> In the fourth dynasty, all of Giza was a
Actually there's no evidence that any cemeteries were begun before about the 4th year after pyramid construction began. It is almost certainly true there were some scattered tombs and likely hundreds of random burials but G1 was not "built in a cemetery" so much as it exists within several cemeteries. This is not mere semantics.
Even if it were built in a cemetery it wouldn't prove it was a tomb, of course.
> What evidence do you have that states
> these pyramids were not "tombs", when everything
> else there were tombs.
The evidence is extremely extensive and the support for the evidence goes far beyond what can be inserted in a single post.
Perhaps the best evidence is simply what is actually known. In the universe of what is known there is no evidence of it being a tomb. While the total evidence isn't extensive it is broad and deep enough that it should be expected that at some point one of the great pyramids would be called a "tomb" or desciptive words that defined a tomb. This doesn't exist. There is NO direct evidence of any sort it was a tomb. Even its name wasn't the Tomb of Khufu or Khufus Resting Place; it was Khufu's Horizon. It was the place Khufu became the horizon up out of the Nile Valley.
They also said many times it was not his tomb. There were no stone draggers and there were no tomb builders. What does exist and what they did say is not consistent with it being a tomb;
He was removed from the grave to be "put together"
318a. (So now that) his limbs are united, which were hidden (in the grave),
This simply says the king's grave was in the sky (nut);
616d. Thou art given over to thy mother Nut, in her name of "Grave";
616e. she has embraced thee, in her name of "Grave";
616f. thou art brought to her, in her name of Maṣṭaba."
And it implies that mastabas were tombs. The sky is the tomb/ grave/ mastaba of the dead king.
But it goes on and on telling exactly what happened to the king through the rituals which were read at the ceremonies that were held for the king's ascension.
I simply don't understand why Egyptologists don't get this. I can sort of understand how they missed it in the first place since it requires more extensive scientific knowledge than anyone possesses. It couldn't be solved without google. But why don't they get it after I explain it? Why do they refuse to even consider it? How many predictions have to come to light before they even look?
It is very hard to change the way we see things. We are constantly seeing confirmation for our beliefs. This must be far more true in a field like Egyptology that has been populated by such genius for such a long time. Even learning to see the Egyptological paradigm is difficult and after all these years i'm only startiung to see a vague outline of their complex beliefs and understandings. Of course I haven't tried very hard because I believe they are wrong almost across the board. My relative refusal to understand your thinking is very similar to Egyptological refusal to even look at the PT without parsing it. ;)
It's just not very likely the evidence would exist in exactly the way it does exist if the pyramids were tombs. It might also be said that my theory is held together with little evidence just like Egyptological theory but the fact is almost all the physical evidence fits my theory and almost every word in the PT can be interpreted to fit it. Unlike Egyptological interpretation of the PT that varies greatly from indoividual to individual, there can be very little variation in how the PT is interpreted to fit my theory. Their theory doesn't make predictions and mine does. This ability to make predictions would, no doubt, be at least a little more apparent if they'd just do the tests or release the results of the one they just did.