> Hi Thanos
> As usual an interesting OP cram packed with information. Which
> can (has) lead to much thought and side reading, which is
> likely beyond the scope your intended specific focus.
Thats good though and if one interesting thought leads to another regardless of the topic I'm all for it.
> It appears it is a scholarly question focused on minutiae,
> based on or incorporating a lot of the presumptions of
> established Egyptology. ( Albeit, I realise you do not
> necessarily agree with many of its tenants)
> In focusing on that minutiae some points come to mind:
> Another alternative is that the lid or “the greater part of
> it” found by Vyse separate area to the lost sarcophagus belongs
> to a different intrusive placement at some unknown time.
This is one of the possibilities I suggest as well.
> (It is clear that in Vyse team was a gifted artist. Note the
> effort to incorporate shadow from the torch held. Given the
> skill and beauty of the drawing it seems to me it is likely a
> very accurate rendition of what they found.
It stands to reason this is most likely though probably the drawing was not finished as it is seen while the artist was sitting there and the addition of the Arabs standing there, the lighting, and some of the detail was embellished/added after the fact when the finished drawing was made. He probably roughed it out, namely the details of the sarcophagus, placement and perspective, then added the rest later. Places shadows from your light source is drawing 101. It still nags me why the drawing published by Gaspero has subtle differences.
> On a broader perspective your thread highlights many
> inconsistencies inherent in the guesswork and chain of Chinese
> type whispers that conjures up mainstream understanding of the
> various Kingdoms and Dynasties.
> There is not any consistent “sarcophagus” style of the 4th
> dynasty or OK.
Kinda is though. There are a few odd balls here and there, but they are all quite similar regardless of what designs if any are placed on them. What state of finish it is found does not speak to a style.
> If we just focus on the pictures of
> ‘sarcophagus’s” you have presented. We are led to believe and
> accept that in the space of four generations that:
> - Snefuru or the “ intern” in Meidum opted for a rough
> unpolished granite box with an ill fitting lid. The lid similar
> but of much poorer finish to the “style” of those evidenced in
> the attributed to a much later NK Serepeum.
Can you post a picture of it here?
> - Son Khufu, the most specific and demanding particular
> “pyramid builder” of all time, opted for a plain undecorated
> relatively smallish granite box. The seal rim rounded and
> rough, but the interior beautifully smooth.
> - Grandson Djedefre , (or someone buried near Abu Roash)
> wanted a beautiful alabaster (or limestone?) box decorated with
> the prominent intricate “building” or doorway pattern. However
> opted for a totally inconsistent poorly finished rough lid?
> - Other grandson Khafre, reverted to one like father Khufu,
> just a plain granite box, but thought it better to produce a
> squarish better fitting lid, sunken in a stage.
This is what I was saying too- given what we see that that can be put in a 4th Dynasty context which are all quite similar, including Menkaure, these would seem to fall outside that context, no? Menkaure's sarcophagus is typical for what is found in mastabas but a-typical to what is found in pyramids. I think this is more that just the whim and fancy of Menkaure but shows a clear disconnect in when these sarcophagi were placed there and ultimately by whom.
> -As an aside we are also asked to believe that despite his
> relatively modest taste in sarcophagus, his wife Meresankh III
> deserved the decoration of the “building” or doorway patterns
> of those of the unknown epoch folk. ( Note extremely difficult
> to achieve in hard stone, and impossible with only copper
> tools/chisels )
> - Then great grandson Menkaure decided to go the whole hog on
> the wonderful elaborate “building” or doorways pattern with a
> few extras , if Vyse is to be believed in BASALT! He surely
> knew what Basalt was, as distinct from Alabaster!?
> - To top it off, the elaborate “building” or doorways pattern
> box is not only found in the Eastern cemetery of Giza as the
> picture you “dug up” shows, but there is a similar one,
> seemingly abandoned , in a corridor under Djosers step pyramid!
Interesting. Do you have a picture or link to this?
> My purely speculative amateur (perhaps ‘fresh thinking”)
> conclusion that over the ravages of many millennia of the AE
> civilization, and subsequent two millennia of post AE period
> that sarcophagus have had lids smashed and replaced mismatched,
> stolen, moved , reused, and we can’t possibly in most cases
> know when!
I totally agree,
> You asked:
Regardless, Menkaure's sarcophagus as depicted by Vyse
> seems incongruous to the time. The question is why?
> My suggested answer is because of the confused, illogical,
> inconsistent, incoherent, incongruous perspective that
> mainstream Egyptology has cobbled together of what is
> thought/guessed/presumed to be congruous to the “time” by
> which I think you mean Old Kingdom and perhaps more
> specifically 4th Dynasty.
If we take an inventory of OK mastabas, namely 4-6th Dynasties, the sarcophagi are all quite similar. The stone boxes in the pyramids are what are different which makes Menkaure's stand out like a sore thumb.
The sarcophagi of the mastabas of the OK have a long tradition that goes back to at least the 2nd Dynasty:
Note the lid.
> Please forgive, or ignore, if off topic or seemingly
Not at all, you go man. All very interesting.