tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357316514436369105.post231520769266960184..comments2024-03-11T15:40:37.015+00:00Comments on Theoretical Structural Archaeology: 21. Thrust, trusses, and not going down the aisleGeoff Carterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01111820035762957610noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357316514436369105.post-18668561204155146092009-02-27T08:53:00.000+00:002009-02-27T08:53:00.000+00:00Hi Geoff, fascinating articles over the last month...Hi Geoff, fascinating articles over the last month - I've really enjoyed thinking along with your observations in terms of my own roundhouses in the Caribbean. I wonder have you ever taken a look at some of the vernacular architecture in the Amazonian area? this is basically the source of inspiration for reconstructions of the very few houseplans we have from the islands -south american malocus. these people (yanomami, yekuana, achuar and hundreds of other societies) build amazingly elegant and complex post and palm structures in a huge range of sizes and styles - some durable and symbolically laden, other ephemeral and profane shelters. the great thing about the ethnographies is that they sometimes describe in detail the building sequence, physical and resource constraints, and indigenous belief systems behind the architecture. anyway, I'm going to get back to thinking about roof pitch...by the way, if you have a beehive-shaped house, i.e. not a cone on a cylinder, but a domed frustum (good word!) with the wall posts in the ground and joined at the top to also form the roof, do you have any idea how this changes the weight distribution throughout the structure? does it all get thrust into the ground?<BR/>Alicealicehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12905011972655490193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357316514436369105.post-37837832109916251492009-02-15T11:27:00.000+00:002009-02-15T11:27:00.000+00:00Hi Amol,Thank you so much for reading & commen...Hi Amol,<BR/>Thank you so much for reading & commenting on my blog.<BR/> I am so pleased you ‘understood’ it, my main aim is to make the archaeology of structures accessible and comprehensible to as many people possible.<BR/>Many subjects are about learning a different way of looking at familiar things.<BR/>Post no 12, mentions India, but its is as close as I have got; the architecture of India is a vast and fascinating subject, that one day I hope to study in some greater detail.Geoff Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01111820035762957610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357316514436369105.post-4838902687295499052009-02-15T06:54:00.000+00:002009-02-15T06:54:00.000+00:00Hi Geoff!your blog is fascinating!!Though I have v...Hi Geoff!<BR/>your blog is fascinating!!<BR/>Though I have very little knowledge of structures, I found this post very interesting(and the important thing is that I understood a large part of it :-) )<BR/><BR/>I will keep coming here.Being an Indian, I am also curious about how the buildings like CST,Rashtrapati bhawan ,Taj Mahal etc. derive their style of architecture, may be from Mughals and British styles.<BR/>I hope that my knowledge will increase reading this blog :-)Amolhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00304769807775917440noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357316514436369105.post-51538166727310373202009-02-11T13:00:00.000+00:002009-02-11T13:00:00.000+00:00You are spot on about the relieving chambers being...You are spot on about the relieving chambers being ineffective, and even increasing the load on the chamber walls, but let us be careful about using a modern structural perspective. I still think the cracking of the chamber roof has to be relevant here, did this not prompt the abandonment of the chamber of the Red Pyramid?.<BR/><BR/>I occasionally find structures that are ‘wrong’ in terms of prehistoric standards, introducing that most human of factors - cock-up and bodge it.<BR/><BR/>As a structural archaeologist I have only one God, Gravity, and only once it is placated, can you get on with the business of symbolism, meaning, and metaphor. <BR/><BR/>My point in my pyramid piece; http://structuralarchaeology.blogspot.com/2008/11/10-pyramids-monuments-to-unknown-god.html was that the Egyptians did not set out to build pyramids; they were a structural evolution of mastaba. I don’t think anybody sat down in dynasty III and said lets built a pyramid to symbolise x, y, or z. Pyramids evolved structurally and their symbolism and ritual evolved with them.<BR/><BR/>Entrances are very important to the utilisation and symbolism of structure, but for the engineer they are an anomaly and a potential source of weakness, whose primary concerns lie in balancing the more important forces in the structure.<BR/><BR/>My problem with viewing these chambers structure as symbolic, is their uniqueness, in that I don’t think we find this symbolism in other pyramids, which is not to disagree with the idea, but it goes beyond my remit as a structural archaeologist, requiring a much greater knowledge of the Ancient Egyptian mindset.<BR/><BR/>I think this is why I am a structural archaeologist, although I still have to deal with the structural ‘beliefs’ of ancient engineers.Geoff Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01111820035762957610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357316514436369105.post-78944762118463211882009-02-11T05:45:00.000+00:002009-02-11T05:45:00.000+00:00Many aspects of ancient Egyptian architecture was ...Many aspects of ancient Egyptian architecture was determined by symbolism. Practicallity often played second fiddle to the importance placed upon religious aspects of design. <BR/><BR/>Here is one simple but strong piece of evidence of that: Almost every one of the 118 or so pyramids has it's entrance on the north side and very near the center of the northern face. This is purely symbolic, by that I mean of religious significance. If practical functionality was a bigger concern (i.e., that they wanted to keep the burial chamber safely hidden from robbers) they would not make it so easy by always putting the entrance in the same place. As innovative as Khufu's pyramid was, the designer still positioned the entrance in the same place as preceding pyramids as this was important from a religious perspective. And as with many of the other pyramids, this allowed the robbers to locate the entrance much more easily.<BR/><BR/>You suggested that you would have made the relieving chambers corbelled to serve the function of reducing load. Corbelled cielings were not unknown in Khufu's time, the Queens chamber has a corbelled section in the east wall to hold a statue, the Grand Gallery is corbelled and his father's pyramid contained chambers with corbelled ceilings to reduce the load. The fact that Khufu didn't make the relieving chambers corbelled when he was obviously well aware of the function of corbelling appears to defy logic, in architectural terms. By placing more and more granite on top of the walls the builders effectively increased the load not decreased it. Certainly the designer would have been aware of this fact, otherwise corbelling would not be necessary elsewhere in the same pyramid. Therefore I feel that the reason for creating these hidden hollow features above the burial chamber was instead based on religious principles. Furthermore, it is suported by the religous beliefs of the ancient Egyptians.<BR/><BR/>The hollows in the beams as ritual offering bowls was an after thought, offerings playing a large part of the funeral ceremony. The main idea I was proposing with the Pyramid of Man theory was that these chambers above the king's burial chamber serverd a very potent symbolic, or religious purpose and this was to form the all important Djed Pillar. By being entombed inside the gigantic Djed pillar formed by these chambers, Khufu fulfilled the role of Osiris, as each King so strongly desired to do.<BR/><BR/>It's a puzzle that is not an easy one to solve. Such is the mysterious nature of the pyramids.Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17237329970776216248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357316514436369105.post-38795819142526826712009-02-11T03:03:00.000+00:002009-02-11T03:03:00.000+00:00Thanks VincentYou picked up the essential point, m...Thanks Vincent<BR/>You picked up the essential point, modern engineering represents a different mindset; Ancient engineering was effective, practical, conservative, - and very probably ‘wrong’ in many of its assumptions.<BR/><BR/>Pyramids are problematic, in that it is clear that engineering was being pushed beyond its comfort zone from Djoser onwards, and I have argued that they were making it up a they went along, - they had to be. It is a totally different ball game to vernacular architecture, where you expect conservatism and incremental development, and further more, there is a clear relationship between form and function. (Which is obscure in pyramids)<BR/><BR/>The Great Pyramid, as you once pointed out to me, is unique in several ways, particularly the position of the burial chamber. <BR/><BR/>Is not the roof of the king’s chamber cracked and marked plaster?- which forms part of the relieving chamber argument. The height of the structure also suggests to me they were concerned for the walls of the chamber. <BR/><BR/>It is an intuitive solution, and modern conceptions, though informative, may not be relevant. I would have created a corbelled relieving structure!<BR/><BR/>It is also true that the roof is probably a bit close to the gallery wall, but this is an expensive solution, it would have been easier to modify the gallery.<BR/><BR/>The hollows are timber shaped, and are functional in execution, so I am not sympathetic to ritual function, - don’t like blood, oil, etc, sloshing around the place, it is untidy. Their precise position might indicate to me that they were structural.<BR/><BR/>Best I can do off the cuff, but I think its relieving chambers for me.Geoff Carterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01111820035762957610noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2357316514436369105.post-6140253737255200282009-02-11T01:12:00.000+00:002009-02-11T01:12:00.000+00:00A fascinating post Geoff. I wonder if you have lo...A fascinating post Geoff. I wonder if you have looked at the so-called 'relieving chambers' above the burial chamber of the Great Pyramid?<BR/><BR/>The theory that is widely accepted by Egyptologists is that these small chambers were built to reduce the load on the burial chamber below.<BR/><BR/>Engineer Rudolf Gantenbrink who has some experience working in the pyramid has suggested to me that the term is a misnomer because they relieve nothing and do not reduce downward load on the chamber below at all. <BR/><BR/>Others have argued that what is important is what the ancient architect's THOUGHT would work and the fact that it doesn't work does not detract from the 'relieving chambers' theory. <BR/><BR/>I'd be really interested to hear your thoughts on that. <BR/><BR/>I have my own ideas on what these chambers represent but it has nothing to do with relieving the downward load. Here is a link that give a bit of background: http://www.pyramidofman.com/chambers.htm<BR/><BR/>Vincent.Vincenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17237329970776216248noreply@blogger.com