> Egyptologists place great weight on the "evolution
> of tomb technology". Indeed they cite the fact
> that the first great pyramid was stacked mastabas
> as prime facie evidence that pyramids are tombs.
> Following this logic would seem to suggest that
> mastabas have a tower core like pyramids.
....Following this logic, and the evidence, what it suggest is that these "stacked mastabas" are the tower core. And as I just said to you in this very thread:
You made a comment about Saqarra and mastabas leading to pyramids. Mastabas are rectangular and the core of Djoser (M1) is a square and is debated whether it was ever intended to be a mastaba. Stadelmann suggest this was the nucleus of a planned pyramid, I disagree, but regardless there is no doubt it was built first. These are the facts which as usual you dismiss them at your own peril. The tower core of Meidum sits on a square base which its similarity to Djoser M1 is not lost on Egyptologists either.
The Meidum tower core, and the other stepped tower cores we see, are in principle nothing more than mastabas extended in height. Medium does have a simple core which was expanded in width and height by using accretion layers to make the tower form we see today. Djoser's pyramid was also expanded around a core using vertical accretion layers to create girth and height around the core.
> More likely we each see what we expect. People
> think pyramids were incredibly difficult to build
> so so what if a tower core is even harder.
You are literally just making up the idea a tower core is more difficult to build for no other reason than you want to crate a reason not to make it despite the clear evidence to the contrary. You ass talks and your fingers type. A tower core is not more difficult to build and in reality probably much easier.
> Maybe pyramids weren't so hard to make at all and
> THIS is why they are so huge and are constructed
> out of huge stones. Maybe free standing tower
> cores would have been impossible to build.
Sweet Christmas. And yet there it is: