Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MJ Thomas Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > >
> > There is no clear and direct physical
> evidence of
> > a king being actually interred inside his
> > attributed pyramid.
>
>
> Setting aside the textual evidence from the Old
> Kingdom, perfectly descriptive evidence from the
> later periods to foreign visitors, and the big
> stone sarcophagi found in the pyramids... you're
> right.
And what would this "textual evidence from the Old Kingdom" be?
And how does it prove that the 4th Dyn pyramids were actually used as the tombs of the kings in whose names they were built?
> However, it is incumbent upon the proponents of
> alternative theories to explain all those things
> away in a manner consistent with the culture that
> built the pyramids.
> Given those reasonable parameters, there is
> absolutely no other conclusion that can be drawn.
I disagree.
It can be quite reasonably concluded from the same evidence that these pyramids were spiritual not actual tombs, or that they were monuments not actual tombs.
> You might not understand the meaning of the word
> "assumption". It indicates a pre-conceived
> notion, derived before the examination of the
> evidence.
I use the term in the sense of: to assume is to accept something as existing or being true without proof or on inconclusive grounds; and: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn.
There is no
proof that the 4th Dyn pyramids were actually employed as burial places for the kings who had them built, only circumstantial evidence.
Without contemorary textual evidence and irrefutable evidence of an actual burial (which rules out Sneferu, for a start) the grounds are inconclusive.
BTW, I cannot find your given definition in any of my four different English dictionaries.
Be all this as it may, if you don't like my use here of the term 'assumption' for whatever reason, please feel free to substitute 'hypothesis' or 'theory' or whatever term you use to describe something that is not a fact.
> The fact that the pyramids were intended as tombs
> is based on the conclusion of a logical argument
> consisting of multiple, cross-referencing sets of
> data. It is as much a theory as evolution or
> gravity, I suppose. Neither of those, however,
> could be called an "assumption".
You need to scrub the words "The fact" because it is not a fact, no matter how much you would like it to be so.
> It is the logical conclusion of a fact based
> argument, and as such, since the argument and the
> evidence are so strong in support of it, it can be
> used interchangeable as a fact. Special pleading
> will not change that.
If you'll forgive my saying so, Anthony, this is nothing more than pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
You write, 'It is
the logical conclusion.(Emphasis added)
It isn't.
It is
a logical conclusion.
And the only special pleading going on here is entirely yours and yours alone.
MJ
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/2007 02:54PM by MJ Thomas.