The pyramid with a mummy in it, Neferu-ptah

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 07:56 AM
link   
One of the most common fringe claims is that.

"no pyramid has been found with a body in it"

Obviously that is not correct, as their are commonly known pyramids in mesoamerica that have them, and they have been found in situ and in recent times.

So the claim changed

"No Egyptian pyramid has been found with a body in it"

That one is false too, but before I show the evidence for that let me briefly explore the history of that phase, "No........pyramid has been found with a body in it"

I first came across it in early UFO materials, when Neferu-ptah was found it switched from

"No pyramid has been found with a body in it" to the more sexist, No pyramid has been found with a pharaoh in it"

Later when the Meso pyramids were found with bodies of kings it changed again

to "No Egyptian pyramids have been found with a Pharaoh inside" and the ultimate, "No Giza pyramid has been found with a Pharaoh inside".

Now the original phase has been coming back as fringe people, data mine the old UFO materials for materials.

So now to Neferu-ptah

Neferu-Ptah was a daughter of the Egyptian king Amenemhat III (c. 1860 BC to 1814 BC). She was unusual as she may have been planning to be one of the female pharaohs, but she died young.

Her intact pyramid tomb with mummy were found at Hawara she was the daughter of Amenemhet III.

Neferu-ptah

The discovery is covered here in this book.

Bob Brier, Ancient Egyptian Magic, William morrow & Company, inc NY 1981, ppg 32, 33 117-118 ISBN ISBN-13: 978-0688007966 (for the 1998 paperback edition)


Brier's book references the pyramid of said princess on pages 32, 33 and 117 (1981 edition). The photos on page 32, however, are of hieroglyphs from the British Museum collection that are similar to those found in Neferuptah's pyramid. I will quote here the pertinent text, so that others can understand the conversation a bit better:

Quote:
The pyramid of Neferuptah is unique in all of Egyptian archaeology. It is the only royal pyramid found unrobbed, with the mummy still in it. Neferuptah was the daughter of the Pharaoh Amenemhet III, who ruled in the Middle Kingdom. When the pyramid was discovered, it was found that, unfortunately, water had seeped into the burial chamber, and most of the contents of the tomb had been destroyed. Enough fragments of the sarcophagus were recovered, however, to show that the hieroglyphs were drawn mutilated. The owls and chicks were drawn without legs. And the viper was without a tail. This was probably done so that the animals would not escape and spoil the text.


The information on page 117 gives the translation of the inscription along the side of the offering table found in the submerged burial chamber:
Quote:

May the king grant a wish to Anubis, Toth, Osiris, the great and small Enneads of the sanctuary of Upper and Lower Egypt. (May the offering be) thousands of loaves of bread, jars of beer, oxen, r-geese, tcherp-geese, zeb-geese, ser-geese, menweb-geese, alabaster jars, clothing, incense, and ointments, all good things upon which a god lives for the ka of the king's daughter, Neferuptah, true of voice, lady of veneration.

The granite sarcophagus was nine feet long, and half full of water when opened. When drained, they found the remains of the princess' mummy, badly decomposed, but still with its jewelry and grave goods present.


Additional information can be found at

W. Grajetzki, The Coffin of the "King's Daughter" Neferuptah and the Sarcophagus of the "Great King's Wife" Hatshepsut, Göttinger Miszellen: Beitrage zur ägyptologischen Diskussion, 205 (2005), 55-66

More information on Neferu-ptah

Neferu-Ptah is one of the first royal women whose name was written inside a cartouche. Although she never had the title 'king's wife', she must have had a special status. A burial for her was prepared in the tomb of her father at Hawara. However, she was not buried there, but in a small pyramid at Hawara. Her tomb was found intact and still contained her jewellery, a granite sarcophagus, three silver vases and other objects. Inside the sarcophagus were found the decayed remains of two wooden coffins. The outer one was decorated with inscribed gold foil. Identical inscriptions were found on the sarcophagus of Queen Hatshepsut , who lived about 300 years later. Her tomb is mentioned on a papyrus found at Lahun.

The above is from wiki and is probably paraphrase from multiple sources

Yet more information at N. Farag: The discovery of Neferwptah, 1971

Note the different spelling, there are multiple spellings of the name in the source materials.

And for those gluttons for knowledge:

Sauneron, Serge. The tomb of Princess Neferuptah / Serge Sauneron.
p. 6-9 : ill. ; 30 cm.
Egypt travel magazine. [Offprint]
Offprint from: Egypt travel magazine, no. 23, 1956.
The Greco-Roman Museum at Alexandria / Wilna Salinas -- Acquaintance with Egypt / Simonne Lacouture.

Now why is it not well known? 98+% of the materials on the web about pyramids are fringe sites. Since its a tradition amongst the fringe to not research previous claims and to accept whatever is presented (if it supports their own ideas) the myth has arisen that there were no intact pyramid burials were found.

Let us not forget Neferu-ptah

Now if we want to get technical, there is NO whole body in her intact coffin, just bone fragments, 'a soup of human matter' the linen from her wrappings, her jewelry and other aspects of burial from that time period.

It is of course your choice to choose how you will interpret.



[edit on 14/12/08 by Hanslune]

[edit on 14/12/08 by Hanslune]




posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 11:02 AM
link   
You'll find no argument from me as too the later uses of the pyramids as burial chambers, yet I still do wonnder why the only evidence of burials in the earlier ones are all intrusive burials?

You know my feelings on the 'ealier' ones, as I'm pretty sure you remember I believe the 3 main Giza pyramids to be the originals, on which all others were based, but after all, I'm no expert and it is only my opinion based on limited reading.

Although it is interesting to note that the 'grandest' of the Egyptian pyramids only shows evidence for intrusive burials and not for original purpose or intent, as far as memory serves.

EMM



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers
Although it is interesting to note that the 'grandest' of the Egyptian pyramids only shows evidence for intrusive burials and not for original purpose or intent, as far as memory serves.

EMM


Your memory may not be entirely correct here. The King's sarcophagus, for instance, is a huge granite thing and far too large to have been hauled down any of the hallways in the pyramid. They put it into place as they built the pyramid.



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


I have never made or heard the claim that mummies or pharaohs were never found in the pyramids. I do wonder what the pyramids functions were back when they were built. We can only guess they were used only as tombs, but that would be like advertising to the grave robbers. I remain open minded about their use for other rituals and the possibility they are older than claimed.



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by Hanslune
 


I have never made or heard the claim that mummies or pharaohs were never found in the pyramids. I do wonder what the pyramids functions were back when they were built. We can only guess they were used only as tombs, but that would be like advertising to the grave robbers. I remain open minded about their use for other rituals and the possibility they are older than claimed.


Howdy Kidflash

The claim is very common

I think we can more than guess, considering the importance of death and the afterlife in Egyptian life, the tombs of their families located around them, the mortuary temple built at the same time that was around them, and numerous other indicators. Initially they didn't worry about robbers as the world they knew was fairly safe. They didn't realize their balanced world would collapse in the first intermediary period. If they weren't tombs where are there tombs?

There is zero evidence for their being older.



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I think you're confusing the fact that a lot of folks don't buy into the fantasy that the Great Pyramids of Giza were ever designed or utilized as burial structures.

Sheer speculation, as there is absolutely no evidence.



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


Howdy Dooper

Unfortunately the evidence for there being tombs is rather overwhelming

What evidence do you have for there not being tombs?

However this thread is about Neferu-ptah and we'll stay on subject. You can find other treads on that subject, or if you can think of a new title you can start a new one. This one is about Neferu-ptah.






[edit on 14/12/08 by Hanslune]



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I thought that the claim was that none of the giza complex pyramids had evidence of a dead body having resided in them. there are markings on the walls that say so, but no physical evidence of a actual body. there is the sarcophogus but that may not actually have been intended to house a dead body. it could have housed anything really.

the great pyramid is still a mystery. Nobody really absolutely knows how it was built. there are lots of good ideas as to how but nobody really knows. The sphinx is also a mystery with it's age.

through out egypt though there are plenty of pyramids with lots of evidence of dead bodies in them. djosers(sp) pyramid among plenty of others.

I've seen the pyramids in mesoamerica and some (but not all) were used for tombs. like pacals tomb in palenque or was it tikal. crap both probably were tombs at one point. in some ways the mayans and aztecs were more clever than the egyptians. at least they had the sense to cover everything in the tomb with bright red poisonous material so that nobody would ever attempt to loot it. if the egyptians had thought to do that maybe there would be less speculation as to the pyramids purposes.



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by BASSPLYR
I thought that the claim was that none of the giza complex pyramids had evidence of a dead body having resided in them. there are markings on the walls that say so, but no physical evidence of a actual body. there is the sarcophogus but that may not actually have been intended to house a dead body. it could have housed anything really.


Well, that's the claim, but at least one of the Queen's pyramids on the Giza complex had the mummy of a queen in it. And the sarcophagi are intended for burial. They have the burial spells written on them (and things with burial spells on them contain mummies or mummy bits (organs)). The pyramids that have writing in them contain the passages from the "Book of the Dead", and have the name of the deceased (the "Osiris whomever"... with the name of the owner of the tomb as the "whomever"... and Osiris indicating that he/she had become Osiris the god who came to life after being killed.)


in some ways the mayans and aztecs were more clever than the egyptians.

Well, their empires rise some 500+ years after the last pharaoh died.


at least they had the sense to cover everything in the tomb with bright red poisonous material so that nobody would ever attempt to loot it.


The source for that claim is really mistaken. The red on the pyramids is good old iron oxide (ochre), which isn't poisonous.



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Byrd,

I was talking about the inside of pacals tomb. isn't that all poisonous cinabar or something?

I donno. you're the genius when it comes to this stuff. your knowledge is pretty impressive. But come on you gotta admit the mayan and aztec ruins are pretty clever too.

Whats interesting is that Giza isn't even my favorite egyptian site tutmosis' tomb I think is really neat.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by BASSPLYR]



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 



Originally posted by Hanslune
Initially they didn't worry about robbers as the world they knew was fairly safe. They didn't realize their balanced world would collapse in the first intermediary period. If they weren't tombs where are there tombs?


Really?

From Tour Egypt: (check out the bolded part Hans)


The tombs of the elite were most at risk, since they contained a higher proportion of valuable objects, but even poor graves were robbed for the sake of the meager offerings and adornments placed with the dead. Grave robbers were present from the earliest times. Old Kingdom inscriptions contained warnings that robbers would be judged by the gods in the hereafter. Severe punishments awaited in this life as well, more definite than any curse.


From the same site as above- check out the bold again Hans: Thanks.


Some architectural developments were taken to avoid the possibility of theft, such as in earliest times, storing goods in subterranean chambers. The entrance stairway leading to the burial chamber in Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom mastaba tombs was blocked by one or more stone slabs, which slid into place in vertical slots. The entrance passage or shaft was also blocked by rubble.


...to protect against theft...

So what were you saying?


There is zero evidence for their being older.


Challenge.



posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Your memory may not be entirely correct here. The King's sarcophagus, for instance, is a huge granite thing and far too large to have been hauled down any of the hallways in the pyramid. They put it into place as they built the pyramid.


I did remember the sarcophagus, but IMO, it is not intended for burial but again, thats a personal opinion and one backed up by little more than a hunch, lol.

There was no lid found inside the pyramid was there? (Thats an honest question and not one of those condescending, rhetorical ones, I honestly can't remember.)

To answer anothers question, bodies have been found in the main pyramids, although there is still debate as to whether they where intrusive (thrown in at a later date) or formal (actually the body, in which the tomb is dedicated too.)

As for the pyramid of Neferu-ptah; I'd have to say that it was a tradition by this time to entomb the dead within a pyramid, a tradition taken on by the discovery of a 'sarcophagus' and bodies within the 3 original pyramids.

Afterall, if they where as big a wonder as they are now, surely plenty of adventurous young folk would be intrigued by them, others thinking their was treasure within their walls.

Maybe they made the same assumptions most others did? And decided to adopt this idea in their burial practices?

Just an alternative to the popular.

EMM



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


Howdy Proton

Yep you are correct, I over stated my position. What I meant to say....was that their fears about pillaging of tombs wasn't so great that they took the effort to hide the tombs completely. They did go in for internal security but made the tombs, the pyramids, really, really easy to find.

I suspect they feared, "the inside job" more than a complete break down of civil order or foreigners.

Howdy EMM

I believe that Menkaure's sarcophagus was complete with lid - which is one reason it was removed (looted in colder terms).

Good article here and a drawing of the sarcie in situ

Menkaure's Tomb

Age - shall we do another thread for that or re animate a dead thread on the same subject?

[edit on 17/12/08 by Hanslune]



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by Hanslune
 


I have never made or heard the claim that mummies or pharaohs were never found in the pyramids.


Here is new one


Originally posted by watchZEITGEISTnow
Nassim Hashim is correct and has not been proven wrong in his claim no mummy OR dead body has ever been found in a PYRAMID on EARTH EVER.

btw the title of this thread is very misleading.

wZn


From the Mummies found in Pyramids thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 13 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Brief stop by to data mine this old thread



posted on Nov, 12 2010 @ 04:57 AM
link   
Noted some information in the thread from long ago. A bump with aplomb and a bow



posted on Nov, 14 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
I'd forgotten this thread -- it's handy to see it bumped. I was talking with someone about mummies inside pyramids and couldn't think of anything beyond a partial mummy in one of the Giza pyramids.

The Wikipedia article on her has been recently updated:
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


overwhelming? really that clear?
much as there is much anectdotal evidence, the fact still remains that most of it is anectdotal.
personally as much as the fact that the pyramids are surrounded by cemetaries, and that a room appears to have a grvave sarcophagus, i still cannot say with certainty the the pyramids were originally to be used as tombs.
but i am very glad that you can make this claim, after all where would the world be if science and history rested on less firm grounds.

by the way i did not get my information from fringe sites (funny how this becomes an insult when most would consider ats a fringe site). but kudos to you this seems to be the best evidence that at some point pyramids were in fact used as tombs.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Benevolent Adversary
reply to post by Hanslune
 


overwhelming? really that clear?


Hard archaeological evidence



much as there is much anectdotal evidence, the fact still remains that most of it is anectdotal.


Except for all the archaeological evidence



personally as much as the fact that the pyramids are surrounded by cemetaries, and that a room appears to have a grvave sarcophagus, i still cannot say with certainty the the pyramids were originally to be used as tombs.


Sure you can, you say the 'AE built the pyramids as tombs', easy, lol


but i am very glad that you can make this claim, after all where would the world be if science and history rested on less firm grounds.


Pretty much were you are now. The pyramid as tombs has one of the longest periods of acceptance over 4,500 years, one is still waiting to see evidence that they were not and why the AE and other ancients lied about it


by the way i did not get my information from fringe sites (funny how this becomes an insult when most would consider ats a fringe site). but kudos to you this seems to be the best evidence that at some point pyramids were in fact used as tombs.


Really may I inquire as to where you did require this information or is it all annecdotal?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


hard archeological evidence? please share. and no i do not consider this thread as hard evidence (very good evidence though).
i had heard a long time ago that no mummies had been found in the egytian pyramids probably from on of the usual suspects but not sure (i tend to read alot of alternative speculation as i find it interesting to examine many viewpoints) so in order to confirm i typed mummies and pyramids into google. and then went with the first answer that actually dealt with the subject (note i would have tried to filter anything that seemed to be fringe).
so what i ended up with was this catchpenny which seemed to have a nice overview.
the main point i would like to make is that even though there is preponderance of evidence for pyramids as tombs (and i personally give it a huge probability) what i will not do is call it certain! and any good site or textbook should leave open the possibility of other answers for the very reason that said evidence is not quite hard enough.
now perhaps you personally disagree, that i can accept, but when one does not leave open the possiblity that one is not wrong, and just attacks the idea with no room for leeway, this i find unacceptable.
to me it seems that even academia accepts the fact that they cannot say with surety " pyramids=tombs", usually they will always qualify this statement somehow; which is all i would really like you to do. by not doing this you begin to sound just like every other crank (not calling you one) with their pet idea which they feel must be defended to the death.
asserting as fact, things that are not fully in evidence is a bit dodgy (and i suspect, on things that you do not agree with, you would also call a person on).
possibilties make the world a more interesting place and a site like ats would probably not exist if this were not so.
edit on 9-7-2012 by The Benevolent Adversary because: bad sentence





top topics
 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join