Ancient Egyptians built the pyramids using man-made stones which look exactly like natural rocks. The limestone blocks were cast in situ, thanks to an advanced technology that was later lost, leaving a puzzle hidden for thousands of years inside the pyramid stones. French laureate Joseph Davidovits, PhD, specialist in chemistry, geopolymers and ancient cements, solved the enigma.

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

Do you have a link or any evidence to back this up? Because I for one would like to know more about how they would have done this.

http://www.relevant-television.com/arikat/...eries_story.htm

Also, I'm reading the book by Joseph Davidovits which provides the detail to his theory.

His book is "Pyramids; An enigma Solved"

I would like to know why they would do it. It seems that it would be more work.
Maybe I'm wrong.
It happened once, back in the 70's.

What? Do you want to lift a 10 ton block or pour one?

The link says that there were no wheels in Egypt at the time of the construction of the pyramids.



What about the evidence of them using logs as rollers to haul the blocks?

Did they pour them in place?

If not, then they would still have to transport them.

In a microscopic study a human hair was found in a piece of a block taken from one of the pyramids...

Concrete Pyramids

Thanks.

This is a very interesting link, and thread.

Maybe the same would apply to this place.

[The structure known as the Puma Punka also startles the imagination. It seems to be the remains of a great wharf and a massive, four-part, now collapsed building, and this makes eminent sense for Lake Titicaca long ago lapped upon the shores of Tiahuanaco city, now inland from the lake twelve miles. One of the construction blocks from which the pier was fashioned weighs an estimated 440 tons (equal to nearly 600 full-size cars) and several other blocks are between 100 and 150 tons. The quarry for these giant blocks was on the western shore of Titicaca, some ten miles away. There is no known technology in the ancient Andean world that could have transported stones of such massive weight and size. The Andean people of 500 AD, with their simple reed boats, could certainly not have moved them. Even today, with modern advances in engineering and mathematics, we could not fashion such a structure. How were these monstrous stones moved and what was their purpose?]

Yeah!

You're absolutely right! I'm also very interested in pyramids so please tell us more about it!

soz mate i cant belive that .

would make sense really, I always thought that could be a reasonable way to build the pyramids. they made mud brick's for their house and buildings, so why not do the same for pyramids, just with a different mixture?

Do you think..Yes they where made out of mold's....duh watch the history channel ..or any doc on it...They show you how they made them....

Where would they get enough logs that are strong enough? Egypt doesn't have alot of trees.

I totally support the Davidovits solution. I read his book maybe 5-8 years ago. He also includes evidence that many alabaster vessels with very thin walls were cast, rather than carved.

I'm actually pretty sure they had wheels. ancient rome had automatic doors, so the wheel must have been around longer then people think

The wheel is regarded as one of the oldest and most important inventions which, according to most authorities, originated in ancient Mesopotamia during the 5th millennium BC, originally in the function of potter's wheels.

Records show that wheels appeared almost simultaneously in Mesopotamia and Europe.

The wheel reached India with the Indus Valley Civilization in the 3rd millennium.

In China, the wheel is certainly present with the adoption of the chariot in ca. 1200 BC, and Barbieri-Low (2000) argues for earlier Chinese wheeled vehicles, from maybe 2000 BC.

Although they did not develop the wheel proper, the Olmec and certain other western hemisphere cultures seem to have approached the concept, as wheel-like worked stones have been found on objects identified as children's toys dating to about 1500 BC.

The wheel was apparently unknown in sub-Saharan Africa, Australia, and the Americas until relatively recent contacts with Eurasians.

The invention of the wheel thus falls in the late Neolithic and may be seen in conjunction with the other technological advances that gave rise to the early Bronze Age. Note that this implies the passage of several wheel-less millennia, even after the invention of agriculture.

Early wheels were simple wooden disks with a hole for the axle. The oldest such wheel was found by the Slovenian archeologist dr. Anton Velušček and his team in 2002 at the Ljubljana Marshes (Ljubljansko barje), some 20 kilometres southeast of Ljubljana, Slovenia.

According to the experts in Vienna, Austria, the specimen was manufactured somewhere between 3350 and 3100 BC and is even older than others of such kind found in Switzerland and Germany.

In the early Roman empire, most horse-carts used a design featuring two chords across the wheel.

The spoked wheel was invented much more recently, and allowed the construction of lighter and swifter vehicles.

The earliest known examples are in the context of the Andronovo culture, dating to ca 2000 BC.

Celtic chariots introduced an iron rim around the wheel in the 1st millennium BC. The spoked wheel was in continued use without major modification until the early 20th century.

Wheeled vehicles were never widely used and for heavy loads they were not strong enough anyway. Giant statues and the like were loaded onto wooden sledges and dragged by large numbers of men.

Means of transportation

I'll duh you one, what's your point? I don't understand what you're saying...

My devious mind, at it again...

The Egyptians seemed to like secret passageways and hiding stuff.

It occurs to me that if the pyramid stones were poured, then perhaps we should xray some of those blocks eh?

first of all 600 full size cars would weigh about 1200 tons, as a full size car weighs around 4000 lbs. (thats full size) let me make an example: a saturn sl2 weighs around 3400 pounds. a honda accord weighs around 3600 pounds.

and yes we could make and move blocks of stone easily today. i could do it easily. just use your head and logic and it becomes easy.

isnt it funny how some people believe this crud?

Even if they cast the blocks on the pyramids, they'd still have to move the supplies up there to do it. Which means that they'd have to move tons of liquid cement upwards.
It'd still be a tough task.

modern archeology claims that there was never a harbour wall at the tihuanaco complex and that lake titicaca never reached it. The blocks of stone you mention are indeed interesting as there is no possible way they could have been quarried and transported to the site which is indeed some miles distant from the quarry. Modern archeologists have attempted experiments in quarrying and moving blocks of stone weighing around 8 tons from the quarrying site at titicaca and across the lake on reed boats. The experiments were to some extent successful. However, cutting and moving a 400 ton block from the same quarry would be a somewhat more complicated exercise! The actual site of tihauanaco has been dated to about 400bc using the carbon dating method with samples from previous settlements below the site. Apparently the remains of some cooking fires had been found and the carbon in the ashes were used in the experiment.

I hope they don't consider that to be anything more than a "no later than" date... I think anyone can see the limitations in dating a campfire by a monumental stone structure, something that has surely seen visitors at least occasionally since its creation.

anyways, the moulding theory, though interesting, doesn't really seem to hold water. I haven't looked into it much, but this site at least gave some decent counter-arguments (where did the moulding go?) and pictures.
http://doernenburg.alien.de/alternativ/pyramide/pyr17_e.php

I'd appreciate any responses if this site overlooked arguments made by davidovit. I also would love to see a link to the alleged hair found in a pyramid block that someone mentioned earlier.

Might not be a bad idea. They did wrap things with mummies and etc. The only problem, then, is x-raying these giant blocks.

Yep, they even added fossils to the mix to fool all those silly no-nothing geologists......

ok this changes everything i knew bout egyptions and pyramids
i am reely

Good point. Limestone often has fossils in it, and if I'm not mistaken is largely composed of fossil shells...? Have actual fossils been found in the blocks?

has anyone else notinced how this guy does not appear in any peer-reviewed journals or anything? he is found solely in conjunction with a handful of websites: one is his own, the others are of questionable authority.

on his website, he also talks about statues "cast" in diorite, which is absolutely silly from a geologic standpoint. he also talks about how the limestone dissolves in water after 24 hours, which really makes you wonder how it lasted the millions of years until the egyptians could use it.

It just goes to show, you can't trust everything you find on the internet.

Why would we think any differently? A mould is the perfect encasing for the shape you want. Third world countries make buicks in moulds and let them bake in the sun to dry. We use moulds to make toys, tools, etc.

Btw, you stole my handle.

http://guardians.net/hawass/


thought ide put this link for you guys, anything you need to know this man knows it, he is one of the best egyptologists ive ever known of.

Another question would be why they cast the inner stones of the pyramid with both rough, unfinished edges and quarry marks, and how they managed to precisely replicate the exact same graining of the external stones as that of the plateau quarry from where they allegedly came from.

Also, why are the gaps between the rough, unfinished stones within the pyramid filled with rubble? Would it not have been easier and more secure to pour the cement into the gaps?

No wheel??
How did they build their chariots, with jet engines?

However...I too have read "Pyramids: An Enigma Solved" and on a mission to 'Debunk' it. The problem is...Although I know quite a bit about Ancient Egypt, I know verry little about Chemistry or Geology (Much less 'Geopolymers') and if this theory is to be proven wrong, this is where the answers lie. So if you or anyone in the world in the feilds before mentioned have knlowledge that could help debunk this pain the the butt book (with credible scientific knowledge or proof) please RESPOND TO THIS POST!

Well, I'll respond anyway.

My biggest problem with the theory is a very basic one; why aren't the blocks of essentially the
same shape? Why make hundreds or thousands of molds with different shapes and then have to
fit the blocks when building? It would be far easier to make twenty or fifty basic shapes so they'd
all fit together. Close-up pictures don't seem to show any blocks alike.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the theory but it bneeds "concrete" proof to mean anything.

So how do you think the pyramids were built?

maybe they built each mould on site individually...packed it with the concrete mix etc... insitu.. had some sort of strong leak proof liner (like in baking that would eventually disolve...maybe a waxed silk )to hold it temporarily when they dismantled the outer casings... maybe they only required solid outer casings on several sides... there could have been strong metal sheets that were somehow welded or chained together for the duration....

I watch a lot of craft shows...

Much easier than carving and carting huge carved rocks....

Even if they tried making 50 or so blocks at a time with moulds..they'd still have to lift and place them..in those precarious positions......so it'd be easier to make them in place ..or near enough where they wanted them.....

Been watching a How to program called Stone???or Rock solid...

where they show you how they temproarily support walls by backfilling.. using stones and a weak sand concrete mixture..maybe the weak concrete mixture disintergrated over the thousands of years leaving just the hardier little stones in place...

very true ...in fact an experiment was conducted quite recently by a team of archaeologists and students which attempted to cut and move a 2 ton block of stone from the original quarry on the other side of lake titicaca and shift it by roller and boat to the other side. They failed miserably.
So far as the ancient egyptians using concrete : well they did and we know they did but whether they actually produced blocks in-situ from concrete I am not so sure as the work involved in firstly dissolving limestone then carting the liquid up a steep ramp and then pouring it into moulds doesnt somehow seem to make sense.
The work of actually dissolving limestone would have involved large amounts of water and chemicals and labour.
But this does not mean to say that they didnt as they undoubtably would have evolved an efficient method of doing it .

Building nearby towers with pulleys or lifts to raise the mixture..and movable gutters or funnels for pouring into the moulds...???

Its an interesting theory but I am very sceptical of it. Although, in referance to other sights that are said to have stones that are so finely fit that you cant put the blane of a knife between them, this theory is compelling. However, I still think there are to many problems with it but its interesting none the less.



I believe the area was a fertile region during the time of the egyptions. I could be wrong.

Its an interesting theory and it does seem possible, not only for egypt, but also in other places like south america. I've seen on sites here it looks very much like various carvings in the stones etc seem to have made in a soft concrete like substance rather than hard rock. Theres also ancient legends about a people who could turn solid rocks soft - might be something to that.

lol

Until recently it was hard for geologists to distinguish between natural limestone and the kind that would have been made by reconstituting liquefied lime.

But according to Professor Gilles Hug, of the French National Aerospace Research Agency (Onera), and Professor Michel Barsoum, of Drexel University in Philadelphia, the covering of the great Pyramids at Giza consists of two types of stone: one from the quarries and one man-made.

“There’s no way around it. The chemistry is well and truly different,” Professor Hug told Science et Vie magazine. Their study is being published this month in the Journal of the American Ceramic Society.

The pair used X-rays, a plasma torch and electron microscopes to compare small fragments from pyramids with stone from the Toura and Maadi quarries.

They found “traces of a rapid chemical reaction which did not allow natural crystalisation . . . The reaction would be inexplicable if the stones were quarried, but perfectly comprehensible if one accepts that they were cast like concrete.”

The pair believe that the concrete method was used only for the stones on the higher levels of the Pyramids. There are some 2.5 million stone blocks on the Cheops Pyramid. The 10-tonne granite blocks at their heart were also natural, they say. The professors agree with the “Davidovits theory” that soft limestone was quarried on the damp south side of the Giza Plateau. This was then dissolved in large, Nile-fed pools until it became a watery slurry.

Lime from fireplace ash and salt were mixed in with it. The water evaporated, leaving a moist, clay-like mixture. This wet “concrete” would have been carried to the site and packed into wooden moulds where it would set hard in a few days. Mr Davidovits and his team at the Geopolymer Institute at Saint-Quentin tested the method recently, producing a large block of concrete limestone in ten days.

New support for their case came from Guy Demortier, a materials scientist at Namur University in Belgium. Originally a sceptic, he told the French magazine that a decade of study had made him a convert: “The three majestic Pyramids of Cheops, Khephren and Mykerinos are well and truly made from concrete stones.”

The concrete theorists also point out differences in density of the pyramid stones, which have a higher mass near the bottom and bubbles near the top, like old-style cement blocks.

Opponents of the theory dispute the scientific evidence. They also say that the diverse shapes of the stones show that moulds were not used. They add that a huge amount of limestone chalk and burnt wood would have been needed to make the concrete, while the Egyptians had the manpower to hoist all the natural stone they wanted.

The concrete theorists say that they will be unable to prove their theory conclusively until the Egyptian authorities give them access to substantial samples.

Link - Pyramid New Build Method

So many things are grey rather than black or white. It's fascinating.