The Great pyramids of Egypt are undoubtedly one of the most recognized and admired landmarks in the world. Built to pay tribute to gods and pharaohs, the pyramids were of great importance to the Egyptians, and the mystery of their construction continues to amaze us today. Many theories pertaining to how the pyramids were built have been suggested, however, none are as well supported or intelligible as the heave-ho method of quarrying and cutting limestone. Joseph Davidovits’ theory disproving this, in which states the pyramids were moulded, is not plausible. Substantial physical evidence which is consistent with the Egyptologists’ portrayal of the heave-ho method has been found. The entire ...view middle of the document...
This is not the case, and for that reason, it is impossible that the stones were moulded. On the other hand, had the stones been formed with the use of chisels and hammers, as suggested in the heave-ho theory, they would all have a slightly different shape. Secondly, while Davidovits gives a detailed account of how the concrete mixture was made, he offers no proof that Egyptians actually knew how to prepare it. “We know they had techniques for making wine, beer, and vinegar. They mastered the chemistry of mummification. Davidovits is certain that the Egyptians also had the alchemical expertise to cast concrete blocks” (Alt. theory #3). Davidovits claims that because the Egyptians had some knowledge of alchemy, they would also know how to create concrete. This is not evidence, but merely an assumption based on probability. Stonemaking is similar to winemaking and mummification only in that they are all a form of alchemy. They are different forms of it, and one could not translate the skill of mummification to creating a concrete mixture. No type of concrete has been found anywhere else in ancient Egypt, and the samples analyzed by Davidovits and other scientists were not substantial enough (Articles 5 and 6). Concrete would not appear until much later, in Rome. Considering all the legacies the Egyptians left behind, such as mummificiation and papyrus, if they had the ability to make concrete, why would it have been forgotten? While there is no evidence that the Egyptians knew how to make the mixture, plenty has been found supporting quarrying, a main point in the heave-ho method, such as sleds used to transport the stones, and ramps to raise them. Thirdly, no wooden moulds large enough for the pyramid stones were ever found (Article 6). If wooden moulds were used frequently in building the pyramids, there should be evidence of them near the construction sites. Smaller moulds have been found, however, they were used for mud brick to make houses (Article 6). Why is there no trace of the bigger moulds used for pyramid blocks? It’s very unlikely that all of the moulds the Egyptians supposedly used simply vanished. At least a few should have been discovered, like the stones used to make chisels and hammers suggested by the heave-ho theory. Davidovits theory of casting concrete blocks is not only lacking in proof, but also sense. He relies too much on assumptions, and the physical evidence is either nonexistent, or not significant enough. His theory is weak, and completely implausible when compared to the heave-ho theory, for which plenty of evidence has been found.
As mentioned above, the heave-ho method is much more credible, due to the amount of proof supporting it. Given that we can’t be certain of how the pyramids were truly built, we must rely on physical evidence discovered, and form theories based upon it. Nearly all aspects of the heave-ho theory have been explained with the use of physical evidence. For example, extant ramps, as well as...
