<HTML>PART 5: Tool Marks; Subterranean Tunnels and Vaults; Break Patterns; Block Sizes Again; Quality
Tool Marks
Frank Doernenburg continues, “…the tool markings in the quarries…”
Margaret Morris replies: As previously explained, there is an insufficient amount of block quarrying at Giza to account for the Great Pyramid. Petrie was the first to examine the problem of the vastly insufficient number of trenches showing block removal:
“It has always been assumed that only the finer stone, used for the casing and passages, was brought from the eastern cliffs, and that the bulk of the masonry was quarried in the neighborhood. But no quarryings exist on the western side adequate to have yielded the bulk of either of the greater pyramids; and the limestone of the western hills is different in character from that of the pyramid masonry, which resembles the qualities usually quarried on the eastern shore. It seems, therefore, that the whole of the stones were quarried in the cliffs of Turra and Masara, and brought across to the selected site...I have repeatedly examined the edge of the desert from Abu Roash to Dahshur, and walked over all the district behind the Pyramids for several miles in each direction; some very slight quarrying just behind the barracks at the Second Pyramid is all that I have seen, beyond mere tomb excavations.” (Petrie, W.M.F., Sir, Pyramids and Temple of Gizeh, Field, London)
Petrie’s report only makes sense if the rock came from the quarries as aggregates that were agglomerated into limestone concrete.
The large quarries at Giza were not clear in Petrie’s time, and so the problem was re-examined in recent years by Japanese geologists from Waseda University, in Tokyo. The Waseda University team compared the Giza quarries with the pyramid blocks and concluded that the blocks of the Great Pyramid are:
“…hard and highly viscous [and that] characteristics of the limestone are different from those of the limestone of the site...” (Yoshimira, S., Studies in Egyptian Culture, no. 6, non-destructive pyramid investigation [1] by Electromagnetic Wave Method, Waseda University Press, Tokyo, 2 vols., 4-5)
The Japanese team wanted to go in search of the missing quarries that would match the pyramid blocks, but the researchers had to stick with their established research protocol. Like Petrie’s report, the description by Yoshimira’s team makes perfect sense when we apply the agglomerated stone paradigm: The pyramid blocks are harder than the poor-quality stone in the quarries--because aggregates from the quarries are geopolymerized.
As explained by the Japanese report, the blocks look different, too. For instance, as I previously explained, the pyramid blocks exhibit scrambled fossil shells. Soaking loosely bound kaolinitic limestone allows it to easily disaggregate, so that when the fossil shells are made into concrete the shells will be scrambled.
The problem of insufficient signs of block quarrying activities, and the difference in appearance between the quarry rock and the pyramid blocks (observed by Petrie, the Japanese team and others), can easily be explained by geopolymerization. But the same observations by these researchers present an irreconcilable problem for the carve/hoist theory. If the blocks are natural rock, where did they come from? Large quarries exhibiting rock that matches the geological features of the pyramid blocks have never been found. Petrie found some limestone similar to the pyramid blocks across the Nile, but not a huge area from which blocks were removed. The missing quarries would have to be huge, like those at Giza. If these missing quarries exist, how could they escape the attention of researchers? Dragging and/or using barges to float millions of blocks (according to Petrie, see above; he examined stone all over the interior and exterior as far as possible in his seasons at Giza) for miles to the construction site creates an enormous logistical nightmare—which is never even considered in orthodox pyramid construction calculations. Clearly, the published Egyptological literature proves that the accepted carve/hoist theory does not compute.
Finally, with regard to the tool marks in the quarries, as I have repeatedly stated, Dieter Arnold reports Klemms’ study of tool marks on Old and Middle Kingdom quarry walls:
“Furthermore, the only known metal chisels suitable for working in stone (the round bar chisels) are not pointed, however, but show a flat, wide cutting edge...In consequence, one would have to assume that pointed stone picks or axes were used during the Old and Middle Kingdoms.” (Arnold, D., Building in Egypt: pharaonic stone masonry. New York, N.Y., Oxford University Press [1991], 33)
I wonder how many times I must repeat this before Frank Doernenburg will understand that it is futile to quarry blocks with pointed picks, instruments that are suitable for disaggregating water soaked kaolinitic limestone. I wonder how many times I must repeat that Arnold acknowledges (immediately above), the studies of tool marks by the Klemms, which show that the marks of pointed stone picks characterize Old and Middle Kingdom walls.
Subterranean Tunnels and Vaults
Frank Doernenburg continues. “…the subterran [sic] works…”
Margaret Morris replies: As I previously explained, there is no comparison between the task of bashing out underground rooms and tunnels and building the Great Pyramid. Compare the tasks:
The Great Pyramid has a 13-square-acre foundation that is almost perfectly level, off only about 1/2 inch from corner to corner. The foundation is hard limestone, strong enough to support the massive monument. The undersides of the foundation slabs conform to the irregular surfaces of the bedrock below. The Great Pyramid was built of more than 200 level tiers. Petrie showed the near-perfect planes of the rough core masonry: He found that the mean optical plane that touches the most prominent points of the blocks of the Great Pyramid’s rough core faces shows an average variation of only 1.0 inch. The Great Pyramid exhibits a masonry pattern that challenges primitive cutting methods: The four faces exposed now that the casing has been stripped away are slightly concave and symmetrical. There is a fairly high degree of uniformity in tier heights, which have been repeatedly measured and confirmed (the degree of uniformity presents a serious problem for the carve/hoist theory because of the demands of executing, storing, sorting and selecting a great many building units to conform to the correct heights--the Great Pyramid is estimated to contain over two million blocks). The Great Pyramid was built at precise right angles on a massive scale. There were an estimated 115,000 form-fitted casing blocks that fit as close as 1/500 of an inch or in perfect contact (see Petrie’s measurements). The gradual incline of casing blocks produced its four flat sloping faces, each measuring an area of about five acres. Its tall edges met perfectly at a point at the top. The interior of the Great Pyramid exhibits magnificent features, including giant, perfectly corbelled walls.
On the other hand, producing underground areas mostly involves bashing the bedrock with pounders and rammers and removing tons of debris. Some shafts are lined with blocks to give them a uniform appearance, and some underground rooms are well-formed. Even if these rooms were cut out of natural rock, the task does not compare to creating the features of the Great Pyramid I described immediately above. We are dealing with the critically important matter of scale!
Moreover, with geopolymerization, there is the potential to remodel roughly-cut underground structures so that rooms have sharply-made corners, etc. The problem involves the hardness of the bedrock and the scale of the work. There is no reason to think that bashing out rooms and perfecting their walls with Pyramid Age tools would be beyond the capabilities of the ancient Egyptians, especially if the rock is fairly soft (moisture in underground limestone makes it softer and easier to cut, whereas it hardens after being exposed to the air for some time). I repeat, the issue of scale is critical.
Careful scientific study is required to determine if the neatly-made underground surfaces considered to be natural rock have been surfaced with synthetic rock. But the main point is that producing the known subterranean structures does not begin to compare with building the Great Pyramids.
Break Patterns
Frank Doernenburg continues, “…the clear break patterns on many stones…”
Margaret Morris replies: When answering this question, I am going to assume that Frank Doernenburg has strata in mind when he says “break patterns.” I have already explained this feature in my last rebuttal to Frank Doernenburg. As I said, Dr. Joseph Davidovits interprets strata, which are rarely seen in blocks at Giza, as lift lines in concrete. Geologists Robert G. McKinney and Richard McCloud tested the appearance of the feature by comparing many lift lines in concrete to strata in limestone. They agreed that they look the same. In other words, it is improper to assume that “break patterns” (“strata”) are natural features without scientific testing.
Block Sizes Again
Frank Doernenburg continues, “…the un-uniform [sic] block sizes…”
Margaret Morris replies: There is no reason blocks sizes will be uniform when blocks are packed in place like adobe or made like rammed earth. Only if all of the blocks are cast into molds, and the same molds are used over and over, will there be any regularity of size and shape.
Quality
Frank Doernenburg continues, “…the sad quality compared with simple mud bricks and and and. [sic]
Margaret Morris replies: Here is another example of an incoherent complaint from Frank Doernenburg. Sad quality? I do not know to what Frank Doernenburg is alluding. Above I quote the Japanese geologists who assert that the blocks of the Great Pyramid are “…hard and highly viscous [and that] characteristics of the limestone are different from those of the limestone of the site...”
I have explained that some blocks in the early pyramids of the 3rd Dynasty were either cast into brick molds or hand-shaped. The latter can have the appearance of roughly shaped field stones. For the most part, the appearance of blocks became neater as block size increased and they were formed in place. In some parts of the interior of the Great Pyramid, however, the limestone material looks like it has been roughly packed together in a very crude way. Geologist Robert G. McKinney compared this to his “bad driveway job” when using Portland cement based concrete. Perhaps this is the sort of “sad quality” Frank Doernenburg has in mind.
Please continue to the next segment..
Margaret Morris
August 7, 2000
Copyright © 2001</HTML>
