If Pyramids not tombs where are the pharaohs?

[Harte]

But my logisticals are well vitrified.

Harte

[Hanslune]

7 hours ago, Windowpane said:

On the whole, there was little support for the theory of geysers at Giza ...

We in ISDUT (irregular suppression department of un-evidenced tomfoolery) prefer the term 'Vanishingly Small and Inconsequential' or VSI

[Hanslune]

7 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Ha ha, yes, and I know exactly why you bemoaned the lack of attention to G2 as it really is the elephant in the room for the fantasies.

Its the younger, smarter brother to G1 but lacks charisma, social presence and is an awkward subject for most fringe wanabee gurus.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

4 hours ago, cladking said:

"Pyramid" is just a word.  

Indeed it is, as is Floxinoxinihilipilification.

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Indeed it is, as is Floxinoxinihilipilification.

Yes and pyramid spelled backed wards is pronounced 'dim mary'

[Alchopwn]

It should be pointed out that the tombs of Egypt have been the subject of looting for at least 3000 years.  There was sporadic looting during the time when the Pharaohs held power.  There was increased looting during periods of civil war in Egypt in order to fund armies.  Before Egypt fell to outside invasion there was a period where the Pharaohs enjoyed no prestige and the priesthood held all the power, and the priests actually appointed what amounted to a position of "chief tomb robber" and cleaned up much of the Pharaonic tomb legacy that remained.  During the Greek/Roman period, the prestige of the ancient monuments was somewhat restored, but fell in prestige under the Byzantines.  The Arab invasion signaled another upswing in tomb looting, as the Muslims regarded all facets of ancient Egyptian culture as being blasphemous pantheism and actively destroyed it.  The Muslims actually founded "Al-Majalibeen", crudely translating to "The Guild of Seekers" that was the only example of an "adventurers guild" (yes torn straight from RPGs) that ever existed in the Medieval World.  Its entire purpose was to rob the monuments of Ancient Egypt.   Then, as Islam fell behind and Europeans came to Egypt, a new wave of grabbing artefacts began, as the Muslims were using great ancient temples to house their goats and had zero respect for any of the Ancient Egyptian history or heritage due to extreme religious bigotry, that often saw them actively deface ancient monuments as a form of piety, much as the Taliban did to the Buddhas of Bamiyan.

So, you ask where the bodies of the pharaohs are?  That would entirely depend on when the tombs were actually robbed.  During the great period when the Egyptian Priests robbed the tombs, they deposited the bodies of the pharaohs in a single collection point in one of the tombs that has since been uncovered.  If it was at another period, the bodies may well have been broken down for fuel, as mummies burn so well that the British Alexandria to Cairo railway once ran on burning mummies, and people often made fires from mummies.

If we are extremely lucky, it may be that the constructors of the pyramids were so clever in their designs that they defeated the tomb robbers, and the pharaohs remain to be discovered.  On the other hand, what are the odds after 3000+years of looting?

Edited April 27, 2020 by Alchopwn

[Wepwawet]

6 hours ago, cladking said:

Do you think Thanos5150 is unfamiliar with real "Egyptology"?   

Do you really think Scott Creighton and other alts have not looked into the evidence?   

 

People look at the evidence and see it does not support the assumptions.  Maybe 150 years ago it kindda did but many new things have been found and learned and  the assumptions are no longer being supported.  News and new findings should dovetail with theory but instead new mysteries are forever emerging.     

I'm not accusing Thanos5150 of not having real knowledge of ancient Egypt, as quite clearly he does, and I certainly do not acuse him of being a card carrying member of the fringe. To me, his OP presents presentational issues, ie I think he asked the question the wrong way, and so received answers he is not happy with, but does not present problems of knowledge or signs of woo. As he points out, there are some real mysteries with the pyramids that need investigation, for instance multiple pyramids for one king, a sealed, but empty sarcophagus, among others.

Scott Creighton is a "high priest" of the fringe, and a published author. I may well dissagree with every last word he writes, but you cannot write a book without a certain amount of knowledge above the average, the issue is with what use that knowledge is put too. Note that in my post I did not exclude all the fringe from having knowledge, and for greater clarity I'll say that it is the few "high priests" that have knowledge, while their "flock" are in the dark. It's rather like the middle ages where only the priest could read Latin, and therefore the Bible, while the peasants could not read and had to take everything the priest said as gospel, and with no means of knowing if they were being told nonsense or not. Today, putting aside the issue of the difficulty of reading hieroglyphs, the "flock" can read and have a huge number of works at their disposal, yet the majority show an alarming, and dissapointingly low level of basic knowledge, content, it seems, to just soak up the sermons of the "priests", whether in book form, loony tunes documentaries, or online.

[Wepwawet]

7 hours ago, cladking said:

There's no reason to believe that the piles of rubble or anything at all from later times have any bearing whatsoever on the great pyramids.  Just because this rubble is called "pyramids" doesn't make them tombs or not tombs and the word "pyramid" doesn't make the real pyramids tombs or not tombs.  "Pyramid" is just a word.  This same thing applies to "mortuary temple"; just words.   A building that no longer stands next to a great pyramid can't be positively identified as a "mortuary temple".   Of course there's evidence that the rubble piles had a "mortuary temple" but they came later and all we know is that there had been a building east of most great pyramids.   That there was a building of unknown function  next to a pyramid doesn't make the pyramid a tomb.  I doubt ALL the piles of rubble were tombs but I doubt any of the pyramids were tombs.   The little tiny "pyramids" were mere imitations of the great pyramids. From a distance it would have been difficult to tell a real pyramid from an imitation.  Maybe this is why they built the little pyramids; they wanted their tombs to look like actual pyramids just as some of the workers tombs at Giza looked like pyramids.  

None of this makes any pyramid a tomb.  

There is no "controversy" about the pyramids being tombs because it's a widely held assumption. But there is still no direct evidence any great pyramid was a tomb.  There's no direct evidence that the building next to G1 was a "mortuary temple".  There is no direct evidence that G1 was intended or used as a tomb.  None of these structures were called "tombs" or "graves" by the builders.  They never said there was a body in any of them and they did say the tomb of the king was in the sky and he ascended on smoke.  The assumption seems sound but it is not backed by any evidence at all other than very limited circumstantial evidence.   In light of the extensive cultural context and physical evidence this must be considered a serious blow to the assumption they were tombs.  

 

It seems to me that in light of the fact the "mortuary temple" is at the end of a long ramp leading up from a port on the river it would make an ideal location for a facility to handle, size, and transport stone for use on the pyramid.  Of course there are myriad possibilities for its function but being on a ramp certainly has implications and none of those implications support a mortuary complex.  

I would suggest that you read, as a minimum, "The Complete Pyramids" by Mark Lehner. This book contains plans of the pyramids in an easy to find and read format, and the location of all extant mortuary temples is clear to see. For further reading I reccomend "Giza and the Pyramids" by Mark Lehner and Zahi Hawass, a truely monumental work incorporating, particulalry on the part of Lehner, the fruits of a lifetimes work at Giza. For the smaller pocket, and less sturdy coffee table, the Haynes "operations manual", "The Great Pyramid 2590 BC Onwards" by Franck Monier and David Lightbody is an excellent monograph of The Great Pyramid, covering all the theories of how it was built, and a section on experimental archaeology to see if tubular bore holes in granite are possible using ancient technology, *spoiler*, yes they are.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

4 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

So, you ask where the bodies of the pharaohs are?  That would entirely depend on when the tombs were actually robbed.  During the great period when the Egyptian Priests robbed the tombs, they deposited the bodies of the pharaohs in a single collection point in one of the tombs that has since been uncovered.  If it was at another period, the bodies may well have been broken down for fuel, as mummies burn so well that the British Alexandria to Cairo railway once ran on burning mummies, and people often made fires from mummies.

 

While robbers would have been present all through their history, large scale robbery seems to have occured only when society had collapsed, specifically the First Intermediate Period, and when society had become moribund and corrupt, as we see at the close of the 20th Dynasty, and the Abbott Papyrus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_Papyrus  and the Amherst Papyrus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amherst_Papyrus   provide some illumination here. There is another papyrus, name escapes me, in which a priest involved in creating the TT320 and KV35 royal caches expresses remorse for violating the tombs in the way they did, by that he means that while preserving the mummies was something that needed doing, this was used as an excuse by a cash strapped state to engage in large scale robbery, and the most serious desecration.

[cladking]

5 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I would suggest that you read, as a minimum, "The Complete Pyramids" by Mark Lehner. This book contains plans of the pyramids in an easy to find and read format, and the location of all extant mortuary temples is clear to see. For further reading I reccomend "Giza and the Pyramids" by Mark Lehner and Zahi Hawass, a truely monumental work incorporating, particulalry on the part of Lehner, the fruits of a lifetimes work at Giza. For the smaller pocket, and less sturdy coffee table, the Haynes "operations manual", "The Great Pyramid 2590 BC Onwards" by Franck Monier and David Lightbody is an excellent monograph of The Great Pyramid, covering all the theories of how it was built, and a section on experimental archaeology to see if tubular bore holes in granite are possible using ancient technology, *spoiler*, yes they are.

I've read dozens of books and parts of hundreds more.  

Why not just tell me what you believe supports the position that the kings were buried in pyramids?  

[Wepwawet]

25 minutes ago, cladking said:

I've read dozens of books and parts of hundreds more.  

Why not just tell me what you believe supports the position that the kings were buried in pyramids?  

Okay, but if you provide evidence for why you think they are not tombs, and by evidence I mean something tangible that can be examined and assesed.

To start things off I will give you the base reason why I think a pyramid is a tomb. We first have the mastaba, without doubt a tomb, and I'm sure you can agree on that. We then have the Step Pyramid, which is clearly a structural evolution of the mastaba, and with elements to it's complex, both under the pyramid and in the enclosure, the serdab and representation of the hed-seb for example, that clearly show the step pyramid to be a tomb for the mortal remains of the king. Over to you with your first piece of evidence that can be analysed, as mine can.

[Alchopwn]

3 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

While robbers would have been present all through their history, large scale robbery seems to have occured only when society had collapsed, specifically the First Intermediate Period, and when society had become moribund and corrupt, as we see at the close of the 20th Dynasty, and the Abbott Papyrus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_Papyrus  and the Amherst Papyrus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amherst_Papyrus   provide some illumination here. There is another papyrus, name escapes me, in which a priest involved in creating the TT320 and KV35 royal caches expresses remorse for violating the tombs in the way they did, by that he means that while preserving the mummies was something that needed doing, this was used as an excuse by a cash strapped state to engage in large scale robbery, and the most serious desecration.

A nice addition.  Thanks for going into the extra detail.  I personally find the robbing of ancient Egypt to be compelling reading and was quite into it for a while.  I particularly enjoyed the memoirs of Belzoni, which are at once a compelling adventure story and an archaeological horror story of vandalism that is darkly comedic.  So do you think that Ramases is still in the Great Pyramid or has he been plundered?

Edited April 27, 2020 by Alchopwn

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

I've read dozens of books and parts of hundreds more.  

Why not just tell me what you believe supports the position that the kings were buried in pyramids?  

Why don't YOU tell us what supports your position that the kings weren't buried in pyramids? Since we already know you've rejected all such information before - many, many time before?

Ah I see that point has been made by Wepwawet. Your old tactic of demand, deny, dismiss and demand again isn't going to work Cladking - so what now? Run away, or rant on about ramps, infra-red, Egyptologists or metaphysics?

Edited April 27, 2020 by Hanslune

[Hanslune]

42 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

A nice addition.  Thanks for going into the extra detail.  I personally find the robbing of ancient Egypt to be compelling reading and was quite into it for a while.  I particularly enjoyed the memoirs of Belzoni, which are at once a compelling adventure story and an archaeological horror story of vandalism that is darkly comedic.  So do you think that Ramases is still in the Great Pyramid or has he been plundered?

Yes and robbing wasn't just an Egyptian thing no Roman Emperor's tomb survived intact nor many other such notables however ( a few notable tombs have survive usually by being covered over especially if within a city, that happened in Mesopotamia and a few other places), it is thought but not known that some famous tombs in Asia survived but then they have not been checked for looters tunnels.

[Piney]

3 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Yes and robbing wasn't just an Egyptian thing no Roman Emperor's tomb survived intact nor many other such notables however ( a few notable tombs have survive usually by being covered over especially if within a city, that happened in Mesopotamia and a few other places), it is thought but not known that some famous tombs in Asia survived but then they have not been checked for looters tunnels.

"Killing" personal objects wasn't a ritual thing. It was to discourage grave robbers. 

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Alchopwn said:

A nice addition.  Thanks for going into the extra detail.  I personally find the robbing of ancient Egypt to be compelling reading and was quite into it for a while.  I particularly enjoyed the memoirs of Belzoni, which are at once a compelling adventure story and an archaeological horror story of vandalism that is darkly comedic.  So do you think that Ramases is still in the Great Pyramid or has he been plundered?

If it were not for the scan results I would unequivocally say that, barring the undiscovered tombs, Ramesses XI for instance, no king remains in his tomb, Tutankhamun aside, as all have been robbed.

When the royal caches were made, it does not seem that the necropolis officials were doing anything other than dealing with the Theban necropolis. If so, then I would think that they knew that it was not worth checking OK and MK tombs because they knew they had all been robbed. We could though get a surprise one day if we find a royal cache of OK and MK mummies, but I very much doubt it, and even so, discovery of the mummies would rule out anything being left in their tombs.

What we don't know is the extent of robberies before the caches were made, but a rule of thumb is that an intact mummy, say of Ramesses II, would be an indicator that his tomb had not been robbed, but a king who had been ripped to pieces, like Thutmose III, would certainly had his tomb robbed before the caches were made. I could take this as an opportunity to ramble on and on and on and on about KV35 and Amarna, but I'll spare everybody the boredom, and it's OT

Edited April 27, 2020 by Wepwawet
typos and syntax

[Wepwawet]

19 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Why don't YOU tell us what supports your position that the kings weren't buried in pyramids? Since we already know you've rejected all such information before - many, many time before?

Ah I see that point has been made by Wepwawet. Your old tactic of demand, deny, dismiss and demand again isn't going to work Cladking - so what now? Run away, or rant on about ramps, infra-red, Egyptologists or metaphysics?

So you saw what I did

[Piney]

16 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

So you saw what I did

Just you wait. He's gotten several people banned including Martin Stower. 

[Wepwawet]

8 minutes ago, Piney said:

Just you wait. He's gotten several people banned including Martin Stower. 

Well, true to my name I "Opened the way", if he will not follow and take the oportunity presented, then that is his loss.

Edited April 27, 2020 by Wepwawet
typo

[Hanslune]

31 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

If it were not for the scan results I would unequivocally say that, barring the undiscovered tombs, Ramesses XI for instance, no king remains in his tomb, Tutankhamun aside, as all have been robbed.

When the royal caches were made, it does not seem that the necropolis officials were doing anything other than dealing with the Theban necropolis. If so, then I would think that they knew that it was not worth checking OK and MK tombs because they knew they had all been robbed. We could though get a surprise one day if we find a royal cache of OK and MK mummies, but I very much doubt it, and even so, discovery of the mummies would rule out anything being left in their tombs.

What we don't know is the extent of robberies before the caches were made, but a rule of thumb is that an intact mummy, say of Ramesses II, would be an indicator that his tomb had not been robbed, but a king who had been ripped to pieces, like Thutmose III, would certainly had his tomb robbed before the caches were made. I could take this as an opportunity to ramble on and on and on and on about KV35 and Amarna, but I'll spare everybody the boredom, and it's OT

Just old Psusennes I avoided that fate and he did that by being buried within a city. In the priestly district I believe.

Somehow all the tombs around him were robbed but they somehow missed his.

 

[Scott Creighton]

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Okay, but if you provide evidence for why you think they are not tombs, and by evidence I mean something tangible that can be examined and assesed.

To start things off I will give you the base reason why I think a pyramid is a tomb. We first have the mastaba, without doubt a tomb, and I'm sure you can agree on that. We then have the Step Pyramid, which is clearly a structural evolution of the mastaba...

By that logic...

Just because something may appear to have evolved from one thing to another, doesn't always mean the supposed evolution of the later structure was to serve the same function. Fact of the matter is - if someone in ancient times wanted to build a really tall structure for ANY reason, then that structure would, by constructional necessity, have to take the form of a pyramid since this is the most naturally stable construction that could be built without the use of iron or steel.

SC

[Wepwawet]

18 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

By that logic...

Just because something may appear to have evolved from one thing to another, doesn't always mean the supposed evolution of the later structure was to serve the same function. Fact of the matter is - if someone in ancient times wanted to build a really tall structure for ANY reason, then that structure would, by constructional necessity, have to take the form of a pyramid since this is the most naturally stable construction that could be built without the use of iron or steel.

SC

Are you also cladking ? I opened the way for him, to give him opportunity to respond to the evidence I gave him at his request. So I wait, in the first instance, for cladking to present some physical evidence that pyramids were not tombs, which may, depending on him, include evidence to show that the Step Pyramid is not an evolution of the mastaba. Your image and words do no such thing, in fact they are "smoke and mirrors" which avoid Occam's razor.

[Scott Creighton]

2 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

Are you also cladking ? I opened the way for him, to give him opportunity to respond to the evidence I gave him at his request. So I wait, in the first instance, for cladking to present some physical evidence that pyramids were not tombs, which may, depending on him, include evidence to show that the Step Pyramid is not an evolution of the mastaba. Your image and words do no such thing, in fact they are "smoke and mirrors" which avoid Occam's razor.

UM is a public forum, dude. If you want to have control over who responds to your posts, start a blog.

SC

[Wepwawet]

45 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Just old Psusennes I avoided that fate and he did that by being buried within a city. In the priestly district I believe.

Somehow all the tombs around him were robbed but they somehow missed his.

 

Yes, I forgot about them, poor old Pierre Montet, overshadowed by the advent of WWII as G2 is overshadowed by G1.

[Wepwawet]

6 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

UM is a public forum, dude. If you want to have control over who responds to your posts, start a blog.

SC

I wouldn't mind an interjection if it had any value, but yours was simply a distraction.