Hello Anthony,
I wrote, ‘If, as you appear to me to be saying, some pyramids were left empty because the bodies of the pharaohs for whom they were built could not be found for whatever reason, what role did these pyramids go on to play in the society that built them? ‘
You reply, ‘Same as if it had a body. Contingency plans were often in place, and these may have included substitute statues, although I can't recall one having been found. Odd they didn't think of that.’
So, having the pharaoh’s mortal remains mummified and placed inside a pyramid was not essential to preparing the pharaoh for his after-life.
Doesn’t this contradict everything the orthos say about the roles of the mummy and its pyramid?
You write, ‘It's not my conclusion: it's the conclusion of the person who examined the remains. I simply agree with it.’
So, you are assuming that the ‘person who examined the remains’ is correct?
You wrote, ‘Sarcophagi were intended to hold bodies’
I replied, ‘This is an assumption.
You reply, ‘No, it's a fact.’
I am referring specifically to the pharaonic pyramids of the 1st to 3rd Dyns.
Are you?
You write, ‘The sarcophagus became the embodiment of Nut, who gives birth to the sun every morning.’
I am aware of this idea.
Is it accepted by all Egyptologists?
You write, ‘The fact that you don't understand Egyptian mythology/religion well enough to understand the role of the sarcophagus/pyramid in burial customs does not mean the sarcophagus/pyramid were not the places for the bodies. It only means you have more research to do so you can understand it.’
So, there is only one possible conclusion to be had from understanding “Egyptian mythology/religion well enough to understand the role of the sarcophagus/pyramid in burial customs”, and that is all sarcophagi of the first three Dyns. pyramids were used for the actual burial of a pharaoh.
The fact that most of the mythology/religion you refer to comes from texts written around one hundred years after Giza is, so it appears, something you appear to think irrelevant.
You write, ‘I suggest you start with Allen's "Cosmology of the Pyramid Texts", and then move into "Reading a Pyramid". Those two will give you a good grounding.’
So, if I read these two books, I should end up agreeing with your views on the role of the mummy, the sarcophagus, and the pyramid.
If I don’t end up agreeing with you, it will, no doubt, be because I didn’t understand what I read.
You write, ‘Using that same level of rationalizing, we could say that the body was gone because Captain Kirk had it beamed aboard the Enterprise.’
What complete and utter nonsense!
You write, ‘You have to understand the culture, mythology and religion, MJ. Until you do, these kinds of statements are just nonsense. Once you do, you won't make these kinds of statements any more. You'll realize how silly they sound.’
So, once again, you are saying that anybody who disagrees with your views on AE history doesn’t understand its cultures, mythologies and religions.
And, as a matter of interest, would you care to name any Egyptologist who does ‘understand the culture, mythology and religion’ of AE.
Oh, and perhaps you could explain how he/she knows they understand it all correctly.
I wrote, ‘I suggest you read Victorian descriptions of the coffer by Piazzi Smyth, Dixon, Petrie et al, and compare them to more recent ones.’
You reply, ‘I suggest you look at their drawings of it. It's nearly identical.
Just to save you time, you asked for Smythe. I'll give you Smythe:
Where's the big change in the last 140 years? I certainly don't see anything significantly different between Smythe's drawings form 1865 and Jon's photographs (or my own) from the 21st century.
You really should do your homework, Anthony.
There is clear, irrefutable evidence of comparatively severe damage to the coffer a short time
before Piazzi Smyth examined it.
If you knew as much as you think you do about Khufu’s pyramid, you would know about this.
Read the various books by various 'Pyramidologists' of the mid-18th to early-20th Century and all will be revealed.
You write, ‘No mystery here. Just simple logic. You're dealing with human behaviour over 4000 years.’
Are you suggesting that the behaviour of the AEs of 4,500 +/- years ago is little different to our behaviour today?
And here’s me thinking ethnocentricity was a no-no…
You write, ‘If you remember, I think it was Mamun who said he found a mummy and a sarcophagus inside Khufu's pyramid... even had it on display outside his residence for many years. That's from memory, so don't quote me on the particulars.’
That’s just one version of five or more of this story.
Are you now proffering stories as valid textual evidence?
Regards,
MJ