Yes it should be commonly accepted that this unfinished obelisk is pre dynastic! No way old kingdom Egyptians could have done it with the tools they had! Its simply impossible 🤷
Apologies in advance for what turned from a quick refutation into a philosophical and history laden rant. I don't think it's so much that they had a greater capacity for patience than we do. The desire to do things more quickly or easily has aforesaid existed, and that pressure has pushed forward innovations that allow it. What's changed is the threshold for patience. As technology has improved, and the rate we can accomplish an identical project increases, our tolerance for taking time decreases, but the scale of projects we can accomplish increases as well. All told, a lot of the most impressive Egyptian monuments, impressive as they are, are relatively simple. Pyramids are piled stone, once they'd figured out the right angle that could support itself, the basic design didn't need to change much. Their temples are often more complex structures, but in earlier times were made from more forgiving materials than stone, so the more technically impressive (that is to say, requiring more skill) monuments made in later periods of Egyptian history actually took similar or lesser amounts of time. Also compare Medieval cathedrals, which could sometimes take centuries to complete from foundation to opening, I don't think anyone could argue a lack of patience there (aside from the, "isn't that thing _done_ yet?!" variety). The reason we don't undertake decades or centuries long projects today isn't purely a lack of patience (though that's absolutely a factor), it's that there are very few projects we would want to do that would take that long, and most of them aren't building projects. If we really wanted to do so, we have the capacity to build something close to an exact replica of the Great Pyramid, and we could almost certainly do it in less than a decade, possibly more like half of one (a decade that is), if building permissions weren't a factor. We do engage in decades long projects, various aspects of the space program are planned at least a decade in advance, things like aircraft carriers often take time on the order of 5-7 years from laying down the keel to fully commissioning them into active service. If we want to talk hypotheticals, a source elevator would certainly take a couple decades to build, but we don't really have a pressing need for one yet, and we hope that by the time we might conceivably have a use for one, we'll be able to build it faster than we can now. Terraforming projects would take centuries minimum with our current understanding, more like millenia of effort. We don't really lack dia patience, or at least, that lack isn't alone, we also lack the need or desire to do any of these kinds of megaprojects.
Skilled craftsmen in the present tend to think of a work project in terms of hours, days, or weeks. Ancient craftsmen were often involved in things that took months, years, or decades. That's why I am skeptical of those claiming to be engineers, masons, etc. Who pop up claiming it couldn't be done. It's more like they simply can't conceive of that level of patience and attention to detail.
The other advanced technology they used was the manpower of thousands of unpaid slave laborer to do all the backbreaking pulling, pounding, craving and lifting. Americans amazing growth after it's founding shows what can be achieved with a large unpaid slave labor workforce.
Great to hear from Adel Kelany. Just to add my two cents I fire set red and grey granite to make abrasive. It only took minutes to get it hot enough to crack. Then with pounding stone I reduced it to sand with barely any effort. While dolerite did crack and break into sharp pieces with fire setting. It remained strong and did not break down into dust-sand even after multiple firing cycles. Including a couple of long sessions. I also did a small test of sharp angular pounders (stone pick) versus rounded pounders. The difference was huge in favour of the angular stones no surprise. For anyone in the “stone pounders lol” crew try it and then compare with “steel tools lol” and you’ll soon find that iron is not magical. It’s slow patient going in igneous rock.
“The Egyptians deserve kudos, for their great ingenuity, and ability”. Tell that to 'Scientists Against Myths' - they probably dismiss the *Antikythera* mechanism, also.
@@megamond *_"Tell that to 'Scientists Against Myths"_* What are you talking about? They do empirical archaeology and demonstrate how things could have easily been done by the Egyptians. {:o:O:}
@@megamond interesting how people like Brien Foerster, UnchartedX, and the other lost high technology grifters say the Egyptians were incapable primitive thieves who stole/inherited their great works and graffitied their names on them, but Scientists Against Myths, who actually demonstrate how the Egyptians were more than capable enough to produce such great works, are worse and more disrespectful to their ability and ingenuity. ✔️
Superb video, David. The fire is the key then! 6mm to 200mm is a HUGE difference. Fire is the key to cutting/pounding out the stone. And the pounders start as angular, sharp rocks but end up rounded BECAUSE they have been used. Wonderful interview.
You have probably been told before but you are an amazing Interviewer. You ask interesting question that don’t presuppose a specific answer (although you most likely already know it), so it does not create an awkward moment when they don’t answer exactly what you expect them to. And you are able to move on to a different question when the interviewee sees a question as answered. You also switch between topics fluently; creating an interview in the progress that is interesting to watch all the way through.
Ingenuity has never been a rarity in our species, so people shouldn't be surprised about what older civilizations could accomplish. Thanks, Dr. Miano, for all you do!
No, you don't understand. The ancient people were ignorant idiots who could barely speak they were so retarded. Today's people are much MUCH smarter, and so it is natural for them to reject the so-called accomplishments of ancient peoples. Everything old sucked, and everything new is amazing. You are old, and they are new. Get it now?
I walked the length of the unfinished obelisk 30 years ago. This single piece of stone was three times longer than my whole house! It was right next to the river. Big thinking.
The alternatives always say the experts don't know how such objects were really made and transported but here we are. Usually the experts do know, it's just the alternatives ignoring proper research and evidence or hoping their audience is ignorant.
@@jamisojo Some people are also lacking in intellectual insight, insisting that they are always the bright ones, there simply is no room for a different opinion. You, J Jamberson belong to that group of people. You're a legion. Your kind started the Roman Inquisition, remember Galileo? Have you ever heared of Giordano Bruno? Well, he proposed that the stars are also distant suns surrounded by their own planets. Your kind wouldn't have it, so in 1600 they tortured him and burned him at stake. I think it's no longer debatable that our sun is a star, and over 5,000 exoplanets have been discovered revolving different stars, and still counting. It's your kind that stifle the progress of science. Science is a process for producing knowledge. The process depends both on making careful observations of phenomena and on inventing theories for making sense out of those observations. Change in knowledge is inevitable because new observations may challenge prevailing theories. No matter how well one theory explains a set of observations, it is possible that another theory may fit just as well or better, or may fit a still wider range of observations. In science, the testing and improving and occasional discarding of theories, whether new or old, go on all the time. Scientists assume that even if there is no way to secure complete and absolute truth, increasingly accurate approximations can be made to account for the world and how it works. I leave it at that. Obviously, you do not possess the education or intellectual capacity to digest that.
The NOVA program on “Erecting the Pharaoh’s Obelisk” give the greatest insight as to part of the transportation if such heavy objects. Even to the loading and unloading of them on the barges. As well as the easiest and safest way to erect into final position. It shows that when people who work with stone get together, they can figure out how to accomplish the task without overthinking the project. Even to the learning curve.
@@dr.banoub9233, double entendre , it may be but it is the name of the NOVA episode. It has Rodger Hopkins using the sand pit method against a British engineer trying to use the possibly most advanced technology available. Guess who was able to erect the Obelisk.
@@dr.banoub9233 the engineer had a 15 ton and Rodger was relegated to a dealing with a seven ton one. Be that as it may, Rodger showed how even a gang of humans could transport one on a sledge with. The proper motivation. Still humorous, true but you can watch the episode on You Tube. It is in a playlist of over 400 episodes. While NOVA is documentary entertainment, the various interdisciplinary approach that is used for experimental archeology brings the human viewpoints that wind up the making of history, as opposed to the older style of documentary presentation where everything was pronouncements without the relevant reasoning for the conclusions. Much like the teachers that wanted students to learn by rote. Even Dr. Hawass has seen the usefulness in experimental archeology., to show how things were done by humans with the available technology and methods. In most cases what seems the simplest is also the safest and and permitted things to happen quicker than would be anticipated. So to figure out how to build the pyramids, you get an architect/ project manager, to figure out the easiest building method and have the archeologists uncover the middens of those that built it to get the human aspect. Similarly you can get an engineer and a wainwright together and recreate a Pharaoh’s Chariot with both contributing to the understanding of the final aspects of design, then recreating the bridal and harness for the horses and a military expert, to show how a Pharaohs army would have used them in battle.
Thanks Dr. M! I always enjoy it when you interview anyone who is working in the field of history or archaeology. To see the faces and hear the voices of those who are making discoveries and answering questions that have been mulled over for untold decades, is one of my main enticements for tuning in.
It's sad how this information is readily available, but people prefer to believe the mystery is totally unsolved and impossible to achieve by the ancient Egyptians.
Only thing I can imagine is by scraping as deep as possible under the obelisk, then heating it up with fire, praying that it doesn't crack the whole thing and letting the cold night air crack it loose. Is my layman's theory anyway. How they lifted the thing and put it on a barge is another mystery🤔
@@User-435ggrest No one knows how they were moved and this U-Tube show does not want you to learn how because it might pucnch a hole in the christian myth. This show is desperately trying to discredit Graham Hancock and all he is saying is there was an advanced civilization long ago that was wiped out by a disaster. The christian bible does not want any contrary findings. For instance, the discovery of cave paintings done 30,000 years ago blows out the ancestral linage of Adam and Eve to Noah that was written in the bible as about 7 generations. The church cannot explain that.
It's so cool how the ancient Egyptians would use fire to make carving out the stone go quicker. I love learning about these ancient building techniques, just like the other World of Antiquity video on SACSAYHUAMAN. This video also goes well with Scientists Against Myths video Mystery of the Great Megaliths: Baalbek without Aliens. They talk about the unfinished giant stones in Lebanon that also had to be given up on because of cracks
I believe that I've seen and read about other similar techniques, building a fire next to a rock wall to heat it, then dousing the hot rock with water to induce cracks, or pouring water into cracks in winter so that freezing would widen the cracks. In fact an early idea for quarrying stone was to create linear cracks, pound in wooden wedges and then wet the wedges causing pressure to widen the crack.
@@JMM33RanMA Yes. Because nature has shown peoples around the world that the roots of a tree will widen the smallest of cracks in the hardest of stone.
I make 4 foot tall obelisks from old window glass using my glass fusing kiln. They look like ancient objects during the day but at night I can light them up from inside with LED lights. I've always been fascinated with obelisks and I love hearing more about how they were made and moved.
I don't want to spoil the ending but humans keep on making stuff for years and years until we wind up here learning about them. It was a plot from the beginning if you go back and watch it.
Excellent presentation! I was also intrigued by the presenter’s comment that these techniques were already known to the ancient Egyptians. The knowledge had been passed down over time.
2:29 I was waiting for you to say your expert contact was Ben from Unchartedx. The guy who spends his life complaining scholars ignore his claims, and then when a historian takes some on, one at a time, we hear crickets back from Ben. Sad.
Ben has been carefully rewording his claims since Dr M and Scientists Against Myths and Sacred Geometry Decoded channels keep debunking many of his statements.
Great interview! You are very good at asking the key questions that answer all the questions raised by the doubters. You've made a believer out of me. A critical thinker even.
great video... such an interesting topic, knowledgeable guest, and in depth information that is still accessible to a lay man. i do wish that the doctor's microphone was better, the audio quality and his accent made it somewhat difficult to understand, but this was so fascinating that i just kept rewatching until i figured out what he was saying, lol.
Thank you, Dr. David, i learned some new info! I love hearing directly from the person who has "on the ground" spent his lifes work on the subject at hand.
Wow! Fire makes so much sense I can't believe I hadn't thought about it before. They are using it to basically "soften" the granite in an area. The heat makes the natural small cracks between the grains of the stone expand. Then they can pound away where the grains have been loosened. It's blowing my mind. We try to avoid it in modern granite working. Wow, wow, wow.
Ummm lol what? Fire? Do you undrstand how much lumber would be required? The scoop marks go all the way down in a straight line and are evenly distributed. This was not done hy hand or by fire. Fire would not cause even distribution. Also, your fire isn't gonna do anything underneath the obelisk which is partially carved out and the scoop marks continue.
@@alienrenders Do you understand that fire doesn't require wood? Also, they don't necessarily need the fire at every stage, it just helps speed up the removal of stone by creating microcracks along the fire damaged area. I can't claim to understand all their methods, but if you've worked stone as much as I have, you would know that heat can definitely make stone brittle.
@olorin4317 I agree, but what doesn't add up is that the pattern is very uniform. I've watched in-depth videos of the trenches, and it shows stone removal that undercuts in places where it would be impossible to reach by hand, and those locations have the same sequence of uniform drag markings. Would fire work? Sure, I wouldn't doubt it, but it seems like there is something major missing.
I'm still trying to figure out why people want to believe so badly in an advanced civilization? Some of those alternative channels seem to have pretty intelligent people behind creating them but yet they still believe in some conspiracy to keep it covered up. But from what I've seen, many of these people stating this make way more money putting out books and doing tours than any archeologist or professor makes. I just makes less and less sense the more actual research I've seen. The only conclusion I can come to is they purposely continue to run with their narrative because it's much more lucrative to talk about advanced societies. Another great video
Human nature. Some OTHER better than me did. God, aliens, sharks with lasers. We have to call it advanced because it's easier than calling our self ignorant, but it's the same equation.
Because the pseudo narrative gets pushed by people who can cut and paste from wikipedia and cherry pick published academic sources and self publish a book in fairly short order. That will make more money in sales than a book based on years of excavation and lab analysis that then goes thru a long rigorous review process by a university press. Most people want to read dramatically written narrative about lost civilizations and the alleged conspiracies trying to suppress the "secret" knowledge. Hundreds of pages on often mundane explanations about using flint to shape granite, not so much.
For some it is racism / elitism. They are very very comfortable believing that Greeks, Romans and other Europeans built major works but it unsettles them that anyone else might have.
As you say, for the people who run the "ancient aliens/high technology" sites the income must be a major motivation. For their believers, I suspect the main attraction is the conspiracy they have to believe in. That's like the Flat Earth theory: it doesn't explain what we observe, and takes a lot of tweaking to get near to explaining anything, but it does require a gigantic conspiracy to hide it, which I am sure is the real attraction. Somehow that's what gives them comfort.
Hi David, wonderful video as always. If it isn’t already on your list of upcoming videos, i think one interesting subject is that of the venus figurines of the European upper palaeolithic. I was surprised to find that there is quite a bit of controversy surrounding their origins.
I like this suggestion. Perhaps a look, a gentle look, at the suggestion of Goddesses. People dare to project modern ideas into the past ... but I think Simone de Bouvier wasn't that far off in Second Sex. Not to be controversial or anything! 👵
Finally we are getting nearer to a rational explanation of how these objects were made, transported and erected. What is still not clear is how the obelisk was separated from the stone at the bottom but kudos to Dr. Kelaney for his lucid exposition.
See my comment above. If you look at online photos of the obelisk you will find some which were taken from within the trench cut along its' side. It shows an area where they were already beginning to quarry = underneath it. Thus as alluded to in another comment there are partially completed large stone objects abandoned in Egyptian quarries where they were removing stone from under it = while leaving stone pillars in place to support the object above the ground. Quarrying in such a manner allows a wooden framework/sledge to be built beneath it prior to lowering it down onto the platform. Bear in mind that an obelisk will ultimately be stood on its' base - which is exposed and can be finished prior to erecting it. Once stood up then the sides can be finished via scaffolding built around it to allow craftsmen to do the finishing work. The tomb of Rekhmire shows Egyptian craftsmen doing various tasks to include some working while standing on such scaffolding.
What most advance technology people forget, is that there is a reason we cll everything from the Paleolithic through the neolithic, the”Stone Age”. It was during those times ghat humans discovered and refined the use and technical characteristics of all types of stone. And how to combine the natural forces such as fire and water to exploit them for human purposes. Some of these came from accidental means, such ad seeing how stone can crack when a fire is quickly extinguished by water and remembering this to use it for human purposes. Even to how such technology can decompose granite, which while a hard stone, consists of softer materials that react differently to hot and cold. Once a stone slab such as the Obelisk was fashioned the under cutting of the attached spine, would be hollowed through and discarded pounding stones filled into the hollows to support the stone while adjacent hollows were being cut. This prevents the stone from falling and acts like a Jack stand under a car. Then as you show in the video, the possibility of using sand to raise it from the pit and get it on sledges can easily be accomplished with the use of draft cattle teams to move the slab and human laborers to fill in the sand. Such project management was shown as far back as the building of the pyramids and although there are the given indications as to why these obelisks were being created, there was also the political acumen to have people employed so as to not have rebellions. Such employment generated prosperity across the entire population, since it created spendable income apart from the trades of everyday life. Especially for the farmers who had a growing period for crops which apart from irrigation required little work and was, a difficult annual period of no income.
I had a similar experience with Unsupported X. I pointed out that in making the claims that power tools were used and that it was " impossible " that the Egyptians could have used stone and metal hand tools to cut and shape granite, he had the burden of proof. First: he presented no artefacts or other evidence for power tools, or the means of generating power to operate said tools, nor does he demonstrate the impossibility of using hand tools. Ben, Graham, whoever that not so bright insight guy is, Johanna ( funny old world ) and various other youtubers have loads of followers, and make lots of money peddling pseudo knowledge to those who lack the ability to use such things as Occam's Razor, and have devoted precious little time and effort studying the basics of any discipline that might help them to develop an on board bullshit detector. I love Dr. M's videos because of the breadth of knowledge he possesses, and his willingness to put on his waders and take on the charlatans in their own living rooms. The fact that, besides the informative content he presents, he's able to debunk the snake oil salesmen ( and women ), and point out their " bait and switch ", and " sleight of hand " techniques.
@@russellmillar7132 they love to play up the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" card. But then they turn around and rant about the absence of mummies in pyramids as evidence they weren't tombs.
@@russellmillar7132 He tried using that ridiculous excuse of "burden of proof" with me also. I quickly rammed that back at him but he had a temper tantrum, said some impolite stuff and blocked me. Fun times. Dr M is awesome.
This unfinished obelisk is pre dynastic just as the pyramides are! Tombs for pharaohs? No mummies found and no hiëroglyfs found... The tunnel system underneath the plateau shows no marks of soot. Does this mean they carved out these super precise tunnel systems by feel and in the dark? And if, and that's a very big if, they old kingdom Egyptians did build this all, why didn't they leave any writing or hiëroglyfs of how it was done? Too many unanswered questions, the debate should consider these points imo
Rob, whenever I happened to watch this video, my attention was drawn to the little brick attached to the huge obelisk. why it was so firmly attached to it? What was the binding material? From the video, I could only speculate that the brick was bound by a kind of cement to the ground and to the obelisk. If ancient Egyptians had access to cement, why they would not used it to build various stones?
Can u pls make video on vedic civilization What was happening during those period Pls mention sinauli excavations Also what is ur opinion on proto sanskrit language is it from hurrian language spoken by mittani people(scroll website talks on that topic pls search sanskrit not from india ) I wonder why there are not much evidence or archaeological findings like we have in Mesopotamia or egypt a perfect written history and evidence of stuffs so we can tell the history like a continuous story
We found 4200 years old iron in southern India recently that's huge jump in historical discovery in india We should extend our iron age I'm sure it's way ahead in north india
@@sergpie yes as per IIT researchers they said its because of mixing with sulphur or phosphorous something which make it stay protected but I guess we don't know the reason behind 🤷♂️
@@eliotanderson6554 It is against the law to take samples AFAIK, it falls under UNESCO heritage due to it's location (it's in the compound of the Red Fort or Qutub Minar). Also Sanskrit cannot be from India because India happened much later, there were many kingdoms prior to the formation of India. We may share racial characteristics, but that's like saying the Incas were from Peru, it was not called Peru at the time.
Ohhh. Love the Egyptian civil engineering vids. Wonder if it's debunking or educational. Right, I'm saving this one for the exercise bike at the gym this evening. 38 mins? I can do that.
I find that adding strenuous bursts of activity to informative videos, allows for better retention and remembering of the contents; I guess the association of the physical effort to the information allows it to be remembered more readily .
If it weighs 1168 tons, that is 2,336,000 lbs if each person can do 200 lbs, that is 11,680 people to move it seems impossible, I do not even understand this......
@@drummerdad80 obviously oxen, men and ropes in a co-ordinated effort. for something this significant for the society I am sure they can find the manpower. it's not like this was an every day task. research the Thunderstone which was a similar project logistically.
Just love it - finally a Video for this topic I can fully sign. Not just an "it's not possible" here and an "that is drilled" there just because its hard to imagine. Thx Doc very good interview. Nice weekend 🍻 Best Regards Marti
Wonderful video!👍the scoop marks still seem a bit to uniform and evenly spaced for me, but I am open to all info and appreciate all aspects I love this stuff, I would love to see underneath the unfinished moia statues on Easter island, I am betting it looks like the unfinished obelisk, do you have any photos videos or info on that subject? I would love to see you do that if you do
Scoop marks from pounding stones looool how can people believe this tripe. Look at videos. They are perfect scoop marks as from a machine. Likewise cut marks on stone in situ in Egyptian bedrock as from a machine powered saw, not to mention granite is one of the hardest stones to work with.
@@MrDOB1000 they just showed the marks. They weren't similar at all. They all looked a little different. They also just explained how they cut through granite. Ignoring the facts doesn't make them wrong.
Great Interview with Adel Kelany. I just wanted to correct an important item: The use of red granite floor plates was reported by W. M. Flinders Petrie in 1900 (in passing), and again in 1901 in more detail. This is on page 9 in Part II of The Royal Tombs of the Earliest Dynasties. The tomb where this was discovered was that of Horus-Den, the fifth king of the First Dynasty, not the Second Dynasty as it appears in this video, and this is a key discovery because it times the quarrying of granite to the very beginning of Egyptian civilization and forms a bridge between the use of granite at Nekhen in prehistoric times, and Saqqara in the Third Dynasty, i.e., Djoser's granite burial chambers. Petrie's chief evidence that this granite floor was original to Den's tomb rather than a later improvement were imprints left on these granite plates by stone vases that could be dated to the First Dynasty.
Hi Manu. That would have been my mistake. I put the title on the image. You are certainly correct that Den ruled in the first dynasty (a few decades before the second).
Hello Manu, Very good remark and observation. only question I have is how did the Egyptians actually " quarry" the granite in this time period? Can you or David expand on your theory on this ?
It's always fascinating to see how archaeologists have, with interdisciplinary help, uncovered the methods of construction. Even more than that, however, it's AMAZING to learn how the ancient peoples actually did things! Using fire to carve hard stones? That's incredible! Human ingenuity seems to know no bounds! :D And I'll bet those clever ancient Egyptians managed to figure that out without even a little help from those jerk Atlanteans and all those aliens who were obviously floating around back then.
Pliny the Elder may have seen either a UFO or a bolide lightning hover around the center of Rome , descend to near the streets, then shoot back up to the clouds.
Wtf? He's claiming that Ancient Egyptians had access to fire? Who'd have expected that🤷♂️ ? My big problem with moving obelisks is how come the Victorians managed to grab the Cleopatra Needles then get them to London and New York and erect them, when alien tech handn't even been thought of, let alone forgotten?🤔 Excellent and informative dialog btw, nice to get an archeologist's view👍👍
I stopped at 23:00, when he started talking about the dolorite balls .. i mean i have absolutely zero background in archeology or anything, and with all respect ,but .. come on man ... is this really what they came with after all that “excavation” and with all the “evidence” that they gathered. This reminded me of that expert you interviewed about the polygonal masonry in Peru, who said that they just bashed the rocks till they fit in place. Again, with all respect to you World of Antiquity , but have u been to Egypt or Peru, or any other ancient sites of such yourself ?
Not only has Dr. Kelany been to Egypt, he lives there and has worked extensively at this very site. Since the experiments have been done and shown to be effective, simple incredulity doesn't cut it anymore.
@@chichodormi4732 why couldn't you make any shape you want by hitting one rock with another? Do you have another explanation and can you give us a demonstration? Obviously these guys could demonstrate their simple test again. It's simple and it works.
Those amazing Romans and their secret anti gravity technology, allowing them to transport obelisks across the mediterranean in spaceships disguised as sail boats. Even more impressive was their high tech laser, anti-matter saw cuts, etc, that allowed them to quarry those stones at Baalbek! ps: I am being ironic of course. The fact the Romans did those things, documented everything, and we KNOW they did it with tech available at the time, just destroys the pseudo-archeology nonsense.
I like the information about the dolerite pounders. Makes sense, they were used as pounders and then repurposed for rollers. My initial thoughts that they were rollers And the fire techniques on the scoop marks. Very insightful. ❤
Do you mean the crater shaped spots at the bottom of each section that they were bashing with a rock? People keep talking about these scoop marks. There are a lot of marks around all this stone quarrying. Could you describe in greater detail the ones you are talking about? We talking about the trenches where the obelisk was cut out? Or those divots on top of flat surfaces near it?
@@jamisojo Kelaney said that they had experimented with dolerite pounders and made "similar marks" to those found around the trenches. I'm curious how "similar".
Thank you to Adel for giving interesting answers. And thank you David for doing this interview, very informative and made my imagination go crazy! The only thing I can't wrap my head around is how they cut the bottom of the obelisk to lift it out of the quarry🤔
Not "lift"....... There are examples of partially quarried things in Egyptian quarries whereby they were removing stone from below = but left stabilizing pillars to suspend the object above in the air to allow them to work. So what does this mean?? It allows for a wooden sledge to be assembled underneath prior to allowing the object to be lowered into the resulting platform. Once done = your obelisk or whatever will already be on a sledge in the pit where it was quarried. Now Go to Google maps and look at this obelisk = then switch to satellite view. See whereby the side now partially removed is adjacent a large open area just beyond. Further the obelisk rests uphill from the Nile about a km away. There is a modern road near that open area which goes downhill - following the natural incline of the area - to the Nile to subsequently run alongside the river. Moral of the story: had the obelisk not cracked and been abandoned the Egyptians would have finished opening up that side of the pit. The obelisk then could have been = pulled laterally out of its pit - thus no lifting required. It could then have been hauled downhill on its sledge via teams of men and oxen to a wadi area as Adel spoke to where a transportation barge and harbor area would have already been set up. Remember that the Egyptians "sewed their ships together" in creating them. So a large barge hull/deck with ramps on both ends could have been assembled with dikes to hold the water back. The obelisk would be hauled up one end onto the deck - as the pullers went down the opposite end ramp - so that the obelisk was now on the deck of a large barge = and the rest of the barge assembled in place. They then awaited the annual Nile flood -----> opened the dikes to raise the barge = and if all went well it was towed into the Nile channel to where it needed to go.
With the tech they used to move obelisks I can think of way better uses for dolorite pounders. You don't even need them if you are applying fire to granite since fire reduces the structural integrity of absolutely everything. I don't know what your point is in saying "just because we don't know how something is done is not evidence that it could not be done." The skeptics whole point is that known methods could "not" have done this. You really should have probed the "earthen ramp" theory, Dr Miano. It's preposterous. A 40 meter 1200 ton obelisk dragged up a makeshift earthen ramp onto a temporary sand box 45 meters high? Yeah right. A small demonstration does not mean a concept will work if scaled up by 10,000. And I didn't see any scoop marks created by their focused fire experiment. I don't think your comparison to Romes ability to move obelisks is fair. Pharaoh Thutmose reigned before the Iron age even started. Rome did not rule until well after it started. I will think of "the expert's" - theory - as partially plausible since he found evidence of ash and mud brick and I don't doubt his answer about the two obelisks on a raft but assuming they were of equal size they would only have been about 16 Meters tall, each, a third the size of this obelisk. These two obelisks would have to displace 800 cubic meters of water, not including the raft they floated on, meaning 35 meters long and 7 meters wide, roughly (again, weight of the raft itself not included). The largest ancient Egyptian boat so far, called the Khufu Ship, I think, was only 43 meters long and 6 meters wide and displaced about 72 cubic meters of water. I suppose such a raft is plausible but dude, it would be huge...
When you bash some rock downward with a stone ball you get a circular crater shape at the bottom. Or "scoop mark". Although I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would think that anyone scooped any stone out of anything. I'd call it a divot.
*The skeptics whole point is that known methods could "not" have done this.* The point that they keep making to me is that, since we don't know the methods, it must have been done by someone else besides the Egyptians. So you're only giving half the point. *A 40 meter 1200 ton obelisk dragged up a makeshift earthen ramp onto a temporary sand box 45 meters high? Yeah right.* Personal incredulity is not an argument. *I don't think your comparison to Romes ability to move obelisks is fair. Pharaoh Thutmose reigned before the Iron age even started.* The point is simply that it can be done without modern tech. Why do you think that iron would make a difference when moving it anyway?
@@WorldofAntiquity What I mean by the Iron age is that iron has a much higher load bearing capacity (pulleys, rollers, chains, timber spikes, gears, etc) then the metals of the bronze age. So I didn't think it was fair to compare the capabilities of an iron age empire to a bronze or stone age one.
@@WorldofAntiquity As to the point of the skeptic, I agree to your half point point. The other half I take you to mean that methods unbeknownst to us could still have been practiced by the Egyptians? As for personal incredulity not being an argument, it conveys the outer limits of possibility, or feasibility. Applying the whole earth-ramp-sand-pit theory to how many obelisks and how many more pillars and how many more multi-ton blocks is incredulous. I could probably work out some math for you as a first cut estimate but the ramp and pit would both be bigger then the obelisk. Once the obelisk was dragged to the top of the pit it would be like stacking boulders on top of milk jugs - the sides would bloat out and the tall walls would crumble. Here is the other thing, (I'm not trying to switch topics on you) but the Easter Island heads were actually "walked" to their destinations. They have legends, fallen heads, finish work, and demonstrations that all support the walking heads theory. It's the fallen heads that are curious. They always fell to the side of the road and many were not broken in doing so. And they were just left there. So - earth ramps, rafts, sand pits - have we found other broken obelisks indicating a malfunction during any of these movements?
@@larrymiller5763 Crickets ey? I agree with you Larry, there's still a lot of unanswered questions and I think the victory dance being done by mainstream archeology is wholly premature. But then again it always is through history.
Fire was used to fracture rock by temperature shock. It is okay to disbelief theories of lost civilisations but it does not make sense to suggest that this technique has been used to get an important piece of stone like that out as a whole! Further, 'scoop marks' are found in places where careful removal of granite was not necessary. It is fine to say "we don't know how they did it" but that is no content I guess.
I wasted one year of my life behind idiots like Graham Hancock, ancient architect . Than I found your channel. You opened my eyes. You make them look foolish. I m grateful for your work
Never consider it a waste; the truth enjoys the good contrast provided by being surrounded by specious information; kinda like a gemstone or diamond sticks out from the rough matrix it’s a encased in
Ancient Architects has had a bit of a rebirth in outlook within the last year or so. Matt is not the sheep he onced seemed to be and is much more circumspect in his archaeological news coverage these days. The sheer difference implies he was as taken in as you were to begin with.
I am still wasting my time with these people and will do so forever because it's much more fun to enhance my fantasy with them than scrolling through facebook or playing stupid games or working overtime. 😁
Before the Egyptians there was a culture sooo advanced in engineering that they didn't know the the advantage of engineering an arch for their buildings.
Thanks for another fascinating explanation of how our ancestors did amazing things without our advanced tech. I noticed, near the tip of the unfinished obelisk, a set of indentations ▃ ▃ that would separate the top from the rest of the obelisk if connected and deepened. I can't help wondering if anyone has commented on this. Thanks for another thought-provoking video Professor Miano.
Apparently those in the Roman period were responsible for that. It’s discussed around 21:15. They tried to take just the tip because the rest kept cracking, basically, but the tip also cracked.
@@maidende8280 Thanks, I got that much, though it wasn't as explicit. What I was really interested in was what method seemed to have been used to make ▃ ▃ indentations and what method would then be used to continue to separation. The Greeks and Romans may or may not have had more advanced techniques than the ancient Egyptians.
Thank you for doing this video. I had seen a video on youtube before claiming the Egyptians had used fire and showed that it improved the rate of quarrying but getting actual archeological confirmation was very satisfying. I do wish you had covered more about how they would move them over land. I have an idea that they built the sleds directly underneath the stones when they were still connected to their base. They would then use the wood/water method to detach the stone from its base and the stone would then be sitting right on the sled ready for transport. They would dig out a ramp at 1 end of the stone and haul it out on the sleds using the same method that they believe was used at the alabaster quarry of Hatnub. Maybe even digging a niche that ran the length of the stone an filling it with sand then wetting the sand. A method that has been proven to reduce the friction an make moving these huge stones less difficult and with the "capstan"/ramp (not sure what you would call it) method found at Hatnub they could get them moved. I believe this would probably be easier than lifting it with sand or wood chips, lol.
Lifting megaliths is easy. You rock them back and forth by shifting weights about a centered shoring box, and slide in boards at the open end, then tip the stone the other direction. Literally not a problem, and quite a quick process.
@@Chris.Davies Man lifts 20 ton stone by himself? I saw that video too. Maybe, but this stone is much larger than that 1. The potential for this 1 to break in half from its own weight and size is a possibility using that method.
Very interesting interview, getting an expert's answers to a perplexing problem. I would love to see some of the experiments that he referred to. But my biggest question regards the erecting of the obelisks. I have done 3D models on this subject to try and figure out for myself exactly how a ramp could have been used to pull an obelisk up a ramp to a sand-filled coffer, tip it in, and then remove sand from the bottom of the coffer to let it sink into position. The main problem is how can the obelisk be pulled over the coffer? Where did the workforce stand when they reached the edge of the coffer and then pulled it out over the sand? As illustrated in his diagram, they used a second ramp that was at the same level as the first ramp.This makes some sense until one considers that the two ramps would have been huge and the obelisk was raised in front of an already-existing temple facade. Where could room be found in such relatively-cramped quarters to build a second large ramp? Especially when two obelisks were raised side-by-side? And then in his diagram they removed the sand from below, which would have caused the entire body of sand to lower at the same time. In that case, how did they tip the obelisk onto the pedestal which was already in place at the bottom of the coffer? In his diagram, only a portion of the sand was being lowered. How would they have controlled that? In my model, had them pull the obelisk base-first up to the edge of the sand-filled coffer, positioning it so it would tip over the edge into the sand; then lower the sand which would lower the base gradually until it reached the pedestal. Also in my model, I didn't use a second (huge) earthen ramp, but postulated two buttressed arms that reached beyond the pit so the workforce could move out onto it to pull the obelisk far enough to position the base over the edge of the coffer. Don't know if the physics would work since I'm just an art teacher, not an engineer, but seemed to make sense to me.
I saw a video sometime with them doing this with a smaller experiment. It look fairly easy, you just had to go slow. You can remove sand from the front or the back or in the middle. I don't think there's any limit to how creative you could do that if one was so inclined.
Hello Bob, great question, I think the next question is, unless the obelisk was meant for this location... then the issue is not just raising it... but transporting it... You probably have already done so, but zoom out a bit and look at the terrain... just how was this massive object going to be moved? its not going to happen with millions of dolirite balls....
Yes, I modeled the Unfinished Monolith for my art history demonstration to show my students how the sides had been cut down and then undercut from either side at the bottom. I posited wooden beams to level/tip the shaft over in order to split it from the spine that remained, then figured that they would have had to cut a trench as deep as the trench is around the obelisk all the way to the banks of the Nile where it could be loaded aboard a huge barge somehow. I assume that workmen could have cut that trench, although it seems nearly impossible given the volume of granite that stood between the original location of obelisk and the shoreline. Perhaps using directed fire as suggested by the guest, it would have been made easier. The whole enterprise boggles the mind.
The model at the end was very convincing that they could move that obelisk…further than that there is explanation on how they would do that on statues with round shapes, or stones that come from the other side of a mountain. Would be nice if further explanation on the precision and symetry of the various statues and how that was achived…
Ever watch say a carpenter or a mason work using a chalk line?? Today they will use a square/level first to find plumb and mark a line using a chalk line = whereas in the past they might use a weighted plumbline and draw the corresponding line/grid. Moral of the story: the Tomb of Horemheb (KV57) as one example is incomplete. On its' partially finished walls you can see where lines/grids were laid to ascertain correct sizing of designs to be painted along with those designs in various stages. In other words a person would draw the design -------> someone would come after to make corrections = and the finished design would then be painted. The Theban Mapping Project as an example has photos you can access online of the tomb walls. So obviously they would first draw a design onto a wall - or perhaps a block to be carved or even the side of a mountain. Grids might be created to facilitate correct sizing/symmetry after which a design could be painted or stone removed to achieve the final result which might then be polished. As an aside you should familiarize yourself with a concept: pareidolia. Our eyes sometimes play tricks on us as our brains seek to "even things out" if you will. Look at photos of the pyramids taken at a distance = their sides appear "sharp". Now look at the same taken closer up = and their imperfections stand out. So statues may "appear" to be precise visually from a certain vantage as our eyes tend to make things appear much crisper and even than they might actually be. Upon closer examination however - especially using modern technology - "symmetry" is sometimes illusory. 🤔
Seems like the tool has a pendulum that the "cutter" was tied to. Each scoop you can see how the ridges are slightly higher that the middle. Same angle every cut.
@@WorldofAntiquity To Thebes? Well they missed the mark by 100 miles lol Side note: a whole while back I discovered on Google Earth that major megalithic structures are about 4.44 kilometers/miles/nautical miles away from each other, it made my heart skip a beat discovering this but unfortunately I lost the document where I wrote down each one
it really is amazing what can be achieved with basic tools, as much human labour as you could want and time. Why people refuse to appreciate just how powerful we can be when we simply work together is probably why we haven't been able to create a utopian society like Atlantis yet. It's why I'm as sure as I can be that there wasn't an earlier civilisation to rival ours, it probably took us 50,000 years just to stop bashing each other over the head the moment we met a stranger...
You really do not know much about ancient humans. Warfare wasn't a thing until very recently. There was no competition for resources! There were always so few humans that encountering new humans was a cause for celebration. The ancients knew the value of genetic diversity, amazing as that seems today. You know Atlantis is a garbage myth - right?
You would think that they would make a perimeter of core hole drillings the width of the trench and then finish the trench with pounders. Also, I wonder if they somehow could have used the annual flooding of the quarry to float the obelisk out of the quarry itself rather than moving it across dry land. The obelisk was also cut at an angle which might be a clue to the removal process after it was fully cut out.
36:30 If we scale this model we will have VERY thick ropes. Do We have empty holes like this? Or one of the sides has been broken of ? They didn't build the path for this obelisk
If you look at aerial photos taken of the obelisk which show more of its surrounding area you will see ones which show at its midway point = a cutdown area - which is how tourists usually access the site. Now using Google maps look at the area of the obelisk = switch to satellite view. See where the surrounding area in the vicinity of that cutdown space = reveals a wider area of quarried out stone. Now look at the layout of the general area. See a nearby modern road which runs down to branch out with one segment running down and along the Nile itself. Modern roads tend = to follow natural grades. So just north of the obelisk on that chiseled out space is a wider space ---------> which opens out on its downhill end -------> where natural grades which the modern road follows lead down to the Nile to an area less than a kilometer away. Moral of the story: as Kelany speaks to in the video the obelisk upon resting on a wooden framework could be hauled laterally into that open space just north of its present position. There one end is open leading downhill towards the Nile. So the obelisk could have then been hauled downhill to a "wadi" (low area of periodic inundation) area near the Nile which could have had connecting canals created so that upon the Nile having its annual flood the obelisk - by then resting upon barge(s) = could be ferried out into the Nile to its' final destination. 🤔
Thanks, answers many questions that are the subject of much wild speculation. I have a wonderfully detailed image of how Egyptians move very large statues I'd love to share with you, but can't post here. Is there an email?
This is an excellent video for educating those who don’t believe that ancients civilisations could have made their amazing monuments without more advanced tech that we have no evidence they used. Though their ingenious techniques are not exactly primitive!
more importantly it shows that their intelligence wasn't lesser than ours. They may not have the level of tools we have but they were just as intelligent.
So how did they transport these mega ton objects? With todays technology that is not possible you know. Clear indicator that the unfinished obelisk is pre dynastic!
@@davidmiller9485 They were us, without the benefits of the discoveries made by the meandering of man throughout the millennia. The ancients were making due (and excelling) with what they had available to them. We still don’t know how the Romans ground gold and silver to such small diameters (20nm), but they did, and they used that skill to create pleochroic glass that changes color based on the angle of illumination. The level of knowledge in chemistry and optics to achieve that is complex even by todays standards, yet there they were, fashioning impractical decorative objects using literal nanotechnology.
@@Rogier182 who is "they". Every culture had a different method for moving large items. when you have a large population and all the time in the world, it's just a matter of logistics.
@@sergpie hell, the Byzantines used Greek fire and we still don't know what it was either. There are a lot of examples of the intelligence of past man. Like i said, our tools might be "better", but we are no less or more intelligent.
Very interesting interview. Thank you. Question- If a standard tower crane lifts between 20-300 tons, used in most construction sites today and a medieval style crane was capable of lifting only 10 tons at best, how did they wrestle this stone out of that trench? Its mind boggling.
Actually no - it isn't. It can readily be ascertained simply by dispensing with your assumption of "lifting". 1 - there are the remains of partially quarried objects in Egyptian quarries. You can see whereby they were quarrying underneath to leave stone columns to support the weight above allowing them to remove stone. 2 - quarrying in such a manner allows for the installation of = a wooden sledge under the object. Then the object can be lowered onto that wooden platform as those support columns are removed. Now let us look at the obelisk. 3 - look at the obelisk using maps and switch to satellite view. You'll see next to one side of it the stone wall is partially removed and just beyond that = is a large open space. 4 - now look at the area via topographical viewing. The obelisk rests = uphill from the nearby Nile. Also nearby runs the modern road which circuits downhill towards the Nile exploiting the natural grade to then veer off and run alongside the river. 5 - thus following the mechanism laid out above. Had the obelisk not cracked and been completed they could have quarried under it and created a wooden sledge upon which it would have rested. Then removing the rest of the stone wall to one side it could have been pushed/pulled laterally into the adjacent open space and then moved = downhill to the Nile. Moral: as the video alludes the Nile during the months of the annual flood spills its' banks flooding areas which the rest of the year are dry. The term for such seasonally flooded zones = _"wadis."_ Per Merer's diary they were adept at the creation of canals and dikes and harbor areas. Remember the Nile flooded each year and hence their communities along its' bank had to be created beyond the floodplain. This means they were experts at creating canals/dikes/harbors to connect their communities to the Nile upon which they depended. Thus if completed a wadi area adjacent the Nile downhill from its' present location would have been selected and dikes created to seal that area off from the river. The lower part of a barge would be assembled - remember they "sewed" their ships together - with ramps on both ends. The obelisk could then be pulled up onto the deck and the rest of the barge assembled around it. Then when the Nile flooded the dikes could be opened flooding the area ----> which raised the obelisk on its' barge(s) = and it towed into the Nile to destination where another harbor area was already waiting. Nothing was "lifted".
I always wondered if they had any evidence for chemical etching and polishing of stones. I know that some smelting of ore and some plants provide substances that would make polishing finished easier.
The fire would have been in constant operation and would be moved from groove to groove- which would contain the coals etc and keep them from spilling back into the previously heated basin, Basin to hold water to shock the rock without quenching the fire next to it; subsequently scooped from one to the next in succession. Probably went 24/7 and only months to quarry an obelisk. These people were fully masters of their craft in masonry and stone working much as we work with concrete and steel.
"Fire setting" might be useful in the initial quarrying process - specifically to cut the trenches down into the bedrock along what would become the obelisk sides. From that point on the craftsmen probably did not use fire instead carefully chipping/rubbing their pounders to form what would become its sides. So you use fire to quarry trenches down through the granite to then clear that out and begin the slow process of actual forming of its sides. p.s. - the historical evidence indicates that Egyptian craftsmen worked set shifts much as today. So it was likely not 24/7. They worked during the day for a set number of days - their "work week" - to then have some time off. There are historical accounts of obelisks being created in under a year.
Seems a reasonable explanation of how to move the Granite. Location, Location, Location relative to the water way. Earlier on in this video the mention of granite floors,Tomb of Den w/granite flooring (2nd Dynasty) has me wondering how granite would be removed and shaped to be fitted as flooring without iron tools?
Some argue - compellingly - that it was the creation of the pyramids that made Egypt great. Think the US in the late-19th Century. The government sponsored the creation of the transcontinental railroads. That opened up the nation + facilitated improved communication between the coasts + allowed what were originally regional industries to expand their reach to become national and later international ones = and all because of a government sponsored project. So when the Egyptians transitioned from simple mastabas able to be created by a small workforce on a local level to creating ever larger stone pyramids = corresponding infrastructure had to also be developed. So resources needed to be sourced from across Egypt and beyond. Shipping and harbors/canals had to be created to supply the larger, more skilled workforce with the necessary resources. There is historical accounting to indicate Sneferu warred upon the Nubians/Libyans to acquire men and cattle to support a larger workforce for his pyramids. What were "State farms" controlled by the government were expanded to supply the additional agriculture to feed his workers and so on. Moral of the story: thus by creating the pyramids the Pharaohs in essence = created what went on to make Egypt prosperous and strong. It united the nation under a central effort which further expanded the movement of resources both internally and externally. As with all things however - eventually the good times ended. While adding to Egypt's overall capacity - the need to build bigger and more was detrimental in the end. Some Egyptologists believe that towards the end of the Old Kingdom the Pharaohs basically bankrupted Egypt via these massive projects. When a prolonged drought afflicted Egypt and the regions lasting as some have stated upwards of a century - Egypt lacking the resources to weather the storm = saw the collapse of the Old Kingdom. Yet later Egyptians adapted as always and following that collapse one sees their creating hybrid grains and even crossbreeding cattle with Asian species to generate ones better suited to arid environments. So by the New Kingdom when a drought again hit the region - even the Egyptians enemies the Hittites petitioned Ramses II for grain as Egypt had when others did not. So as with all things one must view the totality of what we see and why. 🤔
I waited 11,000 years for you to cover this topic
You had to turn in your space ship at light speed to see if he'd get it right
Yes yes yes ….
Yes it should be commonly accepted that this unfinished obelisk is pre dynastic! No way old kingdom Egyptians could have done it with the tools they had! Its simply impossible 🤷
Literally the entire video is about how and when the Ancient Egyptians built it. Try watching it.
@@Rogier182 they just explained exactly how it was done. It all made perfect sense.
I think the super advanced technology that the ancient Egyptians had that we have lost is mostly patience.
Apologies in advance for what turned from a quick refutation into a philosophical and history laden rant.
I don't think it's so much that they had a greater capacity for patience than we do. The desire to do things more quickly or easily has aforesaid existed, and that pressure has pushed forward innovations that allow it. What's changed is the threshold for patience. As technology has improved, and the rate we can accomplish an identical project increases, our tolerance for taking time decreases, but the scale of projects we can accomplish increases as well. All told, a lot of the most impressive Egyptian monuments, impressive as they are, are relatively simple. Pyramids are piled stone, once they'd figured out the right angle that could support itself, the basic design didn't need to change much. Their temples are often more complex structures, but in earlier times were made from more forgiving materials than stone, so the more technically impressive (that is to say, requiring more skill) monuments made in later periods of Egyptian history actually took similar or lesser amounts of time. Also compare Medieval cathedrals, which could sometimes take centuries to complete from foundation to opening, I don't think anyone could argue a lack of patience there (aside from the, "isn't that thing _done_ yet?!" variety). The reason we don't undertake decades or centuries long projects today isn't purely a lack of patience (though that's absolutely a factor), it's that there are very few projects we would want to do that would take that long, and most of them aren't building projects. If we really wanted to do so, we have the capacity to build something close to an exact replica of the Great Pyramid, and we could almost certainly do it in less than a decade, possibly more like half of one (a decade that is), if building permissions weren't a factor. We do engage in decades long projects, various aspects of the space program are planned at least a decade in advance, things like aircraft carriers often take time on the order of 5-7 years from laying down the keel to fully commissioning them into active service. If we want to talk hypotheticals, a source elevator would certainly take a couple decades to build, but we don't really have a pressing need for one yet, and we hope that by the time we might conceivably have a use for one, we'll be able to build it faster than we can now. Terraforming projects would take centuries minimum with our current understanding, more like millenia of effort. We don't really lack dia patience, or at least, that lack isn't alone, we also lack the need or desire to do any of these kinds of megaprojects.
Skilled craftsmen in the present tend to think of a work project in terms of hours, days, or weeks. Ancient craftsmen were often involved in things that took months, years, or decades. That's why I am skeptical of those claiming to be engineers, masons, etc. Who pop up claiming it couldn't be done. It's more like they simply can't conceive of that level of patience and attention to detail.
@@Great_Olaf5 you don't really have a clue what you're talking about.
The other advanced technology they used was the manpower of thousands of unpaid slave laborer to do all the backbreaking pulling, pounding, craving and lifting.
Americans amazing growth after it's founding shows what can be achieved with a large unpaid slave labor workforce.
@@Error_4x5 was America even founded when they say it was?
Great to hear from Adel Kelany.
Just to add my two cents I fire set red and grey granite to make abrasive. It only took minutes to get it hot enough to crack. Then with pounding stone I reduced it to sand with barely any effort.
While dolerite did crack and break into sharp pieces with fire setting. It remained strong and did not break down into dust-sand even after multiple firing cycles. Including a couple of long sessions.
I also did a small test of sharp angular pounders (stone pick) versus rounded pounders. The difference was huge in favour of the angular stones no surprise.
For anyone in the “stone pounders lol” crew try it and then compare with “steel tools lol” and you’ll soon find that iron is not magical. It’s slow patient going in igneous rock.
When SGD says something, you know it's facts only! Not opinions.
"I'll maybe consider believing you if you can single handedly replicate the pyramids using granite." - LAHT cult crew
Yes, yes, but that's no fun. I need aliens.
“The Egyptians deserve kudos, for their great ingenuity, and ability”
Spot on, David! Another fantastic video!
“The Egyptians deserve kudos, for their great ingenuity, and ability”. Tell that to 'Scientists Against Myths' - they probably dismiss the *Antikythera* mechanism, also.
@@megamond
*_"Tell that to 'Scientists Against Myths"_*
What are you talking about?
They do empirical archaeology and demonstrate how things could have easily been done by the Egyptians.
{:o:O:}
@@megamond interesting how people like Brien Foerster, UnchartedX, and the other lost high technology grifters say the Egyptians were incapable primitive thieves who stole/inherited their great works and graffitied their names on them, but Scientists Against Myths, who actually demonstrate how the Egyptians were more than capable enough to produce such great works, are worse and more disrespectful to their ability and ingenuity. ✔️
Superb video, David. The fire is the key then! 6mm to 200mm is a HUGE difference. Fire is the key to cutting/pounding out the stone. And the pounders start as angular, sharp rocks but end up rounded BECAUSE they have been used. Wonderful interview.
Yooooo! Love your channel AA
@@sergpie thank you
I hope you and Dr M can do a live stream soon.
200mm in half an hour?
Hey 2 of my favourite channels.... although both could do with a few more aliens.
You have probably been told before but you are an amazing Interviewer. You ask interesting question that don’t presuppose a specific answer (although you most likely already know it), so it does not create an awkward moment when they don’t answer exactly what you expect them to. And you are able to move on to a different question when the interviewee sees a question as answered. You also switch between topics fluently; creating an interview in the progress that is interesting to watch all the way through.
Thanks, I appreciate hearing that!
I agree! Amazing content🙏
Ingenuity has never been a rarity in our species, so people shouldn't be surprised about what older civilizations could accomplish.
Thanks, Dr. Miano, for all you do!
No, you don't understand. The ancient people were ignorant idiots who could barely speak they were so retarded. Today's people are much MUCH smarter, and so it is natural for them to reject the so-called accomplishments of ancient peoples.
Everything old sucked, and everything new is amazing. You are old, and they are new. Get it now?
I walked the length of the unfinished obelisk 30 years ago. This single piece of stone was three times longer than my whole house! It was right next to the river. Big thinking.
I walked on it in 1993... I was stationed in Turkey at the time, and took a tour of Egypt for a month.
techniques disappearing already maybe someone took their tools home .
The alternatives always say the experts don't know how such objects were really made and transported but here we are. Usually the experts do know, it's just the alternatives ignoring proper research and evidence or hoping their audience is ignorant.
Some people just love to believe in conspiracies. They don't try very hard to find the facts.
Library BURNT
@@jamisojo Some people are also lacking in intellectual insight, insisting that they are always the bright ones, there simply is no room for a different opinion. You, J Jamberson belong to that group of people. You're a legion. Your kind started the Roman Inquisition, remember Galileo? Have you ever heared of Giordano Bruno? Well, he proposed that the stars are also distant suns surrounded by their own planets. Your kind wouldn't have it, so in 1600 they tortured him and burned him at stake. I think it's no longer debatable that our sun is a star, and over 5,000 exoplanets have been discovered revolving different stars, and still counting. It's your kind that stifle the progress of science.
Science is a process for producing knowledge. The process depends both on making careful observations of phenomena and on inventing theories for making sense out of those observations. Change in knowledge is inevitable because new observations may challenge prevailing theories. No matter how well one theory explains a set of observations, it is possible that another theory may fit just as well or better, or may fit a still wider range of observations. In science, the testing and improving and occasional discarding of theories, whether new or old, go on all the time. Scientists assume that even if there is no way to secure complete and absolute truth, increasingly accurate approximations can be made to account for the world and how it works.
I leave it at that. Obviously, you do not possess the education or intellectual capacity to digest that.
@@jorgegonzalez-larramendi5491 it was probably full of mills and boon stories and porn engravings
@@rodelking3466 Aliens
The NOVA program on “Erecting the Pharaoh’s Obelisk” give the greatest insight as to part of the transportation if such heavy objects. Even to the loading and unloading of them on the barges. As well as the easiest and safest way to erect into final position. It shows that when people who work with stone get together, they can figure out how to accomplish the task without overthinking the project. Even to the learning curve.
😂😂😂Erecting the Pharaoh’s Obelisk? And that’s what the producers agreed as the title , with no pun intended? That’s what I call a double entendre.
@@dr.banoub9233, double entendre , it may be but it is the name of the NOVA episode. It has Rodger Hopkins using the sand pit method against a British engineer trying to use the possibly most advanced technology available. Guess who was able to erect the Obelisk.
@@walterulasinksi7031
So how large was this erected Obelisk? Was that rock hard to work ?
Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
@@dr.banoub9233 the engineer had a 15 ton and Rodger was relegated to a dealing with a seven ton one. Be that as it may, Rodger showed how even a gang of humans could transport one on a sledge with. The proper motivation. Still humorous, true but you can watch the episode on You Tube. It is in a playlist of over 400 episodes. While NOVA is documentary entertainment, the various interdisciplinary approach that is used for experimental archeology brings the human viewpoints that wind up the making of history, as opposed to the older style of documentary presentation where everything was pronouncements without the relevant reasoning for the conclusions. Much like the teachers that wanted students to learn by rote. Even Dr. Hawass has seen the usefulness in experimental archeology., to show how things were done by humans with the available technology and methods. In most cases what seems the simplest is also the safest and and permitted things to happen quicker than would be anticipated. So to figure out how to build the pyramids, you get an architect/ project manager, to figure out the easiest building method and have the archeologists uncover the middens of those that built it to get the human aspect. Similarly you can get an engineer and a wainwright together and recreate a Pharaoh’s Chariot with both contributing to the understanding of the final aspects of design, then recreating the bridal and harness for the horses and a military expert, to show how a Pharaohs army would have used them in battle.
@@walterulasinksi7031
Thank you. I will watch some of these episodes. Being a Copt, I never tire of ancient Egypt, humanity’s richest culture.
Thanks Dr. M! I always enjoy it when you interview anyone who is working in the field of history or archaeology. To see the faces and hear the voices of those who are making discoveries and answering questions that have been mulled over for untold decades, is one of my main enticements for tuning in.
It's sad how this information is readily available, but people prefer to believe the mystery is totally unsolved and impossible to achieve by the ancient Egyptians.
The sand and Obelisk demo at the end was great, looks like it would work .
Yes, very clever. I'd like to see the documentary it came from. Anyone got a link?
@@Leeside999 Haven't found it yet but this one is also interesting showing how to raise an obelisk
ua-cam.com/video/BgekJnMeNiY/v-deo.html
@@Eyes_Open thanks man
That was very illuminating. The addition of fire was new to me, as was the use of sharp pounding stones.
Absolutely fascinating. I had no idea about the use of fire in quarrying. What an incredible difference it makes! Thank you, David and Adel.
The amount on mental gymnastics it takes to explain this is astounding.
Physical experiments are mental gymnastics?
You are apparently befuddled quite easily then as most find it easily understandable - as well as illuminating.....
Thank you both! It just makes me want to go there in person that much more!
Makes you immediately ask how they cut under the large stone to free it from the quarry.
Only thing I can imagine is by scraping as deep as possible under the obelisk, then heating it up with fire, praying that it doesn't crack the whole thing and letting the cold night air crack it loose. Is my layman's theory anyway.
How they lifted the thing and put it on a barge is another mystery🤔
@@User-435ggrest No one knows how they were moved and this U-Tube show does not want you to learn how because it might pucnch a hole in the christian myth. This show is desperately trying to discredit Graham Hancock and all he is saying is there was an advanced civilization long ago that was wiped out by a disaster. The christian bible does not want any contrary findings. For instance, the discovery of cave paintings done 30,000 years ago blows out the ancestral linage of Adam and Eve to Noah that was written in the bible as about 7 generations. The church cannot explain that.
Great job on the captions, I had much difficulty understanding Kelany. 👍🏻
It's so cool how the ancient Egyptians would use fire to make carving out the stone go quicker. I love learning about these ancient building techniques, just like the other World of Antiquity video on SACSAYHUAMAN. This video also goes well with Scientists Against Myths video Mystery of the Great Megaliths: Baalbek without Aliens. They talk about the unfinished giant stones in Lebanon that also had to be given up on because of cracks
I believe that I've seen and read about other similar techniques, building a fire next to a rock wall to heat it, then dousing the hot rock with water to induce cracks, or pouring water into cracks in winter so that freezing would widen the cracks. In fact an early idea for quarrying stone was to create linear cracks, pound in wooden wedges and then wet the wedges causing pressure to widen the crack.
Yeah they were all built by stone age humans with hand tools. Keep reading the "history books"
@@JMM33RanMA Yes. Because nature has shown peoples around the world that the roots of a tree will widen the smallest of cracks in the hardest of stone.
The fire thing was totally new to me. Clever!
I also recommend SGD Sacred Geometry Decoded.
I make 4 foot tall obelisks from old window glass using my glass fusing kiln. They look like ancient objects during the day but at night I can light them up from inside with LED lights. I've always been fascinated with obelisks and I love hearing more about how they were made and moved.
Now I want glass obelisks lining my estate entrance filled with candles or torches.
@@maidende8280
Dear god I hope you don’t have cats
@@sergpie I have 2 😂 Why is that a problem? Btw just bc I want something doesn’t mean I’ll get it, ofc. :)
@@maidende8280
I hade a beautiful malachite obelisk that my fat little monster-cat knocked over and broke 😭
@@sergpie Oh no, I’m sorry! I do have fat little monster cat that thinks she’s a puppy. But amazingly she rarely breaks stuff.
I’ve been binge watching your videos recently, can’t wait for this one!
I don't want to spoil the ending but humans keep on making stuff for years and years until we wind up here learning about them. It was a plot from the beginning if you go back and watch it.
Thank you David. Excellent Presentation as usual .
Excellent presentation! I was also intrigued by the presenter’s comment that these techniques were already known to the ancient Egyptians. The knowledge had been passed down over time.
2:29 I was waiting for you to say your expert contact was Ben from Unchartedx. The guy who spends his life complaining scholars ignore his claims, and then when a historian takes some on, one at a time, we hear crickets back from Ben. Sad.
Ben has been carefully rewording his claims since Dr M and Scientists Against Myths and Sacred Geometry Decoded channels keep debunking many of his statements.
Great interview! You are very good at asking the key questions that answer all the questions raised by the doubters. You've made a believer out of me. A critical thinker even.
great video... such an interesting topic, knowledgeable guest, and in depth information that is still accessible to a lay man. i do wish that the doctor's microphone was better, the audio quality and his accent made it somewhat difficult to understand, but this was so fascinating that i just kept rewatching until i figured out what he was saying, lol.
There are captions available.
Thank you, Dr. David, i learned some new info! I love hearing directly from the person who has "on the ground" spent his lifes work on the subject at hand.
Wow! Fire makes so much sense I can't believe I hadn't thought about it before. They are using it to basically "soften" the granite in an area. The heat makes the natural small cracks between the grains of the stone expand. Then they can pound away where the grains have been loosened. It's blowing my mind. We try to avoid it in modern granite working. Wow, wow, wow.
Simple but so effective 👌
The word I was looking for was Brittle. The fire damage makes the stone brittle and easier to smash up. The fire, in no way, makes the stone softer.
Ummm lol what? Fire? Do you undrstand how much lumber would be required? The scoop marks go all the way down in a straight line and are evenly distributed. This was not done hy hand or by fire. Fire would not cause even distribution. Also, your fire isn't gonna do anything underneath the obelisk which is partially carved out and the scoop marks continue.
@@alienrenders Do you understand that fire doesn't require wood? Also, they don't necessarily need the fire at every stage, it just helps speed up the removal of stone by creating microcracks along the fire damaged area. I can't claim to understand all their methods, but if you've worked stone as much as I have, you would know that heat can definitely make stone brittle.
@olorin4317 I agree, but what doesn't add up is that the pattern is very uniform. I've watched in-depth videos of the trenches, and it shows stone removal that undercuts in places where it would be impossible to reach by hand, and those locations have the same sequence of uniform drag markings. Would fire work? Sure, I wouldn't doubt it, but it seems like there is something major missing.
Excited for this! Thank you :)
I'm still trying to figure out why people want to believe so badly in an advanced civilization? Some of those alternative channels seem to have pretty intelligent people behind creating them but yet they still believe in some conspiracy to keep it covered up. But from what I've seen, many of these people stating this make way more money putting out books and doing tours than any archeologist or professor makes. I just makes less and less sense the more actual research I've seen. The only conclusion I can come to is they purposely continue to run with their narrative because it's much more lucrative to talk about advanced societies. Another great video
Human nature. Some OTHER better than me did. God, aliens, sharks with lasers. We have to call it advanced because it's easier than calling our self ignorant, but it's the same equation.
Because the pseudo narrative gets pushed by people who can cut and paste from wikipedia and cherry pick published academic sources and self publish a book in fairly short order. That will make more money in sales than a book based on years of excavation and lab analysis that then goes thru a long rigorous review process by a university press. Most people want to read dramatically written narrative about lost civilizations and the alleged conspiracies trying to suppress the "secret" knowledge. Hundreds of pages on often mundane explanations about using flint to shape granite, not so much.
For some it is racism / elitism. They are very very comfortable believing that Greeks, Romans and other Europeans built major works but it unsettles them that anyone else might have.
As you say, for the people who run the "ancient aliens/high technology" sites the income must be a major motivation. For their believers, I suspect the main attraction is the conspiracy they have to believe in.
That's like the Flat Earth theory: it doesn't explain what we observe, and takes a lot of tweaking to get near to explaining anything, but it does require a gigantic conspiracy to hide it, which I am sure is the real attraction. Somehow that's what gives them comfort.
This is the one I've been waiting for.
Hi David, wonderful video as always. If it isn’t already on your list of upcoming videos, i think one interesting subject is that of the venus figurines of the European upper palaeolithic. I was surprised to find that there is quite a bit of controversy surrounding their origins.
I like this suggestion. Perhaps a look, a gentle look, at the suggestion of Goddesses. People dare to project modern ideas into the past ... but I think Simone de Bouvier wasn't that far off in Second Sex.
Not to be controversial or anything! 👵
There's something wonderful about learning things as Dr Miano learns them.
Fire. EXCELLENT. I wonder if any other cultures used similar techniques? Cheers from France!
I'm calling it. Someone will name drop Golbeki Teppe. They always do.
Fire mining was common until the 1800’s. Particularly for digging in hard rock.
Finally we are getting nearer to a rational explanation of how these objects were made, transported and erected. What is still not clear is how the obelisk was separated from the stone at the bottom but kudos to Dr. Kelaney for his lucid exposition.
See my comment above. If you look at online photos of the obelisk you will find some which were taken from within the trench cut along its' side. It shows an area where they were already beginning to quarry = underneath it.
Thus as alluded to in another comment there are partially completed large stone objects abandoned in Egyptian quarries where they were removing stone from under it = while leaving stone pillars in place to support the object above the ground. Quarrying in such a manner allows a wooden framework/sledge to be built beneath it prior to lowering it down onto the platform.
Bear in mind that an obelisk will ultimately be stood on its' base - which is exposed and can be finished prior to erecting it. Once stood up then the sides can be finished via scaffolding built around it to allow craftsmen to do the finishing work. The tomb of Rekhmire shows Egyptian craftsmen doing various tasks to include some working while standing on such scaffolding.
Goodluck tranporting 1000tons on little barge, goodluck pulling a 1000 tons up and out of the quarry. None of this is proven yet.
Haha nice work I see what you’ve done.. why talk about small ones when you can just talk about the most gigantic!! Absolute legend
What most advance technology people forget, is that there is a reason we cll everything from the Paleolithic through the neolithic, the”Stone Age”. It was during those times ghat humans discovered and refined the use and technical characteristics of all types of stone. And how to combine the natural forces such as fire and water to exploit them for human purposes. Some of these came from accidental means, such ad seeing how stone can crack when a fire is quickly extinguished by water and remembering this to use it for human purposes. Even to how such technology can decompose granite, which while a hard stone, consists of softer materials that react differently to hot and cold.
Once a stone slab such as the Obelisk was fashioned the under cutting of the attached spine, would be hollowed through and discarded pounding stones filled into the hollows to support the stone while adjacent hollows were being cut. This prevents the stone from falling and acts like a Jack stand under a car. Then as you show in the video, the possibility of using sand to raise it from the pit and get it on sledges can easily be accomplished with the use of draft cattle teams to move the slab and human laborers to fill in the sand.
Such project management was shown as far back as the building of the pyramids and although there are the given indications as to why these obelisks were being created, there was also the political acumen to have people employed so as to not have rebellions. Such employment generated prosperity across the entire population, since it created spendable income apart from the trades of everyday life. Especially for the farmers who had a growing period for crops which apart from irrigation required little work and was, a difficult annual period of no income.
Great video. I was banned from Uncharted X because I disagreed with the claims made about advanced machine quarrying methods.
Yeah he don't like when you ask real questions or present real evidence
I had a similar experience with Unsupported X. I pointed out that in making the claims that power tools were used and that it was " impossible " that the Egyptians could have used stone and metal hand tools to cut and shape granite, he had the burden of proof. First: he presented no artefacts or other evidence for power tools, or the means of generating power to operate said tools, nor does he demonstrate the impossibility of using hand tools. Ben, Graham, whoever that not so bright insight guy is, Johanna ( funny old world ) and various other youtubers have loads of followers, and make lots of money peddling pseudo knowledge to those who lack the ability to use such things as Occam's Razor, and have devoted precious little time and effort studying the basics of any discipline that might help them to develop an on board bullshit detector. I love Dr. M's videos because of the breadth of knowledge he possesses, and his willingness to put on his waders and take on the charlatans in their own living rooms. The fact that, besides the informative content he presents, he's able to debunk the snake oil salesmen ( and women ), and point out their " bait and switch ", and " sleight of hand " techniques.
@@russellmillar7132 they love to play up the old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" card. But then they turn around and rant about the absence of mummies in pyramids as evidence they weren't tombs.
@@russellmillar7132 He tried using that ridiculous excuse of "burden of proof" with me also. I quickly rammed that back at him but he had a temper tantrum, said some impolite stuff and blocked me. Fun times. Dr M is awesome.
This unfinished obelisk is pre dynastic just as the pyramides are! Tombs for pharaohs? No mummies found and no hiëroglyfs found... The tunnel system underneath the plateau shows no marks of soot. Does this mean they carved out these super precise tunnel systems by feel and in the dark? And if, and that's a very big if, they old kingdom Egyptians did build this all, why didn't they leave any writing or hiëroglyfs of how it was done? Too many unanswered questions, the debate should consider these points imo
I enjoy these videos, and the interviews too. Thank you!
Rob, whenever I happened to watch this video, my attention was drawn to the little brick attached to the huge obelisk. why it was so firmly attached to it? What was the binding material? From the video, I could only speculate that the brick was bound by a kind of cement to the ground and to the obelisk. If ancient Egyptians had access to cement, why they would not used it to build various stones?
Can u pls make video on vedic civilization
What was happening during those period
Pls mention sinauli excavations
Also what is ur opinion on proto sanskrit language is it from hurrian language spoken by mittani people(scroll website talks on that topic pls search sanskrit not from india )
I wonder why there are not much evidence or archaeological findings like we have in Mesopotamia or egypt a perfect written history and evidence of stuffs so we can tell the history like a continuous story
We have some kingdoms like gandara puru etc.. but not much is known
We found 4200 years old iron in southern India recently that's huge jump in historical discovery in india
We should extend our iron age I'm sure it's way ahead in north india
@@anonymousoff5420
What’s with Indian iron artifacts that don’t rust? Isn’t there an iron column in India that still hasn’t oxidized?
@@sergpie yes as per IIT researchers they said its because of mixing with sulphur or phosphorous something which make it stay protected but I guess we don't know the reason behind 🤷♂️
@@eliotanderson6554 It is against the law to take samples AFAIK, it falls under UNESCO heritage due to it's location (it's in the compound of the Red Fort or Qutub Minar).
Also Sanskrit cannot be from India because India happened much later, there were many kingdoms prior to the formation of India. We may share racial characteristics, but that's like saying the Incas were from Peru, it was not called Peru at the time.
Yay new content ! Jumping in now
Ohhh. Love the Egyptian civil engineering vids. Wonder if it's debunking or educational.
Right, I'm saving this one for the exercise bike at the gym this evening. 38 mins? I can do that.
Great motivation!
Bike or listen to what a highly trained scientist has to say. I can't do two things at once.
I find that adding strenuous bursts of activity to informative videos, allows for better retention and remembering of the contents; I guess the association of the physical effort to the information allows it to be remembered more readily .
Education is the foundation of debunking - so both.
This was a lot of new and interesting info :)
quite an achievement to move such huge blocks of stone in such primitive conditions, really makes me admire the Egyptians all the more
If it weighs 1168 tons, that is 2,336,000 lbs if each person can do 200 lbs, that is 11,680 people to move it seems impossible, I do not even understand this......
@@drummerdad80 how much can an ox pull?
@@GroberWeisenstein look at the quarry, how much room you have to be stable using a bunch of ox? 12,000 lbs that's 1946 ox still impossible
Primitive and Egyptian in the same sentence is an oxymoron. As a Copt, I find it kind of insulting. Ingenious is more like it.
@@drummerdad80 obviously oxen, men and ropes in a co-ordinated effort. for something this significant for the society I am sure they can find the manpower. it's not like this was an every day task. research the Thunderstone which was a similar project logistically.
Just love it - finally a Video for this topic I can fully sign.
Not just an "it's not possible" here and an "that is drilled" there just because its hard to imagine.
Thx Doc very good interview. Nice weekend 🍻
Best Regards
Marti
Wonderful video!👍the scoop marks still seem a bit to uniform and evenly spaced for me, but I am open to all info and appreciate all aspects I love this stuff, I would love to see underneath the unfinished moia statues on Easter island, I am betting it looks like the unfinished obelisk, do you have any photos videos or info on that subject? I would love to see you do that if you do
Scoop marks from pounding stones looool how can people believe this tripe. Look at videos. They are perfect scoop marks as from a machine. Likewise cut marks on stone in situ in Egyptian bedrock as from a machine powered saw, not to mention granite is one of the hardest stones to work with.
@@MrDOB1000 they just showed the marks. They weren't similar at all. They all looked a little different.
They also just explained how they cut through granite.
Ignoring the facts doesn't make them wrong.
Those scoop marks don't look very uniform. They are a little uniform... Which would be expected when you do it over and over and over and over. 😁
@@jamisojo yeah from pounding granite with a rock by hand. Give me a break
@@jamisojo for how long? That's some impressive patience they possessed.
Great Interview with Adel Kelany. I just wanted to correct an important item: The use of red granite floor plates was reported by W. M. Flinders Petrie in 1900 (in passing), and again in 1901 in more detail. This is on page 9 in Part II of The Royal Tombs of the Earliest Dynasties. The tomb where this was discovered was that of Horus-Den, the fifth king of the First Dynasty, not the Second Dynasty as it appears in this video, and this is a key discovery because it times the quarrying of granite to the very beginning of Egyptian civilization and forms a bridge between the use of granite at Nekhen in prehistoric times, and Saqqara in the Third Dynasty, i.e., Djoser's granite burial chambers. Petrie's chief evidence that this granite floor was original to Den's tomb rather than a later improvement were imprints left on these granite plates by stone vases that could be dated to the First Dynasty.
Hi Manu. That would have been my mistake. I put the title on the image. You are certainly correct that Den ruled in the first dynasty (a few decades before the second).
Hello Manu, Very good remark and observation. only question I have is how did the Egyptians actually " quarry" the granite in this time period? Can you or David expand on your theory on this ?
There is no logical connection between my post and your question. What is the gist of my post? Please recite.
It's always fascinating to see how archaeologists have, with interdisciplinary help, uncovered the methods of construction. Even more than that, however, it's AMAZING to learn how the ancient peoples actually did things! Using fire to carve hard stones? That's incredible! Human ingenuity seems to know no bounds! :D
And I'll bet those clever ancient Egyptians managed to figure that out without even a little help from those jerk Atlanteans and all those aliens who were obviously floating around back then.
Why are the Atlanteans jerks? Is there any basis for that adjective or am I just being autistic? 😅
Pliny the Elder may have seen either a UFO or a bolide lightning hover around the center of Rome , descend to near the streets, then shoot back up to the clouds.
@@sergpie I thought that was likely to be a meteor?
Pliny the elder saw a little t of things that didn't exist. Or at least wrote about them.
@@shaolin1derpalm
Bolides are real tho
To wet sand, knotted rope, pounding stones, copper tools and furious sledding for Pharaoh the Egyptologists add fire. If only we had fire today.
Wtf? He's claiming that Ancient Egyptians had access to fire? Who'd have expected that🤷♂️ ? My big problem with moving obelisks is how come the Victorians managed to grab the Cleopatra Needles then get them to London and New York and erect them, when alien tech handn't even been thought of, let alone forgotten?🤔
Excellent and informative dialog btw, nice to get an archeologist's view👍👍
Amazing interview!
I stopped at 23:00, when he started talking about the dolorite balls .. i mean i have absolutely zero background in archeology or anything, and with all respect ,but .. come on man ... is this really what they came with after all that “excavation” and with all the “evidence” that they gathered. This reminded me of that expert you interviewed about the polygonal masonry in Peru, who said that they just bashed the rocks till they fit in place.
Again, with all respect to you World of Antiquity , but have u been to Egypt or Peru, or any other ancient sites of such yourself ?
Not only has Dr. Kelany been to Egypt, he lives there and has worked extensively at this very site. Since the experiments have been done and shown to be effective, simple incredulity doesn't cut it anymore.
Thanks for your reply . I hope you get the opportunity to visit Egypt one day and test the rigidness of your perspective.
@@WorldofAntiquity it is a delirium
@@chichodormi4732 why couldn't you make any shape you want by hitting one rock with another?
Do you have another explanation and can you give us a demonstration? Obviously these guys could demonstrate their simple test again. It's simple and it works.
@@jamisojo Because we're talking tolerances to the degree that you can't fit a credit card between the slots of each rock.
EXCELLENT explanation. totally fabulous. Thanks for making and posting. I wish those "Martian origin" theorists would learn from this
Those amazing Romans and their secret anti gravity technology, allowing them to transport obelisks across the mediterranean in spaceships disguised as sail boats.
Even more impressive was their high tech laser, anti-matter saw cuts, etc, that allowed them to quarry those stones at Baalbek!
ps: I am being ironic of course. The fact the Romans did those things, documented everything, and we KNOW they did it with tech available at the time, just destroys the pseudo-archeology nonsense.
Except the excuse is that they had iron chisels.
@@shaolin1derpalm check the SCIENTISTS AGAINST MYTHS channel.
They reproduce ancient Egyptian stone work with only bronze tools, sand, water, etc
@@rogeriopenna9014 thanks. Will do.
I like the information about the dolerite pounders. Makes sense, they were used as pounders and then repurposed for rollers.
My initial thoughts that
they were rollers
And the fire techniques on the scoop marks.
Very insightful. ❤
Kelany claims that he was successful in replicating the scoop marks. Did he provide any evidence (i.e. photo, video)?
Do you mean the crater shaped spots at the bottom of each section that they were bashing with a rock?
People keep talking about these scoop marks. There are a lot of marks around all this stone quarrying. Could you describe in greater detail the ones you are talking about? We talking about the trenches where the obelisk was cut out? Or those divots on top of flat surfaces near it?
@@jamisojo Kelaney said that they had experimented with dolerite pounders and made "similar marks" to those found around the trenches. I'm curious how "similar".
Thank you to Adel for giving interesting answers. And thank you David for doing this interview, very informative and made my imagination go crazy!
The only thing I can't wrap my head around is how they cut the bottom of the obelisk to lift it out of the quarry🤔
Not "lift"....... There are examples of partially quarried things in Egyptian quarries whereby they were removing stone from below = but left stabilizing pillars to suspend the object above in the air to allow them to work. So what does this mean?? It allows for a wooden sledge to be assembled underneath prior to allowing the object to be lowered into the resulting platform. Once done = your obelisk or whatever will already be on a sledge in the pit where it was quarried.
Now Go to Google maps and look at this obelisk = then switch to satellite view. See whereby the side now partially removed is adjacent a large open area just beyond. Further the obelisk rests uphill from the Nile about a km away. There is a modern road near that open area which goes downhill - following the natural incline of the area - to the Nile to subsequently run alongside the river.
Moral of the story: had the obelisk not cracked and been abandoned the Egyptians would have finished opening up that side of the pit. The obelisk then could have been = pulled laterally out of its pit - thus no lifting required. It could then have been hauled downhill on its sledge via teams of men and oxen to a wadi area as Adel spoke to where a transportation barge and harbor area would have already been set up.
Remember that the Egyptians "sewed their ships together" in creating them. So a large barge hull/deck with ramps on both ends could have been assembled with dikes to hold the water back. The obelisk would be hauled up one end onto the deck - as the pullers went down the opposite end ramp - so that the obelisk was now on the deck of a large barge = and the rest of the barge assembled in place. They then awaited the annual Nile flood -----> opened the dikes to raise the barge = and if all went well it was towed into the Nile channel to where it needed to go.
With the tech they used to move obelisks I can think of way better uses for dolorite pounders. You don't even need them if you are applying fire to granite since fire reduces the structural integrity of absolutely everything. I don't know what your point is in saying "just because we don't know how something is done is not evidence that it could not be done." The skeptics whole point is that known methods could "not" have done this. You really should have probed the "earthen ramp" theory, Dr Miano. It's preposterous. A 40 meter 1200 ton obelisk dragged up a makeshift earthen ramp onto a temporary sand box 45 meters high? Yeah right. A small demonstration does not mean a concept will work if scaled up by 10,000. And I didn't see any scoop marks created by their focused fire experiment. I don't think your comparison to Romes ability to move obelisks is fair. Pharaoh Thutmose reigned before the Iron age even started. Rome did not rule until well after it started.
I will think of "the expert's" - theory - as partially plausible since he found evidence of ash and mud brick and I don't doubt his answer about the two obelisks on a raft but assuming they were of equal size they would only have been about 16 Meters tall, each, a third the size of this obelisk. These two obelisks would have to displace 800 cubic meters of water, not including the raft they floated on, meaning 35 meters long and 7 meters wide, roughly (again, weight of the raft itself not included). The largest ancient Egyptian boat so far, called the Khufu Ship, I think, was only 43 meters long and 6 meters wide and displaced about 72 cubic meters of water. I suppose such a raft is plausible but dude, it would be huge...
When you bash some rock downward with a stone ball you get a circular crater shape at the bottom. Or "scoop mark".
Although I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would think that anyone scooped any stone out of anything. I'd call it a divot.
*The skeptics whole point is that known methods could "not" have done this.*
The point that they keep making to me is that, since we don't know the methods, it must have been done by someone else besides the Egyptians. So you're only giving half the point.
*A 40 meter 1200 ton obelisk dragged up a makeshift earthen ramp onto a temporary sand box 45 meters high? Yeah right.*
Personal incredulity is not an argument.
*I don't think your comparison to Romes ability to move obelisks is fair. Pharaoh Thutmose reigned before the Iron age even started.*
The point is simply that it can be done without modern tech. Why do you think that iron would make a difference when moving it anyway?
@@WorldofAntiquity
What I mean by the Iron age is that iron has a much higher load bearing capacity (pulleys, rollers, chains, timber spikes, gears, etc) then the metals of the bronze age. So I didn't think it was fair to compare the capabilities of an iron age empire to a bronze or stone age one.
@@WorldofAntiquity
As to the point of the skeptic, I agree to your half point point. The other half I take you to mean that methods unbeknownst to us could still have been practiced by the Egyptians?
As for personal incredulity not being an argument, it conveys the outer limits of possibility, or feasibility. Applying the whole earth-ramp-sand-pit theory to how many obelisks and how many more pillars and how many more multi-ton blocks is incredulous. I could probably work out some math for you as a first cut estimate but the ramp and pit would both be bigger then the obelisk. Once the obelisk was dragged to the top of the pit it would be like stacking boulders on top of milk jugs - the sides would bloat out and the tall walls would crumble. Here is the other thing, (I'm not trying to switch topics on you) but the Easter Island heads were actually "walked" to their destinations. They have legends, fallen heads, finish work, and demonstrations that all support the walking heads theory. It's the fallen heads that are curious. They always fell to the side of the road and many were not broken in doing so. And they were just left there. So - earth ramps, rafts, sand pits - have we found other broken obelisks indicating a malfunction during any of these movements?
@@larrymiller5763 Crickets ey? I agree with you Larry, there's still a lot of unanswered questions and I think the victory dance being done by mainstream archeology is wholly premature. But then again it always is through history.
Fire was used to fracture rock by temperature shock.
It is okay to disbelief theories of lost civilisations but it does not make sense to suggest that this technique has been used to get an important piece of stone like that out as a whole!
Further, 'scoop marks' are found in places where careful removal of granite was not necessary.
It is fine to say "we don't know how they did it" but that is no content I guess.
I wasted one year of my life behind idiots like Graham Hancock, ancient architect .
Than I found your channel.
You opened my eyes.
You make them look foolish.
I m grateful for your work
The good news is that Ancient Architect channel has become a realistic and respected informative voice. He and Dr M have a friendly relationship now.
Never consider it a waste; the truth enjoys the good contrast provided by being surrounded by specious information; kinda like a gemstone or diamond sticks out from the rough matrix it’s a encased in
Ancient Architects has had a bit of a rebirth in outlook within the last year or so.
Matt is not the sheep he onced seemed to be and is much more circumspect in his archaeological news coverage these days.
The sheer difference implies he was as taken in as you were to begin with.
Only one? I wasted 11. Although it was a slow realization.
I am still wasting my time with these people and will do so forever because it's much more fun to enhance my fantasy with them than scrolling through facebook or playing stupid games or working overtime. 😁
Before the Egyptians there was a culture sooo advanced in engineering that they didn't know the the advantage of engineering an arch for their buildings.
*I'm a new subscriber, and I am thoroughly enjoying your channel. Very cool stuff!*
Thanks and welcome!
Gold mirrors since melted by plunderers to focus the sun instead of fire perhaps?
Thanks for another fascinating explanation of how our ancestors did amazing things without our advanced tech. I noticed, near the tip of the unfinished obelisk, a set of indentations ▃ ▃ that would separate the top from the rest of the obelisk if connected and deepened. I can't help wondering if anyone has commented on this. Thanks for another thought-provoking video Professor Miano.
Apparently those in the Roman period were responsible for that. It’s discussed around 21:15. They tried to take just the tip because the rest kept cracking, basically, but the tip also cracked.
@@maidende8280 Thanks, I got that much, though it wasn't as explicit. What I was really interested in was what method seemed to have been used to make ▃ ▃
indentations and what method would then be used to continue to separation. The Greeks and Romans may or may not have had more advanced techniques than the ancient Egyptians.
@@JMM33RanMA Ahh yes that would be interesting to know.
Great discussion and presentation.
Thank you for doing this video. I had seen a video on youtube before claiming the Egyptians had used fire and showed that it improved the rate of quarrying but getting actual archeological confirmation was very satisfying. I do wish you had covered more about how they would move them over land. I have an idea that they built the sleds directly underneath the stones when they were still connected to their base. They would then use the wood/water method to detach the stone from its base and the stone would then be sitting right on the sled ready for transport. They would dig out a ramp at 1 end of the stone and haul it out on the sleds using the same method that they believe was used at the alabaster quarry of Hatnub. Maybe even digging a niche that ran the length of the stone an filling it with sand then wetting the sand. A method that has been proven to reduce the friction an make moving these huge stones less difficult and with the "capstan"/ramp (not sure what you would call it) method found at Hatnub they could get them moved. I believe this would probably be easier than lifting it with sand or wood chips, lol.
Lifting megaliths is easy. You rock them back and forth by shifting weights about a centered shoring box, and slide in boards at the open end, then tip the stone the other direction.
Literally not a problem, and quite a quick process.
@@Chris.Davies Man lifts 20 ton stone by himself? I saw that video too. Maybe, but this stone is much larger than that 1. The potential for this 1 to break in half from its own weight and size is a possibility using that method.
Maaan I love this channel!😁
Thank you for this video
This Show is Great
That answered alot of my questions. They were quite smart. It was hard work in sure.
Brilliant video thank you!!!
aweseom interview , iv learned a lot
We must protect this man at all costs
David or the egyptian?
@@4ur3n obviously the egyption, Like mummify him etc etc.
i hope thats what he trying to say
Very interesting interview, getting an expert's answers to a perplexing problem. I would love to see some of the experiments that he referred to. But my biggest question regards the erecting of the obelisks. I have done 3D models on this subject to try and figure out for myself exactly how a ramp could have been used to pull an obelisk up a ramp to a sand-filled coffer, tip it in, and then remove sand from the bottom of the coffer to let it sink into position. The main problem is how can the obelisk be pulled over the coffer? Where did the workforce stand when they reached the edge of the coffer and then pulled it out over the sand? As illustrated in his diagram, they used a second ramp that was at the same level as the first ramp.This makes some sense until one considers that the two ramps would have been huge and the obelisk was raised in front of an already-existing temple facade. Where could room be found in such relatively-cramped quarters to build a second large ramp? Especially when two obelisks were raised side-by-side? And then in his diagram they removed the sand from below, which would have caused the entire body of sand to lower at the same time. In that case, how did they tip the obelisk onto the pedestal which was already in place at the bottom of the coffer? In his diagram, only a portion of the sand was being lowered. How would they have controlled that? In my model, had them pull the obelisk base-first up to the edge of the sand-filled coffer, positioning it so it would tip over the edge into the sand; then lower the sand which would lower the base gradually until it reached the pedestal. Also in my model, I didn't use a second (huge) earthen ramp, but postulated two buttressed arms that reached beyond the pit so the workforce could move out onto it to pull the obelisk far enough to position the base over the edge of the coffer. Don't know if the physics would work since I'm just an art teacher, not an engineer, but seemed to make sense to me.
I saw a video sometime with them doing this with a smaller experiment. It look fairly easy, you just had to go slow. You can remove sand from the front or the back or in the middle. I don't think there's any limit to how creative you could do that if one was so inclined.
Hello Bob, great question, I think the next question is, unless the obelisk was meant for this location... then the issue is not just raising it... but transporting it... You probably have already done so, but zoom out a bit and look at the terrain... just how was this massive object going to be moved? its not going to happen with millions of dolirite balls....
Yes, I modeled the Unfinished Monolith for my art history demonstration to show my students how the sides had been cut down and then undercut from either side at the bottom. I posited wooden beams to level/tip the shaft over in order to split it from the spine that remained, then figured that they would have had to cut a trench as deep as the trench is around the obelisk all the way to the banks of the Nile where it could be loaded aboard a huge barge somehow. I assume that workmen could have cut that trench, although it seems nearly impossible given the volume of granite that stood between the original location of obelisk and the shoreline. Perhaps using directed fire as suggested by the guest, it would have been made easier. The whole enterprise boggles the mind.
this is great information, thank you david. be well.
Fascinating & may you break 60k subs soon!
The model at the end was very convincing that they could move that obelisk…further than that there is explanation on how they would do that on statues with round shapes, or stones that come from the other side of a mountain. Would be nice if further explanation on the precision and symetry of the various statues and how that was achived…
Ever watch say a carpenter or a mason work using a chalk line?? Today they will use a square/level first to find plumb and mark a line using a chalk line = whereas in the past they might use a weighted plumbline and draw the corresponding line/grid.
Moral of the story: the Tomb of Horemheb (KV57) as one example is incomplete. On its' partially finished walls you can see where lines/grids were laid to ascertain correct sizing of designs to be painted along with those designs in various stages. In other words a person would draw the design -------> someone would come after to make corrections = and the finished design would then be painted. The Theban Mapping Project as an example has photos you can access online of the tomb walls.
So obviously they would first draw a design onto a wall - or perhaps a block to be carved or even the side of a mountain. Grids might be created to facilitate correct sizing/symmetry after which a design could be painted or stone removed to achieve the final result which might then be polished.
As an aside you should familiarize yourself with a concept: pareidolia. Our eyes sometimes play tricks on us as our brains seek to "even things out" if you will. Look at photos of the pyramids taken at a distance = their sides appear "sharp". Now look at the same taken closer up = and their imperfections stand out. So statues may "appear" to be precise visually from a certain vantage as our eyes tend to make things appear much crisper and even than they might actually be. Upon closer examination however - especially using modern technology - "symmetry" is sometimes illusory. 🤔
Seems like the tool has a pendulum that the "cutter" was tied to. Each scoop you can see how the ridges are slightly higher that the middle. Same angle every cut.
Fun fact: Unfinished Obelisk is 365 nautical miles away from Giza Pyramids, I checked
Did you know they were only going to Thebes?
@@WorldofAntiquity
To Thebes? Well they missed the mark by 100 miles lol
Side note: a whole while back I discovered on Google Earth that major megalithic structures are about 4.44 kilometers/miles/nautical miles away from each other, it made my heart skip a beat discovering this but unfortunately I lost the document where I wrote down each one
it really is amazing what can be achieved with basic tools, as much human labour as you could want and time. Why people refuse to appreciate just how powerful we can be when we simply work together is probably why we haven't been able to create a utopian society like Atlantis yet.
It's why I'm as sure as I can be that there wasn't an earlier civilisation to rival ours, it probably took us 50,000 years just to stop bashing each other over the head the moment we met a stranger...
You really do not know much about ancient humans.
Warfare wasn't a thing until very recently.
There was no competition for resources!
There were always so few humans that encountering new humans was a cause for celebration. The ancients knew the value of genetic diversity, amazing as that seems today.
You know Atlantis is a garbage myth - right?
Great video 👍👍
Thank you.
You would think that they would make a perimeter of core hole drillings the width of the trench and then finish the trench with pounders. Also, I wonder if they somehow could have used the annual flooding of the quarry to float the obelisk out of the quarry itself rather than moving it across dry land. The obelisk was also cut at an angle which might be a clue to the removal process after it was fully cut out.
36:30 If we scale this model we will have VERY thick ropes.
Do We have empty holes like this? Or one of the sides has been broken of ? They didn't build the path for this obelisk
If you look at aerial photos taken of the obelisk which show more of its surrounding area you will see ones which show at its midway point = a cutdown area - which is how tourists usually access the site. Now using Google maps look at the area of the obelisk = switch to satellite view. See where the surrounding area in the vicinity of that cutdown space = reveals a wider area of quarried out stone.
Now look at the layout of the general area. See a nearby modern road which runs down to branch out with one segment running down and along the Nile itself. Modern roads tend = to follow natural grades. So just north of the obelisk on that chiseled out space is a wider space ---------> which opens out on its downhill end -------> where natural grades which the modern road follows lead down to the Nile to an area less than a kilometer away.
Moral of the story: as Kelany speaks to in the video the obelisk upon resting on a wooden framework could be hauled laterally into that open space just north of its present position. There one end is open leading downhill towards the Nile. So the obelisk could have then been hauled downhill to a "wadi" (low area of periodic inundation) area near the Nile which could have had connecting canals created so that upon the Nile having its annual flood the obelisk - by then resting upon barge(s) = could be ferried out into the Nile to its' final destination. 🤔
Thanks, answers many questions that are the subject of much wild speculation.
I have a wonderfully detailed image of how Egyptians move very large statues I'd love to share with you, but can't post here. Is there an email?
My email address is in the Channel About section.
36:55 you bet! Where there's a will, there's a way!
edit - no mystery here - spot on!
This is an excellent video for educating those who don’t believe that ancients civilisations could have made their amazing monuments without more advanced tech that we have no evidence they used. Though their ingenious techniques are not exactly primitive!
more importantly it shows that their intelligence wasn't lesser than ours. They may not have the level of tools we have but they were just as intelligent.
So how did they transport these mega ton objects? With todays technology that is not possible you know. Clear indicator that the unfinished obelisk is pre dynastic!
@@davidmiller9485
They were us, without the benefits of the discoveries made by the meandering of man throughout the millennia. The ancients were making due (and excelling) with what they had available to them. We still don’t know how the Romans ground gold and silver to such small diameters (20nm), but they did, and they used that skill to create pleochroic glass that changes color based on the angle of illumination. The level of knowledge in chemistry and optics to achieve that is complex even by todays standards, yet there they were, fashioning impractical decorative objects using literal nanotechnology.
@@Rogier182 who is "they". Every culture had a different method for moving large items. when you have a large population and all the time in the world, it's just a matter of logistics.
@@sergpie hell, the Byzantines used Greek fire and we still don't know what it was either. There are a lot of examples of the intelligence of past man. Like i said, our tools might be "better", but we are no less or more intelligent.
Very interesting interview. Thank you. Question- If a standard tower crane lifts between 20-300 tons, used in most construction sites today and a medieval style crane was capable of lifting only 10 tons at best, how did they wrestle this stone out of that trench? Its mind boggling.
Actually no - it isn't. It can readily be ascertained simply by dispensing with your assumption of "lifting".
1 - there are the remains of partially quarried objects in Egyptian quarries. You can see whereby they were quarrying underneath to leave stone columns to support the weight above allowing them to remove stone.
2 - quarrying in such a manner allows for the installation of = a wooden sledge under the object. Then the object can be lowered onto that wooden platform as those support columns are removed. Now let us look at the obelisk.
3 - look at the obelisk using maps and switch to satellite view. You'll see next to one side of it the stone wall is partially removed and just beyond that = is a large open space.
4 - now look at the area via topographical viewing. The obelisk rests = uphill from the nearby Nile. Also nearby runs the modern road which circuits downhill towards the Nile exploiting the natural grade to then veer off and run alongside the river.
5 - thus following the mechanism laid out above. Had the obelisk not cracked and been completed they could have quarried under it and created a wooden sledge upon which it would have rested. Then removing the rest of the stone wall to one side it could have been pushed/pulled laterally into the adjacent open space and then moved = downhill to the Nile.
Moral: as the video alludes the Nile during the months of the annual flood spills its' banks flooding areas which the rest of the year are dry. The term for such seasonally flooded zones = _"wadis."_
Per Merer's diary they were adept at the creation of canals and dikes and harbor areas. Remember the Nile flooded each year and hence their communities along its' bank had to be created beyond the floodplain. This means they were experts at creating canals/dikes/harbors to connect their communities to the Nile upon which they depended.
Thus if completed a wadi area adjacent the Nile downhill from its' present location would have been selected and dikes created to seal that area off from the river. The lower part of a barge would be assembled - remember they "sewed" their ships together - with ramps on both ends. The obelisk could then be pulled up onto the deck and the rest of the barge assembled around it.
Then when the Nile flooded the dikes could be opened flooding the area ----> which raised the obelisk on its' barge(s) = and it towed into the Nile to destination where another harbor area was already waiting. Nothing was "lifted".
Think what gets me is that after thousands of years that obelisk looks like the workman have just gone on a break.
How many of those thousands of years was it protected by the sand covering it?
And how fast does granite erode? (Not quickly, obviously)
Great work!
I really like this channel
1:08 Think how deep you have to dig to find such a large intact structure of granite.
Cue the "It Wuz ALiEnz!" comments, lol.
Another awesome video, Professor David!
Great work and truth! Ty
How long was the period between that 3 attemps to finish the obelisk?
I always wondered if they had any evidence for chemical etching and polishing of stones. I know that some smelting of ore and some plants provide substances that would make polishing finished easier.
It definitely had plenty of sand which also works well. 😁
The fire would have been in constant operation and would be moved from groove to groove- which would contain the coals etc and keep them from spilling back into the previously heated basin, Basin to hold water to shock the rock without quenching the fire next to it; subsequently scooped from one to the next in succession. Probably went 24/7 and only months to quarry an obelisk. These people were fully masters of their craft in masonry and stone working much as we work with concrete and steel.
"Fire setting" might be useful in the initial quarrying process - specifically to cut the trenches down into the bedrock along what would become the obelisk sides. From that point on the craftsmen probably did not use fire instead carefully chipping/rubbing their pounders to form what would become its sides. So you use fire to quarry trenches down through the granite to then clear that out and begin the slow process of actual forming of its sides.
p.s. - the historical evidence indicates that Egyptian craftsmen worked set shifts much as today. So it was likely not 24/7. They worked during the day for a set number of days - their "work week" - to then have some time off. There are historical accounts of obelisks being created in under a year.
Seems a reasonable explanation of how to move the Granite. Location, Location, Location relative to the water way.
Earlier on in this video the mention of granite floors,Tomb of Den w/granite flooring (2nd Dynasty) has me wondering how granite would be removed and shaped to be fitted as flooring without iron tools?
Granite can be shaped with stone tools.
I see contemporary craftsmen and I am fascinated by what they do. I am not surprised the biggest civilization of its time built pyramids.
Some argue - compellingly - that it was the creation of the pyramids that made Egypt great. Think the US in the late-19th Century. The government sponsored the creation of the transcontinental railroads. That opened up the nation + facilitated improved communication between the coasts + allowed what were originally regional industries to expand their reach to become national and later international ones = and all because of a government sponsored project.
So when the Egyptians transitioned from simple mastabas able to be created by a small workforce on a local level to creating ever larger stone pyramids = corresponding infrastructure had to also be developed. So resources needed to be sourced from across Egypt and beyond. Shipping and harbors/canals had to be created to supply the larger, more skilled workforce with the necessary resources. There is historical accounting to indicate Sneferu warred upon the Nubians/Libyans to acquire men and cattle to support a larger workforce for his pyramids. What were "State farms" controlled by the government were expanded to supply the additional agriculture to feed his workers and so on.
Moral of the story: thus by creating the pyramids the Pharaohs in essence = created what went on to make Egypt prosperous and strong. It united the nation under a central effort which further expanded the movement of resources both internally and externally.
As with all things however - eventually the good times ended. While adding to Egypt's overall capacity - the need to build bigger and more was detrimental in the end. Some Egyptologists believe that towards the end of the Old Kingdom the Pharaohs basically bankrupted Egypt via these massive projects. When a prolonged drought afflicted Egypt and the regions lasting as some have stated upwards of a century - Egypt lacking the resources to weather the storm = saw the collapse of the Old Kingdom.
Yet later Egyptians adapted as always and following that collapse one sees their creating hybrid grains and even crossbreeding cattle with Asian species to generate ones better suited to arid environments. So by the New Kingdom when a drought again hit the region - even the Egyptians enemies the Hittites petitioned Ramses II for grain as Egypt had when others did not. So as with all things one must view the totality of what we see and why. 🤔