Hacker News Reader

Comment by AlotOfReading | Hacker News Reader

This is not modern precision manufacturing and metrology, it's abrasively grinding down rock that's been roughly shaped. It's tedious as all hell, but well within the toolbox for ancient Egyptians (not to mention many other societies). There are a lot of options to do the rough shaping. Egyptians are known to have used abrasive drills for some artifacts, but other cultures often used rocks of the same or greater hardness as chisels alongside other mechanical methods for rough shaping.

Again, you can do this to shape virtually any rock. Stonemasons don't do this today because it's excessively annoying and slow. It's not a coincidence that khafre enthroned is a royal piece for a wealthy and powerful pharoah.

View on HN

The rough shaping is not at issue. The challenge is maintaining tolerances along all axis and constraints on your detail work while using high forces and pressures to work the hard material. Grinding is a good guess for the possible material removal process — and it is up there today for the smallest tolerances using a mechanical process —- watch a video of a jig grinder in action. But what tool is used to hold or insert the sand aggregate at the pressure point? Are you suggesting that the vase is turned? That turning tool would need precise bearings itself to maintain that precision. According to archeologists, Egyptian didn’t even have the invention of the wheel yet at this point. These are all questions that people are looking for answers, and the best way will be to attempt to reproduce an artifact using various methods. I sincerely invite you to contribute by trying to elaborate the entire process that would enable this.

I assume back then they weren't too fussed about having 100 people work on a small rock should they desire.

I think we just don't comprehend, as mentioned above, how much time and effort could be allowed for back then. I'm sure 100 people could create a near perfect vase given 30 years to work on it (random example).

The feasibility is not a function of the time or number of people. When you remove material, the slightest error is irreversible. By combining error rate, design tolerance bounds and work point size in a statistical model, you should be able to prove that even using the entire known population on earth at the time for several centuries, you would not be able to product near anywhere the number of these specific artifacts found under the step pyramid (40,000). It’s sort of like the problem of enough monkey typing randomly to produce the work of Shakespeare.

If you travel to spaces that are "less industrially developed" you will see an incredibly high level of talent.

This idea that its just not feasible because it is hard ignores existing architecture that we can date in places like China and India, but cannot easily replicate in the US or other spaces because the generationally developed skill and method is not available.

This precision occurs in hard materials like stone, in massive scale as well as in soft materials like cottons and silks which weren't replicated in Europe in previous or current times.

Have you ever ground one to prove this?

I've polished things with sand before and used hammerstones, yes. I'm not a stonemason though, just somone who spent a lot of time as a kid playing with rocks.

Most people will have some familiarity with emery cloth/sandpaper, which are basically the same principle. We don't even need to look at fancy egyptian statues. Carnelian beads were a common trade item across the Ancient near east and Egypt made this way. It's not magic.

My issue has always been with the large megaton granite slabs inside the pyramids that you can't even see. They placed these things high up above chambers and rooms like lego pieces.

The stones to which you are referring, and larger that are found in and around other structures, are too large to have been cut with the method that you suggest.

I'm not sure which part you think is impossible, but it's absolutely possible to chisel a stone out of a quarry with stone tools. There were subsequent steps to work that rough shape down into the final product, of which abrasion was one of the last steps. None of them are especially sensitive to the size of the stone. We've found the rocks they used to do it littering known quarries, on obelisks and the like.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com