Scott Creighton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>

Quote

Charly: point 6) "similar" content...
>
> Be carefull Scott, there's a poster here who will
> bomb you with photo's of church steeple's and
> sky-scrapers if you say such things. If only I
> could remember who that was... hey! wait a
> minute!
> ;-)

>
> SC: Nice try, Charly but no cigar I'm afraid. You
> are comparing apples and pears.

Nope, the point is you are. But apparantly you don't even want to apply your own rules on your own examples (which doesn't surprise me in the slightest, since you have a history of doing that).

> A neb-ankh (Osiris Brick) is but a miniature,
> ceremonial version of the larger stone
> container(s) found in the pyramids.

Your unsuported fantasy as many in this thread (and in many older threads) have demonstrated.

You cannot say
> that a mastaba is but a miniature version of a
> step pyramid since a mastaba is a distinct
> structure in its own right.

Nobody is talking about miniature versions except you.
Again, the step pyramid COMPLEX is a combination of the 2nd dyn royal tomb with the 2nd dyn funerary enclosure. Making a stepped mound is a new feature but underground galleries with a burial chamber and grave goods are not new at all.

If you wanted a
> miniature or ceremonial version of a step pyramid
> it wouldn't look like a mastaba, it would look
> like a small step pyramid.

That goes without saying and that's probably what the seven provincial step pyramids are, miniature versions of a step pyramid representing the power of the king in the provinces (one of the theories).

>
> As you can see in the image above, a mastba is
> quite different in terms of its overall shape to a
> step pyramid's overall shape. Yes, you can argue
> that stacking ever decreasing sizes of mastabas on
> top of each other will produce the shape of a step
> pyramid - but the simple fact is, the two
> structures have different shapes and, imo, served
> quite different functions.

Everybody can see that, but what you aren't saying is that the underground parts both have corridors, with blocking stones and sarcophagi. If I'm not mistaken the picture of the mastaba is Shepseskhaf's, a mastaba with a pyramid name and underground structure very close to that of Menkaure's. Same type of sarcophagus also.

> On the other hand, in terms of the stone box in G2
> and an 'Osiris Brick (Neb-Ankh)', their shape is
> the same - a rectangular box. Unlike Mastaba v
> Step Pyramid, the two containers are identical in
> terms of their shape - the difference is their
> size. They also have other features that are
> consistent with each other - they are anonymous,
> they are undecorated, they are known to have
> contained earth and some even have lids and inner
> coffers:
>
>
>
>
>
> As you can see in the image above, some Neb-Ankh
> even had lids and contained an inner box (coffer)
> which would hold a so-called 'Corn Mummy' (an
> effigy of Osiris made of mud with a hollow cavity
> filled with grain - just as the pyramids were the
> 'body of Osirs' and, imo, once filled with grain
> and other crops, tools, earthenware etc).

You keep repeating that notwithstanding the fact that your unsuported claims have been debunked many times in this thread and others.

> In short, Charly, a mastaba does not have the
> appearance of a step pyramid - it's a quite
> different shape and has other features that are
> different to a step pyramid.

That a mastaba does not have the appearance of a step pyramid is plain for everyone to see, but that's not the point; why you keep repeating this is probably a diversion tactic of some kind. NOBODY said mastaba's were miniature versions of step pyramids; NOBODY denies that a mastaba does not have the appearance of a step pyramid; but YOU want to make it look that way.

The basic shape of
> the 'Osiris Brick', on the other hand, appears
> very much like a mini stone (also wooden or fired)
> box (sometimes with lid) just like the larger type
> found in G2. Because of its different size I
> cannot say they're identical, only that they are
> similar - which they are.

Church steeples and sky-scrapers are similar too Scott; so according to your own rules this means that this is no proof they had the same function. Like I said above you're unwilling to use your own rules AND try to weasel out when pointed out!

You cannot say that of
> the mastaba / step pyramid because they are very
> different.

Again the comparing of the upper-parts only. see above.

Your tactics and denial of evidence and facts reek of desperation as does the fact that you try ignore / deny / forget that your "evidence" and "facts" have been debunked time and again. You've almost reached "Cladking's level" if not already.