<HTML>Geopolymer: Morris vs Doernenburg – Part 1
Margaret Morris Rebuts Frank Doernenburg:
PART 1: Summary; Saws and Abrasive Sand; Solving Problems
Summary: Below I address remarks by Frank Doernenburg posted on Internet message boards. I show below that his remarks prove he has no concept of the unresolved problems of building the Great Pyramid. I show that Frank Doernenburg completely fails to understand the literature he cites, e.g., the studies by the Klemms. Frank Doernenburg’s notions about quarrying defy accepted Egyptological and geological studies. His remarks about how blocks for the Great Pyramid were shaped defy accepted Egyptological studies and the features of the Great Pyramid itself. Frank Doernenburg also invents information as a substitute for facts, he makes sweeping generalizations that do not hold up under scrutiny, and he fails to make even one legitimate point.
The bottom line is that the chemical nature of the pyramid blocks cannot be determined by assessing size, shape, tool marks or any of the other arguments Frank Doernenburg musters. Determining the chemical nature of the pyramid blocks is an issue of hard science that Frank Doernenburg simply does not have the qualifications to address. Studies by highly qualified geologists have determined pyramid stone to be synthetic rock, and no amount of objections on the part of Frank Doernenburg can overturn this fundamental fact. Here are the details:
Saws and Abrasive Sand
Frank Doernenburg writes. “I really don't think that there IS an argument. All arguments from Mrs. Morris are long solved, eg. [sic] the precision of the joints by pulling a copper saw with quartz abrasives petween [sic] them.”
Margaret Morris replies: Here is a summary of problems raised by Frank Doernenburg’s assertion, 1) as pointed out by Dieter Arnold, the demand on copper would be too great for saws to have been used to shape the pyramid blocks at Giza, and 2) the slow action of sawing produces fairly uniform surfaces. In contrast, form-fitted joints between and behind the casing blocks exhibit irregularities that are not the product of a saw blade. Here are the details:
If the blocks of the Great Pyramid would have been planed with the slow action of cutting natural stone with saws and abrasive sand, we would see joints that do not exhibit dramatic deviations from the vertical or horizontal planes. The very suggestion that a saw was used to produce the joints visible from the frontal view implies that all of the surfaces of the blocks were finished this way, i.e., all of the joints. If so, the joints would be regular because the slow process of sawing natural rock produces similar results across whole surfaces.
Instead, wavy and otherwise irregular joints are custom-fit so that blocks conform to the shapes of neighboring blocks. Some tight-fitting blocks are highly irregular. Some curvy or otherwise irregular joints extend over a distance of about five feet. An example is the joints between and behind casing blocks, which are tightly-fit even though they may not be perfectly vertical. Some joints are highly irregular in places. While there are gaps between many backing blocks (the blocks behind the casing blocks) because mortar or tafla has degraded, a myriad of highly irregular backing blocks closely conform to each other on all contact surfaces.
The ceiling of the burial vault in the collapsed pyramid at Meidum is made of blocks that are so irregular we can hardly think of them as blocks, but all fit together exactly on all touching surfaces. All of these features and many more can be achieved by packing blocks against cured blocks (sometimes a highly durable paper-thin cement was applied between casing blocks and tafla between packing blocks). In other words, packing limestone-concrete blocks in place will automatically achieve both irregular and regular joints, depending on the quality of workmanship.
Dieter Arnold describes the custom-fit of the backs of the casing blocks of all of the Giza pyramids:
"...the connection of the casing with the backing stones is very close and would have to be carefully prepared. The best examples are the close joints between casing and backing stones at the three main pyramids of Giza. The backing stones were frequently dressed exactly to the shape of the rear face of the casing blocks..." (Arnold, D., Building in Egypt: pharaonic stone masonry. New York, N.Y., Oxford University Press [1991], 168-169)
In other words, the irregular front faces of the backing blocks are custom-fit to the backs of the casing blocks in front of them—a feature that is clearly not a product of the slow action of saw blades on natural limestone equivalent in hardness to the blocks of the Great Pyramid. Frank Doernenburg defies logic and the features of the Great Pyramid itself when claiming that the custom-fit, irregular surfaces on the myriad of blocks were made with the slow action of using saws on limestone.
Frank Doernenburg likes to claim that the geopolymer theory does not answer questions. But, as my remarks and those of Dieter Arnold above demonstrate, the sawing theory Frank Doernenburg advocates for the Great Pyramid does not address the question of how blocks were prepared because the system does not fit with the features of the pyramid blocks.
The sawing theory will only match the features of pyramid blocks if uncured rock-concrete blocks are rapidly cut through in a single pass. Compare observations by Egyptologist J.-P., Lauer, who suggested that casing blocks in some structures were planed with a copper saw. Arnold comments:
“Lauer already suspected that the close jointing of limestone casing blocks could have been achieved as early as the Third Dynasty by a method of sawing with a copper blade drawn through the front edge of the joints. When the lower end of the joint was reached, the saw quite frequently cut into the foundation blocks, leaving a cutting line protruding an inch from the front line of the blocks. This method was certainly practiced for the casings of the Mastabat el-Fara’un and of the pyramids of Unas and Senworsret I. We do not know the instrument that was used but suspect that it was a short, knifelike saw with a wooden handle.” (Arnold, D., Building in Egypt: pharaonic stone masonry. New York, N.Y., Oxford University Press (1991), 266)
The cutting lines in the foundation indicate that the casing blocks were cut rapidly. Limestone so readily cut with Old Kingdom tools is too soft to withstand the quarrying process! Limestone that soft is unsuitable for construction. The most logical explanation for this feature is that these blocks were planed or separated in two before they fully cured. In that case, unless masons always worked slowly and carefully, too much pressure on the blade caused it to run into the foundation.
Note, too, that Arnold admits he does not know what kind of tool was used. He does not know how a copper blade could cut straight through limestone like we cut through a block of cheese, so quickly that the foundation was also cut.
Arnold does not apply this planing method to constructing the Great Pyramid the way Frank Doernenburg does. Why not? The answer is that Arnold recognizes that the demand on copper would have been too great to provide saws for cutting the Giza pyramid blocks:
"These observations would again be in accord with the assumption that even 'soft' stones were not only dressed but also quarried mainly with stone tools, an assumption that would not deny, of course, that metal chisels existed and were occasionally used for special purposes." (D. Arnold, Building in Egypt: Pharaonic Stone Masonry, New York, Oxford University Press, 1991, pp. 33-36, 50)
Arnold adds that he has no idea how the stone tools he envisions could have made the tight-fitting joints. He writes:
"It is difficult to imagine, however, how this method was applied to inclined, vertical, or even overhanging planes...We do not know exactly how the masons achieved two corresponding and neatly fitted planes on two neighboring blocks." (Arnold, D., Building in Egypt: pharaonic stone masonry. New York, N.Y., Oxford University Press (1991), 122)
Thus, Egyptology’s last option—stone tools—is not viable. Given the problem with sufficient copper, Archae Solenhofen advocates that the Great Pyramid must somehow have been made with stone tools, a claim that neglects germane problems: For instance, a Japanese engineering team built a small model of the Great Pyramid (devoid of internal features) in Egypt to study the problems of pyramid construction. Based on their hands-on engineering experiment, the engineers calculated that it would have required the Egyptians 1,200 years to build the Great Pyramid! (M. Ashley, Seven Wonders of the World, Ashley Pub., London (1980), 288 pp. New York Times, March 12, 1978, Section IV, p. 7, col. 5. The project was led by Sakuji Yoshimura, formerly of Waseda University and sponsored and filmed by Nippon TV.)
Contrast this 1,200-year period with the 24-year reign of Khufu, during which Egyptology asserts the Great Pyramid was built. We see that carving stone by any method is much too slow! We see a major conflict between the hands-on Japanese engineering experiment and the historical likelihood that the pyramids were each built (or nearly completed) within one Pharaonic reign, as shown by Egyptology. Assuming we adhere to the historical model established by Egyptology, there is only one way to settle the conflict: Building with rock-concrete is a highly efficient construction method that allows for the construction of the Great Pyramid within the 24-year reign of Khufu.
In fact, like the Nova experiment that engaged a front-end loader and modern tools when the crew failed to make any headway quarrying, carving, hauling or elevating blocks in the time planned for the tasks by Mark Lehner, the Japanese team also had to bring in heavy construction equipment and modern steel tools. The stone-cutting and other methods the Japanese crew were using proved so slow that deadlines could not be met. They could not keep up with the construction rate estimated for the Great Pyramid.
Dynamite was brought in to speed up quarrying, modern steel tools were used to cut blocks, and a forklift was engaged to place them. Despite these efforts, construction still continued too slowly. The team had to resort to casting concrete to finish the pyramid in time. Of the 700 pyramid blocks, weighing a total of 25,353 tons, 300 were poured concrete.
The Japanese engineering experiment shows the gross inadequacy of the carve/hoist theory. The Japanese team simply could not even approach the estimated construction rate experts have calculated for the Great Pyramid: one block placed every two or three minutes per work day (although this is a very conservative estimate, I use it here because it is generally accepted by Egyptology).
Similarly, the Nova experiment had to bring in a front-end loader and modern steel tools (see below) because the crew could not come close to the construction rate of one block placed every two or three minutes. These dramatic statistics, 1,200 years vs 24-years, which are damning to the accepted theory, have never found their way into authoritative English language Egyptological literature.
To summarize: Because of the unrealistic demands on copper, and problems such as the irregularities of the joints of the pyramid blocks, the theory of sawing natural stone with abrasives to construct the Great Pyramid produces more problems than it solves. Frank Doernenburg defies the most up-to-date Egyptological literature, which shows that the amount of copper required to produce the tight-fitting blocks of the Great Pyramid would be too great. Frank Doernenburg has made an incorrect, sweeping generalization by applying the planing method to the Great Pyramid.
Whereas, casting rock-concrete against cured rock-concrete will automatically produce conforming, tight-fitting joints. The features of certain blocks suggest that they were cut with saws in an uncured state, i.e., those Lauer observed in lesser monuments. Furthermore, sawmarks on some artifacts (like the backs of statues and lids for sarcophagi) that are too hard to be cut with metal tools are highly suggestive of gopolymerization, especially those artifacts investigators have demonstrated were cut through with a single pass of a tool (e.g., see my debate with Archae Solenhofen).
Solving Problems
Frank Doernenburg continues to show his lack of an understanding of the germane problems with his claim, “The polymer-idea can answer less question than it is creating.”
Margaret Morris replies: Above I show that the opposite is true: anyone with a grasp of the problems recognizes that geopolymerization alone solves them. The methods Frank Doernenburg proposes cannot account for the myriad of tight-fitting blocks, the rapid construction rate or the list of other unresolved problems associated with the carve/hoist theory that I discuss in my book titled The Egyptian Pyramid Mysetery Is Solved!
Please continue to the next segment..
Margaret Morris
August 7, 2000
Copyright © 2001</HTML>
