> Hello MJT,
> but it is hard to reconcile that Petire
> of all people, a veritable Egyptian granite expert, would have
> mistaken granite for plaster.
My understanding is that Petrie (a person whom I greatly admire) went to Egypt in November 1880 as a surveyor not a geologist, so it is, I feel, misleading to describe him as 'a veritable Egyptian granite expert'.
One advantage the Edgar brothers had on Petrie was lighting, and, AFAIK, Petrie did not take a sample of the granite/plaster outside to examine it.
Now, if Petrie was right to say the fragment was granite then are we to take it the Edgar's '... several similar pieces of plaster adhering to the angles of the floor and walls throughout the length of the passage...' were also actually granite?
But this would imply that the whole of the Ascending Passage was filled with blocks of granite, in which case Al Mamun's tunnel past the three granite plugs would not be as short as it is.
I agree that a third opinion wouldn't go amiss here, but meantime I'll stay on the side of the Edgar brothers.
> it is hard to consider the Edgar
> Brothers particularly credible.
Is this because of their associating the dimensions of the Pyramid with the Bible, etc?
> I do not agree with much of what he says, but Robert Temple's
> books are an excellent modern source of antiquarian Egyptology.
> In that regard, he is quite the zealous researcher and
> archivist. "Mystery of the Sphinx" is very interesting if only
> for this reason, otherwise it is quite a painful read.
I have read Temple's book on the Sphinx, but recall little of it ...
> B. Emery's "Archaic Egypt" (1950's) is required reading for
> anyone interested in Egypt on any level. Probably the most
> prized book in my library.
I have not read this; I'll see if I can get a copy through the public library service.
So few answers - and not one of them mine.