Mystery of the Lost 35 Foot Granite Disc-Cutter Used in Ancient Egypt

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Aeshma
a reply to: jeep3r

Why would having saws mean you invented the wheel?

Do you think the egyptians didnt have wheels? They spun cloth, they had chariots.....wheels were not uncommon to them...

They didn't have chariots until the time of Tutankamun (1500 BC or so) - no horses in Egypt before then and the roads were awfully unstable. Ramesses II was the first to have an army with charioteers and they were only useful in the Mesopotamian area (Battle of Kadesh.)

The big pyramids were built a thousand years before Tutankhamen.

The spinning wheel was invented in India after 1000 BC but before 500 BC; two thousand years after the pyramids.

I think there is a lot of confusion in "invention of the wheel" discussions. There has probably never been a time in all of homo-sapiens history that people couldn't figure out how to roll a round object around.

The crucial invention was the hub, which made it possible to mount a wheel on a cart and lessen the friction between the axle and wheel itself so it could roll freely. Without that a wheeled cart just plain isn't practical.


If we're discussing a big, round, saw. That doesn't require a hub. It could be placed sideways on the ground, with a protrusion in the center pointing downward onto a concave slab of stone, and that would allow it to be made to spin freely, and used to cut stones.

If it's spinning sideways, it doesn't even need to be thin or flat. It could be a giant cylinder shape, or even a sphere, with a ridge on the outer edge of the cylinder/sphere to cut the stone. Just put a round builder on top of a pinion and spin it. Then attach an outer circular edge to the outside of the builder.

Sorry if its been mentioned, we use wire saws embedded with industrial diamond to cut slabs of stone, I (saw) some show on how the Egyptians did it.

Its old tech to be sure, heres one solution...

The notion that technological progress is linear, not circular, is so deeply ingrained in all of us that we will go to the most desperate speculations to avoid entertaining the latter view, so heretical has it become. So, when we are confronted with amazing feats of drilling and clear signs of sawing in huge granite blocks that copper chisels could never reproduce, we don't mind concocting imaginary technologies provided, of course, that they remain rudimentary within the limits of what we BELIEVE was known about at the time and that they don't need some kind of electrical power (Oh, God! Not that!). It does not matter that we have absolutely no artifacts on display in a museum or stored away in a university archaeology department to support our argument. All that matters is we have an alternative - however speculative and however implausible - to that dreaded implication of impossible technological feats like concave saw cuts and six inch holes drilled in 10 metre blocks of granite, namely, sophisticated machinery that used non-manual power. Well, fellow victims of false world history, welcome to the zany world of archaeological make-believe that would have you think that humans are so clever that they can achieve anything - however miraculous - if you give them enough time! What kind of stupid argument is that which blatantly ignores all the clear evidence of machine cutting and drilling? The point is that archaeologists either hide away or ignore whatever does not fit their preconceptions and linear view of technological progress. And some of their brainwashed acolytes continue similarly to close their eyes to what they cannot explain by trying to pretend on internet forums like ATS that all these anomalous, ancient artifacts do not really pose a problem. Just who do they think they are trying to kid?

originally posted by: intrptr


Sorry if its been mentioned, we use wire saws embedded with industrial diamond to cut slabs of stone, I (saw) some show on how the Egyptians did it.

Its old tech to be sure, heres one solution...

But there is no evidence for such a tool, quite apart from the glaring fact that it could not make the kinds of indented cuts several metres long that are found on the Giza site around the pyramids. So it is NOT old tech. There is no evidence that it was ever used by the ancient Egyptians or anyone else.

a reply to: micpsi

"Saw marks" are indeed found on ancient stone cut by Egyptians. Drill marks, too.

Global education project

image search

a reply to: micpsi

Exactly. I would not believe it is possible to drill such hole in such short period of time in lydite stone with such simple equipment. With normal approach i.e. high speed fixed drill with some fancy and expansive bit and lot off cooling it would be at least challenging task.

This was done on "machine" which can be built with axe, knife, few pieces of wood and few leather strings during afternoon by one man. Drilling bit is only part you would call advanced technology. But black smith novice can make it from small piece of bronze scrap.

Finally located video:
CT
It is Czech PBS television and relevant part is between 29:30 and 32:00. Drilling of hole 2x2.5 cm took him 1 hour in hornfel stone (was used here for larger tools instead of flint stone).

So what many call "advanced technology" may be - because of its simplicity - forgotten clever tricks.

I’m a stone cutter. I’ve been cutting stones using diamond sintered saw blades for use in lapidary work for over 20 years now. Pretty much everyone responding to this thread seems to understand that in order to cut a stone, abrasives must be used. The basic tenant of stone cutting is that the abrasive and the implement used to put pressure on the abrasive MUST be harder than the stone being cut!

Hardness is measured using a scale developed by the German geologist and mineralogist Friedrich Mohs.

Mohs scale of hardness 1-10 with example stones:
(1) Talc
(2) Gypsum
(3) Calcite
(4) Fluorite
(5) Apatite
(6) Orthoclase
(7) Quartz
(8) Topaz
(9) Corundum (Emery)
(10) Diamond

It is impossible to cut a stone that is harder than the abrasive and implement being used to cut it!

Stones like Hornfels (Mohs 2-3) and Limestone (Mohs 2-3) are easily cut using Bronze implements and sand because Bronze has a hardness of 3 and typical silica sand has a hardness of 6-7.

Stones like chert, jasper, chalcedony, granite, basalt which were used in Ancient Egypt all have a Mohs hardness greater than Mohs 6!! Those stones can be cut using an abrasive like Emery but if a Bronze tool is used to apply the abrasive, the Bronze tool would be worn away, not the stone. This is the fundamental problem I see with current theories regarding ancient stone cutting tools and techniques. There must be some other explanation other than “they used Bronze tools” because it’s just not possible.

Ancient Egyptians did use straight band saws made of copper. There are also hieroglyphs depicting works using curved band saws that swung like a pendulum.

firstlegend.info...&neolithic.html

a reply to: jeep3r



All over the world, we find beautiful monuments and temples constructed according to applied science and mathematics. In my opinion, Builders and Craftsmen concealed not only their knowledge and methodology, but also their tools for working.

a reply to: Blarneystoner

But hornfels used as tool materials here in Central Europe have hardness of Mohs 5 - 7. Tools with such nice holes are dated to early bronze age ...

The wire idea makes sense, but doesn't explain the geometry of the cuts very well. I mean, it kind of does, but pulling a wire to cut something can leave a mark consistent with any kind of ellipse, not just a circle. Not always (or even usually) going to be a perfectly circular cut.

originally posted by: micpsi

The notion that technological progress is linear, not circular, is so deeply ingrained in all of us that we will go to the most desperate speculations to avoid entertaining the latter view, so heretical has it become. So, when we are confronted with amazing feats of drilling and clear signs of sawing in huge granite blocks that copper chisels could never reproduce, we don't mind concocting imaginary technologies provided, of course, that they remain rudimentary within the limits of what we BELIEVE was known about at the time and that they don't need some kind of electrical power (Oh, God! Not that!). It does not matter that we have absolutely no artifacts on display in a museum or stored away in a university archaeology department to support our argument. All that matters is we have an alternative - however speculative and however implausible - to that dreaded implication of impossible technological feats like concave saw cuts and six inch holes drilled in 10 metre blocks of granite, namely, sophisticated machinery that used non-manual power. Well, fellow victims of false world history, welcome to the zany world of archaeological make-believe that would have you think that humans are so clever that they can achieve anything - however miraculous - if you give them enough time! What kind of stupid argument is that which blatantly ignores all the clear evidence of machine cutting and drilling? The point is that archaeologists either hide away or ignore whatever does not fit their preconceptions and linear view of technological progress. And some of their brainwashed acolytes continue similarly to close their eyes to what they cannot explain by trying to pretend on internet forums like ATS that all these anomalous, ancient artifacts do not really pose a problem. Just who do they think they are trying to kid?

The problem is they keep assuming that technology, once learned, will not be forgotten.

But they assume that because WE LIVE IN THE AGE OF THE PRINTING PRESS!!! Prior the printing press, all kinds of stuff got totally, and utterly forgotten forever. All the time. Whenever the last copy of a scroll was lost.

They are imposing a modern condition on an ancient situation.

originally posted by: micpsi

originally posted by: intrptr


Sorry if its been mentioned, we use wire saws embedded with industrial diamond to cut slabs of stone, I (saw) some show on how the Egyptians did it.

Its old tech to be sure, heres one solution...

But there is no evidence for such a tool, quite apart from the glaring fact that it could not make the kinds of indented cuts several metres long that are found on the Giza site around the pyramids. So it is NOT old tech. There is no evidence that it was ever used by the ancient Egyptians or anyone else.

Evidence in general is scarce for that time period, however. We also don't have examples of the log rollers that were supposedly used to push stones up the big ramps at Giza, but nobody doubts they used them (or something like them).

Not everything they built survived apart from the pyramids themselves. Not even very much of it.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

the part that baffles my mind is how they lost the knowledge, were they taken over by barbarians with lesser technology? did they go through a sort of "idiocracy" caused by inbreeding or other reason? have any blueprints, plans, lists of supplies, employee time cards or architectural drafts ever been found? what kind of technology or knowledge of how the pyramids were created was around at the time of the greeks or romans in egypt?

i have a million questions!!!

a breath of fresh air and a fascinating thread op!!

I think you have provided your own proof to the contrary. The man in the video has all sorts of modern and sophisticated tools at his disposal. A child can build a nuclear reactor, givven the Internet, or another set of proper instructions, and the needed materials. Something to think about.




a reply to: belkide

originally posted by: conspiracy nut
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

the part that baffles my mind is how they lost the knowledge, were they taken over by barbarians with lesser technology? did they go through a sort of "idiocracy" caused by inbreeding or other reason? have any blueprints, plans, lists of supplies, employee time cards or architectural drafts ever been found? what kind of technology or knowledge of how the pyramids were created was around at the time of the greeks or romans in egypt?

i have a million questions!!!

a breath of fresh air and a fascinating thread op!!

The more I learn about ancient history, is that what is mostly left of these, for lack of a better word, megalithic civilizations, are the enormous foundations of their magnificent structures. A lot of evidence seems to point to a global cataclismic event around 12000 yrs ago, of such proportions, that it is not unthinkable that those who survived it, were thrown back to the stone-age, along with all their knowledge. Who's to say that the ruins of that megalithic society weren't rediscivered by the ancestors? Maybe survival was more important after the cataclism, and as a result their knowledge got lost. Maybe most key figgures perished, and all that remained were normal civilians, and perhaps a few engineers, witch would explain the ammateuristic repairs.

Obviously this is all pure speculation on my part. But sometimes the most simple/logical explanation, is also the right one. If I'm wrong, I still had a hell of a brainfart of the imagination! What I do know, is that we had a much more interresting past, then our established scientists and scolars would like us to believe.

originally posted by: Byrd
a reply to: jeep3r

* where, exactly, at Abu Rawash was this found and in what context?
-- was it just sitting in the middle of somewhere?
-- was it attached to something?
-- buried under something?

Hi Byrd, in source no. 5 in the OP (image gallery of LAH expedition) it is stated that the slab is located at the east side of the pyramid of Djedefre.

When looking at the images they took and taking into account the surroundings, I think we can assume the location to be somewhere in the yellow circle in the image below:


As for your other questions: my practical experience in stoneworking is probably as limited as yours, any additional insights are mostly due to my interest in this topic.

I've seen Denys Stocks on a PBS NOVA show (link) drill a shallow hole into granite with a copper pipe and a bow drill, using sand as an abrasive.

But I'm not sure if the resulting grooves are consistent with the ancient Egyptian toolmarks. One would think that, when proceeding like that, you would get flat surfaces on the inside and no striations. Not to mention problems like considerable tool wear and how long it takes to make a small hole (although they did have time, true).

It will take some more research to find other reference material for comparison but I'll post an update or a new thread when I have the time.

originally posted by: JanAmosComenius
a reply to: Blarneystoner

But hornfels used as tool materials here in Central Europe have hardness of Mohs 5 - 7. Tools with such nice holes are dated to early bronze age ...

Can you elaborate?

I'm guessing that you're talking about pressure flaked (Lithic Reduction) tools and not abraded cuts. Pressure flaking takes advantage of a stone's natural fracture habit to produce a sharp edge or point. Holes can be made using the same technique. This is not the same as drilling a hole by abrasion...

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
The alien gods did not leave their equipment lying around, they took it with them.

Why? To go cut rocks on Mars?

a reply to: 2Faced

i went on an ancient egyptian surfing expedition after reading the op last night lol in order to believe the big flood theory we would have to move the timeline back of when the pyramids were originally built. the big flood and cataclysm theory is very interesting as i have read that earth passes through the dryas every 12000 years or so which would mean we are due very soon!

the other intriguing thing is that the pyramids and egyptian landscape would have looked very different back then. there was no pollution and the outside of the pyramids were covered in sanded down limestone which resulted in a beautiful site with the sun shining on them. they would have been able to be seen brightly for miles.

i am more willing to believe that the ancient egyptians really did build it themselves with perhaps some misunderstood or forgotten technology coupled with good old fashioned drive and elbow grease. hundreds of thousands of workers with no football, internet or nintendo to distract them, i think we underestimate their capabilities.

originally posted by: conspiracy nut
a reply to: 2Faced

i think we underestimate their capabilities.

That would be the people who claim that the Egyptians didn't build the pyramids
The previous King, Sneferu, actually built three pyramids with a combined mass far exceeding anything before or since. But you don't see the cranks claiming he didn't build his, that's because they don't know diddley squat about the subject, yet are happy to make claims based on almost no evidence



So the technology wasn't forgotten, it had been used for almost two hundred years before the Great pyramid and it went on for about another two hundred years afterwards, then they started burying their kings in the Valley of the Kings, because by that point they found out that the best way to hide the dead, was not to put a big symbolic mountain on top of them...
None of this is rocket science or requires a lost race of Master builders, the Giza radiocarbon project took hundreds of samples from the area and all of them came back within the accepted timeline.
Currently the main proponent of the "Older Giza" nonsense is Graham Hancock, who doesn't hold a single academic qualification, but hey, he's a journalist so he's qualified to write crap which the majority of his ignorant readership will believe, because they are incapable of fact checking or doing their own research.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly

originally posted by: jeep3r
seems to have been created using a disc-shaped tool with a diameter of 30-40 foot.

I wonder. From what material would this disk be made then ?

For the that size speculated...it would need to cut plenty of.granite slabs...before.it would wear out. I doubt you could afford replacing it every now and.then. at that size...it would be a time consuming effort no doubt.

A wood wheel faced with copper would be likely.
And the copper would have some mineral with a hardness over 7 Mohs hardness scale embedded
in the copper.
www.specialtykitchens.com...

Diamond cutting wheels have diamonds silver soldered on a steel wheels and will cut through anything.