Anthony,

A few minor points.

1. The remains in the Red Pyramid. There no is proof that these belong to Snefru. Lehner states “fragments of human remains were found in the burial chamber, but it has not been ascertained whether or not they are from the royal mummy. Even assuming that they were from the mummy and that Snefru was buried in the Red, he built three pyramids and appears (according to Lehner) to have finished all of them ( see Complete Pyramids at 97, 104. Indeed, according to Lehner, Meidum
represents the very beginning and the end of Snefru’s pyramid building program.” (at 97). If pyramids could or did not serve a symbolic function, what was the purpose of finishing all three? I assume Snefru, god though he was, knew he could not be buried in all three at once unless they cut up the body.

2. Bodies You wrote: “sarcophagi were intended to hold bodies.” As a general matter, perhaps, but always? We do not know this, and your statement conveniently ignores the fact that sealed and empty OK sarcophagi have been found. They were empty when sealed and empty when found, and while Hetepheres may be a special case, you still need a viable explanation for the other two. By the way, the statement that “It is quite likely that Khufu was sealed in his sarcophagus. That’s why they went to great extremes to break it open,” makes no logical sense. Thieves may well have made an assumption that something was in it. Any box may be opened with great expectations and found empty. The box might have been a dummy. You’ve already been called out on “the others were left intact because people knew they were empty,” so I will let that solecism pass.

3. Glyphs Ah, “the hieroglyph for tomb is a picture of a pyramid. Good luck getting around that one.” Yeah, right. The “hieroglyph” for a barber is a bloody pole; that for a doctor is two snakes entwined around a staff. Hieroglyphs have symbolic as well as literal value – just as pyramids may well have had, and that fact that a picture of a pyramid can mean no more means that all pyramids were tombs than that all tombs were pyramids. Good luck getting around that one.

4. Robberies, etc. Next you introduce a series of what I can only call systematic irrelevancies, items that, like the flowers that bloom in the Spring, have nothing to do with the case. Yes, there were tomb robberies. That does not prove that every empty tomb was robbed. Bodies were indeed moved in antiquity. What has that to with these particular sites. As for the various site reports on the pyramids, the relevant point can be made quickly: there is no proof, so far as I know, that every pyramid was used for a royal burial. Without such proof the “pyramid as nothing but tomb” hypothesis is just that – a hypothesis, and not necessarily an entirely persuasive one. By the way Anthony, have you read all of these reports? How are your German, your French and Italian?

5. SymbolismYou note “I fail to understand how [the pyramids] could be considered “symbolic tombs.” If they were symbolic, where are the real ones?” This is a read herring. It has long been recognized that the AE had an extensive history of building cenotaphs. I should not need to go though the scholarly material on this point: it is abundant. As for your silly cars metaphor, there are symbolic cars of various sorts. Every “concept car” at an auto show is symbolic, as is every Cadillac buried with its former owner (and there have been more than a few); and I suppose that railway car in which the French and then the Germans celebrated victory was just a mode of transportation. What arrant nonsense.

6. EvidenceYour tune has changed about Mamun. Not so long ago you were arguing that the “reports” of a body in the GP were “evidence.” They weren’t evidence then and they aren’t now. In fact, that entire thread is rather instructive on the issue of bodies within pyramids, pyramids as burial places, and standards of “proof.” I suggest everyone reread it, here [ []].

9. Finally, I suggest you tone down the condescension. There are those of us who have studied AE as much or more than you have and who do not agree with you about any number of points you take to be settled. You cannot dismiss, me, Joanne, Ritva, Clive, Greg, etc. out of hand as know-nothings, as is your wont. What is more, MJ and others have raised excellent points about your logic and general mode of argumentation, points you have for the most part failed to address. Posturing does not impress, and on the basis of some of your statements, particularly those dealing with glyphs (which I am given to understand you do not read), I venture to suggest that you know rather less than you think you do, a sentiment notably echoed by others.

Lee

Edited as there were 3 copies of the same text in this post.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/17/2007 12:21PM by lobo-hotei.