The stone chest
Vyse describes an empty stone chest with a polished brown surface, blue at chipped or broken areas, and carved architectural panels. He calls the material “basalt”; no modern rock analysis is supplied by that description.
V84The conventional name “Menkaure’s sarcophagus” follows the reported find context. Vyse’s term does not establish its original occupant or use. His p.85 statement about the absence of inscriptions should be read with the separate p.83 report of faint Arabic marks inside.
V83V85Dimensions and technical record
About 2.44 × 0.94 × 0.89 metres
Length × breadth × height, from Vyse’s Appendix.
Original measurements and exact arithmetic conversions
| Dimension | Published measure | Calculated metres |
|---|---|---|
| External length | 8 ft 0 in | 2.4384 |
| External breadth | 3 ft 1 in | 0.9398 |
| External height | 2 ft 11 in | 0.8890 |
| Internal length | 6 ft 5 in | 1.9558 |
| Internal breadth | 2 ft 0½ in | 0.6223 |
| Internal depth | 2 ft 0½ in | 0.6223 |
Calculated using 1 inch = 0.0254 m. Decimal places express arithmetic, not the precision of the historical measurements. Vyse’s “nearly three tons” is an approximate historical statement, not a modern weighing.
The lid and recorded damage
Vyse says the lid was not found in the lower chamber. Pieces were discovered later. He places “the greater part of the lid” near the entrance to the descending passage. The published plate reconstructs the lid, as its title states. V85PLATE-SARC
The two find contexts
The historical account places the stone chest in the lower room labelled “Sepulchral Chamber”. The larger room above is a separate find context.
Vyse’s p.84 text refers to Plate III, figs.2 and 5 for its illustrated position.
Vyse’s p.86 text refers to F in Plate III, fig.1. Raven’s accompanying letter describes finds in the large entrance-room and in removed rubbish; F should not be treated as a surveyed point for every fragment.
Inspect the plan, its F marker and the complete original plates
The labels and room names are those of the historical publication. The reading key above is editorial; the source image has not been redrawn.
V81V86VYSE-PLAN-IIIThe surviving stone fragment: EA6646
The British Museum catalogues EA6646, registration 1838,0113.5, as a fragment from the top edge of the stone sarcophagus. Its recorded size is 10.08 × 7.01 cm, with a maximum thickness of 4.18 cm.
BM6646Vyse’s p.84 footnote states that a piece had been sent to the Museum. That note gives no current inventory number; EA6646’s specific attribution comes from the museum record.
V84© The Trustees of the British Museum. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Converted to WebP without retouching or colour adjustment.
These photographs of fragment EA6646 were taken by the British Museum at the request of the author of this archive. We thank the Museum for its assistance in documenting the surviving fragment.
Reading the photographs
The six views document rough fractures, surviving worked surfaces and painted inventory markings. The scale is part of the museum photography. The images provide a visual reference; establishing the rock type or a physical match would require the appropriate examination records.
The separate wooden coffin
The wooden coffin EA6647 is a separate object. On p.86, Vyse publishes Raven’s letter about wooden fragments, bones and textiles from the larger entrance-room context; Vyse says he was absent. The wood bears Menkaure’s name. The museum catalogue assigns the wood to the Twenty-sixth Dynasty.
V86BM6647Compare the separate wooden coffin
Comparing a possible identification
A candidate would need a documented combination of dimensions, material, carved arrangement, damage and archaeological context. Existing fractures, the reconstructed lid and any obscured surfaces must be accounted for. No candidate is identified in the examined evidence.
Possible condition on the seabed ↗