The pyramid with a mummy in it, Neferu-ptah

Originally posted by The Benevolent Adversary
reply to post by Hanslune

 

hard archeological evidence? please share. and no i do not consider this thread as hard evidence (very good evidence though).
i had heard a long time ago that no mummies had been found in the egytian pyramids probably from on of the usual suspects but not sure (i tend to read alot of alternative speculation as i find it interesting to examine many viewpoints) so in order to confirm i typed mummies and pyramids into google. and then went with the first answer that actually dealt with the subject (note i would have tried to filter anything that seemed to be fringe).
so what i ended up with was this catchpenny which seemed to have a nice overview.
the main point i would like to make is that even though there is preponderance of evidence for pyramids as tombs (and i personally give it a huge probability) what i will not do is call it certain! and any good site or textbook should leave open the possibility of other answers for the very reason that said evidence is not quite hard enough.
now perhaps you personally disagree, that i can accept, but when one does not leave open the possiblity that one is not wrong, and just attacks the idea with no room for leeway, this i find unacceptable.
to me it seems that even academia accepts the fact that they cannot say with surety " pyramids=tombs", usually they will always qualify this statement somehow; which is all i would really like you to do. by not doing this you begin to sound just like every other crank (not calling you one) with their pet idea which they feel must be defended to the death.
asserting as fact, things that are not fully in evidence is a bit dodgy (and i suspect, on things that you do not agree with, you would also call a person on).
possibilties make the world a more interesting place and a site like ats would probably not exist if this were not so.

Howdy The Benevolent Adversary

Hard evidence in the existence of a pyramid with a mummy in it

There is never absolutely certainty in archaeology in attribution of traits or content

However the evidence for Tombs is very substantial and all others near to nothing, any reading about the AE religions shows there devotion to death and preserving the body. In the next day or so I'll put up a thread to revist, once again, the reasons the mainstream believes the pyramids were built by the Egyptians, the aside to that is tombs. Harrass me if its not up in a day or so

What about the enormous granite sarcophagi, looking way more spectaculair then any found in any pyramid?


&


Just odd that they would put (compared with those examples above) - lesser quality and smaller ones in Pyramids??

And no complete body's found there, the story is they where used for sacred bulls?? while they look way better then found in those huge pyramids build as final resting place for a farao?

Also here something similar found in Peru without a pyramid though:

hanslune wrote:

There is never absolutely certainty in archaeology in attribution of traits or content

hey thanks for that line, lol.

anyway i readily agree with the ae's fascination with death and preservation of the body thousands of mummies certainly make that case.
interestingly imho the people who come closest to having a grasp on mindset of the ae's are people who are into 'new age' type of things, which presents the problem that this is also where many of the 'fringe' ideas about the pyramids come from.
for me the greatest probability of actual pyramid function (after tomb) is of ritual site for initiation into the mysteries. of course these two do not exclude each other and quite frankly the two ideas combine quite nicely.

here is a question, is there an actual interruption in the knowledge of the mysteries that can be identified in ae?
i have heard many references to such. and if it is true, then the argument that later generations of ae's might not have known the actual function of the pyramids and just used them as tombs, gains more weight.

Originally posted by The Benevolent Adversary
for me the greatest probability of actual pyramid function (after tomb) is of ritual site for initiation into the mysteries. of course these two do not exclude each other and quite frankly the two ideas combine quite nicely.

AFAIK they 'inducted' priests in their numerous temples

here is a question, is there an actual interruption in the knowledge of the mysteries that can be identified in ae?

There were 19th century made up revivals of such but you might ask one of the posters here. BigfatfrurryTexan, he might know

Check this out peeps ..

This one sentance will give you all you need to know..

Put a Battery in the Sarcophagus

That is what the containers that we find NO mummies in are for... The Pyramids are on a grid.

An electrical grid...That I believe will open up a Stargate.. A massive Stargate.

Learn about hpow to make batterys... There is a ton of info .. Consider the Baghdad Battery.. Consider ..

Lets turn these machines on

Lets consider the peizo-electrical properties of granite.. Wich most Sarcophagi have. Not the Alibaster ones , The granite ones..

Trip out on it

Just to cross link to the thread Pyramids Hidden in Satellite Images and the discussion regarding automatically linking pyramidal structures to the concept of tombs (especially the great pyramids). 3rd post of the discussion here (its easier to navigate up and down if you wish to).

The unproven assertion (more an article of faith) that all pyramids were tombs for pharohs, etc is just as much a meme as the extreme (and false) claim that no mummies have ever been found in pyramids. So can we please have a little more balance in the discussion here instead of regarding an example of a mummy-containing pyramid as proof that the assertion that pyramids were not tombs (and all variations of it) is wrong? Such an example does not prove or indicate that the three main pyramids on the Giza plateau were built as tombs and originally housed the mummies of pharohs. NOTHING can be logically inferred from it concerning the purpose of the Menkaure Pyramid, the Great Pyramid of Khufu and the Pyramid of Khafre. That these particular pyramids were tombs is simply an assumption made without real proof by Egyptologists that many researchers have questioned because of contradictory evidence and arguments. Refuting an extreme version of a hypothesis by presenting evidence contradicting it leaves milder forms of the hypthesis untouched.

It amazes me that people who shout loudly that they ascribe to the scientific method in their use of evidence sometimes do not argue with scientific logic because, far from being unbiassed students, they are partisan adherents of a particular point of view even when the evidence for it is lacking.

Originally posted by micpsi

NOTHING can be logically inferred from it concerning the purpose of the Menkaure Pyramid, the Great Pyramid of Khufu and the Pyramid of Khafre. That these particular pyramids were tombs is simply an assumption made without real proof by Egyptologists that many researchers have questioned because of contradictory evidence and arguments. Refuting an extreme version of a hypothesis by presenting evidence contradicting it leaves milder forms of the hypthesis untouched.

No you are mistaken it was the ancient Egyptian and ancient writes who first identified the pyarmids as tombs, noting found since then had caused Egyptologists to doubt that. To restate you are saying, that Egyptologist have label them such while in fact they were labelled this thousands of years ago and this was recoreded before by several ancient writers. What you are saying is a poorly thought out fringe meme without any basis.

There is 'contrary evidence' which is very weak versus what evidence we do have. The greatest is that of the Egyptian religion & culture and its devotion to life after death and reverance for the Pharaoh as God. To name a few of the other indicators are taht they were built in an excisting necropolis, are surrounded by tombs of their family members and had before them mortuary temples. They main inter structures also reflect an architecture that resembles earlier burial chambers. One other point, they buried their pre-dynastic Pharaohs, they buried their old kingdom Pharaohs but for some reason, (in your mind) they stopped doing this for three of them and then restarted afterwards.....so where are the tombs of those three Pharaohs?

It amazes me that people who shout loudly that they ascribe to the scientific method in their use of evidence sometimes do not argue with scientific logic because, far from being unbiassed students, they are partisan adherents of a particular point of view even when the evidence for it is lacking.

The best conclusion we have, based on non-pretend evidence, is that the Pyramids were built by the ancient Egyptians as tombs for their Pharaohs.

Please provide your 'scientific logic' that points, based on the preponderance of evidence to another conclusion.

Oh and one other point a challenge to evidence doesn't make it disappear as many fringe adherence think - its still there.....

So the best evidence we have for the massive granite sarcophagus as seen in the Serapeum of Saqqara is since there where bones found of (sacred) bulls which where dated, they where made for burrying 'sacred bulls'.
And since these bones where dated they 'know' how old those sarcophagus's are. Of course later cultures could have used them to honor the 'gods' with sacrficing their very important bulls (with in their eyes holy boxes made by the gods (erased/destroyed ancient culture). You can't give the gods any more honor with doing so.

Lets say; churches in Europe which of many are now used as book shops (at least in my country) and lets say the whole city gets destroyed/flooded and many thousands years later when examing that church (which are only very bad ruines with not 1 wall standing anymore (used in the later days as a book shop). They can date the books (page left overs) and ''know'' the purpose (the reason for it was made) and the age of that church/ruin.
There isn't any evidence left that it was used for christ followers, not even a cross, just some very old pages and some left overs from a cash desk. But it's the best evidence we have the building was made to sell books so let there be no doubt.

reply to post by Plugin


Nice story but reality slaps it down. Civilizations leave huge massive archaeological footprints. There is no sign of an earlier culture in the Nile Valley large or organized enough to have build the pyramids. Below is a list of these cultures.

In your example there would be an extensive habitation level showing the culture that had been there, and no everything doesn't disappear, lol

What cultures existed in the Nile Valley

2nd part