... SC: With respect, Don. Saying our theory is "utter nonsense" will not make it so. The 40,000 artefacts found under the Step Pyramid provides very compelling proof that Djoser's pyramid was indeed built as a Recovery Vault. Given that this pyramid contains vaults within it allows us to reasonably conclude that the other pyramids at Meidum, Dahshur and Giza with similar features also served a similar function. One thing is for certain here - all these pyramids were all built to last; they were all built to be SEEN, to be FOUND (just like Djoser's at Saqqara). ...
DB: You call it a recovery vault but it could simply have been a storehouse as a hedge against a future drought.
SC: There is little doubt that the ancient Egyptians certainly had many granaries for the storage and distribution of grain around the kingdom. But these tended to be relatively small structures (in comparison to the early, giant pyramids). And typically, granaries tended to store grain - and only grain. They did not tend to store 40,000 pots, vases, plates, tools, weapons etc, etc. A 'Recovery Vault', however, would tend to store all of these items as well as large quantities of seed. And granaries would certainly not require the level of security against casual looting, water or air penetration that we observe in the pyramids.
DB: You can imagine all you want that this makes it a logical progression to all the pyramids being a recovery vault but since NO SEEDS WERE FOUND IN THE ACTUAL STEP PYRAMID they were found UNDER IT !
SC: This is desperate, Don. I do believe I have spoken of - on more than one occasion in this thread - of the galleries UNDER the Step Pyramid.
DB: I along with I am sure the entire world will be hard pressed to see any logic in this at all and all the circular reasoning you want to employ will never make it so either Scott.
SC: Well, Don, I am a member of the population of "...the entire world..." as is Gary and it makes perfect sense to us. That you feel you are able to speak on this matter on behalf of "...the entire world..." is rather revealing.
It rather seems to me that if you came across a fire engine in your street that had no evidence of any water within it then, by your logic, it could not possibly be a fire engine because there was no evidence of any water in it. You would believe this in spite of its similar general shape to other fire engines, its internal water tanks, its hoses. etc. No water - cannot possibly be a fire engine.
What would you think it was? An ice cream van?
EDIT: Fix typo.
Post Edited (03-Feb-12 00:26)