> 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
It does which part and parcel of this demonstration in Dynasty 0/1 was the ritual murder of hundreds and hundreds of human subjects and family members not to mention animals in which one king is even buried with a pair of lions. The human toll to satisfy the needs of the dead king was quite gruesome and prolific, a practice that no doubt came from Mesopotamia. This mass murder discontinues in 2nd Dynasty tombs which I would suggest may have been part of the reason for the collapse of the Dynastic state in the 2nd Dynasty in that this insane and senseless foreign custom was forced upon them by these larger than life foreign Thinite kings which eventually they rebelled leading to civil war.
> Could it be that all or some of these early
> enclosures were tombs for the King?
> Possible, but not very likely imho
Given there tombs are also found not in the enclosure this would appear to give us a clear answer.
> 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
There is no doubt pyramids resided within a funerary context, possibly de facto, but all things considered I think regardless of their actual purpose they were ever intended to inter the physical body of the king.
> But, where any of em tombs?
> My understanding of the evidence says yes
I think none of them were built to be and if a I noted is any indication the expectation from the earliest of times is the body of the king would be buried elsewhere.
> 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
It changes their purpose i.e. the reason they were built.
> 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.
No doubt, but no matter who we read the prevailing meme of this era was that in fact they were not buried within the pyramids. By no means "proof" of course, but it adds to the circumstantial narrative not to mention the fact even Mark Lehner has said no royal burial as ever been found in any pyramid.