‘Seashells in the desert’
by David Catchpoole
Compilation of images from stock.xchng and stockxpert
The massive limestone blocks of the Egyptian pyramids contain abundant fossil shells,
most of them still beautifully intact, according to a recent mineralogical analysis.1
At the Great Pyramid of Khufu (Cheops), the fossil shells constitute ‘a proportion
of up to 40% of the whole building stone rock’, explained Professor Ioannis
Liritzis and his colleagues from the University of the Aegean and the University
of Athens. The fossils were predominately nummulites (coin-shaped coiled fossils
of shelled protozoa), but sand dollars, starfish and sea urchins were also detected.
This announcement has served to intensify the debate as to whether the pyramid blocks
were carved out of natural stone or rather were cast as concrete—an idea proposed
two decades ago by Joseph Davidovits, professor and director of France’s Geopolymer
Institute. Davidovits had reproduced such ‘artificial limestone’ by grinding up
various local rocks, with the mixture hardening within hours.2
But Liritzis and his team argue that their evidence shows that the building stones
used in the constructions of the Giza pyramids, at least—along with the Sphinx
and other Egyptian monuments—must have been carved, not cast. For example,
X-ray diffraction and other analysis shows that the fossils are ‘largely undamaged’
and distributed throughout the stone ‘in accordance with their typical distribution
at sea floors’. And there are no known references to moulds, buckets or other
casting tools in early Egyptian texts, paintings or sculptures.
Robert Temple, co-director of the Project for Historical Dating and a visiting research
fellow at universities in the US, Greece and Egypt, says both sides of the debate
present worthy points.
‘There is no evidence known that suggests the ancient Egyptians had cranes.
Without cranes, it is difficult to imagine how they could have lifted giant stones,
some as heavy as 200 tonnes,’ Temple says, but he also agrees that the fossils
should not be ignored.
‘Frankly, not many people pay attention to the shells, which I have always
thought was a shame. “Seashells in the desert”—a good story.’
Actually, there are two key points we can note:
- Irrespective of whether the pyramid blocks were all carved from natural stone or
some cast as concrete using ground-up rock, the presence of abundant marine fossils
points to the raw building materials having been obtained post-Flood. (How
else could you get ‘seashells in the desert’?) So the ancient Egyptian
culture arose after the events of Genesis 6–9, not before. The ancestor of the Egyptians,
Mizraim,3 appears in Genesis 10:6,13; the Egyptian name for Egypt is Misr to
this day.4
- In the absence of definitive eyewitness evidence as to how the pyramids were actually
constructed, people today can mostly only speculate. But whether the blocks were
carved or cast or both, the ingenuity and engineering skills of ancient times ought
not surprise us, as man has been intelligent from the very first—in stark
contrast to evolutionary teaching, which says early man was ‘primitive’.
Related articles
References and notes
- Viegas, J., Pyramids packed with fossil shells, ABC News
in Science, <www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/04/28/2229383.htm>,
28 April 2008. Return to text.
- More concrete support for pyramid theory, Creation
29(3):9, 2007. Return to text.
- Hebrew מצרים (mitsrayim),
a dual form, possibly a reference to the Upper and Lower halves of Egypt.
Return to text.
- See also: Walker, T., Cardno, S., and Sarfati, J.,
Timing is everything—a talk with field archaeologist David Down, Creation
27(3):30–35, 2005; <creation.com/down>; Ashton, J.
and Down, D., Unwrapping the Pharaohs, Master Books, USA, 2006.
Return to text.
| Ken E. wrote: “I just wanted to drop a note to express my gratitude for the kind of information you supply at the CMI web-site. I love science and find it thrilling to see how it may be used to glorify God and build faith in Him.” Glorify God in His creation.  | | |
|
