tive levers. The quarrying, shaping, dragging, positioning and dropping of the stones would have been carried out by tens of thousands of workers, simultaneously working to complete the pyramids on time. A man by the name of Joseph Davidvovits began to contest this classical theory of pyramid construction in 1979. His ideas and research may force even Egyptologists to revise their thinking about how the pyramids were built. Davidovits suggests that the Egyptians actually used man-made stone that was cast at the pyramid site, where it was needed. The process, he says involved pouring slurry of crushed limestone and special mineral binder into wooden molds. Within a few hours the mixture would harden into material almost indistinguishable from rock. Such a construction method would have taken less time, and required far fewer workers. In 1984 Davidovits presented his conclusions from a analysis of rock samples from three of the pyramids and two limestone quarries at Turah and Mokhatam, traditionally associated with pyramid building. He found that the pyramids samples contained traces of minerals that were not found in the quarry. Instead, they contained as much as 13 percent of what Davidovits calls a geopolymeric binder. In addition, microscope examination of the samples showed that the quarried limestone consisted almost entirely of lightly packed calcite crystals that gave it a uniform density. In contrast, the casting stone was les dense and contained numerous air bubbles. Consequently if the casting stones were natural limestone, and did not match that of the quarries than where did the Egyptians get there stone? There are other clues that suggest that the Egyptians poured the pyramids. The ingredients deeded for the mineral binder- sodium carbonate, various phosphates, quartz, and Nile silt, were all readily available to the Egyptians. In addition the casting stones had a millimeter thick surface coating ...
