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 -

Update on big void in the Great Pyramid


Wistman

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Open Mind OG said:

Refresh my memory on all that.   Are we saying Amunhotep III built his own tomb in addition to the Serapeum, or are we saying the Serapeum 'was' that tomb? 

If you have the confidence to express doubt about the sarcophagi in the Serapeum being coffins for the Apis bulls, then surely you will have researched this topic and will already know about Amunhotep III and the burial of Apis I, surely.... However, if you really don't know, then I suggest you read what Aidan Dodson has written about this. You can find this in Chapter 4, Bull Cults, in Salima Ikram's "Divine Creatures - Animal Mummies in Ancient Egypt". I think Bull Cults is also available on line. I have also written about this on this forum, certainly in the Amarna thread, and elsewhere I think.

 

16 minutes ago, Open Mind OG said:

But maybe there was a missing story of a BLIP - Brief Limited Industrial Period, that occurred prior to the Serapeum's construction,

I have not the slightest interest in this, I'm interested in Ancient Egypt, not fringe things, except when some specific areas come under direct assault and need addressing, notably the assault by the fringe on the PT, and common sense and reality.

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

43 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

notably the assault by the fringe on the PT, and common sense and reality.

ok, good to know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Open Mind OG said:

It does.  Its actually surprising how close it is, just under actually by an inch or two in both dimensions, to the Antechamber passage under the portcullis.   Its popular to say that it can't fit, but it does very well and could slide all the way through to the GG, and the opening is a nice fit under the opening of the portcullis.   These close fits tend to suggest non coincidence.    I refer to the M&R dimensions for confirmation.   Prepare your tinfoil hat for this one...

Regardless of the fact this has been discussed many times before you'd think maybe common sense would take over at some point, but the sarcophagi were often placed during construction. All this nonsense created over nothing. 

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

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Open Mind OG said:

I am distracted by this.   I wish I had the confidence in knowing that stone boxes were the intentional creation of the dynastic Egyptians for funerary purposes, but I am distracted by countless items that point to a completely other purpose.    I also wish it was more convincing that we know certain kings made some of those boxes, instead of simply discovering those amazing works of stone and claiming them for their purposes, but since we can't date stone, we have to rely on circumstantial evidence, and I have suspicions based on a great many of those.   The only thing I have a confidence about, is the distinction of stone box work that appears refined, precise, and purpose built, vs the more organic rudimentary, which was  obviously hand made to the best ability of the stone mason of that time.

History of the Sarcophagus.

Discussed in one form or another many times at GHMB as well. It beggars belief you could still be so clueless which makes one believe you just don't want to be honest with yourself. Like the vases there is a chronological history of development that begins with a "soft" material, vases clay/sarcophagi wood, which eventually evolves into the use of stone. Another non-mystery created from your own willful ignorance.      

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

History of the Sarcophagus.

Discussed in one form or another many times at GHMB as well. It beggars belief you could still be so clueless which makes one believe you just don't want to be honest with yourself. Like the vases there is a chronological history of development that begins with a "soft" material, vases clay/sarcophagi wood, which eventually evolves into the use of stone. Another non-mystery created from your own willful ignorance.      

More from here: Life After Lost Civilization:

Isn't it weird though that the LC stone sarcophagi first found in the OK emulate the palace facade Serekh building design of their early Dynastic wooden counterparts and yet there are no stone sarcophagi found in these earlier times? So the AE of the 2nd Dynasty, for example, saw these LC stone sarcophagi and made wood sarcophagi in homage, but it never occurred to them until the OK to just go ahead and use them instead. Or mention this fact or incorporate it into their religion. Or better yet, being granite these OK Serekh building sarcophagi could only be built by the LC meaning the Serekh building itself must belong to the LC. Where are they? And the examples of the Serekh building, the 1st Dynasty mastabas, are made of mud brick-were these made by the LC too? Palace façade mud brick architecture is first found in Mesopotamia some 7,000yrs ago, but if this is modeling after things the LC built then where are they? Or wait a minute-is it possible the Mesopotamians are the LC? Nah.  

Also: 

Here's another one for you. Only the LC could build these monuments because, of course, the AE let alone any other known ancient culture could not do such things. Namely they were unable to cut igneous rock-granite, diorite, etc. Its too hard. Harder than beating Harte in a limerick contest. Other than Darkseid's Omega Beams, there is little in the universe that could have cut granite until the invention of steel, but just as long as they didn't use it to cut massive igneous blocks like the Indians of India, then no it must have been made by the LC too. A story for another time. Anyhoo, this is fantastic because while we may not be able to find their burials at least we know what the looked like:

467px-thumbnail.jpg

57d8f61a06345122bec3cec11b62ffe0.jpg

Apparently the LC is where the cankle gene comes from. 

Countless such LC statues found by the AE. The most amazing thing is how the AE were able to find a statue, many statues in the case of pharaohs, of a different LC person for each AE person. For 3,000yrs. What luck is that? 

Opponents of the LC hypothesis often cite the complete lack of evidence of their existence but in the words of the fringe this would not be true-these statues are evidence. According to fringe beliefs the people depicted on these statuary must be the LC. I really don't think I get the credit I deserve for solving this mystery. 

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

More from here: Life After Lost Civilization:

Isn't it weird though that the LC stone sarcophagi first found in the OK emulate the palace facade Serekh building design of their early Dynastic wooden counterparts and yet there are no stone sarcophagi found in these earlier times? So the AE of the 2nd Dynasty, for example, saw these LC stone sarcophagi and made wood sarcophagi in homage, but it never occurred to them until the OK to just go ahead and use them instead. Or mention this fact or incorporate it into their religion. Or better yet, being granite these OK Serekh building sarcophagi could only be built by the LC meaning the Serekh building itself must belong to the LC. Where are they? And the examples of the Serekh building, the 1st Dynasty mastabas, are made of mud brick-were these made by the LC too? Palace façade mud brick architecture is first found in Mesopotamia some 7,000yrs ago, but if this is modeling after things the LC built then where are they? Or wait a minute-is it possible the Mesopotamians are the LC? Nah.  

Also: 

Here's another one for you. Only the LC could build these monuments because, of course, the AE let alone any other known ancient culture could not do such things. Namely they were unable to cut igneous rock-granite, diorite, etc. Its too hard. Harder than beating Harte in a limerick contest. Other than Darkseid's Omega Beams, there is little in the universe that could have cut granite until the invention of steel, but just as long as they didn't use it to cut massive igneous blocks like the Indians of India, then no it must have been made by the LC too. A story for another time. Anyhoo, this is fantastic because while we may not be able to find their burials at least we know what the looked like:

467px-thumbnail.jpg

57d8f61a06345122bec3cec11b62ffe0.jpg

Apparently the LC is where the cankle gene comes from. 

Countless such LC statues found by the AE. The most amazing thing is how the AE were able to find a statue, many statues in the case of pharaohs, of a different LC person for each AE person. For 3,000yrs. What luck is that? 

Opponents of the LC hypothesis often cite the complete lack of evidence of their existence but in the own words of the fringe this is not true-these statues are evidence. According to fringe beliefs the people depicted on these statuary must be the LC. I really don't think I get the credit I deserve for solving this mystery. 

And before one of you fringe folk thinks of something really stupid to say, yes, these stone statues follow the same chronological evolutionary scheme as the stoneware and sarcophagi. The first stone statues appear at the end of the 2nd Dynasty with Khasekhemwy whereas as prior and leading directly to these same kinds of statues were made of wood.  If anyone is interested, here is a series of posts from a discussion with Manu regarding the provenance of statuary: HERE. 

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thread cleaned

Enough with the drama please folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

but the sarcophagi were often placed during construction.

It still has to be placed in from GG and up anyways, so that's not materially different.  But its fit is so close and alignments are hard to ignore.   I just find it interesting. 

(thanks for the designs Jon)

BoxHoles1.thumb.JPG.ec7693ac05cf2ebf1a78fefc1b575c9c.JPG

Edited by Open Mind OG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Open Mind OG said:

It still has to be placed in from GG and up anyways, so that's not materially different.  But its fit is so close and alignments are hard to ignore.   I just find it interesting. 

(thanks for the designs Jon)

BoxHoles1.thumb.JPG.ec7693ac05cf2ebf1a78fefc1b575c9c.JPG

And ..? So what. It would have been all open at the top when it was installed. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Saru said:

Thread cleaned

Enough with the drama please folks.

Awww, man. Missed it again. If it was about me I hope it was really bad. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/10/2024 at 6:26 PM, Thanos5150 said:

The readers will note you did not say "burial chamber",  which is not the argument, but rather "lack of adornment inside" as its not just the burial chamber but rather the fact these pyramids are completely devoid of any funerary inscription or decoration [except G3]. True, burial chambers for non pharaoh's as a rule were often bare, but the rest of their interiors of their tombs were replete with as much "flair" as could be afforded. It is unreasonable if the pyramids were made as tombs to actually inter a body they would be completely devoid of such for not only no apparent reason but abhorrent to DE culture and funerary practices. No its not "proof", not sure who was saying this, but it is certainly part of the body of the greater body of evidence in support of the idea pyramids were not built as tombs.   

If Pyramids not tombs where are the pharaohs?

There is no reason to expect decoration in the sealed part of the pyramids, not just the burial chamber (until the end of the 5th dyn) but including passages and other chambers; there's no decoration in the passage / shaft leading to the burial chamber of contemporary mastaba's either. Decorated passages and (non-burial) chambers in royal tombs are a practice from the New Kingdom, retrojecting that this should be the case for the OK (and MK) pyramids is methodological unsound. The burial chambers of MK pyramids are again uninscribed, (because the funerary text are now on the coffins) no decoration in passages either.

The lack of decoration in pyramids isn't evidence at all for the idea that pyramids were not build as tombs.

If Pyramids not tombs where are the pharaohs?

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Djedi said:

There is no reason to expect decoration in the sealed part of the pyramids

My opinion on this is that the pyramid might have been seen as a part of the burial chamber, an "enclosure" to the burial chamber in a way that the earth surrounding the burial chamber under a mastaba does not. By that I mean that the earth the burial chamber is sunk into is just earth, and all the religious/magical elements are within the burial chamber. With a pyramid we see an outward expression of these elements, with new ones added, the "stairway to heaven". Therefore, if this is the case, then the AE would not see any need to decorate the inside of a pyramid as it is just an oversized above ground burial chamber with added knobs and whistles. The PT appearing in the pyramid of Unas not as decoration, but as permanent magical protection, it is as if the lector who would have read out these texts at the burial, hence the inclusion in the texts of the prompt, "recitation" was for eternity reading them. Then, as you state, when these texts underwent an evolution and where written on coffins, there was no need for them to be inscribed on the burial chamber walls, hence no PT to be found in MK pyramids.

I'll add that when the texts were written on coffins, and later on scrolls, there was no need to have them on the wall of a tomb even when we get to the NK with it's richly decorated tombs. As long as the coffins, and for kings, shrines, had the texts, the walls of the tomb did not actually have to be decorated as they were protected anyway, vide tombs with unfinished decoration, or no decoration in the burial chamber at all, vide that of Thutmose IV. The decoration is what they wanted of course, but it would seem not to be an absolute imperative for their magical protection, and far too much is made of undecorated tombs.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Djedi said:

There is no reason to expect decoration in the sealed part of the pyramids, not just the burial chamber (until the end of the 5th dyn) but including passages and other chambers; there's no decoration in the passage / shaft leading to the burial chamber of contemporary mastaba's either. Decorated passages and (non-burial) chambers in royal tombs are a practice from the New Kingdom, retrojecting that this should be the case for the OK (and MK) pyramids is methodological unsound. The burial chambers of MK pyramids are again uninscribed, (because the funerary text are now on the coffins) no decoration in passages either.

The lack of decoration in pyramids isn't evidence at all for the idea that pyramids were not build as tombs.

If Pyramids not tombs where are the pharaohs?

Yes there is and yes it is. There is no reason to expect there not to be and the fact there is not is more context as to its purpose which without them appears to be not an actual tomb. This concept is nowhere to be found in DE writing and is a modern invention to produce an explanation as to why there is no decoration when every expectation is there would be. Djoser had no problem slathering the interior of his pyramid with writing and decoration and as said several times before G3 does in fact have decoration in its interior.  

Djoser:

66d5607eeb66523ba536842727c54add.png

G3:

Inside-the-Pyramid-of-Menkaure-770x500.j

This notion it is some kind of "rule" no decorations were allowed inside pyramids is just made up. 

And the readers will note no where was the NK mentioned nor have I ever mentioned the NK as relating to this subject and specifically refer to burials of the OK. We can only wonder why someone would purposefully misrepresent what is being said which oddly enough folks can easily just read it for themselves this is not the case. This isn't being "methodically unsound", its just lying. 

And as far as the idea of the interior being part of the burial chamber, this has been going around for decades.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Yes there is and yes it is. There is no reason to expect there not to be and the fact there is not is more context as to its purpose which without them appears to be not an actual tomb. This concept is nowhere to be found in DE writing and is a modern invention to produce an explanation as to why there is no decoration when every expectation is there would be. Djoser had no problem slathering the interior of his pyramid with writing and decoration and as said several times before G3 does in fact have decoration in its interior.  

Djoser:

66d5607eeb66523ba536842727c54add.png

G3:

Inside-the-Pyramid-of-Menkaure-770x500.j

 

Those are the two only exceptions, all other pyramids lack interior decoration in their corridors and rooms until Unas introduces Pyramid Texts. 

 

2 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

This notion it is some kind of "rule" no decorations were allowed inside pyramids is just made up. 

No one claims there is a strict rule that no decorations were allowed, the two examples you provided show there were exceptions even if there are only two. Fact remains that pyramid interiors were almost never decorated.

It is you who makes up a rule that no interior decoration in a pyramid means no tomb.

 

2 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

And the readers will note no where was the NK mentioned nor have I ever mentioned the NK as relating to this subject and specifically refer to burials of the OK. We can only wonder why someone would purposefully misrepresent what is being said which oddly enough folks can easily just read it for themselves this is not the case. This isn't being "methodically unsound", its just lying. 

And as far as the idea of the interior being part of the burial chamber, this has been going around for decades.  

The readers will note that even though you don't mention the NK explicitly, it doesn't stop you from retrojecting NK concepts on the OK. It's your choice to continue to make the same methodological errors even if they have been pointed out to you by several forum members of the course of several years. Which is quite surprising since you are very apt at debunking the 'more out there' fringe ideas, why you are completely blind to the methodological errors behind the somewhat less spectacular fringe ideas is quite strange imho. You seem to swallow the whole 'the pyramids were not tombs but cenotaphs' nonsense, as promoted by Mendelssohn, hook line and sinker without any critical analysis, which again is very weird since you are perfectly capable at spotting methodological errors of other fringe ideas. That is the real mystery here.

 

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

14 minutes ago, Djedi said:

don't mention the NK

It's almost like "Don't mention the war" from Fawlty Towers. But yes, your comments are correct. I'll add, as it was me, naughty naughty, who mentioned the NK, that it was, as I know my post made clear, to show that there was no absolutely vital need to decorate the burial chamber of a king as his protection comes from, his wrappings, the jewelry within the wrappings, the "helmet", the decoration and texts of his three coffins and sarcophagus, the four shrines, items around the shrines, the magic bricks, and finally, the actual burial chamber itself, decorated or not. The texts on the insides of the coffins serve exactly the same purpose as the PT, and are of course an evolution, heavily modified and "updated", of the PT. The Pyramid of Sneferu, as you point out, cannot be taken to represent all pyramids, besides, the crucial part, the only part that is really relevant, the burial chamber, is not decorated.

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

Posted (edited)

I was going by memory when I stated that the burial chamber of the Step Pyramid is not decorated. So, refreshing my memory by looking at "The Complete Pyramids", I found I was right, but there is a caveat which needs addressing. The burial chamber we see today certainly has no decorations in it, however, this is not the original burial chamber due to an internal re-build. Around the ouside of the present burial chamber are some blocks which probably formed the roof of the original burial chamber. These blocks have a five pointed star on them. In the south tomb the roof of the burial chamber, if it was ever for an actual burial, is covered with these stars, and I'll note that they are on the roof, not the ceiling of the inside of the chamber. So with this caveat, the statement that the burial chamber of the Step Pyramid is without decoration is correct.

Now G3. The photo a few posts up does indeed show decoration inside G3, but it is not the burial chamber, it is a chamber at the bottom of the descending passage, and I'll quote Lehner:

Quote

The entrance lies about 4m (13ft) above the base of the north side of the pyramid. A descending passage slopes down at an angle of 26 2' for 31 m (102 ft) to a horizontal chamber, where there is a series of panels carved with a repeated very tall and stylized false door motif. This is the first purely decorative element inside a pyramid since Djoser's

So, from Djoser to Unas there is not a single example of a king's burial chamber having any decoration, with the pyramids of Djoser and Menkaure being the only ones with some form of decoration within the pyramid, but not the burial chamber.

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

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Djedi said:

The readers will note that even though you don't mention the NK explicitly, it doesn't stop you from retrojecting NK concepts on the OK.

You are lying. I clearly not only do not but specifically do not. Imposing the NK on the OK is what you all mistakenly do time and again which I am the one taking you all to task for. You literally just made this up. 

Quote

It's your choice to continue to make the same methodological errors even if they have been pointed out to you by several forum members of the course of several years.

Again you are lying. You have made up these "methodological errors" just as you have these non-existent "several posters over several years" bit so save your dishonest crap. 

Quote

Which is quite surprising since you are very apt at debunking the 'more out there' fringe ideas, why you are completely blind to the methodological errors behind the somewhat less spectacular fringe ideas is quite strange imho. You seem to swallow the whole 'the pyramids were not tombs but cenotaphs' nonsense, as promoted by Mendelssohn, hook line and sinker without any critical analysis, which again is very weird since you are perfectly capable at spotting methodological errors of other fringe ideas. That is the real mystery here.

What is a mystery to me is why you feel the need to lie and slander me and completely misrepresent the facts and arguments made instead of just sticking to the topic. When you are at the end of the rope you resort to the same nonsense every time. You don't have to agree, I don't give a ___, but I am not wrong. And where it gets creepy is you just lurk and lurk until you find the rare in to spew your BS specifically at me. Do I know you? I think I have an idea who you might be.  

The fact you characterize the "whole 'the pyramids were not tombs but cenotaphs' nonsense, as promoted by Mendelssohn, hook line and sinker without any critical analysis", is a lie on all counts and just shows how dishonest you truly are because I know you know better which if somehow not this thread has given numerous examples of how the entirety of your comments are dishonest the least of which having anything to do revolving around Mendelsshohn as if this is where it originated from and/or is limited to.   

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

6 hours ago, Djedi said:

The readers will note that even though you don't mention the NK explicitly, it doesn't stop you from retrojecting NK concepts on the OK. It's your choice to continue to make the same methodological errors even if they have been pointed out to you by several forum members of the course of several years. Which is quite surprising since you are very apt at debunking the 'more out there' fringe ideas, why you are completely blind to the methodological errors behind the somewhat less spectacular fringe ideas is quite strange imho. You seem to swallow the whole 'the pyramids were not tombs but cenotaphs' nonsense, as promoted by Mendelssohn, hook line and sinker without any critical analysis, which again is very weird since you are perfectly capable at spotting methodological errors of other fringe ideas. That is the real mystery here.

Which I replied:

What is a mystery to me is why you feel the need to lie and slander me and completely misrepresent the facts and arguments made instead of just sticking to the topic. When you are at the end of the rope you resort to the same nonsense every time. You don't have to agree, I don't give a ___, but I am not wrong. And where it gets creepy is you just lurk and lurk until you find the rare in to spew your BS specifically at me. Do I know you? I think I have an idea who you might be.  

The fact you characterize the "whole 'the pyramids were not tombs but cenotaphs' nonsense, as promoted by Mendelssohn, hook line and sinker without any critical analysis", is a lie on all counts and just shows how dishonest you truly are because I know you know better which if somehow not this thread has given numerous examples of how the entirety of your comments are dishonest the least of which having anything to do revolving around Mendelsshohn as if this is where it originated from and/or is limited to.   

Just so the readers understand when I say Djedi is lying and misrepresenting me and the facts this is not hyperbole or ad hominen but the actual state of the matter. I would quote from a few previous posts that make this quite clear. 

#371:

The southern tomb in Djoser's pyramid complex, with burial chamber nearly as large and superior in craftsmanship to that found in the actual pyramid, is commonly thought to have been a cenotaph though others argue the pyramid itself was the cenotaph and the sourthern tomb was the "real" burial chamber. Ironically one of the large mastabas at Beit Khallaf, hundreds of miles to the south, is also suggested as a possible cenotaph for Djoser.  Don't want to waste my time, but there is much about Djoser's complex that are faux which in part at least imply the complex was a replica and/or homage to a more ancient complex of which there are many interesting details as to Djoser's penchant for posterity. Of note as well is the pyramid (and some aspects of the complex) was expanded several times from its original plan(s).    

Djoser's successor, Sekhemkhet, apparently did not finish his pyramid but is famous, infamous perhaps, for his unusual sealed sarcophagus in the burial chamber being discovered in the 1950's only to be opened and found empty. Though there was also a southern tomb discovered in Sekhemkhet's complex, thought by some to be a cenotaph, most Egyptologists agree the pyramid itself was was not the actual burial place of Sekhemkhet. 

As the original discoverer, Goneim, concluded:

"... I feel fairly certain that the chamber I discovered beneath the new pyramid is another example of a "dummy tomb" or ritual burial. No other explanation will fit the facts, and unless other evidence is produced to contradict it, I shall continue to accept it. If this hypothesis is correct, it would explain why other kings of this remote period -- for example, Snofru -- built two tombs". 

Another pyramid speculatively attributed to the next 3rd Dynasty pharaoh Khaba, contained no sarcophagus in which the passage to the burial chamber is so narrow it is thought a sarcophagus could not be passed through regardless. Aspects of the pyramid imply it was never finished and regardless of who built it it is apparent no pharaoh was buried there. 

Northern Pyramid of Zawyet El Aryan, the "Pyramid of Baka", whose dating is disputed and no doubt predates the 4th Dynasty it is ascribed so I put it here, was unfinished leaving the unusual oval basin "sarcophagus", often referred to as a "vat" and possibly not a sarcophagus at all, open to the air, which among other reasons, leaving it highly unlikely an actual burial ever took place.

So to recap, we have Djoser with two burial chambers, one inside the pyramid and the other outside. Which is the "real" burial chamber and which the cenotaph, if either, is unknown. Then the next 3 pyramids attempted by pharaohs were unfinished and no pharaoh was ever buried in one. When we consider the latter, as a practical matter, these pharaohs spend their reign trying to make a "pyramid tomb" for themselves to be buried in yet they never finish and are never buried there- so what next- just chucked them in a ditch? Perhaps, using a little common sense, in conjunction with the known practice of multiple burial sites, they hedge their bets knowing they may not live to finish the pyramid and built a more modest tomb elsewhere which more than likely started before they even became king.      

We are left with the dual royal burial locations of the early Dynastic Period at Umm el-Qa'ab and Saqqara, one location being possible cenotaphs.  

Starting with the 3rd Dynasty pyramid age:

Djoser had two tombs, the southern tomb and the burial chamber of the pyramid which is unclear which or either was the actual burial chamber or the cenotaph. Actual burial location-unknown. [some argue the southern tomb was a cenotaph, others the pyramid]

Sekhemkhet attempted to build a pyramid and not only was he not buried there but a sealed sarcophagus interred during construction was found empty. A southern tomb was also found. Buried elsewhere.     

Presumably Khaba, the next pharaoh to attempt to build a pyramid, finished or not, was never buried there with the chamber system possibly unable to even fit a sarcophagus. Buried elsewhere. 

Zawyet El Aryan was unfinished and almost certainly did not contain a burial. Buried elsewhere. 

Meidum, again, no sarcophagus thought by some [i.e. Lehner] to be a cenotaph. The interior thought to be unfinished. The southern tomb is now replaced with a satellite pyramid. 

Snefefu built both the BP and RP which neither contained a sarcophagus and regardless he could not be buried in both let alone three pyramids (Meidum). The BP at the very least (with its two separate entrances, chamber systems and "burial chambers") is thought by many Egyptologists to have been a cenotaph. BP satellite pyramid, no sarcophagus and could not have contained one, also thought to be a cenotaph for the pharaoh's KA.

So leading up to G1 we have at best two of 7 major pyramids, if not one excluding the RP which had no sarcophagus, that not only had no royal burial and no reason to believe there ever was one, but most there is no doubt never did. And with the one that's left, Djoser, he had two burial chambers, one inside the pyramid, the other outside, and perhaps a 3rd at Beit Khallaf which no one is sure which he was actually buried in. 

And as a matter of common sense, as noted in the OP, not only is there the issue of the pharaoh knowing full well his pyramid would be looted making them just about the dumbest people who ever lived, but also that they may not even live to ever see it completed and have to be buried elsewhere regardless. 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

As anyone can see for themselves this has nothing to do with Mendelssohn. Not one word and all of the sources these comments come from are Egyptology.  

We can add a few more to this list like Yoshimura and G1:

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.

[Discussed again at length recently HERE.]

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

And to a lesser degree Hawass:

“We hope to find [that] the body of Khufu could be discovered, that something important could be discovered in these voids."

He told LiveScience in 2013: "I really believe that Khufu's chamber is not discovered yet and all the three chambers were just to deceive the thieves.

Thanos: So in essence Hawass believes the KC is not Khufu's "real" burial chamber and the sarcophagus was never intended to inter a body. It's hidden somewhere else which Hawass believes may still be inside G1. 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

#770:

Journal of a route across India, through Egypt, to England, in the latter end of the year 1817, and the beginning of 1818

"This decision [that they were bovine bones discovered in the G2 sarcophagus], from such a good authority as that of Mr. Clift, naturally suggests the idea that the pyramids may not have been, as generally supposed, the burial-places of kings, but more probably those of the god Apis, venerated in their immediate vicinity-Memphis being the city of his residence. The authority upon which the notion of their being the tombs of the kings has been often doubted, so as to allow of many theories being formed respecting them, and when it is considered that it rested only on the communications of the priests of Egypt to Herodotus, (to whom they also stated that there were no chambers in the second pyramid, which has now, by being opened, proved the incorrectness of their assertions) it is still more weakened, and may even suggest a suspicion that they had themselves at that time, but a very imperfect and perhaps only a traditional account of these monuments."

[That's weird. Mendelssohn wasn't even born until 1906.]

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hetepheres: "How are we to explain this? A tomb with all of its grave goods untouched, including sealed sarcophagus, the queen mother no less, and yet no body? No tomb robbers to blame this one on."

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

The first time Djedi lied and brought up this Mendelssohn nonsense was HERE.

Djedi: "Thanos'5150 idea that the pyramids are cenotaphs seems to come from Kurt Mendelssohn (not an egyptologist) who proposed this for those of the 4th dyn. Apparantly Thanos5150 extends this idea to later pyramids also including those of the MK."

Thanos: "Not an Egyptologist you say? Oh my. We certainly can't have that. But I did list before several Egyptologists who do think think at least some of the pyramids are cenotaphs- did they get this idea from Mendelssohn as well? 

Why does this idea have to "come" from someone? I assume in this day and age we are still capable of looking at the available evidence and coming to our own conclusions without having to rely on others, like Egyptologists, to tell us what to think.

No I did not get it from Mendelssohn and no I am not extending it to the MK as several of these later pyramids are already thought to have been cenotaphs. I use them as as circumstantial confirmation of the idea those that preceded them are too, not the other way around."

He repeated this same lie again later but I am not finding it. May have been cleaned. But what are we to make of this? I hope the readers will take the time to understand what is being said here. Djedi repeatedly makes this claim that the idea "The fact you characterize the "whole 'the pyramids were not tombs but cenotaphs' nonsense, as promoted by Mendelssohn, hook line and sinker without any critical analysis" which is clearly false on every level and no matter how many times it is shown to be false he just repeats the same lie and slander again like it never happened. No one has to take my word for it its right here. I am sure I had to say this before, but the idea pyramids as cenotaphs are the invention and realm of the fringe or that it was spawned by Mendelsshon is as ignorant as it is dishonest. A purposeful misrepresentation of the facts to hoodwink those who don't know any better to make it seem like this idea lies outside of Egyptology when in fact as we can see for ourselves nothing could be further from the truth.  

He repeatedly lies about the facts. He lies about my integrity, my position, my motives. No matter how much one may or may not like me, or is just really really is invested in the idea that pyramids must to be tombs (most for all the wrong reasons mind you), I just can't imagine supporting someone so morally bankrupt that when they can't defend their position the go to is to lie and slander others and misrepresent the facts. If this is ok to some of you then I think it says just as much about you as it does him. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, at the end of the day, despite anomalies, such as, but not restricted to, Sneferu with 3 pyramids, not a single pyramid from Djoser to Unas has a decorated burial chamber. Then from Unas to Pepi II they have the Pyramid Texts, then back to nothing until the 18th Dynasty, the protection and "roadmap" for the king being provided by the texts inside their coffins plus other protective and ritual items in their burials, though in fairness I'll point out the lack of any evidence from any pyramid over that period of time to prove or disprove this, only an inference can be made due to the fact that the Coffin Texts appear and the Pyramid Texts dissapear.

I'll pose this question again, how many pyramids for kings are known, and how many have a question mark over them as regards whether they were used for the burial of a king. When we get a number and can see the percentage of anomalous pyramids, who then decides at which precentage level a question mark can be applied across the board in order to come out with the statement "If Pyramids not tombs....." I would have thought the level would need to be over 50% to make such a statement with confidence, otherwise the question should perhaps have been "Why do some pyramids seem never to have been used for a burial", a perfectly valid question due to the genuine anomalies.

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

On 5/10/2024 at 6:26 PM, Thanos5150 said:

The readers will note you did not say "burial chamber",  which is not the argument, but rather "lack of adornment inside" as its not just the burial chamber but rather the fact these pyramids are completely devoid of any funerary inscription or decoration [except G3]. True, burial chambers for non pharaoh's as a rule were often bare, but the rest of their interiors of their tombs were replete with as much "flair" as could be afforded. It is unreasonable if the pyramids were made as tombs to actually inter a body they would be completely devoid of such for not only no apparent reason but abhorrent to DE culture and funerary practices. No its not "proof", not sure who was saying this, but it is certainly part of the body of the greater body of evidence in support of the idea pyramids were not built as tombs.   

If Pyramids not tombs where are the pharaohs?

If not retrojecting NK ideas, I suspect you're making (yet again) the mistake of comparing two totally different things: If you mean by "the rest of the interiors of their tombs" the funerary chapels of the mastabas which were in the accessible part where family members would make offerings, then you can't compare them with the sealed part of the pyramids, that's a huge methodological error. You should compare them with the mortuary chapels / temples where the offerings for the king took place. But this also has been pointed out to you in the past already, yet you keep acting as if it never happened. You keep referring to the OP or other posts you made in the If Pyramids not tombs where are the pharaohs? thread ignoring the fact that almost every single claim you make in those has been shown to be highly unlikely (if not outright debunked) in the course of that long thread by several forum members including myself. Maybe a list should be compiled like I once suggested as a response to your claim to "have never been debunked". Then each time you bring up something that has already shown to be wrong several times, we can refer to that list.

Another solution is that you apply for once the same criticism you exhibit when debunking 'far out' fringe ideas to the OP of the If Pyramids not tombs where are the pharaohs? thread. You might be surprised of the result.

What I and some others have been doing is just that, subjecting your claims to the same standards of criticism you subject 'far out' fringe claims to. Pity you can't see that and instead resort to 'drama'.

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

Posted (edited)

In reply to my own question about what percentage of kings' pyramids have a question mark over them, I have come up with some figures.

I have counted all known pyramids for kings, and discounted all those which are known to have been unfinished or never started. Also, if a burial for a king has never been found, then how can it be added to the total if we do not know in what or where they were buried.

The number is 34. So how many of these are anomalous in some way. Sneferu has three pyramids so I have two as anomalous. Amenemhat III has two pyramids, so I have one as anomalous. Senusret III has one pyramid, but he may be buried at Abydos, so I'll be generous and add his pyramid to the list of anomalous ones. Finally the pyramid of Ahmose, which has no burial chamber, is also added to the list as it is a cenotaph.

Therefore out of 34 known pyramids, 5 either could not, or may not, have had a king buried in them. This is 15% of the total. Is this enough to ask the question "If Pyramids not tombs where are the pharaohs?" and I'll take note that it is "where are the pharaohs", not queens, sons, daughters, viziers or anybody else. Clearly there are anomalies for these other pyramids, and those issues do need addressing, perhaps firstly by creating a list of which ones do not have a question mark over them, and which do.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

if a burial for a king has never been found

I guess I had better refine this a bit. What I do not mean is the absense of the mummy of a king in a pyramid. Given that not a single mummy of a king has been discovered before that of Seqenenre Tao at the end of the 17th Dynasty, all we can go on is the evidence for a pyramid being for a particular king. So no pyramid, or any other known tomb for a king, is not evidence, but a pyramid for a king, even without his mummy, is evidence.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

So no pyramid, or any other known tomb for a king, is not evidence, but a pyramid for a king, even without his mummy, is evidence.

I'm excited for all the woo opportunities this new definition of 'evidence' will afford. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Open Mind OG said:

I'm excited for all the woo opportunities this new definition of 'evidence' will afford. 

Excellent, you might learn what evidence is, hint, saying something is so does not make it so, the usual standard of evidence for the fringe I notice.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

Excellent, you might learn what evidence is

don't spoil all my fun.  prepare for a woo fire hose..

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.