jump to navigation

That’s some old rope June 23, 2008

Posted by argotnavis in Archaeology, News.
Tags: , ,
1 comment so far

Discovery News has a story (via) about a presentation Rodolfo Fattovich and Kathryn Bard gave on the ropes they’ve found at Wadi Gawasis. There are some nice pictures in the slideshow, but I really wish they had a picture of the cave they found the rope in, as 30 huge coils of 4,000-year-old rope is a much more spectacular thing to see than it sounds like. Anyway, I just thought I’d throw a quick link to that story; there are a couple of cool pictures, and Wadi Gawasis is a pretty interesting site . . . even if ancient rope isn’t entirely your thing.

More on the concrete pyramids May 1, 2008

Posted by argotnavis in Archaeology, News.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

So, there's this story about marine fossils in the stones the pyramids are made of (via ArchaeoBlog). Here's the gist of it for you:

'The fossils are largely undamaged and are distributed in a random manner within the stone, in accordance with their typical distribution at sea floors.

So, Liritzis and his team argue that the large building stones used to construct the monuments must have been carved out of natural stone instead of cast in moulds.

To further their argument, the scientists say the x-ray patterns detect no presence of lime, which would be expected along with the salt natron, which would indicate cast materials.

They also point out there are no references of moulds, buckets or other casting tools in early Egyptian paintings, sculptures or texts.'

Anthony over at ArchaeoBlog pulled out the best quote from the people arguing for concrete in the article, and I feel like I have to repeat it here:

'”There is no evidence known that suggests the ancient Egyptians had cranes,” he says. “Without cranes, it is difficult to imagine how they could have lifted giant stones, some as heavy as 200 tonnes.”'

Well, I'm certainly convinced. I can't imagine an explanation for putting the blocks in place that doesn't involve cranes. (Oh, by the way: I was being sarcastic.)

The concrete pyramids? April 25, 2008

Posted by argotnavis in Archaeology, News.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

There was this story in the Boston Globe on Wednesday, although I just read it today (via). It's interesting, and I needed a non-automotive reason to ramble today, so I thought I'd give my thoughts on it. I'm not an Egyptologist, and Egypt is not my primary area of interest, so I can only really give an outsider's perspective, but I do know at least a couple things about ancient Egypt.

I'll start off with a minor annoyance. Here's the quote:

'And no whips cracked overhead last week as Myat-Noe-Zin Myint, Rachel Martin, and three other undergraduates stuffed quivering just-mixed “Egyptian” concrete into cobblestone-sized wooden molds marked “King Tut Plywood Co.”'

Tutankhamun did not build a pyramid, nor was he buried in one. Similarly, Queen Elizabeth II's reign has not been marked by very many Viking attacks. I know, it's just a cutesy thing, and it probably wouldn't annoy me much, except that when I was taking intro archaeology, one of the other students in the class was convinced that King Tut had, in fact, been buried in a pyramid. That's a minor complaint, though.

The gist of the article is that a materials science professor at MIT is doing an experiment to determine whether or not the ancient Egyptians could have been making concrete. In this sense, the title of the article, “A new angle on pyramids”, is not very apt. As the article itself points out:

“The idea that some pyramid blocks were cast of concrete-like material was aggressively advanced in the 1980s by French chemical engineer Joseph Davidovits . . .”

Most people, myself included, probably do not consider 20+-year-old “angles” all that “new.”

To start off, there are a couple quotes from Egyptologists in the article. Zahi Hawass had this to say about it:

'”It's highly stupid,” he said via a spokesman. “The pyramids are made from solid blocks of quarried limestone. To suggest otherwise is idiotic and insulting.”'

A little acidic, but I feel like he's generally that way when dealing with any, um, “alternative” notions about the pyramids (this one is certainly more sensible than most).

Kathryn Bard was a bit nicer about it:

'”There is just no evidence for making concrete, and there is no evidence that ancient Egyptians used the stuff,” she said.'

Having spoken several times with Kathryn, I can assure you that she and Zahi are not part of some vast conspiracy of Egyptologists, and there are issues they do not see eye to eye on. I feel like this is true of most disciplines, but I think it's important to remember, given statements like this one:

'”That's the problem, the big archeologists – and Egypt's tourist industry – want to preserve romantic ideas,” said Davidovits . . .'

I guess it's not quite a “conspiracy theory”-type explanation, but it's basically along the same lines. The “big archeologists” just won't accept anything that isn't a mainstream idea. Hobbs, the materials scientist in question, states the same thing, although a bit more cautiously:

'”The degree of hostility aimed at experimentation is disturbing,” he said. “Too many big egos and too many published works may be riding on the idea that every pyramid block was carved, not cast.”'

By the way, apparently these are the “romantic ideas” that “big archeologists” are looking to preserve:

'. . . the ones popularized by Hollywood epics like “The Ten Commandments,” with thousands of near-naked toilers straining with ropes and rollers to move mammoth carved stones.'

This is one of those lines that sounds really great in a newspaper article, but has absolutely nothing to do with how pretty much any archaeologist perceives the construction of the pyramids. Nonetheless, I really don't think these statements about being kept down by the man are very useful. If your theory is valid, it will probably gain acceptance. This line from the beginning of the article kind of points out why:

“Maybe they invented concrete 2,000 years before the Romans started using it in their structures.”

Archaeologists are often quite interested in “firsts.” (That's certainly not the only reason that valid theories will gain acceptance, but it's an important one to note.) The fact that not many mainstream Egyptologists are all that excited about this is suggestive, and not of a conspiracy.

I didn't really touch on the “hostility” before, but I think a lot of it stems from the fact that this is an experiment that doesn't really tell us all that much. I would be much more surprised if they concluded that the ancient Egyptians wouldn't have been technically able to make concrete (I think Davidovits actually argued that making concrete would be easier than cutting and moving the stone in blocks), but, as Bard points out, there is no evidence that they actually did, which, I think, is a more important issue. Which leads me into Barsoum et al.'s paper. It's about a year and a half old right now, so I assume both Bard and Hawass have probably read it, or are at least aware of it. The article gives this from Barsoum:

'Barsoum, a professor of materials engineering, said microscope, X-ray, and chemical analysis of scraps of stone from the pyramids “suggest a small but significant percentage of blocks on the higher portions of the pyramids were cast” from concrete.

He stressed that he believes that most of the blocks in the Khufu Pyramid were carved in the manner long suggested by archeologists. “But 10 or 20 percent [of the blocks] were probably cast in areas where it would have been highly difficult to position [whole stone] blocks,” he said.'

I haven't read the paper, and I don't currently have access to the journal, so I can't comment on it directly. The article doesn't really say anything about why he came to this conclusion, but Dipayan Jana, who did this smaller study last year disagrees with what Barsoum et al. found. From that paper:

'A critical evaluation of major element oxide compositions of all silica-rich microspheres show a clear enrichment of these spheres with calcium and magnesium in the Lauer sample, as previously reported by Barsoum et al. (2006). Contrary to their results, however, the present study clearly shows: (a) the presence of these silica-rich microconstituents not only in both casing stone samples but also in the natural limestone, and hence the ubiquitous
occurrences as a common microconstituent in the studied samples from Giza; and (b) their variable minor element oxide compositions, indicative of incorporation of impurities by the lepispheres. The occurrence of these “impurities” in the silica-rich microconstituents (lepispheres) are quite “natural” and do not indicate a “synthetic” nature of limestone.' (Jana 2007)

The Globe article addresses this:

'To eyes less eager to find concrete, the binders might look just like impurities in an ordinary stone block.'

And, as they say, this makes it a rather difficult position to prove, given that there doesn't seem to be any archaeological evidence of concrete production. This other quote about the same thing is also interesting:

'The present study, however, clearly shows occurrences of silica-rich microconstituents in all samples except the geopolymeric limestone, and their variable chemistry is due to trace amounts of impurities that these phases can accommodate.' (Jana 2007)

So, if I'm reading this correctly, the only sample they weren't found in was the man-made one! Now, granted, Jana's sample was quite small, but the important part is that Barsoum et al. concluded that one of these stones was man-made, and Jana sees no evidence for this. I don't think either side in the materials science argument is convinced, but personally, I tend to agree with the mainstream theory (and, again, remember that I am not an Egyptologist . . . or a materials scientist). To relate it back to the Globe article, I still really don't see what this experiment is going to tell us that we wouldn't probalby assume (ie. that Old Kingdom Egyptians had the technical ability to make concrete, assuming they knew how to do it), but considering it seems to be mostly undergrads working on it, I guess it's a pretty cool project.

References!:
Jana, Dipayan.
2007. “THE GREAT PYRAMID DEBATE: Evidence from Detailed Petrographic Examinations of Casing Stones from the Great Pyramid of Khufu, a Natural Limestone from Tura, and a Man-made (Geopolymeric) Limestone.” PROCEEDINGS OF THE TWENTY-NINTH CONFERENCE ON CEMENT MICROSCOPY QUEBEC CITY, PQ, CANADA MAY 20 -24, 2007.

Ancient Nubian tourism April 9, 2008

Posted by argotnavis in Archaeology, News.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

This story in Egypt's Al-Ahram Weekly (via Archaeoblog) struck me as interesting. It starts off with a brief history of ancient Nubia, focusing mostly on architecture at Musawwarat es-Sufra, Naqa, Meroë and Jebel Barkal. You even get a fun treasure-hunter story:

“After the first few minutes you spend in Meroe you notice that most of the pyramids have a chopped-off top, and that has a story. An Italian treasure hunter by the name of Guiseppe Ferlini was convinced there was gold.”

They always think there's gold. I didn't actually get that this was an article about archaeotourism until I got to this line, though (I'm a bit slow sometimes):

“Very interesting scenery is that of the two temples from the top of the mountain. Make sure to do the easy climb in the morning so you have the light at the right angle for your souvenir photograph.”

Interesting.

“They are the major sites, but with tourism in Sudan still in its infancy, don't be surprised to see a handful of visitors at the Pyramids of Meroe or perhaps you may end up being the only visitor in the Tombs of Al-Kurru.”

I'm not surprised that tourism in Sudan is “still in its infancy,” given their rather recent civil war and other humanitarian crises and conflicts. Not sure what I think about this yet, but it's a good read, and it'll probably give you some interesting things to think about, for at least a minute or two.

“It is virgin, it is amazing, it is rich in history, its people are one of the most hospitable on earth, it is laidback and relaxing, it has a massively huge potential for growth. It is that incredible giant to be discovered… The Sudan.”

It does sound very romantic, anyway.

Can you look up the Ugaritic word for "lion" for me? March 22, 2008

Posted by argotnavis in Language.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

I was surprised to find that Wiktionary apparently has categories for Sumerian, Akkadian and Ugaritic. The most interesting links from those pages are the lists of words. There aren't many, and most of them are in character sets I apparently don't have installed, but I thought it was cool that they had them at all. I'm sure there are more I didn't think of looking for. (Ancient Egyptian just popped into my head as I was writing this, and sure enough, they have that, too. Also, the category pages for extinct languages and Canaanite languages both turn up some interesting results.) These obviously aren't much use for trying to learn these languages — the lone Edomite noun probably won't leave you with much to talk about, for example — but it's neat that people are interested in them.

On that subject, the Akkadian language talk page has this link to a University of Pennsylvania site with scans of A.H. Sayce's pithily titled An Elementary Grammar With Full Syllabary and Progressive Reading Book of the Assyrian Language. It was written in 1875, and so does not benefit from the last 133 years of scholarship, but it's still nice that it's available for free online.

Death Valley: The Revenge of Bloody Bill July 8, 2007

Posted by argotnavis in Humor, TV/Movies.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

If you're a regular viewer of any and all Twilight Zone marathons aired on the Sci-Fi Network, you're probably familiar with this film, or at least with the teaser, which was aired pretty constantly during the 4th of July marathon. I was pretty intrigued by what I saw, as it promised to be a terrible zombie movie, so, of course, I watched it. To get you interested, it's directed by someone you've never heard of, and written by the Yuan brothers (well, I assume they're brothers), who have never written a film before, but one of them did produce two episodes of “Shear Genius” (yes, the reality show about hairdressers). And, of course, there are “Original Zombie Effects” by Richard Miranda, who has also done (uncredited) effects work for such brilliant films as Friday the 13th Part VII, Nightmare on Elm Street 5, Honey I Blew Up the Kid, Army of Darkness (OK, so he had one good one) and Ghost Ship, among others. I'm not sure why they bothered to put the “original” in front of that, since I'm pretty sure I've seen these zombie effects before, but what do I know?

I'm not even entirely sure how to tell you about the greatness of this movie. I believe that during the movie I made the comment that it just watched like a bunch of edits with no scene in between. In retrospect, that probably isn't the most straightforward way of saying it, but essentially, while watching it, you almost constantly find yourself saying, “Wait, what the hell just happened?” One of my professors once told me that the mark of really good writing is that it never forces the reader to turn back to something he or she read previously. This movie is basically the exact opposite of that. It's probably being generous to say that most of this movie watches like a music video. Actually, I was almost positive the director had only done music videos before. Turns out, I was wrong. He had directed exactly one other B-movie before, and nothing else. But he's a very accomplished cinematographer for some TV documentaries I've never heard of.

Of course, the best part of the film is the soundtrack. Basically, there are two types of songs in this movie. Bad hard rock songs by a band that I assume normally does Rob Zombie covers at a local bar, and softer numbers sung by a woman channeling the lead singer of Evanescence. Yes, terrible. And, believe me, you hear them a lot. This movie isn't just cut like a music video, it very well might have initially started off as a music video.

So, I hear you ask, what is this movie about? Good question, you. Our movie starts out with our hero, a cop, following a drug dealer through the desert in her car, a lovely old Hyundai. Long story short, he throws all his coke out the window at her, she swerves and he gets away. Well, we never see her again, but our drug dealer friend stumbles across a bar in lovely Sunset Valley, Population 99. He yells at the bartender for a beer for a while, before discovering that the bartender is. . . a zombie! Yeah, surprising. Anyway, long story short, he's eaten by zombies. Flash to the sign again, Population 100. Get it? Apparently the director thought this might be confusing, because every single time someone dies, the camera flashes to that damned sign. I mean, ok, you see the 100, sure, that's cute. 101, ok, cool. 102, seriously, we get it. Of course, it ends up being higher than 102. And every time, like clockwork, we get to see the population increase. I'm impressed that they had the budget for that many signs, though.

Cut to a group of teens packing up for a road trip. Where have I seen this before? Oh right, every other horror movie ever made. This smart group of youngsters is going to a debate tournament in Phoenix. Surprisingly, our teens (and their equally intelligent debate coach) don't actually make it to Arizona. No, the driver hits a hitchhiker on the way there. Just kidding. Actually, he's pretending to be hit so that he can carjack them and make them go after his business partner, Mr. Zombie Cocaine Dealer. And he has a feeling he might be hiding out in Sunset Valley. Why? Because. . . actually, that's never addressed. Why, indeed, does Mr. Carjacker think his business partner might be hanging out in a town that has only been populated by zombies for well over 100 years? The world may never know. But off they go, apparently.

They get there, and, in typical horror movie fashion, walk into the abandoned hotel and start yelling, “Is anybody here?” You know, after the first couple, you can assume no one is. Well, Zombie Coke Dealer is here, at least, and he lets everyone know that they better watch out for Bloody Bill. Then Mr. Carjacker shoots him. Something about money, I believe. Anyway, Zombie Coke Dealer then disappears. Again, this is never explained and doesn't make any difference. There are no other mysterious disappearing zombies in this film. But what about this “Bloody Bill?” Well, luckily, one of our debaters knows literally everything about him. Why? Who the fuck knows? Anyway, after a brief tirade about how the Bible must be true, as the “world's three major religions” all believe it, he goes on to tell us about Mr. Bill. He was a Union Army deserter, I think. Anyway, he was a Confederate soldier who, of course, hates Yankees. I can sympathize. I hate the fucking Yankees, too. But you know who he hates even more than Yankees? Black people. Cue Mr. Carjacker getting very upset (note that he also just did some coke, and is a little on edge). “I heard that tone! You're talking about me!” He then points a gun at the kid's face. “No, never!” “You better watch that tone.” Now that that's over, he can continue. You see, Bloody Bill came to Sunset Valley, but since he was a murderer, the townspeople killed him. . . and, afraid he would come back as a zombie, burned his corpse. Well, more like, burned him alive. Anyway, he vowed to get revenge on the townspeople even if he had to climb back from hell. So, he did that. And then turned them all into zombies for some reason. Also, as a spoiler for you, one of the girls in the group looks exactly like his sister. Right down to the haircut. It's period details like that one that really make the film.

Anyway, at this point you might be asking yourself something. They know there are zombies, they know they are evil. Why are they not leaving? Good question. Their van is still working. Unlike most “group of teens on road trip gets stuck somewhere and attacked by serial killers/zombies/Dracula/Wolfmen/Creatures from the Black Lagoon,” these teens aren't obviously stuck. The van still works. I'll say that again. The van still works. By the end of the movie, only one of them is alive, and up until that point THEY HAVEN'T FUCKING TRIED TO GET INTO THE VAN AND LEAVE. Of course, they couldn't leave anyway because of the curse, but wouldn't you FUCKING TRY? Plot hole number two (in a film that clearly has no others): one teen slowly becomes a zombie. . . I think. Anyway, he starts rejecting normal food and complaining about “being hungry.” Also, we see some zombies dining on brain (cooked, of course). And yet, whenever they kill someone, they turn them into a zombie (population 103). Why don't they, you know, eat them? And furthermore, if they aren't eating anyone who comes into the town, since they have to turn them into zombies, who are they eating? It's questions like this that keep me up at night.

Long story short: girl gets turned into a zombie, she bites the arm of the kid who told the story (nice latex arm effects), obviously Southern kid runs off (“Why did I let you guys get me into this? I'm from Georgia!”), he gets turned into a zombie in spite of being Georgian, Coke Dealer Guy pulls out an uzi (don't ask, I have no idea), which is then stolen by debate coach. I'll make this shorter. Everyone except the girl who looks Bloody Bill's sister dies. Highlights: the coke dealer dies and the remaining kids see him again and talk to him for several minutes. “Wait a minute, you didn't have a Southern accent before. . .” Oh, it's Bloody Bill wearing his face. Next one. Girl walks into the church. Ah, she'll be safe there. Then she hears a zombie priest saying prayers. Apparently this church is of the Lovecraftian variety, and is one of the least safe places in town. Here's the good part, though. The girl knows that this town is only populated by zombies, and she knows that the zombies all have similar voices; very similar, in fact, to the one this priest has. And yet. . . she continues to walk toward him until she is attacked by Bloody Bill. Add to this a bunch of scenes that I assume are supposed to be montages, set to the bad Rob Zombie rip-off music. I say I assume they're supposed to be montages, because they generally. . . make no sense. So basically, it's a montage of someone running, shot at a bad angle, followed by a poorly cut scene that really doesn't logically follow. Examples of brilliant cuts include this one: girl is knocking on some door, cut, she's on the floor in a house. Apparently we're supposed to assume she shouldered her way through it? I'm really not sure.

Basically, it's the best movie I've seen in a long time. You should probably make sure you're watching this one with some people around, because I don't think it can hold your attention if you aren't making fun of it. Also, being drunk probably helps. And hopefully, if you're really, really lucky, like I was, one of “The Asylum's” other great films, like Legion of the Dead, will be on. A movie about an Egyptian tomb found in the United States (they had a Transatlantic trade route. . . of course) featuring both Zach Galligan AND Bruce Boxleitner? It's too good to be true! (Sadly, it is true.)