<HTML>Dave,
Leo too quickly descended into the dark depths of the ‘older messages’
abyss.
The causeway of the first pyramid of Giza has been completely
dismantled and there seems to be very little trace of it left. Lepre
says that: “The present stretch of the wide, barren hilltop, which so
many have for so long described as the original causeway of Khufu,
needs also to be reexamined, for in truth, it represents nothing more
than a natural stretch of the plateau and, for the several reasons
described in this essay, might never have been a true causeway.”
What may be the remains of the valley temple have been found, but this
would mean that the causeway changed direction below the escarpment
following the natural contours of the terrain. Napoleon’s men did a
survey of the area in the late 18th century and included in their site
plan a drawing of what then remained of the causeway below the
escarpment that also shows this change of direction.
When the causeway reached the edge of the escarpment it would have
‘dropped’ 40m to the valley floor below so we have a fairly steep
angle downwards, and at some point changed direction to the northeast.
It was not therefore directed to the horizon along this stretch but
only at the upper end where it left the mortuary temple on the east
face of the pyramid. The height above sea level is about 60m here so
this needs to be taken into consideration in the astronomical
calculations.
They also drew the direction of true north and when the angle of the
upper part of the causeway is measured from their plan it could be
anything between 12 and 14 degs N of E. Any measurement of the angle
is going to be an estimate so it appears that whatever figure for the
‘cross-quarter’ sunrise is correct, with a creative use of a pencil
and ruler, it can probably be made to ‘fit’ the angle of the upper
part of the now non-existent causeway.
If I understand it correctly, it’s the ‘cross-quarter’ sunrise, midway
along the horizon between the summer solstice and the equinox that you
suggest happened two degs further south than what R.B. states. The
question is then: Did the sun rise at the summer solstice about 28
degs N of E or 24 degs?
Your two degree separation is measured horizontally between SkyChart’s
ecliptic and Skyglobes, but as the angle of the ecliptic changes over
the year the magnitude of the horizontal separation will change. Why
don’t you measure the separation at the ‘cross-quarter’ sunrise where
the angle of the ecliptic is much steeper than in your ‘snapshot’ and
will be more like one deg, or just simply calculate the azimuth of the
sunrise at the summer solstice and then determine the midway point
along the horizon between the solstice and the equinox.
Whatever the exact figure is, there are still too many uncertainties
however. An estimated angle for a now non-existent causeway, obtaining
‘exact’ astronomical sunrise data from over 12000 years ago, no exact
definition of sunrise for AE, and no local horizon data included in
the calculations seems to make any theories about aligning this
causeway to the sunrise in the remote past interesting but
problematic.
At the spring equinox the recumbent Lion or what may have been the AE
‘Knife’, rises a few hours before the Sun as the ‘was it there or was
it not’ sphinx looks on.
If anyone apart from baboons were observing the sky at this time they
may have glimpsed the ‘sickle’ and perhaps Regulus before they
were extinguished by the glare of the rising sun, but if the observers
were serious star gazers it was only important that they ‘knew’ that
Leo rose before the sun on the equinox and if they were anything like
ancient astronomers/astrologers from other ancient cultures, it was
not necessary for them to have seen the whole event for it to have
been significant and potent. Knowledge of the event is what is
important. Whether it is seen or not, it still happens.
Orion in the South crossed the meridian at it’s lowest point in the
precessional cycle at the equinox sunrise, but with it’s ‘not as steep
as we would like it to be’ angle of the belt.
There is still a lot of room for manoeuver for R.Bauval and I doubt
that any real or apparent ‘facts’ that show his theory in a bad light
will faze him or lessen his sales of books.
As Mark Twain put it: "get your facts first, and then you can distort
them as much as you please"
Conclusion. This era in the remote past was an interesting time for
any hypothetical serious sky watchers that happened to be in Egypt
then.
Ancient history is interesting isn’t it - it’s so old.
Chris Tedder</HTML>
