Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

quintus_horatius t1_ixhaidf wrote

Reply to comment by Sikog in Ancient Egyptian mummification was never intended to preserve bodies by IslandChillin

I've been inside the pyramids of Giza. They were very much a personalized tomb for a single, highly revered, person.

The outer shells of the sarcophagi are still present inside. You can't remove them without breaking them apart or disassembling the rest of the structure.

Just a tip: should you find yourself in Giza you too may visit a pyramid and go inside. It's hot and damp in the burial chamber, and you'll certainly be in a long line of people. Glad I did it, wouldn't do it again though.

4

Sikog t1_ixhcymv wrote

Maybe someone at some point wanted to be buried there I know they have different chambers in the pryamids, the sarcophagi or what we believe it to be is sure interesting.

A highly revered person would have treasures beyond imagination, inscriptions of the greatness of their era and most definitely human remains,mummies which does not exist at all, zero, absolutely null in the pyramids of Giza.

The pyramids of Giza differ so much from the other pyramids or tombs we have found, just because 9/10 pryamids were used as tombs it doesn't automatically mean the 10th are also.

I'm not saying I'm correct, but it sure is interesting that the pryamids of Giza lacks so very much of what the other tombs have.

−3

Pyranze t1_ixhnt7j wrote

What else would it be used for? There are plenty of indications it was at least meant to be a tomb, even if it ended up not housing any bodies, so what is there to counter this? You literally cannot progress the field of history, or indeed most fields, if you require 100% certainty on everything, because we just don't have that, especially for something as far back as the pyramids of Giza. So unless you have an actual alternative theory of what the Giza pyramids were for we have to work on the most likely assumption, that they're tombs.

4

Sikog t1_ixhshfp wrote

We'll probably never know what it was used for because not much research is done anymore since the narrative is set, it's open for tourism and is more in maintenance and preserving then in research.

If you look at it objectively as for what it is, it is not a 100% sell that it is a tomb. Add some historical texts based on the daily talk on the streets 2600-500 bce, surrounding pyramids acting as tombs then sure maybe it makes more sense it's a tomb.

All I'm doing is challenging it for what it really is without pushing all the external parts to the core, it starts to challenge ones believes and people don't like that.

But let's call it a tomb for today, in 150 years it might be called something else that's the way history goes.

0

Pyranze t1_ixhvsgr wrote

The problem with challenging a supposed theory is you have to have alternatives to back it up, or else there's no value to it. Challenging a narrative just for the sake of challenging it isn't productive and wastes time that could be spent challenging areas that are actually up for debate.

3

Sikog t1_ixhzm4l wrote

I'm sure the Egyptians who built the great Pyramid of Giza are all laughing at us both in the afterlife, for only they know the real purpose it was built for.

−1