Researchers of the Egyptian architecture and building techniques of Dynasty 4 would assume that there was a progression in style and skill level from the beginning to the end of this epoch. But is this really the case?
Whilst the pyramid of Kafre deviates in a number of respects, as noted in earlier posts, from the Pyramid of Khufu, the Pyramid of Menkaure appears to be so different that one wonders whether, or not, it even fits into the timeline.
Some time ago, my attention was drawn to these differences by studying the image below. It's obviously a casing stone. But, compared with Khufu's, quite different.
Firstly, it's granite and not limestone. It has a recessed rear face and slots in the base, and is quite a distance from the structure.
Did it fall? Was it carved in situ? Was it transported as is, and still awaits placement?
![]()
The same with this block. How did it get in that position? Why was it left and not reused?
![]()
One has to ask the question why, after perfecting limestone casing blocks on Khufu, would the masons drop that skill and change to much harder granite? And why didn't they finish the pyramid, as can be seen below?
![]()
And while the workmanship is of a high standard, it isn't of the same standard as Khufu.
![]()
The blocks have been levelled off on the top, but with a raised front edge. Have front and side platforms at the base, and have been left rough at the edges.
![]()
![]()
Even copious amounts of cement were used.
![]()
One school of thought is that the rough pyramidal stonework was dressed from the top down. But is that the case with Menkaure? It appears that the masons worked from one side to another.
![]()
The arrangement of the paving stones is difficult to explain.
![]()
But the most unusual feature is the positioning and construction of the so-called Mortuary Temple. Why does the back wall of the temple abut the base of the pyramid?
What came first - the temple or the pyramid? Did the workers build the temple first and then "back" the pyramid up? Or, did they build the pyramid first and abut the temple after completion?
How were the masons supposed to dress the casing stones when they are hard up against the temple blocks?
![]()
![]()
And why is the nummulite sandstone so badly eroded. It is supposed to be contemporaneous with the core blocks and has been buried for centuries, if not since the time of Dynastic Egypt, if one studies the photographs of Reisner's early 20th C. excavation.
![]()
![]()
![]()
A number of scenarios are possible to explain these apparent anomalies, but the mainstream version that Menkaure died and, therefore all work stopped and was supposedly resumed by his son is unsatisfactory, and does not answer the sudden change in direction in building techniques, materials or planning.
What happened?
lover
Whilst the pyramid of Kafre deviates in a number of respects, as noted in earlier posts, from the Pyramid of Khufu, the Pyramid of Menkaure appears to be so different that one wonders whether, or not, it even fits into the timeline.
Some time ago, my attention was drawn to these differences by studying the image below. It's obviously a casing stone. But, compared with Khufu's, quite different.
Firstly, it's granite and not limestone. It has a recessed rear face and slots in the base, and is quite a distance from the structure.
Did it fall? Was it carved in situ? Was it transported as is, and still awaits placement?
The same with this block. How did it get in that position? Why was it left and not reused?
One has to ask the question why, after perfecting limestone casing blocks on Khufu, would the masons drop that skill and change to much harder granite? And why didn't they finish the pyramid, as can be seen below?
And while the workmanship is of a high standard, it isn't of the same standard as Khufu.
The blocks have been levelled off on the top, but with a raised front edge. Have front and side platforms at the base, and have been left rough at the edges.
Even copious amounts of cement were used.
One school of thought is that the rough pyramidal stonework was dressed from the top down. But is that the case with Menkaure? It appears that the masons worked from one side to another.
The arrangement of the paving stones is difficult to explain.
But the most unusual feature is the positioning and construction of the so-called Mortuary Temple. Why does the back wall of the temple abut the base of the pyramid?
What came first - the temple or the pyramid? Did the workers build the temple first and then "back" the pyramid up? Or, did they build the pyramid first and abut the temple after completion?
How were the masons supposed to dress the casing stones when they are hard up against the temple blocks?
And why is the nummulite sandstone so badly eroded. It is supposed to be contemporaneous with the core blocks and has been buried for centuries, if not since the time of Dynastic Egypt, if one studies the photographs of Reisner's early 20th C. excavation.
A number of scenarios are possible to explain these apparent anomalies, but the mainstream version that Menkaure died and, therefore all work stopped and was supposedly resumed by his son is unsatisfactory, and does not answer the sudden change in direction in building techniques, materials or planning.
What happened?
lover