Abstract
THE review referred to the physical statements, which were suitable because they could be dealt with on ground familiar to the readers of NATURE. They were not “remotely secondary,” but are put in the forefront of the volume, in the first 64 pages, and are referred to as a basis for other assertions. The assumed curvature of the casing of the pyramid is contradicted by the mark of the edge of the casing, which is now exposed at the north-east corner; it was straight within an inch. The length of the sides is asserted to have been 9141 inches, and this involves disregarding the sockets, and adding 10 inches to the longest socket side. The intricate assertions about chronology could not be discussed in a year of NATURE; but it is a safe method in all treatment of complex matters to look at the product; if that is physically impossible it is of no effect to argue about the detail. Now the proposed contemporaneousness of the Dynasties XII. and XIII., and the blank left between 1477 and 1216 B.C., are impossibilities in any view held by any scholar familiar with the monuments. Such a sample, of fundamental importance, relieves us from discussing how such results are reached. All that a discussion could prove would be the untrust-worthiness of its material or method. There are well-known equations proving that a = 2a, but they do not convince.
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pyramid and Prophecy. Nature 114, 751 (1924). https://doi.org/10.1038/114751a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/114751a0
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.