Its ironical you refer to common sense when you can’t tell us what technology was used let lone evidence for it,
Thats because I don't know. Thats the commonsense answer. The evidence is in the difference between what the existing tools in the records are capable of doing and the signatures in the rocks which are completely different and show how its impossible for those tools to achieve those signatures.
Thats all. I don't know how this was achieved. It would require the same analogy that shows the existing tools don't fit. That is looking at the signatures and working out what sort of tools or tech it would take to produce such signatures.
yet we have plentiful evidence of tools you deem impossible from a technological perspective such as chisels, adzes, saws, drills, knives and needles made from cooper.
Yes but they seem insuffient at least for some works. For example the image I showed of a clean, sharp and perfectly flat cut around 4 feet x 4 feet. Some are twice as big. I don;t think the small saws in the records nor any hand held saw could produce such a machined finished.
Dolerite pounding stones were made from granite and temple and tomb reliefs show the ancient Egyptians used bow drills for a variety of operations and manual labour to transport stone blocks and obelisks over land.
I know I have been down this path before going over all the experiments trying to replicate the same. Like I said I just don't know as there sugnatures and tools don't seem to match. I mean I know they were used for some things. But it seems stranged that they could bash into shape such fine works and detail.
Why should this inferior technology exist if doesn't work while there is not a shred of evidence for a superior technology whatever that may be?
Well if we stop and look at all the greatest works such as the mega pyramids and all the works that go with this such as the precision pottery, statues and boxes as well as the some massive obelisks and statues weighting near 1,000 tons.
We can see a short period of superior works more or less in the earliest dynasties that seems to disappear and we followed by less quality works. Its usually the other ay around. So its nothing to sneeze at. Its still an amazing achievement where an ancient people have achieved greater heights than those who came later.
I think I remember someone saying that the great pyramid was the tallest building in the world up until the 19th century when the Eiffel Tower was built.
Here is a simple quiz question, one man using your super-duper technology which is unknown can carve out a stone block in 5 minutes, compared to 1000 men working on 1000 blocks taking 24 hrs using copper chisels for each man to carve out a single block.
Which produces the greater number?
What should be blindingly obvious even though the single man has a vastly superior output rate, the total output from 1000 men using inferior technology is greater.
Its not just the manpoer though. It is the signatures in the rocks that tell us that this does not match 1 or 1,000 men cutting the stone. It is a completely different signature to a small or even large hand saw that grinds and chips away. Rather cut cut like a machine. Or cuts through rock like its soft.
Classical writers and modern Egyptologists have numbered the workforce on the Great Pyramid composed of permanent skilled workers, seasonal labourers such as farmers and support staff composed of cooks, water carriers, logistics and transport teams as around 20,000 – 40,000.
In some ways this manpower is the advanced achievement. If it is just simple tools and manpower then that sort of makes it even more incredible. But I also think there is evidence for something other than manpower and simple tools. Maybe a tech we don't understand.
For example there is speculation that the ancient peoples of the Amazon concoted some mixture to soften rocks. Perhaps an ancient science that toyed with natural elements. We know of the natural remedies the South Americans and even in my country with Aboriginals going back 30,000 years.
Ancient Egypt was composed of a loose confederation of 42 regional districts or provinces known as nomes each run by a governor or nomarch.
In the early 4th dynasty the pharaohs had complete control over the nomarchs and were able to command a large workforce for pyramid construction recruited from the nomes. In later times the nomarchs became more independent as the pharaohs lost central authority resulting in a decline in the quality and size of pyramids.
It seemed to be much the same in Moses time where even the proto Isrealites were enslaved to build. Pharoahs would bring captives back to work the mines and build.
Talk about a false equivalence, it took 10 years longer than planned to build the Opera House, due to last minute alterations in the shell design, political pressure to reduce costs and engineering problems that were encountered in producing a complicated unique structure.
Its good you know this. Are you an Aussie lol. Come to think of it I remember the blow out and people complaining. We had tough unions back then. Especially the builders and dockers which was around the harbor where the Opera house was.
Ok poor example. But there are others where it has taken years to build even with machines. I recall a big Russian status that took ages even with modern trucks and tracks. Another was a big hole they had to fill which was around the size of the Giza pyaramid and it 1,000s of truckloads over 10 years.
By comparison Snefru had two goes at pyramid building before getting it right using a workforce of thousands in building a structure considerably less complicated than the Sydney Opera House.
How many tombs does one Pharoah need lol. Thats a bit greedy.
Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.
A characteristic of all pyramids today is the outer casing stones are largely gone. Instead of repairing and enhancing pyramids, the later dynastic Egyptians vandalized the pyramids removing the stones for their own monuments and buildings. The tradition was carried on by their Roman and Arab conquerors.
This shows how superior the earliest stuff was that they would rather tear it down than honor it. I think from memory the Bent pyramid and earier works were built on sand rather than bedrock and this caused them to collapse at the edges.
But the true works are under the ground. Even the earliest such as the Step pyramid has miles of tunnels and a giant box. Which points to the inner part being made before the outer as the box blocks are too bog to fit through the tunnels and pyramid entrance.
This has been explained to you which extends to art in general.
Old Kingdom art reached its pinnacle in the 4th dynasty along with pyramid building.
Not just art but I think religion, the gods. Much of these works all over the world are made for the gods. Or as the cultures themselves say, "made by the gods".
Thats sort of my point. That it seems the greatest and most amazing works come very early and are heavily linked to religious belief that is motivating this great expression.
You could imagine that all over the world cultures had reached this pinnacle point where they had these great monoliths and other precision and fine works which have not been surpassed. Later peoples have honored these works but never being able to replicate them. So they worship them like they are from the gods.
By the 7th and 8th dynasties the normarchs mentioned earlier had become independent of the pharaohs who became puppet rulers.
The normarchs began fighting amongst themselves leading to a period of protracted civil war and a collapse in civilization as evidenced by the serious decline in quality and quantity of art.
Ok. I would have thought they could have made more of an effort for their gods. Take some tips from the ancestors. Instead of fighting all the time. That was their downfall.
You can throw out a myriad of these examples but if you cannot show what technologies were used instead, your argument is nothing more than of personal incredulity and modern day snobbery against the ancients.
How does not showing how they were made deminish that the signatures in the rocks don't match the claimed tools either. It does not follow that because we cannot work out how they did it that they did not do it with something other than the tools on record. Its a matter of logic and deduction.
If the tools on record don't match then they are not the tools. If we cannot find the tools that may have produced the signatures that doesn't mean we have to then say ok it was the tools on record. It just means we don't know yet.
We know what could make such signatures but obviously that would not be available. So there must have been some other way we have not worked out yet.
We know new ideas have come forward like the hydro lift theory for getting blocks to the upper levels of the pyramids. So it may be some other ingenious idea we have yet to discover.
The same logic can be applied to the current tools on record. There are missing tools because the current tools on record cannot account for the signatures. So therefore until the missing tools in the mainstream records are produced this also brings mainstream accounts into question.
