First I am not just talking about circular saws when referring to advanced methods. Machined saw cuts could be circular or straight. Its obvious that some are straight cuts. I showed you the long straight cuts along tops of stones which moved with the contours of the surface. Something impossible for a hand held saw.
View attachment 372976
Second whatever cut the ancient stone is going to be advanced for that time but not exactly like todays diamond tipped cutters.
Third it may not even be like a circular saw cutting the way todays cut. It seems some are routed or plane into an arc. Anyway your example still doesn't explain the arc cuts. Straight hand held giant saws cannot cut in arcs or around bends or with contours of the surface.
First a reminder. You are doing exactly what I am doing in looking at the witness marks. So please don't attack me for linking images that don't fit your claims. But I agree this is a good first step to working out what caused the marks. By simple observations which is science. Well the first step anyway. Its also interesting how the marks can be seen differently by people.
Yes this is a good example of what many think is machining of some sort. The surface is over 4,000 years old and with wear it has lost some of its strirations. But even still many are continious, very uniform, paralell and most important, deep.
This doesn't look like the signature of random hand rubbing or grinding. Those strirations are long uniform and deep. Abrasion does not cause long, deep uniform strirations. The grit is random and quickly grinds into powder before it can take hold and cut deep long continious strirations. Some almost across the entire slab and only faint perhaps because of wear. Hand grinding and rubbing is random and all over the place.
But lets grant this is the result of hand and not machining.
The biggest bit of evidence that I think this was not a big hand held saw or random grinding and rubbing is the arc at the end of the cut. The surface is machined to a high level of flatness and the edges are sharp and thin. In fact the strirations seem to follow the same arc at the end of the cut which stops before the uncut surface.
View attachment 372963
View attachment 372962
View attachment 372964
It may also be that this was the result of cutting and not the finishing rubbibf or grinding. It may be that the arc cutter did several runs which overlapped strirations. But there is an arc in the strirations which match the arc at the edge where it stops go right up against it and follow the same arc.
A bit like the arc and strirations on the pink granite slab I linked earlier from Abu Sir. Did they hand grind or sand the arcs onto the granite.
View attachment 372965
Yes thats a lot of blocks and hard to believe that all the blocks in all the pyramids were cut by copper saw as it takes so long. How do we know that the blocks were not weakened before cutting. That would make it faster. Like the scoop marks where the small dolerite pounders were inadequare over time and something extra was needed.
Like I said there could have been more than one method. Your creating an either/or fallacy that all cuts must follow the same method. When there may have been several methods. Including the traditional slower methods or a combination of methods at once ie traditional copper saws with weakened or softened stone.
Could be. But like the research on the dolerite pounders there may be additional methods and tools that produced the results. I will have to look into the actual blocks of the pyramids. Its an interesting point. I know there are certain theories.
So your saying these blocks were not even cut by a hand saw but pounded into shape. Thats an interesting take. Most believe they were cut. They even replicate the method showing copper saws cutting blocks with sand crystals lol. So we have two completely different methods even for mainstream.
If you would have said these blocks were cut by copper saw and so raough like they had been ground out rather than cut out. Then I would have said if copper saws produce such rough signatures then why do other cuts produce such sharp, fine and straight cuts like a diamond cutter.
So who knows and thats part of the forensics or reverse engineering or investigation as to what could have caused the marks. As you said the rough blocks were covered for a long time. So even erosion needs to be taken into consideration.
There was some investigation of the outer limestone blocks covering the pyramids. It seems they were not cut stones but molded stones from some sort of geopolymer stone.
Paleomagnetic investigation of the great egyptian pyramid
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2012/06/epn2012436p28.pdf
A 2011 Nuclear magnetic resonance spectrum were obtained from
Senefru's Bent Pyramid as well as the two limestone quarries in the area. The results show that the casing stones are the result of limestone grains from the Tura quarry Giza but cemented with an amorphis calcium silicate gel formed by human intervention.
Were the casing stones of Senefru's Bent Pyramid in Dahshour cast or carved?: Multinuclear NMR evidence
Interestingly the Famine Stele which is engraved in a rock near Elephantine North of Aswan mentions two famous Egyptians. Pharoah Zorza and Imhotep. It was engraved in about 200BC with various clues that cause Egyptologist to think it was much earlier. Dating back to perhaps around the 3rd dynasty.
The most controversial aspect of this Stele is that when it talks about building large stone structures theres no mention of any construction stones. Instead Pharoah Zorza was given a list of minerals and Ors. Many have studied the text and say its instructions for processing different minerals that could be the minerals involved in the fabrication of man made stone.
