> Every pyramid, however built, has a connection of
> sorts. Why particular dead personages wished to be
> interred in such structures provides endless
> debate on this board. However, for some reason or
> other, not all pharaohs were of the pyramid
> mindset - Shepsekaf for example.
Do you have another example between the 4th-6th Dynasties...?
> pyramid construction was not a universal style of
> architecture for the dearly departed of the more
> illustrious ilk.
Regardless of whether they were tombs or not, other than our friend Shepseskaf, which implies extraneous circumstances, it was universal during this period for pharaohs to build pyramids, not just for themselves but more often than not for their queens as well.
> As has been discussed on this board as well, is
> the fact that, although pyramids may look similar
> externally, their construction is not based upon a
> standard model.
The only standard I see is they were built around a tower core.
> It may have been opportunistic for
> the builders to take advantage of certain types of
> pre existing terrain or edifices with which to
> commence proceedings - the core of which you
> If this is correct - and there are numerous
> examples which can prove this to be the case - the
> theory of a pre conceived plan for pyramid
> construction which has a certain astronomical
> alignment, as proposed by Scott Creighton, Robert
> Bauval et al, should seriously be questioned. But
> that is the subject for another thread.
As their theories go re: shafts, there are many reasons to question them.
> So - imagination goggles on - what would the
> landscape of Egypt look like prior to the
> construction of the core-constructed pyramids?
> Mounds, mastabas, hills, pits....
Interesting to think of them before during and after.
> How likely is it that the
> architect/engineer/construction crew would prefer
> to build a pyramid miles away from materials - a
> logistical challenge - just because there was a
> pre existing core of whatever material at that
> site? Would it have been easier to build it from
> scratch with easier access to the necessaries?
Other than Tura limestone for casing, which sometimes local stone was used, and igneous rock, the stone used for whatever pyramid was local. But to your point, you are saying it would be easier to build a pyrmaid from scratch "miles from materials" compared to just finishing one "miles from materials" that was already half done for you? I'm not following you there.
> As far as the leapfrogging of T shaped ground
> plans from ZeA and Abu Roash to Dynasties 5/6,
> again there is no evidence of a continuance of
> construction style as purported to have been,
> according to the experts. How did the Dynasty 5/6
> builders even know what was under the layered
> pyramid built over the ZeA excavation?
So, then you do believe in coincidences?
> In conclusion, there are similarities, there are
> connections, but there are enough anomalies (even
> at Giza) to provide sufficient grounds for further
> research on the subject of pyramid construction
> before anything definite can be asserted.
This is true. All I can say is that we look at every single intact exposed pyramid from the OK to the MK we find tower cores at their center, including G3. When thinking about how they were constructed, regardless of which ones when or by whom, it stands to reason they were likely all built around this model. Knowing this, at the very least, helps to understand the stages of their construction which further gives us clues as to how they were built.
> It may be worthwhile to group pyramids according
> to ground plan regardless of their suggested age
> or above-ground construction, as whatever is below
> must have come first, and ignore what may be, in
> many cases, a totally separate construction.
> BTW. I've yet to be convinced that ZeA or Abu
> Roash were ever designed to be pyramids. In fact,
> the more I research, the more inclined I am to
> place them in a totally separate category.
This is very possible.