3 ms·

Clearer schematic rendition of that image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Colosse-dj%C3%A9houtih%C3%A9tep2.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Colosse-dj

Clearer schematic rendition of that image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Colosse-dj%C3%A9houtih%C3%A9tep2.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Colosse-dj%C3%A9houtih%C3...

pbhjpbhj 12y ago
I've seen this before and found it compelling. Partly I was interested as I came up with an experiment to look at static friction with and without water present for a high-school physics project many-many years ago. However, that schematic appears strongly interpretative. In the original image I can't see any ropes [that could just be a bad photo]. Also if the slaves are pulling the sled to the right, why are half of them looking left? The posture is all wrong for pulling on ropes, whilst the posture of the single person pouring water is more natural. Would a single water pourer be enough. If not why wouldn't they have used the "stacked" technique they've used elsewhere to show there were more than one? At least there appear to be suppliers bringing water on yokes. To me the figures to the right of the sled seem more like they're walking backwards and forwards, perhaps they're compressing the sand, but they don't seem to be pulling. Contrary to that the single figure on the far right appear to be holding a rope over their shoulder, which is weird if everyone else is holding it at waist height. Lastly, what are all the "soldiers" doing at the top? They seem to be carrying beams or statues or somesuch in the original, quite different to the swords[?] in the schematic interpretation. It would be nice to see a cleaned up processed image of the wall that perhaps had used some microscopic or other capture methods to ascertain pigment missing in blank areas. Is there a reference for what the text on the original image says? That seems like it would be pretty pertinent to the point at hand? Would this whole system work on sloped sand?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- vlasev 12y ago
  I think the schematic is not accurate. Look at the 6th set of two people in the top pulling row. One of them is clearly facing back. This is the same with the 8th such set of two. A lot of the heads in these 4 rows are difficult to make out. On the other hand the number of people looking back in the schematic is 0, 2, 11 and 8 for each row.
- ozgung 12y ago
  This one might be more accurate: http://www.cheops-pyramide.ch/image/loehner-seilrolle/djehutihotep-deir-el-berscheh.gif http://www.cheops-pyramide.ch/image/loehner-seilrolle/djehut... They're obviously pulling the rope, but since the drawings are out of perspective it looks weird. There are also three water carriers along with the water pouring guy: http://www.thebookofdays.com/months/sept/images/water_carrier.jpg http://www.thebookofdays.com/months/sept/images/water_carrie...
  - pbhjpbhj 12y ago
    That schematic does look a lot more accurate - wonder if there's an app that does hieroglyphics translation?!?

Clearer schematic rendition of that image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Colosse-dj%C3%A9houtih%C3%A9tep2.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Colosse-dj%C3%A9houtih%C3...

pbhjpbhj 12y ago

I've seen this before and found it compelling. Partly I was interested as I came up with an experiment to look at static friction with and without water present for a high-school physics project many-many years ago. However, that schematic appears strongly interpretative. In the original image I can't see any ropes [that could just be a bad photo]. Also if the slaves are pulling the sled to the right, why are half of them looking left? The posture is all wrong for pulling on ropes, whilst the posture of the single person pouring water is more natural. Would a single water pourer be enough. If not why wouldn't they have used the "stacked" technique they've used elsewhere to show there were more than one? At least there appear to be suppliers bringing water on yokes. To me the figures to the right of the sled seem more like they're walking backwards and forwards, perhaps they're compressing the sand, but they don't seem to be pulling. Contrary to that the single figure on the far right appear to be holding a rope over their shoulder, which is weird if everyone else is holding it at waist height. Lastly, what are all the "soldiers" doing at the top? They seem to be carrying beams or statues or somesuch in the original, quite different to the swords[?] in the schematic interpretation. It would be nice to see a cleaned up processed image of the wall that perhaps had used some microscopic or other capture methods to ascertain pigment missing in blank areas. Is there a reference for what the text on the original image says? That seems like it would be pretty pertinent to the point at hand? Would this whole system work on sloped sand?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
vlasev 12y ago
I think the schematic is not accurate. Look at the 6th set of two people in the top pulling row. One of them is clearly facing back. This is the same with the 8th such set of two. A lot of the heads in these 4 rows are difficult to make out. On the other hand the number of people looking back in the schematic is 0, 2, 11 and 8 for each row.
ozgung 12y ago
This one might be more accurate: http://www.cheops-pyramide.ch/image/loehner-seilrolle/djehutihotep-deir-el-berscheh.gif http://www.cheops-pyramide.ch/image/loehner-seilrolle/djehut... They're obviously pulling the rope, but since the drawings are out of perspective it looks weird. There are also three water carriers along with the water pouring guy: http://www.thebookofdays.com/months/sept/images/water_carrier.jpg http://www.thebookofdays.com/months/sept/images/water_carrie...
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  That schematic does look a lot more accurate - wonder if there's an app that does hieroglyphics translation?!?