>Archae Solenhofen wrote:
>>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.
It explains the saw cuts for the basalt pavement which a giant circular saw does not......... so why are the others saw cuts not explained by other adaptations of this simple sawing process? I have stated something like "possible" for Moores' saw a number of times in this thread........
>>Why is it unlikely.....
>For a corner cut to have been made with a pendulum drag saw?
It does not need to be in that position, it can be cut in another orientation before placement in the pavement......... the evidence clearly shows they were using the saw mainly for trimming of these blocks so that they would fit together better not cutting at them after the blocks were in place.
>>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.
"Obvious"? I guess, as in an 11 meter high curricular saw blade and all that goes along with it...... that's absurd, you really should already know that. So it's not a giant circular saw that cut that block..... it's something else.
>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?
I did in the original text above....... "A drag saw blade shaped like the curve of a circle on a single pendulum could produce curricular arcs too when drawn back an forth........". Does that not better explain what is claimed in Dunn (2006) than an 11 m high curricular blade, weighting tons of some advanced metal, mounted on some giant advanced bearings, and powered by the Great Pyramid's Earth vibration energy generator? After all, if they mount a copper blade in the form of a segment of the periphery of a circle to the length of a single pendulum equal to the circles radius, when it is swung in one direction it makes a circular arc just like a giant circular blade would. Of course, this simpler version does not need to be spun, it can be swung back and forth and it can be powered by people and not some imaginary advanced power supply.
>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
These are not 11 meter circular saws....... Small circular saws only solves the "problem" for the very few examples of claimed circular striations which are a small minority.
>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.
Tell that to Mr. Dunn because all those examples I posted are claimed/insinuated to one degree or another to be advanced machining........... involving sonic drills and saws
>>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.
Why....... it's still needs the copper to make the bronze, and it's actually the quartz sand that does the cutting not the bronze? What improvement do you think they are going to get there other than a small reduction in the rate of wear? It's not going to influence the cutting rate that much, if at all.
>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
Then why do modern lapidary industries not use diamond for all their rock working....... they usually use abrasives like synthetic aluminum oxide or silicon carbide which are both more than considerably less hard than diamond.... and therefor less efficient? For heaven's sakes, they're still using quartz sand to work rock even today.
>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.
Again, the image you provided was claiming the saw marks indicated a circular saw that was not a foot in diameter, or a meter...... it was 11 meters. That is completely absurd.......
>>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?
It's not the worst material....... it's still used today as a lapping material.
>>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
Well, it's more then quite clear that it was used to work rock on a regular basis..... it's how they quarried limestone by trenching.
>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.
Like what specifically? And make sure that is actually constant with the tool marks on the limestone blocks.
>Copper and copper alloy chisels don't work on granite and yet
>there is Stocks and Moores telling us they used copper drills
Copper and copper alloy chisels are percussion tools. Lapidary means..... it's cut with an abrasive (i.e. quartz sand). The copper is the lapping material it holds the abrasive in place as it is pushed over the cut surface of the rock. The lapping material needs to be softer than the abrasive and rock being cut for it to work effectively. That is why they are using copper...... because it actually works well for such.
>>>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.
Based on what..... Just like a copper saw it's not going to bend if it is used properly. A bronze saw is going to wear away too, and it's only about 30% harder than copper and copper arsenic alloy can be very close to the hardness of bronze. Remember, that the block that was in that photo above was supposed to be cut with an 11 meter high circular saw. How many of these considerably smaller saws could they make from just one of those ridiculously absurd ones? BTW, Egypt was wetter than it is today during the Old Kingdom, they has a lot more trees and they had not yet been all cut down. The Nile Valley has a lot of land........
>>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.
So what..... clear evidence of the technological knowledge to produce such is still in the archeological; record. So what do you think..... that if the tool is not there anymore this somehow opens a void for any claim can now fill it? We have already seen how that lead absolutely nowhere of relevance with that 11 meter high saw.
>>>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 to
>>>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
>So basically none of it is, like I said.
There is actually quite a bit of it...... I'm not going to list every example it would fill up this messageboard. I suggest you do a bit more research on this subject before you start claiming " basically none"......
>And this is for bead,
>vase making, and the like is it not and has nothing to do with
>construction stone masonry.
Since both involve the lapidary and percussion cutting of rock one might think otherwise.
>>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,
So........ were the ancient Chinese building stone pyramids at 2500 BC or making stone vessels? When the Chinese needed such technology they were quite capable of figuring it out for themselves, as they clearly did....... the ancient Egyptians seem to not be able to for some reason, at least for some here.
>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.
How so..... straight striation, sweeping striations, circular striations, smooth surfaces....... how are these not consistent with various adaptations of a copper drag saw and sand abrasive?
>>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
You are the one who posted an image from an article claiming 11 meter high circular saws..... how was that powered...... by a giant treadmill? It was called GizaPowerPlant for a reason.......
>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.
Again you posted an image from Dunn (2006) which is claimed to show the result of such. If you don't except that it was made with an 11 meter high circular saw blade then what was it made with? I gave you a reasonable explanation as to how such an object could be made..... you choose to ignore it.
>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?
Drag saws and bow drills were known to the ancient Egyptian. We know that because they are depicted in tomb representation and we also have examples of these tools from the archeological record. Both of these tools can be adapted to the working of rocks quite easily.
>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.
An 11 meter high one? I have already stated that they could have had small hand-powered circular saws since it is a simple concept. Not a lot of saw cuts are circular or sweeping, they are usually straight. There are a number of different drag saw adaptations that they are using including ones without the aid of a pendulum, or a jig to hold the saw.
>>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.....
Because there is not much evidence for it......
>>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
>No one? You mean no pseudoskeptic.
I mean "no one" who is qualified to make comments about such........
>Let's see what Petrie says:
>"The methods employed by the Egyptians... snip>"
That's Petrie (1883)...... that's 130 years ago!
Petrie, W.M.F. (1883) The pyramids and temples of Gizeh. Field and Taer. London, 250 p.
>"The typical method of working hard stones..... snip>"
Petrie (1883) didn't appear to understand that diorite and basalt and a lot if those other extras don't have any quartz in them.
>" Many nations,..., snip>"
Petrie (1883) didn't appear to understand that quartz sand abrasive can cut granite..... which is telling because it was commonly used for such in the late 1800s.
>"That the Egyptians were acquainted with a cutting jewel.... snip>"
Stone vessel making tools are now used for masonry....... above you stated something like they were irrelevant to the discussions about such. Remember "And this is for bead, vase making, and the like is it not and has nothing to do with construction stone masonry". However, there is no problem if you wish to change your mind for some reason. Do you have an image of any of these diorite bowls because I have been looking for one for years..... so I can determine its validity. The problem is that he also make claims about the grooves on this object and what is claimed is not necessarily there:
(height. 11 cm. The Petrie Museum, Photograph by Jon Bodsworth (The Egypt Archive)
However..... if it is true, so what? During the Old Kingdom the ancient Egyptians were importing lithic materials from quite far from Egypt so the odd diamond or corundum is certainly a possibility. There is apparently not a lot of examples of this type of work, so it's not like it was a commonly used tool, whatever it was. BTW, as I pointed out to you about a month ago the only diorite vases that are known were made out of hornblende diorite which is actually softer in 2 of its 3 varieties since they were quarried from a deposit that was hydrothermally altered (Aston 1994). These diorites have very little to no quartz so it really should be easier to work than granite considering that its primary minerals plagioclase feldspar and hornblende have hardness less than 6-6.5 on Mohs scale (less when altered with clay minerals). Maybe by "diorite" he meant diorite gneiss or anorthosite gneiss which are different rocks, but again the mineralogy does not contain any quartz and the minerals are all less than 6-6.5 on Mohs scale. Quartz will be able to scratch all these rock........
Aston, B.G. (1994) Ancient Egyptian stone vessels: materials and forms. Heidelberger Orientverlag, Heidelberg, 196 p.
As for scratches on granite, quartz abrasive can scratch granite.
>"We therefore need have no hesitation ... snip>"
Again, they were not using powder..... it's quartz sand. The same thing that was routinely used to cut granite in the late 1800s, The use of quartz produces horizontal striations when cut with just a drag saw.
Do you know of any examples of anyone, anywhere in the entire real history of lapidary cutting of rock ever using this type of saw........ the answer is no and for a good reason, it does not work well at all. Remember, when you stated this above "lamest pictures possible to prove your point"....... you do understand that those are all described in Petrie (1883) as being cut with those jewel incrusted tools right, including that core above?
>"That the blades of the saw were of bronze,.... snip>"
Copper saws leaves green stains too...... No 6 is a pretty small sample from a small stone vessel...... if that case that circular saw was not 11 meters in diameter, it was more than considerably smaller.
>"These tubular drills vary in thickness...... snip>"
So........ here is an image of one that is considerably smaller. It's travertine, calcite is slightly harder than your fingernail so it's not that hard to carve by lapidary working.
Unfinished travertine stone vessel marked with red paint for coring with drill, possibly 6th Dynasty (height c. 7 cm. The Petrie Museum, Photograph by Jon Bodsworth (The Egypt Archive)
>"At El Bersheh... snip>"
So........ again it's coring limestone.
>"...the lathe appears to have been as familiar an instrument ..... snip>"
The only prerequisites for a lapidary lathe is that the object being worked and the grinding tools be held ridged as the object is rotated. Doesn't have to be high speed or high pressure type tool, only enough pressure to cause abrasion between the grinding surface and the object being worked, which really isn't that, much. All that would be needed is an adaptation of the potter's wheel, stone borer, or the bow-drill. Pole-lathes are tools that rotate the object back and forth rather than spinning it. If a simple lathe was used by the ancient Egyptians, I would suspect that it was used as just a finishing tool. All the rough work would be done by percussion and other types of lapidary techniques for rough shaping stone objects. The problem with the lathe as a regularly used tool is the general lack of evidence of such from woodworking (there are only a few possible examples of such before the Graeco-Roman Period).
Petrie (c1977) states they were made mostly by grinding, that for both predynastic and dynastic vessels the outer forms were first rough shaped by chipping (percussion) and then rubbed down with blocks of emery (grinding (these would have actually been made of sandstone)). Predynastic stone vessels were shaped by rubbing the grinding blocks diagonally in an up and down type motion. In dynastic bowls the grinding was done "circularly in a block". Petrie (c1977) mentions lathes twice, and in both these cases it is in the context of modern forgeries..... he uses the less specific "turned" to describe some ancient Egyptian stone vessels' worked interiors. The problem as I see it, is the observations Petrie (1883) was using to come to the conclusion that lathes were used. It seems that most of it is based on the inner surfaces of bowls that exhibited striations. These can be more easily explained by the stone boring tools which is spun inside of the vessel that is held in place. Stocks (1993) demonstrates this method for the hollowing out of vessels with sand abrasive. For the purpose of hollowing other vessels Petrie (c1977) states for most they first used a coring drill and then the stone boring tool not a lathe.
Petrie, W.M.F. (c1977 (1932)) The funeral furniture of Egypt: with stone and metal vases. Aris & Phillips, Wiltshire, 65 p.
Stocks, D.A. (1993) Making Stone vessels in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt. Antiquity, 67, 596-603.
>Sounds reasonable enough to me. I'm sticking with Petrie on
It's from 1883...... more than a lot more research been done on many of thee objects since then.
>>Pounded quartz..... how is that suppose to work?
>Coating the blade. Just spitballing as an alternative to
Do you understand how exactly abrasives work? A quartz coated blade is not going to work very well for such..... it's the sharp edges on the quartz sand grains that do most of the cutting. The grains fracture in the process to produce new sharp edges but these edges quickly wear off and as a result new sand must be added periodically for the process to work effectively.
>>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?
Copper and copper alloy chisels would be used for fine dressing. The underside of the uraeus of the Sphinx still has tools marks on it from a percussion tool. That TV show also calculated it would take 3 years to quarry and carve the Sphinx with the tools known to the 4th dynasty ancient Egyptians based in part on the rates they obtained for their experimenting with modern replicas of such. BYW do you remember if they were using arsenic copper in those tests?
>>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
A bronze object was found in one of the Queen's Chamber airshafts when it was first opened along with a stone ball used for weight measurement. It appears to have been a small grapnel hook of some kind. It's possible they had some bronze chisels and use them (bronze objects are extremely rare)...... however, we know for a fact they were using copper chisels because pieces of them have been found imbedded in 4th dynasty limestone blocks on the Giza Plateau (Arnold 1991).
Arnold, D. (1991) Building in Egypt: pharaonic stone masonry. Oxford University Press, New York, 316 p.
>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?
Where are they getting the tin from and what evidence is there that this occurred on a vast scale? You are arguing that they did not have enough copper for the saws, so they need to be made of the more expensive bronze so they lasted longer....... but they are not going to because bronze is really not the much harder than copper and it's going to wear away too almost as fast. Do you really think they are going to blow all the wealth on just a small decrease in wear rate.
>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?
You have stated you have read the part of Nicholson & Shaw (2000) that states that the 4th dynasty Egyptians had arsenic copper alloy tools right?
>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.
And how is bronze going to change what you believe is "absurdly inefficient"? Again, bronze is not really that much harder than copper, hammer copper, or arsenic copper alloy, like about 0-30% depending on that they are using. Hardness is not the only thing bronze is useful for or why it was used over copper or copper arsenic alloy.
>>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.
Pounders and copper implements work....... and there is actual evidence supporting their use.
>>>How many copper chisels does one bronze chisel replace? 10?
>Seriously-how many? I would be interested to know.
You tell me.... I have no idea? How about for the arsenic copper which they also used?
>>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?
Didn't understand what "pounded quartz" was. A flint pecking hammer is an actual example of quartz being used to effectively pound something as demonstrated in the granite statue carving experiment of Zuber (1956)
>>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
>>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,
Actually, it was for limestone and it's pointing out that harder copper alloys (arsenic) artifacts were known during the Old Kingdom as opposed to just soft copper...... which I pointed out to you in a number of my previous posts. I suggest reading the section on metal production like it tells the reader to do.
>there is evidence of some form of pick axe among other now
Ya, in the quarries..... a lot of the limestone used in the GP is not that hard when it is first quarried; it's when it's been sitting out on the surface and it dries and casehardens so it becomes more difficult to work.
Archae Solenhofen (email@example.com)