mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *THE FOURTH DYNASTY* *GREAT PYRAMIDS OF EGYPT* *GEOGRAPHICAL ORIENTATIONS* *And* *SIDE DEVIATIONS* *PART ONE* Copyright 2001, by Ernest P. Moyer In two seasons from December l880 to May 1881 and from Oct. 1881 to April, 1882 Sir Flinders Petrie (1) made accurate triangulations and measurements of the pyramids at Giza. His results showed a consistent compass misalignment west of north on all sides of the two largest pyramids. Petrie's mean value was -3' 43" for the Khufu casing (Giza 1); his mean value for Khafre (Giza 2) was -5' 26". In 1925 J. H. Cole (2) repeated measurements on Giza 1 to verify Petrie's precision and accuracy; he obtained a mean skew of -3' 06". In 1973 G. S. Pawley of the Physics Department of Edinburgh University in Scotland and N. Abrahamsen of the Geophysics Laboratory of Aarhus University in Denmark (3) refuted several suggestions put forth to explain the misalignment. Petrie assigned the skew to shifts in the north pole position. He discussed changes in ocean currents as a probably cause (1). However the true pole position is moving at a rate of about 0.0032" annually at Cairo (Giza). Over a period of 4500 years this change would amount to no more than 0.24', far less than necessary to explain the skew. The misalignment is also not due to continental drift. South America is separating from Africa at the rate of about five centimeters per year with a continental hinge in the north Atlantic. This would cause a shift of about -0.1' over 4500 years, again far too small to produce the measured misalignment. Africa is also swinging away from Asia with a hinge near the north end of the Red Sea but this is of the wrong sign and also too small to produce the skew. Another factor is local earthquakes. Although the pyramids show evidence of quake damage historical and geological data show no earthquakes during the past 4500 years of sufficient magnitude to produce such dramatic results.Pawley and Abrahamsen then went on to state that the pyramid skew should be explainable in geophysical terms although no physical cause is currently known. They also remarked that no other remains in Egypt can give corroborative results; the two pyramids at Giza are unique; other pyramids are smaller and less accurate. Examination of data from other structures, with comparison against Giza 1 and Giza 2, shows that the skew of the largest IVth dynasty pyramids _/is due to conscious control by the builders/ _and is suspect for evaluating past geological changes. A more comprehensive review is helpful to arrive at better estimates of builder measurement and construction control. I compiled data from Petrie (1), Cole (2), Vyse (4), and Maragioglio (5) to obtain a more rigorous assessment of the misalignment and its possible impact on our understanding. Table I is a list of base length measurements and skew available on significant Egyptian structures. This list includes the Zoser step pyramid of the IIIrd dynasty at Saqqara, the IVth dynasty pyramid at Meydum, the Bent pyramid and enclosure wall at Dashur, the Flat pyramid at Dashur, and the three largest pyramids of the IVth dynasty at Giza. It does not include the miniature satellite pyramids at Giza, nor the incomplete or badly damaged structures of the Illrd and IVth dynasty, nor the many inferior pyramids of later dynasties. Refer to list of references at end of paper. *TABLE I* *Significant Egyptian lIIrd and IVth Dynasty Pyramids* *Base Lengths and Orientations* Base lengths in meters. Orientations from true north in minutes and seconds. Negative sign indicates west of north. Pyramid N E S W Source ZOSER STEP Length Orientation 125 E-W by 108 N-S 4 deg 35' E of N (4) MEYDUM Length Orientation 144.20 -35' 25" 144.63 -23' 36" 144.30 -20' 35" 144.15 -18' 03" (5)* BENT (Enclosure Wall) Length Orientation 298.59 -4' 34" 298.54 -16' 40" 298.63 -38' 50"*** 299.03 -16' 08" (5)* BENT Length Orientation 188.60 -9' 12" (5)** (5)* FLAT Length Orientation 219.3 --------- (4) GIZA 2 Length Orientation 215.187 -5' 31" 215.271 -6' 13" 215.314 -5' 40" 215.278 -4' 21" (1) GIZA 1 SOCKETS Length Orientation 231.897 -3' 20" 231.923 -5' 21" 231.748 +1' 15" 231.628 -7' 33" (1) GIZA 1 CORE Length Orientation 228.659 -4' 35" 228.585 -5' 26" 228.644 -5' 23" 228.664 -5' 39" (1) GIZA 1 CASE (Petrie) Length Orientation 230.363 -3' 20" 230.320 -3' 57" 230.366 -3' 41" 230.343 -3' 54" (1) GIZA 1 CASE (Cole) Length Orientation 230.253 -2' 28" 230.341 -5' 30" 230.454 -1' 57" 230.357 -2' 30" (2) MENKAURE Length Orientation ? +16' 48" 105.930 +12' 23" 105.608 +12' 57" 105.509 ? (1) (Menkaure NW corner obscured by rubble) *Petrie data via Maragioglio **Mustafa data via Maragioglio ***Maragioglio questions the reported value. It is too large to be realisitic. Figure One shows compass alignments of the respective structure sides in the sequence N-E-S-W. Each structure is shown in historical chronological order according to accepted archeological assignments except for Giza 2, which I shall discuss shortly. No data exist for the Flat at Dashur but the Bent structures fit within the sequence. I plotted the pyramids without regard for dates of construction, merely in time order. The data show that the Zoser step pyramid is badly misaligned east of north. This error is greater than one could obtain by casual eye sightings on northern stars; it was a poor attempt at north orientation. In contrast the IVth dynasty structures show refined measurement and construction. The greatest error is slightly more than one-half degree in the Meydum structure. There was continual improvement in alignment toward true north as construction approached that of the Giza 1 outer casing. The Menkaure pyramid then shows a relapse to greater error and of opposite sign. Following dynasties no longer held such tight control. The data show increasing ability, not only in measurement but also in construction technique. The form of the plot suggests a learning curve, as though the builders were coming closer to the true pole position with each structure. A curve drawn through the mean values shows a monotonic decrease that is not due merely to accident of plot. Although we are missing data from the Flat pyramid the improvement is so consistent we can predict -6' or -7' for its mean orientation. Assignment of the differences in orientation to geophysical changes during the IVth dynasty is unrealistic. The north pole position could not have moved so drastically in such a short period. It also is unrealistic to assume that earlier structures were oriented around celestial objects other than a north star, or even that the orientations were around some celestial object when they are so close to the present pole position. The IVth dynasty structures were all part of a progressive improvement in great measurement and construction accuracy, with precise knowledge of the north pole position. If we accept Petrie's (Pawley's and Abrahamsen's) judgment that the pole position in 2700 BC was 3' to 4' west of the current position we must explain the other structures. If Giza 1 was centered on the pole position why were the preceding constructions of the IVth dynasty, with their refined measurements, not all aligned randomly around that position? It seems more plausible that the builders used instruments or methods that contained bias. But even this suggestion is difficult. What instrument or technique would cause consistent bias west of north, with continual improvement, during the IVth dynasty? The form of the curve strongly suggests intelligent control. A deduction seems reasonable from the graph. The progressive improvement indicates an apparent trend according to project and not according to time. Regardless of the interval between projects the improvement toward the pole position comes successively closer with each structure. If there was improvement during other unknown projects it is not immediately evident on the plot. The builders apparently devoted their attention exclusively to the very large projects of the IVth dynasty. Measurable extant structures from other dynasties were not part of this project. But this project continued over several human generations. The data offer striking evidence that a civil engineering precision or knowledge, both in measurement ability and construction, was present during this entire period, but was no longer present when the Menkaure pyramid was built. Although the proximity of control in the Menkaure pyramid suggests that some construction influence still lingered it was then not under the refined hand of the preceding structures. Although enclosure walls were detected for both Giza 1 and Giza 2 they long since deteriorated to the point where we cannot now reliably measure their geographical orientations. The core of Giza 1 has about the same control in orientation as Giza 2 exterior. We have no data on a possible inner core for Giza 2. Therefore, we do not know how such missing data might affect our assessment, or conclusions. However, the form of the plot is so striking we have sufficient information to draw conclusions about the designer's intent. As I shall show, detailed examination of the data suggests an unknown project between the Meydum pyramid and the Bent projects. We are faced with a major question: Does the form of the data plot truly show a learning ability, or was it through design intent? Could the monotonic decrease be accidental? If so why would the data points not be scattered? How could they come so close to such a refined display merely by chance? Modern experience in data studies would not assign such a neat decline to mere happenstance. If faced with such display modern scientists would be keenly interested in finding the cause. But if due to intelligent control the data would demand that the designers and civil engineers intended to display such refinement to later observers. It makes no sense to exercise such control unless they expected that some one could later discover it. Certainly, no observer in historic times, over the past four millennium, and especially not today, would credit such a remarkable display as under intelligent control. In fact, not until modern times did we have the ability to detect such refined control. After the Menkaure pyramid such control was lost to the world. If the monotonic decline was through design intent, the control necessary to display it would be nearly equal throughout the entire construction period. Otherwise, the designer could not ensure that the smooth decrease would be apparent to later observers. He had to maintain intentional misplacement from the pole position at a refinement necessary to bring out the display. This fact leads to the inference that the builder was able to control misalignment from the beginning with a finesse equal to the control exhibited in Giza 1. As I get into more details of the data we shall see now such conclusion is justified. Importantly, the Meydum structure appears to be part of a grand design that was used to demonstrate ability to control geographical orientation. If the designer/engineer held the separate structures to intentional misalignment he was controlling how this orientation would appear to some later researcher who might assemble the data C according to the plot I have shown. Then the Meydum structure was important to this display. We see how Giza 2 appears as a project that was built prior to Giza 1. The plot tells us the sequenceC if we are willing to accept that the orientations were under conscious control. Colin Reader noted how respect for the Giza 2 causeway by the construction of Giza 1 shows also that Giza 2 was built before Giza 1. Refer to my report on /Some Perspectives on Pyramid Chronology/. Insights from these graphical plots offer other thoughts. If we were to include the total spread of the data, from the Zoser step pyramid to Menkaure, we could understand those two structures as showing a /terminus a quo/ and /terminus ad quem/ for the entire project. In other words, we might deduce that the designer consciously intended to use them to show us the range of his project. If so, he conceived the project when he started the Zoser step pyramid, and knew where it would end C before he laid the first stone. We simply do not have an explanation for the data as due to uncontrolled natural phenomenon. They require us to conclude that a conscious design intent was present. The data require us to conclude also that if the builder could control Giza 1 to an amazing 3' of arc west of north, he certainly could control the alignment of the other structures on exact pole position. But if he had, he could not have offered such a vivid graphical display. He consciously chose to control misplacement from the true pole position in order to offer us far more information with the misalignments. As a consequence of this deduction we can see that the Bent enclosure wall need not have been built before the Bent pyramid. That misalignment, as part of his project, could have been exercised after the pyramid was built. This thought could follow through on Giza 2 construction after Giza 1, but this is not an inclusive deduction. Other evidence speaks against it.