@ Leolaia
Thanks for your response. Possibly the most interesting I have read for some time.
You start by saying “imo has little conception of Egyptian chronology” and then go onto offer your very own opinion (imo). Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You then go onto support your statement with other general principles and lines of inquiry. I applaud your effort but in the first instance must point out these still conflict with your opening gambit. Unless we are at cross purposes, or perhaps I am missing something (?), these other sources of evidence consist of facts, and then theories drawn from those facts by a variety of people. In each case these theories are generally opinions (imo) which is natural unless were talking math right??! I am sure you must see this so I will leave at that as we must be at cross purposes. I do not understand your point in this respect though.
Next you talk about secular sources being pitted against sacred scripture and suggest that I automatically conclude the latter is inherently superior. In a sense you are not wrong, as you have already probably guessed my hypothesis does run along these lines, however, my null hypothesis does not. I would counter propose that your studies will be based upon the polar opposite position. Do you deny that you start a study with the mindset that the secular position is inherently superior than the scriptural position? Clearly you cannot deny this as you later mention carbon dating (which assumes the bible is incorrect) and yet you appear to be calling me for this mindset. Please clarify…
Then you say “Egyptian chronology is not built on a dead reckoning of king lists and canons” almost suggesting I have built a straw man. If it is not built on king lists and the like how did Jean-Francois Champollion date Egyptian history? What about Lesueur, Auguste Mariiette, Chabas, Lepsius, Bunsen, Edward Meye and so on and so forth? In reality these dated the hisotries of Egypt without the use of your later suggestions. How?
In a 2000 report about the findings of Kate Spence it tells us how: “Until now, we dated the pyramids by working out how long each individual Egyptian Pharaoh held power, and then added all the years, and worked our way backwards.” ( www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2000/12/07/221162.htm ). Is your claim in ignorance or misleading by design?
Next you suggest there are alternative ways in which we date the histories, suggesting that these are not “fragmentary, erroneous [and] contradictory” like the king list argument my paper has in part undermined.
“1) absolute dates obtained from astronomical observations”
I do not know what exactly your point is so if you want to add some clarification please do so. But you are perhaps referring to the finds of various Egyptologists and the like such as Kate Spence. The pyramids are generally built almost perfectly in conjunction with the compass points with the north face generally centred on true north. Various parties have debated how they can have built with such accuracy. They have suggested that they used star constellations to help them do this.
So lets consider Kate Spence theory. In the above article relating to Kate Spence claims it states that “In the year 2467 BC” one could easily find true north by using the star constellations. She suggests that in building these pyramids they were using this same star consteallation. But if you built pyramids before this date the position of the constellation would be west of true north and if you built later it would be east of true north. In the report it indicates this was in fact the case - “The earlier ones were lined up slightly to the west, and the later ones slightly to the east”. But this theory fails when we consider the first large pyramid of Djoser. Secular history puts his rule around 2670BCE i.e. before this accurate true north date so it should be aligned west of true north if they were indeed building to the said constellations proposed. But it isn’t. Instead it is a massive 3degrees east. Later, starting in c.2617BCE with Sneferu, Cheops (2589BCE) Chepren (2558BCE) several of the major pyramids of this time follow the logic proposed by Kate Spence. If they really were using the said constellation, and if they really were built before this alleged date of 2467 which is said to have given a perfect true north then yes they would have built their pyramids west of north. The pyramids of Snerferu in Meidum (24 minutes and 25 seconds west of true north), South Dahsuhr (9 minutes and 12 seconds), and North Dahshur (5 minutes) all follow the pattern with reducing error of margin from west to the perfect true north i.e. a descending countdown (predicted). If they were built in this order. Cheops pyramid in Giza, apparently ruling later in the kings lists follows this logical countdown with his built 3 minutes and 6 seconds west. But why does Cheprens pyramid begin going the opposite way? His pyramid is still west but it is now 5 minutes and 25 seconds west i.e. more then Cheops. How does this fit with the theory given? It does not unless you accept the theory is correct and the builders in this particular occasion got it wrong.. Next we have Mycerinus whose pyramid continues in the opposite direction. Instead of building his pyramid west of north his is built east of north by 14 minutes and 3 seconds. Now unless Mycernius built his pyramid post 2467 his pyramid shows another error. For clarity though secular history puts his rule around 2532 BCE i.e. 55 years earlier and not later. Another problem follows. Again throwing the pattern speculated into disarray Sahure pyramid supposedly built somewhere around 2485BCE is built a massive 1 hour and 45 minutes west of north. It fits in the overall countdown pattern for sure but does not follow the direction of the pattern set by its predecessors i.e. Mycernius and far exceeds the inclination to the west in the pyramids built decades earlier. Neferirkares pyramid built presumably around 2465 follows the pattern perfectly being 30 minutes east of north as predicted. But why then does Niuserre build his 1 hour west of north, again throwing the pattern into disarray? Unas follows the pattern with his pyramid in Saqqara with it facing 17 minutes and 28 seconds east of north.
Now the theory is not a bad one but it is riddled with errors. Why so many mistakes? Where the Egyptian builders simply in error in all the places that the predicted pattern fails whereas at all the junctures they built in line with the theory they just happened to build correctly? Or where they actually building to another constellation at another time? Or perhaps they weren’t building to any star constellation at all. After all there are multiple ways of finding true north. We started out with the basic assumption that they were building to a star constellation when they may simply have being building north. If they really were building to a star constellation what on Gods earth made them build to an insignificant set of stars? If you had no concept of true north in our day one would not build to polaris as there are literally 50 other stars that are brighter. If you have a concept of true north and want to build in that direction one would not necessarily use stars to guide one. The same was true in the days of the Egyptians.
Now it is noted that Dennis Rawlins and Keith Pickering have raised objections saying that whilst there is some merit to Kate Spence work there are other issues suggesting her proposed consteallations are inaccurate etc. However this does not address the problem of the irratic pattern of the orientation of the pyramids. All the pyramids built around this 200 year period follow no straight pattern in their orientation. Out of the 10 pyramid structures examined 5 disrupt the pattern of a countdown supposed by Kate Spence.
In short the theory that the pyramids were built using constellations is a good one but the theories postulated are not so free of the “fragmentary, erroneous, contradictory” results that you suggest are mutually exclusive to the king lists. They are riddled with same.
You talk about calibrated radiocarbon dating as a supposed method of giving the build absolute dates. Again this is a theory based upon somebodys imo which is riddled with difficulties. As the intention of my paper was to primarily show that the modern day view of the secular king lists lack credibility it is not necessary to argue whether carbon dating is accurate or not as this was not the scope of this particular study. If everybody here accepts that the modern day view of the king lists are flawed when compared with the ancient king lists and the bible then perhaps I could be persuaded to respond re carbon dating but no doubt it will be a long discussion and not one I intended when presenting this paper. Perhaps another thread would be a better idea?
“ 2) a relative chronology based on monumental and inscriptional evidence, pottery assemblages, architectural features, etc ”
Unless I am missing something the king lists are largely “ monumental and inscriptional evidence” and “ architectural features ”. Are we at cross purposes here or are you not familiar with where the king lists are coming from? Re-read the first few pages of my intial post.
“ 3) synchronisms between Egypt and material cultures elsewhere (such as in the Aegean or sites in the Levant), as well as with independently established chronologies ”
I am not sure what you are getting at here. Are we to presuppose that the chronologies of other kingdoms are correct, but the chronologies of the bible are not, and where it is demonstrated that the chronologies of Egypt itself conflict with other evidence they too are deemed to be not correct. This is surely a case of picking and choosing the evidence that best suits your conclusion rather than presenting all the evidence and trying to get all the evidence to fit. Talk about bias…
You say “ You cannot move the whole chronology around on the order of several hundreds of years (as one might do who believes there was a global Flood in c. 2350 BC) without creating massive disorder to what is overall a coherent picture ”
I was not attempting to move the whole chronology around by several hundred years. If the flood occurred c. 2370 and the pyramids were built after this time then I suppose the dates for construction of the pyramids would need to shift 400 years. The king lists would be out by several hundred years but does this need to shift or are the first few recognised dynasties still legend? For instance the names immediately proceeding Min are clearly spurious so why do we recognise Min? Perhaps we don’t need to shift these so much as omit them entirely. Now shifting the pyramids by 400 years may seem a little bit of a leap of faith from some crazy bible student right? Well consider that Kate Spences’ work suggests that current dates are out by 74 years due to her astronomical observations. Hardly conclusive evidence is it when scientists are still debating dates today? Consider also that when the team first carried out radiocarbon dating of sites in 1984 their radiocarbon dates suggested the history was out by some 374 years! In 1995 when the same team revisited and took further samples the new radio carbon dates were 200 years younger than their initial carbon tests i.e. only 100 to 200 years than the Cambridge Ancient History dates. Before the radiocarbon and astronomical observations were introduced the secular historians dates ranged between 1000 years younger than current to 2000 years older than current. How you can suggest that my work causes disruption to set dates is beyond comprehension. There are no set dates!
You go on to reiterate that the bible evidence is based upon faith and not fact whereas we can see from the brief notes above that anyone clinging to theories based upon erroneous dating techniques are themselves guilty of what they are saying.
You claim that the bible books were written hundreds of years after the supposed events described in the old testament, namely the exodus. You claim that the absence of the names of the early pharaohs and the naming of all the later ones are proof of this. The word Pharoah is used some 300 times in the bible and if you had read it you would know your claim is inaccurate. For example Exodus 1:11 reads “… and they went building cities as storage places for Pharoah, namely, Pithom and Raamses”. Later books in the old testament do not always mention the names of the pharoahs for instance in the bible book 1 Kings 3:1; 2 Kings 18:21; Jeremiah 25:19; 37:5; 43:9; Ezekial 17:17; 29:2; Isaiah 19:11; 36:6; 1 Chronicles 4:18.
Thanks
EDIT: After re-reading my post I notice that some may be a little confused by the analysis of Kate Spence. The dates that I compared with are admittedly the old dates which Kate Spence proposes to move. To avoid confusion I will now compare the countdown using her proposed NEW dates.
“In the year 2467 BC” one could easily find true north by using the star constellations. She suggests that in building these pyramids they were using this same star consteallation. But if you built pyramids before this date the position of the constellation would be west of true north and if you built later it would be east of true north. In the report it indicates this was in fact the case - “The earlier ones were lined up slightly to the west, and the later ones slightly to the east”. But this theory fails when we consider the first large pyramid of Djoser. Kate Spence would presumably put his rule around 2566BCE i.e. before this accurate true north date so it should be aligned west of true north if they were indeed building to the said constellations proposed. But it isn’t. Instead it is a massive 3degrees east. Later, starting in c.2526BCE with Sneferu, Cheops (2480BCE) several of the major pyramids of this time follow the logic proposed by Kate Spence. If they really were using the said constellation, and if they really were built before this alleged date of 2467 which is said to have given a perfect true north then yes they would have built their pyramids west of north. The pyramids of Snerferu in Meidum (24 minutes and 25 seconds west of true north), South Dahsuhr (9 minutes and 12 seconds), and North Dahshur (5 minutes) all follow the pattern with reducing error of margin from west to the perfect true north i.e. a descending countdown (predicted). If they were built in this order. Cheops pyramid in Giza, apparently ruling later in the kings lists follows this logical countdown with his built 3 minutes and 6 seconds west. If Chepren ruled in 2448BCE then he would as predicted by Kate Spence build his pyramid the opposite way east of true north. But he does not - his pyramid is still west but it is now 5 minutes and 25 seconds west i.e. more than Cheops. How does this fit with the theory given? It does not unless you accept the theory is correct and the builders in this particular occasion got it wrong. Next we have Mycerinus whose pyramid whose pyramid fits the pattern proposed by Kate Spence as his is built east of north by 14 minutes and 3 seconds as she puts his rule around 2415 BCE. But another problem follows. Again throwing the pattern speculated into disarray Sahure pyramid supposedly built somewhere around 2372BCE is built a massive 1 hour and 45 minutes west of north. This not only conflicts with the theory but far exceeds the inclination to the west in the pyramids built decades earlier. Neferirkares pyramid built presumably around 2359 follows the pattern perfectly being 30 minutes east of north as predicted. But why then does Niuserre build his 1 hour west of north, again throwing the pattern into disarray? Unas follows the pattern with his pyramid in Saqqara with it facing 17 minutes and 28 seconds east of north.
In short whether we use the old accepted secular dates or even Kate Spence new dates there is no discernible pattern unless we completely rearrange history itself to fit with our theories.
