Hi Robin,

Quote

If Brabin is right

Brabin's idea of checking the correctness of Smith's measurements is reasonable, since indeed, this short initial section of the ascending corridor can be a source of error when connecting the external and internal surveying of the pyramid. Indeed, the outside masonry can be used as an anchor, as the elevations of stone courses relative to the pavement are known.
Since the length of Al-Ma’mun's passage is more than 35m, then in order to detect elevation error of 30cm (reported by the author), he must establish a horizontal reference plane with an error of less than atan(0.3/35) = 0.5°. Since the horizontal was established by four successive measurements using a spirit level (the measuring device was modified by the author), it cannot be said with certainty that the error found was not caused by erroneous establishing the horizontal plane and therefore all further conclusions of the article are based on a shaky basis.

Quote

In spite of these uncertainties, the data we do have seems to confirm that the angles of the southern shafts fit the southern culminations of Orion's belt and Sirius around 2560 BC. But this correlation is lost at an earlier dating and a key link between shafts and stellar mythology is severed.

I see that you remained with your opinion about shafts
It can be concluded that:
1. It is currently impossible to accurately date the Khufu pyramid by the angles of its shafts, because the southern shafts are not precisely straight, but have several sections with different angles of inclination (the northern shafts are much more crooked).
2. There are Petrie's measurements and Gantenbrink's measurements that do not coincide with each other and the reason for the discrepancies has not yet been identified.
3. Petrie did not provide any hypothesis regarding the shafts or the design of the pyramid, and only provided the results of the measurements. Gantenbrink, on the other hand, proposed a hypothesis about the design of the pyramid and provided values for the angles that are consistent with his design hypothesis. In other words, his measurements may not be entirely objective due to his adherence to the hypothesis about certain design of the pyramid. Ideally, measurements should be made by a team of experts who do not support any hypothesis about the pyramid’s design.
4. Petrie's estimates for the southern shafts (44.5° for KCS shaft and 38.5° for QCS shaft) correspond to the one or two century earlier dates for the construction of the pyramid (the belt's middle star was at the altitude of 44.5° in ~2650BC and Sirius was at the altitude of 38.5° in ~2760BC), while keeping the same targets - Orion's belt and Sirius - for the southern shafts.
I came to the opinion that at the moment there is not enough data to date the Khufu pyramid by the angles of inclination of its shafts, since the available data are incomplete and contradict each other in details. Do you agree?

Quote

In meridian section the two southern shafts are 'balanced' by two northern shafts. One of these targets the pole, the destiny of the king, the other Kochab, whose meaning in the stellar mythology is completely unknown. It is however a fairly prominent star in Ursa Minor, one of the two adzes revolving around the pole. But in 2560 BC the Kochab- Mizar connection is lost. And alignments to stars of Meskhetiu are missing - they only play their part in 'simultaneous transit' situations. Then there are the clear precessional effects in pyramid orientations which point to the following of a particular star target, but which one?

Let's consider this in details.

“One of these targets the pole”
The KCN shaft has an average inclination of 32.6° according to Gantenbrink. The pole is at the altitude of about 30° when observed on the Giza plateau. Thuban was at the altitude of 32.6° in ~2320BC. This does not match the historically expected dates of Khufu's reign and your dates from the previous quote.

«one of the two adzes revolving around the pole»
There is not a single proof, either in ancient pictographic or in ancient iconographic sources, that the Egyptians saw our Ursa Minor as an adze. It was Bauval who suggested that it is possible to interpret the plural adzes in the Pyramid Texts as evidence that Ursa Minor was also an adze, as well as the Big Dipper about which it is reliably known. This assumption is not supported by anything. At the moment, we do not know to which of our constellations the Egyptians attributed Kochab.

«Then there are the clear precessional effects in pyramid orientations which point to the following of a particular star target, but which one?»
Your adherence to historically expected dates, which stems from the preferred geometry of Khufu's pyramid and the angle of KCS shaft of 45°, makes it difficult for you to consider the possibility that the pyramids could be built two centuries earlier, as indicated by data from several areas (chronological, radiocarbon, astronomical, cultural).

--------
I want to propose another explanation for why the QCN shaft pointed to Kochab. If we consider the Khufu pyramid (and all other pyramids) not as burial structures, but as machines for the resurrection of the deceased king, who, in a mummified form, was placed in a sarcophagus in the burial chamber to be reborn among the stars, then:
- it is logical that the KC containing the sarcophagus has shafts pointed to two stellar regions (circumpolar region with imperishable stars and the region of the Sah asterism), which were the desired celestial targets for the king's soul;
- the QC was a sealed serdab (sealed by the bridge in the Grand Gallery) and had to contain a ka-statue in the niche. The two shafts of the Queen's chamber were supposed to allow the ka-statue to symbolically "observe" two other important stellar regions. I will try to explain why they were important.

As Bauval wrote in one of his books, and as you wrote in one of your posts eight months ago, "the culmination of Kochab in the time of Khufu was linked with the rise of Orion's belt above the eastern horizon." If you remember, in my article "Stretching of the cord ceremony for astronomical orientation of the Old Kingdom pyramids" in the last chapter, I show that the Djoser's ka-statue in the serdab "observed" Mizar, which was appearing in the orifice in the wall at the same time when Sah was rising above the eastern horizon. In general, in these two pyramid complexes, an absolutely similar mechanism was used for identifying the rebirth of the king as the Sah asterism in the religious sense or for identifying the rise of Sah by observing a chosen (Mizar for Djoser and Kochab for Khufu) circumpolar star in the astronomical sense.

Why it was important for the ka-statue to "observe" Sirius in the context of the king's rebirth, I will probably write next time.

Alex.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2020 03:49PM by keeperzz.