<HTML>Margaret Morris v Chris Dunn
Correcting the Misinformation
Summary: Chris Dunn has wrongly asserted that the published scientific literature proves that the geopolymer theory is wrong. In reality, the opposite is true. Independent experiments satisfy the scientific process of duplication and verification (see the Data Summary below).
Chris Dunn writes, “In The Giza Power Plant, my treatment of the geopolymer hypothesis was brief and dismissive. I wasn't even going to mention it until my publisher advised me to include some reference to it because of the attention it had received when first proposed. I admit it was terrible methodology. At the time I didn't realize how wide my audience would be and I was addressing this important hypothesis in a manner that would be understood by practical artisans, such as myself. I admit it was far from being academic. If I had researched the subject fully, I would have found expert testimony that the limestone in the pyramids were natural stone.”
Margaret Morris replies: Chris Dunn was asked his opinion of the geopolymer theory in an August 11, 2001, interview on the Coast to Coast radio program. In that interview, Chris Dunn stated that tests show the pyramid blocks are natural stone. By claiming that the geopolymer theory is wrong based on, as he says, “expert testimony that the limestone in the pyramids were natural stone,” Chris Dunn is still practicing his admitted “terrible methodology.” The truth is that independent experiments satisfy the scientific process of duplication and verification needed to prove the geopolymer theory. Whereas, what Chris Dunn calls “expert testimony” represents a small part of the published literature and was generated by opponents who expose their own hostility, lack of knowledge about geopolymerization, and abusive conduct in the scientific literature.
Most theories are opposed at some stage, but opposition does not equal disproof, as Chris Dunn would like his audiences to think. In science, a fundamental rule holds that data must be duplicated by independent experiments. The Data Summary below shows that this fundamental rule has been satisfied for three main criteria: 1) the pyramid blocks have been repeatedly shown to contain chemically-bound water (which must be present in hydraulic concrete, but will not be present in natural limestone), 2) chemical analyses of pyramid stone has been shown to exhibit geopolymerization, and 3) microscopic examinations by geologists have determined the pyramid stone to be synthetic rock.
These experiments are also corroborated by the synthetic basalt discovered in Mesopotamian ruins by an independent team of archaeologists and more (see the Corroborating Reports below the Data Summary).
Data Summary
Chemical Analyses:
France and Belgium Analyses:
Materials scientist Dr. Joseph Davidovits (the founder of the chemistry of geopolymerization) submitted pyramid limestone provided by Egyptologist J.P. Lauer to two independent European laboratories, one in France and the other in Belgium, for X-ray chemical analysis. Involving two different laboratories allowed for cross-verification of test results. The resulting charts, listing minerals and their concentrations, show that the pyramid sample (called the Lauer sample after J.P. Lauer) from the Ascending Passageway of the Great Pyramid includes minerals that result from geopolymerization.
The chemical charts for the Lauer sample show trace minerals that are extremely rare in natural limestone. Because these trace minerals can be the result of a geopolymeric chemical reaction, Joseph Davidovits conducted comparative testing. He made samples of geopolymeric limestone concrete and submitted them for chemical analysis, too. The resulting chemical charts of his own geopolymeric samples show the same type of mineralogical pattern as the Lauer sample’s charts.
For purposes of further comparison, Davidovits analyzed several limestone samples from the Tura quarries, Egypt’s primary source of fine-grained limestone. Their chemical charts show that they are pure calcite, although some contain a trace of dolomite. The quarry samples tested do not have the unusual mineralogy of the Lauer sample from the Ascending Passageway of the Great Pyramid.
There is a much more definitive and important finding. The Lauer sample from the Great Pyramid is particularly important because it has a white coating on it that is topped by reddish-brown paint. Every geologist who has examined this white coating agrees that it is synthetic. They may argue with each other as to whether or not this white coating is stone or some kind of hard plaster, but they all agree that it is man-made.
Importantly, chemical analyses of this white coating show the same unusual mineralogy as the bulk of the Lauer sample. These minerals include apatite, brushite, a volcanic form of silica, and a very small amount of the synthetic zeolite ZK-20. It is not usual for zeolites to form during the natural geological formation of limestone. The zeolite crystals are more likely the result of a subsequent chemical reaction, geopolymerization. The synthetic zeolite ZK-20 occurs when natron is reacted with organic ammonium. The ammonium can come from urine or collagen from flesh or bone.
These minerals are not water soluble. In other words, they could not have migrated from the white coating to the body of the sample or vice versa. The odds against the bulk of the Lauer sample having a naturally occurring, rare mineralogy that matches the mineralogy of the synthetic white coating are astronomically high. It is more logical to conclude that both the synthetic white coating and the limestone (which each contain minerals typical of a geopolymeric chemical reaction) are geopolymeric products.
For the details see Davidovits, J., "X-Rays Analysis and X-Rays Diffraction of casing stones from the pyramids of Egypt, and the limestone of the associated quarries," published in David, R.A. (ed.), Science in Egyptology, Manchester University Press, Manchester (1986), 511-520.
British Museum Chemical Analysis:
Another chemical analysis of similar fine-grained limestone, but from the outer casing stone of the Great Pyramid, was made by M.S. Tite, who was then Head of the British Museum’s Laboratory. Tite’s analysis produced the same result as that of the two laboratories contracted by Davidovits.
Tite tried to argue that the strange chemistry is natural, but Tite was unable to deny that the same strange chemistry shows up in the man-made white coating on the Lauer sample from the Ascending Passageway of the Great Pyramid (see above) or that this white coating is the key to understanding the chemistry of both his sample and the Lauer sample. Despite Tite’s intention to oppose the geopolymer theory, his analysis provides yet another example of the chemistry that would be extremely rare for limestone and is typical with geopolymerization.
Tite was unfamiliar with the chemistry of geopolymerization when he made his analysis, whereas Davidovits recognized the white coating as a pure geopolymeric binder.
A problem is that when researchers investigate rock samples they normally consider the bulk of the crystalline materials. A geologist unfamiliar with geolpolymerization will classify 5-10% by weight as impurities. Those "impurities" can be a geopolymeric binder. We are dealing with a very subtle change in the chemistry of the native rock, the integration of silica and alumina materials into a silico-aluminate by the use of an alkali. Researchers who do not appreciate this fact will assume that they are dealing with a very unusual natural chemistry or ignore the geopolymeric binder altogether.
For the details of Tite’s study, see Davidovits, J., "X-Rays Analysis and X-Rays Diffraction of casing stones from the pyramids of Egypt, and the limestone of the associated quarries," published in David, R.A. (ed.), Science in Egyptology, Manchester University Press, Manchester (1986), 511-520.
Waseda University Chemical Analysis:
Geologists at Waseda University, in Tokyo, performed a chemical analysis of limestone from the Great Pyramid. Their results are also consistent with geopolymerization: In the Waseda sample, the main ingredients are calcite, zeolite (analcime), calcium silico-aluminate hyrdrate and calcium silico-aluminate. As mentioned, zeolites are not normally part of limestone formation. The presence of the above-named minerals results from the geopolymerization of kaolin clay, lime and natron. Pyramid blocks were made by adding natron and lime to the kaolinitic limestone quarries at Giza, and then putting these ingredients into solution by flooding the quarries with water from the Nile. Caustic soda formed (natron + lime + water), which chemically integrated the silica and alumina in the kaolin, so that a new silico-aluminate formed, i.e., a simple geopolymeric binder. The amount of zeolite in the Waseda analysis is consistent with the low additive required for geopolymerization.
For the Waseda analysis, see Yoshimura, S., et al., "Studies in Egyptian Culture, no. 6: Non-Destructive Pyramid Investigation (1) By Electromagnetic Wave Method, Tokyo, Factor Corp. (1987), 2 Vols.
Klemm’s Study:
Dr. D. Klemm of the University of Munich opposed the geopolymer theory based on his study of lime. Davidovits determined that Klemm's objection is invalid because the amount of lime in pyramid blocks is much lower than Klemm could detect. According to Davidovits, while the mortar Klemm studied contained about 30-40 percent by weight of recarbonated lime, pyramid blocks would at most contain only 3-4 percent. This smaller amount would not be easy to detect by the method Klemm developed.
Klemm also conducted chemical analyses of twenty samples pyramid of stone and found no evidence of geopolymerization. The reason is that Klemm carried out only bulk chemical analyses, which is insufficient for detecting geopolymerization. Klemm was not looking for geopolymerization when he conducted his tests, and only used his test results as an afterthought upon learning of the geopolymer theory of pyramid construction.
Whereas, when M.S. Tite and the geologists at Waseda University used proper methodology, which involves dissolving the calcite to enable an analysis of only the trace minerals, their charts indeed show the chemistry that is the mark of geopolymerization.
As mentioned, when geologists investigate rock samples they normally consider the bulk of the crystalline materials, as did Klemm. When a geologist considers trace minerals, he/she must be familiar with geolpolymerization. If not, the geologist will classify 5-10% by weight as impurities. But those "impurities" can be a geopolymeric binder.
Klemm has a great many samples from the Giza pyramid complexes, but when Dr. Davidovits visited him at the University of Munich, Klemm refused to arrange for Dr. Davidovits to borrow or test even one sample. Klemm also declined to work with Dr. Davidovits to test samples. Thus, no tests to determine whether Klemm’s samples exhibit geopolymerization were conducted.
For the details of Klemm’s study, see Klemm, D.D., Klemm, R, "Mortar Evolution in the Old Kingdom of Egypt," Archaeometry '90, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, Switzerland (1990), 445-454.
Davidovits, D., Davidovits, F., The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved (Editions J. Davidovits, 2001), based on the 1988 book of the same title by Davidovits, J., and Morris, M.
Stanford Analysis:
A chemical analysis was conducted on two very small samples of casing stone from the Great Pyramid in 1975 by Gordon Brown of Stanford University. Minerals associated with the geopolymeric chemical reaction are present. No significant details can be reported here because the samples were so small.
For the study, see Dolphin, L.T., Barakat, N., and others, "Electromagnetic Sounder Experiments at the Pyramids of Giza," Stanford Research International (SRI), Menlo Park, California (1975), 125 p.
Campbell’s Analysis:
Portland cement petrographer Dr. D.H. Campbell analyzed very tiny fragments of pyramid stone sent to him by the British Museum. The amount of material was too small to be adequate for proper study: The tiny amount of powder would fit into an aspirin tin with plenty of room to spare. Campbell examined the material and issued an unpublished report indicating that his findings were inconclusive. Campbell sent his report to the British Museum with an appeal for a larger sample, which was refused. Campbell explained that he might have been given repair material or natural limestone for his tests.
When the British Museum denied him any further material, Campbell wrote to a number of researchers known to possess samples. All wrote back to him saying that either they would not loan samples or that he should not waste his time on such a research question.
Later, when his friend and former professor Dr. R.L. Folk opposed the geopolymer theory, Campbell changed his conclusion to directly oppose the geopolymer theory. McKinney issued a general statement concerning the critical matter of integrity in science, which applies.
For the study, see Campbell, D.H., Folk, R.L., "The Great Pyramid Debate: The Ancient Egyptian Pyramids - Concrete or Rock? The cons of the cast-in-place theory," Concrete International: Design and Construction, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan (August 1991), Vol. 13, No. 8, 28-39. To my knowledge, Campbell’s initial report has never been published.
McKinney, R.G., "Comments on the Work of Harrell and Penrod," Journal of Geological Education, The National Association of Geology Teachers, Madison, WI, Vol. 41, No. 4, September 1993, 369.
Morris, M., "The Great Pyramid Debate: The Cast-in-Place Theory of Pyramid Construction, the pros of geopolymeric construction” Concrete International: Design and Construction, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, Vol. 13, no. 29, (August 1991), 33-44.
Morris, M., "Geopolymeric Pyramids: A Rebuttal to R.L. Folk and D.H. Campbell," Journal of Geological Education, The National Association of Geology Teachers, Madison, WI, Vol. 40, No. 1 (January 1992), 38.
Harrell’s Analysis:
Two debates took place with Dr. James A. Harrell, Chairman of the Geology Department of the University of Toledo, Ohio, which are published in the Journal of Geological Education. These debates, 1) carry a short rebuttal to Ingram et al. (see below for the Ingram analyses), and 2) show that Harrell failed to chemically analyze samples of pyramid stone properly, although I sent him the protocol for chemical analysis before he began his tests. The protocol I sent him is the same accepted procedure for analyzing pyramid stone used by the British Museum.
In other words, Harrell failed to dissolve away the calcite in the limestone so that he could detect trace minerals constituting the cement itself! On the other hand, as shown above) properly performed tests do show the presence of the geopolymeric binder, i.e., pyramid cement. These properly performed tests include the two contracted by Davidovits, one by the British Museum, one by Waseda University, and small samples by Stanford University.
Harrell also shows his blatant hostility toward the geopolymer theory in the published debates, and he even admitted his motives. Thus, Harrell was not objective when conducting his tests—he was simply out to disprove the geopolymer theory.
For the details of Harrell’s study and its problems, see:
Harrell, J.A., Penrod, B.E., "The great Pyramid Debate - Evidence From the Lauer Sample," Journal of Geological Education, The National Association of Geology Teachers, Madison, WI, Vol. 41, No. 4 (September 1993), 358-363.
Harrell, J.A., Letters (to the Editor): "Harrell's Response to Morris' Article," Journal of Geological Education, The National Association of Geology Teachers, Madison, WI, Vol. 42, No. 2 (March 1994), 195-198.
McKinney, R.G., "Comments on the Work of Harrell and Penrod," Journal of Geological Education, The National Association of Geology Teachers, Madison, WI, Vol. 41, No. 4, September 1993, 369.
Morris, M., "Response (to Harrell in letters to the Editor),” Journal of Geological Education, The National Association of Geology Teachers, Madison, WI, Vol. 42, No. 2 (March 1994), 198-203.
Morris, M., "How Not to Analyze a Pyramid Stone - The Invalid Conclusions of James A. Harrell and Bret E. Penrod,” Journal of Geological Education, The National Association of Geology Teachers, Madison, WI, Vol. 41, No. 4, September 1993, 364-369.
Teti Sample:
A small limestone sample from the outer casing of the Pyramid of Teti was provided by Egyptologist J.P. Lauer. The sample was chemically analyzed by two different laboratories, one in France and another in Belgium. Like the sample from the Great Pyramid, the Teti sample shows a zeolitic mineral from the same levynite group. Volcanic silica and brushite (organo-calcium phosphate, which occurs in bone, dung and teeth) are also present.
Chemically-Bound Water
Harrell’s Test:
Harrell ran a failed test for chemically-bound water. Scientists on our team could not determine with certainty how Harrell obtained his results because he refused to share his procedures with any member of our team. As explained in this summary, the data generated by at least four other independent experiments show chemically-bound water.
For details of Harrell’s study, see:
Harrell, J.A., Penrod, B.E., "The great Pyramid Debate - Evidence From the Lauer Sample," Journal of Geological Education, The National Association of Geology Teachers, Madison, WI, Vol. 41, No. 4 (September 1993), 358-363.
Harrell, J.A., Letters (to the Editor): "Harrell's Response to Morris' Article," Journal of Geological Education, The National Association of Geology Teachers, Madison, WI, Vol. 42, No. 2 (March 1994), 195-198.
McKinney, R.G., "Comments on the Work of Harrell and Penrod," Journal of Geological Education, The National Association of Geology Teachers, Madison, WI, Vol. 41, No. 4, September 1993, 369.
Morris, M., "Response (to Harrell in letters to the Editor),” Journal of Geological Education, The National Association of Geology Teachers, Madison, WI, Vol. 42, No. 2 (March 1994), 198-203.
Morris, M., "How Not to Analyze a Pyramid Stone - The Invalid Conclusions of James A. Harrell and Bret E. Penrod,” Journal of Geological Education, The National Association of Geology Teachers, Madison, WI, Vol. 41, No. 4, September 1993, 364-369.
Zeller’s Analyses:
E.J. Zeller recognized that Harrell’s failed tests are inconsistent with data showing a high moisture content in the overall pyramid masonry, as shown for Khufu, Khafra, and a boat pit associated with Khufu.
Zeller studied the problem by considering data from electromagnetic sounding experiments at Giza. In addition to the Ingram et al. results showing chemically-bound water (by using a different method than electromagnetic sounding), there were at least three different experiments, made by three different teams, showing the high moisture content in the pyramid masonry. The electromagnetic experiments, conducted to detect hollow spots, failed because the pyramid blocks are high in moisture.
The most well known of these experiments was conducted in the 1970s, and headed by physicist Lambert Dolphin from Stanford Research International (SRI). The team's goal was to find hidden chambers inside the pyramids. Their testing operated on the concept that electromagnetic waves aimed at the pyramids will bounce back. By measuring what bounces back, the team expected to detect hollow spots, such as hidden chambers, within the pyramids.
The Giza bedrock was dry, and so the SRI team expected the pyramid core masonry to be dry, too. But there was so much moisture in the pyramid masonry that the electromagnetic waves were absorbed. The research project failed because of the unexpected high moisture content in the pyramid stone.
The results of this and the other sounding experiments demonstrate that the pyramid blocks contain permanent chemically-bound water. To be sure, Edward J. Zeller analyzed the problem in his capacity as a geophysicist.
According to Zeller, only an onslaught of rain, at least six inches falling a month or so before Dolphin’s experiment, could produce the amount of free water needed to cause the pyramid blocks to absorb the electromagnetic waves. Rainfall typically measures in fractions of an inch per month in the Cairo area during the winter months. Typically, there is no measurable rainfall at all for four, five or six months in a row during the warmest months. For more than a year before Dolphin and his team conducted their sounding experiments, there was only the typical dearth of rain in the Cairo area. The record of the rainfall comes from the detailed monthly precipitation records of the U.S. National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.
In short, the data show that the water in the pyramid blocks cannot be free water from rain or other sources. The water must be chemically-bound, and it shows that the pyramid tiers are hydraulic concrete.
For details, see:
Alvarez. L.W., et al., "Search for Hidden Chambers in the Pyramids," Science, Vol. 167 (6 February 1970), 832-839.
Davidovits, J. and Morris, M., "Re-Assessing Ingram's Data" (submitted to the Journal of Archaeological Science in 1993 and rejected), published in Morris, M., The Egyptian Pyramid Mystery Is Solved!, from:
[
www.margaretmorrisbooks.com]
El-Baz, F., "Finding a Pharaoh's Funeral Bark," National Geographic, Vol. 173, No. 14, April 1988.
Dolphin, L.T., Barakat, N., and others, "Electromagnetic Sounder Experiments at the Pyramids of Giza," Stanford Research International (SRI), 1975, Menlo Park, California, 125 p.
Ingram, K., Daugherty K,, Marshall, J., "The Pyramids - Cement or Stone?", Journal of Archaeological Science (December, London 20 (1993), 681-687 (for the chemically-bound water in this data, see below).
Yoshimura, S., et al., "Studies in Egyptian Culture, no. 6: Non-Destructive Pyramid Investigation (1) By Electromagnetic Wave Method, Tokyo, Factor Corp. (1987), 2 Vols.
Zeller’s study is published in Morris, M., The Egyptian Pyramid Mystery Is Solved!:
[
www.margaretmorrisbooks.com]
National Geographic Experiment:
Another study, partially funded by National Geographic and conducted in 1988, revealed the high moisture content. The project, when attempting to determine the thickness of blocks weighing ten and fifteen tons covering a boat pit associated with the Great Pyramid, obtained, "no unusual reflections...owing to the moisture trapped in the stone."
See El-Baz, F., "Finding a Pharaoh's Funeral Bark," National Geographic, Vol. 173, No. 14, April 1988.
Waseda Experiments:
In another study, a Waseda University team, using ground penetrating radar, compared large samples of stone from the Great Pyramid with Japanese limestone and found that the two have distinctly different physical properties. To obtain results, the Japanese scientists calibrated their equipment to overcome the problems of moisture trapped in the pyramid masonry.
For the details see Yoshimura, S., et al., "Studies in Egyptian Culture, no. 6: Non-Destructive Pyramid Investigation (1) By Electromagnetic Wave Method, Tokyo, Factor Corp. (1987), 2 Vols.
Ingram et al. Experiments:
K. Ingram was a graduate student who ran some tests under the direction of his Ph.D. supervisor, which tests were directed at opposing the geopolymer theory. These researchers have no expertise in geopolymerization (a chemistry founded and pioneered by Dr. Joseph Davidovits), and did not recognize the implications of their data (see below). The Journal of Archaeological Science published their article, but refused to print our rebuttal, although I sent the editor the names of five highly-qualified, independent geologists willing to referee it. I also sent the editor an endorsement of our rebuttal from Dr. Rustum Roy, Head of the PennState University Materials Science Laboratory.
Ingram et al. did not understand the implications of their data, which shows chemically-bound water and the chemistry of geopolymerization: Specifically, Ingram et al. used Inductively Coupled Plasmography (ICP) to determine the molecular composition of their samples. When Ingram et al. found aluminum, they dismissed it as naturally occurring. Proper interpretation of the analyses requires consideration of the chemistry produced by geopolymerization: The amount of A1203 detected by Ingram et al. is inconsistent with their conclusion, for the non-carbonate ratio is high at 8%, and this can be assigned to alunino-silicates (geopolymerization integrates alumina and silica to form alumino-silicates). The high amount of aluminum detected by Ingram et al. is highly significant, for the A1203 amount is in the 1% range in analyses performed on Mokattam limestones. Harrell et al. point out that, "the chemistry for limestones in Table 1 [from Gebel Mokattam (1.48%), Tura (0.68%), and Massara (0.0%) is typical of those from the Mokattam."
What is more important is that Ingram et al.’s samples lost over 60% of their mass during decarboxylation at 900 C. Assuming that the amounts given in Ingram's Table 1 are accurate, 91.5% calcite would yield a 40.26% weight loss during decarboxylation, and 1.4% dolomite would yield a 0.74% weight loss. This totals a weight loss of 41%. This 41% loss can be expected for calcite. The difference between the measured loss and the calculated loss for the calcite fraction is 19%. This 19% would have been in the form of chemically-bound water. This test, too, confirms that the pyramid stone contains chemically-bound water, which is a characteristic of hydraulic concrete and of zeolitic materials (zeolites are produced by geopolymerization).
The team also used Infrared Spectroscopy. Ingram indicates that, "the shoulder on the peak at 1030 cm-1 is stronger in the sample from Menkaure..." This must be considered with regard to the infrared spectra of zeolitic materials. The strongest vibrations in zeolites are found at 950-1250 cm-1. Ingram’s shoulder at 1030 cm-1 is just within the infrared spectra for zeolites. Because the zeolitic material is diluted with calcite, the intensity of the spectra for these materials is weaker than would be expected for pure zeolites. The presence of zeolitic materials aligns with the high weight loss due to chemically-bound water.
The shoulder for Khafra is not as strong as for Menkaure. A new comparative study re-analyzing the spectra over the range of 1000 cm-1 could also show zeolitic material for Khafra. However, Ingram et al. declined to allow us to work with their samples. Ingram et al. declined to work with any member of our team on further testing.
For the details, see Ingram, K., Daugherty K,, Marshall, J., "The Pyramids - Cement or Stone?", Journal of Archaeological Science (December, London 20 (1993), 681-687.
Davidovits J. and Morris, M., "Re-Assessing Ingram's Data" (submitted to the Journal of Archaeological Science in 1993 and rejected), published in Morris, M., The Egyptian Pyramid Mystery Is Solved!:
[
www.margaretmorrisbooks.com]
Microscopic Analyses
Geochemist Dr. Edward J. Zeller’s expertise included limestone geology, geochemistry and geophysics. He helped develop the thermoluminescence and electron-spin-resonance dating methods frequently used in archaeological research. Zeller’s experience also included 15 years of working with the micropaleontology and petrology of carbonate rocks. Following his microscopical examination of limestone from the interior of the Great Pyramid, Zeller issued a statement published in the Journal of Geological Education. It is excerpted below and asserts the artificial nature of a sample from the Ascending Passageway of the Great Pyramid provided by Egyptologist J.P. Lauer:
“I examined this sample with a Zeiss stereomicroscope with a magnification range from 6X to 8OX. As a result of this examination, I was able to determine that the Lauer sample is not a natural piece of limestone...I was unable to make a chemical analysis of the sample, but I have no doubt that it is an example of a synthetic stone...In my opinion, it presents a particularly strong justification for an expanded research program in this interesting aspect of Egyptology...there is no doubt in my mind that the existence of a sample of high-quality synthetic stone produced by the pyramid builders does establish the fact that the technology existed at the time the pyramids were built.”
Zeller appealed for more samples by emphasizing that more study is needed for such a large monument. However, permission to remove samples was denied; alternative pyramid theories are automatically rejected and ridiculed by the Egyptological community. Without understanding the premises of the geopolymer theory, some Egyptologists have proposed objections, which we have addressed. Notwithstanding, this is an issue of hard science that cannot be decided by Egyptologists, who are specialized historians.
For Zeller's statement, see Morris, M., "Geopolymeric Pyramids: A Rebuttal to R.L. Folk and D.H. Campbell," Journal of Geological Education, The National Association of Geology Teachers, Madison, WI, Vol. 40, No. 1, (January 1992), 37.
McKinney’s Investigation:
Upon Zeller’s examination of pyramid material, he highly recommended petrographer Robert G. McKinney, a geophysicist and geochemist with more than 40 years of experience working with nummulitic limestone for the oil industry. McKinney examined the same sample from the interior of the Great Pyramid and published his observation:
“This is a very strange rock indeed, and does not exhibit properties which one normally sees together in a sedimentary rock...The rock underneath the coating exhibits a texture that is definitely wood grain.”
For McKinney's statement, see Morris, M., "Geopolymeric Pyramids: A Rebuttal to R.L. Folk and D.H. Campbell," Journal of Geological Education, The National Association of Geology Teachers, Madison, WI, Vol. 40, No. 1, (January 1992), 37.
Folk’s Microscopic Studies:
Unlike Zeller and McKinney, Dr. Robert L. Folk, Professor Emeritus of the University of Texas, at Austin, has no background in geochemistry. But Folk is a foremost sedimentation expert capable of recognizing synthetic limestone. Folk became an aggressive opponent of the geopolymer theory because he could not believe that such a binder as geopolymerization could possibly exist--not even in modern times. Although the chemistry is very simple, it is extremely sophisticated: geopolymerization produces a binder equivalent to that of natural rock. This chemistry is well established by many international patents and modern industrial products.
It is a difficult, but not impossible task to gain the benefit of expertise from an opponent so hostile as to reject the validity of internationally recognized patents (Folk claimed that the geopolymeric binder cannot exist) and the associated studies of researchers at major universities and government agencies. But despite a great amount of wrangling (Folk’s many objections are addressed in the published debates listed in this document), Folk’s inadvertent identification of synthetic pyramid stone does lend itself to this body of research.
For instance, Folk immediately recognized that the microphotograph of the sample from the Ascending Passageway of the Great Pyramid, published in Davidovits and Morris, The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved (1988), represents synthetic material. Because Folk insisted that the geopolymeric binder cannot exist (he claimed that all concrete must show cement between the rock grains), he claimed that the microphotograph must represent plaster. Folk and Campbell even went so far as to publish statements saying they believe the Lauer sample is plaster. What they did not tell their readers is that Folk got this idea after reading about Egyptian-made mortar in a book titled Lepre, J.P., The Egyptian Pyramids: A Comprehensive Illustrated Reference, McFarland & Co., Inc., Jefferson, NC and London (1900), page 83-84! Folk wrote on the photocopy he sent to me, "Hah! I think the Lauer mystery is solved. Page 84 shows a drawing of an inset stone with mortar around it. I’ll bet this is what Lauer sampled."
However, the Lauer sample came from the Ascending Passageway, which is limestone. The pages in Lepre's book deal with the Grand Gallery. Page 83 describes the mortar (Davidovits has re-created this kind of mortar and shown to be a geopolymer product, too), as follows: "As to the so-called Flag Stones which comprise inverted L-shapes, they are, in reality, inverted L-shaped cavities filled in with mortar. Yet this is not mortar in the typical sense of the word, but an incredibly solid and durable type which is certainly as strong as the surrounding limestone. It is indeed the very same cement which was used extensively by the original builders throughout the external portions of the monument to obtain a more solidified bond between the huge blocks of coarse, nummulitic limestone." In other words, Folk not only has the place of sampling for the Lauer sample wrong, but he confuses the pink lime-gypsum mortar with limestone in his zeal to debunk the geopolymer theory. Folk and Campbell repeat their reinvention of the Lauer sample in Campbell, D.H. and Folk, R.L., "The Ancient Pyramids - Concrete or Rock?," Concrete International: Design and Construction, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, Vol. 13, No. 8 (1991), 38.
To prove that the sample is limestone and not plaster, I published microphotographs of it taken by geologist Robert G. McKinney at a higher magnification (200X plane polarized) in Concrete International magazine. Folk responded to these microphotographs by saying that they are nothing other than natural limestone. In other words, at one magnification Folk recognizes that the material is synthetic, and at a higher magnification he recognizes that the matrix looks like real limestone. Folk has never attempted to resolved this glaring contradiction in his conclusions with any kind of argumentation. He simply ignores the challenge he faces because only one conclusion is logical, and it does not work in his favor.
Because of Folk’s hostility, McKinney and I engaged him in a blind study, knowing that a blind study would eliminate any problem of bias and allow his expertise to come through. Without knowing what he was looking at, Folk’s task was to mark the back of each of a dozen microphotographs of the same sample from the Ascending Passageway of the Great Pyramid. He was to indicate which ones represent natural limestone and which ones represent synthetic limestone. Folk returned the 12 microphotographs to me with five marked as synthetic and seven marked as looking just like natural limestone. His observations show that most parts of the sample from the Great Pyramid look natural. But telltale spots show up in some microphotographs revealing the man-made nature of the rock. Here is a quote of Folk’s written remarks from the blind study:
“They [the microphotographs] are quite strange and do not look like any normal common rock...I would suggest that these are in fact artificial material...synthetic stone if you wish.”
McKinney was encouraged and sent Folk a small portion of the Lauer sample stub left over from cutting a thin-section. Although Folk recognized that it is limestone, he never retracted his earlier published remarks about the Lauer sample being plaster. Thus, the incorrect, misleading remarks by Folk and Campbell are found in the literature opposing the geopolymer theory.
Folk attempted to change his mind about his findings concerning the synthetic nature of the limestone after he learned what he had been looking at (after receiving the stub and seeing that the Lauer sample is not plaster), and McKinney had to counter his arguments in the published debates. Folk has not engaged in a debate with us since his behavior was checked in published debate.
Dr. Folk also visited the Geopolymer Institute in France, where he inspected geopolymerized statues each made of a different kind of rock aggregate. Using his 50x hand lens, Dr. Folk was unable to tell if any of the statues he observed are natural or synthetic rock. Indeed, a scanning electron microscope is required to study the geopolymeric binder because of its submicroscopic cement particles, zeolites. Dr. Folk used the same 50x hand lens in Egypt when looking at pyramid stones. Folk’s inability to distinguish the geopolymeric statues from natural rock certainly presents a critically important consideration regarding his conclusions in Egypt.
For details, see Folk, R.L., Campbell, D.H., "Are the Pyramids of Egypt built of poured concrete blocks?," Journal of Geological Education, The National Association of Geology Teachers, Madison, WI (1992), Vol. 40, No. 1, 25-34.
Folk, Letters (to the Editor), Journal of Geological Education, Vol. 40, No. 4 (September 1992), 344.
Morris, M., "Geopolymeric Pyramids: A Rebuttal to R.L. Folk and D.H. Campbell," Journal of Geological Education, The National Association of Geology Teachers, Madison, WI, Vol. 40, No. 1 (January 1992), 35-46.
Morris, M., Letters: "Morris Responds to Folk and Campbell," Journal of Geological Education, The National Association of Geology Teachers, Madison, WI, Vol. 40, No. 4 (September 1992), 344-346.
Sedimentation and Other Geological Features at Giza:
Boston University geologist Dr. Robert M. Schoch also opposed the geopolymer theory. Before addressing his criterion, it should be noted that the correctness of the geopolymer theory impacts Schoch’s conclusions about the age of the Great Sphinx and the temple blocks at Giza that he asserts predate the 4th Dynasty. There are two main considertions, 1) given that the quarries were flooded (to dissolve the cement-making ingredients and ease the dissagregation of the kaolnitic limestone), the hydrology of the site has not been fully considered relative to Schoch’s Sphinx theory, and 2) the temple blocks that Schoch advocates are older can be dated.
More specifically, natural limestone will date in the millions of years. Whereas, geopolymeric concrete can be dated to the approximate time geopolymeric setting took place. In other words, it is possible to test the severely eroded limestone blocks of Khafra’s Valley Temple and the Sphinx Temple, which Schoch uses to support an older construction date.
The first step could involve testing with electromagnetic sounding waves, which is non-destructive. Assuming that the temple blocks prove to contain chemically-bound water like other blocks at Giza, the temple blocks in question are hydraulic concrete. Thus, the next phase of testing could be carried out with Neutron Activation Analysis, which would require sampling to determine a rough idea of when geopolymeric setting took place.
Temple blocks that Schoch thinks are older may simply be rock-concrete that is of poorer quality because of natural variations in the raw materials used. Poor-quality rock-concrete will weather more rapidly, and look older.
Thus, it is improper for Schoch to assert that he is 99 percent certain that his theories are correct. He has dismissed these important considerations that can serve to date the temple blocks and perhaps explain water erosion on the Sphinx.
As for the other evidence offered by Schoch and West, I show that it can be interpreted to support the accepted historical dates for the Sphinx and temples of Giza. See The Egyptian Pyramid Mystery Is Solved! at:
[
www.margaretmorrisbooks.com]
With regard to Schoch’s assessment of the geopolymer theory, with geopolymerization we are dealing with a very subtle chemical change in the limestone: the silica and alumina in the kaolin clay inherent to the limestone in the Giza quarries was chemically integrated into a silico-aluminate by an alkali. Careful petrographic analysis of samples is required for investigation, and Robert Schoch has never seen an example of modern geopolymerized rock for comparison. According to Folk, who has about 55 years experience in limestone geology and wrote the standards used at the college level, Schoch does not have enough specialized training in limestone geology to be qualified to make a determination. According to Folk, only a few limestone geologists worldwide have the necessary expertise to determine through microscopical analysis if the Lauer sample is synthetic or natural rock, and the same would be true for other samples.
Schoch based his objection on what he assumes to be natural strata in the 200-ton blocks incorporated into the Valley Temple at Giza. Dr. Davidovits explains the feature as lift lines in concrete, instead of strata. Lift lines are made when the upper surface of concrete begins to cure between pours. To partially test Davidovits’ lift line theory, geologists Robert McKinney and Richard McCloud compared lift lines in several large concrete blocks with natural strata in limestone. They agreed that lift lines do indeed look like strata in natural limestone.
Besides, quarrying limestone with either primitive or modern means so that strata line up perfectly from block to block in building units weighing 200 tons would be a truly formidable task, one that has never been demonstrated in modern times. The same feature is a natural consequence of producing such giant blocks of concrete.
As far as I know, Schoch has not published a paper opposing the geopolymer theory. For his initial remarks, which are mildly supportive, see Schoch, R.M., "Comment on the Folk and Campbell Article," Journal of Geological Education, Vol. 40, No. 1, 34.
The Waseda Study:
The pyramid blocks do not match the local quarry rock at Giza. In general, the fossiliferous pyramid blocks exhibit jumbled fossil shells (as in concrete) and the quarry walls are characterized by normal sedimentary layering. The quarry limestone is much softer material than the pyramid blocks. For the most part, the limestone in the Giza quarries will easily disaggreate in water, making it perfect for geopolymerization (no crushing to obtain aggregates is necessary). The team of geologists from Waseda University compared the blocks of the Great pyramid with the quarry rock and concluded that the blocks of the Great Pyramid are:
“hard and highly viscous [and that] characteristics of the limestone are different from those of the limestone of the site...”
See Yoshimira, S., Studies in Egyptian Culture, no. 6, non-destructive pyramid investigation [1] by Electromagnetic Wave Method, Waseda University Press, Tokyo, 2 vols., 4-5.
Folk and Campbell:
Like the team of Japanese geologists, Folk and Campbell also studied the features of the quarries and blocks in the pyramid complexes. When Folk arrived at Giza in 1990, he immediately examined a block of the Great Pyramid exhibiting scrambled fossil shells with his 50x hand lens. Folk failed to see any cement, and instantly declared the geopolymer theory wrong based on that observation. He abandoned our work plan and instead went in search of features to prove that the blocks are natural. However, Folk had failed to investigate the sample of geopolymer sent to him before the trip to Egypt. Thus, Folk only later learned, when he returned to the laboratory at the University of Texas, that he would require a scanning electron microscope to see the cement between the rock grains of geopolymerized rock. The arguments of Folk and Campbell have been successfully argued in published debates in the Journal of Geological Education.
Furthermore, Folk based conclusions on a natural bedrock portion of the Great Pyramid, and he never corrected his mistake in published literature. In a letter to Dr. Joseph Davidovits dated February 19, 1992, Folk privately conceded his mistake:
“I was impressed by your reasonable and interesting letter in Concrete International, Feb.1992...Your argument that the lower two courses of Khufu (Kheops), on the east face, are in place bedrock is intriguing and I must admit was a new thought to me. This morning, thanks to your citation, I went over and read Lehner (1983) on Khufu (Kheops) and he does indeed show the NE corner of Khufu to be bedrock in his sketch. Our photo was of that corner. So I concede that, on the North-East corner, you are correct as the bedrock idea had not entered my head at the time we were there.”
However, Folk never retracted his misinformation from the scientific record, and his examples of what are clearly natural rock has helped to bias other geologists against the geopolymer theory. Harrell, for instance, depended upon Folk’s papers, and so did Ingram et al.
For details, see Folk, R.L., Campbell, D.H., "Are the Pyramids of Egypt built of poured concrete blocks?," Journal of Geological Education, The National Association of Geology Teachers, Madison, WI (1992), Vol. 40, No. 1, 25-34.
Folk, Letters (to the Editor), Journal of Geological Education, Vol. 40, No. 4 (September 1992), 344.
Morris, M., "Geopolymeric Pyramids: A Rebuttal to R.L. Folk and D.H. Campbell," Journal of Geological Education, The National Association of Geology Teachers, Madison, WI, Vol. 40, No. 1 (January 1992), 35-46.
Morris, M., Letters: "Morris Responds to Folk and Campbell," Journal of Geological Education, The National Association of Geology Teachers, Madison, WI, Vol. 40, No. 4 (September 1992), 344-346.
Arbitration:
E.J. Zeller and R.G. McKinney arbitrated all published debates in favor of geopolymerization, and they even tried to reason with Folk, but to no avail. McKinney even visited Folk at the University of Texas, but Folk would not listen to reason. Geologist James Shelton offered what he thinks is the real explanation for Folk’s vehement reaction to geopolymerization. James Shelton writes:
“It has nothing to do with the Pyramids or how they were constructed, it has to do with cold cryptocrystallization processes and the times it takes if the right ingredients are present. Stop and consider Folk's position as a carbonate sedimentologist. All these years of study devoted to saying that these little carbonate cementing organisms take millions of years to lay down massive carbonate sequences via bio-precipitation from seawater according to uniformitarian principles.…in geology, there has been an old debate about the material balances of calcium and calcium carbonate as well as salt in seawater related to the massive carbonate and salt/evaporite deposits found around the world and how there are no corresponding large scale examples of present day fast carbonate and evaporite deposition. Along comes Joseph and demonstrates that by using a little igneous derived salt and given an ample supply of calcium carbonate he can both dissolve it and re-precipitate it in a matter of hours. What this is demonstrating is not uniformatarianism but worldwide catastrophism leading to massive undersea volcanism and hydrothermal activity oversupplying the oceans with quantities of soluble minerals capable of precipitating vast bathtub like rings of carbonates and evaporites on continental margins replete with corresponding massive marine organism dieoffs. When one considers that when seawater altered volcanic ash and carbonates are merged together you have an instantaneous geopolymer for forming massive carbonates and evaporites in a very short period of time…This mechanism… has haunted geologists in the past and is a thorn in the side of the geosciences that severely compromises our already shakey-snakey slight of hand radiometric dating methods, which are touted as the back up to the principles of superposition related to dating. Basically, geology's fragile little theories come under scrutiny that they will not be able to bear up to.”
James Shelton appreciates the ability of very simple geopolymeric reactions to produce chemistry like that which goes on in the Earth’s crust itself, and in a relatively short period of time:
These are reactions of the poly(sialate), poly(sialate-siloxo/ disiloxo) types. Geopolymerization involves a chemical reaction between various alumino-silicate oxides (Al3+ in IV-V fold coordination) with silicates, yielding polymeric Si-O-Al-O sialate bonds like the following:
2(Si2O5 ,Al 2O2 )+K2(H3SiO4)2+Ca(H3SiO4)2 --> (K2O,CaO)(8SiO2,2Al2O3,nH2O).
For details, see Davidovits, J., GEOPOLYMERS: Inorganic polymeric new materials, presentation at "Real Advances in Materials" Symposium, Washington DC, Sept. 26, 1994, pub. Journal of Materials Education, Vol. 16 (2,3) (1994), 91-138.
The statement by James Shelton appears in Morris, M., The Egyptian Pyramid Mystery Is Solved!, at: [
www.margaretmorrisbooks.com]
For a statement by McKinney concerning the issue of scientific integrity, see McKinney, R.G., "Comments on the Work of Harrell and Penrod," Journal of Geological Education, The National Association of Geology Teachers, Madison, WI, Vol. 41, No. 4, September 1993, 369.
See also the reviews by E.J. Zeller and R.G. McKinney of Morris, M., The Egyptian Pyramid Mystery Is Solved! at:
[
www.margaretmorrisbooks.com]
Zeolites in the Giza Quarry:
Geologist D. Klemm took microphotographs of the Giza quarries. In one of the microphotographs, E.J. Zeller detected needle-shaped crystals that look like the zeolite crystals called analcime. Zeller pointed out that it is highly unlikely that zeolites would have formed during the natural geological formation of limestone. It is much more likely that the zeolite crystals are the result of a subsequent chemical reaction, geopolymerization. In other words, the limestone rock-concrete was made directly in the quarries, and some of it remains intact to this day.
Zeller’s observation appears in Morris, M., The Egyptian Pyramid Mystery Is Solved!, at:
[
www.margaretmorrisbooks.com]
See also: Klemm, D.D., Klemm, R, "Mortar Evolution in the Old Kingdom of Egypt" (unpublished version presented at the Heidleberg Congress, Heidleberg University, West Germany).
Summary:
The above shows that the scientific requirement of duplication and verification is satisfied in the three areas of, 1) chemical analysis, 2) the detection of chemically-bound water, and 3) microscopic analysis.
Most of the above experiments represent independent data. Even when researchers did not understand the implications of their data, the data are supportive, e.g., experiments showing water that trained geophysicists recognize must be chemically-bound (and cannot represent free water like rain). Furthermore, geologists working with us (all have volunteered their time in the interest of science except for those in the laboratories in France and Belgium) have usually been able to show the mistakes of hostile opponents, except in the case of Harrell’s refusal to share any information about his test protocol for chemically-bound water. However, chemically-bound water shows up in other independent data, so that Harrell’s findings are counteracted. Zeller studied the published data, and in his capacity as a geophysicist, showed that it would defy physics not to conclude that the masonry of the pyramids tested exhibit chemically-bound water, i.e., they are made of hydraulic concrete.
Much of this Data Summary has long been known to Chris Dunn, because it is posted at an Atlantis Rising forum debate with him:
[
www.atlantisrising.com]
Chris Dunn simply chooses to ignore these facts and pretends that the scientific data oppose the geopolymer theory. Geopolymerization overturns Chris Dunn’s poorly developed hypotheses.
Corroborating Reports
Synthetic Sandstone:
While Dr. Joseph Davidovits is the first to re-create the synthetic rocks of ancient Egypt, Henry Le'Chatelier (1850-1935) was the first to discover that the Egyptians made synthetic stone. In Le'Chatelier's day, Egyptologists thought that the sandstone agglomerate today called Egyptian faience was natural sandstone with a painted surface. Egyptian faience has little in common with ordinary faience, which is fired clay coated with enamel. After Le'Chatelier's discovery of its synthetic nature, this exquisite product had to be reclassified as a type of faience.
Le'Chatelier’s microscopic investigations showed that minerals migrated from the inner portion of his samples of Egyptian faience to their outer surfaces. In other words, Le'Chatelier could see the self-glazing process that produces the outer coating of blue enamel. Thus, he proved that the enamel coating is not painted on, and his observation of the self-glazing process proved that the material is not natural sandstone. Le'Chatelier also saw spherical air bubbles in the sandstone itself. These unequivocally proved Egyptian faience to be man-agglomerated sandstone, because bubbles do not occur in natural sandstone.
Today, it is taken for granted that the manufacture of Egyptian faience is understood. But there is a fundamental flaw in the theory of its manufacture. The accepted explanation assumes a minimum temperature of 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit and a high amount of clay. But chemical analyses of Egyptian faience from tiles in Zoser’s Pyramid, Egypt’s first, made by Le'Chatelier show that no clay is present. Likewise, Joseph Davidovits produces Egyptian faience with a geopolymeric formula that contains no clay. The chemical analyses of Davidovits’s reproductions match those of the Egyptian faience analyzed by Le'Chatelier. The geopolymeric chemistry also requires far less heat than experts assume is needed to cause Egyptian faience to self-glaze.
Le'Chatelier's analysis shows that Zoser's tiles contain the necessary materials for geopolymerization, the chemical integration of silica and alumina by means of an alkali. The tiles are composed of 92.5 percent silica, 1.2 percent alumina, and 2.5 percent soda. No clay is present. In other words, this analysis shows that, contrary to accepted theory, the Egyptian faience in Zoser’s pyramid is geopolymeric.
For details, Davidovits, J., Morris, M., The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved (Hippocrene, 1988).
Munier, P., Technologie des Faience Technologie des faïences, Préf. de M. P. de Groote, Gauthier-Villars, Paris (1957), 132.
Morris, M., The Egyptian Pyramid Mystery Is Solved!
[
www.margaretmorrisbooks.com]
Synthetic Basalt:
In recent years, independent archaeologists found synthetic basalt in Mesopotamian ruins.
[
www.science-frontiers.com]
Unlike the pyramid stone made at ambient temperatures, the synthetic Mesopotamian basalt requited heat, like Egyptian faience (which early Egyptologists thought to be natural sandstone).
The geological description of the synthetic Mesopotamian basalt closely matches an independent geological description of a sample of basalt from a basalt paving at Giza associated with the Great Pyramid. When I showed the description of the Giza and Mesopotamian basalts to geologist Robert G. McKinney, he indicated:
"They sure sound similar. The glass may be the binder in the synthetic rock. Other components are typical of diabase and may have been added in a decomposed state. No note of weathering though."
McKinney adds, "It seems like your postulation that glass [moderate temperature setting geopolymeric glass] (or something resembling glass) was used as a binder is compelling. Sometimes it helps to look at nature in reverse. This from Williams, Turner & Gilbert entitled "Petrography": 'When tholeiitic basalts are weathered under conditions of poor drainage and in the presence of alkaline solutions, yellow and green nontronite (iron-rich clay mineral) is formed at the expense of the original glass and mafic minerals. Under conditions of better drainage and where the ground-waters are neutral or slightly acid, nontronite is accompanied by kaolinite and halloysite, formed at the expense of the feldspars. In thermal regions such as Iceland, hot acid waters remove virtually all of the cations in basalts, leaving little but silica; neutral waters tend to form more or less ferruginous clays; and alkaline waters cause little chemical change but develop new minerals, such as zeolites, chlorite, and calcite.' Put this in reverse and you have your synthetic basalt.”
In other words, as McKinney explains:
"Weathering is an exothermic reaction. Application of heat and a catalyst should reverse the reaction and produce something like the basalt you started with."
Synthetic Quartzite:
An independent chemical analysis of the 18th Dynasty Egyptian quartzite Colossi of Memnon supports geopolymerization. Dr. Joseph Davidovits replicated matching quartzite based on that analysis.
To re-create quartzite, Dr. Davidovits did not use any heat. However, heat should be required for Dr. Davidovits to imitate stone that actually looks like igneous rock, e.g., granite.
Proof of the Earliest Known Geopolymer, 8,000 years ago:
In 1981, Joseph Davidovits and Liliane Courtois, the latter of the Center for Archaeological Research, in Paris, demonstrated that geopolymerization dates back to at least 8,000 years ago in Tell-Ramad, Syria. Davidovits and Courtois carried out X-ray chemical analyses to determine the make-up of lime vessels from Tell-Ramad, which date to 6000 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. There they reported that the samples contain up to 41 percent of analcime (analcite), a zeolite easily made by mixing natron, lime, water and clay.
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. 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. In modern times, synthetic zeolites were first made in the 1950s, by an English scientist named R.M. Barrer.
The zeolitic pots from Tell-Ramad are capable of desalinating seawater, and provided a reliable means of securing fresh water from seawater. The desalination pot may have been a fundamental invention known to various peoples for thousands of years (see Pliny, Natural History, Book 31, Ch. 37, titled To Remedy Unfit Water). Because they provided an early, reliable means of obtaining freshwater from seawater, these pots could have assisted early cross-culturization.
See 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.
Synthetic Stone Serapis Statue:
The Church father Clement of Alexandria (AD c.150-215) preserved a description of the manufacture of the giant colossus of the Greco-Egyptian god Serapis. Clement reported legends about its place of origin, and he included a description of how an artist made the Serapis colossus by agglomerating stone:
“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.”
Neither simple stonecutting nor Chris Dunn’s machine tools were involved. This description does not provide an example of glass, faience, or metal being fashioned. Clement described agglomerated stone, which in this formula included sacred metals (gold was considered the flesh of the Sun-god; silver the flesh of the Moon goddess Isis, etc.), all kinds of rocks and the funerary remains of the Apis bull--all fashioned into the colossus. A certain zeolite made by geopolymerization is called ZK-20, and it occurs only when natron is reacted with organic ammonium. The latter can come from urine or collagen from flesh and bone, e.g., the remains of an Apis bull.
See Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen, Ch. 4.
Diodorus’ Account of Pyramid Construction:
In the 1st century BC, Diodorus Siculus mentioned that mounds of salt were dissolved by Nile waters to build the Great Pyramid. He mentioned that before Khufu (whom Diodorus called Chemmis), a king ruled who built so many canals that the Nile was named after him. Remembering that pyramid blocks were made by dumping natron and lime into the Giza quarries, and then putting these materials into solution by filling the quarries with water (by canals from the Nile), we see that although Diodorus had no idea of the alchemical process used so many centuries before, his report does carry a trace of it. He recorded:
“The entire construction is of hard stone, which is difficult to work but lasts fore ever; for though no fewer than a thousand years have elapsed…the stones remain to this day still preserving their original position and the entire structure undecayed. It is said that the stone was conveyed over a great distance from Arabia and that the construction was effected by means of mounds, since cranes had not yet been invented at that time; and the most remarkable thing in the account is that, though the constructions were on such a great scale and the country round about them consists of nothing but sand, not a trace remains either of any mounds 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. Certain Egyptians would make a marvel out of these things, saying that, inasmuch as the mounds were built of salt and saltpeter, when the river was let in it melted them down and completely effaced them without the intervention of man's hand.”
Diodorus's account inspired the theories of huge construction ramps, which engineers like Peter Hodges and P. Garde-Hansen have shown to be unworkable. But the tradition Diodorus preserved clearly indicates that the mounds used in the construction system were piles of salts, and that the salts were dissolved by the water from the Nile. Diodorus's account aligns with the alchemical stone-making technology.
Chris Dunn, Cont’d
Granite
Chris Dunn continues, “Instead I took the easy way out and said that if they were indeed determined to be geopolymers, it still did not explain the existence of many granite and diorite artifacts that display characteristics that cannot be produced by pouring or packing geopolymer stone, and which must have required advanced knowledge and machines.”
Margaret Morris replies: Chris Dunn has never worked with us and is not familiar with the physical properties of high early strength geopolymers. He cannot predict how any particular geopolymeric formula can be worked.
The above data prove the geopolymer theory as far as limestone is concerned. We have not been granted permission to sample granite, so we have not shown that Old Kingdom granite exhibits a geopolymeric binder. We should, however, keep certain evidence in mind: For instance, in his Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh (1883), Petrie reported "a good deal of crystallized salt" inside Khafra's granite sarcophagus. Chris Dunn measured surface areas of this same sarcophagus to be extremely flat, and he uses this surface flatness to support his machining hypothesis. However, natural granite does not give off salt, not even under severe weathering conditions.
Native Egyptian natron is a combination of sodium chloride, sodium sulfate and sodium carbonate. Natron is used to make synthetic rock. Over time, excess salt (sodium chloride) migrates from within the stone. The salt collects and crystallizes on surfaces, just as it has on the inner limestone (geopolymerized) walls of pyramids. The salt crystallized on Khafra’s granite sarcophagus suggests that this granite is fundamentally different from Aswan granite (and every other granite) with respect to salt content. This phenomenon of salt formation presents an extremely strong case suggesting that Khafra’s granite sarcopha
