Не поняли, ну и ладно. Ваша проблема в чем? В этом:
Dissident писал(а): Ваши "авторитетные" книжки меня мало интересуют.
поэтому и не понимаете
Вместо того, чтоб тупо копипастить сложные для восприятия тексты, старайтесь вдумчиво вникнуть в их смысл и все обязательно получится.
Также скачайте эту книгу
http://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1570225 и в главе A FLINT FOR ALL SEASONS ищите искомое и, к сожалению для Вас, полностью противоречащее Вам. Что-то вроде такого:
With regard to the cutting of the inscriptions into the porphyry and granite at Gebel Dokhan and Mons Claudianus, did the Roman masons use flint chisels and punches, rather than risk rapid and unnecessary serious damage tq their steel tools? In support of this hypothesis, Roman quarry workers and masons certainly had relatively easy access to the grey flint at the Wadi Abu Had, some 50 km to the north of Gebel Dokhan, and there is evidence for a fourth-century AD Roman installation there.20 This installation (WAH 30) is contemporaneous with the late Roman extraction of porphyry at Mons Porphyrites, but there may be earlier, as yet unknown, Roman association with the Wadi Abu Had during the first to the third centuries AD: several small, late Roman installations were found by Bomann21 in the Wadi Dib, which is adjacent to the Wadi Abu Had.
It is possible that the Wadi Abu Had fourth-century AD Roman installation was connected with the collection of flint nodules contained in the limestone hills of Gebel Safr Abu Had, situated within the Wadi Abu Had.22 The nodules could have been knapped into chisels and punches near to the point of collection, reducing weight to a minimum for transportation, or taken back to Gebel Dokhan and Mons Claudianus for knapping there. The knapping of flint nodules into tools creates a considerable number of noticeable flakes, but it is unlikely that the small fragments broken from any flint chisels and punches used for cutting the inscriptions into the porphyry and granite blocks would immediately be visible in the heavily sanded quarry sites today.
The position and nature of the marks left in the stone of certain monuments persuaded Engelbach23 to conclude that ancient Egyptian sculptors used a tool similar to a modern mason's metal pick, a hammer pointed at both ends fitted with a wooden haft, although no such tool has ever been located in Egypt. Dieter Arnold refers to quarry marks, also made by 'picks'.24 In fact, many unfinished ancient artifacts, made from hard stone, show marks which indicate that hand¬held pointed mauls, or stone punches and chisels driven with hammers, were used in their manufacture. In some objects, the marks (pits) progressively become smaller as the work moves toward completion. A collection of Late Period un¬finished dolerite, schist and granite sculptures and other works contained in the Cairo Museum (JE33301-33313, 33321, 33388, 33473, 33476), and examined by C.C. Edgar and Alfred Lucas,25 clearly show these interesting production features, although they were manufactured when iron tools existed in Egypt. However, the experimental work suggests that, even in the Late Period, tools for working the igneous stones, and for quarrying them, must have been manu¬factured from stone, and that the chief designs of tools made from stone were spherical and pointed mauls, as well as chisels and punches. Iron chisels would have been in use for the softer stones, as copper and bronze tools were in earlier times, but the experimental use of ferrous chisels and punches on the hard stones demonstrated the tools' severe limitations for this type of work.26
At Kahun, several Twelfth Dynasty flint artifacts (MM 248) were discovered, which could have been driven with a hammer or a mallet for punching into hard and soft stone. The flints are pointed at one end, while the opposite ends have been dressed to a Hat surface. Ancient tools of such size and shape are indicated both by the experimental working of hard and soft stone and by the examination of tomb illustrations. For example, in the tomb of Rekhmire at Thebes,27 the head of a seated red granite colossus (Figure 3.4), constructed to nearly twice life-size, is being carved to its final shape with a stone hammer driving a chisel or a punch. This seems to be an important piece of evidence with regard to two aspects of working the hard stones: the employment of a stone hammer for this work and the use of a tool which is, in association with granite, most unlikely to have been made from copper or bronze. Iron must be dis¬counted because of the Dynastic period. The chisel or punch must, therefore, have been manufactured from stone, and this stone was probably flint. The craftworker shown chiselling the sphinx in the tomb of Rekhmire,28 may have been using a flint tool, even though the sphinx is made of white limestone. The ancient concurrent use of both metal and stone chisels on soft stone cannot be ruled out, and the archaeological and the later experimental evidence in this chapter supports the use of stone chisels and punches on soft stone. In any event, it has already been shown that flint adzes and scrapers were used on soft stone.
In association with large-scale limestone working at Giza, Petrie29 found flints in rubbish tips near to the Great Pyramid. He noted that the masons' waste chip-pings were disposed of by throwing them over the cliffs situated to the north and to the south of the Great Pyramid. These rubbish tips were made up of layers of large chippings, fine dust and sweepings, and layers of flints and sand, indicating that a piece of desert ground had been cleared in order to increase the space for working. It is possible that these flints were produced by knapping the tools from nodules at the building site, the tools having been required for preliminary rough work on the pyramid's limestone and interior granite blocks. If indeed this was the case, the gradual destruction of the flint tools would also have contributed to the density of sharp flints scattered over the working area. Periodic clearing of the flints would have been necessary for safety reasons. Near to the pyramid of Senusret I, Dieter Arnold30 found layers of builders' debris containing granite dust, indicating that the material was worked there. There were no detectable traces of greenish discoloration from copper tools, but the large amounts of flint flakes suggest that flint tools were used for dressing the granite.
Often, pitting of a stone's surface may be seen in the bottoms of hieroglyphs incised into various types of stone. This pitting, caused by a pointed punch, is nor¬mally scraped to a flat finish. However, two sarcophagi in the Musee du Louvre, Paris, illustrate the difficulties inherent in this procedure. Both sarcophagi have hundreds of small, incised hieroglyphs on their inside surfaces. In sarcophagus N345 D9, made from greywacke, the bottoms and sides of the incised signs have been scraped to a flat finish. In the other sarcophagus (N346 D10), made from black granite, which is considerably harder than the greywacke, no attempt was made to scrape the pitted stone in a similar manner to the greywacke sarcophagus. The effort to accomplish such a task would have been enormous, due to the length of time required for each sign. Good examples of similar pitting of unfinished incised hieroglyphs and figures in calcite are shown in a broken Fourth Dynasty calcite statue of Menkaure in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (11.3146), and the Nineteenth Dynasty canopic jars of Thenry in the Brooklyn (Museum of Art (48.30.1—4), from Saqqara. A basalt stela in the Manchester Museum (8134) displays a similar pitted surface on the representations incised into the stone.
Also in the Musee du Louvre is a good example of a chisel-worked granite statue (D31) of a group of four baboons. Grooves chipped to represent the animals' fur have not been smoothed, but appear to have been left rough, just as the craft-worker chiselled them. Variations to the width and to the depth of the chisel marks indicate that several stone chisels were in use and that the strength of the hammer or mallet blows altered as each groove was cut. In some places the chisel has penetrated to a greater depth than normal, chipping away a larger piece-of stone.
[/quote][/quote]
Да, очень скучно, никаких анунахов, мегатехнологии и суперинструментов. Ничего не поделаешь, увы. Жобро пожаловать в реальный мир.
Хоть картинки поразглядываете
Вы хоть понимаете какая разница между режущей кромкой с правильной геометрией у стального долота и неровным сколотым остриём куска кремня?
