As regards the claims that Schyler makes, yes, the dodgy maths is the bit I referred to. However, I think the argument that the lock evolved in Assyria then was transferred to Egypt is quite strong. The language would never have evolved without something driving it, and while it is possible it was imported to Assyria, then into Egypt, where on earth was it developed then? It would have to be some lost civilisation.[/QUOTE]
My extensive research on the origin of the pin lock began about 40 years ago (off and on). My conclusion was that the pin tumbler lock was neither the invention of the Assyrians or the Egyptians. There is no need to postulate some earlier “lost civilisation,” because there is no physical or literary evidence for this type of lock prior to the classical period (Greeks and Romans).
What about evidence based on the linguistic interpretation of certain cuneiform words? First, there is no consensus among scholars on the exact meaning of these words. In fact, it was Dan T. Potts disagreement with the translations of previous scholars that led to his 1990 article “Lock and Key in Ancient Mesopotamia.” I have read his article carefully. Here is his reasoning.
Previous writers all failed to use the “specialist literature” on early locks. Furthermore, the [I]Encyclopedia Britannica [/I]clearly states it was invented in the ancient Near East. In his own words, “The difficulty of identifying these parts correctly lies, to begin with, in the choice of the correct lock system as a model, and thereafter in finding identifications which, in association with all of the other relevant terms, make mechanical sense” (p. 189). In other words, Potts has worked backwards. Instead of examining the evidence first and coming to a conclusion, he began with his conclusion and then looked for the “facts” to back it up.
