Masonry Magazine February 1994 Page. 45
Were the Egyptian Pyramid Blocks Cast-in-Place?
Theory discredited by American petrographer and geologist as a result of firsthand observation.
EVER SINCE they were built more than 4,500 years ago, the ancient Egyptian Sphinx, pyramids and associated structures at Giza and Saqqara have been objects of wonder. How were they built? When a theory surfaced that the pyramid stones were cast-in-place concrete, it isn't surprising that CTL's Dr. Donald H. Campbell, senior principal petrographer and trained geologist, wanted to explore the "evidence" firsthand.
The proposed theory - In 1988, Joseph Davidovits (a French chemist) and Margie Morris (his American representative) astounded the world's engineering, geological, archaeological, and Egyptological investigators with their popular book, "The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved." Their theory of pyramid origin as cast-in-place concrete rested on laboratory study of two pyramid samples. The observed physical characteristics of the pyramid blocks ranged from lift lines or layering, "organic" filaments in one sample, random fossil-shell orientation, and assumed absence of calcite-filled fractures to purported discrete sets of stone dimensions, the blocks said to be placed in mirror-image array on two faces of the Khafre pyramid.
To evaluate these findings, Dr. Campbell and other interested persons, including Ms. Morris, examined the structures at Giza and Saqqara in January 1990. The team's observations in a fascinating field examination of the structures noted these factors: Layering observed in many pyramid and temple blocks is clearly geologic stratification produced Eocene seas 55 million years ago. Disorientation of disc-like fossils is a geologic feature and not the result of pouring into a mold. Some fossil claims were seen as cross sections suggesting the blocks were cut or sawn. Nowhere in any of the ancient constructions visited was anything resembling a mold board impression seen. Tool marks are abundant. Some blocks had vertical stratification.
Refuting the molded block theory It seems unlikely that these ancient engineers would have made molds with such a wide and apparently random variety of sizes, with irregular angles, and even with re-entrant corners. Concrete, if used, should have oozed into the cracks and gaps within and between blocks. None was observed. Also, no evidence of block-to-block attachment was found.
CTL's lab analysis of quarry rocks and Khufu pyramid samples - no surprises - Microscopical identification of a man-made cement or an aggregate-paste textural relationship could not be seen. X-ray diffraction analysis of the powdered Khufu casing stone revealed no man-made constituent. Calcite, tridymite, gypsum, and alpha quartz were detected. If the stone had been made with Nile River mud as suggested by Davidovits, quartz, mica, and feldspar would probably have been much more abundant, readily seen, and easily detected. Chemical analysis did not provide support. Pyramid blocks with discrete dimensional sets could not be demonstrated statistically or otherwise. The theory was totally discredited.
The details are available. A two-segment article entitled "The Great Pyramid Debate" appeared in the August 1991 issue of CONCRETE INTERNATIONAL. There are two segments: "The Ancient Egyptian Pyramids-Concrete or Rock?" by Drs. Campbell and Robert L. Folk, Professor Emeritus of Geology at The University of Texas at Austin, and "The