> The most obvious anomoly is the huge
> 'disconnect' between the plain granite boxes
> of G1 and G2 and the palace fascade style
> described and recorded by Andrews drawings of G3
> sarcophabox and other examples (you more than most
> particularly are more than just aware of) like
> this Khufu ankh.
I agree. And all are made of granite.
> If I am not mistaken over the years you have
> speculated that the style might be more
> representative of pre dynastic AE and or
It is from Mesopotamia and was an integral architectural meme of early AE Dynastic culture until the 3rd Dynasty. After this time is is used exclusively in relief or art in a funerary context as homage. Just the fact it is palace facade does not by default date it to an early dynastic period and there are numerous examples of its use in 4th-6th Dynasty "sarcophaboxes" yet it does not appear as such prior to this time despite the fact this was the period of its active use in architectural forms. There are thousands of tombs prior to the 4th Dynasty and many a sarcophagi, made of wood prior to the 3rd Dynasty, yet all of the granite examples are found in relation to the 4th-6th Dynasties. If these were all lying around to be found by anyone why do we not find even one in an earlier context prior to the 4th Dynasty? How did the overwhelming majority of them all end up in Giza mastabas used by people from the 4th-6th Dynasties? There are tombs at Giza that predate the 4th dynasty yet they just missed all this stuff?
> The false door motive is clear (albeit slightly
> different) in ancient Sumer or Persia and even
> Ethiopia (although attributed much later even
> Roman era). Also unless Djoser enclosure wall was
> a late addition it also has indications of
> reverence for this style? Dating is a scrambled
Much of the non-tomb construction at Saqqara attributed to the 3rd Dynasty strangely serves a faux purpose which leads me to believe Saqqara was a recreation of something else either from Egypt or Mesopotamia. Regardless, palace facade construction is found in the second dynasty directly before Djoser, some of the most monumental construction of the ancient world, with the only difference being Saqqara is made of stone not mudbrick. I have noted this makes little sense as there is nothing known inherently different in the tools or materials available from the 2nd Dynasty to the 3rd yet all of a sudden Djoser is building massive works in stone including otherwise unknown fluted columns and converting mastabas to pyramids? Pinning this all on homegrown Imhotep's genius is unreasonable to me and all things considered suggest a gap in time between the 2nd and 3rd Dynasties as well as an influx of foreign influence which I suspect Imhotep was one of them. The pharaonic chronology of the 2nd Dynasty is admittedly murky at best and hints of political changes suggest discord between upper and lower Egypt. With Djoser a clear reassertion of the pharaonic state appears and along with it a marked and sudden change in construction technology and ideology. I know many here don't like to discuss anything so mundane as actual history, but it is here between the mists of the 2nd and 3rd Dynasty I believe are many answers to be had as to the emergence of the pyramid age and why.
> It is bizzare this couple just happen to name
> their son Menkaure although often sneakily the
> missing vowels are changed to distinguish it.
> Confusion and contradiction about who his parents
> were (royalty or not) and sometimes overseer of
> flutists and singers and yet the offering table
> describes a different role occupation (if I recall
Sorting out who Khufuankh was is a bit of a mess, but the context of his mastaba fits the period of the 4th-6th dynasties nonetheless.
> A seal found with Userkaf cartouche albeit still
> OK (as customary dating based on kings lists go)
> put him in a later 5th dynasty
Userkaf was the 1st pharaoh of the 5th Dynasty which Khufuankh is ascribed to. Just because one is born in the 4th Dynasty does not mean they died in the 4th Dynasty.
> I know what you mean about prior to 19th century
> comment (LOL!), but risking all hell breaking
> loose.... there is bloody no way that a copper or
> bronze chisel was responsible for that delicate
> intricate palace fascade carving on the
> sarcophogus!... try it.
I agree, but therein lies the rub. Here we have granite sarcophaboxes that are impossible to cut with the known tools of the time yet written on them are hieroglyphs clearly attributable to the OK by any stretch of the imagination which also are impossible to carve using the copper tools of the time. This is what is lost on some is that you can't do one without the other and the fact you can do one means you can very likely do the other. If you can do this:
You can do this:
All you need are the right tools which as we know are missing but all this means is the tools are missing not that because there are no tools therefore it all must be tens of thousands of years old made by an unknown civilization.
> I suggest G3 had many many renovations and
> additions and "burial's" after original
> construction likely with recycled funerary
I would agree and have spoken at length about this regarding G3, but I am not sure about the sarcophagus. I do not believe the lid as depicted by Vyse was original equipment and the border hatching is also out of place. To remove these as I depict in another post above, the sarcophagus is otherwise nearly identical to the one found at Abu Roash and congruent with the other granite sarcophagi of the period.
Vyse was able to get it out so someone could have gotten it in.
To look at the diagrams above we can see the two phases of construction. A few problem arise as the outer layer also includes a chamber that has palace facade architecture where the inner chambers do not.
"Original" inner burial chamber:
Note the cutout in the floor where the sarcophagus was.
Outer "later" burial chamber:
Quite a difference and is very similar to the sides of Menkaure's sarcophagus and others of the period which I would note the workmanship is rather poor. Is this original to even the 2nd layer or intrusive along with the installation of the sarcophagus which included cutting a neat niche in the floor to hold it?
What does it all mean?
The rub also is that the outer layer, of course, is obviously what has the granite casing stones meaning it was installed at a time after the original structure was expanded to its current size which the palace facade section, if the reliefs are original, was a part of. How can this be?
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10-Apr-16 05:04 by Thanos5150.