__________________

The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved, Davidovits

, -

10

Great Pyramid Passages and Chambers, J M Edgar

11

Ancient Egypt : The History and Technology, E Malkowski 12

Operations carried on at the pyramids of Gizeh ,H Vyse

13

16

17

18

19

20

22

36

39
2



; ,
.
, , ,
,
, ,
.
, , , , , , , ,
. ,
, , ,
. , ,
,
,
, , .
,
, 51.
, , .
( ),
, IV , (
) XII XVIII
. XII , XVIII XIX
54. VI ,
XVIII ,
XIX XX XXVI .
sinopis rubrica, , ,
55, , , .
.
, ,
, , ,
, . ,
. ,
, ,
, , ,
, , .
,
, ,
. ,
.
-
59 ( , ).
,
, , , .

The Pyramids: An Enigma Solved, Davidovits

The sample from the Great Pyramid provided by Lauer is topped with a white coating overlaid with a
brownish-red surface coloration. Such coloration appears also on a few remaining outer casing blocks
of this pyramid and ries from brownish red to greyish black. There has been long debate about whether
the coloration is a type of paint or a patina, the latter resulting gradually from desert weather conditions.
Attempting to show that the casing block coloration of the Khufu (Kheops or Cheops) and Khafra
(Khefren or Chephren) pyramids is a paint, Andre Pochan, in 1934, analyzed the coloration appearing
on these pyramids [43]. His tests revealed the resence of minerals highly uncommon in limestone,
leading him to conclude that the coloration could not be a patina because that would require a migration
of minerals from within the stone itself. He therefore proposed that some type of hard, siliceous binder
was applied and painted over with a pigment of red ochre. A. Lucas accepted the validity of Pochans
chemical analysis but disputed the presence of a deliberate coating. Lucas maintained that the coloration
is a patina. Lauer and K. L. Gauri, of the Stone Conservation Laboratory of the University of Louisville,
in Kentucky, also maintain that the coloration is a patina. Pochan and Lauer hotly debated the issue for
twenty years. Lauers opinion carries great weight among peers, and he had the last word on the subject
because he outlived Pochan. The chemistry of geopolymerization serves to settle this issue as well.
Because Pochan had already analyzed the red coloration, I analyzed only the underlying white coating
appearing on the white coating from the Great Pyramid. I submitted Lauers sample to two different
laboratories employing experts with diverse backgrounds in geology and mineralogy, Combining our
expertise, I was amazed to find a tremendously complex geopolymeric chemical system in the white
coating. Its principal ingredients are two calcium phosphates, brushite and crystalline hydroxyapatite,
both found in bone, and a zeolite called ZK-20. The coating is pure geopolymeric cement. It is the key
to the composition of the pyramid stone. This binder is infinitely more sophisticated than the simple
gypsum and lime cement by which scholars have characterized Egyptian cement technology. Indeed,
the binder is even more sophisticated than I had expected. Even though Pochan did not understand the
chemistry involved, he was nevertheless correct in his surmise that the red coloration is synthetic. As he
knew, the minerals thought to have migrated are highly uncommon in natural limestone. In any case, the
amount of minerals present in the stone is too small to form a patina. Additionally, the minerals in the
red coloration, like those in the white coating, are insoluble and, therefore, could not have migrated, nor
could minerals have migrated through the white coating to form a red coloration. Furthermore, the
sample I analyzed exhibiting the red coloration came from the pyramids interior where it was
unaffected by weathering. Finally, using a microscope, I observed two cracks in the red coating of this
sample. One crack is deep and exposes white limestone, making it much more recent than the coating.
The other crack is ancient, and it is filled with the red coloration. The color was obviously painted on
because it filled the crack. The coating and coloration are truly remarkable alchemical products,
showing no blistering or other appreciable deterioration after about 4,500 years. In fall of 1992, a
geologist, James Harrell, University of Toledo, approached my assistant Margie Morris. She agreed that
Harrell be allowed to perform additional tests on the Lauer sample. He classified the limestone as
natural limestone and the coating as man-made. Harrell never gave back the sample to Mss. Morris. He
told her that in his effort to prove the natural limestone case, he destroyed the Lauer sample. He never
stated that my claim on the presence of organic fibers was wrong. [43b]. Geologists who have analyzed
the pyramid blocks have recognized no known adhesives holding the stone together. Not realizing that
the unusual minerals in the stone comprise the binder, they have not recognized the stone as
reconstituted limestone. Likewise, researchers recognize no known chemical composition to justify a
man-made coating and coloration on the stone. A report that typifies the reaction of
geologists to this material is amusing. A geologist was commissioned by the owners of a collection of
limestone artifacts from ancient Egypt to prove them to be natural stone because museum authenticators
9

interested in the collection detected that the stone was artificial. They opined that the pieces must,
therefore, be fakes. Trying to prove the natural origin of the limestone, the geologist claimed that perhaps
some extraterrestrial system, far in advance of our own, might possess the technology required for
producing such stone, but lacking proof of that, we of the earth must consider the stone to be of natural
origin. I shall come back to this extraordinary statement in a later chapter. There is a historical account
that supports the presence of paint on the Great Pyramid, and it also mentions remarkable pyramid
cement. The following remarks were made by Abd el Latif (13 century AD): These pyramids are built
of large stones, ten to twenty cubits [16.6 -33 feet] in length by a thickness of two to three cubits [20 - 30
inches] and a similar width. What is worthy of the greatest admiration is the extreme precision with
which the stones have been dressed and laid one over the other. Their foundations are so well leveled that
one cannot plunge a needle or a hair between any two stones. They are cemented by mortar which forms
a layer the thickness of a sheet of paper. I do not know what this mortar is made of; it is totally unknown
to me. The stones are covered with writings in ancient characters whose meaning today I do not know
and nowhere in all of Egypt have I met anyone who, even by hearsay, is able to interpret them. The
inscriptions are so numerous that if one were to copy on paper merely those on the surface of the two
pyramids, ten thousand pages would be filled. Even though the paper-thin cement would afford no
appreciable cohesive power for adhering one block to another, it is assumed that the builders,
nevertheless, applied a thin coating of what is assumed to be ordinary lime-gypsum plaster. But Abd elLatifs account shows that the Arabs, who were producing lime-gypsum plaster and lime mortar more than
3,000 years after the Great Pyramid was built, found the thin cement completely unfamiliar and quite
impressive. Paper- thin mortar is a by-product of geopolymerization that forms when there is excess
water in the slurry. The weight of aggregates squeezes watery cement to the surfaces, where it sets to
form a skin. We may never learn much more about the colored hieroglyphs cited above. Abd el-Latif s
report was made shortly before the earthquake of AD 1301. Cairo was destroyed, and most of the outer
casing blocks were stripped to rebuild the city. That the pyramid stone is reconstituted limestone has
eluded several individuals who might have recognized it. It never occurred to Jomard and de Roziere that
the pyramid stone was a concrete when they observed the jumbled shells in 1801. Only poor-quality
cement was produced after the fall of the Roman Empire in AD 476. Portland cement was invented only
in 1824. It was not manufactured until the 1830s. Pochan recognized the coloration on the pyramid
blocks as synthetic because it contains minerals uncommon in limestone. It follows that had he analyzed
the pyramid stone as well, he would also have recognized it as the result of manmade reagglomeration,
especially if he had considered the work of le Chatelier. And in 1974, the revelation eluded researchers of
SRI International. Their team attempted to locate hidden chambers in the Great Pyramids of Giza. The
project failed, however, because the pyramid stone contains so much moisture that the electromagnetic
waves would not transmit, and were instead absorbed by the stone. This was unexpected because the
natural limestone bedrock at Giza is relatively dry.

, -
, ,
. ,
, , .
, ,
, , ,
. , ,
(. Vyse. Operations carried on at the
pyramids of Gizeh in. 1837, vol. II, London, 1841, p. 171.)

10

Great Pyramid Passages and Chambers, John and Morton Edgar

http://archive.org/stream/GreatPyramidPassagesVol11910Edition/1910_Great_Pyramid_Passages_Vol_1#page/n1
42/mode/1up/search/casing

This morning at seven o'clock, Mr. Covington and I measured the casing-stones at the north front of the
Great Pyramid. Captain Norton, a friend of Mr. Covington, is making a sketch of these stones, and our
measurements may be of service to him. We found that while they are of a uniform height, they vary
greatly in both width from east to west, and in depth inward toward the core masonry at the back.
The first stone to the east of the long row of casing-stones is by far the largest. It measures about 4
feet 11 inches high, and is 6 feet 9 inches wide from east to west. In depth it measures 8 feet 3 inches
along the base line to the core masonry. This is only the apparent depth, however, for it extends inward
for still another two feet beyond the core block to the east of it, and thus the actual base measurement
from front to back is 10 feet 3 inches. The cubical contents of the block is about 200 cubic feet ; and
its weight is approximately 19 tons. This weight is three tons more than Professor Flinders Petrie
estimated (see Par. 86) ; he evidently was not aware that the stone extends beyond the core block to the
east of it, the debris, now cleared away by Mr. Covington, having no doubt concealed the upper jointlines. This extra depth can be seen very well in a photograph which I took with my camera erected on
top of the first course of the core masonry, some distance to the east of the casing-stones-Plate XLIII.
It will be noticed in this photograph that the fourth casing-stone also extends back a good distance (See
also Plate XXVII); its base depth is even more than that of the first stone, being 11 feet 4 inches ; but its
width is only 5 feet as against 6 feet 9 inches for the first stone. The other stones vary in width from 3 feet
4% inches to 5 feet 3 inches, a fair average width being 4 feet 6 inches.

11

Ancient Egypt : The History and Technology Edward F Malkowski

12

Operations carried on at the pyramids of Gizeh in 1837: with

an account of a voyage into Upper Egypt
Howard-Vyse, Richard William Howard, 1784-1853; Perring,
John Shae, 1813-1869
http://archive.org/stream/operationscarrie02howa#page/n9/mode/2up

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

We carefully checked the surfaces of the Phase I blocks for incised or painted marks but none were found. Two
blocks showed chiseled lines, probably marking where the block was to be cut. A few others had a red patina on the
bottom but we never determined whether it was paint or merely the result of iron oxide in mortar which had fallen
away from the surface of the blocks.
http://www.gizapyramids.org/pdf%20library/hawass_lehner_fs_leclant.pdf

20

In 1853 Auguste Mariette found the so-called Inventory stela, or the stela of the daughter of Cheops (Khufu). It was
found on the east side of the Clc pyramid and dated to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty. The stela indicates that the
Sphinx was repaired in this period. To this period may be attributed the major layer of restoration masonry on the
upper part of the Sphinx's body on the south side. This layer, composed of smaller slabs than those of the Old
Kingdom, was laid over the earlier (phase I) layer of Thutmose, the surface of which was cut away in phase II,
however, for fitting the new stones. It is important to note here that the restorers did not remove the Old Kingdom
stones from the Sphinx. The Saite restoration also focused on the Sphinx's tail and on the nemes headdress. The
Egyptians of this period may also have painted the Sphinx. There is no evidence, however, of any excavations
around the base of the Sphinx. Even Herodotus is silent on the Sphinx, suggesting that it was at least partially
obscured by sand.
http://www.gizapyramids.org/pdf%20library/hawass_sphinx.pdf

21


, , 1970 .
, .1
.
, ,
, ,
.
, , .
, - ,
nTr , 2 nTr nfr.
, , .
. .
,
. -
, , .
nTr nfr
, ,
( , ..),
, ,
. ( ) ,
, nfr
, .
-, , ,
nTr nfr . . ,
,
,3 , ,
. ,
, , ,
:
, , .
- (, dieu
parfait dieu bon) .
- . , .
dieu bon dieu rayonnant, nfrw .4 ,
.
5
: der gute Gott (Wb. II, 361362).
, ,
. , ,
. ,
.
1

.
. . G. Posener. De la divinit // Cahiers de la Socit
asiatique XV. Paris, I960.
2
nTr , ,
. ,
, , .
3
., , . . . // -
. .. 3. ., 1915. . 34.
4
A. Moret. Du caractre religieux de la royaut pharaonique // Annales du Muse Guimet. Bibliothque
dtudes. T. XV. Paris, 1902. P. 296297.
5
A. Erman und H. Grapow. Wrterbuch der gyptischen Sprache. Bd IV, Neudruck. Berlin 1955. : Wb.

22

 nTr nfr . nTr aA

, (Wb. II, 761). , ,
, ; (
), ( ).
,
nTr nfr, nTr aA,6
.
.
. . ,
, : wnnw-nfrw (Wb. I, 311, 1), ouenabre
(-.), ouenofre (.), Onnwfrij.7 , , .
, wnn,
. nfr (Good Being),
, r (. noufe).
:
. . 8 nfr ..
, , -, ,
, .... , ,
nfr ., ,
, , , nfr
nTr nfr, neither physical beauty nor
ethical goodness nor yet passive happiness.
. ,
nfr, nTr nfr wnnw-nfrw. ,
, ,
.
nfr deplorably flat and lacking in the sap of
life,9 , , ,
(notion of young, new, triumphant life)
nfr nfr (Wb. II, 258, 12), nfrt
(Wb. II, 258, 610), nfr (Wb. II, 261, 1516).
- nfr,
( I, 206).10

. , the good god nTr nfr (defensible)
(satisfactory alternative). nfr
, ,
, (undertone)
nTr nfr the vigorous god the youthful god
(far too crassly explicit).
the good god :
.11
6

Cp. H. Junker. Gza II. Wien und Leipzig, 1934. S. 54.

A.H. Gardiner. ONNWFRIS // Miscellanea academica Berolinesia. Bd. II/2. Berlin, 1950. S. 4453.
8
.
. . ( // 128, I952. ,
, . 3. . 212220). . . . . . .,1958. I77178;
. . . . ., 1963. 30; . . . -
. ., 1965. . 8586.
9
A.H. Gardiner. ONNWFRIS. S. 52.
10
A. de Buck. The Egyptian Coffin Texts. 7 vols. Chicago, 19351961.
11
A.H. Gardiner. Egyptian Grammar. Oxford, 1950. P. 75.
7

23

 nTr nfr . ,
, , .12
,
, ,
, , .
, , , ,
, nfr, ,
, .13
nfr, , ,
, , , , ,
nfr Hr .14 , ,

. ,
, , .
wnnw-nfrw,
, ,
. ,
? , .
.
( ) nfr,
, .15
nTr nfr, ,
. nTr nfr , wnnwnfrw , , ,
(nj-swt-bjt) , nTr nfr
pa . , nTr nfr
, (der verjungte Gott).16
, ,
- . , ,
(Reichsgott) .
, , . ,17 ,
. ,
, (nTr aA),18
(nTr aA).19 IV
,
. ,
, .
nTr nfr, .

H. Stock. NTr nfr = der gute Gott? Hildesheim, 1951 = Vortrge in Marburg, N6. : Stock.
Wb. II, 257, 810. cp. II, 262, 1116; 263, 2; A. H. Gardiner. Egyptian Grammar. Third Edition. Oxford,
1956; E. Edel. Altgyptische Grammatik. Bd. II. Roma, 1964. 11301140.
14
, , +
, . ,

.
15
Der Sich-Verjungende, der Wiedererstehende (Stock), 11.
16
Stock, 12.
17
H. Junker. Gza II. S. 5457.
18
Grter Gott (Stock, 12). , -, (Junker, Gza II, 47),
nTr aA . der groe Gott, der grte Gott ( , ),
wrw mAww jwnw,
( . . . Gardiner. Ancient Egyptian Onomastica. Vol. II. Oxford, 1947. . 267268), wrw
Smaw 10 10 ..
19
Stock, 1213.
12
13

24

 . , .
( ),
. .
P. O.
, - nTr nfr the good god.20
, , , wnnw-nfrw, ,
, , , - .
, , , .
, , , ,
. , ,
,21 - .22
nn liquet.
nfr
nTr nfr , ,
, nfr. , ,
, nTr nfr.
,
, . ,
, ,
,
. , ,
( I, 206c) nfrw
(Wb. II, 258, 12), nfrwt , (Wb. II, 258, 610), nfrw .
, , , nfr,
. .

, , . , nfr
, ,
.

nfr. ,
, (, ).
. nfr tm,
o . , ,
,
.23
.
. , , , ,
.24 , (
nfr ) , ..
: . .
, . , ,
-
nfr,
, - .
20

R. O. Faulkner. A Concise Dictionary of Middle Egyptian. Oxford, 1962. P. 142.

. . Drioton et J. Vandier. LEgypte. 4me dition. Paris, 1962. .8889.
22
E. Blumenthal. Untersuchungen zum gyptisthen Knigtum des Mittleren Reiches. I. Die
Phraseologie. Abhandlungen der schsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Philologisch-historische
Klasse. Bd. 61, Ht. 1. Berlin, 1970. S. 2425.
23
E. Edel. Altgyptische Grammatik. Bd. II. Roma, 1964. 1130.
24
H. Junker. Gza V. Wien, 1941. S. 158.
21

25

 , , TAw nfr
(, , , ) Hr nfr
( ).
, nfr
: , , ..
bjn (Wb. II, 254, 25), Dw ,
(Wb. V, 546, 13), aHA , (Wb. I, 216, 10).
- ,
? , , ,
, .
, , ,
, . , ,
, , ,
.
, , ,
. , , ,
, , , , nfr.
II nfr , an an
, .25 (, ) nfr o
.
, nTr nfr.
nTr nfr
(Wb. II, 361, 10)
( 14, 41).26
, ,
(Ddf-raw).27 -
, .28
.
nTr nfr
nTr nfr
(Wb. II, 362, 23).
- ,
.
, , . 29
(Sinai 10).30 ,
nTr aA ( )31 nbw tAwy (nTr aA,
) , : nTr nfr nbw tAwy (nTr
nfr, ). , ,32
, .
- ,
nTr nfr , nTr nfr,
. nTr aA, .
25

W. K. Simpson. Accounts of the Dockyard Workshop at This. Papyrus Reisner II. Boston, 1965. Section K 1, 1, d; O.
D. Berlev // BiOr. 26 N 1/2, 1969. P. 64.
26
L. Borchardt. Statuen und Statuetten von Knigen und Privatleuten im Museum von Kairo, I. Berlin, 1911.
27
H. W. Mller. "Der Gute Gott Radjedef, Sohn des Re" // AZ 91, 129133.
28
R. Weill. Monuments gyptiens divers // R.Tr. 36, 1914. P. 84, pl. V, 1.
29
K. Sethe. Urgeschichte und lteste Religion der gypter. Leipzig, 1930. 157, S. 129, Anm. 1.
30
A. H. Gardiner, T. E. Peet, J. erny. The Inscriptions of Sinai. III vol. Oxford, 19521955.
31
H. Junker. Gza II. S. 47 ff.; A. H. Gardiner and K. Sethe. Egyptian Letters to the Dead. Oxford, 1928. P. 1112.
32
. . Gardiner. Horus the Behdetite // JEA 30, 1944. . 48.

26

 nTr aA nTr nfr nbw tAwy ,

, . ,
nTr nfr nbw tAwy . .
, , , nTr nfr
.
.

33 45 ( XII )
: nTr pn nfr nbw nj ntjw HqA nj jwtjw nTr nfr, , , ,
(.. ) ( 1, 199, b).

, nTr nfr
, ...34,
XIII . , wnn-nfrw
nTr nfr wnn-nfrw, , nTr nfr , (nTr Ax),
(CM 20086, 20766,35 Rio de Janeiro
62936).
nTr nfr XII ,
37 (njswt), (nj-swt-bjt) (.
Siut I, 233234;38 Louvre C239). , , ,
.
nTr nfr .
.
nTr nfr

nfr
, ,
.
,
. ,
.
, , ,
bHdtj, .40 nTr aA nbw pt
nTr aA, . nTr nfr nbw jrt jxt nbw tAwj
nTr nfr, , . .
, nTr aA nTr nfr.
, nTr aA nTr nfr, , ,
. . .
: nTr aA , nTr nfr
. -
. ,
nTr nfr, .
33

A. H. Gardiner. ONNWFRIS. S. 5152.

34
, . . H. Jacobsohn. Die
dogmatische Stellung des Knigs in der Theologie der alten gypter. Glckstadt, 1939.
35
H. O. Lange und H. Schfer. Grab- und Denksteine des Mittleren Reichs im Museum von Kairo. Berlin, 19021925.
36
B. van de Walle. Un hymne du Moyen Empire complt au moyen de deux stles du Muse National de Rio
de Janeiro // RdE 3, 1939. P. 9197.
37
A. H. Gardiner. ONNWFRIS. S. 4950.
38
P. Montet. Les tombeaux de Siout et de Deir Rifeh // Kmi 3, 19301935. P. 45 ss.
39
A. J. Gayet. Muse du Louvre. Stles de la XIIe dynastie. Bibliothque de lco1 des Hautes

27

 nTr aA
, nTr aA : , (Wb. II,
361, 17).
: qej mgaj, qej mgaj megaj, trismgistoj. , , -
, , nTrw aA, qeo megloi,
nTr aA , ( ) , , .
nTr aA ,
.
nTr aA , , nbw pt .
grter Gott, .41
.42

,
, bHdtj nTr aA
nbw pt, bHdtj, nTr aA, . 43
(Htp-Hr.s),44 45 (snfrw) .
bHdtj , ( III ).46
bHdtj .
bHdtj bHdt ,
. , , nTr
aA, , (
) nTr nfr.47
V ,
, .48 , , ,
. ,
, . ,
. ,49 ,50 ,51
; . , ,
, ,
. ,
I
: nj-swt-bjt .52 , ,
, . .

. bHdtj.
:
1) nj-swt-bjt;
2) ,
. Junker. Gza II. S. 47 ff.
H. Stock. NTr nfr. S. 1415.
43
. . Gardiner. Horus.
44
W. S. Smith. A History of Egyptian Sculpture and Painting in the Old Kingdom. 2nd edition. Oxford, 1949. P.
324, 326, fig. 204.
45
. J. erny. The true form of the name of king Snofru // RSO 38, 1963. P. 8992.
46
. . Gardiner. Horus. P. 48, n. 4.
47
sAb Swt , .
XI nbw msn ( ) msn. .
48
Sinai, 10.
49
H. Schfer. Weltgebude der alten gypter. Berlin-Leipzig, 1928. S. 113 f.
50
K. Sethe. Urgeschichte. 155 ff.
51
. . Gardiner. Horus. P. 4748.
41
42

28

 , , ;
3)
,
nTr nfr, ;
4) , (
III),53 , ,
, , ,
, ,
bHdtj.
, , , . ,
, ,
. nTr nfr, , ,
nTr aA,
. , (
), . .
, , (Sinai, 10). nTr nfr,
, , , ,
nTr aA, .
, nTr aA, ,
bHdtj. , , bHdtj .
. nTr aA nTr nfr ,
, ,
nTr nfr , , ,
.
,
, , ,
, .
,
Sinai, 100, .
, . , ,
, . , ,
, .
, (. Court.,54
XXVI). , .
, .
( () II)
.55 , ,
., .56
XVII ,57
, .
III, II58 I59 ( ),60
, ,
.
53

R. Cottevieille-Giraudet. Mdamoud. Les monuments du Moyen Empire. Le Caire, 1933 =

Fouilles de lInstitut Franais dArcheologie Orientale du Caire (Anne 1931) T. IX, 1. Pl. 1; A. H. Gardiner. Horus. Pl.
IV.
54
W.M.F. Petrie. Tombs of the Courtiers and Oxyrhynchus. London, 1925.
55
R. Cottevieille-Giraudet. Mdamoud. Pl. VI.
56
M. Hammad. Dcouverte d'une stele du roi Kamose // CdE 60, 1955. P. 204, fig. 14; A. H. Gardiner. Horus.
57
J. erny. Stela of Emhab from Tell Edfou // MDAIK 24, 1969, Pl. XIII.
58
R. Cottevieille-Giraudet. Mdamoud. Pl. V.
59
K. Sethe. Das Jubilumsbild aus dem Totentempel Amenophis I. Nachrichten der kgl. Gesellschaft
60
der Wissenschaften zu Gttingen. Philologisch-historische Klasse. Berlin, 1921. S. 31 ff. . . .
. - ( ) // , 3, 1956.

, , !
29

 , ,
.
nTr aA nTr nfr
. ,
, , , . nTr aA,
nTr nfr. . .
. .
, . ,
nTr aA, nTr nfr, .., , aA nfr
, .
, ,
, , , .
: rn aA rn nfr: , , .
rn aA rn nfr
,
rn aA rn nfr.61
rn aA, , ,
. . ,
(rn nfr)
,
.
rn nfr
. , ,
(CM 20088, ). ,
, ,
. , P.Lansing 20,3:62
, . , , ,
.
, rn nfr,
, I. ttj-m-zA.f,
nfr, ttj, 63
, rn nfr
, 64
rn aA
, , . , nfr.
, (Wb. II, 428). ,
, .. , .
nfr
, , rn aA.
, ,
rn nfr (CM 28003).65 ,
.
, rn nfr.
rn nfr , ,
61

. H. Junker. Die Stele des Hofarztes Irj // Z 63, 1928. S. 5370; H. Ranke. Die
gyptischen Personennamen. Bd. II. Glckstadt, 1952. S. 68.
, rn aA rn nfr, , , .
62
A. H. Gardiner. Late Egyptian Miscellanies. Bruxelles, 1937. Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca, VII.
63
J. E. Quibell. Excavations at Saqqara (19071908). Vol. . Le Caire, I909. P. 113114, pl. LVII.
64
K. Sethe. Kurznamen auf j // Z 57, 7778.
65
P. Lacau. Sarcophages antrieurs au Nouvel Empire. Fasc. 12. Le Caire, 19031906.

rn nDs. rn nfr rn nDs rn aA,

, , , nfr = nDs.
30

 , aA nDs :
, , .. , .. ,
. , .
nDs nfr, aA.
nfr ,
aA nDs
.
, aA nfr/nDs
( , , , -
) , . rn
(rn aA) (rn nfr / rn nDs),
.. , .
, , .
,
, , , .. . ,
, , - .
, .
. ,
. ,
: , .
,

. .66
, ,
,
, .
- (DG II, 10)67
rn mAa , , , ,
rn nfr. ,
,68 XXX (ASAE 20, 100),
rn mAa Dd.tw n.f (Wb. II, 428, 15).
, rn mAa rn nfr ,
rn nfr. , , ,
.69
, aA nfr .

aA wrw
.
.
wrw , ,
aA.

, ,
, .
I II
jmj-rA Hwt wrt 6 6 ()
H. Kees. Zu Knigsnamen in groen Namen // Z 64, 1929. S. 9291.
N. de Garis Davies. The Rock-Tombs of Deir el Gebrawi. Vol. II. London, 1902.
68
. H. Ranke. Die gyptischen Personennamen. Bd. II. S. 6.
69
rn nfr, rn mAa : 1) (
) 2) .
66
67

jmj-rA Hwt aAt 6. ,

31

 .
zSw nj xnrtj wrw, zSw nj
xnrtj aA.70
wrw aA wrw
, aA,
.
,
rn , .
wrw , , .
rn wrw .71
. , wrw ,
, aA.
.
, ,72
III, ,73 ,
,
, , .
, ,
, .
. 74
, , ,
.75 , ,
.76

, ( -) .
.
, , rn
nfr rn aA.
. , .
nTr aA nTr nfr
aA nfr ,
nTr aA nTr nfr. , ,
, , , .
nTr aA nTr nfr.
,
, , , ,
, ,
.
, , ,
: . , ,
70

O. D. Berlev // Bi.Or. XXVI. P. 64.

Wb. II, 427, 2021; A. H. Gardiner. Egyptian Grammar. P. 71.
72
K. Sethe. Historisch-biographische Urkunde der 18. Dynastie. Bd. I. Berlin, 1961 (Neudruck). S. 261, 3, 1417.
73
Aegyptische Inschriften aus den Kniglichen Museen zu Berlin. Bd. I. Leipzig, 1913. S.
268.

. . . . ., 1917. . VI, VII.

74
H. Mller. Die formale Entwicklung der Titulatur der gyptischen Knige. Glckstadt, 1938. gyptologische
Forschungen, Ht. 7. S. 63 ftf.; S. Schott. Zur Krnungstitulatur der Pyramidenzeit. Nachrichten der Akademie der
Wissenschaften in Gttingen. I. Philologisch-historische Klasse, Jg. 1956. Nr. 4. Gttingen, 1956.
75
V nfr-jrj-kA-raw kAkAj, nj-wsr-raw jn, Dd-kA-raw jzzj.
76
(mrj(w).n-raw nmtj-m-zA.f). K. Sethe. Die altgyptischen Pyramidentexte. S. XII, 5.
71

11

32

: ,
, , ( V
: ).77
.
, nTr nfr .
nTr nfr
, .
.
nTr nfr , , . , ,
: nTr nfr ,
,
.
nTr nfr ,
,
,
.78 , ,
, ,
. ,
nTr nfr.
,
,79 ,
. , ,
IV .
,
,
, .
,
.
e .
, ,
80 ,
.


, , , ,
, , .
:
, , , ,
: . .
, , ,
,
, . ,
. ,
, ,
. , , nTr nfr.
, .
77

K.Sethe. Urkunden des alten Reichs. Leipzig, 1932. S. 183, 9.

H. Mller. Der gute Gott. S. l32.
79
A. . Gardiner. Horus. P. 48, n. 4. I
(H. Schfer. Weltgebude. S. 113 f.).
80
. . . , . H. Mller. Die formale Entwicklung. S. 5557.
78

33

 ?
-
. , , , ,
, , , , ,
. , , ,
.81 ,
, , , .
.
,
. ,
wDA-Hr-rs-nt
mswtj-raw, .82


. ,
.

, nTr aA nTr
nfr. nTr aA (jst-jrt nbw Ddw nTr aA nbw AbDw ,
, , ) X ,83
XI .84 XII ,
, . nTr aA
, , , ,
. ,
,85 , .86
87
, nTr aA nbw pt nTr aA nbw jmnt
nTr aA, . 88 , .
(nTr aA nTr nfr)
,
wnnw-nfrw.
,
(nj-swt-bjt), , ,
, nTr nfr. , wnnw-nfrw
, .. .
81

. .
( . . . . . M.-., 1956. . 8689,
142). , , , , , ,
Sw, , .
, ,
, . H. Schfer. Weltgebude. S. 113.
82
G. Posener. La premire domination rs. Le Caire, 1936. P. 126, 1.13 = Bibliothque dEtude. LInstitut
Franais dArchologie Orientale. T. XI.
83
Ny Carlsberg 1615 (M. Mogensen. La glyptothque
Ny Carlsberg. La collection gyptienne. Copenhague, 1930. Pl. LXIVLXV),
X (mrj-kA-raw). Cp. Ny Carlsberg 1616 (M. Mogensen. La glyptothque. Pl. XCVI).
84
Cp. LD II, 148, d.
85
Cp. W. C. Hayes. Career of the Great Steward Henenu under Nebhepetre Mentuhotpe // JEA 35, 1949. Pl.
IV; Torino 1534 (G. Maspero. Rapport M. J. Ferry, ministre de linstruction publique, sur une Mission en Italie //
R.Tr. 3,
1882. P. 115117).
86
,
. ., , H. Schfer. Priestergrber und andere Grabfunde vom Ende des Alten Reiches bis zur
griechischen Zeit vom Totentempel des Ne-User-R. Leipzig, 1908. S. 36, 37, 39.
87
. . s. Totenglauben und Jenseitsvorstellungen der alten gypter. Berlin, 1956. S. 132.88 H. Kees.

34

 , , :
. ,
, .
,
.

, , nTr nfr, ,
, nTr aA ,
.

.
,
. . ,
, , .
. ,
.
, , ,
. (, )
, ,89 .
, -. ,
, , .90
, , , , ,
. ,
.
,
. ,
, .91 ,
.92 . ,
, ,
.
, -,
. IV V , nTr aA nTr nfr,
. ,
-
(, , )
, , .
.
, , ,
.
, nTr aA , nTr nfr ,
IV V ( VI)
. , , ,
, , ,
,
89

, R, 58 (A. M. Blackman. Middle-Egyptian Stories. Bruxelles,

1952. Bibliotheca Aegyptiaca, II).
90
Urk. IV, 608610.
91
, . .
,
, .
92
. Junker. Gza II. S. 47.

35

 (, , )
. , ,
, , , ,
, (. Sinai, 10).
,
,
, , .
,
: , - , , , ,
, , , .

4-
,


.
, . :
-
,..
. , , , ,
.. ,
.
, ..
. ,
, , -
,
150 .

37

38

PROCEEDINGS OF THE TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON CEMENT MICROSCOPY

QUEBEC CITY, PQ, CANADA MAY 20 -24, 2007
The Lauer Sample The famous Lauer Sample reportedly came from the surface of a wall of inner casing
stones in the Ascending Passageway of the Great Pyramid of Khufu leading to the Grand Gallery
(Davidovits 1983, 1986, Davidovits and Morris 1988). Perhaps among the most studied pyramid samples,
various results on analysis of the Lauer sample were extensively published by the researchers from both
sides of this debate (Davidovits 1983, 1986, 1987, Davidovits and Morris 1988, Morris 1991, Harrell and
Penrod 1993). The sample reportedly contained a white coating with a red-colored surface (Davidovits
1983, 1986). Since two pieces of the Lauer sample received for this study do not include any
untreatedpristine hand specimen, the following description is a summary of previous reports on
thissample from both sides of the debate (Davidovits 1983, 1986, 1987; Morris 1991 quoting Lauer
Sample descriptions by Zeller, and McKinney; Harrell and Penrod 1993). The following descriptions
highlight only the observations that are apparently consistent in all views and did not received any fierce
criticisms. Light gray, fine grained, dense calcareous rock containing oval to spherical voids and
laminations along hair-line fractures filled with calcite. There is no apparent bedding, and one side of the
specimen appears to have been painted (or enameled) with a resinous ochrecolored material. The rock
underneath the coating exhibits a texture similar to wood grain. (McKinney, mentioned in Morris 1991)
One side of the specimen is coated with a dark reddish brown material (probably a kind of paint) that
was applied to the original surface. The matrix is generally compact, light yellowish in color and mottled.
It is relatively fine grained, and has the megascopic appearance of a carbonate rock. (Zeller, mentioned
in Morris 1991). The Lauer sample is a highly porous, recrystallized, fine-grained bioclastic
39

limestone.(Harrell and Penrod 1993). This study also identified the coating mentioned in previous
studies and gave a thickness of approximately 1 mm.
http://www.cmcconcrete.com/CMC%20Publications/2007,%20The%20Great%20Pyramid%20Debate,%2029th%20ICM
A.pdf

40

41

42

43

44

45

46