Hi Robin,

Quote

The main point I was trying to make is that pyramid orientations change over time, suggesting that this is the result of precession. What other explanation presents itself? But this also implies that the northern star targets remained the same throughout the pyramid age - otherwise, if it is suggested that different targets were used for particular pyramids, it all becomes a mess with too many variables. And it means that the builders did not aim at the actual pole but selected star targets which were subject to precession.

Four approximating lines which clearly exhibit procession dependence are strong evidence that at least four different stellar targets were used (see graph).
Not too many variables if we consider only 7 stars of the Meskhetiu astermism, which mentioned in texts accompanying orientation ritual as target of king's observations and the pole star - Thuban, which presumably mentioned in Pyramid Texts as Mooring Post.

Quote

As to the shafts, I repeat - "Unfortunately the data needed to reach conclusions is lacking. Have Petrie shaft/casing intersection points been confirmed, or has Gantenbrink provided better data to justify 154 for KC shaft exits? Confusion remains over shaft angles yet the shafts have been resurveyed by the Djedi team but no precise data has been released (and you'd think they would have performed a detailed survey before drilling into the pyramid). "

I agree that we do not have enough information for final conclusions.
I can only note that Gantenbrink's theoretical angle of 45° for KCS shaft does not correspond to the observed elevation of the shaft’s exit to the casing by 9 palms (as Kanga correctly calculated) - too big deviation to consider Gantenbrink's model for KC shafts to be true. (For KCN shaft the discrepancy with expectations of "154c-theory" even greater - about 18 palms).

Quote

But what is the significance of this strange angle 44 degrees? It certainly does not fit with the rest of the pyramid's geometry.

If the shaft points to a stellar target, then it should not correspond to the general design of the pyramid, which is geometric.
If the shaft at the same time points to a star and express geometric relationships, it is obvious that the entire design of the pyramid was created taking into account the altitude of the chosen stellar target.
Why the angle of 44° is strange? It is no more strange than the angle of slope of the Red pyramid (44° 36' by Petrie or 44° 44' by Dorner).

Quote

Is it really true that scholars rely solely on king lists and the like, or do they have other methods at their disposal? Have they had anything to say about the 'old straw' you mention? Must we wait until scholars get around to properly investigating the straw problem?

Yes, chronologists really use the data from the king lists and inscriptions mentioning the regnal years of individual rulers.
No one scientist is interested in risking his reputation and work and calling into question the existing consensus. Both historians and radiocarbonists are satisfied with the current state of things, so new studies of rabiocarbon for the Old Kingdom have not been carried out since 2010 (from the times of Ramsay's "Radiocarbon-Based Chronology").
Read about what happens to those scientists who raised the question of revising the chronology (see the articles the links to which I gave you earlier).

Alex.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2020 02:13PM by keeperzz.