Dave L Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Jon.
>
> I posted this on the related thread below. It
> should be of interest.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if this pyramidion is 3
> 6/10ths cubits a side by 2 and a half high (thus a
> scaled verion of the planned un-bent/RMP 56). It
> would be interesting to see if it has been
> possible to establish its size with any degree of
> accuracy aside from its face slopes?
Agreed.
>
> As we know from their documents and the
> archaeology, the Egyptian scribes first chose
> whatever base and height dimension they wanted for
> the latest pyramid for practical and symbolic
> proportional reasons, and then converted it into
> the Seked gradient mathematically.
Hang on. We "KNOW" no such thing. This is your belief, based on your speculations and coincidence-hunting. Treating it like some foregone conclusion is misleading at best.
There is no such thing as a "symbolic proportional reason" demonstrated in ANY document or archaeological context from Egypt. You can't just slide this stuff in and expect people to fall for it.
> This was then
> used to apply the chosen slope at the construction
> site by way of standardised cubit rules and
> A-frame levels.
That is correct. The slope was transferred from blueprint to structure, probably with the use of the cubit rules and a-frame levels.
>
> Normal proportions were either the old traditional
> circle-height-radius-circumference-perimeter
> relationship (Khufu, Meidum, others),
There is no "old traditional" circular ANYTHING from the Old Kingdom. This is highly misleading.
> or the 3-4-5
> triangle section (Khafre, others).
There is no evidence that the Old Kingdom pyramid builders had any knowledge of the 3-4-5 triangle. Again, finding a coincidence does not guarantee intent.
> Both had
> important places in the Egyptian
> mathematical/architectural tradition.
>
Neither had ANY place in the Egyptian mathematical/architectural tradition. You are making this assertion based on your having FOUND coincidences and then IMAGINED that they were put there for reasons that YOU find important.
That is a LONG way from proper archaeological methodology. It's very close, however, to the method used by historical fiction writers to convince their readers that something really cool was happening in the past.
> Anyway, that's the facts.
Sorry... very little of what you have written is actually factual. This is just your imagination running wild. Not everybody is unfamiliar with the real evidence, you know...
Anthony
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.
