While in the service of the Goa'uld System Lords, the Jaffa
guards often wore helmets or masks that hid their features and intimidated the
System Lord's human slaves. The masks were typically modeled after an animal
associated with the particular Goa'uld the Jaffa served; for example, Apophis's
Serpent Guards wore cobra masks while Ra's Horus Guards wore falcon masks. The
more complicated helmets (such as Horus helmets) could be retracted into the
body armor of the Jaffa, or taken off the armor completely, while simpler masks
(such as Serpent helmets) simply opened to expose the Jaffa's face. On
occasion, System Lords themselves would wear more ornate versions of Jaffa
masks to deceive their human slaves (Ra in particular was well known for his
opulent mask), or on the (rare) occasion where they would personally join their
Jaffa in battle. Usually masked Jaffa were seen directing unmasked Jaffa. This
could indicate the masks are also a level of authority, like that of a Sergeant
over that of a regular soldier.
Egyptian Genre Gaming and RPGs--A Resource Wargame and Roleplaying Miscellany. Wargods, Hamunaptra, Mythic Egypt, The Whovian Osirians and much more...
Showing posts with label Technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Technology. Show all posts
Saturday, June 8, 2019
Thursday, August 13, 2015
The “FIRST TIME” of Osiris
The Egyptians associated the first appearance of the phoenix with a golden age in their history known as Zep Tepi, the “First Time.” They were convinced the foundations of their civilization were established during this remote and glorious epoch. R. T. Rundle Clark, former professor of Egyptology at Manchester University, commented on the ancients’ conception of the First Time: “Anything whose existence or authority had to be justified or explained must be referred to the ‘First Time.’ This was true for natural phenomena, rituals, royal insignia, the plans of temples, magical or medical formulae, the hieroglyphic system of writing, the calendar—the whole paraphernalia of the civilization ... All that was good or efficacious was established on the principles laid down in the “First Time”—which was, therefore, a golden age of absolute perfection...”
What exactly does the phrase “the First Time” mean? Could it possibly be an arcane reference to the first appearance–the First Coming–of the Christian Savior on earth? Was there a Messianic guiding force behind the rise of Egyptian culture?—The same Messianic guiding force that has inaugurated the empire of Christendom? Was the “First Time” an era during which an ancient Messianic tradition was established? —A tradition aimed at revealing cultural wisdom, law, and spiritual truth to mankind during different historical epochs? Is the Third Time almost upon us again? Is the Savior machine about to activate once again, perhaps for the third and final time?
Richard Cassaro is author of the new book Written In Stone:
- See more at: http://www.richardcassaro.com/osiris-the-first-messiah-was-jesus-the-second-coming-of-egypts-christ#sthash.cw6ehNwp.dpuf
READ MORE
What exactly does the phrase “the First Time” mean? Could it possibly be an arcane reference to the first appearance–the First Coming–of the Christian Savior on earth? Was there a Messianic guiding force behind the rise of Egyptian culture?—The same Messianic guiding force that has inaugurated the empire of Christendom? Was the “First Time” an era during which an ancient Messianic tradition was established? —A tradition aimed at revealing cultural wisdom, law, and spiritual truth to mankind during different historical epochs? Is the Third Time almost upon us again? Is the Savior machine about to activate once again, perhaps for the third and final time?
Richard Cassaro is author of the new book Written In Stone:
- See more at: http://www.richardcassaro.com/osiris-the-first-messiah-was-jesus-the-second-coming-of-egypts-christ#sthash.cw6ehNwp.dpuf
What exactly does the phrase “the First Time” mean? Could it possibly be an arcane reference to the first appearance–the First Coming–of the Christian Savior on earth? Was there a Messianic guiding force behind the rise of Egyptian culture?—The same Messianic guiding force that has inaugurated the empire of Christendom? Was the “First Time” an era during which an ancient Messianic tradition was established? —A tradition aimed at revealing cultural wisdom, law, and spiritual truth to mankind during different historical epochs? Is the Third Time almost upon us again? Is the Savior machine about to activate once again, perhaps for the third and final time?
Richard Cassaro is author of the new book Written In Stone:
- See more at: http://www.richardcassaro.com/osiris-the-first-messiah-was-jesus-the-second-coming-of-egypts-christ#sthash.cw6ehNwp.dpuf
“Anything whose existence or authority had to be justified or explained must be referred to the ‘First Time.’ This was true for natural phenomena, rituals, royal insignia, the plans of temples, magical or medical formulae, the hieroglyphic system of writing, the calendar – the whole paraphernalia of the civilization…All that was good or efficacious was established on the principles laid down in the “First Time” – which was, therefore, a golden age of absolute perfection…”The First Time seems to have been the period during which Osiris reigned as foremost king of Egypt. It was during this era that he established law (maat) and initiated worship of Ra, Egypt’s monotheistic God. Rundle Clark explained:
—R. T. Rundle Clark, Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt
“The reign of Osiris was a golden age, the model for subsequent generations.”Maat and monotheism, the “model for subsequent generations” set forth by Osiris, was the driving force behind Egyptian culture for thousands of years.
—R. T. Rundle Clark, Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt
What exactly does the phrase “the First Time” mean? Could it possibly be an arcane reference to the first appearance–the First Coming–of the Christian Savior on earth? Was there a Messianic guiding force behind the rise of Egyptian culture?—The same Messianic guiding force that has inaugurated the empire of Christendom? Was the “First Time” an era during which an ancient Messianic tradition was established? —A tradition aimed at revealing cultural wisdom, law, and spiritual truth to mankind during different historical epochs? Is the Third Time almost upon us again? Is the Savior machine about to activate once again, perhaps for the third and final time?
Richard Cassaro is author of the new book Written In Stone:
- See more at: http://www.richardcassaro.com/osiris-the-first-messiah-was-jesus-the-second-coming-of-egypts-christ#sthash.cw6ehNwp.dpuf
“Anything whose existence or authority had to be justified or explained must be referred to the ‘First Time.’ This was true for natural phenomena, rituals, royal insignia, the plans of temples, magical or medical formulae, the hieroglyphic system of writing, the calendar – the whole paraphernalia of the civilization…All that was good or efficacious was established on the principles laid down in the “First Time” – which was, therefore, a golden age of absolute perfection…”The First Time seems to have been the period during which Osiris reigned as foremost king of Egypt. It was during this era that he established law (maat) and initiated worship of Ra, Egypt’s monotheistic God. Rundle Clark explained:
—R. T. Rundle Clark, Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt
“The reign of Osiris was a golden age, the model for subsequent generations.”Maat and monotheism, the “model for subsequent generations” set forth by Osiris, was the driving force behind Egyptian culture for thousands of years.
—R. T. Rundle Clark, Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt
What exactly does the phrase “the First Time” mean? Could it possibly be an arcane reference to the first appearance–the First Coming–of the Christian Savior on earth? Was there a Messianic guiding force behind the rise of Egyptian culture?—The same Messianic guiding force that has inaugurated the empire of Christendom? Was the “First Time” an era during which an ancient Messianic tradition was established? —A tradition aimed at revealing cultural wisdom, law, and spiritual truth to mankind during different historical epochs? Is the Third Time almost upon us again? Is the Savior machine about to activate once again, perhaps for the third and final time?
Richard Cassaro is author of the new book Written In Stone:
- See more at: http://www.richardcassaro.com/osiris-the-first-messiah-was-jesus-the-second-coming-of-egypts-christ#sthash.cw6ehNwp.dpuf
“Anything whose existence or authority had to be justified or explained must be referred to the ‘First Time.’ This was true for natural phenomena, rituals, royal insignia, the plans of temples, magical or medical formulae, the hieroglyphic system of writing, the calendar – the whole paraphernalia of the civilization…All that was good or efficacious was established on the principles laid down in the “First Time” – which was, therefore, a golden age of absolute perfection…”The First Time seems to have been the period during which Osiris reigned as foremost king of Egypt. It was during this era that he established law (maat) and initiated worship of Ra, Egypt’s monotheistic God. Rundle Clark explained:
—R. T. Rundle Clark, Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt
“The reign of Osiris was a golden age, the model for subsequent generations.”Maat and monotheism, the “model for subsequent generations” set forth by Osiris, was the driving force behind Egyptian culture for thousands of years.
—R. T. Rundle Clark, Myth and Symbol in Ancient Egypt
What exactly does the phrase “the First Time” mean? Could it possibly be an arcane reference to the first appearance–the First Coming–of the Christian Savior on earth? Was there a Messianic guiding force behind the rise of Egyptian culture?—The same Messianic guiding force that has inaugurated the empire of Christendom? Was the “First Time” an era during which an ancient Messianic tradition was established? —A tradition aimed at revealing cultural wisdom, law, and spiritual truth to mankind during different historical epochs? Is the Third Time almost upon us again? Is the Savior machine about to activate once again, perhaps for the third and final time?
Richard Cassaro is author of the new book Written In Stone:
- See more at: http://www.richardcassaro.com/osiris-the-first-messiah-was-jesus-the-second-coming-of-egypts-christ#sthash.cw6ehNwp.dpuf
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Technology Transfer in the Ancient World
The “ISIS” Trireme from the Nymphaion fresco assumed to be 60 m long (width and height: around 15 m). The Isis Ship of Ptolemy II Philadephus
In the wars of the Diadochi (322 - 281 BC), the successors to the empire of Alexander the Great built increasingly bigger and bigger galleys. Macedon in 340 BC built sexiremes (probably with two men on each of three oars) and in 315 BC septiremes, which saw action at the Battle of Salamis in Cyprus (306 BC). Demetrius I of Macedon (reigned 294 - 288 BC), involved in a naval war with Ptolemy of Egypt (reigned 323 - 283 BC), built eights (octeres), nines, tens, twelves and finally sixteens! Later Ptolemies continued this trend of expansion, creating twenties and thirties and, during the reign of Ptolemy IV, a monstrous forty over 400 feet long that was probably intended as a showpiece. According to a detailed description of the forty, the ship had two prows and two sterns, and this and other evidence has led some to believe that the forty, and probably the twenties and thirties, were constructed like huge catamarans with enough space between the hulls for the rowers in the middle to operate. The deck above them, stretching across the two hulls, could accommodate a couple of thousand marines.
She was the plaything of kings, admirals, and empires, saved a life and allowed a horrible war. She was stolen, cast aside, captured, prized, marvelled at, and commemorated in the Roman forum. For nearly two decades, she was the undisputed queen of the Western Mediterranean, and finally a captive of war. We do not know how she met her final fate, and we do not even know her name. But she is not forgotten, and she has much to teach us...
A new combination of primary sources allows a new understanding of how technological innovation spread in the Hellenistic World. The accounts of Plutarch, Diodorus, and Polybius all include references to a large war vessel that played a pivotal role in the history of the 3rd. Century B.C. In succession, the authors describe how knowledge of the most advanced achievements in large ship construction passed from Macedonia, to Epirus, to Carthage, to Rome in a period of thirty years. These references allow us to observe a repeated transfer of technology during one of Antiquity's few eras of technological innovation.
Demetrius Poliorcetes spent his life trying to be the next Alexander, but a Darius was lacking among the rest of Alexander's would-be successors. What distinguished Demetrius was his use of innovative technology to achieve his victories. His exploits with his new weapons had made this Macedonian monarch the terror of the Greek East. Plutarch makes it clear that Demetrius's new weapons became subjects of intense interest and emulation on the part of his rivals and potential targets. More than just the kings were affected. The shores were crowded with onlookers when his new vessels sailed past. Whether the Greeks were wondering or trembling at the capabilities of the new monsters is open for debate. Plutarch's qamazon allows such speculation (Plu. Dem. 220.3- 5).
At the very start of his career, Demetrius's investment in maritime innovation paid him a handsome return. The size and the strength of his new breed of warships allowed him to defeat the fleet of Ptolemy I off Cyprian Salamis in 306. So heavily-built were Demetrius's vessels that they could mount catapults capable of firing both bolts and stones at the Egyptian vessels. The devastating bombardment was quite possibly the first use of shipborne artillery at sea. Demetrius prevailed in a battle reflecting a clear departure from the older tradition of warships fighting by maneuver and speed. A wall of heavy vessels battered the Egyptians with missiles and crushed them into the shore (Diod. 20.49.4). And Demetrius would build vessels larger than those at Salamis.
Demetrius's faith in large warships again justified itself after his and his father Antigonus's shattering defeat at Ipsos in 305. With all the other Successors united against him, Demetrius nonetheless had a place to go. Due to his vessels' size and seakeeping qualities, he was able to retreat, in effect, into the Mediterranean itself. With his monsters Demetrius menaced every coast. In the end, he was invited back into the Successors' game when Seluecus Nicator offered alliance. Again the size of Demetrius's ships availed him. Demetrius entertained Seleucus and his court comfortably at a royal banquet on board his massive 'thirteen' (Plu. Dem. 30.1-32.2) while negotiations proceeded with that continental ruler. After a rather amazing set of events tossed him onto the throne of Macedonia, Demetrius soon began to build again. At least 500 of the largest and most advanced ships ever constructed were outfitting or germinating in Demetrius's shipyards by the year 288. By then, however, his weary subjects had finally decided, after fifty years of trying, that they had enough of world conquest (Plu. Dem. 43). Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, and Lysimachus of Thrace were welcomed by the Macedonian people when they invaded Macedonia from the east and west. Demetrius fled as his subjects deserted him, and soon afterwards Pyrrhus and Lysimachus divided Demetrius's kingdom and possessions between them.(Plu. Pyr. 12.7)
That Demetrius's collection of dreadnoughts were a major objective of the conquerors is not to be doubted. Lysimachus's hatred of Demetrius was legendary. He had previously had help in restraining his antipathy. Demetrius had treated him to a demonstration of his fleet and siege train while besieging Cilician Soli. (Plu. Dem 20.4). One manifestation of Lysimachus's admiration was his own behemoth, the Leontophoros, a subject of scholarly inquiry even to the present day.(Memnon 13 = Jacoby, FGH no. 434, 8.5, vol. III B, p. 344). Another was appropriation of the originals that inspired the counter. That Demetrius's ships were employed by the conquerors is well known. Ptolemy Keraunos was the ultimate inheritor of Lysimachus's fleet. The Leontophoros and Demetrus's warships defeated Demetrius's son Gonatas, in 280 (Memnon 14; Just. 24.1.8).
It is not, then, difficult to determine where Pyrrhus had obtained the pride of his fleet; the subject of this treatment. With her and his elephants he planned to cow and then unite the Greeks of Italy and Sicily behind him for use against his rivals in the East. She would fail him in that purpose, but this unnamed monster warship saved his life at the very start of his invasion of Italy in the very year of Gonatas's defeat. The Ancients never noted Epirus and the Illyriote coast for the construction of any but pirate vessels. This ship was something entirely different, a fact made clear by the terrible storm that bore down on the Epirote fleet in the Ionian. The tempest sank or scattered all of Pyrrhus's ships but one. The flagship held her course and her own in the pounding seas, taking the seas broadside and ramming her massive prow into the Italian shore. Plutarch is quite positive that it was only the strength and size of the royal galley (basiliks) that allowed the king to reach the land. Pyrrhus and his crew survived to give the Romans and the heirs of Alexander their first and costly lessons in each side's military prowess.(Plu. Pyr. 15.2-3) It is seldom that a single vessel can play so decisive a role in world history, but with Pyrrhus would have drowned his dream of conquest in Italy, and it took a great deal more besides to kill that.
After his celebrated 'victories' against the Roman army prompted him to seek conquest elsewhere, Pyrrhus's huge flagship bore him next to Sicily. We may have an occluded reference from a local source to her size. Diodorus 'the Sicilian' refers to a 'Royal Nine' among Pyrrhus's vessels at Syracuse, although his language could imply that the ship was Syracusan (Diod. 22.8.5). Once again, the ship's size seems to have had a role in influencing the course of events. She and her other sisters inadvertently contributed to Pyrrhus's spectacular failure to unite the Greeks of Sicily under his banner. The large ships required large crews, and it was Pyrrhus's demands for men to man his fleet for a planned descent upon Carthage that finally alienated the Sicelote Greeks from their would-be liberator. (Plu. Pyr. 23.3) With no ability to take his war to Africa, Pyrrhus's hopes for subduing Carthage in Sicily and North Africa collapsed in ruin.(Diod. 22.8.5) Worse yet, the Carthaginians were swift to retake ground lost, and the huge ship still lacked men when the avenging Carthaginian armada fell upon Pyrrhus and his fleet as he made his retreat from Sicily in 274. The Carthaginians ended up with many of Pyrrhus's vessels.(Plu. Pyr. 24.1)
Polybius provides the last chapter of the flagship's story. So impressed were the Carthaginians with the monster's construction that 'the ship of King Pyrrhus,' as Polybius calls her, became the pride of their navy. She was the command ship sent against Duilius's Roman squadron at Mylae in 260, under the command of yet another Carthaginian Hannibal. Disaster followed when the Romans deployed their own celebrated bit of maritime technological innovation. Most of the fleet and the admiral's vessel was there taken by the victorious Romans. (Plb. 1.23.1-7) Even then, for a final time her size may have availed her commander. As the corvus struck home, Hannibal managed to make his escape in the ship's tender (skf) (Polyb. 1.23.7) It may have been the vessel's age alone that proved her undoing, for another Carthaginian flagship proved too big, too well-crewed, and too fast for the Roman squadron that took her nine consorts off Tyndaris in 257. (Plb. 1.25.3)
Honesty compels me to note that the ship may have been re-rigged, or, less possibly, she may have been a sister vessel from Demetrius's yards, for Polybius and the Latin inscription refer to her as an ptrhs/septeres/seven. Duilius's pride in his prize has an enduring monument. An Augustan reconstruction of the his columna rostrata still commemorates the victory and 'he who took the seven.'.(CIL 12.25, 6.1300, line 11) 'When in doubt, emend, is NOT my motto, or sound practice, but nnrhs for ptrhs isn't much of a stretch. I will save someone the trouble of saying that the Latin is unambiguous.
The final fate of the aging vessel in Roman hands is uncertain-but one thing is. By 257 the Roman navy was using vessels of greater size than it had ever previously constructed.(Plu. 1.26.10) A monopoly of the largest ships was yet another thing that could not be left to the Carthaginians.
What happened each time the vessel changed hands need not be argued. Our records of such early American warships as the U.S.S. President and the Chesapeake are filled out by measurements taken by their British captors, who routinely 'took off' the lines of captured enemy ships in the event their construction offered useful innovation to the Royal Navy. There were no journals of maritime architecture in those days, but an experienced shipwright could learn a great deal from the simple inspection of a new kind of vessel. Polybius, of course, offers in the very narrative of Mylae his account of a Punic wreck providing the pattern for Roman construction (Polyb. 1.20.15). The details are probably apocryphal, but at the least, the account suffices to demonstrate that the concept of emulation in maritime architecture antedates considerably the War of 1812.(Polyb. 1.20.15) And it was at such a time, as Duilius gloried in his prize, that the Italian or Italiote shipwrights got their chance to examine a product of their Eastern counterparts, the men Demetrius had employed to build his creations.
The sources for the facts themselves exist to show an explosion of maritime technology at the time Pyrrhus's great ship so profoundly affected the affairs of Italy. As noted, at the start of his career, Demetrius had defeated the Ptolemaic fleet at Cyprian Salamis and by the reign of Ptolemy II, the Egyptian fleet would contain the most terrifying agglomeration of monster galleys ever seen in the Mediterranean (Athen. 5.203d). Outright defeat was a strong impetus to innovate, or match, at least. By the end of the great siege of 305, the Rhodians had a more intimate acquaintance with Demetrius's advancements in engineering of all varieties than either side might have wished . Several of Demetrius's vessels were among the Rhodians' legacies when the Besieger finally received his father's instructions to quit.
Pyrrhus and Lysimachus divided up Demetrius's fleet in 288 and Antigonus received at least some of his inheritance before his dynasty prevailed in Macedonia. Pyrrhus delivered at least one large warship into the emulous hands of the Carthaginians and Romans, both of whom began to build large vessels. Hiero of Syracuse had been the nervous spectator of the first Punic War. That dynast commissioned Archimedes to build a huge ship with weapons enough to be proof against any conceivable attacker (Athen. 5.206d-209b). This 3rd century B.C. Great Eastern proved too big for Hiero's harbors, but when Hiero loaded the Syracusia with fish sauce and presented her to the Ptolemies, the technology had changed directions. For this last of the behemoths was built as a grain carrier.
And so, we have the eventful biography' of the leviathan Pyrrhus looted from Demetrius's shipyards, and her genealogy. There is also, however, a significance to her story that transcends even her roles in the Romans' war with Pyrrhus; the struggle between Greeks and Carthaginians in Sicily; and even the First Punic War. She was not the only large vessel capable of surviving in rough seas and delivering an important freight. Rhodes' deep harbors had hindered that island's earlier development as a trading port, but deep harbors were exactly what monsters such as the Syracusia, renamed Alexandris, required to hold themselves and their vast cargoes. Rhodian freighters transported Egyptian and Black Sea grain from Cilicia to Massilia, efficiently enough to ensure legendary profits and a reputation for dependability.
The changes did not stop at the water's edge. Populations in urban centers could now hold more people than local agriculture could ever conceivably support, and Rome began the final phase of its urban development. Rome, and later Constantinople, would come to depend on the overseas shipment of large amounts of grain from the wheat fields of the Black Sea and the Nile. Politicians and voters began to appreciate the possibilities of large scale routine grain shipments and the need for their routine and safe arrival. Claudius and Trajan converted Ostia into a fit haven for the large grain ships to make sure the panem arrived and the population stayed fed at the circenses. One such monster freighter was, in fact, converted into an island for the new harbor's lighthouse with a final cargo of hydraulic concrete. From the 2nd Century A.D. survives Lucian's amazed description of the Isis, a vessel the size of the U.S.S. Constitution. After his inspection of the ship, blown off course to Athens, Lucian provided a litany of her size, design and refinements, as wells as her ability to survive adverse seas (Luc. Nav. 4-14). Such was the legacy of the Hellenistic age. Demetrius's catapults, rams, and even his famous siege tower were only of pressing interest at specific sieges at specific times. Large capacity marine transport, however, played an important role in the later history of the Mediterranean. As far back as King Pyrrhus's doomed effort to conquer Italy, that single large warship demonstrated to all in contact with her-and they were many-the size and seakeeping potential of the latest stage of maritime architecture.
Rob S. Rice
1996 APA Convention Session on Naval History
Ancient Technology Preserved
by Dick Teresi
The narrative of humankind's seed civilizations is already an old story: replete with technological and social advances, imperialism, conquest; then the wars, the social and technological disintegration, and the sack. Each succeeding empire, while destroying much of the previous society, retained and advanced some of its technologies. The Greeks and Romans took some. The North Africans carried away some to Egypt and its great city, Alexandria. But much of the science and technology packages put together by the peoples of the ancient Middle East remained, tended to and enhanced, first by the Persians, and later the Muslims.
In the arid ecology of the Middle East, water was a constant preoccupation. Given an annual rainfall in Iran that averages six to eight inches, for example, it is unsurprising that the supreme large-scale technology of the ancient Middle East was hydrology. Although the pyramids of Egypt were among the biggest construction projects ever undertaken (c. 2000 B.C.), as much labor and ingenuity went into constructing Mesopotamian embankments and canals, built at about the same time for flood control and irrigation.9 Water management remained the most important technology from the ancient civilizations through the brilliant centuries of medieval Islam. Providing people with water, Muhammad is said to have observed, is the act of greatest value.10 (See Frank Herbert's planet Dune and its Fremen culture.)
One of the first irrigation systems in recorded history was in Jericho, where water tanks have been dated to around 6000 B.c.11 One of the first canals on record, the Al-Gharrif waterway from the Tigris, was cut by the governor of the Sumerian city of Lagash before 2500 B.c. (The work of the Sumerians wasn't all positive. Alfred Crosby points out that they ruined much of the farmland of the Middle East by irrigating their fields with water from their rivers. The water evaporated, leaving salt behind, the "same process," says Crosby, "going on in our southwest, where, as in Sumeria, there are fields white with salt." Still, says Crosby, the difference between the Sumerians and the Stone Age people who preceded them is greater than the contrast between the Sumerians and ourselves.)12 The Egyptians had a department of irrigation as early as 2800 B.C. The dam Sadd-al-Kafra, twenty miles south of Cairo, was built in 2500 B.C. The remains survive. In 690 B.C. the Assyrian king Sennacherib constructed a masonry dam on the Atrush River and a thirty-six-mile long canal to Ninevah.13 Around 100 B.C. the Nabateans of south Jordan and the Negev Desert of Israel built seventeen thousand dams.
The Persians inherited this mastery of dam, canal, and underground waterworks. In one instance, the Persians captured an entire Roman army and put them to work building a dam.14 In a huge engineering feat between A.D. 530 and 580, the Persians constructed two dams that diverted water from the Tigris River into the Nahrwan Canal. After their conquest of the Middle East in the seventh century A.D., the Muslims adapted the inherited techniques, and enormously extended the application of mechanical and hydraulic technology. Near the city of Basra, founded in the seventh century A.D., Muslims built up a vast network of dams and dam-fed canals. A dam built over the Kor River in Iran between Shiraz and Persepolis in A.D. 960 irrigated three hundred villages with more than ten water-raising wheels and ten water mills. It still exists.15 South of Qum in Iran, thirteenth century Muslims built the first known example of a true arch dam. Unlike most dams, it did not depend on gravity for its resistance. Instead it was constructed as an arch laid on its side, its convexity pointing upstream, the sides anchored into the rocky banks of a gorge, where the forces of water pressure against it transferred to abutments.
During the Islamic expansion, Muslims built many dams on the Iberian peninsula, including a dam at Cordova that was fourteen hundred feet long and a series of eight dams on the Turia River in Valencia, with associated canals. These canals had a total capacity that was slightly less than that of the river, suggesting that the engineers were able to gauge a river and then design dams and canals to match it.16
Water mills were a variation on the theme to exploit water for power. Their origin is unclear, but some were present in the pre-Islamic Middle East. By the Islamic medieval period, three types of water mills were in use: undershot, vertical and horizontal overshot. They were used for flour production, papermaking, cloth making, and the crushing of sugarcane and metallic ores.
There was a remarkable diversity of machines for milling in Iran and Iraq. In Baghdad, with a population approaching one million inhabitants, conventional milling wheels could not keep up with demand, so Baghdadis carried out corn milling using a series of floating water mills on the Tigris that operated continuously on twenty-four-hour shifts, using undershot wheels that drove the millstones through wooden gears. By A.D. 1000 smaller horizontal, turbine-like wheels with the millstone mounted on the same shaft, directly above, were used throughout Eurasia, from western Europe to China. Near Basra, ten mills operated by the ebb and flow of tides about a century before the first mention of tidal mills in Europe.17
Windmills were also invented in the Middle East, where water for power was scarce. Records from eastern Iran date windmills in that area from around A.D. 950. Some of those are still operating today. According to legend, the inventor of the windmill lived in Iran during the time it was conquered by the Muslims in the mid-seventh century. The second caliph, Omat, levied heavy taxes on windmills, and, according to the story, the inventor was so irate that he murdered Omat. Nonetheless, windmills spread throughout the Islamic world, then to India and perhaps China. The technology reached England in the mid—twelfth century. 18
After the collapse of the Roman Empire, the burning of the library at Alexandria (the Birdcage of the Muses) in A.D. 640 and the European Dark Ages, the Islamic Middle East preserved engineering technologies as well as pure science. Such fields included building construction, mirrors, weights (gravity physics), surveying, hydraulics, military technology, navigation, and the designing of ingenious machines. Often technology and engineering were given as much merit as pure science. The word handasa in Arabic, for example, means architecture and engineering as well as geometry. The distinction was not rigidly made between scientists and technicians. Many men were both.19
The obvious Islamic paragons of this type were the three Banu Musa brothers of ninth-century Baghdad. They were astronomers and mathematicians as well as engineers. Around 850 they wrote a compendium, Kitab al-Hiyal (The Book of Ingenious Devices, or On Mechanical Devices).20
The Banu Musa brothers designed increasingly complex waterwheels and other sophisticated water-drawing systems. Although they were influenced by the clever Alexandrine inventors of Hellenistic Egypt, whose work was translated into Arabic during their lifetimes, the Banu Musa made many advances. They designed a device for providing hot and cold water, dredging machines for harvesting jewels from sea and river bottoms,21 and an oil lamp that raised its own wick and fed itself more oil. The brothers built elaborate fountains. They are credited with the earliest use of a crank as part of a machine (the crank wasn't employed in Europe until the fifteenth century) and the first use of suction pipes.22
Fun was an important element. The Arabic word hiyal can denote almost any mechanical object, from a small toy to a siege engine. The leisure class took its toys seriously, and Islamic courtly circles funded engineers. Consequently, many of the most advanced Arab designs were both toy-like and useful. The Banu Musa brothers designed eighty-three "trick vessels." There are pitchers from which pouring cannot be resumed after it has been interrupted; vessels that replenish themselves if a small amount of water is removed; vessels into which a mixture of liquids can be poured together, yet discharged separately. The components usually included variations on conical valves, siphons, airholes, balances, pulleys, gears, miniature waterwheels, floats, and cranks.23
Automata, or self-operating mechanisms, were very popular. A prominent designer of automata was Badi al-Zaman al-Jazari, a twelfth and thirteenth-century engineer who may have been in the employ of the southeastern Turkish Artuqid dynasty. Al-Jazari devised most of his large-scale automata to collect and transport water, and was known for his gear systems, one of which showed up two centuries later in Europe in Giovanni de' Dondi's mechanical clock. One of al-Jazari's automata toys was a mechanical boat with drinking men, designed to amuse guests at a drinking party. When activated, the hiyal came alive in a counterpoint of sailors rowing and musicians playing.24
The caliphs of Baghdad exploited this richness of invention and engineering to build private playgrounds. Perhaps memories of Babylon inspired Islam's monumental gardens, models of paradise on earth. A report from the early tenth century describes a pond-filled garden. In the middle of one pond stood a tree with a silver and gold mechanical whistling bird. Another of the garden's ponds was filled with mercury, upon which floated gold boats. Around the ponds were automata of singing birds, roaring lions, and other moving animals.25 A thousand years ago the Arabs were experimenting with animatronics.
Many of the basic building blocks of European technology originated in the ancient Middle Eastern river-valley civilizations. Medieval Islam's central location in Eurasia allowed it to acquire inventions from India and China as well as make crucial advances on technology inherited from ancient Greece and Hellenistic Egypt. In time, the technological knowledge of the Middle East was transferred to Europe via Spain, and to Asia and Africa. Muslim engineers contributed enormously to the technology of medieval Europe, and Europeans may have feared the dominance of Middle Eastern technology and learning. Dante reveals European animosity toward Islamic culture in the Commedia. In Canto VIII of The Inferno, the Florentine poet places the mosques in the city of Dis, and in Canto XXVIII he puts Muhammad in the eighth circle.
9. Arnold Pacey, "Technology," in Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology,
and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures, ed. Helaine Selin (Dordrecht/
Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997),p. 937.
10. Howard R. Turner, Science in Medieval Islam:An Illustrated Introduction (Austin:
University of Texas Press, 1995), p. 165.
11. Pacey, in Encyclopaedia, p. 937.
12. Alfred Crosby, professor of history at the University of Texas, in a letter to the
author, December 29,2000.
13. James and Thorpe, Ancient Inventions, p. 384.
14. Arnold Pacey, Technology in World Civilization: A Thousand Year History, Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press, 1990), p. 8.
15. Donald R. Hill, "Technology in the Islamic World," in Encyclopaedia, p. 948.
16. Ibid.,p.949.
17. Pacey, Technology in World Civilization, pp. 10—11.
18. James and Thorpe, Ancient Inventions, p. 393.
19. Ahmad Y. Al-Hassan and Donald R. Hill, Islamic Technology:An Illustrated History
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 264.
20. Pacey, Technology in World Civilization, p. 34.
21. James and Thorpe, Ancient Inventions, p. 139.
22. al-Hassan and Hill, Islamic Technology, p. 45.
23. Ibid.,pp.59,90,61.
24. Turner, Science in Medieval Islam, p. 188.
25. James and Thorpe, Ancient Inventions, p. 140.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

