5,313 guests

The evidence is cut in stone: A compelling argument for lost high technology in ancient Egypt

  • Written by BRIEN FOERSTER
  • Published in Mysteries
  • Read: 342

MOST people know of the great construction achievements of the dynastic Egyptians such as the pyramids
and temples of the Giza Plateau area as well as the Sphinx. Many books and videos show depictions of
vast work forces hewing blocks of stone in the hot desert sun and carefully setting them into place.
However, some of these amazing works could simply not have been made by these people during the time
frame that we call dynastic Egypt.

Up until the 7th century BC there was very little iron present in Egypt, as this material only
became commonly used once the Assyrians invaded at that time; in fact, the ancient Egyptians regarded
iron as an impure metal associated with Seth, the spirit of evil who according to Egyptian tradition
governed the central deserts of Africa. A few examples of meteoric iron have been found which predate
the Assyrians, but this consists largely of small ornamental beads.
    
The very basic problem that arises is that we find at many of the ancient sites in Egypt finely
crafted works in basalt, granite, quartzite and diorite which are very hard stones that can’t be shaped
efficiently even by hardened iron tools. For most of the history of Egypt, the tools used to shape stone
consisted of hardened bronze, which is much softer than iron. In this article, we will see examples of
ancient hard stone workmanship which simply could not have been created during the dynastic Egyptian
time frame of about 2500 to 1500 BC, when most academics believe they were made. Only a few examples
will be discussed, and far more can be seen and read about in my Lost Ancient Technology Of Egypt book.

A Famous Unfinished Obelisk
    
We start in Aswan, which is close to the border of Sudan, and it is here that we find the famous
unfinished obelisk, and another smaller one, still attached to the granite bedrock.
    
Archaeologists claim the female ruler known as Hatshepsut, who came to the throne in 1478 BC
sanctioned the construction of the bigger of the two. It is nearly one third larger than any ancient
Egyptian obelisk ever erected. If finished, it would have measured around 42 m (approximately 137 feet)
and would have weighed nearly 1,200 tons. The greatest questions that arise are: what tools could have
been used to shape this massive stone monument, and how were the Egyptians planning on raising it out of
the pit in which it sits, taking into account its immense size. To the former, most Egyptologists
believe that round and hand-held stone dolerite pounders were the main tools being used.
    
In basic terms, any tool should have a greater hardness than the material being cut or shaped.
The pink granite of which the unfinished obelisk is composed has a Mohs hardness that sits between the
scale of 6 and 7, (the maximum being diamond at 10) and thus is more or less the same hardness as
dolerite, making the latter a poor material for shaping the former. And bronze, the other tool substance
known to and used by the ancient Egyptians is much softer, being on average 3.5 on the Mohs scale.
    
Other problems encountered at the unfinished obelisk is that there is very little room inside
the trench to be able to create a hard blow, and such repeated efforts could also break the dolerite
tool. According to engineer and expert machinist Christopher Dunn, author of Lost Technologies of
Ancient Egypt: Advanced Engineering in the Temples of the Pharaohs:
    
‘The unfinished obelisk offers compelling indirect evidence regarding the level of technology
its creators had reached -- not so much by indicating clearly what methods were used, but by the
overpowering indications of what methods could not have been used.’

What Tool Did the Shaping?
    
The idea that hand held pounders were responsible for the shaping of the unfinished obelisk has
to be dismissed, and yet, what kind of technology could possibly have been responsible? Chris Dunn’s
opinion is that if one observes the pattern left by the tool which did the actual shaping, especially in
the walls of the trenches that surround the unfinished obelisk, there is an even pattern which would
unlikely have occurred if hand tools such as the pounders were used. According to Chris:
    
‘The horizontal striations are typical in cutting when the feed of a tool that is removing
material pauses along its path, withdrawn to remove waste, and the interruption of the tool leaves a
mark on the surface. Also, it could be that as the tool was rocked back and forth against the walls of
the trench to clear the waste on the vertical wall, horizontal striations appeared where the tool
pressed the cutting surface against the side wall to keep the trench from narrowing.’ In other words,
some form of technology which the dynastic Egyptians simply did not have. And so this begs the question;
if the dynastic Egyptians could not have done this work, and the later Greeks and Romans were not
responsible, then who did and when? We have no choice but to entertain the idea that a civilization
existed before what we call the pharaohs and in fact had forms of what we would call high technology,
and that these people lived in the area prior to 3100 BC.
    
Many will of course ask where the tools are that could have done work such as this. We do know
that strange devices and materials have been found in archaeological sites in different parts of the
world, and have been labeled, boxed and hidden out of view because they do not fit the conventional
historical paradigm. Sir William Flinders Petrie was one of the great Egyptologists of the late 19th and
early 20th centuries. Petrie found a number of core drills, many of which are now housed in the museum
named after him at the University College London in London England. The actual hollow drill bits have
not been found, but the cores made of limestone, alabaster, granite and other stones have.
    
Chris Dunn spent hours in the Petrie museum and was allowed to personally examine some of the
drill cores. Here he discusses the characteristics of one of them:    
    
‘The most fascinating feature of the granite core Petrie describes is the spiral groove around
the core indicating a feed rate of 0.100 inch per revolution of the drill. It was 500 times greater than
modern diamond drills, but the rotation of the drill would not have been as fast as the modern drill’s
900 revolutions per minute.’
    
The often times quoted idea that these drill cores were achieved using a bow and copper tube
with sand used as an abrasive must be thrown out, as no modern replication of these cores has been done
to the level of efficiency as discussed above.
    
Making excavations in 1936, in the archaeological zone of Saqqara, Petrie discovered the Tomb of
Prince Sabu, who was the son of Pharaoh Adjuib, governor of the I Dynasty (3,000 BC). Between utensils
of funeral objects that were extracted, Emery’s attention was powerfully drawn to an object that he
initially defined in his report on the Great Tombs of the I Dynasty as: ‘a container in the form of
schist bowl.’ Years later, in his previously mentioned work, Archaic Egypt, he commented on the object
with a word that perfectly summarizes the reality of the situation and the discomfort the object causes;
“cachibache” (a small hole that threatens to become a much larger hole.)
    
According to the typical and expected view of the archaeologists and Egyptologists, this object
is no more than a tray or the pedestal of some candelabrum, with a design a product of blind chance. I
am personally quite amazed that such a controversial piece is still on display in the Cairo museum, and
wonder what even odder objects are hidden away in their warehouses.
    
At Karnak, which is a huge temple complex, we find many examples of ancient core drill holes,
and one whose diameter is greater than a human hand. As you can see in the photograph the wall of the
drill itself was thinner than 21st century examples, and even engineers and mining experts that have
seen it cannot explain what material the drill would have been made of to maintain its shape and
stability at being so thin.

Massive Granite Boxes
    
Another perplexing site is what is called the Serapeum at Saqqara, containing massive granite
boxes which many academics believe were created during dynastic times. However, the boxes in the
Serapeum are examples of what engineers such as Chris Dunn, I, and members of the Khemit School have
major problems with as regards the conventional Egyptologists’ explanations. According to the latter, in
the 13th century BC, Khaemweset ordered that a tunnel be excavated through the solid limestone bedrock,
with side chambers designed to contain large granite sarcophagi weighing at least 70 tonnes each, to
hold the mummified remains of prize Apis bulls.
    
Manufacturer Chris Dunn is a man who knows what precision surfaces look like, as he has been
involved in making complex metal parts for the aviation industry for decades. He has studied the boxes
in the Serapeum many times, and has been able to measure the flatness of their granite and limestone
surfaces using precise gauges. The following are his thoughts, as found in an article on his website
www.gizapower.com:
    
‘The granite box inside Khafre’s pyramid has the same characteristics as the boxes inside the
Serapeum. Yet the boxes in the Serapeum were ascribed to the 18th dynasty, over 1100 years later when
stone working was supposedly in decline. Considering that this dating was based on pottery items that
were found and not the boxes themselves, it would be reasonable to speculate that the boxes have not
been dated accurately. Their characteristics show that their creators used the same tools and were
blessed with the same skill and knowledge as those who created Khafre’s pyramid. Moreover, the boxes in
both locations are evidence of a much higher purpose than mere burial sarcophagi. They are finished to a
high accuracy; their corners are remarkably square, and their inside corners worked down to a dimension
that is sharper than what one would expect to find in an artifact from prehistory. All of these features
are extremely difficult to accomplish and none of them necessary for a mere burial box.
    
The manufacturers of these boxes in the Serapeum not only created inside surfaces that were flat
when measured vertically and horizontally, they also made sure that the surfaces they were creating were
square and parallel to each other, with one surface, the top, having sides that are 5 feet and 10 feet
apart from each other. But without such parallelism and squareness of the top surface, the squareness
noted on both sides would not exist.

Staggering Implications
    
While it may be argued that modern man cannot impose a modern perspective on artifacts that are
thousands of years old, an appreciation of the level of precision found in these artifacts is lacking in
archaeological literature and is only revealed by an understanding what it takes to produce this kind of
work. As an engineer and craftsman, who has worked in manufacturing for over 40 years and who has
created precision artifacts in our modern world, in my opinion this accomplishment in prehistory
deserves more recognition. Nobody does this kind of work unless there is a very high purpose for the
artifact. Even the concept of this kind of precision does not occur to an artisan unless there is no
other means of accomplishing what the artifact is intended to do.  

To be Continued