Subject: Re: The Minoan Linear A Language?
From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 01:12:02
In article <51n9ht$19h0_001@news.cyberix.com> Berlant@dynanet.com writes:
>
>A different opinion was presented by Laurence A. Waddell in his lightly
>regarded "Sumer Origins of Egypt", which traces many early
>Egyptian hieroglyphs back to Sumerian pictographs -- in many cases
>convincingly.
I have not read Waddell, so I must admit ignorance of his arguments, but on
the surface I find this improbable. First of all the comparative chronology is
problematical, as we cannot yet securely compare the first evicdence of
writing in both places. Second, until very recently we did not have a good
enough list of the earliest Sumerian sign forms, and I doubt that he had a
descent source to rely on. Third, we are only now learning about the earliest
knows phases of Egyptian writing, including the recent Abydos materials, which
are mainly unpublished. Fourth, the only evidence we have for close contact
between "Sumerian" culture and Egypt, aside from some trade items that may
have come indirectly, is from the excavations at one site in the delta which
clearly is related to Uruk type occupation in othre parts of the Near East,
but seems to be secondary. This phase of the Uruk culture dates from before
teh invention of writing. Finally, the Sumerian and Egyptian systems are
rather different structurally. None of this is conclusive, but it makes me
doubt that Egyptian was based on Sumerian. Those who believe that there was
some influence, in writing as well as in certain artistic representations,
usually ascribe it more to stimulus diffusion than to direct import.
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 19 Sep 1996 00:29:23 GMT
In article , fjyurco@midway.uchicago.edu
says...
>
>Dear Steve,
Dear Frank,
As usual, I have the highest regard for your scholarship, agree
with much of what you say, but wish to just point out a few small
matters which leave me a bit skeptical and querolous.
>
>To answer you queries and skepticism, first, just because Vitruvius
>mentions the Romans using rollers or rolling blocks is irrevelant as
>far as what techniques the ancient Egyptians used.
Vitruvious was a Roman historian describing the history of
construction methods. The blocks he mentioned being rolled into
place were used in the construction of a Greek temple.
The Greeks learned a great deal of what they knew about
architecture from the Egyptians by way of the Phoenicians
who built their boats and cities and temples.
> Secondly, regarding
>the ramps that were used, at the Temple of Karnak, at the rear face
>of the First Pylon, a substantial remnant of the ancient mudbrick ramp
>still survives.
There were slipways, ramps, roads, causeways and construction ramps;
but if you look at the site contours of Giza and the photos taken
as a part of the Giza mapping project and the site mapping of other
sites you will see that the ramps you reference are inadequate to
the task at hand and further that there is no disturbed ground
extending them beyond their present location. Aierial photos and
satelite photos point this up rather well.
>Enough of it shows, to indicate that it was compartment
>built, with the compartments perhaps filled with sand or rubble.
What you need to show is foundations which extend far enough back
to reach the top at a reasonable pitch. The causeway which rises
to the Giza plateau does not have suffiient run to have been
extended any distance up the pyramid.
> That agrees with description of a construction ramp described in Papyrus
>Anastasi I, the debate between two scribes, see Wente, Letters from
>Ancient Egypt (Atlanta: Scholars' Press 1991).
Ramps, roads and slipways were used for some purposes, then as now
I Don't dispute that. What I do dispute is that a ramp was used to
build the Great Pyramid. As I have pointed out several times it would
have been ten times as much work to build the ramp as the pyramid and
then you would have still had to dispose of the debris when you were done.
> Further, Lehner and
>Hawass have found part of the feeder ramp at Giza leading up from the
>quarry, and it was indeed topped with tafla clay.
This is a causeway and was probably used to reach the plateau which
rises a hundred meters above the Nile. It would have been suitable
for men to walk up carrying sacks of grain to feed the workers, I
would like to know how you propose it could have been extended to
reach the pyramid without leaving any trace in the undisturbed ground.
>Topped with tafla is the key idea.
Tafla clay or marl is basically raw concrete. Once wet and allowed
to harden in the sun it becomes hard and crumbles. Anything coated
with it would become rutted and irregular fairly quickly. It would
also coat the sides of the porous blocks used to build the pyramid
and traces would have remained on the blocks for us to find.
Since such traces of "tafla clay" have not been found, your theory
is untenable; give it up.
>The whole ramp was built of rubble, topped with the tafla.
I can only refer the casual reader to the Giza mapping project
where all manmade structures stand out clearly by their straight
and regular lines relative to the natural contours.
>Further, the video, This Old Pyramid clearly showed, at first,
>the Egyptian masons trying to manhandle a square block by rolling it.
You might as well return to citing Cecil B De Mille epics. Film
makers stage scenes. This was no documentary. The mason, who is from
Massachusetts, built the pyramidion by slinging the blocks
into place with a backhoe.and a chainfall.
The archaeologists then tried their theories out.
>It did not work, at all.
Since they are archaeologists and not architects or contractors
they rather botched the job.
> Later Lehner, principally, got them to try the sledge, and it
>moved very well up the ramp they had constructed.
Actually, as I recall, they built a long flat ramp approaching
the pyramid along which the block moved well. Then when they
tried increasing the slope close to the pyramid they quickly
began to have problems. Solution, film the blocks sliding
easily along the flat part of the ramp, then lift them into
place with the backhoe at the pyramid, then film them being
adjusted into their final position. I watched this presentation
and then listened to the backhoe operator decribe it from his
perspective. A somewhat different point of view to say the least.
>So, sneering at this film does not quite suit its presentation.
Did they propose the blocks could be moved with a mast and
boom? Did they test this theory? Well their mason did...
> Indeed the Indiana mason also had to be convinced of the
>effectiveness of the ramp.
The mason was from Massachusetts. To say he needed to be
convinced of the effectiveness of the ramp is something of
an understatement. After a month of sitting around watching the
archaeologists get nowhere and running out of time to film
the dramatic finish, he essentially built the pyramidion from
the ground up in a week by himself using the backhoe.
> They also tried the old lifting machine thesis, using rockers
>and levers to lift a block, and they had a near disaster with it as
>the inserted timbers failed. The sledge on the wetted ramp moved easily
>and smoothly and they also surmounted the problem of turning a corner.
As I pointed out to you before Frank, the idea of using rockers to
move heavy loads is still in use today.
Ever use a refridgerator jack to take a heavy load up a flight
of stairs? Did you notice that it has what amount to long vertical
handles that act like levers?
Did you notice that the archaeologists using the Egyptian rockers
left the handles off? When it didn't work they blamed the rocker?
All I can say is its a poor craftsman who blames his tools...
>Thus, the evidence that was developed by practical application in that
>film showed that the ramp system combing a feeder ramp and then ramps
>around the pyramid sides were feasable.
Thank goodness the Egyptians didn't try to build their pyramids using
archaeologists to do the feasability studies!
> Again, you queried the evidence
>from the Meidum Pyramid, but it is key, for the lowest blocks of the
>final casing are rough dressed, while those above them are smoothly
>finished, certain evidence that the final polish was applied from the top
>downward.
I don't dispute that. All I said was that they would have done that using
staging. It certainly is no evidence for a ramp having been used.
>
>Its unfortunate that thus far, a relief or painting has not been found
>showing a construction ramp, but for the reasonable minds, the Karnak
>Pylon evidence is proof enough, while the Princess Idut and Deir el-
>Bersheh relief and painting, albeit hauling statues on sledges across
>a level surface, do indicate that sledges were normally used for hauling
>large masses.
Yes sledges were used for hauling heavy loads on level surfaces
Unfortunately there is no evidence that heavy loads were hauled up
ramps. So Frank, what do scientists do when there is no evidence?
Do they say make a speculation and say "proof enough"? Or do they
say there is no evidence to prove this point?
> Of wheeled vehicles, there is nothing until after the Hyksos age.
Not in Egypt, but there is evidence of wheeled vehicles in use in
Summer at least a millenia earlier and evidence that the two
civilizations were in contact. Still, I would say there is no
evidence to prove this point.
> Also, of lifting cranes there is zero evidence.
Masts and booms on boats used to lift sail
Shadufs used to lift water
Balances used to measure, weigh and judge against a standard
but also a perfect model of a counterweighted mast and boom.
>The shaduf that uses a lifting device, was only introduced
>in the New Kingdom, based on its representation in monuments.
There are representations of the shaduf in use in Mesopotamia
from before when the pyramids were built.
> So, for the Old and Middle Kingdoms, there is no other evidence,
There you go, I knew you could admit there was no evidence
> save the cited relief and painting,
which prove nothing
> and the unfinished monuments, like the Meidum Pyramid,
Which proves nothing, no evidence of a ramp up to the top of
that pyramid, and that pyramid is not built of large stone blocks
either, so even if there were a ramp it would not prove the
usefulness of a ramp for raising heavy loads, just the use of
a ramp for walking up carrying a few pounds of masonry.
> plus the archaeological evidence from Giza, where the fragment
>of a feeder ramp has been found.
Actually that works against your idea, since had there ever been
a ramp the evidence of where its foundation stones had rested
and disturbed the existing strata of the plateau would yet remain.
All you have there is a causeway which never was any larger
than it is now.
>
>So again, I say, study the monuments and the archaeological evidence,
>and then assess the situation.
I agree, get all the information, and then run the numbers.
Measure, weigh and then judge.
> Citing Roman practice and other speculation
>about cranes, has no relevance for the Old-Middle Kingdoms when the
>largest pyramids were built in Egypt.
The mast and boom are present in the decorations of tombs which
predate the pyramids Frank. Do you dispute this? Would you like
me to give you the cites again?
>
>Most sincerely,
>Frank J. Yurco
steve
Subject: Re: Edgar Casey--The theory of civilization not yet known to man--undiscovered
From: millerwd@ix.netcom.com(wd&aeMiller;)
Date: 19 Sep 1996 05:22:24 GMT
In Jon
writes:
>
>In article <51n7v8$deu@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>,
>millerwd@ix.netcom.com writes
>>
>>>>Fly on a plane that follows little red lines, of course. Then to
>>make
>>>>it interesting...the plane won't land...we'll just parachute out
the
>>>>back and happen to land about two trees away from the main entrance
>>of
>>>>the city. Of course, we'll have to shoot a couple of nazi's on the
>>way
>>>> before we can get to the door where we shout the ancient password
of
>>>>entry :"Mellon!"
>>>>
>>>>Hey, this could become a great screenplay. hehe
>>>>
>>>>Amanda :)
>>>I am afraid it won't work. You see Atlantis is underwater. By the
>>time
>>>we got two tree away from the entrance by parachute, we would be
very
>>>wet, and, more upsettingly, dead. Moreover, the only way that we
>>could
>>>shoot Nazis on the way down is if they were in a submarine! Tricky
>>this
>>>one. I suggest that the way forward is to get the Nazis drunk in a
>>bar
>>>in Cairo, then enslave them, and force them underground to dig a
>>>Transatlantic tunnel. If we happened to come across any fossilised
>>>Egyptian sailors on the way, whose remains were loaded to the gills
>>with
>>>cocaine, this would be a bonus. But I'm not going until you agree
to
>>>the thigh length rubber boots!
>>>--
>>>Jon
>>
>>Well, well. Ok. As long as the thigh-high leather boots can be
purple
>>and green tye dye. :) As for the tunnel...good idea! Perhaps we
can
>>use our enslaved nazi's for even longer working hours if we let them
>>chop up and snort any mummies they find.
>>
>>Amanda
>>:)
>>
>>P.S. For all you people out there, who haven't followed this thread
>>from the beginning....It's a JOKE!!!! DOH!!!! Laugh! Have fun!!!
>>Get bent!
>You mean - gasp, you're not serious. How can I find Atlantis without
>you - who will wear the boots. No calm down Jon, surely she jests in
>case any Nazis are looking in. No, the mummies have to be preserved
>to confound the Egyptologists. Now any really expert archaeologist
>should regularly confound Egyptologists - it's modern form of pig
>sticking!
>
>--
>Jon
Sorry, but I had to be careful there for a day or two. I heard the
Nazi regime was reading our posts. Can't let them in on the secret,
now can we? Darn, I really thought the mummy idea was good. :) I
guess we'll just have to settle for Nazi slave labor. Of course, I
could always drive the heel of my boot into the back of the slow
workers.....(grin)
Amanda
Subject: Re: Pyramids and Aliens
From: Baron Szabo
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 06:06:35 GMT
Welcome to sci.archaeology, Ann! Mind the pigs at the door. This is
not an entirly useless place, I should console you. If you are willing
to brave the animals of the jungle, and if you can keep your tongue
sharp, (nice tongue by the way) you can possibly come out ahead.
(what I meant by that strange compliment was that you are perfectly well
suited for sci-dot-archaeologing if your words thus far are any
indication.)
> > Ths is a troll, correct?!?!?
I warn you, the resident stiffies are a terribly paranoid lot. Always
rambling on about fabulous things like trolls, pyramidiots and even
Invisible Pink Unicorns(TM)! ;>
Sorry August, I couldn't resist!
> Actually, no, unless asking for information is a troll, in which case I am
> guilty as charged. Having only subscribed to this newsgroup in the last
> week, I found myself faced with what appeared to be the middle of a few
> threads and discussions, and was curious to find out what I had missed,
> the idea being that if I knew what had gone before, not only would the
> threads make sense, but I could join in the discussion if I so wished
> without either making an uninformed comment, leaving myself open to
> "flaming", or re-dressing statements previously covered.
One sure way to pick up on old discussions is with DejaNew.
http://www.dejanews.com/
Do a search on the thread name, or whatever...
> Profuse apologies if I have upset the delicate sensibilities of the
> contributors to this newsgroup by asking such a simple question.
I hope apologies come easy to you!
--
zoomQuake - A nifty, concise listing of over 200 ancient history links.
Copy the linklist page if you want! (for personal use only)
----------> http://www.iceonline.com/home/peters5/
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 16:30:10 -0700
Jim Rogers wrote:
> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> > Matt Kriebel wrote:
> ....
> > Ramps, either straight, or winding don't work, each for a different
> > reason: Straight ramp - too much volume - no material evidence.
> > Side-ramp - The casing blocks had to be put in place first,
> > and you cannot affix the side-ramps to the mirror smooth mantle.
> That would make no sense. Save the facing stones for the very end, they
> are much thinner and lighter, and struggle with more difficult methods
> to elevate them into place.
Sorry, Jim, but the facing stones found were huge. They were one-
hundred inches thick, and some weighed over 15 tons. I have no
reasons to believe these stones were all that much lighter near
the top, let's say 7-10 tons.
The average weight of the core stones comes to about 2.5 tons.
Your info was simply wrong.
> > Mechanical devices such as cranes and derricks do not come
> > into consideration either, because steel wasn't available.
> > These categories cover all proposals of Lo-Tech we have seen.
> You don't need steel to build scaffolding to ratchet a heavy weight up
> a little at a time.
You would need heavy Lebanese timber. To operate cranes, though,
you would need steel. So says the American engineer F. M. Barber,
who was onsite, while being the US-naval attache to Egypt.
> > Issues of Accuracy and Workmanship.
> > The claims to the Pyramids incredible architectural accuracy are
> > never disputed. It beats the accuracy standards of the great Medieval
> > cathedrals.
> Pretty clever, those Egyptians, eh?
I'll say. But our savants don't want to acknowledge it. It doesn't
fit in with their original explanation that the Pyramid was built
to be a tomb, that it was just skilfully piled-up, and that there
was no further thought given to recording things like standards of
measures, astronomical alignments, etc.
There is no sarcophagus, just a lidless coffer, which other, later
sarcophagi may have imitated for its classical shape.
The lid was auspiciously, and quite symbolically left out by the
builders!
If archaeologists would start acknowledging the Pyramid's
expressive intelligence, they would open a can of worms, and
eventually discover the so called Lost Science..
> > Mathematics and Units of Measure
> > The Pyramid just happens to have a unique shape, which makes it
> > a classic, gives it the patented pyramid-power, and incorporates
> > both the Pi and Phi constants.
> One things about ancient Eqypt is clear, they knew quite a bit
> about geometry. Unique shape? It is a very natural, stable shape.
> And Pi is a universal, useful ratio -- why *shouldn't* they have
> discovered and used it?
But to what decimal place did they know it? What else did they
know, and did they teach it to talented Greek mathematicians,
who seemed to visit Egypt in droves, when young (as if they had
studied there)?
> > The Pyramid just happens to be so placed and oriented, and contains
> > such details of construction, that it appears to suit a system
> > indicating unsurpassed knowledge of geography and astronomy, which
> > by the way, is being summerily denied by skeptics.
> Because all you and others have done with this is point to
> coincidence as "proof" of intentional design.
Sorry, there is a limit to coincidence. After this limit,
coincidences turn into circumstantial evidence. A likelihood
emerges. When it becomes likely that there was once Advanced
Ancient Science, it also becomes unlikely that there never was
any such science.
Obviously you believe - it was All just a coincidence..
Jiri Mruzek
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jiri_mruzek/ridercut.htm
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 1996 16:53:49 -0700
Kevin D. Quitt wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Sep 1996 01:41:45 -0700, Jiri Mruzek
> wrote:
> >Ten times as much weight remains the decisive consideration.
> Not at all. The considerations are the axle friction (none for the stones,
> plenty for a car), and the rolling friction (much lower for a larger, hard
> wheel).
Excuse me, but I'll go on supposing that rolling a ten-ton cylinder, slapped
into shape with four pieces of wood presents major problems.
> >Modern tires roll easily, and their rubber is quite hard.
> Actually, they don't, and have you seen how much the rubber flexes? That's
> the energy you're putting into pushing the car, being turned into heat. Why
> do you think the solar racers and high-mileage test vehicles use large,
> solid rubber tires? It's because of the tremendous gain.
Well inflated tires roll easily. Once they stand up that is. It's harder
to stand up a single ten-ton wheel.
> >> Third, it's no harder to make a large wheel round than a small one.
> >Then make me a wheel mile-high!
> While you're being an ass, why not ten miles?
While? Meaning never? Anyhow, Your manner is slipping, and so is your
image.
> >> Fourth, balance doesn't matter, because the wheels turn at very low speed.
> >Spin a top. It only falls after losing the speed of rotation.
> >At lower speeds, balance is the most important factor.
>
> Balance is meaningless for an axle with wheels at the end. Maybe you just
> can't visulaize what I've been talking about. Nail a solid wood wheel on
> either end of a 4x4. Now, imagine the 4x4 is a block of stone sticking
> through matching holes in the wheels, which wheels are (e.g.,) 6 feet in
> diameter. Got it? No balance problem at all. Now wrap ropes around the
> stone (which is off the ground) in the desired direction of travel. Get
> people to pull on the ropes for uphill or downhill travel, or you can push
> on the wheels on the level.
Huh? Pardon me? You were talking about a single wheel, or cylinder.
Now, we get a couple of giant wheels affixed on either Long End of
a huge monolith. How wide are you becoming, and does this width not
place voluminous demands on the accesss-ramps? Sure, it does.
Those become too much to handle. It's a dead-end street again.
some snipping
> Of course they do. We didn't move the rock that way because it was the
> easiest or best way to do it. I moved it that way because I had made the
> comment that it could be done; they found it hard to believe and agreed to
> let me perform the experiment.
> It's really not that big a deal to be able to move a great deal of weight on
> a hard surface. Haven't there been musclemen who've pulled airplanes as a
> demonstration? They're certainly the equal in weight (and more) of the
> stone I moved. I'm sorry it's not more mysterious.
In smiling with amusement - even if you can push or pull or roll
large weights on straight low friction surfaces, when you try to
solve the problem of How and with What knowledge the pyramid was
constructed - you run into insurmountable problems with your methods
in no time flat.
> You just have a hard time understanding that high-tech isn't required to do
> a lot of gross work. If one man can lift 50 pounds, then 1000 men can lift
> 25 tons. (The problem is finding a way for them all to be able to work at
> the same time.)
Really? I thought I have been saying that all along..
Jiri Mruzek
****************************
I've got 300 horses under my hood..
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 02:05:55 -0700
Martin Stower wrote:
>
> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> >Frank Doernenburg wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry to disturb you about Baalbek, but the temple there is truly of Roman
> >> origin. Sitchin uses an old report from 1864 (!) as source for his fantastic
> >> story, but "forgets" the results of the German dig in 1904/05 (published in
> >> 1924).
...
> >Comment: Again, the location was Lebanon, Romans didn't form the
> >population there, they were the colonial masters - therefore
> >the findings don't even begin to make any sense. Obviously, the
> >findings were doctored for consumption by the German, and Italian
> >fascists.
> Translation: if anyone disagrees with me, it's a communist-fascist plot.
> The Nazis were running archaeology in 1904-5? In 1924?
You disagree, but, somehow, I don't call you a fascist.. I just don't
like being called a racist, and I may have imitated the methods
of my opponents for the moment. Make an unfair accusation - see the
damage later.
Nevertheless, in 1904-5, Germany had colonies, was expansionist, and
there were racial theories in popular circulation about the Germanic
superiority. This is no secret, one has to justify one's right to rule
over other nations. Archaeology in Germany had to be servile to the
ruling imperial ideology.
Baalbek's temple site was a religious shrine for millenia. Baal was an
ancient God. Hence, it doesn't make sense that these German excavators
didn't find any signs of previous activities. Get it?
> Roman colonisation did not exclude cultural colonisation. Harmonising
> local religions with the Roman state religion was one of the ways they
> consolidated their power - so the findings do make sense.
To the contrary. Let me also point out that the dig involved only
one area of the platform. Hence the finds don't really guarantee
that the rest of the platform has to be the same. As Baalbek is
older than Rome, why should we not consider that the Trilithons were
out of the Roman league despite their relatively modern machines?
The era of Giant Monolith had expired ere the Roman Empire.
Also, see my other posts for other problems with Roman authorship of
the Trilithons, and of the Hadjar el Gouble.
> [snip]
> >Lastly, why do Roman sources attribute the Baalbek platform, and
> >the Trilithons to unknown builders, and not to themselves?
>
> Which Roman sources? (This being the second time I've asked.)
How many times have I asked you, and others, to check out the image
of a palaeolithical horseman on my homepages? Yet, no reply! Etc.
I'm better than that, or perhaps, not as cowardly.
I repeated this bit about the Roman sources after Charroux speaking
of Baalbek in his "100,000 Years of Man's Unwritten History".
He may, or may not be right, I admit that. There is a lot of
research that awaits me in these matters.
Jiri Mruzek
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jiri_mruzek/ridercut.htm
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 01:30:42 -0700
Frank Joseph Yurco wrote:
>
> In response to all the speculations about the building of the pyramids, a
> few points. As Stella pointed out, there are the earlier pyramids starting
> with Djoser's to show the learning experience in handling large blocks
> confidently.
Zoser's pyramid is an adaptation of an older three tier mastaba.
Three more steps were added to the three original ones made of coarse
rubble. I don't know, but my guess ids that there aren't many really large
blocks in it.
THe next big pyramid, the so called "collapsed" pyramid of Maidum is
also based on an old mastaba. The slope of its casing used to be almost
exactly the same as the GPOG's, i.e., 51Deg.52'. Strange that this great
pyramid was attributed to Kfufu's father Sneferu, for the first true great
pyramid - the blunted, bent, or rhomboidal pyramid of Dashur is attributed
to the same pharaoh. But, why would Sneferu require two tombs, and go to
all the extra-effort?
And since the bent pyramid was the first true great pyramid ( 190 meters
square, and 100 meters tall) it would seem that it is slightly younger
than the Maidum pyramid. Yet, the bent pyramid was built at 54 Deg. 41',
and then changed angle to 43 Deg., whereas the Maidum pyramid had
the "correct" angle, but it wasn't a true pyramid.
BTW, the collapsed pyramid never had collapsed, but was taken apart
early (a twelfth century Arab historian attributes the dismantling to
the reign of Ramses II, according to Tompkins) for its fine limestone
casing blocks. Its lower courses are still buried under a huge pile of
debris. The Great Pyramid was previously also buried under a similar
mound.
>Secondly, to all the speculations about rolling blocks, not
> only is this not feasable with a squared block, but as the film, This Old
> Pyramid showed, it is an utter flop.
I appreciate your severe honesty, for this rolling of cylinders, or
wheeled axes up the slopes of a ramp was becoming quite fashionable
here, on archy.
I tried to combat the idea, but some people's say-so seems to count for
more than material proofs of mostly geometrical nature supplied on my
webpages.
> .. blocks onto a sledge, and moving them up a ramp. What is more, the
> ancient Egyptians' own depiction show that sledges were used consistently
> to move masses from small statues (tomb of Princess Idut scene) to large
> colossal statues (Deir el-Bersheh painting, of colossus being moved). The
> secret was pouring liquid (water probably) on the track. The tafla clay
> used to surface the ramps at Giza becomes very slick when wetted,
Please, what about the crews following behind? Using tafla for one-time
enteprises is fine, but is out of question for the track of a ramp, along
which there is a constant procession of teams hauling heavy blocks.
> and
> that made moving the blocks much easier, again, as the video, This Old
> Pyramid demonstrated. As for the ramps winding around the pyramid, the
> Meidum Pyramid clearly shows that the casing was dressed to a fine polish
> from the top downward! So, no problem with anchoring the winding ramps
> onto the rough finished blocks.
But, some experts had thought the same about the Great Pyramid, yet
others had pointed out why this would have been impossible.
As the mantle of the Maidum pyramid has been stripped off a long time
ago, what can possibly lead you to such a conclusion about the casing
being furnished and finished on the spot with the core of the pyramid
in place? I see nothing but problems for this otherwise pretty
hypothesis.
> Visit the monuments, look at the evidence, see what the ancient Egyptians
> portrayed on their monuments, and then consider what their building
> techniques were.
How much money could I save by being provided information on the Web?
Not that I wouldn't love to go.
> Fortunately, they left enough unfinished buildings that
> illustrate the methods used in adding the final finish, and other details
> as well. Mindless speculation about aliens, fantastic techniques of moving
> stones, etc., only clutter up the issue. Again thanks Stella, for keeping
> the faith in light of all these speculative and ridiculous posts.
So, how do you produce perfection in casing stones as described by
Howard-Vyse:" .. in a sloping plane as correct and true almost as
modern work done by optical instrument makers. The joints were scarcely
perceptible, not wider than the thickness of silver paper."
We have other reports on the perfection of Pyramid's 22-acre mantle,
which had lasted through the millenia looking brand-new until its
dismantling..
At any rate, you couldn't do this with the core of the pyramid in
place already, for you would have very little room to maneouvre the
blocks in.
Don't forget that with the winding-ramp you get several yards of the
sheer pyramid face above the lower end of each side. You would have
to hoist the mantle blocks there.
You couldn't set these blocks to utter perfection, and you couldn't
avoid damaging their fine edges. Like Petrie, I think that the mantle
blocks were the first blocks set on each level.
> Frank J. Yurco
> University of Chicago
Regards,
Jiri Mruzek http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jiri_mruzek/
Subject: Re: The Minoan Linear A Language?
From: souris@netcom.com (Henry Hillbrath)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 13:16:05 GMT
piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski) writes:
>In article "Alan M. Dunsmuir" writes:
>>
>>In article <51pvfs$9qv@shore.shore.net>, Steve Whittet
>> writes
>>>That's six out of the nine pictographs I have
>>>so far identified as equivalent to cuniform values
>>>are essentially also congruent with Egyptian glyphs
>>>and the glyphs of the Phaistoes Disk which was
>>>found on Crete and can be identified as a
>>>precursor to Minoan Linear A and B
>>No it can't.
>>--
>Righto! Only Steve could associate a disk that cannot be read, and may not
>even be writing, dated to about 1700 BCE, with Sumerian signs from around 3100
>from far away.
I don't know what Alan meant. But, it appears that he says that the
Phaistos Disk script cannot "be identified as a precursor..."
That may or may not be true, but is different than something about
Sumer.
> By 1700 cuneiform looked completely different from its Uruk
>period ancestor, and had lost all resemblance to those elements in the system
>that were pictographic. There is really no point in arguing this with him, as
>he will simply deluge you with irrelevant information that he finds on the net
>and obscure any serious discussion.
That has happened before, in any case.
> After all, a gap of a thousand years or
>so has never bothered him before!
It is hard to explain a gap of a thousand years. But, OTOH, is is hard to
explain why the Linear scripts were adopted at all, at the late date that
they attested at. So, I agree with Steve, to the extent that if the signs
are really the same, a common origin should be considered.
Henry Hillbrath