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

8

55 minutes ago, Piney said:

Jesus was a doomsday prophet who was killed with a rock. Paul of Tarsus, like Augustine of Hippo wanted to be him and put words in his mouth. 

Sigh.

When reading the Bible one must engage in intense discernment.  There are truths in it to be sure but the NT is mostly bizarre fiction based on some facts.

APOLlonius  of Tyana from Tarsus.  Remember? 

Apollonius, Apollos, Pol, Paul, Saul — the Greek Pythagorean who was vehemently opposed to blood sacrifice.   

Edited by Festina
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Festina said:

Very clever of him I might add.  Did you read the book? If not, don’t bother commenting.  

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

Hermes. Hermeticism. Egypt. 

You still have no definitive answers as to why we are still victims of Yahweh’s patriarchy.  

Thousands of books have been written.  Universities have dedicated so much effort and yet no genuine progress has been made. 

Rinse, Wash, Repeat, ad nauseum — All the while making a profit without any knowledge or wisdom being gained.  Ignorance reigns. 

ACADEMIA — FAILURE.  “But there was money to be made”. And MINDS to be “shrunk”. 

Your own personal ignorance is not a reflection on that of anyone else.

Harte

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

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? 

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? 

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".

And...?

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

tumblr_oc014vEQBP1rnq4hdo1_540.jpg 

Giza and the Pyramids, pg. 49,

"Petrie's measurements of mastaba V's central burial chamber as more than 35 ft. long and 18 ft wide make it very close in breadth and width to the King's Chamber in the Great Pyramid. Brick piers projected from the sides to stabilize a wooden framework or SHELL, of which Petrie documented traces of the bottom beam and wooden upright posts, which reduced the chamber internally to 29 ft by 13ft 8in. Here again we find a PRECEDENT for khufu, as dark stains on the stone ceiling beams of the granite box of the Kings Chamber may indicate wooden uprights for such a wooden framework shrine (see chapter 8)   " 

Chapter 8 discusses the use of wood frameworks and reed shrines in 1st D tombs at Abydos and the wood paneling that lined the subterranean  galleries under Djoser's Pyramid. 

To quote your OP,

 "This is not to mean just the "body" of the pharaohs are missing, but all the material funerary goods and even the artistic and written testament right off the walls as well. Though I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why the walls would be completely bare..."

So I gave you a possible explanation why the walls are bare, because it didnt make sense to you.

Thanos- "And...?

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

Whether the sarcophagus is similar to your pictures is irrelevant because they may have been pursuing a different architectural style in the chamber. The rough exterior of the kc sarcophagus  would suggest it was meant not to be seen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, M. Williams said:

Giza and the Pyramids, pg. 49,

"Petrie's measurements of mastaba V's central burial chamber as more than 35 ft. long and 18 ft wide make it very close in breadth and width to the King's Chamber in the Great Pyramid. Brick piers projected from the sides to stabilize a wooden framework or SHELL, of which Petrie documented traces of the bottom beam and wooden upright posts, which reduced the chamber internally to 29 ft by 13ft 8in. Here again we find a PRECEDENT for khufu, as dark stains on the stone ceiling beams of the granite box of the Kings Chamber may indicate wooden uprights for such a wooden framework shrine (see chapter 8)   " 

Thank you. The problem here is the suggestion that this is a direct precedent as if the architects of G1 somehow looked inside Mastaba V and took ideas from it and modeled the KC after this chamber centuries after the fact. Evidence suggest the Saqqara serekh mastabas were in severe ruins by the beginnings of the 3rd Dynasty if not earlier which there is no reason to believe Mastaba V was any different if not worse by Khufu's time. The super structures of Mastaba V and another large serekh mastaba Petrie discovered in the Giza region, as well as Neithhotep's at Naqada, disappeared within a decade or two after being excavated. It is unreasonable to think, for several reasons, there would be any direct connection between Mastaba V and the KC. It would be fantastic if this were the case, but highly implausible, with any similarities in the size of the chambers more than likely coincidence. If true this would be of great interest to me but this is a real stretch. Regardless, we have other more relevant examples to draw from for this kind of framework like for example the BP:

_dsc4726.jpg

p1160907.jpg

img_1614.jpg

p1160911.jpg

 

Even earlier, wooden beams are also found at Meidum:

34-d75869baff.jpg

44-173b38dcad.jpg

The problem is that as we can see, which is the case with Mastaba V too, is that these beams are often embedded within the stone work itself. Further, after the BP there is no evidence of embedded or non embedded form work in any pyramid after this which regardless the stains on the KC ceiling do not seem to correspond. No reason it could not have been used but unlike previous uses was not permanent with no reason for it not to be removed at some point. 

Quote

Chapter 8 discusses the use of wood frameworks and reed shrines in 1st D tombs at Abydos and the wood paneling that lined the subterranean  galleries under Djoser's Pyramid. 

I'm sure it does which I promise there is a lot more to that story he does not discuss which would change the context entirely. 

Quote

 

To quote your OP,

 "This is not to mean just the "body" of the pharaohs are missing, but all the material funerary goods and even the artistic and written testament right off the walls as well. Though I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why the walls would be completely bare..."

So I gave you a possible explanation why the walls are bare, because it didnt make sense to you.

 

Sorry, but the use of wooden form work in the KC does not alleviate the rest of the interior being bare, not just of G1 but all the others as well. I can only say it so many times that the burial chamber being bare is not an issue as there is clear precedent this did not happen in any tomb until the late 5th Dynasty. 

Quote

 

Thanos- "And...?

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

Whether the sarcophagus is similar to your pictures is irrelevant because they may have been pursuing a different architectural style in the chamber. The rough exterior of the kc sarcophagus  would suggest it was meant not to be seen.

 

And all the others were meant to be seen? Menkaure's was not meant to be seen either and it is the of the same as most others from the period. And, again, in G3 we also find this:

43494251234_cd5424fe21_b.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Festina said:

When reading the Bible one must engage in intense discernment.  There are truths in it to be sure but the NT is mostly bizarre fiction based on some facts.

The Gospels are fiction. The Letters revised by later Roman hands. Revelation, a satire pretending prophecy. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To recap

We still don't have a clue where the missing Pharaoh's are: are they somewhere or just, nowhere? The status quo remains but some interesting tidbits were revealed,

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hanslune said:

To recap

We still don't have a clue where the missing Pharaoh's are: are they somewhere or just, nowhere? The status quo remains but some interesting tidbits were revealed,

 

 

Lehner suggests the pyramid at Meidum was built as a cenotaph. 

Kurt Mendelssohn argued pyramids were not tombs but cenotaphs and did not have to be completed within a Pharaoh's lifetime.

I.E.S. Edwards considered it a possibility some of the pyramids credited to Sneferu may have been cenotaphs.

Egyptologist Vassil Dobrev has suggested the Sneferu pyramids were cenotaphs for the king's BA/KA.

Stadelmann argued the Bent Pyramid, if not started as such, was finished to be a cenotaph. 

Cult pyramids are considered to be cenotaphs.   

The Pyramid of Ahmose 18th Dynasty is accepted to have been built as a cenotaph. 

The Pyramid of Senwosret III is argued to have been a cenotaph. 

Ahmed Fakry says of the Black Pyramid dated to the reign of Amenemhat III “There is no doubt that the king was buried in his pyramid at Hawara and that this pyramid, in the necropolis of the Old Kingdom Pharaohs, was a cenotaph”.

The "southern pyramids" of the 3rd Dynasty contained no burials chambers and are thought among other things to be cenotaphs.  

The satellite pyramid of the BP's "burial chamber" is considered unable to have contained a burial and such suggested to have been a cenotaph.  

"No burial chamber was discovered under or near Queen Weret I’s pyramid, leading to the conclusion that she was interred elsewhere, perhaps at Lahun near the Fayum oasis with her presumed husband Senwosret II. In this case, Queen Weret I’s pyramid at Dahshur would have served as a cenotaph or memorial".

Many various structures throughout DE history including those at pyramid complexes are thought to have been cenotaphs for one purpose or another. 

The Cenotaphs of the Middle Kingdom at Abydos.

For early Dynastic cenotaphs see the OP. 

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2020 at 1:58 AM, Thanos5150 said:

Like I said, I present the question "If Pyramids are not tombs then where are the pharaohs?" not just as my own personal "belief", but as a thought exercise for others who make this claim more often than not for the wrong reasons. It is swell and all to think pyramids are not tombs but that is not enough leaving the question if no then where are they buried? This is common sense. I have not offered my opinion because I honestly do not know the answer and am not the type to make one up just to have one.    

I do not accept they were made to inter the body and royal burial for the reasons I outline in the OP and believe they were built as cenotaphs.  

No royal burial has been found in any pyramid, which again is not to mean "just" the body but all that goes with it. Again, Lehner has noted this as well.

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.  

So one of the questions we must ask therefore is if there precedent for such a thing, which when we look to earlier dynasties, yes there is. In the 1st and 2nd Dynasties we see the subjects of the king being buried next to monumental architecture with the king buried elsewhere. Since no one will acknowledged this from the OP I'll repeat it. In the 1st and (a few) 2nd Dynasty the kings are buried here at Umm al-Qa'ab, Abydos, which is the location of at least a few of the "kings" of Dynasty 0:

ummalqaabSat.jpg

Nearly a mile away we have the Shunet el-Zebib area where we find the monumental enclosures of the 1st Dynasty kings:

Abydos.GoogleEarth.jpg

enclosuresGoogle.jpg

  Though certainly older, "Shunet el-Zebib" is this structure attributed to the last pharaoh of the 2nd Dynasty Khasekhemwy:

egypt.2.600.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&dis

shunet-el-zebib-oldest-building-in-afric

If we look at the picture above with the yellow squares, these are the remains of 1st Dynasty enclosure walls belonging to the pharaohs buried in the cemetery a mile away in which it is here, and not at the cemetery, that we find hundreds of ritual burials (humans and animals) surrounding these enclosures as well as the boat burials:

ir7G3_RKWBA.jpg

So here we have precedent, no small matter, of the cemetery of the kings being located in one place and their monumental architecture and subjects being found at another. This brings to bear the 2nd part of this conundrum which are the 1st Dynasty royal burials as Abydos vs the superior 1st Dynasty palace facade mastaba tombs at Saqqara and elsewhere, including Giza, attributed to these same kings: For example:

tumblr_inline_oqy92i5HaI1uns891_500.jpg

 

   d41dbe3b57cb991b43275d6fe8262691.jpg

 

To explain this dichotomy, Walter B Emery argued that the southern royal tombs at Abydos were cenotaphs and the northern grand mastabas at Saqqara their actual tombs. A debate not yet settled, though an entirely different can of worms beyond the scope of this thread for now, is that the evidence has increasingly favored the southern inferior tombs at Abydos being the actual burial sites of the kings and the superior tombs at Saqqra and elsewhere belonging to "administrators" and/or queens (perhaps Pharaohs in their own right).  Which also have burials of subjects surrounding them. Remember this:

4ce8025378562b16e8f6a021a5932d78.jpg

A discussion for later. 

So while this may turn out not to be the case, the fact of the matter is the idea of royal cenotaphs vs actual burial sites is part and parcel of the history of Egyptological thought none more so than the very foundation of Dynastic Egypt itself which is still wrestled with today.
 

These are all fair questions and unlike some with novel ideas I am not going to invent some solution just to have an answer as the fact is as of yet I do not know. Kind of why I ask the question in the first place, But the fact I do not know does not change the facts either. I have heard some interesting suggestions, like the actual burials are underneath the Mortuary Temple. Others that say in another land all together. Again, when we look to the 1st Dynasty we see these kings buried next to their Dynasty 0 predecessors despite the fact the grandest of tombs also attributed to their reign are found far away in Saqqara and elsewhere. We also must acknowledge, as the latter reminds us, is Egypt is two lands- Upper and Lower Egypt, which the king bore crowns for each. And though "united", though not always, in their own way were separate kingdoms with their own history not lost on those of the OK. If a king is a king of two lands how can his body be at both places at once?      

To quote myself from elsewhere to perhaps give a broader context to all this is some the story or Djedefre:

   To refer back to post #221:

V07PnUM.jpg

They did not build buildings like this in the 4th Dynasty which after the early 3rd Dynasty the palace facade motif becomes an artistic motif and not an architectural form which even then was an homage to earlier times. To those of the 4th Dynasty this building is historic and arguably the most important of iconography to them which I am still trying to figure it out the why. The point of all this being is that while the pyramid age no doubt represented significant ideological changes it was clearly connected to a past that they clearly revered though they may not have fully understood which may in fact included the burial practices of the kings before them which suggest a connection to both Upper and Lower Egypt. 

So to answer the question of if the pyramids are not tombs then where are the pharaohs- all I know is that the answer is a lot more complex than we give it credit.      

If you were to continue in the same manner as in this post, which is perfectly reasonable, and needs reply, then we could actually discuss the OP, and the post I quote from you is a response to an attempt by me to bring the thread back on track. However, what followed is more rude posts from you, and not just aimed at me. I suggest you drop the phony tough guy image, anybody can drop to that level in the anonymity of the internet, and just post in a less overbearingly defensive manner. I make mistakes, you make mistakes, and you are mistaken on the sarcophagi, we all make mistakes, but we don't all have to resort to playground chanting, do we. So, do you want this thread to continue on track, or are we at the point where it is of no more interest and abandon it to cranks.

  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a subject related to Egyptology, most people are not aware of the amazing work of Prof Pierre Montet who excavated at Tanis and managed to discover another lavish and intact tomb of Psusennes I also known as the Silver Pharaoh.  I myself only found out about this amazing discovery (that was completely overshadowed by the start of WW2) thanks to this program by the History Guy, and courtesy of the quarantine giving me time:

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

 

Lehner suggests the pyramid at Meidum was built as a cenotaph. 

Kurt Mendelssohn argued pyramids were not tombs but cenotaphs and did not have to be completed within a Pharaoh's lifetime.

I.E.S. Edwards considered it a possibility some of the pyramids credited to Sneferu may have been cenotaphs.

Egyptologist Vassil Dobrev has suggested the Sneferu pyramids were cenotaphs for the king's BA/KA.

Stadelmann argued the Bent Pyramid, if not started as such, was finished to be a cenotaph. 

Cult pyramids are considered to be cenotaphs.   

The Pyramid of Ahmose 18th Dynasty is accepted to have been built as a cenotaph. 

The Pyramid of Senwosret III is argued to have been a cenotaph. 

Ahmed Fakry says of the Black Pyramid dated to the reign of Amenemhat III “There is no doubt that the king was buried in his pyramid at Hawara and that this pyramid, in the necropolis of the Old Kingdom Pharaohs, was a cenotaph”.

The "southern pyramids" of the 3rd Dynasty contained no burials chambers and are thought among other things to be cenotaphs.  

The satellite pyramid of the BP's "burial chamber" is considered unable to have contained a burial and such suggested to have been a cenotaph.  

"No burial chamber was discovered under or near Queen Weret I’s pyramid, leading to the conclusion that she was interred elsewhere, perhaps at Lahun near the Fayum oasis with her presumed husband Senwosret II. In this case, Queen Weret I’s pyramid at Dahshur would have served as a cenotaph or memorial".

Many various structures throughout DE history including those at pyramid complexes are thought to have been cenotaphs for one purpose or another. 

The Cenotaphs of the Middle Kingdom at Abydos.

For early Dynastic cenotaphs see the OP. 

You left out the folks saying they were tombs or something else. Yet the problem remains - where are all these Pharaohs? G-1d was probably not a tomb and on that we can agree, however it probably wasn't a cenotaph either.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Festina said:

Very clever of him I might add.  Did you read the book? If not, don’t bother commenting.  

Yes, I read the book.  For a person who supposedly preached a higher morality, don't you think it behooves a moral philosopher to behave in a moral fashion?  Dario Salas Sommer's actions on the issue in question are dubious at best, and bordering on plagiarism at worst.  It is hard therefore to take his philosophy seriously.

13 hours ago, Festina said:

Hermes. Hermeticism. Egypt. 

This is out of context.

13 hours ago, Festina said:

You still have no definitive answers as to why we are still victims of Yahweh’s patriarchy.  

I strongly doubt the existence of either the alleged Yahweh or this so-called patriarchy I hear about so often.  This also bears little relevance to the discussion and might be classified as a comment devoid of proper context.

13 hours ago, Festina said:

Thousands of books have been written.  Universities have dedicated so much effort and yet no genuine progress has been made.  Rinse, Wash, Repeat, ad nauseum — All the while making a profit without any knowledge or wisdom being gained.  Ignorance reigns.  ACADEMIA — FAILURE.  “But there was money to be made”. And MINDS to be “shrunk”. 

If you compare human progress from the period after the fall of the Roman Empire to the present day, it is obvious that we have made immense strides.  Yes, there have been periods of reaction where progress has been reversed for a time, but things have improves immensely in every area of human endeavour, and this progress is due primarily to the work of academics. 

You are in a foul mood for some reason Festina to make such anti-intellectual comments?  Do you seriously think that you would be able to sit at your computer and type your comments without the work of hundreds of scientists, engineers, IT professional and technologists working for the collective endeavor of improving human communication?    And so what if they want to be paid for their work?  Are you suggesting human beings shouldn't be recompensed for the work they provide for their society?  Who is the failure here?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

Yes, I read the book.  For a person who supposedly preached a higher morality, don't you think it behooves a moral philosopher to behave in a moral fashion?  Dario Salas Sommer's actions on the issue in question are dubious at best, and bordering on plagiarism at worst.  It is hard therefore to take his philosophy seriously.

This is out of context.

I strongly doubt the existence of either the alleged Yahweh or this so-called patriarchy I hear about so often.  This also bears little relevance to the discussion and might be classified as a comment devoid of proper context.

If you compare human progress from the period after the fall of the Roman Empire to the present day, it is obvious that we have made immense strides.  Yes, there have been periods of reaction where progress has been reversed for a time, but things have improves immensely in every area of human endeavour, and this progress is due primarily to the work of academics. 

You are in a foul mood for some reason Festina to make such anti-intellectual comments?  Do you seriously think that you would be able to sit at your computer and type your comments without the work of hundreds of scientists, engineers, IT professional and technologists working for the collective endeavor of improving human communication?    And so what if they want to be paid for their work?  Are you suggesting human beings shouldn't be recompensed for the work they provide for their society?  Who is the failure here?

This is not an uncommon belief. Based on the following. It is held by a believer that if society and science has NOT accepted, the personal beliefs of said individual, or has not provided evidence, that something dear to their hearts exists, or worse yet. Science has shown that whatever is foremost in that person's desires and belief is faulty or doesn't exist - well then the entire 'system' has failed.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The two pyramids of Amenemhat III pose a problem of course as he cannot be buried in both, but, if one or both of them was a cenotaph, why do both have complicated substructures, the Dashur pyramid being the more eleborate with one burial chamber for the king, and two for wives. The Hawara pyramid, while having a less extensive substructure, was built to present serious obstacles for robbers. Why, if a cenotaph, would a pyramid even need substructures like this. It could be said that a burial chamber in the "cenotaph" stood in for his real burial chamber, but if so, there is no reason to build anything but a simple burial chamber without concealing it. And if it was a "dummy" burial chamber for the king, it what way can he be present, by that I mean if his sah is somewhere else, what element of his "soul" is at the cenotaph, not his ka as that is with the sah, and his ba, while "free roaming", is tethered to his sah, and besides, the ba of a king is with Ra on the solar barque.

Cenotaphs do exist of course, and quite elaborate ones, the Osireon at Abydos for instance, and Abydos is the home to others. But we can see that they are cenotaphs, not the actual burial place of the king, and Abydos is a place where we would expect to find cenotaphs, as while a king is buried elsewhere, he wants to also be close to the burial place of Osiris in some form.

If you were going through the bother, and expense, of building a pyramid, or a normal tomb, as a cenotaph, then I would expect it to be somewhere of note, such as Abydos. The first tomb of Amenemhat is at Dashur, and so with the first OK pyramids, so that could be a reason to have a cenotaph there, but Hawara at the Faiyum, why would he have a cenotaph there. But of course as the reason may ellude us, it may have been quite obvious to him. But this business about cenotaphs is not quite so clear cut at all.

So, for any pyramid, if a cenotaph, particulalry in a place that at least to us seems out of the way, why does it have a burial chamber, and who, or what, inhabits it.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

So, for any pyramid, if a cenotaph, particulalry in a place that at least to us seems out of the way, why does it have a burial chamber, and who, or what, inhabits it.

People should be reminded that "cenotaph" is just a word and there's no reason to believe the pyramid builders knew this word, had an equivalent or could understand the definition: a structure which symbolizes a dead person.   

They never used such words and specifically stated in reference to the dead king. "he is the pyramid".   I believe they meant the dead king was gone except as a memory and the pyramid was the device used to remember him.   The pyramid couldn't be seen at night so he was also represented by a specific star and they actually said the dead king is a star as well.   The king died and ascended on the smoke of incense to become a star (his mortal remains at night) and a pyramid (his mortal remains by day).   This is what they actually said.  They said the pyramid was not a tomb and they never said it was a "cenotaph".   

"Cenotaph" is merely the closest word WE have to describe what the ancients said again and again.   They didn't think like us and this is why no two translators agree on what they meant.  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

So, for any pyramid, if a cenotaph, particulalry in a place that at least to us seems out of the way, why does it have a burial chamber, and who, or what, inhabits it.

I'm not so sure I see "burial chambers" in any pyramid.  Djoser's Pyramid comes closest to having a "burial chamber" but remember it was begun as a "mastaba" and mastabas were actually tombs.   G2 also has what looks like a "burial chamber" but this hardly means that it was or that it was intended for the king.   G2 was also the last great pyramid so the custom might have changed prior to the start of construction.   Perhaps the reigning king (Khafre?)  wanted something different for any reason.  

A stone box is not a sarcophagus unless it was intended or used to hold a body and there is no evidence there was a body in any stone box in any great pyramid or in a great pyramid at all.   How is it possible to have such complete knowledge of the builders and their intentions yet have no evidence of our most fundamental assumptions about them?    

 

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, cladking said:

  They didn't think like us and this is why no two translators agree on what they meant.  

Wow, and yet you use those translation from ancient Egyptian (which you cannot read except in translation made by others), and make pronouncements about every aspect of AE life (with no data to support you) so if they don't agree and since you also have declared hundreds of times that Egyptologists are wholly wrong about everything and they did those translations.

Wouldn't, in view of your ideas, find such translations to be highly suspect?

How could your statements about what they say be possibility correct*?

 

* It is considered bad form in Academia and the fringe world to 'poison the well' of your own sources....

LOL

 

 

Edited by Hanslune
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

The two pyramids of Amenemhat III pose a problem of course as he cannot be buried in both, but, if one or both of them was a cenotaph, why do both have complicated substructures, the Dashur pyramid being the more eleborate with one burial chamber for the king, and two for wives. The Hawara pyramid, while having a less extensive substructure, was built to present serious obstacles for robbers. Why, if a cenotaph, would a pyramid even need substructures like this. It could be said that a burial chamber in the "cenotaph" stood in for his real burial chamber, but if so, there is no reason to build anything but a simple burial chamber without concealing it. And if it was a "dummy" burial chamber for the king, it what way can he be present, by that I mean if his sah is somewhere else, what element of his "soul" is at the cenotaph, not his ka as that is with the sah, and his ba, while "free roaming", is tethered to his sah, and besides, the ba of a king is with Ra on the solar barque.

Cenotaphs do exist of course, and quite elaborate ones, the Osireon at Abydos for instance, and Abydos is the home to others. But we can see that they are cenotaphs, not the actual burial place of the king, and Abydos is a place where we would expect to find cenotaphs, as while a king is buried elsewhere, he wants to also be close to the burial place of Osiris in some form.

If you were going through the bother, and expense, of building a pyramid, or a normal tomb, as a cenotaph, then I would expect it to be somewhere of note, such as Abydos. The first tomb of Amenemhat is at Dashur, and so with the first OK pyramids, so that could be a reason to have a cenotaph there, but Hawara at the Faiyum, why would he have a cenotaph there. But of course as the reason may ellude us, it may have been quite obvious to him. But this business about cenotaphs is not quite so clear cut at all.

So, for any pyramid, if a cenotaph, particulalry in a place that at least to us seems out of the way, why does it have a burial chamber, and who, or what, inhabits it.

Pyramids I believe we would all agree take a long time to build. So, they would have to start well before the dude was done in. Yet what happened if the good Pharaoh was killed in battle, lost off a boat or otherwise his body was los. They would one thinks convert the pyramid to a cenotaph. Now how would we know this.

So you could have:

A pyramid built as a tomb and used as a tomb

A pyramid built as a tomb but not used as one (the guy/gal who killed the Pharaoh or a son/brother didn't like him and refuses to bury him/her

A pyramid built as a tomb but not used as one instead converted to a cenotaph

A pyramid built as cenotaph and used as such

A pyramid built as cenotaph but not used as such

A pyramid built as cenotaph but used as a tomb (either due to a change of mind, a decision by relatives/priests, or an intrusive use by another Pharaoh

Now in all these cases how would know what the intention was and what the actual final action turned out to be?

Now if all these actions were occurring or did occur I can see why confusion after 4000 years might exist.

 

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hanslune said:

You left out the folks saying they were tombs or something else. Yet the problem remains - where are all these Pharaohs? G-1d was probably not a tomb and on that we can agree, however it probably wasn't a cenotaph either.

Can you please cite these "some folk" arguing any of these are the actual tombs-particualrly those that do not accept they could be cenotaphs? 

And for the ones I cite that have been suggested to have another function, i.e. be "something else", I say:

The "southern pyramids" of the 3rd Dynasty contained no burials chambers and are thought among other things to be cenotaphs.  

And "something else" is still not a tomb, correct? 

As we can see the idea all pyramids are tombs is not the "status quo", which you left out, with the idea at least some being cenotaphs, and the use of cenotaphs in general, part and parcel of our understanding of DE history. 

But yeah, with more and more pyramids not being tombs, if any it seems, we certainly are left with the same problem as to where are the pharaohs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Piney said:

The Gospels are fiction. The Letters revised by later Roman hands. Revelation, a satire pretending prophecy. 

I know Piney.  But the various scribes of the times were not terribly good story tellers so they took the works of another and rewrote them to suit their agendas.  The rewrite of EUGNOSTOS THE BLESSED [Sethian - Ophite] to THE SOPHIA OF JESUS CHRIST [Judeo - Christian] from the Nag Hammadi is a perfect example of this practice.

EXAMPLE: The left column is the original Eugnostos and the right column is the Judeo Christian rewrite.  See the empty space?  See what they added? The Judeo Christian Gnostics left out much, added much and changed much from the original work. 

Marcion = Mark?

Lucian =Luke?

A rewrite of Apollonius of Tyana or perhaps other authors?

It’s an Unexplained Mystery to be sure. 

F4E2CD11-F01C-40DC-B431-7CEFED978883.jpeg

E00037F5-ECDF-4781-AB40-A20BF27C0D05.jpeg

Edited by Festina
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Festina said:

I know Piney.  But the various scribes of the times were not terribly good story tellers so they took the works of another and rewrote them to suit their agendas.  The rewrite of EUGNOSTOS THE BLESSED [Sethian - Ophite] to THE SOPHIA OF JESUS CHRIST [Judeo - Christian] from the Nag Hammadi is a perfect example of this practice.

I was the guy who pulled the book of Matthew to pieces showed it had 2 authors and 3 revisions and have about 10 academic mentions for it, so It's not like I don't think for myself.

But I showed proofs when I wrote that research. 

Moses was a Goddamn myth and Hermetic magic was invented by the Ptolemaic Greeks in the last centurie BCE.

All that Theosophy is horse ****!!! 

Dario Sommer is a liar and if you lie about something stupid, you'll lie about everything else.....I soon as I saw Cayce and Mu mentioned I was done with his trash. 

Edited by Piney
**** Atlantis
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Piney said:

I was the guy who pulled the book of Matthew to pieces showed it had 2 authors and 3 revisions and have about 10 academic mentions for it, so It's not like I don't think for myself.

But I showed proofs when I wrote that research. 

Moses was a Goddamn myth and Hermetic magic was invented by the Ptolemaic Greeks in the last centurie BCE.

All that Theosophy is horse ****!!! 

Dario Sommer is a liar and if you lie about something stupid, you'll lie about everything else.....I soon as I saw Cayce and Mu mentioned I was done with his trash. 

What page is Cayce and Mu mentioned on.  Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Piney said:

I was the guy who pulled the book of Matthew to pieces showed it had 2 authors and 3 revisions and have about 10 academic mentions for it, so It's not like I don't think for myself.

But I showed proofs when I wrote that research. 

Moses was a Goddamn myth and Hermetic magic was invented by the Ptolemaic Greeks in the last centurie BCE.

All that Theosophy is horse ****!!! 

Dario Sommer is a liar and if you lie about something stupid, you'll lie about everything else.....I soon as I saw Cayce and Mu mentioned I was done with his trash. 

Calm down.  

I know the book of Mathew is fiction but there is always ‘some’ fact in fiction.  Dickens is a good example.  He knew about the filthy vile money changers and he wrote about them along with the debtors prisons and the problems of the British Bureaucracy.  Were his tales fiction?  Yes.  But they were based on facts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Festina said:

What page is Cayce and Mu mentioned on.  Thank you.

Where is said Mu the link jumped right to a Atlantis page in Espanol.

It's un-academic horse**** and people cover their lies and laziness by accusing real academics of being followers and covering up the truth....bull****!! 

I'VE BEEN TRYING TO CREATE A PARADIGM SHIFT FOR DECADES, BUT I BACK MY FACTS AND DON'T MAKE **** UP!! 

AND NOBODY HAS EVER TOLD ME WHAT TO WRITE ON WIKIPEDIA OR EDITED WHAT I WROTE EXCEPT TO CORRECT MISTAKES I ACKNOWLEDGED!!!!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Festina said:

Calm down.  

I know the book of Mathew is fiction but there is always ‘some’ fact in fiction.  Dickens is a good example.  He knew about the filthy vile money changers and he wrote about them along with the debtors prisons and the problems of the British Bureaucracy.  Were his tales fiction?  Yes.  But they were based on facts. 

There is no historical facts in Matthew whatsoever. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Pyramids I believe we would all agree take a long time to build. So, they would have to start well before the dude was done in. Yet what happened if the good Pharaoh was killed in battle, lost off a boat or otherwise his body was los. They would one thinks convert the pyramid to a cenotaph. Now how would we know this.

So you could have:

A pyramid built as a tomb and used as a tomb

A pyramid built as a tomb but not used as one (the guy/gal who killed the Pharaoh or a son/brother didn't like him and refuses to bury him/her

A pyramid built as a tomb but not used as one instead converted to a cenotaph

A pyramid built as cenotaph and used as such

A pyramid built as cenotaph but not used as such

A pyramid built as cenotaph but used as a tomb (either due to a change of mind, a decision by relatives/priests, or an intrusive use by another Pharaoh

Now in all these cases how would know what the intention was and what the actual final action turned out to be?

Now if all these actions were occurring or did occur I can see why confusion after 4000 years might exist.

 

 

With their practice of never mentioning that anybody, native Egyptians that is, let alone a king, had died *, and so never giving a cause of death, we will always remain in the dark about much that happened, and why. But so much scope for invention....

* The scenes in TA26 and the Zanannza Affair apart because, well, it's Amarna :blink:   This forum doesn't seem to do Amarna ? too "difficult" ?

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.