> 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
But they didn't just "lift one block a foot or two"-they moved all the blocks into position. How do we know this? Because the the blocks are covered with quarry marks on multiple sides, including hieroglyphs, as well as the fact the blocks are sealed with mortar between the blocks. To quote Jenkins:
Marks made by the ancient quarrymen are still visible on many of the stones, hieroglyphs scrawled in red and yellow ochre and in lampblack. They have the hasty and abbreviated look of foremen's instructions about how the stones were to be quarried. The marks apparently include references to measurements in cubits (the ancient Egyptian cubit was the equivalent of 52.3 cm), as well as the royal cartouche of Djedefre, the son of Cheops, the same cartouche that Mallakh had identified when he first uncovered the stones. With the exception of Djedefre's cartouche, which was already well known, the marks have not been identified. Further study may reveal more about ancient quarrying techniques. One thing the marks have established is the position of Djedefre in the Fourth Dynasty king-list: it seems certain that if he were the one to bury Cheops, he must logically have been Cheops' successor.
From another source:
Eighteen cartouches bearing the name of King Dedefre, the builder of the incomplete Pyramid at Abu-Roash were found among the quarry marks on the upper surfaces of blocks Nos. 15, 19, 20, 23, 30, 34, 35 and 40, the lower surfaces of blocks Nos. 5, 7, 9 and 20, the northern sides of blocks Nos. 34 and 38, and the eastern sides of blocks Nos. 5 and 33 (PI. XI, A).
So they put quarry marks all over these blocks because they lifted "one stone" a foot and slid the pieces of the boat in? There is no doubt the AE placed the boat and the blocks.
> 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.
These are 15-20 blocks. The average block size of G1 is 2.5 tons. And I said before if you can lift a 20 ton block a few feet you can certainly lift a 2.5 ton block 4-5ft-the height of the courses of G1 which comprise what-99% of the blocks?
> But I think
> it unlikely the OK would embark on such a boat pit
They obviously did exactly such things:
Or are you going to argue this is not a boat pit?
Yes, the southern pits are different in shape which does suggest they may have had a different function originally, but the fact is the AE buried boats inside of them and covered them with dozens of 15-20 blocks nonetheless. Why waste a perfectly good trench just to build another for a boat that will easily fit?
> 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.
Nor would digging the pit in the first place and covering them with dozens of 15-20 blocks as we know they did. I find it silly that the most you are willing to allow these primitive "stinky footed bumpkins" is the ability to barely lift just one block a mere 12" so they could have just enough room (in your uninformed opinion) to slide in over 1200 ship components some of which were 75ft long weighing at least 1 ton. Not only that, they were also able to place the boat with great care in order of assembly through this 12" hole and while they were at it drew quarry marks all over the blocks on multiple sides for blocks you claim they did not even quarry.
> 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.
The point is moot as we know they did not do this, but it is impossible as you are describing it regardless. Think about it-you are trying to slide in a one ton 75ft long piece of wood at ground level though a 1ft hole into a chamber barely 10ft deep. You would have to dig a long deep trench leading to the hole to create sufficient angle to get it into the chamber. I'm sure some brainiac out there can do the math.
> I see no need to
> hew a separate long ramp as you described.
Well, you would regardless, but this comment was directed to your question of why did they not just bury the boat in one piece which to do so, of course, you would have to cut a long deep trench.
> 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 don't and regardless it does not matter as the quarry marks are incontrovertible proof they did not.
> 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.
Well, good luck for them getting in your 12" hole in the first place-but of course they would need torches. In your scenario there would be workers inside this pit for hours at a time responsible for perfectly placing all the boat parts in order not to mention drawing all of the quarry marks on the underside of all those blocks they didn't actually quarry.
> I also disagree with your assessment of the effort
> to hew a "gallery" cave vs. the open pit with
> cover slabs.
To carve a cave you have to have a vertical surface to cut into in the first place, like a hill, which there is not next to the pyrmaids. And regardless, we know for a fact they did not want to do this for boat burials which they obviously wanted as close to the pyramid as possible. Again:
The effort to make this boat pit was not much less if not equal to the southern pits given the extra craftsmanship required to shape it yet they did not think it "easier" or "better" to cut a gallery out of a hillside and obviously choose to cut a trench right there on the plateau just like all of the other boat pits. We do not need to wonder or make things up that are not there as we can see exactly how they made these boats pits right at this very location which every single one are trenches, not galleries. The score on that one is 35-0. Game over.
> 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.
So was this just a copy of something from the LC they did not understand but made one just like it anyways? Then they found this weird trench they were able to lift one block 12" and bury it in complete darkness and just for the fun of it drew quarry marks all over the blocks to pretend like they quarried them when they really didn't? Sounds perfectly reasonable.
So they made this highly complex ship just like all of their other ships yet this could not actually float like the other ships:
The Abydos boats as well as others were found using the same system so I guess they were all fake boats which they pictured themselves sailing in fake boats, making fake boats, talking about their adventures and trades in the fake boats which all just so happened to be just like the actual boats.
Their boats with which they carry cargoes are made of the thorny acacia, of which the form is very like that of the Kyrenian lotos, and that which exudes from it is gum. From this tree they cut pieces of wood about two cubits in length and arrange them like bricks, fastening the boat together by running a great number of long bolts through the two-cubits pieces; and when they have thus fastened the boat together, they lay cross-pieces over the top, using no ribs for the sides; and within they caulk the seams with papyrus. They make one steering-oar for it, which is passed through the bottom of the boat; and they have a mast of acacia and sails of papyrus. These boats cannot sail up the river unless there be a very fresh wind blowing, but are towed from the shore: from this acacia tree they cut planks 3 feet long, which they put together like courses of brick, building up the hull as follows: they joined these three foot lengths together with long close set dowels; when they have built up the hull in this fashion they stretch cross beams over them. They use no ribs, and they caulk the seams from the inside, using papyrus....
Another fairy tale from ancient historians I presume.
> 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.
There are no "enigmas" regarding the boat's functionality and regardless of what the two southern pits were made for originally there is zero doubt they ended up being used as boat pits covered by dozens of 15-20 blocks quarried moved and placed by the Dynastic Egyptians. This is the point of the OP.
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 13-Sep-16 00:13 by Thanos5150.