Hi Graham!
I've been a construction worker (plumber) for 12 years now. I'm working my way through "The Message of the Sphinx" now, which I love.
Regarding the "Dixon Relics," I can tell you that Zahi Hawass was probably correct about the function of the upper shafts in the Queen's chamber being to lower some object using sand or such. Finding the Dixon relics where they were found, in one of those shafts but not readily accessible from the interior chamber, tells me that a time came when the function of the shafts was over with at some point, and had no further use. Whether significantly ceremonial or not, it seems those items were tossed down the shaft, probably with some measure of contempt and in the presence of a few pots of mead, upon substantial completion of the project or as part of the retirement of a foreman, in the spirit of "Hallelujah, we're finished with this project, I don't want to see these tools again this year."
I realize that decoration and high level artifice might suggest that there was some ceremonial purpose to those objects and they were not actual tools, but I disagree and speculate that they were indeed the actual tools of some chair-polishing field foreman who simply had nice tools and didn't break his back so they didn't really actually need to be used. If they look fancy, I mean, as I have no idea what they look like.
Regarding weathering at the more intact sphinx, as a plumber I can definitely see what is referred to as 'channeling' where significant rainfall found its path through some now absent upper soil layer. It looks just like the inside of an old water softener media tank. However, I think it is definitely possible to get that appearance as well if the sphinx were constructed during or just after the deforestation of the area. Regardless of that, for a moment at least, let's look at the construction of the sphinx, pyramids, and their tunnels. In all cases, from the tool marks, the method of quarrying, of finishing the blocks, and the style and dimensions of the tunnels and construction generally seem to indicate that no incredibly significant advancement in construction techniques differentiates any of these structures. Granted, construction probably didn't advance at anywhere near the pace it currently seems to, and that kind of advancement seems to have been sort of an exponential curve heavily dependent on the industrial revolution, so I would expect only a minimum of advancement of construction methods even from Sumerian times to the bronze age collapse, if any significant advancement.
It looks like the striated tool marks from the tunneling and finishing of the stone, whether bedrock or quarried blocks, illustrates a rate at which the work was performed, albeit without any obvious specificity. The angle of the striations deviates as the block is cut, from the original angle where the cutting began, in apparently all cases. The thickness of the striations/tool marks should indicate the width of the implement used. The deviation in the angle of the marks should speak to whether the process of cutting was begun from above the material itself or from the front/side of the material. If we look at the partially-quarried obelisk example, the technique for quarrying from above the material downward appears to be significantly different, and to me indicates that an entirely different tool or method was used to work downward than to cut from a more convenient position of directly facing the material you're trying to remove. Closer inspection of the striations could potentially tell us something as well about whether the tool used was a normally-sized hand tool, or whether it was a long hafted implement. A saw in the traditional sense seems to be out of the question as I've never heard about or seen any imagery of those from the period. As for a tubular copper or iron drill, I wouldn't be surprised if they could have created those with a casting method, and I'm even open to the lost wax method, but I feel like mentioning that even with the modern equivalent, such as a hole-saw drill attachment kit, even drilling through wood is arduous and inefficient. Suggesting a hollow tubular drill is clever, but unrealistic as this would take a relatively unreasonable amount of time and effort in light of the objective (to bore through granite). Undeniably they did bore through granite, but I suspect they employed some other technology we would associate with lapidary work.
Regarding the gouge marks at the partially quarried obelisk example, I speculate here as well that some lapidary technique was used for faster results than other methods of subtractive work. I say that due to the size and shape of the gouges, as if a more automated or convenient system were used, and a completely different tool and method than that used to finish flat surfaces as shown everywhere else. I speculate that the two prevailing technological advancements of the age would have been forestry/land husbandry and lapidary work, as the symbols of the providence of the pharaoh were apparently the flail and the crook-thing, where the flail most likely represents agricultural success and possibly punishment. I don't think anyone fully understands the crook-thing. I say this actually because one of the Dixon relics is a stick with measurement markings, which many folks now call a story-pole or in it's short form a ruler. Certainly it is possible that the crook is related to herding, but I see reasons to dispute that argument: the crook examples are all apparently so short that by the time the business end of the crook meets the animal, one could simply grab the animal with hands. Additionally, the crook seems to almost always be delineated with measurement markings, whereas I think most people subconsciously assume that Egyptians loved stripes or something. I think the crook is for measurement, and symbolizes fairness, and could even represent the mast or mount for a set of scales, or a visual means to measure the difference of scales, or a means to measure the height of a pile of grain or liquid quantity. It could also be representative of levels of attainment, in a similar fashion to martial arts dan ranking or something more esoteric. Who knows, maybe it's an early variant of the ankh symbol, or the vehicle of an atlatl as seen in mesoamerican carvings, or even just a 'Lord of the Flies' speaking conch type object, but as it is so often paired with the unintimidating flail, I would expect it to represent the foil to the flail in a dependency--where if the flail represents agriculture, the crook represents military prowess, or if the flail represents punishment, such as a flog, then the crook would have to represent fairness. In both cases the combination of those symbols I would expect to demonstrate that the ruler is both powerful and at least superficially equitable in order to garner fealty from the ruled. I'm not an Egyptologist so for all I know, the world could already know what the crook represents and I just didn't get the memo.
Further, regarding the gouges at the partial obelisk, I have to rule out the possibility that plants were intentionally grown in the gouges to cause fractures in the rock, as this would have been so unreliable and be unrealistic in terms of time spent. The same argument stands for using ice or wedges to fracture the rock. What's more, I would speculate that no hafted tool such as a pick were used, due to the angle of access at the obelisk example and simply because using a pick on granite does not result in anything resembling those gouges. Liquids might, however, and it is far more plausible to me that some wet-grinding technique was known of as lapidary work was flourishing and highly regarded then. I find it unlikely that hand tools were employed extensively in the quarrying process, contrary to what seems to be currently argued.
Regarding the bracelets depicted in bas relief carvings--the same carvings which feature the handbags--I believe these are seals or symbols of official authority and speculate that these are the precursors of cylindrical seals, which were employed by earlier Sumerian peoples. We still use the equivalent technology today to denote officiality, as these can be found on every page of every set of modern American construction documents. That they so often appear simultaneously with the pine cone, and so often depict floral designs, I strongly agree with your posit that the persons depicted in carvings are representative of a civilizing enterprise, where I would expect the peoples involved to be bartering technological advancement for the realization of political ends.
Regarding the pine cones and floral designs of bracelets: I get frustrated at this point, as most papyrological researchers insist that agriculture began somehow with grains and low plants, whereas the obvious origin of agriculture in my opinion would first be the much larger, more accessible, and often edible tree nuts and tree seeds. I believe the pine cone then is the expected representation of the nacent stages of agriculture as a technology, especially when it is considered that so many varieties of trees were among the most valuable material commodities of the times, such as myrrh and cedar and so forth, and in light of the apparent fact that ancient gardens are so typically illustrated as being comprised of trees in such a greater prevalence than flowers and what we would consider to be small aesthetic plants. It seems really obvious to me that such carvings depict one or more persons who arrived bearing the gift of agricultural knowledge, where otherwise I would expect to see entirely different objects used to convey any other idea.
Regarding the handbags: These could so easily represent gifts and the giving of gifts, and often in art works this is found alongside other imagery in a combination. What is perhaps more important is that the handbags are symbolic of travel as well. If I want to draw a picture of someone giving a gift, I might draw two persons handing each other an object, or merely draw the giver holding the object and nothing more. The only reason I would ever consider drawing the handbag, much less taking the time to carve it, much less in multiple works, would be if this person brought the item in question over a distance. The handbag to me easily indicates travel far more than anything else. If I am not travelling, and give an object to a family member, I don't need a bag.
Regarding the wooden support beams and corresponding sockets in the red and bent pyramids: It could be that these items constitute what modern construction refers to as a "change order," where the original architectural design called for something different or something that proved to be insufficient in the field, and these wooden elements could represent more improvisational features. In the cases I have seen (online, granted) it does look to me like these could have been fairly easily installed after the initial framework was in place. I doubt that any of the woodwork present is actually load-bearing in a significant sense. It is worth noting here that wood is employed in the design of the slid-in stone "portcullises," and this I explain by suggesting that these accesses were meant to be sealed only once, rather than to be sealed, opened, sealed, opened in any regular fashion. That some of these never were in fact sealed seems to reinforce this argument--however I do not believe the function of any of these pyramids was to serve as a tomb. It does seem quite convincing that they would have ostensibly played some role in the 'un-mummification' process, and I refer to the part of the book concerning the striking open of the mouth of the mummy with an iron implement and any attending ceremony, but I doubt they were tombs.
Regarding the iron plate at the star-facing shaft: I don't think that the builders of the pyramids intended for the sheet of iron to impede the passage of the Ba or even of looters, but that the builders believed (at least at the time of construction) iron to possess some special quality and purpose. Speculation about what that could be, well, perhaps they did think it barred looters but not souls, or else perhaps they believed it would facilitate a connection to the cosmos as they could have known of meteoric metals and held iron in a similar esteem. It could be the case that iron was rare enough at time of construction that a single plate of it represented more precious effort to create.
Regarding the chambers of the great pyramid and other pyramids: I believe each chamber had a uniquely distinct intended use, as the structure and design of each pyramid would be far different from what exists otherwise, or that a vastly different configuration of chambers would be seen if only one use for a pyramid were intended. I do think the uses were entirely ceremonial, but not all funerary. So often, the pyramids are presented as the status symbols of individual pharaohs, but if even one or two of the proposed astrological alignments of the pyramids were intentional, this seems to be evidence that subsequent pharaohs to the first were respecting and paying homage to the theme they were expanding on rather than attempting to one-up one another.
I've been a construction worker (plumber) for 12 years now. I'm working my way through "The Message of the Sphinx" now, which I love.
Regarding the "Dixon Relics," I can tell you that Zahi Hawass was probably correct about the function of the upper shafts in the Queen's chamber being to lower some object using sand or such. Finding the Dixon relics where they were found, in one of those shafts but not readily accessible from the interior chamber, tells me that a time came when the function of the shafts was over with at some point, and had no further use. Whether significantly ceremonial or not, it seems those items were tossed down the shaft, probably with some measure of contempt and in the presence of a few pots of mead, upon substantial completion of the project or as part of the retirement of a foreman, in the spirit of "Hallelujah, we're finished with this project, I don't want to see these tools again this year."
I realize that decoration and high level artifice might suggest that there was some ceremonial purpose to those objects and they were not actual tools, but I disagree and speculate that they were indeed the actual tools of some chair-polishing field foreman who simply had nice tools and didn't break his back so they didn't really actually need to be used. If they look fancy, I mean, as I have no idea what they look like.
Regarding weathering at the more intact sphinx, as a plumber I can definitely see what is referred to as 'channeling' where significant rainfall found its path through some now absent upper soil layer. It looks just like the inside of an old water softener media tank. However, I think it is definitely possible to get that appearance as well if the sphinx were constructed during or just after the deforestation of the area. Regardless of that, for a moment at least, let's look at the construction of the sphinx, pyramids, and their tunnels. In all cases, from the tool marks, the method of quarrying, of finishing the blocks, and the style and dimensions of the tunnels and construction generally seem to indicate that no incredibly significant advancement in construction techniques differentiates any of these structures. Granted, construction probably didn't advance at anywhere near the pace it currently seems to, and that kind of advancement seems to have been sort of an exponential curve heavily dependent on the industrial revolution, so I would expect only a minimum of advancement of construction methods even from Sumerian times to the bronze age collapse, if any significant advancement.
It looks like the striated tool marks from the tunneling and finishing of the stone, whether bedrock or quarried blocks, illustrates a rate at which the work was performed, albeit without any obvious specificity. The angle of the striations deviates as the block is cut, from the original angle where the cutting began, in apparently all cases. The thickness of the striations/tool marks should indicate the width of the implement used. The deviation in the angle of the marks should speak to whether the process of cutting was begun from above the material itself or from the front/side of the material. If we look at the partially-quarried obelisk example, the technique for quarrying from above the material downward appears to be significantly different, and to me indicates that an entirely different tool or method was used to work downward than to cut from a more convenient position of directly facing the material you're trying to remove. Closer inspection of the striations could potentially tell us something as well about whether the tool used was a normally-sized hand tool, or whether it was a long hafted implement. A saw in the traditional sense seems to be out of the question as I've never heard about or seen any imagery of those from the period. As for a tubular copper or iron drill, I wouldn't be surprised if they could have created those with a casting method, and I'm even open to the lost wax method, but I feel like mentioning that even with the modern equivalent, such as a hole-saw drill attachment kit, even drilling through wood is arduous and inefficient. Suggesting a hollow tubular drill is clever, but unrealistic as this would take a relatively unreasonable amount of time and effort in light of the objective (to bore through granite). Undeniably they did bore through granite, but I suspect they employed some other technology we would associate with lapidary work.
Regarding the gouge marks at the partially quarried obelisk example, I speculate here as well that some lapidary technique was used for faster results than other methods of subtractive work. I say that due to the size and shape of the gouges, as if a more automated or convenient system were used, and a completely different tool and method than that used to finish flat surfaces as shown everywhere else. I speculate that the two prevailing technological advancements of the age would have been forestry/land husbandry and lapidary work, as the symbols of the providence of the pharaoh were apparently the flail and the crook-thing, where the flail most likely represents agricultural success and possibly punishment. I don't think anyone fully understands the crook-thing. I say this actually because one of the Dixon relics is a stick with measurement markings, which many folks now call a story-pole or in it's short form a ruler. Certainly it is possible that the crook is related to herding, but I see reasons to dispute that argument: the crook examples are all apparently so short that by the time the business end of the crook meets the animal, one could simply grab the animal with hands. Additionally, the crook seems to almost always be delineated with measurement markings, whereas I think most people subconsciously assume that Egyptians loved stripes or something. I think the crook is for measurement, and symbolizes fairness, and could even represent the mast or mount for a set of scales, or a visual means to measure the difference of scales, or a means to measure the height of a pile of grain or liquid quantity. It could also be representative of levels of attainment, in a similar fashion to martial arts dan ranking or something more esoteric. Who knows, maybe it's an early variant of the ankh symbol, or the vehicle of an atlatl as seen in mesoamerican carvings, or even just a 'Lord of the Flies' speaking conch type object, but as it is so often paired with the unintimidating flail, I would expect it to represent the foil to the flail in a dependency--where if the flail represents agriculture, the crook represents military prowess, or if the flail represents punishment, such as a flog, then the crook would have to represent fairness. In both cases the combination of those symbols I would expect to demonstrate that the ruler is both powerful and at least superficially equitable in order to garner fealty from the ruled. I'm not an Egyptologist so for all I know, the world could already know what the crook represents and I just didn't get the memo.
Further, regarding the gouges at the partial obelisk, I have to rule out the possibility that plants were intentionally grown in the gouges to cause fractures in the rock, as this would have been so unreliable and be unrealistic in terms of time spent. The same argument stands for using ice or wedges to fracture the rock. What's more, I would speculate that no hafted tool such as a pick were used, due to the angle of access at the obelisk example and simply because using a pick on granite does not result in anything resembling those gouges. Liquids might, however, and it is far more plausible to me that some wet-grinding technique was known of as lapidary work was flourishing and highly regarded then. I find it unlikely that hand tools were employed extensively in the quarrying process, contrary to what seems to be currently argued.
Regarding the bracelets depicted in bas relief carvings--the same carvings which feature the handbags--I believe these are seals or symbols of official authority and speculate that these are the precursors of cylindrical seals, which were employed by earlier Sumerian peoples. We still use the equivalent technology today to denote officiality, as these can be found on every page of every set of modern American construction documents. That they so often appear simultaneously with the pine cone, and so often depict floral designs, I strongly agree with your posit that the persons depicted in carvings are representative of a civilizing enterprise, where I would expect the peoples involved to be bartering technological advancement for the realization of political ends.
Regarding the pine cones and floral designs of bracelets: I get frustrated at this point, as most papyrological researchers insist that agriculture began somehow with grains and low plants, whereas the obvious origin of agriculture in my opinion would first be the much larger, more accessible, and often edible tree nuts and tree seeds. I believe the pine cone then is the expected representation of the nacent stages of agriculture as a technology, especially when it is considered that so many varieties of trees were among the most valuable material commodities of the times, such as myrrh and cedar and so forth, and in light of the apparent fact that ancient gardens are so typically illustrated as being comprised of trees in such a greater prevalence than flowers and what we would consider to be small aesthetic plants. It seems really obvious to me that such carvings depict one or more persons who arrived bearing the gift of agricultural knowledge, where otherwise I would expect to see entirely different objects used to convey any other idea.
Regarding the handbags: These could so easily represent gifts and the giving of gifts, and often in art works this is found alongside other imagery in a combination. What is perhaps more important is that the handbags are symbolic of travel as well. If I want to draw a picture of someone giving a gift, I might draw two persons handing each other an object, or merely draw the giver holding the object and nothing more. The only reason I would ever consider drawing the handbag, much less taking the time to carve it, much less in multiple works, would be if this person brought the item in question over a distance. The handbag to me easily indicates travel far more than anything else. If I am not travelling, and give an object to a family member, I don't need a bag.
Regarding the wooden support beams and corresponding sockets in the red and bent pyramids: It could be that these items constitute what modern construction refers to as a "change order," where the original architectural design called for something different or something that proved to be insufficient in the field, and these wooden elements could represent more improvisational features. In the cases I have seen (online, granted) it does look to me like these could have been fairly easily installed after the initial framework was in place. I doubt that any of the woodwork present is actually load-bearing in a significant sense. It is worth noting here that wood is employed in the design of the slid-in stone "portcullises," and this I explain by suggesting that these accesses were meant to be sealed only once, rather than to be sealed, opened, sealed, opened in any regular fashion. That some of these never were in fact sealed seems to reinforce this argument--however I do not believe the function of any of these pyramids was to serve as a tomb. It does seem quite convincing that they would have ostensibly played some role in the 'un-mummification' process, and I refer to the part of the book concerning the striking open of the mouth of the mummy with an iron implement and any attending ceremony, but I doubt they were tombs.
Regarding the iron plate at the star-facing shaft: I don't think that the builders of the pyramids intended for the sheet of iron to impede the passage of the Ba or even of looters, but that the builders believed (at least at the time of construction) iron to possess some special quality and purpose. Speculation about what that could be, well, perhaps they did think it barred looters but not souls, or else perhaps they believed it would facilitate a connection to the cosmos as they could have known of meteoric metals and held iron in a similar esteem. It could be the case that iron was rare enough at time of construction that a single plate of it represented more precious effort to create.
Regarding the chambers of the great pyramid and other pyramids: I believe each chamber had a uniquely distinct intended use, as the structure and design of each pyramid would be far different from what exists otherwise, or that a vastly different configuration of chambers would be seen if only one use for a pyramid were intended. I do think the uses were entirely ceremonial, but not all funerary. So often, the pyramids are presented as the status symbols of individual pharaohs, but if even one or two of the proposed astrological alignments of the pyramids were intentional, this seems to be evidence that subsequent pharaohs to the first were respecting and paying homage to the theme they were expanding on rather than attempting to one-up one another.