Why are there no decorations in the great pyramid?

A common conspiracy thoery that has raged on for years here at ATS revolves around the great pyramid and the lack of wall decoration and glyphs on the tunnels and chambers.

I am not disputing that Khufu built the great pyramid as is accepted in mainstream archeology, I would like to understand why the decorations that adorn other latter Pharaoh tombs (in the valley of the kings etc) do not exist in Khufus domain. It is quiet obvious that the magic incantations that were required to spirit the pharaoh's soul away were highly important to the Egyptians - but why no interior inscriptions?

Might I suggest that the pyramid has been robbed for centuries and could the treasure and decorations have been so grand that the grave robbers could not resist. Could the walls have been possibly covered in gold motifs? Are there chisel marks to support this?

What do you guys suggest?

Maybe they are used like cellphone towers to get around disturbances in our electrical universe.

Pyramids have always seemed so incredibly useless. Other than as docking points for large Goa'uld ships. That seemed to make a MASSIVE amount of sense to me for some reason.

Is it possible that The Great Pyramid was an industrial device of some kind, like a generator, or an interplanetary beacon, and that maybe it would not have been appropriate to adorn the stucture with decoration? It is said that it once was covered with white limestone, this in itself would probably have been quite stunning, maybe the the original outer covering was adorned with motifs and decoration?

Who knows, interesting thought though.

Regards,

Horsegiver.

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.

well there was a thread a while back dealing with this exact topic. apparently some decorations have been found in the kings chamber and somewhere else too. there was a fairly visible elephant and then there was a spider/ant if i remember correctly. i'd go so far as to say that i'm certain the elephant was real and not just a trick of staring at things too long. the other picture was a pretty big stretch to buy into but with the elephant there i wouldn't be surprised.

however, i put absolutely nothing past the possibility of forgery when it comes to art. if you didn't see someone paint it or at least have a letter from a living relative that states they remember it being painted then there's a good chance that it's a fake.

the pictures were zoomed in quite a bit so there was really no way to know if they were even in the pyramids at all. (very skeptical view)

all in all i'd say the pictures were real but wtf do i know. could easily be a forgery.

sorry but i'm not gonna look it up.

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.

well the conversation about whether the great pyramid was a tomb has moved past the points made here.

whether pyramid "truthers" like it or not there are SEVERAL pieces of evidence that clearly relate the pyramids with tombs.

there's a boat buried at the complex somewhere with kufu's son's name on it. there were female remains discovered in one of the queen's pyramids. and of course mr. vyse's discovery. apparently, in a corner niche on the outside of the pyramids more "engravings" were found in a recession to small to do the work after completion; supporting the vyse find.

however, as i said the conversation have moved on. the point now is if kufu actually built the pyramid or just moved in, as it were.

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...

i have problems with the vyse story also.

apparently he was in egypt for about 6 months and didn't make this discovery until about two weeks before he ran out of his mom and dad's money. vyse ordered his workers out of the pyramid and blew holes in the wall. previously, vyse stayed in his tent and was served tea while others did the work.

now let's assume that vyse has great instincts that allowed hiim this discovery. what were his contributions to archeaology after this amazing find? where was his intuition? how can it be that an aristocratic mama's boy sets out to solve the world's greatest mystery and actually accomplishes it but then vanishes into nothingness?

surely his archeaological prowress wouldn't let him sit still after such a find? smells like tuna to me.

The great pyramid is unique in several aspects. Historians before the earthquake in the 9th century ad wrote about strange symbols on the outer smooth stones of the structure. After the earthquake the Muslims stole the outer smooth lime stone plates and used them to rebuild their masques. These early accounts also described what appeared to be water lines high up on the pyramid indicating that it was at one time submerged under water. Of course, after the smooth outer stones were hauled away to rebuild the masques after the earthquake, we are unable to know what was written on the great pyramid, but several experts feel that the pyramid perhaps was in place long before the first dynasty and was the model for the rest of Egypt's building projects.

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...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e34fd034a31a.jpg[/atsimg]

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...

Setting aside all the fringe ideas for a moment it is a true mystery why there are no obvious hieroglyphs. On would think that after all the time and effort to build the greatest monument of all times the One who was supposed to have buried in it would have plastered his name all over with the great deeds of his rule...

Yet we see none of that. I like how the great step on top of the grand stair way has a very worn stone on top that seems to have been worn from heavy use yet nobody has come up with a plausible explanation for it's heavy wear? I mean if we are to believe that the pyramid was sealed for thousands of years then how did it get so worn?

Unless there was other uses for it...



[edit on 6-7-2009 by SLAYER69]

I thought this was odd too, since I've always been a fan of Egyptian stuff. If you were to ask me I'd say there are a few possible explanations.

Firstly, the pyramid was richly adorned on the outside with the aforementioned limestone but also included a gold cap on top. The pyramids would've shone like the sun in the right conditions, sort of negating the need for any embellishments.

Also, most of the other burial and religious sites we see were either public or semi-public, consisting of chambers and areas for religious ceremonies practiced by the living. Since the pyramids were basically private constructions and not meant to be entered by the living, perhaps it was pointless to lavishly decorate the inside.

Also, I saw a really neat show about this one archaeologist's theory on the construction of the pyramid. Basically, his idea was that areas like the large Grand Gallery, were actually used in the construction of the pyramid as sort of a counter weight pulley mechanism. The show and theories seemed pretty plausible, maybe someone else saw this show too?

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