> Because if these boxes were made with copper chisels and pounding stones, the only tools academia says were available in 1300 BC
They don’t though!
* Mainstream dates for many of the sarcophagi are later, when iron or steel tools are reconstructed. For all the talk about dogmatic narratives here, fairly basic dates are wrong.
* For earlier periods, copper chisels are explicitly discarded for working hard stones and a wider range of stone tools beyond pounders are discussed. Methods for smoothing and polishing stone are reconstructed – not just pounders.
The reconstructions of the technology by Egyptologists could be entirely wrong but “200 years of Archaeology” aren’t going to be “RUINED” by attacking strawmen.
The video takes the time to say this
> Let’s start with the problem no one talks about. How did these boxes get down here?
but not mention that some evidence for the transport has been noted.
> It is certain that, as long as the plane on which the sarcophagus was to advance remained horizontal, the monument, engaged on rollers whose traces can still be seen on the floor of the galleries, was pulled by means of a horizontal winch with eight levers, of the model of those which we use today. I found two of these winches, made of sycamore wood, in one of the chambers of the tomb, and it is quite natural to think that the Egyptians did not deposit them in this chamber without having already used them.^1
> On the floor of this and the following corridors are still clearly preserved the double rails on which the colossal coffins were rolled in over rollers.^2
No one has to agree that these methods were used but to not even mention this while just looking at people pulling the sarcophagi directly is not remotely a full picture of the evidence. Pulleys appear in the archaeological record in Egypt before the sarcophagi are dated.
Why argue against what archaeologists are saying if that’s not going to get those positions remotely correct? Why not just argue for whatever theory you want instead of spending the time attacking ideas that no one really holds?
___
> Look at actual Egyptian sarcophagi from the same period
2 Comments
I’m glad you asked. [NO](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)
> Because if these boxes were made with copper chisels and pounding stones, the only tools academia says were available in 1300 BC
They don’t though!
* Mainstream dates for many of the sarcophagi are later, when iron or steel tools are reconstructed. For all the talk about dogmatic narratives here, fairly basic dates are wrong.
* For earlier periods, copper chisels are explicitly discarded for working hard stones and a wider range of stone tools beyond pounders are discussed. Methods for smoothing and polishing stone are reconstructed – not just pounders.
The reconstructions of the technology by Egyptologists could be entirely wrong but “200 years of Archaeology” aren’t going to be “RUINED” by attacking strawmen.
The video takes the time to say this
> Let’s start with the problem no one talks about. How did these boxes get down here?
but not mention that some evidence for the transport has been noted.
> It is certain that, as long as the plane on which the sarcophagus was to advance remained horizontal, the monument, engaged on rollers whose traces can still be seen on the floor of the galleries, was pulled by means of a horizontal winch with eight levers, of the model of those which we use today. I found two of these winches, made of sycamore wood, in one of the chambers of the tomb, and it is quite natural to think that the Egyptians did not deposit them in this chamber without having already used them.^1
> On the floor of this and the following corridors are still clearly preserved the double rails on which the colossal coffins were rolled in over rollers.^2
No one has to agree that these methods were used but to not even mention this while just looking at people pulling the sarcophagi directly is not remotely a full picture of the evidence. Pulleys appear in the archaeological record in Egypt before the sarcophagi are dated.
Why argue against what archaeologists are saying if that’s not going to get those positions remotely correct? Why not just argue for whatever theory you want instead of spending the time attacking ideas that no one really holds?
___
> Look at actual Egyptian sarcophagi from the same period
Shown here are, of course, AI generated images, not actual artifacts.
___
1. Mariette, Auguste. [*Le Sérapéum de Memphis*](https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/mariette1882bd1). Vieweg, 1882. pp. 80-81
2. Brugsch, Heinrich. [*Reiseberichte aus Aegypten: geschrieben in den Jahren 1853 und 1854*](https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/brugsch1855a). Brockhaus, 1855. pp. 31-32.