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

If Pyramids not tombs where are the pharaohs?


Thanos5150
 Share

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

No. The discovery of Mastaba V and other palace facade mastabas at Giza had no relevance on the understanding of the palace facade motifs found later not just at Giza but elsewhere throughout Dynastic history. You'll note that when discussing the Giza finds Petrie refers to the already discovered palace facade mastaba of "queen Mena at Naqada" i.e. Neithhotep whose mastaba I picture above. Regardless, early Dynastic depictions and architectural examples were already known prior to the discovery of Mastaba V et al at Giza. If anything the discovery of this cemetery is an addition to our understanding of the proliferation of the early Dynastic state having nothing to do with our understanding of the motif itself.

Quote and cite where Lehner says this. There is no reason to believe the interior chamber of Mastaba V dated to the reign of Djet had any relation whatsoever to the KC centuries after the fact. Pure gobbledygook. 

Of course we would know if there were things "written on the walls or if the sarcophagus was clad", whatever the latte means. Again, G1 does not exist in a vacuum. 

 

 

1. Giza and the Pyramids,Page 48

2. You'll note I said "at the very least". My point is there is an explanation, with evidence, that explains your whole " the KC doesn't make any sense " argument. 

3. Your arguments lack continuity. You say King Djet's possible burial chamber has no connection to G1, then throw out the "again, G1 does not exist in a vacuum" line. Which is it ? 

4.  To clad something means to cover or coat something with another material. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by M. Williams
Spelling
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, M. Williams said:

1. Giza and the Pyramids,Page 48

Quote what he says. Where does he say that the burial chamber of Mastaba V is the "predecessor" to the KC if only in the general sense in that they are both "burial chambers"? That the wooden upright posts are evidence of a "similar wooden "shell" inside the KC? 

Quote

2. You'll note I said "at the very least". My point is there is an explanation, with evidence, that explains your whole " the KC doesn't make any sense " argument. 

Who says the "KC doesn't make any sense"? And your "at the very least" has nothing to do with any relationship with these mastabas and the understanding of the use of the palace facade motif at Giza or anywhere else for that matter. Which further has nothing to do with "My point is there is an explanation, with evidence, that explains your whole " the KC doesn't make any sense " argument".  Which is it? 

Quote

3. Your arguments lack continuity. You say King Djet's possible burial chamber has no connection to G1, then throw out the "again, G1 does not exist in a vacuum" line. Which is it ? 

 

Of course they do. How do you get from Mastaba V to the KC of G1 without all points in-between? This is the "non-vacuum", centuries apart no less. Do we find the same in Djoser's pyramid? Sekhemkhet? Medium? BP? RP? The only "relation" they have to Mastaba V is that they are "burial chambers".

Quote

4.  To clad something means to cover or coat something with another material. 

And...?

Is this or any of the other sarcophagi from the period I show "clad" with "another material"? 

tumblr_oc014vEQBP1rnq4hdo1_540.jpg 

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concerning the claim that "no royal remains were ever found in an Egyptian pyramid" what about the remains found in those of Pharaoh's Neferefra and Djedkare Izezi as detailed in the paper by EUGEN STROUHAL, LUBOŠ VYHNÁNEK †, M. F. GABALLAH, S. R. SAUNDERS, W. WOELFLI, G. BONANI, ALENA NĚMEČKOVÁ?

http://puvodni.mzm.cz/Anthropologie/downloads/articles/2001/Strouhal_2001_p15-23.pdf

If incorrect then when was it proven to be so and if correct then doesn't that invalidate the original claim? 

cormac

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay guys I'll fess up. Believe it or not sesh, clad and I were alien revolutionists back when sesh was still alive, unfortunately sesh was killed in action and Claddie(as we called him in the old days" got high on coke provided  by alien chrome dome big headed fairies were transporting from Peru and got dressed up in robes  after wrapping sesh and chanting something from the book of the dead, when he came back he earned his name ove evil overlord mummy, we kicked alien a## and loaded most of the mummies on their spaceship keeping a few cocaine mummie for Claddie to snort as distribution from Peru was cut of due to transport issues.the pyramids were after hour clubs, raves and orgies world wide some disclaimers about Bosnia excluded.

jmccre8

The only reason sesh didn't get snorted is because he was still walking around

Edited by jmccr8
correction of comment
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Concerning the claim that "no royal remains were ever found in an Egyptian pyramid" what about the remains found in those of Pharaoh's Neferefra and Djedkare Izezi as detailed in the paper by EUGEN STROUHAL, LUBOŠ VYHNÁNEK †, M. F. GABALLAH, S. R. SAUNDERS, W. WOELFLI, G. BONANI, ALENA NĚMEČKOVÁ?

http://puvodni.mzm.cz/Anthropologie/downloads/articles/2001/Strouhal_2001_p15-23.pdf

If incorrect then when was it proven to be so and if correct then doesn't that invalidate the original claim? 

cormac

Again, what I said was: 

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. 

Let's see what this report actually says:

Quote

 

INTRODUCTION

Because pyramids, conspicuous free-standing structures of monumental dimensions, were repeatedly robbed in the past, human remains were found in them only exceptionally by the pioneer archaeologists, starting from the end of the 19th century. It is, therefore, not surprising that many theories about the alleged non-burial function of the pyramids emerged....

CONCLUSION

Our results show that not all assumed royal remains from the Old Kingdom pyramids are genuine. Of the four identifications two cases were positively proven (Neferefra, Djedkare Isesi), while two others had to be refused (Djoser, Mycerinus).

 

NEFEREFRA

Scattered remains were found, notably a hand, which the only "proof" offered these are the remains of the king is the "chronometric dating", RCD, which gave a range of 2628-2393BC. Problem though is they do not give any details other than this is according to "fragment No.1". What of the other fragments? As we can see below this is a problem. Other human remains were found in the chamber date to Medieval times.  

DJEDKARE ISESI

Which again, the "decisive proof" was the RCD which yielded dates of 3031-2460BC for the 3 samples of mummy wrappings and a piece of charcoal with his daughters coming in at 2869-2403BC and 2920-2600BC respectively. But when we look at the actual numbers things take a turn.

Linen wrapping: 2864–2460BC

Body soft tissue 3340–2787BC

Charcoal 3014–2580BC

Linen wrapping 3031–2612BC. 

Djedkare Isesi supposedly died c, 2375 BC yet only one of the lowest dates is within 100yrs of this time with the next being more than 200yrs off, then  237yrs, with the body itself a whopping 412yrs older than when he is thought to have actually died. And this is the lowest number possible which if we take the highest of this range that makes him a good 965yrs older than accepted. 

If we take the average of these dates we arrive at:

2662BC

3063BC

2797BC

2821BC.

Hmm. You good with moving Djedkare Isesi, the 2nd to last pharaoh of the 5th Dynasty, back somewhere between 287-688 years?   

Maybe its me, but in the total absence of anything else related to a royal burial that can be directly related to these remains I am not sure what this is "proof of" other than when taken with the 1995 RCD study we can see the traditional timeline is way out of whack.  Oops.

Edited by Thanos5150
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Again, what I said was: 

Let's see what this report actually says:

NEFEREFRA

Scattered remains were found, notably a hand, which the only "proof" offered these are the remains of the king is the "chronometric dating", RCD, which gave a range of 2628-2393BC. Problem though is they do not give any details other than this is according to "fragment No.1". What of the other fragments? As we can see below this is a problem. Other human remains were found in the chamber date to Medieval times.  

DJEDKARE ISESI

Which again, the "decisive proof" was the RCD which yielded dates of 3031-2460BC for the 3 samples of mummy wrappings and a piece of charcoal with his daughters coming in at 2869-2403BC and 2920-2600BC respectively. But when we look at the actual numbers things take a turn.

Linen wrapping: 2864–2460BC

Body soft tissue 3340–2787BC

Charcoal 3014–2580BC

Linen wrapping 3031–2612BC. 

Djedkare Isesi supposedly died c, 2375 BC yet only one of the lowest dates is within 100yrs of this time with the next being more than 200yrs off, then  237yrs, with the body itself a whopping 412yrs older than when he is thought to have actually died. And this is the lowest number possible which if we take the highest of this range that makes him a good 965yrs older than accepted. 

If we take the average of these dates we arrive at:

2662BC

3063BC

2797BC

2821BC.

Hmm. You good with moving Djedkare Isesi, the 2nd to last pharaoh of the 5th Dynasty, back somewhere between 287-688 years?   

Maybe its me, but in the total absence of anything else related to a royal burial that can be directly related to these remains I am not sure what this is "proof of" other than when taken with the 1995 RCD study we can see the traditional timeline is way out of whack.  Oops.z

I didn't ask what you said, I asked a specific question particularly as the dates for the OK have been revised by Christopher Bronk Ramsey, et al (2010) with 95 Percentile dates for Djedkare Izezi given as 2486-2400 which is very much within the 3031 - 2460 BC range and most definitely 'not' circa 2375. As to the much older dates how do you place items into a tomb BEFORE it is constructed? 

cormac

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, M. Williams said:

That's a stretch to say the least. It wasn't finished according to egyptology as the three pyramids were.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayer_Papyri

Of the top of my head I can think of three other explanations of how KV4 is the way it is. Try again.

You made comment that it was an odd thing that one king had three pyramids, fine, it is odd, but not unique as far as tombs go which I why I mentioned Ramesses XI. I did also plainly state that the circumstances of his times were different to that of the 4th Dynasty, not in those precise words, but clear enough. That KV4 was never finished or used is neither here nor there, it is the fact that is was a tomb that is important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

If they were buried in one or more central locations, then a royal burial taking place at such a few locations over many centuries would not have gone unoticed by potential robbers, or anybody else in a time of collapse. However, where could such central burial be located, Abydos? Abusir? Heliopolis? or even an Indiana Jones type mega tomb underneath Giza.

Not "underneath Giza" but close.

For a number of reasons, I believe they were removed from their former tombs and placed here:

tiwqlx4.jpg

Hall of the Ancestors.

SC

 

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Not "underneath Giza" but close.

For a number of reasons, I believe they were removed from their former tombs and placed here:

tiwqlx4.jpg

Hall of the Ancestors.

SC

 

Ohh intriguing. 

Edited by Sir Wearer of Hats
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

The idea of a potential path set by the internal layout of G1, which this is the only pyramid it could apply to which should tell us all we need to know right there, does not alleviate the burden of no dedication of any kind.  It may say "something" but it tells us nothing of the person supposedly buried there which is antithetical to DE burial practices. G1 does not exist in a vacuum and whatever scheme one thinks of must apply to all. So if you think G1 is "doing all the talking" then for example what is G3 "saying":

image008.jpg

 inside-Menkaures-Pyramid.jpg

 

And regardless, as a matter of common sense outlined in the OP, this does not solve the problem of wanton looting pharaoh after pharaoh after pharaoh. They knew they were going to get robbed, in fact some even supposedly robbed their predecessors, yet they all kept doing the same stupid thing over and over and over again? Come on people. 

But when you look at the totality of interiors this does not apply to any other than G1. Lets take our friend Sahure for example:

pyr07.gif 

What magical journey do you think the interior layout is taking Sahure on? If the internal layout is meant to tell us "all we need to know" then why does Menkaure break this rule by adding the palace facade serekh building motif? If there were anything to this idea, though the architecture and expression of this path may be different, we would expect a standard formula for the the layout, much like pyrmaid complexes at large, yet clearly this is not the case. G1 does not exist in a vacuum.

There is a reason to grumble about applying later ideology to the OK not to mention ignoring what came before it. 

This is simply not true with the theology behind coffins not just at this time but long before being quite significant. If we take just a cursory inventory of 4th Dynasty sarcophagi not only do we see the expected norm but a clear ideology being displayed:

94c55aa44bb442f7c7c04f4d06d2-grande.jpg

tumblr_oc014vEQBP1rnq4hdo1_540.jpg

48.110_view2_SL4.jpg

V07PnUM.jpg

boston_03_2006%20379_1.jpg

wq2auSra-lFJN5TnKg5JvGFJ7XzICRPEq5sC5gHc

red-granite-sarcophagus-from-giza-egypt-

Sarcophagus+of+Meresankh+the+Third.jpg

Not to mention the pharaoh Menkaure:

menkaurebc.jpg

The same ideology displayed in sarcophagi going back to at least the 2nd Dynasty:

tomb-with-pottery-remains.jpg

 

This ideology being the serekh palace facade building dating to the beginnings of Dynastic Egypt:

4ce8025378562b16e8f6a021a5932d78.jpg

 

Which is far the most ubiquitous artistic motif found, not just on 4th sarcophagi, but in OK tombs in general if not the whole of DE history.  So many look to the PT to give some kind of meaning to the pyrmaids themsevles but when we look in the burial chamber of Unas himself what do we find it a representation of:

file.jpg

pic8.jpg

So in Unas's case instead of decorating his sarcophagus as the serekh building- he just made it the whole room.

Though it was part and parcel of DE culture from the beginning to its end, if you take an inventory of the OK in particular you can clearly see there was nothing more ideologically important to them than the serekh building which was also ubiquitously displayed on sarcophagi of the time. 

Regarding your question for the other late 5th Dynasty tombs with decorated burial chambers, those at Giza: Kaemankh, Rawer III, Kakherptah/Fetekti, Senedjemib/Inti, Seshemnefer IV11. 

 

 

 

There is no "burden" of no decoration. How can there be when before Unas no burial chamber for a king was ever decorated, the decoration appearing in the mortuary temple and the enclosure. I mentioned in another post that if we had, for G1 and G2 in particular, intact mortuary temples with a reasonable amount of decoration surviving, instead of nothing, there would be nothing like the vast flood of nonsense about the pyramids that we have been subjected to for a very long time.

I think you have misinterpreted what I meant when I said that the "Pyramids do the talking", and the diagram of the interior of G3 proves nothing. I'll put it this way, again. Here we have, when finished, a huge shining white edifice, red banded at the bottom with a gold or electrum pyramidion at the top. Visible for some distance, G1 and G2 for many miles, they clearly state that this is the place where the king is resurrected and ascends to the heavens, in perpetuity. His biographical detail remains, as it always did, in what has now moved from being a chapel within the mastaba to become a free standing mortuary temple. As the burial chamber was not decorated when it was within the mastaba, why would it need to be now it is it's own structure. Do you see what I mean when I say that nothing is missing, or rather was missing, it's just the two main elements of the mastaba separated.

I've already mentioned that G1 cannot be a "resurrection machine" for the Giza necropolis because there was no resurrection for anybody except the king at that time, and each king's pyramid was his own personal resurrection machine anyway. Why I singled out the internal structure of G1 as perhaps, as total speculation, something different and a potential to have a wider significance beyond Khufu, is precisely it's uniqueness, yet you try to make seem as if I am treating G1 as something apart from everything else, no I am not.

You say that I am wrong about the theology, or the importance of theology on OK sarcophagi. Certainly your coffin is important, I'm not denying that, but I am saying that in the OK it did not have the importance it gained in the MK. You present these images of sarcophagi to show their importance, yet they are very simple and devoid of significant theology, if you think that they do, please say what it is. I said in another post that what we had was the king in his "palace of the dead". Perhaps you missed that post, or did not realize what I actually meant. Your images show that the main motif of the OK sarcophagus was the serekh facade. So we do in fact have a king in his "palace of the dead". Maybe I should have been more pedantic, but I'm hardly presenting a thesis, am I.

Let's compare then the OK sarcophagus to what followed to see if they really did have any significant theological meaning. We have a serekh facade on an OK sarcophagus, and, with Unas, nothing at all, so decoration of the sarcophagus cannot have been vital. A change in theology brought about by the emergence of Osiris has caused them to need to expound this new theology in acres of text, the PT, and this was important, very important indeed. So we then see in the MK a part of the "democratization of death" with the emergence of the Coffin Texts for all who could afford a decorated coffin. But we cannot look at the MK coffin and say that the importance it held then was the same in the OK, and that is because the theology had changed. Let's leap forward to the ultimate expression of this "new" theology as expressed on a coffin, and I use as an example the sarcophagus of Seti I covered in the Book of Gates. So we can see that an OK sarcophagus with the very simple motive of the palace facade, or no decoration at all, while being important to the owner, pales into insignificance as far as theology goes when we compare it to the splendour of the sarcophagus of Seti I

At the end of your post you state that 5 tombs of the 5th Dynasty had "decorated burial chambers". Let us then look at these tombs to see if this is the case.

Kaemankh G4561 has only a decorated chapel Kaemankh

Ra-wer III has only a decorated chapel Ra-wer III

Kakherptah Fetekta G5560 has only a decorated chapel Kakherptah Fetekta

Senedjemib Inti G2370 has only a decorated chapel Senedjemib Inti

Seshemnefer has only a decorated chapel Seshemnefer

A curious choice of examples of "decorated burial chambers". So I'll state again that nobody had a decorated burial chamber until Unas, and then it was only for kings for a very long time. And further, that the pyramid is the burial chamber of the mastaba now as a separate structure, and with the chapel now a mortuary temple by the pyramid, and still serving the same function as it did when it was part of the mastaba, obviating the need to decorate the pyramid (burial chamber) until a change in theology we first see with Unas.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Not "underneath Giza" but close.

For a number of reasons, I believe they were removed from their former tombs and placed here:

tiwqlx4.jpg

Hall of the Ancestors.

SC

 

That would be wonderfull, but we will all have to wait a long time to know what is in that huge void, something I'm sure.

Er, I thought you believe that a pyramid is not a tomb, but a "recovery vault" for after some "great flood", or are you saying it is both, which is a step in the right direction.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

It makes no sense these pharaohs knowing full well they would be robbed, some robbing each other themselves, that they would just keep doing the same thing over and over and over again with the same results for more than two centuries and at least 37 pyramids in a row.  

 

But unforunately they did, with all types of tomb, again and again and again right up to the 18th Dynasty. But even when they separated the mortuary temple from the tomb, how hidden out of sight, they still got robbed, again and again and again until we get to Ramesses XI, who saw the light and got out of the VoK, never to be seen again, and royal burials, Tanis apart, are rather thin on the ground after the VoK was abandoned as a royal necropolis.

However, I would never say that the AE were "slow learners", far from it, but that their ultra observance of their ultra conservative religious practices was more important than the threat of robbery, even if that threat was very high.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Not "underneath Giza" but close.

For a number of reasons, I believe they were removed from their former tombs and placed here:

tiwqlx4.jpg

Hall of the Ancestors.

SC

 

Looks like we got ourselves an Edgar Cayce over here.

Edited by M. Williams
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

That would be wonderfull, but we will all have to wait a long time to know what is in that huge void, something I'm sure.

Er, I thought you believe that a pyramid is not a tomb, but a "recovery vault" for after some "great flood", or are you saying it is both, which is a step in the right direction.

Yes, that's right. It's my belief (based on my interpretation of the available evidence, including the Coptic-Egyptian oral tradition) that the first 16 or so pyramids (the allegorical Body of Osiris cut into 16 pieces and scattered across the land of Egypt) were built not individually for individual kings, but all as part of a single, homogeneous, trans-generational 'National Recovery Project' (what I call 'Project Osiris') to bring about the rebirth (not death) of the kingdom after an anticipated deluge which the AEs believed would "drown" the entire kingdom. These pyramids originally were the 'Womb of the Kingdom' rather than the 'Tomb of the King' (which they may, stupidly, have been repurposed as such in much later times as AE religious theology evolved - the Osirian doctrine). Into these 'Pyramid Recovery Vaults' they would place everything that was needed to ensure the rebirth of the kingdom after the deluge had abated.

The most vital component in the recovery 'machine' was the 'Big Void' which I suspect to be a 'Grand Hall of the Ancestors'--this was the 'engine room' if you like, for without this vital 'component' within the 'rebirth machine' then recovery of the kingdom would have been quite impossible for such was in the 'gift of the gods' (the ancestors whose bodies had to be preserved at all costs and not washed away and destroyed in the coming deluge). And it explains also those sealed and empty sarcophagi that were found (including Khufu's mum's - she's now beside Sneferu within this 'chamber' which hadn't quite been completed before she died). And, according to Budge (and Wiki), Khufu had 27 ancestor kings (and queens) back  to Menes.

I have always suspected that Egyptology was looking at the pyramids through the wrong end of the telescope. They managed to circumscribe a meaning of the hieroglyphs that brought them to understand that these monuments had something to do with resurrection/rebirth and, without further thought, they automatically assumed this rebirth to be that of the king. But not initially. It was about the rebirth/regeneration/resurrection of the kingdom. If some later king stupidly appropriated such a massively visible structure as a tomb, then it is unlikely his body would remain out of reach of thieves for very long. As a Recovery Vault, however, quick discovery is precisely what you want, hence a really big structure, noticeable for miles in all directions (but with a completely inaccessible chamber; a chamber with NO passages in or out. The kings and queens would have been interred when the roof of the chamber was still open, and then completely hermetically sealed when the pyramid was built upwards to its completion).

So you could call the GP a 'tomb' because there are kings and queens entombed therein. But it is why they were placed there and why the pyramids were originally conceived that is the important question. Not as a 'tomb' but as a 'womb'. It is my guess that only the Great Pyramid was used as a 'safe haven' for Khufu's ancestors since this is the only pyramid that has a Grand Gallery (below the Big Void 'chamber') where (substitute) Ka statues of each ancestor king and queen (54 in total) would likely have once stood (set in those 2 sets of 27 notches on the two 'pavements' of the GG).

IMO, of course. (Which may well turn out to be completely wrong. But the proof of the pudding, so to speak, is when we finally know the content of the Big Void, if ever).

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

There is no "burden" of no decoration. How can there be when before Unas no burial chamber for a king was ever decorated, the decoration appearing in the mortuary temple and the enclosure ...

The various hieroglyphic characters, elegant and attractive though they might appear to us now, were not in fact intended as decoration: not what we would understand as "decoration."

They were medu netjer, "the words of the gods;" as such, they had a magico-religious meaning.

They were functional: not merely decorative.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

The various hieroglyphic characters, elegant and attractive though they might appear to us now, were not in fact intended as decoration: not what we would understand as "decoration."

They were medu netjer, "the words of the gods;" as such, they had a magico-religious meaning.

They were functional: not merely decorative.

That's right, in a previous post I made a brief comment that "decoration" is the wrong word, but at least it simplifies things I guess, at least on a non specialist forum. I sense a problem with the word "tomb" as well, and that as a mastaba is a tomb, the "decoration" in the chapel is being used to say that the tomb, in the sense of burial, and thus burial chamber, is a "decorated burial chamber" when it is not. Forums, aren't they wonderful places....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

That's right, in a previous post I made a brief comment that "decoration" is the wrong word, but at least it simplifies things I guess, at least on a non specialist forum. I sense a problem with the word "tomb" as well, and that as a mastaba is a tomb, the "decoration" in the chapel is being used to say that the tomb, in the sense of burial, and thus burial chamber, is a "decorated burial chamber" when it is not. Forums, aren't they wonderful places....

If these magico-religious words were so powerful why not just compose them into utterances read in the king's chamber and be done with it? 

Why go to the effort to inscribe them in the walls of the chamber if they were so powerful?  

I've read every word left from the old kingdom dozens of times and I don't remember they ever explained why they would not inscribe these words on the walls and then start with the tiny structures originally shaped like pyramids. 

 

Are we to believe the mummy of the king had to get out of its death bed sepulcher and wander down to the Valley Temple, Causeway, or Mortuary Temple just for instructions to get out of bed?  

 

I think everyone here understands Egyptological interpretation of the evidence.   What isn't understood is how they got from  such little evidence to such strong convictions.  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

...  in a previous post I made a brief comment that "decoration" is the wrong word ...

Ah, sorry!  I missed that ...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, cladking said:

If these magico-religious words were so powerful why not just compose them into utterances read in the king's chamber and be done with it? 

Why go to the effort to inscribe them in the walls of the chamber if they were so powerful?  

I've read every word left from the old kingdom dozens of times and I don't remember they ever explained why they would not inscribe these words on the walls and then start with the tiny structures originally shaped like pyramids. 

 

Are we to believe the mummy of the king had to get out of its death bed sepulcher and wander down to the Valley Temple, Causeway, or Mortuary Temple just for instructions to get out of bed?  

 

I think everyone here understands Egyptological interpretation of the evidence.   

Why NOT place them in chapels? Why wouldn't they? As their religion evolved they made changes.

You should be happy then that  they aren't inside the pyramid tombs until Unas.

I would note that yes you claim to have read all the words (well except for the Abusir, Palermo stone, and others that don't fit into your ideas), but you've read it in modern English translations while the Egyptologists read them in the original and have an idea about the ancient Egyptian culture and religion. You pride yourself on not knowing that material.

Quote

What isn't understood is how they got from  such little evidence to such strong convictions.  

We could ask how you got from no evidence to rabid obsession?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

But it is why they were placed there and why the pyramids were originally conceived that is the important question. Not as a 'tomb' but as a 'womb'

One of the reasons why I have referenced the Solar-Osirian Unity is that while there is zero record of Osiris in the 4th Dynasty, though I'm sure he did exist at that time, and long before, the pyramid is a machine of rebirth, though here with only the king and Ra. But to me, the placing of the King's Chamber looks, at least superficially, as being the "womb" of the pyramid. Whether the king joined with Ra at that point, or in the sky is not clear, though the PT has him ascending and joining with Ra with the help of Wepwawet, Not Anubis. I'm not convinced that they ever envisaged the king floating up and joining with Ra actually in the sky, though that is were both end up, but that this joining occured magically within the pyramid, though that part of the pyramid which existed outside of our dimension, the meaning, IMO, for it being named as The Horizon of Khufu, where he exists on multiple levels of existence, like all the gods.

In the Solar Osirian Unity we see as the central motive a giant figure of Osiris who is also the dead king, within the body of this figure, where the womb is, is a solar disk containg an odd manifestation of the ba of Ra. He has divested his form as Flesh, a man with the head of a ram, the sound they make even in Egyptian being "baa", and so, to them, soul ba, and seeming like a cross between a rekhyt bird and a ba bird. The rekhyt bird represents the people, the people, all of us being reborn with the dead king and Ra ? no idea, nor does anybody else as it's all so enigmatic. Anyhoo, we also see in the less enigmatic Netherworld Books allusions to rebirth in a womb. For instance, in the fifth hour of the Amduat we see in the top register a dome, sometimes described as a chest. Despite it's central place in the register, it looks somewhat innocuous, but it is really a sort of Tardis in that it contains the entire Duat, Ra and Osiris, easy for the AE as they had no problems with the sort of issues that "multiple universes" present. It is also "like" a womb. The fifth hour just happens to take place in the "land of Sokar", and we see in the middle register the primeval mound, looking like a low sided pyramid, with the head of Sokar sticking out of the top. This is also Rosetau, the "place of hauling" and we certainly see some serious hauling of the Night Barque over the mound. Below in the bottom register we see, directly below the mound, a "womb like" structure supported at either end by Aker as a sphinx. In the "womb" described in the text as an "oval" we see an enigmatic scene, though it does appear to be Ra with his normal falcon head, and not a representaion of Sokar who is shown with a human head. There is nothing explicit in the text to say what is going on, and it is an hour to early for the actual resurrection. One line of text says that this is the "Unified Darkness", from that I tentatively suggest it may represent a womb, or something anomalous, but the AE really liked playing games with words and images.

So while all the above comes from the 18th Dynasty, and I'm trying hard not to transpose their ideas onto the 4th Dynasty, I can see elements of some of the Netherworld Books, in a very simplified fashion, existiing at Giza. I hear shouts and screams from more than one quarter, but this is speculation, and speculation in an early stage. So yes, when you say G1 could be a womb, I would not jump up and down and scream "wrong".

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

One of the reasons why I have referenced the Solar-Osirian Unity is that while there is zero record of Osiris in the 4th Dynasty, though I'm sure he did exist at that time, and long before, the pyramid is a machine of rebirth, though here with only the king and Ra. But to me, the placing of the King's Chamber looks, at least superficially, as being the "womb" of the pyramid. Whether the king joined with Ra at that point, or in the sky is not clear, though the PT has him ascending and joining with Ra with the help of Wepwawet, Not Anubis. I'm not convinced that they ever envisaged the king floating up and joining with Ra actually in the sky, though that is were both end up, but that this joining occured magically within the pyramid, though that part of the pyramid which existed outside of our dimension, the meaning, IMO, for it being named as The Horizon of Khufu, where he exists on multiple levels of existence, like all the gods.

In the Solar Osirian Unity we see as the central motive a giant figure of Osiris who is also the dead king, within the body of this figure, where the womb is, is a solar disk containg an odd manifestation of the ba of Ra. He has divested his form as Flesh, a man with the head of a ram, the sound they make even in Egyptian being "baa", and so, to them, soul ba, and seeming like a cross between a rekhyt bird and a ba bird. The rekhyt bird represents the people, the people, all of us being reborn with the dead king and Ra ? no idea, nor does anybody else as it's all so enigmatic. Anyhoo, we also see in the less enigmatic Netherworld Books allusions to rebirth in a womb. For instance, in the fifth hour of the Amduat we see in the top register a dome, sometimes described as a chest. Despite it's central place in the register, it looks somewhat innocuous, but it is really a sort of Tardis in that it contains the entire Duat, Ra and Osiris, easy for the AE as they had no problems with the sort of issues that "multiple universes" present. It is also "like" a womb. The fifth hour just happens to take place in the "land of Sokar", and we see in the middle register the primeval mound, looking like a low sided pyramid, with the head of Sokar sticking out of the top. This is also Rosetau, the "place of hauling" and we certainly see some serious hauling of the Night Barque over the mound. Below in the bottom register we see, directly below the mound, a "womb like" structure supported at either end by Aker as a sphinx. In the "womb" described in the text as an "oval" we see an enigmatic scene, though it does appear to be Ra with his normal falcon head, and not a representaion of Sokar who is shown with a human head. There is nothing explicit in the text to say what is going on, and it is an hour to early for the actual resurrection. One line of text says that this is the "Unified Darkness", from that I tentatively suggest it may represent a womb, or something anomalous, but the AE really liked playing games with words and images.

So while all the above comes from the 18th Dynasty, and I'm trying hard not to transpose their ideas onto the 4th Dynasty, I can see elements of some of the Netherworld Books, in a very simplified fashion, existiing at Giza. I hear shouts and screams from more than one quarter, but this is speculation, and speculation in an early stage. So yes, when you say G1 could be a womb, I would not jump up and down and scream "wrong".

Nice post. It resonates with some of my own ideas with regards to the origins of Osiris and of why he gradually came to prominence. We may not be as far apart in these issues as we might first think. It's all in the telescope--just a matter of knowing which end to look through.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

I didn't ask what you said, I asked a specific question particularly as the dates for the OK have been revised by Christopher Bronk Ramsey, et al (2010) with 95 Percentile dates for Djedkare Izezi given as 2486-2400 which is very much within the 3031 - 2460 BC range and most definitely 'not' circa 2375. As to the much older dates how do you place items into a tomb BEFORE it is constructed? 

cormac

You are a mess. Quoting myself: "Let's see what this report actually says": Which comes out of your fingers clackaty ckacking as "I didn't ask what you said". 

Despite the fact I just explained what the RCD dates actually meant you butcher it again and then quote the Baysian RCD study. You are not worth my time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Nice post. It resonates with some of my own ideas with regards to the origins of Osiris and of why he gradually came to prominence. We may not be as far apart in these issues as we might first think. It's all in the telescope--just a matter of knowing which end to look through.

SC

Good lord, I've had a post liked by both Hanslune and you, the world turned upside down...

But, I think more in terms of kaleidoscope where we can see different patterns in the same design.

I need to ammend my post to say that the figure in the lower register is Sokar-Osiris and Ra, this never gets easier. But, though not the crucial sixth hour, we have this stuff going on in the Land of Sokar, which does seem to corellate to the physical location of Giza in the land of the living, and we have in the fifth hour, at the top, an almost emergent Khepri, but not quite, a pyramid shaped mound underneath Khepri in the "sky", and underneath that a cavern containing the beginnings of the resurrection, and below that, the waters of Nun. While the reading order should be read as if it were one long continuous "page", that does not seem to be the case here as the registers one on top of the other do look like, in the real world, the sky, a pyramid, a cavern and below that Nun. But it's just what it looks like and the texts do not say this at all, but they don't say it doesn't, again, it's a kaleidoscope thing, and I'm probably over egging the entire thing, but early days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

So while all the above comes from the 18th Dynasty, and I'm trying hard not to transpose their ideas onto the 4th Dynasty, I can see elements of some of the Netherworld Books, in a very simplified fashion, existiing at Giza. I hear shouts and screams from more than one quarter, but this is speculation, and speculation in an early stage.

 

25 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

Good lord, I've had a post liked by both Hanslune and you, the world turned upside down...

If it will help I hate the point.  The post is fine and even shows the exact source of the problem;  Egyptology can only understand the Pyramid Texts and the "cultural context" of the great pyramid builders in terms of 18th dynasty religion and magic.  They even translate the words from the culture in terms of the "book of the dead".  How else can they be so certain the pyramids are tombs?  How else is it even possible that there exists a "culture that persisted for 3000 years"?  Strip the  the pyramid builders "culture"  of every religious and magical concept from a 1000 years later and we are left with virtually no evidence at all.  And STILL Egyptology can't admit that the pyramids might have served some other function than as tombs!!!   Rather than even consider where the bodies are buried they insist that the pyramids are the tombs and that the builders meant nothing they said literally.   They insist that words that appear in a strange order and look the same as the "book of the dead" must have the same meaning.   

It's not the evidence being pursued here as proven by the lack of systematic investigation of physical parameters; it's a culture that is trying to be understood in terms of the assumption that the culture led to the "book of the dead".  If this assumption is wrong it fully explains EXACTLY why they haven't found the bodies despite the literal meaning of the builders words which say they were cremated.  They haven't found bodies or any direct evidence that the pyramids are tombs because they literally ascended to heaven EXACTLY as the builders literally said they did and the words are being understood in terms of a magic and religion that didn't exist at that time.  .  

Edited by cladking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

At the end of your post you state that 5 tombs of the 5th Dynasty had "decorated burial chambers". Let us then look at these tombs to see if this is the case.

Kaemankh G4561 has only a decorated chapel Kaemankh

Ra-wer III has only a decorated chapel Ra-wer III

Kakherptah Fetekta G5560 has only a decorated chapel Kakherptah Fetekta

Senedjemib Inti G2370 has only a decorated chapel Senedjemib Inti

Seshemnefer has only a decorated chapel Seshemnefer

A curious choice of examples of "decorated burial chambers". So I'll state again that nobody had a decorated burial chamber until Unas, and then it was only for kings for a very long time.

Decoration of Burial Chambers, Sarcophagi and Coffins in the Old Kingdom, Naguib Kanawati. (p57)

Egyptian Religion, Siegfied Morenz (p202) 

"In the tomb of Kaemankh at Giza all the scenes which elsewhere decorate the upper cult chambers-manned ships, tilling the fields, cattle-raising, work in the kitchen ect-are painted on the walls of the sarcophagus chamber". 

The burial chamber with sarcophagus (photo courtesy of Digital Giza-your very own link):

PDM_00930.jpg

This one is funny:

"Kakherptah Fetekta G5560 has only a decorated chapel Kakherptah Fetekta"

Which when we read the text from your link it says: 

Quote

Owner of G 5560. Kakherptah...also appears in chapel relief (one block of relief = Berlin (East) 1137) and burial chamber wall painting...

Which the painting pictured is the burial chamber: 

AEOS_I_5879.jpg

Photo description:  "Cemetery G 5000: G 5560, shaft S 714, burial chamber, E wall, wall painting (Kakherptah seated at offering table and compartment offering list), looking E"

Should I keep going...? Spectacular. 

Gifs-Falling.gif

 

 

Edited by Thanos5150
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.