I don't find your conclusion obvious. Yes, the construction seems better than older Egyptian examples. But that makes sense: the later date of construction in t

I don't find your conclusion obvious. Yes, the construction seems better than older Egyptian examples. But that makes sense: the later date of construction in the Iron Age means more ubiquitous iron tools. The inscriptions don't seem crude to me. Better than the Rosetta Stone. Worse than the Stele of Thonis-Heracleion. In short: You don't give Saite-period stonemasons enough credit. But this is a digression. You want to use the refined, elaborately decorated Saite-period empty stone sarcophagi from Saqqara to suggest that the crude, unadorned stone sarcophagi of the Old Kingdom aren't really sarcophagi and the pyramids weren't tombs. If you're going to talk about how the impossible perfection of the sarcophagi at Saqqara means the Saites didn't produce them, for the sake of argument, fine. But you can't use the same reasoning to suggest the sarcophagi in the pyramids, which are by no means "marvels" of stonecraft, come from a different culture than the Old Kingdom.