[HN Gopher] Ancient Egyptian Stone-Drilling (1983)
___________________________________________________________________
Ancient Egyptian Stone-Drilling (1983)
Author : smitty1e
Score : 127 points
Date : 2024-05-12 00:48 UTC (22 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.penn.museum)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.penn.museum)
| Joker_vD wrote:
| ...so it wasn't ancient aliens, with laser-cutting and other
| amazing technology? That's disappointing. I mean, if I couldn't
| imagine how it possibly could've been done, then it had to be the
| aliens, right?
| peutetre wrote:
| > _I mean, if I couldn 't imagine how it possibly could've been
| done, then it had to be the aliens, right?_
|
| That sounds right.
|
| I couldn't imagine how Indiana Jones 4 could possibly be such a
| bad movie. It turned out to be aliens.
| ganzuul wrote:
| The technology is still used today. How is that not amazing?
| Radim wrote:
| You snark, but please note the "[1983]" in the title. This
| article's points have since been expounded on, with new
| evidence both archaeological and experimental.
|
| Namely:
|
| > _The concentric lines were not always perfectly parallel._
|
| 1. What the article calls "concentric circles" are, in fact,
| series of spirals. That is, a cutting point ploughing through
| the granite, round and round.
|
| And indeed the fine abrasive circles that this article manages
| to reproduce (image 7b) look nothing like the original fairly
| well-spaced, deep-cut grooves of the original hole (image 1a,
| all the way at the top).
|
| Petrie himself documented spiral grooves that span many drill
| rotations, sometimes totaling over 6 metres in a single
| continuous groove. This is well established and not disputed
| because the physical evidence is so plain.
|
| Why the OP failed to mention spiral grooves and talks about
| "concentric circles" instead is unclear, given they otherwise
| quote Petrie extensively.
|
| > _[the hole] diameter on the outside is 5.3 cm. and tapers to
| 4.3 cm. on the inside._
|
| > _...a tubular copper drill creates a more parallel drill hole
| since it cannot wear beyond the internal diameter of the
| drill._
|
| 2. By all accounts, the tubular drills were fairly thin. We
| know this because there are thin (overdrilled) circles at the
| bottom of discovered tube holes, up to 0.5cm in thickness of
| the tube wall max. There you can see the actual narrow width of
| the tube because the bottom wasn't sawn off as in the case of
| OP's particular sarcophagus.
|
| Again well documented by Petrie and others, supported by
| overwhelming physical evidence, so not a point of contention.
|
| The OP does not go into how the observed difference of 1cm
| compares to the wear of the (presumably thinner) "internal
| diameter of the drill". See for example [0] for a clearer,
| updated exposition.
|
| ----
|
| To be clear, none of this is of course evidence for any
| "aliens". But reading your snark reminded me of those internet
| fly-by experts who deride honest work of others because "The
| science is settled bro, I saw a documentary on NBC! Aliens lol
| these other people are cretins!"
|
| I'd recommend turning off sound if Youtube amateur commentary
| irks you, but the breadth of physical evidence (photos and
| videos of actual stone artefacts, not theories around them)
| they display is astounding. Reading scientific papers (or
| watching NBC...) alone won't build you enough intuition and
| nuance for fly-by snarks. It is a complex topic, and not all
| amateurs are cretins. A bit of humility helps.
|
| [0] https://antropogenez.ru/drilling/
| dtgriscom wrote:
| I agree that they're misusing the word "concentric". However,
| I'd be very surprised if they truly overlooked the grooves
| being continuous spirals, as that would be extremely
| meaningful. Accepting your citation of Petrie, I'm actually
| surprised that the grooves were spirals, as that implies a
| cutter which makes significant progress in a single rotation,
| which seems unlikely in any stone, let alone granite.
| Radim wrote:
| Well yes, that's my point - the process is not trivial,
| with surprising technical details.
|
| For a more in-depth take on grooves - at least more in-
| depth relative to "concentric circles" or Lehner's "wet
| sand" video) check out my link above,
| https://antropogenez.ru/drilling/. Specifically on Petrie's
| testimony they offer this:
|
| > _Of course, Petrie's Core#7 does not bear any regular
| helices or a thread cut in granite with a fixed jewel point
| with a pitch of 2.0 mm, as it has been described by him.
| There is only a series of grooves, the formation mechanism
| of which is described above in detail. Their pitch, being
| very irregular, is not related to the advance movement of
| the tool cutting edge._
|
| Most importantly, they ran actual experiments on actual
| stones.
|
| And their theory for those grooves is a sort of emergent
| property of the accumulated effect of corundum grains
| falling into the same crest/trough pattern along the tube
| wall while drilling downward, leading to the observed
| series of (irregular) cut spiral grooves.
| kragen wrote:
| you could do it with a cutter that was itself a rotating
| grinding wheel
|
| i'm pretty sure the grooves are not actually spirals though
| et1337 wrote:
| The best part is the very end, where it is revealed that the
| study was done by two dentists.
| trwm wrote:
| The whole thing reads like great literature. There should be a
| scientific magazine for papers that can be understood by the
| motivated layman. I accidentally read the whole thing in one
| sitting.
| surfingdino wrote:
| For more of excellent writing read Derek Lowe's
| https://www.science.org/blogs/pipeline His "Things I Won't
| Work With" series is particularly entertaining whilst
| remaining firmly scientific.
| devilbunny wrote:
| You misspelled "terrifying" there. I've never practiced
| chemistry, just got my B.S. and went to med school, but
| simply _reading_ the names of most of those compounds made
| my blood run cold.
| jdietrich wrote:
| The argument between the eminent Egyptologists that opens the
| article is frustratingly naive to anyone who has real
| experience in drilling and shaping hard materials. A dentist
| is, oddly enough, exactly the person I'd expect to write this
| article - academic enough to bother writing it, but practical
| enough to see the tool marks and have an insight into how they
| were made.
| unwind wrote:
| ... and one of them has the last name "Gorelick" [1?].
| Impressive study, happy I'm not a patient of his.
|
| 1: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptronym
| rrr_oh_man wrote:
| _Gorelik or Gorelick (Russian: Gorelik; Belarusian: Garelik:
| Harelik) is a Jewish occupational surname historically
| denoting a vodka distiller or trader. Its etymology is
| Slavic, from Belarusian harelka (garelka), a calque from
| Polish gorzalka, itself from German geprant Wein 'burnt
| wine'._
|
| So what?
| Nykon wrote:
| I think respecting the cutting depth per rotation would give
| better clues and would make the the assumption actually
| comparable to "what they did" back then
| jstanley wrote:
| > Photograph of a model of the bottom of the drill hole shows
| that lines are spaced closer together (arrow). This may be due to
| abrasive having become finer as drilling continued.
|
| Anyone who has drilled brittle materials will know why the lines
| got closer together. The feed pressure was reduced near the end
| of the hole to avoid chipping out the back surface.
| Simon_ORourke wrote:
| This is one of the most intriguing ancient mysteries, and is
| sufficiently well grounded in engineering practice that it can be
| experimentally validated. Things like the hardness of the cutting
| edge, the RPM required to mimic the drill markings, the shape and
| progression of the drill bit etc.
|
| So, it's reasonably clear that the bronze-age Egyptians must have
| had some drilling rig for boring hard stone - one which operated
| at 1,000 rpm or similar and could make an impression into
| something like quartz. All the ancient aliens nonsense aside,
| this rig in itself must have been quite impressive in itself -
| probably a composite of pulleys and ropes with a tubular emery-
| embedded cutting bit. Would have loved to have seen it working!
| aixpert wrote:
| *copper-age
| pavlov wrote:
| Bronze is a copper alloy, and there are Egyptian bronze
| objects dating back to the first dynasties of the Old
| Kingdom.
| detourdog wrote:
| I'm starting to think we should think of the pre-historic
| times as the "simple machine age". When I see the artifacts
| I'm left with the impression that these people had plenty of
| labor and they were exploiting and learning the use of simple
| machines.
|
| Everything they did could be explained by mastery of use
| gravity, ropes, and levers. If the materials used were
| primarily organic in composition the tooling would be long
| gone by now.
| tokai wrote:
| Always weird when people correct others with something that
| is wrong. Its bronze age. And if it was the copper age the
| correct term would be chalcolithic.
| adrian_b wrote:
| Pure copper is too soft and it has never been useful for most
| tools.
|
| The widespread use of copper for other purposes than jewelry
| has begun only after it became possible to produce in a
| reproducible way various alloys of coppers, now known as
| bronzes.
|
| The tin bronze, i.e. the alloy of copper with tin, has been
| discovered relatively late, around 5500 years ago, close to
| the time when writing has been invented, so we have much more
| historical information about the civilizations that used tin
| bronze. (The much cheaper brass has been discovered only long
| after the method of iron extraction, during the Greco-Roman
| Antiquity.)
|
| Nevertheless, for several thousands of years before, other
| copper alloys have been used, e.g. arsenical bronze or
| antimony bronze, so that is still "bronze age", even if it
| would be useful to differentiate between the ages of iron, of
| tin bronze and of other "bronzes". The Egyptian state
| definitely belongs to the age of the tin bronze.
| kragen wrote:
| experimental archaeologists (forget the names, sorry)
| drilling egyptian granite with egyptian sand+ found that
| copper tube drills work better than bronze tube drills,
| presumably because copper is, as the machinists say,
| 'gummier'
|
| so while you're right that copper is much less useful than
| bronze for _most_ tools, here the tool we 're talking about
| is one of the exceptions
|
| they also tried tubular reeds, with and without water.
| those didn't work at all
|
| the egyptian state seems to predate not just tin bronze or
| even arsenical bronze but even copper tools, at least in
| egypt
|
| ______
|
| + emery doesn't occur locally and doesn't start appearing
| in the drilled holes during the first millennium of rock
| drilling
| westurner wrote:
| If the claims of levitation, ultrasonic resonance, and/or
| lingam electrical plasma stone masonry methods are valid;
| perhaps the necessary RPMs for core drilling are lower than
| 1000 RPM.
|
| Given drilled cores of e.g. (limestone, granite,), which are
| heavy cylinders that roll, when was the wheel invented in that
| time and place?
|
| Wheel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel
|
| "Specific cutting energy reduction of granite using plasma
| treatment: A feasibility study for future geothermal drilling"
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235197892...
| :
|
| > _The plasma treatment showed a maximum of 65% and a minimum
| of 15% reduction in specific cutting energy and was regarded as
| being dependent on mainly the hardness and size of the samples_
| [and the electrical conductivity of the stone]
|
| E.g. this video identifies electrodes and protrusions in
| various megalithic projects worldwide:
| https://youtu.be/n8hRsg8tWXg
|
| Perhaps the redundant doors of the great pyramid were water
| locks rigged with ropes. There do appear to be inset places to
| place granite cores for rigging.
|
| Ancient and modern stonemasonry skills; how many times have
| they been lost and why?
| DoctorOetker wrote:
| > (Note: Emery is a granular rock composed mainly of corundum--a
| crystalline compound of silicon and carbon--magnetite and spinel.
| Here, `emery' and `corundum' are used for the abrasive powders
| derived from these rocks.)
|
| Corundum is Aluminium Oxide (not clear if this is part of the
| original article?)
| CapitalistCartr wrote:
| Yeah, carborundum is the correct word.
| oersted wrote:
| Reminded me of the witty:
|
| > Illegitimi non carborundum
| kragen wrote:
| emery is corundum (sapphire, aluminum oxide, a-alumina) and
| carborundum is silicon carbide (a compound of silicon and
| carbon)
| dhsysusbsjsi wrote:
| Ben from UncharteredX has a good video on these drill samples,
| but does not buy into the mainstream acceptance of how they were
| made. In fact the granite core samples show continuous grooves
| and you can calculator the pressure per turn the mechanism was
| under, and it's not really able to be done easily.
|
| https://youtu.be/KFuf-gBuuno
| Tor3 wrote:
| The core samples do _not_ show continuous grooves, that claim
| has been thoroughly debunked. With visuals.
| bjackman wrote:
| You can even see the discontinuity clearly in the linked
| article
| synecdoche wrote:
| A discontinuity being an exception from a great majority of
| surface consisting of spiralling and continuous lines is no
| proof, nor debunking.
|
| A spiral form being an exception from a great majority of
| circular lines may be just that, an exception, and would
| point towards a non-spiraling cut.
|
| The photo with the discontinuity shows one side only.
| Therefore there is no way of knowing if and how the lines
| are connected on the obscured side, and no conclusion can
| be made either way.
| abakker wrote:
| Important to distinguish a spiral cut from a spiral ream.
| It is entirely possible to chip/drill/chisel a hole, and
| then to ream it out with a spiral tool.
| synecdoche wrote:
| Right. Where may we see the debunking?
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| In the linked article here, for one.
| synecdoche wrote:
| Could someone point to where in the article that is?
| Figure 5 is not a counterexample in my opinion, for the
| reasons mentioned in an one of my other comments, namely
| a single deviation from a spiralling line (if there are
| such lines) is not proof that all other lines are not
| spiralling. It is only a counterexample with regards to
| those particular lines.
| BostonFern wrote:
| There's a 1995 PBS Nova episode in their Secrets of Lost Empires
| series which includes a segment on drilled granite. The episode
| features egyptologist Mark Lehner, stone mason Roger Hopkins, and
| ancient tool expert Denys Stocks.
|
| The episode mainly explores the question of how an obelisk was
| raised. The team ran out of time before they were able to reach a
| satisfying conclusion, but they returned to Egypt in 1999 to
| record another NOVA episode, which includes two competing
| theories on how to raise an obelisk. I highly recommend both
| episodes.
|
| https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostempires/obelisk/cutting08....
|
| https://youtu.be/qeS5lrmyD74
| mhb wrote:
| Another theory:
|
| An initial undersized hole was drilled using any of the methods
| they suggest which produce no concentric rings. Then a single
| point boring tool was used to machine the hole to its final
| dimension. The hole tapers 1 cm over its length. 0.5 cm of wear
| of the single point tool in use would account for the decrease in
| diameter.
| throwawaycities wrote:
| For what seems like every 100 YouTube channels that speculate on
| everything from lost civilizations to aliens there are some
| mundane channels that actually set out to demonstrate and
| reproduce technologies and works like the ancients.
|
| One of the more well known channels is scientists against myths,
| here is a link to one of their videos reproducing granite drill
| holes how the Egyptians might have:
| https://youtu.be/yyCc4iuMikQ?si=oUkmF122iHIklvuz
|
| I really like their videos making granite and diorite vases,
| while the YT algo will tend to take you down the must have been
| lost technology/lost civilization/alien rabbit hole, sometimes
| you get lucky and they suggest other channels doing amazing work.
| The comments are fun too, no matter how well done anything is
| there's always someone demanding demanding the small channels
| recreate the great pyramids at scale.
| bjackman wrote:
| I'm getting a bit off topic here but regarding the pseudo-
| archaeology that's popular on YouTube: Graham Hancock (who had
| a 10 part Netflix series called Ancient Apocalypse about an
| advanced global civilization during/before the last glacial
| maximum) recently appeared on Joe Rogan's podcast alongside
| Flint Dibble who is an archaeologist that does public
| communication on YouTube.
|
| At least according to my own YouTube bubble it seems we are in
| a pretty big moment for pseudo-archaeology! Here's an informal
| discussion about it from Stefan Milo who I highly recommend for
| anyone intereated in prehistory:
| https://youtu.be/rWugM4XRPuc?si=EkO5PEAKRAIYYRJD
|
| I have seen another good quality video summarising the debate
| on the podcast but annoyingly I cannot remember it to share,
| maybe someone else can share a fun resource (unfortunately the
| Joe Rogan podcast is way too long for me to actually listen
| to)!
| throwawaycities wrote:
| Graham has been appearing on Rogan's podcast for years now.
| It's Grahams exposure from Rogan that actually got Graham his
| Netflix show not the other way around.
|
| In terms of proliferation of "pseudo archeology" - whatever
| that is - yes, lots of people are realizing they can profit
| from this, so more content than ever is being created to
| monetize the attention capture. It's not unlike flat earth
| content that people have been able to successfully monetize.
|
| It's not all bad, Graham is no doubt responsible for getting
| people interested in history, archeology, and even geology.
| It's really not societies fault they are ill equipped to
| exercise independent and critical thinking, much less the not
| having the skill sets, tools and resources to evaluate the
| existing archeological record.
|
| Though for the people that want to make a career out of it,
| I'd rather see them obtain formal educations and contribute
| in meaningful ways in lieu of the majority of the grifting
| type social media content...most people probably have the
| capability to become educated about the actual science and
| they'd also learn pretty quickly there is no vast conspiracy
| to hide history/prehistory as much of the monetized social
| media promotes.
| fififbaajdjd wrote:
| > lost technology, lost civilization
|
| Are you saying there's not ancient technology or civilization
| that's lost to us? That seems extremely unlikely to me.
|
| The name "scientists against myths" makes me wary of this
| channel. They clearly have an agenda, and I as a laymen have no
| way to identify when they're letting that agenda cloud their
| judgment.
|
| As a laymen I can at least evaluate the trustworthiness of
| other humans, and framing the debate as "science vs myth" when
| history is rife with examples of myths later being explained by
| science sets off alarm bells.
| ajcp wrote:
| > The name "scientists against myths" makes me wary of this
| channel. They clearly have an agenda[...]
|
| myth: an unfounded or false notion [0]
|
| Given that definition of "myth" I find the name "scientists
| against myths" to be rather redundant, wouldn't you? In what
| version of reality is that _not_ the agenda of every
| scientist?
|
| 0. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myth
| ab5tract wrote:
| The existence of Troy was once considered a myth.
| throwawaycities wrote:
| You say Troy was considered a myth as if it were an
| absolute, it wasn't, it was debated among scholars.
|
| Fact is German archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann was one
| of those learned people that didn't think it was a myth,
| and in fact did locate and excavated a city matching the
| descriptions.
|
| That's how science works, things generally tend not to
| exist until there is proof or record of their existence,
| science doesn't default to things existing until record
| of their non-existence emerges.
| ab5tract wrote:
| You seem to have missed the point entirely:
|
| The scientists who considered it a myth were completely,
| utterly wrong. I think it is perfectly healthy to have
| skepticism about scientists who wage war against "myths".
|
| See also the long fight against the "myth" of lead
| poisoning, amongst dozens if not hundreds of other
| examples.
| gherkinnn wrote:
| They make videos about drilling holes in rock using rocks and
| lots of time.
| jameshart wrote:
| 'Ancient technology that's lost to us' is one of those
| phrases that is used to construct a motte and bailey argument
| which opens a gap through which some crazy theories get
| inserted, so it's worthy of being treated with skepticism.
|
| Are there ancient structures where we are unsure what
| technologies were used to make them? Yes, absolutely.
|
| Does the existence of such artifacts imply the existence of
| certain precursor technologies and tools used to build them?
| Yes, but we must proceed cautiously. Without direct evidence
| of the tools and technologies used we are speculating based
| on the results we observe, about what the means used to
| produce them must have been. The same result, though, can be
| produced in many different ways. Problems we look at today
| and say 'surely that would require a machine or a powerful
| engine to do?' might be solved instead by just throwing
| manpower at the problem, or by taking much more time to
| execute than we might initially assume is reasonable. And the
| existence of doubt about which of several historically
| plausible theories as to how something was constructed does
| not automatically mean that historically _im_ plausible
| theories are equally valid.
|
| And, most importantly, does the fact that we have 'lost' the
| precise techniques used in ancient constructions leave open
| the possibility that those ancient techniques were actually
| superior to what we have today? Theoretically, but in
| general, no, of course not. Be very wary whenever you see
| someone say something like 'the precision of these stone
| blocks exceeds what we can do today'. These are nonsensical
| claims made from ignorance about what modern engineering is
| capable of. Take a look just at how modern kitchen counters
| are cut, let alone how precisely engineered something like a
| modern tunnel, or the LIGO gravity wave detector was
| constructed.
| borgdefense wrote:
| People want to believe in something more when it comes to
| ancient Egypt even if they know it is not reality. To me, it is
| obviously linked to the beauty and other worldly feel of the
| ancient Egyptian iconography and art.
|
| If you just had the pyramids in the desert with the entire
| civilization lost, while impressive there wouldn't be other
| worldly explanations that sounded palatable. It would obviously
| just be the engineering of a lost civilization.
|
| It is really a testament to the power of ancient Egyptian art
| that it can still inspire the imagination to such a degree
| thousands of years later and across cultures.
| TeaBrain wrote:
| I think for some that it is the opposite. Most people are
| able to understand that due to the extensive evidence of
| centuries of advanced civilization, including extensive
| surviving writings and evidence of mathematics knowledge, the
| Egyptians were able to coordinate the construction of the
| pyramids using advanced, but not anachronistic technology.
| However, due to the disproportionate vastness and majesty of
| the pyramids and some of the other surviving ancient Egyptian
| works, many people can still be led to believe that there was
| something more at work than practical engineering with
| ancient technology.
| art3m wrote:
| Some Russians were so annoyed about alien theories so they
| recorded a video how they drill the stone themselves using only
| ancient instruments.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g305wqCdPRs (English subtitles
| included)
| abj wrote:
| It's obvious Egyptians could carve granite using stone
| instruments. What is worth more investigation, is how they
| carved symmetric granite vases within 1/100th of an inch
| precision.
| kragen wrote:
| nowadays, when people need precision to 1/100th of an "inch"
| (250mm in modern units) on soft materials like unhardened
| steel, they can use steel tools
|
| but when they need precision of 1mm or better (in medieval
| units, 1/25000th of an "inch"), or when they're cutting
| materials harder than steel, they resort to grinding with
| stone, typically emery (sapphire) for most of the grinding,
| followed by polishing. poor people who don't have steel tools
| also commonly do this for lower-precision work in soft
| materials; you can find all kinds of videos on youtube of
| people using angle grinders for things that a well-equipped
| machine shop would do with a bandsaw or milling machine
|
| similarly, to get the dimensional references to measure to,
| common shop work can use cast-iron straight edges. but, for
| more precise work, they resort to granite surface plates
|
| the egyptians of the old kingdom clearly had granite surface
| plates (they built significant parts of the pyramids'
| interiors out of them) and grinding, though they were
| evidently using the inferior quartz sand as their abrasive
|
| as for symmetry, the most likely explanation is that they
| used lathes; the oldest indisputable records of lathes are
| from new kingdom egypt, but rotationally symmetric work that
| seems to have been made on a lathe appears as far back as the
| old kingdom
|
| with respect to granite, while i don't doubt that you can
| find a granite vase here and there, most ancient egyptian
| fine stone carvings are from much softer rocks such as
| schist, alabaster (gypsum), and "alabaster" (calcite)
|
| so i would say the investigation has already been done and
| found convincing answers
| Loughla wrote:
| >What is worth more investigation, is how they carved
| symmetric granite vases within 1/100th of an inch precision.
|
| The thing that gets me is that all of these questions can
| seemingly be answered with -- lots of time.
|
| If you work slowly, and have lots and lots of people to throw
| at problems, nearly anything is possible.
| abj wrote:
| If you're like me and want to some actual evidence, here's a
| video where they scanned and uploaded STL files from pre-dynastic
| Egyptian vases. https://youtu.be/QzFMDS6dkWU?feature=shared
| alt227 wrote:
| This video is really frustrating. It spends the first 10
| mintues trying to convince the viewer that these vases are not
| fake, yet has no evidence other than "There is no possible way
| these are fakes, just look at them!". Then he actively offers
| up that they have not performed this analysis on any museum
| piece vase which has been confirmed to come from an Egyption
| tomb or pyramid.
| amai wrote:
| That might explain how they drilled holes into granite. But how
| did the ancient Egyptians carve hieroglyphs into granite?
| chris_st wrote:
| With flint, evidently:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQkQwsBhj8I
| throwaway173738 wrote:
| Probably with similar techniques. If you can spin a round thing
| against the same spot to make a hole you can certainly use the
| same materials and rub them in a straight line or along a
| curve. Hand woodworking involves painstakingly rubbing a little
| material off the work and then checking it, or shaving it off
| or cutting it off depending on where you are in the process.
| And you can also strike a soft metal against the stone to chip
| out a rough area before finishing and polishing. Inferior tools
| just have to be sharpened more often is all
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| From the perspective of a person living in the US, it is
| technically correct that ancient aliens were responsible for all
| the ancient Egyptian artifacts.
|
| They were _ancient_ in that they lived a long time ago and they
| were _aliens_ in that they were not citizens or residents of the
| US.
|
| So yes, ancient aliens built the pyramids.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-12 23:01 UTC)