3 ms·

I've seen you post things like this multiple times and while I'm not an egyptologist, it's pretty clear that you're getting some details wrong and consistently

I've seen you post things like this multiple times and while I'm not an egyptologist, it's pretty clear that you're getting some details wrong and consistently reaching bad conclusions. First of all, there was no carborundum in ancient egypt. Silicon carbide was only discovered in the 19th century and doesn't occur in large deposits naturally. I assume you mean corundum, which is most definitely workable with time, patience, and lots of abrasive powder. All of these were part of the Egyptian toolkit. Secondly, I assume you're referring to the sarcophagi of the Serapeum. They're impressive, but nothing outside the realm of the known tools if given enough time and skill, neither of which they were short on.

8bitsrule 6y ago
Many have made the claim that the known Egyptians had the tools and expertise to do the job. Few have demonstrated convincing evidence of this claim. Very few. The closer experts look, the more questions arise. Explorer Flinders Petrie spent decades there and was left with a lot of thoughtful questions about how those artifacts might have been made with known methods. Modern engineer Christopher Dunn has the pro and evidentiary background to have raised challenging question about such facile assertions.
- AlotOfReading 6y ago
  Petrie died in the 40s. He hasn't been at the forefront of archaeology for about a century now. Also, the very first result for me was a UPenn museum article [1] from 1983 demonstrating granite drilling with known tools. Again, hardly breaking new ground here. [1] https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/ancient-egyptian-stone-drilling/ https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/ancient-egyptian-st...
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    If Petrie was right in the '40s, alive, he is still right, dead. It is one thing to demonstrate crude granite drilling and sawing, and entirely another to actually reproduce observed phenomena. The one is not a substitute for the other. And you can call them sarcophagi if you like, but that is a box for a corpse, and these have all always been empty. So, boxes. 100-ton boxes, machined to such tight tolerance that they seal just by seating the lid.

8bitsrule 6y ago

Many have made the claim that the known Egyptians had the tools and expertise to do the job. Few have demonstrated convincing evidence of this claim. Very few. The closer experts look, the more questions arise. Explorer Flinders Petrie spent decades there and was left with a lot of thoughtful questions about how those artifacts might have been made with known methods. Modern engineer Christopher Dunn has the pro and evidentiary background to have raised challenging question about such facile assertions.

AlotOfReading 6y ago
Petrie died in the 40s. He hasn't been at the forefront of archaeology for about a century now. Also, the very first result for me was a UPenn museum article [1] from 1983 demonstrating granite drilling with known tools. Again, hardly breaking new ground here. [1] https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/ancient-egyptian-stone-drilling/ https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/ancient-egyptian-st...
- ncmncm 6y ago
  If Petrie was right in the '40s, alive, he is still right, dead. It is one thing to demonstrate crude granite drilling and sawing, and entirely another to actually reproduce observed phenomena. The one is not a substitute for the other. And you can call them sarcophagi if you like, but that is a box for a corpse, and these have all always been empty. So, boxes. 100-ton boxes, machined to such tight tolerance that they seal just by seating the lid.