701 replies to this topic

[kmt_sesh]

Abramelin, on 04 May 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

Show us your proof, or admit you don't have any.

You thought you had THE answer, but up to now you didn't prove anything; the videos you posted didn't do much good either.

And you must likely have no idea what a 'skeptic' is supposed to be.

You said you had the answer, so why didn't you show us.


.

Abramelin, what if we don't have all the answers? Will that implode your world? I admitted it in an earlier post that we cannot answer everything. We have the tools which archaeologists have recovered, as well as our understanding of geology and how stones behave under certain stresses, and that is usually all we have to go by. We can only frame theories by the limits of extant evidence, so anything beyond this is mere speculation. If you're not satisfied with the extent evidence, what is your explanation for who these things were done?

[questionmark]

Abramelin, on 04 May 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

Show us your proof, or admit you don't have any.

You thought you had THE answer, but up to now you didn't prove anything; the videos you posted didn't do much good either.

And you must likely have no idea what a 'skeptic' is supposed to be.

You said you had the answer, so why didn't you show us.


.

Show me where I said any of what you claim. I guess you jumped over to the fringe making it up on the go.

[the L]

I didnt see any hieroglyphs done in granite with copper here.
Neither jars carved in hard stones with copper.

[the L]

Look mama, teacher lied to us, should be title of thread.

EDIT: Or look mama, no fine work in granite withouth diamond saw.

Edited by Melo, 04 May 2012 - 06:59 PM.

[questionmark]

kmt_sesh, on 04 May 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

Abramelin, what if we don't have all the answers? Will that implode your world? I admitted it in an earlier post that we cannot answer everything. We have the tools which archaeologists have recovered, as well as our understanding of geology and how stones behave under certain stresses, and that is usually all we have to go by. We can only frame theories by the limits of extant evidence, so anything beyond this is mere speculation. If you're not satisfied with the extent evidence, what is your explanation for who these things were done?

I don't think it is all the answers, it is that he does not like the answer given. This grudge started when I said that ancientpolygon's diamond saw was pure hogwash.

[the L]

questionmark, on 04 May 2012 - 06:01 PM, said:

You are not a skeptic, you have a desperate need to be right. Somebody should have said that a long time ago.

Whats wrong being right?

[Harte]

Melo, on 04 May 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

I didnt see any hieroglyphs done in granite with copper here.
Neither jars carved in hard stones with copper.

Likely because glyphs done in granite are usually newer.  IOW, done with bronze.

Not that copper couldn't do it.

Most glyphs are done on a sort of plaster, an not actually in stone at all, when they're not just painted on or written on papyrus.

Harte

[Harte]

Melo, on 04 May 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

Look mama, teacher lied to us, should be title of thread.

EDIT: Or look mama, no fine work in granite withouth diamond saw.

That's just crap.

Very fine work can be done in granite using nothing but other stones, not even metal tools.

Ignorance is no excuse.

Harte

[questionmark]

Purifier, on 04 May 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:

Yeah that sounds plausible, but still, you'd think they would've of found some kind of tool pertaining to that by now. Not necessarily the whole thing, and obviously minus the abrasive material, but for instance: Like maybe a pair of handles with worn rope notches, or even a small shredded piece of rope attached to one broken handle, something along that physical nature.



Right, that's the hypothesis that I heard of or seen on some TV programme. Been trying to find a technical image myself.

Oops, looks like with the bickering I missed that one.

See, a typical tool find in a dig looks like this:

and then gets sorted in the Egyptian museum by materials. While it is quite easy to see the purpose of some pieces the other pieces could be all kinds of things.

More interesting is going to a ancient Egyptian dictionary and find this:
 drill.jpg   12.11K   11 downloads

Where you see that they had a very specific word for sand to work stone with.

[kmt_sesh]

Melo, on 04 May 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

I didnt see any hieroglyphs done in granite with copper here.
Neither jars carved in hard stones with copper.

Most of the carving, per se, was not done with copper when it came to hard stones. This was especially true in the prehistoric, Early Dynastic, and Old Kingdom contexts. Stone was used to work stone, while copper chisels and abrasives did the finishing work, as well as inscriptions. Copper chisels were probably used more industriously with soft stones like limestone, for which they were more than up to the task.

Do you understand how strong these chisels and other copper tools were? It seems some of the people displaying chronic astonishment don't have a very good idea in the first place how these tools were made and how strong they actually were.

[questionmark]

kmt_sesh, on 04 May 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

Most of the carving, per se, was not done with copper when it came to hard stones. This was especially true in the prehistoric, Early Dynastic, and Old Kingdom contexts. Stone was used to work stone, while copper chisels and abrasives did the finishing work, as well as inscriptions. Copper chisels were probably used more industriously with soft stones like limestone, for which they were more than up to the task.

Do you understand how strong these chisels and other copper tools were? It seems some of the people displaying chronic astonishment don't have a very good idea in the first place how these tools were made and how strong they actually were.

Besides the little fact that they hardly were copper but copper alloys, some of the harder than iron.

[kmt_sesh]

questionmark, on 04 May 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:

Besides the little fact that they hardly were copper but copper alloys, some of the harder than iron.

Yes, thank you, "alloy" is the word I should've remembered.

And a note to any and all who might read this: diamonds were not known in pharaonic Egypt, so dispense with any notion of diamond-tipped tools. I'm perfectly aware that Petrie himself entertained this fiction, but there is simply no hint of evidence to substantiate it. Let's stick with reality, and reality clarifies that these were a people of the Bronze Age.

[questionmark]

After a long search I finally found some good images of Egyptian stone tools tools:

One is on Stephen Critchley's homepage, not an archeologist but a mason who likes to recreate ancient methods:



That would be a complete set and all in copper, demonstrations on how to carve stone with it are available from Mr. Critchley.

[questionmark]

kmt_sesh, on 04 May 2012 - 08:15 PM, said:

Yes, thank you, "alloy" is the word I should've remembered.

And a note to any and all who might read this: diamonds were not known in pharaonic Egypt, so dispense with any notion of diamond-tipped tools. I'm perfectly aware that Petrie himself entertained this fiction, but there is simply no hint of evidence to substantiate it. Let's stick with reality, and reality clarifies that these were a people of the Bronze Age.

If you use quartz sand you are not so far away from a diamond tipped tool. Anything less hard than that,  which would include feldspar and therefore most rocks, can be cut with it. Even most steel varieties are not that hard.

Edited by questionmark, 04 May 2012 - 08:25 PM.

[Purifier]

questionmark, on 04 May 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

Oops, looks like with the bickering I missed that one.

See, a typical tool find in a dig looks like this:

and then gets sorted in the Egyptian museum by materials. While it is quite easy to see the purpose of some pieces the other pieces could be all kinds of things.

More interesting is going to a ancient Egyptian dictionary and find this:
drill.jpg

Where you see that they had a very specific word for sand to work stone with.

Gotcha' ya, I see what your saying - that there is a possibilty that some of the saw tools we're talking about here, may have been found and might be in a vault or museum somewhere, just like some of the items in this picture, but not yet identified. Correct?

And that is interesting about the Egyptian words for drill and sand, I've been looking at that for a while now.


(Just joking around here, but if I didn't know better I'd swear to god some of those items in the pic, look like a set of wooden driver hammers with a pair of stakes for killing vampires in their sleep, while the needle like items remind me of my grandmother's crochet needles, but only just ancient Egyptian versions.)

questionmark, on 04 May 2012 - 08:19 PM, said:

After a long search I finally found some good images of Egyptian stone tools tools:

One is on Stephen Critchley's homepage, not an archeologist but a mason who likes to recreate ancient methods:



That would be a complete set and all in copper, demonstrations on how to carve stone with it are available from Mr. Critchley.

Looks like I see a stone saw tool (ropes with handles) on the far right of that picture, similar to what you mentioned earlier. Is that specifically what you were referring to Questionmark?

(I would love to have a set of tools like that, just to have a go at it. Bet they cost a pretty penny though.)

Buy the way, I think I finally find a technical pic of the copper blade with weighted rocks saw tool, you and I were discussing about earlier.
 copper_slabbing_saw_dry_sand_abrasive_experiment.jpg   24.6K   11 downloads (Click on the pic to get a better look)
Is this what you were thinking of? For me, it's exactly the method and tool I was thinking of.


So anyway, thank you for the insight on all of this, Questionmark. I've gained a little more clarity about the possibilty of Egyptian stone cutting saws.

Edited by Purifier, 05 May 2012 - 04:09 AM.