> Yes. I think his theory is gobbldeygook. For the
Explaining the Shafts inKhufu'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
> 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.
Why so mum Warwick?