When all the logical conjectures have been set aside, the one that remains, as improbable as it may seem, is likely to be true.

At the Geopolymer Institute we use archaeology as a data bank, to validate our discoveries (see the projects GEOCISTEM and Global Warming and the Geopolymer Proceedings ). Thanks to these historical references, one is able to demonstrate that Geopolymers have the same strength and endurance than natural rock. This shows the originality of our scientific and industrial approach. But this approach has its difficulties, as it requires a critical examination of data that is thousands of years old. Imagine the numbers of natural processes that have had time to act on the ancient materials. There is a risk of misinterpretation, so one must proceed cautiously. Another source of potential errors arises from ancient scriptures, which have been translated through the centuries in diverse ways. See for example the misinterpretation of Latin texts dedicated to ancient Roman mortars and concretes: The mystery of Roman Concrete unveiled , #D The artificial pozzolanic mortars by Vitruvius and #E Searching for Carbunculus .

Interpretations devoid of the new information increase confusion because ingrained preconceptions can be as ferociously guarded by scholars and scientists as a very old bone by a dog. Our research was fiercely opposed by some experts who did not refrain from publicizing the usual brickbats.

Our research is focusing on ancient ceramics, mortars, cements, concretes, synthetic (man made) stone, building arts representative of ancient civilizations like: pharaonic Egypt, Mesopotamia, Rome empire, precolumbian America, as well as stone age artefacts from Europe and Asia).

We have discovered that the geopolymer chemistry was known in Antiquity. It was called alchemy. We also found that the oldest geopolymer ceramic, black terra cota LTGS, is 25,000 years old. It is the Venus of Dolni Vestonice

. This book
• Brings new insights on the study of well-known Archaeological sites
• Examines the use of Geopolymers
• Solves open problems in the analysis of Tiwanaku and Easter Island

The book presents the study (with recent updates) on Ancient Geopolymers in South America and Easter Island regions, exploring the artificial nature of the volcanic rocks used in the construction of Easter Island’s statues. Contrary to the belief that the statues were carved and transported, Davidovits suggests they were made on-site using geopolymer technology. He proposes that this knowledge came from Amerindians from the Andes, specifically the Tiahuanaco region near Lake Titicaca. The book is divided into two parts: the first examines geopolymeric artificial stone technologies in the Andes, and the second establishes a connection between these technologies and Easter Island, 3,700 km away. Davidovits’ research includes geological expeditions, SEM analysis, petrography, and a comprehensive review of international literature. It is intriguing to observe that in both cases, Pumapunku /Tiwanaku in the Andes and Easter Island, volcanic rocks are involved which contain biological carbon. These discoveries undeniably support the theory of geopolymeric artificial manufacturing, challenging traditional archaeological views.

They prove the transfer of knowledge involving the man-made geopolymer stones found in the monuments of Tiwanaku/Pumapunku, located in the Altiplano, Bolivia, South America, to the manufacture of the artificial statues of Easter Island.

They demonstrate the relationship between South-America and Easter Island.

49 min, 148 MB. Click on the icon on the right to watch it fullscreen.

Content:

1. Brief history of the research undertaken since 1981. (1:36)
2. Summary of the results provided by our research at Tiwanaku/Pumapunku (Bolivia, South America) since 2017. (8:38)
3. What is the connexion with Easter Island? From whom came the knowledge?
 When? How did it happen? (21:53)
4. Scientific analysis! (34:32)

In this talk, you will learn for the first time:
Why do the statues of Easter Island exist?
Why do they have this unique shape?
Who invented them and why only on Easter Island?
Why some of them are different?
Why does it scream they come from South America?
Everything is based on scientific analysis and multidisciplinary studies that nobody connected before.
The genius of mankind…

Pyramids (1) Are Pyramids Made Out of Concrete?
Pyramids (2) The evidences
Pyramids (3) The formula, the invention of stone
Pyramids (4) Videos and book
Pyramids (5) FAQ for artificial stone supporters
Pyramids (6) Deep misleading publications by geologists

Hundreds of thousands of people have read articles and seen videos on the internet dealing with the pyramids of Egypt having been constructed from geopolymer concrete. The arguments of the opponents are always based on the same papers written by American geologists, published 15 to 30 years ago. These publications are draped in scientific impartiality when this is not the case. Here we point out their fatal flaws. Unfortunately, critics relying on said papers persist by pointing out the following three geological studies as the ones that restore the truth. It is time to put an end to this pseudo-science.

1. Dipayan Jana never actually examined the “Lauer Sample”
2. Another major misleading paper by James Harrell and Bret Penrod
3. The fatal flaw failure of geologist Robert Folk and petrographer Donald Campbell

1- Dipayan Jana never actually examined the “Lauer Sample”

Petrologist Dipayan Jana, of CMC-Materials Inc., in the USA, presented a paper at the 29th ICMA Conference in Quebec, Canada, titled “The Great Pyramid Debate” and later published his information in the Proceedings of the 29th Conference of Cement Microscopy, Quebec, Canada, May 20-24 (2007), pp. 207-266. He critiques my scientific findings as well as those of my colleagues, Materials Scientist M. W. Barsoum et al., Microstructural Evidence of the Reconstituted Limestone Blocs in the Great Pyramids of Egypt, Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 89 (12), 3788-3796 (2006)]. Here I will show the fatal flaw in D. Jana’s said work. We start by considering the target sample.

A. What is the Lauer sample?

The controversy concerns the analysis performed on a sample of the Great Pyramid of Cheops entrusted to me by the eminent French Egyptologist Jean-Philippe Lauer in 1981, and on which I have made analyses, publications and conferences. It is defined in the literature under the name of the “Lauer sample”. It is a piece of interior casing of the pyramid, made of limestone material, covered with a white man-made coating of calcium phosphate (hydroxyapatite) 1 mm thick and a red-brown iron oxide paint. See photo of the original Lauer sample from 1982 in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The Lauer sample. Photo taken in 1982.

Parameters for authenticating the true Lauer sample include its 4500-thousand year-old white coating and red-brown paint, and its dimensions.

B. Why did D. Jana test a fake sample instead of the Lauer sample?

D. Jana receive a piece of the “Lauer sample” from the American geologist specializing in the quarries of ancient Egypt, James Harrell, now Emeritus Professor at the University of Toledo. J. Harrell is a geologist opposed to the theory of agglomerated stone; we sent him the Lauer sample and his conclusions are obviously the opposite of those of our team of scientists. He returns what he claims is left of it, a severely damaged sample. However, years later he provides a sample of what is supposedly remnants of the Lauer sample to D. Jana. Thus, Jana calls the Lauer sample the “Lauer-Harrell” sample in his study (Figure 2) published in the Proceedings (see above).

Figure 2: The “Lauer-Harrel” blue sample received by D. Jana.

Page 213: “The Lauer-Harrell was a solid 25 × 45 mm sized, blue epoxy impregnated saw-cut section of a piece, larger than the Lauer-Campbell sample…”

The whole context of the study, described in Figures 12, 13, 14 on pages 252, 253, 254 of the Proceedings, shows that it is a vertical section (in thickness) and that it is not obliquely cut. The dimensions are: 45 mm wide and 25 mm thick.

However, the original thickness of the Lauer sample is 15 mm (see in Figure 3). In contrast, the “Lauer-Harrell” sample supplied by Harrell to Jana is 25 mm thick.

By deduction, the thickness of Jana’s sample proves that it could not have been the authentic Lauer Sample.

Figure 3: The thickness of the genuine Lauer sample compared with the sample studied by D. Jana.

C. In D. Jana’s study, there is no coating. So, is this a FAKE?

Jana observes that the sample he has received from Harrell does not exhibit the distinctive coating of the Lauer sample. The coating is a critically important distinguishing trait that characterizes the authentic “Lauer sample”. In the Proceedings, Jana mentions three times (pages 213, 229 and 255) on the non-compliance of the sample with the scientific literature. Despite the doubt, and despite the sample mysteriously and impossibly growing 10 mm in thickness, he continues his studies claiming that the Lauer sample is natural limestone.

So:

• Page 213: “Neither piece contained the white coating or the red paint that was originally mentioned by Davidovits, which was reportedly (by Harrell) accidentally removed during the preparation of the thin section”.
• Page 229: “Although the actual “coating” was not present in the Lauer sample of this study (reportedly accidentally removed…)”.
• Page 255: legend of Figure 15: “Despite the absence of this coating…”.

J. Harrel published a study in 1993 on this white coating (see in Figure 15, page 255, in the Proceedings), but in 2007 he sent D. Jana a different piece of limestone not covered with this characteristic coating, calling it nonetheless the “Lauer sample”.

It is hard to imagine a competent, skilled geologist accidentally removing the coating from the Lauer sample when preparing a thin section of it. The coating is very firmly welded to the stone and does not flake off. It is not a paint, and the impregnation of blue epoxy is used to prevent such accidents. J. Harrell has made too many thin sections in his professional life to destroy a major archaeological sample. If it does not have its characteristic coating, its origin is doubtful.

CONCLUSION:

The most logical explanation is that the sample D. Jana studied was a piece of natural limestone from Egypt’s Tura quarry 25 mm thick (instead of 15 mm) without the white artificial coating of calcium phosphate.

It is therefore a forgery. Jana’s study of the rock passed off as the “Lauer Sample” can no longer serve as a reference. Jana is, therefore, obligated to retract his paper in good conscience, and Harrell must explain or accept responsibility for his actions.

2- Another major misleading paper by James Harrell and Bret Penrod

A chapter of my book “Why the Pharaohs built the Pyramids with Fake Stones” shows another serious misleading conduct published by Harrell and Penrod. See in Appendix B, page 265 (2017 edition) or 263 (2009 edition). In chapter 7, I describe the Mokattam Formation at Giza comprised of layers of middle Eocene limestones upon which the Great Pyramids of Giza are built. The Mokattam Formation comprises two distinctly different layers of fossil shells limestone: a hard gray upper bed on which the pyramids are built, and a friable marly yellowish bed. It was this friable, earthy deposit (concrete grade) limestone that was exploited to build the bulk of the Great Pyramids of Giza (see the diagram in Figure 4).

Figure 4: cross section of the Giza plateau, the Mokattam Formation and the quarries.

Despite this basic well-published geological knowledge, and clearly visible on the two outcrops located near the monuments, the American geologists J. Harrell and B. Penrod dispute the theorem of the artificial manufacture of limestone blocks, as follows.

In their article [Harrell, JA and Penrod, BE, The Great Pyramid debate; evidence from the Lauer sample, Journal of Geological Education, vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 358-363, 1993], they state: “… Our objection to the geopolymeric process (agglomerated stone process) has to do with disaggregating limestone by soaking it in water — it does not work! We soaked the Mokattam limestones whose composition is given in Table 1 for seven weeks and after this time the samples were just as hard and solid as the day we first immersed them…”

For their demonstration, Harrell and Penrod instead removed hard limestone from Gebel Mokattam, 20 km from the pyramids, on the other side of the Nile (see Table 1 cited in their said publication). That is, they should have sampled from the concrete-grade limestone quarries located in Giza, in the wadis or in the Sphinx trench at the foot of the pyramids. It is well known to all experts on Egyptian geology, and well-published in Egyptological literature, that these two Giza sites (the wadi and the trench in which the Sphinx sits), are where rock materials for the Great Pyramids of Giza are derived. The sample they soaked in water does not come from the Giza pyramid site at all. It is taken from a non-applicable location, the modern quarry of hard limestone behind the Citadel of Gebel Mokattam in Cairo, 20 km east of the Giza pyramids, on the other side of the Nile.

How can professionals consider that the Mokkatam geological formation of Giza is absolutely identical to the geographical designation Gebel Mokattam? Why not have just taken a piece of stone in Giza, on the site of the pyramids? Why make it so complicated? J. Harrell hopes to fool the public, collecting a rock sample of different origin, but bearing the same name, to demonstrate that our theory is false.

C- The fatal flaw of geologist Robert Folk and petrographer Donald Campbell

This is not the first time that geologists have published studies containing serious failures. Thus, immediately after arriving on the Giza plateau in January 1990, the American geologist R. Folk and petrologist D. Campbell observe blocks of stone which seem to them to be natural limestone. They publish an article in Journal of Geological Education [R.L. Folk and D.H. Campbell, Are the Pyramids built of poured concrete blocks, Journal of Geological Education, Vol.40, pp. 25-34 (1992)].

In my book “Why the Pharaohs built the Pyramids with fake stone”, page 268, I reproduce the original text: “Within the first minute at Cheops pyramid, we knew that the pyramids were built of real limestone blocks, not of concrete (reagglomerated stone)….”

We also read:
“… we feel it is the duty of professional geologist to expose this egregiously absurd archeological theory before it becomes part of entrenched pseudo-science… We believe that had Davidovits had any understanding of basic geologic principles and understood the implications of simple geological evidence at Giza, he would have realized that this geopolymer theory had no basis in fact...”

Upon arriving at Giza, Folk and Campbell go directly to the northeast corner of the Great Pyramid of Cheops. In their article, they do not explain the reason for this choice. There, they find natural limestone (see photo in Figure 5). In 1983, the American Egyptologist Mark Lehner mentions the existence of this natural geological layer, going up to 4 meters above the base of the pyramid, in this northeast corner. But R. Folk and D. Campbell ignore this essential information. I publish my answer in a renowned journal “J. Davidovits, The Great Pyramid debate, Concrete International, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 17-18, (1992) ”.

Figure 5: the natural limestone at the northeast corner of Cheops Great Pyramid.

Soon after, I receive a letter from R. Folk dated February 18, 1992, which reads:
“…I was impressed by your reasonable and interesting letter in Concrete International, Feb. 1992… Your argument that the lower two courses of Khufu (Cheops), on the east face, are in place bedrock is intriguing and I must admit was a new thought to me. This morning, thanks to your citation, I went over and read Lehner (1983) on Khufu (Cheops) and he does indeed show the NE corner of Khufu to be bedrock in his sketch. Our photo was of that corner. So I concede that, on the North-East corner, you are correct as the bedrock idea had not entered my head at the time we were there…”

Robert L. Folk, renowned for writing the standard limestone geologists refer to, admitted that he has no basic knowledge of the geology of the Giza plateau when he makes his survey and triumphantly proclaims: “… Within the first minute at Cheops pyramid, we knew that the pyramids were built of real limestone blocks, not of concrete (reagglomerated stone)…”

Ironically, the geologists do not differentiate between a natural outcrop of the plateau and blocks of pyramids!!! How to take this study seriously when all tourists can readily see this distinction?

The article by Folk and Campbell, published 30 years ago, is still cited today by those whose purpose it is to discredit my research. They do not know that Folk confessed his error.

References (books):

In French:
2017, J. Davidovits, Bâtir les Pyramides sans pierres ni esclaves, édition Jean-Cyrille Godefroy, Paris, ISBN 9782865532889.

In English:
2009-2017 (2è edition), Joseph Davidovits, Why the Pharaohs built the Pyramids with fake stones (in soft cover and eBook), ed. Geopolymer Institute (Institut Géopolymère), Saint-Quentin, France, ISBN: 9782951482043, available at geopolymer.org/shop or amazon.com and others on line.

2010, Margaret Morris, The Great Pyramid Secret: Egypt’s Amazing Lost Mystery Science Returns, Scribal Arts, Detroit, USA, ISBN: 978-0972043465, available at amazon.com

This study is also available in the GEOPOLYMER LIBRARY for free download. Go to #K-eng. Tiahuanaco geopolymer artificial stones

Contents:

• Extended abstract
• Introduction
• Part 1. Pumapunku red sandstone megaliths
  • 1.1 Geological provenience of the megalithic sandstone blocks
  • 1.2 Scientific investigations: thin sections, optical microscope. X-rays diffraction, SEM / EDS, scanning electron microscope.
  • 1.3 Discussion.
• Part 2. Pumapunku gray andesite volcanic structures
  • 2.1 Extravagant and puzzling structures.
  • 2.2 Scientific investigation: thin sections, optical microscope, SEM/EDS, scanning electron microscope.
  • 2.3 Discussion: which chemistry ?
• 3. Conclusion

The video of the Geopolymer Camp 2018 conference presenting all the results in detail.

“The Megaliths at Tiwanaku / Pumapunku are artificial geopolymers.”

61 min, 272 MB. Click on the CC icon to display subtitles in english, français, espanol. Click on the icon on the right to watch it fullscreen. Available on Youtube !

“Los Megalitos de Tiwanaku / Pumapunku son Geopolímeros Artificiales”

61 min, 272 MB. Click on the CC icon to display subtitles in english, français, espanol. Click on the icon on the right to watch it fullscreen. Available on Youtube !

This study is also available in the GEOPOLYMER LIBRARY for free download. Go to #K-eng. Tiahuanaco geopolymer artificial stones

Extended Abstract

The first results of this research were published recently in leading international scientific journals:

1. On the geopolymer sandstone megalithic slabs: J. Davidovits, L. Huaman, R. Davidovits, “Ancient geopolymer in South American monuments. SEM and petrographic evidence “, Materials Letters 235 (2019) 120-124. DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2018.10.033, on line 8 October 2018.

2. On the geopolymer andesite volcanic “H” structures: J. Davidovits, L. Huaman, R. Davidovits, “Ancient organo-mineral geopolymer in South American Monuments: organic matter in andesite stone. SEM and petrographic evidence”, Ceramics International 45 (2019) 7385-7389, DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2019.01.024, on line 4 January 2019.

The study carried out on the monumental stones constituting the Pumapunku site in Tiahuanaco, Bolivia, proves that the stones are artificial and are not carved with unknown technology or by extraterrestrials. It is the human genius, intelligently exploiting the resources of its environment, who created these marvels.

Tiahuanaco, on Lake Titicaca in Bolivia, is a village known throughout the world for its mysterious Gate of the Sun, ruins of temples and its pyramid. Archaeologists consider that this site was built well before the Incas, around 600 to AD 700. The site of Pumapunku is right next door with the ruins of an enigmatic pyramidal temple built at the same time. Because it is not restored and developed for touristic activity, it is less known to the general public. However, there are two architectural curiosities there: four giant red sandstone terraces weighing between 130 and 180 tons and small blocks of andesite, an extremely hard volcanic stone, whose complex shapes and millimetric precision are incompatible with the technology of the time. And for good reason, since archeology tells us that the Tiwanakans had only stone tools and no metal hard enough to carve the rock. But they would have carved the gigantic blocks of red sandstone (these ancient blocks are the largest of all the American continent!) and they were able to carry these hundreds of tons on the site, then to adjust them precisely. Also, they would have been able to carve other smaller blocks made of volcanic andesite, an impossible-to-carve stone with an incredible finish! Archaeologists cannot give any rational explanations on how this was possible. Therefore, for the general public, the assumptions generally advanced to explain these wonders are the achievement by a lost ancient super civilization or by aliens’ involvement.

In November 2017, the scientists gathered samples taken in the red sandstone and andesite from the Pumapunku site. For the first time, these stones were analyzed under the electron microscope, this had never been done before! They discovered the artificial nature of the stones. They compared the monuments’ stones with the local geological resources and found many differences.

Andesite rock is a volcanic stone from magma. It is composed mainly of silica in the form of plagioclase feldspar, amphibole and pyroxene. But the scientists have discovered the presence of an organic matter based on carbon. Carbon-based organic matter does not exist in a volcanic rock formed at high temperatures because it is vaporized. It is impossible to find it in andesite rock. And because we found organic matter inside the volcanic andesitic stone, the scientists will have the opportunity to carry out a Carbon-14 dating analysis and provide the exact age of the monuments. This organic element is a geopolymer based on carboxylic acids which was therefore added by human intervention into andesite sand to form a kind of cement.

The giant blocks of red sandstone raise another problem. Sandstone is a sedimentary rock composed of quartz grains and a clay binder. There are several possible geological sources but none correspond to the stones of the archaeological monuments. No known quarry is able to provide massive blocks of 10 meters long. In addition, the local stone is friable and small in size. The scientists have discovered under the electron microscope that the red sandstone of Pumapunku cannot come from the region because it contains elements, such as sodium carbonate, not found in the local geology. Therefore, where does the stone come from? From hundreds to thousands of kilometers? With what means have they been transported? In fact, electron microscopic analysis proves that the composition of the sandstone could be artificial (a ferro-sialate geopolymer) and manufactured to form cement.

What is this technology mastered by the Tiwanakans? Artificial stones were formed as cement. But, it is not a modern cement, it is a natural geological cement obtained by geosynthesis. For this, they took naturally friable and eroded rock like red sandstone from the nearby mountain, on the one hand, and on the other hand, unconsolidated volcanic tuff from the nearby Cerro Kapia volcano in Peru to form andesite. They created cement either from clay (the same red clay that Tiwuanakans used for pottery) and sodium carbonate salts from Laguna Cachi in the Altiplano Desert to the south, to form red sandstone. For gray andesite, they invented an organo-mineral binder based on natural organic acids extracted from local plants and other natural reagents. This cement was then poured into molds and hardened for a few months. Without a thorough knowledge of geopolymer chemistry, which studies the formation of these rocks by geosynthesis, it is difficult to recognize the artificial nature of the stones. This chemistry is not a difficult science to master. It is an extension of the knowledge of Tiwanakans in ceramics, mineral binders, pigments and above all an excellent knowledge of their environment. Without the selection of good raw materials, these extraordinary monuments could not have been created 1400 years ago.

Finally, this scientific discovery confirms local legends that say, “The stones were made with plant extracts able to soften the stone.” This explanation has always been rejected by archaeologists because it made no sense. The evidence provided by the team of scientists from France and Peru shows that the oral tradition was right: they made soft stones that could harden! The hypothesis of the lost ancient super civilization or alien intervention is false. Tiwanakuans were intelligent human beings. They knew their environment perfectly and knew how to exploit the resources brought by nature.

In addition to the Carbon-14 dating analysis, further studies will soon be carried out to determine whether certain monuments in the Cuzco region of Peru have been built with the same scientific knowledge.

This study is also available in the GEOPOLYMER LIBRARY for free download. Go to #K-eng. Tiahuanaco geopolymer artificial stones

Introduction

Preliminary results on Tiwanaku / Pumapunku monuments were recently published [1, 2]. Some of their methods of construction have long been a matter of interest and speculation involving super-civilizations or alien intervention. Conventional theories suggest that the constituent stone blocks were cut from quarries sometimes remotely located, accurately dressed and lifted into position. There is currently little research being done by material scientists on these controversial topics. However, from a construction and building material point of view, the knowledge that can be acquired through this type of archaeological study is manifold. In particular, it generates examples that are useful for the determination of the long-term properties of geopolymer concretes. It helps understanding of the chemical transformation which a geopolymer matrix can undergo over a long time range (hundreds if not thousands of years), and provides data on the crystallization mechanism and mineralogical evolution.

For the Egyptian pyramids, in the 1980s Joseph Davidovits, who is known for his development of geopolymer science and geopolymer concrete [3], proposed an alternative, but still controversial theory [4, 5]. He suggested that the blocks were a type of early concrete consisting of disaggregated limestone from the Giza plateau, Egypt, cemented by a sodium or potassium polysilico-oxo-aluminate, poly (sialate) geopolymer binder, and cast into blocks in situ. Despite the strong opposition of the Egyptian government [6], several scientists published studies which confirm the presence of archaeological geopolymer concrete in the pyramids [7, 8, 9, 10]. Civil engineers generally understand the implications resulting from this new paradigm of archaeological megalithic monument construction.

We present here our preliminary research results on monuments in the South American Andes, on the Altiplano (Fig. 1), namely Tiwanaku (in Spanish Tiahuanaco). It is located south-east of the Lake Titicaca at 3820 m above sea level. It comprises an earthen pyramid and the famous monolithic Gate of the Sun, made out of volcanic stone, andesite. They were built 1400 years ago (ca. AD 600) by the Tiwanaku Empire, one of the civilizations of the pre-Columbian Americas [11].

Our research focuses on the less known adjacent site of Pumapunku. In 2015 the Bolivian government started an ambitious project aimed at promoting this strange and little-known site. Its official report (2015-2020, C.I.A.A.A.T) reads (English translation from Spanish): ” … the upper platform of the pyramid presents the most astonishing vestiges. Huge [red sandstone] blocks, the largest in the monumental area of Tiwanaku, lie scattered as if a large earthquake had devastated the area. The large blocks of red sandstone, mixed with fragmented doors in andesite, covered with carved decorations, is all that can be distinguished today. The ashlars with geometrical and symmetrical reliefs, perfectly polished are the silent witnesses of those majestic and important constructions of Pumapunku in the past”.

Fig. 2 is the tentative reconstruction of the site. The sandstone temple itself is very small. The platform on top of the 4-step pyramid of Pumapunku consists of 4 megalithic red sandstone slabs marked in red Nr 1, Nr 2, Nr 3, Nr 4, weighing between 130 and 180 tonnes each (Fig. 3), the largest among the New World monuments. In recent years, several reports and videos have been flourishing on the Internet. Some civil engineers state that the monuments are made of a type of concrete. Others claim that they were built by super-civilizations with unknown technologies. Our study suggests that the slabs are a type of sandstone geopolymer concrete cast on the spot. There are no quarries in the vicinity whence the megalithic blocks used in the monument could have been brought in.

One early Spanish conquistador chronicler, Pedro de Cieza de Leon, who visited Lake Titicaca on the Altiplano in 1549, marveled over the ruins of Pumapunku, wondering what tools could have been used to achieve such perfection (English translation [12]) ” In another, more to the westward [of Tiwanaku], there are other ancient remains, among them many doorways, with their jambs, lintels, and thresholds, all of one stone. But what I noted most particularly, when I wandered about over these ruins writing down what I saw, was that from these great doorways there came out other still larger stones upon which the doorways were formed, some of them thirty feet broad, fifteen or more long, and six in thickness. The whole of this, with the doorway and its jambs and lintel, was all one single stone. The work is one of grandeur and magnificence when well considered. For myself I fail to understand with what instruments or tools it can have been done; for it is very certain that before these great stones could be brought to perfection and left as we see them, the tools must have been much better than those now used by the Indians (….) Another remarkable thing is that in all this district there are no quarries whence the numerous stones can have been brought, the carrying of which must have required many people. I asked the natives whether these edifices were built in the time of the Incas, and they laughed at the question, affirming that they were made before the Incas ever reigned, but that they could not say who made them….” According to modern archaeology, the monument was destroyed around AD 900, i.e. 500 years before the rise of the Inca Empire.

The most controversial aspect of the Pumapunku site is, however, found in puzzling smaller items, 1 meter high, made of andesitic volcanic stone (Fig. 4). They have unprecedented smooth finishes, perfectly flat faces at exact 90° interior and exterior right angles. Historian architects are wondering how such perfect stonework could have been achieved with simple stone tools [13]. Our study demonstrates that these architectural components were fashioned with a wet-sand geopolymer molding technique.

Part 1:

Pumapunku red sandstone megaliths

1.1 Geological provenience of the megalithic sandstone blocks

Travelers mostly agreed that the sandstone was mainly from the Kimsachata mountain range south of Tiwanaku. Yet, it remained unclear how these megaliths were quarried and transported downwards with primitive sledges on steep and narrow llama tracks as shown in Fig. 7. The first scientific studies conducted and published in the early 1970s by Bolivian archaeologists [14], set out to determine the source of the sandstone employed to construct the Pumapunku complex. They conducted geological studies in 6 drainage valleys, isolating several potential sandstone quarries, totalizing 47 samples. With comparative investigations including X-ray diffraction, XRF, geochemical analysis, and lithic petrography, they concluded that Pumapunku sandstone came from the Quebrada de Kausani (geological site (1) in Fig. 6). However, our detailed study of their published chemical analysis contradicts this.

In 2017, we took this 1970 study to start our investigation and selected three sites (Fig. 6): site (1) Quebrada de Kausani, site (2) Cerro Amarillani, already studied in the 1970s but not selected, and we added a third site, site (3), Kallamarka. Why? Because there exist several archaeological records in the village of Kallamarka, which show that the village was in activity at the time of Pumapunku construction. It is therefore clear that this village could have been associated with the sandstone material extraction. It was recently declared part of World Heritage by UNESCO in June 2014 (see below).

1.1.1 Quebrada de Kausani (KAU)

The visit to the site number (1) Quebrada de Kausani starts from the Altiplano plateau at 3850 meters and climbs up to a place called Kaliri at 4159 meters above sea level. Official archaeology is claiming that they used the steep llama track (Fig. 7) for dragging their 150 tons megaliths down to the valley. This is difficult to believe.

On the plateau, at Kaliri, there are numerous quadratic sandstone blocks lying on the ground, but we don’t find any massive blocks. We have only small blocks (Fig. 8). American archaeologists [15] are claiming that these are the remains of human quarrying activity. Bolivian archaeologists are telling no, there are not! In 1970, they wrote: “typical process of disintegration by mechanical weathering (…) there were no actual sandstone quarries used by the Tiwanacotas, such as an open pit, work or gallery, but instead they went to blocks separated by diaclasis.” This is a geological natural weathering event. It happens that it is producing quadratic blocks, like in other sandstone locations.

1.1.2 Cerro Amarillani (AMA)

The site number (2) Cerro Amarillani is easier to reach by car and road. It is a similar geological formation. We have also blocks. (Fig. 9)

1.1.3 Kallamarka (MAR)

The site number (3) Kallamarka (Kalla Marka) is totally different. Callamarca is the spelling in Spanish. Kallamarka with “k” is the spelling in the local language. The entrance of the village is typical and is not found elsewhere (Fig. 10). It suggests an historical background. It is astonishing clean, with a road pavement made of bricks. In fact it pertains to the famous Inca track, Qhapaq Ñan, Andean Road System, declared part of the World Heritage by UNESCO, in June 2014.

We continue our trip on the earthen road by car and leave the village, climbing up and arriving at the site that had been selected by our geologist. There, we find individual sandstone blocks, but more interesting, we have a particular feature here, namely layers of weathered soft sandstone, good for geopolymer reaction, lying in between of the quadratic blocks like displayed in Fig. 11 left.

Our geologist undertook the following experimentation on the site (Fig. 11 right) (watch the video for details) . “As you can see: you can take a very simple tool, break the sandstone down in smaller pieces, very easily…; this could be a good material to make geopolymer stone. …yes, very easy. Even with our hands we can grind it down. It’s very easy.”

1.1.4 Taking monument sample PP4.

The Pumapunku monument red sandstone labeled PP4 and studied here is from slab No. 2. In Fig. 5, the sampling location is marked by a black dot. In Fig. 12, it is highlighted with an arrow. It is taken from an already ancient fractured place, on the edge of the slab, where several fragments had been selected and studied in the 1970s by the Bolivian archaeologists, see the sample labeled Nr 9 (circle).

Both samples (1970 and 2017) can be compared with respect to chemical makeup and petrographic analysis.

1.2 Scientific investigations: thin sections, optical microscope. X-rays diffraction, SEM / EDS, scanning electron microscope.

1.2.1 Optical microscope: thin sections

The thin 30 µm thick sections were studied under transmitted polarized light with a Leica 4500 DMP optical microscope. The results for sandstone are shown in Fig. 13-15; the thin sections are marked KAU (Kausani), AMA (Amarillani), MAR (Kallamarka) and PP4 (Pumapunku fragment No. 4).

1.2.2 Chemical (EDS) and XRD analysis.

The scanning electron microscope SEM / EDS analysis for the elements were acquired using a JEOL JSM-6510LV scanning electron microscope. X-ray diffraction spectra were acquired using a XD8 Advance “BRUKER” AXS (Siemens) spectrometer, calibrated and interpreted according to ICDD/COD international databases from 2013. The semi-quantitative results for sandstone are listed in Table 1: chemical composition (elements at.%) and XRD mineralogical composition. KAU has quartz SiO₂ and feldspar albite NaSi₃AIO₈, AMA has quartz and feldspar anorthite Ca (SiAIO₄)₂, and both MAR and PP4 have quartz and feldspar albite. We find additional minerals in MAR, namely calcite CaCO₃, kaolinite and illite clays.

In Table 1, X-ray fluorescence and SEM/EDS analysis show that the KAU sample has neither B (boron) nor Ca. Later values confirm the chemical analysis of the 1970s [14] in which for 6 Kausani samples, CaO = 0%, whereas for 20 monument samples, CaO = 1.45 (medium value). In Table 1, for PP4-global, Ca = 1.70. In addition, for PP4-global, Na at.% = 9.95; this is substantially higher than for KAU (6.67), AMA (1.56) and MAR (5.10). This value is important and will be discussed below.

Table 1: Element (at.%) and mineralogical analyses for Pumapunku red sandstone and geological sandstone. X-ray fluorescence data for B boron are taken from reference [14], after [1].

Chemical analysis, XRF, XRD analysis (Table 1) and thin sections (Fig. 13-15) suggest that KAU and AMA are dissimilar to PP4, i.e. that the stone material PP4 of the monument does not originate from KAU (Kausani) or AMA (Amarillani) geological sites.

1.2.3 SEM analysis.

The high amount of Na measured for PP4-global in Table 1 relates to the SEM image and EDS spectrum of Fig.16, showing authigenic albite NaSi₃AIO₈ formed after consolidation of the sandstone. In natural sandstone, after millions of years of consolidation, the authigenic albite results from the permeation of weak alkaline waters and dissolution of the feldspar. But this requires high pressures (between 3,600 and 5,000 m depth) and temperatures (100 to 150° C) [16]. Usually, these are big crystals. Here we have a very thin uniform layer. It could be the result of the self-crystallization of a polysialate geopolymer, Si/Al=3. Because, in a Na-poly (sialate) geopolymer-based sandstone concrete, the alkaline concentration is high, the albite formation and crystallization might occur during a relatively shorter time, namely through the 1400 years of archaeological burial. But, with our present knowledge, we cannot differentiate between natural authigenic and geopolymer albite.

1.3 Discussion

Kaolinite clay is one of the major minerals commonly found in geopolymer synthesis and the manufacture of geopolymer concrete. MAR sandstone is subject to weathering actions transforming the feldspar into kaolinite. It is readily disintegrated into small pieces manually as shown in Fig. 11. The kaolinite quantities (in the 7% weight range) detected by the XRD analysis for MAR are high enough to start geopolymerization, provided it is combined with an alkaline medium (Na or K).

But MAR also contains calcite CaCO₃, not found in PP4. However, the weathering action may vary from place to place. The Kallamarka plateau covers a large area and subsequent work on samples from this site may produce XRD spectra more similar to the present PP4 spectrum. This differentiated weathering action suggests that, in order to manufacture one of the big monument slabs, weighing up to 180 tonnes, the sandstone material could have been dug up at different locations, i.e., with different calcite content. Indeed, the petrographic analysis of the 1970s carried out on the four megalithic slabs found calcite in 15 samples, yet none in 5 others, out of a total of 20. For their two samples M9 and M12 taken in the same slab No. 2, the calcite content for M9 = 0%, whereas M12 = 12%. So, the calcite content is varying within the same sandstone block. Since our specimen PP4 was taken at the same place as the sample M9 of slab No. 2 in Fig. 5 and Fig. 12, our XRD result is correct.

In Fig. 15, the thin sections for PP4-1 and PP4-2 show the thick fluidal red ferro-sialate matrix labeled GP (white arrows) and detected with SEM in Fig. 17. To our knowledge, this feature is very unusual in sandstone formed geologically or at least it has not been reported in petrographic studies performed in the red sandstone of the area [14] [18]. The thick fluidal red ferro-sialate GP matrix displayed in Fig.17 represents a unicum and supports the idea of an artificial sandstone geopolymer concrete.

In Table 1 the Na content for PP4 global and PP4 matrix is also higher than the values for KAU, AMA and MAR. Therefore, in the assumption that PP4 is natural sandstone, it does not belong to the sandstone from the Kimsachata mountain range south of Tiwanaku. None of the analysis carried out on the 47 samples studied in 1970 contains this high amount of Na. Where does it come from? Sandstone with such a high Na content has not been located in the vicinity, so far. Therefore, if we stay with the accepted argument that the monument sandstone is natural, then, it does not belong to the region. Consequently, according to traditional archaeology, the megalithic slabs of between 130 and 180 tonnes, would have been extracted and moved from a geological site located elsewhere, far away. These giant sandstone blocks, the size of a house (8×8 meters surface area), would have been transported on primitive sledges downwards from a place similar to the KAU Kausani site located at 4150 meters altitude on a steep and narrow llama track as shown in Fig. 7. This is difficult to accept even though archaeologists have experimented with dragging small pillars (1 to 5 tonnes) on level ground.

However, if we accept the idea that the MAR Kallamarka site, which contains kaolinite clay, is the source for the monument sandstone, then an additional alkaline hardener is needed in the stone geopolymer slurry, for example the salt natron, Na₂CO₃ extracted from Laguna Cachi, a small lake (salar) in the Altiplano Desert (Bolivia). According to archaeological records, llama caravans went through Laguna Cachi. This suggests that the salt natron was exploited by the ancient builders of Pumapunku / Tiwanaku, 1400 years ago. The extraction of this salt has continued even in modern times.

If we examine all the aforementioned arguments, we come to the conclusion that the monument stone consists of sandstone grains from the Kallamarka site, cemented with a ferro-sialate geopolymer matrix formed by human intervention.

2. Pumapunku

gray andesite volcanic structures

2.1 Extravagant and puzzling structures.

We mentioned in the Introduction that the most controversial aspect of the Pumapunku site is, however, found in puzzling smaller items, 1 meter high, made of andesitic volcanic stone, the “H” sculptures in Fig. 4 and others like in Fig.18 and Fig. 19.

2.1.1 Perfect 90° angle cutting, very smooth.

They have unprecedented smooth finishes, perfectly flat faces at exact 90° interior and exterior right angles. How were such perfect cuts made with simple stone tools? They have a Mohs hardness of 6 to 7, like quartz and, even those archeometrics people who are claiming that these artifacts were manufactured by an ancient civilization 30,000 or 60,000 years ago, don’t have the tool to replicate them.

2.1.2 An archeologist who says we don’t know !

Archaeologists try to explain how such perfection could be achieved with simple hammerstones. However, one expert strongly disagrees. For historian architects, the making of the “H” sculptures remains a riddle which they cannot solve. Protzen et al. [13] explained their dilemma and stated: “(…) to obtain the smooth finishes, the perfectly planar faces and exact interior and exterior right angles on the finely dressed stones, they resorted to techniques unknown to the Incas and to us at this time. (…) The sharp and precise 90° interior angles observed on various decorative motifs most likely were not made with hammerstones. (…) No matter how fine the hammerstone’s point, it could never produce the crisp right interior angles seen on Tiahuanaco/Pumapunku stonework. Comparable cuts in Inca masonry all have rounded interior angles typical of the pounding technique (…) The construction tools of the Tiahuanacans, with perhaps the possible exception of hammerstones, remain essentially unknown and have yet to be discovered.”

Our long experience in geopolymer technologies suggests that these sculptures can be very easily manufactured with the molding technique. Wet-sand molding technique, i.e., the pounding of semi-dried geopolymer mortar inside a mold, would produce the very fine and precise surface as well as the sharp angles. Fig. 20 displays all the features of an item that was obtained by pounding wet sand in a mold. The weathering action reveals a dense skin (Fig. 20A), a very precise surface, clean, flat and dotted with small bubbles, the semi-spherical air bubbles which had been trapped against the mold (Fig. 20B). Another method is to first make a preform by molding, then carve the interior before it hardens, with an obsidian tool for example.

2.2 Scientific investigation: thin sections, optical microscope, SEM/EDS, scanning electron microscope

The Bolivian scientists who carried out the investigation in the 1970s did not perform any similar petrographic study on the andesitic volcanic sculptures. Nineteenth-century travelers had agreed that the andesite stone originated mainly from the volcano Cerro Khapia in the southern part of the Lake Titicaca [19]. More recently Janusek et al. [15] confirmed that the volcano was the principal source of andesitic material at Pumapunku / Tiwanaku. However, they did not perform a regular petrographic study. They relied on qualitative results obtained on volcanic boulders with a portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometer, and not on quarrying remains. This explains why, in this preliminary study, we do not compare geological andesite and monument stone, as we have done with sandstone. In the absence of a geological study, we did not know where to look.

2.2.1 Andesite monument samples.

We mentioned in the Introduction that numerous andesite fragments, heaps of rubbles, are scattered on the site and abandoned. They are outside the protected monument area. By carefully choosing this debris consisting in fact of pieces of monumental stones with the characteristically very flat surface, we were able to get our representative samples. Samples PP1 A and B (Fig 21) are the most important for our study. The sample PP2 was taken at the corner of a broken door fragment and PP5 on the surface of a flat slab.

2.2.2 Optical microscope: thin sections.

In the thin section displayed in Fig. 22 we see, in white, the minute plagioclase feldspar crystals, the large amphibole crystals and pyroxene. In addition, we have black areas of amorphous substance that run across the entire picture.

Under reflecting light, the surface of PP1A shows white feldspar plagioclase crystals and dark elongated minerals which are typical for this type of andesite stone (Fig. 23). The surface is very flat, without any trace of polishing action with abrasive grains nor cutting tool, but dotted with small holes that are 0.2 to 0.5 mm deep with clear edges.

No. 1: plagioclase phenocryst on the surface;

No. 2: mica biotite single crystal on the surface;

No. 3: pyroxene-augite crystal on the surface;

No. 4: hole with hornblende crystals, pyroxene-augite crystal and amorphous matter (see description below);

No. 5: hole with minute feldspar plagioclase crystals;

No. 6: hole with pyroxene and amphibole crystals.

The surface of the andesite stone is hard, with a Mohs hardness of 6-7 (7=quartz), and the density is d=2.58 kg/l. [17].

2.2.3 SEM / EDS analysis.

Now we focus on hole number 4 (Point 4) already mentioned above in Fig. 23, with a higher magnification (optical microscope).

At higher magnification, in Fig. 25, we have a surprising totally amorphous element that resembles rubber, and is not like a crystalline mineral. Is this the amorphous matter already mentioned above in the thin section of Fig. 22 ?

Surprisingly, we are finding organic matter in a volcanic rock. This is unusual and simply contrary to nature. We can only conclude that this sample is artificial, man-made.

It could be argued that, since this is a SEM image that was taken from a hole located on the surface of sample PP1, what we had been measuring was the result of surface pollution. Therefore, in order to deal with this argument, we looked inside PP1A by cutting from its interior a smaller sample labeled PP1C. We obtained several spots with the same type of organic matter. Fig. 27 displays two of them.

2.3 Discussion: which chemistry ?

Everybody will agree with the fact that this organic matter suggests the presence of an artificial stone. So, first conclusions: which chemistry? It is not polysialate-based geopolymer like for the red sandstone megaliths. It is not the alkaline medium. If it is not alkaline medium, then it is acidic medium. And yes, this is acidic medium if we rely on the ancient legends that archaeology doesn’t take into account: “(…) una sustancia de origen vegetal capaz de ablandar las piedras“. Plant extracts capable of softening stones. This is what the local South American people are telling and reading.

2.3.1 Plant extracts capable of softening stones: carboxylic acids.

40 years ago, Prof. Joseph Davidovits met with a Peruvian anthropologist, Francisco Aliaga, and they decided to make one presentation at an archaeometrical conference in New York, 1981 [20], titled: “Fabrication of Stone Objects by Geopolymeric Synthesis in the Pre-Incan Huanka Civilization in Peru“. The excerpt of the Proceedings summary reads: “It is now agreed that the Tiwanaku civilization is modeled on the pre-Incan Huanka civilization revealed by an extraordinary skill in fabricating objects in stones. 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, carboxylic acids.”

One year later, in 1982, a scientific study carried out with the Laboratory of Pharmacognosy in Grenoble University, France, was published with the title: “The Disaggregation of Stone Materials with Organic Acids from Plant Extracts, an Ancient and Universal Technique.” The study focused on the extraction of carboxylic acids from plants and their degrading action of limestone (calcium carbonate). The conclusion of the study stated: “..the pre-columbian farmers were quite capable of producing large quantities of acid from such common plants in their region as: fruits, potatoes, maize, rhubarb, rumex, agave Americana (this is the cactus), ficus indica, oxalis pubescens.” [21] [22].

They studied the action of three carboxylic acids:

• acetic acid,
• oxalic acid,
• citric acid.

These carboxylic acids work perfectly with limestone. Limestone is disaggregated by these organic acids. It is very easy to prove and to measure their action. Any stone that contains limestone will be disaggregated but not volcanic andesite. It doesn’t work. This chemistry can only be used to fabricate a binder, which, as such, will agglomerate non-consolidated stone material (for example volcanic sand). So, clear-cut between limestone and volcanic stone such as the andesite.

2.3.2 We could disaggregate limestone, but we were not able to re-agglomerate, harden it.

Several people tried to discover the secret of this stone making. They were successful in softening the limestone that they reduced to a soft mass. But they failed to harden it again. This has been the reason, why, 40 years ago, Davidovits and Aliaga stopped their studies. They could disaggregate (limestone) but they were not capable to re-agglomerate it, to harden it again.

The appropriate knowledge was acquired very recently (2 years ago). It applies the basic chemistry dealing with Phosphate-based geopolymers and Organic-mineral geopolymers [23].

2.3.3. Research target, finding the hardener: the guano.

Where can we find, locally, the chemicals that will generate this chemistry? For sandstone we located the alkaline Natron in the Altiplano lake Laguna Cachi, to manufacture the big megaliths. For the volcanic andesite stones, we have an organic binder obtained in an acidic medium, and we are looking for the hardener.

Archaeology is providing diverse hints that are relying on several texts written during the Spanish conquest. They transcribe the explanations provided orally by the native people at that time. One of these texts is dealing with the guano trade between the Pacific Ocean at Ilo and Tiwanaku, going up from the sea level to 3800 meters high (Fig. 28). It has been discussed by J.W. Minkes [24]. The excerpt of the study starts with the site of Ilo on the Pacific Ocean and reads: “5.5.2 El descanso: El Descanso means the ‘resting place’ in Spanish. This name has been transmitted orally and refers to the traditional use of the site as resting place for the llama caravans on their way to or from the highlands via Moquegua…” According to the historical documents, the Moquegua Valley was the route taken by numerous Llama caravans carrying the guano gathered in large quantities at Punta Coles, Ilo, upwards to Tiwanaku. This trade [guano] appears to have been intensified during the Tiwanaku / Pumapunku construction, possibly stimulated by the need for more guano. The coastal [Ilo] population received coca, camelid wool, dried meat as well as llamas for guano transportation in exchange.

The guano is an excellent fertilizer but we think that this is not the reason why they transported it to the highlands. The Tiwanaku civilization was created before they exploited the guano. At Tiwanaku, they had already developed a very special agriculture known as raised-field system. The fields consisted of elevated, elongated planting beds, surrounded by water-filled ditches. The ditches contained aquatic plankton and small fishes which provided a natural fertilizer [25]. They did not need the guano, because they produced on site their own fertilizer. So, to claim that the guano had been sent to the highlands because they needed it as a fertilizer for the agriculture is not correct. This civilization was developed by itself. We suspect that this guano was not used in agriculture (the exploited quantities are much greater than what would be needed for agriculture alone), but rather, could be one geopolymer organic hardener. Indeed, it contains different chemical ingredients useful for that purpose.

Table 2 displays an analysis that was carried out 150 years ago by Mr. J.D. Smith on specimens of Peruvian guano [26]. It contains a high number of salts of acids, essentially ammonium oxalate and urate, calcium oxalate, ammonium phosphate and calcium phosphate.

Table 2: chemical composition of Peruvian guano containing essentially: ammonium oxalate and urate, calcium oxalate, ammonium phosphate and calcium phosphate after [26].

The action of vinegar (acetic acid) or any of the other carboxylic acids extracted from plants, on the guano, yields the formation of phosphoric acid and oxalic acid, useful in the production of phosphate-based geopolymer. The chemistry also involves the addition of alumino-silicate minerals such as finely weathered volcanic tuff, kaolinitic clay or perhaps metakaolin. New research on site is needed in order to determine which mineral was taking part in the making of this organo-mineral geopolymer binder.

2.3.4 EDS of guano compared with PP1 organic matter.

The EDS analysis of the guano sample from Ilo, displayed in Fig. 29, is similar to the EDS of the PP1 / point 4 organic matter (see in Fig. 25-26). The chemical elements are identical, yet, they are present at a lower concentration in the monument, which seems to be obvious. However, at the stage of our present study we do not know whether the PP1 organic matter is the remaining part of unreacted guano or the spectrum of the organo-mineral binder itself.

2.3.5 First conclusion.

The organic matter detected in this study suggests the reaction of an ammonium organic compound (the nitrogen N) from vegetal or animal origin, with minerals, to form an organo-mineral binder. The quantitative analysis of the nitrogen N cannot be carried out with our present equipment. We only got semi-quantitative data. The detection of Cl, P and S is intriguing and could provide some clues for further research. The builders may have transported non-consolidated volcanic andesite tuff having the consistence of sand, from the Cerro Khapia site. They added a type of organo-mineral binder manufactured with local biomass (carboxylic acids extracted from maize and plants), guano and reactive alumino-silicate minerals.

3. Conclusion

The thin section of a sample taken from the Pumapunku red sandstone monument shows grain boundaries made of a thick fluidal red ferro-sialate matrix. To our knowledge, this feature is very unusual in sandstone formed geologically. It represents a unicum and supports the idea of artificial sandstone geopolymer concrete. Complementary SEM/EDS analysis for Na, Mg, Al, Si, K, Ca, Fe suggests that the Kallamarka site is the source for Pumapunku megalithic blocks. The megalithic slabs of between 130 and 180 tonnes were cast 1400 years ago. To make their geopolymer sandstone concrete, the builders may have transported finely weathered, kaolinitized sandstone from the Kallamarka site and added foreign elements such as natron (Na₂CO₃) extracted from Laguna Cachi, a small lake (salar) located south of the great Salar de Uyuni, in the Altiplano (Bolivia).

However, the most controversial aspect of the Pumapunku site is found in puzzling smaller items made of andesitic volcanic stone. Our study demonstrates that these architectural components were fashioned with a wet-sand geopolymer molding technique. The SEM study of this gray andesite shows the presence of organic matter (it could be the geopolymer binder). We have carbon, nitrogen, and mineral elements. The existence of amorphous organic matter is very unusual, if not impossible in a volcanic stone. It was also detected in the optical thin sections studies. It is a “unicum” and supports the idea of artificial andesite geopolymer concrete. To make geopolymer andesite concrete, the builders may have transported non-consolidated volcanic tuff, which is an andesite stony material having the consistence of sand from the Cerro Khapia site, and added an organo-mineral geopolymer binder manufactured with local ingredients.

Surprisingly, this study demonstrates that the Pumapunku builders mastered two geopolymer concrete methods, namely:

a) – One in alkaline medium for the red sandstone megaliths. This technology is familiar to modern material scientists and civil engineers, and is in line with knowledge of the traditional method of producing geopolymer concrete.

b) – The second, in acidic medium for the gray andesite structures, is based on the use of organic carboxylic acids extracted from local biomass and also the addition of guano. It has been successfully replicated in our laboratory with modern chemicals in order to test the validity of the chemical mechanisms involved in the new geopolymeric reactions.

In the absence of contrary evidence, the present conclusions are sound, and the Pumapunku red sandstone megalithic slabs and gray andesite sculptures are made of ancient geopolymers. This kind of study could provide data on the long-term crystallization mechanisms and mineralogical evolution of geopolymer molecules. In addition, the next step of our study will be to gather enough sample in order to implement Carbon-14 dating and provide the exact age of the monuments.

Acknowledgements

SEM data were collected by Mathilde Maléchaux at Pyromeral Systems SA. 60810 Barbery. France; thin sections were made at UniLaSalle-Geoscience. 6000 Beauvais. France. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References:

[1] J. Davidovits, L. Huaman, R. Davidovits, Ancient geopolymer in South American monument. SEM and petrographic evidence, Material Letters 235 (2019) 120-124. DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2018.10.033.

[2] J. Davidovits, L. Huaman, R. Davidovits, Ancient organo-mineral geopolymer in South American Monuments: organic matter in andesite stone. SEM and petrographic evidence, Ceramics International, 45 (2019) 7385-7389. DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2019.01.024.

[3] J. Davidovits, Geopolymers: inorganic polymeric new materials, J. Thermal Analysis, 37 (1991), 1633–1656.

[4] J. Davidovits. X-ray analysis and X-ray diffraction of casing stones from the pyramids of Egypt. and the limestone of the associated quarries. in: A.R. David (Eds), Science in Egyptology symposium, Manchester University Press (1986) 11–20.

[5] J. Davidovits, Ancient and modern concretes: what is the real difference?, Concrete International: Des. Constr, 9[12] (1987), 23–29.

[6] C. Nickerson, Did the Great Pyramids’ builders use concrete?, The New York Times, April 23, 2008, https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world/africa/23iht-pyramid.1.12259608.html, (accessed 10 August 2018).

[7] G. Demortier, PIXE, PIGE and NMR study of the masonry of the pyramid of Cheops at Giza, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B, B 226, (2004) 98–109.

[8] M.W. Barsoum, A. Ganguly and G. Hug, Microstructural Evidence of Reconstituted Limestone Blocks in the Great Pyramids of Egypt, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 89[12] (2006), 3788–3796.

[9] K.J.D. MacKenzie, M.E. Smith, A. Wong, J.V. Hanna, B. Barry, M.W. Barsoum, Were the casing stones of Senefru’s Bent Pyramid in Dahshour cast or carved? Multinuclear NMR evidence, Materials Letters 65 (2011) 350–352.

[10] I. Tunyi and I. A. El-hemaly, Paleomagnetic investigation of the Pyramids, Europhysics News 43/6 (2012), 28-31.

[11] A. Vranich, Reconstructing ancient architecture at Tiwanaku, Bolivia: the potential and promise of 3D printing, Heritage Science 6/65 (2018), DOI: doi.org/10.1186/s40494-018-0231-0.

[12] C. R. Markham, Travels of Pedro de Cieza De Leon A.D. 1532-50, Hakluyt Society, London (1864), 376-379.

[13] J.-P. Protzen and S. Nair, Who Taught the Inca Stonemasons Their Skills? A Comparison of Tiahuanaco and Inca Cut-Stone Masonry, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 56/2 (1997), 146-167.

[14] C. Ponce Sangines. A. Castanos Echazu. W. Avila Salinas. F. Urquidi Barrau. Procedencia de las areniscas utilizadas en el templo precolumbio de Pumapunku (Tiwanaku). Academia Nacional de Sciencias de Bolivia (1971) No.22.

[15] J. W. Janusek, P. R. Williams, M. Golitko, and C. Lémuz Aguirre, Building Taypikala: Telluric Transformations in the Lithic Production of Tiwanaku, in: N. Tripcevich and K.J. Vaughn (eds.), Mining and Quarrying in the Ancient Andes, Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology, Springer Science+Business Media, New York, 2013, pp. 65-97.

[16] N. Mu. Y. Fu. H.M. Schulz. W. van Berk. Authigenic albite formation due to water–rock interactions — Case study: Magnus oilfield (UK. Northern North Sea). Sedimentary Geology 331 (2016) 30–41.

[17] J. Davidovits. Geopolymers: Ceramic-like inorganic polymers. J. Ceram. Sci. Technol. 08 [3] (2017) 335-350.

[18] O. Palacios. Geology of the Western and Altiplano Mountains west of Lake Titicaca in southern Peru. Bulletin A42 (1993) 80p.

[19] A Stübel and M. Uhle, Die Ruinenstäette Von Tiahuanaco, Verlag von Karl W. Hiersemann, Leipzig, 1892. http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/digit/stuebel_uhle1892/0004, (accessed 10 August 2018).

[20] J. Davidovits, F. Aliaga, Fabrication of Stone Objects by Geopolymeric Synthesis in the Pre-Incan Huanka Civilization in Peru, Abstracts of 21st International Symposium for Archaeometry, Brookhaven National Laboratory, New York, USA (1981) page 21.

[21] J. 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), 205 – 212.

[22] The pdf files of ref. 20 and 21 are in the Geopolymer Institute Library for free download, called Making Cement with Plants Extracts, at #C: //www.geopolymer.org/library/archaeological-papers/c-making-cements-with-plant-extracts/ .

[23] See Chapter 13 and Chapter 14, in J. Davidovits, Geopolymer Chemistry and Applications, Edition: 2nd (2008), 3rd (2011), 4th (2015), Publisher: Institut Géopolymère, Geopolymer Institute, Saint-Quentin, France, Editor: ISBN: 9782951482098 (4th ed.)

[24] J.W. Minkes, Wrap the Dead, Archaeological Studies Leiden University, 12, (2005), Chapters 5.5.2, 6.5.2.

[25] A.L. Kolata, The technology and organization of agricultural production in the Tiwanaku State, Latin American Antiquity, 2(2) (1991), 99-125.

[26] J. Towers, Guano and its analysis, The British Farmer’s Magazine, (1845) Vol. 9, 389-400.

This study is also available in the GEOPOLYMER LIBRARY for free download. Go to #K-eng. Tiahuanaco geopolymer artificial stones

The theory has many supporters around the world, but there are still opponents criticizing and repeating the same arguments. This page is here to help supporters counter critics.

First, you find below a list of the main opposing ideas, opinions and sometimes evidence, and how to reply to them. Then, we expose an extended abstract of the theory with a simplify list of arguments.

More details, information, videos are available at this page. Only a lengthy summary is disclosed here.

List of the main opposing arguments

1- The context. What you need to keep in mind.

An hypothesis that has a long life.

The theory is now well-known by the public since 1988 (first publication of the book in english), but presented earlier in official egyptology congresses since 1979. The Geopolymer Institute website exists since 1996 and, since the beginning, the theory was exposed in detail. Since then, new scientific papers, new books, new videos, new webpages have been published with the latest updates. Nevertheless, most opponents are always expressing their opinions based on hearsays, preconceived ideas, clichés, and are not taking 10 minutes of their precious time to read what is presented here. Some of them are publishing rebuttals using “wrong” arguments that Davidovits’ has never raised instead of quoting his work (for example, we do not claim to crush stones as aggregates, a useless exhausting effort, but instead asserting the use of weathered or eroded stones). A parody of science since some studies were made on “fake” pyramid samples. See section #5 below and the page: Deep misleading publications by geologists. These published sloppy papers are taken for serious references by the opponents of the re-agglomerated theory. You will be disappointed by the fact that this misleading behavior represents the vast majority of the opponents. Why? Because the artificial stone theory is the truth, they don’t know how to counter it. They are missing the big picture.

A global thinking

People trying to solve the Pyramids mysteries are always thinking in terms of engineering and technique, and worse, they are only focusing on Kheops’ pyramid, forgetting the previous ones and the hundred more built after. If an idea sounds valid for Kheops, it is immediately invalid for the others. Davidovits’ theory is the only theory with a global view encompassing the building of all the pyramids of Egypt for 250 years, from the first of Zoser to those in crude bricks, with solid and valid scientific evidence in geology, mineralogy, chemistry, hieroglyphic studies, religion and Egyptian history… Read the extended abstract below or buy the book to learn more. No other theory has this global approach.

Official theory

The man-made or re-agglometared stone theory exists, is still discussed and countered for more than 40 years! If the arguments against are so easy to expose, to denigrate and are self-evident, why people are still talking about it? Why people are still not convinced by carving theories?

By the way, what is the official theory? Ask the opponents before starting the discussion. The bare truth is that there is none. After centuries, so many studies, scientific investigations, archeological discoveries, carving theories are still a weak hypothesis. Nobody agrees on the main scenario around carving and hoisting. None is approved by the mainstream. What a massive failure after more than one century of egyptology! When someone raises a solution, it lasts 6 months up to 1 year after it vanishes because it leads to other insoluble problems. And the artificial stone theory is there for more than 40 years. After so much time, the carving theories fail !

So, the opponent of the re-agglomation hypothesis believes he acts in the name of truth, when actually he is found defending one of the many unofficial speculative carving theories! Is he convincing? Not at all. It is easy to criticize that his (un)official theory brings up more problems than solutions, and, above all, where is the evidence?

The ultimate evidence

Here is the solid argument that everybody understands:

More and more scientists agree and support the theory. Classical methods of investigation are not relevant. They cannot make a difference between a natural and a synthetic mineral.

Several studies, carried out by independent scientists using the most modern equipment, exposed the ultimate proofs that the pyramids blocks are not natural. You may find various papers or opinions challenging the theory, but all prefer ignoring these independent analysis. Believing in the artificial stone theory, or countering it, is simply no longer relevant. It has become a fact, a truth that is still fought by some people for irrational purposes.

2- There is stone everywhere. Why bother to make a concrete?

This is common sense, isn’t it? You are thinking of the use of stones with a modern mind, in terms of architecture. For 3000 years long, Egyptians used stones (whether man-made or carved) only for religious purposes: temples, tombs and statues. Where are the houses, where are the palaces, where are the garrisons? They were built in crude bricks. During the pyramids time, it was forbidden to carve stones. Man-made stone bears a specific religious meaning related to the creation of life. Read more about this topic in the extended abstract under the “Religious context“.

If it is not convincing enough:

Recent scientific studies using very powerful and modern equipment found the ultimate evidence that the pyramids stones are synthetic. Believing in the artificial stone theory, or countering it, is simply no longer relevant. It has become a fact, a truth.

3- We see fossil shells, so it is a natural stone.

Man-made stone holds around 90% of natural mineral aggregates (here nummulites, fossil shells), and between 5 to 10% of the synthetic geopolymer binder. Some opponents believe that we claim that the geopolymer chemistry is manufacturing fossil shells in situ, which is absurd. But where do the fossil shells come from? From the quarry where we extract the natural stone aggregates. It is like claiming modern concrete is a carved and natural stone because it contains natural sand and natural stone aggregates ! If the stones were carved, why are all shells intact? Why none of them are cut?

There is evidence that limestone blocks come from different quarries. Since we know their origin, without a doubt, the stones are natural? But to make re-agglomerated limestone concrete, it is necessary that the 90% of limestone aggregate come from somewhere. Of course, they come from the same place! So, people have 90% of chance of analyzing a natural aggregate (here, nummulite fossil shell) and stating the artificial stone theory is wrong, setting aside the 10% synthetic binder.

If it is not convincing enough:

Recent scientific studies using very powerful and modern equipment found the ultimate evidence that the pyramids stones are synthetic. Believing in the artificial stone theory, or countering it, is simply no longer relevant. It has become a fact, a truth.

4- If it is a concrete-like stone, all block would have the same dimensions. But they are all different.

Before the first pyramid built out of stone, the ancient Egyptians constructed very imposing crude brick monuments. We find large funerary temple enclosures of the second dynasty, like the Khasekhemwy one (2,730 B.C.). Its massive wall is of crude clay bricks, therefore in a molded material. It is generally agreed, since these bricks were worked in molds, that their dimension must be uniform. However, this is wrong. Despite having been manufactured in molds, the clay bricks are of approximately 5 different sizes, implying the use of several patterns. We find these differences in proportions in all pyramids. This heterogeneity gives the monuments the ability to resist earthquakes by avoiding the amplification of seismic waves.

If it is not convincing enough:

Recent scientific studies using very powerful and modern equipment found the ultimate evidence that the pyramids stones are synthetic. Believing in the artificial stone theory, or countering it, is simply no longer relevant. It has become a fact, a truth.

5- One scientist / expert has analyzed the stones and claims they are natural, so you are wrong!

The analysis methods used today by geologists are not relevant. These methods are used to CLASSIFY not to determine natural or artificial species. They cannot make a difference between a natural and a synthetic mineral. Indeed, the molecule of a mineral is by essence always the same, whether it is natural or synthetic, otherwise it would be another molecule, so another mineral. In addition, experts / scientists who oppose the theory of re-agglomeration have scarcely knowledge or understanding of the geopolymer chemistry. They will not know how to analyze this and will miss the evidence. Have the opponents ever analyzed a geopolymer and gain some understandings? Never! Ask them for their scientific papers on geopolymers, if they have ever published one. Take a close look at their studies: they assert that the stones bear the features of natural rocks, and these are their only claims. They imply that the geopolymer is inherently artificial and therefore that its synthetical nature would be immediately obvious, superbly ignoring the principles of geochemistry. Their ignorance of geopolymers deceives them. To our knowledge, no geologist has yet published a comparative analysis between a present-time geopolymer fossil shell limestone and an ancient pyramid stone. They criticize the system without having the slightest idea of what we are talking about. This leads to an unproductive debate with inconclusive results. Geopolymer is a hard science, not a speculative study. To show the geopolymerization and the artificial nature of the material, they need to work with more powerful methods. These tools are seldom used by them. Studies have been made with modern and powerful equipment, and all show that the stones are artificial. Opponents prefer to ignore them, it is out of their skill to argue against.

To find out more, here are our answers to the 3 geological studies most often cited by the opponents. Our claims are so straightforward that no scientific knowledge is required to understand them. It is time to put an end to this pseudo-science. Read: Deep Misleading Publications by Geologists

If it is not convincing enough:

According to recent scientific studies, believing in the artificial stone theory, or countering it, is simply no longer relevant. It has become a fact, a truth.

6- There are granite blocks that are carved but roughly trimmed. So, your theory is wrong.

We have never claimed granite was artificial (another hearsay). Indeed, granite is not carved (they did not have the right tools) but split (a very different skill). You will read below in the extended abstract under the “Religious context” why they used granite, because it represents the southern country. The granite was not carved in a quarry, but simply taken from individual boulders found in great quantities in the Aswan region. The boulders were split to fine dressed faces, leaving a typical rough undressed back. They represent less than 0.1% of the total blocks. Workers had 10 years to install them in the pyramid, and 10 years to carve a unique sarcophagus with whatever technique they have at their disposal. In short, we don’t care! We care about the 99.9% of limestone blocks. For Kheops, one block must be placed every 3 minutes.

If it is not convincing enough:

Recent scientific studies using very powerful and modern equipment found the ultimate evidence that the pyramids stones are synthetic. Believing in the artificial stone theory, or countering it, is simply no longer relevant. It has become a fact, a truth.

7- The analysis in favor of the artificial stone theory are invalid because they are not official.

Right. Egyptologists are historian, linguists, archeologists but none are material scientists! So, there will never be official analysis carried out by them, they will always rely on experts like us. By the way, are the opponents officials? Are there published rebuttals official? And the person you are talking with, who is against the re-agglomerated stone theory, is it an official person expressing an official opinion? Absolutely not, never, none of them can claim that. Their argument has no more value than yours. You are at the same level! And what about the numerous carving theories, are they official? Are they promoting another new unofficial carving theory? (see above)

If it is not convincing enough:

Recent scientific studies using very powerful and modern equipment found the ultimate evidence that the pyramids stones are synthetic. Believing in the artificial stone theory, or countering it, is simply no longer relevant. It has become a fact, a truth.

8- Another new study / investigation shows something strange in the pyramids…

None of the recent studies, using new tools and high-tech equipments are countering the artificial stone theory. It is often the opposite, it may be interpreted as a new evidence for re-agglomeration. Each time, they raise new questions and enigma that the carving theories cannot answer, fueling crazy speculations.

And, by the way:

Recent scientific studies using very powerful and modern equipment found the ultimate evidence that the pyramids stones are synthetic. Believing in the artificial stone theory, or countering it, is simply no longer relevant. It has become a fact, a truth.

9- Aliens and/or ancient advanced civilization built the pyramids.

These people are reading all the contradictory, unofficial, numerous carving theories, and because all of them raise more questions than answers, they imagine a radical solution: a super civilization must have done it. We consider this belief as an insult to the genius of mankind, as if Homo sapiens is a stupid creature and what we believe are human achievements are a fraud. The geopolymer chemistry used to build the pyramids is a very simple technology, much easier than you think. They have all ingredients at the vicinity. It is a natural evolution of a technology having its origin from mineral binders, ceramics, pigments, ores, and simple chemistries. It gives extraordinary results, yet with straightforward knowledge. It is much more complicated to make copper tools, or metallurgy in general, by selecting the right ore (there are many that look like the same), using the right process at the right time and temperature…

More pictures, drawings, details, information, videos are available at this page. Only a lengthy summary is published below.

Extended abstract of the theory with a simplify list of arguments

In his books, Why the Pharaohs built the Pyramids with Fake Stones (2009-2017), Professor Joseph Davidovits presented a theory on the pyramids’ construction: they were built by using re-agglomerated stone (a natural limestone treated like a concrete and then moulded), and not by using enormous blocks, carved and hoisted on ramps. Initially published in New York in 1988 under the title The pyramids: an enigma solved, this thesis has recently been released in several books with an important update of facts missing in the first American edition.

The theory is based on scientific analysis, archaeological elements and hieroglyphic texts as well as religious and historical aspects. Contrary to other theories that only seek a technical explanation for the Giza Plateau pyramids, and often looking only at Kheops itself and ignoring the others, his theory encompasses the building of all the pyramids of Egypt for 250 years, from the first of Zoser to those in crude bricks.

A- Theory

1. The formula and materials used:

The most important material is limestone. Analysis done by the German geochemist D.D. Klemm [1] showed that 97 to 100% of the blocks come from the soft and argillaceous limestone layer located in the Wadi, downwards the Giza Plateau. According to the Egyptologist Mr. Lehner [2], the Egyptians used a soft and crumbly limestone, unusable for hewn stones. The workmen did not choose the hard and dense limestone located near the pyramids, with rare exceptions for later restorations. The geologist L. Gauri [3] showed that this limestone is fragile, because it includes clay-like materials (in particular kaolinite clay) sensitive to water which explains the extreme softness of the Sphinx body, whereas its head, cut in the hard and dense geological layer, resisted 4000 years of erosion.

This soft argillaceous limestone, too fragile to be a hewn stone, is well adapted to agglomeration. Moreover, it naturally contains reactive geopolymeric ingredients, like kaolinitic clay, essential to manufacture the geological glue (a binder) and to ensure the geosynthesis.

It was not required to crush this stone, because it disaggregates easily with the Nile water during floods (the Wadi is filled with water at this time) to form a limestone mud. To this mud, they added reactive geological materials (mafkat, a hydrated alumina and copper silicate, overexploited at the time of Kheops in the Sinai mines) [4], Egyptian natron salt (sodium carbonate, massively present in Wadi Natrum), and lime coming from plants and wood ashes [5]. They carried this limestone mud in baskets, poured it, then packed it in moulds (made out of wood, stone, crude brick), directly on the building site. The method is identical to the pisé technique, still in use today.

This limestone, re-agglomerated by geochemical reaction, naturally hardens to form resistant blocks. The blocks thus consist of 90 to 95% of natural limestone aggregates with its fossil shells, and from 5 to 10% of geological glue (a cement known as “geopolymeric” binder) based on aluminosilicates.

2. Why do geologists see nothing?

This is due to the geological glue, which, though artificial, is seen by the geologists either as an impurity, and therefore useless to study, or as a natural binder. At best, the analysis tools and the working methods of geologists consider the glue as a perfectly natural “micritic binder”. Joseph Davidovits manufactured an artificial limestone containing 15% of synthetic binder, and submitted it to geologists who, on studying it, suspected nothing [6].

A geologist not informed of geopolymer chemistry will assert with good faith that the stones are natural.

3. The chemical formula:

The geosynthesis aims to react the kaolinite clay (naturally included in the Giza limestone) with caustic soda (see chemical formula 1). To manufacture this caustic soda, they use Egyptian natron (sodium carbonate) and lime (coming from plant ashes) (see chemical formula 2). Then, they get soda which will react with clay.

But the most interesting point is that this chemical reaction creates pure limestone as well as hydrosodalite (a mineral of the feldspathoids or zeolites family). [6]

Chemical reaction 1:
Si₂O₅,Al₂(OH)₄ + 2NaOH = > Na₂O.2SiO₂Al₂O₃.nH₂O
kaolinite clay + soda = > hydrosodalite

Chemical reaction 2:
Na₂CO₃ + Ca(OH)₂ = > 2NaOH + CaCO₃
Sodium carbonate (Egyptian natron) + lime = > soda + limestone

Summary of the re-agglomerated stone binder chemical formula:
clay + natron + lime = > feldspathoids + limestone (i.e. a natural stone)

The re-agglomerated stone binder is the result of a geosynthesis (a geopolymer), which creates two natural minerals: limestone and hydrated feldspar (feldspathoids). We understand why the geologists can easily be misled.

4. Scientific analysis:

Now that more and more scientists agree and support the theory, some have decided to carry on researches without my help and without requesting any approval from egyptologists, so in total independence from both parties.

The analysis methods used today by geologists are not relevant. They cannot make a difference between a natural and a synthetic mineral. Indeed, the molecule of a mineral is by essence always the same, whether it is natural or synthetic, otherwise it would be another molecule, so another mineral. To show the artificial nature of the material, they need to work with more powerful methods (analysis by synchrotron, transmission and electronic scan microscopy SEM TEM, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, Paleomagnetism, Particle Induced Gamma-Ray Emission, Particle Induced X-Ray Emission, X-ray fluorescence, X-ray Diffraction). These tools are seldom used in this situation. Studies have been made, and all show that the pyramid stones are artificial. [7]

This last paleomagnetism study is simply the ultimate proof that the pyramids blocks are not natural. You may find various papers or opinions challenging the theory, but all prefer ignoring these independent analysis. Believing in the artificial stone theory, or countering it, is simply no longer relevant. It has become a fact, a truth that is still fought by some people for irrational purposes.

We can quote the following scientific papers:

• Paleomagnetic investigation of the Great Egyptian Pyramids, Igor Túnyi and Ibrahim A. El-hemaly, Europhysics News 2012, 43/6, 28-31.
• Were the casing stones of Senefru’s Bent Pyramid in Dahshour cast or carved? Multinuclear NMR evidence, Kenneth J. D. MacKenzie, M. E. Smith, A. Wong, J. V. Hanna, B. Barryand M. W. Barsoum, Mater. Lett., 2011, 65, 350.
• Microstructural Evidence of Reconstituted Limestone Blocks in the Great Pyramids of Egypt, Barsoum M.W., Ganguly A. and Hug G., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 89[12], 3788-3796, 2006.
• The Enigma of the Construction of the Giza Pyramids Solved?, Scientific British Laboratory, Daresbury, SRS Synchrotron Radiation Source, 2004.
• PIXE, PIGE and NMR study of the masonry of the pyramid of Cheops at Giza, Guy Demortier, NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS and METHODS in PHYSICS RESEARCH B, B 226, 98 – 109 (2004).
• X-Rays Analysis and X-Rays Diffraction of casing stones from the pyramids of Egypt, and the limestone of the associated quarries., Davidovits J., Science in Egyptology; A.R. David ed.; 1986; Proceedings of the “Science in Egyptology Symposia”; Manchester University Press, UK; pp.511-520.
• Differential thermal analysis (DTA) detection of intra-ceramic geopolymeric setting In archaeological ceramics and mortars., Davidovits J.; Courtois L., 21st Archaeometry Symposium; Brookhaven Nat. Lab., N.Y.; 1981; Abstracts P. 22.
• How Not to Analyze Pyramid Stone, Morris, M. JOURNAL OF GEOLOGICAL EDUCATION, VOL. 41, P. 364-369 (1993).
• Comment a-t-on construit les Pyramides: polémique chez les Égyptologues, HISTORIA Magazine, Paris, No 674, fév. 2003, dossier pp. 54-79 (2003).

B- The Archaeological Evidence

1. The hieroglyphic texts:

We know the Egypt of the Pharaohs quite well, thanks to its numerous steles, frescos and papyrus describing all kinds of religious, scientific, technical knowledge, the craft industry, agriculture, medicine, astronomy, and so on. However, there is not a single hieroglyphic document revealing the pyramids’ construction with carved stones, ramps, and wooden sledges. On the contrary, we find many texts showing that the ancient Egyptians had the knowledge of man-made stones:

The Famine Stele is engraved on a rock at Sehel island, close to Elephantine. It stages the god Khnum, Pharaoh Zoser and his architect Imhotep, builder of the first pyramid at Saqqarah. This inscription contains 650 hieroglyphs depicting either rocks and minerals, or their transformation processes. In column 12, we read: “With these products (mineral) they built (…) the royal tomb (the pyramid)“. In columns 18 to 20, the god Khnum gives to Zoser a list of minerals needed in the construction of these sacred monuments. This list does not mention the traditional hard and compact construction stones like limestone (ainr-hedj), monumental sandstone (ainr-rwdt) or Aswan granite (mat). By studying this text, we notice that we cannot build a pyramid or a temple with simple minerals, except if they are used to manufacture the binder of a re-agglomerated stone. [8]

The Irtysen stele (C14) at the Louvre Museum is an autobiography of the sculptor Irtysen under one of the Mentouhotep Pharaohs, eleventh dynasty (2000 B.C.). It explains the method of manufacturing synthetic stone statues (with “cast stone”). [9]

The Ti fresco, fifth dynasty (2450 front. J.-C.), illustrates the sculptors work on a wooden statue, the manufacturing of a stone statue and mixtures in vases. This fresco perfectly shows the difference between carving a statue (here in wood with hieroglyphic signs depicting the operation of carving), the fashioning of a statue (made out of synthetic stone with hieroglyphic signs representing the action “to synthesize”, “man-made”), and mixing caustic chemicals in ceramic vases to work on this statue. [10]

2. The invention of re-agglomerated stone: growth and decline of a technology

Before the first pyramid built out of stone, the ancient Egyptians constructed very imposing crude brick monuments. We find large funerary temple enclosures of the second dynasty, like the Khasekhemwy one (2,730 B.C.). Its massive wall is of crude clay bricks, therefore in a moulded material. It is generally agreed, since these bricks were worked in moulds, that their dimension must be uniform. However, this is wrong. Despite having been manufactured in moulds, the clay bricks are of approximately 5 different sizes, implying the use of several patterns. We find these differences in proportions in all pyramids. This heterogeneity gives the monuments the ability to resist earthquakes by avoiding the amplification of seismic waves.

20 years later, Zoser ordered Imhotep to build him a stone monument for eternity. The scribe Imhotep is the inventor of re-agglomerated stone (2,650 B.C.) and the architect of the first pyramid of Egypt. Instead of using crude bricks, he simply replaced the clay with a re-agglomerated limestone and kept the same method of moulding bricks. This is why the first pyramid is made in small bricks, which become bigger in dimension as the invention is better mastered. The bricks are manufactured where the stones are extracted, in the Wadi (at the east of the complex [11]) at the Nile flooding period, then carried and placed on the pyramid under construction.

Its invention, inherited from pisé and crude brick, improves with time during the pyramids’ construction at the third and fourth dynasties. Starting from the small limestone bricks at Saqqarah, the stone dimensions increase gradually. For the Meidoum and Bent pyramids, the blocks are produced in the vicinity and are moved up to the pyramid. There is always a Wadi nearby to easily disaggregate limestone with water and to prepare the mixture at the Nile flooding time.

From Sneferu’s red pyramid in Dashur, the blocks are manufactured on the spot, because the dimensions are now too large for them to be transported.

In Giza, some stones (in particular those at the Khefren temple) weigh more than 30 tons. How would they have simply carved them with soft copper tools, without wheels or pulleys?

According to Guy Demortier [12], re-agglomerating stones on the spot greatly simplifies the logistic problems. Instead of 25,000 to 100,000 workmen necessary for carving [13], he deduces that the site occupancy never exceeded 2,300 people, which confirms what the Egyptologist Mr. Lehner discovered with his excavations of the workmen’s village at Giza.

The decline of the agglomerated stone technology appears with the pyramid of Mykerinos, which represents only 7% in volume of Kheops. Why is this pyramid suddenly so small? This decline would have been caused by a sudden reduction in reactive mineral resources, like the exhaustion of the principal Sinai mines at the end of the fourth dynasty. Expeditions of B. Rothenberg [4] showed that they had extracted enormous quantities of turquoises and chrysocollas (called mafkat in Egyptian), quantities so large as to rule out their use in jewellery and decoration, as confirmed by the Egyptologist Sydney Aufrère [14].

The decline would also result from an ecological and agricultural disaster radically limiting the production of lime coming from plant ashes burned for this purpose. If we burn more than what we can produce or renew, a famine or an ecological disaster can occur. Analyzed by D.D. Klemm [15], lime, present in mortars of the third and fourth dynasties, disappears in mortars of the fifth and sixth dynasties. Indeed, the succeeding pyramids, and in particular that of Userkaf, first king of the fifth dynasty, is ridiculously small compared to Mykerinos. In the beginning, they were covered by a limestone coating which hid the bulk of natural blocks, badly worked out. This pyramid is only an uneven stone assembly covering a funerary room made, this time, out of re-agglomerated stone and protected by enormous beams of several dozen tons. Only the core of this pyramid was carefully manufactured, the remainder being botched, because the reactive materials were rare. Thus, we are in the presence of a very different system, which cannot be explained by carving stone. If the pyramids of Giza had been hewn, how can such a drop in architectural quality be explained, while stone is an abundant material? Carving would have resulted in a construction quality equivalent to those of Giza, even with pyramids more reasonable in height, but this is not the case.

With respect to a resource impoverishment, starting from the twelfth dynasty (1,990-1,780 B.C.), Pharaoh Amenemhat I and his successors built crude brick pyramids. But here also, only the funerary room is built, with great care, out of re-agglomerated stone. However, the Egyptians did not choose to carve stone for the body of the pyramids, preferring crude bricks, even though they had harder and more efficient bronze tools had they wished to use them.

We note, then, that the technology of re-agglomerated stone, after a formidable rise, a perfect mastery of the process, an intense exploitation of its resources, went on to  an extremely rapid architectural decline. A mining exhaustion of the chemical reagent resources, and an ecological and agricultural disaster explain this decline. [16] [17]

3. Religious context:

Why did they maintain this need to build out of agglomerated stone or to preserve the agglomeration system, while they could carve stone?

For ancient Egyptians, stone had a sacred quality, used only for religious purposes, that prohibited its use for secular buildings (built rather out of crude bricks, clay and wood, never out of stone). It is only under the Ptolemys, 2,000 years after the pyramids, that stone became a trivial building material. The reasons for this distinction come from religion.

Egyptian civilization lasted more than 3,000 years and, contrary to what the general public thinks, it was not homogeneous. Thus, there are 2 geneses explaining the creation of the World; two distinct gods claim the creation of the World and man: Khnum and Amon.

The god Khnum was worshipped during the Old and Middle Kingdoms (3,000 to 1,800 B.C.). He is depicted as a man with a ram’s head and horizontal horns. He personalizes the nutritious Nile, and at Elephantine, Thebes, Heracleopolis, Memphis, he is the god of creation. In the act of creation, he “kneads” humanity on his potter’s wheel with the Nile silt and other minerals (mafkat, natron) as in the Biblical and Koranic genesis. This does not give an unspecified clay, but a stone called “ka”, i.e. the soul that is not spirit, but eternal stone. Khnum and all the divine incarnations of Râ appear by the act of manufacturing stone. His hieroglyphic sign is a hard stone vase like those of the Nagadean era (3,500 to 3,000 B.C.). Thus, under the Old Kingdom, the purpose of the agglomeration act was to reproduce the divine intervention at the time of the creation of the World and the human soul.

For the two main Pharaohs of the Old Kingdom, Zoser and Kheops, the relationship with Khnum is proven by archaeological discoveries (cf. the Famine Stele). Also, the true name of Kheops is Khnum-Khufu (may the god Khnum protect Kheops). Would Kheops have attached his name to an inferior god? No, Khnum is a major god. It is simply the perception of the Egyptian Pantheon which is not correct.

Amon is the second god of creation. In the beginning, he was only an average god. He became a dynastic god in the twelfth dynasty (1,800 B.C.), but he was not yet the god of creation, this role still being the privilege of Khnum. Then, he became the “king of the gods” and the priests gave him the ability to create the world. In the genesis myth, Amon is identified as a sacred mountain and he “carves” each human being in a part of himself, i.e. in this sacred mountain. Amon and all the divine incarnations of Amon-Râ appear by the act of carving stone, and are at the origin of the New Kingdom monuments, like those of Ramses II, 1,300 years after the pyramids.

Thus, we understand why the tombs were no longer under pyramids, symbols of agglomeration, but under a sacred mountain, the Valley of the Kings, symbol of Amon. In the same way, the temples are built out of stone hewn with great care and the obelisks are called “Amon’s fingers”. During the Old Kingdom, where the name of Khnum (“the one who binds”) is in the complete name of Kheops (Khnum-Khufu), the name of Amon (“the one who is hidden”) is found in the New Kingdom Pharaohs’ names like Amenhotep.

Arguments against the carving theory

Here are arguments presented by the partisans of carving to show that this technique was in use at the pyramids’ time. However, these evidence are anachronous; they date from the Middle to the New Kingdom, in times when the stone was hewn, and not from the Old Kingdom, the time of the pyramids.

The extraction of blocks would have been possible by means of wooden dowels that, once in place, were wetted to cleave the stone. However, D.D. Klemm shows that the Romans only used this primitive technique very late on. Each period left distinct patterns of cut traces in quarries, thus making it possible to date them, except at the time of the pyramids, when no trace remains. [18]

The bas-relief of Djehutihotep illustrates the transport of a colossal statue on a sledge [19]. In the same way, R. Stadelman discovered that Amenemhat II workmen had stolen stones on sledges from the Sneferu pyramid, used as a vulgar quarry. These two events took place under the twelfth dynasty (1,800 B.C.), that is 700 years after the construction of the pyramids.

The Tura stele depicts a stone block dragged on a sledge by oxen [20]. It does not constitute a proof because once again, it goes back to approximately 1,000 years after the construction of the pyramids.

The Rekhmire fresco presents the work of masons setting up blocks with bronze tools. But these new tools were unknown to pyramid builders 1,300 years earlier.

Any ramps would have been made out of crude clay bricks, several kilometres in length (in straight or spiral lines, with the attendant problem of turning corners), representing a considerable amount of material. Each team would have sprinkled the ground with water to ease the motion of the sledge. But the action of water would have transformed the ramp into a soapy and very slippery path. After several teams had passed by, it would have been transformed into mud where sledges and hauler would be stuck!

There is no official theory of carving, hauling blocks on sledges and ramps. There are approximately twenty or so that propose various solutions. These theories are not based on hieroglyphic texts, do not match the technology found on archaeological sites, and do not take into account the historical and religious environment. These theories are essentially focused on the pyramid of Kheops, the most remarkable one, but not on the pyramids that precede or follow it, and even less on those made out of crude brick.

Notes and references

[1] Klemm, Steine und Steinbrüche in Alten Ägypten, Springer Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 1993.
[2] M. Lehner, The Development of the Giza Necropolis: The Khufu project, Mitteilungun des Deutschen Institutes, Abteilung Kairo, 41, p. 149, 1985.
[3] L. Gauri, Geological study of the Sphinx, Newsletter American Research Center in Egypt, No 127, pp. 24-43, 1984.
[4] B. Rothenberg, Sinai exploration 1967-1972, Bulletin, Museum Haaretz Tel Aviv, 1972, p. 35
[5] J. Davidovits, Ils ont bâti les pyramides, éd. J-C Godefroy, Paris, 2002, pp. 161-162, 307-311
[6] J. Davidovits, La nouvelle histoire des pyramides, éd. J-C Godefroy, Paris, 2004, pp. 57-58 et 72
[7] See ref. [5] and [6] for comprehensive bibliographics notes and debates with geologists.
[8] Pyramid Man-Made Stone, Myths or Facts, III. The Famine Stela Provides the Hieroglyphic Names of Chemicals and Minerals Involved in the Construction , Davidovits J., 5th Int. Congress of Egyptology, Cairo, Egypt, 1988; Egyptian Antiquities Organization; EGY; 1988; pp. 57-58 in Résumés des Communications. See also ref. [5] and [6].
[9] J. Davidovits, Ils ont bâti les pyramides, éd. J-C Godefroy, Paris, 2002, pp. 229-236
[10] J. Davidovits, La nouvelle histoire des pyramides, éd. J-C Godefroy, Paris, 2004, pp. 145-150
[11] M. Lehner, The Complete Pyramids, Thames and Hudson, 1997, p. 83
[12] G. Demortier, La construction de la pyramide de Khéops, Revue des questions scientifiques, Bruxelles, 2004, Tome 175, p. 341-382
[13] M. Lehner, The Complete Pyramids, Thames and Hudson, 1997, p. 224
[14] Sydney Aufrère, L’univers minéral dans la pensée égyptienne, IFAO, Le Caire, 1991, Volume 2, p. 494
[15] D.D. Klemm and R. Klemm, Mortar evolution in the old kingdom of Egypt, Archaeometry ’90, Birkhaüser Verlag, Basel, Suisse, 1990, pp. 445-454
[16] J. Davidovits, Ils ont bâti les pyramides, éd. J-C Godefroy, Paris, 2002, pp. 297-328
[17] J. Davidovits, La nouvelle histoire des pyramides, éd. J-C Godefroy, Paris, 2004, pp. 207-228
[18] Klemm, The archaeological map of Gebel el Silsila, 2nd Int. Congress of Egyptologists, Grenoble, 1979, Session 05.
[19] J. P. Adam, l’Archéologie devant l’imposture, éd. Robert Laffont, Paris, 1975, p. 158
[20] Vyze-Perring, The Pyramids of Gizeh, Vol. III, p. 99

It was obvious that this type of test would provide favorable or unfavorable answers. However, as with all other analyzes, J. Davidovits felt that he should not do them himself. He therefore waited for geological physicists specialized in this discipline to grasp the question for themselves and undertake an experiment. It took a long time, because none of the “experts” at the outset wanted, or could not, undertake this study. Advisers are never the payers. This is true here. This was done in 2012 with the scientyific publication by Túnyi and El-Hemaly in the international scientific journal Europhysics News , under the title Paleomagnetic investigation of the Pyramids . These two geophysicists made a paleomagnetic study of the stones of the pyramids of Cheops and Khephren to determine whether the theory of artificial geopolymer limestone was valid or not. See in: Igor Túnyi et Ibrahim A. El-hemaly, (2012), Paleomagnetic investigation of the great egyptian pyramids, Europhysics News 43/6, 28-31.

They had read, 3 years ago, in this same journal, an article written by Guy Demortier, himself a member of the European Physical Society. His article was entitled “Revisiting the Construction of Egyptian Pyramids”, Europhysic News , 40/7, 07. Igor Túnyi is a geophysicist and paleomagnetist at the Geophysical Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia (he died recently after a long illness). Ibrahim A. El-hemaly is a geophysicist at the National Research Institute of Astronomy and Geophysics, in Cairo. They took samples from Cheops and Khephren and other samples were taken from the quarries of Mokattan and Helwan, for comparison. The figure shows the location of the samples. As the article did not contain photos, J. Davidovits linked these sampling sites with photographs taken from his collection.

We have :

Nr 1: south-eastern corner of Khephren; it corresponds to the huge individual blocks of the base.
Nr 2: southwest corner; individual block identical to those located above the terraces, on the 6th step.
Nr 3: one of the 5 terraces cut in the geological layer.
Nr 4: sample taken from the front of the trench of the geological layer.
Nr 5: individual block identical to the blocks of Cheops, but on the east side.
Nr 6: to the east, south side, individual block (no photo).
Nr 7: to the south, east side, rest of the geological limestone substratum (no photo).

The samples Nr 3, Nr 4 and Nr 7 are assigned to a geological limestone dating from the Eocene (30 million years). The picture shows that samples Nr 1, Nr 2, and Nr 5 have magnetic polarization in the south-north direction. Therefore, these samples are artificial (man-made). Block Nr 6 is not clearly defined. It could be an individual block of geopolymer limestone that has been moved. It shows an orientation opposite to that of sample Nr 5, namely a rotation along the north-south axis.

In his book “Why the Pharaohs built the Pyramids with Fake Stones“, Professor Davidovits has clearly shown the location of the natural limestone blocks and terraces (see essentially the Circuit of the Pyramid Plateau at Giza, Egypt, pages 233-262). For example, we know that in the pyramid of Khefren, more than a quarter of the volume of the pyramid is natural stone, namely the terraces carved in the inclined limestone plateau and which constitute the first 5 layers of the pyramid. The book is available at the Geopolymer SHOP and www.amazon.com

The abstract reads: “A comparison was made of the solid-state 29Si, 27Al and 43Ca MAS NMR spectra of the outer casing stone from Snefru’s Bent Pyramid in Dahshour, Egypt, with two quarry limestones from the area. The NMR results suggest that the casing stones consist of limestone grains from the Tura quarry, cemented with an amorphous calcium-silicate gel formed by human intervention, by the addition of extra silica, possibly diatomaceous earth, from the Fayium area.”

Latest on NOVA mini-pyramid documentary “This Old Pyramid”. To learn about the swindle go to Mini-Pyramid NOVA swindle

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.

30 years after the best seller book: The Pyramids: an enigma solved,
after 30 years of new research, and new discoveries,
you will understand why the theory is more alive than ever, why more and more scientists agree, simply because it is the truth.

Buy your copy of the book at The Geopolymer Shop
in hardcover or eBook (ePub and Mobi Kindle formats)

In this book, Professor Joseph Davidovits explains the intriguing theory that made him famous. He shows how the Pyramids were built by using re-agglomerated stone (a natural limestone treated like a concrete), and not with huge carved blocks, hauled on fragile ramps. Archaeology bears him out, as well as hieroglyphic texts, scientific analysis, religious and historical facts.

Here we finally have the first complete presentation on how the Egyptian pyramids were built. We discover its brilliant creator, the great scribe and architect, Imhotep. Joseph Davidovits sweeps aside the conventional image which cripples Egyptology and delivers a captivating and surprising view of Egyptian civilisation. He charts the rise of this technology, its apogee with the Pyramids at Giza, and the decline. Everything is logical and brilliant, everything fits into place.

Chapter by chapter, the revelations are sensational, especially when Joseph Davidovits explains why the pharaohs stopped building great pyramids because of an over-exploitation of raw materials and a likely environmental disaster. We understand why Kheops and Ramses II represent two Egyptian civilisations completely different in their beliefs. On the one hand, the God Khnum mandates Kheops to build his pyramid in agglomerated stone, while on the other hand, the God Amun orders Ramses to carve stone for the temples of Luxor and Karnak.

If you want to know how the knowledge evolved after the Pyramids click on Colosses of Memnon

Why geologists see nothing?

Joseph Davidovits explains how to analyze the pyramid limestones and why geologists see nothing. He demonstrates that a thin section is not the right method to detect artificial stone.
Excerpt from his video conference “Building the Pyramids of Egypt with Fake Stones”.

FREE DOWNLOAD of Chapter 1 of “Why the pharaohs built the Pyramids with fake stones” + the extended abstract of the theory, from an official Press Kit. (574 KB in PDF format).

The book holds:

• 288 pages
• 26 chapters
• 2 appendixes (including answers to opponents)
• 213 figures and pictures
• Available in hardcover or eBook (ePub and Mobi Kindle formats)

ISBN: 9782951482043

Buy your copy of the book at The Geopolymer Shop
in hardcover or eBook (ePub and Mobi Kindle formats)

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.

Buy your book at Why the pharaohs built the Pyramids with fake stones

Pyramids (1) Are Pyramids Made Out of Concrete?
Pyramids (2) The evidences
Pyramids (3) The formula, the invention of stone
Pyramids (4) Videos and book
Pyramids (5) FAQ for artificial stone supporters
Pyramids (6) Deep misleading publications by geologists

Download an abstract of the theory or buy the book

FREE DOWNLOAD of Chapter 1 of “Why the pharaohs built the Pyramids with fake stones” + the extended abstract of the theory, from an official Press Kit. (574 KB in PDF format). See also Joseph Davidovits’  Book: Why the pharaohs built the Pyramids with fake stones 

Watch a FREE video conference “Building the Pyramids of Egypt with Fake Stones” by Joseph Davidovits, duration 1 hour 20 minutes.

(1) The pyramids stones are man-made (synthetic, artificial), Cast in molds

Latest on NOVA mini-pyramid documentary “This Old Pyramid”. To learn about the swindle go to Mini-Pyramid NOVA swindle

If you want to know how the knowledge evolved after the Pyramids click on Colosses of Memnon

Paleomagnetism study supports the man-made stone concept. Go to Paleomagnetism study.

The Pyramids at Giza have more than 5 million blocks of limestone, until now believed to be CARVED stones, new evidences shows they were CAST with agglomerated limestone concrete.

The website reveals how Ancient Egyptians built the pyramids using man-made stones, which look exactly like natural rocks. The limestone blocks were cast in situ, employing an advanced technology that was later lost, leaving a puzzle hidden for thousands of years inside the pyramid stones. This theory undoubtedly shed an amazing new light on what really happened in Egypt in that remote era.

The scientific background, including analysis, formula, stone making, are disclosed in the recently updated book by Prof. Joseph Davidovits Geopolymer Chemistry & Applications, in several chapters, i.e. Chapters 5, 11, 13, 17 and 20.

If you want to know how the knowledge evolved after the Pyramids click on Colosses of Memnon

Chancellor and Architect of Pharaoh Djoser:

Imhotep making a stone

HIGH PRIEST IMHOTEP INVENTED THE CHEMICAL FORMULA 5000 YEARS AGO.

Designer and builder of the FIRST PYRAMID in history, the Step Pyramid at Sakkara…

A French Scientist Solved the Pyramid Enigma:

Prof. Davidovits examining limestone blocks

Prof. JOSEPH DAVIDOVITS , scientist, REDISCOVERS ANCIENT EGYPTIAN ARI-KAT TECHNOLOGY.

A twelve-tonne replica of a pyramid limestone block was cast at the GEOPOLYMER INSTITUTE in Saint Quentin, France.

In this section: CG pictures, some pictures and texts after Relevant Television.

Impossible to carve stone, part 1

3D recreation of carved stones hauled using ramps.

Generations of school children the world over have been asked to imagine vast teams of Egyptian workers carving the stones, hauling them to the site of the pyramid and hoisting them up until each one was placed in its exact position. But, how could this have been done?
The Great Pyramid of Kheops is comprised of about 2.5 million blocks, most weigh two tons and could have been hauled by no less than sixty men. But some weigh up to seventy tons and these are to be found, not at the base of the pyramid, but some forty meters high. Since the ancient Egyptians did not yet have the wheel, they would have needed more than two thousand men to haul each block.

How could this pyramid have been erected in the 20-year reign of Pharaoh Kheops? To accomplish the task, at least 400 blocks per day would have had to be put in position as from the first day of the pharaoh’s accession to the throne.

Hundreds of thousands of men would have been working simultaneously – squeezed shoulder to shoulder in the space of a single block in a modern city. But this would not been feasible. In such conditions the men would not have been able to budge.

How could the Ancient Egyptians have cut these stones, which are extremely hard, with only the most primitive of tools?. At best they would have been able to use copper saws, and copper is a softish metal, incapable of hewing the hard limestone blocks from which the early pyramids are constructed.

How was it possible to transport the large stones when the wheel had not yet been invented and there were no pulleys to hoist them into the air?
If the stones were carved, as most people believe, where are the fragments of broken stone left over ? Limestone frequently splits on being cut. 5 million tons of limestone blocks must have produced millions of broken blocks and fragments. Yet, not a trace of them has ever been found.

How could a civilization without hard metals have carved the millions of blocks of the Great Pyramid to ten different and exactly-calculated lengths in order to set them in patterns throughout the whole structure to eliminate the formation of vertical joints?

How could these joints between adjacent blocks be achieved so perfectly? The joints between millions of blocks, vertically and horizontally are not more that 2 mm wide. How were the blocks cut and leveled without motor-driven machinery or diamond drills?

The answer has at last been found, and it totally contradicts the stone-carving theories. The pyramids were cast in situ. Curiously enough, that explanation had been there always, waiting to be discovered by examining the mysterious stones from which the pyramids were built.

Since the early eighties, Prof. Joseph Davidovits is proposing that the pyramids and temples of Old Kingdom Egypt were constructed using agglomerated limestone, rather than quarried and hoisted blocks of natural limestone. This type of fossil-shell limestone concrete would have been cast or packed into molds. Egyptian workmen went to outcrops of relatively soft limestone, disaggregated it with water, then mixed the muddy limestone (including the fossil-shells) with lime and tecto-alumino-silicate-forming materials (geosynthesis) such as kaolin clay, silt, and the Egyptian salt natron (sodium carbonate). The limestone mud was carried up by the bucketful and then poured, packed or rammed into molds (made of wood, stone, clay or brick) placed on the pyramid sides. This re-agglomerated limestone, bonded by geochemical reaction (called geopolymer cement), thus hardened into resistant blocks. In 1979, at the second International Congress of Egyptologists, Grenoble, France, he presented two conferences. One set forth the hypothesis that the pyramid blocks were cast as concrete, instead of carved. Such a theory was greatly disruptive to the orthodox theory with its hundreds of thousand of workers taking part in this gigantic endeavor. The second conference stressed that ancient stone vases manufactured 5000 years ago by Egyptians artists were made of cast synthetic (man made) hard stone.
J. Davidovits’ research was fiercely opposed by some experts (geologists and egyptologists) who did not refrain from publicizing the usual brickbats. The theory was finally published in a popular book, in 1989, entitled: “The Pyramids: an enigma solved”, Hippocrene Books, New York (4 printings) and later by Dorset, New York. In 1998, Prof. Davidovits resumed his work and he has presented updated and new results at Geopolymer Congresses. (See details in Archaeology applications in Geopolymer Proceedings ). Also, revised editions of the book has been published since 2003, see They built the Pyramids and also the books published in different languages at J. Davidovits website.

The carving and hoisting theory indeed raises questions that have been insufficiently answered. Using stone and copper tools, how did workers manage to make the pyramid faces absolutely flat? How did they make the faces meet at a perfect point at the summit? How did they make the tiers so level? How could the required amount of workers maneuver on the building site? How did they make the blocks so uniform? How were some of the heaviest blocks in the pyramid placed at great heights? How were twenty-two acres of casing blocks all made to fit to a hair’s breadth and closer? How was all of the work done in about twenty years? Experts can only guess. And Egyptologists must admit that the problems have not been resolved.

Theories of construction are many and continue to be invented. All are based on carving and hoisting natural stone, and none solves the irreconcilable problems. The casting and packing agglomerated stone theory instantly dissolves the majority of the logistical and other problems.

Imhotep the Alchemist

HIGH PRIEST IMHOTEP INVENTED
THE CHEMICAL FORMULA 5000 YEARS AGO
Designer and builder of the FIRST PYRAMID in history,
The Step Pyramid at Sakkara

3D representation of high priest and alchemist Imhotep

Imhotep designed and built the first pyramid in human history, the Step Pyramid at Saqqara, the first manifestation of higher knowledge in ancient Egypt.
He belonged to a closed organization of priests called the School of Mysteries of “The Eye of Horus”, exclusive guardians of knowledge in ancient Egypt.

Imhotep, whose name means “The sage who comes in peace”, occupies one of the most distinguished places in history. He was revered in Egypt for three thousand years – that is, from his own lifetime during the reign of King Djoser right up to the Greek and Roman conquests of Egypt. His father was the royal architect Kanofer, his mother Khreduonkh, an hereditary noble. At a very early age, Imhotep entered the priesthood and began to live at the Temple of Annu on the shores of the Nile – a center of science and religion, with a great library, were Imhotep learned how to read and write in the symbolic language of hieroglyphs.

Imhotep casting a limestone block.

Imhotep left plans with temple designs that were built thousands of years after his death, as stated in the hieroglyphs of several temples. He was a geometer, doctor of medicine, inventor of the Caduceus, the present-day symbol of physicians. The legend says Imhotep devised the way to divide the heavens into 30º sectors, known today as the Zodiacal eras, to record the movements of the stars and constellations.
A priest-scientist like Imhotep, who could make stone vessels, enjoyed a special status, since his knowledge enabled him to give form to stones, and stone for the Egyptians was the symbol of the Eternal. After his death he was deified by the Egyptians who identified him with Thoth the Ibis-faced divinity of wisdom. The Gnostics called him Hermes Trismegistus, the Thrice Great, founder and origin of their esoteric wisdom.

Davidovits the Chemist

JOSEPH DAVIDOVITS, PHD, REDISCOVERS ANCIENT EGYPTIAN
ARI-KAT TECHNOLOGY
A four-tonne replica of a pyramid limestone block was cast
at the GEOPOLYMER INSTITUTE in Saint Quentin, France

Dr Davidovits examining limestone blocks at his laboratory

At the Geopolymer Institute in St Quentin near Paris, Dr Joseph Davidovits researches ancient cements and new concretes, new ceramics and binders for high tech industries. He is renowned for his research into a branch of chemistry whose chief study is geopolymers – a mineral inorganic polymer based on silicium and aluminum geological molecules.
Throughout his long professional life, Professor Davidovits has taught in US universities, has published three important studies on the pyramids and has patented a number of original products that employ sophisticated processes in the manufacture of cement, ceramic and binder. In 1998, he was awarded France’s “Chevalier de L’Ordre National du Mérite” in recognition of his research and of his many patents in an innovative branch of chemistry known as geopolymerization. Finally, he is a member of the International Association of Egyptologists and is regularly presenting his archaeological works during international congresses in egyptology since 1979.

Dr. Davidovits creates new mineral compounds and rocks by copying and accelerating natural processes. He is the author of the books “Ils ont bâti les Pyramides”, Paris 2002, “La nouvelle histoire des Pyramides”, Paris 2004 (2nd ed. 2006) and “The pyramids: an enigma solved”, New York, 1988. His most recent book in English is Why the pharaohs built the Pyramids with fake stones.

Dr Davidovits mixing the ingredients to cast a stone block in his lab

He has taken a special interest in the Egyptian pyramids and has combined a new approach – a chemist’s approach – to hieroglyph interpretation, with in-depth research on the structure and composition of the stone blocks and cements used in pyramid-building.
As a result, and after long experimentation in the casting and molding of stone, he has published a fascinating theory about how the construction of these giant man-made mountains must have been carried out.

Pyramids (1) Are Pyramids Made Out of Concrete?
 Pyramids (2) The evidences
Pyramids (3) The formula, the invention of stone
Pyramids (4) Videos and book
Pyramids (5) FAQ for artificial stone supporters
Pyramids (6) Deep misleading publications by geologists

The scientific proofs

The “Lauer” sample under the optical microscope.

This photo shows a sample of the casing from the ascending passage of Kheops great pyramid, given by the French egyptologist Jean-Philippe Lauer in 1982 to J. Davidovits. Now, the cross section is characterised by the presence of organic fibers and air bubbles that do not exist in normal situation, especially in a 60 millions years old limestone from the eocene ere !
Ref.: X-Rays Analysis and X-Rays Diffraction of casing stones from the pyramids of Egypt, and the limestone of the associated quarries., Davidovits J., Science in Egyptology; A.R. David ed.; 1986; Proceedings of the “Science in Egyptology Symposia”; Manchester University Press, UK; pp.511- 520.

We recently (May 2020) detected a fraudulous scientific study carried out by geologists to discredit our research. They used a false “Lauer” sample. Go to Pyramids (6) Deep misleading publications by geologists

Another study used Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopie

Al and Si NMR spectra of a geopolymer (A and C) are also found in a Kheops stone (B and D). The Kheops stone may hold 15% of artificial geopolymeric cement.

The nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopie depicts similarities between a Kheops stone and a reconstituted stone.
Ref.: PIXE, PIGE and NMR study of the masonry of the pyramid of Cheops at Giza, Guy Demortier, NUCLEAR INSTRUMENTS and METHODS in PHYSICS RESEARCH B, B 226, 98 – 109 (2004).

Left: electronic diffraction of amorphous alumino-silicate from a Kheops casing. Right: electronic diffraction of a natural alumino-silicate (illite) from the Turah quarry near Giza.

In natural stones, we expect to find elements that had the time to cristallize. However, silicates in pyramids stones are completely amorphous (not cristallized). This allows us to think that we are in presence of a cementitious process. The silicates were formed in a very short period of time. Read the paper abstract
Ref.: Barsoum, M. W., Ganguly, A. and Hug, G. (2006), Microstructural Evidence of Reconstituted Limestone Blocks in the Great Pyramids of Egypt, Journal of the American Ceramic Society 89 (12), 3788-3796. More details are found in Davidovits’ recent book in English (2009) Why the Pharaohs built the Pyramids with fake stones, and scientific background information in Geopolymer Chemistry & Applications.

We can also quote the following scientific papers:

• Paleomagnetic investigation of the Great Egyptian Pyramids, Igor Túnyi and Ibrahim A. El-hemaly, Europhysics News 2012, 43/6, 28-31.
• Were the casing stones of Senefru’s Bent Pyramid in Dahshour cast or carved? Multinuclear NMR evidence, Kenneth J. D. MacKenzie, M. E. Smith, A. Wong, J. V. Hanna, B. Barryand M. W. Barsoum, Mater. Lett., 2011, 65, 350.
• Microstructural Evidence of Reconstituted Limestone Blocks in the Great Pyramids of Egypt, Barsoum M.W., Ganguly A. and Hug G., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 89[12], 3788-3796, 2006.
• The Enigma of the Construction of the Giza Pyramids Solved?, Scientific British Laboratory, Daresbury, SRS Synchrotron Radiation Source, 2004.
• Differential thermal analysis (DTA) detection of intra-ceramic geopolymeric setting In archaeological ceramics and mortars., Davidovits J.; Courtois L., 21st Archaeometry Symposium; Brookhaven Nat. Lab., N.Y.; 1981; Abstracts P. 22.
• How Not to Analyze Pyramid Stone, Morris, M. JOURNAL OF GEOLOGICAL EDUCATION, VOL. 41, P. 364-369 (1993).
• Comment a-t-on construit les Pyramides: polémique chez les Égyptologues, HISTORIA Magazine, Paris, No 674, fév. 2003, dossier pp. 54-79 (2003).

These analysis are the first and seem to invigorate J. Davidovits’ theory, and, obviously, more work has to be done. To join the team of scientists and offer your expertise and means of investigation, please, contact us .

The Geological Proof, part 1.

Jumbled fossil shells in a limestone block of the Great Pyramid. Natural sedimentation at sea bottom normally leaves them in horizontal layers.

In prehistoric times most of present-day Egypt was submerged under the sea. The decomposing remains of marine organisms, shells and skeletons, plants, seaweed and algae, fallen to the bottom of the sea, formed mud that condensed itself into a sedimentary rock we call limestone.
A natural process that lasted thousands of years consolidated and hardened them, forming banks of limestone. The pyramid blocks are made of this limestone, a sedimentary rock formed from skeletons and large fossil shells of marine organisms. These fossil remains are normally found in sedimentary horizontal layers. Yet, in the stones of the Great Pyramid, Professor Davidovits found them in disarray, jumbled up together quite haphazardly as if they were artificially mixed with some kind of pestle.

Another phenomenon observed in the pyramid stones was the presence of air bubbles, organic fibers, bones and animal teeth, foreign materials never found in natural limestone – which would seem to be further proof that the stones were man-made.

Fossil shells

The numilitic limestone (the jumbled fossil shells in pyramid stone)

Mr. XX.. does not specify why he thinks that intact fossil shells in the pyramid blocks prove that they are not concrete. If Mr. XX.. had even the most fundamental knowledge of the cast-stone theory, he would know that the fossil shell rubble of the Giza quarries provided the aggregates for the pyramid blocks.
I hope that Mr. XX.. is not merely repeating Dr. Mark Lehner’s ill-considered critique of the cast-stone theory. In 1988, Dr. Lehner used this very same argument to convince NOVA that the cast-stone theory is bunkum. Even as late as the filming of “This Old Pyramid,” when Lehner and his colleagues on the NOVA staff were busily trying to discredit Davidovits and the cast-stone theory, they still did not understand the basis of the theory. This is a sad affront to science. Their lack of knowledge is demonstrated by the fact that when Dr. Davidovits went to the Giza quarry to examine the limestone, he was driven to the spot by one of Lehner’s assistants (whose name is unknown to me). Dr. Davidovits told me that this assistant turned to him as they were driving along and said, “We know you are wrong.” Dr. Davidovits replied by saying something like, “Oh really? I have researched and studied for over 20 years and you know I am wrong. How is that?” The assistant said, “Because there are fossil shells in the pyramid blocks, just as there are fossil shells in the quarries.” Dr. Davidovits replied by saying something like, “Well, where do you think the aggregates for the pyramid-concrete-blocks came from, the Moon? No, the shells came from the quarries.” The assistant’s eyes opened wide and he said nothing.

The fossil shells would remain intact for the most part but would be jumbled in pyramids blocks. Why would the pyramid builders make more work for themselves by crushing them? As I stated, “When he participated in the filming of NOVA’s “This Old Pyramid”, Dr. Davidovits showed how easily wet Giza bedrock comes apart and releases clay within 24 hours. Sadly, his 10-minute demonstration showing how to make geopolymeric pyramid blocks with Giza limestone was cut from the film in the 1997 edited version.” In other words, the quarry material is rather loosely bound by clay. The clay releases in water so that the shells are no longer bound. Once the shells are loosened, they can be gathered as aggregate. For full information on making geopolymeric concrete in situ in the quarries, see the debates published in the Journal of Geological Education (see the Library for the list of references and also Archaeology applications ).

The Geological Proof, part 2.

Geological Knowledge of the Pyramid Plateau, hard limestone and soft limestone

The Figure displays a simplified cross-section of the Giza Pyramids Plateau. The Giza Plateau is an outcrop of the Middle Eocene Mokkatam Formation. A second outcrop of the Upper Eocene Maadi Formation borders the Pyramids Plateau on the South-South West. A large sandy wadi separates the Mokkatam Formation from the Maadi Formation, created by the South-East dip of the Mokkatam Formation. The North side of the wadi, or the southern line of the Mokkatam Formation outcrop, and the South side of the wadi, or the northern line of the Maadi Formation outcrop, where both Formations dip into the wadi, were extensively quarried during the erection of the Giza pyramids.

Simplified NNW-SSE cross-section of the Giza Plateau. The soft-marly nummulite limestone bed (in yellow) that was extensively quarried (Wadi quarries, Sphinx trench) is sandwiched between two hard-gray nummulite limestone beds (pyramids basement and Sphinx head).

According to geologist Thomas Aigner and egyptologist Mark Lehner, the original ground surface of the Mokkatam Formation that constitutes the basement of the pyramids, is made of a very hard and massive limestone bank of the nummulite type (gray limestone banks on the Figure). On the opposite, 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 (yellow bank in the Figure). Concurring to the traditional carving theory, Mark Lehner states “… the builders took advantage of the thickly bedded softer limestones of the south part of the Mokkatam Formation, while founding the pyramids on the hard nummulite bank to the north.”

Lehner postulates that the builders did not use the nearby hard limestone but favored the softer material.

Kheops quarry as designated by geologists. The quarry face shows the soft limestone layer that cannot be used for carving stones.

Disaggregation of soft limestone with water

In October 1991, during the shooting of the TV production “This Old Pyramid” by NOVA, aired on the American PBS network on September 1992, Prof. Davidovits had the opportunity to present this unique property of the Giza limestone. A chunk of limestone taken in the quarry was very easily disaggregated within 24 hours, leaving the nummulites and the clay gently separated from each other, whereas a chunk of the hard Mokkatam limestone did not disintegrate at all.

Joseph Davidovits and Mark Lehner in the TV film “This Old Pyramid”, WGBH, Boston, 1992 (NOVA, PBS)

After 24 hour soaking in a plastic bag with water, the limestone chunk separated into clay and mummulites. In the presence of an excess of water, the heavier clay settles down leaving the nummulites separated from each other. “This Old Pyramid”, WGBH, Boston, 1992 (NOVA, PBS)

This topic has been extensively outlined and discussed in the Session F: Applications to Archaeology of Geopolymer Conferences and published; see details in Archaeology applications in geopolymer proceedings.

The Irtysen Stele Proof

Irtysen Stele at the Louvre Gallery proves that Imhotep’s Formula existed

The Louvre gallery in Paris is where the Irtysen Stele is preserved (room 7 of the thematic circuit). This ancient stone inscription does not go back quite as far as the era when the Great Pyramid was built. But it is very old. Some four thousand years old…
It is the autobiographical funerary stele of Irtysen, a master craftsman of the priestly caste, who lived 2.000 years BC. In this text Irtysen says he possesses a “secret knowledge” to fabricate stone statues, not by carving them but by casting them in molds.

Irtysen affirms he used a material mixture that hardened when cast inside molds to reproduce any kind of object or figure – a material that fire could not consume, nor water dilute. This suggests that Irtysen worked with a chemically-produced binding matter that could be mixed with certain minerals and poured into a mold, to produce statues.

The Sehel Stele Proof

Famine Stele at Sehel Island contains the revelations of Imhotep, with a list of mineral ingredients for a chemical formula.

On Sehel Island, some kilometers downstream from the city of Aswan on the river Nile, an ancient rock can be seen. It is known as the Famine Stele, and its text appears in hieroglyphs occupying 32 columns, that must be read from right to left. The first columns deal with the famine that occurred in the reign of the Pharaoh Djoser, around 3.000 years B.C, in a period earlier than the reign of Kheops.
The engraved hieroglyphs tell the following story: For years, the Nile had periodically flooded its banks, watering the surrounding fields and making them apt for agriculture. In the reign of Djoser, however, the river did not rise. Hence, crops were unable to grow, the soil dried up and became sterile, and the result was a great famine throughout the land.

The stele text was originally deciphered in 1889, but due to the limitations of scientific knowledge of the time, that part containing the formula was misunderstood or not properly translated. Now, professor Davidovits, thanks to his chemical knowledge, has been able to decode its true meaning.

The ARI-KAT hieroglyph, a key to the stone technology

Professor Davidovits was particularly interested however, not so much in the historical passages on the flood as in those which describe a chemical formula used in ancient times by a priest and sage – the great Imhotep – to fabricate an agglomerated block of stone. A section of the stele (known by scholars as “The Revelations of Imhotep”) contains significant words. One of them is ARI-KAT, a composite of two hieroglyphs which form one single adjective. ARI, is a verb meaning “to work with, to fashion, or to form”. It is symbolized by an eye, alongside a seated human figure, which represents the man who does the work. The addition of KAT – two hands held aloft and a semicircle – gives a new meaning: man-made, created by man. ARI-KAT, therefore, is something fashioned by man and, when associated with minerals, something processed or synthetically made.

A discussion of the FAMINE STELE ( read this comprehensive chapter ) was presented at the Vth International Congress of Egyptology, held in Cairo, Egypt, on Oct. 29, 1988. This paper (see the Library to download the full text) is introducing the first study which could be a good step forward in the discovery of other texts. See also Davidovits’ recent book in English (2008) They built the Pyramids.

The Vessels Proof

One of Sakkara’s 30.000 stone vessels at the Cairo Museum.

Beneath the earth, below the base of the Sakkara Step Pyramid, Imhotep his builder and designer quarried out almost three miles of stone and built a series of corridors and inner chambers.
He decorated some of the chambers with blue enamel tiles, as far we know the first ever made by man; a proof of his advanced knowledge of alchemy.

In addition to all this, some thirty thousand stone vessels of the utmost perfection were found in these subterranean chambers. There are unique and enigmatic hard stone vessels, made of slate, diorite and basalt. Some of these materials are harder than iron. No sculptor today would even attempt to work with such material.

One wonders how could they have been carved? Their design is extremely beautiful and impossible to carve. No tool marks are found on their surfaces. They must have been cast in molds, in accordance with the indications suggested by the Irtysen Stele at the Louvre gallery. See also more details on the Fresco of Ti (Vth Dynasty) in Davidovits’ recent book in English (2008) They built the Pyramids.

The Le Chatelier Proof

Henri Le Chatelier.

The first man to posit a reasonable solution to how the Egyptians made their stone statues, was Henri Le Chatelier, a chemist, ceramist and metallurgist, born in France in 1850.
In the early twentieth century, he noticed that the famous statue of Pharaoh Khafra (or Khefren) revealed no sign of tool marks. Yet it had been made of diorite, the hardest type of stone, at a time when artisans possessed only simple stone or copper chisels. He concluded that with tools like these it would have been impossible to produce such a masterpiece.

Diorite statue of Pharaoh Khefren.

Le Chatelier suspected that it had not been carved at all, but made of agglomerated stone cast in molds, so he began to examine other statues. He looked at ones that were apparently enameled, and cut thin sections of them with a diamond-tipped saw, and found that the enamel was not an applied coating but part of the material from which the statue was made. He asserted that they were cast in some kind of synthetic material not sculpted in natural stone.

Pyramids (1) Are Pyramids Made Out of Concrete?
Pyramids (2) The evidences
Pyramids (3) The formula, the invention of stone
Pyramids (4) Videos and book
Pyramids (5) FAQ for artificial stone supporters
Pyramids (6) Deep misleading publications by geologists

Why do geologists see nothing?

This is due to the geological glue, which, though artificial, is seen by the geologists either as an impurity, and therefore useless to study, or as a natural binder. At best, the analysis tools and the working methods of geologists consider the glue as a perfectly natural “micritic binder”. A geologist not informed of geopolymer chemistry will assert with good faith that the stones are natural.

The scientific background, including analysis, formula, stone making, are disclosed in the recently updated book by Prof. Joseph Davidovits Geopolymer Chemistry & Applications, in several chapters, i.e. Chapters 5, 11, 13, 17 and 20.

If you want to know how the knowledge evolved after the Pyramids click on Colosses of Memnon

The chemical formula:

People think that because we use chemicals, it is very easy to find these ingredients in the final product. This is wrong. Thanks to the geopolymer chemistry, the chemical reaction generates natural elements, minerals that can be analysed as natural if scientists are not aware of their artificial nature.

So far, we identified at least two chemical systems, one used for the manufacture of the core blocks (the greatest quantity of stones), the second for the casings. In the recent study by Barsoum, Gangly and Hug , the core blocks are illustrated by the samples MENK, whereas the casings relate to the LAUER and OC samples.

The MENK sample is representative of the blocks forming the core of the pyramids. It consists of numulitic shells, as for the other pyramids. It was taken in a large block belonging to a satellite pyramid of Mykerinos (the one in the middle):

M. Barsoum sent an e-mail to J. Davidovits in June 2004, asking if he had an explanation with respect to their analyzes, in particular the presence of magnesium and the absence of sodium carbonate (natron). How to get magnesium Mg involved in the geopolymeric chemical reaction? But, there was another chemical element just as important as the others in this MENK sample. It is the presence of halite salt, NaCl (cooking salt), as can be seen in the figure made with the SEM / EDS electron microscopical investigation which gives the chemical structure of the geopolymer glue, located between the numulitic fossil shells. The chemical formula of the microconstituent (mc ’) includes a molecule of NaCl.

Why is it meaningful? When Davidovits went to the Giza site in 1984, he picked up a few small pieces of stone from the Cheops pyramid. Because he is a chemist, he tasted these stones with his tongue: they were salty. There was NaCl salt in them, cooking salt. Then he took a piece of geological limestone, tasted it: it was not salty. He repeated the experience on each of his visits, in 1988, 1991, 2003; he shared it with his wife Doris and his son Ralph, who accompanied him and confirmed the issue. He pointed this out to the Head of the Chemistry Department at the Palais de la Découverte in Paris, who was preparing an exhibition on the subject titled: How to build a pyramid, and scheduled for Nov. 2006 to April 2007. The chemist was surprised and replied: “It turns out that my daughter is currently on the Giza site; I will send her a message. ” A week later, his daughter confirmed this strange phenomenon to him.

The presence of NaCl salt is just an anecdote for Egyptology. For some Egyptologists, this occurrence of NaCl would be normal since the limestones are sedimented at the bottom of the salty oceans. This is silly reasoning. According to them, all the walls of our buildings and all our cathedrals built with limestone should be covered with salt. They are not, of course. Others say that tourists who urinate on the stones in the rooms leave their mark. Just as silly. Nevertheless, it was present on the stones of all the chambers of the pyramids. Davidovits, in 1988, detached a piece of this salt from the surface of a block located at the top of the corbelled “mortuary” chamber of the Meidum pyramid. But the most significant is the description made by Caliph Al Mamun when he opened in 820 AD the Great Pyramid, which had been sealed for several centuries. He found in the interior rooms that the stone was covered with a layer of 1.5 cm thick cooking salt, halite NaCl.

The blocks of the pyramids do contain halite, NaCl. Since they were made like geopolymer concrete, they also contain moisture. It migrates to the surface, dries, and the NaCl salt crystallizes. We expected to find a migration of sodium carbonate (excess natron) or baking soda, resulting from the chemical reaction of the excess of NaOH alkali with the carbon dioxide in the air. Instead, we are dealing with halite salt, NaCl. Where does it come from? What is the geopolymer chemical reaction generating this NaCl cooking salt?

1) Chemistry of the core blocks

During geosynthesis kaolinite clay (naturally included in the Giza limestone) first reacts with caustic soda (see chemical formula 2). To manufacture this caustic soda, one uses Egyptian natron (sodium carbonate) and lime (coming from plant ashes) (see chemical formula 1). The so obtained caustic soda, NaOH, will react with clay.

The most interesting point is that this chemical reaction creates also pure limestone (calcite) as well as hydrosodalite (a mineral of the feldspathoids or zeolites family).

But, the mixture is still quite caustic. In order to neutralize it, one adds a special salt called carnallite (magnesium chloride) easily found in evaporites, in saline deposits like natron but not at the same place (see chemical formula 3 and 4). Alkalis have been transformed into neutral salt halite, which explains the high content of NaCl found in pyramid stones. Naissant calcite and magnesite may combine to form rhombohedral crystals of dolomite.

2) Chemistry of the casing stones

In the chemical formula 2, the clay may be replaced partially (or entirely) by hydrous siliceous mineral varieties, such as diatomaceous earth (hydrated amorphous) yielding sodium silicate (water glass), which will react with carnallite according to chemical formula 3, and formation of magnesium silicate.

The re-agglomerated stone binders are the result of these geosynthesis (geopolymers) that create several natural minerals: limestone (calcite), hydrated feldspars (feldspathoid, mica-chlorite), magnesium silicates, magnesite (also dolomite resulting from magnesite+calcite) and halite. Egyptian natron often contains Na-sulfate that yields the formation of Ca-sulfate. We understand why geologists can easily be misled.

Imhotep’s formula to make limestone blocks

Imhotep had two different chemical formulas: a very simple one for the casting of the limestone core blocks, and another one to produce the high quality stones of the exterior layer. When all the blocks of the core were set in place, a layer of casing was applied. This meant preparing a more sophisticated type of mold to produce inclined limestone blocks following the slope of the pyramid, adding new ingredients to the mixture to yield a higher quality stone.

1. SOFT LIMESTONE

Pouring Natron salt to the reaction basin

To build the Step Pyramid, Imhotep located a quarry of soft limestone, just one kilometer from the construction site to provide the raw material he needed to cast millions of modular stones. Soft limestone can be easily disaggregated either under pressure or by diluting it in water.
Shallow canals were dug in the soft limestone along the Nile, forming ideal basins for producing large quantities of muddy limestone. Imhotep’s men began disaggregating the clayish soft rock with its water, until the lime and the clay separated, forming a mud with the fossil shells at the bottom.

2. NATRON SALT

The mixing of lime, Natron, limestone and water.

Next, a substance called Natron salt (sodium carbonate) was poured in. Salt is a very reactive substance that has a petrifying effect, which is why it is used to avoid the putrefaction of organic tissue (mummification).
Natron is found in very great quantities in the desert and in Wadi-El-Natron.

3. LIME

The limestone concrete paste.

More lime, the mineral which binds, was added. Lime is a powdery residue obtained by burning and reducing to ashes sedimentary rocks such as limestone and dolomite. The fire oxidizes and converts the rocks into a powdery residue, and that is lime. The ashes of plants are also rich in lime and the priests established the custom of receiving ashes from cooking fires from all over Egypt, to add them to the mixture.

4. CAUSTIC SODA

The first mold filled with limestone

Lime mixed with natron and water produced a third substance, a much more corrosive one, that sparks off a strong chemical reaction and transforms other materials. The water dissolved the Natron salt and put the lime in suspension, forming caustic soda.
Caustic Soda is the catalyst Imhotep needed to trigger off a powerful chemical reaction, one which would produce the fast integration of silica and alumina.

5. CEMENT

The leveling of the second mold.

Men mixed the ingredients in the canals until a homogeneous binder paste was obtained. Imhotep had invented a water-based cement. Now, he had only to convert that cement into concrete.

6. LIMESTONE CONCRETE

His workers added more fossil shells, limestone rubble and silt from the river Nile, producing a concrete paste, which they carried up to where hundreds of small wooden molds had been prepared. These molds had been smeared with rancid oil to facilitate the release of the concrete once hardened.
The mixture was rammed into the molds as in the making of the packed earth called pisé, becoming a dense re-agglomerated limestone, which was let to dry in the shade, to avoid its cracking under the glare of the hot sun.

7. LIMESTONE BLOCKS

The filling of the third mold.

The hardened blocks were released from their molds and easily carried up to the construction site, by means of small ramps over the tiers already set, until the men placed each block in its correct place.
The towering Step Pyramid was not only the first, but also the only one made entirely of small modular blocks weighing approximately 60 kilos apiece, easily carried by two men.

8. IMPROVING THE MANUFACTURE

This Step Pyramid was just the first one that simply took the crude brick techniques and, instead of using mud, Imhotep used a limestone paste. Then, the three Sneferu’s pyramids improved step by step the technology by increasing the size of the blocks and the height of the monuments. Whereas the pyramids at Giza showed how technical improvements helped to achieve one of the famous wonders of the world, only 60 years after the first pyramid at Saqqarah. In later times, by Sneferu’s Red Pyramid, at Dashour, much heavier blocks were molded and cast directly on the spot, which means they were not moved. This is how the Great Pyramids at Giza were built.

At the Geopolymer Institute, we tried to replicate this masterpiece by making life size blocks, that is to say from 1 to 4.5 tonnes. The next pages illustrate our experience.

RECIPE USED IN THE NEXT PAGE VIDEO

1) Nummulitic limestone outcrop (fossil shells), naturally friable, from Tracy-le-Val south of Saint-Quentin (France). It resembles that of Giza but does not contain kaolinitic clay, which has to be added.
2) Into the pool containing two cubic meters of water are poured 160 kg of kaolinitic clay to imitate the Giza limestone, followed by 60 kg of sodium carbonate (natron) and 80 kg of slaked lime.
3) The geological glue is mixed with 4500 kg of limestone using a simple wooden paddle.

After drying, the final mixture contained between 18-20% weight water.

An example of a re-agglomerated limestone
How the pyramid blocks were built ?

Does the picture show an artificial or a natural stone? Scientists of the Geopolymer Institute have successfully manufactured and cast a re-agglomerated limestone. The geological material used here is very similar to the one found at the Giza plateau in Egypt, a soft material with lots of nummulitic shells coming from a quarry in France. The purpose of this test was to demonstrate that this type of limestone is perfect for re-agglomeration. We have disaggregated this soft material with water, then mixed the muddy limestone and its fossil shells with kaolin clay, and a simple geopolymeric binder. Then, the limestone mud was packed into the mould (a pyramid shape!). This re-agglomerated limestone, bonded by a geochemical reaction, thus hardened into a resistant block, much harder than the original material. We have strengthened the stone and made it more resistant to pollution, acid rain, and freezing.

A close-up of the mini-pyramid. Fossil shells are intact and the geopolymer binder is integrated within the calcite matrix.

The mini-pyramid is 9 cm (3.55 inch) large. In these pictures, you can clearly see that anyone who is not aware of the possibility of the geopolymer chemistry can be easily fooled. The final result has not a modern concrete appearance. It is a natural limestone, the material was not crushed but gently disaggregated, and all fossil shells are intact.

A close-up of the bottom of the mini-pyramid. The bottom was the top of the mould, the mini-pyramid was cast upside-down.

Because we were not authorized to sample original materials from the Giza plateau quarries, we did not used the exact ancient Egyptian formula. The French limestone, used in this experience, is very similar but has no reactive clay in it, and we had to add some. Nevertheless, the final result is chemically and geologically close to what we find in Egypt.

With the Egyptian formula, the result is different because it requires bigger blocks for a better cohesion. It is not suitable for small items. Whatever the formula, we have clearly demonstrated that the key of success is an appropriate raw material.

Pyramids (1) Are Pyramids Made Out of Concrete?
Pyramids (2) The evidences
Pyramids (3) The formula, the invention of stone
Pyramids (4) Videos and book
Pyramids (5) FAQ for artificial stone supporters
Pyramids (6) Deep misleading publications by geologists

Download an abstract of the theory or buy the book

FREE DOWNLOAD of Chapter 1 of “Why the pharaohs built the Pyramids with fake stones” + the extended abstract of the theory, from an official Press Kit. (703 KB in PDF format). See also Joseph Davidovits’  Book: Why the pharaohs built the Pyramids with fake stones 

Watch a conference

Prof. Joseph DAVIDOVITS presents, in this 1h20 conference, his famous theory on how the Egyptians pyramids were built with re-agglomerated limestone. This conference was recorded in 2008 representing the knowledge of that time.

Since then, recent scientific studies using very powerful and modern equipment found the ultimate evidence that the pyramids stones are synthetic.

Believing in the artificial stone theory, or countering it, is simply no longer relevant. It has become a truth, a fact.

Read the FAQ for artificial stone supporters.

1 hour 20 min, a 204 MB. Click on the CC icon to display subtitles in english and français. Click on the icon on the right to watch it full screen. Available on Youtube !

How to built a pyramid?

Latest on NOVA mini-pyramid documentary “This Old Pyramid”. To learn about the swindle go to Mini-Pyramid NOVA swindle

If you want to know how the knowledge evolved after the Pyramids click on Colosses of Memnon

Paleomagnetism study supports the man-made stone concept. Go to Paleomagnetism study.

Here is a small video documentary that shows how a crew of only few people is able to rapidly and easily produce several tons of pyramid stone blocks! If you want to learn more about the technology employed, please read the topic developed in this web site. This theory is also related in Davidovits’ recent book in English (June 2008) Why the Pharaohs built the Pyramids with fake stones.

5 minutes, 46.2 MB. Click on the icon on the right to watch it fullscreen.

Here is a small video explaining the theory for the general audience and 3D animations demonstrating how the re-agglomerated stone theory is very easy to implement.

6 minutes, 69.6 MB. Click on the icon on the right to watch it fullscreen.

How to analyze pyramid stones

Joseph Davidovits explains how to analyze the pyramid limestones and why geologists see nothing. He demonstrates that a thin section is not the right method to detect artificial stone.
Excerpt from his video conference “Building the Pyramids of Egypt with Fake Stones”.

9 minutes, 21.8 MB. Click on the icon on the right to watch it fullscreen.

Summary of the Conference
by Joseph Davidovits
Vth International Congress of Egyptology, Cairo, Egypt,
Oct. 29-Nov.3, 1988.

Egyptologists have long claimed that no records exist which describe how the Pyramids were built. A stone stele is engraved on a rock at the island Sehel, near Elephantine, Egypt, north of Aswan. It was discovered in 1889 by C.E. Wilbour and was deciphered by various egyptologists: Brugsch (1891), Pleyte (1891), Morgan (1894), Sethe (1901), Barguet (1953) and Lichtheim (1973). This stela features three of the most renowned characters of the Egyptian civilization:

• Pharaoh Zoser, around 2,750 BC, built the first pyramid, the Step Pyramid at Saqqara. This monument is claimed to illustrate the invention of building with stone.
• Imhotep, scribe and architect of Zoser’s pyramid, who has been honored and deified for having invented the building with stone.
• God Khnum, the potter who, as in the Bible, is fashioning the bodies of humans and gods with the Nile silt, with clay, in other words processing minerals.

Called The Famine Stele, it was engraved during a recent epoch, under the Ptolemees (200 BC), but certain reliable clues have led egyptologists to believe that, in an amplified form it had already become an authentic document by the beginning of the Old Kingdom (2,750 BC).

Yet, the most controversial aspect of this text resides in the fact that to build temples, pyramids and other sacred buildings, Khnum’s instructions and Imhotep’s revelations do not mention any contructional stone, such as limestone or sandstone or granite blocks. These materials are not found in the list. In Zoser’s dream (col. 19) Khnum is giving minerals and “since former times nobody ever worked with them to build the temples of the gods..”. To build monuments, Zoser was given a list of minerals and ores whose hieroglyphic names have not been translated so far. This is the reason why we started an in-depth study of each hieroglyphic word, in order to determine the technical key-words, those which are obviously difficult to translate.

Technical Key-words not translated by previous authors:

Word ‘aa’: This word is translated “pyramid” by Brugsch, “tombs for kings” by Sethe and Barguet, and “palaces for kings” by Lichtheim. All translations relate to the hieroglyphic word ‘aa’ and the determinative for pyramid. According to Sethe and Barguet, this word ‘aa’ is an archaism from the Old Kingdom.

Key-word ARI KAT: This verb occurs three times. In col. 13 and 19, associated with minerals, it has been translated by: “to work with”; in col. 20, the god Khnum “fashions” or “creates” humanity (with clay). The first part of the verb, ARI, means to make, to create, to form, to fashion, to beget; the second part, KAT and the ideograph “man”, means the work done by man. The adjective, ARI, designates an artificial material, for example synthetic lapis-lazuli. The best meaning for the verb, ARI- KAT, could be to process, to synthesize, to manufacture.

Key-word ideograph RWD: Found in col. 11, this ideograph is part of a sentence which qualifies the materials employed for building temples and pyramids (col. 11 and 12).

Translated by Barguet as hard stone, RWD has been thoroughly discussed by Harris (1961) who states (p.23) that ”…in all events, there can be little doubt that RWDT is a term for hard stone in general, though which stone would come into the category it is difficult to say, especially in view of the reference to alabaster as RWDT”.

Yet, generally, the element RWD refers to Egyptian sandstone (INR RWDT not listed here), more precisely the stone material found in the quarries of Southern Egypt, and used to built the temples of the New Kingdom and Late Periods at Karnak, Luxor, Edfu, Esne, Denderah, Abu-Simbel. This material, Egyptian sandstone is a soft material, which, in some cases can be easily scratched by the fingernail (Rozière, 1801). It is the contrary of a hard stone. It is two times softer than Giza limestone, four times softer than Carrara Marmor or eight times softer than Aswan granite. It becomes obvious that the element RWD does not mean hard stone.

On the other hand, the ideograph RWD also means: germinate, grow, and the causative verb, S-RWD, to make solid or to tie strongly. Gravel and pebble contain also the ideograph RWD. Finally, sandstone, quartzite, in some cases granite, and other stones qualified with RWD, are the natural solid stones resulting from the geological solidification of aggregates, such as sand or quartz particles.

Key-word AAT: Col. 16 gives the different names of AAT. According to Harris (p.21) AAT is to be regarded as a word for minerals, and refers to ores. In col. 19, these ores are processed for the first time, yielding the invention of building with stone materials.

Key-word TESH: The composite word AAT NEB RWD UTESHAU, at the end of col. 11 is of particular interest. Barguet translates: ‘matières precieuses et pierres dures des carrières’, but states in a note that his reading may be doubtful due to the strange writing of this word, in hieroglyph. Instead of TESHAU, Barguet reads SHETI.

The root TESH has the general meaning of: crush, separate, split, and the verb BETESH indicates the action of dissolving, disaggregation. A stone which is crusched, or disaggregated, or split, is called an aggregate.

This leads us to conclude that the word RWD UTESHAU indicates any natural aggregate, or naturally split material, such as weathered and naturally disaggregated material. RWD could be extrapolated as being the ideograph describing agglomeration, here at the beginning of the word, or of agglomerated stone (geologically or man-made) when put at the end.

If our assumption is right, the stony materials listed in col.15 should be in a loose form, or easy to disaggregate. Two names contain the root TESH, four names do not.

The BEKHEN stone has been found in inscriptions located in the Wadi-el Hammamat, in the desert South-East of Aswan, and is referred to as being either black basalt, or diorite, or sandy skist, or porphyry, or greywacke, or psammite gneiss (Lucas and Rowe, 1938; Morgan, 1894). Yet, according to the Hammamat Inscriptions (Couyat-Montet), quarrying of BEKHEN at the Wadi-Hammamat was carried out in a very primitive way. The chosen blocks were generally thrown down to the bottom of the mountain where they arrived split into numerous lumps.

The MTHAY stone is more interesting to discuss. This name seems to contain the root of the word MAT which means granite. Harris (p.72) agrees with Barguet when he notes that it is strange that granite is not otherwise mentioned in the text. Since it was the most typical stone of this region, it is therefore the more likely that this remarkable form of writing conceals MAT, i.e. granite. However, except for the peculiar hieroglyphic orthography which occurs in the Famine Stele, the referenced writings for granite always contain the same hieroglyph, the sickle MA, with different adjectives. In col. 15, the letter ME is not the sickle, but a denuded bird, without wings and feathers. This way of writing the letter ME is to be found in the word MUT, to kill himself. The word METH also means to die. On the other hand, the granite MAT is often written with the ideogram heart, life, suggesting the idea of living granite. Assuming that the writer of the Famine Stele wanted to stress, in a condense form, that the granite is a weathered, loose, disaggregated material found in some geological outcrops, he could have tried to emphasize the idea of dead granite.

Key-word AIN: Col. 15 begins with: Learn the names of AIN (stone). The hieroglyphic word for solid stone, constructional stone and block, is AINR. The majority of solid rocks is called AINR, with an adjective. Harris makes no distinction between AIN and AINR, the coptic word for stone, ONE, being very similar to AIN. However AINR is essentially applied to stone used in building. AIN should be recognized as a generic word for stone, as a substance, i.e. a stony material, in opposition to other materials like wood or metal.

Key-word ideograpgh: The phonetic value of this ideograph is not known; from the dictionary, it is a determinative for smell and odor, but is not associated with perfumes. It essentially relates to substances which give out smells, effluxes or emanations. Yet, these odors are not necessarily bad, and it does not mean to stink. Sometimes this ideograph has been associated with the notion of pleasure.

Found in Col. 12, it is for Brugsch a word for unguent (in German “salbe”). Barguet and Lichtheim do not translate it using the general term “products” in connection with those cited in col. 11, ‘aat nb rwd uts3u’ the minerals and stones.

The ideograph could represent a bladder or a vase containing a liquid, which gives out an odor, but is not a perfume. In other words it could be the determinative for chemical product. The majority of chemicals have a characteristic smell, and chemists have learned how to detect, recognize and associate any peculiar odor. According to col. 11 and 12, those products which smell are the ores and stone materials which are essential for the building of temples and pyramids.

Lexicographs studying ancient minerals make the assumption that their names should derive from their color. They rely on the fact that, in ancient Greek, various gem names are closely associated with a color, for example the semi-precious stones containing the root chryso, yellow. The minerals, ores and stone materials, featured in Barguet’s, Harris’ and Lichtheim’s translations of the Famine Stele, demonstrate that this type of lexicographical research is not successful. The majority of hieroglyphic names has not found any contemporary equivalence. We think that, by introducing the concept of odor, and perhaps later that of taste, we are simply following the ancient and classical methods of characterization of chemicals, namely the determination of their color, odor and taste.

Products having an odor are to be found in a text related to the Great Pyramids. In his Book II, Euterpe, the Greek historian Herodotus relates what priests at Memphis told him on the pyramid of Cheops: “Engraved on the pyramid in Egyptian characters is the amount spent on the workers in horseradish, onions and garlic; and the person who interpreted these inscriptions for me told me, as I remember well, that this expense came to sixteen hundred talents of silver. (more than 100 Million Euro of 2001)”. Popular imagery is found in this description and the workers are described as stinking of garlic and onions.

We have claimed (Davidovits, 1978, 1982) (see also books from J. Davidovits ) that this description relates to the cost of the expeditions undertaken for collecting minerals of the arsenate types, located in the turquoise and copper mines of the Sinai. A simple method in petrography for the identification of natural minerals and ores is to heat them with a small blow lamp. If they immediatly release a smell of garlic, they belong to the arsenate family (arsenate of copper or of iron).

We looked at the hieroglyphic names of minerals and ores which could contain the meaning of onion, garlic, radish. We found a representative for each of these 3 odors:

The onion-stone: in col. 15 the “uteshi stone” ends with an ideograph which has been the subject of discussion. Brugsch reads HEDSH, and gives the meaning white, whilst Barguet reads differently, and does not translate, whereas Harris states from the photograph that the reading must remain in doubt. Our reading from the photograph is HEDSH, but our translation is onion. The uteshi stone could be the stone which smells like onion.

The garlic stone: Garlic has been suggested for HUTEM and TAAM, i.e. the root word TEM. In col. 16, the ore TEM-IKR could represent the garlic stone, the prefix KR meaning weak, i.e. the stone which has a weak smell of garlic.

The radish stone: Radish corresponds to KAU and KA-T. In col. 16, the ore KA-Y could mean ‘ore with a smell of radish’.

UTESHUI HEDSH (onion , left), TEM (garlic, center), KA-Y (radish, right)

The translation introduces the elements discussed above:

(Col. 11): There is a mountain massif in its eastern region (of Elephantine) containing all the ores, all the crushed (weathered) stones (aggregates suitable for agglomeration), all the products
(Col. 12) sought for building the temples of the gods of the North and South, the stalls for sacred animals, the pyramid for the king, all statues that stand in temples and in sanctuaries. Moreover, all these chemical products are set before the face of Khnum and around him.
(Col. 13)…there is in the midst of the river a place of relaxation for every man who processes the ores on its two sides.
(Col. 15) Learn the names of the stony materials which are to be found…bekhen, dead (weathered) granite, mhtbt, r’qs, uteshi-hedsh (onion stone),… prdny, teshy.
(Col. 16) Learn the names of the rare ores located upstream…gold, silver, copper, iron, lapis-lazuli, turquoise, thnt (chrysocolla), jasper, Ka-y (radish stone), menu, esmerald, temikr (garlic stone), more over, neshemet, ta- mehy, hemaget, ibehet, bekes-ankh, green make up, black antimony, red ochre…
(Col.18).. .I found the god standing.. .he spoke to me: “I am Khnum, your creator, My arms are around you, to steady your body, to
(Col. 19) safeguard your limbs. I bestow on you rare ores upon rare ores… since creation nobody ever processed them (to make stone) for building the temples of the gods or rebuilding the ruined temples…”

The Famine Stele describes the invention of building with stone attributed to Zoser and Imhotep, builders of the first pyramid, the Step Pyramid at Saqqara (2,750 BC). According to the text, this invention of building with stone occurs through processing different minerals and ores which could be chemicals involved in the fabrication of man-made stone, or a type of concrete.

Famine Stele: Columns 11-19 (read from right to left)

Concrete experts talk today about how to make concrete durable. Many ancient Roman concrete buildings are still in use after more than 2000 years. For these modern concrete experts, the Romans were fortunate builders in that they apparently simply used natural pozzolan deposits, which were found to be suitable for producing a hydraulic mortar. Contrary to this pronouncement, 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. Two artificial pozzolans were intensively manufactured:

1. calcined kaolinitic clay, in Latin testa
2. calcined volcanic stones, in Latin carbunculus

See in #D The synthetic pozzolanic mortar by Vitruvius and #E Searching for Carbunculus .

In addition to these artificial reactive ingredients, the Romans used a natural reactive volcanic sand named harena fossicia wrongly translated as pit sand or simply sand by modern authors. The ingredients testa, carbunculus and harena fossicia were intensively used in Roman buildings. These reactive ingredients must not be confused with the traditional pozzolan whose name originates from the city of Puzzuoli, near Napoli (Mt Vesuvio). According to Vitruvius Book V, 12, the traditional pozzolan was exclusively used for making piers into the sea or foundations for bridges, whereas harena fossicia, carbunculus and testa produced the concrete for buildings on land.

Roman concrete technology was more efficient than traditional building with hewn stone. The Table compares the construction time for the domes of most famous world monuments.

Construction time for dome structures made of concrete and hewn stone

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. These outstanding Roman cements are based on the calcic activation of ceramic aggregates (testa) and alkali rich volcanic tuffs (cretoni, pozzolan) respectively with lime. The excess of unreacted lime recarbonates slowly into Ca-Carbonate. 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. See the scientific analysis on these high-performance Roman cements in paper nr 28 of Geopolymere ‘99 Proceedings and in Archaeo-Analogues .

Civil infrastructures, especially works related to water storage (cisterns, aqueducts) required a high-performance material and a special technology. The technology of this first Roman cement analogue was known under the generic technical term of Opus Signinum obtained by blending crushed and sieved ceramic, in Latin testa, with lime. According to the Roman author Plinius (Natural History, Book 35, 165), this technology was recognized as: ”… one of the most spectacular inventions of mankind …” The ingredient testa is a special ceramic powder from calcined kaolinitic clay (alumino-silicate oxide) and therefore identical to the MK-750 (or kandoxi) ingredient in modern geopolymeric cements. We performed 29 Si and 27 Al NMR Spectroscopy on Opus Signinum samples, dating to the 2nd Century A.D. There spectra are identical to those of modern GEOCISTEM Geopolymeric cements.

The second Roman cement analogue involved the use of an artificial pozzolan named in Latin Carbunculus. Analysis were carried out on samples from Ostia, 2nd-3rd Century A.D.

See the scientific analysis on Roman cements in Archaeo-Analogues .

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

In 1979, at the second International Congress of Egyptologists, Grenoble, France, Prof. Joseph Davidovits presented two conferences. One set forth the hypothesis that the pyramid blocks were cast as concrete, instead of carved. Such a theory was great disruptive to the orthodox theory with its hundreds of thousand of workers taking part in this gigantic endeavor. The second conference stressed that ancient stone vases were made of cast synthetic (man made) hard stone. (see in the Library the Publications List discussing Davidovits’ theory). See also Davidovits’ books

But in the course of his research, and after performing chemical analysis, X-Ray analysis, and Nuclear Magnetic Sprectroscopy (MAS-NMR) on the cement materials, he concluded that ancient Roman cement and the Great Pyramid blocks were the result of a geopolymeric reaction or in other words, a geosynthesis. See in the Library, the paper #A X-Ray of Pyramids Stones dedicated to the X-Ray Analysis and X-Ray Diffraction of Casing Stones from the Pyramids of Egypt, and the Limestone of the Associated Quarries, published in 1984.

In 2004, IXth Egyptology Congress, Grenoble, France, we presented several papers depicting the chemical knowledge of the Egyptians involved in pyramid building. One was dedicated to the manufacture of the famous blue faience tiles, like those adorning the subterranean galleries of the Djoser Step-Pyramid at Saqqarah : See in the Library the paper #F The manufacture of Egyptian Blue Faience Tiles . The second paper dealt with the famous Herodotus text; see the paper #G Herodotus and Pyramid construction (“Construction des pyramides d’après Herodote”).

If you want to know how the knowledge evolved after the Pyramids click on Colosses of Memnon