Home of the The Hall of Ma'at on the Internet
Home
Discussion Forums
Papers
Authors
Web Links

May 11, 2024, 6:55 pm UTC    
January 02, 2008 08:55PM
Pistol Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The practice of afterlife invocations in the name
> of the deceased pre-existed the LAST king of the
> 5th dynasty; Unas. Unas was the FIRST king to
> include invocations etched inside his pyramid and
> also the FIRST king NOT to build a separate Sun
> temple as his 5th dynasty predecessors had.

Incorrect. Djedkare-Isesi was the first king not to build a separate Sun temple as his predecessor Niuserre had.

> It may very well be that the primary reason Unas
> has texts on the walls of his tomb is directly
> related to his exclusion of building a Sun temple,
> as a sort of 'magical' compensation, the physical
> demarcations between the two is quite obvious.

I agree with the "magical compensation" theory, but as I have pointed out, it was Djedkare-Isesi who followed Niuserre.

It was Priskin who proposed that Djedkare-Isesi compensated for the lack of a sun temple by incorporating a 3:4:5 triangle in his pyramid design. In Priskin's theory, this triangle had great significance in the solar cult on account of its perimeter adding to 12, the supreme solar number. (There are 12 months in the year and 12 hours in the day as well as the night.) Rossi is of the opinion that the height of 100 cubits and semibase of 75 cubits for Djedkare's and the Sixth Dynasty pyramids is proof enough that the Egyptians knew the geometric properties of the 3:4:5 triangle. In fact knowledge of the geometric properties goes back to Khufu at the latest. The dimensions of Khufu's Mortuary temple are 75c x 100c, an obvious 3 x 4 rectangle, while the King's Chamber contains a 3 x 4 rectangle or 3:4:5 triangles across one of the the diagonals of the chamber.

Now, Unas built his pyramid after Djedkare-Isesi, but his pyramid had a different slope of 3:2 (56* 19'). This is an unusual seked of 2/3 cubit, but it hides a 3 x 4 rectangle. Unas' base is 110 cubits and its height is 82 .5 cubits, in the required 4:3 ratio. Although the area of a 3 x 4 rectangle is 12, the solar number, the pyramid's design represents a shift away from the 3:4:5 triangle as such, which presumably has more magical solar power than the 3 x 4 rectangle. The pyramid texts thereby give compensation for the loss of magical solar power given by the 4:3 slope.

> And it is also worth mentioning that at this same
> point in time, AFTER Unas, each subsequent Old
> Kingdom Royal pyramid throughout the sixth dynasty
> was standardized; they were all modeled on the
> same plan and they all had texts.

Yes, and this standardized model was based on the 3:4:5 triangle. So these Sixth Dynasty pyramids had the magical power of both the pyramid texts and the 3:4:5 triangle.

> Best Regards,
>
> B.A. Hokom

Kanga (Lee McGiffen)


Subject Author Posted

Why no ascended kings?

cladking January 02, 2008 12:10PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Warwick L Nixon January 02, 2008 12:20PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

cladking January 02, 2008 12:27PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Warwick L Nixon January 02, 2008 12:33PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

cladking January 02, 2008 12:57PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Warwick L Nixon January 02, 2008 01:11PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

cladking January 02, 2008 01:54PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Warwick L Nixon January 02, 2008 02:01PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

cladking January 02, 2008 02:14PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Warwick L Nixon January 02, 2008 03:15PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

cladking January 02, 2008 04:50PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg January 02, 2008 11:19PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

cladking January 02, 2008 11:42PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Khazar-khum January 03, 2008 01:40AM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Jammer January 03, 2008 02:22PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

cladking January 03, 2008 11:14PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Khazar-khum January 04, 2008 12:45AM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

cladking January 04, 2008 01:19AM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg January 04, 2008 05:16AM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Khazar-khum January 04, 2008 03:43PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Khazar-khum January 04, 2008 03:57PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

cladking January 04, 2008 04:17PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Warwick L Nixon January 09, 2008 12:26PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg January 04, 2008 05:47AM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

cladking January 04, 2008 11:49AM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg January 06, 2008 05:27AM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

cladking January 07, 2008 12:59AM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Jammer January 09, 2008 11:18AM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Jammer January 02, 2008 12:57PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

cladking January 02, 2008 01:05PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Kanga January 02, 2008 07:36PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Dave L January 02, 2008 12:50PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Warwick L Nixon January 02, 2008 01:01PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

cladking January 02, 2008 01:02PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Warwick L Nixon January 02, 2008 01:14PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Jammer January 02, 2008 01:49PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

cladking January 02, 2008 01:57PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Warwick L Nixon January 02, 2008 02:05PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Khazar-khum January 02, 2008 04:50PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

cladking January 02, 2008 05:00PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Khazar-khum January 02, 2008 08:20PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

cladking January 02, 2008 09:03PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Warwick L Nixon January 03, 2008 12:11PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Jammer January 03, 2008 02:26PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Khazar-khum January 03, 2008 06:55PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Jammer January 04, 2008 02:24PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Khazar-khum January 04, 2008 03:30PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Warwick L Nixon January 05, 2008 04:51PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

cladking January 03, 2008 05:05PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Warwick L Nixon January 04, 2008 10:22AM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Pistol January 02, 2008 05:27PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Kanga January 02, 2008 08:55PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Kanga January 02, 2008 07:40PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Byrd January 09, 2008 10:30PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

cladking January 10, 2008 12:44AM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Warwick L Nixon January 11, 2008 10:19AM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Byrd January 12, 2008 07:15PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

cladking January 12, 2008 09:09PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Warwick L Nixon January 12, 2008 09:36PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Katherine Griffis-Greenberg January 13, 2008 02:55PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

cladking January 13, 2008 04:02PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Warwick L Nixon January 13, 2008 04:27PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

cladking January 13, 2008 04:41PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Warwick L Nixon January 13, 2008 04:54PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

cladking January 13, 2008 05:52PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Warwick L Nixon January 13, 2008 06:21PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Byrd January 15, 2008 10:16AM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

cladking January 15, 2008 02:46PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Byrd January 15, 2008 04:49PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Byrd January 13, 2008 04:41PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

cladking January 13, 2008 05:54PM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

Jammer January 15, 2008 09:01AM

Re: Why no ascended kings?

cladking January 15, 2008 02:58PM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login