amazing precise craftmanship of granite sarcophagus of Senusret II

There are quite some remarkable stone objects of ancient egypt that have been found, one of the finest is probaly the granite sarcophagus found in the underground burial chamber of Senusret II. Khakheperre Senusret II was the fourth pharaoh of the twelfth dynasty of egypt ruling from 1897 BC to 1878 BC.

It took F. Petrie quite some time to find te entrance to the chamber because it lies south of the pyramid ( usually north).
the underground channels are hewn into the bedrock only the burial chamber is made of finely worked granite slabs, and also the sarcophagus.
The chamber has two entrances, one is too small for the sarcophagus to fit through.

The sarcophagus is an extraordinaire piece of work. It features the most precise workmanship and it has a lip around the top.
Strangely and on top of the precision the height differs almost 4 inches along its lenght. Although the inner dimensions are square, it is slanted.
It is worked so precisely everywhere that Petrie concluded that errors measurements were probably due to his own limitations.





Furthermore the edges are bevelled., also those of the chamber slabs.

the inner edges are worked even more square that the sarcophagi of the Serapeum.



these are the original texts from Petrie.






this guy on YT has a of it but his videos are more on the ..speculative side but not considering it as geopolymer.

Thanks for posting. The workmanship of some of the ancient stone "what evers" really is amazing.. How they did that with the tools the experts say was in use at that time in history makes you question what do the experts actually really know ?

a reply to: anti72

I bet that would turn out to be a geopolymer under a closer inspection, by foreign scientist, not by the local scientists.

originally posted by: XipeTotex
a reply to: anti72

I bet that would turn out to be a geopolymer under a closer inspection, by foreign scientist, not by the local scientists.

I'm not familiar with geo-polymers. How would they have made it?

a reply to: Violater1

One can find a really good presentation from Joseph Davidovits, he gave good info on what materials were used, how you can tell what they are, where they got the ingredients and so on. I think they can be found on youtube, and also from the Geopolymer institute web page.

Fascinating stuff.

I borrowed some Alkaline solution from a professor, it was his own recipe he did not tell me what was used, only gave me safety instructions, i could create durable items, cast in molds, from virtually anything, granite gave the best results.

originally posted by: Violater1

originally posted by: XipeTotex
a reply to: anti72

I bet that would turn out to be a geopolymer under a closer inspection, by foreign scientist, not by the local scientists.

I'm not familiar with geo-polymers. How would they have made it?

How to anger an egyptologist?

Mix water,crushed limestone,quicklime, and natron together.

originally posted by: XipeTotex
a reply to: anti72

I bet that would turn out to be a geopolymer under a closer inspection, by foreign scientist, not by the local scientists.

Geopolymer has become quite popular as an explanation for everything megalithic because its proponents see it as an easy out. It has become the new gap theory. We can't explain it, so...geopolymer!

I think Davidovits hypothesis is unlikely. Ben gives a good list of reasons why in the video already posted.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: XipeTotex
a reply to: anti72

I bet that would turn out to be a geopolymer under a closer inspection, by foreign scientist, not by the local scientists.

Geopolymer has become quite popular as an explanation for everything megalithic because its proponents see it as an easy out. It has become the new gap theory. We can't explain it, so...geopolymer!

I think Davidovits hypothesis is unlikely. Ben gives a good list of reasons why in the video already posted.

I have something to say about his reasoning, yes, of course they used actual cut stones, but the chemical composition of many of the limestone blocks in the pyramids do not match the quarries. Tool marks- there are a couple of reasons for tool marks in casted stone, one is to remove mold lines, and the other is to hide the method, as one can imagine information is valuable, and the buildings and temples would have looked more impressive if they gave the impression that the huge stones were dragged and lifted up. Oh, and the actual molds, you can tell this guy knows nothing about making molds, its quite simple to cast a thousand different shaped bricks with some boards, no need for them to be identical.

a reply to: XipeTotex
The logistics of building the great pyramid by pouring the blocks would have been tantamount to cutting, lifting, and stacking them. I would like to think they did it by using the equivalent of concrete. It would answer some questions, but it also raises as many as it answers. At this point, I'm not anywhere near convinced, but we'll see where this research goes.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: XipeTotex
a reply to: anti72

I bet that would turn out to be a geopolymer under a closer inspection, by foreign scientist, not by the local scientists.

Geopolymer has become quite popular as an explanation for everything megalithic because its proponents see it as an easy out. It has become the new gap theory. We can't explain it, so...geopolymer!

I think Davidovits hypothesis is unlikely. Ben gives a good list of reasons why in the video already posted.

I think it is the combination of the two... some of the artifacts are carved granite and some geopolymer. That will cause the confusion and debate to be more..... confusing. And...where's the lid of this box...?

It's clearly made of an extremely tough material to be so well preserved. Also I'm sure many people have tested and confirmed it is granite. Clearly these Egyptian rulers wanted things done in the hardest possible manner to showcase their power and status. I can see that being especially true for something like a sarcophagus, even if it took many years.

granite polymer, show me just one that has done that and that product looks like a real granite slab.

the guy in the YT vid actually has some good arguments about that.
- how on earth would an ancient culture be able to produce a highl sophisticated Fresnel lens to 'melt' natural granite?
- this alleged new melted amalgam of molten material would nebver look like natural granite because granite consists of different kinds of incorporated stone which formed millions of years under pressure inside the earth.
you cant replicate that unique features for sure.

when some guys on YT try to met stones with a modern fresnel lens this doesn't 'prove' anything.


my 5 cts, the AE DID have iron chisels, problem solved..ask any skilled mason how far that goes..think of Michelangelo.

a reply to: anti72

Yeah you can definitely tell it's a natural block of granite which has been carved into that shape. You can basically see the separate grains in the granite which have been polished down into a highly precise flat surface. It seems to me scientists are vastly underestimating the tools and knowledge which went into making these objects. Just look at what miners did 100 years ago with almost none of the technology we have now. When people have less, they find remarkable ways to solve very hard problems, and they often just had more grit back then.

It wouldn't really surprise me if they used chisels and raw man power to hand craft the sarcophagus, but based on the appearance and other artifacts like this, I get the distinct feeling some sort of heavy duty machine was used to help carve the granite (e.g. something requiring many people to power it). You don't just build things this complex with iron chisels, it takes something more advanced and well planned out, and yet people still deny they even had iron chisels.

There was clearly some very smart masterminds behind the pyramids and other ancient Egyptian artifacts, and I'm certain they had ingenious ways of doing things that we don't know about. I don't really understand why it's so hard to believe they could've known more than we think considering we can barely recreate these artifacts with modern technology. It seems to me there's no realistic way of explaining how they achieved these feats unless we can admit they had some fairly advanced knowledge.

originally posted by: XipeTotex

originally posted by: Violater1

originally posted by: XipeTotex
a reply to: anti72

I bet that would turn out to be a geopolymer under a closer inspection, by foreign scientist, not by the local scientists.

I'm not familiar with geo-polymers. How would they have made it?

How to anger an egyptologist?

Mix water,crushed limestone,quicklime, and natron together.

Natron is basically soda ash mixed with baking soda and of course occurs in nature.

Concrete is a mixture of lime (CaO), cement, water, sand, and other ground-up rocks and solids. Cement is made up of Calcium oxide(CaO),Silicon dioxide(SiO2),Aluminum oxide(Al2O3),Iron oxide(Fe2O3),Water(H2O),Sulfate(SO3) -- no specific formula.

You may not have noticed, but your "concrete" lacks a concrete (aluminum oxide, iron oxide, and a sulfate. So you've got calcium, water, and sodium.)

Which, of course, any Egyptologist with about 2 minutes of googling and another 2 minutes looking at Roman concrete could figure out. Actually, anyone who ever took basic chemistry in high school could get that one without breaking a sweat.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: XipeTotex
The logistics of building the great pyramid by pouring the blocks would have been tantamount to cutting, lifting, and stacking them. I would like to think they did it by using the equivalent of concrete. It would answer some questions, but it also raises as many as it answers. At this point, I'm not anywhere near convinced, but we'll see where this research goes.

right, makes absolutley no sense. the workers had better to do than casting artificial stones, let alone the unreal amount of water for doing that. These can not even called theories but excuses..you can clearly identify the rock layers on the pyramid and the matching strata from the quarries, same for the sphinx/ valley temple.

all in all( at least for me) as we have the working thesis of JP Houdin, its engineering calculated and evaluated by Dassault Systèmes as being technical possible.
the GP is not the topic here of course ..it is a giant pile of cemented rocks with internal structures.
cheers

originally posted by: anti72
- how on earth would an ancient culture be able to produce a highl sophisticated Fresnel lens to 'melt' natural granite?
- this alleged new melted amalgam of molten material would nebver look like natural granite because granite consists of different kinds of incorporated stone which formed millions of years under pressure inside the earth.
you cant replicate that unique features for sure.

You are absolutely, positively correct without any doubt whatsoever. I mean, even if they could "melt" granite, the result wouldn't even be granite when it cooled.
It would be rhyolite.
Anybody here want to claim that all the granite artifacts found in Egypt have been misidentified as granite when they are really rhyolite?
And you can't even "melt" limestone. Limestone decomposes under heat into lime powder. That's how lime is made even to this day.
Almost every stone type that CAN be melted would become an entirely different kind of stone once cooled at atmospheric pressure.
The geopolymer claim doesn't involve melting anyway, but it is just as bogus.
People will believe anything - mainly because they can't imagine working as hard as it would take to accomplish what Ancient Egypt accomplished.

Harte

originally posted by: XipeTotex

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: XipeTotex
a reply to: anti72

I bet that would turn out to be a geopolymer under a closer inspection, by foreign scientist, not by the local scientists.

Geopolymer has become quite popular as an explanation for everything megalithic because its proponents see it as an easy out. It has become the new gap theory. We can't explain it, so...geopolymer!

I think Davidovits hypothesis is unlikely. Ben gives a good list of reasons why in the video already posted.

I have something to say about his reasoning, yes, of course they used actual cut stones, but the chemical composition of many of the limestone blocks in the pyramids do not match the quarries.

What's the source for this... besides some guy's youtube video? (note: I've been to Egypt. I've seen those stones.)

Tool marks- there are a couple of reasons for tool marks in casted stone, one is to remove mold lines, and the other is to hide the method, as one can imagine information is valuable, and the buildings and temples would have looked more impressive if they gave the impression that the huge stones were dragged and lifted up.

Let's walk though this one, eh?

They spend time making individual molds (no two stones are the same size)... out of something (not wood; it'd have taken the entire forests of the Middle East to make forms for all those stones). Then, after making the forms they haul up a formula to the form and pour in some concrete.

Now, it takes 30 days per inch of depth for concrete to harden -- as any contractor can tell you.

There were 210 layers in the Great Pyramid (or so we believe. If not 210, it was close.) The layers aren't the same size, incidentally. The first layer looks to be about 40 inches tall (a bit over 3 feet) and the second layer is over 5 feet (60 inches) tall, as you can see from looking at photographs.

...sooooo....

They come in, make all those forms out of something (say 600 forms; I'm not sure how many stones there are in the first layer but there's a bunch). Then they come in and pour all the concrete.

...and sit around for 30x40 days (1,200 days - a shade over 3 years) and wait for it to dry completely so they can put up the next layer without things collapsing. And before starting that, send in work crews to chisel off the mold marks to make it look 'handmade'.

Then they make the 6 foot high layer out of a lot of forms and none of them are the same size and wait for 30x50 days - 1500 days (4 years) for layer number 2 to dry. At this point they've used up seven years of the reported 20 years to build the thing and they're only 2 layers up.

If it was a year per layer (way too short) it'd take them 200 years to finish.

Minimum.

Oh, and the actual molds, you can tell this guy knows nothing about making molds, its quite simple to cast a thousand different shaped bricks with some boards, no need for them to be identical.

If you have the boards, yeah. But Egypt doesn't have any large trees.

a reply to: Byrd

You can use anything for molds.

Your math is flawed as a true geopolymer hardens faster than cement or concrete.

It takes 24 hours to harden to final strenght.


And by the way, most of you walk everyday right past synthetic or liquid granite and do not even realize it.

a reply to: 727Sky

Did the Ancient Egyptians really even built the Pyramids or were the Egyptians nothing more then take cares of those structures?

Remember no hieroglyphs were found at those three sites in Gaza. When i was younger in high school i started having some quite awkward questions for the history teacher and even the teacher wouldn't answer my questions.