>? That is something rectangular...
Well, I guess that really depends on two things....... what one imagines the 3D visualization was in the minds of the AE artisans who carved the tomb representation in question........ and why the term "bulbed" is being used here to describe it rather than "surfboarded", considering the limits of the 2D nature of this type of AE art, Oh, and one more thing as well, "rectangular" usually implies an object is made with a lot of 90 degree corners........I suggest you look at Wereshnefer's sarcophagus lid again because about the only thing actually rectangular about that lid is the foot panel (the one with snakes carved on it in the 2nd image I originally provided) and the top panel...... everything else is either tapered and/or beveled and not parallel, or like the head of the lid actually curved over it's surface...... in a 2D planer context, it's "bulbed"-shaped....if you want to see all the range of "bulbed"-shaped sarcophagi lids I suggest getting yourself a copy of Ikram & Dodson (1998). which has most of the forms listed over the 3000+ years of sarcophagi manufacturing...... and if one does not like too many facets on their "bulbed"-shaped lid there are ones more rounded to fit a particular imagined taste...........
The claim that sarcophagus lids cannot be bulb shaped or have snakes on them is false....... whether you imaging the tomb representation is a lid or not.
Ikram, S. & Dodson, A. (1998) The mummy in ancient Egypt equipping the dead for eternity. Thames and Hudson, London , 352 p.
>So there is no merit whatsoever to the bulbs being coffin lids.
Next time a fringer in a blog tries to assert that that imagined "electricity" was used to power vibo-drills or whatever so that granite sarcophagi lids can be carved... make sure Wereshnefer's sarcophagus is not left out of the examples, and it gets a proper explanation for how the Saite ancient Egyptians were able to carve granite (i.e. granodiorite in this case) with the non-electical tools they had. Oh, and the next time ones sees an engineer with 40 years of experience claiming that granite can only be scratched with diamond and just barely, thus power tools are needed... remind him again that quartz is only about 10% the hardness of diamond and quartz will actually scratch itself (that should have been explained in a 2nd year material science course as part of a 4-year engennering degree). Why is it that claims of advanced technology always have these nuggets of made-up nonsense at their base in order to make them sound more valid?
Archae Solenhofen (email@example.com)