Mark Heaton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I repect your rights as director, owner and
> moderator.

None of which has much to do with the question in hand: namely, your proposed theory concerning the Bent Pyramid, which many people, whether they own this website or not, might dispute.

> I am disappointed that you had to
> stifle yawns when I contacted you last year.

Yes. So was I.

> I
> have to admit that I did not expect you to yawn as
> in gaping with astonishment (Shak)! I accept that
> the burden of proof rests on those who want to
> promote the view that the ancient Egyptians
> observed precession.

Yes, and no one's yet succeeded.

> Dr Z. Hawass has concluded
> that the precision and orientation of the pyramids
> imply a profound knowledge of astronomy and
> mathematics.

(It would be helpful if you could supply cites for statements like these.) The AE were clearly magnificent civil engineers: there's no disputing about that. But, for example, what exactly is "a profound knowledge of astronomy"? The AE didn't study, or recognize, astronomy as we know it today.

> As you know, many have decided to
> search for physical evidence because there is no
> written evidence. I accept that you are tired of
> new theories,

We're happy to look at new theories. It's the recycled ones that get tedious.

> and that experience tells you my
> hypothesis is probably more of the same old
> rubbish.

What I happen to think or not to think is really beside the point. What matters is that you can produce evidence to support your theory. The problem is that you haven't yet produced that evidence.

> The precision of the alignment of the pyramids to
> true north is a big problem for those who claim
> that the ancient Egyptians were not the best
> observational astronomers in the ancient world. Dr
> Kate Spence has argued for a coincidental
> alignment of the stars. This may be the case, but
> it is only a hypothesis. This should not prevent
> others from presenting an alternative case.
> Do I think that my hypothesis is case proven? Of
> course not. If I did I wouldn't want to discuss it
> further.

> Also, I appreciate it is not possible to
> prove my hypothesis in the same way as a
> mathematical proof. I want to gather the evidence,

Yes, but we want to see the evidence.

> and then weigh the evidence in the balance. This
> is a process in which my hypothesis is bound to
> take knocks. The zodiacal division of 25,920 years
> is merely a corollary. I fully accept that I have
> not found any physical evidence to support it,

AFAIK, there is no evidence of any kind. Only very late on, in the Graeco-Roman era, did the AE produce depictions of the Zodiac as we would recognize it. There have been proposals of a prehistoric Zodiac, perhaps most notably from Alexander Gurshtein; but there are difficulties with Gurshtein's theory.

> but
> may be others will spot something I have
> overlooked.

Nothing so far, unfortunately.

> I also accept that there is, as yet, no
> convincing case that the ancient Egyptians
> observed the cycle of precession as 25,920 years.

There is no evidence that the AE recognized precession at all, let alone knew its (approximate) length. And the 25,920 figure is only an approximation: it's very difficult to put a precise length on it, because - IIRC - the length varies somewhat from cycle to cycle anyway. (There is some mention of this cycle at the foot of this page.)

> I read 'The Orion Mystery' and 'Death of the Gods
> in Ancient Egypt' several years ago, and
> concluded, as perhaps you have, that there is no
> physical or documentary evidence for knowledge of
> 25,920 years in the ancient world.

The 25,920 figure, as I said above, is an approximation only. It's a multiple of 6, 12, 72, etc. etc. etc., which has provided some fodder for those of a numerological persuasion. But there is no evidence of any awareness of the mechanism of precession in the ancient world until Hipparchus.

> Any hypothesis on the shape of the Bent Pyramid
> must account for the curvature and bulging out to
> the north face. These features are very obvious on
> the east face and the west face below the level of
> the bend, and in contrast to the relatively high
> build standard on the north face and the south
> face below the bend. I have not done so, as yet.

> I launched my website several months ago, and I
> now accept it was not on your advice, although I
> have to thank you for giving me the idea.

The website certainly seems well designed. And you're quite right: I didn't advise you to set up a website. I merely suggested that it was something that you might consider.

I have
> waited so long before starting this discussion on
> your forum because I wanted to be able to explain
> the above feature of the Bent Pyramid, which I saw
> as the weak point in my hypothesis.

You would also have to address the problem of the alleged connection with precession, of course ...

I note that
> one of the contributors has picked up on this
> point very quickly. I have yet to reply because I
> think others may read the objection and come to
> the same conclusion as I did. For some, including
> myself, a puzzle is more interesting than the
> solution.

So can you reply to Graham ... ??

Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at

Rules and Guidelines

hallofmaatforum@proton.me