> -- Byrd
> Moderator, Hall of Ma'at
Oh dear, I seem to have ruffled your feathers again.
Byrd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The big weaknesses are:
> * how do we know they would have known what "sea
> level" was?
> * why would they feel "sea level" was useful or
> significant?
Can we please put such speculations to the side, at least for the moment. Assume that they did and address the central argument - that the 3 large pyramids were set out rationally with respect to each other.
> * How does this explain the placement of the
> causeways?
> * how do the valley temple and the mortuary temple
> relate to these designs?
> * why isn't the cult pyramid of Khufu included?
> * The queens pyramids were put up at around the
> same time. Why aren't they part of this design
> and these proportions?
> * how does this explain the placing of the walls?
I have already told you that Butler attempted to include such elements for which good data is available in his proposition, and gave as an example the proportioning of pyramid chambers. He also discusses the placement of Khafre's causeway - I am beginning to suspect that you haven't actually read his book? Your posts are filled with 'how could they have known/done this or that?'. Had we more data we might begin to answer such questions.
So let's stop flirting around the subject. However arrived at, and whatever its deeper significance might be, Butler discovered that a datum 114 cubits below Khufu base produces a sensible explanation for the 3 main pyramid dimensions and locations at Giza. Are you so incurious as not to wonder why particular dimensions were chosen? Or are you simply fatigued by the plethora of 'overall plans' which have appeared (and which I would agree have not been particularly convincing), and have assumed that Butler's proposition is more of the same?
You will I hope agree that Petrie was a good surveyor and his figures are to be trusted? Based on his survey (as well as later work by Gantenbrink) it is now blindingly obvious that the interior design of Khufu was very carefully, and subtly, planned on the themes 7/11 and 99/70. Other pyramids too reveal definite numerical intention in their planning (viz. recent discussions on Dashur). These facts may be trivialised by those with other agendas, but cannot be ignored by any serious pyramid scholar.
The mathematical brilliance of Khufu's architect, and the meticulousness with which his pyramid was constructed, does not sit well with the apparently prevailing view on this forum - perhaps best expressed so eloquently by Hans :'I see no 'plan' and that it grew from Pharaoh to Pharaoh then finally a Pharaoh said, nah I'll put my tomb way over there instead.' But is it really so much a stretch to imagine that this architect had an even greater vision encompassing the whole of the Giza plateau?
It seems that for a relatively brief period at the beginning of the IVth dynasty mathematician priests held sway and promoted a kind of numerical theology. The last pyramid complex at Giza, Menkaure, was clearly finished off in a hurry, suggesting diminishing enthusiam for Khufu's 'master plan'. We can only guess what theological debates took place that led eventually to the promotion of Osiris, beyond the fact that pyramids got smaller.
But enough of such vapid speculation. Let us address the data, the numbers, and decide if they really can be dismissed as coincidence.