<HTML>Stephen,
Well I was only quoting what KS claimed in Nature. R&P believe that 10 Draconis may well have been clearly visible to the AEs due to clearer skies and they quote star catalogues that list the star dating as far back as Hipparchus (128 BC). KS does raise other problems with R&Ps theory tho' and she argues that there is no evidence that the AEs recorded or even recognised the star (10 Draconis) and suggests it may have been easier to have used a bisection method with the brighter star than the method R&P propose.
There are clearly also practical problems associated with both methods - KS only has a brief window of time in which to take her measurement altho' she believes this enhances the accuracy of the alignment as the stars move rapidly away from the line following the alignment.
There does also seem to be some reliable circumstantial evidence to support KSs method. Pictorial evidence from the Senenmut astronomical ceiling suggests that the AEs used a line between 2 circumpolar constellations to find north (one constellation is definitely Ursa Major) and later textual evidence suggests the use of a plumb line and Ursa Major.
Clearly there is no way that we can unequivocably prove any particular astronomical alignment method without direct written testimony from the period but we should at least consider both attempts to unravel this mystery. Until either method can be said to be scientifically unworkable both methods IMHO are worthy of considered discussion, criticism and debate.
KRs,
Duncan</HTML>
