective information and knowledge from a long lost and very advanced ancient civilization.  Like most myths and legends, there is some truth at the core of the story.  Again, like most myths and legends, the story may have been exaggerated over the many millennia.

The legend speaks of twelve skulls.  The idea of twelve skulls may stem from the same basis of the twelve tribes.  This is a legend fostered my several cultures including the tribes of Israel.  The twelve skulls might have grown from multiple groups of explorers from a central culture with each group leaving a skull as a marker for future generations.  This is a similar story with the significant difference that the twelve skulls would not need to be gathered in a single location to access ancient knowledge.  To cut through the possible exaggeration, a simple explanation is that the ancient skulls are simply part of a method to gain access to an ancient store of information (knowledge being the use of information).  A single skull might only hold the knowledge of a limited few humans, not an entire culture.  The volume required (by current technology) to hold the sum of today’s knowledge would several thousand times the volume of a single skull.  Most of my conclusions are based on logic.  Logic dictates that a single (or even twelve) skull is too small for the amount of knowledge being referred to.  Again, the ancient crystal skulls may be simply a device (like a computer terminal) to access a vast store of ancient knowledge.

I believe that the ancient crystal skulls are historical artifacts.  They were discovered at a time that their construction cannot be explained (even today, the technology does not exist to replicate the Mitchell-Hedges skull).  I feel the legend has changed over time and the skulls provide access (like a computer terminal provides access to the World Wide Web).  Though my Crystal Skull Trilogy is a work of fiction, it provides a possible and plausible function of the skulls as a part of the story line.

I welcome comments and/or thoughts on this subject.

Have you ever wondered about some of the unanswered historical questions
How were the great pryamids constructed?
How was electricity used 5,000 years ago?
What was the purpose of the Naska Lines?
Over the next weeks and months, we can discuss these questions and more.  All of the discussions will fuel a future publication (non-Fiction) to discribe topics of human history.