Ken B Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Robert,
>
> The suggestion that the 'belt stars' of Orion are
> the crown of Sah -- whether that is true or not --
> does not change the Old Kingdom standard of the
> king/Osiris being lifted up on his left side
> (east) and falling on his right side (west). The
> only way a standing figure with a head up when at
> the height of the sky or zenith is to have the
> head of the figure toward the north when at the
> horizon. Your OCT fails the test because of
> this.

No it doesn't. You fail to understand the issue --or even the astronomy involved. I've read carefully the above statement you made, and frankly it doesn't make any sense. You also seem to confuse culmination with 'zenith'. Orion was never, or ever will be, at zenith in Egypt.

The 'head' of Sah is crowned by Orion's belt. This asterism was almost vertical when rising in c. 2500 BC (the Giza date). Thus the 'head' of the Sah figure as shown by Locher would point towards the west, not north. When at culmination (which you confuse with 'zenith'), Orion's belt is angled at 16 deg. to the horizon, and is thus directed again west, not north.

>
> Additionally, later glyphs for Sah show only two
> vertical elements (how many times have I repeated
> this?) such as in the 'astronomical' ceiling of
> Senemut so where did the third belt star go? It
> didn't go anywhere because it wasn't there in the
> first place!

We are dealing with the Old Kingdom with the OCT. You are talking of a time difference of 1000 years when referring to the Senmut ceiling. Changes in linguistic symbolism and syntax does not alter the celestial imagery of Sah. You are reading too much in this.

>
> Look at the glyphs for Sah on the Denderah round
> 'zodiac' (not to mention the Ramesseum and other
> examples) and still there are not three elements,
> but only two. What happened to the third belt
> star? Also, the Denderah Sah glyphs show half a
> sky glyph, denoting the side of the sky and not
> the zenith or height of the sky. Sorry, your
> theory fails yet again.

Sorry, but it is your argument that fails, not the OCT. How can you bring Dendera into this discussion? The Dendera zodiacs are 2400 years from the Giza pyramids epoch. You must stick to contemporary or near=contemporary descriptions and depictions of Sah, which include the Pyramid Texts and the Old Kingdom/Middle Kingdom coffin lids. Kurt Locher's interpretation of these images is quite correct, and has been embraced by many archaeoastronomers.


> Your publications have illustrations and text
> which show a standing figure superimposed on the
> Orion constellation. When at the height of the
> sky the head of the figure in your version is
> oriented upwards relative to land toward the stars
> Alpha and Gamma Orionis. However, when the same
> figure is placed at the eastern and western
> horizons the head is by necessity oriented to the
> north! How do you explain this and still maintain
> that the head of the standing figure is aimed
> south?
>
> I think you have a lot 'splaining to do.

The explanation is given by Kurt Locher's depiction of the celestial Sah. To look at the Sah figure at culmination you have to be facing south. The draw the Sah figure you have to face south. There is no 'north is up' or 'south is down', but simply the standing figure of Sah smack in the middle of the southern sky. Everyone (except Krupp and a few blinkered followers of his messy mental gymnastics) will draw Orion's belt on the ground with Mintaka at the top; just like Locher drew it on his diagram. The explanation is as simple as that.

The 'upside down' 'north is up' argument is a big red herring that we have long discarded.

Btw, this thread which I started was not to re-open this truly waste-of-time non-debate that Krupp launched, but to highlight that J. Gwyn Griffiths is very much open to a pre-5th Dynasty Osiris, and both he and Lehner saw Orion as central to the Duat, which can only be seen when facing south.

I have replied to your posting to make this clear. Not to embark on an endless time-wasting debate of the defunct 'Krupp' rebuttal. The OCT does not fail because of this. It is you who merely fails to appreciate the absurdity of such a rebuttal.

RB