> Sam. Have a question in line with your theory
> which you may already looked at. See this picture
> below that shows one of the pharaohs of the old
> kingdom. What is out there to prove that this is
> the statue of the actual/real human being who
> lived, talked, ruled and this is just not the
> representation of something else (like the pyramid
> in your case)... The reason why I ask... For
> example, if someone finds the statue of
> Isis/Nephthys, that would be a status that would
> look like human being but very few would argue
> that those statues represent the real human being
> but goddesses, not real humans but represented
> with human body and human like features.
> So, what would be different in the case of the
> pharaoh statues? Also, my question more in
> reference to the old kingdom because I think what
> may have not been real in the old kingdom, could
> get misinterpreted to be real and reinstated as
> real in new kingdom where the pharaohs status
> beyond any doubt would represent the real person.
What is real, what is known, what is established fact about the great pyramids is exceedingly shallow. Few people realize how centuries of et als have built up facts about ancients ruins analyzed in terms of later cultures and modern assumptions to create the paradigm we call ancient Egypt. We've dug in thousands of graves that are often well marked as to the family and nature of the individuals buried there so this is almost the only thing we do know; how these people are related. Of course we don't really know a w3g-priest from a djed priestess so their occupations are mysteries but we certainly know the familial relationships of many of the nobles.
Everything else is mostly guesswork but it's guesswork that has gone on so long and through so many incarnations that we have come to believe it. Egyptology believes great pyramids were tombs not because of the evidence but despite it. Never mind the sole source of context, the Pyramid Texts, says hundreds of times that the pyramid was the king and it says it wasn't his grave.
Images are often "perfect". They are bilaterally symmetrical and humans are not. This implies that it is entirely possible the images for any given king might be completely different than is believed. Some images, like the "Overseer of the Boats of Neith" are likely a good representation of the individual but others can't possibly be unless we are to believe the artists weren't very good. My guess is the depictions are often an artists attempt to depict these individuals as they saw themselves or as they would like to appear. Ancient people communicated the world in terms that couldn't be misunderstood but they tried to consider it in its idealized form. Perhaps this was because they knew how ignorant they were.
Certainly when they anthropomorphized nature they might have used actual individuals to represent it. The city of the individual who made the discovery was celebrated forever and was often used to represent the concept. This city also supplied the specialized help for pyramid building. For instance the "chemists" who worked on G1 all came from the nearby city of Chemmis. I tend to doubt that the image of the individual who made the discovery came to represent that discovery but there's no reason it couldn't be. I tend to doubt it because there seems little variation between the depictions of gods and nearly the same variation in the same god. It would require a lot more work and training to write and passing such a thing down among artists seems rather cumbersome. If I ever find a good source for 4th dynasty art this is something I'll watching for.
I believe your picture supposedly represents Menkaure. The degree to which it actually looked like any living person can only be guessed at at this time.