> I think that's kind of an absurd example, myself.
> The gas chamber, not your Victorian reference.
The ovens Pete, are boxes - with a lid - in a death context, what's absurd is how they were used. You are reacting to 'gas chamber', and it is the exact reaction I expected. In reconstructing history there should be no taboo subjects.
Your reaction actually points to what I am stressing. These type of sensibilities are what prohibit objective analysis of evidence. The Victorian factor is still functioning today.
I believe the willingness to see the pyramids as tombs stems from the Christian influence. The pyramids being equivalents to the grand cathedrals, the shrines, housing and mystifying death and afterlife. The grandest of shrines worthy of popes and presidents, . The grand sarcophagus is the receptacle worthy of gods and kings, the holiest of holies. It's how we've been conditioned to think.
Going back in history in say 500 yr increments, were funerary practices and burials the same at each step? No they were not, yet Egyptology expects us to believe the practices of 1000 yrs later remain the same as the pyramid builders, using intrusive burials as evidence.
In 1000 yrs will the concentration camps be viewed as hallowed grounds? Will people turn them into cemetaries? We have no way of knowing. At 1000 A.D. the legend of Jesus Christ was already a muddled superstitious story. Yet you are willing to believe intrusive burials centuries later were the result of original intent. Willing to believe there was no change in funerary practice when well documented recent history records big changes in practice and belief. Mankind seems to change his beliefs over time, a fact Egyptology refuses to incorporate.