> Origyptian Wrote:
> > 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.
> 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.
The vast majority of painted marks could have been applied on exposed surfaces after completion of construction without ever moving any block other than 1 or 2 entry blocks (see below).
> 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.
None of the major dimensions of the 1st boat pit show any indication of the use of a 52.3cm Egyptian cubit. Regarding the "hasty and abbreviated look", see my comment further down...
> 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).
What's ironic is that with all the bolding you've done, you missed the key point: "eastern sides".
It's easy to paint glyphs on the top, bottom, and north and south sides of those blocks while they're all still in situ (assuming 1 or 2 were lifted at one end to gain access to the pit). But there are 2 blocks that are reported to have glyphs painted on the eastern sides which might not have been possible if those blocks were already mortared to their eastern neighbors. And so I'd be very interested in whether those blocks were sticking up significantly farther than the neighboring blocks to the east and/or whether they can be more easily lifted than the others, and also where on the eastern surface those glyphs were found. For example, the investigators claim that the blocks were mortared together, so how did they see the glyphs if they were covered with mortar? Were all the joints not mortared? Were those glyphs painted onto the exposed surfaces of those 2 blocks (e.g, if they were taller than their neighbors)? We really cannot make assumptions about those glyphs based on that level of reporting.
By the way, what information do you think the presence of those glyphs conveys? Jenkins shows a selection of triangular painted graphics that had not yet been translated at the time of her printing. Has anyone translated them yet? If not, what's the problem?
> 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.
Thanos, I get it, there is no doubt in your mind. I see other possibilities in the geometry and physics, and I see written documentation that's devoid of sufficient details about the physical evidence found in that investigation. If we disagree, I'm ok with that, but I see more possibilities than the traditional narrative.
> > 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?
That's a forced analogy. The technology and effort required to create and position those boat pit blocks is trivial compared to what's required to build all those megalithic pyramids within that alleged 200 year span. And what's your explanation for the remaining "1%"? And by the way, the "2.5 ton" is "average" which means 50% of them were more than 2.5 tons, and many were much heavier than 15 tons, many weighing as much as 80 tons and made of granite placed 160' above ground level.
Nevertheless, based on the evidence I've seen so far, the geometry of the southern boat pits indicate other possibilities besides an "indisputable" 4th dynasty provenance.
> > But I think it unlikely the OK
> > would embark on such a boat pit project.
> They obviously did exactly such things:
> Or are you going to argue this is not a boat pit?
Of course I am, or at least I'm going to continue arguing that there's no proof it was originally designed to be a boat pit. Do you believe they must have been boat pits simply because the walls are tapered? That's a very big stretch in logic, in my opinion. It reminds me of when so many people mischaracterized the shafts in the QC as being "air shafts" when they seem to really be no such thing, any more than the QC has anything to do with a "queen" and the KC has anything to do with a "king" (other than the traditional inferences drawn in modern times based on roof geometry).
> 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?
So you're acknowledging that those southern pits may indeed have already been there for the dynastics to repurpose after their original construction, and so they may in fact not have been originally designed to house boats. I can accept as "possibility" (not yet "fact" though) that the dynastics reused that "perfectly good trench" that they found there. But I see no reason to accept as "fact" that those cover stones were not already installed in place as well. Otherwise, what purpose would you attribute to such a rectangular "perfectly good trench" found without a cover?
It's been suggested earlier in this discussion that the boats had to have been "buried" in an open pit because of the requirement of a religious ceremony. Not only is that speculation, it contradicts the "why waste a perfectly good trench" if the ceremony also required the trench to be tapered as are the others. Likewise, if the OK were able to hew a 60'-100' deep shaft which terminates in a chamber deep in the bedrock for various matabas and funerary storage (e.g., Hetepheres), the same could have been done for boats which would have secured them as undetected and sealed from the environment far more easier than what's been found there.
> > 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.
It might be silly, but it's not what I said. I never said all they could do was "barely lift just one block a mere 12 inches", I said that's all they needed to do since the pit and cover stones may already have been there when the dynastics arrived on the scene.
Why do you believe they would have trouble sliding pieces of cedar that are up to 1 ton and 75' long into that pit?
> 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.
The painting of glyph instructions for quarrying the dozens 15 ton cover stones was "hasty and abbreviated", and yet the wooden parts were placed "with great care"? Perhaps they only appeared hasty and abbreviated because of the awkwardness of painting into the relatively narrow spaces on the north and south side, or with the limited lighting on the underside once the workers entered the pit through an end breach.
And I didn't say it would have been a 12 inch "hole". If they were able to lift an entire end block, the breach could be a 1' high (or more) entry point that spanned the entire width of the pit. Plenty of room to fit a work group that could insert and place all that wood "with great care" within the 32m long, 3.3m deep pit.
I don't know what your point is about emphasizing "with great care". The parts were stacked directly on top of each other with barely a layer of fabric inserted between every other layer. Other than half a handful of small limestone blocks, no shelving or structural supports were used to position the wood components. As a result, the bottom layers essentially turned into dust due to the pressure and mosture over the millennia. There was no diagram in the pit indicating how to assemble the parts of the 1st boat pit, so Hag tried 4 different reconstruction arrangements before he settled on the final version, and there still were parts left over. Meanwhile, the alleged rope lashings were found piled in a rat's nest disarray and not placed in any orderly fashion whatsoever, let alone with great care:
As I said, no torches were used since any stray cinder would have torched the place. The fact is, what was found in the pit could have been inserted there by a handful of men in low reflected lighting after lifting one or two blocks toward one end of the pit.
> > 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.
A long trench leading to the hole is unnecessary. The geometry is such that a 23m piece of wood can fit easily into a 32m, 3.3m deep pit if only 1 or 2 blocks were lifted at one end. If the wood is curved (such as a piece of the hull), all the more likely only a single block needed to be lifted, especially adjacent to the small "ramp" at the end of the pit reported by M&R which may have been created to increase the size of the opening once the end block was lifted - otherwise, making such a "ramp" on an incline into the pit doesn't makes little sense:
> > 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 never meant that the boat would be "buried" in one piece. I was thinking that it would be installed directly into G1 in one piece. That could have been a lot easier since it precludes the needs to construct the pit and to also quarry, shape, transport, and position the cover stones, and it also reduces the amount of masonry needed in G1 since it would include another large empty cavity akin to the GG. I understand there might be a reason to not actually install the ship into G1 while the king was still alive, but they certainly could have brought the wooden components into G1 and then reassembled it in place as part of the funerary proceedings. Otherwise, why go rogue only with boats and specifically preclude them from joining the rest of the funerary deposit? For that matter, why mention "Djedefre" 18 times in the first boat pit without a single mention of Khufu if Djedefre really did construct those pits for his dad in memoriam?
> > 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.
The ramp is there (see the above illustration).
What do the quarry marks say that incontrovertibly prove to you how the wooden parts were installed into the pit?
> > 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.
For that matter, where are all the torch marks in the subterranean chamber and passage in G1 or any other pyramid with excavations into bedrock? I'm quite sure workers were down in the bowels of the pyramid FAR longer than what it took to hew the southern boat pit, and yet no ancient torch marks are seen as an artifact of the original construction (not to mention how they were able to breath amidst all that dust and a narrow 150' long tunnel up to the surface as their sole air supply).
Meanwhile, it's well accepted that the OK had the wherewithal to develop rudimentary light reflectors, e.g., made of polished stone or copper sheets (the latter having the advantage of being able to easily focus the light). And so it certainly was highly likely that the 4th Dynasty was able to direct light through a 1' tall, 7' wide opening into an otherwise covered pit located right there at the surface of the bedrock.
> > 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.
It's only "obvious" if you already subscribe to your stated perspective which has not yet actually been proven. By stating it's "obvious", or "incontrovertible", or definitely intended to house a boat only shows a bias to make the narrative self-consistent without considering the true limitations and ambiguities of the evidence.
> Again: [s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com]
> 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.
And perhaps that's because the southern pits were built before the dynastic period and we never originally intended to house any boat in the first place. Besides which, I am skeptical that the 2 southern, if any, pits were originally designed to house any funerary boats.
> 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.
So then why "make up" the notion that those tapered pits were originally intended to house boats? Why "make up" the notion that only boats were relegated to the back of the bus (ie, not included with the rest of the funerary deposit)? And why would the southern boats not be included within, rather than under, the confines of the perimeter wall demarcating the funerary domain?
> > 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.
Apparently yes, since the vast majority of wood found in boat pits is Lebanese cedar and not acacia, and his description of the construction doesn't seem to apply to what we see assembled from the wood from the first boat 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.
> 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.
And I disagree. The southern pits are loaded to the gills with enigmas.
I'm simply trying to assess possibilities that are supported, and not contradicted, by the evidence, and there seems to be more than one viable paradigm. But how does one objectively assess the likelihood of each component within each paradigm without falling into the "associative" trap which may be based on faulty presumptions at the outset?
Meanwhile, I'd love to find more details about the paint marks. I am unaware of any translation of those marks (other than discussed above) found inside either southern boat pit.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 12-Sep-16 15:23 by Origyptian.