Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

If Pyramids not tombs where are the pharaohs?


Thanos5150
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

I always found it highly peculiar that sarcophagi contemporary with Khufu and Khafre are found fully inscribed with the deceased's name/titles etc but that the so-called sarcophagi of Khufu and Khafre are entirely uninscribed. This is doubly peculiar given the importance of the king's soul to reach the heavens and ensure Ma'at is preserved. The simple expedient act of inscribing the king's name (which was itself an aspect of the king's soul) upon the sarcophagus would have assisted the King's Ba in finding the sarcophagus in order to unite with the Ka to create Akh and go onwards to the afterlife. But, oddly, we find the opposite is true. Those who were not expected (at this early time) to have an afterlife DID have their names inscribed on their sarcophagi but the very one (the king) who WAS supposed to receive an afterlife and preserve Ma'at has a totally plain granite box with no inscriptions whatsoever.

An inscription in the doorway of Kawab's mastaba reads:

Inscriptions are also found on the sarcophagus of Kawab:

dcb3T0b.jpg

Likewise, the sarcophagus of Khufu's daughter, Meresankh II, is also inscribed with inscriptions that include her name:

lrDznMb.png

The sarcophagus of Minkhaf I, another son of Khufu is likewise rendered with various offering inscriptions that also include his name:

Could it be, that we don’t have all of the sarcophagi for those with uninscribed ones? Maybe they were nested within larger ones that were elaborately decorated and thus were victims of tombraiding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Aha.  Found what I was looking for.-- the Abbot and Amherst papyri. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_Papyrus)

A quick review: this is the judicial process against a very organized group of tomb robbers where they specifically mention that pyramids are tombs.  It's in the manuscript... the word for 'pyramid'.

So, from Wikipedia: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobekemsaf_II)

well i bet they didn't have any Miranda rights back then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

well i bet they didn't have any Miranda rights back then. 

One would have thought that the fate suffered by Amenpnufer would have tended to put people off tomb-robbing.

But apparently not ...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Windowpane said:

One would have thought that the fate suffered by Amenpnufer would have tended to put people off tomb-robbing.

But apparently not ...

Somehow i really doubt that tomb robbers acted alone. Im more inclined to believe that the priests and other power brokers did the robbing and the minors the heavy lifting and punishment. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

well i bet they didn't have any Miranda rights back then. 

 

Yep.  Don't know if you've read about their judicial system, but... oy!

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

33 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Aha.  Found what I was looking for.-- the Abbot and Amherst papyri. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_Papyrus)

A quick review: this is the judicial process against a very organized group of tomb robbers where they specifically mention that pyramids are tombs.  It's in the manuscript... the word for 'pyramid'.

So, from Wikipedia: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobekemsaf_II)

 

 

 

 

Little pyramids were likely tombs.  There is not only extensive indirect evidence they were tombs but some direct evidence as well.   

But there is no direct evidence great pyramids that were built before the tiny ones were tombs.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, cladking said:

Little pyramids were likely tombs.  There is not only extensive indirect evidence they were tombs but some direct evidence as well.   

But there is no direct evidence great pyramids that were built before the tiny ones were tombs.   

That was a king's pyramid.  It was larger than the others.

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

47 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Aha.  Found what I was looking for.-- the Abbot and Amherst papyri. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_Papyrus)

A quick review: this is the judicial process against a very organized group of tomb robbers where they specifically mention that pyramids are tombs.  It's in the manuscript... the word for 'pyramid'.

So, from Wikipedia: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobekemsaf_II)

 

The Abbott Papyrus at the British Museum.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

We have no idea why these two sarcophagi are uninscribed. We do not know the circumstances of either burial, so to say that they must have had to be inscibed, otherwise they are not real sarcophagi, is making far too bold a statement.

I didn't actually make any such statement. So do not impute to me that which I have not actually said.

What I have done is SHOW that the ancient Egyptians of this period inscribed their sarcophagi with their names which were an aspect of their soul--they may well have also inscribed the inner coffer. (Belts and braces--who knows?) But we do know as FACT that the AE of this precise period DID inscribe their names/titles upon their sarcophagi. Except when it came to their actual kings supposedly buried in pyramids. 

I presented some examples and there are many other examples of this practice from this period. Which is why I said I find it odd and peculiar that the supposed sarcophagi of Khufu and Khafre were not likewise inscribed.

Quote

As I said, in religious terms it makes no difference if they are inscribed or not.

Yes--YOU said. But the actual PRACTICE of the AE from this period says different. Clearly it was important to them.

Quote

... I would not want to transpose later beliefs onto the past.

It rather seems to me that you are doing precisely that (your very own ethnocentric projection) by ignoring what the AEs evidently actually DID in this period (i.e. Inscribed their sarcophagi--but just not the supposed sarcophagi in the OK pyramids) and then stating "it makes no difference if they are inscribed or not". Says who? You? Well tell us then--why would such a well evidenced practice have been different for the king?

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

I'll quote this again from the OP

In the normal tomb we see two parts, the chapel, and below it the burial chamber, and of course you know this, it is just for clarity. The chapel was, if the owner so wished, and could afford it, decorated, the burial chamber, in this period, never. I'm sure that the chapels for the pyramids, including the Gizamids, were decorated, and with the Step Pyramid we see, as the first pyramid, a hybrid situation with some elements we expect to see in a chapel placed in a corridor under the pyramid, for instance the famous serdab showing a depiction of a running Sneferu. But this is not typical in itself as this serdab was never meant for anybody to come and lay offerings at, it was for Sneferu to communicate, unseen by living mortals, with the gods, probably. There is other decoration as well of course, but as I say, this was a hybrid and shows they were not settled on what a pyramid should be or not be. The burial chamber is of course totally bare.

The pyramids were part of a complex of course, though, particularly with the Gizamids, we cannot see what was on the chapel walls, if we could, there would be nothing like as much discussion over them as there is. So when I see reference to the pyramids, before Unas, being bare of any writing or decoration showing religious funerary belief, and that this is used to try and say that the pyramid was not, or may not have been a tomb for the burial of mortal remains, then I cannot accept that as a valid argument, particulalry when used with the phrase, "Abhorrent to their religion", as it clearly was not. This is why I say you are taking practises from the time of Unas and transposing them back hundreds of years.

Take a contemporary noble tomb, say like Meresankh III, thought to be the wife of Khafre. We would expect no less for a king. Except for the vertical shaft from the chapel interior to the burial chamber and chamber itself, the walls and door ways are otherwise covered in some form of relief. And even though the chamber and shaft are bare, again, the sarcophagus is not though for example those in G1 and G2, the latter built by her very husband no less, are. So our expectation, as you agree, is that what we would expect to find in a noble tomb is an adorned interior "chapel" with bare burial chamber. 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:

scaletowidth

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

BP:

144df14a0b121211c0f2c94ce0b2af9b.jpg

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:

red_pyramid1.jpg

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

G1:

2bda3c41a4ef3271160aa68dad200b57.jpg

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:

Xd4KZoxUYkcWlMzksyFo5JqNc8cVuBEBMptHqIYw

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

G3:

image002.jpg

 

image008.jpg

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

inside-Menkaures-Pyramid.jpg

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.     

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hanslune said:

So again we are right back to the central requirement: There is a need to find one of these alternative tombs, until then it remains an un-evidenced theory.

Of course there is evidence to support the theory, but no, until one of these tombs are found then it will remain just a theory to explain said evidence. Like that they are tombs. Regardless, it is a thought experiment as well in that so many alternative/fringe types believe the pyramids were not tombs, yet if we accept this to be true then we must ask the question-then where are the pharaohs? Right? 

Edited by Thanos5150
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Take a contemporary noble tomb, say like Meresankh III, thought to be the wife of Khafre. We would expect no less for a king. Except for the vertical shaft from the chapel interior to the burial chamber and chamber itself, the walls and door ways are otherwise covered in some form of relief. And even though the chamber and shaft are bare, again, the sarcophagus is not though for example those in G1 and G2, the latter built by her very husband no less, are. So our expectation, as you agree, is that what we would expect to find in a noble tomb is an adorned interior "chapel" with bare burial chamber. 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:

scaletowidth

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

BP:

144df14a0b121211c0f2c94ce0b2af9b.jpg

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:

red_pyramid1.jpg

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

G1:

2bda3c41a4ef3271160aa68dad200b57.jpg

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:

Xd4KZoxUYkcWlMzksyFo5JqNc8cVuBEBMptHqIYw

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

G3:

image002.jpg

 

image008.jpg

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

inside-Menkaures-Pyramid.jpg

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.     

 

 

Well I don't dispute any of your points, or disagree that there is some odd stuff going on, but at the end of the day, my point is that until Unas, nobody but nobody had any decoration in their burial chamber. Therefore lack of decoration cannot be used in itself to rule out any pre Unas pyramid from being a tomb to hold mortal remains, even if some of these pyramids present other issues. I really cannot see how it can be "sacrilegious" not to have inscriptions within the pyramid until Unas. Have you considered that the shape of the pyramid itself may be "doing the talking", particularly with G1, and then religious changes, the emergence of Osiris for instance, needing a proper exposition of what is required of the king when we get to Unas, something we see at various points in their history from the PT. For instance, the PT informs the CT which informs the Amduat which informs subsequent Books of the Netherworld. So it cannot be sacrilegious to not have a religious text before it was even created, obviously, but looking at the PT of Unas, we cannot say that previous pyramids were "in error" because they do not have the required texts, and what are these texts meant to be? we have texts, but nothing substantial before the PT, pretty much a datum point for our understanding of their theology, not totaly of course, but the first "main course".

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

51 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

I didn't actually make any such statement. So do not impute to me that which I have not actually said.

What I have done is SHOW that the ancient Egyptians of this period inscribed their sarcophagi with their names which were an aspect of their soul--they may well have also inscribed the inner coffer. (Belts and braces--who knows?) But we do know as FACT that the AE of this precise period DID inscribe their names/titles upon their sarcophagi. Except when it came to their actual kings supposedly buried in pyramids. 

I presented some examples and there are many other examples of this practice from this period. Which is why I said I find it odd and peculiar that the supposed sarcophagi of Khufu and Khafre were not likewise inscribed.

Yes--YOU said. But the actual PRACTICE of the AE from this period says different. Clearly it was important to them.

It rather seems to me that you are doing precisely that (your very own ethnocentric projection) by ignoring what the AEs evidently actually DID in this period (i.e. Inscribed their sarcophagi--but just not the supposed sarcophagi in the OK pyramids) and then stating "it makes no difference if they are inscribed or not". Says who? You? Well tell us then--why would such a well evidenced practice have been different for the king?

SC

You are most certainly implying that lack of inscriptions on a sarcophagus rule it out as a real sarcophagus, so it's not me "imputing" you, it is me reading what you say, what you mean.

The other comments you made make me think that you could read up a bit more on AE religion, Try Morenz to start with, then move on to Assmann and Hornung as they build on his work.

Er, "ethnocentric projection" what an odd and rather insulting comment, you trolling me, I wonder...

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

2 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Aha.  Found what I was looking for.-- the Abbot and Amherst papyri. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbott_Papyrus)

A quick review: this is the judicial process against a very organized group of tomb robbers where they specifically mention that pyramids are tombs.  It's in the manuscript... the word for 'pyramid'.

So, from Wikipedia: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobekemsaf_II)

 

Um, yeah...Sorry, but this does not say what you think it does with the translation as "pyramid-tomb" to mean an actual pyramid highly questionable at best to more often disproven. The original text makes it quite clear these are to be separated. For example:

"The pyramids, graves and tombs examined this day by the inspectors".

The "pyramid tombs" are not one and the same as we are told as well:

Quote

 

The pyramid-tomb of King SekhemrSfshedtaui, Son of Ref Sebkem- saf. (2)

It was found to have been violated by the thieves by tunnelling in the nfrw- chamber 7 of its (3) pyramid from the outer hall of the rock-tomb of Nebamun, overseer of the granary of King Menkheperrer.

 

They tell us the "pyramid-tomb" is robbed by way of tunneling into the "nfrw chamber" of it's pyramid which has to be accessed from another tomb, a rock cut tomb no less, all-together.  

THE GREAT TOMB ROBBERIES OF THE TWENTIETH EGYPTIAN DYNASTY

Regardless, you cite Sobekemsaf II as one of these pharaohs whose "pyramid-tomb" was robbed yet Sobekemsaf II  is an NK pharaoh of the 17th Dynasty, as are most others the Abbot Papyrus refers to, which none of these 17th Dynasty kings have been found to have ever built an actual pyramid and is thought, maybe, only because of the Abbot Papyrus and not the archaeology, that they built something like steep pyramid shaped obelisks or small ceremonial cult pyramids, which regardless are not their tombs.  

The Pyramids, Miroslav Verner p395:

"In the text on the Abbot Papyrus, other tombs are designated pyramids that were demonstrably not pyramids...."

The term "pyramid-tomb" in these later texts are more often than not not reffering to pyramids, many we know they are not, but rather it is a symbolic name and is a "pyramid-tomb", something unto itself, and not an actual "pyramid". 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the major pharo's sarcophagus was made of solid gold and they stole the whole damn thing.:unsure2:

and the one in there was just for a loyal servant.

 

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

26 minutes ago, razman said:

Maybe the major pharo's sarcophagus was made of solid gold and they stole the whole damn thing.:unsure2:

and the one in there was just for a loyal servant.

Dont imagine grave robbers would have left anything of value. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

You are most certainly implying that lack of inscriptions on a sarcophagus rule it out as a real sarcophagus, so it's not me "imputing" you, it is me reading what you say, what you mean.

The other comments you made make me think that you could read up a bit more on AE religion, Try Morenz to start with, then move on to Assmann and Hornung as they build on his work.

Er, "ethnocentric projection" what an odd and rather insulting comment, you trolling me, I wonder...

Pretty sure that a pharaoh that could build such a colossal size tomb wouldn't skimp on a sarcophagus. Actually it stands to reason that the inside burial chamber would show more attention to detail than the outside. In the great pyramid this is not the case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Pretty sure that a pharaoh that could build such a colossal size tomb wouldn't skimp on a sarcophagus. Actually it stands to reason that the inside burial chamber would show more attention to detail than the outside. In the great pyramid this is not the case. 

The burial chamber is in fact quite well finished, and as has been discussed, would not have been decorated in this period. I'll agree that it could be expected that the sarcophagus would have at least a name inscribed on it, but that it doesn't is not that important, except for those who wish to make a big thing out of it for whatever reason.

Tomb KV43, belonging to Thutmose IV, a king ruling an empire with more resources than Khufu, is unfinished with only a few walls having decoration. He reigned for ten years, already an adult when he took the throne, and as the carving out of the tomb was finished, there is no reason we can discern as to why the painting was not finished as there was time. However, we don't know the exact circumstances of his death except that he was ill, something not unusual approaching death of course. We have even less knowledge about Khufu and the end of his reign, and if KV43 can remain unfinished, so can G1, though the sarcophagus is a minor detail in a pyramid that is probably fully finished. Parts that look unfinished, ie a rough cutting into bedrock, may be intended to be "unfinished". Also, they were superstitious about completing a tomb before death, as it was thought that a finished tomb would invite death sooner. The circumstances of the eventual death may possibly preclude the tomb being finished. There is a tendency to look at G1 and presume it must conform to various ideas we have about ancient Egypt, but they were not ant-like automata building to a preprogrammed guide hardwired into their minds. They inovated and experimented, they evolved their beliefs, sometimes with great speed, so we should never look at G1, and much else, and presume that we can say how it should be and what they intended. For instance, any concocted "controversy" about the burial chamber not being decorated pales into insignificance when weighed against the truely bizarre claims, having no basis in fact, common sense, or anything to do with ancient Egypt, that are manufactured to explain The Great Pyramid.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

... my point is that until Unas, nobody but nobody had any decoration in their burial chamber. Therefore lack of decoration cannot be used in itself to rule out any pre Unas pyramid from being a tomb to hold mortal remains, even if some of these pyramids present other issues. I really cannot see how it can be "sacrilegious" not to have inscriptions within the pyramid until Unas ...

Unas, first king to have the Pyramid Texts in his pyramid, remained conservative with respect to his sarcophagus, leaving it uninscribed.

The area around the sarcophagus was also left uninscribed, consistently keeping hieroglyphs at a distance from the king.

The overall trend is from uninscribed sarcophagi to inscribed sarcophagi: but with kings' sarcophagi, practice was conservative.
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to see a table listing all the evidence mentioned in this thread then putting next to whether or accepted or denied by Mainstream or Fringe........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Windowpane said:

Unas, first king to have the Pyramid Texts in his pyramid, remained conservative with respect to his sarcophagus, leaving it uninscribed.

The area around the sarcophagus was also left uninscribed, consistently keeping hieroglyphs at a distance from the king.

The overall trend is from uninscribed sarcophagi to inscribed sarcophagi: but with kings' sarcophagi, practice was conservative.

In regards to the great pyramid, there are no carvings any where in the actual tomb to denote it being the resting place of the king. No plaster on the walls depicting religious scripture. A small sarcophagus that would not have been able to comfortably fit a kings mummy with all the finery one would expect a king to be buried in. Im prepared to believe that the actual tomb has yet to be discovered in the pyramid. maybe that void above it has answers but if thats the extent of a funeral tomb then it disappoints on many levels and deserves to be questioned. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

In regards to the great pyramid, there are no carvings any where in the actual tomb to denote it being the resting place of the king. No plaster on the walls depicting religious scripture. A small sarcophagus that would not have been able to comfortably fit a kings mummy with all the finery one would expect a king to be buried in. Im prepared to believe that the actual tomb has yet to be discovered in the pyramid. maybe that void above it has answers but if thats the extent of a funeral tomb then it disappoints on many levels and deserves to be questioned. 

The void, oh the void. I'm optimistic about this and hope that additional chambers proposed by Houdin that could lead off the King's chamber turn out to be reality. The scans, while not easy to read as regards whether we have a horizontal void or a slope mirroring the Grand Gallery, do fit to his proposal. Interestingly, the game Assassin's Creed Origins, released just before publication of the first scans, include Houdin's chambers, and access is by a "secret door" by the sarcophagus, where that odd sarcophagus sized block is that looks out of place to those around it. We'll see, one day.

On OK royal coffins and what they contain, or contained, we are not looking at anything remotely like the "Rolls Royce" coffins of the 18th Dynasty, and not even like the coffin of an MK noble. There were no anthropoid coffins at that time, and no nest of coffins as the mummies were still laid on their sides. So name and titles, maybe a pair of eyes, on a wodden coffin, and some protective spells, but nothing special. But there would I am sure have been a huge amount of treasure.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Poor G2 it always gets ignored in these conversations - its not like it's NOT standing right NEXT to G1 but everyone ignores the poor lonely b******.

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

55 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

Poor G2 it always gets ignored in these conversations - its not like it's NOT standing right NEXT to G1 but everyone ignores the poor lonely b******.

Odd, isn't it? This is the perpetual habit of attempting to remove a single object, construction, or event from its temporal and cultural context. One of the hallmarks of the fringe mentality.

.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

The void, oh the void. I'm optimistic about this and hope that additional chambers proposed by Houdin that could lead off the King's chamber turn out to be reality. The scans, while not easy to read as regards whether we have a horizontal void or a slope mirroring the Grand Gallery, do fit to his proposal. Interestingly, the game Assassin's Creed Origins, released just before publication of the first scans, include Houdin's chambers, and access is by a "secret door" by the sarcophagus, where that odd sarcophagus sized block is that looks out of place to those around it. We'll see, one day.

On OK royal coffins and what they contain, or contained, we are not looking at anything remotely like the "Rolls Royce" coffins of the 18th Dynasty, and not even like the coffin of an MK noble. There were no anthropoid coffins at that time, and no nest of coffins as the mummies were still laid on their sides. So name and titles, maybe a pair of eyes, on a wodden coffin, and some protective spells, but nothing special. But there would I am sure have been a huge amount of treasure.

well thats interesting that you mention what could have been in the inner tomb and sarcophagus. i remember reading an interesting article a while back ago that mentions it was the Arab rulers in the 8th century that discovered the upper chambers and tunnels of the Great Pyramid by breaking through granite blocks that plugged the entrances. and they specifically mentioned that there was no mummy to be seen and that the sarcophagus was open and broken. 

Now if the Arabs were the first to enter by defeating the defensive granite plugs and they found nothing then it stands to reason that it wasn't a tomb but a decoy or a ceremonial tomb. Otherwise there would have had to have been a second entrance into the tomb that we don't know about. 

What do you think ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.