If Pyramids not tombs where are the pharaohs?

[Wepwawet]

8 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

well thats interesting that you mention what could have been in the inner tomb and sarcophagus. i remember reading an interesting article a while back ago that mentions it was the Arab rulers in the 8th century that discovered the upper chambers and tunnels of the Great Pyramid by breaking through granite blocks that plugged the entrances. and they specifically mentioned that there was no mummy to be seen and that the sarcophagus was open and broken. 

Now if the Arabs were the first to enter by defeating the defensive granite plugs and they found nothing then it stands to reason that it wasn't a tomb but a decoy or a ceremonial tomb. Otherwise there would have had to have been a second entrance into the tomb that we don't know about. 

What do you think ?

I think we see a decoy and that the actual burial chamber is behind that block by the sarcophagus, but I would not be surprised that if this were ever found to be the case, that this will have been robbed, probably in the First Intermediate Period. At that point it is probable that the plans still existed and that the robbery was made not by "common robbers", but by those with control of the area. It could though be the case if there were a period of total anarchy, which is quite possible, that while those who built G1 had gone, an at least verbal record of it's internal structure remained, and, if the scans do show further chambers, been robbed via them, and with no need to even enter the King's Chamber, so leaving that mysterious block in place.

However, we need to weight against that the precise purpose of a pyramid and in particular the internal layout of G1, which is unique. G2, see, a mention! shows a conventional layout with the chambers below the body of the pyramid, and other pyramids have chambers at or a little above ground level, but not high up in the pyramid. The layout of G1 shows a serious eleboration of the theology, one which we cannot discern, only guess at.

 

Edited April 25, 2020 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

By decoy I don't suggest that the complicated structure that is the King's Chamber and the relieving chambers above are "frivolous" just to fool robbers. They certainly are very important and the position of the King's Chamber and the shafts must serve a deep theological purpose. What I do suggest is that it may not have been a necessity for the mummy of the king to have been in that chamber, and being placed in another off to the side may have been sufficient to serve religious and interment function for him.

[Windowpane]

13 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

... i remember reading an interesting article a while back ago that mentions it was the Arab rulers in the 8th century that discovered the upper chambers and tunnels of the Great Pyramid by breaking through granite blocks that plugged the entrances. and they specifically mentioned that there was no mummy to be seen and that the sarcophagus was open and broken. 

...

The problem with the mediaeval Arab accounts is that they are generally confused and garbled.  Some examples are given in this study, where the author al-Kaisi states, e.g., that:

Quote

“Al-Mamun opened the largest of the pyramids beyond al-Fustat, and entered a passageway leading to a very large square chamber with a domed ceiling. In the middle of this chamber was a square pit 10 ells in depth. Those who climbed down into the pit found that it had a door on each of its four sides … "

Yes: Al-Mamun HAD opened the pyramid ... but the statement is notable for being the sole fact in this description. Al-Kaisi (who goes on to indicate that he had actually visited the location in question) writes that he was in a square chamber with a domed ceiling – but there is no such chamber to be found throughout the length and breadth of Egypt.

A further brief overview of the legends and traditions recounted by the Arab historians, and the problems that can be generated by not properly understanding them, appears here.

Searches on the same website reveal other material and discussions of these mediaeval legends (in particular, Al-Maqrizi's Al-Khitat).  Al-Maqrizi wrote that:

 

Quote

... nobody knew anything for certain and ... all the stories he was collecting were all made up.

 

[Thanos5150]

On 4/23/2020 at 3:58 PM, Wepwawet said:

Well I don't dispute any of your points, or disagree that there is some odd stuff going on, but at the end of the day, my point is that until Unas, nobody but nobody had any decoration in their burial chamber. Therefore lack of decoration cannot be used in itself to rule out any pre Unas pyramid from being a tomb to hold mortal remains, even if some of these pyramids present other issues.

To quote myself from the first time you bought this up:

And when I say the walls are completely bare, including some sarcophagi, this refers to the whole of the pyramid i.e. entrance, passages, and ancillary chambers, not just the burial chamber, which of course this is not what we see in any king or commoner prior to Unas.

Which further led to the post you respond to now which shows in detail that the interior of pyramids are far more than just a burial chamber. Meaning therefore while even though we do not expect reliefs in the burial chamber, given there is so much more to the interior of a pyramid not having to do with the burial chamber there is no reason for there not to be elsewhere and in context of otherwise the entirety of DE funerary culture- unusual for there not to be. And just an FYI, there is a gaggle of 5th Dynasty tombs at Giza with decorated burial chambers whose date is in question though commonly thought most date to to the reign of Djedkare/lsesi who was active at Giza.  

Quote

I really cannot see how it can be "sacrilegious" not to have inscriptions within the pyramid until Unas.

It makes no sense you could not see this. When we look at the hundreds and hundreds of mastabas and tombs prior to Unas (and after), going back straight through to the beginning of the 3rd Dynasty with wall reliefs and before with non affixed medium (wood stela), we see a clear funerary program of reliefs, statuary, goods, etc.  And yet none of this applies to the king? For him we expect nothing and what we can't explain, well it's missing because it was robbed. This is senseless. Oh, but he put them on the MT instead, leaving two out of three Giza kings, for example, with nothing. No, this is sacrilegious. And what I said before about the reliefs found in the MT's of Sneferu and Khufu, these are largely related to the Heb-Sed and not exactly funerary dedication.  

Quote

Have you considered that the shape of the pyramid itself may be "doing the talking",

You mean like-hey come and rob me and take all my stuff just like you did to every pharaoh the last 36 times? Yeah, as noted in the OP, not mentioned once by anyone, this is exactly why the king would place his body somewhere else. 

 

Edited April 25, 2020 by Thanos5150

[Scott Creighton]

1 hour ago, Windowpane said:

A further brief overview of the legends and traditions recounted by the Arab historians, and the problems that can be generated by not properly understanding them, appears here.

SC: "As stated, many of these myths were preserved and passed down in the oral tradition by the Coptic-Egyptians, the descendants of the original ancient Egyptian people and these accounts were subsequently committed to the written form in the tenth century AD by the Arabic scholar, al-Mas’udi."

Colavito: "The question of oral transmission is uncertain."

Colavito may well find the oral transmission "uncertain" (and he is perfectly entitled to that view) but I have little reason to doubt the Coptic-Egyptian claim. I do accept, however, that some Arabic translators may well have embellished the central premise of the Coptic-Egyptian legend with some of their own fantastical tales.  

SC

[Thanos5150]

On 4/23/2020 at 3:58 PM, Wepwawet said:

Have you considered that the shape of the pyramid itself may be "doing the talking", particularly with G1, and then religious changes, the emergence of Osiris for instance, needing a proper exposition of what is required of the king when we get to Unas, something we see at various points in their history from the PT. For instance, the PT informs the CT which informs the Amduat which informs subsequent Books of the Netherworld. So it cannot be sacrilegious to not have a religious text before it was even created, obviously, but looking at the PT of Unas, we cannot say that previous pyramids were "in error" because they do not have the required texts, and what are these texts meant to be? we have texts, but nothing substantial before the PT, pretty much a datum point for our understanding of their theology, not totaly of course, but the first "main course".

Just a follow up here. It is strange to me that while the OP focuses on the period leading up to the pyramid age to help explain them, the rest of you completely ignore this history and instead use the period beginning centuries later if not a thousand + years later. Not one word about anything the OP actually says except "pyramids not tombs". Clack-clack-clickety-clack-clack.  

[Thanos5150]

17 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

The void, oh the void. I'm optimistic about this and hope that additional chambers proposed by Houdin that could lead off the King's chamber turn out to be reality. The scans, while not easy to read as regards whether we have a horizontal void or a slope mirroring the Grand Gallery, do fit to his proposal. Interestingly, the game Assassin's Creed Origins, released just before publication of the first scans, include Houdin's chambers, and access is by a "secret door" by the sarcophagus, where that odd sarcophagus sized block is that looks out of place to those around it. We'll see, one day.

On OK royal coffins and what they contain, or contained, we are not looking at anything remotely like the "Rolls Royce" coffins of the 18th Dynasty, and not even like the coffin of an MK noble. There were no anthropoid coffins at that time, and no nest of coffins as the mummies were still laid on their sides. So name and titles, maybe a pair of eyes, on a wodden coffin, and some protective spells, but nothing special. But there would I am sure have been a huge amount of treasure.

What we are looking for is something like these:

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

To quote myself from the first time you bought this up:

And when I say the walls are completely bare, including some sarcophagi, this refers to the whole of the pyramid i.e. entrance, passages, and ancillary chambers, not just the burial chamber, which of course this is not what we see in any king or commoner prior to Unas.

Which further led to the post you respond to now which shows in detail that the interior of pyramids are far more than just a burial chamber. Meaning therefore while even though we do not expect reliefs in the burial chamber, given there is so much more to the interior of a pyramid not having to do with the burial chamber there is no reason for there not to be elsewhere and in context of otherwise the entirety of DE funerary culture- unusual for there not to be. And just an FYI, there is a gaggle of 5th Dynasty tombs at Giza with decorated burial chambers whose date is in question though commonly thought most date to to the reign of Djedkare/lsesi who was active at Giza.  

It makes no sense you could not see this. When we look at the hundreds and hundreds of mastabas and tombs prior to Unas (and after), going back straight through to the beginning of the 3rd Dynasty with wall reliefs and before with non affixed medium (wood stela), we see a clear funerary program of reliefs, statuary, goods, etc.  And yet none of this applies to the king? For him we expect nothing and what we can't explain, well it's missing because it was robbed. This is senseless. Oh, but he put them on the MT instead, leaving two out of three Giza kings, for example, with nothing. No, this is sacrilegious. And what I said before about the reliefs found in the MT's of Sneferu and Khufu, these are largely related to the Heb-Sed and not exactly funerary dedication.  

You mean like-hey come and rob me and take all my stuff just like you did to every pharaoh the last 36 times? Yeah, as noted in the OP, not mentioned once by anyone, this is exactly why the king would place his body somewhere else. 

 

When I ask if you have considered if the shape, and by that I also mean internal layout of the pyramid, particulalry G1, "does the talking", I'm thinking about if these themselves provide, stand in for, religious texts, again particularly with G1. If you take away the Books of the Netherworld from 18th Dynasty tombs and onwards, you will have a rather bare tomb, not totaly bare of course. This is because, as you know, they provide the means of guiding the king through the Duat, and fix, by magical images and text, this cyclical event of resurrection of the king and Ra for eternity. Yes, I hear you grumbling about this example from the future, but, and here is the point, the shape and layout of the pyramid may, in a far simpler manner, have the same effect, not in images and texts, but as it is as this vast edifice of stone representing light, and the journey of the king to "heaven". That is what I mean by the pyramid doing the talking, and used the word talking instead of writing because to an ancient Egyptian, the hieroglyphs and images did talk, Ra chatters away without break during the entire night journey.

The coffins, stone or wood, of the time don't have much to say in a religious sense as the main motive is of the king being in his "palace of the dead", and then his name and titles. This is why I said that an undecorated coffin, while admittedly odd without even a name, is not crucial as the theology behind coffins at this time is insignificant compared to that which lays behind the pyramid. It is only when we get to the MK that the coffin becomes more important, in fact very important indeed. I supect that if we ever found an OK king untouched in his coffin, we would in fact be rather dissapointed in regards our expectations, guided at least unconsciously by KV62.

Which 5th Dynasty tombs have a decorated burial chamber ?

[Hanslune]

9 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

. G2, see, a mention! shows a conventional layout with the chambers below the body of the pyramid, and other pyramids have chambers at or a little above ground level, but not high up in the pyramid. The layout of G1 shows a serious eleboration of the theology, one which we cannot discern, only guess at.

 

Khafre sends his thanks - he's very lonely.

No one ever includes his tomb in outlandish CT's or even landish ones at best he only gets rare mentions as a second best. He'll take any scraps of attention he can get. He curses his inclination to save time and resources on a 'simple' tomb unlike his lunatic relative 'Khufu the building crazy guy'. Did you know Khufu went thru 43 different master builders - driving them to madness with all his changes and odd directions?

[Wepwawet]

18 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Khafre sends his thanks - he's very lonely.

No one ever includes his tomb in outlandish CT's or even landish ones at best he only gets rare mentions as a second best. He'll take any scraps of attention he can get. He curses his inclination to save time and resources on a 'simple' tomb unlike his lunatic relative 'Khufu the building crazy guy'. Did you know Khufu went thru 43 different master builders - driving them to madness with all his changes and odd directions?

It's a thing isn't it that so much hot air is expended on G1, but G2 seems to exist in a vacuum, something not wanted, at least by some. I'll offer the reason that it is because the unique internal structure of G1 gives some the chance to generate said hot air because they try to fill a gap in knowledge with "anti-knowledge". G2 is conventional and offers no such opportunity to constuct fantasies around, so is ignored. It's almost like an elephant in the room, clearly saying "Hey, I'm a tomb, and if I'm a tomb so is my big brother, okay", but the fantasists close their eyes, put their hands over their ears and cry la la, la, la la. Keep up the good work G2, and all you other pyramids out suffering the slings and arrows of wilfull ignorance, and just plain old ignorance, cannon fodder for pulp fiction. It's "Pyramid abuse"...

[Hanslune]

34 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

It's a thing isn't it that so much hot air is expended on G1, but G2 seems to exist in a vacuum, something not wanted, at least by some. I'll offer the reason that it is because the unique internal structure of G1 gives some the chance to generate said hot air because they try to fill a gap in knowledge with "anti-knowledge". G2 is conventional and offers no such opportunity to constuct fantasies around, so is ignored. It's almost like an elephant in the room, clearly saying "Hey, I'm a tomb, and if I'm a tomb so is my big brother, okay", but the fantasists close their eyes, put their hands over their ears and cry la la, la, la la. Keep up the good work G2, and all you other pyramids out suffering the slings and arrows of wilfull ignorance, and just plain old ignorance, cannon fodder for pulp fiction. It's "Pyramid abuse"...

A few months ago on Quora  I ran across a fellow I am certain had never heard of G2. He was 'Youtube" educated.

[Hanslune]

2 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

What we are looking for is something like these:

 

Some were fancy, some were not, and some were just a bit odd. G2's Khafre.

CT mode:

"Did you know the Egyptologist's made a great effort to lose Menkaure's sarcophagus above"

 

Oh isn't the first one a now Royal Sarcophagus for a guy named Chufuanch

 

Edited April 25, 2020 by Hanslune

[Scott Creighton]

Compare and contrast between mastaba tombs and pyramid 'tombs' from this period. The difference is truly stark. Mastabas - decorated with paintings and inscriptions, with names/titles also carved into the deceased's sarcophagus.

And the contemporary pyramid 'tombs'? Hee-haw:

The difference could not be more stark. Fancy tombs and burial - just NOT for the kings. Clearly there's something else going on (which is what I think Lee was trying to demonstrate with his OP).

SC

Edited April 25, 2020 by Scott Creighton

[WVK]

32 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

It's a thing isn't it that so much hot air is expended on G1, but G2 seems to exist in a vacuum, something not wanted, at least by some. I'll offer the reason that it is because the unique internal structure of G1 gives some the chance to generate said hot air because they try to fill a gap in knowledge with "anti-knowledge". G2 is conventional and offers no such opportunity to constuct fantasies around, so is ignored. It's almost like an elephant in the room, clearly saying "Hey, I'm a tomb, and if I'm a tomb so is my big brother, okay", but the fantasists close their eyes, put their hands over their ears and cry la la, la, la la. Keep up the good work G2, and all you other pyramids out suffering the slings and arrows of wilfull ignorance, and just plain old ignorance, cannon fodder for pulp fiction. It's "Pyramid abuse"...

Wikipedia gives the build dates as  2580–2560 BC  for G1,  2570BC for G2. So after learning how to construct the complicated  internal structure of G1 why go back to the much a simpler structure found in G2?. 

 

[Hanslune]

6 minutes ago, WVK said:

Wikipedia gives the build dates as  2580–2560 BC  for G1,  2570BC for G2. So after learning how to construct the complicated  internal structure of G1 why go back to the much a simpler structure found in G2?. 

 

Unknown G1 is an outlier in many aspect. My personal opinion is that Khufu was a religious nut. He disliked an underground burial and changed it to the 'Queens' decided THAT it wasn't grand enough and had them add in the grand gallery to the new "Kings" plus all the shafts - a builder night mare the owner changing his mind - might explain why things are off center too.

 

[Hanslune]

9 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

The difference could not be more stark. Fancy tombs and burial - just NOT for the kings. Clearly there's something else going on (which is what I think Lee was trying to demonstrate with his OP).

SC

Unless the boring damaged and looted sarcophagus were covered by a gold outer layer or something equally scrumptious. Of course that would have been stolen thousands of years ago. Don't you agree?

The only way to resolve this question is for you guys to put up the money to do extensive, decades long, excavations all over Egypt to find the REAL Pharaoh's burial places.

 

 

[Wepwawet]

11 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

The compare and contrast between mastaba tombs and pyramid 'tombs' from this period. The difference is truly stark. Mastabas - decorated with paintings and inscriptions, with names/titles also carved into the deceased's sarcophagus.

And the contemporary pyramid 'tombs'? Hee-haw:

The difference could not be more stark. Fancy tombs and burial - just NOT for the kings. Clearly there's something else going on (which is what I think Lee was trying to demonstrate with his OP).

SC

But it really sticks out here that you are comparing burial chambers to chapels, why not compare a pyramid burial chamber to a mastaba burial chamber, maybe because we will see the bare walls in the mastaba burial chamber. You also don't seem to be figuring in the profound difference between a mastaba and a pyramid. What we see is a step change in theology, or at least a way of using existing theology, though I think the former, and expressing it in these great edifices of stone. Did you read my speculation of the "Pyramids doing the talking"? Not saying it's a thing, but it is an angle that I think needs examining, and then thinking about tomb decoration, chapel or otherwise.

[Wepwawet]

27 minutes ago, WVK said:

Wikipedia gives the build dates as  2580–2560 BC  for G1,  2570BC for G2. So after learning how to construct the complicated  internal structure of G1 why go back to the much a simpler structure found in G2?. 

 

I'll go with the reply made by Hanslune, but add that while I stated that G1 is not a "resurrection machine" for nearby tombs at Giza, specifically because there was no resurrection at that time for anybody except the king, as we clearly see a planned complex, it may be possible, just possible, that the reason for the internal layout of G1 is somehow connected to a wider purpose, a purpoe that, like the Great Sphinx, does not need replicating. This is part of my reasoning for thinking that the mummy of Khufu may not necessarily have ever been in the King's Chamber, as that may not be it's function, but in a potential as yet undiscovered chamber next to it. But this is simply speculation, thinking out aloud about possibilities, thinking outside of the box, or coffin even.

Edited April 25, 2020 by Wepwawet

[WVK]

1 hour ago, Hanslune said:

Unknown G1 is an outlier in many aspect. My personal opinion is that Khufu was a religious nut. He disliked an underground burial and changed it to the 'Queens' decided THAT it wasn't grand enough and had them add in the grand gallery to the new "Kings" plus all the shafts - a builder night mare the owner changing his mind - might explain why things are off center too.

Perhaps to insure that G1 remained numero uno Khufu had those with the knowledge whacked .

[WVK]

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

I'll go with the reply made by Hanslune, but add that while I stated that G1 is not a "resurrection machine" for nearby tombs at Giza, specifically because there was no resurrection at that time for anybody except the king, as we clearly see a planned complex, it may be possible, just possible, that the reason for the internal layout of G1 is somehow connected to a wider purpose, a purpoe that, like the Great Sphinx, does not need replicating. This is part of my reasoning for thinking that the mummy of Khufu may not necessarily have ever been in the King's Chamber, as that may not be it's function, but in a potential as yet undiscovered chamber next to it. But this is simply speculation, thinking out aloud about possibilities, thinking outside of the box, or coffin even.

The KC made a great place for chanting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Htu9Mz901DI

 

[Unusual Tournament]

6 hours ago, Windowpane said:

The problem with the mediaeval Arab accounts is that they are generally confused and garbled.  Some examples are given in this study, where the author al-Kaisi states, e.g., that:

A further brief overview of the legends and traditions recounted by the Arab historians, and the problems that can be generated by not properly understanding them, appears here.

Searches on the same website reveal other material and discussions of these mediaeval legends (in particular, Al-Maqrizi's Al-Khitat).  Al-Maqrizi wrote that:

 

I havr a problem with your statement. Yes time has eroded the factual but lets consider it was the Arabs that busted their way INTO the great pyramid and connecting into the upper passageways that led to the chambers, including the so called tomb.  he evidence is there for all to see. There are no known accounts of the kings chamber before this event. The design of the pyramid shows the remains of the plugs and the fact that they were worked open from the inside. This cannot be disputed. 

If the GP tomb was robbed it was done so before it was sealed. Which would mean a con on the part of his family and priests. Something that has ro be considered so remote that its not even worth mentioning as an alternative.

Simply put the pyramid was never a tomb UNLESS the void above the chamber holds the truth. Otherwise claiming its a tomb is hokum.  

[Unusual Tournament]

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

I'll go with the reply made by Hanslune, but add that while I stated that G1 is not a "resurrection machine" for nearby tombs at Giza, specifically because there was no resurrection at that time for anybody except the king, as we clearly see a planned complex, it may be possible, just possible, that the reason for the internal layout of G1 is somehow connected to a wider purpose, a purpoe that, like the Great Sphinx, does not need replicating. This is part of my reasoning for thinking that the mummy of Khufu may not necessarily have ever been in the King's Chamber, as that may not be it's function, but in a potential as yet undiscovered chamber next to it. But this is simply speculation, thinking out aloud about possibilities, thinking outside of the box, or coffin even.

The great pyramid is unique in that its the only pyramid that has the actual tomb and passage ways above the base rock on which it is built, into the pyramid itself. Almost a 3 dimensional layout. A puzzle. It was never repurposed by another dynasty. Something that was normal for the times. Maybe it was feared and respected more than it was coveted.

The upper passages/chambers where sealed and never disturbed until the Arabs broke into it. No mentioned of gold or treasure just what we see now. A broken sarcophagus devoid of any inscription or funeral rights. The designers certainly thought outside the box. If a tomb then the void above might hold some answers or considering how cleaver the designers were i wouldn't be surprised if the entire pyramid is nothing but a decoy and the tomb is somewhere else.  

[Windowpane]

43 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

...

The upper passages/chambers where sealed and never disturbed until the Arabs broke into it. No mentioned of gold or treasure just what we see now. 

...

What do you mean, no mention of gold or treasure?

From the page on Frank Doernenberg's site, to which I linked earlier:

 

Quote

... Abu Abdallah Muhammed bin Abd ar-Rahim al Kaisi, speaking (incorrectly) of the Great Pyramid in the time of the Caliph Al-Ma’mun (ninth century CE):
 

It is said that a man who entered [the pyramid] in Al-Ma’mun’s time discovered a small room therein where there was a statue of a man in stone green as dahang. This statue was brought to Al-Ma’mun. It had a lid that could be removed, and within they found the body of a man wearing a gold breastplate encrusted with all kinds of jewels. On his chest lay a sword of inestimable price, and near the head was a red ruby the size of a hen’s egg which shone like a flame, which Al-Ma’mun took for himself. The statue within which this dead man was encased was put up near the door of the king’s palace in Cairo where I saw it in the year 511 (1138 CE).

 

[Unusual Tournament]

1 minute ago, Windowpane said:

What do you mean, no mention of gold or treasure?

From the page on Frank Doernenberg's site, to which I linked earlier:

Look I'm not gonna argue this anymore than it deserves. The Arab ruler at the time mentions nothing. The account you reference was mentioned in 1150 AD. thats a good 300 years after the fact. Not gonna play Chinese whispers but if something was found it would have been big news for its time. We have nothing. That and the fact that the tunnels leading to the supposed tomb were sealed shut until around 800 AD tells me that no one was buried in that sarcophagus.  

[Wepwawet]

"Time and Space" "Images and Words"

The decoration we see in the chapels of OK mastabas, and indeed any mortuary chapel in later periods, does not tell a theologically important story, only a biography hedged around with protective spells and pronouncements that the tomb owner loves the gods and that he is beloved of them etc etc. It's all very important to them of course, but it's all essentially frivolous and is more for the living than the dead. Yes, we have a point of meeting where the living can leave offerings that the dead can receive, but the reason why images of offerings, and preserved offerings appeared within the tomb was to ensure that offerings continued, at least magically, even if the descendants of the deceased stopped visiting the tomb, or if the chapel was destroyed. Ultimately, the chapel could be dispensed with as far as the continued existance of the soul of the deceased was concerned, and the continuence of the world in the case of the tomb of a king.

What is important is the existance of the sah, that the deceased keeps their name, and in the case of a king, that they can for eternity join with Ra and ensure his, and their own resurrection. All of this takes place within the tomb, and the most important elements are within the burial chamber.

What we see in the tomb of a king of the 18th Dynasty and onwards is very complicated and sophisticated. The decoration, which is a descriptive word, but dos not do justice to what we see, tells a story that looks static, but is in fact highly dynamic and contains elements of activities that happen simultaneously even though they appear consecutively. Ra appears in more than one form as he is not just "Flesh", the ram headed figure depicted on the Night Barque, but also the solar disk, the "Night Sun", no, not the Moon, that is omnipresent through all the hours, chambers or caverns depending on which book is being used. The story is so complicated that it can only be told in the form we see, but what we see is the culmination of more than a millenia of tinkering, mostly minor, but with the occassional burst of light, one such being the Amarna period. That seems counter factual, but it is a fact that the Book of the Solar-Osirian Unity, with it's first version, they all differ, appearing on Tutankhamun's second shrine. But what we see, though having Osiris, non existant, at least in the known record, in the 4th Dynasty, harks back to the Solar Cult of those times. The central image of Ra "fusing" with Osiris, who also includes the king, can just as easily work without Osiris. I say easily, but I don't want to bore you all to death, and those who know all this will see I am abridging this heavily. So remove Osiris and we still have the king "fusing" with Ra, which is what happens in the OK.

However, this is all far more rudimentary back then, though the PT did not emerge from nothing when Unas took the throne, and core elements will have been around for centuries. So, and no surprise, I suggest that it is possible that at least G1 perfoms a similar function, in very simplistic form, to the Amduat and those books that followed on. Therefore, the "missing" texts are there for all to see, if they could understand. Also, and going back to chaple decoration, there is the strong suggestion that as these can be magnificent, how can a pyramid without decoration possibly be a tomb. Um, what I wonder is the more magnificent, a theologically "vacuous" decorated chapel, or your entire tomb, if you were an OK king, sittiing there brand new as a shining white edifice, red banded on the lower courses and with a gold or electrum covered pyramidion, the entirety of which, unlike a chapel, is visible for miles and may contain their most profound and important religious beliefs.