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

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

Well, if you think temples weren't for standing on then I guess that's it then.

Well, if you think that then I guess that's it then.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/29/2020 at 11:51 AM, Thanos5150 said:

Depictions of bulls are common in Mesopotamia from at least the 5th millennium onward, namely beginning with the Halaf Culture which by the 3rd millennium worship of the bull was ubiquitous. In one form or another the bull was venerated by numerous ancient cultures since Neolithic times if not well before. The Catalhoyuk culture of Anatolia c.7100-5600BC was particularly obsessed with the bull:

dcd611f11b77be68d3c44413d7e56cc6142814e3  

Screenshot_10.jpg

Again, the palace facade mastabas 1st Dynasty Saqqara:

saqqaratomb3504.jpg

At Uruk, in the late Uruk period, preceding and contemporary with the formation of the Egyptian Dynastic state there are numerous depictions of bulls found and again as noted during this period a common motif in Elam was affixes bull horns to buildings.  

The Pyramid Texts repeatedly refer to Unas as the "Bull of the Sky (heaven)" which the "Bull of Heaven" is also a common theme across several Mesopotamian cultures during the 3rd millennium as well.  

While the bull had many meanings to various cultures, one of the most pervasive and oldest seems to be an astronomical one which the bull was associated with the constellation Taurus.  Bat and Hathor among other things are also "sky goddesses". 

Regardless, I have no vested interest in the "meaning" of these bulls or whether they are male or female with my focus being the origins and impact of cultural diffusion from Mesopotamia and the Levant, though it goes without saying these are most commonly referred to as "bulls".  If you have something to say on the matter and have a theory to present then start a thread about it. 

Another Naqada III palette to add to the mix is the Bull Palette:

768px-Palette_with_Bull-E_11255-IMG_9459

As an aside, we can also see in the lower left a fortified city wall done in the buttressed palace facade style which is not only seen on the Narmer palette:

2898507185049ecdea9a96529e0ab3d8.jpg

But others as well like the Libyan Palette which shows several walled cities:

640px-Libyan_Palette_back_cropped.jpg

A lot to think about with this one. Whether or not these cities had actual palace facade walls surrounding them is unknown and no evidence of such has been found yet, but it is interesting that regardless the palace facade wall was at least the symbol for "city" which given some Mesopotamian cities at this time did have such walls, not to mention several large cities,  it would appear again this is yet another concept belonging to the Mesopotamian influence of the period. 

As far as fighting going on during this period, not necessarily with themselves but also foreigners, other Naqada III palettes depict such scenes, like the Battlefield Palette:

452px-British_Museum_Egypt_029.jpg  

They were definitely fighting a lot with someone. 

I'm sure you saw this, males and females...

https://www.persee.fr/doc/paleo_0153-9345_2009_num_35_2_5296

And according to this paper, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4626031/   ,

 "...most Egyptian mtDNAs are probably direct local derivatives from the founder domestic herds which first arrived from the Near East and the extent of gene flow from and towards the Nile Delta region was limited after the initial founding event(s)..." 

Wouldn't this suggest a distinct LACK of cattle trade with regions outside the Nile after a small influx of cattle 8-10 k years ago ? If they weren't trading cattle how influenced could they have been by Mesopotamia,  etc...?

 

As for the palace facade....

 

Are these the oldest representations of the serekh building in Egypt ...

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/chronology/kingaha.html

...and this at Wadi Ameyra showing the serekh as the cabin on  the Royal Barge...?

https://www.livescience.com/53405-wadi-ameyra-photos.html

 

If so, wouldn't this suggest the Palace Facade style derives from the design of the Pharoahs boat cabin ? 

Similar to Khufu's solar boat...

 

 

 

Edited by M. Williams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Well, if you think that then I guess that's it then.

 

And if you think I think that then I guess then that's it then? Great Scott-where does it end? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, M. Williams said:

Wouldn't this suggest a distinct LACK of cattle trade with regions outside the Nile after a small influx of cattle 8-10 k years ago ? If they weren't trading cattle how influenced could they have been by Mesopotamia,  etc...?

 

Its not about the importation or "trading" of actual cattle, but the later shared iconography. Like what is seen throughout the greater Mediterranean for thousands of years.... 

 

Quote

 

As for the palace facade....

Are these the oldest representations of the serekh building in Egypt ...

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/chronology/

...and this at Wadi Ameyra showing the serekh as the cabin on  the Royal Barge...?

https://www.livescience.com/53405-wadi-ameyra-photos.html

If so, wouldn't this suggest the Palace Facade style derives from the design of the Pharoahs boat cabin ? 

Similar to Khufu's solar boat...

 

There are numerous depictions of the serekh building from Dynasty 0: HERE. MORE.

Not sure what you are looking at, but the depictions at Wadi Amerya do not show the palace facade having anything to do with boat cabins. And the boat cabin of Khufu certainly has no relation to palace facade. Regardless, apparently you are ignoring much of what I have said, but the palace facade motif was pervasive during and for thousands of years prior to this time which mud brick examples in the Ubaid culture dating back to the 6th millennium. Late Ubaid Period (5th millennium) temple at Eridu:

440px-Eridu_temple_7.png

A History of Ancient Egypt, Romer p191-195 (Uruk in Egypt):

Quote

Though engravings on Uruk seals [found in Egypt] before the building of these mud-brick tombs [palace facade mastabas] hold clear images of Mesopotamian temples with serekh-like patternings, it seems unlikely that such tiny images alone would have prompted the introduction of full-blown decorative mud-brick architecture into the Valley of the Nile. It is more likely that the sudden appearance of this powerful and idiosyncratic design was a consequence of the so-called "second wave" of Uruk expansion.

Early Dynastic Egypt, Wilkinson p224-225:

Quote

There is little doubt about the foreign origins of the palace-facade style....The similarity between Mesopotamian and Egyptian mudbrick architecture is so close as to make their independent development highly unlikely.

Egypt and Syro-Mesopotamia in the 4th Millennium: Implications of the New Chronology:
 

Quote

 

The direct origins of niched brickwork are found in the `Ubaid period in structures such as the Eridu "temples" (Safar, Mustafa, and Lloyd 1981). The style continues to be used for monumental structures into the Uruk period, the best-known being at Warka, and on a larger scale the insets and offsets of the fortification wall of Habuba Kabira may be regarded as a variant (Strommenger 1979: fig. 1) (fig. 2). Niched brickwork also appears on Uruk-period seals, especially in processional motifs (Smith 1992). In Syria the technique is imitated on the exterior of a public building at Hamman et-Turkman, a local Late Chalcolithic site and not an Uruk settlement (Algaze 1993a:100-101).....

The evolution of complex societies can no longer be studied in isolation but must be approached in an integrated fashion.(9) The relationship between Uruk Mesopotamia and late predynastic and Early Dynastic Egypt was lengthy, complex, and almost completely one-sided. Critical symbols and technologies were transmitted at times when first incipient and then developed Egyptian elites could adapt and apply them effectively.

 

Mesopotamian seal impression, Tell Billa in Northern Mesopotamia which the cylinder is dated to the late Uruk Period c. 3,400-3,100BC.

76952f7763bb306b3097db669886ed03.jpg

It depicts a Mesopotamian style ship coming into port where the prominent feature is a Mesopotamian palace facade building. Though this was found in northern Mesopotamia, there is a similar seal that was found at Uruk which is more likely where this scene is depicting. Tell Billa has no port or evidence of large buildings. Uruk was the largest urban center of the period which was situated at a major river artery. If not Uruk then possibly Ur which at the time was a sea port. Both cities it should be noted date to the Ubaid period before the arrival of the Sumerians. Regardless, while obviously not a direct representation of what is seen in Egypt, they both are in the palace facade style and both share a very unique iconography-the tied lotus flowers ("stick figure" looking objects at top 1/3 of building). This same exact iconography is found in the serekh building:

4492.jpg?v=1485681701

LARGE  

See 4th Dynasty sarcophagi: Example.

This is something so specific as to make independent invention impossible not to mention it sits on top of what are clearly Mesopotamian buildings.  

Bottom left, Uruk (Warka) White Temple Naqada II-Naqada III period (others pics of Tepe Gawra temple, same period):

Temple+on+top+of+ziggurat+at+Warka.jpg

Uruk Anu ziggurat with palace facade exterior and palace facade White Temple:

templo-blanco-de-uruk-500x291.jpg

09ed4ccc01a781f0e6ff973abb460c15.jpg

Founded c.5000BC by the Ubaid, by 2900BC Uruk had a population between 50,000-80,000 people. By this time as well a wall over 5.6 mile long and 40-50ft high (the Great Wall of Uruk) surrounded the city. There is no doubt that during the Egyptian Predynastic period Uruk as the greatest city on Earth-an absolute marvel, and was but one of several large Mesopotamian cities with histories dating back to the Ubaid. To suggest an independent invention of something like the palace facade, otherwise so clearly Mesopotamian existing continuously for over 2,000yrs before, among a host of other Mesopotamian influence in Egypt of the same period, is absolutely absurd. 

 

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

And if you think I think that then I guess then that's it then? Great Scott-where does it end? 

You have to cut the Gordian knot.

Harte

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

3 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Its not about the importation or "trading" of actual cattle, but the later shared iconography. Like what is seen throughout the greater Mediterranean for thousands of years.... 

 

There are numerous depictions of the serekh building from Dynasty 0: HERE. MORE.

Not sure what you are looking at, but the depictions at Wadi Amerya do not show the palace facade having anything to do with boat cabins. And the boat cabin of Khufu certainly has no relation to palace facade. Regardless, apparently you are ignoring much of what I have said, but the palace facade motif was pervasive during and for thousands of years prior to this time which mud brick examples in the Ubaid culture dating back to the 6th millennium. Late Ubaid Period (5th millennium) temple at Eridu:

440px-Eridu_temple_7.png

A History of Ancient Egypt, Romer p191-195 (Uruk in Egypt):

Early Dynastic Egypt, Wilkinson p224-225:

Egypt and Syro-Mesopotamia in the 4th Millennium: Implications of the New Chronology:
 

Mesopotamian seal impression, Tell Billa in Northern Mesopotamia which the cylinder is dated to the late Uruk Period c. 3,400-3,100BC.

76952f7763bb306b3097db669886ed03.jpg

It depicts a Mesopotamian style ship coming into port where the prominent feature is a Mesopotamian palace facade building. Though this was found in northern Mesopotamia, there is a similar seal that was found at Uruk which is more likely where this scene is depicting. Tell Billa has no port or evidence of large buildings. Uruk was the largest urban center of the period which was situated at a major river artery. If not Uruk then possibly Ur which at the time was a sea port. Both cities it should be noted date to the Ubaid period before the arrival of the Sumerians. Regardless, while obviously not a direct representation of what is seen in Egypt, they both are in the palace facade style and both share a very unique iconography-the tied lotus flowers ("stick figure" looking objects at top 1/3 of building). This same exact iconography is found in the serekh building:

4492.jpg?v=1485681701

LARGE  

See 4th Dynasty sarcophagi: Example.

This is something so specific as to make independent invention impossible not to mention it sits on top of what are clearly Mesopotamian buildings.  

Bottom left, Uruk (Warka) White Temple Naqada II-Naqada III period (others pics of Tepe Gawra temple, same period):

Temple+on+top+of+ziggurat+at+Warka.jpg

Uruk Anu ziggurat with palace facade exterior and palace facade White Temple:

templo-blanco-de-uruk-500x291.jpg

09ed4ccc01a781f0e6ff973abb460c15.jpg

Founded c.5000BC by the Ubaid, by 2900BC Uruk had a population between 50,000-80,000 people. By this time as well a wall over 5.6 mile long and 40-50ft high (the Great Wall of Uruk) surrounded the city. There is no doubt that during the Egyptian Predynastic period Uruk as the greatest city on Earth-an absolute marvel, and was but one of several large Mesopotamian cities with histories dating back to the Ubaid. To suggest an independent invention of something like the palace facade, otherwise so clearly Mesopotamian existing continuously for over 2,000yrs before, among a host of other Mesopotamian influence in Egypt of the same period, is absolutely absurd. 

 

   

The point with the cattle genetics is to point out the extent of trade was not that vast. 

As for the facade, I can explain away everything except the tied lotus flower bundles. You're  right, that is totally unique. I can't think of any explanation for that other than direct influence between the two cultures . Perhaps flooding and farmers removing mud brick buildings for fertilizer in the Nile Valley destroyed earlier egyptian buildings with the same facade style ? Thats very interesting. 

 

But the question here isn't whether Mesopotamia influenced Egypt. Thats accepted as fact in Egyptology. The question is what the building in the serekh represents, at least for me. So while it very well may have design elements on it (lotus bundles) inspired from Mesopotamia, its overall design is based on the cabin of Pharoah's boat and the kings that preceded him in the century before . To me none of the Dynasty 0 Serekh shown resemble a city or anything of the sort , they look like the boat cabin to me.

This iconography continues through the ages, in this case its here minus the palace facade but retaining the snake and boat imagery,

9459277788_15f9db3f66.jpg.8c5cf188723dbcdc3616b559204d7856.jpg

(The Wadi Amerya carving with the serehk cabin is in the article a few pics down left handside. They censor quick here)

The serekh structure  could be mimicked on the Khufu solar boat by the application of reed mats over the boats cabin as suggested by lehner. If this is the case it lends credence to the Kings chamber being sheathed with a wood shell as well. In both these scenarios the coverings could mimick the look of the  serekh without any building being involved.  

My question is what evidence is there that the original structure in the serekh was a building on land in Egypt or all the way from Mesopotamia?

 

Edited by M. Williams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, M. Williams said:

The point with the cattle genetics is to point out the extent of trade was not that vast. 

What you do not realize is that this was all by way Mesopotamian outposts in Syria through the Levant of which trade with the latter was significant lasting throughout the Dynastic Period.  These cattle came to the Levant first and then to Egypt. The interaction with Mesopotamians, direct or indirect, was finite limited to the two phases of the Uruk expansion in the Naqada II and III periods and not the result of direct trade between Mesopotamia proper and Egypt.    

Quote

As for the facade, I can explain away everything except the tied lotus flower bundles. You're  right, that is totally unique. I can't think of any explanation for that other than direct influence between the two cultures . Perhaps flooding and farmers removing mud brick buildings for fertilizer in the Nile Valley destroyed earlier egyptian buildings with the same facade style ? Thats very interesting. 

You cannot explain it away. To do so is being pedantic for no other reason than to argue a point there is otherwise no point in arguing. On the one hand you say: "But the question here isn't whether Mesopotamia influenced Egypt. Thats accepted as fact in Egyptology." yet in the same breath try and argue palace facade, uniquely and unquestionably originating in Mesopotamian, came from Egypt. Makes no sense. 

Quote

But the question here isn't whether Mesopotamia influenced Egypt. Thats accepted as fact in Egyptology.

As is the Mesopotamian origin of palace facade. 

Quote

The question is what the building in the serekh represents, at least for me. 

It is a very interesting question I have spent years trying to find the answer. 

[snip]

If you are interested in the subject I recommend reading anything by Wilkinson as a start. 

Quote

My question is what evidence is there that the original structure in the serekh was a building on land in Egypt or all the way from Mesopotamia?

None either which way. The serekh building in Egypt appears with the serekh before any evidence of monumental structures that utilized palace facade which the closest to it found after the fact the palace facade mastabas of the 1st Dynasty and the non-funerary use at Hierakonpolis which the latter as said before had a history of Mesopotamian influence dating back to Naqada II and the fist wave of the Uruk expansion. My personal belief is that it was a building built in Egypt, perhaps an homage to the White Temple at Uruk, constructed by the Dynasty 0 "Thinite Confederacy" rulers in the now lost 1st capital of Thinis under the administration of a small group Mesopotamians that migrated to Egypt from Syria instead of going home after the collapse of the 2nd Uruk expansion. 

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

5 hours ago, M. Williams said:

 

But the question here isn't whether Mesopotamia influenced Egypt. Thats accepted as fact in Egyptology. The question is what the building in the serekh represents, at least for me. So while it very well may have design elements on it (lotus bundles) inspired from Mesopotamia, its overall design is based on the cabin of Pharoah's boat and the kings that preceded him in the century before . To me none of the Dynasty 0 Serekh shown resemble a city or anything of the sort , they look like the boat cabin to me.

This iconography continues through the ages, in this case its here minus the palace facade but retaining the snake and boat imagery,

9459277788_15f9db3f66.jpg.8c5cf188723dbcdc3616b559204d7856.jpg

(The Wadi Amerya carving with the serehk cabin is in the article a few pics down left handside. They censor quick here)

The serekh structure  could be mimicked on the Khufu solar boat by the application of reed mats over the boats cabin as suggested by lehner. If this is the case it lends credence to the Kings chamber being sheathed with a wood shell as well. In both these scenarios the coverings could mimick the look of the  serekh without any building being involved.  

My question is what evidence is there that the original structure in the serekh was a building on land in Egypt or all the way from Mesopotamia?

 

The oars around the shrines in the burial chamber of KV62, to me, clearly indicate that while a boat, or even the shape of a boat, is not present, a boat is meant to be there, and the shrines, sarcophagus and nest of coffins are on this "virtual boat". As the overiding iconography, in no matter which "book" is used, is that of the ba of Ra, and by implication the ba of the king, constantly being in a shrine while in the Duat, with some exceptions, then the mummy of the king is to be seen as being within a shrine on a boat for eternity.

A question would be if the cabin on Khufu's boat can be seen as a cabin or a shrine. It does not look like a shrine and is too big, though that is in comparison to later examples, for instance it looks nothing like the shrine on the barque at Edfu, or any of the shrines, those not around the sarcophagus, in KV62. However, a normal shrine, including the one that surrounds the ba of Ra, is meant to hold a standing figure, while the shrines around the sarcophagus, and on Khufu's boat, if a shrine, hold a laying figure. Later illustrations of funeral processions do show the coffins in a shrine with the characteristic curved roof that indicates a shrine and not just a canopy or cabin. But then when did that roof shape come into use, seems later than the OK to me.

This post goes with me stating earlier that if we have a pyramid with a boat or boats, then it's likely we have a king as I don't think they were into "virtual boats" in the 4th Dynasty, but with only KV62 to go by with it's oars in the burial chamber [were the remains of oars found at Tanis?], this is a bit of a grey area.

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

12 hours ago, M. Williams said:

So while it very well may have design elements on it (lotus bundles) inspired from Mesopotamia, its overall design is based on the cabin of Pharoah's boat and the kings that preceded him in the century before . To me none of the Dynasty 0 Serekh shown resemble a city or anything of the sort , they look like the boat cabin to me.

This iconography continues through the ages, in this case its here minus the palace facade but retaining the snake and boat imagery,

9459277788_15f9db3f66.jpg.8c5cf188723dbcdc3616b559204d7856.jpg

(The Wadi Amerya carving with the serehk cabin is in the article a few pics down left handside. They censor quick here)

The serekh structure  could be mimicked on the Khufu solar boat by the application of reed mats over the boats cabin as suggested by lehner. If this is the case it lends credence to the Kings chamber being sheathed with a wood shell as well. In both these scenarios the coverings could mimick the look of the  serekh without any building being involved.  

I found the inscription you are referring to (Unusual Narmer serekh from Wadi Ameyra):

Tallet%2520pl25%2520bottom_50.jpg?-db=Th

Tallet2015p66fig42.jpg?-db=TheNarmerCata

The problem with this is that it is the only one of its kind (with Doc 305 perhaps) and in this context is among a fleet of boats which other examples clearly show these boats with standard cabins. Are we to invent a whole new meaning and origin of the serekh based on one unusual rock inscription with nothing else to support it? Or maybe this is just this inscribers unique way of noting in this message that this ship belonged to the king. If the serekh had something to do with boats we would expect to find several examples if not being a common theme which would have lasted through the OK and beyond as they still used the serekh. Compare contemporary examples found at Nag el-Hamdulab:

10-eea6c150c1.jpg

 Another scene with a fleet of boats this time with the king himself pictured and yet no "serekh boat". As interesting as the implication would be if the serekh enclosure represented a cabin of a boat with an otherwise foreign building inside, other than this one odd serkeh there is nothing to support it if only the opposite.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

\A question would be if the cabin on Khufu's boat can be seen as a cabin or a shrine. It does not look like a shrine and is too big, though that is in comparison to later examples, for instance it looks nothing like the shrine on the barque at Edfu, or any of the shrines, those not around the sarcophagus, in KV62. However, a normal shrine, including the one that surrounds the ba of Ra, is meant to hold a standing figure, while the shrines around the sarcophagus, and on Khufu's boat, if a shrine, hold a laying figure. Later illustrations of funeral processions do show the coffins in a shrine with the characteristic curved roof that indicates a shrine and not just a canopy or cabin. But then when did that roof shape come into use, seems later than the OK to me.

Having seen it in person, I think it looks like a transport ship.  The naos (shrine) would be inside the cabin of the barque.

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

2 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Having seen it in person, I think it looks like a transport ship.  The naos (shrine) would be inside the cabin of the barque.

Yes, it's far to big to be the actual shrine, and it's devoid of any spells or any decoration. Looking at later funeral processions the transport for the king's mummy is comparatively simple when what ever it is being transported on is removed, just the wrapped mummy with mask, not in a coffin at this stage before the opening of the mouth ceremony, and a single shrine. It's difficult to tell if the mummy would be out of sight within the shrine, or the shrine was suspended above the mummy. I suspect though that they are giving us a "cutaway drawing" to show that the mummy is within the shrine, so mummy and shrine would be quite a small affair, though with a lot of mummery and general hoo haa surrounding it, and all conjecture for the 4th Dynasty. The causeways being covered make me think that there was a requirment for concealment of the king's mummy on it's journey to the pyramid, and the structure on the boat would certainly give concealment, if it's purpose was to hold the king's remains.

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

  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/30/2020 at 2:43 PM, Thanos5150 said:

And if you think I think that then I guess then that's it then? Great Scott-where does it end? 

Where does it end? Unknown you're the guy who started it...lol

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 5/27/2020 at 7:21 AM, Kenemet said:

Bull bones were found in the sarcophagus in G2... not an original burial and not in any other pyramid.  More likely someone's picnic.

I also always assumed these bones were intrusive but in a number of high elite 4th dyn burials "cattle bones" sometimes reffered to as "ox bones" have been found.

Some examples:

at Medum: Mastaba M17

at Giza: cattle bones in a niche in Hetepheres' I tomb / cattle bones in tomb of Ankh-haf

Maybe it's not such a far stretch to assume that royal burials also may have contained such bones and given the king's association with the bull, it may well have been bull bones that were part of the grave goods in Khafre's pyramid (and were thrown in the sarcophagus by explorers at a latter date).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Necromancy, no, I think it's still slightly warm.

If a pyramid was not a tomb, then an explanation needs to be made to explain why the burial chambers were sealed in the way they were, and if not a tomb, why seal them at all.

Let's take G1 as an example. The burial chamber was sealed primarily by the portculis, a security measure that clearly did not work. However, as a way of sealing the chamber after the body of the king was interred it's a rational solution. It is not though a good solution at all if the king was never going to be interred. let's say, for the sake of argument, that it is not a burial chamber, therefore devices to seal the chamber do not need to take into account the death of the king after completion of the pyramid, and so the need for access to the chamber to inter his body. Therefore, if the king is not going to be placed in the chamber, it would be better to seal it up during construction, so no passage to the chamber and no portculis, just solid multi-ton huge blocks of stone that may need a major effort in dismantling the top half of the pyramid to gain access.

So the very fact that the burial chambers do allow acces after completion of the pyramid must show that they were not a cenotaph, or a storage facility, but a burial chamber for a body. I cannot see any other use for these chambers that need access after construction has risen above them, and that's quite a low level for all except G1.

Though there is still the issue of two kings having more than one pyramid, but I still stand by the point I have made, which is certainly applicable to G1 and the vast majority of pyramids.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pharaohs were taken up into the sky like Enoch.

Pharaoh Enoch, that is.

Jesus was a pharaoh too - he was taken up as well.

Nowadays, everyone that boards an airplane is a pharaoh.

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/9/2021 at 12:19 PM, Wepwawet said:

Necromancy, no, I think it's still slightly warm.

If a pyramid was not a tomb, then an explanation needs to be made to explain why the burial chambers were sealed in the way they were, and if not a tomb, why seal them at all.

Containment. To keep something out or in. 

On 12/9/2021 at 12:19 PM, Wepwawet said:

Let's take G1 as an example. The burial chamber was sealed primarily by the portculis, a security measure that clearly did not work. However, as a way of sealing the chamber after the body of the king was interred it's a rational solution. It is not though a good solution at all if the king was never going to be interred. let's say, for the sake of argument, that it is not a burial chamber, therefore devices to seal the chamber do not need to take into account the death of the king after completion of the pyramid, and so the need for access to the chamber to inter his body. Therefore, if the king is not going to be placed in the chamber, it would be better to seal it up during construction, so no passage to the chamber and no portculis,

Why do you say that? You don't know if it it was sealed to contain something within or from without. You're making an assumption. And the plug stones did seal it. Now they're looking at new chambers yet to be opened. And you could say they were sealed during construction since they remain hidden.

On 12/9/2021 at 12:19 PM, Wepwawet said:

So the very fact that the burial chambers do allow acces after completion of the pyramid must show that they were not a cenotaph, or a storage facility, but a burial chamber for a body.

I would think the opposite would be true. Supposedly the objective was to protect the burial. It doesn't make sense that they would construct the chambers to allow access. If that were true, they needn't have bothered with the portcullis. Just leave it open.  

On 12/9/2021 at 12:19 PM, Wepwawet said:

I cannot see any other use for these chambers that need access after construction has risen above them, and that's quite a low level for all except G1.

You can't see it because you're constrained by your beliefs. The plug stones pretty much sealed access to the chambers. They were the real deterrent. The portcullis, they guess, was designed to be raised/lowered. The plug stones were not.  

On 12/9/2021 at 12:19 PM, Wepwawet said:

Though there is still the issue of two kings having more than one pyramid, but I still stand by the point I have made, which is certainly applicable to G1 and the vast majority of pyramids.

There are plug stones in the vast majority of pyramids? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/9/2021 at 12:19 PM, Wepwawet said:

Necromancy, no, I think it's still slightly warm.

If a pyramid was not a tomb, then an explanation needs to be made to explain why the burial chambers were sealed in the way they were, and if not a tomb, why seal them at all.

This was talked about before of course at length that despite there being no body this assumes there was nothing of value contained inside, real or symbolic, that needed this "protection" all the same. As noted at length through this thread with pictures, links, and quotes, there are several examples of pyramids thought by Egyptologists to be cenotaphs, and/or contradictions such as the pyramids Sneferu, yet are no different than the "real ones" so what compels you to now bring this up again as some kind of epiphany is beyond me.  

[snip]

Quote

So the very fact that the burial chambers do allow acces after completion of the pyramid must show that they were not a cenotaph,

See above or anywhere in the last 29pgs. What you are saying is though we are told the specific goal is to keep the people who worship this pharaoh as a god from desecrating his body, dooming him in the afterlife, and stealing his treasure, according to you the "proof" the body and treasure were placed there, i.e. the pyramids were tombs, is the fact access was allowed after completion guaranteeing this exact thing would happen.

Magnificent.  

Quote

or a storage facility,

Who TF said anything about a "storage facility"? Can you quote me where I give this as an option?   

Quote

but a burial chamber for a body. I cannot see any other use for these chambers that need access after construction has risen above them, and that's quite a low level for all except G1.

Again, for example, what is the purpose of the identical yet superior southern tomb at Saqqara vs the one in the pyramid itself? As discussed here, The Satellite Pyramid of Dahshur, and several times over in this thread, this pyramid is identical to a "real pyramid" yet has been shown unable to contain an actual burial as the burial chamber is too small. On and on an on. If anyone is interested, again, there is a good 29pgs to rummage through. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

This was talked about before of course at length that despite there being no body this assumes there was nothing of value contained inside, real or symbolic, that needed this "protection" all the same. As noted at length through this thread with pictures, links, and quotes, there are several examples of pyramids thought by Egyptologists to be cenotaphs, and/or contradictions such as the pyramids Sneferu, yet are no different than the "real ones" so what compels you to now bring this up again as some kind of epiphany is beyond me.  

Hi Thanos

I give your assumptions equal interest and as a passive observer I tend to go with what the present understanding of that culture is. Yes our understanding will evolve that is it's nature, just because someone expresses an understanding of a culture does not change the under pinning aspects of what a culture is that I have seeing as how we are still living in a culture that has basically the same components.

I had a funny add but will dispense for the time being.:whistle::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Thanos

I give your assumptions equal interest and as a passive observer I tend to go with what the present understanding of that culture is. Yes our understanding will evolve that is it's nature, just because someone expresses an understanding of a culture does not change the under pinning aspects of what a culture is that I have seeing as how we are still living in a culture that has basically the same components.

I had a funny add but will dispense for the time being.:whistle::lol:

I appreciate that, I would hope most do, but I was not aware I have made any "assumptions". Can you please quote a few? The fact you characterize my positions as such makes me wonder, respectfully, if you understand what I am saying or the breadth of erudition I use to back it up as in reality what I am offering is the present understanding which most are not aware this is actually the case. If anything, I am the one not making assumptions.     

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

I appreciate that, I would hope most do, but I was not aware I have made any "assumptions". Can you please quote a few? The fact you characterize my positions as such makes me wonder, respectfully, if you understand what I am saying or the breadth of erudition I use to back it up as in reality what I am offering is the present understanding which most are not aware this is actually the case. If anything, I am the one not making assumptions.     

 

 

Hi Thanos

I know at times our discussion have been less impartial so thanks for asking. I am just a putz that got interested in things other than what I knew. As an objective observer I have to treat everyone to a standard, the same standard so for me I have to stand from the point hat everyone's perspective is based on an assumption of what they have interpreted from the data available. I try to absorb as much as I can and do read links provided. I don't need to be right or wrong to be objective and because I only admittedly have a basic understanding of the subject am inclined to accept the consensus of what is known about a culture that is nature our understanding will evolve.

I am not saying you are wrong only that your argument/presentation has not been strong enough to challenge this does not mean that I do not appreciate you challenges to what is known

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I try to absorb as much as I can and do read links provided. I don't need to be right or wrong to be objective and because I only admittedly have a basic understanding of the subject am inclined to accept the consensus of what is known about a culture that is nature our understanding will evolve.

What needs to be understood, none more so than today, is that "consensus", a "general agreement", does not always equate to truth and/or facts, the least of which ancient history when it is in part largely derived from interpretation which not even the experts agree. And if one reads along this "consensus" is often not always what we think it is so half the battle is getting readers to understanding what is actually being talked about in the first place.  

Quote

I am not saying you are wrong only that your argument/presentation has not been strong enough to challenge this does not mean that I do not appreciate you challenges to what is known

I appreciate your candor, but as a self described "putz", with "admittedly only a basic understanding of the subject(s)", and as such, governed by this lack of understanding "inclined to accept the consensus", and if we are being honest uncritically support I would add regardless of whether you understand it or not, is it possible in reality this is a matter of your perspective derived from this very predisposition and lack of understanding? This thread is 29 pages and counting which has been me against everyone else and I have taken all comers. In fairness, it seems like a pretty decent "challenge" to me. I may not be right in the grand scheme of things, but at the very least everyone should have learned something the least of which there is a lot more to the story than most realize which compels us to accept other possible conclusions, if not in whole at least in part.  

At any rate, I am not an ideologue trying to make people believe what I believe or steal anyone's soul. I give my perspective, which I have earned, and enough credible sources and information to back it up to allow the reader to make up their own mind. Agree or not agree does not matter but hopefully in the end we are all wiser for it and have made progress towards a common goal which is an objective and more complete understanding of history. I'm glad your along for the ride friend.

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

39 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

What needs to be understood, none more so than today, is that "consensus", a "general agreement", does not always equate to truth and/or facts, the least of which ancient history when it is in part largely derived from interpretation which not even the experts agree. And if one reads along this "consensus" is often not always what we think it is so half the battle is getting readers to understanding what is actually being talked about in the first place.  

Hi Thanos

What needs to be understood is that as a social group we have identifies not so different that the past and yet still dependent on what a culture is. Everything that existed in a culture from the past exists now in some sense. At no point have I said you are wrong only that what we understand of those cultures does not at this time support all of your contentions. This means doesn't much by a nobody like me infers that the potential for your premise denies that the potential exists in as much as it says that you have not sufficiently shown your perspective to be the accepted norm.

I know this is different in some senses but I talked with a mechanic about changing a car to electronic ignition and he said I couldn't do it so I studied my subject and bought a distributor for a 460 and pressed the gear off and put the one from the 351 windsor on and it worked it wasn't about talking about it it was proving it was possible.

 

Edited by jmccr8
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

See above or anywhere in the last 29pgs. What you are saying is though we are told the specific goal is to keep the people who worship this pharaoh as a god from desecrating his body, dooming him in the afterlife, and stealing his treasure, according to you the "proof" the body and treasure were placed there, i.e. the pyramids were tombs, is the fact access was allowed after completion guaranteeing this exact thing would happen.

Magnificent.  

 

 

I'll go through your other points later. For this one though I'll point out that you are somewhat misrepresenting me and distorting the point I was making.

It is an inherent weakness in the design of a pyramid in that access was needed to the burial chamber after construction. If they needed to seal something up that was not the body of the king, then, as I mentioned, it would be better to seal the chamber up during construction, thereby, in the case of G1, eliminating the weakness of the portculis arrangment. That the chambers in pyramids were not sealed during construction indicates, very clearly, that access was needed to place something in the pyramid after construction was finished. As a matter of common sense if nothing else, what could this something be other than the body of the king. Yes, there are anomalies, and I mentioned this in my post, and yes, there is an issue with them, but the very few anomalies cannot be taken as representative of all other pyramids.

I did not mention "treasure" in my post at all, however, if a king where not placed in the pyramid, there would not be any need for burial goods, which would be wherever the king was actually buried as they would serve no purpose seperated from him. We talk about "treasure", they saw these goods are essential for the afterlife, therefore would be with the king. So, anomalies aside, if you have a pyramid with chambers inside it, chambers made to be accessible after completion, ie, after the death of the king in normal circumstances, what do you propose was placed in these chambers if not the king and his burial goods. I would say that if they did put burial goods inside a pyramid without the king, then that would be good cause to seal them up during construction, thus making it very difficult for thieves indeed. This would go for any other "goods", and you will recall that Scott Creighton contributed to this thread early on, and he of course had a book published positing that pyramids were "seed repositories". I did not say in my post that you stated anything about other "goods" being in a pyramid, and that clears one further point.

And another one while I'm in the mood. My "epithany" to make that post, and why say something so overblown, was sparked by this interesting thread Khufu’s King’s Chamber Great Lintel started by Dr T on the GH forum. The thread does not discuss the specific point I have been making, but it does follow that questions should be asked as to why so much trouble should be made to allow access to the chamber after construction was completed if not to place the body of the king inside. In fact, not needing to place a king and his burial goods inside any pyramid would have made construction somewhat easier, but, they all have chambers, even the few anomalies, or rather, not so much anomalies, as structures that we have so far failed to fully understand.

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Thanos

What needs to be understood is that as a social group we have identifies not so different that the past and yet still dependent on what a culture is. Everything that existed in a culture from the past exists now in some sense. At no point have I said you are wrong only that what we understand of those cultures does not at this time support all of your contentions. This means doesn't much by a nobody like me infers that the potential for your premise denies that the potential exists in as much as it says that you have not sufficiently shown your perspective to be the accepted norm.

Yeah, this would be true.  

Quote

I know this is different in some senses but I talked with a mechanic about changing a car to electronic ignition and he said I couldn't do it so I studied my subject and bought a distributor for a 460 and pressed the gear off and put the one from the 351 windsor on and it worked it wasn't about talking about it it was proving it was possible.

Sweet. Jmccr8-making the impossible possible. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Yeah, this would be true.  

Sweet. Jmccr8-making the impossible possible. 

Hi Thanos

Thanks for engaging, my point about the electronic ignition was not that it was impossible but more directed at the fact that it was possible and just needed to have some effort applied, some mechanics are more of a parts replacer than a mechanic that explores potential and has an aptitude to be creative.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.