| Parameter | What It Shows | Archaeological Evidence | Implication (Supports Conventional Tools) |
|---|
| 1. Surviving Tools | Direct physical proof of technology used | Copper chisels, stone hammers, dolerite pounders, bow drills, tubular copper drills, flint blades, polishing stones found in tombs, quarries, workshops | Demonstrates the tool types available and used — no unknown technology required |
| 2. Workshop Assemblages | Context evidence of manufacturing | Finds at Giza, Saqqara, Deir el-Medina, Aswan, Hierakonpolis show tool kits, unfinished objects, debitage | Confirms how tools were applied in situ |
| 3. Unfinished Artifacts | “Frozen moments” of work | Partially carved granite statues, bowls, and obelisks showing intermediate stages | Shows step-by-step stages achievable using chiseling, pounding, rubbing, and drilling |
| 4. Quarry Tool Marks | Direct traces of working stone | Dolerite pounding pits, copper chisel marks, wedge holes at Aswan, Gebel el-Silsila, Tura | Matches tools that were found—no anomalous machining marks |
| 5. Drill Holes Showing Spiral Grooves | Characteristic signature of rotary abrasion | Spiral striations created by quartz sand abrasive + copper tube drills | Matches experimental reproduction; not consistent with high-speed machinery |
| 6. Bow Drill Evidence | Attested drilling method | Bow drills found in tombs; depictions in Old Kingdom tomb scenes | Explains small circular holes and vessel hollowing |
| 7. Tubular Copper Drills | Explains core drilling | Archaeological copper tubes + cores from granite and limestone | Reproduced experimentally to match Egyptian core geometry |
| 8. Microstructure of Tool Marks | Reveals tool hardness and motion | Microscopy shows crushing, abrasion patterns, and quartz-sand scoring | Consistent with pounding stones and sand abrasives, not high-speed cutting |
| 9. Dolerite Pounding Depressions | Mechanically distinct from carving | Aswan quarries show large bowl-shaped depressions where dolerite was repeatedly hammered | Demonstrates long-term mechanical wear, consistent with manual pounding |
| 10. Sand Abrasive Residues | Confirms abrasive technique | Quartz grains embedded in drill grooves and polishing scratches | Matches known Egyptian use of desert sand as abrasive |
| 11. Relief Cutting Evidence | Explains shallow arcs and intricate shapes | Tool marks consistent with chisels, bow drills, and abrasion finishing | No anomalous cutting forces required |
| 12. Overlapping Drill Holes | Technique for cutting curves | Bow drills used to make multiple small holes that were later chiseled out | Archaeologically known method for producing arcs and internal corners |
| 13. Tube Drill Diameter Limits | Confirms realistic tool sizes | Most copper tube drills 1–10 cm diameter; none at “micro” scale | Supports traditional methods; no micro-machining attested |
| 14. Experimental Archaeology | Modern replication validates plausibility | Engineers (Stocks, Dunnell, Denys Stocks, stonemasons) replicated granite cutting, drilling, and vase-making with known tools | Demonstrates all observed marks can be reproduced without advanced technology |
| 15. Tomb & Temple Depictions | Visual documentation of tool use | Old Kingdom scenes show bow drills, pounders, chisels, saws, polishing | No depictions of unknown technologies |
| 16. Stratigraphic Context | Dates tools to correct periods | Tools found in layers matching Old Kingdom and Middle Kingdom chronology | Confirms Egyptians had these tools at the time monuments were built |
| 17. Lack of Residues from Advanced Machinery | Negative evidence | No metal alloys, bearings, lubricants, high-speed wear patterns | Strongly argues against machinery of unknown type |
| 18. Consistency Across Sites | Tool marks uniform across Egypt | Same tools used in Saqqara, Giza, Aswan, Luxor, Sinai | Implies widespread traditional craft, not lost advanced tech |
| 19. Material Science Limits | Copper + quartz abrasive is adequate | Quartz abrasive has Mohs hardness 7 → can cut granite at 6–7 | No exotic materials needed |
| 20. Cultural Continuity | Skills evolved over centuries | Old to New Kingdom shows incremental improvement | No sudden appearance of advanced technology |
