| May 14, 2024, 5:51 pm 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 |
| July 22, 2001 08:09AM |
<HTML>A cross-examination of Margaret Morris's "Margaret Morris v Archae Solenhofen" (parts 1 &2):
If I may be candid, there is no validity in a geopolymer theory. It's as simple as that. I'll begin with some quotes from the above mentioned letters:
___"...Mesopotamian ruins have been independently shown by mainstream archaeologists and geologists to contain synthetic basalt."
My reply: What?? I'd really like to see the complete reports, photos, and tests, please. (If your going to say 'basalt', you might as well say 'granite'). I simply do not buy this just because you say so (and, actually, because I don't buy 'synthetic basalt').
___"It is also an established fact of Egyptology that the ancient Egyptians made synthetic stone."
My reply: Yes. They made mudbricks. And? What's your point? The only thing they made that can be considered harder than a mudbrick is pottery - neither of these anywhere near comparable to a geopolymer idea, i.e. we know how the former were manufactured, and that's as far as concretion went with the AE's.
___"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."
My reply: Let me understand your logic here: That because a diorite vessel has not been made today, your 'logical' conclusion is that ancient vessels were made on a potter's wheel using 'pliable rock'.
??
First off, whether or not one has been made today has NO bearing whatsoever on conlcusions about ancient techniques. I'm somewhat shocked that you think this is fine-and-dandy reasoning. It isn't, Margaret, sorry. Secondly, because of the misguided deductive abilities used in your statement, you have no right to use Occam's Razor. Moreso because you don't seem to understand that Occam's Razor is only a GUIDE, not a proof positive, end-all-be-all, super-duper fact backer.
Oh, and one more from the last quote, "...an explanation of how this cusp can be created by grinding."
Sure. With time, care, and focused attention of the mason using either a hammer and chisel method, or smaller rock implements as forming tools.
___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."
My reply: Stocks hasn't? Irrelevant. Diorite vases can be made today. Do you think that because Denys Stocks can't make one that no one on Earth can? Haven't you ever seen a 'lathing' method of placing an object into a hole in the ground to sturdy it, then an implement was spun to carve out the interior with great and smooth precision? Peoples of the Middle East still use this elementary method today. No big secret. Were you not aware of this? It appears so.
___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).
My reply: Lathing can work in two ways: 1) the object is rotated while an implement is applied, or 2) the implement is rotated and the object is applied. So much for the handles not being condusive to lathing. Still, even after the basic form has been lathed, finishing the handles would take no great effort. It has been done for thousands of years, and continues to be. There's nothing difficult about it. I'm honestly confused why Egyptologists see a mysterious enigma here. Give me a small block of _any_ stone, and I can carve a perfectly balanced bowl with handles and all. I'll even polish it. Just make sure I have a couple of months to do it. The thing is, it can be done, and is an artform called masonry (100's of thousands of years old, I might add).
___However, I have firsthand experience with geopolymerized rock samples that have fooled expert geologists.
My Reply: The only way they could have been fooled is if they were shown the sample and were told after looking at it it was supposedly a cured form. This undermines a controlled experiment - one that has the method of creating the 'sample' shown to the geolgists, furthered by the execution and witnessing of the creation, and _then_ the sample is shown to other geologists. What, they believed it when they were told it was a cured specimen? There's not a geologist on this planet that would say , "oh, really! It's actually a geopolymer. Neato." Not one of them asked how this sample was created? Sorry, I don't buy it.
___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.
My reply: "Your Honour - repetitious. Add to my objection 'asked and answered'." What does _DENYS STOCKS_ have to do with the assumptions of 'objective researcher' s?? This man can re-create diorite geopolymetrically? So what if he can or eventually does? Just because he might be able to doesn't prove the AE's did it. Add to that the virtual mountain of basic, reasoned points, and geopolymers are rather easily refuted.
You don't ssem to be listening to the important objections, rather, you focus on points that misdirect common sense.
For instance,
(1) it's been pointed out a thousand times how blocks in the pyramids (and other structures all over Egypt) were quarried and brought to their final resting place. If any refining was done, it was most likely done in situ.
(2) it's been pointed out a thousand times how blocks contain sedimentary layreing (something which concretion would eliminate; period).
(3) it's been pointed out a thousand times (and has been know for well over a century) where the quarries are for the pyramids. My jaw almost fell off when you'd said that they hadn't been found and remain a mystery. Hello?? The bulk of the cores of the Giza /\'s were quarried from the plateau, the casing from Tura, and granite from Aswan.
(4) the Colossi don't have sister trenches anyhwere in Egypt showing where they could have come from, i.e a plot large enough to accommodate their quarrying? You're not serious are you? You DID notice how they were _not_ made from one piece, correct? No?
(5) it has been mentioned a thousand times how the irregularity in shape of blocks shows that no standard molds whatsoever were used.
(6) if has been mentioned a thousand times that if they could create blocks in concrete fashion, then why such small blocks? Surely they could have made larger ones in situ? (I'm sure Archae and Frank and many, many other will join me in banging my head against the wall on this one)
(7) If geopolymers were the thing of the day and of construction throuhgout, please explain the purpose of carving 4-500 ton obelisks out of a quarry (ahem - some of which still lie in place today - unfinished). Nevermind, I already know the answer; because they didn't glue there monuments together with curing and concrete, they moved monoliths about will toil and labour.
(8) another jaw dropper got me when you said how there are absolutely no depictions or remnants of blocks being transported. You're kidding...or lying...one of the two. There are plenty of reliefs showing statues being pulled on sleds, monoliths transported by boat, and physical remains of ramps and sleds with designs attributable the average size of the blocks we see in hundreds of monuments. For you to say otherwise is simple and outright fallacy.
(9) you say over and over how we all need to accept and become 'familiar' with geopolymerization because, until we do, we won't let go of our conclusions that, "....all artifacts and monuments can be explained away by using simple tools on natural rock." What, we should accept it because you say so, or moreso because our apparent inability to understand geopolymer systems means that our counterarguments need to be weighed against faith instead of facts? Hmmph.
(10) ___" 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?"
a) there ARE tool marks. Please stop pretending there aren't any.
b) if any were removed (sorry for the Homer 'duh' answer here) it happened during a _polishing process_ to beautify the surface of the stone. By the way, there is a very simple way to polish even the hardest of surfaces - sand, water, and a small handsized stone - the latter applied with a circular motion. Don't believe me?
______________________________________
Considering the above replies and short list of concerns, I am forced to re-iterate how your commonplace tactic of tossing away obvious truths and facts about the nature and style of ancient stoneworking and how ignoring absolution on the part of pertinent refutation will only serve a continuance of naivete. You seem content to bypass these not only because you can't refute them, but also because you tender a somewhat zealous faith in geopolymers. The truth is, there is substantial contrary evidence against yourself and Davidovits' (and all other supporters') ideas. I would confidently assert that your accusation of Archae 'forcing' the issues of counterarguments is unfounded, and that you are much more guilty of forcing the issue of geopolymers - which I might add, simply do not have a cohesive glue to bind into. Every single ideal can be countered with variable ease, yet somehow you remain oblivious to what's being presented.
In closing, I wish to say a couple of things: One, that I vehemently disagree with the geopolymer theory for two reasons; A) because powerful contrary evidence dissolves the premise on _all_ fronts, and
because arguing a for a suitable explanation of the 'impossible' construction timeframe is a misdirection of accountability, i.e. trying to find reasons to explain 20-23 years (or less) forces people to search through the highly speculative areas of theoretics. (eg.s include water pumps, aliens, time travel, need I go on). Personally, I believe the simple solution (oh, yes, I most certainly do invoke Occam and his Razor) is that the monuments took longer to build than what is commonly accepted.
My second and last closing concern has to do with the e-mail I'd sent you recently - wherein I'd queried whether or not your geopolymer theory had been afforded the time of including the titanic logistics of such a construction project as the one carried out at Giza. I bring it up now because you did not bother to reply in kind to an honest query. I'll ask again: Have you considered and mapped out the contextual issues that go with a theory in regards to AE construction, namely Giza? (It's not a problem if you need me to present the extensive list of protocols again; I'm assuming you couldn't be bothered and deleted my request without any thought).
By all means, tend to Frank and Archae first. (Why? Because I really don't care what you have to say; as far as I'm concerned, geopolymers are right up there with aliens and pumps and levitation).
R. Avry Wilson</HTML>
If I may be candid, there is no validity in a geopolymer theory. It's as simple as that. I'll begin with some quotes from the above mentioned letters:
___"...Mesopotamian ruins have been independently shown by mainstream archaeologists and geologists to contain synthetic basalt."
My reply: What?? I'd really like to see the complete reports, photos, and tests, please. (If your going to say 'basalt', you might as well say 'granite'). I simply do not buy this just because you say so (and, actually, because I don't buy 'synthetic basalt').
___"It is also an established fact of Egyptology that the ancient Egyptians made synthetic stone."
My reply: Yes. They made mudbricks. And? What's your point? The only thing they made that can be considered harder than a mudbrick is pottery - neither of these anywhere near comparable to a geopolymer idea, i.e. we know how the former were manufactured, and that's as far as concretion went with the AE's.
___"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."
My reply: Let me understand your logic here: That because a diorite vessel has not been made today, your 'logical' conclusion is that ancient vessels were made on a potter's wheel using 'pliable rock'.
??
First off, whether or not one has been made today has NO bearing whatsoever on conlcusions about ancient techniques. I'm somewhat shocked that you think this is fine-and-dandy reasoning. It isn't, Margaret, sorry. Secondly, because of the misguided deductive abilities used in your statement, you have no right to use Occam's Razor. Moreso because you don't seem to understand that Occam's Razor is only a GUIDE, not a proof positive, end-all-be-all, super-duper fact backer.
Oh, and one more from the last quote, "...an explanation of how this cusp can be created by grinding."
Sure. With time, care, and focused attention of the mason using either a hammer and chisel method, or smaller rock implements as forming tools.
___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."
My reply: Stocks hasn't? Irrelevant. Diorite vases can be made today. Do you think that because Denys Stocks can't make one that no one on Earth can? Haven't you ever seen a 'lathing' method of placing an object into a hole in the ground to sturdy it, then an implement was spun to carve out the interior with great and smooth precision? Peoples of the Middle East still use this elementary method today. No big secret. Were you not aware of this? It appears so.
___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).
My reply: Lathing can work in two ways: 1) the object is rotated while an implement is applied, or 2) the implement is rotated and the object is applied. So much for the handles not being condusive to lathing. Still, even after the basic form has been lathed, finishing the handles would take no great effort. It has been done for thousands of years, and continues to be. There's nothing difficult about it. I'm honestly confused why Egyptologists see a mysterious enigma here. Give me a small block of _any_ stone, and I can carve a perfectly balanced bowl with handles and all. I'll even polish it. Just make sure I have a couple of months to do it. The thing is, it can be done, and is an artform called masonry (100's of thousands of years old, I might add).
___However, I have firsthand experience with geopolymerized rock samples that have fooled expert geologists.
My Reply: The only way they could have been fooled is if they were shown the sample and were told after looking at it it was supposedly a cured form. This undermines a controlled experiment - one that has the method of creating the 'sample' shown to the geolgists, furthered by the execution and witnessing of the creation, and _then_ the sample is shown to other geologists. What, they believed it when they were told it was a cured specimen? There's not a geologist on this planet that would say , "oh, really! It's actually a geopolymer. Neato." Not one of them asked how this sample was created? Sorry, I don't buy it.
___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.
My reply: "Your Honour - repetitious. Add to my objection 'asked and answered'." What does _DENYS STOCKS_ have to do with the assumptions of 'objective researcher' s?? This man can re-create diorite geopolymetrically? So what if he can or eventually does? Just because he might be able to doesn't prove the AE's did it. Add to that the virtual mountain of basic, reasoned points, and geopolymers are rather easily refuted.
You don't ssem to be listening to the important objections, rather, you focus on points that misdirect common sense.
For instance,
(1) it's been pointed out a thousand times how blocks in the pyramids (and other structures all over Egypt) were quarried and brought to their final resting place. If any refining was done, it was most likely done in situ.
(2) it's been pointed out a thousand times how blocks contain sedimentary layreing (something which concretion would eliminate; period).
(3) it's been pointed out a thousand times (and has been know for well over a century) where the quarries are for the pyramids. My jaw almost fell off when you'd said that they hadn't been found and remain a mystery. Hello?? The bulk of the cores of the Giza /\'s were quarried from the plateau, the casing from Tura, and granite from Aswan.
(4) the Colossi don't have sister trenches anyhwere in Egypt showing where they could have come from, i.e a plot large enough to accommodate their quarrying? You're not serious are you? You DID notice how they were _not_ made from one piece, correct? No?
(5) it has been mentioned a thousand times how the irregularity in shape of blocks shows that no standard molds whatsoever were used.
(6) if has been mentioned a thousand times that if they could create blocks in concrete fashion, then why such small blocks? Surely they could have made larger ones in situ? (I'm sure Archae and Frank and many, many other will join me in banging my head against the wall on this one)
(7) If geopolymers were the thing of the day and of construction throuhgout, please explain the purpose of carving 4-500 ton obelisks out of a quarry (ahem - some of which still lie in place today - unfinished). Nevermind, I already know the answer; because they didn't glue there monuments together with curing and concrete, they moved monoliths about will toil and labour.
(8) another jaw dropper got me when you said how there are absolutely no depictions or remnants of blocks being transported. You're kidding...or lying...one of the two. There are plenty of reliefs showing statues being pulled on sleds, monoliths transported by boat, and physical remains of ramps and sleds with designs attributable the average size of the blocks we see in hundreds of monuments. For you to say otherwise is simple and outright fallacy.
(9) you say over and over how we all need to accept and become 'familiar' with geopolymerization because, until we do, we won't let go of our conclusions that, "....all artifacts and monuments can be explained away by using simple tools on natural rock." What, we should accept it because you say so, or moreso because our apparent inability to understand geopolymer systems means that our counterarguments need to be weighed against faith instead of facts? Hmmph.
(10) ___" 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?"
a) there ARE tool marks. Please stop pretending there aren't any.
b) if any were removed (sorry for the Homer 'duh' answer here) it happened during a _polishing process_ to beautify the surface of the stone. By the way, there is a very simple way to polish even the hardest of surfaces - sand, water, and a small handsized stone - the latter applied with a circular motion. Don't believe me?
______________________________________
Considering the above replies and short list of concerns, I am forced to re-iterate how your commonplace tactic of tossing away obvious truths and facts about the nature and style of ancient stoneworking and how ignoring absolution on the part of pertinent refutation will only serve a continuance of naivete. You seem content to bypass these not only because you can't refute them, but also because you tender a somewhat zealous faith in geopolymers. The truth is, there is substantial contrary evidence against yourself and Davidovits' (and all other supporters') ideas. I would confidently assert that your accusation of Archae 'forcing' the issues of counterarguments is unfounded, and that you are much more guilty of forcing the issue of geopolymers - which I might add, simply do not have a cohesive glue to bind into. Every single ideal can be countered with variable ease, yet somehow you remain oblivious to what's being presented.
In closing, I wish to say a couple of things: One, that I vehemently disagree with the geopolymer theory for two reasons; A) because powerful contrary evidence dissolves the premise on _all_ fronts, and
because arguing a for a suitable explanation of the 'impossible' construction timeframe is a misdirection of accountability, i.e. trying to find reasons to explain 20-23 years (or less) forces people to search through the highly speculative areas of theoretics. (eg.s include water pumps, aliens, time travel, need I go on). Personally, I believe the simple solution (oh, yes, I most certainly do invoke Occam and his Razor) is that the monuments took longer to build than what is commonly accepted. My second and last closing concern has to do with the e-mail I'd sent you recently - wherein I'd queried whether or not your geopolymer theory had been afforded the time of including the titanic logistics of such a construction project as the one carried out at Giza. I bring it up now because you did not bother to reply in kind to an honest query. I'll ask again: Have you considered and mapped out the contextual issues that go with a theory in regards to AE construction, namely Giza? (It's not a problem if you need me to present the extensive list of protocols again; I'm assuming you couldn't be bothered and deleted my request without any thought).
By all means, tend to Frank and Archae first. (Why? Because I really don't care what you have to say; as far as I'm concerned, geopolymers are right up there with aliens and pumps and levitation).
R. Avry Wilson</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.