Why do we never hear about the two other Giza pyramids?

Sorry for the late reply, Scott. It's been... quite a month.

SC: Why do you assume the granite container in G2 to be a sarcophagus?

Because of other similar sarcophagi such as the sarcophagus of Hatshepsut. Yes, that one's inscribed, but the recently reassembled Merneptah's was inscribed in only one area (and that sarcophagus is closer to the era of Khufu.)

Sarcophagi could be fairly plain... the decoration effort was spent mostly on the anthropoid coffins therein. The sarcophagus shows signs of being put together in haste, so they may have felt they did not have time to carve a lot of inscriptions on it (the process is pretty labor intensive).

SC: From Howard-Vyse’s published ‘Operations’:

”The sarcophagus [in G2] was of granite and without any inscription, and was eight feet long, three feet six inches wide, and two feet three inches deep in the inside. "The lid had been broken off at the side, so that the sarcophagus was half open; within were some earth and stones…” ‘The Pyramids of Giza’ 1837 (Vol II), pp 296-297.

Vyse wasn't the first one in there... who knows who'd been in the tomb after Belzoni? In addition, it's very badly damaged and the lid has never been found.

SC: I think Belzoni knew what earth and stones look like.

Did he? This was long before the advent of archaeology. I agree that he saw something and it might have been rocks (or damaged chunks of the sarcophagus.

And he sent the bones for analysis in London—they were the bones of a bull.

I'm curious... could you send a link to this?

SC: It remains my view that—in accordance with the Pyramid Texts—these structures represented the allegorical ‘body of Osiris’.
....
SC: And all the Pyramid Texts come from a corpus of earlier writings and traditions long since lost. Fortunately for us, one set of PTs preserved this particular text that tells us, “…the pyramid… is Osiris…” You cannot dismiss what it tells us simply because it is found in only one set of texts.

Yes and no. There are six extant pyramid texts and the books people usually offer up as "pyramid texts" are the compiled version of all of them. They are a conglomeration of the texts found inside the pyramids of Unis, Teti, Pepi I, Ankhesenpepi II (wife of Pepi I) Merenre, Pepi II, -- and his queens: Queen Iput Ii, Queen Wedjebetni, Queen Neith, and in the tomb of Ibi. These are all Old Kingdom copies and represent the earliest surviving texts. At the end of the OK, copies of the text are inscribed on other funerary monuments and in the NK, phrases and passages from the texts make it into the Book of the Dead and rituals performed for the deceased.

But those are the oldest copies.

The only time pyramids are mentioned in the Pyramid Texts is in the texts from the pyramid of Merenre. It doesn't appear in other Pyramid Texts. Each complete PT is different.

Byrd: So --

I find it hard to believe that the locations of the pyramids represents a map of the figure of Osiris...

SC: The pyramid locations BECAME Osiris—not the other way round.

Not attested to in any of their writings and certainly not in their festivals. The locations weren't part of the Osirian myth nor were they included in the ceremonial journeys.

Byrd: ... an image of the deity that is mixing elements of posture and dress from several different areas and times and wearing a crown that would not exist until 150 years later-- see Griffiths, J. Gwyn. The origins of Osiris and his cult. Vol. 40. Brill, 1980, Chapter 3 for more details)

SC: See above. Osiris didn’t have to be a deity when the pyramids were built. Osiris and the Atef Crown appear at the same time, or rather, they are first attested at the same time in writing and in art.

The problem here is that you have taken a fairly late rendition of Osiris as your image.

Byrd: ...and these Pyramids which supposedly represent the body of Osiris
... are not (except for one) placed in any city important to his worship

SC: The pyramid recovery vaults were likely built before Osiris was important or became a deity.

They didn't have an early concept of this "recovery vault".

SC: As pyramid recovery vaults they would be required to be built on the high plateaus (anticipating the deluge).

They don't have stories of deluges. They built all their towns and tombs and temples on ground that was not regularly flooded... and not all the pyramids are on high plateaus.

Just about everywhere in Egypt (and even beyond) would claim to have a part of Osiris, several with his head, several with legs and arms (more than he was ‘born’ with) and other parts of his body.

Not true, actually.

SC: Osiris – the name that must not be spoken.

No... that doesn't fly. They used his name everywhere.

Byrd: ... were supposedly located on a map made by people who didn't have maps of their country

SC: And yet knew how to navigate their country (and beyond).

My Native American ancestors could do the same... and they didn't have maps, either.

Byrd: ... that are actually smaller than 2 feet in length

SC: Small replicas of the original used in festivals. That’s to be expected. And some actually were quite large, those used by the temple priests during the festival.

But they're of a different shape. Those are the stretched linen ones.


Sorry... brief visit today. Will try to reply with more later.

reply to post by Byrd

SC: Why do you assume the granite container in G2 to be a sarcophagus?

Byrd: Because of other similar sarcophagi such as the sarcophagus of Hatshepsut. Yes, that one's inscribed, but the recently reassembled Merneptah's was inscribed in only one area (and that sarcophagus is closer to the era of Khufu.)

Sarcophagi could be fairly plain... the decoration effort was spent mostly on the anthropoid coffins therein. The sarcophagus shows signs of being put together in haste, so they may have felt they did not have time to carve a lot of inscriptions on it (the process is pretty labor intensive).

SC: Yes, sarcophagi could be fairly plain but are generally inscribed in some way, even in the 3rd and 4th dynasties. Osiris Bricks / Beds are also extremely plain but have NO inscriptions and are filled with earth. The granite container in G2 has no inscriptions and was filled with earth. If we are to judge an artifact by the actual evidence we find then it is clear the the stone container in G2 is not a sarcophagus but is in fact an ‘Osiris Bed’ (archetype).

SC: From Howard-Vyse’s published ‘Operations’:

”The sarcophagus [in G2] was of granite and without any inscription, and was eight feet long, three feet six inches wide, and two feet three inches deep in the inside. "The lid had been broken off at the side, so that the sarcophagus was half open; within were some earth and stones…” ‘The Pyramids of Giza’ 1837 (Vol II), pp 296-297.

Byrd: Vyse wasn't the first one in there... who knows who'd been in the tomb after Belzoni? In addition, it's very badly damaged and the lid has never been found.

SC: Howard-Vyse wasn’t the first there in ‘modern’ times. That honour fell to Belzoni. The point is Belzoni witnessed a stone box filled with earth and stones and Howard-Vyse corroborated this. As for the lid:

"The lid [of the granite container of G2] had been broken at the side, so that the sarcophagus was half open." - G. Belzoni, Narrative of the Operations and Recent Discoveries within the Pyramids, Temples, Tombs, and Excavations, in Egypt and Nubia, (1820), p.271

SC: And then, some 63 years later, we read this from Petrie, regarding the same stone container in G2

"The lid is lying on the floor of the chamber, unbroken." - W. M. F. Petrie, The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh, Chap. 9 (76). Inside of Second Pyramid (1883)

SC: I think Belzoni knew what earth and stones look like.

Byrd: Did he? This was long before the advent of archaeology. I agree that he saw something and it might have been rocks (or damaged chunks of the sarcophagus.

SC: As stated above, the content of G2’s granite container was corroborated by Howard-Vyse in 1837. Howard-Vyse wasn’t an archaeologist either but I am sure he knew what earth and stones look like. Unless, of course, you think Howard-Vyse’s testimony is to be questioned too?

SC: And he sent the bones for analysis in London—they were the bones of a bull.


Byrd: I'm curious... could you send a link to this?

SC: I already did. See the page from Belzoni’s book I posted earlier in the thread.

SC: It remains my view that—in accordance with the Pyramid Texts—these structures represented the allegorical ‘body of Osiris’.
....
SC: And all the Pyramid Texts come from a corpus of earlier writings and traditions long since lost. Fortunately for us, one set of PTs preserved this particular text that tells us, “…the pyramid… is Osiris…” You cannot dismiss what it tells us simply because it is found in only one set of texts.

Byrd: Yes and no. There are six extant pyramid texts and the books people usually offer up as "pyramid texts" are the compiled version of all of them. They are a conglomeration of the texts found inside the pyramids of Unis, Teti, Pepi I, Ankhesenpepi II (wife of Pepi I) Merenre, Pepi II, -- and his queens: Queen Iput Ii, Queen Wedjebetni, Queen Neith, and in the tomb of Ibi. These are all Old Kingdom copies and represent the earliest surviving texts. At the end of the OK, copies of the text are inscribed on other funerary monuments and in the NK, phrases and passages from the texts make it into the Book of the Dead and rituals performed for the deceased.

But those are the oldest copies.

The only time pyramids are mentioned in the Pyramid Texts is in the texts from the pyramid of Merenre. It doesn't appear in other Pyramid Texts. Each complete PT is different.

SC: I am left here trying to figure out what point, if any, you are attempting to make here? The Book of Acts in the New Testament is the only book in this corpus of religious texts that tells us how and why people converted to the Christian faith. This is not explained in any other text within this corpus of religious material. Are we then to cast doubt on this information in the Book of Acts simply because no other book in the Bible makes any similar mention of this information? That is effectively what you are trying to argue here.

Byrd: I find it hard to believe that the locations of the pyramids represents a map of the figure of Osiris...

SC: The pyramid locations BECAME Osiris—not the other way round.

Byrd: Not attested to in any of their writings and certainly not in their festivals. The locations weren't part of the Osirian myth nor were they included in the ceremonial journeys.

SC: And I contend it WAS stated. Again, from the Pyramid Texts: “…this pyramid …is Osiris… this construction… is Osiris…” That seems pretty clear to me. But what we don’t actually hear—whilst we’re on the subject of attestations—is them saying explicitly that the pyramid was built as the tomb of the king. If you want to go down the attestation route then two can play at that game.

Byrd: ... an image of the deity that is mixing elements of posture and dress from several different areas and times and wearing a crown that would not exist until 150 years later-- see Griffiths, J. Gwyn. The origins of Osiris and his cult. Vol. 40. Brill, 1980, Chapter 3 for more details)

SC: See above. Osiris didn’t have to be a deity when the pyramids were built. Osiris and the Atef Crown appear at the same time, or rather, they are first attested at the same time in writing and in art.

Byrd: The problem here is that you have taken a fairly late rendition of Osiris as your image.

SC: I sense a circular discussion here. Osiris was attested in name and in art (with the Atef crown) in the 5th dynasty. And we both agree that he probably existed prior to this date.

Cont'd..........

Cont'd from previous......

Byrd: ...and these Pyramids which supposedly represent the body of Osiris
... are not (except for one) placed in any city important to his worship


SC: The pyramid recovery vaults were likely built before Osiris was important or became a deity.

Byrd: They didn't have an early concept of this "recovery vault".

SC: Well I wouldn’t expect you to say anything else. However, the evidence I present in support of that argument suggests otherwise.

SC: As pyramid recovery vaults they would be required to be built on the high plateaus (anticipating the deluge).

Byrd: They don't have stories of deluges. They built all their towns and tombs and temples on ground that was not regularly flooded... and not all the pyramids are on high plateaus.

SC: Of course they had stories of deluge. We’ve discussed it before here. And all of the first 16 pyramids were built on high plateaus.

SC: Just about everywhere in Egypt (and even beyond) would claim to have a part of Osiris, several with his head, several with legs and arms (more than he was ‘born’ with) and other parts of his body.

Byrd: Not true, actually.

” A long inscription in the temple at Denderah has preserved a list of the god’s graves, and other texts mention the parts of his body which were treasured as holy relics in each of the sanctuaries. Thus his heart was at Athribis, his backbone at Busiris, his neck at Letopolis, and his head at Memphis. As often happens in such cases, some of his divine limbs were miraculously multiplied. His head, for example, was at Abydos as well as at Memphis, and his legs, which were remarkably numerous, would have sufficed for several ordinary mortals…” - Sir James George Frazer, 'The Golden Bough' (1922)

SC: Osiris – the name that must not be spoken.


Byrd: No... that doesn't fly. They used his name everywhere.

SC: Apparently not before the 5th dynasty.

Byrd: ... were supposedly located on a map made by people who didn't have maps of their country

SC: And yet knew how to navigate their country (and beyond).

Byrd: My Native American ancestors could do the same... and they didn't have maps, either.

SC: Just because we haven’t found any maps doesn’t mean they didn’t exist or couldn’t have created them. All they would require is to be able to determine true north/south and we absolutely know that they could do that. Remember also that from Abu Roash you can observe Giza. From Giza You can observe Saqqara and from Saqqara you can observe Dahshur. I would also add here that we haven’t found any plans for the construction of the GP either. Would you seriously argue that the AEs didn’t use any, that no such plans ever existed because we have never found any?

Byrd: ... that are actually smaller than 2 feet in length

SC: Small replicas of the original used in festivals. That’s to be expected. And some actually were quite large, those used by the temple priests during the festival.


Byrd: But they're of a different shape. Those are the stretched linen ones.

SC: The Osiris Bed evolved over time--clearly. We are told that during the festival of Khoiak that the temple priests brought forth a chest into which they placed earth and seed—an Osiris Bed. The festival celebrants would have much smaller replicas of this chest (Osiris Bricks) also containing earth and seed. A stone ‘chest’ containing earth and stones is what was discovered in G2. It was the archetype ‘Osiris Bed’ that was placed within the chamber as part of a chthonic ritual related to the ‘recovery’ of the kingdom (the earth), an act that would later become commemorated in the Festival of Khoiak, including the creation of Osiris effigies (the body of Osiris) packed full with seeds just as the original allegorical 'body of Osirs' (the first 16 pyramids) were packed with seeds.

Regards,

SC

More brief replies. My time for the next month or so has gotten very tied up, so I'm not sure how often I can reply. Please forgive the very brief comments.

Scott Creighton
SC: Yes, sarcophagi could be fairly plain but are generally inscribed in some way, even in the 3rd and 4th dynasties. Osiris Bricks / Beds are also extremely plain but have NO inscriptions and are filled with earth. The granite container in G2 has no inscriptions and was filled with earth. If we are to judge an artifact by the actual evidence we find then it is clear the the stone container in G2 is not a sarcophagus but is in fact an ‘Osiris Bed’ (archetype).

However:
* we don't know how the place looked the minute it was finished. There've been multiple intrusions and the place was sacked more than once.
* this was not the first sarcophagus
* unadorned sarcophagi are found before this, and after this, and they are not associated with Osiris
* nothing in this place is associated with Osiris
* Osiris bed is actually a coffin and not a sarcophagus (it's the "wooden chest"/coffin that Set uses to trap Osiris in the Osirian legends.)

"The lid [of the granite container of G2] had been broken at the side, so that the sarcophagus was half open." - G. Belzoni, Narrative of the Operations and Recent Discoveries within the Pyramids, Temples, Tombs, and Excavations, in Egypt and Nubia, (1820), p.271
SC: And then, some 63 years later, we read this from Petrie, regarding the same stone container in G2

"The lid is lying on the floor of the chamber, unbroken." - W. M. F. Petrie, The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh, Chap. 9 (76). Inside of Second Pyramid (1883)

And no one took pictures. We have no idea what was on the sarcophagus (I have seen sarcophagi of red granite where the inscriptions were pretty faint. However, we still come back to the point of: sarcophagi and box coffins were part of burials since Naqada II. Khufu didn't "invent" them.

SC: As stated above, the content of G2’s granite container was corroborated by Howard-Vyse in 1837. Howard-Vyse wasn’t an archaeologist either but I am sure he knew what earth and stones look like. Unless, of course, you think Howard-Vyse’s testimony is to be questioned too?

Actually, yes. I believe that he found what he thought were earth and stones (and bones.) But I've searched for evidence in "dirt" in archaeological digs and it's full of all sorts of evidence... that they threw out.

SC: And he sent the bones for analysis in London—they were the bones of a bull.

Byrd: I'm curious... could you send a link to this?

SC: I already did. See the page from Belzoni’s book I posted earlier in the thread.

I was looking for something other than "he said he did." Do you know if there's anything like this? The only reports I can find are of his saying he did and his saying that they were bull bones. I can't find a report mentioning who examined them and so forth.

SC: It remains my view that—in accordance with the Pyramid Texts—these structures represented the allegorical ‘body of Osiris’.
....
SC: And all the Pyramid Texts come from a corpus of earlier writings and traditions long since lost....

SC: I am left here trying to figure out what point, if any, you are attempting to make here? The Book of Acts in the New Testament is the only book in this corpus of religious texts that tells us how and why people converted to the Christian faith. This is not explained in any other text within this corpus of religious material. Are we then to cast doubt on this information in the Book of Acts simply because no other book in the Bible makes any similar mention of this information? That is effectively what you are trying to argue here.

The "pyramid texts come from ten different pyramids. -- the pyramids of Unis, Teti, Pepi I, Ankhesenpepi II (wife of Pepi I) Merenre, Pepi II, -- and his queens: Queen Iput Ii, Queen Wedjebetni, Queen Neith, and in the tomb of Ibi.

There are no Pyramid Texts before Unis.

Only one pyramid text associates the pyramid with Osiris -- that of Merenre -- and none of the others do. This reflects Merenre's theology but not that of the other people (because the king was high priest and directed which gods were worshiped and how they were worshiped.)

Byrd: I find it hard to believe that the locations of the pyramids represents a map of the figure of Osiris...

SC: The pyramid locations BECAME Osiris—not the other way round.

Byrd: Not attested to in any of their writings and certainly not in their festivals. The locations weren't part of the Osirian myth nor were they included in the ceremonial journeys.

SC: And I contend it WAS stated. Again, from the Pyramid Texts: “…this pyramid …is Osiris… this construction… is Osiris…” That seems pretty clear to me.

How could that possibly be, when it's only attested once and the Osirian festivals don't involve pyramids in any way or form?

But what we don’t actually hear—whilst we’re on the subject of attestations—is them saying explicitly that the pyramid was built as the tomb of the king.

Actually, we do, and it's in a lot of evidence, from the chapels for offerings in front of pyramids to the inscriptions and so forth.

SC: See above. Osiris didn’t have to be a deity when the pyramids were built. Osiris and the Atef Crown appear at the same time, or rather, they are first attested at the same time in writing and in art.

Byrd: The problem here is that you have taken a fairly late rendition of Osiris as your image.

SC: I sense a circular discussion here. Osiris was attested in name and in art (with the Atef crown) in the 5th dynasty. And we both agree that he probably existed prior to this date.

Yes, but what we disagree on is that the Egyptians ran around afterwards and said "Oh! The pyramids make the shape of Osiris' body!" Or "we should add new pyramids so we get the shape of Osiris!"

* Osiris doesn't come into importance until midway through the pyramid building craze
* the pyramids are placed at the capital city of that time or the place where the king's palace was
* the major center for Osiris worship has only one pyramid and the pyramid texts and coffin texts of that time do not associate Osiris with pyramids
* only one PT (and no Coffin Texts) associate pyramids and Osiris.

SC: The pyramid recovery vaults were likely built before Osiris was important or became a deity.

SC: Well I wouldn’t expect you to say anything else. However, the evidence I present in support of that argument suggests otherwise.

You actually haven't made a case for it using their original texts and artifacts.

SC: As pyramid recovery vaults they would be required to be built on the high plateaus (anticipating the deluge).

Byrd: They don't have stories of deluges. They built all their towns and tombs and temples on ground that was not regularly flooded... and not all the pyramids are on high plateaus.

SC: Of course they had stories of deluge.

Please cite. The "Flood of Hathor" was fields flooded to the height of someone's knees. Please cite that they feared a coming deluge that would cover the world.

We’ve discussed it before here. And all of the first 16 pyramids were built on high plateaus.

They were all built on the limestone bluffs on the western side of the river. The west was associated with the land of the dead... and if you check pictures of the places along the Nile, you will see that most of the older towns are built on the bluffs to the east.

Because they didn't flood.

” A long inscription in the temple at Denderah has preserved a list of the god’s graves, and other texts mention the parts of his body which were treasured as holy relics in each of the sanctuaries. Thus his heart was at Athribis, his backbone at Busiris, his neck at Letopolis, and his head at Memphis. As often happens in such cases, some of his divine limbs were miraculously multiplied. His head, for example, was at Abydos as well as at Memphis, and his legs, which were remarkably numerous, would have sufficed for several ordinary mortals…” - Sir James George Frazer, 'The Golden Bough' (1922)

Frazier is quoting very late Egyptian theology... not the original one (and his sources are early ones... there's been some reworking and new material since he wrote.)

SC: Osiris – the name that must not be spoken.

Byrd: No... that doesn't fly. They used his name everywhere.

SC: Apparently not before the 5th dynasty.

Not sure what you're getting at here. There's attestation (fairly late) that THOTH's name was not to be spoken in some circumstances (see Hornung: The Secret Lore of Egypt). They didn't speak his name because they didn't know about Osiris.

SC: Just because we haven’t found any maps doesn’t mean they didn’t exist or couldn’t have created them.

Actually, we do have maps and surveys. Maps date from the Middle Kingdom.

Byrd: ... that are actually smaller than 2 feet in length

SC: Small replicas of the original used in festivals. That’s to be expected. And some actually were quite large, those used by the temple priests during the festival.

It's late and i"m tired and not thinking well... do you have links that show large sarcophagus Osiris beds and when they were in use?

SC: The Osiris Bed evolved over time--clearly. We are told that during the festival of Khoiak that the temple priests brought forth a chest into which they placed earth and seed—an Osiris Bed. The festival celebrants would have much smaller replicas of this chest (Osiris Bricks) also containing earth and seed. A stone ‘chest’ containing earth and stones is what was discovered in G2. It was the archetype ‘Osiris Bed’ that was placed within the chamber as part of a chthonic ritual related to the ‘recovery’ of the kingdom (the earth), an act that would later become commemorated in the Festival of Khoiak, including the creation of Osiris effigies (the body of Osiris) packed full with seeds just as the original allegorical 'body of Osirs' (the first 16 pyramids) were packed with seeds.

That's requiring details of a burial that took place thousands of years before to somehow be miraculously preserved in folklore and everything changed to fit that. I would agree that their religion and funerary practices change over time and that ceremonies got more elaborate and more complex as their society grew. But they don't employ pyramids in Osiris rituals (which I would expect if the pyramid was involved) nor do the tombs ever become Osiris.

Though, interestingly, after awhile they decided that the tomb of Djer was actually the tomb of Osiris.

Another quick response for you, Scott... sorry this is so brief. I won't be around much in the next month between homework and the dissertation defense.

In my homework today, I ran across a couple of things related to Osiris and I had one more observation to make:

Observation: your "Osiris" stretches and reworks the distances to make the figures and then ignores other pyramids including the Queens pyramids (where three Pyramid Texts are found.) It also leaves out a number of pyramids from the Wikipedia list (which doesn't show all 118) found here

In addition, the tomb of Djer (which they believed was the tomb of Osiris -- this is attested in Egyptian sources) is not a pyramid.

I ran across this in my reading: "Andjety - God of the Delta city of Andjet, he became assimilated with (or was an earlier form of) Osiris" -- so the idea of Osiris comes from the Delta region, which is why places associated with Osiris in the early days were around the Delta.

Also, re Frazer: his scholarship, sadly, isn't that good, simply because the book is over 100 years old and we've learned a lot since then.

On references -- my coursework this week includes a section on "what sources do we use in reconstructing Egyptian history?" Here's what the class reading says:

The classically pragmatic approach is to establish a framework from the surviving ancient Egyptian king lists, with only a sideways glance at Greek and Roman sources (if any glance at all), supplemented by other monumental records (this puts in the rulers such as Hatshepsut and Akhenaten omitted, for a variety of reasons, by the official lists), and archaeological evidence (for the early kings such as "Dynasty O").

Detail can then be added from royal inscriptions recording military and building activities: although here we have to be cautious about the nature of the texts (see Deconstructing the text, below).

Then we can add further evidence for officials for each reign: tombs and statues with genealogical and prosopographical information. Occasionally, detail of specific events or phenomena can be found in what might be termed "real" historical texts such as the economic, judicial and other texts of the Wilbour Papyrus, the Harem Conspiracy documents, the Deir el Medina archives,and the Amarna archives. After these have been considered we
can add non-Egyptian sources, such as:

So your evidence has to first be presented by the Egyptians themselves -- and supported by material close to the event (the burial, the monument, etc.) Once those are established, material from later dates is considered. Next comes the writing of other people in the Middle East (including the Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans, Greeks, Bible) but this comes with the heavy warning that these sources are very biased.

Also in this same course text is: Nowadays, the Greek and Roman sources have been largely abandoned in straightforward reconstructions.

So if you want to prove anything about Osiris, you have to start with Old Kingdom material and you would have to prove that the pyramid places had names and references such as "hand of Osiris" and "crown of Osiris", etc.

reply to post by Byrd


Hello Byrd,

SC: I have taken the liberty of answering this first:

Byrd: Another quick response for you, Scott... sorry this is so brief. I won't be around much in the next month between homework and the dissertation defense.

SC: The best of luck with your defense. I do hope it goes well for you. Would that then be Dr Byrd?

You write:

Byrd: * we don't know how the place looked the minute it was finished. There've been multiple intrusions and the place was sacked more than once.

SC: No, you’re right—we don’t know that but that doesn’t make the contents found therein any less likely to have been the original contents. But I rather suspect that had mummified remains been found in the granite container of G2 rather than a box of earth, Egyptologists would have been quick to pronounce it as evidence of Khafre (as some still do with the anachronistic mummified foot remains found in Djoser’s pyramid) and that these pyramids had been conceived as tombs. But when we find something else instead—a granite container filled with earth that is perfectly explainable within the culture—you attempt to discredit the actual evidence that has been found. Do I detect double standards here?

Byrd: * this was not the first sarcophagus

SC: ‘Sarcophagus’? What proof do you have that the granite container found in G2 was a ‘sarcophagus’? The actual physical evidence found in this container strongly indicates that it was an ‘Osiris Bed’ (quite possibly the archetype).

Byrd: * unadorned sarcophagi are found before this, and after this, and they are not associated with Osiris

SC: Here are the sarcophagi of Khufu’s children (all inscribed/adorned):












So, Khufu’s children (and Khafre’s siblings) all had their sarcophagi inscribed with their names and titles but Khufu and Khafre didn’t. Now that is very strange indeed. Given that the king’s name (ren) was one of the nine aspects of the AE concept of soul and that the ren assisted the king’s Ba (another aspect of soul) in finding the correct tomb/mummy, one would have thought it rather more imperative that the ren of the king would have been placed on the king’s sarcophagus just as it was with his children/siblings. This is all the more imperative because if the king’s ba failed to find the king’s mummy then the king would die a second (and permanent) death and this could potentially bring chaos to the kingdom, the king being unable to counsel the gods in the Afterlife on behalf of the kingdom to ensure its continued prosperity and well-being. Given this, it is simply inconceivable that the AEs would have failed to inscribe Khufu or Khafre’s sarcophagi in a similar manner to that of their children/siblings. Indeed, it would have been vital to have done so.

But, of course, as a neb-ankh (archetype Osiris Bed) this is not required since the neb-ankh was not intended for the burial of any king. And that is precisely the state of the evidence we find in granite container of G2. How can this be denied?

Byrd: * nothing in this place is associated with Osiris

SC: Why should you expect such? As I said to you previously—the first 16 (or so) pyramids became Osiris. The earth-filled stone chest in G2 (as I have stated many times) would likely have formed part of an earlier chthonic ritual associated with the recovery of the kingdom (the earth). The temples on the eastern side of the pyramids would have been used by the priesthood for chthonic rituals, reciting hymns, invocations and spells to ensure the earth’s rebirth just as they would later do with their great sun temples to ensure the rebirth of the sun. And the great causeways carved with stars, plants and animals depicted the great ‘burst of creation’ shooting forth from the eastern side of the pyramid/temple (east being the place of rebirth), the earth (kingdom) being reborn from the primeval mound (the pyramid) in the same way as it was in the Sp Tpy, the first time of creation.

That all of this would, in later dynasties, become associated with the rise of the AE god of agriculture and ‘rebirth’ is hardly surprising for that is precisely what the pyramids did—packed full with seeds (and other recovery items) they would ensure the rebirth of the kingdom (the earth). These first 16 (or so) pyramids would (eventually) become the allegorical ‘body of Osiris’. Once again, I sense we are going around in circles here.

Byrd: * Osiris bed is actually a coffin and not a sarcophagus (it's the "wooden chest"/coffin that Set uses to trap Osiris in the Osirian legends.)

SC: Osiris Beds would evolve over time from the archetype (as found in G2) and could take many forms as evidenced from the Osiris Brick replicas that have been found, some of which are fashioned from wood and some which are fired pottery (much quicker and easier to produce than cutting out a full-scale granite neb-ankh like that in G2 & G1). We observe in the later Osiris Bricks (see images below) that the earth is placed directly into the stone containers—just as we find it in the container within G2. The coffer that Set captures Osiris within and casts into the Nile is interesting too since I believe this is allegorical of the Deluge whereby all of Egypt was to be drowned. This then becomes trapped in a tree which then flourishes thus symbolising the rebirth of the earth (post deluge) through the agency and power of Osiris.

"The lid [of the granite container of G2] had been broken at the side, so that the sarcophagus was half open." - G. Belzoni, Narrative of the Operations and Recent Discoveries within the Pyramids, Temples, Tombs, and Excavations, in Egypt and Nubia, (1820), p.271
SC: And then, some 63 years later, we read this from Petrie, regarding the same stone container in G2

Byrd: And no one took pictures. We have no idea what was on the sarcophagus (I have seen sarcophagi of red granite where the inscriptions were pretty faint.

SC: No—no one in 1818 or in 1837 took photos of the G2 container. Can’t think why.  But in modern times the sarcophagus has been examined in minute detail—still no inscriptions have been found.

Cont'd.......

Cont’d from previous….

Byrd: However, we still come back to the point of: sarcophagi and box coffins were part of burials since Naqada II. Khufu didn't "invent" them.

SC: I don’t doubt for a second that stone boxes and box coffins were part of burials but stone boxes (that you see only as sarcophagi) served another function as neb-ankh (possessors/containers of life i.e. the archetype ‘Osiris Bed’). The trick is being able to determine which is which. And, as stated above, it makes absolutely no sense (from an AE religious perspective) that the name (ren) would not have been placed onto the sarcophagus of the king—it would have been vital to have done this for the king’s sarcophagus or, at the very least, his burial chamber.

Byrd: I was looking for something other than "he said he did." Do you know if there's anything like this? The only reports I can find are of his saying he did and his saying that they were bull bones. I can't find a report mentioning who examined them and so forth.

SC: I have done my own considerable research into this particular issue and I write about it at length in my forthcoming book, The Secret Chamber of Osiris. I can, however, confirm for you just now though that the bones found in the granite container of G2 were confirmed as those belonging to a bull by Mr William Clift (1775-1849), a Naturalist and expert in osteography who worked as the Curator at the Hunterian Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons in London.

SC: It remains my view that—in accordance with the Pyramid Texts—these structures represented the allegorical ‘body of Osiris’.
....
SC: And all the Pyramid Texts come from a corpus of earlier writings and traditions long since lost....

SC: I am left here trying to figure out what point, if any, you are attempting to make here? The Book of Acts in the New Testament is the only book in this corpus of religious texts that tells us how and why people converted to the Christian faith. This is not explained in any other text within this corpus of religious material. Are we then to cast doubt on this information in the Book of Acts simply because no other book in the Bible makes any similar mention of this information? That is effectively what you are trying to argue here.

Byrd: How could that possibly be, when it's only attested once and the Osirian festivals don't involve pyramids in any way or form?

SC: Something need be attested just once to allow us to know what the AEs thought about a particular matter—they don’t have to repeat it over and over. And, contrary to what you have stated above, Osirian festivals were entirely about the pyramid since, once again from the Pyramid Texs”...this pyramid... is Osiris... this construction... is Osiris.” It’s an ‘Osiris Festival‘ - Osiris was the pyramid as were the ‘Corn Mummies’ as the allegorical (personified) ‘reconstituted pyramid body of Osiris’. Osiris has everything to do with the pyramid(s). The pyramid portrays Osiris in aniconic fashion. Later this would be personified with the classic human form of the god Osiris wearing the Atef crown that we are familiar with.

Some of your replies are placed in quotes which has removed my comments (which you are responding to) so I have no idea what you are referring to.

Byrd: Yes, but what we disagree on is that the Egyptians ran around afterwards and said "Oh! The pyramids make the shape of Osiris' body!"

SC: This is not what is being said. Clearly the over-riding imperative in the placement of the first 16 pyramids would be to place them on the high plateaus along the length of the Nile. Did nature conspire to arrange these plateau locations into a stick outline of an AE god? Of course not.

If you are planning to build a series of recovery vaults across the land (let’s assume 16) that you hope will survive a coming deluge then the first thing you are going to do is identify high ground that is not too far from the Nile (for ease of transportation of materials) and which has adequate quarries close by. Once you have decided on the locations then you can create a map of the relative distances between each pyramid site, showing the local topography if need be. Creating such a ‘site plan’ would not have been at all difficult for the AEs. Indeed, humans have shown skill in making crude topographical maps for tens of thousands of years and I am sure you will be well aware of the ancient Egyptian ‘Turin Papyrus Map’ dated to ca.1160 BCE:



If the AEs could create the above map in 1160 BCE I see little reason why they could not have created similar maps in 2600 BCE.

Now, having created their ‘site plan’ for their 16 pyramids which comprises 11 different main pyramid sites, someone at some later date notices how these 11 main pyramid sites can, when joining the ‘dots’, be made to look like a stick person, albeit with wild ‘hair’. This ‘site plan’ (of the 11 main pyramid sites) with the ‘stick person’ could have become a sort of mnemonic for the location of each site relative to each other. And, in even more time, the stick person is fleshed out, the ‘wild hair’ becomes a crown—the Atef crown—and Osiris is fully born. The pyramids become Osiris.

Byrd: Or "we should add new pyramids so we get the shape of Osiris!"

SC: I haven’t added anything (see list of pyramids below):



I deal only with the first 19 pyramids the AEs built, 3 of which—for whatever reason—they failed to complete. This then leaves us with 16 completed pyramids of which only 14 have storage vaults within them which may explain why the Myth of Osiris informs us that the body of Osiris (i.e. the pyramids) was divided into 16 parts with some version of the myth claiming 14 parts. (Note: the pyramids highlighted in yellow are the 11 main pyramids that correspond with the yellow dots of the Osiris ‘stick man’ – see below):

Byrd: * Osiris doesn't come into importance until midway through the pyramid building craze

SC: See above. I am not claiming otherwise. I am saying that, in time, the first 16 (completed) pyramids came to be personified as the ‘body of Osiris’. And this is stated as early as the 5th dynasty.

Byrd: * the pyramids are placed at the capital city of that time or the place where the king's palace was

SC: This is simply not so. I am thinking here of Dejedefre – closer to but still some distance from Heliopolis (Lunu). And what are we to make of Sneferu? Was he moving his capital city and his palace all over the country?

Cont’d…….

Cont'd from previous...

Byrd: * the major center for Osiris worship has only one pyramid and the pyramid texts and coffin texts of that time do not associate Osiris with pyramids

SC: The Pyramid Texts of the 5th dynasty clearly and unequivocally associate Osiris with the pyramids “..this pyramid… is Osiris…” and “…this construction… is Osiris…” (PT 1657). And, as I presented to you before, from Frank Cole Babbit’s translation of Plutarch’s Isis and Osiris:

"The traditional result of Osiris's dismemberment is that there are many so‑called tombs of Osiris in Egypt; for Isis held a funeral for each part when she had found it ... all of them called the tomb of Osiris."

Byrd: * only one PT (and no Coffin Texts) associate pyramids and Osiris.

SC: Which is one more than the Pyramid Tomb Theory has to offer but that doesn’t stop you supporting/defending that theory, does it? So, when there IS hard, empirical evidence to support a particular position, you reject it. But when there is no hard, empirical evidence to support another position, you accept it. As I said to you before—you have a very peculiar way of dealing with evidence.

SC: The pyramid recovery vaults were likely built before Osiris was important or became a deity.

SC: Well I wouldn’t expect you to say anything else. However, the evidence I present in support of that argument suggests otherwise.

Byrd: You actually haven't made a case for it using their original texts and artifacts.

SC: I cite their original texts: PT1657: “…this pyramid… is Osiris”. I cite the earth-filled granite chest found in G2 as an original artifact. I cite the pyramids themselves and the large quantities of grain found the pyramids (including remnants in G1) as original artifacts. I cite the later traditions of Osiris Bricks/Beds and Corn Mummies as original artifacts. I cite the words of a coming deluge spoken by Thoth as an original text. I cite the name ‘Akhet Khufu’ as an original text speaking of a ‘coming deluge of Thoth’. And more importantly, the thing I do with all of this that Egyptology simply fails to do—I join the dots. I do not leave everything sitting in splendid isolation from each other where, if we are to accept mainstream Egyptology, nothing was ever connected to anything when they are separated by hundreds or even thousands of years. That is simply a blinkered approach.

SC: As pyramid recovery vaults they would be required to be built on the high plateaus (anticipating the deluge).

Byrd: They don't have stories of deluges. They built all their towns and tombs and temples on ground that was not regularly flooded... and not all the pyramids are on high plateaus.

SC: Of course they had stories of deluge.

Byrd: Please cite. The "Flood of Hathor" was fields flooded to the height of someone's knees. Please cite that they feared a coming deluge that would cover the world.

SC: I have already presented to you the ATS link where we discussed all this some time ago. Clearly you really are in a hurry. But here it is again.

SC: We’ve discussed it before here. And all of the first 16 pyramids were built on high plateaus.

Byrd: They were all built on the limestone bluffs on the western side of the river. The west was associated with the land of the dead...

SC: Indeed. And when you are anticipating the ‘death of the kingdom’ that is where you would build your ‘recovery vaults.

Byrd: ….and if you check pictures of the places along the Nile, you will see that most of the older towns are built on the bluffs to the east. Because they didn't flood.

SC: That’s sensible. But many AE towns were also in the low delta region which was prone to flooding.

SC: Just because we haven’t found any maps doesn’t mean they didn’t exist or couldn’t have created them.

Byrd: Actually, we do have maps and surveys. Maps date from the Middle Kingdom.

SC: Indeed. See above. The AEs of this earlier period would most certainly have possessed the skills to plot the relative locations of these sites along the Nile.

Byrd: ... that are actually smaller than 2 feet in length

SC: Small replicas of the original used in festivals. That’s to be expected. And some actually were quite large, those used by the temple priests during the festival.

Byrd: It's late and i"m tired and not thinking well... do you have links that show large sarcophagus Osiris beds and when they were in use?

SC: This one (according to mainstream) is from the 4th dynasty:



Since the creator(s) of this artifact probably didn’t consider this had anything to do with Osiris (that would occur later), it is anyone’s guess what the creators of this earth-filled container would have called it. Neb-ankh?

SC: The Osiris Bed evolved over time--clearly. We are told that during the festival of Khoiak that the temple priests brought forth a chest into which they placed earth and seed—an Osiris Bed. The festival celebrants would have much smaller replicas of this chest (Osiris Bricks) also containing earth and seed. A stone ‘chest’ containing earth and stones is what was discovered in G2. It was the archetype ‘Osiris Bed’ that was placed within the chamber as part of a chthonic ritual related to the ‘recovery’ of the kingdom (the earth), an act that would later become commemorated in the Festival of Khoiak, including the creation of Osiris effigies (the body of Osiris) packed full with seeds just as the original allegorical 'body of Osirs' (the first 16 pyramids) were packed with seeds.

Byrd: That's requiring details of a burial that took place thousands of years before to somehow be miraculously preserved in folklore and everything changed to fit that. I would agree that their religion and funerary practices change over time and that ceremonies got more elaborate and more complex as their society grew.

SC: It wasn’t a ‘burial’ per se but rather a chthonic ritual whereby this chest filled with earth contained the invisible ‘life-force’ that would ensure the rebirth of the earth. But yes—they did ‘remember’ the true purpose of the first pyramids and the neb-ankh held in G1 and G2 (I suspect the container in G3 (now lost) was placed there during the 26th dynasty Saite Period). The AEs did remember that the first pyramids were the allegorical ‘body of Osiris’ and did celebrate it as such during the Festical of Khoiak. And why shouldn’t they have remembered? They had texts that told them quite explicitly that the pyramid was Osiris. How do Christians remember the Last Supper or the events around Christ’s crucifixion and the ‘empty tomb‘ Resurrection of some 2,000 years ago? And yet they do ‘remember’ and commemorate it.

Byrd: But they don't employ pyramids in Osiris rituals (which I would expect if the pyramid was involved) nor do the tombs ever become Osiris.

SC: Not in the 4th dynasty. The pyramid-Osiris connection would happen later—and that is what we find.

Byrd: Though, interestingly, after awhile they decided that the tomb of Djer was actually the tomb of Osiris.

SC: As were many. (See Babbit quote above).


Cont’d…..

Cont’d from previous….

Byrd: In my homework today, I ran across a couple of things related to Osiris and I had one more observation to make:

Observation: your "Osiris" stretches and reworks the distances to make the figures and then ignores other pyramids including the Queens pyramids (where three Pyramid Texts are found.) It also leaves out a number of pyramids from the Wikipedia list (which doesn't show all 118) found here

SC: See my pyramid list above. As stated, there were 19 pyramids up to and including Menakure. Three were not completed, leaving a total of 16. Only 14 of those 16 had storage vaults. There were 11 sites for each of the main pyramids. There were 6 smaller ‘satellite’ pyramids (at Giza) that contained also 2 smaller still ‘cult’ pyramids (also at Giza) giving us our total of 19 pyramids. The 6 smaller ‘satellite’ pyramids (2 sets of three) would have been used as storage vaults but also had a secondary function (in conjunction with the Sphinx) to ‘date stamp’ the construction using the Belt stars of the Orion constellation. This is, imo, how and why Sah (Orion) became associated with Osiris as the stellar personification of the god which, again, would have occurred some time later.

Byrd: In addition, the tomb of Djer (which they believed was the tomb of Osiris -- this is attested in Egyptian sources) is not a pyramid.

SC: It doesn’t have to be a pyramid. Again, see Babbit’s quote above.

Byrd: I ran across this in my reading: "Andjety - God of the Delta city of Andjet, he became assimilated with (or was an earlier form of) Osiris" -- so the idea of Osiris comes from the Delta region, which is why places associated with Osiris in the early days were around the Delta.

SC: This is something I find very interesting. I have always accepted the opinion that Osiris as a fully powerful god of agriculture and rebirth was a later manifestation and that the pyramids were not originally associated with this god. But if this was so then what/who was it that encouraged the ritualistic elements such as the placement of earth-filled nebankhs within the pyramid recovery vaults. Was Andjety who was also regarded as the god of rebirth the original inspiration? It’s really hard to tell although I do think Andjety needs to be considered more closely in this regard.

Byrd: Also, re Frazer: his scholarship, sadly, isn't that good, simply because the book is over 100 years old and we've learned a lot since then.

SC: It doesn’t mean everything he has said is wrong. No point in throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Byrd: On references -- my coursework this week includes a section on "what sources do we use in reconstructing Egyptian history?" Here's what the class reading says:

The classically pragmatic approach is to establish a framework from the surviving ancient Egyptian king lists, with only a sideways glance at Greek and Roman sources (if any glance at all), supplemented by other monumental records (this puts in the rulers such as Hatshepsut and Akhenaten omitted, for a variety of reasons, by the official lists), and archaeological evidence (for the early kings such as "Dynasty O").

Detail can then be added from royal inscriptions recording military and building activities: although here we have to be cautious about the nature of the texts (see Deconstructing the text, below).

Then we can add further evidence for officials for each reign: tombs and statues with genealogical and prosopographical information. Occasionally, detail of specific events or phenomena can be found in what might be termed "real" historical texts such as the economic, judicial and other texts of the Wilbour Papyrus, the Harem Conspiracy documents, the Deir el Medina archives,and the Amarna archives. After these have been considered we
can add non-Egyptian sources, such as:

Byrd: So your evidence has to first be presented by the Egyptians themselves -- and supported by material close to the event (the burial, the monument, etc.) Once those are established, material from later dates is considered. Next comes the writing of other people in the Middle East (including the Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans, Greeks, Bible) but this comes with the heavy warning that these sources are very biased.

Also in this same course text is: Nowadays, the Greek and Roman sources have been largely abandoned in straightforward reconstructions.

So if you want to prove anything about Osiris, you have to start with Old Kingdom material and you would have to prove that the pyramid places had names and references such as "hand of Osiris" and "crown of Osiris", etc.

SC: This is all good tried and trusted methodology and I do not have any particular axe to grind with any of it. What I would say, however, is that in building our picture of the past we do so with many, many of the pieces missing. In arranging these fragments into some form of order we find that there are big gaps in our picture—our knowledge—and we are reduced to attempts at interpreting those fragments that we have into a cohesive narrative. But sometimes pieces are placed in the wrong place in the picture or are completely misinterpreted altogether, resulting in a false narrative being promulgated to the masses.

It is my opinion that one such key piece of evidence was wrongly interpreted by Giovanni Belzoni in 1818 when he found a granite chest filled with earth and fragments of bone from a bull. Belzoni assumed this granite chest was the sarcophagus of a king and that someone in antiquity had done this as a joke. But now, here in the 21st century, we are discovering that later dynasties of ancient Egyptians created small boxes (sometimes wood, sometimes stone) and field these with earth and buried them in the ground under a large rock symbolising the pyramid (the primeval mound) as part of a ‘rebirth’ festival. I say that these two discoveries are connected, that they are ‘one and the same’ and that, had Belzoni known of these ‘Osiris Bricks/Beds’ in his day, he would not have been so quick to denounce a stone chest filled with earth as a mere historical “prank”. And, sadly, the acceptance of Belzoni’s opinion by modern Egyptology has taken us all down a wrong path. There is another, better evidenced narrative.

Once again, good luck with your dissertation defense.

Regards,

SC

reply to post by Scott Creighton

And, sadly, the acceptance of Belzoni’s opinion by modern Egyptology has taken us all down a wrong path.

So the ancients were on that same wrong path before Belzoni? They seemed of the opinion they were built as tombs.

Here is a question for yah how many of the ancient sources call the pyramids tombs versus something else?

reply to post by Hanslune

SC: And, sadly, the acceptance of Belzoni’s opinion by modern Egyptology has taken us all down a wrong path.

Hans: So the ancients were on that same wrong path before Belzoni? They seemed of the opinion they were built as tombs.

SC: Perhaps my statement wasn’t clear enough—allow me to clarify:

”And, sadly, the acceptance of Belzoni’s opinion by modern Egyptology has taken us all down a wrong path with particular regard to the first 16 pyramids completed.”

I have stated many times (and you should know this) that it is quite probable that, as the AE religion developed, later pyramids probably were conceived and constructed as tombs for AE kings—just not the first ones. This is not to say that the first pyramids—although not conceived as tombs—could not later have been appropriated as such for intrusive burials and, indeed, we do know for a fact that this occurred. So, given that the structures were used as tombs, why do you think ancient sources would say otherwise?

Hans: Here is a question for yah how many of the ancient sources call the pyramids tombs versus something else?

SC: Alas, you are simply going to have to do your own research on that one. There are no ancient AE texts that explicitly state the pyramids were conceived as tombs.

Hope that helps.

Regards,

SC

Scott Creighton
If we are to judge an artifact by the actual evidence we find then it is clear the the stone container in G2 is not a sarcophagus but is in fact an ‘Osiris Bed’ (archetype).

Actually, no. The evidence really does make it clear that it's a sarcophagus (and here we have to go into architecture and art... and I do apologize that time is too short to be detailed.) You are assuming that the stuff found in it is what was put in it. That's clearly incorrect.

One thing I learned in my textbooks yesterday (just starting the chapters on the Old Kingdom) is that during the Middle Kingdom (when the cult of Osiris becomes more prominent and from whence most of the story derives) is that some of the older tombs were looted AND burned deliberately. You'll find this sentence from my textbook intriguing: "in the Middle Kingdom the tombs (of First Dynasty rulers) were excavated and rebuilt for the cult of Osiris and Djer's tomb was converted into a cenotaph for the god." During this time some of the tombs were also burned.

HOWEVER... the converted tombs for the Osiris cult had the name of Osiris placed there prominently. So it's clear the pyramid wasn't associated with the Osiris cult at any time -- it lacks all the trappings of a site sacred to Osiris.

I don't know what to make of the lid, etc -- I haven't gotten to that part in my studies. I have discovered that "things written in non-textbooks" are rather like pablum: bland, non-controversial, and sadly lacking any real meat. And the latest research is far more complex than easily accessible material such as Petrie.

SC: And I contend it WAS stated. Again, from the Pyramid Texts: “…this pyramid …is Osiris… this construction… is Osiris…” That seems pretty clear to me. But what we don’t actually hear—whilst we’re on the subject of attestations—is them saying explicitly that the pyramid was built as the tomb of the king. If you want to go down the attestation route then two can play at that game.

See if you can locate a copy (perhaps in the library) of Allen's WRITINGS FROM THE ANCIENT WORLD: TYE PYRAMID TEXTS. Mercer's "Pyramid Texts" is easily accessible but the "translation" really isn't a translation... it's a collection sentences from documents that cover a period of over 300 years and does not show them in context. Many of the phrases had not been translated. Allen's work is up-to-date and includes "which pyramid" and "when."

The texts that mention the pyramids vary greatly (and most don't mention pyramids). So there's the recitation from Pepi II which identifies Pepi with his pyramid...

Ho, Atum! May you extend protection over this Pepi Neferkare, over this his pyramid and this work of Pepi Neferkare, and prevent anything bad from happening to it for the course of eternity, like you extended protection over Shu and Tefnut.
Ho, Big Ennead in Heliopolis—Atum, Shu, Tefnut, Geb, Nut, Osiris, Isis, Seth, and Nephthys, Atum’s children! His heart was stretched for (you), his children, in your identity of the Nine Bows. Let there
be none of you who will turn his back to Atum as he saves this Pepi Neferkare, as he saves this pyramid of Pepi Neferkare, as he saves this his work from all the gods and from all the dead, as he prevents anything bad from happening to it for the course of eternity.
Ho, Horus! This Pepi Neferkare is Osiris, this pyramid of Pepi Neferkare and this his work are Osiris. Betake yourself to him and don’t be far from him in his identity of the pyramid.

...and the theology then changes with the next rulers, where the pyramid is NOT part of the ruler's identity though the prayers associate the name and pyramid.

226 [RECITATION. O, Big Ennead in Heliopolis! May you make this Nemtiemzaf Merenre be firm, may you make this pyramid be firm for the course of eternity as the name of Atum,foremost of the Big Ennead, is firm.
As] the name of Shu, lord of Upper Menset in Heliopolis, [is firm], the name of Nemtiemzaf Merenre shall be firm, and this pyramid shall be firm likewise, for the course of eternity.
As the name of Tefnut, lady of Lower Menset in Heliopolis, remains,the name of Nemtiemzaf Merenre shall remain, and this pyramid shall remain likewise, for the course of eternity.
As Geb’s name at the earth’s ba is firm, the name of Nemtiemzaf Merenre shall be firm, and this pyramid shall be firm likewise, for the course of eternity.
As Nut’s name is firm in the Enclosure of Shenit in Heliopolis, the name of Nemtiemzaf Merenre shall be firm, and this pyramid shall be firm likewise, for the course of eternity.
As Osiris’s name is firm in Great Land, the name of Nemtiemzaf Merenre shall be firm, and [this pyramid shall be] firm [likewise, for the course of eternity.
As the name of Osiris as Foremost of Westerners is firm, the name of Nemtiemzaf Merenre shall be firm, and this pyramid shall be firm likewise, for the course of eternity.
As Seth’s name is firm] in Ombos, the name of Nemtiemzaf Merenre
shall be firm, and this pyramid shall be firm likewise, for the course
of eternity.
As Horus’s name is firm in Seal-ring, the name of Nemtiemzaf Merenre
shall be firm, and this pyramid shall be firm likewise, for the
course of eternity.
As the Sun’s name is firm at the Akhet, the name of Nemtiemzaf
Merenre shall be firm, and this pyramid shall be firm likewise, for the
course of eternity.
As Eyes-Forward’s name remains at Akhmim, the name of Nemtiemzaf
Merenre shall be firm, and this pyramid shall be firm likewise, for
the course of eternity.
As Wadjet’s name is firm in Dep, the name of Nemtiemzaf Merenre
shall be firm, and this pyramid shall be firm likewise, for the course
of eternity.

And the theology changes again with the next pyramid text.

The Pyramid Texts aren't just a random collection of lines (by the way, this is also the problem with the Coffin Texts, as published for popular consumption) -- each is a cohesive book with a specific date. There's a lot of overlap in them, but there are also some unique elements that appear once and never again... and mentioning the pyramid is one of those.

Byrd: ... an image of the deity that is mixing elements of posture and dress from several different areas and times and wearing a crown that would not exist until 150 years later-- see Griffiths, J. Gwyn. The origins of Osiris and his cult. Vol. 40. Brill, 1980, Chapter 3 for more details)

SC: See above. Osiris didn’t have to be a deity when the pyramids were built. Osiris and the Atef Crown appear at the same time, or rather, they are first attested at the same time in writing and in art.

Missing the point here... your references are designed for "popular literature" or are very old.

When you use those as a basis for your ideas, you end up with a mash of material from multiple times (and often badly translated) that you are attempting to string together in a logical sequence. What you need are sources that set each thing in the context of its time.

Scott Creighton
If you are planning to build a series of recovery vaults across the land (let’s assume 16) that you hope will survive a coming deluge then the first thing you are going to do is identify high ground that is not too far from the Nile (for ease of transportation of materials) and which has adequate quarries close by.

They were not afraid of a huge earth-destroying deluge.

Now, having created their ‘site plan’ for their 16 pyramids which comprises 11 different main pyramid sites, someone at some later date notices how these 11 main pyramid sites can, when joining the ‘dots’, be made to look like a stick person, albeit with wild ‘hair’. This ‘site plan’ (of the 11 main pyramid sites) with the ‘stick person’ could have become a sort of mnemonic for the location of each site relative to each other. And, in even more time, the stick person is fleshed out, the ‘wild hair’ becomes a crown—the Atef crown—and Osiris is fully born. The pyramids become Osiris.

That makes no sense within the context of their culture, and the design elements don't work, either. Although they did remake tombs (see above) as structures to Osiris, they did not do so for the pyramids (if they had, we would see the chapels reconstructed and the inscriptions re-engraved and there would be a disjunct between the funerary material in the nobles' burials and the temple and pyramid itself.)

I deal only with the first 19 pyramids the AEs built, 3 of which—for whatever reason—they failed to complete.

This doesn't help your concept at all. We certainly have examples of storage vaults in Egypt that date back to 5,000 BC and earlier -- vaults that are a common element of towns and temples and continue to be used throughout their history. Pyramids do not share any of the elements of storage rooms.

This then leaves us with 16 completed pyramids of which only 14 have storage vaults within them which may explain why the Myth of Osiris informs us that the body of Osiris (i.e. the pyramids) was divided into 16 parts with some version of the myth claiming 14 parts. (Note: the pyramids highlighted in yellow are the 11 main pyramids that correspond with the yellow dots of the Osiris ‘stick man’ – see below):

Again, you run into a problem with your sources. Greek and Roman sources should NOT be used to understand elements of Egyptian theology. They are "too modern" and the (biased) views that they held were not that of historical ancient Egypt but rather things they saw and heard 1500 years after the fact in an Egypt that had been changed by a devastating series of conquests and invasions.

Sorry, Scott. I've run out of time and can't get to the rest of it.

I understand that good texts with current material on Egypt are expensive (boy, howdy are they! My wallet is still cringing) but you are basing a lot of your ideas on material that's very old and extremely incomplete. I do wish you had the ability to take these courses at the University of Exeter -- it's very eye-opening -- and I think that you could do a lot if you only had access to the vast amounts of knowledge stuffed into these textbooks (and the work behind them.)

As a result, the mish-mash of sources (most of which are not from the Egyptians themselves) and poor context (with respect to time and political climate and resources) and questionable foundation sources gives you a very weak basis for any speculation.

I feel this is a shame, because I think that if you had access to the training and the material that I'm able to access, you would have the most amazing time with it and that you could come up with things that would be accepted and respected in the field.

It's a huge field. This, frankly, is not one that I'm able to enter at the Masters' level. I entered anthropology and computer science and informatics all at the graduate level and didn't have to take any undergrad courses for them. But with Egyptology, this is not possible. I am having to enter it at the Bachelors' (very basic) level just to get the background... at this point I'm interested enough that I'll start looking into getting a formal degree in Egyptology and will probably go through a Masters' after I've gotten the groundwork. Don't wait around. It's going to take me another 10 years.

...and so, back to the books. I probably won't emerge until after the dissertation defense and yes, this is for my PhD.

And on a final note, to take it back to the topic at hand, I dearly wish people would talk about the other pyramids. They're awfully interesting. Can't wait to get to them in my studies -- but I won't have scholarly access to the good stuff until after I get through the basics on art and architecture and literature and history and Nubia and the Delta.

Best,

-- Byrd

Byrd

And on a final note, to take it back to the topic at hand, I dearly wish people would talk about the other pyramids. They're awfully interesting. Can't wait to get to them in my studies -- but I won't have scholarly access to the good stuff until after I get through the basics on art and architecture and literature and history and Nubia and the Delta.

Best,

-- Byrd

Completely agree and I've been slowly working my way though the information on the lesser known ones and in particularly looking at ones made in imitation of the orginal Egyptian tombs.

Interesting I found that a second pyramid in Rome was built and later destroyed in the 15th century it seems to have been somewhat bigger than the surviving Cestius pyramid. No one pays much attention to it which in a way is a sad thing.

Good luck on your last hurdles

Scott Creighton

I have stated many times (and you should know this)

....and you should remember that you change your mind - and have done so several times, remember when you decided that saying the Atlantean had given the idea to make the pyramids to the Egyptians was a bad idea? It took some time for all of us to realize you'd distanced yourself from your original thought. Or like now you are saying the pyramids are what 16,000 years old instead of agreeing with the orthodox on there being just 4,500 as you had previously held - you change your mind on occassion...so please excuse us for not always keeping up with the shifting winds of fringe thought that goes thou your head Scott, it not like you issue retraction or PRP that we can read to find out what your latest position is.

as the AE religion developed, later pyramids probably were conceived and constructed as tombs for AE kings—just not the first ones.

In your amateur opinion - just a thought how many of the known fringe writers have abandonen their own theories for yours?

This is not to say that the first pyramids—although not conceived as tombs—could not later have been appropriated as such for intrusive burials and, indeed, we do know for a fact that this occurred. So, given that the structures were used as tombs, why do you think ancient sources would say otherwise?

Because when the first of these ancient showed up to record stuff the Egyptians could still read all the writings of the AE, they also probably had far far more material than we see today. They didn't seem to know that the pyramids were built as tombs.

SC: Alas, you are simply going to have to do your own research on that one.

I have and it is obvious you haven't nor will you, since it doesn't support your ideas it will therefore be ignored. Its better to let readers think that the tomb theory is a modern one........

There are no ancient AE texts that explicitly state the pyramids were conceived as tombs.

......and no ancient AE texts that explicity state that the pyramids were not conceived as tombs and the AE for some odd reason seemed to think they were.....and told visitor they were.......lol

reply to post by Hanslune

Hello Hans,

Nice to see you finally engaging the interesting issues this thread has raised, instead of trying to stifle discussion of them.

SC: I have stated many times (and you should know this) …

Hans: ....and you should remember that you change your mind - and have done so several times…

SC: Why is that an issue for you?

Hans: …remember when you decided that saying the Atlantean had given the idea to make the pyramids to the Egyptians was a bad idea?

SC: No I don’t remember saying that. Please do show me where I said such a thing.

Hans: It took some time for all of us to realize you'd distanced yourself from your original thought.

SC: I don’t see why since I never had such an “original thought”—but please do show me where I said such?

Hans: Or like now you are saying the pyramids are what 16,000 years old instead of agreeing with the orthodox on there being just 4,500 as you had previously held - you change your mind on occassion...

SC: More like almost 19,000 years. And yes—it remains a distinct possibility based on the new evidence I have uncovered at Giza which will be presented in my forthcoming book. You see, when new evidence surfaces that changes something it shouldn’t simply be buried away because it threatens to overturn what we originally believed to be true or that it is perhaps controversial and makes us uncomfortable. We should follow the new evidence and allow it to be our guide and to form our opinions even if that means having to change previously held views. But I am sure that you know that this is how good science should operate.

Hans:…so please excuse us for not always keeping up with the shifting winds of fringe thought that goes thou your head Scott…

SC: You’re excused.

Hans:…it not like you issue retraction or PRP that we can read to find out what your latest position is.

SC: No need to. I have a Forum here on ATS that has logged all of my ideas/thoughts over time and shows how they have progressed and been refined over the years. You should take a peek. It’s not all that scary—really.

Hans: ….Its better to let readers think that the tomb theory is a modern one........

SC: Nice to see that you have accepted that the ‘pyramid as tomb’ is just a “theory” and not the ‘fact’ that is presented in so many academic books/journals. We’re making progress.

SC: …as the AE religion developed, later pyramids probably were conceived and constructed as tombs for AE kings—just not the first ones.

Hans: In your amateur opinion …

SC: Indeed. But it is an opinion based on hard, empirical evidence and not the imaginary evidence the Pyramid Tomb Theory proponents expect us to accept.

SC: This is not to say that the first pyramids—although not conceived as tombs—could not later have been appropriated as such for intrusive burials and, indeed, we do know for a fact that this occurred. So, given that the structures were used as tombs, why do you think ancient sources would say otherwise?

Hans: Because when the first of these ancient showed up to record stuff the Egyptians could still read all the writings of the AE, they also probably had far far more material than we see today. They didn't seem to know that the pyramids were built as tombs.

SC: I have no idea what on earth you are trying to say here. “They didn’t seem to know that the pyramids were built as tombs.” – really? Not even the later ones or even the intrusive ones?

SC: Alas, you are simply going to have to do your own research on that one.

Hans: I have and it is obvious you haven't nor will you…

SC: Do your own research, laddie. I am not about to spoon-feed you.

SC: There are no ancient AE texts that explicitly state the pyramids were conceived as tombs.

Hans: ......and no ancient AE texts that explicity state that the pyramids were not conceived as tombs …

SC: And none that state the pyramids were night clubs or casinos. Concentrate in trying to prove what these structures ARE, not what they AREN’T.

Hans:…and the AE for some odd reason seemed to think they were.....and told visitor they were.......

SC: And why wouldn’t they? They were used as tombs (intrusive burials). But I rather doubt they would have highlighted the ‘intrusive’ part.

Hans: lol

SC: Alas, "lol" simply won’t crack it. You can only hope to ever do that with evidence.

Regards,

SC

reply to post by Byrd


Hi Byrd,

Thank you once again for your time—I know things are hectic for you right now.

SC: If we are to judge an artifact by the actual evidence we find then it is clear the the stone container in G2 is not a sarcophagus but is in fact an ‘Osiris Bed’ (archetype).

Byrd: Actually, no. The evidence really does make it clear that it's a sarcophagus (and here we have to go into architecture and art... and I do apologize that time is too short to be detailed.)

SC: I have to completely disagree with this for reasons previously mentioned. If placing the names/titles on their sarcophagi was good enough for Khufu’s children and Khafre’s siblings, why wasn’t it good enough for Khufu and Khafre? As I previously pointed out, it would have been more important—nay, vital—for this to have been done for the king's sarcophagus.

See here: Ten Facts the Contradict the Pyramid Tomb Theory.

Byrd: You are assuming that the stuff found in it is what was put in it. That's clearly incorrect.

SC: And you are assuming—as did Belzoni—that someone came along, looted the chamber, stole or burned the king’s mummy (to relieve it of its precious amulets) and then someone else came along much later and went to the not inconsiderable trouble of hauling bags of earth and stones through long, narrow passageways to fill the granite container with earth and fragments of bull bones and still they failed to place any inscriptions upon the container.

As we have discussed several times now, pyramids were used for intrusive burials—there is clear, unequivocal proof of that. Why then do you think if it was discovered that the king’s mummy had been removed from G2 that the AE would then go and fill the granite container with earth rather than the king himself (or some other local lord) appropriating the structure for his own burial?

In my view the earth-filled granite container was the original state and would serve as the archetype for later festivals that would pay homage to the fecundity and rebirth of the earth through the agency of Osiris.

Byrd: One thing I learned in my textbooks yesterday (just starting the chapters on the Old Kingdom) is that during the Middle Kingdom (when the cult of Osiris becomes more prominent and from whence most of the story derives) ….

SC: The first elements of the Osiris story come to us from the 5th dynasty Pyramid Texts.

Byrd:…. is that some of the older tombs were looted AND burned deliberately. You'll find this sentence from my textbook intriguing: "in the Middle Kingdom the tombs (of First Dynasty rulers) were excavated and rebuilt for the cult of Osiris and Djer's tomb was converted into a cenotaph for the god." During this time some of the tombs were also burned.

HOWEVER... the converted tombs for the Osiris cult had the name of Osiris placed there prominently. So it's clear the pyramid wasn't associated with the Osiris cult at any time -- it lacks all the trappings of a site sacred to Osiris.

SC: When the earth-filled granite chest was placed in G2, at this pre-fifth dynasty time it probably wasn’t anything to do with Osiris. Whatever this chthonic ritual was (to place an earth-filled chest in the chamber) would become associated with Osiris later as Osiris perhaps usurped some earlier earth deity. In short, whatever deity this chthonic ritual was related to (if any) it probably had nothing to do with Osiris pre-fifth dynasty but would become so later. The pyramid was sealed. They are hardly going to break into just to place the name Osiris all over the chest/chamber.

SC: And I contend it WAS stated. Again, from the Pyramid Texts: “…this pyramid …is Osiris… this construction… is Osiris…” That seems pretty clear to me. But what we don’t actually hear—whilst we’re on the subject of attestations—is them saying explicitly that the pyramid was built as the tomb of the king. If you want to go down the attestation route then two can play at that game.

Byrd: See if you can locate a copy (perhaps in the library) of Allen's WRITINGS FROM THE ANCIENT WORLD: TYE PYRAMID TEXTS. Mercer's "Pyramid Texts" is easily accessible but the "translation" really isn't a translation... it's a collection sentences from documents that cover a period of over 300 years and does not show them in context. Many of the phrases had not been translated. Allen's work is up-to-date and includes "which pyramid" and "when."

SC: The Pyramid Texts date back to the 5th and 6th dynasties (2345-2181 BCE). Within this timeframe a clear connection was made with Osiris and the pyramid—that is indisputable. And this is well before the Middle Kingdom period.

Byrd: The texts that mention the pyramids vary greatly (and most don't mention pyramids). So there's the recitation from Pepi II which identifies Pepi with his pyramid...

SC: Again you seem to think that quantity matters. We need only be told something once to achieve an understanding of how the AEs thought about something. As early as 2181 BCE, they thought of the pyramid as the personification of Osiris. That cannot be denied.

Ho, Horus! This Pepi Neferkare is Osiris, this pyramid of Pepi Neferkare and this his work are Osiris. Betake yourself to him and don’t be far from him in his identity of the pyramid.

Byrd: ...and the theology then changes with the next rulers, where the pyramid is NOT part of the ruler's identity though the prayers associate the name and pyramid.

SC: And by this time the king (in death) becomes Osiris. So the name of the king N. Osiris is, defacto, the pyramid.

Byrd: And the theology changes again with the next pyramid text.

SC: Indeed. Religions change over time but I do not see this change as revolution but rather as evolution; nothing is discarded. The corpus of religious thought is added to. In saying that, however, there does seem to have been a fundamental, revolutionary change around the 5th/6th dynasty with the introduction of the Osirian doctrine. Your friend and mine, J.G. Griffiths writes extensively about this in his various works.

Byrd: The Pyramid Texts aren't just a random collection of lines (by the way, this is also the problem with the Coffin Texts, as published for popular consumption) -- each is a cohesive book with a specific date. There's a lot of overlap in them, but there are also some unique elements that appear once and never again... and mentioning the pyramid is one of those.

SC: As I said—it need be mentioned just once for us to obtain a glimpse of their thoughts. The connection of the pyramid as the embodiment of Osiris is clear.



Cont'd........

reply to post by Byrd


Cont'd from previous....

Byrd: ... an image of the deity that is mixing elements of posture and dress from several different areas and times and wearing a crown that would not exist until 150 years later-- see Griffiths, J. Gwyn. The origins of Osiris and his cult. Vol. 40. Brill, 1980, Chapter 3 for more details)

SC: See above. Osiris didn’t have to be a deity when the pyramids were built. Osiris and the Atef Crown appear at the same time, or rather, they are first attested at the same time in writing and in art.

Byrd: Missing the point here... your references are designed for "popular literature" or are very old.

SC: My references are the Pyramid Texts as translated by Mercer. Are you suggesting every translation ever made by Mercer is now out-of-date and thus invalid? Surely not? As for the atef crown—again (as stated previously), its earliest attestation in art is from the 5th dynasty:

”King Sahure [5th dynasty] is the first king to wear the Atef Crown…” - Edward Bleiberg, Arts & Humanities Through the Eras: Ancient Egypt 2675-322 B.C.E, (2005), p.86.

Byrd: When you use those as a basis for your ideas, you end up with a mash of material from multiple times (and often badly translated) that you are attempting to string together in a logical sequence. What you need are sources that set each thing in the context of its time.

SC: Well, of course. But I fail to see any point here. Let’s look at the sequence:

3rd/4th Dynasty – AEs complete 16 pyramids.
3rd Dynasty – massive quantities of various seed types and tens of thousands of various vessel types stored in under and around the Step Pyramid.
4th Dynasty – earth-filled container placed in G2.
4th Dynasty – massive amounts of grain stored in G1 (yes, there is secondary evidence of this).
5th Dynasty – Sahure with Atef Crown.
5th/6th Dynasty – Pyramid is the embodiment of Osiris.
5th/6th Dynasty – First Osiris Myth appears.
11th/12th Dynasty – Festival of Khoiak with Osiris Brick/Bed and Osiris Corn Mummies.

I am saying that the Festival of Khoiak in the 11th/12th Dynasty is commemorating the events of the 3rd/4th dynasty when the first 16 pyramids were laid down across the ground of Egypt (which would later become in the 5th/6th dynasty, the allegorical 16 dismembered body parts of Osiris).

SC: If you are planning to build a series of recovery vaults across the land (let’s assume 16) that you hope will survive a coming deluge then the first thing you are going to do is identify high ground that is not too far from the Nile (for ease of transportation of materials) and which has adequate quarries close by.

Byrd: They were not afraid of a huge earth-destroying deluge.

SC: Concerned enough to build 16 massive recovery vaults and to place boats all around them.

“I am going to blot out everything that I have made. This Earth shall enter into (i.e. be absorbed in) the watery abyss of Nu (or Nunu) by means of a raging flood, and will become even as it was in primeval time…. one day the Nile will rise and cover all Egypt with water, and drown the whole country; then, as in the beginning, there will be nothing to be seen except water.” - Budge W. E. A., 'From Fetish to God in Ancient Egypt', (Oxford University Press, 1934), 198.

SC: Now, having created their ‘site plan’ for their 16 pyramids which comprises 11 different main pyramid sites, someone at some later date notices how these 11 main pyramid sites can, when joining the ‘dots’, be made to look like a stick person, albeit with wild ‘hair’. This ‘site plan’ (of the 11 main pyramid sites) with the ‘stick person’ could have become a sort of mnemonic for the location of each site relative to each other. And, in even more time, the stick person is fleshed out, the ‘wild hair’ becomes a crown—the Atef crown—and Osiris is fully born. The pyramids become Osiris.

Byrd: That makes no sense within the context of their culture, and the design elements don't work, either. Although they did remake tombs (see above) as structures to Osiris, they did not do so for the pyramids (if they had, we would see the chapels reconstructed and the inscriptions re-engraved and there would be a disjunct between the funerary material in the nobles' burials and the temple and pyramid itself.)

SC: The first pyramids weren’t conceived as tombs but as recovery vaults and as such, they would eventually become the embodiment of Osiris. Even the later pyramids would become N. Osiris.

SC: I deal only with the first 19 pyramids the AEs built, 3 of which—for whatever reason—they failed to complete.

Byrd: This doesn't help your concept at all. We certainly have examples of storage vaults in Egypt that date back to 5,000 BC and earlier -- vaults that are a common element of towns and temples and continue to be used throughout their history.

SC: I think you are confusing the normal AE ‘granary’ with a ‘recovery vault’. Similar function but for very different purposes.

Byrd: Pyramids do not share any of the elements of storage rooms.

SC: I presume here you mean grain storage? If so then this is simply not so.

The barrel-style ceiling of G3’s main chamber has the style of an AE granary as does the vaulted roof of the Grand Gallery as well as many other early pyramids.

AE granaries would typically have numerous storage rooms adjacent to each other. But the pyramids were not conceived as ‘granaries’ (although much grain was stored in them) but rather as ‘seed vaults’ for the secure storage and preservation of a ‘genesis stock’ – a concept not too dissimilar to our own modern seed vault in Svalbard. And if you look at the layout of the pyramid chambers to the Svalbard Seed Vault, they are remarkably similar:





And interestingly, the Pyramid Texts make the connection between Osiris and grain storage:

786a. To say: I am Nut, "the Granary." I have proclaimed the name of Osiris N.

1182a. N. receives his provision from that which is in the granary of the Great God;

SC: This then leaves us with 16 completed pyramids of which only 14 have storage vaults within them which may explain why the Myth of Osiris informs us that the body of Osiris (i.e. the pyramids) was divided into 16 parts with some version of the myth claiming 14 parts. (Note: the pyramids highlighted in yellow are the 11 main pyramids that correspond with the yellow dots of the Osiris ‘stick man’ – see below):

Byrd: Again, you run into a problem with your sources. Greek and Roman sources should NOT be used to understand elements of Egyptian theology. They are "too modern" and the (biased) views that they held were not that of historical ancient Egypt but rather things they saw and heard 1500 years after the fact in an Egypt that had been changed by a devastating series of conquests and invasions.

SC: My sources are the actual, physical evidence and the writings of the AEs from the 5th/6th dynasty—nothing to do with Greeks and Romans who, incidentally, argued themselves as to the purpose of the pyramids just as we do today.

Cont'd....