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

it is clear he means the use of any type of machining or tooling
in other words, no workman puts a lump of rock on their bench, takes a primitive hammer and chisel to it, and emerges months later with a perfect vase. We all agree on that.

What we debate on is that the simple tools the Egyptians knew to work with sufficed to achieve this result: it didn't take Atlanteans or any other type of visitor, we know the tools that can achieve such a result given enough skill and patience; while we know nothing about who the "visitors" were or which tools they had. Which makes the "visitor" theory something like a conspiracy theory, because it boots off vague clues to make far-out claims based on incredulity and a lack of solid evidence. It tickles the imagination, but is not grounded in reality.
 
Last edited:
in other words, no workman puts a lump of rock on their bench, takes a primitive hammer and chisel to it, and emerges months later with a perfect case. We all agree on that.

What we debate on is that the simple tools the Egyptians knew to work with sufficed to achieve this result: it didn't take Atlanteans or any other type of visitor, we know the tools that can achieve such a result given enough skill and patience; while we know nothing about who the "visitors" were or which tools they had. Which makes the "visitor" theory something like a conspiracy theory, because it boots off vague clues to make far-out claims based on incredulity and a lack of solid evidence. It tickles the imagination, but is not grounded in reality.
Yes I fully agree on this too, however Bill Ferguson (and I think also unchartedX) use the quote in 294 as some kind of evidence even Petrie couldn't explain how it was done. I just wanted to point out this is yet another false claim. (regardless whether Petrie was right or not).
 
Its all about the details. Is it possible to pound out a functional vase using sticks and stones that, from a distance, looks like the object? Of course it's possible. Is it possible to pound out a vase using sticks and stones to specifications and tolerances being discussed? No. The first problem would be the measuring tool. For example, how could she check the piece to make sure the wall thickness was the same throughout to within a few microns? It simply isn't possible and I'm sure she would agree.

There's another video on the АНТРОПОГЕНЕЗ.РУ channel where one of the team is measuring actual ancient Egyptian vases with a ruler and a large caliper. It's in Russian but I'm pretty sure they're getting the thicknesses and recording the measurements. Something like that could be used with or without the ruler.

One pot is very clunky and off-kilter. Unfinished, maybe? It looks like the hole was drilled and maybe the lip but the rest doesn't look like it was turned. It may have just been shaped with pounders and chisels. Clearly, not all pots are the same. There's a close-up of this pot at 8:58 in the video I referred to below:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzN8wtBF2Kw&t=535s


This is a screen grab from that video showing the pot:

Screenshot_228.png
 
It's not just about the drilling, it's about the exterior and interior being rotated on the exact same axis, suggesting that the same rig was used for shaping both—or that someone was very good at centering.

I think that's very possible. The vase could be roughly shaped, centered on the wheel and the outside smoothed while the wheel turns. High speed is not only unnecessary, it can be a detriment. I was able to throw a good cylinder in a pottery class but if the wheel was going too fast when I was pulling it up the clay was apt to fly into the next wheel. Stone is heavier and more apt to stay put.

Christopher Dunn has it that Khufu's pyramid was a power tower and that gigantic circular saws were used so electric wheels and computerized power drills all lit by Dendera lightbulbs are a no-brainer. :confused:
 
They were not taught by Atlanteans. In their tradition, it was a mud dauber wasp who rewarded a girl for helping him by teaching her how to make pots
Just as a point of interest, here is a nest of the so-called "potter wasp," one of a large number of wasps informally called mud daubers (or dirt daubers in these here parts).
images.jpg

Not that far-fetched that potters might get some inspiration on vase shapes from these little critters. And while they do not display control of their material down to thousandths of a mm, they also don't use any computerized high tech machinery. (citation needed)

Potter wasps are found throughout the northern hemisphere, mainly in temperate regions. There are about 270 species in the United States and Canada and about 3000 species worldwide.
(https://animalcorner.org/animals/potter-wasps/)
 
Just as a point of interest, here is a nest of the so-called "potter wasp," one of a large number of wasps informally called mud daubers (or dirt daubers in these here parts).
images.jpg
Wow. I thought you'd posted a rough pot picture that needs rotating. The lip is fantastic. I have mud dauber wasps but their nests don't look like that. They look more like stone pipes. They must be from a different tribe. The paper wasp nests remind me of some of Joel Queen's work; he was doing white partially black-fired paperweights for a while. The shape and colors resembled small paper wasp nests.

Here's a more complete version of the legend:

Cherokee Legend​

The Cherokee have many legends about why animals look the way they do, the creation of the world, and how they learned to do things. One legend tells how they learned to make pottery from didanisisgi, the mud dauber.

The legend goes like this: a kindhearted girl was carrying a bark bucket to fill with water at the spring when she noticed a mud dauber struggling to get out, its wings wet and stuck in the mud. The little girl was scared of being stung but used a stick to help the little dauber get out safely.

As she continued on with her water, she tripped and out flew the bucket, which took her so long to make, and it smashed into many pieces on the ground. She heard the buzzing of the mud dauber she helped nearby, who then stopped to help her. He said, “Don’t feel so badly. I will teach you something useful. I will teach you to make pottery so you can teach your people.” He then went on to take pieces of clay from the bank until he had enough to make a small pot. He molded and shaped the clay and taught the girl how to make, stamp, and fire pottery so it could hold water. The girl rushed home to teach her people, and according to the legend, the Cherokee have been making pottery ever since.
https://lammuseum.wfu.edu/2020/06/cherokee-make-a-pinch-pot/

I think the wasp theory is more convincing than LAHT, which I consider a sister pseudoscience to Ancient Aliens.
 
I spoke with the Mods on maybe branching out from this rambling thread with some more focused ones, though still dealing with the overall claim of "Egyptians Used Ancient High Tech" to produce vases, pyramids and other things. Single focused threads that can "chip away at the stones" so to speak ;) that make up the claim for Ancient Hi-tech.

I plan to start a new thread on "Ancient Egyptians Could Not Work Granite Stone Without Diamond Tools" or something like that. Basically, gather up and distill the best evidence we've presented here about how Egyptians could work stone with the tools they had, give it a fresh start and stick to just that. No math, no numerology just stone working. Maybe the more mathematical among us could tackle the supposed CAD design aspects, or maybe the supposed precision.

Again, much of this has been covered here, but over the course of 8 pages it feels like some of us are talking past each other or repeating claims and counter claims not aware that something was covered on page 5 only to pop up on page 7 again.

I'm out of town the next 2 days, so I may get to it at the hotel this evening or tomorrow. Speaking for myself, I'm having fun with this topic, I just thought maybe branching out a bit so that individual claims can be delt with more economically and clearly might be nice. Back to Metabunk first principals if you will.
 
I spoke with the Mods on maybe branching out from this rambling thread with some more focused ones, though still dealing with the overall claim of "Egyptians Used Ancient High Tech" to produce vases, pyramids and other things. Single focused threads that can "chip away at the stones" so to speak ;) that make up the claim for Ancient Hi-tech.

I plan to start a new thread on "Ancient Egyptians Could Not Work Granite Stone Without Diamond Tools" or something like that. Basically, gather up and distill the best evidence we've presented here about how Egyptians could work stone with the tools they had, give it a fresh start and stick to just that. No math, no numerology just stone working. Maybe the more mathematical among us could tackle the supposed CAD design aspects, or maybe the supposed precision.

Again, much of this has been covered here, but over the course of 8 pages it feels like some of us are talking past each other or repeating claims and counter claims not aware that something was covered on page 5 only to pop up on page 7 again.

I'm out of town the next 2 days, so I may get to it at the hotel this evening or tomorrow. Speaking for myself, I'm having fun with this topic, I just thought maybe branching out a bit so that individual claims can be delt with more economically and clearly might be nice. Back to Metabunk first principals if you will.
The moderators agree this is a good idea with the stipulation (alluded to by NorCal Dave) that the new thread will have a stricter adherence to the Posting Guidelines than this thread.
 
"Turing" machine as in a computer, their language not mine. As I understand it, the measurements of the vessel are such that it could not have been made without a computer to guide the subtraction process. The vessel could not have been made by chance and could not have been carved by hand.

In this video the crafter uses nothing but stone tools on stone. No CAD required, no Turing machine, no power tools, no diamond tips. He's even made a smaller bowl and a cup shown near the end. Is it a slow, laborious process? Yes. Does it work? Yes. It's not ceremonial quality but making dinnerware sets didn't start in a king's courtyard.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxVZqvsXVTg


Crafters today don't need all the space-age refinements either. I know one jeweler who bought CAD and trained to use it but when she offered to teach it the head of the professional crafts department didn't think there'd be enough call for it. His students continued to sketch out our ideas with pencil and paper or just dove right into the project without a lot of preplanning.

Remember the ancient Egyptians were big on style. Apprentices in the workshop might have been trained to make just one style of vase (or cup or plate or dish) until they perfected it
.
These are some screenshots from the Russian Scientists Against Myths video I posted earlier in post #323 showing how the measuring was done. One of the vases is the same style as the one that was scanned. Notice the weighted bottom on the third image.

Screenshot_239.pngScreenshot_240.pngScreenshot_245.png

Notice how deep he can get with the calipers. Someone making the vase could use a similar method to check for high spots although just feeling for them by hand would probably work. The concern would be getting too far out with the grinding tool and breaking through to the outside. I doubt they were too concerned with achieving perfect thickness throughout.

Screenshot_244.png
 
Last edited:
The moderators agree this is a good idea with the stipulation (alluded to by NorCal Dave) that the new thread will have a stricter adherence to the Posting Guidelines than this thread.

I hope it was okay to add another post to this thread. I spent a lot of time on it, mostly struggling with inserting the images, and didn't want to lose it while waiting for the new thread.

Can our off-topic posts be moved to "Ancient Egyptians Could Not Work Granite Stone Without Diamond Tools" when it's ready? I thought we were fairly close to this from the OP: "The argument is, that these cuts would not have been feasible to achieve with the tools of these ancient known cultures when considering the hardness of the stones and the high precision of the cuts."
 
Last edited:
The concern would be getting too far out with the grinding tool and breaking through to the outside.
If they had solved centering, that's not really a concern. If you use a drill piece, you know how wide it'll be, and you can mark on the handle how far in it'd be allowed to go.
All they really need is to gauge the width of the vase at a certain depth, which gives the wall thickness if you compare it to the outside width.
 
If they had solved centering, that's not really a concern. If you use a drill piece, you know how wide it'll be, and you can mark on the handle how far in it'd be allowed to go.
All they really need is to gauge the width of the vase at a certain depth, which gives the wall thickness if you compare it to the outside width.

After the first cylindrical hole, though, wasn't there usually further interior shaping with a tool such as the one Olga Vdovina made or with an abrasive? There's a shot in one of the videos that shows a vase that appears to have damage on the side. It looks to me like there might have been a weak spot there and breakage occurred. It almost looks like something broke through from the inside.

There's been some talk about how thin and translucent some of these vases are, but thin sides aren't really very practical, even for a high-end vase that might have just been meant for service in the afterlife.
 
Last edited:
All they really need is to gauge the width of the vase at a certain depth, which gives the wall thickness if you compare it to the outside width.

Apparently the comments on one of their videos sent the Scientists Against Myths on a quest to measure vases in a museum. The screenshot is from the video I posted in post #323.

Screenshot_246.png

Sneferu had 40,000 pieces and a step pyramid too? Did Djoser know?

I'm not finding the greenish vase with the damage I saw yet but I have a few more videos to search - after dinner.
 
In this video the crafter uses nothing but stone tools on stone. No CAD required, no Turing machine, no power tools, no diamond tips. He's even made a smaller bowl and a cup shown near the end. Is it a slow, laborious process? Yes. Does it work? Yes. It's not ceremonial quality but making dinnerware sets didn't start in a king's courtyard.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxVZqvsXVTg


Crafters today don't need all the space-age refinements either. I know one jeweler who bought CAD and trained to use it but when she offered to teach it the head of the professional crafts department didn't think there'd be enough call for it. His students continued to sketch out our ideas with pencil and paper or just dove right into the project without a lot of preplanning.

Remember the ancient Egyptians were big on style. Apprentices in the workshop might have been trained to make just one style of vase (or cup or plate or dish) until they perfected it
.
These are some screenshots from the Russian Scientists Against Myths video I posted earlier in post #323 showing how the measuring was done. One of the vases is the same style as the one that was scanned. Notice the weighted bottom on the third image.

Screenshot_239.pngScreenshot_240.pngScreenshot_245.png

Notice how deep he can get with the calipers. Someone making the vase could use a similar method to check for high spots although just feeling for them by hand would probably work. The concern would be getting too far out with the grinding tool and breaking through to the outside. I doubt they were too concerned with achieving perfect thickness throughout.

Screenshot_244.png

Skilled craftsmen ...or even not-so-skilled craftsmen ...can make highly accurate fingertip examinations of an item and identify rough spots or high spots that are not visible to the naked eye. Just think how sensitive the tongue is to a dental implant (made with digitally scanned precision) that is the slightest bit rough, or very slightly different in shape from the tooth that used to be there.
 
There's a closeup of the damaged side of the vase I mentioned in post #333 @ 2:27:11 in Dr. Miano's video (linked at the bottom of the post). The shot is from the UnchartedX video David is debunking.

Screenshot_248.png


There's also a shot of the sort of tool that was used to hollow out stone vases. This is @ 2:25:32 in the same video:

Screenshot_247.png

This drawing below is at 2:25:22 in the same video and shows methods that don't involve a wheel. The weights on the drill helped keep it straight and stable.

Screenshot_249.png




Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_NguZUDku4&t=6552s
 
Additional analysis of 5,000+ year old granite jar suggest use of Turing machine.
A screengrab taken at 04:37 into the video linked to in Bill Ferguson's post
j2.JPG

Can anyone explain what the circles are for- except to provide a symmetrical pattern superimposed onto the vase?
The central circle has a diameter the same as the broadest part of the body of the vase- and that's about it.

All the other circles are deliberately placed to intersect with the centre of the central circle.
Their centres are positioned along the circumference of the central circle, each 60 degrees along from its neighbours.
None of those 6 circles are centred on, or intersect with, any visible "landmarks" on the vase
(other than the centre of the middle circle, itself sited at the intersection of the "diameter" of the vase and the vertical axis).

The uppermost circles almost intersect at the point where the lip of the vase angles back inwards towards the body of the vase, but not quite.

The six distal circles (inevitably) make a pretty six-petal pattern. But for what purpose?
What is the significance imparted by those circles? Is it meant to be an example of "sacred geometry"?
I'm not convinced that they tell us anything at all.

I've spent a few minutes knocking this together
(I don't have any special graphics software and did this by eye, obviously imprecisely)
mm.jpg


Stephen Skinner criticizes the tendency of some writers to place a geometric diagram over virtually any image of a natural object or human created structure, find some lines intersecting the image and declare it based on sacred geometry. If the geometric diagram does not intersect major physical points in the image, the result is what Skinner calls "unanchored geometry".
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_geometry
-This is exactly what the "mystery vase" proponents have done!
At least my circles intersect with the top of Mickey's snout and an ear... :)

-And Dr Skinner isn't some "explain-away-at-all-costs" skeptic; here's his Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Skinner_(author)

Much is made of the fact that the vase is granite, which is physically hard to cut, but the ancient Egyptians left vast amounts of beautifully-worked granite. We know they had the tools, and the knowledge, because of all the obvious and impressive evidence.

The vase we're discussing looks like it has rotational symmetry. I don't think we can assess the tolerances of its finish from the images provided. I'm not sure the provenance of the vase is established beyond reasonable doubt.

If the vase displays a level of precision that seems inexplicable unless CAD-CAM (or an equivalent technology) was used, why not take it to a university to have it examined and written up?
It doesn't have to be "surrendered" to an Egyptology department; I'm sure many materials sciences people would be only too happy to have a quick look. I don't know about these things, but I'd guess there's a LIDAR-type device that could scan the vase and give an accurate assessment of its rotational symmetry.

But the video- and the guys in it- don't give me much confidence. "Sacred geometry" is referred to a number of times as if it has a scientific foundation.

When telling us that the vase makers might have used "base Pi" or "base radian", the presenter tells us we use base 10.
Which we do for most things- but our units routinely used for measuring angles are sexagesimal (base 60) in origin, and have their roots in the 3rd millennium BC in Sumer.
Which- considering what he's talking about- you might expect him to be aware of.

And the conclusions that the team draw- that the vase has a level of precision that requires a computer ("Turing machine" is incorrect) is, to put it mildly, extremely unlikely- though it's difficult to falsify their claims without having the vase examined by independent, relevantly-qualified people who are prepared to share their findings, including raw data.

The 200 inch mirror of the Hale telescope, Mount Palomar observatory, was designed and built without the use of computers.
Ira Sprague Bowen, astrophysicist and 1st director of the Palomar Observatory, discussed the problems in mounting such a large, precise mirror:
Nevertheless, actual measurements show that with a simple three-point support, similar to that which is customary for very small mirrors, the flexure would be five hundred to one thousand times as great as the permissible value of a very few millionths of an inch.
Content from External Source
(My emphasis).
From "Final Adjustments and Tests of the Hale Telescope", I.S. Bowen, PDF here https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/126240/pdf

Hale mirror during maintenance.jpg
Wikipedia states
...the precision shape of the surface, which must be accurate to within 2 millionths of an inch (50 nm).
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hale_Telescope, my emphasis.

If anyone thinks the vase is made to a greater precision than the Hale mirror, I very strongly suspect that they are mistaken.
It's a vase.
It hasn't been vital to measuring the red shift of quasars, or recording the spectrum of 'Oumuamua, yet by implication the guys in the video think the vase is a more complex artefact than the Hale mirror.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Until the vase chaps share their evidence (not their claims), there is no reason to accept their assertions.
 
A screengrab taken at 04:37 into the video linked to in Bill Ferguson's post
j2.JPG
Can anyone explain what the circles are for- except to provide a symmetrical pattern superimposed onto the vase?
The central circle has a diameter the same as the broadest part of the body of the vase- and that's about it.
With r = the radius of the circle, the vase is 2r wide, and the center of the middle circle is 3r 1.5r from the top of the vase. This relationship was probably engineered into the vase, but it doesn't require any advanced technology, since the 3r 1.5r length can be adjusted very precisely by sanding the top of the vase down. The circles are just there to appeal to an audience who doesn't relate to maths, but more to art.
 
Last edited:
With r = the radius of the circle, the vase is 2r wide, and the center of the middle circle is 3r from the top of the vase. This relationship was probably engineered into the vase, but it doesn't require any advanced technology, since the 3r length can be adjusted very precisely by sanding the top of the vase down. The circles are just there to appeal to an audience who doesn't relate to maths, but more to art.
But based on the circles it seems it isn't that precise:
Vase.png
 
But based on the circles it seems it isn't that precise:
Try checking it on the data plot.
Here all points are plotted with their distance from the centerline (green) on the vertical axis, the four images on the top are the zoomed in portions of their respective blue rectangles.
Note the messy curvature of the interior and the varying wall thickness along the vase.

f.jpg
The best way to find the midpoint is to see where the contour intersects the horizontal grid lines, and mark the centers of that.


But like I said, it's not really an exciting discovery technology-wise, it just means someone put some thought into it.
 
Try checking it on the data plot.

The best way to find the midpoint is to see where the contour intersects the horizontal grid lines, and mark the centers of that.


But like I said, it's not really an exciting discovery technology-wise, it just means someone put some thought into it.
The plot shown by Overlord shows a profile that is far from smooth. Check out the profile that runs through [3] and [4]. This is not a nice continuous curve at all. This makes the analysis subject to interpretation and the subsequent "fitting" of circles based on such, not very accurate. Like I mentioned before, in metrology the devil is in the details and again, I wish I could use Spatial Analyzer software to show it, but I don't have access to it anymore.
I am talking about these types of analysis, using vector plots to show the deviations:

 
With r = the radius of the circle, the vase is 2r wide, and the center of the middle circle is 3r from the top of the vase.
No, the center of the middle circle is (approximately) 1.5r from the top. The total height of the vase is less than 3r. Essentially they've fitted a circle into the widest place and the secondary lines are just for show.
 
No, the center of the middle circle is (approximately) 1.5r from the top. The total height of the vase is less than 3r. Essentially they've fitted a circle into the widest place and the secondary lines are just for show.
Yes, I used the wrong numbers. It's 2:3 from the midpoint to the "equator" vs. to the top, but that's if I use 0.5r as the yardstick. I also suspect their circle-fitting isn't very precise, but the vase looks like it actually is.

The plot shown by Overlord shows a profile that is far from smooth. Check out the profile that runs through [3] and [4]. This is not a nice continuous curve at all.
The spread is ~0.1mm. The curve isn't continuous because the scan isn't continuous. You're looking at a superposition of everywhere on the vase, which means locally it can be smoother than 0.1mm, but it may be a little out of true with respect to the rotational symmetry. But it feels like that's not a lot of wobble.
 
Did anyone watch the update? Ben flat out says the vases were found; the Egyptians couldn't have made them.

It's "impossible" to smooth it out between the lugs with flint chisels and pounding stones, he says, and that area couldn't have been done on a wheel. He claims the piece couldn't have been done on a potter's wheel anyway because they didn't have them in the Old Kingdom. Oh, really?

Many modern scholars suggest that the first potter's wheel was first developed by the ancient Sumerians in Mesopotamia.[3] A stone potter's wheel found at the Sumerian city of Ur in modern-day Iraq has been dated to about 3129 BC,[4] but fragments of wheel-thrown pottery of an even earlier date have been recovered in the same area.[4] However, southeastern Europe[5] and China[6] have also been claimed as possible places of origin. Furthermore, the wheel was also in popular use by potters starting around 3500 BC in major cities of the Indus Valley civilization in South Asia, namely Harappa and Mohenjo-daro (Kenoyer, 2005).[citation needed] Others consider Egypt as "being the place of origin of the potter's wheel. It was here that the turntable shaft was lengthened about 3000 BC and a flywheel added.[citation needed] The flywheel was kicked and later was moved by pulling the edge with the left hand while forming the clay with the right. This led to the counterclockwise motion for the potter's wheel which is almost universal."[7] Hence the exact origin of the wheel is not wholly clear yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potter's_wheel

Wouldn't a simple turntable do for turning a lump of stone if it needed to be turned?

If I had to smooth the area between the lugs I'd use a template made of wood to check to make sure the curve was correct.

This pre-dynastic vase looks every bit as good as the one they scanned and there seems to be no question of its provenance:



It is interesting to note that the ancient Egyptians were crafting stone vessels long before they were creating statues in stone. This observation is reinforced by the fact that the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic word for “stone sculptor” employs the tool used by these early craftsmen for the fashioning of stone vessels as its ideogram.

Such vessels are usually found in tombs, but their purpose is to assure the permanence of the ka, or spirit, of the deceased eternally in the Hereafter because such permanence is linked to stone, one of the most enduring of materials used by the ancient Egyptians. It is for this reason that pyramid chambers of pharaohs of the period contain so many examples of stone vessels. The excavations of the Step Pyramid of Pharaoh Djoser at Saqqara yielded almost 40,000 stone objects, most of which were vessels.

In addition to insuring permanence, such vessels held precious unguents and ointments for which the ancient Egyptians were famous. Many of these cosmetics resonate with contemporary concerns addressed by aromatherapy. As such vessels of this type continually commemorate the ancient Egyptian achievements in all fields of human endeavor.
https://store.barakatgallery.com/product/predynastic-stone-vase/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have been following up on some breadcrumbs laid out by Ross Coulthart in a recent interview with Vinnie Adams from DisclosureTeam. Particularly, he referred to two YouTube channels, being UnchartedX and BrightInsigh, hinting towards an alternative history explanation of many of the megalithic structures and artifacts attributed to the ancient cultures of Egypt, Meso- and South American as well as East-South Asia. The key claim is, that these structures and artifacts were not manufactured by these ancient cultures self, but instead merely inherited from lost pre-historic civilizations with advanced manufacturing capabilities.

An evidence repeatedly brought forward by both channels are precision cuts often in very difficult angles found on megalithic structures made out hard stones such as granite or basalt. The argument is, that these cuts would not have been feasible to achieve with the tools of these ancient known cultures when considering the hardness of the stones and the high precision of the cuts.


In this video beginning at @3:07 Denys Stocks is shown demonstrating the use of pull saws with abrasives for cutting granite. They make straight cuts - no motorized circular saws required. Stocks doesn't just theorize how it was done, he made replica tools and experimented with them. His book is expensive but it's well worth the price for anyone interested in ancient tools and their use.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoOCcrgWkIA




https://www.amazon.com/Experiments-...ology-ebook/dp/B000SJYLMQ?ref_=ast_author_mpb
 
The six distal circles (inevitably) make a pretty six-petal pattern. But for what purpose?
What is the significance imparted by those circles? Is it meant to be an example of "sacred geometry"?
I'm not convinced that they tell us anything at all.

...

Stephen Skinner criticizes the tendency of some writers to place a geometric diagram over virtually any image of a natural object or human created structure, find some lines intersecting the image and declare it based on sacred geometry. If the geometric diagram does not intersect major physical points in the image, the result is what Skinner calls "unanchored geometry".
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_geometry

Funny you mention it as that pattern has been popularised by proponents of sacred geometry. They call it the flower of life. It was already being used by many since ancient times.

The name "Flower of Life" is modern, associated with the New Age movement, and commonly attributed specifically to Drunvalo Melchizedek in his book The Ancient Secret of the Flower of Life (1999).
from Wikipedia: Overlapping circles grid

Cover of the book mentioned in the wiki quote.
cover.jpeg

If you're right in sacred geometry, you never have to use anything to measure. The measuring apparatus is built in so that you can calculate everything without having any kind of calculus or ruler or anything else.
from p8-28 of said book. Just to demonstrate it's about sacred geometry. No meta commentary intended :p.
 
Funny you mention it as that pattern has been popularised by proponents of sacred geometry. They call it the flower of life. It was already being used by many since ancient times.
Of course. And it was on many notebooks during my long-ago school days as well, as the automatic doodle of anyone with a compass at hand. Nothing "sacred" about it, just trivially easy to draw.
 
Of course. And it was on many notebooks during my long-ago school days as well, as the automatic doodle of anyone with a compass at hand. Nothing "sacred" about it, just trivially easy to draw.

I'll see your flower and raise you a nautilus shell.

Predynastic is prehistoric in the sense that they didn't have a written language yet but it doesn't mean ancient Egyptians were living in caves and hunting with spears. And if they didn't have potters' wheels yet? Joel Queen doesn't use one and look what can be done today with traditional methods (except for the Mason jar lids):


Pottery was born into me,” Joel Queen says, and rightly so, with eight generations of Native American “coil-built” traditional pottery on his family tree. In a roadside studio near Cherokee, Queen uses only his fingers and a small amount of water — no potter’s wheel — to create thin-walled, patterned pieces, the same way his ancestors did, “hand-building” blue clay and engraving or stamping it with textured paddles he’s carved himself. Smooth quartz stones and even Mason jar lids are his polishing tools, and when it’s time to fire the pot, it’s done outside in a “hot, fast fire” of hemlock wood. He recently sold the largest pot he — or any Cherokee — has ever made. The studio door frame had to come off to fire it.

https://www.ourstate.com/studio-tour-joel-queen/
He's also a stone carver and has cast bronze. It seems some of these "lost arts" aren't so lost at all.
 
My favorite channels, are https://www.youtube.com/@WorldofAntiquity and another good one is https://www.youtube.com/@AncientArchitects. Both are 100% science backed and no chance for woo woo woooo

I respect Matt Sibson (Ancient Architects) for admitting when he was wrong and crediting Egyptologists for being right, but he's been down the LAHT* rabbit hole and I don't know if he's made it all the way out yet. I think it's better to stick with World of Antiquity and Scientists Against Myths although the latter can get a bit hokey at times. Alan Smith (Sacred Geometry Decoded) isn't afraid to call the LAHT crowd liars and frauds. That may be a bit off-putting to some who've been persuaded by said liars and frauds but it's music to my ears. The frauds can be very convincing and may be sincere in their beliefs, but they're still milking a gullible - or simply uninformed - public.

In my youth I got carried away by Immanuel Velikovsky, Robert Schoch and Robert Bauval, in that order, so I can relate to being uninformed and misinformed and gullible, but fortunately, I was able to find rebuttals and get over it.

*Lost Ancient High Technology
 
Last edited:
In my youth I got carried away by Immanuel Velikovsky
So did I. My dad had a copy of "Worlds in Collision" and I read it with keen interest. I believed it, but in my defense, I was about twelve at the time. I loved stories of Oak Island, UFOs, mysterious stone balls on a gatepost that rotated, and my national critter, the Loch Ness monster. But by the time I reached high school, I had figured out that there was a lot more satisfaction in debunking than there ever was in gullible belief.

I second your approval of "World of Antiquity".
 
So did I. My dad had a copy of "Worlds in Collision" and I read it with keen interest. I believed it, but in my defense, I was about twelve at the time. I loved stories of Oak Island, UFOs, mysterious stone balls on a gatepost that rotated, and my national critter, the Loch Ness monster. But by the time I reached high school, I had figured out that there was a lot more satisfaction in debunking than there ever was in gullible belief.

I second your approval of "World of Antiquity".

I agree with you on debunking. It's intriguing and leads to new interests sometimes.

Velikovsky was sort of right about gradualism not explaining everything, so I had some faith in him up to a point. I found Scientists Confront Velikovsky in a library years later and that took care of that.

I read some comments about Dr. Miano this evening on some video or other where UnchartedX's scan was mentioned. They were not complimentary. I suspect some of these people flunked a science class or had a run-in with a professor somewhere along the line and have hated academia ever since. That may even include a few academics.
 
I respect Matt Sibson (Ancient Architects) for admitting when he was wrong and crediting Egyptologists for being right, but he's been down the LAHT* rabbit hole and I don't know if he's made it all the way out yet. I think it's better to stick with World of Antiquity and Scientists Against Myths although the latter can get a bit hokey at times. Alan Smith (Sacred Geometry Decoded) isn't afraid to call the LAHT crowd liars and frauds. That may be a bit off-putting to some who've been persuaded by said liars and frauds but it's music to my ears. The frauds can be very convincing and may be sincere in their beliefs, but they're still milking a gullible - or simply uninformed - public.

In my youth I got carried away by Immanuel Velikovsky, Robert Schoch and Robert Bauval, in that order, so I can relate to being uninformed and misinformed and gullible, but fortunately, I was able to find rebuttals and get over it.

*Lost Ancient High Technology

I think he did. But I don't "stick to one channel" at all, I try to watch the ones with proper content (no woo woo etc).
The problem with this LAHT stuff is obvious, but Matt is not discussing that, he is focussed on architectural aspects and the reason why certain things were done. He is a geologist if I am not mistaken, thus knows how to approach issues scientifically (not basing things on opinion, but on facts).
 
I think he did. But I don't "stick to one channel" at all, I try to watch the ones with proper content (no woo woo etc).
The problem with this LAHT stuff is obvious, but Matt is not discussing that, he is focussed on architectural aspects and the reason why certain things were done. He is a geologist if I am not mistaken, thus knows how to approach issues scientifically (not basing things on opinion, but on facts).
Matt describes himself as a "Researcher, Writer, YouTuber and Digital Marketing Specialist" on Linked In. He was interviewed in a news article a few years ago expressing doubt that the Merer papyrus referred to shipments for the "Horizon of Khufu" and was called an historian there. I'll see if I can find it again if you're interested.

His videos are interesting but he lost me on sound levitation. Because there is an illustration of what looks like a tuning fork in a wall painting the Egyptians were able to raise 2 1/2 ton blocks using sound. He had a video claiming Inca stonework was done with geopolymers. I guess he didn't see the pit marks left by hammerstones.

Thanks for mentioning History for Granite. I hadn't seen that channel and did some binge-watching on it last night. I wish he'd explained why Dr. Hawass was skeptical of the muon method and wanted submissions and peer review before the press was unleashed on any findings. Dr. Hawass referred to the unfortunate premature flurry over a "secret room" in Tutankhamun's tomb. There was nothing there.

Hawass was very concerned about the preservation of the monuments during his tenure as Director of Antiquities and did not want amateurs poking around and doing damage. Egyptian law is very strict about permits and rightly so. Egypt has been robbed of everything from treasures to heritage over the years. Decisions are made by committee, not the director, but Hawass got the blame. He actually gave Graham Hancock a personal tour of Khufu's pyramid and proved to him the writings left by workmen could not have been forged by Howard Vyse or anyone else. Hawass still gets pilloried by Hancockites for Hancock's failure to find any evidence of his Lost Civilization - Hawass covered it all up they say.


Writing and hieroglyphs found in the chambers above the King’s Chamber in Khufu’s pyramid by the Howard Vyse expedition in the 19th Century. Photo: Vyse 1842
https://ahotcupofjoe.net/2019/01/pyramids-of-giza-and-the-pseudoarchaeology-of-lost-civilizations/
 
@Ravi I watched all the History for Granite videos. I have to say I really didn't like what he did to Drs. Lehner and Hawass. They spent 40 years writing their book. I have it. It weighs 6 lbs. I can't see throwing out all that work over a couple of sentences. Trashing those two - and "mainstream archeology" - is a common LAHT tactic even though "Matt's friend" doesn't seem to be into LAHT.

Dr. Lehner especially doesn't deserve that treatment, IMO. He's the one who got the testing done in 1984. I thought his idea of testing flecks of reed and charcoal found in the mortar in the interstices was brilliant. There was also a Nova show where he talked about the radiocarbon dating. He didn't dodge the 374-year discrepancy.

I haven't been able to find the show but there's a transcript:

NOVA: When it comes to carbon dating, do you need organic material?

LEHNER: Right. There has been radiocarbon dating, or carbon-14 dating done in Egypt obviously before we did our studies, and it's been done on some material from Giza. For example, the great boat that was found just south of the Great Pyramid, which we think belongs to Khufu, that was radiocarbon dated—coming out about 2,600 B.C.

NOVA: But how do you carbon date the pyramids themselves when they're made out of stone, an inorganic material?

LEHNER: We had the idea some years back to radiocarbon date the pyramids directly. And as you say, you need organic material in order to do carbon-14 dating, because all living creatures, every living thing takes in carbon-14 during its lifetime, and stops taking in carbon-14 when it dies. And then the carbon-14 starts breaking down at a regular rate. So in effect, you're counting the carbon-14 in an organic specimen. And by virtue of the rate of disintegration of carbon-14 atoms and the amount of carbon-14 in a sample, you can know how old it is. So how do you date the pyramids, because they're made out of stone and mortar? Well, in the 1980s when I was crawling around on the pyramids, as I used to like to do and still do, I noticed that contrary to what many guides tell people, even the stones of the Great Pyramid of Khufu are put together with great quantities of mortar. We're looking, you see, at the core.

A pyramid is basically, most basically, two separate constructions: it's an outer shell of very fine polished limestone with great accuracy in its joints, but most of that's missing; and the other construction is the inner core, which filled in this shell. Since most of the outer casing is missing what you see now is the step-like structure of the core. The core was made with a substantial slop factor, as my friend who is a mechanic likes to say about certain automobiles. That is, they didn't join the stones very accurately. You have great spaces between the stones. And you can actually see where the men were up there and they didn't, you know, they may have like four or five, even six inches between two stones. And so they'd jam down pebbles and cobbles and some broken stones, and slop big quantities of gypsum mortar in there. I noticed that in the interstices between the stones and in this mortar was embedded organic material, like charcoal, probably from the fire that they used to heat the gypsum in order to make the mortar. You have to heat raw gypsum in order to dehydrate it, and then you rehydrate it in order to make the mortar, like with modern cement.

So it occurred to me that if we could take these small samples, we could radiocarbon date them, not with conventional radiocarbon dating so much, but recently there's been a development in carbon-14 dating where they use atomic accelerators to count the disintegration rate of the carbon-14 atoms, atom by atom. So you can date extraordinarily small samples. So we set up a program to do that. And it involved us climbing all over the Old Kingdom pyramids, including the ones at Giza, taking as much in the way of organic samples as we could. We weren't damaging the pyramids, because these are tiny little flecks and it's a very strange experience to be crawling over a monument as big as Khufu's, looking for a bit of charcoal that might be as big as the fingernail on your small finger. We noted, not only the samples of charcoal, sometimes there was reed. Now and then in some of the pyramids we found little bits of wood. But we saw in many places, even on the giant pyramids of Giza, the first pyramid and the second pyramid and the third one, fragments of tools, bits of pottery that are clearly characteristic of the Old Kingdom. And it occurred to us, you know, these are not just objects, these, the pyramids themselves were archaeological sites during the time they were being built. If it took 20 years to build them—and now we begin to think that Khufu may have reigned double the length of time that we traditionally assign him—if people were building the Great Pyramid over three decades, it was an occupied site as long as some camp sites that hunters and gatherers occupied that archaeologists dig out in the desert.

So you see the pyramids are very human monuments. And the evidence of the people who built them, their material culture is embedded right into the very fabric of the pyramids. And I think I could take just about any interested person and show them this kind of material embedded in the pyramids as well as tool marks in the stones and say, hey, folks, these weren't lasers. These were chisels and hammers and you know, people who were really out there.

NOVA: What does the radiocarbon dating tell us about the date of the pyramids?

LEHNER: Well, we did a first run in 1984, actually, funded by the Edgar Cayce Foundation because they had definite ideas that the pyramids were much older than Egyptologists believed. That they date as early as 10,500 B.C. Well, obviously for them it was a good test case because radio carbon dating does not give you pinpoint accuracy. If you have a plus or minus factor, but I say it's kind of like shooting at a fly on a barn with a shotgun. Well, you're not going to hit the fly exactly, you're going to know which side of the barn, which end of the barn, you know, the buckshot is scattering. And it wasn't scattering at 10,500 B.C. on that first run of some 70 samples from a whole selection of pyramids of the Old Kingdom. But it was significantly older than Egyptologists believed. We were getting dates from the 1984 study that were on the average 374 years too old for the Cambridge Ancient History, (the Cambridge Ancient History is a reference) dates for the kings who built these monuments. So just recently we took some 300 samples, and in collaboration with our Egyptian colleagues, we are now in the process of dating these samples. The outcome we are going to announce jointly in tandem with our Egyptian colleagues, and maybe we can pick up the subject of the results when we're over there in Egypt together with Dr. Zahi Hawass (during the February excavation of the bakeries at Giza).

NOVA: Is there any evidence at all that an ancient civilization predating the civilization of Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure was there?

LEHNER: It's a good question. If they were there, you see—civilizations don't disappear without a trace. If archaeologists can go out and dig up a campsite of hunters and gatherers that was occupied 15,000 years ago, there's no way there could have been a complex civilization at a place like Giza or anywhere in the Nile Valley and they didn't leave a trace, because people eat, people poop, people leave their garbage around, and they leave their traces, they leave the traces of humanity.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/howold2.html

The Koch team certainly didn't avoid the 374-year discrepancy either:
1984 Results. The 1984 radiocarbon dates from monuments spanning Dynasty 3 (Djoser) to late Dynasty 5 (Unas), averaged 374 years older than the Cambridge Ancient History dates of the kings with whom the pyramids are identified. In spite of this discrepancy, the radiocarbon dates confirmed that the Great Pyramid belonged to the historical era studied by Egyptologists. In dealing with the 374-year discrepancy, we had to consider the old wood problem. In 1984 we thought it was unlikely that the pyramid builders consistently used centuries-old Egyptian wood as fuel in preparing mortar. Ancient Egypt's population was compressed in the narrow confines of the Nile Valley with a tree cover, we assumed, that was sparse compared to less arid lands. We expected that by the pyramid age the Egyptians had been intensively exploiting wood for fuel for a long time and that old trees had been harvested long before. The 1984 results left us with too little data to conclude that the historical chronology of the Old Kingdom was in error by nearly 400 years, but we considered this at least a possibility. Alternatively, if our radiocarbon age estimations were in error for some reason, we had to assume that many other dates obtained from Egyptian materials were also suspect. This prompted a second, larger study.
https://archive.archaeology.org/9909/abstracts/pyramids.html

But other than that it's a good channel. I may watch a few of them again now that I'm through fuming.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Lehner especially doesn't deserve that treatment, IMO. He's the one who got the testing done in 1984. I thought his idea of testing flecks of reed and charcoal found in the mortar in the interstices was brilliant. There was also a Nova show where he talked about the radiocarbon dating. He didn't dodge the 374-year discrepancy.

I think Dr. Lehner's carbon dating study is the one I had rather lazily attributed to Bonani, G., Haas, H., et al, 2001
(full list of authors:
Georges Bonani, Herbert Haas, Zahi Hawass, Mark Lehner, Shawki Nakhla, John Nolan, Robert Wenke, Willy Wölfli).
More citation information in the quoted post, below.
PDF of study attached.

I rather sloppily estimated that the apparent discrepancy between estimated historical dates and radiocarbon dates was approx. 200 years; Dr. Lehner as quoted by Lu Ann Lewellen states that the average difference is 374 years.

M.W. Dee et al (2009) re-analysed the data from the 1984 specimens (described in the Bonani, Hass, Lehner et al study)
and returned dates much closer to (I think essentially in agreement with) the "agreed" historical chronology (Cambridge Ancient History).
Again, citation info in the quoted post, PDF attached.

A bit of a cheeky quote of one of my earlier posts here (with some editing, the original post remains as posted). Note, the online PDFs which the original post linked to are no longer there, but they are the two PDFs attached at the foot of this post.


...the ages of the Giza pyramids are (approximately) known.
There are two major sources- historical accounts of the genealogies and reigns of the pharaohs with which the pyramids are associated, and since the mid 20th century, radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon dating broadly confirms the historical estimates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza Wikipedia, "Great Pyramid of Giza" heading "Age", accessed 15/04/23.

The most comprehensive radiological study (which exploited the presence of wood ash in pyramid mortar) was conducted
by Bonani, G., Haas, H., et al, 2001, "Radiocarbon Dates of Old and Middle Kingdom Monuments in Egypt",
Radiocarbon 43, 3, University of Arizona.
Citation information https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...nts-in-egypt/A967302ADD527BFEB9226457682C0B4A,
PDF attached below (898 KB)

It is pertinent to note that the authors write (my emphasis)
"The American Research Center in Egypt (ARCE) undertook in 1984 the first of the two projects reported here with financial support from the Edgar Cayce Foundation. The Foundation’s interest in the project rested on a hypothesis offered by Cayce that the Giza pyramids dated to 10,500 BC".
Over 450 samples were taken from Old and Middle Kingdom sites, including 46 from the pyramid of Khufu (if I counted right), 25 from "Khafre" and 35 from "Menkaure" (pages 9, 10, 11 of PDF).
These pages also detail where the samples were taken from- with "Khufu", samples from the second course of blocks and the top of the pyramid were included.
The results (page 4 of PDF) did not support the hypothesis that the Giza pyramids are 10,500 years old.
For the Giza pyramids, carbon-14 dating indicated age ranges with a median perhaps 200 years earlier than the "historical chronology" estimates.

The approx. 2 century discrepancies (between the C14 results and the historical chronology estimates) found by Bonani et al were later investigated by Dee, M.W., Ramsey, C.B. et al, 2009, who reanalysed the original raw data with a later Bayesian statistical package.
PDF of their paper,
"Reanalysis of the Chronological Discrepancies Obtained by the Old and Middle Kingdom Monuments Project",
Radiocarbon 51, 3, University of Arizona, PDF attached below.

The reanalysed results, for a variety of sites including the three main Giza pyramids, are strikingly close to the historical estimates (page 7 of PDF). Tables giving graphic representations of the probability densities for the ages of structures, and the historical reigns of pharaohs, are shown on pages 8 and 9 of the PDF.

The Giza structures were most likely built, or started to be built, in the lifetimes of the pharaohs with whom they are historically associated.
 

Attachments

  • radiocarbon-dates-of-old-and-middle-kingdom-monuments-in-egypt.pdf
    898.9 KB · Views: 56
  • reanalysis-of-the-chronological-discrepancies-obtained-by-the-old-and-middle-kingdom-monuments...pdf
    1.5 MB · Views: 67
@Lu Ann Lewellen

My brain is at the moment only allowing small chuncks of data, so I am respectfully refraining form discussing about Lehner and Hawass. :)

But seriously though, I think as a youtube channel, in general it is in the end just entertainment. For the real science other platforms exist, surely. Cannot blame HfG to be slightly biased, as they all are.
 
@Lu Ann Lewellen

My brain is at the moment only allowing small chuncks of data, so I am respectfully refraining form discussing about Lehner and Hawass. :)

But seriously though, I think as a youtube channel, in general it is in the end just entertainment. For the real science other platforms exist, surely. Cannot blame HfG to be slightly biased, as they all are.
That's a good way to look at it. Just be careful. Some of these "independent researchers" have no training in any relevant field and dismiss decades of work by the real experts. They can be remarkably wrong.

Dr. Hawass seems to be the favorite whipping boy. He can be abrasive and he has a temper but he knows his stuff. He's been an Egyptologist for most of his life. He found the workers' tombs and Dr. Lehner found the workers' town at Giza. Those discoveries added massive amounts of information and debunked the idea the pyramids were built with slave labor. The workers were well-fed and well-treated.

The area has been excavated to the bedrock and there's simply no evidence of any prior civilization that could have built structures and made artifacts for the ancient citizens of Kemet to "find" and "inherit".
 
I think Dr. Lehner's carbon dating study is the one I had rather lazily attributed to Bonani, G., Haas, H., et al, 2001
(full list of authors:
Georges Bonani, Herbert Haas, Zahi Hawass, Mark Lehner, Shawki Nakhla, John Nolan, Robert Wenke, Willy Wölfli).
More citation information in the quoted post, below.
PDF of study attached.

I rather sloppily estimated that the apparent discrepancy between estimated historical dates and radiocarbon dates was approx. 200 years; Dr. Lehner as quoted by Lu Ann Lewellen states that the average difference is 374 years.

M.W. Dee et al (2009) re-analysed the data from the 1984 specimens (described in the Bonani, Hass, Lehner et al study)
and returned dates much closer to (I think essentially in agreement with) the "agreed" historical chronology (Cambridge Ancient History).
Again, citation info in the quoted post, PDF attached.

A bit of a cheeky quote of one of my earlier posts here (with some editing, the original post remains as posted). Note, the online PDFs which the original post linked to are no longer there, but they are the two PDFs attached at the foot of this post.
Thanks for the PDFs. I'll be reading those all morning. Aside from the "old wood" problem, there's the normal margin of error in C-14 dating. Newer methods are more accurate. I don't think every piece of wood ever found needs to be dated to confirm the ages. There are other lines of dating such as pottery styles that confirm the historical chronology.
Technological and analytical advances have made radiocarbon dating faster and much more precise—and expanded its range of uses by reducing the size of the sample needed. The latest form of radiocarbon dating, called accelerator mass spectrometry, needs samples of only 20 to 50 milligrams (0.0007 to 0.0018 ounces); however, it is also more expensive.

Another newer development is Bayesian statistical modeling, which applies probability analytics to radiocarbon dates, which always involve an error margin. Bayesian modeling hones the final date range by considering factors such as which layer of sediments the samples come from or their relationship to artifacts of known age.
https://news.uchicago.edu/explainer/what-is-carbon-14-dating#improvements

Your 200 years wasn't all that sloppy. It's in the article in Archeology by members of the David H. Koch Pyramids Radiocarbon Project.

"The 1995 Project. During 1995 samples were collected from the Dynasty 1 tombs at Saqqara to the Djoser pyramid, the Giza Pyramids, and a selection of Dynasty 5 and 6 and Middle Kingdom pyramids. Samples were also taken from our excavations at Giza where two largely intact bakeries were discovered in 1991. The calibrated dates from the 1995 Old Kingdom pyramid samples tended to be 100 to 200 years older than the historical dates for the respective kings and about 200 years younger than our 1984 dates. The number of dates from both 1984 and 1995 was only large enough to allow for statistical comparisons for the pyramids of Djoser, Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaure. There are two striking results. First, there are significant discrepancies between 1984 and 1995 dates for Khufu and Khafre, but not for Djoser and Menkaure. Second, the 1995 dates are scattered, varying widely even for a single monument. For Khufu, they scatter over a range of about 400 years. By contrast, we have fair agreement between our historical dates, previous radiocarbon dates, and our radiocarbon dates on reed for the Dynasty 1 tombs at North Saqqara. We also have fair agreement between our radiocarbon dates and historical dates for the Middle Kingdom. Eight calibrated dates on straw from the pyramid of Senwosret II ranged from 103 years older to 78 years younger than the historical dates for his reign, with four dates off by only 30, 24, 14, and three years. Significantly, the older date was on charcoal.
https://archive.archaeology.org/9909/abstracts/pyramids.html

Dr. Lehner was talking about the 1984 Project.
 
Last edited:
That's a good way to look at it. Just be careful. Some of these "independent researchers" have no training in any relevant field and dismiss decades of work by the real experts. They can be remarkably wrong.

Dr. Hawass seems to be the favorite whipping boy. He can be abrasive and he has a temper but he knows his stuff. He's been an Egyptologist for most of his life. He found the workers' tombs and Dr. Lehner found the workers' town at Giza. Those discoveries added massive amounts of information and debunked the idea the pyramids were built with slave labor. The workers were well-fed and well-treated.

The area has been excavated to the bedrock and there's simply no evidence of any prior civilization that could have built structures and made artifacts for the ancient citizens of Kemet to "find" and "inherit".

Thanks, not too worry Lu Ann!
 
I think he did. But I don't "stick to one channel" at all, I try to watch the ones with proper content (no woo woo etc).
The problem with this LAHT stuff is obvious, but Matt is not discussing that, he is focussed on architectural aspects and the reason why certain things were done. He is a geologist if I am not mistaken, thus knows how to approach issues scientifically (not basing things on opinion, but on facts).
He mentions having a background in geology in one of his videos. I believe it was in reference to erosion and weathering on the Great Sphinx (they are not the same thing). He retracted on the age but then retracted again. The age has been verified by other lines of evidence such as the blocks quarried for two temples and the fact that it's part of Khafre's funerary complex. It might have been carved/constructed at roughly the same time as some of the pyramid-building but by no means is it 20,000 - or even 9000 - years old.

The Giza "plateau" is actually a cuesta. This explains some of the features that have been taken to indicate runoff


A cuesta (from Spanish cuesta "slope") is a hill or ridge with a gentle slope on one side, and a steep slope on the other. In geology the term is more specifically applied to a ridge where a harder sedimentary rock overlies a softer layer, the whole being tilted somewhat from the horizontal.

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Cuesta
Content from External Source
 
Back
Top