<HTML>Frank, there's no comparison between Late Stone Age quarrying and Iron Age and later quarrying. Compare pointed stone picks (see Arnold) to iron tools for levering, etc. No good historian would equate Roman quarrying with pointed pick Late Stone Age quarrying.
And sawing with sand would utilize tremendous copper. Where did all the copper come from? Show me some Old Kingdom statistics--bet you can't present one that supports the needed copper.
For a source on waste rock talk to anyone who runs a limestone quarry. You'll learn about the many feet of waste rock and what a wasteful process quarrying is. If your book doesn't discuss the waste rock, get with pros in your country as I have done in mine.
I have explained the 75 % waste twice. I'm not going to repeat this info a third time for someone who wishes to deny there was waste rock! Talk to a pro and quit inventing things to suit your self interests.
And get my point about the chainsaws straight!! Read for a change!! I said that even with modern equipment like chainsaws the waste factor is still high at 30 to 50 % (counted ONLY after the removal of mucho upper waste rock).
And think! Slicing out blocks with a chain saw is much less wasteful than digging big trenches to make blocks! Get it? Probably not.
Unbelievable.
And show us where your book compares 19th century quarrying to pointed pick quarrying! It doesn't, but that's the technique the Giza quarries show--no denying it unless you want to scrap the observations of Arnold and Klemm.
Sandy</HTML>