> What I did not mention was something I assumed you
> knew, ie that the shafts actually suffer from
> what can best be described as a 'water sprinkler'
> effect, which creates the twists and turns you
It most certainly does not, but please quote who and where you got that from. I suggest reading Romer, The Great Pyramid: Ancient Egypt Revisited p381-385.
> nothing stupid there
On the contrary.
> Soul shafts: If one's understanding has led to the
> conclusion that G1 is Khufu's approx. 2550 BC,
> then that is a logical assumption
No, it is quite illogical. If we attribute all of the pyramids to their respective pharaohs, as would be required if we attribute G1 to Khufu, then for these to be "soul shafts" and not a functional feature unique to G1 then all pyramids, at the very least all after G1, would have these same features or at least an equivalent of which none of them do the least of which the pharaohs of the 5th/6th dynasties in whose pyramids the PT was written. Which if I'm not mistaken most of these specifics actually come from the much later and Coffin Texts and Book of the Dead do they not? Please quote a passage from the PT that relates to pyramids having "soul shafts" or the need for them to utilize their equivalent.
Regardless, add the fact the architecture of all 4 shafts not a semblance of anything one would relate to a "star shafts" and the fact none of them point to any specific stars at the same time if at all that is a hell of a lot to ignore before such an idea becomes even plausible let alone "logical". Hawass, for one, thinks the shafts in the QC "served no purpose". Not very "logical".
> So, we move to my referencing the sun.
> How can you suggest that recognising that the
> King's role in their beliefs was intricately
> intertwined with the Sun, is a stupid thing to
Where did I say this? I didn't even mention the sun.
> I don't say that anyone is stupid for holding
> contrary opinions based on the evidence.
Neitehr do I regardless of how stupid their ideas may be.
> And I haven't said that thinking they might be
> star shafts is stupid....just a stretch, for the
> reasons you have stated.
You just said it was "logical" but now its a "stretch"? Not following you there.
> I don't hold that stars were specifically key
> parts of the King's Funerary ritual.
According to the PT:
[quoute]"They lift up the ladder for the King, they erect the Ladder for the King, they raise the Ladder for the King. Come, O Ladder, come O Ladder, may there come your name which the gods have spoken. He who ascends comes, he who ascends comes. He who climbs comes, he who climbs comes ! He who is lifted up comes, he who is lifted up comes. The King ascends upon the thighs of Isis, the king climbs upon the thighs of Nepthys, the King's father Atum grasps the King's hand and sets the King at the head of yonder gods who are excellent, wise and imperishable. Behold this which has been said to you, you gods, lest the King be not at your head; behold, the King is established at your head as the enduring Bull of the Wild Bulls.!"[/quote]
The stars were quite important as I read it.
> If they were, why the cookie cutter star's on
> Netjerikhet and Unas' ceilings?
Also Sahure's temple.
A story for another time, but interesting they are missing from the great pyramids and their temples, but found in Djoser's pyramid and after Menkuare.
To me they represent the heavens in general.
> The debate re sun and stars and the shafts is an
> ongoing one.
> Are you calling Edwards, and Lehner and Bauval
> Why, all of a sudden, have you accused me of being
Oyy. Not again. Nowhere did I call anyone "stupid" just that to me the idea in and of itself is "stupid". If this offends you are you cannot differentiate then use Gattenbrink's "absurd" to describe such an idea instead.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 22-Feb-17 21:22 by Thanos5150.