Undermines· strongGEO-E018
Field and laboratory petrography: pyramid blocks show natural sedimentary and tectonic features (Folk & Campbell)
- what the source states
- Pyramid and temple blocks show sedimentary bedding, burrows, sharp cross-sections of clams and fragile worm tubes, ripple lamination, optical and SEM-scale properties of normal microporous limestone, and calcite-filled tectonic fractures confined to individual blocks; quarrymen's tool marks are evident; and no zeolitic "geopolymer" phase was observed by light microscopy or detected by XRD, DTA, SEM, EDXA, or chemical analysis in the sample examined, nor any aggregate-cement fabric (findings set out in Concrete International 13(8), 1991, and the Journal of Geological Education 40(1), 1992).
- what we infer
- Macro-scale sedimentary and structural features observed across many blocks in situ are hard to reconcile with casting and give this record broader scope than any single-sample study. It predates Barsoum 2006, so it does not address the specific 2006 SEM/TEM microconstituents.
- limitations
- Laboratory analysis rested on few samples; the in-situ observations are broader but not systematic sampling.
- Contested at the time: Morris's rebuttal in the same journal volume (J. Geol. Educ. 40: 35–46) and the Concrete International letters cycle (Feb 1992) — the pro-casting responses are part of the record.
- Proponent response to this line of criticism: the methods critique (GEO-C030, GEO-E024) — it does not touch the direct petrography here, but qualifies any step from quarry attribution to an anti-casting conclusion.