> That a mastaba does not have the appearance of a
> step pyramid is plain for everyone to see, but
> that's not the point; why you keep repeating this
> is probably a diversion tactic of some kind.
> NOBODY said mastaba's were miniature versions of
> step pyramids; NOBODY denies that a mastaba does
> not have the appearance of a step pyramid; but YOU
> want to make it look that way.
It's hilarious how Egyptologists repeatedly offer the observation that the step pyramid evolved from a mastaba and the pyramid evolved from a step pyramid thereby PROVING great pyramids are tombs. But the moment someone else says essentially the same thing the rug is yanked out from under them.
The paradigm is a big circular argument supported only by semantics. Mastabas are tombs; pyramids came from tombs; pyramids are tombs. Little pyramids were built with ramps; great pyramid builders were ignorant; great pyramids were built with ramps. It just goes on and on till every argument comes back to where it started at the assumptions.
Casual readers should note how none of the Egyptologists or Egyptology theorists care to be bothered with gathering evidence that would prove stinky footed bumpkins dragged tombs up ramps. Instead they take pot shots at anyone who won't kowtow to their brilliant circular arguments. This "science" of Egyptology is an anachronism from the 12th century. I would sooner believe the Great Pyramid is giant flower pot than that it was built with superstition by bumpkins living on wet sand who were obsessed by death.
It often seems that Egyptologists don't read their own writing either.