The Fabrication of a Pyramidion
There is no record of how pyramidions were made, but we can deduce that it was via one of three possibilities. The first is that all four sides were cut into a pyramid shape from a cube of solid stone. That could be by either using high technology or by very primitive technology, in other words; a powered stone-cutting saw with a diamond blade, or a slab saw of copper with quartz or emery powder to abrasively, and extremely slowly, grind through the cube to create each side.
Or alternatively, and just as primitive, bashing the block with rocks and flints and whatever tools would help to shape it, and then follow with one hell of a lot of manual grinding with stones in order to make the sides smooth and flat.
On the other hand, using an advanced diamond-encrusted power saw would also be a slow process since the stone would be quite hard, but a simply back-&-forth motion of a slab saw would give “slow” a new meaning.
The third possibility is that it was cast using reconstituted powdered stone of various sorts, probably including some powdered quartz. But besides the pyramidion itself, an explanation is needed for how the inscriptions were made, and that is where casting comes in. A close look as them reveals how they were not made. They were not made by the pounding of chisels because that means of creating inscriptions leaves clear evidence of its use, and that evidence is the unmistakable imperfection of lines and edges.
Any type of stone that is siliceous in nature, containing a large percentage of silica and probably quartz, is formed fairly slowly, allowing crystals to form. Those crystals have strong molecular bonds, -which are formed because it gives the substance a stronger state of molecular stability.
When a chisel impacts such a substance, it tends to fracture unevenly along the direction of the blow, leaving jagged edges here and there, if not everywhere, because the crystals break-off intact in spots instead of being cut through evenly like chalk can be cut.
I’ve been amazing by the pyramidion that we will examine because of the perfection of its lines and edges. It’s as if they were carved out of wax or clay, with none of the micro-fracturing that is clearly visible on surfaces that were inscribed using a chisel, like these:
Perfection can only be achieved by two means, neither of which includes the mundane. They are: advanced technology, and advanced methodology. They differ in that advanced methodology does not required advanced technology, i.e. tools and machinery.
What does perfection look like? It looks flawless, free of micro-fractures along the edges, as if the stone was sliced while soft. No evidence of pounding chisels can be found. Look at the difference between chiseled and not chiseled in these two photos:
Compare the character of the lines between the different examples. The first two are jagged because of micro-fracturing, while the lines of this pyramidion are flawlessly smooth…as if stamped in a plasticine substance. So what is accountable for the difference? There is only one answer, and it is that the lines in the former were made while the stone was hard, but the lines in the latter were not.
That indicates one of three things: the inscriptions were expertly carved using advanced technology such as a router and/or a Dremel-type tool, or the inscriptions were expertly carved while the stone was soft by using stencils for tracing the outlines, or they were formed by stencils attached to the walls of the mold in which the pyramidion was cast.
Casting objects using reconstituted stone was a common practice when constructing sacred structures such as temples. Cast stone objects are found all over Egypt but they are not recognized for how they were made. Here’s an example that I just happened to spot while closely watching a video. It shows a depression in the surface of a cast granite block. That depression was the result of another heavy block having been placed on top of it before it had completely hardened. Another block similarly flattened the rough surface next to it some short time after the placement of the first.
I also discovered the same thin lines visible on the upper surfaces of the the blocks on the very top of the center pyramid of Giza. They also indicate the same thing; that those blocks were not hauled up some 440 feet to the top but were cast-in-place.
There’s a fourth possibility which would include the use of two of those possible methods, such as casting and advanced tools, as well as carving of some shallow inscriptions while still soft, while other deeper ones were the result of casting with templates.
Here’s a modern example of what hardened steel chisels are capable of, and not capable of except by extraordinary effort. I refer to the open spaces between the lines. The lines are perfectly smooth, but everything else is jagged.
Here is a collage of the work of Professor Davidovits, taken from one of his Geopolymer Institute videos. It deals with making reconstituted limestone blocks for the Giza pyramids, proving it not only was possible but can be proven chemically to have been used.
Now as for the pyramidion; I have several original ideas as to how it was fabricated…and I use that term deliberately. First of all, I believe that it was cast upside down from reconstituted powdered stone, with the perfect inscriptions being a part of that process, either by masterfully carving most of them before the stone concrete had hardened, or carving only the most shallow ones while the deeper ones were formed by stencils attached to the walls of the mold.
It would be a precise operation of timing to upright the pyramidion to carve it while still not fully hard, yet soft enough to fully yield to carving with tools, because the inner mass would have to harden at the same rate as the surface, otherwise it might be mushy inside.
I suggest that a replica of each side was shaped on a very flat surface of smoothly screeded clay which was allowed to fully harden, then four mold walls were made from those four creations and they consisted of molten copper…perhaps and inch thick. After they cooled and were expertly assembled right-side up, they were inverted in a mound of sand and gravel with the open bottom facing upward. The mold was then ready to receive the reconstituted stone mixture.
Once it had hardened and the mold was removed, it was ready for the final stage of its fabrication, and that was to stain it with a dark silver oxide polymer stain to provide the desired contrast between surfaces that received it and surfaces that did not. Those that did not would be far lighter in color and would therefore appear more starkly visible against the general dark background of the surface. Here’s some examples of the difference:
It’s natural to assume that the color of such blocks is their natural color, but in fact it is not. It’s an added stain used to create an effect; either high contrast or the impression that a softer form of stone is in fact a harder form of stone. There is a huge wall block in the Valley Temple of Giza that is all black while all around it are sandstone brown. But it is not really black, it’s just pretending to be something that it isn’t.
The wings on the surface of the pyramidion were meticulously avoided when the stain was applied, resulting in their great contrast to the darkened surface, but less care was taken with the hieroglyphs since some got stained and some didn’t.
Here’s an example of a cast pyramidion that is a reconstruction of a totally shattered one. The pieces that were found were attached to the walls of a mold and stone concrete filled the mold and surrounded and bound them.
And all of the grand reconstruction of giant statues was accomplished by casting in molds.
by Adrien Nash, March 2021
Here’s a bonus pyramid for your viewing enjoyment:
Science-Theory 