Rethinking Ancient Egypt - On Cataclysms, Ancient Technology and Identity Theft

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
I have always wondered why there isn't research being done on weather or not the Egyptians used animals to help move these stones. They could have used a method similar to portage. That's when you lay down long round shaped objects such as tree logs or even craved stone logs and a dozen men drag 1000s of pounds across them. It's famously used to drag ships from one river across land to another river. I mean think about it, and ask yourself why wouldn't they have used animal labor?

...to elaborate on Marduk's answer -- They did.

There's several tomb paintings of this (this one is of plowing but shows the neck yoke).

In some areas, animals are not the best method if the ground is slippery or rough or if the pathway is fairly narrow. In addition, their harness designs weren't that efficient so the animals couldn't pull as much weight as they can with modern harnesses. Poorly constructed harnesses can cause problems with the team that's doing the work.

And as far as the "drill" holes go. We know they had slaves .

Not that many. Quarry workers were usually criminals (for the more dangerous things such as undercutting the rocks) and professional stoneworkers.

Workshops where stone work was done were places that hired and trained only highly skilled people. You couldn't just grab an ordinary slave (who was a foreigner and might not speak the language) and put them to work doing something technical in an area where you need a lot of precision. It's easier to get a willing kid from a family involved in this profession and train them.

They could have made a slave use a round stone harder than limestone and just spun it by hand till they dropped. Then just make the next slave do the same thing till you have a nice deep hole.

They used a harder stone and something called a "bow drill" made of copper. It was operated by two people and used hard sand as the grit.

a reply to: Marduk

they just popped down to the WAWA and got a canister

Probably not seeing canisters at WAWA are made of plastic

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: jeep3r

These two vid are interesting but probably wont help you out with what tools were used but may convince you that tools were used that we don't know about

In the first video you posted there are indeed features in the stone that bear a strong resemblance to the tool marks in Egypt:



Only difference being that the marks seen at the abandoned Crimea quarry are located on the ceiling at a height of 20+ meter (inside a large rectangular chamber hewn out of the rock).

The Crimea site seems to be a more modern mining area. But one would think that the same method was applied at both sites, at least in the sections shown above. I'm still not sure if those are pounding marks.

a reply to: jeep3r

There are a lot of newearth vids that have bits of info I find interesting to say the least .I don't always buy into her narrative but the places she looks at and the pictures can speak for themselves imo ..I am posting two more of her vids .The first one looks at and draws into a perspective of a one time event in the long past of a catastrophic event and links those old remains to a more modern day culture .www.youtube.com... The second is one where she takes a look at Egypt and the Pyramids I couldnt embed the first but the second one seems to have a code I can work with .I am such a IT dunce :>) I would suggest watching the first one first .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: jeep3r

There are a lot of newearth vids that have bits of info I find interesting to say the least

So about the same as the crap that Graham Hancock comes out with which again relies on the ignorance of the viewer, like where she claims its a technological jump between the step pyramid of Djoser and the Gizamids, well she missed out the pyramids of Sekhemkhet, Khaba and then three by Sneferu (Khufus father), which show the learning process in construction. She also claimed that pyramids are made of basalt, when if I recall, the only basalt present at any pyramid site were used as a floor in the mortuary temples. Which had heavy foot traffic. Not rocket science, no advanced anything required
If this is the kind of thing you find compelling them there's very little hope left

a reply to: Marduk

Having reading problems are we ? I noticed you stopped with my first sentence so I will just bring to your attention either something you missed or something you chose to ignore so you could put your own foot in your own mouth ...

.I don't always buy into her narrative but the places she looks at and the pictures can speak for themselves imo

So how does it taste

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Marduk

Having reading problems are we ? I noticed you stopped with my first sentence so I will just bring to your attention either something you missed or something you chose to ignore so you could put your own foot in your own mouth ...

.I don't always buy into her narrative but the places she looks at and the pictures can speak for themselves imo

So how does it taste

I read that, but in future save yourself some embarrassment, if even you don't believe it, then why waste everyones time by posting it


heres a real documentary

a reply to: Marduk

I read that, but in future save yourself some embarrassment, if even you don't believe it, then why waste everyones time by posting it

I like the pics and vids and don't mind sharing them with others .Which is something I feel no need to be embarrassed about .Oh and that offer to you for half my flags is no longer available .I would be for ever embarrassed having given them to you knowing that you post as equally worthless posts as you claim Graham Hancock does

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Marduk

I read that, but in future save yourself some embarrassment, if even you don't believe it, then why waste everyones time by posting it

I like the pics and vids and don't mind sharing them with others .Which is something I feel no need to be embarrassed about .Oh and that offer to you for half my flags is no longer available .I would be for ever embarrassed having given them to you knowing that you post as equally worthless posts as you claim Graham Hancock does

1. you offered flags, I didn't want them
2, the video I posted features qualified experts, not some Russian tosser who doesn't know anythng
3. You think Graham Hancocks work is worthwhile because you either haven't read it or are too ignorant to evaluate it properly, that's your loss

So you seem to think you are making a point with this thread, here's what I'm reading
you posted a thread based on your ignorance of the facts
knowledgeable posters offered you the facts but you ignored them, like where I posted you a 50 minute documentary and you posted 13 minutes later saying it was as worthless as Graham Hancock, you didn't even watch it
you are now posting useless videos as evidence and when called on it are saying "I knew it was crap"
you and your thread are intellectually redundant,

a reply to: Marduk

2, the video I posted features qualified experts, not some Russian tosser who doesn't know anythng 3. You think Graham Hancocks work is worthwhile because you either haven't read it or are too ignorant to evaluate it properly, that's your loss So you seem to think you are making a point with this thread, here's what I'm reading you posted a thread based on your ignorance of the facts

This is as far as I got in your post and have to bring to your attention a few facts .The Russian tosser is not Russian and even says that in the vid ...having hearing problems as well are we ? I never made any comment on Graham Hancocks work and is only a figment of your imagination .And finally but not least is that I didn't make this thread ....Which you claim based solely on your ignorance . The doc you posted may be very good but going by your lack of credibility even in your post has to cause me pause to believe anything you tap out from that arm chair you are probably sitting in .

The problem with saying that "pictures speak for themselves" is that they don't really do a good job of this UNLESS you happen to be an expert at the material shown in the picture... and even then, the evidence can be less than trustworthy.

I can show you a piece of Egyptian wall art, and you have no idea how old it is or if it's even fake. If I showed you a photo of a human skull being fond (from the latest CSI, for example) and said "this is an archaeological discovery of the skull of a Neanderthal" would you even know what evidence showed that I was lying through my teeth?

Pictures, badly interpreted, are just lies.

a reply to: Byrd

Pictures, badly interpreted, are just lies.

I would agree The more I look at your statement Byrd the more I feel the need to add qualifiers .If my child looks at a picture and badly interpreters it does not make it a lie .not the picture itself but the narrative could be a lie ..Pictures can be suggestive on their own and as more context is added a bigger picture can emerge .Some pictures are a thousand words .And some pictures are just plain fake .

originally posted by: the2ofusr1The Russian tosser is not Russian and even says that in the vid ...having hearing problems as well are we ?

So you missed the part where the Narrator stated that the video was Russian..having hearing problems as well are we ?

I never made any comment on Graham Hancocks work and is only a figment of your imagination .A

so you didn't say this then

I would be for ever embarrassed having given them to you knowing that you post as equally worthless posts as you claim Graham Hancock does

Funny because there it is

has to cause me pause to believe anything you tap out from that arm chair you are probably sitting in .

I don't even own an armchair, but fair enough you didn't start the thread, I must be getting confused because all you creduloids sound exactly alike and have no interest in the facts,

a reply to: Marduk

So you missed the part where the Narrator stated that the video was Russian..having hearing problems as well are we ?

That is correct and she went on to say that her Russian was not very good .She was giving her interpretation of the Russian language being spoken in the video .

Yes I said

I would be for ever embarrassed having given them to you knowing that you post as equally worthless posts as you claim Graham Hancock does

I never made any comment on Graham Hancocks work and is only a figment of your imagination

Show me where I mention Hancocks work ...you cant because it was you that mentioned his work . Projecting much or are you just a confused person ?

Oh wait

I must be getting confused because all you creduloids sound exactly alike and have no interest in the facts,

My creduloids ? Yes you are confused and miking your own creduloids up with the facts that I am making .You may not own a arm chair but I hope you have a bed ....napi time for you me thinks

That is correct and she went on to say that her Russian was not very good .She was giving her interpretation of the Russian language being spoken in the video .

So you admit you got it wrong, that the video is the work of a Russian tosser, you posted a video and you didn't even pay attention to what it said, but hey, everyone else must watch it and get all the details right or else you'll pretend they got it wrong, that's how credible you are

I would be for ever embarrassed having given them to you knowing that you post as equally worthless posts as you claim Graham Hancock does

And that my friend is a comment on the work of graham hancock, so again, you forgot what you said even though you only said it in the previous post




Do you know what credulous means ?
credulous - having or showing too great a readiness to believe things.

The rest of us got here by studying the cultures involved, in depth and coming up with our own answers, you can't be bothered to do that, you'd rather ask questions on an internet forum and then ignore the answers you are given...
and you're telling me I need a nap, good god man, can you not see what a waste of time conversing with you is

Feel free to post some more nonsense as a reply, i could do with a laugh after this pile of manure you call "Autodidactism" but which in reality is just nonsense, autodidacts study things, you haven't started that yet. You don't seem capable, god forbid you ever read a Sitchin book, you'll be terrified.

I am no longer wasting any of my time on you, feel free to post whatever cheap shots you like...

Do you know what credulous means ? credulous - having or showing too great a readiness to believe things.

Obviously I am not so credulous as to believe a lot of the things I have been presented with as facts because I presented counter points and pointed out false statements as well as ad hominen arguments . My observations of some of the members in this thread is that they lack integrity . Integrity is easier to keep then to regain ....so there is a hope in that fact .

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
I have always wondered why there isn't research being done on weather or not the Egyptians used animals to help move these stones. They could have used a method similar to portage. That's when you lay down long round shaped objects such as tree logs or even craved stone logs and a dozen men drag 1000s of pounds across them. It's famously used to drag ships from one river across land to another river. I mean think about it, and ask yourself why wouldn't they have used animal labor?

...to elaborate on Marduk's answer -- They did.

There's several tomb paintings of this (this one is of plowing but shows the neck yoke).

In some areas, animals are not the best method if the ground is slippery or rough or if the pathway is fairly narrow. In addition, their harness designs weren't that efficient so the animals couldn't pull as much weight as they can with modern harnesses. Poorly constructed harnesses can cause problems with the team that's doing the work.

And as far as the "drill" holes go. We know they had slaves .

Not that many. Quarry workers were usually criminals (for the more dangerous things such as undercutting the rocks) and professional stoneworkers.

Workshops where stone work was done were places that hired and trained only highly skilled people. You couldn't just grab an ordinary slave (who was a foreigner and might not speak the language) and put them to work doing something technical in an area where you need a lot of precision. It's easier to get a willing kid from a family involved in this profession and train them.

They could have made a slave use a round stone harder than limestone and just spun it by hand till they dropped. Then just make the next slave do the same thing till you have a nice deep hole.

They used a harder stone and something called a "bow drill" made of copper. It was operated by two people and used hard sand as the grit.

Thanks for the info. It seems to me that the building of the pyramids is well within the scope of human ability, even long long ago.

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
Thanks for the info. It seems to me that the building of the pyramids is well within the scope of human ability, even long long ago.

It was.

What the sites that promote "history is wrong" don't bother to mention (either they don't know it, don't believe it, or are hiding it) is that Egypt had an organized workforce that included quarry workers for around a thousand years before the pyramids were built. Pharaohs had large tombs - even when they weren't pyramid-shaped - and they had massive projects going on. That's why it was possible for Imhotep to get enough people to build Djoser's step pyramid and how Sneferu could put up pyramids with more total volume than any other pyramid (including the Great pyramid) complex in less time than Khufu could build the Great Pyramid.

And it didn't stop with pyramids - there's so many lovely rock cut tombs and other things - elegant vases, jewelry, statues, amulets, and other things.

You can see the development in styles if you have enough things to look at... subtle differences between workshops, changes in proportions, things like that.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1

Obviously I am not so credulous as to believe a lot of the things I have been presented with as facts because I presented counter points and pointed out false statements as well as ad hominen arguments.

I've seen no counterpoints and the only false statement I've seen you point out was Marduk's mistaken statement that you started this thread.
Did I miss something?

originally posted by: the2ofusr1My observations of some of the members in this thread is that they lack integrity . Integrity is easier to keep then to regain ....so there is a hope in that fact .

Your own integrity has yet to be evidenced here, as Marduk pointed out. Hence you have no standing to comment on that of others.

Harte