Interesting post Scott.
Khufu's certainly an enigmatic figure given that so little is known about him, not to mention he's by and large credited for ordering the
construction of the GP, only one of the most impressive structures of the ancient world.
But I guess one could argue that given the location of "his name" in the Kings List, after Snefuru but before Djedfre and Khafre, you can assume
that, although not written exactly like his name should be, it is meant to be understood as the cartouche of Khufu given the symbology.
Also I noticed too that, looking through each and every cartouche on the Kings List at Abydos, (
here ) that not one of them bares the hatched placenta glyph.
So my 2 part question would be :
Are there any other names on that list that would've utilized the placenta glyph like Khufu's would've? (I'll research this myself too)
And if so, then why don't we see it on the King's List at Abydos either? Could it have been more of a stylistic decision not use the hatches on any
of those cartouches? Maybe having to do with the time period that it was carved?
EDIT TO ADD:
Here's an example of the placenta glyph in Nefekare Khendu's cartouche
But we don't see it on the Kings List with the parallel hatches (#45)
Maybe they in fact were painted on as you brought up and just wore off over time?
[edit on 18-12-2009 by PhotonEffect]
Who was Khufu?, page 1
Topic started on 18-12-2009 @ 06:49 AM by Scott Creighton
Hello ATS Readers,
Who was Khufu?
The question might seem somewhat trite and most will immediately conclude that Khufu was the second King of the 4th Dynasty of the ancient Egyptian civilisation, the King allegedly responsible for the construction of the Great Pyramid at Giza. So goes the orthodox line.
This may be so but there is a big question mark: why is Khufu’s name not inscribed in the famous Abydos King List? I can already hear the cry of “foul” from the voices of those who would try and convince us that Khufu’s name IS INDEED presented in the Abydos King List. Well, let us look at the evidence.
The image below (right) is Stadelmann’s photograph of the Khufu inscription in Campbell’s Chamber of the Great Pyramid, first discovered in 1837 by R.W.H. Vyse. The image to the left shows the alleged “Khufu” inscription in the Abydos King List.
Image 1:
What is immediately obvious from the King List inscription of “Khufu” is that it is missing one quail bird and the disc (placenta) glyph (Gardiner’s Aa1) has no hatchings (horizontal lines) and looks more like the AE solar disc glyph (Gardiner’s N5). Now the missing quail bird is not so significant since we know that there are various renderings of Khufu’s name (image 2 below) with just one quail bird. What IS significant, however, are the missing hatchings in the featureless disc in the alleged “Khufu” inscription When this inscription in the King List is compared with Khufu’s Abydos nomen name in image 2 below, there is a clear contradiction. The disc glyph in Khufu’s name (in whatever form) should clearly display a disc with the hatchings and NOT merely a plain disc which is easily confused with the solar disc (the God Ra) glyph.
Image 2:
Source.
So what’s going on? Why does the inscription of ”Khufu” in the Abydos King List bear a solar disc (Ra) as opposed to the placenta (phonetic “Kh”) glyph? Why is the name in the Abydos King List presented as “Rafu” rather than “Khufu”?
Now there are a number of conventional answers that might explain this apparent anomaly:
1) The scribes made a mistake in rendering Khufu’s name in the Abydos King List.
2) The King List was painted and its paint has since eroded away.
Taking point 1 first – it is unlikely that such a mistake would have gone unnoticed for very long since the carving of the King List on the temple wall at Abydos would have been carefully planned and checked and re-checked at each step in the process. Furthermore, rendering Khufu’s name with the solar disc rather than the correct placenta disc with horizontal hatchings would have rendered the name totally ambiguous given that it is followed by three 4th Dynasty kings that do indeed bear the solar disc glyph in their name (see image 3 below)
Image 3:
4th Dynasty Kings
20 = Sneferu
21 = “Khufu” (“Rafu”?)
22 = Djedfre
23 = Khafre
24 = Menkaure
25 = Shepseskaf
It seems inconceivable that the scribes would have left Khufu’s name to be rendered so ambiguous especially given the context of clear solar disc glyphs that were used in subsequent 4th dynasty kings inscribed alongside “Khufu’s” inscription. Andeven if hatchings had been missed, it would have been very easy to have added them later (even much later) when the error was spotted. That this error was not fixed leads us to consider the probability that this inscription was rendered in precisely the manner the ancient scribes intended it to be rendered i.e. with a solar disc (“Ra”) rather than the placenta glyph (“Kh”).
The second possibility is that the glyphs were painted i.e. that painted horizontal hatchings in the placenta glyph of “Khufu’s” inscription have eroded away over time. At first glance this is not an unreasonable proposition because we do know that the AEs painted their temples and painted their King Lists as can be seen below:
Scene from Temple of Abydos (Seti)
Painted King List from Temple of Ramesses II
.jpg)
What is clear from the above temple images is that the paint used to decorate the temples was very durable as much of it STILL EXISTS. How then, we ask, is it possible for an entire wall where the King List at Abydos is inscribed to have lost ALL its paint, with not a single spec remaining whilst other walls in the temple are still awash with vibrant paint?
We have to conclude that the King List relief at Abydos was NEVER painted. If this wall had been painted then it is not unreasonable to take the view that at least some of its paint would have survived in the same way much of the paint on other temple walls has survived.
It seems then that we are left with little alternative but to conclude that what we have in the temple of Abydos is the finished article – the finished King List - and that it has been rendered in precisely the manner Seti wished to portray the names of his God-King forebears, carved into stone, untouched and “untainted” by paint. It should also be noted here that carving of the relief was for meaning whereas painting was for elaboration.
To conclude then, it is quite inconceivable that a key feature such as the horizontal hatchings of Khufu’s name would have been left uncarved or unpainted. That the disc of “Khufu’s” name in the Abydos King List has been rendered as the solar disc glyph (“Ra”) and NOT the placenta glyph (“Kh”) tells us the name CANNOT be read as “Khufu” but should be read as “Rafu”. The name “Khufu” is NOT present in the Abydos King List.
This then begs the question: Who was Khufu?
Regards,
Scott Creighton
[edit on 18/12/2009 by Scott Creighton]
Who was Khufu?
The question might seem somewhat trite and most will immediately conclude that Khufu was the second King of the 4th Dynasty of the ancient Egyptian civilisation, the King allegedly responsible for the construction of the Great Pyramid at Giza. So goes the orthodox line.
This may be so but there is a big question mark: why is Khufu’s name not inscribed in the famous Abydos King List? I can already hear the cry of “foul” from the voices of those who would try and convince us that Khufu’s name IS INDEED presented in the Abydos King List. Well, let us look at the evidence.
The image below (right) is Stadelmann’s photograph of the Khufu inscription in Campbell’s Chamber of the Great Pyramid, first discovered in 1837 by R.W.H. Vyse. The image to the left shows the alleged “Khufu” inscription in the Abydos King List.
Image 1:
What is immediately obvious from the King List inscription of “Khufu” is that it is missing one quail bird and the disc (placenta) glyph (Gardiner’s Aa1) has no hatchings (horizontal lines) and looks more like the AE solar disc glyph (Gardiner’s N5). Now the missing quail bird is not so significant since we know that there are various renderings of Khufu’s name (image 2 below) with just one quail bird. What IS significant, however, are the missing hatchings in the featureless disc in the alleged “Khufu” inscription When this inscription in the King List is compared with Khufu’s Abydos nomen name in image 2 below, there is a clear contradiction. The disc glyph in Khufu’s name (in whatever form) should clearly display a disc with the hatchings and NOT merely a plain disc which is easily confused with the solar disc (the God Ra) glyph.
Image 2:
Source.
So what’s going on? Why does the inscription of ”Khufu” in the Abydos King List bear a solar disc (Ra) as opposed to the placenta (phonetic “Kh”) glyph? Why is the name in the Abydos King List presented as “Rafu” rather than “Khufu”?
Now there are a number of conventional answers that might explain this apparent anomaly:
1) The scribes made a mistake in rendering Khufu’s name in the Abydos King List.
2) The King List was painted and its paint has since eroded away.
Taking point 1 first – it is unlikely that such a mistake would have gone unnoticed for very long since the carving of the King List on the temple wall at Abydos would have been carefully planned and checked and re-checked at each step in the process. Furthermore, rendering Khufu’s name with the solar disc rather than the correct placenta disc with horizontal hatchings would have rendered the name totally ambiguous given that it is followed by three 4th Dynasty kings that do indeed bear the solar disc glyph in their name (see image 3 below)
Image 3:
4th Dynasty Kings
20 = Sneferu
21 = “Khufu” (“Rafu”?)
22 = Djedfre
23 = Khafre
24 = Menkaure
25 = Shepseskaf
It seems inconceivable that the scribes would have left Khufu’s name to be rendered so ambiguous especially given the context of clear solar disc glyphs that were used in subsequent 4th dynasty kings inscribed alongside “Khufu’s” inscription. Andeven if hatchings had been missed, it would have been very easy to have added them later (even much later) when the error was spotted. That this error was not fixed leads us to consider the probability that this inscription was rendered in precisely the manner the ancient scribes intended it to be rendered i.e. with a solar disc (“Ra”) rather than the placenta glyph (“Kh”).
The second possibility is that the glyphs were painted i.e. that painted horizontal hatchings in the placenta glyph of “Khufu’s” inscription have eroded away over time. At first glance this is not an unreasonable proposition because we do know that the AEs painted their temples and painted their King Lists as can be seen below:
Scene from Temple of Abydos (Seti)
Painted King List from Temple of Ramesses II
What is clear from the above temple images is that the paint used to decorate the temples was very durable as much of it STILL EXISTS. How then, we ask, is it possible for an entire wall where the King List at Abydos is inscribed to have lost ALL its paint, with not a single spec remaining whilst other walls in the temple are still awash with vibrant paint?
We have to conclude that the King List relief at Abydos was NEVER painted. If this wall had been painted then it is not unreasonable to take the view that at least some of its paint would have survived in the same way much of the paint on other temple walls has survived.
It seems then that we are left with little alternative but to conclude that what we have in the temple of Abydos is the finished article – the finished King List - and that it has been rendered in precisely the manner Seti wished to portray the names of his God-King forebears, carved into stone, untouched and “untainted” by paint. It should also be noted here that carving of the relief was for meaning whereas painting was for elaboration.
To conclude then, it is quite inconceivable that a key feature such as the horizontal hatchings of Khufu’s name would have been left uncarved or unpainted. That the disc of “Khufu’s” name in the Abydos King List has been rendered as the solar disc glyph (“Ra”) and NOT the placenta glyph (“Kh”) tells us the name CANNOT be read as “Khufu” but should be read as “Rafu”. The name “Khufu” is NOT present in the Abydos King List.
This then begs the question: Who was Khufu?
Regards,
Scott Creighton
[edit on 18/12/2009 by Scott Creighton]
reply posted on 18-12-2009 @ 01:31 PM by Byrd
Well, all of them had their names written elsewhere, if you remember... including in material from their own time period. Since this was written
several thousand years after he lived, it may have been the way they presented his name at that time.
If you look over the King's list, you will see many instances where the name at Abydos doesn't match what the king themselves wrote or had inscribed in all their temples.
en.wikipedia.org...
In some cases (Bedaju at Abydos, Hotepsekhemwy on his own serekh) they aren't even close.
So it's not just Khufu, it's a whole lot of pharaohs. When Egyptologists figure out the names, they go back to what was written and inscribed at the time the king lived... not what was written or inscribed thousands of years later.
[edit on 18-12-2009 by Byrd]
If you look over the King's list, you will see many instances where the name at Abydos doesn't match what the king themselves wrote or had inscribed in all their temples.
en.wikipedia.org...
In some cases (Bedaju at Abydos, Hotepsekhemwy on his own serekh) they aren't even close.
So it's not just Khufu, it's a whole lot of pharaohs. When Egyptologists figure out the names, they go back to what was written and inscribed at the time the king lived... not what was written or inscribed thousands of years later.
[edit on 18-12-2009 by Byrd]
reply posted on 19-12-2009 @ 06:57 AM by Scott Creighton
reply to post by PhotonEffect
Hi Photoneffect,
Many thanks for your reply. Cartouche #45 is interesting for it demonstrates another attribute or variable which may have been used as a differentiating factor to determine one glyph from another - its size.
Look at the relatively small placenta circle (Aa1) in cartouche #45 with the comparably much larger solar disc (N5) at the top of the same inscription. So it seems that the size of the circles on the King List at Abydos may have helped to differentiate one glyph from another. Clearly then the circle in the alleged "Khufu" cartouche (#21) is not the same size as the placenta glyph in cartouche #45 and, indeed, matches the size of the solar disc glyph in #45 as indeed it does with every other solar disc present in the King List at Abydos.
Surely, however, common sense would dictate that in the interests of clarity, the scribes (without the use of carved or painted hatchings) would have sought to render the alleged "Khufu" disc much smaller (i.e. they would have made it the same size as the placenta disc in #45) to those solar discs adopted by Khufu's immediate successors? As matters stand the alleged "Khufu" inscription is totally ambiguous as it sits in 'context' with other inscriptions that do indeed use the solar disc (N5) glyph, none of which are any different in size to that used by the alleged "Khufu" inscription?
I think it is inconceivable that the God-King Khufu's name would have been rendered so ambiguously in the Abydos King List. If so then one can only conclude that the name in cartouche #21 has indeed been rendered accurately by tthe scribes at Abydos to read "Rafu" and that the inscription of "Khufu" found by Vyse in the Great Pyramid (and by others elsewhere) is someone else altogether.
It should be noted here that there are also inscriptions of "Rafu" to be found in and around Giza. Indeed, even R.W.H. Vyse on the very same page of his journal that he recorded the inscription of "Khufu" he found in Campbell's Chamber of the Great Pyramid, he recorded this "Rafu" inscription (image below, top left) which he found in the chapel of the mastaba of Imery.
So, I ask the question again: Who was Khufu?
Best wishes,
Scott Creighton
Hi Photoneffect,
Many thanks for your reply. Cartouche #45 is interesting for it demonstrates another attribute or variable which may have been used as a differentiating factor to determine one glyph from another - its size.
Look at the relatively small placenta circle (Aa1) in cartouche #45 with the comparably much larger solar disc (N5) at the top of the same inscription. So it seems that the size of the circles on the King List at Abydos may have helped to differentiate one glyph from another. Clearly then the circle in the alleged "Khufu" cartouche (#21) is not the same size as the placenta glyph in cartouche #45 and, indeed, matches the size of the solar disc glyph in #45 as indeed it does with every other solar disc present in the King List at Abydos.
Surely, however, common sense would dictate that in the interests of clarity, the scribes (without the use of carved or painted hatchings) would have sought to render the alleged "Khufu" disc much smaller (i.e. they would have made it the same size as the placenta disc in #45) to those solar discs adopted by Khufu's immediate successors? As matters stand the alleged "Khufu" inscription is totally ambiguous as it sits in 'context' with other inscriptions that do indeed use the solar disc (N5) glyph, none of which are any different in size to that used by the alleged "Khufu" inscription?
I think it is inconceivable that the God-King Khufu's name would have been rendered so ambiguously in the Abydos King List. If so then one can only conclude that the name in cartouche #21 has indeed been rendered accurately by tthe scribes at Abydos to read "Rafu" and that the inscription of "Khufu" found by Vyse in the Great Pyramid (and by others elsewhere) is someone else altogether.
It should be noted here that there are also inscriptions of "Rafu" to be found in and around Giza. Indeed, even R.W.H. Vyse on the very same page of his journal that he recorded the inscription of "Khufu" he found in Campbell's Chamber of the Great Pyramid, he recorded this "Rafu" inscription (image below, top left) which he found in the chapel of the mastaba of Imery.
So, I ask the question again: Who was Khufu?
Best wishes,
Scott Creighton
reply posted on 19-12-2009 @ 10:13 AM by Scott Creighton
reply to post by serbsta
Hello Serbsta,
I am far from being an expert in AE hieroglyphs either - a complete novice in fact since it is not really my main field of interest. I did find this site (link below) to be quite a useful introduction to understanding AE glyphs. You might find it useful too.
I find the reading of the Abydos King List quite confusing since the glyphs are arranged vertically. When arranged horizontally they are read from the direction the animal or person is facing. As you have noticed, the sun glyph for Djedfre, Khafre and Menkaure are depicted at the top of the glyph which means we should read from the bottom to the top. But if we then read the alleged "Khufu" inscription from the bottom it would read "Ufra". If we assume the placenta glyph was intended i.e. the phonetic "Kh" then we would have "ufKh". (Quail = "U", viper="f" and placenta = "Kh" which is pronounced like the gutteral "ch" as in the Scottish word "loch"). Interestingly this "Ufkh" in modern Arabic means "horizon" and we know that Giza is referred to as "Khufu's Akhet" roughly translated as "Khufu's Horizon". Curious that "Akhet" apparently means "horizon" and "Khufu" (reversed) in modern Arabic also means "horizon". If this is coincidence then it surely has to be a truly remarkable one.
An Intro to AE Hieroglyphics
Kind regards,
Scott Creighton
[edit on 19/12/2009 by Scott Creighton]
Hello Serbsta,
I am far from being an expert in AE hieroglyphs either - a complete novice in fact since it is not really my main field of interest. I did find this site (link below) to be quite a useful introduction to understanding AE glyphs. You might find it useful too.
I find the reading of the Abydos King List quite confusing since the glyphs are arranged vertically. When arranged horizontally they are read from the direction the animal or person is facing. As you have noticed, the sun glyph for Djedfre, Khafre and Menkaure are depicted at the top of the glyph which means we should read from the bottom to the top. But if we then read the alleged "Khufu" inscription from the bottom it would read "Ufra". If we assume the placenta glyph was intended i.e. the phonetic "Kh" then we would have "ufKh". (Quail = "U", viper="f" and placenta = "Kh" which is pronounced like the gutteral "ch" as in the Scottish word "loch"). Interestingly this "Ufkh" in modern Arabic means "horizon" and we know that Giza is referred to as "Khufu's Akhet" roughly translated as "Khufu's Horizon". Curious that "Akhet" apparently means "horizon" and "Khufu" (reversed) in modern Arabic also means "horizon". If this is coincidence then it surely has to be a truly remarkable one.
An Intro to AE Hieroglyphics
Kind regards,
Scott Creighton
[edit on 19/12/2009 by Scott Creighton]
reply posted on 21-12-2009 @ 04:07 PM by Scott Creighton
Further research of the walls at the Temple of Seti I at Abydos shows the King List wall devoid of paint, similar to other walls in the temple e.g.
The Hall of Sokar and Nefertem. The King List wall seems to have a dark stain about half-way up which is possibly the result of condensation damage
from breathing tourists. But there is no sign of paint on any of these these walls unlike other walls in this temple which still have much of their
paint intact.
(Link here).
It transpires also that the name "Uf" or "Ufu" translates into modern Arabic (from ancient Thamoudic/Bedouin roots) as the word "horizon". The Thamoudic and Bedouin of Transjordania/Sinai both interacted with Ancient Egypt, taking on much of their religion, traditions and language.
It could then be that the name "Uf-Ra" that we read in inscription #21 (in Wiki) actually translates as "Horizon of Ra".
Regards,
Scott Creighton
It transpires also that the name "Uf" or "Ufu" translates into modern Arabic (from ancient Thamoudic/Bedouin roots) as the word "horizon". The Thamoudic and Bedouin of Transjordania/Sinai both interacted with Ancient Egypt, taking on much of their religion, traditions and language.
It could then be that the name "Uf-Ra" that we read in inscription #21 (in Wiki) actually translates as "Horizon of Ra".
Regards,
Scott Creighton
reply posted on 22-12-2009 @ 02:43 AM by serbsta
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
When arranged horizontally they are read from the direction the animal or person is facing. As you have noticed, the sun glyph for Djedfre, Khafre and Menkaure are depicted at the top of the glyph which means we should read from the bottom to the top.
Aha, I see. Makes complete sense now.
reply to post by Byrd
Great post.
reply posted on 22-12-2009 @ 01:07 PM by Byrd
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
It transpires also that the name "Uf" or "Ufu" translates into modern Arabic (from ancient Thamoudic/Bedouin roots) as the word "horizon". The Thamoudic and Bedouin of Transjordania/Sinai both interacted with Ancient Egypt, taking on much of their religion, traditions and language.
It could then be that the name "Uf-Ra" that we read in inscription #21 (in Wiki) actually translates as "Horizon of Ra".
"Ahket" is the word for horizon, as you can see in countless (countless) dictionaries and hieroglyphic examples. The Pyramid Texts Online has a complete list of resources which you can browse through
www.pyramidtextsonline.com...
...and you can confirm for yourself that there's no word "uf" or "ufu" in Ancient Egyptian. You can also confirm for yourself that the word "Ahket" in ancient Egyptian and was unchanged for thousands of years.
Ra-Ahket would be "Horizon of Ra".
The Bedouin are a modern people and live in Arabia, which isn't the same place as Egypt. Sinai is also a long way away and is not filled with references to Osiris and temples with hieroglyphics and properly wrapped mummies and amulets and so on and so forth. I don't know where these modern people got the word "ufu" or "uf", and the Arabic dictionaries online don't seem to list it as a word for "horizon."
Do you have a source, there? Because it frankly doesn't make any sense for him to have changed his name for a kings' list written more than a thousand years later and leave his name elsewhere as "Khnum-Khufu". And it doesn't make sense for Rameses' scribes and painters to change the name of one of the most famous kings (to their culture) to a language that wouldn't be written for another two thousand years... and then go back to writing "horizon" as "ahket" everywhere else in the temple.
As to the painting, I see a lot of the interior where there's partial paint on hieroglyphs, paint on the figures and illustrations, and sections where there's none (often mixed together... so it's not "one unpainted section" but sections within sections (part of a face is painted but the rest isn't.)
I'm told (but haven't looked) by the Egyptologist resources that there are other places in the temple where the occasional "kh" basket glyph is painted and others where it's unpainted (including on the king's list.) There's apparently some slight difference in the shape, too (basket is bigger than Ra-sign) but I will go look at that for myself.
reply posted on 22-12-2009 @ 01:19 PM by SLAYER69
reply to post by Scott Creighton
I really don't know who he was...
Supposedly the Greatest monument man has ever built has only one scribble with his name on it. Meanwhile the greatest Pharaoh in their history has been immortalized with this pint sized statue.
I really don't know who he was...
Supposedly the Greatest monument man has ever built has only one scribble with his name on it. Meanwhile the greatest Pharaoh in their history has been immortalized with this pint sized statue.
reply posted on 23-12-2009 @ 05:56 AM by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Byrd
SC: The word “Akhet” is not so cut and dried as you seem to think.
(Emphasis mine)
So, it seems that “Akhet” actually means “sunrise” or “sunset” and NOT “horizon”.
It could be that “uf” or “ufu” meant “horizon” as it still does today in modern Arabic.
SC: You say that as if we have recovered every word and nuance of AE writing. We haven’t.
SC: The word “Akhet” was changed (see image below):
SC: Or it could read: “Rising of Ra” or “Setting of Ra”.
SC: The Bedouin have ancient roots that interacted with the ancient Egyptians.
Letter by Ramses-nakht concerning supplies for the troops protecting gold miners in Nubia
Source
The Bedouin are a very ancient people, contemporary with the ancient Egyptians.
SC: The word “ufu” (can also be pronounced “oufou”) is an Arabic word that is still in use today. In classical Arabic a “K” is appended to accentuate the word but there are local Arabic dialects that do not use the “K”. So the word “ufu” or “oufou” or “oufouk” in Arabic or Arabic-Egyptian means “horizon”. The word “ufuk” also means “horizon” in modern Turkish whilst the Hebrew word for “horizon” is “ofek”.
Also, Google this: “Ragoul Gadeed Fil Oufouk” (A New Man On the Horizon)by Egyptian writer, Mona Helmy. (Source)
(Many thanks to Sher Mor, an Egyptian living in Cairo, who uses this word every day, for providing this information).
SC: No it doesn’t and it might in fact be that we are talking about two different individuals. "Khnum-Khufu" - interesting. The "Horizon of Khnum". ("Horizon" has the synonym "Domain" - "Khnum's Domain").
SC: See above. “Akhet" does not mean “horizon”. It is possible (or indeed probable) that a variant of “ufu” or “oufuouk” means “horizon" as it does in modern Arabic with slight variations of the word appearing in modern Turkish and Hebrew.
SC: The point is whether or not it would have been much more sensible for the scribes to have rendered the hatchings in the circle in cartouche #21 (in Wiki) by carving or by painting. Carving would have been more sensible given the completely ambiguous ‘context’ cartouche #21 is found i.e. alongside glyphs with identical circles that are meant to be read as “Ra”. The scribes would have well understood that carving the hatchings would be much more durable than painting them. Carving was employed for "meaning" whereas paint was used for decoration. If this circle was intended to be the placenta then plain old common sense would have the scribes carving these hatchings as they would have realised themselves the possibility of future ambiguity were paint to have flaked off. To avoid this occurring they would most surely have opted to carve the hatchings. That they did NOT carve them (when logically they SHOULD have) tells us the glyph is NOT the placenta (Gardiner’s Aa1) but is the Solar Disc (Gardiner’s N5) and should be read in the same way as the identical disc glyphs in cartouches #22, #23 & #24 – as “Ra” and NOT as “Kh”.
SC: Yes, there are other placenta glyphs at Abydos that have been painted and that are without hatchings but the ‘context’ in which they appear tells us they cannot possibly be anything other than the placenta glyph. There is no ambiguity (even without paint). However, this is not the case in cartouche #21 which is completely ambiguous and sits in a ‘context’ of other identical solar discs. If the disc in cartouche #21 was meant to be read as “Kh” (placenta) the scribes, to avoid any ambiguity which would have been obvious to them, would have carved (not painted) the placenta hatchings. They didn’t. So the disc in cartouche #21 is the solar disc “Ra”.
SC
[edit on 23/12/2009 by Scott Creighton]
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
It transpires also that the name "Uf" or "Ufu" translates into modern Arabic (from ancient Thamoudic/Bedouin roots) as the word "horizon". The Thamoudic and Bedouin of Transjordania/Sinai both interacted with Ancient Egypt, taking on much of their religion, traditions and language.
It could then be that the name "Uf-Ra" that we read in inscription #21 (in Wiki) actually translates as "Horizon of Ra".
Byrd: "Ahket" is the word for horizon, as you can see in countless (countless) dictionaries and hieroglyphic examples. The Pyramid Texts Online has a complete list of resources which you can browse through
www.pyramidtextsonline.com...
SC: The word “Akhet” is not so cut and dried as you seem to think.
'Mountain with the Rising Sun' - Ideogram in 3ht, 'horizon'
“The sign 3ht, born of the union of the disk and the hieroglyph for mountain, is rather inappropriately translated as 'horizon', associating it with a modern notion which is foreign to Egyptian thinking.
The sign is a relatively recent creation of Egyptian writing, unknown in the Pyramid Texts, in which the sign that determines the word 3ht is the hieroglyph of a sandy island. The earliest known documentation of the sign is from the Fifth Dynasty, an epoch that saw the official affirmation of the solar cult. Thus the hieroglyph represents the point where the sun appears above the earth at daybreak and where it touches the earth again at sunset. This is the proper meaning of the ideogram, connected to the root 3h, 'to shine'..” - Maria Carmela Betro, 'Hieroglyphics', page 161
(Emphasis mine)
So, it seems that “Akhet” actually means “sunrise” or “sunset” and NOT “horizon”.
It could be that “uf” or “ufu” meant “horizon” as it still does today in modern Arabic.
Byrd:...and you can confirm for yourself that there's no word "uf" or "ufu" in Ancient Egyptian.
SC: You say that as if we have recovered every word and nuance of AE writing. We haven’t.
Byrd: You can also confirm for yourself that the word "Ahket" in ancient Egyptian and was unchanged for thousands of years.
SC: The word “Akhet” was changed (see image below):
Byrd: Ra-Ahket would be "Horizon of Ra".
SC: Or it could read: “Rising of Ra” or “Setting of Ra”.
:Byrd:The Bedouin are a modern people and live in Arabia, which isn't the same place as Egypt.
SC: The Bedouin have ancient roots that interacted with the ancient Egyptians.
Letter by Ramses-nakht concerning supplies for the troops protecting gold miners in Nubia
”… The strong arm of Pharaoh, l.p.h., my lord, struck to the ground the enemies, the bedouins of Mu-qed, who had all settled in Qehqeh on the shore of the Sea,…
Source
The Bedouin are a very ancient people, contemporary with the ancient Egyptians.
Byrd: I don't know where these modern people got the word "ufu" or "uf", and the Arabic dictionaries online don't seem to list it as a word for "horizon." Do you have a source, there?
SC: The word “ufu” (can also be pronounced “oufou”) is an Arabic word that is still in use today. In classical Arabic a “K” is appended to accentuate the word but there are local Arabic dialects that do not use the “K”. So the word “ufu” or “oufou” or “oufouk” in Arabic or Arabic-Egyptian means “horizon”. The word “ufuk” also means “horizon” in modern Turkish whilst the Hebrew word for “horizon” is “ofek”.
Also, Google this: “Ragoul Gadeed Fil Oufouk” (A New Man On the Horizon)by Egyptian writer, Mona Helmy. (Source)
(Many thanks to Sher Mor, an Egyptian living in Cairo, who uses this word every day, for providing this information).
Byrd: Because it frankly doesn't make any sense for him to have changed his name for a kings' list written more than a thousand years later and leave his name elsewhere as "Khnum-Khufu".
SC: No it doesn’t and it might in fact be that we are talking about two different individuals. "Khnum-Khufu" - interesting. The "Horizon of Khnum". ("Horizon" has the synonym "Domain" - "Khnum's Domain").
Byrd: And it doesn't make sense for Rameses' scribes and painters to change the name of one of the most famous kings (to their culture) to a language that wouldn't be written for another two thousand years... and then go back to writing "horizon" as "ahket" everywhere else in the temple.
SC: See above. “Akhet" does not mean “horizon”. It is possible (or indeed probable) that a variant of “ufu” or “oufuouk” means “horizon" as it does in modern Arabic with slight variations of the word appearing in modern Turkish and Hebrew.
Byrd: As to the painting, I see a lot of the interior where there's partial paint on hieroglyphs, paint on the figures and illustrations, and sections where there's none (often mixed together... so it's not "one unpainted section" but sections within sections (part of a face is painted but the rest isn't.)
SC: The point is whether or not it would have been much more sensible for the scribes to have rendered the hatchings in the circle in cartouche #21 (in Wiki) by carving or by painting. Carving would have been more sensible given the completely ambiguous ‘context’ cartouche #21 is found i.e. alongside glyphs with identical circles that are meant to be read as “Ra”. The scribes would have well understood that carving the hatchings would be much more durable than painting them. Carving was employed for "meaning" whereas paint was used for decoration. If this circle was intended to be the placenta then plain old common sense would have the scribes carving these hatchings as they would have realised themselves the possibility of future ambiguity were paint to have flaked off. To avoid this occurring they would most surely have opted to carve the hatchings. That they did NOT carve them (when logically they SHOULD have) tells us the glyph is NOT the placenta (Gardiner’s Aa1) but is the Solar Disc (Gardiner’s N5) and should be read in the same way as the identical disc glyphs in cartouches #22, #23 & #24 – as “Ra” and NOT as “Kh”.
Byrd: I'm told (but haven't looked) by the Egyptologist resources that there are other places in the temple where the occasional "kh" basket glyph is painted and others where it's unpainted (including on the king's list.) There's apparently some slight difference in the shape, too (basket is bigger than Ra-sign) but I will go look at that for myself.
SC: Yes, there are other placenta glyphs at Abydos that have been painted and that are without hatchings but the ‘context’ in which they appear tells us they cannot possibly be anything other than the placenta glyph. There is no ambiguity (even without paint). However, this is not the case in cartouche #21 which is completely ambiguous and sits in a ‘context’ of other identical solar discs. If the disc in cartouche #21 was meant to be read as “Kh” (placenta) the scribes, to avoid any ambiguity which would have been obvious to them, would have carved (not painted) the placenta hatchings. They didn’t. So the disc in cartouche #21 is the solar disc “Ra”.
SC
[edit on 23/12/2009 by Scott Creighton]
reply posted on 4-2-2010 @ 09:09 AM by PhotonEffect
reply to post by Scott Creighton
Hey Scott-
That's pretty interesting. I was unaware of the a different looking cartouche in the lower relieving Chamber...
To provide my thoughts on your questions: (Now I'm only playing devils advocate here
SC:" Question 1: Why would one chamber have the inscription "Khnum Rafu" whilst another bears the inscription "Khufu"?"
Could that be a sloppily written glyph? Looking at the close-up, it seems like there could be three hatch marks sticking out on the right side of the "dot". Although to me it looks to be more square shaped then round like a dot might be. Maybe the paint bled into itself which makes it look like a dot? Or maybe the dot was painted (intentionally) to hide the 3 hatch marks? Just a thought of course...
SC: Question 2: How easy would it have been for Howard-Vyse (or anyone) to have dabbed 3 horizontal lines of red ochre paint into the circle in Campbell's Chamber thereby changing what was perhaps originally a "Ra-ufu" inscription into a "Khufu" inscription?
It's a good question, but I'd wonder what his motives would have been to do this. Also, would Vyse have had access to Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber? If so, could he have easily defaced the cartouche there to mask the 3 hatch marks? Again just a thought..
SC: "So, once more I ask, "Who was Khufu?""
Or one could ask, who was Ra'ufu?
[edit on 4-2-2010 by PhotonEffect]
Hey Scott-
That's pretty interesting. I was unaware of the a different looking cartouche in the lower relieving Chamber...
To provide my thoughts on your questions: (Now I'm only playing devils advocate here
SC:" Question 1: Why would one chamber have the inscription "Khnum Rafu" whilst another bears the inscription "Khufu"?"
Could that be a sloppily written glyph? Looking at the close-up, it seems like there could be three hatch marks sticking out on the right side of the "dot". Although to me it looks to be more square shaped then round like a dot might be. Maybe the paint bled into itself which makes it look like a dot? Or maybe the dot was painted (intentionally) to hide the 3 hatch marks? Just a thought of course...
SC: Question 2: How easy would it have been for Howard-Vyse (or anyone) to have dabbed 3 horizontal lines of red ochre paint into the circle in Campbell's Chamber thereby changing what was perhaps originally a "Ra-ufu" inscription into a "Khufu" inscription?
It's a good question, but I'd wonder what his motives would have been to do this. Also, would Vyse have had access to Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber? If so, could he have easily defaced the cartouche there to mask the 3 hatch marks? Again just a thought..
SC: "So, once more I ask, "Who was Khufu?""
Or one could ask, who was Ra'ufu?
[edit on 4-2-2010 by PhotonEffect]
reply posted on 4-2-2010 @ 12:08 PM by Scott Creighton
reply to post by PhotonEffect
SC: This is possible and I agree that there do appear to be at least three brush strokes. It is somewhat surprising though that Dr Hawass would present such an obviously confusing glyph. Of course, had the writer of this particular glyph wished to have presented the sieve/placenta glyph (circle with 3 cross-hatched lines) then there was ample space to have done so - even space enough to have drawn a larger circle.
SC: Question 2: How easy would it have been for Howard-Vyse (or anyone) to have dabbed 3 horizontal lines of red ochre paint into the circle in Campbell's Chamber thereby changing what was perhaps originally a "Ra-ufu" inscription into a "Khufu" inscription?
SC: Fame, recognition, one-upmanship? And, of course, when you set about the Great Pyramid with gunpowder, blasting holes everywhere, it would seem one almighty waste of time and effort if, at the end of all the explosions, nothing of any significance was found! It would have been very easy to incorporate three cross-hatched lines into the circle glyph of the alleged "Khufu" inscription in Campbell's Chamber, changing what was possibly “Raufu” (with a plain circle) into “Khufu” – a circle with 3 cross-hatched lines. Remember also – “Khufu” in the Abydos King List appears as “Rafu” as it does in the Tomb of Imyery, the Tomb of Qor and elsewhere.
SC: Vyse actually discovered Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber - indeed he discovered 4 chambers in total above the King’s Chamber. The only chamber he did not discover was Davidson’s Chamber, which was discovered much earlier in 1765 by Nathaniel Davidson. Oddly enough, Davidson’s chamber is the only chamber of the five relieving chambers that does not bear any of the so-called ‘quarry-marks’ – at least none that are plainly visible. Such plainly visible marking were found only in the four chambers opened by Vyse.
Regards,
Scott Creighton
PE: Could that be a sloppily written glyph? Looking at the close-up, it seems like there could be three hatch marks sticking out on the right side of the "dot". Although to me it looks to be more square shaped then round like a dot might be. Maybe the paint bled into itself which makes it look like a dot? Or maybe the dot was painted (intentionally) to hide the 3 hatch marks? Just a thought of course...
SC: This is possible and I agree that there do appear to be at least three brush strokes. It is somewhat surprising though that Dr Hawass would present such an obviously confusing glyph. Of course, had the writer of this particular glyph wished to have presented the sieve/placenta glyph (circle with 3 cross-hatched lines) then there was ample space to have done so - even space enough to have drawn a larger circle.
SC: Question 2: How easy would it have been for Howard-Vyse (or anyone) to have dabbed 3 horizontal lines of red ochre paint into the circle in Campbell's Chamber thereby changing what was perhaps originally a "Ra-ufu" inscription into a "Khufu" inscription?
PE: It's a good question, but I'd wonder what his motives would have been to do this.
SC: Fame, recognition, one-upmanship? And, of course, when you set about the Great Pyramid with gunpowder, blasting holes everywhere, it would seem one almighty waste of time and effort if, at the end of all the explosions, nothing of any significance was found! It would have been very easy to incorporate three cross-hatched lines into the circle glyph of the alleged "Khufu" inscription in Campbell's Chamber, changing what was possibly “Raufu” (with a plain circle) into “Khufu” – a circle with 3 cross-hatched lines. Remember also – “Khufu” in the Abydos King List appears as “Rafu” as it does in the Tomb of Imyery, the Tomb of Qor and elsewhere.
PE: Also, would Vyse have had access to Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber? If so, could he have easily defaced the cartouche there to mask the 3 hatch marks? Again just a thought..
SC: Vyse actually discovered Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber - indeed he discovered 4 chambers in total above the King’s Chamber. The only chamber he did not discover was Davidson’s Chamber, which was discovered much earlier in 1765 by Nathaniel Davidson. Oddly enough, Davidson’s chamber is the only chamber of the five relieving chambers that does not bear any of the so-called ‘quarry-marks’ – at least none that are plainly visible. Such plainly visible marking were found only in the four chambers opened by Vyse.
Regards,
Scott Creighton
Egypt\'s Ancient Fleet: Lost for Thousands of Years, Discovered in Cave
Posted 17 days ago with 95 member flags
Posted 17 days ago with 95 member flags
Arizona man finds what he believes will change American prehistoric history....
Posted 19 days ago with 56 member flags
Posted 19 days ago with 56 member flags
Plantagenet Legacy Paved Over??? Presidents, Christianity, And Hidden History.
Posted 11 days ago with 18 member flags
Posted 11 days ago with 18 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Poor African Country Announces "Imminent Launch Of 5 Satellites And Telescope" - Reaction?
General Chit Chat: 3 minutes ago
General Chit Chat: 3 minutes ago
Testicle Mascot ‘Mr. Balls’ AKA Senhor Testiculo to raise awareness of testicular cancer
Health & Wellness: 15 minutes ago
Health & Wellness: 15 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
32 Million Data Collection Points in San Diego Alone...The "Truth" is Coming Out
US Political Madness: 14 hours ago, 32 flags
US Political Madness: 14 hours ago, 32 flags
Brazil is under Siege: Protest in all Major Cities. Rio 100 thousands, Sao Paulo, 65 thousands. Bras
Other Current Events: 14 hours ago, 20 flags
Other Current Events: 14 hours ago, 20 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
32 Million Data Collection Points in San Diego Alone...The "Truth" is Coming Out
US Political Madness: 14 hours ago, 76 replies
US Political Madness: 14 hours ago, 76 replies
Is there anything in the constitution that would allow us to get rid of them all?
US Political Madness: 17 hours ago, 64 replies
US Political Madness: 17 hours ago, 64 replies
If the Greys aren't real, where did the idea of them come from?
Aliens and UFOs: 6 hours ago, 58 replies
Aliens and UFOs: 6 hours ago, 58 replies
Americans here your views on Australians posting on ATS A few Questions:
Rant: 7 hours ago, 28 replies
Rant: 7 hours ago, 28 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.588 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.002 seconds
Page processed in: 0.588 seconds
