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

7 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

What needs elaborating? I think there are more burials in other locations.

Fascinating. Good for you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Fascinating. Good for you. 

Fancy trying that again, less patronisingly this time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Fancy trying that again, less patronisingly this time?

And you think your response deserves better? How about you try again, or not, and I'll see what I can do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

All 37 do not, see Sneferu for example, but sarcophagi can also be found in cenotaphs which is what the OP suggests.  

So how many Egyptian cenotaphs had sarcophagi versus pyramids?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deleted

 

Edited by Hanslune
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hanslune said:

There is no evidence that they weren't. Plus oddly the AE seemed to call them tombs. Why do you think that was? Explain also what 'Direct' evidence is? Is that a term you made up?

 

Can you please quote what and where the AE said the pyramids were "tombs"?

Of course there is some evidence they weren't - see the OP. How can no evidence, which the lack thereof contradicts all otherwise ubiquitous funerary schemes of every other tomb, not be evidence? And for the king no less? There is no doubt, at some point at least, pyramids were built to serve a funerary function related to the pharaoh. I am not suggesting they were microwave generators or the like, but rather not only cenotaphs for the king as RA as part of the "resurection machine", but also for the people buried around it. To quote myself from elsewhere:

Quote

 

In the 5th Dynasty Giza [as a pyrmaid building site] was immediately abandoned in favor of Saqqara and Abusir which represented a clear cultural shift. Even Menkaure's own son did not build a pyramid at Giza let alone a pyramid at all. While the chambers of these 5th Dynasty pyramids, namely their gabled roofs, did employ surprisingly large blocks as well as chamber walls and passages of granite, they are otherwise very poorly constructed made up of small blocks filled with rubble and sand. Despite this, their temples are exemplary examples of not only construction utilizing beautiful palmiform granite columns but also the required funerary traditions of being elaborately adorned with relief as were the temples of Sneferu and likely Khufu. Though obviously this changed in the time of Unas at the end of the 5th Dynasty, the pyramids noted above between this time and Giza are also empty of such funerary dedication on their interiors exactly the opposite of what was required by their religion if in fact they were built as tombs. 

Quoting Mark Lehner:

Quote

Dieter Arnold, among others, doubts whether the pyramid temples and causeways were in fact used in the royal funerary ceremony. One argument is that the rooms and doorways seem to small for the passage of the funeral. From the mortuary temple the body and grave goods had to be taken into the pyramid court and round the north side of the pyramid to be carried into the burial chamber. In the standard pyramid temples of the 5th and 6th dynasties the exit of the pyramid court was at one end of the traverse hall separating the front from the inner temple. Its doorways seem to narrow to allow the funeral to pass through. In Djoser's step pyramid complex, the route from the entrance hall through the mortuary temple and down to the burial vault is just too narrow. Arnold therefore thinks that the funeral rituals would have been conducted outside the pyramid complex in light structures and the royal body conveyed into the pyramid court by means of a side entrance.

To summarize, Arnold is saying that the mortuary temples were basically useless as once the mortuary temple was entered the exits and passages were too small for the funerary procession to continue into the pyramid complex. To explain this, poorly I might add, Arnold suggests they built temporary "light structures for this purpose and entered the pyramid complex, i.e. the enclosure wall, from another entrance. As we know, the mortuary temples abut the enclosure wall which often is incorporated into the back wall or sides of the temple itself.
giza-plateau.gif
Also to be noted is that the mortuary temples are not on the side the entrances are on. Another thing to consider is that G1 for example, the entrance is dozens of feet above ground level and at the time of death supposedly faced smooth with casing stones meaning temporary scaffolding of some sort would have to have been built to haul the dead king up the side just to get to the entrance. In the case of G1:
curse-pyramid-map.jpg?w=346&h=281

The pharaoh's body would have been hauled up the side to the entrance, dragged down the 3.6ft x 3.11ft descending passage then hauled up the equally narrow ascending passage to the grand gallery. Then lifted up the great step to the portcullis system and down the narrow shaft to the King's Chamber. The pall bearers then close the portcullis system behind them, drop the granite plugs at the end of the grand gallery, then go to the well shaft and climb down into the subterranean chamber then out the pyramid and close the entrance. Sounds reasonable enough....

Anyways, to continue with Lehner:

Quote

If the mortuary temple was not the stage for the royal funeral, what did it represent? At least one of its aspects was as the king's eternal residence, its parts corresponding broadly to the palace of his lifetime. Indeed, it has the same basic principles as large houses known from the archeological record: enclosure wall; vestibule; a central meeting place in the form of a pillared hall or open court; a platform for the head of the house to receive visitors; private rooms. The innermost room, the offering hall, corresponded generally to the royal dining room. Behind the false door where offerings were placed, lay the magazines, ante chamber and burial chamber under the pyramid, corresponding to the inner foyer and bedroom. The Pyramid texts identify the burial chamber as the Per Duat, an allusion to the Netherworld, but also to the Per Duat, "House of the Morning" or "Toilet House" of the palace, where the pharaoh was bathed anointed and dressed.

So, above we note that the funerary procession isn't getting out of the mortuary temple and for it to work to be buried in the pyramid they had to go around it all together and get in some side entrance through the enclosure wall. What Lehner is suggesting here is that the mortuary temple was in fact meant to be the pharaoh's palace, a "house of the dead", which is the exact function of a mastaba. This would further explain the need for the temples to be covered in commemorative funerary reliefs though the PT makes it clear the actual funerary rites were required in the burial chamber itself which as we know are not to be found in the great pyramids including the others noted above from the 5th Dynasty. Also of note, is the reason a person's name was inscribed on their sarcophagus was so that their spirit could find it when it came time at the end of each day to go back to it so they could be reborn with the new sun in the morning. A sarcophagus without inscription is basically worthless to the dead. Without it its just a box to put dead bodies in. Not cool.  

I find this part of what Lehner says abit of a stretch: 

Quote

Behind the false door where offerings were placed, lay the magazines, ante chamber and burial chamber under the pyramid, corresponding to the inner foyer and bedroom. The Pyramid texts identify the burial chamber as the Per Duat, an allusion to the Netherworld, but also to the Per Duat, "House of the Morning" or "Toilet House" of the palace, where the pharaoh was bathed anointed and dressed.

I find no practical way to physically associate the "bedroom of the king", part of his palace, to the inner chambers of particularly the great pyramids not to mention that if so this "bedroom", as required by the PT, is the particular place that needed the funerary rites to be written and his sarcophagus would have his name on it. Logistically it makes no sense in relation to the location of the mortuary temple which makes me wonder-if the mortuary temple is in fact the king's palace, his "house of the dead" like the mastaba; is it here where the pharaoh was to be actually buried? I am reminded of Herodotus who says that Khufu was not buried inside G1 but rather under the plateau. Is the reason why the chambers of these pyramid are devoid of the required funerary inscription because, in fact, they were not buried there, but possibly underneath or near the mortuary temple itself?

I'm just spitballing here, and am not saying I believe what I am saying mind you, but this leaves the question-if the AE believed the pyramids were in fact resurrection machines, even tombs, the question if not for the pharaoh, or the people at large as I have pondered, for who? The pyramid is suggested to emulate the rays of the sun. During the 4th Dynasty in particular, RA/RE the god of the sun, became the principal deity and the god of the pharaoh himself so much so that the royal signet changed from the serekh to the cartouche of which RA was part and parcel. This in and of itself was a radical shift in ideology. Pharaoh=RA. Is it possible the pyramid was not built to resurrect the pharaoh, but rather RA himself? The sun? If the pharaoh and RA were connected how could the pharaoh be resurrected if RA was not guaranteed to be as well? Funerary rituals certainly apply to people, but to RA? Is this why they are devoid of inscription as the pyramid itself is the "ritual? Which to my more brave alternative friends here, the question further would be why would they believe a pyramid, whose humble beginnings may have been the Ben Ben stone, could accomplish such a thing?

Lee Anderson

  

 

 

Edited by Thanos5150
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

So how many Egyptian cenotaphs had sarcophagi versus pyramids?

...? I am arguing the pyramids were the cenotaphs, symbolic sarcophagi included, and the pharaohs were actually buried elsewhere.

Edited by Thanos5150
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

You say this as "fact" but it clearly is not which you should ask yourself how you came to state it as such. This idea comes from the MK Ipuwer Papyrus which is thought it may be referring to the First Intermediate Period.  It says:

Behold, he who was buried as a falcon [is devoid] of biers, and what the pyramid concealed has become empty. 

Which you regurgitate from a source to mean:

 "It should also be pointed out that the Great Pyramid was robbed at least once, during the First Intermediate Period (2081-2055 BC), so within 500 years of its construction."

~SNIP~

To continue, you say:

Written in what-the 11th century AD? We are reminded of what a "wise man" once said:

And:

So Herodotus informed by Egyptian priests 2,000yrs later is crazy talk, but the Arab's more than 3,000yrs later with their flying carpets and whatnot-now that's a reliable source.  Pfft. 

But let's quote the surrounding text shall we:

"In the middle of [the room] it was a closed basin of marble. When the cover was removed, it was found to contain nothing but decayed remains". 

Do you know of any "closed marble basins with cover" in, we assume as it does not actually say, G1? Oh, yeah, but I am sure they got the "decayed remains" part right though.  

But reading your source, pg171, we find this: "During the First Intermediate Period (2081-2055 BC), the pyramid was,nevertheless, robbed". They said it and you repeated it so I  guess it must be true then, huh? 

Regarding the Stadelmann bit, the source you cite in the footnotes says: 

Which a little bit down you copy and paste this: 

And further still we find their explanations for the "marble basin":

So according to your source, one you feel quite confident in copy and pasting as gospel, believes a "closed basin of marble" is a "reasonable description" if we accept it was "rededicated" in the NK after the robbery(ies). Wow, that is fantastic. So in the NK the original sarcophagus was removed and replaced with a "closed basin of marble", which unbeknownst to one Michael Cooperson apparently, was not only removed but again replaced sometime after the Arabs broke in with the lidless granite sarcophagus we see today which they were kind enough to set near the wall of the room and not in the center as the Arabs found the "closed basin of marble". You good with that? Cooperson is clueless, and like you, parroting sources he does not understand. 

Not just the source I gave but Egyptologist Joyce Tyldesley herself (Egypt : how a lost civilization was rediscovered - pg 38 - 2007) said "by the Middle Kingdom" which places it in the First Intermediate Period. Can you show me specifically where she takes that from the Ipuwer Papyrus as said text is never mentioned? 

If you can use Herodotus as a reliable source I can use Al Mamum. Pot calling kettle black. :rolleyes:

You want to complain about "a marble basin" in the middle of the room when the sarcophagus WAS NEVER in the middle of the room? I find that rather disingenuous, but ok.

cormac

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

And you think your response deserves better? How about you try again, or not, and I'll see what I can do. 

You asked me to elaborate upon a straightforward comment. If I had any evidence, beyond my penciled-in napkin idea, I’d have included it in my initial post.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Not just the source I gave but Egyptologist Joyce Tyldesley herself (Egypt : how a lost civilization was rediscovered - pg 38 - 2007) said "by the Middle Kingdom" which places it in the First Intermediate Period. Can you show me specifically where she takes that from the Ipuwer Papyrus as said text is never mentioned? 

The eminent Joyce Tyldesley "herself", huh? Yeah. Anyhoo, nowhere do I see you cite Tydesley which when I dust of my copy and we read p38, she says:"However, given that the pyramid is known to have been emptied by the Old Kingdom..." which, no she does not give a source for this and like Cooperson, and you, just repeat it as fact. But she must have gotten this from somewhere right? Or do you think we are just missing some kind of archaeological factoid as evidence of this? We are not. It comes from the Ipuwer Papyrus. And no, the "Middle Kingdom" is not the First Intermediate Period.  The FIP is defined as the period from the arguably 7th Dynasty to the mid 11th which from this point forward, the reunification of Egypt under Mentuhotep II, marks the MK.  For various reasons it was assumed the Ipuwer Papyrus was reffering to the IPeriod, but the document itself is thought to have been written no earlier than the 12th Dynasty. This is why Tyldesley says MK.

But more worrisome is your logic is that if Tyldesley, Cooperson and the like say something is true with no source, evidence, or explanation that this is no doubt not only the truth but their omission of such is somehow evidence I am wrong? You don;t see anything wrong with that picture?  Quotes are not facts. Facts are facts. 

Quote

If you can use Herodotus as a reliable source I can use Al Mamum. Pot calling kettle black. :rolleyes:

I did not use Herodotus as a "reliable source" friend and have stated my position quite clearly as such. Don't impose your inequity on me. Take responsibility for what you said and do better next time. 

Quote

You want to complain about "a marble basin" in the middle of the room when the sarcophagus WAS NEVER in the middle of the room? I find that rather disingenuous, but ok.

cormac

 

Dude. Help a brother out here. As I said to you:

Quote

 

But let's quote the surrounding text shall we:

"In the middle of [the room] it was a closed basin of marble. When the cover was removed, it was found to contain nothing but decayed remains"....

[And]:

So according to your source, one you feel quite confident in copy and pasting as gospel, believes a "closed basin of marble" is a "reasonable description" if we accept it was "rededicated" in the NK after the robbery(ies). Wow, that is fantastic. So in the NK the original sarcophagus was removed and replaced with a "closed basin of marble", which unbeknownst to one Michael Cooperson apparently, was not only removed but again replaced sometime after the Arabs broke in with the lidless granite sarcophagus we see today which they were kind enough to set near the wall of the room and not in the center as the Arabs found the "closed basin of marble". You good with that? Cooperson is clueless, and like you, parroting sources he does not understand.  

 

I am quoting your source quoting the Arab account-they claim it is in the "middle of the room". Which your response to this is:

"You want to complain about "a marble basin" in the middle of the room when the sarcophagus WAS NEVER in the middle of the room? I find that rather disingenuous, but ok.?"

But it is the Arabs you quote who say it was....Yeesh. But I am glad you now agree how absurd it is they would say such a thing which means we can even further cast this account, and its "decayed remains", aside. But I'm the one who is disingenuous because you cannot read and comprehend me let alone the source you are citing? Slow down and wise up a bit. You are making a fool of yourself far too quickly. We have plenty of time for such things.  

 

Edited by Thanos5150
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

You asked me to elaborate upon a straightforward comment. If I had any evidence, beyond my penciled-in napkin idea, I’d have included it in my initial post.

I have no problem with penciled-in napkin ideas. Oh well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hanslune said:
<
 
Aa1 G43 I9 G43
 
> G25 N18
X1
O24

 

I also have to ask why the AE named them in the way they did - implying they were tombs

I suppose this is it. You said "...oddly the AE seemed to call them tombs.", apparently i.e. in reality "implied" they were.  But did they? This says "Akhet Khufu" which in context is to mean the "necropolis of Khufu" which of course is centered around the pyramid. It does not "seem" or "imply" the pyramid is a tomb, but rather that it is a "pyramid necropolis".  We assume with confidence, among other reasons, that because this is Khufu's pyramid necropolis he is buried there too, but either stated or implied this by no means says the pyramid itself is his tomb. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

The eminent Joyce Tyldesley "herself", huh? Yeah. Anyhoo, nowhere do I see you cite Tydesley which when I dust of my copy and we read p38, she says:"However, given that the pyramid is known to have been emptied by the Old Kingdom..." which, no she does not give a source for this and like Cooperson, and you, just repeat it as fact. But she must have gotten this from somewhere right? Or do you think we are just missing some kind of archaeological factoid as evidence of this? We are not. It comes from the Ipuwer Papyrus. And no, the "Middle Kingdom" is not the First Intermediate Period.  The FIP is defined as the period from the arguably 7th Dynasty to the mid 11th which from this point forward, the reunification of Egypt under Mentuhotep II, marks the MK.  For various reasons it was assumed the Ipuwer Papyrus was reffering to the IPeriod, but the document itself is thought to have been written no earlier than the 12th Dynasty. This is why Tyldesley says MK.

But more worrisome is your logic is that if Tyldesley, Cooperson and the like say something is true with no source, evidence, or explanation that this is no doubt not only the truth but their omission of such is somehow evidence I am wrong? You don;t see anything wrong with that picture?  Quotes are not facts. Facts are facts. 

I did not use Herodotus as a "reliable source" friend and have stated my position quite clearly as such. Don't impose your inequity on me. Take responsibility for what you said and do better next time. 

Dude. Help a brother out here. As I said to you:yl

I take the word of a known Egyptologist over some unknown person on an internet forum. Maybe that's just me. 

Perhaps I should have been more specific. I know that the Middle Kingdom isn't the First Intermediate Period. When I said Tyldesley said "by the Middle Kingdom which places it in the First Intermediate Period", "it" was in reference to the robbery NOT to the MK. 

You did, however, use Herodotus' claims as reliable enough to be quoted as "circumstantial support" for an event some 2000 years prior to his existance, which is basically useless IMO. And Diodorus is just as usless to the discussion. I just followed your lead, a useless source for a useless source. We could go back and forth on 'what if's" and "maybe's" but the bottom line is that the GP is located in the middle of a cemetery, it was built by Khufu over some 20+ years, it is surrounded by many members of Khufu's family and court and the most likely use for it would be as Khufu's tomb. I can see no reason to believe that Khufu's family and entourage would be buried by a cenotaph instead of his tomb. That just doesn't make any sense IMO. 

cormac

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lack of any decoration or writing inside pyramids before that of Unas is not evidence that they were not tombs. It was not their practice to decorate the burial chamber, only the chapel. We see this in the non pyramid tombs, where the chapel is decorated, but the burial chamber underneath is not. I can see that a false impression about these tombs is gained by photos of the chapels being shown, but no explanation that what we see is the chapel, not the burial chamber. The pyramid is a huge burial chamber, that is why pre Unas they were not decorated, with decoration being used in the chapels outside of the pyramid.

A reason for this intial reluctance to decorate the burial chamber is that as all decoration, figures or hieroglyphs, in the context of a tomb, had magical life, and Siegried Morenz, writing in 1960, suggested that to leave out decoration gave the sah some peace and quiet. It sounds a bit naff I know, but he knew what he was talking about, and it also shows how the general population followed kingly practices, eventually, through their history, so that anybody who could afford to, had a decorated burial chamber. But as far as the Fourth Dynasty went, no burial chamber for anybody was decorated.

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

7 hours ago, Hanslune said:

An enduring question asked again by Thanos.

In many cases one thing was left  a sarcophagus how many of the 37 didn't had one?

 

<
 
Aa1 G43 I9 G43
 
> G25 N18
X1
O24

 

I also have to ask why the AE named them in the way they did - implying they were tombs

Indeed, particularly as there is a connection between the horizon and the Duat.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to If Pyramids not tombs where are the pharaohs?
2 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

That just doesn't make any sense IMO.

 

Yes, and when rendered as "common sense", brings into focus the great divide between reality, or at least our best guess when confronted at times with scanty evidence, and hogwash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Egyptology holds that pyramids were built as tombs for the pharaohs, yet no royal burial has ever been found in one.

And  you can halt right there.  They've been robbed but yes, royal burials have been found there, including some recent finds.  Here's the burial of a 4th century queen in a pyramid: https://www.heritagedaily.com/2016/02/pyramid-of-queen-khennuwa-investigated-by-archaeologists/109810

And apparently Menkaure inside his pyramid after it had been looted: https://www.quora.com/Was-the-mummy-of-a-pharaoh-really-ever-found-inside-a-pyramid

And let's not forget the transcript (from ancient Egypt itself) of the robbery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amherst_Papyrus

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Can you please quote what and where the AE said the pyramids were "tombs"

 

Their name for "tomb" was "house of a million years."

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right now I believe the Pyramids was for tomb for the Pharaohs and not for communications or to absorb energy. Even if it does things.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

...

And apparently Menkaure inside his pyramid after it had been looted: https://www.quora.com/Was-the-mummy-of-a-pharaoh-really-ever-found-inside-a-pyramid

...

 

But I don't think those were actually the remains of Menkaure himself, Kenemet ...  Surely those wooden remnants are now believed to be a substitute coffin from the Saite period?  (While the other coffin was the one involved in the turgid saga of the lost Beatrice).

Although I guess what the existence of the Saite period coffin does demonstrate is that people had a habit of breaking into pyramids and taking away whatever they found there ... which would explain why original interments are no longer to be found.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the ancient Egyptians, death was a continuation of life, but a different type of life. Whether you were alive, in the usual sense, or dead, in the usual sense, you still needed a house. The difference being that a house for the living was only temporary, with even royal palaces being made of mudbrick, while you were dead for eternity, and needed a house fit to last for eternity. The phrase "of millions of years" translates better as to it's meaning as "eternity". When we get to the pyramid we are faced with something different though, hence use of the word horizon.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Can you please quote what and where the AE said the pyramids were "tombs"?

Of course there is some evidence they weren't - see the OP. How can no evidence, which the lack thereof contradicts all otherwise ubiquitous funerary schemes of every other tomb, not be evidence? And for the king no less? There is no doubt, at some point at least, pyramids were built to serve a funerary function related to the pharaoh. I am not suggesting they were microwave generators or the like, but rather not only cenotaphs for the king as RA as part of the "resurection machine", but also for the people buried around it. To quote myself from elsewhere:

 

In the OK only the king was resurrected, the democratization of death came later, and in stages. So, for instance, the Gizamids did not act as "resurection machines"  for nearby burials. Resurection comes with Osiris and the temporary fusion of Ra and Osiris, a concept not known in the fourth dynasty, only a joining of the king with Ra. As with the decoration of the burial chamber, it is too easy to apply practises from later periods onto earlier ones, and create an anachronism.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

...

When we get to the pyramid we are faced with something different though, hence use of the word horizon.

Quote

The names of pyramids show that they were perceived as places of ascension and transformation. Khufu’s was Akhet, the ‘Horizon’, of Khufu. Built on the word akh, the name signified not just the horizon but the 'radiant place' of glorification. (Lehner, CP, 24)


And more discussion here - Jiří Janák - Akh.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kenemet said:

And  you can halt right there.  They've been robbed but yes, royal burials have been found there, including some recent finds.  Here's the burial of a 4th century queen in a pyramid: https://www.heritagedaily.com/2016/02/pyramid-of-queen-khennuwa-investigated-by-archaeologists/109810

 

I assume you are joking with both the woefully misplaced "you can halt right there" nonsense and the citing a 4th century BC Meroe pyramid burial as "evidence". Please.  Unfortunately it continues: 

Quote

And apparently Menkaure inside his pyramid after it had been looted: https://www.quora.com/Was-the-mummy-of-a-pharaoh-really-ever-found-inside-a-pyramid

Blindly quoting internet folk merely repeating the same mistakes and/or the same unqualified information with the actual context removed does no one any good, the least of which yourselves. You want to make a point about Menkaure and this is the best you can do? Here is an idea-start with Vyse the actual discover. He's on the internet too. Or say a Verner, Lehner, or the like with their popular books on pyramids. Anyhoo, from this blog post is it from one "Ean Radcliffe, studied at The Open University" who leads with:

"This [were pyramids built as tombs] is a leading question that’s often used by new-age nuts as a basis for a theory that the pyramids were never tombs, but were alien communication devices/power stations/granaries/Starbucks Franchises." 

Regarding Menkaure he says: 

They also found, in the main pyramid, part of a wooden coffin believed to be Menkaure's along with some mummy fragments.”

 You could make the effort to read any Egytological source and they will tell you the wooden coffin, anthropoid which should be a tip off as to whether it is intrusive or not, is widely accepted to date to the Saite Period (7th-6th century BC) and the bones RCD to the Christian era. Surely you can understand the difference between a royal burial and not just any 'ol body found in a pyrmaid. The wooden coffin in question:

main-qimg-b5e55532d92e90a151b5f36ebbedb8

 

Quote

And let's not forget the transcript (from ancient Egypt itself) of the robbery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amherst_Papyrus  

It is a strange phenomenon how many rush to argue against something that does not jibe with their confirmation bias, with such attitude and confidence no less, yet never take the time to understand what the other side is actually saying let alone the sources they rely on. None of you that have responded have actually read what I am saying, you just know I am suggesting the pyramids were not intended to inter a royal burial and you just come out swinging with your eyes closed. Someone is "wrong" on the internet so those fingers just start clickity-clacking. Slow down. 

The point is not whether pyramids were broken into and robbed of what they did actually contain or not, we can refer to many examples this was the case, but rather that they are missing the accouterments of royal burial, some permanent, that could not be removed by robbing and/or completely removed suggesting they were not made to house the actual body. For more actually read the OP. 

 

Edited by Thanos5150
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   1 member

    • Thanos5150