Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
louie

The Mysterious Egyptian Tri-Lobed Disc

801 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.gizabuildingproject.com/images/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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.gizabuildingproject.com/images/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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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-texts.com/egy/pyt/pyt12.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

.

Hello Swede

Thank you for your reply,....

I understand your concerns in reguards to the..."a well qualified indervidual who may have mis-interpreted...many have done so"...

I followed Emery's suggestion(I didn't think otherwise).......

If I'd worried about what if's!..What could be's!..Might be's...What should be's ..I would not have made my models....

Where are the parrallels??.....

Ther'er are no parrallels because it's unique...a one off...(many on this site would disagree)...thats ok...

If it was a standard funeral item...there would be other examples....and there are not....

If it was a standard ritural item...there " " " " ...and there are not....

If it was a standard item.........There would be many copies/replica's.........But there are none.....

As I have said in my earlier posts.....I think(personal opinion)....That its unique.......

Supportive apparati...and...more notably complex systems.......

KTM-SESH suggested in his first post to me ...that the pedistal/support might have being stolen by grave robbers because it contianed gold or some other valuable material.....thats one reason....

I have show'n to myself and friends that the tri-lobe bowl item will work at hand speeds..1 rev per sec..60rpm...low speed systems can operate with-out complex systems....eg..animal power........wind power.....to name a few...

I look at the subject this way....Prince Sabu would have been an educated man....Why could he not have been educated in the ways and behaviours of water according to the knowledge of the time???.....even if it's different to our times...The item must have been important to Prince Sabu to have been buried with him....placed next to his coffin.....not around the walls with the mundane funeral items.....

Swede...I made some models of an item.....I thought to share my personal experiences with said models...with photos.....all from my modern perspective....I know that i'm an unwashed FRINGEY.....But this fringey has gone one step beyond all other fringies on this subject....I made a working model(that anyone can do..I've shared my methods).....

with regards

tri-lobe...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I was never completely happy with my response to this post. I also

realized a few days ago that one of my points earlier in this thread

might easily have slipped through the cracks and not been noted by the

majority of posters.

This is a good time to reiterate the point since the thread is at the top.

There was a fire-pan. The Pyramid Texts refers to the fire-pan repeatedly

and by context this device would fit. Context suggests the fire-pan provided

light and was associated with pyramid building.

The point that might have been lost earlier is that Sethe translated "fire-pan"

as being a light source.

So here we have a burning light source fueled by oil that was lit on the very

day that Osiris was said to have been born. (what are the odds) This "fire

pan" was of immense importance to the builders proven by the fact that there

was a ceremony and feast when they got it out and another when they put it away

at a later date. This light source burned under what the Gods created. When

it burned under what the Gods created "workers" would rise to give an offering.

This is not "generous interpretation". This is the literal meaning of what the

pyramid builders actually said. And these concepts have been past down through

the ages it would seem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

I was never completely happy with my response to this post. I also

realized a few days ago that one of my points earlier in this thread

might easily have slipped through the cracks and not been noted by the

majority of posters.

This is a good time to reiterate the point since the thread is at the top.

There was a fire-pan. The Pyramid Texts refers to the fire-pan repeatedly

and by context this device would fit. Context suggests the fire-pan provided

light and was associated with pyramid building.

The point that might have been lost earlier is that Sethe translated "fire-pan"

as being a light source.

So here we have a burning light source fueled by oil that was lit on the very

day that Osiris was said to have been born. (what are the odds) This "fire

pan" was of immense importance to the builders proven by the fact that there

was a ceremony and feast when they got it out and another when they put it away

at a later date. This light source burned under what the Gods created. When

it burned under what the Gods created "workers" would rise to give an offering.

This is not "generous interpretation". This is the literal meaning of what the

pyramid builders actually said. And these concepts have been passed down through

the ages it would seem.

Edited by cladking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Hello OM,

It looks like my attempt at sarcasm failed...

The official name of the TLB is THE ORNIMENTAL TRI-LOBE SCHIST BOWL...no practical use...Is that's whats inferred????..........

Hence my comments about the doohicky serving a practicle function....

In Emery's time untill?????.....it was the tri-lobe schist bowl...

Now in modern times since ????? its becomes the ORNIMENTAL tri-lobe schist bowl.....Who decieded this???....Zahawi Harwass....

I'm not trying prove a theory..write a book...or push an agender...

I just tried to share my practicle expierances with a physical item....(that i made)a copy of something from long ago.....

You did say to me....That if it quacks like a duck....Walks like a duck...Then it must be a duck......

Is it fair for me to say...

If it behaves like a water mover....performs like water mover...then it might be a water mover?????..

Regards....

Tri-lobe..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Swede

Thank you for your reply,....

I understand your concerns in reguards to the..."a well qualified indervidual who may have mis-interpreted...many have done so"...

I followed Emery's suggestion(I didn't think otherwise).......

If I'd worried about what if's!..What could be's!..Might be's...What should be's ..I would not have made my models....

Where are the parrallels??.....

Ther'er are no parrallels because it's unique...a one off...(many on this site would disagree)...thats ok...

If it was a standard funeral item...there would be other examples....and there are not....

If it was a standard ritural item...there " " " " ...and there are not....

If it was a standard item.........There would be many copies/replica's.........But there are none.....

As I have said in my earlier posts.....I think(personal opinion)....That its unique.......

Supportive apparati...and...more notably complex systems.......

KTM-SESH suggested in his first post to me ...that the pedistal/support might have being stolen by grave robbers because it contianed gold or some other valuable material.....thats one reason....

I have show'n to myself and friends that the tri-lobe bowl item will work at hand speeds..1 rev per sec..60rpm...low speed systems can operate with-out complex systems....eg..animal power........wind power.....to name a few...

I look at the subject this way....Prince Sabu would have been an educated man....Why could he not have been educated in the ways and behaviours of water according to the knowledge of the time???.....even if it's different to our times...The item must have been important to Prince Sabu to have been buried with him....placed next to his coffin.....not around the walls with the mundane funeral items.....

Swede...I made some models of an item.....I thought to share my personal experiences with said models...with photos.....all from my modern perspective....I know that i'm an unwashed FRINGEY.....But this fringey has gone one step beyond all other fringies on this subject....I made a working model(that anyone can do..I've shared my methods).....

with regards

tri-lobe...

tri-lobe: Apologies for the slow reply. First, I do not personally consider you to be a "fringy". It would appear that you are a practical and talented individual who has taken the time and effort to more fully understand the nature of the artifact. As previously noted, I compliment your efforts and what can be learned from them.

I would suggest, however, that your own points support the current supposition that the artifact in question may have had a more ceremonial/religious function.

The current lack of parallels (particularly in other mediums), combined with its presence as a funerary item, may lead one to speculate that the artifact was not intended to be a sub-assemblage of a more elaborate mechanism.

I would speculate that you are aware of the wide array of non-mechanical items associated with burials across the planet. "One-offs" of spiritual/position significance would appear to be not at all uncommon.

As to the bare mechanics; my mention of associated apparati is factor that I am confident you fully understand. Axles, transfer gearing, load bearings, super-structure, etc. For an object of this nature to actually function as part of a water transport mechanism would entail quite an extensive array of components. There would appear, at least to date, no evidence of artifacts that would compliment such an apparatus.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tri-lobe: Apologies for the slow reply. First, I do not personally consider you to be a "fringy". It would appear that you are a practical and talented individual who has taken the time and effort to more fully understand the nature of the artifact. As previously noted, I compliment your efforts and what can be learned from them.

I would suggest, however, that your own points support the current supposition that the artifact in question may have had a more ceremonial/religious function.

The current lack of parallels (particularly in other mediums), combined with its presence as a funerary item, may lead one to speculate that the artifact was not intended to be a sub-assemblage of a more elaborate mechanism.

I would speculate that you are aware of the wide array of non-mechanical items associated with burials across the planet. "One-offs" of spiritual/position significance would appear to be not at all uncommon.

As to the bare mechanics; my mention of associated apparati is factor that I am confident you fully understand. Axles, transfer gearing, load bearings, super-structure, etc. For an object of this nature to actually function as part of a water transport mechanism would entail quite an extensive array of components. There would appear, at least to date, no evidence of artifacts that would compliment such an apparatus.

.

Well worded, Swede.

I have to say to you, tri-lobe, that despite the stodgy and boring old conservative that I am, I also don't consider you to be "fringy." Your own unique talents enabled you to contribute some interesting thoughts to this discussion.

I do have to emphasize again, however, that this type of technology is unknown in pharaonic Egypt. I agree with Swede that such a device would require a multiplicity of parts, and nothing of the sort has been identified in 200 years of archaeology. Now, it's quite possible as a nobleman Sabu had a number of different titles and functions during the reign of King Anedjib, and one of these may have been something akin to the well-attested title "overseer of the canals." I am stating this purely on speculative grounds because as far as I'm aware there is no evidence to associate Sabu with this position, but someone under Anedjib would've been. This put the person in charge of irrigation projects and maintenance, which was critical to agricultural operations in the Nile Valley from Dynasty 1 on.

Still, the Egyptians never developed complicated machinery. Canaanites would eventually bring the shaduf to Egypt, and this was as sophisticated as irrigation techniques seemed to be until the Greeks introduced the Archimedean screw in the third century BCE.

I must also agree with Swede on the nature of grave goods. It was the norm for noblemen and others of high status to be buried with all manner of prestige items. A great percentage of these were purely ritual in nature. Although cladking's argument for a floating stone firepan is also unattested in the archaeological record, I do bend to the possibility that it was for burning incense or the like. I personally still most favor the position of ritual offering platter, a great many of which were painted on tomb walls or placed in tombs down through pharaonic history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still, the Egyptians never developed complicated machinery.

This might be a fine point but I'd say that the Egyptians were

masters of simple machinery and could improve on it until it was

really rather complicated. Look at their boats; lots of moving

parts.

I've not seen evidence that they had any machines with many inte-

gral parts.

I more than anyone would like to believe in pumps but for previ-

ously stated reasons can't accept this as one. I also admire Tri-

lobe's efforts and hope he discovers something.

Whatever this thing was it was very important. I'm sure it would

not have been a broken bowl but it might have been an intact one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might be a fine point but I'd say that the Egyptians were

masters of simple machinery and could improve on it until it was

really rather complicated. Look at their boats; lots of moving

parts.

I've not seen evidence that they had any machines with many inte-

gral parts.

I more than anyone would like to believe in pumps but for previ-

ously stated reasons can't accept this as one. I also admire Tri-

lobe's efforts and hope he discovers something.

Whatever this thing was it was very important. I'm sure it would

not have been a broken bowl but it might have been an intact one.

I was referring specifically to machinery in the manner of gears and such, but you're correct: their boats were quite elegant and sophisticated. They required complicated organization and logistics to operate. We could also add chariots to the mix because, aside from the Hittites, few foreigners the Egyptians encountered in the New Kingdom could match them on the field of battle in chariot operations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hello OM,

It looks like my attempt at sarcasm failed...

The official name of the TLB is THE ORNIMENTAL TRI-LOBE SCHIST BOWL...no practical use...Is that's whats inferred????..........

Hence my comments about the doohicky serving a practicle function....

In Emery's time untill?????.....it was the tri-lobe schist bowl...

Now in modern times since ????? its becomes the ORNIMENTAL tri-lobe schist bowl.....Who decieded this???....Zahawi Harwass....

"Ornamental" has multiple meanings in a decorative context, most of which do not automatically imply the opposite of functional. That is, an object can be both ornamental _and_ functional. Without knowing just how Hawass meant it, either one of us would be just guessing. At most it comes off as a reverse cop-out erring in the other direction away from the usual "ceremonial" tag that got hung on any artifact of uncertain purpose in the past.

I'm not trying prove a theory..write a book...or push an agender...

I just tried to share my practicle expierances with a physical item....(that i made)a copy of something from long ago.....

You did say to me....That if it quacks like a duck....Walks like a duck...Then it must be a duck......

Is it fair for me to say...

If it behaves like a water mover....performs like water mover...then it might be a water mover?????..

Regards....

Tri-lobe..

The question has been raised about it's efficiency as such. As I may have mentioned before,

As an engineer, I'm sure you're also familiar with the principle of the kludge, to the corollary effect that just because something can be used for a specific task doesn't mean it was intended for that task.

The question also still remains as to why they would go to the trouble to model a supposedly mundane piece of hardware in a costly, difficult to work and relatively weak material, which works against any insistence about wear marks. As a presentation piece, the real thing would've probably almost been less expensive and more practical for the afterlife.

Edited by Oniomancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had misunderstood this utterance and thought it didn't

apply. I believe I'm coming to understand the nature/ purpose

of Śrḳt-ḥtw and this would be a direct reference to the light

of the tri-lobed disc;

Utterance 362.

605a. To say: Father of N., father of N. in darkness,

605b. father of N., Atum, in darkness, bring N. to thy side,

606a. that he may kindle the light for thee and protect thee,

606b. as Nun protected these four goddesses,

606c. the day they protected the throne (bed

606d. Isis, Nephthys, Neit, Śrḳt-ḥtw.

It is only Osiris N who can kindle and maintain the light just

as these Goddesses are associated with and dependent on Nun (God

of water). And as they protect N (the dead king) as the pyramid.

It's all falling into place and Serket is key. Nehebkau (Nḥb-kȝ.w)

is the son/ consort of Serket and critical to understanding the

ancients. He is a neter (aspect of nature) as are all the Gods.

" The king, in turn, assists Atum, as we read in utterance 362: “O my father Atum in darkness! Fetch me to your side, so that I may kindle a light for you and that I may protect you.”

http://henadology.wordpress.com/theology/netjeru/atum/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Misplaced ashtray from the street? So tell me, why is this one thing so strange? I see these articles and all I am thinking is: fragile object with no mechanical use (not strange), to me it looks like a giant ashcatch from an even more giant hookah, which is more likely the case I would say.

Fire dish or ashtray, either way it is a man made object with a man made purpose.

If you find some wheels and a rope or chain you dont assume they had bicycles, you imagine a pulley system do you not?

But hey What do I know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

suppressed for not acceptance of the PNG picture

Edited by path_finder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but I persists and sign. See here: details of the attached drawing

Interesting. Thanks.

I've spent many hours thinking about perpetual motion and trying to build working models.

The last thing I need is a new web site.

Share this post


Link to post
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
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.