> Either the King's were interred in the Pyramids or
> somewhere else. there are no bodies...regardless.
> a few points
> 1. could have been in the pyramid...and the body was stolen.
> 2. could have been a ritual internment within the
> pyramid, after which the body was placed elsewhere
> 3. could have been a cenotaph with some tomb similarities
> 4. could have had another function altogether. To
> date I know of NO practical and/or demonstrable
> theories in this regard.
> 5. the notion of there not being a body being in
> any way proof that pyramids in the Old Kingdom
> were not either 1 2 or 3 is a False Dichotomy .
> The sound of crickets in response to this topic
> doesn't surprise me at all.
I'm not sure what you think is so surprising about the sound of crickets here.
There is no logical basis for the requirement that before the tomb hypothesis can be challenged, another more credible hypothesis must take it's place. Rather, we simply remain uncertain about their original design intent without being able to assert with certainty what they were, or even probably were.
Who has said that the lack of any body found in any intact pyramid is proof that the pyramids weren't designed to be tombs for physical bodies? I only know that there isn't enough evidence to insist that the pyramids were designed to be tombs for physical bodies. And until there is enough evidence, other hypotheses warrant consideration.
I'm leaning toward your #4, but I disagree with your conclusion regarding the evidence. And this has been debated in many other discussions over the past few years. Maybe that's why there's crickets this time.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 17-Feb-18 05:34 by Origyptian.