>I am still not clear, drew. Are you now suggesting that Imhotep was the >architect/designer of Sneferu’s pyramids?
Now, that is an interesting question. Before Imhotep, there were mastabas, or tombs/crypts built into the ground; after Imhotep, there are pyramids. When you say 'designer', how about we accept that Imhotep was the designer, otherwise we have to accept that someone else was the designer and Imhotep just copied it. How about I say Imhotep was the designer of all the pyramids, just because that's what they are after his initial, momentous construction. Or, how about we say he worked out how to construct them, and so is granted a wonderful place in history because he was the first to do so in a modern-day sense.
Now, architect is a whole different story. He is credited with designing Djoser's pyramid and its entire complex, and while many similar features occur in those of other Pharaohs, each complex and pyramid is slightly different to the one before. As architects go, it would appear that each Pharaoh had his own architect, but they are all based upon a similar design, and if Imhotep is credited as being the first to come up with the whole plan of what things look like, then he was Djoser's architect alone...besides whatever other pyramids he might have had a hand in during his own life. He outlived Djoser, didn't he? Did he go on to advise another Pharaoh? (Besides the point really, so no answer necessary)
>Apologies; I continue to have difficulty following your thoughts. From what I >know of Old Kingdom Egyptian pyramid construction, each attempt logically >follows a readily recognizable progression of concept, technique and >refinement from Saqqara through Giza’s Great Pyramid.
I guess the 'readily recognizable progression' is what seems to mess with us...probably me more-so than you. I would say that by far, Khufu's is the pinnacle of construction, and all due to mathematical and geometric and other approaches incorporated into its architecture. I split mathematical and geometry into two separate categories because that is what they are (1 + 1 = 2; a circle is a circle and a square is a square); but I also take an approach that observations of astronomy and solar cycles are found within its architecture, and if I stretch it further, the fundamentals of particular sciences equate to why particular materials are used in places they are in and in connections to other such things...which is why I posted into this topic about Ancient Egypt Energy.
As you don't go further than the Giza Pyramids, I must conclude that you believe the progression ended there, and therefore only ascribe greatness to the period between the building of the Saqqara and Giza pyramids. So, how much greater is Khufu's Pyramid compared to Djoser's? Is such a comparison worthy of making? Is it like comparing a model T Ford to a Mustang? Or more-so a pencil to a pen? If such features of Khufu's Pyramid include many sciences, where are they in the other pyramids, not just before but certainly after? What mathematical or geometrical formulas, observations or associations are in the previous pyramids that show a progression to Khufu's Pyramid? And where the heck are they after?
Khufu's Pyramid is THE anomaly, not Djoser's, so the timeline for their constructions gets a little muddied when certain specifics are questioned, especially the orientation of Khufu's core blocks against the orientation of the casing blocks. And yes, the entrance feature gives up the most important question: why was it the only one in all the pyramids? Because it was covered over and hidden from sight...? More than likely...you cannot copy something you don't know exists. That goes for the shafts, too. There is no progression towards these things, nor are they included in pyramids afterwards. No architect of the time learnt from their predecessors about them, nor passed them on to others afterwards.
>Given the inherent mysticism of the evolutionary ancient Egyptian belief >system, the eventual adoration of Imhotep, in that his cult blossomed >subsequently some 500 years later, would arguably be akin to a similar >adulation of Michelangelo or Nostradamus in our time, were we systemically >so inclined. To rely solely on Imhotep’s architectural accomplishments, for >his contemporaneous and historical significance, would be ‘selling short’ the >nascent nature of his known endeavors.
I guess I agree: Imhotep achieved so much more in his lifetime that he was widely recognised for his accomplishments, and sought out for his expertise while also contributing greatly to the advancement of AE civilisation. He was not only an architect but physician, High Priest, sculptor, and I read somewhere that he was a maker of vases. Considering some of those vases, some amazing skills were used.
>I, too, share your interest in the entrance gable of the Great Pyramid. Are >you fully convinced that the ”two mounds” are genuinely synchronous with >the original construction? Have you considered that what is now visible may >be the product of early exploration/exploitation attempts, either through >discovery/treasure hunting or intentional vandalism?
Apart from weathering and slight scarring, those 'mounds' very much appear as they originally did...resting atop a large form that has a slight slope to it from right to left before reaching down to a lower level with the pyramid form atop that while also being incorporated into that lower level. Maybe images are better to see what I am trying to describe here. BUT...there are also discs within this feature, and they are just as important as the mounds and pyramid. The most important part is where the levels of blocks are that this feature sits at, and where the level is between the mounds, and where this exact part extends back into the pyramid. It is the horizon itself, and as we already know by one reference to 'two sacred mounds/mountains', a 'horizon' is the meaning. I take it as THE horizon that can be seen from the location of the pyramid, dividing the view of the cosmos beyond, which plan can be found to overlay into the form of the pyramid, and offers up several wonderful correlations. (But that tale has already been posted, and this is about 'energy').
If one further association can be made about the entrance feature though, depending on the kind of photograph you view, and possibly due to contrasting washes upon that photograph, it is easy enough to visualise the left-mound as being a head, and that just makes the form take on a semblance to the Sphinx, but now it has a hump on its back...or another head, which takes it to indicate Ruti. If 'inherent mysticism' gets offered into the mix, now we have interpretations being made about things that even the AEs weren't sure about, and they were doing the best they could based upon not just what they did know but also what they didn't know.
I know that while many of us have similar understandings and theories about the pyramids, many of us have singularly unique ones also, and it is all right that we don't agree with each other on everything as many things a re little pieces to a puzzle. I may slip up now and then about attributes, and I have very little idea about the inherent properties of all the pyramids and so cannot implicitly compare them one to another, but I have made some effort in understanding their sizes and relationships without knowing all their details, and find no other pyramid yet exhibits the properties and values that Khufu's Pyramid has. For one, I find the location of the summer solstice sunrise and sunset equating to the height of the north circumpolar point an extremely important factor in the location of the pyramid. In other words, a perfect circle forms the sunset/sunrise locations, and both circumpolar points, as seen from Giza.
Now then...back to 'energy'...