Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
In the same way, there's no establishment of fact
> that the Dynasty IV Egyptians were familiar with
> the 3-4-5 Triangle, so what is the point of
> speculating even further about how they might have
> "encoded" that knowledge in a king's burial
> chamber?
The New Shorter Oxford gives the following definition for 'speculation'
1 v.t. Orig., reflect or theorize on, contemplate, (a theory, subject, etc.). Now usu., consider, conjecture, wonder, (that, how, what, etc.). L16.
An awful lot of what we 'know' about Ancient history is theory based on speculation.
Take away speculation and an awful lot of theories will disappear.
You, Anthony, ask 'what is the point...'
Well, can you not see that sometimes a speculation can lead to a reasonbly sound theory?
You will no doubt once more argue with cold logic that no theory can be sound if it is based on a speculation.
IMO, constantly harping that a speculation cannot lead to a sound theory is little more than an attempt to derail a reasonable debate on a historical event or issue.
I don't know where Modern Western Logic (or whatever it is you call your particular brand of Logic) should hold sway but I do know it is not in the world of Egyptology - or in any other study of History.
There is clear evidence that the AEs used the 3:4:5 triangle in their architecture.
The Berlin mathematical text suggests very strongly that its author or somebody associated with him knew what we today call the Pythagoras Theorem.
C Wayne has given a good example of how simple finding this Theorem is.
I simply cannot see why some folks here are so set against the probability that the AEs knew this theorem.
Anyway, what on earth is wrong with having two theories: one based on the speculation that the AEs knew the Pythagoras Theorem, and one based on the speculation that they didn't.
Then, please, somebody tell me what is actually wrong with having two theories: one based on the speculation that the AEs knew the Pythagoras Theorem and deliberately used it in the designing of the King's Chamber, and one based on the speculation that they didn't.
If people here and elsewhere are going to dismiss anything that has no proof (as distinct from evidence), then the study of Egyptology is going to quickly become little more than a vague memory.
Sound speculation should be encouraged not stamped on.
MJ