fmetrol Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi David
>
> It's difficult for any survey to pinpoint the
> correct base, the correct height, hence the
> correct slope of a pyramid if the outer casing has
> gone walkabouts. You could also argue that
> regardless of the debris around the base Petrie
> sighted correctly.
>
> The missing casing always leaves a sour taste in
> the mouth for there is no way of telling where it
> came down to meet the pavement. Petrie argued for
> the four sockets but we don't know where the
> casing sat upon those four depressions or if any
> adjustments were made before the casing took
> shape. Petrie admitted that there was no way to
> know the thickness of the casing to the upper
> parts of the pyramid so all in all it's really a
> casing problem.
>
> I may be wrong but I prefer to stick with one
> survey and one alone. However tempting it might be
> I cannot bring myself to pick and choose measures
> from various surveys to support this proposition
> or that proposition. If I cannot rely on Petrie to
> solve my problem then it won't be solved. It's as
> simple as that.

If Petrie had used the same methodology for both internal and external measurements, I would agree with you - to discount one set of measurements, yet accept another does not make sense. Petrie used different methods internally and externally. I have stated on this thread that I am happy to accept Petrie's internal measurements as I have no more recent data on that covers as much as Petrie.

When research is ongoing, as it is by Egyptologist, one should use the most up-to-date evidence that is generally accepted. This does not mean that if there is disagreement with one set of measures, all measures produced by an individual are incorrect.

>
> Petrie wrong?

On base and height measurements.

> According to who / what?

I have made this clear.

> He made some blunders
> with figures but that's really a transferal
> problem, notes to notes to print. All up he's
> probably 99.9% perfect.

I agree with you, but if someone is putting forward a proposition based upon this 0.1% error applying, then this is poor methodology.

> I like the idea that pyramids continue to crumble
> and so too the measures. Modern measures are
> therefore not as good as those of a hundred years
> ago, at least not when we consider that Petrie had
> some astonishing new tools at his disposal
> including the theodolite.

I agree with you again if you mean that modern accuracy may be too accurate i.e suggests an accuracy that the AEs may or may not have used. You are ignoring the fact that when Petrie used his theodolite, he was not actually measuring the corner stones of the pyramid. Your idea that the increase may be due to the pyramid crumbling is spurious as it was not rubble that was later measured. Following on from your argument, you could put forward an idea that the base would have been a lot shorter 4500 years ago if it can expand so much in just 100 years.
>
> If we are looking for evidence of slope then I
> ask: How can we possible pass up the casing stones
> still "in situ" Have they moved? No. Have they
> deteriorated due to sun, wind, rain and sand?
> Possibly but we have a margin of error already in
> place and it's difficult to see it being extended
> one way or the other.


There is a margin of error in any measurement which is why I for one would never use the term "exact".

> Graham
>
>

Regards


David

"When you do not know where you are going, any road will take you there".