ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags archaeology , Egypt history , pyramids

Reply
Old 20th July 2016, 01:34 PM   #121
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,763
Originally Posted by Jrrarglblarg View Post
Well, if you wanna get all technical it was the CoR, when the first shirt hands off Responsibility. The saber symbolizes what the 1SG holds for his Commander. I didn't want to get into the weeds because most people don't care.

The guidon is the commander handoff, symbolizing the unit as a whole.
Ah. That helps. Thanks.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2016, 05:31 PM   #122
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,039
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Isn't a seaxe a type of sword? It looks likes a curved scimitar with a nick near the business end. That would make it a sword, surely?
A seax is a single-edged knife. There are langseaxes that could be described as swords, but they are still srtaight, single-edged blades. I don't know where you get the idea that they are curved. If it is curved, then I wouldn't describe it as a seax.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2016, 07:04 AM   #123
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,589
Well, I guess some do have a slightly curved cutting edge, but still a straight back. So yeah, I wouldn't count them as curved swords either.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2016, 07:48 AM   #124
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,162
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
British forces don't have any 'sabres' they are all Swords.
There are 28 of them on the books at the moment.
My favourite is the 1908 pattern Cavalry Sword. Centuries of experience and development went in too it and it came in to service just too late for serious use. It has a pistol grip and the blade is long and dlim, designed for skewering as well as slashing, it replaced the lance. There are two versions, Troopers and Officers. Not to be confused with the Household Cavalry sword, they still use the heavy 1892 pattern sword, it looks more ornate for state occasions.
Royal Artillery Swords are based on the old Light Cavelry Pattern and have a slight curve and Generals Swords are highly curved with an Indian Pattern hilt.
Buy one from Pooleys of Sheffield http://pooleysword.com/en/Military_Swords
or Crisp and Sons http://www.crisp-and-sons.com/aboutus.htm

My dad has an old Wilkinson Royal Navy Officers Sword.
Matt Easton on his Youtube channel talks at lot about miliary sabers for the british military as well as sells them here.

http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/antiqu...s-uk/for-sale/

And a number of them are labeled as things like the 1796 light cavalry sabre.

His youtube channel talks alot about various british military sabre's though out the years.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2016, 10:14 AM   #125
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,589
Well, it's a rare case of you're both right.

Technically the army nomenclature always said "sword." Even very curvy ones like the 1796 Pattern Light Cavalry Sword, was called just a sword. The army official nomenclature never called it a sabre. So from the point of view of what the army documents said, the cap'n is right.

On the other hand, they were and are commonly referred to as sabres. Both in contemporary literature and nowadays even by people with a history degree. (Including Matt Easton.) So, yea, I still stand by my calling them sabres.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 21st July 2016 at 10:19 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2016, 10:25 AM   #126
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,589
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
Interesting stuff. Didn't most ACW cavalry sabers actually curve, perhaps not as much as a scimitar but pronounced enough to be easily noticeable?
Cavalry ones usually did indeed. Infantry ones though tended to be narrower, lighter, and had very little cure or none at all. You'll notice that the sword I was discussing and you highlighted is the 1796 Pattern INFANTRY Officer's Sword, not the same year CAVALRY sword pattern. The cavalry one was broad and rather curved indeed.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2016, 11:20 AM   #127
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,763
Well, actually, I didn't highlight any of them; I highlighted a gap in the years you mentioned and asked a question about it. Regardless, I'm not trying to be argumentative in case it is coming across that way. I'm a military man but not a sword or saber historian.

For the record, USMA's nomenclature is actually saber and not sword, but it is entirely ceremonial.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2016, 12:48 PM   #128
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,589
Ah, I'm not assuming anyone to be argumentative. I just misunderstood it as referring to a sword model, rather than a gap.

As for the gaps, well, that's the years they came up with new patterns. The British were all about standardization, and once some weapon was standardized, they kept producing and issuing that pattern for at least a decade, usually more. Though as I was saying, for officers it was allowed to buy your own sword after 1827, as long as the hilt looked standard from the outside. (INSIDE the handle a lot went for the full-width tang of the "patent hilt", but as long as you couldn't tell from the outside that it's a different hilt, all was well.) Non-officers still got the standardized swords, though.

Sort of how the US army was still issuing M1911A1 pistols in '86, after they standardized on that model in '24. It's not as much a gap, as just the old standard was still being issued.

As for the nomenclature, well, that was obviously for the British army, since that was the cap'n's objection. Other countries obviously had their own names for them.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 21st July 2016 at 12:52 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2016, 01:07 PM   #129
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 47,162
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Ah, I'm not assuming anyone to be argumentative. I just misunderstood it as referring to a sword model, rather than a gap.

As for the gaps, well, that's the years they came up with new patterns. The British were all about standardization, and once some weapon was standardized, they kept producing and issuing that pattern for at least a decade, usually more. Though as I was saying, for officers it was allowed to buy your own sword after 1827, as long as the hilt looked standard from the outside. (INSIDE the handle a lot went for the full-width tang of the "patent hilt", but as long as you couldn't tell from the outside that it's a different hilt, all was well.) Non-officers still got the standardized swords, though.

Sort of how the US army was still issuing M1911A1 pistols in '86, after they standardized on that model in '24. It's not as much a gap, as just the old standard was still being issued.

As for the nomenclature, well, that was obviously for the British army, since that was the cap'n's objection. Other countries obviously had their own names for them.
From watching Matt Easton video's he claims all officers had to buy their own gear that entire period. It was just if they stuck to the basic minimum demanded of them or if they wanted something more specialized.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2016, 01:12 PM   #130
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
A seax is a single-edged knife. There are langseaxes that could be described as swords, but they are still srtaight, single-edged blades. I don't know where you get the idea that they are curved. If it is curved, then I wouldn't describe it as a seax.
I wore the Essex symbol every day for nearly a decade, and not only were we told it was three seaxes, it is confirmed here (and many other places), that this is what they represent.

Quote:
Essex’s fearsome flag was included on the registry from its inception, in the early years of the 21st century. The three white seaxes (short Saxon swords) with gold pommels, on a red field were the arms ascribed in the later mediaeval period to the ancient kingdom of the East Saxons, or Essex
ETA: Essex symbol: three seaxes:

__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

Last edited by MikeG; 21st July 2016 at 01:23 PM.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2016, 01:44 PM   #131
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,589
Well, as your own link says, if you scroll a bit down,

"The depiction of the blades themselves seems to have evolved over the years. The notches for example are a fanciful artistic elaboration – gouging chunks out of a weapon like this would weaken its solidity and usefulness and existing seaxes, such as this one displayed in the London museum (missing the original wooden handle)

[image of a seax]

are also not curved like scimitars. These characteristics seem to be the products of nineteenth century heraldic fashion!
"

ETA: I'd add that the hilt on that flag is also VERY ahistorical. There was no such thing as that crossguard on a seax, nor usually a pommel, and the grip tended to be longer in relation to the blade size. Also I'd add that the historical seax shown in that link is a distinctly Anglo-Saxon model, so, yeah, that's the one that would be used in Essex. The models used by the Franks and such tended to not be the broken back type.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 21st July 2016 at 01:53 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2016, 01:49 PM   #132
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,645
Heraldic seaxes bear as much relation to historical seaxes as heraldic Eagles have to real Eagles.

No offence, but a seax looks like this. it's a long straight bladed knife, with the back of the blade coming down to meet the blade to form the point.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2016, 01:57 PM   #133
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,589
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
Heraldic seaxes bear as much relation to historical seaxes as heraldic Eagles have to real Eagles.
Even less so I would say. It's more like the relationship between a heraldic gryphon to a real eagle. Just about every single element of those seaxes is wrong.

Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
No offence, but a seax looks like this. it's a long straight bladed knife, with the back of the blade coming down to meet the blade to form the point.
Just to add, only long seaxes and almost only Anglo-Saxon ones. Most seaxes had at most half the blade length of the Beagnoth one, and the broken back (that coming down to meet the edge) tends to be a distinctly Anglo-Saxon element. Still, it would be the kind of seax used in Essex.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2016, 02:45 PM   #134
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 21,602
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
From watching Matt Easton video's he claims all officers had to buy their own gear that entire period. It was just if they stuck to the basic minimum demanded of them or if they wanted something more specialized.
British Officers still do buy their own uniforms and equipment including swords.
They get an annual allowance which they spend at specialist tailors and outfitters.
If you are in one of the 'best' regiments like the Cavalry or Guards it will all be made to measure 'bespoke' and some dress gear like Bearskins, Cavalry Helmets, Breastplates and Swords will be handed down through the family and refurbished.
Captain_Swoop is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2016, 04:57 PM   #135
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,039
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, I guess some do have a slightly curved cutting edge, but still a straight back. So yeah, I wouldn't count them as curved swords either.
Most seaxes actually have a straight edge and a curved - or rather, angled - back. Some have a curved edge.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2016, 06:39 PM   #136
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,763
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Ah, I'm not assuming anyone to be argumentative. I just misunderstood it as referring to a sword model, rather than a gap.

As for the gaps, well, that's the years they came up with new patterns. The British were all about standardization, and once some weapon was standardized, they kept producing and issuing that pattern for at least a decade, usually more. Though as I was saying, for officers it was allowed to buy your own sword after 1827, as long as the hilt looked standard from the outside. (INSIDE the handle a lot went for the full-width tang of the "patent hilt", but as long as you couldn't tell from the outside that it's a different hilt, all was well.) Non-officers still got the standardized swords, though.

Sort of how the US army was still issuing M1911A1 pistols in '86, after they standardized on that model in '24. It's not as much a gap, as just the old standard was still being issued.

As for the nomenclature, well, that was obviously for the British army, since that was the cap'n's objection. Other countries obviously had their own names for them.
I was quite saddened when we switched from the M1911 to the M9 Beretta.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2016, 11:54 PM   #137
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,589
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Most seaxes actually have a straight edge and a curved - or rather, angled - back. Some have a curved edge.
Well, I meant straight back up to the point it angles. And definitely nothing like the curved back in those heraldic things.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd July 2016, 04:14 PM   #138
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,039
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, I meant straight back up to the point it angles. And definitely nothing like the curved back in those heraldic things.
A lot of people seem to look at a seax and assume that it's the angled edge that is sharp, whereas actually it's the straight edge. That may be the source of the confusion.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2016, 12:50 AM   #139
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,589
Hmm... I suppose it would explain a few things, though even from there to the fancy heraldic scimitars it's quite the difference.

At any rate, considering that I've already mentioned the broken back a couple of times in the thread, I'd think it's a safe bet I'm not one of them What I meant by curved edge was that many widen a bit up to about the same point where the back starts to angle, then the edge also curves a bit to meet the angled back.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 23rd July 2016 at 12:52 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd July 2016, 12:57 AM   #140
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,039
Yes, that certainly does describe some seaxes, which thereby look somewhat like a bowie knife.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2019, 04:23 PM   #141
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,427
Haven't logged into ISF in awhile. I happened on a youtube video that seemed a bit woo woo to me that was talking about these amazing holes that were drilled by the Egyptians (or extraterrestrial aliens, I didn't stick around long enough to find out). I happened on this thread when I was looking for information about the holes.

I didn't have much success in finding the links contained in this thread on my own and I was sympathetic to Noriabooks and the fact that he didn't find them on his own either. I also didn't quite figure out why he got so much crap for what seemed like reasonable behavior to me.

So it looks like the holes were drilled by Egyptians probably using copper tubes with emery powder. They probably added water, oil or grease to the abrasive powder. But other abrasives and variations in techniques can't be ruled out.

It seems to be possible that some of the tubes could have been molded. If that's the case it seems like the adhesive could have been added to copper while it was molten. Somebody suggested that upthread but I didn't see any follow on discussion of the idea.

I also wondered if a harder metal would have worked better or perhaps worse. I imagine the abrasive particles embedded into the copper a bit and twisting the tube would have dragged them along. I doubt they could have embedded in an iron tube so it is conceivable to me that iron wouldn't have worked as well as copper.

Nice to see quite a few names I recognized in this thread. I hope some of you are still around.
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb
davefoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th August 2019, 05:20 PM   #142
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,927
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
Haven't logged into ISF in awhile. I happened on a youtube video that seemed a bit woo woo to me that was talking about these amazing holes that were drilled by the Egyptians (or extraterrestrial aliens, I didn't stick around long enough to find out). I happened on this thread when I was looking for information about the holes.

I didn't have much success in finding the links contained in this thread on my own and I was sympathetic to Noriabooks and the fact that he didn't find them on his own either. I also didn't quite figure out why he got so much crap for what seemed like reasonable behavior to me.

So it looks like the holes were drilled by Egyptians probably using copper tubes with emery powder. They probably added water, oil or grease to the abrasive powder. But other abrasives and variations in techniques can't be ruled out.

It seems to be possible that some of the tubes could have been molded. If that's the case it seems like the adhesive could have been added to copper while it was molten. Somebody suggested that upthread but I didn't see any follow on discussion of the idea.

I also wondered if a harder metal would have worked better or perhaps worse. I imagine the abrasive particles embedded into the copper a bit and twisting the tube would have dragged them along. I doubt they could have embedded in an iron tube so it is conceivable to me that iron wouldn't have worked as well as copper.

Nice to see quite a few names I recognized in this thread. I hope some of you are still around.
Didn't read the thread but here is one functional link about AE cores.

http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.ph...article&sid=57
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 03:50 AM   #143
Noriabooks
Student
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 29
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
I didn't have much success in finding the links contained in this thread on my own and I was sympathetic to Noriabooks and the fact that he didn't find them on his own either. I also didn't quite figure out why he got so much crap for what seemed like reasonable behavior to me.
Thanks. Well, I guess these guys were too happy in their bubbles, being sure they had just found a woo-believer trying to pose as a non-woo-believer. Crappy behavior. I have only got it from woo-believers for being a non-woo-believer and this thread left so s*hitty taste into my mouth that I haven't written here nothing since.

But I think you're right about copper being better material. They had no problem with it wearing off too fast. Just gathered together the dust from the holes and re-melted it again.
Noriabooks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 07:46 AM   #144
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,589
@davefoc
I would assume that they didn't use iron, simply because this was happening before the iron age, really.

Egyptians actually starting producing their own iron is debatably somewhere between 1000 and 586 BC. A good argument can be made that it wasn't until the 7th century BC, when the Ionians came to the Nile Delta and brought along iron smelting. But it could be as late as 586 BC, which really is the earliest we can actually support with evidence.

If it seems way late compared to anyone else, remember that Egypt wasn't EXCLUSIVELY limited to imported tin for bronze, and it's one reason they survived the collapse of trade networks in the end of the bronze age collapse. Empires around them collapsed, Egypt survived only weakened.

(A parallel would be, say, China, which also couldn't give a flip and continued using bronze all the way into AD times.)

So, anyway, Egypt didn't have the same do-or-die pressure to move to iron as everyone else. Wrought iron weapons weren't really any better than bronze weapons, so if you still had the ability to make bronze, meh, it still works.

And the 1st millennium BCE is simply way late to have any bearing on most of what people talk about when the whole aliens things comes up. By then there were no more pyramids being built, for example.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 12th August 2019 at 07:47 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 11:58 AM   #145
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,625
Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
And I thought those aliens were supposed to be so much more advanced!

Those bastard aliens didn't even introduce them to the awesomeness of a SDS Max rotary hammer with tungsten carbide tipped drill bits!
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 12:42 PM   #146
Ron Swanson
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,331
I didn't read all the replies but haven't heard mention the use of diamonds ... the Egyptians had gems stones and diamonds, presumably there would be plenty of gems of non-jewelry grade.

It would be simple enough to embed them in copper or bronze tubes or pipes with the technology they had, making an effective core drill

Last edited by Ron Swanson; 12th August 2019 at 12:43 PM.
Ron Swanson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 01:48 PM   #147
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,589
I suppose it's possible, especially since diamonds were not especially valued in ancient Egypt. The hype about diamonds being the alpha and the omega is relatively recent. The ancients and even medieval people liked coloured stuff more. And in the case of Egypt, the most valued were the blue stones, especially Turquoise and Lapis Lazuli, which made a nice contrast with gold. Basically when they needed something for a pharaoh's mask, what gems do you find on it? Yeah, Tut's mask has Lapis Lazuli. Emeralds were probably a close third, and from there went all the other coloured stones.

So I guess it wouldn't be that outrageous to use diamond for more industrial use.

The problem to my mind is more like, ok, but how would they get coarse diamond dust for that drill? Diamonds were for a long time the hardest material known to mankind. I mean even processing it for jewels could only be done by rubbing two diamonds together, because nothing else would abrade it.

Thing is, the kind of resulting dust is IMHO too fine to be all that much use. Also it's a LOT of effort for even a tiny amount. Seems to me like if other rocks get the job done, personally I would go with those.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 02:32 PM   #148
8enotto
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 935
The Egyptian deserts are replete with free and plentiful abrasive material. The shook it out of their sandals.

There was no need to look very far at all. Sand was everywhere.
8enotto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 02:40 PM   #149
Ron Swanson
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,331
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post

The problem to my mind is more like, ok, but how would they get coarse diamond dust for that drill ....
Diamonds are hard but really brittle .. they can be crushed easily with a rock ... but that's not what i meant I mean actual embedding the diamonds IN brass or copper ... as in heating up the metal and pushing the diamonds into it.

After reading then posts here and contemplating I think it seems much more practical to use it in crushed up form as you say .. mixed in with sand? ..

I saw an article just now that talked about using an olive oil slurry, rather than plain water.

Interesting subject!
Ron Swanson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2019, 02:56 PM   #150
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,589
Well, yes, but when emery does the same job and can be gotten by the ton, why bother with diamond?

As I was saying earlier, Egypt used a LOT of holes in stones. When I said waay back that they did probably like a hundred thousand holes in stone each year, it wasn't hyperbole. Door hinges were stones with holes. Vases were hollowed out stone. Etc.

Really, probably if you showed an Egyptian a stone, their first thought would be that it could really use a hole

And that's just the holes. Then were the statues, and those were more common than you'd think. E.g., nowadays you'd remember late grandma with a photo. They actually had a cube statue of her, about the size and shape of a human in fetal position, so not only they remember her by it, but it can actually can support her Ka (soul) if she wants to drop by and have a look see. Grandma didn't look upon you from heaven in their religion, she literally dropped by for dinner. So pretty much everyone who was a free man had a few of those around.

Edit: oh, and you also had to have a star... err... soul gate, for her to pass through if she wanted to drop by. Yep, that one was a big carved and polished slab of stone. And not just if you wanted her to drop by your house, but also needed one in her tomb.

So yeah, there was a LOT of drilling, cutting and polishing stone. And it wasn't just for pharaohs and nobles. Every pauper had some stones with holes. Literally. Hell, even your slave hut probably had hinges that were a stone with a hole.

So, you know, would you REALLY go with diamond there? I mean it strikes me as a bit too expensive and labour intensive, if you want to use it to make THAT kind of mass-produced commodities, innit?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 12th August 2019 at 03:01 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 10:36 AM   #151
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
It took me only a few moments to find this: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostem...cutting07.html

Web content from 16 years ago, describing some practical archaeology carried out for the Nova TV show, including trepanning into granite with a copper tube drill and sand as the abrasive.

So when someone actually tries the technique, it turns out that it works.
I personally will say that, if someone proposes a method available to ancient peoples to do a particular task, and shows that it works, that is enough to satisfy me that the woo explanations are nonsense. It's entirely possible that they actually used some other method. Most of the woosters are using an argument from incredulity anyway. "There is no possible way they could have drilled those holes/lifted those big rocks/shaped those big rocks or whatever, therefore aliens, or therefore, they had advanced technology we don't know about, or whatever. " Finding a method that works and was available to them is enough to take the wind out of the sails such weak arguments. It would be nice to know for sure how ancient people did these things, but usually there just isn't enough evidence to be sure.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 10:41 AM   #152
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I suppose it's possible, especially since diamonds were not especially valued in ancient Egypt. The hype about diamonds being the alpha and the omega is relatively recent. The ancients and even medieval people liked coloured stuff more. And in the case of Egypt, the most valued were the blue stones, especially Turquoise and Lapis Lazuli, which made a nice contrast with gold. Basically when they needed something for a pharaoh's mask, what gems do you find on it? Yeah, Tut's mask has Lapis Lazuli. Emeralds were probably a close third, and from there went all the other coloured stones.

So I guess it wouldn't be that outrageous to use diamond for more industrial use.

The problem to my mind is more like, ok, but how would they get coarse diamond dust for that drill? Diamonds were for a long time the hardest material known to mankind. I mean even processing it for jewels could only be done by rubbing two diamonds together, because nothing else would abrade it.

Thing is, the kind of resulting dust is IMHO too fine to be all that much use. Also it's a LOT of effort for even a tiny amount. Seems to me like if other rocks get the job done, personally I would go with those.
True, but there are more common and easier to get materials than diamond. But you are correct, that the extremely high value of diamonds is mostly made up by the DeBeers cartel using marketing hype and careful control of the supply, as is the notion that, if a couple wants to get married, the man absolutely has to buy the woman a diamond.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2019, 12:20 PM   #153
8enotto
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 935
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
I personally will say that, if someone proposes a method available to ancient peoples to do a particular task, and shows that it works, that is enough to satisfy me that the woo explanations are nonsense. It's entirely possible that they actually used some other method. Most of the woosters are using an argument from incredulity anyway. "There is no possible way they could have drilled those holes/lifted those big rocks/shaped those big rocks or whatever, therefore aliens, or therefore, they had advanced technology we don't know about, or whatever. " Finding a method that works and was available to them is enough to take the wind out of the sails such weak arguments. It would be nice to know for sure how ancient people did these things, but usually there just isn't enough evidence to be sure.
In the trades even today tools from bulldozers to hammers are used hard and tossed off when used up. It was the thing made, not any tool used to build it that matters.

The ancient cultures had ropes, wood rollers, sledges and boats capable of great feats. In Egypt rocks and sand were used also as ramps and scaffolding.

And when the temple was done it was all taken away to the next building site. In time it all wore out or rotted away leaving us a monument and a clue or two. But Ra and his temple were the focus and not a tool used to cut or move rocks.
8enotto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 12:15 AM   #154
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,589
It would be nice to know for sure how they drilled a hole, but... actually we do know for sure. As I was saying, we actually have depictions on walls of someone drilling a hole, and it's conveniently captioned that they are doing just that
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 05:22 AM   #155
IsThisTheLife
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 341
You all might find the results of a search for images of "prehistoric polygonal star-shaped bore holes" interesting. Copper tubes and sand, my a***.

ETA >> google is the least fruitful engine, try bing.
__________________
"There is no sin except stupidity."

Last edited by IsThisTheLife; 14th August 2019 at 05:25 AM.
IsThisTheLife is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 06:17 AM   #156
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,787
Since you've done the search, and presumably found something of interest, wouldn't it be simpler to just post the most interesting link?
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 07:08 AM   #157
SusanB-M1
Incurable Optimist
 
SusanB-M1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 3,626
Deleted - I see that I did post back on page 1.

Last edited by SusanB-M1; 14th August 2019 at 07:12 AM.
SusanB-M1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 09:31 AM   #158
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,589
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
Since you've done the search, and presumably found something of interest, wouldn't it be simpler to just post the most interesting link?
Seconded, since even with Bing you have to go to the images to find some obscure and thoroughly ridiculous woowoo sites. What they show are some images of holes with strangely smooth and regular outlines and interiors, even when the rest of the stone is clearly eroded and pitted.

Also, in stones at surface level, and most actually showing traces of moss on the surface, which you are supposed to just believe are prehistoric, for no other reason than that they say so. Because, you know, even though the rest from that era is many metres deep, apparently exactly the stone the wooster wants to be prehistoric, stayed on the surface and got moss. And somehow the exposed hole never got eroded by rain and wind, even if the rest of the stone was.

And also which apparently nobody else found before. Because obviously millennia worth of people in that area must have never found such a hole worth noting

It's also not clear at all what role would such a hole fulfill. Exactly what would need fixing in a star-shaped hole in one big irregular rock in one place, an epicyclical hole in another, and a downright rifled hole in yet another? What would it DO?

Basically, way I see it, woowoo by morons for morons.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 09:46 AM   #159
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,589
Oh yes, and apparently the only ones referenced by more than one place are in an old quarry. Because FSM knows the ancients would somehow drill a hole from nowhere to nowhere, inside a rock, so it would only be visible after someone cut a block of rock in exactly the right place
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2019, 10:12 AM   #160
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,655
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Oh yes, and apparently the only ones referenced by more than one place are in an old quarry. Because FSM knows the ancients would somehow drill a hole from nowhere to nowhere, inside a rock, so it would only be visible after someone cut a block of rock in exactly the right place
I'm reminded that a handheld drill tends to want to make triangular (well, 3-lobed) holes in sheet metal if you don't hold it still enough. It made me think about how a long drill bit with a chisel tip might precess (if that's the right term) and make interesting shapes as you drill deep into rock in a quarry.
Jack by the hedge is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:14 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.