The secret of "melting" stones

Archaeologists in Latin America have often speculated in the astonishing techniques used in the making huge stones fit with fine precision to build ancient cities. Although many experts believe that basic ordinary proceedures could have achived this result, there is a possibility that one extraordinary technique also played it's part.


Since the early 80's, French polymer chemist Dr Joseph Davidovits has been researching an amazing prospect that some ancient civilizations, had developed a method which crushed rock could be melted, moulded into a shape and then hardened to complete the object.
Background of Joseph Davidovits

This would eliminate the need to repeatedly carving stones with precision into stone cubes. Dr Davidovits has successfully created his own synthetic rock or geopolymer that can be melted, reshaped, then rehardened.

His idea came from studying the stones of six defferent sites in Eygpt. He found the analysis to show that the calcite percentage was lower and the stone had "high amount of special minerals such as Opal CT, hydroxy-apatite, a silico-aluminate, which are not found in the quarries", which was in the paper:
X-Ray Analysis and X-Ray Diffraction of Casing Stones from the Pryramids of Egypt, and the Limestone of the Associated Quarries (1984) (pdf - must order it)

Testimony for his "melting" theory was also recorded by Professer Hiram Bingham, during his expeditions in Peru, which culminated in the finding of the lost Incan city of Machu Picchu inn 1911. Bingham recounted stories from local people about a special plant whose juices melted rock, enabling it to be worked into tightly fitted masonry.

In the book "Things", Ivan T Sanderson included data collected by Lt-Col. Percy Fawcett. It concerned a man who had trekked 8km (5miles) through virgin forest along the Pyrene River in Peru, only to discover his metal spurs had corroded away. He mentioned it to his host a local rancher, who asked if had had travelled through a patch of dense plants with red fleshy leaves that grow about 15cm (one foot) high. After that the man said the plants were to blame and were "the stuff the Incas used to shape stones".

So what is this remarkable plant and how can we find it with the destruction of these amazing lands?
How many cures and other stranges things have come from that region?

More importantly, do you think this could be the way it was done?

I found a few links regarding Dr Joseph Davidovits.

PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION: Time for a Fresh Look at the Geopolymer Theory

"They also emphasise that the distinction between manufactured and natural limestone cannot be made with the naked eye, and can only be determined by microscopic analysis. They appear to provide a wealth of such analysis, apparently confirmed by other experts, suggesting that the samples of pyramid limestone they have been able to test are indeed manufactured."

Composition (%) of ancient concretes compared to typical geopolymeric products*.
*Adapted from: Davidovits, J., "Ancient and modern concretes: What is the real difference?," Concrete International, vol. 9, 1987, pp. 23-35.

Similar questions were raised by Russian researchers in the 1950�s and later by Prof. Joseph Davidovits from France. Although still the subject of debate, it is claimed by some researchers that the Ancient Egyptian pyramids were not made from carved stone, rather from synthetic stone which was cast in-place. Today, this man-made stone is commonly referred to as a "geopolymer" or "geopolymeric material"

Egyptian Pyramids actually made of Synthetic Stone?

"Davidovits said the cement used in the pyramids binds the aggregate and other ingredients together chemically in a process similar to that involved in the formation of natural stone. Portland cement, in contrast, involves mechanical rather then molecular bonding of the ingredients. Thus, pyramid stone is extremely difficult to distinguish from natural stone. He cites a number of other pieces of evidence to support his theory. Chemical analyses of stone from the pyramids, for example, show it contains minerals not found in Egyptian quarry stone. Laboratory analyses have also revealed indications of organic fibers -- possibly human or animal hair -- inside the stone used to built the pyramids. Davidovits said he believes the materials accidentally fell into the forms when ancient Egyptians were casting the stone."

I think it is compelling, the theories of moulding stone. Could these be the same techniques that Ed Leedskalnin used in building the Coral Castle?

"Since it is documented that no one ever witnessed Ed's labor in building his rock gate park, some say he had supernatural powers. Ed would only say that he knew the secrets used to build the ancient pyramids and if he could learn them, you could too!"

Moulded stone would certainly account for the fittings, which in many cases, is so tight that paper cannot fit between the blocks. Of course these blocks weight hundreds pounds and even modern engineers are at a loss as to how they were made with such precision.

Why are there no records that exist of how the Pyramids were build? They were certainly far too important to have been unrecorded by historians. There are few surviving documents from that time (c. 2705-2250 BC), and Scientists have long claimed that no ancient Egyptian records, from any period, actually describes how they were built.


Famine Stele

Is it that they seek surviving records of stone cutting, hauling, and hoisting methods? Unaware of the technology used, Egyptologists have misunderstood the meaning of Egyptian words that document pyramid construction-writings. A pertinent document was enscribed on a rock, called the Famine Stele, discovered on the island of Sehel, near Elephantine, by Charles Wilbour in 1889.

Dr. Davidovits approaches the matter of pyramid construction from an Alchemical perspective:
"If the ancient Egyptians had the ability to produce exceptionally high-quality cement, what prevented them from adding fossil shells to their cement to produce high-quality limestone concrete? The answer is that nothing prevented them. I will demonstrate that the pyramid blocks are not natural stone; the blocks are actually exceptionally high-quality limestone concrete -- synthetic stone -- cast directly in place. The blocks consist of about ninety to ninety-five percent limestone rubble and five to ten percent cement. They are imitations of natural limestone, made in the age-old religious tradition of alchemical stone making. No stone cutting or heavy hauling or hoisting was ever required for pyramid construction."

I would be interested in any other theories of construction methods.

[Edited on 11-3-2004 by ZeddicusZulZorander]

Hmm... that's a very interesting find. Now it's got me thinking about whether or not the Dr. is right about synthetic rocks. I'll have to delve into this subject and research this. Thanks for the links and subject.

Originally posted by IKnowNothing
Hmm... that's a very interesting find. Now it's got me thinking about whether or not the Dr. is right about synthetic rocks. I'll have to delve into this subject and research this. Thanks for the links and subject.

Sure, I wonder if the Dr is right myself, but he certainly makes a compelling theory. I know that many of the building skills were tested (I saw some on tv) but as I watched them, they had a very hard time and in all cases, never produced results close to the originals. All they proved was it could be done...but usually with great effort.

The casing stones are not the stones that the pyramids are built from. They are the CASING, or coating on the outside and are considerably smaller and of different composition from the huge blocks the pyramids are constructed with.

The CORAL CASTLE stones were levitated into place, according to the maker, using magnetism. He used to say that everything is made out of magnetism. No adults ever saw him work, but children used to tell stories of seeing him float huge boulders over his property like helium balloons.

Originally posted by groingrinder
The casing stones are not the stones that the pyramids are built from. They are the CASING, or coating on the outside and are considerably smaller and of different composition from the huge blocks the pyramids are constructed with.

Sure, and they are not well cut or fitted. So than an inner rough shape is made with solid cut stones and the outer, somewhat smaller ones are formed to fit together on the outside. It's possible.

Remember, that modern science has yet to figure out how it was done, so you can really explain it away in one sentence.

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

snip

Sure, and they are not well cut or fitted. So than an inner rough shape is made with solid cut stones and the outer, somewhat smaller ones are formed to fit together on the outside. It's possible.

Remember, that modern science has yet to figure out how it was done, so you can really explain it away in one sentence.

The maker of Coral Castle used to say that only children would know how his Castle was constructed. I think this is because an adult WOULD NOT BELIEVE even if he saw with his own eyes. I believe the pyramid could have been poured, I was just questioning the fact that CASING stones were used as an example instead of the BLOCKS that formed the structural portion of the pyramid.

[Edited on 11-3-2004 by ZeddicusZulZorander]

Originally posted by groingrinder
The maker of Coral Castle used to say that only children would know how his Castle was constructed. I think this is because an adult WOULD NOT BELIEVE even if he saw with his own eyes. I believe the pyramid could have been poured, I was just questioning the fact that CASING stones were used as an example instead of the BLOCKS that formed the structural portion of the pyramid.

Yeah, I'm with you. I noticed that about the stones too. The pictures I have seen show them to be disjointed and irregular. Very badly fit. You are definately right there. But the exterior stones have that interesting composition chemically from true limestone. That is an interesting fact.

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
Dr. Davidovits approaches the matter of pyramid construction from an Alchemical perspective:
"If the ancient Egyptians had the ability to produce exceptionally high-quality cement, what prevented them from adding fossil shells to their cement to produce high-quality limestone concrete?

...and put them in layers? And poured in layers that they let sit and then poured another thin layer? And then sprinkled in a few shells (of the geologically appropriate time period) in and then poured another thin layer...

...and so on and so forth?

They are imitations of natural limestone, made in the age-old religious tradition of alchemical stone making.

None of the ancient alchemical texts is about making rocks. It's about making gold and the elixir of life and other important things. Rocks... why make rocks when you could just chip the shape out fairly quickly?

No stone cutting or heavy hauling or hoisting was ever required for pyramid construction."

Conveniently ignoring some of the problems like making forms and hauling the material up the slopes... and why did they cast it into blocks when they could have cast it in place with the exact angles instead of building it out of a bunch of irregular blocks?

I would be interested in any other theories of construction methods.

Take a look at the pyramids close up. The blocks aren't that regular.