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

2 minutes ago, Open Mind OG said:

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

I'll take that as part of the evidence that you, and at least one other denizen of the Hancock forum, are in this forum with the intention of causing disruption. Or, you might have just decided it was fun to pop in here, fart, and run off giggling.

On the other hand, you might have something of value to add to this offtopic conversation, if so, hold forth.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

pop in here, fart, and run off giggling.

haha.  no no.   No disruption intended.   I have no business chiming in on Egyptological historical debates.  Please continue.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Djedi said:

If not retrojecting NK ideas, I suspect you're making (yet again) the mistake of comparing two totally different things:

[snip]

Yuck. Instead of digging the hole deeper just take responsibility for yourself and stop lying. I hope the readers will follow along here. First you tell this lie:

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 [reffering to me]. 

I replied:

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. 

Djedi then backtracks a bit so now it turns into:

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. 

So first he claims I am using the "methodological [sic] unsound" (I agree it would be and have taken him and others to task many times for this very abuse) method of imposing NK traditions on to the OK. I have never said anything of the sort and specifically time and again use contemporary OK funerary examples. He is completely clueless and literally just made it up. 

Then he changes this lie to now acknowledge I don't mention them ["directly" mind you] but I'm still just "doing it anyways".

Next Wepwawet says in reference to Djedi's comments:

"I'll add, as it was me, naughty naughty, who mentioned the NK,..." 

Followed by me responding Djedi's last comment:

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. 

So now he changes to [translation] "Well, I am not going to admit I was dishonest and lazy and have no idea what I'm talking about, but if you are not talking about the NK like I just lied and said you were then I'll just lie again and make up something else up." 

So more lies, misrepresentation, and not taking responsibility for himself. And the readers will note nowhere in his response does he acknowledge his lies and misrepresentations regarding Mendelssohn. Not to mention the rest of your lies in the post which have also been responded to every time you do it but nope, you just keep telling the same lies as if it never happened.

We can see a clear pattern of this person repeatedly just making stuff up to create strawmen (and/or slander the other person) and claiming this is the position of the other person when literally nothing could be farther from the truth and then arguing how wrong they are. And when he is caught in the lie, which for anyone following along should be quite easy to do, he just ignores it and tells more lies then has the gall to characterize him getting called out for his depravity as "drama".

*snip*

Edited by Saru
Removed abusive personal attack
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously folks, enough with personal disputes, in-fighting, calling people 'liars', bickering, throwing obscenities etc.

Surely topics in the category of ancient history, of all things, can be discussed in a civil, adult manner.

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

Posted (edited)
On 5/12/2024 at 8:56 AM, 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?

 

I've already replied to part of this, but I think it worth categorizing the objections to "Pyramids not being tombs" in a clear manner. The objections I list are not those of one person, they are those from many people over many years, and we are familiar with all of them. I will put forward the counter argument in each case. This of course is my take on this, and I know others will have a different take, though I think I am being reasonably scrupulous, if not answering all questions as I don't want to write a book.

The first category is bodies. While mummies from after the pyramid age have been found in some pyramids, it has been obvious that they are from a later period. Some fragments of mummies have been found in some pyramids, but none can be shown to be that of owner of the pyramid. Therefore it is argued that lack of the mummy of whoever the pyramid is for precludes the pyramid from being a tomb.

The counter argument is that after so many thousands of years it is unreasonable to expect to find a mummy given the various depredations that have occured to the pyramids over that time. Also, as already pointed out, there is not a single extant mummy from before Seqenenre Tao from the end of the 17th Dynasty.

The second category is tomb decoration. It is argued that lack of decoration in a pyramid is evidence that it was never a tomb, and it is often specifically argued that lack of decoration in the burial chamber is evidence that it is not a tomb.

The counter argument is that from Djoser up to Unas, and from Pepi II until the New Kingdom, not a single burial chamber of a king is decorated, so would this mean that not a single pyramid outside of Unas to Pepi II is a tomb, not one. Many parts of Djoser's pyramid complex are of course decorated, but not the burial chamber. An "entrance chamber" in G3 is decorated, but nothing else. The question that needs to be asked is just where does this idea come from that if a pyramid is not decorated it is not a tomb come from, what is the reference point for this line of argument. Well it must come from the example of royal tombs that are decorated, including the burial chamber. In the first instance I assume that Unas and the 6th Dynasty pyramids are being referenced, but does this really mean that only those pyramids are tombs. The second point of reference is the New Kingdom royal tombs, and I've seen this argued over the years many times, so the NK is a factor in this, and I've seen it argued that as nothing like KV62, or just the sumptuous decorations of other NK tombs, has ever been found prior to the 18th Dynasty, then "pyramids are not tombs".

The third category is the more genuine mysteries. Here I'll be brief and not name every one, but I think foremost is the empty sealed "sarcophagus".

This and other mysteries are real, and I cannot give a blanket contra argument as it would need to be done case by case. I'll just state that in my opinion, these are the only real mysteries surrounding the pyramids, the previous two categories being, in my opinion, non issues.

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

22 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

"Pyramids not being tombs"

As a member of club 'awe and amazement at the feats of engineering', I don't think they're tombs for that reason.  HOWEVER, I would agree that your 3 listed reasons do not necessarily qualify as sufficient reasons to disprove the tomb theory, just from an argument evidence and counter argument perspective.  Although I'm not up on the 'sealed sarcophagus' data.   I did know of that existing, but didn't know it was so common as to become a basis of argument for not tomb.   How common were there actually sealed empty sarcophagus'es in pyramids?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Open Mind OG said:

As a member of club 'awe and amazement at the feats of engineering', I don't think they're tombs for that reason.  HOWEVER, I would agree that your 3 listed reasons do not necessarily qualify as sufficient reasons to disprove the tomb theory, just from an argument evidence and counter argument perspective.  Although I'm not up on the 'sealed sarcophagus' data.   I did know of that existing, but didn't know it was so common as to become a basis of argument for not tomb.   How common were there actually sealed empty sarcophagus'es in pyramids?

In finished pyramid complexes none; in unfinished pyramid complexes 2. One in the unfinished step pyramid complex of Sekhemket of the third dynasty, one in the unfinished pyramid complex attributed to Baka of the fourth dynasty aka "the big trench".

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

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

Although I'm not up on the 'sealed sarcophagus' data.   I did know of that existing, but didn't know it was so common as to become a basis of argument for not tomb.   How common were there actually sealed empty sarcophagus'es in pyramids?

Just two, the one for Baka as Djedi has mentioned above, which was a unique oval sarcophagus. The other was found in the unfinished pyramid of Sekhemkhet, who followed Djoser. I didn't include either pyramid in my list because neither was ever  finished and never used for a burial anyway. The sarcophagus, while being a stone box, is totally unlike any found anywhere else. You can see in the photo that instead of an open top for a lid, it has a sliding door at one end, which when found was sealed, but nothing inside. All other sarcophagi found in pyramids had been opened in antiquity. What we do not have is a sealed sarcophagus found inside a finished pyramid. It's almost as if the king wanted to be buried in a pyramid, but "stuff happened" and it was never completed and he was buried elsewhere, but an empty sarcophagus placed in the unfinished pyramid to represent him, but nobody knows. However, there was a third sealed sarcophagus, but not in a pyramid, but the shaft "tomb" of queen Hetepheres.

tumblr_po65mvMg591rf2mek_1280.jpg

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

A question for anybody who does not believe that pyramids were tombs is this. Do you believe that any pyramid had ever been a tomb, and if so, which pyramid/s and why do you think that it/they are tombs, ie, what distinguishing features do they have that separate them from pyramids that you believe were not tombs. I think for the sake of simplicity only finished pyramids should be included because while there are curious anomalies, such as sealed sarcophagi which need discussing, the fact of them being unfinished precludes them from being tombs anyway, or proper pyramids due to, er, not being finished.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

 

The first category is bodies. While mummies from after the pyramid age have been found in some pyramids, it has been obvious that they are from a later period. Some fragments of mummies have been found in some pyramids, but none can be shown to be that of owner of the pyramid. Therefore it is argued that lack of the mummy of whoever the pyramid is for precludes the pyramid from being a tomb.

The counter argument is that after so many thousands of years it is unreasonable to expect to find a mummy given the various depredations that have occured to the pyramids over that time. Also, as already pointed out, there is not a single extant mummy from before Seqenenre Tao from the end of the 17th Dynasty.

 

The mummy of Seqenenre Tao is indeed the oldest complete mummy of a king that has been preserved.

Some mummified remains found in pyramids have been carbon dated (most haven't been), some were part of intrusive burials from later periods such as the remains found in Djoser's burial chamber, others turned out to be genuine remains from the tomb owner.

The original remains from pyramids identified thus far by carbon dating are those of two 5th dynasty kings:

- remains found in Neferefre's unfinished pyramid* (some were intrusive others weren't)

- remains found in Djedkare's pyramid 

The following remains from pyramids haven't been carbon dated yet:

4th dynasty:

- Seneferu Red pyramid: some remains were found

5th dynasty:

- Niuserre pyramid: some remains were found

- Unas pyramid: right arm, skull and shinbones have been found

6th dynasty

- Pepi I pyramid: A hand and a viscera bundle (found among broken canopic jars)

- Merenre pyramid: mummy of a young man, on display at Imhotep Museum and labeled as mummy of King Merenre

- Pepi II pyramid: a shoulder and an arm

12th dynasty:

- Seworset II pyramid: a leg bone (missing since 1969 from Petrie Museum)

There seems to be a genuine lack of interest in determining the authenticity of possible royal remains from before the New Kingdom, which is really disappointing. New Kingdom mummies receive much more attention. 

* Although unfinished the pyramid of Neferefre was converted into a square mastaba and an operational mortuary temple was installed. AFAIK this is the only unfinished pyramid that was converted this way and were a royal burial took place.

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

1 hour ago, Djedi said:

The mummy of Seqenenre Tao is indeed the oldest complete mummy of a king that has been preserved.

Yes, I should have been a bit more specific, because precision is needed... that he is the oldest complete mummy of a king that we can positively identify. All the other fragments you mention are of course part of the argument to say that Pyramids were tombs, though without positive ID they fall into the realm of circumstantial evidence. I'm sure some of these fragments do belong to some of the missing kings, and I think that DNA testing should be done so that if fragments have been found in pyramids from the same dynasty, it could be seen if there was a blood connection, though getting decent samples might be an issue.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Do you believe that any pyramid had ever been a tomb, and if so, which pyramid/s and why do you think that it/they are tombs, ie, what distinguishing features do they have that separate them from pyramids that you believe were not tombs

yes.  They pyramid of Senusret II, because of the sarcophagus inside.  That particular sarcophagus is very precise 'looking'.  That is an object of interest based on phase 1 of an inspection - just simply looking precise by eye inspection.  Next phase would be a Chris Dunn type checking it out with his little hand measuring tools - phase 2.   Then the next phase would be a scanning by a scanner similar to what was used in Barabar to get some idea of symmetry precision within the tolerance limits of that scanner - phase 3.  Then the final scan would be a scanning system that can measure tolerance down to the single thou measurements to find out just how much control the builders of this piece actually had.  Presuming these phases of inspection would continue to confirm high precision, then my guess is that this structure's origins are then in question, OR, that entire period of history has to be reexamined for having experienced a BLIP - Brief Limited Industrial Period.  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Open Mind OG said:

yes.  They pyramid of Senusret II, because of the sarcophagus inside

Good, and I would add that as further evidence that the king was buried in this pyramid is the find of the uraeus from the headband he would have worn, a rare miss by the robbers. There were also two leg bones found, but unidentified human remains can only be circumstantial evidence.

Would you say then that the presense of a sarcophagus in a pyramid is evidence for the pyramid being a tomb, the two sealed sarcophagi aside as they were in unfinished pyramids anyway.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

Would you say then that the presense of a sarcophagus in a pyramid is evidence for the pyramid being a tomb

you know my perspective by now.  I would say a roughly constructed sarcophagus is convincing to me as a purpose built box for funerary purposes.   But a high precsion one has to be either a purpose built object for a reason we still don't understand, OR, the ability of high precision was so advanced and developed, that its applicaiton became completely ubiquitous in thier 'industry' to the point of application, not only on objects that required precision, but for any and all purposes.  Kind of like how we see high precision and symmetry in a childs toy, when its symmetry is not required for its function.    Bla bla, i could go on, but I don't think that's the purpose of your question.  

If a pyramid looks like mud brick and unsophisticated, and the sarcophagus inside is a rough hune box, then I side with tomb. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Open Mind OG said:

but I don't think that's the purpose of your question

No, it was just to acertain what you think the criteria for a pyramid being a tomb are, and you know that I have zero interest in the likes of Dunn, or any fringe ideas about Ancient Egypt, I might confront these ideas from time to time, but otherwise, it's just vapour, an episode of Stargate imposed on reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Wepwawet said:

but otherwise, it's just vapour, an episode of Stargate imposed on reality.

we all have different ways of dealing with challenging information.    My way is not having invested alot in egyptology, which offers me the freedom to consider all idea's on equal footing and developing a more accurate sense of Occam's razor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Although I'm not up on the 'sealed sarcophagus' data.   I did know of that existing, but didn't know it was so common as to become a basis of argument for not tomb.   How common were there actually sealed empty sarcophagus'es in pyramids?

That's "sarcophagi" not "sarcophagus'es". Several of these conversations where this term is used are with you. If that were not enough I literally just posed this to you a few days ago: HERE. I know this seems like a trivial thing but you have almost 4,000 posts at GHMB over 8 years. If even the simplest things consistently escape you, unless it is not your goal, how can you hope ever grasp more complex concepts? Sincerely. 

Good grief. How about HERE

And as far as "Baka" discussed HERE, probably at GHMB too:

Regardless, the unusual "sarcophagi" [at  Zawyet El Aryan], also referred to as a "tank" or "vat", is thought by some Egyptologists to have been added after the fact made out of one of the foundation blocks which given the superstructure above it was never added, most likely there was never meant to be one, there is no reason to believe there was ever a burial there. Regarding the "sarcophagus", Barsanti did not think it was such but rather "a libation vessel whose lid served as an offering table".  The lid was plastered to the oval tank and when removed was empty except for a black sludge of sorts.  

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Open Mind OG said:

we all have different ways of dealing with challenging information.    My way is not having invested alot in egyptology, which offers me the freedom to consider all idea's on equal footing and developing a more accurate sense of Occam's razor. 

Translation: what it does is allow you to make up whatever you want because you are not constrained by what is actually known. Must be nice. 

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

Posted (edited)
On 5/12/2024 at 9:34 AM, 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

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.  

I forgot to mention with Djoser as well the ceiling of his "sarcophagus" is covered by the field of stars motif found in tombs throughout DE history like:

Sahure (temple):

58cb35e719255fbcb349b64897975fec--ancien

Unas:

q%2BIaMu6E=&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0

 

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

Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Translation: what it does is allow you to make up whatever you want because you are not constrained by what is actually known. Must be nice. 

It also takes a lot of time, mental and intellectual effort to learn about what is known.

I believe Asimov said something about the false equivalence inherent in the idea of “my ignorance is just as valid as your knowledge”.

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

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Translation: what it does is allow you to make up whatever you want because you are not constrained by what is actually known. Must be nice. 

That's the Egyptological mission statement.

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

1 hour ago, Antigonos said:

“my ignorance is just as valid as your knowledge”.

some how none of you comprehend that this encapsulates exactly what we are saying to you about the acknowledged precision and advanced fabrication abilities.  And all of your over simplifications of 'technique/will/patience' theories are obvious waiving flags of ignorance about that.   So why don't we minimize this stale mate and try to find things we can contribute to each others blind spots?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Open Mind OG said:

we all have different ways of dealing with challenging information.    My way is not having invested alot in egyptology, which offers me the freedom to consider all idea's on equal footing and developing a more accurate sense of Occam's razor. 

The problem with Egyptology is they have nothing invested in gathering physical evidence and even less invested in the defense of their assumptions.  Essentially they have very little invested in real science and just in building on et als.  The only reason I'm an alt at all is I didn't start at the assumptions and this applies to more and more open minded people.  The idea that someone can look at evidence from causeways to big voids without understanding anything about Egyptology is  anathema to those who took the time to see what everyone else thinks first. 

One would think that whatever the grand gallery did was just done at a higher altitude by a sloped void above it.  Spoiler alert; there's no evidence of any sort that the grand gallery was used for a funeral procession or that such a thing occurred 8in conjunction with any great pyramid.

The narrative is almost all words and no evidence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Open Mind OG said:

some how none of you comprehend that this encapsulates exactly what we are saying to you about the acknowledged precision and advanced fabrication abilities.  And all of your over simplifications of 'technique/will/patience' theories are obvious waiving flags of ignorance about that.   So why don't we minimize this stale mate and try to find things we can contribute to each others blind spots?

Mebbe I can hep; everything is vibrating and everything is oscillating.  This vibration has a far higher amplitude than .1 mm.  

Meanwhile all evidence must be interpreted in terms of superstition.  No void can serve a useful purpose if that void was designed and used by the Great Pyramid builders.  Everything must be seen in terms of magic and religion.  Everything.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/12/2024 at 10:40 PM, Wepwawet said:

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.

The thing with the Step Pyramid and it's complex is that it is very different to what came after and is not the best example to judge the rest by. One glaring fact is that in both the Step Pyramid itself and in the "southern tomb" we do not have a conventional sarcophagus inside a conventional burial chamber. There is a stone chamber that serves both purposes, the body being placed inside in either just it's wrappings or a wooden coffin, it is not known. This may depend on what the AE at that time viewed these two chambers as, just a burial chamber, or as a sarcophagus/coffin, or both. No matter which, the stars are on the roof of the southern burial chamber, not on the internal ceiling. Besides, as this complex is the first for a pyramid, and is so unlike any that follow, I don't think it matters even if these stars were inside the chambers as it would not alter the equation here about pyramids being tombs.

Is there actually any doubt at all about the Step Pyramid being a tomb? Is there any doubt that not a single kings' burial chamber until Unas is decorated inside? Is the pyramid of Unas and those of the 6th Dynasty kings the only pyramids that are tombs? This is why I have asked the question about who thinks which pyramid of a king is a tomb, and why.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.