The Khafre Enigma Part II

[Thanos5150]

On 10/22/2024 at 5:17 AM, Wepwawet said:

On a more ephemeral point. The rise of the Aten and the return of sun worship in the 18th Dynasty seems, and it's realy vague, to have it's origins not just in a "nostalgic" look back to the 4th Dynasty, or all of the Old Kingdom, an alien concept to them anyway, but to Khafre in particular, not Khufu. It is Khafre who is the Son of Ra, it is he who has the Ra element to his name, it is objects belonging to him that Akhenaten had, obects, vases it seems, found in pieces in the tomb of Akhenaten. As the 18th Dynasty kings would have more knowledge of their ancestors than we do, I suggest that as it seems that Khafre was more important to them, then there must be a good reason, and as you state, there is an enigma about him, and it may be more than just the succession.

I am not familiar with these artifacts. If you had a source that would be swell. 

 

[Wepwawet]

2 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

I am not familiar with these artifacts. If you had a source that would be swell. 

 

Unfortunately finding the best source, a description and actual image, is not so easy. My memory was faulty and it is not several items, just the one, a diorite bowl. This is mentioned very fleetingly by a number of authors from, the earliest that I have access to, Cyril Aldred's book on Akhenaten from 1988, where he mentions it on page 42, up to the book on Akhenaten by Ronald T. Ridley from 2019, where it is mentioned on page 281. However, the good news is that the same source is mentioned by all the authors. This source is a report of the expedition made in 1931/32 by the Egypt Exploration Society. The bad news is that the report was never fully completed by the outbreak of war in 1939, and the objects now exist in various collections. However, there are these reports and lists made by expedition leader Pendlebury and his team, which I have already scoured and drawn a blank, and also these object cards, which also draw a blank. However, what is in these two sources is not all there is as I can not find other objects listed or mentioned that I know were found, specifically vessels belonging to Thutmose III and Amunhotep III.

 

Edited October 24 by Wepwawet

[Thanos5150]

20 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Unfortunately finding the best source, a description and actual image, is not so easy. My memory was faulty and it is not several items, just the one, a diorite bowl. This is mentioned very fleetingly by a number of authors from, the earliest that I have access to, Cyril Aldred's book on Akhenaten from 1988, where he mentions it on page 42, up to the book on Akhenaten by Ronald T. Ridley from 2019, where it is mentioned on page 281. However, the good news is that the same source is mentioned by all the authors. This source is a report of the expedition made in 1931/32 by the Egypt Exploration Society. The bad news is that the report was never fully completed by the outbreak of war in 1939, and the objects now exist in various collections. However, there are these reports and lists made by expedition leader Pendlebury and his team, which I have already scoured and drawn a blank, and also these object cards, which also draw a blank. However, what is in these two sources is not all there is as I can not find other objects listed or mentioned that I know were found, specifically vessels belonging to Thutmose III and Amunhotep III.

Aldred:

"In 1931 and 1935 the Egypt Exploration Society examined the Royal Tomb and the wadi very thoroughly, shifting dumps of spoil left by earlier excavators down to bedrock, and scraping and brushing the sides of the valley. They succeeded in recovering a mass of fragments, including parts of three stone bowls inscribed with the names of the earlier kings Tuthmosis III, Amenophis III and Khephren, evidently palace heirlooms deposited in the tomb with the burials."

RE your original comments #26, I think its just a bowl and other than being a "collector's item" probably had little significance. 

[Wepwawet]

2 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

I think its just a bowl and other than being a "collector's item" probably had little significance.

If it has significance or not can only be a matter of opinion when there is no documentary evidence to explain it's presence. However, there are some facts to take into consideration. Firstly, while there is nothing of note about Akhenaten having items belonging to his father and great great great grandfather in his tomb, they after all of the same family, the bowl of Khafre's is the only item belonging to a non Thutmosid king. This in itself must raise a question as to why this item of Khafre's was with the burial and not of any other king from the 4th Dynasty, or any other dynasty. Secondly, that while only briefly mentioned by authors who write about the Amarna Period, and there isn't much to say about the bowl in itself, that it does get a mention does indicate that they think it is worthy of note, the question being, just what may it signify.

To me it is part of the background to the rise of the Aten and return to Sunworship with Akhenaten in the 18th Dynasty, and almost from the start of the dynasty. The "Dream Stela" of Thutmose IV, while not mentioning Khafre or any other king, is part of the thread, as is the seeming veneration of the 5th Dynasty king Menkauhor during the 18th Dynasty. Menkauhor is to us rather enigmatic, with no substantial information known about him, not even his parentage, sun temple or tomb, yet clearly the Thutmosid's had access to information about him now lost, and saw in him something of note. There are threads connecting the OK to the Thutmosids, but exactly what, and why, we cannot know, so to me the bowl of Khafre is a part of this puzzle, and says to us, in my opinion, and I believe that of Amarna specialists, that there is more to Khafre than we can ever know, but was known to the Thutmosids.

So this bowl, I contend, is not just a bowl, but an indicator, albeit a small one, in an enigma, to us, that reaches from the Old Kingdom to the 18th Dynasty.

Edited October 25 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

Discussion on Menkauhor continued here

[Thanos5150]

21 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

There are threads connecting the OK to the Thutmosids, but exactly what, and why, we cannot know, so to me the bowl of Khafre is a part of this puzzle, and says to us, in my opinion, and I believe that of Amarna specialists, that there is more to Khafre than we can ever know, but was known to the Thutmosids.

Just so I understand you correctly, is it just your belief these Amrana specialists share your opinion the Khafre bowl is part of some larger "puzzle" or do they actually believe this and have written about it? If the latter, you previously said #28 :

"Unfortunately finding the best source, a description and actual image, is not so easy. My memory was faulty and it is not several items, just the one, a diorite bowl. This is mentioned very fleetingly by a number of authors from, the earliest that I have access to...."

Aldred, as one example, makes no mention of any greater significance to the bowl passing it off as a "palace heirloom" no different than the other two bowl fragments from previous kings also discovered in this dump, so can you quote an author who makes some kind of relevant statement to this idea? 

Quote

So this bowl, I contend, is not just a bowl, but an indicator, albeit a small one, in an enigma, to us, that reaches from the Old Kingdom to the 18th Dynasty.

Yes, it is there for a reason. 

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

Just so I understand you correctly, is it just your belief these Amrana specialists share your opinion the Khafre bowl is part of some larger "puzzle" or do they actually believe this and have written about it?

I believe the Amarna specialists think there is something in this bowl simply because they have chosen to mention it. Ridley puts it like this "....fragments of a diorite bowl of the Fourth Dynasty king Khaefre (!),...". Note he uses an explanation mark to express his surprise that such an object was in the tomb of Akhenaten.

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

Aldred, as one example, makes no mention of any greater significance to the bowl passing it off as a "palace heirloom" no different than the other two bowl fragments from previous kings also discovered in this dump

It was not a "dump" as such, it was the detritus left behind from the robbing and devastation of the tomb. And I'll repeat, that Akhenaten has items in his tomb belonging to his own familial ancestors is hardly of note, but it is this bowl of Khafre's that stands out, otherwise why has Aldred even mentioned it, no matter what he says about it. It is the fact of it's existance that raises questions.

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

Yes, it is there for a reason.

Everything in a tomb is there for a reason, the question is why a bowl belonging to Khafre, and not other items from kings of any period before the Thutmosids. Why Khafre.

[Wepwawet]

I think it worth mentioning the major known "points of contact" between the 4th and 18th Dynasties, and showing that there is a connection on two of the points to Khafre, and also a third, though nothing that can be pinned down or measured to the nth decimal point.

It is known that the path that led to Akhenaten begins with Thutmose I. Here I will cite the fact that he built a temple at the NE of the Sphinx enclosure. To the best of my knowledge, no temple, or other substantial structure had been built by the Sphinx since the Sphinx and Valley temples were constructed in the 4th Dynasty. The Sphinx is generally thought of as having been built by Khafre. This is of course a matter of debate, but that is another discussion and I will go with the concensus opinion. Go forward four generations and Amunhotep II builds a temple by the Sphinx, presumably demolishing that of Thutmose I in the process. Both temples had been aligned on their axis with Heliopolis. Then Thutmose IV states that he cleared the Sphinx enclosure and puts the "Dream stela" between the paws of the Sphinx.

Away from the Sphinx there is other evidence of the emerging importance of solar worship. This is also begun by Thutmose I when he erects the first obelisk at Karnak, a practise continued through the dynasty and beyond. Obelisks of course date back to the time of Teti I, and large obelisks to Senwosret I, but Thutmose I was the first to erect one at Karnak.

Amunhotep III declares himself to be the "Dazzling Aten", among other things, but the accent is on the Aten, the visible disc of the Sun in the sky, and he names his new capital at Thebes after the Aten, as well as the royal barge. I'll note that Khafre is the first king to name himself the Son of Ra, the fast forward to the 18th Dynasty and Amunhotep III names himself after an aspect of Ra, something not done by any intervening king. They may well have all been Son of Ra, and indentified with an aspect of Ra in their throne names, but did not actually describe themselves outside of their name as an aspect of Ra.

Then we have Akhenaten and full blown solar worship to the exclusion of all other gods. And a bowl of Khafre found in the tomb of Akhenaten, while nothing substantial can be said of it, cannot be just discarded as having no significance at all, particularly when this object is unique enough to rate a mention, and an explanation mark.

[Djedi]

15 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I believe the Amarna specialists think there is something in this bowl simply because they have chosen to mention it. Ridley puts it like this "....fragments of a diorite bowl of the Fourth Dynasty king Khaefre (!),...". Note he uses an explanation mark to express his surprise that such an object was in the tomb of Akhenaten.

It was not a "dump" as such, it was the detritus left behind from the robbing and devastation of the tomb. And I'll repeat, that Akhenaten has items in his tomb belonging to his own familial ancestors is hardly of note, but it is this bowl of Khafre's that stands out, otherwise why has Aldred even mentioned it, no matter what he says about it. It is the fact of it's existance that raises questions.

Everything in a tomb is there for a reason, the question is why a bowl belonging to Khafre, and not other items from kings of any period before the Thutmosids. Why Khafre.

 

14 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I think it worth mentioning the major known "points of contact" between the 4th and 18th Dynasties, and showing that there is a connection on two of the points to Khafre, and also a third, though nothing that can be pinned down or measured to the nth decimal point.

It is known that the path that led to Akhenaten begins with Thutmose I. Here I will cite the fact that he built a temple at the NE of the Sphinx enclosure. To the best of my knowledge, no temple, or other substantial structure had been built by the Sphinx since the Sphinx and Valley temples were constructed in the 4th Dynasty. The Sphinx is generally thought of as having been built by Khafre. This is of course a matter of debate, but that is another discussion and I will go with the concensus opinion. Go forward four generations and Amunhotep II builds a temple by the Sphinx, presumably demolishing that of Thutmose I in the process. Both temples had been aligned on their axis with Heliopolis. Then Thutmose IV states that he cleared the Sphinx enclosure and puts the "Dream stela" between the paws of the Sphinx.

Away from the Sphinx there is other evidence of the emerging importance of solar worship. This is also begun by Thutmose I when he erects the first obelisk at Karnak, a practise continued through the dynasty and beyond. Obelisks of course date back to the time of Teti I, and large obelisks to Senwosret I, but Thutmose I was the first to erect one at Karnak.

Amunhotep III declares himself to be the "Dazzling Aten", among other things, but the accent is on the Aten, the visible disc of the Sun in the sky, and he names his new capital at Thebes after the Aten, as well as the royal barge. I'll note that Khafre is the first king to name himself the Son of Ra, the fast forward to the 18th Dynasty and Amunhotep III names himself after an aspect of Ra, something not done by any intervening king. They may well have all been Son of Ra, and indentified with an aspect of Ra in their throne names, but did not actually describe themselves outside of their name as an aspect of Ra.

Then we have Akhenaten and full blown solar worship to the exclusion of all other gods. And a bowl of Khafre found in the tomb of Akhenaten, while nothing substantial can be said of it, cannot be just discarded as having no significance at all, particularly when this object is unique enough to rate a mention, and an explanation mark.

I think the reason for having a bowl belonging to Khafre in his tomb could be explained as wanting to have an object in his tomb connected to the builder of the Great Sphinx of Giza. Akhenaten was quite fond of having himself represented as a sphinx. see HERE (first part of the description seems quite relevant)

[Wepwawet]

27 minutes ago, Djedi said:

I think the reason for having a bowl belonging to Khafre in his tomb could be explained as wanting to have an object in his tomb connected to the builder of the Great Sphinx of Giza.

Yes, I think that would be a good reason.

While there is no evidence to say that Khafre was responsible for the Great Sphinx, I believe that the 18th Dynasty kings give us some circumstantial evidence, something at least more tangible than the fantasists and contrarians can produce.

[Thanos5150]

20 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I'll note that Khafre is the first king to name himself the Son of Ra,

....Poor Djedefre. Never gets the respect he deserves. 

"His name [Djedefre] was written inside a royal cartouche and was the first king to take the title of ‘Son of Re’ that is first attested under Djedefre."

Edited October 27 by Thanos5150

[Spiros]

37 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

....Poor Djedefre. Never gets the respect he deserves. 

"His name [Djedefre] was written inside a royal cartouche and was the first king to take the title of ‘Son of Re’ that is first attested under Djedefre."

He is the only king of Egypt who erected a pyramid so that it aligns with Heliopolis and the rising Sun at a particular time of the year. The pyramids of Giza, Abusir, and Saqqara although they point to Heliopolis do not have the  latter feature. His pyramid also marks the Northern borders of Atlantis and it encodes the name of the mountain in Hellas that is encoded twice(see Giza pyramids vs Hellenic mountains).

Edited October 27 by Spiros

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

....Poor Djedefre. Never gets the respect he deserves. 

"His name [Djedefre] was written inside a royal cartouche and was the first king to take the title of ‘Son of Re’ that is first attested under Djedefre."

Far be it for me to say that the Egypt Museum in Cairo is wrong, but, they are.

I think the confusion comes from his nomen, which can be read as Djedefre or Radjedef. In his cartouche, only one as there is no known prenomen, his name is read from the rounded end. However, if the name contains the name of a god, then the god's name comes at the start, even if it is the last element pronounced. For instance we have Tutankhamun, but in the cartouche the elements of his name come in the order Amun-Tut-Ankh.

In the image that contains his names and variants of his nomen, labeled in German as Eigenname, you can see this order of Ra-Djed-F (ef). The German wiki, always superior to the English when it come to Ancient Egypt, makes no mention of him being "Son of Ra". I think because his name is rendered as Radjedef as well as Djedefre, some folks, sadly at the Egypt Museum, have assumed that the "Ra" element is the same as "Sa Ra", or Son of Ra, but it is not as the Son of Ra is an epithet that is placed outside the cartouche, while the Ra element that forms part of his name is within. There is no epithet Son of Ra associated with Djedefre, even the English wiki, which states he has this epithet, cannot produce an example, and in fact the photo they have showing his nomen clearly has no such epithet, instead it has the epithet which we usually render as "King of Upper and Lower Egypt". However, Djedefre is the first king to have Ra as an element of his name within his cartouche, and this must have significance, but he is still not styling himself "Son of Ra". Therefore Khafre still stands as the first king to have the epithet Son of Ra, and there is a difference between having a theophoric name, and styling yourself as the son of the god.

Image from the English wiki showing not "Son of Ra, but "King of Upper and Lower Egypt".

Image from the German wiki showing his names and variants, and also with no "Son of Ra".

 

Edited October 27 by Wepwawet

[Thanos5150]

18 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

Far be it for me to say that the Egypt Museum in Cairo is wrong, but, they are.

I think the confusion comes from his nomen, which can be read as Djedefre or Radjedef. In his cartouche, only one as there is no known prenomen, his name is read from the rounded end. However, if the name contains the name of a god, then the god's name comes at the start, even if it is the last element pronounced. For instance we have Tutankhamun, but in the cartouche the elements of his name come in the order Amun-Tut-Ankh.

In the image that contains his names and variants of his nomen, labeled in German as Eigenname, you can see this order of Ra-Djed-F, with the F rendered as "ef" for modern pronounciation. I think because his name is rendered as Radjedef as well as Djedefre, some folks, sadly at the Egypt Museum, have assumed that the "Ra" element is the same as "Sa Ra", or Son of Ra, but it is not as the Son of Ra is an epithet that is placed outside the cartouche, while the Ra element that forms part of his name is within. There is no epithet Son of Ra associated with Djedefre, and Khafre still stands as the first king to have the epithet Son of Ra.

 

How about Miroslav Barta p4:

Following Khufu’s establishment of the Giza necropolis, his son Radjedef reigned for approximately 11 years. Radjedef is traditionally known as the king who introduced the fifth element essential to the official royal titulary—namely, the epithet “son of Ra,” emphasizing the link between the king and his mythical father, the sun god Ra. Similarly, the name “Radjedef” ( or “Djedefra”, “Enduring is Ra”) itself expresses the king’s close ties with this deity.

Or Lehner, The Complete Pyramids p120:

Perhaps he was motivated by religious reasons [moving away from Giza] since Djedefre is the first pharaoh we know to take the title "Son of Re'. 

On and on it goes. Sadly its not just folks like the Egypt Museum, its Egyptology, so in reality what you are saying is everyone is wrong but you...?  

 

[Wepwawet]

1 minute ago, Thanos5150 said:

On and on it goes. Sadly its not just folks like the Egypt Museum, its Egyptology, so in reality what you are saying is everyone is wrong but you...?

No.

[Wepwawet]

18 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Following Khufu’s establishment of the Giza necropolis, his son Radjedef reigned for approximately 11 years. Radjedef is traditionally known as the king who introduced the fifth element essential to the official royal titulary—namely, the epithet “son of Ra,” emphasizing the link between the king and his mythical father, the sun god Ra. Similarly, the name “Radjedef” ( or “Djedefra”, “Enduring is Ra”) itself expresses the king’s close ties with this deity.

What needs to be shown to clear this up is an example of Djedfre's name with the epithet Son of Ra, can you find one. I don't say that it does not exist, but I cannot actually find an example.

Here is his name on a statue again. You can see his nomen with the epithet "King of Upper and Lower Egypt", not "Son of Ra".

This is from Darrell Baker's "Encylopedia of the Pharaohs". Note that the only epithet is "King of Upper and Lower Egypt".

 

Edited October 27 by Wepwawet

[Wepwawet]

1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

Djedefre is the first pharaoh we know to take the title "Son of Re'

I'll admit I got this wrong, I don't know why I let myself get trapped in a sort of tunnel vision when I had read what Lehner et al have written about this. Not going to make any feeble excuses either, my bad.

However, and this is not an excuse, everything I pointed out about the cartouches and names was correct. What Djedefre had done was to "introduce" his name with the words "Son of Ra", ie "The Son of Ra, King of Upper and Lower Egypt (Radjedef)", allthough I have never seen an actual example of this. So this epithet was not part of his name, hence it's non appearance in the images I posted, though I'll state again that yes, he was the first king to refer to himself as the Son of Ra.

Edited October 27 by Wepwawet

[docyabut2]

Some believe that the sphinx of his wife, Hetepheres II, which was part of Djedefre's pyramid complex, was the first sphinx created. 

.^[3]

[Thanos5150]

On 10/28/2024 at 6:27 AM, docyabut2 said:

Some believe that the sphinx of his wife, Hetepheres II, which was part of Djedefre's pyramid complex, was the first sphinx created. 

.^[3]

QMFE: 

I question The OK provenance of this sphinx and attribution to Hetepheres II as well.

It would be the only one of its kind found in the OK yet it is ubiquitous in the MK and later, not just the fact it is a sphinx statue at all, but stylistically as well. And not only that, some Egyptologists believe this would be the very first sphinx, before even the [Great Sphinx] itself, which does not jibe either as there is otherwise no precedent for it before, during, or directly after the time the Great Sphinx was carved.

Regardless, it was found in a rubbish dump * along with a few artifacts from the MK of whom also had tombs at Abu Roash. It is a cult item yet there are no sphinx cults in the OK, but are common in the MK and later. It is said to be Hetepheres II only because it is a woman and she is the spouse of Djedefre ** and in this pile of rubble are things associated with Djedefre as is Abu Roash. Which is swell, but in her tombs, of which she may be attributed more than one, or in any other, namely her daughter Meresankh III's- one of the most lavishly adorned Giza tombs which her mother is prominently depicted, ever show her as a sphinx and/or depict the Sphinx itself. Nor do any OK tombs either at Giza or Saqqara show anyone depicted as a sphinx nor the Great Sphinx itself. Context is king and the Hetepheres II sphinx statue is out of place on several levels. I do not believe it is from the OK, but rather a typical sphinx cult object from the MK.

* I wrote this quite a few years ago and the link to my original source crapped out. I believe this statue was discovered by Chassinat and have also read it was found in the remains of a room in the ruins of the mud brick temple which is unusual in and of itself and may also date to a later time. Chassinat's reports are in French and have not been able to find English translations or other specific commentary of its discovery. 

** There is no evidence who this statue is supposed to be with the idea it is Hetepheres II a fanciful attribution IIRC made up by Reisner because he believed she married Djedefre after Kawab though even this is speculation.   

[Windowpane]

On 10/29/2024 at 8:44 PM, Thanos5150 said:

... I believe this statue was discovered by Chassinat and have also read it was found in the remains of a room in the ruins of the mud brick temple which is unusual in and of itself and may also date to a later time. Chassinat's reports are in French and have not been able to find English translations or other specific commentary of its discovery.  ...

I found this article.  I don't know if it's the one you meant.  This is an online translation of (what I think is) the relevant section of that article:

Quote

Excavations have also revealed the existence of five members of Djedefre's family: three sons and two daughters. Their statues were deposited in a chamber, 5.3 meters wide, with a central row of columns, located near the northeast corner of the court, which has already been mentioned, and with an entrance leading into it. The statues rested, facing East, on limestone pedestals placed on the ground, five of which were found in situ. Only one was intact, standing on its base; the remaining three had been fragmented. Four pedestals were aligned in pairs at the base of two of the room’s columns, while the fifth, farther to the north and set back from the fourth, nearly touched the western wall. Nearby, a small wooden hippopotamus (length: 0.30 meters), painted a reddish-brown, lay on its right side with its head turned westward. A little farther away, near the northern wall, there was a limestone sphinx, painted, oriented in the same direction as the statues; a clay lamp was to its left.

This sphinx, along with the one at Giza, is the oldest known.

Page 65: It presents a curious feature. The face is painted yellow and does not bear a false beard. Its features are feminine, and the facial color is consistent with the conventionally used hue for female figures. Its hairstyle, a sort of nemes, differentiates it from ordinary sphinxes, which typically have the royal klaft with the uraeus. This piece is carefully crafted with an original design. The body of the animal is compact and powerfully built, reminiscent of the small ivory lions of the Thinite period. The head is closely set between the shoulders; it barely rises above them, unlike what we see with the Giza sphinx and later-era sphinxes. The sculptor evidently tried to correct the jarring impression produced by the hybrid combination of a human head and an animal’s body, aiming to preserve as much as possible the overall lion-like appearance. The artist succeeded admirably in this goal. This same concern seems to have guided the creators of the Tanis sphinxes. The piece underwent significant modifications in antiquity. Originally more elegant in stature, it was later covered in a layer of plaster and re-modeled. The paws, in particular, were substantially thickened.

 

[Thanos5150]

5 hours ago, Windowpane said:

I found this article.  I don't know if it's the one you meant.  This is an online translation of (what I think is) the relevant section of that article:

 

No, what I had read before was a later recounting, but this is very cool though. Thanks. This is what I wanted to find but couldn't get one translatable to English. Some very interesting observations. He found numerous royal statue fragments inferring a large number of statues, but unlike Khafre and Menkaure's statues (diorite) they are all made of sandstone and also unlike the other two were completely painted including polychrome inlays. He also says of the stylistic contrast between the two:

Quote

The opposition is striking between Didoufrî and Khephren. All the strength of the race, healthy and vigorous, emerges imperiously from the images of the latter, an ideal type of quasi-divine beauty and grandeur; the former, on the contrary, seems closer to the miseries of human nature. I will not dwell on proposing hypotheses concerning the age and physical condition of Didoufrî on the sole examination of his portraits. The basis for them would be too fragile. It is, however, permissible to conclude from the dissimilarities they show with those of Khephren that the artist sought to capture with sincerity the particularities of the king's face and that these are not works of pure imagination or subject to the rules of a conventional art.  

Looking around at some of the statues fragments, like this in in particular which I assume is a typical example:

The quality of craftsmanship is clearly lacking from what would be expected from royal sculptors more indicative of those commonly found in private tombs. This is just bad. The state of the statues as a whole are quite interesting. I am not sure what the answer is but there is definitely a story to be told here.  

As related to the OP, he also notes statues found of Djedefre's children including 3 of his sons which as the story goes none became pharaoh. Also interesting is the confusion over where Djedefre belongs in the royal annals sometimes being omitted entirely. . 

Edited October 31 by Thanos5150

[Thanos5150]

Here's a kooky idea, just spit balling, but it is not known who Djedefre's mother was. It's thought maybe it was Meritites I, daughter of Sneferu/wife of Khufu, but no one knows. Khufu had at least one other wife, Henutsen. Henutsen and Khufu had a son Khufukhaf who some, like Stadelmann, suggest Khufukhaf and Khafre are the same person which Henutsen is thought by some to be Khafre's mother as well. Others suggest Meritites I. What if the problem with Djedefre is the blood line of the mother? So here is a scenario- Djedefre being the eldest son after Kawab's death becomes co-regent in the last years of Khufu's reign out of necessity with Khafre being too young at the time to take the throne. The rub being because of the "impure" blood line of Djedefre's mother, even though he will be allowed to serve out his term as pharaoh after Khufu's death, kingship will revert to the eldest surviving child of the other mother with the "right" bloodline which would be Khafre. Maybe this is why Djedefre choose Abu Roash and not Giza because he was destined to be the only king in his line and wanted his own thing and/or was required to go elsewhere with Giza being reserved for Khufu's "pure" children assumed to take the throne some day. Kind of interesting that even though Djedefre established Abu Roash as a "new" royal cemetery he was the only king after the 4th Dynasty ever attributed to it. This might explain why he was left off some king's lists as well. 

Why he choose Abu Roash is another story I've speculated on, but regardless my gut is telling me part of the Djedefre problem has something to do with bloodlines.  

Edited October 31 by Thanos5150

[Thanos5150]

On 10/31/2024 at 1:03 PM, Thanos5150 said:

Here's a kooky idea, just spit balling, but it is not known who Djedefre's mother was. It's thought maybe it was Meritites I, daughter of Sneferu/wife of Khufu, but no one knows. Khufu had at least one other wife, Henutsen. Henutsen and Khufu had a son Khufukhaf who some, like Stadelmann, suggest Khufukhaf and Khafre are the same person which Henutsen is thought by some to be Khafre's mother as well. Others suggest Meritites I. What if the problem with Djedefre is the blood line of the mother?

So here is a scenario- Djedefre being the eldest son after Kawab's death becomes co-regent in the last years of Khufu's reign out of necessity with Khafre being too young at the time to take the throne. The rub being because of the "impure" blood line of Djedefre's mother, even though he will be allowed to serve out his term as pharaoh after Khufu's death, kingship will revert to the eldest surviving child of the other mother with the "right" bloodline which would be Khafre. Maybe this is why Djedefre choose Abu Roash and not Giza because he was destined to be the only king in his line and wanted his own thing and/or was required to go elsewhere with Giza being reserved for Khufu's "pure" children assumed to take the throne some day. Kind of interesting that even though Djedefre established Abu Roash as a "new" royal cemetery he was the only king after the 4th Dynasty ever attributed to it. This might explain why he was left off some king's lists as well. 

Why he choose Abu Roash is another story I've speculated on, but regardless my gut is telling me part of the Djedefre problem has something to do with bloodlines.  

[edit-created paragraph for readability]

....Too soon? No Atlantis? 

Edited November 8 by Thanos5150

[atalante]

22 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

....Too soon? No Atlantis? 

OK.  I can spitball a suggestion about post #43, too.  Even if the statue in post #43 is from Middle Kingdom, as you suggest, it could be representing the original face on the great sphinx.  

Edited November 9 by atalante

[Thanos5150]

1 hour ago, atalante said:

OK.  I can spitball a suggestion about post #43, too.  Even if the statue in post #43 is from Middle Kingdom, as you suggest, it could be representing the original face on the great sphinx.  

....? Thanks for at least responding, but how does what I wrote invite you to completely ignore it and offer this instead? And my suggestion is based on known facts and/or lack there of-what other than the existence of this statue itself would there be to support a claim the original face of the Great Sphinx was a woman? And before you answer understand there appears to be clear evidence the face of this statue was recarved from that of a lion.