Tower
of burnt bricks in Egypt?
28:38
And Pharaoh said, "O chiefs, I do not know of a god for you
other than me. So kindle upon the clay for me, O
Haman, and make for me a lofty tower so that I may look at the
God of Moses. And indeed, I think he is of the liars."
(According
to the article “Solving the mysteries of the pyramids” in
“drexel(dot)edu”, “Professor Michel Barsoum, distinguished
professor in the department of materials science and engineering at
Drexel University and colleagues have found scientific evidence that
parts of the great pyramids of Giza were built using an early form of
concrete, debunking an age old myth that they were built using only
cut limestone blocks”)(According to the article “the surprising
truth about how the great pyramids were built” by Sheila Berninger
and Dorilona Rose, in “livescience(dot)com”, “A year and a half
later, after extensive scanning electron microscope observations and
other testing, Barsoum and his research group finally began to draw
some conclusions about the pyramids. They found that the tiniest
structures within the inner and outer casing stones were indeed
consistent with a reconstituted limestone. The cement binding the
limestone aggregate was either silicon dioxide (the building block of
quartz) or a calcium and magnesium-rich silicate mineral. The stones
also had a high water content – unusual for the normally dry,
natural limestone found on the Giza plateau – and the cementing
phases, in both the inner and outer casing stones, were amorphous, in
other words, their atoms were not arranged in a regular and periodic
array. Sedimentary rocks such as limestone are seldom, if ever,
amorphous. The sample chemistries the researchers found do not exist
anywhere in nature. “Therefore,” Barsoum said, “it’s very
improbable that the outer and inner casing stones that we examined
were chiseled from a natural limestone block.” More startlingly,
Barsoum and another of his graduate students, Aaron Sakulich,
recently discovered the presence of silicon dioxide nanoscale spheres
(with diameters only billionths of a meter across) in one of the
samples. This discovery further confirms that these blocks are not
natural limestone.”)(The conclusion is that there were burnt brinks
in ancient Egypt)(The sources mentioned above are reliable. Another
source which might not be that reliable, but could be correct,
because reaches the same conclusion: Ramses II is one of the
candidates for the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Quoting the book “Ages in
chaos II: Ramses II and his time”, by Immanuel Velikovsky:
“Flinders Petrie, the excavator of Tahpanheth-Daphnae, was
impressed by reddish kiln-baked
bricks found at Tell Defenneh and in the neighboring village of
Nebesheh. The building materials of Egypt had always been stone and
mud bricks. The mud bricks were dried in the sun, a practice employed
even today in Egypt. Therefore kiln-baked bricks used a these two
sites were very unusual in Petrie’s eyes. In the temple at
Nebesheh, Petrie also found a statue bearing the cartouches of Ramses
II… . The employment of red brick in this tomb, and in the next,
which is also Ramesside, is of great importance.
Hitherto I had never seen any red brick in Egypt of earlier times
than the Constantine period… Now we see from these cases that baked
brick was introduced in the Ramesside times in the Delta. Also in
Tahpanheth (Daphnae) the archaeologist unearthed the foundations of a
structure built of kiln-baked bricks… . It is essential to note
this fact: that baked bricks were not discovered in Egypt of an age
earlier than the time of the Ramessides, or of an age following that
of the Ramessides…)(Allah knows best)
An
alternative answer:
See
also: Is the Qur'an scientifically correct? (5) (History)
See
also: Is the Qur'an scientifically correct? (0) (Index)
No comments:
Post a Comment