Graham Hancock : "We've Been Wrong About How the Egyptians Cut Granite"
In a museum at University College London, there is a small cylindrical object made of pink granite.
It's roughly the size of a thick candle. It came from the Giza Plateau. It was excavated in 1881 by William Flinders Petrie, who is considered the founder of modern scientific archaeology in Egypt. And Petrie, who was not a person given to dramatic statements, sat with this object for long enough that he published a specific analysis of what he found on its surface.
What he found was a spiral groove running around the exterior of the core — the mark left by whatever tool had drilled through the granite to produce it. He measured the pitch of that groove. He calculated the feed rate: the depth of advancement per single revolution of the drill. The number he arrived at was 0.1 inches per revolution.
He described this as extraordinary. He stated plainly in his published work that it indicated a cutting action far exceeding what any known method could achieve. And he proposed a candidate for what might explain it. Not copper. Not sand. A material harder than quartz. Fixed cutting points of corundum or jewels.
Graham Hancock : "We've Been Wrong About How the Egyptians Cut Granite"
In a museum at University College London, there is a small cylindrical object made of pink granite.
It's roughly the size of a thick candle. It came from the Giza Plateau. It was excavated in 1881 by William Flinders Petrie, who is considered the founder of modern scientific archaeology in Egypt. And Petrie, who was not a person given to dramatic statements, sat with this object for long enough that he published a specific analysis of what he found on its surface.
What he found was a spiral groove running around the exterior of the core — the mark left by whatever tool had drilled through the granite to produce it. He measured the pitch of that groove. He calculated the feed rate: the depth of advancement per single revolution of the drill. The number he arrived at was 0.1 inches per revolution.
He described this as extraordinary. He stated plainly in his published work that it indicated a cutting action far exceeding what any known method could achieve. And he proposed a candidate for what might explain it. Not copper. Not sand. A material harder than quartz. Fixed cutting points of corundum or jewels.