Giza geometry and star alignments

[Andrew B Collins]

Hi. Have a read of this new article by chartered engineer Rodney Hale and myself that demonstrates the simple underlying geometry of the Giza pyramid field and its possible relationship to star alignments. It is published this month in the academic journal "Archaeological Discovery." The paper demonstrates a new approach to understanding the layout of the Giza pyramid field illustrating how during the epoch of their construction, ca. 2550-2500 BCE, the Giza Pyramids reflected the positioning of key stars of the Cygnus constellation. The authors deal comprehensively with the controversial views regarding the Orion Correlation Theory expressed in a paper written by Italian mathematicians Vincenzo Orofino and Paolo Bernardini of the Universitỳ of Salento and published in the same journal. The article also provides compelling evidence that the proto-Sphinx, or Sphinx knoll, may have played a key role at Giza before the creation of its famous pyramid field. The paper is available now to download for free (and without having to register). Here is the link to view and/or download the article: http://www.scirp.org...x?PaperID=65672

[DeeSember]

Just saying, there are bunches of threads about this on this forum, search them up, interesting to read.

[questionmark]

hmmm... getting a little humbler? Possible relationship...I like that.

[Hanslune]

Thanks Andrew - an interesting read.

However if this was so important to the AE why did they do it once only and how does this theory account for the other structures on the plateau to include funerary temples, satellite pyramids and G1-d?

[Podo]

Seems interesting, but it doesn't really prove anything. I think it makes sense that ancient peoples build things in conjunction with stars that they believe to be important. Their belief in the position's importance does not mean that it has any actual bearing.

[SHaYap]

I think the associations are there ... not sure how one would go about 'proving' it and in what manner though,

[questionmark]

When talking about star alignments you cannot but take in consideration that 4700 years ago most stars were not visible in the exact position they are now, here Polaris in 2016 around midnight at Giza:

and here in 2700 BC:

And that could explain the misalignment due north of the GP.

Edited April 27, 2016 by questionmark

[Derek Willis]

When talking about star alignments you cannot but take in consideration that 4700 years ago most stars were not visible in the exact position they are now, here Polaris in 2016 around midnight at Giza:

And that could explain the misalignment due north of the GP.

At the time the pyramids were built, Thuban (Mag 3.7) in the constellation Draco was the Pole Star, being about 10 arcmin from the pole. The north-south alignment of the pyramids was most likely done using Thuban.

Edit: You don't actually need a Pole Star to work out due north. If an artificial horizon is created (e.g. a level piece of wood) and then the points at which a star rises and sets are marked, the center of the marks points due north.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Derek Willis

[questionmark]

At the time the pyramids were built, Thuban (Mag 3.7) in the constellation Draco was the Pole Star, being about 10 arcmin from the pole. The north-south alignment of the pyramids was most likely done using Thuban.

That could also be as it showed true North within a few arc seconds and little variation around 2000 BC... but be it how it may, it shows that we cannot base any speculation on current star positions, at the time they were different. And that includes Cygnus... that is not even a valid reference point as it moves around the night sky (and most of the year was only visible from 2 AM on).

[Derek Willis]

That could also be as it showed true North within a few arc seconds and little variation around 2000 BC... but be it how it may, it shows that we cannot base any speculation on current star positions, at the time they were different. And that includes Cygnus... that is not even a valid reference point as it moves around the night sky (and most of the year was only visible from 2 AM on).

I am simply referring to the alignments of the Pyramids of Giza, which are north-south to within a degree. It is almost certain these alignments would have been achieved using the Pole Star at the time, or any given northern star in the manner I have described.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Derek Willis

[Gaden]

I am simply referring to the alignments of the Pyramids of Giza, which are north-south to within a degree. It is almost certain these alignments would have been achieved using the Pole Star at the time, or any given northern star in the manner I have described.

Why? Wouldn't it be easier and more accurate to use the sun to determine North?

[questionmark]

Why? Wouldn't it be easier and more accurate to use the sun to determine North?

As opposite to South, yes. But that would be within quite an error margin (several degrees) as the relationship between the cast shadow and the deviation would have to have been understood.On the other hand, we hardly find any mentions to North and South in ancient Egyptian literature... but plenty to East and West.... so it remains questionable whether they tried to align anything North-South to start with. But that is another can of worms.

Edited April 27, 2016 by questionmark

[Derek Willis]

Why? Wouldn't it be easier and more accurate to use the sun to determine North?

The sun could be used. For example, measuring the shadow of a gnomon when at its shortest would give a north-south line. I mentioned the star method because the Egyptologist Professor I.E.E. Edwards suggested in his book "The Pyramids of Egypt" that the star method was used to set out the pyramids. I would be interested to know why using the Sun would be more accurate than using stars?

Edited April 27, 2016 by Derek Willis

[kmt_sesh]

Greetings, Andrew. Thanks for posting.

A number of people have commented, and some have asked questions. Do you care to address them? (Otherwise, please review Rule 1 in our forum's Rules).

Thanks much.

[Hanslune]

Greetings, Andrew. Thanks for posting.

A number of people have commented, and some have asked questions. Do you care to address them? (Otherwise, please review Rule 1 in our forum's Rules).

Thanks much.

He might be busy this same post has popped up at a number of sites no replies yet on them either.

[Gaden]

The sun could be used. For example, measuring the shadow of a gnomon when at its shortest would give a north-south line. I mentioned the star method because the Egyptologist Professor I.E.E. Edwards suggested in his book "The Pyramids of Egypt" that the star method was used to set out the pyramids. I would be interested to know why using the Sun would be more accurate than using stars?

For the simple reason that it is daytime and everything, especially shadows is/are easier to see. Seriously, would you rather go out at night to observe shadows and mark some lines (or set out stakes) than in the daytime? Why would Prof. Edwards say this?

[questionmark]

For the simple reason that it is daytime and everything, especially shadows is/are easier to see. Seriously, would you rather go out at night to observe shadows and mark some lines (or set out stakes) than in the daytime? Why would Prof. Edwards say this?

Nobody said it is easier to see shadows. but regardless of how long you need, the current North Star shines (give or take a few degrees) in the North all night long. And that makes it have an advantage over the sun... or any other star for the case. In fact, that is why it is the most important star for navigation... to this day.

[Derek Willis]

For the simple reason that it is daytime and everything, especially shadows is/are easier to see. Seriously, would you rather go out at night to observe shadows and mark some lines (or set out stakes) than in the daytime? Why would Prof. Edwards say this?

No one said anything about measuring shadows at night. The artificial horizon (i.e. a leveled piece of wood) would be set out during the day. Then the point at which the star rises and sets is marked on the wood. People have been navigating on land and at sea using the stars since prehistory so by the time the ancient Egyptians came along it was a well known technique. I guess Prof Edwards would say this because he spent a lifetime researching what the ancient Egyptians did.

http://www.space.com...ting-stars.html

Edited April 27, 2016 by Derek Willis

[Gaden]

Nobody said it is easier to see shadows. but regardless of how long you need, the current North Star shines (give or take a few degrees) in the North all night long. And that makes it have an advantage over the sun... or any other star for the case. In fact, that is why it is the most important star for navigation... to this day.

You would have to know where north is before you could determine that a star is in that direction all night long.

"In fact, that is why it is the most important star for navigation... to this day." proves absolutely nothing.

[Gaden]

No one said anything about measuring shadows at night. The artificial horizon (i.e. a leveled piece of wood) would be set out during the day. Then the point at which the star rises and sets is marked on the wood. People have been navigating on land and at sea using the stars since prehistory so by the time the ancient Egyptians came along it was a well known technique. I guess Prof Edwards would say this because he spent a lifetime researching what the ancient Egyptians did.

http://www.space.com...ting-stars.html

The method you are suggesting is equally feasible with the Sun, so why would you do it at night?

Can you give me a timeline of when people started navigating by using the stars and that it was well known before the time of the Ancient Egyptians?

I am not questioning Prof. Edwards knowledge of the AE. But unless they wrote it down, I don't see how he could know what method they used.

Your link in no way suggests that the AE knew about the North Star.

[kmt_sesh]

The method you are suggesting is equally feasible with the Sun, so why would you do it at night?

Can you give me a timeline of when people started navigating by using the stars and that it was well known before the time of the Ancient Egyptians?

I am not questioning Prof. Edwards knowledge of the AE. But unless they wrote it down, I don't see how he could know what method they used.

Your link in no way suggests that the AE knew about the North Star.

To be precise Edwards describes several possibilities involving observations of both the sun and the stars (1947: 247-48). Edwards does elaborate that foundational traditions involved the observation of specific stars, but this evidence derives from texts written much later in dynastic history and the same is not preserved to date for the Old Kingdom. In other words, we don't know for certain which methods the Egyptians used, or whether if they used one or more methods at any one time and during the foundation of any one monument. All we can say is that they knew what in the hell they were doing way back then.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Andrew has not yet returned but I'll make some brief comments on the OP. I've downloaded but, unfortunately, have not yet had the time to read his paper. Therefore, I cannot comment authoritatively on his conclusions, but I can contribute a thought or two on the overall theory.

First, I have to note the overall dearth of evidence for Egyptian "astronomy" of the Old Kingdom. Very little survives from that early period to tell us to what degree celestial bodies were important to the state religion. We can only suggest hypotheses, such as the popular one that the "air shafts" in the Great Pyramid pointed directly at important celestial objects. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but the Egyptians themselves did not tell us in any extant record that the air shafts were built for that purpose. We can impose this cautionary note, then, on the much wider theory that the three Giza pyramids were astronomical in nature. One might be able to find interesting connections or observations, but nothing directly in the textual or archaeological record from Dynasty 4 tells us this is why the three pyramids were arranged the way they were.

But then again, around 150 years later, at the end of Dynasty 5, the earliest of the Pyramid Texts were recorded in stone. And they definitely record the importance of certain heavenly bodies in the state religion. It is possible, then, to suggest such information is relevant as well to Dynasty 4, but then one risks the dangers of anachronism. And to be honest, we don't know what form the Pyramid Texts had in Dynasty 4, even though most scholars would readily agree that their origin precedes even Dynasty 4 (that is, what in the Texts was added or removed by the time they first appeared inside Unis' pyramid at Saqqara?).

Second, as food for thought, it must be remembered that the three main pyramids at Giza do not represent a clean order of royal succession. Many scholars and amateur historians alike have wondered about some sort of grand "unified plan" for Giza, but the interruption in succession makes it problematic. After Khufu built his Great Pyramid, his son Djedefre left Giza to build a pyramid to the north at Abu Rawash. And numerous Egyptologists have posited that the unfinished pyramid at Zawiyet el-Aryan belonged to a poorly recorded and understood king who followed Djedefre (I was reminded of this when reviewing Edwards's venerable book in my above reply to Gaden, because way back then even Edwards mentioned this theory). So only with the ascension of Khafre to the throne did pyramid building return to Giza, followed by his son Menkaure.

So the plan, in closer observation, doesn't seem strictly unified.

In my own opinion too much emphasis has been placed on Giza by alternative writers. Giza represents only three of a great many royal pyramids built between Dynasty 3 and Dynasty 18, from Abu Rawash all the way south to Abydos. Nearly all of these other sites are ignored in alternative literature. It would be unrealistic to expect that only Giza and Giza alone represents such astronomical alignments. What of all of the other pyramids? And of course, what of all the other temples and shrines and royal tombs down through dynastic history? Is Giza a one-off situation? Based on what we know of pharaonic traditions, the answer would have to be no.

Okay, maybe not so brief.

[Hanslune]

Howdy Kmt-Sesh

My own view is similar to yours no grand plan just a ad hoc design. Each item placed after another had been placed. Its an old story, lots of dots on the ground, lots of dots in the sky - that move - that some arrangement might be found there is not usual but the key question is - did the AE intend it?

Since they didn't (AFAWK) do it again or make any mention of it - it may not have been important.

Related question on AE city planning. Did they do that in cities that did not develop out of existing village - is there a sign of 'city planning'?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Answering my own question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_planning_in_ancient_Egypt

Amarma was one (much later period of course) that was built from scratch and later abandoned so it is a good example of 'city planning'

Most of Amarna’s housing was in two large areas north and south of the Central City.These sprawling suburbs housed the large population needed to maintain the court and run the administration of the Central City. Residing in the suburbs was a very mixed collection of social groups, the priests, soldiers, builders, sculptors and scribes having the most prominent houses. As far as the residential sections of Amarna are concerned, there is almost a complete absence of an imposed layout.

http://www.civilization.org.uk/egypt/later-egypt/amarna-town

I look forward to the comment by those more knowledgeable in this

Edited April 28, 2016 by Hanslune

[Derek Willis]

You would have to know where north is before you could determine that a star is in that direction all night long.

"In fact, that is why it is the most important star for navigation... to this day." proves absolutely nothing.

Ancient people were not stupid. They would have noticed: (1) many of the stars rise and set; (2) some of the stars don't rise and set, but go round in circles; (3) stars near to a particular point in the sky - what we now call the pole - don't move at all. They would not have understood the celestial dynamics in the way we now do, but they would have been aware that the sky appears to rotate around the point we call the pole.

[Derek Willis]

To be precise Edwards describes several possibilities involving observations of both the sun and the stars (1947: 247-48). Edwards does elaborate that foundational traditions involved the observation of specific stars, but this evidence derives from texts written much later in dynastic history and the same is not preserved to date for the Old Kingdom. In other words, we don't know for certain which methods the Egyptians used, or whether if they used one or more methods at any one time and during the foundation of any one monument. All we can say is that they knew what in the hell they were doing way back then.

In my posting I specifically said I.E.E. Edwards "suggested" that stars were used to determine where the north is in order to align the pyramids. No one knows for sure, but he obviously put a lifetime of experience behind his statement and hence was of the opinion that the stars rather than the Sun were used. In his book he describes the Denderah texts referring to the priest observing the stars of the Great Bear to "align Earth with Heaven". Yes, that is far later than the pyramids, but Edwards is satisfied the same method was used regarding the pyramids.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Derek Willis

[ChrLzs]

Before I was spend too much time reading this 'article', I'm curious about something. I would ask Andrew B Collins one more question:

Why did you choose "Archeological Discovery" as the 'Journal' for this, given that it is hardly what might be called a credible, peer reviewed journal?

Impact factor? You guessed it, ZERO. And here's where that 'Journal' emanates from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Research_Publishing

If you read that article, you might see why Andrew went there....

I note Andrew has started 3 threads, and not re-appeared on any of them. I think I will spend as much time looking at this UNpublished 'essay' as he does in following up on threads he starts. Looks like spam to me.