in Egypt? And also, would such aggregates and extracts have been available at the location at the
time of their construction?
The answer to both these questions is very a resounding: Yes, they could have, quite easily!
So surely if one can follow the methods described in the famine stele text and in doing, create a
mixture that will solidify into a stone of comparable texture and composition to the stone used in
the Pyramids, then is it not conceivable that it is most likely the method that was used in their
construction. Indeed, it is the only really possible way it could have been done.
The true answer as to how the monuments were constructed may have suddenly become quite
blatantly obvious. Indeed, it would appear that the builders even wrote it down for us.
The question is: Why is this Stele still being ignored by Egyptology?
Modern Techniques for Synthesizing Limestone
Then at last, someone came to the fore with a radical new theory in the now familiar form of
Prof. Joseph Davidovits of the Geopolymer Institute, who also proposed the plant extract theory
in the Mayan process and again, all credit must be given to the man. Ten Points!
Prof Davidovits wrote a fascinating report in 1998 in which he proposed the idea that the
pyramids were indeed constructed using aggregated limestone rather than by manipulating
quarried blocks. His theory was then finally published in 1999 in a book entitled: "The Pyramids:
an enigma solved”.
In the book he put forth the very sound, though academically radical theory that outcrops of
relatively soft limestone could simply have been quarried and easily disaggregated with water and
then the muddy limestone sludge (including the fossil-shells) mixed with lime and some kind of
tecto-alumino-silicate forming material such as kaolin clay, silt, or the Egyptian salt ‘Natron’
which is a basic sodium carbonate. The limestone mud could then easily have been carried up by
the bucketful and then poured, packed or rammed into formwork molds made of wood, stone,
clay or brick that had been erected on the pyramid sides. The re-agglomerated limestone, thus
bonded by basic geochemical reaction into a substance known as geopolymer cement, would then
have hardened into resistant Limestone blocks as it dried actually solidifying into a substance a
great deal harder and stronger than the original starting material.
Critics of this theory argue that Davidovits has never proved that Giza limestone really is
geopolymer (and of course this is impossible to do because neither he nor anyone else is ever
permitted to remove any material for testing) and they firmly state that the fact that the limestone
blocks at Giza contain intact fossil remains substantially proves that they can not be manufactured
stone or geopolymers but are in fact hewn blocks of natural limestone.
Interestingly, no-one specifies exactly why they think that intact fossil shells in the pyramid
blocks prove that they are not manufactured blocks as even the most fundamental knowledge of
Davidovits cast-stone theory clearly suggests that it was the Giza quarries themselves (where
else?) that provided the limestone rubble for the aggregates of the pyramid blocks. Such intact
fossils actually exist in abundance in the limestone of the Giza quarries.
Since that time, scientists at the Geopolymer Institute have successfully managed to
manufacture and cast re-agglomerated limestone. Because it is (of course) prohibited to remove
any material from the site of the actual pyramid for testing, for the purpose of the test the
scientists selected a soft material containing a high percentage of fossilized shells from a quarry
in France to ensure the geological material used in the experiment was very similar to that which
is found in the quarries of the Giza plateau in Egypt. The purpose of the test was to demonstrate
that this type of soft limestone material is indeed perfect for re-agglomeration. The scientists then
disaggregated the material with water, they then mixed the muddy limestone and its fossil shells
with kaolin clay and a basic geopolymeric binder. The limestone mud was then packed into a
pyramid shaped mould. The re-agglomerated limestone they created, bonded by geochemical
reaction, then hardened into a resistant geopolymer limestone block (fig.85,86) that turned out to
be a great deal harder than the original starting material exactly as they had predicted it would.