Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Thanos5150

Thuban and the Descending Passages-The Key to Dating the Pyramids?

Recommended Posts

Thanos5150
Posted (edited)

The descending passages of the Giza pyramids as well as those of the Red, Bent, and Meidum pyramids are all know as "polar passages" having been constructed to align with the point in the sky directly above earth's rotational axis traditionally observed by way of the “pole star”; the star closest to this central point that stays fixed in the sky. This is the specific region of the sky the pharaoh's soul would travel to take his place among the "Imperishable Ones", the circumpolar stars of which the pole star is chief among them. Because of procession of the equinoxes, the pole star of early dynastic Egypt was not Polaris as it is today, but rather Thuban (Alpha Draconis) which maintained this position from approximately 3,942-1,900BC. Thuban achieved its closest position to true North around 2,830BC remaining within 1 degree of this position for nearly 200yrs.  

Among others, antiquarian astronomer Richard Proctor calculated Thuban would have been seen through the descending passage of G1 at either 3,350BC or 2,170BC with a +/- error rate of 50-200yrs. If true, we can be reasonably confident to rule out the later date for numerous reasons leaving a time between 3,550BC-3,150BC (avg 3,350BC) the descending passage was constructed to align with Thuban. 

The averages of the 1995 RCD study are as follows:
Saqqara-2768 BC
Bent Pyramid-2720 BC
Meidum Pyramid-2705 BC
Abu Roash Pyramid-2804 BC
Abu Roash Temple-2795 BC
G1-2738 BC
G2-2765 BC
G3 2710 BC

Of the 11 date ranges for G1 only 3 samples are less than 2700BC. Of the 6 for G2 only one is less than 2700BC and four are 2800BC and above. G3, 5 out of 12 are below 2,700BC and is the only Giza pyramid to have at least one range less than 2,600BC though it is still as old or older than G1 is conventionally dated. Of the 29 ranges offered, 19 (66%) are in the 2,700-2,900 BC range.

If we look at the 1984 study the sample dates for G1 are as follows:

Sample number-Age-BC-Location
10B (charcoal) 3809 +/-160 198th course top platform, SW corner
10B (wood) 3101 +/-414 198th course top platform, SW corner
06 3090 +/-153 25-26 course West side, NW corner
08 3062 +/-157 108-109 course West side, NW corner
10A 3020 +/-131 198th course top platform, SW corner
14 2998 +/-319 5th course South side, SE corner
13 2975 +/-168 5th course, SE corner
04 2971 +/-120 2nd course core block North side
11 2950 +/-164 Top platform, SW corner
05 2929 +/-100 2nd course North side, near NW corner
07 2909 +/- 97 65th course West side, NW corner
02 2909 +/-104 2nd course North side East face 2nd tier
01 2869 +/- 94 2nd course North side East end
13 2864 +/-362 5th course SE corner
03 2853 +/-104 2nd course North face 2nd tier

Averaging these out from the 1984 study gives us a date of 3,021BC +/- (avg) 176yrs i.e 3197-2845BC.  

While the RCD studies do not conclusively prove Proctor's assessment, they do provide at the very least a credible context for a date of construction between 2,830BC and 3,150BC: the range of Thuban's closet point to true North and the lowest +/- date of Thuban being visible through the G1 descending passage. 

Adding to this is the recently RCD'd Dixon wood fragments originally found sealed in a QC "air shaft" which gave a date of 3217 BC +/- 123.5yrs (range 3341-3094BC) which even if the wood was few hundred of years old it still falls quite well within the Thuban DP (descending passage) visible range.  

Also to be considered is the alignment of the DP to celestial true north, perhaps the pole star Thuban, would have been done at the beginnings of construction i.e. making it one of the oldest parts of the pyramid. The RCD samples are all taken from the exterior which even the Dixon wood found in the interior would have been well after the setting of the DP line.      

One thing for sure is that the DP Thuban date of c. 3,350BC, let alone the RCD, does not coincide with theories of the date of c. 2450BC provided for the "air shafts" of G1 aligning with various stars at this time. Considering all of the descending passages of the main pyramids attributed to the 4th Dynasty are agreed to have been polar passages, whether or not this was the function of G1's should not be in dispute. The only question is when it was meant to align with the pole star. And given it does not seem plausible both 3,350BC and 2,450BC are correct, the latter date not even possible for an alignment of Thuban with the descending passage, the question we are ultimately lead to is were in fact the air shafts designed to line up with stars in 2450BC if at all? As sacrilegious as it may be to some, the answer seems quite clearly no, they were not. 

The QC air shafts were closed off at the chamber ends as well as both terminating approximately 20ft from the outside of the pyramid. Both continue at some distance then make a significant bends upwards. Both shafts are blocked by a series of doors. 

The northern KC air shaft makes several zig-zagging bends at various intervals along its 235ft and the southern KC makes two bends. Both exit the exterior of G1 though we have no way of knowing whether they exited the casing stones or not. 

We are so used to seeing diagrams of the G1 interior that depict the shafts in a straight line, like so:

http://www.gizapyramid.com/Beford1.jpg

we take it for granted the possibility the shafts align straight to the stars when in reality this is not the case at all. 

The QC has closed entrance and exits for both of its shafts, makes bends, and each shaft is blocked by at least one door if not two (or more)- hardly the stuff of "star shafts" either literally or symbolically. And are we to assume if the pharaoh were buried in the KC he sometimes vacationed in the QC to use those shafts instead to go to different stars? And despite the fact Khafre would have been present during the construction of G1, if not intimately privy to all of its innovations; star shafts among them, he nor Menkaure incorporated these features into their own pyramids? Or anyone else ever for that matter. Regardless, on what planet do we accept viewing a star, either to actually see or shoot a soul at, whether it is at a certain date or not; is to be achieved through a wall, around several bends, through doors, and then through 20+ft of the exterior of the building? Not happening. And the KC is no better as the northern shaft has no less than four bends zigzagging to and fro and the southern shaft has two with a varying shaft size and shape along its length.

The idea the G1 shafts were stellar aligned is nothing new and has been bandied about for several decades; long before the likes of Bauval and Spence. The inherent difficulties of this theory as I have noted above are often conveniently dismissed as “irrelevant” with the idea they did not actually have to make sense as they were merely “magical” in nature and not meant to serve a practical purpose either physically or symbolically. Any engineer who looks at these shafts would agree they are a technological marvel unto themselves and one of the most daunting architectural aspects of building G1 and yet them actually functioning in any logical way to serve the purpose ascribed to them is “irrelevant”? If this is the case then it goes without saying they would truly be “magical” indeed. 

There will be those that disagree. There will be charts and graphs and all else in between offered to show how these shafts could have lined up with any number of stars at any given time and yet none will trump the physical evidence that clearly contradicts this novel idea. 

Maybe instead of “magical shafts” that do nothing to actually serve the purpose ascribed to them, maybe the riddle of when G1 and the other great pyramids were built should be taken from a different, much simpler and more practical approach. We know these pyramids were aligned to the cardinal points. We know their descending passages were polar passages just as we know Thuban was the pole star at this time. We know that numerous structures, including these very same pyramids, throughout AE history were aligned to the pole star regardless of the pole star of the time. While the shafts of G1 resemble absolutely nothing one would expect of a star shaft, the descending passages of the great pyramids clearly do, and if so would have been made to view Thuban, the pole star of the time, which could only have been, according to astronomer Richard Proctor, sometime around 3,550BC-3,150BC.

There are many variables here so this is a working theory. which may well be wrong, and with more thorough measurements and analysis I expect would refine the dates accordingly. But based on the notion the descending passages of the great pyramids were set as polar passages during a time Thuban was the pole star it stands to reason this may be a way to date them. 

(Lee Anderson)

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Thanos5150
17 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

The idea the G1 shafts were stellar aligned is nothing new and has been bandied about for several decades; long before the likes of Bauval and Spence. The inherent difficulties of this theory as I have noted above are often conveniently dismissed as “irrelevant” with the idea they did not actually have to make sense as they were merely “magical” in nature and not meant to serve a practical purpose either physically or symbolically.

A follow up to this, as noted by Rawlings and Pickering, is that Spence made a simple mathematical error (which she acknowledges in reply) which to correct for, using Spence's suggested method for the DE finding true north, they say gives a G1 date of c. 2628BC and 2607BC for G2.    

Astronomical orientation of the pyramids.

  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150

I was saving this for later, but the reason the Thuban system is so important is because one of the planets orbiting its suns is the original home of the Atlanteans. I know, right? It was destroyed when the interstellar rogue planet Nibiru came ripping through their solar system which the survivors fled to earth by hitching a ride on the very planet that destroyed their world. To the earth natives they would be known by many names, most notably the Annunaki and Atlanteans. Yes. All true. Also escaping to earth were their neighbors the Kryptonians but that's another thread altogether.  

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Megaro

That was an interesting and thought-provoking post.

I have read that at least some of the zigzagging of the shafts from the KC are due to the location of the grand gallery.  Perhaps it was Gantenbrink who really highlighted the enormous building challenges presented by their construction.  Certainly an important and purposeful part of the structure that is an architectural marvel in its own right.

Others on this site have previously commented that the shafts were a function of an above-ground tomb.  The intended purpose is most likely lost to the ages, but celestial observation or alignment tools, as you stated, seems unlikely. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
11 minutes ago, Megaro said:

That was an interesting and thought-provoking post.

I have read that at least some of the zigzagging of the shafts from the KC are due to the location of the grand gallery.  Perhaps it was Gantenbrink who really highlighted the enormous building challenges presented by their construction.  Certainly an important and purposeful part of the structure that is an architectural marvel in its own right.

Thank you. I wrote this some time ago and brought it here for discussion. Further researching I was happy to find Gattentbrink's comments regarding the question of "are they light or star shafts": 

Quote

No! All the shafts bend, often several times. In addition, all the shafts begin, at their lower ends, with horizontal sections about 2 meters in length. So there is no way light from any source could ever have penetrated from the outside into either of the chambers. In several parts of the shafts, with the exception of the lower southern one, we even found extreme angle fluctuations. It is therefore ridiculous for anyone to claim that the shafts could ever have pointed precisely to certain stars. Given the many angle fluctuations, the shafts could be construed to be pointing at some 100 different stars, especially if construction of the pyramid is gratuitously redated to match specific stellar constellations.

Even if the shafts were straight and opened to the sky, astronomically the idea these shafts all line up with these specific stars c. 2450BC is simply not true. While at various times they may point in the "direction" of these stars, again imagining them as straight and opening to the sky, there is never any such "lock" that places them in conjunction with each other at a particular time +/- in which the closest points these shafts could be fixed to even make this idea tenable in reality are over 150yrs apart. Bauval originally gave dates of only 3 of the shafts which are KC north 2425BC, KC south 2475BC, and QC south 2400BC which each of those dates are rounded up or down at his discretion. Ironically the average is actually 2433BC which he merely rounds up again to arrive at 2450BC. Bauval's figures have repeatedly been shown to be incorrect in which he has offered several revisions time and again to make it work which in the view of many is still wrong. And for all of this to happen in the first place it was supposedly laid out in 10,500BC yet constructed in 2450BC? Which as I understand it even the 10,500BC correlation is wrong. Spence as noted is way off as well. 

Quote

Others on this site have previously commented that the shafts were a function of an above-ground tomb.  The intended purpose is most likely lost to the ages, but celestial observation or alignment tools, as you stated, seems unlikely. 

I would like to hear the reasoning for that idea explained. 

Equally nonsensical is the notion they were "soul shafts" as offered by some Egyptologists.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
Posted (edited)

I think it worth stating some points against these being "soul shafts"

It sounds sloppy, an easy solution that may satisfy some, though no evidence, no precedence, or later usage is presented.

No part of the soul, typically the ba and ka, needs anything other than a false door to exit and enter the tomb or receive offerings. The false door is found in the chapel, be it directly above the burial chamber within the same structure, or as an adjunct to a pyramid, or in later times for a king, a mortuary chapel at some distance away.

No other tomb has ever been found with these shafts, so surely if they did have the function of letting the ba or ka exit and enter the tomb, they would be common place, or at least a recognizable analogue of these shafts would exist in other tombs, but nothing.

The closest in time to G1 that we can get to a description of what happens to the king after his death is the PT, yet while we have the king ascending, it is nowhere stated that it is via a shaft, multiple shafts, or even the false door.

Multiple shafts, how does the king use multiple shafts, why would he need multiple shafts, and why would he need any that were not connected to his burial chamber even if they had a "soul transit function".

There is no evidence from any burial prior to G1, or after G1, either in physical form or in religious texts, that the king's ba, the part that joins with the gods, splits itself into multiple parts, or makes a return journey and travels out a different shaft. The king's journey, his ascention, is never described as anything except a one way ticket, the only cyclical element is that when he is with Ra he travels with Ra in his cyclical journey for eternity, his ba does not return to the tomb, though his ka remains to take the offerings.

 

 

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I think it worth stating some points against these being "soul shafts"

It sounds sloppy, an easy solution that may satisfy some, though no evidence, no precedence, or later usage is presented.

No part of the soul, typically the ba and ka, needs anything other than a false door to exit and enter the tomb or receive offerings. The false door is found in the chapel, be it directly above the burial chamber within the same structure, or as an adjunct to a pyramid, or in later times for a king, a mortuary chapel at some distance away.

No other tomb has ever been found with these shafts, so surely if they did have the function of letting the ba or ka exit and enter the tomb, they would be common place, or at least a recognizable analogue of these shafts would exist in other tombs, but nothing.

The closest in time to G1 that we can get to a description of what happens to the king after his death is the PT, yet while we have the king ascending, it is nowhere stated that it is via a shaft, multiple shafts, or even the false door.

Multiple shafts, how does the king use multiple shafts, why would he need multiple shafts, and why would he need any that were not connected to his burial chamber even if they had a "soul transit function".

There is no evidence from any burial prior to G1, or after G1, either in physical form or in religious texts, that the king's ba, the part that joins with the gods, splits itself into multiple parts, or makes a return journey and travels out a different shaft. The king's journey, his ascention, is never described as anything except a one way ticket, the only cyclical element is that when he is with Ra he travels with Ra in his cyclical journey for eternity, his ba does not return to the tomb, though his ka remains to take the offerings.

 

 

I've always held that the reason there are all these odd features built into the GP is because Khufu was an unstable nut. He kept changing his mind, wanting this and that and demanding irrational additions - like the person who built a house with multiple stair cases (Winchester house https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Mystery_House) or the Terracotta warriors. People do odd things, if they do it in stone and are absolute monarch's with an empire's resources, they can leave a LARGE permanent weirdness for us to puzzle over. Note how boring G2 is in comparison). So what were the shafts? Unknown some 'fad' or the intellectually fetid religious ideas of the builder - which explains the first and only use and our inability to understand what they were for.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
1 hour ago, Hanslune said:

I've always held that the reason there are all these odd features built into the GP is because Khufu was an unstable nut. He kept changing his mind, wanting this and that and demanding irrational additions - like the person who built a house with multiple stair cases (Winchester house https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Mystery_House) or the Terracotta warriors. People do odd things, if they do it in stone and are absolute monarch's with an empire's resources, they can leave a LARGE permanent weirdness for us to puzzle over. Note how boring G2 is in comparison). So what were the shafts? Unknown some 'fad' or the intellectually fetid religious ideas of the builder - which explains the first and only use and our inability to understand what they were for.

Something like the chief Knight of Ni being Khufu, and King Arthur being Hemiunu

 

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
7 hours ago, Hanslune said:

I've always held that the reason there are all these odd features built into the GP is because Khufu was an unstable nut. He kept changing his mind, wanting this and that and demanding irrational additions - like the person who built a house with multiple stair cases (Winchester house https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Mystery_House) or the Terracotta warriors. People do odd things, if they do it in stone and are absolute monarch's with an empire's resources, they can leave a LARGE permanent weirdness for us to puzzle over. Note how boring G2 is in comparison). So what were the shafts? Unknown some 'fad' or the intellectually fetid religious ideas of the builder - which explains the first and only use and our inability to understand what they were for.

Or maybe, given the attention to precision and measure otherwise found elsewhere, not to mention the shafts themselves which speak to some kind of actual function, this had nothing to do with Khufu's "mental health" or any "irrational addition" but rather were planned integral components. Hardly the stuff of "fads" or "intellectually fetid religious ideas of the builder" regardless. As far as the regurgitated "Khufu changing his mind" business-what is the evidence of this? The subterranean chamber? The "Queen's chamber"? What other "irrational additions"?  Assuming this was the case, if it too did not serve a function in the state it was left, the subterranean chamber may have been abandoned for practical reasons and/or was symbolic. As far as the QC, it is not uncommon for pyramids to have multiple chambers and the presence of the niche, among other things, suggests this chamber served a symbolic function, perhaps as a serdab.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Megaro
Posted (edited)

I remember that kmt_sesh (RIP) posted a comment on this forum something along the lines of: just because it doesn't make sense to us, doesn't mean it didn't make sense to the AE.  That is a good baseline when pondering the 4 air shafts.  It is possible that even a seemingly "symbolic" design feature was very practical to a Pharaoh seeking eternity.  Although I must admit, as Hanslune pointed out, the whole affair does seem to be quite mad.  Was it Herodotus who wrote that Khufu was hated as a ruler due to his cruelty?

In response to Thanos5150, I could not find the thread or post about the relation of the air shafts to an above-ground tomb.  It was not my theory.  But if I recall, the postulation was that the air shafts were of assistance to the Pharaoh's spirit.  The shafts were as novel as the above-ground burial.  Continuing, and perhaps from a different author, the QC was built first, complete with shafts due to an uncertain date of the King's death.  The QC shafts were sealed once the Pharaoh survived to see the construction of the KC, complete with those curious air shafts to assist in the afterlife.

Edited by Megaro
content re: Herodotus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Megaro said:

I remember that kmt_sesh (RIP) posted a comment on this forum something along the lines of: just because it doesn't make sense to us, doesn't mean it didn't make sense to the AE.  That is a good baseline when pondering the 4 air shafts.  It is possible that even a seemingly "symbolic" design feature was very practical to a Pharaoh seeking eternity.  Although I must admit, as Hanslune pointed out, the whole affair does seem to be quite mad.  Was it Herodotus who wrote that Khufu was hated as a ruler due to his cruelty? 

Obviously it made a lot of sense to somebody. What does being cruel have to do with being crazy? I'm a total a-hole apparently but am still of sound mind. At least that's what JFK and Elvis keep telling me. Herodotus also said Khufu pimped out his daughter to make money to pay for construction and that she got an extra block of stone on the side from her clients to build her own pyramid.  Yeah. 

Quote

In response to Thanos5150, I could not find the thread or post about the relation of the air shafts to an above-ground tomb.  It was not my theory.  But if I recall, the postulation was that the air shafts were of assistance to the Pharaoh's spirit.  The shafts were as novel as the above-ground burial.  Continuing, and perhaps from a different author, the QC was built first, complete with shafts due to an uncertain date of the King's death.  The QC shafts were sealed once the Pharaoh survived to see the construction of the KC, complete with those curious air shafts to assist in the afterlife.

You said "Others on this site have previously commented that the shafts were a function of an above-ground tomb."  so I assumed as much. And if it were your theory I would hope you could just recount it without having to find previous threads or posts. 

The BP, its SP, and RP have above ground chambers:

bentp_1.jpg

 

sneferu%20south%20cult%20pyramid%20subst

 

redPyramid.gif

 

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Interesting. I never thought about it before, and didn't realize the descending passages started on the north side. I guess I just imagined they'd be on the side of the mortuary temple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
CuriousEye
On 7/22/2021 at 11:17 AM, Thanos5150 said:

I was saving this for later, but the reason the Thuban system is so important is because one of the planets orbiting its suns is the original home of the Atlanteans.

Neither the Egyptians nor Plato evoked about the location of legendary protohistoric Haubenet or the Platonician Atlantis being located on another planet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
Posted (edited)
On 7/21/2021 at 9:44 AM, Thanos5150 said:

Because of procession of the equinoxes, the pole star of early dynastic Egypt was not Polaris as it is today, but rather Thuban (Alpha Draconis) which maintained this position from approximately 3,942-1,900BC. Thuban achieved its closest position to true North around 2,830BC remaining within 1 degree of this position for nearly 200yrs.

 I would update this to note that current observations place the date for Thuban's closest position to the North Celestial Pole at 2787BC.  Right near the middle of the RCD ranges of the great pyramids.   

Edited by Thanos5150

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
On 7/27/2021 at 8:07 PM, DieChecker said:

Interesting. I never thought about it before, and didn't realize the descending passages started on the north side. I guess I just imagined they'd be on the side of the mortuary temple.

The sun, RA, rises in the east. The king, also RA, is reborn. Pharoah/RA die at night and take their place among the Imperishable Ones in the northern sky at the Celestial Pole. Or so the story goes. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobu
On 7/21/2021 at 11:44 AM, Thanos5150 said:

The descending passages of the Giza pyramids as well as those of the Red, Bent, and Meidum pyramids are all know as "polar passages" having been constructed to align with the point in the sky directly above earth's rotational axis traditionally observed by way of the “pole star”; the star closest to this central point that stays fixed in the sky. This is the specific region of the sky the pharaoh's soul would travel to take his place among the "Imperishable Ones", the circumpolar stars of which the pole star is chief among them. Because of procession of the equinoxes, the pole star of early dynastic Egypt was not Polaris as it is today, but rather Thuban (Alpha Draconis) which maintained this position from approximately 3,942-1,900BC. Thuban achieved its closest position to true North around 2,830BC remaining within 1 degree of this position for nearly 200yrs.  

Among others, antiquarian astronomer Richard Proctor calculated Thuban would have been seen through the descending passage of G1 at either 3,350BC or 2,170BC with a +/- error rate of 50-200yrs. If true, we can be reasonably confident to rule out the later date for numerous reasons leaving a time between 3,550BC-3,150BC (avg 3,350BC) the descending passage was constructed to align with Thuban. 

The averages of the 1995 RCD study are as follows:
Saqqara-2768 BC
Bent Pyramid-2720 BC
Meidum Pyramid-2705 BC
Abu Roash Pyramid-2804 BC
Abu Roash Temple-2795 BC
G1-2738 BC
G2-2765 BC
G3 2710 BC

Of the 11 date ranges for G1 only 3 samples are less than 2700BC. Of the 6 for G2 only one is less than 2700BC and four are 2800BC and above. G3, 5 out of 12 are below 2,700BC and is the only Giza pyramid to have at least one range less than 2,600BC though it is still as old or older than G1 is conventionally dated. Of the 29 ranges offered, 19 (66%) are in the 2,700-2,900 BC range.

If we look at the 1984 study the sample dates for G1 are as follows:

Sample number-Age-BC-Location
10B (charcoal) 3809 +/-160 198th course top platform, SW corner
10B (wood) 3101 +/-414 198th course top platform, SW corner
06 3090 +/-153 25-26 course West side, NW corner
08 3062 +/-157 108-109 course West side, NW corner
10A 3020 +/-131 198th course top platform, SW corner
14 2998 +/-319 5th course South side, SE corner
13 2975 +/-168 5th course, SE corner
04 2971 +/-120 2nd course core block North side
11 2950 +/-164 Top platform, SW corner
05 2929 +/-100 2nd course North side, near NW corner
07 2909 +/- 97 65th course West side, NW corner
02 2909 +/-104 2nd course North side East face 2nd tier
01 2869 +/- 94 2nd course North side East end
13 2864 +/-362 5th course SE corner
03 2853 +/-104 2nd course North face 2nd tier

Averaging these out from the 1984 study gives us a date of 3,021BC +/- (avg) 176yrs i.e 3197-2845BC.  

While the RCD studies do not conclusively prove Proctor's assessment, they do provide at the very least a credible context for a date of construction between 2,830BC and 3,150BC: the range of Thuban's closet point to true North and the lowest +/- date of Thuban being visible through the G1 descending passage. 

Adding to this is the recently RCD'd Dixon wood fragments originally found sealed in a QC "air shaft" which gave a date of 3217 BC +/- 123.5yrs (range 3341-3094BC) which even if the wood was few hundred of years old it still falls quite well within the Thuban DP (descending passage) visible range.  

Also to be considered is the alignment of the DP to celestial true north, perhaps the pole star Thuban, would have been done at the beginnings of construction i.e. making it one of the oldest parts of the pyramid. The RCD samples are all taken from the exterior which even the Dixon wood found in the interior would have been well after the setting of the DP line.      

One thing for sure is that the DP Thuban date of c. 3,350BC, let alone the RCD, does not coincide with theories of the date of c. 2450BC provided for the "air shafts" of G1 aligning with various stars at this time. Considering all of the descending passages of the main pyramids attributed to the 4th Dynasty are agreed to have been polar passages, whether or not this was the function of G1's should not be in dispute. The only question is when it was meant to align with the pole star. And given it does not seem plausible both 3,350BC and 2,450BC are correct, the latter date not even possible for an alignment of Thuban with the descending passage, the question we are ultimately lead to is were in fact the air shafts designed to line up with stars in 2450BC if at all? As sacrilegious as it may be to some, the answer seems quite clearly no, they were not. 

The QC air shafts were closed off at the chamber ends as well as both terminating approximately 20ft from the outside of the pyramid. Both continue at some distance then make a significant bends upwards. Both shafts are blocked by a series of doors. 

The northern KC air shaft makes several zig-zagging bends at various intervals along its 235ft and the southern KC makes two bends. Both exit the exterior of G1 though we have no way of knowing whether they exited the casing stones or not. 

We are so used to seeing diagrams of the G1 interior that depict the shafts in a straight line, like so:

http://www.gizapyramid.com/Beford1.jpg

we take it for granted the possibility the shafts align straight to the stars when in reality this is not the case at all. 

The QC has closed entrance and exits for both of its shafts, makes bends, and each shaft is blocked by at least one door if not two (or more)- hardly the stuff of "star shafts" either literally or symbolically. And are we to assume if the pharaoh were buried in the KC he sometimes vacationed in the QC to use those shafts instead to go to different stars? And despite the fact Khafre would have been present during the construction of G1, if not intimately privy to all of its innovations; star shafts among them, he nor Menkaure incorporated these features into their own pyramids? Or anyone else ever for that matter. Regardless, on what planet do we accept viewing a star, either to actually see or shoot a soul at, whether it is at a certain date or not; is to be achieved through a wall, around several bends, through doors, and then through 20+ft of the exterior of the building? Not happening. And the KC is no better as the northern shaft has no less than four bends zigzagging to and fro and the southern shaft has two with a varying shaft size and shape along its length.

The idea the G1 shafts were stellar aligned is nothing new and has been bandied about for several decades; long before the likes of Bauval and Spence. The inherent difficulties of this theory as I have noted above are often conveniently dismissed as “irrelevant” with the idea they did not actually have to make sense as they were merely “magical” in nature and not meant to serve a practical purpose either physically or symbolically. Any engineer who looks at these shafts would agree they are a technological marvel unto themselves and one of the most daunting architectural aspects of building G1 and yet them actually functioning in any logical way to serve the purpose ascribed to them is “irrelevant”? If this is the case then it goes without saying they would truly be “magical” indeed. 

There will be those that disagree. There will be charts and graphs and all else in between offered to show how these shafts could have lined up with any number of stars at any given time and yet none will trump the physical evidence that clearly contradicts this novel idea. 

Maybe instead of “magical shafts” that do nothing to actually serve the purpose ascribed to them, maybe the riddle of when G1 and the other great pyramids were built should be taken from a different, much simpler and more practical approach. We know these pyramids were aligned to the cardinal points. We know their descending passages were polar passages just as we know Thuban was the pole star at this time. We know that numerous structures, including these very same pyramids, throughout AE history were aligned to the pole star regardless of the pole star of the time. While the shafts of G1 resemble absolutely nothing one would expect of a star shaft, the descending passages of the great pyramids clearly do, and if so would have been made to view Thuban, the pole star of the time, which could only have been, according to astronomer Richard Proctor, sometime around 3,550BC-3,150BC.

There are many variables here so this is a working theory. which may well be wrong, and with more thorough measurements and analysis I expect would refine the dates accordingly. But based on the notion the descending passages of the great pyramids were set as polar passages during a time Thuban was the pole star it stands to reason this may be a way to date them. 

(Lee Anderson)

What species of wood are the dixon wood fragments? Just curious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
10 hours ago, Nobu said:

What species of wood are the dixon wood fragments? Just curious. 

Cedar. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.