. 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.

The GeopolymerCamp spans 3 days: Programme 2022.

SPECIAL TOPICS OF INTEREST:
– Tutorial Workshop (short courses) for Newcomers, on Monday;
– 3 Focused Sessions:
1- Breakthrough in Renewable production of Electricity in Large Scale Microbial Fuel Cells with Conductive Geopolymers.
2- Geopolymer concrete for Solar Electrical Power Generation.
3- Geopolymer science applied to Archaeology: the 6000 year old European megalithic structures.

Every year, we invite you to join the Geopolymer Institute for the largest, most comprehensive international conference devoted to Geopolymer technologies, the 14th GeopolymerCamp 2022, at the University of Picardie, Campus of Saint-Quentin, North of Paris, France, on July 4th to 6th 2022.

Please, take a look at the GEOPOLYMER CAMP web page for the programme and to register:
GeopolymerCamp Main Page (click on the link)
(or in French at GeopolymerCamp Page Principale )

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…

Registration IS sold out.

We opened a waiting list in case of cancellation (click on Contact in the Menu).
70 participants maximum allowed for GP-Camp and 45 for Workshop/Tutorial.

As of today’s sanitary instructions, wearing a mask and social distance rules are mandatory. Full vaccination is recommended.
Because of this exceptional situation, you will get a full refund if we have to cancel the event or if you are forbidden to travel to France at the last minute.

SPECIAL TOPICS OF INTEREST:
– Tutorial Workshop (short courses) for Newcomers, on Monday;
– Focused Sessions (to be confirmed) : “Mechano-chemistry of dumped and piled fly ash” .

Every year, we invite you to join the Geopolymer Institute for the largest, most comprehensive international conference devoted to Geopolymer technologies, the 13th GeopolymerCamp 2021, at the University of Picardie, Campus of Saint-Quentin, North of Paris, France, on August 30-31, September 1st.

Please, take a look at the GEOPOLYMER CAMP web page for the programme and to register:
GeopolymerCamp Main Page (click on the link)
(or in French at GeopolymerCamp Page Principale )

]]> https://www.geopolymer.org/library/gpsa/2020-davidovits-f-roman-carbunculus/ Wed, 09 Dec 2020 15:04:45 +0000 https://www.geopolymer.org/?p=5243 Journal on Geopolymer Science Applied to Archaeology
2020, Vol. 1, p. 10-35

By Frédéric Davidovits, Ph. D., Geopolymer Institute (France).

https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26618.72644

Abstract:

To determine the nature of the Carbunculus, we used an unexpected discovery from the GEOCISTEM program. During a meeting in Cagliari (Sardinia) in September 1996, we were able, together with the geologists, to visit the volcanic tuff quarry of Paringianu, exploited to extract ashlar. The local volcanic context is constituted by ignimbrites and rhyolites. The tuff is very indurated, i.e. it is solid. It is composed of plagioclase, potassium feldspar, pyroxene, a vitreous matrix and montmorillonite. It was sampled for analysis. During the visit, we saw a curiosity for the specialists of volcanic materials: while some tens of meters away, hard tuff was extracted, geologists showed us an unexploited area of the quarry. And with good reason: the stone had the same composition as the well indurated rock and it contained crystals of the same dimensions, but it disintegrated into sand, when we passed the nail or the finger over it. They explained to us that during the cooling of the volcanic layer, which must be done slowly for the rock to harden, a sudden degassing in this layer of tuff left columns through which the gases escaped: the stone did not have time to have a good cementing when it cooled. This showed the degree of cohesion between the two types of stone: one cooled slowly to acquire some consistency, while the degassing made the other a soft and not very indurated rock (Carbunculus). According to the geologists who accompanied us to the site, the difference in induration between two rocks of similar composition is a common phenomenon. By observing the degassing columns, we could see that they were vertical and that they created a small system of veins which vertically crossed the entire tuff layer from the bottom to the circulation floor. This was approximately one man’s height, and these ducts were a few centimeters wide. This phenomenon is known as “gas pipe”.

Résumé:

Pour déterminer la nature du Carbunculus, il faut se servir d’une découverte inattendue du programme GEOCISTEM. Durant une réunion à Cagliari (Sardaigne) en septembre 1996, nous avons pu, avec les géologues, visiter la carrière de tuf volcanique de Paringianu, exploitée pour en extraire de la pierre de taille. Le contexte volcanique local est constitué d’ignimbrites et de rhyolites. Le tuf est très induré, c’est-à-dire qu’il est solide. Il se compose de plagioclase, de feldspath potassique, de pyroxène, d’une matrice vitreuse et de montmorillonite. Il fut échantillonné à des fins d’analyse. Durant la visite, nous avons vu une curiosité pour les spécialistes des matériaux volcaniques: alors qu’à quelques dizaines de mètres, on extrayait du tuf dur, les géologues nous montrèrent un endroit inexploité de la carrière. Et pour cause : la pierre avait la même composition que la roche bien indurée et elle contenait des cristaux de dimensions identiques, mais elle se délitait en sable, quand on y passait l’ongle ou le doigt. Ils nous expliquèrent qu’au cours du refroidissement de la couche volcanique, qui doit se faire lentement pour que la roche durcisse, un brusque dégazage dans cette couche de tuf laissa des colonnes par lesquelles les gaz s’échappèrent : la pierre n’a pas eu le temps d’avoir une bonne cimentation en se refroidissant. Cela montrait le degré de cohésion entre les deux types de pierres : l’une l’une s’est refroidie doucement pour acquérir une certaine cohérence, tandis que le dégazage faisait de l’autre une roche tendre et peu indurée (Carbunculus). D’après les géologues qui nous accompagnaient sur le site, la différence d’induration entre deux roches de composition semblable est un phénomène courant. En observant les colonnes de dégazage, on pouvait voir qu’elles étaient verticales et qu’elles créaient un petit système de veines lesquelles traversaient verticalement toute la couche de tuf depuis le bas jusqu’au sol de circulation. Celle-ci faisait approximativement une hauteur d’homme, et ces conduits étaient larges de quelques centimètres. Ce phénomène est connu sous le nom de « gaz pipe ».

PDF file for free download:

Click on the image below to download the PDF file.

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

Tiwanaku Gate of the Sun and Pumapunku megalithic geopolymer sandstone slabs.

The platform on top of the 4 step pyramid of Pumapunku consists of 4 megalithic red sandstone slabs, weighing between 130 and 180 tonnes each, the largest among the New World monuments. Our study suggests that the slabs are a type of sandstone geopolymer concrete cast on the spot. It was recently published in Materials Letters 235 (2019) 120-124, Online on 8 October 2018, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2018.10.033> access with the following link: Materials Letters.

Ferro-sialate geopolymer sandstone matrix under SEM:

SEM/EDS of ferro-sialate geopolymer sandstone matrix. Materials Letters (235) (2019), 120-124, Fig.3 C-D.

—————————————–

A second scientific paper dealing with the spectacular stone artifacts made of andesite geopolymer stone (H sculptures and the like) has been recently published in Ceramics International (on line January 3, 2019), with the title: “Ancient organo-mineral geopolymer in South- American Monuments: organic matter in andesite stone. SEM and petrographic evidence”. (J. Davidovits, L. Huaman, R. Davidovits, Ceramics International 45 (2019)  7385-7389, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2019.01.024). Free access and download of the published paper is available until April 10, 2019 with the following link: Ceramics International.

Organic matter pointing on man-made stone and C-14 dating.

The presence of organic matter points to man-made stone. In addition it should allow C-14 dating of the geopolymer stone and consequently of the monument. On going research.

SEM image of organic matter in volcanic andesite stone, Ceramics International 45 (2019) 7385-7389, Fig. 3B.

This study is linked to our research carried out 36 years ago (in the 1980s) titled “Making Cements with plant extracts” and available for free download in our Library, Archaeological paper #C at library/archaeological-papers.

SUMMARY OF THE STUDY (for the detailed description go to: Tiahuanaco Monuments (Tiwanaku / Pumapunku), Bolivia ):

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 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, 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 they are vaporized. It is impossible to find it in andesite rock. And because we found organic matter inside the volcanic andesitic stone, scientists will have the opportunity to carry out a Carbon-14 dating analysis and provide the exact age of the monuments”, according to Luis Huaman, geologist at Universidad Catolica San Pablo, Arequipa, Peru. 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. 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 a cement. But, it is not a modern cement, it is a natural geological cement obtained by geosynthesis” says Ralph Davidovits, researcher at the Geopolymer Institute. 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,” says Joseph Davidovits. 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 aliens 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.

For the detailed description go to: Tiahuanaco Monuments (Tiwanaku / Pumapunku), Bolivia ).

FREE download of Chapter 1 of the book “Why the pharaohs built the Pyramids with fake stones” which includes the extended abstract of the theory from an official Press Kit. You can buy the book in hard cover or ebook here:  Book: Why the pharaohs built the Pyramids with fake stones.

Click here to see how you can download paper number I.

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.”

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

Go to his private internet site at
Merneptah Stele Forgery

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.

ISBN: 9782951482036

Buy your copy of the Video Tutorial at The Geopolymer Shop

With your order, you will receive two items: the new edition of the book Geopolymer Chemistry and Applications and a USB memory stick with 5.5 hours of video tutorials (the Geopolymer for Newcomers series) and up to 10 hours of video bonuses for a total of 15 hours of videos.

Watch this short presentation, it includes small excerpts, and a view of the Geopolymer Institute laboratory.

What is the content of this video tutorial ?

This video tutorial is divided in 9 topics. Its purpose is to give you an introduction, an insight on geopolymer science in general. It is aimed at university professors, doctorates, master students as well as self-learning researchers in the industry. Although you get each concepts fully developed in the book Geopolymer Chemistry and Applications, you may need to look at additional scientific knowledge in reference textbooks on materials science, chemistry and physic. This tutorial is therefore a good supplement for your understanding of all these concepts, and for teachers it is a good help in the learning process of geopolymer chemistry.
As a bonus, you will find “Building the pyramids of Egypt”, Joseph DAVIDOVITS a 1h30 conference on his famous theory on how the Egyptians pyramids were built with re-agglomerated limestone.

What are these files ?

The videos are readable in any computer that can play MPEG4 H.264 AVC files. Most recent  computers, tablets, phones, and some televisions can play them flawlessly. You can use for example the free players Apple QuickTime or VLC or Mplayer or many other video players. They are high definition videos, so your computer should be powerful enough to open them. Download this small excerpt to check the compatibility with your computer; it is the exact size and format of what you will receive. Please, do this test before ordering.

sample-geopolymer-video-tutorial.mp4 – 7.95 MB – 47s – 1024x640p – MPEG4 H.264 AVC

Outline of the tutorials

Topic #1: from invention to industrialization; 1972-2008: 36 years of research, development and applications
The course shows how the development of the geopolymer science concept was governed by the need to solve global technological problems in the industrial fields of extractive minerals, ceramics, cements, building materials, decorative stones and restoration works, fire and heat resistant composites, high-tech composites for aerospace, aircraft, naval and automobile, radioactive and toxic waste containment, thermal insulation.
It further provides a clear distinction between geopolymer and alkali-activated materials and highlights some historical milestones.
Upon completion of this course, you will be able to make a clear cut between geopolymer technologies and low-tech/alkali-activated systems.

Topic #2: The mineral geopolymer concept
The course discusses the differences between the ionic and covalent bonding concepts. It introduces the molecular representation for geopolymeric structures based on the most recent results of physicochemical science.
Upon completion of this course, you will be able to describe the fundamental principles and concepts of geopolymer science and technology.

Topic #3: Macromolecular structure of natural silicates and aluminosilicates
This course describes the numerous natural minerals and pinpoints their similarities to geopolymeric molecules (monomers, dimers, trimers, etc..) and macromolecules (polymers). It involves:
– Ortho-silicates, ring silicates,
– Linear poly-silicates: pyroxene, amphibole
– Sheet poly-silicates: kaolinite, pyrophillite, muscovite
– Framework poly-silicates: quartz, feldspars, feldspathoids, zeolites
Upon completion of this course, you will be able to explain the properties of the minerals used as raw-materials in geopolymer manufacturing.

Topic #4: Scientific tools, X-rays, FTIR, NMR
This course selects which analytical method is the most appropriate for the study of geopolymers, namely Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy.

Topic #5: Macromolecular structure of Soluble Silicate, Poly(siloxonate) with Si:Al=1:0
This course revisits an old industry namely that of waterglass, a basic geopolymeric chemical ingredient. It involves:
– History of soluble silicates (waterglass), manufacture,
– Macromolecular structure of (Na,K)–silicate glasses,
– Hydrolysis, depolymerization of solid silicates
– Structure of poly(siloxonate) solutions (waterglass)
– NMR spectroscopy, macromolecular structure, identification of soluble species
– Density, Viscosity, pH, alkali silicate powders
Upon completion of this course, you will be able to understand the differences between Na-silicates and K-silicates and how to apply this new knowledge in the design of high-quality geopolymeric products.

Topic #6: Macromolecular chemistry of Metakaolin MK-750 and related geopolymers with Si:Al=1-3
This course follows the various structural changes of the mineral kaolinite into metakaolin and their implications in the geopolymerization mechanisms. It describes:
– Dehydroxylation mechanism of kaolinite
– Chemical mechanism, ortho-sialate molecules
– Kinetic, Chemical attack, Exothermic reaction
– Formation of Na-based geopolymeric frameworks: nepheline, albite, phillipsite
– Formation of K-based geopolymeric frameworks: kalsilite, leucite
Upon completion of this course you will be able to :
– Outline the identification and the study of metakaolin raw materials for geopolymeric precursors with selected instrumental methods.
– Identify the reaction mechanism from monomers, oligomers to polymers, kinetics and geopolymerization parameters.

Topic #7: Low-energy, Low-CO₂ geopolymer cements
This course provides a thorough presentation and discussion on the basic knowledge about geopolymer cements and related building products based on the by-products of industrial and mining activities or Coal-Power-Plants: fly ashes. It comprises:
– MK-750 / slag-based geopolymer cement
– Rock-based geopolymer cement
– Fly ash-based geopolymer cement
– Greenhouse CO₂ mitigation with geopolymer cement: Examples of low CO₂ mitigation with geopolymer cements
Upon completion of this course, you will be able to describe the fundamental principles and concepts allowing the use of geological outcrops as well as mineral by-products and tailings, fly ashes, in low-energy and low-CO₂ geopolymer cements manufacture.

Topic #8: Low-energy, Low-CO₂ geopolymer ceramics
This course offers a comprehensive review of the impact of Geopolymer technology on the manufacture of Low-energy ceramics and bricks. It involves:
– Geopolymerization mechanism of kaolinite under co-valent bonding concept
– Geopolymeric setting at temperature below 65°C, 80°C and 450°C
– Resistance to water; physical properties
– Application to archaeological ceramics: 25.000 year-old geopolymer ceramic: Venus of Dolni Vestonice
Upon completion of the course, you will be able to apply the geopolymeric ceramic concept to implement modern Low-energy ceramic processing for the production of regular ceramic tiles (glazed) or fired bricks.

Topic #9: User-Friendly Systems
Although geopolymerization does not rely on toxic organic solvents but only on water, it needs chemical ingredients that may be dangerous. Some of them may be classified as user-hostile systems and therefore require some safety procedures.
Upon completion of the course, you will be able to understand the absolute necessity of implementing user-friendly geopolymeric systems.

Bonus

Geopolymer Webinar
This is a recording of a 5 hours presentation of Joseph Davidovits in October 2013 on geopolymers in general, focusing in industrial applications and science. It is a good introduction on how to approach this topic the right way.

GeopolymerCamp Keynotes
Joseph Davidovits presents each year during this conference a state of the R&D and industrialization of geopolymers at large.

Building the pyramids of Egypt
Joseph DAVIDOVITS presents his famous theory on how the Egyptians pyramids were built with re-agglomerated limestone.

LTGS brick conference
Joseph DAVIDOVITS presents the manufacture of bricks with low energy at the Ceramics and Brotherhood Symposium, Verona, Italy, in July 2008.

Davya 60 cement tutorial and Datobe ceramic tutorial
Two short “how-to” on how to manipulate a geopolymer cement and a geopolymer ceramic, with tips and tricks the way a lab technician of the Geopolymer Institute is doing it.

Buy your copy of the Video Tutorial at The Geopolymer Shop

INCLUDED WITH YOUR ORDER: Proceedings of the Geopolymer 2005 World Congress
(Geopolymer, green chemistry and sustainable development solutions)

The USB memory stick contains the proceedings of the World Congress Geopolymer 2005, held in France and in Australia, on geopolymer science, technology and applications. More than 180 people attended the congress, 85 international research institutions and companies presented a total of 75 papers. They cover a wide scope of topics ranging from geopolymer chemistry, industrial waste and raw material, geopolymer cement, geopolymer concrete (including fly ash-based geopolymers), applications in constructions materials, applications in high-tech materials, matrix for fire/heat resistant composites, and applications in archaeology.

The Proceedings book (Geopolymer, green chemistry and sustainable development solutions) is out of print. The USB memory stick contains all contributions received (additional extended abstracts, and some pictures of the event are included). All papers found in this USB memory stick are in colors, and are the exact copies of the printed book, so you can use them as a reference. It is also compatible with PC, Mac and Unix systems, all files are in standard PDF format. You can print, copy these papers, and use the search engine to find a particular word.

GET 3 PROCEEDINGS IN 1 SINGLE ORDER
A unique collection of scientific articles
133 papers – 1190 pages
ISBN: 9782951482005

As a FREE BONUS, the USB memory stick includes the proceedings of Geopolymer ’88, and Geopolymer ’99. We do this because these proceedings are out of print. They are the exact copies of their printed versions, so you can still use them as a reference and seek for the right paper at the right page.

Read the Table of Content to know more.

A Practical and Scientific Approach to Sustainable Development
5th Edition

ISBN: 9782954453118

Buy your copy of the book at The Geopolymer Shop

What can be done about the major concerns of our Global Economy on energy, global warming, sustainable development, user-friendly processes, and green chemistry? Here is an important contribution to the mastering of these phenomena today. Written by Joseph Davidovits, the inventor and founder of geopolymer science, Geopolymer Chemistry and Applications is an introduction to the subject for the newcomers, students, engineers and professionals. You will find science, chemistry, formulas and very practical information (including patents’ excerpts) covering:

• The mineral polymer concept: silicones and geopolymers
• Macromolecular structure of natural silicates and aluminosilicates
• Scientific Tools, X-rays, FTIR, NMR
• The synthesis of mineral geopolymers
  • Poly(siloxonate) and polysilicate, soluble silicate, Si:Al=1:0
  • Chemistry of (Na,K)–oligo-sialates: hydrous alumino-silicate gels and zeolites
  • Kaolinite / Hydrosodalite-based geopolymer, poly(sialate) Si:Al=1:1
  • Metakaolin MK-750-based geopolymer, poly(sialate- siloxo) Si:Al=2:1
  • Calcium-based geopolymer, (Ca, K, Na)-sialate, Si:Al=1, 2, 3
  • Rock-based geopolymer, poly(sialate-multisiloxo) 1>5
  • Ferro-sialate geopolymers
  • Silica-based geopolymer, sialate link and siloxo link in poly(siloxonate) Si:Al>5
  • Fly ash-based geopolymer
  • Phosphate-based geopolymer
  • Organic-mineral geopolymer
• Properties: physical, chemical and long-term durability
• Applications:
  • Quality controls
  • Development of user-friendly systems
  • How to quantify and develop geopolymer formulas
  • Castable geopolymer, industrial and decorative applications
  • Geopolymer – fiber composites
  • Foamed geopolymer
  • Geopolymers in ceramic processing
  • Manufacture of geopolymer cement
  • Geopolymer concrete
  • Geopolymers in toxic and radioactive waste management

It is a textbook, a reference book instead of being a collection of scientific papers. Each chapter is followed by a bibliography of the relevant published literature including 75 patents, 120 tables, 360 figures, 550 references, 700 authors cited, representing the most up to date contributions of the scientific community. The industrial applications of geopolymers with engineering procedures and design of processes are also covered in this book.

The discovery of a new class of inorganic materials, geopolymer resins, binders, cements and concretes, resulted in wide scientific interest and kaleidoscopic development of applications. From the first industrial research efforts in 1972 at the Cordi-Géopolymère private research laboratory, Saint-Quentin, France, until the end of 2007, hundreds of papers and patents were published dealing with geopolymer science and technology.

Although review articles and conference proceedings cover various aspects of the science and application of geopolymers, a researcher or engineer is still at a loss to readily obtain specific information about geopolymers and their use. It is this void that we hope to fill with this book.

There are two main purposes in preparing this book: it is an introduction to the subject of geopolymers for the newcomer to the field, for students, and a reference for additional information. Background details on structure, properties, characterization, synthesis, chemistry applications are included.

There are many examples in geopolymer science where an issued patent is either a primary reference or the only source of essential technical information. Excerpts from the more important patents are included in some chapters.

The industrial applications of geopolymers with engineering procedures and design of processes is also covered in this book.

The book holds:
680 pages
119 tables
343 figures and pictures
75 patents
740 references
905 authors cited in references
Hard-cover book, high quality printing, light cream color paper.

FREE DOWNLOAD of Chapter 1 of “Geopolymer Chemistry and Applications”
(1 MB in PDF format).

Buy your copy of the book at The Geopolymer Shop

First comments

“…Congratulations on the publication of the book. I am sure the book will serve as ‘the bible’ of geopolymer science and help the researchers and users immensely…” (a University Professor)

“…I would like to share the comments of one of my young co-workers, she told me: ” Director, it is really a Bible for Geopolymers—the best collection of the literature up to now…” (a Director of a National Research Institution)

“…The book will be of great assistance in teaching some parts of my materials chemistry courses in which I deal with geopolymers, and I will add it to my recommended class reading list. I will request our University library to purchase several copies for the students as it is a completely up-to-date record of what is going on in this field…” (a University Professor)

The GeopolymerCamp is the opportunity to prepare the new edition of the book Geopolymer Chemistry & Applications. Indeed, the Geopolymer Institute wishes to publish every year a new revised edition with the most up to date information. During this session, participants will propose subjects or issues that are worthwhile to be edited or added, and the assembly will discuss about it. Prepare your arguments if you want to see your last research, data, applications be added to this reference book.

The photo shows the first printing for proof-reading. We expect to get the first exemplars printed for the end of February 2008. The first edition of the book will be sold on line by the Geopolymer Institute.

The book will serve as a basis for the teaching of geopolymer science and technology, either at Tomas Bata University of Technology, Zlin, or at the Geopolymer Institute, Saint-Quentin, France (Training courses starting April 1., 2008).

See the page dedicated to this book.

The references of this paper are :

Barsoum, M. W., Ganguly, A. & 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.

You may access the J. Amer. Ceram. Society on line site

Abstract:
Microstructural Evidence of Reconstituted Limestone Blocks in the Great Pyramids of Egypt
M. W. Barsoum (1), A. Ganguly (1) and G. Hug (2)
How the Great Pyramids of Giza were built has remained an enduring mystery. In the mid-1980s, Joseph Davidovits proposed that the pyramids were cast in situ using granular limestone aggregate and an alkali alumino-silicate-based binder. Hard evidence for this idea, however, remained elusive. Using primarily scanning and transmission electron microscopy, we compared a number of pyramid limestone samples with six different limestone samples from their vicinity. The pyramid samples contained microconstituents (μc’s) with appreciable amounts of Si in combination with elements, such as Ca and Mg, in ratios that do not exist in any of the potential limestone sources. The intimate proximity of the μc’s suggests that at some time these elements had been together in a solution. Furthermore, between the natural limestone aggregates, the μc’s with chemistries reminiscent of calcite and dolomite—not known to hydrate in nature—were hydrated. The ubiquity of Si and the presence of submicron silica-based spheres in some of the micrographs strongly suggest that the solution was basic. Transmission electron microscope confirmed that some of these Si-containing μc’s were either amorphous or nanocrystalline, which is consistent with a relatively rapid precipitation reaction. The sophistication and endurance of this ancient concrete technology is simply astounding.
(J. Davidovits, concrete, agglomerated limestone, re-agglomerated, man-made, artificial stone, geopolymer, pyramid)

(1) Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Drexel University, Philadelphia,Pennsylvania 19104 (USA)
(2) LEM ONERA-CNRS, Châtillon, Cedex, France

For further information:

• Geopolymer Institute: Pyramid artificial stone
• Drexel University: PyramidPresentation

” 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.”

This oldest terra cota had been produced in an open wood fire (a garden fire), at a temperature of 250-400°C. maximum, but with a clay containing natural chemical ingredients, such as alkaline soluble salts, generating a geopolymeric reaction, which I call in my technical jargon, the L.T.G.S. (Low Temperature Geopolymeric Setting of ceramic)

Go to:
Joseph Davidovits’ site
or
The making of brown-black ceramics with LTGS in prehistory and antiquity

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.