If Pyramids not tombs where are the pharaohs?

[Wepwawet]

14 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

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.

 

I'm aware, but nothing like to the extent that peeps are here and in other fora as I usually try to stear clear of the fringe, it's that bad attitude that many show, sooner or later. On the odd occasion that I engage I do try to tease out at least some light from the opaqueness, after all, there are some genuine mysteries. Like my name, I at least try to open the way, and have at least twice in this thread, but the path is difficult for those who fear what they will find, so they remain at the fringes of the way.

[Alchopwn]

11 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.  

That isn't strictly true.  I draw your attention to the Pyramid Texts: Link.  I mean, I do sympathise with your position, but we have examples that run directly counter to what you are suggesting.  Admittedly not all the sites have bodies and texts, but some do.  It is definitely odd that pyramids don't have more art inside them, and they remain enigmatic.  Your position that they serve as cenotaphs is definitely interesting, but the exceptions to that idea exist too.  In short, it is safest to admit our ignorance I fear.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Alchopwn

[cladking]

12 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

That isn't strictly true.  I draw your attention to the Pyramid Texts: Link.  I mean, I do sympathise with your position, but we have examples that run directly counter to what you are suggesting.  Admittedly not all the sites have bodies and texts, but some do.  It is definitely odd that pyramids don't have more art inside them, and they remain enigmatic.  Your position that they serve as cenotaphs is definitely interesting, but the exceptions to that idea exist too.  In short, it is safest to admit our ignorance I fear.

Nothing in the Pyramid Texts says the pyramids are tombs.  They actually say specifically and literally that the pyramids are not tombs and the king doers not decay.   They say that the pyramid IS the king consistently and coherently.  

We can interpret the PT to say the pyramid is a "cenotaph" but, I believe, this misses the mark because they didn't have concepts like "cenotaph".    

[cladking]

18 hours 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.

The idea that their religion necessitated a "mortuary temple" with a tomb is an idea from later Egypt.   

Every single thing we see at Giza and around the great pyramids may well be infrastructural in nature rather than religious.   

Just because they constructed cemeteries around pyramids hardly makes the pyramids into tombs.   Perhaps causeways aren't "holy walkways" but necessary ramps to bring stone and supplies from the river port that we mistakenly call a "valley temple".   We get all the ideas about the pyramid builders and the pyramids from later eras.  They are non sequiturs and anachronisms.  

[cladking]

22 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

 

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.

It appears that there was a relatively brief time in Egyptian history that they cremated the kings.  

I was done primarily during the great pyramid building era and was probably to protect the body from degradation in the tomb and from looters.   The "king ascended from the iskn on the steps of the pyramid with (upon) the smoke of incense" and then the pyramid acquired his ka.   The pyramid became the ka of the king.   They "rebuilt the king that he might live every day".  This is what they said but instead we interpret what they said in terms of later beliefs and our own. 

The king lived among his people forever as the pyramid.  The closest concept we have for this is "cenotaph" but it is far wide of the mark.   

If any individual king hadn't wanted to be cremated he could simply have his remains put in an anonymous tomb somewhere.   Surely they'd have honored his wishes.   

[Wepwawet]

2 hours ago, cladking said:

The idea that their religion necessitated a "mortuary temple" with a tomb is an idea from later Egypt.   

Every single thing we see at Giza and around the great pyramids may well be infrastructural in nature rather than religious.   

Just because they constructed cemeteries around pyramids hardly makes the pyramids into tombs.   Perhaps causeways aren't "holy walkways" but necessary ramps to bring stone and supplies from the river port that we mistakenly call a "valley temple".   We get all the ideas about the pyramid builders and the pyramids from later eras.  They are non sequiturs and anachronisms.  

What purpose does the mortuary chapel serve in a mastaba if, as you state, they are not chapels, and what evidence do you have.

What purpose does the mortuary temple at a pyramid have if, as you state, they are not temples, and what evidence do you have.

At what point in time in ancient Egypt did, by your reckoning, the mortuary chapel/temple come into use, and what proof do you have for this.

Why would a "river port", as you call them, need to look so much like a temple, and not just a stone quay, which is all that would be needed for unloading stones and other goods. Certainly they would have had docks, but why then, if the valley temple were just a "dock", would it need a permanent stone built narrow covered causeway leading to the pyramid, and not something more practical and open if it were only for hauling stones along.

[Wepwawet]

2 hours ago, cladking said:

It appears that there was a relatively brief time in Egyptian history that they cremated the kings

Cremation was an abomination to them all through their history, and there is not a single instance, outside of the depradations of tomb robbers, that DE ever practised cremation. Burning incense as part of religious ritual, a practice still in use of course, does not equate to "cremation" in any way shape or form. Do you have any physical or epigraphic evidence for cremation, and by evidence I do not mean your interpretation of the PT, it needs to be something tangible. I, for instance, can provide an interpretation of the death scene in chamber gamma of TA26, but I cannot provide any tangible proof even for something carved into stone, only an opinion, though at least one shared by others and based on knowledge of the culture.

[Trelane]

23 hours 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.  

I think you might be applying tone and inflection to a written text that might not be applicable. The items you've presented have been equally enlightening (for me at least). Up until the recent argumentative posts, this has been a thread I've actually followed because the back and forth of contrasting opinions has been done so responsibly and with information to back up the points being made. No woo crap as it's called. just differing viewpoints with data to back the statements made.

[Hanslune]

1 hour ago, Trelane said:

I think you might be applying tone and inflection to a written text that might not be applicable. The items you've presented have been equally enlightening (for me at least). Up until the recent argumentative posts, this has been a thread I've actually followed because the back and forth of contrasting opinions has been done so responsibly and with information to back up the points being made. No woo crap as it's called. just differing viewpoints with data to back the statements made.

Yes alt.archaeological discussions are usually the best. Seeing how people can interpret in a logical manner the same elements of evidence but come out with different conclusions.

Much better than the mindless blather that comes from the fringe and fantasy peddlers -  masterfully demonstrated by another poster who presented ideas based on his imagination.

[Hanslune]

7 hours ago, cladking said:

Nothing in the Pyramid Texts says the pyramids are tombs.  They actually say specifically and literally that the pyramids are not tombs and the king doers not decay.   They say that the pyramid IS the king consistently and coherently.  

We can interpret the PT to say the pyramid is a "cenotaph" but, I believe, this misses the mark because they didn't have concepts like "cenotaph".    

Oh, and where does it say that? Odd you aren't dumping out your normal out-of-context sentences from the PT? The PT is made up of religious metaphors...

Of course there is no word for cenotaph in the PT.

For the lurkers here Cladking insists that if a word doesn't show up in the PT - then that idea or thing didn't exist in ancient Egypt. He is not at all taken back by the fact that the PT makes use of only a tiny percentage of Egyptian language. He refuses to address this and continues with his pontifications from his vivid imagination. Words for animals that aren't in the PT like Ducks and Pheasant - yet they show up in later writings and as bones and in the art........

 

 

 

[Hanslune]

7 hours ago, cladking said:

deleted opinions

Oh, my more of your misguided opinions with no supporting evidence...deleted.

 

Quote

 Perhaps causeways aren't "holy walkways" but necessary ramps to bring stone and supplies from the river port that we mistakenly call a "valley temple". 

Ramps? Ramps Cladking - didn't you spend many THOUSANDS of posts on forty forums scream day and night that ramps didn't exist? Having difficulty remembering all the stuff you've made up? LOL

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,1135946,1135946#msg-1135946

The above is a masterful list of 30 days of Cladking ranting about this and that and of course ramps.

His first post stating he doesn't like ramps from 2009

http://www.hallofmaat.com/forum/read.php?6,509035,509064#msg-509064

Edited May 14, 2020 by Hanslune

[Hanslune]

7 hours ago, cladking said:

It appears that there was a relatively brief time in Egyptian history that they cremated the kings.  

I was done primarily during the great pyramid building era and was probably to protect the body from degradation in the tomb and from looters.   The "king ascended from the iskn on the steps of the pyramid with (upon) the smoke of incense" and then the pyramid acquired his ka.   The pyramid became the ka of the king.   They "rebuilt the king that he might live every day".  This is what they said but instead we interpret what they said in terms of later beliefs and our own. 

The king lived among his people forever as the pyramid.  The closest concept we have for this is "cenotaph" but it is far wide of the mark.   

If any individual king hadn't wanted to be cremated he could simply have his remains put in an anonymous tomb somewhere.   Surely they'd have honored his wishes.   

A good example of his just making up a story with no basis in fact or reality. Note how he writes like he KNOWS what the AE were thinking?

[Wepwawet]

Well, for good or bad I opened the ways again. Let's see...

Here's something from the Teti PT, translation by Faulkner, though he, like Mercer, does not tell the reader from which pyramid the various texts are taken. The Mercer version of this reads as if it were not from the same original, far tamer, and so probably not picked up as a "cremation/ascension" text.

"I am this one who escaped from the coiled serpent, I have ascended in a blast of fire"

What's that about, I wonder...

Then, there is still the issue of the missing mortuary temples if the pyramids are not tombs. I just don't buy it that there was a "hidden tomb" yet the mortuary temple was at a pyramid.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Wepwawet

[Harte]

Some apparently think it's a reference to a board game left for the dead kings to play.

Link

Harte

[Wepwawet]

7 hours ago, Harte said:

Some apparently think it's a reference to a board game left for the dead kings to play.

Link

Harte

Yes, it does refer to the mehen board game, the heiroglyph used in the PT is the same as for the game, and it refers to the king successfully completing the game and so continuing his journey.

The existance of Mehen, even if fleeting, in the PT, tie them to the later Netherworld Books, and for me, interestingly, the coiled snake we see at the head and lower legs of Osiris in the Solar-Osirian Unity. The PT shows the beginnings, in extant written form, of their conception of the central mystery of resurrection.

I was expecting an explanation from cladking that I would have used this reply for, but silence. The purpose for me posing the question was to show that different translations of the PT can be very different from each other in the meaning we can extraplolate from them, and so, with only knowledge of Mercer, you may miss something to potentially back up ones notions of "cremation". The Allen translation is different in tone again from Faulkner, though we still have fire, while Mercer has only warm breath and his 332 would pass by unoticed as a potential tool for mischief making. Of course none of this has the slightest thing to do with cremation, but I was hoping to see what cladking made of 332, and maybe he will give a reply, but the teeth have been drawn, the trap sprung etc.

[Alchopwn]

23 hours ago, cladking said:

Nothing in the Pyramid Texts says the pyramids are tombs.  They actually say specifically and literally that the pyramids are not tombs and the king doers not decay.   They say that the pyramid IS the king consistently and coherently.  

We can interpret the PT to say the pyramid is a "cenotaph" but, I believe, this misses the mark because they didn't have concepts like "cenotaph".    

Perhaps the Ancient Egyptians didn't include printed labels that delineate the actual purpose of the features of their artefacts like they have in museums?  I mean, not every modern tombstone includes the words "here lies (insert name)" in their inscription, do they?  Does that mean they aren't tombstones, as they make no clear reference to their purpose?

If I find a text that refers to funerary practices and there is a mummified body, I consider the matter pretty well established that it is a tomb.   Does it have other uses?  Perhaps... But if that were the case, it would be strange, as while Egyptian temples are often covered top-to-toe in hieroglyphs, the internals of the Pyramids are not. So in short there is little to support the notion that there were frequent rituals conducted inside.

[Harte]

6 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Yes, it does refer to the mehen board game, the heiroglyph used in the PT is the same as for the game, and it refers to the king successfully completing the game and so continuing his journey.

The existance of Mehen, even if fleeting, in the PT, tie them to the later Netherworld Books, and for me, interestingly, the coiled snake we see at the head and lower legs of Osiris in the Solar-Osirian Unity. The PT shows the beginnings, in extant written form, of their conception of the central mystery of resurrection.

I was expecting an explanation from cladking that I would have used this reply for, but silence. The purpose for me posing the question was to show that different translations of the PT can be very different from each other in the meaning we can extraplolate from them, and so, with only knowledge of Mercer, you may miss something to potentially back up ones notions of "cremation". The Allen translation is different in tone again from Faulkner, though we still have fire, while Mercer has only warm breath and his 332 would pass by unoticed as a potential tool for mischief making. Of course none of this has the slightest thing to do with cremation, but I was hoping to see what cladking made of 332, and maybe he will give a reply, but the teeth have been drawn, the trap sprung etc.

My apologies. I no longer see Cladking's posts so I'm out of that loop.

But trapping Cladking is exceedingly easy, and to no avail in any case.

I realize, however, that there's not much else to do around here anymore.

Harte

[cladking]

21 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Cremation was an abomination to them all through their history, and there is not a single instance, outside of the depradations of tomb robbers, that DE ever practised cremation. Burning incense as part of religious ritual, a practice still in use of course, does not equate to "cremation" in any way shape or form. Do you have any physical or epigraphic evidence for cremation, and by evidence I do not mean your interpretation of the PT, it needs to be something tangible. I, for instance, can provide an interpretation of the death scene in chamber gamma of TA26, but I cannot provide any tangible proof even for something carved into stone, only an opinion, though at least one shared by others and based on knowledge of the culture.

Words carved in stone MIGHT have been meant literally.   

In terms of evidence just consider that in addition to these words in stone there is the simple fact that there is no direct evidence a king was ever placed in a pyramid.  

1 hour ago, Alchopwn said:

I mean, not every modern tombstone includes the words "here lies (insert name)" in their inscription, do they?  Does that mean they aren't tombstones, as they make no clear reference to their purpose?

There are inscriptions in the tombs around the pyramids that say things like the occupant wanted to be buried next to the pyramid rather than next to the dead king.  

We also know the names of the pyramids but these names agree with the words carved in stone that no pyramid was a tomb.  

1 hour ago, Alchopwn said:

If I find a text that refers to funerary practices and there is a mummified body, I consider the matter pretty well established that it is a tomb. 

Yes! This would be very high grade evidence they are tombs but no such thing exists.  But no such thing exists.  

21 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

What purpose does the mortuary temple at a pyramid have if, as you state, they are not temples, and what evidence do you have.

There is no evidence it is a "mortuary temple".  

Logically no matter how the pyramids were built infrastructure was required.  If stones arrived from the causeway then this structure on the east side of the pyramid would be an ideal location for a "mason's shop".  There are even cut marks on the floor preserved from the time of construction.  Whatever means was used to lift the stones required the stones to be delivered to the base of the pyramid and this is known because all the ramps point at the base of the pyramids.   Where else would stones and loads be prepared to be transported up the pyramid?   "The Great Saw Palace" is even mentioned in the ancient literature.  There were millions of cuts made to the stones that comprise the pyramid.  Obviously these had to have been made somewhere.  

21 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Why would a "river port", as you call them, need to look so much like a temple, and not just a stone quay, which is all that would be needed for unloading stones and other goods. Certainly they would have had docks, but why then, if the valley temple were just a "dock", would it need a permanent stone built narrow covered causeway leading to the pyramid, and not something more practical and open if it were only for hauling stones along.

We shouldn't be looking for what we would call a :"port" but rather what they actually used for a "port".  The fact that the G2 structure at the river is more complex simply suggests more complex activity.  It suggests more was going on than simply dragging stones off barges and up the causeway.   There are many possibilities for these additional functions.  The assumption that all of these possibilities are "religious" is illogical in light of the fact that ancient Egyptians had infrastructural needs exactly as we do.  Even churches have choirs and need tuckpointing from time to time.  The cemeteries which surround them need mowing.  

 

 

[Wepwawet]

19 minutes ago, Harte said:

My apologies. I no longer see Cladking's posts so I'm out of that loop.

But trapping Cladking is exceedingly easy, and to no avail in any case.

I realize, however, that there's not much else to do around here anymore.

Harte

That's fine, my post was not quite as specific as to who it was aimed at anyway. Sometimes we forget that anybody and their uncle can read these posts, and reply. As to no avail, yes, your'e right, but I like to present opportunities for explanations to be made. One can only open the way, and hope that others will follow, but...

[Hanslune]

7 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Yes, it does refer to the mehen board game, the heiroglyph used in the PT is the same as for the game, and it refers to the king successfully completing the game and so continuing his journey.

The existance of Mehen, even if fleeting, in the PT, tie them to the later Netherworld Books, and for me, interestingly, the coiled snake we see at the head and lower legs of Osiris in the Solar-Osirian Unity. The PT shows the beginnings, in extant written form, of their conception of the central mystery of resurrection.

I was expecting an explanation from cladking that I would have used this reply for, but silence. The purpose for me posing the question was to show that different translations of the PT can be very different from each other in the meaning we can extraplolate from them, and so, with only knowledge of Mercer, you may miss something to potentially back up ones notions of "cremation". The Allen translation is different in tone again from Faulkner, though we still have fire, while Mercer has only warm breath and his 332 would pass by unoticed as a potential tool for mischief making. Of course none of this has the slightest thing to do with cremation, but I was hoping to see what cladking made of 332, and maybe he will give a reply, but the teeth have been drawn, the trap sprung etc.

Cladking has been informed of much of what you say but as it doesn't agree with his ideas he simply ignores it. He uses Mercer exclusively as it is available on-line and most importantly he can put key word searches through the material. He did buy Faulkner's three volume but I believe doesn't use it as he cannot of course do computer searches through it!

[Hanslune]

43 minutes ago, cladking said:

Whatever means was used to lift the stones required the stones to be delivered to the base of the pyramid and this is known because all the ramps point at the base of the pyramid 

Really, an interesting admission because for the ten previous years you screamed and yelled that ramps didn't exist, and if they existed they weren't used ?

 lol

 

Quote

https://historum.com/threads/ancient-egyptian-science-and-learning.115991/page-4

Quote

Quote

There is no evidence of any construction ramp at any great pyramid in Egypt. All of the so-called ramps that have been found point in the wrong direction, point at the BOTTOM of the pyramid, or is too underbuilt to have been used for anything but a walkway (some are all three). Ramps are simply debunked as a means to build great pyramids and this lack of evidence

 

 

Edited May 15, 2020 by Hanslune

[Wepwawet]

48 minutes ago, cladking said:

Words carved in stone MIGHT have been meant literally.   

In terms of evidence just consider that in addition to these words in stone there is the simple fact that there is no direct evidence a king was ever placed in a pyramid.  

There are inscriptions in the tombs around the pyramids that say things like the occupant wanted to be buried next to the pyramid rather than next to the dead king.  

We also know the names of the pyramids but these names agree with the words carved in stone that no pyramid was a tomb.  

Yes! This would be very high grade evidence they are tombs but no such thing exists.  But no such thing exists.  

There is no evidence it is a "mortuary temple".  

Logically no matter how the pyramids were built infrastructure was required.  If stones arrived from the causeway then this structure on the east side of the pyramid would be an ideal location for a "mason's shop".  There are even cut marks on the floor preserved from the time of construction.  Whatever means was used to lift the stones required the stones to be delivered to the base of the pyramid and this is known because all the ramps point at the base of the pyramids.   Where else would stones and loads be prepared to be transported up the pyramid?   "The Great Saw Palace" is even mentioned in the ancient literature.  There were millions of cuts made to the stones that comprise the pyramid.  Obviously these had to have been made somewhere.  

We shouldn't be looking for what we would call a :"port" but rather what they actually used for a "port".  The fact that the G2 structure at the river is more complex simply suggests more complex activity.  It suggests more was going on than simply dragging stones off barges and up the causeway.   There are many possibilities for these additional functions.  The assumption that all of these possibilities are "religious" is illogical in light of the fact that ancient Egyptians had infrastructural needs exactly as we do.  Even churches have choirs and need tuckpointing from time to time.  The cemeteries which surround them need mowing.  

 

 

Words carved in stone may also not meant to be read literally. Even in their most arcane works they liked to play with words, which can cause us problems. They were also, in our terms, irreverant  when we would not expect them to be, hence Thoth can be referred to as "beaky". If you read the hieroglyphs and take them literally, you will find yourself in serious trouble. The rebus, puns, metaphors and just general word games litter their language.

They never mentioned that a king, or anybody else, had ever died. That they have a tomb tells you the fact without spelling it out. I gave an example earlier about the death of Ramesess III never being mentioned in the trial record of his assassins. They did death differently to us. They never had an obituary as we use. No date of death, no age at death, no cause of death, no mention of those left behind, though their existance may be shown in the tomb, but in relation to the king when he was alive, and even then those type of details often ended up in the tombs of courtiers boasting of their relationship to the king. In the mastaba, who they were will be in the mortuary chapel, but as the burial chamber of a king was not decorated until Unas, then their details will be in the mortuary temple, or on their sarcophagus.

Do you have an example of inscriptions saying that a person wanted to be buried by the pyramid, not the king. I'm not saying there are not, and I'm sure there are, but an example would be good. Besides, what difference does it make as the king is in his pyramid anyway.

What words were carved in stone that "no pyramid was a tomb". Are you saying that the AE actively said that pyramids were not tombs.

There is plenty of evidence that the mortuary temples were in fact mortuary temples. It is the recognised fact and it would need evidence contra to be put on the table.

Your last two paragraphs are not very clear. And why on earth would you say this,

Quote

The assumption that all of these possibilities are "religious" is illogical in light of the fact that ancient Egyptians had infrastructural needs exactly as we do.

You know we are discussing who the Greeks said were the most religious people they had ever come across, and in a world of belief such as has long gone for us, really hammers home the point that they were very very very religious. It is very far indeed from it being "illogical" for us to view what they did in a religious light, but very illogical not to.

Edited May 15, 2020 by Wepwawet

[cladking]

17 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

They never mentioned that a king, or anybody else, had ever died.

They never said anything at all.   They implied he had died by saying they had to build him a new body.   They implied he had died many many times including when they implied he was cremated.  

When we interpret the words they are full of puns, contradictions, and metaphors abound.  This is why I suggest we have been doing it wrong since 1882.   Maybe the words are meant literally and ALL interpretations are incorrect. 

24 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

Do you have an example of inscriptions saying that a person wanted to be buried by the pyramid, not the king.

Yes.  Khufu's brother buried in the eastern cemetery in year 8 had this inscription.   

25 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

What words were carved in stone that "no pyramid was a tomb". Are you saying that the AE actively said that pyramids were not tombs.

Yes!!!  Countless times they said that the king was not buried and the pyramid was in actuality the king himself after he was transmogrified.  

 

27 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

There is plenty of evidence that the mortuary temples were in fact mortuary temples. It is the recognised fact and it would need evidence contra to be put on the table.

This evidence does not apply to the great pyramids with the possible exception of Djoser's.  But this pyramid started out as a mastaba and mastabas were in actuality tombs. 

 

28 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

You know we are discussing who the Greeks said were the most religious people they had ever come across,

 The Greeks came across the descendants of the great pyramid builders,.  These people were highly religious and highly superstitious but they shared almost nothing in common with their predecessors.  

Great pyramids were built and then they stopped.  Little imitation "pyramids" were built that are now all piles of rubble. 

We are interpreting the evidence to fit later people and our own beliefs.   
 

 

 

[Wepwawet]

53 minutes ago, cladking said:

They never said anything at all.   They implied he had died by saying they had to build him a new body.   They implied he had died many many times including when they implied he was cremated.  

When we interpret the words they are full of puns, contradictions, and metaphors abound.  This is why I suggest we have been doing it wrong since 1882.   Maybe the words are meant literally and ALL interpretations are incorrect. 

Yes.  Khufu's brother buried in the eastern cemetery in year 8 had this inscription.   

Yes!!!  Countless times they said that the king was not buried and the pyramid was in actuality the king himself after he was transmogrified.  

 

This evidence does not apply to the great pyramids with the possible exception of Djoser's.  But this pyramid started out as a mastaba and mastabas were in actuality tombs. 

 

 The Greeks came across the descendants of the great pyramid builders,.  These people were highly religious and highly superstitious but they shared almost nothing in common with their predecessors.  

Great pyramids were built and then they stopped.  Little imitation "pyramids" were built that are now all piles of rubble. 

We are interpreting the evidence to fit later people and our own beliefs.   
 

 

 

The first paragraph is simply your opinion based on your unique interpretaion of the PT, an interpretation not shared by anybody else, even on the fringe.

You are echoing my own post on what they did with language, and then end up suggesting that your interpretation, which must be included in "ALL", is wrong. Excellent, but can you provide an analysis of the PT to show what may be right and what may be wrong. By analysis I mean that you disect the hieroglyphs, not give an opinion on somebody else's work, which anybody with an imagination can do.

Who wanted to be buried by what can I think be discarded as nothing is proven either way.

No, the PT does not say that the king was not buried, that is your opinion based on your interpretation of anothers translation of the PT.

The evdence that a mortuary temple is a mortuary temple most certainly does apply to all of them. You cannot rule out those at Giza just because you have a contrary opinion. Life would be great if we could all have our cake and eat it, but life is not like that, and you need to provide evidence to overturn established fact, you cannot magic it away as it presents a problem for you.

Again, can you provide evidence that the AE whom the Greeks came across "Shared almost nothing in common with their predecessors". To prove this you will need to go into quite some depth to show what they were like in the OK, and what they were like by the Late Period, and show some quite profound differences. You know, some aspects of modern Egyptian life outside of the cities is similar to the way they have been for umpteen thousands of years. In Luxor they still have a remnant of the Opet festival, though the statue of the god has become that of a Muslim medieval saint.

Quote

Great pyramids were built and then they stopped.  Little imitation "pyramids" were built that are now all piles of rubble.

Means what exactly ?

Quote

We are interpreting the evidence to fit later people and our own beliefs

No, we are studying them in their own context as best as possible. Seeing the origins of later customs and beliefs is not imposing those later traditions on to the earlier people, though that is not to say it is not done, most notoriously by the fringe with "power tools" and "power plants" etc. Do you reserve ammo for those utter fantasies, or only for the hard work done by professionals, work that if they had not done would leave all the fringe with nothing to discuss as they know nothing of any value that is not the work of Egyptologists.

[Wepwawet]

There is no traction to be gained going around in a circle that so many have trod for some years, and I have no intention of becoming trapped in this "punishment of Sisyphus".

The recent posts are not directly addressing the OP, though rather go alongside it as a discussion of "pyramids not tombs" and vice versa. However, one aspect is still relevant, and that is the mortuary temple, for as I have already written, if, in the context of the OP, the pyramids are not tombs, then where are the mortuary temples for those missing tombs. There is no evidence that I can see of the total separation of the mortuary temple from the tomb until the 18th Dynasty, so as there appear to be no dissassociated mortuary temples before then, the structure adjoining a mortuary temple should be the tomb. Are there mortuary temples sitting seemingly by themselves which could indicate one of these missing tombs, in the context of the OP. Also, would a pre 18th Dynasty king not have a mortuary temple by his tomb.