Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Update on Scan Pyramid project Oct 2016


Hanslune

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Lord Harry said:

I believe what you are referencing is an ancient Coptic folk tradition preserved in writing by the 15th century Arab historian al-Maqrizi. The Copic story was a combination of the Great Flood of Genesis and the several ancient Egyptian myths from Osirian and Heliopolitan theology. 

I do agree with you that the Copts were by and large proud of their ancient Egyptian heritage, and preserved much of the ancient culture in a Christianized form. The Surid account (the name being a corruption of Suphis, a late form of the name Khufu) was merely a late Antique attempt to explain the existence of the Giza monuments. Using a combination of vaguely remembered tradition (Surid = Khufu) and Biblical stories and ancient myths.

I've heard this view elsewhere. It may well be correct. However, I take the view that in most traditions or even 'myths' there is (pun fully intended) a grain of truth therein. Like the massive cache found beneath the Step Pyramid that is far in excess of a symbolic afterlife requirement.

 

SC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Well yes--AE kings would have placed grain (and other seed types) in their tombs but ususaly this was only small symbolic amounts in a few bowls (like that found in the tomb of King Tut). But when you consider the vast quantities of grain found in the various passages and galleries beneath the Step Pyramid in the early 20th century, this cache was way in excess of anything any AE king would ever take to his Afterlife. As stated--only a small symbolic amount of grain would be needed because with a few spells he could magic new grain (or anything else he needed) into existence in the Afterlife. Indeed, he might not even need the actiual bowls of seed at all. A wall painting depicting fields of grain could, with a few spells, be made into the real deal. The cache of grain (and other seed types) found below the Step Pyramid is far in excess of 'Afterlife goods'.

SC

But you are forgetting something. Pharaohs would often be buried with an excess of grave goods in an ostentatious display of wealth. I believe that is what we have with Djoser's burial, as grain was the primary item of barter and wealth in all eras of Egyptian history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lord Harry said:

But you are forgetting something. Pharaohs would often be buried with an excess of grave goods in an ostentatious display of wealth. I believe that is what we have with Djoser's burial, as grain was the primary item of barter and wealth in all eras of Egyptian history.

Yes, they were--at least those which have been discovered intact. But there is more to their wealth than grain (and other crops). As I said--they would only have needed small, symbolic amounts in a few bowls (like in King Tut's tomb) because they could magic everything they needed with some spells. King Tut's tomb was bursting with grave goods displaying his wealth but he only took with him a few bowls of various crop types with him to the Afterlife.

SC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Yes, they were--at least those which have been discovered intact. But there is more to their wealth than grain (and other crops). As I said--they would only have needed small, symbolic amounts in a few bowls (like in King Tut's tomb) because they could magic everything they needed with some spells. King Tut's tomb was bursting with grave goods displaying his wealth but he only took with him a few bowls of various crop types with him to the Afterlife.

SC

From Djoser to Tutankhamun, circa 1300 years.  Funerary practice did change a little bit.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

I've heard this view elsewhere. It may well be correct. However, I take the view that in most traditions or even 'myths' there is (pun fully intended) a grain of truth therein. Like the massive cache found beneath the Step Pyramid that is far in excess of a symbolic afterlife requirement.

 

SC

Says you.  Are you a good judge of afterlife requirements as understood in the First Dynasty?  In asking I jest.

M.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Yes, they were--at least those which have been discovered intact. But there is more to their wealth than grain (and other crops). As I said--they would only have needed small, symbolic amounts in a few bowls (like in King Tut's tomb) because they could magic everything they needed with some spells. King Tut's tomb was bursting with grave goods displaying his wealth but he only took with him a few bowls of various crop types with him to the Afterlife.

SC

Mr. Criegton while you certainly bring up some valid points, need I admonish you that just because a single attested funerary practice (Djoser's pyramid burial from the Third Dynasty) doesn't appear to fit with the prevailing paradigm, one must not resort to the fanciful in an effort to explain an apparent discrepancy.

The fact is, Egyptologists do not have a whole lot of information regarding royal burial practices of the Third Dynasty. In fact, textually and archaeologically speaking, evidence from the Third Dynasty is noticeably scarce, even by comparison with the first two dynasties. As an example, Egyptologists are unable to determine with any degree of certainty the chronological sequence of the kings of the Third Dynasty. Information from the era, both archaeological and textual, is scarce.

And by the way, part of Djoser's mummy (one of his feet) was discovered inside his pyramid. The mummified arm of Djer was found by Flinders Pettis in his mastaba, and almost the entire mummy of Unas was discovered in his burial chamber by Gaston Maspero in 1881. These kings were from the Third, First, and Fifth dynasties respectively. Your assertion that the oldest royal mummy known was from the Sixth Dynasty is erroneous.

Edited to add: Sneferu's mummy (Fourth Dynasty)may have been found inside his Red Pyramid during a 1948 excavation. It is currently being held in the el-Qasr collection in Cairo.

Edited by Lord Harry
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tutankhamun actually had quite a lot of food in his tomb. This included grains and herbs, the latter of which was probably for more medicinal purposes. But see the Harry Burton photo below:

p0009.jpg

Underneath the spotted couch are 48 oviform containers. These all contained food items, mostly mummified meats (what Salima Ikram has termed "victual mummies"). The fact that they were mummified means they were more than symbolic. It's easy for us to think of such a thing as symbolic, but it's pretty clear that in the ancient mind, these foodstuffs were meant to be consumed by Tut's spirit. This is also why friends and family would bring food items to the tomb (or to the mortuary complex, in the royal sense): the soul consumed the essence of the food. A lot of the furniture and chests and other items you see in the photo seem to have been used in life, and would go on to be used in death. In other words, what is stored in the tomb will be available in the afterlife. The tomb was called pr-kA, "soul house," and as George Carlin put it: "A house is a place to put your stuff."

But in other contexts ritual or symbolic items were used. They tend to be pretty obvious, such as a vessel carved out of wood and painted to look like stone, including a black circle at top to represent the void inside. Many tombs had these, especially where the family may not have been able to part with too much. But it was believed even a representation of a thing was as good as the real thing to the deceased, which is one reason tomb walls all the way back through the Old Kingdom had depictions of butchering, fowling, and fishing. This isn't art, per se, but functional magic: a means by which to provide the deceased with everything done and enjoyed in life.

Tut is always a good case study because so little had been pilfered from his tomb. But the cautionary note of other posters is wise: a Dynasty 18 burial can reflect only so much of the practices millennia earlier. Religion and burial customs changed significantly, at all levels of society.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

Tutankhamun actually had quite a lot of food in his tomb. This included grains and herbs, the latter of which was probably for more medicinal purposes. But see the Harry Burton photo below:

p0009.jpg

Underneath the spotted couch are 48 oviform containers. These all contained food items, mostly mummified meats (what Salima Ikram has termed "victual mummies"). The fact that they were mummified means they were more than symbolic. It's easy for us to think of such a thing as symbolic, but it's pretty clear that in the ancient mind, these foodstuffs were meant to be consumed by Tut's spirit. This is also why friends and family would bring food items to the tomb (or to the mortuary complex, in the royal sense): the soul consumed the essence of the food. A lot of the furniture and chests and other items you see in the photo seem to have been used in life, and would go on to be used in death. In other words, what is stored in the tomb will be available in the afterlife. The tomb was called pr-kA, "soul house," and as George Carlin put it: "A house is a place to put your stuff."

But in other contexts ritual or symbolic items were used. They tend to be pretty obvious, such as a vessel carved out of wood and painted to look like stone, including a black circle at top to represent the void inside. Many tombs had these, especially where the family may not have been able to part with too much. But it was believed even a representation of a thing was as good as the real thing to the deceased, which is one reason tomb walls all the way back through the Old Kingdom had depictions of butchering, fowling, and fishing. This isn't art, per se, but functional magic: a means by which to provide the deceased with everything done and enjoyed in life.

Tut is always a good case study because so little had been pilfered from his tomb. But the cautionary note of other posters is wise: a Dynasty 18 burial can reflect only so much of the practices millennia earlier. Religion and burial customs changed significantly, at all levels of society.

Did they actually believe the goods were necessary or was it merely a symbolic gesture of respect similar to pouring out a drink to a dead homey? There are people today that still leave "grave goods" on tombs and memorials without believing it is necessary for the departed person's soul in the afterlife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

Tutankhamun actually had quite a lot of food in his tomb. This included grains and herbs, the latter of which was probably for more medicinal purposes. But see the Harry Burton photo below:

p0009.jpg

Underneath the spotted couch are 48 oviform containers. These all contained food items, mostly mummified meats (what Salima Ikram has termed "victual mummies"). The fact that they were mummified means they were more than symbolic. It's easy for us to think of such a thing as symbolic, but it's pretty clear that in the ancient mind, these foodstuffs were meant to be consumed by Tut's spirit. This is also why friends and family would bring food items to the tomb (or to the mortuary complex, in the royal sense): the soul consumed the essence of the food. A lot of the furniture and chests and other items you see in the photo seem to have been used in life, and would go on to be used in death. In other words, what is stored in the tomb will be available in the afterlife. The tomb was called pr-kA, "soul house," and as George Carlin put it: "A house is a place to put your stuff."

But in other contexts ritual or symbolic items were used. They tend to be pretty obvious, such as a vessel carved out of wood and painted to look like stone, including a black circle at top to represent the void inside. Many tombs had these, especially where the family may not have been able to part with too much. But it was believed even a representation of a thing was as good as the real thing to the deceased, which is one reason tomb walls all the way back through the Old Kingdom had depictions of butchering, fowling, and fishing. This isn't art, per se, but functional magic: a means by which to provide the deceased with everything done and enjoyed in life.

Tut is always a good case study because so little had been pilfered from his tomb. But the cautionary note of other posters is wise: a Dynasty 18 burial can reflect only so much of the practices millennia earlier. Religion and burial customs changed significantly, at all levels of society.

The Old Kingdom seems to have been blithely confident that royal funerary foundations would carry on in perpetuity and the connected estates would generate real food offerings.  Likewise offerings by the family of the deceased in the mastaba chapels.  “Symbolic” is our category and may not be applicable: functional magic may be closer.

M.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Old Kingdom seems to have been blithely confident that royal funerary foundations would carry on in perpetuity and the connected estates would generate real food offerings.  Likewise offerings by the family of the deceased in the mastaba chapels.  “Symbolic” is our category and may not be applicable: functional magic may be closer.

M.

The institution of kingship was at the height of its power during the Old Kingdom. There was no indication that Egypt or any of its institutions would function any differently than it had for centuries, especially during the Fourth Dynasty when Egypt was literally ruled by "gods."

During the Intervening Fifth and Sixth Dynasties however, something happened. Perhaps the bureaucracy grew so large that it became difficult for the royal house to control. This may have led to the more and more of the king's powers being delegated to his officials, which in turn led to increased decentralization. This can perhaps be discerned in the sudden decision of Egypt's kings to have the Pyramid Texts inscribed on the walls of their burial chambers. Whereas before this would have been seen as unnecessary, as the royal cults had apparently been operating consistently for centuries as had been intended. 

The Pyramid Texts would likely have been recited by the lector priest during the royal funeral, and perhaps would have been recited daily by the mortuary priests under the direction of the royal house. Writing them down was likely seen as unnecessary during the first four dynasties.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Did they actually believe the goods were necessary or was it merely a symbolic gesture of respect similar to pouring out a drink to a dead homey? There are people today that still leave "grave goods" on tombs and memorials without believing it is necessary for the departed person's soul in the afterlife.

It was seen as vital. Without food and drink offerings the ka would cease to exist.

This belief led to a common Egyptian expression during meal times "for your ka" which was similar to our modern European and American "toast."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I've heard this view elsewhere. It may well be correct. However, I take the view that in most traditions or even 'myths' there is (pun fully intended) a grain of truth therein. Like the massive cache found beneath the Step Pyramid that is far in excess of a symbolic afterlife requirement.

 

SC

There is indeed a "grain of truth" in most myths. However, as I would admonish anyone, resorting to the fantastical for an explanation is irresponsible when there are an abundance of more orthodox interpretations to choose from. The fantastical should only be considered once the base of realistic scenarios has been exhausted. And even there the scholar must proceed with the utmost caution and restraint.

Egyptology is a conservative field of academic inquiry. And rightfully so. We should continue to let our scientific sobriety be our defining characteristic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don;t deny grain was important to early societies and civilisations just as it is to ours. As would many other crops. You seem to be asking me if the seeds placed in the pyramid Recovery Vaults were healthy or not? Well, how would you expect me to even know that? One must assume that the AEs understood the various crop types well enough to ensure that what they stored WAS healthy. I can't honestly see them storing crop seeds that WEREN'T healthy. Why would they even think about storing crop seed that WASN'T healthy? That makes no sense.

SC

If they understood that, then they understood the realities of storage (goes bad after awhile) and the necessity of not keeping grains around for 20 years or more (they won't germinate.)  They would not have stored grain for a future deployment in a place that was hard to get into and hard to get out.

Besides, there's no evidence of a belief that the world would be flooded until the Ptolemaic period.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2018 at 8:53 AM, Scott Creighton said:

I've heard this view elsewhere. It may well be correct. However, I take the view that in most traditions or even 'myths' there is (pun fully intended) a grain of truth therein.

However, you have to ask about the time period when this arose.  

As an example, in America, we have a legend about George Washington chopping down a cherry tree.  This is a manufactured legend, created long after his death by someone who did not know him.  No such event happened in his childhood.  We have a number of "old Indian legends" like the one about the Blue Star Kachina which trace directly to the disapora of the early 1900's and are not something from before the arrival of Europeans (as was posited.)

You have to be very careful in selecting legends that you say contain truth.  Many contain agendas rather than truths.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2018 at 11:53 AM, Scott Creighton said:

I've heard this view elsewhere. It may well be correct. However, I take the view that in most traditions or even 'myths' there is (pun fully intended) a grain of truth therein. Like the massive cache found beneath the Step Pyramid that is far in excess of a symbolic afterlife requirement.

 

SC

If the cache was found beneath the step pyramid then the pyramid itself was not a recovery vault.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2018 at 8:54 AM, Scott Creighton said:

I don;t deny grain was important to early societies and civilisations just as it is to ours. As would many other crops. You seem to be asking me if the seeds placed in the pyramid Recovery Vaults were healthy or not? Well, how would you expect me to even know that? One must assume that the AEs understood the various crop types well enough to ensure that what they stored WAS healthy. I can't honestly see them storing crop seeds that WEREN'T healthy. Why would they even think about storing crop seed that WASN'T healthy? That makes no sense.

SC

You have presented your claim of pyramids being recovery vaults several times over the years though I don't believe you have submitted the evidence to move your claim to something other than a belief.   Swede said it best in 2012

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Lord Harry said:

The institution of kingship was at the height of its power during the Old Kingdom. There was no indication that Egypt or any of its institutions would function any differently than it had for centuries, especially during the Fourth Dynasty when Egypt was literally ruled by "gods."

During the Intervening Fifth and Sixth Dynasties however, something happened. Perhaps the bureaucracy grew so large that it became difficult for the royal house to control. This may have led to the more and more of the king's powers being delegated to his officials, which in turn led to increased decentralization. This can perhaps be discerned in the sudden decision of Egypt's kings to have the Pyramid Texts inscribed on the walls of their burial chambers. Whereas before this would have been seen as unnecessary, as the royal cults had apparently been operating consistently for centuries as had been intended. 

The Pyramid Texts would likely have been recited by the lector priest during the royal funeral, and perhaps would have been recited daily by the mortuary priests under the direction of the royal house. Writing them down was likely seen as unnecessary during the first four dynasties.

The rule of the land became too cumbersome for a single ruler and about the time of Nyuserre the governmental structure changed to include other nobles and more administrative functions.  About this time the title of "king's companion" and "sole companion" arise.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

The rule of the land became too cumbersome for a single ruler and about the time of Nyuserre the governmental structure changed to include other nobles and more administrative functions.  About this time the title of "king's companion" and "sole companion" arise.

Yes indeed. And the exceedingly long reign of Pepi II, 94 years, (he was likely unable to do much ruling towards the end) saw an exceptional amount of royal power being delegated to provincial governors. This, combined with environmental factors which likely led to the institution of divine kingship itself being held in doubt, led to the collapse of the Old Kingdom and the subsequent descent into feudalism.

The Ipuwer Papyrus describes these conditions quite vividly. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/8/2018 at 4:53 PM, Scott Creighton said:

I've heard this view elsewhere. It may well be correct. However, I take the view that in most traditions or even 'myths' there is (pun fully intended) a grain of truth therein. Like the massive cache found beneath the Step Pyramid that is far in excess of a symbolic afterlife requirement.

 

SC

The grain of truth being (mixed metaphor fully intended) the cherry you’ve chosen to pick,.

M.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lord Harry said:

Egyptology is a conservative field of academic inquiry. And rightfully so. We should continue to let our scientific sobriety be our defining characteristic.

Sobriety is overrated...:P

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2018 at 2:51 AM, Jarocal said:

Did they actually believe the goods were necessary or was it merely a symbolic gesture of respect similar to pouring out a drink to a dead homey? There are people today that still leave "grave goods" on tombs and memorials without believing it is necessary for the departed person's soul in the afterlife.

I built a tomb for a King of the Gypsies . I was working on the entry to it when he passed. His family brought food and drinks every day and left them out front and inside the tomb. A large group stayed at the cemetery chapel both night and day for three days  eating and drinking, IIRC.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/01/2018 at 3:59 PM, Jarocal said:

And yet is still unable to persuade an undereducated redneck most of his conjectures hold merit...

Well then I am going with the pyramid was actually a still and the grain was for the making of spirits.:whistle:

jmccr8 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Well then I am going with the pyramid was actually a still and the grain was for the making of spirits.:whistle:

jmccr8 

Your Brilliant!

That makes far more sense than Khufu's tomb or some "recovery vault" to hold seeds as insurance against an apocalyptic deluge. Wish I had thought of that.:D

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jarocal said:

Your Brilliant!

That makes far more sense than Khufu's tomb or some "recovery vault" to hold seeds as insurance against an apocalyptic deluge. Wish I had thought of that.:D

It makes more sense when you consider that in ancient Egyptian, "Khufu" means "kick-ass booze."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, kmt_sesh said:

It makes more sense when you consider that in ancient Egyptian, "Khufu" means "kick-ass booze."

Indeed.

I believe I have read that linguists attribute the word to a FAR more ancient tongue, perhaps the very first language ever spoken.

The word itself comes from the sound you make when you take a big chug.

Harte

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.