Claim: Ancient Cultures inherited Structures and Artefacts from Pre-Historic Lost Civilizations with Advanced Manufacturing Capabilities

[Ann K]

Can you show one example of one of these granite bowls could have been made without a high speed lathe? Is Chris Dunn mistaken?

@Ravi also posted a film, in post number 41, that you should watch. Here it is:

Came across a video about Egyptian artisans that try to keep the crafts alive. Check this part (t=1852), about stone vases..

Source: https://youtu.be/8e0G51TYHy8?t=1852

Chris Dunn is a man who makes his living peddling fantasy stories to get people to sign up for his tours. If I were to judge Dunn to be "mistaken", I'd be bending over backwards to give him the benefit of the doubt, when it seems more likely to me that he is deliberately shading the facts to present his own (lucrative) version. He is one person giving one story; don't pin all your conclusions on his version when so many others have refuted him.

if you want more — much more — go to YouTube and look up "ancient technology debunked". There you will find dozens of people who give not just arguments, but demonstrations.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Have you read Chris Dunn's book? He is an engineer who has measured and researched these objects and how they would have necessarily been made by machines

Per Mr. Dunn's own website, he is not a registered, licensed or accredited engineer, though he may indeed be an accomplished craftsman:

Christopher Dunn has an extensive background as a craftsman, starting his career as an indentured apprentice in his hometown of Manchester, England. Recruited by an aerospace manufacturing company, he immigrated to the United States in 1969. Over the past 49 years, Chris has worked at every level of high-tech manufacturing from machinist, toolmaker, programmer and operator of high-power industrial lasers, Project Engineer and Laser Operations Manager. For the past 16 year, he has served as Human Resource Director for a Midwest aerospace manufacturer.

https://www.gizapower.com/CPDBio.htm

Can you show one example of one of these granite bowls could have been made without a high speed lathe?

We have posted numerus videos and a journal paper ALL showing how these bowels and other vessels can be made with the tools available to ancient Egyptians.

I don't know exactly what Dunn claims in his book, but it seems the 2 most often repeated pieces of evidence for machine manufacturing is the "tool marks" and the supposed "precision" of the objects. Giving what's been presented in this thread, including this piece of granite with "tool marks":

Would you agree that the "tool marks" are indicative of ancient style tools being used? Every person that tries to use some form of ancient tools ends up creating the very same "tool marks" that are repeatedly attributed to some sort of machine. It's the old copper/stone/sand tools that create these "tool marks". Wouldn't an advanced "high speed lath with a diamond cutter" leave a much smother surface?

Is Chris Dunn mistaken?

Possibly. I'll note that Mr. Dunn has a finacial incentive in his theory. His tours will set one back over $6k:

https://adeptexpeditions.com/product/egypt-tour-package-full-payment/

If I want my own room, it's another $1250:

https://adeptexpeditions.com/product/egypt-tour-single-room-supplement/

Not including airfare:

There is nothing wrong with making money, I'm a full-fledged capitalist. And there is nothing wrong with making money from one's ideas and theories, that's the nature of "intellectual property", but when one's ideas and theories are far outside what others that have spent their lives studying have deduced and there is a potential financial consequence to that, I get a little suspicious.

Mr. Dunn is presenting evidence, I and others have presented counter-evidence. You owe it to yourself to at least look at the counter-evidence and see how it stacks up. What about the various demonstrations of ancient tools creating "tool marks" is wrong?

 

[Hevach]

Dunn's claims boil down to the quality of the work, which I mentioned way up thread is not a good indicator because through history, the quality of a single piece is reasonably close to a constant.

Technology has improved materials and reduced the time investment in a single piece, but the actual quality of a master at his trade isn't a product of those things.

A crafter with a powered turning wheel and carbide cutting tools could produce a product of equal quality much faster and with less waste, but that's not the same as the crafter with a wooden wheel and pig iron tools never being able to do so.

 

[SkepticSteve]

@Ravi also posted a film, in post number 41, that you should watch. Here it is:

Came across a video about Egyptian artisans that try to keep the crafts alive. Check this part (t=1852), about stone vases..

Source: https://youtu.be/8e0G51TYHy8?t=1852

Chris Dunn is a man who makes his living peddling fantasy stories to get people to sign up for his tours. If I were to judge Dunn to be "mistaken", I'd be bending over backwards to give him the benefit of the doubt, when it seems more likely to me that he is deliberately shading the facts to present his own (lucrative) version. He is one person giving one story; don't pin all your conclusions on his version when so many others have refuted him.

if you want more — much more — go to YouTube and look up "ancient technology debunked". There you will find dozens of people who give not just arguments, but demonstrations.

Would be quite interesting to meet-up this gentleman and ask him whether he can do the same wonders with granite as he can do with alabaster and specifically ask him to replicate some of the granite stone vases.

 

[yoshy]

Possibly. I'll note that Mr. Dunn has a finacial incentive in his theory. His tours will set one back over $6k:

https://adeptexpeditions.com/product/egypt-tour-package-full-payment/

Whoa we were discussing financial incentives for the Skinwalker ranch people in this thread. I noted that Travis Taylor was paid $10,000 for a paranormal/UFO convention, but those only happen a few times a year. I assume Dunn can do several of these tours a month (maybe several a week even?). Dunn must be making insane money from this!

 

[NorCal Dave]

Whoa we were discussing financial incentives for the Skinwalker ranch people in this thread. I noted that Travis Taylor was paid $10,000 for a paranormal/UFO convention, but those only happen a few times a year. I assume Dunn can do several of these tours a month (maybe several a week even?). Dunn must be making insane money from this!

I don't think he's making a ton of money, but he's making some. The ad was from his 2021, post covid tour and he appears to have done one in 2019. So, maybe 1 a season or so:

Here's what's included (or rather was included):

Most notable is accommodations and transportation followed by some food and entrance fees to various ruins. I've never contemplated taking a bunch of people on a tour, but I would imagine a small timer like Dunn doing a tour once a season or so in a foreign country is contracting with some sort of 3rd party tour company. He's just one of many doing the same thing so, I'm sure there is a robust tour industry in Egypt for people like him. I have no idea what that would cost, but obviously a chunk of the $6k Dunn collects from each person is being passed on to the tour company.

In fact, a little Googling find that his sidekick for the tour, Anyextee may have been the one with the connections to tour companies as he was involved with John Antony West that did the same thing:

Anyextee's Bio:

Called to investigate the ancient mysteries, metaphysics and mysticism, Anyextee transformed his passion for exploration into an esoteric tour company dedicated to providing travelers with more meaningful experiences. In the tradition of his mentor, the late great symbolist author and rogue Egyptologist, John Anthony West, Anyextee offers esoteric tours in Egypt. He also provides symbolists and truth seekers with transformational tours through Turkey and Mexico.

Anyextee has been featured on the Travel Channel, Amazon Prime, numerous radio shows, and podcasts. He is also a featured CPAK (Conference on Precession and Ancient Knowledge) speaker.

http://anyextee.com/about-anyextee/

I don't think he's doing these tours for free, I'm sure he's making a tidy bit of money, but I think tours are part of the multiple income stream strategy for these guys. I'm sure while on Dunn's tour he pushes his books and other merch.

Uncharted X, the guys that scanned the vase use the same strategy, YouTube channels that promote them and then one finds their merch and tours. I'm headed to the UK in the fall, so I guess I screwed up by not going in July when Uncharted X, branching out from Egypt, had a tour:

https://unchartedx.com/site/2023/01/27/join-me-on-a-tour-of-megalithic-england-july-2023

I find it all very interesting. My brother-in-law is headed to Egypt in the fall. He's done well for himself, no kids, so he and his wife like to go on NatGeo tours with actual archeologists and researchers on the tours. Contrast that with the "specialists" hosting Uncharted X's UK tour:

https://unchartedx.com/site/2023/01/27/join-me-on-a-tour-of-megalithic-england-july-2023/

All of these people have jack-shit to do with the very things they're pontificating on.

If I didn't have ethics, I'd say we need to get in on this. Something like "Yosh & Dave teach you the hidden mysteries of (insert mystery mongering idea here) as only they can!" Take a tour, buy a book, subscribe to our YT channel, follow on Instagram and Facebook, buy our merch.

Alas, I know better and find the "mystery" of the vases being made by hardworking craftsmen much more interesting.

 

[yoshy]

I don't think he's making a ton of money, but he's making some. The ad was from his 2021, post covid tour and he appears to have done one in 2019. So, maybe 1 a season or so:

View attachment 58718

Here's what's included (or rather was included):

View attachment 58721

Most notable is accommodations and transportation followed by some food and entrance fees to various ruins. I've never contemplated taking a bunch of people on a tour, but I would imagine a small timer like Dunn doing a tour once a season or so in a foreign country is contracting with some sort of 3rd party tour company. He's just one of many doing the same thing so, I'm sure there is a robust tour industry in Egypt for people like him. I have no idea what that would cost, but obviously a chunk of the $6k Dunn collects from each person is being passed on to the tour company.

In fact, a little Googling find that his sidekick for the tour, Anyextee may have been the one with the connections to tour companies as he was involved with John Antony West that did the same thing:

Anyextee's Bio:

Called to investigate the ancient mysteries, metaphysics and mysticism, Anyextee transformed his passion for exploration into an esoteric tour company dedicated to providing travelers with more meaningful experiences. In the tradition of his mentor, the late great symbolist author and rogue Egyptologist, John Anthony West, Anyextee offers esoteric tours in Egypt. He also provides symbolists and truth seekers with transformational tours through Turkey and Mexico.

Anyextee has been featured on the Travel Channel, Amazon Prime, numerous radio shows, and podcasts. He is also a featured CPAK (Conference on Precession and Ancient Knowledge) speaker.

http://anyextee.com/about-anyextee/

I don't think he's doing these tours for free, I'm sure he's making a tidy bit of money, but I think tours are part of the multiple income stream strategy for these guys. I'm sure while on Dunn's tour he pushes his books and other merch.

Uncharted X, the guys that scanned the vase use the same strategy, YouTube channels that promote them and then one finds their merch and tours. I'm headed to the UK in the fall, so I guess I screwed up by not going in July when Uncharted X, branching out from Egypt, had a tour:

View attachment 58723
https://unchartedx.com/site/2023/01/27/join-me-on-a-tour-of-megalithic-england-july-2023

I find it all very interesting. My brother-in-law is headed to Egypt in the fall. He's done well for himself, no kids, so he and his wife like to go on NatGeo tours with actual archeologists and researchers on the tours. Contrast that with the "specialists" hosting Uncharted X's UK tour:

View attachment 58724
https://unchartedx.com/site/2023/01/27/join-me-on-a-tour-of-megalithic-england-july-2023/

All of these people have jack-shit to do with the very things they're pontificating on.


Alas, I know better and find the "mystery" of the vases being made by hardworking craftsmen much more interesting.

Thanks for the context! Pretty convincing that I overestimated how often he could give these tours.

If I didn't have ethics, I'd say we need to get in on this. Something like "Yosh & Dave teach you the hidden mysteries of (insert mystery mongering idea here) as only they can!" Take a tour, buy a book, subscribe to our YT channel, follow on Instagram and Facebook, buy our merch.

Count me in! Point at random thing: "that's block's lenght is the golden ratio divided by pi multiplied by e. Incontrovertible proof of Atlantis..or maybe aliens"

 

[John J.]

Have you read Chris Dunn's book?

(Originally posted by Bill Ferguson)
I got the impression that Bill's attachment (above) was from Chris Dunn's book.

It appears to be from the webpage "Lathe Turned Stone Housewares", on the website "Spirit and Stone"
https://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/egypt/articles/hrdfact3.php
and is credited to Robert Francis on the preceding webpage http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/egypt/articles/stonetech.php

I think it's fair to say that the "Lathe Turned Stone" article falls into the "I don't know how they did this so I'll imply they didn't" school. Francis says,

The elegant workings in granite are a different matter and indicate not only a consummate level of skill, but a different and perhaps more advanced technology]

(Link, as per "Spirit and Stone" above).

Francis also tells us,

Since we have yet to reproduce such pieces it is safe to say that the techniques or machinery they employed to produce these bowls has yet to be replicated.

After referring to the 4th Dynasty, Francis tells us

Stoneware such as this has not been found from any later era in Egyptian history - it seems that the skills necessary were lost.

Luckily, Francis didn't tell the ancient Egyptians this, here's a bit of worked granite- albeit on a much larger scale- from the 18th dynasty, c. 1370 BC, about 1200 years later

Wikipedia, Colossal red granite statue of Amenhotep III,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossal_red_granite_statue_of_Amenhotep_III (and this isn't, by any means, an isolated example).

Francis implies that, because granite (and basalt, and porphyry) are very hard, a lost technology must have been used, that it might pre-date dynastic Egypt and (despite literally tons of monumental evidence to the contrary) this technology was lost by the end of the 4th dynasty, maybe earlier.

However, the American archaeologist Patrick Hunt has a more prosaic view of things
(Wikipedia entry for Patrick Hunt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Hunt_(archaeologist)).

Thanks to the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, we have some notes (courtesy of Nancy Corbin) on Dr Hunt's speech to a meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt
https://web.archive.org/web/20071014031747/http://hebsed.home.comcast.net/hunt.htm

Dr Hunt stated:

The ancient Egyptians were capable of working stone ranging from #1 to #9 on the 10-step, relativized Moh's scale of hardness.

He went on to list types of stone used (selected examples below):

The stone used by the ancient Egyptians includes:
b. Red Granite - A stone harder than steel, is #7 on the Moh's scale, was used for sculpting, but was rarely used for architect-ural purposes due to the difficulty it presented in cutting it. It was quarried at Aswan, often for use in obelisks, some of which were more than 45 feet high.
c. Quartzite - Probably quarried at Gebelein, was used for carving the famous Colossi of Memnon. Quartzite is not particularly good for sculpting as it has too many intrusions, but is an exceptionally hard stone, registering 7.5 on the Moh's scale of hardness.
g. Black Granite - Another very hard stone which was used for sculpting, but is not particularly good for architectural purposes as it is difficult to cut. The Rosetta Stone is carved on a slab of black granite, not basalt, as once thought.
i. Gneiss - A metamorphosed granite, it was used for sculpting. Dr. Hunt screened a picture of a fine sphinx sculpture of Senusert III as an example of this beautiful stone.

How did the Egyptians cut and shape such hard stone? They had copper and bronze tools, but did not adopt the use of iron for tools until late - about the 8th century BCE. Even when they did, it was not suitable for working hard stone such as basalt. Dr. Hunt strongly believes that the ancient Egyptians used Emery to work hard stone. Emery is #9 on the Moh's scale of hardness - harder than steel, and than any other stone save Diamond. It can cut, abrade and polish the hardest stone, such as granite and quartzite, both of which are harder than iron and bronze. Its name does appear in the Ptolemaic vocabulary.

Dr. Hunt closed his lecture by reiterating that the ancient Egyptians were the best metallurgists and stone workers in the ancient world. He believes that they used emery as well as dolerite [for pounding] as their primary tools for cutting and smoothing hard stone. Nobody in the ancient world had so many uses for hard stone, and no others were so adept at its use. The ancient Egyptians were the genius stoneworkers of their world.

Back to Bill Fergusson's original example, apparently photographed by Robert Francis,

(from http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/egypt/articles/hrdfact3.php)
It is an extraordinary piece of work.
Mr Francis tells us the artefact is

fully hollowed out

-but he doesn't provide a photo that shows us that, and it might have been difficult for Mr Francis to see far inside- the pot is in a display cabinet.

I wonder if the pot is "fully hollowed out"- as in the (L) sketch, below. If (conjecture) it's more like the (R), it would have a much lower centre of gravity (and greater stability).

This might be a technology we haven't forgotten.

 

[Ann K]

Francis implies that, because granite (and basalt, and porphyry) are very hard, a lost technology must have been used,

What the "granite is too hard" people don't understand is (1) a hard object can be abraded by another object of the SAME hardness, and (2) the sand is largely composed of the same components as the granite, and the quartz in sand is perfectly capable of acting as a cutting or polishing agent.

 

[Ravi]

@John J.

That last vessel you show is indeed a very interesting one as well. The inside is hollow, but we don't know (from the images) how well it was hollowed out. There is also a possibility that the inside is not very symmetrical at all, but just the mass midpoint is nicely centred. (ps, how sure are we the vessel is not supported by some fishing wires? Museums do this all the time. Actually I would be surprised a museum would not secure a round object like this. Risking that the vessel starts rolling to the other side lol)

 

[Ann K]

Luckily, Francis didn't tell the ancient Egyptians this, here's a bit of worked granite- albeit on a much larger scale- from the 18th dynasty, c. 1370 BC, about 1200 years later

Wikipedia, Colossal red granite statue of Amenhotep III,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossal_red_granite_statue_of_Amenhotep_III (and this isn't, by any means, an isolated example).

I think it's worth noting that, per the Wikipedia entry, this granite head is 2.9 meters tall. Making a small vessel should be child's play compared to that!

 

[yoshy]

I asked Dr. Miano from the World of Antiquity channel if he has any videos specifically mentioning Christopher Dunn, and luckily he does!


Watching this video alone is more relevant than the massive playlist of his I posted early in the thread (though you should watch all those too )

This video covers basically every outlandish claim we've seen in this thread. It combines his videos on UnchartedX and Christoper Dunn. Covers "saw marks", "tube marks", polishing, claims of "precision", stone vases (including showing the progression in technique over time), and some more claims of precision by Dunn in his Lost Technologies book. Dr. Miano also references many of the other debunking channels we've seen throughout this thread.

 

[Ravi]

Agreed @yoshy, it is a great channel. The recent ones (the Antiques Travel Guide, where he visits Egypt himself together with Natalie Hilder and a proper camera person) are very interesting and informative and in such high video quality too! It is on a large screen extremely entertaining to see.

 

[NorCal Dave]

asked Dr. Miano from the World of Antiquity channel if he has any videos specifically mentioning Christopher Dunn, and luckily he does!

Yes, but good lord, it's 3+ hours long! With having to watch Mr. Greenstreet's SWR ranch video collection also on my plate, I'm going to have to spend a lot of time sitting around looking at my screen. That makes it real hard to keep up the sham appearance of being a Boomer/GenX grinder that doesn't have time to sit around "looking at my phone all day like an unemployed Zoomer".

Seriously though, it shows that countering some of this stuff takes time and/or pages of evidence, something many people don't or won't make the time for. Also interesting is the ability to simply say Miano's video is wrong without showing why, one simply throws down. From the comments, this guy got 475 up votes and as far as I can see so far, he never offers any of the "facts":

Count me in! Point at random thing: "that's block's lenght is the golden ratio divided by pi multiplied by e. Incontrovertible proof of Atlantis..or maybe aliens"

We would have to come up with some catchy names, but no need to lie about our academic experience, we'll just call ourselves "researchers".

On the surface, there is nothing wrong with that, researching is what we do here I'd argue. BUT, I think most of us are very reluctant to completely counter large groups of experts in various fields, rather we try to rely on them.

On a related tangent, watched a film on Amazon last night about Gwen Shambling, a Tennesse woman that founded a Christian weight loss program. That led her to becoming (thinking she was) a prophetess and founding her own church/cult. Overall, it came off as a 'meh made for TV movie, but Jenefer Grey (Ferris Bueler's sister, Dirty Dancing) does a good job of portraying Shambling as she creates a persona, then monetizes that persona and the increasingly blurred line between what she might believe and what those beliefs get her, in terms of power, authority and money.

Back to starting our own "mystery" operation, on the one hand we'd kill it, we know this stuff and how it works on the other we'd be horrible as I know I can't just throw BS that well with a straight face.

 

[deirdre]

Back to starting our own "mystery" operation, on the one hand we'd kill it, we know this stuff and how it works on the other we'd be horrible as I know I can't just throw BS that well with a straight face.

you're better off financially just starting a real tour company that repeats the facts the official egyptian antiquity guys want the public to know. your target audience would be much much bigger.
i doubt even 1% of the population believes the alien stuff and also has $6k to take a tour that you can really just watch on youtube videos for free.

Personally, some of the "mainstream" stuff i found is still different (quite interesting), then what typical mainstream stuff says. You could just do an honest "differing opinions" tour to differentiate yourself a bit. I' would take that tour as i'm more interested in all the different opinions the legitimate researchers and experts have on each topic. and you could tell me on the tour all the different expert opinions on why the graffiti is written sideways.

ex this legitimate egyptian specialist says the khufu graffiti might not jive with the workers writing it.

Article:

"This is totally false and nonsensical," said Ahmed Saeed, professor of ancient Egyptian civilization at Cairo University. He explains that accurate scientific research dates the cartouche within an era after the reign of Khufu.

He elaborates on the writing of the king's name in graffiti, maintaining it could have been written by the pyramid builders after construction, which might also explain why the king's short name and not his official title is inscribed. Alternatively, he suggests the cartouche could have been written during the Middle Kingdom era, due to the style of writing used.

Source: https://www.archaeology.wiki/blog/2013/11/27/penalties-imposed-on-two-amateur-german-archaeologists/

 

[yoshy]

Yes, but good lord, it's 3+ hours long! With having to watch Mr. Greenstreet's SWR ranch video collection also on my plate, I'm going to have to spend a lot of time sitting around looking at my screen. That makes it real hard to keep up the sham appearance of being a Boomer/GenX grinder that doesn't have time to sit around "looking at my phone all day like an unemployed Zoomer".

Ha! I should have mentioned that this particular video has chapters you can navigate to if you want to watch just a specific topic like the vases or Dunn.

Speaking of the extremely long video series I keep posting, I have the benefit of working from home. Coding away on one screen while watching debunking videos on my TV

And sadly, it's just the nature of debunking: Brandolini's law

Brandolini's law, also known as the bullshit asymmetry principle, is an internet adage coined in 2013 that emphasizes the effort of debunking misinformation, in comparison to the relative ease of creating it in the first place. It states that "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it."[1][2]

 

[deirdre]

it's just the nature of debunking: Brandolini's law

or ...you could have just told us what he said about Dunn, since you apparently watched it.

 

[NorCal Dave]

or ...you could have just told us what he said about Dunn, since you apparently watched it.

I don't think he's saying Brandolini watched a Chris Dunn video. Brandolini is just the guy that codified the idea that it's easer to create bunk than it is to de-bunk it. It can be applied to various claims, like Dunn's.

 

[yoshy]

I don't think he's saying Brandolini watched a Chris Dunn video. Brandolini is just the guy that codified the idea that it's easer to create bunk than it is to de-bunk it. It can be applied to various claims, like Dunn's.

Exactly! Thank you for clarifying for me. The charlatans can make claims like "the pyramids were built so precisely that only advanced machinery could do it", but debunkers need to comb through papers, books, or sometimes even travel to do the measurements themselves. Another good example is @Mick West coding up his sitrec program. That's much more work than UFO believers watching a video and declaring "No human made craft can travel like that!"

 

[Ravi]

Came across an interesting article, found here Stone vases

I am not going to rephrase what is mentioned, so I quote it here. It is in my view a sound explanation of how these vessels were made.

The Techniques of Stone-Vessel Making

The production of stone vessels is frequently depicted in Old Kingdom wall reliefs and paintings.24 Because few workshops have been found,25 much of what is said about methods of manufacture must rely on inference from these representations and other evidence.26 The craftsman appears to have started by cutting a stone roughly into the desired shape of the vessel. This must have been done with the help of dolerite pounders (cat. no. 36) and copper chisels. Pieces discarded in an unfinished state show that the outside of the container was then fully finished and smoothed by rubbing with a hard stone. Only after the exterior shape was achieved did the craftsman start to hollow out the interior, a task accomplished, at least from the Archaic Period, with the so-called crank drill (fig. 73).27 This instrument consisted basically of a long piece of wood with a handle on top. Below the handle two heavy stones were fastened with ropes. Recent investigations by the experimental archaeologist Stocks have revealed that these stones did not provide momentum during the work process but served solely to weigh down the drill.28 The instrument often had a forked bottom that helped to fasten the drill bit. Both this fork and the handle on top of the drill were made of single naturally shaped tree branches. Some representations of the crank drill show a shaft composed of two parts that are lashed together (fig. 73). Stocks has convincingly explained that shafts of this kind must have been fashioned to facilitate replacement of the lower end of the drill when it wore down from use.29

Drill bits were made in various shapes and of many materials. There were triangular bits of flint whose points wore off through use—which accounts for the fact that discarded bits of flint found in excavations are usually crescent-shaped. There were also drill bits of diorite, quartzite, and limestone. Shapes included figure-eight forms and roughly rectangular cones with indentations in the center of both long sides into which the forked ends of the drill could be fitted.30 Tubular bits of copper may sometimes have been employed as well, especially for the initial drilling of the cavity—indeed a small groove around the bottom of the interior of a number of conical ointment vessels perhaps indicates their use.31 The drill shaft to which such copper tubes might have been fitted would, of course, have had no fork at its lower end.
Stocks has demonstrated that the crank drill was probably not turned continuously in one direction but rather was twisted forward and backward, clockwise and counterclockwise, either between the two hands that held the shaft and handle of the instrument or by one hand while the other steadied the instrument or the vessel.32 This procedure appears to assure a high degree of stability and a well-centered drilling process. Archaeological evidence reveals that the ancient Egyptian drilling technique also involved placing the vessel in a hole in the ground or other work area. Thus, in the Old Kingdom stone-vessel workshop excavated at Hierakonopolis sockets suitable for holding vessels were found in a workbench of beaten earth.33 And a wood model of early Middle Kingdom date represents in miniature a carpenter's workshop in which a stone-vessel maker has also found a home. This artisan uses a large round white object, probably a stone with a hole in its top, as a support for the vase he is drilling.34

A difficult stage in the hollowing process must have been reached when the center cavity of a jar of broad shape was bored and the craftsman had to enlarge the interior space on all sides. Some archaeologists believe that the drill was held obliquely to widen the cavity, while others have followed Reisner, who maintained that a succession of ever larger drill bits was used.35 Certainly a number of bits of different shapes were employed to obtain the desired volume and shape of the interior. Whenever possible the artisan probably effected the final thinning of the walls by inserting his hand into the vessel and smoothing down the interior by rubbing with a hard stone (fig. 73). Sand and other suitable powdery substances were used as abrasives during all stages of the work, including the final polishing of the outer surface.36

Of course, Graham and Christopher have to show that the vessels cannot be made this way, not the other way around.

 

[deirdre]

I don't think he's saying Brandolini watched a Chris Dunn video. Brandolini is just the guy that codified the idea that it's easer to create bunk than it is to de-bunk it. It can be applied to various claims, like Dunn's.

lol. i KNOW, silly. I'm saying debunking would be less hard if people like him shared what they already learned instead of telling us "here watch this 2 hour video".

 

[Ann K]

lol. i KNOW, silly. I'm saying debunking would be less hard if people like him shared what they already learned instead of telling us "here watch this 2 hour video".

Do you mean "if people like him went to the great trouble of transcribing it and gave me a thousand words instead of me taking the trouble of looking at a picture ...er... demonstration"? You'd still want to see the demonstration. There are identified chapters in the description; you can simply go to the section that interests you and watch a few minutes, which will explain it much more clearly than all the words in the world.

 

[deirdre]

looking at a picture ...er... demonstration"?

im happy to look at any picture posted here.

what demonstration? can you give me a timestamp at least to this demonstration?

 

[Ann K]

im happy to look at any picture posted here.

what demonstration? can you give me a timestamp at least to this demonstration?

Which demonstration? Which subject interests you? All the different subjects are time stamped in the description. Every. Single. One.

 

[yoshy]

Do you mean "if people like him went to the great trouble of transcribing it and gave me a thousand words instead of me taking the trouble of looking at a picture ...er... demonstration"? You'd still want to see the demonstration. There are identified chapters in the description; you can simply go to the section that interests you and watch a few minutes, which will explain it much more clearly than all the words in the world.

Lol thank you. The videos are hours long precisely because there is no way to succinctly summarize the flaws in dozens of claims from dozens of charlatans, when debunking the claims requires referencing research from several to hundreds of publications from possibly hundreds of years of research. It really would take a massive essay that would probably take just as long to read as it takes to watch the video, and my work would be severely less quality than someone like Dr. Miano. Hence, bullshit asymmetry principle. There is simply no way to succinctly debunk claims related to ancient archaeology.

Again, I'll use UFO videos as a counter example. Mick is able to debunk UFO videos as quickly as two minutes sometimes, because the UFO video is the single claim and piece of evidence. He can often identify the exact plane being filmed and then recreate it in his sitrec. Bam, debunked. This ancient archaeology stuff is a massive mess of claims from dozens of charlatans regarding hundreds/thousands of misrepresented pieces of evidence.

 

[deirdre]

Which demonstration? Which subject interests you? All the different subjects are time stamped in the description. Every. Single. One.

you sound just like the conspiracy theorists. they say 'you have to watch this 3 hour video to really get it all or just pick which part you are interested in and watch it'. i guess the conspiracy theorists should start posting videos here and saying that, and we can all defend their right to post.

 

[yoshy]

you sound just like the conspiracy theorists. they say 'you have to watch this 3 hour video to really get it all or just pick which part you are interested in and watch it'. i guess the conspiracy theorists should start posting videos here and saying that, and we can all defend their right to post.

Ok I think we're all talking past each other. Watching all 3 hours is not necessary for specific claims, hence the chapters. If you're curious about Dr. Miano's response on just Dunn's arguments for "perfect symmetry", he has a few responses. This is the Giant Statues chapter starting at 2 hours 41 minutes. First, the measure of symmetry is often not rigorously defined, rather Dunn just draws radii and calls them perfect. Dunn admittedly has no rigorous methodology. He says he tried to take photos "as straight as he could" (quoting Miano's description of Dunn's book). Dunn makes no mention of tools used to establish a horizontal or vertical reference for symmetry.

Regarding the Ramses statue and again its purported perfect symmetry: Dunn created a panned photo of the Ramses statue by hand, meaning he had to keep the target perfectly aligned to then be able to make claims of perfect symmetry later. That is basically impossible. And most importantly, Dunn aligned the photos in post production so that the shadows were perfectly aligned. So Dunn found symmetry after aligning the photos to be symmetrical. Dunn even admits he needs specialized equipment to get the level of accuracy needed for his own claims.

Was clarification on just this point what you were looking for? (This was a summary of just 8 minutes of the 3 hour 21 minute video! And there's still 10 minutes to go in that chapter but I hope this is enough of what you were asking for.)

 

[NorCal Dave]

Of course, Graham and Christopher have to show that the vessels cannot be made this way, not the other way around.

One would think, but it appears to be the opposite in the modern media world.

On another note, @deirdre shared some links with me that go to an out of date archived website:

https://www.oocities.org/unforbidden_geology/ancient_egyptian_stone_vase_making.html

But it has some good info and pictures. First up is nice chart noting the types of stone used in the various time periods. It shows how stone vessel production peaked in the early-dynastic and Old Kingdom, the time of the pyramids:

Much like today, the wealthy could afford custom made stone vessels while the less wealthy could choose ceramic copies of said vessels:

The claim is made that many of the techniques used in the making of stone tools could be used in the making of the vessels and the tools could in turn be used to make the vessels:

As a result of high impact stresses sustained by stone percussion tools during use, hardrocks of igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary composition are preferable as the material of manufacturing of these tools. The ancient Egyptians routinely worked such rocks into axeheads (e.g. UC2661, UC2674, UC2579, UC3617), maceheads (e.g. UC15399), and adzes (e.g. UC13787) in Upper and Lower Egypt during the early Predynastic period (Hoffman 1979). Many of the skills developed during early stone tools manufacturing could be used in the manufacturing of stone vessels, as well as other stone objects such as statues. For example, the similarities in the symmetrical shape and the hollowing of the center in both early maceheads and stone vessels is quite evident (Fig. 8).

Also included is a vessel in its rough unfinished state:

Fig. 10. Unfinished travertine vessel exhibiting tool marks from rough-shaping. (The Petrie Museum, Photograph by Jon Bodsworth The Egypt Archive)

Clearly this was not made on a high-speed lath or CNC machines. Note also that this is from the Petrie Museum. That's Flinders Petrie an English Egyptologist from the 19th century. He seems to be a favorite among the Lost Tech crowd, I'm not entirely sure why, but I think some of it has to do with his suggestion of "lathes" being used:

Turning has also been suggest as a method used to shape stone vessels by the ancient Egyptians (Petrie 1883, c1970). Petrie (1883, e-book section 132) gives two examples as evidence of lathe-turned objects:

a) Fragment of diorite bowl, showing evidence in the form of a off-centered cusp from use of a lathe tool (e.g. Drawing #14)
b) Rim fragment of anorthosite gneiss bowl showing evidence in the form of a cusp from use of a lathe tool, 4th Dynasty (e.g. UC16042, Drawing #15)

The irony being that Petrie would have no idea what a CNC machine was.

Another unfinished vessel with start of the interior boring:

Here's one split open to reveal the striations on the interiour made by copper/stone/sand drilling tools. Unless of course the markings are from a CNC machine:

But if they were using a CNC machine why would they have made multiple cores with a drill to hollow out a vessel:

Finaly, a nice illistration of how a figure 8 boring stone is used. It's mentioned in the article by Stokes in post #198 and referenced again in post #220. The stone is dropped in and then rotated as it bores out the interior of the vessel. Progresivly larger stones are then used:

 

[deirdre]

but I hope this is enough of what you were asking for

it is. thank you.

 

[FatPhil]

I wonder if the pot is "fully hollowed out"- as in the (L) sketch, below. If (conjecture) it's more like the (R), it would have a much lower centre of gravity (and greater stability).
View attachment 58727

With a centre of curvature at the bottom of the vessel well above the centre of mass of the piece, even if it's fully hollowed out, a small perturbation will lift the centre of mass, and therefore there will be a restorative force returning it to its equilibrium position. So I wouldn't get too hung up about the hollowed out aspect, it's relatively unimportant. The more mass in the base, the more mass you might need to add or remove in order to get the centre of mass exactly aligned with the theoretical bottom, so it might be easier to balance with less material. The ballast helps it self-right when tipped over at more extreme angles, but that's not a problem that this needs to solve.

 

[Ann K]

But if they were using a CNC machine why would they have made multiple cores with a drill to hollow out a vessel:

Ooh! I didn't know they did this, but might it have been done this way with a smaller initial core to make it easier to snap out the core without breaking the vessel completely? I'd wondered whether a single larger-diameter core would be difficult to break out successfully once the desired depth had been reached.

 

[Mendel]

Ooh! I didn't know they did this, but might it have been done this way with a smaller initial core to make it easier to snap out the core without breaking the vessel completely? I'd wondered whether a single larger-diameter core would be difficult to break out successfully once the desired depth had been reached.

Even better, you can insert a tool into the smaller hole, and, using leverage, chisel off the end of the bigger tube.

 

[Ravi]

Even better, you can insert a tool into the smaller hole, and, using leverage, chisel off the end of the bigger tube.

The guy from the "SGD" channel on YT has a number of videos showing tube drill techniques.

 

[Ann K]

Even better, you can insert a tool into the smaller hole, and, using leverage, chisel off the end of the bigger tube.

True. I'd really like to see the bottom end of that core to determine the method.

 

[NorCal Dave]

True. I'd really like to see the bottom end of that core to determine the method.

I'm going to try to get to the Petrie Museum next fall, see what I can see.

I got to thinking about how the Lost Tech people phrase the argument. They make an appeal to modernity, saying something like "only a diamond equipped cutter could cut hard stone like granite and dolerite". But as mentioned out in the video above in post #153, SGD points out that ALL cutting of stone is actually grinding. Stone cutters don't have teeth like something used in wood or even metal, they have abrasives, even modern ones.

I rummaged around in my shop a bit. Here is a standard toothed hole saw used for boring holes in wood and to a lesser extent metal:

This would scratch out a circle in stone but quickly get ground down and become useless.

Here is a hole saw for use in stone:

There are no teeth and no diamond tipped cutters. It's just a tubular piece of metal with abrasive material embedded in it. It grinds a hole in stone, including granite. Some of the embedded abrasive material may be diamond.

Here are the guys using a recreation of an Egyptian boring drill. It's a tubular piece of metal, just like a modern one. The big difference being the abrasive material has to be added as the drill spins rather than being embedded. Obviously a modern one is spun with an electric tool instead of by hand, but the principle of using a grinding action to drill into stone is the same. It's nearly the same "Lost Technology" 5k-6k years later.

Same principle applies to "cutting" stone. This is a toothed saw blade for cutting wood:

But when I want to cut stone, I use this "blade" with no teeth, just embedded abrasives:

I can even go with this non-metal abrasive wheel that wears away as it "cuts" (grinds) it's way through stone. I guarantee if I tried to smash a bit of granite with this cutoff wheel, it wouldn't do anything and likewise if I smashed this wheel with a piece of granite, the wheel would shatter. The granite is much harder. Nevertheless, the wheel will cut the granite.

Again, these use a power tool to spin them rapidly, but if these can cut/grind through stone, so can any other piece of metal with some abrasive material, even if it uses hand power.

 

[MapperGuy]

I asked Dr. Miano from the World of Antiquity channel if he has any videos specifically mentioning Christopher Dunn, and luckily he does!


Watching this video alone is more relevant than the massive playlist of his I posted early in the thread (though you should watch all those too )

This video covers basically every outlandish claim we've seen in this thread. It combines his videos on UnchartedX and Christoper Dunn. Covers "saw marks", "tube marks", polishing, claims of "precision", stone vases (including showing the progression in technique over time), and some more claims of precision by Dunn in his Lost Technologies book. Dr. Miano also references many of the other debunking channels we've seen throughout this thread.

I watched all three hours of this video, a Historians video responding to an Ancient High Tech Theorists video. The Theorist was using the Gish Gallop technique, with a barrage of claims. Some of the Historians responses to the claims are good, some not so good. But when faced with so many claims, many of which would require very long and detailed refutations, that is probably all that can be expected.

Responding to a video with another video however makes for very long videos. A written response would probably be more effective information wise, but fans of the original video are unlikely to ever pick up and read a written response. Unfortunately in the video age you have to reply to a video with another video.

What gets lost in the barrage of the Theorists claims is the lack of any real alternative theories about who made all of the artifacts and buildings. At one point the Theorist claims he is not just making arguments from incredulity ("I just can't believe the Egyptians could make this stuff!"), but the bottom line is that is exactly what he is doing.

What is missing is the Historian asking questions like: "If the Ancients made all this elsewhere, how did the Egyptians find it and then transport it to Egypt?" But the Theorist never offers any theories on this so the Historian never gets to ask the question. This is one of the problems with making point-by-point responses like this. It lets the original speaker off the hook for things they did not mention, but should have, if their work is to be taken seriously.

Unless you are really interested I can't recommend spending you time watching the whole thing.

 

[Alexandria Nick]

What the "granite is too hard" people don't understand is (1) a hard object can be abraded by another object of the SAME hardness, and (2) the sand is largely composed of the same components as the granite, and the quartz in sand is perfectly capable of acting as a cutting or polishing agent.

And I'm always a bit taken back by how these people were apparently never children.

When I was a kid, my brother and I would "make sand." There was a lot of sandstone laying around our property for some reason and we'd rub two rocks against each other to, well, make sand. Apparently, we were easily amused. At some point, we figured out that we could take some other rocks that we found and if we rubbed those against the sandstone, you could make sand but the other rock didn't turn into sand! If we found a pointier other rock (I have no idea what it was. Some sort of slag.) and spun it around, it started to make a divot in the sandstone. If you found pointy enough other rock and a big enough piece of sandstone, we could make stone donuts! Like I said, we were easily amused. This lead to our next breakthrough when we figured out that if you took some of the sand and made a little pile of it on the concrete sidewalk and rubbed it with the other rock, you could start to polish the sidewalk. It should be noted that we did have the prior art of sandpaper, so this wasn't an entirely original innovation. This is where our experiments ended, because dad was pissed that we were messing up the sidewalk and we went back to sand production in the backyard.

If two idiot kids playing with rocks figured this out without knowledge of the Moh scale or even knowing what the other rock was in the first place, of course some stonemasons figured this out on an industrially applicable scale.

 

[deirdre]

of course some stonemasons figured this out on an industrially applicable scale.

i wonder if it was learned initially from fire making experiments?

 

[psikiwi]

i wonder if it was learned initially from fire making experiments?

Which came first? Rock on rock, or rock on wood? I'm thinking the former... no citation given...

 

[Mendel]

Which came first? Rock on rock, or rock on wood? I'm thinking the former... no citation given...

Rock on rock is needed to fashion arrowheads and spearheads. I expect that during this activity, it was found that some kinds of rocks (that also happen to splinter well) emit sparks when struck.

Once you've used rock-on-rock to fashion an axe head or a knife or saw, rock-on-wood comes into play.