76 replies to this topic

[kmt_sesh]

Arbitran, on 25 March 2012 - 03:48 AM, said:

They did indeed teach the ancient Egyptians of metallurgy--it is however quite plain that comparatively few useful metals existed in the region of ancient Egypt which they had to work with. Stone was the most effective building material--and it was often crafted using non-substantial means; the few copper implements which have been uncovered were used for alternative purposes.

This was not in reply to a post of mine but I wanted to weigh in. Actually quite a lot of copper tools have survived from the Old Kingdom, mainly in the form of chisels of different sizes. Stone tools also were commonly used, so I agree with you there, but fine angles and fittings in masonry were achieved with chisels. In addition, from all periods the Egyptians used pull-saws for cutting blocks of masonry. Copper deposits in Egypt contained natural high quantities of arsenic, which produced rather hard and durable copper implements. Perhaps even by the Middle Kingdom bronze tools were becoming more common. Although tin deposits in Egypt were uncommon for the smelting of bronze, Egypt either directly controlled or traded with polities in Syro-Palestine to get the tin they needed for bronze production. Bronze was definitely a common part of life in Egypt by the New Kingdom. But prior to this time copper was used in all sorts of things, including tools, weapons, furniture, and jewelry.

Arbitran, on 25 March 2012 - 03:52 AM, said:

I acknowledge and respect the fact that you know the Pyramids Texts, and I agree with your assessment. However, it cannot be denied the implications of the Inventory Stela (Stella?).

I've discussed the Inventory Stela quite a few times in threads at UM through the years, but what do you mean specifically by its implications?

[Arbitran]

kmt_sesh, on 25 March 2012 - 04:29 AM, said:

This was not in reply to a post of mine but I wanted to weigh in. Actually quite a lot of copper tools have survived from the Old Kingdom, mainly in the form of chisels of different sizes. Stone tools also were commonly used, so I agree with you there, but fine angles and fittings in masonry were achieved with chisels. In addition, from all periods the Egyptians used pull-saws for cutting blocks of masonry. Copper deposits in Egypt contained natural high quantities of arsenic, which produced rather hard and durable copper implements. Perhaps even by the Middle Kingdom bronze tools were becoming more common. Although tin deposits in Egypt were uncommon for the smelting of bronze, Egypt either directly controlled or traded with polities in Syro-Palestine to get the tin they needed for bronze production. Bronze was definitely a common part of life in Egypt by the New Kingdom. But prior to this time copper was used in all sorts of things, including tools, weapons, furniture, and jewelry.



I've discussed the Inventory Stela quite a few times in threads at UM through the years, but what do you mean specifically by its implications?

I must say, I agree with you on each point you made in regards to the presence of various metals in ancient Egypt.

In regards to the Inventory Stela, I was merely noting that, while indeed the Pyramid Texts do not supply an account of gods building the Great Pyramids, the Inventory Stela certainly does.

[The_Spartan]

Arbitran, on 25 March 2012 - 03:51 AM, said:

I was not exclusively referring to the pyramids in this statement. However, Rama and Shiva (I reserve judgment on Zeus) may have had links to Egypt in the distant, pre-dynastic times.

This word "May" changes the complete equation.
They may have had links, they may not have had links.
bottom fact is that you don't know.
If you don't know something, admit it. don't beat around the bush. or state it as a possibility, which is nil.

[lakeview rud]

Regarding the poll, I couldn't figure out how to "explain" within the poll so here's the explanation.  The AE's were very practical people so it stands to reason that they would have used whatever technology available to them to construct the GP (and the others).  The time frame of roughly 20 years has been decetly established so you need to come up with theories that fit in that timeframe.  If you rule out intervention by "gods" or "aliens" you are left with the fairly daunting task of stacking something close to 2 million large stone blocks with a crew of roughly 10,000 men and you can only work them in daylight so perhaps a ten or twelve hour shift. The various technologies;
a. ramps (external) This would be fine for the lower levels, perhaps up to the height of the starting "hill" that the GP was built around but not too much higher.  Perhaps if that first ramp went to the top of that hill it would be logical to then continue with an internal spiral type ramp and perhaps
b. use levers and some sort of "rocking" device to lift the blocks one level at a time
c. the other theories like some sort of ratcheting device to take blocks straight up the sides might have some merit but there's not much evidence.  Same goes for the counterweight theories.  There was at one time evidence that a rope pull was used at the top of the main gallery but the Modern Egyptians decide to "repair" that so its no longer visible.  The various indentations in the side of the main gallery corridor indicate that some type of fairly substantial wooden devices were placed there so its possible that that corridor was used to elevate a number of stones; perhaps the very large ones.
d.  There was also some type of anomoly found at one of the upper corners which migh be an indicator of an internal spiral ramp or even a crane type idea but there's not much left.
e. all in all there's not enough evidence left to substantiate any one theory.

[Swede]

Arbitran, on 25 March 2012 - 03:41 AM, said:

To respond to each of your inquiries:

1 ~ I would welcome a discussion of stone-based technology.

2 ~ I would indeed insist that, for instance, Pan was a physical person--as much as you or I (unless of course you happen to be an incorporeal spirit?).

3 ~ The so-called "well-documented purpose" attributed the pyramids by Egyptologists is largely speculative--no less speculative than the suggestion that they were, for example, alchemical transmutation machines.

Re - #1. Good. Where would you wish to begin. The Oldowan Tradition would be a rational starting point. Please state your thoughts on this technology and its evolutionary and socio-cultural implications.

Re - #2. This now firmly places you one step left of the fringe. Kindly supply biological/archaeological support for such silliness.

Re - #3. Given the volume of supportive data in regards to the function of the pyramids, utilizing the term "largely speculative" would appear to indicate a lack of understanding in this regard. Kindly (an clearly) state your alternative speculations and provide credible supportive citations. The rhetorical blather is notably unproductive.

.

[Arbitran]

The_Spartan, on 25 March 2012 - 05:46 AM, said:

This word "May" changes the complete equation.
They may have had links, they may not have had links.
bottom fact is that you don't know.
If you don't know something, admit it. don't beat around the bush. or state it as a possibility, which is nil.

You have missed the point of my post entirely. Connections can be made between the deities of various cultures--typically not in specific textual references, but in the examination of detail. You know no better than I what exactly happened in the distant past. We each have a thesis. We each appear to refer to the same evidential sources. Our ideas are equally valid--there is just as much chance (if not slightly more, given the comparatively limited range of evidence you have utilized so far) of my theory being correct are yours. The orthodox does not hold any particular, tangible advantage over alternative explanations--particularly when said explanations use the same evidence.

[Arbitran]

Swede, on 25 March 2012 - 10:17 PM, said:

Re - #1. Good. Where would you wish to begin. The Oldowan Tradition would be a rational starting point. Please state your thoughts on this technology and its evolutionary and socio-cultural implications.

Re - #2. This now firmly places you one step left of the fringe. Kindly supply biological/archaeological support for such silliness.

Re - #3. Given the volume of supportive data in regards to the function of the pyramids, utilizing the term "largely speculative" would appear to indicate a lack of understanding in this regard. Kindly (an clearly) state your alternative speculations and provide credible supportive citations. The rhetorical blather is notably unproductive.

.

To answer each question once more:

1 ~ You insisted on a discussion of stone-based technology. Begin at your leisure.

2 ~ I do not understand the meaning of your attribution... In the case for instance of Pan, I will admit that I have no physical evidence that he actually existed--any more than I have evidence that Jesus, or Alexander, or Buddha actually existed.

3 ~ I have studied the Great Pyramids extensively, and I must say, the "volume of supportive data in regards to the function of the pyramids" is immensely slim--again, it is largely speculative and hypothetical. This is not my own idea, for the record--it was first told to me by my uncle, a former Egyptologist and college history professor; only within the past few years have I come to agree with him in this respect. I used to study orthodox Egyptology--I was studying for a career in the field. Indeed, I am of course still very interested in the culture of ancient Egypt--however now I prefer to learn of the culture from the words of the Egyptians themselves. I continue to study in particular the Great Pyramids and their possible functions: it was not entirely in jest when I suggested they might have served as alchemical transmutation machines; energy stations of a sort (radio and microwaves seem to be the two most significant media); storehouses or libraries of a kind (storehouses of knowledge or technology); perhaps they were dwellings; or myriad other possible functions. These are among the most intriguing.

[Swede]

Arbitran, on 25 March 2012 - 11:41 PM, said:

To answer each question once more:

1 ~ You insisted on a discussion of stone-based technology. Begin at your leisure.

2 ~ I do not understand the meaning of your attribution... In the case for instance of Pan, I will admit that I have no physical evidence that he actually existed--any more than I have evidence that Jesus, or Alexander, or Buddha actually existed.

3 ~ I have studied the Great Pyramids extensively, and I must say, the "volume of supportive data in regards to the function of the pyramids" is immensely slim--again, it is largely speculative and hypothetical. This is not my own idea, for the record--it was first told to me by my uncle, a former Egyptologist and college history professor; only within the past few years have I come to agree with him in this respect. I used to study orthodox Egyptology--I was studying for a career in the field. Indeed, I am of course still very interested in the culture of ancient Egypt--however now I prefer to learn of the culture from the words of the Egyptians themselves. I continue to study in particular the Great Pyramids and their possible functions: it was not entirely in jest when I suggested they might have served as alchemical transmutation machines; energy stations of a sort (radio and microwaves seem to be the two most significant media); storehouses or libraries of a kind (storehouses of knowledge or technology); perhaps they were dwellings; or myriad other possible functions. These are among the most intriguing.

Re - #1. In your post #42, you state the following: I would welcome a discussion of stone-based technology.

May it be that your most recent response could be indicative of a less than complete knowledge of a topic which you initially desired to engage in?

Re - #2. Please explain the biological inconsistincies in the Greek god Pan as traditionally depicted in the period representations.

Re - #3. Are you now professing that you are rather skilled in the translation of hieroglyphics including their cultural context?

Please provide credible references that would support your "alchemical transmutation machines". The phrase itself is hardy to be taken with any degree of seriousness, but do proceed with your documentation.

.

[Arbitran]

Swede, on 26 March 2012 - 12:38 AM, said:

Re - #1. In your post #42, you state the following: I would welcome a discussion of stone-based technology.

May it be that your most recent response could be indicative of a less than complete knowledge of a topic which you initially desired to engage in?

Re - #2. Please explain the biological inconsistincies in the Greek god Pan as traditionally depicted in the period representations.

Re - #3. Are you now professing that you are rather skilled in the translation of hieroglyphics including their cultural context?

Please provide credible references that would support your "alchemical transmutation machines". The phrase itself is hardy to be taken with any degree of seriousness, but do proceed with your documentation.

.

1 ~ I seriously doubt that anyone here has a complete knowledge of stone-based technology. And I never claimed to have any particular expertise in the field myself.

2 ~ Please list some alleged "biological inconsistencies" of Pan.

3 ~ I can read hieroglyphics quite well. Not nearly as well as my uncle, but I have enough ability to study in the original languages.

Please care you explain why "[t]he phrase itself [alchemical transmutation machines] is hardy to be taken with any degree of seriousness"?

[GeoLines]

Here you can find an article it about.
I'll be glad to discuss it all.

Edited by GeoLines, 26 March 2012 - 08:24 PM.

[Swede]

Arbitran, on 26 March 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:

1 ~ I seriously doubt that anyone here has a complete knowledge of stone-based technology. And I never claimed to have any particular expertise in the field myself.

2 ~ Please list some alleged "biological inconsistencies" of Pan.

3 ~ I can read hieroglyphics quite well. Not nearly as well as my uncle, but I have enough ability to study in the original languages.

Please care you explain why "[t]he phrase itself [alchemical transmutation machines] is hardy to be taken with any degree of seriousness"?

Re - #1 - Thank you for your admission that you have no "particular expertise" in a topic which you professed to wish to discuss. Duly noted.

Re  - #2 - Please provide a detailed explanation of the genetics, physiology, and biochemistry of such a purported creature.

Re - #3 - You would appear to acknowledge only a partial understanding of the topic. Admirable in itself, but not necessarily reflective of any degree of authority. Nor did you address the cultural-understanding aspect.

Re - Last - It was you who introduced the phrase to the discussion. Therefore it may be reasonably speculated that you have a qualified understanding of such. Please provide a Websterian definition of such followed by a detailed explanation of the inherent chemistry/physics. Please follow this with by a detailed explanation of the mechanical role that G1 would have played in such a proposition.

.

[Arbitran]

Swede, on 26 March 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

Re - #1 - Thank you for your admission that you have no "particular expertise" in a topic which you professed to wish to discuss. Duly noted.

Re  - #2 - Please provide a detailed explanation of the genetics, physiology, and biochemistry of such a purported creature.

Re - #3 - You would appear to acknowledge only a partial understanding of the topic. Admirable in itself, but not necessarily reflective of any degree of authority. Nor did you address the cultural-understanding aspect.

Re - Last - It was you who introduced the phrase to the discussion. Therefore it may be reasonably speculated that you have a qualified understanding of such. Please provide a Websterian definition of such followed by a detailed explanation of the inherent chemistry/physics. Please follow this with by a detailed explanation of the mechanical role that G1 would have played in such a proposition.

.

In response to #2, I would ask for slightly more information. How do you suggest that I go about describing such things? I am admittedly unprepared to list each and every gene present in a genome, as anyone here would also admit.
In response to #3, I shall say that, firstly, I never claimed to have any particular authority--apart perhaps from what my uncle, a respected Egyptologist, has taught me. As for the "cultural-understanding", I prefer to take the approach of learning about the culture of ancient Egypt from the texts they left behind--not vice versa.

As for the final sentence of the above, I can refer you, for the energy plant option, to an article present on "nuclearpyramid.com" I believe. It is quite fascinating, and the possibilities raised are pertinent. As for the reference to radio and microwaves, I can refer you to the theses of Christopher Dunn, on "gizapower.com". These sites can inform you more completely than I could here--it would take far too long to write out adequate descriptions of the processes.

[kmt_sesh]

Arbitran, on 26 March 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

...

As for the final sentence of the above, I can refer you, for the energy plant option, to an article present on "nuclearpyramid.com" I believe. It is quite fascinating, and the possibilities raised are pertinent. As for the reference to radio and microwaves, I can refer you to the theses of Christopher Dunn, on "gizapower.com". These sites can inform you more completely than I could here--it would take far too long to write out adequate descriptions of the processes.

Personally I have a hard time taking websites like those seriously. Chris Dunn is a good example. The man has professional training in materials and manufacturing but, like many in the fringe and alternative camp, he suffers from three key deficiencies:

• A lack of understanding of engineering techniques and capabilities of Egypt in the Bronze Age.
  
• A lack of understanding  of the pharaonic culture that produced these monuments.
  
• A lack of familiarity with the findings of modern science Egyptology uses to study pharaonic Egypt.

Moreover, as is also typical of the fringe, Dunn uses outright subterfuge to serve his agenda. For example, on one page of his website he opens with the line: "New images from inside the Great Pyramid shaft reveal evidence of electrical terminals, cables and even ancient wiring diagrams!" Well, no, that's not accurate at all. It's pure fiction. Dunn is reinterpreting scientific findings in inappropriate and misleading ways. This might not matter to discerning people who know better than to fall prey to such stuff, but what concerns me are the sincere albeit naive people who stumble across such crap and think it's valid.

In point of fact there is no real evidence whatsoever the Egyptians knew anything of radio waves or microwaves or harmonics or psi-org energy or electricity or any of the other anachronisms and fictions fringe writers commonly ascribe to ancient Egypt. Where in their writings do you see objective, unbiased, scientific, and level-headed discourses on the development of royal architecture from Dynasty 1 through Dynasty 4? Where do you see their academic critiques of how we can chart the evolution of engineering from the earliest royal tombs to the Great Pyramid, and beyond?

You don't see such things from the pens of fringe writers. I rather doubt they've taken the time to study the professional research to arrive at a useful and necessary understanding of such things. It's easier for them to skip over time-consuming and difficult research and go right to science-fiction and fantasy--because it's science-fiction and fantasy which sell their books and bring readers to their websites.

I could recommend any number of sources, but this uncle of yours should already be familiar with them. Research the ideology of kingship, the architecture of tombs, the development of royal cults in necropoli, and the development of the state from Dynasty 1 on. A proper and committed research of this material should leave no doubt in the mind of the student that the Great Pyramid was a tomb. Science has already established the fact that the Great Pyramid was built around 2500 BCE, and archaeology has already established the fact that the Great Pyramid was built for Khufu. The wider setting of the necropolis leaves no doubt all by itself that the thing is a tomb.

[Arbitran]

kmt_sesh, on 26 March 2012 - 11:19 PM, said:

Personally I have a hard time taking websites like those seriously. Chris Dunn is a good example. The man has professional training in materials and manufacturing but, like many in the fringe and alternative camp, he suffers from three key deficiencies:

• A lack of understanding of engineering techniques and capabilities of Egypt in the Bronze Age.
  
• A lack of understanding  of the pharaonic culture that produced these monuments.
  
• A lack of familiarity with the findings of modern science Egyptology uses to study pharaonic Egypt.

Moreover, as is also typical of the fringe, Dunn uses outright subterfuge to serve his agenda. For example, on one page of his website he opens with the line: "New images from inside the Great Pyramid shaft reveal evidence of electrical terminals, cables and even ancient wiring diagrams!" Well, no, that's not accurate at all. It's pure fiction. Dunn is reinterpreting scientific findings in inappropriate and misleading ways. This might not matter to discerning people who know better than to fall prey to such stuff, but what concerns me are the sincere albeit naive people who stumble across such crap and think it's valid.

In point of fact there is no real evidence whatsoever the Egyptians knew anything of radio waves or microwaves or harmonics or psi-org energy or electricity or any of the other anachronisms and fictions fringe writers commonly ascribe to ancient Egypt. Where in their writings do you see objective, unbiased, scientific, and level-headed discourses on the development of royal architecture from Dynasty 1 through Dynasty 4? Where do you see their academic critiques of how we can chart the evolution of engineering from the earliest royal tombs to the Great Pyramid, and beyond?

You don't see such things from the pens of fringe writers. I rather doubt they've taken the time to study the professional research to arrive at a useful and necessary understanding of such things. It's easier for them to skip over time-consuming and difficult research and go right to science-fiction and fantasy--because it's science-fiction and fantasy which sell their books and bring readers to their websites.

I could recommend any number of sources, but this uncle of yours should already be familiar with them. Research the ideology of kingship, the architecture of tombs, the development of royal cults in necropoli, and the development of the state from Dynasty 1 on. A proper and committed research of this material should leave no doubt in the mind of the student that the Great Pyramid was a tomb. Science has already established the fact that the Great Pyramid was built around 2500 BCE, and archaeology has already established the fact that the Great Pyramid was built for Khufu. The wider setting of the necropolis leaves no doubt all by itself that the thing is a tomb.

You say that "there can be no doubt". I doubt. My uncle doubts. I doubt in part because my uncle doubts. As I have said, much of what has been "established" is merely conjecture given a consensus (according to my uncle, this is not even always the case--in the case of Egyptology, the consensus is often cast aside for the charlatanic Dr. Hawass). There is indeed evidence of ancient Egyptian knowledge of electricity, radio and microwaves, and the like.

[kmt_sesh]

Arbitran, on 27 March 2012 - 12:25 AM, said:

You say that "there can be no doubt". I doubt. My uncle doubts. I doubt in part because my uncle doubts. As I have said, much of what has been "established" is merely conjecture given a consensus (according to my uncle, this is not even always the case--in the case of Egyptology, the consensus is often cast aside for the charlatanic Dr. Hawass).

Zahi Hawass was never the final say in 99.9% of Egyptological research. He controlled a lot of what was being excavated in the physical settings of the modern country of Egypt, but then again, that was his job. And he did a pretty decent job in that regard. Hawass's body of professional literature is sound, and no one familiar with research protocols would have cause to doubt it. Where Hawass always tripped himself up was in TV appearances and media interviews. The more high ranking Hawass became, the more burgeoning his ego became. That's obvious to everyone. Hawass included.

In any case Hawass never forced a consensus on much of anything. Often in those cases where he did, such as proclaiming the mummy in KV55 to be Akhenaten, he was shouted down by his own colleagues--and he backed off. Hawass did not control the research efforts of the countless foreign institutions in Egypt. The fringe often tried to make Hawass out to be some sort of boogyman, but that was childish on their part. And in the end it no longer matters because Hawass no longer holds his ministry position. He was forced into retirement.

I am not exactly a fan of Hawass, I admit, but I defend him only because people who don't really know who he is, what his experience in archaeology and research is, or what he did in his ministry position, are much too quick to slander him. Whatever my own personal feelings for the man might be, the fringe penchant for slandering him on decidedly unfounded grounds is neither reasonable nor fair.

Quote

There is indeed evidence of ancient Egyptian knowledge of electricity, radio and microwaves, and the like.

This is more germane to the topic. Forgive my side-trip into Hawassland. As it pertains to your suggestion that the Great Pyramid might have been some sort of power plant, please submit citations from the professional research in which we can find evidence for electricity and the like in ancient Egyptian times. By "professional research" I do not mean things like Chris Dunn's website but articles, papers, books, or book chapters authored by recognized and respected professionals in the field of Egyptology or Near Eastern history.