Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
questionmark

Look Mama, no diamond saw

878 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

diamond%20cutting%20machine.jpg

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

diamond%20cutting%20machine.jpg

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.

I'll do you one better QM:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll do you one better QM:

[media=]

[/media]

Now we will hear that they use a motor!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Jules - As has been presented on these pages, the experimental research of Dennis Stock has demonstrated that the utilization of quartz-grade silicates (sand) can be well supported in regards to lithic materials in the lower ranges of Mohs' hardness (i.e., limestone, etc.).

You are potentially correct in regards to the application of this same technique as it relates to harder materials such as granite (certain sarcophagi, etc.). However, the nature of the abrasives themselves may be a factor.

You may find the following experimental research by Younger/Gorelick and Gwinnett to be of interest.

http://www.penn.muse...-4/Creating.pdf

http://penn.museum/d...-3/Gwinnett.pdf

http://www.penn.muse.../The Origin.pdf

Aspects to keep in mind;

1) The production of royal sarcophagi, etc. would fall into a somewhat different economic realm than more "common" goods.

2) Given this factor, it may be speculated that the materials procured for operations for which the basic technology was well established may have been more cost/labor intensive.

3) There are documented sources/early utilization of emery in the Aegean Sea, particularly the island of Naxos.

4) There are comparatively early references (Herodotus, yes, questionable) to the importation of "sand". Given the abundance of local quartz sands, this could imply the importation of higher grade materials. This would not necessarily be inconsistent with the trade networks/economic exchange of the culture/period in question.

.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Jules - As has been presented on these pages, the experimental research of Dennis Stock has demonstrated that the utilization of quartz-grade silicates (sand) can be well supported in regards to lithic materials in the lower ranges of Mohs' hardness (i.e., limestone, etc.).

You are potentially correct in regards to the application of this same technique as it relates to harder materials such as granite (certain sarcophagi, etc.). However, the nature of the abrasives themselves may be a factor.

To paraphrase, then, Swede's response to Jules' remark about the tool marks on the granite drill cores:

YES, it does appear that single-point, or fixed-tooth tube-drills were used to create those cores which exhibit helical striations.

YES, any notion that those cores were created using loose abrasives is irrational and wholly unsupported by the physical evidence.

NO, we do not know how these types of fixed-tooth tube-drills were fixtured, guided, or powered. We only know that they were fixtured, guided, and powered.

Phew! Had to read between the lines, but it does make sense...

Edited by lilthor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll do you one better QM:

Thanks; that really was a pleasure to watch an artist at work, gawd that must cost $$$...

However I will raise your exquisitely hand cut crystal vase with The Barberini Vase c 20 bc. This vase is still largely assumed to be a hand cut cameo vase and has been thought of as such for 100s of years supposedly created by methods similar to those shown in your clip;

However; does this fit the evidence? Does this match up with the available quartz sand abrasives of the day?

I did read a convincing article that the cameos were actually cast in place with no grinding performed at all;

http://www.rosemarie-lierke.de/English/Cameo_glass/cameo_glass.html#Werkspuren

My point is that we have to examine the evidence and if the methodologies we propose that the ancients used dont fit then we have to look for alternatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks; that really was a pleasure to watch an artist at work, gawd that must cost $$$...

However I will raise your exquisitely hand cut crystal vase with The Barberini Vase c 20 bc. This vase is still largely assumed to be a hand cut cameo vase and has been thought of as such for 100s of years supposedly created by methods similar to those shown in your clip;

However; does this fit the evidence? Does this match up with the available quartz sand abrasives of the day?

I did read a convincing article that the cameos were actually cast in place with no grinding performed at all;

http://www.rosemarie...html#Werkspuren

My point is that we have to examine the evidence and if the methodologies we propose that the ancients used dont fit then we have to look for alternatives.

The Egyptian dessert sand consists mostly of quartz.

And yes, we have to examine the evidence, like bore cores, like found tools like possible low tech methods. The point being that they all get ignored in favor of some "supertechnology" some magic yaddah or some aliens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point being that they all get ignored in favor of some "supertechnology" some magic yaddah or some aliens.

No, there is a definite middle ground. These things likely could have been accomplished using the materials at hand, although the methods are yet to be defined.

The Egyptian dessert sand consists mostly of quartz.

This is certainly news to me.

Yuck. I will scratch Egyptian Cuisine from my bucket list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To paraphrase, then, Swede's response to Jules' remark about the tool marks on the granite drill cores:

YES, it does appear that single-point, or fixed-tooth tube-drills were used to create those cores which exhibit helical striations.

YES, any notion that those cores were created using loose abrasives is irrational and wholly unsupported by the physical evidence.

NO, we do not know how these types of fixed-tooth tube-drills were fixtured, guided, or powered. We only know that they were fixtured, guided, and powered.

Phew! Had to read between the lines, but it does make sense...

YES, it does appear that single-point, or fixed-tooth tube-drills were used to create those cores which exhibit helical striations.

None of the provided research refers to “fixed-tooth tube drills”. In regards to this aspect, Younger states the following:

To drill stones harder than copper or bronze drills, corundum or emery from Naxos was used as an abrasive along with the drills; this material was famous in antiquity… (Younger 1981:32)

Gwinnett and Gorelick observed the following:

None of the abrasives could drill hematite when used dry. Sand or crushed quartz did penetrate the rock, but did not produce the characteristic pattern of concentric lines on the side walls, regardless of the lubricant used (Fig. 15a). With emery and a lubricant, however, such lines were produced (Fig. 15b).

Gwinnett and Gorelick, Expedition 29/3:22

By ca. 2000 B.C., copper (and not bronze) drills were being used with abrasives, at least for hard stones such as hematite.

Gwinnett and Gorelick, Expedition 29/3:22

You may also wish to review Gorelick and Gwinnett 1981:25, where they reference not only the utilization of abrasives, but the centering aspects of bow drills.

YES, any notion that those cores were created using loose abrasives is irrational and wholly unsupported by the physical evidence.

This statement would not appear to be supported by the references provided.

NO, we do not know how these types of fixed-tooth tube-drills were fixtured, guided, or powered. We only know that they were fixtured, guided, and powered.

See section one above and related observations in regards fixtures, centering, and RPM potential. As previously noted, there is no mention of “fixed-tooth tube-drills” in the references provided. However, these references to illustrate a number of hand-powered drilling/boring/turning apparatuses. See;

Younger 1981:32(2)

Gwinnett and Gorelick, Expedition 29/3 p.16

Gorelick and Gwinnett 1981:pp. 24, 28

It should be noted the qualified researchers do not generally take kindly to the misrepresentation of their research.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I am not alone in this: we ALL would love to see a demonstration on video of ancient technology being used to create what we are discussing here.

Wally Wallington did, and what he showed us - single-handed - was not peanuts. But he showed us anyway.

No, I do NOT believe ancient civilizations got help from 'aliens'.

No, I do NOT believe ancient civilizations used some sort of super-advanced technology.

No, I do NOT believe 'Atlantians' did it all.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your having a laugh aren't you :lol:. They can all babble on for hours and hours telling us how everything was done, yet not one of them has the balls to prove their point.

Awaits another 45 pages of waffle from those that talk a good job rather than actually doing one and proving their point. :sleepy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your having a laugh aren't you :lol:. They can all babble on for hours and hours telling us how everything was done, yet not one of them has the balls to prove their point.

Awaits another 45 pages of waffle from those that talk a good job rather than actually doing one and proving their point. :sleepy:

No; I think youre incorrect here, for example;

"In 1999, D.A. Stocks tested the efficacy of copper saws and drills on the granite in the Aswan quarries 500 miles up the Nile. The copper saw in his test was 1.8 meters long, 15 centimeters in depth, and 6 millimeters thick. Stocks experimented with both wet and dry sand and smooth and notched saws. In one test, workmen cut a slot 3 centimeters deep and 95 centimeters long in14 hours. It was slow work, but the ancient Egyptians had plenty of time and manpower. In the same experiment, the copper saw blade was ground down 7.5 millimeters. Overall, dry sand with a smooth blade worked best.

Similar tests with a tubular copper drill were also successful. "

They did it...they actually did it and proved the technique possible.

Whether thats HOW the ancients actually did it or not though is another thing :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No; I think youre incorrect here, for example;

"In 1999, D.A. Stocks tested the efficacy of copper saws and drills on the granite in the Aswan quarries 500 miles up the Nile. The copper saw in his test was 1.8 meters long, 15 centimeters in depth, and 6 millimeters thick. Stocks experimented with both wet and dry sand and smooth and notched saws. In one test, workmen cut a slot 3 centimeters deep and 95 centimeters long in14 hours. It was slow work, but the ancient Egyptians had plenty of time and manpower. In the same experiment, the copper saw blade was ground down 7.5 millimeters. Overall, dry sand with a smooth blade worked best.

Similar tests with a tubular copper drill were also successful. "

They did it...they actually did it and proved the technique possible.

Whether thats HOW the ancients actually did it or not though is another thing :)

Source: http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf137/sf137p01.htm

You have a video?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In one test, workmen cut a slot 3 centimeters deep and 95 centimeters long in14 hours. It was slow work, but the ancient Egyptians had plenty of time and manpower. In the same experiment, the copper saw blade was ground down 7.5 millimeters.

So, their tools degraded at more than twice the rate of work progress?

As a feasible method for cutting many thousands of huge stone blocks, color me sceptical. In fact, there's no way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.