All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
 

Queen's Chamber
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 15, 2005 2:54 pm 
Scribe
Offline

Joined:Sat Jan 29, 2005 11:56 pm
Posts:71
Location: going nowhere - FAST!
I've looked around a few places, and have not been able to answer my question: "What's going on with the queen's chamber?"

As far as I know, it is not used to actually be a burial site for the queen; that honor is bestowed unto a smaller, nearby pyramid. All I can guess is that it is named the queen's chamber because it is most often the second largest chamber in a pyramid.

Does anyone have a definite answer to my inquery?


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:10 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Sat Mar 13, 2004 1:49 pm
Posts:914
Location: Long Beach, CA
Actually, for the naming of the Queen's Chamber we can thank the Arab workmen who first entered the pyramid at a later date. They thought that the 2nd burial chamber in the pyramid must be for the queen.
The reason for the chamber is quite logical. When the pyramid was first conceived, a burial chamber for the Pharaoh was started in the sub area, beneath the pyramid. With a change of religious practices, and probably a change of plans by the Pharaoh, the decision was made to build a burial-room higher in the pyramid. This plan was also changed, and the burial chamber that we see now was constructed. The Queen's Chamber was never used as a burial site. Lehrner thinks it was probably used as a cult room, and the niche in the wall held a statue of the king or a god.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 8:59 pm 
Scribe
Offline

Joined:Sat Jan 29, 2005 11:56 pm
Posts:71
Location: going nowhere - FAST!
Ah, thanks, Osiris! :)

Now, if it is true that it was actually originally for the king, and just later changed due to religeon or sheer will... then all of the articles about the passageways being blocked off could right then be debunked. If the plans were changed, then there would be no reason to finish; therefore ... well, I guess I've said all there is to say on the subject.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 12:37 pm 
Servant
Offline

Joined:Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:35 am
Posts:10
Location: London, England
Sorry, I don't buy this at all.
If the So called Queens chamber was abandoned, then please explain the star shafts - surely an "abandoned" chamber would not have had such a difficult task finished?

I also do not believe the underground chamber is abandoned either, and it possibly predates the pyramid.

As for the idea of this being a tomb - get serious.
No burial.
No inscriptions
No nothing. When mamoun broke in back in the 9th century, the building was still intact. Yet what did he find? Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
Not even a scrap of bandage left behind, and just compare with the later mastaba tombs at Giza. Could well be that the original purpose of Giza was NOT a necropolis, but something else entirely.

Tombs and tombs only?
Never.
Not even the most megalomaniacal of Pharaohs would have done this.

And as for Khufu building it?
Maybe Khufu restored it.
Maybe Khufu sealed it with the facing stones now robbed off.

Who knows - we do not, until someone somewhere gets lucky with the spade and finds the proof.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 1:01 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Sat Feb 26, 2005 12:36 pm
Posts:606
Location: Saqqara... someday...
Well... about the star shafts in the lower chamber...

They don't actually go all the way to the outside of the pyramid. This donates the belief that they changed plans.

I share your belief that the pyramids weren't used for burial purposes only. Perhaps mourners or worshipers came there after the king's death? We will never know.

Also, you point out that there was absolutely nothing in the lower chamber. No linen scraps, no artwork on the wall, nothing. If the king changes his mind before all of that stuff is done, then why would they decorate it?

It surely didn't erode away. Not 100% in every pyramid.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:31 pm 
Servant
Offline

Joined:Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:35 am
Posts:10
Location: London, England
The star shafts in the "Queens Chamber" were also sealed from the chamber too.
But the very nature of their construction, plus the fact they go to that chamber discovered by Gantenbrink with Upuaut 2 shows that they were definitely not part of some "abandoned" feature either - as they extend upwards to a greater height than the so called "Kings" chamber.

And the point about the "not so much as a scrap of bandage" applies to the complete building. NOT just the subterranean chamber - which may in fact turn out to be much more important than we know.

More passage systems in there ?
Almost certainly.

Any part of it "abandoned" or "Unfinished"?
No.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Fri Mar 25, 2005 3:43 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Sat Mar 13, 2004 1:49 pm
Posts:914
Location: Long Beach, CA
The GP was built in the earlier years--it was not until the reign of the 5th Dynasty that tombs--pyramids--were decorated.
As for the air shafts off the Queen's Chamber--the reason for them is completely unknown, when you clear all the theories about them. The GP still has many unknowns, and probably always will! It's said also that the subterrianian excavation was purposly left unfinished. To mirror the chaos of creation. Face it--all evidence that we have been able to discover shows that the pyramids--and remember there are over a hundred of them--were burials, sealed at the time of the Pharaoh's burial. Remember also that they were not isolated. All the pyramid complexes would have burials of queens, burials of members of the court, temples for worshipping the Pharaoh, temples for worshipping the gods...etc. What make you consider that they are other than tombs?


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:06 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Sat Feb 26, 2005 12:36 pm
Posts:606
Location: Saqqara... someday...
As I recall, it was my nom de plum which was buried within the first pyramid to have interior inscriptions regarding prayers to aide the spirit through to the afterlife. That was Old Dynasty - the last leg of the Old Dynasy, at that!

You ask what makes me consider the pyramids were used for more than pure egocentrical burial purposes? Well, I am happy to say that I have a mind. I am able to think outside the box of the "rules" and "guidelines" of history. I am willing to slap historians in the face and look for what really happened. Until I know first hand what actually happens in history, I will not believe anyone who tells me what to believe. I will take and use information, yes; but as far as believing it... meh.

Get mad, write a brash paragraph yelling at me at how "wrong I am". Go for it.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 6:56 am 
Servant
Offline

Joined:Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:35 am
Posts:10
Location: London, England
There are many reasons why I not so much think that the "Tombs & Tombs only" theory is incorrect as much as utterly convinced of it!

Firstly, the weakest of my reasons:
Giza, Great Pyramid. There is no way that the sarcophagus in the "Kings Chamber" could have been put in place after it was built, so it must have been placed during the build. And there is not so much as a flake of paint or a scrap of bandage remaining - never was even when ma'moun broke in during the 9th century, I think it was. It was empty. And not in one single plundered tomb were the contents removed so tidily.
Where is the Pharaoh's Book of the Dead? How can he hope to know his way around if he has not got his "instructions".
And I could go on like this for hours.

Secondly - the logistics of the thing.
Take, for example, the sheer mind blowing precision it is built with.
Consider how finely positioned it is to the cardinal points. You need a laser theodolite to get that kind of accuracy - and remember too the hill it is built on. The surface is not flat.
There is then the passageway leading down to the subterranean chamber. It runs for 350', and does not go out of true by more than a quarter of an inch in it's entire length.
Think about that for a while.
Then consider the precision the rest of it is built with.
WHY?
Not because anyone would notice - except, perhaps, a culture that has (re)discovered higher mathematics. You will not spot with the naked eye a deviation of an arc minute. Yet the cardinal alignments are better than an arc second.
Try tunnelling into solid bedrock for 350' without going off true by so much as a quarter inch. Just try it.

But all these are well documented facts.

What they prove to my mind is that the pyramid cannot possibly have been built by slave labour under a megalomaniac, but by skilled craftsmen who for some reason required this accuracy, which is repeated throughout.
And the timescale.
We are talkin 2,500,000 blocks weighing an average of 6 tons each.
Work out if you will over a 20 year period (I think that was the duration of Khufu's reign) just how fast it would have to have been built.
You are talking a phenomenal construction rate of around 1 block every minute fitted into place, repeated for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week for 20 years.
Now, lose the 3 months where the nile is in flood, so the figures get even more unlikely.
Think!
125,000 per year for 20 years.
685 every single day for 365 days a year at a rate of 12 hours in a day.

And when you factor in the bigger blocks - the gabled roof of the Queens chamber, the relieving chambers above the kings, the star shafts, the grand gallery - it is, my friend, not really on to try & claim a build rate of a block a minute.

But all this info is right there for anyone who wants to look for it.
And then there is the Causeways to consider too.
And the so-called Valley temple by the Sphinx.
Built with 200 ton walls, perfectly aligned, and there is a wonderful section there where the wall looks just like the building style at sacsayhuaman.

And do you know how difficult it is to pick a 200 ton load?
Ask some construction engineers to have a seriously good look at the site.
Dragging those blocks up a ramp?
Not bloody likely.
The ramp would need to be at a gradient of 1:10 which means a ramp of 4850 feet. built from stone, as mud & clay would simply collapse under the weight.
And harnessing the people to those blocks?
Okay, I'll happily accept how the 6 ton blocks were moved - with the cradles we see all over the place and simply rolled. But we are still talking a block a minute here - assuming a 12 hour day 7 days a week 365 days a year.
Sorry, but the numbers just do not add up.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 10:09 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Fri Jul 02, 2004 1:10 pm
Posts:947
Location: London, England
Your ideas work extremely well providing we forget about the hundred or so other pyramids in Egypt whcch aren't built on the same scale or level of precision. Yes, I admit that the Great Pyramid is arguably the greatest pyramid ever made, but your theories as to why it wasn't a tomb dont hold up when he hear of sacred texts carved and painted into other pyramids, mummy bandages being found in the step pyramid and other grave goods found inside there. Just because one pyramid was found empty and bare it doesn't mean that ALL pyramids weren't used as tombs, when in fact the majority of evidence says that they were.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 11:14 am 
Servant
Offline

Joined:Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:35 am
Posts:10
Location: London, England
I'm talking about the Giza Plateau here, and the Giza Plateau only.
Not the other pyramid fields, which could oh! so easily be later copies of the main one.
It seems to me that the conventional wisdom is badly flawed in many areas.
For example, why is it that a lot of the more recent structures have collapsed into ruins whilst Giza remains there for the indefinite future?

But enough for now.
What I am going to do is go away, think carefully & collect all my thoughts on this, then come back and start a new thread on what I think might have happened.

But I can say for 100% certain it was not anyone other than humans who built the GP.
But not as a tomb.

As for burials in other pyramids, think about this for a minute..
In modern times dating back as far as the mediaeval period, it was and is common to bury both Archbishops, Kings, Queens etc inside cathedrals.
Yet nobody claims that these buildings were built as tombs, and tombs only.
The burials were later, not contemporary, and intrusive.

So why is it so unthinkable for this to be the case in Egypt please?


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 12:29 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Fri Jul 02, 2004 1:10 pm
Posts:947
Location: London, England
Well, your comparison is completely out of favour for the rest of your argument. In a cathedral the tomb and area of worship are usually a little seperate, witht he tomb in the crypt or along the side of the nave, rarely by the altar and very rarely under the altar (in fact I dont think it ever happened). In the case of the pyramids a temple is located not too far away from them in nearly every case, showing that just like your comparison worship and tombs exist along side eachother.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 12:40 pm 
Servant
Offline

Joined:Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:35 am
Posts:10
Location: London, England
I will write everything down coherently, and post later this week.

The GP is not a tomb.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2005 1:17 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Fri Jul 02, 2004 1:10 pm
Posts:947
Location: London, England
Whatever. I'll look forward to readong your "theory".


Top
 Profile  
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


  Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Style by web designer custom , optymalizacja seo pozycjonowanie stron pozycjonowanie
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group