Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Thanos5150

Anubis-Lord of the Giza Necropolis

80 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Wepwawet
34 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Not really (I should admit that Wepawet is one of my early favorite Egyptian deities)... as mentioned before, I've been occupied with work.  I do intend to look up the geology of the area, because I have a vague memory that the Mokkatam formation isn't that deep and that there are no layers above that formation for many hundreds of miles.  There simply wouldn't have been rock to carve the ears and head from (you'd need at least 12 feet of additional height if you used the current head... more if you had a more proper jackal head and neck.

I agree with current thinking that they carved it from a type of formation known as a hoodoo... and that it's a sphinx because the lump of rock looked like a sphinx.  There's at least one well-known association of a hoodoo with a deity (which I can't find now to save my life... memory says it's a sandstone pillar near Luxor and that the deity was Amun)  

One other point against Anubis and Wepauwet is that although I know of avenues of sphinxes as symbols of protection (later) and as protective guardians (Hetepheres I), I don't know of any case where there was a row of statues (or even a single one) to Anubis or Wepauwet that stood guard over any other cemetery.  Guardians of a tomb and inside a tomb, yes.  And inside temples.  But not as statues in cemeteries.  

I'd love to hear about counterexamples if there are any.

 

Actually, it's been a bit odd arguing for something that I don't believe, but it has made me think more about just what that thing really is, and I'm sure it isn't just a guardian, and that it is something to do with what happens to the king after death.

If you like Wepwawet then you've probably seen this already, but for anybody scratching their head about my use of "Not Anubis", here it is.

 

Not Anubis x.jpg

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Haha 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
20 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

Actually, it's been a bit odd arguing for something that I don't believe, but it has made me think more about just what that thing really is, and I'm sure it isn't just a guardian, and that it is something to do with what happens to the king after death.

If you like Wepwawet then you've probably seen this already, but for anybody scratching their head about my use of "Not Anubis", here it is.

 

Not Anubis x.jpg

Hadn't seen that one!  it's not often that you get humor from someone who really knows their gods.  Are you familiar with Stick Gods?

https://inonibird.tumblr.com/post/89687110095/stick-gods-opener-of-ways-a-hearty-welcome-to

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
32 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

Actually, it's been a bit odd arguing for something that I don't believe, but it has made me think more about just what that thing really is, and I'm sure it isn't just a guardian, and that it is something to do with what happens to the king after death.

To respond to your other point...

The problem here (one that we've tried hard to cull out of anthropology) is that what you think is not necessarily the way another culture thinks.  We don't actually know the reasoning... we can make some educated guesses but we don't have anyone to query from that time period.

What is noticeable is that the sphinx is unique (which argues for it being a rock formation that resembled something.  There might have even been local legends about what the rock formation was and how it got there... there is no way of telling this.)  We also know that they tended to carry forward ideas that they liked (clothing design, artistic styles, and so on and so forth.  I don't know of other cemeteries in ancient Egypt that had statues of Anubis guarding them.  Temples of later pyramids undoubtedly had guardian statues... but I'm not sure if statues stood outside those later pyramids.

But the fact that Egyptologists don't seem interested in the idea makes me suspect that there aren't any that were found.  Otherwise we'd see a lot more support for the Sphinx-was-Anubis/Wepwawet idea.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom1200
55 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Arguing what the geology may or may not be based on generalities is counter productive, false logic I would say, as you might recall the OP does not even mention it in which the geology is but a part of the greater context.of possible evidence laid out in this thread. 

Do me a favor and read all of the posts first before your start accusing me of "false logic". No where have I "relied on it" which, again, the geology is not even mentioned in the OP

No, you introduced it in post #24 as "Another feature I believe lends credence to the idea the Sphinx was re-carved at a later date", and you have argued at length as to its significance ever since.  I submit this permits me to analyse and comment on this idea.  

I am not an Egyptologist.  I have not been to Giza: I have to rely on imagery off the internet.  These do not give a great feel to the overall layout, the layers, the erosion, the man-made alterations or the shape of wider plateau.  But there is nothing in what I have seen that isn't explicable by what I know about geology, erosion and weathering.  Rocks are not of uniform hardness over large areas of even ostensibly identical material.  Layers get folded and moved both by slow geological processes and by sudden releases of pent-up energy.  (Would anyone happen to know if this region is prone to earthquakes?)

Just to repeat - there is nothing in the photographs, videos, diagrams or reconstructions I have seen that shows the west end was cut deeper at a later time. 

Until I discover a detailed analysis of the rocks on each side, I cannot conclude anything other than the accepted wisdom  - that the Sphinx enclosure was cut out as it appears today.  If I were promoting an idea that requires the west end to be cut differently to the southern side, that's the analysis I would look for and present as evidence.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
4 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Hello Tom. Again, below is the same layer (Member I), which despite the different composition of the rock between MI and MII, is has the same kind of weathering as seen on the upper layer (Member II):

9-b28c97b022.jpg

Which is absent from this layer directly behind the Sphinx:

esfinge_de_gize_04.jpg

Its not just about the rocks being of different composition, it is that we do not even see the same patterns of erosion. It seems quite clear the area behind the Sphinx was cut at a later time. Regardless, if you read my original response to Kenemet I also said:

I am confident that Member I is homogeneous enough from a spot a few dozen feet away to the other at the same height that any difference to the point being made is nominal if non existent. Regardless of the geology, again, it is a simple fact that there are two layers that were carved at different points in time with the only question being how much. You can only get to the MI terrace by carving away the MII layer first: 

[photo used directly above] 

And again, we note that according to Lehner and others the Sphinx temple was built using blocks from MII which it is apparent the Sphinx Temple was never finished and the project abandoned. This does not speak well for the idea they continued to drill down on the MI layer to make room for the Sphinx which, even so, it is hard to imagine if they did not even finish the temple that they made it very far carving a massive Sphinx/Anubis.  

Arguing what the geology may or may not be based on generalities is counter productive, false logic I would say, as you might recall the OP does not even mention it in which the geology is but a part of the greater context.of possible evidence laid out in this thread. 

Do me a favor and read all of the posts first before your start accusing me of "false logic". No where have I "relied on it" which, again, the geology is not even mentioned in the OP. 

 

SG4.jpg

Harte

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
On 2/1/2020 at 4:29 AM, Wepwawet said:

Does any necropolis have a guardian jackal, or lion, statue, of any size, let alone to the scale of the Great Sphinx, no, and no sphinx after the Great Sphinx has a place in the necropolis. I think that if the Great Sphinx was a necropolis guardian, then we would have other examples, but there are none.

In re-reading, I see that we're in agreement on this point.  I missed it the first time around.

What's interesting (which is why I think it's a hoodoo) is that Abydos, the most important necropolis and the one that was the center of many festivals, doesn't have guardian statues and yet it's closely associated with Anubis and Osiris.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Wistman

This quote by Arnaud Quertinment won't forward the argument much, but it does speak to the problem of distinguishing the sculpted images of canid gods Anubis, Wepwawet, and Duamutef (with the caveat that Quertinment's paper concentrates on New Kingdom representations of the canids -- from where most of our surviving sculptures come, but doesn't indicate any temporal exclusivity of his conclusions in this regard.  Granted it may thereby be dismissed as irrelevant to our topic, but I think it's worthy of note):

Quote

...What the method does not help us with is the attribution of the representation to a peculiar god.  Indeed, if the Anubis representations are the most frequent. there are other divinities and important canine creatures such as Duamutef * (one of Horus's four sons), the souls of Nekhen, and especially Wepwawet, the Opener of Ways.  The only way to attribute, with certainty, a statue to a god is the presence of his name on the object.  The animal iconography of Anubis, just as his functions, can be transferred to the figure of Wepwawet; this is very obvious at Assyut, Lycopolis or on the double stela of Hatiay, Rijksmuseum van Oudheiden, inv. AP12 (fig. 7).  Such a transference of features is in no way shocking or astonishing.  Indeed, as Wepwawet has a protective aspect, being the protective god of Assyut, and is also himself a dog, nothing prevents such a transfer.  The same situation is found in the attribution of the patronage of necropolises; they can be placed under the protection of Anubis, Sokar, or Wepwawet in the same way that the role of the Western Goddesses can be assumed by Isis or Hathor.  The totality of the functions are exchanged between the two gods, such as the roles of guard, guide, or even reincarnator, as can be seen at Seti I's temple in Abydos (David 1981).  This was not done by accident, especially if we remember that Wepwawet is also regarded as one of Osiris's sons.

PDF, pp 114-15   https://www.academia.edu/1957424/A_possible_dating_method_of_Anubis_statues

*It is understood that Duamutef's representations would be associated mostly/solely with Canopic equipment.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
5 hours ago, Harte said:

SG4.jpg

Harte

From post #24:

sphinx-profile1130x600-1024x544.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
10 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

I've a couple of questions that may (or may not) have easy answers:

1) Why is the enclosure so asymmetrical?  Is this a result of the excavation of materials suitable for building, a constraint created by previous buildings, or something else?

Related image

 

There is debate on whether the causeway respects the Sphinx enclosure or the other way around. 

2) What is the nature of the dark wall in the upper-right of the picture you included?  When does it date from, and what purpose did it serve?  (There seems to be very little of it left, but I can't find suitable photographs to help further my understanding.  I've tried to answer this for myself online but made no progress so far.)

esfinge_de_gize_04.jpg

Its is part of a NK mud brick wall built by Thutmose IV. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
3 hours ago, The Wistman said:

This quote by Arnaud Quertinment won't forward the argument much, but it does speak to the problem of distinguishing the sculpted images of canid gods Anubis, Wepwawet, and Duamutef (with the caveat that Quertinment's paper concentrates on New Kingdom representations of the canids -- from where most of our surviving sculptures come, but doesn't indicate any temporal exclusivity of his conclusions in this regard.  Granted it may thereby be dismissed as irrelevant to our topic, but I think it's worthy of note):

PDF, pp 114-15   https://www.academia.edu/1957424/A_possible_dating_method_of_Anubis_statues

*It is understood that Duamutef's representations would be associated mostly/solely with Canopic equipment.

It doesn’t even address /why/ there are so many canid gods in Egypt. 

I mean, I know. But I can’t release that info to just anyone. Imagine cladking or OVK gadding about here with that knowledge. 

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
19 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Hadn't seen that one!  it's not often that you get humor from someone who really knows their gods.  Are you familiar with Stick Gods?

https://inonibird.tumblr.com/post/89687110095/stick-gods-opener-of-ways-a-hearty-welcome-to

 

Aha, these are new to me, and I love this sort of thing. It's an odd coincidence that two differenet people in 2014 or there abouts decided to make cartoons about Ancient Egypt with a similar type of humor. Here's a proper link to the work of Darren Pepper https://www.deviantart.com/darrenpepper

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
16 hours ago, Kenemet said:

In re-reading, I see that we're in agreement on this point.  I missed it the first time around.

What's interesting (which is why I think it's a hoodoo) is that Abydos, the most important necropolis and the one that was the center of many festivals, doesn't have guardian statues and yet it's closely associated with Anubis and Osiris.

And associated with Wepwawet of course. At the end of the day I would agree that we have the Great Sphinx because they saw something in the terrain that suggested they could do something special, and did.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
On 2/2/2020 at 11:19 AM, Tom1200 said:

No, you introduced it in post #24 as "Another feature I believe lends credence to the idea the Sphinx was re-carved at a later date", and you have argued at length as to its significance ever since.  I submit this permits me to analyse and comment on this idea. 

Of course, but it is part of a greater context that does not rely on the minutia of the geology which is not fair or accurate to isolate this one point from the greater whole as this greater whole helps to explain what we see in the geology.   

Just to repeat - there is nothing in the photographs, videos, diagrams or reconstructions I have seen that shows the west end was cut deeper at a later time. 

Of course there is. As said before, no matter what you cannot get down to Member I without removing Member II. This is a separation of time which the only question is how much time. Also said before, looking at the restoration map we can see the rump has been heavily repaired and expanded in the NK: 

SM4.jpg

According to Lehner:

"It must have been Thutmose IV who made repairs to the masonry of the Sphinx, shoring up a large boulder in the rump and encasing the body with masonry to fill in a recess eroded into the softer bedrock layers near a huge fissure that cuts across the back of the statue".

I also argue in post #8 that part of this restoration was the actually addition of the lion's tail. Regardless, you can see in the map above how much the rump has been repaired/expanded in the NK. Also, if we look at this picture below again you can see that the shape of the ledge of MI that was cut out directly behind this repair and expansion (addition I argue) of the tail/rear that occurred in the NK directly mirrors the shape of this very expansion:

SS2427393.jpg?d63642171745

They had to cut this area out to create a work space for the repair and expansion so given this was done in the NK, at the very least some 1200+ years later-of course there is a difference in erosion. 

So again, we look here and see the difference in erosion between the MI and MII layers:

esfinge_de_gize_04.jpg

The difference is not because of a difference of composition but the fact this area was cut out some 1200+ years later in the NK. But we also have another area of this same MI layer that shows not only the erosion we would expect but also an area that is not eroded the same way that was cut out in the 4th Dynasty:

9-b28c97b022.jpg

According to geologist Colin Reader of this area:

The limited 4th Dynasty quarry face, identified by Lehner (Figure 1), was excavated from relatively durable Member I rocks. Since being quarried in the 4th Dynasty, this quarry face has been subject to weathering and erosion (including the processes of chemical weathering and exfoliation) - yet it exhibits only slight degradation (Figure 9).

Figure9.jpg

By contrast, the same Member I beds, exposed elsewhere along the northern terrace, are more intensely degraded. The contrast in the intensity of degradation at the western limit of the 4th Dynasty quarrying is striking (Figure 10), with the exposures beyond the limit of quarrying being heavily degraded. The abrupt change in the state of degradation of the Member I beds exposed in the northern terrace makes it clear that a 4th Dynasty cutting has been made into a pre-existing excavated face which, at some earlier time, had been exposed to aggressive weathering or erosion.

Figure10.jpg

Under my revised chronology, the distribution of degradation along the northern terrace can be readily explained:

(a) The construction of the Sphinx and the first phase of the Sphinx temple took place before Khufu quarried the site, during an era when the exposed limestone was subject to periodic erosion by surface run-off.

(b) The Sphinx temple was subsequently incorporated into Khafre's 4th Dynasty mortuary complex, at which time it underwent a second phase of construction when modifications were made to the northern and southern walls of the temple, together with limited quarrying of the Member I limestones to the immediate north.

(c) Because these modifications took place after Khufu's quarrying of the plateau, the newly exposed Member I limestones were not subject to erosion by rainfall run-off and, therefore, do not show the same pattern of intense degradation which is apparent elsewhere within the Sphinx enclosure.

What I have added to this is that the area behind the rump does not show this erosion because it was cut out in the NK when the rump was repaired and expanded.  

[snip]

 

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
9 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

And associated with Wepwawet of course. At the end of the day I would agree that we have the Great Sphinx because they saw something in the terrain that suggested they could do something special, and did.

Well, now that we've solved that... shall we go solve the Mystery of Oak Island?  Or G1?  Maybe Sasquatch?  :D

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
23 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Well, now that we've solved that... shall we go solve the Mystery of Oak Island?  Or G1?  Maybe Sasquatch?  :D

 

More importantly we need to resolve why the three coffers in the G1-2 & 3 were different from one another. If we don't how could we possibly sleep at night?

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gaden
49 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

More importantly we need to resolve why the three coffers in the G1-2 & 3 were different from one another. If we don't how could we possibly sleep at night?

 Damn you, Hans, I was sleeping very well until you said that. Excluding the mornings my bladder wakes me up early, but that's  different matter.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
44 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

More importantly we need to resolve why the three coffers in the G1-2 & 3 were different from one another. If we don't how could we possibly sleep at night?

G2 sarcophagus of Khafre-living god king of the Dynastic Egyptians:

pyramid-empty-tomb.jpg

Sarcophagus of his wife, Meresankh III:

Sarcophagus+of+Meresankh+the+Third.jpg

Sarcophagus found at Abu Roash dated to the reign of Djedefre:

V07PnUM.jpg

Sarcophagus of Khufu-ankh-son of Khufu:

pink-granite-sarcophagus.jpg

The latter examples are the standard of the period, the OK in general, yet Kahfre's sarcophagus is uncharacteristically plain which unlike his successor Menkaure is missing the customary palace facade building motif.  Not sure if it is worth losing sleep over, but it is interesting as to why this would be.... 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
23 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

G2 sarcophagus of Khafre-living god king of the Dynastic Egyptians:

pyramid-empty-tomb.jpg

Sarcophagus of his wife, Meresankh III:

Sarcophagus+of+Meresankh+the+Third.jpg

Sarcophagus found at Abu Roash dated to the reign of Djedefre:

V07PnUM.jpg

Sarcophagus of Khufu-ankh-son of Khufu:

pink-granite-sarcophagus.jpg

The latter examples are the standard of the period, the OK in general, yet Kahfre's sarcophagus is uncharacteristically plain which unlike his successor Menkaure is missing the customary palace facade building motif.  Not sure if it is worth losing sleep over, but it is interesting as to why this would be.... 

I was told that they stopped working on funerary material once the one for whom the piece was intended died.  It would suggest that Menkaure died partly through the construction of his sarcophagus... and possibly that Khufu did the same.  The Abu Roash sarcophagus (if lid and box are from the same date) would support this idea, and likewise the others with the "knobs" on the end of the lid (which are not present in other similar items.)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune
1 hour ago, Gaden said:

 Damn you, Hans, I was sleeping very well until you said that. Excluding the mornings my bladder wakes me up early, but that's  different matter.

Sounds like a personal problem. I actually did worry about this, 3 coffer problem, on October 14 1984 for about eight minutes.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune

It is interesting to consider why the G1 & 2 are so different from G3's. How do the coffers after Djoser compare to the Giza ones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
46 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

It is interesting to consider why the G1 & 2 are so different from G3's. How do the coffers after Djoser compare to the Giza ones?

It is, but also as I note different from everyone else of the period as well which I think is part of the answer. Sarcophagi were often installed prior to completion of the tomb so Khufu's makes sense as the few stone sarcophagi found prior are undecorated meaning it was put in place prior to such decoration becoming standard. Towards the end of his reign this was not the case at all and one is hard pressed to find a noble sarcophagus that is not similar to the examples I give above from this point onward at Giza. This quickly became the standard which was in full swing during Khafre's reign yet his sarcophagus is quite primitive compared to his contemporaries. His sarcophagus is out of place for the period which a "premature death" or "taste" in style does not explain. If one cannot reconcile the idea G2 is older than Khafre, then it would appear Khafre stole this sarcophagus from someone before his reign.   

Edited by Thanos5150

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
59 minutes ago, Hanslune said:

It is interesting to consider why the G1 & 2 are so different from G3's. How do the coffers after Djoser compare to the Giza ones?

Ham-based technology moves ever forward. Always has...

—Jaylemurph 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
2 hours ago, Hanslune said:

It is interesting to consider why the G1 & 2 are so different from G3's. How do the coffers after Djoser compare to the Giza ones?

G3 sarcophagus Perring/Vyse:

Menkaure+sarcophagus+2.jpeg?format=500w

 

G3 as depicted by Gaspero by way of Perring (Vyse):

3i8SpOz.jpg

The sarcophagus was discovered with no lid though Vyse says he found pieces of it in a nearby chamber. Depictions of it with lid are recreations and not as it was found. Some unusual features here namely the triangular patterned trim on the corners and the vertical lined corniced lid. I have looked at just about every OK sarcophagus available on the internet and many books and have not found another sarcophagus of its time with the triangular patterned corners. The first I can find dates to the MK and is made of wood:

d5078774l.jpg

Though several OK example of sarcophagi with corniced lids are found, I have found none with the vertical pattern (reeds?) which as far as I can tell is a later invention. Also from the MK (wood):

coffins13.jpg

NK:

7dd0ad062c51dd3722084d6579464c6f.jpg

This is an OK sarcophagus that is the closest I have yet found to Menkaure's,  Giza mastaba G7330-7340:

  A5285A_NS.jpg

Oe2KgpY60jHa5a0dtGEeW8ZX6PTS7rgjEP98fXQI

Note the vertical lines are part of the sarcophagus and not the lid.

As displayed with lid (which is strange):

PDM_00450.jpg

Lid:

IluHWRnN-g2lPiOQGZj8JdqLeh6aiKkz7LbUyxUM

Anyhoo, Menkaure's sarcophagus is unusual in its own right again because of the triangle pattern on the corners and the vertically lined corniced lid which both, as far as I can tell, the first and only of its kind for some years to come. Vyse notes the sarcophagus reminded him of what we now know to be later NK examples he had seen elsewhere. I can chalk up the triangular pattern being unique to Menkaure though I have nagging doubts, but I think at the very least it is possible the lid depicted by Vyse is a fanciful recreation based on what he thought it should look like which in reality probably was like this:

Sarcophagus+of+Meresankh+the+Third.jpg

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
14 hours ago, Kenemet said:

I was told that they stopped working on funerary material once the one for whom the piece was intended died.  It would suggest that Menkaure died partly through the construction of his sarcophagus... and possibly that Khufu did the same.  The Abu Roash sarcophagus (if lid and box are from the same date) would support this idea, and likewise the others with the "knobs" on the end of the lid (which are not present in other similar items.)

You mean Khafre. 

Who told you this? This is not the case and completion upon premature death was determined mostly by the estate and/or funds, sometimes the pharaoh or nomarch. Sarcophagi were often installed before the completion of the tomb itself so while it is common to find unfinished tombs, including pyramids, not so much with sarcophagi. Sarcophagi were also arguably the most important component of the funerary kit so it is understandable this would be given special attention to complete "on time" which takes,what- a few months?   

And does it really make sense Khufu and Khafre, after all of their supposed accomplishments to build these tombs for themselves, decades of work, tripped on their face at the last minute and didn't finish their sarcophagi. one of the most important things they had to do with decades to do it, and not one of their family or subjects, let alone the state the guy was just the "god king" of, could step up and put a rush job on finishing it before they were entombed? Dude. 

Regardless, the sarcophagus of G1 was obviously installed during construction as apparently was G2 as the floor was cut out to accommodate it. Or you think though they couldn't take the time to finish the sarcophagi by putting some inscriptions and relief on it, they di have the time to cut out the floor to make room for it for no apparent reason? 

    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
14 hours ago, Kenemet said:

The Abu Roash sarcophagus (if lid and box are from the same date) would support this idea, and likewise the others with the "knobs" on the end of the lid (which are not present in other similar items.)

Sorry, forgot this bit. No, the bosses ("knobs") are for lowering/maneuvering the lid and not meant to be removed. A tip off to this is that very unfinished Abu Roash lid has knobs as do all the others that are otherwise completely finished including the shaping and polishing of the knobs. Makes little sense if all you are going to do is chop them off which it is hard to find an example of the period they bothered to do so. . 

This 4th Dynasty example from Giza is interested because instead of bosses it uses key cuts for tongs or a holivela:

48.110_SL3.jpg

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.