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

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
In a number of threads there is an ongoing discussion about Ancient Lost Civilizations that had, and possibly shared, any number of advanced technologies. The exact claims vary with the calamints. Graham Hancock has suggested a pre-neolithic civilization with a technology level similar to 19th century Europe, while YouTubers like Chris Dunn and Ben Van der Kerkwyk of Uncharted X claim ancient civilizations used Computer Aided Design (CAD) and Computer Numerical Control (CNC) devices similar to modern ones to create a variety of artifacts. For brevity I'll refer to the various proponents of Ancient Technology as ATs (Ancient Technologists) going forward.

As none of these ATs have ever presented any physical evidence of the lost high-tech civilizations, the claims are often based upon circumstantial evidence, one of which includes a number of stone vases and bowls from early dynastic Egypt. The claim is that granite can only be worked with something much harder, like diamond and since many of these vases are made of granite, they could NOT have been carved by hand with the tools available to ancient Egyptians. They could only be made with modern multi axis CNC equipment. Many then also apply these same arguments to larger stones such as the blocks used in the construction of the Pyramids and other monuments.

In this thread we are only talking about the base level claim that Egyptians could NOT have worked or shaped granite as they had no diamond and were limited to copper tools. Discussions of design, pi relationships, and precision with which the vases were made, while important, is for other threads. Here we're talking about weather ancient Egyptians could shape granite with the tools they had and if so, what could the make.

This topic presents a bit of a conundrum, in that much of the claims and counter claims are in the form of videos, usually on YouTube. It makes sense, as a demonstration of ancient techniques is needed. However, some threads have devolved into competing YouTube videos being posted back and forth, so I'm going to try to reference videos where needed, but for flow and clarity I'll post all the relevant videos at the end.

The claim varies by clamant, but here I'll use Chris Dunn's version as a starting point (bold by me):

Having worked with copper on numerous occasions, and having hardened it in the manner suggested above, this statement struck me as being entirely ridiculous. You can certainly work-harden copper by striking it repeatedly or even by bending it. However, after a specific hardness has been reached, the copper will begin to split and break apart. This is why, when working with copper to any great extent, it has to be periodically annealed, or softened, if you want to keep it in one piece. Even after hardening in such a way, the copper will not be able to cut granite. The hardest copper alloy in existence today is beryllium copper. There is no evidence to suggest that the ancient Egyptians possessed this alloy, but even if they did, this alloy is not hard enough to cut granite. Copper has predominantly been described as the only metal available at the time the Great Pyramid was built.
Content from External Source
https://www.gizapower.com/Advanced/Advanced Machining.html

From the website Ancient-Code (bold by me):

It is not a valid statement by Egyptologist that ancient people used handmade tools in order to create the mind-boggling drilling holes seen all across Abusir. It isn’t enough in terms of pressure and regularity. As website Revelations of the Ancient World explains, in order to cut granite today, a pressure on the drilling head of around 18-30lbs/sqi is needed. This is 226 to 380lbs of pressure for a 4-inch diameter drill hole.

It is hard –scratch that– it is impossible to think that this was achieved thousands of years ago by hand while holding handmade tools. The level achieved by ancient builders of Abusir is astonishing and can only be compared to modern-day machines.
Content from External Source
https://www.ancient-code.com/abusir-evidence-advanced-technology-ancient-egypt/
Note the pressure supposedly needed. Numbers like these are often thrown out as evidence without really saying how. This includes the ATs obsession with the Mohs Scale, which we'll cover below.

This is Brian Forester's view on attempts to use ancient tools:

In modern times we of course have diamond encrusted tube drills that can cut into hard stone, but the Dynastic Egyptians did not. Even though some academics theorize that the pharaohs had copper or bronze tube drills and used quartz sand as an abrasive, attempts at replicating the cutting process with such hand powered tools has been comical at best.
Content from External Source
https://hiddenincatours.com/egyptia...ne-evidence-of-machining-before-the-pharaohs/

Here is Uncharted X saying that a small vase they claim is from pre-dynastic Egypt cannot have been made by hand. The history of this particular vase and the claims about the many other similar vases is best left to another thread. Using Closed Caption:

1684341402783.png

Just as a side note, 3 of the 4 sources above in addition to their YouTube channels offer a number of books and tours as part of their attempt to explain Ancient Technology.

The first thing to understand is that granite or other stones are not "cut". The term is used generically in construction and when installing something like granite countertops, one "cuts" the opening for the sink and "drills" the hole for the faucet. I'm not sure if ATs always just use the term "cut" in its generic sense, but it's a bit misleading when trying to understand how stone is worked.

All stonework involves grinding. The stone is ground away by means of an abrasive. This is different from cutting something like wood where some sort of teeth are used to tear out bits of the material. Here is a common saw blade and hole saw used in wood, aluminum and to a lesser extent metal:



Note the teeth that are used. I think ATs are content to let people imagine versions of these blades with diamond teeth that "cut" granite the way these blades cut wood. In contrast here is some of my stone "drilling" and "cutting" tools:



There are no teeth. There are gaps to let waste material get out, but no sharp teeth or points to "cut" the stone. Rather these tools grind the stone using abrasives embedded in them, which are clearly visible. These tools grind away the stone. The metal in both cases DOES NOT "cut" or grind the stone, it's only there to hold the abrasive and move the abrasive grinding agent through the stone. When one makes a straight "cut" in granite, one is actually grinding away the stone with a thin blade of abrasives in a line. Obviously, this blade is being spun at high speed by a power tool like this:
1684357829614.png

However, it's still just grinding the stone with an abrasive, something Denys Stokes has done using copper saws and sand on granite:


As a young man, Denys Stocks was obsessed with the Egyptians. For the past 20 years, this ancient-tools specialist has been recreating tools the Egyptians might have used. He believes Egyptians were able to cut and carve granite by adding a dash of one of Egypt's most common materials: sand.

"We're going to put sand inside the groove and we're going to put the saw on top of the sand," Stocks says. "Then we're going to let the sand do the cutting."

It does. The weight of the copper saw rubs the sand crystals, which are as hard as granite, against the stone. A groove soon appears in the granite. It's clear that this technique works well and could have been used by the ancient Egyptians
Content from External Source
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostempires/obelisk/cutting05.htm

Stonemason Roger Hopkins also experimented with this technique, but added water:



Hopkins' experience working with stone leads him to believe that one more ingredient, even more basic than sand, will improve the efficiency of the granite cutting: water. Water, Hopkins argues, will wash away dust that acts as a buffer to the sand, slowing the progress.

Adding water, though, makes it harder to pull the copper saw back and forth. While Hopkins is convinced water improves the speed of work, Stocks' measurements show that the rate of cutting is the same whether water is used or not.
Content from External Source
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostempires/obelisk/cutting06.html

Here is Stocks' final saw design for large slabs:

1684358456229.png

In addition:

The use of saws as a method of cutting rock is inferred from marks observed on ancient Egyptian stonework, including pieces of waste rock and finished and unfinished stone objects. Many of these marks have been found, usually observed as grooves cut into surfaces of rock or as striations on cut surfaces (Petrie 1974, Lucas and Harris 1962, Arnold 1991, Stocks 1999; 2001).
Content from External Source
1684372631182.png
https://www.oocities.org/unforbidden_geology/ancient_egyptian_copper_slabbing_saws.html

The principle is the same in ancient times as in modern times, use a blade of some sort to move an abrasive through the stone and grind it away.

One can read "diamond" on the circular blade in the photo above and might think "Ah ha, diamond is needed to cut granite!". But, I'm not sure how much actual diamond is on these or if it's just the name they are sold under. It's a bit of diamond dust at best as these blades are typically between $10-$20 each:

1684423590857.png

In fact, these blades are coated with silicon carbide:

This type of blade will be able to cut concrete blocks and natural stone. These blades are toothless and made of fiberglass-reinforced silicone carbide abrasive. These can cut blocks, brick, limestone, granite, concrete, marble and glazed ceramic tiles.
Content from External Source
cutthewood.com/reviews/avanti-saw-blades-vs-diablo-saw-blades/

Silicon carbide is largely manmade and is some of it can be considered synthetic diamond:

Silicon carbide
Content from External Source
(SiC), also known as carborundum (/ˌkɑːrbəˈrʌndəm/), is a hard chemical compound containing silicon and carbon. A semiconductor, it occurs in nature as the extremely rare mineral moissanite, but has been mass-produced as a powder and crystal since 1893 for use as an abrasive.

Because natural moissanite is extremely scarce, most silicon carbide is synthetic. Silicon carbide is used as an abrasive, as well as a semiconductor and diamond simulant of gem quality.
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_carbide

So, maybe a bit of fake diamond.

Same with drilling, here are the Russian guys from the Science Against Myths YouTube channel. They use a copper tube to agitate the abrasive in a circular pattern. The copper tube IS NOT "cutting" the stone, the sand is grinding the stone away.



And here is another form of drill used to hollow out a bird vase:



In addition to "cutting" with sand, stone can be worked with other stones. Some sort of hammer is one of the oldest tools used by early hominids:

A hammerstone (or hammer stone) is the archaeological term used for one of the oldest and simplest stone tools humans ever made: a rock used as a prehistoric hammer, to create percussion fractures on another rock.
Content from External Source
Archaeological and paleontological evidence proves that we've been using hammerstones for a very long time. The oldest stone flakes were made by African hominins 3.3 million years ago, and by 2.7 mya (at least), we were using those flakes to butcher animal carcasses (and probably wood-working as well).
Content from External Source
https://www.thoughtco.com/hammerstone-simplest-and-oldest-stone-tool-171237

Here is an artist using a stone to strike and shape another stone. Yes, this demonstration is being done on marble which is softer than granite, but like shapes like, so a granite hammer can do the same thing with granite:

1684427091474.png

This "pounding out" technique is also consistent with the archeological record as unfinished vessels demonstrate:



Other techniques can be used to shape stone as well. Stokes wrote a paper in the '90s where he experimented using a combination of found artifacts and pictures to create ancient type vessels. (Some of the content is from a PDF, so the formatting is wonky.)

STOCKS D. A., Making Stone Vessels in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, in Antiquity, A Quarterly Review of Archaeology 67, 1993,

In Egypt, this particular borer has
been discovered at Hierakonpolis, a site
associated with late predynastic and early
dynastic stone vessel production (Quibell &
Green 1902: plate LXII, 6) (FIGUREIb)
Content from External Source


Similar tools are found in ancient Mesopotamia:

Circular borers were used to grind stone bowls whose interior was no wider than the mouth. A stone borer in the British Museum (BM 124498 from Ur), curved underneath and flat on top, has a piece cut out from each side of its upper surface, also for retaining a forked shaft. At Ur, stone borers were common in the Uruk and Jemdet Nasr periods
Content from External Source
Here's how they worked:



Multiple bore holes could also be used to rough out a vessel as these cores demonstrate:



The AT crowd often mention the "machine marks" found on various artifacts, but these striations are consistent with ancient milling techniques:

Striations on Mesopotamian vessels, and the bottom surfaces of stone borers, are similar to striations seen on their Egyptian counterparts - generally 0.25 mm wide and deep. Archaeological (e.g. BM 124498 borer from Ur; Petrie 1883: plate XIV, 7, 8; 1884: 90; Petrie Collection alabaster vase UC 18071) and my recent experimental evidence (Stocks 1998 111-36) strongly indicate that stone borers and copper tubes, were both employed with quartz sand abrasives.
Content from External Source


Lastly is the obsession with the Mohs scale. The argument goes something like this: Granite is a 6 on the scale, so only something above a 6 can be used to shape granite. Diamond is a 10 on the scale, therefore diamond must be used to shape granite. Let's look at the scale:

The Mohs scale of mineral hardness (/moʊz/) is a qualitative ordinal scale, from 1 to 10, characterizing scratch resistance of minerals through the ability of harder material to scratch softer material.
Content from External Source
However:

The Mohs scale is useful for identification of minerals in the field but is not an accurate predictor of how well materials endure in an industrial setting – toughness.[7]

Despite its lack of precision, the Mohs scale is relevant for field geologists, who use the scale to roughly identify minerals using scratch kits. The Mohs scale hardness of minerals can be commonly found in reference sheets.
Content from External Source
Though it can be used for milling:

Mohs hardness is useful in milling. It allows assessment of which kind of mill will best reduce a given product whose hardness is known.[22]
Content from External Source
The scale is made of 10 reference minerals:


Mohs hardnessReference mineralChemical formulaAbsolute hardness[12]Image
1TalcMg3Si4O10(OH)21Talc block.jpg
2GypsumCaSO4·2H2O2Gypse Arignac.jpg
3CalciteCaCO314Calcite-sample2.jpg
4FluoriteCaF221Fluorite with Iron Pyrite.jpg
5ApatiteCa5(PO4)3(OH−,Cl−,F−)48Apatite Canada.jpg
6Orthoclase feldsparKAlSi3O872OrthoclaseBresil.jpg
7QuartzSiO2100Quartz Brésil.jpg
8TopazAl2SiO4(OH−,F−)2200Topaz-120187.jpg
9CorundumAl2O3400Corundum-dtn14b.jpg
10DiamondC1500Rough diamond.jpg

Note that granite is not on there. That's because other materials are slotted into the scale:

Below is a table of more materials by Mohs scale. Some of them are between two of the Mohs scale reference minerals. Some solid substances which are not minerals have been assigned a hardness on the Mohs scale.
Content from External Source
HardnessSubstance[13]
0.2–0.4Caesium, potassium
0.5–0.6Lithium, sodium, graphite, candle wax
1Talc
1.5Tin, lead, ice, todorokite, wakabayashilite, idrialite, dimorphite
2Gypsum, hexagonal boron nitride,[14] calcium, wood, dry ice (solid form of carbon dioxide)
2–2.5Bismuth, alpha-keratin,[15] plastic
2.5Gold, silver, magnesium, zinc, pearl, amber, ivory, galena, linarite, ulexite, kinoite, cylindrite, finger nail[16]
2.5–3Copper, aluminium, chalcocite, lanthanum, jet
3Calcite, thorium, dentin, chalk,[17] brass, bronze
3.5Platinum, adamite, strontianite, roselite, ludlamite
3.5-4Sphalerite
4Fluorite, iron, nickel, heazlewoodite
4–4.5Ordinary steel
4.5Conichalcite, duftite, colemanite, lindgrenite
5Apatite, tooth enamel, zirconium, obsidian (volcanic glass)
5-5.5Goethite
5.5Beryllium, molybdenum, hafnium, glass, cobalt, perovskite, chromite, bavenite, agrellite
5.5-6Opal, turquoise, anatase
6Orthoclase feldspar, titanium, uranium, rhodium
6-6.5Rutile, pyrite
6.5Silicon, iridium, baddeleyite, chloritoid, berlinite, cuprospinel
6.5-7Peridot, jadeite
7Quartz, porcelain, bowieite
7-7.5Garnet
7.5Tungsten, zircon, euclase, hambergite, grandidierite
7.5-8Emerald, aquamarine
8Topaz, cubic zirconia, spinel, hardened steel[18]
8.5Chromium, silicon nitride, tantalum carbide, chrysoberyl, tongbaite
9Corundum (including ruby and sapphire), tungsten carbide, titanium nitride
9–9.5Moissanite, silicon carbide (carborundum), tantalum carbide, zirconium carbide, beryllium carbide, titanium carbide, aluminium boride, boron carbide.[19][20]
9.5–near 10Boron, boron nitride, rhenium diboride (a-axis),[21] titanium diboride, boron carbide[17]
10Diamond

Still no granite, because like most stone granite is a mixture of different minerals:

However, if the substance is actually a mixture of other substances, hardness can be difficult to determine or may be misleading or meaningless. For example, some sources have assigned a Mohs hardness of 6 or 7 to granite, but this should be treated with caution because granite is a rock made of several minerals, each with its own Mohs hardness (e.g. topaz-rich granite contains: topaz - hardness 8, quartz - hardness 7, orthoclase feldspar - hardness 6, plagioclase feldspar - hardness 6 to 6.5, mica - hardness 2 to 4).
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale

Nevertheless, note that if granite is often assigned 6-7 on the scale, quartz is a solid 7 and non-beach sand is largely made of quartz:

1684431519141.png
https://www.sandatlas.org/desert-sand/

In addition the Egyptians may have imported beachside black sand from the Mediterranean coast:

In Egypt, black sand is available on the coast overlooking the Mediterranean Sea from Rasheed to Rafah with a length of 400 km. It is spread by sea currents and waves in those areas and present in the sand dunes.

Named after its color, black sand contains a percentage of essential minerals: ilmenite, zircon, magnetite, rutile, garnet, as well as monazite, which contains radioactive minerals.
Content from External Source
https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/3/73719/Into-Egypt’s-Black-Treasure

Zircon and garnet are 7-7.5 on the scale, so not diamond but hard enough to work granite.

I think there is ample evidence that ancient Egyptians could and did work various stones, including granite with the tools they had. Besides their tools, they had a long history of doing it and passing the craft on the later generations. I didn't even cover the use of flint, but I'll let others bring more examples and maybe get more specific on detailed techniques.

Some of the videos below, show conclusively, that vessels like found in ancient Egypt can be made by hand using ancient tools. How fast they could be made and how precise is for another thread.


This is the video of the guys using an ancient Egyptian drill:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyCc4iuMikQ


Here is the Russian artist making the bird vase:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mq2KGQajfAo


This is our Russian artist lady making a small vessel by hand with ancient tools:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC3Z_DBnCp8


Yet more ancient stone carving techniques using stone, copper, flint and other materials. No power tools needed:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fIigpabcz4


Here's a very poorly made video that's a bit hard to follow but has great information. He basically shows segments of Uncharted X and other videos, then counters them with actual hands-on experiments. Again, could have been much better done, but he does drill and shape some stone:


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_iA3afiADw
 
Just a thought: perhaps a demonstration could be easily done using a smooth piece of granite, hit with a common sand-blasting tool with quartz sand. If we accept that sand is a plausible (and I think probable) tool for working granite, then all that blether about the properties of copper can be disregarded completely, since all the copper saw would do is apply pressure to the sand that is really the thing doing the cutting / grinding.
 
A quick drive-by comment. Many streets in Victorian London and other cities were paved with granite 'setts': roughly square or rectangular blocks of granite from Scotland, Cornwall, Mount Sorrel in Leicestershire and other sources. They were not cut into shape with diamond blades or anything so fancy and expensive, but chopped by stonecutters at a bench using metal (iron or steel) hammers and 'axes' designed for the purpose. At a slightly more sophisticated level, setts could be split into shape by hydraulic presses. Do the alien technology crowd think Victorian streets were paved by aliens?
 
A quick drive-by comment. Many streets in Victorian London and other cities were paved with granite 'setts': roughly square or rectangular blocks of granite from Scotland, Cornwall, Mount Sorrel in Leicestershire and other sources. They were not cut into shape with diamond blades or anything so fancy and expensive, but chopped by stonecutters at a bench using metal (iron or steel) hammers and 'axes' designed for the purpose. At a slightly more sophisticated level, setts could be split into shape by hydraulic presses. Do the alien technology crowd think Victorian streets were paved by aliens?
I believe the argument is that iron/steel was not available to the ancient Egyptians.
 
I hope we're all agreed that flint was worked by early humans.

Others have posted, correctly, that the Mohs scale isn't the whole story regarding the difficulty of cutting rock,
but the "ancient Egyptians couldn't do it" crowd keep bringing it up, so,
flint is a variety of chert- chert is 7 on the Mohs scale. Flint has often been preferred over some other types of chert because of its relative hardness.
Flint is discussed here https://rockhoundresource.com/flint/, at the "Rockhound Resource" website by Mike Rhea, a geologist.

Granite is 6 or 7 on the Mohs scale, Wikipedia noting its hardness varies in relation to its composition (like flint amongst cherts)
...some sources have assigned a Mohs hardness of 6 or 7 to granite, but this should be treated with caution because granite is a rock made of several minerals
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohs_scale (Wikipedia, Mohs scale).

Flint, which could be shaped by early humans, is harder than some granites.
It follows that flint can scratch- and therefore work- some granite types.
The ancient Egyptians (including pre-dynastic Egyptians) could work flint with some finesse, like this bracelet
220px-Bracelet_MET_23.2.14_EGDP011486.jpg from Ancient Egyptian flint jewelry, Wikipedia.

As others here (such as Ann K.) have pointed out, sand- mainly composed of particles of quartz, 7 on Mohs scale- can be used as an abrasive to aid the cutting of granite; it can also be used to shape and polish granite.

Patrick Hunt is an American archaeologist
(Wikipedia entry for Patrick Hunt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Hunt_(archaeologist))
The following is cut-and-pasted from a post of mine in another thread:


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.
Content from External Source
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.
Content from External Source
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.
Content from External Source
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.
Content from External Source
Content from External Source
On the "Lessons From History" platform, Erik Brown also describes some of the techniques used to work granite
in "How The Ancient Egyptians Cut Through Solid Stone", 07/10/2022,
with the sub-heading "Here’s a hint, it didn’t involve alien technology", link here.

A rather obvious indication of the ancient Egyptian's ability to work granite is the existence of their granite quarries,
Wikipedia article here, Stone quarries of ancient Egypt.
It states
Some of the sites are well identified and the chemical composition of their stones is also well known, allowing the geographical origin of most of the monuments to be traced using petrographic techniques, including neutron activation analysis.
Content from External Source
One of the artefacts thus identified as being from the Aswan quarries is the sarcophagus of Djoser, approx. 2670 BC.
Djoser was the pharaoh whose pyramid was built at Saqqara, a structure where one of the supposedly mysterious granite vases was (again, supposedly) found. So we know where Djoser's sarcophagus came from; I don't think it's too radical to suggest that smaller granite artefacts had similar origins (at least, cut and worked in ancient Egypt, by ancient Egyptians).

Another granite sarcophagus from the Aswan quarries was that of Sneferu, the pharaoh who really got pyramid-building going.
Sneferu, first pharaoh of the 4th dynasty, died approx. 2600 BC.

Also at Aswan is the granite "Unfinished Obelisk", which if finished would have been over 40m high and over 1000 tonnes in weight.
Obelisco_inacabado,_Asuán,_Egipto,_2022-04-01,_DD_153.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfinished_obelisk
The obelisk dates to the reign of Hatshepsut, a female Pharaoh, 1478-1458 BC.

Granite artefacts used by the ancient Egyptians have been shown, by neutron activation analysis, to originate from the Aswan quarries. The Aswan granite quarries are a facet of ancient Egyptian civilization.

Ancient Egyptians left literally tons of worked granite artefacts, some bearing the (stylised) likenesses of pharaohs whose (stylised) likenesses appear in wall paintings accompanied by contemporaneous hieroglyphs.

The "not done by Egyptians" theorists sometimes claim that precision granite-working was "lost" during, or even before, ancient Egyptian culture.
This is nonsense.

This granite head is of Amenhotep III, c. 1370 BC, about 1200 years after the Saqqara pyramid.
352px-British_Museum_Egypt_074.jpg Wikipedia, Colossal red granite statue of Amenhotep III,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossal_red_granite_statue_of_Amenhotep_III

The not-done-by-Egyptians guys claim that such artefacts are of much older origin, but were re-purposed by ancient Egyptians.
This doesn't really explain why the Egyptians had active granite quarries over many centuries.
Many of us might be vaguely aware of the origin story of the "double crown" of Egypt, the Pschent. It combines features of two separate, earlier crowns- those of the kingdoms of Upper Egypt and Lower Egypt.
This statue wears such a crown (other granite statues of ancient Egypt have culturally-specific details, of course).

I don't think it's believable that the ancient Egyptians "inherited" or found stonework from another culture, and that their leaders then changed their clothing to resemble the statues- to the point of "retconning" a legend about the kingdom's foundation in order to explain the distinctive crown!

The ancient Egyptians had the resources and knowledge to work granite, both on a large scale and with precision, just as they accomplished many other impressive feats of learning, artistry and construction.
Theorising that they didn't or couldn't do this is dependent on deliberately ignoring vast amounts of evidence, while choosing to accept questionable claims by a small number of people, most of whom lack any archaeological (or other scientific) credibility.
 
Last edited:
The "not done by Egyptians" theorists sometimes claim that precision granite-working was "lost" during, or even before, ancient Egyptian culture.
This is nonsense.

As I noted in the other thread on Ancient Technology, techniques can be "lost", particularly in times of political upheaval. The use of polzitana type concrete common in the Roman empire was "lost" as the western empire broke up. But I think cultural trends are just as important. In the case of the granite vessels, it seems at some point alabaster became more popular. If everyone wants alabaster vessels, and one lives in a semi-literate society, then the techniques for making granite vessels might be "lost" for a period of time.
 
Claims 3-5 from the video here are regarding cutting granite, from my post in the other thread. Copied here:



3. Iron Tools Could Carve Granite: Starts with a clip of Brien Foerster (who shows on this website a lot) using hardness to say that only "diamond technology" could have cut granite. Miano uses ancient Roman and India as examples of societies that made beautiful structures of granite using iron. But even better, a monastery is being built in Hawaii currently using traditional techniques: Stone Bell Hole Drilling. There is some mention of chiseling, but the main focus is drilling with traditional techniques. At 16:30, there is video of how holes are drilled by a team of two: one with a mallet and the other with a rounded end chisel. They just get in a rhythm and go at it: the process takes about 6-7 hours to drill 18 inches. Every few minutes they remove powdered stone with a wet sponge. Next video in this chapter: The Daily Life of our Temple Carvers Summary of the clips shown: chiseling. Lots of chiseling with simple tools.

4. Stone tools could carve granite: Could granite have been carved before the iron age? The answer is yes. Back to Mike Haduck's video from chapter 1. He demonstrates with various stones, including a primitive hammer he made, that you literally just hit the granite over and over, and it slowly chips away. Miano also states that stone tools were continued to be used even as better technology became available because stone still had some advantages over the new materials. Again, it's a slow process for Haduck but professional Egyptians would have been much faster. He manages to carve a nearly perpendicular hole in the granite at 23:55. He's an amateur at these techniques but was still able to do it! Scientists against Myths, another great youtube channel, have also demonstrated carving granite with flint: How the Ancient Egyptians Cut Granite with Flint | Experiment. Similar results: slow but steady progress. They carved a quite nice looking Egyptian style eye. Linking since it's quite nice looking and a screenshot wouldn't do it justice.
The Race to Bury King Tut by National Geographic is referenced in this section but does not have a youtube video I can link to. Compares steel, bronze, and flint. The flint, as usual, works! (Again, very slowly). For larger portions that don't need precision, the sculptor just bashes away the granite with quartzite chunks and granite powder (I think, I had a little trouble understanding the audio here). Results after 4 weeks of work. Again, quite nice!

5. Stone Abrasives Could Carve Granite: First video is again by Scientists against myths: Ancient Egyptian Granite Sawing Technology: reconstruction. Copper saw combined with an abrasive saws through granite very nicely. Next up: Pyramids Builders: New Clues. Summary: bashing granite with stones mostly. The resulting granite powder can then be used to create abrasives for cutting. In this video, they come up with a method using Nile silt and emery powder to create an abrasive and then use a copper blade to saw the granite. Similar to the other videos, they also flint for precision work. Quoting the video at 34:38: "They managed to make a perfect angle with the tools available in Khufu's era: dolerite balls, a copper blade, abrasive emery paste, and flint.
 
From the website Ancient-Code (bold by me):

It is not a valid statement by Egyptologist that ancient people used handmade tools in order to create the mind-boggling drilling holes seen all across Abusir. It isn’t enough in terms of pressure and regularity. As website Revelations of the Ancient World explains, in order to cut granite today, a pressure on the drilling head of around 18-30lbs/sqi is needed. This is 226 to 380lbs of pressure for a 4-inch diameter drill hole.

It is hard –scratch that– it is impossible to think that this was achieved thousands of years ago by hand while holding handmade tools. The level achieved by ancient builders of Abusir is astonishing and can only be compared to modern-day machines.
Content from External Source
https://www.ancient-code.com/abusir-evidence-advanced-technology-ancient-egypt/
Note the pressure supposedly needed. Numbers like these are often thrown out as evidence without really saying how. This includes the ATs obsession with the Mohs Scale, which we'll cover below.

Indeed it should be thrown out as evidence, as it's clearly based on a falsity. It assumes the drill is a bit with a cross sectional area of pi*2^2=12 sq in. However, if it's a pipe with a thickness of 0.05" (just over 1mm), then the cross-sectional area would be pi*(2^2-1.95^2) = 0.6 sq in, and thus the force needed to achieve 30 lb/sqi would only be 20 lbs, not 300 lbs.
 
Indeed it should be thrown out as evidence, as it's clearly based on a falsity. It assumes the drill is a bit with a cross sectional area of pi*2^2=12 sq in. However, if it's a pipe with a thickness of 0.05" (just over 1mm), then the cross-sectional area would be pi*(2^2-1.95^2) = 0.6 sq in, and thus the force needed to achieve 30 lb/sqi would only be 20 lbs, not 300 lbs.
Wow @FatPhil, great rebutting, kudos, I completely missed it.

I would go as far as paraphrasing it: "It assumes ancient Egyptians were stupid" (while they surely weren't!)
 
Indeed it should be thrown out as evidence, as it's clearly based on a falsity. It assumes the drill is a bit with a cross sectional area of pi*2^2=12 sq in. However, if it's a pipe with a thickness of 0.05" (just over 1mm), then the cross-sectional area would be pi*(2^2-1.95^2) = 0.6 sq in, and thus the force needed to achieve 30 lb/sqi would only be 20 lbs, not 300 lbs.

I always know I can count on Phil for the math. I'm not sure what they're talking about. It could be confusion over 2 different modern methods of stone drilling or deliberate obfuscation and co-mingling of numbers from the 2 techniques.

I've used a modern version of the ancient Egyptian drill like this:


As noted, it grinds away the stone and the old adage of "let the tool do the work" is correct. Lite and steady pressure on the drill is all that's needed. Trying to apply excessive pressure just bogs the drill down and increases the chance of it drilling crooked.

The other way to drill into hard stuff is with a hammer-drill or roto-hammer. It's a drill that hammers the bit as well as spinning it so that it pulverizes the material. Now does that pounding effect equate to 18-30lbs per Sq"? I don't know, a good size roto-hammer like this:

1684511438897.png

Supposedly generates 2.4 ft-lbs of energy somewhere. I assume that's on the tip of the bit:

1684511525954.png

Interestingly, there is an ancient form of this roto-drill as well. From the Stone Bell Hole Drilling that Yoshy mentioned in post #8, here are some guys "drilling" a hole with what amounts to a hand driven roto-hammer. One guy hits the large blunt T shaped bit and the other guy turns it. Hit, turn repeat:

1684509126972.png

I don't think this would have worked for our early and pre dynastic Egyptians, as they were limited to copper, but later dynasties during the Iron Age which would include the Biblical Pharos like Nekko, might have made use of something like this.

I think there is a tendency among the AT folks to compress time when dealing with Egypt because it maintains a cultural core for thousands of years. The early dynastic period begins ~3100 BCE and Egypt remained largely independent for almost 3000 years. The Sematic Hyksos take over around 1600 BCE for a time, and in the late period the Persians under Cambyses and then Alexander's general Ptolemy took over, but even they tended to adopt Egyptian habits. The Ptolemaic dynasties were Greek rulers acting like Egyptians right up to Cleopatra 7 and the Roman take over.

All that to say, the AT folks start with the claim "granite and other stone can only be worked with diamond and the Egyptians only had copper tools" then they show various artifacts to assert this claim. Some like the stone vessels may indeed be from the time when there were only copper tools and we've established stone can be worked with copper tools. But I think sometimes they are just as likely to show something from the bronze or iron age, while asserting there were only copper tools available.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
As website Revelations of the Ancient World explains, in order to cut granite today, a pressure on the drilling head of around 18-30lbs/sqi is needed. This is 226 to 380lbs of pressure for a 4-inch diameter drill hole.

It is hard –scratch that– it is impossible to think that this was achieved thousands of years ago by hand while holding handmade tools.
The source is here:
Article:
In order to cut granite today, we try to reach a pressure on the drilling head of 18-30lbs/sqi. Which is 226 to 380lbs of pressure for a 4-inch diameter drill hole…How can you apply such pressure by hand while keeping a mobile tool in order for it to actually perform the drilling?!

There's no citation to back it up. Note also that the original version does not claim this pressure is needed.

However, there's no shortage of modern handheld tools to cut stone.
Article:
can_you_use_a_dry_core_bit_with_water.jpg

I'd be surprised if you can apply double-digit pounds of force on that angle grinder cutting into a stone countertop.

From the Atlas CopCo "Handheld Tools Factsbook":
SmartSelect_20230519-221832_Samsung Notes.jpg
Again, handheld, making quite a huge hole, though the technology involves a pneumatic hammer.

I think the claim that granite cutting thrust must exceed handheld operations can be dismissed as unfounded.
 
Last edited:
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?
How about not smelting the copper ore to purity, and use the silicon dioxide impurities to cut the granite? Do we have archeological evidence?
 
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?

I think it was just sand dumped into the hole as it progressed. The trick would be starting the hole, but the various videos that have people experimenting with these copper/sand drills they just use a wood or clay starter jigs, similar to this one from Mendel's post:

1684530766989.png1684531416765.png

They would put sand into the hole in the wooden jig then put the copper tube drill bit and start turning. Once the hole gets deep enough, the wooden jig is no longer needed, sand is just put into the hole followed by the copper tube bit.

However, your notian that they would have come up with better ways of doing it is probably correct. If people are doing a lot of drilling, possibley for generations, they're going to come up with techniques we can't yet think of.

Just off the top of my head, looking at the picture above, I would try to add vertical uprights to my jig that keeps my bit square and straight up and down. Something like this:

1684531289438.png

If we're spinning this drill around by hand for a number of days, we're going to be desperate to find better and faster ways to do this.

1684531590653.png
 
The "Russian artist lady" ( Olga Vdovina) referred to in the OP was criticized for using "soft" marble instead of granite for her vase. The response was to do one in diorite. This video is the beginning of the project. She splits the block with relative ease using a stone hammer at 0:20 and splits it again along a groove cut with a string and abrasive at 0:46. Tools used were flint, bone, wood, and sand.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEuQK9bSyvU

This is a screenshot of the string and sand technique:

Screenshot_252.png


There was a live feed lasting hours after that but that video isn't available.

(I tried to reply to the OP but ran into technical difficulties while trying to edit for length.)
 
Last edited:
How about not smelting the copper ore to purity, and use the silicon dioxide impurities to cut the granite? Do we have archeological evidence?

Denys Stocks thought notches were punched into copper saws but the saws didn't do the cutting; the abrasives did. The notches may have helped hold the abrasives but they weren't "teeth" and they weren't imbedded with gemstones. Traces of abrasives have been found in some of the cuts.

The blocks used in Khufu's burial chamber were split along natural fault lines in the quarry at Aswan. Saws would have been used for fine fitting and finishing. The parts that showed were fitted and polished but the backs were not. This can be seen in photos of the blocks in the "relieving chambers". Red granite was believed to have magical properties per Mark Lehner and the "Djed pillar" above the king's sarcophagus may have been as much about assuring his safe passage into the afterlife as holding up and deflecting the weight of the upper pyramid.
 
The "Russian artist lady" ( Olga Vdovina) referred to in the OP was criticized for using "soft" marble instead of granite for her vase. The response was to do one in diorite. This video is the beginning of the project. She splits the block with relative ease using a stone hammer at 0:20 and splits it again along a groove cut with a string and abrasive at 0:46. Tools used were flint, bone, wood, and sand.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEuQK9bSyvU

This is a screenshot of the string and sand technique:

Screenshot_252.png


There was a live feed lasting hours after that but that video isn't available.

(I tried to reply to the OP but ran into technical difficulties while trying to edit for length.)

I don't quite see how she gets the split at 0:20. You wouldn't break one solid piece of igneous rock (diorite in this case) just by tapping it with another piece. Either she is exploiting a natural weakness, or she has inserted something as a wedge. (There is wedging of some kind at 0:12.) The way the rock splits does suggest a natural weakness. Note that it doesn't split neatly into two pieces, but leaves a separate flake of rock at the point of impact. Some igneous rocks, such as porphyry, have a kind of stratification (not to be confused with the deposition strata of sedimentary rocks), which can be exploited for working purposes. See for example this passage from a manual on porphyry (a rock used very extensively by the ancient Egyptians):
With the aid of mallets and wedges, and following the planes of the rock, slabs of variable sizes and thicknesses are obtained from the blocks
(Source: https://milestoneimports.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/porphyry-manual.pdf )
 
I don't quite see how she gets the split at 0:20. You wouldn't break one solid piece of igneous rock (diorite in this case) just by tapping it with another piece. Either she is exploiting a natural weakness, or she has inserted something as a wedge. (There is wedging of some kind at 0:12.) The way the rock splits does suggest a natural weakness. Note that it doesn't split neatly into two pieces, but leaves a separate flake of rock at the point of impact. Some igneous rocks, such as porphyry, have a kind of stratification (not to be confused with the deposition strata of sedimentary rocks), which can be exploited for working purposes. See for example this passage from a manual on porphyry (a rock used very extensively by the ancient Egyptians):

(Source: https://milestoneimports.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/porphyry-manual.pdf )
I wish I could understand Russian. It looks like there may have been one or more natural cracks and it split along one of them. This grab is at 0:33:

Screenshot_253.png
 
The "Russian artist lady" ( Olga Vdovina) referred to in the OP was criticized for using "soft" marble instead of granite for her vase. The response was to do one in diorite. This video is the beginning of the project.

Nice find Lu Ann! I had seen here video saying she was going to try this and was looking for some support. It seemed most of the Science Against Myth videos I was finding were from before the war, so hopefully these guys didn't get caught up in it.

Looking forward to seeing if Olga can finish this project. Of course, as you pointed out in the other thread, the AT folks will probably claim its fake or she cheated and then when confronted with the fact that the stone can be worked with ancient tools, the goal post will be moved appropriately:



I think for some it is a desire for mystery and wonder. In our thread about aliens being future humans* @deirdre quotes the author of the book making this claim (bold by me):

This experience, along with the fact that I’ve always been easily bored by the banality of reality, was the impetus for my deep dive into the UFO phenomenon.
Content from External Source
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361103244_The_Extratempestrial_Model

Some people just want there to be more to existence, but are maybe uncomfortable with religion, so Aliens or Ancient Civilizations fill that desire.

I am reminded of another thread in which an OP said something like "Can't you people just sit back and see the wonder? Why does everything have to be debunked?". (Yes I'm paraphrasing, but I'm not naming the person nor do I want to here, so a direct quote shouldn't be needed. I was after the thought.)

I think there is also a bit of a class thing. For many the idea of a dumb illiterate guy getting all dirty and sweaty while creating something like the vessels with a bunch of hand tools is just unappealing. Note that in the case of the Uncharted X guys, they effectively take the craftsman out of the creation of these artifacts and replace him with people like them, computer nerds.

Van der Kerkwyk is an IT guy and he argues that these vessels HAD to be designed using CAD at a computer terminal, something HE can do. They were then manufactured using computer programmed machines, again something HE can do. These artifacts were produced by people like him, with the intellectual chops to understand the complicated math and geometry in the design and the programming skills needed for the precision machining equipment. Not some backwards tradesman.

*https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cl...are-causing-close-encounter-experiences.12949
 
Van der Kerkwyk is an IT guy and he argues that these vessels HAD to be designed using CAD at a computer terminal, something HE can do. They were then manufactured using computer programmed machines, again something HE can do. These artifacts were produced by people like him...
A very interesting way of seeing things, thanks for having pointed this out. I had never thought before that the feeling of being inferior to supposedly more primitive people (ie. by not being able to make a stone vase without a 5-axis lathe, while they could), or possibly even envy for their skills could be a driver for weird beliefs, but apparently it does!
 
Van der Kerkwyk is an IT guy and he argues that these vessels HAD to be designed using CAD at a computer terminal, something HE can do. They were then manufactured using computer programmed machines, again something HE can do. These artifacts were produced by people like him, with the intellectual chops to understand the complicated math and geometry in the design and the programming skills needed for the precision machining equipment. Not some backwards tradesman.
'
I'll believe Van der Kerkwyk when he does some excavating and finds the machine and the instructions for CAD in a deposit that predates the Younger Dryas. I will not hold my breath.

Those guys can't seem to fathom the skill of the crafters or the ability of a trained eye to spot irregularities. I posted a photo on the other thread of a predynastic vase that looked just a bit off to me but when I drew a circle (about all I can do in Paint) in the widest part it looked perfectly symmetrical. The lip still looks a little off but I don't have Photoshop on this computer and I can't do the flipping I'd like to do.

One thing that impressed me in some of the videos of modern experimenters working stone was that they simply held it. I would have thought a solid surface would be necessary to prevent bounce. They didn't seem to use much force. I can imagine ancient craftsmen sitting in a circle while chipping away at their projects while telling tales of kings and gods or kids and wives or other artisans.

Design isn't all that complicated. It's a plate or a jar or a vase and it's usually round and can hold something. The same basic idea is repeated over and over and over with more work put into ceremonial vessels than into household items. I don't think the crafters were wiped out in some global catastrophe. They simply moved on to sculpture while the potters perfected faience.

I'd love to see Olga's finished diorite vase. I'm sure it would look as good as the marble vase and the bird vase. The bird vase looks as though it was turned but we know it wasn't. She did drill it but it looks like the body was shaped without a wheel or even a template. She's that good.

In his book Denys Stocks says many of the vessels found under Djoser's pyramid were made of calcite, but other vessels were made of schist, porphyry, breccia, quartz crystal, basalt, granite and serpentine. Flint chisels, scrapers and punches must have been used. Sheet copper was essential for the tubes used to drill into the vessels but the old tools worked better for shaping and were used even after copper chisels were in use. They simply worked better and didn't need sharpening every few strokes.

Stocks worked all this out experimentally, of course, by matching marks among other things.

It appears Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie was incorrect in his assumption that "only five substances are possible: beryl, topaz, chrysoberyl, corundum or sapphire, and diamond" and that "The character of the work would certainly seem to point to diamond as being the cutting jewel; and only the considerations of its rarity in general, and its absence from Egypt, interfere with this conclusion...."

I submit there are other considerations. Diamonds and diamond-studded blades weren't necessary for cutting granite or anything else.

They had corundum and emery as abrasives and weren't limited to using quartz sand. Not even diamond dust was necessary.
Although the use of corundum would appear to be established, it is still quite difficult at this time to indicate where and how such abrasive material was obtained, although the assemblage of minerals identified can help to narrow down its plausible origin. Most of the historically exploited abrasive was in the form of emery—a complex mixture of different minerals that includes abundant corundum. The major source of abrasive in the ancient Mediterranean, located on the Greek island of Naxos, was indeed an emery deposit.[7] However, the minerals so far identified on the Amarna fragment differentiate this material from usual emery and pose some questions regarding its source, manufacture, and possible recycling history.

Among possible sources of abrasive other than emery, byproducts from the mining of gem-sized crystals could have potentially provided corundum-rich loose material with a technical and economic value of its own.[8] In Egypt, the only known corundum deposit of this type is located in the southern part of the Eastern Desert, at Hafafit[9].
https://www.metmuseum.org/blogs/now-at-the-met/2015/ancient-egyptian-technology

Such small pieces to hold so much information! From the link:



Fig. 1. Fragment with working traces, ca. 1353–1336 B.C. Egyptian, New Kingdom, Amarna Period, Dynasty 18. Indurated limestone; H. 8 x W. 7 x D. 6.3 cm. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Harris Brisbane Dick Fund, 1957 (57.180.142)



Fig. 2. Fragment of right eye and brow from head of king or queen, ca. 1353–1336 B.C. Egyptian, New Kingdom, Amarna Period, Dynasty 18. Indurated limestone; H. 9.1 x D. 7.5 cm. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Purchase, Fletcher Fund and The Guide Foundation Inc. Gift, 1966 (66.99.107)
 
Last edited:
A very interesting way of seeing things, thanks for having pointed this out. I had never thought before that the feeling of being inferior to supposedly more primitive people (ie. by not being able to make a stone vase without a 5-axis lathe, while they could), or possibly even envy for their skills could be a driver for weird beliefs, but apparently it does!

I should be careful about sounding like I understand other people's motivations. It was just more of an observation that struck me. I couldn't figure out the insistence on not only modern like CNC machines, but also the notion that some artifacts were designed using CAD somewhere between 5000 and 10,000 years ago. Whether or not there is evidence of CAD in some of the design of the pieces is for another thread, but why would someone even think that way?

If they were suggesting something like this fanciful illustration:

1684713385396.png

It's at least conceivable. It appears to use stuff the ancients would have had some access to and it's human powered. Instead, they postulate a fully computerized design and industrial manufacturing complex and all that entails.

It could also just be the modern mind. We live in a world of computer and internet and large-scale industrial production, so when we see something ostensibly made by hand and we have no idea how, we think "how would I make this?". Being faced with what the ancients did, some people just default to what they know. I'd use CAD and CNC, therefore so did the ancients.

I think another modern thought many people have when confronted with the examples of ancient tools being used is just the sheer tedium involved. In a world where people chug caffeine drinks all day as they play video games and watch TickTok and check their media feeds and go to work and binge watch Netfilx and Amazon can deliver the same day and one gets their meals at a drive thru the idea of standing in a workshop spinning a drill or pounding on rocks for days and years on end for generations is mind boggling.

But until the industrial revolution a few hundred years ago, that's how stuff got done. There was no TV or internet or other things to do during the day except grinding out whatever item your tasked with. Day in and day out for most of one's life.

I can imagine ancient craftsmen sitting in a circle while chipping away at their projects while telling tales of kings and gods or kids and wives or other artisans.

Having worked on many jobsites over the year, they were probably just BSing ;) .

One thing that impressed me in some of the videos of modern experimenters working stone was that they simply held it. I would have thought a solid surface would be necessary to prevent bounce. They didn't seem to use much force.

Yes, it's remarkable what skilled people can do. As I've said before, craftsmen and trades people find all kinds of practical ways to accomplish what's needed.

It appears Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie was incorrect in his assumption that "only five substances are possible: beryl, topaz, chrysoberyl, corundum or sapphire, and diamond" and that "The character of the work would certainly seem to point to diamond as being the cutting jewel; and only the considerations of its rarity in general, and its absence from Egypt, interfere with this conclusion...."

There does seem to be an obsession with Mr. Petrie. He did what he did in his time period, but archeology has progressed quite a bit since then. In the 19th century, it was still transforming from outright looting to a full science. There are techniques and applications Flinders would have never dreamed of. My son and his wife just graduated in Bio-Archeology and her dissertations included a study that used strontium isotope analysis from the teeth of iron age burials in Thailand to determine if the person was a local or a migrant. Incredible.

They had corundum and emery as abrasives and weren't limited to using quartz sand. Not even diamond dust was necessary.

Interesting, modern "diamond" cutting blades like I posted above contain silicon-carbide which is a synthetic version of moissanite which contains corundum:

Naturally occurring moissanite is found in only minute quantities in certain types of meteorite, corundum deposits, and kimberlite. Virtually all the silicon carbide sold in the world, including moissanite jewels, is synthetic.
Content from External Source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_carbide
 
Yes, it's remarkable what skilled people can do. As I've said before, craftsmen and trades people find all kinds of practical ways to accomplish what's needed.
Thanks to a link on UnchartedX' website I found this:



https://vk.com/wall-118415161_4448?lang=en

The post says:

ANTROPOGENEZ.RU: эволюция человека

19 Oct 2022 at 7:32 pm
On October 14, a long-awaited event occurred: our experiment “Vase of Diorite” ended. Funds for the experiment were collected using crowdfunding, it started on August 15, 2020, at the height of the pandemic. Olga Vdovina and her assistant Julia Gukasova 5 days a week came “to work” in his workshop in Kemerovo, and under the lenses of two webcams, leading a continuous online broadcast, knocked, sawed, drilled and rubbed unyielding stone. According to the rules of the experiment, the diorite was treated with primitive tools made of stone, bone and wood, just like in the Neolithic.

The specificity of a correct scientific experiment is that its result is unpredictable. No one knew what difficulties await the girls on the way, we did not assume that the experiment will last 26 months.

At the very beginning (August 27, the 13th day of the experiment), it turned out that there was a crack in the diorite billet, a large piece broke off. The attackers trumpeted the failure of the experiment, but the work continued.

Not everything worked out the first time. Processing methods had to be selected by long trial and error, sorting through different materials. What is better to drill: bone, wood, stone? Is the bone cow, sheep or pig? Which abrasive is best? How to fix a rotating instrument? Without a doubt, this was our most difficult experiment. Olga and Julia did not give up.

Thanks to everyone who helped make the experiment happen. According to its results, we will prepare a separate video, recorded a huge amount of video material. There is an idea to arrange the result in the form of a small scientific article.

There are more pictures at the link. Ben, of course, agreed the 2+-year experiment was an utter failure because they didn't get it to 1/1000 of
an inch or something. It looks really good to me. They were limited on the abrasive (sand). What if they'd been allowed to use carborundum as an abrasive?

Using Raman microscopy and scanning electron microscopy we have successfully identified, for the first time, synthetic silicon carbide (carborundum) particles in 15 unearthed relics and assorted remains from five out of six Neolithic sites (similar to 4000 - 7000 years b.p.) in Eastern China. Because of its extreme hardness, silicon carbide was apparently employed in the manufacture of ancient jade artifacts presumably as an abrasive for polishing. We show that Neolithic people may have already used this synthetic material to carve and polish both jade and quartz artifacts, contributing to the blooming development of the jade culture throughout ancient China.
https://www.researchgate.net/public..._in_Neolithic_Jade_Artifacts_in_Eastern_China

I realize China is far from Egypt but it's still the Neolithic and a vase is a vase is a vase. We know the Egyptians used carborundum and emery abrasives but did they as far back as the Neolithic? Were other Mediterranean cultures using these abrasives that far back? There were extensive trade routes established by the time of Sneferu. I believe they traded ideas as well as goods.

This was a first attempt by Olga and Julia using diorite. What could they accomplish with more practice and a dash of silicon carbide?

Here's another view from the set of photos:



https://vk.com/wall-118415161_4448?lang=en&z=photo-110924669_457309329/wall-118415161_4448

It just needs another two years of polishing.
 
Last edited:
Apparently, this is the "standard" they used:



At least the provenance is known.

Ветры истории

24 Jan at 12:34 pm · · from Elena Vetrova
Sculptor Olga Vdovina and her assistant Yulia Gukasova could not repeat the diorite vase according to the ancient, as they believed, technology, namely with the help of stone tools, bone and sand.

For the standard was taken a well-polished vase of porphyry diorite, exhibited at Sotheby’s auction. According to the official version, this is an Egyptian vase of the predynastic period, the Nagada II/III culture, dated about 3600-3000 BC (the first photo).

The manufacture of a small diorite vase 15 cm high by hand took two years and the result is far from the original. And the authors also refused to polish.

In addition, Egyptian vases have fairly thin walls and the internal volume repeats the external forms of such vases, and based on the words of the reenactors, the vase that they made, the internal volume goes under the cone.

Reconstructor Olga Vdovina admitted that it is almost impossible to polish the diorite using the technology that the ancient Egyptians used (wet sand).

https://vk.com/wall-193717914_30041?lang=en

I agree they didn't replicate it but the material appears to be different and the shape would have been dictated by the hunk of diorite they ended up working with. It's still a decent vase and they didn't need computers, motorized tools or even diamonds to do it.
 
That flint bracelet above impresses me more than the vessels. How careful would you have to be to chip at it without breaking it?

Flint bangles such as this one are mainly found in burials. The deceased often wore multiple bangles together, on one or both forearms. These items were in use for a relatively short time, only during the Early Dynastic period, and most examples date specifically to the First Dynasty. They were made through a combination of flaking and grinding. Flint bangles were extremely difficult to produce and demonstrate the exceptionally high degree of expertise achieved by Egypt’s flint knappers. They also show that Ancient Egyptians used flint for personal adornment and display, not just to make implements needed for utilitarian and subsistence purposes.
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/570835

And that seems simple compared to ancient bead-making. We think of monumental statuary as mind-boggling but the tiny stuff is just as difficult - if not more so. You could have hundreds if not thousands of skilled stone masons working on a statue of Ramesses but itty-bitty beads to adorn the ladies of the court? If they had had diamonds they probably would have just shaped them into scarabs and stuck them into funerary pectorals.

We've been talking about Egypt but it seems the diamond drill was invented in India.

With the invention of the bow drill, tabular beads disappeared and longer beads, requiring longer holes, became all the rage. Longer, slender tubular beads appeared. The bow drill was invented as early as 4000 BC, appearing as a drilling method for beads in the Copper bronze age,
in West Asia and the Indus Valley. (Says the site) Around 600 BC the diamond drill was invented in India and a hole could then be completed 200 times faster. Unfortunately, the site here at present did not have an example to show what a ‘diamond’ drill at this time would have looked like.
https://www.quantumgaze.com/ancient-technology/ancient-bead-production/

Holes were made with tools like this prior to the use of drills:



This one is agate but granite beads were made in Mali about a thousand years ago. You can buy them today - on Etsy.

 
granite beads were made in Mali about a thousand years ago. You can buy them today - on Etsy.
Stone beads are being made today in Mauritania. When my daughter was there a few years ago she visited a workshop that had been set up by a wealthy patron for the purpose of providing employment and a source of income for widows, in a place where Islamic practice doesn't permit most jobs to be held by women. I expect that distinguishing an antique bead from a modern one might be a difficult task, and would be leery of claims of antiquity by a seller.
 
I expect that distinguishing an antique bead from a modern one might be a difficult task, and would be leery of claims of antiquity by a seller.
I'm not planning to buy any (they aren't cheap) but the strings I was looking at were excavated in Mali according to the retailers. I was hoping for more information on how they were made but had to succumb to sleep before I could find that out. Did your daughter get to see them actually being made? Were they using traditional techniques or was there a lot of machinery involved?

I've done lost wax casting so I can really appreciate ancient Egyptian goldsmithing but I've only made polymer clay beads. Sorting and stringing seed beads is hard enough; I wouldn't want to have to make them. Impossible!
 
Just a thought: perhaps a demonstration could be easily done using a smooth piece of granite, hit with a common sand-blasting tool with quartz sand. If we accept that sand is a plausible (and I think probable) tool for working granite, then all that blether about the properties of copper can be disregarded completely, since all the copper saw would do is apply pressure to the sand that is really the thing doing the cutting / grinding.

Copper chisels were used too. There was a foundry near the workers' town at Giza just for forging and sharpening the tools. They were
made of arsenical copper from the Sinai and Eastern Desert. They worked for limestone but granite was worked by pounding with dolerite balls and hammers and by drilling and sawing with quartz sand or crushed stone abrasives - and probably water. Flint chisels and punches work too, of course. Flint chisels driven by dolerite hammers could be used for everything from inscribing hieroglyphs on a black granite sarcophagus to sculpting a statue of Khafre.

According to Dennys Stocks in his book a 15" flint chisel was found in Khufu's boat pit.
 
Experiments were done clear back in 1983 to "settle" the debate between Lucas and Petrie.


Conclusion​


A functional analysis of the drilling of a granite sarcophagus lid from the Old Kingdom period has begun to suggest resolutions to an important scholarly controversy between Petrie and Lucas, and has produced some preliminary insights into the hitherto speculative technology used. These are: 1) loose, dry abrasives (except diamond) did not produce concentric lines; 2) fixed abrasives or those in a watery slurry or a lubricant such as olive oil did produce concentric cutting lines; 3) corundum and diamond cannot be ruled out as not having been used to drill granite. These findings are significant in the history of ancient lapidary technology and will be useful in research on other stones. The discovery of the significance of the concentric lines, and also their significance as an indicator of the abrasive employed, will be useful for further research. Each type of stone will have to be dealt with separately.

Gorelick, .Leonard"Ancient Egyptian Stone-Drilling" Expedition Magazine 25.3 (1983): n. pag. Expedition Magazine. Penn Museum, 1983 Web. 22 May 2023 <http://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/?p=5362>
Content from External Source
Someone tell the Core 7 guys!
 
I'm not planning to buy any (they aren't cheap) but the strings I was looking at were excavated in Mali according to the retailers. I was hoping for more information on how they were made but had to succumb to sleep before I could find that out. Did your daughter get to see them actually being made? Were they using traditional techniques or was there a lot of machinery involved?
I have an email out to her but haven't heard back yet. But the only options would seem to be that either Etsy is trafficking in legitimate archaeological artifacts, which probably falls afoul of one set of laws (and is a serious ethical breach as well) or they are lying about the antiquity, which violates another set of laws.
 
I have an email out to her but haven't heard back yet. But the only options would seem to be that either Etsy is trafficking in legitimate archaeological artifacts, which probably falls afoul of one set of laws (and is a serious ethical breach as well) or they are lying about the antiquity, which violates another set of laws.
There are other bead shops that are offering them as well. They probably do some wholesaling so an Etsy member could buy and mark them up for orders. I don't do Etsy but I've seen jewelry supplies offered there and on Amazon that appeared to be the same. I have bought supplies from Amazon and from shops online. Some of the shops offered a choice of retail items or wholesale orders

These are from The BeadChest:




Product Details​

These unusual stone beads are said to be hundreds of years old. Each bead has been individually shaped from granite stone and arranged nicely as a graduated strand. Old stone beads such as these are found in the shifting sands of Mali, a country that borders the great Saharan Desert. Ancient Malian cities such as Djenne and Timbuktu have gained an almost fabled status due to their importance for hundreds of years as important centers of learning and trade. Each exceptionally long strand of Mali Granite beads measures almost 40" in length. These unique beads are suitable for collectors, bead connoisseurs, or jewelry designers with a discerning eye. You will receive the exact strand pictured. No two strands are alike. Each bead measures approximately 5-44 x 4-16mm, with a hole size of approximately 1-2mm. You will receive one strand measuring approximately 30". There are around 50 beads on each strand.

https://www.thebeadchest.com/products/ancient-mali-granite-stone-beads-13448

Content from External Source
 
And the ancient Egyptians made beads from meteorites. I knew about Tutankhamun's dagger, but beads?


Meteoric iron beads (center) are pictured between ancient Egyptian necklaces that are strung with tube-shaped lapis lazuli (blue), carnelian (brownish/red), agate, and gold beads. (Image credit: UCL Petrie Museum/Rob Eagle)

The beads were found in a 5000-year-old tomb.

The researchers suggest the iron meteorites were heated and hammered into thin sheets, and then woven around wooden sticks to create 0.8-inch-long (2 centimeters), tube-shaped beads. Other stones found in the same tomb displayed more traditional stone-working techniques, such as carving and drilling.

"This shows that these people, at this early age, were capable of blacksmithing," Rehren said. "It shows a pretty advanced skill with this difficult material. It might not have been on large scales, but by the time of the Iron Age, they had about 2,000 years of experience working with meteoritic iron."

https://www.livescience.com/38995-e...suggest the iron,such as carving and drilling.
Content from External Source
Stoneworking, goldsmithing and blacksmithing all to make baubles..The more I learn about their techniques the more impressed I am. No need for diamonds or computers here either.
 
Lest there be an impression all the vessels found under Djoser's pyramid were made of granite, Denys Stocks says this (quoted under Fair Use):

"....Taller, bulbous lugged jars from the Predynastic period were made of porphyry, diorite, breccia, serpentine, calcite and limestone. An excellent example is a limestone/breccia doublehandled jar from the Nagada II period (MMA 12.183.2). Striations are in evidence inside the vessel's mouth."

Stocks, Denys A.. Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology (p. 273). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

What self-respecting diamond drill from a Lost Civilisation would leave striations? Didn't the Atlanteans know how to polish them out?
 
Last edited:
I think it was just sand dumped into the hole as it progressed. The trick would be starting the hole

Denys Stocks suggests they used a mixed abrasive on rose granite.

This was a finely ground sand/stone/copper powder, a waste product from the tubular drilling and sawing of stone with sand abrasive.

Stocks, Denys A.. Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology (p. 195). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

The holes could have been started with a circle incised with a flint chisel. This was tried in an experiment.

A small area of the rose granite's surface was prepared by pounding it with a dolerite hammer until it became flat and smooth. The end of the tube, smeared with red water-based paint (probably red ochre in ancient times), made a circular mark by pressing it on the stone's surface. The dolerite hammer drove a flint chisel along the circular line to make a groove. (There is evidence in the Petrie Collection of such a circular groove in an unfinished, unprovenanced and uncatalogued alabaster vessel.) This groove allowed the tube to be located for the initial grinding operation, achieved by fastening two temporary stone weights to the top of the drill-shaft, which was continuously twisted, by hand, clockwise and anticlockwise on dry sand abrasive. Hand grinding continued until the groove attained a depth of 5 mm, a measurement at which the bow could spin the located tube without it jumping out.

Stocks, Denys A.. Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology (pp. 257-258). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
 
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.

 
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.



You beat me to it. Thank you.

No provenance? Probably a forgery. If so it shows forgers can do good work.
 
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.


Long video so jump to 1:28:00 for the 5 main points if you don't want to watch. (Though it's worth watching for sure!)

I'll edit with a screenshot when at a computer

As promised:
Screenshot 2023-08-29 at 8.03.10 PM.png
 
Last edited:
Back
Top