If Pyramids not tombs where are the pharaohs?

[Thanos5150 301]

Egyptology holds that pyramids were built as tombs for the pharaohs, yet no royal burial has ever been found in one. This is not to mean just the "body" of the pharaohs are missing, but all the material funerary goods and even the artistic and written testament right off the walls as well. Though I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why the walls would be completely bare, a-typical of all the tombs surrounding the pyramids and abhorrent to their religion regardless, as far as the pharaoh's remains and funerary goods it is said these were all stolen by tomb robbers often shortly after the body was interred and the tomb closed, mere years in some cases. Yet this too makes little sense as what this means is that each pharaoh was just as dumb as the last, even robbing their predecessors themselves, only to repeat the same mistake pyramid after pyramid knowing full well their tomb would also be robbed just like every single pyramid building pharaoh before them. No, this seems quite unlikely. About as unlikely as every pyramid being picked clean by tomb robbers leaving no trace of royal burial even in those whose sealed sarcophagi were opened first in modern times only to be found completely empty. 

These, among other reasons like Sneferu building 3 "tombs" despite no evidence of any royal burial in any of them, not even sarcophagi, has lead many to the conclusion, including myself, that the pyramids were not built as tombs. As to what they were constructed for there are many theories offered ranging from cenotaphs to microwave beam generators, yet regardless of their true purpose we are still left with the question-if the pyramids were not built as tombs, then where are the pharaohs? They had to be buried somewhere, right? There are 37 pharaohs ascribed major pyramids between the first, Djoser of the 3rd Dynasty, and the last, Ahmose I, of the 18th Dynasty. A few, like Sneferu, have been credited with building more than one, and many pharaohs of this period, namely after the 6th Dynasty, didn't build pyramids at all. 37 pharaohs yet not one trace of a royal burial left behind by robbers? Even the unopened ones? 37 pharaohs in a row making the same dumb mistake over and over again knowing full well they would be robbed? 

Or worse still, if we take Giza for example- there are hundreds of mastaba tombs that surround the pyramids. Cemeteries full. There is no doubt that despite the function of the pyramids that they were still deemed by the people something to be buried next to generation after generation. Within these mastabas, however, literally thousands of artifacts have been found by modern explorers and archeologists, veritable treasure troves, yet the pyramids themselves, all of the pyramids for that matter, were completely empty.

Giza, tomb of Hetepheres:

Giza, tomb of Impy:

These are certainly the more spectacular finds, yet tomb after tomb after tomb at Giza, thousands of artifacts, which says nothing of all of the artwork and writing covering their walls missing from pyramids as well, yet robbers were able to completely clean out the pyramids leaving no trace of a royal burial, supposedly fortresses built to prevent this very thing, yet so many of the tombs surrounding these pyramids, easy picking by comparison, contained at least some kind of funerary artifacts to be found nearly 5,000yrs later? And not one out the 37 pharaohs, regardless of how many pyramids they built, ever figured out how to protect their very reason for living, not to mention their subjects, which was to protect their dead body ensuring their passage in the afterlife? No.To quote myself from HERE:

Quote

 

The precedent pharaohs being buried at separate locations from their associated monumental architecture is firmly established from the 1st Dynasty at Ummm al Qa'ab/Shunet el-Zebib, extending through the 2nd Dynasty, further complicated by the corresponding tombs of several of these pharaohs at Saqqara. 

The pharaoh directly before Khufu, Sneferu, is credited with building 3 pyramids, which none contain sarcophagi, and is also credited as builder of the massive mastabas at Meidum, which the largest, mastaba 17, has been suggested by some to have been his actual tomb yet was left unclaimed and as a result [deemed] "unfinished". 

Djoser, builder of the stepped pyramid at Saqqara, is also credited with the building of at least one of the massive mastabas at Beit Khallaf, the other of the largest is loosely credited to the 3rd Dynasty pharaoh Sanakht, and has been suggested this was his actual tomb as well yet it too is "unclaimed" and as such "unfinished". 

A large mastaba at Saqqara, Mastaba el-Faraun, was originally credited to Unas (for reasons unclear) despite having been also credited with building a pyramid, which if not for the discovery of a stele fragment with the cartouche of Shepseskaf nearby would still be "unclaimed". Khafre has a large mastaba at Giza credited to him yet he of course is also credited with building G2.  

Outside of the pyramids, the mastabas in question at Meidum and Beit Khallaf are some of the largest if not the largest largest monumental construction in Egypt of the period with the only parallel in scope being Shunet el Zebib. The point being, they are constructions fit only for a king.

All things considered, based on tradition going back to the beginnings of Dynastic Egypt, the separation of a pharaoh's monumental architecture from their tombs, monumental architecture which their subjects were buried next to apart from the pharaohs actual tomb, not to mention as well having tombs in both upper and lower Egypt, like Senwosret III, like Djoser at Saqarra and Beit Khallaf (just north of Abydos), not to mention Sneferu being credited with building 3 pyramids no less, is nothing new which strongly implies Senwosret III's is not the exception but rather the continuation of a tradition that originated with the first kings of Egypt.

 

For reference, the cemetery at Umm al-Qa'ab:

Which the monumental enclosure architecture (Shunet el-Zebib among them) surrounded by hundreds of subsidiary burials, though at this time they were ritually murdered to be buried next to the enclosure of their king-not the king him/herself, is found nearly a mile away:

Where it is here the boat burials are found:

Regarding these enclosures:

Quote

Each royal monument consisted of a ritual precinct open to the sky enclosed by massive mudbrick walls. The Institute’s excavations have resulted in the discovery of the earliest royal enclosures yet known, dating to the reign of king Aha at the beginning of the 1st Dynasty (ca. 3050 BCE). The Institute’s work has also revealed important aspects of how these structures were used as the setting for ritual. Most surprisingly, it appears that these important royal monuments appear to have been deliberately, even ritually demolished and symbolically buried after only a short period of use, probably limited to the reign of the king for whom each was built.

The known enclosures of the 1st Dynasty (ca. 3050-2900 BCE) were regularly accompanied by important ancillary features. Most were surrounded by lines of tombs, and the Institute’s work has produced important new evidence that courtiers and retainers were sacrificed and entombed around the royal enclosure, probably so that they could accompany the king into the next world. In one instance a royal enclosure was accompanied by the burials of ten donkeys in three brick tomb chambers, the earliest complete donkey skeletons ever discovered in the world. In another, one of the enclosures had associated graves that contained, not humans or animals, but, spectacularly, the wooden hulls of a fleet of fourteen large boats, the oldest built boats known. The boats and donkeys, like the sacrificed courtiers, were probably buried to be symbolically translated from this world to the next, to be available to the king there.

Source

Further reading: Troubles with the 2nd Dynasty.

 

While the idea the pyramids were not tombs may seem lie sacrilege to some, the reality, what is lost on both proponents and detractors is this idea is clearly consistent with the clear precedent laid by the kings of the 1st and 2nd Dynasties. So, again-where are the pharaohs? It would appear that in fact they were not the stupidest people to ever grace the ancient world repeating the same unimaginably costly, on all levels, of mistakes 37 times in a row and were actually very very smart at hiding their tombs, so much so that we have yet to find them nearly 5,000yrs after the fact. Are their tombs under the pyramids? Are they like Senwosret III at another location entirely even perhaps at the home of the 1st kings near Abydos? Are they even buried in Egypt? Crazy, huh, but we are still left with the question-if the pyramids are not tombs, then where are the pharaohs?

Lee Anderson 

 

Edited April 22 by Thanos5150

[Sir Wearer of Hats 32,013]

My personal theory is that “the Valley of Kings” should be better termed “A Valley of the Kings”. 

[Hanslune 11,272]

An enduring question asked again by Thanos.

In many cases one thing was left  a sarcophagus how many of the 37 didn't had one?

 

 

I also have to ask why the AE named them in the way they did - implying they were tombs

Edited April 23 by Hanslune

[Thanos5150 301]

32 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

An enduring question asked again by Thanos.

In many cases one thing was left  a sarcophagus how many of the 37 didn't had one?

Maybe its me, and I've come to grips it might be, but it seems a little more interesting a topic than say Atlantis or beating up on the dead corpse of the fringe ad nauseam. And I ask with a new perspective so hopefully for some it will breath new life into an age old question.

You tell us-how many? And if most do this means what exactly-cenotaphs or tombs? Which if the former, more likely to me, then again-where are the pharaohs? 

For some added circumstantial support, we can also refer to the Greeks:

Quote

Herodotus, 5th century BC:

For this, they [the Egyptian priests] said, the ten years were spent [to build the causeway], and for the underground chambers on the hill upon which the pyramids stand, which he [Khufu] caused to be made as sepulchral chambers for himself in an island, having conducted thither a channel from the Nile….

This king [Khafre] followed the same manner as the other, both in all the rest and also in that he made a pyramid, not indeed attaining to the measurements of that which was built by the former [Khufu] (this I know, having myself also measured it), and moreover there are no underground chambers beneath nor does a channel come from the Nile flowing to this one as to the other, in which the water coming through a conduit built for it flows round an island within, where they say that Cheops himself is laid: but for a basement he built the first course of Ethiopian stone of divers colours; and this pyramid he made forty feet lower than the other as regards size, building it close to the great pyramid.

According to Herodotus, as told to him by Egyptian priests, Khufu was not buried inside G1 but rather underneath the "hill on which the pyramids, plural, stand. Herodotus makes no mention of the pyramids of Giza being tombs nor does he mention Khafre and Menkaure as to where they may have been buried.

Greek historian Diodorus, 1st century BC:

Although these kings [Khufu and Khafre] intended these [G1 and G2] for their sepulchres, yet it happened that neither of them were buried there. For the people being exasperated against them by reason of the toilsomness of these works [building the pyramids], and for their cruelty and oppression, threatened to tear in pieces their dead bodies, and with ignominy to throw them out of their sepulchres. Wherefore both of them, dying, commanded their friends to bury them in an obscure place.

Regardless of the validity of either of these tales, one thing that is common to both is they specifically make note of the fact the pharaohs were not buried within the pyramids themselves. This information came to Herodotus from Egyptian priests and Diodorus, I am assuming, from the histories of other writers before him which at their root would have come from earlier Egyptian sources as well. It is interesting then that the AE of these periods did not consider the pyramids of at least Khufu and Khafre, which neither source mention Menkaure's burial place, to be the actual places they were buried.

This begs the question-how did they know? In G2's case, it could be entered and known there was no body, but in regards to G1, as we are told, the access before the Arabs breached it was by way of the well shaft which there is no evidence this was ever done after G1 was completed beyond someone going in and making later mortar repairs which presumably happened shortly after completion. It may have been, but there is no evidence of such. Was the idea the pharaohs were not buried within the Giza pyramids and buried elsewhere from knowing they never were or derived from looking inside centuries after the fact and finding nothing? If the latter then why not just say the tombs were robbed, by the angry mobs that hated them so, as was commonplace, yet instead the stories tell of the fact they were deliberately buried elsewhere.

 

  

Edited April 23 by Thanos5150

[Hanslune 11,272]

You might want to look at the tomb of Pharaoh that were found intact.  In that case they were buried within the city.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psusennes_I

Edited April 23 by Hanslune

[cormac mac airt 13,626]

41 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Maybe its me, and I've come to grips it might be, but it seems a little more interesting a topic than say Atlantis or beating up on the dead corpse of the fringe ad nauseam. And I ask with a new perspective so hopefully for some it will breath new life into an age old question.

You tell us-how many? And if most do this means what exactly-cenotaphs or tombs? Which if the former, more likely to me, then again-where are the pharaohs? 

For some added circumstantial support, we can also refer to the Greeks:

Most of what Herodotus had to say was either anachronistic or otherwise unevidenced and therefore baseless speculation, written some 2000 years after the fact. Why should that be taken as somehow accurate to Khufu's reign? 

cormac

[Thanos5150 301]

4 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Most of what Herodotus had to say was either anachronistic or otherwise unevidenced and therefore baseless speculation, written some 2000 years after the fact. Why should that be taken as somehow accurate to Khufu's reign? 

cormac

I did not say it was "accurate" I said "circumstantial". Which to further clarify as I also wrote:

Quote

Regardless of the validity of either of these tales, one thing that is common to both is they specifically make note of the fact the pharaohs were not buried within the pyramids themselves. This information came to Herodotus from Egyptian priests and Diodorus, I am assuming, from the histories of other writers before him which at their root would have come from earlier Egyptian sources as well. It is interesting then that the AE of these periods did not consider the pyramids of at least Khufu and Khafre, which neither source mention Menkaure's burial place, to be the actual places they were buried.

Emphasis mine. 

[cormac mac airt 13,626]

1 minute ago, Thanos5150 said:

I did not say it was "accurate" I said "circumstantial". Which to further clarify as I also wrote:

Emphasis mine. 

And it would be my contention that something written some 2000 years after the fact doesn't even qualify as circumstantial since it's not remotely contemporary let alone evidenced. It's akin to claiming you can say anything meaningful about an ancestor of yours from the first century BC, totally useless IMO. 

cormac

[Thanos5150 301]

20 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

You might want to look at the tomb of Pharaoh that were found intact.  In that case they were buried within the city.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psusennes_I

....

How is Psusennes I of the 21st Dynasty 2500+yrs after the fact, a 3rd Intermediate Period pharaoh that did not build monumental architecture surrounded by cemeteries with no evidence of his own burial if only to the contrary, a pharaoh who stole his sarcophagus from a previous NK host no less, relevant to the question raised in the OP? Was he actually buried in the city of Tanis? 3,000yrs of pharaohs-is it common practice to bury themselves within a city (a rhetorical question with the answer obviously "no")? Why and how does this relate to the pyramids of the MK and earlier? And if intact pharaonic burials are the criteria, regardless of when they were built or how much they differ from the pyramid complexes etc ect, then why not look to Tut buried in the Valley of the Kings some 300+ yrs earlier? Yet again, he nor his predecessors/successors built monumental funerary architecture to be surrounded by cemeteries only to bury themselves somewhere else. And not in the city. 

I understand it requires some effort to get the gist of what I am saying beyond the knee jerk "pyramids were not tombs", it seems an important question to ask, but what I am suggesting is that there is an as yet understood ideological reason why no royal burial has ever been found in the pyramids which is because there was never intended to be-an ideology directly supported by the kings of the 1st and 2nd Dynasties. It is not enough to say pyramids were not tombs because no royal burial was ever found- there has to not only be a reason why but also evidence of not only precedent but an alternative burial location. You say I ask this "enduring question" again, but obviously no one is asking the right questions. I offer an alternative.    

[Thanos5150 301]

18 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

And it would be my contention that something written some 2000 years after the fact doesn't even qualify as circumstantial since it's not remotely contemporary let alone evidenced. It's akin to claiming you can say anything meaningful about an ancestor of yours from the first century BC, totally useless IMO. 

cormac

Which is why, again, I say this:

Quote

Regardless of the validity of either of these tales, one thing that is common to both is they specifically make note of the fact the pharaohs were not buried within the pyramids themselves. This information came to Herodotus from Egyptian priests and Diodorus, I am assuming, from the histories of other writers before him which at their root would have come from earlier Egyptian sources as well. It is interesting then that the AE of these periods did not consider the pyramids of at least Khufu and Khafre, which neither source mention Menkaure's burial place, to be the actual places they were buried.

With the point being that it is irrelevant whether their tale is accurate or not, but rather the fact they thought this at all which does corroborate the actual evidence. Not more complicated than that. But if this is really a sticking point for you, then by all means disregard it and focus on the OP as the Greek writers are not required to make the point.  

[Harte 17,183]

At one point, the above product was in such high demand that people were killing other people and quick drying them for sale.

Maybe we ate them, in other words.

Harte

[cormac mac airt 13,626]

6 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Which is why, again, I say this:

With the point being that it is irrelevant whether their tale is accurate or not, but rather the fact they thought this at all which does corroborate the actual evidence. Not more complicated than that. But if this is really a sticking point for you, then by all means disregard it and focus on the OP as the Greek writers are not required to make the point.  

The actual evidence though shows that there was no evidence of a pharaoh's remains found in the pyramids 2000 years after the fact and NOT that there were 'never' any pharaoh's buried in the pyramids. Said tales corroborate NOTHING in regards to the original disposition of any pharaoh's remains. THAT is my point. 

cormac

[Thanos5150 301]

Just now, Harte said:

At one point, the above product was in such high demand that people were killing other people and quick drying them for sale.

Maybe we ate them, in other words.

Harte

How droll. Did we also eat the required writing off the walls? Every funerary artifact and every body including sarcophagi sealed for nearly 5,000yrs until opened in modern times?  

[Captain Risky 9,798]

1 hour ago, Hanslune said:

An enduring question asked again by Thanos.

In many cases one thing was left  a sarcophagus how many of the 37 didn't had one?

 

 

I also have to ask why the AE named them in the way they did - implying they were tombs

Another great question is how many Pharaohs were buried in such a dingy and drab space such as the one in the great pyramid ? 

[Thanos5150 301]

1 minute ago, cormac mac airt said:

The actual evidence though shows that there was no evidence of a pharaoh's remains found in the pyramids 2000 years after the fact and NOT that there were 'never' any pharaoh's buried in the pyramids. Said tales corroborate NOTHING in regards to the original disposition of any pharaoh's remains. THAT is my point. 

cormac

For what they are worth, which is at worst just the fact they thought this, of course they do. If you do not understand that I am afraid you miss the point. 

And the first paragraph of the OP no less:

Quote

Egyptology holds that pyramids were built as tombs for the pharaohs, yet no royal burial has ever been found in one. This is not to mean just the "body" of the pharaohs are missing, but all the material funerary goods and even the artistic and written testament right off the walls as well. Though I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why the walls would be completely bare, a-typical of all the tombs surrounding the pyramids and abhorrent to their religion regardless, as far as the pharaoh's remains and funerary goods it is said these were all stolen by tomb robbers often shortly after the body was interred and the tomb closed, mere years in some cases. Yet this too makes little sense as what this means is that each pharaoh was just as dumb as the last, even robbing their predecessors themselves, only to repeat the same mistake pyramid after pyramid knowing full well their tomb would also be robbed just like every single pyramid building pharaoh before them. No, this seems quite unlikely. About as unlikely as every pyramid being picked clean by tomb robbers leaving no trace of royal burial even in those whose sealed sarcophagi were opened first in modern times only to be found completely empty. 

Keep reading and get back to me.  

[Thanos5150 301]

2 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

My personal theory is that “the Valley of Kings” should be better termed “A Valley of the Kings”. 

Please elaborate. 

[cormac mac airt 13,626]

12 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

For what they are worth, which is at worst just the fact they thought this, of course they do. If you do not understand that I am afraid you miss the point. 

And the first paragraph of the OP no less:

Keep reading and get back to me.  

Except that the following cannot be shown to be definitively true: 

Quote

Egyptology holds that pyramids were built as tombs for the pharaohs, yet no royal burial has ever been found in one.

Particularly as there has been claimed some measure of evidence for mummified remains found in some of the pyramids. 

Sneferu's Red Pyramid, Dahshur                  middle aged mummy found in Red Pyramid, but stolen

Neferefre's pyramid                                       Unfinished Pyramid at Abusir               left hand and other mummy fragments, fragments of red sarcophagus, canopic jar fragments, etc. found in tomb.

Djedkare Izezi's pyramid                                Pyramid at Saqqara                            nearly complete mummy found in tomb.

Unas' pyramid                                                Pyramid at Saqqara                             left arm and hand along with skull fragments - Cairo Museum

Teti's pyramid                                                 Pyramid at Saqqara                           Remains of an arm and shoulder

Pepi I pyramid                                                Pyramid in South Saqqara                 A packet of viscera and part of a mummy with wrapping - Cairo Museum

Merenre I Nemtyemzaf's pyramid                   Pyramid in South Saqqara                 Mummy found in pyramid - believed to be his

It should also be pointed out that the Great Pyramid was robbed at least once, during the First Intermediate Period (2081-2055 BC), so within 500 years of its construction. Also, in the account of Abu ’l-Salt he says "the caliph’s party found nothing in the burial chamber but decayed remains." As to why Al Mamun said that the robbers tunnel was blocked and the sarcophagus was closed Stadelmann himself explained thusly: "At some point during the Ramesside period (1295-1069 BC), the desecrated burial chamber had been restored. When the restoration was complete, the tunnel was re-blocked to prevent further violations of the tomb. It was this blockage, not the original one, which was removed some two millennia later by al-Maˆmun.30"

Source:  https://www.academia.edu/8494464/al-Mamun_the_Pyramids_and_the_Hieroglyphs

cormac

[cladking 411]

14 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

 

It should also be pointed out that the Great Pyramid was robbed at least once, during the First Intermediate Period (2081-2055 BC), so within 500 years of its construction.

Where is your evidence for this?

Even if it were robbed (and there is no evidence), there is no reason to believe they took the "grave's" occupant or "grave" goods.

 

 

[cladking 411]

17 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Except that the following cannot be shown to be definitively true: 

Particularly as there has been claimed some measure of evidence for mummified remains found in some of the pyramids. 

Sneferu's Red Pyramid, Dahshur                  middle aged mummy found in Red Pyramid, but stolen

Neferefre's pyramid                                       Unfinished Pyramid at Abusir               left hand and other mummy fragments, fragments of red sarcophagus, canopic jar fragments, etc. found in tomb.

Djedkare Izezi's pyramid                                Pyramid at Saqqara                            nearly complete mummy found in tomb.

Unas' pyramid                                                Pyramid at Saqqara                             left arm and hand along with skull fragments - Cairo Museum

Teti's pyramid                                                 Pyramid at Saqqara                           Remains of an arm and shoulder

Pepi I pyramid                                                Pyramid in South Saqqara                 A packet of viscera and part of a mummy with wrapping - Cairo Museum

Merenre I Nemtyemzaf's pyramid                   Pyramid in South Saqqara                 Mummy found in pyramid - believed to be his

It should also be pointed out that the Great Pyramid was robbed at least once, during the First Intermediate Period (2081-2055 BC), so within 500 years of its construction. Also, in the account of Abu ’l-Salt he says "the caliph’s party found nothing in the burial chamber but decayed remains." As to why Al Mamun said that the robbers tunnel was blocked and the sarcophagus was closed Stadelmann himself explained thusly: "At some point during the Ramesside period (1295-1069 BC), the desecrated burial chamber had been restored. When the restoration was complete, the tunnel was re-blocked to prevent further violations of the tomb. It was this blockage, not the original one, which was removed some two millennia later by al-Maˆmun.30"

Source:  https://www.academia.edu/8494464/al-Mamun_the_Pyramids_and_the_Hieroglyphs

 

The "mummy" found in the Red Pyramid was just "mummy parts" (left foot and foreleg) and there is and was no evidence it was a king or contemporary to the construction.  

 

There is no direct evidence any great pyramid was designed or used as a tomb.  

[Hanslune 11,272]

3 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Maybe its me, and I've come to grips it might be, but it seems a little more interesting a topic than say Atlantis or beating up on the dead corpse of the fringe ad nauseam. And I ask with a new perspective so hopefully for some it will breath new life into an age old question. 

I was rushed earlier and didn't respond in full. Thanks for bringing up something sane and not Atlantis! Appreciated

[Hanslune 11,272]

2 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

....

How is Psusennes I of the 21st Dynasty 2500+yrs after the fact, a 3rd Intermediate Period pharaoh that did not build monumental architecture surrounded by cemeteries with no evidence of his own burial if only to the contrary, a pharaoh who stole his sarcophagus from a previous NK host no less, relevant to the question raised in the OP? Was he actually buried in the city of Tanis? 3,000yrs of pharaohs-is it common practice to bury themselves within a city (a rhetorical question with the answer obviously "no")? Why and how does this relate to the pyramids of the MK and earlier? And if intact pharaonic burials are the criteria, regardless of when they were built or how much they differ from the pyramid complexes etc ect, then why not look to Tut buried in the Valley of the Kings some 300+ yrs earlier? Yet again, he nor his predecessors/successors built monumental funerary architecture to be surrounded by cemeteries only to bury themselves somewhere else. And not in the city. 

I understand it requires some effort to get the gist of what I am saying beyond the knee jerk "pyramids were not tombs", it seems an important question to ask, but what I am suggesting is that there is an as yet understood ideological reason why no royal burial has ever been found in the pyramids which is because there was never intended to be-an ideology directly supported by the kings of the 1st and 2nd Dynasties. It is not enough to say pyramids were not tombs because no royal burial was ever found- there has to not only be a reason why but also evidence of not only precedent but an alternative burial location. You say I ask this "enduring question" again, but obviously no one is asking the right questions. I offer an alternative.    

His is the only Pharaoh's tomb NOT looted which seemed important. Guess what is in that tomb. A sarcophagus.. I wonder why? Yes it remains an enduring question and will probably never been sufficient answered to quiet the fringe. IN looking at a question, especially one with not a lot of evidence I would take what evidence there is to heart.

Oh and there was one other 'royal' burial of a princess in a pyramid but again it was waterlogged and the body destroyed. It too is thought to not have been robbed. Neferuptah who name was placed within a cartouche.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neferuptah

A burial for her was prepared in the tomb of her father at Hawara However, she was not buried there, but in a small pyramid at Hawara. Her tomb was found intact in 1956 and still contained her jewellery, a granite sarcophagus, three silver vases and other objects.

 

Broad collar of Neferuptah

The granite sarcophagus was inscribed with a short offering formula. Inside the sarcophagus were found the decayed remains of two wooden coffins. The outer one was decorated with inscribed gold foil. Identical inscriptions were found on the sarcophagus of Queen Hatshepsut, who lived about 300 years later. Her tomb is mentioned on a papyrus found at Lahun. She is depicted next to her father in the temple at Medinet Madi. Objects belonging to her include a sphinx of black granite and the fragment of a statue found on Elephantine.

 

Now what does her burial, Psusennes I and the 37 pyramids have in common - a sarcophagus (presuming all 37 had one). Interesting.

 

 

[Hanslune 11,272]

54 minutes ago, cladking said:

The "mummy" found in the Red Pyramid was just "mummy parts" (left foot and foreleg) and there is and was no evidence it was a king or contemporary to the construction.  

 

There is no direct evidence any great pyramid was designed or used as a tomb.  

There is no evidence that they weren't. Plus oddly the AE seemed to call them tombs. Why do you think that was? Explain also what 'Direct' evidence is? Is that a term you made up?

 

 

Edited April 23 by Hanslune

[Thanos5150 301]

2 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Except that the following cannot be shown to be definitively true: 

Particularly as there has been claimed some measure of evidence for mummified remains found in some of the pyramids.

It feru's Red Pyramid, Dahshur                  middle aged mummy found in Red Pyramid, but stolen

Neferefre's pyramid                                       Unfinished Pyramid at Abusir               left hand and other mummy fragments, fragments of red sarcophagus, canopic jar fragments, etc. found in tomb.

Djedkare Izezi's pyramid                                Pyramid at Saqqara                            nearly complete mummy found in tomb.

Unas' pyramid                                                Pyramid at Saqqara                             left arm and hand along with skull fragments - Cairo Museum

Teti's pyramid                                                 Pyramid at Saqqara                           Remains of an arm and shoulder

Pepi I pyramid                                                Pyramid in South Saqqara                 A packet of viscera and part of a mummy with wrapping - Cairo Museum

Merenre I Nemtyemzaf's pyramid                   Pyramid in South Saqqara                 Mummy found in pyramid - believed to be his

It should also be pointed out that the Great Pyramid was robbed at least once, during the First Intermediate Period (2081-2055 BC), so within 500 years of its construction. Also, in the account of Abu ’l-Salt he says "the caliph’s party found nothing in the burial chamber but decayed remains." As to why Al Mamun said that the robbers tunnel was blocked and the sarcophagus was closed Stadelmann himself explained thusly: "At some point during the Ramesside period (1295-1069 BC), the desecrated burial chamber had been restored. When the restoration was complete, the tunnel was re-blocked to prevent further violations of the tomb. It was this blockage, not the original one, which was removed some two millennia later by al-Maˆmun.30"

Source:  https://www.academia.edu/8494464/al-Mamun_the_Pyramids_and_the_Hieroglyphs

cormac

Quote

"Particularly as there has been claimed some measure of evidence for mummified remains found in some of the pyramids." 

Again:  

Quote

Egyptology holds that pyramids were built as tombs for the pharaohs, yet no royal burial has ever been found in one. This is not to mean just the "body" of the pharaohs are missing, but all the material funerary goods and even the artistic and written testament right off the walls as well. 

It is helpful to acknowledge this point as a body alone does not a royal burial make. Lehner has been quoted as saying that no royal burial has been found in any pyramid which is specifically to mean not just the body hence why I use this phrase and take the time to actually point at this is to specifically mean "not just a body". It is unfortunate this needs to be explained. Instead of acknowledging what was actually written, however, you uncritically quote references to the few remains found in pyramids which the consensus is that what aren't intrusive are inconclusive with nothing more than "presumption" to claim anything otherwise.  

Quote

"It should also be pointed out that the Great Pyramid was robbed at least once, during the First Intermediate Period (2081-2055 BC), so within 500 years of its construction."

You say this as "fact" but it clearly is not which you should ask yourself how you came to state it as such. This idea comes from the MK Ipuwer Papyrus which is thought it may be referring to the First Intermediate Period.  It says:

Behold, he who was buried as a falcon [is devoid] of biers, and what the pyramid concealed has become empty. 

Which you regurgitate from a source to mean:

 "It should also be pointed out that the Great Pyramid was robbed at least once, during the First Intermediate Period (2081-2055 BC), so within 500 years of its construction."

How'd that be? 

As an aside, related to another thread regarding cedar wood, it also says:

Indeed, the builders [of pyramids have become] cultivators, and those who were in the sacred bark are now yoked [to it]. None shall indeed sail northward to Byblos today; what shall we do for cedar trees for our mummies, and with the produce of which priests are buried and with the oil of which [chiefs] are embalmed as far as Keftiu? 

To continue, you say:

Quote

Also, in the account of Abu ’l-Salt he says "the caliph’s party found nothing in the burial chamber but decayed remains."

Written in what-the 11th century AD? We are reminded of what a "wise man" once said:

Quote

And it would be my contention that something written some 2000 years after the fact doesn't even qualify as circumstantial since it's not remotely contemporary let alone evidenced. It's akin to claiming you can say anything meaningful about an ancestor of yours from the first century BC, totally useless IMO. 

And:

Quote

The actual evidence though shows that there was no evidence of a pharaoh's remains found in the pyramids 2000 years after the fact and NOT that there were 'never' any pharaoh's buried in the pyramids. Said tales corroborate NOTHING in regards to the original disposition of any pharaoh's remains.

So Herodotus informed by Egyptian priests 2,000yrs later is crazy talk, but the Arab's more than 3,000yrs later with their flying carpets and whatnot-now that's a reliable source.  Pfft. 

But let's quote the surrounding text shall we:

"In the middle of [the room] it was a closed basin of marble. When the cover was removed, it was found to contain nothing but decayed remains". 

Do you know of any "closed marble basins with cover" in, we assume as it does not actually say, G1? Oh, yeah, but I am sure they got the "decayed remains" part right though.  

But reading your source, pg171, we find this: "During the First Intermediate Period (2081-2055 BC), the pyramid was,nevertheless, robbed". They said it and you repeated it so I  guess it must be true then, huh? 

Regarding the Stadelmann bit, the source you cite in the footnotes says: 

Quote

First,the passage would not have been ‘gaping open in 820 AD [sic]’ if Stadelmann’s hypothetical restorers had reblocked it. Second, Denis of Tell Mahre (on whom see below) does not say that the pyramid was ‘already opened’ but rather that there was a dead-end tunnel leading into it.

Which a little bit down you copy and paste this: 

Quote

Again, Stadelmann proposes an explanation. At some point during the Ramesside period (1295-1069 BC), the desecrated burial chamber had been restored. When the restoration was complete, the tunnel was re-blocked to prevent further violations of the tomb. It was this blockage, not the original one, which was removed some two millennia later by al-Ma mun. 

And further still we find Cooperson's explanation for the "marble basin":

Quote

Finally, ‘a closed basin of marble’ is a reasonable description of the sarcophagus, provided we accept Stadelmann’s proposal that it was rededicated after the initial robbery or series of robberies.

So according to your source, one you feel quite confident in copy and pasting as gospel, believes a "closed basin of marble" is a "reasonable description" if we accept it was "rededicated" in the NK after the robbery(ies). Wow, that is fantastic. So in the NK the original sarcophagus was removed and replaced with a "closed basin of marble", which unbeknownst to one Michael Cooperson apparently, was not only removed but again replaced sometime after the Arabs broke in with the lidless granite sarcophagus we see today which they were kind enough to set near the wall of the room and not in the center as the Arabs found the "closed basin of marble". You good with that? Cooperson is clueless, and like you, parroting sources he does not understand. 

 

 

Edited April 23 by Thanos5150

[Sir Wearer of Hats 32,013]

2 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Please elaborate. 

What needs elaborating? I think there are more burials in other locations.

[Thanos5150 301]

32 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Now what does her burial, Psusennes I and the 37 pyramids have in common - a sarcophagus (presuming all 37 had one). Interesting.

 

All 37 do not, see Sneferu for example, but sarcophagi can also be found in cenotaphs which is what the OP suggests.