Hi Robin,

Quote

I read your explanation and re-read your paper more carefully, and realised that in my clumsy way I was actually saying the same thing.

Some misunderstanding may be due to the fact that my English is not good.

Quote

One reason to agree that the simultaneous transit method is unlikely to have been used for pyramid orientation is the observation by Glen Dash that the azimuths of the descending passages of the major pyramids, if I understand him correctly, are better aligned to the pole than pyramid sides, surprisingly Dashur more precisely than Khufu

This is only true for tho two Snofru pyramids in Dahshur:



The "simultaneous transit" method is good as theoretical, but in practice it is very difficult to apply (if even possible) with the tools that the ancient Egyptians had.

Quote

I am amazed that your work has not yet received greater attention

I did not advertise my research, as experts have not yet expressed their opinion on some aspects. (Plus, I just don't know how to promote articles)

Four months ago, I submitted my article for publication to an Egyptological online journal; one of the editors helped me to improve the translation and presentation of information, but in the end the scientific committee of this journal rejected the article, because in their opinion it does not correspond to the format of the journal article which “should be focused on one topic or subject of the study” (although none of the conclusions of the article were called into question by them).
Two months ago, I submitted the article to another journal and am still waiting for an answer and a peer review.

Quote

But if, as you say, they do not (with KC south at 44 degrees) then it seems the starshaft idea must be rejected

I believe that "star shaft" hypothesis still has sense.



The date 2790 BC is approximately the middle of Khufu's reign according to predictions of my theory.

As I mentioned according to my calculations the KCS shaft must have uniform angle of inclination of 43,95° to connect two points: a) observed entrance b) outlet to the surface of restored casing.
Petrie reports about angle of 38,46° for QCS shaft. (Gantenbrink reports about 39.6078° - more than a 1° steeper than Petrie's data, but for me this value seems strange, because it is too much accuracy to be real and too clearly corresponds to the seked of 8 palms 2 digits (the "theoretical" value from Gantenbrink again?)).

These two values (43,95° and 38,46°) are close to those shown in the figure (43,80° and 38,38°) therefore there is a possibility that the shafts point to the same stellar targets (Sirius and Sah), but two centuries earlier.
In any case, it is premature to draw any conclusions, since, as you correctly state, accurate data on the angles of the shafts are not enough at our disposal.

Quote

By the way (naive question) why is Seshat associated with the septenary? Are there any textual or pictorial references to the 'septenary' nature of Seshat? If not her sign is actually eightfold (including the handle) thus representing the cardinal directions.

This is a good question, not naive.
There are several hypotheses about what symbolize the Seshat's headwear and why it is related to the septenary (there are almost always 7 petals, and only a few images contain 6).
One hypothesis suggests that the 7-petaled flower symbolizes Sun, Moon and 5 planets of the solar system visible to the naked eye - a total of 7 objects.
Another hypothesis suggests that 7 petals symbolize 7 stars of Meskhetiu, because Seshat was a mandatory participant in the ritual of stretching of the cord, in which this asterism was the target of observation (I give preference to this hypothesis).
Belmonte suggests that the stem also needs to be taken into account and the eightfold flower symbolizes cardinal directions and intercardinal directions (this is unlikely because petals clearly different from the stem on the images).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2020 01:09PM by keeperzz.