Claim: Ancient Egyptians Could Not Work Granite Without High-Tech Diamond Tools

[Ann K]

dr. David Miano just uploaded a video all about this topic. I have not watched it yet, so cannot comment on how well it connects with the topic at hand. Note the long list of reference links in the video description section, enough to keep us busy for a while.

I watched about a third of this ...and then, to my dismay, went back to it and found it has been removed from YouTube due to a copyright violation, probably a complaint from the people he is debunking.

 

[Ravi]

I watched about a third of this ...and then, to my dismay, went back to it and found it has been removed from YouTube due to a copyright violation, probably a complaint from the people he is debunking.

I see.. I hope it comes back. But like you say, some of these grifters he is pointing at perhaps complaint at YT. This is how we roll in todays world: complain and it is taken away.

 

[FatPhil]

I see.. I hope it comes back. But like you say, some of these grifters he is pointing at perhaps complaint at YT. This is how we roll in todays world: complain and it is taken away.

The doctrine of Fair Use has repeatedly been successful in fighting such knee-jerk strikes, and this seems to be a case where it would apply.

 

[MonkeeSage]

I watched about a third of this ...and then, to my dismay, went back to it and found it has been removed from YouTube due to a copyright violation, probably a complaint from the people he is debunking.

The doctrine of Fair Use has repeatedly been successful in fighting such knee-jerk strikes, and this seems to be a case where it would apply.

Yup, apparently an attempt at censorship via DMCA, but he's not sweating that it will eventually go back up due to fair use.

Article:

For those of you who are wondering where my latest video, "Dudes Think They Can Prove Atlantis by Measuring a Vase," one of the guys whose views are critiqued in the video is upset with me that I used an image that he created and which appear in the article he wrote. So he has filed a copyright claim against me. My use of his image falls under "fair use" in US copyright law, so I am disputing his claim. Unfortunately, the video will be down until the dispute is resolved.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxrS-bwDiwPGWGwzHb5HI9oW9HbuQL8bgB

 

[DarkLight]

I watched about a third of this ...and then, to my dismay, went back to it and found it has been removed from YouTube due to a copyright violation, probably a complaint from the people he is debunking.

It seems to have been taken down due to a copyright claim by the people that wrote the "Abstractions Set in Granite" paper.
Apparently, peer review was not in their plans when they released the article.

 

[Ravi]

Some detail, dispute over an image.. I guess it is that one with all the circles.
I think David did provoke it a bit by choosing this title. Red cloth and bull etc..

 

[Lu Ann Lewellen]

It's back!

 

[tobigtofool]

What about these toes? You all are messing up my youtube algorithms (just saw this suggested after clicking a few of the videos)

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nMn7DWTYgAs?feature=share

(dont know how to embed this - I am helpless!)

 

[Ann K]

It's back!

Good, I can finish watching it. I notice that of the gushing gee-whiz accolades and down to earth disagreements that UnchartedX chose to post on screen (about 55:50) the very first is from Ross Coulthart.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Good, I can finish watching it. I notice that of the gushing gee-whiz accolades and down to earth disagreements that UnchartedX chose to post on screen (about 55:50) the very first is from Ross Coulthart.

Russ is into Atlantis too?! I'll have to watch it time permitting.

 

[Flipmem]

Pretty certain that if the ancient Egyptians were able to somehow "fuse" abrasive crushed hard particles into their copper blade's edge, the increase in speed of cutting would be enhanced drastically.
Also quite sure though that the hard crystals are not going to stick the copper instantly. Perhaps it was brazed on the copper?

Not sure of it. But it shows that contemporary items could've done the job, no prob.

I would posit the thought that any kind of extra "brazing" method would not even be needed. It seems to me that just using the softer "saw" made of copper with an abrasive like much harder quartz sand would tend to "embed" the abrasive into the surface of the soft copper, thus naturally performing a type of brazing if you will. Constant addition of the abrasive would "replenish" the bits that break off with substantially less effort and time involved. The tool would become much more effective over time of use as opposed to the opposite. It would start out just so-so and increase from there even with the copper wearing down. Also, the heat generated in the copper edge as it is used would facilitate the embedding of the abrasive being used. Also, as someone else here suggested, adding a "waveform" pattern to the edge of the copper would add "chambers", for want of a better word to the edge where abrasive material would accumulate, somewhat mitigating the natural wearing of the copper "points" of the waveform.

 

[Mendel]

Welcome to Metabunk!

I would posit the thought that any kind of extra "brazing" method would not even be needed. It seems to me that just using the softer "saw" made of copper with an abrasive like much harder quartz sand would tend to "embed" the abrasive into the surface of the soft copper, thus naturally performing a type of brazing if you will. Constant addition of the abrasive would "replenish" the bits that break off with substantially less effort and time involved. The tool would become much more effective over time of use as opposed to the opposite. It would start out just so-so and increase from there even with the copper wearing down. Also, the heat generated in the copper edge as it is used would facilitate the embedding of the abrasive being used. Also, as someone else here suggested, adding a "waveform" pattern to the edge of the copper would add "chambers", for want of a better word to the edge where abrasive material would accumulate, somewhat mitigating the natural wearing of the copper "points" of the waveform.

Has any of this been seen experimentally?

 

[Ravi]

I would posit the thought that any kind of extra "brazing" method would not even be needed. It seems to me that just using the softer "saw" made of copper with an abrasive like much harder quartz sand would tend to "embed" the abrasive into the surface of the soft copper, thus naturally performing a type of brazing if you will. Constant addition of the abrasive would "replenish" the bits that break off with substantially less effort and time involved. The tool would become much more effective over time of use as opposed to the opposite. It would start out just so-so and increase from there even with the copper wearing down. Also, the heat generated in the copper edge as it is used would facilitate the embedding of the abrasive being used. Also, as someone else here suggested, adding a "waveform" pattern to the edge of the copper would add "chambers", for want of a better word to the edge where abrasive material would accumulate, somewhat mitigating the natural wearing of the copper "points" of the waveform.

Fully agree. The point here is that they certainly would have found out ways to speed up the cutting. It is as old as humans to be rather lazy than tired, right. The technical way to accomplish this is perhaps hard to prove, but the technological features are found throughout.

 

[Lu Ann Lewellen]

Ben has a new video up proving once again metrologists can measure vases. Christopher Dunn is even in this one.

I'd link it but I don't want to give them clicks.

 

[Ravi]

I was watching the SGD channel (link) on YT again, and he provides a great link to an interesting channel called Night Scarab (link).
This channel very recently made an excellent video (see below) and rebuttal on the recent videos made by UnchartedX (link but do not click)

Because it is such a well made video that raises all issues point by point, I recommend you view this video in its entirety. But below is an overview of the content.



@01:33 Provenance



@05:01 Art dealer
@06:24 Metrology

Orientation of the handles, not in line:


@09:01 Math fallacies



@19:41 Lathe masters

Some techniques, not Egyptian, but it shows that methods that could have been used.


@24:11 Hard to make today?

Straight answer: not at all, and can even be cheap.

@27:52 Polishing is not precision

Very important note the video makes is that polishing is not per se precise.

@31:26 Is forgery viable?
@39:58 How it could've been done


The video raises the question weather or not the vases could have been from a much more recent time, as the provided provenance by UnchartedX team is very weak and unproven (no base, no evidence).
From 9 minutes onwards, it very interestingly discusses the statistical trickery that is at play here, and shows that ratios in smaller objects are very easy to link to mathematical constants.
Then the video goes into detail on the way it could have been done, using contemporary materials and methods, and also demystifies the talk that Ben is going on about all the time.

Anyway, watch the video if you can, as it explains much better and much more than I did above.


Source: https://youtu.be/O_4SaxVP44g

 

[FatPhil]

I was watching the SGD channel (link) on YT again, and he provides a great link to an interesting channel called Night Scarab (link).

Many thanks for that. I think he's still missing a few other criticisms that could be levied against the original claims. The one that jumps out to me specifically is covered with his warning not to confuse precision with polishing, but he could hammer it home more - and that's the "precision" of the wall width. How wide are the walls of the vessel? In some places, they're precisely 2mm wide. In other places they're precisely 4mm wide. So, in reality, they're 3mm +/- 1mm wide. So 3mm, but accurate to one part in three. How is such a wide range worthy of the epithet "precise"? (The desirable property from an engineering perspective of course being "accuracy", not "precision" - "Pi=2.781828" is a very precise statement, but with horrific accuracy. This ties in with his precision vs. polishing thrust - precision certainly can aid prettiness, a useful attribute for an artisenal piece.)

I just wish I wasn't broke currently, I think I'd be up for a replica for $100! Heck, I'd buy two and sell one!

 

[DarkLight]

I think that the section of the Night Scarab video where they evaluate the paper presented as an "Initial Geometric Analysis of The Predynastic Vase" could be used as an introduction to statistical significance.

 

[MapperGuy]

Many thanks for that. I think he's still missing a few other criticisms that could be levied against the original claims. The one that jumps out to me specifically is covered with his warning not to confuse precision with polishing, but he could hammer it home more - and that's the "precision" of the wall width. How wide are the walls of the vessel? In some places, they're precisely 2mm wide. In other places they're precisely 4mm wide. So, in reality, they're 3mm +/- 1mm wide. So 3mm, but accurate to one part in three. How is such a wide range worthy of the epithet "precise"? (The desirable property from an engineering perspective of course being "accuracy", not "precision" - "Pi=2.781828" is a very precise statement, but with horrific accuracy. This ties in with his precision vs. polishing thrust - precision certainly can aid prettiness, a useful attribute for an artisenal piece.)

I just wish I wasn't broke currently, I think I'd be up for a replica for $100! Heck, I'd buy two and sell one!

Beware of seeing modern units of measurement in supposedly ancient items.

Metric units of measurement are, in the end, arbitrary, however precisely defined. They might occur in ancient objects by pure chance of course, but their presence should always raise questions. If an items has a range of sizes, from above an even metric value to below that value a person might simply be rounding off the value for convenience, but if so they should specify they have done so.

 

[Mendel]

If an items has a range of sizes, from above an even metric value to below that value a person might simply be rounding off the value for convenience, but if so they should specify they have done so.

Especially if that person calls themself a metrologist.