> Moores (1991) presents evidence that they were used at Giza
> from the tool marks on the basalt pavement.
He presents a theory from the marks to match the saw he invented for them. There is evidence of saw marks but not his saw. These saws would certainly have been quite the spectacle with saw overseers and the like. No carvings, paintings, titles, or evidence of the saw itself or the workers? I'm not saying they couldn't have had a saw as he envisions, but you are stating it as point of fact when it simply is not, and the point is that it does not explain the different kinds of cuts that are seen as I said.
> Why is it unlikely.....
For a corner cut to have been made with a pendulum drag saw?
> A drag saw blade shaped like the curve of a circle on a single
> pendulum could produce curricular arcs too when drawn back and
> forth........ Hey, I am not against small hand-powered circular
> saws, it's a pretty simple concept...... it's the absurd 11
> meter in diameter pyramid-powered ones of Dunn (2008) that I
> have a problem with. That is what that second image you posted
> is trying to suggest..... since it is from that article.
Come on Archae. Be honest with yourself. When you ignore the obvious just to save face so you can debunk anything and everything it doesn't make you seem very intellectually honest. Those cuts are made from a circular saw as is what is seen at Abu Roash. Instead of pretending it didn't exist why not figure out how it did? A circular wet saw solves a lot of problems, as does hand powered circular grinding wheels, and is a very simple concept so there shouldn't be much of a hang up about it. I am not part of the Dunn discussion-I just saw that you presented the lamest pictures possible to prove your point and offered a more honest alternative so that a real discussion could be had.
> So...... 10 years of work on granite casing stone (they would
> work on stone casing procurement and dressing while the pyramid
> was being built) yields 30 blocks one meter cubed for the
> first-time amateur team that never improves. Do you really
> think the multible teams of workers were not better trained and
> better skilled than Stocks (2001) was?
Of course-so it only took the Egyptians 1 month to cut one block with a copper saw instead of 4 months? Absurd. Replace copper with bronze and it at least makes a little more sense. I don't understand the insistence at every turn of imposing the most impractical means on the AE requiring the most amount of effort when it is completely unnecessary to do so given we already know they used bronze and had the wheel. The number one thought on any craftsman's mind is to find the right tool for the job to eliminate as much unnecessary effort as possible while maximizing proficiency for the task which is the opposite of what is being imposed on the Egyptians whom we know were highly intelligent and innovative. I really don't see what the big deal is about a circular saw especially considering that is what the saw marks require.
> Other than hollowing sarcophagi, door sockets, and a few other
> tasks the coring of granite and other hardrocks was not that
> widely used in masonry. It was used mostly in stone vessel
So, because it wasn't used much it was ok to be as inefficient and time consuming as possible by insisting on using the worst material possible for job?
> Where does he claim this because in Lehner (1997 p211) he
> states hundred to thousand were needed to finely dress the Tura
> limestone casing on the 4th dynasty pyramids (copper and copper
> alloy chisels don't work on granite)? The vast majority of the
> core limestone masonry is not finely dressed so chisels were
> not much used there either.......
I thought this is what he said on a recent Nova special regarding carving the Sphinx. I believe he said millions but I reduced it to hundreds of thousands so I guess I misquoted him.
Pounding stones are even more inefficient not to mention back breaking labor. They obviously used pounders, but I find it hard to believe they would have used them to a fraction of the extent that would have been required in lieu of other tools better suited for the task.
Copper and copper alloy chisels don't work on granite and yet there is Stocks and Moores telling us they used copper drills and saws?
> >we are to add hundreds if not thousands of 13ft copper saws
> >to this total?
> So....... it's not like it was a wasted.
But the point is that they would have needed too much of it. And the wood constantly reshape them.
> The technological level to produce them was know and the marks
> they produce are evidenced on artifact, after artifact, after
> artifact. It is pretty clear that the coring drill arose out of
> stone mace and vessel manufacturing that was going on for about
> 500-1000 year before the Great Pyramids was built.
But once again the tool itself is nowhere to be found which is the point-the tools are gone.
> >And why is it the carpentry tool kit is present since
> >pre-dynastic times in relative abundance either physically or
> >pictorially, and yet this same tool kit Egyptologists modify
> >try and impose on stone working is nowhere to be found?
> Some of it is..... for example the hieroglyphic symbol for
> "craft/art" during the Old Kingdom is a stone boring tool
> (Stocks 1993).
So basically none of it is, like I said. And this is for bead, vase making, and the like is it not and has nothing to do with construction stone masonry.
> No, it's based on the fact that the ancient Egyptian understood
> what a saw was and the hieroglyphic above indicated that they
> understood that rock could be cut by grinding...... it's not
> that much of a leap to imaging they had the intellect to put
> these 2 simple concepts together to produce the cut rocks with
> tool marks that are completely consistent with such.
So, they have the intellect to support the use of the tools you want them to use despite the fact they were not invented in China for several hundred years later, but not the intellect to use the tools you don't want them to use? None of these tools have been found and regardless are not indicative of what is seen in many of the saw marks.
> It's not all missing a lot of the other less expensive tools
> are still around.... At least the ancient Egyptians understood
> what saws and drills were and how to make copper and bronze
> tools during the 4th dynasty. There is absolutely no evidence
> other than the blocks themselves that 11 m in diameter
> mega-saws, powered by the pyramid, and made of advance metals
> ever existed at all...... absolutely nothing.
Where did I say anything about these tools being "powered by the pyramid"? In fact you quote me directly below where I clearly state I do not support the use of "power tools"? Is bronze or iron an "advanced metal"? I'm not going to argue with you about something that is not my argument again so if this is what you are all about all the time I guess the best thing to do is just ignore you. But regardless, by your own admission other than the marks on the block there is no evidence for the circular saw but there is also no evidence for your pendulum or bow saw either other than the cuts so what is your point? Yes, they understood drills and saws and they also understood the wheel. If these cuts were made by a circular saw then that is what it was. Not that difficult all things considered.
> There are known bronze and arsenic copper alloy tools and other
> artifacts from the Old Kingdom, and a depiction of a wheeled
> scaling ladder (with axle) from the 5th dynasty as well.
But they say all they used were copper tools and did not use the wheel or beasts of burden.....
> No one believes what Petrie claimed in his early book in this
> regards and since he never claimed that again, even in his
> other books on rock worked objects, one would think he no
> longer did either. Petrie makes a number of other claims in
> that early book in regards to worked rocks, some of them are
> not correct......
No one? You mean no pseudoskeptic.
Let's see what Petrie says:
"The methods employed by the Egyptians in cutting the hard stones which they so frequently worked, have long remained undetermined. Various suggestions have been made, some very impractical; but no actual proofs of the tools employed, or the manner of using them, have been obtained..."
"The typical method of working hard stones - such as granite, diorite, basalt, etc.- was by means of bronze tools; these were set with cutting points, far harder than the quartz which was operated on. The material of these cutting points is yet undetermined; but only five substances are possible - beryl, topaz, chrysoberyl, corindum or sapphire, and diamond. The character of the work would certainly seem to point to diamond as being the cutting jewel; and only the considerations of its rarity in general,...interfer with this conclusion."
" Many nations,..., are in the habit of cutting hard materials by mean of a soft substance (as copper, wood, horn etc.), with a hard powder applied to it; the powder sticks in the basis employed, and this being scraped over the stone to be cut, so wears it away. Many persons have therefore very readily assumed(as I myself did at first) that this method must necessarily have been used by the Egyptians; and that it would suffice to produce all the examples now collected. Such, however, is far from being the case; though no doubt in alabastar, and other soft stones, this method was employed."
"That the Egyptians were acquainted with a cutting jewel far harder than quartz, and that they used this jewel as a sharp pointed graver, is put beyond doubt by the diorite bowls with inscriptions of the fourth dynasty, of which I found fragments at Gizeh; as well as the scratches on polished granite of Ptolemaic age at San. The hieroglyphs are incised, with a very fre-cutting point; they are not scraped or ground out, but are ploughed through the diorite, with rough edges to the line. As the lines are only 1/150 inch wide (the figures being about .2 long), it is evidence that the cutting point must have been much harder than quartz; and tough enough not to splinter when so fine an edge was being employed, probably only 1/200 inch wide. Parallel lines are graved only 1/30 inch apart from centre to centre."
"We therefore need have no hesitation in allowing that the graving out of lines in hard stones by jewel points, was a well known art. And when we find on the surfaces of the saw-cuts in diorite, grooves as deep as 1/100 inch, it appears far more likely that such were produced by fixed jewel points in the saw, than by any fortuitous rubbing about of a loose powder. And when, further, it is seen that these deep grooves are almost always regular and uniform in depth, and equidistant, their production by the successive cuts of the jewel teeth of a saw appears to be beyond question..."
"That the blades of the saw were of bronze, we know from the green staining on the sides of the saw cuts, and on grains of sand left in a saw cut.
The forms of the tools were straight saws, circular saws, tubular drills, and lathes.
The straight saws varied from .03 to .2 inch thick, according to the work; the largest were 8 feet or more in length..." "...No. 6, a slice of diorite bearing equidistant and regular grooves of circular arcs, parallel to one another; these grooves have been nearly polished out by cross grinding, but are still visible. The only feasible explanation of this piece is that it was produced by a circular saw."
"These tubular drills vary in thickness from 1/4 inch to 5 inches in diameter, and from 1/30 to 1/5 inch thick. The smallest hole yet found in granite is 2 inch diameter."
"At El Bersheh... there is a still larger example, where a platform of limestone rock has been dressed down, by cutting it away with tube drills about 18 inches diameter; the circular grooves occasionally intersecting, prove that it was done merely to remove the rock."
"...the lathe appears to have been as familiar an instrument in the fourth dynasty, as it is in the modern workshops. 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 of its centring, recentred imperfectly, and the old turning not quite turned out; thus there are two surfaces belonging to different centrings, and meeting in a cusp. Such an appearance could not be produced by any grinding or rubbing process which pressed on the surface. Another detail is shown by fragment No 15; here the curves of the bowl are spherical, and must have therefore been cut by a tool sweeping an arc from a fixed centre while the bowl rotated. This centre or hinging of the tool was in the axis of the lathe for the general surface of the bowl, right up to the edge of it; but as a lip was wanted, the centring of the tool was shifted, but with exactly the same radius of its arc, and a fresh cut made to leave a lip to the bowl. That this was certainly not a chance result of hand-work is shown, not only by the exact circularity of the curves, and their equality, but also by the cusp left where they meet. This has not been at all rounded off, as would certainly be the case in hand-work, and it is clear proof of the rigidly mechanical method of striking the curves."
Sounds reasonable enough to me. I'm sticking with Petrie on this one.
> Pounded quartz..... how is that suppose to work?
Coating the blade. Just spitballing as an alternative to "jewels".
> Bronze may help a bit with the limestone chisels.
Just a "bit"? If Lehner shows you get 5-10 minutes chisel time on limestone per copper chisel then how many copper chisels does one bronze chisel replace? And wood to heat the furnace to make and constantly them?
> work well with copper, it's an ideal lapping material still
> used today. Do you really think that extreme added expense is
> going to help that much here? Remember, it's not the metal that
> does the cutting it's the abrasive that the metal drags along
> with it that does.
Does it look like the AE were too worried about the "extreme added expense" to you? And this isn't just one construction job we are talking about but hundreds of years of monumental stone working before this technology supposedly appears around 2000BC. All things considered this is a wise if not required investment and in the long run would save an infinite amount of "expense". They imported the finest most expensive cedar wood boats yet couldn't cough up the extra dough for some bronze to haul back on these boats from the people they were already trading with who had bronze knowing full well it would make their job of monumental stone working infinitely easier? Come on. The Egyptians were notorious for taking the technologies of others and making them better so it stands to reason they easily understood the value and potential of bronze which would have been pennies on the dollar compared to manufacturing and maintaining copper tools alone. And how is it more expensive to import say, 1000 bronze chisels (or the raw material to make them) than it is to mine, forge, and gather the tons of wood (in a desert) to make 10,000 copper ones? Figure 9 [www.oocities.org] you show a bronze chisel found at Medum that the placard says "was probably lost by workmen of Rameses II when stripping the pyramid", but why Rameses II? Just because its bronze? Maybe it was used by the workers at Medum and is an example of one of these "lost" tools. And concerning abrasive materials, this obviously accomplishes next to nothing as Stocks has plainly shown. All it does is make the copper able to be used at all but its still absurdly inefficient if the tool is copper.
> They are not..... since stone precaution tools can be used for
> most of the rough dressing of rocks (and in some cases fine
> dressing...... this has been shown by a number of experimental
> researchers such as Stock (2003) and Zuber (1956). The chisels
> were mostly used for fine dressing of limestone.
But they are. Insisting on pounders and copper implements alone with no wheel or beasts of burden is untenable and the simple fact is they didn't have to and must have used more efficient tools and methods.
> >How many copper chisels does one bronze chisel replace? 10?
> >100? 1000?
Seriously-how many? I would be interested to know.
> It's called a flint pecking hammer (its a simple version of the
> modern bush hammer used in stone carving) and the AEs used that
> simple but effective tool as well as others to finely carve
> statues, hieroglyphics. etc..
What does a flint pecking hammer have to do with replacing copper tools with bronze, the wheel, or beasts of burden?
> I suggest you read Nicholson & Shaw (2000) it will help you
> fine tune your common sense since it discusses in considerable
> detail the material and technologies known to the ancient
> Egyptian civilization.
> Nicholson, P.T. & Shaw, I. (2000) Ancient Egyptian materials
> and techniques. Cambridge University Press, New York, 702 p.
You mean like on p.7 where they talk about the uncertainty of the tools used and the problems with the theory of copper chisels and the controversy surrounding what tools were used for the extraction of granite and other hard stones, and that there is evidence of some form of pick axe among other now missing tools?
Post Edited (23-Feb-13 21:24)