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

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Hanslune said:

An aside. I remember reading that there was some speculation that the AE may have used wooden panels in the OK to decorate and sanctify tombs and mortuary temples. Perhaps it was Lehner? These of course were looted or disintegrated.

3rd Dynasty and before. For example Hesy-Ra:

Ancient-Egypt-the-first-dentist-in-the-h

 

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

17 hours ago, Djedi said:

There is a very good reason there are no remains of a burial found in the pyramids of the 4th dyn; there were bigger and better built than those of the 5th and sixth dynasty so they attracted more attention throughout history. No wonder they were picked clean. When stripped of their tura-limestone casing the 5th, 6th and MK pyramids became rubble heaps, the 4th dyn pyramids obviously did not because of their better built cores. Still we have indirect evidence for the burial of Menkaure, a coffin from the Saite period (mentioned before in this thread) was found in the pyramid, inscribed with the names of the king. This means the AE from the Saite period still found enough remains of the mummy of Menkaure to warrant a restoration burial. 

From the quote you are responding to:

Quote

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.  

As stated this applies to all pyramids before this time, not just those of the 4th Dynasty. Nor, as discussed before the least of which the OP, does this explain how the reliefs were "picked clean" as well. Regardless, again as discussed before these pyramids are accepted as "fact" to have been robbed by the 1st Intermediate Period and/or MK, some suggested within decades of completion. Not to mention, again as said before, tomb robbing was rampant in the 5th/6th Dynasties the least of which the pharaohs stealing from each other, even their immediate predecessors, which continued through the MK as well. But it was not until the NK that several of these later pyramids were further robbed of their outer stone en masse leaving them to fall into such a ruinous state, while others were actually restored.   

So by your parroted logic all of the robbers of the FIP/MK, and NK, only focused on the great pyramids of the 4th Dynasty (we'll forget first half of the 5th) because they were "bigger and better built", i.e. harder to break into, leaving these later inferred "smaller and poorly pyramids", i.e. easier to break into, "untouched" for several centuries if not a thousand years or more until they were in such a ruinous state as to make them exponentially harder to rob. Regardless, this means these robbers were so stupid they just could not help but focus on these "bigger and better built" harder to break into pyramids searching for any scraps left behind until there was nothing left at the expense of completely ignoring these some 2 dozen "untouched" smaller and more easily accessible pyramids. Again, this all despite the fact we know for a fact tomb robbing was rampant during this period through the MK, the least of which the pharaohs stealing from each other including their immediate predecessors. Yeah, but no one touched the "loot" until what-the Romans? The Arabs? Sorry, but this is nonsense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Djedi said:

 

The interior / subterran part of the pyramid not accesible after the burial corresponds with the part of the mastaba that isn't accesible after the burial; shaft and tomb chamber. Yes there are more chambers and corridors in a pyramid but it is a royal tomb after all. Again, it is not unusual for passages and tomb chambers to be devoid of decoration in pyramids and mastabas alike before the end of the fifth dynasty.

Not to the living.

And no, it is unusual for mastabas.  

Quote

An offering space dedicated to the deceased is indeed a mimimal requirement, relief and other decoration are usualy preferred but are not crucial. Often enough decoration is left unfinished when the tomb owner dies, however an offering space for the funerary cult of the deceased is indispensable. It can take many forms, before a stela, statue or false door; often these forms are combined.

This is the supposed tomb of the pharaoh, a living god, credited with building wonders of the ancient world in any age. I do not think "minimal" applies let alone nothing could be more important. See everyone else.   

Quote

Near the end of Sneferu's reign until the end of Khufu's reign the lack of almost all decoration is a style on it's own, the so-called "reduced style". At it's height during Khufu's reign the only decorated piece in mastabas at Giza was a stela placed in the offering room, the so-called "slab stela".

Hardly. See Sneferu's valley temple. See the mastaba of Hemiunu the alleged architect of G1 itself. 

Quote

 

The 4th dyn is a period of architectural and decorative experimentation, starting with Sneferu who introduced the true pyramid. Almost during each kings reign new elements are added to the royal complex.

Only at the start of the fifth dynasty standardisation of architecture and decoration of the royal mortuary complex takes place (under Sahure).

 

And? So what-this has nothing to do with fundamental funerary practices which before Sneferu, though they used wood instead of stone (except for the Djoser), the standards are still there including dedication in the tomb. See Hesy-Ra. See sarcophagi and statuary of the 2nd Dynasty. Regardless, Sneferu was more than happy to bedazzle the BP with reliefs as was apparently Khufu. Khafre and Menkaure, clearly not, (setting aside Djedefre for now as this is something else entirely), which if we remove these two there is no gap in our expectations of what kind of reliefs we would expect in their temples between Sneferu/Khufu and Userkaf/Sahure. As I noted before their temples, G2 MT, VT, and G3 MT, are not only anomalous in their use of megalithic stones but also show clear demarcation of construction implying further implying they were built at different times than much of the Giza complex. The G2 VT also shows the megalithic limestone component is clearly older than the granite facing and interior granite temple. 

[snip]

Quote

G2: G2: no remains of reliefs in mortuary temple or valley temple but remains of an extensive statuary program. In the Valley temple Khafre's titles were inscribed on the granite doorframes. For first time the five basic elements of the "clasic" mortuary temple are present: entrance hall, open courtyard, five statue chapels, variuous storehouses and an offering hall, this concept was perfected in Sahure's mortuary temple. Maybe some limited relief decoration in the courtyard. Maybe a false door in back of temple against enclosure wall, not certain. Causeway probably decorated with reliefs, fragments found nearby.

No. This is graffiti, not formal inscription:

T9L_Aefgro4QdaP6-y3hW7Da8a1UUuTx1fd9D96t

 

Probably isn't even contemporary with Khafre. 

Except for the "entrance hall", all of these including the statue chapels are part of the later non-megalithic component (foreground):

khafrep21.jpg

Not to mention the alabaster floor in the VT with statue cut outs abuts the granite walls meaning they were added last. 

Maybe some limited relief decoration in the courtyard. 

What evidence of this?  Source? 

Maybe a false door in back of temple against enclosure wall, not certain.

What evidence of this? Source? 

Causeway probably decorated with reliefs, fragments found nearby.

There was? What were they? Source? 

Quote

You seem to think that relief decoration is somehow a must and that if not present there is no “funerary dedication”. We find a statuary program instead (which works just as fine) or sometimes both were combined (probably with emphasis on one more than on the other). So as we can see one or the other is always present, nothing unusual going on.

No, this is not what I think as it is clear these complexes served a funerary function but without reliefs it is unlikely to be an actual tomb which a statuary program is complimentary to reliefs not a replacement of. It is absurd to argue the pharaoh is exempt from this and offered for no other reason than the fact it does not regardless of the fact all else, if tombs, tells us there should be. 

Quote

As an aside fully developped stone collumns are an inovation of Djedefre (besides sphinxes), his successors didn't pick this up untill the start of the 5th dyn. 

This is questionable for several reasons. Quoting Verner:

"In the middle of one of of the spaces in the northeastern part of the structure stood a row of columns. In the courtyard Chassinat even found a fragment of a column with Djedefre's cartouche, a significant and somewhat strange discovery, because-if we set aside the specific case of the columns and half-columns in the Djoser complex-columns do not appear in pyramid complexes until the beginning of the 5th Dynasty". 

As I said before this temple, made of mud brick, is unusual differing significantly from all other OK mortuary temples. Also found there were fragments of a Sphinx and at Abu Roash also the famed Sphinx of "Hetepheres II". Both anomoloous and the only of their kind until the MK which also clearly suggests the Sphinx at Giza predates Khafre. Or does it? There was a significant MK presence at Abu Roash who unlike the OK before were crazy for the Sphinx. What is more likely that Djedefre used columns in a funny mud brick "mortuary temple" unlike any other of the OK, columns otherwise not seen again for nearly 100yrs or that this was added later as part of an MK cult restoration? Or perhaps Chassinat mistook or assumed columns when in fact they were the typical pillars? Out of place mud brick temple, out of place sphinxes, out of place columns.  Regardless, this is related by Chassinat, since repeated by others, which M&R found his description of the architectural features of this temple "confusing and uncertain" which as far as they knew "published nothing about his work". I have yet to find any other confirmation of these columns which may be an assumption on Chassinat's part and the column fragment perhaps not part of a column at all. 

 

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, fux0r said:

Example: shroud of turin. We were really loud when we thought it was fake. But since it has been validated 4 times to the time of jesus and the numerous forensics specialist who have gone on record stating that a man was beating and crucified, the pollens and dirt only found near the Damascus Gate, the blood type, the blood flows, things that would uphold in court, the fact that it contains 3D information. you dont hear much about the stuff that vindicates the shroud. And either way, the only known explanation for the formation of the image is an intense burst of vacuum ultraviolet radiation (equivalent to the output of 14,000 excimer lasers) emitted from every three-dimensional point of the body in the Shroud. Problem is, we dont have enough lasers on earth. That stuff doesnt make the headlines like the ones they printed when they thought it was fake. 

I'm sure the real Jesus looked Germanic......:rolleyes:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

 

22 hours ago, fux0r said:

But I digress. You would think with the writings they have about the pyramids, there would be some mention of its purpose.  I read that the properties of all of the materials used in making the pyramids are conducive to electromagnetic energy 

All granite is, which means the Rocky Mountains should power the entire U.S. if the pyramid energy theories were true. 

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

2 hours ago, Harte said:

I don't get the "air shafts" either, if the king isn't in there.

http://www.gizapyramids.org/pdf_library/sakovich_jarce_42_2005-6.pdf

Harte

 

Not read that explanation before, and it is quite interesting, and more plausible than anything else.

There is another element to this, but it involves images from the NK and so cannot be shoehorned back in time to G1. But I'll mention this just for interest, whether it is dicarded out of hand or not. In some scenes showing the regeneration of the Sun, four vertically inclined shafts of light can be seen coming from a mummiform figure, two shafts from the back and two from the front. Either side of the figure with the shafts are a solar disk and stars. In other scenes which show this regeneration differently, just the one shaft can be seen coming up and out of a sun disk. I only mention it because it involves the central act of regeneration, something that could have been envisaged back in the OK as occuring in G1 before the theology changed when Osiris came along, though he may have been present anyway, but we don't recognise him. As there is an immense gap between G1 and the late 18th Dynasty and the 19th Dynasty, I don't seriously intend to join dots that won't exist, it's just interesting imagery with those four shafts coming from the point of regeneration, and four shafts, very similarly inclined, coming from out of G1, and I'm here, in this bit of idale thought, envisaging light coming out from the pyramid. Light is also a means of communication by Ra, and explains some of the "weirder" images sometimes seen, the ones that are misused for purposes of woo.

For reference I point to the second shrine of Tutankhamun, side one central register, for the single shaft, and to the tombs of Ramesses VI, section B 2nd register, and Ramesses IX register 2 of scene 18 for the images with the four shafts.

Scene from Ramesses VI as it is the clearest one. The twelve "hour godesses" obviously put this way beyond the OK in time, but another "thing" is that the scene is framed inside a clepsydra, perhaps amplying that all of time is contained within, and we do see the twelve night hours in one space and time.

Tomb of Ramesses V-VI

 

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

Harte said:

Quote

 

I don't get the "air shafts" either, if the king isn't in there.

http://www.gizapyramids.org/pdf_library/sakovich_jarce_42_2005-6.pdf

 

Wepwawet wrote:

Quote

Not read that explanation before, and it is quite interesting, and more plausible than anything else.

It turned up in a previous thread some while back.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Harte said:

I don't get the "air shafts" either, if the king isn't in there.

http://www.gizapyramids.org/pdf_library/sakovich_jarce_42_2005-6.pdf

Harte

 

Why do they have anything to do with the whether the king is there or not? G1 is the only pyramid, or tomb, that had them before or after so I guess all the other pharaohs were screwed the least of which Djedefre and Khafre who would have been part of the G1 construction process. And it just so happens these shafts, the only ones like them, connect to the only chambers of any pyramid that are significantly elevated from ground level. The QC shafts were permanently closed at both ends falling short of the exterior by dozens of feet. The common depictions showing the shafts in a straight line are completely false-they bend turn and zig zag several times over their lengths. Half the shafts, if not all, are blocked by at least one if not multiple doors with copper  "handles".  "Air shafts". "Soul shafts". "Star shafts". All bunk. It is easy to give symbolic meaning to ancient things we do not understand, a common crutch among professionals, but all things considered it is most likely they had no "meaning" at all but merely served a practical function. 

Regardless, your source is gobbledygook and certainly not the answer. Quoting myself from elsewhere regarding Sakovich:

Quote

 

The lynch pin of Sakovich's theory is that the sarcophagus came to symbolize the "primordial mound" which required the "flooding waters" in his scheme represented by the cosmos hence the need for the shafts to "flood" the chamber and the "primordial mound" symbolized by the sarcophagus. This is nonsense. 

1st Dynasty sarcophagi are fragmentary, but in the 2nd Dynasty there are numerous examples which in one form or another are made to emulate the serekh palace facade building:
1st Dynasty Djet (example of serekh, not a sarcophagus):
djet11349803056765.jpg

 

Typical 2nd Dynasty sarcophagi:

1558592660?profile=original

 

 

A meme that continues obviously through the period of construction of the Giza pyramids, the most notable of which the 4th Dynasty itself: 
V07PnUM.jpg


Of which there are also numerous examples. 

In Unas's case, though missing from the sarcophagus itself, the serekh palace is instead painted on the walls of the sarcophagus chamber:
pyra-factslunas3.jpg

[All pictured for various reasons in this thread]
 
So, no, sarcophagi in the OK, if ever, had nothing to do with the "primordial mound" or the "flooding waters", but rather the palace facade building of the serekh that goes back to Dynasty 0, arguably the single most important piece of iconography of Dynastic Egypt for the 1st nearly 1,000yrs. Yet Sakovich doesn't even mention it. Sorry, but this is nonsense. It is imposing later beliefs on an earlier era, assuming they are one and the same, all the while ignoring the actual facts of the period suffering the imposition that clearly say something to the contrary. No one seems to believe me, but I am telling you all the key to understanding Dynastic Egypt leads right to the serekh palace facade building. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

So, no, sarcophagi in the OK, if ever, had nothing to do with the "primordial mound" or the "flooding waters", but rather the palace facade building of the serekh that goes back to Dynasty 0, arguably the single most important piece of iconography of Dynastic Egypt for the 1st nearly 1,000yrs. Yet Sakovich doesn't even mention it. Sorry, but this is nonsense. It is imposing later beliefs on an earlier era, assuming they are one and the same, all the while ignoring the actual facts of the period suffering the imposition that clearly say something to the contrary. No one seems to believe me, but I am telling you all the key to understanding Dynastic Egypt leads right to the serekh palace facade building. 

I also don't doubt the importance of the serekh, but, as stated in an earlier post, being a symbol of the state, rather like SPQR. Though where the serekh differs is that it can be personalised to form part of the king's Horus name, so we have, The living Horus, Nar-Mer, is head of state/king. That use of the serekh is the most important one, the palace facade decoration being simply that, decoration. However, I do see what you are getting at, that when connected to royalty, even with  just the facade we can say, "Here is the king, who is the state", and if there is a tomb without this emblem of the state, then maybe the king is not at home. Is that what you are saying in a nutshell, roughly?

However, apart from the Horus name, which has to have a religious aspect as there is Horus sitting on top of the serekh, I see no religious functionality in the use of the palace facade, though we do in the boats, starting with those boat pits at Abydos and continuing through all of their history, this is why I asked the question about would a cenotaph have boat pits if there were no king buried there as there would be, IMO, no religious functionality in a boat without a king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Why do they have anything to do with the whether the king is there or not? G1 is the only pyramid, or tomb, that had them before or after so I guess all the other pharaohs were screwed the least of which Djedefre and Khafre who would have been part of the G1 construction process.

Which of these kings had a sarcophagus that was above ground level again?

 

19 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

And it just so happens these shafts, the only ones like them, connect to the only chambers of any pyramid that are significantly elevated from ground level. The QC shafts were permanently closed at both ends falling short of the exterior by dozens of feet. The common depictions showing the shafts in a straight line are completely false-they bend turn and zig zag several times over their lengths. Half the shafts, if not all, are blocked by at least one if not multiple doors with copper  "handles".  "Air shafts". "Soul shafts". "Star shafts". All bunk. It is easy to give symbolic meaning to ancient things we do not understand, a common crutch among professionals, but all things considered it is most likely they had no "meaning" at all but merely served a practical function. 

Regardless, your source is gobbledygook and certainly not the answer. Quoting myself from elsewhere regarding Sakovich:

I think you need to read it again.

Quote

The lynch pin of Sakovich's theory is that the sarcophagus came to symbolize the "primordial mound" which required the "flooding waters" in his scheme represented by the cosmos hence the need for the shafts to "flood" the chamber and the "primordial mound" symbolized by the sarcophagus. This is nonsense. 

Typical. Name your own "linch pin" to attack. Please note that even if you eliminate entire the idea of a sarcophagus representing the primeval mound, the theory proposed still has legs. Some linch pin. Do you understand what is meant by "sympathetic magic?"

Quote

No one seems to believe me...

You hit that one right on the head.

Harte

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

On 5/19/2020 at 4:37 AM, Thanos5150 said:

From the quote you are responding to:

As stated this applies to all pyramids before this time, not just those of the 4th Dynasty. Nor, as discussed before the least of which the OP, does this explain how the reliefs were "picked clean" as well. Regardless, again as discussed before these pyramids are accepted as "fact" to have been robbed by the 1st Intermediate Period and/or MK, some suggested within decades of completion. Not to mention, again as said before, tomb robbing was rampant in the 5th/6th Dynasties the least of which the pharaohs stealing from each other, even their immediate predecessors, which continued through the MK as well. But it was not until the NK that several of these later pyramids were further robbed of their outer stone en masse leaving them to fall into such a ruinous state, while others were actually restored.   

So by your parroted logic all of the robbers of the FIP/MK, and NK, only focused on the great pyramids of the 4th Dynasty (we'll forget first half of the 5th) because they were "bigger and better built", i.e. harder to break into, leaving these later inferred "smaller and poorly pyramids", i.e. easier to break into, "untouched" for several centuries if not a thousand years or more until they were in such a ruinous state as to make them exponentially harder to rob. Regardless, this means these robbers were so stupid they just could not help but focus on these "bigger and better built" harder to break into pyramids searching for any scraps left behind until there was nothing left at the expense of completely ignoring these some 2 dozen "untouched" smaller and more easily accessible pyramids. Again, this all despite the fact we know for a fact tomb robbing was rampant during this period through the MK, the least of which the pharaohs stealing from each other including their immediate predecessors. Yeah, but no one touched the "loot" until what-the Romans? The Arabs? Sorry, but this is nonsense. 

What I wrote:
  On 5/18/2020 at 9:22 AM, Djedi said:

There is a very good reason there are no remains of a burial found in the pyramids of the 4th dyn; there were bigger and better built than those of the 5th and sixth dynasty so they attracted more attention throughout history. No wonder they were picked clean. When stripped of their tura-limestone casing the 5th, 6th and MK pyramids became rubble heaps, the 4th dyn pyramids obviously did not because of their better built cores. Still we have indirect evidence for the burial of Menkaure, a coffin from the Saite period (mentioned before in this thread) was found in the pyramid, inscribed with the names of the king. This means the AE from the Saite period still found enough remains of the mummy of Menkaure to warrant a restoration burial. 

So because no remains of burial goods have been found in the early 5th dyn and 4th dyn pyramids, you doubt there ever were? The concept that a tomb could be emptied of it's contence over the course of millenia seems illogical? Especially the royal ones that attracted the most attention? Come on! It's rather surprising there was anything left at all!

Tomb robbing "rampant" in the 5th and 6th dyn? No more than in the 3rd or 4th dyn. Pharaohs robbing tombs of predecessors? Are you aware that in order to legitimize their reign the king had to oversee the burial of his predecessor and install the minimal requirements for a funerary cult if not yet completed? In many cases structures in mud-brick were added in order to make such a cult possible as I am sure you are well aware off. The only nonsense here is yours.

I said the 4th dyn pyramids attracted more attention throughout history, didn't even mention tomb robbers. These pyramids, many of which had an entrance in the north side and were never obstructed by rubble as was the case with many that had an entrance in the floor of the courtyard, have been open for all kinds of visitors since they were robbed. Plenty of time to get picked clean of all contence. The only reason we have remains of grave goods is that the entrance to some pyramids got blocked by rubble over time before all kinds of visitors and explorers cleaned out the remains left behind by tomb robbers.

The tactic of trying to make something that makes perfect sense look illogical is a typical fringe tactic I encountered many times before, Scott Creighton comes to mind. You seem to copy his unfounded claims about tomb decoration and sarcophagi as well.

 
Concerning G2:
On 5/19/2020 at 8:27 AM, Thanos5150 said:

 

Maybe some limited relief decoration in the courtyard. 

What evidence of this?  Source? 

Maybe a false door in back of temple against enclosure wall, not certain.

What evidence of this? Source? 

Causeway probably decorated with reliefs, fragments found nearby.

There was? What were they? Source? 

Relief courtyard see: Lehner p. 125

False door see Lehner p. 125 and Verner p. 231.

Causeway: Verner p. 231 / Relief Decoration in the Royal Funerary complexes of the Old Kingdom p. 100-103 full text here

Strange you ask for sources since I can't immagine you aren't familiar with the works of Lehner and Verner about the pyramids. You should even know the work about Relief Decoration since the link has been provided to you before.

 

On 5/19/2020 at 8:27 AM, Thanos5150 said:

No, this is not what I think as it is clear these complexes served a funerary function but without reliefs it is unlikely to be an actual tomb which a statuary program is complimentary to reliefs not a replacement of. It is absurd to argue the pharaoh is exempt from this and offered for no other reason than the fact it does not regardless of the fact all else, if tombs, tells us there should be. 

No reliefs no tombs? A statuary program cannot be a replacement of reliefs? So you deny the concept the AE could express the same idea through different means? 

About Djedefre introducing columns you wrote:

On 5/19/2020 at 8:27 AM, Thanos5150 said:

This is questionable for several reasons. Quoting Verner:

"In the middle of one of of the spaces in the northeastern part of the structure stood a row of columns. In the courtyard Chassinat even found a fragment of a column with Djedefre's cartouche, a significant and somewhat strange discovery, because-if we set aside the specific case of the columns and half-columns in the Djoser complex-columns do not appear in pyramid complexes until the beginning of the 5th Dynasty". 

As I said before this temple, made of mud brick, is unusual differing significantly from all other OK mortuary temples. Also found there were fragments of a Sphinx and at Abu Roash also the famed Sphinx of "Hetepheres II". Both anomoloous and the only of their kind until the MK which also clearly suggests the Sphinx at Giza predates Khafre. Or does it? There was a significant MK presence at Abu Roash who unlike the OK before were crazy for the Sphinx. What is more likely that Djedefre used columns in a funny mud brick "mortuary temple" unlike any other of the OK, columns otherwise not seen again for nearly 100yrs or that this was added later as part of an MK cult restoration? Or perhaps Chassinat mistook or assumed columns when in fact they were the typical pillars? Out of place mud brick temple, out of place sphinxes, out of place columns.  Regardless, this is related by Chassinat, since repeated by others, which M&R found his description of the architectural features of this temple "confusing and uncertain" which as far as they knew "published nothing about his work". I have yet to find any other confirmation of these columns which may be an assumption on Chassinat's part and the column fragment perhaps not part of a column at all. 

 

And entire columns from the complex were re-used in the nearby convent of Nahiya. Difficult to mistake entire columns for something else... see Relief Decoration in the Royal Funerary complexes of the Old Kingdom p. 97 footnote 389.

Not only do you want to rob Djedefre from introducing columns but also from introducing sphinxes! Hilarious!!! Another one of your weird ploys to revise AE history no doubt.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can get an idea of how successful large easy to see/know about tombs survived is to look at other ancient and classical tombs of royalty. I'm unaware of a single Roman emperor's tomb surviving intact. etc. Some in Japan and China may have and few were found in Mesopotamia and of course one in Egypt and another that was only a little bit looted. King Philips seems to have survived too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

One can get an idea of how successful large easy to see/know about tombs survived is to look at other ancient and classical tombs of royalty. I'm unaware of a single Roman emperor's tomb surviving intact. etc. Some in Japan and China may have and few were found in Mesopotamia and of course one in Egypt and another that was only a little bit looted. King Philips seems to have survived too.

The tomb of Pakal king of Palenque tomb was found intact:

https://www.thoughtco.com/the-sarcophagus-of-pakal-2136165

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I meant to/should have said Mesopotamia & Mesoamerica. Yes a few survived there. I've to Pakal's tomb - most impressive for a Mayan one. Also

https://historydaily.org/mayan-tombs-beneath-pyramid-in-guatemala

 

7a9c485c6cbbddd6f65775073a46adf8.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See N.Korea intact royal tombs of King Muryeong of Baekje region and the Silla Kings, 4th - 6th CE.  The Met has some treasures from them

 

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

6 hours ago, Harte said:

Which of these kings had a sarcophagus that was above ground level again?

Referring to the pyramids and not just "kings", assuming these burial chambers were supposed to have sarcophagi, because all pyramids were built as tombs, right, for a few examples we have

Meidum:

meidump4.jpg

BP:

TheBen1.jpg

RP:

redPyramid.gif

Sahure:

640px-Sahure_Pyramid.png

 

And then you have, say G2 whose burial chamber was partially above ground:

Khafre3.jpg

 

And then others like G3 that were completely below ground:

image002.jpg

 

And...? Yet another of the "lynch pins" of his theory in that the reason he believes the entrance shafts were placed above the burial chamber was to "funnel the cosmic waters" to the "sarcophagus/primeval mound", though not all pharaohs got the memo-among a host of other "missed memos" to make this work. But according to Sakovich, to get around this Khufu built these magical shafts (described in my previous post) to funnel the "cosmic waters" to his primeval mound/sarcophagus instead because the burial chamber was so much higher up than the entrance which the water came in one shaft and out the other "creating a continuous path" thought the chamber. But with many of the other pharaohs with only one "cosmic water passage", I guess their spirits just drowned. Oops.  

 

Quote

I think you need to read it again.

What a maroon. See below **.  

 

Quote

Typical. Name your own "linch pin" to attack. Please note that even if you eliminate entire the idea of a sarcophagus representing the primeval mound, the theory proposed still has legs. Some linch pin. Do you understand what is meant by "sympathetic magic?"

Don't get all butt hurt Harte and make up stupid ad hominem **** just because someone does not agree with you. Made only worse by the fact you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. 

Regardless, ** it is quite clear you did not bother to read this paper yourself, "typical", because the entire theory is based on the erroneous belief that the sarcophagus represented the "primeval mount" which as a result he claims the pyramids were built the way they were, namely G1 and its shafts, to funnel the "cosmic waters" around this very "primeval mound". Gadzooks. There is no "theory" without it -its the whole point.

Do you understand "sympathetic magic"? Obviously not as according to Sakovitch:

"The shafts in Khufu's pyramid are not star shafts, sun shafts, spirit shafts, nor are they ventilation shafts. These shafts serve as one single canal linking the southern end of the Great Waterway, through Khufu's sepulchral chamber [the whole point to inundate the "island of the sarcophagus/primeval mound with cosmic waters"], to the northern end of the same celestial counterpart of the Nile. They were a mandatory part of a rich, deep and complex system of magic and religion. This kind of "sympathetic magic," in which models could serve just as capably as the actual object they were modeling, allowed the king to divert the waters that were essential for his revivification, while still allowing him to move his body upward into the body of the pyramid thus enabling him to be joined with, and in fact become, the god Re himself, in the afterlife."

In which part of this "model", as he speaks of at length-the very premise of the paper, or "lynch pin", is this sarcophagus "primeval mound", which he says:

"The watery Abyss is located both behind the stars, and underground, and it is the Abyss that is the source of all the spiritual waters. It was considered necessary, therefore, for the standard burial chamber to be underground. Since the chamber was located underground, the sarcophagus was by definition deposited within the spiritual waters of the Abyss. In ancient Egyptian symbolic thought, these waters would then serve as the Inundation of the Nile, whose purpose was to give new life to the deceased king".

 

Quote

You hit that one right on the head.

Way to go Harte-chop off half a sentence to misrepresent what someone said so you can out of context dishonestly make a 5th grade quip.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Djedi said:
 
So because no remains of burial goods have been found in the early 5th dyn and 4th dyn pyramids, you doubt there ever were? The concept that a tomb could be emptied of it's contence over the course of millenia seems illogical? Especially the royal ones that attracted the most attention? Come on! It's rather surprising there was anything left at all!

t this point, which we will see further below, you are just not being honest. You know full well as has been repeated many times over that the argument is not just "burial goods" but also reliefs and decoration. For the umpteenth time from the very post you are replying to:

"Nor, as discussed before the least of which the OP, does this explain how the reliefs were "picked clean" as well".

And this is not your argument made in your previous post as you are said the reason why the later examples still had goods was because of the state in which they were found in which people though to first rob them but now that that's dead sure enough you abandon that logic and pretend it never happened. "Come on!" Pfft. 

 

Quote

Tomb robbing "rampant" in the 5th and 6th dyn? No more than in the 3rd or 4th dyn. Pharaohs robbing tombs of predecessors? Are you aware that in order to legitimize their reign the king had to oversee the burial of his predecessor and install the minimal requirements for a funerary cult if not yet completed? In many cases structures in mud-brick were added in order to make such a cult possible as I am sure you are well aware off. The only nonsense here is yours.

But your whole argument before was: 

Quote

There is a very good reason there are no remains of a burial found in the pyramids of the 4th dyn; there were bigger and better built than those of the 5th and sixth dynasty so they attracted more attention throughout history. No wonder they were picked clean. When stripped of their tura-limestone casing the 5th, 6th and MK pyramids became rubble heaps, the 4th dyn pyramids obviously did not because of their better built cores. Still we have indirect evidence for the burial of Menkaure, a coffin from the Saite period (mentioned before in this thread) was found in the pyramid, inscribed with the names of the king. This means the AE from the Saite period still found enough remains of the mummy of Menkaure to warrant a restoration burial. 

But now you accept tomb robbing was rampant, even in the 3rd and 4th Dynasties, as it was in the 1st and 2nd, yet somehow this excludes the pyramids of the mid 5th-6th Dynasties? So when you want it to be rampant its rampant, but when you don't its not. Make up your mind man.  

And I am sure you know full well how the some pharaohs of the 5th and 6th Dynasties robbed from the complexes of their predecessors. 

So the mud brick structure at Abu Roash was added later you say? Hmm. Is that not what I said? Though this is not suggested by Egyptologists.  

Quote

I said the 4th dyn pyramids attracted more attention throughout history, didn't even mention tomb robbers.

What you said:

"There is a very good reason there are no remains of a burial found in the pyramids of the 4th dyn; there were bigger and better built than those of the 5th and sixth dynasty so they attracted more attention throughout history. No wonder they were picked clean". 

So if you were not referring to "robbers" then who pray tell "picked them clean"? Whoever these mystical non robbers were-was this their stuff then? Or did they take things that did not belong to them? I wonder if there is a name for such types of people. And it was these "non-robbers" who were not able to get to the later pyramids as you suggest because they fell into ruin which is why they still have stuff? So no robbers there either? No, sorry-the "nonsense" is again not mine. 

Quote

These pyramids, many of which had an entrance in the north side and were never obstructed by rubble as was the case with many that had an entrance in the floor of the courtyard, have been open for all kinds of visitors since they were robbed. Plenty of time to get picked clean of all contence. The only reason we have remains of grave goods is that the entrance to some pyramids got blocked by rubble over time before all kinds of visitors and explorers cleaned out the remains left behind by tomb robbers.

So now you are talking about robbers that picked these clean but before you were not talking about robbers that picked them clean? I don't know whether to **** or go blind with you. So now its because the entrances were either on the north side and for some reason never obstructed by rubble and/or had an entrance in the courtyard so this is why they were robbed by non-robbers first. What about Sahure:

600px-Sahure_Pyramid.png

Yeah, can't imagine rubble piling up there. 

Or how about Userkaf:

300px-Saqqarah_Ouserkaf_06.jpg

pyramid-of-userkaf-saqqara-memphis-dahsh

Where the entrance actually sits below ground. And these are inferior "rubble pyramids" too. 

Quote

The tactic of trying to make something that makes perfect sense look illogical is a typical fringe tactic I encountered many times before, Scott Creighton comes to mind. You seem to copy his unfounded claims about tomb decoration and sarcophagi as well.

You are the one making it look "illogical" all by yourself friend. Oh, and now I'm "fringe" is it? You know full well I am not "copying" jack **** from Creighton and the only reason you say that is to somehow try and discredit me by making an unwarranted negative association because you are stumbling all over yourself You are losing it and when you can't back up your own words you now resort to ad hominems and false associations. A typical d-bag tactic. See Harte. 

Quote

 

Concerning G2:

Relief courtyard see: Lehner p. 125

 

There is no evidence for this "maybe" its just a "maybe" because they think there should be something there but isn't. Funny how you argue these things should not be there but Egyptologists themselves expect there to be. 

Quote

False door see Lehner p. 125 and Verner p. 231.

Again-no actual evidence-just conjecture based on what is expected to be there but is not. Lehner: "At the very back of the temple, against the pyramid itself, was the inner sanctuary, probably with a false floor niche". 

Quote

Causeway: Verner p. 231 / Relief Decoration in the Royal Funerary complexes of the Old Kingdom p. 100-103 full text here

Again, Verner p231/The Pyramids: " The valley and mortuary temples were connected by a causeway that ascended about forty-six meters, and of which only ruins remain. It is thought that is was a covered corridor built of limestone, whose interior was perhaps decorated with reliefs and which was outlined with pink granite blocks".  They "presume" this not because of actual evidence but again because this is their expectation of what should be there but isn't. 

Quote

Strange you ask for sources since I can't immagine you aren't familiar with the works of Lehner and Verner about the pyramids. You should even know the work about Relief Decoration since the link has been provided to you before.

You are right and as we can see it is not "strange" at all, but me calling your bluff. You repeatedly present these statements as "fact" when in reality they are not. And the most messed up thing is I think you know it but you do it anyways. Regardless, predisposed readers believe what you say despite being none the wiser of their context which you make no effort to give them the tools to verify what you are saying is actually true or not. Here you offer a list of "factoids" that on the surface seem to contradcits what I aam saying but the fact it it is all pure conjecture based on what should be there that isn't, my argument ironically, and in the case of the VT inscriptions, which we note you do not mention, jut false.   

Quote

No reliefs no tombs? A statuary program cannot be a replacement of reliefs? So you deny the concept the AE could express the same idea through different means? 

Since when is the mortuary temple a tomb? You you even know what you are talking about anymore? 

Quote

 

About Djedefre introducing columns you wrote:

And entire columns from the complex were re-used in the nearby convent of Nahiya. Difficult to mistake entire columns for something else... see Relief Decoration in the Royal Funerary complexes of the Old Kingdom p. 97 footnote 389.

Not only do you want to rob Djedefre from introducing columns but also from introducing sphinxes! Hilarious!!! Another one of your weird ploys to revise AE history no doubt.

 

Once again you repeat this as "fact". Edwards reports that: "...other granite columns seem to have been carried off and used in the Coptic convent of Nahiya to the north of Abu Rawash".  And who is he getting this from-Chassinat parhaps?  Edwards continues: "It would appear from the description that these round granite shafts imply that something like the palm columns used in the temples of the Fifth Dynasty was anticipated at Abu Rawash". Let me quote Verner again:

"In the middle of one of of the spaces in the northeastern part of the structure stood a row of columns. In the courtyard Chassinat even found a fragment of a column with Djedefre's cartouche, a significant and somewhat strange discovery, because-if we set aside the specific case of the columns and half-columns in the Djoser complex-columns do not appear in pyramid complexes until the beginning of the 5th Dynasty". 

And here you are now repeating as fact:  "And entire columns from the complex were re-used in the nearby convent of Nahiya." Let's go to your source shall we:

Relief Decoration in the Royal Funerary complexes of the Old Kingdom p. 97 footnote 389.

"389 Chassinat, Mon. Piot. 25 (1921-22), p.55. The columns were re-used in the nearby convent of Nahiya. At least one of them bears traces of Djedefra’s titulary".

So you repeat Cwiek as "fact" which like Verner and everyone else he is citing Chassinat (probably from another source and not Chassinat directly), the only first hand source of this information, which Edwards is the only one with sense enough to be cautious and say that it "seems" these columns came from Abu Rawash and that "it would appear from the description" they are "something like" the palm columns of the 5th Dynasty.  

And by the way, it would appear Cwiek got it wrong in that this "titualry" was from a fragment found in the courtyard as Verner mentions and not on the overly optimistic "at least" one of the columns at the convent. If one reads enough books and papers on Egyptolgoy you will see that the overwhelming majority of what is written is just repeating the same sources over and over again to form whatever narrative the author wishes to make. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Entrances at higher levels than the burial chambers. Unlike some on these pages, the Egyptians understood that water flows downhill.

Harte

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Harte said:

Entrances at higher levels than the burial chambers. Unlike some on these pages, the Egyptians understood that water flows downhill.

Harte

Who knows what imaginary water can do;

1078c. the steps of Nun are open,

1078d. the steps of light are revealed

The waters of the abyss can arrange themselves in steps of light apparently.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Hanslune said:

One can get an idea of how successful large easy to see/know about tombs survived is to look at other ancient and classical tombs of royalty. I'm unaware of a single Roman emperor's tomb surviving intact. etc. Some in Japan and China may have and few were found in Mesopotamia and of course one in Egypt and another that was only a little bit looted. King Philips seems to have survived too.

Royal Cemetery at Ur

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Yes the dreadful death pit always remained in my memory after reading about it in one of first archaeology classes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Cemetery_at_Ur#Tomb_1237:_"the_Great_Death_Pit"

 

Edited by Hanslune
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/19/2020 at 2:11 PM, Wepwawet said:

I also don't doubt the importance of the serekh, but, as stated in an earlier post, being a symbol of the state, rather like SPQR. Though where the serekh differs is that it can be personalised to form part of the king's Horus name, so we have, The living Horus, Nar-Mer, is head of state/king. That use of the serekh is the most important one, the palace facade decoration being simply that, decoration. However, I do see what you are getting at, that when connected to royalty, even with  just the facade we can say, "Here is the king, who is the state", and if there is a tomb without this emblem of the state, then maybe the king is not at home. Is that what you are saying in a nutshell, roughly?

 

I do not believe it was just "decoration", but as I have said and shown many times is representative of a specific building. To be clear there is the serekh, the royal enclosure, but then the "serekh building" inside of it. Above that there is the "name" of the king which standing on the serekh is Horus. 

4492.jpg?v=1485681701

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTF_bPBPeO7BsHEuhVN_Ga

150px-Raneb-Stela_MetropolitanMuseum.png

 

As it relates to funerary architecture I am saying that this building is not one and the same as kingship, or a symbol of the state, and a representation of that specific building which for some reason they equated with being the "way station" between the land of the living and that of the dead in which the king was its "steward", if that's the right word. "I am king of the living and lord of the gateway to the underworld".  

 

Quote

However, apart from the Horus name, which has to have a religious aspect as there is Horus sitting on top of the serekh, I see no religious functionality in the use of the palace facade, though we do in the boats, starting with those boat pits at Abydos and continuing through all of their history, this is why I asked the question about would a cenotaph have boat pits if there were no king buried there as there would be, IMO, no religious functionality in a boat without a king.

In the 1st Dynasty why do you assume Horus sitting atop the serekh served a "religious" aspect and not a political one? Horus represented the north and Set the south. As much as one wants to impose later cultural religious memes of Horus onto these earlier times there is no reason at that time it had anything to do with religion but was rather iconographic of an ideological political state. Look at the many standards of the nomes who had their own iconography like this little fellow you might recognize:

4DM2_h9FDm5He8UrTXIRXmgFYmGB8tDtosiam18D 

e94c721261e2c20c3ae935f7e9ebd22b97b923aa

This is not to say there was no "religious" component to it but these are more so in these applications iconographic "figure heads" of political states namely representative of land ownership/rule. 

As far as the religious significance of the palace facade it seems clear that it existed as nothing was more paramount in their funerary decoration which though its doors was the threshold to the land of the dead.  

The boats go hand in hand with the serekh building. They are seen in the first Dynasty not around the tombs at Umm el-Qa'ab, but the massive palace facade enclosures at Shunet ez-Zebib and are found there as a fleet. There were also boat burials in the 1st Dynasty for individuals found at the Saqqara palace facade tombs, Helwan (if next to palace facade I do not think was ever published), and near the palace facade mastabas at Abu Roash.  Again, it is tempting to impose later beliefs on this early Dynastic Period, but the fact is that if these later beliefs had any relation we do not know. Though they may have had something to do with a journey in the afterlife, personally, I do not think it meant the same thing then as it did to later Dynasties. 

As boats being there if cenotaphs, if ultimately at this time they are for the kings journey in the afterlife, and if the pyramids were cenotaphs for the kings KA, then which would need the boat more-the body or the spirit? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hanslune said:

Yes the dreadful death pit always remained in my memory after reading about it in one of first archaeology classes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Cemetery_at_Ur#Tomb_1237:_"the_Great_Death_Pit"

 

Good times. One of my favorite all-time tombs is that of a boy at Ur buried with his arms folded around his dog placed on his chest with the dog's play bone placed in its mouth. Eternity with my dog. I hope I am so lucky. 

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Djedi said:
 

Not only do you want to rob Djedefre from introducing columns but also from introducing sphinxes! Hilarious!!! Another one of your weird ploys to revise AE history no doubt.

I forgot this turd. Yeah, me and my "weird ploys". What a douche.  I want to "rob" Djedefre of his accomplishments? Pfft. I smell Godwin's law approaching. 

Did Djedefre introduce (presumably) stone 5th Dynasty style columns in the mid 4th Dynasty not to be seen again for nearly 100yrs? Columns that Chassint is the only one that can seem to account for their existence?   

Did Djedefre introduce the Sphinx which was otherwise unknown in Egypt until the MK some 500yrs later, which as noted had a significant presence at Abu Roash as well, which the Sphinx didn't even get a name until the 18th Dynasty?  But by all means-can you please show us one OK depiction or statue of the Sphinx at Giza dated to the OK? Or how about funerary dedications in any Giza or OK tomb that refer to the Sphinx? No? 

Here's some more "weird ploy's for you: Anubis-Lord of the Giza Necropolis.  

Watch Djedi's head explode in 3...2...1...

But let's say Djedefre did "introduce" the Sphinx-do you agree with Dobrev then that Djedfre and not Khafre carved the Sphinx? Or what about Stadelmann who says it was Khufu? If so, it make sense then to you his son would have a few references to it, right? Granted, no one else did for the next 500yrs but that's besides the point. Dobrev, Stadelmann-more of those "fringe" kooks I keep referring to.  

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
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

    • Nonspiracy