Apap Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From the numbers I can find it seems as if the
> coffer is just less than half an inch wider than
> the lowest point of the AP.

Interestingly Petrie states.. Great Pyramid Ch 3 Page 21, that the lower granite plug block is 38.2 inches wide.
Which compares with a maximum coffer width of 38.507 inches. A difference of just 0.307 of an inch, over two sides!
0.1535 of an inch per side.

Although we must bear in mind that the plug block is an interference fit.
We must also bear in mind the by modern standards relatively primitive measuring equipment used by Petrie.

Since the rest of the
> passages seem to be tailor-made for the
> sarcophagus to pass through (the DP, the majority
> of the AP, and the passages leading to the KC) is
> it possible that the lower AP was finished last,
> just prior to releasing the plug blocks?

The block arrangement at the lower extremity of the AP was totally buried in masonry. Therefore accurate data from this region is scarce. There is visual access to some of the western side caused by the Mamoun excavation, however I'm not aware of any serious attempt to survey and tabulate dimensions and block types.. girdle, compound girdle, multi block etc.


It would
> make sense from a labor stand-point to offer a
> larger tunnel during construction and block it up
> on the way out.

I think I see your point. Effectively building a larger tunnel and then lining it afterwards? From the top down?
I guess it's possible. The only argument against it that I can see would be the difficulty in installation of the full girdles that are at the lower end, above and adjacent to the plug Blocks. (Illustrated in the M&R drawings).


John, you're the expert on the
> weird-ass AP stone-work- do you see anything that
> could imply this?

It's certainly "weird ass" in many ways.
To be honest and at this time the chronology of construction is of little interest to me.
I'm at present more interested in the design processes.
It certainly could have been designed from the top down. The 'form follows function' trail.

The AP and AC are features that are at present not fully understood. Very little serious work has been done or published.
IMO these two features best demonstrate and possibly hold the key to the overall design philosophy until further discoveries are made and data published.

I'm currently trying to understand the design elements and the directly observable physical relationships within these two features.
Hence my observations regarding the physical and geometrical correlations between the coffer and the antechamber.

I can accept one coincidence, but a coincidence squared, cubed and even to the power of four I find difficult to accept :)

Lastly there seems to be a a certain amount of myth and hearsay floating around. I was previously under the distinct impression that the coffer wouldn't fit into the KC entrance, I was also under the impression that the coffer couldn't be negotiated around the AP DP intersection due to the passage angles, which if the Petrie measurements and M&R drawings are accurate clearly isn't the case.

I'd recommend reading Dune's thread. Observational, analytical and most importantly not opinionated.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 18-Nov-17 09:39 by Jon Ellison.