| May 7, 2024, 12:10 am UTC |
 |
| In: The Hall of Maat > Ancient History - Ancient History and Archaeology > Topic |
| Goto: Forum List • Create A New Profile • Log In |
|
Ancient History •
Ancient Egypt •
Laboratory •
Humanities •
Apocalypse •
Paper Lens •
Coffee Shop Exhibitions, Conferences, Lectures, Journals • Alternative Geometry and Numerology |
| August 08, 2001 06:31PM |
<HTML>Margaret Morris wrote:
>Geopolymer: Morris vs Doernenburg - Part 1
>Margaret Morris Rebuts Frank Doernenburg:
>PART 1: Summary; Saws and Abrasive Sand; Solving Problems
<snip>
>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.
There are many simple lapidary and percussion tools available to the ancient Egyptians for the dressing of limestone, and that would include copper saws.
The most up to date literature demonstrates that the cutting of limestone can be done with copper lapidary tools with relatively low copper waste with the use of quartz abrasive (actually not wasted, as pointed out by Stocks (1997) the tailing can be used in the manufacturing of faience and glazes, as well as other purposes)... For example, see Stocks (1993) for data on copper tube coring of limestone (Table 1 page 602)....
material ratio of length of copper tube lost from drill to stone depth penetrated
granite 1:3
diorite 1:3
calcite 1:>100
limestone 1:>100
material rate of rock removal for bow-driven drill (cm^3 per hour)
granite 2
diorite 2
calcite 30
limestone 30
See Stocks (1999) for data on drilling and sawing of limestone (Table 1 page 921).
material rate of rock removal (cm^3 per hour)
drilling sawing
Limestone 30 75
Stocks, D, (1993), Making Stone vessels in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, Antiquity, 67, 596-603.
Stocks, D.A. (1997) Derivation of ancient Egyptian faience core and glaze materials, Antiquity, 71, 179-82
Since lapidary slabing saws and coring drills work basically on similar principles, it would be expected that the comparable copper wastage would be expected in the copper saw blades as well. You will notice that not very much copper is lost in the lapidary cutting of limestone... the reason why is because calcite is less than 2% the indentation hardness of natural diamond and 6 times less hard than quartz, the abrasive they most likely used to cut it... Lapidary tools work because the lapping material (i.e. the copper) is less hard than the abrasive and the material being worked. Some loss of copper is to be expected... but it actually does not appear to be the problem you are suggesting in the case of limestones, since the indentation hardness of copper in not much less than that of calcite.
It appears that you are mixing up rock hardness and indentation hardness. Higher rock hardness actually helps make good lapidary cuts, because the rock is not going to fall apart well it is being worked. It is the indentation hardness of the minerals that is the main consideration in the quality lapidary cutting of rock (i.e. by abrasion), rock hardness can be important but still is secondary.
Arnold (1991) does not seem to have a problem with copper saws... For example:
"Close joints could be achieved in several ways. Traces of saws along the front edge of the raising joint and saw marks at the foot line of a wall on the surface of the foundation indicate that saws were used to trim remaining irregularities at the front edge. Lauer thinks that a sheet of copper with quartz sand would have been sufficient." page 123
"Sawing of softer stones was apparently not problematic and was carried out quite frequently; the sawing of harder rocks was, however, used only for special cases. The alabaster sarcophagus of Sekhemkhet (Third Dynasty) shows saw marks, as do the alabaster altars in the sun temple of Niuserra. Even harder stones could be completely cut by this method. The granite sarcophagus of Cheops and two others of the Fourth Dynasty (fig. 6.24) were definitely sawed, as were the granite portcullises of the Cheops Pyra-mid and the basalt paving blocks in the mortuary temples of Cheops and Niuserra. Also the famous triads of Mycerinus made of graywacke show traces of sawing." page 276
BTW, who exactly said that the waste of copper in lapidary cutting of limestone was restricted by the limited quantify of copper available to the ancient Egyptians? There are 3 instances where Arnold (1991) mentions copper wastage:
1) "There are also indications, that even larger projects, such as producing a granite sarcophagus, were carried out by drilling (fig. 2.29). Because the consumption of metal would have been enormous, the drilling method would have been restricted to the production of sarcophagi and architectural features that could otherwise not have been made." page 50
He is referring to igneous rocks here... not limestone
2) "In architecture, strictly speaking, the use of saws can be shown for the final treatment of joint faces in casing blocks of Shepseskaf (fig. 6.23), Unas, and Senwosret I. But again for reasons of metal consump-tion, the sawing of stone was restricted to special and rare cases. One may also assume that the marks at the foot of vertical joints, very often visible on the surface of foundation blocks or paving slabs, were unintentionally produced by sawing down the joints. Sawing stone not only was carried on until Roman times, but remains the primary method of quarrying and producing stone today." Page 50
He is talking about indurated limestones and igneous rocks here.
3) "Stones that were drilled for architectural purposes were alabaster, limestone, sandstone, granite, basalt, amphibolite, and diorite, which shows that the hardness of stone placed no limits on the ingenuity of the Egyptian builders. A decision to drill was probably economic, since the consumption of metal would have been considerable. This consideration prevented the Egyptians from using drilling in the production of stones-for example, in separating blocks from the bedrock in the quarry." page 265
No where does he say that the consumption is too much for it to be used, but that is a matter of economic considerations... what this means is that if they had the money they could have used copper saws, and they clearly did from what Arnold sates in his book.
I also cannot find any reference to copper chisels being restricted by limited copper production either... Remember you stated this in a previous post (<a href=" [www.voy.com] ">here</a>):
"Specifically, the Great Pyramid is estimated
to have been built from 93.5 million cubic feet
of limestone, and other pyramids collectively
consumed more than triple this amount. Arnold
recognizes that these figures present demands
that the copper mines could not have met. Arnold
concludes that the Egyptians used stone tools for
most masonry tasks:
"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)"
I see no reference to copper mines in Arnold (1991)... If it is hidden some place in Arnold (1991) or if it is some other reference of his please post it. Maybe you will find it in the sections where Arnold discusses copper masonry chisels used by the ancient Egyptian to dress and carve softrocks... Just in case you have forgotten or overlooked it... it is pages 257-258
You know where he quite clearly states...
" Metal chisels were used for stoneworking, and many have been found. It seems not coincidental that the number of preserved metal chisels increases with the beginnings of monumental stone building in the Third Dynasty. Copper chisels (perhaps models) from tombs are known since the First Dynasty.We have to suppose that they were used for woodworking. Some of the chisels from the Third Dynasty were certainly used for dressing stone, especially those from the Djoser precinct.
The two main types used for dressing stone were the round bar chisel (Petrie's type D) (fig. 6.10) and the flat mortise chisel (Petrie's type
(fig. 6.11). Both are represented by dozens of specimens, ranging from the reign of Djoser to the New Kingdom. They were held in the hand and struck with a wooden mallet. They had to be a "handy" size, and therefore ranged from 16 to 25 centimeters long. Some were rather short and stout; others, more elongated."
>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
What exactly are you referring to by "hard"? Do you mean the fracture strength of the rock... if the rock hardness in not high they cannot carve or polish it with high quality. That is why they are using igneous rocks, metamorphic gneisses, and indurated sedimentary rocks for this purpose... so that the rock can be finely detailed and highly polished. High rock hardness is actually a beneficial and necessary property in the making of finely detailed and polished statuary and other similar objects, if they were not using rocks of suitable rock hardnesses they would not be able to make these objects with the quality they exhibit. As has been pointed out over and over Zuber (1952) and Stocks (1999, 2001) have directly demonstrated that diorite and granite can be carved using the stone tools available to the ancient Egyptians.
Stocks, D.A. (1999) Stone sarcophagus manufacture in ancient Egypt. Antiquity, 73, 918-22.
Stocks, D.A. (2001) Testing Ancient Egyptian Granite-Working Methods in Aswan, Upper Egypt, Antiquity, 75, 89-94.
Zuber, A. (1956) Techniques du travail des pierres dures dans l'Ancienne Egypte. Techniques et Civilisations, 29, 161-180, 195-215.
I must assume that when you use the term "hard" you are referring to the indentation hardness of the minerals in the rocks... It is not the metal that does the cutting... it is the abrasive. The metal is the lapping material... in order for lapping to work as a method of cutting rock the lapping material must be less hard than the material being lapped and thus the abrasive. All of the minerals in the rocks the ancient Egyptians used are less than 11% the indentation hardness of diamond and can all be cut by abrasion with quartz. This is clearly demonstrated by Stocks (2001).
What physical properties of the rocks are preventing these objects from being carved by the percussion and lapidary tools available to the ancient Egyptians? I will answer it for you... there is no physical property that is preventing them from carving the rocks that they used. You appear not to fully understand what is meant by "hard" when it is used in reference to rock and how it applies to percussion and lapidary working of rock.
>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).
Since many of these objects are made out of feldspar-rich igneous and metamorphic rocks and the feldspar grain are clearly cut and polished so that they are flush with surfaces of these objects, it is quite clear that lapidary working of the rock surface was conducted during the final stages of manufacturing. Again, you fail to recognize that the polishing of a rock surface requires a rock that has a high rock hardness, so that the mineral grains are not plucked from the surface due to the pressure needed to cause abrasion necessary to produce a polished lapidary finish.
Here we see a photo of a New Kingdom period (18th Dynasty) statue
fragment of Amenhotep III wearing the Khepresh crown
<img src=" [www.louvre.fr];
This statue fragment is made a granodiorite porphyry, that is consistant in apperanance with the granodiorites of the Aswan quarries. The bust shows 2 stages of finishing ... the face is polished and the headdress is left rough (the headdress was apparently painted and the ancient Egyptian understood that when polished quartz is painted the paint generally beads as it dries making it susceptible to pealing over time and they left the surface rough). Note the feldspar phenocryst in the lips, a nice example of lapidary carving as well as those that conform to other contours of the polished face. On the headdress you can see the pitting typical of percussion carving, with feldspar being more susceptible to fracture than the quartz. They appear to have then ground off the some of the quartz relief to smooth the surface a little on the headdress. The eyes clearly show tool marks as well (looking like curved abrasion lines around the outline of the eye), not visible in this image but a good close up photo is in Penny (1993, page 20).
Penny, N. (1993) The materials of sculpture. Yale University Press,
New Haven, 318 p.
What tool cut the feldspar and quartz grains on the surface of the face in this example or for that matter any other object like this through Egyptian history made by this "simple" geopolymer method? The carving of this statue fragment was not done with a single pass in a semi-cured state with some unknown tool, the mineral grains are clearly cut. You will also notice that there is no visible crushing of the mineral grains on the surface of the polished face, but this does appear on the surface of the unfinished headdress. Of course, this is where the rock hardness come into importance, since the harder the rock is in terms of fracture strength the less the fractures penetrate into the surface during percussion carving. You will also notice that the rock looks like a holocrystalline igneous rock on the polished surface, not a cataclastite, microbreccia, or breccia (as one would expect if the original host rock was mechanically crushed to produce the raw materials for a geopolymer). How the ancient Egyptians dissolved intercrystalline boundaries so that mineral grains were left intact and not crushed (minerals are after all brittle) and then reaggregated into interlocking closely fit grains (so they are indistinguishable from holocrystalline igneous rocks) is the real mystery here. After all, there is no physical property of granodiorite that is preventing the ancient Egyptians from carving this material with the tools available to them. Of course, it will require great expense, time, and labor... but that is still true today when modern sculptures chose to carve granitic rocks by traditional methods.
Here are other examples of sarcophagus fragment with hieroglyphics (unknown date).
<img src=" [www.beloit.edu] ">
<img src="[www.beloit.edu];
<img src=" [www.beloit.edu] ">
This is a medium grained igneous rock not clay or some fine-grained geopolymer. The mineral grains are cut and flush with the surface and they are cut by the hieroplyphics...
Here is a rock slab of Aswan granite cut with a modren lapidary saw and polished on a lap.
<img src="[www.eeescience.utoledo.edu];
Do you notice the great similarity in the way the mineral grains are cut on the surface of the modern rock slab and the sarcophagus fragment?
Archae Solenhofen (solenhofen@hotmail.com)
<snip></HTML>
>Geopolymer: Morris vs Doernenburg - Part 1
>Margaret Morris Rebuts Frank Doernenburg:
>PART 1: Summary; Saws and Abrasive Sand; Solving Problems
<snip>
>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.
There are many simple lapidary and percussion tools available to the ancient Egyptians for the dressing of limestone, and that would include copper saws.
The most up to date literature demonstrates that the cutting of limestone can be done with copper lapidary tools with relatively low copper waste with the use of quartz abrasive (actually not wasted, as pointed out by Stocks (1997) the tailing can be used in the manufacturing of faience and glazes, as well as other purposes)... For example, see Stocks (1993) for data on copper tube coring of limestone (Table 1 page 602)....
material ratio of length of copper tube lost from drill to stone depth penetrated
granite 1:3
diorite 1:3
calcite 1:>100
limestone 1:>100
material rate of rock removal for bow-driven drill (cm^3 per hour)
granite 2
diorite 2
calcite 30
limestone 30
See Stocks (1999) for data on drilling and sawing of limestone (Table 1 page 921).
material rate of rock removal (cm^3 per hour)
drilling sawing
Limestone 30 75
Stocks, D, (1993), Making Stone vessels in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, Antiquity, 67, 596-603.
Stocks, D.A. (1997) Derivation of ancient Egyptian faience core and glaze materials, Antiquity, 71, 179-82
Since lapidary slabing saws and coring drills work basically on similar principles, it would be expected that the comparable copper wastage would be expected in the copper saw blades as well. You will notice that not very much copper is lost in the lapidary cutting of limestone... the reason why is because calcite is less than 2% the indentation hardness of natural diamond and 6 times less hard than quartz, the abrasive they most likely used to cut it... Lapidary tools work because the lapping material (i.e. the copper) is less hard than the abrasive and the material being worked. Some loss of copper is to be expected... but it actually does not appear to be the problem you are suggesting in the case of limestones, since the indentation hardness of copper in not much less than that of calcite.
It appears that you are mixing up rock hardness and indentation hardness. Higher rock hardness actually helps make good lapidary cuts, because the rock is not going to fall apart well it is being worked. It is the indentation hardness of the minerals that is the main consideration in the quality lapidary cutting of rock (i.e. by abrasion), rock hardness can be important but still is secondary.
Arnold (1991) does not seem to have a problem with copper saws... For example:
"Close joints could be achieved in several ways. Traces of saws along the front edge of the raising joint and saw marks at the foot line of a wall on the surface of the foundation indicate that saws were used to trim remaining irregularities at the front edge. Lauer thinks that a sheet of copper with quartz sand would have been sufficient." page 123
"Sawing of softer stones was apparently not problematic and was carried out quite frequently; the sawing of harder rocks was, however, used only for special cases. The alabaster sarcophagus of Sekhemkhet (Third Dynasty) shows saw marks, as do the alabaster altars in the sun temple of Niuserra. Even harder stones could be completely cut by this method. The granite sarcophagus of Cheops and two others of the Fourth Dynasty (fig. 6.24) were definitely sawed, as were the granite portcullises of the Cheops Pyra-mid and the basalt paving blocks in the mortuary temples of Cheops and Niuserra. Also the famous triads of Mycerinus made of graywacke show traces of sawing." page 276
BTW, who exactly said that the waste of copper in lapidary cutting of limestone was restricted by the limited quantify of copper available to the ancient Egyptians? There are 3 instances where Arnold (1991) mentions copper wastage:
1) "There are also indications, that even larger projects, such as producing a granite sarcophagus, were carried out by drilling (fig. 2.29). Because the consumption of metal would have been enormous, the drilling method would have been restricted to the production of sarcophagi and architectural features that could otherwise not have been made." page 50
He is referring to igneous rocks here... not limestone
2) "In architecture, strictly speaking, the use of saws can be shown for the final treatment of joint faces in casing blocks of Shepseskaf (fig. 6.23), Unas, and Senwosret I. But again for reasons of metal consump-tion, the sawing of stone was restricted to special and rare cases. One may also assume that the marks at the foot of vertical joints, very often visible on the surface of foundation blocks or paving slabs, were unintentionally produced by sawing down the joints. Sawing stone not only was carried on until Roman times, but remains the primary method of quarrying and producing stone today." Page 50
He is talking about indurated limestones and igneous rocks here.
3) "Stones that were drilled for architectural purposes were alabaster, limestone, sandstone, granite, basalt, amphibolite, and diorite, which shows that the hardness of stone placed no limits on the ingenuity of the Egyptian builders. A decision to drill was probably economic, since the consumption of metal would have been considerable. This consideration prevented the Egyptians from using drilling in the production of stones-for example, in separating blocks from the bedrock in the quarry." page 265
No where does he say that the consumption is too much for it to be used, but that is a matter of economic considerations... what this means is that if they had the money they could have used copper saws, and they clearly did from what Arnold sates in his book.
I also cannot find any reference to copper chisels being restricted by limited copper production either... Remember you stated this in a previous post (<a href=" [www.voy.com] ">here</a>):
"Specifically, the Great Pyramid is estimated
to have been built from 93.5 million cubic feet
of limestone, and other pyramids collectively
consumed more than triple this amount. Arnold
recognizes that these figures present demands
that the copper mines could not have met. Arnold
concludes that the Egyptians used stone tools for
most masonry tasks:
"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)"
I see no reference to copper mines in Arnold (1991)... If it is hidden some place in Arnold (1991) or if it is some other reference of his please post it. Maybe you will find it in the sections where Arnold discusses copper masonry chisels used by the ancient Egyptian to dress and carve softrocks... Just in case you have forgotten or overlooked it... it is pages 257-258
You know where he quite clearly states...
" Metal chisels were used for stoneworking, and many have been found. It seems not coincidental that the number of preserved metal chisels increases with the beginnings of monumental stone building in the Third Dynasty. Copper chisels (perhaps models) from tombs are known since the First Dynasty.We have to suppose that they were used for woodworking. Some of the chisels from the Third Dynasty were certainly used for dressing stone, especially those from the Djoser precinct.
The two main types used for dressing stone were the round bar chisel (Petrie's type D) (fig. 6.10) and the flat mortise chisel (Petrie's type
(fig. 6.11). Both are represented by dozens of specimens, ranging from the reign of Djoser to the New Kingdom. They were held in the hand and struck with a wooden mallet. They had to be a "handy" size, and therefore ranged from 16 to 25 centimeters long. Some were rather short and stout; others, more elongated." >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
What exactly are you referring to by "hard"? Do you mean the fracture strength of the rock... if the rock hardness in not high they cannot carve or polish it with high quality. That is why they are using igneous rocks, metamorphic gneisses, and indurated sedimentary rocks for this purpose... so that the rock can be finely detailed and highly polished. High rock hardness is actually a beneficial and necessary property in the making of finely detailed and polished statuary and other similar objects, if they were not using rocks of suitable rock hardnesses they would not be able to make these objects with the quality they exhibit. As has been pointed out over and over Zuber (1952) and Stocks (1999, 2001) have directly demonstrated that diorite and granite can be carved using the stone tools available to the ancient Egyptians.
Stocks, D.A. (1999) Stone sarcophagus manufacture in ancient Egypt. Antiquity, 73, 918-22.
Stocks, D.A. (2001) Testing Ancient Egyptian Granite-Working Methods in Aswan, Upper Egypt, Antiquity, 75, 89-94.
Zuber, A. (1956) Techniques du travail des pierres dures dans l'Ancienne Egypte. Techniques et Civilisations, 29, 161-180, 195-215.
I must assume that when you use the term "hard" you are referring to the indentation hardness of the minerals in the rocks... It is not the metal that does the cutting... it is the abrasive. The metal is the lapping material... in order for lapping to work as a method of cutting rock the lapping material must be less hard than the material being lapped and thus the abrasive. All of the minerals in the rocks the ancient Egyptians used are less than 11% the indentation hardness of diamond and can all be cut by abrasion with quartz. This is clearly demonstrated by Stocks (2001).
What physical properties of the rocks are preventing these objects from being carved by the percussion and lapidary tools available to the ancient Egyptians? I will answer it for you... there is no physical property that is preventing them from carving the rocks that they used. You appear not to fully understand what is meant by "hard" when it is used in reference to rock and how it applies to percussion and lapidary working of rock.
>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).
Since many of these objects are made out of feldspar-rich igneous and metamorphic rocks and the feldspar grain are clearly cut and polished so that they are flush with surfaces of these objects, it is quite clear that lapidary working of the rock surface was conducted during the final stages of manufacturing. Again, you fail to recognize that the polishing of a rock surface requires a rock that has a high rock hardness, so that the mineral grains are not plucked from the surface due to the pressure needed to cause abrasion necessary to produce a polished lapidary finish.
Here we see a photo of a New Kingdom period (18th Dynasty) statue
fragment of Amenhotep III wearing the Khepresh crown
<img src=" [www.louvre.fr];
This statue fragment is made a granodiorite porphyry, that is consistant in apperanance with the granodiorites of the Aswan quarries. The bust shows 2 stages of finishing ... the face is polished and the headdress is left rough (the headdress was apparently painted and the ancient Egyptian understood that when polished quartz is painted the paint generally beads as it dries making it susceptible to pealing over time and they left the surface rough). Note the feldspar phenocryst in the lips, a nice example of lapidary carving as well as those that conform to other contours of the polished face. On the headdress you can see the pitting typical of percussion carving, with feldspar being more susceptible to fracture than the quartz. They appear to have then ground off the some of the quartz relief to smooth the surface a little on the headdress. The eyes clearly show tool marks as well (looking like curved abrasion lines around the outline of the eye), not visible in this image but a good close up photo is in Penny (1993, page 20).
Penny, N. (1993) The materials of sculpture. Yale University Press,
New Haven, 318 p.
What tool cut the feldspar and quartz grains on the surface of the face in this example or for that matter any other object like this through Egyptian history made by this "simple" geopolymer method? The carving of this statue fragment was not done with a single pass in a semi-cured state with some unknown tool, the mineral grains are clearly cut. You will also notice that there is no visible crushing of the mineral grains on the surface of the polished face, but this does appear on the surface of the unfinished headdress. Of course, this is where the rock hardness come into importance, since the harder the rock is in terms of fracture strength the less the fractures penetrate into the surface during percussion carving. You will also notice that the rock looks like a holocrystalline igneous rock on the polished surface, not a cataclastite, microbreccia, or breccia (as one would expect if the original host rock was mechanically crushed to produce the raw materials for a geopolymer). How the ancient Egyptians dissolved intercrystalline boundaries so that mineral grains were left intact and not crushed (minerals are after all brittle) and then reaggregated into interlocking closely fit grains (so they are indistinguishable from holocrystalline igneous rocks) is the real mystery here. After all, there is no physical property of granodiorite that is preventing the ancient Egyptians from carving this material with the tools available to them. Of course, it will require great expense, time, and labor... but that is still true today when modern sculptures chose to carve granitic rocks by traditional methods.
Here are other examples of sarcophagus fragment with hieroglyphics (unknown date).
<img src=" [www.beloit.edu] ">
<img src="[www.beloit.edu];
<img src=" [www.beloit.edu] ">
This is a medium grained igneous rock not clay or some fine-grained geopolymer. The mineral grains are cut and flush with the surface and they are cut by the hieroplyphics...
Here is a rock slab of Aswan granite cut with a modren lapidary saw and polished on a lap.
<img src="[www.eeescience.utoledo.edu];
Do you notice the great similarity in the way the mineral grains are cut on the surface of the modern rock slab and the sarcophagus fragment?
Archae Solenhofen (solenhofen@hotmail.com)
<snip></HTML>
| Subject | Author | Posted |
|---|---|---|
|
Archae Solenhofen | August 08, 2001 06:31PM |
|
Don Holeman | August 08, 2001 07:47PM |
![www.louvre.fr](http://www.louvre.fr/img/photos/collec/ae/grande/a0025.jpg">){kind=link}
![www.beloit.edu](http://www.beloit.edu/historyofart/egyptian/images/stonesarco4.jpg">){kind=link}
![www.eeescience.utoledo.edu](http://www.eeescience.utoledo.edu/Faculty/Harrell/Egypt/Quarries/aseb-gc-3.jpg">){kind=link}
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.