Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> We will need to wait for another of our own generations to learn who really made, e.g., the many precision-machined 50+-ton empty stone boxes under Saqqara, and why

Are they empty? From memory those were used to house mummified bulls and there are inscriptions on some of them detailing that purpose.



By report all are empty now.

There are crudely carved inscriptions on some that are very obviously not by whoever did the exquisite original work of making the boxes. Tagging work that was already ancient was a favorite activity of dynastic Egyptians. Ramesses II was especially fond of the practice, but for some reason not even he tagged pyramids.

Some later generation of Egyptology will acknowledge that a cartouche carved into a piece of stonework only fixes a lower bound on its age, and cannot by itself identify who made it. You can feel with your fingertips the difference between the quality of the work that went into the tagging, vs the original work. The oldest and best work had originally no inscriptions, although they were easily added.

Somehow the methods for doing the very best stone work were lost, early on. Early pillars were made all in one piece, later were stacked. It is hard to believe later generations were always just too impatient to bother doing top quality work.


We know the answer to this, and it was... the Egyptians. The mistake the earlier Egyptologists made is exactly the same one you're making here, which is that history is some kind of inevitable march towards progress where knowledge and skills are never lost, and we never go backwards.

There's firm archaeological evidence around quarry sites, etc.

The same (pretty nonsense) questions could have been asked about Roman concrete or how tunnels were bored through the Apennines for aqueducts or whatever else you feel like during the late Middle Ages, despite the fact that the demographics of Italy hadn't really changed. The gap in time between Khufu and Ramses is basically the same as the gap between the reign of Augustus and the Hundred Years' War.


Obviously Egyptians made everything. Who else, aliens?

At issue is how. We do not know. No one is working on it, or anyway publishing. Pretending there is no mystery, as is the habit lately, is not honest.


> Obviously Egyptians made everything.

Then why did you say:

> We will need to wait for another of our own generations to learn who really made, e.g., the many precision-machined 50+-ton empty stone boxes under Saqqara, and why.

If the issue isn’t who, or why, but how?


We can be confident that whoever crudely tagged the boxes did not make them.

We do not know when they were made, which is to say which generation of Egyptians made them, or for what, or how, or why they left one in the middle of the hallway, or how they could have moved any of them into place. What is offered is obviously inadequate.


You're overconfident. The consensus view in Egyptology is you're wrong about this. Maybe the consensus view is wrong and your fringe theory is more accurate, but it's really hard to have confidence that your theory is the correct one when it is almost universally rejected by people who study this.

As someone who can read the inscriptions you're talking about: they're not crude at all.


As I said, we will need to wait for a generation of Egyptologists not so eager to attribute everything to whoever was last to scratch his name onto it.


The technical term for someone carving their name on something someone else had built is "usurpation" and it's hardly an obscure topic in Egyptology. It is definitely something people think of when dating objects and monuments.

https://escholarship.org/content/qt5gj996k5/qt5gj996k5.pdf


Think of, sure. But act on? By the evidence, incentives run the other way.


Their physical execution is crude. We may presume they were transcribed from papyrus written by poets laureate of the period.


I'm talking specifically about their physical execution. It's not crude. I've seen plenty of sloppy hieroglyphs. These aren't them.



Are you expecting a fancier, embossed style or something? Those look like they're executed just fine.


I would describe them as pecked. The lines are not even straight.


> whoever crudely tagged the boxes did not make them

Which crude tagging are you referring to here?


You may look at the stuff carved on the outside of the Saqqara boxes yourself. Even images you can find online are wholly adequate to reveal how crude they are.


I mean, looking at stuff like this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Apis_Sar...

There's not much writing there, but I wouldn't call that crude.


Relative to the tech needed to produce the boxes, that is extremely crude. But your pic is far from the most crude seen.

That there is no uniformity is more evidence that they were tagged.


I googled “Saqqara boxes” and didn’t find any images where one could really tell. Could you link to the images you’re referring to?



Perhaps I’m just a philistine but it’s not obvious to me from that super-low-res photo that the carvings are so bad that they can’t have been made by the same people as the box itself.


The lines are, visibly, not even straight. The surfaces of the boxes are ground to flatness we could not improve on today.


From that photo I would actually say that the box is not a perfectly flat cuboid. If you look at the bottom left of the picture it looks to me as though the "face" is actually not perfectly straight. If you looked at this from the side I would expect it to look more like this:

     --- 
       |
       |
      /   <--- 
     |
The arrow shows our vantage point.

This doesn't seem to be entirely straight across the entire face either (unlike my crude ASCII "drawing"). Almost like a huge ball 'dented' the stone.

There's also a huge flash and glare going on which doesn't help and probably overexposes the specks that you see are also present in other pictures (like you posted in the sibling thread).


Yes, some faces have what look like dents in or scoops out of them, probably from fractures in the mother stone, or from quarrying.


If you know that then why do you say the lines aren't straight? The ones that look as if they weren't straight seem to be perfectly straight but are following those dents and thus look like they aren't. Especially if your vantage point exacerbates that.


I am saying they are not straight even on the flat parts.


Maybe it's easier to grind the surfaces flat than to carve in small detailed images.


I see that you have not looked pictures of any other Egyptian artifacts.


> It is hard to believe later generations were always just too impatient to bother doing top quality work.

I very much feel that this is an exact mirror of what we see today in modern construction: simpler, _cheaper_ materials, less time-intensive work to reduce the cost of construction. As time progressed in Ancient Egypt, people might have had different perceptions of what was desirable in construction of these landmarks. Perhaps the political will as lacking to keep building vast, high quality landmarks, or perhaps the pharaos found out building something for three decades is risky since you don't know if you will live that long.


Perhaps ancients had a similar ratio of high quality and mostly low quality. It’s just that the only pieces that survived are the very large high quality rocks, all of their quick cheap stuff broke up quickly.


It's not the lack of ancient low-quality work that surprises, but the absence of more recent high-quality work.


Exactly. If they could still do high-quality work: mirror-smooth surfaced, extra-hard diorite, carved with exact bilateral symmetry, you would expect to find some of it done for highest-status people, even if it were no longer squandered on huge monuments.


That does not account for the entire lack of late, smaller, top-grade work. So, maybe 100-ton mirror-smooth columns no longer impress. Not making anything mirror-smooth, at any scale, or anything 100 tons even if no smooth, really calls into question whether you still can.


Maybe they ran a financial pyramid and the music stopped. Funding had ran out. Interest rates went up. Rampant inflation. People can’t feed themselves, no one cares about smooth rocks anymore. They just want a sandwich and a roof.


Sure, maybe they couldn't because the techniques had been lost which we know is a thing that happens, or maybe they chose not to. Or maybe aliens. This is basically a god of the gaps argument, we don't know so therefore let's fill the gap with the wackiest made up fantasy crap we can think of. Well ok, if you like but it's basically just entertainment and nothing to do with reality.


Lost skills is wacky, now?


"or maybe aliens" is wacky, but that's just a personal opinion.


You interjected the "or maybe aliens" yourself. Nobody else even hinted at it. You reveal that you never had any intention of engaging honestly.


Maybe I'm reading too much into the claim that these objects were not created by the ancient Egyptians, and the assertion that they were 'machined'.


Nobody suggested they were not made by Egyptians. You made that up, too.

We don't know which generation of Egyptians did the top quality work. As already noted, inscriptions only establish a lower bound on age, but no upper bound. Evidence strongly suggests the means to do such work were lost, early on.

"Machined" describes the precision of the work. If you know how to get that without precision equipment, reveal it.


Then what did you mean by “who really made” the boxes you said had been “precision-machined”.


Maybe read exactly the post you replied to?

Here, I will reproduce it for you: "We don't know which generation of Egyptians did the top quality work."

Now you may ignore it in both places.


> It is hard to believe later generations were always just too impatient to bother doing top quality work.

I believe it. Walk around New York City or Paris and compare the level of detail in construction from a historic building to a recently built one.


A good point. Also, i don't think any of our great buildings (i.e empire state building, all those skyscrapers made from steel frames and glass) or technological marvels (like jets) will survive 400 years into the future. They will think we never made anything. Not only that, but they will dismiss written accounts as fiction. Even our plastic waste should have largely dissolved by then.


our graveyards will


It is not. Remnants -- turbine blades -- will survive. Plastic will last for geological eons.


A good point. Also, i don't think any of our great buildings (i.e empire state building, all those skyscrapers made from steel frames and glass) or technology will survive 400 years into the future. They will think we never made anything. Not only that, but they will dismiss written accounts as fiction. Even our plastic waste should have largely dissolved by then.


> Somehow the methods for doing the very best stone work were lost, early on.

The Egyptian state outright collapsed at least thrice, and was successfully invaded at least that many times. I find it easy to believe that during one of those collapses, some knowledge about construction was lost.


Complex engineering seems to need complex economy and stable institutions to sustain knowledge transfer. You just need to loose one generation and suddenly a ton of skill and knowledge is lost.


Loss of skills is wholly plausible. Failure, over centuries of development, to re-develop those skills remains a mystery, but is also plausible.

The real mystery is that we have no hint of how those feats were achieved, or achievable, with technology they plausibly had access to at the time. There is no hint of remains of tooling that could have been used to produce many of the artifacts. Modern stonemasons have nothing that could do some of it, e.g. the Saqqara boxes. There are no aliens to invoke.

People did things that we have no clue how they did, or even of how they could have done them. What is offered -- copper chisels -- is just wildly inadequate.


Pardon my ignorance, but what makes these boxes so unique? This thread made me look into them on Wikipedia, and they seem fairly straight forward..? I'm not a stonemason, but couldn't you basically just carve them out with a chisel (given you're not in a rush)?


A series on YouTube, Origins of Precision, can help you get up to speed.

It is not surprising that historians and archaeologists are not, as a rule, up on that material. But they have no excuse after it was explained to them.

There is also the question of how the boxes were maneuvered down those tiny tunnels that would not admit enough people to do the work.


look at Western architecture. over the course of the last century, our most expensive constructions have gone from beautiful detailed brick buildings to (in my opinion) awful uniform brutalist and modernist slabs of concrete and glass. white walls and big windows

because of a wave of extremely poor taste in the post-war architectural community, many of the skills required to make those older style buildings are gone or no longer common. it's easy to see something like this happening in ancient Egypt. perhaps the Nile delta didn't fully flood for a few years, or there was a bad war. or it just became too expensive to use the old techniques and they died out




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: