MJT: How can you be so sure that this 'nameless edifice'
> problem, for want of a better term, was around in Khufu's
> SC: I can't be sure - no one can. But if Egyptologists are
> correct then it seems more likely than not that the ideas
> expressed within the Pyramid Texts come from a time long before
> Khufu & Co.
In your source material one reads, 'Figure 9. The name (ren) was necessary for the ba to return to the tomb. This is Senuseret I (birth name, left) Kheperkara (throne name, right), of the 12th Dynasty.'
This example postdates the pyramids of Giza by approx. 500 years.
> To try and assume that the Pyramid Texts appeared
> 'out of the blue' in the 5th dynasty as a fully-fledged body of
> complex funerary ideas is simply preposterous - they would have
> had much earlier precedent.
It is fully accepted by mainstream Egyptologists that some parts of the Pyramid Texts predate the pyramids - it is hard to imagine it could be otherwise.
The uncertainty comes in with the question of: which parts were these?
Until this is known one cannot say that the abscence of Khufu's name on his sarcophagus is unambiguous evidence for his pyramid not being a tomb.
> But then again - perhaps this is
> all just pure 'fantasy land', eh?
Well, there's always that possibility, Scott. ;)
So few answers - and not one of them mine.