> Audrey Wrote:
> > Yes, is very interesting. I think you're right
> > about the husk. Appears so from the photos
> > anyways.
> If not, an odd way of building a structure from
> More on the discovery:
> I_tomb_AC_30_in_Abusir]Khentkaus III.[/url]
> Khentkaus I I think is quite odd as well. For
> clarity, this was actually a pyramid, not a
> mastaba. It had a mortuary chapel, causeway, and
> valley temple as well.
> This area was a quarry, which you can kind of
> imagine from the bedrock platform and the valley
> it all sits in, which means this whole bedrock
> "cube" was left over on purpose which looks a lot
> like the weathering on the Sphinx enclosure though
> obviously not as severe. And we are to believe
> this structure was left over for an unknown queen
> in the middle of nowhere? Regarding Khentkaus I:
> [b]"Although this queen’s titulary, “the
> Mother of two Kings of Upper and Lower Egypt”
> was the same as that of a 5th Dynasty queen of the
> same name, the archeological context of the Giza
> tomb clearly to the end of the 4th Dynasty, making
> it clear that there were two queens of the same
> name, only a few generations apart".[/b]
> Meaning Egyptologists made up a separate queen
> because the structure is 4th Dynasty though the
> name is clearly attested to a 5th Dynasty queen.
> And right next to the pyramid:
> [b]A settlement of houses, mostly dated to the 5th
> and 6th Dynasties, flanked the causeway that led
> to the entrance of the tomb. Near the end of the
> causeway, it turns south, giving the settlement an
> inverted-L shape. The southern extension consists
> of some larger and thus somewhat more important
> houses. This small, but clearly planned settlement
> was inhabited by people working in the service of
> the deceased queen’s funerary cult.[/b]
> A 5th Dynasty queen's name is found related to a
> structure dated to the 4th Dynasty from
> architectural context yet the houses around it are
> 5th/6th Dynasty. This whole affair is known as the
> "Khentkaus problem" which led early Egyptologists
> to believe Khentkaus I and II, which II had a
> pyramid complex at Abusir which is widely
> attested, were one and the same person which later
> discoveries seem to cloud the complicate the
> issue, at least according to Mislov Verner
> opinion, leaving them now to say they were two
> people. I do not kind it all that convincing,
> which regardless, they still have no clue who
> Khentkaus I was.
> Regardless, I find it hard to believe this quarry
> was leveled purposefully leaving the massive
> limestone cube in the middle of it just for some
> no name queen, presumably the last of the 4th
> Dynasty, so far away from her husband which we
> have no idea who that was. I think it is possible
> this structure was converted to a pyramid at a
> later time and that at the very least the
> limestone core's provenance is much earlier.
> > Well that's my homework for this 3 day weekend.
> > You seem to have alot of info on the tombs.
> > a thread on tombs would generate discussion.
> Hard not to given that's all there basically is to
> see. A tomb thread could prove interesting.
Yet another example of an adaption society squatting in a pre-existing structure, yet again throwing a wrench into the tenuous timeline.
[i]How can any of us ever [u]know[/u], when all we can do is [b]think[/b]?[/i]