<HTML>>Date Posted: 23:06:56 07/21/01 Sat
>Author: Margaret Morris
>Subject: Re: Rebuttal 2: Margaret Morris v Archae Solenhofen - Part 2
>In reply to: Margaret Morris 's message, "Rebuttal 2: Margaret Morris v Archae Solenhofen - Part 1" on 23:06:56
>07/21/01 Sat
>Part 2: Tools; Tiny Stone Beads; Conclusion
|snip>
>Archae Solenhofen, however, thinks that the Great
>Pyramid must have been built with stone tools.
>He protests my assertion that the Great Pyramid
>could not have been made with stone tools by retorting,
>"What physical property of the rock is preventing it
>from being worked with stone tools?"
>Given that alchemical stonemaking was a real
>technology of antiquity (as shown by the findings
>by Stone et al., Henry Le'Chatelier, and Joseph Davidovits),
>and that stone cutting methods are unworkable for explaining
>the features of the Great Pyramid (see below) the principle of
>Occam's Razor applies on all counts to the geopolymer theory
>of pyramid construction.
Again, you are directly asked "what physical property of the rock is preventing it from being worked with stone tools" and you fail to answer it directly. I will answer it for you since you appear to be very reluctant to do so. Indentation hardness of calcite is about 1.8% the hardness of diamond and 5 time less hard than quartz abrasive... very little problem there for lapidary work of limestone either with stone rubbers or copper saws. Fracture strength of typical limestones are between 30-250 MPa most of the pyramid blocks were not indurated so these are considered soft limestones (BTW, there is no "medium" is either soft or hard). There is no problem with percussion carving this material with stone mauls and flint chisels and other stone tools, because calcite has 3 perfect cleavages and is highly susceptible to fracture upon impact and is easily crushed. There is no physical reason why stone tools cannot carve this material. I hope that finally clears this up for you...
|snip>
>If the Great Pyramids were made with stone
>tools, there should be tool marks all over all
>of the blocks. Why remove tool
>marks and leave the other irregularities
>that appear on the blocks? If the blocks
>of the Giza structures were quarried and
>cut, there should be several million broken
>and cracked blocks all over Giza because
>four blocks will typically crack
>during quarrying for every usable
>block--
When you quarry rock and you need a small piece you go to the waste pile first. If you need a piece of rock to repair your house you take something that is already quarried and transported rather than quarrying yourself a fresh piece.
>and this would be true even if
>a certain number could be salvaged for making
>smaller units.
Almost everything would be salvaged... quarrying in very expensive operation. It is cheaper to salvage waste and strip already existing structures than it is to quarry anew.
|snip>
>We cannot assume millions of failed blocks
>were used for later architectures. Millions of
>limestone blocks do not show up
>in post-Pyramid Age Egyptian architecture.
>The Giza quarries are also too small to
>accommodate these extra millions of
>blocks.
What are all those structures that surround the pyramids made of?
How many limestone carvings, and vases and other small objects are there?
>The use of pounding balls and other methods
>that apply force to limestone can also crack
>blocks, and this will add to the
>numbers of broken blocks that should be present
>at Giza if the blocks were quarried and cut.
Skilled stonemasons know how to dress rock to reduce waste
>Only a small minority of pyramid blocks have
>tool marks on them.
Interesting, has every pyramid block been examined?
|snip>
>The same method used would apply to the casing
>blocks. But it is illogical to think that enormous
>casing blocks would be made with huge, tight-
>fitting irregular surfaces. As I mentioned, it would
>be vastly easier to produce regular surfaces to
>avoid this tremendous amount of extra work.
Does Arnold not mention a simple pointing device? It is a rather simple tool for transferring 3 dimensional information from one object to the next, it has been used in a more complex form to duplicate statues since Roman and possibly Greek times. Since the Egyptians would need to transferring only planer surfaces from one block to the next, in this case all that is needed is basically a pointed-ended stick with a plum-bob hanging from it. What one does is place the block near the position of placement and then you dress the rock until the stick fits when set in a specific orientation. The finer the spacing between pointing tests the more accurate the reproduction. Who know it the Egyptian used such a very simple device, but this is all that is really needed to make tight fitting joints on rocks that have been finely and expertly dressed before hand. Moving the block many times over and over is not a necessity.
|snip>
>According to Lehner's observations, chisels of this
>type were used to cut stone. The chisels were only
>1/3 inch wide.(Lehner, M., The Complete Pyramids:
>Solving the Ancient Mysteries, New York, Thames
>and Hudson [1997], 211) While these tools are not
>suitable for cutting limestone or granite, they are
>suitable for shaping any kind of geopolymeric
>rock-concrete before it has fully cured.
All limestones... I do not think so. Indurated limestone (hard limestones) yes soft limestones (everything that is not indurated (most limestones)) copper will work. Again 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
Stocks, D.A. (1999) Stone sarcophagus manufacture in
ancient Egypt. Antiquity, 73, 918-22.
>Tiny Stone Beads: With regard to the tiny stone
>beads in the Cairo Museum measuring .023
>inch in diameter, with smaller threading holes,
>I pointed out that Denys Stocks has not duplicated
>beads of this size.
That's right, but you should point out that he got down to 1 mm holes doing three beads at once like they represented mass production of beads in Egyptian art. That is, 3 lapidary drills held in one hand and the other hand drawing a bow attached to the 3 drills. I am quite sure that with decades of bead making, day after day to gain high skill and expertise and doing one bead at a time he probably could get it down to the size of these small beads.
|snip>
>Despite the fact that Archae cannot refute the
>existence of synthetic basalt from Mesopotamian
>ruins--which amounts to mainstream, independent
>corroboration of the existence of the art of alchemical
>stonemaking during antiquity
More like one step above volcanic glass. I really should be pointed out that they were melting silt and cooling it down slowly to produce a very glassy material, a very expensive enterprise. You might as well say that making glass was alchemical stonemaking during antiquity.
>--there is no
>room in Archae's thinking for synthetic stone beads.
>For Archae, if Lucas says they are this or that kind of stone, these
>beads cannot be geopolymeric!
Lucas identified them as natural, not synthetic or imitation. Again there is no physical property of the rock that is preventing the making of beads and Stocks has demonstrated that holes of 1 mm can be cut into beads 3 at a time.
|snip>
>The tiny beads are made of carnelian, lapis lazuli
>and turquoise. However, whereas quartz (Archae
>points out that carnelian is a form of quartz) has
>a compact structure and reacts with difficulty at
>moderate temperatures, materials such as opals,
>flints, agate, onyx and carnelian (chalcedony).
>contain water in their composition. As such, they
>are easily attacked by caustic soda (made with
>lime, and the combination of salts called
>Egyptian natron, and water), so that
>sodium silicate is formed. The use of aluminum
>phosphate (such as powdered turquoise)
>transforms sodium silicate into
>a geopolymer (a zeolitic cement).
What is the density of this final material? Is it the same as carnelian or turquoise or whatever synthetic material you are tying to create here, because if it is not than you can test your hypothesis that it is a zeolitic cement by testing specific gravity.
>As for lapis
>lazuli, this material consists essentially of lazurite,
> a hydrous phosphate of aluminum, iron, and
>magnesium that lends itself to geopolymerization.
Interesting....
Lapis lazuli was used as single crystals or as pieces of holocrystalline metamorphic rock... although some example have calcite vienlets running through them, there is no visible cement and that is certainly true for the single crystals of lazurite.
>This is achieved by the geopolymeric chemical
>reaction itself: No added heat is required.
>Archae's explanation for how these beads were
>made is purely speculative: enys Stocks has not
>duplicated beads of this size. He admitted (private
>correspondence to Carl B. Thomas) that to duplicate
>them, he would use an agglomerate
>like faience.
What was the exact question and what was the exact answer?
Could you please supply e-mail addresses of both Stocks and Thomas so we can confirm this private correspondence...
It should be pointed out that the rocks carnelian and turquoise were available in ancient Egypt and were easily mined or collected on the surface due to erosion. There was also a well known source of lapis lazuli in Afghanistan that was available during Egyptian history. All these minerals can be cut with quartz and Stocks has demonstrated that he can cut quartz 3 beads at a time with perforation holes equal to 1 mm in diameter ...
|snip>
|snip>
>Indeed, it took Zuber 12 days to cut six crude
>holes in a granite quarry so he could detach a
>small chunk of granite with wooden wedges.
>Compare his great effort to the above quoted
>remarks by Lehner, "hieroglyphs and reliefs, the
>attributes of which Petrie marveled at because
>of their fine cross sections, measuring a mere
>.100 inch, indicating that the tool that created
>them had to have ploughed through the granite
>in a single pass..." Given the results of Zuber
>(days to cut a hole), why does Archae believe
>that hieroglyphs can be cut in natural granite in
>a single pass?
You left out the flint carving experiment again....
Again here it is:
from Stocks (1999):
see above
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
Lucas, A. & Harris, J.R. (1962) Ancient Egyptian materials and industries. E. Arnold, London, 523 p.
Zuber, A. (1956) Techniques du travail des pierres dures
dans l'Ancienne Egypte. Techniques et Civilisations, 29,
161-180, 195-215.
>With the geopolymer system, hieroglyphs can be
>inscribed in uncured rock-concrete in a single pass.
It is quite clear form examining the hieroglyphs in medium grained igneous rocks that they cut through mineral grains... that cannot be done in a rock that does not have a high rock hardness... that is a fundamental rule of carving... the more indurated a rock it the better it can be finely detail.
|snip>
>Many of Archae's readers will simply read his
>unfair opening remarks and assume he has
>easily discredited us, and they
>will, therefore, see no need for further
>consideration of the issues.
Where have you ever published the actual physical properties of rocks so your reader can see what you mean by "hard" rock? That would have certainly clear up some of the misconception that you accidentally made, maybe now that that has been pointed out to you a change will be made so that readers of your work will not be confused and misinformed on such critical an issue.
>Archae also bullies evidence to try to win
>his points: For Archae, Lucas said the beads
>are natural rock of various types,
>so they cannot be geopolymer! Given that
>geopolymerization was unknown when
>Lucas wrote his book, why does
>Archae present this kind of illegitimate
>argumentation?
Lucas was well aware of synthetic material used by the ancient Egyptian, there are section on it in his book... including imitation lapis lazuli and carnelian. He wasn't so easily fooled...
|snip>
>Time will tell if Archae proves to be fair and
>intellectually honest now that he
>is becoming more familiar with
>geopolymerization. After all, Archae does
>not deny that enigmas exist. Instead, he
>believes that when expert knowledge of the
>properties of rocks and minerals are applied,
>"The mysteries became [become] less perplexing..
>."--which remarks show that he does not deny
>that masonry mysteries exist. In addition,
>Archae has not insisted that the Great Pyramid
>was made with stone tools. He simply poses a
>legitimate question: "What physical property
>of the rock is preventing it from being worked
>with stone tools?"
Which you fail to answer over and over again... we can only assume form this reluctance to answer this legitimate question and the fact that the physical properties of rock are well documented, that there is no physical property of rock that you are aware of that is preventing the ancient Egyptian from working both non-indurated limestone (soft limestone with stone tools, the vast majority of pyramid blocks) and indurated limestone (hard limestone, Tura limestone), which is back up by experimentation. That also goes for granite and diorite too, since you also failed to answer that question when put to you many times.
>snip>
>Archae also indicated that he needs time to read and
>contemplate the important ramifications of the
>synthetic basalt independently found in ancient
>Mesopotamian ruins
Yes, I have read it... and after reading it I cannot see how making a glassy "synthetic basalt" in appearance only, by melting silt and letting it cool slowly, because the local area did not have a ready supply of basalt as a grinding material has any relevance at all on your geopolymer claims
Archae Solenhofen (solenhofen@hotmail.com)
>snip></HTML>
