Evidence of iron being in the Great Pyrarmid

[poppet]

Evidence of iron being used in the Great Pyramid

The following text is the official press release by Dr. Dominique Goerlitz & Stefan Erdmann, published on March 08th, 2015, on the latest state of what has been called the "Great Pyramid Scandal".

In December 2013 Dr. Zahi Hawass, former Minister of Antiquity under the now discredited president Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, publicly accused Dominique Goerlitz and Stefan Erdmann of “stealing the famous Cartouche of the Pharaoh Khufu inside of the pyramid.” The "Khufu-Cartouche" is regarded as the Holy Grail of Egyptology since it is the “smoking gun” evidence that conclusively proves the ownership of the Great Pyramid to this 4th dynasty pharaoh.

Goerlitz and Erdmann, however, strongly denied that they touched the Khufu-Cartouche, let alone stole or damaged it. They claimed that they had official written permission to enter the Great Pyramid after hours, as well as implied permission to collect only a few milligrams of ancient paint from another inscription as well as some small amount of scratching of ‘black stains’ from the granite beams of the King’s Chamber which they wanted for later scientific testing in an accredited laboratory in Germany. The taking of samples took place under the supervision of inspectors from the Egyptian Ministry of Antiquities as well as security officials. Goerlitz and Erdmann later duly returned the paint samples to the Egyptian authorities after these had been scientifically tested in Germany.

Meanwhile, to defend themselves from the malicious accusations made against them by Dr. Hawass, Goerlitz and Erdmann obtained the help from author and investigator Robert Bauval and Professor Robert Schoch of Boston University. The latter provided photographic and video evidence proving that the Khufu-Cartouche had already been damaged between 2004 and 2006 – which, most ironically, was during the tenure of Dr. Hawass as Director-General of the Giza Pyramids. Nonetheless, and in spite of the conclusive evidence provided to the Egyptian authorities by Goerlitz and Erdmann, the accusations by Dr. Hawass had already provoked a violent reaction in the world media, and unfortunately led to legal action taken by the Egyptian authorities against Goerlitz and Erdmann both in Egypt and, indirectly, in Germany. On February 17, 2015, however, the German Courts decided to close the case, and a settlement was reached with Goerlitz and Erdmann that included a minor penalty as compensation to the Egyptian authorities.

Opening a new Doorway to the Past: The Use of Iron in the Great Pyramid at Giza

Notwithstanding the politics, distractions and shenanigans caused by the rash accusations made by Dr. Hawass, the samples that were collected and scientifically tested in Germany for Goerlitz and Erdmann may have solved the age-long mystery concerning the use of iron and possible advanced technologies used by the Pyramid Builders of Giza.

Goerlitz and Erdmann are not the first discoverers of iron in the Great Pyramid - but their research results finally could close the necessary chain of evidence. The particular importance lies in the proof that they can demonstrate ancient Egyptian wrought iron in the original finding context. Both, the occurrence of 18 black magnetite traces on the ceiling and the iron plate found by J.R. Hill in 1883 (metallurgically investigated by El Gayar & Jones, 1989) provide the physical proof for the use of iron in the Fourth Dynasty. The presence of magnetite and “[…] other inclusions of un-reduced iron show that the "melting" operations had been inexpertly carried out at low temperature probably between 1.000 and 1.100°C […]" (Gayar & Jones). All these archaeo-metrical evidence contradict strongly the official statements of the scholars that in the Old Kingdom people neither knew how to produce iron nor how to use it.

The evidence culled from the scientific tests also would explain the mystery of how huge multi-ton blocks were transported and, more intriguingly, how they were lifted and positioned by the Pyramid Builders of Giza, suggestive of a highly advanced technology and the use of iron equipment in the 3rd millennium BCE in Egypt. Goerlitz is preparing an experiment in which he is trying to demonstrate how the ancient Egyptians may have used their iron equipment (Congress in Lennestadt: August 22nd-23rd, 2015).

http://grenzwissenschaft-aktuell.blo...ll-german.html

[+Hammerclaw]

Considering the thousands of years traces of iron could have been introduced into the Pyramids by tomb robbers and other explorers, their "proof" proves nothing.

[bubblykiss]

Considering the thousands of years traces of iron could have been introduced into the Pyramids by tomb robbers and other explorers, their "proof" proves nothing.

Or maybe the pyramids were under the Devonian Sea, thus totally covering them in iron particles....yeah, that's the ticket, Devonian Sea.......

[+Hammerclaw]

Or maybe the pyramids were under the Devonian Sea, thus totally covering them in iron particles....yeah, that's the ticket, Devonian Sea.......

No, the Tethys Sea during the Mesozoic.

[stereologist]

Magnetite is a common mineral. The existence of magnetite is not that interesting in and of itself.

The first half of the OP was a flimsy effort to exonerate 2 people of the vandalism they have been accused of.

So the OP would like us to consider that iron tools were commonly used. Really? Where are the mines? Where are the smelters? Where is the slag? Where are tools in tombs? Where are other iron artifacts in tombs?

[Hanslune]

The (translated) article says magnetite which is Fe3O4. So.....Magnetit ist ein Eisenoxid translates directly as lodestone or Eisenoxiduloxid - magnetite. however, we don't know if the journalist writing this used the correct word or if they actually meant hematite better known as red ochre which is FeCO3. Red Ochre was quite commonly used in the pyramids to draw lines and for writing instructions and graffiti on the stones.

Now smelted iron is not known in AE until later however meteoric iron may have been used.

http://hebrewjudaic.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/2596/RothFingersStars.pdf

Edited March 21, 2015 by Hanslune

[back to earth]

Evidence of iron being used in the great pyramid.

Tracers of iron oxide ? ..... <thinks> ... that's it ! They used iron equipment to lift the blocks !

Or perhaps ... magnetite .... <thinks > ... they used magnets to lift the blocks!

Stay tuned for a flurry of uninformed posts ...... <thinks> ... that's it ! They used iron posts ! .... that were magnets.

Edited March 21, 2015 by back to earth

[stereologist]

There are instances of native iron. A basalt in the far north was mined by the Inuit to form metal tools. The small pieces of native iron could be hammer welded.

Hematite, btw, is iron oxide Fe2O3. The carbonate is FeCO3 and forms the mineral siderite.

[Swede]

Evidence of iron being used in the Great Pyramid

"other inclusions of un-reduced iron show that the "melting" operations had been inexpertly carried out at low temperature probably between 1.000 and 1.100°C […]" (Gayar & Jones)

That this pair have a rather checkered history is a matter of record, despite their press-oriented attempts to minimize their actions. They were found guilty and penalized.

The above quoted may be another example of their quasi-scientific sleight of hand. Note the temperature ranges involved and compare them to the known data in regards to the smelting temperature of raw ores and the melting points of more refined ferric materials (eg wrought, cast, etc.). In short, they do not clarify the suspected stage of the process, nor do they provide a clear citation for their reference. Given the insufficient temperature ranges and the acknowledgment that the samples purportedly represent unreduced iron, the introduction of this aspect is misleading at best.

Fe, like magnetite, is not at all uncommon. While the blurb is notably lacking in specific details in regards to provenience and metrics (ie, size, location, and geological association of the "inclusions"), the natural presence of miniscule inclusions of Fe in a given sedimentary deposit would not be unheard of.

There would appear to be some possible indications of the utilization of meteoric Fe during the period in question.

The blurb is also a rather blatant attempt to promote yet another fringe publication.

In summary, one may wish to be cautious in regards to attributing any degree of credibility to such sources without the author's presentation of clear and well referenced papers.

.

[+DieChecker]

Opening a new Doorway to the Past: The Use of Iron in the Great Pyramid at Giza

Notwithstanding the politics, distractions and shenanigans caused by the rash accusations made by Dr. Hawass, the samples that were collected and scientifically tested in Germany for Goerlitz and Erdmann may have solved the age-long mystery concerning the use of iron and possible advanced technologies used by the Pyramid Builders of Giza.

Goerlitz and Erdmann are not the first discoverers of iron in the Great Pyramid - but their research results finally could close the necessary chain of evidence. The particular importance lies in the proof that they can demonstrate ancient Egyptian wrought iron in the original finding context. Both, the occurrence of 18 black magnetite traces on the ceiling and the iron plate found by J.R. Hill in 1883 (metallurgically investigated by El Gayar & Jones, 1989) provide the physical proof for the use of iron in the Fourth Dynasty. The presence of magnetite and “[…] other inclusions of un-reduced iron show that the "melting" operations had been inexpertly carried out at low temperature probably between 1.000 and 1.100°C […]" (Gayar & Jones). All these archaeo-metrical evidence contradict strongly the official statements of the scholars that in the Old Kingdom people neither knew how to produce iron nor how to use it.

The evidence culled from the scientific tests also would explain the mystery of how huge multi-ton blocks were transported and, more intriguingly, how they were lifted and positioned by the Pyramid Builders of Giza, suggestive of a highly advanced technology and the use of iron equipment in the 3rd millennium BCE in Egypt. Goerlitz is preparing an experiment in which he is trying to demonstrate how the ancient Egyptians may have used their iron equipment (Congress in Lennestadt: August 22nd-23rd, 2015).

I have to agree with Hanslune and Swede that meteoric iron is known to have existed and been hammer shaped even in this early age. It does not take much imagination to think of the Ancient Egyptians grinding up meteorites as a special ingredient for their paints. And that is with making the unlikely assumption that these fellows samples were not contaminated.

What do you suppose they took the samples with? Did they bring stainless steel dental tools with them through air port security? Or, did they perhaps buy a rusty chisel at some random market table before heading up to the pyramids?

The leap from trace amounts of iron oxides to grand iron structures and machinery lifting stones really does make me laugh out loud. LOL! LOL! LOL!

[kmt_sesh]

Om the subject of the pigments removed from the relieving chamber:

No, a cartouche was not destroyed, but the rest of this section is nonsense and a poor attempt at misrepresentation of the fact. It's also a weak and tedious attempt to denigrate Zahi Hawass—a favorite pastime of the woo-woo sect. Goerlitz and Erdmann are most definitely part of the woo-woo sect. My apologies for being harsh, but their entire line of argument is ridiculous. They "claim" to have had written permission and to have had "implied" consent to remove physical evidence. And yet this ultimately would've had to cross the desk of Hawass at the time. In other words, Goerlitz and Erdmann are trying to blame the man in charge for their own nearly criminal act, when the man in charge didn't know about it. Neither Goerlitz nor Erdmann are historians or scientists of any calibar, so they are desperately trying to shift the focus from their culpability.

Their actions had no sanction from either the Egyptian or German government, and the German government itself was quick to cop to this. And to apologize to Egyptian authorities. The small sample Goerlitz and Erdmann did steal does not actually appear to have been tested by any standard scientific protocols. These are two guys with a fringe agenda who were willing to risk a diplomatic tussle for their own bent agenda. They were caught and they were rightfully called on it. It is childish to try to blame Hawass for this, and it most certainly doesn't work. To make matters worse, they turn to Bauval and Schoch for their defense, and these are two men of the fringe camp with no academic status in the Egyptological or historical community. Goodness.

On the subject of iron in the Great Pyramid:

This further proves that neither Goerlitz nor Erdmann understand the realities of ancient Egyptian material culture and Bronze Age engineering. It also further proves their weak attempts to press a fringe agenda. The relieving chambers have been thoroughly corrupted by two centuries of tourists, who used all manner of paint to add their own graffiti; who knows what other chemicals they introduced. The ancient graffiti appears to have been primarily composed of red ochre, so there's an obvious introduction of iron to the chambers.

On top of that, magnetite is a natural iron oxide and is attested in the ancient Egyptian material culture—but this hardly means the Egyptians smelted or produced iron objects. The only well-attested source for iron objects (decorative beads for jewelry, one of the daggers buried in Tutankhamun's bandages) derives from meteoric iron. This is why, in the Bronze Age, iron was considered extremely valuable. It was exceedingly rare in the natural world of that time, and was considered a great luxury item.

But think about it logically. Had the Egyptians been capable of producing iron even in the Early Bronze Age (mid-third millennium BCE), are we honestly supposed to believe that the one and only place it ever existed is in one monument, the Great Pyramid? Such a suggestion is not at all reasonable.

The iron plate found by Hill in the nineteenth century is a fact. It was found within the stones of the Great Pyramid after some blasting operations by Vyse. This has made the iron plate very popular in the fringe camp and among well-meaning folks who don't know much about the Bronze Age and what people of the time could and could not produce. The fact that the iron plate was found does not logically give one license to point and it and exclaim: "Look, proof of iron production in ancient Egypt!" A far more likely and reasonable explanation is that it was part of a tool used by early Arab inhabitants after the Muslims had conquered Egypt in the seventh century CE. These early Muslims stripped the casing stones off the pyramids to produce their own buildings, so some big and beefy tools would've been needed for that.

The sum of all of this is, discard Goerlitz and Erdmann. These two are not researchers and have no real desire to contribute to our academic knowledge of ancient Egypt. Rather, search out the vetted and respected experts who know what they're talking about. These experts will not employ slight of hand or childish insults in their desire to inform the reader.

[back to earth]

[/indent]

The leap from trace amounts of iron oxides to grand iron structures and machinery lifting stones really does make me laugh out loud. LOL! LOL! LOL!

It helps to keep the geyser going straight up ....

Edited March 22, 2015 by back to earth

[kmt_sesh]

It helps to keep the geyser going straight up ....

Stop! No mention of the "G" word, I beg you.

[back to earth]

On a more serious note. would such iron, in nay case, make a better chisel or pic or ... than the metal they were already working with ?

" ... (iron) today is known to be so hard and durable, but in fact, while pure iron is harder than pure copper, it is less hard than hammered copper and certainly far softer than bronze. Although while iron can be strengthened by the addition of carbon to make steel, this would still not make it superior to hammered bronze. It is only when steel is cooled in water (quenched) that its strength becomes vastly superior to hammered bronze.

"Thus unless iron is 'steeled' by the addition of carbon, hardened by quenching and then heated to reduce brittleness, it does not have the hardness, strength and ability to take a cutting edge as bronze did. Although non of these processes is difficult on its own, they all differ considerably from those practices that would have been familiar with bronzesmiths.

" ... Studies of iron artefacts dated to around the eleventh century BC show that sometimes iron tools or weapons where of high quality and sometimes they were virtually useless. "

[ He goes on to explain how perhaps shortages of materials for making bronze (mostly tin ) led to continued experimentations in the production of " this tricky metal" . When that happened people found that the raw material was all around and in most places, the new non-reliance on the centres and commerce for tin production, export and need radically changed things. ]

'Journeys from the Centre of the Earth - How geology Shaped Civilisation.' Iain Stewart.

[back to earth]

Stop! No mention of the "G" word, I beg you.

[Jarocal]

It helps to keep the geyser going straight up ....

81' 3" straight up in the air!

Go team geyser!

[Hanslune]

Stop! No mention of the "G" word, I beg you.

Oh, NO saying the 'G' word reminds me of this quote from 4th Corinthians 2:16-24

Verily, there came to the people a lesser man, a false prophet

Who spoke and spoke and yet said nothing

The people ran to hide but could not be hidden

More of the empty words of the false prophet did they hear

Until the cried out

Oh, Lord save us from this torment

The Lord stopped the geyser of words

And gave the false prophet a Sisyphean task

To build a ramp from heaven to hell

[cladking]

10. There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning.

I Corinthians 14

Copper smelting furnaces can get out of control and produce iron since most copper

ores are rich in iron that usually comes off with the slag. "Iron" is mentioned a few

times in the {T but it could be bad translation.

749b. N. equips himself with his firm (or, iron, shining) limbs.

1983e. who opened thy mouth with their copper (or, iron) fingers.

13c. I open for thee thy mouth with the nwȝ, the mśḫtiw-hook of copper (or, iron), which opens the mouth of the gods.

There are also a few instances where the concept of iron might be inferred.

[Kenemet]

This topic was discussed elsewhere, and we learned that the samples taken were of the "black grains" or black dots or black marks seen on the blocks in the chamber in the pyramid. If you remember SC's latest attempt to prove a Vyse forgery of the cartouche, you may remember seeing reddish-black granules in the limestone. This is what they sampled.

So, yes, it's iron, and it's actually all throughout the limestone and not on the surface.

And, as was said, was formed in the sea during the Eocene, and iron is a common impurity found in limestone.

[stereologist]

Iron compounds come out of solution due to biological action. Iron sulfides precipitate and can form either pyrite or marcasite. The 2 minerals form in different pH environments. Pyrites can continue to undergo chemical changes. Other minerals are formed. That is why the iron appears as nodules throughout a rock. It is being "collected" by life.

[cokenrum44]

Iron inside the pyramids ? Lol im sure there are plenty of reasonable explanations, not paranormal on why it would be there.

[cladking]

Iron inside the pyramids ? Lol im sure there are plenty of reasonable explanations, not paranormal on why it would be there.

Everything has always had a perfectly reasonable explanation that sounds paranormal to the unintiated.

I wager there's plenty of other iron to be found in the Great Pyramid if they ever go look.

[Swede]

Copper smelting furnaces can get out of control and produce iron since most copper

ores are rich in iron that usually comes off with the slag.

The iron found in association with Cu ores is generally in the form of iron sulphides such as pyrite (FeS₂) and pyrrhotite (Fe1-xS). Pyrrhotite is a pseudomorph of pyrite. Pyrite is not a metal, but a mineral salt. The heating of pyrite results in sulfur and pyrrhotite. Continued heating will result in iron oxide (Fe₂O₃), better known as rust.

Thus, the Fe sulphides associated with Cu ores are not suitable for metallurgical production. More refined attempts have been made and resulted in a material too brittle for functional application.

.

[back to earth]

10. There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and no kind is without meaning.

I Corinthians 14

Copper smelting furnaces can get out of control and produce iron since most copper

ores are rich in iron that usually comes off with the slag. "Iron" is mentioned a few

times in the {T but it could be bad translation.

Errrmmm ... you missed the point entirely ... try making a working, stone cutting chisel out of slag.

749b. N. equips himself with his firm (or, iron, shining) limbs.

1983e. who opened thy mouth with their copper (or, iron) fingers.

13c. I open for thee thy mouth with the nwȝ, the mśḫtiw-hook of copper (or, iron), which opens the mouth of the gods.

There are also a few instances where the concept of iron might be inferred.

Oh ... I see ... you just suggested that copper, really means 'iron' , a substance that you yourself claim the Egyptians knew about .... but couldnt tell apart from copper ... or they could, but just used the same word for it anyway. Although I admit, a ritual or symbolic tool can be made of anything because it has a different function - a symbolic one ... not a working one, where it has to be made from a suitable working material. ( A ceremonial gold weapon is a good example.)

[cladking]

Errrmmm ... you missed the point entirely ... try making a working, stone cutting chisel out of slag.

If a copper smelting furnace runs out of control it can smelt the iron impurities in

the ore right along with the copper. The iron is heavier and will collect in the mon-

key below the copper or will be tapped if there is sufficient volume.