> Thanos5150 Wrote:
> Regarding the Abydos enclosures:
Each royal monument consisted of a ritual
> precinct open to the sky enclosed by massive
> mudbrick walls. The Institute’s excavations
> resulted in the discovery of the earliest royal
> enclosures yet known, dating to the reign of king
> Aha at the beginning of the 1st Dynasty (ca. 3050
> BCE). The Institute’s work has also revealed
> important aspects of how these structures were
> used as the setting for ritual. Most
> it appears that these important royal monuments
> appear to have been deliberately, even ritually
> demolished and symbolically buried after only a
> short period of use, probably limited to the
> of the king for whom each was built.
> The known enclosures of the 1st Dynasty (ca.
> 3050-2900 BCE) were regularly accompanied by
> important ancillary features. Most were
> by lines of tombs, and the Institute’s work
> produced important new evidence that courtiers
> retainers were sacrificed and entombed around the
> royal enclosure, probably so that they could
> accompany the king into the next world. In
> instance a royal enclosure was accompanied by the
> burials of ten donkeys in three brick tomb
> chambers, the earliest complete donkey skeletons
> ever discovered in the world. In another, one of
> the enclosures had associated graves that
> contained, not humans or animals, but,
> spectacularly, the wooden hulls of a fleet of
> fourteen large boats, the oldest built boats
> known. The boats and donkeys, like the sacrificed
> courtiers, were probably buried to be
> translated from this world to the next, to be
> available to the king there.
> What I forgot to point out as well, is here in the
> 1st Dynasty we have these monumental "mortuary
> complex enclosures" for each pharaoh which
> [b]"most were surrounded by lines of tombs"[/b].
> The gruesome ritual of sacrificing select
> subjects, and there were many, to be buried
> alongside them notwithstanding, [i]a notably
> Mesopotamian custom mind you[/i], here we have the
> practice from the beginnings of Dynastic Egypt
> built on a foundation of monumental supposedly
> funerary structures built for the pharaoh in which
> the people are buried around it. [b]BUT-it is not
> a tomb. The actual tomb of the pharaoh is
> elsewhere in this case located a mile away. If in
> fact the pyramids were part of this long
> tradition, as many will claim (Warwick), then what
> expectation would there be that pyramids were ever
> intended to be tombs either?[/
This parallels my response in the new thread:
I never meant to imply that pyramids were an extension of the "Royal Forts/Enclosures of the Early Dynastic.
But, that Royal Forts/Enclosures were Demonstrative in nature. Thus supporting the notion of Constantly reemphasising the Power of the King's role in their society , culture, and beliefs.
Could it be that all or some of these early enclosures were tombs for the King?
Possible, but not very likely imho
Could it be that some Pyramids were cenotaphs?
Of course, we no of some attributed to Hun up and down the river.
And Sneferu couldn't have used all 3
But, where any of em tombs?
My understanding of the evidence says yes
Does the possibility that the King's were "finally" entombed elsewhere alter the demonstrative, belief driven impetus towards pyramid building by the OK rulers?
No. Not in my opinion
b] Again, we have a
> large monumental structure surrounded by the
> pharaohs subjects yet there is no pharaoh to be
> found buried inside.
> I am reminded once again of the words of Herodotus
> and Diodorus.
> [quote]For this, they [the Egyptian priests] said,
> the ten years were spent [to build the causeway],
> [b]and for the underground chambers on the hill
> upon which the pyramids stand, which he [Khufu]
> caused to be made as sepulchral chambers for
> himself in an island[/b], having conducted thither
> a channel from the Nile….
> This king [Khafre] followed the same manner as the
> other, both in all the rest and also in that he
> made a pyramid, not indeed attaining to the
> measurements of that which was built by the former
> [Khufu] (this I know, having myself also measured
> it), and moreover [b]there are no underground
> chambers beneath nor does a channel come from the
> Nile flowing to this one as to the other, in which
> the water coming through a conduit built for it
> flows round an island within, where they say that
> Cheops himself is laid[/b]: but for a basement he
> built the first course of Ethiopian stone of
> divers colours; and this pyramid he made forty
> feet lower than the other as regards size,
> building it close to the great pyramid. [/quote]
> [quote][b]Although these kings [Khufu and Khafre]
> intended these [G1 and G2] for their sepulchres,
> yet it happened that neither of them were buried
> there. For the people being exasperated against
> them by reason of the toilsomness of these works
> [building the pyramids], and for their cruelty and
> oppression, threatened to tear in pieces their
> dead bodies, and with ignominy to throw them out
> of their sepulchres. Wherefore both of them,
> dying, commanded their friends to bury them in an
> obscure place.[/b][/quote]
> [quote]Regardless of the validity of either of
> these tales, one thing that is common to both is
> they specifically make note of the fact the
> pharaohs were not buried within the pyramids
> themselves. This information came to Herodotus
> from Egyptian priests and Diodorus, I am assuming,
> from the histories of other writers before him
> which at their root would have come from earlier
> Egyptian sources as well. It is interesting then
> that the AE of these periods did not consider the
> pyramids of at least Khufu and Khafre, which
> neither source mention Menkaure's burial place, to
> be the actual places they were buried.[/quote]
> 42844]Giza Pyramids as Tombs in the Words of
> Herodotus and Diodorus[/url]
Herodotus cannot be completely ignored but I suggest that everyone should read reread or Google his complete commentary on Gaza and Khufu. Those priests definitely told a few porky pies about him, who is to say that the "King is/was not there was the truth? They were priests. They definitely would have had an agenda in that regard.
I will note however, when it comes to Herodotus I believe he believed every thing he wrote down. More than an historian, he was a very dependable journalist with no agenda but curiosity.