> charly wrote:
> > Typical tactic of pseudo archaeology, take a modern day
> > an try to make it seem ancient cultures already had the same
> > concept. Make the evidence fit and in case there's not enough
> > evidence to be distorted make up some more. Oh, yes...almost
> > forgot, any evidence that points to the contrary has to be
> > ignored, dismissed or ridiculed (sarcophagi need to become
> > "stone boxes", etc.)
> There's probably a little truth here but you're missing the big
> picture. The big picture is that egyptology just made a bunch
> of assumptions and went from there. They skipped ahead to the
> answers and then set out to prove them. This is how a stone
> box became a sarcophagus in the first place.
The typology of sarcophagi is well known, no need to declare them "stone boxes".
> If you were right that the stone box is a sarcophagus etc etc
> then why are there no answers?
Answers for what?
> Why have you still been unable
> to prove the pyramid was a tomb even after 150 years????
Has been proven, you just don't accept the proof...
> You're best evidence is still just that the pyramid was built
> around a stone box which was simply assumed to be a sarcophagus
> in the first place.
No one has a problem with the fact that a mastaba built around a "stone box" is a tomb. No one has a problem with the fact that those "stone boxes" are called sarcophagi.
The architectural evidence speaks volumes, no matter how hard you try to dismiss, ignore or ridicule it. It will just not go away...
> Like everything orthodox this is absurd.
Not accepting sarcophagi is absurd in the light of the evidence...