> Martin Stower Wrote:
> > Some were found in situ. Reisner, A History of
> > the Giza Necropolis (II), figures 5, 6 and
> > possibly 7.
> These are supposedly from the causeway, not the
From the list of figures:
> > The reused blocks at Lisht are (I would think) aQuote
5. Weathered block with figure of Cheops in relief from his funerary temple.
6 a, b. Relief with inscription and figures of Cheops from his funerary temple.
7. Fragments of relief found in the excavation of the Cheops causeway or in the neighbourhood of the Queens’ pyramids which may have come from the walls of the court of the king’s temple.
> > clue as to why no more have been found in situ.
> Of course, if true. But this only account for
> Khufu's temples, not Khafre and Menkaure which is
> clearly not the case.
The granite architrave with Khafre’s name on it? And the blocks found are likely to be the tip of the iceberg.
Porter and Moss give a tolerably good list of the Khafre examples:
—with the notable exception of the example mentioned above. For whatever reason, Goedicke’s work of 1971 did not reach this revised edition of 1974.
My ambitions at one point extended to providing a full, illustrated survey of these, but other matters supervened.
> > Goedicke is notably cautious in identifying the
> > origins of the blocks.
> As he should be.
Which is why I mentioned it.
> > As for the temples of Khafre and Menkaure, granite
> > is obviously less amenable than limestone to the
> > carving of reliefs
> You know this is not an argument. . . .
I know nothing of the kind. Area of that sarcophagus, as a fraction of the surface area of (the granite lining of) the valley temple? A massive difference in the amount of work required. The inscribed granite blocks of Sahure are comparable with, if anything, the known Khafre examples, whereas the palmiform granite columns appear to be an innovation—and why should they not be? Compared even with Menkaure, Sahure had saved massively on the labour required for the pyramid itself. Not only is his pyramid smaller, but (unlike Khafre and Menkaure) he did not expend (other people’s) labour on giving it granite casing blocks.
Khafre seems in any case to have preferred sculpture in the round.
> Granite is no excuse, which says nothing of the
> general granite working skills of the period we
> are all more than familiar with, and regardless,
> though meaningless, all of the other temples at
> Giza are limestone.
> > and Menkaure’s were completed
> > in only a cursory manner,
> Not the megalithic component which was no doubt
> there prior of which Menkaure's roughshod addition
> is more typical of what is found at Dashur, not
> Giza. And I'm sure a sculptor could have found the
> time to bust out a dedication or two for their
> beloved pharaoh and god. As I said, the Red
> pyramid mortuary chapel was also built in a
> "cursory manner" yet they had no problem finding
> time to add reliefs.
I doubt the sculptor was granted discretion in the matter.
By “cursory” I mean that the granite casing was started, but not completed. Such completion as was done was done in mud brick.
Quoting myself: “Reisner’s excavations of Menkaure’s complex revealed a lot, including edicts relating to its status as a pyramid town and the remains of the final offering fires.”
> > which would account for
> > only minimal inscriptions from Khafre’s being
> > known (including his cartouche on a reused granite
> > block, identified by Goedicke as an architrave
> > from the funerary temple).
> No, it would not as we can clearly see nearly all
> of the granite is still in the Valley temple yet
> there is nothing.
Really? See above.
> I'd like to see the Goedicke source, but that
> would be "a" temple and not "the" temple.
Which Goedicke source? What he wrote, or what he cited?
> > As for the rest, yes, there are differences, but
> > not differences which depart entirely from the
> > normal arrangements of a pyramid complex.
> To quote myself:
> Whether one disagrees with this or not I do not
> think one can be honest with themselves and not
> see the stark disconnect between the temples at
> Giza and those directly before and after and chalk
> it up to mere whim on the part of Khufu and
The closer I look, the less of a disconnect I see.
> The pictures I show in my previous post make it
> perfectly clear the differences are quite a bit
> more than "design". And where did this "normal"
> originate from? If one is of the mind the
> limestone Giza temples were built prior to the
> temples of Dashur and obviously later, the answer
> is clear. But even if one is not of such an
> opinion, the size and scope of the Giza temples,
> incorporating blocks weighing as much as 400 tons,
> are proof in and of themselves of a uniquely
> different mentality of the builders which implies
> a different function.
“Implies” in what sense? Not deductively. If I follow, this is being offered as an explanation of the visible differences. If so, what is this different function and how does it explain what we see?
> > Khufu
> > did not do things exactly as his father did and
> > neither were the Giza pharaohs (and their
> > architects) absolutely uniform in their
> > productions. I see no greater problem here than I
> > do in the case of cathedrals being different.
> Again, though certainly worth noting, "design" is
> least of the issue. I think you understand the
> point I am making so you are free to see what it
> is you want to see regardless.
I consider myself free to see what I think the evidence is showing me.
> Why is this relevant? There are other statues of
> Khafre as well found near the temples. Surely you
> do not consider a statue proof of provenance of
> the builder of the monument nor its function.
I agree with Pete in considering the word “proof” inappropriate in this context—and this is scarcely a full statement of the case.
Multiple statues of Khafre (and no one else) found in the vicinity of the temple, and niches apparently for statues within the temple, do tend to add up to tell a story. Certainly I would wish to be sure of the status of what we see here:
—as so often what we see in these cases is reconstruction, but I doubt that what we see here is entirely groundless reconstruction and I do not see that we can reasonably discount the statues as irrelevant to the question being asked. To do so would take us into the realms of an arbitrary “adoption” theory and that to me is merely a form of evasion.
> Again, why is this relevant? This is graffiti, not
> a royal funerary inscription.
Really? What does it say?
Relevance is, this is the one image I could find of the inscriptions reported. It is not the only inscription reported (as above).