Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Orientation of Entrance and Burial Chamber in the Pyramids of the Egyptian Fourth and Fifth Dynasties

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the Mastabat Fara'un, long labeled a mastaba, is actually a pyramid because its underground corridor-and-chamber plan is that of a royal pyramid—and that this substructure template unites the Fourth and Fifth…

desk verdict A useful orientation survey whose central reclassification is a stipulative overclaim; the continuity argument survives if relabeled. read the letter →

arxiv 2503.22682 v2 pith:EEG55TA4 submitted 2025-02-12 physics.hist-ph physics.pop-ph

Amelia Carolina Sparavigna This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.hist-phphysics.pop-ph
keywords EgyptianpyramidsMastabatFara'unShepseskafpyramidsubstructuresburialchamberorientationOldKingdomfuneraryarchitectureFourthDynastyFifth
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the standard way of classifying Egyptian royal tombs—by the shape of the visible superstructure—is less informative than the layout of the underground parts, and that on this basis the so-called Mastabat Fara'un is actually a pyramid, the last royal pyramid of the Fourth Dynasty. It tries to establish that the substructure orientation that became canonical in the Old Kingdom—an entrance on the north side, a corridor running south, and a burial chamber running east-west—was fixed by Snefru's Red Pyramid and then persisted through the Fourth and Fifth Dynasties. Shepseskaf's tomb, the paper contends, shares that orientation but has a simpler internal layout that anticipates Fifth-Dynasty royal tombs, while Userkaf, the first Fifth-Dynasty king, chose the same architectural solution. The broader point is that dynastic boundaries are modern constructs and the funerary record shows an unbroken sequence of royal builders. If the argument holds, the history of the pyramid as a building type gains a member and loses a supposed exception.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the Old Kingdom royal substructure template: a north entrance, a descending corridor that turns horizontal, granite portcullis barriers, an antechamber, and a burial chamber whose long axis runs east-west, with the sarcophagus laid along a north-south axis at the west end. The paper tracks this template through the four Snefru pyramids—Seila, Meidum, Bent, and Red—and shows that the Red Pyramid is the first complete statement of it. That template, rather than the exterior stone shell, is what the paper uses to decide whether a monument is a pyramid, and it is the yardstick by which Mastabat Fara'un is measured and reclassified.

What would settle it

One direct test is archaeological: find an Old Kingdom non-royal mastaba whose substructure contains a sloping corridor, portcullis slabs, and an east-west burial chamber, since the paper's definition requires such a plan to be characteristic of pyramids. Alternatively, a re-examination of the Mastabat Fara'un's casing or of Egyptian texts using two different words for pyramid and mastaba in reference to Shepseskaf's monument would settle whether the author's reclassification matches ancient usage.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that substructure is destiny: a royal tomb is a pyramid if its underground architecture is pyramidal, not because of the exterior form. The paper establishes a consistent Old Kingdom template: a north-facing entrance, a descending corridor that turns horizontal, portcullis blocks, an antechamber, and an east-west burial chamber with the sarcophagus against the west wall, its long axis north-south. It then shows that the Mastabat Fara'un, Shepseskaf's tomb at South Saqqara, fits this template exactly, and that its simple corridor-and-chamber plan is even closer to the Fifth Dynasty pyramids than to the great Giza monuments. The author reads Shepseskaf's choice not as a break with pyramid tradition but as continuity: both Shepseskaf and Userkaf selected the same architectonic solution, and Khaemwaset's restoration inscription—which uses the pyramid hieroglyph for the monument—is taken as evidence that the king's own culture classified it as a pyramid. The body-orientation evidence cited in the paper is used to complete the picture: the sarcophagus stood north-south, the king lay on his left side with his head north and face east, looking toward the sunrise, which the paper connects to its earlier solstice-alignment argument.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the underground substructure, not the visible exterior shape, defines a pyramid; if a ruler's tomb must be pyramid-shaped above ground to count, then Mastabat Fara'un remains a mastaba and the reclassification fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Shepseskaf's tomb is reclassified as the last royal pyramid of the Fourth Dynasty, so the story of the king who abandoned the pyramid would have to be rewritten.
  • The Fifth Dynasty royal tombs from Userkaf to Unas appear as direct architectural descendants of the layout Shepseskaf used.
  • The substructure template—north entrance, corridor, portcullises, east-west burial chamber—becomes a diagnostic for Old Kingdom royal burials.
  • The east-west chamber plan gains an explanatory purpose: with the sarcophagus north-south at the west wall, the king lay on his left side facing the rising sun.
  • The supposed cultural break between the Fourth and Fifth Dynasties is further weakened by the shared architectural choices of Shepseskaf and Userkaf.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the paper's definition is applied consistently, the same substructure test could be run on Khentkawes I's Giza tomb—the 'fourth pyramid'—and on other disputed monuments such as the Unfinished Northern Pyramid of Zawyet El Aryan.
  • The paper's diagnostic suggests a concrete archaeological check: if a clearly non-royal Old Kingdom mastaba ever used a sloping corridor with portcullises and an east-west chamber, the proposed pyramid/mastaba boundary would need to be redrawn.
  • The orientation template could also be used to date or attribute uninscribed substructures, since the north-entrance/east-west-chamber combination appears to be stable across the Fourth and Fifth Dynasties.
  • Taken to its logical end, the argument implies that the 'pyramid age' should be defined architecturally from Snefru's Red Pyramid through Pepi II, making the Fourth/Fifth Dynasty boundary even less significant for building history.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper surveys the entrances, corridors, and burial chambers of the royal tombs conventionally attributed to the Fourth and Fifth Dynasties, with emphasis on the substructure orientations of the pyramids of Snefru, Giza, Abusir, and South Saqqara. Its central claims are that the substructure of the Mastabat Fara'un, the tomb of Shepseskaf, follows the architectural orientation of Fourth Dynasty pyramids and anticipates Fifth Dynasty royal tombs; that this substructure is 'that of a Pyramid' and therefore the monument should be reclassified as a pyramid; that the sarcophagus axis is north-south and the king's body was laid on its left side, head north, face east; and that the pyramids were laid out to observe sunrise throughout the year, including at the solstices.

Significance. If the descriptive core is correct, the paper offers a useful synthetic table of substructure orientations across a crucial period of Old Kingdom royal architecture, and it makes a falsifiable claim about continuity between the internal layouts of the Mastabat Fara'un and later royal tombs. The paper does not present new excavation data, but it assembles published descriptions and plans into a compact comparison. Its main interpretive contribution, the reclassification of the Mastabat Fara'un as a pyramid, is definitionally fragile and, as argued below, needs reframing. The solar-alignment material is a restatement of the author's earlier arXiv work and is not developed into a quantitative test. The paper does not ship machine-checked proofs or reproducible code; its value is as a synthetic literature-based argument.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 'Is Mastabat Fara'un a mastaba? No. It is a pyramid, because the substructure is that of a Pyramid.'] The reclassification of the Mastabat Fara'un is not supported as stated. The paper introduces a definitional criterion—that a corridor substructure, rather than the external form, makes a pyramid—without defending it against the standard Egyptological definition based on the superstructure. Moreover, the paper's own evidence is mixed: the Bogdanov 2019 passage quoted later explicitly records a mastaba determinative for qbH(w)-Spss-kA=f and states that 'the plan for construction of a mastaba instead of a pyramid probably did not change immediately.' The categorical sentence 'No. It is a pyramid, because the substructure is that of a Pyramid' is therefore an overclaim. The architectural-continuity point does not require this label; it can be stated as a 'pyramid-like substructure.' Because the reclassification is load-bearing for the claim that Shepseskaf's tomb is the last Fourth Dynasty pyramid, this needs to be revised.
  2. [Sections 'The body' and 'The divine kings and their tombs'] The claim that 'the body of the deceased king was lying on its left side, extended, head to the north, face towards the east' is generalized to all the kings discussed, but the only cited support is Raven 2005 on body positions in Egyptian burials generally, and most of the royal tombs in question were found empty. The extrapolation from non-royal and textual evidence to kings whose bodies are missing is an unsupported extension. This claim is not essential to the architectural argument, so it should either be removed or explicitly presented as an inference with a much lower confidence.
  3. [Sections 'The Giza pyramids and the sun', 'Sunrise and sunset on Winter Solstice', and 'Abusir: sunrise and sunset…] The solar-alignment claims are presented as if they explain the builders' intentions, but the argument is only that SunCalc images show that certain solstice sunrise directions are visible from certain pyramids. No quantitative comparison is made to the actual pyramid orientations, no error budget is given, and no alternative explanation (such as topographic siting constraints) is tested. The statement 'Shepseskaf had no room to build his pyramid close to that of Khufu' is also asserted without evidence. Since the solar material is part of the paper's framing, it needs to be clearly labeled as an interpretive proposal rather than a demonstrated result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 'IV and V Pyramids'] The table does not provide a reference for each entry, and some entries are questionable; for example, Bicheris is attributed to the unfinished pyramid at Zawyet El Aryan with the caveat that its owner is not certain. Adding primary or standard Egyptological references to each row would strengthen the table.
  2. [Throughout] There are numerous typos, including 'Fourt Dynasty' in the introduction, 'East-Wets' for Djedkare Isesi in the table, 'Libreairy' for Librairie in reference 33, and the ligature 'unfinished' in an image caption. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  3. [Section 'The fence of Lebanon wood'] The relevance of the Bogdanov discussion to the paper's main argument is not fully explained; the passage ends with an important caveat that the plan for a mastaba instead of a pyramid 'probably did not change immediately,' which actually undercuts the reclassification claim. This should be addressed explicitly in the text.
  4. [Section 'The name of the pyramid'] The presentation of the Nikauhor false-door title is confusing: the same text is repeated with slightly different transcriptions, and the relationship between the pyramid determinative and mastaba determinative should be stated clearly, since it is directly relevant to the reclassification argument.
  5. [References] Several claims are cited to Wikipedia and other non-peer-reviewed web sources, including the critical definitional and reclassification statements. These should be replaced with standard Egyptological literature where available, especially for definitions of 'mastaba' and 'pyramid.'

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

The 'it is a pyramid' reclassification is true by the paper's own substructure-based definition; the substructure-continuity survey is independent.

  1. self definitional [Unheaded section beginning 'Is Mastabat Fara’un a mastaba?' (immediately before the mastaba schematic; the same presupposition appears in the Fourth-Dynasty table heading 'Pyramid (IV Dynasty)'…]
    "Is Mastabat Fara’un a mastaba? No. It is a pyramid, because the substructure is that of a Pyramid."

    The paper sets up a dichotomy in which a mastaba has 'a vertical pit, NOT by a corridor' while a pyramid has a corridor substructure. Under that stipulated criterion, the observation that Shepseskaf's tomb has a sloping corridor, portcullises, and an east-west chamber makes 'pyramid' true by definition; the label does not follow from an external or defended definition of pyramid. The classification is also presupposed earlier: the table heading 'Pyramid (IV Dynasty)' already includes Shepseskaf before the argument is made. The independent architectural claim—that the substructure resembles Fourth Dynasty pyramids and anticipates Fifth Dynasty tombs—does not depend on this label and remains supported by the survey.

full rationale

The only genuinely circular step is the categorical reclassification of Mastabat Fara'un as a pyramid: with the paper's dichotomy (mastaba = vertical shaft, pyramid = corridor substructure), the conclusion is entailed by the premise. That step is load-bearing for the paper's headline claim that the monument is 'the Shepseskaf pyramid', but it is not load-bearing for the architectural-continuity survey, which is assembled from external descriptions and plans and would survive if rephrased as 'pyramid-like substructure'. The orientation tables, the Red Pyramid and Fifth Dynasty comparisons, and the Khaemwaset/Palermo Stone epigraphic evidence are independent of the author's definition and are not circular. The solar-alignment discussion explicitly restates the author's 2016 arXiv result and is ancillary rather than a derivation from the present data; the body-position claim is a generalization from Raven (2005) applied to empty tombs, which is an evidentiary weakness but not circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported. Score 5 reflects one definitional circularity that forces the 'pyramid' label while the substantive orientation claims retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's load-bearing interpretation rests on two ad hoc definitions: that internal substructure determines pyramid status, and that solstice sunrise visibility is a design principle. The body-position claim is a domain assumption borrowed from general burial studies. No new entities are postulated, and there are no fitted numerical parameters.

assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper A pyramid is defined by its substructure, not its superstructure.
    Invoked to reclassify the Mastabat Fara'un as a pyramid in the section 'Is Mastabat Fara'un a mastaba? No. It is a pyramid, because the substructure is that of a Pyramid.' This definition is not standard in Egyptology, where exterior form generally determines the mastaba/pyramid distinction.
  • domain assumption The ancient Egyptians perceived kingship as an unbroken line, so dynasty boundaries are artificial.
    Used in the introduction to frame the architectural continuity argument; the paper cites Wikipedia and Hawass (2006) for this, but it is a historical interpretation rather than a proven fact.
  • domain assumption The body of each deceased king lay on its left side, extended, head to the north and face towards the east.
    Inferred from Raven (2005) and applied generally to the Fourth and Fifth Dynasty burials, most of which were found empty; the assumption is needed for the symbolic reading of the body as oriented like the Nile.
  • ad hoc to paper Pyramids were laid out so the king could observe sunrise throughout the year, with solstice alignments.
    Proposed in the author's 2016 paper (arXiv:1604.05963) and reasserted here using SunCalc screenshots; no independent archaeological test is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Orientation of Entrance and Burial Chamber in the Pyramids of the Egyptian Fourth and Fifth Dynasties." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EEG55TA4

@misc{pith2026250322682,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Orientation of Entrance and Burial Chamber in the Pyramids of the Egyptian Fourth and Fifth Dynasties},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EEG55TA4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2503.22682}
}
read the original abstract

In a recent work, arxiv:2412.20407, we have mentioned two Egyptian kings, Shepseskaf and Userkaf, of the IV and V Dynasties. Here we continue discussing their burial places, that is their pyramids, in a new framework based on the study of orientation of pyramid substructures (entrances, corridors, burial chambers). Shepseskaf and Userkaf opted for the same architectonic solutions, exhibiting a continuity in funerary architecture. After showing the substructure orientations of the pyramids of the IV and V Dynasties, we will stress that the substructure in the Shepseskaf's pyramid, the Mastabat Fara'un, is oriented as in the Fourth Dynasty architecture of pyramids and that it has a layout which is closer to that used by the following Fifth Dynasty. In our discussion, we will start with the first ruler of the Fourth Dynasty, Snefru, who introduced a new form of external and internal layout of the burial complexes of the king, through an evolution based on four attempts, the Seila, Meidum, Bent and Red pyramids. In the final model, the Snefru's Red pyramid, the substructure has a north entrance and a burial chamber east-west oriented. This orientation persisted in the pyramids of the Fourth and Fifth Dynasties, and beyond. The Sekhemkhet (Djoserty) pyramid of the Third Dynasty is also illustrated for comparison, such as some earlier burial monuments. In the discussion here proposed the position of sarcophagus and of the body inside it is also investigated. The sarcophagus has its axis north-south. The body of the deceased king was lying on its left side, extended, head to the north, face towards the east. In this framework, we propose again what we told in arXiv 2016, arxiv:1604.05963, and the layout of pyramids with respect to sunrise on solstices.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abd-Alghafour, Y ., Eissa, A., & Al-nadi, M. (2023). Representation of ‘SAw’ and ‘Pr-nw’ Shrines in the Funeral Procession in Some Non-Royal Mastabas During the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties. Journal of the Faculty of Archaeology. Cairo University, 14(26), 183-214

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    V ., Nigrelli, S

    Almansa-Villatoro, M. V ., Nigrelli, S. Š., & Lehner, M. (Eds.). (2022). In the House of Heqanakht: Text and Context in Ancient Egypt. Studies in Honor of James P. Allen (V ol. 16). Brill

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Baikie, J. (2018). Revival: Egyptian Antiquities in the Nile Valley (1932). A Descriptive Handbook, Taylor & Francis. ISBN:9781351344067, 1351344064

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Bárta, M. (2016). ‘Abusir Paradigm' and the Beginning of the Fifth Dynasty. In Hein, Irmgard; Billing, Nils; Meyer-Dietrich, Erika (eds.). The Pyramids between life and death: proceedings of the workshop held at Uppsala University, May 31st – June 1st, 2012. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Boreas. V ol. 36. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet. pp. 51–74. ISBN 97...

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Bestock, L. (2008). The early dynastic funerary enclosures of Abydos. Archéo-Nil, 18(1), 42- 59

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Bogdanov, I. (2019). The old kingdom evidence on the toponym ḫntj-š “Lebanon”. Ägypten und Levante/Egypt and the Levant, 29, 125-148

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Borchardt, L. (1907). Das grabdenkmal des königs Ne-user-reʻ (V ol. 1). JC Hinrichs

    work page 1907

  8. [8]

    Budge, E. W. (1981). An Egyptian hieroglyphic dictionary. Ripol Classic

    work page 1981

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Bunbury, J. et al. (2009). Giza Geomorphological Report. Giza Plateau Mapping Project Season 2006-2007 Preliminary Report. M. Lehner, M. Kamel and A. Tavares. Boston, Ancient Egypt Research Associates, 158-65

    2009

  2. [10]

    Dickinson, T. (2014). A Landscape and Materials-based Approach to Royal Mortuary Architecture in Early Third Millennium BC Egypt (Doctoral dissertation, UCL (University College London))

    2014

  3. [11]

    Drioton, E., Lauer, J.-P. (1937). Une inscription de Khamouas sur la face sud de la pyramide d’Ounas à Saqqarah. Ann. Serv. Antiq. L’égypte, 37, 201–211

    1937

  4. [12]

    Edwards, J. M. (2011). The Great Pyramid, the Genesis connection. Path through the Pyramid, https://pathamid.com/index.html

    2011

  5. [13]

    Engel, E. (2008). The royal tombs at Umm el-Qa’ab. Archéo-Nil, 18(1), 30-41

    2008

  6. [14]

    Sept tombeaux à l'est de la Grande Pyramide de Guizeh

    Fakhry, Ahmed (1935). Sept tombeaux à l'est de la Grande Pyramide de Guizeh. Cairo: Imprimerie de l'Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale, 1935

    1935

  7. [15]

    The Monuments of Sneferu at Dahshur

    Fakhry, Ahmed (1961). The Monuments of Sneferu at Dahshur. General Organization for Government

    1961

  8. [16]

    Gomaà, F. (1973). Chaemwese, Sohn Ramses' II. und Hoherpriester von Memphis (V ol. 27). Harrossowitz. Wiesbaden, Germany

    1973

  9. [17]

    Grimal, N. (1997). Chantiers archéologiques et programmes de recherche. Etudes égyptologiques et papyrologiques. 2. Abou Rawash. In: BIFAO Band 97, 1997, S. 324

    1997

  10. [18]

    Grimal, N. (1998). Chantiers archéologiques et programmes de recherche. Etudes égyptologiques et papyrologiques. 2. Abou Rawash. In: BIFAO Band 98, 1998, S. 500

    1998

  11. [19]

    Hassan, S. (1943). Excavations at Giza (1932–1933). V ol. 4. Cairo: Faculty of Arts of the Egyptian University. OCLC 645004242

    1943

  12. [20]

    Hawass, Z. (2006). Mountains of the Pharaohs: The Untold Story of the Pyramid Builders. Doubleday Religion, 1st, First Edition

    2006

  13. [21]

    Helck, W., & Otto, E. (1984). Lexikon der Ägyptologie, vol. 5. Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden 1984, ISBN 3447024895, p. 310, 497-498

    1984

  14. [22]

    Jarus, O. (2009). Exclusive: New Discoveries at Snefru’s Pyramid at Seila. Heritage Key, Unlock the Wonders, heritage-key.com/blogs/owenjarus/

    2009

  15. [23]

    Jarus, O. (2010). Huge’ structure discovered near Snefru’s Bent Pyramid in Egypt may be an ancient harbour. Heritage Key, Unlock the Wonders, heritage-key.com/blogs/owenjarus

    2010

  16. [24]

    Jarus, O. (2021). Why did ancient Egyptian pharaohs stop building pyramids? LiveScience, livescience.com/why-ancient-egyptians-stopped-building-pyramids

    2021

  17. [25]

    Jarus, O. (2023). How old are the Egyptian pyramids? LiveScience, livescience.com/archaeology/ancient-egyptians/how-old-are-the-egyptian-pyramids

    2023

  18. [26]

    Lamy, L. (1981). Egyptian mysteries: new light on ancient knowledge. Thames & Hudson

    1981

  19. [27]

    Leclant, J. (1993). Le Prince Archéologue, Energies. Le Mag. Int. De Total, 16, 39–41

    1993

  20. [28]

    Lehner, M. (1997). The Complete Pyramids, Solving the Ancient Mysteries. Thames & Hudson Ltd. ISBN 978-0-500-05084-2

    1997

  21. [29]

    Lloyd, A. (2024). The first Egyptologists: studying ancient Egypt in antiquity. Ancient Egypt·Magazines, n.146, https://the-past.com/feature/the-first-egyptologists/

    2024

  22. [30]

    Monnier, F., & Puchkov, A. (2016). The Construction Phases of the Bent Pyramid at Dahshur. A Reassessment, ENiM 9, 2016, p. 15-36. Available Researchgate

    2016

  23. [31]

    Muhlestein, K. (2019). Excavations at the Seila Pyramid and Ritual Ramifications. In Excavations at the Seila Pyramid and Fag el-Gamous Cemetery (pp. 48-75). Brill

    2019

  24. [32]

    Naydler, J. (2005). A Question of Method. Shamanic Wisdom In the Pyramid Texts, Rochester: Inner Traditions

    2005

  25. [33]

    Neville, E. (1903). La pierre de Palermo, Libreairy Émile Bouillon, Paris 1903

    1903

  26. [34]

    Price, C. (2022). The legacy of prince Khaemwaset at Saqqara. Heritage, 5(3), 2196-2209

    2022

  27. [35]

    Raven, M. J. (2005). Egyptian concepts on the orientation of the human body. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, 91(1), 37-53

    2005

  28. [36]

    Redford, D. B. (2001). Manetho. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, V olume 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 336–337. ISBN 978-0-19-510234-5.”

    2001

  29. [37]

    Schlögl, H. A. (2006). Das alte Ägypten: Geschichte und Kultur von der Frühzeit bis zu Kleopatra. CH Beck

    2006

  30. [38]

    Seipel, W. (1980). Untersuchungen zu den ägyptischen Königinnen der Frühzeit und des alten Reiches: Quellen und historische Einordnung. Universität Hamburg

    1980

  31. [39]

    Sousa, R. (2014). Body, Cosmos and Eternity: New Trends of Research on Iconography and Symbolism of Ancient Egyptian Coffins. Archaeopress Publishing Limited

    2014

  32. [40]

    Sparavigna, A. C. (2016). Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure Pyramids and the Sun. arXiv preprint arXiv:1604.05963

    2016 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Sparavigna, A. C. (2024). Two Egyptian Kings, Shepseskaf and Userkaf, and a solar eclipse (2471 BC). arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.20407

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Sparavigna, A. C. (2024). Timekeeping at Akhet Khufu, as shown by the Diary of Merer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.08061

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Sparavigna, A. C. (2025). King Shepseskaf and his Pyramid, the Mastabat Fara'un. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14814097

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    Strudwick, N. C. (2005). Texts from the pyramid age (V ol. 16). Brill

    2005

  37. [45]

    Valloggia, M. (2001). Au coeur d’une pyramide. Une mission archéologique en Egypte. Gollion 2001, S. 60

    2001

  38. [46]

    Verner, M. (1998). The Pyramids. Grove Press, New York. 105–139

    1998

  39. [47]

    Verner, M. (1999). Die Pyramiden. Rowohlt-Taschenbuch-Verlag, Reinbek 1999, ISBN 3- 4996-0890-1, p. 270-272

    1999

  40. [48]

    Verner, M. (2001). The Pyramids. Their Archaeology and History. London, Atlantic Books London

    2001

  41. [49]

    Vv. Aa. (1970). The Cambridge Ancient History, V olume 1, Cambridge University Press

    1970

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.