> As noted, Sekhemkhet was never buried inside his
> pyramid which, again, begs the question if not in
> his pyramid then where? Sekhemkhet was the
> successor of Djoser (Netjerikhet). If we look at
> the Saqqara pyramid complex there are actually two
> tombs, one of which, the "south tomb", is nowhere
> near "inside/below" the pyramid:
> But rather found adjacent to the outskirt of a
> large walled courtyard. The south tomb was
> believed to have been finished first and is in
> many ways identical to that found below the
> pyramid. Some Egyptologists think this was
> actually Djoser's true burial chamber, yet at the
> very least we have a 2nd burial chamber directly
> associated with the pharaoh not actually in the
> pyramid, perhaps a link from the actual tomb to
> the symbolic one under the pyramid.
> Sekhemkhet is a cautionary tale, among several
> other notable pyramids and large mastabas
> suggested to have "never been completed" (often
> only because they never contained burial), in
> that, not lost on the pharaoh no doubt, there was
> no guarantee he would live to see his pyramid
> "tomb" completed. Before a pharaoh even came to
> power, when they were still a prince, not even
> sure if they would live to be pharaoh one day, a
> tomb would have been built. An example of this
> would be a large mastaba at Giza attributed to
> Khafre. Upon becoming pharaoh it is likely another
> tomb was planned (or the existing one enlarged)
> and built more deserving of his new found station,
> yet again one that would have been separate from
> pyramid construction as again-they had no idea if
> they would live long enough to see it completed.
> It is unthinkable that Sekhemkhet, for example,
> despite his pyramid being uncompleted would have
> been buried there anyways and regardless there is
> no evidence if only to the contrary he ever was.
> So where was his real tomb?
> To continue from the OP, all things considered
> there is no reason to believe pyramids were ever
> meant to inter an actual body. The pyramid did not
> need to be the tomb as this was not its purpose,
> but rather to serve as the "resurrection machine"
> to carry the pharaoh's soul to the stars. It does
> not matter if his body was buried there or not as
> his actual tomb and the pyramid's were
> symbolically linked. The empty sarcophagi inside
> was the "cenotaph" for the king's soul with his
> physical body buried elsewhere.
Your last paragraph is bang on the money, logically.
If the Pyramid is indeed a symbolic structure then the symbolism is not compromised by a lack of physical body.
Where most go wrong is the term Tomb itself. It is in fact just a simplification of entombed.
Cenotaph doesn't do it either.