> Sam, nobody considers that the AEs were a
> "changeless" people. The evolution of burial
> customs from pit graves, to mastabas, to step
> pyramids, to true pyramids is testament to this.
I overstate the case to make the point.
Of course they changed. Nothing can stay exactly the same for 3000 years.
When I say thay are assumed to have not changed I'm speaking principally of our understanding of the Pyramid Texts on which everything we believe is based. Again I'm overstating this to make a point and would be happy to elaborate on how "all" of our understanding depends on the PT.
The simple fact is there are many terms known in later times that are used only a single time (or two) in the PT yet Egyptologists assume these words had the same definition. They assume that the different grammar represented in the PT is comprehensible in our language and used to be comprehensible to later Egyptians. They assume each known word in the PT had the same definition 1000 years later. They assume the PT has numerous grammatical errors in it. They assume it must mean about the same thing as later writing despite the fact it doesn't say that. They assume the language made no major changes. They assume it makes sense that the origin or meaning of terms, icons, and sceptres can't be determined. They assume that when the writers said one thing that they meant something else.
These assumption in aggregate is tantamount to assuming the people and theiur religion made no major or fundamental changes. These assumptions are the mountain of evidence to which Egyptologists appeal. In this "mountain" of evidence there is not one word to suggest a king was ever buried in a pyramid. Indeed, it's quite the opposite; it says the king wasn't buried in the pyramid. Based on the fact they said the wrong thing about where the king was buried and they believed in the wrong number of gods they are assumed to be stinky footed bumpkins. The PT essentially calls them stinky footed bumpkins when their gods are told to tip toe in corpse drippings. Imagine the level of stinky footedness necessary to their gods to stay out of corpse drippings and that they even said their most famous goddess stunk to high heaven. Maybe it was just her feet but who knows what's real in a world where bumpkins drag tombs up ramps?
> How does one conduct "forensic" tests in an
> environment which has been contaminated by
> countless people which could ever determine the
> original purpose of the stone box Egyptologists
> refer to as a sarcophagus?
Microscopically. We now have precision tools that can excavate in the tiniest areas and chemical testing that needs only the tiniest sample to provide countless clues.
> The AEs depicted themselves dragging stone. Here
> is an image of stone being dragged by Egyptian
> stone draggers (with the aid of ropes and a sled)
> from the tomb of Djehutihotep:
It's cause and THEN effect.
It's impossible to do this backward.
> So, if one follows your argument then there is
> still "doubt" but the idea that "we are
> necessarily wrong" is contested.
I'd estimate less than a 1.5% chance that pyramids were built with ramps and less than a 5% chance they were tombs. I'd guess less than a 20% chance they had any funerary function at all. I believe these were called the "House of Life" and "Khufu's Horizon" was it's scientific name. The scientific word for "pyramid" was "instrument of ascension" and this was the device by which kings ascendended to heaven on the smoke of incense exactly as the Pyramid Texts suggests.
You can't understand the pyramid builders without first understanding the PT.
You can't understand the Pyramid Texts if you try to parse themn or understand them in terms of effect then cause.