> For the record, the only "wild assumptions"
> made were that they were, 1)Greek characters and,
> 2) installed by Romans.
> They are neither Greek, nor were they installed by
To follow up here on what is "wild assumptions" or not.
Based on this photo Cladking says:
It looks something like I'd expect a "blueprint" of G1 to appear. Perhaps the symbols are to be painted on the stones to say which face of the pyramid the stone was destined for. Of course stones weren't quarried at Elephantine but the silver bar on which the symbols are inscribed doesn't seem to be in its "natural" position.
It occurs to me that the grid pattern there appears to be "logarithmic" something like a slide rule. This could explain their robust means of leveling their pyramids. If the stones came out of the earth in different thicknesses then they could just transfer this thickness to a string or standard rod and compare it to this grid. Stones would be sorted for their proper position in the pyramid and then sent on with a mark to show which "Overseer of the Side of the Pyramid" would recieve the stone. No matter how far off the pyramid got in one direction it could quickly be brought back into true even by bumpkins.
There is a pyramid at Elephantine and its courses appear to fall within the width of the grid patterns.
If this picture is from anywhere near a quarry or way point it seems this may well be the purpose. I'm guessing the symbols right to left are S, W, E, N and the 5th one is their "bird's eye view" or composite view to show anything that doesn't appear in the other views.
Which Origyptian adds to defend Cladking:
They're not all Greek, are they? What are the non-Greek symbols? If we think those blocks were added later, then how do we know those characters weren't added to those blocks after the pattern was engraved into them? For all we know, those blocks might have been originally made to be installed horizontally, in which case more language options arise. How has any of that structure actually been dated with any certainty? For a great example of not seeing the forest through the trees, just look at what is very likely a traditionally catastrophic misinterpretation of the "Pregnant Lady" at Baalbek (in my opinion).
For that matter, those Nilometer blocks have an eery resemblance to the cyclopean block with essentially the same 10-step pattern on the other side of the planet in the Andes. I'm doubting that monolith is measuring any depth up there at 19,000 feet.
Also in the same part of the world is this wall in Trujillo.
Maybe the Romans traveled to Peru to make those blocks too, eh?
And all that based on looking at a picture on the internet. That as it turns out was made by 19th century Arabs to measure the flood levels of the Nile as they had done for thousands of years before.
Compare those "wild assumptions" with the honest mistake, akin to a "clerical error", of attributing them to the Romans (something implied by several sources I looked at) knowing that the Romans did restore this very site and the characters do appear Greek, of which prior to Audrey's post none here including yourself disputed. So no, hardly a "wild assumption".
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02-Nov-15 17:37 by Thanos5150.