Originally posted by Scott Creighton
By referring to this particular translation I am merely pointing to the fact that it appears that architectural plans of some description were extant
long before Giza was constructed and Aldred’s 3rd edition translation does not tie these directly to Imhotep as being the inspiration.
I don't think anyone would argue that there are NOT architectural plans... in fact, there's a very traditional Egyptian temple design (depending on
how large or small the temple was (number of rooms.)) A case might be made for a design involving columns in temples which was introduced by
Imhotep.
If there were many such ‘architectural plans from the heavens’ then it would seem to lend some support to Wayne Herschel’s idea that the
Lower Egypt pyramid fields correlate with a number of star constellations as seen
here
I really think he's stretching it, don't you? There are over 100 pyramids in Egypt and he's suggesting that the Egyptians (who didn't measure
distances between cities except in days of travel) came up with both distance and direction for things far beyond the limits of visiblity.
If only a single plan existed, say for argument’s sake Giza, then the implementation of this plan would be a lengthy process, taking many,
many generations.
I don't think that argument holds up. We see them building fairly complex structures like the temples without going through five generations of
failed temple structures. If a smooth-sided pyramid was what was originally intended, then the smaller cult pyramids would have been smooth sided.
Menkaure's queens pyramids very clearly show that they are step designs, not smooth sided pyramids.
It can be viewed that Imhotep merely took the first step along this very long learning curve before the AEs had finally mastered the art of
pyramid building and felt confident enough to implement the ‘plan from the heavens’.
If this were the case, you would see earlier smooth-sided pyramids that were much smaller (such as over the tombs of the royal family members) and you
wouldn't see the modifications made by the Nubian pharaohs to a more steep sided pyramid.
And it took them until the 4th Dynasty to finally achieve the necessary skills, infrastructure as well as the political and financial
wherewithal to do it.
I can't comment on the finances, but I can certainly comment on the skills. If you look at the temples of the first dynasties, you'll see that they
could indeed shape the stones well. The Palermo Stone records at least one other building (Men-netjeret -- apparently not finished, predating the
pyramids) built from stone. And, to be honest, there's not a lot of skill needed to carve out a lot of blocks of stone.
All this aside, however, what can now be plainly demonstrated is that the Giza pyramid field does conform to a very simple stellar plan, the
underlying template of which are the Orion belt stars.
Except that it's backwards, and it only works if you ignore other significant features on the Giza plateau. Furthermore, if it was to reflect
Orion's belt, why isn't that combination of stars mentioned as prominently (and drawn as prominently on the few astronomical ceilings) as the
"undying stars". As you may reacall (but others may not know), the stars that the North Pole pointed to back then were called the "undying
stars". They were culturally important and were depicted in a number of places. The constellations of the "undying stars" were seen as Taurwet
measuring the heavens.
So we have some pretty old examples of them using stars and references to stars.
The belt was seen as the crown of Sah (often read as Osiris). Now... here's an important god, with 11 stars in the constellation named after him.
Orion was not one, but two constellations to them. None of the Pyramid Texts or the Books of the Underworld (ect) make reference to the crown alone.
The coffins on which Sah is painted and engraved don't include just the 3 stars of the crown.
www.innovations-report.de...
Furthermore, in places like Deir el-Medina where the notable people had very small pyramids and paid VERY careful attention to the layouts of their
mausoleums and graveyards, we don't see this "3 stars" or any other stellar configuration repeated.
We should also see it in the complex around the pyramid of Pepi II at Saqqara... there's enough pyramids there to do a "crown of Sah" if that had
been a master plan... but we don't see that:
www.touregypt.net...
And the same can be said for other clusters of pyramids. The common elements are the wall, the temple, and the frequently seen cult pyramids --
similar to Imhotep's design for Djoser.
www.touregypt.net...
And two of the pyramids on the Giza plateau seem to follow that same plan with the wall and the temple to the east (if there's a wall around Khufu's
pyramid (I can't tell) then that would make all 3 of them follow this design that is seen elsewhere) :
en.wikipedia.org...:Giza_pyramid_complex_(map).svg
...and in all those, there's no paintings of Sah's constellation or mention of it.
A counter for my argument, of course, would be if it could be shown that the burial areas of the other pharaohs followed this same design of "Sah's
crown" and that the same was true of the nobles of the court who were often buried in a smaller version of the pharaoh's tomb.
I don't know of any groups that follow the "Sah crown-top" design although I know of a lot of them that follow the "wall-pyramid-temple" design.
However, I'm not familiar with all of them.
Can you show me other ones that reflect the "Giza plateau" design?
[edit on 19-9-2009 by Byrd]
