Look Mama, no diamond saw

[cormac mac airt]

1%?? So you choose to disregard completely the enormous quantity of casing stones since you don't see them.

Nope, I choose to NOT pretend that the casing stones and the internal chambers are what constitutes the whole structure of the GP. And while I'll admit that you answered before I caught it (should remember to proofread my own writing and not get into a hurry, as I meant less than 10%) that still leaves more than 90% much less precise than what you'd have someone believe.

They remained in place for 2000 years but were then removed and you see only the (well designed) inner structure that supported them and think it's ugly.

I've never said it's ugly, but that the term used to describe the structure as a whole is incorrect. There's a difference.

While this is true, any rocket scientist would understand that such a requirement for exactness and consistency in the core stones would not be mission critical and likely work against the overall goals of the project, therefore discarding it and the idiot who suggested it.

And yet, you're the one parroting the "extreme precision" claim, which again is incorrect as regards the structure as a whole.

cormac

[lakeview rud]

I just read a book called "Lost Technologies of Ancient Egypt" by Christopher Dunn who makes some startling claims about AEs' technical abilities including a claim that the many "boat pits" around the pyramids were actually giant (45 ft dia. !!) circular saws!!

While this sounds preposterous it got me to wondering "why so many boat pits around the pyramids?" Surely one boat to take you to heaven would be enough? Also these pits seem too narrow for an assembled boat and they also seem to have a curve in the bottom which you would not need if you were just storing dis-assembled parts of a boat.

In particular there is a granite block at Abu Roash with a concave cut that is particularly intriguing (you could still make the block with the old pounding stones and copper chisels plus a template of the curve).

Also he doesn't get into any detail on what these giant circular saws would have on their edges to actually do the cutting but perhaps maybe there were some diamonds in the mix!

The book seems highly researched and quite technical so its not like he's saying aliens and UFO's; just pointing out a lot of places where the pounding stones and bronze chisels simply don't cut it (sorry about that)!

[questionmark]

I just read a book called "Lost Technologies of Ancient Egypt" by Christopher Dunn who makes some startling claims about AEs' technical abilities including a claim that the many "boat pits" around the pyramids were actually giant (45 ft dia. !!) circular saws!!

While this sounds preposterous it got me to wondering "why so many boat pits around the pyramids?" Surely one boat to take you to heaven would be enough? Also these pits seem too narrow for an assembled boat and they also seem to have a curve in the bottom which you would not need if you were just storing dis-assembled parts of a boat.

In particular there is a granite block at Abu Roash with a concave cut that is particularly intriguing (you could still make the block with the old pounding stones and copper chisels plus a template of the curve).

Also he doesn't get into any detail on what these giant circular saws would have on their edges to actually do the cutting but perhaps maybe there were some diamonds in the mix!

The book seems highly researched and quite technical so its not like he's saying aliens and UFO's; just pointing out a lot of places where the pounding stones and bronze chisels simply don't cut it (sorry about that)!

The question Mr Dunn left unanswered is why in the "circular saws" boats or remnants thereof were found. Besides, if they actually had circular saws they were operated by the worst kind of 5-thumbers we can imagine... even Donald Duck could cut straighter with one of them after dropping the retainer bolt on his foot.

[Apcpro]

I bought Dunn's book and read about thirty pages of it and put it down. He goes to a lot of effort to force complicated sounding geometry on everything. I doubt there were these huge circular saws. Maybe linear saws for some things but I don't think there's any evidence for that either.

Dunn's book really tries to complicate the pyramids. Usually the "KISS" principle works better.

[questionmark]

I bought Dunn's book and read about thirty pages of it and put it down. He goes to a lot of effort to force complicated sounding geometry on everything. I doubt there were these huge circular saws. Maybe linear saws for some things but I don't think there's any evidence for that either.

Dunn's book really tries to complicate the pyramids. Usually the "KISS" principle works better.

Wherein his measurements don't jive with the actual official maps... that in itself makes the theory always "slightly suspicious"... but it could be that 10 generations of surveyors always committed the same error

[lakeview rud]

Apcpro, I agree that Dunn's math/logic /geometry was a bit complex. That and after giving it some thought there's no way to construct a circular saw of that size with a blade depth large enough to do the job. You did have the same idea that hit me later..perhaps you could rig up a regular staright bronze saw to one (or both) end of a half circle or beam and create a huge jig saw capable of making the cuts needed...

As far as the boat pits still why so many and you can always toss your surplus lumber in there to clean up the job site (so they found one big boat.. why extrapolate that they were all used that way?)

[Mentalcase]

tri lobed disc realy looks like some part of mixer.

They used it to make cement. Really.

[questionmark]

Apcpro, I agree that Dunn's math/logic /geometry was a bit complex. That and after giving it some thought there's no way to construct a circular saw of that size with a blade depth large enough to do the job. You did have the same idea that hit me later..perhaps you could rig up a regular staright bronze saw to one (or both) end of a half circle or beam and create a huge jig saw capable of making the cuts needed...

As far as the boat pits still why so many and you can always toss your surplus lumber in there to clean up the job site (so they found one big boat.. why extrapolate that they were all used that way?)

You could do many things, but if there is one thing that was demonstrated by experimental archeology is that saws were use only in very extreme cases because cutting your average casing block with one could take a day, banging it to form with a dorite ball and then grinding it to smoothness with a piece of sandstone would be much faster, an experienced mason could make like 10 a day.

Having said that, there might have been a few cases where time was not so important when making a singular piece such as the sarcophagus and a saw could (but don't have to) be used there.

Edited June 13, 2012 by questionmark

[lilthor]

...after giving it some thought there's no way to construct a circular saw of that size with a blade depth large enough to do the job.

Interesting conclusion. What are your assumptions that led to this?

You could do many things, but if there is one thing that was demonstrated by experimental archeology is that saws were use only in very extreme cases because cutting your average casing block with one could take a day, banging it to form with a dorite ball and then grinding it to smoothness with a piece of sandstone would be much faster, an experienced mason could make like 10 a day.

It's been demonstrated that sawing can be slow going (so I've heard), but where do you get the idea that ball-banging and block-planing is "much faster"? 10 (quite large) fitted casing stones per day produced by a single mason? You might have it backwards.

[questionmark]

Interesting conclusion. What are your assumptions that led to this?

It's been demonstrated that sawing can be slow going (so I've heard), but where do you get the idea that ball-banging and block-planing is "much faster"? 10 (quite large) fitted casing stones per day produced by a single mason? You might have it backwards.

Doubt it, almost at the beginning of this thread I have the picture of an old Egyptian dude hammering and grinding sidewalk borders, and even not killing himself he did about 75 meters of it that day. That should be 10 casing stones.

[kmt_sesh]

I just read a book called "Lost Technologies of Ancient Egypt" by Christopher Dunn who makes some startling claims about AEs' technical abilities including a claim that the many "boat pits" around the pyramids were actually giant (45 ft dia. !!) circular saws!!

While this sounds preposterous it got me to wondering "why so many boat pits around the pyramids?" Surely one boat to take you to heaven would be enough? Also these pits seem too narrow for an assembled boat and they also seem to have a curve in the bottom which you would not need if you were just storing dis-assembled parts of a boat.

In particular there is a granite block at Abu Roash with a concave cut that is particularly intriguing (you could still make the block with the old pounding stones and copper chisels plus a template of the curve).

Also he doesn't get into any detail on what these giant circular saws would have on their edges to actually do the cutting but perhaps maybe there were some diamonds in the mix!

The book seems highly researched and quite technical so its not like he's saying aliens and UFO's; just pointing out a lot of places where the pounding stones and bronze chisels simply don't cut it (sorry about that)!

When you're a king, one of anything usually isn't sufficient.

I'm not sure how much detail Dunn goes into when describing the boat pits, and I wouldn't trust him when researching ancient Egyptian religious and cultural beliefs. The man clearly possesses acumen with modern material science, but at the same time clearly does not possess a working understanding of engineering technologies and capabilities of the Early Bronze Age Egyptians. From what I've read of his material, he fills in his own blanks with speculations and assumptions.

I think you've already figured it out for yourself, judging from your subsequent post, but the idea of these giant circular saws is comically preposterous. I think one of Dunn's failings is his tendency to look at tool marks from strictly a modern perspective without researching other ways and means such tool marks could've been left by ancient tools. And the ancient tools are amply evidenced in the archaeological record. Giant saws certainly are not.

I don't know how familiar you are with the archaeology of the Great Pyramid complex, lakeview rud, and I don't like making assumptions. So if you already know this, feel free to ignore it. Maybe it will be of benefit to other readers. There are at least two boat pits on the east side of the pyramid that do not appear to have had anything in them, but in the 1950s two boat pits were discovered on the south side that did contain boats. These were limestone-lined pits and the boats were disassembled. One was extracted and slowly reassembled, over the span of a dozen years. It's now on display in the boat-shaped museum on the south side of the pyramid. This is the boat often called the "Khufu barge," and it is in a remarkable state of preservation. It's over 140 feet long and by all appearances had been used on the Nile during the lifetime of Khufu. The other boat was left untouched in its pit, although there was news shortly before the Egyptian government toppled that they were going to extract and reassemble it, too (I rather wish they wouldn't).

Most of the pyramids and the sun temples as well have empty boat pits in their complexes. Many of these were carefully dug and lined, even if they never contained anything. Excavations of them have revealed no traces of boats. Still, the representation of a thing was as good as the real thing, so even the empty pits would've provided the deceased king with boats for his afterlife. He would join in the endless cyclic procession of Re as the sun moved through the sky by day and through the underworld by night. Some kings may have felt more than one boat was needed for this.

Senusret III Khakhaure reigned late in Dynasty 12 of the Middle Kingdom, over 600 years after Khufu. His pyramid complex was built at Dashur. Outside his pyramid's perimeter wall Senusret had five boats buried in the sand. All five survived in reasonable condition, although not as well as the Khufu barge. Even more impressive is what was found at Abydos a number of years ago. There's a huge monument there that's referred to as the Western Mastaba. It's uninscribed and no one is sure which king erected it. But just outside this monument archaeologists unearthed fourteen boats dating to Dynasty 1. Although little remains of them but hull fragments, these boats had been buried in carefully prepared and lined pits 5,000 years ago.

My long-winded post is just meant to reinforce the long tradition of boat burials in ancient Egypt. I did not describe those boats and pits provided for high-ranking noblemen in the earliest dynasties, but there's enough information here to prove a point. I don't know exactly what Dunn is trying to suggest, but he's never struck me as someone who's knowledgeable in the ancient culture of pharaonic Egypt. And without that critical knowledge, he's doing little more than shooting blanks.

[kmt_sesh]

Interesting conclusion. What are your assumptions that led to this?

...

Answered easily enough. Can you think of any artifact from the Early Bronze Age, either of copper or bronze, of that size?

[lilthor]

Doubt it, almost at the beginning of this thread I have the picture of an old Egyptian dude hammering and grinding sidewalk borders, and even not killing himself he did about 75 meters of it that day. That should be 10 casing stones.

Using the typical dimensions cited for the size of the casing stones, 10 of them equates to around 190 square meters total surface area. The old guy block planing in your photo is working on a piece of which 75 linear meters would only total about 70 square meters of surface area at best. So you are way off in your comparison purely from a surface area perspective. Further, the old guy is able to manipulate the piece using one hand while he block planes with the other. The casing stones weighed multiple tons, so turning them to expose the sides would require many men and equipment. Additionally, the old guy most certainly did not use a diorite pounder to beat those curb pieces from boulders into near-net shape. In fact, they were in all likelihood sawn to near-net shape and this poor soul is simply knocking off the high spots with his block plane.

In short, your vaunted photo shows nothing but your own detachment from real world thinking.

Here's a fun comparison to demonstrate this:

Questionmark declared (in this thread):

In fact, the Great Pyramid is probably the most sloppily build structure of the 4th dynasty.

From a 2007 research article concerning the material properties of G1 limestone (http://www.cmc-concr..., 29th ICMA.pdf):

Based on unassailable field evidence in favor of a geologic origin for the pyramid stones, and equally convincing results of the present laboratory studies cofirming the "geologic" origin of the casing stone samples from the Great Pyramid of Khufu (originally used as evidence for a man-made origin), the author is convinced that the Egyptian Pyramids stand as testament to the unprecedented accuracy, craftsmanship, and engineering skills of the Old Kingdom (2,500 BC) stone masons!

It's ok, qm, for you to admit that you pull your contentions straight out of your rear end.

You may even find it cathartic.

Edited June 13, 2012 by lilthor

[questionmark]

Using the typical dimensions cited for the size of the casing stones, 10 of them equates to around 190 square meters total surface area. The old guy block planing in your photo is working on a piece of which 75 linear meters would only total about 70 square meters of surface area at best. So you are way off in your comparison purely from a surface area perspective. Further, the old guy is able to manipulate the piece using one hand while he block planes with the other. The casing stones weighed multiple tons, so turning them to expose the sides would require many men and equipment. Additionally, the old guy most certainly did not use a diorite pounder to beat those curb pieces from boulders into near-net shape. In fact, the were in all likelihood sawn to near-net shape and this poor soul is simply knocking off the high spots with his block plane.

In short, your vaunted photo shows nothing but your own detachment from real world thinking.

Here's a fun comparison to demonstrate this:

Questionmark declared (in this thread):

From a 2007 research article concerning the material properties of G1 limestone (http://www.cmc-concr..., 29th ICMA.pdf):

It's ok, qm, for you to admit that you pull your contentions straight out of your rear end.

You may even find it cathartic.

The GP is still the worst build structure of the 4th dynasty, no matter how many unrelated things you bring as your crown witness.

[lilthor]

Answered easily enough. Can you think of any artifact from the Early Bronze Age, either of copper or bronze, of that size?

I sure can't. There's an absence of such evidence to be sure.

Ergo...?

[lilthor]

The GP is still the worst build structure of the 4th dynasty, no matter how many unrelated things you bring as your crown witness.

A most odiferous statement. It's origin is obvious.

[questionmark]

A most odiferous statement. It's origin is obvious.

Yes, a gang of a few thousand had to bang something together before the boss croaked, and the boss wanted something big, in fact he did not exactly know what he wanted because he changed the plans three times. It is obvious... or were you going to surprise us with some new evidence?

[lilthor]

Yes, a gang of a few thousand had to bang something together before the boss croaked, and the boss wanted something big, in fact he did not exactly know what he wanted because he changed the plans three times. It is obvious... or were you going to surprise us with some new evidence?

No...I think the extant evidence and published scholarly opinion are more than enough to expose your tripe for what it is: hot air with a rankish bouquet.

[questionmark]

No...I think the extant evidence and published scholarly opinion are more than enough to expose your tripe for what it is: hot air with a rankish bouquet.

:clap:

[kmt_sesh]

I sure can't. There's an absence of such evidence to be sure.

Ergo...?

Ergo...what?

I can't read your mind, so please state in clear terms what you wanted to say. "Ergo" isn't an answer, it's a teaser.

[lilthor]

Ergo...what?

I can't read your mind, so please state in clear terms what you wanted to say. "Ergo" isn't an answer, it's a teaser.

Apologies on my part. I was making a (n admittedly vague) reference to the saying which ends: "...isn't evidence of absence". No matter. I can imagine any very large copper or bronze articles not lasting much beyond their original intended purpose before being recycled into something else.

My original question to lakeview rud was to inquire about any measurements he may have used to discount the possibility of a large circular saw being used to cut the blocks...i.e. the saw diameter (based upon the length of the boat pits) being too small (by radius) to cut the depth of one block.

Dunn's other theories aside, the idea of multiple block cutting/milling stations located right on-site has a lot of merit. One can imagine quite a bit of custom-fitting being necessary and not having to run back and forth across the plateau with casing stones to make fine tweaks seems like a good arrangement.

[lakeview rud]

kmt sesh; you mistake my inquiry for belief....whenever someone comes up with a new idea it is up to us to investigate it, much like a CSI team, to find out if there is any validity in the remaining evidence. You yourself know of many discoveries made in dusty storage boxes and drawers in museums where items were mislabeled or misidentified. In this case it would be great if someone were to return to any material (wood, rubble etc.) that was found in these boat pits and perhaps check for fragments of copper or bronze or perhaps size up the pieces of stone (were they all limestone) and see if the wood is typical of boat construction.

If you do not not keep an open mind( even as a scientist), you are quite likely to overlook something. There is nothing inherently wrong with being open to possibilities; one the other hand if there is sufficient proof it is okay to draw conclusions. If new evidence develops its just as okay to modify those conclusions.

[Harte]

Apologies on my part. I was making a (n admittedly vague) reference to the saying which ends: "...isn't evidence of absence".

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

Harte

[kmt_sesh]

kmt sesh; you mistake my inquiry for belief....whenever someone comes up with a new idea it is up to us to investigate it, much like a CSI team, to find out if there is any validity in the remaining evidence. You yourself know of many discoveries made in dusty storage boxes and drawers in museums where items were mislabeled or misidentified. In this case it would be great if someone were to return to any material (wood, rubble etc.) that was found in these boat pits and perhaps check for fragments of copper or bronze or perhaps size up the pieces of stone (were they all limestone) and see if the wood is typical of boat construction.

If you do not not keep an open mind( even as a scientist), you are quite likely to overlook something. There is nothing inherently wrong with being open to possibilities; one the other hand if there is sufficient proof it is okay to draw conclusions. If new evidence develops its just as okay to modify those conclusions.

In the case of giant spinning metal saws, it's simply common sense that tells us the impossibility. It's not just the complete lack of evidence for huge circular saw blades—and by that I mean textual and artistic as well as archaeological. It's also the means by which such a device would be employed. How would it have been powered? Where is the evidence for the mechanics that powered the blade? This was the Early Bronze Age, remember. Altogether it's quite unrealistic.

I'm quite sure whatever was found in the boat pits when they were first excavated is long gone. In most cases they're just boat-shaped pits, some lined with limestone slabs and some not. The only known pit that is still relatively untouched is the one containing the disassembled boat south of the Great Pyramid, but by all appearances it's no different from the neighboring pit from which the other boat was recovered and reassembled.

These are just pits, nothing more. Finding tiny fragments of wood or copper or bronze isn't likely to tell us much. Or am I misreading the intent of your post?

[questionmark]

In the case of giant spinning metal saws, it's simply common sense that tells us the impossibility. It's not just the complete lack of evidence for huge circular saw blades—and by that I mean textual and artistic as well as archaeological. It's also the means by which such a device would be employed. How would it have been powered? Where is the evidence for the mechanics that powered the blade? This was the Early Bronze Age, remember. Altogether it's quite unrealistic.

I'm quite sure whatever was found in the boat pits when they were first excavated is long gone. In most cases they're just boat-shaped pits, some lined with limestone slabs and some not. The only known pit that is still relatively untouched is the one containing the disassembled boat south of the Great Pyramid, but by all appearances it's no different from the neighboring pit from which the other boat was recovered and reassembled.

These are just pits, nothing more. Finding tiny fragments of wood or copper or bronze isn't likely to tell us much. Or am I misreading the intent of your post?

As you said,there is much more to a saw than a spinning blade. Something has to drive that blade, to drive the blade mechanical devices are necessary. Even if it is only a power belt. And while one might argue that the metal was precious and therefore reused I fail to see why the non-metallic parts of such a device were not found.

The whole thingy is almost as far fetched as Geysers.