<HTML>Date Posted: 22:45:53 07/21/01 Sat
>Author: Margaret Morris
>Subject: Rebuttal 2: Margaret Morris v
>Archae Solenhofen - Part 1
>Rebuttal 2: Margaret Morris v Archae Solenhofen
>Part 1: Hard Stone Vessels; Colossi of Memnon;
>Ancient Geopolymers
>Advanced Technology: Archae Solenhofen characterizes
>me as an "advanced technology claimant" whereas nothing
>could be further from the truth. He writes, "Well, there seems
>a [sic] extraordinary effort among advanced technology
>claimants..." The truth is that more technology is required to
>bake a loaf of bread than to make geopolymeric limestone
>concrete. Geopolymeric limestone concrete does not even
>require any heat--only some kaolinitic limestone (like that of
>Giza and Saqqara) and natron, lime and water.
That's interesting, where did I say I was talking
about limestone?
How about granites, diorites, and gneisses... you
left out the formulas for those. I am sure that
the ancient Egyptians had also involved some
rather advanced technology for the disaggregation
of a holocrystalline igneous rocks (made
entirely of crystals, no glass, or cement)
and higher grade metamorphic rocks, so that mineral
grains were separated along intercrystalline boundaries.
One must remember that granites, diorites, and
anorthositic gneisses are identified as such and not
cataclastites or microbreccias, or aggregates as one
would expect if the medium-grained igneous rocks
were crushed (with unknown tools) and then cemented
back together. Do you have a modern method that
breaks the mineral grains in all the igneous rocks the
ancient Egyptians used along intercrystalline boundaries,
so that the grains are not crushed but remain intact
and whole. Intercrystalline boundaries (grain to
grain contacts) in most igneous rocks are among
the strongest boundaries in rocks, stronger in fact
than most cleavage planes (not to mention many
of the other internal weaknesses minerals have).
The granites, diorites, gneisses that the ancient
Egyptians used are not described in the literature
as being made of crushed mineral grains (even
though brecciated limestones are, i.e. "breccia"),
or cemented with a fine matrix or glass, which is
very distinctive to any qualified geologist. You
may not think you are an advanced technology
claimant, but it is quite clear that your claims
warrant such a title.
_snip>
>Metamorphic Schist: Archae Solenhofen objects to our
>statement about metamorphic schist (he cites page eight of our
>1988 book). He actually insinuates that Dr. Davidovits
>and I are reinventing the properties of this material to
>heighten the masonry mysteries, which suggests that
>we are being deliberately dishonest.
>Archae Solenhofen writes, "Well, there
>seems a [sic] extraordinary effort among advanced technology
>claimants to try to make rocks and minerals sound harder
>than they actually are." But these words, "metamorphic
>schist, harder than iron, come from our source, which is a
>legitimate Egyptological source.
>Kurt Lange writes: "It would be hard to
>find a sculptor as capable of showing off
>all the latent qualities of a stone as the
>stoneworkers of the Valley of the Nile several
>Millennia BC. Infinitely long and laborious
>experience had familiarized prehistoric man
>with mineral material to a point of which we
>can have no conception. Doubtless, he knew stone better
>than a modern surgeon knows anatomy and physiology.
>Where is the modern sculptor who works directly with a
>chisel on basalt, diorite, volcanic glass (obsidian), and
>metamorphic schist harder than iron?" (Kurt Lange,
>Des Pyramides, des Sphinx, des Pharaons, Ed. Plon, Paris,
>pages 169-174)
Your source is not correct, maybe you should have
quoted from a modern book on stone sculpture instead
of one written by an Egyptologist who apparently has
not a detailed understanding of the modern material
and methods used in stone sculpting... For example
(Rich, 1970):
Granite
"The best possible quality should always be used,
as in any other stone selected for sculptural use.
Because granite is a very hard and physically
compact material, it is quite difficult to carve.
Some varieties are fairly brittle and tend to shatter
under the chisel, while others have interlocking
grains that make them extremely difficult to work.
In carving granite, the sculptor should avoid delicate
projections or deep undercuts. Although it is possible
to achieve fine detail and delicate modeling, it is quite
difficult to do so and the nature of the medium
demands a broad treatment. Forms should preferably
be kept rounded and compact rather than sharp,
angular, or projecting. Egyptian sculptures in this
material are excellent examples of how the medium
should be worked. The granites take a very high polish
but defects within the specific stone may become apparent
with polishing." page 214-15
" The tools required for carving granite and other hard,
igneous stones should be thicker and heavier than those
employed for carving the limestones and marbles. They
also have to be specially tempered. Chisels for granite
carving should be from 9 to 10 inches in length and
should be fashioned from square tool steel. The type of
tool steel called 'Peerless' is an excellent, high-grade steel
for making granite carving tools. The chisel diameters
should vary and should include 1/2-inch chisels, 5/8-inch
chisels, 7/8-inch points, and 7/8-inch chisels." page 258
Diorite
"The stone is heavier than granite and it is quite difficult
to carve and to polish. The tools required for carving are
fundamentally the same as those used for granite. Diorite
has been used as a sculpture mcdium since Antiquity,
and many Egyptian carvings in this material have been
discovered." page 231
Basalt
" Basalt is a hard and tough igneous stone. It was
frequently used by the ancient Egyptians as a sculptural
medium for portraits. There are many varieties, ranging
from almost glassy forms to fine-grained, compact types,
and it is widely distributed geographically. Basalt is
slightly easier to carve than granite, although both of these
igneous forms are very hard, chisel-resisting materials. It
is a beautiful stone for sculpture and takes a fine surface
polish, if one has sufficient energy and patience to work
it The polishing serves as a superlieial protection to work
exposed outdoors. The tools required for carving are
fundamentally the same as those used for shaping the
granites into sculptural form. The thickness of the chisels
of the and the degree of tempering necessary are identical."
page 230
Obsidian
Obsidian can be carved like flint, since it fractures
conchoidally. The ancient Egyptians have been carving
obsidian and rocks like it for many thousand of years
making stone tools such as arrowheads.
Schist
In the Egyptological literature, schist refers to indurated
sedimentary rocks that can be easily carved by standard
chisel.
You have must read Zuber (1956) and Stocks (1999,
2001) so you must know that granite and diorite can be
carved with flint chisels. Zuber (1956) was available
when you co-authored your book... why you didn't bother
to quote his test of carving a small granite head with flint
tools in 36 hours I find rather surprising.
I think it is quite clear that an "extraordinary effort" was
being made... you chose a source that was factually
incorrect and didn't bother to check its accuracy and you
didn't point out that flint tools can carve granite.
BTW, the ancient Chinese have been carving jade for the
last 8000 years, it cannot be carved with even hardened
steel chisels because of it is very high rock hardness
(fracture strength) and must be done by strictly lapidary
methods.
Rich, J. C. (1970) The materials and methods of sculpture.
Oxford Univ., New York, 416 p.
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.
>Thus, even if there is confusion in the Egyptological
>literature, clearly: 1) we did not deliberately misrepresent
>information "to try to make rocks and minerals sound
>harder than they actually are," and 2) Lange has a very hard
>material in mind, not soapstone or talc.
I will take your word for it... still need to explain why you
chose a factually incorrect source, that a little bit of
supplementary research would have demonstrated.
>Archae Solenhofen writes, "The only metamorphic
>schist the ancient Egyptians used was talc schist (steatite,
>"soapstone"). The term "schist" as used by Egyptologists
>refers to very weakly metamorphosed slates, mudstones,
>siltstones, and, greywackes, that have no visible schistosity.
>What is it about these essentially indurated sedimentary
>rocks that make them as hard as iron?"
_snip>
>In short, we have no interest in discrediting ourselves
>by deliberately misrepresenting the properties of rock for the
>purpose of heightening the masonry mysteries. Despite
>Archae's attempt to explain all enigmatic artifacts in terms of
>lapidary work, masonry mysteries abound unless the
>geopolymer theory is applied--as I show below.
Feldspar is only about 8% the hardness of diamond...
you have never bothered to state that in any book you
have published. I am quite sure that if Lange was given
this information he would have been less perplexed by
what he saw. It is obvious the Lange was not an expert
in stoneworking as is demonstrated from his false
assertion above about modern sculpture, which you have
chosen for some reason to proliferate.
>Potter's Wheel Marks on Hard Stone Vessels:
>Archae Solenhofen asks if the potter's wheel
>grooves are on the inside or
>outside. Lange clearly informs us (see his
>quote above) that these tiny, regular groves
>are on the inside of the vessels he investigated.
>Given that natural diorite cannot be made on
>a potter's wheel, the most logical explanation
>for these vessels is that they
>were pliable rock fashioned on a potter's wheel
>and left to cure. Petrie provides an example:
_qoute snip>
>I expect that Archae will provide an explanation
>of how this cusp can be created by grinding.
>However, the features of
>vessels suggest the use of a potter's wheel, and
>the diorite vessels with their special features
>have not been re-created
>in modern times. Thus, the most logical
>explanation is that ancient diorite vessels
>were made with pliable rock on a
>potter's wheel. The principle of Occam's Razor
>(or its more modern derivatives) applies: the
>simplest of competing
>theories is preferred to the more complex.
Read Stocks (1993) again:
"Subsequently, Mesopotamian and Egyptian
bulbous vessels - those considerably wider
inside than at the mouth - were further hollowed
by grinding with another tool, a stone borer of
elongated form. The mid-Point of its long axis
was made to narrow equality from both sudes.
Seen from above the borer assumes the shape
of a figure of eight, enabling a forked shaft to
engage with the waist. The top is normally
flat, the bottom curved. In Egypt, this particular
borer has been discovered at Hierakonpolis, a
siteassociated with late predynastic and early
dynastic stone vessel production (Quibell &
Green 1902: plate LXII, 6) (FIGURE 1b);
Mesopotamian figure-of-eight shaped stone
borers were discovered by Woolley at Ur
(Woolley 1955: 75, figure 15b) (FIGURE 1c).
Circular borers-were used to grind stone bowls
whose interior was no wider than the mouth.
A stone borer in the British Museum (BM 124498
from Ur), curved underneath and flat on top,
has a piece cut out from each side of its upper
surface, also for retaining a forked shaft. At Ur,
stone borers were common in the Uruk and Jemdet
Nasr periods, and Woolley though that the
constricted parts of theseborers were engaged
by a forked wooden shaft driven by a bow
(Woolley 1955:FIGURE 2). Borers made from
diorite are common in Mesopotamia and Egypt;
other stones utilized in Egypt included chert,
sandstone and limestone." page 596-597
Cusp? yes, they changed the borer because it wore
out. All primary minerals in diorite are lass than 8%
the hardness of diamond, diorites can be ground
with the partial rotary motion techniques
demonstrated by Stocks. As for striation, those can
be produced by stone borers using sand abrasive.
As for Occam's Razor... no advanced
technology is needed here, just a basic understanding
of the lapidary and percussion carving.
Stocks, D.A. (1993), Making Stone vessels in
Ancient Mesoptamia and Egypt, Antiquity, 67,
596-603.
Quibell, J.E. &. Green, F.W (1902) Hierakonpolis.
Part II. London: Quaritch. British School of Archaeology
in Egypt Memoir 5.
Woolley, C.L. (1934) Ur excavations II. London: The
Trustees of the British Museum and the Museum of the
University of Pennsylvania,
>Diorite: When I indicated that diorite is one of
>the hardest rocks known, I meant in ancient Egypt.
>gyptologists assert that diamond was unknown, and
>Lucas did not believe that corundum was imported in
>early times.
Diamond and corundum are both minerals, diorite is a
rock... Quartz will abrade quartz as Lucas and Harris
(1962) clearly point out
"In Petrie's discussion of the evidences (c) and (e),
the expressions used `ploughing out one-hundredth
inch thick of quartz at a single cut' and 'As
the lines are only one-one-hundred-and-fiftieth inch
wide . . . it is evident that the cutting point must
have been harder than quartz' are somewhat
misleading since the material referred to by
Petrie was not quartz, but diorite, which is not
quite so hard; and since diamond dust is used
for cutting diamonds, presumably, therefore, quartz
powder might be employed for cutting quartz." page 71
All primary minerals in diorite are less had than quartz.
You seem very reluctant to acknowledge this well
established fact.
>There is no denying that diorite is hard, tough rock.
>According to geologist Robert G. McKinney, who has
>spent much time hammering diorite, diorite is almost as
>difficult to cut as quartzite. Heavy-duty, high-strength steel
>hammer noses and picks are ruined when used to hammer
>diorite. Hammering diorite will ruin the striking surface of a
>high-quality modern hammer made of tough tool steel, which
>is stronger than regular steel.
That is rock hardness (fracture strength)... if these
rocks did not have high rock hardnesses (the mineral
grains are tightly held together) they could not be
finely detained and polished, since the mineral grains
would fall out during the working process. The use
of hardrock is endemic to the fact that they are carving
finely detailed statuary and other objects... they cannot
do it otherwise.
Again you fail to point out that both Zuber (1956) carved
granite and Stocks (1999, 2001) carved granite and
diorite with flint tools. For example, Stocks (1999):
"Tests with dolerite and diorite tools by R. Engelbach
(1923: 40) and A. Zuber (1956: 195) indicated a poor
ability to cut granite. Zuber (1956: 180, figures 18-20)
cut granite with flint (Mohs 7) implements, and my own
experiments with flint chisels, punches and scrapers on
gran-ite, diorite, hard and soft limestone, hard and soft
sandstone and calcite (Stocks 1986c: 25-9; 1988: II,
246-73, plates XXIV, b, XXV, b) re-vealed that flint
tools can satisfactorily work all these stones, but that
the cutting of igneous stone is a slow process. These
findings sup-port the shaping and hollowing of soft
lime-stone sarcophagi by copper adzes and chisels,
but it is possible that these sarcophagi were also
worked by flint chisels, adzes and scrap-ers (Petrie
1938: 30)" page 918
from Lucas and Harris, (1962)
"After a short discussion of the metals available
to the ancient Egyptians for tools, Zuber examines
various representations of sculptors at work, from
which he concludes that chisels and adzes of copper
and bronze were only used in carving wooden
statues and those of soft stones, while the hard stones
were worked with implements of stone. This is
confirmed by his examination of unfinished hard
stone statues, which show no traces of the use of
metal picks or chisels, but are pitted, as though
violently eroded by sand-the result of working
with stone tools. To prove that hard stones can
indeed be worked in this way, Zuber has executed
a small head in granite, using only flint implements,
the whole operation, exclusive of polishing, taking
only thirty-six hours." page 499
Granite and diorite can be carved by percussion
and cut by lapidary means with simple stone and
copper tools... you have yet to demonstrate how
igneous rock is disaggregated and reaggregated so
that it looks like a holocrystalline rock with cut and
polished mineral grains on the surface. I should
say that the inside of the vases are not smooth by
rough with many striations, apparently the
unknown tool that cut and polished the exterior
surface of the partially cured geopolymer of
simulated holocrystalline medium-grained igneous
rocks, wasn't he same tool that shaped the interior.
Remember, that the word striation refers to scratches
that cut mineral grains... not through some "invisible"
cement matrix, since these rocks were identified as
granites and diorites by very qualified experts like
Lucas.
_snip>
>I pointed out that Denys Stocks has not re-created
>a diorite vase. Archae Solenhofen retorts, "Stocks
>did not make a vase, but did work diorite."
>I repeat: until Denys Stocks re-creates a diorite
>vessel with features that match those that have
>baffled researchers since the inception of Egyptology
>(see Lange's quote above and other quotes below),
>no objective researcher would assume that simply drilling
>diorite solves the problems or is equivalent to making a vessel.
There is no physical property of diorite that is
preventing the ancient Egyptian from carving it
or for that matter Stocks, just the skill, time, and
effort to do it. Stocks has clearly demonstrated
his ability to work diorite and granite using the
tools that would be available in ancient Egypt.
You have demonstrated very little in the way of
granite or diorite geopolymers... just saying that
a potter's wheel was used in of little consequence
in explaining the hardrock artifacts..
There are thousand of intricate carved nephritic
objects, including vases and bowls carved by the
ancient Chinese over the last 3 thousand years in
museums all over the world. Nephritic jade is
more difficult to carve then diorite.
_qoutes snip>
>Thus, Archae Solenhofen's conjecture does not
>translate into one actual diorite vessel made by
Denys Stocks or anyone else in modern
times that compares to the ancient hard
>stone vessels that Egyptologists (el-Khouli,
>Bissing, Petrie, Quibell, Bonnet, Emery,
>Reisner, Balcz, Lucas, Baumagartel, Hartenberg,
>Schmidt, Lange and others) so thoroughly
>appreciated.
Interesting how all your sources pre-date Stocks,
(1986)... do you have anything a little more recent?
>Principles of logic and Occam's Razor
>favor geopolymerization.
Have you created a holocrystalline igneous rock
like diorite and granite (we are not talking about
synthetic basalt here)? Since there is no physical
property of diorite that prevents a skilled craftsman
from making a vase out of diorite. Occam's Razor
would favor simple tools over advanced
technology to produce a diorite object identical
to that used by the ancient Egyptians. Remember,
before you answer this you must first demonstrate
a plausible (non-advanced technology) method of
disintegrating "hard" diorite and granite so that
mineral grains are left whole and intact and ready
for reaggregation.
>Handles on Stone Vessels: Referring to a
>symmetrical vessel, Archae Solenhofen adds,
>"Did you notice the handles as well? It is
>obvious that the walls are not of uniform thickness
>in this case."
>What is obvious is that handles can be easily
>added (just as they are added to clay pots)
Were not talking about clay... we are taking
about rocks which have grain sizes many
orders of magnitude that of clay. "Stuck" on
handles... I guess you have abandoned the
claim of symmetrical walls balancing the vase.
>to
>geopolymeric vessels that are first made by
>turning them like clay on a potter's wheel or
>by other means.
Love to see how that works in a medium-grain
igneous rock with feldspar laths that are clearly
medium grained. How exactly to you make a
holocrystalline rock like that so the crystal grains
fit so well together without cement or glass.
>As I said, this is the best explanation
>for vessels with walls of uniform thickness,
>examples that might suggest hard stone turned
>on a modern lathe except for the
>handles (which interfere with lathe turning).
Since the crystal on the surface of the vase are
clearly cut and polished it is quite clear that these
"uniform thick" walls were made by lapidary
grinding not a spatula or any other tool of this
sort. If you have a method that cuts feldspar
laths and phenocrysts so that they and flush and
polished on the surface I would like to hear
about it, otherwise Occam's Razor is not going
to be much help to you. Again, I seem to have
to say this over and over but yet get no response
"what physical property of diorite is preventing
this vase from being made by hand?"
>Archae presents the best case scenario for handles
>by presenting examples of small ones that require
>less cutting over a large surface. But not all handles
>are small. Some vessels have handles that extend the
>entire length of their long necks, from their openings
>to their bellies.
Yes, that is correct almost all in carbonate tocks
and other rocks with minerals that have low
indentation hardnesses and are relatively easy to
carve. Actually I said that "Those handles are quite
small in almost all vase types (Petrie, 1977)".
_snip>
>Archae Solenhofen suggests that the photographs
>he presents probably represent natural rock. However,
>I have firsthand experience with geopolymerized rock
>samples that have fooled expert geologists.
So you have produced medium-grained igneous
rocks like the one in the photos below with polished
surface cutting through mineral grains that would
fool geologists... I strongly doubt that's the case.
>Sometimes
>it is extremely difficult to distinguish between natural
>and geopolymeric rock agglomerates.
We are not talking about limestone. Diorites and
granites are identified as holocrystalline igneous rocks
not agglomerates.
_snip>
>Symmetry: Archae Solenhofen responds to my
>remarks about vessels with symmetrical walls
>by saying that, "Not all have uniformly thick walls."
>That is irrelevant. We are not suggesting
>that all vessels were made on potter's wheels.
>Stone vessels can be formed
>and cut in a partially cured state, while they
>are still soft enough to be easily penetrated
>with simple tools. Egyptian tomb
>scenes show a number of useful techniques.
The mineral grains are clearly cut in most rock
examples... this falsifies you geopolymer claim
that the vases are made in a partially cured state.
How a medium-grained igneous rocks, some which
are porphyritic, were made on a potter's wheel, so
that the material of carved objects are identical in
appearance to natural rock found in Egypt is the
only major mystery here... which I suspect you
have no plausible solution for.
>Furthermore, as I said in my initial response
>to Archae, there is no mystery to making poorly
>formed vessels of soft rock
>by using simple tools. The mystery is the hard
>stone vessels with features that have
>theretofore not been duplicated in
>modern times. Archae's remarks obscure
>the real problems.
Again there is no physical property of the rock
that is preventing these vases from being made.
_snip>
>Archae Solenhofen interprets everything
>in terms of cutting hard stone. Where is
>there room in his thinking for another
>kind of proven technology? He is now
>aware (since my last reply to him) that
>Mesopotamian ruins have been
>independently shown by mainstream
>archaeologists and geologists to contain
>synthetic basalt. It is also an established
>fact of Egyptology that the ancient
>Egyptians made synthetic stone.
Like diorite and granite... I think not. You
have yet to demonstrate this...
>We point out in our 1988 book (which
>Archae Solenhofen is familiar with,
>given that he uses it to cite pages) that
>Henry Le'Chatelier (1850-1935)
>discovered bubbles in Egyptian faience and
>observed its self-glazing process. He thereby
>proved that the material is not the natural
>sandstone Egyptology thought it to be
>(Munier, P., Technologie des Faience
>Technologie des faïences, Préf. de M.
>P. de Groote, Gauthier-Villars, Paris [1957],
>132). Joseph Davidovits has since
>shown that Egyptian faience is a geopolymeric
>product (which involves heat, like the
>Mesopotamian basalt) and that
>ambient temperature geopolymeric reactions
>are easily made with earthen materials abundant
>in Egypt.
Stocks (1997) proposes that the tailings of
the cutting process could be used in the
manufacturing of a faience, from a water-based
paste of calcite derived tailings (from limestone
and travertine coring and slabbing) and sodium
bicarbonate (natron). As well, blue glazes can
be produced from diorite and granite tailings.
Both the blue glazes and the faience produced by
Stocks resemble in appearance those common to
ancient Egyptian.
Stocks, D.A. (1997) Derivation of ancient Egyptian
faience core and glaze materials, Antiquity, 71, 179-82
>In other words, combining earthen
>materials (salts, clays, and lime with water) can
>yield impressive artifacts of the type that Christopher
>Dunn's expertise tells him required ultrasonic
>drilling and forms of super technology that have
>yet to be invented for working natural rock.
All of which can be carved by percussion and have
indentation hardnesses less than about 10% that of
diamond. Both of you do not seem to have been aware
of this until I pointed it out...
>Given that Archae wishes to explain away
>all features with stone cutting methods,
>let us see how he deals with the
>following example: The Church father
>Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 150-215)
>preserved a description of the
>manufacture of the stone colossus of the
>Greco-Egyptian god Serapis:
_"qoute" snip>
>This is not an example of glass, faience,
>or metal. Clement described agglomerated
>stone, which included sacred metals
>(gold was considered the flesh of the Sun-god;
>silver the flesh of the Moon, etc.), all kinds
>of rocks and the funerary remains of the
>Apis bull--all fashioned into the colossus.
>No stonecutting was involved.
I seriously doubt that this statue was entirely made
of "filings of gold, and silver, and lead, and in
addition, tin; and of Egyptian stones not one was
wanting, and there were fragments of sapphire, and
hematite, and emerald, and topaz" . That would be an
enormous waste of very valuable materials...
I fail to see the relevance to the sculpture of the
ancient Egyptians. Sure it was not a mossaic?
>With regard to the Colossi of Memnon,
>Joseph Davidovits has re-created quartzite
>that chemically matches an analysis
>of the northern Memnon statue. (Bowman,
>H., et al., “The Northern Colossus of
>Memnon: New Slants,” Archaeometry
>[1984], Vol. 26, 218-229)
What is Davidovits' definition of a "quartzite"?
Considering that it's a siliceous sandstone it's not
surprising that it chemically matches the rock i.e.
mostly quartz. Remember, that the siliceous sandstone
of Egypt form from hydrothermal alteration and
precipitation of quartz from solution under lithostatic
pressure not by mixing it up is a lab and letting it dry.
So does it match in any other respects the natural
"quartzites" found in Egypt?
>As pointed out in our 1988 book,
>researchers have searched in vain for
>extraction sites from which the 63 foot high
>Colossi of Memnon could have been
>extracted. It would be hard to miss
>63-foot holes in the quartzite bedrock, but the
>extraction sites have never been found.
Not surpassing, go to any quarry one year and
it is different the next since that is what is done at
quarries... quarrying. Obviously, if it was quarried
it was good quality rock, the rest would more than
likely be quarried away at a later date. There are
"quartzite" quarries in Egypt are there not? The
ancient Egyptians were quarrying "quartzite",
if so for what purpose certainly not for raw materials
to be ground up to be used in synthetic "quartzite",
since if that were the case it would not be called a
"quartzite" but a breccia or microbreccia.
_snip>
>Synthetic Mesopotamian Basalt: With regard
>to the geological descriptions of the basalt from
>Egypt and Mesopotamia,
>Archae Solenhofen asks if the descriptions compare
>"mineralogical or chemically?"
>Both descriptions I alluded to are of features
>of the rock matrix, not of chemical analyses.
Yes, you really need to point out that it is described
as "superficially resembling natural basalt, but distinctive
in chemistry and mineralogy"... these are not basalts in
a geological context and they are not identifies as such
in the paper I have read (Stone et.al., 1997)
"Compositionally, this material falls outside the range
of known basalts"
>The point is not that there is altered glass in basalt.
Yes, that is correct altered glass occurs naturally in
some basalts.
>The point is that the Mesopotamian basalt has been
>determined to be synthetic by an independent team.
You really should not be claiming they are basalts but
"synthetic basalt" in appearance only, which is how it is
described in the paper.
_snip>
>It is
>fortunate that the Mesopotamian basalt looks
>synthetic.
_snip>
>Davidovits and Courtois
>thereby proved that a simple
>geopolymer, a chemical reaction producing
>synthetic zeolites, was produced 8,000
>years ago in the Eastern
>Mediterranean. Innovating to make stone
>is not much of a technological leap.
Lime vases are one thing, holocrystalline medium-grained
igneous rocks are a completely different story. If it is not
much of a leap... why have you not created an exact
duplicate of the diorite vase (or for that matter any item
that resembles a ancient Egyptian diorite artifact) as you
insist Stock must first accomplish. Stocks has conducted
experimentation that clearly demonstrates that diorite and
granite can be worked with the tools available to the
ancient Egyptians.
Archae Solenhofen (solenhofen@hotmail.com)
>Pleasse see Part 2 (next posting)</HTML>
