Ancient Egyptian drill holes question

[abaddon]

Of course we have but we also have a technology for it. What I meant was, that we can not reproduce those holes with the technology the egyptians must have had. Or can we? That was my initial question! Can we? Has anybody done that, so we could end the woo arguments for ever.



Well, i've explained it repeatedly but it couldn't hurt to do one more time:
By showing that the egyptians could have done it with tools and technology they had in those days (and of course with sufficient practicality, meaning that even if they could've carved them after a horrible painstaken period of time and effort, i dont think they actually did it this way because even then people had some sense about wasting time and energy if you know what i mean) we can eliminate FOREVER any of their arguments that they had no means to do it.

Yeah, well, ok...we can't convince the real woos but we can show the hesitant people that woo's suggestions aren't actually correct.

Multiple posters have handed you practical examples of this.

Why are you still claiming that it has never even been attempted?

 

[abaddon]

Our "debunker" OP has gone missing. It would have been interesting to hear what s/he had to say to all the mountains of evidence assembled in this thread showing interesting but mundane explanations for this issue.

I guess you have your answer.

 

[Noriabooks]

What is your objection to the multiple examples of that very thing which have been provided for you in this very thread?

If you would read my posts (and sorry if they are a bit messy cause english isn't my native language), you would see, that my ONLY objection is that none of the modern attempts to replicate those drillings don't have anything like the quality of egyptian holes. At least I haven't come across any good replication. And that was the only thing I actually asked from you - is there any good replication made nowadays? What's the problem with understandig a fairly simple question? If there is, I'm glad if someone points it out. If no, then there's not and thats crap and just say it. We're just gonna wait for one to finally pop out.

 

[Noriabooks]

Multiple posters have handed you practical examples of this.

Why are you still claiming that it has never even been attempted?

Well, i'm still working my way down through all the posts made while I was away. Maybe the gold is in the bottom. Just give me some time, i'm only in the middle of the first page

 

[Noriabooks]

It seems to me that, if someone wants to believe that Egyptian stone-drilling skills are (a) impossible to replicate, or (b) must have used some advanced technique, then logical explanations, or 'we don't actually know every detail' simply will not be accepted!

Honestly, that is NOT my case. And i'm completely baffled how you guys still don't understand what and why I'm asking. It's like you don't even read what i'm writing.

 

[abaddon]

Rollin', rollin', rollin', keep those goalposts rollin'

Now your objection is a subjective assessment of the quality of a given hole according to criteria you have not identified other than what you have decided a replica "should" look like.

Again.

Those look perfectly fine to me.

 

[Noriabooks]

It's even worse for Noriabooks. Such ancient drilling techniques actually have been replicated despite his/her protestations to the contrary that we can't.

Yes, this paper is very good, as is also the oocities website, someone linked earlier.

I still have to repeat, that i am completely aware of their technologies known to us today. There's nothing complicated about it. I have been repeatedly telling since my first post, that i am looking for a contemporary attempt to replicate the same results the egyptians got in hard stone drilling. You know...the experimental archaeologists. People who get an idea, that whoa, maybe they did this way and then they replicate the conditions ad give it a real try. They take, say, a chunk of granite and a bronce cylinder and a handful of sand and a bow and start drilling. And they record it. and they see the results. And if the results are comparable to the originals they cheer! Because they damn solved a question. That is what i'm looking for. Because everybody interested in this topic kows the possible techiques you have showed. Don't get me wrong. I'm gratetful for you for these links although there's nothing new but i have to point out, that obviously we can't compare an attempt to drill an alabaster (1.7 mochs) with granite drilling (6-7 mochs). So, now you maybe understand what I'm looking for. So no hard feelings i suppose....

PS! There are NO new goalposts. Dont put words into my mouth that I haven't said. I've been pointing this out since the beginning! Read the first line of the 4th paragraph of my FIRST post! The question of the quality has been the issue since beginning.

 

[Noriabooks]

It took me only a few moments to find this:

Web content from 16 years ago, describing some practical archaeology carried out for the Nova TV show, including trepanning into granite with a copper tube drill and sand as the abrasive.

So when someone actually tries the technique, it turns out that it works.

Ok, here we go! Wasn't THAT hard? Well, I can only blame myself for not finding it on my own but what can I do? I just didn't. Excuse me. Right!

If this drill result they show, is really theirs, then this is the jackpot! That is EXACTLY what I'm looking for!! The only thing I'm worried is that this site doesn't have much information about it. Just a couple af pics and as a skeptic, you might understand yourself that this is just a bit too few to prove something. But really, thank you very much for finding even that much. This may give me some hope that someone has done this with a bit more documentation if you know what I mean.

Can you tell me more specifically, if there are any videos or better references about what they do/did? No newer materials? Everything i find about them online seems to be from past. I'm just always looking for better material, nothing else.

 

[Tolls]

You won't get it, because the people that test out these concepts are happy that, by showing that something works to a rough degree, that the same thing could easily have been improved by the Egyptians (or whoever) by simply putting more effort into it.

All these things are are a proof of concept.

The same thing as applies to showing how the blocks for the pyramids could be moved. No one is going to build a pyramid.
Just as here, no one is going to polish up a vase using (likely) Egyptian techniques.

 

[Noriabooks]

It would certainly be very surprising indeed if the tool marks left in the drilled holes or the removed cores were spiral (implying a very fast cutting speed) but my first thought is that it would be such a "holy cow!" discovery that somebody would have mentioned it. It's not something you're likely to resolve by searching through still images unless you can get a really good profile picture of a core, clear enough to see that the grooves are exactly at right angles to the cut.

Well, i havent heard yet the woos to mention that the grooves are spiral. But they suggest, that the grooves indicate the step of cut and it's supposed to be too deep. So i figured it out that if they were right about them indicating the cut speed, then they MUST be spiral. That would be the only way the woo's argument would hold water. That is why I asked, if anybody has even checked if they are spiral or not because if not, it would be an easy gravestone for woo's theories.

 

[HansMustermann]

@Noriabooks
May I humbly suggest reading the site I linked, and click on the PDF? It actually deals EXACTLY with drilling in such a way that produces the striations on that core. And has microscope photos of the original striations, which, big surprise, actually aren't very spiral.

It seems to me like, for better or worse, it is EXACTLY the answer you keep asking for.

Here's the link again:

http://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/ancient-egyptian-stone-drilling/

Now I'm not going to accuse you of anything (it's irrelevant anyway), but it would be more productive if you read it and then continue the discussion from there.

 

[Noriabooks]

You won't get it, because the people that test out these concepts are happy that, by showing that something works to a rough degree, that the same thing could easily have been improved by the Egyptians (or whoever) by simply putting more effort into it.

It's the first time I hear someone saying that scientists are happy with some sloppy, semi-good results if there's a possibility to get a better one. I think you should re-evaluate your standards.

The same thing as applies to showing how the blocks for the pyramids could be moved. No one is going to build a pyramid.
Just as here, no one is going to polish up a vase using (likely) Egyptian techniques.

About moving the blocks there's actually no problem. Egypt is "full" of depictions about how they did it and even if there weren't a single one, it would be a matter of some fairly simple physics. Besides, there have been numerous experiments with moving the stones and ALL of them are efficient enough. The ones that still think the egyptians used "magic" to move stones are completely insane.

Of course, no-one would build a pyramide and that is a very silly comparison on your side. I just recently had an arguement when someone fugured out a new way to move the Stonehenge stones and couple of dudes decided that if they didnt move the stones the whole 200 something kilometers and didn't also build an exact replica of the Stonehenge, they proved nothing. That's obviously unnecessary but if you start comparing it to drilling just a couple of holes, I will laugh at you
_________________

Noriabooks reaction to this complete and utter answer will be interesting. I still suspect we are dealing with a supporter of the nutty alternative theories.

Oh, and Noriabrooks...........you meant helical rather than spiral.

Yes, probably. Sorry, english is not my first language. And no, I am NOT a supporter of any whacky ****. Get over with it already.
_________________

In this article, they talk about the trepanning type holes. The surprising thing is supposed to be the rate of the drilling based on spiral groves in the hole.

I don't have the expertise to evaluate the claim, but it does make you wonder.

http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/egypt/articles/cdunn-3.php

This link also suggests that the grooves are "spiral" or helical. But ARE they really or is it just a suggestion?
_________________

Copper just pushes the sand around.

What happens if you melt the sand or gravel INTO the copper?

 

[Noriabooks]

We're not attracting new members as it is. The gauntlet of suspicious cynics is not exactly a welcome wagon.

Yes, exactly. And then I go to debate into some woo forum and i'm surprised why they hate me from the very first letter I type. Actually I'm just horrified by your attitude here and I'll never be surprised again about why the woos literally hate skeptics and call them arrogant asses (at best)...

 

[Noriabooks]

It's the first time I hear someone saying that scientists are happy with some sloppy, semi-good results if there's a possibility to get a better one. I think you should re-evaluate your standards.



About moving the blocks there's actually no problem. Egypt is "full" of depictions about how they did it and even if there weren't a single one, it would be a matter of some fairly simple physics. Besides, there have been numerous experiments with moving the stones and ALL of them are efficient enough. The ones that still think the egyptians used "magic" to move stones are completely insane.

Of course, no-one would build a pyramide and that is a very silly comparison on your side. I just recently had an arguement when someone fugured out a new way to move the Stonehenge stones and couple of dudes decided that if they didnt move the stones the whole 200 something kilometers and didn't also build an exact replica of the Stonehenge, they proved nothing. That's obviously unnecessary but if you start comparing it to drilling just a couple of holes, I will laugh at you
_________________



Yes, probably. Sorry, english is not my first language. And no, I am NOT a supporter of any whacky ****. Get over with it already.
_________________



This link also suggests that the grooves are "spiral" or helical. But ARE they really or is it just a suggestion?

_________________

Very good article. Clicking the .pdf tab brings up a version with the pictures.

Thanks for pointing out the PDF. Never would have guessed there's much more information.

 

[SusanB-M1]

Of course we have but we also have a technology for it. What I meant was, that we can not reproduce those holes with the technology the egyptians must have had. Or can we? That was my initial question! Can we? Has anybody done that, so we could end the woo arguments for ever.

But why would anyone even consider agreeing to spend weeks, probably months, learning how to use AE methods, become an expert, and then spend goodness knows how long making a series of holes in various kinds of rocks just to prove absolutely that it can be done? Not only would that person become completely bored with the task, let alone lose touch possibly with friends and everyday life, but the general public, after the news had received a few references, would quicly lose interest in such a futile project, even if some multi-millionaire had tried to persuade the craftsman concerned to do it.
You could of course take on the task yourself, if you could get some funding!!

 

[Noriabooks]

@Noriabooks
May I humbly suggest reading the site I linked, and click on the PDF? It actually deals EXACTLY with drilling in such a way that produces the striations on that core. And has microscope photos of the original striations, which, big surprise, actually aren't very spiral.

It seems to me like, for better or worse, it is EXACTLY the answer you keep asking for.

Here's the link again:

http://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/ancient-egyptian-stone-drilling/

Now I'm not going to accuse you of anything (it's irrelevant anyway), but it would be more productive if you read it and then continue the discussion from there.

Yeah, i just reached there and this is top quality reading. I have to concentrate to it. This may easily be The One! I'll read it later tonight after work. Thank you VERY much!

 

[Noriabooks]

But why would anyone even consider agreeing to spend weeks, probably months, learning how to use AE methods, become an expert, and then spend goodness knows how long making a series of holes in various kinds of rocks just to prove absolutely that it can be done? Not only would that person become completely bored with the task, let alone lose touch possibly with friends and everyday life, but the general public, after the news had received a few references, would quicly lose interest in such a futile project, even if some multi-millionaire had tried to persuade the craftsman concerned to do it.
You could of course take on the task yourself, if you could get some funding!!

OMG! Because that's the nature on a human being! Curiosity! I'm baffled over your thoughts! Why should we research anything at all? And why should all those EA's spend weeks or months to find out how ancient people made stone tools and damascus steel and stuff like that? WHY? OH GOD, WHYY??

And why i dont do it myself? Well, a human being can't do everything he's interested in by himself. Agree? That's actually, why we have those specialized scholars if you didn't kow it before

 

[fagin]

Then grab some rock and tools and do it.

What SusanB-M1 said has nothing to do with "Why should we research anything at all?".

The research is done, the method is known and we have easier ways of drilling rock, if drilling rock is what turns you on.

 

[SusanB-M1]

OMG!

And why should all those EA's spend weeks or months to find out how ancient people made stone tools ...

That is not what I said. I asked why any person, meaning any person today, would spend time on the whole learning process.

And why i dont do it myself? Well, a human being can't do everything he's interested in by himself. Agree? That's actually, why we have those specialized scholars if you didn't kow it before

But if you want there to be complete evidence that the skills could be acquired and used today, then perhaps you should be prepared to take on the task yourself, or find someone who really wants to.

 

[Tolls]

OMG! Because that's the nature on a human being! Curiosity! I'm baffled over your thoughts! Why should we research anything at all? And why should all those EA's spend weeks or months to find out how ancient people made stone tools and damascus steel and stuff like that? WHY? OH GOD, WHYY??

Because they're satisfied that the copper drills and techniques described above (several times) are the likely candidates. Trying to recreate perfectly (and that's the sort of thing woos require) is futile.

The people involved (as with the block moving, or henge building types) know that they're unlikely to come up with the exact technique, but just want to show a possible candidate.