> What do you imagine could definitively show such a
Short of finding the missing fragments in situ to match them with or the like, not much. Just making note. I know you accept these fragments belonging to the temples as a possibility, not fact, just as I accept they might be, so until the lucky turn of the spade we can leave it at that. Both arguments I think are fair and the more I think about it, as said in what you quote below, the more I am of the mind they may in fact be from Khufu's temples.
> > 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
> > megalithic temples of Giza being more akin to
> > father's lackluster chapels, which in that
> > I would certainly expect to see reliefs on
> > just like his father, as this is exactly what
> > AE did. And yet the builders of the megalithic
> > temples clearly did not. Again, we are led by
> > context.
> This is an interesting suggestion and I have no
> strong opinion on the point.
I think so. Makes sense.
> 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.
What is considered large megalithic blocks at Khafre's pyramid are actually mostly bedrock carved into steps which I believe is the NW corner leaving the SW corner built up with larger blocks. Though modern Egyptologists are of a different mind, it has been suggested this area was an "original" structure that was later expanded. I find this idea interesting. Not what you want to hear, but I do not attribute this section of G2 to Khafre though I think it is clear it is contemporary with the Sphinx and associated temples.
> I doubt the temples were entirely lacking in
> examples of his name.
For now, they are.
> 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.
> I find this talk of excuses odd. Excuses
> to whom? Beware the a-priorism our friend Scott
> falls into.
An excuse merely as to suggest they would not have not carved on granite just because it is "hard". Obviously this was not a deterrent.
Speaking of our friend Scott, he has not posted here in some time and I noticed by chance his website has been down for some time...?
> 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:
> The innovation in the case would the material
> (absent earlier examples of palmiform columns in
If anything I would suggest not the material, but rather the tool. Cut granite slabs upwards of 15 tons have been found at the beginnings of Dynastic Egypt and obviously the builders of G1 and the Valley temple had no trouble working in granite. Not to mention the dozens of granite sarcophagi of the period. The difference is that granite columns from the 5th Dynasty onward are obviously cut in the round which suggest to me the innovation of an industrial "lathe" process whereas before they had only saws, i.e. only capable of producing square columns. The problem, however, is that round columns are found in the 3rd Dynasty but not the 4th and appear again in the 5th Dynasty better than ever in granite no less. The columns at Saqqara, though "round", are essentially "faux" columns with no precedent in stone.
I find column development in AE quite interesting. If granite required a hardier tool to make columns with, there is nothing that would have prevented them from making columns of limestone yet despite the promise of such an, albeit abrupt, industry found at Saqqara, round columns are otherwise absent until the 5th Dynasty yet from this time onward they are an abundant norm. Personally, I do not chalk this up to whims of style. There is an explanation to be had which I think is interesting to explore.
> I assume you meant “successor”—
> and I doubt
> that putting a name on the temple was of such
> great importance to his successor (Shepseskaf).
"Apriorism" is it? Assuming this is what even happened. Considering Shepseskaf was Menkaure's own son I would beg to differ, particularly given he allegedly took the time to complete the work, would do his father the greater injustice of not dedicating his father's tomb. If there was one person after Menkaure's death this would have been important to it would have been Shepseskaf.
> Menkaure’s name got onto the core blocks, by the
And Sneferu's is found on blocks of the pyramids of Dashur. Does not mean they were ever meant as tombs.
> As is customary: what are you taking as examples
> of what is customary?
The temples of the Red and Bent pyramids, presumably Khufu's now missing temple, and many discovered from the 5th Dynasty onward, like Sahure, all prominently made note of the Sed Festival in their reliefs. I would expect nothing less to be found on Khafre's and Menkaure's temples.
> 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.
As said above, the alleged temples of Khafre and Menkaure are bookended by the temples of most notably Sneferu and Sahure, and apparently Khafre, which all clearly make note of the Sed festival in relief which is suggested is part and parcel of building the temple in the first place. Recognition of the Sed festival was very important and a tradition going back to possibly late pre-dynastic times. Other than no evidence of the Sed festival in relief at their temples, an egregious omission, there is otherwise no evidence of such an ideological break. With Sneferu in the 4th Dynasty, the cartouche and the adoption of Re was implemented as the norm which is an interesting ideological change, but this says nothing of the Sed festival which regardless Sneferu and Khafre and Sahure all acknowledged. It would make no sense for Khafre and Menkaure to suddenly abandon such things.
> I’m not fixating on the Khufu fragments. On the
> contrary, I’m developing a growing interest in
> the Khafre fragments.
Yes, very interesting.
> Equally one might say that such architectural
> extravagance was tried and found wanting, so
Regarding the use of large blocks, the temple builders of Giza made it look easy. "Extravagance" or necessity?
> It was among the works linked to in my earlier
> There is also (cited by Goedicke) this:
Don't mean to be lazy, but pg #'s would be helpful.
> 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 [i]customarily[/i] 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”
> See also this (correct link for the PDF):
This was not my understanding of it that it was exclusive to a funerary context. I will have to research the subject further, but thanks for the info. Regardless, and not to be pedantic, but I find the quality and scope of the dedication rather lacking in comparison to the majesty of the structure itself or even the statues. It reminds me more of graffiti rather than an official dedication.
> The most famous Khafre statue, by the way, was
> found not near but [i]in[/i] the antechamber of
> the valley temple.
I believe it. The question of the floor niches is still an interesting one.
> Links given and a work in progress as stated.
I look forward to it.
Thank you for the conversation.
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 13-Feb-16 05:38 by Thanos5150.