Hello to the forum members!

I am Alexander Puchkov - the author of the article from the first post of this topic.
I invite all, who interested in issue of astronomical orientation of the egyptian pyramids to the discussion.

My research led to the following conclusions (in order of importance):

1. As a result of the study, it became apparent that Egyptian chronology has great uncertainty for the dating of periods older than the Middle Kingdom (for the MK there are proven synchronisms; the dating of MK is also well confirmed by radiocarbon data). For the Old Kingdom (OK) and the First Intermediate Peroid (FIP), dating floats within the limits of 200 years due to the uncertainty in the duration of the FIP and the lack of any synchronisms for earlier periods. The results of radiocarbon dating for the OK at the beginning of the millennium (Bonani, Haas) gave older dates for it (about 200-250 years; the “old wood” problem). More recent studies of radiocarbonists (Dee, Ramsey) attempted to disguise the problem and support current chronology. Older dates for the OK are confirmed by Manetho's (Eusebius's) data on the duration of 9-10th dynasties. Currently accepted point of view about the age of the OK is based on the ultra-short duration of 9-10th dynasties proposed by chronologists (Beckerath) in the second half of the 20th century and based entirely on assumptions.

2. Adjustment of the dates of the OK by 200 years to the past eliminates the problem of the "old wood", brings the duration of the FIP in correspondence with the Maneto's data and shifts the 4th dynasty to the times of the closest approach of the Thuban to the celestial Pole. The coincidence in time of these events makes it possible to conclude (as correctly noted by Mark Heaton above) that no more complicated method was necessary to orient the pyramids of the 4th dynasty than simple orientation to the pole star (this is the simplest and most logical method of orientation to the northern circumpolar region; at the moment, it is generally accepted that the Egyptians used one of the "bisector" methods to orient structures to the true north; all bisector methods, especially the method using the artificial horizon (Edwards), are complex and sophisticated and more consistent with the knowledge of the modern researcher).

3. A brief study of egyptian iconography showed that there was a special position of the Meskhetiu asterism (its upper culmination, when the stars are best seen) which the Egyptians highlighted and considered a sacred position.

4. Comparison of the graphs on azimuths of the base's sides of the OK pyramids and the azimuths of the circumpolar stars (7 stars of Meskhetiu and the pole star - Thuban) showed that the orientation of all funerary complexes was carried out towards selected circumpolar stars in the same position of the sky (in the upper culmination of Meskhetiu), and not towards the true north.

5. The coincidence of the azimuths of burial complexes of Khufu and Khafre confirmed the assumption (Belmonte, Magli) that these two complexes were probably the parts of a single plan and were laid at the same time. (Several strong arguments testify in favor of this conclusion.)

6. The parameters of Djoser's serdab allow to conclude that the statue observed the eastern horizon by watching the star in the north, and thus awaited the resurrection of the king in the eastern sky (as the Sah asterism). This observation indicates that during the reign of Djoser, both northern and eastern skies were important for funeral rituals but the focus was gradually shifting from the northern sky (the circumpolar region of the sky where the Duat was located in the opinion of an earlier tradition) to the eastern sky (the myth about Osiris-Sah gets more and more significance; the Duat moved beneat the earth).

I am interested in any comments, new observations and arguments both on the issues covered in the article and on the topic of the astronomical orientation of the pyramids in general.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2020 03:26PM by keeperzz.