Composition of blocks from Egyptian pyramids. Geopolymer concrete

8 502

How were the largest Egyptian pyramids in Giza. We are assured that the Egyptian pyramids were built from monolithic stone blocks, cut in quarries, transported over considerable distances and, in some incomprehensible way, lifted up and stacked on top of each other. Moreover, stone structures were obtained, which sometimes rise to a height of more than a hundred meters. For example, the height of the pyramid of Cheops is about 140 meters.

The dimensions and height of the great Egyptian pyramids and many other megalithic structures of "antiquity" conflict with the real possibilities of the ancient builders. However, various ridiculous theories are still being invented to explain, for example, how huge stone blocks were delivered from the quarries and then raised to the height of the pyramid. It is believed that thousands and thousands of slaves worked in quarries, cutting down monoliths weighing from 2.5 to 15 tons, and then dragging them to the construction site on a "sleigh". And then, allegedly with the help of ingenious lifting machines or with the help of some giant sloping mounds of sand, fifteen-ton blocks were dragged to a height of many tens of meters.

It turns out, however, that there are no mysteries here. The only mystery is how Egyptologists were able to "not see" that the vast majority of the blocks of the great Egyptian pyramids were MADE OF CONCRETE.

As I. Davidovich discovered, an important component of such concrete was mud from the Nile River, containing aluminum oxide. In the Egyptian deserts and salt lakes in large quantities available sodium carbonate. For the production of geopolymer concrete, other components are also needed, also available in Egypt.

The problem of crushing rocks and ore in ancient times was solved in the image and likeness of GRAIN CRUSHING - mortars, grain grinders, millstones. In the area of the Gebeit deposit in the mountains near the Red Sea (in Egypt), Doctor of Geological Sciences Razvalyaev A.V. observed dozens of millstones for crushing gold ore with a diameter of up to 50-60 centimeters. The rock was crushed with millstones and transferred to the shore of the now waterless river valley for washing. There was a wash. Smaller crushing devices of this kind are also known - graters.
This simple rock crushing technology could quickly lead to the invention of CONCRETE.

Explain what concrete is. To obtain primitive concrete, it is enough to grind the rock into a fine powder, remove moisture from it, and then mix it with water. It is easiest to use soft rocks. For example, limestone, the outputs of which are located right on the pyramid field in Egypt. Here it could be taken simply underfoot, next to the pyramids under construction. Further, in order to obtain cement, it was necessary to thoroughly dry the rock so that moisture would come out of it. But in the conditions of hot and dry Egypt, where it sometimes rains once every five years, i.e., special drying was unnecessary. After grinding the Egyptian rock, ready-made cement was immediately obtained - that is, a dehydrated powder.

If a dry fine powder is poured into a box made of boards, filled with water and mixed thoroughly, then after drying, the powder particles are firmly bonded to each other. When the solution finally dries, it hardens and turns into a stone. That is, in concrete.
At the same time, small stones could be added to the solution. After hardening, they turned out to be "frozen" into concrete. In this way, it was possible to significantly reduce the amount of cement powder required for the manufacture of pyramid blocks.

Such, in rough outline, was the medieval technology of concrete production. After some time, it becomes sometimes difficult to distinguish such concrete blocks from those cut from the same rock, as they collapse, weather and take on the appearance of "natural stones".
The idea of concrete Egyptian pyramids could be treated differently. For example, consider this one more "theory" among others, just as unfounded. And we would not write about it in such detail, if not for one circumstance. The fact is that there is indisputable evidence that, for example, the pyramid of Cheops is really made of concrete.

This evidence is a Fragment of a Stone Block of the Cheops Pyramid, taken from a height of fifty meters, from the outer masonry of the pyramid. It is a chip in the upper corner of the block. Maximum size fragment about 6.5 centimeters.
As you can see from the photo, the surface of the block is covered with a fine mesh. Careful examination shows that this is a trace of a mat that was applied to the inner surface of the formwork box. It is clearly seen that the mat was bent at a right angle along the edge of the block. And at a short distance from the edge of the block, another mat was superimposed on it with an overlap. It can be seen that there is a fringe along the edge of the second mat. There are no fibers located along the edge, they fell out, as it usually happens on the raw edge of woven fabrics.

The upper surface of the block from which this fragment broke off was UNEQUAL, BUMPY. This is clearly visible in the wreck itself. Although part of the upper surface of the fragment was sawn off for chemical analysis, the remaining part had its original bumpy appearance. This is how it should be if it is CONCRETE, since concrete forms a bumpy surface when it hardens. To avoid this, in our time, special vibrators are used to level the hardening surface of concrete. The Egyptians of the XIV-XVII centuries, of course, did not have vibrators. Therefore, the surface of the blocks turned out to be uneven. And it is the TOP, not touching the formwork. The LATERAL surface is even, but MESH FROM TRACES OF THE MAT. If it were a sawn stone block, then its upper surface would be no different from the side.

According to an eyewitness who personally broke off this fragment from a block of the Cheops pyramid - for which he needed to buy a special permit - TRACES OF FORMWORK WERE VISIBLE ON ALL BLOCKS in this place of the pyramid. Recall that it was at a height of fifty meters, on the side of the pyramid, which is opposite to the entrance to it. There are usually no tours. An ordinary tourist can see only the lower rows of masonry, bypassing the pyramid around. But there are no traces of formwork below. Maybe they were cut on purpose. Or maybe the reason for this is the frequent sandstorms in these places. They carry fine sand to the pyramids and, of course, grind and smooth the surface of the lower blocks. After all, the blocks of the pyramids are quite soft. Their hardness corresponds to the hardness of gypsum or a human nail. Therefore, sandstorms could completely "hew" the surface of the lower blocks and destroy the traces of mats on the formwork. But the wind no longer rises to a height of fifty meters. And there such traces, as we see, PERFECTLY PRESERVED.
It is hard to believe that modern specialists dealing with pyramids "didn't notice" this amazing fact. In our opinion, there can be only one explanation for this. Egyptologists understand that they are wrong in this case, but they are trying with all their might to preserve the "beautiful" fairy tale, drawn by their predecessors, about how the pyramids were built. And most importantly - if you tell everyone that the pyramids are CONCRETE, then no one will believe that they are already "many thousands of years old."

Now, by the way, many other "mysteries of the pyramids" are also disappearing. For example - why are the blocks of the pyramids not covered with cracks? After all, geologists are well aware that any natural limestone, being a sedimentary rock, has a LAYERED structure. Therefore, over time, natural cracks inevitably appear in it, running along the layers. But concrete, being a homogeneous, amorphous material (since it was ground and mixed), does not form cracks. As it is observed in the Egyptian pyramids.
It also becomes clear that there is no so-called "tanning" on the surface of the pyramid blocks. Such a "tan" is formed over time on the exposed surface of any natural stone. The surface of the stone darkens due to the fact that various chemical elements come out on it from the inside. This is due to the crystalline structure of natural stone. And on concrete, "tanning" is almost not formed, since the crystalline structure in it is destroyed when the rock is crushed into powder.

Another "amazing mystery" of the Cheops pyramid also disappears. It has long been noted that in the pyramid of Cheops, in some of its places, "the thickness of the seams, which at first glance seem to be simple scratches made on the surface of the stone, and sometimes even almost invisible, is ... about 0.5 mm." "Can you imagine," the Egyptologist J.F. Lauer exclaims pathetically, "how much effort was required for such an adjustment of the blocks, which often weighed many tons?" Indeed, it is hardly possible to imagine it. Moreover, as we can see, the upper surface of the blocks is BUMPY, not leveled. And what - the next, upper block was ideally placed on such a bumpy surface so that the gap between them turned out to be vanishingly small? At the same time, the upper block weighed fifteen tons. This is hardly possible. Egyptologists do not give any intelligible explanations for this.
But with the understanding that the pyramids are made of concrete, everything falls into place. If the upper block was made of concrete, right on the spot, then there was no gap between it and the lower block. Liquid cement was poured into the wooden formwork from above and completely repeated the bumpy shape of the lower block.
But then where did the "thin seams" between the blocks come from? It turns out that these seams were formed thanks to the thinnest layer of lime mortar, "to this day preserved in the form of the thinnest thread no wider than a leaf of forged silver." Consequently, the builders of the pyramids SPECIALLY SEPARATED ADJACENT BLOCKS SO THEY DID NOT STICK TO EACH OTHER. Before casting a new block, they covered the surface of the old blocks with some kind of mortar to prevent sticking. This was done correctly, because otherwise the pyramid would have turned into a ONE HUGE CONCRETE MONOLITH, WITHOUT SEAMS. Such a colossal structure would inevitably soon burst under the influence of internal stresses, as well as under the influence of constant and very significant temperature changes in this place in Egypt. It was possible to avoid internal stresses only by laying down a pyramid of SEPARATE concrete blocks. So that she could "breathe", relieving the tension that arises.

As for the quarries preserved on the other side of the Nile, from which the stone was brought to the pyramids, this applies only to the stone FACING of the pyramids. We have already said that the lining was once completely covered with the pyramid of Cheops. Remains of granite and limestone FACING are still preserved, for example, at the top of the pyramid of Khafre.
And finally - let's turn to the "father of history" Herodotus. After all, it was Herodotus who left detailed description the construction of the pyramids, to which all modern Egyptologists refer. It is striking that Herodotus actually almost directly describes the construction of the pyramid with the help of a MOBILE WOODEN FORMWORK, that is, the construction of concrete. To understand this, it is enough just to think about its text. Herodotus writes:
“This pyramid was built like this. First it goes in the form of a ladder with ledges, which others call platforms or steps. AFTER THE FIRST STONES HAVE BEEN PLACED, THE OTHERS WERE LIFTED BY THE HELP OF STAGES, KNOWN FROM SHORT BEAMS. So the stones were lifted from the ground to the first step of the ladder.

There they laid a stone on another PLATFORM; from the first step they were dragged to the second platform, with the help of which they raised to the second step. How many rows of steps there were, so many lifting devices. Perhaps, however, THERE WAS ONLY ONE LIFTING DEVICE, which, after lifting the stone, was EASILY TRANSFERRED TO THE NEXT STAGE.
But if you read the text of Herodotus, it is hard not to see in it a description of the PORTABLE WOODEN FORMWORK, with the help of which they "raised", that is, step by step they cast, put more and more concrete blocks on top of each other. If you think about it, Herodotus describes a simple structure like a collapsible wooden box made of short boards, where concrete was poured. After the concrete hardened, the box was dismantled and transferred to the next stage.
Thus, we are again faced with a striking example of the unwillingness to abandon even completely absurd theories, since they have already entered the history books. At the same time, in our opinion, the main driving motive is the fear of touching on the Scaligerian chronology. After all, if you begin to doubt it, then the whole building of the "ancient" and medieval Scaligerian history falls apart like a house of cards.

If the "ancient" Egyptians used concrete to build pyramids, then, of course, they could also use it to make other structures. On fig. we give a photograph of an "ancient Egyptian" plate covered with hieroglyphs. Today, it is kept in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. The bottom of the slab is chipped, which allows you to see how it was made. It's obviously a CONCRETE slab. On the broken-off place, TRACES OF REINFORCEMENT ARE VERY CLEARLY VISIBLE. Apparently, it was made of rods or ropes. Just like today, rebar gives concrete extra strength. Today it is made from iron rods. It turns out reinforced concrete. But in the Middle Ages, iron was expensive. Therefore, armature in "Ancient" Egypt was made of rods or ropes.

In geopolymer concrete. Egyptian pyramids were built from concrete blocks.

An unexpected sensation against the backdrop of a peaceful flow that took place in Toronto in
1982 International Congress of Egyptologists presented a report
Professor of the University of Bern I. Davidovich. He insisted that
that the pyramid of Cheops and the like were made of artificial material - simply put, assembled from cast concrete blocks.

By
according to Davidovich, this is confirmed by the contents of the material
chemical elements that are not found in natural formations.
Egyptologists were shocked and almost unanimously declared: “This cannot
be, because it can never be!”

For permission to conduct the study, Davidovich turned to
the Egyptian authorities. He wanted to prove on the spot
the artificial origin of the materials from which the pyramids are made,
sphinx and other similar structures. However, the Egyptian authorities responded
decisive refusal.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT ANSWERS?

Of course, the Egyptian pyramids are the main bait for
million tourists from all over the world. In addition, one of them is a pyramid
Cheops is the only one of the seven wonders of the world that has come down to us.

This is how guides today explain to tourists the origin of this miracle,
referring to the works of eminent Egyptologists: its construction was carried out in III
millennium BC and lasted 20 years. The number of participants in this
titanic work was, according to various sources, from 20
up to 100 thousand people.

IN
the body of the pyramid was laid with 2.5 million stone blocks, most
weighing from 2.5 to 15 tons, but there were blocks of 80, 150 and even 500
tons. Moreover, the fitting of blocks to each other is so accurate that between
they will not enter even a thin blade of a knife. Such accuracy is unattainable even
Today.

All these statements raise many doubts. Simple calculations
show: to complete the construction in 20 years, every 5 minutes
lay one block in the body of the pyramid, doing this around the clock all year round
without breaks. Agree, this seems unlikely.

Previously, they worked on the manufacture of blocks in quarries
many thousands of slaves. However, experts are well aware that the way out
commodity stone from quarries is no more than 20%, the rest goes to
dump. Moreover, the larger the blocks, the more waste. It means that
somewhere there must be mountains of waste, adequate in volume
four pyramids. Why hasn't anyone come across these mountains yet?

By the way, how were huge blocks delivered to the construction site from quarries, and
then climbed to a multi-meter height? Experts have calculated that
only transportation of all blocks even with the use of today's technology
would take at least 70 years.

STONE CONCRETE DAVIDOVICH

All these quite reasonable questions and doubts are solved if we accept
Davidovich's hypothesis. Continuing research on material samples
Egyptian pyramids, he found more and more evidence of them
artificiality. On the surface of one of the samples was found
hair.

research,
performed in three different laboratories confirmed that "small
a flagellum of three organic fibers is precisely a hair. However
natural limestone, formed millions of years ago at the bottom
ocean, could not contain organic elements. A hair inside a stone could
belong to the person who poured it from the solution.

In a comparative X-ray study of natural stones,
taken on the territory of Egypt, and fragments of pyramid blocks were noted by their
significant difference. Based on this, the experimenter
French professor Drexel claims that the blocks that make up
pyramids, actually synthetic, cast during construction
like concrete slabs.

The researchers found in the composition of the blocks aluminum oxide, exactly the same
the same as contained in the mud of the Nile. This discovery, in their opinion, is directly
indicates that both silt and
water from a nearby river.

Decoding of the found hieroglyphic inscription on the obelisk of period III
dynasty gave into the hands of scientists, in fact, the recipe for the ancient
concrete, which included 13 components. Tireless Davidovich
Patented the concrete formula and started its commercial production.

Thus arose a new branch of applied chemistry called
geopolymerization. With this technology, it was possible
production of concrete almost indistinguishable from natural stone
breeds. It does not require high temperatures or high pressures.

Geopolymer concrete shrinks quickly at room temperature
temperature and turns into a beautiful artificial stone. In
French Institute of Geopolymers continues research on
development of new compositions of geopolymer concretes.

RUSSIAN VERSION

The well-known Russian traveler,
creator of the museum "Slavic Kremlin", founder of the "School of Survival"
Vitaly Sundakov. He came to the conclusion that the pyramids were made up of
blocks cast directly in the construction process.

According to Sundakov, the ancient Egyptians prepared concrete in the following way.
way: limestone was ground to a state of powder (not without reason during excavations
millstones were found), river silt was taken as a binder.

Then the crushed rock was mixed with just as thoroughly
crushed soft limestone and water. The result was a solution with
natural aggregate, which was poured into a wooden formwork. So
way, step by step, building up the formwork, cast huge blocks
required form.

AND THE CASKET JUST OPENED!

Recognition of the fact that the ancient Egyptians used geopolymer
concrete provides answers to many questions that puzzle Egyptologists.

For example,
it becomes clear why the blocks of the pyramids are not covered with cracks. Fine
it is known that any natural limestone, being a sedimentary rock,
has a layered structure. Therefore, over time, it inevitably along
layers appear natural cracks.

And concrete, being a homogeneous, amorphous material, does not form cracks.
It also explains the absence on the surface of the pyramids of the so-called
sunburn, which eventually forms on the exposed surface of any
natural stone.

The fact is that due to the crystalline structure of natural stone
various chemical elements come to its surface from the inside,
leading to darkening. Tanning does not occur on concrete, because
the crystal structure in it is destroyed when the rock is crushed into
powder.

Another riddle of the pyramids is also convincingly explained - an unusual
exact fit of blocks to each other. Just builders stacking blocks in
pyramid, specially separated adjacent blocks so that they do not stick
to each other. Before casting the next block, they covered
the surface of the old blocks with a thin layer of lime mortar to
prevent sticking.

Without this, the pyramid would have turned into a huge concrete monolith without
seams, which over time would inevitably burst under the influence
internal stresses and the influence of constant seasonal and daily
significant temperature fluctuations. Ancient builders wisely
reasoned that it was possible to avoid internal stresses only by adding
pyramid of individual concrete blocks.

So thanks to the use of geopolymer concrete in the construction
managed to preserve to this day a variety of objects with
thousand years of history. Today, in addition to the pyramids, we can observe
built using similar technology temple complexes, statues,
sculptures, sarcophagi.

When creating them, artificial granite, basalt or
diorite. In each case, the builders selected for their creation the most
suitable special artificial stone.

Anatoly BUROVTSEV, Konstantin RISHES

Original taken from terrao in Geopolymer Concrete. Egyptian pyramids were built from concrete blocks.

Consider one of the interesting theories about how the largest Egyptian pyramids in Giza were built. We are assured that the Egyptian pyramids were built from monolithic stone blocks, cut in quarries, transported over considerable distances, and, it is not clear how, lifted up and stacked on top of each other. Moreover, stone structures were obtained, which sometimes rise to a height of more than a hundred meters. For example, the height of the pyramid of Cheops is about 140 meters.

The size and height of the great Egyptian pyramids and many other megalithic structures of "antiquity" conflict with the real possibilities of the ancient builders. However, various ridiculous theories are still being invented to explain, for example, how huge stone blocks were delivered from the quarries and then raised to the height of the pyramid. It is believed that thousands and thousands of slaves worked in quarries, cutting down monoliths weighing from 2.5 to 15 tons, and then dragging them to the construction site on a "sleigh". And then, allegedly, with the help of ingenious lifting machines or with the help of some giant sloping mounds of sand, fifteen-ton blocks were dragged to a height of many tens of meters.

However, from a construction point of view, all these "theories" are pure fantasy.

Moreover, some pyramid blocks weigh not even fifteen, but HUNDRED TONS. The famous Egyptologist J.F. Lauer naively believes that the ancient Egyptians “SUCCESSFULLY MOVE monolithic blocks of increasing weight. The limit in this respect was apparently reached in the reign of Khafre. Helcher found in the thickness of the walls of the lower temple of his pyramid blocks with a volume of 50 to 60 cubic meters weighing about 150 tons, and in the walls of the upper temple one block 13.4 meters long, weighing about 180 tons, the other - with a volume of 170 cubic meters. meters, weighing about 500 tons! It is quite obvious, - J.F. Lauer rightly says, - that there could be no question of loading such blocks on sleds.

Further, J.F. Lauer suggests that “probably” such monstrous blocks were moved on skating rinks. But such an assumption is unfounded and implausible. Even today, transporting a 500-ton stone block would be an extremely difficult technical task. And in the end, what prevented the "ancient" Egyptians from sawing such giant blocks into several pieces in order to make their work easier? After all, they assure us that they successfully "cut" these blocks in quarries? All this remains a mystery to Scaligerian historians. It is not for nothing that numerous books are still being written about the mysteries of the Egyptian pyramids. For example, the book of J.F. Lauer himself is called: “The Mysteries of the Egyptian Pyramids”

It turns out, however, that there are no mysteries here. The only mystery is how Egyptologists were able to “not see” that the vast majority of the blocks of the great Egyptian pyramids were MADE OF CONCRETE.

Let's explain what is meant. Doctor of Geological and Mineralogical Sciences Professor I.V.Davidenko (Moscow) drew our attention to the considerations and facts given in this paragraph.

The problem of crushing rocks and ore in ancient times was solved in the image and likeness of GRAIN CRUSHING - mortars, grain grinders, millstones. In the area of the Gebeit deposit in the mountains near the Red Sea (in Egypt), Doctor of Geological Sciences Razvalyaev A.V. observed dozens of millstones for crushing gold ore with a diameter of up to 50-60 centimeters. The rock was crushed with millstones and transferred to the shore of the now waterless river valley for washing. There was a wash. Smaller crushing devices of this kind are also known - graters. The figure shows stone hand graters found in the deserts of Egypt.

This simple rock crushing technology could quickly lead to the invention of CONCRETE.

Explain what concrete is. To obtain primitive concrete, it is enough to grind the rock into a fine powder, remove moisture from it, and then mix it with water. It is easiest to use soft rocks. For example, limestone, the outputs of which are located right on the pyramid field in Egypt. Here it could be taken simply underfoot, next to the pyramids under construction. Further, in order to obtain cement, it was necessary to thoroughly dry the rock so that moisture would come out of it. But in the conditions of hot and dry Egypt, where it sometimes rains once every five years, special drying was unnecessary. After grinding the Egyptian rock, ready-made cement was immediately obtained - that is, a dehydrated powder.

At the same time, small stones could be added to the solution. After hardening, they turned out to be "frozen" into concrete. In this way, it was possible to significantly reduce the amount of cement powder required for the manufacture of pyramid blocks.

The idea of concrete is quite simple. Therefore, immediately after its occurrence, it was used in the construction of structures. It is worth noting the advantages of "concrete technology" in comparison with the construction of buildings from natural stone blocks, cut or sawn out of rocks. It is inconvenient to cut down large blocks from a solid stone massif, because then it is difficult to transport them even over a distance of several kilometers, not to mention tens of kilometers. Of course, sometimes such work was still carried out. For example, the famous Egyptian obelisks, standing both in Egypt and in some European cities, sometimes really cut out of solid stone. Old documents and drawings have survived that describe the process of making some obelisks, their transportation and installation. But each time such an operation required huge efforts. That is why the production of obelisks was obviously not massive. Figure 10.14 shows an old image of the installation of the Vatican obelisk allegedly in 1586
year. It is believed that he was brought to Italy from African Egypt. It can be seen how hard it took the builders to raise the obelisk to a vertical position. For this purpose, a large system of mechanisms and cables was deployed.

Many years ago, a French chemist, professor at the University of Bern Joseph (Joseph) Davidovich put forward an interesting hypothesis -. Analyzing the chemical composition of the "monoliths" of which the pyramids are composed, he suggested that THEY ARE MADE FROM CONCRETE. I.Davidovich identified 13 components from which it could be prepared. Thus, only a few teams of "ancient" Egyptian concrete workers could well cope with the construction of a pyramid of 100-150 meters in height. And in a fairly short time. At least not for decades.

The problem of powder preparation could also be solved not very difficult. Some, probably not very large, number of workers could grind soft rock with primitive millstones or graters. Then it was dried, poured into baskets and transported in the usual way - for example, on donkeys or horses - to the construction site. Several porters were carrying baskets of powder upstairs. At the top, a wooden formwork was prepared, filled with a mixture of powder. Water was poured, the solution was stirred. After the block hardened, the formwork was removed. Moved on to the next one. This is how the pyramid grew. Moreover, in the manufacture of giant blocks, it was not at all necessary to make them entirely from a solidifying liquid solution. Crushed filler, that is, individual pieces of natural rock, could well have been poured into the solution. Getting into the solution and solidifying in it, they made it possible to save the powder, as, in fact, is done today, when pebbles or crushed stone are added to the solution.

According to Professor I.Davidovich, he managed to find a recipe for making ancient concrete in a hieroglyphic inscription on one of the steles from the era of Pharaoh Djoser. Information about I.Davidovich's hypothesis from time to time even gets into the pages of the popular press. See, for example, the article “Pyramids made of concrete?”, with reference to the UPI agency, in the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper of December 27, 1987. However, Egyptologists still pretend that they know nothing about I.Davidovich's research.

The idea of concrete Egyptian pyramids could be treated differently. For example, to consider this as another "theory" among others. Just as unfounded. And we would not write about it in such detail, if not for one circumstance. The fact is that there is indisputable evidence that, for example, the pyramid of Cheops is really made of concrete.

This evidence is a Fragment of a Stone Block of the Cheops Pyramid, taken from a height of fifty meters, from the outer masonry of the pyramid. It is a chip in the upper corner of the block. The maximum size of the fragment is about 6.5 centimeters, . This piece was kindly placed at our disposal by Professor I.V.Davidenko (Moscow). He also drew our attention to the following striking circumstance, proving that the block of the Cheops pyramid was MADE OF CONCRETE.

As you can see from the photo, the surface of the block is covered with a fine mesh. Careful examination shows that this is a trace of a mat that was applied to the inner surface of the formwork box. It is clearly seen that the mat was bent at a right angle along the edge of the block. And at a short distance from the edge of the block, another mat was superimposed on it with an overlap. It can be seen that there is a fringe along the edge of the second mat. There are no fibers located along the edge, they fell out. As it usually happens on the raw edge of woven fabrics.

The upper surface of the block from which this fragment broke off was UNEQUAL, BUMPY. This is clearly visible in the wreck itself. Although part of the upper surface of the fragment was sawn off for chemical analysis, the remaining part had a pristine, bumpy appearance. It should be so if it is CONCRETE. Since concrete, when solidified, forms a bumpy surface. To avoid this, in our time, special vibrators are used to level the hardening surface of concrete. The Egyptians of the XIV-XVII centuries, of course, did not have vibrators. Therefore, the surface of the blocks turned out to be uneven. Moreover, it is the TOP, not touching the formwork. The LATERAL surface is even, but MESH FROM TRACES OF THE MAT. If it were a sawn stone block, then its upper surface would be no different from the side.

It is hard to believe that modern specialists dealing with the pyramids "did not notice" this amazing fact. In our opinion, there can be only one explanation for this. Egyptologists understand that they are wrong in this case. But they are trying with all their might to preserve the “beautiful” fairy tale drawn by their predecessors about how the pyramids were built. And most importantly - if you tell everyone that the pyramids are CONCRETE, then no one will believe that they are already "many thousands of years old."

Another “amazing mystery” of the Cheops pyramid also disappears. It has long been noted that in the pyramid of Cheops, in some of its places, “the thickness of the seams, which at first glance seem to be simple scratches made on the surface of the stone, and sometimes even almost invisible, is ... about 0.5 mm.” “Do you have any idea,” exclaims the Egyptologist Jean-F. Lauer pathetically, “how much effort was required for such an adjustment of the blocks, which often weighed many tons?” Indeed, it is hardly possible to imagine it. Moreover, as we can see, the upper surface of the blocks is BUMPY, not leveled. And what - the next, upper block was ideally placed on such a bumpy surface so that the gap between them turned out to be vanishingly small? At the same time, the upper block weighed fifteen tons. This is hardly possible. Egyptologists do not give any intelligible explanations for this.

But with the understanding that the pyramids are made of concrete, everything falls into place. If the upper block was made of concrete, right on the spot, then there was no gap between it and the lower block. Liquid cement was poured into the wooden formwork from above and completely repeated the bumpy shape of the lower block.

But then where did the “thin seams” between the blocks come from? It turns out that these seams were formed thanks to the thinnest layer of lime mortar, “to this day preserved in the form of the thinnest thread no wider than a leaf of forged silver.” Consequently, the builders of the pyramids SPECIALLY SEPARATED ADJACENT BLOCKS SO THEY DID NOT STICK TO EACH OTHER. Before casting a new block, they covered the surface of the old blocks with some kind of mortar to prevent sticking. This was done correctly, because otherwise the pyramid would have turned into a ONE HUGE CONCRETE MONOLITH, WITHOUT SEAMS. Such a colossal structure would inevitably burst soon under the influence of internal stresses. And also under the influence of constant and very significant temperature changes in this place in Egypt. It was possible to avoid internal stresses only by folding a pyramid of SEPARATE concrete blocks. So that she can “breathe”, relieving the tension that arises.

It turns out that early European travelers in Egypt reported directly about CEMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PYRAMIDS. In particular, the Frenchman Paul Luca, who visited Egypt in 1699-1703 and in 1714-1717, argued that “the pyramids were lined with CEMENT, NOT STONE… His work was successful and was widely distributed. Thanks to him, the French first became acquainted with Egypt. For some reason, modern commentators do not like this very much. And they are declaring Paul Luc an "UNRELIABLE guide". But, as we now understand, HE WAS RIGHT. And most likely, he was talking not only about the lining, but about the pyramid itself.

And finally, let us turn to the "father of history" Herodotus. After all, it was Herodotus who left a detailed description of the construction of the pyramids, to which all modern Egyptologists refer. It is striking that Herodotus actually almost directly describes the construction of the pyramid with the help of a MOBILE WOODEN FORMWORK, that is, the construction of concrete. To understand this, it is enough just to think about its text. Herodotus writes:

“The pyramid was built like this. At first, it goes in the form of a ladder ledges, which others call platforms, or steps. AFTER THE FIRST STONES HAVE BEEN PLACED, THE OTHER STONES WERE LIFTED WITH THE HELP OF PLATTIFICATIONS SHOT FROM SHORT BEAMS. So they lifted stones from the ground to the first rung of the stairs. There they laid a stone on another PLATFORM; from the first step they were dragged to the second platform, with the help of which they raised to the second step. How many rows of steps there were, so many lifting devices. Perhaps, however, THERE WAS ONLY ONE LIFTING DEVICE, which, after lifting the stone, was EASILY TRANSFERRED TO THE NEXT STAGE ”, p.119.

Today, Egyptologists propose to understand the text of Herodotus as a description of some mysterious "wooden machines" for lifting multi-ton stone blocks of 15 and even 500 tons. It is clear that no wooden lifting machines are suitable for this. Therefore, historians are forced to consider Herodotus' message about "wooden machines" unreliable, p.193. Historians offer instead the theory of earth mounds. True, the German ENGINEER L. Kroon “by lengthy calculations proves the IMPOSSIBILITY OF USE OF EARTH EMBONS, since their construction, in his opinion, would require almost as much labor as the construction of the pyramid itself, and still they would not make it possible to complete the last meters of the top of the pyramid”, p.194. In the book of the Egyptologist J.F. Lauer, about 15 pages are devoted to the problem of lifting blocks to the pyramid (pp. 193-207), but no satisfactory explanation has been given.

But if you read the text of Herodotus, it is hard not to see in it a description of the PORTABLE WOODEN FORMWORK, with the help of which they “raised”, that is, step by step they cast, put more and more concrete blocks on top of each other. If you think about it, Herodotus describes a simple structure like a collapsible wooden box made of short boards, where concrete was poured. After the concrete hardened, the box was dismantled and transferred to the next step.

Thus, we are again faced with a striking example of the unwillingness to abandon even completely absurd theories, since they have already entered the history books. At the same time, in our opinion, the main driving motive is the fear of touching on the Scaligerian chronology. After all, if you begin to doubt it, then the whole building of the “ancient” and medieval Scaligerian history falls apart like a house of cards.

If the "ancient" Egyptians used concrete to build the pyramids, then of course they could use it for the manufacture of other structures. In Figure 10.16 we present a photograph of an "ancient" Egyptian plate covered with hieroglyphs. In 1999 she was exhibited in Egyptian Museum in Cairo. The bottom of the slab is chipped, which allows you to see how it was made. It is obviously a CONCRETE slab. On the broken-off place, TRACES OF REINFORCEMENT ARE VERY CLEARLY VISIBLE. Apparently it was made of twigs or ropes. Just like today, rebar gives concrete extra strength. Today it is made from iron rods. It turns out reinforced concrete. But in the Middle Ages, iron was expensive. Therefore, fittings in "ancient" Egypt were made of rods or ropes.

Static footprint at the end of the Cheops pyramid block.

During the measurements, different lengths of the segments in the sign, different depths and different angles between the segments that formed the sign were found. This allows us to conclude that the sign was probably formed by pressing a tool with a straight triangular edge into the material in several steps. The presence of this sign and signs of its manufacture once again confirm the method of manufacturing stone blocks.

A FORGOTTEN INVENTION OF MEDIED AGE ALCHEMY - GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE OF EGYPTIAN PYRAMIDS, TEMPLE AND STATUES

As we have already said, the French chemist Joseph (Joseph) Davidovich proved that not only the pyramid of Cheops, but also many other stone monuments and products of "ancient" Egypt, for example, sarcophagi, statues, amphoras, etc., were actually made of special concrete. Subsequently, the method of its production was forgotten and only recently was rediscovered by I. Davidovich. Currently, it is successfully used by European and American manufacturers under the patents of I.Davidovich.

The word BETON should not mislead the reader. One should not think that "ancient" Egyptian concrete was necessarily similar to modern concrete, which we are used to seeing in modern construction. Concrete is an artificial stone created from crushed and specially prepared rock, cement. It can be quite soft, like sandstone. It was this soft concrete that was used in the construction of the pyramids. The concrete of the pyramids can be easily scratched with a penknife. But it turns out that artificial concrete can be much harder than the concrete we are used to. As I. Davidovich discovered, it can be as hard as granite or diorite. And at the same time it will be practically indistinguishable from them.

Joseph (Joseph) Davidovich is a well-known scientific chemist, a specialist in the field of low-temperature synthesis of minerals. In 1972 he founded the private research company CORDI in France, and in 1979 the Geopolymer Institute, also in France. He founded a new branch of applied chemistry called geopolymerization. As a result of geopolymerization, concrete is created that is almost indistinguishable from some natural rocks. I. Davidovich writes: “Any rock can be used in crushed form, and the resulting geopolymer concrete is practically indistinguishable from natural stone. Geologists unfamiliar with the possibilities of geopolymerization… mistake geopolymer concrete for natural stone… Neither high temperatures nor high pressures are required to produce such artificial stone. Geopolymer concrete sets quickly at room temperature and turns into a beautiful artificial stone.” Thus, according to I.Davidovich, the geopolymer concrete discovered by him does not require either high-temperature processing or modern technologies for its production.

Here, for example, the Egyptian stone amphoras. We are talking about numerous stone vessels found in "ancient" Egypt. They are made from the hardest varieties of stone, in particular, from diorite. Some of them are harder than iron. “Diorite is considered one of the hardest stones. Modern sculptors do not even try to use these types of stone”, p.8. What do we see in "ancient" Egypt? DIORITE AMPHORAS HAVE A NARROW HIGH NECK AND EXPAND BELOW. AT THE SAME THING, THE THICKNESS OF THE VASE WALLS IS PRACTICALLY THE SAME IN ALL ITS PLACES,. There are no traces of processing with a hard tool on their surface. Archaeologists convince us that these amphorae were DRILLED. The question is, how can an amphora of exceptionally hard diorite be drilled through a narrow neck so that the wall thickness is the same everywhere? And so that even on its inner surface there are no traces of a drill! Egyptologists cannot explain how these vessels were made. Instead, they assure us that the mast
er spent his whole life making one such amphora. In our opinion, this is nonsense. But even if this was the case, the question of how exactly such, for example, a diorite vessel was made, remains absolutely unresolved.

The discovery of I.Davidovich completely solves this riddle. The vessels were made of artificial stone on an ordinary potter's wheel. That is, like clay. Not yet hardened geopolymer concrete was processed like soft clay. Amphoras were made from it, including those with narrow necks. The walls, of course, were made of the same thickness. On the potter's wheel, this is done easily, with, of course, a certain skill. After solidification, such products were turned into amphorae from solid diorite or quartzite. Or other very hard stones. Nobody drilled anything into them.

We have found DIRECT PROOF that many "ancient" Egyptian statues were indeed made of artificial stone. Which at first was soft, and then, after hardening, turned into an exceptionally hard stone. Almost indistinguishable from natural. In Fig. 10.18 we show "the unfinished quartzite head of Queen Nefertiti". It is believed that it is made of NATURAL quartzite. Allegedly, the "ancient" Egyptian master, using a copper chisel, carved this beautiful sculpture from a piece of hard quartzite. But he didn't finish his work. And what do we see? Exactly along the symmetry line of Nefertiti's head, along the middle of the forehead, through the tip of the nose and along the middle of the chin, there is a SEAM. Very well visible in the photo. Such a seam could have arisen in only one way. IF THIS SCULPTURE HAS BEEN CAST IN A PRE-MADE MOLD. Any form, we recall, consists of two detachable halves. Liquid geopolymer concrete was poured inside the mold. After solidification, the form was divided into two or more parts, of which it consisted. As a result, small seams remain on the surface of the sculpture along the junctions of the parts of the form. They can then be sanded down. As it is done today on cast products. In the case of the sculpture of Nefertiti, the work was not completed. The seam is not sanded and is clearly visible.

Note that here we were lucky - we found a rare photograph of an unfinished "ancient" Egyptian statue. Finished sculptures naturally have sanded seams. The surfaces of such sculptures are polished to a mirror shine,

By the way, we note an interesting detail. Usually historians place this statue of Nefertiti in albums about Egypt in such a way that the seam on her face is not visible. For example, in a very good album, Nefertiti's sculpture is photographed very competently, SIDE. So no seam is visible. And no questions unpleasant for Scaligerian Egyptology arise.

In the figure, we show a sample of the alleged Egyptian "carving" on solid granite. This deep "carving" has amazing and truly mysterious qualities. Under a magnifying glass, as I.Davidovich reports, the amazingness of such a “carving” becomes even more shocking. It turns out that the “chisel” went through the stone so calmly and confidently that it “did not tremble”. Moreover, encountering a particularly hard inclusion on its way, the "chisel" did not go slightly to the side, as one would expect, but continued to go straight. In this case, the inclusion is always undamaged. This circumstance shocked the first Europeans who arrived in Egypt with Napoleon. They were forced to admit that the inscriptions were made in some mysterious way, unknown to science. We note, by the way, that "ancient" Egypt is literally full of similar inscriptions, applied to hard rocks. Many of the inscriptions are deep.

In fact, there is nothing mysterious here. The inscriptions were not cut out, but extruded into the still soft geopolymer concrete. Therefore, especially hard blotches caught in the hieroglyph, WERE SIMPLY PUSHED INTO SOFT STONE WITHOUT ANY DAMAGE. After some time, the concrete hardened and turned into the hardest granite. Which in the solid state is difficult to process even with the most modern tools.

I.Davidovich's discovery also explains the following riddle of "ancient" Egyptian construction. In the pyramid of Cheops there is a large granite sarcophagus, which, due to its size, could not pass through the narrower passages and doors leading to the room where the sarcophagus stands [. Historians come up with different "theories" about this. One is smarter and more fun than the other. For example, that at first a sarcophagus was installed on the site, and then a pyramid was erected around it. However, there are other "ancient" Egyptian riddles of this kind, the explanation of which has not yet been invented. For example, during Napoleon's expedition to Egypt, Europeans discovered the Valley of the Kings with numerous sarcophagi, in particular from granite. The Valley of the Kings is a bowl inside high mountains. The only entrance to it was cut into the rocks by the Egyptians. There are no other entrances. Some of the sarcophagi were intact. According to a member of the Napoleonic expedition, Cotaz, a huge pink granite sarcophagus, in which a person could fit with his head, HOOTED LIKE A BELL FROM A HAMMER. That is, it was completely solid, without cracks. HOWEVER, ITS SIZE WAS BIGGER THAN THE VALLEY ENTRANCE. How such sarcophagi got into the valley remains a mystery to Egyptologists until now. Were they dragged through sheer mountains and rocks? But then why didn't they widen the entrance to the valley a little?

I.Davidovich gives a completely clear and simple answer. The large sarcophagus, like the other sarcophagi in the Valley of the Kings, was cast on site in geopolymer concrete. They didn't take him anywhere.

I. Davidovich also cites many other serious arguments proving the artificial origin of the stone from which the pyramids and many statues of "ancient" Egypt are made. Trying to expand their research, and in particular, to figure out what the head is made of Great Sphinx, Davidovich in 1984 applied to the Egyptian Antiquities Authority with a request to allow him to study on the spot. Get samples, take for analysis the stones of the pyramids, the Sphinx and the Egyptian stone quarries. He was denied. The reason was given as follows. “Your hypothesis represents only a personal point of view, which does not correspond to archaeological and geological facts”

Thus, according to Egyptologists, scientific points of view are personal and impersonal. Personal points of view, even of professional scientists, can be ignored. Such a position turns science into a mere ideology.

Here's another study:
The conducted research and analysis of the data obtained during inspections and research can conclude that almost all the load-bearing elements of the structures of ancient Egypt are made of sedimentary rocks (from gypsum - "alabaster"). This material was ground and poured into the formwork as part of the solution. This is the categorical conclusion of the expert. Here it is necessary to emphasize the form of the conclusion. The conclusion is “categorical”, not “probable”. The use of partially fired gypsum is most likely a consequence of the extremely high temperature and complete absence of precipitation in Egypt in summer. It doesn't rain sometimes for several years. It is likely that no additional technical means were used to dehydrate the gypsum, and the material dehydrated naturally when heated in the sun. As for the use of additives, then, probably, they were, because. for construction work, it is necessary to increase the solidification time of the material. One of these technologies is the addition of whey to the gypsum mortar, which increases the setting time, and it is possible that something similar was used in Egypt. In ancient Egypt, artificial granite from natural stone chips was widely used. Artificial granite was used not only for casting the entire structural element, but also as a decorative, protective coating for various structural and decorative building elements cast from sedimentary rocks, as well as for decorating interiors as coatings. Gypsum plasters and sand-based mortars were widely used during construction work. In addition to the above, stone processing was also used.
Probably, the choice of this or that technology in the construction and manufacture of sculptures depended on the wishes of the customer and his material capabilities. The architects used the whole complex of technologies and achieved the results required by the customer. All this testifies to the very high development of crafts in ancient Egypt.
The study established the main construction technologies used in ancient Egypt. Using the results of the study, it is necessary to revise the technologies used for the conservation of architectural monuments. The monuments have survived to this day due to the fact that they were covered with sand for a long time and were not subjected to precipitation in the arid Egyptian climate. In the 20th century, many exhibits were taken out of Egypt and removed from under the sand in Egypt itself. The conditions for the operation of monuments have changed, it is necessary to reconsider with all responsibility the sufficiency of the measures taken for their preservation.
At the beginning of the article, versions are given about who and how built the pyramids. The study did not reveal any anomalous technologies, and therefore it must be assumed that the pyramids were built by ordinary Egyptians - masters of their craft.
Kolmykov A.N. Construction in Ancient Egypt. Comprehensive construction, technical and trasological study / Architecture and Construction of Russia, May 2010, pp. 18-26, ISSN 0235-7259.
The journal is included in the list of VAK.

Concrete technology in Egypt. Sundakov

The film provides some arguments in favor of the concrete method of construction. famous pyramids in Egypt. Participated in the expedition famous traveler Vitaly Sundakov and one of the authors of the scientific direction "New Chronology" Gleb Nosovsky.
Vitaly Sundakov claims that on the pyramids above fifty meters on the side surfaces of limestone blocks, imprints of reed mats have been preserved. When pulling the mat on a wooden frame, a formwork shield was obtained. According to Sundakov, the ancient Egyptians prepared concrete in this way: they ground limestone to a state of powder (it was not for nothing that millstones were found during excavations in the artisans' camp, which, apparently, were used to grind stone). Then river silt was used as a binding material.

Original taken from

Seemingly one of the seven wonders of the world, the famous Egyptian pyramids of Giza were built using concrete. That is, the Egyptians were 2.5 thousand years ahead of the Romans, who were still considered the first to use this building material.

According to Drexel University (Philadelphia) materials scientist Dr. Michael Barsoom, the author of this theory, the use of concrete blocks finally explains how the Egyptians could build such massive structures as the tombs of their pharaohs, starting from 2550 BC. e. As Barsoum reported in The Journal of the American Ceramic Society, ancient builders used concrete blocks, for example, in the upper levels of structures where it was difficult to lift cut stones.

Dr. Barsoum and his colleagues conducted a mineral analysis of the blocks of the pyramid of Khufu (Cheops).

According to scientists, the composition of the analyzed sample of building material does not correspond to any known type of limestone.

In fact, the material consists of a mixture of lime, sand and clay, that is, most likely, it is imported concrete. However, the researcher still leaves a tiny possibility that in ancient times there was a natural material similar to modern concrete.

“The idea of using concrete is unrealistic and completely unproven,” said Zahi Hawass, secretary general for antiquities and head of excavations in the pyramid area, for example. In his opinion, the pyramids have been subjected to various types of restoration so many times that the samples that Barsoum worked with may well belong to the present.

However, there is another point of view. As National Institute of Standards and Technology geologist Sheldon Weiderhorn pointed out, this theory cannot simply be dismissed. "He (Barsoum - "Gazeta.Ru") comes up with a compelling theory, and I think his opinion is worth listening to,” Weiderhorn said.

The Pyramid of Cheops, also called Khufu or Khufu, is the largest building in the Giza complex.

The construction of the pyramid, which belonged to the second pharaoh of the IV dynasty, dates back to 2590-2568 BC. e. The construction of the burial complex on the stone plateau of the Libyan desert was carried out under the guidance of the famous architect Khafre and did not start from scratch. At the base of the pyramid of Cheops is a very ancient, built about 14 thousand years ago, a squat pyramid of monolithic stone (modern archaeologists call it a "remnant"). This ancient pyramid, which had a powerful foundation and special moves for conducting underground works, Khafre increased in height and rescheduled, but the remnant still makes up about half of the total volume of the Cheops pyramid.

According to the latest estimate, the final structure weighs about 6.3 million tons and contains more building material than it took to build all the cathedrals, churches and chapels in England. Now it's the last remaining wonder of ancient list Seven Wonders of the World is a square with a side of 227.5 meters at the base and is made up of 203 rows of masonry. During construction, the height of the pyramid was 146.6 meters, now, due to the fall of some of the upper stones during the earthquake, the pyramid is 9 meters lower.

The pyramid phenomenon has always fascinated scientists.

According to the Arab historian Abul Latifa, who was the Sultan of Cairo in the 12th century, the individual blocks of these burial structures are so precisely fitted to each other that even a knife blade cannot be inserted between them. Moreover, the Egyptian builders "customized" not only the external blocks, but also the granite building elements from which the walls and ceiling are made and which weigh 30 tons each. Each granite element was polished to such a degree of smoothness that the impression is still that we have a monolithic wall in front of us.

Until recently, scientists believed that the pyramids were built from limestone blocks mined in neighboring quarries using copper tools. In traditional Egyptology, there has long been an opinion that the stone blocks from which the tomb was built were mostly cut down in Mount Mukattam, east of the Nile River. From these ancient quarries, which are still clearly visible, they were brought by ship to Giza through a channel specially dug for this purpose. Moreover, archaeologists recently discovered a pier near the pyramids. According to the researchers, after being delivered to the plateau, the blocks were lifted to the pyramid along an inclined earth embankment.

However, none of the scientists still can not say for sure what is the reason for such a long-term preservation of the pyramid.

In the same way, none of the Egyptologists and archaeologists can describe the technology of erecting the oldest tombs. Perhaps, now that Dr. Michael Barsoum has offered such a revolutionary view of the building process in ancient Egypt, scientists will reconsider their concepts and still find explanations for why a structure erected about 5 thousand years ago still stands and sometimes functions better than most modern buildings built using the most advanced technology.