> have you Read A Sakovich's ARCE article?
Yes. I think his theory is gobbldeygook. For the readers:
Explaining the Shafts in Khufu's Pyramid at Giza.
The lynch pin of Sakovich's theory is that the sarcophagus came to symbolize the "primordial mound" which required the "flooding waters" in his scheme represented by the cosmos hence the need for the shafts to "flood" the chamber and the "primordial mound" symbolized by the sarcophagus. This is nonsense.
1st Dynasty sarcophagi are fragmentary, but in the 2nd Dynasty there are numerous examples which in one form or another are made to emulate the serekh palace facade building:
1st Dynasty Djet (example of serekh, not a sarcophagus):
Typical 2nd Dynasty sarcophagi:
A meme that continues obviously through the period of construction of the Giza pyramids, the most notable of which the 4th Dynasty itself:
Of which there are also numerous examples.
In Unas's case, though missing from the sarcophagus itself, the serekh palace is instead painted on the walls of the sarcophagus chamber:
So, no, sarcophagi in the OK, if ever, had nothing to do with the "primordial mound" or the "flooding waters", but rather the palace facade building of the serekh that goes back to Dynasty 0, arguably the single most important piece of iconography of Dynastic Egypt for the 1st nearly 1,000yrs. Yet Sakovich doesn't even mention it. Sorry, but this is nonsense. It is imposing later beliefs on an earlier era, assuming they are one and the same, all the while ignoring the actual facts of the period suffering the imposition that clearly say something to the contrary. No one seems to believe me, but I am telling you all the key to understanding Dynastic Egypt leads right to the serekh palace facade building.
> Not suggesting any idea is right or wrong.
> But there are a few that are internally consistent
> with the contention that G1 was built by Khufu
> approx. 2550 BCE, as a cenotaph/tomb. And that
> this Complex was the means by which he both
> communicated his role as mediator with the devine,
> and lived out(hopelessly bad pun) that role.
> In this light, the shafts can be seen to be part
> of the symbolism.
They can only be seen that way though when the architecture of the shafts themselves are ignored and the greater context of all pyrmaids which none others have them. It is easy to give symbolic meaning to things we do not know what they are, a common crutch among professionals, but all things considered it is most likely they had no "meaning" at all but merely served a practical function. I think I've said enough on this to make sense.
> IOW's my stating the Shafts were probably symbolic
> is a logical conclusion for 'ME' to make.
Have at it then. I respectfully disagree.
> I used to sarcastically refer to it as the Cistern
Lol. I like that.
> To date no other over all scenario has been
> brought forward that comes close to being able to
> incorporate as many of the 100's of different
> unanswered questions as does the Mainstream one.
> While one can disagree with any aspect of that
> scenario, one cannot disagree that it is the
> scenario that is the most internally consistent.
In broad terms I would agree, namely that one way or another the AE of the Dynastic period were obviously part and parcel of the great pyramid age of construction, but the details of which are no small thing as to how this came to be which the traditional view leaves something to be desired and that alternative explanations are often not only possible but required.
> None of which stands as proof of anything other
> than a feeble attempt to illustrate that my
> understanding is not superficial. And that like
> anyone intelligent I have entertained just about
> every possibility over the course of my life, but
> allways end up more firmly in the same place. I
> only wish that more of those who hold to other
> scenarios, were as openminded as they accuse me
> and others of not be
> They man, not you.
I hear ya.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 22-Feb-17 22:36 by Thanos5150.