Super heated water and the Pyramids

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous


If I mix dust into water, I'm not going to get pure water. So I'm having a hard time how mixing dust into molten copper would lead to pure copper. What would cause the dust to separate?

What? BM, you'd have after a day of hard work a pile of stone dust and bits of copper from your saw. You gather that up.

Put it in a crucible and heat it up. The copper MELTS, the stone doesn't, pour off the copper....It isn't complicated and no your personal dislike of the idea doesn't make a standard smelting technique suddenly not work after thousands of years..lol

The dust not "melting" doesn't mean it doesn't stay in the mixture. If I want to get fine dust out of water, then I have to use a fine filter of some kind. A cloth or something.

What kind of filter would you use that can stand up to 1085 degrees C?

Oh and pounders work and were used by all ancient civilizations. Your personal incredulity doesn't invalidate their use.

For other kinds of work. But I would be surprised if you could find a culture that shaped large stones using pounders made of a material only slightly harder than the material they are doing work on.

Smoothing out a rough hewn stone makes sense, though.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: TheKestrel04
Who ever built the ancient structures had power tools, but Specialist tools. As in they weren't overly popular like a hand drill but more like a tunnel boring machine. Everyone doesn't have a tunnel boring machine sitting in their back yard and it's almost like a mini factory setup on sight. In like fashion once it's job is done you wouldn't leave it just lying around.

So where is the culture or civilization that some how built such a device? How did they come through an industrial development phase and yet left no sign of their existence?

This ties in with the fact why you would not find remnants of said devices lying around as they would be pieces of a greater device which over time of course would of been salvaged for jewelry or ornaments over 1000s of years simply to the point of " vanishing ".

A technologically advance civilization would have left extensive traces - mines, slag and use of resources - no such exist but at the same time in Egypt we can find significant evidence of stone age people making stone tools, building villages and habitations but not one sign of this more advanced civilization you believe existed and was making 'tunnel boring machines'.

Unless that advanced civilization were located elsewhere, and not in a place anyone thinks to look.

An example might be deep in the (once green) Sahara desert. There are vast areas where nobody lives now, and nobody travels.


If your civilization had uniquely developed iron working, you could sell iron tools to your neighbors. Never tell them where you got it or how. That way they can't make their own and they have no choice but to buy from you.

The Sphinx itself was around at lease near the end of the Ice Age so about 10000 yrs +.

Unfortunately no such evidence exist, you are can certainly believe that but it is an article of faith and not based on evidence.

What are the chances of finding one of our Tunnel boring machines in 10 000 yrs ?

Poor but the evidence of the industrial society that created it and the lead up to that level of technology would be massive and extensive - as is our own industrial development has left unmistakable sign of it having occurred.

Our own industrial development isn't the only path industry could have taken.

Because our society had patent laws, people who invented things were comfortable freely sharing their knowledge.

Because we had the printing press, that knowledge spread quickly, like wild fire.

But what if we didn't have those two things? Patent laws are unique to our era. Other eras didn't have that. Their "patent" was "don't tell anyone your secret".

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Byrd
Beyond the fact that they didn't have the materials to be able to superheat water, it would take them a lot longer. They'd have to cut until the rock cooled (not long) and then sit and wait until the water got heated and then enough hot water put on the rock to soften it (because heating water isn't instant, and applying hot water to a stone to get it heated up isn't instant, either) and then find someplace to stand so the scorching hot rock wouldn't burn them and start sawing again.

They had more than one tool there; while one chisel (or saw) was being used, several others were being reshaped and fixed.

No superheated water, but they could have (and probably did) use fire, which would fracture granite's crystalline structures and the feldspar matrix the crystals are in. That effect would be permanent, but wouldn't extend all that deep. Not like you could quarry an obelisk in one day using fire, but fire would make progress much, much faster.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
I guess you require no ash so that you can deny it was used by the absence of ash?
The answer is wind, you know.

Harte

I think there would be ash residue, at least in the deeper trenches. But I think perhaps we're pursuing the question wrong.

In just a week or two time, these researchers found one, very simple, way to weaken granite. That was just a week or two of looking, right?

We could comfort ourselves by hypothesizing that these people found a third, as yet unknown, simple and convenient way to weaken granite after spending ....... considerably longer than a few weeks.

They must have tried fire at some point, though, right? (And I must.......sadly......... admit that fire is certainly easier than superheated water)

Whatever they found must have been easier than fire. (Or they would have used fire.)

At a minimum we can agree that the pounders don't tell us the whole story.







But: Superheated water isn't as hard as it sounds though!!!!

It's just a matter of building a sealed copper jar with thick enough walls, and a faucet or something you can open to let out a little at a time.

Once you've got something strong enough to hold the steam in, you just have to heat it.

The dust not "melting" doesn't mean it doesn't stay in the mixture. If I want to get fine dust out of water, then I have to use a fine filter of some kind. A cloth or something.

What kind of filter would you use that can stand up to 1085 degrees C?

Of course it stays in the mixture, until it melts then unless it has the same specific gravity it will sink to the bottom and the clever worker will pour of the liquid copper. If it is waste that lighter then it comes to the top and skimmed off.

For other kinds of work. But I would be surprised if you could find a culture that shaped large stones using pounders made of a material only slightly harder than the material they are doing work on.

Smoothing out a rough hewn stone makes sense, though.

All known ancient civilizations used harder rocks to shape similar or softer rocks. For the hardness rocks they used pecking and abrasion. You can test that yourself.

Unless that advanced civilization were located elsewhere, and not in a place anyone thinks to look.

An example might be deep in the (once green) Sahara desert. There are vast areas where nobody lives now, and nobody travels.

Ah, BM they had to have been - at some point - in Egypt. There is no sign of them and one of the things we know about ALL civilizations is that leave a great deal of waste behind.

So where are the ancient mines, slag heaps and all the others hundreds of indication of industrialization? Now there are stone tools but no concentrations showing a civilization.

If your civilization had uniquely developed iron working, you could sell iron tools to your neighbors. Never tell them where you got it or how. That way they can't make their own and they have no choice but to buy from you.

The there should be iron tools around - and indeed iron items have been discovered in Ancient Egypt just not in any usable quantity. Nor did the AE have a name for it.

Our own industrial development isn't the only path industry could have taken.

Because our society had patent laws, people who invented things were comfortable freely sharing their knowledge.
Because we had the printing press, that knowledge spread quickly, like wild fire. But what if we didn't have those two things? Patent laws are unique to our era. Other eras didn't have that. Their "patent" was "don't tell anyone your secret".[/quote]

Yet that doesn't in anyway stop the production of machines which leave vast amount of waste behind. Power tools wouldn't have been invented in one day it would have taken many steps and many inventions to reach that capacity and there is no sign of this development

Conclusion: Stating that 'somebody else did it', is fine but you have to show evidence that there was some one else. All evidence we have is that technical civilizations leave massive archaeological footprints and that folks with primitive technology can and do/did work hard rocks in a masterful way.

Think of it this way; it was the AE in Egypt with primitive tools and great expertise, OR it was an invisible civilization we can find no trace of who worked stone in Egypt and elsewhere for thousands of years, then ceased to exist and during all this time left no trace of their existence.

originally posted by: Hanslune

The dust not "melting" doesn't mean it doesn't stay in the mixture. If I want to get fine dust out of water, then I have to use a fine filter of some kind. A cloth or something.

What kind of filter would you use that can stand up to 1085 degrees C?

Of course it stays in the mixture, until it melts then unless it has the same specific gravity it will sink to the bottom and the clever worker will pour of the liquid copper. If it is waste that lighter then it comes to the top and skimmed off.

It would take quite a lot of cleverness. The dust would need to have a different mass, and not be chemically compatible with the copper in any way that might cause it to form a compound or solute.


Doing interesting things to molten copper, while it is molten, is a step or two above merely being "in the copper age".


They not only have to heat it to the required temperature, but also have to keep it at that temperature while they do things to it to try and separate out the impurities.

Any tools they bring to bear would need to have a higher melting point than the copper.

I'm not going to say its impossible. But copper use would need to be pretty widespread in order to have a pool of skilled workers who know how to do interesting things with it.

Probably most of the cultures in those days were just happy if they could work with it at all.

For other kinds of work. But I would be surprised if you could find a culture that shaped large stones using pounders made of a material only slightly harder than the material they are doing work on.

Smoothing out a rough hewn stone makes sense, though.

All known ancient civilizations used harder rocks to shape similar or softer rocks. For the hardness rocks they used pecking and abrasion. You can test that yourself.

Yes, but the problem is that diorite isn't very much harder than granite.

For that to work, you usually want to have a big difference in hardness.


But as Harte pointed out from the video earlier, even just using fire on granite will weaken it up. I don't think we'll ever find the appropriate amount of charcoal on the site to justify a "fire" theory, but it does to show how a very simple approach can sometimes bridge the gap.

Maybe the Egyptians found something as simple as fire, but which wasn't exactly fire?

Unless that advanced civilization were located elsewhere, and not in a place anyone thinks to look.

An example might be deep in the (once green) Sahara desert. There are vast areas where nobody lives now, and nobody travels.

Ah, BM they had to have been - at some point - in Egypt. There is no sign of them and one of the things we know about ALL civilizations is that leave a great deal of waste behind.

So where are the ancient mines, slag heaps and all the others hundreds of indication of industrialization? Now there are stone tools but no concentrations showing a civilization.

If your civilization had uniquely developed iron working, you could sell iron tools to your neighbors. Never tell them where you got it or how. That way they can't make their own and they have no choice but to buy from you.

The there should be iron tools around - and indeed iron items have been discovered in Ancient Egypt just not in any usable quantity. Nor did the AE have a name for it.

If it was some now-lost civilization out on the Sahara making iron tools and selling them, and they were wise enough to guard their secret, then Egypt could have iron tools.

But have no ability to make them.

Just buy them.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous




It would take quite a lot of cleverness. The dust would need to have a different mass, and not be chemically compatible with the copper in any way that might cause it to form a compound or solute.

They just melt it and pour it off you are trying to hard to make them impossible. it isn't

Any tools they bring to bear would need to have a higher melting point than the copper.

Yeah a stone bowl or a ladle, which like the dust won't melt. AE copper was also not particularly pure much of it had arsenic in it and other impurities

farlang.com...

farlang.com...

I'm not going to say its impossible. But copper use would need to be pretty widespread in order to have a pool of skilled workers who know how to do interesting things with it.

It wasn't they were doing it for centuries before the pyramids came into being.

www.ancient-egypt.org...

Yes, but the problem is that diorite isn't very much harder than granite.

For that to work, you usually want to have a big difference in hardness.

Nope, its makes it easier but isn't necessary

But as Harte pointed out from the video earlier, even just using fire on granite will weaken it up. I don't think we'll ever find the appropriate amount of charcoal on the site to justify a "fire" theory, but it does to show how a very simple approach can sometimes bridge the gap.

Maybe the Egyptians found something as simple as fire, but which wasn't exactly fire?

maybe

Unless that advanced civilization were located elsewhere, and not in a place anyone thinks to look.

An example might be deep in the (once green) Sahara desert. There are vast areas where nobody lives now, and nobody travels.

If it was some now-lost civilization out on the Sahara making iron tools and selling them, and they were wise enough to guard their secret, then Egypt could have iron tools.

But have no ability to make them.

Just buy them.

Except there is zero evidence of such trade, or of such a society. While the Sahara is large and covered with sand it also doesn't hide stuff well. At this time there is no evidence of an advanced iron making civilization in the Sahara that traded with the AE. People have been looking for such a thing since the French conquered most of the areas the mid 18's

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
It would take quite a lot of cleverness. The dust would need to have a different mass, and not be chemically compatible with the copper in any way that might cause it to form a compound or solute.

You may want to sit down BM.
I agree with you. I know, it's shocking.
I find it unlikely that any copper would be reclaimed from rock dust created by sawing.

Much more likely the residue was collected for making Egyptian faience, which is a sintered conglomeration of quartz dust and lime - the copper can give it a blue color.

Copper tools were used with abrasive sand to drill or saw granite and hard limestone artifacts. The waste powders from this process consisted of quartz and lime from the limestone, and also contained particles of copper from the drill, potentially providing a ready source for the materials to make faience.

Link

Harte

(the "third eye", is not a physical eye.......its just a description of the mind having a metaphysical attachment to this plane............they gazed at the stone and they had some ability to move and carve them, it wasn't very much. the range also wasn't greater then a few feet, you can probably tell that but looking at some of the "newer" pyramids)

(as mankind multiplied, "dead flesh also multiplified" man's sin, and, naturally, unified field related activities did not work anymore)

(the law was not completed in that day, there was no "steam" no "de-coupling process" specifically that identified with the human body and the new universe, but not completely) (we can't be completely sure, however, when Jesus in the new testament in his tomb they found rags or steam, at that time, the law was finished)

(there is too much "dead flesh on earth", no rainbow, no unified field, no nothing)

(an angel has to illustrate that, or provide someone with the ability briefly, that said...................that was how edward leedskalnin moved the stones at coral castle, he gaze a them, he didn't have to touch them or make noises or anything, those are false accounts)

(only once, no more then that, an angel already gave me the ability briefly, and I did move whatever object by gazing at it, so, I'm very confident this is the description. big difference between the old testament and new testament, the incomplete law, and the complete law, maybe off world, but remember all the planets in our solar system have rings except earth, and pluto it was declassified...............all of this will be resolved soon)

(last year I thought it was time for my wedding, but i think this year, this is ultimately about god's will not mines and god's law, in about 40 years mankind is dead, no value, and a zero, not a long length of time)

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
It would take quite a lot of cleverness. The dust would need to have a different mass, and not be chemically compatible with the copper in any way that might cause it to form a compound or solute.

You may want to sit down BM.
I agree with you. I know, it's shocking.
I find it unlikely that any copper would be reclaimed from rock dust created by sawing.

Much more likely the residue was collected for making Egyptian faience, which is a sintered conglomeration of quartz dust and lime - the copper can give it a blue color.

Copper tools were used with abrasive sand to drill or saw granite and hard limestone artifacts. The waste powders from this process consisted of quartz and lime from the limestone, and also contained particles of copper from the drill, potentially providing a ready source for the materials to make faience.

Link

Harte

That is certainly possible

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous




It would take quite a lot of cleverness. The dust would need to have a different mass, and not be chemically compatible with the copper in any way that might cause it to form a compound or solute.

They just melt it and pour it off you are trying to hard to make them impossible. it isn't

Any tools they bring to bear would need to have a higher melting point than the copper.

Yeah a stone bowl or a ladle, which like the dust won't melt. AE copper was also not particularly pure much of it had arsenic in it and other impurities

farlang.com...

farlang.com...

I'm not going to say its impossible. But copper use would need to be pretty widespread in order to have a pool of skilled workers who know how to do interesting things with it.

It wasn't they were doing it for centuries before the pyramids came into being.

www.ancient-egypt.org...

Yes, but the problem is that diorite isn't very much harder than granite.

For that to work, you usually want to have a big difference in hardness.

Nope, its makes it easier but isn't necessary

But as Harte pointed out from the video earlier, even just using fire on granite will weaken it up. I don't think we'll ever find the appropriate amount of charcoal on the site to justify a "fire" theory, but it does to show how a very simple approach can sometimes bridge the gap.

Maybe the Egyptians found something as simple as fire, but which wasn't exactly fire?

maybe

I'm thinking there's no way they didn't know fire could weaken granite. Something that available would have to have been tried.


But, there doesn't appear to be any charcoal residue.

So either:

A: They somehow never figured out that fire could weaken granite.

B: They knew fire could weaken granite, but were so fond of wasting their resources that they chose to have their workers just use plain old pounders anyway. (Knowing half of them would become arthritic, and the job would take forever, and much diorite would need to be imported and go to waste.)


OR

C: They had a better method than fire available.

If it was some now-lost civilization out on the Sahara making iron tools and selling them, and they were wise enough to guard their secret, then Egypt could have iron tools.

But have no ability to make them.

Just buy them.

Except there is zero evidence of such trade, or of such a society. While the Sahara is large and covered with sand it also doesn't hide stuff well. At this time there is no evidence of an advanced iron making civilization in the Sahara that traded with the AE. People have been looking for such a thing since the French conquered most of the areas the mid 18's

It wouldn't need to be an amazingly advanced culture.

If you found ruins in Europe of a Medieval village with a blacksmith in it, it probably wouldn't look amazingly advanced.

Just having one technology doesn't automatically mean the whole rest of your culture stops living in caves and/or tents, or starts building giant temples.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
I'm thinking there's no way they didn't know fire could weaken granite. Something that available would have to have been tried.


But, there doesn't appear to be any charcoal residue.

So either:

A: They somehow never figured out that fire could weaken granite.

B: They knew fire could weaken granite, but were so fond of wasting their resources that they chose to have their workers just use plain old pounders anyway. (Knowing half of them would become arthritic, and the job would take forever, and much diorite would need to be imported and go to waste.)

They would have used pounders even if they used fire. It would just have gone a little faster.
Fire can also explain how they carved such precise glyphs on some of those obelisks.

Harte

a reply to: Harte

I think that the so called “pounder stones” (the spheres, right? Found at all of these sites, like pyramids, around the globe, we’re not for ‘pounding’ or driving chiseles into other rock but were ‘wheels’ to move the rock around!

You get some wood “tracks” and put the spheres on top of the grooves, and push your rock around (regardless of how you shaped it)!

See! No wheels but still efficient movement.

And hat is just the sphere “pounders” found all around megalithic structures!

Why make a complete tool of copper when all you need is the cutting edge?? Especially if copper is “expensive” to make??

I suspect that they had rotary cutters and could (and did) mirror image rough cuts. But that is just my way of seeing how to do masonry in AE!

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: Harte

I think that the so called “pounder stones” (the spheres, right? Found at all of these sites, like pyramids, around the globe, we’re not for ‘pounding’ or driving chiseles into other rock but were ‘wheels’ to move the rock around!

You get some wood “tracks” and put the spheres on top of the grooves, and push your rock around (regardless of how you shaped it)!

See! No wheels but still efficient movement.

And hat is just the sphere “pounders” found all around megalithic structures!

Why make a complete tool of copper when all you need is the cutting edge?? Especially if copper is “expensive” to make??

I suspect that they had rotary cutters and could (and did) mirror image rough cuts. But that is just my way of seeing how to do masonry in AE!

Such pounders are found not only at Egyptian but Mesopotamian and other sites notable Rapa Nui.

I've handled and used the ones on RN. There were 'roads' there that the Moai were moved on to the various Ahu but the backs of the statue were rounded making moving them using round rocks, on gravelly roads a tad difficult.

A report on the use of Diorite pounders: www.jstor.org...

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous


But as Harte pointed out from the video earlier, even just using fire on granite will weaken it up. I don't think we'll ever find the appropriate amount of charcoal on the site to justify a "fire" theory, but it does to show how a very simple approach can sometimes bridge the gap.

Maybe the Egyptians found something as simple as fire, but which wasn't exactly fire?

I'm thinking there's no way they didn't know fire could weaken granite. Something that available would have to have been tried.

They may have used fire in some way, stone tool can be treated by fire as is wood, however eating large blocks of granite might be difficult and they would risk cracking.

But, there doesn't appear to be any charcoal residue.

So either:

A: They somehow never figured out that fire could weaken granite.

B: They knew fire could weaken granite, but were so fond of wasting their resources that they chose to have their workers just use plain old pounders anyway. (Knowing half of them would become arthritic, and the job would take forever, and much diorite would need to be imported and go to waste.)

The ancient weren't great at doing the most logical, reasonable and scientifically valid methods. You can see that in agriculture, irrigation, building temples (useless), tombs (useless) etc.

OR

C: They had a better method than fire available.

OR they didn't and simply did what worked, expertise, man power and tradition.

It wouldn't need to be an amazingly advanced culture.

It would have been advanced enough to do what the Egyptians could not, in this case produce iron. Which doesn't show up except in tiny amounts. if they had iron they would have used it.

Hey BM I had a lot of problems with the quote and /quote in this message. It was acting kinda wonky, lost the first one entirely. So will put it up as is. If anything is missing , my apologies. Will check it tomorrow with the original but have run out of time tonight, regards

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous


But as Harte pointed out from the video earlier, even just using fire on granite will weaken it up. I don't think we'll ever find the appropriate amount of charcoal on the site to justify a "fire" theory, but it does to show how a very simple approach can sometimes bridge the gap.

Maybe the Egyptians found something as simple as fire, but which wasn't exactly fire?

I'm thinking there's no way they didn't know fire could weaken granite. Something that available would have to have been tried.

They may have used fire in some way, stone tool can be treated by fire as is wood, however eating large blocks of granite might be difficult and they would risk cracking.

But, there doesn't appear to be any charcoal residue.

So either:

A: They somehow never figured out that fire could weaken granite.

B: They knew fire could weaken granite, but were so fond of wasting their resources that they chose to have their workers just use plain old pounders anyway. (Knowing half of them would become arthritic, and the job would take forever, and much diorite would need to be imported and go to waste.)

The ancient weren't great at doing the most logical, reasonable and scientifically valid methods. You can see that in agriculture, irrigation, building temples (useless), tombs (useless) etc.

I think they used the most efficient agricultural methods they knew of.

The temples were probably centers for commerce, at least in their earliest days. Even if the commerce took place outside the temple walls.

OR

C: They had a better method than fire available.

OR they didn't and simply did what worked, expertise, man power and tradition.

I think that is every Egyptologist's pipe dream.

A culture that invested truly unlimited amounts of money in its public works projects, and didn't even expect them to be executed with any efficiency.

It serves to confirm the world view of people who want government to fund arts and sciences (or cultural research like anthropology, for example) to an unlimited degree.

They can say "Look!" "Here is a culture that never got tired of taxing and spending, and put truly unlimited amounts of manpower and investment into things that would yield no immediate return!"

"See???!!" "It can work!!!!" It didn't crash their economy. Why would it crash ours? ...........Right?

It wouldn't need to be an amazingly advanced culture.

It would have been advanced enough to do what the Egyptians could not, in this case produce iron. Which doesn't show up except in tiny amounts. if they had iron they would have used it.

There is also the issue of Tut having a dagger made out of meteorite iron.

If smelted iron had been available in any quantities, then Tut would probably have had a smelted iron dagger.

The fact it is apparently meteorite iron suggests meteorites were the only known source.

That is.... ... unless the iron making culture had died out a long time before Tut's burial and all daggers from that time had been lost.

Hey BM I had a lot of problems with the quote and /quote in this message. It was acting kinda wonky, lost the first one entirely. So will put it up as is. If anything is missing , my apologies. Will check it tomorrow with the original but have run out of time tonight, regards

I know your pain. I can't count how many times I've had to re-edit over quotes on this site.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

I think they used the most efficient agricultural methods they knew of.

Yes which weren't the most efficient, their agricultural processes used a lot of labor, incredible amounts of water and had the Nile not flooded each year they would have suffered the same type of collapse the Mesopotamians later suffered from salt build up.

The temples were probably centers for commerce, at least in their earliest days. Even if the commerce took place outside the temple walls.

Yes, but they didn't need to be built at such a grand scale, useless ego.

I deleted what appeared to be some comments on modern politics - sorry no interest in that subject

I know your pain. I can't count how many times I've had to re-edit over quotes on this site.

Yes a real pain and trying to do it on a phone was hopelessly complex - on a PC now

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

I think they used the most efficient agricultural methods they knew of.

Yes which weren't the most efficient, their agricultural processes used a lot of labor, incredible amounts of water and had the Nile not flooded each year they would have suffered the same type of collapse the Mesopotamians later suffered from salt build up.

If a resource is sufficiently abundant, then there is no point in trying to conserve it. I'm not very careful about how much air I breath every day. (An astronaut living in space might consider my behavior to be very wasteful.)


And I'll admit that there is a darker side to "abundant labor use". If you keep the peasants constantly busy working all day they can't organize any revolts.

So there is that.

It's the just the pounder theory strains the imagination a bit too much.

In the first place, it would make the task take a long time, because even if you have a million workers, you can only fit a few hundred of them around the obelisk at any given time before they would be tripping over each other.

The temples were probably centers for commerce, at least in their earliest days. Even if the commerce took place outside the temple walls.

Yes, but they didn't need to be built at such a grand scale, useless ego.

Shows of power.

The number of workers a pharaoh can assign to his vanity project is a reflection of the number of soldiers he could theoretically field in time of war.

The more impressive your army looks, less likely it is that anyone will actually try and attack you. (And the more willing they might be to submit to demands for tribute also....)

No matter how much we want to dress it up, those were barbaric times.

But the point is to make it look like you've got a lot of power, so you want to take 1000 workers and make it look like you had 10,000. Not take 10,000 workers and have it look like you only had 1000.

I deleted what appeared to be some comments on modern politics - sorry no interest in that subject

Well, our theories of history tend to reflect our world view in general.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

It's the just the pounder theory strains the imagination a bit too much.

Possibly because you haven't tried it or done it for years? I've done some flint knapping and some sculptural work in stone (very little, but some) and it's not impossible. Granite isn't a solid substance (unlike, say, limestone or marble) and it's quite easy to whack it and break off the substrate (which is much softer) and let the crystals (peridot and others, too tiny for any gemstone work) to simply fall out.

In the first place, it would make the task take a long time, because even if you have a million workers, you can only fit a few hundred of them around the obelisk at any given time before they would be tripping over each other.

We could do it with modern tools in a shorter time period, yes. But this is the way that civilizations all over the world cut harder stone from quarries before they had iron tools. In addition, there's the evidence of hundreds of these pounders left over every single quarry in Egypt... and the marks left in the trenches around the stone. If they were using something else, it would have shown in the blocks that are partly cut out.

Shows of power.

The number of workers a pharaoh can assign to his vanity project is a reflection of the number of soldiers he could theoretically field in time of war.

Actually, no. The Egyptian peasants were notoriously bad at warfare... which is why the first professional armies in ancient Egypt were the Nubian medjay, They weren't farmers. They were cattle herders used to fighting off animals and raiding groups. At one time the medjay were the only army of any significance that the pharaohs had. It wasn't until long after Giza that a professional non-medjay army was formed and it did not draw from the peasantry as much as it did military families and mercenaries and some prisoners of war.

The more impressive your army looks, less likely it is that anyone will actually try and attack you. (And the more willing they might be to submit to demands for tribute also....)

The Nile and the desert was what kept others from launching a complete takeover -- and what kept Egypt from expanding militarily. Expansionism doesn't occur to any degree until the New Kingdom when Egypt was in the Bronze Age and had iron and bronze and chariots and better ships.

No matter how much we want to dress it up, those were barbaric times.

I... think you would be very surprised if you went to ancient Egypt. Hardly barbaric.

But the point is to make it look like you've got a lot of power, so you want to take 1000 workers and make it look like you had 10,000. Not take 10,000 workers and have it look like you only had 1000.

The purpose of the workforce was to control internal unrest during the flood season... and also to redistribute wealth. The taxes that people paid (no money back then, so taxes were food, cloth, wood, grain, and other foods) were returned to keep them from starving (with some of it supporting the government and some sent for trade to enrich the government). Workers were fed very well with good quality food, including some beef which wasn't usually found on the dinner menu.

No one from another country would be going into the heart of Egypt just to report on building projects.

Oh... one other point... the big temples were also government complexes, collecting taxes, housing libraries, and housing officials since officials and nobles were the only ones who held real priestly titles. So administrative areas had to be big and would include chapels to deities other than the main temple's focal deities.

www.youtube.com...

Granite being cut with primitive tools

www.jstor.org...

I've used pounder on Easter Island (duplicating what Thor had done in his book Aku Aku) and a bit of such work in Egypt and on Cyprus (teaching grad students how the ancient's made things).

www.hallofmaat.com...

originally posted by: Hanslune
www.youtube.com...

Granite being cut with primitive tools

www.jstor.org...

I've used pounder on Easter Island (duplicating what Thor had done in his book Aku Aku) and a bit of such work in Egypt and on Cyprus (teaching grad students how the ancient's made things).

www.hallofmaat.com...

Is that video intended to help your point, or hurt it? It looks like the cutting is going really slow.


Just think about it. No matter how many workers you have, you can only assign one worker to each 2 foot by 4 foot area, really. That's all that will fit.

So you should really just be asking yourself : how long would it take just one worker to cut out a 2 by 4 foot area of one of the trenches around that big monolith?


The video is showing time lapses that look like they could have taken hours, for one worker to chisel out a 3 inch by three inch, by three inch cube.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

It's the just the pounder theory strains the imagination a bit too much.

Possibly because you haven't tried it or done it for years? I've done some flint knapping and some sculptural work in stone (very little, but some) and it's not impossible. Granite isn't a solid substance (unlike, say, limestone or marble) and it's quite easy to whack it and break off the substrate (which is much softer) and let the crystals (peridot and others, too tiny for any gemstone work) to simply fall out.

I don't know how to be any more clear about this:

I do not disagree that, when a substantially harder substance is available ancient people often used pounders with success.

Diorite is not substantially harder than granite.

Flint pounders vs. limestone is a whole different question than diorite pounders vs. granite.

In the first place, it would make the task take a long time, because even if you have a million workers, you can only fit a few hundred of them around the obelisk at any given time before they would be tripping over each other.

We could do it with modern tools in a shorter time period, yes. But this is the way that civilizations all over the world cut harder stone from quarries before they had iron tools. In addition, there's the evidence of hundreds of these pounders left over every single quarry in Egypt... and the marks left in the trenches around the stone. If they were using something else, it would have shown in the blocks that are partly cut out.

No they didn't.

Not unless they had available a cutting stone that would be much harder than the one to be cut.

Shows of power.

The number of workers a pharaoh can assign to his vanity project is a reflection of the number of soldiers he could theoretically field in time of war.

Actually, no. The Egyptian peasants were notoriously bad at warfare... which is why the first professional armies in ancient Egypt were the Nubian medjay, They weren't farmers. They were cattle herders used to fighting off animals and raiding groups. At one time the medjay were the only army of any significance that the pharaohs had. It wasn't until long after Giza that a professional non-medjay army was formed and it did not draw from the peasantry as much as it did military families and mercenaries and some prisoners of war.

The more impressive your army looks, less likely it is that anyone will actually try and attack you. (And the more willing they might be to submit to demands for tribute also....)

The Nile and the desert was what kept others from launching a complete takeover -- and what kept Egypt from expanding militarily. Expansionism doesn't occur to any degree until the New Kingdom when Egypt was in the Bronze Age and had iron and bronze and chariots and better ships.

You're assuming that he is trying to defend against external threats.

What about internal threats?

If your village wants to stop paying taxes, and secede, you need only look at the massive stone works in your nation's seat of government to see how well that would go for you.

But the point is to make it look like you've got a lot of power, so you want to take 1000 workers and make it look like you had 10,000. Not take 10,000 workers and have it look like you only had 1000.

The purpose of the workforce was to control internal unrest during the flood season... and also to redistribute wealth. The taxes that people paid (no money back then, so taxes were food, cloth, wood, grain, and other foods) were returned to keep them from starving (with some of it supporting the government and some sent for trade to enrich the government). Workers were fed very well with good quality food, including some beef which wasn't usually found on the dinner menu.

No one from another country would be going into the heart of Egypt just to report on building projects.

Oh... one other point... the big temples were also government complexes, collecting taxes, housing libraries, and housing officials since officials and nobles were the only ones who held real priestly titles. So administrative areas had to be big and would include chapels to deities other than the main temple's focal deities.

That makes pretty good sense too.

Kind of a buffer for his budget. Whatever he doesn't use, he can just spend on the current vanity project.

Food is perishable, so you can't just save it somewhere (not for too long, anyway.) He has to use it for something.

During famine he just stops the vanity project for a bit.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Hanslune
www.youtube.com...

Granite being cut with primitive tools

www.jstor.org...

I've used pounder on Easter Island (duplicating what Thor had done in his book Aku Aku) and a bit of such work in Egypt and on Cyprus (teaching grad students how the ancient's made things).

www.hallofmaat.com...

Is that video intended to help your point, or hurt it? It looks like the cutting is going really slow.

It's slow because she's cutting it with a piece of flint.

Harte