poundr17 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dear Lobo-hotei,
>
> The general consensus appears to be that sea
> levels have not changed much over the last 5000
> years in the Mediterranean which, by the way, is a
> land-locked sea and hence has very little tidal
> variation.

I guess that's why I said:

Quote

I think the levels have been rising slowly for awhile though not by a huge amount...

Quote

Yes the tidal change(high/low tide) wouldn't be a huge difference between high/low tide but enough to know that it wasn't static.

>
> Egypt is a river in a desert. Water was and is
> life. Why is it then so unreasonable to maintain
> that sea level may have been an important symbolic
> datum ?

It may have been but I haven't seen evidence that it was important to pyramid construction.

> Measuring sea level would have been a trivial
> matter for a culture with millenia of experience
> in irrigation technology.

How? How does digging ditches for water to get to fields make measuring sea level a trivial matter?

> The reason that sea level has entered the argument
> is because Butler found that, surprisingly,
> elevations above sea level produce a logical set
> of dimensions for the Giza pyramids (as briefly
> described in some of the above posts).

Produces a coincidental set of dimensions. Until those that propose "the sea level was a part of the construction/design of the pyramids" can put forth real evidence, the sea level can only be regarded as simple coicidence.

> Of course,
> if it can be shown that the sea level estimate
> used by Butler is seriously in error then the
> hypothesis may be rejected. Until then, is it not
> reasonable to discuss Butler's sea level findings
> instead of dismissing them out of hand, as many on
> this forum have done?

Some on here require evidence/proof that such datum was ever used/needed for construction of pyramids. With all these theories it would go farther towards being possible if the theory in question didn't stop at the Giza Three.

> It is worth noting that, even if Butler and Cook
> are mistaken about sea level relations, this does
> not diminish the importance of Butler's findings
> for the rock-built structures. The proportioning
> of pyramid chambers to the limestone base plan...

Which comparisions are you speaking of here? I don't see that a 10X20 King's chamber is the same proportions as the 440X440 base of the pyramid containing it.

>
> You are quite right that chosen pyramid base
> levels 'were worked with the minimum of effort to
> obtain a level surface for solid construction'. In
> the process the architects were careful to achieve
> levels in significant whole numbers of cubits.

It is also convenient to use whole cubit measures for quarrying instead of digits. This doesn't have anything to do with sea levels either.

> Vertical heights were obviously important to them,
> as significant features within Khufu demonstrate.
> But we can only speculate that they found Giza
> suitable for their plans, with the northern part
> of the plateau being conveniently just over 114
> cubits above datum.

Fine with me if it is put forth as speculation as long as it isn't passed off as proven based on some number coincidences.

> The problem is that 'designed individually' has
> become a sort of creed; partly because no two
> pyramids are identical, and also because
> Egyptologists have become tired of the plethora of
> complex geometries, particularly applied to the
> Giza group.

Do you not think it is warranted? Almost every new idea that comes along is used/based/overlayed/created/found on the Giza Three/Giza plateau. If these criteria/necessities were needed for pyramid constructions then they should be for all the pyramids, or at least the ones in that general timeframe.
Instead someone sees a pattern that fits some number coincidences and then starts working out a pattern that fits and voila a new idea about how it's done.
How about someone research all the known evidence of the times in question and try and work forward instead of backwards.

>Butler's approach is different : he
> tries to extract quantities from all dynasties in
> a search for pattern. And he has found some.

Good for him. Now does it fit within the culture as it is known today or is it another "possibility", created by number crunching, waiting for evidence to be found that will prove it true?

>I
> suspect his undoing (being branded a 'geomancer'
> on this forum) was his sea level argument.

Needing to know the sea level to correctly construct a pyramid is a far stretch. He hasn't been branded that by the forum simply by one or two individuals.

> It is a
> pity for his work cannot be dismissed in such a
> facile way and I hope that, sooner or later, we
> shall have logical discussion of his data. It is
> even possible that we may one day arrive at a
> consensus that allows a degree of
> 'multigenerational' planning, but I am not holding
> my breath.

Me either as that would take a huge amount of evidence contradicting what is presently known to a reasonable degree of certainty.

I find it hard to swallow that a "god on Earth" has to settle for a pyramid designed before he became pharoah. To one who can do as they wish why is it they couldn't design their own pyramids?

Regards,
Lobo-hotei
lobo

Treat the earth well, It was not given to you by your parents, It was loaned to you by your children.
Native American Proverb