If Pyramids not tombs where are the pharaohs?

[Thanos5150]

On 4/4/2024 at 5:31 PM, Thanos5150 said:

Apparently it needs to be said, but if they were "tombs" the source would say "tombs" not "tomb-shaped structures". And to read it the description is not that it is a mastaba but that a mastaba is a representation of the "underground world" implying that these "tomb-shaped structures" look why they do because of this symbolism not because, again, they are actually mastabas or "tombs".    

Unfolding Sennedjem’s tomb p3:

"The tympanum of the west wall shows two jackals recumbent on tomb-shrines on the opposite sides of a central passage. These are the guardians of the gates to the West, the Kingdom of Osiris, and they are the openers of the road to eternity." Which the shrine is the gateway. 

The Tomb of Sennedjem in the Necropolis of Deir el-Medina:

"Turning the corner, we encounter a scene of Snnedjem [sic] and his wife worshiping the gods of the dead below a dual representation of Anubis in the form of a jackal crouching on a shrine."

Not "tomb". We can also see these shrines have nothing to do with reality related to Sennedjem's tomb with their meaning in context clearly symbolic. Tomb of Sennedjem:

Depicted multiple times in the BoD as their actual tomb as well:

Obviously nothing like the dual shrines having nothing to do with it. Also from the BoD, several shrines/buildings including similar to the ones in question, i.e. not "tombs" nor are they mastabas:

Which there are several nearly identical examples in the BoD to what is seen in TT-1 which are shrines, not tombs:

And not mastabas and there is no source I wager that will tell you that they are. They are shrines which in the NK this form of shrine or chapel with the serekh corniced roof in various forms for various purposes is ubiquitous continuing well into the Ptolemaic Period yet none are mastabas or tombs: 

 

Yeah, we definitely do not want to mislead the readers. 

"They depict two tombs".

"Correct." 

They are not tombs. Or mastabas. Either singular or plural. Instead of "These are my conclusions. You will not find them in any textbook..." or rambling personal interpretive bloviations surely, again, there must be an actual source to back up the claim that these are mastabas/tombs, right? Just one. You shouldn't have to even look for it. And yet there is no reference I have seen or can find that describes them as anything other than not mastabas or tombs, but rather typically "shrines" or the like, which the Anubis shrine was common in the NK none more so than at Deir el Bahari where this is found:

Pashedu TT3 "The sidewalls of the passage are beautifully painted with a scene of Anubis jackals on top of large white chapels with cavetto cornices." p134.:

Nefertari (?-don't think this is correct):

 Others:

Or just as a single shrine (Papyrus of Ani) "The scene below depicts Anubis recumbent on a shrine....":

Nefertari "Anubis is depicted as a jackal recumbent on a shrine".:

Inherkhau TT359:

On and on it goes. See E16 and E16A.  The hieroglyph itself is not "lying canine on mastaba". "Not lying canine on tomb". It is a "lying canine on shrine". It is also even referred to as a "podium", for example "The shrine features Anubis portrayed as a jackal, resting on his podium.". Also, see I4. Same building: "crocodile [Sobek] on shine". 

Portable Shrine of Anubis:

"Here, he [Anubis] assumes this role in response to the secretive aspects 33 of the embalming rituals. A parallel of Anubis’s Shrine is seen in Figure 3, the Papyrus of Ani. 34 This depiction is significant because it further reiterates Anubis’ longstanding place within the Egyptian pantheon since the Old Kingdom, affirming the rebirth of older traditions. The seated Anubis depicted on the Papyrus of Ani predates the Portable Shrine of Anubis, however the latter is the first three-dimensional example known to date....

The Portable Shrine of Anubis ensured the King with a successful journey into the afterlife, aided by Anubis’s protective power."

To Explore the Land of Canaan

"Still, an Anubis shrine should not be confused to be a shrine for Anubis, but rather, it was a structure for the washing and purification of the body as it was prepared for burial, which ritual was connected to Anubis. Thus it is sometimes called an Anubis shrine, but it was a shrine for royal burial preparation, not to worship Anubis."

And while true the mastaba was the "archetypical tomb", though the OK at least where it petered out toward the end then saw a revival in the MK, that ain't a mastaba. But by all means, again, we are still waiting on all those those sources that say the Anubis shrines are "mastabas" and/or "tombs".  

Edited April 9 by Thanos5150

[Wepwawet]

7.1. Theban tomb 3
The architecture of TT3 includes
a few stairs at the entrance leading to a
vaulted passage and into the burial
chamber [15], fig. (11). The sidewalls of
the passage are beautifully painted with
a scene of Anubis jackals on top of large
white chapels with cavetto cornices.

My bold, and this chapel is of course the top, the visible part of a mastaba tomb

This image below is always described as Anubis on a shrine, but what Anubis sits on is different to what is described as a chapel, the top part of a mastaba. In the images of Anubis on a chapel, no matter how many times, or by whom it is described as a shrine, it is clearly a different structure to a shrine. Shrines have a door at one end, not the side, and the shrines are decorated over their entire surfaces, while these chapels that Anubis sits on are plain white, and what does a shrine contain ? and do these structures, these chapels, that Anubis sits contain this, whatever.

It could even be argued that while this is always described as a shrine, it it technically a shrine shaped box. It is decorated all over, but has no door at the end as a true shrine does, in fact it has a sliding door at the top, which Anubis sits on. But to deny this is a shrine is quibbling I think.

The image below, from KV62 shows a true shrine

The next image shows a reproduction of Tutankhamun's outer shrine, elongated as it has to cover other shrines and the sarcophagus, but clearly still the same type of structure, and not the same as the images of Anubis sitting on a chapel.

Another image of the small golden shrine from KV62, where we see it is made to hold the image of a god, in this case the now deified king, again, not like Anubis on a chapel

Here we have two shrines in the temple of Edfu, yet again not like the structure that Anubis sits on in tomb wall or papyrus decorations.

The only way that the images of Anubis sitting on chapel/mastaba could be said to be of him on a shrine are if the entire tomb is seen as a shrine. Now in NK royal tombs a case could be made that the burial chamber is itself an large shrine containing nests of shrines all the way to the sarcophagus, though it's not described like this, only the actual guilded shrines being described as a shrine. However, the entire mastaba is not a shrine, even if the burial chamber could be described as one, as shrines have a specific use to contain the image of a god, or in a royal tomb, the mummy of the dead king, now a god. In the images of Anubis sitting on a chapel, if actually a shrine, which god is inside this shrine, why is it not deocrated as obvious shrines are, and why is there a small door in the middle, not a large door at the end.

Curious, is it not, that in the previous post not a single image of an undoubted shrine was presented to compare with the images of Anubis on a chapel, neither was there any description of an undoubted shrine or it's purpose. That there was not even an image of the most famous imgae of Anubis, the KV 62 one, why not, perhaps because it;s clearly not the same as the images of Anubis on a chapel. Anubis, god of embalming, so sitting on a shrine shaped box in KV62 that probably held the king's canopic jars during the funeral procession, before they were moved into their chest within it's own proper shrine, as they are part of the body of a god.

Anubis, guardian of the necropolis and it's tombs, depicted sitting on a tomb to guard it, a tomb, not a receptacle to hold a god because all these images presented of Anubis on a chapel come from the tombs of commoners, or their BoD papyrus scrolls.

Edited April 9 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

Further, this time on hieroglyphs.

The signs for both Anubis and Sobek, as has been pointed out, describe them as being on shrines, and I'll reproduce the signs

Sobek

 

Anubis

I note that Sobek is I believe always depicted sitting on a base, so though the description states "shrine", I do wonder if this is correct, for instance, what deity is contained in this shrine. What was not refered to in the earlier post were the signs for shrine, of which there are several, and the sign lists are at odds with each other on some of them.

The first image is taken from egyptianhieroglyphs.net

 

 

The second image is from the wiki here

 

I'll leave it to the reader to spot the inconsistencies between the two lists, the wiki being more accurate in my opinion, and will just point out that the shrines that Anubis and Sobek sit on are not like any of the actual signs for a shrine, however, I am certainly not precluding them as being shrines, the main point being do they correlate to what Anubis is sittiing on in a painting, not a hieroglyph, on the wall of a tomb as seen here. I agree that it can seem so, but the question that needs to be addressed is if we see two shrines in this image, then what or who are they shrines for, which deity is inside these shrines, and if there is none then it is not a shrine, and why, when undoubted shrines are richly decorated, are these plain white. Also, note sign O22 in the first list and 021 in the second, both being the same sign. It shows the facade, the front of the shrine, not the side, so where we see the sign for Anubis on a shrine, is he really sitting crossways over the entrance to a rather wide shrine, or sitting lengthwise on something that has a door in it's side, which would not be a shrine if the case.

Edited April 9 by Wepwawet

[Thanos5150]

12 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Yeah, we definitely do not want to mislead the readers. 

"They depict two tombs".

"Correct." 

They are not tombs. Or mastabas. Either singular or plural. Instead of "These are my conclusions. You will not find them in any textbook..." or rambling personal interpretive bloviations surely, again, there must be an actual source to back up the claim that these are mastabas/tombs, right? Just one. You shouldn't have to even look for it. And yet there is no reference I have seen or can find that describes them as anything other than not mastabas or tombs, but rather typically "shrines" or the like, which the Anubis shrine was common in the NK none more so than at Deir el Bahari where this is found:

Pashedu TT3 "The sidewalls of the passage are beautifully painted with a scene of Anubis jackals on top of large white chapels with cavetto cornices." p134.:

Nefertari (?-don't think this is correct):

 Others:

Or just as a single shrine (Papyrus of Ani) "The scene below depicts Anubis recumbent on a shrine....":

Nefertari "Anubis is depicted as a jackal recumbent on a shrine".:

Inherkhau TT359:

On and on it goes. See E16 and E16A.  The hieroglyph itself is not "lying canine on mastaba". "Not lying canine on tomb". It is a "lying canine on shrine". It is also even referred to as a "podium", for example "The shrine features Anubis portrayed as a jackal, resting on his podium.". Also, see I4. Same building: "crocodile [Sobek] on shine". 

Portable Shrine of Anubis:

"Here, he [Anubis] assumes this role in response to the secretive aspects 33 of the embalming rituals. A parallel of Anubis’s Shrine is seen in Figure 3, the Papyrus of Ani. 34 This depiction is significant because it further reiterates Anubis’ longstanding place within the Egyptian pantheon since the Old Kingdom, affirming the rebirth of older traditions. The seated Anubis depicted on the Papyrus of Ani predates the Portable Shrine of Anubis, however the latter is the first three-dimensional example known to date....

The Portable Shrine of Anubis ensured the King with a successful journey into the afterlife, aided by Anubis’s protective power."

To Explore the Land of Canaan

"Still, an Anubis shrine should not be confused to be a shrine for Anubis, but rather, it was a structure for the washing and purification of the body as it was prepared for burial, which ritual was connected to Anubis. Thus it is sometimes called an Anubis shrine, but it was a shrine for royal burial preparation, not to worship Anubis."

And while true the mastaba was the "archetypical tomb", though the OK at least where it petered out toward the end then saw a revival in the MK, that ain't a mastaba. But by all means, again, we are still waiting on all those those sources that say the Anubis shrines are "mastabas" and/or "tombs".  

RE:

7.1. Theban tomb 3
The architecture of TT3 includes
a few stairs at the entrance leading to a
vaulted passage and into the burial
chamber [15], fig. (11). The sidewalls of
the passage are beautifully painted with
a scene of Anubis jackals on top of large
white chapels with cavetto cornices.

My bold, and this chapel is of course the top, the visible part of a mastaba tomb

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The 5th Dynasty mastaba of Washptah at Saqqara is depicted above. First we note what was not bolded: "The sidewalls of the passage are beautifully painted with a scene of Anubis jackals on top of large white chapels with cavetto cornices." i.e. not a component of mastabas but common as already shown in other structures like shrines, chapels, temples, pylons etc. . 

Regardless, obviously this is not true. Either that the superstructure of a mastaba is a "chapel", let alone what the source or any other is reffering to when they use these words, or that it is what is portrayed in the Anubis shrine. And again there is no source that will support either of these claims if only the opposite which we note despite several requests none have yet been offered to back it up. 

While there is a chapel ("tomb-chapel") of some sort inside or at the entrance of the superstructure, typically a small niche or room or sometimes even a separate structure entirely, a place to give offerings to and/or communicate with the dead, it should be common knowledge the superstructure of a mastaba itself is not a "chapel". 

And we would also note despite the fact there is not one source that will refer to these Anubis shrines as tombs/mastabas (or mastabas as "chapels"), which several examples were given that specifically do not instead as explained over several posts either refer to them most commonly as "shrines" or variants like "podium" or "chapel", despite this this one quote is cherry picked as if in context it were the only one and then meaning imposed on it the author in no way shape or form intended if only the opposite. 

For anyone interested in mastaba architecture see: The Architecture and Mastaba Tombs in the Unas Cemetery.

[Wepwawet]

The internal part of the upper, above ground, structure of the tomb, mastaba simply being the name for a style of tomb, contains the chapel. Therefore if Anubis is depicted on top of a tomb, specifically here a mastaba style tomb, he is also sitting on it's chapel. That later tombs are different in that they can have a small pyramid on top of them is not relevant. Anubis is sitting on the older mastaba type because, in my opinion, it provides a flat surface for him to sit on, and is also serving the purpose of representing a tomb generically. If a persons tomb is completely hidden underground, as many are, then how do you represent their tomb in depictions within the tomb when it has no external shape, and the object is to depict Anubis as the guardian of the tomb.

The question remains about this image of Anubis, by what criteria is what he is sitting on a shrine, how can any explanation of this being a shrine square with what we know a shrine is and what it looks like, and I believe the examples I have provided are perfectly adequate. The question also remains about the role of Anubis, psychopomp, not applicable to the images in question, god of mummification, also not applicable to the images in question, which just leaves him as guardian of the necropolis and it's tombs. Where is he described as "guardian of the shrine/s" ? even though there are some images of him on a real shrine, in a very different context. What does it look like he is guarding in the relevant images that fit with his job description, a shrine or a tomb, which is the more likely for the "Guardian of the Necropolis".

Edited April 9 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

In a previous post I presented this image of two ba birds on a tomb, what else would they be on,

I'll follow this up with another image, two versions, from TT 359, the tomb of Ankherkhau. The first image describes his ba bird as being praised by "Ankherkhau in his tomb", what is the ba bird on that looks like what we see Anubis on in the relevant images, a tomb perhaps.The second image of the same scene is described by Salima Ikram as being "Ankherkhau at his tomb". It is not unusual to depict a ba bird on a depiction of the deceased's tomb. If the tomb in these images is the same as the structure we see Anubis on, longer in proportion due to the size of Anubis, then how can Anubis not also be sitting on a tomb when the structures are the same.

 

 

Edited April 9 by Wepwawet

[Thanos5150]

20 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

The logic path here is because mastabas are rectangular structures with sloping sides, a flat roof, and an entrance door, these may or may not be tombs depending on one's interpretation, ergo these are mastabas because they are found in tombs in funerary reliefs despite the fact these actual tombs look nothing like mastabas. The rub is there are no mastabas as a rule that had cavetto corniced roofs yet as discussed there are many a non tomb structure, particularly in the NK, that do but also have this same "mastaba" shape. So this looks like a duck must be a duck things doesn't fly. For one, but again, the mastaba was basically done for in the MK which mastabas become increasingly rare and more or less disappear by the NK which from what I can tell is where depictions of these shrines first appear. Which begs the question why would mastabas from centuries before be symbolic of this new fangled depiction of tombs the likes of which they did not even build anymore but also had depictions as noted before of their actual tombs?

 

This is interesting, also found at Deir al Bahari where nearly all (all?) of the examples we have pictured so far are found, there are other apparent similar structures namely mortuary temple "solar altars": 

"The excavations of the German Institute at Deir al Bahari have provided us with a splendid and comprehensive study of the funerary complex of Mentuhotep II at Thebes. One of the most debated features of the monument is the reconstitution of the structure in the central area, the “Kernbau”. The discussion was initiated by Naville and Winlock who both believed that it was once some kind of pyramid (fig. 1) 1. The accurate study of the remains by D. Arnold, after numerous and remarkable research campaigns, had led this scholar to the conclusion that the central structure was in fact a square mastaba-like building adorned with cavetto cornices (fig. 2) 2 ....

The best preserved exemplars of such altars are the one standing in Hatchepsut’s temple at Deir al Bahari (fig. 6) 6 and the one set in Sethi I’s temple at Gurna 7 . Traces of others have been found, in the mortuary temple of Thutmosis III, in that of Merenptah, and by Ramses III’s temple at Medinet Habu 8 . Their general shape is that of a mastaba topped with cavetto cornice and accessible through stairs that abut their eastern side."

THE “KERNBAU” OF THE TEMPLE OF MENTUHOTEP II AT DEIR AL-BAHARI: A MONUMENTAL SUN ALTAR ?

Yes it has 3 doors, but here is a barque shrine from Seti II that is a "mastaba-like building adorned with cavetto cornices":

If we go back here we see at the entrance of this pyramid chapel a protruding false door that is in essence a truncated the tomb-shrine:

The false door is not a tomb but a vignette of the serekh building and ultimately the gateway to the afterlife. The Egyptian meaning of the equivalent word for "mastaba"  was "eternal house" i.e. the final resting place of the dead. I am left to wonder if what is actually being represented in these NK tombs is a generic symbolic structure of this ideology, the "eternal house", which is technically neither a shrine or tomb but rather a representation of this gateway in its full form as part of a building which the context it is used implies its application. If that makes sense. 

Edited April 9 by Thanos5150

[Wepwawet]

All of which above has merit, though it does not provide an answer to the specific structure that Anubis is depicted sitting on. I've already suggested that this specific shape, the shape of a mastaba, a bench in Arabic, was chosen as it provides a suitable platform for Anubis to sit on, the top of a pyramid as shown in a number of posts not being suitable. I think the only other alternative would have been to have Anubis just "floating" in the scene, but that then defeats the object of what is depicted in the scene.

So, seeing the comments above about design elements, we get back to this depiction of a ba bird on a depiction of the owners tomb within their tomb

and we then compare it to what Anubis is sitting on

and we see that, apart from the proportions being different to take the longer shape of Anubis, they are both the same structure. Therefore as the undeniable tomb with a ba bird on top of it is a tomb, yet has a cornice that a mastaba does not, cannot preclude this as being a tomb, and based on the shape of a mastaba, the cornice being a decorative item only.

Then we have this term "Tomb-Shrine". I found this used just the once in a search yesterday, didn't take long as it forms part of the wiki for the KV62 Anubis shrine here The image will not link. However, I have never seen this term used ever anywhere else, in the sign list it is just "Anubis on a shrine" or "Anubis on a shrine with flagellum", which we see in the image above. The wiki does mention that the sign comes with an epithet , and I'll quote directly,

Quote

However, this hieroglyph also signifies the title jnpw ḥrj-sštȝ ("Anubis over the mysteries"), apparently with a double meaning: watcher and master of mysteries.

Fortunately I know that the "mysteries" refer to the "mysteries of the tomb" and by extension an element of the Duat, for the tomb of Osiris, which is like a tomb and coffin combined, is also known as the "Mysterious chamber" within the Duat. This will I believe be a reference to re-birth. In the scene above, as I have mentioned before, we see reference to dawn and dusk, with the ba of the deceased leaving the tomb at dawn and returning at dusk.

I believe that the term "Tomb-Shrine" is a concoction made up by who knows, the editor of the wiki? However, they have at least used the word "tomb", but why have they used the word "shrine", because that's what it says in the sign list, but is that sign showing Anubis on a shrine such as in KV62, or just A.N. Other generic shrine. Let's take the tomb part, whose tomb when seen depicted, as above, in a tomb, anybodies tomb, or the owners, well, surely the owners, in which case, dispute over. What about the shrine part though, what defines the imgae above, and similar ones in other tombs, as being a shrine, a question I've asked before. There is a difference between the KV62 Anubis shrine and these tomb depictions, in KV62 Anubis sits on a shrine that contains items, and probably contained the canopic jars during the funeral procession, though this is not certain. The important fact is that it acted as a shrine in that it contains items, it was built to contain items, it's decorated like a shrine. If a shrine is depicted in the tomb scenes, why not decorated like a shrine, and what do they metaphorically/magically contain? The only item I can think of would be the tomb owners mummy, so it would be a depiction of his tomb, would it not, and again dispute over. But I dispute that these depictions would have ever been seen as shrines by the AE, just the owners tomb, just as with the ba bird depictions.

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

Fortunately I know that the "mysteries" refer to the "mysteries of the tomb" and by extension an element of the Duat, for the tomb of Osiris, which is like a tomb and coffin combined, is also known as the "Mysterious chamber" within the Duat

Strictly speaking the Amduat is "The Book of the Hidden Chamber", however when we reach the Fifth and Sixth Hours of the Amduat the word mysterious is used five times in relation to various aspects within these hours, and also the entire cavern, therefore everything in the cavern, including the chamber where Ra and Osiris unite, the resurrection, is mysterious. and I'll quote from the Fifth Hour,

Quote

It is the hauling of this great god upon the proper paths of the Netherworld in the upper half of the mysterious cavern of Sokar....

The "great god" being Flesh, the "dead" Ra. And yes, Anubis is here, and in a prominent position, right next to the "Burial mound of Osiris", and this is why I suggest a connection between the epithet of Anubis, "Anubis over the mysteries", and these crucial events in the Amduat. Anubis is also named as "Anubis of the chest", the chest being another term for the tomb of Osiris, and another reason to suggest that Anubis is depicted on a tomb, not a shrine, in both the hieroglyph and in tomb depictions.

Edited April 10 by Wepwawet

[Thanos5150]

To conclude this side show where it started, the dual Anubis shrine, a purely NK symbolic depiction of duality and not even two physical structures, has nothing to do with satellite pyramids or the north/south two tomb scheme of early Dynastic  Egypt. 

And it actually started with this post:

Also: The Satellite Pyramid of Dahshur

Snefru's Subsidiary Pyramid at Dahshur (Bent Subsidiary Pyramid), Rigano

As discussed before in this thread, while technically a sarcophagus would (barely) fit it is generally accepted the chamber was otherwise too small for there ever to have been a sarcophagus in this pyramid (i.e. burial) nor any indication this was its purpose and was built as a cenotaph of some sort. It is interesting though, that despite this, great effort and ingenuity was spent to seal the chamber regardless.  

 

See HERE p11-14.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The point being the same effort and protections were spent to protect a pyramid "burial chamber" that was never built to inter a body in the first place. Which somehow leads to a two page conversation about NK Anubis shrines. 

Edited April 10 by Thanos5150

[Wepwawet]

So it can be determined, by lack of evidence contra, that Anubis is on a tomb, based on the mastaba type, in these tomb decorations, and is not on a shrine, with no evidence, textual or pictorial, presented to show how they could be shrines. So that's a wrap then, excellent.

[Thanos5150]

On 5/28/2020 at 1:55 PM, Thanos5150 said:

Quote

 

Of late, at King Khufu’s Pyramid Complex, there have been two occasions of interpretations of 'plain sight' irregularities that have previously passed unnoted. The first, referred to as Khufu’s Alpha Triangles had gradually become discernible from the times of Jomard, Vyse, Laure, Hussein and others as they began removing the Great Pyramid’s sand and stone debris.

The second instance is signified by Sakuji Yoshimura’s fresh observation of a conspicuous lacuna occurring in the Western Cemetery of the Complex. Dr. Yoshimura and his associates have initiated preliminary explorations into a conceivable theoretical location of King Khufu’s [non-pyramidal] burial site (specifically, the tomb’s “entrance”) at Giza.

Studies were initiated, and permissions granted by the then relevant Egyptian Ministry “of the 2011 revolution”, only to be delayed by the subsequent 2013 coup d'état. Archaeological permitting was resumed in the spring of 2016. In an effort to produce an exact three-dimensional map of the Western Cemetery, advanced technological surveying techniques were incorporated in the spring of 2017 producing a Summary Report published in The Journal of SHOUHEI Egyptian Archaeological Association, Higashi Nippon International University, Vol. 4, 2017.

This data for the Summary Report was collected with the use of (1) a seven meter, “pole-type low-altitude aerial system” created with ”a high-definition 3D survey model and 3D survey map from the image data taken by a digital camera” [use of drones is forbidden at Giza by security officials], (2) Electromagnetic Induction Exploration, (3) Ground Penetrating Radar, and (4) the aid of an automatic tracking ‘Total Station’ theodolite.

The resulting images indicate anomalies below the surface of the referenced zone in the Western Cemetery, specifically a subterranean ”large stone or cavity”.:

Figure 11: Hemiunu’s Mastaba (G 4000) Search Area Result (magnetic susceptibility slice view depth about 1.8 m)

 

And:

Quote

 

In the early 1980s Mark Lehner and his team from the American Research Center in Egypt measured and hand drew plans of the Sphinx, the Sphinx Temple, and the Khafre Valley Temple. In 1985 he penned some reflections of his interpretations of the collected data [“Giza, A Contextual Approach to the Pyramids,” Archiv für Orientforschung 32 (1985)]. He observed:

”At this time, and from this advantage, the sun sets almost exactly midway between the Khufu and Khafre Pyramids, thus construing the image of the akhet (“horizon”) hieroglyph on a scale of acres. The effect is…best seen from the top of the Sphinx Temple colonnade, or an equivalent height to the east of the temple where the sand rises…Even if coincidental, it is hard to imagine the Egyptians not seeing the ideogram. If somehow intentional, it ranks as an example of architectural illusionism on a grand, maybe the grandest scale.”

Summer Solstice Sunset 2500 BC and AD 2011

Trajectory toward Dr. Yoshimura’s Proposed Khufu Tomb Location from the Sphinx Temple at Summer Solstice Sunset

 

Both quotes from Dr Troglodyte found HERE. 

Yoshimura is a notable Egypotlogist for among other things his work on the restoration of the Khufu II boat and scannig G1.

From an LA Times article: 

An apparent mention of a planned study of this area HERE. 

Yoshimura-yet another "fringe kook" who thinks the actual burial of a pharaoh (Khufu) was not in the pyramid. 

Japan-Egypt team starts dig of what might be Egyptian king’s tomb

May 9th 2024: 

Possible Ancient Egyptian structure identified beside the Giza pyramids

Researchers working at Giza, Egypt, have identified an anomaly beneath the sand, which may be a previously unknown L-shaped structure....

Their initial survey revealed a large anomaly at the north end of the study area, and other anomalies elsewhere....

“We conclude from these results that the structure causing the anomalies could be vertical walls of limestone or shafts leading to a tomb structure,” the team write. “However, a more detailed survey would be required in order to confirm this possibility.”....

To indicate the shape of the large anomaly, the team then made a further series of surveys using another type of ground-penetrating radar. Their results revealed an L-shaped structure, up to 2 metres beneath the ground and 10 by 15 metres in size. It is perhaps filled with sand, the team write, and may represent a void that was backfilled after construction. It appears to be connected to another structure below, up to 10 metres in depth and about 10 by 10 metres in size.

“We believe that the continuity of the shallow structure and the deep large structure is important. From the survey results, we cannot determine the material causing the anomaly, but it may be a large subsurface archaeological structure,” the team write.

The higher structure may have served as an entrance to the one below, but little more can be said about the anomaly until it has been excavated by archaeologists.

 

Edited May 11 by Thanos5150

[Antigonos]

7 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Japan-Egypt team starts dig of what might be Egyptian king’s tomb

May 9th 2024: 

Possible Ancient Egyptian structure identified beside the Giza pyramids

Researchers working at Giza, Egypt, have identified an anomaly beneath the sand, which may be a previously unknown L-shaped structure....

Their initial survey revealed a large anomaly at the north end of the study area, and other anomalies elsewhere....

“We conclude from these results that the structure causing the anomalies could be vertical walls of limestone or shafts leading to a tomb structure,” the team write. “However, a more detailed survey would be required in order to confirm this possibility.”....

To indicate the shape of the large anomaly, the team then made a further series of surveys using another type of ground-penetrating radar. Their results revealed an L-shaped structure, up to 2 metres beneath the ground and 10 by 15 metres in size. It is perhaps filled with sand, the team write, and may represent a void that was backfilled after construction. It appears to be connected to another structure below, up to 10 metres in depth and about 10 by 10 metres in size.

“We believe that the continuity of the shallow structure and the deep large structure is important. From the survey results, we cannot determine the material causing the anomaly, but it may be a large subsurface archaeological structure,” the team write.

The higher structure may have served as an entrance to the one below, but little more can be said about the anomaly until it has been excavated by archaeologists.

 

This is fascinating! Thanks for posting the update, bro.

[Wepwawet]

It always seemed a bit odd, and not un-remarked over the years, that in a cowded necropolis there's this big gap. It will be very interesting to see who this tomb belongs too, and I'm sure the name is known at this point, and what else is there. The big news, maybe, this year, next month even, will be the results of the investigation in the Queen's Chamber. Who knows what could be there, bags of seeds, high precision machine tools, Jimmy Hoffa, Elvis, gold, gold! gold!!

[Antigonos]

Just now, Wepwawet said:

It always seemed a bit odd, and not un-remarked over the years, that in a cowded necropolis there's this big gap. It will be very interesting to see who this tomb belongs too, and I'm sure the name is known at this point, and what else is there. The big news, maybe, this year, next month even, will be the results of the investigation in the Queen's Chamber. Who knows what could be there, bags of seeds, high precision machine tools, Jimmy Hoffa, Elvis, gold, gold! gold!!

Whatever it is, hopefully it has remained untouched for all this time, like hopefully the large space in the ground although I realize when it comes to the latter that’s unrealistic. 

[Thanos5150]

11 hours ago, Antigonos said:

Whatever it is, hopefully it has remained untouched for all this time, like hopefully the large space in the ground although I realize when it comes to the latter that’s unrealistic. 

It stands to reason these structures date to the early 4th Dynasty or before as the mastabas of the period clearly respect this space. It implies there was once a superstructure that at some point disappeared. Seem quite a wide berth for a purely underground structure and whatever it was appears to have been relatively quite large. The size of the possible lower structure is quite impressive at roughly 33'x33' (over 1000sq ft).  The good news is the upper structure sits at only 7ft below the surface so once work begins it will be quick to get at.  The lower structure is at a depth of 33ft so might be waiting a while on that one. 

Not to be dramatic, but realistically this has the potential range from something quite interesting to perhaps arguably the greatest archeological discovery in history.  I am reminded of this though:

As an aside, it is curious that Djedefre is the son of Khufu, king perhaps only because of Kawab's premature death, who had at least 3 male heirs, Hornit, Baka, and Setka and yet the throne supposedly went to Khafre, another of Khufu's sons, upon his death and not one of his own sons. There is the nebulous Bikheris who may or may not have been a king of the 4th Dynasty which some have speculated this may have been Baka though this is all pretty loose. Manetho gives a reign of 22yrs, Eratosthenes 10yrs, and the Turin Canon 2yrs for an unnamed pharaoh which Bikheris is speculated to be the likely choice. Even more interesting is that the Saqqara King list has 5 pharaohs between Khafre and Userkaf where we only know of 2. If there were a king or kings between these pharaohs like Djedefre it stands to reason one of their heirs would have ascended the throne but again we have Khafre. 

So if it is a tomb, if not the real burial chamber of Khufu and/or Khafre/Menkuare, maybe it is one of these "lost" kings. Or maybe it predates the 4th Dynasty entirely. 

Edited May 12 by Thanos5150

[Thanos5150]

On 5/16/2020 at 6:00 PM, Thanos5150 said:

Again, the explanation given for pyramids being empty of reliefs or decoration in their interiors, again a relatively "new" idea in that until reliefs were found in the BP valley temple in the 1950's it was thought the 4th Dynasty kings did not decorate their temples, is that they are meant to be found in the mortuary temple instead as mirrored in private tombs where the burial chamber is empty with the reliefs being found in the "chapel". As noted earlier in this thread, one of the reasons this obviously this would not apply as there are much in the interiors of pyramids that are not the burial chamber leaving no explanation for them being bare. For example G3 which actually does have some decoration in its interior: 

 

As we can see in not only see contemporary private tombs, but royal and private tombs throughout Dynastic history, funerary dedication, i.e. relief and decoration, nothing could be more important. This of course would be no different for the pharaoh which as Egyptologists tell us we would find this dedication in the mortuary temple. Here's the rub:

Medium: no mortuary temple. Unfinished "valley temple", a chapel, with no reliefs and two large blank stela.  

BP: a small chapel where later mortuary temples would come to be-no reliefs or decoration. Valley temple found with lavish reliefs and decoration. Which is odd because the BP is thought at the very least by most not to have been the tomb of Sneferu.    

RP: small "mortuary temple" of poor construction, perhaps unfinished. Though little remains a fragment was found showing Sneferu though whether or not it is from the temple or a stela is debatable. Valley temple not yet excavated with no evidence of a causeway leading to it. 

G1: all that remains of mortuary temple is black basalt pavement though some granite temple and limestone fragments were found. Numerous scrap/repurposed reliefs attributed to Khufu, presumed and definitive, found in and around the eastern cemetery, mostly the 7000 block, with some found as far away as Lisht. Unknown where they originally belonged though is likely much of it was part of the mortuary temple and/or causeway. Valley temple unexcavated. 

Abu Roash: no mortuary temple as yet found though an intesting possible candidate is in the area on the north side, a typical feature of the 3rd Dynasty, not the 4th who placed the temple on the east side. On the east, however, a curious mud brick structure is  found suggested by some to have been a hastily built mortuary temple though it differs significantly from any OK examples.This structure is worthy of further discussion but regardless, no reliefs.  

G2: Mortuary temple in reality two structures merged as one: the earlier megalithic phase made of massive blocks, and the later mortuary temple. No reliefs or evidence there ever was.

   

As an aside, this is of note as the megalithic phase clearly belongs in the same context as the G2 valley temple and early phase of the G3 mortuary temple which evidence suggest the G2 valley temple was built before the Sphinx Temple and Sphinx. A story for another time perhaps. Of note as well is that fact G1's mortuary temple is completely gone it stands to reason it was not made of megalithic blocks as the rest. 

G2 valley temple-no reliefs nor was there ever though many statues found in proximity which would ahve been installed in the VT. Sphinx temple-no reliefs. 

G3: again, mortuary temple constructed in phases-one megalithic and the rest not with the latter of very poor construction built largely by Menkaure's predecessor Shepseskaf. No reliefs or evidence there ever was. Valley temple of poor construction-completed in mud brick by Shepseskaf and built up again even later by likely Pepi I in the 6th Dynasty. No reliefs, though again many magnificent statues found associated with VT.  

Mastabat al-Fir'aun (Saqarra): attributed to Menkaure's successor Shepseskaf. Some Interior details similar to G3, but no reliefs. A small "mortuary temple" was found as part of complex which differed significantly from previous examples, but again no evidence of reliefs. No evidence of a valley temple. Evidence of attribution to Shepseskaf is scarce. 

Userkaf: lavishly decorated mortuary temple with reliefs of exceptional quality. 

Sahure: lavishly decorated mortuary temple-estimated over 100,000ft of reliefs and decoration-a wonder of the ancient world. 

To recap-funerary dedication of a tomb was no doubt the the most important aspect of the DE belief in the afterlife which to have none is abhorrent not only to their religion but the archaeological context of the whole. Yet despite the fact we are told the reason the interiors of pyramids are bare is because the decoration was placed on the mortuary temples instead, we find a glaring gap and inconsistency in this theory in that nearly all of the pyramids prior to the 5th Dynasty had no dedications in their mortuary temples either.  Medium: none. BP: mortuary temple none-found instead at valley temple. RP: none. G1: mortuary temple is completely gone suggesting not built to same standard (time?) as G2 and G3, but it appears to almost certainly have had reliefs like those found at BP valley temple. G2: none. G3: none. Shepseskaf's mastaba, unlike other mastabas of the period: none. Userkaf and Sahure-amazing display of reliefs on a scale previously unknown in the ancient world of which as an aside there are several other curiosities as well like the introduction of previously unknown fully developed stone columns architecture.  

So prior to Userkaf, the 1st pharaoh of the 5th Dynasty, of the 5 great pyramids only the BP valley temple has reliefs with apparently the mortuary temple of G1 as well. This leaves Medium, the RP, G2 and G3 without the required funerary dedication leaving the question if not in these temples then where as they most certainly had to be somewhere?

Discussed before, the same misrepresentations keep getting repeated by the same poster (s) namely this notion private tomb and pyramid mortuary temple decoration was for the living who came to visit them and burial chambers were not therefore like the burial chambers of private tombs why bother to decorate the interiors of sealed pyramids. Again, nothing could be farther from the truth, just baffling anyone pretending to know what they are talking about would say such a thing, a basic concept anyone should understand about DE religion.

Decorations and writing, and statuary mind you, while in the context of being presented to the living who may see them. their purpose was for the dead to ensure among other things their safe passage and sustenance in the afterlife. Kind of like all the stuff they put in there with them. Kind of like why people came and gave offerings. Kind of like the mastaba itself which was to be the dead's house and specifically designed as such. This is Egyptology 101-whether any living saw them or not is irrelevant as their entire purpose as a whole was for the dead and their existence in the afterlife.   

It should be common sense given all of the writing in these in these mastabas are not just "hey look at me", this is the least of their purpose and have nothing to do with any "visitors", but rather contain among other things many formulae and protective spells specifically for the benefit of the dead. Something as simple as these shown many times:

These are not for "visitors". None of it it is whether it be writing, nature scenes, people farming etc etc-its for the dead. Presentation is not purpose. 

False doors:

For the dead, not the living. 

And if there was any logic to the whole no reason to decorate a sealed pyramid or burial chamber because no one is ever going to see it then what was the point of decorating and inscribing sarcophagi?

Installed during construction no less. Again, it is for the dead not the living. 

And as far as why there are no decoration in mastaba shafts, this is ignorant of the fact as a rule these shafts were vertical and meant to be filled in. They served a practical purpose not a symbolic one and were never meant to be used again by either the living or the dead. 

The interface of the deceased between the worlds of the living and dead were not these shafts but rather one of the often many required false doors in the superstructure.

It has been acknowledged many times until the late 5th Dynasty OK burial chambers were as a rule not decorated (which as discussed before is very interesting to think of why this changed), mastaba or pyramid, but this lack of decoration does not mean they are one and the same as the interiors of pyramids which much more than "just" a burial chamber which again the passages in pyramids do not serve the same function as shafts in mastabas. Except for Saqqara and G3, why at the very least do no other pyramids have false doors? 

G1 has the QC:

G2 has its own secondary chamber:

The idea is these chambers were the original burial chambers but the builders "changed their minds" for some reason yet there is zero evidence of this, just made up to explain why they are there, and the fact all of the Giza pyramids have them shows unless they were all just morons obviously this was not the case. There is a reason they are there and they are not burial chambers, for sake of argument at least for the king's body anyways.  

G3 has several extra chambers which as noted one is decorated with both serekh building and false door yet all the rest are bare:

So no, there is no reason for there not to be decoration in the interiors of pyramids and it is a perfectly reasonable expectation there should be at least something. It does not matter if a sealed pyramid had no visitors as these decoration programs were for the dead, not the living. It does not matter if the chapels of mastabas are analogous to mortuary temples because there is nothing to say the entirety of the interior of a pyrmaid was the "burial chamber" which obviously it was more than that, which as noted above most of the 4D pyramids, including two out of three at Giza, did not even have decorated MT's if they even has them at all. And no, a statuary program does not take its place and do not even serve the same purpose by any stretch of the imagination-this is just made up ignorant argumentative nonsense. 

Does the lack of decoration "prove" pyramids were not tombs? No, of course not but it is certainly circumstantial corroboration and at the very least doesn't mean nothing, but this was never the sole argument I made either as it is the entirety of the royal burial that is missing that is simply not possible all of it would be "robbed" right down to the last potshard. If every other pharaoh's tomb ever discovered is any indication, from the 1st Dynasty to the last, no matter how many Walmart Black Friday shoppers got in there, these pyramids would have been stuffed to the gills with stuff which there would be some kind of "trash" left over but at least until the mid late 5th Dynasty there is zero indication there ever was original to the period of construction.    

There is no rule as to why burial chambers would not be decorated and by the time of the PT things changed quite dramatically in this regard where the PT actually requires it. What changed? 

At any rate, it is unfortunate this topic is such a trigger for some on both sides which I think the overwhelming majority argue their position for all the wrong reasons. The fringe don't want them to be tombs so they can be some fantastical thing and debunkers want them to be tombs so that they can't be fantastical things. The irony is that Egyptologists, as I have shown in detail, do not think they were all either meant to be or were ever actual tombs either yet the fringe are too dumb to pick up on this and debunkers ignore it because it does not fit their narrative, which is to block the fringe at all costs, which again, ironically, is not one and the same as Egyptology.

Sorry, I cannot help either of you. The theory I subscribe to which I have shown is a logical one with evidence to support it is very simple-pharaohs knew they were going to get robbed. They knew no matter how hard they tried eventually their tombs would get raped and pillaged no different than all the others before them. They also knew these enormous structures would paint a big fat bullseye for robbers. They still wanted a funerary memorial for themselves so they built pyramids as cenotaphs, i.e. tombs but not tombs to actually inter the body, and buried their bodies and funerary program in secret elsewhere. If this is true it does not mean the alternative therefore is that pyramids were microwave generators for space ships. No ideologies to shatter or paradigms to bust. It just means the pharaohs were not stupid.   

Edited May 16 by Thanos5150

[Wepwawet]

Well well, what an interesting post, which needs some context. For a start I am clearly one of the two posters referred to, but not named, and I know who the other one is, and it is for him to make his response. The post above really follows on from one of the most scurrilous attack posts I have seen on this forum, and made on another thread. It was against the other of the two posters referred two in the post above, and ended with unacceptable insults and obscenities, which have been snipped.

In the post above two direct lies have been made. Firstly, I have never, ever, stated that decoration in a tomb, no matter what type and where the decoration is, is for the living and not the dead. I would like to see evidence in the form of quotes from any of my posts to back up this gross misrepresentation.. Secondly, I have never said, or intimated, that there were any rules for decoration in a burial chamber, whether as to type of decoration, or even if a burial chamber should or should not be decorated, and again, I want to see quotes from my posts as evidence that this is my position.

Finally, to further put the above post into context, I refer to posts in this thread about the depictions of Anubis in tombs that show him sitting on a tomb, a point that I showed to be correct. I draw attention to the nature of the posts contra, and to the fact that despite the hostile nature, the bluster, they were wrong. This is not an isolated case, and while I do not hold myself as an authority, and certainly not correct in all I say, I do not need to engage in unscrupulous forum tricks to prove my point, I will, as with Anubis, let the facts speak for themselves, and I will not tolerate anybody deliberately misrepresenting what I write, and certainly not when downright lies are told.

Edited May 17 by Wepwawet

[Open Mind OG]

15 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

The irony is that Egyptologists, as I have shown in detail, do not think they were all either meant to be or were ever actual tombs either yet the fringe are too dumb to pick up on this and debunkers ignore it because it does not fit their narrative, which is to block the fringe at all costs, which again, ironically, is not one and the same as Egyptology.

If 'Woo' describes fringe idea's, what's the term for idea's of these Egyptological Debunkers of Egyptology? 

Woo - term based on false beliefs or imaginary things, rather than reason or scientific knowledge.  Root Origin:  'woo woo' is slang term for wide spiral eye'd amazement. 

Here's a suggestion:

Poo - term based on false narrative, created from a denial of accepted official consensus.  Root Origin:  'poo poo' is fecal waste material excreted after all valuable nutrient has been extracted from the source material'

 

Edited May 17 by Open Mind OG

[Thanos5150]

1 hour ago, Open Mind OG said:

If 'Woo' describes fringe idea's, what's the term for idea's of these Egyptological Debunkers of Egyptology? 

Woo - term based on false beliefs or imaginary things, rather than reason or scientific knowledge.  Root Origin:  'woo woo' is slang term for wide spiral eye'd amazement. 

Here's a suggestion:

Poo - term based on false narrative, created from a denial of accepted official consensus.  Root Origin:  'poo poo' is fecal waste material excreted after all valuable nutrient has been extracted from the source material'

Out of that whole post this is what interests you....

[Mark_C]

6 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Out of that whole post this is what interests you

 

its the fringe people versus the slap heads 

 

Edited May 17 by Mark_C

[Djedi]

4 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Well well, what an interesting post, which needs some context. For a start I am clearly one of the two posters referred to, but not named, and I know who the other one is, and it is for him to make his response. The post above really follows on from one of the most scurrilous attack posts I have seen on this forum, and made on another thread. It was against the other of the two posters referred two in the post above, and ended with unacceptable insults and obscenities, which have been snipped.

In the post above two direct lies have been made. Firstly, I have never, ever, stated that decoration in a tomb, no matter what type and where the decoration is, is for the living and not the dead. I would like to see evidence in the form of quotes from any of my posts to back up this gross misrepresentation.. Secondly, I have never said, or intimated, that there were any rules for decoration in a burial chamber, whether as to type of decoration, or even if a burial chamber should or should not be decorated, and again, I want to see quotes from my posts as evidence that this is my position.

Finally, to further put the above post into context, I refer to posts in this thread about the depictions of Anubis in tombs that show him sitting on a tomb, a point that I showed to be correct. I draw attention to the nature of the posts contra, and to the fact that despite the hostile nature, the bluster, they were wrong. This is not an isolated case, and while I do not hold myself as an authority, and certainly not correct in all I say, I do not need to engage in unscrupulous forum tricks to prove my point, I will, as with Anubis, let the facts speak for themselves, and I will not tolerate anybody deliberately misrepresenting what I write, and certainly not when downright lies are told.

Since I am the other poster being referred to I completely agree with Wepwawet's assessment.

A point that needs addressing is the claim that a statuary program such as found in the mortuary temples of Khafre and Menkaure could not take the place of relief decoration, that it does not "even serve the same purpose by any stretch of the imagination" and that "this is just made up ignorant argumentative nonsense." Standardization of the decorative program of pyramid mortuary temples only took place in the fifth dynasty and the fourth dynasty is known not only for its architectural but also decorative experimentation. There were no rules in the fourth dynasty as to how mortuary temples should be decorated; only in the fifth it became the standard practice to decorate those with a relief and statuary program.

Seems that just like with the decoration in pyramid tombs (and /or the lack thereof) someone feels the need to make up rules that should be followed because if not, something strange or unusual is going on. Seeking patterns where there are none can lead to strange conclusions...

Another point in need of attention is the claim that it is somehow strange that no remains of grave goods have been found in pyramids before the mid-fifth dynasty because a lot of grave goods were still present in the tombs of the first two dynasties. This comparison is a bit misleading (to say the least) since these tombs had vast underground galleries filled with storage vessels such as wine jars. This was still the case at the start of the third dynasty where there are still massive galleries under Djoser's pyramid. In the fourth dynasty we have a total different picture, there are no vast galleries only one or two rooms besides the burial chamber. Burial customs had changed, symbolic food offerings and miniature vessels replaced the real thing. Far more easier to clean out just two or three chambers than dozens of vast underground galleries. Since most 4th dyn pyramids have been open and accessible to visitors for hundreds if not thousands of years it is hardly surprising there isn't anything left of the burial goods, after being robbed of the most precious items the non valuables would have been taken by visitors and explorers over the course of time as 'souvenirs'. It needs to be pointed out that the bull bones found in Khafre's burial chamber probably belonged to a food offering typical for this period, sadly we will never be 100% sure since the bones were destroyed by the Luftwaffe during the bombings of the London in WWII and therefore can't be carbon dated. Concerning the "first halve" of the fifth dynasty: The substructure of Userkaf's pyramid hasn't been fully investigated, in the words of Miroslav Verner author of "The Pyramids" on page 215: "Unfortunately, we are missing exact plans and data not only of the pyramid but also its substructure...". The substructures of the pyramids of the two following kings Sahure and Neferirkare have been completely "gutted" by stone robbers (like Djedefre's of the 4th), making investigations extremely dangerous and the likelihood of finding any grave goods next to zero (a lot of queen's pyramids and mastaba's suffered the same fate). The substructure of Neferefre's pyramid suffered also from stone robbers but here not only fragments of a red granite sarcophagus were found but also four calcite alabaster canopic jars, alabaster containers for models of meat offerings and fragment of the original mummy. When pyramids substructures were only partially "gutted" by stone robbers as a result the remaining grave goods got covered by debris; IMO if this hadn't been done we would have had beautifully intact passages and chambers and perhaps even better preserved sarcophagi but probably even less remains of grave goods. 

If the pre mid-fifth dynasty kings built pyramids as "cenotaphs" and buried their bodies and funerary program in secret elsewhere, then the post mid-fifth dynasty kings would all of a sudden have become very stupid to say the least. 

 

Edited May 17 by Djedi

[Wepwawet]

2 minutes ago, Djedi said:

This was still the case at the start of the third dynasty where there are still massive galleries under Djoser's pyramid. In the fourth dynasty we have a total different picture, there are no vast galleries only one or two rooms besides the burial chamber. Burial customs had changed, symbolic food offerings and miniature vessels replaced the real thing

An important point, as, bar some exceptions, these number of vast offerings pretty much stopped dead after Djoser. It's further evidence of a change of burial practise and theology. If not having the huge number of offerings that we see up to Djoser meant that a pyramid was not a tomb, then that just about rules out any pyramid after Djoser being a tomb, and even the tombs in the VoK. Okay, that's an extreme example, but I think it serves a point. How about the pyramids with the PT, are they tombs, well of course they are, but they don't seem to appear in the "story" being presented in a way that has them as tombs for kings, it's probably in there somewhere, but a bit hidden, spoils the narrative?

[Wepwawet]

20 minutes ago, Djedi said:

Miroslav Verner author of "The Pyramids"

I've been slowly going through his book again, much better layout than Lehner, and much more information. Needs some sort of chart or something to make things clearer, for instance detailing exactly which pyramids are unequivocally tombs, which cannot be the tomb of a king, clearly Sneferu was not buried in three places, or Amenemhat III in two, and which ones have a question mark over them. Pages of text, while containing the information, means that it gets lost, jumbled or whatever. I've a lot more reading and note taking to do yet, and have to do at least one chart for Amarna with the musical chairs tombs, then maybe the pyramids.

[Thanos5150]

On 5/16/2024 at 2:10 PM, Thanos5150 said:

It has been acknowledged many times until the late 5th Dynasty OK burial chambers were as a rule not decorated (which as discussed before is very interesting to think of why this changed), mastaba or pyramid, but this lack of decoration does not mean they are one and the same as the interiors of pyramids which much more than "just" a burial chamber which again the passages in pyramids do not serve the same function as shafts in mastabas. Except for Saqqara and G3, why at the very least do no other pyramids have false doors? 

G1 has the QC:

G2 has its own secondary chamber:

The idea is these chambers were the original burial chambers but the builders "changed their minds" for some reason yet there is zero evidence of this, just made up to explain why they are there, and the fact all of the Giza pyramids have them shows unless they were all just morons obviously this was not the case. There is a reason they are there and they are not burial chambers, for sake of argument at least for the king's body anyways.  

G3 has several extra chambers which as noted one is decorated with both serekh building and false door yet all the rest are bare:

 

Discussed at length previously HERE:

The rub is that when we examine the interiors of 4th Dynasty pyramids there is a lot more going on here than just a "burial chamber" and a passage leading to it which leaves us no expectation there would not be reliefs found on at least some of it somewhere. And as I will get to it later, I do not find the explanation this is because it is found in the Mortuary Temples instead convincing. 

Meidum:

Single entrance passage, multiple ante chambers, "burial chamber", no sarcophagus. 

BP:

Multiple entrance passages with multiple passages, ante chambers and "burial chambers". No sarcophagus. Satellite pyrmaid is also bare with no sarcophagus and according to Lehner could not have ever contained one. 

RP:

Singe passage, 3 chambers, no sarcophagus. All above said to be tombs for one pharaoh. Hmm. 

G1:

Multiple passages from single entrance, lower and upper, multiple separate chambers with dedicated passages (hard to be buried in both), GG, portcullis chamber system, niche in the QC. Plain sarcophagus with no dedication. 

G2:

Multiple entrance passages, lower and upper chambers, plain sarcophagus with unusual apron - no dedication. 

G3:

 

Possible two entrances, main leads to chamber with palace facade motif-first and only reliefs in 4th Dynasty pyramids:

From here passage leads to complex system with ante chamber, galleries, multiple chambers including "burial chamber" which contained a palace facade building motif common of the era.  

To recap-in every other tomb scheme, mastabas, beginning with the outer entrance the interior is highly adorned with relief with only the burial chamber and entrance shaft bare. In pyramids, despite all having multiple passages and chambers etc in one form or another often without doubt unrelated to the burial chamber- they are still, with the exception of G3, all bare. To follow the standard tomb model and religious beliefs there is no reason for this if pyramids were meant as the actual tomb of the pharaoh in which we would expect the most celebrated of reliefs, not to mention sarcophagi, to be found. But no. 

The explanation for this, the need for such not lost on Egyptologists, is that this standard model was abandoned for the pharaoh in favor of placing the reliefs in the Mortuary Temple instead of in the tomb like everyone else. On the surface this makes sense, but when we take an inventory of the 4th Dynasty pyramids we find the majority do not nor did they ever have such reliefs. Again, not lost on Egyptologists, which is why until the 1950's (IIRC) with the discovery of the BP Mortuary Temple that was replete with reliefs it was thought the 4th Dynasty kings did not use reliefs for themselves at all.  So what we have is Meidum no MT reliefs (MT not even completed). BP yes. RP no. G1 yes. G2 no. G3 no. We focus on the latter two, G2 and G3. In tomb building there is little more important than funerary reliefs. A must, it stands to reason, none more so than for the pharaoh. Yet Khafre and Menkaure did not have any anywhere which is not only sacrilegious but a clear punch in the nards to the theory the reason why the pyramids have no reliefs is because they were put in the temples instead.