Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GChase Wrote:

> > AS "The contradiction being cited is
> completely
> > addressed within the second paragraph of the
> > article"
> >
> >GC: No it isn't. The second paragraph accepts
> that
> > alignment and correlations were in evidence.
>
>
> Please show where I state that "correlations were
> in evidence" during the period from Dynasty III to
> Dynasty VI.

This is the second paragraph:

Quote

For purposes of this article, it is of primary importance that the reader understand the difference between a "stellar alignmnet" and a "stellar correlation". A stellar alignment of a pyramid (or other structure) is merely the act of aiming two parts of a structure, such as its cornerstones, at a specific stellar target. According to both New Kingdom and Old Kingdom references, the Stretching of the Cord Ceremony was a stellar alignment process, by which the directionality of a pyramid was fixed via some sort of "line of sight" procedure, with a star or stars as the targeting focus.

A brief description of the "Stretching of the Cord" ceremony:

Quote

Known as pedj-shes, or "stretching the cord", it was of such importance that the whole ceremony, or at least that section leading up to actual construction, was called by the same name. The reason this rite was so important was that it aligned the whole temple by careful astronomical observation and measurement.

This was probably done by sighting northern circumpolar stars through a notched stick called a merkhet. This was perhaps accomplished by sighting the star on an artificial horizon as it rose in the evening, and again as it set. Determining the halfway point between these two points would give the builder's true north.(The Foundation Ceremony For Ancient Egyptian Religious Buildings)

> > By the nature of these activities they
> require the
> > study of individual and groups of stars and
> > accuracy of measurement.
>
> You are proceeding from your original false
> statement to a false conclusion.

If the ceremony required observation of the northern circumpolar stars, the first part of Graham's statement cannot be false.


GC > > Later in the article he claims that the
> depictions
> > of stars display no accuracy.
> > The two are not compatible.

It depends what is meant by "accuracy", "stars" and "depictions". AFAICS - and perhaps someone will correct me if I'm wrong - the article is arguing that the impressionistic, non-realistic depiction of stars in certain ritual contexts constitutes evidence that the AE had not developed the concept of constellations or asterisms (whether constellations that we would recognize today, or different constellations/asterisms of their own devising). It could surely be argued that the existence of impressionistic portrayals of stars in one context does not, of itself, necessarily mean that the AE hadn't devised their own constellations: but, in fact, there is considerable uncertainty about the identification of AE constellations/asterisms anyway ( [www.hallofmaat.com] ; [www.hallofmaat.com]).

>
>
> As I said, it is addressed in the second
> paragraph, in direct contradiction to your opening
> false statement.
>
>
>
> >
GC > > However the answer is clear to me. The
> meanings of
> > these patterns has not been understood, - and
> they
> > are not random.

We're getting lost here. By "patterns", I assume a reference to constellations/asterisms (as the AE would have known them). But, as mentioned, there is no certainty about such identifications. And how can significance or meaning be safely attached to identifications that are not certain?

AS>
> Where did I claim the patterns were random? The
> word "random" does not appear even ONCE in the
> entire article you are attempting to misrepresent.

At this point, I think the discussion could benefit from a definition of the words "random" and "pattern".

Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at

Rules and Guidelines

hallofmaatforum@proton.me