> 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'.
I don't think one needs to be a geologist to be an expert at knowing the difference between plaster and granite. Petrie I am sure took great consideration to familiarize himself with the different reported stones used in construction and upon arriving in Egypt to survey, one of the first things he would have done would have been to study in detail the building materials as to materially differentiate his surveys. Petrie may not have been an "expert" of Egyptian granite the day he showed up, but certainly was when he left and no doubt was not confused about which was which when he entered G1 to make these observations. This doesn't mean he could not have made a casual mistake, but regardless, until proven otherwise he should be given the benefit of the doubt. Neither the Edgar brothers were geologists and John Edgar was a professor of gynecology. Maybe that makes him an expert of large passages, I don't know.
> 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.
Did the Edgar Bros use electric lighting in 1910 or so?
He didn't take a sample, but unless they say so elsewhere neither did the Edgar Brothers: on pg 5 of Great Pyramid Passages Vol 2 (1913) they say upon "later closer examination" they came to this conclusion, but don't say anything about removing it from G1 and analyzing it. Also, they "assume" they found what Petrie was talking about. And regardless, Petrie says he saw a "bit" of granite "cemented" to the floor-the "bit" and the "cement" should be distinguishable from one other should they not? Is it possible the plaster the Edgar Bros saw is the "cement" and the granite "bit", or "piece", was what Petrie saw attached to it 30(ish)yrs earlier?
Regardless, I am not discounting the Edgar Bros may be right, they probably are, and it is possible a "bit" of granite stuck to a blob of plaster during repairs, but regardless of the interest of earlier first hand accounts, like I said, until a 3rd party can confirm I would side with Petrie in that I cannot discount his opinion until proven otherwise.
> 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
No, of course not. If Petrie is right then the Edgar bros were not looking in the right spot or possibly the "bit" Petrie saw 30yrs earlier had dislodged somehow leaving only the plaster, neither of which makes any of the plaster remnants of granite.
Another question this raises, regardless of the "bit" Petrie reports, why did the sealed interior only accessible at that point from the well shaft require so many plaster repairs? I would assume this was the same plaster found in the exploded KC as well.
> Is this because of their associating the dimensions of the
> Pyramid with the Bible, etc?
Yes. They are kooks.
> I have not read this; I'll see if I can get a copy through the
> public library service.
Archaic Egypt is a classic. Required reading. Walter B. Emery is one of the unsung greats or Egyptology and is odd to me he does not get more recognition.
Post Edited (24-Jun-12 17:00)