> MJT wrote:
> > Hello Scott,
> > It is a demonstrable fact that your Antechamber hypothesis
> > simply does not work.
> Hi MJT
> I am not comfortably familiar with how large blocks, levers,
> counterweights etc such as those involved in the portcullis
> operate,so I was both fascinated and intrigued by Scott's
> theory. I can't get my head round it, even with his animated
> Thankfully, you have stated that it is a demonstrable fact that
> it simply does not work.
> For those of us not too au fait with the physics of raising and
> lowering large stones in a confined space, could you now make
> clear (in writing if that is possible - I appreciate it may
> require a diagram) that the hypothesis does not work by
> demonstrating it as a fact? You know, rather than just stating
The Granite Leaf is cemented in place, and therefore was/is immovable.
Apart from this singular fatal clincher:
The top of the Leaf is 'a mere natural surface of the granite boulder out of which it was cut, utterly rough and irregular; and not materially broken away as it dips down deeply into the grooves and is there plastered over.' (Petrie 1883).
The level of the top of the Leaf from east end to west end varies by at least 7.75" – between the faces of the wainscots the difference is less at about 5.25”.
The thickness of the Leaf (north-south) at its west end is 1” greater than at its east end.
The Boss on the north face of the Leaf's upper section projects only 0.94" to 1.1", and its edges slope slightly outward from front to back, and is, therefore, clearly inadequate as a point at which to place the upper end of a prop (note: Similar bosses exist in other parts of the Antechamber and inside the King’s Chamber).
There is only a 20" gap between the north wall of the Antechamber and the north face of the Leaf.
When fully raised the upper section of the Leaf would be free of its grooves and unstable - no explanation is offered as to how this would have been controlled adequately.
The grooves above the varied-in-level top of the Leaf are well-finished and clear of any signs of wear and have no traces of plaster or cement – this implies strongly that the Leaf was not raised once it was in place.
The pilaster at the south face of the Leaf is nearly half the width of the other two pilasters (3” against 5.7”) – suggesting a matter of geometry not functionality.
There are no signs of plaster or cement in the three grooves for the portcullis blocks.
There are no signs of wear in the top of the Antechamber’s north doorway similar to that seen in the doorway in the south wall of the Grand Gallery, and the doorway in the south wall of the Antechamber.
There are no semi-circular hollows in the top of the east wainscot.
If the east end of the logs were cut and put into place as suggested (see most recent images posted), then the logs would drop in level W-E by about half the radius of the semi-circular hollows at about 4.4” over a distance of about 41”.
If the Antechamber was intended to be a properly functioning portcullis system (for whatever reason), then surely care would have been taken to ensure it worked efficiently and easily.
The above indicates that it would not have done so.
Then there is the fact that such a system was totally unnecessary, anyway.
All that is required for Scott’s and Gary’s RVT was for a block of limestone measuring slightly less than 43.75” high by 41.25” wide by, say, 36” long, to be slid into the passage between the south wall of the Grand Gallery and the north wall of the Antechamber.
Fit handles to the GG end of the block so that it can be hauled out onto the Great Step quite easily as and when required.
Smear a bit of plaster into the gaps between the sides of the doorway and the block and BINGO, one efficient and easy to use re-sealable passage.
Another issue is the fact that it is wrong to view the Antechamber in isolation.
However, I see that Scott and others have tried to link the Antechamber to the Grand Gallery as an integral part of a system to seal the Ascending Passage with three (or more?) stone blocks, and or drag large granite beams up to the King’s Chamber.
However, the problems with the Granite Leaf, etc., have an adverse effect on this.
Then there is the problem with the rectangular holes in the tops of the two GG ramps.
Broadly, there are two lengths of hole - described usually as long and short - and they are all irregular in length and their ends are not all positioned diametrically opposite each other (see Piazzi Smyth 1867).
The depths of these holes are also varied (this could be down to a natural accumulation of detritus over the millennia).
Any beams placed across the Gallery would be skewed N-S by up to 2”, which would cause problems with the granite plugs that were supposedly stored in the Gallery.
The groove in the east and west walls of the GG is very roughly cut and much broken away from along its edges.
The groove is only about 1” deep and is close to the bottom edge of a corbel.
It could not have been used to support a platform for people to walk along, as some folk have suggested.
At least one point on the Ascending Passage floor is fractionally narrower than one of the granite plugs at its lower end, suggesting that the blocks were built in situ (see M & R).
I hope this gives you (and perhaps others here) a better idea of why Scott’s Antechamber hypothesis is, IMO, fatally flawed and does not work.
So few answers - and not one of them mine.