Greg asked me who suggested such a concept. Dave L has said he won't retract his false assertion that I have offered a "disproven hypothesis" because "he wondered the same thing".

How would one answer this question, except to look at the works of those who have tried to paint Giza solely with a stellar brush, and see if they have suggested any solar influences at Giza? Wouldn't an article by such a proponent of "stellar only" philosophy show stars as the only concern for the construction, alignment and placement of pyramids and structures within pyramids at Giza? If so, wouldn't the lack of solar influences be suggestive of such an endeavor?

Let's see how this pans out....


Allow me to quote the first lines of Bauval's (now defunct) OCT submission to DE:

Quote

The Pyramid Texts embody the remnants of a well-structured star-cult, the main theme of which was the transfiguration of the dead pharaohs into stars. Examination of the Pyramid Texts reveals that the dominant stars of the cult were those of the constellation of Orion. The special attention given to Orion can be understood in several ways: it is the most striking of the constellations, in the archaic Period, it happened to rise in the midsummer at dawn (c.2600BC), as though a celestial herald of the fortcoming yearly nilotic flood. Consequently, the appearance of Orion after a prolongued period of "invisibility' was taken as the celestial event preluding a new season of rejuvenation and growth."

Discussion in Egyptology, 13, 1989

Two children who succeeded him to the throne of Egypt, both of which took the epithet "Son of Re" as their throne names, and yet the solar aspect was not even mentioned. Hmmm.... Let's keep reading. Maybe he will get more balanced as we read along:

Quote

"A masterplan with intent to correlate the Great Pyramid of Giza with the pattern of the Belt of Orion appears very likely indeed. A question which must follow is: does this Masterplan include a wider correlation between geomorphy of the sky landscape about Orion and the landscape about the Giza necropolis?

He then aligns the Winding Waterway with the Milky Way (Krauss has disproven this, showing that it was the path of the SUN, not stars). We all know about his failed attempts to align other pyramids with other stars of Orion (which Frank Doernenburg dealt with most definitively, here: [doernenburg.alien.de] See the section called "The Wider Picture").


But not a word about the sun, solar aspects of the religion, or Re.


He goes on to say:

Quote

It cannot be denied that monumental pyramids are proof that human capacity was strained to its very limits in order to satisfy the egocentric desire of pharaohs to "establish" themselves after death as "star gods" near Oriion-Osiris....Thus a Masterplan for Giza based on the pattern of the Belt of Orion and its relation to the Milky Way, when allocated to pharoahs who believed in a stellar transfiguration after death near Orion-Osiris is a very real possibility indeed.

He mentions Re but one time, in quoting the Pyramid Texts where Re is said to cross the Winding Waterway (a rather curious thought if one thinks of the WW as a feature of the night sky only, as Bauval suggests).

In fact, in the complete text supposedly explaining the layout of the entire Giza plateau and the orientation of the pyramids and the nature of the structures inside Khufu's pyramid, Bauval doesn't even use the words "sun" or "solar" one single time!

I ask you now, who started the debate about exclusivity at Giza? I'm just trying to be the balance to this extraordinarily lopsided, ham-handed, error-ridden discussion.

Anthony

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2007 09:26AM by Anthony.