There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[stevevw]

Amazing! You are agreeing with me, without recognising it. Yes - science is very successful; your words "so successful". That really should be the end of it. Science is successful and alternative methods of acquiring knowledge are less successful (usually by large margins).

I have never doubted this and I think like this overall thread is assumed as psudoscience its assummed that the science is somehow excluded as part of determining whether there actually is truth in the claim. I have never questioned the science itself as a method.

What I am saying is that the science is good at what it does but it cannot determine alternative ways of knowing because this is beyond what science can do. For example lets say there is some spiritual or transcedent aspect to ancient knowledge.

The examples I gave that if God is real or consciousness beyond brain is a reality then it logically follows that a certain kind of knowledge, a higher knowledge can be known. How could science even test that. How could they test whether there was some deeper knowledge gained by a spiritual or transcedent aspect to reality.

As I said it would be like science today testing whether belief in God gives people some deeper knowledge of reality. Christians claim that it does, that there is another dimension to reality that may be experienced here on earth (Gods Kingdom on earth).

But how do you test for that. We know that the science will say this is fantasy and religious belief is just an epiphenomena of fundemental physical processes due to evolution.

So we have a methodology problem in that science cannot even test such possibilities and will by assumption relegate this to the whacky or unverifiable and hense not relevant as a possibility until this can be proven empirically. Well thats not going to happen because science cannot even measure such aspects.

So therefore as you said the only reliable measure is science and this will be used by those who disbelieve refute any alternative possibility. Those who believe in God or spirituality or some trancedent knowledge aspect and knowledge will continue to give testimony that this is real and skeptics will use science to put them in their place as has been done for 100s of years.

The "naturalism" is the only thing we can know via science. That is part of the definition of science as it has been practiced for some considerable time. It is not a matter of debate. It is not equivalent to saying, as you mistakenly believe, that god does not exist, or that consciousness does not extend beyond death. It simply says - a factual observation, multiply validated - that there is no scientific evidence that god exists, or that consciousness continues after death. In my experience this is not contested by the majority of Christians.

My point being that when it comes to say arguements for the existence of such aspects to reality including that this may have influenced our history of knowledge that the science is used to completely defeat it. People don't say 'well the science shows there is no such thing but science is limited so there may be some other dimension that science cannot measure. So I won't count that out as it may be a possibility'.

No science is used without qualification in these arguements to deny completely such possibilities ie if you can't show empiricle evidence then its all conspiriacy. Or as soon as such possibilities are mentioned its assumed as conspiriacy. This is the common reply and its happening now in this thread.

I have repeatedly said - and I think this is closer to what others are saying - if you cannot offer a peer reviewed paper, preferably from an authoratative journal, that presents relevant evidence, properly substantiated and supporting a well constructed, logical hypothesis, then any assertion you make should be treated with a high level of scepticism.

Fair enough and I think for specific examples where we can use the science such as the examples given from Egypt then I agree. Though as I mentioned the science is very rare on testing pieces as mainstream either have already assumed they are created by existing tools in the records. Or are reluctant to subject pieces to such testing for various reasons.

For example the precision vases have been known for at least 150 years. But there has never been any analysis on them. It took a private collector to buy some of these vases to be able to test them. So imagine the same for works on site. The Egyptian ministry would not allow this.

So its hard to get good scientific testing in the first place. But there are some and as time goes by and more independents come in we will see more testing which should reveal more interesting data.

But as far as whether humans had some higher knowledge in the past I am not sure individual testing of works would settle the issue. This is more a metaphysical and philosophical question. Like is there a God or spirituality or consciousness beyond brain. Science cannot answer this question. Yet to the ancients at least this was a reality. Their worldview was one of spirits, gods, transcedent knowledge.

(For the record, any assertion that meets that criteria should be treated with a low, but significant level of scepticisim until multiple studies by different researchers have confirmed the results.)

Yes and that makes it even harder for those proposing advanced or deeper knowlegde in our past. As I said even testing these works hits a wall due to assumptions and protecting existing narratives. Subjecting all works to rigorious testing with modern tech has been one of the main calls by those proposing advanced knowledge as this would settle it. But still mainstream is very reluctant for whatever reason.

Yes. Of course. That's the whole point. Superior methods of investigation defeat (rightly) weaker methods of investigation.

Yes when it comes to the areas that science can measure. But its not superior when it comes to culture, belief, gods, spirituality. Because its not it relegates this to the make believe or pseudoscience.

Please don't tell me what I think. You are not very good at it. To make myself clear I now have to say something that may offend some other members whom I respect, but I think the bluntness may be necessary to get my point across to you: I find the concept of faith to be abhorrent. It encourages self delusion; it favours belief in favoured outcomes, over probable ones; it deliberately closes eyes to "reality"; thereby it risks corrupting the human spirit.

But is that not a philosophical belief and not science. You are actually making a non scientific truth claim. How do you know your dislike of belief is not tainting your outlook on all this. This is part of what I mean by we all have worldview containing beliefs in metaphysical and epistemics about what is real or not.

But these are not science but philosophical. When this worldview belief biases peoples view as to what is allowed to be counted in determining reality is is actually forcing a belief just like they say religion is forcing a worldview belief.

No. Wrong again. I put faith in no one and no thing. I base my expectations upon past experience. If the sun failed to rise tomorrow my reaction would be, "I wondered if that might happen". I thing the "living in a simulation" is plausible, though unlikely, but definitely interesting. I like to think I may have real choices, but I am well aware I may be mistaken.
Faith does not enter into how I live my life and if I see the merest glimmer of it in my thoughts or actions, I cast it aside vigorously, at once.

If you think a simulation is possible then you are living by faith that what we experience now is reality. Because fundementally it implies some intelligent being is being the sim. So your willing to entertain the idea of a reality and being as the creator but not God.

Because the mortal being is easier to believe than God because it still stays within the Godless reality. But it still takes faith and thats the same kind of faith that ancients believed there was some spirit or god behind what the seen.

Sorry Steve, but I can only handle so much of you missing the point; agreeing with me without recognising it; mistakenly believing you know what I think; and, what begins to look like an obsession, thinking that science is somehow threaening your religion. I may return to the rest of your post later, but if you are unable to stop making the same errors I shall be forced to give up on you.

I am thinking we actually agree on quite a bit. We just use different language. But metaphysically it seems we are not too different. To be able or allow the possibility of a sim you have to also be open to the idea that what we see is not necessarily reality. Which flies in the face of empiriclism. You cannot test it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I have never doubted this and I think like this overall thread is assumed as psudoscience its assummed that the science is somehow excluded as part of determining whether there actually is truth in the claim.

Assumed? No. Did it raise some red flags? Absolutely.

The topic: lost ancient history: Red flag (General), be on the lookout for pseudo-archeology
The poster: Sorry, Steve, but your threads on topics like this have a history of involving pseudoscience. (Be on alert.)
The means: Argument by video link. Not a good way to start. I didn't watch the video until the thread was several days old.
Trigger words, "mainstream": Another red flag warning. We wonder, "is he going to take us to pseudoscience land again."

It all compounds, but even so, we weren't assuming pseudoscience, but we were definitely on alert for it.

There were other ways to introduce your thread that would have been way better. For example the question:

"What are we missing of potential settlements 10,000 years or more before classical archeology because of the loss of signs of construction due to the decay of building materials" or something like that.

I have never questioned the science itself as a method.

That would be good, but on these archeology issues, you do seem to frequently reject scientific results and analyses on artifacts. (cf. cutting rock with copper saws, drills, and chisels)

What I am saying is that the science is good at what it does but it cannot determine alternative ways of knowing because this is beyond what science can do. For example lets say there is some spiritual or transcedent aspect to ancient knowledge.

What is the spiritual aspect of ancient knowledge that relates to ancient construction techniques? You have not make that clear.

The examples I gave that if God is real or consciousness beyond brain is a reality then it logically follows that a certain kind of knowledge, a higher knowledge can be known.

What is "higher knowledge"?

How could science even test that. How could they test whether there was some deeper knowledge gained by a spiritual or transcedent aspect to reality.

Personally, I don't know. It is not my field. If you want to know, I would look into the methodologies of psychology, sociology, and cultural anthropology. These are fields (and a few others) that study what people know, how they react to that knowledge, he we can understand what another person knows or believes, etc. Society is not blind to these states even if you or I are.

As I said it would be like science today testing whether belief in God gives people some deeper knowledge of reality. Christians claim that it does, that there is another dimension to reality that may be experienced here on earth (Gods Kingdom on earth).

The best demonstration of this "deeper knowledge" would be to demonstrate it. The origin isn't going to bother anyone if it is actually demonstrated.

But how do you test for that. We know that the science will say this is fantasy and religious belief is just an epiphenomena of fundemental physical processes due to evolution.

Science will test it based on the known laws of nature, because that is what science does. Science will find it or not, or the answers will be inconclusive.

So we have a methodology problem in that science cannot even test such possibilities and will by assumption relegate this to the whacky or unverifiable and hense not relevant as a possibility until this can be proven empirically. Well thats not going to happen because science cannot even measure such aspects.

At this point, you are being repetitive. If you want to understand possible investigations and tests of claims the claims need to be specified.

So therefore as you said the only reliable measure is science and this will be used by those who disbelieve refute any alternative possibility. Those who believe in God or spirituality or some trancedent knowledge aspect and knowledge will continue to give testimony that this is real and skeptics will use science to put them in their place as has been done for 100s of years.

What would any of this "transcendent knowledge" have to do with civilization and settlement that is unknown or lost to archeology?

 

[Ophiolite]

I have never doubted this and I think like this overall thread is assumed as psudoscience its assummed that the science is somehow excluded as part of determining whether there actually is truth in the claim. I have never questioned the science itself as a method.

What I am saying is that the science is good at what it does but it cannot determine alternative ways of knowing because this is beyond what science can do. For example lets say there is some spiritual or transcedent aspect to ancient knowledge.

The examples I gave that if God is real or consciousness beyond brain is a reality then it logically follows that a certain kind of knowledge, a higher knowledge can be known. How could science even test that. How could they test whether there was some deeper knowledge gained by a spiritual or transcedent aspect to reality.

As I said it would be like science today testing whether belief in God gives people some deeper knowledge of reality. Christians claim that it does, that there is another dimension to reality that may be experienced here on earth (Gods Kingdom on earth).

But how do you test for that. We know that the science will say this is fantasy and religious belief is just an epiphenomena of fundemental physical processes due to evolution.

So we have a methodology problem in that science cannot even test such possibilities and will by assumption relegate this to the whacky or unverifiable and hense not relevant as a possibility until this can be proven empirically. Well thats not going to happen because science cannot even measure such aspects.

So therefore as you said the only reliable measure is science and this will be used by those who disbelieve refute any alternative possibility. Those who believe in God or spirituality or some trancedent knowledge aspect and knowledge will continue to give testimony that this is real and skeptics will use science to put them in their place as has been done for 100s of years.

My point being that when it comes to say arguements for the existence of such aspects to reality including that this may have influenced our history of knowledge that the science is used to completely defeat it. People don't say 'well the science shows there is no such thing but science is limited so there may be some other dimension that science cannot measure. So I won't count that out as it may be a possibility'.

No science is used without qualification in these arguements to deny completely such possibilities ie if you can't show empiricle evidence then its all conspiriacy. Or as soon as such possibilities are mentioned its assumed as conspiriacy. This is the common reply and its happening now in this thread.

Fair enough and I think for specific examples where we can use the science such as the examples given from Egypt then I agree. Though as I mentioned the science is very rare on testing pieces as mainstream either have already assumed they are created by existing tools in the records. Or are reluctant to subject pieces to such testing for various reasons.

For example the precision vases have been known for at least 150 years. But there has never been any analysis on them. It took a private collector to buy some of these vases to be able to test them. So imagine the same for works on site. The Egyptian ministry would not allow this.

So its hard to get good scientific testing in the first place. But there are some and as time goes by and more independents come in we will see more testing which should reveal more interesting data.

But as far as whether humans had some higher knowledge in the past I am not sure individual testing of works would settle the issue. This is more a metaphysical and philosophical question. Like is there a God or spirituality or consciousness beyond brain. Science cannot answer this question. Yet to the ancients at least this was a reality. Their worldview was one of spirits, gods, transcedent knowledge.

Yes and that makes it even harder for those proposing advanced or deeper knowlegde in our past. As I said even testing these works hits a wall due to assumptions and protecting existing narratives. Subjecting all works to rigorious testing with modern tech has been one of the main calls by those proposing advanced knowledge as this would settle it. But still mainstream is very reluctant for whatever reason.

Yes when it comes to the areas that science can measure. But its not superior when it comes to culture, belief, gods, spirituality. Because its not it relegates this to the make believe or pseudoscience.

But is that not a philosophical belief and not science. You are actually making a non scientific truth claim. How do you know your dislike of belief is not tainting your outlook on all this. This is part of what I mean by we all have worldview containing beliefs in metaphysical and epistemics about what is real or not.

But these are not science but philosophical. When this worldview belief biases peoples view as to what is allowed to be counted in determining reality is is actually forcing a belief just like they say religion is forcing a worldview belief.

If you think a simulation is possible then you are living by faith that what we experience now is reality. Because fundementally it implies some intelligent being is being the sim. So your willing to entertain the idea of a reality and being as the creator but not God.

Because the mortal being is easier to believe than God because it still stays within the Godless reality. But it still takes faith and thats the same kind of faith that ancients believed there was some spirit or god behind what the seen.

I am thinking we actually agree on quite a bit. We just use different language. But metaphysically it seems we are not too different. To be able or allow the possibility of a sim you have to also be open to the idea that what we see is not necessarily reality. Which flies in the face of empiriclism. You cannot test it.

I give up. You misinterpret most of what I say, despite repeated clarification on my part. I'll put it down to my inability to right, simple, direct, comprehensible prose and leave it at that.

Please don't respond by twisting that last sentence into something it isn't. Enough is enough.

 

[stevevw]

Your posts have degenerated to such a degree they don’t even vaguely resemble facts, they are personal opinions based on distortions and fairy tales.

How is it distortions and fairy tales. You have not even commented on my replies but made an unsupported assertion. I said that we have evidence (fact) of old an old kingdom site with the foundations found under the later additions from the new kingdom. We have a 4th dynasty priest inscribed on a pillar base.

This suggests that there was an old kingdom core that later was expanded on. How is this fantasy. What happened to the old kingdom granite works. Considering granite was a precious commodity theres no way these were just thrown out and dumped. They were reused in the same temple later.

To summarize:

(1) The idea that Ramesses II chiselled his name on monuments meaning they were Old Kingdom in origin is just plain stupid reasoning.

Why when we have clear evidence of Ramesses II doing this. I gave you the evidence. This is fact.

On the basis of the evidence, a concept you struggle to understand, the bulk of his forgeries were directed at the 18th dynasty some 100-200 years beforehand. The reasons are straightforward, the 18th dynasty pharaohs were prodigious builders giving Ramesses more targets to forge while Old Kingdom constructions being over 1,000 years old were rarer and mostly in a state of decay through age and from the vandalism by the Egyptians themselves in recycling Old Kingdom materials for their own building projects.

All old kingdom works were in the hardest stones and have lasted the longest. Apart from the pyramids for obvious reasons. I gave you an example of how the old kingdom pillars look the same as the granite pillars in Karnak. I gave you example of Ramesses II putting his name on granite statues and obelisks.

Are you saying there were no old kingdom granite works left at these sites when later pharoahs and kings added to it. If so where did the granite works go. The logic is in the signatures matching the old kingdom works and not the new kingdom works who rarely worked in granite.

Here is the old kingdom work pillar

Here is the new kindom pillars made in sandstone sections. Notice how the sandstone pillar is jutted up against the one piece granite pillar. The granite pillar matches almost perfectly the old kingdom one.

If we are going by signatures and if there were old old kingdom works in the original core of the site already there. It seems logical and reasonable that these are old kingdom works.

(2) It is the height of gross ignorance to declare that original New Kingdom constructions were in sandstone.
One of the most iconic features in ancient Egypt rivalling the Pyramids of Giza is the temple at Deir El Bahari.

The temple at Deir El Bahari is mostly sandstone, and limestone as far as I understand with a small amount of granite. Though still magnificent it is not as great as the precise works from the earliest dynasties such as at Giza, Abu Sir, Abu Awash and Saqqara in the harest stones.

I guess its a matter of opinion but its well recognised that the great pyramids and hard stone percision works represent the best of Egyptian works that have never been surpassed. The Giza pyramid was the highest human made structure in the world up until the Eiffel Tower in the late 19th century.

This is an example of rock cut architecture where the primary material being carved out is limestone.
There is nothing in the Old Kingdom that even remotely comes close to this monument or style of architecture.

I disagree. Its reminiscent of Roman architecture. Though amazing I don't think it rivals the great pyramids and other precision works of the old kingdom in the hardest of stones.

Evenso this only supports the great ability and advanced knowledge and tech even in later dynasties. But I don't think anything rivals the old kingdom works.

Another feature of the old kingdom discovered or rather rediscovered is a Labyerinth that is suppose to be like a city under ground near Hawara. There is also some massive structure under the Giza pyramid. We have not fully discovered the full extent of these great works.

But we know even back as far as 480BC Herodolus mentions the labyrinth and describes it greater than the pyramids. Flinders Petrie discovered at the location a massive block about 8 metres down he thought was the foundation and assumed it had all been robbed. But now GPR has discovered a city sized labyrinth with massive halls and miles of tunnels. There is some massive metallic structure at the center.

The The Mataha Expedition with modern tech discovered the labyrinth in 2008 but this was covered up and hidden from the public. A good example of how the orthodox establishment hides discoveries.

This leads to the pharaoh who initiated the project Hatshepsut whose cartouches were erased in the temple, not by Ramesses II but by her 18th dynasty successors who tried to erase her from history.
Hatshepsut was also well known for erecting obelisks, which according to your ridiculous logic she must have forged as they were Old Kingdom constructions.

Like I said we have the evidence that pharoahs usurped older works. Some works have 2 or 3 different pharoahs claiming the works. All these sites began in old kingdom times and were added to. So it seems logical that there would have been some original granite works at these sites. Where are they.

If the old kingdom worked exclusively in hard stones and especially granite and the new kingdom worked mainly in sandstone and limestone then its not so rediculous to think that theres a good chance some of these granite works are from the old kingdom. Especially as shown that the signatures almost perfectly match the old kingdom examples.

This leads to the next point.

(3) Since you continually ramble on about signatures,

lol, I thought the signatures were important if your wanting to use th science.

I will mention again that the signature of an 18th dynasty obelisk is a single carving from red granite whereas the Old Kingdom obelisks were much smaller and made of stacked limestone blocks. Ignoring the evidence and rambling on with your own spin story is a common MO I have noticed of you on this site.

Its actually the complete opposite. All old kingdom works are made in hardest stones with minor limestone as trimmings. Apart from the pyramids and for good reason. But all the statues, boxes, sarcophagi, columens, obelisk and vases are in the hardest stones and of a much higher quality and precision.

Whereas the majority of new kingdom works are standstone or limestone and sectional. If we are going by signatures then the granite works in these new kingdom sites match the signatures of the old kingdom I think.

(4) So the statue of Thutmose III in the 18th dynasty is purely the result of the Egyptians rediscovering this lost but unknown technology and has nothing to do with the skill of the artisan?
Let’s fast forward some 900 years after Thutmose III to Psamtik Il whose own statue in greywacke which is a very hard (like cement) sandstone has also been hailed by the experts as being on par with Khafre’s and Thutmose III’s statues.

Very impressive. I don't know. It looks good but it would have to be tested. I mean we know artists can do good works. The Romans produced some great statues. But these are in softer stones and I don't think as near perfect to the earlier works.

The fact that these old kingdom works are so early is the incredible thing.

View attachment 369479​

Does this mean the Egyptians of the 26th dynasty also rediscovered this lost but unknown technology?
Let’s get this right the Old Kingdom had the technology which was lost, then it was found in the 18th dynasty only to be lost again in 19th dynasty as that rotten Ramesses II had to resort to forgeries. The technology was found again by the 26th dynasty which was subsequently lost…. care to speculate how many cycles of this found/lost/found/lost…….. occurred?

Personally I would have incorporated Harry Potter in your story to make it more interesting.

Your creating a strawman I think. Assuming that these examples are on par with the old kingdom works. They are good but not that good. It is widely acknowledged that the greatest works come from the old kingdom.

 

[stevevw]

I give up. You misinterpret most of what I say, despite repeated clarification on my part. I'll put it down to my inability to right, simple, direct, comprehensible prose and leave it at that.

Please don't respond by twisting that last sentence into something it isn't. Enough is enough.

No I was going to say it is more likely on both sides. I am not very good at grammar and a bit dyslexic and OCD lol. My reports cards always said I was not good at comprehension. Though I have improved with much reading. I did not like reading but now all I do is read.

 

[sjastro]

How is it distortions and fairy tales. You have not even commented on my replies but made an unsupported assertion. I said that we have evidence (fact) of old an old kingdom site with the foundations found under the later additions from the new kingdom. We have a 4th dynasty priest inscribed on a pillar base.

This suggests that there was an old kingdom core that later was expanded on. How is this fantasy. What happened to the old kingdom granite works. Considering granite was a precious commodity theres no way these were just thrown out and dumped. They were reused in the same temple later.

Why when we have clear evidence of Ramesses II doing this. I gave you the evidence. This is fact.

All old kingdom works were in the hardest stones and have lasted the longest. Apart from the pyramids for obvious reasons. I gave you an example of how the old kingdom pillars look the same as the granite pillars in Karnak. I gave you example of Ramesses II putting his name on granite statues and obelisks.

Are you saying there were no old kingdom granite works left at these sites when later pharoahs and kings added to it. If so where did the granite works go. The logic is in the signatures matching the old kingdom works and not the new kingdom works who rarely worked in granite.

Here is the old kingdom work pillar

View attachment 369514

Here is the new kindom pillars made in sandstone sections. Notice how the sandstone pillar is jutted up against the one piece granite pillar. The granite pillar matches almost perfectly the old kingdom one.

If we are going by signatures and if there were old old kingdom works in the original core of the site already there. It seems logical and reasonable that these are old kingdom works.

View attachment 369512


The temple at Deir El Bahari is mostly sandstone, and limestone as far as I understand with a small amount of granite. Though still magnificent it is not as great as the precise works from the earliest dynasties such as at Giza, Abu Sir, Abu Awash and Saqqara in the harest stones.

I guess its a matter of opinion but its well recognised that the great pyramids and hard stone percision works represent the best of Egyptian works that have never been surpassed. The Giza pyramid was the highest human made structure in the world up until the Eiffel Tower in the late 19th century.

I disagree. Its reminiscent of Roman architecture. Though amazing I don't think it rivals the great pyramids and other precision works of the old kingdom in the hardest of stones.

Evenso this only supports the great ability and advanced knowledge and tech even in later dynasties. But I don't think anything rivals the old kingdom works.

Another feature of the old kingdom discovered or rather rediscovered is a Labyerinth that is suppose to be like a city under ground near Hawara. There is also some massive structure under the Giza pyramid. We have not fully discovered the full extent of these great works.

But we know even back as far as 480BC Herodolus mentions the labyrinth and describes it greater than the pyramids. Flinders Petrie discovered at the location a massive block about 8 metres down he thought was the foundation and assumed it had all been robbed. But now GPR has discovered a city sized labyrinth with massive halls and miles of tunnels. There is some massive metallic structure at the center.

The The Mataha Expedition with modern tech discovered the labyrinth in 2008 but this was covered up and hidden from the public. A good example of how the orthodox establishment hides discoveries.

Like I said we have the evidence that pharoahs usurped older works. Some works have 2 or 3 different pharoahs claiming the works. All these sites began in old kingdom times and were added to. So it seems logical that there would have been some original granite works at these sites. Where are they.

If the old kingdom worked exclusively in hard stones and especially granite and the new kingdom worked mainly in sandstone and limestone then its not so rediculous to think that theres a good chance some of these granite works are from the old kingdom. Especially as shown that the signatures almost perfectly match the old kingdom examples.

lol, I thought the signatures were important if your wanting to use th science.

Its actually the complete opposite. All old kingdom works are made in hardest stones with minor limestone as trimmings. Apart from the pyramids and for good reason. But all the statues, boxes, sarcophagi, columens, obelisk and vases are in the hardest stones and of a much higher quality and precision.

Whereas the majority of new kingdom works are standstone or limestone and sectional. If we are going by signatures then the granite works in these new kingdom sites match the signatures of the old kingdom I think.

Very impressive. I don't know. It looks good but it would have to be tested. I mean we know artists can do good works. The Romans produced some great statues. But these are in softer stones and I don't think as near perfect to the earlier works.

The fact that these old kingdom works are so early is the incredible thing.

Your creating a strawman I think. Assuming that these examples are on par with the old kingdom works. They are good but not that good. It is widely acknowledged that the greatest works come from the old kingdom.

Enough is enough you have crossed the line by being wilfully ignorant.

If you want to double down that Old Kingdom obelisks were made out of granite, Ramesses II only forged Old Kingdom constructions while ignoring his own genuine works in granite at Karnak, Luxor and the Ramesseum, Deir El Bahari is mostly sandstone and limestone, and New Kingdom works in hardstone are inferior to the Old Kingdom to name a few, then where are the facts to support these assertions.

This is a black and white issue you are either right or wrong. Isn't remarkable you have this irritating habit of flooding posts with images and links when you have the perception of supportive facts yet in this case there is not one single fact.

Here are facts of how much granite was used in the Old and New Kingdoms including the complexities in its use.

Aspect	Old Kingdom	New Kingdom
Main Purpose	Pyramids & mortuary temples, simple geometry.	Obelisks, colossal statues, temple architecture
Granite Volume	~1,500–2,000 tons	~3,000–4,000 tons
Distribution	Concentrated at few sites (Giza)	Spread across many temples/tombs
Block Sizes	10–100 tons typical	100–650 tons typical (some obelisks/statues much heavier than Old Kingdom blocks)
Technical Focus	Moving & placing massive blocks	Sculpting, polishing, erecting freestanding monoliths
Artistic Detail	Minimal, functional precision	Highly polished, carved inscriptions and imagery

✅ Key Insight:

• Old Kingdom: granite work focused on bulk architectural and structural purposes, very localized.
• New Kingdom: granite work increased in total tonnage and complexity, with enormous monolithic statues and obelisks requiring precise carving and raising techniques.

The statue of Psamtik Il the 26th dynasty pharaoh made from greywacke is superior to any Old Kingdom statue made of the same material.

️ Comparison Summary: Old Kingdom vs. Saite Period Sculpture​

Feature	Old Kingdom (Menkaure, c. 2490 BCE)	Saite Period (Psamtik II, c. 595 BCE)
Material	Greywacke – a hard, dark sandstone	Greywacke, Basalt, Granite – harder stones used in combination
Polish Quality	Smooth and lustrous, but matte; not mirror-like	Highly reflective, mirror-like finish; glassy surface achieved through advanced polishing techniques
Tool/Abrasive Skill	Advanced for its time (~2500 BCE), but less refined compared to later periods	Peak of Egyptian stoneworking; extreme refinement with advanced abrasives and techniques
Style	Formal, rigid, symbolic; adherence to Old Kingdom ideals	Revival of Old Kingdom forms with crisp detail and flawless finish; Saite style originating in the north
Perceived Quality	Exceptional for its time, but less refined in polish	Considered superior technically in polish and finish

---

Additional Resources​

• Old Kingdom Greywacke Sculptures:
  • Menkaure & Unidentified Female – Egypt Museum
  • Smarthistory – King Menkaure (Mycerinus) and queen
  • Greywacke – Wikipedia
• Saite Period (Psamtik II) Sculptures:
  • Statue of Psamtik II – Louvre
  • Statue of Harbes, called Psamtiknefer – The Met
  • Pharaoh Psamtik II – World History Edu

---

 

[Hans Blaster]

I gave you example of Ramesses II putting his name on granite statues and obelisks.

Ramesses II and all of your previous "he put his name on it" examples are from ONE THOUSAND YEARS AFTER THE AGE OF PYRAMIDS and Khufu. It is royal practice that did seem to happen in the New Kingdom, but you've presented exactly NO evidence of it happening in the 4th dynasty. Perhaps it happened, perhaps it didn't but currently there is no evidence you have presented that it is even possible that Khufu is "tagging" existing work as his own. None.

What you are doing is the equivalent of knowing that medieval Romans cross themselves and assuming Brutus and Cassius did the same after stabbing Caesar a millennium earlier. (We both know how wrong that would be.)

 

[stevevw]

Enough is enough you have crossed the line by being wilfully ignorant.

If you want to double down that Old Kingdom obelisks were made out of granite,

I am doubling down because its a fact that old kingdom obelisks are made of granite lol. Why would I not when theres ample evidence. In fact as I keep saying the old kingdom specialised in using the hardest stones for just about everything like obelisks, statues, boxes, pillars ect. The are the originators of the granite works.

Towering Obelisks Are Everywhere. Here's Why They're So Awe-inspiring
Obelisks first appeared in the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties of the Old Kingdom (circa 2494 to 2184 B.C.E.), the same era in which the pyramids of Giza were built. "The important central fact about obelisks is that they are monoliths, carved out of granite — most from the Aswan quarry in lower Egypt — as a single block of stone weighing several hundred tons,"

Obelisk Definition & Origin
The obelisk, originating during the Early Dynastic Period of ancient Egypt, crafted from a single piece of red granite,

Obelisk Definition & Origin

Explore the history, symbolism, architecture, and purpose of obelisks. Discover their origins, global spread, famous examples, and key facts.

www.egypttoursportal.com

4,000-Year-Old Inscribed Obelisk Dedicated to Ancient Egyptian Queen Unearthed in Saqqara

4,000-Year-Old Inscribed Obelisk Dedicated to Ancient Egyptian Queen Unearthed in Saqqara

The Ministry of Antiquities in Egypt has announced the exciting discovery of the upper part of an Old Kingdom granite obelisk that dates back to around 2,000 BC. The ancient monument, which once had a top covered with copper or golden foil to shine in the sunlight, contains inscriptions that...

www.ancient-origins.net

I am not saying that later dynasties could not produce great works. But most definitely we see the best examples as far as quality and precision in the early dynasties.

Ramesses II only forged Old Kingdom constructions while ignoring his own genuine works in granite at Karnak, Luxor and the Ramesseum,

Obviously if they are old kingdom works then he could not have made them. I alreadcy gave you evidence. I am not saying all works or that Ramesses II could not commission great works. That is also part of the greatness of Egyptian knowledge and tech.

I am saying we can see greater works in the earliest dynasties which is unusual, sort of back the front. Coming at a time when history paints the idea of gradual improvement from simple to advanced.

Deir El Bahari is mostly sandstone and limestone, and New Kingdom works in hardstone are inferior to the Old Kingdom to name a few, then where are the facts to support these assertions.

I thought I was giving you the evidence and you seem to not be seeing it. I will go through this step by step.

First part of the evidence I am saying is that at least some of the granite works your citing as new kingdom may actually be from the old kingdom. I gave you evidence. You say its from the middle kingdom but the signatures are very similar to old kingdom. If we are going by signatures. Which I think we should as it is the science of identifying pieces.

I gave you evidence that the one piece granite pillar at Karnak next to the new kingdom sectional pillars is almost an exact match of old kingdom pillars. So if there is evidence that old kingdom works were at these sites and the signatures match old kingdom works. Why is this not a possibility.

You have not once addressed this. Never mind what others think. What do you think of the possibility. The reasonablness or not for this possibility and in fact reality because like I said, where are the old kingdom works that were in these sites. Granite does not disappear into dust. You have not answered this.

This is a black and white issue you are either right or wrong. Isn't remarkable you have this irritating habit of flooding posts with images and links when you have the perception of supportive facts yet in this case there is not one single fact.

It is a fact that old kingdom dynasties made one piece pink granite pillar that look remarkable the same as the one piece pink granite pillars at Karnak. You are ignoring the evidence I linked. Not only did the old kingdom dynasties build in granite they built almost the exact same thing standing in Karnak.

So yes they did specialise more than other dynasties in working with the hardest stones and have proved that they can create almost the same pillar. Thats unless that actually is an old kingdom pillar and the bigger sandstone ones were the new kingdom pillars built around them. Ever considered that possibility.

Meet Herishef
Inside the temple were six pink granite columns that contrasted with the rest of the building; because they belonged to someone else. By Ramesses' time the columns were already 1,200 years old. He had the six hauled from the ruins of an Old Kingdom pyramid temple at Saqqara or Abusir, near modern Cairo.

Whilst Ramesses II was clearly devout, he was also highly practical; why go to all the effort of carving his own columns when there are some perfectly good ones just lying about? Ramesses had the original owner's name scrubbed out and his own image offering to various gods emblazoned across them.

Meet Herishef — NILE Magazine

A god we really should be more familiar with.

www.nilemagazine.com.au

Thats old kingdom one piece granite columns reused by Ramesses II in a new kingdom site. Direct evidence of at least 6 pink granite columns from the old kingdom reused in new kingdom sites.

There are many many granite ruins at Giza, Saqqara, Dahshūr, Marhum, Maydūm, Hawara, Abusir, and Abu Rawash. Many damaged, broken but there would have been many good pieces like these columns reused.

Look at these works from the early dynasties. Granite sarcophagus of Kaiemnofret 4th Dynasty, 2613-2494 BCE.

These bowls and stone dishes/platters are some of the finest ever found, and they are from the earliest period of ancient Egyptian civilization.

Working with soft stone such as alabaster is relatively simple, compared to granite. Alabaster can be worked with primitive tools and abrasives. The elegant workings in granite are a different matter and indicate not only a consummate level of skill, but a different and perhaps more advanced technology.

Ancient Egyptian Stone Technology - Lathe Turning - Spirit & Stone

www.theglobaleducationproject.org

The Schist Disk: Egypt and “Advanced” Technology

Since discovered in 1936 in the Egyptian village of Saqqara, the so-called “Schist Disk” has been used to support the widely-held contention that the ancient Egyptian culture acquired technology far superior to their own at some point in their development from an outside source. And while this...

www.historydefined.net

The Evidence is Cut in Stone: A Compelling Argument for Lost High Technology in Ancient Egypt
We find at many of the ancient sites in Egypt finely crafted works in basalt, granite, quartzite and diorite.

The Evidence is Cut in Stone: A Compelling Argument for Lost High Technology in Ancient Egypt

Most people know of the great construction achievements of the dynastic Egyptians such as the pyramids and temples of the Giza Plateau area as well as the Sphinx. Many books and videos show depictions of vast work forces hewing blocks of stone in the hot desert sun and carefully setting them...

www.ancient-origins.net

https://unsigned.io/granite-artifact/

We see later new kingdom vases with much less precision and in softer stones. Once again I am not claiming anything as to what is going on and how this was done. Rather I am pointing out these (out of place) works and signatures and that they don't match the picture painted of our history from primiotive to advanced.

Here are facts of how much granite was used in the Old and New Kingdoms including the complexities in its use.

Aspect	Old Kingdom	New Kingdom
Main Purpose	Pyramids & mortuary temples, simple geometry.	Obelisks, colossal statues, temple architecture
Granite Volume	~1,500–2,000 tons	~3,000–4,000 tons
Distribution	Concentrated at few sites (Giza)	Spread across many temples/tombs
Block Sizes	10–100 tons typical	100–650 tons typical (some obelisks/statues much heavier than Old Kingdom blocks)
Technical Focus	Moving & placing massive blocks	Sculpting, polishing, erecting freestanding monoliths
Artistic Detail	Minimal, functional precision	Highly polished, carved inscriptions and imagery

✅ Key Insight:

• Old Kingdom: granite work focused on bulk architectural and structural purposes, very localized.
• New Kingdom: granite work increased in total tonnage and complexity, with enormous monolithic statues and obelisks requiring precise carving and raising techniques.

The statue of Psamtik Il the 26th dynasty pharaoh made from greywacke is superior to any Old Kingdom statue made of the same material.

️ Comparison Summary: Old Kingdom vs. Saite Period Sculpture​

Feature	Old Kingdom (Menkaure, c. 2490 BCE)	Saite Period (Psamtik II, c. 595 BCE)
Material	Greywacke – a hard, dark sandstone	Greywacke, Basalt, Granite – harder stones used in combination
Polish Quality	Smooth and lustrous, but matte; not mirror-like	Highly reflective, mirror-like finish; glassy surface achieved through advanced polishing techniques
Tool/Abrasive Skill	Advanced for its time (~2500 BCE), but less refined compared to later periods	Peak of Egyptian stoneworking; extreme refinement with advanced abrasives and techniques
Style	Formal, rigid, symbolic; adherence to Old Kingdom ideals	Revival of Old Kingdom forms with crisp detail and flawless finish; Saite style originating in the north
Perceived Quality	Exceptional for its time, but less refined in polish	Considered superior technically in polish and finish

---

Additional Resources​

• Old Kingdom Greywacke Sculptures:
  • Menkaure & Unidentified Female – Egypt Museum
  • Smarthistory – King Menkaure (Mycerinus) and queen
  • Greywacke – Wikipedia
• Saite Period (Psamtik II) Sculptures:
  • Statue of Psamtik II – Louvre
  • Statue of Harbes, called Psamtiknefer – The Met
  • Pharaoh Psamtik II – World History Edu

---

The first thing to note is that there is a question over whether the granite and hard stone works attributed to the later New Kingdom are actually not usurped works from the old kingdom. I gave you the evidence of this actually happening.

The second point is that all the works apart from the pyramids themselves for good reasons of practicality ( making the pyramids with 2.5 million blocks of granite is impractical considering the lack of granite. Whereas the New Kingdom often worked in sandstone and limestone.

The third point is that the idea that the old kingdom had greater precision is false. It is the other way around. The greatest precision and geometry come from the old kingdom works. Which also acts as a signature for identifying works in the New KIngdom as actually old Kingdom works as the New KIngdom works had less precision.

For example the granite vases above and others from Djosers time are unmatched by later new kingdom vases.

Astonishing Results: Ancient Egyptian Granite Vases Analyzed

Do 6,000-Year-Old Artifacts Reveal the Use of Lost Machinery in Predynastic Egypt?

A newly revealed private collection of ancient Egyptian hard-stone vessels has ignited intense debate among archaeologists, engineers, and alternative historians alike.

www.ancient-origins.net

 

[stevevw]

Ramesses II and all of your previous "he put his name on it" examples are from ONE THOUSAND YEARS AFTER THE AGE OF PYRAMIDS and Khufu. It is royal practice that did seem to happen in the New Kingdom, but you've presented exactly NO evidence of it happening in the 4th dynasty. Perhaps it happened, perhaps it didn't but currently there is no evidence you have presented that it is even possible that Khufu is "tagging" existing work as his own. None.

What you are doing is the equivalent of knowing that medieval Romans cross themselves and assuming Brutus and Cassius did the same after stabbing Caesar a millennium earlier. (We both know how wrong that would be.)

First my point was establishing that at least some of these works claimed by new kingdom pharoahs and kings was actually from the old kingdom. Such as the similar signatures that match old kingdom works rather than new kingdom worlks. As well as evidence for people like Ramesses II stamping his name over the works.

This is to generally show that the greatest works, the most precise come from the earliest period which seems to be the opposite of how knowledge and tech is suppose to progress.

As for showing that old kingdom pharoahs also upsurped old works its a bit harder for obvious reasons as it seems that the works attributed have no forunner to compare. As though these works popped into existence not long after humans were suppose to be simple Neolithic nomads with simple flint tools.

So its less clear still an ongoing investigation. Sometimes circumstancial such as the time it took to build the pyramids and the tech needed which is lacking for the signatures in the rocks.

But we do see some evidence. The precision vases found under Djosers Stepped pyramid are acknowledged as being usurped by Djoser. This means they could be older than 5 or 6,000 years. That is astonishing if thats the case as this was a time before the wheel was invented let alone high tech to make such vases.

Also the science (astronomy) behind the idea that the pyramids and sphinx were built to align with certain star formations around 10,500 years ago. This is an ongoing research as it seems a big part of these ancient works is astronomical and geometric alignments. Though not evidence in itself rather a question mark as to age.

Other bits of evidence like erosion, the level of erosion on some of the works seems to show much old age.

It doesn't really matter about the specific examples and going into every one of them. My only point was that overall whether we see more advanced kinds of knowledge in the past that seems to contradict the slow and gradual increase in knowledge from simple to more advanced. According to how we see knowledge and tech today.

That perhaps there were times in our past where cultures or even civilisations rose and fell and that knowledge has been lost.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I hope we are not going to see a repeat of predynastic Egyptian vases being figured to such a high degree of accuracy and precision they must had access to computer controlled robots or the dynastic Egyptians had cranes to move obelisks.

The predicted apocalypse has come...

 

[Hans Blaster]

These bowls and stone dishes/platters are some of the finest ever found, and they are from the earliest period of ancient Egyptian civilization.

Working with soft stone such as alabaster is relatively simple, compared to granite. Alabaster can be worked with primitive tools and abrasives. The elegant workings in granite are a different matter and indicate not only a consummate level of skill, but a different and perhaps more advanced technology.

Ancient Egyptian Stone Technology - Lathe Turning - Spirit & Stone

www.theglobaleducationproject.org

The Schist Disk: Egypt and “Advanced” Technology

Since discovered in 1936 in the Egyptian village of Saqqara, the so-called “Schist Disk” has been used to support the widely-held contention that the ancient Egyptian culture acquired technology far superior to their own at some point in their development from an outside source. And while this...

www.historydefined.net

The Evidence is Cut in Stone: A Compelling Argument for Lost High Technology in Ancient Egypt
We find at many of the ancient sites in Egypt finely crafted works in basalt, granite, quartzite and diorite.

The Evidence is Cut in Stone: A Compelling Argument for Lost High Technology in Ancient Egypt

Most people know of the great construction achievements of the dynastic Egyptians such as the pyramids and temples of the Giza Plateau area as well as the Sphinx. Many books and videos show depictions of vast work forces hewing blocks of stone in the hot desert sun and carefully setting them...

www.ancient-origins.net

The Sabu disk is not quite what has been implied on this site. The image attached makes it look like it was some sort of marbled injection mold. It is not quite so regular asthese images imply. (It was also crafted from fairly fine and soft stone, not granite or other hard stone.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

First my point was establishing that at least some of these works claimed by new kingdom pharoahs and kings was actually from the old kingdom. Such as the similar signatures that match old kingdom works rather than new kingdom worlks. As well as evidence for people like Ramesses II stamping his name over the works.

And my point is that your "they did it 1000 years later" does not indicate anything about it being done in the 4th dynasty. You'd need *actual* evidence of that.

This is to generally show that the greatest works, the most precise come from the earliest period which seems to be the opposite of how knowledge and tech is suppose to progress.

@sjastro has addressed this far better than I could.

As for showing that old kingdom pharoahs also upsurped old works its a bit harder for obvious reasons as it seems that the works attributed have no forunner to compare. As though these works popped into existence not long after humans were suppose to be simple Neolithic nomads with simple flint tools.

No one thought pre-dynastic and early dynastic Egypt were nomads. They built towns and cities.

So its less clear still an ongoing investigation. Sometimes circumstancial such as the time it took to build the pyramids and the tech needed which is lacking for the signatures in the rocks.

The time to build the great pyramids has been demonstrated by Egyptologists and in this thread. You have no excuse for making these claims.

But we do see some evidence. The precision vases found under Djosers Stepped pyramid are acknowledged as being usurped by Djoser. This means they could be older than 5 or 6,000 years. That is astonishing if thats the case as this was a time before the wheel was invented let alone high tech to make such vases.

Usurped is an odd word to use. He put a bunch of antiques a few centuries old in his tomb for the afterlife. (Apparently the thought they *could* take it with them.) They are in the style of vases dated to specific periods. Given that he died 4650 years ago (or so) something 5000 years old (as of today) isn't that old at his time. (Literally in the 1st Dynasty.) Are their marks on the 1st and 2nd Dynasty vases that say "Djoser made this"?

Also the science (astronomy) behind the idea that the pyramids and sphinx were built to align with certain star formations around 10,500 years ago. This is an ongoing research as it seems a big part of these ancient works is astronomical and geometric alignments. Though not evidence in itself rather a question mark as to age.

Utter nonsense kept alive by that hack Hancock and his band of merry fools.

Other bits of evidence like erosion, the level of erosion on some of the works seems to show much old age.

It doesn't really matter about the specific examples and going into every one of them. My only point was that overall whether we see more advanced kinds of knowledge in the past that seems to contradict the slow and gradual increase in knowledge from simple to more advanced. According to how we see knowledge and tech today.

That perhaps there were times in our past where cultures or even civilisations rose and fell and that knowledge has been lost.

Whatever connections your claims had to actual lost civilizations, it has ended (as we'd feared) in nonsense garbage pseudoscience. (Repetitiveness for emphasis.)

 

[sjastro]

I am doubling down because its a fact that old kingdom obelisks are made of granite lol. Why would I not when theres ample evidence. In fact as I keep saying the old kingdom specialised in using the hardest stones for just about everything like obelisks, statues, boxes, pillars ect. The are the originators of the granite works.

Towering Obelisks Are Everywhere. Here's Why They're So Awe-inspiring
Obelisks first appeared in the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties of the Old Kingdom (circa 2494 to 2184 B.C.E.), the same era in which the pyramids of Giza were built. "The important central fact about obelisks is that they are monoliths, carved out of granite — most from the Aswan quarry in lower Egypt — as a single block of stone weighing several hundred tons,"

Obelisk Definition & Origin
The obelisk, originating during the Early Dynastic Period of ancient Egypt, crafted from a single piece of red granite,

Obelisk Definition & Origin

Explore the history, symbolism, architecture, and purpose of obelisks. Discover their origins, global spread, famous examples, and key facts.

www.egypttoursportal.com

4,000-Year-Old Inscribed Obelisk Dedicated to Ancient Egyptian Queen Unearthed in Saqqara

4,000-Year-Old Inscribed Obelisk Dedicated to Ancient Egyptian Queen Unearthed in Saqqara

The Ministry of Antiquities in Egypt has announced the exciting discovery of the upper part of an Old Kingdom granite obelisk that dates back to around 2,000 BC. The ancient monument, which once had a top covered with copper or golden foil to shine in the sunlight, contains inscriptions that...

www.ancient-origins.net

I am not saying that later dynasties could not produce great works. But most definitely we see the best examples as far as quality and precision in the early dynasties.

This is your supportive evidence that granite obelisks were built in the Old Kingdom?

The first link is based on the ‘professional title’ howstuffworks, the second comes from a travel agency for crying out loud and the third link in the very first paragraph has a great big gaping hole by claiming it is an Old Kingdom obelisk dated around 2,000 BC.
The date puts it in the Middle Kingdom when granite carved obelisks first appeared.

Furthermore if you actually bothered to read the article the total height was only around 5 metres. If this an Old Kingdom construction it would also include a pedestal making the shaft height considerably less than 5 metres.
This is hardly a worthwhile comparison to make with either the limestone Old Kingdom or the granite New Kingdom obelisks in terms of technical skills and the logistics of transport.

Here is the actual data for comparison, not your travel agency nonsense.

Comparison of Obelisk Heights (Excluding & Including Pedestals)​

Period	Site / Ruler	Material	Shaft Height (m)	Pedestal Height (m)	Total Height (m)	Notes
Old Kingdom (5th Dynasty)	Userkaf’s Sun Temple (Heliopolis area, c. 2490 BCE)	Limestone (core + casing)	~15–18 m (est.)	~12–15 m (est.)	~27–33 m	First sun-temple obelisk form; only foundations survive.
Old Kingdom (5th Dynasty)	Neferirkare’s Sun Temple, Abusir	Limestone (core + casing)	~18–20 m (est.)	~15–17 m (est.)	~33–37 m	Rough estimate based on foundation size and later Niuserre’s proportions.
Old Kingdom (5th Dynasty)	Niuserre’s Sun Temple, Abu Ghurab (c. 2450 BCE)	Limestone (core + Tura casing)	~20 m	~16 m	~36 m	Best-preserved Old Kingdom obelisk-like monument.
Middle Kingdom (12th Dynasty)	Senusret I, Heliopolis (c. 1971 BCE)	Granite (Aswan)	~20.4 m	(none — monolithic)	~20.4 m	First true granite monolithic obelisk.
New Kingdom (18th Dynasty)	Hatshepsut, Karnak (c. 1470 BCE)	Granite (Aswan)	~29.5 m	(none — monolithic)	~29.5 m	Tallest surviving obelisk in Egypt today.
New Kingdom (18th Dynasty)	Thutmose III, Lateran Obelisk (Rome)	Granite (Aswan)	~32 m	(none — monolithic)	~32 m	Tallest surviving ancient obelisk overall.
New Kingdom (19th Dynasty)	Ramesses II obelisks, Luxor & Heliopolis	Granite (Aswan)	~20–25 m	(none — monolithic)	~20–25 m	Numerous examples; highly polished, finely inscribed.
New Kingdom (Unfinished, Aswan)	Likely Hatshepsut/Thutmose III era	Granite (Aswan)	~42 m	(none — monolithic)	~42 m	Largest attempt; ~1,200 tons, abandoned due to cracks.

---

Key Takeaways

• Old Kingdom (5th Dynasty): Obelisk-like monuments were block-built limestone shafts on tall pedestals. Shafts themselves were ~15–20 m, but the total monument height reached 30–36+ m.
• Middle Kingdom onward: Shift to true monolithic granite shafts from Aswan, initially ~20 m, the same size as Old Kingdom limestone shafts but technologically far more advanced.
• New Kingdom: Ambition increased — granite shafts ~30–32 m, with the unfinished Aswan obelisk showing they aimed for >40 m monoliths.

Obviously if they are old kingdom works then he could not have made them. I alreadcy gave you evidence. I am not saying all works or that Ramesses II could not commission great works. That is also part of the greatness of Egyptian knowledge and tech.

I am saying we can see greater works in the earliest dynasties which is unusual, sort of back the front. Coming at a time when history paints the idea of gradual improvement from simple to advanced.

I thought I was giving you the evidence and you seem to not be seeing it. I will go through this step by step.

First part of the evidence I am saying is that at least some of the granite works your citing as new kingdom may actually be from the old kingdom. I gave you evidence. You say its from the middle kingdom but the signatures are very similar to old kingdom. If we are going by signatures. Which I think we should as it is the science of identifying pieces.

I gave you evidence that the one piece granite pillar at Karnak next to the new kingdom sectional pillars is almost an exact match of old kingdom pillars. So if there is evidence that old kingdom works were at these sites and the signatures match old kingdom works. Why is this not a possibility.

You have not once addressed this. Never mind what others think. What do you think of the possibility. The reasonablness or not for this possibility and in fact reality because like I said, where are the old kingdom works that were in these sites. Granite does not disappear into dust. You have not answered this.


It is a fact that old kingdom dynasties made one piece pink granite pillar that look remarkable the same as the one piece pink granite pillars at Karnak. You are ignoring the evidence I linked. Not only did the old kingdom dynasties build in granite they built almost the exact same thing standing in Karnak.

So yes they did specialise more than other dynasties in working with the hardest stones and have proved that they can create almost the same pillar. Thats unless that actually is an old kingdom pillar and the bigger sandstone ones were the new kingdom pillars built around them. Ever considered that possibility.

Meet Herishef
Inside the temple were six pink granite columns that contrasted with the rest of the building; because they belonged to someone else. By Ramesses' time the columns were already 1,200 years old. He had the six hauled from the ruins of an Old Kingdom pyramid temple at Saqqara or Abusir, near modern Cairo.

Whilst Ramesses II was clearly devout, he was also highly practical; why go to all the effort of carving his own columns when there are some perfectly good ones just lying about? Ramesses had the original owner's name scrubbed out and his own image offering to various gods emblazoned across them.

Meet Herishef — NILE Magazine

A god we really should be more familiar with.

www.nilemagazine.com.au

Thats old kingdom one piece granite columns reused by Ramesses II in a new kingdom site. Direct evidence of at least 6 pink granite columns from the old kingdom reused in new kingdom sites.

There are many many granite ruins at Giza, Saqqara, Dahshūr, Marhum, Maydūm, Hawara, Abusir, and Abu Rawash. Many damaged, broken but there would have been many good pieces like these columns reused.

Look at these works from the early dynasties. Granite sarcophagus of Kaiemnofret 4th Dynasty, 2613-2494 BCE.

View attachment 369524 View attachment 369549

These bowls and stone dishes/platters are some of the finest ever found, and they are from the earliest period of ancient Egyptian civilization.
View attachment 369526 View attachment 369527
Working with soft stone such as alabaster is relatively simple, compared to granite. Alabaster can be worked with primitive tools and abrasives. The elegant workings in granite are a different matter and indicate not only a consummate level of skill, but a different and perhaps more advanced technology.

Ancient Egyptian Stone Technology - Lathe Turning - Spirit & Stone

www.theglobaleducationproject.org

The Schist Disk: Egypt and “Advanced” Technology

Since discovered in 1936 in the Egyptian village of Saqqara, the so-called “Schist Disk” has been used to support the widely-held contention that the ancient Egyptian culture acquired technology far superior to their own at some point in their development from an outside source. And while this...

www.historydefined.net

The Evidence is Cut in Stone: A Compelling Argument for Lost High Technology in Ancient Egypt
We find at many of the ancient sites in Egypt finely crafted works in basalt, granite, quartzite and diorite.

The Evidence is Cut in Stone: A Compelling Argument for Lost High Technology in Ancient Egypt

Most people know of the great construction achievements of the dynastic Egyptians such as the pyramids and temples of the Giza Plateau area as well as the Sphinx. Many books and videos show depictions of vast work forces hewing blocks of stone in the hot desert sun and carefully setting them...

www.ancient-origins.net

https://unsigned.io/granite-artifact/

We see later new kingdom vases with much less precision and in softer stones. Once again I am not claiming anything as to what is going on and how this was done. Rather I am pointing out these (out of place) works and signatures and that they don't match the picture painted of our history from primiotive to advanced.


The first thing to note is that there is a question over whether the granite and hard stone works attributed to the later New Kingdom are actually not usurped works from the old kingdom. I gave you the evidence of this actually happening.

The second point is that all the works apart from the pyramids themselves for good reasons of practicality ( making the pyramids with 2.5 million blocks of granite is impractical considering the lack of granite. Whereas the New Kingdom often worked in sandstone and limestone.

The third point is that the idea that the old kingdom had greater precision is false. It is the other way around. The greatest precision and geometry come from the old kingdom works. Which also acts as a signature for identifying works in the New KIngdom as actually old Kingdom works as the New KIngdom works had less precision.

For example the granite vases above and others from Djosers time are unmatched by later new kingdom vases.
View attachment 369551
Astonishing Results: Ancient Egyptian Granite Vases Analyzed

Do 6,000-Year-Old Artifacts Reveal the Use of Lost Machinery in Predynastic Egypt?

A newly revealed private collection of ancient Egyptian hard-stone vessels has ignited intense debate among archaeologists, engineers, and alternative historians alike.

www.ancient-origins.net

The rest of your post is incoherent babbling which as I have mentioned previously is either the result of a basic lack of comprehension skills or a deliberate effort of fabricating my post so you can make tailor made responses.
I am still undecided which one it is.

 

[stevevw]

The Sabu disk is not quite what has been implied on this site. The image attached makes it look like it was some sort of marbled injection mold. It is not quite so regular asthese images imply. (It was also crafted from fairly fine and soft stone, not granite or other hard stone.)

Fair enough. I think the pic is to highlight what it may have looked like when originally done. It has also been damaged. The shisch used is very brittle and I think that was the point. That it was not because it was hard but very brittle stone and the disc is so thin and finely crafted.

There are other vases and dish/plate type items that are made from the hardest stones which ware paper thin and even allow light to penetrate they are so thin. Just amazing works for such an early time.

 

[Tuur]

Was going to post a picture of the Energizer Bunny with the words "Still going," but it could be considered advertisement...

 

[stevevw]

And my point is that your "they did it 1000 years later" does not indicate anything about it being done in the 4th dynasty. You'd need *actual* evidence of that.

Ok but first showing that at least some of these works in granite and if not many that can be traced back to at least the old kingdom such as the 3rd and fourth dynasties then we are already showing that at this point this was advanced beyond what we give credit. This itself flips the script of less advanced to advanced tech and knowledge.

The whole topic of then showing advanced knowledge and tech then feeds into what the OP video was suggesting. Taking a step back from just Egypt we then have to look at the evidence for advanced knowledge and tech overall.

This goes back to the evidence re early hominum cognition happening earlier than thought. If the general timeline of say 12,000 years for sophisticated social living is pushed back 100,000 years.

Or the ability to erect shelters and even complex buildings goes back 100,000 or 200,000 years then generally humans are more advanced earlier than thought. By the time it came to the great megalithic times human type civilisations could have come and gone reaching great heights two or three times.

So therefore it becomes not so surpising that maybe we were pretty advanced 10 or 12,000 or 20,000 years ago and what we see is some reminants of this that was found later. All the organic materials in our earliest civilisations have disappeared and only the great stone megaliths and works are left.

@sjastro has addressed this far better than I could.

Ok and this is ongoing.

No one thought pre-dynastic and early dynastic Egypt were nomads. They built towns and cities.

Actually they did until recent discoveries. Ever heard of the Clovis First theory which was supported only a couple of decades ago and is still to some extent the proposed evolution of knowledge until too much evidenced has surfaced showing very early and complex cultivation, and social and religious behaviour.

But the general idea is still pushed that past knowledge was less advanced and today we are the most advanced. When it is ever suggested and we see it on this thread that having such advanced knowledge and tech is rediculous and that people are denying the hard work and artistry of ancience primitives. Who somehow can mimick advanced signatures.

I think its the same idea being promoted that these ancients were still primitive and with primitive tools and somehow created unbelievable works from sheer freehand rubbing and pounding. To me this is harder to believe because it defies logic and reality.

The time to build the great pyramids has been demonstrated by Egyptologists and in this thread. You have no excuse for making these claims.

Has it. There is conflicting evidence I think. Some carbon dating like the Dixon relic put the date to the period 3341-3094 BC, c.500 years earlier than the Great Pyramid, which historical records date to the reign of Pharaoh Khufu (2580-2560 BC).

This is not conclusive evidence in itself and more dating has also aligned with the recorded dates. But the nature of how the Egyptians built in stages also complicates things. We have possibly discovered much more to the pyramids underground. There may have been a core site there for 1,000s of years before the pyramid was made as big as it is.

Thats not taking away from that if Khufu and others did build such amazing works in the recorded time that this is not advanced knowledge due to the amazing precision, geometry, and advanced signatures in the works that defy the traditional tools on record.

Usurped is an odd word to use.

Flinders Petrie called Ramesses II the Great Usurper. Itts a common name because that is exactly what they are doing. Claiming other peoples works as their own to make themselves mighty.

He put a bunch of antiques a few centuries old in his tomb for the afterlife.

You make it sound so everyday lol. I also think he did it for fame. Ramesses II well known for his bragging and proclaiming how great he was due to his works. This seems a common trait especially with later pharoahs bragging how mighty they were as warriors.

Djoser accumulated many precision granite vases to be buried with him that were usurped from surrounding sites much earlier. It seems there were already some great works pre dynastics at least as early as 5,000 BC.

The prehistory of Nubia; [final report]

The prehistory of Nubia; [final report] : Combined Prehistoric Expedition to Egyptian and Sudanese Nubia : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

2 volumes (xi, 1084 pages) 29 cm

archive.org

Predynastic Site Emerges from the Sand: Nekhen, City of the Hawk

Predynastic Site Emerges from the Sand: Nekhen, City of the Hawk

Nekhen was once a bustling city located on the western bank of the River Nile in predynastic ancient Egypt, well before the construction of the pyramids. Also known as Hierakonpolis, the Greek for “City of the Hawk”

www.ancient-origins.net

(Apparently the thought they *could* take it with them.) They are in the style of vases dated to specific periods. Given that he died 4650 years ago (or so) something 5000 years old (as of today) isn't that old at his time. (Literally in the 1st Dynasty.) Are their marks on the 1st and 2nd Dynasty vases that say "Djoser made this"?

Its all hard to say I think. Nowhere near enough investigation at this stage. All we know is that Djsors had gathers many vases and plates/dishes many in the hardest stone that have been tested to advanced levels of tech. Or rather matching the signatures and not what we would expect from freehand artists.

Some of these may have come from earlier times as similar vases have been found at earlier predynastic sites. But either way it is still showing a very high level of knowledge and tech for that time.

Once again without getting into specific this is pointing to a revising of how we think human knowledge evolved from primitive to advanced with todays knowledge and tech being the most advanced because its today.

If these early works show similar and maybe more advanced knowledge then todays level of knowledge is just one version of advanced knowledge. It may have been expressed in a different way in prehistory times as reflected by the rise of megalithic cultures and what seems to be very sophisticated organised living.

That then disappeared and was lost over time.

Utter nonsense kept alive by that hack Hancock and his band of merry fools.

Why is it nonsense that prehistoric peoples used astronomical alignments. I am not saying this is the case and that it is ongoing. But we do have evidence going back as far as 7,500 years of pre Egyptians using atronomy to align their megaliths.

Astronomy at Nabta Playa, Southern Egypt
Nabta Playa may contain the oldest human-made features with astronomical alignments in Egypt. In the Late and Terminal Neolithic (7,500–5,400 BP), nomadic pastoralists built a ceremonial center on the western shore of Nabta Playa, consisting of some 30 complex megalithic structures, stone circles, and lines of megaliths crossing the playa. The megaliths may once have aligned with Arcturus, the Belt of Orion, Sirius, and α Cen.

Astronomy at Nabta Playa, Southern Egypt

Nabta Playa may contain the oldest human-made features with astronomical alignments in Egypt. In the Late and Terminal Neolithic (7,500–5,400 BP), nomadic pastoralists built a ceremonial center on the western shore of Nabta Playa, consisting of some 30 complex...

link.springer.com

Whatever connections your claims had to actual lost civilizations, it has ended (as we'd feared) in nonsense garbage pseudoscience. (Repetitiveness for emphasis.)

Actually I think you have derailed the thread into that from the first post which only supports my point that this is about a worldview and your worldview is that as soon as even a hint of alternative or advanced past knowledge is mentioned its put into the conspiracy box without proper and fair investigation.

Thus everything that anyone who suggests these possibilities are psudoscience even though much of what they say has also been supported by the scientific evidence ie classing the mention of precision vases as a conspiracy when extensive science supports the precision and advanced tech signatures.

The difference is I can take the conspiracies and sort them and be open to what is good and supported. Whereas you and those with the anti anything different worldview will dismiss it before it gets in the front door.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Fair enough. I think the pic is to highlight what it may have looked like when originally done. It has also been damaged. The shisch used is very brittle and I think that was the point. That it was not because it was hard but very brittle stone and the disc is so thin and finely crafted.

Except that it wasn't made of schist. The bowl was carved out of metasiltstone, a sedimentary rock that has undergone some metamorphism.


Ancient Egyptian Materials: Greywacke (schist)

There are other vases and dish/plate type items that are made from the hardest stones which ware paper thin and even allow light to penetrate they are so thin. Just amazing works for such an early time.

The works you have displayed now and in the past are amazing works of craftsmanship, but that doesn't make them impossible in the early dynastic period.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Actually they did until recent discoveries.

Think that "pre-dynastic and early dynastic Egypt were nomads"?

You do know that both of those are terms of art to periods of Egyptian civilization, right? Places with stone artifacts, tombs, and even some evidence of recorded names, right?

Ever heard of the Clovis First theory which was supported only a couple of decades ago and is still to some extent the proposed evolution of knowledge until too much evidenced has surfaced showing very early and complex cultivation, and social and religious behaviour.

We've talked about "Clovis First" in the past, but it has exactly nothing to do with Egypt. "Clovis First" is about the Americas/New World not Egypt or any place in the Eastern Hemisphere. "Clovis First" (which held that the earliest migrants to the Americas had brought the hunter/gather tools and stone industry called "Clovis culture" (notablely the distinct "Clovis point" with them as an explanation for the rapid and sudden apparance of a uniform material culture throughout the two continents and a lack of evidence of prior human occupation.

"Clovis First" fell because Upper Paleolithic sites that clearly predated the Clovis culture emergence were found. They were not sites of "early and complex cultivation" or any cultivation at all. No one makes any claims abut "social and religious" behavior of early humans in the Americas. Even the "late date" versions for a "cognitive revolution" is well before settlement of the Western Hemisphere.

But the general idea is still pushed that past knowledge was less advanced and today we are the most advanced.

In what world does *anyone* think ancient cultures were more technologically advanced than our industrial, electronic, spacefaring civilization?

When it is ever suggested and we see it on this thread that having such advanced knowledge and tech is rediculous and that people are denying the hard work and artistry of ancience primitives. Who somehow can mimick advanced signatures.

Sometimes it is hard to figure out what "ancient advanced knowledge" you think there was. You have in the past you have promoted "results" from people who think there was computer controlled machining or lasers in the ancient past. That *is* utter nonsense. Please tell us you don't believe such things.

I think its the same idea being promoted that these ancients were still primitive and with primitive tools and somehow created unbelievable works from sheer freehand rubbing and pounding. To me this is harder to believe because it defies logic and reality.

"Freehand rubbing and pounding" what on Earth does that mean? You don't think a sculptor couldn't mark the outline of a design onto the surface of a rock, regardless of the tool types, do you?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok but first showing that at least some of these works in granite and if not many that can be traced back to at least the old kingdom such as the 3rd and fourth dynasties then we are already showing that at this point this was advanced beyond what we give credit. This itself flips the script of less advanced to advanced tech and knowledge.

I don't know this material. I'll let you argue with @sjastro on that one. Even if you are correct about 3rd & 4th Dynasties making obelisks with granite it doesn't get you anywhere to the widespread earlier civilization lost in the archeological record of the OP & video.

The whole topic of then showing advanced knowledge and tech then feeds into what the OP video was suggesting. Taking a step back from just Egypt we then have to look at the evidence for advanced knowledge and tech overall.

Egypt doesn't do that. Having sophisticated stone work in 4500 BCE instead of 3500 BCE doesn't change anything about the cognitive revolution concept.

This goes back to the evidence re early hominum cognition happening earlier than thought. If the general timeline of say 12,000 years for sophisticated social living is pushed back 100,000 years.

Sophisticated is a value judgement, but social living has been the hallmark of our ancestors for millions of years. (I'll note that nothing in the last 100,000 years can be called "early Hominin" at all. Those are modern humans. "Early Hominins" would be several million years ago with the first habitually bipedal walkers.

Or the ability to erect shelters and even complex buildings goes back 100,000 or 200,000 years then generally humans are more advanced earlier than thought.

I know this is the apparent theme of this thread, but it has nothing to do with any of the evidence we have discussed in a long time. I frankly don't see what the big deal is. Perhaps that is because I (for a long time) considered Neanderthals to be so fully human that they were just a subspecies "Homo sapiens neanderthalensis". I did so because I took the biological species concept too seriously (reproductive barriers and all that) and non-Africans have detectable ancestry from Human-Neanderthal hybrids (a few percent). By that reasoning, I held that both humans and neanderthals were basically fully cognitively modern.

So by this I am not going to be shocked or wowed by any claims of constructed settlements that are 124,273 years old, but I'm not going to accept any counterfactuals like that civilization built the Giza pyramids when there is evidence to who did it and when.

By the time it came to the great megalithic times human type civilisations could have come and gone reaching great heights two or three times.

And left little signs. Raw speculation and bad claims about things we can date doesn't impact the truth or not of any of these lost civilziations. We need direct evidence of them.

So therefore it becomes not so surpising that maybe we were pretty advanced 10 or 12,000 or 20,000 years ago and what we see is some reminants of this that was found later. All the organic materials in our earliest civilisations have disappeared and only the great stone megaliths and works are left.

yes, and?

 

[stevevw]

Except that it wasn't made of schist. The bowl was carved out of metasiltstone, a sedimentary rock that has undergone some metamorphism.


Ancient Egyptian Materials: Greywacke (schist)

ok but its still a good example of skill.

The works you have displayed now and in the past are amazing works of craftsmanship, but that doesn't make them impossible in the early dynastic period.

I don't know the test so far seem to point to it being near impossible.

Conclusions In Summary​

Based on the best understanding we currently have of the object, and on the knowledge of normal fundamental limits of physics and laws of nature, we have to conclude:

• That this object was fabricated on a highly sophisticated subtractive manufacturing system, from a solid piece of granite.
• That the manufacturing system would require, at the very least, sophisticated mechanical technology and high-precision components.
• That the manufacturing system would necessarily have been guided by an automated control system, which could read the design as input, and produce the required motions as output.
• That a turing machine, of considerable sophistication, would most likely have been employed to create and operate on the design, and to finally transfer it to the manufacturing system.

There is no way, in which we can attribute the production of this artefact, to anyone who do not possess, at minimum, the level of technological sophistication and capabilities mentioned above. This raises some very interesting questions regarding the origin of the object, which we hope to be able to explore in future work.

Abstractions Set In Granite

This article will describe the preliminary results of our ongoing analysis of the Granite Artefact scan data, our CAD reconstruction, and some remarkable insights into the design of the object.

unsigned.io