557 replies to this topic

[cladking]

kmt_sesh, on 04 July 2010 - 10:44 PM, said:

The simple truth is, in almost all cases, the more modern research is simply the more grounded and reliable to follow.

I don't believe this is still true.  For the last generation the
status quo has even become entrenched in the sciences, even in the
hard sciences.  

Quote

Everything meaningful to say in this thread was said long ago.

Only if you believe the tri lobed disc in an ornamental bowl.

Everyone else seems to think it's not necessarily just bad art.

[questionmark]

cladking, on 04 July 2010 - 11:53 PM, said:

Everyone else seems to think it's not necessarily just bad art.

And besides speculation and generous interpretation of ancient scrolls you naturally have a way to prove that...

[Oniomancer]

tri-lobe, on 04 July 2010 - 12:29 PM, said:

Hello Pathfinder
               Please have a look at several photos on this thread that some individuals claim are the same as the trilobe bowl,
               NO raised central hub, No circumferencial band,no full tri- lobe folds.
               I state once again that the TRI-LOBE BOWL ....is unique,a one off....show me a photo of exactly the same shape to the tee.
               If there'r was a exact similar item , the smart a..es on this site would have shown it to prove their point.....
               All that they can do is distract you with ther're personal opinons...oftern dragged from wikkicrap.
               remember the experts said that heavier than air machines would NEVER FLY,
               From Australia I've flown to egypt,jordan,lebenon,syria,iran....experts run the economy....and thats working...
               IF you wont to solve a technical problem you don't asked a historian or an art expert , they'll only have a opinion based upon what they're read in someone eles's book.....too lazy to write and publish their own....to scared to voice an opinion out side the box.......

               with regards...trilobe.

TL! Good to see you back, seriously! Pray tell, what do you think of the siltstone doohickey found in Sabu's tomb, the one with the broken out triangle motif in the center?

http://www.gizabuild...es/art_so28.jpg

[Swede]

"Hello Pathfinder,
I went to the effort of making a firberglass model of the trilobe bowl(the first in 5000yrs,no egyptoligist or expert could be bothered) I can show to all interested that this item is capable of pushing water, you can replicate this fore yourself, if your interested, I could, therefore you can.

I have posted photo's in this thread how I went about this.In my opinion form follows function(the opposite to some on this site).
Some folk on this site feel that items dug up by egyptoloist's are only ritural or ornimental therefore not part of a functional  group.

Why have a raised cental hub? Why have a circumferential band? Why does it create a vortex when spinning?

There'r are double standards on this site by the control freaks that the herd follows.........

If i use Emery or Alderd, there're to old for references... but it's ok for Wilkinson(1999)and Wendrow(2006)....but not for me to use.

I feel that i'm dealing with low brow interlectural snobbery...but then I'm not dealing with people with techincal qualifications.

I have been told that history and archeaology are soft sciences as apposed to the hard sciences of eningeering,phyics,chemistry and geology.

Path finder, best of luck with your time on this subject,

                        With  regards trilobe....."
[/quote]


Trilobe - I don't mean to "pile on " here, just attempt to clarify a few points.

1) I applaud your efforts in regard to constructing a replica of the artifact in question. Well done.

2) As an adjunct to my regular research, I am also quite involved in experimental studies and, without going into detail, have more than a passing familiarity with quite a range of material types and the associated technologies (lithic, ceramic, metallurgical, faunal, floral, etc). My undergrad work was in Bio./Math and Chem. I also have two shops that are quite well outfitted. Not "soft" stuff. Thus I am rather familiar with the properties of both fiberglass and a wide array of lithic materials.

3) One must be aware of the "structural properties" of schist. This is a rather soft material that tends to exfoliate. To subject the lightly structured trilobe to high RPM's in a medium such as the atmosphere would likely lead to rapid disintegration due to centrifugal stress. In a medium such as H2O, this would be an almost certainty.

4) I am unaware of any research that would indicate bearing load wear on the interior of the central hub. In a material such as schist, such wear would be expected to appear quite rapidly. Are you personally aware of any collaborative evidence?

5) While the design would certainly create a vortex, so does a flat wooden blade mounted at 180 degrees on a shaft in a 3/8 VSR. Not necessarily conclusive. Were the artifact designed as a true impeller, why are the "blades" of symmetrical pitch?

6) I am also unaware of the recovery of any of the multitude of other elements of the mechanism(s) with which this artifact would have to been incorporated in order to function as speculated.

7) Your understanding that "form follows function" is not, in itself, incorrect. However, one may wish to consider the functional intent of the original designer/creator.

Some factors to ponder.

.

Edited by Swede, 05 July 2010 - 12:33 AM.

[cladking]

questionmark, on 04 July 2010 - 11:58 PM, said:

And besides speculation and generous interpretation of ancient scrolls you naturally have a way to prove that...

Form follows function.  

This is effectively a law of nature.  This is how things have been
reverse engineered forever; if you understand the form you can make
deductions about the function.  

The simple fact is that not only does this have all of the character-
istics of a floating oil lamp used in water that is degassing but it
apparently is mentioned many times in the ancient record.  If it is
then it's also the origin of the word "God".  

Alteratively one can believe that it's art of a type that no longer
exists or one of trhe other many possibilities.  I will never believe
the "art" idea unless real substantiation is found.  TYhe nature of
art has never changed and never will.  This does not appear to be in
any way artistic to my eyes.

[cladking]

Swede, on 05 July 2010 - 12:31 AM, said:

3) One must be aware of the "structural properties" of schist. This is a rather soft material that tends to exfoliate. To subject the lightly structured trilobe to high RPM's in a medium such as the atmosphere would likely lead to rapid disintegration due to centrifugal stress. In a medium such as H2O, this would be an almost certainty.

And this is what clearly points to a very simple function.  The
object is obviously functional and obviously too fragile for even
the most mundane tasks like a skittles server.  

While Trilobe and Pathfinder could be correct if this object is
just a model for one to be moulded in bronze, I believe, that this
object was actually used for the intended function.  They simply
wouldn't have put the unsightly gouges around a demo or a a piece
to be copied.

[cladking]

Oniomancer, on 05 July 2010 - 12:27 AM, said:

TL! Good to see you back, seriously! Pray tell, what do you think of the siltstone doohickey found in Sabu's tomb, the one with the broken out triangle motif in the center?

http://www.gizabuild...es/art_so28.jpg

It's a very interesting piece but without knowing what it
looked like originally it's pretty difficult to guess if it
might have had a practical function or if it were intended
as art.  It might even have been art inspired by the tri-
lobed disc.

[tri-lobe]

Oniomancer, on 05 July 2010 - 12:27 AM, said:

TL! Good to see you back, seriously! Pray tell, what do you think of the siltstone doohickey found in Sabu's tomb, the one with the broken out triangle motif in the center?

http://www.gizabuild...es/art_so28.jpg

Hello OM,
        I read somewhere,possibly Unforbidden Geology via The Hall Of Maat where it was suggested that the doohickey "might" have held toiletries....
        Oh dear....that means that the doohickey was...dare I say....a practical,functional item?
        The doohickey is certainly a fine example of the stone carvers'skill.

        OM, I was expecting to get a right royal thrashing(with Thesaurus) from you....maybe thats still to come.
        with regards
                    tri-lobe

[tri-lobe]

kmt_sesh, on 04 July 2010 - 10:44 PM, said:

Technical qualifications are not necessarily relevant to proper inquiry. Look at Chris Dunn. He seems to have ample technical qualifications but it's painfully clear the man has no understanding of the culture itself or of its technology. This is why he is not taken seriously. The man's theories are just silly. If you don't begin with a solid understanding of the ancient Egyptian people and the capabilities, advantages, and disadvantages of their Bronze Age engineering, then everything that follows in your theory is not really tenable for the purpose of legitimate scientific inquiry.

You can pick and choose your sources all you want. The simple truth is, in almost all cases, the more modern research is simply the more grounded and reliable to follow. I have since gone on to purchase Emery's book for my own library and have noted that he says almost nothing of substance about this object. You might not want to toot his horn too much. It clearly wasn't key to any of his research.

There are no double standards at UM. There is simply the people who favor the fringe and its representatives, and the people who favor hard science and history and its representatives. The analogy of the herd is apt, but not for proper inquiry. The herd follows the fringe, as is painfully obvious in discussion after discussion. Like cattle, they follow whatever the fringe writers say without question and without performing their own fact checking. Moo.

I'm not quite sure why this particular discussion keeps coming back. All that seems to be added to it is baseless speculation and tiresome redundancy. Everything meaningful to say in this thread was said long ago. I myself really ought to stop responding, but your outburst required a response.

Hello KTM-Sesh

            My two posts to Pathfinder were in no way an attack or go at you personaly and I Whole-heartedly apologize if you felt otherwise,
            My remarks about art historianswas not directed at you,for some reason I was under the impression that you were an anthropologist with expertise in middle eastern studies....

            I was talking to the director of our national maritime museum and she made the comments that art and history are solf sciences,she also told.....that if you put an object and 3 art historians in a room that you would get 3 different opinions ....I know her personaly and would never disregard her point of view...

           I have used Walter Emery as my only reference(I've heard that Cyril Aldred had some comments...I'm still searching for them, He published a lot of material)
           A long time member with a very broad and colourful command of the english language told me that you can't use them....the'er to old to use.In the mean time i had purchased two books as reconmended by yourself a 2000 and a 2006 works.....Lo and behold....Their quoting Emery and Aldred,needless to say....I felt that I was slapped with a form of intellectual snobery....a double standard if you may.

           All i can do if i have caused you personal offence is to say....KTM-SESH..I'm sorry.

[tri-lobe]

Hello Swede,
           Thank you for your post,I messed up my 1st reply to your post so I'm trying again.
           I have mentioned several times in my earlier posts that I'm following Emery's suggestion that the schist vessel...."is apparently carved in the imitation of a metal form".

           A metal(copper?)form....This started me wondering that if the item was mounted on a shaft and spun it might push water...
           To me from my perspective there are two design features that lend themselves to the moving water possiblity.

           1...The raised central hub...
           We use this method today when we want to mount an item,particularly a thin item onto a revolving shaft,it helps to hold it axially true and helps spread some of the load onto the shaft.
           2...The circumferental band...
           We also use this method today to reinforce the outside diameter/circumference.It stops the OD from expanding or distorting while under load when revolving.This would be required if this thin item was moving water.

           There is a 3rd feature but that only becomes evident when the item is spinning.....it creates a centrifugal vortex...one of the most effiecent and natural ways to move a fluid...Drawing in from its center and throwing out at the periphery.
          
           I hope that this helps you understand where my ponderings are and why......

           With reguards
                        tri-lobe.

[kmt_sesh]

tri-lobe, on 06 July 2010 - 11:36 AM, said:

Hello KTM-Sesh

            My two posts to Pathfinder were in no way an attack or go at you personaly and I Whole-heartedly apologize if you felt otherwise,
            My remarks about art historianswas not directed at you,for some reason I was under the impression that you were an anthropologist with expertise in middle eastern studies....

            I was talking to the director of our national maritime museum and she made the comments that art and history are solf sciences,she also told.....that if you put an object and 3 art historians in a room that you would get 3 different opinions ....I know her personaly and would never disregard her point of view...

           I have used Walter Emery as my only reference(I've heard that Cyril Aldred had some comments...I'm still searching for them, He published a lot of material)
           A long time member with a very broad and colourful command of the english language told me that you can't use them....the'er to old to use.In the mean time i had purchased two books as reconmended by yourself a 2000 and a 2006 works.....Lo and behold....Their quoting Emery and Aldred,needless to say....I felt that I was slapped with a form of intellectual snobery....a double standard if you may.

           All i can do if i have caused you personal offence is to say....KTM-SESH..I'm sorry.

Greetings, tri-lobe

I think it's I who needs to apologize. I had thought your post was an attack against those of us at UM who adhere to orthodox history and science as they pertain to the study of ancient history. I myself am not a professional historian. I did pursue a minor in anthropology during my first university degree but never went into that field professionally. And the subjects of anthropology I was pursuing actually had nothing to do with the ancient Near East. I am merely an amateur historian. I've spent twenty years studying and researching the ancient Near East and particularly Egypt, but I must stress in no uncertain terms that I am not a professional historian.

I would largely agree with the director of your national museum: art and history are soft sciences. It also depends how you look at it, however. Modern archaeology is anything but a soft science, given the myriad of modern scientific disciplines this field encompasses. The same is true for Egyptology. In this age Egyptology, including Egyptian archaeology, is far more than some guys digging in the dirt and staring curiously at pot fragments. Those days are long gone. We have come to understand what we understand largely because of the various scientific disciplines involved (e.g., geology, paleobotany, paleopathology, satellite imagery and analysis, genetics).

LOL I do have to agree with the statement about the artifact and the three historians studying it. Unless the nature of the object is painfully obvious, you might well get three different opinions. I see this now and then with certain arcane subjects in the world of Egyptology. That's just the way it is. And there's the old joke that when an archaeologist can't explain an artifact, he or she assigns it a religious purpose. Must be religion, always religion.

I don't know how much this might fit with the tri-lobed disk. To be perfectly honest, in the twenty years of reading and researching I've done, I've come across very little mention of it in the professional literature. I am not exaggerating when I say, at least based on my own personal experience, the 34 pages of this particular discussion constitute more attention to this object than in all sources I myself have read, combined. In fact, many times over.

I am probably guilty of misrepresenting to you the books by Wilkinson and Wengrow. I did not mean that you would find careful analysis of the tri-lobed disk in their material. To be honest I can't remember if either author even mentions it. I recommended their books only because I myself found them to be particularly valuable in gaining a deeper understanding of the prehistoric and Early Dynastic peoples of Egypt. They are both excellent for laying a very solid foundation in one's understanding of these very early periods, so I apologize if I gave you the wrong idea and sent you down a road that didn't even serve your own interests.

I have several of Aldred's books but can't remember if the disk is mentioned in any of them. It's not as though I've read all of his material, however. I hope it wasn't I who told you not to use Emery or Aldred. If it was me for some reason, it was a silly thing for me to have said and I apologize. You can be sure it's not true. Wilkinson, Wengrow, and many other Egyptologists and Near Eastern historians have, do, and will continue to cite both Emery and Aldred because they were unquestionable leaders of the field in their time. (Aldred's book on Akhenaten, for example, is still considered to be one of the most important works ever written about this king.)

By all means embrace earlier writers like Emery and Aldred because they still have so much to offer. I personally stress the more recent studies, however, because these books present research that's more up to date. Cyril Aldred died in 1990 or 1991, as I recall. That's not very long ago, but I could fill a lengthy post detailing extremely important findings that have occurred just since then, findings that have contributed very important information to our overall understanding of late prehistory and the Early Dynastic Period.

I can see I've already written yet another lengthy (and tedious) post, so I'll bring this to an end. My apologies, too, tri-lobe.

[Swede]

tri-lobe, on 06 July 2010 - 06:52 PM, said:

Hello Swede,
           Thank you for your post,I messed up my 1st reply to your post so I'm trying again.
           I have mentioned several times in my earlier posts that I'm following Emery's suggestion that the schist vessel...."is apparently carved in the imitation of a metal form".

           A metal(copper?)form....This started me wondering that if the item was mounted on a shaft and spun it might push water...
           To me from my perspective there are two design features that lend themselves to the moving water possiblity.

           1...The raised central hub...
           We use this method today when we want to mount an item,particularly a thin item onto a revolving shaft,it helps to hold it axially true and helps spread some of the load onto the shaft.
           2...The circumferental band...
           We also use this method today to reinforce the outside diameter/circumference.It stops the OD from expanding or distorting while under load when revolving.This would be required if this thin item was moving water.

           There is a 3rd feature but that only becomes evident when the item is spinning.....it creates a centrifugal vortex...one of the most effiecent and natural ways to move a fluid...Drawing in from its center and throwing out at the periphery.
          
           I hope that this helps you understand where my ponderings are and why......

           With reguards
                        tri-lobe.

Tri-lobe -  Fully understand your engineering position. Have not read Emery, but this could be a case of a well qualified individual who may have mis-interpreted an artifact. It has been known to happen. Were the artifact as Emery would appear to present, one would expect to recover actual parallels, as the time-line would easily allow for the preservation of such.

Of course, the labor/cost efficiency/materials choice of the artifact being a proto-type or mold-form is rather unrealistic.

I would also refer back to the previous in regards to supportive apparati. Such a form would, virtually by definition, need to be incorporated into a notably more complex system.

.

[cladking]

I don't have a great deal of confidence that this utterance is
in relation to the fire-pan so haven't cited it previously.  It
is a superb fit though if the translation isn't quite perfect.  
It's been cropped because people tire easily of reading PT.  The
rest continues on describing a normal building day morning after
the death of the king.  

376a. To say: The fire is laid, the fire shines;
376b. the incense is laid on the fire, the incense shines.

376c. Thy fragrance comes to N., O Incense; the fragrance of N. comes to thee, O Incense.
377a. Your fragrance comes to N., O ye gods; the fragrance of N. comes to you, O ye gods.

377b. May N. be with you, O ye gods; may you be with N., O ye gods.
377c. May N. live with you, O ye gods; may you live with N., O ye gods.

378a. May N. love you, O ye gods; love him, O ye gods.
378b. The pȝḳ-pellet (of incense) comes, the pȝd-pellet (of incense) comes, (they) come forth from the thigh (or lap, m3ś.t) of Horus.

379a. Those who have ascended are come, those who have ascended are come; those who have climbed are come, those who have climbed are come.
379b. Those who lifted themselves up like Shu are come; those who have lifted themselves up like Shu are come.

I think that myrhh oil was mixed with willow tree oil to fuel
the fire-pan.  The water has a distinctive fragrance because
musilagenous myrrh was mixed with grease and natron and applied
at the upper eye of Horus as a degassing agent. Thwe myrrh might
have served something like we add mercaptan to natural gas to
make it stink so we react, they added myhrr to make it smell good
so they knew it was safe.  

The king had a "natural" smell.  The whole pyramid (the king's ka)
had a natural smell.  The priests also used censers to burn myrhh
as they performed this ceremony.  

The "lap of Horus", the fire-pan, and the ceremony were at 80' upon
the M[].t-wr.t-cow.  

It's utterance #269;

http://www.sacred-te...y/pyt/pyt12.htm

[Oniomancer]

tri-lobe, on 06 July 2010 - 07:41 AM, said:

Hello OM,
        I read somewhere,possibly Unforbidden Geology via The Hall Of Maat where it was suggested that the doohickey "might" have held toiletries....
        Oh dear....that means that the doohickey was...dare I say....a practical,functional item?
        The doohickey is certainly a fine example of the stone carvers'skill.

A functionally dish-like object serving a functional dish-like purpose? Naw, that's crazy talk.

        

Quote

OM, I was expecting to get a right royal thrashing(with Thesaurus) from you....maybe thats still to come.
        with regards
                    tri-lobe

Only if you promise to misunderstand and completely overreact again. I'm not into thrash though. I prefer easy listening.

[cladking]

cladking, on 08 July 2010 - 03:46 AM, said:

I don't have a great deal of confidence that this utterance is
in relation to the fire-pan so haven't cited it previously.  It
is a superb fit though if the translation isn't quite perfect.  
It's been cropped because people tire easily of reading PT.  The
rest continues on describing a normal building day morning after
the death of the king.  

376a. To say: The fire is laid, the fire shines;
376b. the incense is laid on the fire, the incense shines.

376c. Thy fragrance comes to N., O Incense; the fragrance of N. comes to thee, O Incense.
377a. Your fragrance comes to N., O ye gods; the fragrance of N. comes to you, O ye gods.

377b. May N. be with you, O ye gods; may you be with N., O ye gods.
377c. May N. live with you, O ye gods; may you live with N., O ye gods.

Sorry for quoting myself but one of the reasons this wasn't
previously posted is that it took me this long to find out for
sure that myrhh oil would have a fragrance when burned.  Accord-
ing to the source the odor is changed and somewhat diminished but
still has the distinctive odor.  I'm assuming this oil and willow
tree oil can be mixed.  

There is a good flow for the utterance if this is the meaning and
it becomes almost transparent.