PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION

Time for a Fresh Look at the Geopolymer Theory

© Ian Lawton 25^th February 2002

Since I appeared on the Art Bell show a few weeks back, I have been engaged in lengthy discussions with Margaret Morris, the co-author with Joseph Davidovits of The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved (1988), about the geolpolymer theory. Because this is an area where special expertise is required, I drafted in geological engineer Colin Reader to debate the issues as well, and the results have been lively to say the least.

In G:TT we dismissed this theory without, in truth, properly examining the entirety of the relevant literature. We assumed that the theory required that the blocks would have had to have been cast in uniform rectangular molds, and that the irregularity of the size of the blocks in the GP and elsewhere suggested that this could not have been the case. However, Morris has pointed out that she and Davidovits do not suggest that uniform molds were used at all, rather that there were a variety of ways that the blocks could have been cast in situ, including using less uniform wooden boards to partition one block from another, etc.. Moreover, in her more recent solo work The Egyptian Pyramid Mystery is Solved Morris provides a startling wealth of evidence that the logistics of constructing the pyramids by conventional means, including the quarrying and lifting operations, simply do not work. This is, of course, accompanied by the suggestion that the logistics of construction under the geolpolymer theory are significantly improved.

In short, the real theory put forward by Morris and Davidovits is that the limestone in the quarries at Giza was disaggregated after water-soaking, which water they suggest was channelled from the Nile during the annual inundations. They present evidence showing that workers used simple instruments (like flint picks) to break the limestone up, to form a geopolymeric rock-concrete slurry to which various other ingredients were added. They suggest that the damp rock-making mix was transported to the emerging structure, probably in woven baskets, and then packed into place like adobe.

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.

The significant advantages of this theory are:

1. Almost nil wastage in the quarries. They contend that the quarries would need to be far more extensive than those found at Giza if conventional means were used, under which wastage from splitting etc would require them to be as much as four times as big as the quantity of finished material.

2. Far faster construction time if blocks do not have to be laboriously quarried and carved to the finished shape.

3. The requirement for a far less substantial ramp/ladder system on the outside of the pyramid, which would have to support the weight and size of individual workers only.

The significant ongoing problems with this theory, as I see them, are as follows:

4. Davidovits and Morris have not proved that the huge granite blocks in the King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid are fabricated rock. They have not so far been allowed to analyse this material or other examples of Old Kingdom granite, so their research in this area is still in progress, although they do present evidence for several other types of fabricated ancient stone artifacts. However, unless this element can be addressed, there is still the need for elaborate lifting apparatus in terms of ramp or hoists - unless, of course, we bring the sonic levitation theory back into play.

5. The meaning and purpose of the so-called quarry marks found on certain of the blocks of all the Giza pyramids needs to be explained as something else. The most famous of these are on the walls in the Relieving Chambers of the GP, and these at least are undoubtedly original Fourth Dynasty. Moreover, they certainly appear to be quarry marks, both from their nature (rough-painted because never expected to be seen, often lying sideways or upside down, even underneath surveying and levelling lines in places), and from their content (mentioning "crews" of Khufu's workmen, while some others even say "this way up"). If they were only on granite blocks it  might be possible to explain them away as quarry marks on non-manufactured stone, but in fact they are exclusively on limestone blocks - which are supposed to have been manufactured according to the theory.

6. A proper explanation of how canals were able to feed the quarries at Giza, given the sloping topography of the site, is also required.

All in all, therefore, I still do not wholeheartedly endorse this theory. However, it is based on over 20 years of detailed and painstaking research, and undoubtedly does deserve closer ongoing scrutiny without the often misinformed criticisms that it has previously attracted. Above all, whilst we can argue for all we are worth about the specifics of the various strengths and weaknesses of the theory as identified above, the real acid test is further microscopic analysis of the rocks themselves. If it were to prove correct, it would mean that a significant part of the existing chapter on pyramid construction in G:TT would be superceded, and once again we would have to upwardly revise our opinion of the ingenuity of the ancient Egyptian builders. Nevertheless this theory still does not lend support to those who suggest that they were using significantly more advanced technology than the orthodoxy allows.

The following is a list of websites that cover the geopolymer theory, and the debates surrounding it, in more detail:

Margaret Morris: http://www.margaretmorrisbooks.com/index.html

Joseph Davidovits: http://www.geopolymer.org/archaeo1c.html