The Mysterious Egyptian Tri-Lobed Disc

[cladking]

A few of us, myself included, are guilty of straying off topic, but I'll comment on this. And actually it fits in to how you, yourself, are viewing the bowl from the eyes of a 21st century man, not a man from 3,000 BCE. First of all, in all my years I have never heard a single Egyptologist refer to any text as "mere" incantation or "drivel." Especially the latter. If that's how an historian viewed something written by an ancient culture, he or she obviously would have no interest in or understanding of that culture to begin with. I stress "mere" in the other instance because, while the Pyramid Texts are indeed incantations, there's nothing "mere" about them. They were powerful magic. The fact that so many of the recitations begin with the introductory clause "Words spoken by" make that perfectly clear. That is the standard introduction to a great many spells written during the entire dynastic period.

So they were spoken aloud! Have you never been to a church service

where the priest/ minister/ shaman (etc) read scripture or from some

text? It doesn't mean what they are reading is supposed to cause the

flowers to open or the clouds to form. This was "The Book of Ascensions"

and was something akin to the prayer book which went with their "Bible".

This was the smoke and mirrors that was used to impress people but also

contained homilies and words of wisdom. There were blessings and pray-

ers to fend against bad luck.

It's the 21st century perspective that makes this appear to be "incantat-

ion and magic". The book says there was an eight day ceremony invol-

ved with the king's ascension. The book provides many of the details

such as the w[]g-feast and the ceremony of the uncovering of the fire-

pan. There's your ceremonial bowl right there!!! It's just upside down.

You may say that no professional refers to it as rivel and you're in a far

better position to know than I. But the inference that can be made by

calling them spells that are cast to bring good luck or ward off evil is

that they DO AMOUNT TO MERE DRIVEL. The only way they can mean any-

thing more is if there's really such a thing as magic. Surely you're not

claiming that egyptologists believe in magic now.

Perhaps I'm arguing semantics a little here but it appears that orthodox

terminology involves some rather odd semantics. There's nothing magi-

cal about the PT's even though the ancients believed there was magic in-

volved. But when they wrote out a laundry list I'd bet some of the same

rules applied. You certainly wouldn't want to use words that connoted

stains or holes on such a list, no? That doesn't make the laundry list mere

incantation any more than heading parables with the phrase "to say".

As another example, you're insistence that Egyptologists rely only on work achieved up to the nineteenth century is also clearly inflammatory. Never mind that it's utterly baseless, but it does in fact reveal the limits to your understanding of the research and science involved in modern Egyptology.

Petrie laid the foundation of egyptology. Much of it was already well en-

trenched by 1860 and very little of the basic precepts have changed one

iota since then. Yes, it's possible that it didn't need to change because it

was right but until other possibilities are at least considered it's entirely

fair for me to point out that a century and a half of evidence that doesn't

fit either tombs or ramps has been brushed aside in favor of the existing

status quo.

It's ironic that your preferred mentor, so to speak, is Samuel Mercer. Mercer wasn't technically an Egyptologist to begin with, but for his translations he relied solely on the German translations of Kurt Sethe--whose work was published in 1908. Yes, 1908. You're relying on translations that are 100 years old. If you understand anything at all about linguistics, you should find that to be quite outdated. It's also important to understand that Mercer's work of 1952 is simply an English translation of Sethe's German. I doubt Mercer himself ever spent a moment inside the pyramids.

You're entirely welcome to entirely dismiss Mercer. But You'll need to

explain why Mercer is describing geysers and their actions. I'll wager

that he never suggested geysers and he even admits he went out of

his way to translate words like []gb so that it looks more like other

things. How do you explain this? I'd also point out that the same

thing appears in Faulkner and must have in Sethe.

And again, how you've interpreted the Pyramid Texts has nothing to do with the pyramid builders. The Pyramid Texts were inscribed by professional scribes and craftsmen, not by the men who cut the masonry or stacked it into position. Only around one percent of these men would've even been functionally literate. When you're talking about the Pyramid Texts, you're referring to a much higher-status level of craftsman. Not to mention much better educated. These men did not cut or stack masonry.

I've never understood this concept. When people band together to do

something then they all contribute. From the king to the lowest laborer

they were all necessary and integral to the job. Actually my guess is the

king in some cases might have not been at all in the loop.

The king's grave is the pyramid. The king's afterlife is in the sky.

Mercer passed up one chance after another to say that the pyramid was

a tomb. He implies it wasn't in several passages. But I finally found the

killer last night. The king is right where I knew he was all along but was

misinterpreting the PT where it says in plain English that the grave of the

king is in the sky. It's simply absurd to think the people could believe he

was in both the sky and the pyramid hence he was most assuredly not in

the pyramid.

He ascended to heaven.

I personally have never said you're not qualified to have an opinion. Opinions do not require qualifications. A number of us have written information ad nauseam to show where you've been in error, but you readily dismiss us just as you do the professional scholars. You are not comfortable with conventional scholarship, and are unfamiliar with the numerous fields and disciplines involved, so it's easiest for you to dismiss orthodoxy as though that wraps it up in a neat bow. It does no such thing, and it certainly doesn't bolster your argument. As I've written many times, you need to address definitively and accurately how your views are right and orthodoxy is wrong. It's as simple as that.

No, you've always been very curteous and very reasonable. You've taught

me a great deal about the ancients and more than a little about the status quo.

But you're wrong about me dismissing facts. I live, breath, and eat facts. I

love facts. If I dismiss something it's because I believe it's opinion. Even then

I don't so much just dismiss it as hold it off to the side to see if it ever fits. But

opinion remains opinion until it is proven even if it fits most of the facts.

What you've done all along is apply your own English spin on the English translations of very outdated German translations of a language that's been dead for over a thousand years. Understanding the Pyramid Texts is considerably more complex than you seem equipped to admit.

This isn't true.

Or at least it omits the more important point that this does fit the physical evi-

dence where orthodoxy is mostly at odds with the physical evidence.

I still think you're trying to make a lot more out of this bowl than you need to. Your reply to my previous post about the nature of prestige items in burials shows your unfamiliarity with the commonality of and reasons for this practice. I don't know why you were trying to apply Pyramid Texts to the bowl in some of your earlier posts because these texts have nothing whatsoever to do with the object.

You resist it only because you know it's a trojan horse. Here I am saying al-

most exactly what orthodoxy says. I say it's a "ceremonial bowl" that's used

upside down as a sort of signaling device. I've even found several references

to ceremonies associated with it in the Pyramid Texts yet rather than being hap-

py you get all bent out of shape.

Of course once you accept this it opens the door to things that would upset

the applecart.

Here again is your tendency to insert your own, 21st century value judgements on an ancient artifact, and on ancient artwork in general. It doesn't work. At least in saying this, and mentioning the bowl several times, I've sort of brought the discussion back to its proper place.

I've heard this a lot but it's really those with the orthodox viewpoint who do

this over and over and over. We can't imagine any way to build the pyramids

without ramps so they must have used ramps. We can't imagine any reason

to build them except as tombs so they must have been tombs. We can't imag-

ine any way to interpret the Pyramid Texts so they mean what they say so

they must be incantations. We can't imagine any way the ancients could have

seen the world other than as magical...

I believe the ancients were as human and understandable as anyone today or

at any time in history. They didn't build bowls that didn't look or work like

bowls and they didn't toil in the desert sun to make a tomb for a king who

cpould walk through walls anyway.

[kmt_sesh]

I'm new to this site and seem to have come in in the middle of a number of long-standing disagreements between various veteran members. I, for one, have no problem admitting that Egyptology is not only not my field of expertise, I don't even know enough about it to make a convincing amateur. Is it permitted say, "I don't know what the heck that thing is"? I sure don't.

It isn't only permitted, it should be encouraged, and you should be lauded for being so frank and honest. We need more of that around here.

As for one poster's view that the object in question is a bad piece of art, I disagree. I think it's both lovely and intriguing.

I'm puzzled about that, too. In plain English cladking says it's bad art but then he says that's not what he means, so I'm at a loss. I try to counsel people not to apply modern value judgements to ancient artwork because it's faulty reasoning from the start, so I'm probably just misunderstanding cladking. He's an intelligent fellow but I'm still trying to get a handle on what he means by that.

I imagine that it--whatever it is--must have meant something, and was important, to the person with whom it was buried or to the people who buried it with that person. The fact that 5,000 years later we can't agree on its purpose only underscores how different the ancient Eggyptian culture was from our own.

A very astute observation. In one sense the ancient Egyptians were much like we are: they had hopes and dreams, jobs and responsibilities, concerns and joys, loved their children and their families, and were proud of their heritage. But in many other ways, given their culture, time, and place, they were considerably different from us. They did not really think the way we do about many things, especially about religion and socio-politics, so it's quite difficult for many modern people to try to understand the ancient people in general.

Personally, I'd rather discuss that amusing and far more interesting red bowl with the feet that was posted! Did anybody else wonder what the top half of that odd little container looked like?!

I posted that photo. Ain't it cute? By the way, I posted it just for fun, but I've seen many photos of it in the past, and I have in fact wondered if it had some sort of lid or top. I have little reservation about identifying the elaborate stone bowl as a ritual offering tray, which it almost certainly was, but to be honest I'm at a loss to explain why someone made a little bowl with chubby little feet.

[cladking]

No. It isn't. Stone varies considerably in toughness as is does in hardness, from types that shatter if you look at them wrong on up to stuff like jade, which can be shaped into forms of incredible thinness with limited fear of breakage. Like These

All stone is brittle!

Cut it to the thickness of a sheet of metal and tap it with a hammer. It

will not take a dent. It will break. Many things will bend, dent, or deform

but stone breaks. Some stone is extremely hard like diamond but they

even cut these by breaking them. Sure stone will bend a little, but not

very much.

You're assuming that's a handle and not a decorative element. Yes, slate is more brittle still but Probably about the same as those soapstone bowls you see in stores. Normal contact from use shouldn't damage it. Plus this stuff doesn't have the cleavage that true slate does.

I put "handles" in parentheses because I don't believe they are true handles.

I think they were used to tie the thing in place. They primarily act as a dam

to keep the fuel out.

Already went over that. It doesn't obstruct in the least.

You have to look each time you grab a grape at the party in case the thing

has been moved or you'll just come up with a fin. Then you'l' need to pry

the grapes out from under the fins before you wash it and get out a scrub

brush.

I'm still betting you can't find a true bowl with such obstructions. An ash-

tray is a sort of bowl and they have something like this.

I gather you're not up on the concepts of abstraction and ornamental design. I believe one of the websites mentioned The significance of the number 3 and it's multiples. I also noticed it somewhat resembles a stylised flower or lilypad. I can't even see the scratches for all the damage and repair work. Personally I think it's merely an exaggerated elaboration on this: slate dish

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But a thing that looks like a machine

part from a 5000 year old grave is still odd. It is even odder when that mac-

hine part obviously required great expense to build.

Odds are good it'd already be riding pretty low in the water. One good windstorm and it's a goner.

Yes. In a strong enough wind from the right direction it would be sunk.

But even this wouldn't be the end of the world. Important jobs would have

a tender who could simply light a new fire if it went out.

This isn't meant to be necessarily relevant but it conveys the concept;

2083c. he has not slept during the night, (though) he did not keep watch;

2083d. he ignores his body in one of these two seasons of Khepri.

2084a. The inhabitants of the Dȝ.t have counted their bodies;

[kmt_sesh]

This is so true. Just because Egyptologists think a thing is true and they pass that belief on to the next generation, and THEY believe it's true, does not make it true. I don't know of any other field of endeavor that refuses to allow that there could be errors in their theory and jealously guard that which they DO believe...

This is an old argument among the fringe, Qoais, and it's patently false. No field of study is static. None. Our understanding of Egypt, be it of chronology or language or religion, has undergone extensive revisions. Read the papers and books written by Flinders Petrie, for instance. Many of his arguments have stood the test of time because nothing has ever surfaced to dispute them, and yet he was wildly inaccurate about his Dynastic Race theory. That's just one example.

Like any discipline, Egyptology is open to debate and susceptible to revision. That is how research works. Granted, the people in the best position to do this are the ones with formal degrees because they have received adequate training and studies to understand the arguments involved.

The plain truth is, alternative and fringe theorists have made extremely few inroads because they are unable to present the evidence necessary to refute orthodoxy. When you have people like Sitchin and Hancock and Schoch leading the fight for the fringe, it's no wonder the fringe is not taken seriously.

[cladking]

Like any discipline, Egyptology is open to debate and susceptible to revision. That is how research works. Granted, the people in the best position to do this are the ones with formal degrees because they have received adequate training and studies to understand the arguments involved.

This is usually true but you'd be surprised probably how much it often

is not. In medicine, for instance, most advancement has come from

the outside for centuries now. Almost no new nearby astronomical

objects are discovered by astronomers any longer. They are found

by amateurs. Einstein was formally trained in physics but was very

much an outsider when he revolutionized it. He even refuses to use

references in his papers.

Few disciplines are as closed off to outsiders as egyptology has been

for the last several years.

Edited March 14, 2009 by cladking

[cladking]

It isn't only permitted, it should be encouraged, and you should be lauded for being so frank and honest. We need more of that around here.

Frankly, I think that egyptology would have been well advised

to take this stand right from the beginning regarding this. If

it's not known what it is then calling it a "ceremonial bowl" is

just conjecture that doesn't fit with the facts.

I'm puzzled about that, too. In plain English cladking says it's bad art but then he says that's not what he means, so I'm at a loss. I try to counsel people not to apply modern value judgements to ancient artwork because it's faulty reasoning from the start, so I'm probably just misunderstanding cladking. He's an intelligent fellow but I'm still trying to get a handle on what he means by that.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/egipto/e...pto_mist_2c.htm

Look at the top picture here. Look closely and pretend you don't

already know it's a ceremonial bowl.

At the top of the cylinder you'll see the grooves that were etched

into this. They are crudely done. This isn't ivory inlay or gold foil

as might be expected on a very expensive piece of art. They are

grooves crudely etched in to accept the ring which held the wick in

place.

There's nothing about this that looks like art yet it was exceedingly

expensive. Who'd pay a year's wages for a "plain" bowl that won't

even work very well as a bowl? They carved intricate designs into

pallets at this time but could do no better than scratch some crude

grooves into the top of this!!!

No!! If you'll look at this you'll see that it s no "ceremonial bowl".

Perhaps it's not a floating lamp either but it's a great deal more

likely than a bowl.

Though if you drag a 500' tall mountain up a ramp to make a tomb

then maybe this is a bowl. There's still one big difference. The pyr-

amid could function as a tomb but this thing would make one stupid

bowl.

I think ya' missed a post Kmt_Sesh.

[kmt_sesh]

This is usually true but you'd be surprised probably how much it often

is not. In medicine, for instance, most advancement has come from

the outside for centuries now. Almost no new nearby astronomical

objects are discovered by astronomers any longer. They are found

by amateurs. Einstein was formally trained in physics but was very

much an outsider when he revolutionized it. He even refuses to use

references in his papers.

Few disciplines are as closed off to outsiders as egyptology has been

for the last several years.

I disagree. You can attend an ARCE conference and listen to theories presented by students and enthusiasts alike. I would never demean the contributions made by enthusiastic and knowledgeable amateurs. Remember, I personally know and work with some Egyptologists (this is one reason I get bent out of shape when the field of study is ridiculed by fringe adherents--these Egyptologists are my friends). I've talked at length with many more, including historians whose studies bring them into the orbit of Egyptology. Of all these people I could tell you about only one who I'd call closed-off in his mindset. He's a brilliant man but because of this he is unable to gain affiliation with any university or institution and is no longer a practicing Egyptologist. All of the others I know are very kind and open-minded people.

It's easy to label an entire field as rigid and undbending when you're not really even familiar with how the research works. That doesn't mean the label has any merit, however.

I once suggested this before, cladking: why not take your theory to one of the annual ARCE conferences and allow it to be digested by professional scholars and enthusiasts alike? Here at UM it will never be anything more than pixels in the cluttered universe of the internet.

[legionromanes]

why not take your theory to one of the annual ARCE conferences and allow it to be digested by professional scholars and enthusiasts alike?

yeah I imagine they all appreciate a good laugh

[cladking]

It's easy to label an entire field as rigid and undbending when you're not really even familiar with how the research works. That doesn't mean the label has any merit, however.

Quite true and quite possibly valid.

I've always found that ideas spread at about the speed of light. So far as

I know they don't slow down just because you use the internet.

[Oniomancer]

All stone is brittle!

Cut it to the thickness of a sheet of metal and tap it with a hammer. It

will not take a dent. It will break. Many things will bend, dent, or deform

but stone breaks. Some stone is extremely hard like diamond but they

even cut these by breaking them. Sure stone will bend a little, but not

very much.

Ah, Language problem. Most people take brittle to mean easily broken in general, rather than just breakable.

Any inflexible material is brittle in thin section but if you think full-thickness rock qualifies, I suspect there are some folks doing 5 to 10 at Leavenworth who would disagree with you. I could further illustrate the point by arranging for a demonstration involving your head and a stone war club. Then again, from the way this thread's been going, I wouldn't want to take a chance on ruining a perfectly good war club.

All that is irrelavent however as my original point was, yes, it's relatively fragile, but not fragile enough to interfere with it's everyday use.

I put "handles" in parentheses because I don't believe they are true handles.

I think they were used to tie the thing in place. They primarily act as a dam

to keep the fuel out.

BTW, Someone may've already posted this, but here's a link showing Harte's description of how the reeds were supposed to be held: http://www.ianlawton.com/am12.htm

You have to look each time you grab a grape at the party in case the thing

has been moved or you'll just come up with a fin. Then you'l' need to pry

the grapes out from under the fins before you wash it and get out a scrub

brush.

No more duanting than a covered dish or harder to clean than the little spout hole on a gravy boat.

I'm still betting you can't find a true bowl with such obstructions. An ash-

tray is a sort of bowl and they have something like this.

Only for lack of the proper search perameters. I don't know what that proves anyway. There are plenty of elements in the egyptian design vocabulary which have lain fallow since.

Yes. In a strong enough wind from the right direction it would be sunk.

But even this wouldn't be the end of the world. Important jobs would have

a tender who could simply light a new fire if it went out.

A rather costly loss regardless.

[cladking]

All that is irrelavent however as my original point was, yes, it's relatively fragile, but not fragile enough to interfere with it's everyday use.

I agree. I hate arguing semantics.

If I owned this and it cost $50 then I wouldn't be especially concerned

about breaking it. I'm not sure what I'd do with it but if I had a use I

would use it.

But if it cost a year's wages the sucker is going to stay under wraps all

the time. The chances of it getting broken in the diswater are too high.

BTW, Someone may've already posted this, but here's a link showing Harte's description of how the reeds were supposed to be held: http://www.ianlawton.com/am12.htm

It's interesting enough but this is a conflagration in process. There is

nothing to stop it from burning up everything including the temple it's

in.

No more duanting than a covered dish or harder to clean than the little spout hole on a gravy boat.

At least you can hold a gravy boat in one hand and wash with the other.

[Oniomancer]

I agree. I hate arguing semantics.

If I owned this and it cost $50 then I wouldn't be especially concerned

about breaking it. I'm not sure what I'd do with it but if I had a use I

would use it.

But if it cost a year's wages the sucker is going to stay under wraps all

the time. The chances of it getting broken in the diswater are too high.

It all comes down to ostentation.

"Look at me. I am rich, powerful. I can buy silly object d'art that cost more than your entire house and serve party pretzels in them. I am Alpha Male! Hear me roar!"

It's interesting enough but this is a conflagration in process. There is

nothing to stop it from burning up everything including the temple it's

in.

Except that the temples and a great deal in them tended to be made of stone. A few open flames is hardly a conflagration either. As I recall, we used torches and braziers for a great deal of history not to mention candles and managed quite nicely.

Edited March 15, 2009 by Oniomancer

[cladking]

Except that the temples and a great deal in them tended to be made of stone. A few open flames is hardly a conflagration either. As I recall, we used torches and braziers for a great deal of history not to mention candles and managed quite nicely.

I didn't express that well.

All the oil and all the reeds would burn up at once. This

isn't a lamp but a conflagration. the heat would probably

destroy the "ceremonial bowl, "lamp", "fire pan", or "fire

source".

It could be used only once and the no one could see it.

[Oniomancer]

I didn't express that well.

All the oil and all the reeds would burn up at once. This

isn't a lamp but a conflagration. the heat would probably

destroy the "ceremonial bowl, "lamp", "fire pan", or "fire

source".

It could be used only once and the no one could see it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rushlight

[cladking]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rushlight

Most oil lamps work by sucking up fuel through capillary action. As the fuel

is consumed at the top of the wick it dries out and "sucks" up more fuel from

below. Steady state is achieved because the saturated wick won't burn or

because there is something to stop the flame from crawling down the wick.

I believe "wick" is an old English word which means to draw up.

A candle works exactly the same way except the fuel is solid and has to be

melted by proximity to the flame in order to be drawn up.

You've heard the expression "burning the candle at both ends". This results

in a flash in the pan" not because the candle is burning twice as fast but be-

cause it has to lie on its side which results in excessive usage and wastage

of fuel. The candle very quickly burns out.

A flame at the bottom of a wick will rapidly grow quite large unless it draws

so much fuel as to chill it. At some point all the wick and all the remaining

fuel will burn simultaneously or the flame will go out. It can't achieve steady

state.

You can't build an oil lamp with the flame below the fuel.

[Oniomancer]

Most oil lamps work by sucking up fuel through capillary action. As the fuel

is consumed at the top of the wick it dries out and "sucks" up more fuel from

below. Steady state is achieved because the saturated wick won't burn or

because there is something to stop the flame from crawling down the wick.

I believe "wick" is an old English word which means to draw up.

A candle works exactly the same way except the fuel is solid and has to be

melted by proximity to the flame in order to be drawn up.

You've heard the expression "burning the candle at both ends". This results

in a flash in the pan" not because the candle is burning twice as fast but be-

cause it has to lie on its side which results in excessive usage and wastage

of fuel. The candle very quickly burns out.

A flame at the bottom of a wick will rapidly grow quite large unless it draws

so much fuel as to chill it. At some point all the wick and all the remaining

fuel will burn simultaneously or the flame will go out. It can't achieve steady

state.

You can't build an oil lamp with the flame below the fuel.

You're interpreting the picture much too literally. In reality, the incline shouldn't be anywhere as severe. As long as the rush wicks (and that's what they are) are pointing up out of the oil, they function as intended and the flame is nowhere near the reservoir until it burns down.

[kmt_sesh]

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/egipto/e...pto_mist_2c.htm

Look at the top picture here. Look closely and pretend you don't

already know it's a ceremonial bowl.

At the top of the cylinder you'll see the grooves that were etched

into this. They are crudely done. This isn't ivory inlay or gold foil

as might be expected on a very expensive piece of art. They are

grooves crudely etched in to accept the ring which held the wick in

place.

I don't think that's the best photo of the artifact. There is a lot of glare and "clutter" from surrounding structures. As someone who's taken thousands of photos in museums, I'm aware of how this happens, and it's frustrating. Here's a cleaner overall photo, and here's a closeup of the central cylinder. The cylinder is obviously somewhat damaged--recall that this bowl was in fragments and had to be reassembled for display--but to me the grooves look to be pretty uniform.

In any case these grooves probably did not serve any functional purpose. The Egyptians did not use apparatuses that required the screwing of two pieces together, nor were oil lamps fitted with rings that sat in grooves. If this cylinder was indeed for an oil lamp, it was simply filled with oil and the wick floated in it. Egyptian oil lamps are plentiful in the archaeological record and are very well understood: the wick was either inserted into a narrow orifice as in this common variety, or floated in a small pool of oil. The wick might also have simply rested in a crevice as in this example.

I should stress that I am not personally convinced that the central cylinder was used as an oil lamp. It certainly could have been--if the bottom of the cylinder were plugged, which it does not appear to have been. It would've worked better as an incense burner, which would still have required some kind of plug at the bottom but not something fluid-tight.

There's nothing about this that looks like art yet it was exceedingly

expensive. Who'd pay a year's wages for a "plain" bowl that won't

even work very well as a bowl? They carved intricate designs into

pallets at this time but could do no better than scratch some crude

grooves into the top of this!!!

You're still on the "expensive" kick. Trust me, how expensive the bowl may have been is completely irrelevant. It was a prestige item, something I've been trying to stress. These were common things in the tombs of high officials. Whatever the bowl may have cost was of no issue. The person with whom the bowl was buried is the important thing to consider.

The grooves are not crude. You're still applying value judgements to ancient art. It doesn't work. You need to acquire a better understanding of how ancient Egyptian art was produced, the functions it served, the value it represented not in monetary terms but in prestige distinction, and why such things were buried with people.

[kmt_sesh]

yeah I imagine they all appreciate a good laugh

Hey, I'm just trying to be helpful. I've mentioned the ARCE conference more than once to cladking. He and others try to claim that Egyptology is closed off and not accepting of other people's ideas, which anyone who is familiar with the field knows is rubbish. Well, to a point it's rubbish. If someone presents a new theory but cannot substantiate it with hard evidence, then of course no one will take it seriously. Why would anyone expect otherwise?

There are platforms where people can present alternative views. I'm not saying it's easy for someone to do, and I can certainly understand how the presenter might be intimidated, but it's like I've repeatedly told cladking: presenting his argument only on internet forums like UM or Hall of Maat or Egyptian Dreams will get him nowhere. These are not scholarly platforms, and with a few rare exceptions professional scholars do not visit these message boards (Hawass did once at a forum with which I'm unfamiliar, and another Egyptologists visited us at Egyptian Dreams about a year ago).

So I don't understand why cladking complains about orthodoxy not accepting alternative views--by which I take it he means his own--when he does not bring his theory to any sort of platform where it can be heard by the people who actually study this stuff for a living.

I know I'm preaching to the choir, legionromanes. I just needed an excuse to vent.

[cladking]

.

In any case these grooves probably did not serve any functional purpose.

So it's just like the pyramid; none mof the clues have any relationship to

function or use. The grooves on the "ceremonial bowl" are just as irrele-

vant as the grooves in the pyramid. The fins have no more to do with

function than the inleaning sides of the pyramid. The sides lean in and

don't get in the way and the fins lean in and it's easy enough to reach

around.

All the carving that could have gone into this, all the ivory and gold inlay

that might have made it look spectacular, all the battle scenes but all the

guy could do on a fabulously expensive bowl was cut some grooves for

no reason at all right where they'd be needed to make it a useful object.

No, you're right of course. It's not really impossible that they spend vast

sums on a silly bowl and failed to make it look like it was more than junk.

But I still don't believe it and I'm going to try to sleep again.

[kmt_sesh]

The grooves on the "ceremonial bowl" are just as irrele-

vant as the grooves in the pyramid.

The grooves on the faces of the Great Pyramid aren't irrelevant. They're incidental. As I've said in the past, the convex shape to the faces is a deliberate engineering technique that afforded greater stability to the structure. This is Engineering 101. The Red Pyramid has slightly convex faces, too.

No, you're right of course. It's not really impossible that they spend vast

sums on a silly bowl and failed to make it look like it was more than junk.

Again, an inappropriate 21st-century value judgement applied to an ancient artifact. "More than junk"? You're perhaps the only person in the world who would refer to this bowl as "junk," even if you're being tongue-and-cheek about it. For a 5000-year-old bowl reassembled from multiple fragments I'd call it a stunning work of art.

I'd hardly say anyone spent "vast sums" on this bowl. It wasn't that unique or precious. It was a functional object that served its purpose, and was produced by highly talented hands.

[cladking]

You're perhaps the only person in the world who would refer to this bowl as "junk," even if you're being tongue-and-cheek about it. For a 5000-year-old bowl reassembled from multiple fragments I'd call it a stunning work of art.

Well, actually I'm being serious.

If someone spend $40,000 to make something that would

almost work as a nose cone for the space shuttle and then

used it as a skittles bowl that easily tipped, broke, or was

less than fully functional then I would call it a piece of junk.

Just because it's a 40,000 dollar piece of junk doesn't make

it any less junk.

As a lamp I would call it a fine piece of craftsmanship and

of ingenious design. It's not really so much "artistic" but

the carver wasn't going for artistic, he was going for some-

thing that worked.

It is the finest surviving fire-pan after all.

[cladking]

I've been saving a little ammo for this thread because I know that

facts just confuse people who have their minds made up anyway.

Or everyone's opinions are like roses except they all stink.

(The only thing I llike more than facts is mixing metaphors)

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/egipto/e...pto_mist_2c.htm

Look at figure 6. The closeup of the center stem. You'll see that it

is flared out to help seat the ring which holds the wick up out of the

water. If the ring falls off plastic memory will cause the end of the

wick to fall down into the water and the flame will go out. The flaring

and grooves are to help hold the ring in place which keeps the wick

in the oil in the top.

Go ahead and claim that it's flared so it can more easily be threaded

on a pole but then you're stuck with it being upside down.

Edited March 16, 2009 by cladking

[Harte]

It holds three bundles of oil-soaked papyrus reeds.

The reeds are tied tight enough to exclude air from the tied portions, allowing only the oil on the ends to burn.

The oil in the center portions of each of the bundles is driven toward the ends by capillary action when the torches are lit.

There would be no oil at all in the bowl itself, except for what ran out of the reeds if they were soaked too thoroughly.

End of question.

Next question. This thing just ain't worth ten pages.

Harte

[Scorpio18]

Hi,

I'm a long time reader here but this is my first post,

I have a self educated interest in ancient history but my background is in engineering.

To my mind it is an oil lamp, I don't know about laying bundles of reeds in it, It would be much easier to weave the reeds into a cylinder shape, the cylinder shaped reeds would slot over the central tube and be held in place by the three "arms".

For transportation it would be suspended on three ropes or chains that were attached to a pole and fixed to the "handles", this would allow it to be carried low down to give maximum light without snuffing it out on the ceiling and being suspended this way it would not easily spill the oil.

To put it down you would simply lower it onto an upright post which would support it through the central hole.

Being made of a slate type material it would be fairly light and most importantly fireproof.

I think it would have been used by the tomb builders as it is not a perfect piece of artwork but it it a usable tool, a craftsman would have been able to make it fairly quickly so the cost would not have been that high.

Nick

[cladking]

It holds three bundles of oil-soaked papyrus reeds.

The reeds are tied tight enough to exclude air from the tied portions, allowing only the oil on the ends to burn.

The oil in the center portions of each of the bundles is driven toward the ends by capillary action when the torches are lit.

There would be no oil at all in the bowl itself, except for what ran out of the reeds if they were soaked too thoroughly.

End of question.

Next question. This thing just ain't worth ten pages.

I think it explains three utterances in the PT. That's worth twenty books iff true.

What do you tie it with that doesn't burn and allow the fire to spread along the

oil soaded reeds. Lamps and candles don't get their air from the wick, they get

it from the atmosphere.

It would not work for this purpose. You might be able to use a wide metal band

to stop the fire from traveling back but this would be an accident waiting to hap-

pen since oil flowing along the bottom of the band could carry the flame back to

the bulk of the fuel.

There's no reason to make a lamp like this when ANY of the traditional oil lamps

would work just fine.