Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The Mysterious Egyptian Tri-Lobed Disc


louie

Recommended Posts

For those who might be interested, I suggest the fourth link down from the bottom on this page. If there's a way to link straight to a PDF in this forum, I don't know it, so this is the best I can do.

This should work:

Radiocarbon dates of Old Kingdom Monuments in Egypt

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It still seems most unusual to have old wood around. Even in

2800 BC they would preferentially cut wood in areas that are

easily accessible and have water nearby. This means for the

main part they were already getting away from cutting virgin

forest most probably.

While trees can be quite old those growing in cleared areas grow

extremely fast because they have much more light and less com-

petition for nutrients. There's no hard and fast rule for what

specific type of growth loggers seek but it tends to be very tall

and very straight timber as seen in stands that have rebounded

after a clear cut.

There have been some exceedingly old samples reported and trees

from virgin timber could account for these but a general error

of a few hundred years is likely not caused by a single factor

unless it's calibration error, sampling error or something of

this sort.

I believe more samp[ling is indicated. In the last few years it

has become possible to identify specific types of plants and, I

believe, this informnation can even be extracted from charcoal.

Wasn't most wood and timber used in ancient Egypt imported from Lebanon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't most wood and timber used in ancient Egypt imported from Lebanon?

For larger timber, yes. This would be used where large segments of wood were needed in construction (cribbing, scaffolding, rollers), but also for high-value wood items like furniture and coffins.

The Egyptians made plentiful use of their own acacia, sycamore fig, yew, and other native trees, which were smaller and slighter. This would always be the case. We have two Dynasty 11 coffins in our exhibit at the Field Museum, each 4,100 years old, and made of woods native to Egypt.

But something like a pyramid or large mastaba required a great deal of wood for mortar and other industrial purposes, so access to native woods would've been more efficient and expedient. It's unlikely they were importing expensive conifers from Lebanon just for the sake of industry. Such wood used for cribbing inside the walls of a mastaba predating the Great Pyramid, for example, would have been a resource for wood needed for the king's new monument.

Wood was not lying around in abundance, and it's likely much of the area had already been largely deforested for the building of older tombs, so the reuse of wood was common practice. This is part of the problem when it comes to using C14 dating to date wood samples in charcoal on the Great Pyramid. As Mark Lehner writes on this AERA web page:

Because of the scarcity and expense of wood, the Egyptians would reuse pieces of wood as much as possible. Some of this recycled wood was burned, for example, in mortar preparation. If a piece of wood was already centuries old when it was burned, radiocarbon dates of the resulting charcoal would be centuries older than the mortar for which it was burned.

This part of what Lehner calls the "old-wood problem," but I've never been clear enough on the fact that this is not Mark Lehner's personal theory. It's a known conundrum with C14 dating in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't most wood and timber used in ancient Egypt imported from Lebanon?

We don't really know this. The Palermo Stone lists a couple exped-

itions to Lebanon to get wood and there is a lot of cedar known to

have been used but as to the mixes and percentages it's simply isn't

known to my knowledge. I think it's safe to say a lot of their wood

came from Lebanon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't really know this. The Palermo Stone lists a couple exped-

itions to Lebanon to get wood and there is a lot of cedar known to

have been used but as to the mixes and percentages it's simply isn't

known to my knowledge. I think it's safe to say a lot of their wood

came from Lebanon.

While it's not always possible to tell the precise species of a tree that had been used for this or that, it's not terribly difficult to determine in microscopic analysis whether a coffin, for example, was made of a conifer. This would point to Lebanon, where from the time of Sneferu at least the Egyptians imported the vast majority of the conifers they used. Down through pharaonic history this fact is repeated time and again in royals annals and stories alike. A king fetching a large supply of conifers from Byblos was something of a status symbol in and of itself.

This falls under the purview of paleobotany, which is part and parcel of the larger field of Egyptology. A paleobotanist is likely to be part of most excavations and research where any plant material might come into play. Moreover, the chemical nature of a wood sample, if well preserved, can also tell the scientist from which part of the Near East the wood originated, the same as can be done for the clay from which a pot was made.

I don't know that this sort of analysis has been done for the samples of charcoal extracted from the Great Pyramid, but I doubt it. I don't know that it could be done with charcoal, but I may be wrong. In any case, Lehner's team was not interested in exactly what kind of wood was used in the charcoal but in how old it was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For larger timber, yes. This would be used where large segments of wood were needed in construction (cribbing, scaffolding, rollers), but also for high-value wood items like furniture and coffins.

The Egyptians made plentiful use of their own acacia, sycamore fig, yew, and other native trees, which were smaller and slighter. This would always be the case. We have two Dynasty 11 coffins in our exhibit at the Field Museum, each 4,100 years old, and made of woods native to Egypt.

But something like a pyramid or large mastaba required a great deal of wood for mortar and other industrial purposes, so access to native woods would've been more efficient and expedient. It's unlikely they were importing expensive conifers from Lebanon just for the sake of industry. Such wood used for cribbing inside the walls of a mastaba predating the Great Pyramid, for example, would have been a resource for wood needed for the king's new monument.

Wood was not lying around in abundance, and it's likely much of the area had already been largely deforested for the building of older tombs, so the reuse of wood was common practice. This is part of the problem when it comes to using C14 dating to date wood samples in charcoal on the Great Pyramid. As Mark Lehner writes on this AERA web page:

This part of what Lehner calls the "old-wood problem," but I've never been clear enough on the fact that this is not Mark Lehner's personal theory. It's a known conundrum with C14 dating in general.

I don't know that it's a conundrum, as such, as C14 testing can only date the age of the material and can't tell how, when or where the item being tested was used.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We also need to consider that the Egyptians may well have been making mortar for centuries and could have been using the same firepits for the entire time.

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know that it's a conundrum, as such, as C14 testing can only date the age of the material and can't tell how, when or where the item being tested was used.

cormac

That's part of the conundrum. The wood the builders used to make mortar and such may have been a lot older than the time of actual construction. So some of the readings that say 4800 BP may be telling us when the tree from which the wood came had died but not actually when the Great Pyramid was being built. The readings suggesting the oldest date of around 2800 BCE may well reflect an older date than when Khufu ordered his pyramid built. In fact, if you look at the overall spread of dates, both calibrated and uncalibrated, they tend to favor an earlier date.

I guess the bottom line in what I'm trying to point out is that the very material from which the Great Pyramid was built tells us no older than around 4800 BP. There is no justification in suggesting the Great Pyramid is 10,000 years old, as many uninformed people claim, because the science shows us the facts. However, as is often the case, it's most convenient for fringies just to ignore the science and cling merrily to the ridiculous distortions of fringe literature.

Much the same is true for the graffiti in the relieving chambers, which definitively establishes the Great Pyramid was built for Khufu, so fringies have had no recourse but to pretend the graffiti is fraudulent. This despite the fact that scientific and historical examinations have shown the graffiti to be authentic--so let's ignore the science and pretend otherwise!

It's all very frustrating. If fringies want to live in a make-believe world of murky fantasy and pseudo-science, there's not much anyone can do for them. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's part of the conundrum. The wood the builders used to make mortar and such may have been a lot older than the time of actual construction. So some of the readings that say 4800 BP may be telling us when the tree from which the wood came had died but not actually when the Great Pyramid was being built. The readings suggesting the oldest date of around 2800 BCE may well reflect an older date than when Khufu ordered his pyramid built. In fact, if you look at the overall spread of dates, both calibrated and uncalibrated, they tend to favor an earlier date.

I guess the bottom line in what I'm trying to point out is that the very material from which the Great Pyramid was built tells us no older than around 4800 BP. There is no justification in suggesting the Great Pyramid is 10,000 years old, as many uninformed people claim, because the science shows us the facts. However, as is often the case, it's most convenient for fringies just to ignore the science and cling merrily to the ridiculous distortions of fringe literature.

Much the same is true for the graffiti in the relieving chambers, which definitively establishes the Great Pyramid was built for Khufu, so fringies have had no recourse but to pretend the graffiti is fraudulent. This despite the fact that scientific and historical examinations have shown the graffiti to be authentic--so let's ignore the science and pretend otherwise!

It's all very frustrating. If fringies want to live in a make-believe world of murky fantasy and pseudo-science, there's not much anyone can do for them. <_<

I guess I'm looking at it from more of a specific angle, kmt_sesh. I agree with what you said above, but to use the 4800 year old date for the purpose of dating the GP (as some are wont to do) one has to assume that all samples were taken from the same, or nearly so, aged wood. This borders on the ridiculous, IMO, which is likely one reason why the results span a few hundred years. Different trees, sections thereof, so of course there is going to be a timeframe.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'm looking at it from more of a specific angle, kmt_sesh. I agree with what you said above, but to use the 4800 year old date for the purpose of dating the GP (as some are wont to do) one has to assume that all samples were taken from the same, or nearly so, aged wood. This borders on the ridiculous, IMO, which is likely one reason why the results span a few hundred years. Different trees, sections thereof, so of course there is going to be a timeframe.

cormac

Good point. That's why no one can say, "The Great Pyramid was built exactly in 2613 BCE," or something like that. The report from the 1984 and 1995 tests is a bit technical and tedious to plow through but it clearly shows the oldest possible date being around 4800 BP and the most recent in time being around 4600 BP (I can't remember the exact figures off the top of my head, but these are close).

If people want to cherry-pick an exact date, that's how it is. I'm guilty of it myself, in usually stating the orthodox figure of 2500 BCE. It's the most-quoted figure and easily recognizable, even if it is possibly off by 50 years or 100 years or even more. But if the C14 dates are right, and they have to be pretty close, the Great Pyramid is somewhat older than originally thought.

But you're right, it would be unrealistic to expect all of the charcoal samples to yield the same date. And they didn't. They provided a range into which the actual construction date had to have fit. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you mean by 'wholly speculative or mostly speculative'? A speculation is basically global.

Trying an answer I can say: some ideas are pure speculation (the origin of the device), but the rollers around the axle is a fact (see the second shot below).

I was referring primarily to the concept of a "gravitic engine".

Science still doesn't understand the nature of gravity and is only

now coming to accept the possibility of shielding fort gravity and

antigravity.

I had just assumed you meant some such device by your term and wondered

if there might be a basis other than ancient literature.

What exactly leads you to believe this is a part of such a machine? It is

a rather enigmatic design and does appear that almost anything might be

possible.

My problem with most theories of this nature is the lack of infrastructure

for the ancients to have discovered such things. Of course there may be

other ways to skin this cat or they might have been handed the knowledge

to make flying carpets and the like by aliens so it can't be ruled out.

But I do prefer ideas that flow with nature and man's ability unless there

is fairly extensive or otherwise convincing argument to the contrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear cladking,

The fact do not be able to explain the nature of the gravity, has never been a sufficient reason for using it (p.e: the hammer, the waterwheel, the balance, the balistic, etc).

The 'lack of infrastructures' you are referring is today just a supposition because we are just starting to rediscover some ancient civilizations we were ignoring until a recent past and about we did not talk before. The chinese 'south pointing chariot' is dated 3600 BC per example. For sure if you limit the technical environment within the Sumerians, it could be difficult to accept my suggestion (although they apparently knew the batteries).

The antikythera mechanism has been discovered in 1905 and has been explained only in the last decade.

Another important point is the fact this trilobed bowl is unique, what shall conduct us to classify it into the out-of-time parts.

The recent and multiple discoveries of giant skeletons gives a new point of view on our origins.

I can understand the reticence of almost of people against this new ideas contesting the certitudes of our judeo-christian society based on the Bible content.

But someday these new evidences could oblige us to revisitate the ancient history of the mankind.

And in the particular case of the trilobed bowl, I'm not sure that the demonstration of a working engine will be sufficient for convincing the experts, some of those continuing to defend their own suggestions. Anyway my only purpose was to see if anybody on this forum had made some investigation in the same domain.

Many thanks for your kind comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear cladking,

The fact do not be able to explain the nature of the gravity, has never been a sufficient reason for using it (p.e: the hammer, the waterwheel, the balance, the balistic, etc).

The 'lack of infrastructures' you are referring is today just a supposition because we are just starting to rediscover some ancient civilizations we were ignoring until a recent past and about we did not talk before. The chinese 'south pointing chariot' is dated 3600 BC per example. For sure if you limit the technical environment within the Sumerians, it could be difficult to accept my suggestion (although they apparently knew the batteries).

The antikythera mechanism has been discovered in 1905 and has been explained only in the last decade.

Another important point is the fact this trilobed bowl is unique, what shall conduct us to classify it into the out-of-time parts.

The recent and multiple discoveries of giant skeletons gives a new point of view on our origins.

I can understand the reticence of almost of people against this new ideas contesting the certitudes of our judeo-christian society based on the Bible content.

But someday these new evidences could oblige us to revisitate the ancient history of the mankind.

And in the particular case of the trilobed bowl, I'm not sure that the demonstration of a working engine will be sufficient for convincing the experts, some of those continuing to defend their own suggestions. Anyway my only purpose was to see if anybody on this forum had made some investigation in the same domain.

Many thanks for your kind comments.

Hi, path_finder, and welcome to UM.

With respect, you are underestimating our understanding of Egypt in the Early Bronze Age. To be sure, over the past couple of centuries most excavators and researchers have focused on the monuments and artifacts from the Old Kingdom and beyond, but plenty of researchers have helped us to obtain a rather decent understanding of pharaonic Egypt in its earliest days. In the early years that would be people like Flinders Petrie and Walter Emery, but in recent decades we have expert researchers like David Wengrow, Toby Wilkinson, David O'Connor, and Fred Wendorf. These men are specialists in the prehistoric and Early Dynastic periods of Egypt and have contributed significantly to our understanding of the very earliest times.

In other words, the prehistoric and Early Dynastic periods are not an unknowable vacuum. There is a lot more we know than you might realize. I have to stress, as I always do, that we are bound by extant evidence. The material culture, inscriptions, tomb and temple reliefs, and a myriad of other forms of evidence are our guidelines. To date, nothing in the way of evidence would lead us to believe that the Egyptians ever developed complicated machinery.

Some other points of clarification. I think when you wrote about Sumerians and batteries, you were confusing the timeline. I'd wager you were referring to the infamous Baghdad battery. This device probably dates to the Sassanid Period in Iraq, a pre-Islamic empire dating between 224 and 651 CE. The Sumerians disappeared from the world stage even before the end of the Egyptian Old Kingdom, so they were gone by around 2200 BCE (some 1,900 years before the Sassanid Period). Moreover, the tri-lobed vessel is not exactly unique. What makes it stand out is its larger size, but other bowls and vessels of this type are known in the archaeological record of Egypt and have been noted in the paintings and relief carvings on tomb walls. Much earlier in this discussion one of the other posters provided links to a couple photos of vessels of the same design and style, so you might want to backtrack and take a look. I'm too lazy to go find them again. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear kmt_sesh,

Many thanks for your comments and additional data.

If (as you wrote) the egyptians did not have a sufficient level of knowledge in the complex mechanics domain, my suggestion could be vain.

But what if this object had nothing to do at all with the egyptian era?

On the other hand if many plates and/or bowls have been found, this particular trilobed bowl is still today alone (with the whole shape).

Just an example for describing the situation: let's suppose acomplete destruction of the mankind today, and 5000 years later an archeologist find a rubber tire in a space recognized as an ancient garden. What will be decided for the purpose of this object: a flowerbowl (wich is not specially idiot, sometime it's the case today).

On the same level, if I give a rear wheel bike's ratchet (clutch) in the hand of an ancient egyptian, how can he imagine the bike's full design?

Considering the trilobed-bowl only on a simple ornamental or religious level, is too much reducting.

BTW, another part of the mechanism (based on the pentagon this time) can be found i the shot hereafter. But nobody made the connection IMHO. Taken apart, without any correlation with any other part, this last 'bowl like' will be explained on the same way: a simple oil lamp. But if you know that one of the basic principle of the gravitic engines design is based on the combination of the hexagon and the pentagon, this will give another overview for the purpose of this object.

post-100883-127140094429_thumb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some other points of clarification. I think when you wrote about Sumerians and batteries, you were confusing the timeline. I'd wager you were referring to the infamous Baghdad battery. This device probably dates to the Sassanid Period in Iraq, a pre-Islamic empire dating between 224 and 651 CE. The Sumerians disappeared from the world stage even before the end of the Egyptian Old Kingdom, so they were gone by around 2200 BCE (some 1,900 years before the Sassanid Period).

Worth noting as well that the device's wouldn't have worked well as batteries, and better as the jars that were used for religiouse texts, which they resemble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worth noting as well that the device's wouldn't have worked well as batteries, and better as the jars that were used for religiouse texts, which they resemble.

That's something I've often heard, the fact that the device could generate a weak electrical field is merely incidental. I find that idea to be quite credible, given that even if it were designed to generate some electricity, there is nothing of which I'm aware in the Sassanid material culture to which it could've been applied.

I admit that the Baghdad battery is not something I've ever bothered to study beyond casual reading. The Sassanid culture is beyond the period of history in the Near East, and particularly in that area of the Near East, that I could identify as my forte. The Persian empire? Certainly, but a modest pre-Islamic culture of the early centuries CE is somewhat beyond my sphere of interest.

Still, an artifact like this one needs to be studied not as something separate but as something that was a part of the culture to which it belonged. And it does not appear that the Sassanids had any keen interest in electricity. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it does not appear that the Sassanids had any keen interest in electricity. :rolleyes:

Dear kmt_sesh,

I red somewhere a pertinent suggestion about the possible use of these jars: the electrochemical deposition of some metal on conductive surfaces (like today the nickelisation), in particular for the golden jewels.

In any case I want to develop a controversial discution on this subject, these jars being in my post just an example of advanced technology for this time.

Anyway no electricity has to be used in the design I suggested for the tri-lobed bowl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a suggestion that the jars were used for electroplating.

However, there's no evidence the jars actually worked, as the way that they were found would have prevented a carge from being drawn from 'em. The copper cylinder was completely sealed by the bitumen, as well as completely sealing the jar, which would have made it difficult to top them off. Which you would have needed to do with a chemical battery.

Additionally, there's no evidence of electroplating up to the 1800's, no pieces of jewelry or objects found that had been electroplated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi.. just thought this was interesting.. who would like to poo poo it ? lol

http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/electricity.htm

Ancient India - In the Prince's Library of Ujjain in India, there is a well preserved document called the 'Agastya Samshita', which dates back to the first millennium BC. It contains a detailed description not only of how to construct an electric battery/cell, but also, how to utilize the battery to 'split' water into its constituent gasses.

The text runs as follows:

“Place a well-cleaned copper plate in an earthenware vessel. Cover it first by copper sulfate and then moist sawdust. After that put a mercury-amalgamated-zinc sheet on top of an energy known by the twin name of Mitra-Varuna. Water will be split by this current into Pranavayu and Udanavayu. A chain of one hundred jars is said to give a very active and effective force.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi.. just thought this was interesting.. who would like to poo poo it ? lol

http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/electricity.htm

Ancient India - In the Prince's Library of Ujjain in India, there is a well preserved document called the 'Agastya Samshita', which dates back to the first millennium BC. It contains a detailed description not only of how to construct an electric battery/cell, but also, how to utilize the battery to 'split' water into its constituent gasses.

The text runs as follows:

“Place a well-cleaned copper plate in an earthenware vessel. Cover it first by copper sulfate and then moist sawdust. After that put a mercury-amalgamated-zinc sheet on top of an energy known by the twin name of Mitra-Varuna. Water will be split by this current into Pranavayu and Udanavayu. A chain of one hundred jars is said to give a very active and effective force.”

lightly - Haven't taken the time to dig into this too much, but I did notice that the source for the material in your reference is a book by Rene Noorbergen. A quick check on this individual may be enlightening. I'll try not to bias your conclusions.

Also, one must question an interpretation that led to the determination of a mercury/zinc amalgam. Just off the top of my head on this one, but it would appear rather problematic.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lightly - Haven't taken the time to dig into this too much, but I did notice that the source for the material in your reference is a book by Rene Noorbergen. A quick check on this individual may be enlightening. I'll try not to bias your conclusions.

Also, one must question an interpretation that led to the determination of a mercury/zinc amalgam. Just off the top of my head on this one, but it would appear rather problematic.

.

ah, ok, thanks Swede.. looks like the source, and the science espoused ?, is questionable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ah, ok, thanks Swede.. looks like the source, and the science espoused ?, is questionable.

Chuckle! A delightful understatement. I would concur.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this the tri lobed bowl in another dimension?

If you take in account the virtual axle (explained above in another post), you can see in the drawing herafter how the geometrical shape of the trilobed bowl can be use as a part of the whole design. As you can see, everything is related to the outer rim of the wheel, wich is another basic principle of the gravitic engines.

Some other important properties cannot be represented in this 2D drawing, but I hope this first level of information can help you to believe I'm not fully fool.

This object is really a marvel of optimization for the paths of the moving parts.

post-100883-12715837789_thumb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I with in minutes researched all......and importantly....there is nothing on the Walter Bryan Emery site on Wiki.........like my dad always told me...*never...ever open your mouth and let the wind blow your tongue around unless you can back up what your saying with facts*..... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I with in minutes researched all......and importantly....there is nothing on the Walter Bryan Emery site on Wiki.........like my dad always told me...*never...ever open your mouth and let the wind blow your tongue around unless you can back up what your saying with facts*..... :)

Emery mentions this tri-lobed vessel in his book Archaic Egypt, but it is not a significant part of the book. He makes only a couple of comments on it, as I recall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.