Byrd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> waggy Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > I certainly agree with that sentiment. In many
> > ways the Bent pyramid still awaits exploration,
> > and although G1 is a bit of a black hole, the
> > available data on it is also not great. As
> Romer
> > quoted in his G1 book, "Modern Egyptologists
> have
> > largely given up on the pyramids" :-)
>
> They're never going to get data on that pyramid
> that satisfies everyone -- there's too many people
> with agendas who are insisting that it must meet
> their predetermined parameters. Frankly, the
> measurements on much of G1 are within measurable
> tolerances and within what the Egyptians of that
> time could cut and measure.
>
> But that won't satisfy the numerologists.

I'm not concentrating on measurements, which l agree, often become an obsession with many numerologist theories.
My interest is more on the construction of the structures and here the architectural detail is often abscent.
An example, might be the effort done by the Edgar brothers over a century ago in mapping the strange masonry of Khufu's ascending passage.
Today Egyptologists would label their theories as pyramidiots along with many others such as Piazzi-Smyth: and yet despite their radical theories, both provided much need architectual detail in their work. If the Edgars had not mapped the ascending passage, do you believe that Egyptology would have? Left to Egyptology, we may still not be aware of the passages construction today.
I've lost count of the number of times l've come across a publication, on say the tomb of xyz, only to be disappointed to find it only deals with the decoration program and texts of the tomb, and we have zero architectural detail on the tomb itself.
Where for example, is the detailed monograph on the Bent pyramid by Egyptology? Certainly not in Fakhry's three volume work. For Egyptology, the Bent pyramid is a sterile desert, devoid of texts and of no interest, hence their focus is diverted to the temple.
Do we need greater evidence that architectural study is largely vacated by Egyptology, by observing the total lack of interest in the Bent Pyramid by the discipline.
For all l know, my amateur guides on the Bent are probably the best detail we have on the structure, and if that is true, is that not a sad indictment of Egyptology.