I wrote, ‘Wrong; the architects (note the plural) of the Giza necropolis were cogs in a number of wheels.’

You reply, ‘Were they?’

Given the enormity of the tasks and the number of different skills required to complete them, I think it is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make.


I wrote, ‘Okay, let's cut to the quick here; you post all of the examples you have to date and I’ll pick out
the ones I think have potential as possible evidence that the builders of the Giza necropolis measured gradients and slopes in degrees.’

You reply, ‘Too late...you had your chance.
Plus...you don't understand the two samples that I did present...why continue with you?’

But, Clive, I do understand what your diagram is showing (though I happily admit it took me a while longer than others here to figure it out) and I am arguing (along with others here) that it is not evidence of the AEs measuring gradients and angles in degrees.


I wrote, ‘Mind you, Clive, it’s going to take an authenticated contemporary or near contemporary AE text showing degrees being used to actually convince me that you and others are correct on this particular issue.’

You reply, ‘"Authenticated contemporary" get off it man...do you realize how foolish you write/sound...!’

I realise I am asking for the moon, Clive, but the fact is that only the original plan will tell us for certain how Khufu’s pyramid was planned and what level of mathematics its architect employed.
The same obviously applies to all the Egyptian pyramids.


My current understanding of your diagram is that you are asserting that a) the N-S position of the King’s Chamber was determined by the intersection of the two circles and b) these two circles are the work of the Pyramid’s architect.

If this is so, then you are also arguing that the lengths of the two horizontal passages, the Antechamber, and the Great Step sitting between the King’s Chamber and the face of the Great Step were determined directly or indirectly by the distance between the face of the Great Step - which notably is (within 3”) over the East-West axis of the Pyramid’s base - and your point of intersection.
It may be, of course, that according to you this axis was not a reference point in the plan, and consequently the lengths of the four features I just mentioned were not influenced by the intersection-point-to-face-of-Great-Step-measurement, and consequently the face of the Great Step being over the E-W axis of the base is a coincidence.
But if this were so, you are left with explaining why the Queen’s Chamber is over this axis; or are you going to argue that the N-S position of the Pyramid’s base was determined by the mid-line of the Queen’s Chamber?
And what of the King’s Chamber itself, Clive; in your scheme of things, was it designed before or after the architect drew his circles on the plan?


I wrote, ‘... has it not occurred to you that the N-S position of the KC may have nothing to do with your blue circle but everything to do with the planning of the Great Step, the passage linking it to the Antechamber, the Antechamber itself, the passage between the Antechamber and the KC, and the KC itself?

You reply, ‘Aaah the Great step...what's a pyramid without a great step.

Simple answer?
Not Khufu’s pyramid.
Perhaps the following will help you understand why (in part) I disagree with your 'circles' idea.
I hypothesise that initially (I am talking about the planning of the Pyramid here, Clive, not the building of it) the King’s Chamber was positioned N-E with its north wall over the E-W axis of the Pyramid’s base.
A passage with height and width matching the doorway of the Chamber ran between the KC’s north wall and the Descending Passage at a gradient of 1 rise to 2 run.
The upper half of this simple passage was expanded into what we know as the Grand Gallery (broadly, the passage was doubled in width and height and corbelling was added to it its roofline.
This necessitated the moving of the KC southward, resulting in a horizontal passage being drawn in between the KC and the GG.
A portcullis system (the Antechamber) was then introduced between the horizontal passage and the KC, which caused the introduction of a horizontal passage between the Antechamber and the KC.


You continue, ‘What of the step in the queen's passage...is that important also?

Yes; it is key evidence for my hypothesis that like the King’s Chamber the Queen’s Chamber was initially planned with its north wall over the E-W axis of the Pyramid’s base, and was – also initially – placed vertically several royal cubits above the level it is built at.


I wrote, ‘Yes, your diagram works in terms of geometry, but so what?’

You reply, ‘I didn't design it...the pyramid builders did.’

Hopefully, the above on my hypothesis has given you some idea of why I believe this to be wrong.


I wrote, ‘As I have already pointed out to you, Clive, I have far from elected to neglect your supposed evidence.
I have taken your diagram apart and found it simply does not work as evidence for the AEs measuring angles in degrees.’

You reply, ‘There was nothing to take apart...a base line of a pyramid, two numerical samples converted to angles using a 360 degrees circle and a point of intersect. It can't get any simpler.’

The ‘taking apart’ highlighted for me the problem of the lengths of the features between the KC and the GG, and the relevance or non-relevance of the E-W axis of the Pyramid’s base.

MJ

p.s. I wrote, ‘However, you have agreed with me that one [angle] will naturally produce the other.’
You reply, ‘I didn't...how did you assume that?’

Because in response to my, ‘Projecting a line at 31.812 degrees from the south base as you have done will naturally produce the 62.831 degrees in your diagram, and vice versa.’, you replied, Good work....finally...!

What other conclusion could I reasonably have drawn?