reply to post by Phage
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by tauristercus
In reading Dodwell's explanations certain fudge factors appear which help to back up his hypothesis.
In the case of Karnak he seems to use a certain amount of circular logic. He rejected Lockyer because Lockyer came up with a date of 3,700 BC and he
did select the date himself (erroneously, based on an erroneous date for the start of the 12th dynasty):
The mean date, taken from a number of recent Egyptological works (Cambridge Ancient History, Breasted, Budge, etc.) places the commencement of
the XII Dynasty at about 2050 B.C., and I have adopted 2045 B.C. as the date of the foundation of the earliest part of the Karnak Temple of Amen
So, since the temple must have been constructed to line up with the summer solstice and 2045BC hits his curve then it must have been
constructed in 2045BC, showing that his curve is correct. The earliest construction at Karnak apparently did occur at some time during the 11th
dynasty (according to some texts of the time). But if there was a temple there there at that time there is no longer any evidence of it. It was not
until Amenemhat that any of the existing remnants were built. Apparently it wasn't until later in the 12th dynasty that Amun Ra really took on any
The temple at Karnak was known as Ipet-esut (‘Most Select of Places’). No one knows for certain when the earliest one was built but it seems
likely that there was at least a shrine there during the Old Kingdom if not before. Like most Egyptian temples, it was oriented towards the river—in
this case, it faced roughly east. By New Kingdom times, however, there was a second avenue of approach, from the north where the sanctuary of Mut and
the Luxor Temple were situated. It is so far unknown whether or not this alternate axis was present in earlier periods
So, even if we do assume that the later construction was intended to be aligned with the solstice, it would move the data point several hundred years
to the right, far from Dodwell's curve.
I notice that you've latched strongly onto the Karnak and Stonehenge data points exclusively (2 points out of a total of 71, I might add) and are
attempting to disprove their validity, which is how a review process should indeed work. But I was just wondering if, should these 2 points prove to
be invalid, does that in your opinion invalidate the remaining 69 data points and the associated analysis ? Even if the Karnak data point was removed
from the logsine graph, we would still
have the identically same shaped graph rapidly descending and converging on circa 2345 B.C.
Anyway, I don't really see any obvious attempt to 'fudge' the Karnak data.
As I mentioned in my previous response to you, it's perfectly understandable that based on the Egyptian pharaoh dynasty time line as known
Egyptologists of Dodwell's era, it's not totally surprising that he may have unintentionally named the wrong Pharaoh based on the sources available
But let me reiterate once again ... it makes NO
difference whatsoever just who the actual Pharaoh may have been during 2045 B.C., the actual
determination of the earth's axial tilt for that date was calculated by working out exactly when
the summer solstice sun would be observed to
shine directly down the center of the temple axis. This effect will always be independent of the name of the pharaoh that he states was reigning at
that time ... just unfortunate that he named the wrong pharaoh.
In fact, even if nothing was known about any of the pharaohs whatsoever, the date of the summer solstice shining down the center of the Temple's axis
would still be discoverable based on the physical location/positioning of the Temple and the knowledge that the Egyptians were heavily into sun
worship at that time period and would almost certainly have aligned their principal sun worshiping temple towards the solstices.
As for the reason Dodwell seems to have rejected Lockyer's determination of a date of 3700 B.C. for the foundation of the temple is purely and simply
because Lockyer stuffed up his measurements or observations ... but simply because Lockyer took those perfectly validate and accurate
measurements and inserted them into the Newcomb Formula, which in turn spat out a completely incongruous date of ca 3700 B.C. But by using Lockyer's,
et al data and observations and only replacing the seemingly "innacurate" Newcomb Formula with his own modified formula, Dodwell arrived at the more
reasonable foundation date of circa 2045 B.C.
So as can be seen, Dodwell did NOT
reject Lockyer's, et al observations and data - he merely replaced the formula Lockyer had used to
determine the specific date period in which the summer solstitial sun was expected to shine directly down the center of the Temples axis.
In the case of Stonehenge he is just wrong (the entire history he quotes is wrong in light of modern research) and employs the same sort of circular
logic. Starting with an incorrect date, he "proves" that the data fits his curve.
I'm really confused as to how you can make a statement such as "he is just wrong
" when all the data Dodwell used regarding the physical
of Stonehenge was taken from the detailed analyses conducted by Lockyer, Hawley, Petrie, Aubrey, et al. Unless you're also
suggesting that the research of these well known personages was also "just wrong ?
Again, it doesn't matter an iota as to what Dodwell's personal beliefs may have been regarding when and by whom Stonehenge was constructed. For all
it matters it could have been the elves or aliens that constructed stonehenge. So whether Dodwell got the history of Stonehenge correct or not has
bearing on his determination of the specific date that the main avenues axis aligned perfectly with the solstitial sun.
All that matters is that the measurements and observations made by Lockyer, et al and then used by Dodwell were sufficiently accurate to allow the
determination of what date the solstitial sunrise could be expected to be seen directly and centrally located above the center of the main avenue
But the alignment of Stonehenge is very close fit to the calculated value for 2500BC (the currently accepted age), only 4 arcminutes off (less than
Now that's interesting ... could you please supply a source ?