> Thanks. Now I think I see your point. The
> disconnect I see is that a "step" pyramid doesn't
> require a central "core tower" structure and vice
> versa. Djoser is a step but not a core tower
The long standing idea is that Djoser's pyramid began as a mastaba and was enlarged and made into a stepped pyramid then enlarged again.
Looking at this model, if you remove the dotted accretion layer lines from above the mastaba within the first pyrmaid phase it is easy to see a structure eerily similar to what is found at Meidum. I assume this model was made by Lauer, but looking at the models made there are assumptions made based on the accretion layer model, yet at the center of these is a tower in which the layers are placed against. How are we to know the mastaba was not raised as tall as it practically could be, a tower, then the steps added around the structure like Meidum? Has it ever been verified the first pyrmaid was not actually a tower or is this just assumed? And these steps don't exactly inspire structural confidence that it was actually built step upon step as it is clearly separated from the layer behind it in some places:
> That satellite strikes me as a two or
> three step pyramid but not a core tower structure,
> and the other satellites show less hint of a core
> tower design, despite their state of disrepair.
I see a tower with a step built around it. Meidum bears this out:
Steps added around the tower core:
> central core tower requires a 'seed within the
> fruit' perimeter which have not been identifed in
> all OK pyramids (afaik).
> You say that all of the major pyramids with the
> internals sufficiently exposed show a central core
> tower design.
> I think it's interesting that not
> all OK pyramids' outer skins have collapsed, so
> perhaps the remaining pyramids that have not
> collapsed or degraded to reveal such internal core
> tower construction are still standing relatively
> intact because the builders opted
> for a strictly horizontal, and not core tower,
> design for those pyramids?
Possible, however, it does in fact appear G3 was built around a tower core. I think it is more likely the pyramids of Dahshur and Giza are just better made. If the Arabs didn't make the gash we wouldn't know what the core was of G3.
> And to be clear, I have no vested interest in
> whether any or all of them have the core tower
> design. In fact, such a design better supports
> adaption which I do strongly support, based on the
> physical evidence. It's just that I don't see the
> data as compelling for the core tower design being
> as widespread as you're suggesting.
Whether one wants to call them "stepped cores" or "tower cores", as I have shown in pictures, and Rigano verifies, what we have is every pyramid that is exposed and not a pile of rubble has a tower/stepped core.
> But assuming for the moment that most, if not all,
> of them do indeed have the core tower feature,
> what do you make of that? What are the
> implications to you if that were true?
As I have argued it raises the possibility some of these cores were made as stand alone structures and later converted to pyramids. Maybe many were originally made this way and later converted. The core at Meidum says to me it was made that way as a finished product and at some point later converted to a pyramid. This is obviously the best example. Petrie believed the pyramid layer of G3 was built over a pre-existing structure, which appears to be a tower core, that I have tried to bolster this case. The pyramids of Egypt aren't just building shapes, they are an ideology which at some point it is clear this ideology changed from one to the other. Maybe they first started building towers which when this ideology changed they converted them to pyramids and built new ones around this model.