Hi Graham,

Thanks for greetings and for your interesting comment.

All your conclusions are correct, but the input data on azimuths are not entirely correct.

Quote

In the case of Khafre the base orientation is given as -4'0" and the casing sides -5'26"

-5' 26" is the average azimuth for Khafre's casing sides foundation (according to Petrie).
-4' 0" and -4' 12" are the azimuths of eastern and western casing sides respectively (according to Nell & Ruggles).
Therefore these are two different measurements for casing sides and there are no data on azimuths of core masonry planes for the Khafre pyramid in both reports.

Quote from Petrie's report:

Quote

The materials available for a discussion of the original size of the base of the Great pyramid are:— (1) the casing in situ upon the pavement, in the middle of each face; (2) the rock cut sockets at each corner; (3) the levels of the pavement and sockets; and (4) the mean planes of the present core masonry.

In the article, I draw attention to the "skew" of the Khufu's casing relative to the core masonry (based on the Petrie report; this "skew" is also confirmed by Nell and Ruggles) caused presumably by the precessional shift of the reference star. Unfortunately, such a conclusion cannot be made regarding to the Khafre pyramid due to insufficient data on azimuths of its core masonry.

The hypothesis about "double project of Khufu" was expressed by Belmonte in 2007 and supported by Magli later. I only consider it most preferable at now for explaining peculiarities and coincidences in Khufu's and Khafre's burial complexes. In the framework of the reconstructed "stretching of the cord" ceremony, I have no explanation for the observed orientation of the Khafre pyramid (the only one of all available) and the almost complete coincidence of its azimuths with the Khufu's azimuths. I will be happy to hear any other ideas on this subject and could add them to the article.

Quote

However, the conclusion that the chronology needs to shift by 220 years is a problem.
It is possible that some of the assumptions you used were wrong.

I am very interested to hear your arguments why increasing the age of the Old Kingdom by 220 years is a problem, because I have not found a single strong evidence that helps to accurately determine the age of the Old Kingdom (neither proven astronomical synchronisms nor proven chronological synchronisms). At the moment, the age of the Old Kingdom is calculated by chronologists on the base of known age of the Middle Kingdom (for which there are proven synchronisms and the age of which is also well confirmed by radiocarbon data) by adding the estimated lengths of the kings' reigns calculated on the basis of ancient chronological sources (King Lists). As you know, the data from these sources are incomplete and often contradict each other. The greatest uncertainty exists for the duration of the First Intermediate Period, and it is clear that the duration of the FIP directly affects the age of the Old Kingdom.
I will be pleased to hear your counterarguments since they certainly help me to improve my arguments.

Best,
Alex.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2020 06:38AM by keeperzz.