I believe that many friends know the architectural achievements of ancient Egypt, such as pyramids, temples in the Giza Plateau region and sphinxes. Many books and videos depict scenes of large laborers chiseling stones in the scorching desert sun and then carefully placing them in place. However, some of these stunning works could not have been accomplished under the conditions of the time.
Exquisite works made of basalt, granite, quartzite and diorite have been found at many ancient sites in Egypt, which are so hard stones that even hardened iron tools cannot effectively shape them. For most of Egyptian history, the tools used to shape the stone were made of hardened bronze, but it was much softer than iron.
Next, we will look at some examples of ancient processes that process hard stones that could not have been created during the period of ancient Egypt, around 2500 to 1500 BC, however, most scholars still believe that they were made during that period.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="4" > unfinished obelisk</h1>
Archaeologists say Hatshepsut, a female ruler who ascended the throne in 1478 BC, approved the construction of the larger of the two temples. If completed, it will be about 42 meters long and weigh about 1200 tons, and it will be almost a third larger than any ancient Egyptian obelisk. But the big question is: what tools could be used to sculpt this monumental stone monument, and how the Egyptians planned to lift it up from the pit in which it was located, given its enormous size. For people at the time, most Egyptologists considered round and hand-held dolomite to be the primary tool.
Fundamentally, the hardness of any tool should be greater than the material being cut or formed. The unfinished obelisk is made up of pink granite with a Mohs hardness between 6 and 7 (the largest being a diamond of 10), so it is essentially the same hardness as dolomite, making the latter the material that shapes the former seems plausible. Bronze, another tool known to have been used by the ancient Egyptians, was much softer, with an average Mohs hardness of 3.5.
Other problems encountered when the obelisk was not completed were that there was little space in the trench to carry out a heavy blow, and such repeated blows could also break the obelisk. Christopher Dunn, author of The Lost Technology of Ancient Egypt: Advanced Engineering in the Temple of the Pharaohs, said: "The unfinished obelisk provides convincing indirect evidence of the level of technology reached by its creators – not a clear indication of what methods were used, but a powerful illustration of which methods were unlikely to be used."
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" What tools have been shaped > data-track="30"? </h1>
The idea that the hand-held dolomite was the cause of the obelisk's unfinished must be abandoned. However, what kind of technology could be the culprit? Chris Dunn's view is that if the pattern left behind by the tools there is observed, especially on the ditch wall surrounding the unfinished obelisk, there is a uniform pattern, and hand tools such as rammed ones are unlikely to be used.
"When interrupts leave marks on a surface, horizontal streaks are the typical cutting method. Similarly, it may be because the tool swings back and forth on the groove wall to remove waste from the vertical wall, so the tool places the cutting surface on the side wall to prevent horizontal stripes where the groove narrows. In other words, the ancient Egyptian dynasties simply did not have this form of technology.
If the people of ancient Egypt could not do this work, and the later Greeks and Romans were not interested in doing it, then who did it and when? We have no choice but to accept the idea that there was already a civilization before our so-called pharaohs, and in fact, this civilization has formed what we call high technology, and that these people lived in this region before 3100 BC.
Of course, many people will ask, where are the tools to do this kind of work? We know that some strange devices and materials have been found at archaeological sites around the world because they do not conform to the traditional historical paradigm of being marked, boxed and hidden from view. Sir William Flinders Petrie was one of the greatest Egyptologists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Petrie found a number of cores at University College London in London, many of which are now housed in museums named after him. True hollow drills have not yet been discovered, but cores formed from limestone, granite and other stone products have been discovered.
Chris Dunn spent several hours at the Pitry Museum and was allowed to examine some of the cores for himself. Here, he discusses one of the features: the most fascinating feature of a granite core is the spiral groove around the core, indicating that the drill bit feeds at a rate of 0.100 inches per revolution. It is 500 times faster than modern diamond drills, but the rotation speed of the drill bits is not as fast as modern drills at 900 revolutions per minute.
The oft-quoted view that these cores were achieved using bows and copper tubes and sand particles as abrasives must also be discarded because the tools copied by modern processes have not reached the level of efficiency described above.
In 1936, in the sakkara archaeological area, Petri discovered the tomb of Prince Sabu, the son of Pharaoh Achulib, ruler of the Egyptian I dynasty (3000 BC). Among the funerary items that were excavated, a "container in the form of a flaky bowl" caught his attention.
Years later, in his previously mentioned work Ancient Egypt, he used one word to comment on the object "cachibache". The word perfectly encapsulates the reality of the time, and the reflection that the object evoked.
According to archaeologists and Egyptologists, the object is nothing more than the base of a tray or some candlestick, the design of which is the product of blind fortuitousness. "I am personally very surprised that such a controversial work is still on display at the Cairo Museum and wonder what stranger things are hidden in their warehouses."
In Karnak, a huge temple complex, we found many examples of ancient core drilling, one of which was larger in diameter than a human hand. As the photos show, 21st-century technology can't be so thin that even engineers and mining experts can't explain what material the drill is made of.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="31" > huge granite sarcophagus</h1>
Another confusing site is the Serapeem of Segara, which houses huge granite sarcophagus that many scholars believe were built during the Egyptian dynasty. In the 13th century BC, a tunnel was excavated through limestone bedrock, the side chambers of which were designed to house large granite sarcophagus weighing at least 70 tons each to preserve the mummified remains of the Apis bull.
Manufacturer Chris Dunn has been manufacturing complex metal parts for the aerospace industry for decades and knows what precision surfaces look like. He studied sarcophagus several times and used precision gauges to measure the flatness of their granite and limestone surfaces. Here are his thoughts, taken from an article by himself:
"Their characteristics suggest that their creators used the same tools as the Kavreux Pyramid and possessed the same skills and knowledge. In addition, the stone boxes at these two sites prove a higher purpose than mere burial sarcophagus. Their machining accuracy is quite high, the four corners are obviously square, and the size of the inner four corners is much sharper than what one can find in prehistoric artifacts. All of these features are extremely difficult to achieve, and none of them are necessary for a burial sarcophagus. ”
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="32" > surprising meaning</h1>
Although it may be argued that modern humans could not apply a modern view of artefacts thousands of years ago, the discovery of the precision level of these artifacts also lacks archaeological documentation. As an engineer and craftsman who has been engaged in manufacturing for more than 40 years, and already has a precision manufacturing process in the modern world, this prehistoric achievement deserves more recognition in my opinion.
No one would do this kind of work unless it had an extraordinary purpose; technicians wouldn't even think of this precision unless there was no other way to accomplish the artefact's intent; and the only other reason it could be created in a project was that the tools used to create it were so precise that they couldn't produce anything below that precision. In either case, we assume that prehistoric civilizations are higher than currently recognized civilizations. For me, the impact was amazing.
We also need to consider that most of the sarcophagus in Serapeem is made of granite and is likely to have been transported from the Aswan quarry, which is about 800 km from Sakkara. Not only that, but the lid of each sarcophagus is hewn out of the same stone as the sarcophagus.
If it doesn't matter how valuable the stuff is, why do the makers go to such trouble?
Welcome to leave a comment on the small partner.