Giza Diagonal and The Great Giza Circle

[Thanos5150]

3 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

If you didn't care who the architect was, why are so persistant in trying to dismiss Imhotep and Hemiunu as the likely architects, and you have been very persistant in this, far more so  than anybody who did not care would be.

Here's the question again. Why does Imhotep have his name and titles uniquely inscribed on a statue of Djoser, what was unique about his reign.

This is nonsense and has already been addressed. There is no conspiracy here and by your logic Romer or any other Egyptologist who says what they do about the uncertainty of Imhotep must do so because they have some ulterior motive other than just the truth of the matter. 

[Wepwawet]

16 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

This is nonsense and has already been addressed. There is no conspiracy here and by your logic Romer or any other Egyptologist who says what they do about the uncertainty of Imhotep must do so because they have some ulterior motive other than just the truth of the matter. 

Yes, quite.....

So, why were Imhotep's name and titles inscribed on a statue of Djoser, and what was unique about his reign.

Edited August 23 by Wepwawet

[Thanos5150]

5 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

Does this mean that you believe that OK pyramids were positioned to have a sightline to Heliopolis, or if not possible, had a sun temple as a "relay station". 

No. Unless there was some feature of Heliopolis that could be seen from all of these pyramid sites, not just Giza, whihc these sun temples would not apply, it stands to reason this alignment was symbolic with the only "viewer" being the Ben Ben stone.  

Quote

I ask as your reply is non commital, and in a post to Kenemet you expressed scepticism that they could have seen Heliopolis from Giza, or at least that's the impression you gave in the way you worded your post.

 #91:

"Again, the only "line of sight" is for surveying to lay out the plan, the main one being the Heliopolis Line which is really from the corner of G3 to G1 with the two satellite pyramids just extensions of this line. Obviously after this is marked out on the ground and plans drawn it does not matter what is in the way. The line of sight is only a survey line which sets the orientation of the structures to Heliopolis, not for someone to sit on the corner of G3 and see Heliopolis."

The context is it was not required to actually "see" Heliopolis" to set the orientation to it.  

[Thanos5150]

24 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

So, why were Imhotep's name and titles inscribed on a statue of Djoser, and what was unique about his reign.

I don't know why and think it is important to understand what the context of the discovery actually was. I suspect this is going to get worse before it gets better. But what does this have to do with him being an "architect" let alone inventor of the pyramid as discussed ad nauseum when none of the titles list him as such? 

What was unique about Djoser's reign...? 

Edited August 23 by Thanos5150

[Wepwawet]

8 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

No. Unless there was some feature of Heliopolis that could be seen from all of these pyramid sites, not just Giza, whihc these sun temples would not apply, it stands to reason this alignment was symbolic with the only "viewer" being the Ben Ben stone.  

 #91:

"Again, the only "line of sight" is for surveying to lay out the plan, the main one being the Heliopolis Line which is really from the corner of G3 to G1 with the two satellite pyramids just extensions of this line. Obviously after this is marked out on the ground and plans drawn it does not matter what is in the way. The line of sight is only a survey line which sets the orientation of the structures to Heliopolis, not for someone to sit on the corner of G3 and see Heliopolis."

The context is it was not required to actually "see" Heliopolis" to set the orientation to it.  

The best people to answer this would be Stephen Quirke and Miroslav Verner, but I shall try my best.

I would agree that G2 and G3 would not be aligned to actually see Heliopolis, and indeed they do not, and that it would seem that what was needed was that they be aligned one behind the other. I suspect that there is some religious thought here that eludes us, and cannot be discerned elsewhere due to the uniqueness of Giza. As to the "viewer", yes I get what you mean, though I would see this as a need to link Heliopolis to not just Giza, but all pyramids, if possible, which is why I use the term "relay station" for the pyramid complex sun temples. I see this as a linking of manifestations of Atum, who is, to them, present in the pyramidion as well as the Ben Ben. We see this, though not in a necropolis setting, with the obelisks at Thebes, the Southern Heliopolis. The fringe could make much of this, but fortunately never do.

The non Giza pyramids are not aligned with Heliopolis as such, for they stand alone and are orientated to the cardinal points, but are linked to Heliopolis. What I think we are seeing with the sightlines to Heliopolis are just the one side of the rebirth equation, one that is easy to see, the other side is less clear, but it is to the west of a pyramid, and invisible, and in the case of G1, probably above as well.

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

I don't know why and think it is important to understand what the context of the discovery actually was. I suspect this is going to get worse before it gets better. But what does this have to do with him being an "architect" let alone inventor of the pyramid as discussed ad nauseum when none of the titles list him as such? 

What was unique about Djoser's reign...? 

Firstly, what was unique about the reign of Djoser was his pyramid complex, and despite there being some stepped structures preceeding him, they were not pyramids, the Step Pyramid stands clear as the first pyramid, and this is universally recognized. Yes, I know you'll want to mention ziggurats,perhaps, but that is another discussion, and I do not see a connection anyway, not least because of the religous thought we can see evolving in the OK, a religion moving from the main emphasis transfering from Horus to Ra, and by the end of the OK to Osiris, but that needs qualification in another topic.

So we have a unique structure, a fact agreed by the overwhelming majority. Then we have the fact of the name and titles of a man not a king appearing on the statue of a king in his pyramid complex, and this is utterly unique in all their history. Statues or images of kings with their wives and sometimes children, yes, of course, but never with another man mentioned like Imhotep is, let alone their image.

Is there not something to ponder just on there being these two unique elements in the same reign. The question must be asked of why Imhotep has his titles and names on a statue of his king, what could possibly be the reason for this. We have no other examples to guide us, so can only look at what is presented to us as evidence from the reign of Djoser, and what do we find, nothing, except the other unique element, the Step Pyramid. True this is circumstantial, but it is all there is, well, there's also his titles, but to be fair, anybody who is going to appear by name with their king is somebody who will have a bucketfull of titles anyway.

On the titles, we should not look for a title that states Imhotep was an architect because there was no such title. If a man is not named as being responsible for constructing a monument for a king, and we do not find this until the New Kingdom, then it is true that we cannot know who is responsible for the construction. All we can do is infer that Imhotep or Hemiunu acted as an architect by their proximity to the king, and Imhotep was very close, and by the titles they held, which I will admit only point in a certain direction. Being "High Priest of Ptah", or being otherwise linked to Ptah is an indicator, but as I pointed out previously, neither Senenmut or Amunhotep son of Hapu have a known link to Ptah.

I believe that a reason why there are issues with making bold statements about Imhotep and Hemiunu, is that in books for the general reader it is the easiest thing to do, otherwise, as I have mentioned before, the author will get bogged down in detail that they don't want to go into, the interested general reader needing to read professional publications if they want to know more. This is a forum for mysteries, not for Egyptologists, therefore many posters will use terminology that is presented to the general reader, and I do that myself as at times it really is the easiest thing to do, and avoids being pedantic, nobody is being marked here, there is no test.

Are Imhotep and Hemiunu the architects of their kings' pyramids, I don't know, and have stated that before, but due to the circumstantial evidence, more so with Imhotep than Hemiunu, they cannot be dismissed as the architects. You can have your opinion. and I and anybody else can have ours, or even no opinion at all, it doesn't matter, but trying to impose an opinion by various means does matter.

At least @Stokke this offtopic digression has partly been brought back ot the Giza diagonal, and I for one think it should remain there.

Edited August 23 by Wepwawet

[Thanos5150]

20 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Firstly, what was unique about the reign of Djoser was his pyramid complex, and despite there being some stepped structures preceeding him, they were not pyramids, the Step Pyramid stands clear as the first pyramid, and this is universally recognized. Yes, I know you'll want to mention ziggurats,perhaps, but that is another discussion, and I do not see a connection anyway, not least because of the religous thought we can see evolving in the OK, a religion moving from the main emphasis transfering from Horus to Ra, and by the end of the OK to Osiris, but that needs qualification in another topic.

I don't understand why you keep doing this. Why would I want to "mention ziggurats" when we are talking about Djoser...?

#3946:

At any rate, no one would be happier than me for such a connection to be [between pyramids and ziggurats] had but the truth of the matter is it has yet to be found and/or recognized. Yeah, the 1st Dynasty built stepped "pyramids" possibly similar to the Ubaid, and Mesopotamian influence is certainly found at the beginnings of the 1st Dynasty, and yes there were some kind of ziggurats in Mesopotamia that date to the beginning of Dynastic Egypt which we know had some form of influence on Egypt during this period and before. But this is a long stretch of time to get to Djoser and in Djoser's day there is no evidence of Mesopotamian influence in Egypt, something that appeared to end rather abruptly shortly after the beginnings of Dynastic Egypt. Though obviously they would have had relations with others who dealt with the Sumerians, like for example the Elbaites of Syria, a region whose relations with Egypt was very strong at times going back to the very beginning of the Dynastic Period if not before, which even the name of Khufu is found on an artifact there. I am certainly open to the possibility, and the eruption of stone working culture from one pharaoh to the next (Khasekhemwy to Djoser) certainly defies explanation which may very well be the result of foreign influence of some sort, but the hurdle to get over, if true, is where are the ziggurats that would have inspired Djoser? 

This is a good example of how sources are misused as "facts" in and of themselves. Just because someone writes something in a book does not make it true nor does repeating it. Neither of these sources give any evidence whatsoever as to why it would be and in reality are just repeating someone else, if not one the other, who doesn't know either and ultimately the facts behind the premise range anywhere from incorrect to yet to be proven. I think it basically goes like this: Mesopotamia is older. Mesopotamia built ziggurats. Pyramids are kinda like ziggurats. Therefore Egyptian pyramids likely came from ziggurats. Not good enough. 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Quote

 Are Imhotep and Hemiunu the architects of their kings' pyramids, I don't know, and have stated that before, but due to the circumstantial evidence, more so with Imhotep than Hemiunu, they cannot be dismissed as the architects. You can have your opinion. and I and anybody else can have ours, or even no opinion at all, it doesn't matter, but trying to impose an opinion by various means does matter.

Not only have I made it clear I do not have an opinion: "...I don't give a f- who the architect is..." but also that this is a matter of fact regarding Imhotep regardless of who the actual architect is.  

#63:

Can you quote where anyone has claimed Imhotep was not the architect? No. It is unclear why this would not be understood with rather the point being there is zero evidence to support the claim of fact repeated ad nauseum that he was the architect.   

In a post to you no less #6:

"Nothing wrong with "believing" Imhotep is responsible for these things, it stands to reason he no doubt was involved in one way or another, but I think it really sucks when these things get repeated as fact [that he was the architect] when they are not which happens quite a bit. 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

#57:

Regarding Imhotep:

"While this is all credited to the "genius" of Djoser's vizier Imhotep, the rub is that nowhere in AE literature is Imhotep credited as the builder or architect of the Step Pyramid nor the genius behind the sudden stone working explosion of the beginning of the 3rd Dynasty. This comes from Manetho some 2500yrs later and has been repeated by Egyptologists so many times it is now a "fact" despite there being no evidence of such."

Despite all of this much later honoring, deifying, and venerating of Imhotep some 1,000+ years after the fact none of it has to do with him being a builder, architect, stone working inventor, or being related to the pyramid in any way. Again, the DE do not make these claims, only Manetho does which again, as you know, Manetho says a lot of things....

The Egyptians themselves made no connection between Imhotep and the step pyramid and Imhotep himself was an otherwise unknown figure for 1,000+ yrs which initially his claim to fame and most enduring is that of an author of wisdom texts and a physician which curiously neither are among any of his contemporary titles and have nothing to do with architecture or construction. Even texts contemporary to Manetho, like the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, do not refer to him as such but rather as namely a great physician. What could have caused the Egyptians to get it so wrong? But we are just going to say he was the great builder of pyramids anyways? I think this could get even worse. I would be curious to know what later texts, if any, associate Dr Imhotep directly with Djoser or at the very least a period before the kings of the 4th Dynasty. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

"...but trying to impose an opinion by various means does matter."

You mean like imposing the opinion that Imhotep is the architect and inventor of the pyramid when there is zero evidence this is true? I agree. 

Edited August 24 by Thanos5150

[Kenemet]

On 8/23/2024 at 1:14 PM, Wepwawet said:

The best people to answer this would be Stephen Quirke and Miroslav Verner, but I shall try my best.

I would agree that G2 and G3 would not be aligned to actually see Heliopolis, and indeed they do not, and that it would seem that what was needed was that they be aligned one behind the other. I suspect that there is some religious thought here that eludes us, and cannot be discerned elsewhere due to the uniqueness of Giza. As to the "viewer", yes I get what you mean, though I would see this as a need to link Heliopolis to not just Giza, but all pyramids, if possible, which is why I use the term "relay station" for the pyramid complex sun temples. I see this as a linking of manifestations of Atum, who is, to them, present in the pyramidion as well as the Ben Ben. We see this, though not in a necropolis setting, with the obelisks at Thebes, the Southern Heliopolis. The fringe could make much of this, but fortunately never do.

The non Giza pyramids are not aligned with Heliopolis as such, for they stand alone and are orientated to the cardinal points, but are linked to Heliopolis. What I think we are seeing with the sightlines to Heliopolis are just the one side of the rebirth equation, one that is easy to see, the other side is less clear, but it is to the west of a pyramid, and invisible, and in the case of G1, probably above as well.

Honestly, all the talk of alignment is probably spurious (Oh, I know this will get pushback!) because they can't build in an unsuitable area.  

I truly think that the first thing they did was find a reasonable spot and build.  The other choices MIGHT have been along the lines of "dad put his here so I'll put mine right over there" but that's going to be dictated by "what's the terrain like" and "how easy is it going to be to get material from the port to the site" and "what else is here that we can't (or shouldn't) move", etc.

For all we know, they might have intended to have a set of pyramids aligned north and south in a long row but the view from across the Nile or the landscape or something else (including a reputed important area) could have changed their plans.

[Wepwawet]

3 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Honestly, all the talk of alignment is probably spurious (Oh, I know this will get pushback!) because they can't build in an unsuitable area.  

I truly think that the first thing they did was find a reasonable spot and build.  The other choices MIGHT have been along the lines of "dad put his here so I'll put mine right over there" but that's going to be dictated by "what's the terrain like" and "how easy is it going to be to get material from the port to the site" and "what else is here that we can't (or shouldn't) move", etc.

For all we know, they might have intended to have a set of pyramids aligned north and south in a long row but the view from across the Nile or the landscape or something else (including a reputed important area) could have changed their plans.

The reality I think is that we will never know what they intended, or who was responsible for anything other than Khufu, or any king of any other monument in the Old and Middle Kingdom. All discussion of this is nothing more than opinion.

[Scott Creighton]

4 hours ago, Kenemet said:

...The other choices MIGHT have been along the lines of "dad put his here so I'll put mine right over there" but that's going to be dictated by "what's the terrain like" and "how easy is it going to be to get material from the port to the site" ...

And, in spite of all of that, and by some amazing geometrical coincidence, they somehow managed to achieve this:

And, imo, the above was originally intended to be this below (but, for some reason, they had to move G2 from this original plan):

 

It's Orion's Belt people. Those three stars are imprinted all over the Giza monuments, and way more so than even Robert Bauval ever realised.

SC

Edited August 27 by Scott Creighton

[Kenemet]

4 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

And, in spite of all of that, and by some amazing geometrical coincidence, they somehow managed to achieve this:

And, imo, the above was originally intended to be this below (but, for some reason, they had to move G2 from this original plan):

 

It's Orion's Belt people. Those three stars are imprinted all over the Giza monuments, and way more so than even Robert Bauval ever realised.

SC

No, sir.  

YOU achieved that.

There's zero evidence that Khufu's architect decided to draw a circle that touched one edge of his pyramid (just missing one of the queen's pyramids) and said "put the other pyramids here and put three queen's pyramids over on this side but don't let the circle touch the edge of any of the other pyramids."

If he was going to circle anything (which I don't believe he did), he would have put the pyramid at the center of the circle; not at one edge.

[Scott Creighton]

12 hours ago, Kenemet said:

No, sir.  

YOU achieved that.

There's zero evidence that Khufu's architect decided to draw a circle that touched one edge of his pyramid (just missing one of the queen's pyramids) and said "put the other pyramids here and put three queen's pyramids over on this side but don't let the circle touch the edge of any of the other pyramids."

If he was going to circle anything (which I don't believe he did), he would have put the pyramid at the center of the circle; not at one edge.

Take it up with Lehner. He and Goedicke started it:

 

SC

[Thanos5150]

18 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

And, in spite of all of that, and by some amazing geometrical coincidence, they somehow managed to achieve this:

And, imo, the above was originally intended to be this below (but, for some reason, they had to move G2 from this original plan):

 

I suggested several years ago that G3 was the offender: 

I would also note that Petrie, among others, believed, as do I, that the G3 outer pyramid was built over an existing core structure:

 

To start the line backwards from G1 to G2, it is inset on G3's corner by approximately 23 meters (according to Bauval😞

If we removed the outer pyramid layer to reveal the original core structure we are left to wonder how much closer it would be to a straight line on all corners which this alignment may in fact measure how large the original structure was.

 

[Kenemet]

6 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Take it up with Lehner. He and Goedicke started it:

 

SC

If you line up any two points, you'll get a diagonal.  Hardly surprising.

The difference is that they're not claiming Khufu had this all set up as a grand scheme (from which Djedefre deviated) -- their thinking is that it's Menkaure who created that diagonal.

[Wepwawet]

41 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

If you line up any two points, you'll get a diagonal.  Hardly surprising.

The difference is that they're not claiming Khufu had this all set up as a grand scheme (from which Djedefre deviated) -- their thinking is that it's Menkaure who created that diagonal.

This is not scientific.

I'll point something out about drawing lines and lining things up. This alignment to Heliopolis does not work when G3 is excluded, or if G3 were sighted X number of yards to the west to bring the SE corners of all the pyramids into alignment. A diagonal from G2 to G1, or from G3-G2-G1 if G3 were sighted X number of yards to the west to bring it's SE corner into proper alignment with the other two pyrmaids, does not align with Heliopolis, it misses Heliopolis to it's SE, but I don't know by how much without a proper map, not Google Earth.

If the SE corner of G3 had been in alignment with the SE corners of the other two pyramids, the diagonal would intersect and cross over to the south of the diagonal we actually have were it intersects with the NE corner of G1A. I suspect that if this notional diagonal is intersecting the actual one even before either of these lines leaves Giza, the gap between the two lines at Heliopolis would be more than enough to exclude Heliopolis as being the target. So, as regards your statement about Menkaure, then if the intention was to create a line to Heliopolis, then it would need to be his idea as such a line does not exist before he built his pyramid. They could of course just been really bad at surveying, but I think not.

Edited August 28 by Wepwawet

[Kenemet]

23 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

This is not scientific.

I'll point something out about drawing lines and lining things up. This alignment to Heliopolis does not work when G3 is excluded, or if G3 were sighted X number of yards to the west to bring the SE corners of all the pyramids into alignment. A diagonal from G2 to G1, or from G3-G2-G1 if G3 were sighted X number of yards to the west to bring it's SE corner into proper alignment with the other two pyrmaids, does not align with Heliopolis, it misses Heliopolis to it's SE, but I don't know by how much without a proper map, not Google Earth.

If the SE corner of G3 had been in alignment with the SE corners of the other two pyramids, the diagonal would intersect and cross over to the south of the diagonal we actually have were it intersects with the NE corner of G1A. I suspect that if this notional diagonal is intersecting the actual one even before either of these lines leaves Giza, the gap between the two lines at Heliopolis would be more than enough to exclude Heliopolis as being the target. So, as regards your statement about Menkaure, then if the intention was to create a line to Heliopolis, then it would need to be his idea as such a line does not exist before he built his pyramid. They could of course just been really bad at surveying, but I think not.

Actually, I think they were placing based on land form (how easy it was to level the area) and convenience (best access to river) and location, and that alignments are simply an artifact of "here's two things and we can draw a line between them and extend it out to whatever point we like.

 

 

[Wepwawet]

25 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Actually, I think they were placing based on land form (how easy it was to level the area) and convenience (best access to river) and location, and that alignments are simply an artifact of "here's two things and we can draw a line between them and extend it out to whatever point we like.

 

 

I think the only thing we can do is to channel Ra-Ta, perhaps sit in the King's Chamber with some incense burning and go Ommmm, good as anything else I think.

[Scott Creighton]

4 hours ago, Kenemet said:

If you line up any two points, you'll get a diagonal.  Hardly surprising.

Except the Giza diagonal has SIX points aligned, not two points.

SC

[Kenemet]

6 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Except the Giza diagonal has SIX points aligned, not two points.

SC

Again, easy if you're the third one placing objects there.  It's not proof of a master plan by the first builder.

[Scott Creighton]

1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

Again, easy if you're the third one placing objects there.  It's not proof of a master plan by the first builder.

Except G1 & G2 were designed last. G3 is designed first and determines the relative dimensions of G1 & G2:

And the above is exactly the reason we find this:

(G2 was obviously moved slightly off-plan when building commenced).  

And then we have the 2 triads of so-called 'Queen's Pyramids' presenting to us the precessional culmination positions of Orion's Belt.

So, yeah - sure. It's all just one, big, mighty coincidence. In your dreams.

There comes a point where coincidence must give way to intention. These geometrical relationships we observe at Giza far surpasses any doubt that this is the result of deliberate design and not simple happenstance. You are witnessing here a unified plan at Giza.

SC

 

Edited August 28 by Scott Creighton

[Stokke]

1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

You are witnessing here a unified plan at Giza.

Two pyramids, G1-d and Khafre´s subsidiary pyramid, serve no purpose in your plan so how can it be unified? 

[Kenemet]

2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Except G1 & G2 were designed last. G3 is designed first and determines the relative dimensions of G1 & G2:

 

I don't think you can support that statement with anything from that time period.  And I think there are artifacts that rather clearly indicate that the sequence of building is G1 G2, and then G3.

[Thanos5150]

On 8/24/2024 at 8:45 AM, Thanos5150 said:

I don't understand why you keep doing this. Why would I want to "mention ziggurats" when we are talking about Djoser...?

#3946:

At any rate, no one would be happier than me for such a connection to be [between pyramids and ziggurats] had but the truth of the matter is it has yet to be found and/or recognized. Yeah, the 1st Dynasty built stepped "pyramids" possibly similar to the Ubaid, and Mesopotamian influence is certainly found at the beginnings of the 1st Dynasty, and yes there were some kind of ziggurats in Mesopotamia that date to the beginning of Dynastic Egypt which we know had some form of influence on Egypt during this period and before. But this is a long stretch of time to get to Djoser and in Djoser's day there is no evidence of Mesopotamian influence in Egypt, something that appeared to end rather abruptly shortly after the beginnings of Dynastic Egypt. Though obviously they would have had relations with others who dealt with the Sumerians, like for example the Elbaites of Syria, a region whose relations with Egypt was very strong at times going back to the very beginning of the Dynastic Period if not before, which even the name of Khufu is found on an artifact there. I am certainly open to the possibility, and the eruption of stone working culture from one pharaoh to the next (Khasekhemwy to Djoser) certainly defies explanation which may very well be the result of foreign influence of some sort, but the hurdle to get over, if true, is where are the ziggurats that would have inspired Djoser? 

This is a good example of how sources are misused as "facts" in and of themselves. Just because someone writes something in a book does not make it true nor does repeating it. Neither of these sources give any evidence whatsoever as to why it would be and in reality are just repeating someone else, if not one the other, who doesn't know either and ultimately the facts behind the premise range anywhere from incorrect to yet to be proven. I think it basically goes like this: Mesopotamia is older. Mesopotamia built ziggurats. Pyramids are kinda like ziggurats. Therefore Egyptian pyramids likely came from ziggurats. Not good enough. 

From just last month:

Mesopotamian influence of the 1st Dynasty stepped "pyramids" makes sense because of its established context in the archaic period, but there is no such thing in the 3rd Dynasty so other than the superficial similarities and one being older than the other there is otherwise no evidence to support the claim Egyptian pyramids were influenced by ziggurats. On the surface it makes sense, but as of yet no archeological connection has been found. Foreign relations with the Levant were apparently reinvigorated under his predecessor Khasekhemwy which the end of his reign and beginning of Djoser's as noted before certainly marked an unprecedented leap in stone working and architectural ability. No direct evidence for it but I do not think it is much of a leap to hypothesize foreign influence of some kind if only technical and/or materials expertise.  

Edited August 31 by Thanos5150

[Scott Creighton]

On 8/29/2024 at 12:59 AM, Stokke said:

Two pyramids, G1-d and Khafre´s subsidiary pyramid, serve no purpose in your plan so how can it be unified? 

It's a fair question.

G1-d and G2-a never seem to get much of a mention although I do hypothesize a very specific purpose for these in my last book. In fact, it was these two enigmatic pyramids (they have no chambers within or under them) that led me to the Great Giza Circle.

Within the satellite pyramids at Giza we find a sequence of 3 - 1 - 4 (the first 3 digits of pi - see image below).

Now, I am not claiming that the creators of this plan/design deliberately included G1-d and G2-a in order to demonstrate Pi within the monuments. All I am saying with this observation is that it inspired me to think of Giza in terms of a circle, and the most logical circle one could circumscribe around the monuments would be one that is bound by the 3 most outer corners of the Giza pyramid field. When we overlay Orion's Belt over G1 and G3 (as fulcrum), we find G2 centre is slightly off or 'misplaced'. (When construction began, it seems G2 was moved very slightly off-plan for some reason and we can see evidence of this repositioning within the monument itself). When we reposition G2 centre over Al Nilam centre (the original planned position), we find this:

The circumscribed circle's centre lands right on G2 centre, the pyramid's inter-quarter points slot in perfectly with those of G1 and G3 and we find that the sphinx is sitting almost right on the cricle's s edge. (It would take me decades to figure out the purpose of this implied Great Giza Circle).

Anyway - as I have shown elsewhere, the two sets of Queens' can be shown to work as a precessional clock whereby the two triads of so-called Queen's pyramids present the two culmination points (like noon and midnight) of Orion's Belt. This then gives us a stellar timeline of just under 13,000 years between these two culmination markers (i.e. 13,000 years when precession is moving from G3 Queens to G1 Queens, then another 13,000 years when it's moving in the opposite direction - a full precessional cycle of just under 26,000 years).

 

The issue we now have is this: In the above diagram, the intersection point on the timeline marks the time 3100 BCE. But that is only if the precessional motion was moving from G3 queens (minimum culmination) towards G1 queens (maximum culmination). IOW, there can be two dates on the stellar timeline at this (or any) intersection point and we cannot know what that date is without knowning the direction of the precessional time flow:

The G1-d and G2-a satellites may provide the direction of precessional travel that allows us to know the precise time marked on the stellar timeline. Were G1-d placed at the opposite end of the plateau (G3-d), then that could indicate precesional time moving in the opposite direction, thereby giving the alternative time.

Think about it this way.  Imagine you have drawn a line and marked 12 noon at one end of your line and 12 midday at the opposite end.  Someone then places a line at the intersection of your solar timeline. What time have they marked? Well it could be 6pm or 6am depending on the direction of the solar time on your timeline. You need some mechanism to mark the direction of time flow in order to indicate the correct time (6am or 6pm). If someone had drawn another line from the centre of your solar timeline to one of the end points, then you'd know for sure whether the time was 6am or 6pm.

That may represent the purpose of the 2 small satellites at Giza. I do not insist that it is, but in terms of the Giza Stellar Clock hypothesis, it would make perfect sense to somehow mark the flow of precession time.

I know you don't/won't agree with any of this, but I hope (at least within the hypothesis), you understand what I'm getting at. So yeah - a unified design.

SC.

Edited August 31 by Scott Creighton

[Kenemet]

5 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

It's a fair question.

G1-d and G2-a never seem to get much of a mention although I do hypothesize a very specific purpose for these in my last book. In fact, it was these two enigmatic pyramids (they have no chambers within or under them) that led me to the Great Giza Circle.

Within the satellite pyramids at Giza we find a sequence of 3 - 1 - 4 (the first 3 digits of pi - see image below).

Now, I am not claiming that the creators of this plan/design deliberately included G1-d and G2-a in order to demonstrate Pi within the monuments. All I am saying with this observation is that it inspired me to think of Giza in terms of a circle, and the most logical circle one could circumscribe around the monuments would be one that is bound by the 3 most outer corners of the Giza pyramid field. When we overlay Orion's Belt over G1 and G3 (as fulcrum), we find G2 centre is slightly off or 'misplaced'. (When construction began, it seems G2 was moved very slightly off-plan for some reason and we can see evidence of this repositioning within the monument itself). When we reposition G2 centre over Al Nilam centre (the original planned position), we find this:

The circumscribed circle's centre lands right on G2 centre, the pyramid's inter-quarter points slot in perfectly with those of G1 and G3 and we find that the sphinx is sitting almost right on the cricle's s edge. (It would take me decades to figure out the purpose of this implied Great Giza Circle).

Anyway - as I have shown elsewhere, the two sets of Queens' can be shown to work as a precessional clock whereby the two triads of so-called Queen's pyramids present the two culmination points (like noon and midnight) of Orion's Belt. This then gives us a stellar timeline of just under 13,000 years between these two culmination markers (i.e. 13,000 years when precession is moving from G3 Queens to G1 Queens, then another 13,000 years when it's moving in the opposite direction - a full precessional cycle of just under 26,000 years).

 

The issue we now have is this: In the above diagram, the intersection point on the timeline marks the time 3100 BCE. But that is only if the precessional motion was moving from G3 queens (minimum culmination) towards G1 queens (maximum culmination). IOW, there can be two dates on the stellar timeline at this (or any) intersection point and we cannot know what that date is without knowning the direction of the precessional time flow:

The G1-d and G2-a satellites may provide the direction of precessional travel that allows us to know the precise time marked on the stellar timeline. Were G1-d placed at the opposite end of the plateau (G3-d), then that could indicate precesional time moving in the opposite direction, thereby giving the alternative time.

Think about it this way.  Imagine you have drawn a line and marked 12 noon at one end of your line and 12 midday at the opposite end.  Someone then places a line at the intersection of your solar timeline. What time have they marked? Well it could be 6pm or 6am depending on the direction of the solar time on your timeline. You need some mechanism to mark the direction of time flow in order to indicate the correct time (6am or 6pm). If someone had drawn another line from the centre of your solar timeline to one of the end points, then you'd know for sure whether the time was 6am or 6pm.

That may represent the purpose of the 2 small satellites at Giza. I do not insist that it is, but in terms of the Giza Stellar Clock hypothesis, it would make perfect sense to somehow mark the flow of precession time.

I know you don't/won't agree with any of this, but I hope (at least within the hypothesis), you understand what I'm getting at. So yeah - a unified design.

SC.

I know you must have been asked these two questions a hundred times, but ...

1. what's your explanation when people rightly point out that 3 1 4 has no significance to the Egyptians (they used 22/7 for pi)?
2. Why use tombs in the middle of a big cemetery instead of using one of their observatories with its associated structures and set up to give a clear line of sight all around the horizon?

 

(I ask because I haven't seen you answer these... and, of course, I haven't seen everything you've written, which is how I missed it.)