Archive 7474 *

• Home
• Ceramic Materials
• Materials
• Physics
• Materials Science
• Geopolymers

PresentationPDF Available

Giza Pyramids and Geopolymer Limestone: Deep Misleading analysis on the “Lauer Sample” by petrologists and geologists. A rebuttal of the articles published by Dipayan Jana and others

• May 2020

DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.18423.04004/2

• Conference: Geopolymer Camp 2020 (virtual).
• At: Institut Géopolymère www.geopolymer.org ,

Authors:

Joseph Davidovits

• Geopolymer Institute, Saint-Quentin France

Download file PDFRead file

Download citation

Copy link

References (1)

Figures (5)

Abstract and Figures

Hundreds of thousands of people have read articles and seen videos on the internet dealing with the pyramids of Egypt having been constructed from geopolymer concrete. The arguments of the opponents are always based on the same papers written by American geologists, published 15 to 30 years ago. These three publications are draped in scientific impartiality when this is not the case. Here we point out their fatal flaws. The most cited study shown in the videos at YouTube is the analysis carried out on the “Lauer Sample” by the American petrologist Dipayan Jana, published in 2007 and available on Research Gate, who strongly criticized my original study. We have recently discovered that Jana’s study was performed on a fake “Lauer Sample”, not on the genuine archaeological material. This “fake Lauer-Sample” was a simple piece of limestone from Tourah sent to Dipayan Jana by one of these American geologists. Unfortunately, critics ignoring this forgery and relying on said papers persist by pointing out these three geological studies as the ones that restore the truth. Jana’s study of the rock passed off as the “Lauer Sample” can no longer serve as a reference. I also do a rebuttal of the two other publications by J. Harrel et al. and R. Folk et al. It is time to put an end to this pseudo-science.

The Lauer sample. Photo taken in 1982.

…

The “Lauer-Harrel” blue sample received by D. Jana.

…

The thickness of the genuine Lauer sample compared with the sample studied by D. Jana.

…

cross section of the Giza plateau, the Mokattam Formation and the quarries.

…

the natural limestone at the northeast corner of Cheops Great Pyramid.

…

Figures – uploaded by Joseph Davidovits

Author content

Content may be subject to copyright.

Discover the world’s research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 3+ billion citations

Join for free

50.7M

172

Hire top scientific talent with ResearchGate

Next

Stay

Public Full-text 1

Content uploaded by Joseph Davidovits

Author content

Content may be subject to copyright.

Deep Misleading analysis on the “Lauer Sample” by petrologists and geologists. A rebuttal.              1

Geopolymer Institute Library

Archaeological  Paper #L-Rebuttal-D.Jana

May, 2020

https://www.geopolymer.org/category/library/archaeological-papers/

How to cite this paper:

Joseph Davidovits, (2020), Giza Pyramids and Geopolymer Limestone: Deep Misleading analysis

on the “Lauer Sample” by petrologists and geologists. A rebuttal of the articles published by

Dipayan Jana and others. Archaeological  Paper #L-Rebuttal-D.Jana, Geopolymer Institute

Library, www.geopolymer.org.  DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18423.04004

Giza Pyramids and Geopolymer Limestone: Deep Misleading

analysis on the “Lauer Sample” by petrologists and geologists.

A rebuttal of the articles published by Dipayan Jana and others. ”

Joseph Davidovits

Geopolymer Institute, 02100 Saint-Quentin, France.

*corresponding author: joseph@geopolymer.org (Joseph Davidovits)

ABSTRACT

Hundreds of thousands of people have read articles and seen videos on the internet dealing with the pyramids of Egypt

having been constructed from geopolymer  concrete. The arguments of the  opponents are always based on  the  same

papers written by American  geologists, published 15 to 30 years ago. These  three publications  are draped  in scienti?c

impartiality when  this is not the  case. Here we point  out  their fatal ?aws. The  most cited study shown  in  the videos at

YouTube  is  the  analysis  carried  out on  the  “Lauer  Sample”  by  the  American  petrologist#Dipayan  Jana,

published  in 2007  and  available  on  Research  Gate.  Unfortunately,  critics relying  on  said  papers persist  by  pointing

out these three geological studies as the ones that restore the truth. I also do a rebuttal of the two other publications by

1. Harrel et al. and R. Folk et al. It is time to put an end to this pseudo-science.”

Keywords: rebuttal, pyramid casing stones, Lauer Sample, geopolymer limestone,  © 2020 Institut Géopolymère. All

rights reserved.

Hundreds of thousands of people have read articles and seen videos on the internet dealing with

the pyramids of Egypt having been constructed from geopolymer concrete. The arguments of the

opponents are always based on the same papers written by American geologists, published 15 to

30 years ago. These publications are draped in scienti?c impartiality when this is not the case.

Here we point out their fatal ?aws. The most cited study shown in the videos at YouTube is the

analysis carried out on the “Lauer Sample” by the American petrologist#Dipayan Jana, published

in 2007 and available on Research Gate under the title: Evidence from detailed petrographic

examinations of casing stones from the great pyramid of khufu, a natural limestone from tura, and

a man-made (Geopolymeric) limestone. It is time to put an end to this pseudo-science.”

1. Dipayan Jana never actually examined the “Lauer Sample”.
2. Another major misleading paper by James Harrell and Bret Penrod.
3. The fatal ?aw failure of geologist Robert Folk and petrographer Donald Campbel.
4. Davidovits / Geopolymer Institute Library, Archaeological Paper #L Rebuttal-D.Jana (2020)

Deep Misleading analysis on the “Lauer Sample” by petrologists and geologists. A rebuttal.              2

What is the Lauer sample?

The controversy concerns the analysis performed on a sample of the Great Pyramid of Cheops

entrusted to me by the eminent French Egyptologist Jean-Philippe Lauer in 1981, and on which I

have made analyses, publications and conferences. ”

See my article in Research Gate,

June 1984: X-Ray Analysis and X-Ray

Di?raction of Casing Stones from the

Pyramids of Egypt, and the

Limestone of the Associated

Quarries. ”

It is de?ned in the literature under the

name of the “Lauer sample”. It is a

piece of the interior casing of the

pyramid, made of limestone material,

covered with a white man-made

coating of calcium phosphate

(hydroxyapatite) 1 mm thick and a

red-brown iron oxide paint. See

photo of the original Lauer sample

from 1982 in Figure 1.”

Figure 1: The Lauer sample. Photo taken in 1982.”

Parameters for authenticating the true Lauer sample include its 4500-thousand year-old

white coating and red-brown paint, and its dimensions.

A – Petrologist Dipayan Jana never actually examined the

“Lauer Sample”.

Petrologist Dipayan Jana, of CMC-Materials Inc., in the USA, presented a paper at the 29th ICMA

Conference in Quebec, Canada, titled “The Great Pyramid Debate” and later published his

information in the Proceedings of the 29th Conference of Cement Microscopy, Quebec, Canada,

May 20-24 (2007), pp. 207-266. He critiques my scienti?c ?ndings as well as those of my

colleagues, Materials Scientist M. W. Barsoum et al., Microstructural Evidence of the

Reconstituted Limestone Blocs in the Great Pyramids of Egypt, Journal of the American Ceramic

Society, 89 (12), 3788-3796 (2006)]. Here I will show the fatal ?aw in D. Jana’s said work.”

Why did D. Jana test a fake sample instead of the Lauer sample?

1. Jana receive a piece of the “Lauer sample” from the American geologist specializing in the

quarries of ancient Egypt, James Harrell, now Emeritus Professor at the University of Toledo. J.

Harrell is a geologist opposed to the theory of agglomerated stone; we sent him the Lauer sample

and his conclusions are obviously the opposite of those of our team of scientists. He returns what

he claims is left of it, a severely damaged sample. However, years later he provides a sample of

1. Davidovits / Geopolymer Institute Library, Archaeological Paper #L Rebuttal-D.Jana (2020)

!Deep Misleading analysis on the “Lauer Sample” by petrologists and geologists. A rebuttal.              3

what is supposedly remnants of the Lauer

sample to D. Jana. Thus, Jana calls the Lauer

sample the “Lauer-Harrell” sample in his study

published in the Proceedings (Figure 2). ”

Figure 2: The “Lauer-Harrel” blue sample

received by D. Jana.”

In the Proceedings, at Page 213, he writes :

“The Lauer-Harrell was a solid 25 × 45 mm sized,

blue epoxy impregnated saw-cut section of a

piece, larger than the Lauer-Campbell sample…””

The whole context of the study, described in Figures 12, 13, 14 on pages 252, 253, 254 of the

Proceedings, shows that it is a vertical section (in thickness) and that it is not obliquely cut. The

dimensions are: 45 mm wide and 25 mm thick.”

However, the original thickness of the Lauer sample is 15 mm (see in Figure 3). In contrast,

the “Lauer-Harrell” sample supplied by Harrell to Jana is 25 mm thick.

!By deduction, the thickness of Jana’s sample proves that it could not have been the

authentic Lauer Sample. ”

Figure 3: The thickness of the genuine Lauer sample compared with the sample studied by D.

Jana.”

1. Davidovits / Geopolymer Institute Library, Archaeological Paper #L Rebuttal-D.Jana (2020)

!Deep Misleading analysis on the “Lauer Sample” by petrologists and geologists. A rebuttal.              4

In D. Jana’s study, there is no coating. So, is this a FAKE?

Jana observes that the sample he has received from Harrell does not exhibit the distinctive

coating of the Lauer sample. The coating is a critically important distinguishing trait that

characterizes the authentic “Lauer sample.” Jana mentions three times, pages 213, 229 and 255

of the Proceedings on the non-compliance of the sample with the scienti?c literature. Despite the

doubt, and despite the sample mysteriously and impossibly growing 10 mm in thickness, he

continues his studies claiming that the Lauer sample is natural limestone.”

So:”

– Page 213: “Neither piece contained the white coating or the red paint that was originally

mentioned by Davidovits, which was reportedly (by Harrell) accidentally removed during the

preparation of the thin section”.”

– Page 229: “Although the actual “coating” was not present in the Lauer sample of this study

(reportedly accidentally removed…)”.”

– Page 255, legend of Figure 15: “Despite the absence of this“ coating…”.$

$

1. Harrel published a study in 1993 on this white coating (see in the Proceedings the Figure 15 at

Page 255), but he sent D. Jana a di?erent piece of limestone not covered with this characteristic

coating, calling it nonetheless the “Lauer Sample”.”

It is hard to imagine a competent, skilled geologist accidentally removing the coating from the

Lauer sample when preparing a thin section of it. The coating is very ?rmly welded to the stone

and does not ?ake o?. It is not a paint, and the impregnation of blue epoxy is used to prevent

such accidents. J. Harrell has made too many thin sections in his professional life to destroy a

major archaeological sample. If it does not have its characteristic coating, its origin is doubtful. In

addition, Jana’s paper provides several scienti?c details which I keep for further rebuttals, when

necessary.”

The most logical explanation is that the sample D. Jana studied was a piece of natural

limestone from Egypt’s Tura quarry 25 mm thick (instead of 15 mm) without the white

arti?cial coating of calcium phosphate.

!CONCLUSION: It is therefore a forgery. Jana’s study of the rock passed o? as the

“Lauer Sample” can no longer serve as a reference. Jana is, therefore, obligated to retract

his paper in good conscience, and Harrell must explain or accept responsibility for his

actions.

B – Another major misleading paper by James Harrell and Bret

Penrod.

A chapter of my book “Why the Pharaohs built the Pyramids with Fake Stones” shows another

serious misleading conduct published by Harrell and Penrod. See in Appendix B, page 265 (2017

edition) or 263 (2009 edition). In chapter 7, I describe the Mokattam Formation at Giza comprised

of layers of middle Eocene limestone upon which the Great Pyramids of Giza are built. ”

1. Davidovits / Geopolymer Institute Library, Archaeological Paper #L Rebuttal-D.Jana (2020)

Deep Misleading analysis on the “Lauer Sample” by petrologists and geologists. A rebuttal.              5

The Mokattam Formation comprises two distinctly di?erent layers of fossil shells limestone: a hard

gray upper bed on which the pyramids are built, and a friable marly yellowish bed. It was this

friable, earthy deposit (concrete grade) limestone that was exploited to build the bulk of the Great

Pyramids of Giza (see the diagram in Figure 4). ”

Figure 4:  cross section of the Giza

plateau, the Mokattam Formation and

the quarries.”

Despite this basic well-published geological knowledge, and clearly visible on the two outcrops

located near the monuments, the American geologists J. Harrell and B. Penrod dispute the

theorem of the arti?cial manufacture of limestone blocks, as follows.!

In their article [Harrell, JA and Penrod, BE, The Great Pyramid debate; evidence from the Lauer

sample, Journal of Geological Education vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 358-363, 1993], they state: “… Our

objection to the geopolymeric process (agglomerated stone process) has to do with

disaggregating limestone by soaking it in water — it does not work! We soaked the Mokattam

limestones whose composition is given in Table 1 for seven weeks and after this time the samples

were just as hard and solid as the day we ?rst immersed them…”!

For their demonstration, Harrell and Penrod instead removed hard limestone from Gebel

Mokattam, 20 km from the pyramids, on the other side of the Nile (see Table 1 cited in their said

publication). That is, they should have sampled from the concrete-grade limestone quarries

located in Giza, in the wadis or in the Sphinx trench at the foot of the pyramids. It is well known to

all experts on Egyptian geology, and well-published in Egyptological literature, that these two Giza

sites (the wadi and the trench in which the Sphinx sits), are where rock materials for the Great

Pyramids of Giza are derived. The sample they soaked in water does not come from the Giza

pyramid site at all. It is taken from a non-applicable location, the modern quarry of hard limestone

behind the Citadel of Gebel Mokattam in Cairo, 20 km east of the Giza pyramids, on the other

side of the Nile. !

How can professionals consider that the Mokkatam geological formation of Giza is absolutely

identical to the geographical designation Gebel Mokattam? Why not have just taken a piece of

stone in Giza, on the site of the pyramids? Why make it so complicated? They hope to fool the

public, collecting a rock sample of di?erent origin, but bearing the same name, to demonstrate

that our theory is false.!

C – The fatal ?aw of geologist Robert Folk and petrologist Donald

Campbell.

This is not the ?rst time that geologists have published studies containing serious failures. Thus,

immediately after arriving on the Giza plateau in January 1990, the American geologist R. Folk and

petrologist D. Campbell observe blocks which seem to them to be natural stone. They publish an

article in Journal of Geological Education [R.L. Folk and D.H. Campbell, Are the Pyramids built of

poured concrete blocks, Journal of Geological Education, Vol.40, pp. 25-34 (1992)].!

1. Davidovits / Geopolymer Institute Library, Archaeological Paper #L Rebuttal-D.Jana (2020)

Deep Misleading analysis on the “Lauer Sample” by petrologists and geologists. A rebuttal.              6

In my book “Why the Pharaohs built the Pyramids with fake stone,” page 268, I reproduce the

original text: “Within the ?rst minute at Cheops pyramid, we knew that the pyramids were built of

real limestone blocks, not of concrete (reagglomerated stone)….”

We also read: “… we feel it is the duty of professional geologist to expose this egregiously absurd

archeological theory before it becomes part of entrenched pseudo-science… We believe that had

Davidovits had any understanding of basic geologic principles and understood the implications of

simple geological evidence at Giza, he would have realized that this geopolymer theory had no

basis in fact…” ”

Upon arriving at Giza, Folk and Campbell go directly to the northeast corner of the Great Pyramid

of Cheops. In their article, they do not explain the reason for this choice. There, they ?nd natural

limestone (see photo in Figure 5). In 1983, the American Egyptologist Mark Lehner mentions the

existence of this natural geological layer, going up to 4 meters above the base of the pyramid, in

this northeast corner. But R. Folk and D. Campbell ignore this essential information. I publish my

answer in a renowned journal “J. Davidovits, The Great Pyramid debate, Concrete International,

Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 17-18, (1992) ”. ”

Figure 5: the natural limestone at the

northeast corner of Cheops Great Pyramid.”

Soon after, I receive a letter from R. Folk

dated February 18, 1992, which reads:”

“…I was impressed by your reasonable and

interesting letter in Concrete International,

Feb. 1992. . . Your argument that the lower

two courses of Khufu (Cheops), 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 (Cheops)

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…”.”

Robert L. Folk, renowned for writing the standard limestone geologists refer to, admitted that he

has no basic knowledge of the geology of the Giza plateau when he makes his survey and

triumphantly proclaims: “… Within the ?rst minute at Cheops pyramid, we knew that the pyramids

were built of real limestone blocks, not of concrete (reagglomerated stone)…”  Ironically, the

geologists do not di?erentiate between a natural outcrop of the plateau and blocks of pyramids!!!

How to take this study seriously when all tourists can readily see this distinction?”

The article by Folk and Campbell, published 30 years ago, is still cited today by

those whose purpose it is to discredit my research. They do not know that Folk

confessed his error.

References (books):

in French: ”

– 2017,#J. Davidovits, Bâtir les Pyramides sans pierres ni esclaves, édition Jean-Cyrille Godefroy,

Paris, ISBN 9782865532889.

In English:

– 2009-2017 (2è edition), Joseph Davidovits, Why the Pharaohs built the Pyramids with fake

stones#(in soft cover and eBook), ed. Geopolymer Institute (Institut Géopolymère), Saint-Quentin,

France, ISBN: 9782951482043, available at geopolymer.org/shop and amazon.com and others.

– 2010, Margaret Morris The Great Pyramid Secret: Egypt’s Amazing Lost Mystery Science

Returns, Scribal Arts, Detroit, USA, ISBN: 978-0972043465, available at amazon.com

1. Davidovits / Geopolymer Institute Library, Archaeological Paper #L Rebuttal-D.Jana (2020)

Citations (0)

References (1)

ISBN: 9782951482043, available at geopolymer.org/shop and amazon.com and others. -2010, Margaret Morris The Great Pyramid Secret: Egypt’s Amazing Lost Mystery Science Returns

• Jan 2009
• 978-0972043465

References (books): in French: -2017, J. Davidovits, Bâtir les Pyramides sans pierres ni esclaves, édition Jean-Cyrille Godefroy, Paris, ISBN 9782865532889. In English: -2009-2017 (2è edition), Joseph Davidovits, Why the Pharaohs built the Pyramids with fake stones (in soft cover and eBook), ed. Geopolymer Institute (Institut Géopolymère), Saint-Quentin, France, ISBN: 9782951482043, available at geopolymer.org/shop and amazon.com and others. -2010, Margaret Morris The Great Pyramid Secret: Egypt’s Amazing Lost Mystery Science Returns, Scribal Arts, Detroit, USA, ISBN: 978-0972043465, available at amazon.com