Before the Pyramids: Cracking Archaeology's Greatest Mystery Read Online Free PDF Page A

Otto Neugebauer is a well-founded conclusion based on many years of high-quality research. But in Neugebauer’s day there was no ‘Orion correlation theory’ to muddy the waters.
    We looked to see if there was any evidence of greater sophistication of astronomy in the ancient Egyptians’ ability to measure smaller units of time rather than just days of the year. The evidence is that the ancient Egyptians measured the passage of time by means of star clocks, which divided the transiting heavens into groups of stars that marked out hours – known as decans. The title of imy wnwt or ‘hour-watcher’ was in use right up to the Ptolemaic period when Egypt was ruled by the family of a Macedonian general from the army of Alexander the Great in the 3rd century BC .
    However, this timekeeping by the stars looks as though it was, at later dates, little more than a memory of technique that had been introduced and forgotten a long time in the past. One Egyptologist makes the point well when he argues that knowledge of timekeeping seems to have occurred during a relatively brief period of the country’s history:
    …while we have lists of decans on various astronomical ceilings or other monuments to the end of Egyptian history, we have nothing at all approaching a star clock in form after the time of Merneptah (1223–1211 BC ) and that that was a purely funerary relic is indicated by the fact that its arrangement of stars is 600 years earlier into the twelfth dynasty. 5
    This indicates a regression in the ability to understand and monitor passing time. Apparently, knowledge of methods of timekeeping had been lost around one and a half millennia before the time of Queen Cleopatra.
    The whole feeling we take from looking at timekeeping in ancient Egypt is that it was not an indigenous skill. It appears to have been an overlay on their worldview – from some minority group or, more likely, from an external influence. Accurate timekeeping is an essential element of successful and detailed astronomy.
    As a discipline, modern archaeology has become extremely good at producing information and building frameworks of understanding regarding past cultures. Some of the techniques available today are simply astonishing – such as the ability to trace the lifetime movements of individuals from fragmentary bodily remains through analysis of their mineral intake during the time they lived, sometimes many thousands of years ago. Where the discipline is, in our opinion, sometimes wanting is in the ability to consider a bigger picture and to deal rigorously with apparent paradox. Whilst this may sound disrespectful, it is not intended to be. Undoubtedly it is easy to spot weaknesses when one does not have to sign up to the convention of procedure that has to be the adopted to provide a framework of ground rules that govern required behaviour.
    But, as the saying goes, all progress is due to the unreasonable person. Quite simply, it is sensible and reasonable to cooperate with the status quo – but any leap forward in understanding is likely to come from the individual who has the audacity to say, ‘we could look at this very differently.’
    If there is good evidence that fourth-dynasty Egyptians were not good astronomers, does it mean that any potential new evidence conflicting with that conclusion must automatically be assumed to be false? Why not suspend judgement and seek out scenarios that could allow both conclusions to coexist? Maybe there was a small group of architect-priests who were expert in understanding the stars and who were also good at measuring the passage of time but who had no opportunity of influencing the established calendar system. Or could a group of previously unidentified outsiders have been brought in to provide astronomical expertise? Certainly, the principle of Occam’s Razor – which logically objects to the invention of unnecessary components in the search for a solution to any question – would preclude such