The Osirion has also been attributed to the Middle Kingdom, but judging by its style, the method of building, the material used, and its original stark simplicity, it seems much more likely to be a product of the early IVth dynasty although the level at which it lies might tempt one to think of a much earlier date. That it was not built by Sety I may be deduced from the following facts:

a. When any king built a monument, he always put an inscription saying, “He made it as his monument for his father, Osiris (or whatever was the name of the god to whom it was dedicated). This formula, which is repeated over and over again in temples, is not found anywhere here.

b. The entrance to the building lies outside the northern Temenos Wall of the temple. If Sety had build it, we should expect to find it inside the Temenos.

c. It is obvious, as we shall see, that it was the presence of this building which forced the architects to change the plan of Sety’s temple. A certain amount of “holiness” seemed to be attached to the building since part of Sety’s temple is actually constructed over the ruins of an older temple, but the architect found it imperative to avoid building in any way over the Osirion itself.

d. The inner corners of the walls of the halls and chambers are cut in one block of stone thus avoiding a vertical joint. This is a characteristic of IVth Dynasty architecture and may also be seen in the Valley Temple Of Khafra beside the Great Sphinx of Giza.

e. The massive granite pillars are all monolithic, another Old Kingdom characteristic, whereas the pillars and columns of the temple are all built up in sections. Also, no granite was used in the temple.

f. The Entrance Passage and two of the chambers have saddle roofs, another Old Kingdom characteristic. All of the roofs in the temple are flat or vaulted.

g. This is no connection at all between this building and the temple.

h. Frankfort made sondage pits down the outside walls of the main hall. At the bottom he found pottery of the Archaic Period and early Old Kingdom. There was no more pottery until very near the present ground level when pots of the XXXth dynasty were found.

These suggest that in the period between these dates, the monument was buried in the sand and was inaccessible. Perhaps the structure was built during the early IVth dynasty (maybe by Khufu himself), became neglected and buried under the sand after the downfall of the Old Kingdom and was rediscovered when Sety’s men were digging the foundations of his temple, and so forced them to change the plan of the latter, as we shall see later.

It is certain however, that Sety made some repairs to the Osirion. He certainly had the ceiling of one of the chambers sculptured; again we must stress that he made no claim whatsoever to having built the monument.

Originally posted by Hanslune

It is certain however, that Sety made some repairs to the Osirion. He certainly had the ceiling of one of the chambers sculptured; again we must stress that he made no claim whatsoever to having built the monument.

The Hall of Ma'at

Remember guys sand piles up fast in Egypt

ILAHEE SAID - Since this is a throw down thread I assume we need to keep at least 50% of the usual civility and decorum, and any subtopic goes?

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by TheWayISeeIt

---

Your basic dispute, then, is whether it's Old Kingdom vs. New Kingdom? You're not one of those "Alien nazis from Atlantis in the zork dimension traveled back in time through the hollow earth and built this" types?

TWF said - Your basic dispute, then, is whether it's Old Kingdom vs. New Kingdom?

TWF said - You're not one of those "Alien nazis from Atlantis in the zork dimension traveled back in time through the hollow earth and built this" types?

TWF said - I always get a chuckle out of people complaining about "the orthodoxy" because I've seen more "orthodox" people change their outlook in the face of evidence than I have seen from the self-described "free thinkers" - who's arguments always hinge on arguing from silence.