Page 3 of 4
Pages: 1234
Results 61 — 90 of 92
Thanks Chris, i'll check these passages (when i can find Faulkner, seem to have misplaced it).
Not much support for Butler's sea level argument apparently (unless 'sea level' is represented by another term).
poundr17
by
poundr17
-
Ancient Egypt
chris,
with reference to butler's sea-level arguments, do you know of further references to the great green in the pyramid texts?
poundr17
by
poundr17
-
Ancient Egypt
Ken,
This may be because astronomy was not the only or even most important factor. For Khufu the gradients 1:1 and 11:7 define the base and section of the pyramid respectively. These are the angles of the upper shafts. They also happen to be the angles of certain star altitudes at the time the pyramid was built and this 'happy coincidence' might well have been thought significant by th
by
poundr17
-
Alternative Geometry and Numerology
Osiris was a member of the 'Heliopolitan Ennead'. What is expert opinion on when this Ennead, and also the 'two Enneads' of the Pyramid Texts, were established? Also, are there any cubit rods extant displaying a different assortment of gods?
poundr17
by
poundr17
-
Ancient Egypt
Don,
having perused your posts over the last month or so it would seem that you had not heard of the sea level relation until recently i raised the subject on this forum. i can see that you are very excited about the possibilities that this now offers, but bombarding us with so many, i have to say complex schemes (that you can only have come up with overnight) only reinforces the perception th
by
poundr17
-
Alternative Geometry and Numerology
This convoluted thread now arrives at 'what constitutes symmetry'. some ten posts ago, in an response to lobo-hotei, i especially raised this point. to quote :
'There are some similarities between Khufu and Menkaure not shared by Khafre. Robins and Shute re-evaluated the slope of Menkaure and found it to be the same as Khufu, but different from Khafre. These pyramids have bisect
by
poundr17
-
Alternative Geometry and Numerology
With regard to the proportioning of pyramid chambers to the limestone base plan, lobo-hotei Wrote:
> Which comparisions are you speaking of here? I
> don't see that a 10X20 King's chamber is the same
> proportions as the 440X440 base of the pyramid
> containing it.
the correlation for the king's chamber is shown on page 107 of Butler. proportion of chamber is 1
by
poundr17
-
Alternative Geometry and Numerology
Dear Lobo-hotei,
The general consensus appears to be that sea levels have not changed much over the last 5000 years in the Mediterranean which, by the way, is a land-locked sea and hence has very little tidal variation. Sites in Crete and Malta tend to confirm this. The AEs apparently called the sea 'the great green' (although Alessandra Nibbi argued that the term actually applied to
by
poundr17
-
Alternative Geometry and Numerology
Dear all,
Some 37 posts ago I asked why did Menkaure copy some of the main features of Khufu ?
(see post : )
I thought this to be particularly relevant to the question of 'multigenerational' planning, the subject of this thread. What theories do you have to explain these facts ?
poundr17
by
poundr17
-
Ancient Egypt
Chris,
I think your idea of large scale planning might better be evaluated if the case can first be made for medium scale 'multigenerational' planning at Giza.
Three pyramids were built at Giza along the line of relatively flat ground running from northeast to southwest. As the firstcomer Khufu could have built anywhere on the plateau, but he chose the northeast corner, very close
by
poundr17
-
Ancient Egypt
Don,
The information may be found in Butler chapter 7 : Giza in Architectural Elevation. Quote from p.123 : 'The calculation errors are within known eustatic changes in sea level for middle and later Holocene times (i.e., more recent than 6,500 BP), with or without tectonic adjustments.' As a geologist, Butler was familiar with the facts regarding Holocene sea level curves.
To put i
by
poundr17
-
Alternative Geometry and Numerology
Greg,
Why do you say that 'sea level measurements are bogus'? I take it you have read Butler's arguments - that the AEs would have been able to measure Nile levels to the 'great green' if they had wanted to; that it may have represented some kind of symbolic datum; that Khufu's sarcophagus lies vertically halfway between sea level and pyramid apex, and so on? To d
by
poundr17
-
Alternative Geometry and Numerology
Greg,
Why do you say that 'sea level measurements are bogus'? I take it you have read Butler's arguments - that the AEs would have been able to measure Nile levels to the 'great green' if they had wanted to; that it may have represented some kind of symbolic datum; that Khufu's sarcophagus lies vertically halfway between sea level and pyramid apex, and so on? To d
by
poundr17
-
Alternative Geometry and Numerology
Hi MJ,
I'm looking at Gantenbrink's diagrams on his site, in the section 'publications'. The junction of the KC shafts is where their projections intersect below the KC. The upper points are where the projected lines intersect the casing. (Notice Gantenbrink actually uses ceilings of the passages for these projections). Similarly Cook uses the intersection of the QC shafts be
by
poundr17
-
Ancient Egypt
MJ
the 77 cubits is measured from the level of the junction of the King Chamber shafts, as shown by Gantenbrink on his site - is this incorrect ?
but what about QC south ? the 121 sloping, 77 vertical seems to give a better fit with Gantenbrink's surveyed angle than Legon's assumed angle
poundr
by
poundr17
-
Ancient Egypt
I don't know if this has already been discussed on this forum, but is there any merit in Cook's idea that KC north shaft is 121 horizontal and 77 vertical, and QC south is 121 slope and 77 vertical ? How might this relate to 70 cubit dimensions ?
poundr17
by
poundr17
-
Ancient Egypt
Warwick. You state that Butler's work is fantasy. Just to be clear on this, you have presumably read the work before coming to this conclusion ? Butler collates data from Giza surveys and shows that chambers share dimensions from pyramid to pyramid. The plan proportions of these chambers coincide with layout dimensions between pyramid limestone bases. But you think this pure chance ? Do you
by
poundr17
-
Ancient History
Frankly, Warwick, I haven't seen much weighing on this forum but rather nitpicking, or using what you have called Butler's contextual contradictions to evade judging the merits of his siteplan. Can I ask you, do you really believe that Butler's limestone-based plan, with the chambers proportioned to it, is a fantasy ?
How do you know that the beliefs of the builders excluded tra
by
poundr17
-
Ancient History
Kat. Yes that may well be. But let's stick to the point. Whoever built or finished off the third pyramid misaligned it, and finished off the complex with every sign of haste. As one who 'has her ear to the ground' within the world of academic Egyptology would you say that the consensus is that these facts are likely due to building error ?
poundr
by
poundr17
-
Ancient History
Wayne. The third pyramid complex is certainly the most carelessly built of the three. Construction of the upper temple began with large granite blocks but completed in mud brick. The lower temple is all mud brick. The two western satellites were not completed but left as stepped structures (which may tell something about construction methods). The main pyramid was left in the rough. Some parts of
by
poundr17
-
Ancient History
Jim. The evidence suggests that the third pyramid complex was finished off quickly, so one needs to be cautious when looking at the details. If the builders intended that their plan was to be set out on cardinal axes then it might be wise, as a first step, to consider the subtle variations as being due to building error (as per Butler), or possibly an artefact of the methods (possibly astronomica
by
poundr17
-
Ancient History
Cook's site is still up but on a different server, here :
Link to relevant part of "Thanks much! Legon explained" thread here :
or you can trawl back to : Butler, Posted by: Anthony (IP Logged), Date: June 1, 2007 10:13AM.
poundr17
by
poundr17
-
Ancient History
Recently a spate of posts appeared on the subject of pyramid geometry. However I could find no reference to Butler. I should like to ask if any members of this forum have read Butler's 'Egyptian Pyramid Geometry' (Ontario.1998) ?
I should add that I have tried to raise this question in various threads (see : 'Re: Thanks Much! Legon explained.' about a week ago) but rea
by
poundr17
-
Ancient History
Anthony Wrote:
> poundr17 Wrote:
> > Who on earth told you that it is 'a
> particular
> > requirement in Egyptology' to believe that
> > pyramids were designed 'independently, from
> each
> > other, completely' in order to 'understand
> > Egyptian culture' ?
> I did... after years of research.
-----------------
by
poundr17
-
Ancient History
Warwick. The robotic exploration of the shafts was necessary in order to map them, thus providing material for analysis. At the same time Gantenbrink took the opportunity to check the measurements of other parts of the pyramid. Using this data he put forward an analysis proposing that the builders had employed the same 7/11 ratio for shaft and passage design as that controlling the exterior parts
by
poundr17
-
Ancient History
Dear Anthony,
Who on earth told you that it is 'a particular requirement in Egyptology' to believe that pyramids were designed 'independently, from each other, completely' in order to 'understand Egyptian culture' ? This is not the language of reason ( the very thing that the'hall of ma'at' supposedly exemplifies ) but dogma.
To brand Butler's
by
poundr17
-
Ancient History
Hermione Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The question to bear in mind is: what would have
> been important in AE culture itself?
Obviously the hope for an afterlife. To this end the AE's built huge stone monuments, whose design is obviously relevant to finding an answer to your question. Can we not leave Butler's speculations aside and rathe
by
poundr17
-
Ancient History
Anthony, do you not find it intriguing that similar cubit dimensions were favoured at Dashur and Giza ? Or that the dimensions of chambers were reiterated at Giza at site scale ? Have you in fact read Butler's work or are you just making wild assertions ? Your own site does not appear to include anything on the subject of design, not even a reference to Gantenbrink, though advertised as such
by
poundr17
-
Ancient History
Indeed, we are all amateurs in one field or another. Butler's acquaintance with AE culture might be deemed scant by some, but the uniformity of favoured quantities he has found from Zoser to Redjedeff surely provide some food for thought ? Would you deny that there was no continuity of architectural thought in AE ? OK, he may not be right in everything, but what are a few mastabas between fr
by
poundr17
-
Ancient History
But what of Butler's firm reasonong on this point ? even if one pursues the 'theoretical' route (cf. john michell's 'ancient metrology. 1981. bristol) one comes up with a value for the royal cubit at Giza sensibly the same as Petries and Butlers. The base of GI, agreed at 440 cubits, gives the best standard one can hope for. Who knows how slapdash builders of GIII had bec
by
poundr17
-
Ancient History
Page 3 of 4
Pages: 1234