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

If Pyramids not tombs where are the pharaohs?


Thanos5150

Recommended Posts

The pictures and diagrams that have been posted in this thread by Wepwawet and Thanos5150 are simply marvelous in resolution and subject matter.  Thanks to you both.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
18 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

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.

All entrances were designed for the inflow of cataclysmic floodwaters.

Chambers were designed to record the occurrence of the cataclysm - in some way (movement/raising of megalithic blocks, or floats, etc).

Air shafts (if present) were used if the pyramid adopted an unpressurised design.

The pyramid was intended to withstand 500m-1km high mega-tsunami, and to last around a dozen millennia - hopefully preserving its testimony.

Its design is entirely sufficient to communicate its purpose and testimony (to sufficiently sapient members of h sapiens sapiens).

Adornment and writing would be superfluous, easily erased, and unlikely to be intelligible even if it lasted a dozen millennia (given semantic mutation).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Zod YinYang said:

Adornment and writing would be superfluous, easily erased, and unlikely to be intelligible even if it lasted a dozen millennia (given semantic mutation).

Semantic mutation is something that happens in descriptive coding languages when programming. Not linguistics. Your misusing the term. 

Abstract ideas, such as in religion only change when they are intentionally changed. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Zod YinYang said:

All entrances were designed for the inflow of cataclysmic floodwaters.

Chambers were designed to record the occurrence of the cataclysm - in some way (movement/raising of megalithic blocks, or floats, etc).

Air shafts (if present) were used if the pyramid adopted an unpressurised design.

The pyramid was intended to withstand 500m-1km high mega-tsunami, and to last around a dozen millennia - hopefully preserving its testimony.

Its design is entirely sufficient to communicate its purpose and testimony (to sufficiently sapient members of h sapiens sapiens).

Adornment and writing would be superfluous, easily erased, and unlikely to be intelligible even if it lasted a dozen millennia (given semantic mutation).

 

Stop hobby horsing your stupid fan fiction. Start your own thread. 

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

Just a general question to anybody. Is there any evidence for the separation of the mortuary chapel from the tomb before the 18th Dynasty, when it became necessary due to royal tombs being hidden underground in the VoK.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mortuary Temples part 1

I will not be discussing decoration in this post, I will only be discussing the existance of mortuary temples for pyramids and whether they indicate a royal burial or not.

Firstly some terminology. The terms "mortuary temple" and "mortuary chapel" are used, and at times terms like "entrance chapel" or "pyramid temple". As I will be dealing only with the tomb of a king then I will use the term mortuary temple to distuinguish it from the mortuary chapel of a commoner. The mortuary temple is generally a free standing structure, though often abutted to the pyramid, while the mortuary chapel is an integral part of the tomb, in the case of a mastaba, the "upper floor". Also, while worship can take place in a temple or chapel, both being names, for us, not the AE, for places or worship, the deceased king is now a god and as well as offerings being made at his mortuary temple, he is certainly worshipped.

The question here is does the presence of a mortuary temple at the pyramid of a king indicate that the king is in fact buried here, and conversely, does the absence of a mortuary temple at the pyramid of a king indicate that he is not buried there.

It would make life easier if none of the problematic pyramids had a mortuary temple with them, but they all do, every pyramid made for a king has a mortuary temple (Going by Verner), even if some are nearly as destroyed as their pyramid. This then allows the question to be raised that when a pyramid was not, could not, have been used for the burial of a king, then surely the mortuary temple is for "remote offering and worship" as the king's actual tomb is somewhere else, presumably hidden as they were in the VoK.

Let's have a look at the situation in the New Kingdom with regard to mortuary temples, or in AE terms the "House of millions of years", personally I think that "House of Eternity" is better as that is what is implied. As the tombs were hidden in the VoK, then it would defeat the object of concealment if a House of Eternity were placed right by the tomb, so they were placed on the west bank of the Nile at Thebes on the edge of cultivation. Therefore the giving of offerings and worship of the deified king was accomplished remotely. That the ka could operate remotely is an established fact due to the "ka houses" found at Abydos, though to receive offerings at the tomb the ka would need to be there as well, and this multiplicity of manifestations was normal for the AE, all gods having millions of manifestations.

Back to the pyramid age, and do we find a similar situation for any king with a separated tomb and mortuary temple. Well there is, but just the one that is clear cut, and I'll deal with this in part two.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 5/22/2024 at 10:12 AM, Wepwawet said:

Just a general question to anybody. Is there any evidence for the separation of the mortuary chapel from the tomb before the 18th Dynasty, when it became necessary due to royal tombs being hidden underground in the VoK.

There's this: https://www.ancient-egypt.org/history/old-kingdom/4th-dynasty/kheops/pyramid-complex-at-giza/mortuary-and-valley-temple.html

...they're slightly separated.  How much distance were you thinking is involved in the "separation"?  It appears that the chapel at Giza was separated by some distance but enclosed within the pyramid's retaining wall.

Quote

The funerary chapels that Snofru built to the east of his pyramids, was extended into a small, squarish Mortuary Temple.
Unfortunately, this temple has been almost entirely destroyed over time, which makes it hard to identify the different elements that originally made up the temple. The general shape of the temple, however, does make it clear that this was just an intermediate monument between the funerary chapels of Snofru, and the traditional mortuary temple, as it would be defined just one generation later, during the reign of Khefren.

They do note however that there isn't a sign of the ka doorway or of the ka statue itself.

(additional info here https://www.ancient-egypt.org/history/old-kingdom/4th-dynasty/khefren/pyramid-complex-at-giza/khefrens-mortuary-and-valle.html - they cite Lehner's Complete Pyramids (circa 2013)

(checking for other examples)

Edited by Kenemet
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

.they're slightly separated.  How much distance were you thinking is involved in the "separation"?

A good question, and I will address this in part two.

 

37 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

They do note however that there isn't a sign of the ka doorway or of the ka statue itself.

And this will also be addressed in a later post, though in short, these elements became less prominent, or vanished alltogether as time went by. It's part of a "contraction" of the sacred space that I guess culminates with the Tanis burials.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.