Who was Khufu?

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 4 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
I had noticed khufu's name in the abydos list differs from the normal inscriptions some time ago during my atlantean studies. Just like their also is a missing "dream stele" that was 90 degrees adjacent to the remaining one in front of the sphinx.

It is clear that the Abydos list should not be compared to the pyramid inscription because they are two separate signs. The Abydos list is using the RA or RE sign while the pyramid uses the KH sign.
The Ra sign identifies with the worship of Ra during their reigns, and as all the names with the Ra sign end in Ra or Re like Menkaure or Khafre or "this person of Ra".

Clearly the name in the Abydos list is "Fw-Re/Ra or Fure, Fura.

Then again, who's to say that the pyramid glyph isn't really Khafa? The falcon for A could have been mistaken as a chick for W and could imply an identity with Khafre instead of Khufu.

We can also consider that S-nfr-w (Snefru) was Khufu's father and that both names end with a chick in a sense that Frw or Fu was passed on to the son from Snfrw, giving more credibility to Khufu's name being Fu or even Fru.

Maybe the three lines inside of the Ra symbol meant "KA of RA" or duality rather than literally Kh / X / or Ch.

That would then give you ufukara or afakara or ufura / afara for the pyramid glyph.


[edit on 4-2-2010 by AeJor_Mn]




posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 05:32 AM
link   
"Khufu is Dead - Long Live Ra-ufu"

The name of the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty of ancient Egypt has long been held to be that of "Khufu". This name is written with the following hieroglyphs:

sieve ("Kh"), chick ("U"), viper ("F") and another chick ("U"). Here are a couple of examples of "KHUFU":





There are many more examples of this name. However, if we look at the name for the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty listed in the Abydos King List what we find is this:




As can be clearly observed, the alleged Khufu cartouche (#21) in the image above displays a PLAIN CIRCLE and not the hatched circle seen in the other images above. The plain circle is the phonetic "Ra" (the AE sun god). The name of the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty in the Abydos King List reads "RAUFU".

Here are some other examples of "RAUFU":

From the tomb of Qar:



From the tomb of Khaf Khufu:



(Note: The "RAUFU" inscription is bottom left. Notice also how the circle on the right of the image has cross-hatched lines - but NOT in the RAUFU circle).

And finally, also from the tomb of Qar we have this:



This image (above) is particularly interesting since it shows the AE word "Akhet" with the hatched circle "KH" alongside the RAUFU inscription with only a plain circle i.e. "RA".

There are many more examples of RAUFU around Giza and elsewhere in Egypt.

The typical explanation for this apparent anomally is that the scribes either made a mistake or that they left the work unfinished. I am unconvinced of this. There are simply too many unfinished RAUFU inscriptions out there.

Finally we have this:



Observe the clear difference between the two circles in the highlighted red and blue squares??

The circle impression in the red square clearly bears a cross symbol (this can also be seen in the seal). This is the AE word for "town" or "territory". The circle in the blue square is completely devoid of these cross-hatched lines. This reads as "RA".

Why should this be? Why would the maker of this seal go to all the trouble of ensuring the precise detail for the word "town" was present and then not bother about the precise name of the God-King "Khufu"? Where are the 3 hatched lines in the circle that would render "Khufu"?

It is simply inconceivable that the maker of this seal would have made such an oversight in the rendering of "KHUFU" as "RAUFU".

So what is going on? Why do we have orthodox Egyptology telling us that the 2nd King of the 4th dynasty was named "KHUFU" when there is so much evidence to the contrary; so much evidence pointing to the name being RAUFU? It seems to me that these two names may in fact refer to the SAME individual - RAUFU but that the circle with the 3 cross-hatched lines in the Khufu inscription is simply a more elaborate form of "Ra".

Let me explain.

It is conventional thought that the word "Akhet" translates as "Horizon". And the Word "Khufu" is simply the name of the 2nd King of the 4th Dynasty. So, the Great Pyramid is referred to as "The Horizon of Khufu".

Given the evidence above it seems that something has perhaps been lost in translation over the many millennia that has passed since the Great Pyramid was built.

Intriguingly, the modern Egyptian word "Oufouk" (a variant of "Khufu" in reverse) actually means "Horizon". Indeed, there is a book “Ragoul Gadeed Fil Oufouk” (A New Man On the Horizon) by Egyptian writer, Mona Helmy. So, in modern Egypt the word "Oufouk" (a variant of Khufu in reverse) categorically means "horizon". Now just what are the chances of this occurring? We also know that this modern word "Oufouk" has ancient origins via the Bedouin who were contemporary with the time of the ancient Egyptians. (The Bedouin are NOT a modern people).

But how can the work "Khufu" come to mean "horizon"? In particular, what is the meaning of the circle with three horizontal lines of the "Khufu'" inscription, the so-called "placenta" or "sieve" or "basket" or Gardiner's "Aa1"? There is no certainty amongst Egyptologists as to what this glyph represents. Indeed, J.P. Allen in his book Middle Egptian simply lists its meaning as "unknown".

The answer, however, could be startlingly simple. It is an answer that is associated with "Akhet" which is connected with the "essence of light" = the sun's annual journey. Here is what those three horizontal lines within the circle could mean:


















It may then be that these "Khufu" inscriptions we find are actually nothing more than elaborate versions of the "Raufu" inscriptions we find in the Abydos king list and elsewhere. Elaborate in the sense that the plain "Ra" circle is sometimes shown with the rising/setting places of Ra i.e. the three hatched lines. This is to say that the circle is composite (or dualistic) in nature, representing both "Ra" and "Horizon" at the same time. What this means, of course, is that Egyptologists have misread "Raufu" as "Khufu". The name "Khufu" probably never existed - it was always "Ra-ufu" (Ra = Sun God), (Ufu = Horizon).

Of course, symbolically also, the solstices represent "transition points" in the annual journey of the Sun (Ra). From winter to summer (rebirth) and from summer to winter (death). The equinoctial point is the point in betwixt, the halfway point, the point of balance, and the later form of the Akhet may indeed represent the Sun at its Equinoctial point i.e. the sun centered (equinox) between two hiils.

Naturally the solstices and equinox are division markers of the seasons of which there were three in Ancient Egypt.

From Wiki:


The Egyptian language word "Akhet" is both a hieroglyph and an Ancient Egyptian season.

The two uses for akhet:

In Ancient Egyptian, the place where the sun rises and sets; often translated as "horizon" or "mountain of light". It is included in names like "Akhet Khufu" (Ancient Egyptian name for the Great Pyramid) and Akhetaten.

Betrò's book names the hieroglyph: 'Mountain with the Rising Sun', and the hieroglyph is used as an ideogram for "horizon".[1]

The first of three seasons of the ancient Egyptian calendar--the inundation season. This was the time of the Egyptian calendar year when the Nile waters flooded farmland and brought much nutrients to the tilled soil. The Akhet season ran approximately from mid-July to mid-November in Ancient Egypt, and was followed by Peret and Shemu.[2]




(Source).


It is easy to then understand how "Akhet" came to be associated with death and rebirth - from one solstice to the next being the "death" of one season into the (re)birth of another.

Regards,


Scott Creighton

[edit on 9/2/2010 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Feb, 9 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
"Dedi blessed the prince and the king with thankfulness, and he said to Hordadef: "Greatness be thine; may your Ka have victory over the powers of evil, and may your Khu follow the path which leads to Paradise."

www.reshafim.org.il...

khu: or akh, the part of a person which rose to the heavens to become a star. (cf. Body and Soul)
Lichtheim gives ba instead of khu

The akh ( Ax )

According to the Pyramid Text #474 The akh belongs to the heaven, the corpse to the earth. The body is buried while the akh, the Shining One, ascends to the sky, becoming a star.

Turin king list - unreadable (lacuna)

Herodotus = Cheops

Abydos list - wfw-Re/Ra = ufu-re / ufu-ra

Khufu statue - only ufu is evident beside the right leg

It seems apparent that ufu or auph/u may have been his real name while the use of Khu for a "Rising Star" or "godlike", became adapted to his name like Re or Ra also becomes adapted to names like Khafre or Mnkaure.

So Khu-ufu became khufu and xfw or xwfw by heiroglyph translators.

The X = ch or kh as you know.

Compare that Herodotus translates Khufu as Kheops, thus X=Khe with ops or oph for ufu or uphu.

Relatively close to the name Ophir that coincides with Khufu's evil ways.

Χέοπα - Cheops

THE OPHIES PTEROTOS were a breed of feathery-winged Serpents which guarded the frankincense of Arabia. They were sometimes called Ophies Amphipterotoi, or "Serpents with Two Pairs of Wings."

OPHIOTAUROS (the "serpent-bull") was a monster born with the foreparts of a black bull and the tail of a serpent. It was slain by an ally of the Titanes in their search for a victory against Zeus. The Ophiotauros was probably placed in the heavens as the combined Constellations Taurus and Cetus (bull fore-parts with a sea-monster tail), alongside the kite as Lyra, and the altar Ara.

OPHION (Ophiôn), a Titan, was married to Eurynome, with whom he shared the supremacy previous to the reign of Cronos and Rhea; but being conquered by the latter, he and Eurynome were thrown into Oceanus or Tartarus. (Apollon. Rhod. i. 503, &c.; Tzetz, ad Lyc. 1191.) There are two other mythical beings of the same name. (Ov. Met. xii. 245; Claudian. Rapt. Pros. iii. 348.)

THE ORACLULAR TABLETS OF OPHION
The tablets of Ophion are identical to the tablets of Phanes, a primordial serpentine god from the Orphic Theogonies who prophesied the future of the cosmos.

Phanes - bring to light

PHANES was the Protogenos (primeval god) of procreation in the Orphic cosmogony.

Phanes was portrayed as a beautiful golden-winged hermaphroditic deity wrapped in a serpent's coils. The poets describe him as an incorporeal being invisible even through the eyes of the gods. His name means "bring to light" or "make appear" from the Greek verbs phanaô and phainô.

As you can see, Phanes also being equated by the Orphics with "sexual desire" or "lust", can also be equated to Pan or Baphomet of the Freemasons.


There's a reason why Khu-ufu was an evil pharaoh and why Egypt was cursed with 150 years of darkness and plagues and people were enslaved to the quarries and the temples were all closed.

Remind you of the Exodus?

Snoferu, typically thought of as being a prosperous and good pharaoh whose name has nfr in it for "beauty" like nefertiti, also can be realized as snf for "blood".

Huni, Snoferu's father, desired to be his own God and despised the Egyptian God's and was also a cannibal who ate people, hence Snf or blood for his son's name, who I think was a hermaphrodite.

So you can see why they became cursed and the people praised "Philitis the Shepherd" greater than Khu-ufu, which I believe that Snoferu and Khu-ufu, murdered Philitis upon an altar in Saqqara on Dec.10/3474.bC that reveals some 885 missing years upon the advent of the new Sun Temples or Ra worship.

I mention this in my Tribes of Atlantis studies and why I believe that evil arose through Egypt from Kenya as a result of voodoo rituals where they envoked Satan or Zatan as in Zathanel Hatuptah.

Thus they became PH-aro-AH-s and wore funny hats of whores or Hats of Putahs and worshipped Pta-H.

H is the 8th letter as it also was the number of the Hermaphrodite god ba-PH-om.t of freemasons, 888 or face the two 3's to make the entwined serpent of 8.

In other words, like the ritual of Jesus, the murder of the previous Son was the reversion of the Golden Orus to the Black Horus.

Recall that prior to Khufu, Djoser also had 7 year famine dream interpreted by Imhotep as the Sehel stele reveals in comparison to Joseph and "the Pharaoh" of the bible, where some 150 or so years after was the Exodus.

Coincidence?


Well, you wanted to know who Khufu was and you can see how the ufu relates precisely with the ancients ophir.



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
"Khufu is Dead - Long Live Ra-ufu"


Scott... there IS no "Rafu."

[qupte] The plain circle is the phonetic "Ra" (the AE sun god). The name of the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty in the Abydos King List reads "RAUFU".

In order for it to be "Ra" it has to have a dot in the middle of the circle. I don't see the dot, do you?


The typical explanation for this apparent anomally is that the scribes either made a mistake or that they left the work unfinished. I am unconvinced of this. There are simply too many unfinished RAUFU inscriptions out there.


Which would mean that they either deliberately or accidentally misspelled the name of the living god. That would be blasphemy, as I understand, since the name you're interpreting as "rafu" appears on Khufu artifacts and monuments.


The circle impression in the red square clearly bears a cross symbol (this can also be seen in the seal). This is the AE word for "town" or "territory". The circle in the blue square is completely devoid of these cross-hatched lines.


And it's also on a fairly eroded section, judging from the picture. The serpent is very much faded.

RAUFU but that the circle with the 3 cross-hatched lines in the Khufu inscription is simply a more elaborate form of "Ra".


No.

It's never used in connection with inscriptions of, on, or about the deity Ra. And the "circle with hatched lines" *is* associated with a stylized placenta.


The answer, however, could be startlingly simple. It is an answer that is associated with "Akhet" which is connected with the "essence of light" = the sun's annual journey. Here is what those three horizontal lines within the circle could mean:


Then why is it never used in texts talking about horizons? And why was a different sign used to mean "horizon"?


Betrò's book names the hieroglyph: 'Mountain with the Rising Sun', and the hieroglyph is used as an ideogram for "horizon".

Exactly.

You haven't proved your thesis, though, nor explained why they don't use the placental sign as "ahk" in other texts (I'm thinking of ones where the text is done in two or more languages, such as the stele and the Rosetta stone. You just simply wandered from your original concept (where you fail to explain why he spells his first name in many ways) to listing others that you think you can translate the same way (which doesn't match known words) and why they would misspell a sacred name.



posted on Feb, 11 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Ok Scott,

When can we expect a follow up? My God I love how you have put this together and can only encourage more more. My hat is off to the work
you have shared here .Bravo

Not so long that it is imposing either. Thank you for sharing. Just wanted to get this down before I finish reading

May have more in a few.



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Byrd;


"In order for it to be "Ra" it has to have a dot in the middle of the circle. I don't see the dot, do you?"


No, you are mistaken. Do any of the other names in the Abydos list that spell khafre, menkaure or those that end in Ra/Re have a dot in the middle? No.

The first king to use Ra was Neferkara who they think was Huni. This would equate with the true origin of the Sun Temples rather than the later Userkaf and compliments my post where I stated that Huni wanted to be his own god and despised the original Egyptian gods from the first dynasty to his time or some 18 pharaohs prior who did not use Ra or the symbol of Ra in their cartouches.

Ra is Sun Worship. Personally in my opinion, I think that the circle with a dot should mean nothing more than "year" for the sun in the center surrounded by a circle or a cycle around the sun, that is if it doesn't mean "birth". Typically you can see Ra's name is spelled with mouth and arm glyph for Ra next to the dot in a circle and a seated god. So this would mean "born" of Ra.

Ra or Re has to be placed at the end of the name, so the Abydos list of khufu is actually UFURA or wfwra.

Recall that Manetho called him Suphis.

Sun worship is a blasphemy against God, and when we consider the Aztec's who were ripping out hearts in Mel Gibson's Jaguar Paw movie, and also worshipped the sun, then we can understand why the Hebrew word for ra means disfunctional just like Huni the Cannibal who enstated the Ra worship and titular and Sun Temples.

Ra also is said to have created the "blood thirsty" lion goddess Sekhmet.
Huni's son Snoferu also consists of the word snf which means blood in Egyptian.



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Hello Byrd,

Good to hear from you. Been a while.


Originally posted by Scott Creighton
"Khufu is Dead - Long Live Ra-ufu"

Byrd: Scott... there IS no "Rafu."


SC: Well I wouldn’t expect you to say anything otherwise. But the EVIDENCE refutes your positon.


SC: The plain circle is the phonetic "Ra" (the AE sun god). The name of the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty in the Abydos King List reads "RAUFU".

Byrd: In order for it to be "Ra" it has to have a dot in the middle of the circle. I don't see the dot, do you?


SC: You mean like this:



”The Birth Place (nursery) of Rauf”

Source: 'I monumenti dell'Egitto e della Nubia' vol. 1 (1832), p.141, Rosellini

And this:



And, in any case, as AeJor_Mn has already pointed out, Ra/Re can be written with or without the centre dot just as we find in the glyphs of Ra/Re in the names of Djedfre, Khare and Menkaure in the Abydos King list (below):





SC: The typical explanation for this apparent anomally is that the scribes either made a mistake or that they left the work unfinished. I am unconvinced of this. There are simply too many unfinished RAUFU inscriptions out there.

Byrd: Which would mean that they either deliberately or accidentally misspelled the name of the living god. That would be blasphemy, as I understand, since the name you're interpreting as "rafu" appears on Khufu artifacts and monuments.


SC: You are making the assumption here that the AE called the 2nd King of the 4th Dynasty “Khufu” – I am saying he was known to them as “Raufu”. The name on the monuments/artefacts IS Raufu NOT Khufu. It has been erroneously translated by “modern” scholars as “Khufu”.


SC: The circle impression in the red square clearly bears a cross symbol (this can also be seen in the seal). This is the AE word for "town" or "territory". The circle in the blue square is completely devoid of these cross-hatched lines.

Byrd: And it's also on a fairly eroded section, judging from the picture. The serpent is very much faded.


SC: It is a plain circle. It is fully intended to BE a plain circle. There is simply no way the maker of such a seal would have carved the intricate detail of the word “town” (the crossed circle) and not do likewise for the name of the God-King’s name. This seal tells us, conclusively, that a PLAIN (not hatched) circle was intended for the name of the king. The seal is used for official business, a quick and efficient means of rendering the King’s official stamp. It is simply inconceivable that the seal impression would be made into clay and then the circle painted or carved afterwards – that is not how a seal is designed to function. The plain circle WAS FULLY INTENDED. See an example of the seal impression below:




See – no hatch lines in the circle and definitely NO paint. The circle is meant to be a plain circle and is designed as such. Such a mistake would not have been made in an official seal. This impression of the disc in the royal inscription (above) is NOT “Kh” it is the SUN DISC (Ra).


SC: RAUFU but that the circle with the 3 cross-hatched lines in the Khufu inscription is simply a more elaborate form of "Ra".

Byrd: No.


SC: Yes.


Byrd: It's never used in connection with inscriptions of, on, or about the deity Ra.


SC: But if, as I contend, that this glyph (Aa1) is a form of the sun disc then there is every reason to associate it with Ra. It is ANOTHER FORM of the sun disc of Ra.


Byrd: And the "circle with hatched lines" *is* associated with a stylized placenta.


SC: …or a ball of string, or a sieve, or a basket…. yadda…. Allen in Middle Egyptian simply lists its description as “unknown”.



SC: The answer, however, could be startlingly simple. It is an answer that is associated with "Akhet" which is connected with the "essence of light" = the sun's annual journey. Here is what those three horizontal lines within the circle could mean:



Byrd: Then why is it never used in texts talking about horizons?


SC: But it is used in such ways: “Akhet Raufu”.


And why was a different sign used to mean "horizon"?


SC: If you are referring to “Akhet” as meaning “horizon” read below.


SC: Betrò's book names the hieroglyph: 'Mountain with the Rising Sun', and the hieroglyph is used as an ideogram for "horizon".

Byrd: Exactly.


SC: “Exactly”? You have totally stripped out the part where Betro states that the AE word Akhet DOES NOT MEAN “horizon”. Here is what Betro said in full:


'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'.


So Betro informs us that “Akhet” does NOT mean “horizon” as has been believed but rather “sunrise” or “sunset”.

It is my view that “ufu” actually means “horizon”. As I explained previously, the modern Egyptian word for “horizon” is “oufou” (ufu) or “oufouk” (a variant of Khufu in reverse).

So, “Akhet Ra-ufu” translates as “The rising/setting places (akhet) of Ra on the Horizon (ufu)”


Byrd: You haven't proved your thesis, though, nor explained why they don't use the placental sign as "ahk" in other texts ….


SC: Look at the image below of “Akhet Place”:



Why is there no “Kh” (placenta glyph) in the “Akhet” ideogram? Clearly the inclusion of the hatched circle adds additional meaning to the ideogram?

Now look at this:



The above ideogram is typically translated as “wood” or “tree”. The greenish/blue painted circle is supposed to represent phonetic “Kh” (x) whilst the semi circle (loaf) represents phonetic “t”. The tree branch serves as the determinative. Thus we have “Khet” (tree, wood). Okay, so far, so good.

If we now consult hieroglyph dictionaries, what we find is that “Khet” (wood, tree) can be written with or without the hatched circle glyph (see below):



Source: Hieroglyphs.net

See - no hatched circle. In fact, no circle at all!


And this from Budge's dictionary:



Source: E. A. Wallis Budge

Continued....

[edit on 12/2/2010 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Feb, 12 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Continued.....

Now look at this:



The above ideogram is typically translated as “wood” or “tree”. The greenish/blue painted circle is supposed to represent phonetic “Kh” (x) whilst the semi circle (loaf) represents phonetic “t”. The tree branch serves as the determinative. Thus we have “Khet” (tree, wood). Okay, so far, so good.

If we now consult hieroglyph dictionaries, what we find is that “Khet” (wood, tree) can be written with or without the hatched circle glyph (see below):



Source: Hieroglyphs.net

See - no hatched circle. In fact, no circle at all!


And this from Budge's dictionary:



Source: E. A. Wallis Budge

The red box shows the hatched circle (not a plain circle), and also shows the same word but WITHOUT the circle. The blue box shows the word "impaling" pole (stake) which, of course, is made of wood - no circle (hatched or otherwise) is present.

So, on the evidence above from two dictionaries, it seems that the circle glyph (hatched or painted green) ADDS something to the meaning of the base word. It seems to me that the inclusion of the circle into the ideogram acts as a determinative to the word. This could be, as I suggested previously, be adding the sun's rays to the tree/wood signifying not just "wood" or "tree" but "growing wood" or "growing tree" because that is the effect of the SUN - it causes things to "grow" or becomes "greater". Why ADD the circle to the ideogram if it has no impact on the meaning of the ideogram?


Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Interesting that this page on Wikipedia lists the name of the second king of the 4th dynasty of ancient Egypt (supposedly Khufu) as "unknown name".

Abydos King List on Wiki - "Khufu" Listed as Unknown King

I wonder why that is?

Regards,

SC



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
Interesting that this page on Wikipedia lists the name of the second king of the 4th dynasty of ancient Egypt (supposedly Khufu) as "unknown name".

Abydos King List on Wiki - "Khufu" Listed as Unknown King

I wonder why that is?

Regards,

SC


It's Ochman's photo. He labeled it. He may not have been able to read the inscription. In any case, it's shown elsewhere (www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk... and other places).

Photographer of the photo in question:
commons.wikimedia.org...:Ochmann-HH

Write him and ask him why he didn't identify Khufu's cartouche.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Isn't Kufu's cartouche supposed to have two birds in it?

When I googled "Kufu's cartouche" a variety of images came up and they all had two birds.

Bird --- Slug --- Bird --- Sun

Can either Byrd or Scott explain the two bird verses the one bird to us common folk?

Thanks.



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Hi Byrd,


Byrd: It's Ochman's photo. He labeled it. He may not have been able to read the inscription.


SC: Odd then that he was quite able to read all other inscriptions.


Byrd: In any case, it's shown elsewhere (www.ancientegyptonline.co.uk... and other places).


SC: Which is merely repeating (from other sources) what they THINK this cartouche reads. In my opinion these sites and most orthodox books on this are propagating a falsehood. The cartouche of the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty in the Abydos King List does NOT read "Khufu".


Byrd: Photographer of the photo in question:
commons.wikimedia.org...:Ochmann-HH

Write him and ask him why he didn't identify Khufu's cartouche.


SC: Perhaps I will. My guess, however, is that he didn't identify the cartouche in question as belonging to Khufu because the cartouche in question DOES NOT read as "Khufu" and he probably was as puzzled as I was with the rendering of "Rauf" instead of "Khufu" as the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty.

Regards,

SC

[edit on 9/7/2010 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by lostinspace
 

Hi Lostinspace,


Lostinspace: Isn't Kufu's cartouche supposed to have two birds in it?

When I googled "Kufu's cartouche" a variety of images came up and they all had two birds.

Bird --- Slug --- Bird --- Sun

Can either Byrd or Scott explain the two bird verses the one bird to us common folk?


SC: I am a relative novice in reading hieroglyphs myself but the discrepancy of the supposed Khufu cartouche in the Abydos list and the cartouche Vyse found in Campbell's Chamber of the Great Pyramid are so obviously different a child could see it.

There are two distinct differences. The first one (which you observed yourself) is the missing quail chick. The second clear difference is that the two disc glyphs are different – one example has horizontal cross-hatching (Campbell’s Chamber) whilst the disc glyph in the Abydos King List (#21 below) presents a plain, unhatched disc (Figure 1)



Figure 1

Orthodox folks maintain that the cartouche in Abydos reads “Khuf” – a shortened version of “Khufu”. Yes, they even gave God-Kings nicknames! They further hold that this is what we would come to expect of the palaeography over such a lengthy period of time, from the 4th dynasty to the 19th dynasty. Well, we might expect to see a slight change such as one of the quail chicks disappearing. but what is quite remarkable is that the PLAIN DISC remained CONSTANT over this very lengthy period of time. We find in seals and seal impressions of the 2nd King of the 4th dynasty (Figure 2 & 3) that they are rendered with a PLAIN DISC just like we find a 1,000 years later in the Abydos King List. The PLAIN DISC in the cartouche of this king remained CONSTANT over this very long period of time.




Figure 2



Figure 3


Now, the implications of this are staggeringly profound. The cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber (Figure 4) is without question the single-most ‘solid’ piece of evidence Egyptologists use in proving their case that Khufu built the Great Pyramid. Fine – no serious alternative researcher disputes this. HOWEVER, the chronology is being questioned since Khufu is NOT LISTED in the Abydos King List. The second king of the 4th dynasty in the Abydos List is Rauf.



Figure 4

So, who was Khufu and when did he live? Obviously he must have existed BEFORE the period in question.

Now, orthodox scholars are quick to point out that wall reliefs such as the King List at Abydos would have had such detail painted afterwards and that the paint at Abydos has either worn away or was never carried out (for whatever reason). Of course, it would have made much more sense for the scribes/artisans/sculptors to have carved the hatchings into the “Khufu” disc at Abydos to ensure its durability (they would have known of the frailties of paint). Thus the lack of hatchings in the alleged Khufu cartouche in the Abydos list is happily explained by orthodoxy.

Except for the major flaw; the fly in the ointment – the cylinder seal of the 4th dynasty which bears the name “Raufu” (i.e. a plain circle with no horizontal hatchings) – the same plain disc that is found at Abydos. How do orthodox scholars esplain that seal? They don’t, they can’t

The purpose of a seal is to render the king’s name fully and efficiently for the purposes of official business. Was it expected then that the plain disc in each seal impression was painted afterwards to render it clearly as “Kh” i.e. to differentiate it from the plain solar disc of “Ra/Re”? But why not simply carve the horizontal hatching into the seal itself so that, upon impression, the meaning is clear from the get-go, no additions/modifications required? That would have been the most logical, sensible and obvious thing to do. Does orthodoxy expect us to abandon our common sense in its hidebound view that this cartouche reads "Khufu"?

So why, we ask, was this not done? Why were these hatchings not carved into the disc in the king's seal from the get-go? We have to conclude it was not done because the horizontal hatchings in this disc on the King’s seal were NOT REQUIRED. We have to further conclude that these hatchings were NOT REQUIRED either in the cartouche in the Abydos list. And we have to conclude further still that the artisans/scribes of Abydos did not make a mistake, did not forget to render the name of the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty properly, nor did they forget to paint such detail. They rendered the plain disc in this cartouche at Abydos in precisely the same way their ancient ancestors had done on the cylinder seal of the king i.e. as “Rauf(u)”.

In short, the Great Pyramid CANNOT and DOES NOT belong to the 4th dynasty since there exists no king in that dynasty with the name “Khufu”, the name found in Campbell’s Chamber of the Great Pyramid. Khufu, the builder of the Great Pyramid (and possibly other structures at Giza) , is of another time, another age.

Regards,

SC

[edit on 9/7/2010 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Jul, 9 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Just a by stander here...but appreciate the time everyone has put into this and their thoughts.




posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 12:22 PM
link   
How about a better look at Campbell's inscription:
sonsothunder.files.wordpress.com...

Says "Khufu." Includes the hatched oval.

As I've mentioned before, the Abydos Kings list (written almost 2,000 years after Khufu lived) has a number of errors in it. There are misspellings (whether this is caused by changes in the language between the time of the Old Kingdom and New Kingdom or bad scribal copying, I don't know.)

Sorry. Can't look up others. Hotel connection is very flaky and I'm getting timeouts.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Hello Byrd,


Byrd: How about a better look at Campbell's inscription:
sonsothunder.files.wordpress.com...

Says "Khufu." Includes the hatched oval.


SC: That the cartouche in Campbell's Chamber of the Great Pyramid reads "Khufu" is absolutely not in question here. I agree that this inscription reads "Khufu".


Byrd: As I've mentioned before, the Abydos Kings list (written almost 2,000 years after Khufu lived) has a number of errors in it. There are misspellings (whether this is caused by changes in the language between the time of the Old Kingdom and New Kingdom or bad scribal copying, I don't know.)


SC: First of all, I find it truly remarkable (and not a little insulting to the AEs) that someone here in the 21st century CE can think they know more about the spelling (and mistakes) in the Abydos King List than the actual Ancient Egyptian writers of the Abydos table; that it is easier for you to assume that THEY made a scripting error rather than YOU making a reading error.

Secondly - as pointed out to you - the seal impression of the 2nd King of the 4th dynasty bears a PLAIN DISC (or oval) - just like it does in the Abydos table. In other words - the plain disc on the King's seal has remained UNCHANGED from the 4th dynasty when it was made until the 19th dynasty when the Abydos King List was created. You simply CANNOT then assume that the plain disc of the Abydos table was a "mistake" since clearly it has remained constant over thousands of years. Since it is inconceivable that such a mistake would have been made in the king's seal we actually must assume that there is no mistake in the Abydos rendering either i.e. that the plain disc in the cartouche of the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty in the Abydos King List was fully intended to be a plain disc i.e. the phonetic "Ra" and NOT the phonetic "Kh".

Now, as I am sure you well know, phonetic "Kh" can be rendered with either a plain disc or a horizontally hatched disc. The plain "Kh" disc is always differentiated from the plain disc of the God Ra with the use of colour. The disc of "Ra" would typically have been painted orange or gold whilst the plain disc of "Kh" would have been painted greenish-blue. However, claims of missing paint/carving etc in the Abydos rendering of the plain disc of the king's name are entirely nullified by the rendering of the king's name in the 4th dynasty seal and seal impressions, for to ensure the absolute efficiency of the seal to render the impressions "Kh" you COULD ONLY do this with a seal by actually carving horizontal hatchings (like those in Campbell's Chamber) into the seal - the last thing you would want is to use a seal that impresses a plain disc where every impression made subsequently has to have the plain disc in the King's name either painted greenish-blue or painted/carved with horizontal hatchings in order to ensure the meaning is clear. This problem is easily solved, however, by the simple use of horizontal hatchings being carved into the disc of the king's name in the seal from the start whereby, upon impression, a disc with horizontal hatchings (i.e. phonetic "Kh") is clearly and instantly rendered WITHOUT the need for any recourse to further modifications with paint etc and, by so doing, the efficiency of the seal is assured.

The logic of this seal presenting a plain disc is staggeringly obvious - a PLAIN UNPAINTED disc was required i.e. the name "Raufu". And this is what the artisans/scribes also presented at Abydos - no mistake.

So, the question is, if Raufu is the name of the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty (as indicated by 4th dynasty seal impressions and by the 19th dynasty Abydos table) then why do we find a cartouche in Campbell's Chamber that reads "Khufu" when, surely, it should read as "Raufu" since it is Raufu that was the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty? Since the Abydos table tells us Rauf(u) was the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty we are obliged to then conclude that Khufu - the actual builder of the Great Pyramid - was of some other (earlier) time.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 10/7/2010 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Jul, 11 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 


Thanks for the detailed explanation Scott. If the sun disc had hatch marks it would be pronounced Khuf. The extra quail gives it the ending U.

It doesn't look like any of the sun discs in the kings list at Abydos have hatchings. Why do the AE's incorporate hatching in a sun symbol when the sun has no visible surface features?

I bet colonel Vyse painted the cartouch of Khufu in the Great Pyramid to save face. Or maybe some egyptian during Khufu's rulership probably snuck into the sacred pyramid and painted that name inside. The great pyramid seems more like an altar than a tomb. Khufu's name should have been carved into the pyramid in a central location, such as the king's chamber if it really was his tomb.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by lostinspace

I bet colonel Vyse painted the cartouch of Khufu in the Great Pyramid to save face.

Possible, but unlikely. After all, the glyphs are written in a style that was not known to egyptology during Vyse's time.

It should be stated here that the glyphs in question can be seen continuing into cracks between the stones in this chamber, into recesses so small and so deep that even Graham Hancock was forced to admit they were painted on prior to the completion of the pyramid.


Or maybe some egyptian during Khufu's rulership probably snuck into the sacred pyramid and painted that name inside.

Spoken like a person uninterested in what facts are actually known.

The relieving chamber where these glyphs are located was inaccessible until Vyse blew it open with dynamite.

A little effort can solve a whole lot of mysteries. It can also help posters keep from looking ignorant.

Harte



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
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?


Hi Scott, interesting thread.


Are you willing to elaborate on what is said here?

www.rickrichards.com...

Is what is claimed there regarding those cartouches and especially the cartouche that was drawn in Col. Howard Vyse's journal on May 27, 1837 correct?



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 


Hi Spacevisitor,

I have seen those images on Rick's site before and I have to say that they are not very good renderings of the Khufu inscription in Campbell's Chamber drawn in Col. Howard-Vyse's diary. The link below presents a hi-res image of the drawing Col. Howard-Vyse made (this is from a photograph of the relevant diary page made by Martin Stower).

The Khufu Drawing of Col. Howard-Vyse

By using the zoom option on the image, you can clearly see, Col. Howard-Vyse drew three horizontal hatchings within the disc of Khufu's name - the same as we see in Stadelmann's photo of the Khufu inscription posted earlier by Byrd. Claims of forgery aside, it would seem then that Col. Howard-Vyse correctly copied what he saw in Campbell's Chamber of the Great Pyramid.

The problem for Egyptology, however, is that this name "Khufu" is not the name of the 2nd king of the 4th Dynasty we see in the Abydos King List or on 4th Dynasty seals bearing the King's name. That the name "Khufu" is not recorded in the AE King Lists would suggest that this king must have been of an earlier time than the 4th dynasty as must also the Great Pyramid. How much earlier is anyone's guess although radio-carbon 14 dating of the Giza structures suggests perhaps around 400 years earlier (if we assume these C14 datings were not the result of a repair job on the pyramids).

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 13/7/2010 by Scott Creighton]





new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join