Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

19th Century Stone Working- Secrets of the Ancient World Revealed


Thanos5150

Recommended Posts

Several videos of 19th century stone working photos:

Old Quarry and Stone Mason pictures - extras

Stone Cutting with Hand Operated Saws in the Old'n Times

Stone Masons Photographed in the Olden Times & Pictured in the Ancient Times. NO LOST ANCIENT TECH!

Stone Working Old School: A Slideshow [granite]

As I have noted countless times:

None of the tools used in the 19th century are any different than what was used by the Romans or any other ancient culture for that matter. Pick-axe. Adze. Hammers. Chisels. Pry bars. Simple cranes. Rope. Ladders. Scaffolding. Pulleys. Sleds. Beasts of burden. Drills, lathes, saws. These are the tools that built our world of stone from the most ancient times to today. There is fundamentally ZERO difference from a 19th century quarry to a Roman or ancient Egyptian quarry.

We can see with our own eyes this what humans do just as they always have done.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In ancient Greece, it is the sudden appearance of monumental architecture that separates the Geometric period from the beginning of the Archaic.

Shortly after Greeks began permanently settling in Egypt, temple building started in earnest back in Greece.

The circumstances and timing surrounding the appearance of the knowledge and tools necessary to create some of the most beautiful buildings and statuary of the ancient world make it clear they most likely had to have come from Egypt. As you’ve astutely pointed out, since the Greeks and Romans used these methods then the Egyptians must have also done so earlier.

And so on the farther back we go. 

Edited by Antigonos
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Antigonos said:

 

11 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:


None of the tools used in the 19th century are any different than what was used by the Romans or any other ancient culture for that matter. Pick-axe. Adze. Hammers. Chisels. Pry bars. Simple cranes. Rope. Ladders. Scaffolding. Pulleys. Sleds. Beasts of burden. Drills, lathes, saws. These are the tools that built our world of stone from the most ancient times to today. There is fundamentally ZERO difference from a 19th century quarry to a Roman or ancient Egyptian quarry.

We can see with our own eyes this what humans do just as they always have done.

Indeed. Eloquently stated. 

No lost advanced technology required.

Edited by Antigonos
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Several videos of 19th century stone working photos:

Old Quarry and Stone Mason pictures - extras

Stone Cutting with Hand Operated Saws in the Old'n Times

Stone Masons Photographed in the Olden Times & Pictured in the Ancient Times. NO LOST ANCIENT TECH!

Stone Working Old School: A Slideshow [granite]

As I have noted countless times:

None of the tools used in the 19th century are any different than what was used by the Romans or any other ancient culture for that matter. Pick-axe. Adze. Hammers. Chisels. Pry bars. Simple cranes. Rope. Ladders. Scaffolding. Pulleys. Sleds. Beasts of burden. Drills, lathes, saws. These are the tools that built our world of stone from the most ancient times to today. There is fundamentally ZERO difference from a 19th century quarry to a Roman or ancient Egyptian quarry.

We can see with our own eyes this what humans do just as they always have done.

Other than the AE apparently didn't have the compound pulley or iron in quantity and it's questionable if they used cranes for anything other than shadoufs.

Good reference site for old-timey stone quarrying: https://quarriesandbeyond.org/index.html

Extra useful for mudflood/tartaria discussions. Also fun to show handsaws actually in use to cut limestone.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of the strictly human aspects of these subjects:

One of my favorite anecdotes is when archaeologists discovered the workshop of the architect/sculptor Phidias; amongst the artifacts found was a cup inscribed with the words “I belong to Phidias”.

Its very amusing to me that the creator of among other marvels the Statue of Zeus at Olympia, one of the Seven Wonders of the World, felt the need to put his name on his personal drinking cup.

Edited by Antigonos
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Oniomancer said:

Other than the AE apparently didn't have the compound pulley

Neither did the Greeks:

a9a82819898dc60315c1490d5cf71794.jpg

Or NK Egyptians:

4257297827_2b90150e52.jpg

Which was not required to cut, quarry, and transport the stone on land regardless.  

Quote

or iron in quantity

Bronze was used all the same well into Greek and Roman times.

Quote

and it's questionable if they used cranes for anything other than shadoufs.

There is nothing preventing them from using simple cranes which the finished structures infer they did as they do for others tools missing from the archeological record.  

It goes without saying there are some minutia about 19th century stone working tools and materials that may not have been available to earlier ancient cultures but the fundamentals are the same which I am sure you understand the point. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/3/2023 at 6:32 PM, Thanos5150 said:

Neither did the Greeks:

Up until Archimedes. And even then their pulleys were more sophisticated

On 4/3/2023 at 6:32 PM, Thanos5150 said:

Or NK Egyptians:

Which was not required to cut, quarry, and transport the stone on land regardless.  

Bronze was used all the same well into Greek and Roman times.

But less efficient than iron.

On 4/3/2023 at 6:32 PM, Thanos5150 said:

There is nothing preventing them from using simple cranes which the finished structures infer they did as they do for others tools missing from the archeological record.  

It goes without saying there are some minutia about 19th century stone working tools and materials that may not have been available to earlier ancient cultures but the fundamentals are the same which I am sure you understand the point.

The basics are the same but we don't want to create the false impression that the AE had exactly the same equipment and methodology, if only because someone is bound to throw it in your face. No one for instance would say the AE had the exact equivalent of these:

1-2810374x2.png

At least I would hope they wouldn't.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Oniomancer said:

Up until Archimedes. And even then their pulleys were more sophisticated

This should be a given considering Archimedes didn't invent the block and tackle system until the mid/late 3rd century, well after the overwhelming majority of Greek monumental architecture had been constructed beginning some 400+ years before his time. 

Quote

But less efficient than iron.

....Obviously that wasn't an issue now was it? 

Quote

 

The basics are the same but we don't want to create the false impression that the AE had exactly the same equipment and methodology, if only because someone is bound to throw it in your face. No one for instance would say the AE had the exact equivalent of these:

1-2810374x2.png

At least I would hope they wouldn't.

How strange. You hope others wouldn't and yet the only one saying it is you. Why would you pick this instance, one that would not be argued the DE had if only the opposite hence the terminology used "simple cranes", over all the ones listed that they did? And yet you are concerned about others giving "false impressions"? 

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/2/2023 at 11:06 PM, Thanos5150 said:


None of the tools used in the 19th century are any different than what was used by the Romans or any other ancient culture for that matter. Pick-axe. Adze. Hammers. Chisels. Pry bars. Simple cranes. Rope. Ladders. Scaffolding. Pulleys. Sleds. Beasts of burden. Drills, lathes, saws.

Yet you admit they're different. Or are these simply "minutia"?

Stop reducing otherwise-accurate arguments to questionable generalizations and I'll stop jumping on your back about it.

3596609ce934f8ddc3e4bef022f88428be246f2e

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/3/2023 at 10:37 AM, Oniomancer said:

Other than the AE apparently didn't have the compound pulley or iron in quantity and it's questionable if they used cranes for anything other than shadoufs.

Good reference site for old-timey stone quarrying: https://quarriesandbeyond.org/index.html

Extra useful for mudflood/tartaria discussions. Also fun to show handsaws actually in use to cut limestone.

 

small point: Although they didn't enter the Iron Age as early as their contemporary civilizations they did have and use iron.  It became far more available during the Middle Kingdom and was common during the Late Period (700 BC and onward(

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Oniomancer said:

Yet you admit they're different. Or are these simply "minutia"?

Stop reducing otherwise-accurate arguments to questionable generalizations and I'll stop jumping on your back about it.

3596609ce934f8ddc3e4bef022f88428be246f2e

Eww. That is creepy. 

I have done nothing of the kind so save your BS. Always the same pedantic negative nonsense with you. I think my meaning to most folk here is quite clear including you so stop trying to twist things into something they are not so you can argue against something no one is saying but you. And here's an idea, maybe you start a thread or make a positive contribution for a change instead of just being the back biting little monkey even you picture yourself to be.   

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

small point: Although they didn't enter the Iron Age as early as their contemporary civilizations they did have and use iron.  It became far more available during the Middle Kingdom and was common during the Late Period (700 BC and onward(

Hence "in quantity", allowing for meteoric iron and other early uses. Prior debate over the supposed prybar found in connection with the shaft exteriors is perhaps relevant here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Eww. That is creepy. 

I have done nothing of the kind so save your BS. Always the same pedantic negative nonsense with you. I think my meaning to most folk here is quite clear including you so stop trying to twist things into something they are not so you can argue against something no one is saying but you. And here's an idea, maybe you start a thread or make a positive contribution for a change instead of just being the back biting little monkey even you picture yourself to be.   

Again, don't want your back bitten, don't leave that oh-so tasty rib meat exposed.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

small point: Although they didn't enter the Iron Age as early as their contemporary civilizations they did have and use iron.  It became far more available during the Middle Kingdom and was common during the Late Period (700 BC and onward(

I would also add that Thanos’ proposal that the AE had and used limited quantities of bronze at least as early as the late 2nd Dynasty has merit. As evidenced by his drawing attention to several bronze artifacts discovered within the tomb of Khasekhemwy.

Edited by Antigonos
  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Oniomancer said:

Again, don't want your back bitten, don't leave that oh-so tasty rib meat exposed.

Of all the forum rules violations I've been accused of, threatening to eat people isn't one of them. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/6/2023 at 4:01 PM, Antigonos said:

I would also add that Thanos’ proposal that the AE had and used limited quantities of bronze at least as early as the late 2nd Dynasty has merit. As evidenced by his drawing attention to several bronze artifacts discovered within the tomb of Khasekhemwy.

The issue of "bronze" is an interesting one - their copper was never very pure (arsenic was the most common adulterant) and they ended up with what's called "arsenical bronze" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenical_bronze

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Questionable Quality control in the ancient World... 

Quote
Ancient Scrap Metal Recycling
There is evidence to suggest that the Romans were some of the first people to recycle their metal – melting down old bronze coins to be remade into bronze statues under the assumption that the statues would hold more monetary value than the coins themselves.18 Nov 2021

The History of Scrap Metal Recycling | Morecambe Metals

...

The origins of recycling trace back nearly as far as human-kind has been keeping a record of ... Metals recycling is not alone in having ancient origins.
Have a peek into the history of scrap metal recycling. ... from the ancient city of Sagalassos – now known as Turkey – would recycle glass around 400 B.C. ...
29 Apr 2022  Ancient Romans also recycled scrap metals and jewelry into weapons during wartime, which was a popular practice used by many other civilizations ...
Reforging metal is most likely the world's oldest recycling practice and has even been used in the creation of some of the world's most famous landmarks and ...
Archaeologists claim that metal recycling was a more popular practice during times of distress. That is, archaeologists could marry up historical evidence of ...
9 Jan 2019  From the Middle Bronze Age onwards, all over Europe, bronze was being recycled. We know this because archaeologists have analysed the...
 
~

~

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SHaYap said:

Questionable Quality control in the ancient World... 

~

 

Nice collection!

One of the problems that Roman emperors had (and caused) was inflation via adulteration of metals.  One of the reasons they did this was to pay for expensive mercenaries and to pay Roman troops as their empire grew larger and larger.

Nero (AD 54–AD 68) debased the Roman denarius to about 90 percent silver.
• Trajan (AD 98–AD 117) debased the Roman denarius to about 85 percent silver.
• Marcus Aurelius (AD 161–AD 180) debased the Roman denarius to about 75 percent silver.
• Commodus (AD 177–AD 192) debased the Roman denarius to about 70 percent silver.
• Septimius Severus (AD 193–AD 211) debased the Roman denarius to about 50 percent
silver.
• By the time that Diocletian (AD 284–AD 305) stepped down, Roman coins were basically
silver plating over a base metal.
 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Kenemet said:

The issue of "bronze" is an interesting one - their copper was never very pure (arsenic was the most common adulterant) and they ended up with what's called "arsenical bronze" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenical_bronze

Spoken of at length throughout this thread: Khasekhemwy- Bridge to the Pyramid Age

Which you were a participant in so you would know he is talking about tin bronze, not arsenical. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/7/2023 at 5:40 PM, SHaYap said:
Ancient Scrap Metal Recycling

There is evidence to suggest that the Romans were some of the first people to recycle their metal – melting down old bronze coins to be remade into bronze statues under the assumption that the statues would hold more monetary value than the coins themselves.

Tens of thousands of tons of just copper was used in Egypt alone prior to the Romans yet it is virtually all gone. Millions of copper chisels, for example, just magically disappeared despite the fact no one could figure out how to reuse "old" metal until the 1st millennium? Come on now. While direct evidence of the physical act of "recycling" may be absent it is obviously inferred if not required. 

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Tens of thousands of tons of just copper was used in Egypt alone prior to the Romans yet it is virtually all gone. Millions of copper chisels, for example, just magically disappeared despite the fact no one could figure out how to reuse "old" metal until the 1st millennium? Come on now. While direct evidence of the physical act of "recycling" may be absent it is obviously inferred if not required. 


I would think that any civilization which possessed metals,  both contemporary and prior to the Romans would have recycled their stockpiles of metal in times of need. 

Between domestic recycling and plundering by foreign invaders of the Egyptians’ supplies of metals like copper and bronze its not at all surprising that they are missing from the archaeological record.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Wooden sledge with ramp made of rubble and binder:

92uk-lizzatura1.jpg

Exactly what is found in Dynastic Egypt. 

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/4/2023 at 12:32 AM, Thanos5150 said:

Bronze was used all the same well into Greek and Roman times.

Which is odd: they fought against the Hittites who had weapons made from steel.

So the Egyptians must have known steel. Or at least knew of its effectiveness, and of its superiority to bronze: their bronze swords and shields would have been splintered by the Hittite swords.

If I remember well, then at some point they made peace, and the daughter of the Hittite king married a pharaoh (or visa versa).

Maybe they also exchanged craftsmen?

Edited by Abramelin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

....

The Hittites used iron, not steel. The notion the Hittites equipped their armies with iron weapons is a 19th century theory that has since not found archeological support if only the opposite. A generic source but an accurate summary:

The Hittite empire, first to smelt iron for tools and artifacts, emerged as a civilization and formidable military power around 1600 B.C. before eventually being weakened and defeated around 1200 B.C. Although it had been thought that the Hittite military forces were formidable because of iron weaponry, the Hittites primarily used iron for ceremonial and other highly-prized artifacts and was not suitable for making functional weaponry. Instead, bladed weaponry was more typically bronze, an alloy made of tin and copper.

Until c. 1200BC iron was mostly meteoric and as such rare and expensive. Non meteoric iron was poor quality because of the inherent difficulties among other things of purging impurities and as such was quite inferior to bronze and in reality made poor weapons by comparison. The notion that once iron began appearing more regularly in the mid/late 2nd millennium that it replaced bronze is simply not true and was still widely used all the same even through Roman times. It wasn't until the 1st millennium that iron became increasingly ubiquitous as the methods of working it became more advanced.   

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

....

The Hittites used iron, not steel. The notion the Hittites equipped their armies with iron weapons is a 19th century theory that has since not found archeological support if only the opposite. A generic source but an accurate summary:

The Hittite empire, first to smelt iron for tools and artifacts, emerged as a civilization and formidable military power around 1600 B.C. before eventually being weakened and defeated around 1200 B.C. Although it had been thought that the Hittite military forces were formidable because of iron weaponry, the Hittites primarily used iron for ceremonial and other highly-prized artifacts and was not suitable for making functional weaponry. Instead, bladed weaponry was more typically bronze, an alloy made of tin and copper.

Until c. 1200BC iron was mostly meteoric and as such rare and expensive. Non meteoric iron was poor quality because of the inherent difficulties among other things of purging impurities and as such was quite inferior to bronze and in reality made poor weapons by comparison. The notion that once iron began appearing more regularly in the mid/late 2nd millennium that it replaced bronze is simply not true and was still widely used all the same even through Roman times. It wasn't until the 1st millennium that iron became increasingly ubiquitous as the methods of working it became more advanced.   

I think iron was used because of a trade breakdown and good copper, arsenic or tin couldn't be found in large supply. 

Google "Sword of Goujian"

I think it's craftsmen was a Eastern Iranian.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.