Dave L Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They weren't encoding pi - they were using their
> precursor version of pi to include the symbolism
> of the circle into the design, for traditional
> funerary purposes.

Hello Dave,

My post is every inch a ‘What if…’ scenario.
In practice I doubt that the AEs encoded anything in the dimensions of their pyramids.

The incorporating of the “precursor version of pi” into the design “for traditional
Funerary purposes” is something I find rather doubtful.
Of the six pyramids known to have been built before Khufu’s only one – Sneferu’s (?) at Meidum – has the so-called “pi angle”.
Of the 22 pyramids listed by Lehner as post-Khufu, only one - Niuserre’s at Abusir - has the so-called “pi angle”.
I see it this as unsupportive of the idea of “traditional funerary purposes” at work in the designing of Khufu’s pyramid.
I prefer to think of the incorporation (as distinct from encoding) of 22/7 in the Pyramid’s design (that includes its passages and chambers) as a personal whim of Khufu’s and or his architect.
I’m inclined to believe that much the same thing applies to Sneferu (?) and Niuserre.


> But the antechamber should be avoided as its
> architecture is far too complex and irregular for
> any conclusions to be drawn from it.

I completely disagree with you on this.
I see the architecture of the Antechamber as very simple.
The actual Chamber is indeed somewhat irregular in its dimensions (partly through a shifting of its walls, floor and ceiling, partly through the poor workmanship seen in some areas, and partly through damage inflicted by tourists) but the variations from a mean are sufficiently minor as to allow a reconstruction of the Antechamber as it was before Nature and Tourists took their tolls on it.


> The beauty of the King's chamber is that there are
> effectively only three dimensions, so the
> symbolism is glaringly obvious and can be accepted
> with confidence when considered within the wider
> historical and archaeological context.

Well, I agree that the “perimeter of wall is to length of wall as circumference is to diameter” phenomenon is inescapable, but I fail to see how it falls into “the wider historical and archaeological context”.
What is the evidence for it fitting into such a context?

Regards,

MJ