Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: jhallen@world.std.com (Joseph H Allen)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 09:26:01 GMT
Were the blocks in the Pyramids really 200-Tons? How many of the blocks
weighed this much? The World Almanac says that the The Great Pyramid had
blocks which averaged 2.5 tons, with some up to 30 tons.
According to my engineering handbook, the density of limestone is 155
lbs/ft^3. Thus a 200-ton cube would be 13.7 feet on a side, a 30-ton cube
would be 7.3 feet on a side and a 2.5 ton cube would be 3.2 feet on a side.
200-tons is a huge amount (2700 people, 300 cars or 2 space shuttle
orbiters). I have my doubts that a 200-ton cube could be lifted or
positioned accurately. Lets say you got the static coefficient of friction
down to .3, that one person can pull 100 lbs, and you want to pull the cube.
You would need 1200 people. 3/4" nylon rope from the local hardware store
has a test tension limit of about 1 ton, so you would need 60 thick ropes,
with 20 people per rope. If all the people stood in a line, one on each
side, the line would be .3 miles long. This could be shortened by spreading
the people, but you would then need more people.
To lift a 200 ton block would require 200 nylon ropes.
Now the 1200-ton blocks from Baalbek would be 25 ft. per side and would
require 7200 people using 360 ropes in a line more than a mile long. It
sounds like these were not positioned accurately or lifted, however. I'm
amazed that they were able to even cut them.
30-tons sounds much more reasonable. You only need 180 people and 9 ropes
for pulling or 30 ropes for lifting.
It might just be possible to construct a wooden crane which can lift 30-ton
blocks (it's easy to construct one which lifts 2.5 tons). The largest
living organism after all, is a tree: a sequoia in California which weighs
1400 tons. I'm sure that in 2500 BC, there were plenty of high-quality
trees available, from which simple cranes could be constructed. Lets say
the crane is at a 60 degree angle and is carrying a 30-ton block at the end
of the line. The line going from the top of the crane to the people would
be at 30 degrees from the angle of the crane. The crane would have to be
able to handle 52 tons of compression (ignoring its own weight). I think
this is pretty easy for large trees (which have to handle that much weight
plus weather). I'll have to get a strengths of materials book and check
this out more accurately. Note that no wheels, bearings or even joints
would be needed for this- just a strong pole of wood with ropes connected to
the top. If they did have blocks and shafts, you could make a far better
crane- one with a fixed low-load stay-line and a windlass (the Romans had
such cranes which could carry more than 9 tons: see Engineering in the
Ancient World by J.G. Landels).
The crane has the advantage that it is easy to do accurate positioning- you
just need side ropes to position the block. Removing the ropes once the
block was lowered would have been an interesting challenge, but not an
impossible one. The most difficult part is getting the pyramid started.
Once you have a stable peak, you could use it to mount a crane.
I have to agree with the other poster that the ancient Egyptions were
probably not idiots and built a ramp which would have been a larger
construction project than the pyramid itself. It is far more likely that
they used cranes. It would seem to me that getting high quality rope is
really the bigger problem. I wonder what kind of rope they had? Papyrus?
--
/* jhallen@world.std.com (192.74.137.5) */ /* Joseph H. Allen */
int a[1817];main(z,p,q,r){for(p=80;q+p-80;p-=2*a[p])for(z=9;z--;)q=3&(r=time(0)
+r*57)/7,q=q?q-1?q-2?1-p%79?-1:0:p%79-77?1:0:p<1659?79:0:p>158?-79:0,q?!a[p+q*2
]?a[p+=a[p+=q]=q]=q:0:0;for(;q++-1817;)printf(q%79?"%c":"%c\n"," #"[!a[q-1]]);}
Subject: Re: ARK OF COVENANT FOUND IN ISRAEL !! (???)
From: grifcon@usa.pipeline.com(Katherine Griffis)
Date: 29 Sep 1996 12:54:45 GMT
On Sep 29, 1996 05:39:27 in article , 'Alfie Urencio Del Rio ' wrote:
>The jews say they only want to open it up to the public, and the
>palestines say that the jews want to dig in it, what would cause damage
>to the foundations of the shrine. But, why would someone want to dig in
>that place? Well, two weeks ago I saw in a Discovery Channel program a
>jewish scholar saying that the famous Ark of Covenant is hidden under
>that shrine. He also said that the goverment had known about it for >years
and when they decided it was time to do it so they would take it >out and
then Israel would really be their land.
>I guess that the palestines must known this too.
And if that were Netanyahu's plan (to expose the Ark), why would this make
a flip to the Palestinians? Do you think they would *respect* such a
religious symbol as granting "carte blanche" to the city and the land?
While Jews and Muslims are "People of the Book" (Torah, Bible and Q'uran
all comprising "the Book"), this doesn't mean that they (or the Jews or the
Christians) give equal regard to the texts.
The dispute over the land isn't going to magically *disappear* if the
Israelis found not only the Ark, but Moses himself leading it out..! These
grudges go *far deeper* than religion, IMHO, and I think it's safe to say
that Netanyahu is "pushing the envelope" to either disrupt the peace
process, or establish further incursions into Jerusalem before a *permanent
peace treaty* would disallow him from doing so.
I don't agree with it at all, but that's how it appears from here.
Katherine Griffis (Greenberg)
Member of the American Research Center in Egypt
and
President and Lead Consultant
Griffis Consulting
--
Katherine Griffis, President and Lead Consultant
GRIFFIS CONSULTING P.O. Box 43159
Birmingham, AL 35243-0159 U S A
Voice: 205.995.2099 FAX: 205.995.2099, *77*, SEND
E-Mail: grifcon@usa.pipeline.com//grifcon@ix.netcom.com
"The First Step to the International Culture of Business"
Subject: Re: Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt?
From: Rodney Small
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 10:04:25 -0700
Paul V. Heinrich wrote:
>
> In article <52kd1l$830@news.ramhb.co.nz>,
> zirdo@ramhb.co.nz (Pat Zalewski) wrote:
>
> > In article ,
> > >Rodney Small wrote:
> > >Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
> > >
> > >Did anyone on this board ever read the above titled-article in
> > >Analog magazine in August 1984? The author, Christopher P. Dunn,
>
> Am I missing something? At what point in time did Analog
> Magazine transform itself into a repected peer-reviewed
> science journal? It contains all sort of articles, in addition
> to science fiction stories, that vary in quality from rather
> truthful articles to Weekly World News type fiction posing
> as new and science stories. Thus, a person has to verify the
> veracity of anything published in it.
> > >states that a granite hole and core found by Flinders Petrie in
> > >the Giza Valley Temple in 1880 bore the following
>
> It would be even better if someone went back to the original
> source and quoted Petrie on what was found and where it was
> found. For all I know, the Analog article may all be based
> on folklore. Thus, we will require what the sources of Mr.
> Dunn sources are. Besides, you definitely need to post
> what Petrie has to say about this object. This can likely
> be done without violating copyright laws. In case of the
> article of Mr. Dunn, you will definitely have to be careful
> of copyright laws.
>
> > >characteristics: 1) A taper on both the hole and core; 2) A
> > >symmetrical helical groove following these tapers and cut at 0.1
> > >inch per revolution; and 3) A spiral groove cut deeper through the
> > >harder quartz in the granite than the softer feldspar. Dunn
> > >contends that this cutting rate is several hundred times faster
> > >than can be achieved today by diamond drills, and that there
> > >appears to be no way to explain the deeper groove cut through the
> > >quartz than the feldspar other than ultrasonic drilling, which
> > >employs quartz crystals and causes the quartz embedded in the
> > >granite to vibrate sympathetically with the drill bit. Comments?
> >
> > Rod this is a great post that tackles scientific evidence of
> > something strange happening in old Giza. Any chance of posting
> > the article or the relevant portions of it so we could get
> > some more feedback on it. Machine drills should not exist in
> > old Egypt.
>
> This quite true. What needs to established is whether the
> tapered core actually exists as described. In my opinion,
> this will require some information on what the sources of
> Dunn are for this object and finding the descriptions made
> by Petrie for this object.
I have verified that Petrie did describe such a hole and core in the 1883
edition of "Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh." He seemed to think that the
hole and core, as well as a number of other artifacts, could be
explained by bronze saws tipped with jewels, but such saws have never
been found. Further, he seemed baffled by the exact cutting method.
For example, he states: "...the spiral of the cut sinks .100 inch in
the circumference of 6 inches, or 1 in 60, a rate of ploughing out of
the quartz and felspar which is astonishing."
I'll try and post what I can here, but I would think a number of people
on this board would have access to Petrie's book, or the 1990 reprint
that I mentioned in my last post. In the United States, the reprint is
available at the Los Angeles Public Library or through the Interlibrary
Loan program. Also, old issues of Analog magazine are available at many
public libraries.
Subject: Re: Advanced Machining in Ancient Egypt?
From: Rodney Small
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 10:04:25 -0700
Paul V. Heinrich wrote:
>
> In article <52kd1l$830@news.ramhb.co.nz>,
> zirdo@ramhb.co.nz (Pat Zalewski) wrote:
>
> > In article ,
> > >Rodney Small wrote:
> > >Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
> > >
> > >Did anyone on this board ever read the above titled-article in
> > >Analog magazine in August 1984? The author, Christopher P. Dunn,
>
> Am I missing something? At what point in time did Analog
> Magazine transform itself into a repected peer-reviewed
> science journal? It contains all sort of articles, in addition
> to science fiction stories, that vary in quality from rather
> truthful articles to Weekly World News type fiction posing
> as new and science stories. Thus, a person has to verify the
> veracity of anything published in it.
> > >states that a granite hole and core found by Flinders Petrie in
> > >the Giza Valley Temple in 1880 bore the following
>
> It would be even better if someone went back to the original
> source and quoted Petrie on what was found and where it was
> found. For all I know, the Analog article may all be based
> on folklore. Thus, we will require what the sources of Mr.
> Dunn sources are. Besides, you definitely need to post
> what Petrie has to say about this object. This can likely
> be done without violating copyright laws. In case of the
> article of Mr. Dunn, you will definitely have to be careful
> of copyright laws.
>
> > >characteristics: 1) A taper on both the hole and core; 2) A
> > >symmetrical helical groove following these tapers and cut at 0.1
> > >inch per revolution; and 3) A spiral groove cut deeper through the
> > >harder quartz in the granite than the softer feldspar. Dunn
> > >contends that this cutting rate is several hundred times faster
> > >than can be achieved today by diamond drills, and that there
> > >appears to be no way to explain the deeper groove cut through the
> > >quartz than the feldspar other than ultrasonic drilling, which
> > >employs quartz crystals and causes the quartz embedded in the
> > >granite to vibrate sympathetically with the drill bit. Comments?
> >
> > Rod this is a great post that tackles scientific evidence of
> > something strange happening in old Giza. Any chance of posting
> > the article or the relevant portions of it so we could get
> > some more feedback on it. Machine drills should not exist in
> > old Egypt.
>
> This quite true. What needs to established is whether the
> tapered core actually exists as described. In my opinion,
> this will require some information on what the sources of
> Dunn are for this object and finding the descriptions made
> by Petrie for this object.
I have verified that Petrie did describe such a hole and core in the 1883
edition of "Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh." He seemed to think that the
hole and core, as well as a number of other artifacts, could be
explained by bronze saws tipped with jewels, but such saws have never
been found. Further, he seemed baffled by the exact cutting method.
For example, he states: "...the spiral of the cut sinks .100 inch in
the circumference of 6 inches, or 1 in 60, a rate of ploughing out of
the quartz and felspar which is astonishing."
I'll try and post what I can here, but I would think a number of people
on this board would have access to Petrie's book, or the 1990 reprint
that I mentioned in my last post. In the United States, the reprint is
available at the Los Angeles Public Library or through the Interlibrary
Loan program. Also, old issues of Analog magazine are available at many
public libraries.
Subject: Re: Antiquities for Sale (was HARD TO FIND BOOKS ON ARCHAEOLOGY)
From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 11:09:46
In article <52ibni$t5r@newsbf02.news.aol.com> fragments@aol.com (Fragments) writes:
>From: fragments@aol.com (Fragments)
>Subject: Re: Antiquities for Sale (was HARD TO FIND BOOKS ON ARCHAEOLOGY)
>Date: 28 Sep 1996 01:05:54 -0400
snip
>Imagine the "registered" deaccessioning of excess material which could
>move into the hands of private collectors who would undoubtedly be more
>sympathetic to the protection and care of the article than underpaid,
>overworked, job-fearing musuem staff with little conservation funding.
>Imagine, in so doing, how much richer in knowledge the world of
>archaeology would be, because private ownership of antiquities stirred
>enthusiasm for the profession among the next generations.
snip
>Locking every sherd and every artifact in a dusty, under-funded and
>typically environmentally unfriendly dungeon to which only a select
>academic few have access robs future generations of brillant minds who,
>devoid of that inspirational spark, will become great programmers or great
>doctors or great physicists -- not great archaeologists.
Forgive me for providing another reply, but this is an important issue and one
that many of us have strong feelings about. I did not want to post a long
message. The idea that sherds are rotting uselessly in museum dungeons is a
misstating of a set of complicated facts. First, one of the reasons that
artifacts are kept is that there is simply not enough money or people power to
work through everything from any dig. The funding for scholarship has always
been inadequate and is getting worse. The people with money now love all the
crackpot popular sensationalist-alien types, which attract many, as can be
seen on this discussion group. The second reason is that many objects, such
as pottery, are not meaningful so much one by one, but in bulk. The third is
that we have to leave things for future scholars with better techniques to
work on. One good example is the famous wine residue from the Penn
excavations in Iran. The pot sherd had been lying around in the museum for
decades and only recently was tartaric acid discovered, showing the existence
of wine. If the University Museum had followed your suggestion and sold his
little sherd to you, we would never had learned about the wine. I now notice
that someone has followed this lead and discovered wine residue on a sherd
from Uruk in Sumer. I have not yet gotten hold of the article, but I find it
fascinating, as I have always thought that there was no grape wine in
Mesopotamia early on, only a wine made from dates, and resisted translating
a certain word as "wine," but in light of this discover might have to drink my
words, so to speak! There are many other examples of such work being done on
small pieces of clay and other materials in museums, and one never knows
which fragment will turn out to be important. Statistical analysis is hard
enough given the nature of archaeological discovery, and the selling off of
objects would not be of much help.
Subject: Re: Linguistic stabs-in-the-dark???
From: Saida
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 11:15:51 -0500
Jacques Guy wrote:
>
> This old trite thread has been going on for a while now on
> sci.archaeology.
> It's high time the entertainment was shared on sci.lang.
> I'm always the one for a bit of fun
>
> > > >Also, there is an Egyptian word for monkey "gf" or "gfu", which might
> > > >have been pronounced "gafu", hence the German "Affe" and the English
> > > >"ape".
>
> > > Sorry - the German 'ff' seems to be a modification from an original Old
> > > p
>
>
> : Okay, Alan, they say "monkey see, monkey do", but if the Egyptian monkey
> : wanted to see himself, he could look in a mirror. In Egyptian this is
> : "miarar-hri" (probably pronounced "mi'ah-ri"). This meant "an object
> : for looking at the face" the face part being "hri". Will you now tell
> : me that, ornate mirrors having been found in elaborate cases as far back
> : as the Old Kingdom of Egypt, this word came from a people who at that
> : time were nothing but barbaric tribes when the Romans arrived in
> : "Germania"?
>
> Well, folks, there you are. I hope that, like me, you have been
> struck speechless (but not keyboardless) by the obvious similarity
> between Ancient Egyptian [miari] and the English "mirror" ([mir@]).
>
> Seeing itself in a mirror, the monkey ("gafu", which gave "Affe" in German)
> was struck speechless too and *gaped* in wonderment. There you have
> ye trewe and verydicke origin of English "gape", from the Egyptian
> gafu "monkey".
>
> Ruhlen, eat your heart out!
Silly people are always easily amused, I've found. I, for one, fail to
see what's so funny about someone trying to investigate this matter.
Subject: Re: Linguistic stabs-in-the-dark???
From: ayma@tip.nl
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 23:33:36 GMT
Saida wrote:
>Since we made some headway on a thread called "Egyptian Tree Words"
>establishing that (at the very least) some Egyptian words for exotic
>things not found in European climes found their way into Anglo-Saxon, I
>will add a couple of items, one given to me by an Egyptologist
>acquaintance:
**The ape names are a good candidate for borrowing; I 've read that
"neither Latin 'simia' nor the Greek 'pithekos' not the Etruscan
'arim' had a Indo-European origin." Although i'm rather certain that
the Latin word does: from Greek 'simos', so the word 'simia' meaning
'with the snub nose' - in comparison to humans. This still makes the
origin of the Etruscan and Greek unknown - Africa being the likely
candidate.
Also the word 'ape' is indeed non-Indoeuropian, and its origin listed
as 'unknown'. Some have however tied it to old-russian 'opica' and
old-bohemian 'opice'. So it is thought to be borrowed by the Germanic
people from the east. But that's speculative.
The Egyptian word of course ties in with the Semitic forms, as
correctly mentioned already. And i once read that in 'old-indic' the
word 'kapi' [=ape] exists, so then the Hamito-Semitics would have
borrowed their word from Dravidian [like they did with the word for
peacock btw] - perhaps via Sumerian 'ukupu'/'ugupi'. As I do not
judge the 'kapi'- source too reliable: does someone have a Dravidian
[like Tamil] dictionary laying around to confirm this? :)
Remember that Mesopotamia had very ancient contacts with the Indus
valley!
>>>Baboon: from Greek bebon from late Egyptian /b3b3/ from Middle/Old
Egyptian /b3by/. The Egyptian and the Greek refer to a baboon-headed
god named "Baba"/"Babi" and not the animal itself. The OED says
English
gets it from Latin, but the origin is unknown. Looks good to me.
**I rather liked it too; unfortunately my dictionary says 'baboon'
came from French 'babouin', "that is related to French
'babine'='lip""...So that would make it "the babbling animal' or
something like it, I suppose - not a bad description for monkeys (and
for 'babies"! btw). For the record: I like your deriviation better :)
- it would only be required to find a Latin or Greek intermediary. For
i do not think the 'bebon' you name is ANCIENT Greek, or is it??
>Also, there is an Egyptian word for monkey "gf" or "gfu", which might
>have been pronounced "gafu", hence the German "Affe" and the English
>"ape".
**Could be, i suppose - but because of the origional 'p' in Germanic
it would have been borrowed via the Phoenicians or some other Semitic
form with a 'p' rather than via the Egyptians with their 'f'.
Does someone has a very good Ancient Greek dictionary, to see whether
there was a Greek intermediairy, like 'kepos' or the like??
I do not think the loss of the first 'k' would be too problematic:
compair Germanic 'ebur' and Latin 'aper' next to Greek 'kapros' ,
all words for the 'wild boar' and definitely related (in whatever
way]. So Saida could have a point - be it not an Egyptian one....
Btw: there was another Egyptian word for monkey apart from
'gwf' [that's what my dictionaries say is the proper form, Saida; so:
'guf' which is very close to hebrew 'koph'!]: 'kjw' = kiu, kejewe
Subject: Re: Stop trashing Henry Lincoln!
From: Claudio De Diana
Date: 29 Sep 1996 17:01:32 GMT
"Dave Parry" wrote:
>Typical "Only experts are allowed to speculate" response that doesn't
>surprise me at all.
>
>BTW Claudio, where, in any of books by the authors I mentioned, do they
>link Egypt or anywhere with extraterrestrials?
I am sorry for this, after all my English is not so good,
in my reply I stated:
'Let's take "Atlantis" often correlated with the "P.B.A. syndrome"..'
supposing that in English "let's take" means "as an example let's consider".
I apologize for my mistake, by the way do notice that I was talking
about this phrase of yours which was quite "general":
your previous post>re-examination of what evidence exists and other interpretations are
your previous post>valid so long as they do not fly in the face of incontrovertible
your previous post>evidence.
So what I wanted to do was to make a "general remark" about
how to make a debugging of a theory as long as you spoke about
the fact that "other interpretations are valid...".
>
>"starships"? Where? Cite me one instance of the authors in my post
>mentioning starships?.
>"aliens"? Where the hell do any of these authors mention aliens?
Let's put this way, cleary talking about a single piece of their
theory as "general example" so the following should be considered
as an excerpt of a more complete discussion.
If I remember well in "Fingerprints of the Gods",
Hancock states that the Sphinx and three Pyramids were built 11,000-13,000
years ago. These should make you wonder about what the builders of the pyramids,
according to Hancock theory, did in the following 6,000 (six thousand years).
(be careful, the period could be wrong, calculate on your own, just make:
-
and you will find the period that it is up to Hancock to justify).
I hope that I did my point clear, if you make a statment then you have
to justify it, I choose the P.B.A (pyramid-builder-aliens) as the
easiest to debug. If you want to discuss, for example, Hancock point
we could have, as an example:
(you) I believe, after Hancock, that the pyramids were built 11,000-13,000
years ago.
(I) fine, so I expect that you will be able to point me
out an incredible amount of artifacts related to the builders of
the pyramids dating to that period. Also you - and not me - will have
to explain why a civilization that was able to reach the technological
abilities to build such a huge building did not expanded in the
whole mediterranean coast -> at least <-.
According with our evidences civilization tends to expand
if not stopped by more powerful neighbours, so given that
"traditional archaeology"-Egyptians did it (well, they tried..)
I expect "hancock"-Egyptians doing this and, finding NO resistance
(11,000 - 13,000 years ago, remeber) expanding in such a way
that we should find pyramids scattered eveywhere at least in all africa
europe, asia and so on...
>
>Seems to me that you haven't read any of these books but just resent anyone
>expressing any opinions that aren't deemed orthodox by people such as
>yourself.
... it is not a matter of being orthodox or not.
Do you like the idea that the pyramids were built
in that period? Fine, then you have to explain me there the
builders are gone and where to find their artifacts.
>
>Bah yourself!
However "Bah" is not an offensive expression, believe me.
I did not wanted to offend you personally (it could be some
trouble related to the use of english as a second language)
although I intended to point out that
your previous post>Whatever 'professional' historians say, a lot of our conclusions on
your previous post>our distant past are based on scanty or controversial evidence and so
there is a strong difference between "controversial evidence" and "no evidence",
as an example of case of "no evidence" (now more related to - one -
of the authors you cite) I use the post-dating of the pyramids.
Did I make my pont clear? I hope so!
>
>Dave
>
Best regards,
Claudio De Diana
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 1996 01:15:49 -0700
Frank Joseph Yurco wrote:
> Dear Jiri,
*> My first recommendation would be that you go to Meidum, and see for
*> yourself. Short of that, as someone who has visited this pyramid several
*> times, and have a number of slides of it, I think you could accept my
*> points about it. The Meidum Pyramid is earlier than the Giza group. It
*> was started as a typical step pyramid, like Djoser's, bur then it was
*> enlarged. Finally, Pharaoh Sneferu, who also built the two Dahshur
*> Pyramids (which now can be visited), added filling to the steps, plus a
*> final casing, to convert the stepped pyramid into a true pyramid.
I understand, the original mastaba was quite small. Sneferu added far
more volume than the original had contained.
*> The additions, all not bonded well, plus the original construction that
*> involved irregularly squared blocks stacked between buttresses, led
*> to instability in the monument. Mendelsohn's theory of its collapse
*> has been questioned, but his analysis of the building's problems are
*> not impossible. The top layers of the additions sheared off, at some
*> time in its history. What can be seen at the bottom, where some of
*> the rubble was cleared away, are some parts of the final additions to
*> the pyramid, including parts of Sneferu's final casing. Where that final
*> casing survives, it is finally dressed in its topmost surviving part,
*> but only rough dressed in its lower layers. What does that mean? For
*> certain the pyramid received its final dressing from the top downwards.
*> The easiest way to accomplish this would be off the building ramps as
*> they were disassembled.
However, this would be no problem in either case. Once the pyramid is
in place, one can always use its top to anchor light scaffolding (a loop
around the pyramidion).
*> Inside the Meidum Pyramid, you have the earliest
*> known example of corbel chamber construction, a practice continued in
*> the Sneferu-Dahshur pyramid, and last seen in Khufu's Grand Gallery.
*> There are also a few fragments of cedar logs still in place. These perhaps
*> were used as supports during the construction of the chamber. Lastly,
*> at the corners, you can see where medieval and early modern quarriers
*> started pilfering stone from the pyramid.
Wouldn't this imply that there were no slides from the top barring
their access?
*> That has led some to theorize
*> that the damage seen was done by quarrying, but the upper collapse may as
*> well have been from instabilities developed by the additions to the
*> pyramid.
*> From the uninscribed state of the offering chapel still
*> marvellously preserved, and from the absence of a sarcophagus in the
*> burial chamber, many have theorized that the pyramid was never used for
*> its intended occupant.
I never knew! How interesting, how potentially connected to
the absence of a lid on the coffer in K.C.
One must wonder if archaeologists imagine Sneferu as Siamese twins
to be separated at death. Otherwise, since Sneferu built two Great
Pyramids, he couldn't possibly have had intended both to serve
as his resting place. Here, we get a precedent immediately prior
to the Khufu's Great Pyramid: One of the Great Pyramids (Meidum's,
evidently) was not a tomb! If one was not a tomb, what was it?
If one evidently wasn't a tomb, maybe none were.. This is how
the theories you mention go, I guess. I tend to agree:
AFAIK, sarcophagi were prebuilt into burial chambers.
No sarcophagus? - No intended occupant. No burial chamber.
After all, the pyramid was completed, and sealed. Thus, it was
intended exactly as done. So what was it? A resonance chamber?
A hotel room for Aliens?
Regards,
Jiri Mruzek
Subject: Re: 200 ton Blocks
From: Jiri Mruzek
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 1996 15:16:58 -0700
Martin Stower wrote:
> Jiri Mruzek wrote:
> >Martin Stower wrote:
> [snip]
> >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.
> Well, I think we should all pay due respect to the specifics of what
> people have said. Whatever you say about the technical problems, you
> still credit the Egyptians with building the pyramids;
Thanks, Martin, yeh, I do, after all hieroglyphs were found
not only in the lower levels of the Khufu's pyramid, but also
in Zoser's pyramid. Besides, I don't think that hieroglyphics
result from adoption of computer icons (I have given it a few
fleeting thoughts, though :) But, they (probably the priests) had
technological secrets, which would amaze even you. Remember
Moses duelling the magi in Pharaoh's court? Well, Moses had the same
teachers as those magi, but he was a straight A's student.
> if you look at
> your sources, however, or the Pyramidology genre in general, you'll
> find many denials of just that fact, using similar arguments to your
> own, and many expressions of prejudice against the Egyptians. Someone
> not paying careful attention could get the wrong idea about your agenda.
That is simply unfortunate. In my esteem, the ancient Egyptians were
standard bearers of the Western civilisation. IMO, without them, we
would be at least a few centuries behind our present pace, i.e., we
would not be chatting here, on the Net.
I've never failed to note that many greats of Greek mathematics had
spent years in Egypt during their youth. I get a distinct impression
that those years involved their student days..
> My impression has been that you tend to write off criticism or opposing
> views as the propaganda of some monolithic conspiracy.
You're opening a can of worms here, Martin, so maybe we should go
fishing. Firstly, let me reiterate that my work has never ever been
subjected to criticism or opposing views of any kind, Martin.
People simply shun it.
Conspiracy? Many things can be misinterpreted as conspiracy, which
they are not. For instance, unfortunate historical circumstances can
tarnish a given discovery. The heresies of Taylor and Smyth, which
endowed God with pseudo-scientific way of going about creation, had
antagonized scientists. Was this the Pyramid's fault?
Primitively linear applicatin of Darwinism can lead to rejection
of reality, which appears aberrant through such un-yielding yardstick.
Just recall the welcome of Magdalenian paintings into the world,
as obvious fraud. The reason given above all was the art's super-
advanced, modern character! All the authorities had vouched the
Altamira paintings were modern forgeries. The same unfriendly welcome
was given to the La Marche engravings, by virtue of their portrayal
of the ancients as moderns (this should ring some bells).
The fact remains that although these initial mass misjudgements of
Magdalenian Art by scientists were not due to any conspiracy,
they did take place..
Is there a conspiracy against my theories, or are there some
unfortunate circumstances surrounding them?
I do know that there was/is the Lost Science. I verified the
legend for myself, in having discovered the Science-Art (which I
always discuss) of the Magdalenians, and Nascans.
Naturally, I see the world through the prism of my discovery.
This is the key to understanding me. The discovery has given me
a sense of having a unique mission.
Typically "funny" you say?
Sure, tons of loons and frauds say the same thing. Excuse me for
sounding so foolish. The only thing I have going for me is what
I pass for proof on my website. You are aware of the lack of any
erudite criticism of it, aren't you? There is no peer review for
the neat combinations, which could come straight from a geometry
textbook - except that they don't.
This you have to believe! I cite the best possible reference - i.e.,
the math coprocessor in my PC. It approves the mathematical perfect-
ion inherent in the designs. So it has come to this: PC versus PC!
Personal Computer versus Political Correctness.
> Perhaps, if you
> want what's distinctive about your own position to be noted, you should
> take the same approach to your opponents; for example, I don't think it
> was Frank who accused you of racism. If anyone cares, they can look at
> Deja News, and follow the whole thread.
Frank? Well, Frank had this nasty habit of talking down to me,
as if I were a bad student of his. He kept on repeating "Please,
accept it" after many a misguided statement of his. He has also
associated me with communism by a mistake. One mistake leads to
another.
> >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.
> Scarcely a situation unique to Germany. I'd suggest you're overlooking
> a rather more cogent case of ideological content.
> The Pyramidology genre is largely British in origin - specifically, what
> the Americans call White Anglo-Saxon Protestant - and its rise coincided
> with the effective British colonisation of Egypt in the 19th century.
> Protestantism was a crucial component in the establishment of a British
> national identity; there was a tendency for the British to see themselves
> as a nation especially favoured of God, like Israel. Piazzi Smyth was an
> exponent of one of the nuttier versions of that ideology: British Israel.
> British Israelites took the idea literally, identifying the British with
> one or other of the lost tribes of Israel; the British were therefore the
> true inheritors of the Biblical promises, and perfectly entitled to throw
> their weight around and tell other people what to do.
Not a good way to build lasting empires.
> How easy and pleasant, when Egypt was under British rule, to attribute
> the Great Pyramid to the Adamic race, who, after all, were people rather
> like ourselves . . . I can quote some especially flagrant examples of this
> way of thinking, if anyone's interested.
I am just slightly curious, but I can do without.
> >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?
> Now that's more of an argument. Presumably, then, there's some evidence
> for prior occupation of the site. What is it?
I don't have the pertinent Arab and other historians here, but
the idea enjoys such traditional acceptance that I accept it too.
The presence of the four trilithons helps my notion tremendously,
for they were above the Roman limit for moving heavy weights, AFAIK.
Baal-bek dedicates the place to Baal, in name. Romans would have
built their temple on the site of an older temple. Such practices
were widespread, they symbolically assimilated the older religion.
> >> 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.
> Digging up the whole site would be a massive and destructive undertaking.
> It's probably better that they didn't attempt it - it leaves something
> for others to investigate, with more modern methods.
BTW, what is this typically Roman honeycomb platform? Where else did
the Romans build platforms similar to Baalbek?
> Hold on - weren't you saying the finds were suspect anyway? Reminds me
The Trilithons in the wall are in no way typical for Roman
constructions. They are unique! If Romans could handle such blocks,
they would have decorated Rome with them.
> [snip]
> >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.
> As far as I remember, you haven't asked me specifically. Certainly
> you've put out a general request, many times.
> I looked at the page. What you depict does look like a man riding some
> quadruped or other. To be more precise, it looks like a man with a flat-
> top and sunglasses riding a quadruped. What bothers me more is that you
> describe the image as a cleaned-up bitmap; I'd need to see the original
> as well, to make any kind of assessment.
Thanks for looking. Great! Once you see the rider, you will always
see him, because I didn't clean up his area of the image at all, with
the exception of shortening his hat..
*
The hat is a story in itself:
First, we must recall the famous hybrids from this site of Les Trois
Freres (where some 5,000(!) images were discovered overall).
Now, I have noticed that these hybrids, who are mostly interpreted as
disguised shamans, or magicians, have one trait in common - their right
leg is typically human, while the rest of the body is animal.
Our rider actually shares heads with one such hybrid - an upside-down
bull, whose right rear leg is human. I chopped the rest of the hybrid
bull off, but I could have left it in place, just as well, as the bull's
body still looks like a hat (now larger) on our rider's head.
So, the point seems to be that our rider uses a magician for head cover.
That would imply his importance and power is even greater. This is no
wonder to me, as a careful (and magnified) look reveals that the rider
himself is a hybrid, in being composed of various mainly reptile
elements. That's why I call him the Reptile Easy Rider..
Hey! I know, this sound crazy, but that's the way it is - the Magdalenian
way..
Jiri Mruzek
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jiri_mruzek/ridercut.htm
> Martin
Subject: Re: Sumerian etymology of the word Lugal
From: Berlant@cyberix.com
Date: 29 Sep 1996 17:31:28 GMT
In article <52jesq$36o@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu (Benjamin H. Diebold) wrote:
>I think that the really successful "thinking out of the box" is coming
>from Piotr. Let's look at the lugal-arugula connection in Steve's terms
>and see...
>
>(much deletia)
>
>: I am impressed by your ability "to think outside the box" Stephen.
>: This is a good and interesting relation you have established.
>
>: In this instance the word legal, looks like lugal and sounds like lugal,
>: and has an analagous sense wherein a lugal is a ruler and a ruler makes
>: the rules.
>
>Arugula certainly looks and sounds like lugal, and has an analogous sense
>wherein arugula is at the top of the vegetable list (alphabetically) and
>rulers eat arugula.
>
>: Rules are similar to laws, norms, mores, conventions.
>: Rules are used to measure, weigh and judge.
>
>I weigh arugula in the store.
>
>: Rulers are responsible for the establishment of what is right and proper.
>: One of the symbols of justice, which is often described as being measured
>: out, is a blindfolded woman holding a set of scales.
>
>Eating arugula will keep you healthy and regular, and, as I said, I often
>weigh my arugula.
>
>: A set of scales was the symbol of the goddess Ma'at who
>: measured, weighed and judged what was right and proper
>: much as the legal system is supposed to do.
>
>I really need that scale for my arugula, because otherwise I wouldn't know
>how much to get. And just think how much you have to know to grow arugula,
>weighing and judging...
>
>: A ruler is used to measure, and then to decide...
>
>I have to weigh my arugula, and then decide how much I really need...
>
>: Shortly after the time the scribes of Hammurabi start writing down
>: his laws in Babylon using Cuniform, a group of people living in Egypt
>: descended from people who passed through Babylon in the time of
>: Hamurabbi begin celebrating a new god.
>
>: These people carved the image of this god (the written law) on a rock
>: and placed the rock in a box called an ark. This was how the Egyptians
>: treated all the ideas of the good which we call goods or gods.
>
>Arugula is good (god?).
>
>: The law was supposed to be soverign over all the other goods,
>: but one can imagine that the Egyptian ruler or Pharoah was not
>: too pleased with this state of affairs.
>
>It annoys me, too, when people don't treat arugula with proper respect.
>
>: The next thing we know these people celebrating the Law are
>: asked to leave. Perhaps the Pharoah was afraid he wouldn't
>: measure up to truly regal legal expectations. He may have
>: worried that they would attempt to regulate his regime.
>
>Maybe he thought they were going to eat all the arugula.
>
>: If the rules the ruler makes are considered to constitute a legal
>: system and the rules the ruler makes are also standards of measure,
>: then perhaps the etymology of both legal and lugal has something
>: to do with a measure of position relative to something else.
>
>Sure, a healthy lifestyle. (See, Piotr -- there's your Darwinism! ;^)
>
>: A big man refers to the measure of a man...
>
>Or maybe it means a lot of arugula. Or that a big man needs to eat lots of
>aruguala. Or that eating arugula makes you grow up big and strong...
>
>: "lu-gal" uses the Sumerian word for Man "lu" and the Sumerian word
>: for place "gal".(Lugal also means "place" in Tagalog which is spoken
>: in the Phippines.) Now if we put a man in his place we are evaluating
>: his position relative to other men. Perhaps he is even the owner of
>: the place he is put in, the landlord.
>
>Not the landlord, Steve, the grocer. The guy who owns the arugula.
>
>: There is a long tradition of landlords or property owners being
>: recognized as having standing in the legal system.
>
>: The people who left Egypt to wander around the desert for 40 years
>: celebrating the Law had no place in Egypt, they owned no land there.
>
>And no arugula, either. See how neatly that ties together? My theory is
>proved!
>
>: > As i've recently
>: >pointed out here and elsewhere, an etymology that traces a real word back
to
>: >another semantically and phonetically identical real word is
scientifically
>: >far sounder than an etymology that relies on one or more hypothetical
words
>: >and sound shifts to trace the same real word back to a hypothetical
>: >Indo-European root.
>
>Arugula is certainly not hypothetical.
>
>: That makes sense to me, the semantic etymology of Lugal and whether
>: or not it is really the same as Legal is a very interesting question.
>: It is not a joke or something to dismiss lightly, it ties in to many
>: other ideas and is worth some fair consideration.
>
>It most certainly is not a joke, the arugula-lugal connection that is.
>On the other hand, the legal-lugal stuff is hilarious.
>
>: Observe how someone who is truly confident of his ideas, let's take
>: Frank Yurco for example, who doesn't need to dismiss the opinions of others
>: out of hand, argues politely the best case which can be made, draws
>: few immediate conclusions, simply states the facts, and lets the chips
>: fall where they will.
>
>I don't usually have chips with my arugula, but hey, that's just me. Can't
>understand why Frank is flinging chips around, though.
>
>: >>beer or wine to a lesser party. Hence, another possible etymology is "Man
>: >>(or Lord) of Cups."
>
>: Or, perhaps we have the sense of placing something in the cup.
>
>Obviously that something is arugula! Perhaps the proper translation is
>"bowl", because I often eat my arugula in a bowl.
>
>: Anointing something with oil means to place oil on it
>
>Arugula is perfect with a little olive oil, lemon and salt. Another
>connection!
>
>Brilliant work, Piotr! I can't wait for the paper to appear in JNES.
>
>Ben
What silly, silly geese.
I've not finished contemplating, researching, or providing my response to some
of the questions that have already been raised in this thread. But, it doesn't
take much of either to already know that the phonetic basis for the ability to
form puns between Sumerian "Lugal" and English "arugula" is the same one that
would have been the basis for converting the stem "lug-" of "Lugal" into the
stem "reg-" of "regal" and/or "legal."
Moreover, even a cursory analysis of the characteristics of arugula shows that
the word's Latin etymon "eruca" was formed from the Latin word for wrinkle
"ruga" under the influence of the Latin word for erect "erigo", because the
arugula plant: 1) has wrinkled leaves; 2) grows upright; and, 2) has
purple-veins, which may have also caused the prehistoric Romans to use the
polysemous root "r_g" to name the arugula plant for its "blue" or "regal"
blood.
There are many other reasons for believing that "rug-" was indeed a variant of
"reg-"; but, in either case, "erigo" has already been attributed to the
hypothetical Indo-European root *reg-. Hence, if "eruca" was in fact formed in
the way it reveals it was, it is technically cognate with regal.
If Indo-European *reg- then turns out to have been derived from Sumerian Lugal
-- as i come more and more everyday to believe it was -- Dr. M. and now Mr.
Diebold are going to end up having to eat their "arugula", along with the many
other words i already know Dr. M. is going to have to eat.
Charles Lamb once said "A pun is a pistol let off at the ear; not a feather to
tickle the intellect". And, this pun has ceased to tickle my intellect. It is
now an ignorant attempt to turn into the basis for derision what i can state
with impunity is going to end up being a far more serious subject than some
can evidently imagine.
Unless you wish to eat more of your words on this subject later, it would
behoove you to just keep your mouth shut.
Stephen R. Berlant
And, if you still doubt that "arugula" is cognate with "regal" and or Lugal it
may help you to know that "arugula" is synonomous with "kale" derived from the
Latin word for cabbage "caulis" derived from Sumerian GAL -- as strange as
that also might now seem. It will ultimately be recognized as a fact! And, if
it isn't, i'll eat my "cabbage" while the rest of you eat your arugula. :-)
Subject: Re: Sphinx chamber
From: August Matthusen
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 1996 12:15:03 -0700
JC wrote:
[snip]
> THREE -- There is additional seismographic evidence that several cavities lie
> buried underneath the Sphinx. One rectangular cavity was noticed during the
> making of the film, "The Mystery of the Sphinx" in 1992-1993 by author and
> ameteur Egyptologist, John Anthony West; geologist/geophysicist, Robert M.
> Schoch; and geophysicist/seismologist, Thomas Dobecki. Dobecki took seismic
> readings of a known underground chamber behind the rump of the Sphinx
> (posterior) to establish a reading for a known underground chamber, then took
> seismic soundings of the area beneath the front (anterior) of the Sphinx where
> a cavity was indicated by seismic readings similar to the posterior cavity.
> This anterior (front) cavity was rectangular in shape and measured nine meters
> by 12 meters and is about five meters below the surface.
Judith,
Thanks for the clarification but there are still some minor
discrepancies with
the description of "chamber THREE." Dobecki ran his geophysical surveys
in
1991. He and Schoch published their findings in 1992 (Dobecki and
Schoch,
1992; Seismic Investigation in the vicinity of the Great Sphinx of Giza,
Egypt,
_Geoarchaeology_, Vol 7, No 6, pp 527-544). They did not "discover"
this
anomaly, they confirmed it. Dobecki and Schoch note that the anomaly
was
already known from the prior resistivity work that Lambert Dolphin did
at SRI
and the ground penetrating radar work that the Japanese team from Waseda
Univerity did. ("Both teams' [SRI and the Japanese] results showed best
agreement in the detection of a possible rubble-filled void in the area
of
the Sphinx's paws as well as indications of of potential cavities or
tunnels
extending under the Sphinx as detected along its flanks." Dobecki and
Schoch,
1992, p. 528)
> At the conference on "The Origins of the Egyptian State" at UCLA in
> November, 1995, Zahi Hawass and Mark Lehner showed slides of a core
> sampling done by the University of Pennsylvania in this same area. They
> found a ground anomaly below the paws of the Sphinx consisting of a lighter
> material (but solid) than the surrounding stone. This could be sediment
> deposited by flooding but the area has yet to be excavated. OR, if it has
> been excavated as some rumors say, results have not been made available to
> the public or the press.
For what it's worth, drill cores are usually condsidered more accurate
at establishing ground truth than any single or suite of geophysical
method(s). A core gives you a physical sample of what's there. A
geophysical investigation tells you there is an anomaly; what the
anomaly truly represents is always subject to interpretation based
on what assumptions are used.
I am surprised that nothing has been published on these cores; maybe a
journal article is in press.
Regards,
August Matthusen