Labyrinth of Egypt

[stevemagegod]

I thought that the Hall of Records were to be found under the Sphinx

[kmt_sesh]

hi kmt_sesh... did you remember to take your laundry our of the dryer? okeydoke.

LOL Yes I did, thanks.

[jules99]

To say that certain artifacts "defy current understanding" may be a bit of a mis-perception. Please see below. Be sure to note the supporting evidence incorporated into the artifacts themselves.

http://www.geocities.com/unforbidden_geology/modren_stone_vases.html

http://www.geocities.com/unforbidden_geology/ancient_egyptian_copper_slabbing_saws.html

http://www.geocities.com/unforbidden_geology/Tomb_3111.html

Thanks for the links Swede;

Im not sure how reputable the link is below but it brings into question the rate of cut achieved by the AEs when drilling. Is there any scientific data investigating this sort of thing?

http://www.ronaldbirdsall.com/gizeh/petrie/c19.html#131

The rate of cut when drilling is higher than could be achieved with a stick and bow drill according to this information.

[Harte]

Hey, I'm no fan of the Cubs or the lemmings they call fans, so ridicule them all you want.

Ah, well.

I took a shot! LOL

Harte

[Swede]

Thanks for the links Swede;

Im not sure how reputable the link is below but it brings into question the rate of cut achieved by the AEs when drilling. Is there any scientific data investigating this sort of thing?

http://www.ronaldbirdsall.com/gizeh/petrie/c19.html#131

The rate of cut when drilling is higher than could be achieved with a stick and bow drill according to this information.

I am not personally familiar with the groove rate figures referred to in this document, but for the sake of discussion, let us take them as reliable. The quoted figure of 2,000 to 4,000 lbs. of pressure will also be accepted in the same light.

When some read a reference such as this, they immediately envision some clumsy contraption with a notably large stationary mass perched atop. Actually, nothing more than simple leverage applied to the industrial equivalent of the "palm cap" would provide the necessary pressure, along with control of variability of such pressure as the situation may require. The principles of leverage would appear to have been quite well applied throughout the period in question. And do not overlook the basic math related to leverage,i.e., 200 lbs. of force at a one foot multiplies to 2,000 lbs at ten feet. For applications of this sort of technology, I would recommend that you may enjoy some of the works of Eric Sloan. Many of these principles were in use until quite recently.

The "bow" aspect may have also been upgraded when dealing with larger projects. Picture a few coils of cordage wrapped around the mainshaft, with the ends free. These free ends, handled by one individual or team on each end, would be pulled back and forth in a coordinated manner much like the operation of a two-man crosscut saw.

Hope the verbal description is adequate! I could sketch up the mechanics and attach if needed.

[jules99]

I am not personally familiar with the groove rate figures referred to in this document, but for the sake of discussion, let us take them as reliable. The quoted figure of 2,000 to 4,000 lbs. of pressure will also be accepted in the same light.

When some read a reference such as this, they immediately envision some clumsy contraption with a notably large stationary mass perched atop. Actually, nothing more than simple leverage applied to the industrial equivalent of the "palm cap" would provide the necessary pressure, along with control of variability of such pressure as the situation may require. The principles of leverage would appear to have been quite well applied throughout the period in question. And do not overlook the basic math related to leverage,i.e., 200 lbs. of force at a one foot multiplies to 2,000 lbs at ten feet. For applications of this sort of technology, I would recommend that you may enjoy some of the works of Eric Sloan. Many of these principles were in use until quite recently.

The "bow" aspect may have also been upgraded when dealing with larger projects. Picture a few coils of cordage wrapped around the mainshaft, with the ends free. These free ends, handled by one individual or team on each end, would be pulled back and forth in a coordinated manner much like the operation of a two-man crosscut saw.

Hope the verbal description is adequate! I could sketch up the mechanics and attach if needed.

Hi Swede and thanks for your quick reply, sorry Ive taken a while;

To qualify Ive been looking at the harder stones such as quartz and granite and the drilling and machining involved.

Firstly the cores and drill holes Ive seen via photo at this stage appear to indicate a spiral cut. This points to a drill travelling in a single direction only whereas both bow drills and the rope and lever method you mention are reversing drills and wouldnt leave a spiral pattern. http://www.geocities.com/unforbidden_geology/basalt_tube_UC44985.html (uc44985) The sample also has a uniformity in the pattern left by the drill that to me is difficult to explain without the use of either a steady motive power source or some sort of gearing mechanism to regulate speed.

I dont think this rate or consistancy of penetration would be achievable on hardstone by the manual means you suggest. IMHO.

That said, I accept and am grateful for the explanations youve provided and agree that the methods you describe should work fine on softer types of stone.

The question of pressure when drilling stone is a tricky one. Particulary when thinking of copper drill bits. While I concurr that the AEs were well aquainted with the lever questions remain as to exactly how much pressure would be required or possible to produce the results shown. Ive heard everything from the quoted figure of 2000-4000lbs to a less is more philosophy but Im still looking into that side of things.

As an afterthought and inspired by the photo of the waste core, do you think it would be plausible that a hollow core drill bit be made from stone? I think the AEs would have been capable of making one. Sure it could only be used on softer stone, but would have to wear better than copper. The fact that such a drill would wear down to nothing could explain why none have survived. I dont know though, perhaps if you had the technology to cut the hardstone to begin with why wouldnt you just use that same process on the softer stone. I think Ive just partly debunked this idea myself. Though maybe if the stone bit was treated and hardened by some process or used in conjunction with other cutting agents and abrasives it may be viable...

Ive got to admit Im not sure I 100% satisfied with the explanations Ive read concerning AEs techniques for drilling or turning hardstone at this stage.

Edited October 22, 2009 by jules99

[kmt_sesh]

jules99 wrote:

As an afterthought and inspired by the photo of the waste core, do you think it would be plausible that a hollow core drill bit be made from stone? I think the AEs would have been capable of making one. Sure it could only be used on softer stone, but would have to wear better than copper. The fact that such a drill would wear down to nothing could explain why none have survived.

I've never heard of a stone bit with a hollow core in the archaeological record of Egypt, but stone drill bits are plentiful. They date all the way back to prehistoric times and were made of everything from flint to diorite, the latter of which would work with hard stones like granite and quartzite. Diorite was also commonly employed as pounders to help shape slabs or boulders of granite.

I don't know how common copper bits were, but that would date primarily to the Early Bronze Age (Old Kingdom of Egypt). Stone tools were still the norm at that time, although copper chisels were used for fine relief work. The Egyptians made wide use of bronze by the New Kingdom (beginning around 1,550 BCE) and I believe bronze drill bits are known.

[questionmark]

jules99 wrote:

I've never heard of a stone bit with a hollow core in the archaeological record of Egypt, but stone drill bits are plentiful. They date all the way back to prehistoric times and were made of everything from flint to diorite, the latter of which would work with hard stones like granite and quartzite. Diorite was also commonly employed as pounders to help shape slabs or boulders of granite.

I don't know how common copper bits were, but that would date primarily to the Early Bronze Age (Old Kingdom of Egypt). Stone tools were still the norm at that time, although copper chisels were used for fine relief work. The Egyptians made wide use of bronze by the New Kingdom (beginning around 1,550 BCE) and I believe bronze drill bits are known.

Got a reference for you: Stone vessels and values in the Bronze age Mediterranean by Andrew Bevan. It should be available at Google books to read online.

[Swede]

Hi Swede and thanks for your quick reply, sorry Ive taken a while;

To qualify Ive been looking at the harder stones such as quartz and granite and the drilling and machining involved.

Firstly the cores and drill holes Ive seen via photo at this stage appear to indicate a spiral cut. This points to a drill travelling in a single direction only whereas both bow drills and the rope and lever method you mention are reversing drills and wouldnt leave a spiral pattern. http://www.geocities.com/unforbidden_geology/basalt_tube_UC44985.html (uc44985) The sample also has a uniformity in the pattern left by the drill that to me is difficult to explain without the use of either a steady motive power source or some sort of gearing mechanism to regulate speed.

I dont think this rate or consistancy of penetration would be achievable on hardstone by the manual means you suggest. IMHO.

That said, I accept and am grateful for the explanations youve provided and agree that the methods you describe should work fine on softer types of stone.

The question of pressure when drilling stone is a tricky one. Particulary when thinking of copper drill bits. While I concurr that the AEs were well aquainted with the lever questions remain as to exactly how much pressure would be required or possible to produce the results shown. Ive heard everything from the quoted figure of 2000-4000lbs to a less is more philosophy but Im still looking into that side of things.

As an afterthought and inspired by the photo of the waste core, do you think it would be plausible that a hollow core drill bit be made from stone? I think the AEs would have been capable of making one. Sure it could only be used on softer stone, but would have to wear better than copper. The fact that such a drill would wear down to nothing could explain why none have survived. I dont know though, perhaps if you had the technology to cut the hardstone to begin with why wouldnt you just use that same process on the softer stone. I think Ive just partly debunked this idea myself. Though maybe if the stone bit was treated and hardened by some process or used in conjunction with other cutting agents and abrasives it may be viable...

Ive got to admit Im not sure I 100% satisfied with the explanations Ive read concerning AEs techniques for drilling or turning hardstone at this stage.

You bring up some valid questions. Some thoughts/observations;

As I previously noted, I am at a bit of a liability in never having had the opportunity to personally examine some of the specimens under consideration. And the photographs are compromised by angle and distortion. However, if you closely examine the core photo you will find that the cut grooves do not appear continuous. Frequent stops and starts. This is particularly apparent in the mid-section, slightly left of center, where you will observe one pattern above another stopping and another groove between the two that continues to the left. There would appear to be a similar patterning of this nature throughout. This would be consistent with reversing rotation.

Also remember that the copper hollow-core bits would have been used in conjunction with abrasives, as were the copper "saws", thus allowing for the alteration of rather hard materials. As I have explained previously, granite is composed of mica, quartz, feldspar and hornblend, yet has been repeatedly utilized by past cultures utilizing an array of techniques. Abrasion by expendable silicates would appear to have been one of these.

As to the stone bits - Given a more than passing background in lithic and cuperous technologies, I would consider this to be highly (!) unlikely. To attempt to "temper" lithic materials to make them harder would require facilities of a most extensive nature. In addition, such treatment would not be advantageous. Lithic materials of a high Moh's tend to be quite brittle and subject to fracture/shatter under stress load.

As I am known (!) to suggest, put this to the test. Scrounge up a 1" section of thick-wall copper tubing, some sand and water, a home-made bow drill, and a subject core. The results may surprise you!

[kmt_sesh]

Got a reference for you: Stone vessels and values in the Bronze age Mediterranean by Andrew Bevan. It should be available at Google books to read online.

Looks like a very useful book, questionmark. I'd love to have a copy for my library. I've never enjoyed reading a book on a computer monitor (makes my eyes bleed), so you'll buy me a copy, right?

[questionmark]

Looks like a very useful book, questionmark. I'd love to have a copy for my library. I've never enjoyed reading a book on a computer monitor (makes my eyes bleed), so you'll buy me a copy, right?

As soon as the bank gives me my bonus for running the cart against the wall.

[jules99]

You bring up some valid questions. Some thoughts/observations;

As I previously noted, I am at a bit of a liability in never having had the opportunity to personally examine some of the specimens under consideration. And the photographs are compromised by angle and distortion. However, if you closely examine the core photo you will find that the cut grooves do not appear continuous. Frequent stops and starts. This is particularly apparent in the mid-section, slightly left of center, where you will observe one pattern above another stopping and another groove between the two that continues to the left. There would appear to be a similar patterning of this nature throughout. This would be consistent with reversing rotation.

Also remember that the copper hollow-core bits would have been used in conjunction with abrasives, as were the copper "saws", thus allowing for the alteration of rather hard materials. As I have explained previously, granite is composed of mica, quartz, feldspar and hornblend, yet has been repeatedly utilized by past cultures utilizing an array of techniques. Abrasion by expendable silicates would appear to have been one of these.

As to the stone bits - Given a more than passing background in lithic and cuperous technologies, I would consider this to be highly (!) unlikely. To attempt to "temper" lithic materials to make them harder would require facilities of a most extensive nature. In addition, such treatment would not be advantageous. Lithic materials of a high Moh's tend to be quite brittle and subject to fracture/shatter under stress load.

As I am known (!) to suggest, put this to the test. Scrounge up a 1" section of thick-wall copper tubing, some sand and water, a home-made bow drill, and a subject core. The results may surprise you!

Hi Swede;

If you are seeing the single spiral cut, then it should become apparent that the core couldnt have been abraded by sand if you think about it. Which particular grain of sand did the cutting? The sample shows an even line of cut, not a gradual abrasion. I wont argue the direction of drill rotation (though Petrie's observations suggests a single direction of drill travel), I wont argue that its not possible to drill hardstone with copper tube and sand as its been proven so (if you feel the loss of 10cm copper for every 30cm drilled is viable). I dont need to try it out for myself to realise its possible. However no experiment has ever replicated the markings on the core shown using copper pipe and sand. This suggests that the AE's used an alternative drilling method for hardstone.

[Swede]

Hi Swede;

If you are seeing the single spiral cut, then it should become apparent that the core couldnt have been abraded by sand if you think about it. Which particular grain of sand did the cutting? The sample shows an even line of cut, not a gradual abrasion. I wont argue the direction of drill rotation (though Petrie's observations suggests a single direction of drill travel), I wont argue that its not possible to drill hardstone with copper tube and sand as its been proven so (if you feel the loss of 10cm copper for every 30cm drilled is viable). I dont need to try it out for myself to realise its possible. However no experiment has ever replicated the markings on the core shown using copper pipe and sand. This suggests that the AE's used an alternative drilling method for hardstone.

Hi jules - Well, as I have previously noted, I am not terribly comfortable in attempting to present a reasonable analysis from the available photo! Just not enough to work with. That said, some additional input;

I don't really perceive a continuous spiral. The discontinuities would appear to be most apparent in the mid-third of the specimen in the area of the lighter colored blotches, particularly in the area of middle "set" of three horizontal blotches. The tooling marks appear to stop and start, with some marks taking up between the alignment of previous marks. This could be interpreted as being the result of particle grains acting as a cutting agent for a period and then, having succumbed to pressure, fragmenting, with other grains then taking up the bearing load. I would not, however, personally rule out a variation on the theme that has yet to be explored!

When we deal with lithic tool use-wear analysis, magnification allows us to determine, with reasonable certainty, whether a cutting edge was used to process flesh, floral material, or harder materials such as bone or wood. In addition, micro-analysis can also used to compare lithic alterations resulting from the application of various materials.

From my perspective, it would be most desirable to subject the core to a state of the art analysis, including electron microscopy. I would speculate that such analysis would reveal a number of details that would allow for a better understanding of the technology applied. This could be a most fascinating study, though the political machinations involved in actually accomplishing this goal could only be achieved by someone actually well entrenched in current Egyptology. Think we could get Mark Lehner interested?

[innerverse]

I was expecting to find more enthusiasm (and relevant material) for the subject of the thread...

What happened, did the sceptics sucked all the positivism of this great discovery by trying to debunk fringe-like theories?

We are talking about "THE" labyrinth right?

In order to restore the balance between sceptics / fringes i will remind everyone that it was this fringe-like theory of Louis De Cordier (that the artificial stone plateu was actually the roof of the labyrinth and the labyrinth itself was buried under it) that was indeed correct and gave the opportunity for this grant plan of excavations...

Now, let the thread roll a bit longer...

A related video:

Edited November 28, 2009 by innerverse

[kmt_sesh]

I was expecting to find more enthusiasm (and relevant material) for the subject of the thread...

What happened, did the sceptics sucked all the positivism of this great discovery by trying to debunk fringe-like theories?

We are talking about "THE" labyrinth right?

In order to restore the balance between sceptics / fringes i will remind everyone that it was this fringe-like theory of Louis De Cordier (that the artificial stone plateu was actually the roof of the labyrinth and the labyrinth itself was buried under it) that was indeed correct and gave the opportunity for this grant plan of excavations...

Now, let the thread roll a bit longer...

A related video:

There honestly isn't much more to say about it, innerverse. Whether you believe it or not, a lot of the stuff you're reading about it on the internet is bunkum. The information is grossly distorted. No one denies that a large temple complex once stood next to this Dynasty 12 pyramid, but no actual archaeological evidence to date supports the internet claims or the information presented on the YouTube video.

One should take caution using YouTube as a reference in the first place. I'm a YouTuber myself and have made a few Egypt-related videos of my own, but just for fun. YouTube is not a reliable historical reference. In fact, a great deal of the stuff purporting to be of historical veracity is of course complete nonsense.

I watched the video and saw some errors. For example, it mentions Petrie's excavations of the site, but what the video reports that he found is an exaggeration. Petrie knew a large building of some type once stood there, but all he found was a thick layer of stone chips, some plaster bedding on which pavement had once been placed, jumbles of brick rubble, ruins of columns, and pieces of an inscribed architrave (Drower 1995: 133-135). Yes, a very large building once stood there, which was of course the mortuary temple for Amenemhat III (the builder of the pyramid), but no evidence exists to corroborate the elaborate underground labyrinth as the video purports.

To be honest, the most important discovery of Petrie's at the Hawara site had nothing to do with the pyramid. He unearthed a large Roman Period cemetery that dated to almost two thousand years after the time of the pyramid of Amenemhat III. His excavations produced a wealth of burials commonly referred to as portrait mummies. Many people of today are very familiar with this type of mummy and have seen examples in innumerable museums, but in Petrie's day these mummies had been exceedingly rare prior to the excavation of Hawara. One of the burials even produced a Greek text which turned out to be a copy of Homer's epics.

In summary, innerverse, you're not hearing much about this topic because there's not much more to hear. The Hawara site has been exhaustively excavated down through the years, both before Petrie and after. No actual hints of a vast underground labyrinth have ever come to the surface. There is no archaeological or architectural corroboration for the sort of structure digitally recreated on the YouTube video--a pretty cool recreation it was. I'd be glad to be wrong but, based on the archaeological evidence to date, I honestly don't think I am.

[innerverse]

I guess the video on you-tube could be an exaggeration (btw i don't rely on youtube for historical reference either). But i think that concerning the absence of archeological evidence about the labyrinth, the Mataha - expedition seems to tell a different story:

The Mataha – expedition research confirms the presence of archaeological features at the labyrinth area south of the Hawara pyramid of Amenemhet III. These features covering an underground area of several hectares, have the prominent signature of vertical walls on the geophysical results. The vertical walls with an average thickness of several meters, are connected to shape nearly closed rooms, which are interpreted to be huge in number.

In the upper ground zone above the water level, walls appear at the shallow depth ranging between 1,5 to 2,5 meters. These decayed mudbrick features are very chaotic and show no consistent grid structure and can be comfortably related with the historic period of the Ptolemaic and Roman times. A period in which is known, that the labyrinth area was used as a cemetery, and probably also changed to a living area in the Byzantine period. Underneath this upper zone, below the artificial stone surface appears (in spite of the turbid effect of the groundwater) at the depth of 8 to 12 meters a grid structure of gigantic size made of a very high resistivity material like granit stone.

An archaeological rescue operation as never seen before will therefore have to be organized, to raise the necessary media attention, experts, technology and funds to start the drainage, protection and the total excavation of the labyrinth of Egypt. The Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities expressed their great devotion and responsibility by announcing the start of the actual renovate master plan for the site, but as a the labyrinth affects the whole world, we are responsible to work together with this great country that bears already the heavy weight to preserve and protect the remains of a giant civilization. A fantastic country with great people, that is reaching a warm hand to the rest of the world to share this new discovered global human heritage.

Personally, i can excuse them for maybe being a bit more enthusiastic for their expedition as to what the real outcome will be, but given the resources needed, they 'll need all the help they can get to complete this project.