Divine incarnation in carved stone became the rule under the New Kingdom around 1400-1200 B.C. and the hegemony of the god Amun. The soft sandstone from the Silsilis quarries, used for in the great temples at Karnak and Luxor, is so easy to carve that everything appears simple. So why should there be any controversy about the monuments and objects dating from this period? Because some are made out of an extreme hard material: quartzite!

It is true that 1300 years after the great pyramids, agglomerated stone, geopolymer stone was again being used, albeit sporadically, under the domination of Amun. After all these years, the worship of the god Khnum and initiation into his mysterious technology had not been forgotten. The greatest Egyptian scientist-architect-scribe, Amenophis Son of Hapu (1437-1356 B.C.), eminence grise of the pharaoh Amenhotep III, XVIIIth Dynasty, re-introduced it and used his alchemical (geopolymer) knowledge to build amazing statues made out of quartzite with geosynthesis and geopolymerisation. And the heretical king Akhenaton, son of Amenhotep III, did the same in order to rival the supremacy of Amun by forbidding carved granite stone.

The Colosses of Memnon, with Joseph Davidovits in the foreground (1979).

The clues for geosynthesis (geopolymerization), artificial quartzite stone

Geologists fail to agree between themselves in determining the origin of the quartzite stone used to the famous colosses. To summarise, French and German archaeologists/geologists claim that the Colosses of Memnon were sculpted in a quarry 70 km further south down the Nile and that they were brought up by boat. Other British and American researchers propose an even more extraordinary exploit. According to them, the statues were carved, then transported upstream on the Nile from a place 700 km downstream near to Cairo. Each team of scientists uses more and more sophisticated methods in pursuing their research, including atomic absorption, x-ray fluorescence and neutron activation. When applied to the most enigmatic of Egyptian monuments, these new techniques shed more confusion than light.

In Antiquity, the statues commanded respect; the colosses of Memnon are monoliths: they are made from a single block of stone weighing nearly 1000 tonnes and standing on a pedestal of 550 tonnes. They are 20 metres high, equal to a seven storey building. The stone from which they are made is quartzite, which is practically impossible to carve. The members of the Egyptian expedition organised by Bonaparte at the beginning of the nineteenth century recorded several notes on the stages and on the Egyptian quartzite quarries. Thus we can read in La Description de l’Égypte :

“None of the great quartzite blocks bear any trace of tools that is so common in the sandstone and granite quarries: a material that is so hard, so refractory in the face of sharp tools cannot, it is true, be worked by the same methods as ordinary sandstone nor even of granite. We know nothing of how the blocks of such a rock were squared, how their surfaces were dressed or how they were given the beautiful polish that can still be seen in some places; but though we cannot guess the means, we are no less obliged to admire the results. There is nothing that can give a better idea of the highest state of advancement of the mechanical arts in antiquity as the beautiful execution of these figures and the pure lines of the hieroglyphs engraved in this material, harder and more difficult to work than granite. The Egyptians recoiled in front of none of these difficulties; nothing seemed to hinder them; the working is free throughout. Did the sculptor, in the middle of engraving a hieroglyphic character, strike one of the flints or pieces of agate that are encrusted in the material, the line of the character continued in all its purity, and neither the agate nor its enveloping stone bear the slightest crack.”

The consequences of this last observation are very important. What is the technology that could enable hieroglyphs to be engraved in this way? The Pharaoh Amenhotep III puts these statues down to a “miracle”. Later on, in hieroglyphic documents, the stone is designated as “biat inr”, which means “stone obtained after a miracle”. To what miraculous technology is Amenhotep alluding?
Once we accept the geopolymerization technique we can understand how Amenophis Son of Hapu, was able to make this quartzite rock and cast to the colosses of Memnon, these enormous statues more than seven storeys high. With the technique of geopolymer stone, we can also explain the controversy surrounding the different interpretations of the analysis results obtained by various scientific teams.

On his biographical statue at Karnak, Royal scribe Amenophis (1350 BC) describes the building of these colossal statues by the technique of agglomeration (geopolymer stone) “as bread is made” using a box (a mould) specially made by his workers. Here are lines 16 and 17 of his biographical inscription, in a translation by Joseph Davidovits, which differs from that of egyptologists (see Inscriptions), because they were unable to interpret the technical key-words:

“My master (the Pharaoh Amenhotep III) appointed me head of all works. I have not imitated what was done before me. I created a miraculous quartzite hill a gift of Tum, made by myself with love and intelligence, mastering his copy in the great temple with all minerals like the making of bread. Nobody before me has done such a thing, since the founding of the Two Earths. I have carried out work to make statues of great girth and taller than the colonnade, finer than the pylon 40 cubits tall; this magnificent mountain of miraculous quartzite is near Re-Tum. I had a vessel of 8 built and I had it ascend the Nile to set its image (its statue) in its great temple, according to our calculations (with the technology), as for the making of bread. Here is what I testify to those who come after us. An entire team built a single box (mould) of ingenious design. They fashioned (the statues) with the lightness of their heart, without hesitation, then worshipped the perfect image of the god (pharaoh) thus created. Then came those of Thebes, rejoicing in the colossal statues and satisfied that they would stand for all eternity.”

New translation by Joseph Davidovits (technical keywords are underlined).

Egyptologists translate the technical key-words “making of bread” involving the word “pet” into “enduring like the heavens”, which means nothing (see the traditional translation by egyptologists in Inscriptions). The bread making technology refers to the use of a pasty material that would be worked out like dough to produce geopolymer stone. These key-words are thoroughly discussed in my last book, only available in French so far.

The greatest Egyptian scientist is the biblical Patriarch Joseph.

Professor Joseph Davidovits is presenting his 5th book on the Egyptian civilization, here in connection with the Bible, published by Éditions Jean-Cyrille Godefroy, Paris.

Released on: 29 september 2009

In 1935 in Karnak, in Egypt, two French Egyptologists discover a fresco in the ruins of the memorial temple of Amenophis Son of Hapu, the most eminent scribe and scientist of ancient Egypt, Great chancellor of the Pharaon Amenhotep III, father of the monotheist Pharaon Akhenaton. Recently, 75 years later, Joseph Davidovits noted that the text of this fresco was reproduced word for word in the Bible, Genesis 41, when Pharaon installs the biblical Patriarch Joseph to rule over all Egypt. Royal scribe Amenophis Son of Hapu and the Patriarch Joseph are thus the same person. Moreover, the fresco contains a surprising detail which underlines its authenticity. Indeed, in Genesis 41, Pharaon names Joseph: çaphenat-paneah (sapnath-panéakh), a name which does not mean anything in Hebrew. Indeed, Joseph Davidovits discovered that çaphenat-paneah is the Egyptian name Amenophis Fils of Hapou, written reversely, from left to right, the hebrew language being written from right to left. The surprising detail in the fresco is that, precisely, the Egyptian name Amenophis is also written in hieroglyph reversely, from left to right, instead of from right to left like the rest of the text. There is thus absolute agreement between the fresco text and the Bible.

To read more go to The lost fresco and the Bible.
For those who speak and understand French we recommend the following video at Video-Amenophis.

Black Paleolithic ceramic (25,000 B.C.)

The Venus of Dolni Vestonice

This oldest ceramic ever manufactured is displayed at the Anthropology Museum, at Brno, Czech Republic. The Venus of Dolni Vestonice was visited by Prof. Joseph Davidovits who writes:

“I still had for my eyes the image of the yellow limestone Venus displayed at the Vienna Museum, Austria, to be very surprised by this one. It was not worked in soft stone, but manufactured out of terra cotta. Thus, I was looking at the oldest ceramic manufactured by Homo Sapiens 25.000 years ago (…) We have been taught that the terra cotta pottery was not invented before the Neolithic Age, 15.000 years later. And yet, I had in front of me an artifact resulting from the use of fire, at a time when, logically, the prehistoric men did not master this technique, according to the teaching of Prehistory.”

Venus of Dolni Vestonice (Brno Anthropology Museum, Czech Republic)

The manufacturing technique is connected with another one used 23.000 years later in the manufacturing of Etruscan black ceramics, the famous Bucchero Nero (see below). Joseph Davidovits and Frédéric Davidovits have replicated this ultra simple technology, in their garden, at Saint-Quentin (see below).

Trials on black terra cota (LTGS) by J. Davidovits and F. Davidovits , 1999

Etruscan Ceramic, Bucchero Nero (750 B.C.)

The Etruscan civilization florished in Italy before the creation of the Roman Empire (Tarquinia, Cerveteri, Orvieto, Veio, Chiusi).

Etruscan Bucchero Nero vase (Louvre Museum)

The manufacture of Etruscan black ceramics, the famous Bucchero Nero, was presented at the 2nd International Conference on Geopolymers, in 1999. In the recently updated book Geopolymer Chemistry & Applications, archaeological ceramics are thoroughly outlined in Chapters 17 and 20. You may also go to the Geopolymer Library and download several papers.

Fabrication of stone objects, by geopolymeric synthesis, in the pre-incan Huanka civilization (Peru)

Joseph DAVIDOVITS and Francisco ALIAGA
Abstract of a paper presented at the 21st International Symposium for Archaeometry, Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York, USA, 1981 (page 21).

It is now agreed, that the TIHUANACO civilisation is modeled on the pre-incan HUANKA civilisation revealed by an extraordinary skill in fabricating objects in stone. A recent ethnological discovery shows that some witch-doctors in the HUANKA tradition, use no tools to make their little stone objects, but still use a chemical dissolution of the stone material by plant extracts. The starting stone material (silicate or silico-aluminate) is dissolved by the organic extracts, and the viscous slurry is then poured into a mould where it hardens. This technique, when mastered, allows a sort of cement to be made by dissolving rocks; statues which could have been made by the technique of the pre-incan HUANKA,by dissolution followed by geopolymeric agglomeration, are found to contain Ca-oxalate in the stone.

The disaggregation of stone materials with organic acids from plant extracts, an ancient and universal technique

Joseph DAVIDOVITS, A. BONETT and A.M. MARIOTTE
Proceedings of the 22nd Symposium on Archaeometry, University of Bradford, Bradford, U.K. March 30th – April 3rd 1982. Pages 205 – 212.

At the XXI Archaeometry Symposium we presented the hypothesis that the large stones in precolumbian monuments were artificial, having been agglomerated with a binder obtained by disaggregating certain rocks (in agreement with local legend and tradition). We present here the first results on plant extracts on the dissolution or disaggregation of calcium carbonate containing rocks (Bio-tooling action). The feasibility of chemically working calcium carbonate with various carboxylic acids found in plants (acetic, oxalic and citric acid) has been studied. Maximum bio-tooling action is obtained with a solution containing:

• vinegar (1 M) (acetic acid)
• oxalic acid (0.9 M)
• citric acid (0.78 M)

The great surprise was actually to discover very ancient references to their use since Neolithic times for working materials which are very hard but easily attacked by acids, such as chalk. Thus, a bas-relief from the tomb of Mera, at SAQQARAH (VI dynasty, 3Millenium B.C., Egypt) (Fig.6 ) shows the hollowing out of “Egyptian alabaster” (CaCO3) vases by a liquid contained in a water skin or bladder. An experiment of interest was to compare the “bio-tooling” technique with the shaping of a hole using steel tool and the quartz sand technique recommended by prehistorians. The hole resulting from sand abrasion has rough walls, whereas bio-tooling gives a smooth finish.

The precolumbian farmers were quite capable of producing large quantities of acids from such common plants in their region as:

• fruits, potatoes, maize, rhubarb, rumex, agave americana, opuntia, ficus indica, oxalis pubescens

Click here to see how you can download paper #C Making Cements with Plant Extracts .

Geopolymer 2005

Synthetic stone in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia

manufacture of synthetic lava and synthetic basalt and decipherment of the C-14 Irtysen Stele (2000 B.C.)

The C-14 Irtysen Stele dating 2.000 BC (Louvre Museum, Paris) states that sculptor Irtysen did not carve but rather cast synthetic stone statues in molds. Irtysen’s knowledge is connected with the making of synthetic basalt in Mesopotamia at the same epoch, around 2000 BC. The artist ground vitreous silicates to make geopolymer binders for the production of stone artefacts. Its feasibility is verified by the manufacture of synthetic lava and several aluminosilicate geopolymeric binders developed within the frame of the European research project GEOCISTEM. Compositionally, the Geocistem synthetic lavas and the Mesopotamian synthetic basalts are similar and were processed at the same temperature (1200°C).

Why Djoser’s blue Egyptian faience tiles are not blue?

Manufacturing Djoser’s faience tiles at temperatures as low as 250°C?

30,000 blue faience tiles were found in Djoser’s funerary complex at Saqqarah (3. dynasty). It is generally assumed that the tiles underwent a self-glazing process during firing in the range of 800-850°C or by dipping in a liquid glaze. It is striking to notice that in contrary to their labelling, numerous Djoser’s tiles are not blue but grey, black, blue-green and even brown as displayed in figure 1.

SEM microanalysis shows the presence of phosphorus in the glaze that suggests the use of the blue mineral turquoise (mafkat), an aluminium-copper phosphate, intensively extracted by pharaoh Djoser in the Sinai mines. Our aim was to replicate the self-glazing process with a soluble silicate binder (a geopolymer glaze) involving a synthetic turquoise (mafkat) mixture made of pure aluminium phosphate hydrate and copper phosphate hydrate. We were astonished to get a turquoise blue-self-glazed ceramic, stable and identical to Egyptian faience, at a temperature as low as 250°C. Post treatment at 350°C changes the blue colour into grey-black (chemical transformation of blue copper phosphate into black tenorite CuO) that remains stable up to 800°C, where it turns back to blue. Did Djoser’s ceramists use this low temperature process? Apparently yes, if we look at all the colours that we have replicated at self-glazing temperatures in the range of 250-350°C

Latest analysis on pyramid stones supporting Joseph Davidovits’ theory

A) PIXE, PIGE and NMR studies;
B) Microstructural investigations;
C) Synchrotron radiation;
D) The making of pyramid stones

The abstracts relate to the actual research being carried out by various teams of scientists. Any one of these researches relates to the artificial nature of the analysed pyramid stones. It is an ongoing research with papers already published or to be published in major international scientific journals. They will be posted in the NEWS as soon as they are published.

Geopolymer ‘99

Archaeological Analogues and long-term stability of geopolymeric materials

From the digging of ancient Roman ruins, one knows that approximately 95% of the concretes and mortars constituting the Roman buildings consist of a very simple lime cement, which hardened slowly through the precipitating action of carbon dioxide CO₂, from the atmosphere. This is a very weak material that was used essentially in the making of foundations and in buildings for the populace. But for the building of their “ouvrages d’art”, the Roman architects did not hesitate to use more sophisticated and expensive ingredients. Conventional mineralogical analysis does not provide satisfactory explanation of the hardening mechanism. Yet, owing to the powerful MAS-NMR Spectroscopy investigation of these archaeological cements, one was able to distinguish two geopolymeric archaeological Roman cement analogues, dating to the 2nd. c. AD.

The Making of Etruscan Ceramic (Bucchero Nero) in VII-VIII Century B.C.

At the 1980, 1981, 1982, and 1984 Symposia on Archaeometry, one of us (J.D.) showed the possibility of fabricating ceramics by Low Temperature Geopolymeric Setting (LTGS) between 50°C and 500°C. The results obtained with LTGS have been surprising and very interesting from the archaeological point of view, e.g. the fabrication of ceramic whose surface is covered by an intense black color, identical in appearance to numerous European ceramics especially the Etruscan pottery of the Bucchero Nero type (630 B.C.) and Impasto marrone (650 B.C.). The Etruscan civilization florished in Italy before the creation of the Roman Empire (Tarquinia, Cerveteri, Orvieto, Veio, Chiusi).

Long-Lasting Roman Cements and Concretes

Concrete experts talk today about how to make concrete durable. Many ancient Roman concrete buildings are still in use after more than 2000 years. Our recent linguistical study and new translation of Latin author Vitruvius book De Architectura (1st Century B.C.) states that the magnificent quality of Roman concrete resulted from the extensive use of artificial pozzolanic mortars and concretes. Technical keywords related to these high-performance cements have not been properly understood before recent linguistic studies and the development of geopolymeric cements shed new light and new interpretation on these texts. A short visit to three ancient Roman sites located in Rome, Italy, (Coloseo, Pantheon), Trier, Germany (Thermal baths),Cagliari-Nora, Italy (Thermal baths) illustrates three different long-lasting Roman concretes.

Egyptian Made-Made Stone Statues in 2000 B.C.: Deciphering the Irtysen Stele (Louvre C14)

Ancient Egypt’s legendary reputation as master of the stone arts spans almost the entire history of civilization. During this era, stone artefacts (hard stone vessels, statues) made of metamorphic schist, diorite and basalt were produced. Smooth and glossy, these stone artefacts – between 4.000 and 5.000 years old – bear no trace of tool marks. The evidence presented here, however, demonstrates that the ancient artists knew how to convert ores and minerals into a mineral binder for producing stone artefacts, such as statues that were not carved but rather cast in molds, synthetic stone statues. The first evidence comes from a new deciphering of the C-14 Irtysen Stele (dating 2.000 BC, Louvre Museum, Paris). The stele is the autobiography of the sculptor Irtysen who lived under one of the Mentuhotep Pharaohs, 11th. Dynasty. The stele C-14 of the Louvre has been often studied. Yet many of its expressions pertain to the domain of stone technology and have been tentatively translated in the past with terms differing so widely that the translators were obviously not able to understand the described technology. According to sculptor Irtysen, cast man-made stone was a secret knowledge.

Construction of the Egyptian Great Pyramids (2500 B.C.) with Agglomerated Stone. Update of the latest Research

Update of the latest research.
From a geological point of view, the Giza Plateau is an outcrop of the Middle Eocene Mokkatam Formation. Yet, the outcrop that dips into the wadi, where the quarries are located and also the trench around the Sphinx and the Sphinx body, consist of softer thickly bedded marly nummulite limestone layers with a relative high amount of clay. The amount of water-sensitive parts, expressed as weight percent of stone, is strikingly very high, ranging between 5.5% to 29%. It is obvious that the builders took advantage of the thickly bedded softer limestones. The disaggregated muddy material was ready for geopolymeric re-agglomeration. Perhaps the biggest surprise encountered in this study deals with the hieroglyphic verbs for to build, namely khusi (Gardiner’s list A34). The sign khusi represents a man pounding or packing material in a mold. This is one of the oldest Egyptian hieroglyphs.

The construction method of Kheops Great Pyramid.
Based on selected texts, illustrations and also physical, geological and architectural facts, Prof. Demortier demonstrates in this paper that the construction with blocks extracted, hewn and transported was an impossible task, whereas the method of molding stone blocks explains all the procedure. In the light of this analysis he proposes several evidences supporting Davidovits’ theories, such as new physico-chemical analysis on small fragments of Kheops pyramid. He also provides a model describing how molds were assembled and used in the production of individual blocks. He finally proposes some simple tests to continue this study.

Plus other hieroglyphic texts, analysis, experimentations, etc.
Buy the Geopolymer Proceedings

Joseph Davidovits’ books

A list of books written by Joseph Davidovits are available in its personnal web site www.davidovits.info