> The point is moot. The King's who weren't
> disturbed in ancient times, were looterd endlessly
> since for their treasures. The best way to get at
> the fetishes wrapped within the mummy was to burn
> same..leaving the gold and silver. In the 19th
> century mummies were being used as fuel for
> trains. Every Victorian Mansion longed to have
> one in their parlour.
No, not moot at all. Of paramount importance actually as a "royal burial" is not to mean just a "body" and a bunch of "stuff"- it's the reliefs, paintings, and writings all over the walls required by AE religion that are missing as well which is the strongest case against the idea they intended to inter an actual person. The pharaoh needs these things in the afterlife no different than anyone else and because of his station would be afforded the greatest examples yet instead we have nothing. Not even a name on a sarcophagus, also required by AE religion. Compare the interior of the pyramids to the mastabas of their time-there is zero reason to expect any less of the pharaohs tomb if not more so.
Tomb robbers do not steal reliefs and writing off the walls.
> Even today, tombs have to be bricked up and
> guarded or people will chip the very reliefs off
> the wall.
> There are a lot of arguments that can be made for
> Pyramids being tombs or Cenotaphs or sometimes one
> or the other.....but a body not being found in one
> is a very weak one(argument).
Or not being either. But, I agree-a body or lack thereof is not an argument, unless we are reffering to those known to be undisturbed since they were sealed and still found empty in modern times, but the lack of the required interior funerary flair most definitely is.