<HTML>Well, this is something that an article is planned to address. I've been collecting bits and bobs but need to collate them together.
The alignment of the pyramids (the GP anyway) is I think a circular argument. The work of <a href="[
www.nature.com] Spence</a> shows that accuracy of the alignment to true north varied and seems to indicate a stellar method that "drifted" with precession which would suggest that they either didn't have a concept of north or that simply aligning to particular stars was important !
As regards brightness/magnitude I'd suggest that as the "correlation" is now "symbolic" that's something else that is now swept under the carpet. How much of all this did Bauval <i>actually</i> check....... IIRC our system originally came from the Babylonians in the 1st millenium BC - about 2000 years after Giza....
As regards "representations", they tended to be more "pictorial" than "photographic"....
I was at this <a href="[
star-www.dur.ac.uk]; a month ago and found <i>nothing</i> whatsoever to support what GH/RB <i>need</i> for a 10,500BC "encoded" at Giza.....
One academic I was talking to told me that, based on her studies, the AEs tended to be <i>reactive</i> rather than <i>proactive</i>.
A recommended book is "Astronomy Before The Telescope", edited by Christopher Walker, British Museum Press, 1996.
John</HTML>
