The Khafre Enigma

[Djedi]

On 10/3/2022 at 6:22 PM, Thanos5150 said:

I'll get to the rest later, but why keep purposefully misrepresenting the arguments being made? It goes without saying no one does, would, or could dispute Djedefre's presence at Abu Roash or that he claimed this structure which has been referred to countless times the least of which in this very thread ironically among others things noting the curiosity of the very fact he is there. Very strange you would say these things. 

What would have predated Djedfre, at the very least, would be the trench and pit which there is no evidence this component is mutually exclusive to Djedefre.  If ZeA dates to the 3rd Dynasty (or earlier) as is argued there is no reason the "cores" of both were not contemporary which of course would be the argument not this nonsense that Djedefre was not present there as you have conjured.  

And as far as it originally not being a pyramid (if ever), among a host of reasons it is a logical hypothesis given not only its architecture and archeological remains but also its well recognized similarities to ZeA which on several levels is also in dispute. And again, lets not play this stupid game of misrepresenting the parroting of Egyptological opinion as "fact" and/or some kind of well reasoned consensus and/or the end all be all of what is "truth" or not. 

I see know what you are trying to do, expanding on the alternative theory that parts of structures built by 4th dyn kings at Giza actually predate the 4th dyn. Should have seen it sooner, given you tried to do this before with the so called “older tower-core” at Meidum. So now you have added the T-shaped trenches of Djedefre and “Baka” to the mix.

This is similar with what you tried with the alternative theory of Kurt Mendelsohn (that the 4th dyn pyramids were not tombs but “cenotaphs”) in the “If Pyramids not Tombs, where are the Pharaoh's” thread. Here you tried to expand the cenotaph theory to all pyramids, which unsurprisingly didn't work at all.

[Djedi]

On 10/4/2022 at 5:59 AM, Thanos5150 said:

The end of Khufu/beginning of Djedefre inscribed and/or serekh decorated sarcophagi become ubiquitous among nobles-the norm, not "some", which by the time Khafre would have supposedly installed this sarcophagus this program would have been the standard for almost two decades. And these "some" are Khafre's very own family members and nobles directly before and after him.

There is no "flaw" in comparing sarcophagi of the period to determine dating which is exactly what is done for any material complex and no different for example pottery-the very foundation of Petrie's relative dating system. It is the scientific method so to suggest otherwise is disingenuous at best. 

There is no reason for kings not to do the same, which we have examples they did, like Khafre's successor Menkaure which there is little reason not to believe his immediate predecessor's sarcophagus, Djedefre, would have also been decorated, let alone for their sarcophagi to be inferior to their subjects-something not lost on Egyptologists which their suggestions to explain this disparity found in G1 and G2 ranging anywhere from that they were not finished, which is absurd, and/or "hasty replacements"-equally absurd. There is zero evidence or logical explanation to explain why Khafre would have done this so you just raising the question in spite of the actual evidence is meaningless and hardly a counterargument against what is otherwise clear for anyone to see.   

"For some reason"? This is absolute nonsense which I have stated the reasons quite clearly. And yet for no reason whatsoever other than to explain away this discrepancy even acknowledged by Egyptologists, you claim they "did not have to" when there is zero reason to explain why Khafre would not.    

This is not simply true. For coffins as well for that matter as discussed at length HERE. By the time Khafre took power, again, decoration of stone sarcophagi was ubiquitous among nobles-the norm for well over a decade. Literally the exact opposite of what you are claiming. Even Kawab's sarcophagus, who is thought to have died during Khufu's reign, is inscribed:

Not to mention installed in a pit dug into the floor of his mastaba.

Again,  Khufu-ankh-son of Khufu:

In fact there is not one finished sarcophagus of Khufu's children I can find that is not inscribed and/or serekh decorated. Or any that date to the reign of Djedefre. Or Khafre. Or Menkuare. And yet you say this:

"...the majority of private stone sarcophagi are still undecorated and this remains the case until the end of the Old kingdom when the undecorated ones become a minority."

 You are woefully misinformed. 

Regardless of you just making up whatever, what does architecture have to do with sarcophagi and the religious beliefs behind their inscription and decoration? And regardless, again, this is simply not true. See above. 

 

Full denial of using a flawed reasoning as expected. Fact is, you make up non-existing rules like "kings must follow the new trend of decorating their sarcophagi because all their family members do so". Then when you see that  Khafre doesn't do this you make up a reason why his sarcophagus wasn't decorated: it was "older". Some family members as you have shown had indeed decorated and / or inscribed sarcophagi; let's take a look at the queens: Meresankh II and III indeed had beautiful decorated sarcophagi but many queens had plain undecorated sarcophagi:

- subsidiary pyramid of Djedefre: plain limestone sarcophagus

- Queen Khaimerernebti II ("Galarza Tomb"): plain limestone sarcophagus

- Queen Rekhitre: plain undecorated sarcophagus

- Queen G III-b: plain granite sarcophagus

- Queen G III-a: plain granite sarcophagus

A few other examples from other family members:

- Prince Duaenre G 5110: plain granite sarcophagus

- G 7060 Prince Nefermaat II: plain limestone sarcophagus

- G 7070 Prince SneferuKhaf: plain limestone sarcophagus

- G 7350 shaft A (mid to late 4th dyn): plain granite sarcophagus

Let's take a look at available sarcophagi of the 5th dyn kings (a period with increasing use of decorated sarcophagi):

- Userkaf: plain greywacke sarcophagus

- Djedkare: plain greywacke sarcophagus

- Unas: plain greywacke sarcophagus

All these don't follow your made up "must be decorated rule". Fact is; kings and nobles alike choose for themselves if they wanted a decorated sarcophagus or not. Some choose decorated ones, others didn't; this it what the actual evidence shows us.

Your ploy to date the base of G2 and it's sarcophagus earlier than Khafre is a failure.

[Thanos5150]

On 10/5/2022 at 3:02 AM, Djedi said:

I see know what you are trying to do, expanding on the alternative theory that parts of structures built by 4th dyn kings at Giza actually predate the 4th dyn. Should have seen it sooner, given you tried to do this before with the so called “older tower-core” at Meidum. So now you have added the T-shaped trenches of Djedefre and “Baka” to the mix.

This is similar with what you tried with the alternative theory of Kurt Mendelsohn (that the 4th dyn pyramids were not tombs but “cenotaphs”) in the “If Pyramids not Tombs, where are the Pharaoh's” thread. Here you tried to expand the cenotaph theory to all pyramids, which unsurprisingly didn't work at all.

Why does every conversation with you always devolve into you being such a dishonest ad hominem spewing sleazebag? Seriously- go ___ yourself with your BS trying to impugn my character just because you can't handle arguing the facts. You can disagree all you like but you do not get to lie about my position or my character. 

And is it moronic or just dishonest that you could just figure it out now that the idea Abu Roash and ZeA may predate the 4th Dynasty is a thing? And what I am saying here-that they may date to the 3rd Dynasty? That Medium dates to the 3rd, maybe end of 2nd Dynasty? That some of the components of Giza date to earlier Dynasties? Oh no. What crazy ideas these are-all part of some sinister plot to take down the mainstream and Egyptology cabal that in some form or another some Egyptologists/professionals support these things anyways. 

And why do you keep lying about the Mendelsohn thing? You do this all the time-just flat out lie and misrepresent my positions. Dude-just be honest. It's ok, I promise the sun will come up tomorrow if someone is saying things on the internet that offends your sensibilities.

And no, I "tried" to do nothing and the premise all along is that this was the function of all pyramids which readers can find here was unsurprising successful: If Pyramids not tombs where are the pharaohs?

Edited October 6, 2022 by Thanos5150

[cladking]

On 9/18/2022 at 11:52 PM, Thanos5150 said:

 

All things being equal, while it seems readily apparent G2 by the numbers would have taken less time to build than G1, we are left to wonder how much extra by comparison would have been required for Khafre not only to work so extensively in granite, but also the out of character use of numerous massive megalithic temple and pyramid base blocks as well as the carving of the Sphinx and building the Sphinx Temple. As difficult as it is to accept a 20yr timeline for Khufu, to consider the works attributed to Khafre, regardless of the "inferiority" of his pyramid, we are still left with the same reservations of being able to complete these works within the timely reign of one pharaoh.  

 

Quote

That's not such a little difference.  G1 required about 25% more lifting than G2 time the reciprocal of the efficiency.   Efficiency could have been as low as 5% if they used ramps which means lifting alone for G2 would have required five times as much work.   No matter how they did the work G1 probably required double the work.  

I made a typo here in the second post that might be confusing people.  Of course I meant G1 would have required 5 times as much work.  

What might be throwing people is that work in lifting stones is weight times height.  Mathematically these are the sole considerations so mathematically G1 required 25% more  lifting as G2.  But in the real world every factor in the raising of the stones affects the amount of work required.  This is called "efficiency" and is dependent on the actual means used.   If you're wasting most of the effort to lift something then  when you use this same technique on a structure only 25% larger then the additional consumption of work can be very extreme.  If you use a means that is traditionally cited then efficiency will be lower than 5% meaning it will require 5 times as much work to build something only 25% larger.  

Of course I have no idea how much work is required to cut granite but I'm sure a lot of granite can be cut with less work than is required to build even one pyramid.  

 

Personally I believe the premise is flawed anyway since there is no reason to believe that pyramids were completed during the lifetime of any given king.  

Herodotus said it took ten years just to prepare the site for a pyramid.  It seems pretty improbable that given the very brief lifespans of these people that they could even commit to the preparation to build a pyramid for an individual.  It might also be pointed out that with so many of these 30 year projects it is astounding they were all completed before the king died since longevity was barely even 30 years.  

Edited October 7, 2022 by cladking

[Thanos5150]

36 minutes ago, cladking said:

I made a typo here in the second post that might be confusing people. 

I wouldn't worry about that. 

[Hanslune]

Quote

I made a typo here in the second post that might be confusing people.  Of course I meant G1 would have required 5 times as much work.  

Not to worry no one takes anything you say seriously.

[Djedi]

On 10/6/2022 at 5:37 PM, Thanos5150 said:

Why does every conversation with you always devolve into you being such a dishonest ad hominem spewing sleazebag? Seriously- go ___ yourself with your BS trying to impugn my character just because you can't handle arguing the facts. You can disagree all you like but you do not get to lie about my position or my character. 

And is it moronic or just dishonest that you could just figure it out now that the idea Abu Roash and ZeA may predate the 4th Dynasty is a thing? And what I am saying here-that they may date to the 3rd Dynasty? That Medium dates to the 3rd, maybe end of 2nd Dynasty? That some of the components of Giza date to earlier Dynasties? Oh no. What crazy ideas these are-all part of some sinister plot to take down the mainstream and Egyptology cabal that in some form or another some Egyptologists/professionals support these things anyways. 

And why do you keep lying about the Mendelsohn thing? You do this all the time-just flat out lie and misrepresent my positions. Dude-just be honest. It's ok, I promise the sun will come up tomorrow if someone is saying things on the internet that offends your sensibilities.

And no, I "tried" to do nothing and the premise all along is that this was the function of all pyramids which readers can find here was unsurprising successful: If Pyramids not tombs where are the pharaohs?

Disregarding the insults and focussing on the bold statement that is the last sentence (having a déjà-vu moment here):

The OP of that thread has been debunked over the course of that thread by myself and others, not to mention several other statements you made later on, wouldn't call that "successful"...

Before you say "No one has debunked me yet".

Remember THIS ?

That list can still be compiled if you want...

[cladking]

2 hours ago, Djedi said:

Disregarding the insults and focussing on the bold statement that is the last sentence (having a déjà-vu moment here):

The OP of that thread has been debunked over the course of that thread by myself and others, not to mention several other statements you made later on, wouldn't call that "successful"...

Before you say "No one has debunked me yet".

Remember THIS ?

That list can still be compiled if you want...

Maybe you should point out exactly where Thanos5150 was debunked.  It seems everyone thinks they are debunking things by simply denying they are correct while ignoring the evidence (or lack of same).  

Frequently if you look you'll also see where even your debunkment has been debunked.  

[Megaro]

My apologies, post deleted.

Edited October 7, 2022 by Megaro

[Thanos5150]

On 10/5/2022 at 1:13 AM, Djedi said:

You're completely missing the point and the logic; why would Djedefre "stay" at Giza? Khufu didn't "stay" at Dashur either. It is Khafre who breaks the pattern by returning to Giza. The pattern is: 5 of the 7 fourth dyn kings started building at "new" sites. Only 2, Khafre and Menkaure came back to a site (Giza) where a fourth dyn king (Khufu) already built a pyramid.

I would worry about yourself first and make sure you understand what "the point and the logic" is before you start dishonestly accusing others of the same. And why do you have to change my words? You say pretending to quote me: "why would Djedefre "stay" at Giza? Khufu didn't "stay" at Dashur either." What I first said was: 

"Why did Djedfre, if a pyramid, choose to build there [at Abu Roash] at all? Or "Baka" at  Zawayet el-Aryan not even close to Abu Roash let alone Giza?"

Followed by (which you are responding to here):

"Lol. Can you name one Egyptologist whose gives a reason for Djedefre leaving Giza as "why not"? "Just because"? "For the heck of it"? You know full well this is not the logical path and no one is wondering "why did Khafre return to Giza" but rather not only why did Djedfre leave but why did he choose Abu Roash." 

Does any one find the word "stay" in either of these? Something so simple and yet you still have to try and twist it. 

Regardless, Lehner says:

"The very pronounced alignments between pyramid complexes at Giza show considerable concern for unity of design over three generations. An anomaly in this, however, is the pyramid built by Djedefre Khufu's son and successor, 8km (5 miles) to the north on a hillock overlooking the Giza plateau."  

Lehner sees Djedefre leaving as an "anomaly" but you see it as "why not?". Yeah, I'll defer to Lehner and every other Egyptologist instead whom it goes without saying thinks Djedefre had actual reasons, whatever they might be, for leaving Giza and choosing Abu Roash. As to why Djedefre decided to leave and choose Abu Roash, Lehner suggests maybe because it is closer to Heliopolis and maybe he was motivated by religious reasons being he is the first pharaoh to have RE in his name. Abu Roash, again, was an important cemetery none more so than in the 1st Dynasty including massive serekh mastabas and accompanying boat pits. But regardless, as one might imagine there is no support for your truly magnificent "why not?" theory to be found, the least of which Valloggia. 

Kings choose their pyramid (or mastaba) sites for a reason which not all are the same. Giza appears unique, as Lehner notes, which we are left to wonder why did Djedfre choose Abu Roash and not Giza. We are also left to wonder why did Sneferu leave Saqqara and choose Dashur? "Why not?" as the reason is as ignorant as it is dishonest and no doubt if the conversation would have turned another way you just would have made up something else. 

Quote

Do you know where the idea that Djedefre “left” Giza comes from? It was invented by Chassinat, one of the first excavators at Abu Roash, he immagined a damnatio memoriae by Djedefre's successors, a struggle within the royal family regarding succession. Many have copied this idea about “leaving” Giza since. M.Valloggia explains this in the following article (in French) Autour d'une pyramide : Abu Rawash, une mission archéologique franco-suisse en Egypte pg. 24-25

Huh. Really...? So you are saying Chassinat is the one that came up with the idea Djedfere "left" Giza (which we note now all of a sudden you quote me correctly) and built a pyramid at Abu Roash?  I don't know...I'm pretty sure Djedefre was the one to come up with this first (or so the story goes).

Gadzooks. And "do I know"? Pfft. You know I do and and again are just trying to slander me. 

No, of course Chassinat is not the one who came up with the idea Djedefre left Giza as you bizarrely attempt to claim, which as we would expect Valloggia is not saying this either, duh, but rather that he is the one who first offered this particular reason as to why Djedefre left that he completely just made up and Egyptologists have kept repeating it for over 100yrs. Chassinat (and later others who supported the idea) used Djedefre leaving Giza as "proof" for his theory that Djedefre was an usurper- a fantasy he concocted based on what he thought to be purposeful and systematic damage to statuary at Abu Roash, which you would know that if you didn't already by actually reading what Valloggia actually explains and not what you try and make it out to be. 

And Valloggia comments have no context as to why Sneferu left Saqqara and went to Dashur. Or why Khufu went to Giza. Or why the Giza pyramids are a cohesive unit for three generations which Djedefre choose not to be a part of yet still helped helped out by completing the project. Which I am pretty sure his guesses would not include "why not?". But at least now we finally know exactly what you are parroting from. Valloggia says (cleaned up from Google translate):

"In reality, we observe that Radjedef does nothing but follow the example of his predecessors. While his grandfather Snefrou had built pyramids in Dahshur, his father Cheops implanted his tomb in Giza a few kilometers further North. One could therefore just as well wonder why Chephren and Mykerinos returned to Giza to build their pyramids there."  

Which you have been barfing up here almost verbatim. First of all, his "predecessors" whose examples he is supposedly following would only be the two kings directly before him, his father and grandfather, otherwise the last 400+ years of kings did not do this and used the royal burial grounds of Saqqara, or Abydos as discussed before, which clearly it was paramount to be buried near their predecessors, a tradition going back to Dynasty 0. And both of these places have meaning, not just tradition, being the funerary grounds not only of a united Egypt but separately as Upper and Lower Egypt. It cannot be overstated how absurd and ignorant, if not just plain dishonest, to suggest these things have no reason and just happened because of "why not?". 

After 400yrs of building at Saqqara, initially chosen in the 1st Dynasty for its dominant position over what was transitioning to be the new capitol, Memphis, Sneferu went to Meidum (or returned as is more likely the case), then Dahshur for some reason (both miles south of Saqqara). Why? Clearly this is no small thing. Why did he leave the royal burial grounds of all the kings before him? Why attempt to make a new royal cemetery at Dahshur? Something tells me a little more than "why not?" And what makes Dahshur unique, over Giza or Abu Roash, is so far no previous dynastic cemeteries have been discovered. Why then did Khufu go to Giza, nearly 20 miles north of Dahshur, back to a site that did have an early Dynastic presence?

And of course, us usual once again you misrepresent the source. Vallogia does not say this because he is suggesting as you make it out to be that there is no reason for these things, "why not?", but rather only to make the point that the act of changing locations for one's pyramid is not proof in and of itself that Djedfre left Giza because he was an usurper under some kind of strife as Chassinat envisioned. No one knows why he left or any of the rest but no doubt they had their reasons.

Funny though how Chassinat is your BFF when you need him them throw him under the bus when you don't. I'm sure you will do the same to Valloggia if it ever suits you. 

And of course, *sigh*, "Many have not copied"  Chassinat's idea Djedefre left Giza, which again it goes without saying was not his idea in the first place, but rather his bogus explanation as to why he left. Good grief, man. It just never ends with you. And before Chassinat excavations Djedefre's presence at Abu Roash had yet to be confirmed which up to that point all Petrie could surmise is that it likely dated to the 4th Dynasty, though he was of the mind it directly followed Menkaure because of the granite casing, which is actually an interesting point hiding in plain site.  If Petrie and other had known no doubt they would have concocted their own theories as to why Djedefre left Giza for Abu Roash. 

Edited October 8, 2022 by Thanos5150

[Thanos5150]

On 10/7/2022 at 10:42 AM, Djedi said:

Disregarding the insults and focussing on the bold statement that is the last sentence (having a déjà-vu moment here):

You are dishonest at every turn and when that doesn't work you resort to slander and you are the one insulted when you get called out for it? You are some piece of work, but consistent I'll give you that.  

Quote

 

The OP of that thread has been debunked over the course of that thread by myself and others, not to mention several other statements you made later on, wouldn't call that "successful"...

Before you say "No one has debunked me yet".

Remember THIS ?

That list can still be compiled if you want...

 

Yeah, it is déjà-vu all over again because you are lying now just like you were lying then. The readers can see for themselves it has clearly not been debunked, the least of which by the likes of you or any other poster for that matter nor were whatever "several other statements" you are reffering to.  Oh, and I am particularly interested in this new lie of all these "other posters" you just made up-by all means please quote them. That was plural, right, so you should have several to choose from. We wait. 

"This what"? You lying just saying its "debunked" means what exactly and even less when you know what you are saying now as then is not true.  Context for this, not to mention the rest of the thread, can be found: 

HERE.

Your response HERE

Mine: HERE

Readers can follow this conversation between us further HERE.

I would leave it at this HERE. Which if readers continue will only note how your lies and slander quickly pile up the closer you get to the end of your BS. Quoting myself at the end of this exchange, as true then as it is now:

Quote

 

You lie and then you lie even more. You get called out on your BS then blame the other person for accusing you of their own short comings when you know the exact opposite is true. I've seen it countless times before. And when you can't back up your arguments any more and get called out for the parroting hack you are then that's when the personal insults come. Since you can't attack the ideas your only resort is to attack the person. You are too much of a coward to take responsibility for making a fool of yourself and probably want to blow this thread up with dishonest personal insults so the moderators will close the thread and save your ass.

No one has "debunked" me yet, far better than you have tried, which is not saying much- here or anywhere. And I come to this forum which is what-Ancient Mysteries and Alternative History-and you get all butt hurt that this is what people want to actually talk about? What kind of a d-bag has nothing better to do then troll subjects they do not agree with just to argue? I guess that is an open question to others of you here as well. "Mighty Thanos", huh? So then you do know me and know full well the bald faced lies you tell right now. I take all comers and you have failed miserably and now the best you can do is lie and make personal insults you know could not be farther from the truth. This is what cowards do. This is what wanna be something hacks do when they run out of books to parrot and have to think for themselves. And the only gullible people I have found here so far are those that think d-bags like you are remotely qualified to pretend to be some kind of "authorities" and tell others what is what. Pfft. The only saving grace you have is that most of them have no clue what either one of us are talking about. 

 

Lol. Oh, yes-by all means lets have this "list" of yours. And while you're at it why don't you do us all a favor and stop with the lies and personal attacks and just stick to the topics at hand. Every conversation I have had with you for no reason you take this creepy hard left turn and drive the conversation right off a cliff with your sleazy baseless personal attacks and dishonest innuendo which says nothing of how you flip flop facts when it suits you and/or misrepresent sources time and again the least of which of course me. You claim I have been "debunked", well regardless of this not being true for the rest, one thing that most definitely has not been is my assessment of your depraved behavior which any one can see for themselves. Seriously-what a waste of time you turn everything into. I want to talk about Khafre not what a freakshow you are or have to defend myself against your lies and BS which I think most people want as well.  

Edited October 9, 2022 by Thanos5150

[Thanos5150]

On 10/5/2022 at 4:44 AM, Djedi said:

Full denial of using a flawed reasoning as expected. Fact is, you make up non-existing rules like "kings must follow the new trend of decorating their sarcophagi because all their family members do so". Then when you see that  Khafre doesn't do this you make up a reason why his sarcophagus wasn't decorated: it was "older".

Yeesh. It just never ends with you with the dishonesty. I did not make a up any "rule", liar, but as anyone can see I am using the context of the sarcophagi themselves with even pictures no less and forming a hypothesis. Not only of Khafre's contemporaries both those directly before all the way back to at least Kawab who, again, supposedly died during Khufu's reign, a period of almost two decades or more before he took kingship, and after him through Menkuare and beyond. And this is a "trend" to you? Lol. And by the same token you just make up a "non-existing rule" that there is no reason his sarcophagus is not like his family members? Yes, the old "why not?" theory I assume. Once again you accuse someone of doing something they are not which you are merely doing yourself. And, again no, its not just that it was not decorated, or inscribed, but also the pedestrian finish and form, not to mention the overall context also outlined in the OP and my follow up post. Funny how you conveniently forget all that. And before you lie some more, I am searching for answers because as of yet there is no satisfactory explanation as to why this might be which "why not?" just simply isn't good enough. I may be wrong, I may be right-that is what we are here for is it not? It is simply not honest to say Khafre's sarcophagus was up to par with his contemporary royal family's and immediate predecessors and there is no reason for it being the way it is. You don't have to agree the reason is because its older but at least be honest and acknowledge the actual facts which anyone can see for themselves.  

Ironically, you've completely missed a much better argument than your utter "why not?" nonsense which is Reisner's belief that Khafre had a mastaba built for him at Giza when he was a young, perhaps very young prince, which this sarcophagus may have been taken from that i.e. it was made at a time when stone sarcophagi were few and not decorated and inscribed (though I am reconsidering the former). Though I do not agree this is where it came from, at least you would have a logical leg to stand on. But nah, you wouldn't want that.  

Let's recap for a minute. First you misrepresent my argument to argue against me by going on some tangent about the sarcophagus being sunk in the floor which I literally made no mention of. You just made up a strawman and just started swinging away. 

Then you say "It may seem empirical to you but that's because your methodology is flawed, you compare a sarcophagus from a royal tomb with those from private-elite tombs." which is not entirely true as I also show Menkaure (and later Shepsekaf).  

Then you say: "Because some members of the high elite begin to inscribe and / or decorate their sarcophagi with a palace facade motif during / near the end of Khufu's reign doesn't mean the kings had to do the same. For some reason you think they had to and when you see they didn't you simply conclude there's something unusual going on and decide to claim Khafre's sarcophagus is "uncharacteristically primitive and inferior" and therefore predates Khafre." Again you misrepresent what I am saying as it is not that Khafre "had to" but why didn't he? There is a reason for this which again like G1 some Egyptologists thought the same as well so yes I do think there is something "unusual going on" which I suggest the possibility this reason may be because it was made at an earlier time which let's keep in mind at the very least was sometime possibly when Khafre was still a child. Oh, no. Sounds like "fringe" to me. Is it possible G2 was started for Kawab, who we assume would have been Khufu's heir, and the sarcophagus placed when was still a young man then died sometime after well before completion and a new sarcophagus was made for him?  Not saying this was the case this is one possibility. Or maybe, not that I agree, but maybe it was taken from an earlier pharaoh's unused tomb, 3rd Dynasty perhaps, that had some kind of significance-you know, all that robbing and stuff which stealing sarcophagi/coffins was actually a thing. I am not sure what drives you to this manic denialism but if you are thinking this means "lost civilizations" or the like that is all on you buddy. 

To continue, you: "The sarcophagi of some members of high elite that were inscribed and / or decorated are a new development at this stage in the 4th dynasty, the majority of private stone sarcophagi are still undecorated and this remains the case until the end of the Old kingdom when the undecorated ones become a minority."

Again, no it was not "new" but something that had been around for almost two decades if not more. And no the "majority" of private stone sarcophagi were not undecorated/inscribed and was the norm and of those that were not often were not because they were unfinished or not so for other reasons. This idea it was a 'choice of style' which you imply is just nonsense.

You: "Because some new type of sarcophagus is introduced doesn't make all plain undecorated sarcophagi all of a sudden "uncharacteristically primitive and inferior"; they are still mainstream, it is in fact the decorated type that is "uncharacteristically" new."

Satellite pyramids (as opposed to queens pyramids) were more often located to the south or south-east of the pyramid, so the presence of fragments of sarcophagus does not confirm that it was for the burial of a queen rather than for a ritual burial.

 

Again, not true. And again, its not just that it was undecorated/inscribed, but was poor craftsmanship and scope compared to his contemporaries including many of those you list above. What must be understood is that despite the sarcophagus being the most important funerary equipment beyond the tomb itself, just as much it could be argued, there are still numerous examples of them being unfinished. And not just unfinished because they had no decoration but not fully dressed and sometimes not even fully cut. Sarcophagi were expensive not just to acquire and finish but also decorate and inscribe which for various reasons, early death, finances, etc etc this did not always see completion. Also, sarcophagi did not come from the factory decorated and/or inscribed-this obviously was separate craftsmen after the fact which had to be paid for. The pharaoh we can rightly assume was above all this (except an early death which did not apply to Khafre) and stands to reason he would have had for himself as a fine a sarcophagus as to be had. And if not, if a pharaoh did in fact "choose" such a pedestrian sarcophagus we would still have to ask ourselves why?

Quote

All these don't follow your made up "must be decorated rule". Fact is; kings and nobles alike choose for themselves if they wanted a decorated sarcophagus or not. Some choose decorated ones, others didn't; this it what the actual evidence shows us.

Again, you are lying. There is no "made up rule" no more so than your "made up rule" that they "choose for themselves if the wanted a decorated sarcophagus or not". The actual evidence tells us are many factors as to why some are decorated/inscribed having nothing to do with "choice". But since you made up this rule, give us an answer as to why one would "choose" for their sarcophagus, their "home for eternity", to not be decorated when as you imply they just as easily could? Surely you must have an answer for this. 

Quote

Your ploy to date the base of G2 and it's sarcophagus earlier than Khafre is a failure.

"Ploy". Pfft. Your dishonesty and slander is inexhaustible. And no, it is not a "failure" as we already knew some sarcophagi are not decorated/inscribed which you completely ignore reality that there are reasons for this which again have nothing to do with choice nor any of your "trend" nonsense. If Khafre ignored the religious milieu of his times, not to mention these others, then why? He just thought a plain sarcophagus 'looked cool'? What is it then?   

[Thanos5150]

On 10/5/2022 at 1:12 AM, Wepwawet said:

I said that if the Sphinx predated the necropolis it might be expected that earlier kings would have built their tombs, either pyramid or mastaba, by the Sphinx.

And...? We can read your original post which I quoted you the first time. What you said was:

"This raises another question. If, according to some, the Great Sphinx was already in existance, why not build the very first pyramid at Giza to be close to this great "ancient" wonder and "guardian" of the necropolis."

Which I pointed out that G1 is closer to the Sphinx than G2. 

Quote

There is no evidence of any tomb of a king at Giza before Khufu.

And...? Of course not. Why would we expect there to be when before the 4th Dynasty the royal necropoli are at Saqqara and Abydos. It would be highly unusual, with zero other examples, that a king would be buried somewhere else which would have been quite an event.  

And Anubis was not mutually exclusive to the king-far from it.  

Quote

That Khufu's pyramid is closer to the Sphinx does not mean that the Sphinx was already there.

That's what's weird because you literally just said, the very crux of your argument: "If, according to some, the Great Sphinx was already in existance, why not build the very first pyramid at Giza to be close to this great "ancient" wonder and "guardian" of the necropolis." But now that you understand they did build a pyramid close to this great "ancient" wonder and "guardian", duh, which G1 is quite a bit closer than G2, now all of a sudden "That Khufu's pyramid is closer to the Sphinx does not mean that the Sphinx was already there."?  But a pyramid had to be close to it like G2, and G1 which was built before G2 is actually closer, then according to you this is exactly what it means does it not? It's ok, the AE thought the same thing:

"He [Khufu] found the House of Isis, Mistress of the Pyramid, by the side of the cavity of the Sphinx, on the north-west side of the House of Osiris, Lord of Rostaw, and he built his pyramid beside the temple of this Goddess, and he built a pyramid for the King's Daughter, Henut-sen, beside this temple."

So before Khufu built his pyramid the Sphinx and at least one of the associated temples was already there. 

Quote

When I wrote about the Sphinx being an "ancient wonder" or "guardian" it was clearly meant to be read that I do not believe it was "ancient" for 4th Dynasty Egyptians, and neither was it a "guardian", a clear reference to the unfounded idea of the Sphinx being Anubis, an idea you subscribe to.

And...? Clearly this was understood as were your previous comments so I am not sure why you keep repeating yourself "what you said" or not.  

No, it is not an "unfounded idea", Anubis-Lord of the Giza Necropolis. 

Quote

That Giza had been used as a necropolis before Khufu is not in doubt, but there is no evidence it was ever used by a king before Khufu.

Of course it is not in doubt. What does this have to do with it? And again, so what if it was not used by a king before Khufu as a tomb which regardless of the Sphinx being thre or not there would be zero expectation there would be. This is something you just made up to argue against which is not the reality of the situation in the first place.  

Quote

The Sphinx is a solar symbol used primarily by kings, and that this is a fact is probably a reason to try to turn the Sphinx into Anubis to get around the issue of the nature of the Sphinx and so present it as older than it is, and or something it is not, ie a guardian of the necropolis.

Gadzooks. 

The Sphinx is not "just a solar symbol", if it ever originally was as this idea didn't come about until the NK, which prior to the 4th Dynasty this was clearly not the function of the male recumbent lion, a motif going back to the very beginnings of Dynastic Egypt.

Regardless, sorry, but the rest of this bit is as just plain coo-coo as it is offensive. Not only did you literally just make it up out of thin air, a pattern we can see, but not only is this in no uncertain terms not the argument made in the Anubis OP, which whether the Sphinx had a solar association is 100% meaningless, but it also makes no mention of the Sphinx being older or not which also has nothing to do with it. How crazy is that? 

You just made all of this up and not only completely misrepresented what was written but also the reasoning behind it. Which you then couch your made up strawman in weasel words to imply I am somehow the one manipulating the facts to achieve a desired result when no one is even saying this but you. Inexplicable. 

Quote

[snip]

 

Edited October 10, 2022 by Thanos5150

[Trelane]

Man, and I thought things got heated in the Bigfoot threads. Sheesh!

[Saru]

All right that's enough folks - the level of hostility being thrown around in a thread of this nature is quite astounding.

After two pages of bickering and personal insults, there seems little point keeping this thread open.

Closed.