If Pyramids not tombs where are the pharaohs?

[Wistman]

15 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

  Abu Roash has its own dating problems, which Zawyet El Aryan must have been built around the same time, and both in some form are argued to predate the 4th Dynasty. I agree and as others, including some Egyptologists, do not believe either were pyramids. Regardless, the unusual "sarcophagi", also referred to as a "tank" or "vat", is thought by some Egyptologists to have been added after the fact made out of one of the foundation blocks which given the superstructure above it was never added, most likely there was never meant to be one, there is no reason to believe there was ever a burial there. Regarding the "sarcophagus", Barsanti did not think it was such but rather "a libation vessel whose lid served as an offering table".  The lid was plastered to the oval tank and when removed was empty except for a black sludge of sorts. 

Out of curiosity, was the black sludge ever analyzed?

[Thanos5150]

12 minutes ago, The Wistman said:

Out of curiosity, was the black sludge ever analyzed?

Nope. None was saved either. 

[Wepwawet]

We should determine what we mean when use use the word centotaph in the context of the AE. We know what it means for us, but did it really mean the same to them, in that the body of the king is somewhere else, but he is represented by this structure.

The mortuary temple serves as a cenotaph in our usage in that we can pay homage or worship at that place as we have no access to the real burial. But I think for the AE it did not stand in for the burial of the king, but was just carrying out the same function as the mortuary chapel, but no longer attached to the tomb, and, in the case of the 18th Dynasty mortuary temples, far grander. I mean here that it is not something new for a new purpose, like for instance The Cenotaph in London, but something normal transposed in space.

The ka chapel can serve the same purpose, but it is not quite straightforward as a ka chapel can be for the living or the dead. To me, the ka chapel, when for the dead, is more like a cenotaph than a mortuary temple as it puts a manifestation of the ka of the king in a specific spot so that it can be near a specific holy place, Abydos for instance, and be a place for him to be worshipped, or at least have offerings made. Their will of course be a statue of the king in the mortuary temple, and offerings made, but this is the primary place for such things, while the ka chapel, is an extra, an extra to specifically place a manifestation of the king's ka to say, he is not here in body, but in soul, treat this as his grave.

Where does a pyramid fit into this in the context of, for purposes of the OP, being a cenotaph. It looks just a little bit OTT, and I cannot place it in their theology as being a cenotaph, but something else, though what, I do not know.

[Djedi]

On 5/4/2020 at 2:26 PM, Djedi said:

 

In the first dynastie we have the duality of the royal funerary complex, the tomb at Um el-Qa'ab and the funerary enclosure closer at the edge of the cultivated land. The notion of cenotaphs in this context is an outdated concept, the mastabas at Saqqara belong to the local elite. 

 

20 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

No, it is not "outdated" though as I have said newer evidence suggests the tombs at Saqqara were for administrators and/or queen's. Which we are left with the question, for another time, then why were the non-pharaonic burials so superior to that of the pharaohs themselves? The greater point being made relevant to the discussion is that the idea of cenotaphs from the beginnings of Dynastic Egypt to the pyramids of the MK, i.e. pyramids not built as tombs, is part and parcel of Egyptological debate and discovery which the idea is by no means the exclusive realm of the fringe as some erroneously suggest. Just not true.

Regarding the duality of the necropolis of Umm el-Qa'ab and the monumental enclosure system located elsewhere, I go into detail about this in the OP which for me is precedent for ceremonial monumental architecture surround by the burials of subjects located in one area and actual burial site of the pharoah located elsewhere.  

The feeling that the mastabas at Saqqara were superior to the tombs at Um el-Qa'ab is in fact the reason the whole "cenotaph" buisiness started.

Strangely enough Emery who lies at the origin of the cenotaph hypothesis, was initially content in identyfying the mastabas at Saqqara as elite tombs. While excavating there he became more and more impressed with these structures and decided to consider them the real tombs of the kings of the first dyn. In a publication in 1954 he gave the following reasons: 

1) Memphis was founded by Horus Aha and was the capital of Egypt (according to Herodotos and Strabo)

2) Djoser had a northern and southern tomb (cenotaph), as did Sneferu BP and RP, later kings (Sesostris III and Seti I) constructed cenotaphs in Abydos

3) It is hard to imagine that a high official could build a larger tomb near the capital then a king at Abydos

4) The Saqqara tombs had a larger storage capacity for grave goods.

5) It's not certain the names of the high official found in the Saqqara tombs belong to the owners of the tombs.

Herman Kees was the first to point out problems with the above: 

A number of tombs, attributed to high officials by Emery himself are in the same row with mastabas he claims belong to kings. 

There are to many tombs (5 equaly big ones from the reign of Den) and there is no tomb from the reign of Semerkhet. Similar mastabas as those in Saqqara can be found at Nagada, Giza-south, Abu Roash and Tarkhan.

In 1967 Barry Kemp pointed out that when comparing Saqqara with Abydos one must not forget to include the Funerary Enclosures. When added to the Um el-Qa'ab tombs they largely surpass any mastaba at Saqqara, not only in size but also concerning the stored grave goods.

One would think this would end the matter but strangely enough there were and are still are some egyptologists who entertain this cenotaph idea, although not is single one was able to counter the criticism above.

Some further remarks against the cenotaph hypothesis:

If the Abydos structures represented the cenotaphs, why did the 2nd dynasty kings build them at Saqqara? They have no mastabas at Abydos. The last two kings of the 2nd went back to Abydos and there are no mastabas for them at Saqqara.

Projecting the custom of building cenotaphs (memorial chapels) at Abydos in the Middle Kingdom back in time to earlier dynasties, is not a good idea to say the least. 

 

Edited May 5, 2020 by Djedi

[Djedi]

3 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

We should determine what we mean when use use the word centotaph in the context of the AE. We know what it means for us, but did it really mean the same to them, in that the body of the king is somewhere else, but he is represented by this structure.

The mortuary temple serves as a cenotaph in our usage in that we can pay homage or worship at that place as we have no access to the real burial. But I think for the AE it did not stand in for the burial of the king, but was just carrying out the same function as the mortuary chapel, but no longer attached to the tomb, and, in the case of the 18th Dynasty mortuary temples, far grander. I mean here that it is not something new for a new purpose, like for instance The Cenotaph in London, but something normal transposed in space.

The ka chapel can serve the same purpose, but it is not quite straightforward as a ka chapel can be for the living or the dead. To me, the ka chapel, when for the dead, is more like a cenotaph than a mortuary temple as it puts a manifestation of the ka of the king in a specific spot so that it can be near a specific holy place, Abydos for instance, and be a place for him to be worshipped, or at least have offerings made. Their will of course be a statue of the king in the mortuary temple, and offerings made, but this is the primary place for such things, while the ka chapel, is an extra, an extra to specifically place a manifestation of the king's ka to say, he is not here in body, but in soul, treat this as his grave.

Where does a pyramid fit into this in the context of, for purposes of the OP, being a cenotaph. It looks just a little bit OTT, and I cannot place it in their theology as being a cenotaph, but something else, though what, I do not know.

Some egyptologist prefer that the word cenotaph shouldn't be used at al, since it isn't appropriate to describe the function of the different structures it is used for.

Literal meaning "empty tomb" / modern meaning "memorial"

Ka-Chapels at Abydos = cenotaph

pyramid not used as a tomb = cenotaph

Also used for several structures who's function is uncertain: "southern tombs" in Djoser's and Sekhemkhet's mortuary complexes / some sattelite pyramids

IMO it's indeed best not to use it at all, it only causes confusion.

 

[Wepwawet]

14 minutes ago, Djedi said:

Some further remarks against the cenotaph hypothesis:

If the Abydos structures represented the cenotaphs, why did the 2nd dynasty kings build them at Saqqara? The have no mastabas at Abydos. The last two kings of the 2nd went back to Abydos and there are no mastabas for them at Saqqara.

Projecting the custom of building cenotaphs (memorial chapels) at Abydos in the Middle Kingdom back in time to earlier dynasties, is not a good idea to say the least. 

 

And of course in the OK, at least until the later part of the 5th Dynasty, we have no Osiris, we do not yet have this great "holy place" that it became with Osiris. What we have at Abydos in, say, the 4th Dynasty, is a temple to Khentyamentiu, which was probably originally for Wepwawet, an important god from at least the time of Narmer, but not in the same league as Osiris. Though we need to consider that it is highly  likely that Osiris was around longer than he is first attested in the record.

[cladking]

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

And of course in the OK, at least until the later part of the 5th Dynasty, we have no Osiris, we do not yet have this great "holy place" that it became with Osiris. What we have at Abydos in, say, the 4th Dynasty, is a temple to Khentyamentiu, which was probably originally for Wepwawet, an important god from at least the time of Narmer, but not in the same league as Osiris. Though we need to consider that it is highly  likely that Osiris was around longer than he is first attested in the record.

The PT says that "osiris" is just "atum".   It appears that "atum's'  physical functions were taken over by "osiris".   

Edited May 5, 2020 by cladking

[Wepwawet]

44 minutes ago, cladking said:

The PT says that "osiris" is just "atum".   It appears that "atum's'  physical functions were taken over by "osiris".   

At times in the PT a number of the actors become each other almost like an amorphous mass, though extruding from this mass we see a clearly defined form here and there. Sounds a bit Lovecraftian perhaps, but I don't mean an amorphous mass as a horror of physically fused individuals. But yes, Osiris and Atum can be one, just as the king can be Osiris, Horus and Wepwawet at times. In the PT it is a little bit of a jumble, at least to us, and does not become clearer until we see a much more refined version in the Netherworld Books a millenia later. There, all that is the Sun God, was him and will be him, Ra, Atum and Khepri, become joined with Osiris for a short period of time, minutes, maybe even seconds or a fraction of a second, before becoming unbound. With syncretism of the gods, either for seconds or centuries, we do not loose the gods who have been joined, each has their own existance. So Amun-Ra or Ra-Osiris are not two new gods, but still three individual gods. So in the PT we do not have, say, Osiris as also Atum and no existance for Atum other than a metaphor for Osiris, or vice versa, but that they can join for magical purposes.

Edited May 5, 2020 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

And of course in the OK, at least until the later part of the 5th Dynasty, we have no Osiris, we do not yet have this great "holy place" that it became with Osiris. What we have at Abydos in, say, the 4th Dynasty, is a temple to Khentyamentiu, which was probably originally for Wepwawet, an important god from at least the time of Narmer, but not in the same league as Osiris. Though we need to consider that it is highly  likely that Osiris was around longer than he is first attested in the record.

I'm not forgetting the old royal necropolis at Abydos, but looking at a specific religious reason to place a ka chapel - cenotaph there when the necropolis has been moved to Memphis. Of course there is the question of why Abydos was chosed to be the necropolis of the Thinite kings. In the first instance we have to say that as they lived close by, then it is obvious that their necropolis will be near where they lived. How significant Wepwawet was in the early days, and if his procession could be dated back to the First Dynasty, or earlier, is another matter, but the Procession of Wepwawet does look to come after the OK. The potential importance being if they thought even pre Osiris that the Duat, or entrance to the Duat, lay at Abydos, so being buried there gave them only a "short walk". Thinking aloud here somewhat though....

[Thanos5150]

1 hour ago, Djedi said:

The feeling that the mastabas at Saqqara were superior to the tombs at Um el-Qa'ab is in fact the reason the whole "cenotaph" buisiness started.

Strangely enough Emery who lies at the origin of the cenotaph hypothesis, was initially content in identyfying the mastabas at Saqqara as elite tombs. While excavating there he became more and more impressed with these structures and decided to consider them the real tombs of the kings of the first dyn. In a publication in 1954 he gave the following reasons: 

1) Memphis was founded by Horus Aha and was the capital of Egypt (according to Herodotos and Strabo)

2) Djoser had a northern and southern tomb (cenotaph), as did Sneferu BP and RP, later kings (Sesostris III and Seti I) constructed cenotaphs in Abydos

3) It is hard to imagine that a high official could build a larger tomb near the capital then a king at Abydos

4) The Saqqara tombs had a larger storage capacity for grave goods.

5) It's not certain the names of the high official found in the Saqqara tombs belong to the owners of the tombs.

Herman Kees was the first to point out problems with the above: 

A number of tombs, attributed to high officials by Emery himself are in the same row with mastabas he claims belong to kings. 

There are to many tombs (5 equaly big ones from the reign of Den) and there is no tomb from the reign of Semerkhet. Similar mastabas as those in Saqqara can be found at Nagada, Giza-south, Abu Roash and Tarkhan.

 

"3) It is hard to imagine that a high official could build a larger tomb near the capital then a king at Abydos". 

Emery recognized the south conquered the north with the capital at the time being Thinis. After unification, according to Emery, Hor-Aha established Memphis as the new capital of a "united" kingdom, choosing Saqqara as the new royal necropolis, ergo he built his "real" tomb at Saqqara and another at Umm-el Qa'ab as a southern tomb, a cenotaph, in deference to their predecessors and southern kingdom. 

Anyhoo, you'll note the OP does not focus on the Saqqara vs Umm el-Qa'ab mastaba "business" with the focus rather on the separation of the monumental enclosure area with subject burials from the actual royal burial site.

Which is the correlation being made between pyramid complexes where the subjects are buried around the monumental architecture with the king buried elsewhere. It was not until post #222 that I brought up the mastaba problem in detail which I said:

Quote

 

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:

 

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:

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.

 

Which I again said in my response to you:

Quote

 

No, it is not "outdated" though as I have said newer evidence suggests the tombs at Saqqara were for administrators and/or queen's. Which we are left with the question, for another time, then why were the non-pharaonic burials so superior to that of the pharaohs themselves? The greater point being made relevant to the discussion is that the idea of cenotaphs from the beginnings of Dynastic Egypt to the pyramids of the MK, i.e. pyramids not built as tombs, is part and parcel of Egyptological debate and discovery which the idea is by no means the exclusive realm of the fringe as some erroneously suggest. Just not true.

Regarding the duality of the necropolis of Umm el-Qa'ab and the monumental enclosure system located elsewhere, I go into detail about this in the OP which for me is precedent for ceremonial monumental architecture surround by the burials of subjects located in one area and actual burial site of the pharaoh located elsewhere. 

Not really sure how many ways there are to say the same thing. 

Quote

In 1967 Barry Kemp pointed out that when comparing Saqqara with Abydos one must not forget to include the Funerary Enclosures. When added to the Um el-Qa'ab tombs they largely surpass any mastaba at Saqqara, not only in size but also concerning the stored grave goods.

Lol. This is nonsense. It is not a "by volume" equation of all things built on one location vs another therefore they are "equal" and we can just call it a day. Among other things, the notable differences in not only the quality and size of the Saqarra mastabas vs Umm el-Qa'ab , but also the clear departure in symbolism where the palace facade motif is paramount among the Saqarra mastabas it is missing entirely from the Umm el-Qa'ab tombs has not been satisfactorily explained. Not to mention the "bench and bull horns" motif at Saqqara though again missing at Umm el-Qa'ab. Nor the fact, while not found in the tombs at Umm el-Qa'ab themselves, the palace facade motif is a staple of the monumental enclosures. Another odd aspect of the enclosures is evidence suggests at least some they were razed after the death of the pharaoh and subjects interred around it them the enclosure itself was buried.

The enigma of of the Saqqara mastabas vs Umm el-Qa'ab for me is paramount to our understanding of not only the duality of north vs south, but the origins of Dynastic Egypt itself. 

  

Quote

 

One would think this would end the matter but strangely enough there were and are still are some egyptologists who entertain this cenotaph idea, although not is single one was able to counter the criticism above.

 

Some of it is persuasive, but not conclusive. Hoffman, Brinks, Lauer, Stadelmaan to name a few. Though Hoffman suggested the Saqqara mastabas were the cenotaphs, these are at least some "post Emery" Egyptologists that support the cenotaph idea. Personally I believe the answer is much more complicated than just "cenotaphs vs tombs". 

Quote

 

Some further remarks against the cenotaph hypothesis:

If the Abydos structures represented the cenotaphs, why did the 2nd dynasty kings build them at Saqqara? They have no mastabas at Abydos. The last two kings of the 2nd went back to Abydos and there are no mastabas for them at Saqqara.

The beginning of the 2nd Dynasty was a dark age marked by the collapse of the Dynastic state which ended in an apparent revolt with the sacking of many of the Saqqara palace facade mastabas, and a few elsewhere, which were set on fire. The beginning of the 2nd Dynasty also marked the end of the ritual mass murder of the king's subjects which personally I believe was one of the main drivers for this revolt and collapse. An attempt to repair these mastabas was made apparently by Qa'a at the end of the 1st Dynasty, but the damage was done and the unified Dynastic state collapsed until it was revived under Khasekhemwy. If the early 2nd Dynasty kings revolted against the previous order from the south that conquered their ancestors it it any wonder why they choose not to have tombs in the south? Time heals woulds which towards the end of the 2nd Dynasty we see a reconciliation and the south and north united once again. 

Quote

Projecting the custom of building cenotaphs (memorial chapels) at Abydos in the Middle Kingdom back in time to earlier dynasties, is not a good idea to say the least. 

That's ironic considering the logic of some posters here, but in this case it is not "projecting" but establishing the continuation of the context of a greater whole. 

[Trelane]

I see that this has veered into some different waters. Any word or speculation on the location of the missing pharaohs?

[Hanslune]

13 minutes ago, Trelane said:

I see that this has veered into some different waters. Any word or speculation on the location of the missing pharaohs?

It hasn't change, no idea of where they might be it's now a contest over interpretation and whose opinion is bigger. lol

 

[Wepwawet]

9 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Personally I believe the answer is much more complicated than just "cenotaphs vs tombs".

In that post you quote yourself from another post and write this,

Quote

Regarding the duality of the necropolis of Umm el-Qa'ab and the monumental enclosure system located elsewhere, I go into detail about this in the OP which for me is precedent for ceremonial monumental architecture surround by the burials of subjects located in one area and actual burial site of the pharaoh located elsewhere. 

If religious belief and practices had remained constant during the OK you would have a valid point. However, we see a change from a stellar based theology regarding the afterlife to a solar one, expressed in the pyramid. Now it is quite possible that while the religion changed they continued with the same practices regarding the layout of the necropolis and who is buried where, but I think this huge mass of stone rising up from the ground mitigates against this as it is a very radical step. So yes, it is "more complicated than just "cenotaphs vs tombs"", and we need to factor in changes in religion and how a cenotaph fits into their beliefs, and specifically in the context of the OP, having a cenotaph and, at least in some cases, not having a visible tomb or place marked as their tomb, a practice we do not see until the 18th Dynasty with the total separation of the now completely hidden tomb and very prominent mortuary temple.

So it does seem to me that while the question "Where are the pharoahs" is valid and needs investigation, you are, at base level, at least suggesting that 18th Dynasty practices were being used during the OK and MK for the purposes of confounding robbers. Yet, the 18th Dynasty practices were the radical step after the first pyramid, and specifically designed to confound robbers. It strikes me that if, as you suggest, this was happening in, if not in all, but at least some cases, why would the Thutmosids take the radical step that they did. I suggest they took that step because prior to their rise to power they knew full well that all the old kings had been buried in plain sight and had been robbed. Of course the Thutmosid solution did not work as the tomb builders were also the tomb robbers.

Edited May 6, 2020 by Wepwawet

[Djedi]

11 hours ago, Hanslune said:

It hasn't change, no idea of where they might be it's now a contest over interpretation and whose opinion is bigger. lol

 

The majority of egyptologists considers the cenotaph hypothesis outdated and the matter setteled, but there are still exceptions; the most recent support of Emery I was able to track down is from 2002:

Cervelló Autuori, J., Back to  the Mastaba Tombs of the First Dynasty at Saqqara. Officials or Kings?, in: Pirelli, R. (ed.), Egyptological Essays on State and Society, Napoli 2002, p. 27-61

He brings nothing new to the discussion and is unable to dismiss the arguments against the cenotaph hypothesis.

One of his arguments is that the remoddeled bovine skulls from Mastabas S3504 and 3505 can only be symbols of a king. But a mastaba with such skulls has also be uncovered at Abu Gurob in 1992 by Ali Radwan.

I'm not aware that the cenotaph hypothesis has still supporters within Egyptology for later periods such as the attribution of mastabas at Beit Khallaf to Djoser and Sanakht (Garstang proposed this way back).

Thanos'5150 idea that the pyramids are cenotaphs seems to come from Kurt Mendelssohn (not an egyptologist) who proposed this for those of the 4th dyn. Apparantly Thanos5150 extends this idea to later pyramids also including those of the MK.

If we consider the cenotaph hypothesis to be true, we should find the real tombs in the southern part of the country, in Upper Egypt.

Is that what you propose Thanos5150? The real tombs are located at an undiscovered location (or at a number of locations) somewhere in Upper Egypt?

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by Djedi

[Hanslune]

9 hours ago, Djedi said:

The majority of egyptologists considers the cenotaph hypothesis outdated and the matter setteled, but there are still exceptions; the most recent support of Emery I was able to track down is from 2002:

Cervelló Autuori, J., Back to  the Mastaba Tombs of the First Dynasty at Saqqara. Officials or Kings?, in: Pirelli, R. (ed.), Egyptological Essays on State and Society, Napoli 2002, p. 27-61

He brings nothing new to the discussion and is unable to dismiss the arguments against the cenotaph hypothesis.

One of his arguments is that the remoddeled bovine skulls from Mastabas S3504 and 3505 can only be symbols of a king. But a mastaba with such skulls has also be uncovered at Abu Gurob in 1992 by Ali Radwan.

I'm not aware that the cenotaph hypothesis has still supporters within Egyptology for later periods such as the attribution of mastabas at Beit Khallaf to Djoser and Sanakht (Garstang proposed this way back).

Thanos'5150 idea that the pyramids are cenotaphs seems to come from Kurt Mendelssohn (not an egyptologist) who proposed this for those of the 4th dyn. Apparantly Thanos5150 extends this idea to later pyramids also including those of the MK.

If we consider the cenotaph hypothesis to be true, we should find the real tombs in the southern part of the country, in Upper Egypt.

Is that what you propose Thanos5150? The real tombs are located at an undiscovered location (or at a number of locations) somewhere in Upper Egypt?

 

Very good review. I still hold to the majority being tombs, whether used for that purpose or not (the body for a variety of reason either not existing or planted somewhere else). With the many exceptions I noted earlier.

This is a problem/idea that is probably not capable of being resolved outside one or more of these proposed other burial locations being found.

 

Oh and to Thanos, Wep, and Djedi thanks for the interesting discussion. Appreciated

Edited May 6, 2020 by Hanslune

[Thanos5150]

13 hours ago, Djedi said:

The majority of egyptologists considers the cenotaph hypothesis outdated and the matter setteled, but there are still exceptions; the most recent support of Emery I was able to track down is from 2002:

Cervelló Autuori, J., Back to  the Mastaba Tombs of the First Dynasty at Saqqara. Officials or Kings?, in: Pirelli, R. (ed.), Egyptological Essays on State and Society, Napoli 2002, p. 27-61

He brings nothing new to the discussion and is unable to dismiss the arguments against the cenotaph hypothesis.

One of his arguments is that the remoddeled bovine skulls from Mastabas S3504 and 3505 can only be symbols of a king. But a mastaba with such skulls has also be uncovered at Abu Gurob in 1992 by Ali Radwan.

I'm not aware that the cenotaph hypothesis has still supporters within Egyptology for later periods such as the attribution of mastabas at Beit Khallaf to Djoser and Sanakht (Garstang proposed this way back).

 

I responded to you (post#390) in detail about this, again, yet you respond to this post ignoring what I said and just keep banging on about the Saqqara mastaba cenotaph issue when I have said in no uncertain terms multiple times the reasoning for mentioning them was not that they were cenotaphs or not, but rather to illustrate the concept of the cenotaph has a long been a part of Egyptological thought. From the very first time I brought up the mastabas:

Quote

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 I repeated to you for your benefit. You keep arguing against them being cenotaphs and yet I never said I thought they were they were and specifically noted the evidence increasingly suggests otherwise. At this point you are just using it as a straw man to make it seems like you are winning an argument that in reality you are only having with yourself. 

Quote

Thanos'5150 idea that the pyramids are cenotaphs seems to come from Kurt Mendelssohn (not an egyptologist) who proposed this for those of the 4th dyn. Apparantly Thanos5150 extends this idea to later pyramids also including those of the MK.

Not an Egyptologist you say? Oh my. We certainly can't have that. But I did list before several Egyptologists who do think think at least some of the pyramids are cenotaphs- did they get this idea from Mendelssohn as well? 

Why does this idea have to "come" from someone? I assume in this day and age we are still capable of looking at the available evidence and coming to our own conclusions without having to rely on others, like Egyptologists, to tell us what to think.

No I did not get it from Mendelssohn and no I am not extending it to the MK as several of these later pyramids are already thought to have been cenotaphs. I use them as as circumstantial confirmation of the idea those that preceded them are too, not the other way around. . 

Quote

 

If we consider the cenotaph hypothesis to be true, we should find the real tombs in the southern part of the country, in Upper Egypt.

Is that what you propose Thanos5150? The real tombs are located at an undiscovered location (or at a number of locations) somewhere in Upper Egypt?

 

To be clear, we know that several OK pyramids, for whatever the reasons, pharaohs were never buried there and that it is likely some MK pyramids were built as cenotaphs or the like. We agree it is likely, just as a practical matter, that pharaohs would have built a secondary tomb "just in case" they were unable to finish their pyramid. With that being said, to accept the idea that pyramids were built as cenotaphs, a term used colloquially to mean at the very least "not their actual tomb with actual tomb built elsewhere". On the surface Upper Egypt would be a logical choice for the "real" tomb, but I think do not think this was the case. Again, what we see at the beginning of the 2nd Dynasty:

Quote

 

The beginning of the 2nd Dynasty was a dark age marked by the collapse of the Dynastic state which ended in an apparent revolt with the sacking of many of the Saqqara palace facade mastabas, and a few elsewhere, which were set on fire. The beginning of the 2nd Dynasty also marked the end of the ritual mass murder of the king's subjects which personally I believe was one of the main drivers for this revolt and collapse. An attempt to repair these mastabas was made apparently by Qa'a at the end of the 1st Dynasty, but the damage was done and the unified Dynastic state collapsed until it was revived under Khasekhemwy. If the early 2nd Dynasty kings revolted against the previous order from the south that conquered their ancestors it it any wonder why they choose not to have tombs in the south? Time heals woulds which towards the end of the 2nd Dynasty we see a reconciliation and the south and north united once again.  

 

There is no doubt there were ideological differences, among others, between Upper and Lower Egypt part of which tangibly represented by the two gods Horus (north) and Set (south). In the 2nd Dynasty we see with Peribsen an apparent rebuke of Horus and reversion to Set which Peribsen's forsakes Saqqara and only builds his tomb in the south at Umm el-Qa'ab. The two lands are reunited under Khasekhemwy and though he also builds his tomb at Umm el-Qa'ab and refurbishes an existing monumental enclosure, evidence of him is found in tombs of high ranking officials at Saqqara dated to the end of the 2nd Dynasty which seems to be a further mark a reconciliation and unification.  

Saqqara, with Djoser, known by his Horus name Netjerikhet, though he may have been expanding on an already existing site, we see an apparent "revivalism" and homage to the kings of the north and a firm re-dedication to Horus. All of which becomes something more and something else with the adoption of a new ideology represented by the building of a pyramid. While palace facade is used architecturally in the 3rd Dynasty with the first two pharaohs it quickly fades away in use as a construction method. In the 4th Dynasty, however, as far as I can tell beginning with the reign of Djedefre, it makes an all pervasive comeback yet this time clearly in the form of a specific building- the serekh building ("Great House") and also not as a construction method but rather a motif expressed in various mediums. Though it use is seen for the next 2,000+ years, beginning at this time at Giza it is clear there was nothing more important in their funerary theology found on sarcophagi, tomb facades, and interiors.  

    

For more see HERE. 

Whether as the full building or as a false door it is repeated in various medium ubiquitously, as relevant to this discussion, throughout the tombs of the pyramid age (and beyond). For more about Djedefre and his possible historical revivalism see HERE, which though no one has commented on it I hope someone has/will read it. There is no doubt to me that they were inspired by an actual building which must have predated them by centuries, perhaps likely refurbished to its previous glory by Khasekhemwy, which regardles was also immortalized in the great 1st Dynasty mastabas. Though there are several locations these Early Dynastic palace facade mastabas are found, including Giza, except for Neithhotep's at Naqada and a few nearby Naga el-Deir, they are all otherwise found in Lower Egypt with none at Umm el-Qa'ab. Memphis was established as the capital, Horus was back on top, Djoser reestablished the Early Dynastic necropolis of Saqqara with not only a spectacular homage to what came before at Saqqara, but the addition of a new ideology in the from of a pyramid which in the 4th Dynasty at least became associated, as did the pharaohs, with the elevation of the sun god god RA.

So much to talk about with this, but to keep on track and make a long story short-no, I do not think they were buried in Upper Egypt but rather Lower Egypt for the reason it seems quite clear this is where their allegiance lay. 

Edited May 7, 2020 by Thanos5150

[M. Williams]

Intrusive burials and reappropriated tombs are common in AE. If you're a Pharoah you build two tombs so your body can be moved when your pyramid is acquired by another person and the chambers reused/altered. Pharoahs didn't  plan on being in the pyramid forever as rituals performed inside didn't require internment forever. They knew they could and most likely would be moved so they prepared other options ahead of time.

 

The evolution from the stepped to smooth pyramid shape could be nothing more than a way to prevent another pharoah from adding to the exterior of the pyramid.

 

Also , later pyramids egyptologists call lesser quality because of their small stone or mud brick cores are an extension of this concept. It's impossible to add to their smooth limestone exteriors and their rubble cores make them useless if the casing stones are removed. They're actually the pinnacle of pyramid design for their anti-appropriation design features. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 7, 2020 by M. Williams

[Thanos5150]

15 hours ago, Djedi said:

I'm not aware that the cenotaph hypothesis has still supporters within Egyptology for later periods such as the attribution of mastabas at Beit Khallaf to Djoser and Sanakht (Garstang proposed this way back).

How about Dieter Arnold. 

[Thanos5150]

19 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

However, we see a change from a stellar based theology regarding the afterlife to a solar one, expressed in the pyramid.

The 1st burial chamber's ceiling in Djoser's pyramid is covered in stars. See Complete Pyramids, Lehner p93. 

They look just like these found in Sahure's pyramid complex. 

 

And these in Unas's burial chamber:

The PT tells us:

Quote

They lift up the ladder for the King, they erect the Ladder for the King, they raise the Ladder for the King. Come, O Ladder, come O Ladder, may there come your name which the gods have spoken. He who ascends comes, he who ascends comes. He who climbs comes, he who climbs comes ! He who is lifted up comes, he who is lifted up comes. The King ascends upon the thighs of Isis, the king climbs upon the thighs of Nepthys, the King's father Atum grasps the King's hand and sets the King at the head of yonder gods who are excellent, wise and imperishable. Behold this which has been said to you, you gods, lest the King be not at your head; behold, the King is established at your head as the enduring Bull of the Wild Bulls.!

And among other things seems quite preoccupied with stars and the pharaoh attaining his place among them. Solar worship goes back to at least the 1st Dynasty and cults of RA to at least the 2nd.

Quote

If religious belief and practices had remained constant during the OK you would have a valid point.

The Heb Sed dates back to the 1st Dynasty which was just as big a deal then as it was in the OK-no doubt the most important "beliefs and practices" associated with the pharaoh. And some argue the monumental enclosures at Abydos were for this very purpose. Icons like the ankh, djed pillar, and was scepter are also continuous religious concepts. I am not saying there was not change, far from it, and to some degree those of the OK may not even fully understood these earlier concepts, but the fact is we do not know what it was that made them start building pyramids which as far as we know part of this "change" in religion may have been making them as cenotaphs.

Quote

 

So it does seem to me that while the question "Where are the pharoahs" is valid and needs investigation, you are, at base level, at least suggesting that 18th Dynasty practices were being used during the OK and MK for the purposes of confounding robbers. Yet, the 18th Dynasty practices were the radical step after the first pyramid, and specifically designed to confound robbers. It strikes me that if, as you suggest, this was happening in, if not in all, but at least some cases, why would the Thutmosids take the radical step that they did. I suggest they took that step because prior to their rise to power they knew full well that all the old kings had been buried in plain sight and had been robbed. Of course the Thutmosid solution did not work as the tomb builders were also the tomb robbers.

 

No. I am saying the "burial practices" of the OK and MK were used in the 18th Dynasty which were not to bury the pharaoh in the pyramid.  

Djedi:

Quote

Did the Egyptian kings know their pyramids would be looted? You seem to think so, bit I doubt it. There is no reason to assume major looting activities of pyramids took place before the FIP when central authorithy collapsed. We have the odd "inside job" where people involved in the construction of the tomb robbed them shortly after burial took place; example mastaba nr 17; robbers knew exactly where to dig. Against this measures where taken such as granite porticulis blocks and granite blocking stones instead of the easier breakable limestone versions that were used before.  

Me:
 

Quote

 

If they did not think they would be looted then what is the point of supposedly protecting them? I doubt it was to keep whatever was inside in. A system dating back to the 1st Dynasty no less. We also have examples of the 5th/6th Dynasty pharaohs looting materials from their predecessors to build their monuments not to mention testaments in at least one tomb of the period proud of the fact they built theirs from scratch instead of, as this person laments, commonly looting materials from others. Tomb robbing of themselves is nothing new and is found before the pyramid age as well.   

The use of granite portcullis doors goes back to the tombs of the 1st Dynasty:

 

But interesting you mention the portcullis system as the lack thereof in many pyramids is one of the specific reasons why some suggest certain pyramids were not made to inter the actual burial. 

 

 

Edited May 7, 2020 by Thanos5150

[Wepwawet]

2 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

The 1st burial chamber's ceiling in Djoser's pyramid is covered in stars. See Complete Pyramids, Lehner p93. 

They look just like these found in Sahure's pyramid complex. 

 

And these in Unas's burial chamber:

The PT tells us:

And among other things seems quite preoccupied with stars and the pharaoh attaining his place among them. Solar worship goes back to at least the 1st Dynasty and cults of RA to at least the 2nd.

The Heb Sed dates back to the 1st Dynasty which was just as big a deal then as it was in the OK-no doubt the most important "beliefs and practices" associated with the pharaoh. And some argue the monumental enclosures at Abydos were for this very purpose. Icons like the ankh, djed pillar, and was scepter are also continuous religious concepts. I am not saying there was not change, far from it, and to some degree those of the OK may not even fully understood these earlier concepts, but the fact is we do not know what it was that made them start building pyramids which as far as we know part of this "change" in religion may have been making them as cenotaphs.

No. I am saying the "burial practices" of the OK and MK were used in the 18th Dynasty which were not to bury the pharaoh in the pyramid.  

Djedi:

Me:
 

 

The ceiling of KV43 is also covered with stars, yet their theology had moved on considerably from the time of Djoser. The solar cult would, I imagine, go back deep into predynastic times in some form as sun worship is quite a basic element in religions, but it comes to light, literally, in the OK, before the rise of Osiris added another, and crucial layer, to their religion. The stars never became redundant, they were still thought to be the akh, the blessed dead, but the king in the OK became one with Ra, and then later with Osiris and Ra. I believe that we see this change in belief as to what happens to the king after death, from star to Ra as it were, expressed in the first pyramid. The shafts in G1 are perhaps Khufu "hedging his bets" with quite strong, though hidden, celestial elements to a structure that combines solar imagery with the primal mound, but we will never know, and endlessly chatter about it.

While we certainly have odd things going on with some kings having more than one pyramid, I'm still not convinced of the idea of a pyramid as cenotaph. I don't even see the concept, as we know it, existing then. While I have used the term in conjunction with mortuary temples and the ka-chapels at Abydos, it is more for purposes if simplifying what is happening, as neither fit the bill for a cenotaph as we know it. Some structures at Abydos may be dummy tombs, but it is we, in our cultural terms, who say what they are or are not. We see all these ka-houses at Abydos, but they are in no way a "tomb without a body", but a place for the ka of the deceased to observe the events taking place on the "Via Sacra", the processions of Wepwawet and Osiris through a landscape which was deliberately preserved to be with only the minimum of intrusion by our structures, hence almost, but not quite deliberately hidden tombs at Abydos. I'm sure you know this and I mention it for wider context as this is not a private conversation.

[Thanos5150]

8 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

The ceiling of KV43 is also covered with stars, yet their theology had moved on considerably from the time of Djoser.

Did it move on from the king going to the heavens to take his rightful place among the stars? As much as things change there are also constants, at least iconographically,  that remain virtually unchanged for thousands of years. Despite these changes, what we see in KV43 suggests it meaning is little to no different than in Djoser's time **. 

Speaking of stars and the 18th Dynasty (Anen), one of my favorite DE statues:

 

Quote

The solar cult would, I imagine, go back deep into predynastic times in some form as sun worship is quite a basic element in religions, but it comes to light, literally, in the OK, before the rise of Osiris added another, and crucial layer, to their religion. The stars never became redundant, they were still thought to be the akh, the blessed dead, but the king in the OK became one with Ra, and then later with Osiris and Ra. I believe that we see this change in belief as to what happens to the king after death, from star to Ra as it were, expressed in the first pyramid. The shafts in G1 are perhaps Khufu "hedging his bets" with quite strong, though hidden, celestial elements to a structure that combines solar imagery with the primal mound, but we will never know, and endlessly chatter about it.

** Interesting you mention KV43 because KV34 (also 18th Dynasty) with the same stars also has the oldest version of the Amduat which "...tells the story of Ra, the Egyptian sun god who travels through the underworld, from the time when the sun sets in the west and rises again in the east. It is said that the dead Pharaoh is taking this same journey, ultimately to become one with Ra and live forever". As the earlier PT tells us, ultimately the pharaoh takes his place among the stars. Regardless, compare to what you say above: "I believe that we see this change in belief as to what happens to the king after death, from star to Ra as it were, expressed in the first pyramid". Despite no pyramid, though a lot of stars, the goal with both is to become "one with RA". 

Further evidence of this continuity, like stars whether they built pyrmaids or not, is the pyramid kilt. Though Ahmose I, the first pharaoh and only pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty to build a pyramid, what is seen after is a revival of the "pyramid kilt" guild first seen in the late 4th/5th Dynasty and also popular in the MK, the other pyramid building age. Symbolism that continues well though the NK.

Ramses II:

 

Thutmose III (KV34):

  

MK 12th Dynasty:

  

5th/6th Dynasties:

If we recall the 20th Dynasty Abbott Papyrus, see post #89, it repeatedly refers to "pyramid tombs" (and some actual pyramids), though not actually pyramids, which date from the 11th-18th, though mostly 17th Dynasty.  What we can see is whether they actually built pyramids or not, they were keenly aware of its symbolism which despite all this change they incorporated it in their beliefs in their own way, some, like with the stars, apparently no different than it was originally.   

Quote

While we certainly have odd things going on with some kings having more than one pyramid, I'm still not convinced of the idea of a pyramid as cenotaph. I don't even see the concept, as we know it, existing then. While I have used the term in conjunction with mortuary temples and the ka-chapels at Abydos, it is more for purposes if simplifying what is happening, as neither fit the bill for a cenotaph as we know it. Some structures at Abydos may be dummy tombs, but it is we, in our cultural terms, who say what they are or are not. We see all these ka-houses at Abydos, but they are in no way a "tomb without a body", but a place for the ka of the deceased to observe the events taking place on the "Via Sacra", the processions of Wepwawet and Osiris through a landscape which was deliberately preserved to be with only the minimum of intrusion by our structures, hence almost, but not quite deliberately hidden tombs at Abydos. I'm sure you know this and I mention it for wider context as this is not a private conversation.

As I just wrote to Djedi (#396):

With that being said, to accept the idea that pyramids were built as cenotaphs, a term used colloquially to mean at the very least "not their actual tomb with actual tomb built elsewhere". 

Anything more than that complicates the matter. 

And again, its not just that some built more than one it is that they knew they may never finish to they had to build two tombs regardless. 

Regardless, RA, the sun, is to be resurrected each day and the pharaoh is to be resurrected as RA and take his place among the stars. Is it possible therefore that the pyramid, this "ladder to the heavens", is the tomb of RA in which the pharaoh's tomb, built elsewhere, is symbolically linked so that it may join with RA in his resurrection machine transporting the pharaoh to the stars? 

 

Edited May 7, 2020 by Thanos5150

[Wepwawet]

2 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Did it move on from the king going to the heavens to take his rightful place among the stars? As much as things change there are also constants, at least iconographically,  that remain virtually unchanged for thousands of years. Despite these changes, what we see in KV43 suggests it meaning is little to no different than in Djoser's time

 

 

I'll just reply to this part of your post at this time.

Comparing the iconography we find at the Step Pyramid to that of elements of KV43 does indeed show that there is continuity. The stars representing the akhs of the blessed dead, and the pyramid represented by El Qurn at the VoK for all the tombs there..

Before the Step Pyramid it seems that the king ascended and became an akh when he died. Of course the PT does not come from a vacuum and the fact of the pyramid shows that the king now joins with Ra to sail with him on the solar barque. The PT introduces Osiris and a mechanism for the resurrection of the king, and of Ra. This is not present at the Step Pyramid, or any pyramid or structure before Unas, so we have a profound change in theology between the Step Pyramid and Unas, even if the end result, the ascension of the king, remains the same, just as akhs remain the same. There is a difference between the PT and the Amduat, with much "clutter" being removed and important new elements introduced, having hours and a mechanism, even if mysterious, of the act of resurrection for the king and Ra. In the PT, the king joins with Wepwawet and Horus during his ascension, but in the Amduat he does not. Horus appears as only himself, and Wepwawet remains at the prow of the barque, clearing the path.

I don't think you would have anything to disagree with, so far, but, I'll say that the continuity we do see indicates a place that is the tomb of the king. The "mechanisms", the stars and the pyramid itself, and by pyramid I include the VoK tombs with their "joint pyramid", make no sense without the body of the king.

Of course this leaves the important question of why on earth do we have "spare pyramids" as that contradicts what I said above. But even the AE are notorious for contradictions.

Edited May 7, 2020 by Wepwawet

[Hanslune]

Perhaps my idea that Khufu was a religious fruitcake might be extended to the whole range of the Pharaohs and the priestly class.

One of the fun aspects of archaeology is trying to figure out what people were thinking or hoping to do thousands of years ago. There is only one thing worse than too little evidence and that is too much especially that which is contradictory.

[Wepwawet]

53 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Perhaps my idea that Khufu was a religious fruitcake might be extended to the whole range of the Pharaohs and the priestly class.

One of the fun aspects of archaeology is trying to figure out what people were thinking or hoping to do thousands of years ago. There is only one thing worse than too little evidence and that is too much especially that which is contradictory.

With multiple creation myths, gods having a grandchild as their parent or grandparent when they should not have existed, gods or one god with multiple personalities, or multiple gods with one personality, the Hornung "One and the Many", it's a wonder, by our standards, that they weren't all raving loonies, but they managed quite happily, until HIM, who turns all of us today into raving loonies trying to work out what the hell happened, but that's another bag of bones, sinking ever deeper into a tarpit....

Edited May 7, 2020 by Wepwawet

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

With multiple creation myths, gods having a grandchild as their parent or grandparent when they should not have existed, gods or one god with multiple personalities, or multiple gods with one personality, the Hornung "One and the Many", it's a wonder, by our standards, that they weren't all raving loonies, but they managed quite happily, until HIM, who turns all of us today into raving loonies trying to work out what the hell happened, but that's another bag of bones, sinking ever deeper into a tarpit....

For a modern re-creation that what we European's call Hinduism is not far off. I've been trying to understand it from a 19th century perspective for the last few years.