I understood what you said. I am saying I disagree. That at least some of the granite works which mostly come from the old kingdom and rarely if ever made in the new kingdom is still standing today in Krnak and Luxor and other places.
Like the very obelisk we are discussing. That obeliske is part of a granite core of works that the rest of the temple is built around. It maybe that an existing temple with granite works from the old kingdom was still standing at its core and was then built around.
Think about it. If there are pillar bases under the pillars of the new kingdom pillars then there was a complete old kindom temple there. The entire contents of that Temple don't just disappear. Especially when its granite.
The fact that little granite works come from the new kingdom and all the works are granite in the old kingdom and the signatures on the granite pillars for example match the signatures of other old kingdom works then this suggest they are old kingdom works.
Ramesses II was renowned for usurping older works. Heres an example of him doing just that at a similar site in Tanis with an obeliske that looks remarkably similar as the one at Karnak.
I think case the obelisk was usurped as a block for building a wall as you can see the glyphs are veritical rather than horizontal. But the tell tale sign that this obelisk was reused is how the later glyphs are trying to blend in with older original markings. This is often seen on older works where Ramesses stamped his mark over older marks ie
View attachment 369454 View attachment 369455
This is another pink granite obeliske at Karnak with a similar fine saw cut. Except this time it runs up the obeliskes to the top around 40 meters high. Notice next to the granite works there is a sandstone block wall butted into the obelisk.
This shows the two destinct works and how later new kingdom pharoahs like Rammess II came along and used existing works and then put his name on them. The same glyphs are on both the sandstone and granite.
View attachment 369452 View attachment 369451
PS I am not making any claims as to what all these represent. Just pointing out these apparent out of place artifacts and signatures. I welcome whatever explanation to work out whats going on.
How can you say this. As far as I understand it is the exact opposite. It is the New Kingdom and Romans who built in sandstone and sections. Their sandstone pillars are built by column sections stacked which a shaped top section and perhaps bottom section for the base.
Whereas all the examples of pillars or in fact anything like statues, obelisks, boxes, and vases are made in the hardest stones like granite diorite, basalt and even Corundum.
In the image below we see the sandstone columns of Karnak Temple a new kingdom site. See the unfinished pillar in the left image from the new kingdom. In the same site we see a sandstone new kingdom pillar almost pushed up against a one piece granite pillar as though trying to copy it.
Why would two destinct pillars in different stone and levels of tech be made at the same time. Its as though the later pharoahs found the original granite works and tried to copy them and add to them.
View attachment 369457
For comparison as to why some say that these granite pillars actually have the signatures of old kingdom works is how they are almost the same as old kingdom pillars on record ie single piece pink granite pillars from Abu Sir, and Giza. One example (far left) in the Cairo museum. Another two examples in Cairo and British museums.
Notice the similarities in signatures between these old kingdom examples and the one piece pillar at Luxor next to the sandstone new kingdom pillars. It seems that the granite pillars were an old kingdom core of all granite which is the hallmark of old kingdom works as they only worked in the hardest stones.
More likely later new kingdom additions which tried to copy the originals. If we are going by signatures then I think this is a reasonable conclusion.
View attachment 369461 View attachment 369462 View attachment 369463
Just because a new kingdom pharoah or kings name is stamped on the work doesn't mean it was from that period. We already have evidence that later pharoahs usurped old kingdom works which were always in granite. Chances are some of the granite works in new kingdom sites were there before hand and then later used.
Ok I think I have shown above evidence that old kingdom granite works were reused by later pharoahs and kings especially Ramesses II. There are dozens of examples I could show where a later glyph has been stamped over the top of earlier art on statues and boxes. I gave pics of the poor writing later inscribed on the precision boxes at the Serapeum of Saqqara.
Ok this is a good example. I don't know how to explain it. But its an anomely as you acknowledge this level of tech and knowledge was rarely seen. Only in the earliest dynasties and now it looks like with the 18th dynasty. Maybe they found the secret and lost it again.
But evenso this level of tech even for the 18th dynasty is well beyond the primitive tools. From memory I think the Thutmose III is similar to the Ramesses II statues. Especially the face which is perfectly symmetrical and not just for the one statue but each was exactly the same like there was some sort of template.
There is spectulation that because these statues also resemble the signatures of the example I gave from the old kingdom that like the pillars and boxes and other works being attributed because of a later stamp that they may actually be old kingdom works.
The overall point is we generally don't see that level of precision and quality in new kingdom works and all the best examples come from the old kingdom. So it seems because the signatures are so similar to old kingdom works and because new kingdom kings were known for usurping and that most of these sites have foundations from the old kingdom that some of those works are still standing and were used later.
I think that logic works so far. Like how you identified the fine saw cut as a modern tool and impossible for an ancient copper saw. The tool does make a difference. We cut fine precision lines today that look like the signatures in the early works. But its the modern tool that creates this and not the artist.
To say that it was art and blind hand shaping that produced the level of what we relate as modern machines seems unreal. They somehow in their artistry and blind shaping fell up a perfection that most say can only be achieved by advanced CAD.
Just like you could identify the signature of a more modern cut in the example the same signatures for modern tooling, advanced geometry and alignment at the level beyond what we would consider freehand. This I think is just as unreal as the conspiracies.
Actually I don't think it is. There is a large number of well known out of place works. No one disputes that. Its a matter of how this happened and what all the debates are over.
I honestly don't know. First like I said before we even talk about whether a steel or copper saw the type of cut is not suitable for a hand saw fullstop. It has to be something like a circular saw that cuts into the stone from above and runs along. That would mean at least 18th century and not dynasty.
Then you haave the problem of how on earth they could have even cut the example where it goes all the way to the top some 40 meters in the air. How could you even hold the saw in place. Would not such a large project have been mentioned.
But the biggest issue I think is the signature of these fine, sharp and straight cuts are seen in many places such as the blockwork, boxes, pillars, obelisks and vases. The same modern machine signature.
chrisnaunton.com
