Basic HTML Version
7
Keramický zpravodaj 27 (2) (2011)
Fig. 2
X-ray elemental (phosphorous) map with the contamination Lauer’s sample by hydroxylapatite [6]
mineral colorants for coating the exterior casing blocks of
pyramids. Over time, phosphate may have migrated into
the sub-surface layer of the limestone. Fig. 2 shows this
contaminated zone.
After dissolving the calcite and phosphate from the abo-
ve-mentioned sample in 2M hydrochloric acid, the presen-
ce of cristobalite and quartz was identified in the leach.
The cristobalite characterises transformed opal substances
(opal-C or opal-CT – cristobalite-trydimite). On the basis of
the mere presence of cristobalite in the sample, Davidovits
anticipates that the material is an agglomerated aggrega-
te. Unlike Davidovits, other authors consider cristobalite
an obvious admixture in natural limestone [6].
According to Prof. Davidovits, the Lauer sample also con-
tains oval air bubbles that originated in the course of mix-
ture handling, and ramming into moulds. He also descri-
bes the presence of organic filaments. According to him,
they are probably hair. This “fact” should confirm the aut-
henticity of the artificial origin of pyramid blocks, but
more likely they can be a sort of disinformation. Fig. 3 pre-
sents a picture of this hair.
Davidovits further states that it is impossible to tell the
geopolymeric limestone from the natural one. Harrel and
co-workers [7] carried out a thermographic analysis of
a pure geopolymer, geopolymeric limestone, the Lauer
Fig. 3
Picture of so-called hair in the Lauer sample [4]
samples, and three samples of the Mokkatam limestone.
This analysis enables one to classify individual materials.
The pure geopolymer loses 16 % of bound water when
600 °C is reached, and the geopolymeric limestone loses
only 8 %. The Lauer sample (without coating) and the
samples of the Mokkatam limestone are nearly identical.
The sample was further analysed by means of X-ray diff-
ractometry, and the spectrum was compared with that of
calcite. Neither of the spectra differs in anything from one
another.
Some authors [8] in their considerations go even beyond
Davidovits. Do the samples of limestone from the pyra-
mids contain gold dust (pyrite?) which would have been
added, as a part of ritual, to the mixture? In addition to
this, one should find in the samples sericite, oval nodules
of calcite, and ferrous-magnesium minerals, as well as
volcanic glass fragments (tuffs). Nevertheless the analy-
ses [7] show that no such substances are present in the
samples.
Barsoum and co-workers [9] carried out interesting rese-
arch, which is a certain compromise between the versi-
ons of Egyptologists and J. Davidovits. According to his
research, Barsoum supposes that only external blocks,
the pyramid’s peak and walls of rooms were prepared in
situ. He derives his conclusions from historical context
and from the structure of the interior blocks, which are
indicative for their natural origin, and series of analyses,
which indicate the artificial origin of the external pyra-
mid blocks. He also analysed the Lauer sample. The evi-
dence would have been images obtained by transmissi-
on electron microscopy, which were to have shown that
the sample could not be of natural origin. The reason is
the presence of an amorphous substance that, according
to the authors, must have originated by means of rapid
precipitation. Nevertheless, they ignore the obvious fact
that limestone can contain opal substances originating
in parallel with the diagenetic processes of their strengt-
hening.
An interesting aspect of these analyses is the fact that the
authors [7] and [9] studied the same sample and arrived at
two different explanations for its origin – therefore, is it
a geopolymer or a natural rock?