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

18 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

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? 

 

The slide show showed continuity, which I've dealt with in the previous post, and do not dispute.

As for them assuming, as you write, that they may never finish a tomb and so built two, then surely we would see far more tombs than we actually have, and why build two if you think you may never even finish one. Apart from the superstitious element of them not finishing a tomb before the owners death, because otherwise it would be inviting an early death, we do have tombs unfinished even after death, KV43 for instance, but there is not a "reserve" tomb for Thutmose IV. But, as far as pyramids go we do have multiple tombs of course, but I cannot see that the "spare" tombs were built because the main tomb may not be finished, if that is what you are saying. Even for the complicated and contradictory AE, this seems a bit too far, and leads on to what exactly was the purpose of these "spare" tombs.

This is a bit of a 101 and is for context to answer the question you pose about a pyramid possibly being a tomb for Ra. Well, I cannot see anything to suggest in any form that Ra ever had a tomb, I've never even come across this being put forward before. Ra dies, but it is not the same type of death as Osiris, or a mortal like the king, it is more like his batteries running down and needing a recharge.

Osiris dies in the normal sense, is dismembered and put back together again. He is mummified and buried in a tomb and, while being resurrected, never again enters the land of the living and is "fixed" in the Duat. Ra, on the other hand, is constantly on the move during his journey through the Duat, and exists in multiple forms, this varying between various Netherworld Books. His main manifestation is as Flesh, shown as a man with the head of a ram, and is the ba of Ra, which I discussed in another post in this thread. But he is also the "night sun", moving from hour to hour and shedding a dim light upon the inhabitants while speaking to them. The only point at which Ra appears as if in a tomb, though not mummified like Osiris, is in the Sixth Hour, when Flesh joins with the body of himself as Osiris, and so "recharging his batteries". The scene does not have an overt Osiris. In the Enigmatic Books we see a separation between Ra and Osiris as two different forms, with Ra inside Osiris, who is also the king, as shown on the second shrine of Tutankhamun.

So, while there is this central moment of the mystery of how Ra, and the king, join with Osiris and are both resurrected, it is not depicted as occuring within a tomb, but in the middle of the Sixth Hour of the Amduat. It does not need a tomb for Ra for this to occur as it will then "fix" Ra in the Duat, something that  never occurs as he provides, though dimly, a light for the inhabitants of the Duat as he passes from one hour to the next, or gate or cavern in other books, and can never stop in this journey, though there is an incident with a sandbank and the pesky Apopis.

Therefore, the closest you will find to a "tomb of Ra", will be the tomb of Osiris, which is not a pyramid, and off we go back to Abydos.

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

On 5/5/2020 at 4:58 PM, Wepwawet said:

 

 

I guess this answers the age old question, "If pyramids aren't tombs then where are the kings";  they're in the book of the dead. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, cladking said:

 

I guess this answers the age old question, "If pyramids aren't tombs then where are the kings";  they're in the book of the dead. 

 

Why not quote at least a few words of my post and give a detailed reason for your gnomic words.

However, I'll point out that there are no kings in the "Book of the Dead", excepting that when a king uses spells from those available, where a persons name appears, and that name will be of whatever person, king or commoner, who has commission specific spells, then their name will appear in the format Osiris NN. This does not place the king in the book, but makes a particular spell work for him, as it does for anybody who has copies made for them.

If perhaps you actually meant any or all of the various Books of the Netherworld, which are not the same as the "Book of the Dead", then while used primarily by kings, the king himself does not feature as strongly as you might think, and they are present often by knowing that he is with Ra, and also with Osiris. Though strictly speaking, all the kings who ever existed are with Ra on his night journey as part of the crew of the barque. None of this is anything to do with where they are buried though.

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

26 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

Why not quote at least a few words of my post and give a detailed reason for your gnomic words.

However, I'll point out that there are no kings in the "Book of the Dead", excepting that when a king uses spells from those available, where a persons name appears, and that name will be of whatever person, king or commoner, who has commission specific spells, then their name will appear in the format Osiris NN. This does not place the king in the book, but makes a particular spell work for him, as it does for anybody who has copies made for them.

If perhaps you actually meant any or all of the various Books of the Netherworld, which are not the same as the "Book of the Dead", then while used primarily by kings, the king himself does not feature as strongly as you might think, and they are present often by knowing that he is with Ra, and also with Osiris. Though strictly speaking, all the kings who ever existed are with Ra on his night journey as part of the crew of the barque. None of this is anything to do with where they are buried though.

I'm sorry.  I wasn't trying to -snip- your words.  I enjoy all of your posts even if I do disagree  vehemently with your beliefs.  You have good reasons and reasoning for them but I believe you are very wrong.   I had started a post yesterday to protest the anachronistic evidence and the software wouldn't allow it to be deleted in its entirety.

The problem with all Egyptological theory is that it is founded in interpretations and translations based on the "book of the dead".  It is simply impossible for Egyptology to address anything about the great pyramids, their builders, or the king without resorting to concepts from 1000 years after the fact.  Our interpretation of later evidence is fundamental to our understanding of the culture which built the pyramids.  

 

 

 

 

"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."

Edited by cladking
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cladking said:

The problem with all Egyptological theory is that it is founded in interpretations and translations based on the "book of the dead". 

 

What do you mean by "all Egyptological theory", everything possible about ancient Egypt?, and no matter how you qualify that statement, how can "all" of whatever you mean be based on the "Book of the Dead", which allthough important to all Egyptians no matter their station in life, is one book among many. At base level, all the "Book of the Dead" does is provide a set of spells to protect and guide the dead to their judgement before Osiris, and then guide them through the process to a successful conclusion. It is not in any way shape or form to do with where a person is buried and what type of tomb they have, and certainly nothing to do with pyramids.

However, I am not unaware of your ideas, but trying to say that Old Egyptian is a different language to Middle and then Late Egyptian simply does not cut it. Not much more than two hundred years separate the first PT and the introduction of Middle Egyptian, the language of the first Coffin Texts, and the "Book of the Dead" appears shortly after the introduction of Late Egyptian. There cannot be such a gap between them , and there is not. Aidan Dodson put it like this, roughly.

If you had three queens in one room, Hetepheres from the OK, Nefertiti from the NK and Cleopatra VII, Hetepheres and Nefertiti could have a conversation with one another without too much difficulty, and likewise Nefertiti with Cleopatra. Though Hetepheres could not hold a fluid conversation with Cleopatra. It is rather like us today being able to understand Chaucer, but finding it difficult to understand a person speaking in Old English, very difficult actually and only a few words here and there would be recognisable. However, if we read Old English we would understand more as the issue of dialect is removed, so while we may not instantly make out sweord as sword, or "sord" phonetically, we will recognise it even in different spelling. This, dialect apart, is the difference, basically put, between Late and Old Egyptian, so I'm not sure how there is any difference between Old and Middle Egyptian that prevents proper understanding of the PT.

I apologise to old timers here who have trodden over this ground before, but hopefully this may be a slightly different take and explanation of the issue.

Edited by Wepwawet
typo
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wepwawet said:
4 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

What do you mean by "all Egyptological theory", everything possible about ancient Egypt?,

 

Literally that!

Every word that survives from every tomb whether inscribed on walls, on labels, or from the Red Sea port has been translated and interpreted in terms of the "book of the dead" because it has been assumed that there was no discontinuity.  And this despite the fact that there are very obvious discontinuities that run across the culture, language, and the "religion".  Despite the fact that no agreement exists on translations each translator has assumed that it is perfectly good methodology to translate and interpret in terms of the "book of the dead".  

The culture of the pyramid builders would be wholly opaque if we had nothing from later periods with which to compare it.   Remember the Pyramid Texts state in no uncertain terms that the king was never buried in the pyramid or anywhere else and he was the pyramid.  He was transmogrified into the pyramid if you believe the great pyramid builders.  "He does not rot in the earth and he is the pyramid".   They said it literally, consistently, and repeatedly yet we parse the words to mean something else!  We parse the words until they agree with the" book of the dead" and later superstitions.   

Everything about the great pyramid builders is constructed from ideas that didn't exist for centuries.  It is cobbled together from language that didn't exist and from religion that wouldn't exist for 1000 years.   It is built on the assumption that the great pyramid builders were just like us and the authors of the "book of the dead".  

The reason we don't know where the bodies are is very simple; we are looking in every wrong place.  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

What do you mean by "all Egyptological theory", everything possible about ancient Egypt?, and no matter how you qualify that statement, how can "all" of whatever you mean be based on the "Book of the Dead", which allthough important to all Egyptians no matter their station in life, is one book among many. At base level, all the "Book of the Dead" does is provide a set of spells to protect and guide the dead to their judgement before Osiris, and then guide them through the process to a successful conclusion. It is not in any way shape or form to do with where a person is buried and what type of tomb they have, and certainly nothing to do with pyramids.

However, I am not unaware of your ideas, but trying to say that Old Egyptian is a different language to Middle and then Late Egyptian simply does not cut it. Not much more than two hundred years separate the first PT and the introduction of Middle Egyptian, the language of the first Coffin Texts, and the "Book of the Dead" appears shortly after the introduction of Late Egyptian. There cannot be such a gap between them , and there is not. Aidan Dodson put it like this, roughly.

If you had three queens in one room, Hetepheres from the OK, Nefertiti from the NK and Cleopatra VII, Hetepheres and Nefertiti could have a conversation with one another without too much difficulty, and likewise Nefertiti with Cleopatra. Though Hetepheres could not hold a fluid conversation with Cleopatra. It is rather like us today being able to understand Chaucer, but finding it difficult to understand a person speaking in Old English, very difficult actually and only a few words here and there would be recognisable. However, if we read Old English we would understand more as the issue of dialect is removed, so while we may not instantly make out sweord as sword, or "sord" phonetically, we will recognise it even in different spelling. This, dialect apart, is the difference, basically put, between Late and Old Egyptian, so I'm not sure how there is any difference between Old and Middle Egyptian that prevents proper understanding of the PT.

I apologise to old timers here who have trodden over this ground before, but hopefully this may be a slightly different take and explanation of the issue.

No problem we are well aware of the circumstances involved around the creation of the tunnel vision Cladking's ideas were created in. In his ideas nothing is an important as the PT, written in a language he cannot read unless someone else (by people he says are wholly wrong about everything) translates it first for hm - it is the center of his 'universe' and he self -selected himself as the only person on earth who can truly understand it. His fantasy about the AE being super not-really-humans who thought completely differently from us. Who had a Spock like focus on logic, science, had no religion and spoke to animals.  Which then all magically disappeared at 2,000 BCE. 

His absolute refusal to write up any of his research, refusal to answer questions, refusal to acknowledge that the experiments he himself set the parameters for and which showed he was wrong. Refusal to provide his data to support any of his opinions all points to a fine fellow who has kept digging his own tomb for his ideas for 14 years. I believe he has now begun to realize that he has dug his own self-inflicted dead-end and finds himself at the bottom of an evidentiary hole. His ideas have long been laughed at, long since discredited but he is still refusing to acknowledge it and pretending his denial of reality are anything but impotent

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, cladking said:

Literally that!

Every word that survives from every tomb whether inscribed on walls, on labels, or from the Red Sea port has been translated and interpreted in terms of the "book of the dead" because it has been assumed that there was no discontinuity.  And this despite the fact that there are very obvious discontinuities that run across the culture, language, and the "religion".  Despite the fact that no agreement exists on translations each translator has assumed that it is perfectly good methodology to translate and interpret in terms of the "book of the dead".  

The culture of the pyramid builders would be wholly opaque if we had nothing from later periods with which to compare it.   Remember the Pyramid Texts state in no uncertain terms that the king was never buried in the pyramid or anywhere else and he was the pyramid.  He was transmogrified into the pyramid if you believe the great pyramid builders.  "He does not rot in the earth and he is the pyramid".   They said it literally, consistently, and repeatedly yet we parse the words to mean something else!  We parse the words until they agree with the" book of the dead" and later superstitions.   

Everything about the great pyramid builders is constructed from ideas that didn't exist for centuries.  It is cobbled together from language that didn't exist and from religion that wouldn't exist for 1000 years.   It is built on the assumption that the great pyramid builders were just like us and the authors of the "book of the dead".  

The reason we don't know where the bodies are is very simple; we are looking in every wrong place.  

...and how do you account for no one believing you? You've made similar claims hundreds of times but cannot provide any evidence that they are ttue.

We are still waiting for you to provide (my estimate) 1,500 page book that shows they didn't have a religion....are we going to see that any time soon?

How come your 'translation' of the PT  words don't work when the meaning YOU made up are applied to the entire PT?

Are you still working on how you read the English language translation of the PT while at the same time saying everything Egyptology have ever done is wrong? That seems to be a contradiction?

 

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

4 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

If you had three queens in one room, Hetepheres from the OK, Nefertiti from the NK and Cleopatra VII, Hetepheres and Nefertiti could have a conversation with one another without too much difficulty, and likewise Nefertiti with Cleopatra. Though Hetepheres could not hold a fluid conversation with Cleopatra. It is rather like us today being able to understand Chaucer, but finding it difficult to understand a person speaking in Old English, very difficult actually and only a few words here and there would be recognisable. However, if we read Old English we would understand more as the issue of dialect is removed, so while we may not instantly make out sweord as sword, or "sord" phonetically, we will recognise it even in different spelling. This, dialect apart, is the difference, basically put, between Late and Old Egyptian, so I'm not sure how there is any difference between Old and Middle Egyptian that prevents proper understanding of the PT.

I apologise to old timers here who have trodden over this ground before, but hopefully this may be a slightly different take and explanation of the issue.

I've not studied later Egyptian at all so can't speak to it. I have  reason to believe it is like our languages today and expresses meaning the same as our languages.   Of course one won't naturally understand Old English any more than Greek but all modern language produce meaning the same way.   

I've never seen any evidence, logic. or argument that shows that the language of Hetepheres used this same method.  Indeed, every translator of the most ancient language says they can only circumscribe the meaning.   They believe that the Pyramid Texts is a book of incantation!!!   I would ask how the meaning of a book of incantation can even be estimated.  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, cladking said:

I've not studied later Egyptian at all so can't speak to it. I have  reason to believe it is like our languages today and expresses meaning the same as our languages.   Of course one won't naturally understand Old English any more than Greek but all modern language produce meaning the same way.   

I've never seen any evidence, logic. or argument that shows that the language of Hetepheres used this same method.  Indeed, every translator of the most ancient language says they can only circumscribe the meaning.   They believe that the Pyramid Texts is a book of incantation!!!   I would ask how the meaning of a book of incantation can even be estimated.  

Cladking you haven't study ANY aspect of the AE language. All you do is make stuff up and then make goofy unscientific claims, like the one above. You know there are reasons people don't take you seriously. After fourteen years don't you think it might be wise to at least consider their objections to your 'work'?

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

14 minutes ago, cladking said:

The reason we don't know where the bodies are is very simple; we are looking in every wrong place.  

Ah Cladking isn't it your idea that they burned the bodies? So should we be looking for ash somewhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

...and how do you account for no one believing you? You've made similar claims hundreds of times but cannot provide any evidence that they are ttue.

We are still waiting for you to provide (my estimate) 1,500 page book that shows they didn't have a religion....are we going to see that any time soon?

How come your 'translation' of the PT  words don't work when the meaning YOU made up are applied to the entire PT?

1932 (Nt. 763). He, he is a pyramid, he protects;

 

1504a. He rots not; he stinks not,

 

2058a. who do not rot; N. does not rot;

2058b. who do not decay; N. does not decay;

 

1257a. They prevent thee from rotting, in accordance with this thy name of "Anubis";

 

450a. He will rebuild N.; he will cause N. to live every day.

 

 

Edited by cladking
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, cladking said:

 

Deleted

Running keywords thru a searchable database and putting up cherry picked sentences isn't actually going to work - haven't you learned that yet - after 12 years of  you doing so you would think you might have discovered that.

Oh and here are the questions I asked and you didn't answer:

and how do you account for no one believing you? You've made similar claims hundreds of times but cannot provide any evidence that they are ttue.

We are still waiting for you to provide (my estimate) 1,500 page book that shows they didn't have a religion....are we going to see that any time soon?

How come your 'translation' of the PT  words don't work when the meaning YOU made up are applied to the entire PT?

 

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

3 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Ah Cladking isn't it your idea that they burned the bodies? So should we be looking for ash somewhere?

376a. To say: The fire is laid, the fire shines;

376b. the incense is laid on the fire, the incense shines.

376c. Thy fragrance comes to N., O Incense; the fragrance of N. comes to thee, O Incense.

377a. Your fragrance comes to N., O ye gods; the fragrance of N. comes to you, O ye gods.

 

 

2053b. They take N. to heaven, to heaven-on the smoke of incense.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, cladking said:

Deleted

I see you have no answers to the questioned asked of you when you make weird unscientific claims.

Oh, and a note to others - this is Cladking's reaction to being asked questions he doesn't like he either runs away, starts ranting about ramps or metaphysics then posts bits and pieces of the PT out of context. Shall we see how long he will continue to do this? LOL

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I apologise to old timers here who have trodden over this ground before, but hopefully this may be a slightly different take and explanation of the issue.

No need to apologize. You've provided a lot of information I never knew concerning AE. I will at least say thank you for teaching me these items I previously didn't know..

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

In thisa case I'm wagering that the points can't be substantiated primarily because I believe all the kings were cremated. Said by Cladking

http://www.hallofmaat.com/forum/read.php?6,567520,567944#msg-567944

 

Quote

There is more extensive proof from the PT that the king was burned here; Said by Cladking

[www.hallofmaat.com]

http://www.hallofmaat.com/forum/read.php?6,567520,567520#msg-567520

So it seems that you claim the body was burned yet now you refuse to acknowledge it.....Gosh

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cladking said:

I've not studied later Egyptian at all so can't speak to it. I have  reason to believe it is like our languages today and expresses meaning the same as our languages.   Of course one won't naturally understand Old English any more than Greek but all modern language produce meaning the same way.   

I've never seen any evidence, logic. or argument that shows that the language of Hetepheres used this same method.  Indeed, every translator of the most ancient language says they can only circumscribe the meaning.   They believe that the Pyramid Texts is a book of incantation!!!   I would ask how the meaning of a book of incantation can even be estimated.  

There are times (many!) where your absurd pronouncements exceed even those of yourself. Which is admittedly a difficult proposition. Need we go back to the some 10 year old dismantling of your understandings of Giza Plateau geology and hydrology? 

One who prides himself on ignorance may not be the most authoritative reference.

.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cladking said:

I've not studied later Egyptian at all so can't speak to it. I have  reason to believe it is like our languages today and expresses meaning the same as our languages.   Of course one won't naturally understand Old English any more than Greek but all modern language produce meaning the same way.   

I've never seen any evidence, logic. or argument that shows that the language of Hetepheres used this same method.  Indeed, every translator of the most ancient language says they can only circumscribe the meaning.   They believe that the Pyramid Texts is a book of incantation!!!   I would ask how the meaning of a book of incantation can even be estimated.  

Nor do you have any demonstrable facility with any earlier AE language structure, understanding, or interpretation.

.

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

39 minutes ago, Swede said:

There are times (many!) where your absurd pronouncements exceed even those of yourself. Which is admittedly a difficult proposition. Need we go back to the some 10 year old dismantling of your understandings of Giza Plateau geology and hydrology? 

One who prides himself on ignorance may not be the most authoritative reference.

.

I thought you were a little familiar with Egyptology 101.

"The spells, or utterances, of the Pyramid Texts were primarily concerned with enabling the transformation of the deceased into an Akh (where those judged worthy could mix with the gods).[23] The spells of the Pyramid Texts are divided into two broad categories: Sacerdotal texts and Personal texts.[24]"

"...pyramid texts were not written in the pyramids of the pharaohs, but the traditions of the pyramid spells continued to be practiced..."

"...The spells, or utterances, of the Pyramid Texts "

"The spells could also be used to call the gods to help, even threatening them if they did not comply.[37]"

"The west gable of the burial chamber is inscribed with protective spells;[53]"

"Kurt Sethe's first edition of the pyramid texts contained 714 distinct spells; after this publication, additional spells were discovered bringing the total to 759. No single collection uses all recorded spells."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_Texts

I'm really surprised you at you.  Every Egyptologist in the world believes these are spells and the pyramids are tombs.  There is no direct evidence whatsoever for the latter and no possible evidence for the former.  Egyptology takes tghe similarities to the "book of the dead" as evidence that the Pyramid Texts are incantation but the "book of the dead was written 1000 years later.   

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, cladking said:

I

I'm really surprised you at you.  Every Egyptologist in the world believes these are spells and the pyramids are tombs.  There is no direct evidence whatsoever for the latter and no possible evidence for the former.  Egyptology takes tghe similarities to the "book of the dead" as evidence that the Pyramid Texts are incantation but the "book of the dead was written 1000 years later.   

I see you are back to making the same claims, sans evidence again. Okay are you sure that EVERY Egyptologist believes they are tombs? Did you not read this thread what about the pyramid of Ahmose and G-1d?

So besides making the same claims over and over again how come you never provide any evidence? Is it because you don't have any?

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

On 5/8/2020 at 3:12 AM, Wepwawet said:

As for them assuming, as you write, that they may never finish a tomb and so built two, then surely we would see far more tombs than we actually have, and why build two if you think you may never even finish one.

Is this not the stated question posed by the OP-If pyramids are not tombs then where are the pharaohs? I.E. where are these secondary tombs?

"Far more tombs"? If we take the 4th Dynasty, there were 5 pharaohs who built pyramids meaning we would see a whopping 5 "extra" tombs. How does this this equate to "far more than we actually have"? And in this scenario-you expect this "extra tomb" to just sit empty if the pyramid tomb was completed and not given away to some deserving individual, say like one of the wives or children? If not claimed by someone in a later Dynasty. 

Regardless, you seem to be confused as this is not one and the same as the proposed primary tomb related to the pyramid cenotaph. As I said, they built these secondary tombs (which as far as they knew when started were their primary tombs) before they took the throne because obviously there were no guarantees they would ever be king. Khufu, for example, had several male children. Do you think with their 35yr life expectancy they just say around waiting to be king when their father died before at least starting to build their tomb? Tombs that took years to build? How'd that work out for Khaba? Khafre is credited with building a mastaba at Giza which would be an example of this. Also, there are tombs, some quite substantial, that have no known owner. Mastaba 17 at Medium, certainly fit for a king and actually thought by some early Egyptologists to be Sneferu's "real" tomb, has no owner. 

As far as "why build two if you think you may never even finish one"- what do you think is more likely to be completed-a by comparison modest mastaba or rock cut tomb-or a pyramid complex with its 200+ft high pyramid, satellite and/or cult pyramid, temples, enclosure walls, pavement, etc, etc?  And knowing you may not finish the pyramid -would not the actual tomb be a priority which may have been the very first task of building a pyramid complex? And also, the proposed tomb of the pharaoh associated with the pyramid cenotaph would have been one of the very first jobs started which for all we know may be located underground at the pyramid complex site. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, cladking said:

I'm really surprised you at you.

1) As is not uncommon, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired.

2) Would admittedly be surprised by "me at me".

3) However, the experienced readership is hardly surprised by your confused contributions. You have, after all, established a long and consistent precedent.

.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Is this not the stated question posed by the OP-If pyramids are not tombs then where are the pharaohs? I.E. where are these secondary tombs?

"Far more tombs"? If we take the 4th Dynasty, there were 5 pharaohs who built pyramids meaning we would see a whopping 5 "extra" tombs. How does this this equate to "far more than we actually have"? And in this scenario-you expect this "extra tomb" to just sit empty if the pyramid tomb was completed and not given away to some deserving individual, say like one of the wives or children? If not claimed by someone in a later Dynasty. 

Regardless, you seem to be confused as this is not one and the same as the proposed primary tomb related to the pyramid cenotaph. As I said, they built these secondary tombs (which as far as they knew when started were their primary tombs) before they took the throne because obviously there were no guarantees they would ever be king. Khufu, for example, had several male children. Do you think with their 35yr life expectancy they just say around waiting to be king when their father died before at least starting to build their tomb? Tombs that took years to build? How'd that work out for Khaba? Khafre is credited with building a mastaba at Giza which would be an example of this. Also, there are tombs, some quite substantial, that have no known owner. Mastaba 17 at Medium, certainly fit for a king and actually thought by some early Egyptologists to be Sneferu's "real" tomb, has no owner. 

As far as "why build two if you think you may never even finish one"- what do you think is more likely to be completed-a by comparison modest mastaba or rock cut tomb-or a pyramid complex with its 200+ft high pyramid, satellite and/or cult pyramid, temples, enclosure walls, pavement, etc, etc?  And knowing you may not finish the pyramid -would not the actual tomb be a priority which may have been the very first task of building a pyramid complex? And also, the proposed tomb of the pharaoh associated with the pyramid cenotaph would have been one of the very first jobs started which for all we know may be located underground at the pyramid complex site. 

Not confused by anything at all.

Let's look at your post in the context of what has been discussed over a number of posts. You have mentioned continuity, which they certainly had, and which I agree with, though I am not confining myself to looking at only the period between Djoser and Ahmose, in which bracket we have pyramids of course, and looking at the wider picture. That is a habit of mine, and while "noises off" like straight jackets, I don't.

I responded to this sentence of your post #401

Quote

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

You are making a suposition that they, and I'll correct the typo "Knew they may never finish so they had to build two tombs". Of course life was generally shorter, even for the elites, but where is the evidence that they built a modest tomb during their lifetime in which to be buried, and a pyramid as something else. However, my reply was not confined to the Fourth Dynasty, as your post above does, but covered a time span up to Thutmose IV, and indeed it really covers their entire history. This goes to the continuity thing, which does not stop at Ahmose, only the pyramids stop at him, Nubia apart. So when I wrote,

Quote

then surely we would see far more tombs than we actually have

We can see that as I mentioned KV43 and Thutmose IV, I had this wider timescale in mind, and ask, due to their continuity, if it were their practice to build more than one tomb, where are all these "spare tombs", and in the context that I do not believe they exist, except in perhaps a few cases. A tomb like KV43 is somewhat simpler to build than a pyramid, yet it was unfinished, and no suggestion that there was ever a "spare tomb" for any purpose. They may start one, abandon it and start another, but these are for other reasons than a need for two tombs. Geology is a factor here, and maybe issues in pyramid construction forcing a change of plan, and causing us more than four and a half thousand years later to leap to any conclusion that fits with what we want to believe.

You wrote this in the post I quote,

Quote

Do you think with their 35yr life expectancy they just say around waiting to be king when their father died before at least starting to build their tomb? Tombs that took years to build? How'd that work out for Khaba? Khafre is credited with building a mastaba at Giza which would be an example of this. Also, there are tombs, some quite substantial, that have no known owner. Mastaba 17 at Medium, certainly fit for a king and actually thought by some early Egyptologists to be Sneferu's "real" tomb, has no owner.

Okay, I've partly dealt with this, but it goes back to needing evidence that it was their practice to build a tomb for actual use, and a "cenotaph" which could not be completed in their lifetime, and evidence that a king's oldest son would start preparing a tomb for himself as king before his father had died. While G1 and G2 would not be built in a day, and there will always be arguments over how long it took to build them, the AE were not slouches when it came to building, if given a modicum of time. The tomb of Seti I, and I'm not comparing it to G1, was built in no more then ten years. Set I would not even have known with certainty one year prior to him becoming king that he ever would be a king. This due to the handover from Horemheb to Ramesses I, and his one year, or not much more, reign. Why KV43 was never finished in a similar time span will will never know, and there is the enduring mystery of KV62, unless Tutankhamun was destined for WV23. Even so, WV23 is fairly meager in comparrison to the unfinished KV43, and rubbish compared to KV17. Seems like I'm going off track I know, but the point should be clear that it looks as if no royal tomb was started before a crown prince became king, and if the king died before his tomb was ready, it was left unfinished. However I am sure there are some exceptions to the unfinished part, more likely with pyramids, for structural and religious reasons if nothing else, and examples presented. My thing is not pyramidology, it is NK religion.

The question the OP poses is quite valid, not least because there are pyramids that either where certainly not used for the burial of the king, or where probably not. But, to me, it is to big a stretch to suggest that it was their practice to build one tomb during their lifetime for actual useage in death, and another as a "cenotaph" or something else, and that there are X number of undiscovered tombs out there for X number of kings.

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tombs ,for lack of a better word, can be constructed without an ok or start date being given by any particular official or Pharoah. One would assume crews were always working and any project they were working on could be used by the current King or abandoned for a new project, such as a ritualistic pyramid remodel.

 

When Thutmose IV restored the sphinx ,was it for any reason related to his death ? No it was to show his claim to the throne was blessed by the gods. In the same way a pyramid remodel was done to show the legitamacy of the pharoah's rule, not necessarily related to his/her death.

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.