"This latter remark, however, begs the question of why the bases of these pyramids were lined out as squares and not as circles - and thusly leading to conical structures"
Yes a very good question.
I suppose two possible factors spring to mind - the long tradition of square or rectangular tombs and mastabas - plus the practical difficulty of building a cone.
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt
Spence's Theory is the one that best fits all the facts that we have.
Kocab and Mizar were the closest bright stars, one on each side of the pole.
Accordingly the pyramids were aligned to these STARS that circled the celestial pole.
More than that, the pyramids ‘were those stars’, linked by rituals.
The rotating K-M line was observed to make a circle around the pole.
This circ
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt
Of course you can find a more accurate ways of locating north, but that was probably not the desire of the pyramid builders.
The alignment of the pyramids was intentionally to the STARS that circled the celestial pole.
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt
This follows on from the recent thread regarding the 1461 days, 4-year cycle, found at Giza - here
I recall a post many years ago about the number of niches of Djoser's Saqqara Enclosure wall being 4383 which is 1461 x 3, or a 12 year cycle.
The idea I have is that some funeral complexes had a facility for counting the years (presumably for the dead king).
What of Khasekhemwy'
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt
The figure of 1461 is, as you explain, the number of years for Sirius to rise heliacally again on the New Year's day.
But it is also the number of days in a four year cycle of 365 + 365 + 365 + 366 days, one of which is the Leap year. (This is of course the cycle for the sunrise to match the stars again.)
One of the jobs of the ascended King was to maintain cosmic order, or Maat, in wh
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt
The star software programs normally include proper motion of the stars when working out historic positions. The proper motion of Sirius is very significant.
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt
I think the data from the report linked in the above thread makes your post rather redundant !
The report argues that the orientation of the Giza pyramids was done using the northern stars. The sighting holes alongside the east sides are given as evidence of this.
Also it suggests that Spence's method was the likely one used - although there is no specific proof.
In support of this
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt
The results I used for the orientations were those of Dorner which Spence used.
Some later results of 2006 suggest that the east and west sides are just about parallel.
See table 8 in this pdf report :
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt
The slight skew in the angles of the base may have been caused by the east side being oriented to the stars (as in the Spence Theory) and later the west side was again oriented to the same stars in a build sequence.
The difference in the east and west side orientations (-3.4', -2.8') was 0.6 minutes.
The equates to time difference of about one and half years (1'= 2.7 years).
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt
What are the exact orientations in minutes and seconds of the east and west sides of the GP to true north ?
Graham
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt
I agree that there are basic elements to achieve the purposes of the pyramid.
Each architect re-interprets the design that will achieve these.
Even Imhotep did not copy the Djoser complex for Sekhemkhet.
The latter was a much more compact and efficient building than the former, but presumably they were built for similar purposes.
I am of the view that many of the discrepancies in accurac
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt
Now that we have established that the Grand Gallery is 88c and the Ascending Passage is 72c it can be observed that these lengths have been chosen in the ratio of 11 to 9.
The 11 and 9 are the numbers of gods in the Two Enneads.
In the pyramid texts there is frequent mention of the ascended king taking the throne at the head of the Two Enneads.
So it looks like the AP and GG represented
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt
There is no need to discuss a rhombus because Petrie measured the exact length needed to work out the length of the AP as 72 cubits. As stated already :
'Here Petrie gives your distance XX' as approximately 59.8 inches
This is approximately 2.9 cubits.'
I think any seked that might or might not have been used should be based on 72 cubits.
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt
Sorry, no. It is the perpendicular height of 2.29c
I refer you to The Pyramids and Temples of Giza Ch 7, para 38
Here Petrie gives your distance XX' as approximately 59.8 inches
This is approximately 2.9 cubits.
Although Petrie started measuring the AP from the floor of the DP I think it was expediency rather than logic. (see in the first diagram the point POI)
The floor of the A
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt
'The height of the DP is 16 palms and the height of X' above X is half this - 8 palms. '
I don't think the 8 palms is right. The 16 palms is the height PERPENDICULAR to the ceiling and floor.
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt
The height of the DP is 2.3c which is 16 palms.
Your 8 palms is not a vertical distance as the passage is sloping.
2.3/sine 53.12 comes to 2.9c
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt
The face is an image like a photograph on a flat sheet.
But if as claimed the image was made on a cloth that followed the contours of the nose, face and cheeks it would be much wider when laid flat.
(try it, hold the cloth on your ears and lay it flat !)
by
GChase
-
Ancient History
I think it is 72c to the join with the descending passage and 75c to the opposite side of the descending passage.
I would say 72c is more logical as the join with the DC is the starting point of the AC ?
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt
Ahatmose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You wrote:
>
> "This section from Charles Rigano’s book refers to
> it :
>
> ‘In 1968 when the Antiquities Department cleared
> the north face, they found lines of hieroglyphic
> text just below and to the east of the entrance
> cut into the soothed granite surface. The
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt
So many posts have claimed that there is no evidence – no inscriptions, no mummies nor other burial things – to prove the pyramids were used as tombs.
But it is not well known perhaps that Menkaure’s pyramid does have an inscription.
This section from Charles Rigano’s book refers to it :
‘In 1968 when the Antiquities Department cleared the north face, they found lines of hieroglyphic t
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt
"With a height to the bendline of 90 cubits, the slope is 90/63 = 10:7."
The 63 cubits you are using here is the number given by Petrie from measuring the NE corner.
But this is not typical since the slope is maintained at 10:7 there up the bend whereas the other corners have less steep slopes towards the bend.
Petrie makes this comment about the NE corner :
"The NE cor
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt
Mid-point mean = 99.12 cubits = 170 feet 9.8 inches
99 cubits of 20.68 inches = 170 feet 7.3 inches
In measuring the distance between the pyramids Petrie has used the bottom edge of the casing stones on the south side of the Bent pyramid and the pavement edge on the north face of the subsidiary pavement.
Petrie comments that the casing stones were not sunk into sockets at the corners o
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt
"My theory of the Bent Pyramid is based on Petrie's rather obvious dimensions. Like Petrie, I can accept differences in the apparent length of the cubit between different sites. "
Not quite, it looks like you are being selective with your 99c. Quotes from Petrie :
"the distance between the pyramids is apparantly 100 cubits"
"the clear space around the pyram
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt
Yes, but if you select 360c for the base of the Bent Pyramid on the pavement, then the subsidiary pyramid is 100c away not 99 as in your theory. (1c = 20.62 inches standard)
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt
It looks to me like picking and choosing the dimensions to suit the idea, but without much justification.
I notice that you include the enclosure of 560c around the Bent Pyramid but not the similar one of 480c for the Red Pyramid, (which was measured by Stadelmann as 30 cubits from the pyramid.)
With the Bent pyramid pavement the pyramid would appear as a base of 360c (as the bottom edge of
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt
Thanks very much, the information is very useful.
I note the 0.75 metres (10 palms) between the two base levels. This is 1.43 cubits.
The horizontal difference would be 1.43 X 7/10 which is 1.00 cubits.
One cubit at each corner is 2 cubits between the two base lengths.
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt
you asked : I'd be interested to know whether you have formed an opinion as to what star groupings the Enneads represented.
Yes, from the various mentions in the PT's I am of the opinion that the 9 + 11 gods of the Enneads reside along the line joining Mizar in Ursa Major and Kocab in Ursa Minor.
This line passed through or was close to the celestial pole.
Sometimes the Enne
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt
Are you able to tell from his paper whether Dorner measured the 362 cubits along the bottom edge of the casing stones, or along a platform level higher up ?
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt
In order to complete my answer to the main question "360 or 362" I need to show how the 362 length of the casing stones becomes 360 at the level of the pavement.
The casing stones went down to the corner socket shown in the picture :
These sloped downward and inward at about 6 to 10 degrees.
The pavement level was above this at each corner. Here is Petrie's picture.
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt
There is no doubt in my mind that both Petrie and Dorner used the bottom edge of the casing stones to get the size of the base.
Read this (again) :
The actual points of the original construction, on which the recovery
of the size of the pyramid depends, are as follows.
. . . At the N.E. the socket is entirely
destroyed; but the casing bed was found at about
100 inches from it along
by
GChase
-
Ancient Egypt