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

Though there is a difference between renovating an existing structure, tomb or otherwise, and starting your own royal tomb while still crown prince. Foundation deposits, when found, do not support this, only that a specific king had began a project, not his eldest son, who may not succeed him anyway, and here we look again at Thutmose IV and how he became king when he had at least one older brother, and maybe two.

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

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

Though there is a difference between renovating an existing structure, tomb or otherwise, and starting your own royal tomb while still crown prince. Foundation deposits, when found, do not support this, only that a specific king had began a project, not his eldest son, who may not succeed him anyway, and here we look again at Thutmose IV and how he became king when he had at least one older brother, and maybe two.

Since you're including NK examples in this discussion, what about noting the Crown Princes (and HPP) Thuthmose and Khaemwaset?  Neither their tombs nor mummies have been discovered, in spite of their importance and both being highly active CP when they died.  Prince Thuthmose (elder brother of HIM) has his name on the foundation deposits of the first Apis Isolated Tomb that he built at Saqqara.  Khaemwaset initiated building the Serapeum proper next to the Isolated Tombs, built a 'monument' for himself overlooking the Serapeum (built a tomb for his daughter Princess Isisnofret next to it), restored many OK structures at Saqqara and Giza, including Unas's pyramid, where he was given this laudatory from his father Ramses II:

Quote

His majesty has ordered it to be proclaimed that the chief of the masters of artists [HPP], the setem-priest Khaemwaset, has inscribed the name of the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Unas, since it was not found on the face of the pyramid, because the setem-priest Prince Khaemwaset much loved to restore the monuments of the Kings of Upper and Lower Egypt. *

Both of these Crown Princes would justifiably have thought themselves to be the next pharaoh.  I understand Wepwawet may be talking about foundation deposits at royal tombs, but that is not clear from his statement.

The single monument of his own that Khaemwaset built at Saqqara may fit the notion of 'cenotaph' as it is being discussed here, though not that of a king.

I'm enjoying the discussion, though have little to add to your excellent proposals and insights.  Thanks guys.

*tr. 1937 Jean-Philippe Lauer 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Wistman said:

Since you're including NK examples in this discussion, what about noting the Crown Princes (and HPP) Thuthmose and Khaemwaset?  Neither their tombs nor mummies have been discovered, in spite of their importance and both being highly active CP when they died.  Prince Thuthmose (elder brother of HIM) has his name on the foundation deposits of the first Apis Isolated Tomb that he built at Saqqara.  Khaemwaset initiated building the Serapeum proper next to the Isolated Tombs, built a 'monument' for himself overlooking the Serapeum (built a tomb for his daughter Princess Isisnofret next to it), restored many OK structures at Saqqara and Giza, including Unas's pyramid, where he was given this laudatory from his father Ramses II:

Both of these Crown Princes would justifiably have thought themselves to be the next pharaoh.  I understand Wepwawet may be talking about foundation deposits at royal tombs, but that is not clear from his statement.

The single monument of his own that Khaemwaset built at Saqqara may fit the notion of 'cenotaph' as it is being discussed here, though not that of a king.

I'm enjoying the discussion, though have little to add to your excellent proposals and insights.  Thanks guys.

*tr. 1937 Jean-Philippe Lauer 

I am indeed talking only about royal tombs, and specifically the king's, otherwise we will really get bogged down I think.

And "HIM", yes, I'm looking for an opening to discuss HIM. "Is there anybody out there", Kyla ? Marianne ? (it's safe to discuss DNA here) anybody ?

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

 

On 5/5/2020 at 1:35 AM, Thanos5150 said:

.   

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

1stdynsaqqara12.jpg

 

In the Early Dynastic period we find limestone porticulis doors. Djoser's burial vault was made of granite but remains of a limestone burial vault from an earlier building phase have been found. It's not implausible the change was made for security reasons. Even in Sneferu's Bent pyramid we still find two porticullis doors made of limestone. AFAIK under Khufu for the first time granite porticullis doors and granite blocking stones are used.

 

On 5/5/2020 at 1:35 AM, Thanos5150 said:

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. 

If lack of a porticullis system is a possible reason why certain pyramids were not used as a burial then that leaves not much candidates since most pyramids do have porticullis doors and / or blocking stones.

The Red pyramid at Dashur and Khafre's at Giza lack porticullis doors, unclear if there were blocking stones in the passages at some point. Menkaure's and Shepseskhaf's had 3 granite porticullis doors.

All pyramids of the 5th and 6th dyn have at least one porticullis door (mostly 3) and some have additional blocking stones in passages.

The first two pyramids of the MK, those of Amenemhat I and Senwosret I had granite blocking stones in a passage lined with granite (to prevent tomb robbers from digging around the blocks like they did a.o. in Khufu's), unclear if there were further security measures. near the tomb chambers since they are flooded.

Amenemhat II, two porticullis doors.

Senwosret II, from now on entrance no longer on north side, tomb chamber no longer in middle under pyramid but of centre, no extensive blocking of passages it seems. Same goes for the pyramids of Senwosret III and Amenemhat III at Dashur although the kings were not burried there.

In Senwosret III tomb at Abydos extra measures are taken such as dummy chambers, entrances hidden high in chamber walls, passages filled with blocks and shafts.

In Amenemhat's III pyramid in Hawara inovations from Senwosret's III tomb at Abydos are used; dummy chambers and entrances hidden high in chamber walls, also 3 heavy quartzite blocking slabs are used. The burial vault could be sealed by a enourmous quartzite  ceiling slab.

On 5/5/2020 at 1:35 AM, Thanos5150 said:

The other security measure the pyramid builders of the MK took was building them as cenotaphs and not actually being buried in them. 

Your opinion of course.

Amenemhat III pyramid at Dashur had stability problems hence a new one at Hawara, chances are small the one at Dashur was intended from the start as a cenotaph. Same argument is made for the Bent but there are also those who think the shape of the Bent was intentional and some see in this pyramid the burial place of Seneferu instead of the Red.

We don't know if Senwosret III planned to be buried in Abydos from the start and intentionaly build his Dashur pyramid as a cenotaph; could be but not sure.

Al we know is that some pyramids became cenotaphs because some king constructed more than one but there is no conclusive evidence pyramids were intentionaly built as cenotaphs (with only two exceptions). The only two pyramids that are 100% sure to have been built as cenotaphs are those of Ahmose and his grandmother Tetisheri at Abydos. These pyramids had no burial chambers.

from the OP

On 4/23/2020 at 1:03 AM, Thanos5150 said:

Egyptology holds that pyramids were built as tombs for the pharaohs, yet no royal burial has ever been found in one. This is not to mean just the "body" of the pharaohs are missing, but all the material funerary goods and even the artistic and written testament right off the walls as well. 

No intact royal burial has ever found in one, the reason why there are no inscriptions has already been adressed by others in this thread and concerning remains of funerary goods: (From Lehner's Complete Pyramids and Verner's The Pyramids)

Neferefre (Abusir): fragments of 4 alabaster canopic jars, alabaster containers for models of offerings and part of the ruler's mummy (no C14 dating has been done on mummy)

Djedkare (Saqqara): shards of broken vessels were found in the vestibule, in the burial chamber fragments of alabaster canopic jars and remains of mummy (AFAIK all experts agree that this is indeed the mummy of the king)

Unas (Saqqara): couple fragments of a mummy: Parts of a right arm, skull and shinbone were found (no C14 dating). In the serdab wooden handles of two small knives used during ceremony of the opening of the mouth.

Teti (Saqqara) Blackened remains of an arm and shoulder (no C14 dating), a fragment of a small alabaster tablet bearing the names of the so-called seven sacred oils.

Pepi I (Saqqara): A complete packet of viscera, presumably's Pepi I's, lay close by the pink canopic chest, still in the floor niche – tightly wrapped bundle retaining the shape of the alabaster jar which once held it, also 14 shards of alabaster from canopic vessels, left sandal of reddish wood (sycamore?), a piece of linen with inscription “Linen for the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, may he live forever”, a piece of pleated linen, and a small flint knife.

Merenre (Saqqara): Only a few insignificant remains of the burial equipment are extant, among them two alabaster shells and a small wooden knob or handle for a chest and a mummy who's age seems to fit (again no C14 dating)

Pepi II (Saqqara): In the vestibule many fragments of alabaster and diorite vessels were found, along with a golden blade of a small rounded knife.

Senwosret I (Lisht): Burial chamber now flooded but ancient tomb robbers left behind grave goods in a tunnel: Just around the second plug the robbers left items from the burial chamber behind, pieces of wooden boxes, alabaster containers, a gold dagger sheath and parts of four alabaster canopic vessels. Some of these items were inscribed with the name of the king.

Senwosret II (Lahun): alabaster offering table inscribed with king's names. A gold uraeus from a kings's head band was found and two leg bones (no C14 dating) (the original excavation reports also mention: beads, small pieces of rectangular blue glaze inlay, some scraps of grey decomposed material (silver?), a few pieces of copper with a bent-in rim from a small vessel, fragments of wood and charcoal, part of a clay sealing and pieces of gold-leaf)

Security measures to prevent tomb robbers from reaching the burial chamber that improve over time and remains of grave goods in "cenotaph's"??? I wouldn't put my money on it...

 

image.gif

Edited by Djedi
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2020 at 11:30 AM, Djedi said:

 

In the Early Dynastic period we find limestone porticulis doors. Djoser's burial vault was made of granite but remains of a limestone burial vault from an earlier building phase have been found. It's not implausible the change was made for security reasons. Even in Sneferu's Bent pyramid we still find two porticullis doors made of limestone. AFAIK under Khufu for the first time granite porticullis doors and granite blocking stones are used.image.gif

I thought I remembered Emery reporting a granite portcullis door during or after the reign of Den but am not finding it. The earliest I can verify is a "large granite portcullis [door] slab" (Early Dynastic Egypt, Wilkinson p240) from the tomb of Hetepsekhemwy/Hotepsekhemwy, presumed 1st king of the 2nd Dynasty. Regardless, this is trivial pursuit with no bearing on the conversation.  

Quote

 

If lack of a porticullis system is a possible reason why certain pyramids were not used as a burial then that leaves not much candidates since most pyramids do have porticullis doors and / or blocking stones.

[snip]

 

I said "some" think this for "some" of the pyramids so its not any more complicated than that. 

 

Quote

Your opinion of course.

Shared by others. 

[snip]

Quote

 

No intact royal burial has ever found in one, the reason why there are no inscriptions has already been adressed by others in this thread and concerning remains of funerary goods: (From Lehner's Complete Pyramids and Verner's The Pyramids)

 

As if there mere act is good enough let alone just saying they were "addressed". So what. I have rejected these theories for reasons as stated which these lack of inscriptions and funerary goods are also to include artistic motifs, which as noted is found in G3, though none other.  I don't think it is fair to have me keep repeating myself over and over let alone a boor.  

Quote

 

Neferefre (Abusir): fragments of 4 alabaster canopic jars, alabaster containers for models of offerings and part of the ruler's mummy (no C14 dating has been done on mummy)

Djedkare (Saqqara): shards of broken vessels were found in the vestibule, in the burial chamber fragments of alabaster canopic jars and remains of mummy (AFAIK all experts agree that this is indeed the mummy of the king)

Unas (Saqqara): couple fragments of a mummy: Parts of a right arm, skull and shinbone were found (no C14 dating). In the serdab wooden handles of two small knives used during ceremony of the opening of the mouth.

Teti (Saqqara) Blackened remains of an arm and shoulder (no C14 dating), a fragment of a small alabaster tablet bearing the names of the so-called seven sacred oils.

Pepi I (Saqqara): A complete packet of viscera, presumably's Pepi I's, lay close by the pink canopic chest, still in the floor niche – tightly wrapped bundle retaining the shape of the alabaster jar which once held it, also 14 shards of alabaster from canopic vessels, left sandal of reddish wood (sycamore?), a piece of linen with inscription “Linen for the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, may he live forever”, a piece of pleated linen, and a small flint knife.

Merenre (Saqqara): Only a few insignificant remains of the burial equipment are extant, among them two alabaster shells and a small wooden knob or handle for a chest and a mummy who's age seems to fit (again no C14 dating)

Pepi II (Saqqara): In the vestibule many fragments of alabaster and diorite vessels were found, along with a golden blade of a small rounded knife.

Senwosret I (Lisht): Burial chamber now flooded but ancient tomb robbers left behind grave goods in a tunnel: Just around the second plug the robbers left items from the burial chamber behind, pieces of wooden boxes, alabaster containers, a gold dagger sheath and parts of four alabaster canopic vessels. Some of these items were inscribed with the name of the king.

Senwosret II (Lahun): alabaster offering table inscribed with king's names. A gold uraeus from a kings's head band was found and two leg bones (no C14 dating) (the original excavation reports also mention: beads, small pieces of rectangular blue glaze inlay, some scraps of grey decomposed material (silver?), a few pieces of copper with a bent-in rim from a small vessel, fragments of wood and charcoal, part of a clay sealing and pieces of gold-leaf). 

 

Most of these were noted before and some talked about in detail, but at least here you have made an effort to separate the wheat from the chaff.  And we note these are all "suspected" or "presumed" to belong to the pharaoh yet none are conclusive. Quoting myself regarding Neferefre and Djedkare Isesi:

Quote

 

NEFEREFRA

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

DJEDKARE ISESI

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

Linen wrapping: 2864–2460BC

Body soft tissue 3340–2787BC

Charcoal 3014–2580BC

Linen wrapping 3031–2612BC. 

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

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

2662BC

3063BC

2797BC

2821BC.

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

 

Regardless, we would note that all of these date to the mid 5th Dynasty and later which obviously is the precipice of cultural change which among other things the coming of Osiris with the first mention of him, along with several other "new gods", found in the tomb of Ptahshepses dated to the reign of Nyuserre Ini, brother possible successor of Neferefre. So if we do accept these are royal burials, which Neferefe and Djedkare Isesi I admit are interesting, the question is what changed? Regardless, it is still true at the least that prior to this period no royal burial has been found in any pyramid-"intact" or otherwise.  

 

Edited by Thanos5150
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/5/2020 at 12:42 PM, 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.

It is hardly a "feeling" and is demonstrably true. 

Quote

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: 

It is "strange" that when he gathered more information his opinion changed accordingly? Yeah, that is weird. 

Quote

 

 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.

 

And this is "unreasonable" to you? 

 

Quote

 

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.

 

There were many other dissenting opinions of the time besides Kees, but until Kemp this was largely the most widely held view and with good reason.

First of all, what needs to be understood is that regardless of who was buried there, the mastabas at Saqqara are no doubt royal, not just size but ability to store grave goods, being at large far superior to those found at Umm- el-Qa'ab. Not to mention, found along these supposed tombs of officials are numerous sacrificial burials of retainers as well as boat burials. So what is being argued is that despite this fact, being tombs otherwise certainly fit for a king, far greater than those actually attributed to the kings, consensus today tells us they were instead made for their subordinates placing them at best on par with the pharaohs they ruled under with the vast majority well above them.

Quoting Morris (2007):

"Unless continuous exploration in and around the Abydos funerary enclosures [not to be confused with the tombs] reveal as yet unattested chambers or magazines, the ability of the Saqarra mastabas to house significantly more wealth [than their Um el-Qa'ab counterparts]-even when utilizing only a fraction of their potential storage space-cannot be contested".  

Regardless, what you are not mentioning here is that the main argument of Kemp, despite these facts, is that several of these these mastabas, 19 considered, contained non-royal names inscribed on jars, jar sealings, and labels, ergo they "must" be the owners of the tomb. The rub, however, is that 9 had no non-royal names, 6 had one non-royal name, and the other 4 actually had more than one non-royal name. 3 of these mastabas had only royal names- Hor-Aha, and Djer, the same was found at their tombs at Umm el-Qa'ab. 

The officials names found are Sekhemka, Hemeka, Ankhka, Seshenka, Neska, Nebitka, and Merka. But again, according to Morris:

"Of the Saqarra tombs that are now generally assumed to be the resting places of officials, over half do not contain the names of the men to whom they should be assigned (mastabas 2171, 2185, 3120, 3121, 3338, 3357, 3471, 3500) or contain the names of more than one official (3504, 3505, 3506, 3507)".  

Furthermore, several of these names of officials are also not only found in associated Umm el-Qa'ab tombs, sometimes in even greater numbers, but also more than one tomb at Saqqara with some having the names of at least 5 individuals. More importantly is the question of why all these names are there at all, both at Saqqara and Um el-Qa'ab, which the answer is that the majority of them were the administrators and seal bearers of the king's funerary complex whose funerary goods were held and/or distributed from central repositories. In short-these names are only on the goods, numbering in the thousands, regardless of where they were distributed having nothing to do with who was buried there other than they served under the reign of one, sometimes two, kings. According to Morris:

Summarized succinctly, nearly half of the mastabas at Saqqara do not contain the names of any officials, and four of the largest and most elaborate mastabas contain the names of numerous officials. The vast majority of the officers found in this cemetery are attested on seal impressions that marked provision, presumably sent to the mastaba(s) as funerary equipment from the royals estates and domains that each official oversaw. Certainly this explains the reason why the names of well over half of these men were also attested on sealings discovered in the royal tombs at Abydos, sometimes in equal or greater numbers![....] Instead, the presence of identical sealings, and indeed tomb equipment, at Abydos and Saqqara suggests that in any given reign monuments from both cemeteries had been equipped from the same sources by the same official(s).   

If it is accepted that the officials to whom the mastabas are currently assigned were not the owners but rather the men who oversaw the equipping of these great structures, then who inhabited them? The answer to this question remains elusive. 

Source.

To be fair, Morris does not believe the tombs at either Saqqara or Abydos were cenotaphs, though interestingly she notes that while remains at Saqqara  were frequent, with the exception of a forearm (of a woman) found in the tomb of Djer, those at Umm el-Qa'ab contained none. To summarize, these tombs are no doubt royal and the notion they belong to the officials they are ascribed to suspect at best with most attributions being completely bogus. 

 

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.

You say this yet the "reasons" you give above in reality are not "reasons" at all. Like for example-so what if Saqqara has no tomb dated to Semerkhet? Given this fact, though several of the mastabas are not attributed to anyone, maybe there are reasons for this...? Hmm. According to Wilkinson: "This is not surprising if he only reigned for 8 years: the high official who served under Semerkhet no doubt survived his royal master, may have continued to serve in the government under Semerkhet successor."  Which he further notes that at least a few of the tombs at Saqqara from the reign of Qa'a, his successor, may have served under Semerkhet meaning that while Semerkhet may not have lived long enough to build a tomb at Saqqara people who served under him were buried there.    

The south supposedly conquered the north with great effort and resources spent to establish Memphis as the new seat of power. Saqqara was not only the new royal burial site but strategically positioned that these mastabas would tower over the landscape. We also have the nearby cemetery of this new capital at Helwan where over 10,000 tombs have been discovered. Quoting Hoffman (Egypt Before the Pharoahs, p286):

"It strikes me as illogical the military monarchs of the First Dynasty should on the one hand go to a good deal of trouble to publicly tout their roles as unifiers and at the same time permit themselves to be outshone in such a critical area as public tomb architecture practically in front of their new court. Memphis had been raised as a monument to the new order. Its tombs mirrored its social and political structure and organization to an amazing degree, To the ancient Egyptians who had been concerned with the ritual death and the symbolic reflections of status in their tombs since Predynastic times, the meaning of the mastabas of north Saqqara was clearly royal writ large. Situated on a holy spot and displaying the owner's power and magnificence for all the court to see, the great Archaic tombs of Saqqara must have had some kingly associations".  

And again, we are reminded of the palace facade serekh building that these Saqqara mastabas are made to emulate-the very symbol of kingship itself. 

4ce8025378562b16e8f6a021a5932d78.jpg

96ba793699efacd9bd340fcabf614aa9.jpg

So not only did the king give away his new capital, prestige, and vast resources to his subordinates, but he also built their tombs to emulate the very symbol of his kingship?

It is incredulous to think the pharaohs would subjugate the north, create a completely new funerary order on a construction and logistical scale otherwise unknown in the ancient world except for Mesopotamia, using the Mesopotamian palace facade motif mind you, create a new capital at Memphis and public cemetery at neighboring Helwan- only to give away their funerary prestige to their subordinates, expending far greater resources than they took for themselves, making for them the grandest tombs symbolic of their own kingship all in some bizarro world expression of their authority over this new unified state that they supposedly ruled over like gods. This makes no sense. 

If anyone has actually read what I have wrote, I have not said either which way if I support the Saqqara mastabas being cenotaphs or not. Again, I am just a messenger to prove the point that the idea of royal tombs not meant to inter bodies, and by extension pyramids, are not the realm of the fringe and part and parcel of the Egyptological debate. In fact, as I have said several times, my argument in favor of this idea was rather noting the practice of monumental architecture (enclosures) with accompanying burials of subjects separate from their actual tombs being an analogous precedent to the idea of pyramids not being tombs.

Regardless, it is ironic that while as you note Kemp argues when the tombs at Umm el-Qa'ab are combined with these monumental enclosures it makes them by volume on par with the mastabas of Saqqara, nonsense regardless, that the enclosures display the exact same geometrically painted palace facade architecture as the Saqaara mastabas that is otherwise completely absent in the Umm el-Qa'ab tombs. Hmm.

The bottom line is that at Saqqara we have palace facade tombs built for kings that apparently did not have the actual kings buried in them which the people it is claimed they were built for, their subordinates, at large do not appear to have been buried in them either nor does it make sense on any level they would be. But we know some people were buried there-the question then is who and why? 

And by the by, if anyone is interested in actually reading what Autuori wrote for themselves: Back to the Mastaba Tombs of the First Dynasty at Saqqara. Officials or Kings?

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

8 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

As if there mere act is good enough let alone just saying they were "addressed". So what. I have rejected these theories for reasons as stated which these lack of inscriptions and funerary goods are also to include artistic motifs, which as noted is found in G3, though none other.  I don't think it is fair to have me keep repeating myself over and over let alone a boor.

This, to Djedi, but about my posts about the decoration of burial chambers, is not a done deal. You found some examples of late 5th Dynasty non royal tombs with a decorated burial chamber, fine, but nothing earlier, nothing from the 4th Dynasty for instance, so that to say that it was not their practice to decorate the burial chamber in regards to G1 is still correct. Though even with your examples from the late 5th Dynasty, it still cannot be said that it was normal practice to decorate the burial chamber of a non royal tomb. You would have to present not just five examples of a non royal decorated burial chamber in order to remove this as an issue, but dozens, at least. There is a reason why Egyptologists say, at least in a broad brush, that a non royal tomb did not have a decorated burial chamber until much later than the OK, and that is because the examples of such are so few that they are just a blip and do not show common practice.

Arguments to raise doubt over G1 being a tomb because of it's undecorated burial chamber are still invalid.

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

On 4/27/2020 at 11:23 PM, cladking said:

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

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

I pretty much think that this is the case.  For example, in the great pyramid we have a burial chamber but no body.  Why?  It was likely plundered.  You can see how pyramids evolved from rocks on a chieftain's grave to keep the scavengers away, to increasingly large mounds, to slightly more ornate mounds with larger rocks, to mastabas, to step pyramids, to great pyramids, and then as the ruinous expenses became apparent and belief began to wane, the pyramids get scaled back to tomb and temple burials.  Plus the Nubian pyramids definitely had mummies in them.  That doesn't mean that Pyramids didn't have other ritual purposes, but they were definitely tombs imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/27/2020 at 11:23 PM, cladking said:

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

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

I pretty much think that this is the case.  For example, in the great pyramid we have a burial chamber but no body.  Why?  It was likely plundered.  You can see how pyramids evolved from rocks on a chieftain's grave to keep the scavengers away, to increasingly large mounds, to slightly more ornate mounds with larger rocks, to mastabas, to step pyramids, to great pyramids, and then as the ruinous expenses became apparent and belief began to wane, the pyramids get scaled back to tomb and temple burials.  Plus the Nubian pyramids definitely had mummies in them.  That doesn't mean that Pyramids didn't have other ritual purposes, but they were definitely tombs imo.

Also, unrelated to the info above, but because I want more people to find out about it, here is a picture of the silver sarcophagus of Shoshenq II, taken intact from another unlooted tomb by Prof Pierre Montet.  Sadly, this amazing find is overshadowed by King Tut, and the entire discovery was overshadowed by WW2.  It should have received huge press, as the find was every bit as impressive as Tutankhamen's.

282772570_ShoshenqII.jpg.f34f58ecb9cd75c5a0a7cb435bd03511.jpg

Notice the Horus motif.

Edited by Alchopwn
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

I pretty much think that this is the case.  For example, in the great pyramid we have a burial chamber but no body.  Why?  It was likely plundered.  You can see how pyramids evolved from rocks on a chieftain's grave to keep the scavengers away, to increasingly large mounds, to slightly more ornate mounds with larger rocks, to mastabas, to step pyramids, to great pyramids, and then as the ruinous expenses became apparent and belief began to wane, the pyramids get scaled back to tomb and temple burials.  Plus the Nubian pyramids definitely had mummies in them.  That doesn't mean that Pyramids didn't have other ritual purposes, but they were definitely tombs imo.

It is rather surprising that NO contemporary writing refers to these as tombs or that any king was buried in any great pyramid isn't it?   

The only evidence is that bodies and loot we believe were there is no longer.   

They were apparently some sort of cenotaph.  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

This, to Djedi, but about my posts about the decoration of burial chambers, is not a done deal. You found some examples of late 5th Dynasty non royal tombs with a decorated burial chamber, fine, but nothing earlier, nothing from the 4th Dynasty for instance, so that to say that it was not their practice to decorate the burial chamber in regards to G1 is still correct. Though even with your examples from the late 5th Dynasty, it still cannot be said that it was normal practice to decorate the burial chamber of a non royal tomb. You would have to present not just five examples of a non royal decorated burial chamber in order to remove this as an issue, but dozens, at least. There is a reason why Egyptologists say, at least in a broad brush, that a non royal tomb did not have a decorated burial chamber until much later than the OK, and that is because the examples of such are so few that they are just a blip and do not show common practice.

Arguments to raise doubt over G1 being a tomb because of it's undecorated burial chamber are still invalid.

I missed this. Can you please give me Djedi's post # ?

And if you do not think it is fair Djedi imposes 5th Dynasty decorated burial chambers on the 4th Dynasty, by the same token do you think it is also unfair when he does this with possible royal remains found in burial chambers that also only date the 5th Dynasty and later? 

Also, who in this thread is arguing G1 is not a tomb because its burial chamber is undecorated? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, cladking said:

It is rather surprising that NO contemporary writing refers to these as tombs or that any king was buried in any great pyramid isn't it?   

The only evidence is that bodies and loot we believe were there is no longer.   

They were apparently some sort of cenotaph.  

There have been posts about how when a mastaba was no longer used for the burial of the king, the mortuary chapel and burial chamber became two different structures. At first the now mortuary temple was by the side of the tomb, the pyramid, and then later became completely separated from the tomb when it was decided to hide the tomb for security reasons, not religious reasons. We see ka-chapels at Abydos, which are not "cenotaphs", but, in modern terms, a "remote viewing terminal" for the ka of the deceased to watch important religious rituals. We see temples at Abydos which place the king at this important site, but are not an "empty tomb". The only structure that could fit the description of cenotaph is the Osireion, but it was unfinished and questions about it still remain.

Where then, do you fit into AE religion the cenotaph as an empty tomb, given that the king has just one burial, obviously, but any other mortuary structure associated with him is not a "stand in" for his tomb, hidden or otherwise.

I wrote in an earlier post that if a pyramid was a cenotaph for a hidden tomb, yet they also used mortuary temples, what was going on from the 18th Dynasty onwards, the first time we actually see tombs deliberately hidden on every occassion to confound robbers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

I missed this. Can you please give me Djedi's post # ?

And if you do not think it is fair Djedi imposes 5th Dynasty decorated burial chambers on the 4th Dynasty, by the same token do you think it is also unfair when he does this with possible royal remains found in burial chambers that also only date the 5th Dynasty and later? 

Also, who in this thread is arguing G1 is not a tomb because its burial chamber is undecorated? 

Djedi never mentioned decorated burial chambers, so when I wrote "This, to Djedi" means that I am quoting a post you made to them, but about a subject, decorated burial chambers, that I had addressed. Djedi has noting to do with it as I was just clarfying my interjection in your reply to them.

There is, and always has been at least an implication that G1 is not a tomb because the burial chamber is not decorated, and the same goes for all royal tombs up until Unas.

Besides, my quote below encompasses all and sundry who state clearly, or just imply, that G1 is not a tomb due to lack of decoration.

Quote

Arguments to raise doubt over G1 being a tomb because of it's undecorated burial chamber are still invalid.

In the OP you write this,

Quote

Though I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to why the walls would be completely bare, a-typical of all the tombs surrounding the pyramids and abhorrent to their religion regardless

There is no clarification of what pyramids this excludes or includes, so has to be taken as meaning all of them up to Unas, and an undecorated burial chamber before the late 5th Dynasty is not "a-typical", but is the norm, and not "abhorrent".

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

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

Djedi never mentioned decorated burial chambers, so when I wrote "This, to Djedi" means that I am quoting a post you made to them, but about a subject, decorated burial chambers, that I had addressed. Djedi has noting to do with it as I was just clarfying my interjection in your reply to them.

So, to Djedi you are completely misrepresenting what I said and why to make a straw man to argue against to prove a point I never disagreed with in the first place?

The only point of my mentioning these tombs, an "FYI", is because you kept repeating over and over again that "no royal or non-royal burial chamber before Unas was decorated" which as we saw is not true. Your response was to completely misrepresent sources to say these did not have decorated burial chambers when in fact each of your sources said the exact opposite and one wasn't even reffering to them. I never said because these later examples are found therefore it is "normal" or project them back on to the 4th Dynasty pyramids- in fact, I never made any relation to these 5th Dynasty examples and pyramids at all. And my comments to Djedi had literally nothing to do with your comments about these 5th Dynasty tombs. 

And to Djedi-you "like" it when people misrepresent what others say when it tells you what you want to hear? It is interesting to see all the "likes" you two get from the same posters for your responses to me, yet most of them don't understand and/or care about half of what we are talking about-all they know is Thanos "bad", alternative ideas "bad", therefore whatever anyone says against me/it must be "good" and no one cares if its actually true or not. Yeah, but I'm the dick. 

Edited by Thanos5150
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

So, to Djedi you are completely misrepresenting what I said and why to make a straw man to argue against to prove a point I never disagreed with in the first place?

The only point of my mentioning these tombs, an "FYI", is because you kept repeating over and over again that "no royal or non-royal burial chamber before Unas was decorated" which as we saw is not true. Your response was to completely misrepresent sources to say these did not have decorated burial chambers when in fact each of your sources said the exact opposite and one wasn't even reffering to them. I never said because these later examples are found therefore it is "normal" or project them back on to the 4th Dynasty pyramids- in fact, I never made any relation to these 5th Dynasty examples and pyramids at all. And my comments to Djedi had literally nothing to do with your comments about these 5th Dynasty tombs. 

And to Djedi-you "like" it when people misrepresent what others say when it tells you what you want to hear? It is interesting to see all the "likes" you two get from the same posters for your responses to me, yet most of them don't understand and/or care about half of what we are talking about-all they know is Thanos "bad", alternative ideas "bad", therefore whatever anyone says against me/it must be "good" and no one cares if its actually true or not. Yeah, but I'm the dick. 

Hm, no, there is no "straw man" whatsoever in my post, which was vey clear in explaining why I interjected in an exchange between you and Djedi, and there is no "misrepresenting" what you said.

The rest of your post does in fact somewhat misrepresent what I have written. Before the end of the 5th Dynasty, the burial chamber was not decorated, and your five examples of a non royal burial chamber that had been decorated all come from the end of the 5th Dynasty, yes.

You are twisiting things, and getting yourself in a bit of a twist. Are you really bothered about "likes" ? then ignore them, and don't try to tell me or anybody else that we should not like a post just because it does not agree with your ideas, as if you have "proven" something, therefore if a post contra yours is liked, then those who liked it are liking something "wrong". Ridiculous, please calm down and not spout this nonsense, otherwise the last four words of your post may start to look to be a statement of fact. Attitude....

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Djedi

I really am sorry for how this simple phrase to explain why I interjected in a reply has turned into an a ridiculous farce.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

There have been posts about how when a mastaba was no longer used for the burial of the king, the mortuary chapel and burial chamber became two different structures. At first the now mortuary temple was by the side of the tomb, the pyramid, and then later became completely separated from the tomb when it was decided to hide the tomb for security reasons, not religious reasons. We see ka-chapels at Abydos, which are not "cenotaphs", but, in modern terms, a "remote viewing terminal" for the ka of the deceased to watch important religious rituals. We see temples at Abydos which place the king at this important site, but are not an "empty tomb". The only structure that could fit the description of cenotaph is the Osireion, but it was unfinished and questions about it still remain.

Where then, do you fit into AE religion the cenotaph as an empty tomb, given that the king has just one burial, obviously, but any other mortuary structure associated with him is not a "stand in" for his tomb, hidden or otherwise.

I wrote in an earlier post that if a pyramid was a cenotaph for a hidden tomb, yet they also used mortuary temples, what was going on from the 18th Dynasty onwards, the first time we actually see tombs deliberately hidden on every occassion to confound robbers.

The "evidence" that the structure adjacent to the great pyramids is a "mortuary temple" is speculative and presumptive based on the fact that the structures next to later pyramids were mortuary in nature.  

There is no direct evidence that any great pyramid was intended for or used as a tomb.  There is only circumstantial evidence.   

 

Perhaps there is no direct evidence because they were not tombs exactly as the Pyramid Texts literally suggest.  Perhaps we're looking in all the wrong places for the dead kings.  

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

3 hours ago, cladking said:

It is rather surprising that NO contemporary writing refers to these as tombs or that any king was buried in any great pyramid isn't it?   

The only evidence is that bodies and loot we believe were there is no longer.   

They were apparently some sort of cenotaph.  

....and we have very little writing from that period - as you well know. Again if it isn't a tomb where is the Pharaoh's mummy? Were are these other tombs? That remains the sticky un-answered question. Until some evidence is found to refute it I too hold that they were tombs and perhaps in some cases cenotaphs - as I noted above there are many possibilities.

I would note also that:

Quote

It is rather surprising that NO contemporary writing refers to these as tombs or that any king was buried in any great pyramid isn't it?

Is it also rather surprising that NO contemporary writing refers to these as cenotaphs(or anything else)? You do know your question cuts both ways right? LOL................

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, cladking said:

The "evidence" that the structure adjacent to the great pyramids is a "mortuary temple" is speculative and presumptive based on the fact that the structures next to later pyramids were mortuary in nature.  

There is no direct evidence that any great pyramid was intended for or used as a tomb.  There is only circumstantial evidence.   

 

Perhaps there is no direct evidence because they were not tombs exactly as the Pyramid Texts literally suggest.  Perhaps we're looking in all the wrong places for the dead kings.  

Well dear Cladking there is also no "direct" evidence that they were anything else - if they are can you show us this?  I've ask before but what is 'direct' evidence anyway? You've never been able to explain it.

 

Quote

Perhaps there is no direct evidence because they were not tombs exactly as the Pyramid Texts literally suggest.

How can you make a direct statement that they were NOT tombs when you cannot give us direct evidence that they were something else? That seems to be just denialism isn't? You deny something isn't something while completely unable to show what IT is.

Chuckle

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cladking said:

The "evidence" that the structure adjacent to the great pyramids is a "mortuary temple" is speculative and presumptive based on the fact that the structures next to later pyramids were mortuary in nature.  

There is no direct evidence that any great pyramid was intended for or used as a tomb.  There is only circumstantial evidence.   

 

Perhaps there is no direct evidence because they were not tombs exactly as the Pyramid Texts literally suggest.  Perhaps we're looking in all the wrong places for the dead kings.  

If these "great pyramids" were not tombs and the mortuary temples are not, as you believe, mortuary temples, then by their religious beliefs they will still need a mortuary temple for the king. So it is not just a case of "missing" tombs, but of "missing" mortuary temples, structures that were never hidden. The remains of the mortuary temple at G2 are quite large, nothing as grand as they later became, but substantial. G1 shows the remains of the pavement, and it too would have been a substantial temple. But, even with your notion that these are not mortuary temples, the "real" ones could be expected to be of no less a size. Where then, on your notion, are they, and all the other "missing" mortuary temples, and, on your notion, why are they not with the tomb, and I'll remind that the practice of total separation of tomb and mortuary temple did not begin until the 18th Dynasty. In case you are thinking, the mortuary temple of 11th Dynasty Mentuhotep II beside that of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari is in fact built over his tomb, not separate from it. That temple points the way for what was to come, but it is still a co-located tomb and temple, in fact it was a hybrid pyramid/temple/shaft tomb, though the burial chamber is at the bottom of a long sloping shaft, not the usual vertical drop.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Hm, no, there is no "straw man" whatsoever in my post, which was vey clear in explaining why I interjected in an exchange between you and Djedi, and there is no "misrepresenting" what you said.

The rest of your post does in fact somewhat misrepresent what I have written. Before the end of the 5th Dynasty, the burial chamber was not decorated, and your five examples of a non royal burial chamber that had been decorated all come from the end of the 5th Dynasty, yes.

You are twisiting things, and getting yourself in a bit of a twist. Are you really bothered about "likes" ? then ignore them, and don't try to tell me or anybody else that we should not like a post just because it does not agree with your ideas, as if you have "proven" something, therefore if a post contra yours is liked, then those who liked it are liking something "wrong". Ridiculous, please calm down and not spout this nonsense, otherwise the last four words of your post may start to look to be a statement of fact. Attitude....

At this point you are just being dishonest. People can read what we write-you completely misrepresented what and why I referred to these 5th Dynasty tombs and you just made up an argument to argue against that I never made in the first place. A straw man. This is true and your unwillingness to take responsibility for yourself once again is not a defense.  

Again, you are just lying-I have not misrepresented what you said-you are just saying that because this is what you have done and are trying to impose your inequity on the one calling you out on yours. 

And this complete dishonest BS about these "likes". Word for word you are flat out lying, which is weird because people can read what I actually said. How dishonest of you, among the rest of your claptrap, to characterize my noting these likes as me "telling people what to like or not because one does not agree with my ideas" or having anything to do with what I have "proven" or not. What I said:

And to Djedi-you "like" it when people misrepresent what others say when it tells you what you want to hear? It is interesting to see all the "likes" you two get from the same posters for your responses to me, yet most of them don't understand and/or care about half of what we are talking about-all they know is Thanos "bad", alternative ideas "bad", therefore whatever anyone says against me/it must be "good" and no one cares if its actually true or not. Yeah, but I'm the dick. 

 

This has not one thing to do with people "agreeing" with me or not, it is that they "like" what some of you say regardless of whether it is true or not for no other reason than it is against something they do not agree with. And save your tired old BS about me "calming down" or I am in a "twist". This tired ruse of blaming the other person of not being able to control their "rage" to avoid taking responsibility for your own actions. Save it. You reap what you sow and you want to behave like a dishonest hack you will be called out on it and treated accordingly.  

Edited by Thanos5150
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Thanos5150 said:

At this point you are just being dishonest. People can read what we write-you completely misrepresented what and why I referred to these 5th Dynasty tombs and you just made up an argument to argue against that I never made in the first place. A straw man. This is true and your unwillingness to take responsibility for yourself once again is not a defense.  

Again, you are just lying-I have not misrepresented what you said-you are just saying that because this is what you have done and are trying to impose your inequity on the one calling you out on yours. 

And this complete dishonest BS about these "likes". Word for word you are flat out lying, which is weird because people can read what I actually said. How dishonest of you, among the rest of your claptrap, to characterize my noting these likes as me "telling people what to like or not because one does not agree with my ideas" or having anything to do with what I have "proven" or not. What I said:

And to Djedi-you "like" it when people misrepresent what others say when it tells you what you want to hear? It is interesting to see all the "likes" you two get from the same posters for your responses to me, yet most of them don't understand and/or care about half of what we are talking about-all they know is Thanos "bad", alternative ideas "bad", therefore whatever anyone says against me/it must be "good" and no one cares if its actually true or not. Yeah, but I'm the dick. 

 

This has not one thing to do with people "agreeing" with me or not, it is that they "like" what some of you say regardless of whether it is true or not for no other reason than it is against something they do not agree with. And save your tired old BS about me "calming down" or I am in a "twist". This tired ruse of blaming the other person of not being able to control their "rage" to avoid taking responsibility for your own actions. Save it. You reap what you sow and you want to behave like a dishonest hack you will be called out on it and treated accordingly.  

Good lord man give it up. You complain about likes, well, you haven't done to badly yourself, just not in this thread, maybe you should think why. Like I said, attitude.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

If these "great pyramids" were not tombs and the mortuary temples are not, as you believe, mortuary temples, then by their religious beliefs they will still need a mortuary temple for the king. So it is not just a case of "missing" tombs, but of "missing" mortuary temples, structures that were never hidden. The remains of the mortuary temple at G2 are quite large, nothing as grand as they later became, but substantial. G1 shows the remains of the pavement, and it too would have been a substantial temple. But, even with your notion that these are not mortuary temples, the "real" ones could be expected to be of no less a size. Where then, on your notion, are they, and all the other "missing" mortuary temples, and, on your notion, why are they not with the tomb, and I'll remind that the practice of total separation of tomb and mortuary temple did not begin until the 18th Dynasty. In case you are thinking, the mortuary temple of 11th Dynasty Mentuhotep II beside that of Hatshepsut at Deir el-Bahari is in fact built over his tomb, not separate from it. That temple points the way for what was to come, but it is still a co-located tomb and temple, in fact it was a hybrid pyramid/temple/shaft tomb, though the burial chamber is at the bottom of a long sloping shaft, not the usual vertical drop.

Howdy

I suspect you are aware of Cladking bizarre ideas but in case you are not. Cladking has proclaimed literally thousands of times - without evidence - that the AE had no religion therefore anything that is identified by Egyptologists as being 'religious' oriented simply doesn't exist in his mind set.

 

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

24 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

Good lord man give it up. You complain about likes, well, you haven't done to badly yourself, just not in this thread, maybe you should think why. Like I said, attitude.

Are you well? I just called you out for lying about what I said about these likes and your response is to just do it again with another lie? Gadzooks. And ironically, there is Hanslune with his little "laugh" emoji. So, it is "funny" then to lie and then lie some more? 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thread starter killing his own thread, okay, there was no more traction anyway. What's next, anybody up for a dip in the tarpits

  • Like 4
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.