Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cladking Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
>
> >
> > The size and nature of the pyramids changed
> > dramatically after
> > the 4th dynasty.
>
>
> As they did before it. But they were always
> either tombs or cenotaphs. Never were they tools,
> water pumps, or celestial markers.
>
>
>
> > Perhaps their function did as
> > well.
> >
> >
>
> What do you know of a pyramid's function, as it
> was actually understood by the Egyptians?
>
>
>
> Anthony

It was merely an observation that before the end of the 4th dynasty
that pyramids seemed to follow a sort of natural evolution. They
tended to get progressively larger and have more technology in them.
After this they were always much smaller and often made in less ex-
pensive materials.

Perhaps the Great Pyramid was intended to be a launchpad for all
future kings. Or maybe it is exactly the tomb you imagine but there
were even more important reasons to build it. The Pyramid Texts of-
ten seem to imply that there other interpretations.

It doesn't take a lot of effort to read translations of the pre-5th
dynasty written material.

There doesn't seem to be as much information here as there is built
into the monuments themselves.

You said yesterday that a theory has to start with evidence. While
there is truth to this it seems to an outsider that the traditional
explanations for the evidence does not rise to the level of being a
real theory. It appears to outsiders that traditional explanations
are substantiation of the ideas of Sir WF Petrie who based his ideas
on his understanding of 19th century science and what he could actua-
ly see. Of course he omitted a great deal of old evidence in the for-
mulation of his theory. Since then a great deal has been learned but
a great deal of hard evidence is still being set aside. New knowledge
may not disprove Petrie's theories but it often doesn't fit well with
it either.

Yes, orthodoxy is built on mountains of circumstantial evidence which
tends to fit with things that are known about the culture. This is
apparent even to me. What it doesn't seem to do very well at all is
fit with the known facts. Obviously this doesn't mean it's wrong but
it's difficult to understand why more effort isn't devoted to finding
facts which would make things fit.

I think of it this way. If everything that was known and everything
that was probably true were tossed in a hat then one would get diff-
erent ideas about a lot of what the ancients intended. Perhaps a true
theory of the inspiration and means for building the pyramids wouldn't
be possible with so little information, but a fresh look would imply
we're digging in the wrong places.







____________
Man fears the pyramid, time fears man.