Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 2 votes

Sphinx and GP dates from 10 500 BC?


  • Please log in to reply
1650 replies to this topic

#1201    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • 8,581 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 17 November 2012 - 03:46 AM

View Postcladking, on 15 November 2012 - 04:33 PM, said:

This is the root of our disagreement and the point at which Egyptology took a wrong turn. This is the exact assumption that Egyptology makes to justify the interpretation of the Pyramid Texts as being understandable in terms of the book of the dead. There is no basis to justify this assumption. It is made because otherwise the PT exists in a vacuum and couldn’t be understood before now.

This discussion has grown wings and left me behind, so at this point there's only so much I can do to catch up. I'll start with this.

Which is wrong, just wrong. You're the one forming assumptions—unless you can cite an Egyptologist ever stating, at any point in time, that the stability of the state in the Old Kingdom reflects the meaning behind the passages in the Pyramid Texts. Your comment is nonsensical at best. It's evident to me that to make up for your lack of familiarity in Egyptian history and lack of understanding of Egyptology's methodology, you're trying to spin the facts to take the weight off the weaknesses in your own approach. Yet, no matter how hard you try, you cannot hide these weaknesses. They jump out at anyone who's familiar with ancient Egypt.

The Pyramid Texts speak for themselves. Your approach that the relative dearth of writing from the early periods of Egyptian history means we don't understand what the early Texts mean, is equally nonsensical. This is not how historical research is conducted. You've not dealt at all with the fact that this entire corpus of spells went on unbroken for centuries past the Old Kingdom, experiencing additions and deletions along the way, but never stopping cold. This even occurred in those periods when the state did collapse, namely the Intermediate Periods. Even then, the spells went on. The meanings did not change at any point of time, so it's nonsensical to suppose they all meant something entirely different prior to late Dynasty 5.

The similarity with the Book of the Dead merely expresses the ongoing tradition. You truly don't understand the research behind not just the Pyramid Texts but the linguistic realm, as well. Considering the origin of the Pyramid Texts likely lies in prehistory, your approach becomes only more unrealistic. When they were first being formed, pyramids hadn't even been built yet.

There simply was no societal schism in the Old Kingdom. Upsets and court intrigues? Almost certainly, but no societal collapse. No such evidence exists. You need to avoid writing platitudes and start dealing with the evidence head on, or you'll only continue to produce the same mistakes as you write exactly the same material you've been posting for years. Periods of serious societal collapse (i.e., Intermediate Periods) are easily recognizable because, as one example, almost no colossal building programs occur. That's obviously not the case for any point of time in the Old Kingdom.

Quote

It is quite obvious that the PT is an earlier version of the book of the dead but this does not mean in any way whatsoever that it must have the same meaning or the same referents for the words. We don’t know what these words meant to the pyramid builders because they exist nowhere other than the PT...

There’s no evidence that the meaning of the Pyramid Texts has anything to do with “religion”. Yes, one might say that this concept is “apparent” but it’s only apparent because Egyptology insists on translating the word “neter” as “god”. From context though it is obvious the word “neter” should be translated as “natural phenomenon”. And this is only the first of the huge changes, the first schism, that happened.

Your personal buzzword "referents" doesn't mean anything. You fail to address linguistic research and somehow—goodness only knows how—feel that you're equipped to upset centuries of concerted research. What of the offering formulae in private tombs, first seen as far back as the Early Dynastic Period? What of prayers and entreaties to deities in private chapels? Their origin is the Pyramid Texts, of course. You're trying to present a vacuum where none exists.

The term nTr is a good example. From the start its context makes it clear the word was tied in with the divine—either deities or the blessed dead. It doesn't mean "nature" or "natural phenomenon" or any of the other opinions you've provided. There wasn't even a word for "nature"  or "natural phenomenon" in the ancient Egyptian language. You have to divorce yourself from your own beliefs and assumptions before you can even hope to begin to understand how the ancient people thought and felt. They left plentiful evidence to help to explain much of it—you're assumptions to the contrary do not alter basic facts.

Again, there was no schism. You've only stated there was, but you cannot offer the least evidence that there was.

That's sufficient for now. This discussion isn't about your geyser theme and I want to warn you away from hijacking another thread toward that end. I'm giving you leeway because I allowed Scott to address some of the beliefs he's developed for his own theme. As it is, we've all gone far astray from the topic of this discussion.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#1202    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • 8,581 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 17 November 2012 - 04:39 AM

View Postsamspade, on 16 November 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

well the fact Huni pyramid is a cenotaph speaks for itself and validates  my point that a pyramid can be a tomb as in a  cenotaph which is tomb where there are no remains of the indiviual in the tomb.
Also a tiny pyramid in the 3rd Dyn would not fair well as a Seed Vault but regardless Huni pyramid proves a point that a pyramid can be a cenotaph. .

And as for the great pyramid,  it may well be a cenotaph as well, if the khufu was not buried in or under it.

To suggest the Great pyramid was design to be a seed vault is just foolish when one understands the true symbolism in the great pyramid that i have found during my path to enlightment. :)

View Postsamspade, on 16 November 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

You use the term tomb, but lets be clear a cenotaph is a tomb which has no body remains of that person within it.

Therefore there would be no proof in the form of remains within it if it was a cenotaph, other than a chance of remains placed elsewhere outside the cenotaph tomb..

later they used the term tomb of osiris, which basically in my view can be thought as a cenotaph as well if the pyramids were intended to be something like it.

Evidence may exist, and if they were as good as me in problem solving, they would know where to look and why.


I meant to come back to your point about Huni and a cenotaph. I am not aware of such a point presented in current historical literature. As far as that goes, there is no definitive identification as of yet for a tomb for Huni.

In summary, some early scholars studying ancient Egypt posited that the collapsed pyramid at Meidum was at least begun by Huni but perhaps completed by his putative son and heir, Sneferu. That theory is rarely considered valid in current research because there's frankly no real evidence to support it. There is near consensus now that the Meidum pyramid was Sneferu's from start to finish. There is also the Brick Pyramid at Abu Rawash, which contains certain architectural features in its unfinished design that many Egyptologists argue would place it in Dynasty 4. There is less consensus on this line of thought but many Egyptologists now believe this pyramid may have been begun by Huni. (In mentioning this latter pyramid, do not confuse it with the unfinished pyramid of Djedefre at the same site.)

In both cases, however, there is nothing of which I'm aware to suggest that either was built to be a cenotaph. Cenotaphs in royal architecture are poorly evidenced in the Old Kingdom. I can't think of any examples where there is even modest argument in favor of Old Kingdom royal cenotaph tombs.

There is also the series of tiny pyramids built up and down the Nile Valley. Some Egyptologists believe Huni built some of these and Sneferu the rest, while others argue Sneferu built all of them. No one knows why the little pyramids were made, although several theories exist. What's universally agreed, however, is that they had nothing to do with burials or cenotaphs. None were built in necropoli, for instance, and non contain features associated with burials, cenotaph or otherwise (subterranean chambers, for example). To give you a sense of size, the smallest royal pyramid belongs to Unis at the end of Dynasty 5, which measures 58 x 58 meters at the base. It's unusually small for a royal pyramid, although there's little doubt that Unis was interred in it. The largest of the mysterious tiny pyramids, however, measures only 31 x 31 meters at the base. These clearly served no funerary purpose, so they also could not be considered cenotaphs.

To your point about Osiris and his tomb, this was an ancient tomb in the Abydos necropolis. This was actually the tomb of Djer, a king in Dynasty 1. Its identification with Osiris was probably firmly set by Dynasty 12, by which time its identification with Djer had been forgotten by the Egyptians. After all, the first dynasty of their history was already an ancient period by the time of the Egyptians of Dynasty 12 (some 1,100 years had elapsed by that time). To be sure, based on the sum total of evidence, the Egyptians of Dynasty 12 (and later) did not regard that Abydos tomb as a cenotaph for Osiris but, literally, as his actual tomb. That's one of the reasons the whole of the Abydos necropolis became the principal cult center for the god Osiris.

The only royal pyramid of which I'm aware for which there's reasonable evidence to see it as a cenotaph, is the pyramid of Senusret III at Dashur, dating to Dynasty 12. Several kings built more than one pyramid, but that doesn't mean one or the other was seen as a cenotaph. Senusret's Dashur pyramid might have been, although there is not universal agreement on this.

Where you and I can agree is the idea of pyramids as recovery vaults. One would think they would've equipped the pyramids with a hell of a lot more chambers for storage, instead of one or two tiny chambers in most pyramids. The only real exception is the sprawling subterranean area of Djoser's Step Pyramid, but as it is, the average pair of grain silos from the Old Kingdom could've held a hell of a lot more grain and other provisions than Sneferu's, Khufu's, Khafre's, and Menkaure's pyramids combined. That's what grain silos were for, after all.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#1203    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 17 November 2012 - 10:06 AM

View Postcladking, on 16 November 2012 - 09:34 PM, said:

My point is that the very first pyramid (Djoser's) was a great pyramid.  Yes, it's only 1/ 45th the effort
of G1 but it's far larger than their known technology could build.  We can either assume that this marks
the date the little green men landed or we can do science to figure out how they did it even if it really
did require alien help.

What are people so afraid of?  Why has there been almost no real science done at Giza since 1986
when it was essentially proven these were built with counterweights? Why have we been sitting on our
hands for a quarter of a century?

There is nothing to show me pyramids or the largest obelisks were beyond their technology. Certainly it is puzzling to see exactly how they did it, and with all our technology I think we should be in awe of them. I think your assumption it was beyond their technology would also need to be applied to the nearly contemporary Stonehenge and other megalithic structures around Europe. Either neolithic people were capable of moving large amounts of stone and large individual stones, or they were not and had external help. Then let us presume they had external help, then why would these helpers seemingly only give help to lift stones, and not some advanced medical knowledge, or some technology to enable them to built steam engines and generate electricity etc etc. Why would these aliens or whatever limit their help to just lifting some stones, it does not make sense. As for counterweights, well, I think I saw all these reconstruction documentaries and was very unimpressed by all of them. What is needed is a full scale pyramid to be built, then I'm sure that faced with such a task the correct method would soon be found, as it is not the case in small scale playing about for TV, even if Lehner is involved. Any volunteers? I only need your services for 20 or so years, and you'll get as much gritty bread and beer as you need.


#1204    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 37,145 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 17 November 2012 - 10:12 AM

View PostAtentutankh-pasheri, on 17 November 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

There is nothing to show me pyramids or the largest obelisks were beyond their technology. Certainly it is puzzling to see exactly how they did it, and with all our technology I think we should be in awe of them. I think your assumption it was beyond their technology would also need to be applied to the nearly contemporary Stonehenge and other megalithic structures around Europe. Either neolithic people were capable of moving large amounts of stone and large individual stones, or they were not and had external help. Then let us presume they had external help, then why would these helpers seemingly only give help to lift stones, and not some advanced medical knowledge, or some technology to enable them to built steam engines and generate electricity etc etc. Why would these aliens or whatever limit their help to just lifting some stones, it does not make sense. As for counterweights, well, I think I saw all these reconstruction documentaries and was very unimpressed by all of them. What is needed is a full scale pyramid to be built, then I'm sure that faced with such a task the correct method would soon be found, as it is not the case in small scale playing about for TV, even if Lehner is involved. Any volunteers? I only need your services for 20 or so years, and you'll get as much gritty bread and beer as you need.

But it does, they wanted to bless us with the instituting of fringe archeologists on the planet! Every very advanced civilization has some to combat boredom :devil:

Edited by questionmark, 17 November 2012 - 10:12 AM.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#1205    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 17 November 2012 - 01:44 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 17 November 2012 - 04:39 AM, said:

Where you and I can agree is the idea of pyramids as recovery vaults. One would think they would've equipped the pyramids with a hell of a lot more chambers for storage, instead of one or two tiny chambers in most pyramids.

SC: The combined cubic capacity of the early, giant pyramids far exceeds that of our modern Svalbard Global Seed Vault. Do you consider the SGSV a granary to immediately feed the entire world after some cataclysm?  No, you don't and neither should you consider the Pyramid Recovery Vaults in such a way. They were a safeguard should the very worst happen, to ensure the recovery i.e. the corporeal rebirth of the kingdom hence why I consider that these early pyramids would later become associated with the 16 or so dismembered and scattered body parts of Osiris, the AE god of rebirth and regeneration --allegorically speaking, of course. ("This Pyramid is Osiris" PT). See here.

If everything were to be washed away in a great inundation or otherwise lost by some other means, where do you obtain the seeds to start again and how do you ensure they will be found (sooner rather than later)? I'll give you a clue - the seeds (and other essential recovery items) were placed in very BIG thus highly visible structures whose name begins with the letter 'P'.

*snip*

Edited by Daughter of the Nine Moons, 18 November 2012 - 01:03 AM.
Removed snotty remark

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#1206    Tutankhaten-pasheri

Tutankhaten-pasheri

    Buratinologist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:22 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:страна дураков

Posted 17 November 2012 - 04:21 PM

Posted Image

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri, 17 November 2012 - 04:22 PM.


#1207    samspade

samspade

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 263 posts
  • Joined:28 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 November 2012 - 09:38 PM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 17 November 2012 - 04:39 AM, said:

Cenotaphs in royal architecture are poorly evidenced in the Old Kingdom. I can't think of any examples where there is even modest argument in favor of Old Kingdom royal cenotaph tombs.

There is also the series of tiny pyramids built up and down the Nile Valley. Some Egyptologists believe Huni built some of these and Sneferu the rest, while others argue Sneferu built all of them. No one knows why the little pyramids were made, although several theories exist. What's universally agreed, however, is that they had nothing to do with burials or cenotaphs.

I have mention this discussion to you in a older thread and perhaps you have forgotten.
But to recap, Huni most likely died away from home, without a body to inter,
so Elephantine stands as a cenotaph.


http://www.narmer.pl/pir/pir1_en.htm
here is a quote  from  the above link

"This small pyramid, about 7 kilometers south of administrative center of Middle Egypt, Minya, is the only one that is located on the east bank of the Nile. The pyramid, whose ruins today reach a heightof scarcely 5 meters, was built of limestone bound with mortar made of mud, sand and lime. In 1911 the pyramid was investigated by Raymond Weill and, later, Philippe Lauer. This pyramid is ascribed to pharaoh Huni, as he is thought to possess numerous step cenotaphs (W.Kaiser i G.Dreyer)."


3rd Dynasty had 7 small pyramids not intended to be  tomb for the physical body of the pharoh,
but it is easily seen that it stands as a cenotaph because It is believe these pyramids marked locations which  were associated with gods.  Elephantine is 1 of those 7 pyramids.

http://www.globalegy...ary.aspx?id=271

So when one sees a relationship with pyramids and markers on the ground for a god, it clearly shows a pyramid has a relationship with a god.



.

Edited by samspade, 17 November 2012 - 10:35 PM.


#1208    Daughter of the Nine Moons

Daughter of the Nine Moons

    ☆。Fearstriker Do'Teh 。☆

  • 14,920 posts
  • Joined:11 Jan 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:I forgot...

  • ☆彡

Posted 18 November 2012 - 01:05 AM

Scott Creighton

If you are unable to remain polite and courteous, please refrain from posting.

Thank you for your cooperation.

"You cannot pass," he said. … "I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass. The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn. Go back to the Shadow! You cannot pass."

#1209    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 10,590 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 18 November 2012 - 04:04 AM

View PostAlcibiades9, on 16 November 2012 - 09:34 PM, said:

Would everyone please stop saying rubbish...



Is there a recently promoted Moderator in the house?   Tell them to stop saying rubbish...
Agreed.
I suggest a switch to "shrubbery."

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Anybody like Coleridge?

#1210    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 10,590 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 18 November 2012 - 04:06 AM

Dang!

That's what I get for responding before reading the rest of the thread.

I guess great minds do think alike!

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Anybody like Coleridge?

#1211    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • 8,581 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 18 November 2012 - 04:34 AM

View Postsamspade, on 17 November 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

I have mention this discussion to you in a older thread and perhaps you have forgotten.
But to recap, Huni most likely died away from home, without a body to inter,
so Elephantine stands as a cenotaph.


http://www.narmer.pl/pir/pir1_en.htm
here is a quote  from  the above link

"This small pyramid, about 7 kilometers south of administrative center of Middle Egypt, Minya, is the only one that is located on the east bank of the Nile. The pyramid, whose ruins today reach a heightof scarcely 5 meters, was built of limestone bound with mortar made of mud, sand and lime. In 1911 the pyramid was investigated by Raymond Weill and, later, Philippe Lauer. This pyramid is ascribed to pharaoh Huni, as he is thought to possess numerous step cenotaphs (W.Kaiser i G.Dreyer)."


3rd Dynasty had 7 small pyramids not intended to be  tomb for the physical body of the pharoh,
but it is easily seen that it stands as a cenotaph because It is believe these pyramids marked locations which  were associated with gods.  Elephantine is 1 of those 7 pyramids.

http://www.globalegy...ary.aspx?id=271

So when one sees a relationship with pyramids and markers on the ground for a god, it clearly shows a pyramid has a relationship with a god.



.

I remember that discussion now. I don't recall, however, what your source is about Huni's having died away from home. I would appreciate clarification on that. Very little is known about Huni, who appears to have been a minor king, so I don't know where your source is pulling this from.

In any case, it's probably neither here nor there. I'm just curious to know why you think this. As to the little pyramids, these were the ones I briefly described in my previous post to you. I visited your web page and definitely take issue with the use of the word "cenotaph" for these little monuments. The author of this web page is vague on his or her own source for using the word, although I note a citation for W. Keiser and G. Dreyer. I'm not well familiar with Keiser's body of work but "G. Dreyer" would almost certainly be Günter Dreyer, who's one of the leading experts on the prehistoric and Early Dynastic tombs and monuments of the Abydos necropolis. I'm not sure why he'd even be commenting on the tiny pyramids. I'm left to wonder if the author of your web page incorrectly cited this information about "cenotaph."

In general I caution against using web pages as primary sources. They're often unreliable.

In connection to these tiny pyramids I would draw your attention to more relevant and recognized experts on the issue, such as Aidan Dodson (e.g., 2006: 54-56) and Miroslav Verner (e.g., 2001: 168-173). They both plainly state that the purpose for the tiny pyramids is not known. They and others make a careful note to explain that none of the seven tiny pyramids have subterranean spaces or, a point to which I'll return momentarily, ancillary offering chapels and other critical structures.

Although no one can answer exactly what the tiny pyramids were made for, current research is universal in describing them as something other than funerary in nature. Cenotaphs are very funerary in nature, so the tiny pyramids don't fit this description, either. I won't go into details about other theories as to their purpose, as I'm sure you're capable of searching this out for yourself. Most important is not to latch onto one theory, especially if it's outdated, when there is no sufficient evidence to support that theory.

Dodson identifies all seven of the tiny pyramids as the work of Sneferu. Verner is more liberal in attestation and does not nail down a specific king, and I must confess Verner's interpretation is probably the more reliable of the two because almost none of the tiny pyramids bear any observable, physical attestation (meaning, we cannot tie most of them to any specific, single king). The one reliable exception is the tiny monument at Seila, which was found accompanied by a stela inscribed for Sneferu. It is for this reason as well as the plausibility that all seven of the tiny pyramids appear to have been made in a short span of time, that Dodson assigns all of them to Sneferu. He has a point but it can't be proved. For that matter, we can't be sure if more of these tiny pyramids once existed.

The attestation of the Elephantine pyramid to Huni is based on a granite cone found nearby, inscribed with his name. However, it was not found at or immediately near the Elephantine pyramid, so ascribing the tiny pyramid to Huni is not a reliable approach. Elephantine witnessed a great amount of building activity from the start of the Early Dynastic Period, so Huni's granite cone could have come from the ruins of a nearby temple or other monument and might not have had anything to do with the tiny pyramid.

Now, back to identifying the tiny pyramids as funerary structures, including cenotaphs. A cenotaph might not contain an actual body but in all other respects it represents a functioning tomb. This includes a subterranean chamber for the crypt or burial chamber: none of the seven tiny pyramids possess subterranean chambers. This also includes ancillary structures to serve as chapels and temples, so a cult can be maintained at the cenotaph: none of the seven tiny pyramids possess such structures.

In other words, it is obvious the seven tiny pyramids were not equipped for any sort of burial purpose. They could not have even served as cenotaphs because they could not serve any ritual funerary purpose. None of them were even built in necropoli, which is critical to understand. One of the tiny pyramids does contain a handful of burials in the vicinity, but these appear to have no real connection with the pyramid itself.

None of these tiny pyramids were cenotaphs.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#1212    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • 8,581 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 18 November 2012 - 04:36 AM

View PostHarte, on 18 November 2012 - 04:06 AM, said:

Dang!

That's what I get for responding before reading the rest of the thread.

I guess great minds do think alike!

Harte

Rubbish!

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#1213    samspade

samspade

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 263 posts
  • Joined:28 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 November 2012 - 06:32 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 18 November 2012 - 04:34 AM, said:

I'm not sure why he'd even be commenting on the tiny pyramids. I'm left to wonder if the author of your web page incorrectly cited this information about "cenotaph."

View Postkmt_sesh, on 18 November 2012 - 04:34 AM, said:

None of these tiny pyramids were cenotaphs.

Since your view counterdicts  some Egyptologists I can not agree with you.

http://www.touregypt...s/smallstep.htm
here is a quote from the above link

"Huni, the last ruler of the 3rd Dynasty, who probably at least built the one located on Elephantine Island.

They are very different than the later, larger pyramids, having no internal chambers, nor any underground structures. Among them, only the pyramid in Zawiyet el-Meiyitin was not built on the west bank of the Nile. The purpose of these pyramids is a matter of dispute among Egyptologists, though without any chambers within or below, they could probably not have been true tombs. Nor has any evidence of a funerary cult been found near these pyramids, though some believe they might have been centotaphs (fake tombs) of queens. Others believe they might have been shrines connected with the myth of Horus and Seth, or perhaps predecessors of the later sun temples, while still others believe they represented the primeval mound on which life was created. In fact, we may never completely understand their purpose, unless other evidence is uncovered."


#1214    tipsy_munchkin

tipsy_munchkin

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 637 posts
  • Joined:20 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:england

  • We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light.
    Plato

Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:22 PM

Wandered across a website and it reminded me somewhat of this thread and many other similar ones. I thought I would share as I think some posting here will appreciate the sentiments being expressed. http://www.badarchaeology.com/

Edited to add: Shrubbery... I felt left out

Edited by tipsy_munchkin, 19 November 2012 - 11:23 PM.

    

*     I'm pink therefore i'm spam     *

    


#1215    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,936 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 19 November 2012 - 11:33 PM

View Posttipsy_munchkin, on 19 November 2012 - 11:22 PM, said:

Wandered across a website and it reminded me somewhat of this thread and many other similar ones. I thought I would share as I think some posting here will appreciate the sentiments being expressed. http://www.badarchaeology.com/

Edited to add: Shrubbery... I felt left out

We'll just make you an honorary member of "The Nights Who Say Ni".  :lol:

It's always a good idea to keep the link to 'badarchaeology.com' handy.

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users