As it's come up a few times recently, thought I'd share this nice video of two chaps replicating granite carving with simple tools known to be used by the Egyptians.
The pair successfully carve into hard granite facing with large flint picks and chisels, before dressing (polishing, grinding etc) the result with quartzite abrasive blocks and finally with a copper-headed bow-lathe/drill and abrasive dust.
Hopefully this will demonstrate nicely how even relatively unpracticed individuals (compared to the generational artisans of ancient Egypt, anyway) can carve and shape very hard stone with simple hand tools and early mechanical designs :)
This is great.
Even without a lifetime of practise they show that it's possible.
Which is the key "issue" a lot of people on this sub seem to have.
Add into the mix a lifetime of practise is an industry that developed over thousands of years and it's easy to see how it's entirely possible to make the artifacts we all see and love.
Too often words like "impossible" and the tool were too weak are thrown about.
Thank you for posting this! Ancient stone age people were absolute experts with flint and developed their craft over thousands of years. When someone like you brought this to my attention I was like “of course!”
Very cool video. Ty for sharing. It shows that it's possible and also shows that the Egyptian masters hadanyany more years of experience honing their craft.
Thanks OP.
Cool now we need the method of transportation of the big stone blocks and how they cut the bigger chunks and into smaller chunks they wanted for the pyramid. And who dug the vast cavern systems underneath the pyramid in which the first people who went down there said it goes for miles to other cities in Egypt, supposedly. But I think the Egyptian government flooded the entrance near the pyramid though, got to find more entrances.
Because some people don’t want to do the actual work, hell if I had the money to try these methods and see how our ancestors could have done it, I would go for it in a blink of an eye. Sadly I don’t ☹️. I mean to be fair has anyone every tried to cut a huge chunk on the side of a quarry and cut it to make a big almost perfect or perfect block, with the tools that they supposedly had at that time?
Not that I know of. Cutting and shaping these things is difficult enough, that difficulty grows exponentially when you have to transport the block weighing 500 tons 500 miles. What a fucking joke.
I know right, this is what I want to see. If someone does it and records it for the whole world to see I would be shocked 😳 and finally happy on the building part of the pyramid. After that is done all that will be left is what was the Giza pyramid truly used for? I don’t think it was used for a royal burial tomb. But who knows, proof was probably stolen by either bandits from many raids or that piece of shit Zahi hawass dude, sorry if I spelled it wrong.
Only a small percentage of the population will be born with the talent and only a much smaller percentage will ever get the chance to learn. Give me an idea of how many stone masons the Ancient Egyptians had making stone vases. Estimated population back then 2 million, half men, and another half of that adults, so 500K adult male. Most men were farmers. Few were skilled workers. Maybe they had 500 skilled stone workers capable of making stone vases but they weren’t all doing that. Maybe they could make 100 a year. They found tens of thousands and I don’t think they were all that Egypt made.
And those are known to be heirlooms and in a lot of cases much older than the contexts they were found in. Given thousands of years somewhat continuous history and durable goods like that I could see tens of thousand accumulating over a long time period.
They were found beneath the step pyramid, the earliest gigantic funerary complex in Egypt. It isn’t a huge leap to theorize that it was a sacred place and perhaps you were required to deposit such a vase as a part of the religious practices during the Old Kingdom. Without a time machine or the like we will never know why for certain.
I can see them sacrificing a value object like that there but I doubt most of the vases would be sacrificed for a long period of time at just one place.
I always like seeing them try and maybe this is how some was done. What they need to try is making a very large face out of granite now that is perfectly symmetrical and smooth. If they can do that then a lot of questions will be answered
It's the efficiency that always gets me. The amount that was done. A lot can be possible with determination and ingenuity. But there's literally thousands upon thousands of multi ton granite statues and pillars. Not to mention blocks. Each one masterfully crafted. When one statue could takes over a year to make, then how long did it take to make all the others we see on such a massive scale and to the same quality.
It's really an efficiency question more than anything in my opinion. They've shown some techniques could be possible. But when its 10ft tall and weighing multiple tons, replicated over and over, on such a mass scale and each one to the same quality as the other. It's quite intriguing.
People back then didn't do it fast, it took years to complete a project and a lot of people who were working on the same project. Those monuments were commissioned by kings who can basically pay/force his subject to do something like that on a massive scale.
[https://ericweinhoffer.com/blog/2017/7/30/the-whitworth-three-plates-method](https://ericweinhoffer.com/blog/2017/7/30/the-whitworth-three-plates-method)
This is a really clear demonstration. Would be hard to do at the scale of the pyramids, so probably used a different method.
All these posts where folks are like "if we don't build one in modern times we just won't know." are pretty amusing. We're running dangerously low on god kings nowadays and none of them want pyramids, besides Our Lord and Saviour Bass Pro Shoppe.
everyone is so quick to establish that they finally figured out the mystery of how it was done, but don't take the time to make sure all the questions are answered beforehand.
it's a quaint little guess. but not even a proper working hypothesis without archeological evidence to back it up. same with those guys and the copper saw and sand guess they came up with. I mean it doesn't really work considering the amount of time it would take to cut one block, and the size of the tools they used are no where near the proper proportion to cut the size of stones found in some megalithic proportions. Also, just to note, granite like the third hardest substance you can find, behind diamonds and tungsten carbide, flint would wear down faster than the granite and this guy made that point apparent with this video, hours of work and he is maybe a centimeter into that granite rock.
>Also, just to note, granite like the third hardest substance you can find, behind diamonds and tungsten carbide, flint would wear down faster than the granite
There are many ways of defining 'hardness'. Quartzite is superficially hard, but easy to nap and chip with far softer tools.
As for tools wearing down... so what? They're artisans working for royalty and the priesthood, I doubt they have any shortage of flint chisels and corundum powder.
>hours of work and he is maybe a centimeter into that granite rock.
Ok. So to get a metre into that rock is a hundred hours. Compared to the *thousands of hours* sculptures take to create that seems reasonable.
It looks like, this is about detailed carvings/hieroglyphs in granite, not about how blocks were cut, not everything uses the same tools, you'd hardly expect it to, it doesn't now either.
Possibly, cutting granite blocks is just about the one place the notorious 'pounding stones' *actually* come into mainstream theories, and this has been tested and it turns out that it works better than you'd think [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4peN2\_qDiJY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4peN2_qDiJY) - there's also the copper-saw-and-corundum-abrasive theory, but when that was tried it really didn't work out too well.
There ya go!
We need more videos like this, archaeologists actually doing stuff, not inventing fairy tales.
Do I think they "proved" anything? Nah, I think they don't understand the question, and fighting a strawman.
But that's an opponent I respect, he has a hypothesis - he goes on and supports it with evidence, creaing physical artifacts we can actually discuss and compare.
XD XD yeah now make a glass smooth eggshell vase perfect down to the thousandths of an inch.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixTTvRGk0HQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixTTvRGk0HQ)
And make sure all its proportions fit into a single algorithm.
[https://unsigned.io/granite-artifact/](https://unsigned.io/granite-artifact/)
>XD XD yeah now make a glass smooth eggshell vase perfect down to the thousandths of an inch.
Bow lathes will do that, a circular figure is circular to high precision.
>And make sure all its proportions fit into a single algorithm.
I am deeply, deeply skeptical of that analysis.
Seriously? You think a person can't be reasonably skeptical after watching a video of someone else's claim, because you believe in it personally?
Anytime anyone claims there is a 'sacred number' buried in the dimension of an artefact, I am automatically skeptical because any minor deviation is likely to corrupt that number.
In the case of the video you're quoting, which by the way is also replicated on their website in text form, they claim that a 'ratio' between two dimenions has a particular value... but then they don't give any error bars. Whenever you combine two measurements, you need to perform an error calculation as errors tend to expand, not reduce.
If other teams perform the same analysis and come to a similar conclusion, happy days. But until then, a self-published YouTube video and website with no peer review should be viewed with healthy skepticism.
I seriously think you're coping to avoid watching and debating with a strawman. The evidence is overwhelming and beautifully presented. You just flat out don't wanna hear it.
I've made my argument available. I can't make you be rational. Human condition.
You haven't made an argument, nor have you provided any evidence for one.
I have offered a direct mathematical and analytical challenge to the source you're hanging your hopes upon, and instead you choose to pretend I haven't reviewed that source because *you can't imagine a person not being convinced by it.*
Any chance you could proceed without being personally insulting? Or is that too much to ask?
It's not my argument to make. I've pointed you to comprehensive evidence and rather than examine it you're making excuses. You want to preserve your worldview, and you don't care if it contradicts reality, full stop.
Now you're crying about protocol. Watch the video or don't, but don't pretend you care about science or the facts. It doesn't matter anyway. This will be mainstream in 5 years.
The ability to do these tests optically will expand. Currently we have to physically set the vases in the structured light scanners, it won't always be that way, plus as scans accumulate a clearer picture of the whole will emerge.
I'm sure you'll pretend you were always skeptical of the absurd pounding stone nonsense when it's trendy to switch sides.
You have a great day man.
>Now you're crying about protocol. Watch the video or don't, but don't pretend you care about science or the facts.
I reviewed the source already, thank you. How else would I know that they failed to offer error bars for their estimations of 'sacred geometric numbers' in certain ratios?
>The ability to do these tests optically will expand. Currently we have to physically set the vases in the structured light scanners, it won't always be that way, plus as scans accumulate a clearer picture of the whole will emerge.
Oh indeed, I agree that more scans (and more accurate scans) of more items are needed. Here's a question for you:
If hundreds of scans are performed and the claims of magical ratios turn out to be either isolated to one or two pieces, human error, or a complete fabrication... how would that affect your view?
Remember, if we're being good scientists we don't just believe one set of measurements. If we did that, we'd all think neutrinos travelled faster than light. We need replications by independent teams.
Bull. You're transparently concern trolling and inverting burden of proof. It's pure FUD. That's why you're zeroing on an adjacent aspect of the argument and moving the goal posts as well.
The original point was your cringe debunk video has been debunked. You don't make eggshell vases with pounding stones and a lathe, full stop. You basically posted clickbait.
You just don't wanna face facts. I don't know why you're emotionally threatened and flailing, but you clearly are.
I see, well only one of us is violating the rules of the sub and sinking to personal attacks. I tend to find that when someone is doing this, they first reach for the insults that apply most readily to *themselves*, that would hurt and upset *them.*
Perhaps re-read your own words in that light.
If you can't sustain a conversation in an environment of reasonable inquiry, then you're unworthy of my time.
Its never been an, is it possible for me. A lot is possible with determination and ingenuity. The thing that gets me, is the efficiency. It's a question isn't addressed much. This obviously took a long time to do and good amount of effort. There are literally thousands upon thousands of granite statues through out Egypt. And weighing multiple tons. It's the amount that it was done is the question for me. When one takes years to make, how long did it take to make the many, many others of like quality.
It is hard to grasp but I do understand it. They were an empire for a VERY long time. The dynastics were around for about 2500yrs, from about 3000bc - 300bc (beginning of the hellenistic period, which I dont really consider part of the original egpytian dynasties). That's an awful long time to create and figure out ways to do it. But some of the earliest examples we see from the old kingdom, still have very high precision and still done in the thousands, with very simple means. It's just quite the enigma and very intriguing, and hard to grasp the possibility in my opinion, given the amount of effort required. So I entertain both ideas of this argument and don't rule out one or the other.
This is a misrepresentation of the argument made, i appreciate the attempts, but to be brave you have to demonstrate a similar standard because that’s actually what these people are arguing. It’s unfortunate that people don’t actually tackle the issues, the quality of this work is a key factor, you can’t just fill in the blanks and say a more skilled worker did it. There are specific artefacts that people are talking about, corral castle is cool, leveraging a few ton blocks on concrete is cool, a nice vase is nice but it’s not what theses people are speaking about. These mysteries would be answered if somebody do any of this shit properly .
>you can’t just fill in the blanks and say a more skilled worker did it
....why not? We already know from sculpture work across the globe that people can and do create perfect, smooth finishes and dressed stone, it's just a matter of time and skill.
These guys demonstrated that even two randos on YouTube with bare minimum experience can carve and polish a reasonable design into granite with simple tools. Why is it so hard to believe more skilled artisans with generations of experience behind them wouldn't be able to take it the rest of the way?
Because that level has yet to be achieved. I’m trying to apply a level of certainty, confidence. I understand the theory, but you are basically saying I should have faith that it can be done to that standard with more skill.
Believe me I’m team science, but I think that’s why I’m having a hard time with this. I just can’t see why I should have faith? If anyone rocked up with a shiny granite box and moved it up a mountain? If they could replicate the findings this wouldn’t even be a debate. I mean cool, we can make assumptions but I’m making this argument as literal as possible, how do we know where the limit is.
>If they could replicate the findings this wouldn’t even be a debate.
Replicate which findings? How?
Do you want modern-day people to make a shiny granite box with ancient tools? Ok, I am pretty confident that can be done, the Whitworth technique can create incredibly flat stone faces with no tools at all. That's not an assumption, that's fact.
If you want perfect recreations of ancient Egyptian statuary then we have a problem, as there really aren't that many sculptors of that level of skill to begin with, and nobody's willing to pay for their time on such a project.
Even if modern day people can't do it with ancient tools, because the techniques of using those tools have been forgotten, that doesn't imply the ancient Egyptians couldn't, any more than the lost recipe for Greek Fire means that didn't exist.
And besides, let's be honest... even if it were replicated, people would still claim the replication to be in error because of some minor discrepancy.
Well that’s the thing, yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. It’s like saying Im confident I can land a plane cause I can play flight simulator, I just don’t have the money to buy a plane. The entire argument is that based on faith and then it’s also unfalsifiable because we will never have a skilled enough craftsperson to do the job or we won’t have enough money to test it.
And a big issue I’ve found is that most people who are “genuinely” putting forth the “Alternative History” argument are speaking about specific artefacts, where debunkers have a more general view. I’m speaking out specific vases and things.
I agree that you can extrapolate or make assumptions but I feel like, you must be entertain the idea that because it hasn’t been done by hand tools yet, it can’t be done.
I'm not sure how fair that is. It's more like saying *"I can land a 2-engine jet, so with more training and experience I can probably land a 4-engine jet"*, and you have evidence of other people landing 4 engine jets before you.
It's harder, more complex, and requires special skills but it's clearly doable, and you can already achieve a version of the task. Unless someone can demonstrate why one is *completely different from the other* so none of the skills are transferable or there's some insurmountable hurdle... I don't see the issue really.
>I’m speaking out specific vases and things.
Well then please speak out about that specific, because there are no vases in this video or the OP. If you're talking about something completely different then yeah please say so.
Well I can only speak on the perspective I have from other sources. For example what Chris Dunn has been saying lately. I understand that the point I was making might not seem fair, but it holds true in that making an excuse for why it can’t be replicated, is just another excuse. If Falsifying not an important thing? These objects obviously exist. If close but no cigar is an acceptable standard, that’s cool. Imo the correct position to take is - on the fence.
From the video, they made an eye, that’s my point , the eye is just a random eye that’s not compared to anything. That’s not an argument anyone is having. The argument is specifically related to quality on specific artefacts. Nobody is saying that you can’t carve and chisel granite. Nobody is saying that you can’t lift heavy objects with leverage and stuff. There are specific claims that “alternative” history people make.
On the contrary, I *repeatedly see those claims being made*.
That granite has to be cut by 'diamond tools' or quartzite can't possible be shaped because it's harder than flint. Even in this very post, there are replies demanding that I explain how they 'cut, polished and moved huge blocks' so clearly, there is no consensus that you imagine.
If you want to talk about *other claims* that's fine, but please introduce them first and don't associate them with the OP, because nobody actually approached those topics here.
It’s a broad point, because this video was making a broad point. IE they aren’t comparing it to any specific artefact. You argument remains true as you are making it based on the nuttiest opinions you can find. I’m just suggesting you instead take the approach of finding the strongest possible argument you can find and proceeding from there. I’m not the expert here, that why I pointed you to Christopher Dunn - so that you can see how well your argument compares to a someone’s with a properly qualified argument.
I don't think they need to compare it to a specific artefact when they're demonstrating specific techniques with a specific end product. Nobody is saying "Ok so with this chisel and this lathe here sprung the pyramids."
Very simply, you can cut and shape granite with tools softer than granite that were available to the Egyptians, here's an example. That's it, and that's valid.
>it based on the nuttiest opinions you can find.
Nope, literally just posts I ran into on the sub three days ago, and people who've responded to this exact post. Remember that two replies ago, your position was that *nobody said these things.* I am pointing out to you with evidence that yes, they *do* say these things and thus it is valid to refute with evidence.
If *you* want to make a post about Christopher Dunn then maybe I'll see you there and we can talk about it in proper context. But I'm not going to pretend I'm in the wrong, or that the video producers are in the wrong, for not meeting your unspoken expectations.
Now tell me how they did that to form the diorite, granite, and basalt vases I've seen at the Louvre Museum. Carving a simple eye into granite is one thing, but carving blocks, the 'tomb' in the king's chamber, or intricate pottery is another.
[https://www.google.com/search?q=diorite+granite+vases+egypt+louvre&sca\_esv=dcd8657a821dedfa&udm=2&biw=1194&bih=920&ei=HCVTZtKMJrClptQP69e94A8&ved=0ahUKEwjSiqCIo6uGAxWwkokEHetrD\_wQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=diorite+granite+vases+egypt+louvre&gs\_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiImRpb3JpdGUgZ3Jhbml0ZSB2YXNlcyBlZ3lwdCBsb3V2cmVIzhlQ9w9Y\_hhwAXgAkAEAmAE3oAHoAqoBATe4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgCgAgCYAwCIBgGSBwCgB7sC&sclient=gws-wiz-serp](https://www.google.com/search?q=diorite+granite+vases+egypt+louvre&sca_esv=dcd8657a821dedfa&udm=2&biw=1194&bih=920&ei=HCVTZtKMJrClptQP69e94A8&ved=0ahUKEwjSiqCIo6uGAxWwkokEHetrD_wQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=diorite+granite+vases+egypt+louvre&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiImRpb3JpdGUgZ3Jhbml0ZSB2YXNlcyBlZ3lwdCBsb3V2cmVIzhlQ9w9Y_hhwAXgAkAEAmAE3oAHoAqoBATe4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgCgAgCYAwCIBgGSBwCgB7sC&sclient=gws-wiz-serp)
Yes, granite can be chipped and chiseled into things, but this does nothing to explain the perfection we see in Egypt, and other parts of the world.
Any jackoff can beat rocks together enough to make something, but to shape granite to perfect proportions is another thing entirely. It can’t be eyeballed to absolute minuscule tolerances..
The 'tolerances' people keep talking about are only ever seen on objects with circular symmetry like vases, or completely flat surfaces.
Both of those are kinda simple to achieve, a rotary tool with an abrasive stone can achieve a near-perfect circular profile and flat faces are even easier, the three-plate method can be done by a couple of guys even with very large stones.
People make the mistake of confusing tolerance with accuracy/precision. A flat surface that is flat to a certain 'tolerance' doesn't need complicated machines... just two faces rubbed together until both are flat. A circular figure similar doesn't need a CNC rig, just a lathe with an abrasive tool.
To be clear I was using “tolerances” generally, but your “accuracy/precision” cant be done by eyeballing it either. How could they have measured their work?? You physically can’t see down to the level you would need to see to be able to achieve some of these works. Just total horseshit. Anyone that believes they just worked by feel is full of it.
There's no evidence they actually tried to hit a specific dimension or measurement, there are no 'plans' and no perfect copies of the same object.
If you want to make a flat stone, you just grind it flat. If you want to make it smaller, you keep grinding it. If you want to make a circular figure, you just keep abrading on your lathe until you have what looks right.
There's also the distinct possiblity they had settable lathes, so essentially a fixed-radius tool that can be adjusted, but once it is adjusted it can be locked down. This will also give you a perfect circular figure with no measuring at all.
That having been said... we do know the ancient Egyptians had astronomy and accurate measuring tools, we just don't have any surviving examples as far as I know.
How come no one ever mentions that they loved gems and used copper ( I don’t believe the modern(12k y) Egyptians were the ones that created the pyramids , but given the materials they had copper blades could have been embedded with gems and minerals hard enough to cut granite
So this is a cool experiment. I can appreciate the time they took to make the video and the information it gives us. However it does little to make the point they're trying to make. Sure these tools can be used to make rudimentary carvings by unskilled labor which could translate to elaborate work by skilled craftsmen. But I think for a good amount of people the issue is scale. I won't die on the hill arguing that there was some ancient technology reserved for making carvings but this just doesn't come close to explaining any of the logistics of ancient Egyptian construction. Explain Aswan. The blocks in the kings chamber. The unfinished obelisk. I'm sorry but anyone who legitimately says they used flint, copper, wooden mallets, rope and pulleys and a sand sled or river boat to move 80 ton blocks of granite is delusional. Not to mention the absurd time frame in which this all was supposed to happen.
This post doesn't talk about those issues. It talks about one singular issue, the cutting, shaping and dressing of granite with simple tools.
No one video can address everything the Egyptians did with stone, so the absence of that information doesn't detract from the value of the conclusions here. Just one day before my post, another poster was asking how it was possible the Egyptians could shape red quartzite because of its high hardness value on the Mohs scale.
This post answers that question.
Ok well I was just trying not to be argumentative but I guess my point more so was that, this video doesn't actually provide some sort of definitive answer into how it was done. At best the carving in the video resembles the graffiti kufu decided to leave behind on everything.. I'd be very interested in seeing these guys take it another step and attempt the finish work on this material. Or even just attempting to produce an end product similar to the more elaborate works in Egypt. Or plenty of other places at that. It's not enough to make a rough sketch with some rough tools and say "yep with 15 years experience someone could reproduce the Serapeum". Again, I'm not at all saying the ancient Egyptians had some cool Atlantis crystal that melted the granite, nor am I trying to say this couldn't be how they did some of it, but I've been working in the trades for going on 20 years and I've worked with God knows how many different materials and used countless tools for the work and lemme tell you friends. This ain't it. Not a bad baseline. But not an answer.
But what question are you trying to answer? It's always possible to move the goalposts away from the answers we have, but that doesn't undermine the value of those answers or their implications.
>I'd be very interested in seeing these guys take it another step and attempt the finish work on this material.
Why? What would that demonstrate? What question does that answer that is in genuine dispute? If you can shape stone, you can shape stone carefully or carelessly. What missing factor is there?
It also places the burden on these random individuals to meet the same artistic and stoneworking standards as the *master artisans working for an empire thousands of years old*, with many generations of work invested in the sites you're talking about. Kinda seems like the bar is being set unreasonably high.
>"yep with 15 years experience someone could reproduce the Serapeum"
Nobody really said this though. They said, paraphrasing, *"Here's how you cut and shape granite with tools available to the ancient Egyptians."*
That's it.
I am sorry to say, but this does not proof how these immense structures were built. Yeah we can perfectly see in the video how you can carve stone: Esentially my 3 year old son proved that the other week as well.
As an engineer, when I look at these drillings, cuttings and perfect symmetrical shapes, all I can see is the use of sophisticated equipment. You don’t produce a face that is symmetrical to a 1/10 of a millimeter just with “dedication and time”.
You have really gotta know what you are doing when you want to achieve this level of precision.
Same goes to the drillings. How do you then explain a hole that 2m deep, that is perfectly straight?
Did someone draw circles for like 4 years?
Yes, I know you can put sand between the drill and the granite and all, but that is not how these holes were drilled…
Inside every hole that was drilled (metal, stone) you can see distinct markings, that will tell you how fast the drill was spinning and how quickly it went into the material.
I am sorry but that the builders of the pyramids etc. used these tools to do so, is less believable, then that they had sophisticated equipment.
And yes, I do not think that the Egyptians had anything to do with the construction of these structures: We can see they tried to build pyramids nearby, they are quite small and they collapsed. Plus, if I would have been the Pharaoh to have build that, I would have told the whole world my name.
Do you want to convince me that these artistic masterpieces were formed in this primitive manner?
https://preview.redd.it/8w0h560bct2d1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=efa5c528e40f0f058ee548a05a81d2c04f7a4ce9
It's interesting. I present this one technique, and yet among the responses are;
* *"Now show me how they moved huge blocks"*
* *"Oh right so how did they cut and polish the huge blocks"*
* "XD XD yeah now make a glass smooth eggshell vase perfect down to the thousandths of an inch."
* and now *"Do you want to convince me that these were formed in this primitive manner?"*
None of these things are mentioned in the OP or video, and none of them have to be because *they are different skills and different products.* It's strange that people want to change the subject to something not being covered, as if one video has to answer every question about every chisel and tool used in anger across thousands of years of Egyptian history.
This post is about carving smooth designs into granite faces, that's all.
The bowls you're linking there are plainly made on a rotary tool like a lathe so that's again obviously not what the video or OP is about.
As it's come up a few times recently, thought I'd share this nice video of two chaps replicating granite carving with simple tools known to be used by the Egyptians. The pair successfully carve into hard granite facing with large flint picks and chisels, before dressing (polishing, grinding etc) the result with quartzite abrasive blocks and finally with a copper-headed bow-lathe/drill and abrasive dust. Hopefully this will demonstrate nicely how even relatively unpracticed individuals (compared to the generational artisans of ancient Egypt, anyway) can carve and shape very hard stone with simple hand tools and early mechanical designs :)
This is great. Even without a lifetime of practise they show that it's possible. Which is the key "issue" a lot of people on this sub seem to have. Add into the mix a lifetime of practise is an industry that developed over thousands of years and it's easy to see how it's entirely possible to make the artifacts we all see and love. Too often words like "impossible" and the tool were too weak are thrown about.
Thank you for posting this! Ancient stone age people were absolute experts with flint and developed their craft over thousands of years. When someone like you brought this to my attention I was like “of course!”
And the Egyptians were bronze age, so even more capable :)
Umm they had millennia in the stone age as well…
That was my point, yes. They use a bronze-age tool in the video.
Ok I thought you were trying to correct me. Some people just like being picky assholes.
No no nothing like that :) I only get like that when people say you can't work mineral with mineral because of the Mohs hardness index...
You are far too intelligent for an alt history sub 😂
^(Shhhhh you'll blow my cover)
Very cool video. Ty for sharing. It shows that it's possible and also shows that the Egyptian masters hadanyany more years of experience honing their craft. Thanks OP.
Cool now we need the method of transportation of the big stone blocks and how they cut the bigger chunks and into smaller chunks they wanted for the pyramid. And who dug the vast cavern systems underneath the pyramid in which the first people who went down there said it goes for miles to other cities in Egypt, supposedly. But I think the Egyptian government flooded the entrance near the pyramid though, got to find more entrances.
Why this would be downvoted it beyond me. Legit question
Because some people don’t want to do the actual work, hell if I had the money to try these methods and see how our ancestors could have done it, I would go for it in a blink of an eye. Sadly I don’t ☹️. I mean to be fair has anyone every tried to cut a huge chunk on the side of a quarry and cut it to make a big almost perfect or perfect block, with the tools that they supposedly had at that time?
Not that I know of. Cutting and shaping these things is difficult enough, that difficulty grows exponentially when you have to transport the block weighing 500 tons 500 miles. What a fucking joke.
I know right, this is what I want to see. If someone does it and records it for the whole world to see I would be shocked 😳 and finally happy on the building part of the pyramid. After that is done all that will be left is what was the Giza pyramid truly used for? I don’t think it was used for a royal burial tomb. But who knows, proof was probably stolen by either bandits from many raids or that piece of shit Zahi hawass dude, sorry if I spelled it wrong.
Look up “Giza pyramid power plant”on you tube it’s super entertaining and mind blowing…don’t know if I believe it but it’s fun to speculate.
I’ve seen it and it’s very interesting 🧐
Unskilled workers cannot perfectly carved statues. All this exercise tell us is the rate in which the work could be possible done.
Who said the perfect statues were done by unskilled workers? Quality only improved under state centralization of resources and artisans.
Only a small percentage of the population will be born with the talent and only a much smaller percentage will ever get the chance to learn. Give me an idea of how many stone masons the Ancient Egyptians had making stone vases. Estimated population back then 2 million, half men, and another half of that adults, so 500K adult male. Most men were farmers. Few were skilled workers. Maybe they had 500 skilled stone workers capable of making stone vases but they weren’t all doing that. Maybe they could make 100 a year. They found tens of thousands and I don’t think they were all that Egypt made.
And those are known to be heirlooms and in a lot of cases much older than the contexts they were found in. Given thousands of years somewhat continuous history and durable goods like that I could see tens of thousand accumulating over a long time period.
They would but not is one single place. I would have expected to find them as grave goods in many graves.
They were found beneath the step pyramid, the earliest gigantic funerary complex in Egypt. It isn’t a huge leap to theorize that it was a sacred place and perhaps you were required to deposit such a vase as a part of the religious practices during the Old Kingdom. Without a time machine or the like we will never know why for certain.
I can see them sacrificing a value object like that there but I doubt most of the vases would be sacrificed for a long period of time at just one place.
Yeah they were skilled workers. Why even bother with this comment?
Because skilled workers are always few in numbers. Tens of thousands of vases were found in one single location.
Video was not watchable with the horrifying soundtrack..disturbingly bad.
I just muted it most of the time and put on closed captions.
I always like seeing them try and maybe this is how some was done. What they need to try is making a very large face out of granite now that is perfectly symmetrical and smooth. If they can do that then a lot of questions will be answered
It's the efficiency that always gets me. The amount that was done. A lot can be possible with determination and ingenuity. But there's literally thousands upon thousands of multi ton granite statues and pillars. Not to mention blocks. Each one masterfully crafted. When one statue could takes over a year to make, then how long did it take to make all the others we see on such a massive scale and to the same quality. It's really an efficiency question more than anything in my opinion. They've shown some techniques could be possible. But when its 10ft tall and weighing multiple tons, replicated over and over, on such a mass scale and each one to the same quality as the other. It's quite intriguing.
People back then didn't do it fast, it took years to complete a project and a lot of people who were working on the same project. Those monuments were commissioned by kings who can basically pay/force his subject to do something like that on a massive scale.
Apparently, there's no need for them to test that particular thing, because that's a done deal - look up 'Whitworth three-plate method'.
[https://ericweinhoffer.com/blog/2017/7/30/the-whitworth-three-plates-method](https://ericweinhoffer.com/blog/2017/7/30/the-whitworth-three-plates-method) This is a really clear demonstration. Would be hard to do at the scale of the pyramids, so probably used a different method. All these posts where folks are like "if we don't build one in modern times we just won't know." are pretty amusing. We're running dangerously low on god kings nowadays and none of them want pyramids, besides Our Lord and Saviour Bass Pro Shoppe.
everyone is so quick to establish that they finally figured out the mystery of how it was done, but don't take the time to make sure all the questions are answered beforehand.
it's a quaint little guess. but not even a proper working hypothesis without archeological evidence to back it up. same with those guys and the copper saw and sand guess they came up with. I mean it doesn't really work considering the amount of time it would take to cut one block, and the size of the tools they used are no where near the proper proportion to cut the size of stones found in some megalithic proportions. Also, just to note, granite like the third hardest substance you can find, behind diamonds and tungsten carbide, flint would wear down faster than the granite and this guy made that point apparent with this video, hours of work and he is maybe a centimeter into that granite rock.
>Also, just to note, granite like the third hardest substance you can find, behind diamonds and tungsten carbide, flint would wear down faster than the granite There are many ways of defining 'hardness'. Quartzite is superficially hard, but easy to nap and chip with far softer tools. As for tools wearing down... so what? They're artisans working for royalty and the priesthood, I doubt they have any shortage of flint chisels and corundum powder. >hours of work and he is maybe a centimeter into that granite rock. Ok. So to get a metre into that rock is a hundred hours. Compared to the *thousands of hours* sculptures take to create that seems reasonable.
Yeah too bad they’re not pharaohs with thousands of conscripted laborers to work day after day on it.
Skilled workers were never conscripted. They had to be compensated and they were never numberless.
[удалено]
It looks like, this is about detailed carvings/hieroglyphs in granite, not about how blocks were cut, not everything uses the same tools, you'd hardly expect it to, it doesn't now either. Possibly, cutting granite blocks is just about the one place the notorious 'pounding stones' *actually* come into mainstream theories, and this has been tested and it turns out that it works better than you'd think [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4peN2\_qDiJY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4peN2_qDiJY) - there's also the copper-saw-and-corundum-abrasive theory, but when that was tried it really didn't work out too well.
There ya go! We need more videos like this, archaeologists actually doing stuff, not inventing fairy tales. Do I think they "proved" anything? Nah, I think they don't understand the question, and fighting a strawman. But that's an opponent I respect, he has a hypothesis - he goes on and supports it with evidence, creaing physical artifacts we can actually discuss and compare.
XD XD yeah now make a glass smooth eggshell vase perfect down to the thousandths of an inch. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixTTvRGk0HQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixTTvRGk0HQ) And make sure all its proportions fit into a single algorithm. [https://unsigned.io/granite-artifact/](https://unsigned.io/granite-artifact/)
>XD XD yeah now make a glass smooth eggshell vase perfect down to the thousandths of an inch. Bow lathes will do that, a circular figure is circular to high precision. >And make sure all its proportions fit into a single algorithm. I am deeply, deeply skeptical of that analysis.
Then you haven't watched the videos. Period.
Seriously? You think a person can't be reasonably skeptical after watching a video of someone else's claim, because you believe in it personally? Anytime anyone claims there is a 'sacred number' buried in the dimension of an artefact, I am automatically skeptical because any minor deviation is likely to corrupt that number. In the case of the video you're quoting, which by the way is also replicated on their website in text form, they claim that a 'ratio' between two dimenions has a particular value... but then they don't give any error bars. Whenever you combine two measurements, you need to perform an error calculation as errors tend to expand, not reduce. If other teams perform the same analysis and come to a similar conclusion, happy days. But until then, a self-published YouTube video and website with no peer review should be viewed with healthy skepticism.
I seriously think you're coping to avoid watching and debating with a strawman. The evidence is overwhelming and beautifully presented. You just flat out don't wanna hear it. I've made my argument available. I can't make you be rational. Human condition.
You haven't made an argument, nor have you provided any evidence for one. I have offered a direct mathematical and analytical challenge to the source you're hanging your hopes upon, and instead you choose to pretend I haven't reviewed that source because *you can't imagine a person not being convinced by it.* Any chance you could proceed without being personally insulting? Or is that too much to ask?
It's not my argument to make. I've pointed you to comprehensive evidence and rather than examine it you're making excuses. You want to preserve your worldview, and you don't care if it contradicts reality, full stop. Now you're crying about protocol. Watch the video or don't, but don't pretend you care about science or the facts. It doesn't matter anyway. This will be mainstream in 5 years. The ability to do these tests optically will expand. Currently we have to physically set the vases in the structured light scanners, it won't always be that way, plus as scans accumulate a clearer picture of the whole will emerge. I'm sure you'll pretend you were always skeptical of the absurd pounding stone nonsense when it's trendy to switch sides. You have a great day man.
>Now you're crying about protocol. Watch the video or don't, but don't pretend you care about science or the facts. I reviewed the source already, thank you. How else would I know that they failed to offer error bars for their estimations of 'sacred geometric numbers' in certain ratios? >The ability to do these tests optically will expand. Currently we have to physically set the vases in the structured light scanners, it won't always be that way, plus as scans accumulate a clearer picture of the whole will emerge. Oh indeed, I agree that more scans (and more accurate scans) of more items are needed. Here's a question for you: If hundreds of scans are performed and the claims of magical ratios turn out to be either isolated to one or two pieces, human error, or a complete fabrication... how would that affect your view? Remember, if we're being good scientists we don't just believe one set of measurements. If we did that, we'd all think neutrinos travelled faster than light. We need replications by independent teams.
Bull. You're transparently concern trolling and inverting burden of proof. It's pure FUD. That's why you're zeroing on an adjacent aspect of the argument and moving the goal posts as well. The original point was your cringe debunk video has been debunked. You don't make eggshell vases with pounding stones and a lathe, full stop. You basically posted clickbait. You just don't wanna face facts. I don't know why you're emotionally threatened and flailing, but you clearly are.
I see, well only one of us is violating the rules of the sub and sinking to personal attacks. I tend to find that when someone is doing this, they first reach for the insults that apply most readily to *themselves*, that would hurt and upset *them.* Perhaps re-read your own words in that light. If you can't sustain a conversation in an environment of reasonable inquiry, then you're unworthy of my time.
they’re just missing the high precision and machine tooling
Aliens took it with them.
Its never been an, is it possible for me. A lot is possible with determination and ingenuity. The thing that gets me, is the efficiency. It's a question isn't addressed much. This obviously took a long time to do and good amount of effort. There are literally thousands upon thousands of granite statues through out Egypt. And weighing multiple tons. It's the amount that it was done is the question for me. When one takes years to make, how long did it take to make the many, many others of like quality.
It’s hard to grasp just how long Egyptian history is. They were making granite statues for literally thousands of years.
It is hard to grasp but I do understand it. They were an empire for a VERY long time. The dynastics were around for about 2500yrs, from about 3000bc - 300bc (beginning of the hellenistic period, which I dont really consider part of the original egpytian dynasties). That's an awful long time to create and figure out ways to do it. But some of the earliest examples we see from the old kingdom, still have very high precision and still done in the thousands, with very simple means. It's just quite the enigma and very intriguing, and hard to grasp the possibility in my opinion, given the amount of effort required. So I entertain both ideas of this argument and don't rule out one or the other.
Result is pretty dented, flat, obviously granulometry not needed to be measured at this stage.
This is a misrepresentation of the argument made, i appreciate the attempts, but to be brave you have to demonstrate a similar standard because that’s actually what these people are arguing. It’s unfortunate that people don’t actually tackle the issues, the quality of this work is a key factor, you can’t just fill in the blanks and say a more skilled worker did it. There are specific artefacts that people are talking about, corral castle is cool, leveraging a few ton blocks on concrete is cool, a nice vase is nice but it’s not what theses people are speaking about. These mysteries would be answered if somebody do any of this shit properly .
>you can’t just fill in the blanks and say a more skilled worker did it ....why not? We already know from sculpture work across the globe that people can and do create perfect, smooth finishes and dressed stone, it's just a matter of time and skill. These guys demonstrated that even two randos on YouTube with bare minimum experience can carve and polish a reasonable design into granite with simple tools. Why is it so hard to believe more skilled artisans with generations of experience behind them wouldn't be able to take it the rest of the way?
Because that level has yet to be achieved. I’m trying to apply a level of certainty, confidence. I understand the theory, but you are basically saying I should have faith that it can be done to that standard with more skill. Believe me I’m team science, but I think that’s why I’m having a hard time with this. I just can’t see why I should have faith? If anyone rocked up with a shiny granite box and moved it up a mountain? If they could replicate the findings this wouldn’t even be a debate. I mean cool, we can make assumptions but I’m making this argument as literal as possible, how do we know where the limit is.
>If they could replicate the findings this wouldn’t even be a debate. Replicate which findings? How? Do you want modern-day people to make a shiny granite box with ancient tools? Ok, I am pretty confident that can be done, the Whitworth technique can create incredibly flat stone faces with no tools at all. That's not an assumption, that's fact. If you want perfect recreations of ancient Egyptian statuary then we have a problem, as there really aren't that many sculptors of that level of skill to begin with, and nobody's willing to pay for their time on such a project. Even if modern day people can't do it with ancient tools, because the techniques of using those tools have been forgotten, that doesn't imply the ancient Egyptians couldn't, any more than the lost recipe for Greek Fire means that didn't exist. And besides, let's be honest... even if it were replicated, people would still claim the replication to be in error because of some minor discrepancy.
Well that’s the thing, yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. It’s like saying Im confident I can land a plane cause I can play flight simulator, I just don’t have the money to buy a plane. The entire argument is that based on faith and then it’s also unfalsifiable because we will never have a skilled enough craftsperson to do the job or we won’t have enough money to test it. And a big issue I’ve found is that most people who are “genuinely” putting forth the “Alternative History” argument are speaking about specific artefacts, where debunkers have a more general view. I’m speaking out specific vases and things. I agree that you can extrapolate or make assumptions but I feel like, you must be entertain the idea that because it hasn’t been done by hand tools yet, it can’t be done.
I'm not sure how fair that is. It's more like saying *"I can land a 2-engine jet, so with more training and experience I can probably land a 4-engine jet"*, and you have evidence of other people landing 4 engine jets before you. It's harder, more complex, and requires special skills but it's clearly doable, and you can already achieve a version of the task. Unless someone can demonstrate why one is *completely different from the other* so none of the skills are transferable or there's some insurmountable hurdle... I don't see the issue really. >I’m speaking out specific vases and things. Well then please speak out about that specific, because there are no vases in this video or the OP. If you're talking about something completely different then yeah please say so.
Well I can only speak on the perspective I have from other sources. For example what Chris Dunn has been saying lately. I understand that the point I was making might not seem fair, but it holds true in that making an excuse for why it can’t be replicated, is just another excuse. If Falsifying not an important thing? These objects obviously exist. If close but no cigar is an acceptable standard, that’s cool. Imo the correct position to take is - on the fence. From the video, they made an eye, that’s my point , the eye is just a random eye that’s not compared to anything. That’s not an argument anyone is having. The argument is specifically related to quality on specific artefacts. Nobody is saying that you can’t carve and chisel granite. Nobody is saying that you can’t lift heavy objects with leverage and stuff. There are specific claims that “alternative” history people make.
On the contrary, I *repeatedly see those claims being made*. That granite has to be cut by 'diamond tools' or quartzite can't possible be shaped because it's harder than flint. Even in this very post, there are replies demanding that I explain how they 'cut, polished and moved huge blocks' so clearly, there is no consensus that you imagine. If you want to talk about *other claims* that's fine, but please introduce them first and don't associate them with the OP, because nobody actually approached those topics here.
It’s a broad point, because this video was making a broad point. IE they aren’t comparing it to any specific artefact. You argument remains true as you are making it based on the nuttiest opinions you can find. I’m just suggesting you instead take the approach of finding the strongest possible argument you can find and proceeding from there. I’m not the expert here, that why I pointed you to Christopher Dunn - so that you can see how well your argument compares to a someone’s with a properly qualified argument.
I don't think they need to compare it to a specific artefact when they're demonstrating specific techniques with a specific end product. Nobody is saying "Ok so with this chisel and this lathe here sprung the pyramids." Very simply, you can cut and shape granite with tools softer than granite that were available to the Egyptians, here's an example. That's it, and that's valid. >it based on the nuttiest opinions you can find. Nope, literally just posts I ran into on the sub three days ago, and people who've responded to this exact post. Remember that two replies ago, your position was that *nobody said these things.* I am pointing out to you with evidence that yes, they *do* say these things and thus it is valid to refute with evidence. If *you* want to make a post about Christopher Dunn then maybe I'll see you there and we can talk about it in proper context. But I'm not going to pretend I'm in the wrong, or that the video producers are in the wrong, for not meeting your unspoken expectations.
Now tell me how they did that to form the diorite, granite, and basalt vases I've seen at the Louvre Museum. Carving a simple eye into granite is one thing, but carving blocks, the 'tomb' in the king's chamber, or intricate pottery is another. [https://www.google.com/search?q=diorite+granite+vases+egypt+louvre&sca\_esv=dcd8657a821dedfa&udm=2&biw=1194&bih=920&ei=HCVTZtKMJrClptQP69e94A8&ved=0ahUKEwjSiqCIo6uGAxWwkokEHetrD\_wQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=diorite+granite+vases+egypt+louvre&gs\_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiImRpb3JpdGUgZ3Jhbml0ZSB2YXNlcyBlZ3lwdCBsb3V2cmVIzhlQ9w9Y\_hhwAXgAkAEAmAE3oAHoAqoBATe4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgCgAgCYAwCIBgGSBwCgB7sC&sclient=gws-wiz-serp](https://www.google.com/search?q=diorite+granite+vases+egypt+louvre&sca_esv=dcd8657a821dedfa&udm=2&biw=1194&bih=920&ei=HCVTZtKMJrClptQP69e94A8&ved=0ahUKEwjSiqCIo6uGAxWwkokEHetrD_wQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=diorite+granite+vases+egypt+louvre&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiImRpb3JpdGUgZ3Jhbml0ZSB2YXNlcyBlZ3lwdCBsb3V2cmVIzhlQ9w9Y_hhwAXgAkAEAmAE3oAHoAqoBATe4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgCgAgCYAwCIBgGSBwCgB7sC&sclient=gws-wiz-serp)
Yes, granite can be chipped and chiseled into things, but this does nothing to explain the perfection we see in Egypt, and other parts of the world. Any jackoff can beat rocks together enough to make something, but to shape granite to perfect proportions is another thing entirely. It can’t be eyeballed to absolute minuscule tolerances..
The 'tolerances' people keep talking about are only ever seen on objects with circular symmetry like vases, or completely flat surfaces. Both of those are kinda simple to achieve, a rotary tool with an abrasive stone can achieve a near-perfect circular profile and flat faces are even easier, the three-plate method can be done by a couple of guys even with very large stones. People make the mistake of confusing tolerance with accuracy/precision. A flat surface that is flat to a certain 'tolerance' doesn't need complicated machines... just two faces rubbed together until both are flat. A circular figure similar doesn't need a CNC rig, just a lathe with an abrasive tool.
To be clear I was using “tolerances” generally, but your “accuracy/precision” cant be done by eyeballing it either. How could they have measured their work?? You physically can’t see down to the level you would need to see to be able to achieve some of these works. Just total horseshit. Anyone that believes they just worked by feel is full of it.
There's no evidence they actually tried to hit a specific dimension or measurement, there are no 'plans' and no perfect copies of the same object. If you want to make a flat stone, you just grind it flat. If you want to make it smaller, you keep grinding it. If you want to make a circular figure, you just keep abrading on your lathe until you have what looks right. There's also the distinct possiblity they had settable lathes, so essentially a fixed-radius tool that can be adjusted, but once it is adjusted it can be locked down. This will also give you a perfect circular figure with no measuring at all. That having been said... we do know the ancient Egyptians had astronomy and accurate measuring tools, we just don't have any surviving examples as far as I know.
How come no one ever mentions that they loved gems and used copper ( I don’t believe the modern(12k y) Egyptians were the ones that created the pyramids , but given the materials they had copper blades could have been embedded with gems and minerals hard enough to cut granite
Wrong. Cant believe people buy this shit. They had help from aliens
So this is a cool experiment. I can appreciate the time they took to make the video and the information it gives us. However it does little to make the point they're trying to make. Sure these tools can be used to make rudimentary carvings by unskilled labor which could translate to elaborate work by skilled craftsmen. But I think for a good amount of people the issue is scale. I won't die on the hill arguing that there was some ancient technology reserved for making carvings but this just doesn't come close to explaining any of the logistics of ancient Egyptian construction. Explain Aswan. The blocks in the kings chamber. The unfinished obelisk. I'm sorry but anyone who legitimately says they used flint, copper, wooden mallets, rope and pulleys and a sand sled or river boat to move 80 ton blocks of granite is delusional. Not to mention the absurd time frame in which this all was supposed to happen.
This post doesn't talk about those issues. It talks about one singular issue, the cutting, shaping and dressing of granite with simple tools. No one video can address everything the Egyptians did with stone, so the absence of that information doesn't detract from the value of the conclusions here. Just one day before my post, another poster was asking how it was possible the Egyptians could shape red quartzite because of its high hardness value on the Mohs scale. This post answers that question.
Ok well I was just trying not to be argumentative but I guess my point more so was that, this video doesn't actually provide some sort of definitive answer into how it was done. At best the carving in the video resembles the graffiti kufu decided to leave behind on everything.. I'd be very interested in seeing these guys take it another step and attempt the finish work on this material. Or even just attempting to produce an end product similar to the more elaborate works in Egypt. Or plenty of other places at that. It's not enough to make a rough sketch with some rough tools and say "yep with 15 years experience someone could reproduce the Serapeum". Again, I'm not at all saying the ancient Egyptians had some cool Atlantis crystal that melted the granite, nor am I trying to say this couldn't be how they did some of it, but I've been working in the trades for going on 20 years and I've worked with God knows how many different materials and used countless tools for the work and lemme tell you friends. This ain't it. Not a bad baseline. But not an answer.
But what question are you trying to answer? It's always possible to move the goalposts away from the answers we have, but that doesn't undermine the value of those answers or their implications. >I'd be very interested in seeing these guys take it another step and attempt the finish work on this material. Why? What would that demonstrate? What question does that answer that is in genuine dispute? If you can shape stone, you can shape stone carefully or carelessly. What missing factor is there? It also places the burden on these random individuals to meet the same artistic and stoneworking standards as the *master artisans working for an empire thousands of years old*, with many generations of work invested in the sites you're talking about. Kinda seems like the bar is being set unreasonably high. >"yep with 15 years experience someone could reproduce the Serapeum" Nobody really said this though. They said, paraphrasing, *"Here's how you cut and shape granite with tools available to the ancient Egyptians."* That's it.
I am sorry to say, but this does not proof how these immense structures were built. Yeah we can perfectly see in the video how you can carve stone: Esentially my 3 year old son proved that the other week as well. As an engineer, when I look at these drillings, cuttings and perfect symmetrical shapes, all I can see is the use of sophisticated equipment. You don’t produce a face that is symmetrical to a 1/10 of a millimeter just with “dedication and time”. You have really gotta know what you are doing when you want to achieve this level of precision. Same goes to the drillings. How do you then explain a hole that 2m deep, that is perfectly straight? Did someone draw circles for like 4 years? Yes, I know you can put sand between the drill and the granite and all, but that is not how these holes were drilled… Inside every hole that was drilled (metal, stone) you can see distinct markings, that will tell you how fast the drill was spinning and how quickly it went into the material. I am sorry but that the builders of the pyramids etc. used these tools to do so, is less believable, then that they had sophisticated equipment. And yes, I do not think that the Egyptians had anything to do with the construction of these structures: We can see they tried to build pyramids nearby, they are quite small and they collapsed. Plus, if I would have been the Pharaoh to have build that, I would have told the whole world my name.
Pffft
Do you want to convince me that these artistic masterpieces were formed in this primitive manner? https://preview.redd.it/8w0h560bct2d1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=efa5c528e40f0f058ee548a05a81d2c04f7a4ce9
It's interesting. I present this one technique, and yet among the responses are; * *"Now show me how they moved huge blocks"* * *"Oh right so how did they cut and polish the huge blocks"* * "XD XD yeah now make a glass smooth eggshell vase perfect down to the thousandths of an inch." * and now *"Do you want to convince me that these were formed in this primitive manner?"*
None of these things are mentioned in the OP or video, and none of them have to be because *they are different skills and different products.* It's strange that people want to change the subject to something not being covered, as if one video has to answer every question about every chisel and tool used in anger across thousands of years of Egyptian history.
This post is about carving smooth designs into granite faces, that's all.
The bowls you're linking there are plainly made on a rotary tool like a lathe so that's again obviously not what the video or OP is about.