Sorry that I didn't specify pages etc. in my last message. I was hoping to have this stuff up by now, but robert and I have been so busy that we didn't manage to get it up today (also the same reason why robert hasn't been updating his site at all recently).
In The Orion Mystery (1994) Appendix 5 (which is based on work Bauval's more detailed papers published in Discussion in Egyptology, vols 28 and 31, in 1994), deals with shaft alignments and how they can be used to date the Great Pyramid back to 2450BC, concluding:
"The two northern shafts were directed to the pole star, Alpha Draconis, and to the head of Ursa Minor [Kochab], the celestial adze of Horus, also called the 'adze of Upuaut'. All these alignments work for the same precessed epoch of c.2450BC plus or minus twenty-five years."
There are few points I should add in case you're really interested:
Instead of Alpha Draconis, Spence used Ursa Major as the other star to mark her celestial North-South line, but this makes no difference to the argument because both Alpha Draconis and Ursa Major lie on the same North-South line that passes through Kochab, so the Egyptians could just have easily used either. Diagram 15a in Orion Mystery is essentially identical to that presented by Spence in New Scientists, and shows how these three stars lie on the same line, such that any pair could be used to orientate the pyramids.
Bauval's dating has the pyramids 17yrs later than Spence's. this does not reflect any methodological difference so much as the fact that there is a range of error of at least 17-25yrs because we cannot expect an accuracy of more than 20-arc seconds for naked-eye observations.
As far as we know, Spence is the first to suggest that later pyramids can be dated by the increasing error of their orientation due to precession, which she argues the ancient Egyptians did not know about. Unlike the above issue (dating the Great Pyramid precisely) Bauval was not the originator of this idea, and indeed he completely disagrees with it (you'll have to wait for the forum article to know why, I'm afraid).
Orion Mystery presented a much wider argument based on more extensive alignment relationships, and focused on the Giza-Orion Correlation Theory. Therefore, if you want all the details that prove Bauval to be the originator of the theory that this celestial North-South line, its usage by the ancient Egyptians to orientate their pyramids to the cardinal directions, the possibility of using precession to date the pyramids more precisly than with other methods, you must read the journal papers cited above.
Hope this helps.
|Spence and Precession||380||Andy||16-Nov-00 17:53|
|RE: Spence and Precession||149||Sharif||16-Nov-00 18:23|
|RE: Spence and Precession||167||Andy||16-Nov-00 19:16|
|RE: Spence and Precession||163||Sharif||16-Nov-00 22:15|
|RE: Spence and Precession||187||Andy||16-Nov-00 19:22|
|RE: Spence and Precession||155||Sharif||17-Nov-00 00:06|
|RE: Spence and Precession||177||Andy||17-Nov-00 01:19|
|RE: Spence and Precession||174||Dr Winston O'Boogie||17-Nov-00 11:27|
|RE: Spence and Precession||334||Graham Hancock||17-Nov-00 11:51|
|RE: Spence and Precession||147||Dr Winston O'Boogie||17-Nov-00 12:20|
|RE: Spence and Precession||235||Graham Hancock||17-Nov-00 14:29|
|RE: Spence and Precession||180||Sharif||17-Nov-00 12:02|
|RE: Spence and Precession||150||Dr Winston O'Boogie||17-Nov-00 12:29|
|RE: Spence and Precession||188||John Lennon||22-Nov-00 15:32|
|RE: Spence and Precession||146||jameske||17-Nov-00 12:34|
|RE: Spence and Precession||175||Sri Kowta||17-Nov-00 15:00|