Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Ellison Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Warwick Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > this discussion demonstrates that an inner
> coffer
> > > could easily have been transported to the
> finished KC.
> > >
> > > If there were one, of course.
> > >
> > > Warwick
> >
> > It demonstrates that absolutely anything
> smaller
> > than and including the granite coffer could
> have
> > been easily transported to the finished KC
> through
> > the AC passageways.
> > Nothing larger than the granite coffer could
> have
> > been transported into the KC.
> >
> > So yes, you are correct in your observation. A
> > human being can be transported or transit into
> > into the KC.
>
> If you are correct about the box originally having
> relevance to the AC, then this goes back to the
> alleged granite portcullis blocks. If someone
> found the stone box inside the AC and moved it
> into the KC to get it out of the way, then why not
> just put the portcullis blocks in the KC as well?

If the portcullis blocks were of granite and of little worth too a tomb robber then this would seem reasonable.
If however they were comprised of a more valuable material, then their complete removal and consequent disappearance would seem a reasonable assumption.
This would apply to anything of value regardless of the structures possible purpose.


> While this could be a reason to argue that the
> box, therefore, wasn't found in the AC at all.
> However, it also raises a question about the
> granite portcullis blocks since neither the
> granite box nor granite portcullis blocks were
> ever reported by a credible source to have
> originally been found in the AC.

I doubt that a credible source could have reported a granite box within the AC, as to gain access the box had to have been pushed into the KC by those who made the first ever incursion. Probably in antiquity and probably treasure hunters or robbers with little interest in documenting and reporting the original 'as found' arrangement.

>
> In truth, regardless of the reason that the
> granite box was found in an askewed orientation in
> the KC, propped up by a piece of flint which
> apparently was retrieved from
> outside of G1 (for whatever reason
> Petrie though might account for that), it's
> nevertheless quite an enigma that those alleged
> granite porcullis fragments were found in such
> disperse locations as...
>
>

- Outside the Main Entrance
> - Wedged into the first 90 degree downward elbow
> in the Well Shaft
> - In the western recess of the short HP leading to
> the SC
> - At the lower step inside the Pit.

>
> A far easier way to explain those various
> relatively remote locations of those fragements is
> that their original function was related to
> structural components in the local vicinity where
> they were found and not all the way up at the AC.

Do we know for sure that the fragments are in fact pieces of portcullis blocks?
What evidence is there to support that idea?


> Likewise, the pattern of damage we see on the
> vertical ribs of the AC do not support the notion
> that those granite fragments originally comprised
> portcullis blocks in the AC. Rather, it seems far
> more plausible (to me at least) that the channels
> in the AC were occupied by something other than
> simply those granite blocks, something valuable
> which was taken away.

The pattern of damage on the vertical ribs is indicative of objects being removed in one piece.
If stone portcullis blocks were broken in order to remove them, then why the pattern of damage to the ribs?
Why break up both the ribs and the blocks?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 20-Nov-17 19:38 by Jon Ellison.