Pyramids
Dear Reader:
I decided to start this blog to shed some more light on the research that we recently published in the J. of the American Ceramic Society and funded by the Ceramics Division of the National Science Foundation. It is important to emphasize the following:
a) our technical results are unambiguous: the pyramid stones have regions with chemistries and other feature that not only we did not find in the natural samples collected and examined from the vicinity of the pyramids, but more important, chemistries and features that do NOT exist in sedimentary rocks, such as limestone! As far as I am aware, no geologist has come out saying that the chemistries and features we reported can exist in natural limestone. If you are aware of such a study - published or otherwise - please let me know.
b) the samples we looked at are NOT recent renovations for two simple reasons: First, they do not remotely resemble Portland cement or concrete. Second, and much more important, I am not aware of anybody that can actually make this kind of reconstituted stone at this time. There is no doubt or debate. One of the samples had a layer of calcium phosphate that can be obtained from bones - on the surface! If anybody can show me a microstructure that even comes close to what we reported, published or not, please let me know.
c) The presentation that can be found at http://www.mse.drexel.edu/max/PyramidPresentation.htm is not the evidence we are talking about. That can be found in - highly abbreviated form - the last 4 slides of the presentation. It is not a substitute to the technical paper.
d) The purpose of the presentation is simply to add, what I call additional circumstantial evidence to the case.
e) Over the past 4 years we looked at chemical analyses, over 1000 photomicrographs (scanning electron microscope pictures) and other characterizations.
f) Before putting words in my mouth, it is imperative that the facts be checked and double checked. And the facts can be found in the scientific paper - solely. It is not what was published in the NY Times or the Philadelphia Inquirer or any other paper or blog. The presentation is not evidence; it only becomes evidence when the rocks are tested and found to be not natural.
I want to make an analogy. If this were a murder case, do you think we provided enough evidence to re-open the case? If you think that is so, then I have accomplished my mission. That is all we are asking. Let me emphasize again: I think more work needs to be done by us our others. If our work is confirmed by others, that represents progress; if not then we need to understand where the discrepancy comes from. I am a scientist: I have no problem changing my mind if new evidence proves me wrong. I am not married to my conclusion. If anything, our current work shows the danger of falling in love with your own theory.
Our work in no way diminishes what the Ancient Egyptians accomplished. To reconstitute a stone that not only fools generations of experts, tourists and scientists, but does so even after 4500 years is simply stunning.
Now, if you are still looking for a huge mystery, try and figure out how the Ancient Egyptians cut natural granite with nothing harder than copper. How they dragged roughly 70 ton granite blocks (the weight of a locomotive!) without wheels and placed them on top of the King's chamber is ...... I have run out of superlatives; your turn....
Lets for a minute ASSUME we are wrong - that will become clear with time. However, geopolymers are absolutely real; we make them in the lab reproducibly. We add dirt, dirt, dirt to water and we get a concrete that rivals Portland cement concrete. In contradistinction to the latter, we produce very little CO2. So if our work educates the world about this green cement, then I have done some good. Finally, if this technology is used by the destitute of the world - it is, after all, a 5000 year old technology, how complex or expensive can it be? - to build esthetically pleasing and long lasting homes and shelters, then I plead guilty. Ironically then, this study of 4500 year old rocks is not about the past, but about the future.
Here is a copy of an e-mail I received Dec. 3, from Melboune, Australia. It is worth noting that the Lauer sample we examined - see J. Amer. Cer. paper - also had a calcium phosphate outer layer (see Fig. 4) that was painted red, with an iron-based pigment. (These results will be published shortly). It this appears the Pyramids of Giza were must have been red at one time!
From: Ross Fellowes <ross.fellowes@optusnet.com.au>
Date: December 3, 2006 10:20:29 PM EST
To: barsoumw@drexel.edu
Subject: Pyramid 'concrete'
Reply-To: ross.fellowes@optusnet.com.au
Dear Dr Barsoum,
Congratulations on your recent paper in J. Ceram. Soc. on the ‘concrete’ composition of the Great Pyramid.
There is a closely related item of anomalous materials science [in the G Pyramid] that you may not be aware of.
The lower part of the original casings stones [now missing] were coloured red [Lehner, M, The Complete Pyramids, 34; Verner, M. The Pyramids, 460]
The red color was an artificial surface coating of which samples were collected about 1934 by a French explorer, M. Andre Pochan [Pochan, A, The Mysteries of the Great Pyramids, 219-223]
He collected four samples of stone, coated about 0.5 – 2.0 mm thick, three of which were chemically analysed in 1950 at the Sorbonne confirming the paint layer contained iron, manganese and phosphorus in ‘an organic compound’. The Sorbonne report concluded unequivocally, ‘We consider these facts to verify that the Pyramid was indeed painted’
The fourth sample was deposited for safekeeping in the Louvre … where presumably it still is?
Kind regards
Ross Fellowes
ph 03 9347 8728 // 0407 099 902
ross.fellowes@optusnet.com.au
(Comment this)
As for granite in the Great Pyramid... it's natural rock (Nicholson & Shaw 2000), after all it's a medium to coarse-grained holocrystalline igneous rock and not a geopolymer aggregate. So it's quite clear the ancient Egyptians were able to carve and lift them into the Great Pyramid with the tools that are attributed to them by Egyptologists. Old Kingdom technology is quite capable of moving 70 ton blocks by sledge and lever, and even up to a few hundred ton blocks for short distances and heights. If you are concerned that they could not use a big ramp to raise the 50-60 ton granite roofing beams (Arnold 1991) to the King's Chamber then there are simpler methods. For example, they could just ramp the granite onto one of the lower courses and then ramp or lever them to the next course of core masonry (not really that high, about 1.5 m) as the course is being constructed... lots of storage and work space on the top surface of an unfinished pyramid. If they planned it right the heavy blocks would end up close to where they needed them for the construction of the King's Chamber. Granite can be carved with hand-powered stone percussion and copper lapidary tools. If you think granite is too hard, I would surely like to finally hear from a materials science and engineering expert exactly why that is...
Arnold, D. (1991) Building in Egypt: pharaonic stone masonry. Oxford University Press, New York, 316 p.
Ireland, H.A. (1947) Terminology for Insoluble Residues. Am.Assoc.Petrol.Geol. Bull., 31, 1479–90
Nicholson, P.T. & Shaw, I. (2000) Ancient Egyptian materials and techniques. Cambridge University Press, New York, 702 p.
Archae Solenhofen <solenhofen@hotmail.com> (Comment this)
It appears the romans made cement using clay as well. It would be interesting to compare the chemistry of 2000 year old roman cement made with clay to the pyramids.
http://www.romanconcrete.com/docs/my_interest/my_interest.htm
"There is meager information on the chemistry of pozzolan. It can be processed from different sources such as fly ash, rice hulls, and clay to name a few."
...
"the Romans pounded tile mixed with lime to make a mortar for constructing floors."
...
"the ancients used a powdered burnt clay/tile with lime in their concrete process" (Comment this)
I noticed that Ireland (1947) is cited 4 times in Barsoum et. al. (2006) in reference to what appears to be your present state of knowledge on limestone geochemisry/mineralogy. I did not realize that that was the most up to date study available on sedimentary carbonate rocks. I am sure you have an exceptionally good reason for doing so, but if not, can you please provide some more recent research to back up your paper's 60-year-old assertions about limestone geochemisry/mineralogy?
THE ONUS IS ON YOU TO COME UP WITH ONE PAPER PUBLISHED ANYWHERE, ANYTIME THAT SHOWS LIMESTONE THAT LOOKS LIKE THE MICROSTRUCTURE OF LIMESTONE WE FOUND IN THE PYRAMID ROCKS. AND WHEN YOU DO FIND THAT REFERENCE MAKE SURE IT REFERS TO EITHER GIZA OR TURA LIMESTONE. I CHALLENGE YOU TO COME UP WITH SUCH A PAPER. I SUBMIT IT DOES NOT EXIST AND SO WHETHER I CITE A 60 YEAR OLD PAPER OR a 2006 PAPER IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT AND IMMATERIAL. THE GEOLOGY OF LIMESTONE HAS NOT REALLY CHANGED THAT RADICALLY IN THE LAST 40 YEARS, HAS IT?
I NOTE IN PASSING THAT YOU DID NOT CONTEST THE FACT THAT THE MICROSTRUCTURES WE SHOW ARE UNNATURUAL. IF YOU THINK THEY ARE NATURAL AGAIN THE ONUS IS ON YOU TO FIND THE EVIDENCE. UNTIL YOU DO, I AM AFRAID YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITH OUR CONCLUSIONS.
As for granite in the Great Pyramid... it's natural rock (Nicholson & Shaw 2000), after all it's a medium to coarse-grained holocrystalline igneous rock and not a geopolymer aggregate. So it's quite clear the ancient Egyptians were able to carve and lift them into the Great Pyramid with the tools that are attributed to them by Egyptologists.
I NEVER CLAIMED THAT THE GRAINTE WAS A GEOPOLYMER. IF YOU READ MY PRESENTATION I MARVEL AT THE FACT THAT IT IS NATURAL.
Old Kingdom technology is quite capable of moving 70 ton blocks by sledge and lever, and even up to a few hundred ton blocks for short distances and heights.
OBVIOUSLY.
If you are concerned that they could not use a big ramp to raise the 50-60 ton granite roofing beams (Arnold 1991) to the King's Chamber then there are simpler methods. For example, they could just ramp the granite onto one of the lower courses and then ramp or lever them to the next course of core masonry (not really that high, about 1.5 m) as the course is being constructed... lots of storage and work space on the top surface of an unfinished pyramid. If they planned it right the heavy blocks would end up close to where they needed them for the construction of the King's Chamber. Granite can be carved with hand-powered stone percussion and copper lapidary tools. If you think granite is too hard, I would surely like to finally hear from a materials science and engineering expert exactly why that is...
I HAVE NO PROBLEM HERE EITHER. BUT SINCE ONE HAS TO CONCEDE THAT CUTTING THE GRANITE TO MAKE THE PERFECT MATCHES/SEAMS IS TIME AND ENERGY CONSUMING AND MAKES A LOT OF SENSE IF – FOR ESTHETIC REASONS - YOU ARE USING THE GRANITE AS AN OUTER CASING AS IN THE CASE OF THE EXTERIOR OF THE MENKAURE PYRAMID (SEE MY PRESENTATION). HOWEVER, IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE WHATSOEVER TO SPEND THE TIME AND ENERGY, MAKING SEAMS THAT TIGHT IF YOU ARE THEN GOING TO COVER THEM WITH A CASING AS WAS DONE WITH THE BACKING BLOCKS! THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE SINCE WE SHOW IN OUR PAPER (FIG. 6) THAT THE BLOCKS IN THE INTERIOR OF THE PYRAMID DO NOT APPEAR TO BE CAST! (Comment this)
Thanks for your comment. You bring up a very good point. I never looked at Roman concrete, but from your description, I would have to say it has a lot in common with the Egyptian kind. One obvious difference is that the Romans used ash, while the AE used diatomaceous earth. The lime appears to be common. Again thanks for your comment. Michel (Comment this)
Anonymous wrote:
_snip>
>The onus is on you to come up with one
>paper published anywhere, anytime that
>shows limestone that looks like the
>microstructure of limestone we found in
>the pyramid rocks. And when you do find
>that reference make sure it refers to either
>giza or tura limestone.
What like Harrell and Penrod (1993)? They apparently studied the same Lauer sample as you did with XRF, XRD, EDS, TGA, and optical petrography. For some reason they did not come to the same conclusion you did. I don't see it listed in your paper's references... I strongly suggest you make an effort to read it if you have not already. You also didn't mention to your readers that the Lauer Sample underwent leaching of its soluble salts for display purposes as stated in Morris (1993).
I guess we should also include into that Klemm and Klemm (1993), since after all they personally collected specimens form the GP and identified almost all the quarries using hand specimen petrology and whole-rock Sr/Mg, Sr/Rb, Zn/Cu/Pb, Mn/Co/Ni trace element analysis. Since you're a material science expert or whatever can you tell us why that works for geopolymer blocks? I notice you really did not mention that reference either in your paper.
>I challenge you to come up with such a paper.
>I submit it does not exist and so whether i cite
>a 60 year old paper or a 2006 paper is totally
>irrelevant and immaterial.
That's amazing you should feel that way considering all they really had 60 years ago for analytical testing of clay particles was XRD and that was with a camera and X-ray film type of measuring device. You cite a paper published before modern analytical techniques like XRF, XRD, EDS, TGA etc etc etc. even existed....and then assert it's irrelevant and immaterial.
>The geology of limestone has not really
>changed that radically in the last 40 years,
>has it?
Considering that all the advanced analytical work for clay minerals was done in the last 50-60 years... yes.
>I note in passing that you did not contest the fact
>that the microstructures we show are unnaturual.
>If you think they are natural again the onus is
>on you to find the evidence. Until you do, i am
>afraid you have to live with our conclusions.
Since, you are "unaware of any literature report" from pre-1947 research to back up your assertions, it's your responsibility to first research the modern geological literature and point out to us it's modern conclusions on this subject. That is... find some papers or books published over the last 20 years or so that make the same observations as Ireland (1947) that are asserted in your paper, because until you do you're going to have to live with natural/maybe unnatural? as your actual conclusion, because it's quite clear you don't know if you're basing it on a 60-year out-of-date work. If you can't be bothered to pursue the vast amount of literature on this subject then make an effort to visit Drexel's geology department, if they have one, and ask a few experts there to give you a hand because they most likely know a lot more then your cited pre-1947 research. Just curious.... were any of the people in your acknowledgment softrock geologists, especially someone that has actually published something on limestone geochemistry?
_snip>
>I never claimed that the grainte was a
>geopolymer. If you read my presentation
>I marvel at the fact that it is natural.
Never said that you did... I'm just pointing it out so that it is absolutely clear to the readers of this Blog that it's a naturally formed, medium to coarse-grained, holocrystalline igneous rock.
_snip>
>Obviously.
That's good to know that you no longer have the need to "run out of superlatives" in your quest to understand.
_snip>
>I have no problem here either.
It's good to know that you agree the 4th dynasty Egyptians were quite capable of lifting 70-ton blocks 70 m into the King's chamber of the GP with the tools attributed to them, so much for that big mystery. Can you explain to us again what is the problem with the considerably smaller limestone blocks?
>But since one has
>to concede that cutting the granite to make the
>perfect matches/seams is time and energy consuming
NAnd considerabily less time consuming for cutting limestone the same way. I hope you also now agree that the ancient Egyptians had more than just copper tools to cut granite. Can you explain to us again what is the problem with the considerably softer limestone blocks?
>and makes a lot of sense if – for esthetic reasons
>- you are using the granite as an outer casing as
>in the case of the exterior of the Menkaure
>pyramid (see my presentation). However, it
>makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to
>spend the time and energy, making seams
>that tight if you are then going to cover them
>with a casing as was done with the backing
>blocks!
Why not? Considering how susceptible the limestone of the Giza Plateau is to weathering one would think they would make every effort to make those joints as tight as possible.... for structural reasons, of course. Don't want the casing to start falling down after a few hundred years.
>This is especially true since we show in our paper
>(fig. 6) that the blocks in the interior of the pyramid
>do not appear to be cast!
Really... you do realize that most of the outer surface of the GP is severely weathered right? It's clearly stated in the literature (Emery, 1960), or to anyone who bothers to stand near it and look up and ask the question "why is it all mostly crumbly up above the base?". The blocks of Fig 6b have been exposed to at least about 600 more years of direct atmospheric exposure than the more freshly exposed one of Vyse's hole. I sure hope that's not the type of limestone you were testing in your paper's GP's outer core masonry samples... so where was it exactly you got your specimens from? Because descriptions like "most of the specimens were easily friable" in the caption of Fig. 2 for OC flakes does not sound at all like fresh pyramid block samples, it sounds something little too close to detritus. Which of course has undergone chemical and mechanical weathered even more so then the weathered blocks still in situ (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). So when you check the last 60 years of analytical testing of limousine to back up your assertions about the present state of research you might just to have to include all the weathered limestone research too.
Emery, K.O. (1960) Weathering of the Great Pyramid. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 30, 141-143.
Harrell, J. A. & Penrod, B. E. (1993) The Great Pyramid Debate-Evidence form the Lauer Sample. Journal of geological education. 41, 358-363.
Klemm, R. and Klemm, D.D. (1993) Steine und steinbrüche im alten Ägypten. Spring-Verlag, Berlin.
Morris, M. (1993) How Not to Analyze a Pyramid Stone - The Invalid Conclusions of James A. Harrell and Bret E. Penrod. Journal of Geological Education, 41, 364-369.
Archae Solenhofen (solenhofen@hotmail.com) (Comment this)
Archae Solenhofen (solenhofen@hotmail.com) (Comment this)
>John MacArthur from University >College London?
Nope... your're not correct on that fact Mr. Anonymous. But thank you for thinking that I am... that's a great compliment.
Harrell & Penrod (1993) used whole rock XRF to analyze the composition of the rock portion of the same Lauer sample as Barsoum et. al. (2006) and found it to contain 3.3 wt% SiO, 0.23 wt% Al2O3, 1.18 wt% MgO and 51.9 wt% CaO. Considering that there is detrital quartz in the Lauer sample... just what is it that is actually cementing it together and what percent of the rock it is?
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) (Comment this)