<HTML>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.
Archae Solenhofen cites pages of our 1988 book, so he is not unfamiliar with our research. Why does he color making simple geopolymers as "advanced technology?" In reality, advanced technology claimants like Christopher Dunn and others dismiss the geopolymer theory because it offers a pragmatic, Late Stone Age level technology solution to otherwise unexplained feats of masonry and engineering that they tout as proof of the existence of super technology from Atlantis, space aliens, etc.
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)
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.
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?"
Clearly, Kurt Lange was not talking about soft rocks like soapstone when he included metamorphic schist in his discussion of the hard stone vessels: This is very clear in his writings, "On examining them attentively, I only became more perplexed. How were they made, the dishes, plates, bowls, and other objects in diorite, which are among the most beautiful of all the fine stone objects? I have no idea...But how could such a hard stone be worked? The Egyptians of that time had at his disposal only stone, copper, and abrasive sand...It is more difficult to imagine the fabrication of hard stone vases with long narrow necks and rounded bellies. This noble and translucent material is of exceptional hardness...of unequaled finesse and elegance of shape, they are of supreme perfection. The internal face is covered with a microscopic, network of tiny grooves so regular that only an ultramodern potter's wheel of precision could have produced them. To see the grooves one needs a magnifying glass and good lighting. That they can be seen at all is due to the fact that the polishing of the internal face was not as thorough as that of the external face. The latter bears not the slightest trace of working. Obviously, the equipment used must have been some kind of potter's wheel. But how could such a hard material be worked? Moreover, the wheels on which earthenware pots were made with such regularity of form had only just been invented, and it is hard to believe that it was this tool, doubtless still extremely primitive, which was used in the fabrication of the hardest and most perfect bowls ever made."
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.
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:
"The diorite bowls and vases of the Old Kingdom are frequently met with, and show great technical skill. One piece found at Gizeh, No. 14, shows that the method employed was true turning, and not any process of grinding, since the bowl has been knocked off its centering, recentred imperfectly, and the old turning not quite turned out; thus there are two surfaces belonging to different centerings, and meeting in a cusp. Such an appearance could not be produced by any grinding or rubbing process which pressed on the surface." (Petrie, W.M.F, The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh (1883), 176 and pl. XIV, 14, 15).
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.
Diorite: When I indicated that diorite is one of the hardest rocks known, I meant in ancient Egypt. Egyptologists assert that diamond was unknown, and Lucas did not believe that corundum was imported in early times.
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.
When we combine the hardness of diorite with the unprecedented features of the hard stone vases, we have what Egyptologists appreciate as a masonry enigma.
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.
The following quote by Walter B. Emery speaks of exact symmetry, which is automatically achieved when making vessels on a potter's wheel and allowing the material to cure:
"Unfortunately, we have no really satisfactory evidence of the method of manufacture of these stone vessels, and, although certain processes of the work are known to us, others remain a complete mystery. How did they achieve such accuracy that when we 'swing' a shallow bowl or dish, no deviation from a perfect circle can be noted?" (Emery, W.B., Archaic Egypt: Culture and Civilizations in Egypt Five Thousand Years Ago, Penguin Books, Baltimore (1961 edition), 214-215)
A. el-Khouli also appreciated the features of hard stone vessels:
"No other country, before or since, has achieved such perfection in this skilled industry in its efforts to produce not only objects of utility but also of beauty. A high level of achievement in this respect was reached in the Predynastic Period and during the first three Dynasties." (el-Khouli, A., Egyptian Stone Vessels: Predynastic Period to Dynasty III typology and analysis, von Zabern, Mainz/Rhein [1978]. In Vol. II, titled Manufacture of Stone Vessels - Ancient and Modern, page 789)
On page 801 el-Khouli adds:
"Stone vessel craftsman soon showed his mastery over the material by producing vessels of floral and leaf shapes, and in the shapes of fish, animal, birds, etc."
On page 789 el-Khouli says:
"No stone was too hard or intractable for the ancient craftsman."
Archae Solenhofen defends the premise that all of the extraordinary features of the hard stone vessels, their symmetry, their walls of uniform thickness, etc. can be made by hand with simple tools. However, Denys Stocks has been using simple means to re-create artifacts for his entire career. Why has he never duplicated these features in diorite? Perhaps the answer to this question lies in el-Khouli's remarks on page 789, which do suggest the limitations of cutting even limestone (which is not nearly as hard as diorite) with simple tools, even when iron (which did not appear in Egypt until about 1000 years after the Great Pyramid was built) is used:
"To my knowledge, until a few years ago villagers in some parts of Middle and Upper Egypt were still manufacturing mortars of limestone in a rather simple fashion, boring out the interiors of the vessels (and also the horns of animals), or manufacturing spindles from such horns using a very small chisel of iron. They spent a long time even on one stone vessel, and the finished product, it must be admitted, was hardly commensurate with the labour and trouble expended."
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. Principles of logic and Occam's Razor favor geopolymerization.
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) to geopolymeric vessels that are first made by turning them like clay on a potter's wheel or by other means. 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).
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.
Natural or Artificial Stone: Archae Solenhofen writes, "BTW, are not those feldspar grains on the surface of that vase cut or do they occur like that naturally? They sure look cut, since they are exposed on a curved polished surface... Remember rocks and mineral can be polished when they are held very ridged against the lapping surface something that is rather difficult to explain if the material is in an uncured state. It is quite clear that lapidary work was involved in the making of that vase above..."
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. Sometimes it is extremely difficult to distinguish between natural and geopolymeric rock agglomerates. Hostile geologists have been proven quite unfair (and wrong) in their assessments, as the published literature shows (see my debates with J.A. Harrell et al. and R.L. Folk, et al. in the Journal of Geological Education). Examples Archae may present require testing by qualified, objective experts familiar with the capabilities of geopolymerization, which is a system that by its very nature generates its own crystalline structure(s) in addition to the structure of the aggregates it chemically binds.
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.
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 heretofore not been duplicated in modern times. Archae's remarks obscure the real problems.
Colossi of Memnon: Archae Solenhofen writes as follows about the grains in the Colossi of Memnon not being broken at all when complex, curvy hieroglyphics were inscribed, "Sounds to me like the above quote is describing a rock that has been section [sic] by a lapidary cut…"
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.
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. 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.
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:
"But Athenodorns the son of Sandon, while wishing to make out the Serapis to be ancient, has somehow slipped into the mistake of proving it to be an image fashioned by human hands. He says that Sesostris the Egyptian king, having subjugated the most of the Hellenic races, on his return to Egypt brought a number of craftsmen with him. Accordingly he ordered a statue of Osiris, his ancestor, to be executed in sumptuous style; and the work was done by the artist Bryaxis, not the Athenian, but another of the same name, who employed in its execution a mixture of various materials. For he had 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. Having ground down and mixed together all these ingredients, he gave to the composition a blue colour, whence the darkish hue of the image; and having mixed the whole with the colouring matter that was left over from the funeral of Osiris and Apis, moulded the Serapis, the name of which points to its connection with sepulture and its construction from funeral materials, compounded as it is of Osiris and Apis, which together make Osirapis." (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen, Ch. 4)
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.
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)
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. The absence of huge extraction sites makes sense if the rock was agglomerated, as was the statue of Serapis. The means of sculpting, transporting and erecting these giant colossi has not been determined. Again, the principle of logic works in favor of geopolymerization on all counts.
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. The point is not that there is altered glass in basalt. The point is that the Mesopotamian basalt has been determined to be synthetic by an independent team.
This corroborates our research showing that alchemical stonemaking was an ancient art. It is well-known that there was cultural exchange between Egypt and Mesopotamia.
Synthetic rock can look like natural rock to the naked eye and even under a microscope. Even strange looking examples of stone have been overlooked (see my first reply to Archae) because, until Davidovits' re-discovery of the chemical reaction he named geopolymeric, concrete with the properties and appearance of real rock was unheard of. It is fortunate that the Mesopotamian basalt looks synthetic.
Joseph Davidovits and Liliane Courtois, the latter of the Center for Archaeological Research, in Paris, found that geopolymerization dates all of the way back to 8,000 years ago, and so it will not be surprising if alchemical stonemaking proves to have been a widespread technology. They carried out X-ray chemical analyses to determine the make-up of lime vessels from Tel-Ramad, Syria, which date to 6,000 BC. These 8,000-year-old vessels are not stone, but consist of a white, stony lime material. They are mostly lime.
Davidovits and Courtois made their presentation at the Twenty-first International Symposium on Archaeometry, held in 1981 at the Brookhaven National Laboratory, in New York. They reported that the samples contain up to 41 percent of analcime (analcite), a zeolite easily made by mixing natron, lime, water and clay. (Davidovits, J., Courtois, L., "Differential Thermal Analysis (D.T.A.) Detection of Intra-Ceramic Geopolymeric Setting in Archaeological Ceramics and Mortars," 21st Symposium on Archaeometry, Brookhaven N.Y. [1981], Abstracts, p. 22)
The high amount of zeolite is not in the raw material from which the vases are made. The vessels, therefore, can only be the product of geopolymerization, which produces zeolites. 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.
Part 2: Tools; Tiny Stone Beads; Conclusion
Cold Hammering Copper: Archae Solenhofen cites the example by Carpenter of an early instance of hard copper. However, it would require an enormous leap of faith and deny the archaeological record to assume that all of the copper needed for pyramid construction was hardened based on this isolated example. Lucas qualifies his discussion, excerpts of which Archae has included in his post, with words like "probably" and "possible," and most of Lucas' discussion does not pertain to the 4th Dynasty or earlier. Lucas remarks:
"If hammered too much, however, copper becomes brittle, which also soon would have been observed and avoided, since it is not likely that the remedy for brittleness would have been discovered until much later. This remedy is to heat the copper to a temperature of from about 300° C. to 700° C for a short time, the process being known as annealing or tempering, the tempering of copper being the softening and not hardening, as sometimes is wrongly stated. The only secret of hardening the ancient Egyptians knew was to hammer it and the 'lost art' so often referred to is a myth." (Lucas, page 213)
The germane point, however, is that the most up-to-date and authoritative Egyptological standard of conventional Egyptology, Dieter Arnold's Building in Egypt, takes into consideration studies of the last 65 years and more (including those covering evidence of copper mining and smelting) and recognizes that the demands on the copper mines would have been too great for building the Great Pyramids--as I pointed out in my first reply to Archae. Archae's example does not override Arnold's observation of this basic fact. As I also stressed in my previous reply, Arnold, therefore, asserts that stone tools were used for most masonry tasks during most of pharaonic history, and that copper tools were only used for special purposes.
The Great Pyramid: This brings us to the central point: Within the context of the carve/hoist method of pyramid construction, the Great Pyramid would have to be built mostly with stone tools. One of Arnold's criteria for judging when metal tools were not used is a lack of tool marks on blocks (marks made by metal tools appear only on a small minority of pyramid blocks, and Egyptologists have determined that some were made by the Arabs in the 12th and 13th centuries). Arnold suggests that stone pounding balls were used on blocks that lack tool marks, but he admits that he has no explanation for how this method could achieve certain masonry features:
"It is difficult to imagine, however, how this method was applied to inclined, vertical, or even overhanging planes...We do not know exactly how the masons achieved two corresponding and neatly fitted planes on two neighboring blocks." (Arnold, D., Building in Egypt: pharaonic stone masonry. New York, N.Y., Oxford University Press [1991], 122)
Arnold does not mention the great problem this creates for constructing the Great Pyramid. The Great Pyramid exhibits a myriad of examples of blocks that conform to the shape of neighboring blocks on more than one touching surface.
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.
Here is a summary of all of the features that defy the use of stone tools for building the Great Pyramid: 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 the problem of executing, storing, sorting and selecting a great number of stones of the correct height (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 (according to Petrie). 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, beautifully corbelled walls.
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--and this would be true even if a certain number could be salvaged for making smaller units. If such blocks existed, where did they go? Ancient historians did not report them. Diodorus (1st century B.C.) was very impressed by the lack of such material, which characterizes cut stone monuments. He indicated:
"…not a trace remains either of any mound [construction ramp] or of the dressing of the stones, so that they do not have the appearance of being the slow handiwork of men but look like a sudden creation, as though they had been made by some god and set down bodily in the surrounding sand." (Library of History, Book I, Ch. 63, lines 6-7)
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.
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.
Only a small minority of pyramid blocks have tool marks on them. Egyptologists have determined that some of the tool marks were made by the Arabs in the 12th and 13th centuries AD (other tool marks are taken for granted, rather than studied, because the accepted theory advocates that blocks are natural, cut stone). Besides, uncured rock-concrete is easily cut with the characteristic unhardened copper tools of 4th Dynasty Egypt.
Clearly, Occam's Razor favors the geopolymer theory of pyramid construction and no other: As I say at my Giza Power Meltdown web page, if we follow the logic of the stone-cutting theories, hundreds of thousands of giant casing blocks on the exterior of the Great Pyramid would have to be repeatedly lifted and re-set over and over until they conformed to the shape of all adjacent blocks. Dieter Arnold describes the way casing blocks are custom-fit to the irregular front faces of the blocks behind them:
"...the connection of the casing with the backing stones is very close and would have to be carefully prepared. The best examples are the close joints between casing and backing stones at the three main pyramids of Giza. The backing stones were frequently dressed exactly to the shape of the rear face of the casing blocks..." (Arnold, D., Building in Egypt: pharaonic stone masonry. New York, N.Y., Oxford University Press [1991], 168-169)
Consider the enormous scale of the problem if we think in terms of cutting, lifting and setting enormous casing stones. Some casing blocks remaining on the Great Pyramid are about five feet tall and seven feet long, weighing an estimated 16 tons. Both Herodotus (5th century B.C.) and Abd el-Latif (A.D. 1162-1231) reported seeing a myriad of 30-foot-long casing blocks on the Great Pyramid. Similarly, near the entrance of the 5th Dynasty Pyramid of Unas, a casing block measures about six feet high and its length is 29.5 feet.
An estimated 115,000 casing blocks originally formed the smooth outer faces of the Great Pyramid, equaling about 2,379,842 cubic feet of fine limestone. Many of the backing stones also exhibit a conforming fit with each other, too.
If the Egyptians would have cut these giant casing blocks from natural limestone, it is inconceivable that they would have so vastly multiplied their task by making the casing blocks fit in this irregular, interlocking manner. They would instead have made the backs of the casing blocks regular--so that they did not have to move such giant blocks back and forth a great many times while continually re-shaping them to make sure they fit exactly to the irregularities of adjoining blocks.
Dieter Arnold describes the process he believes was involved when he discusses the method of making the undersides of paving slabs fit with irregular surfaces of the bedrock below:
"In the huge limestone buildings of the Old Kingdom, a pavement of granite is not uncommon. In a few cases, even basalt was used. Since both stones were much harder to work than the underlying limestone, the undersurface of the limestone foundation was chiseled out in a way that allowed the protuberances of the pavement to fit into it. This could be done only by frequent setting and lifting of the pavement blocks, a procedure that had to be carried out in any case to fit the mosaic-like blocks together."
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.
On the other hand, when geopolymerized stone is cast against a cured block (or against a block with a thin coating on it like that which appears between casing blocks), the tight conforming fit is automatic. No giant blocks had to be lifted at all, or set and reset until they conformed to the irregularities of neighboring blocks. The principle of Occam's Razor (or its derivatives) states that when two competing theories make the same exact predictions (in this case the features of the pyramids are explained), the simpler one is more probable.
Clearly, those who advocate the accepted theory of pyramid construction are the ones who are making extraordinary claims. It is up to them to come up with extraordinary proof to support those claims. They have not done so. Entrenched thinking simply masks the problems with calculations of block raising that are based on weight averages instead of real weights, assumptions about quarrying and tool use that do not stand up to scrutiny, poorly conceived engineering studies that defy engineering studies that deal with real problems, etc.
Chisel Types: When I remarked that a heavy blow with a mallet will drive the chisels deep into their wooden handles, causing them to split, Archae asks what the flimsy chisels were used for. He asks, " What type of chisel are they... wood working or rock working?"
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.
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. To do so, he would have to use an agglomerate like faience; but Lucas identified these beads as stone. Archae's reply is, "Yes, he identified them as carnelian, lapis lazuli, and turquoise not a geopolymer. Carnelian is quartz, the other two are less hard than quartz about 6-7% the hardness of diamond."
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--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!
The fact is that if geopolymerization would have been rediscovered in Lucas' day, we would not be having this debate today. Indeed, the alchemical stonemaking technology would have eliminated the thirty-year debate between Petrie and Lucas. Like Archae, Lucas insisted that simple stonecutting techniques account for features in artifacts, and Petrie continued to challenge Lucas with examples that cannot be explained by these means. Lucas rightfully pointed out that, because of the primitive technological level of the ancient Egyptians, the methods Petrie proposed produced more problems than they solved, so that Lucas' ideas are accepted. However, the unresolved examples remain, and in recent years, machinist Christopher Dunn began examining unexplained artifacts. His expertise led him to support Petrie's side of the argument. Dunn, however, does not possess the historical knowledge of Petrie and claims the existence of high technology during antiquity. Geopolymerization is Late Stone Age technology that can finally put all these problems to rest.
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). As for lapis lazuli, this material consists essentially of lazurite, a hydrous phosphate of aluminum, iron, and magnesium that lends itself to geopolymerization. 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: Denys 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. Whereas, Lucas identified the beads as stone, and not as faience. As I said, the best explanation for these beads is that they were made at ambient temperatures using the stonemaking chemistry we now call geopolymerization. The principle of Occam's Razor (or its derivatives) applies: the simplest of competing theories is preferred to the more complex. When two competing theories make the same exact predictions (in this case the features of the ultra-small stone beads are explained), the simpler one is more probable.
Lehner's Remarks: Archae writes, "In his documentary Obelisk I, Lehner passionately states that he is convinced that 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, were actually created by bashing the granite with dolerite pounders."
In my previous reply to Archae, I presented experiments of granite pounding by both Mark Lehner and Reginald Engelbach that demonstrate the long, slow process required. Archae responded, "What about Zuber and Stocks? They didn't seem to be as hindered to me in their carving tests."
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?
With the geopolymer system, hieroglyphs can be inscribed in uncured rock-concrete in a single pass.
Conclusion: Contributing to the refinement of a theory by pointing out properties of rocks and minerals that may be confused in the Egyptological literature has value. Unfortunately, so far Archae's comments are not offered in this spirit. Instead, he mischaracterizes our research by framing us as "high technology claimants" and actually insinuates that we are deliberately making rocks seem harder than they really are. By opening his rebuttal to me with such remarks, he makes our research seem like it should be classified with some of the rampant quackery being promoted these days. 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.
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?
For Archae, everything--even the Great Pyramid with its blatant, unprecedented features--is squeezed into the narrow framework of cutting mostly with stone tools, no matter how much logic and evidence is tortured in the process (see my remarks about the backs of the pyramid casing blocks above). It is exactly this kind of insensitive approach to geopolymerization that has fueled the new age effort at rewriting ancient history over the past several years:
The masonry and engineering enigmas will never be resolved as long as simple stone cutting methods are applied to the exclusion of the alchemical technology that allows them to work with such ease. Because of the heretofore glaring unresolved masonry and engineering problems of pyramid construction, many intelligent people are convinced that some kind of advanced technology existed during ancient times. That kind of common sense, but incorrect, thinking will continue as long as the carve/hoist theory continues to be promoted even though it is unworkable, while alchemical stonemaking continues to be unfairly dismissed.
Having said all of that, perhaps I am being too hard on Archae. Perhaps it takes time for him to comprehend a proven new paradigm of stoneworking, so that he will not continue to assert that all artifacts and monuments can be explained away by using simple tools on natural rock. 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?" He now has enough information to recognize that the central issue is not so much the properties of rock, but the features of the Great Pyramid-- executed on an enormous scale--that defy the use of stone tools. Archae also indicated that he needs time to read and contemplate the important ramifications of the synthetic basalt independently found in ancient Mesopotamian ruins
[
www.science-frontiers.com]
by mainstream archaeologists and geologists. He writes, " I need to read this paper, I will comment on it in the future discussions."
I look forward to further discussions or debates with Archae: There is the promise of progress when I engage in debates or discussions with someone who has knowledge of mineralogy that impacts the research with which I am involved.
Margaret Morris
Copyright © 2001 Margaret Morris, all rights reserved</HTML>
