This is a group of slide with my comments from a couple of other posts from another thread, which may be of interest.

[media.irt.drexel.edu]

Interesting, but the now exposed top course of the GP does not look much different than the masonry in Vyse's hole in the image Figure 6a below that's insinuated to be natural.

Top of GP:
[www.gizapyramid.com]
[www.nla.gov.au]

Great picture showing the degree of erosion on the GP for those who are interested:

[www.nla.gov.au]

[media.irt.drexel.edu]

Figure 6a from Barsoum et. al. (2006).

One might conclude from Barsoum et. al. (2006) that most of the specimens are weathered surface detritus, being described in one case as "most of the specimens were easily friable" in the caption of Fig. 2 for OC flakes. The core masonry blocks of Fig 6b of the paper have been exposed to at most about 600 more years of direct atmospheric exposure than the more freshly exposed ones inside Vyse's hole in Fig 6a, and are asserted to be cast apparently based on the differences in appearance. Which of course has undergone chemical and mechanical weathered (i.e. altered from it original state, could be up to about 800 years of alteration due to direct exposure since the casing was removed, and add on to that a few thousand years of case hardening). This is not surprising since Davidovitus & Morris (1988) described one of their specimens tested by XRF in Davidovits (1984) as "weak and extremely weathered" yet it's compared to apparently unweathered GP and quarry samples.

[media.irt.drexel.edu]

Figure 6b from Barsoum et. al. (2006).

[media.irt.drexel.edu]

Should not be a problem carving this considering they were carving natural granite into the shapes presented in the last 2 images below.

[media.irt.drexel.edu]

He missed mentioning lithology in the slide since the bottom appears to be Tura casing which remains white limestone and the top appears to be the now exposed core masonry from the plateau that becomes darker when weathered over time.

[media.irt.drexel.edu]

Don't know where this is from, but it looks like a natural joint in the bedrock... a lot of the lower courses of Khafre's pyramid is carved bedrock and not quarried blocks. Does not seem to mention that in his slides... Khafre's pyramid is built into a huge quarried pit in the surface of the sloping plateau and the AE took advantage of that.

[media.irt.drexel.edu]

Don't know where this is from, but it looks like one of the examples from one of the Khufu's queens' pyramids...if that's the case apparently he missed the other well known example of where the saw that cut joints like these penetrates in a lower block leaving a thin slot.

[media.irt.drexel.edu]

Hard to tell what this is from the photo... if it is original to the masonry construction might be 2 carved, lever and/or ram slots.

[media.irt.drexel.edu]

No scale this time. Looks like a weathered fossil.... Some type of cone shaped shell viewed through the long axis who's interior limestone has eroded out.

[media.irt.drexel.edu]

I don't know what the point was in showing this slide since it's unfinished granite casing on Menkaure's Pyramid. Dr. Barsoum has already admitted that granite is natural and not a geopolymer (although there is someone claiming to be "another researcher at Drexel University from Barsoum's group" who is insinuating otherwise here: [www.digg.com]).

[media.irt.drexel.edu]

This is carved in natural granite with the tools attributed to the ancient Egyptians at the time of construction of this pyramid (which is more than just copper chisels).... should be considerably easier to do in limestone using such.

[media.irt.drexel.edu]

SEM microphotograph mosaic of the Lauer sample. Based on thin section observations of Harrell & Penrod (1993), the 0.7 mm thick lighter grey layer on the far left surface is made dominantly bushite/apatile, originally a painted "whitewash" coating now recrystallized due to 4500 years of exposure on the outer facing surface of the sample. There are a number of zones in this layer but the resolution of the photo does not allow their appearance to show. Although the contact between the slightly darker grey limestone (calcite) and the coating layer can be made out which appears to be ragged but well defined. Next to this layer is a 4.5 mm zone of intense recrystallization represented by the consistently grey SEM coloured limestone of calcite spar and microspar with low porosity. The next 0.9 mm of the sample to the right is the highly porous limestone with a lot of irregularly shaped, solution vugs (darker gray areas) suggesting that the original sedimentary minerals that occupied these area were dissolved away by ground water at some time in it's past. (possibly gypsum cement or aragonitic mud) The next zone to the right is another denser limestone area. The black areas appear to be where the epoxy has seeped through and has been polished along with the rest of the samples surface on the SEM disk.

>[media.irt.drexel.edu]

Solution vug (darker grey) surrounded by a very thin layer of silica (darker gray possibly opal C/T) and a slightly thicker (very light grey) sulfur rich minerals with a composition similar to gypsum (if Barsoum et. al. (2006) chemical analysis is any indication).Similar gypsum coatings are also noted by Campbell & Folk (1991) in their British Museium sample of casing stone. Almost all the rest of the micrograph is calcite spar (medium grey) some of the grain boundaries are noticeable (slightly darker grey lines). Smaller darker grey with very light patches appear to be more of these coated porosity, like the larger vug. Some of the more darker grey grains might be quartz (detrital silt-sized grains). Most of the calcite spar is cemented together by the spar.

[media.irt.drexel.edu]
[media.irt.drexel.edu]

Secondary pre-chert mineralization in a solution vug or pre-existing porosity precipitating from solutions that once saturated the rocks.

[media.irt.drexel.edu]
[media.irt.drexel.edu]

Interesting... maybe secondary due to the same solutions forming the pre-chert coating in the porosity or possibly primary mineralization formed due to dissolution of preexisting cement that dissolved away leaving behind the less soluble quartz in these delicate structures. Guessing....

Barsoum, M.W., Ganguly, A. & Hug, G.(2006) Microstructural Evidence of Reconstituted Limestone Blocks in the Great Pyramids of Egypt. J. Am. Ceram. Soc., 89, 3788–3796.

Campbell, D. H. & Folk, R. L. (1991) The Great Pyramid Debate: The Ancient Egyptian Pyramids-Concrete or Rock? Concrete international: design & construction. 13, 28-39.

Davidovits, J. (1984) X-Ray analysis and X-Ray diffraction of casing stones from the pyramids of Egypt and the limestones of the associated quarries. Science in Egyptology. Manchester Universiy Press, p. 511-520.

Davidovitus, J & Morris, M. (1988) The pyramids an enigma solved. Hippocrene Books, New York, p. 263.

Harrell, J. A. & Penrod, B. E. (1993) The Great Pyramid Debate-Evidence form the Lauer Sample. Journal of geological education. 41, 358-363.

Archae Solenhofen (solenhofen@hotmail.com)





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2007 11:22PM by Archae Solenhofen.