Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Read this part of an MJT post again very
> carefully, and then allow me to dissect his
> material for everyone's edification:
>
MJT:
> > I have - entirely unexpectedly, I assure you
> -
> > found what appears to be the methods
> (maths-based)
> > Khufu's architect used to establish the size
> of
> > the Pyramid and the sizes and shapes its
> passages
> > and chambers and their various features.
>
AS:
>
> The math based methods used to establish the size
> of the pyramid.
>
> The math established the size of the pyramid. Not
> the king's choice, but the math.
Could it be suggested that Khufu and his advisers knew
approximately how big they wanted the GP to be, and that the people in charge of sorting out the nuts-and-bolts detail then translated that vision or commission into round numbers of cubits, sometimes doubling or tripling in architectural contexts that would admit of such exercises? That, in my book, is what "establishing the size" means: sorting out the
exact dimensions after having been told by someone else with a religious/ritual agenda what the
approximate size/location was to be
in principle.
> The maths established the dimensions of the
> passages. Not any practical consideration, like
> "this is the normal height we use in ALL of our
> pyramids, because it is just big enough for the
> workers, but it will make life a bear for the tomb
> robbers", but the maths established the dimensions
> and shape.
What was the average height in cubits of the average AE man: somewhere between 3 and 4 cubits? So couldn't the architects, knowing
approximately what was wanted, have simply translated these approximations into round quantities?
> The math based methods used to establish the size
> and shapes of the chambers and their various
> features.
>
> It wasn't the spiritual context and function of
> the room that decided the particulars of the
> burial chamber, but mathematics.
Depends what you mean by "particulars". Its approximate location could have been decided on religious/ritual criteria; the fine-tuning of exactly how much it was going to measure could surely have been decided, again, in round numbers of cubits, as we might use round numbers of yards or metres.
In his own
> words, "no amount of talk about AE cosmology,
> cosmography, religion and so on is going to change
>
I do concede that this comment seems rather on the categorical side ...
> You tell me where he is NOT attributing 100% of
> the design INTENT
I think there's still some confusion over what exactly is meant by "design intent", though ...
to the mathematics, and ZERO
> percent to the cultural context. He said this on
> February 22, 2009. Just four months ago.
(
Here?) I couldn't agree with that post. Certainly, MJT's position does appear to have shifted somewhat ...
> I can't change what he wrote, nor can I change
> it's very obvious meaning. He can change his
> mind,
Which I think might perhaps be the case here ... and there is no reason why people shouldn't change their minds.
> but he can't change the facts.
Yes, but it's the
interpretation of the facts that seems to be proving so problematic ...
Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at
Rules and Guidelines
hallofmaatforum@proton.me
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/25/2009 03:33PM by Hermione.