> Hi Lee, good presentation.
> Not sure if it matters here, but, most likely, Mr. Hill or Mr.
> Andrews drew the diagram, (from Ops) you posted. IMO, the
> differences between this and Gaspero's drawing are very small.
Small, but worth noting not only because they should be identical whether they are both from an actual object or one drawing from another, but also these subtle differences in what Gaspero shows is identical to what is seen at Abu Roash. The differences make us question what the sarcophagus actually looked like and by extension its provenance. If you remove the embellishments of the triangle border pattern and the lid, and remove the extended pillar lines as does the Gaspero drawing, it actually is identical to what is found at Abu Roash which I think is most likely what it originally looked like. Compare when the embellishments are removed:
Identical. Which in context of the OK is what would be expected rather than what is depicted by Vyse.
> I agree w/ Vyse in that the sarcophagus was moved, and
> initially rested in room's center. The idea that treasure was
> buried beneath the floor under the sarcophagus was a common
Totally possible. The room is rather small so it wasn't moved very far.
> Vyse, like all Egyptologists of his day were entitled to a
> share of the artifacts that were found, and he had the Pacha's
> permission to do so. Those who financed an Egyptoplogist's dig
> expected their man to bring them something(s) for their money
> In Vyse's case however, he footed his own bill, and he donated
> most-if not all-of his share of artifacts to the BM. The BM was
> paid by the insurance Co. for the loss of the
> sarcophagus...IIRC, it was 348 BPS...a paltry sum by today's
> standards for such an artifact. (I'd like to see the Beatrice
> raised as it was fully loaded w/ all manner of Egyptian
I would not fault Vyse for removing it given the mores of the time and the nature of his work. Claiming his reasons for doing so was in fear it would be "damaged" I find a bit lacking.
> Not all sarcophagi and/or palace facades are exactly alike. It
> is a nearly identical OK sarcophagus found at Abu Roash.
> Probably the differences are intentional, or possibly due to a
> different artist, (stone carver).
This goes without saying, but we are not talking about palace facade in general, but rather a distinct and singular building. Yes, many artists depicted it symbolically or stylistically, but the attention to detail of the Menkaure and Abu Roash sarcophagi in particular are so striking and so nearly identical, if not as I believe is possible-actually "identical", it leaves me to question the differences as depicted by Vyse and co. as original. The triangular border pattern is one thing, though I still suggest it was added later, but the lid is clearly out of place in the OK and they didn't make them this way in the MK and later as the cornice was part of the sarcophagi itself and not the "lid" unless made of wood. Whether this was a fanciful recreation on Vyse's part from things he had seen elsewhere, which he mentions, or a later addition I do not know.
> Once a given tomb was entered by tomb-robbers, it ceased to be
> a pristine environment, so it's very difficult for us to tell
> who did what and when.
Indeed. Which is why we have to rely on context which there are no lids like this in the OK and no match for the border pattern, though as I concede I was able to find an unfinished painted one similar though again we are left to question its provenance.
> #s 2-5 are very real possibilities, and I favor #5. (King Tut's
> tomb also shows us examples of innovation, and of reverting
> back to older styles.)
Regardless of the border pattern, #1 is still valid because we are certain he recreated the lid. The only question is how much of the actual pieces of lid he found inspired this rendition if at all. All things considered, at the very least there is something not right about the lid.
#5 is the safest, but my least favorite mostly because of the lid. Can't get over it. It just doesn't belong in the OK and the MK and later did not make them out of stone that way regardless. It is more plausible to me the lid was actually like Meresankh III's or was like other lids of the time which given the uncertainty of the pieces Vyse found they inverted it in their recreation based on later MK sarcophagi they had seen unaware this style did not exist in the OK.
Interesting that EoH would bring up Khaemwaset (NK) who apparently took an interest in restoring sites from the OK including Giza. Egyptologists believe it was he who inscribed Menkaure's name on the entrance (of the temple I believe and not the pyramid, but I could be wrong) so maybe it was Khaemwaset who restored Menkaure's sarcophagus by painting the border pattern and installing a new lid of a style common to his time. We also know there was an intrusive burial there regardless of when and given tomb robbers would a have smashed and grabbed what they could it is logical by the time of this burial the lid would have been removed and damaged necessitating the need of a new lid made in a style of the time.
Post Edited (21-Jul-15 02:35)