Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hex · 05-30-2007, 10:07 AM

I'm interested in people's views on this article that talks about limestone 'cement'. Barsoum has had an article about this published in The Journal of the American Ceramic Society, for what that's worth, and I'd love to hear someone with a materials-science background let me know how valid it is.

But, this brings me around to some of the Biblical Flood/ Exodus issues for Biblical literalists. What if Egyptian bricks were actually cast of this cement, rather than made in a typical Mesopotamian mud-brick style? Wouldn't that bring some issues into Exodus 5, like maybe the Isrealites were never there?

Minimalist · 05-30-2007, 10:31 AM

Archaeology says they were never there anyway....bricks or no bricks.

This is a pretty solid summation.

http://hotcupofjoe.blogspot.com/2007...of-exodus.html

Quote:

Conclusion
Exodus was probably a story written by authors in the 7th century, or possibly as late as the 6th century, BCE. The place names mentioned above existed by the 7th century but not in the Bronze Age. Iron Age authors would have known of the many public works created by the Saite Dynasty in Egypt's 26th Dynasty, who employed the largest numbers of foreign settlers. A large community of immigrants from Judah was present from the 7th through the 6th centuries. Pithom, mentioned in Exodus 1:11, was built in the 7th century. Migdol, mentioned in Exodus 14:2, was built in the 7th century.

Exodus apparently did not happen in the period or in the manner in which it is portrayed in biblical mythology.

driver8 · 05-30-2007, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hex

I'm interested in people's views on this article that talks about limestone 'cement'. Barsoum has had an article about this published in The Journal of the American Ceramic Society, for what that's worth, and I'd love to hear someone with a materials-science background let me know how valid it is.

I'm a chemical engineer with about ten years of construction material science background, including R&D and QC in combined lab and field settings. My specialty areas included lime for stabilization, as well as adhesives, polymers, etc. I have some experience also with cement and concrete.

The article doesn't offer much detail but on the surface it seems believable and reasonable. This would presumably push back the timeline on concrete technology a few years. I'm not surprised. I saw a show a few months back that convincingly argued the use of water jet technology to quarry and cut stone monoliths within, I believe, the Roman empire. Concrete technology is already known in the Mediterranean to predate you-know-who.

The interesting question to me with this article is what type of cement technology is being used, i.e., if they are kiln-firing limestone in order to produce lime or using other pozzolanic agents. Based on the observation of particle sphere size it would appear this might be the case.

I would not assume that this technology would be made available to the general populace even if it is demonstrated to have been used here.

05-30-2007, 10:07 AM	#1
Hex Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: www.rationalpagans.com Posts: 445	Did Egyptian Bricks NEED straw? I'm interested in people's views on this article that talks about limestone 'cement'. Barsoum has had an article about this published in The Journal of the American Ceramic Society, for what that's worth, and I'd love to hear someone with a materials-science background let me know how valid it is. But, this brings me around to some of the Biblical Flood/ Exodus issues for Biblical literalists. What if Egyptian bricks were actually cast of this cement, rather than made in a typical Mesopotamian mud-brick style? Wouldn't that bring some issues into Exodus 5, like maybe the Isrealites were never there?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.