Scott Creighton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> charly Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Scott Creighton Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > charly Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Scott Creighton Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > charly Wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----
> > > > > > Scott Creighton Wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----
> > > > > > > charly Wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----
> > > > > > > > Audrey Wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Even if every mastaba were
> > originally
> > > a
> > > > > > tomb,
> > > > > > > > how
> > > > > > > > > would that show that the pyramids
> > > were
> > > > > > tombs?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The pyramid evolved from the
> mastaba;
> > > > > > Djoser's
> > > > > > > > original mastaba evolved into a
> > stepped
> > > > > > mastaba
> > > > > > > > and then with Sekhemkhet a square
> > > > grounplan
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > used thus creating the first step
> > > > pyramid.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You mean like this:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > SC
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not at all, a comparison between a
> church
> > > > > steeple
> > > > > > and a skyscraper is totally meaningless
> > and
> > > > has
> > > > > > nothing to do with the fact that
> Djoser's
> > > > > monument
> > > > > > evolved from a mastaba into a stepped
> > > > mastaba.
> > > > > Or
> > > > > > do you deny this fact?
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't deny that you have claimed it as
> a
> > > fact.
> > > > I
> > > > > have yet to see it proven so.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ancient Egyptian kings were buried in
> > mastaba
> > > > > tombs BEFORE the great pyramid-building
> age
> > > and
> > > > > AFTER it.
> > > >
> > > > Shepseskhaf was buried in a mastaba-like
> tomb,
> >
> > >
> > > It's actually questionable whether Shepseskaf
> > was
> > > actually buried in the mastaba attributed to
> > him
> > > but we'll let that one slide. If he was then
> > > yes--because mastabas WERE tombs.
> > >
> > > > but then it's again pyramids,
> > >
> > > Which WEREN'T tombs.
> >
> > They were; you just claim they weren't.
> >
>
> No. I don't actually claim that. It is what the
> evidence 'claims'. The Coptic-Egyptian
> texts claim they were constructed as 'Recovery
> Vaults' (or 'Arks' if you prefer). They tell us
> only that the king (Surid) placed everything
> within the pyramids (along with the bodies of the
> ancestor kings) in order to ensure the recovery or
> rebirth of the kingdom after the deluge had
> abated. I fully expect that you will dismiss those
> texts just as Egyptology generally does with
> anything that runs contrary to its dogma.
> Dismissing these texts won't make them wrong. And
> placing bodies of the ancestor kings does not make
> the pyramids tombs, at least not in the
> conventional sense since only the Great
> Pyramid would have been used for this purpose. See
> my GHMB article here:
> Hall
> of the Ancients.

Like Martin already said, you choose to believe ancient Coptic folklore; you claim this is evidence.
If one has to choose between evidence from solid Egyptological research or "believing" Coptic Folklore the choice is easy!

> > There are at least two kings
> > > who have both mastaba tombs and, supposedly,
> > > pyramid tombs. Furthermore, the 5th/6th Dyn
> > > pyramids were built for the Ka of the
> > King
> > > and for very good reason. Built for his KA --
> > NOT
> > > his actual body.
> >
> > Not his body? Why burial chambers with
> sarcophagi,
>
> Because they're not "burial chambers" and they're
> not "sarcophagi". Look at the QRSW of Khufu's
> children (Khafre's siblings) which we find in
> their Mastabas (i.e. tombs). They are all
> inscribed with their names and titulary. Some are
> even decorated. That is NOT what we find in the
> stone boxes in the Gizamids. There we find rough,
> uninscribed, anonymous boxes. And in the case of
> G2 the stone box there was found by Belzoni in
> 1818 to contain a great quantity of earth and some
> bull bones. NO MUMMY. We find later dynasties
> during the Festival of Khoiak also preparing small
> replica boxes (wooden, stone or fired) filled with
> earth, placed into the ground with a large rock
> (symbolising the pyramid) placed on top. The point
> here is to demonstrate to you that the AEs of
> later dynasties clearly understood what those
> earth-filled boxes were for--they were part of a
> deep chthonic ritual relating to the rebirth of
> the EARTH. These earth-filled stone boxes were
> neb-ankh, they were not QRSW.

No Scott, the typology of sarcophagi is well known and has nothing to do with the later small replica boxes. You simply make this unsuported claim.

> > PT's and funerary equipment?
>
> There are no PTs in the great pyramids. Of 138
> pyramids in Egypt only 8 pyramids have PTs and
> they appeared within a short period in the 5th-6th
> dynasties. What funerary equipment was found in
> the giant pyramids (the stone box is not a
> sarcophagus)?

There are no stone boxes in pyramids that aren't sarcophagi, they are the product of your immagination.

> > BTW, I thought they were part of your seed
> vault
> > story, must be mistaken then.
> >
>
> Of course they are. An earth-filled stone box with
> some bull bones is strongly indicative of a
> chthonic ritual desiring the rebirth of the earth
> (the kingdom). The bull bones symbolised the
> fecundity of the earth. And, as I have said above,
> this chthonic ritual was practiced by later
> dynasties using their own, smaller replica
> earth-filled boxes which they buried below a large
> rock.

see above

> > > Saff-tombs for the 11th
> > > > dyn and then again pyramids untill the
> switch
> > > to
> > > > rock-cut tombs in the NK.
> > >
> > > Yes, tombs.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Simply because the base of the first
> > > > > pyramid built looks like a mastaba and
> has
> > > > several
> > > > > mastaba-looking steps creating a step
> > pyramid
> > > > > shape does not mean and should not mean
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > > step pyramid was intended as a tomb.
> > > >
> > > > The royal tomb chamber with it's burial
> vault
> > > and
> > > > the galleries containing the remains of
> > > sarcofagi
> > > > and skeletons of members of the royal
> family,
> > > are
> > > > more than a subbtle hint that Djoser's
> > pyramid
> > > was
> > > > intended as a tomb.
> > > >
> > > If the Step Pyramid was (stupidly) used as a
> > tomb
> > > by Djoser does not mean it was CONCEIVED and
> > BUILT
> > > as a tomb.
> >
> > Yes it was, it's very clear from an
> architectural
> > analysis that the Step Pyramid complex combines
> > the architecture of a typical 2nd dyn royal
> tomb
> > with that of a 2nd dyn funerary enclosure into
> one
> > structure.
> >
>
> And a church has similar architectural features to
> the Empire State Building. And because of that, by
> your logic, they must serve the same function. I
> beg to differ.
>
> > Do you not understand the difference?
> > > Can you explain why the remains of what is
> > beieved
> > > to be a foot of Djoser is around 1,000 years
> > > younger than Djoser?
> >
> > It is not believed to be a foot of Djoser but
> an
> > intrusive burial from a later period.
> >
>
> You claimed earlier it was a "royal" burial. Now
> it's not even Djoser. Which intrusive "royal"
> burial was it then?

Never claimed the remains of the intrusive burial were royal.


> > > > That's like
> > > > > saying the similar looking church
> building
> > > > evolved
> > > > > into a sky-scraper. Their functions are
> > very
> > > > > different and THAT'S the point. Just
> > because
> > > > there
> > > > > are similarities does not mean and should
> > not
> > > > mean
> > > > > that their function was the same.
> > > >
> > > > Unless there are so much similarities that
> a
> > > same
> > > > function becomes undeniable.
> > >
> > > Define "so much similarities"? How many
> exactly
> > > and what are they?
> >
> > Pyramids contain burial chambers,
>
> You say "Burial chambers". I say "recovery
> vaults". There's more evidence backing my
> argument.

Only in your dreams I guess, just like Cladking's are filled with geysers.
That's what happens when you replace evidence with fantasy.

> security
> > measures
>
> Really? Frst of all, you think placing a king
> (whose body had to be made secure at all costs to
> ensure the continued well-being of the country) in
> the most visible structure imaginable, that could
> be seen by tomb raiders in all directions up to 30
> or 40 miles distant, was a secure burial place?
> No--the first rule of a secure burial is that you
> simply do not mark the grave site--something Khufu
> knew very well because it is what he apparently
> did for his own mother. But, oddly, not for
> himself? Of course, as a 'recovery vault' this is
> PRECISELY the kind of structure you would
> need.

Powerfull god-kings that didn't want to mark their grave site? Strange reasoning, since powerfull rulers throughout history wanted a fancy tomb, chinese emperors, roman emperors, hell even modern day didctators.
Besides, before the first intermediate period no large scale tomb robbing took place. It's not a coïncidence that Middle Kingdom pyramids developped extra security measures such as fake burial chambers and massive vaults.


> Secondly--the Descending Passage was never blocked
> thereby inviting entry into the body of the
> structure. If this truly was a tomb then I am
> absolutely convinced that this passage would have
> been totally blocked, preventing any entry to the
> super-structure of the pyramid. This is, afterall,
> what Khufu did with the passgae entrance to his
> mother's tomb at Giza. This action, this LACK of
> security, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for
> the tomb of a king but makes perfect sense as a
> 'recovery vault'.
> Thirdly--just to the east of the GP we find
> underground passages (known as the 'Trial
> Passages') which mimic the internal passage
> architecture of the GP--a 'map' if you like.
> Again--why on earth would an AE king provide tomb
> raiders with a handy 'map' of the internal
> arrangement of his so-called 'tomb'? And yet
> again, as a 'recovery vault' this 'map' makes
> perfect sense.
>
> Fourthly--why was the 'Granite Leaf' left in place
> in the Ante Chamber to the so-called 'burial
> chamber'? This block of stone could have easily
> been used as a counter-weight to raise up the
> three blocking stones which prevented easy access
> to the main chamber. This is akin to leaving the
> key in the lock of your front door. Hardly a
> rigorous security measure. But once again--as
> 'recovery vaults' this makes perfect sense. You
> want people (survisors of the deluge) to have
> relatively easy access to the recovery cache.

All your interpretations, have been discussed in other threads, that not everyone agrees with your views goes without saying.

> >and sarcophagi just like mastaba tombs,
>
> No. See above. The stone boxes found in the
> Gizamids are nothing like those found in tombs
> (mastabas).

As above, the typology and evolution of sarcophagi is well known. "Stone boxes" are a product of your immagination.

> > and are mostly surrounded by other tombs.
>
> A church is built. Then some grand mausoleums and
> graves appear around the church. What you are
> arguing is that the Church was also conceived as a
> tomb, the biggest in the graveyard. It wasn't.

But the most important people had tombs IN the church.
The pyramid complex contains temples, where ceromonies were held. You could say that each pyramid had it's own "church"

> > Pyramids that weren't tombs such as the "seven
> > provincial step pyramids" didn't have chambers.
> >
>
> Of course they weren't. So why build them?

Why not?

And why
> build cenotaph pyramids?

Why not?

Because mainstream
> Egyptology can find no other way to explain why an
> AE king would require more than one pyramid.

Not at all, AE required only one pyramid for burial.
the exeptions:
1) Sneferu who wanted a true pyramid at all costs and that didn't work out as planned so he eneded up with 3.
2) Amememhat III: stability problems similar to the Bent, so constructed a second.

All, the rest, just one pyramid.

Again
> the 'recovery vault' theory makes much better
> sense of this practice of AE kings building
> several pyramids.

Just your opinion Scott, but I understand since you're an author and want to sell your own ideas versus those of Egyptology.

> > > > Your church building - sky-scraper
> comparison
> > > is
> > > > still a meaningless one in this context.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, it's not. It is designed to show how we
> can
> > > easily see something and jump to conclusions.
> > Just
> > > because something LOOKS similar doesn;t mean
> > they
> > > were intended to BE similar or have the same
> > > intended function.
> >
> > In case of the "seven provincial step pyramid"
> > this is correct, for the other pyramids it's
> quite
> > different.
> >
>
> Deflection. We're not talking about similar
> pyramids but rather your belief in the Egyptology
> claim of the mastaba evolving into a pyramid. Just
> because elements look similar doesn't necessarily
> mean the functions of the structures were the
> same.

Deflection? Not at all. And it's a bit more than mstaba evolving into a pyramid; it's the combining of the 2nd dyn royal tomb and the 2nd dyn funerary enclosure into one structure that led to developpement of the pyramid.

> > If you want to prove the
> > > pyramids were conceived as tombs for the
> burial
> > of
> > > AE kings then you will have to produce much
> > better
> > > evidence than this.
> >
> > Don't need to, has been done already ;-)
> >
>
> Well it must be in your imagination because I see
> nothing concrete from you.

A lot of people sat that of you Scott.

And I'm not alone here
> in saying that.

Well, this message board attacts a big Fringe crowd, so that goes without saying.

> > > > > The simple fact of the matter is that if
> in
> > > > > ancient times, without iron or steel, I
> > > wanted
> > > > to
> > > > > build a very tall structure for WHATEVER
> > > > REASON,
> > > > > then, by necessity, it would have to take
> > the
> > > > form
> > > > > of a pyramid shape as this shape is the
> > most
> > > > > naturally stable shape to build without
> > iron
> > > or
> > > > > steel. And in the early stages I would
> most
> > > > likely
> > > > > begin with a step pyramid until I had
> > > > sufficient
> > > > > skill and experience to figure out how to
> > > > smooth
> > > > > out the sides.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mastabas were tombs and were for burial.
> > > > Mastaba
> > > > > tombs contained QRSW, pyramids didn't.
> > > Pyramids
> > > > > were for something else altogether.
> > > > >
> > > > > SC
> > > >
> > > > Not sure what the abbreviation QRSW means.
> > >
> > > QRSW is but one AE word for 'sarcophagus'.
> > >
> > > SC
> >
> > Sarcophagi have been found in most pyramids, so
> > your statement is totally incorrect.
>
> Define what you mean by 'sarcophagi'? The AE had
> three different words for stone boxes and
> Egyptology, rather conveniently, labels them all
> as sarcophagi. A stone box in a pyramid does not
> mean it is meant for the burial of a person. (See
> above).

Yes it does, you make up stone boxes (see above)

> > I almost forgot that you try (in vain) to
> > transform them into "Osiris-beds", which are
> > completly different things.
>
> They are neb-ankh. The earth-filled stone box
> found by Belzoni in G2 in 1818 is a rather fine
> example. THAT is what you call EVIDENCE.
>
> SC

It's an example of a sarcofagus that got filled with rubbish and debris, nothing more. Which means your evidence = rubbish.