It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more


page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 12:55 PM

originally posted by: punkinworks10
a reply to: Harte
Hi Harte,
The other thing that people don't realise is that the kings chamber was likely finished while it was still under an open sky, so no torches needed.

Correct, and any finishing work done once the roof was on would have used two old Egyptian mainstays to avoid soot, covering the ceiling and sides with mud, that collects the soot then is washed away or textiles that were put up, collected the soot then removed. They also used castor oil which gives off very little smoke as it is.

posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 02:25 PM
a reply to: Dolour

there werent any traces of carbon found, neiter from torches inside the buildings, nor on any of the material thats been tested.
something "pyramidiots" love to point out btw, and a good example on how much egyptology gives about evidence as long as it doesent serve their purpose. :p

I don't know where you get this nonsensical claim, there are indeed traces of carbon and soot inside the pyramids. Even the Great Pyramid "air shafts" have traces of soot. Did the soot come from Egyptian lamps/torches? Unlikely or very minimally, they had an oil lamp where the wick floated in oil and gave off very little soot (and probably very little light for working by). Pumpkin addressed that concern. However we also know that the pyramids have been violated since antiquity. Looters and early explorers burned much cruder torches that gave off a lot of soot. Early explorers like Al-Mamoun and Vyse used black powder to blast open passages contaminating everything with soot and nitrates. Even the relieving chambers have 1960's era graffiti written in soot with cigarette lighters. With such a heavily contaminated environment, testing any traces of soot would be an exercise in futility.

There are simply no records from the AE to suggest how they lit the interior of the pyramids. We can speculate, that's about it. As others have noted, the bulk of the work in the interior was most likely done before it was enclosed. A good indicator could be the size of Khufu's sarcophagus, which is larger than the opening to the King's Chamber - indicating it was placed in there and chamber built around it. If the chamber had to remain open for the placing of the sarcophagus, why not leave it open and sunlit to perform other work? The ascending passage is corbel vaulted. Leaving the last couple layers of the vault off would have provided ample daylighting to work by. Of course, the interior of the Great Pyramid has been picked clean, no one can say what was once in there artwork-wise.

TBH I forget just what point I was replying to...
Suffice to say, the presence or lack of soot and/or carbon in the interior passage proves nothing. Arguing for or against carbon testing in the interior passages is pointless due to contamination over 4,500 years of looters, robbers and destructive explorations.

Edit to add: Oops, Hans beat me to it
edit on 24-7-2014 by Blackmarketeer because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 04:19 PM
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Nah you did a more thorough job. Lehner has theory that the interior of some of the rooms had wooden panels in them with decorations on them, there are some indications of such installations but as noted so much time and damage has been done to the interior trying to make definite conclusions about what was what and where is at best limited to generalities.

Like it was a tomb or cenotaph built in the IV dynasty for Khufu, details are hard to come by but seeing it was built in a an existing necropolis does give some folks certain clues!

The times I visited it I was always taken by the forlorn look of the interior stone work but that is merely a subjective judgement.

posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 05:33 PM
a reply to: Hanslune

Lehner offers a valid theory that the inner passages and chamber may have once held painted panels, it's as good a reason as any for the presence of the holes lining the ascending passage. Painted wood panels are also an ancient form of art, we have preserved works dating to 500 BC in Greece, then there are also Coptic period "mummy portraits" preserved from the 3rd c. BC. So it's a very plausible theory the walls of the Great Pyramid could have been decorated with installed panels, long since looted.

The walls may also have been finished in painted-over plaster, as the walls of Mankaure's mortuary temple are, even though those walls are of mudbrick. There's no official rule saying the AE had to paint directly on the walls or carve directly in them.

On top of all this, we have to contend with the fact that Khufu did not appear to be very popular after his death, and aside from the potential looting that was known to have happened by the New Kingdom, there is the possibility artwork in the GP may have been purposely removed to eradicate his name from it. I mean, the only likeness of his to survive into the modern era is a tiny 4 inch statuette.

posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 06:00 PM
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

An Egyptologist friend of mine once observed that trying to fully understand the motivations of the AE was like trying to read a message written in black ink on black paper at night with a flashlight with no battery. You know there is a message, you can almost feel it, but it cannot be read.
edit on 24/7/14 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 07:51 PM

First, let me thank Harte for both pointing to a broken bit of stone working and attempting to educate me on some of the methods used by the ancient Egyptians. I do appreciate that. I also greatly appreciate the free source material covering the topic. I haven’t read it in its entirety yet, but I will surely do so when I have the time.

Now, as for Dolour’s responses (forgive me for not using the quotation feature, I’m still very much new to these forums and their tags)…

First, I would not call a schist “layered.” More precisely, a schist is foliated, which actually indicates a layering of plate-like mineral species into distinct bands… And these layers of minerals do not have to be flat, and are often folded.

As for the level of differentiation of magma to produce granites, I must disagree. I just got back from a trip to Southern Ontario (academic, of course…) where we routinely saw large masses of granite of consistent mineral species and layering (I'm going to show you some of the samples I've collected). In fact, you’re more likely to see a difference in grain sizes from contact with a colder host rock (a chill zone) than you would see anything distinctly different elsewhere, if the rock is simply a body of granite. And I will remind you; the granite does not necessarily need to be injected into cold host rock, and thus does not need to show much of a chill zone. Igneous bodies can be very massive and very consistent (for the most part). Not just small chunks, large masses, road cuts of exposed granite a story or higher, spanning some kilometers where not uncommon. That said, I am indeed unfamiliar with the granites found in Egypt, but would expect to see something similar… There are only so many ways to produce granite.

I will post some pictures of my rocks and again mention that these “coincidental features” of twinning and mineral cleavage are actually inherent properties of the rock… I apologize in advance for the terrible lighting and picture quality… Phones are not supposed to be cameras…

Hopefully these images aren't too large...

Notice the nice angles I got from merely smashing the rocks in an attempt to not have to carry giant blocks of granite. Notice the luster of the flat twinning surfaces, which you will note that the Amazonite is bound by two such surfaces… Notice that getting a flat piece of granite might be easier than you think.
As for expertise in machining, I grant you that. I have none, and I will take you word that the work is worthy of admiration and wonder.

As for the sarcophagus, not every painter can be Rembrandt. Not every physicist can be Einstein. Sometimes there are just people who excel at what they do, before a time when they should be able to do it… They outshine their peers as well as (sometimes) the generations that come after. No offense, but these people might have spent their entire lives, their entire childhoods, learning how to do that kind of work. We go to school, get balanced educations, or just have fun.

As for the sample I created, tiny. I was making it as a gift and didn’t want the recipient to have to carry a large chunk of rock.

Now do allow me to say thank you for educating me, as well, Dolour. I’ve gained a deeper appreciation of what the ancient Egyptians must have gone through to create those huge blocks. In searching for answers, I found this wikipedia page... It shows some unfinished granite blocks about midway down the page.

Sincere regards,
A rock hound.

edit on 24-7-2014 by hydeman11 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-7-2014 by hydeman11 because: image links issue...

posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 07:38 PM
a reply to: immoralist

Read your inbox.... Im messaging you now

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in