This is a post from sci.archaeology by a friend, I will post the whole thing:

>An actual study by an actual professor of materials management suggests
>some of the stones in the Great yramid might have been cast. This will
>be published in the December issue of The Journal of the American
>Ceramic Society. Anyone have access?

>From the New York Time article: [tinyurl.com] (Free
>registration might be required--but is really, really worth it.):

>----------------------------
>In new research on the Great yramids of Giza, a scientist says he has
>found more to their construction than cut natural limestone. Some
>original parts of the massive structures appear to be made of concrete
>blocks.

>If true, historians say, this would be the earliest known application
>of concrete technology, some 2,500 years before the Romans started
>using it widely in harbors, amphitheaters and other architecture.

>Reporting the results of his study, Michel W. Barsoum, a professor of
>materials engineering at Drexel University, in hiladelphia, concluded
>that the use of limestone concrete could explain in part how the
>Egyptians were able to complete such massive monuments, beginning
>around 2550 B. C. They used concrete blocks, he said, on the outer and
>inner casings and probably on the upper levels, where it would have
>been difficult to hoist carved stone.

>"The sophistication and endurance of this ancient concrete technology
>is simply astounding," Dr. Barsoum wrote in a report in the December
>issue of The Journal of the American Ceramic Society.

>Dr. Barsoum and his co-workers analyzed the mineralogy of samples from
>several parts of the Khufu pyramid, and said they found mineral ratios
>that do not exist in any of the known limestone sources. From the
>geochemical mix of lime, sand and clay, they concluded, "the simplest
>explanation" is that it was cast concrete.

>Dr. Barsoum, a native of Egypt, said in an interview that he expected
>his interpretation to be controversial - and it already is.
>------------------------------

>While this is someone who one might think would have a clue about the
>issue, here is his testimonial for Margaret Morris' two-volume work, _
>The Egyptian yramid
>Mystery Is Solved!_:

> "In this Volume 2 of a 2 volume set, Morris answers the question of
>how the Great yramids, and indeed much of the hard stone artifacts of
>Ancient Egypt, were fabricated. In her first volume she methodically
>addresses and demolishes the currently accepted theory - the
>so-called carve-and-hoist theory - on how the Great yramids of Giza
>were built. That such a theory still prevails over the much more
>plausible alternate geopolymeric theory, first proposed by Davidovits
>more than 20 years ago, is truly astonishing. These two volumes by
>Morris are a must read for anybody genuinely interested in Egyptology."
>- MICHEL W. BARSOUM, DISTINGUISHED ROFESSOR,
>DEARTMENT OF MATERIALS SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING,
>DREXEL UNIVERSITY
>MARCH 17, 2004"


>So any chance this guy might be on to something? I know anything on
>this line I've read before about Giza pyramids has suffered from the
>'Since I have a hammer, this problem is clearly a nail'ism. He says he
>found stone compositions that do not match that of any of the limestone
>in the region.

>But he does seem to think it would be easier to build frames and fill
>with concrete made of crushed limestone than raising the stones
>themselves, which I thought ignored the fact that not only the mass of
>the concrete, but the mass of the water, and the frames themselves,
>would make more work in the raising.


Doug Weller

Director The Hall of Ma'at
Doug's Skeptical Archaeology site::
[www.ramtops.co.uk]