Why are there no decorations in the great pyramid?, page 1

From ourworld.compuserve.com...

Although the Great Pyramid does not contain any official inscriptions or decorations saying when or by whom it was built, it is not completely devoid of hieroglyphics. In 1765 a narrow crawlway was discovered, leading from the top of the eastern wall of the Grand Gallery to a low, bat-infested compartment directly above the ceiling of the King's Chamber. In 1837 Col. Howard Vyse and his assistants discovered four more 'construction chambers'* above it, each two to four feet high. They had been sealed since the Pyramid was built and gunpowder had to be used to gain access to them. On some of the walls and ceilings of these four chambers crude hieroglyphs were found, daubed in red paint, which are thought to have been added by the work-crews. The inscriptions included two cartouches (royal names enclosed in an oval) -- 'Khufu' and 'Khnum-Khufu' -- and Egyptologists saw this as confirmation of the tradition that the Pyramid was built for the pharaoh Khufu.

Given your basic question is not valid, would you like to clarify it?

reply to post by TLomon

---

The chambers of Khufus pyramid are barren of the types of hieroglyphs found in other tombs. I stated that I do not dispute the much 'disputed' crude graffiti found above the kings? chmaber - this is far from the grand artwork you would expect to find in the greatest man made structure of all time.

reply to post by Moodle

---

If you look at the valley of the kings - and those tombs - they have elaborate wall decorations, surely Khufu's resting place should also contain an even grander level of interior artwork.

Originally posted by TLomon
From ourworld.compuserve.com...

Although the Great Pyramid does not contain any official inscriptions or decorations saying when or by whom it was built, it is not completely devoid of hieroglyphics. In 1765 a narrow crawlway was discovered, leading from the top of the eastern wall of the Grand Gallery to a low, bat-infested compartment directly above the ceiling of the King's Chamber. In 1837 Col. Howard Vyse and his assistants discovered four more 'construction chambers'* above it, each two to four feet high. They had been sealed since the Pyramid was built and gunpowder had to be used to gain access to them. On some of the walls and ceilings of these four chambers crude hieroglyphs were found, daubed in red paint, which are thought to have been added by the work-crews. The inscriptions included two cartouches (royal names enclosed in an oval) -- 'Khufu' and 'Khnum-Khufu' -- and Egyptologists saw this as confirmation of the tradition that the Pyramid was built for the pharaoh Khufu.

Given your basic question is not valid, would you like to clarify it?

ok, but there are no photos of videos either

it is like i have to just accept this based on faith?

i do not know, i do not like accepting such large things without seeing any proof what so ever...

The inventory stele linked Khufu's name with the pyramid, but did he build it or restore an ancient ruin? The stele does not claim he built it, and late 19th c. archeologists needed a "smoking gun" that undeniably linked Khufu to the pyramid, this was one of their goals. So Vyse either fabricated the graffiti that names Khufu or it's a legit find. If he did fabricate it then it would explain the "mistake" in the hieroglyphics used. There's also a affidavit filed by a descendant of one of the explorer's present during that find disputing Vyse claims, and mentioned witnessing Vyse entering the chamber with paint (see Murder and forgery inside the Great Pyramid?.

Other artifacts that might date the pyramid have gone missing (Dixon relics such as the cedar wood removed from one of the shafts he discovered) or have yet to be tested. Another wood sample was removed from a shaft and has since been in Hawass' possession and yet hasn't been tested or the results published if it has. Another artifact, an iron plate, discovered by Vyse has also been claimed as a forgery despite having affidavits from his fellow explorers. Egyptologist "authorities" are quick to claim his iron plate a forgery but then hold up his graffiti discovery as legit. One claim of fraud by these same authorities should destroy his credibility.

A boat discovered outside the pyramid wall doesn't prove anything, only that Khufu existed and he or his descendant buried a boat there.

While there's anecdotal evidence of Khufu building the GP, the only piece of concrete evidence was the graffiti above the King's Chamber as found by Vyse. Without that piece of evidence then you can still dispute who built the GP. If Khufu took possession of the GP and used it as his tomb then he would have left only a modicum of evidence behind, the sort of evidence that isn't built into the pyramid but only found within it's vicinity.

reply to post by twodee

---

It isn't only the GP that is without interior artwork, hieroglyphs etc. AFAIK...Of the hundred or so pyramids, none are decorated.

There isn't any evidence to support their existence at an earlier date which removes the possibility of their being stolen, defaced or removed. If I can find out 'why' the AEs chose not to decorate the interiors, I'll return and post on it

reply to post by Rockstrongo37

---

do you have links to any of the arab testimony?

2nd line

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by TLomon
Given your basic question is not valid, would you like to clarify it?

ok, but there are no photos of videos either

Wrong...

it is like i have to just accept this based on faith?

i do not know, i do not like accepting such large things without seeing any proof what so ever...

Col. Vyse's discovery was a fraud, or at least this professor thinks so...

Zechariah Sitchin pointed out that the first letter was not [kh] , but [ra] . The hieroglyphic [kh] is drawn as a circle with many lines in it . [Ra] is also a circle , but with a smaller circle inside . Because the inscription is not so clear , it is difficult to conclude whether it is [kh] or [ra] . It could be either .
I contend that an alternate reading , based on analysis of the hieroglyphics is equally plausible . If we compare the two cartouches we can see clearly the differences .
In hieroglyphics, a young quail represents the letter [w] . It looks like a chick , with a small dumpy body ,round head , small bill and small wing (Fig.2) .
However the hieroglyphic of the birds found in the Great pyramid (Fig.1) clearly depict birds with longer bills jutting out \ not at all like chicks . Furthermore they have large wings and thus represent fully grown birds .
On the other hand , the Egyptian eagle represents the letter [a] . Therefore the second and fourth hieroglyphics could easily be read as [a] rather than [w].

The conventional reading of the third hieroglyphic is even more doubtful .
The letter [f] is usually represented by a snake with two horns on its head . At first sight , the third drawing looks like a snake , but careful observation leads us to notice that the two horns are clearly something different . In fact although the shorter of the lines may look like a horn , it is placed near , what would be the neck , not on the head . Still more , the depiction has a short protuberance on the lower part .

This hieroglyphic doesn't seem to represent the letter [f], but is much closer , in appearance ,to a branch of a tree \ which usually represents the sound [ht] .
( There is usually a curved line under the [h] of [ht] .)

www2.odn.ne.jp...

There's a detailed analysis on that site comparing the hieroglyphs. Either way it looks like bootleg scribble compared to the decor of other tombs.

Certain researchers flip flopped when lucrative career opportunities opened up. (I can't say I blame him)

While von Däniken sticks to the forgery line, Graham Hancock changed his mind in the light of "new" evidence known to Egyptology since the 19th century. Says Hancock:

"Cracks in some of the joints reveal hieroglyphs set far back into the masonry. No 'forger' could possibly have reached in there after the blocks had been set in place - blocks, I should add, that weigh tens of tons each and that are immovably interlinked with one another. The only reasonable conclusion is the one which orthodox Egyptologists have already long held - namely that the hieroglyphs are genuine Old Kingdom graffiti and that they were daubed on the blocks before construction began."

Hancock wrote those words in 1998, just months before the launch of his high-profile television series "Quest for the Lost Civilization" and his book Heaven's Mirror. Hancock seemed to be seeking credibility as a serious researcher at the time, and he revised his beliefs accordingly...

jcolavito.tripod.com...

So, it was either forged by Vyse, written as Rahta slightly incorrectly about 10,000 years ago, written as Khufu slightly incorrectly 4600 years ago...

or...

But why does the modern-day photograph look so different from the original drawing of the same cartouche?

This guy has another, slightly modified theory.

www.rickrichards.com...

The annoying bottom line here is this. We have Hawass and Sitchin on opposite sides of this argument, and both are, in my opinion, douchebags of the highest order.

reply to post by Kandinsky

---

Hi Kandinsky,

Thanks - I wasnt aware that the other pyramids didnt have interior decorations (My original Question) - I did a google search but didnt find much info on that.

So there is a general theory that the white limestone cladding had glyphs on it? AFAIK much of this stone work was reused in the surrounding areas, mosques and so forth - is there any evidence to support the above statement?

reply to post by twodee

---

So there is a general theory that the white limestone cladding had glyphs on it? AFAIK much of this stone work was reused in the surrounding areas, mosques and so forth - is there any evidence to support the above statement?

There's no evidence, so far, that the polished limestone cladding of several pyramids featured decorative art or hieroglyphics. The cladding began to fall from the GP following earthquakes and amounted to reusable masonry. It was carted off to be used in public works, mosques and private dwellings in Cairo. The pieces are still visible in the construction of buildings, retain their smoothness and don't have remnants of writing or imagery.

Other pyramids, including the Bent Pyramid still have some of the original cladding and are also blank. At the base of these pyramids are broken pieces that are likewise blank. There is some suggestion that Khafre's pyramid could have been painted red around the base, but I can't say for sure. The experts that usually post here are currently away dusting off bones, lithics and identifying rock art...

reply to post by Shadowflux

---

I'm speculating outside my subject knowledge here...but I can think of one idea why the AEs didn't decorate the inside or outside of the pyramids. The pyramids are thought to be an architectural representation of the 'primordial mound.' Their concept of the 'mound' was naturally without decoration so their pyramids remained without decoration and aspired to austerity.

The material wealth, beautiful paintings and architecture was displayed in the temple complexes where they would reinforce the status of the pharaohs to neighbors and population.

Another good reason would be the fear of tomb raiders. The Valley of the Kings was chosen in response to successive grave robberies and explains why pyramids came to an end. Looking at the tombs of the Ramses, Tutmoses, Seti 1 is to see the vitality of color, wealth and contemporary traditions.

Valley of the Kings

Ancient Walled City, Older than Egypt\'s Pyramids, Unearthed off US Georgia Coast
  Posted 12 days ago with 102 member flags

Origin of Ancient Jade Tool Baffles Scientists
  Posted 7 days ago with 96 member flags

12,000 Years Old Unexplained Structure
  Posted 4 days ago with 81 member flags

The Uluburun shipwreck sunk 3,400 years ago
  Posted 15 days ago with 70 member flags

Sigiriya : The 8th Wonder of the World
  Posted 4 days ago with 45 member flags

Tomb of Queen Heterpheres
  Posted 16 days ago with 29 member flags

42,000-year-old paintings : \'The oldest work of art ever\' discovered
  Posted 3 days ago with 26 member flags

R.O.V. Photos of Sunken Megaliths off Western Cuba
  Posted 11 days ago with 21 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: