MJ Thomas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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?
>
Not everything could work exactly as planned. The gods had a major role in how things were carried out, and if a body was not to be had, then that was just another contingency. Ideally, there would be a body to mummify.
It's a constant battle with the gods who have their own designs on our fate.
>
> 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?
No, I am looking at the evidence he presents, following his logic, and arriving at the same conclusion. I've seen no other reasonable explanation for what he found, so I cannot, therefore, argue with it.
>
>
> 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?
>
Absolutely not.
First, there were no pharaohs in Dynasty 1 through 3.
Secondly, there were no pyramids in Dynasty 1 through 2.
Would you like to rephrase the question?
>
> 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're welcome to hunt down those who disagree. I'd be interested in seeing their perspectives on 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.
It is the only logical conclusion that includes ALL the data we currently possess. Again, I welcome a better idea, but that's a pretty tall order.
> 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.
No, it doesn't. Again, there is a wealth of textual evidence that predate the Pyramid Texts. You should try reading it some time. Fascinating information.
>
>
> 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.
They're not books. They're peer reviewed articles.
> If I don’t end up agreeing with you, it will, no
> doubt, be because I didn’t understand what I
> read.
Or because you have less information, still. You won't know until you try. I welcome your new interpretation, but beware: you need to have MORE data than Allen.
Good luck with that.
>
>
> 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!
Agreed! Just like "a pyramid's sarcophagus wasn't meant to hold a body!"
>
> So, once again, you are saying that anybody who
> disagrees with your views on AE history doesn’t
> understand its cultures, mythologies and
> religions.
No, I'm saying that the arguments you are providing will not hold up to critical examination by those who have more information than you. Until you provide MORE cultural information, and then assemble it in a better manner, you've got nothing to add.
> 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.
1. Nobody would claim to know it all.
2. There's a long list, starting with James Allen... and then proceeding out from there (but not necessarily "down".) Many people have their specialities, be it Old Kingdom mythology (see Kamrin), or Middle Kingdom hieroglyphic (Faulkner is a good source, so is Allen with his new book out on the subject), Old Kingdom cosmology (Allen), Old Kingdom cosmography (Vischak), or geneologies (Dodson and Hilton). These kinds of resources comprise a list at least as long as both my arms combined.
Most of these are just the English speaking specialists. There are, of course, many more.
3. They don't know they understand it correctly. They only know that as of this moment they aren't committing any heinous errors of methodology in accepting what they do. The facts with which they are familiar are copious and intensive. The arguments you are raising, however, don't even make it to the cocktail parties... let alone the serious symposiums. Most of these "alternative" ideas are blown out in Egyptology 101 courses... by the simple existence of fact and evidence that render them illogical.
>
>
>
> 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.
Would you please cite this evidence?
> If you knew as much as you think you do about
> Khufu’s pyramid, you would know about this.
I don't really care that much about the neurotic obsession of alternative historians to find microscopic chinks in an otherwise impervious armor. Damaged coffers are just that... damaged coffers. Khufu's pyramid is one in a hundred. Yes, it is unique, and maybe these unique features within it can give us more insight into the cosmologies or cosmographies of ancient Egyptians... but focusing on one to the exclusion of others is a complete waste of time.
> Read the various books by various
> 'Pyramidologists' of the mid-18th to early-20th
> Century and all will be revealed.
Sources, please. I have many such books on the shelf, and many more available. If you have something meaningful to demonstrate, then please do so. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste time finding out if Khufu's corner was broken off a little bit worse in the 17th century than it was in the 15th century.
>
>
> 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?
In terms of looting and robbing... not very different at all.
Look at the recent arrests made for the doctor's tombs in Saqqara. The more things change...
> And here’s me thinking ethnocentricity was a
> no-no…
This isn't ethnocentricity... it's informed, evidenced observation of fact. People have been breaking in to, and busting up, these structures for thousands of years.
>
>
> 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?
They are recorded histories of entry into the pyramid. Of course they must be taken with a sceptical grain of salt, but they are recorded history of the structures in question, nonetheless.
Anthony
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.