> Origyptian Wrote:
> > Edgar was very clear in commenting about the
> > unique nature of those blocks. It took an
> > amount of time from him to document that. On
> > several occasions he wanted to quit, but he
> > carried on, carefully documenting the shape of
> > every joint along the AP, and M&R obviously
> > respected that same layout.
> For a more accurate picture of the Edgar brothers
> take on the Girdle Stones, see John and Morton
> Edgar 'The Great Pyramid Passages and Chambers.
> Vol. 1: Letter XVII. The First Ascending Passage.
> The "Girdles" and Symmetric Masonry. Pages
> 281-285' 1923.
Yes.. It's a popular and well known book.
> As for M&R, they were more concerned with the
> measurements of the AP, and drew heavily on Petrie
It's the measurements, dimensions, interface and block form factor that are of interest.
Petrie's measurements along with the Edgar's and the M&R 2D visualisation of those measurements are critical as the most accurate and reliable source of data.
Hopefully the Pyramid Scan project will provide more data when and if it is released.
> Robin (MJT)
> > And we can be pretty sure Edgar was faithful to
> > those joints since he didn't assert that any
> > passage had that same complex character.
> I don't understand this.
It means that the block arrangement in this part of the structure is unique and seemingly bizarre..
It also means that Edgar fully recognised the above as such, as documented in the book you mentioned.
Does anything remotely similar appear anywhere else within the monument?
> > meanwhile, I'd love to hear an interpretation
> > the "symbolism" that has been suggested for
> > passage.
> As I see it generally, if an object serves no
> practical purpose then it can be seen as being
How do you determine that it serves no practical purpose?
Is your determination based on your pre-conception that the structure was designed and built as a tomb.
Therefore a tomb.
Therefore a tomb...............
Symbolism/Symbolic being a fit all repository for anything that you don't understand or doesn't dovetail into your pre-conceptions?
> The Girdle Stones have no practical purpose, and
> so I see them as symbolic.
> As for what the symbolism of the Girdle Stones is
> is something we shall probably never know.
How do you determine that something is 'symbolic' without any idea of what that something may symbolise?
What is their 'symbolic' purpose?
If they have no identifiable 'symbolic' purpose, then according to your logic they must have a practical purpose.
Then of course you get into circular logic.
At present we do not understand the purpose of the seemingly bizarre blockwork that constitutes the ascending passage.
But I'm working on it.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 15-Aug-17 08:47 by Jon Ellison.