<HTML>Hi Robert,
> The arguments put forth by those scholars in favour of the
> correlation theory are not, as you infer, purely 'artistic'
> in nature. Why would eminent astrophysicists and astronomers
> be simply doing this? Do you think that they would support my
> theory if it were only to be judged on those lines? They all
> have, however, rightly pointed out that sacred architecture
> and artistic symbolism do not demand arc-second or even
> arc-minute levels of precision to make the required religious
> statement, such as in the case of correlation between two
> sets of things i.e. pyramids and stars.
But you don't need to be an eminent astrophysicist or an expert astronomer to validate your claim with a rubber stamp of approval. You're using their opinions as an argument from authority. Should we accept the opinions of these particular eminent Astronomers over the opinions of other eminent Astronomers and expert Egyptologists that oppose the correlation theory?
I agree with you that there is a definite resemblance between the pattern of stars and pattern of pyramids. I also agree that it would have been quite difficult for the AEs to have recreated the pattern with arc second precision.
The similarity in the
> configuration is far too close to be deemed a 'coincidence',
> especially when we take into account the religious motives
> found in the PT.
The PTs associate Osiris with Orion but there's still not a direct association in the PTs between pyramids and specific stars or between the pyramids and Orion.
You claim that 's3h' = the constellation of Orion yet Legon indicates it could have referred to a particular star and that we cannot even be certain which star.
Legon states:
<b>"There is, after all, no evidence from the Pyramid Texts or elsewhere to support the idea that different pyramids of the Fourth Dynasty might be equated with different stars of the constellation of Orion; and I find the idea conceptually implausible in view of the fact that successive kings of the Old Kingdom wished to be identified with S3h=Osiris in the afterlife in precisely the same terms from one reign to the next.
Central to this problem is the convenient but vague identification of the word S3h in the Pyramid Texts with the constellation of Orion, when there are good reasons for supposing that the compilers of these texts conceived of S3h not as a constellation, but as a star. This understanding was indeed clearly expressed by Alexander Badawy in his important paper describing the 'stellar destiny of pharaoh', in which he referred to Orion as: 'a kind of prince among the other stars', 'the most powerful among the stars', and 'Orion (probably alpha-Orionis) as the brightest star in the southern sky...'. [3]
Although it appears that in later contexts, the name S3h could refer to the constellation of Orion as whole, yet there can be no doubt that just as Sirius stood alone in the sky as the embodiment of Isis, so also only one star in the constellation of Orion could have been supposed to embody the spirit of Osiris, or that of the deceased king in the guise of Osiris. This conclusion is obviously supported in the decan lists of astronomical ceilings, in which the dieties of the different stars are given. In the tombs of Senmut, Pedamenope, and Montemhet, for example, Osiris is associated with the star known as hry rmn S3h, the star 'under the arm of S3h'; while elsewhere, according to Parker and Neugebauer's classification, [4] the same star with the presiding deity of Osiris is identified as S3h specifically. Other stars of Orion were referred to in the decan lists as Children-of-Horus and Eye-of-Horus.
As we have seen, Badawy equated the name S3h in the Pyramid Texts with alpha-Orionis, apparently believing that this was the designation of the brightest star in the constellation of Orion when in fact the star in question is named beta-Orionis or Rigel. Since Rigel marks one of the 'feet' of Orion, it accords perfectly with the identification of S3h as the 'Toe-star', as shown by the translation of the word 's3h'; and it also gives meaning to several passages in the Pyramid Texts, including the following as rendered by Badawy: 'Thou must approach the sky on thy toes as the Toe-star (Orion)' (PT 723). [5] Substituting Toe-star for S3h in this manner similarly explains the allusion to Seth's complaint that Osiris had kicked him, 'when there came into being this his name of Toe-star, long of leg and lengthy of stride' (PT 959); and likewise the method of ascent of the deceased: 'I have gone up upon the ladder with my foot on the Toe-star' (PT 1763). [6] Again, in the Coffin Texts we find: 'I am the Toe-star who treads his Two Lands, who navigates in front of the stars of the sky on the belly of my mother Nut' (CT III, 263). [7] This last passage clearly shows which of the two 'feet' stars of Orion should be identified as the Toe-star, since when Orion rises in the east, the brilliant Rigel leads the way, and indeed 'navigates' because it marks the place on the horizon where Sirius will be seen to rise about 100 minutes later. This indication was of course useful for observations of the heliacal rising of Sothis, alluded to in the naming of Spdt as 'Year' in line 965 of the Pyramid Texts.
In passages such as the following: 'May S3h give me his hand, for Sothis has taken my hand' (PT 1561), a reference may appear to be made to the anthropomorphic figure of Orion; and yet since this idea cannot possibly have applied to Spdt, there is no reason why it should have applied to S3h either. Consequently, it makes good sense to substitute 'Toe-star' for Orion in every occurrence in the Pyramid Texts, and to conclude that the interplay between Isis-Spdt and Osiris-S3h took place in a balanced relationship between two stars - namely Sirius and Rigel, two of the brightest stars in the sky - and not between a star and a constellation. We may infer that the name S3h originally referred to the Toe-star Rigel alone, but was later applied to the constellation of Orion as a whole; yet the Egyptians never lost sight of the fact that only one star in the constellation represented Osiris."</b>
> This, 'ventilation' function is a defunct argument, dropped
> even by the most conservative Egyptologists. It is deceased,
> snuffed out, Kaput, gone with the wind, kicked the bucket,
> gone to meet its maker, descended into Hades, zapped out of
> existence. So when will it sink in Mr. Legon's brains that
> the 'ventilation' issue has been knocked stone dead by the
> simple fact that both ends of the QC's shafts were closed?
>
> And no, the absurd idea that these shafts were 'intended' to
> be opened at a later date but then that this was not done
> because the chamber was 'abandoned' is not a valid argument,
> but a convoluted type of mental gymnastics to make a theory
> fit.
Erm... have you actually read the article? I got the impression he believed the shafts served their purpose during construction so once the pyramid was finished they were then sealed off. Sounds logical to me anyway.
None of us know what the shafts were really for but I realise that arguments only become defunct when they are shown to be in error. I don't think we should discount the possibility that they were ventilation shafts any more than we should reject the idea that they were intended for stellar symbolism.
Cheers,
Duncan</HTML>
