Look Mama, no diamond saw

[Gunn]

The question is: did the ancient Egyptians do it or was it part of a well intended but badly performed "improvement" scheme?

There are many archeological sites that have been "rebuilt" using modern tools/means, there are sites that have been vandalized with modern tools/means.

Now that is something to consider, as a possible logical explanation. Wonder if Chris Dunn consider that before he jumped the gun, probably not.

If it is Egyptian it would be a combination of a rock saw and an abrasive (i.e. quartz sand)

I know exactly what your talking about and I've been looking for some reference (mainly pictures) to that method on the internet, but haven't had any luck yet. But I do remember seeing someone demonstrate that method on Nova or some other TV programme. I was also looking for any archeological evidence or finds for those types of tools, but apparently from what I gather so far, they never found any of those types of stone cutting tools in Egypt; just copper chisels etc. Wish they had found at least one cutting tool like that though, I would rather give credit to the ancient Egyptians for their simple ingenuity.

And we've still got that problem with the thinly carved stoneware piece, that one bothers me. Will do some more research on it.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Purifier

[questionmark]

Now that is something to consider, as a possible logical explanation. Wonder if Chris Dunn consider that before he jumped the gun, probably not.

I know exactly what your talking about and I've been looking for some reference (mainly pictures) to that method on the internet, but haven't had any luck yet. But I do remember seeing someone demonstrate that method on Nova or some other TV programme. I was also looking for any archeological evidence or finds for those types of tools, but apparently from what I gather so far, they never found any of those types of stone cutting tools in Egypt; just copper chisels etc. Wish they had found at least one cutting tool like that though, I would rather give credit to the ancient Egyptians for their simple igenuity.

And we've still got that problem with the thinly carved stoneware piece, that one bothers me. Will do some more research on it.

It does not necessarily have to be a identifiable tool, it could be as simple as a piece of rope fitted with two handles that was pulled over the wet sand on the spot to cut. The cutting was not done by the tool but by the abrasive sand, the tool was just there to give the work a form along which to cut.

The typical ancient Egyptian stone saw was a toothless copper blade that was weighted and operated by two people (can't find an image now). The saw just pressed quartz sand against the rock that then did the cutting.

[kmt_sesh]

They are the same in as far as they are of volcanic origin and look more or less the same. Andesite generally has more metallic content such as magnetite than diorite and diorite contains more sulfur compounds, in as far as the silicate oxide content they are equal, or within the same category. They contain less quartz than similar rock formations, i.e. granite, making them easier to work (so far for the diamond saw) by abrasion, a little more difficult by impact.

The problem we are facing here is that diorite is not equal diorite. As with all rocks there are softer and harder varieties. And by no means it is only worked in Puma Punku. Hammurabi code was hammered into a diorite block (probably because it was the longest lasting material known at the time). There is a predynastic Egyptian example of a diorite vase (about 3600 BC), but as it is the Idahet variety (very soft) it could be easily turned to form.

What we are faced with is the usual fringe problem: they have smelled a stinking river and now they want to make us believe all rivers stink...which is far from reality.

Thanks for clarifying that for me. LOL I've often seen that very jug used as an example at UM. I see it all the time—it's in one of the prehistoric-artifact cases at the Field Museum. We have a nice collection of a variety of hard-stone vessels that were expertly produced by prehistoric hands.

It does not necessarily have to be a identifiable tool, it could be as simple as a piece of rope fitted with two handles that was pulled over the wet sand on the spot to cut. The cutting was not done by the tool but by the abrasive sand, the tool was just there to give the work a form along which to cut.

The typical ancient Egyptian stone saw was a toothless copper blade that was weighted and operated by two people (can't find an image now). The saw just pressed quartz sand against the rock that then did the cutting.

By the Late Bronze Age most of these saws were made of very hard bronze. Your description of it is perfect. I once watched a video of two men using one at Giza to cut a large block of granite. The going was slow, of course, but with their bronze saw and sand abrasive the two men had no real difficulty cutting the granite.

[questionmark]

Thanks for clarifying that for me. LOL I've often seen that very jug used as an example at UM. I see it all the time—it's in one of the prehistoric-artifact cases at the Field Museum. We have a nice collection of a variety of hard-stone vessels that were expertly produced by prehistoric hands.

Next time I am in Chitown I'll have a look at it, never seen it in natura...

[Gunn]

It does not necessarily have to be a identifiable tool, it could be as simple as a piece of rope fitted with two handles that was pulled over the wet sand on the spot to cut. The cutting was not done by the tool but by the abrasive sand, the tool was just there to give the work a form along which to cut.

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.

The typical ancient Egyptian stone saw was a toothless copper blade that was weighted and operated by two people (can't find an image now). The saw just pressed quartz sand against the rock that then did the cutting.

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

[Harte]

I know little about the "fringe theorists" mentioned, but I do know they are in the field collecting data. And hand calluses.

This statement is completely false. Far and away the great majority of these authors haven't spent a single minute in actual field research.

No, they spend their time finding papers that were published a hundred (or more) years ago and pretend no further evidence has been found since then.

Harte

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Now.........show me a perfect hand worked under cut in granite being crafted, show me a perfect inside square cut being crafted, show me perfect hand worked jar being crafted, show me your perfect balancing pot being crafted......then stick that on Youtube. Stuff like the videos on the first page may impress somebody who has no idea, sorry but it doesn't impress me.

Thing is they cant show us that.

They know same as I and you which is nada.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Melo

[Abramelin]

Wait...musta been aliens...no Atlanteans..no come on now, you are a little older than that.

Do not **** with me.

You posted you know how it could be done, so show us.

You are evading.

I never suggested anything crazy like "Atlanteans" or "aliens", or "Nibblers", or some "ancient super-civilization", Cayce-style.

Prove your point by showing us all here (video) how you did it.

Yeah, I am a TRUE skeptic, and I am not willing to swallow cheap answers or snidy remarks from someone unable to prove his/her point.

.

Edited May 4, 2012 by Abramelin

[questionmark]

Do not **** with me.

You posted you know how it could be done, so show us.

You are evading.

I never suggested anything crazy like "Atlanteans" or "aliens", or "Nibblers", or some "ancient super-civilization" Cayse-style.

Prove your point by showing us all here (video) how you did it.

Yeah, I am a TRUE skeptic, and I am not willing to swallow cheap answers or snidy remarks from someone unable to prove his/her point.

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

[Abramelin]

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

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.

.

[kmt_sesh]

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]

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.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

I didnt see any hieroglyphs done in granite with copper here.

Neither jars carved in hard stones with copper.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

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

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

Edited May 4, 2012 by Melo

[questionmark]

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.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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

[kmt_sesh]

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]

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]

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]

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 May 4, 2012 by questionmark

[Gunn]

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:

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.)

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.

(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 May 5, 2012 by Purifier