701 replies to this topic

[Purifier]

jules99, on 15 June 2012 - 05:44 AM, said:

Well; we dont have any evidence of a straight ancient egyptian saw for cutting stone, we dont have evidence of tube drills though we know they were used, why would there be evidence of a circular saw ?
To the best of my knowledge the only examples relating to  circular saw marks that Ive heard of are from Petrie and the so called rosetta stone of Abu Rawash, do other references to these type of marks exist?

Not exactly sure what you're getting at, Jules. But I never seen any "circular saw marks" on any Egyptian blocks, not even in C. Dunn's photos on his website(s); like he claims. Look all like straight cut marks to me, but I guess it's easy for individuals like C. Dunn to technically over-analyze things like that.

[jules99]

Purifier, on 15 June 2012 - 07:07 AM, said:

Not exactly sure what you're getting at, Jules. But I never seen any "circular saw marks" on any Egyptian blocks, not even in C. Dunn's photos on his website(s); like he claims. Look all like straight cut marks to me, but I guess it's easy for individuals like C. Dunn to technically over-analyze things like that.

What Im getting at is there is evidence of tube drill use in ancient Egypt, though not of the actual bits used. There is evidence left in granite that straight slab saws were used to saw stone, though no evidence remains of these saws. Petrie describes;

"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."
But there are no existing remains of circular saws.....

Do you notice a pattern beginning to emerge here? No evidence left of the tools remaining..

Dunn references the so called Rosetta stone of Abu Rawash. He speculates that the concave rosetta stone was cut with a saw with arc radius 7.218m.
Circular saws are cited but I cant see why a pendulum style saw couldnt also scribe an arc or circular type cut.

[lilthor]

Harte, on 14 June 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

I wonder if you would mind telling us exactly what, in your opinion, would constitute evidence of absence?

Harte

Not to sidestep your question, but the 'saying' should more accurately read:  "the absence of evidence is not proof of absence."

So, in my opinion, a dearth of evidence actually does constitute evidence of something having not existed...but not proof.

[kmt_sesh]

Time Spy, on 15 June 2012 - 03:26 AM, said:

ME?  You're the one that doesn't get it.  Regardless of the date of the GP or the Sphinx, (10.000 BC  or 5000).  Iron objects IF they existed, you hear me, I said IF they existed, would be LONG GONE.  DO YOU HEAR ME NOW???   The earlist Roman objects of Iron are barely distiinguishable.  I thought you were an expert?  You mean you didn't already know that?  You see there it is people...

An Assyrian iron dagger:



Another Assyrian iron dagger:


Assyrian iron helmets:



Greek iron spearpoints of the Hoplite class:



An iron Macedonian helmet from the reign of Phillip II:



A Persian iron helmet from the battlefield of Marathon:



And, for the sake of comparison, at right is the pre-Iron Age, meteoric-iron dagger of Tutankhamun (fourteenth century BCE):



I cannot find photos of them on the internet but one of the earliest examples of meteoric iron in the Nile Valley are two lots of beads dating to late prehistory. They were oxidized but recognizable. These beads are over 5,000 years old. They're discussed in Lucas and Harris's Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, along with other known examples of meteoric iron from ancient Egypt.

The above was the work of about five minutes. The point is, time Spy, don't just post out of passion: look into your argument first. I was going to add some Roman examples but you insisted even Roman examples of iron artifacts are barely recognizable, so all of the above selections are well before the time of the Roman empire.

Iron artifacts do not revert to iron ore. It is from iron ore that iron objects are manufactured, of course. Rusted iron objects and iron ore are not the same thing.

[kmt_sesh]

jules99, on 15 June 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

What Im getting at is there is evidence of tube drill use in ancient Egypt, though not of the actual bits used. There is evidence left in granite that straight slab saws were used to saw stone, though no evidence remains of these saws. Petrie describes;

"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."
But there are no existing remains of circular saws.....

Do you notice a pattern beginning to emerge here? No evidence left of the tools remaining..

Dunn references the so called Rosetta stone of Abu Rawash. He speculates that the concave rosetta stone was cut with a saw with arc radius 7.218m.
Circular saws are cited but I cant see why a pendulum style saw couldnt also scribe an arc or circular type cut.

I'm at work and don't have access to my library so I'm working from memory, as well as from my experience with the two Egyptian exhibits in Chicago where I work as a docent. I'm not sure if you're aware of it, jules99, but a lot of drill points have in fact been found. They range in composition from flint to diorite (the latter of which would've been the kind used to drill out the coffers of sarcophagi). We have examples of these on display at both museums.

Saws are certainly rarer but as I recall some examples have been recovered in archaeological excavations (I don't believe either of the museums in which I work have examples in their collections, however). Just the same, numerous depictions on tomb walls show men using saws. They're depicted cutting everything from wood to stone. The noticeable difference is, saws for cutting wood have teeth while those for stone do not. Abrasives were used with stone-cutting saws.

I wouldn't trust Dunn's conclusions with these things. The Rosetta Stone is Ptolemaic in date and thus by this point iron tools and technology had been introduced into Egypt, but where is the evidence for the powering and mechanics of such a saw? There's a lot more to it than just a blade. How was the blade used?

[Time Spy]

kmt_sesh, on 15 June 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

An Assyrian iron dagger:



Another Assyrian iron dagger:


Assyrian iron helmets:



Greek iron spearpoints of the Hoplite class:



An iron Macedonian helmet from the reign of Phillip II:



A Persian iron helmet from the battlefield of Marathon:



And, for the sake of comparison, at right is the pre-Iron Age, meteoric-iron dagger of Tutankhamun (fourteenth century BCE):



I cannot find photos of them on the internet but one of the earliest examples of meteoric iron in the Nile Valley are two lots of beads dating to late prehistory. They were oxidized but recognizable. These beads are over 5,000 years old. They're discussed in Lucas and Harris's Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries, along with other known examples of meteoric iron from ancient Egypt.

The above was the work of about five minutes. The point is, time Spy, don't just post out of passion: look into your argument first. I was going to add some Roman examples but you insisted even Roman examples of iron artifacts are barely recognizable, so all of the above selections are well before the time of the Roman empire.

Iron artifacts do not revert to iron ore. It is from iron ore that iron objects are manufactured, of course. Rusted iron objects and iron ore are not the same thing.

I said Iron oxide, which is rust.  That is some awesome evidence of prehistoric relevance.  Thanks for helping me prove my point.  These ancient societies were VERY advanced.  They had the use of iron, and those engineering the construction of the great pyramids as well.  Some of the great minds of that time forged steel.  THAT is what I'm claiming.   Steel from that era (which in my opnion was over 10000 yrs BC) would be gone.  THAT is a fact, regardless the bearing upon the poit.  Stop trying to nit pick and hear what I'm saying.  You just posted some really good evidence, wouldn't that be something to find yourself?

Edited by Time Spy, 16 June 2012 - 01:25 AM.

[Harte]

Purifier, on 15 June 2012 - 12:12 AM, said:

Then you could say: AHA! I knew it!  But then the irony of it all would be (pun intended), you will be incorrect about every piece of iron rusting away out of existence.

Don't worry, Purifier.  It WAS funny.

Damn funny.

Harte

Edited by Harte, 16 June 2012 - 01:42 AM.

[kmt_sesh]

Time Spy, on 16 June 2012 - 01:22 AM, said:

I said Iron oxide, which is rust.  That is some awesome evidence of prehistoric relevance.  Thanks for helping me prove my point.  These ancient societies were VERY advanced.  They had the use of iron, and those engineering the construction of the great pyramids as well.  Some of the great minds of that time forged steel.  THAT is what I'm claiming.   Steel from that era (which in my opnion was over 10000 yrs BC) would be gone.  THAT is a fact, regardless the bearing upon the poit.  Stop trying to nit pick and hear what I'm saying.  You just posted some really good evidence, wouldn't that be something to find yourself?

Aagh! I give up. I suppose it's best to turn this over to you, then.

Please submit the qualified research proving ancient Egyptians smelted iron and produced manmade iron implements prior to the Late Period or Ptolemaic Period.

The ball is in your court.

Edited by kmt_sesh, 16 June 2012 - 01:55 AM.

[Time Spy]

Purifier, on 15 June 2012 - 12:12 AM, said:

KMT has brought up a good point about what has and has not been found yet, Time Spy. If any iron had been used in that era, archeologist would of least found some little piece of iron material by now, indicating iron was used. Not every part or mineral of a iron object would just totally rust away into nothing, there's always something left behind.

On the other hand, they have yet to dig and uncover every square inch of ancient Egypt. There is still a lot out there for them to discover. Although I don't think it's likely, they may yet find something made of iron and of course your speculation about the use of iron will become true. Then you could say: AHA! I knew it!  But then the irony of it all would be (pun intended), you will be incorrect about every piece of iron rusting away out of existence.

Maybe you just missed the last post from Kmt.  The evidence is not gone.  Steel rusted into oxidation. Iron has been utilitzed,may times.  Harte is about as funny as a box of rocks.  A good laugh might do himm good.  Nevertheless, he can't even put in his two cents worth in a direct quote.  It's easier to just 'ignore the truth' and anyone in disagreement with the mindset, so what? Hogwash, I say get over yourselves.  The early days of the first Egyptian dynasties forged iron, whether it was fromm asteroids or the ground potential no matter.  It was for a short period in history turned into steel, used as tools, and it IS GONE.  Most reamining impliments were made into weapons and while some remanufactured to the best of the ability of those later generations, it is still mostly all gone from a representation of the originality.

[Harte]

lilthor, on 15 June 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

Not to sidestep your question, but the 'saying' should more accurately read:  "the absence of evidence is not proof of absence."

So, in my opinion, a dearth of evidence actually does constitute evidence of something having not existed...but not proof.

Best answer I ever got to that question, Lithor.

Obviously, if one accepts that there must be some evidence that's acceptable to indicate someone or something was absent, then the total lack of evidence for that thing's presence must sit at the top of that list.

When you were in school, they called out names when taking the roll, right?

Why did they do this, is the essence of my question.

Obviously, to establish evidence of absence (and presence.)

So what would the evidence of absence be to a teacher taking roll?

The utter absence of evidence of presence.

Harte

[Time Spy]

kmt_sesh, on 16 June 2012 - 01:54 AM, said:

Aagh! I give up. I suppose it's best to turn this over to you, then.

Please submit the qualified research proving ancient Egyptians smelted iron and produced manmade iron implements prior to the Late Period or Ptolemaic Period.

The ball is in your court.

I keep telling you, although you just DON'T listen, that evidence from that time has rusted away and is gone.  Do I need to repeat myself again, while just in this post alone.  Hello?  Do you hear me now?  You want evidence that only exists in the remanufactured items such as in pictures that you just posted.

OK the ball is in my end of the field, aye, well than it's fourth and goul at the three, with twelve seconds counting down, but no one on either team is listening.  Do you know what that means?  That's right Quarterback sneak, it's time to punch it in.. no wait the nose guard knows the call so he pitches it... and SLAM the DB was there awaiting.  Doesn't change anything other than the final score.  However, since they were already in the lead and that pitch was fumbled, the safety picked it up any returned it for a comeback victory.  Sometimes the outcome is alarming...      I paid my dues, time after time, done my sentence...

[Purifier]

Time Spy, on 16 June 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:

Maybe you just missed the last post from Kmt.  The evidence is not gone.  Steel rusted into oxidation. Iron has been utilitzed,may times.  Harte is about as funny as a box of rocks.  A good laugh might do himm good.  Nevertheless, he can't even put in his two cents worth in a direct quote.  It's easier to just 'ignore the truth' and anyone in disagreement with the mindset, so what? Hogwash, I say get over yourselves.  The early days of the first Egyptian dynasties forged iron, whether it was fromm asteroids or the ground potential no matter.  It was for a short period in history turned into steel, used as tools, and it IS GONE.  Most reamining impliments were made into weapons and while some remanufactured to the best of the ability of those later generations, it is still mostly all gone from a representation of the originality.

Well I guess will haft agree to disagree, Time Spy. I'm only applying pure critical thinking on this subject matter, and in this case, my critical thinking and logic tells me their right on this one. But if that irritates you, sorry you're feeling that way, but your argument hasn't really convenieced me. I'm not being bias towards you or ignoring what you say, it just doesn't make sense to me (I just don't think your accounting for every possibility), given what I know and learned working with different metals over the years; and what I've found just by digging in the dirt. Anyway, I have to go with what make sense to me.

[kmt_sesh]

Time Spy, on 16 June 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:

I keep telling you, although you just DON'T listen, that evidence from that time has rusted away and is gone.  Do I need to repeat myself again, while just in this post alone.  Hello?  Do you hear me now?  You want evidence that only exists in the remanufactured items such as in pictures that you just posted.

...

Oh, I'm listening, Time Spy. I read every word of every post you direct at me (and in this case I don't have much to say for the second paragraph in your last reply to me, because frankly I have no idea what it's supposed to mean).

But SHOUTING isn't making your argument any clearer or more convincing. You're claiming iron was forged from the "early days of the first Egyptian dynasties" and yet there is no evidence to suggest this. Then you say the "evidence from that time has rusted away and is gone," so how do you know iron was produced in the Early Bronze Age if there's nothing at all left to prove that? Your own argument is self-defeating.

Given that you're not an archaeologist with field experience in Egypt, nor a researcher specializing in metallurgy of the Near East Bronze Age, your word alone is insufficient—even when SHOUTED, believe it or not. Something written wrong and something SHOUTED wrong is still wrong, regardless of volume (LOL I think you get the idea that typing in caps is a pet peeve of mine). This said, you're still claiming that it's a fact that the early Egyptians were producing iron, so it is incumbent upon you to present to us the research of a specialist which corroborates your claim. Your word alone cannot do it.

Can you hear me now?

[lakeview rud]

kmt sesh, the idea of a 45 ft diameter circular saw is indeed not remotely possible as you would need to cast bronze of say 1/2" thick at least and the blade would have to clear a typical block of say 1meter minimum so not very likely.  What I was referring to was the possibilty of using a straight saw attached to one or both ends of a  pivoting  beam that could then be used in a reciprocating fashion to cut the stones.  Again not very likely but at least possible.....My point on Dunn's book is that you may have a small grain of truth in what might otherwise be a truckload of crapola. Conversely, even the most well thought of theories may have a flaw or two somewehere at their base.  Take quantum physics, lots of belief but there are still some missing particles out there. Most folks (me included) have difficulty with the conventional thinking of constructing the GP out of 1million plus blocks in something like twenty years with ramps, pounding stones, bronze chisels and lots of manpower.  Sure seems like something is still missing.  I hope its found soon but the idea is to keep looking (leave no stone unturned).

[Jon101]

Time Spy, you are shamefully blind to the truth, and have a capacity to hand-wave away evidence that is more monumental than Khufu's pyramid.  It has become apparent that no matter how erudite or explanatory the evidence that better minds than your own helpfully pass your way, you will continually move the goalposts and blither in an ever more shrill and self-congratulatory fashion.

Threads like this can be very educational and interesting, yet they have to be spoiled by the I-know-better-than-the-evidence/facts/demonstrable truth/evidence from the culture itself/etc crowd, which you,through obstinate intransigence or stupidity, embody. And it is not a position you should be proud of.