<HTML>PART 2: The Quarries; Scientific Literature
The Quarries
Frank Doernenburg adds, “And to the jumbled shells: ANYONE can see those with the naked eye in the southern quarries at Kaphere. I tried to make a photo last week, unfortunately my Autofocus was of the opinion I wanted something else sharp.”
Margaret Morris replies: To make his statement, Frank Doernenburg ignores the overall makeup of the quarry walls. With any ancient, large-scale rock-concrete making operation conducted directly in the quarries, some concrete must remain bound up with the quarries themselves. Rock-concrete did not come in handy bags the way Portland cement does today.
For the most part, the quarry walls exhibit natural sedimentary layering and the pyramid and temple blocks exhibit jumbled shells. We must expect some exceptions because there are repair blocks on the pyramids and rock-concrete was made at the quarry sites. Frank Doernenburg’s claim is unreasonable and devoid of sound methodology.
An observation by geochemist Dr. Edward J. Zeller, former Director of the Radiation Physics Laboratory of the University of Kansas, in Lawrence, helps to demonstrate this point: As I explain in my book, “Zeller also studied some microphotographs of the Giza quarries made by German geochemist D. Klemm.[Klemm, R., and Klemm, D., Die Stein der pharaonen: Munchen, Staatliche Sammlung Agyptischer Kunst Munchen (1981), 12-21] In a microphotograph offered by the Klemms, Zeller detected what appear to be needle-shaped zeolite crystals. Zeller pointed out that it is highly unlikely that zeolites would have formed during the natural geological formation of limestone. It is much more likely that the zeolite crystals are the result of a subsequent chemical reaction, geopolymerization [which produces zeolites]. The evidence suggests that pyramid builders mixed zeolite-forming geopolymeric concrete directly in the quarries, where some cured and remains intact today.”
Scientific Literature
Frank Doernenburg remarks, “Then, as Archae and I pointed out, she comes to conclusion by ignoring modern literature or only partly using it (best example: Klemm & Klemm, the German geologist couple who spent 20 years of their lifes [sic] finding the ancient quarries, making chemical fingerprints of them and trying to match old monuments to them. They positively identified 3 of the 4 Chufu-quarries, the 3 Kaphere-quarries [sic] and the Menkaure-Quarry [sic] (and they added REM-scans of the microscopic structure of the stones, too).”
Margaret Morris: Frank Doernenburg fails to understand the concept. The Klemms determined which quarries were used. But geopolymerization produces no conflict with the determinations by the Klemms. The same quarries the Klemms identified provided the aggregates for the limestone-concrete!
Frank Doernenburg adds, “And they found the quarry for the Memmnon-Colossi - in 1984, long before the book in question.”
Margaret Morris replies: Again, Frank Doernenburg fails to understand the concept. The Klemms think that the quartzite came from a particular quarry based on mineralogical analyses. There is no conflict with geopolymerization, which requires aggregates that had to come from some quarry. Where does Frank Doernenburg think the quartzite aggregates came from? Mars?
The important point—which Frank Doernenburg fails to report or even comprehend—is that the Klemms never reported finding 63-foot holes in the quarry! In other words, they do not point to any particular location from which giant chunks of rock were extracted. As I said in my previous post to Archae Solenhofen, researchers have looked for giant extraction sites (which must be holes at least 63 feet long) from which the Colossi of Memnon were removed, but found none!
The most logical explanation is that aggregates were agglomerated to sculpt the Colossi of Memnon directly in place. I pointed out, too, that Dr. Joseph Davidovits studied a chemical analysis of the northern statue, and used that analysis to reproduce extremely hard, exquisite quartzite concrete that looks like natural quartzite. He used materials equivalent to those abundant in Egypt.
Frank Doernenburg adds, “You can prove ANYTHING by selecting the "right" literature for your cause. But it's not scientific work anymore.”
Margaret Morris replies: More correctly, Frank Doernenburg can try to discredit or disprove anything by abusing the scientific literature.
Furthermore, if the blocks of the Great Pyramid are natural, it is highly unlikely that D. Klemm would have captured evidence of needle-shaped zeolites (analcime) embedded in a quarry. If the Colossi of Memnon is natural quartzite, independent chemical analysis would not exhibit geopolymerization. Chemical analyses of pyramid stone would not support geopolymerization. Testing would not support a high moisture content--which must be present with hydraulic concrete--in the pyramid masonry if the blocks are natural rock. But the high moisture content was found over and again by independent teams in the core masonry. The scientific literature also supports alchemical stone-making in Mesopotamia. If alchemical stone-making was not an ancient art, it is unlikely that an independent team would have found synthetic basalt in Mesopotamian ruins.
Among the references that can be cited are, Dolphin, L.T., Barakat, N., and others, "Electromagnetic Sounder Experiments at the Pyramids of Giza," Stanford Research International (SRI), Menlo Park, California (1975), 125 p. See also Alvarez, L. W., et al., "Search for Hidden Chambers in the Pyramids," Science, Vol. 167 (6 February 1970), 832-839. Davidovits, J., "X-Rays Analysis and X-Rays Diffraction of casing stones from the pyramids of Egypt, and the limestone of the associated quarries," published in David, R.A. (ed.), Science in Egyptology, Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK (1986), 511-520. Bowman, H., et al., “The Northern Colossus of Memnon: New Slants,” Archaeometry (1984), Vol. 26, 218-229; E.C. Stone, D.H. Lindsley, V. Pigott, G. Harbottle, and M.T. Ford, "From Shifting Silt to Solid Stone: The Manufacture of Synthetic Basalt in Ancient Mesopotamia," Science, vol. 280, no. 5372 [June 1998], pp. 2091-2093.
I show above and below that Frank Doernenburg does not know how to interpret the scientific literature. For instance, he has misrepresented the Klemms’ study by claiming that it somehow negates the geopolymer theory because quarries have been identified! See his further remarks immediately below.
Frank Doernenburg states, “A short remark about the Memmnon-Colossi: Since you have quoted the Klemms some times: [sic] You DO know their identification of the quarries as "Gebel Tingar"? (Klemm, Klemm & Steclaci; Die pharaonischen. Steinbrüche des sillifizierten Sandsteins in Ägypten und die Herkunft der Memmnon-Kolosse, MDAIK 40, p. 207-220, in short in "Steine & Steinbrüche im alten Ägypten"; Springer 1992, p. 289-303) [sic] The first publication was available at the time you wrote your book...”
Margaret Morris replies: Frank Doernenburg tortures scientific evidence and misleads people who do not have the background to evaluate his claims.
Please continue to the next segment..
Margaret Morris
August 7, 2000
Copyright © 2001</HTML>
