> charly wrote:
> > And since the GP is the biggest of them all, it drew the most
> > attention... result: it got completely picked clean, hence
> > even a trace of grave goods and human remains.
> Yes. Exactly. But since there's neither a trace of such
> artefacts nor a willingness to seek a trace this lack of
> evidence can not be used to prove their existence.
Of course there's no trace of such artefacts except in some cases the sarcophagus. No willingness to find a trace???
Just because a tomb has been emptied it can't be proven it was a tomb: this is what you are claiming since you dismiss architecture as evidence.
> There are
> no aliens in the pyramids either but no one is suggesting that
> proves aliens built them.
Use of ridicule tactic again...
> Be reasonable.
I am, you're not.
> Hawass calls the shots. Why doesn't he get in there and do a
> forensic examination? You never know what you'll find till you
Forensic examination is used at crime scenes, not archaeological sites, no matter how many times I point this out, you still go on about it as if it has never been mentioned. One could call that being unreasonable...
> > Why wouldn't they believe that the pyramids contained riches,
> > they were after all the tombs of kings.
> Says you.
> We don't know what they believed these were during all eras.
> It really doesn't matter what anyone at anytime believed they
> were other than the builders. The builders said they were the
> ka of the king. It seems to me that if you want to call them
> tombs then you either marginalize the builders or show that
The builders knew they were tombs, they put in the sarcophagus and blocking systems after all... just like in the mastabas.
> The builders have been marginalized. They just aren't expected
> to know what the hell they were.
Not at all, intensive studies have been made and are still being made. Because you just don't like the results of these studies, doesn't give you the right to say they have been marginalized.
> Anyone could have made those tunnels including 19th century BC
> archaeologists. We know who made the first one in G1 and guess
> what. He didn't find a tomb either. This is pretty
> inconvenient for tomb believers but it's still the fact.
We do not know who made the first tunnel, it's just a story and there are many versions of that story including one where they did find a burial.
> We can suppose all kinds of things about why this is but we're
> still stuck with the same facts and those facts are there's no
> proof or direct evidence any of the great pyramids were tombs.
You say that because you claim that "architecture proves nothing", excellent example of dismissal tactic.
> We're still stuck with the fact that the builders said they
> were NOT tombs.
Not a fact, just your faulty interpretation of the PT.
> You can reconcile this anyway you choose but it's unreasonable
> for anyone to consider the matter sealed.
It's unreasonable to keep claiming 3rd and 4th dynasty pyramids weren't tombs (except the so called provincial step pyramids of course).