why no hieroglyphs inside the great pyramid

[zoombie]

Just wanted to know...

maybe because at the time, it wasn't fashionable to do so??

Edited June 8, 2010 by zoombie

[:PsYKoTiC:BeHAvIoR:]

Just wanted to know...

maybe because at the time, it wasn't fashionable to do so??

While there's no real explanation, in my opinion, the Great Pyramid was used to acquire knowledge from their Gods. I know many historians and archeologists leans on the Great Pyramid being a tomb fit for a Pharaoh, but many facts are telling us otherwise.

For one, no mummies or human remains have been found in the Great Pyramid and it is not likely that they were removed by Tomb robbers. The Great Pyramid is the only pyramid built with an ascending system of passages. All the other pyramids have only a descending system with the pharaoh buried below. Also it is the only pyramid with a Grand Gallery.

What would be its purpose in a tomb? As you mentioned, there are no hieroglyphics, paintings or inscriptions found inside. Almost all the other pyramids in Egypt are covered. Pharaohs discovered were plastered with all of the above as part of their accomplishments and memory of their passing to the afterlife.

My guess is the Great Pyramid was left without any inspcriptions of any kind so the knowledge recieved from the divine wouldn't be tainted or influenced in any way inside its walls.

But that's just my observations.

Edited June 8, 2010 by :PsYKoTiC:BeHAvIoR:

[Abramelin]

Who Built the Great Pyramid?

The Great Pyramid is largely anonymous, but controversial hieroglyphs hidden above the King's Chamber say who built the pyramid. We look at efforts to discredit the glyphs.

by Jason Colavito

For millennia, the Great Pyramid has stood in mute testimony to the architectural genius of its builders. Within its walls no hieroglyph proclaims the name of the architect and no cartouche celebrates the life of the pharoah for whom it was built. When the caliph Mamum forced his way in over a thousand years ago, he found no record of who had built the massive structure. Not in the Subterranean Chamber, nor the so-called Queen's Chamber or even in the much-vaunted King's Chamber. Not until 1837 did any marking or identifier turn up within the pyramid's walls, and only then deep inside the secret relieving chambers which keep the pyramid's bulk from crushing the flat roof of the King's Chamber. Many alternative researchers believe that these marks were faked to bolster the traditional identification of Khufu with the Great Pyramid. The first relieving chamber came to light in the 18th century, as Martin Stower says in Forging the Pharoah's Name:

"The four remaining compartments were discovered by Colonel Howard Vyse, and his assistants, in 1837; ... they had been sealed since the pyramid was built, and were reached only by tunnelling; this was done by hired quarrymen, using gunpowder."

Computer programmer and part-time amateur pyramidologist Tim Hunker gives the conspiracy theory of what happened next:

"'Quarry Marks' exist in the relieving chambers above the King's Chamber, including one mark which is reported to indicate Khufu, the pharaoh under whose reign the Great Pyramid was built. One source suggests that these quarry marks were faked by Howard Vyse in 1837. The reasons give[n] are many, but the main ones are: These marks appear only in the 4 relieving chambers opend by Vyse and not in the original relieving chamber opened by Davison in 1765. Vyse's diary for that day described a thorough examination of the relieving rooms but no mention of the hieroglyphics and quarry marks. The marks were mentioned only the next day, when Vyse returned with witnesses. There are problems with the hieroglyphics in that they are a mixture of styles and syntax/usage from differing time periods of Egypt. And finally, in the marks bearing Khufu's name, mistakes were made. Those same mistakes occur in the only two hieroglyphics references that would have been available to Vyse at that time."

An anonymous Geocities web page takes this theory to heart, saying "The evidence outlined above shows beyond reasonable doubt that Vyse faked the inscription and that Khufu did not build the Great Pyramid." Of course, even if the inscriptions were fake, that alone does not disprove Khufu's ownership. If the "Made in China" sticker fell off a pair of sneakers, that does not mean that they suddenly sprang from Mexico instead.

While Hunker goes on to espouce a firm belief in pyramidology, the belief that the Great Pyramid holds profound meaning in its measurements. But where did he get this strange idea that the quarry marks are fakes? He says only in the text that "one source suggests" this is the case. Turning to the notes at the end of his article, he informs the reader that he gleaned this information from "The Message of the Sphinx, 1996, Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval, ISBN 0-517-70503-6"

Originally titled Keeper of Genesis in its first press run in Britian, Message of the Sphinx represents the first joint book by Fingerprints of the Gods author Graham Hancock and Orion Mystery co-author Robert Bauval. Together, they combined their theorizing about a pre-Ice Age advanced civilization into a unified theory of ancient man. Briefly stated, the two men came to believe that an advanced culture disappeared during the Ice Age, and its survivors gained footholds throughout the world, establishing ancient cultures like the Egyptians, the Maya and the Easter Islanders. (see our article Dusting For Fingerprints)

The two authors devoted three pages to questioning the validity of the Vyse find, elaborating on the information summarized above. They then say the Egyptological acceptance of Vyse's quarry marks "verges on intellectual chicanery." They claim that while they raise troubling questions about the Vyse find, they "are frankly puzzled that such questions are never asked." They say, however, that the questions are irrelevant to their larger argument about who owns the pyramids:

"[E]ven if the quarry marks were not forged by Vyse, what do they really prove? Isn't attributing the Great Pyramid to Khufu on the basis of a few lines of graffiti a bit like handing over the keys of the Empire State Building to a man named 'Kilroy' just because his name was found spray-painted on the walls of the lift."

But Hancock and Bauval were not the first to market these theories. Alternative-history believer David Pratt explains where the authors got their ideas about the mason's quarry marks:

"The authenticity of these masons' markings has been challenged by Zecharia Sitchin, who argues that they were forged by Vyse and his assistants in the hope of gaining fame and fortune. He claims that the hieroglyphs are ungrammatical and misspelt (with the sign for 'ra', the supreme god of Egypt, being written instead of 'kh'), that the cursive script in which they were written dates from a later era, and that they were copied (complete with mistakes) from standard contemporary works on hieroglyphics. This argument has been repeated by several other writers, including Graham Hancock (though he has since rejected the forgery theory), Eric von Däniken, and Colin Wilson."

We will return to Hancock's acceptance of the quarry marks in a moment.

Zecharia Sitchin is one of the most famous proponents of the ancient astronaut theory today, second only to the father of the theory, Erich von Däniken, in importance to true believers. Sitchin claims to be the only person who can "correctly" interpret Sumerian writings. While many have disputed his translations and conclusions, Sitchin maintains that the Sumerian writings show that aliens called Annunaki from an exploded planet visited earth and created humanity to mine gold for them. Author Ian Lawton:

"In order to support his revised chronology of mankind, and his contention that these pyramids were built as 'ground markers' for the Anunnaki's incoming space flights, it was Sitchin who first suggested that Colonel Richard Howard Vyse faked the hieroglyphics in the Relieving Chambers in the Great Pyramid, some of which include the name Khufu. "

Like von Däniken before him, Sitchin needed the Great Pyramid to represent something greater than a pharoah's magnificent construction. To "prove" the theory of alien intervention, it must be a construct of the alien visitors. As Martin Stower said, "Zecharia Sitchin - a writer in the 'Ancient Astronaut' genre - is by no means the first to see the problem these marks pose for 'alternative' accounts of the Great Pyramid. They show that the pyramid was built by Ancient Egyptians, for the Pharaoh Khufu. It was NOT built by aliens..."

Stower demolishes Sitchin's theory in clear and simple language:

"In 1837, even Samuel Birch [Vyse's assistant and Sitchin's assumed forger] couldn't have faked the quarry marks. They have features which even experts didn't understand, but which have become clear since. In fact they fit in perfectly with later discoveries and later analyses."

Stower shows that the hieroglyphs' "misspellings" and errors were actually imperfections in 19th century knowledge of hieroglyphs projected onto the correctly-spelled hieroglyphs themselves.

Nevertheless, the authority of Zecharia Sitchin gave free licence to over a dozen alternative authors to cite the "forged" quarry marks as proof that Khufu did not build the pyramid.

For this reason von Däniken could still say in 1996's Eyes of the Sphinx: "[T]he Great Pyramid is a huge, largely anonymous work... There is not a single inscription that would indicate how it was [built]. No one left behind even the briefest note to answer any of our questions regarding its construction. The pyramid itself features no heiroglyphics at all [emphasis added]."

As we have seen from the earlier discussion of the quarry marks, this is patently false. Whether they are genuine or not, the quarry marks do exist, and they are hieroglyphics.

While von Däniken sticks to the forgery line, Graham Hancock changed his mind in the light of "new" evidence known to Egyptology since the 19th century. Says Hancock:

"Cracks in some of the joints reveal hieroglyphs set far back into the masonry. No 'forger' could possibly have reached in there after the blocks had been set in place - blocks, I should add, that weigh tens of tons each and that are immovably interlinked with one another. The only reasonable conclusion is the one which orthodox Egyptologists have already long held - namely that the hieroglyphs are genuine Old Kingdom graffiti and that they were daubed on the blocks before construction began."

Hancock wrote those words in 1998, just months before the launch of his high-profile television series "Quest for the Lost Civilization" and his book Heaven's Mirror. Hancock seemed to be seeking credibility as a serious researcher at the time, and he revised his beliefs accordingly:

"Although I was still open to the erroneous forgery theory while Keeper/Message was being written, I was also very much open to the orthodox theory that the Giza pyramids were Fourth Dynasty work - irrespective of the provenance of the quarry marks."

This statement of 1998 does not seem to square with Hancock's 1996 claim that accepting quarry marks "verges on intellectual chicanery." To this reporter, that statement did not sound like someone who was "open to the orthodox theory."

Hancock sets the record straight about his beliefs about the Pyramid: "For the record I believe that Khufu did build the Great Pyramid - or anyway most of it (perhaps the subterranean chamber and some other rock-hewn parts of the structure may be earlier)."

And so we have come full-circle, from the Egyptological acceptance of Vyse's findings, to alternative history's rejection and then acceptance of them. Along the way, each author's acceptance of the Sitchin theory compounds the damage done. A Google search turned up 61 pages that repeat some iteration of the Sitchin theory, whether from the mouth of Sitchin, Alan Alford or Graham Hancock.

As Ian Lawton says, "Bearing in mind that it was this original attack by Sitchin which prompted so many other 'alternative Egyptologists' to repeat his accusations without question - although fortunately now most of them have seen the light - this saga perhaps more than any other tells us a very great deal about Sitchin and his work."

http://jcolavito.tripod.com/lostcivilizations/id10.html

[SlimJim22]

I don't know but I suspect being allowed inside would have been a passage of initiation and to get there you would need to memorize whatever was to be said. No cheating is my theory.

Also, wasn't the Great Pyramid encased in stone that was covered with inscriptions, which were then taken away by arab looters. That was how I heard it but I don't know if it is true. Hopefully some of the resident experts will shed some light. Good question though.

[zoser]

The so called cartouche written above the Kings Chamber in the GP has to be one of the biggest jokes in the whole of Egyptology.

It just doesn't stand up to any form of scrutiny, and has more to do with the furtherance of the career of one Howard Vyse, perhaps the biggest archaeological vandal and fraud of all time.

If the builders were artistic and wanted to display themsleves and their culture within the worlds greatest monument then no doubt could easily have done so more dramatically and thoroughly.

So why didn't they? Well quite simply they didn't need to. Their communication was telepathic and mentally based, rather than the more crude vocal, written and pictorial.

Think: Never will you see teeth shown in Egyptian art. The clues abound for those with eyes to see.

Z

[Qwasz]

I believe that none of the early pyramids had hieroglyphs in them. That includes all of the pyramids leading up to Giza and then also beyond.

[ShadowSot]

What would be its purpose in a tomb? As you mentioned, there are no hieroglyphics, paintings or inscriptions found inside. Almost all the other pyramids in Egypt are covered. Pharaohs discovered were plastered with all of the above as part of their accomplishments and memory of their passing to the afterlife.

No, most of the writing is on the mortuary temples around the pyramids, no writing was found in pyramids until the 5th dynasty, when thye Pyramid texts came into play.

Previouse to that, none of the pyramds had writing n them.

For one, no mummies or human remains have been found in the Great Pyramid and it is not likely that they were removed by Tomb robbers.

Actually, it's fairly likely.

Mummies were buried with valuables even in their linens.

During the first intermediate period, we have reports of the tombs being robbed, and the bodies being chucked out. The bodies were detroyed to gain the valuables about the bodies.

Pharaohs discovered were plastered with all of the above as part of their accomplishments and memory of their passing to the afterlife.

Pharaohs plastered their accomplishments on temples and other constructions, however even into the later dynastys when tehy were using the pyramid Texts, as their called, little or no references were made to their accomplishments in life.

Much of it was in the form of the treasures left with them, which would have been looted.

There is a lower chamber, like there was in earlier pyramids, however during construction they changed to a higher chamber, where the sarcophagus is found.

[Swede]

Just wanted to know...

maybe because at the time, it wasn't fashionable to do so??

The below addresses some aspects of the topic;

http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=17

.

[Abramelin]

The so called cartouche written above the Kings Chamber in the GP has to be one of the biggest jokes in the whole of Egyptology.

It just doesn't stand up to any form of scrutiny, and has more to do with the furtherance of the career of one Howard Vyse, perhaps the biggest archaeological vandal and fraud of all time.

If the builders were artistic and wanted to display themsleves and their culture within the worlds greatest monument then no doubt could easily have done so more dramatically and thoroughly.

So why didn't they? Well quite simply they didn't need to. Their communication was telepathic and mentally based, rather than the more crude vocal, written and pictorial.

Think: Never will you see teeth shown in Egyptian art. The clues abound for those with eyes to see.

Z

Please read my former post:

"Cracks in some of the joints reveal hieroglyphs set far back into the masonry. No 'forger' could possibly have reached in there after the blocks had been set in place - blocks, I should add, that weigh tens of tons each and that are immovably interlinked with one another. The only reasonable conclusion is the one which orthodox Egyptologists have already long held - namely that the hieroglyphs are genuine Old Kingdom graffiti and that they were daubed on the blocks before construction began."

[The_Spartan]

i hate his large fonts..he surely has some sort of complex and feels insecure unless he expresses himself loudly and in big bold fonts.

[Antimony]

Think: Never will you see teeth shown in Egyptian art. The clues abound for those with eyes to see.

Z

The same applies to paintings of Joséphine de Beauharnais, first wife of Napoléon Bonaparte. But that's because she had horrible teeth.

There's searching too far and then there's searching way too far.

[cladking]

Actually, it's fairly likely.

Mummies were buried with valuables even in their linens.

But there's no evidence of comtemporary burials or valuables in the great

pyramids. When the Caliphat Al Mamuum broke into G1, for instance, there

were no valuables nor evidence any had been there.

It might be possible to find evidence for valuables in the cracks of the

satones in the floor of the chambers but these excavations have not been

done using modern techniques.

During the first intermediate period, we have reports of the tombs being robbed, and the bodies being chucked out. The bodies were detroyed to gain the valuables about the bodies.

No, this isn't true. The "Admonitions of Ipuwer" are not known to have

copme from the FIP and date to a time many hundreds of years later. There

is scant mention of pyramids here but there's no reason to believe these

are referencing the great pyramids and plenty of reason to suppose they

are not.

Pharaohs plastered their accomplishments on temples and other constructions, however even into the later dynastys when tehy were using the pyramid Texts, as their called, little or no references were made to their accomplishments in life.

Much of it was in the form of the treasures left with them, which would have been looted.

There's almost nothing from before the 5th dynasty.

There is a lower chamber, like there was in earlier pyramids, however during construction they changed to a higher chamber, where the sarcophagus is found.

Even that this is a tomb is an assumption. It's not impossible but it seems

pretty odd that they'd build tombs gfor the king and then not say it was a tomb.

The builders built the pyramid of the king but nowhere does it say it was his

tomb. The Pyramid Texts clearly state that the sky was the tomb of the king

and the pyramid was his ka. It says this over and over in many different ways

so it would be hard to mistake. "The king rests in heaven as a mountain, as

a support".

[Abramelin]

i hate his large fonts..he surely has some sort of complex and feels insecure unless he expresses himself loudly and in big bold fonts.

I think he's near-sighted.

That explains why he always conveniently skips info that contradict his dreams.

So let's try another approach:

"Cracks in some of the joints reveal hieroglyphs set far back into the masonry. No 'forger' could possibly have reached in there after the blocks had been set in place - blocks, I should add, that weigh tens of tons each and that are immovably interlinked with one another. The only reasonable conclusion is the one which orthodox Egyptologists have already long held - namely that the hieroglyphs are genuine Old Kingdom graffiti and that they were daubed on the blocks before construction began."

[zoombie]

The below addresses some aspects of the topic;

http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=17

.

That links provide an interesting theory. Not to discredit the author or his reference but I find the idea of pyramids being rip off its original stone highly doubtful. The Egyptian goes to great length to build these pyramids/temples for the afterlife, religion/spirituality is a big part of their everyday life thus any delibrate attempt to damage these structures are sacrileges at best. I find it hard to belief that any Egyptian would just take stones out of temples/pyramids and use them to build roads/bridges.

I've also noticed that the author of that link reference to the same author a few times to support this theory. Not suggesting that there is a flaw in the research but perhaps other members could enlighten me.

[Swede]

That links provide an interesting theory. Not to discredit the author or his reference but I find the idea of pyramids being rip off its original stone highly doubtful. The Egyptian goes to great length to build these pyramids/temples for the afterlife, religion/spirituality is a big part of their everyday life thus any delibrate attempt to damage these structures are sacrileges at best. I find it hard to belief that any Egyptian would just take stones out of temples/pyramids and use them to build roads/bridges.

I've also noticed that the author of that link reference to the same author a few times to support this theory. Not suggesting that there is a flaw in the research but perhaps other members could enlighten me.

My apologies for presenting such a highly condensed reference. The time-line and extent of socio-political changes during the period under consideration was admittedly not well addressed by said reference. The material presented is not so much a theory as a distillation of some of the currently understood data.

Am unsure as to which author you may be referring to, but should it be Lehner, the text noted would be well worth acquiring.

Am short on time (as always!), but you may find that an exploration of the following may be helpful. Lay-oriented, but may provide some perspective. I will speculate that kmt_sesh, cormac, Searcher, et. al. can add to further understanding.

http://wsu.edu/~dee/EGYPT/TIMELINE.HTM

.

[zoser]

i hate his large fonts..he surely has some sort of complex and feels insecure unless he expresses himself loudly and in big bold fonts.

It's not the size that matters; rather it's what you do with it (the words I mean).

Go and get yourself a beer and chill a little my dear fellow.

[nognome]

i have not read all replies so somebody may have written this..i was under the assumption there is no air inside alot of pyramids...kinda hard to be arty when your choking for breath..just my opinion

Edited June 10, 2010 by nognome

[TheSearcher]

That links provide an interesting theory. Not to discredit the author or his reference but I find the idea of pyramids being rip off its original stone highly doubtful. The Egyptian goes to great length to build these pyramids/temples for the afterlife, religion/spirituality is a big part of their everyday life thus any delibrate attempt to damage these structures are sacrileges at best. I find it hard to belief that any Egyptian would just take stones out of temples/pyramids and use them to build roads/bridges.

I've also noticed that the author of that link reference to the same author a few times to support this theory. Not suggesting that there is a flaw in the research but perhaps other members could enlighten me.

The best one to help you with the way the Egyptians did or did not treat the temples and how they did or did not consider this sacrilege would be Kmt_Sesh. I find him to be the most knowledgeable about it.

This said, here are a few things to consider, even if you do not agree with the present theory. The pyramids in question were mostly build during the old kingdom and then, I would agree with you, any deliberate attempt to damage these structures would be sacrilegious. But don't make the mistake to assume that said devotion and religious belief did not change over time. It most certainly did, due to social / economic / political circumstances for example.

When the 6th dynasty and thus the old kingdom collapsed, it coincided with a series of poor floods from the Nile, which caused widespread hunger and death. All the administrative organization that had held the country together, during the Old Kingdom, fell apart. Of course chaos ensued and the country splintered apart into dozens of chiefdoms.

Now this lasted for about 100 years. During this time, I can assure you, they would have had no problem destroying and reusing stones from the pyramids and temples of the kings, that in their eyes were the most likely cause of their predicament. That state of mind was still present at later times, but to a lot lesser extend.

This is just an example I wanted to give, as to what I think Swede meant (Swede : correct me if I'm wrong mate.) It's true that the article does not take this into account, although it should. Then again, no article is perfect and it is a quite condensed explanation indeed. The article should have been a tad longer to better explain.

Also I don't understand where you think he only uses one author as reference, I counted a few actually, and the works he refers to, are well worth the read (only my opinion, the latter part ;-) ). Nothing wrong with using the same author a few times. I think we all do that once in a while.

M.Lehner, 'The Complete Pyramids', T

B.G.Trigger, B.J.Kemp, D.O'Connor, A.B.Lloyd, 'Ancient Egypt, A Social History',

A Dodson, 'After the Pyramids',

I.E.S.Edwards, 'The Pyramids of Egypt',

A.Fakhry, "The Pyramids",

[kmt_sesh]

No, this isn't true. The "Admonitions of Ipuwer" are not known to have

copme from the FIP and date to a time many hundreds of years later. There

is scant mention of pyramids here but there's no reason to believe these

are referencing the great pyramids and plenty of reason to suppose they

are not.

The sole surviving copy of the Admonitions of Ipuwer dates to the New Kingdom but no one argues that the original text was written a very long time before that. Just as probably anyone here can recognize the archaic nature of English in a Shakespearean play, a well-trained linguist of ancient Egyptian can discern that a text coming to us from the thirteenth century BCE was in a form of the language dating to centuries before that. Ancient Egyptian scribes preserved a wide body of literature in the form of script in which it was originally written. Most scholars who've studied the Admonitions of Ipuwer believe the text to date to the First Intermediate Period, although I concede that others argue the Second Intermediate Period. Admittedly, the text itself is vague in its descriptions and could be describing the period of the Hyksos as easily as the civil war and drought of the First Intermediate Period. However, the topsy-turvy nature of the Egypt as described in the Admonitions of Ipuwer, together with climatic upheavals, do argue in favor of civil war, which means the First Intermediate Period.

That said, it's not as though the Admonitions of Ipuwer is our only source. I have explained this to you before. Other texts of the First Intermediate Period are extant. These include tomb inscriptions and autobiographies which mention in no uncertain terms the depredations of the time. The drought and famine that led to civil war are frequently mentioned.

Then there is the text known as the Instruction to King Merikare, something I've also described to you in the past. This text dates unquestionably to the First Intermediate Period. It comes from either Dynasty 9 or Dynasty 10, the uncertainty lying in which King Khety is being referred to in the text (several kings bore the name Khety in this timeframe). The Instruction to King Merikare is very long so I won't bother quoting any but one example that clearly supports ShadowSot's statement (from Lichtheim 1975: 102):

Troops will fight troops

As the ancestors foretold;

Egypt fought in the graveyard,

Destroying tombs in vengeful destruction.

As I did it, so it happened,

As is done to one who strays from god's path.

Do not deal evilly with the Southland,

You know what the residence foretold about it;

As this happened so that may happen.

Egypt was embroiled in civil war. Rival factions were engaged in battle and looting one another's necropoli to sustain their war efforts. All sense of propriety had been abandoned and old prohibitions ignored for the sake of plunder. No, we cannot prove that this was happening at Giza, but chances are it were. We know it got so bad for the kings reigning from Memphis that they ended up abandoning the old capital and relocating (only to lose the civil war in the end, which led to Thebes' ascendency). Giza would've been left to its own devices, and as a particularly wealthy burial ground for a short time several dynasties earlier, it almost certainly fell prey to tomb raiders. There's no logical reason to suppose a rival dynasty ignored the Great Pyramid or the tombs around it. Indeed, it would be illogical to assume otherwise.

Even that this is a tomb is an assumption. It's not impossible but it seems

pretty odd that they'd build tombs gfor the king and then not say it was a tomb.

The builders built the pyramid of the king but nowhere does it say it was his

tomb. The Pyramid Texts clearly state that the sky was the tomb of the king

and the pyramid was his ka. It says this over and over in many different ways

so it would be hard to mistake. "The king rests in heaven as a mountain, as

a support".

Yes, based on your assumptions and speculations about the Pyramid Texts. After all these years or dissecting Mercer's translations, you still have not come to an appropriate understanding of what the Pyramid Texts meant to the Egyptians. The reason for this is obvious. You've never studied the culture, its people, or the religion. You approach the Great Pyramid and the Pyramid Texts as though they exist in a vacuum, so that guarantees your poor footing until you approach the research properly.

No Pyramid Texts exist in a preserved context dating to Dynasty 4. I do not deny that they existed at that time, and in fact it's a certainty they did, but in what form or with what content we cannot say. Therefore, from a proper research standpoint, you simply cannot so liberally apply them to the Great Pyramid. But I suppose that's beside the point. I know you're misinterpreting the Texts but it's still surprising you don't understand their funerary nature. Their plentiful mention of burial, the burial place, the underworld, funerary equipment, funerary statues, and standard funerary spells that can be observed elsewhere before, during, and after the Old Kingdom leave no room for error whatsoever that the Pyramid Texts were principally funerary in nature. To argue otherwise is a foolish pursuit.

[kmt_sesh]

The best one to help you with the way the Egyptians did or did not treat the temples and how they did or did not consider this sacrilege would be Kmt_Sesh. I find him to be the most knowledgeable about it.

Thank you, Searcher. I appreciate your kind comment.

LOL I took up too much of my already limited time this evening just attempting to straighten out more of cladking's misinterpretations of history, so I regret that I must pack it in for now. I do want to make some comments that are more germane to the OP. You and other posters have done a delightful job correcting a lot of the usual poorly informed speculations about hieroglyphs and the Great Pyramid, but I love a good discussion about ancient Egypt, so I hope to return to the topic tomorrow.

[cladking]

The sole surviving copy of the Admonitions of Ipuwer dates to the New Kingdom but no one argues that the original text was written a very long time before that. Just as probably anyone here can recognize the archaic nature of English in a Shakespearean play, a well-trained linguist of ancient Egyptian can discern that a text coming to us from the thirteenth century BCE was in a form of the language dating to centuries before that. Ancient Egyptian scribes preserved a wide body of literature in the form of script in which it was originally written. Most scholars who've studied the Admonitions of Ipuwer believe the text to date to the First Intermediate Period, although I concede that others argue the Second Intermediate Period. Admittedly, the text itself is vague in its descriptions and could be describing the period of the Hyksos as easily as the civil war and drought of the First Intermediate Period. However, the topsy-turvy nature of the Egypt as described in the Admonitions of Ipuwer, together with climatic upheavals, do argue in favor of civil war, which means the First Intermediate Period.

Even if it's the FIP it s not proof or even evidence that

the great pyramids were tombs since there were small pyramids

built before this. And, no, I am not convinced it is this old.

That said, it's not as though the Admonitions of Ipuwer is our only source. I have explained this to you before. Other texts of the First Intermediate Period are extant. These include tomb inscriptions and autobiographies which mention in no uncertain terms the depredations of the time. The drought and famine that led to civil war are frequently mentioned.

There's still nothing suggesting the great pyramids were tombs.

That they were tomnbs is an interpretation of egyptologists that

is based on no direct evidence.

Egypt was embroiled in civil war. Rival factions were engaged in battle and looting one another's necropoli to sustain their war efforts. All sense of propriety had been abandoned and old prohibitions ignored for the sake of plunder. No, we cannot prove that this was happening at Giza, but chances are it were.

There's no evidence any of the great pyramids were plundered or

that they were tombs.

Yes, based on your assumptions and speculations about the Pyramid Texts. After all these years or dissecting Mercer's translations, you still have not come to an appropriate understanding of what the Pyramid Texts meant to the Egyptians. The reason for this is obvious. You've never studied the culture, its people, or the religion. You approach the Great Pyramid and the Pyramid Texts as though they exist in a vacuum, so that guarantees your poor footing until you approach the research properly.

I think it's more egyptology that has "assumptions and speculations

about the Pyramid Texts". All I'm doing is reading them and trying

to discern their literal meaning. It is egyptology that assumes

these have a metaphoric meaning and they were intended as incantation.

It's egyptology which believes that the literal meaning is irrelevent.

I approach all the evidence as though that's the only thing that exists.

Egyptology has built up a huge system of beliefs based on evidence,

facts, and assumptions. The assumption that the PT isn't meant liter-

ally is how they view the culture.

No Pyramid Texts exist in a preserved context dating to Dynasty 4. I do not deny that they existed at that time, and in fact it's a certainty they did, but in what form or with what content we cannot say. Therefore, from a proper research standpoint, you simply cannot so liberally apply them to the Great Pyramid. But I suppose that's beside the point. I know you're misinterpreting the Texts but it's still surprising you don't understand their funerary nature. Their plentiful mention of burial, the burial place, the underworld, funerary equipment, funerary statues, and standard funerary spells that can be observed elsewhere before, during, and after the Old Kingdom leave no room for error whatsoever that the Pyramid Texts were principally funerary in nature. To argue otherwise is a foolish pursuit.

This is the "Hymms of Ascension". They obviously were written to be

read aloud at the ascension of the dead king. Or at least it's obvi-

ous if you take them literally.

[zoombie]

The best one to help you with the way the Egyptians did or did not treat the temples and how they did or did not consider this sacrilege would be Kmt_Sesh. I find him to be the most knowledgeable about it.

This said, here are a few things to consider, even if you do not agree with the present theory. The pyramids in question were mostly build during the old kingdom and then, I would agree with you, any deliberate attempt to damage these structures would be sacrilegious. But don't make the mistake to assume that said devotion and religious belief did not change over time. It most certainly did, due to social / economic / political circumstances for example.

When the 6th dynasty and thus the old kingdom collapsed, it coincided with a series of poor floods from the Nile, which caused widespread hunger and death. All the administrative organization that had held the country together, during the Old Kingdom, fell apart. Of course chaos ensued and the country splintered apart into dozens of chiefdoms.

Now this lasted for about 100 years. During this time, I can assure you, they would have had no problem destroying and reusing stones from the pyramids and temples of the kings, that in their eyes were the most likely cause of their predicament. That state of mind was still present at later times, but to a lot lesser extend.

This is just an example I wanted to give, as to what I think Swede meant (Swede : correct me if I'm wrong mate.) It's true that the article does not take this into account, although it should. Then again, no article is perfect and it is a quite condensed explanation indeed. The article should have been a tad longer to better explain.

Also I don't understand where you think he only uses one author as reference, I counted a few actually, and the works he refers to, are well worth the read (only my opinion, the latter part ;-) ). Nothing wrong with using the same author a few times. I think we all do that once in a while.

M.Lehner, 'The Complete Pyramids', T

B.G.Trigger, B.J.Kemp, D.O'Connor, A.B.Lloyd, 'Ancient Egypt, A Social History',

A Dodson, 'After the Pyramids',

I.E.S.Edwards, 'The Pyramids of Egypt',

A.Fakhry, "The Pyramids",

First of all, let me just said that i know very little about egyptian history/culture so please take everything i write with a grain of salt. What i write here is based on common sense, nothing more.

I have to disagree with you. The temples are there to worship the Gods, I'm not sure if you are religious but religious people do not blame their Gods for their misfortunes. If anything, at times of misfotune, especially natural disasters, they worship the Gods even more because they think that the Gods are angry and are punishing them. Put yourself in their shoes, would you dare to damage any temples and risk anger the Gods even more?

The floods (btw: what is a 'poor floods') would cause havoc among the populations leading to the 'collapse' of the old kingdom. In times of hardship and chaos, survival should/would be the most important thing, if i was in their shoes, damaging temples or building new roads/bridges would be the last thing on my mind.

One could argue that the destruction takes place well after the old kingdom thus their society has changed to the point where the old belief system are no longer relevant. however, as far i know, their belief/culture continue on well after the old kingdom periods. The new kings continue to build temples/pyramids so it would be just as sacrilegeous to damage the temples now as it is then.

regarding the author, i have misread/poor comprehension, i thought Swede quoted A.Fakhry a few times to support this theory but he did not.

Anyway, i thought i asked this question because i thought there was a straight answer but it looks like there isn't.

I just come up with another question, what happens to the palaces/houses where the Kings live? Do none of them survive?

Edited June 11, 2010 by zoombie

[Qoais]

A "poor flood" of the Nile. In other words, the inundation was not as abundant as usual. The Nile needed to flood the Delta so the crops could be planted in the soil that gets washed down, and the moisture is needed to get the crops started.

People will damage a temple if it is not THEIR temple. One Pharaoh will rob another's tomb for the goodies. If you are hungry or you have an army that needs to be fed, you will definitely be looking for the riches of a tomb to use to support your troops.

[cladking]

Anyway, i thought i asked this question because i thought there was a straight answer but it looks like there isn't.

I just come up with another question, what happens to the palaces/houses where the Kings live? Do none of them survive?

I think there is a straight answer but it's one that's hard to

get. It simply wasn't traditional to inscribe words into the

great pyramids. It's possible that there were some words paint-

ed in these but there's no evidence for this. It's possible one

of the symbols at the entrance of The Great Pyramid was an equa-

tion or a word/ phrase left by the builders.

It's interesting they left lots of writing in the tombs of that

time but apparently there was nothing left in the great pyramids.

[kmt_sesh]

Even if it's the FIP it s not proof or even evidence that

the great pyramids were tombs since there were small pyramids

built before this. And, no, I am not convinced it is this old.

Based on what empirical criteria?

I conceded the possibility anyway, but you need to support your claim. Your personal belief is not legitimate corroboration. I cited the Instruction to King Merikare, which is proof the necropoli were being looted by rival factions to sustain their war efforts. It is illogical to suppose Giza was ignored, but I noticed you just kind of ignored this fact.

There's still nothing suggesting the great pyramids were tombs.

That they were tomnbs is an interpretation of egyptologists that

is based on no direct evidence.

It's amazing what you don't understand about Egyptian funerary architecture and cults. No one can logically question that the monumental pyramids were royal tombs. That is the only reason the Egyptians built them. The only people who question this belong to the fringe camp, and for a myriad of obvious reasons, we of course do not take them seriously.

There's no evidence any of the great pyramids were plundered or

that they were tombs.

Already addressed. Already known. No reason to question the obvious.

I think it's more egyptology that has "assumptions and speculations

about the Pyramid Texts". All I'm doing is reading them and trying

to discern their literal meaning. It is egyptology that assumes

these have a metaphoric meaning and they were intended as incantation.

It's egyptology which believes that the literal meaning is irrelevent.

You don't understand the Egyptian culture, people, or religion. Therefore, common sense dictates you are simply not equipped to understand the Pyramid Texts or any other aspect of the culture, people, or religion. You cannot "discern a meaning" when you do not possess an understanding of the culture from which the writing comes. Egyptology is based on proper research and science. Your conclusions are based on assumptions and speculations. Pretending otherwise is irrelevant to reality. No reason to question the obvious.

I approach all the evidence as though that's the only thing that exists.

Egyptology has built up a huge system of beliefs based on evidence,

facts, and assumptions. The assumption that the PT isn't meant liter-

ally is how they view the culture.

You do not understand the nature of the evidence nor the culture that produced it. Therefore, common sense dictates you are simply not equipped to understand the evidence. Facts, not beliefs, come from evidence. Egyptology works from facts based on proper research and science. You yourself work from personal beliefs based on assumptions and speculations.