> I read it. I had to dust off the ol' dictionary toQuote
Nice to know you don't actually read
> anything I write.
> look up 'recrudescence'.
> I don't always agree with your views, but I
> nevertheless find your "historical highlights"
> posts fascinating to read and enjoy them very
The pharaoh who ruled after Menkaure was
> Shepseskaf who instead of building a pyramid like
> his predecessor, is credited with build a large
> mastaba at Saqqara during his short 5yr
> That's kinda weird. Do they think he at least
> started work on a pyramid?
No. I think the attribution of the mastaba to Shepseskaf is weak, but regardless all things considered it definitely appears contemporary with the pyramids of Giza.
> He couldn't have
> completed one in only 5 years, but presumably he
> didn't know he'd have so short a reign.
I think it is more likely this mastaba was built before he became king when he was still a prince. There is a large mastaba at Giza attributed to Khafre which would have been built when he was a prince as well.
Archaeologically the Sun Temple of Userkaf
> is a mess and details are not exactly clear, but
> it is known to have been built in two phases-first
> of mud brick which was later rebuilt as stone
> supposedly a few pharaohs later, likely under the
> reign of Neferirkare who is also credited with
> adding the obelisk that once stood there.
> More weirdness. Userkaf was the first guy with an
> obelisk in his cartouche but the obelisk that
> stood in his Sun Temple was not his, but was put
> there by a pharaoh 3 or 4 guys(or however many)
> down the line?
Yeah, this makes no sense. He had to have made an obelisk which is kind of what I was driving at being one of the "1sts" of the 5th Dynasty.
> Is Userkaf credited with the making
> of any obelisks?
They didn't find one and the one they did was from a few pharaohs later. He must have made one though.
> (also, "userkaf" for some reason looks like a
> multiplayer alias you'd see in CounterStrike or
> something. "You have been sniped by
While the core of Sahure's pyramid is
> pedestrian as well compared to the 4th Dynasty,
> the interior of chambers utilize some of the
> largest stones ever moved in ancient times with
> some estimated to weigh upwards of 200+
> This makes me think the pyramid surrounding the
> chambers could be an addition to an already
> existing structure.
It is interesting to think, if true, how that would be possible:
A tough row to hoe.
As an aside, one thing I have noted many
> times is that the overwhelming majority of burials
> at the Giza pyramid cemeteries all date to the 5th
> and 6th Dynasties. The so-called pyramid workers
> cemetery does not date the 4th Dynasty, but rather
> the 5th Dynasty spanning nearly to its
> Pretty sure you don't agree with this, but I think
> the OK work crews at Giza were engaged in a
> massive restoration--or perhaps
> preservation is a better word-- project.
> They are the source of much of the casing stones,
> imo. Not the granite/basalt ones though.
Kind of. What I see is that the Sphinx, associated temples, the stepped platform of G2, and perhaps some aspect of the core structures of the other 2 Giza pyramids predate the 4th Dynasty and perhaps, in one form or another, even the Dynastic period. I have yet to find the definitive proof I need, but I believe that the first builders at Giza were refugees from (or related to) Malta, which I date the monuments there considerably older, that settled in the Nile Delta after the disasters c. 6,000BC. I believe that they were wiped out shortly after, perhaps centuries or less, by the 2nd wave of disasters c. 6,000BC that completely flooded the Nile Delta.
I think there were several phases of construction, not just at Giza but also at Dahshur and Meidum. I believe that the core structure seen at Meidum dates to the 3rd Dynasty and was originally built as a stand alone building as is seen today and that the core structure of G3 also dates to this time. I would also include at least the Giza tombs of Khentkawes and Kai (seen below) as part of this program:
It is further possible that some of the work may have begun even earlier as there are 1st-3rd Dynasty tombs found at the edge of the Giza plateau in the south cemetery.
At some point towards the end of the 3rd Dynasty/beginning of the 4th these core structures began to be converted into true pyramids. I suggest this pyramid conversion process was not the product of one pharaoh working on one pyramid at a time until their death then the next pharaoh working on another, but rather that some degree of the work was carried out simultaneously as part of an ongoing national/generational project. I think the discrepancy in the traditional timeline for the great pyramids being built in such a short time is partly resolved by this, and also helps explain what appears to be distinct phases in construction, of which I would put the granite builders as a latter phase.
But also to explain this is that the work at Giza did not end with Menkaure at the end of the 4th Dynasty, but continued well into the 5th concluding sometime in the beginning of the 6th Dynasty. I would say that this last point is proven by the fact that the "tombs of the pyramid workers" do not belong to the 4th Dynasty, but rather the 5th Dynasty. And not just the 1st few pharaohs of the 5th Dynasty, but all the way to at least to the 8th pharaoh, Djedkare Isesi, one of the few pharaohs mentioned in the nearly 5,00 hieroglyphs found in the workers tombs. And of note-Khufu, Khafre, and Menkaure, or any other 4th Dynasty pharaoh, at least from what has been discovered so far, are not even mentioned once. Hmm.
At any rate, I do not buy into the idea the pyramids were built sometime before 10,000BC. This is a fantasy with no evidence to support it and everything against it and regardless is not necessary. The DE were not "squatters", but rather the inheritors of a legacy which they took, perhaps with outside help, to even greater heights.
It is also with the beginning of the 5th
> Dynasty that we see the emergence of the pyramid
> I believe the technical term is triangle
I read your comment before about buttflaps, but keep in mind the very buttflap wearers are the people depicted in the statues that some here say the DE were incapable of making:
This is not the LC, it is the DE. And if they could make statues like this then what could they in principle not do?
From the MK to the end of the Dynastic
> period, part and parcel of Egyptian culture is the
> occupation by a foreign power-Canaan, Hyksos,
> Hittites, Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans-why would
> the OK and archaic Dynastic period be any
> Interesting. It could be different, of
> course...those later occupations do not mean we
> should assume it was always occupied by a foreign
> power, but still I think it's an interesting idea.
> Do you have any ideas about who might have been
> the occupiers during the OK, etc.?
No assumptions. I say this rhetorically with other posters in mind who give me shit on this point and have not done the research that I have. The first migrants to the Delta, Fayoum A culture, c. 6,000BC were migrants from the Levant. We see Levantine influence throughout the predynastic period in prominent cultures like the Badari. At the end of Naqada II we see something quite different which comes in the form of a veritable explosion of foreign influence, this time from Mesopotamia c.3400BC. There is no mystery why DE social and material culture skyrockets, and of course changes, leading at breakneck pace to the formation of the Dynastic State. I have argued at length, with much evidence, taking up the idea first put forth by Petrie himself and later championed by Walter B Emery and others, that the emergence of the Dynastic State was the direct result of foreign Mesopotamian influence and administration. I take it a step further in threads like:
Mesopotamian Origin of the Egyptian Serekh Palace Facade Building
Troubles with the 2nd Dynasty
Khasekhemwy- Bridge to the Pyramid Age
(As a start) which I argue that this Mesopotamian influence was gruesome marked by the ritual murder of thousands of subjects which led to a revolt at the beginning of the 2nd Dynasty, a dark age in DE history. It was not until Khasekhemwy at the end of the 2nd Dynasty that Egypt is once again united in which we see again the beginnings of a rapid acceleration in DE material culture leading to the abrupt and unprecedented stone working construction industry of the beginning of the 3rd. All once again punctuated by a renewal of foreign interaction, namely Byblos and the Levant. Whether or not foreign influence played a part in all this there is no doubt, the question is to what extent. I believe it was a much more direct one and what I have been driving at the last several weeks in particular noting the extensive interaction with the OK and MK with the Levant is that this level of direct influence is nothing new nor unique, but rather part and parcel of DE history.
And yet despite this what we see time and
> again is this foreign subjugator adopting the
> culture of the DE, not the other way around, yet
> for some reason we expect the OK and earlier to be
> Another keen observation re:
> foreign subjugators adopting the culture of the DE
> rather than forcing their own cultures on the
> subjugated peoples. I would venture to suggest
> that this might be an indication of the presence
> of a powerful cultural influence that belongs
> neither to the conquerer nor the subjugated...an
> influence present by way of exceedingly ancient
> structures and statuary, perhaps?
To the subjugators of the MK, like the Canaanites and Hyksos, or the NK like the Greeks, Hittites, Phoenicians, Romans et al-the OK was exceedingly ancient. When the Greeks first started living in Egypt by at least the 7th century BC, the 4th Dynasty was 2,000yrs before their time. By the time Alexander the Great conquered Egypt leading to the Ptolemaic Dynasties, Ramses II was nearly 1,000yrs older. How much more ancient does it have to be?
> In other words,
> it isn't that the conquerers adopted the culture
> of the DE, they were adopting the culture
> suggested by monumental stonework that was already
> ancient in their times. It looks like they adopted
> the DE culture because the DE themselves were
> engaged in adopting the same culture before they
> were conquered.
Ask yourself-who is wearing the buttflaps here:
The LC or the DE? I've tried to impress this on readers here, to little avail, but if you think the DE did not make these statues then what you are saying is that we are looking right at the LC which I think, regardless of one's beliefs, is a pretty tough pill to swallow. If so, this means the LC wore buttlflaps, did not like wearing shoes or shirts, wore funny headdresses, were human, had beards, wore skirts. In which the DE emulated perfectly for 3,000yrs. Whoever made the statue on the left also made the iconography on the side of the bench-the very art of the LC? If you look at the top right you will see a curious icon:
On the top left, a different one which we can see a rabbit:
If you need more there are more. These icons were made by the same people who made the statue which "must have been the LC because the DE could not make such things". Yet these "icons" are the standards, or "flag", of the various nomes of Egypt noted time and again from the beginnings of Dynastic Egypt.
Here, on the 1st Dynasty Narmer Palette:
We see the standard bearers carrying the standards (flags), in principle just like the ones on the statues, of the various nomes that did battle for the king, a king with customary barefeet, buttflap, and white and red crowns. Is the Narmer Palette LC or DE? Also on the Narmer Palette we see buildings and fortified walls-the work of the LC or DE? I'll leave all of the Mesopotamian connections out of it seen here as to not confuse the issue, but the point is that if you think these were all made by the LC then they wore buttflaps when they were building the pyramids.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01-Dec-17 16:57 by Thanos5150.