> No. I don't actually claim that. It is what the
> evidence 'claims'. The Coptic-Egyptian
> texts claim . . .
. . . and here you are channelling the “evidence” again. Allow me to explain this slowly and simply, as I would to a tiny child. It’s you who’s calling Coptic folklore “evidence”. That’s coming from you. It’s your interpretation, your choice, your theory—and a dubious one, as you’ve already been given reason to doubt that it’s anything of the kind.
If Coptic tradition were merely continuous with the preceding ancient Egyptian tradition, it would be ancient Egyptian tradition: there’d be nothing Coptic about it. So, there was change, and it’s very much up to you to show that the Copts preserved an authentic older tradition contra the verifiable one of pyramids as tombs. All you’ve done so far is claim that you don’t have to (and readers will know what to make of that).
> Because they're not "burial chambers" and they're
> not "sarcophagi". Look at the QRSW of Khufu's
> children (Khafre's siblings) which we find in
> their Mastabas (i.e. tombs). They are all
> inscribed with their names and titulary. . . .
Really? Then give us a list—and it’s qrsw in MdC, as already noted—and a ḳrsw is a coffin, not a sarcophagus, which scarcely inspires confidence in your claim.
As for mastabas, allow me to explain this slowly and simply, as I would to a tiny child. When we talk about a mastaba, we talk about all of its components, including the mastaba chapel. In a pyramid complex, the functional equivalent of the mastaba chapel is the mortuary temple (and possibly the valley temple as well). Seems to me that all we’re getting from you is the same old recitation of long-exploded fallacies. You’d do better to go back to your former practice of reading my old posts. Here’s one from 21 years ago:
If we look here, we find that some non-royal sarcophagi at Giza were uninscribed:
—and if we look here, we find that all we have of the sarchophagus of Khufukhaf (one of Khufu’s sons) is fragments, which are “plain, without handles, decoration, or inscription”:
—which leaves Creighton’s claim above—that the QRSW (sic) of Khufu’s children are “all inscribed with their names and titulary”—looking very like a lie.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07-Jan-18 15:04 by Martin Stower.