The Lost Kings of Ancient Egypt's Old Kingdom / F.I.P.

What happened to the history lesson? I was enjoying that. We want Pharoah!

I liked the idea of only certain artifacts being allowed to be public. This is something I have long suspected.

reply to post by Byrd

Byrd, check the co-ordinates given in the link you provided from Wikipedia. Here they are: Coordinates: 05h 30m 00s, +00° 00′ 00″

SC: Do you see the “s” in the co-ordinates, Byrd? That ‘s’ denotes SOUTH and NOT north.

SC: Yes, I realised this error and pointed it out to Kandinsky earlier.

Byrd: Scott... that is "5 hours, 30 minutes, 00 seconds. Not "degrees south."

SC: Yes, that’s quite correct but this bears NO relation to what is actually being discussed – i.e. that to view Orion’s Belt at Giza (or Austin, Texas or anywhere else in the northern hemisphere) you MUST look south i.e. to the southern sky/horizon (of the northern hemisphere).

SC: Then you will have learned that Orion is NEVER viewed in the northern sky. At night you can ONLY see Orion in the SOUTHERN sky. Do you accept this? Yes or no?

Byrd: We're running into a "science definition" versus "this is the way I define things" problem. I'm using definitions I learned with backyard astronomy. Orion the constellation is at +5 hours, 30 minutes, 0 seconds declination above the celestial equator. It is a part of the northern sky map. Every map of the Northern Sky (full set of constellations) has it. I do look south to see it, but that doesn't mean it's a "southern constellation."

SC: Yes we certainly do seem to be at odds with technical definitions and there was absolutely no need for it. We are discussing the OCT ergo we are discussing the orientation of the pyramids at Giza. Giza is in the northern hemisphere, ergo it is a GIVEN that if I say you have to look to the southern sky at Giza to observe Orion’s Belt my meaning is perfectly clear. How can you possibly think otherwise? I say again – we were discussing Giza ergo it is a GIVEN that we are discussing the skies of the northern hemisphere and its southern aspect i.e. the place where we (in the northern hemisphere) will observe Orion. That much should have been obvious to you.

Byrd. "Southern constellations" are the ones that appear below the celestial equator.

SC: No one was talking about constellation of the southern hemisphere and that much should have been obvious to you because we are discussing Giza which is a northern hemisphere location.

Byrd: Do I look to the south to see Orion? Yes, ….

SC: FINALLY ! Honestly – it’s like pulling teeth.

Okay, Byrd – so now that we are on the same page, in your back yard try replicating the little experiment shown in the diagrams below



















SC: Do you agree, Byrd, that by looking at the Belt stars (due south) and placing three dots on the ground to replicate what you ACTUALLY OBSERVE (i.e. the rightmost star is Mintaka, the one below that and to the left is Al Nilam and the one below that and to the left is Al Nitak) results in a placement of your three dots in your back yard that corresponds to the arrangement of the Gizamids? Do you accept this?

[snip]

SC: This is COMPLETE NONSENSE! If you are observing Orion in the southern sky and placing each dot on the ground (still facing south) you simply MUST place Mintaka furthest right and furthest south. This is inescapable.

Byrd: Nooooo. Rightmost and northerlymost (closer to the pole stars.) I don't place it rightmost and closer to the horizon (south)

SC: See the images above, Byrd. If you place Mintaka (the rightmost star) on the ground, where will you place the next star RELATIVE to what you are observing in the sky (and without inverting what you are actually visually observing in the sky)? Would you place your next point on the ground above Mintaka, to the right of Mintaka? Where? The ONLY sensible place you can place your next point is below and to the left of Mintaka, your first point - remember you must keep looking at Orion due south (yes, in the northern hemisphere – like that really needs to be said). Only in this way can you maintain the integrity of the visual observation without having to invert the visual observation (which is what you are advocating). Just plot on the ground - as if copying a two-dimensionl painting - what is observed in the sky.

SC: Then, with all due respect, I think you should not be making completely erroneous claims in the main thread. Start another thread if you want to do that.

Byrd: A claim was made, I responded to it. If you want to argue Orion, start another thread.

SC: You responded to it only partially and with false information. I think it is very important that observers here are made aware of the full facts, don’t you?

SC: Actually (and I believe I said this previously to you), I am NOT speaking of the “legendary kings” of the pre-dynastic period but rather (if Africanus and Eusebius are to be believed) the missing kings of the early dynastic period (dynasties 1-8).

Byrd: Yes. I was quite interested in that conversation. Could we continue?

SC: Yes - I have every intention of continuing once we resolve this sub-thread.

SC: No, not the “legendary kings” but the potentially 123 missing kings of the early dynastic period (according to Africanus and Eusebius using Manetho as their source).

Byrd: Yes... a very interesting question, I agree. Shall we go back to it? You can start an argument about Orion in another thread.

SC: It’s a simple question, Byrd, that can be resolved right here. Do you accept that by replicating the Orion Belt stars at Giza or Austin Texas (looking at the southern sky in the northern hemisphere - do I have to keep emphasising the northern hemisphere for you??) they will naturally present a layout on the ground that will result in Mintaka being the point/star that is furthest south in your yard? It’s a simple question – do you agree with this or not?

Regards,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Byrd


Hello Byrd,

One more image just to clarify the Gizamid-Orion orientation issue we have been discussing.



Imagine a 3x3 grid over the Belt stars. Now draw a similar grid in your yard. Standing at the X mark, the red line on the ground (and in the sky) is nearest you. The green line on the ground (and in the sky) is furthest from you. With this orientation now place the stars into the grid in your yard as they appear in the grid in the sky and you cannot fail but to place Mintaka furthest south (and west), exactly as we find at Giza with G3, Mintaka’s terrestrial counterpart.

This visual correlation is perfectly acceptable and is – contrary to your assertion - entirely consistent with the layout of the Gizamids (see below).



I hope we can now put this issue to bed once and for all and return to more interesting matters.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: Do you agree, Byrd, that by looking at the Belt stars (due south) and placing three dots on the ground to replicate what you ACTUALLY OBSERVE (i.e. the rightmost star is Mintaka, the one below that and to the left is Al Nilam and the one below that and to the left is Al Nitak) results in a placement of your three dots in your back yard that corresponds to the arrangement of the Gizamids? Do you accept this?

No, and no. If I'm replicating exactly what I see in the sky, then I draw stars in orientation to the equator and the circumpolar stars and the rising sun and setting sun. Mintaka is "right" but is not closest to the equator (south). Furthermore, other astronomical ceilings by the ancient Egyptians do not show that they transposed constellations north-to-south.

YOU might transpose them, but if the stars are significant and if they understand astronomy to any degree and if they wish to create something on earth that reflects the sky, they are going to carefully compose the item so that it reflects what's in the sky.

Drawings of the Dendara temple show this (Orion, as I understand it, is on the bottom right and to the right of the falcon on the standard and next to the reclining bull. He has a small animal at his heels) :
www.astronomy.pomona.edu...

They point his head toward the circumpolar stars and indicate that Mintaka is the northmost and westmost star of the belt.

SC: See the images above, Byrd. If you place Mintaka (the rightmost star) on the ground, where will you place the next star RELATIVE to what you are observing in the sky (and without inverting what you are actually visually observing in the sky)? Would you place your next point on the ground above Mintaka, to the right of Mintaka? Where? The ONLY sensible place you can place your next point is below and to the left of Mintaka, your first point - remember you must keep looking at Orion due south (yes, in the northern hemisphere – like that really needs to be said).

Exactly. And if you stand at the pyramid of Khufu and look south, the next pyramid from "Mintaka" (below "Mintaka) is to the right. Not left.

SC: Actually (and I believe I said this previously to you), I am NOT speaking of the “legendary kings” of the pre-dynastic period but rather (if Africanus and Eusebius are to be believed) the missing kings of the early dynastic period (dynasties 1-8).

Byrd: Yes. I was quite interested in that conversation. Could we continue?

SC: Yes - I have every intention of continuing once we resolve this sub-thread.

Why can't we resolve this in another thread?

SC: It’s a simple question, Byrd, that can be resolved right here. Do you accept that by replicating the Orion Belt stars at Giza or Austin Texas (looking at the southern sky in the northern hemisphere - do I have to keep emphasising the northern hemisphere for you??) they will naturally present a layout on the ground that will result in Mintaka being the point/star that is furthest south in your yard?

No. It's the furthest from the equator. Therefore I place it on the ground in a layout that is furthest from the southern horizon.

Now can we get back to the kings? Your constant sneering and lack of civility here is really rather tiresome. If you are avid and passionate about discussing the belt stars of Orion without being slighting to those who hold different viewpoints, please start a different thread. We were having a most interesting discussion on the kings, and I really think that had a lot of potential for exploration.

Can we "agree to disagree" here and get back to the kings?

reply to post by Byrd


Hello Byrd,

Let me address this statement of yours first.

Byrd: Your constant sneering and lack of civility here is really rather tiresome

SC: I can categorically assure you I am not sneering and I really do not see how you feel there is a lack of civility on my part. If I have said something that has offended you (which I do not actually believe I have) then, of course, I apologise unreservedly for that. I think perhaps some smileys at the end of some of my sentences might actually better reflect the mood in which I am actually writing. As I said to Kandinsky, text often does not convey intonation. By the same token I would ask that when you make unfounded allegations about graphics I use (you claimed I inverted the Belt star graphic in an earlier post) I would expect you to unreservedly withdraw the allegation.

Byrd: If you are avid and passionate about discussing the belt stars of Orion without being slighting to those who hold different viewpoints, please start a different thread.

SC: I will make one final attempt here, Byrd, to demonstrate how your view is incorrect and unworkable and how the extant layout at Giza best matches the Orion Belt stars. If I do not succeed here then I see little point in starting a new thread and we will – as you suggest – have to agree to disagree. I hope that’s okay with you?

Okay – so here goes:

SC: Do you agree, Byrd, that by looking at the Belt stars (due south) and placing three dots on the ground to replicate what you ACTUALLY OBSERVE (i.e. the rightmost star is Mintaka, the one below that and to the left is Al Nilam and the one below that and to the left is Al Nitak) results in a placement of your three dots in your back yard that corresponds to the arrangement of the Gizamids? Do you accept this?

Byrd: No, and no. If I'm replicating exactly what I see in the sky, then I draw stars in orientation to the equator and the circumpolar stars and the rising sun and setting sun.

SC: I think this is the crux of the issue. You are using your modern world view and projecting that onto the 2-dimensional Giza plateau. The Belt stars, however, exist in 3-dimensional space. It’s not about North/South orientation – it’s about UP/DOWN orientation – there’s a difference. The AEs saw the Belt stars in the sky, one above the other. Of course, Earth’s gravity will not permit them to use the 3rd dimension here on Earth – i.e. they cannot float pyramids in the air, one above the other, to reflect the position of each belt star. The only thing they could do is to project a 3-dimensional star asterism onto a 2-dimensional plateau.

As stated earlier, the AEs regarded south as UP. So, imagine you have a model of the Giza plateau lying flat on the ground with the Belt stars in the sky due south. Now raise up your model 90 degrees so that the South edge rises up and North edge remains down (acting as the pivot). Your three pyramids in your model will then be ‘suspended’ UP/DOWN and will match the UP/DOWN and LEFT/RIGHT aspects of the Belt stars. Here’s some diagrams which I hope will better demonstrate what I mean.














Simply ‘raise’ the pyramids ‘UP’ (i.e. imagine them in the air) and the correlation makes perfect sense. By the same token if we then take what you are proposing, the result is a complete mismatch. See below:














If we imagine ourselves outside a celestial sphere upon which the stars are fixed (i.e. we are looking from behind Orion’s Belt towards the Earth) your correlation would make no sense whilst the arrangement at Giza fits perfectly but you MUST consider the Gizamids in three dimensions, not two i.e. south is ‘UP’. I hope this helps better explain how I see things and why I consider the correlation we find at Giza to be the best representation since it uses the AEs world view and not our modern view.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Scott, I understood the idea perfectly every single time you presented it. I'm even aware of directions in cultures that don't do the "north south east west" bit but rather have some unusual interpretations. I'm also aware of how these cultures draw things and how ancient Egyptians depicted the sky.

It's not convincing at all. If they had such a cultural practice, the stars would have been similarly transposed in every other depiction.

(for those of you interested in unusual ways people orient themselves in space (Tibetans, Balinese, and others) see this very scholary PDF:paper here (clicky) Fascinating, weird, but awfully challenging to read.)



Let me know when you get back to the topic of kings.

reply to post by Byrd


Hello Byrd,

Thank you for your reply.

Byrd: Scott, I understood the idea perfectly every single time you presented it.

SC: Then if you understood what I am demonstrating (i.e. that the Gizamids should be imagined in 3-D i.e. that they are one above the other, UP in the air) then you will have seen that the modern view that you advocate would have G3 as the BASE pyramid with the other pyramids 'floating' above. This is the complete opposite to the positon of Mintaka, the stellar counterpart of G3, that you advocate. You will also have noticed that if you observed the Belt stars from behind (looking towards the Earth) the orientation you speak of simply cannot work when the pyramids are UP/DOWN as opposed to North/South. Here's the diagram again:



For YOUR orientation to work, G1 must be the lowest pyramid (since Al Nitak is the lowest star). But as you can see, with your proposition, it is G3 that is the lowest pyramid, NOT G1.

Byrd: It's not convincing at all.

SC: "Not convincing" does not mean the view I take (and that also of many eminent professors of astronomy) is wrong and that is what Krupp and folks like yourself have always maintained - that the Gizamids must be rotated 180 degrees for the correlation to be astronomically 'correct'. That is simply untrue. If you asked a friend who knew nothing about astronomy to draw the Belt stars on the ground in your back yard as they observe them in the night sky, I guarantee you they would draw Mintaka furthest south. It is intuitive. They would not 'process' the arrangement as you do.

In any case, the correlation makes perfect sense - and is astronomically correct - by simply adopting the AEs world view that south='UP'. To claim that for the correlation to be astronomically correct it must conform to modern astronomical convention (i.e. the upmost star=the northmost star) is just plain nonsense. The AEs simply did not view the world with such modern conventions - their worldview had south as "UP" and by adopting their world view the layout of Giza in mimicking the layout of Orion's Belt makes perfect sense whilst adopting modern convention renders the correlation with the Belt stars completely meaningless - as my diagrams cleary demonstrate.

Byrd: If they had such a cultural practice, the stars would have been similarly transposed in every other depiction.

SC: Every other depiction you will have seen of stars drawn by the AEs - including the Dendera ceiling - is TWO DIMENSIONAL. What you now have to do, Byrd, is go back to those depictions and imagine them in three-dimensional space and then, perhaps, it might become clearer to you.

On that note, I sense we will - as you suggested previously - have to agree to disagree on this subject.

The Kings - why do you think it is possible that - if we tally the lists of Africanus and Eusebius - there are POTENTIALLY 123 missing kings from dunasties 4-8. Do you think this is perhaps the result of poor interpretation/computation on the part of these ancient scholars or do you consider that there may indeed be a number of missing kings from this period?

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Let me know when you get back to the kings.

reply to post by Byrd


Hello Byrd.

Byrd: Let me know when you get back to the kings.

SC: It does seem quite obvious from your comment above that you do not, in fact, properly read my posts. If you had done so you would have seen that I wrote this:

SC:On that note, I sense we will - as you suggested previously - have to agree to disagree on this subject.

The Kings - why do you think it is possible that - if we tally the lists of Africanus and Eusebius - there are POTENTIALLY 123 missing kings from dunasties 4-8. Do you think this is perhaps the result of poor interpretation/computation on the part of these ancient scholars or do you consider that there may indeed be a number of missing kings from this period?

SC: To be honest I do not see any particular reason why I should continue a thread with someone who does not actually read what is being said in the thread as is plainly evidenced by your comment above.

Regards,

Scott Creighton