> I have yet to see anything from here or Lisht that
> definitively shows these fragments ever belonged
> to any temple and if so that it was original
> equipment of the temple itself. . . .
What do you imagine could definitively show such a thing?
> The fact Khufu's mortuary temple is completely
> gone, except for the foundation, not to mention
> his valley temple is buried under a modern
> mud-brick town, tells me it was nothing like the
> megalithic temples of Giza being more akin to his
> father's lackluster chapels, which in that regard
> I would certainly expect to see reliefs on them,
> just like his father, as this is exactly what the
> AE did. And yet the builders of the megalithic
> temples clearly did not. Again, we are led by
This is an interesting suggestion and I have no strong opinion on the point.
Off the top of my head: Khafre’s builders used megalithic blocks to provide a level platform for his pyramid and this may have given them ideas.
> > The granite architrave with Khafre’s name on it?
> Where was it found again? How do we know it was
> ever part of the the Valley temple?
No one said it was. See re links below.
> Yes, many statues and fragments of statues, some
> with inscriptions of their own. Which only makes
> the absence of inscription on his own temples even
> more stark by comparison. No doubt this site was
> important to him yet despite the fact he could
> sign his name on his statues he could not take the
> time to sign his temples? Or his pyramid for that
I doubt the temples were entirely lacking in examples of his name.
> > My ambitions at one point extended to providing a
> > full, illustrated survey of these, but other
> > matters supervened.
> That's unfortunate as I would expect it to be
Thank you for these kind words. You may detect a note of dissatisfaction with what is more readily available on this question (outside a few specialist works), a sentiment I find expressed by one G. Hancock in his recent book.
> Though they could have, why would it be expected
> to "cover the walls" in relief? And if that were
> too much, surely a few rows of hieroglyphs here
> and there would be in order or if not then they
> could just as easily be placed on the columns like
> so (Sahure): . . .
The Sahure examples are from his mortuary temple. Goedicke may be correct in attributing the Khafre architrave to his mortuary temple.
> Granite is no excuse for there not to be something
> on the walls of the valley temple which, again,
> are absent from the other Giza limestone temples
> as well.
I find this talk of excuses odd. Excuses to whom? Beware the a-priorism our friend Scott falls into.
> > The inscribed granite blocks of Sahure are
> > comparable with, if anything, the known Khafre
> > examples,
> Like what? You mean that one architrave that may
> or may not belong to one or none of Khafre's
> "funerary temples"? Where are their examples of
> such on the temple walls or columns we see there
See where? You seem to be fixating on the valley temple only.
No, I don’t mean just the architrave. Compiling a full and verified list of the relevant inscriptions is a work in progress. Don’t forget this reference:
> Why would we expect a completely unknown column
> style to suddenly appear fully formed at the
> beginning of the 5th Dynasty? Good question, but
> they were not-the interior of Khufu's solar
> barge: . . .
The innovation in the case would the material (absent earlier examples of palmiform columns in granite).
> So you are saying the reason why the Giza temples
> are lacking inscriptions to dedicate the monuments
> to the very kings who built them is because as
> compared to Sahure they ran out of labor to do
> so...? The pharaohs as a rule did not supposedly
> die before the pyramid was completed so there
> should have been many years to inscribe them as
> they pleased. And regardless, even when it is
> assumed they might have died before completion,
> isn't some of the work on G3, including the shoddy
> mortuary temple, believed by Egyptologists to have
> been the work of his predecessor in an effort to
> complete it? But they just couldn't get around to
> taking the time to put Menkaure's name on it, the
> most important part if that was actually his
> tomb?? Can't say that makes much sense. Nor does
> it make sense that Khafre had all that time to
> make all those statues, put his name on them, and
> place them all around the wonderful temple he
> built just for that purpose yet somehow did not
> have the labor to write his name on any of the
> walls as is customary.
I assume you meant “successor”—and I doubt that putting a name on the temple was of such great importance to his successor (Shepseskaf).
Menkaure’s name got onto the core blocks, by the way.
As is customary: what are you taking as examples of what is customary?
I see no reason to suppose that Khufu, Djedefre, Khafre and Menkaure were entirely slaves to custom. There was innovation here, possibly religious as well as architectural.
> > Khafre seems in any case to have preferred
> > sculpture in the round.
> Which explains what regarding him forgetting to
> put his name on his monuments?
No point explaining what is doubtfully so.
> > Other than?
> Sorry, not following you.
You said something about other temples, which I did not follow.
> > I doubt the sculptor was granted discretion in
> > the matter.
> Obviously he would be put to the task.
Or not, at someone else’s discretion.
> > 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.”
> > Really? See above.
> You do realize there are more temples at Giza
> which were not "completely destroyed other than
> the basalt floor" or buried under a modern town we
> can look at in situ and make this determination?
> You fixate on these Khufu fragments yet ignore
> what we actually know were part of these temples
> which we can still see today with our own eyes.
> And if we look at Sneferu's temples, the Khufu
> fragments, and the temples directly after Menkaure
> we know exactly what to expect from the temples of
> Khafre and Menkaure yet such dedication is
> curiously missing. And the blocks used for the
> temples attributed to them are also unusually
> enormous by comparison. No, something is not right
I’m not fixating on the Khufu fragments. On the contrary, I’m developing a growing interest in the Khafre fragments.
Partial answer to my question above re what you are taking as the norm here.
Equally one might say that such architectural extravagance was tried and found wanting, so discontinued.
> > > 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?
> Either or. I want to see the block and know where
> and in what context it was found.
It was among the works linked to in my earlier post:
There is also (cited by Goedicke) this:
Have to skip this bit for now . . .
> It tells you what it says:
> "Bastet beloved living forever".
> The other entrance presumably, which there may be
> another inscription, was dedicated to Hathor.
> Hardly funerary dedication for Khafre and these
> could have literally been written at any time
> during AE history.
On the contrary, it’s exactly the kind of thing one would expect to find in a funerary dedication and makes scarcely any sense in any other context. One would not usually bother saying that a goddess was living forever: it’s the kind of thing customarily said about the deceased.
Honoric transposition would place the name of the goddess first in the phrase. The proper reading is more likely “beloved of Bastet, living forever”—a phrase we’d expect to be prefixed by the name of a pharaoh, which is how this is usually reconstructed.
Consider this funny-looking thing:
What we have here is a fragment of a dyad, comparable to the Menkaure dyads. On the side is a scene of the unification of the two lands, very much the kind of thing we’d expect to see in a pharaonic context. We have two seated figures, one apparently male, the other female. The female figure is identified by inscription as Bastet.
This was found near the “beloved of Bastet” inscription.
See also this (correct link for the PDF):
The most famous Khafre statue, by the way, was found not near but in the antechamber of the valley temple.
> > Relevance is, this is the one image I could find
> > of the inscriptions reported. It is not the only
> > inscription reported (as above).
> I have yet to find any other in situ temple
> inscriptions except for the otherwise complete
> absence of.
Lots of things are not left in situ.
Links given and a work in progress as stated.