Additional Information In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content: Books Unfortunately, the book has no Conclusion. Perhaps the authors were not sure whether they had a clear sight of the Windigo when they fired at it or whether they simply had a shot in the dark. It seems to me that much of the material in the various chapters would hold its interest without the preliminary emphasis on cognition. Art in Primitive Societies. Richard L. PrenticeHall , Englewood, N.
|Published (Last):||9 June 2012|
|PDF File Size:||9.45 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||3.98 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
As Legon puts it, "…we find that the alignments of the shafts fall into place as an immediate development of the most elementary pyramid geometry. These 2 stars at near identical inclination could just as easily have been chosen in order to form the basis of the pyramid design itself — as we shall shortly see.
In effect, the dimensions of the Great Pyramid are a direct consequence of the geometry of the star-shafts, thus it can be argued that the star-shafts can be deemed the key element of the Great Pyramid design and of primary significance to our investigation.
However, what Legon has failed to do is to consider the inverse situation with regards to the wider stellar hypothesis, asking the obvious question: what if the primary design element was not actually the Great Pyramid slope but was in fact the shafts and, more specifically, the angles at which those shafts are inclined?
If this were the case then it logically follows that the dimensions of the Great Pyramid would have been determined from the shafts and not the other way around as all commentators, including Legon, have long assumed.
However, like most theories, this conclusion has had its fair share of critics who are right to inform us that: 1 No stars can be seen through the shafts as the angles of the shafts are irregular. Bauval is adamant that he is right and that these alignments of the shafts are of a symbolic stellar nature. This is long after the reign of the fourth dynasty pharaoh Khufu who is said to have reigned between 2, and 2, BCE, and whom Egyptologists believe had ordered the construction of the Great Pyramid for his own personal tomb.
From what we now understand, it is tempting to agree with Bauval and his predecessors on the theory that the shafts do indeed have some kind of stellar association. First there was the discovery of the first door which immediately caused a media sensation.
This door was later breached by sending a robot up the shaft with a drill attached so as to make a hole big enough in the door to pass a camera-eye through. But once through, a second door was found. At the time of writing, this remains to be seen. They point out that no light can shine down these shafts and no one can see the stars through these shafts anyway — as if this is in itself a revelation.
But concerning the shafts themselves, perhaps we should all stand back a little and take a more "lateral" perspective as it were. In our view, the initial purpose of these shafts is that they may have been intended by the designers to be viewed as "pointers" to the stars — more like the indicators and "arrows" we see in drawings and diagrams which are used to point out the more significant features. The shafts are pointing out the stars that the ancients wanted us to recognise. Contrary to the on-site, hands-on, archaeological approach, these particular star constellations and their most important stars — which have now been brought to our attention by these shafts — can only really be seen from the modern "armchair" view of a cross-sectioned map or plan of the Great Pyramid against the background of the stars in the night sky.
Now, however ironic and incongruous this might seem, we must never overlook the work and dedication of those archaeologists and researchers whose time and effort was spent mapping the Great Pyramid from every point and angle so as to provide us with this internal view.
This is not to say that symbolic aspects to the angle of the stars chosen by the ancient designers did not feature in the structure — there most likely were symbolic aspects to the shafts and these will be discussed later. In consideration of the 4 shafts within the Great Pyramid, it stands to reason that the inordinate amount of resources and effort that would have been required to place these quite unique features within the body of the pyramid lends considerable weight to their primacy and paramount importance within the pyramid structure.
Simply put, the Great Pyramid may have been constructed in order to "carry" the 4 shafts. This idea is most certainly radical and far-reaching. Undoubtedly some will even consider it ludicrous.
What possible reason could there be to construct a structure such as the Great Pyramid around 2 sets of 2 shafts? What was it that was so important to the ancient designers and builders about these shafts that they should expend so much blood, sweat and tears to ensure they were built into the body of the Great Pyramid?
The answer is perhaps remarkably simple. The 4 shafts of the Great Pyramid might not have been designed as conduits of air as Legon and others have proposed, but rather as conduits of information; of knowledge. Like a notebook is designed to allow us to place information within its pages, so the Great Pyramid was designed to carry vital information through its 4 shafts — like "arrow" pointers.
There was never any intention on the part of the designers or builders of these shafts ever being used as air conduits. As previously stated, however, the shafts do indeed serve a practical purpose and also contain certain symbolic aspects such as the sealing of the two shafts at both ends, which will be explained shortly.
These aspects of the internal design of the Great Pyramid are important "clues" that Legon has overlooked in his analysis. It is entirely possible however, that at the blueprint stage, the designers of the Great Pyramid set the shafts in place first and placed the mid-plane of each chamber through the vertice of each set of shafts i.
Why did the designers place the vertice of the upper shafts off-centre by some 6. The answer to this question lies in how the Great Pyramid was designed and what that design was intended to convey. The Stellar Pyramid Design As indicated earlier, it is possible that the Great Pyramid was designed using two stars of similar inclination — one in the northern sky, the other in the southern sky.
From this very simple starting point we can now define the slope, height and width of the Great Pyramid. STEP 3: Two squares are set on the angle of the lower shafts. However, we have still to determine a height and width for our pyramid. This angle is almost identical to the mean difference in the angles of the northern and southern star shafts and is absolutely key to the design of the Great Pyramid at Giza.
We can check the difference in the star inclinations using the data presented by German researcher, Rudolph Gantenbrink:.
Alexander Badawy Chair in Egyptian Art and Archaeology