The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved

I've owned this book since shortly after it was first published. It was immediately clear to me that Professor Davidovits had solved the "mysteries" of pyramid construction (as well as the means by which many other ancient "stone" objects were created), and also clear that his work would be ridiculed and obstructed by Egyptologists and Pyramidologists until circumstances allowed independent, unassailable verification of his findings. That is finally beginning to happen, and it is only a matter of time until the silly hypothesis (and that is all it has ever been) that millions of tons of limestone blocks were quarried without metal tools, somehow, without leaving any debris, carved to tolerances of thousandths of an inch, transported for long distances by unknown methods, and hoisted into place by incredible armies of workers is conclusively disproved. I notice that the only reviewer that fails to share my admiration for this well-written book does so because it fails to accord with "mainstream science". On the contrary, it is the only theory that follows the requirements of science. It's likely that more information will be available on this topic in the next year or two, but for an interesting, readable, and exciting explanation of the true "philosopher's stone", read this book!

Professor Davidovits has published two books since this one, but unfortunately neither of them has been translated into English. In the meantime, this book will do very well as a description of his theory. You can check the current state of things by looking for Joseph Davidovits or geopolymer on the web. His theory is that the Egyptians knew how to make stone. In fact they could make far better 'concrete' than any that we use today. He explains in detail how they did it. This forms the basis of his theory of how the pyramids were built. He presents a lot of evidence to support his theory and shows how it fits the facts and solves a lot of mysteries. The idea can also be applied to the vases and statues made out of extremely hard stone that have long puzzled Egyptologists. It's a wonderful idea. The clever Egytians, who venerated stone because of its seemingly eternal quality, discovered a lot about its chemistry by trial and error and the inspiration of individuals like Imhotep.

The author says the pyramids weren't built of carefully carved stone blocks, but of poured concrete. That solves a lot of problems: No need for a massive ramp larger than the pyramid to haul the blocks up. Rubble was passed upwards in baskets from man to man. No need to explain how the Egyptians carved millions of perfectly shaped blocks with only copper tools. No need to explain why some blocks in the second pyramid weigh two hundred tons. When you're hauling blocks, smaller is better, but when you're pouring, one large block is quicker. The author give numerous other bits of confirmation: The perfect fit of the blocks because they were poured against each other. The distorted pattern of fossils in the blocks caused by dumping in thousands of fragments. Air bubbles near the tops of blocks caused by air in the still fluid cement migrating upwards. Why hasn't this theory become widely accepted? In a way it's too good--who in the field of Egyptology wants to admit not seeing this simple solution for himself?

I read this title when it was first published based on a brief in William Corliss' "Science Frontiers". This book is easy to understand and its premise easy to grasp and accept. It is out of print, but generally used copies can be found using the usual online searches. Check your local public and college libraries for copies as well.There is no ancient account of the way the pyramids were built. The story told to Herodotus during his visit 2500 years ago suggests that the Egyptian tour guides of that time were as full of flummery as tour guides are today, and unaware of their country's history.The conventional view -- that individual stones were used -- might work if all four sides were under construction at the same time, but this requires ramps or scaffolding. It is typical in such a model for a single ramp to wrap around.The idea that the "stones" could be formed in situ is compelling on its own, but gains credence due to the difficulty of quarrying, smoothing, transporting, and placing full sized stones with such rapidity, particularly in the new, incredible, pseudo-historical claims by Zahi Hawass that there were no slaves in ancient Egypt, and that the stones of the Great Pyramid aren't nearly as numerous or as heavy as has been claimed.The destruction of the mountain in Brazil which has been a hand-dug gold mine for forty or so years supports the credibility of Davidovits' idea -- that mountain has vanished and a huge pit opened under the old site, 40 pounds at a time, using ordinary digging tools and handmade ladders.This book is highly recommended. Read it instead of the attacks that have been made against it, against the author, and against favorable reviews.-:- No, the pyramids weren't used to generate electricity during the Old Kingdom.-:- No, the pyramids weren't built by extraterrestrials or Atlanteans.-:- Yes, the pyramids were used as tombs, but were robbed centuries ago.-:- Yes, the Biblical Israelites may have constructed pyramids, but those were Middle Kingdom in date, and located in the Fayyum (see Herodotus' discussion of those mud brick structures which have for the most part vanished).Also recommended:-:- Voices of the Rocks by Robert Schoch et al-:- Serpent in the Sky by John Anthony West-:- The Mysteries of the Sphinx (VHS)-:- Plato Prehistorian by Mary Settegast-:- Ages In Chaos by Immanuel Velikovsky-:- The Secret of Crete by Hans Wunderlich (out of print)

Amazing piece of research. His credentials are unimpeachable. The pyramids are made of concrete and the Eqyptians were alchemists too. How is it possible archaeologists reject this obvious science? Any mystery lover will love this work. He has my vote. Davidovits rivals Thor Heyerdahl for blowing away the "experts" on ancient civilizations and what they were capable of.