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 minutes ago, MrsGently said:

so what is your suggestion what they were? Meditation halls? Grain storage?

I don't want to go off topic because people are so sensitive to it but in a nutshell I believe these people were nothing at all like us and these were built principally as a mnemonic to remember the king because they were fully aware that people ceased to exist when they died and could continue to live ONLY as a memory.  This is EXACTLY what the ancient writing says over and over and over in many different ways but we parse the meaning out of their words because Egyptologists can't think like the pyramid builders.  

There will never be direct evidence that the pyramids were tombs and if we ever seek such evidence there will be ample evidence about their true nature. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/21/2024 at 5:39 AM, Windowpane said:

...  with the pyramid of Teti, the first ruler of the 6th dynasty, we come across evidence of looting involving the use of fire to access precious metals hidden under the wrappings of the mummified king. Under the rubble in the burial chamber the burnt remains of the king's arm and shoulder were discovered. The significance of burning cannot be understated. Intrusive burials generally would not warrant such dedicated attention from thieves and as such the presence of isolated charred human remains should indicate a royal burial.

Pete has posted this on GHMB several times and has been taken to task time and again for habitually misrepresenting the truth, sources, and the words of other posters. Too bad you didn't just find this post too HERE, the last time he posted it, which he and his list get made fools of. Yes there were remains found and yes they were burned but no one knows why they were burned nor if they are even the remains of Teti. And the fact they are burnt in reality means nothing as from his very list the other remains found he claims are kings were not burned. He is talking out of both sides of his mouth. 

And is this really the story here that there may or may not have ever been found burnt remains in tombs, which we know of at least a few cases which does not change the point, or is it that Kenemet has once again completely mispresented sources and made claims of fact that are not true? HERE and HERE. The readers will note how you all just ignore it and instead try and "cover it up" by frantically looking for sources of burnt mummies as if it never happened. Shameful. See HERE. 

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

6 minutes ago, cladking said:

I don't want to go off topic because people are so sensitive to it but in a nutshell I believe these people were nothing at all like us and these were built principally as a mnemonic to remember the king because they were fully aware that people ceased to exist when they died and could continue to live ONLY as a memory.  This is EXACTLY what the ancient writing says over and over and over in many different ways but we parse the meaning out of their words because Egyptologists can't think like the pyramid builders. 

Now I am glad I asked. Personally... I don't see why that would not also be true when the body was burried/burned in there, but that is exactly what it was meant to do, to immortalize by keeping them in the face of the people living in the area.

Quote

There will never be direct evidence that the pyramids were tombs and if we ever seek such evidence there will be ample evidence about their true nature. 

I don't know but (and that is now a really fringe and out there thought of me and me alone) With the weird shafts in their weird angles it almost reminds me of a distillery. I doubt there is any evidence that the Egyptians knew about that particular technology I mean they had glass but much later if I remember that right?

It just feels like it and then the vapor of the whole process getting blown out through a vent to live among the stars. I think they built them as machines. Or as 'fake of a machine' like they always did with the little fake helpers and protectors and such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Kenemet said:

And I believe that people have already listed what's been found in pyramids, including body fragments (and then there's the papyri of the tomb robber trials [New kingdom] which (if I'm not mistaken) mention invading pyramids to find the bodies of the kings.

What the heck are you doing Kenemet...? This is just too weird.  

#1Once again, no this is not what it says, it says "pyramid tomb", which as already discussed with you towards the beginning of this thread are not actual "pyramids". HERE.

#2: Again, No they don't. You are not being honest when you say this as you well know the "pyramid tombs" of the NK and pyramids are not one and the same.

#3:  Oh, and let's not forget this nonsense as well HERE and HERE. I really hope readers have been paying attention. 

As already explained to you before, the "pyramid tombs" they refer to are not actual pyramids but these:

6880.jpg?v=1499696684&ehk=KJdnyl7lNwLcZ4

I.E. not pyramids. This example [NK] is from the workers tombs at Deir el-Medina which here and Saqqara are the only places they are found. The noble examples were the same with the "pyramid" (made of mud brick) thought to sit on the roof of a chapel. Reconstruction: 

227dabadb52e14976926803a9af48b2e.jpg

Again- please be honest and stop repeating this.  

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

3 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

  

#1Once again, no this is not what it says, it says "pyramid tomb", which as already discussed with you towards the beginning of this thread are not actual "pyramids". HERE.

#2: Again, No they don't. You are not being honest when you say this as you well know the "pyramid tombs" of the NK and pyramids are not one and the same.

#3:  Oh, and let's not forget this nonsense as well HERE and HERE. I really hope readers have been paying attention. 

 

Not to worry. Some of us are.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cladking said:

https://sacred-texts.com/alc/emerald.htm

These are very interesting!!!

No parts of kings singed or otherwise have ever been found in any great pyramid.  There is no evidence any robber was known to have robbed any great pyramid of bodies or grave goods.  

The tiny little piles of rubble that we call "pyramids" and constructed long after the great pyramids may well have been used as tombs. Things change.  There is no evidence that supports mainstream opinion that religion, culture, language, and beliefs didn't change after the great pyramids were constructed.  You believe pyramids were tombs and the bodies destroyed but you have no direct evidence, whatsoever.  The builders of the great pyramids never once called any great pyramid a "tomb" nor did they suggest a dead king was in one.  Ignoring what they said doesn't turn a 6 1/2 million ton structure into a tomb and it can't make the Emerald Tablets disappear. 

The Emerald Tablets are very interesting but they're not authentic Egyptian texts.  They're alchemical tablets, and that didn't arise really until long after the Egyptian empire crumbled.

I think you're trying to prove something by turning the whole idea of pyramids into a fragmentary subject, with "Great pyramid" in one corner, "Giza pyramids" into another corner, and "everything else" lumped together.  I know you've seen the list of mummy parts and mummies found in pyramids, including (if memory serves) body parts in the Red Pyramid.  Some are (as with Djoser) intrusive burials but others match the time period of the pyramid construction.

And you keep using the "Readers' Digest" version of the Pyramid Texts instead of looking at the actual texts found in each pyramid.  The "RD" version will lead you to conclude things that aren't true for each pyramid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we keep the discussion civil please - this means no hostilities, name-calling or personal attacks.

This applies to everyone.

Thank you.

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrsGently said:

I don't see why that would not also be true when the body was burried/burned in there, but that is exactly what it was meant to do, to immortalize by keeping them in the face of the people living in the area.

It's certainly not impossible the body of the king was placed inside their mnemonics but, again, the words of the builders themselves argue against it. 

The pyramids were mnemonics to remember the king by day while they could be seen but at night there was a specific star that became the king.  Each morning they were reborn as a pyramid and each evening as a star.  The writing says over and over that the kings' bodies were not buried on earth but rather they ascended to the stars mixed with the smoke of incense.  This is where the kings really were; cremated on the pyre.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrsGently said:

I don't know but (and that is now a really fringe and out there thought of me and me alone) With the weird shafts in their weird angles it almost reminds me of a distillery. I doubt there is any evidence that the Egyptians knew about that particular technology I mean they had glass but much later if I remember that right?

It just feels like it and then the vapor of the whole process getting blown out through a vent to live among the stars. I think they built them as machines. Or as 'fake of a machine' like they always did with the little fake helpers and protectors and such.

They were definitely aware of fermentation and produced both beer and wine.  

Very few things are ruled out by the data that have been collected but I've seen little evidence to support the idea that they were used for brewing though the builders themselves said the pyramids built themselves.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

The Emerald Tablets are very interesting but they're not authentic Egyptian texts.  They're alchemical tablets, and that didn't arise really until long after the Egyptian empire crumbled.

Yes, this is mainstream interpretation.  Even Sir Isaac Newton who personally translated them would agree with you as a scholar and an alchemist. 

But the fact is they do relate to the pyramid.  Indeed, Newton found them through his study of the pyramids and the first person known to have entered G1 is associated with the first appearance of them.  Some early accounts refer to them existing in a hidden chamber inside a pyramid.  These are the things that drew my attention to them.  

1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

I think you're trying to prove something by turning the whole idea of pyramids into a fragmentary subject, with "Great pyramid" in one corner, "Giza pyramids" into another corner, and "everything else" lumped together. 

No, quite the opposite.  

Egyptology doesn't differentiate between the great pyramids and the tiny little rubble piles built later which were probably used as tombs.  This is where they got the idea the great pyramids had bodies of kings in them.  But the great pyramids are not only dramatically different in size and appearance they are also different in function and the means of construction. Even the builders may have been different as there is no evidence that there 3existed a "3000 year civilization" along with "cultural context" as believed by Egyptologists.  There is absolutely no evidence to support the notion that the great pyramid builders were like us or the authors of the "book of the dead".  They have been misapprehended so even though they said where the kings are, we don't see it.  The kings were cremated to protect the mummy from degradation and to transmogrify them into a star and pyramid.  "The king is a star", "the king is the pyramid".   We simply refuse to believe them.  

1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

I know you've seen the list of mummy parts and mummies found in pyramids, including (if memory serves) body parts in the Red Pyramid. 

But none have been found in any great pyramid.  

1 hour ago, Kenemet said:

And you keep using the "Readers' Digest" version of the Pyramid Texts instead of looking at the actual texts found in each pyramid.

NO Pyramid Texts exist in any great pyramid because they obviously were not tombs (with the possible exception of the first great pyramid; Djoser's)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cladking said:

It's certainly not impossible the body of the king was placed inside their mnemonics but, again, the words of the builders themselves argue against it.

 

 

For my sins I'll bite.

The builders of the 4th Dynasty pyramids, the ones you uniquely name as "great pyramids", leave us not a single word about them. The texts found in later pyramids do not argue against them being tombs, and you yourself admit that these texts are in pyramids that are uniquivocaly tombs. The PT are not connected to 4th Dynasty pyramids in any way whatsoever by the AE themselves, we link them because it does not take the brains of an archbishop to work out that the PT did not emerge with Unas from a vacuum, and must have come from texts written on papyrus, texts that would have been read out at the funeral proceedings. Due to the appearance for the first time of a number of gods in the PT, then it cannot be stated that these texts as they first appear with Unas date back in the same form to the 4th Dynasty, though I would think that a basic framework does. Therefore your using the PT as evidence of anything about the 4th Dynasty pyramids, and Khufu's specifically as that is the one you are fixated on, is in error, to put it mildly. The PT are about the burial and resurrection of the dead king, the Osiris king, in a pyramid, how can you, and not you alone, not see this. Pyramids Texts in burial chambers in pyramids, 1+1 = ?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

The PT are about the burial and resurrection of the dead king, the Osiris king, in a pyramid, how can you, and not you alone, not see this. Pyramids Texts in burial chambers in pyramids, 1+1 = ?

This is EXACTLY the thing. Yes, you are right that the texts date back far before the tiny little pyramids but they still specifically say the pyramids were the kings and they specifically sate that the kings were not buried in them but rather they were burned.  

They said the king does not degrade in the earth so what could have happened to his body other than that it was transmogrified into the pyramid itself and he arose on the smoke of incense to the imperishable stars.  The texts never once contradict these statements but we misinterpret them.  They said the "king is the pyramid" and we take it to mean the "pyramid is the king's tomb".  The error is ours.  They literally said the king's grave is in the sky;

616d. Thou art given over to thy mother Nut, in her name of "Grave";

616e. she has embraced thee, in her name of "Grave";

The sky literally embraces the smoke of incense. 

376a. To say: The fire is laid, the fire shines;

376b. the incense is laid on the fire, the incense shines.

376c. Thy fragrance comes to N., O Incense; the fragrance of N. comes to thee, O Incense.

You need look no further to9 find the dead kings.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, cladking said:

This is EXACTLY the thing. Yes, you are right that the texts date back far before the tiny little pyramids but they still specifically say the pyramids were the kings and they specifically sate that the kings were not buried in them but rather they were burned.

This does not quite address my post, but then I'm used to your ways. However, let's go over this again. You use the PT to state how G1 was built and that you believe they say that the dead king was cremated. So I'll point out again that before Unas we have not a word from the AE about how any pyramid was built, and they do not state that the dead king was cremated, that is your interpretation of an imperfect translation by Mercer of Sethe's German translation of the PT, and there is no traction to be gained by arguing about this, is there. So, putting translations and interpretations of translations of translations aside, the core of my point is to ask how you can possibly use the PT to make any comment about G1, how it was built or what happened to the dead king.

Given that there would have been funeral proceedings for a dead king before Unas, we can safely say that such proceedings took place at G1, though the liturgy used was not carved in stone, obviously, but read from papyrus rolls. That the words of the liturgy will have changed between Khufu and Unas, not least because the PT mention various gods for the first time, notably Osiris, should I think be taken as fact. However, given that it is with the PT that we first have a coherent liturgy as oppossed to individual spells etc here and there, can you present archeological and or epigraphic evidence to link the PT to anything before Unas. But you link anyway, yet condemn everybody else for using the BoD to understand the PT, which is not correct btw. Do you understand that you are doing what you condemn other for ?

Let's look at the BoD bee you have under your bonnet. Firstly I don't know why you fix on this corpus of texts, can you explain why. A far greater body of texts is the CT, and closer in time to the PT, yet you seem to ignore them, likewise the Netherworld Books. Does anybody actually use these post PT texts to understand the PT, or rather is it that the PT show the origins of the later texts, and we can use them to see how religious ideas evolved. There is no need to do a backward journey from the latest versions of the Netherworld Books when, say, they came into use for commoners post the NK. The AE never themselves say anything about any of these texts, we have to work it out for ourselves, and one way of doing this is to start at the beginning, the PT, and work forward. Yet, you do not see this and I do not know why.

Hm, I'm rambling on and on, it's so easy to trap yourself in this quicksand. So, without bothering to edit out any of the above, can you show your workings and the archeological and epigraphic evidence that allows you to link the PT to G1, and make a series of highly contentious, to put it mildly, statements.

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

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

 You use the PT to state how G1 was built and that you believe they say that the dead king was cremated.

No.  None of this is true.  The reality is that believers can talk about ramps until the cows come home but I can't even state evidence on topic.  I used   physical evidence to reverse engineer the pyramids while simultaneously solving the meanings of words in the Pyramid Texts through CONTEXT.  I found the meanings of every word was literal; ie- when they said the king's tomb was in the sky they meant EXACTLY that and they meant EXACTLY THAT literally.  If the intended meaning was not literal I probably couldn't have solved it with my methodology.  I believe he was cremated because this is the only logical conclusion from EVERYTHING they said; ie- in order to make the words all have a single meaning and for the meaning to be literal then they necessarily burned the kings' mummies.  This isn't one line that supports my belief, it's every single word in the PT.  

1555a. "Deliver N. from his bandages, which restrain (?) the living, O gods,"

Obviously they aren't cutting the mummy out of his wrappings.

2053b. They take N. to heaven, to heaven-on the smoke of incense.

The builders said one thing and we all say something entirely different.  

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

So, putting translations and interpretations of translations of translations aside, the core of my point is to ask how you can possibly use the PT to make any comment about G1, how it was built or what happened to the dead king.

The PT were ancient when they first appeared shortly after the great pyramids were built around 2750 BC.   This is a simple obvious fact and it's also obvious that the authors of these words knew how the pyramids were built. What people are thinking is always hidden within their words and the choices they make as they frame sentences.  It is unavoidable even if you don't  know you are thinking at all.  Every judge knows this which is why it's the tongue of criminals that gets them caught.  The Egyptians even said this.  What you know and think is evidenced by what you say.  This has always been true.  They said what they meant and they said the same thing over and over consistently, coherently and in accord with the laws of nature.  We merely misapprehend it.  We can't imagine that what a man does lives after him but then we use words that were invented and ordered by greats of the past whose names we still remember.  The pyramid builders knew that a person lives as long as they are remembered because they didn't think like we do.   They tried to remember their greats so all important personages were remembered in the stars and the structures they built.  They said so over and over but we interpret and translate it all only in terms of the "book of the dead".  

It is Egyptology using bad methodology.  The PT aren't really anachronistic at all but the "book of the dead" is. 

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

Given that there would have been funeral proceedings for a dead king before Unas, we can safely say that such proceedings took place at G1, though the liturgy used was not carved in stone, obviously, but read from papyrus rolls.

No.   There were no "funerals".  The PT says there was a five day feast where the dead king was transformed into a pyramid and a star.  Anything else really is a failure at reading comprehension.  Kings were probably always long dead and mummified before the w3g-festival where his mummy was burned atop the first step on the east side of "his" great pyramid.  He was freed from his bandages so he could live with the living forever.  

1289b. who furnish thee with life and satisfaction.

1289c. He lives with the living as Seker lives with the living;

1289d. he lives with the living as N. lives with the living.

1290a. O N., come, live thy life there, in thy name, in thy time,

1290b. in these years, which are to be peaceful, according to (?) thy wish.

lAnd where does he live his life? Khufu lives it right at Giza as Khufu's Horizon.  

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

However, given that it is with the PT that we first have a coherent liturgy as oppossed to individual spells etc here and there, can you present archeological and or epigraphic evidence to link the PT to anything before Unas

For every practical purpose there is no writing before the 5th dynasty.  One word sentences and labels, bookkeeping entries etc is not writing.  

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

Let's look at the BoD bee you have under your bonnet. Firstly I don't know why you fix on this corpus of texts, can you explain why.

This is simple.  Egyptology has extrapolated the BotD to apply to the PT which is the only writing from the 4th dynasty.  Then they even translate the PT to fit the later work.  This is excruciatingly bad methodology.  It is literally non sequitur.  Effect  comes after cause and doesn't necessarily even resemble it.  The BotD is wholly irrelevant to the great pyramid builders.  

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

Does anybody actually use these post PT texts to understand the PT, or rather is it that the PT show the origins of the later texts, and we can use them to see how religious ideas evolved.

I've shown many times that they do.  Even the translators admit it.  It can not be helped (unless you solve the PT in context).  

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

So, without bothering to edit out any of the above, can you show your workings and the archeological and epigraphic evidence that allows you to link the PT to G1, and make a serious of highly contentious, to put it mildly, statements.

I don't understand why taking the PT at their word should be "contentious".  It merely flies in the face of modern beliefs derived not from evidence but from assumptions.  The builders said the kings were the pyramid and never said anything contrary to this.  EVERY SINGLE THING believed by Egyptologists about the PT is contradicted in the PT because the way we parse it it is highly contradictory, nonsensical, and is in no way consistent with the laws of nature.  

We interpret it wrong.  

Edited by cladking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, cladking said:

I don't understand why taking the PT at their word should be "contentious"

The rest of your answer was expected, and there is nothing to be gained by arguing the points. However, on the part I have quoted we get to a core issue. Are you the one taking the PT at their word, no, you are taking Mercer's less than perfect translation of Sethe's German translation of the PT at face value, and then adding your spin to it, and that is very contentious, as well as remarkably intellectually lazy. To argue that the PT mean what you say they mean requires you to provide linguistic and contextual evidence that they do so, and by that I mean the hieroglyphs, not English or German words. For instance, while you can read Allen's English translation of the PT in isolation, to understand why he translates them as he does you will need to also read his grammars on the PT, and his Middle Egyptian, where he dissects the original hieroglyphs as individual words and the linguistic, theological  and historical context when combined into phrases. He shows his workings, as can anybody who can translate hieroglyphs, but you do not show your workings, only what you think the English words and phrases mean, and your train hits the buffers here.

58 minutes ago, cladking said:

We interpret it wrong.

No, "we" do not. There is not a full and perfect understanding, and never will be, and some individual words in the PT cannot be translated, but we have reached a very good understanding of the meaning of the PT. It's true there are some dissident voices, and that's fine, that's good in fact, but those with a somewhat different take on the PT, mostly I would say on how they are rendered in English, a more vernacular approach, can actually read hieroglyphs and make their own translations, though for Susan Brind Morrow it's a pity that, as far as I can see, she has not provided her workings, for instance in the form of a grammar like Allen.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

It's true there are some dissident voices, and that's fine, that's good in fact, but those with a somewhat different take on the PT, mostly I would say on how they are rendered in English, a more vernacular approach, can actually read hieroglyphs and make their own translations, though for Susan Brind Morrow it's a pity that, as far as I can see, she has not provided her workings, for instance in the form of a grammar like Allen.

Allen's grammar is irrelevant.  It is based on the same flawed assumptions that all previous translators and Egyptologists have used. Obviously they could all be right and I can be wrong but only I can say where the kings' bodies are and point to how I know where the kings' bodies are.  No Egyptologist can do this and can only speculate that the pyramids are tombs and that they must have been robbed.  They can't show any physical evidence to support their beliefs or make predictions based on their work or the work of previous Egyptologists.  The fact I CAN do these things doesn't make me right but most people seem to think I must be wrong because no Egyptologist agrees with ,me about anything.  

Masperro, Sethe, and Mercer all translated the PT to say the kings were burned on a pyramid and their grave was in the sky.  Faulkner mostly agrees with Masperro, Sethe, and Mercer.  Even Allen does not entirely contradict them though it's hard to tell because he jumbled up over a century of work and changed it in unknowable ways while some of his translations aren't even "English" at all but some amalgam of intent, magic, and English.  I only speak English so such amalgams often elude me.  Indeed, since every English sentence can be interpreted in an infinite number of ways these amalgams sometimes contain no meaning at all except what the reader assumes.   What people are missing here is that even if Allen is right and the others are wrong most of his translation can still be interpreted to support my contentions.  Only SOME of his translations are wholly revolutionary the rest still agree with the builders who apparently believed the king was the pyramid and his mortal body was incinerated to become a pyramid and star.  

19 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

To argue that the PT mean what you say they mean requires you to provide linguistic and contextual evidence that they do so, and by that I mean the hieroglyphs, not English or German words.

No.  This simply is not true.  

If you can show that Sethe's translations were not based on the actual hieroglyphs then you'd have a point.  But the fact of the matter is that every translator is basing his work on the actual physical words carved into stone.  

You are forgetting that this is not a problem with translation.  The problem is with interpretation.  When the builders said the king was made a new body by isis and nephthys so he could live forever as a pyramid Egyptologists interpret it to mean the authors were highly superstitious and the pyramid was the king's tomb.  But I believe they meant EXACTLY what they said. Isis and nephthys constructed the pyramid which was the new body of the king.  It was not they confused and superstitious; it is we.  The ancient words could not be parsed.  "The king rises on the smoke of incense" means exactly that. It is not metaphor, hyperbole, or magical.   There is no symbolism of any sort; the king rose to heaven because he was burned along with the incense.  If all the meaning was intended literal;y and we dismiss the literal meaning then we are wrong about everything.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, cladking said:

Allen's grammar is irrelevant.

Which says it all about your appallingly anti-intellectual approach to this. I must have been very bored yesterday to have jumped back on this Sisyphean treadmill, meh.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Which says it all about your appallingly anti-intellectual approach to this. I must have been very bored yesterday to have jumped back on this Sisyphean treadmill, meh.

"Grammar" would be relevant only if we knew what the texts say and mean.  It would be relevant if it could be checked against reality or for consistency.  It would be relevant if the texts were about any other subject other than incantation. 

How people translate incantation to arrive at various types of inconsistent meaning while translating something that by definition is superstition and nonsense is simply irrelevant.  You can use Allen's grammar to follow in the footsteps of Allen who followed in the footsteps of Faulker (et al ad infinitum) but you can not prove your grammar is any more correct nor do you have any means to show anything you have translated is correct and in accord with author intent.  

It is ONLY author intent that matters, everything else is irrelevant and this includes vocabularies based on the "book of the dead" and grammars derived from the meaning found. I found a grammar too you know.  I can't use my "grammar" to prove author intent but I have used my grammar to find consistencies, coherencies, and to make good prediction.  My grammar works because this isn't a book of incantation.  It is a book of the silly little rituals read to the crowds at the kings' ascension ceremonies.  These ascension ceremonies point to where their bodies are; they all literally went up in smoke.  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can everyone please stop encouraging this disrespectful hobbyhorsing poster from hijacking this thread and giving him an excuse to sling his idiotic BS for the umpteenth time?

Cladking… this thread has nothing to do with your pet theories or philosophy. No one cares. Discuss the information Thanos put forward in his OP or leave and start your own thread. 

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

Yes, bad dog. Bad, bad dog.

To get back on track, this business of fire exhausting all the oxygen in a chamber. The question arises of how robbers would've accessed the tomb in the first place since they required torches to see, and would conceivably be at work for some time. Even concentrating on the good stuff looting a whole tomb is no quick task, esp. if you have to horse the lid off a sarcophagus. I would be surprised if if it also hasn't come up in relation to the so-called (nonexistent) soot problem. Same for later tomb explorers.

Now, the chamber communicates to the outside, so there's some air always coming in. Underground chambers might even act like caves, causing them to "breath" as caves do. I don't know if evacuation would cause a vacuum effect or not but if so, that would actually serve to draw air in. At any rate, if the accounts are correct, they managed it somehow despite insistences to the contrary.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Oniomancer said:

Now, the chamber communicates to the outside, so there's some air always coming in. Underground chambers might even act like caves, causing them to "breath" as caves do. I don't know if evacuation would cause a vacuum effect or not but if so, that would actually serve to draw air in. At any rate, if the accounts are correct, they managed it somehow despite insistences to the contrary.

The problem isn't "air", it is oxygen and the accumulation of CO and CO2 as well as volatile components driven off the fuel by heating.  There would be little "vacuum effect", just a loss of oxygen.  The heating would probably pressurize the room by the time the lack of oxygen killed the fire and every living thing (dependent on oxygen) in the room.  Humans can begin dying with just a 10% drop in oxygen levels and more than this even healthy young people can lose consciousness and die.  

You could build a fire in loosely packed stones with sufficient chimney.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a casual reader in these threads, even I'm going say it. Take it elsewhere my good man. Nobody in the thread or reading it wants to focus on this redirection.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/22/2024 at 1:58 PM, cladking said:

616d. Thou art given over to thy mother Nut, in her name of "Grave";

616e. she has embraced thee, in her name of "Grave";

The sky literally embraces the smoke of incense. 

376a. To say: The fire is laid, the fire shines;

376b. the incense is laid on the fire, the incense shines.

376c. Thy fragrance comes to N., O Incense; the fragrance of N. comes to thee, O Incense.

You need look no further to9 find the dead kings.  

This is from the "readers' digest" version.  The words you are quoting actually don't appear in any of the Pyramid Texts.

"You have been given to your mother Nut in her identity of the sarcophagus" (not grave... there is apparently a spelling difference there) - and is ONLY in Teti's PT.

The verse about incense doesn't appear in all versions, either.  "You of great purity, spread yourself in your identity of the cake (of incense): let your scent be on Unis and purify Unis."  is from Unis, of course.  It also appears in Pepi's PT, but not in the other ones.
 

So your interpretation doesn't work.  It's not from the same document (the kit-bashed Reader's Digest may leave you thinking that it is) and not even from the same time or the same dynasty.  Unis (5th dynasty) died in about 2315 (or so).  Teti (6th dynasty) succeeds him, and Pepi appears after the short reign of Userkare.  Then it vanishes from the later PT's. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, cladking said:

The problem isn't "air", it is oxygen and the accumulation of CO and CO2 as well as volatile components driven off the fuel by heating.  There would be little "vacuum effect", just a loss of oxygen.  The heating would probably pressurize the room by the time the lack of oxygen killed the fire and every living thing (dependent on oxygen) in the room.  Humans can begin dying with just a 10% drop in oxygen levels and more than this even healthy young people can lose consciousness and die.  

You could build a fire in loosely packed stones with sufficient chimney.  

I have a vague memory of reading about people picnicking down there, and I remember something about others using oil lamps (fire) and torches when they visited.  I don't recall any reports of people having trouble (other than it getting very stuffy if there's a lot of people in there.

HOWever... yes, we do see material that shows they hacked the bodies up to get at the amulets.  It was probably a lot quicker than fire.  And yes, burning a mummy's not hot enough to melt gold unless the amulets were of sheet gold or silver (which was a "thing" much later, as I recall.)

So... point taken. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Then it vanishes from the later PT's. 

That it did exist is the only thing that counts.

4 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

The words you are quoting actually don't appear in any of the Pyramid Texts.

Masperro, Sethe, and Mercer all believed it did.  No amount of subsequent work can ever change this fact.

5 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

"You have been given to your mother Nut in her identity of the sarcophagus" (not grave... there is apparently a spelling difference there) - and is ONLY in Teti's PT.

Your distinction is irrelevant.  English (all modern languages) use definitions and many different words with different definitions that mean EXACTLY the same thing just as "sarcophagus" and "grave" can mean the same thing.  In some places they also use the term "mastaba" to mean "tomb" but these are characteristics of ENGLISH.   The sky is a sepulcher, grave, tomb, mastaba, final resting place, and crypt of the king.  It all means the same thing.  The king rests in heaven.  

 

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   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.