> Origyptian Wrote:
> > Thanos, I DID read your prior
> > What did you say in that post that you think
> > conflicts with what I'm saying more recently?
> So what did I say regarding the two southern boat
> And when you get that answer then why would you
> say this:
> "Says you and many traditionalists. I acknowledge
> it's possible those pits may have been used as
> boat "graves" at some point in time after those
> pits were hewn, but I see no compelling logic to
> the notion that they were originally designed to
> be boat graves."
I still missed your point other than your contention that the southern pits were originally constructed as boat graves. However, as I said previously, I see no compelling logic to the notion they were originally designed to be boat graves. I disagree with you regarding the level of difficulty in bringing boat planks into the pit after lifting an end beam.
Lifting one cover stone a foot or two and sliding wood planks into the pit is a far cry from the effort, knowledge, and resources required to build G1.
I've never disagreed that copper/bronze can be used to quarry the relatively smaller, softer, local limestone slabs (not Aswan granite or the 100+ ton cyclopean limestone beasts, e.g., at the valley temple), lift it a few feet, and haul it on sleds over relatively short distances. But I think it unlikely the OK would embark on such a boat pit project. On the other hand, prying one or two end stones loose from the mortar and wedging it up 12" so that the boat parts could be loaded by humans into the pit would not be impossible for the OK bronze agers.
I believe it would be easy to slide a 75' plank into the 3m deep, 32m long pit through a 1' opening made by lifting an end block with copper prybars and wood support wedges. I see no need to hew a separate long ramp as you described. I do see a very short ramp at one end of the pit which could have been used to facilitate the installment of wooden parts into the pit from that end.
I highly doubt they would bring torches with them into the pit for fear of turning the wood into a bonfire with each falling cinder from the torch.
I also disagree with your assessment of the effort to hew a "gallery" cave vs. the open pit with cover slabs. The cave requires far less excavation and has a far better chance of getting "sealed" compared to the dozens of joints imposed by those cover stones which greatly increase the change of breaches and leaks. For one thing, discovering the boat pit in the first place would have been far less likely if the roof of the pit was a continuation of bedrock rather than being comprised of dozens of conspicuous hewn slabs.
Although some wooden planks are scratched leaving the appearance that they once were used as functioning boats, I do not believe the reconstructed boat would actually float. It has too many loosely fitting parts and has way too many holes in every plank for all the ligatures; I believe it would sink the instant it hit water. Rather, the scratches on the hull planks might simply have been caused by sliding the parts along the limestone bedrock as they were installed into the pit.
There are far too many unexplained enigmas about the pit and the wooden parts that prevent me from jumping to the conclusion that those pits were definitely designed originally as boat graves. I realize you disagree with me on that point. So be it.
Meanwhile, I'll read some O'Connor on Abydos, but such fleet mooring with mudbrick is a far cry from 600 tons of monolithic cover stones to 'bury' a single boat.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10-Sep-16 05:56 by Origyptian.