Graham Chase Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "If, like me, you believe the Great Pyramid is
> an AE tomb, then it's worth noting that the
> entrance to the King's Chamber is at the east end
> of the Chamber and its sarcophagus is at the
> western end."
>
> Yes, the western horizon is the direction for the
> dead, the east horizon is for sunrise and rebirth.
>
> In this way the KC is a miniature representation
> of the complete (circular) horizon.
> The Pyramid is called the Horizon of Khufu.
> To complete the model, one shaft brings
> down the northern half of the sky and the
> other shaft brings down the southern half
> of the sky.
> The four directions have symbolic meaning but
> there was no requirement for precise cardinal
> directions.


"The complete circular horizon"? And yet Khafre and Menkarue thought nothing of imposing their own monuments to interrupt that complete circular horizon of Khufu. Fascinating hypothesis, and presented with such certainty. Especially considering that there is no clear mention or graphic depiction from the 3rd millennium BC of the original construction of those megalithic pyramids, no evidence of the tools and methods used to construct them, and no king's body found intact in any pyramid. Who developed that symbolic interpretation? Have the AE attested that symbolism in any of their texts? (How old are those texts?)

The position of the entrance into the KC and position of the granite box and air shafts are not the only physical features of the pyramid. Are there texts describing the symbolism of the northern entrance, or the symbolism of steep, tight, slippery passages, or cavernous open galleries, or the reason for the pyramid shape, or why the pyramids are on the west side of the Nile? I'd also like to know if they documented why the pyramids deviated so much in topology, especially G1 with its unique air shafts, emphasis on the upper structure, and the RCs above the KC. Why does the Bent include a perpendicular duplex configuration? How can we account for a symbolic interpretation of some but not all design features? For that matter, the symbolism contrived by pyramidologists ("pyramidiots"?) has taken into account far more features compared to traditionalists ("tombidiots"?), at least in G1, including the meaning of each chamber as well as each inch of each passageway, right down to the ratios of distances between the various chambers and passages.

Just as it's easy to propose various alternative explanations for the purpose and provenance of those pyramids, it's easy to imagine various contextual paradigms that call for their own distinct symbolism that inspired engravings in stone that could have been applied at any time after the building's original construction, but where is the evidence of what the builders actually intended it all to be?




Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02-Feb-17 14:22 by Origyptian.