The Serapeum, Part I: Lost Ancient High Technology?

Is there evidence for ancient power tools at the Serapeum? Are the megalithic boxes in the underground catacombs remnants of an advanced civilization!?

Thank you so much for watching!

Support us on Patreon:

Buy us a Coffee:

Bitcoin Tip Jar:
bc1qr72vyek568s3c3907p0s762k9xlx4ec9xh23a0

Donate on Brave Rewards!

The Serapeum, Part II : Moving Megaliths | Ancient Presence

The Serapeum, Part III: Historical Timeline Written In Stone | Ancient Presence

Serapeum Playlist:

We compiled a HUGE LIST of LINKS to resources that relate to this three part series on the Serapeum. We highly recommend you to go click on some links and do some follow up research! Enjoy :)

0:00 Intro
3:35 Auguste Mariette's adventure
7:43 Megalithic sarcophagi
12:57 Christopher Dunn
16:25 Precision?
22:16 Stone cutting experiments
26:06 Tube drills, Petrie's core #7
30:00 Pounding stones
31:45 Polish, flatness, microns
37:36 Orthogonal alignments
39:11 Conclusions

Buy Casey's album here:
Follow on Spotify:
Follow on SoundCloud:

Check out Casey’s website full of art, music & photos:

[unchartedxlive]

Part 1/2 - continued in a reply to this comment..

Interesting video - definitely some food for thought here. It's been several years now since I made my Serapeum videos, but I have some commentary. The discrepancies between Dunn's angular measurements and the ones shown here are curious - as he was using highly calibrated precision tools and is certainly qualified to use them. Digital protractors like those shown require calibration to use (unless you're doing carpentry) and I didn't see anything about that. Funnily enough, in order to calibrate them you need hard gages of the accuracy and type used by Dunn in his measurements - those that provided the measurements you're claiming superiority over. Also curiously, these measurements are in conflict with those obtained by other reasearchers (also using precision tools) like Ahmed Adly. I can't speak to the validity of the measurements shown in this video, but measuring outside angles of these boxes is meaningless, and only serves to back up what seems to be a pre-determined conclusion of 'inaccuracy.' Knowing the channel these measurements came from, I'm not surprised to see it - more on that later. In any case, measuring in this fashion (by anyone) is only getting results in very specific spots, in specific boxes.

That said, any effort to measure the degree of precision is a good thing, there's no such thing as 'absolute' precision (nor is it a claim I've ever made), it should always be a goal to find the specific degree of precision employed in any historical manufacturing technique. Ultimately these boxes need to be scanned with modern high definition LIDAR devices (something I continually call for), like that which Patrice Pouillard used to determine the precision of the Barabar caves in India. I tried to scan them on the last trip there, but the apple LIDAR lacks the resolution required and the boxes were just too damn shiny to get any decent results.

We know several of the boxes weren't finished. There's some with inside corners not finished or squared out, and we have a bunch of them in what seem to be various stages of manufacture - which is a mystery all on it own, how the hell were they working on these down here?? There are also a few (like the smaller granite box and the limestone one) that seem to have been created by entirely different and less precise methods, perhaps in different times. There's also plenty of evidence for renovation in the site and multiple periods of use here (the crappy writing, recycled old-kingdom slabs etc). The unfinished boxes show chisel marks, and I've not seen any saw cuts, but there is an odd signature on the bottom corner of the box with the writing. It's not a saw but I don't really know what to make of it. The polished surfaces have no tool signatures on them as far as I can tell, but some of the 'finished but not polished' surfaces (undersides of lids) do seem to have faint machining marks and lines. Also, the whole 'liquid polish' evidence (that I've found on multiple boxes in recent trips) in my videos is a mystery to me.

I don't think the discrepancies in angles means much to the manufacturing techniques used here anyway - if that's the degree of precision, then that's the degree of precision experimentalists should be trying to match. Although these numbers are clearly in dispute and we have work yet to do to define the degree of precision here, assuming the measurements shown are accurate, in my opinion it's still remarkably impressive work, and unlikely to have been repeated 25 times by hand, particularly when combined with the other evidence for advanced tools being used on the boxes. Have you looked into the box at Lahun? Personally I find the complex and compound surfaces like hedjets or ramses heads or cornice blocks (with their associated symmetry) to be far more convincing examples of precision than linear/square stuff anyway.

Regarding the surface roughness meter and flatness. Yes, it measures a small patch. So what? Doesn't change the validity of the result. Other than that, we have precision straight edges that show flatness to within their tolerances, which is very good. Then we've got examples of laser light playing over the whole surface (pretty flat), or the good old hand test (feels flat mang). Barring a proper scan of the boxes, those are the metrics we have. If you want to prove it can be done, go make a box, and test patches of it with a surface roughness meter, see if you can match the results in microns - at the same time as getting all the other aspects of the box right - like relative geometry, polishing the surface AND the dips with rocks and sand, matching inside corner radii, etc.

Shrug. People will do their research and believe what they will. Nothing about the past is definite when looking through the lens of millenia of civilizations, construction, destruction and re-use. While I'm certainly open to being convinced, given the huge list of contradictions in the mainstream story of history, along with the evidence coming from adjacent fields of science (genetics, younger dryas etc) that I know you guys are aware of, as well as the stonework examples, I do not think primitive methods can explain everything we see.

Either the dynastics did everything (very unlikely in my opinion, given the huge wealth of evidence to the contrary and the long list of contradictions) in which case we need to re-write history based on their advanced capabilities - or they didn't, someone else did, and the Dynastics inherited a whole lotta stuff (far more likely, in my opinion), and again, we need to re-write history. It's stupid that I have to say this all the time - but I am aware you can grind through stone with copper and abrasives, or with flint chisels and pounding stones. A lot of people seem to think proving that these methods can remove a bit of stone somehow equals victory - which I find kinda weird. I've never said that it doesn't work, and no doubt lots and lots of stuff was done that way, and even more once they acquired iron in later stages of civilization. It's that those methods don't fit all the evidence we have, and those outliers are usually the things I focus on in my videos.

[HerreNeas]

Very honest approach guys, the conversation is as important as the conclusion imo, there are times when I believe we write off the ancient people’s as simplistic and incapable, for sure anyone who can build the great pyramid must have been technical, skilled, intelligent and with immense resource whenever they existed, the references to ancient powered manufacturing devices reminds me of a book I once had called engineering in the ancient world, fascinating.

[RoxUniverse]

These boxes were found by the Egyptians as were most of the wonders you report on. They are clearly not made by hand with copper chisels. Ancient high technology is just that, ancient. So ancient that we have no idea how they were made or moved. When people compare them with tools that we might use, they immediately miss the point. Perhaps one day these secrets will be revealed, but until then I think the best answers are we have no idea how they were made, but we certainly know how they were not made.

[paul]

Finally, non sensationalistic research. Nice work. What I'd give to see the ancient Egyptians at work

[keverton]

copper saws cut 4mm per hour, there are 2.3 million blocks on the great pyramid alone. Egyptians never built any of this.

[Themarkofegypt]

As an Egyptian, Egyptologist and a Tour guide here in Egypt...I thank you and your team from the bottom of my heart ❤❤❤❤

[RedDarkBull]

Measures of granite work from "Scientist against Myth" are all made with modern machines, and all has these measures :
90.35, 90.55, 90.00, 90.1, and 90.05
All are machined, and all are not precise except one, so why are you arguing against Serapeum when it is 89.5, or 90.6, or 89.9
Were Ancient Egyptians using Modern Russian imprecise Machines ? :D

[etiennejager]

So where is a video of any experimental work of a completed box? Of any size?

[LesterBrunt]

29:30 You could argue that it isn’t true that we don’t spend that much time on things. The average movie takes 1-2 years to finish, nobody bats an eye at that. Each version of GTA takes about 5 years to create. The Simpson has been in creation for 34 years.The Large Hadron Collider was built in 10 years. 1 year on a big project is completely ordinary, we just don’t make stone boxes by hand these days.

[N.Eismann]

Overall one can see these kinds of very precise and oddly smooth and polished (not saying flat) surfaces. Not one inside corner seems to be visibly faulty to the eye, which is even more confusing. The amount of labour required to get these kinds of high standard inside corners seems very disproportionate to the desired results - i.e. closing the lid forever after burying a bull. For every finished box imagine the failed attempts, those are 30-80 ton boxes after all. It could all be over with a faulty strike of a hammer. But you do not see one broken off/plastered over inside corner. Seems a bit odd.

[danwilson]

Internal corners of the boxes, where three faces intersect, that’s always puzzled me, not impossible, but pretty tricky

[Magicalfluidprocess]

Bens latest vid on uncharted x shows metrological and mathematical measurements on a granite jar, I would love you to debunk that 1 😂😂I won’t hold my breath however

[amgadmuhammad]

So how long it is estimated to finish one box? Also do you have an explanation on how they navigated 70 ton box in those tight corridors?

[Eye_of_Horus]

I’m glad you included the digital measuring readouts of the angles in response to Dunn’s work.

[TheGreatPyramid]

Thank you for your balanced presentation! I get so sick of hearing just the “space age perfect” narrative. Shout out to @SacredGeometryDecoded for their pioneering work here!

[austinwhite]

This channel needs way more views then it’s getting this is top quality

[zirzmokealot]

Bright inside just showed where a saw cut went off course. Pretty telling that it wasn't only done by hand.

[charlesbeehner]

You mentioned some tools could cut three eighths of an inch per hr, or about 4 inches per 12 hr day for most likely at least 2, and maybe 4 people. So per full 7 day week, 12 hrs per day, 2 or more people would not even cut a whole yard. A stone block has 6 sides. 6 weeks for a 3 foot cube to be cut by 2 or more people. In my mind this isn't adding up.

[robinsonsuarez]

Amazing video. Main complaint is that you have to try and replicate full boxes. Because almost anything can be done at a small scale, the difficulty scales almost exponentially when going bigger or scaling at industrial production. For ex THE pyramid

[paultyler]

To prove its possible for primitive tools you do need to create a whole serepeum box and its technical precision in full... by partially replicating it, its no different to someone from the future finding an old Mercedes and saying look we made some metal into the shapes of the bumper using primitive tools