Archive 3118

Instead of approving the list of summary statements, Chris Dunn sent me an email indicating that he would respond soon, But I never heard from Chris Dunn. Months passed, yet there was no reply. I, therefore, decided to post my debate challenge to Chris Dunn on the Internet. I expected that if people anticipated this debate, Chris Dunn would be less willing to ignore my challenge.

My strategy provoked Chris Dunn to respond. In October of 2000, Chris Dunn posted an article titled “Response to Margaret Morris’s ‘Pour Theory'” at Rense.com. In this article, Chris Dunn reacted to my negative review of his book titled “The Giza Power Plant” that I posted at Amazon.com. Chris Dunn also claims in his article to have disproved the geopolymerized stone masonry theory I have been involved with since 1984. My reply, posted below, is titled “The Giza Power Plant” Meltdown! Why Geopolymers, Not Machine Tools, Are the Answer!”.

Chris Dunn claims to have disproved the geopolymerized stone theory. This page is a response to both his book and his rebuttal, titled “Response to Margaret Morris’s ‘Pour Theory'”, posted recently at “Internet UFO Digest” and “Rense.com”. His use of the words, “Pour Theory”, which he punned in order to belittle Margaret Morris’s book and her criticism of his book posted at Amazon.com, backfires upon him, revealing his POOR understanding of the geopolymer theory, and provides a glaring reason why his rebuttal is so weak. He obviously entertains the mistaken notion that rock-concrete can only be poured or cast in a mold in order to create objects.

However, contrary to Chris Dunn’s misconception, rock-concrete, adjusted to an appropriate viscosity, can also be worked like clay on a potter’s wheel. Objects, even large ones, can also be created by packing together individual quantities of uncured rock-concrete of the correct viscosity: The resulting “packed” object can be shaped and given a finished appearance with the skillful application of simple tools prior to ultimate hardening. It is also possible to apply a final dressing to a packed object with one or more layers of rock-concrete, just as one would apply plaster. Obviously, such “plaster” coats can also be used to repair defects in and alter the appearance of rock-concrete objects. Indeed, these techniques, and perhaps others not discussed here, may be used separately or in combination in order to construct the required object.

A subsurface examination of a rock-concrete object may be required to reveal how it may have been built. As for distinguishing between natural rock and rock-concrete, microscopy and chemical analysis will normally be required. The geopolymer cement (binder) component requires a scanning electron microscope.

Herein Margaret Morris will provide some evidence showing the veracity of the geopolymer stone (rock-concrete) theory and why Chris Dunn’s arguments for the existence of advanced power tools in ancient Egypt cannot be taken seriously. This page offers only a small part of the evidence offered in “The Egyptian Pyramid Mystery Is Solved!”. See https://www.margaretmorrisbooks.com/index.html for additional information.

______________

Point 1: Tool Marks on Stone

In his aforementioned rebuttal Chris Dunn says, “Davidovits cited Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh [“The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh,” 1883], in which Petrie devoted an entire chapter to the tool marks found on various artifacts made of both igneous and sedimentary rock. These artifacts were found both inside and outside the Greeat [sic] Pyramid. The tool marks on the stone tell us that they were cut not poured.”

Margaret Morris replies to Chris Dunn: The use of geopolymeric rock-concrete can involve casting or making a pliable stone mixture that can be cut and shaped with primitive tools before it fully hardens. As described in the above Abstract located on this page, monoliths, both large and small, can be built up with globs or chunks of the uncured stone-making mixture. The material is packed and/or kneaded together to build strong, solid monoliths. Tools made of wood, copper chisels, and sharp flint knives and needles were employed to define the shapes of such structures, and so tool marks on artifacts do not prove that the artifacts are natural stone. This is best illustrated by a diorite vessel Petrie found at Giza. The evidence Petrie provides shows that the vessel was made by true turning on a simple, non-motorized potter’s wheel. It was not machined with cutting tools on a motor-powered lathe!

Geopolymeric vessels were shaped in the soft stage on potter’s wheels by human hands and then inscribed with primitive tools. Such vessels (over 30,000 stone vessels were found within Egypt’s first pyramid, built at Saqqara) evidence both the tiny grooves made by fingers and/or simple tools as they shaped the uncured rotating rock-concrete (identical to those seen in clay pottery made by the same process) and handmade inscriptions (which are tool marks!) (see a chapter devoted to this topic in “The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved” (Hippocrene, NY 1988, by J. Davidovits and M. Morris). Chris Dunn cites our book in “The Giza Power Plant,” but he does not appear to have studied it.

In other words, the primary source Chris Dunn relies on illustrates my point. In “The Pyramids and Temples of Giza” (1993), W.M.F. Petrie described a diorite vessel he found at Giza, diorite being an extremely hard, tough rock. The artifact is the sort that Dunn assumes required power tools. Petrie pointed out that no kind of grinding or rubbing action could have produced this item. Petrie’s description reads like that of a diorite vessel that was made on a potter’s wheel, i.e., while it was still in a pliable state. Geopolymeric vases were shaped on potter’s wheels as if they were clay and then left to harden into solid stone. Petrie wrote:

“The diorite bowls and vases of the Old Kingdom are frequently met with, and show great technical skill. One piece found at Gizeh, No. 14, shows that the method employed was true turning, and not any process of grinding, since the bowl has been knocked off its centering, recentered imperfectly, and the old turning not quite turned out; thus there are two surfaces belonging to different centerings, and meeting in a cusp. Such an appearance could not be produced by any grinding or rubbing process which pressed on the surface.”

Given that in the working stage geopolymeric mixtures can have the consistency of clay or adobe and can be worked just like clay or adobe, and given the well-documented early use of the potter’s wheel in ancient Egypt, and given the tremendous amount of evidence demonstrating the Late Stone Age level of technology of the Pyramid Age, and given the complete lack of any physical evidence of machine tools and/or any of the technology associated with the production and development of such high-speed motorized machine tools, there is a logical explanation for the vessel Petrie described and the other artifacts Chris Dunn takes issue with. They are geopolymerized stone, worked in the soft stage and left to cure.

If Chris Dunn would have taken even a small fraction of the time that he spent developing his theories to acquire a proper understanding of geopolymerization, he may have recognized that geopolymeric rock-concrete, not advanced technology, is the answer.

Chris Dunn claims that his advanced machining and power plant theory conforms to or demonstrates the principle of Occam’s Razor. On pages 103 to 104 of “The Giza Power Plant,” Chris Dunn writes, “The principle of Occam’s Razor, where the simplest means of manufacture holds force until proven inadequate has guided my attempt to understand the pyramid builders’ methods.” However, since Chris Dunn does not have a full understanding of geopolymerization, he has violated Occam’s Razor because, despite his claims to the contrary, he has not proved that geopolymerization is inadequate! Indeed, the principle of Occam’s Razor supports geopolymerization, not Chris Dunn’s radical revision of ancient history that defies the archaeological record in major ways. Chris Dunn uses the artifacts themselves as proof of method, rather than taking the trouble to understand a process that answers the questions he raises without revising history to the extent of making the ancient Egyptians more highly advanced than certain aspects of today’s machine tool technologies.

Returning to Petrie’s item No. 14 cited above, we clearly see that Chris Dunn’s advanced machining is totally unnecessary to explain the manufacture of this object. Diorite is almost as difficult to cut as quartzite (modern drills, with bits as hard as synthetic diamond, penetrate quartzite with great difficulty, even with thousands of pounds of pressure applied to the bits). Hard, natural diorite cannot be fashioned on a potter’s wheel. The features of this vessel clearly illustrate that ancient Egyptians threw pliable rock-concrete mixtures onto potter’s wheels, shaped them with their hands and simple tools and let them harden into solid stone (the chemistry of geopolymerization was discovered by materials scientist Dr. Joseph Davidovits, founder of the Geopolymer Institute, in France).

The German scholar Kurt Lange is among researchers who confirmed Petrie’s observations. In “Des Pyramides, des Spinx, des Pharaons,” Lange wrote about potter’s wheel grooves on hard stone vessels:

On examining them attentively, I only became more perplexed. How were they made, the dishes, plates, bowls, and other objects in diorite, which are among the most beautiful of all the fine stone objects? I have no idea…But how could such a hard stone be worked? The Egyptians of that time had at his disposal only stone, copper, and abrasive sand…It is more difficult to imagine the fabrication of hard stone vases with long narrow necks and rounded bellies. This noble and translucent material is of exceptional hardness…of unequaled finesse and elegance of shape, they are of supreme perfection. The internal face is covered with a microscopic, network of tiny grooves so regular that only an ultramodern potter’s wheel of precision could have produced them. To see the grooves one needs a magnifying glass and good lighting…Obviously, the equipment used must have been some kind of potter’s wheel. But how could such a hard material be worked?…the plates on which earthenware pots were made with such regularity of form had only just been invented, and it is hard to believe that it was this tool, doubtless still extremely primitive, which was used in the fabrication of the hardest and most perfect bowls ever made.”

I hope that Chris Dunn will not weary the argument by claiming that some kind of super-advanced potter’s wheels made these vessels. Petrie’s quote above is consistent with facts that corroborate the claim that diorite concrete was turned on a potter’s wheel while still soft. The precision Lange comments on was achieved because the material was pliable and the Egyptian craftsmen were highly skilled.

The distinguished French Egyptologist J.P. Lauer admitted in private conversation with materials scientist and concrete expert Dr. Joseph Davidovits, who discovered the chemistry of geopolymerization, that geopolymerization can indeed solve the long-standing Egyptological mystery of the hard stone vessels.

Lauer was unwilling to accept the veracity of the geopolymerized stone theory of pyramid construction, however, because he assumed that copper tools were used to cut the millions of pyramid blocks. This idea is no longer accepted by the most up-to-date Egyptological sources (see Dieter Arnold’s “Building in Egypt,” 1991). This leaves nothing but primitive stone tools for achieving the precision found in the Great pyramids, which is not a realistic scenario. My book “The Egyptian Pyramid Mystery Is Solved!” describes many unresolved problems of building the Great Pyramid and other monuments and artifacts that defy conventional explanations).

In short, the evidence shows that power tools were unnecessary and that hard stone vessels were made on primitive potter’s wheels as if they were clay and left to harden into solid stone.

______________

Chris Dunn illogically uses sarcophagi constructed a millennium and more after the Great Pyramid was built to argue that the Great Pyramid blocks are not geopolymeric concrete.

Chris Dunn writes, “However, evidence that argues against the casting of igneous-type rock can be found in the rock tunnels at Saqqara. These are the giant granite and basalt boxes that weigh in at around eighty tons each. The existence of a roughed-out box and more than twenty finished boxes, situated underground essentially disproves the argument that they were cast.”

Chris Dunn continues, “We can speculate that when the craftspeople finished working the rough box, which is now wedged in one of the underground passageways, they would have had to move it into place without the benefit of hundreds of workers. That in and of itself is an impossibility. Furthermore, the very fact that this one box is rough cut belies the use of a casting method. If the Egyptians had cast these objects, they would not have chosen the characteristics of the roughed-out box for their mold. The product would be much closer to the finished dimensions of the other boxes, and more than likely the surfaces would be flatter than they actually are. These speculations do not mean that the ancient Egyptian did not use geopolymers. They simply mean that there may have been more than one method used to build the pyramids.”

Margaret Morris’s replies to Chris Dunn: The evidence from Petrie and Lange above is among a wealth of evidence establishing that the ancient Egyptians fabricated stone, that is, high-quality rock-concrete. The questions become, 1) which periods of ancient Egypt possessed the knowledge to make rock-concrete, and 2) which monuments and/or other objects of the Post Pyramid Age are rock-concrete?

Here is an important point: If the pyramids and related semi-round monolithic temple columns made of quartzite or granite (the latter up to 36 feet tall) and the numerous other hard stone artifacts, both large and small, were produced with a simple stone-making method, then what are the chances that machine tools were used 1000 years and more after the Great Pyramid was built to produce sarcophagi for the Serapeum?

The reddish-brown granite sarcophagus in the King’s Chamber of the Great Pyramid exhibits features demonstrating that it was cut during the soft stage of geopolymeric setting. Petrie described cutting lines on the sarcophagus in his book “The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh” (1883).

Petrie was astonished when he examined cutting lines on the north end of Khufu’s sarcophagus. These lines show that when the sarcophagus was being made, the saw blade ran askew. The artisan had backed his saw out so that he could rectify the angle of his cut. A second cut ran askew two inches lower, showing that the mason had again backed his saw out. These cuts astounded Petrie because they clearly prove that the mason sliced through the granite at an extraordinarily rapid rate.

We can expect that these cuts are the marks of a typical 4th Dynasty copper tool. These cuts were made before the stone fully hardened. Chris Dunn’s theory involves re-inventing vast stretches of ancient history (the production of hard stone items that defy conventional explanation ranges over thousands of years); the geopolymer theory is fully supported by a vast amount of scientific, historical, archaeological and Egyptological evidence (“Morris, M., “The Egyptian Pyramid Mystery Is Solved!” 2000, etc.).

There is no need for a drastic re-invention of history. The geopolymer theory does not go against the grain of established history. It only challenges orthodox Egyptology regarding the analysis of the masonry and engineering problems associated with the pyramids and related artifacts, and, specifically, the veracity of the claim that natural stone was quarried, cut and positioned. I wrote “The Egyptian Pyramid Mystery Is Solved!” so as to clearly demonstrate that the full weight of Egyptological evidence supports the geopolymerized stone theory. In short, Egyptological sources fully support and help to prove our findings.

Because the sarcophagi in the Serapeum date to over a 1000 years after the Great Pyramid was built, we cannot determine which ones, if any, may be fabricated stone without a proper scientific investigation. Dr. Joseph Davidovits and I have taken special care to point out that the stone-making technology declined (but did not cease altogether) after the fall of the Old Kingdom, i.e., after the 6th Dynasty. Egypt’s last pyramids of the 12th Dynasty, made of mud-brick, help to illustrate this decline.

It cannot be ruled out that the finished and unfinished sarcophagi in the Serapeum to which Chris Dunn refers are made of geopolymerized rock. We can expect that from time to time masonry work came to a halt for one reason or another. When that happened, items made of geopolymerized rock were left in their unfinished state because they became very difficult to cut with primitive tools. It is also entirely possible that all or some of these sarcophagi are made of natural stone that was shaped and postioned conventionally, as occurred more frequently as time passed.

In conclusion, Chris Dunn demonstrates that he does not understand the geopolymerized stone theory of pyramid construction. He improperly introduces sarcophagi made over 1000 years after the construction of the Great Pyramid in his attempt to disprove the geopolymeric concrete theory of pyramid construction, even though we have taken special care to trace the history of the decline of stone-making in ancient Egypt. Chris Dunn also mistakenly assumes that all rock-concrete must be cast into molds. He ignores our published literature discussing other means of fashioning pliable stone.

______________

Chris Dunn writes, “The obelisks weighing up to 400 tons were not poured. They were quarried. An example of the quarrying method can be found by the 1200 ton unfinished obelisk in the Aswan quarry. A large diameter hole is drilled into the bedrock.”

Margaret Morris replies to Chris Dunn: Chris Dunn cites the famous unfinished obelisk at Aswan, of unknown date, as though it were proof of how all obelisks were made during all periods.

There are two things that readers should know about this obelisk: First, it was clearly not made with machine tools. This obelisk was studied by Reginald Engelbach, who served as Chief Inspector of Antiquities of Upper Egypt early in the 20th century. Engelbach determined the primitive means of quarrying at this site.

Engelbach found that an abundance of quarry marks demonstrate both ancient and modern activity. Engelbach found many dolerite pounding balls around the obelisk. Rough hammer dressing is very pronounced on the obelisk itself, particularly on its pyramidion. Engelbach found modern chisel dressing and evidence of what he thought to be a more advanced method of using the wedge than is typical for Aswan quarrying. He determined the entrance to the trench, in which the obelisk rests, to be modern work. This work is characterized by fine, modern chisel marks (which are not the product of machine tools).

Engelbach’s findings suggest that a modern operation planned to move the obelisk out of its enclosure, but the project was again abandoned. Engelbach even found a block there with a hole made by a gunpowder blast.

Second, although this obelisk is undated, Egyptologists believe it dates to the New Kingdom or later. In other words, if Egyptologists are correct, it dates to a time when the stone-making technology was in decline. However, evidence suggests that the stone-making (rock-concrete) technology was still known and used on a limited basis in the New Kingdom and later.

As we discuss in our published literature, evidence suggests that during the New Kingdom and later, stone masons in the south (the Aswan quarry is in the south) specialized in cutting stone. The New Kingdom temples of Thebes are soft sandstone cut with bronze tools. However, the northern artisans (the pyramids are in the north) preserved the art of agglomerating stone. The unfinished obelisk at Aswan may be an attempt by the southern stone masons to compete with the masons from the north, known for their illustrious and unprecedented masonry works.

Some of the most celebrated stone work of ancient Egypt was produced by a northerner, the famous 18th Dynasty priest-architect Amenhotep-son-of-Hapu. He went to live in the Theban capital and was commissioned to construct the 63-feet-high Colossi of Memnon on the Theban plains. These colossi have defied modern research.

No extraction site has ever been found, even though researchers have scoured the quartzite ranges. If the Colossi of Memnon were quarried as monoliths, it would be impossible not to find the extraction sites because they would be over either 60 feet deep or 60 feet long.

The lack of a giant extraction site suggests that the stone was removed from the quarry as aggregate, and then agglomerated to form the Colossi of Memnon (I present more evidence that the Colossi of Memnon are quartzite concrete below).

Returning to the abandoned, unfinished granite obelisk at Aswan that Chris Dunn takes issue with, no one has ever shown how a monolith of this size could have been transported and erected. It seems that the granite obelisk was more ambitious than realistic and had to be abandoned.

On the other hand, fragments of granite statues of Ramses II were found in the north, and the fragments show that these colossi weighed 1000 tons and more. I would be surprised if these colossi prove to be natural granite. The ancient Egyptians knew how to make rock-concrete (using any kind of aggregate), so it is logical to suggest that they used it to make giant colossi of the type that cannot be replicated today assuming the work is carried out with great monoliths of hard granite.

Chris Dunn presents the same argument for the Trilithon, in Baalbek (City of the Sun-god Baal), Syria, at the great Temple of the Sun, i.e., Chris Dunn cites a huge block in the quarry. He writes,

“Morris also applies her theory to other ancient cultures that moved monolithic blocks of stone. While I have not read her recent book, so therefore do not know what she presents as evidence, my observations of the 1200-ton blocks of limestone at Baalbek, Lebanon indicate to me that they were quarried and transported to the site-not poured in place. While there is one of these gargantuan blocks installed in the wall at Baalbek, another is still lying in the quarry. It is tilted at an angle, and waiting to be transported to its final resting-place.”

Margaret Morris replies to Chris Dunn: The largest blocks known in ancient architecture are positioned in an exterior wall at the west end of this temple. The three great monoliths together command their own name, the Trilithon. One of them measures 64 feet long and 14 feet square. It weighs an estimated 1,200 tons. All three blocks are situated about 20 feet above ground level. In the nearby quarry, there is an enormous unmoved block, leading researchers to assume that the Trilithon are also quarried blocks.

The Sun Temple, however, contains Roman reconstruction blocks, and there is much Christian and pagan Roman architecture at the site. It may be that one of these late builders unsuccessfully attempted to imitate the Trilithon, but the result of their toil remains unmoved in the quarry. Only an objective geological comparison between the quarry block and the Trilithon can settle the question.

Returning to the issue of Egyptian obelisks, evidence strongly suggests that some obelisks of the New Kingdom were constructed directly in place with agglomerated stone. Engelbach wrote:

“The Egyptians could introduce obelisks inside courts whose walls were shorter than the length of the obelisk. Queen Hatshepsowet put hers between her father’s pylons where there is no evidence at all that any of the walls had been removed or rebuilt; in fact I am certain that they were not.”

Engelbach also showed problems with theories of positioning obelisks. For instance, he wrote:

“a) It would be extremely risky business to cut earth from below an overhanging obelisk of 500 tons and upwards. Anyone who has seen earth undercut below a large stone in excavating work or elsewhere knows that the earth has a partiality for slipping sideways in any direction but the expected–preferably on to the heads of one’s workmen. b) To make an obelisk settle down from a height on to a small pedestal by under-cutting would be an impossibility. Whatever method the Egyptians used, it was certain. c) After pulling the obelisk upright there is nothing to stop it from rocking about and getting out of control.”

The most logical solution is that concrete-making material was carried into the court (where Queen Hatchepsut had her obelisk built) in baskets so that the obelisk could be fashioned on the spot. The other choice is that Chris Dunn, Erich von Daniken and others who like to re-invent ancient history and the history of science can introduce a wealth of super-technology that existed alongside an abundance of simple copper tools and stone tools like the crude ax heads tied to sticks.

Chris Dunn’s remarks again show that he has not studied the geopolymer theory and does not understand it. Only careful study by objective, qualified geologists can settle the issue on a case-by-case basis for items dating to the New Kingdom and later.

______________

As shown above, Chris Dunn illogically uses the sarcophagi in the Serapeum, made 1000 years and more after the Great Pyramid was built, to try to argue that pyramid blocks are not rock-concrete (concrete that is chemically equivalent to natural rock).

Chris Dunn adds,

“These speculations do not mean that the ancient Egyptian did not use geopolymers. They simply mean that there may have been more than one method used to build the pyramids.”

Margaret Morris replies to Chris Dunn: Chris Dunn seems to be implying that both advanced machines and rock-concrete were used for pyramid construction. Chris Dunn’s remark is illogical: geopolymerization makes machine tools and other forms of high technology completely unnecessary. The need for quarrying, hauling, cutting, hoisting and setting blocks is completely eliminated. The precision Chris Dunn marvels at can be automatic, depending on the method used, with agglomerated stone.

For Chris Dunn’s machining theory to hold, the quarries at Giza would show the marks of power saws. Instead, the archaeological evidence shows that the workers attacked the Old and Middle Kingdom quarries with pointed stone picks, i.e., indicating that stone was extracted in the form of aggregates needed for agglomeration. Dieter Arnold remarks in “Building in Egypt”:

“Furthermore, the only known metal chisels suitable for working in stone (the round bar chisels) are not pointed, however, but show a flat, wide cutting edge…In consequence, one would have to assume that pointed stone picks or axes were used during the Old and Middle Kingdoms.”

Quarrying millions of massive limestone blocks with pointed stone picks or axes is unworkable, and Dieter Arnold is at a loss to explain how blocks could have been quarried with such instruments:

“The question as to what kind of tools were used to cut the separation trenches and to lift the blocks from their beds has not been answered satisfactorily because of the contradiction between the tool marks left on the quarry walls and the tools actually found in ancient Egypt.”

In short, no civilization that possessed machine tools would use primitive pointed picks to quarry blocks. The use of pointed picks to extract rock supports only one construction theory, the geopolymerized stone theory.

Chris Dunn wrongly believes he has disproved the geopolymer stone theory. Chris Dunn writes,

“I read about the poured rock theory in 1986. I thought at that time that there might have been something to it. That is until I actually began looking at the evidence. The poured stone theory does not explain all the artifacts in Egypt. To know this, all you have to do is look at the evidence with an understanding of how materials are poured, shaped and cut. If we look at the artifacts I describe in my book, and allow that they were made by pouring cement, or any other mixture that sets and hardens, there is one inescapable consideration that has to be made. The mold or form that is used needs to have the same shape as the final object. With respect to the contoured granite blocks on the Giza Plateau, these molds would need to be machined to a high precision. Considering, also, that the blocks are extremely heavy, weighing more than 6 tons in some cases, the form would need to be robust and able to withstand the pressures against their surfaces. A weak form, such as one made out of wood, would buckle under the weight and the precision would be lost. So what were the forms made of-and how were they created with such precise surfaces? Certainly not with primitive tools.”

Margaret Morris replies to Chris Dunn: Again, we see Dunn’s arguments arise from his misconception that the pyramid blocks had to be poured. It is true that Dr. Joseph Davidovits initially believed that pyramid blocks were cast into molds. The reason is that evidence shows that the blocks of Egypt’s first pyramid, built for Pharaoh Zoser of the 3rd Dynasty, were cast into mud-brick molds. Consider the statement below by Dr. Dieter Arnold, of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Arnold’s book, “Building in Egypt” (1991), is the most up-to-date Egyptological standard. Arnold writes:

‘The blocks were small, and the stones were square and brick-shaped.”

Dr. Davidovits continued to consider that the pyramid blocks were made in wooden molds after geologists found the impression of wood grain on the Lauer sample from the interior of the Great Pyramid. For instance, geologist Robert G. McKinney commented about the artificial nature of pyramid stone after I provided him with the Lauer sample (from the Ascending Passageway of the Great Pyramid and donated by Egyptologist J.P. Lauer) to examine:

“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.”

After further study of the pyramid blocks, Dr. Davidovits changed his mind about the use of molds and began to consider that the blocks were built up like adobe, Egypt’s oldest building material. This is possible because of the high early strength of geopolymerized rock. More details appear in my book, “The Egyptian Pyramid Mystery Is Solved!”

In short, Chris Dunn incorrectly thinks he can disprove the geopolymerized stone theory by arguing against the use of molds. The nature of the pyramid blocks is not disproved by superficial observations like those made by Chris Dunn. The artificial nature of the pyramid blocks has been established by the many years of solid scientific and Egyptological research by Dr. Joseph Davidovits, myself, and the highly-qualified geologists who have volunteered their expertise to this study in the interest of science.

Here is my response to Chris Dunn’s above remark, “The poured stone theory does not explain all the artifacts in Egypt:

” Chris Dunn’s machining theory does not explain all of the problematic artifacts, but geopolymerization does. The examples below illustrate my point:

The foundation of the Great Pyramid surrounds the monument and extends under its edges. The foundation measures 13 square acres, and it is so accurately level as to be off only about 1/2 inch from the northwest to the southwest corner. The foundation is made of slabs of fine-grained limestone hard enough to support the weight of the Great pyramid, i.e., the limestone is too hard to be perfected with copper and/or stone tools (see the trials by Denys Stocks and those by Antoine Zuber).

This foundation platform is sunk into shallow bedrock that has irregularities in its surface. The platform slabs are not level on their undersides. Instead, their undersides conform to the irregularities in the bedrock below. That is, each platform slab fits snugly into its own particular spot in the irregular bedrock, like a piece in a gigantic puzzle.

In many pyramid complexes, paving blocks fit tightly, and at all sorts of fancy angles. In some cases, their notches receive the corners of adjacent blocks. In “Building in Egypt,” Dieter Arnold describes their custom fit with the bedrock:

“In the huge limestone buildings of the Old Kingdom, a pavement of granite is not uncommon. In a few cases, even basalt was used. Since both stones were much harder to work than the underlying limestone, the undersurface of the limestone foundation was chiseled out in a way that allowed the protuberances of the pavement to fit into it. This could be done only by frequent setting and lifting of the pavement blocks, a procedure that had to be carried out in any case to fit the mosaic-like blocks together.”

If we follow the logic of the stone-cutting theories (involving either primitive or advanced machine tools), hundreds of thousands of giant casing blocks on the exterior of the Great Pyramid would similarly have to be repeatedly lifted and re-set until they conformed to the shape of all adjacent blocks. Dieter Arnold describes the way casing blocks are custom fit to the irregular front faces of the blocks behind them:

“…the connection of the casing with the backing stones is very close and would have to be carefully prepared. The best examples are the close joints between casing and backing stones at the three main pyramids of Giza. The backing stones were frequently dressed exactly to the shape of the rear face of the casing blocks…”

Consider the enormous scale of the problem if we think in terms of cutting, lifting and setting stones. Some casing blocks remaining on the Great Pyramid are about five feet tall and seven feet long, weighing an estimated 16 tons (Petrie, “Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh”). Both Herodotus (5th century B.C.) and Abd el-Latif (A.D. 1162-1231) reported seeing 30-feet-long casing blocks on the Great Pyramid. Similarly, near the entrance of the 5th Dynasty Pyramid of Unas, a casing block measures about six feet high and its length is 29.5 feet.

An estimated 115,000 casing blocks originally formed the smooth outer faces of the Great Pyramid, equaling about 2,379,842 cubic feet of fine limestone.

Because of the enormous number and weight of these blocks–and myriads of the core blocks (the main building blocks) are also irregular and similarly form-fitted–if machine tools were available, workers would have cut blocks of a desired size with regular features to avoid all of the extra measuring and setup time associated with the odd jointing and dimensions possessed by the blocks in the Great Pyramid.

If Chris Dunn wants to argue that this close-fitting, irregular jointing is the product of machine tools, then he will have to explain why the workers did not make joints with consistent dimensions such as can be expected with machine tools. The irregular joints in the masonry are not the type we would expect machine tools to produce. They are the sort of joints we might expect to find associated with blocks built by tightly packing multiple chunks or lumps of uncured geopolymerized stone together until the final dimensions of the object are achieved. Such uncured rock-concrete, similar to wet clay, displays the necessary plasticity, cohesion and viscosity.

Furthermore, Chris Dunn claims that the Great Pyramid itself powered the machine tools. This begs an extremely important question: What powered the machine tools needed to build the Great Pyramid itself? Any civilization with the ability to build the Great Pyramid did not need an additional power source to power machine tools to make smaller artifacts. Indeed, hard stone vessels, such as those among the 30,000 stone vessels found in the 3rd Dynasty Step Pyramid of Saqqara, date to before the Great Pyramid was built. What power source afforded machine tools to make these vessels? Clearly, Chris Dunn’s machine tooling theory is fundamentally flawed. The only logical solution to the enigmas of the pyramids and related monuments and artifacts is geopolymerization.

The evidence shows that Dunn’s machine tools do not satisfy the masonry features of the pyramids. Whereas, packing agglomerated stone onto irregular bedrock produces an automatic, custom fit on the undersides of foundation slabs. Packing casing blocks against set blocks similarly produces custom fitting, so that all sides of the blocks are custom-fitted with neighboring blocks.

(I note that, although many core blocks are also form-fitted, many have gaps between them today because tafla and mortar between them have disappeared. These blocks were never supposed to have been seen because they were cased with fine-grained limestone concrete. Only the exterior casing blocks and those of special areas like the Grand Gallery had to look perfect).

Thus, Chris Dunn is wrong to claim that the agglomerated stone theory cannot explain all of the problematic artifacts. Agglomerated stone is the only logical solution to the unresolved problems of monuments and other artifacts ranging from the smallest objects (minuscule beads) to massive pyramids to 1000-ton and heavier colossi.

Here is another example showing the failure of Chris Dunn’s machining theory: At Saqqara, 18 quartzite columns appear in a temple court of the 6th Dynasty pyramid complex built for Pharaoh Pepi II (c. 2246-2152 BC); above I have described how difficult it is to cut quartzite with modern tools. In “Building in Egypt,” Arnold admits that Egyptology lacks an explanation for the production of rounded, monolithic temple columns made with hard stone. Some of the columns are 36 feet high. Arnold writes:

“The dressing of a monolithic column certainly was more difficult, and we have no information about the methods used…Achieving accuracy was difficult, however, if we consider that granite columns nearly 11 meters long had to be manufactured. On a portion of a 6.30-meter-long shaft of the granite columns of Sahure, the mean diameter tapers 11.4 centimeters, with an error of only 8 centimeters…By viewing such column shafts, one can see that their diameter is not always a true circle. This observation, the heavy weight of such column shafts, and the missing drill holes for inserting a fulcrum-shaft axle rule out the possibility that the column shafts were hung in a horizontal position and rotated.”

In other words, features on several Old Kingdom temple columns show that these columns were not turned on giant lathes. A machine tool capable of producing 36-feet high granite columns would have to be very large, powerful and sturdy. The existence of such machines defies all of the findings of archaeology.

Chris Dunn adds, “Morris claims that the stone “can be shaped to perfection with primitive tools while still in the soft stage of setting.” However, she doesn’t describe the means necessary to guide the tool and produce a three-dimensional contour with a precision of .005 inch.”

Margaret replies to Chris Dunn: If Dunn is alluding to the tight fit of the casing blocks, which fit as close as 1/800th of an inch or in perfect contact (see Petrie, “Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh,” 1883), then Chris Dunn ignores the precision jointing that can be achieved when geopolymerized stone is packed against another geopolymerized stone that has set. With geopolymerization, there is very little shrinkage, so that the precision jointing is achieved. In fact, geopolymerization is the only logical explanation for the remarkable way casing blocks conform to each other (and to irregular blocks behind them), on all touching surfaces.

Chris Dunn tries to argue that his studies of measurements prove the existence of high technology. But logic and a great wealth of archaeological evidence tell us that advanced machine tools did not exist. To understand this, take a look at what Chris Dunn is asking us to believe. Chris Dunn proposes that all traces of machine tools disappeared from the Earth in a great cataclysm. This, Chris Dunn claims, is why there are no physical traces of machines, and no writings or drawings.

Hard stone artifacts like diorite vases appeared in Neolithic times (c. 7000 B.C.) and museums exhibit diorite items dating to the 26th Dynasty, i.e., the manufacture of hard stone items of the type Chris Dunn takes issue with range over several thousand years. Many items are inscribed, so there is no question about the periods they date to. For Chris Dunn’s advanced machining theory to hold, machine tools would have to have been in use for several thousand years.

How can anyone believe that all physical traces of thousands of years worth of machines, and all traces of writings and drawings of these machines, disappeared without a trace? Using pliable stone eliminated the worst problems of shaping rock precisely. There is a great wealth of ancient documents that would have described or depicted Chris Dunn’s machines if they existed. How can we believe that these machines were used in conjunction with the primitive tools we know existed? No great cataclysm spanned the long ages when hard stone artifacts of the type Chris Dunn takes issue with were made.

______________

Chris Dunn takes issue with granite artifacts. Chris Dunn writes: “The granite artifacts in Egypt, show clearly that they were cut not poured. All one has to do is look at the surfaces and see that the quantity of quartz is abundantly visible and cut to the same shape as the felspar.”

Margaret replies to Chris Dunn: We are not suggesting that granite objects were necessarily poured. Because of geopolymerization, there was no need for machine tools and no need to re-invent history.

To illustrate my point, I present evidence below showing that copper tools were used to cut basalt slabs for the floor of Khufu’s Mortuary Temple of the Great Pyramid complex at Giza. The fact that basalt slabs were cut with copper tools demonstrates that they were cut during the soft stage of geopolymerization. I also show below that the granite vault of the South Tomb of Zoser’s Pyramid was cut with copper tools, indicating that the granite was cut during the soft stage of geopolymerization. I show below, too, an example of aggregates having been moved aside when quartzite was cut. This will never occur when either a primitive tool or a machine tool cuts hard natural rock. I show below a fourth example, an observation by Clarke and Engelbach showing that a tool was not dulled at all as a Saite period schist statuette was being shaped. Schist is harder than iron, so that their observation shows that the stone was being shaped while it was still relatively soft. Here are these tour examples.

Example 1: Khufu’s Mortuary Temple

Mark Lehner, in “The Complete Pyramids” (1997), provides his observation of traces of copper left over from cutting the slabs of Khufu’s Mortuary Temple flooring:

“How ancient builders cut through stone as hard as granite and basalt remains one of the truly perplexing questions of pyramid-age masonry. Drill holes in granite showing pronounced striations survive in many different 4th and 5th dynasty monuments. Whatever was used to cut it had to be at least as hard as the hardest of the minerals that granite is composed of – quartz. It is most likely that a copper drill or saw was employed in conjunction with an abrasive slurry of water, gypsum and quartz sand. The copper blade simply acted as a guide while the quartz sand did the actual cutting. I have seen dried remains of this slurry, tinted green from the copper, in deep saw cuts in basalt blocks in Khufu’s mortuary temple.”

Highly advanced machine tools are not made with copper blades. Copper is a relatively soft metal that does not withstand hard use (refer to the trials by Denys Stocks in the 1980s showing that copper tools are immediately ruined when used on this kind of hard stone. Also see the trials made by Gorelick and Gwinnett showing that striations are not made in hard granite using any kind of abrasives known to ancient Egypt, i.e., showing that Mark Lehner’s assumption in the above quote is not correct, assuming he is alluding to hard red Aswan granite).

The bibliography of Chris Dunn’s “The Giza Power Plant” cites Mark Lehner’s “The Complete Pyramids” as one of its sources. Thus, Chris Dunn should know that machine tools were not used in the Pyramid Age. The evidence clearly shows that primitive copper tools were used. Copper tools are very primitive, having nothing in common with advanced machining. Copper tools, of course, are only successful on rock like basalt when it is in the soft stage of geopolymeric setting.

In recent years, archaeologists have independently discovered the fabrication of synthetic basalt in Iraq, dating to Mesopotamian times (the Mesopotamian basalt is different than ancient Egyptian rock-concretes in that it utilized different raw materials and required heat). See E. C. Stone, et al., “From Shifting Silt to Solid Stone: The Manufacture of Synthetic Basalt in Ancient Mesopotamia,” Science, July, 1998. Chris Dunn carelessly tosses this proof of ancient stone-making aside (Chris Dunn surely knew of this study when he wrote his article titled “Response to Margaret Morris’s ‘Pour Theory'” (10-26-00) because it appears in my review posted at Amazon.com, which he protests in his article).

To summarize, the most logical solution is that, like Khufu’s sarcophagus and the hard stone vessels, these Pyramid Age basalt slabs were cut with a primitive copper saw during the soft stage of geopolymeric setting. This simple, proven technology eliminates any need for advanced machine tools in ancient Egypt and the fantastic historical revisions of Chris Dunn that arise from his attempt to force the existence of machine tools.

Mark Lehner provides a description of the traces of copper left over from cutting the granite vault of the South Tomb of Zoser’s Step Pyramid at Saqqara, which dates to the 3rd Dynasty (“The Complete Pyramids,” 1997):

“The granite vault is similar to the one under the pyramid, but it is much smaller, and its interior was covered in green traces of copper.”

These green copper traces show that 3rd Dynasty Egyptians cut granite with copper. The only way to produce the granite vault with copper tools is for the granite to be in the soft stage of geopolymeric setting.

Again, the physical traces of the use of copper tools shows that advanced machines were not used.

Example 3: The Colossi of Memnon

Evidence shows that quartzite was cut during the soft stage of geopolymeric setting. As mentioned, quartzite is extremely difficult rock to cut. Modern drills, with tungsten carbide bits (second in hardness to diamond), penetrate quartzite with great difficulty when thousands of pounds of pressure are applied to the bits. The example of quartzite being cut in the soft stage of geopolymeric setting is the 63-feet-high Colossi of Memnon.

First, I provide a few words about the exquisite twin Colossi of Memnon, to familiarize people unfamiliar with the features of these giant colossi in the Theban plains, The Colossi of Memnon date to the 18th Dynasty (c. 1391-1353 BC) reign of Pharaoh Amenhotep III and are statues of this pharaoh. Quartzite is the hardest and toughest type of stone used for Egyptian colossi. Egyptologists have not fathomed how the ancient Egyptians could have made these quartzite colossi.

During this historical period, iron existed in ancient Egypt, but it was rare. Iron was considered a precious metal because of its rarity and hardness. Nevertheless, iron tools are not suitable for cutting quartzite. It bears repeating that the task of sculpting these colossi from natural quartzite would be a real challenge for modern machine tools, if possible at all.

These remarkable colossal statues were originally monoliths, until the Roman Emperor Septimus Severus (AD 193-211) restored the earthquake-damaged southern statue with large blocks. Including their pedestals and crowns, the colossi each measure about 63 feet high. The third fingers of the hands each measure 4.5 feet. The widths at their shoulders measure 20 feet. Each statue weighs some 750 tons and rests on a 556-ton quartzite pedestal.

Geologists from the Napoleonic Egyptian Expedition (“Description de l’Egypte,” 1809-1830). examined the inscriptions on the lower sides of the Colossi of Memnon. The description shows that the aggregates were moved aside during the cutting process, which indicates that the quartzite was cut during the soft stage of geopolymeric setting:

“When the tool of the engraver in the middle of a hieroglyphic character hit a flint or agate in the stone, the sketch was never hindered, but instead it continued in all of its purity. Neither the agate fragment nor the stone itself was ever slightly broken by engraving.”

In other words, the rock particles yielded to the engraving tool. Chopping or drilling hard stone cuts through rock aggregates, rather than moving them aside so that they remain unbroken. The evidence shows that the masons inscribed the quartzite while it was strong but pliable.

Dr. Joseph Davidovits has duplicated this kind of quartzite concrete. Dr. Joseph Davidovits also analyzed an independent chemical analysis (by H. Bowman, et al. 1984) of the Colossi of Memnon, and determined that the chemical analysis supports geopolymerization.

Example 4: Saite Schist Statuette

Another example comes from Clarke and Engelbach (“Ancient Egyptian Masonry,” 1930), who recorded evidence that can be explained only by fabricated stone. They write that on:

“an unfinished schist statuette of Saite date, in the Cairo Museum, the marks of the tool can be clearly seen; each blow has removed a small fragment of the stone without any apparent bruising and a succession of a dozen blows or more can be traced without any evidence of wear on the tool.”

What system other than pliable stone allows for schist, a material harder than iron, to be worked without damaging the tool? This object from the Saite period (26th Dynasty) dates to long after Chris Dunn supposes that all traces of machine tools disappeared from our planet in a great catastrophe.

We remain very cautious about making emphatic claims about granite or other types of hard stone that have not been studied by qualified, objective geologists. However, common sense tells us that if the ancient Egyptians had the technology to make high-quality rock-concrete, they used that technology. The 18th Dynasty Colossi of Memnon and the giant granite colossi of Ramses II of the 19th Dynasty would challenge modern technology. These monuments were built long after Chris Dunn claims that all traces of machine tools disappeared from our planet in a great cataclysm.

______________

Chris Dunn writes, “The giant granite beams above the King’s Chamber in the Great Pyramid. If they were poured in place, their topside would be flat rather than rough and of varying shapes with holes gouged into them. Also, they would not need identifying inscriptions on them that indicate to the installers where they need to be positioned in the pyramid.”

Margaret Morris replies to Chris Dunn: Again, Chris Dunn incorrectly argues that for the geopolymer theory to hold, building units must be made in molds.

These granite beams making up the ceiling of the King’s Chamber are up to 27-feet-long and weigh up to 70 tons. They are situated about 160 above ground level. If these beams were hauled hundreds of miles from Aswan and then hauled up giant ramps, as the accepted theory of pyramid construction advocates, the ramp needed to raise them must be many times more massive than the Great Pyramid itself. The ramp must be made of solid masonry to be strong enough to support them (Peter Hodges, “How the Great Pyramids Were Built,” 1989). The remains of such an enormous solid stone ramp do not exist (the remains would equal more stone than was incorporated into monuments from the New Kingdom down to the Roman Occupation of Egypt–an expanse of about 1,500 years)..

These granite beams are too large to lever into place, and levering would be highly damaging to existing masonry if one went crashing down during construction. The granite beams up to 27-feet-long are among the masonry and engineering problems that have prompted people to suggest the use of anti-gravity devices and space alien intervention. We offer a pragmatic solution, rock-concrete. This is proven technology that has been re-created by Dr. Joseph Davidovits, and it is in use today in a variety of industrial applications and supported by many patents (we have published studies showing that microscopical, geophysical, and chemical analyses support the artificial nature of the limestone pyramid blocks).

Chris Dunn’s remark about the granite beams being marked to show where they should be situated relies on interpretations by Egyptologists who have interpreted all evidence based on the carve-hoist theory. In other words, the meaning of these marks is just a guess.

______________

Chris Dunn writes, “At Abu Ghurob, there are several artifacts that are made out of alabaster. Alabaster is a sedimentary rock that is usually fine grained and is selected for sculpturing because of its beauty. This particular alabaster has pronounced strata running through it. Some strata have the appearance of concrete with rounded pebbles. The tool that cut the alabaster sliced cleanly through all strata without variation. Moreover, the rounded “pebbles” exhibited a flattened surface that was of the same finish and accuracy as the other strata.”

Margaret Morris replies to Chris Dunn: Our published literature points out that certain stones were soft enough to be cut with the primitive tools of the Pyramid Age. An artisan can shape the soft variety of alabaster called Egyptian alabaster with primitive tools and abrasives, and a mild acid like vinegar eases the task (Davidovits J.; Bonett A.; Mariotte A.M., “The disaggregation of stone materials with organic acids from plant extracts, an ancient and universal technique,” Proc. 22nd, Symposium on Archaeometry, University of Bradford, UK: 1982). There is no mystery to such objects. Objects made of Egyptian alabaster are not the issue.

Our published literature also points out that soft stone, mostly sandstone soft enough to abrade with our fingernails, was cut to build the New Kingdom monuments in southern Egypt after bronze was introduced about 800 years after the Great Pyramid was built and the stone-making technology was in decline.

The examples Chris Dunn describes bear certain features of concrete, which can exhibit strata (called lift lines in the concrete industry). Only an objective and skilled geologist or team of geologists can resolve the nature of the examples Chris Dunn alludes to.

______________

I have presented ample evidence showing that rock-concrete, of the type today known as geopolymer, is the answer to the ancient masonry and engineering enigmas, both large and small. I have shown that advanced machine tools are not the answer. I have not delved into the many involved issues of pyramid construction here to prove my points. An entire book is required to show why the accepted theory of pyramid construction does not stand up to scrutiny, and to show the dire need for a new paradigm (agglomerated stone rather than cut stone). This is why I wrote “The Egyptian Pyramid Mystery Is Solved!” In my book, I present a great deal of convincing evidence from various disciplines, including microscopy, chemistry and chemical analysis, geophysics, archaeology, history, archaeology and Egyptology.

I hope that my criticisms of Chris Dunn will not be misconstrued. It is very important for those of us involved in ancient studies to be very diligent about not re-inventing history to suit our theories. It is my responsibility to show the errors in Chris Dunn’s theories. Chris Dunn and Sightings radio host Jeff Rense interpret my motives as “self-serving,” rather than as an effort to fight for historical accuracy. Dunn would have, without scientific justification, the Great Pyramid and all of ancient Giza, Saqqara, etc., exhibit a large array of highly advanced technologies belonging to a super-civilization.

As well as showing why Chis Dunn’s pyramid and artifact machining theories are wrong, it is certainly within my “self-serving” right to protect our research, strive to show its correctness, and attempt to correct the discounting of it and misinformation about it Chris Dunn presented in his book “The Giza Power Plant” and elsewhere, e.g., on the Jeff Rense Sightings radio program where said misleading information can be heard 24-hours every day around the world over the Internet as an archived program.

Be that as it may, I will say this much for Chris Dunn. Although Chris Dunn’s historical theories do not hold, and we cannot take his speculation about the purpose of the Great Pyramid seriously (see my full critique of his work), Chris Dunn has made an important contribution to Egyptology. Chris Dunn is among a handful of people, including Petrie and Engelbach, who have recognized the glaring problems presented by accepted (orthodox) masonry theories. Contemporary Egyptologists have subdued the problems to the point of being non-issues. Reginald Engelbach, Chief Inspector of Antiquities of Upper Egypt early in the 20th century, summarized the problem beautifully in a few words:

“While the publication of a new grammatical form or historical point will evoke a perfect frenzy of contradiction in the little world of Egyptology, the most absurd statements on a mechanical problem will be left unquestioned and, what is worse, accepted.”

My review of Dieter Arnold’s “Building in Egypt” posted at Amazon.com illustrates my point, as does my review of Mark Lehner’s “The Complete Pyramids” at Amazon.com. and my review of the 1992 PBS NOVA film titled “This Old Pyramid.” While the book by Arnold and the one by Lehner are wonderful in many ways, they both suffer from the same problem: Theorists run into serious problems when they try to support the quarry, carve, hoist theory of pyramid construction. Chris Dunn has run into this problem, too. Because he has such a keen realization that the Great Pyramid and other artifacts cannot be made the way Egyptologists advocate, he has had to reinvent ancient history (by introducing an advanced super-civilization in ancient Egypt), to try to uphold the carve-hoist theory of pyramid construction. The portions of Chris Dunn’s work that discuss the problems of pyramid building and making smaller artifacts, when properly understood, inadvertently help to prove the geopolymer theory.

While the accepted explanations may work on paper (and when a film crew uses modern steel tools and resorts to a front-end loader behind the scenes, as in the case of the NOVA film), engineers and a few individuals, including Chris Dunn, have shown that certain accepted solutions do not stand up to scrutiny. Certain problems, like those associated with the beams up to 27-feet-long in the Great Pyramid, are glaring enough to have helped spawn intervention theories like that of Erich von Daniken.

By putting his untenable historical revisions aside and concentrating on what he is trained to do, Chris Dunn can certainly add to Egyptological knowledge and may eventually become a consultant to mainstream archaeologists who will benefit from his knowledge of machining and metrology.

Here is my review of Chris Dunn’s “The Giza Power Plant”, which has been removed from Amazon.com because of their censorious policies that serve to foster pseudo-science and pseudo-Egyptology. I have revised it slightly to stress that Chris Dunn mentions the geopolymer theory in such a way that his readers do not realize that it negates any need for advanced machining or his major revisions of ancient history or the meaning and purpose of the Great Pyramid.

The claims of Christopher Dunn’s ‘The Giza Power Plant: Technologies of Ancient Egypt,’ are so outrageous as to warrant that potential readers (at least those looking for real knowledge instead of science fantasy!) have a chance to witness a debate that will spare them from reading this misleading book! Perhaps Dunn’s anticipation of such a result explains his neglecting to attempt to defend his book in a debate with me, despite accepting my debate challenge in June of 2000!

‘The Giza Power Plant’ does not properly report the scientific research proving that ancient machine tools were unnecessary, although Dunn has known about this research for several years.

What Dunn’s book fails to report is that the ancient Egyptians did not need power tools or a power plant because they, like certain other civilizations (see E. C. Stone, et al., “From Shifting Silt to Solid Stone: The Manufacture of Synthetic Basalt in Ancient Mesopotamia,” Science, July, 1998), made artificial rock. That is, without applying heat, the Egyptians made rock-concrete (with water and simple and abundant earthen materials) that is so close to natural stone that it has fooled geologists into assuming it is natural rock. This high early-strength rock-concrete (today called geopolymerized rock) can be shaped to perfection with primitive tools while still in the soft stage of setting. This technology is much more simple than the glassmaking and faience production the ancient Egyptians mastered, and it explains the construction of monuments and artifacts that have baffled researchers since the inception of Egyptology.

Dunn’s book slights this body of research, published over the past 30 years in the scientific, technical and Egyptological literature (see Morris, M., ‘The Egyptian Pyramid Mystery is Solved!’, Margaret Morris Books, 2000, and related previous books and patents and several published, peer-reviewed scientific papers by Dr. Joseph Davidovits [who discovered the artificial nature of pyramid stone and re-created pyramid stone], myself, and others). The veracity of this finding, which destroys the premise of Dunn’s book, is independently confirmed by the work of archaeologists who discovered similar (different in that it required heat) stone-making to have in existed in Mesopotamia (E. C. Stone, et al., “From Shifting Silt to Solid Stone: The Manufacture of Synthetic Basalt in Ancient Mesopotamia,” Science, July, 1998).

Instead of performing professional research, Dunn proposes elaborate, complicated, and fantastic high technology, which goes sharply against the vast archaeological record. Dunn goes from bad to worse by claiming that the Great Pyramid was the power plant for running machine tools. Such tools, of course, did not exist in the first place, as real archaeological research shows.

Christopher Dunn’s lack of regard for proper research removes the Great Pyramid from its true historical context, which has long been well established in genuine Egyptological literature.

Dunn’s book follows the example of other poorly researched popular books of the past 30 years claiming (without offering solid evidence and while presenting distorted information) that high technology existed during antiquity. Although Dunn recognizes that there is no evidence–no writings, no drawings, and no scrap of direct physical evidence whatsoever–of ancient machine tools, this does not deter him or alert him that something is seriously wrong with his theory. He instead incorrectly uses the artifacts themselves as proof of method, discounts the real method used, and tosses aside the vast archaeological record that defies his theory. The result is a forced theory that is illogical and unsupportable.

In all fairness, the manufacture of certain monuments and smaller artifacts has long been a vexing problem even for serious researchers. Chris Dunn deserves some credit for helping to demonstrate and popularize features of certain artifacts that could not possibly have been made the way many Egyptologists presumed. Dunn has in this sense furthered the work of Sir W.M.F. Petrie, one of the founding fathers of Egyptology, who argued with Alfred Lucas for 30 years about certain features of artifacts (artifacts incorrectly presumed to be natural rock in their day). It is also fair to say that Petrie would be aghast at Dunn’s terrible methodology and unwarranted, unscientific theories and wild speculations.

‘The Giza Power Plant’ contributes to the dumbing-down of the average reader, who does not have the very specialized educational and/or professional Egyptological training and experience needed to know exactly what is wrong with Dunn’s theory and those of other popular books that assert a similar premise of high technology during antiquity.

At the heart of Dunn’s book and the others alluded to here are supposedly unsolved ancient mysteries, especially the construction of the Great Pyramid and certain other monuments and artifacts. The contents of Dunn’s ‘The Giza Power Plant’ provoke the ongoing clash between pseudo-science and genuine science, and the struggle of Egyptology to prevail against the proliferation and popularization of books that entertain a great deal of nonsense similar to that presented by Dunn.

While researching and writing ‘The Giza Power Plant’ Chris Dunn had options. He could have used his training as a machinist to examine certain artifacts that cannot be explained by the conventional methods proposed by Egyptology (these methods are rendered outdated by the discovery of the production of man-made stone during antiquity).

A purely analytical book of this type would have been equally entertaining while making a genuine contribution to scholarship. But Chris Dunn has machined his poor historical research and his observations as a machinist into an untenable theory that sinks to the level of other similarly poorly researched popular books that fail to apply scientific methodology and mock or misuse modern scholarship, all of which books will ultimately and appropriately be swept into the dust heap of history once the public learns the demonstrable truth.

As the success of several popular books of the past 30 years about so-called ancient monuments shows, millions of people are eager for real answers to certain ancient ‘enigmas’ in stone. But ‘The Giza Power Plant’ not only fails to supply well researched answers, it further misleads the general public about fundamental aspects of human history.

______________

This book is available exclusively at Margaret Morris Books.Com. Click on the ancient Egyptian barge below to navigate to the home page of Margaret Morris Books.

Notice: The background for this page was created by Margaret Morris. Free use of this background on another web page requires a link to this page or to margaretmorrisbooks.com