701 replies to this topic

[the L]

3rd dynasty Granite vase in Cairo museum

[the L]

4 dynasty drill hole, ofcourse granite.

[questionmark]

the L, on 29 June 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

4 dynasty drill hole, ofcourse granite.

Ehm, yes. So your point is that they could not make it or something?

[the L]

questionmark, on 29 June 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

Ehm, yes. So your point is that they could not make it or something?

Or something.

For your stance and point of view they couldnt done vase in 646 post.

Edited by the L, 29 June 2012 - 07:01 PM.

[questionmark]

the L, on 29 June 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

Or something.

For your stance and point of view they couldnt done vase in 646 post.

Where you ignored Swedes post by your traditional method...  now that you say it, yes I remember

And the core above shows exactly what we have been telling you all the time: it was done wit a tube and abrasives, similar methods are still used today if you want to drill something really hard...like carborundum or diamond.

But feel free to put your fingers back in your ears.

[the L]

I dont want to go in circle here. I can tell you same thing as I tell before about Swede post.
Also I would like to say something you like to say: "Repeating something want become reality." That goes to fingers in my ears.
My point here is that vases like I posted before and tri lobed vase were not uniqe art. And then raises questions why they didnt done them in middle or new kingdom with iron tools and so on.
Anyway my point is simple.

[kmt_sesh]

the L, on 29 June 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

I dont want to go in circle here. I can tell you same thing as I tell before about Swede post.
Also I would like to say something you like to say: "Repeating something want become reality." That goes to fingers in my ears.
My point here is that vases like I posted before and tri lobed vase were not uniqe art. And then raises questions why they didnt done them in middle or new kingdom with iron tools and so on.
Anyway my point is simple.

There were no iron tools in either the Middle or New Kingdoms, both of which were still in the Bronze Age (Middle to Late, respectively).

Just because you're not seeing pictures on the internet of granite drill cores and lobed vessels from the Middle Kingdom or New Kingdom, doesn't mean they weren't produced in those later times. To be sure, as beautiful as stoneware vessels were in the earlier periods, those produced in the later periods were more sophisticated and elegant. That's to be expected, of course.

[the L]

kmt_sesh, on 29 June 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

There were no iron tools in either the Middle or New Kingdoms, both of which were still in the Bronze Age (Middle to Late, respectively).

Just because you're not seeing pictures on the internet of granite drill cores and lobed vessels from the Middle Kingdom or New Kingdom, doesn't mean they weren't produced in those later times. To be sure, as beautiful as stoneware vessels were in the earlier periods, those produced in the later periods were more sophisticated and elegant. That's to be expected, of course.

From diorite and granite?

[kmt_sesh]

the L, on 29 June 2012 - 10:03 PM, said:

From diorite and granite?

That and more, such as quartzite. Why would they stop using a stone their distant ancestors had used? They got only better at their techniques as time went on.

I'm also thinking of larger objects like statues and sarcophagi which were often carved from hard stones and beautifully embellished.

[ShadowSot]

Anyone remember the guys who escapes Alcatraz by using banjo string to cut through the iron bars set in the kitchen window?
It was a slow process, but they got out.

[questionmark]

ShadowSot, on 30 June 2012 - 11:46 PM, said:

Anyone remember the guys who escapes Alcatraz by using banjo string to cut through the iron bars set in the kitchen window?
It was a slow process, but they got out.

The "hardness" argument surely does not hols water because as everybody who has ever used a diamond saw knows that the saw wears down too, maybe much slower than the sandstone it cuts but sooner or later the diamonds will be used up.

Another good example is this diamond cutting machine:


Notice that the disk is made out of steel? According to the "copper can't cut .... (fill in as needed)" advocates that should not work either.... well ask the guys in the diamond district in Antwerp if it does not.

[jules99]

questionmark, on 01 July 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

The "hardness" argument surely does not hols water because as everybody who has ever used a diamond saw knows that the saw wears down too, maybe much slower than the sandstone it cuts but sooner or later the diamonds will be used up.

Another good example is this diamond cutting machine:
Notice that the disk is made out of steel? According to the "copper can't cut .... (fill in as needed)" advocates that should not work either.... well ask the guys in the diamond district in Antwerp if it does not.

Regardless. the  grooves left in the finished work discount abrasives in favour of a single cutting point. I cant see how any logic can point to abrasives when grooves are left...lets get this straight...abrasives smoooooth,,,while a cutting tool will leave single lines or spiral grooves as evidence.....Its already been established that Egyptian sand does NOT leave the marks found in turnings or drill cores, so an alternate explanation is required..I cant see why you are pursuing this argument.

Edited to remove picture...

Edited by jules99, 01 July 2012 - 11:17 AM.

[questionmark]

jules99, on 01 July 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

Regardless. the  grooves left in the finished work discount abrasives in favour of a single cutting point. I cant see how any logic can point to abrasives when grooves are left...lets get this straight...abrasives smoooooth,,,while a cutting tool will leave single lines or spiral grooves as evidence.....Its already been established that Egyptian sand does NOT leave the marks found in turnings or drill cores, so an alternate explanation is required..I cant see why you are pursuing this argument.

Edited to remove picture...

Abrasives are only smooth if the grains are uniform, else they cause grooves like anything else with an outstanding point.

[jules99]

questionmark, on 01 July 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

Abrasives are only smooth if the grains are uniform, else they cause grooves like anything else with an outstanding point.

Yes;
I would say have a closer look at the evidence but I suspect you will concoct any explanation to support the existence of uniform grooves as per uc. 15036 rather than a single cutting edge but see;

"Concentric cutting lines were also present after drilling with corнundum and diamond. Sand and crushed quartz must therefore be ruled out as possibilities, since they do not produce concentric abrasion lines. when used either dry or wet"

Maybe they used diamond after all?

[questionmark]

jules99, on 01 July 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

Yes;
I would say have a closer look at the evidence but I suspect you will concoct any explanation to support the existence of uniform grooves as per uc. 15036 rather than a single cutting edge but see;

"Concentric cutting lines were also present after drilling with corнundum and diamond. Sand and crushed quartz must therefore be ruled out as possibilities, since they do not produce concentric abrasion lines. when used either dry or wet"

Maybe they used diamond after all?

most probably not, or if they did it was by accident because there are no diamonds to be found anywhere near Egypt, and the few specimens we know of were too valuable as talisman. But we are talking a time when trade had become more prevalent, like the New Kingdom.

Having said that, quartz (Mohs 7) was known to the ancient Egyptians from the old kingdom on... but then again it is quartz contained in desert sand that did most of the abrasive work.

Edited by questionmark, 01 July 2012 - 01:20 PM.