> If they have concluded
> that the word "tA-rd" means "ramp" than only
> another Egyptologist with linguistic training
> could justifiably take them to task.
The word "ramp" is unattested from the great pyramid building age. The hieroglyph for "ramp" is unattested from the great pyramid building age. The word "tA-rd" is unattested from the great pyramid building age.
There is no support for the contention that the "only technology available was ramp technology". There is no support for the continual statements that they "mustta used ramps". There is no support for ramps and neither a physicist nor a linguist can drag stones on a concept any more than they could train stones to fly.
> Egyptian kings were under no such constraints, and
> had no limitations on their personal authority.
No! They had top obey the laws of physics and they couldn't drag stones on concepts.
You have shown no evidence that the kings had absolute power over the people. One might assume the third dynasty retainers probably didn't join him in the afterlife strictly by choice but we are talking about the 4th dynasty and no dead king ever killed anybody ever.
> historian Susan Bauer has proposed the rather
> convincing hypothesis that the Fourth Dynasty fell
> due the tyranny of its kings.
This is an et al. We need evidence, not speculation.
> The new ruling dynasty, with a significantly
> weakened treasury combined with a new royal
> mandate placing increased emphasis on the solar
> cult of Re, would have been obligated to build a
> much reduced pyramid tomb. Compare the inferior
> superstructures of the pyramids of the Fifth and
> Sixth Dynasties with the eloquently made adjacent
> solar temples, and you will get some idea of
The amount of detail that Egyptology has deduced without even attestation of the word "ramp" or any direct evidence any great pyramid is a tomb is simply staggering.
I'd ask how this were possible but fear you might try to tell me.
> As for your assertion that there is no evidence
> for any pyramid having been a royal tomb, I
> believe I have negated your objection to the
> evolution of mortuary architecture.
You are repeating a semantical argument to show you've won!!!
> There is also
> the presence of the Pyramid Texts themselves
> placed inside the burial chambers of pyramids
> which were clearly written to assist the deceased
> king into ascending to the afterlife.
Then why do no two Egyptologists agree how the king got to heaven? Why do no two Egyptoplogists agree on the origin of the "ankh" or the function of any of the 27 sceptres listed? Why do they not know anything about the religion or magic except tht they believed in countless gods whose natures are all unknown?
Egyptology is a work based on the assumption that you can legitimately understand the Pyramid Texts in terms of the book of the dead. It is nothing more. If this assumption is false then everything Egyptologists believe is false.
The assumption should never have been made and is obviously false. At least past Egyptologists knew they were using this as a working assumption but the current generation has forgotten.
Egyptology went off the beam long go and are stuck somewhere in the 1870's. Phillip Coppens had it just about right on this score.
> Mummies have
> also been discovered in several pyramids including
> the Red Pyramid, G3, Unas etc...
The Red Pyramid is a great pyramid but no "mummy" has been found in it. Mummy parts have been found scattered about but more modern testing casts doubt on their age and likelihood to be from a royal burial.
> There is also the presence of an obvious stone
> sarcophagus inside the Great Pyramid which I have
> yet to see any fringe theorist address with any
> degree of adequacy.
How does one address a semantical argument except to point out that it is semantical. There is a roughly made and broken stone box in G1 and NOBODY knows its original function but I'd suggest you read Jon Ellison's work on this rather than any et al.