Here's what i take issue with;
You don't get that information from looking at Petrie's figures so it gets ignored. It's one reason I find all of the recent plans to be so pointless. And then there was the ultimate absurdity when I posted some details of a feature on the Plateau that Petrie didn't measure and it was promptly incorporated by more than one person into their plans. With no accurate measurements and no idea if it dated anywhere from the Pre Dynastic to Medieval times. It's geographical height was also ignored, it was "Phlateauism" at it's daftest.
As it was myself and Don who looked at the features Jon had drawn attention to in terms of our considerations of what constitutes planning at Giza, then i am directly implicated it seems in commiting the ultimate absurdity, and guilty of the most daftest 'Phlateauism', failing to account for the realities of topography. So here are my 'offending posts;
[
www.hallofmaat.com]
[
www.hallofmaat.com]
They weren't responded to at the time, and yet are now implicitly the basis of a slur regarding my entire approach. I am fully aware that information is limited regarding the date of this feature, as well as it's extent and overall context, and neither created any plan based upon this limited information nor altered any aspect of one, i merely observed that it could be considered as within the scope and parameters of a of the model i had previously considered. It was of interest to me that perhpas other tombs in the vicinity dating back to earlier Dynasties perhaps had also been taken into account in terms of the overall necropolis site.
The essential features of this plan are sightlines towards the horizon based on a relative central viewpoint at the Sphinx, stellar alignments, which the opening post takes issue with;
I'd be prepared to bet that if Petrie had included the "real" distances between the Pyramids then these would form the core of all sorts of theories proving Phi and Pi and stellar alignments etc etc.
None of the lines indicated in the plan are physically realised upon the Giza Plateau, nor indeed do they appear to take into account topography, yet these are given as lines of sight, and thus what effectively becomes the relative to viewpoint horizon, in the critical alignments, are the pyramids themselves, thus the sightlines only find realisation in three dimensional space, and a two dimensional plan cannot do justice to this intent, only serve to indicate the basic premise.
The same factors i would look for in any proposed causeway, good vantage point and line of sight to any proposed alignment or physical feature, and would hardly therefore ignore topography, so again i find the opening posters assumptions of a superior perspective and more elevated understanding on his part a mere conceit...all puns intended.
Morph.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2008 08:50AM by Morph.