Who was Khufu?

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
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 GIUza 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


Thanks for your reply and clearing that up Scott.


I did read your posts regarding “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”, and therefore I did wonder myself why you did not used that cartouche [the one Rick used] for comparison.

Now I understand why.

Regards.




posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


I did not know those details Harte. I'm glad you enlightened me. I guess Hollywood got the best of me.

I wonder what was going through the AE worker's mind when he painted Khufu's cartouche in that hidden location? - Khufu was here and so was I. The poor guy was probably killed after Khufu's death, to be an eternal servant in the afterlife. Hopefully he didn't die that way and his only reasons were to let a future public know the truth about TGP.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by lostinspace
reply to post by Harte
 


I did not know those details Harte. I'm glad you enlightened me. I guess Hollywood got the best of me.

I wonder what was going through the AE worker's mind when he painted Khufu's cartouche in that hidden location? - Khufu was here and so was I. The poor guy was probably killed after Khufu's death, to be an eternal servant in the afterlife. Hopefully he didn't die that way and his only reasons were to let a future public know the truth about TGP.



Actually, the Egyptians didn't sacrifice servants when the Pharaoh died -- at least, not after the first dynasty and even then the evidence is very scanty. They did have choice tombs near the pharaoh's (that's one of the perks of being an important person in his life) but the drama of the opera, "Aida" with its burial of people alive was something invented by Verdi.
www.ancient-egypt.org...

Material with "team signs" on it show up all over the place. It's thought that this was part of the competition spirit -- to see whose team could do the most work in a given time.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Byrd
 

Hello Byrd,

Good to hear from you. Been a while.


Thanks. Been a very very busy spring semester and the rest of the year doesn't look much lighter.


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)


I agree with this evidence, that (depending on the material they're working with) the center dot (as well as hatchings) can be left out of some inscriptions.


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.


From what time period and how many?


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”.


Take a look at your example from the tomb of Qar. Right above Khufu's name IS a pharaoh with a "Re" in his name: Meryre. Notice how much larger the "Re" is. To the RIGHT of the cartouche with "Khufu" is the beginning title of "Son of" (ibis, symbol for Re.) Again, the "Re" is visibly larger than the "Kh" symbol. Even the "re" in Menukare (to the left of Khufu) is slightly larger. Likewise Khefre (below Menukare).


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.


Given the material they were working with, a series of little lines may not have been possible. Take a look at the shrine priest's ring shown here -- again, the design is too small to actually put lines inside the "kh" symbol:
en.wikipedia.org...:Ring_of_Cheops.jpg

However, the "ra" symbol (first one on top on the left of the scarab) is slightly larger than the "kh" symbol.

On the seal that you link, the sign you describe as "Kh" is actually "Akh" (B37 on Gardner's list) -- and consistent with the reading of that section of the seal ("Pyramid town of Ahket")... the rest of the seal shows how hard it was to work in that material (the crested ibis - B37 - for example, is really badly done ... until you remember that the bird is less than half an inch tall.)



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


...it wasn't. That's carved and polished stone. They weren't able to make fine engraving marks on such a surface.

In addition, there are other inscriptions with his other titles. For instance, there is a statue with his full name, Horus name, and full name on it:
www.semataui.de...

...the drawings (which I am going to assume are accurate) show lines in the "khu" part of the name and not a "ra."

There are other objects where his name (or names) are given:
en.wikiversity.org...

Then, there's the issue of the language. Rulers' names "meant" something -- they were words, not just pleasing sounds.

* in the usage of that time, the "ra" would go at the end of the name although it's the first symbol in the cartouche... making his name "ufu-ra".

* Khufu's name makes sense. It means "to protect" and his full name "Khnum-khufu" means "Khnum protects me." "Khnum-rafu" would probably mean "Khnum goes 'rafu!', making the god sound like a cuckoo clock.


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:


Scott, I think we'd find this more convincing if you tied it into the hieroglyphs themselves and the development of the hieroglyphs and the usage of the symbol rather than deciding that you knew what the ancient Egyptians were 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”.


Quite true. But Ahket (as you so clearly showed with the example of the seal above) was spelled with the crested ibis (B37) at that time.

...etc.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Hello Byrd,

Thank you for your lengthy reply.


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: From what time period and how many?


SC: There are numerous examples of Raufu – the 4th dynasty cylinder seal, its impressions, the Abydos King List, the ring sea, the tomb of Khaf-Khufu, tomb of Qar, a number of line drawings as well as the example of “Reofe” in 'I monumenti dell'Egitto e della Nubia' vol. 1 (1832), p.141, Rosellini. There are probably others yet to be identified.


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”.

Byrd: Take a look at your example from the tomb of Qar. Right above Khufu's name IS a pharaoh with a "Re" in his name: Meryre. Notice how much larger the "Re" is. To the RIGHT of the cartouche with "Khufu" is the beginning title of "Son of" (ibis, symbol for Re.) Again, the "Re" is visibly larger than the "Kh" symbol. Even the "re" in Menukare (to the left of Khufu) is slightly larger. Likewise Khefre (below Menukare).


SC: Okay there are a number of points to make here. First of all the inscriptions on the walls of the tomb of Qar would likely have been painted just in the same manner orthodox folks claim the Abydos King List would also have been painted to differentiate plain “Kh” disc from the plain “Ra/Re” disc. How do you know the plain disc in the alleged “Khufu” inscription in the tomb of Qar would not have been painted gold or orange i.e. the colours of Re? In fact, now that I think of it, the discs of Menkaure and “Khufu” ARE orange! Secondly, there is no real discernable difference between the plain “Ra” disc of Menkaure and the plain “Ra” disc of “Raufu”. Thirdly, there is no discernable difference in any of the plain discs of these kings in the Abydos table. If size mattered then surely the alleged plain disc of “Khufu” would have been rendered much smaller than the other known “Ra” discs of the other 4th dynasty kings. And finally, the Abydos table clearly demonstrates honorific transposition of the Ra/Re disc – why should they give a “Kh” disc the same place of honour as the god Ra in the other inscriptions?


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.

Byrd: Given the material they were working with, a series of little lines may not have been possible.


SC: I disagree. They managed to carve a fine cross into the disc of the “town” glyph, a disc that is of comparable size to the plain disc in the king's cartouche. If they could manage that then they most certainly could have carved horizontal hatchings into the plain disc of the god-king’s name. We have to assume such lines were NOT required.


Byrd: Take a look at the shrine priest's ring shown here -- again, the design is too small to actually put lines inside the "kh" symbol:
en.wikipedia.org...:Ring_of_Cheops.jpg


SC: Or that NO lines were actually required because it is NOT the “Kh” glyph. A slightly changed design could have facilitated a larger circle that, in turn, would have facilitated the horizontal hatchings. That a larger circle was NOT created to facilitate the placing of hatched lines suggests that such lines were not actually required, that a small plain circle of “Re” is what was required. And see also that the plain disc in this ring just happens to also be the GOLD colour of Ra.


SC: 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

Byrd: ...it wasn't. That's carved and polished stone. They weren't able to make fine engraving marks on such a surface.


SC: The cross engraved into the other circle on this seal begs to differ.


Byrd: In addition, there are other inscriptions with his other titles. For instance, there is a statue with his full name, Horus name, and full name on it:
www.semataui.de...

...the drawings (which I am going to assume are accurate) show lines in the "khu" part of the name and not a "ra."


SC: I am not saying Khufu didn’t exist, only that the evidence shows that he was NOT the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty. According to the Abydos table the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty was named as Raufu. Khufu existed alright – that’s not contested. We just need to discover WHEN Khufu existed.


Byrd: There are other objects where his name (or names) are given:
en.wikiversity.org...


SC: Again, not contested.


Byrd: Then, there's the issue of the language. Rulers' names "meant" something -- they were words, not just pleasing sounds.

* in the usage of that time, the "ra" would go at the end of the name although it's the first symbol in the cartouche... making his name "ufu-ra".


SC: As I explained to you previously “ufu” in modern Egyptian-Arabic (which has ancient roots to the Bedouin of the Sinai) translates as “horizon”. The “horizon of Ra”. Akhet Ufu-Ra – the “rising/setting place (Akhet) [on the] horizon of Ra” (ufu-Ra). Makes perfect sense.


Byrd: * Khufu's name makes sense. It means "to protect" and his full name "Khnum-khufu" means "Khnum protects me." "Khnum-rafu" would probably mean "Khnum goes 'rafu!', making the god sound like a cuckoo clock.


SC: See above. “Protector of the horizon of Ra”. Nothing wrong with that.


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: Scott, I think we'd find this more convincing if you tied it into the hieroglyphs themselves and the development of the hieroglyphs and the usage of the symbol rather than deciding that you knew what the ancient Egyptians were thinking.


SC: Nothing wrong with speculation so long as it is presented as such – which it was.


Betro: 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'.

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

Byrd: Quite true. But Ahket (as you so clearly showed with the example of the seal above) was spelled with the crested ibis (B37) at that time.


SC: It’s not the spelling that mattered but what it actually MEANT. And if the crested ibis can denote “Kh” (the AEs did not use vowels as you know) why not then use the crested ibis to denote the “Kh” in “Khufu”?

Kind regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
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.


Hi Scott, I have another question for you regarding the Khufu inscription in Campbell's Chamber.

Sorry to come again with this, but I am trying to figuring something out, and my point of view is that the best way to do that is to investigate it yourself and if nessesairy ask the help of others.

In the drawing in this link, which is again from the site of Rick Richards [which I found really very interesting] is the red circle placed around the spot where the “Khufu” inscription is painted.

www.rickrichards.com...

My question is, that correct, is that indeed the right place?

Regards.



posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by lostinspace
reply to post by Harte
 


I did not know those details Harte. I'm glad you enlightened me. I guess Hollywood got the best of me.

No sweat. You can't blame Hollywood, though.

You probably read too much at ATS.

On the other hand, the facts of this case have been posted at this site so many times in the past that I find it hard to believe that an oldtimer like yourself hasn't seen it here before, with the links.

I stopped posting the links after about the tenth time, IIRC.


I wonder what was going through the AE worker's mind when he painted Khufu's cartouche in that hidden location? - Khufu was here and so was I. The poor guy was probably killed after Khufu's death, to be an eternal servant in the afterlife. Hopefully he didn't die that way and his only reasons were to let a future public know the truth about TGP.

No, dude.

It is my understanding that the mentions of Khufu's names in the relieving chamber all involve the names of the work gangs associated with placing those particular stones.

One was the "friends of Khufu," as I recall.

There were names of several other groups painted on stones in there too.
Names like "The Craftsman Gang," "Drunks of Menkaura," among others (if memory serves.)

Regarding the fact that the inscriptions couldn't have been faked by Vyse:

The first pharaoh who used the cartouche for his birth- and throne name was Neferirkare, the third pharaoh of dynasty 5 (the names can be looked up in J.v. Beckeraths Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen, MÄS 49, Zabern 1999).
And before that? Well, the pharaoh only had his birth name in a cartouche (which had, to complete the confusion, the bee-reed-titulatory in front which was later associated with the throne name), and the cartouche-less Horus name as throne name! Those Horus names were not recorded in the king lists of the New Kingdom, which are the main sources for those names. There only cartouche names are recorded, and so Khufu became known to us through his birth- and not his throne name! And this was the only name for the king known at Vyses time!
The throne name of Khufu, "Mddw", means something like "he who gives" - goods to his people. Neither the meaning nor the existence of this name was known around 1840, not even to Birch. Birch, according to Sitchin te greatest hieroglyphic expert of his time, had the name before his eyes. He thought it was "just some title". So how could a faker, who had no knowledge about hieroglyphics at all, know more than the worlds biggest expert of that trade?

More HERE on how Sitchin has misled the uninformed in this matter.

Here's a snippet of Hancock's reversal on the subject:

As John West kindly reported in his open letter to Stower I have changed my views on the validity of the forgery theory. The relieving chambers are strictly off limits to the public and are extremely difficult to gain access to. I had been unable to obtain permission to visit them prior to the publication of Keeper/Message in 1996. However, in December 1997, Dr Zahi Hawass allowed me to spend an entire day exploring these chambers. There were no restrictions on where I looked and I had ample time to examine the hieroglyphs closely, under powerful lights. 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.

Read the whole thing here

Pass it on, won't you?

Harte



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 

Hi Spacevisitor,


Spacevisitor: In the drawing in this link, which is again from the site of Rick Richards [which I found really very interesting] is the red circle placed around the spot where the “Khufu” inscription is painted.


SC: Yes, I believe so. Remember though that there are other inscriptions of "Khufu" in the chamber below Campbell's - Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber. Here we find "Khnum Khufu".

As regards to the authenticity of the glyphs in these chambers, Dr Robert Schoch has this to say:


"...Were these just fakes? Studying them closely, however, they looked authentically ancient to me. I could see later mineral crystals precipitated over them, a process that takes centuries or millennia, and the inscriptions continue under the overlying blocks...." Source


Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Greetings, Scott.


Originally posted by Scott Creighton

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: From what time period and how many?


SC: There are numerous examples of Raufu – the 4th dynasty cylinder seal, its impressions, the Abydos King List, the ring sea, the tomb of Khaf-Khufu, tomb of Qar, a number of line drawings as well as the example of “Reofe” in 'I monumenti dell'Egitto e della Nubia' vol. 1 (1832), p.141, Rosellini. There are probably others yet to be identified.


I'll dispute the cylinder seal, and restate that it's not possible to do the tiny lines of the "Kh" inside that symbol. I own a (real) ushabti and have several pieces that I bought from an Egyptologist who did digs back in the early 1920's. At the scale they were working, it WAS possible to (barely) do the symbol for town inside a circle. But there was no way to engrave a very thin line in the material.

This is shown in Gardner's sign list -- circles related to Ra/Re (C1) are larger than those designated for other syllables (D16-D20).



First of all the inscriptions on the walls of the tomb of Qar would likely have been painted just in the same manner orthodox folks claim the Abydos King List would also have been painted to differentiate plain “Kh” disc from the plain “Ra/Re” disc. How do you know the plain disc in the alleged “Khufu” inscription in the tomb of Qar would not have been painted gold or orange i.e. the colours of Re? In fact, now that I think of it, the discs of Menkaure and “Khufu” ARE orange!



I think you're focusing on the difference in color in the stone (an artifact of the flash used to take the picture.)


Secondly, there is no real discernable difference between the plain “Ra” disc of Menkaure and the plain “Ra” disc of “Raufu”.


There's a size difference... and had it been "Ra", the next word following the Khufu cartouche (which is "Son of the god (crested-ibis, Ra/sun symbol) would have had the "Ra" circle the same size as the "kh" circle inside the cartouche. There was plenty of room for a large sized Ra circle, had his name been "Ufu-Ra."


Thirdly, there is no discernable difference in any of the plain discs of these kings in the Abydos table.


And there are a number of errors. Remember that this list was constructed well over 1,000 years later, when some of the signs had changed.

So... in the manner of historians, let's divide the evidence into "first-hand information" (that created and associated with Khufu and done during his lifetime) and "second-hand information" (that done within a few centuries of his lifetime) and "third-hand information" (that done over 500 years later.)

The Abydos list falls into "third hand information."

Alas, my net connection is very unstable at the moment. Let me leave you with this list of "first hand sources" (where Khufu would be mentioned in some inscription associated with them) and return to this later when my internet connection isn't quite so out of whack:
euler.slu.edu...

One more thing -- as several of us have pointed out, Ancient Egyptian is NOT related well to modern Egyptian and is unrelated to the language of the Berbers. (and "Ufu" doesn't mean Horizon in Arabic, according to Arabic speaking friends.)

The closest language to ancient Egyptian is Coptic Egyptian... and it's not terribly close.



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Hi Scott, thanks for that interesting link; EXPLORING THE GREAT PYRAMID

by Dr. Robert M. Schoch © 2005

What is your opinion of the limestone stela which was discovered by Auguste Mariette in the 1850s in the ruins of the temple of Isis, near the Great Pyramid.


According to the inscription on this stela (which is in the Cairo Museum), the Great Pyramid was already standing when Khufu arrived on the scene.



Everything in the inscription thus matches the known facts; but the only pyramid-building claim made by Khufu is that he built the small pyramid for the princess.

The Great Pyramid, he states, was already there, as was the Sphinx (and, by inference, the other two pyramids as well).





Such support for our theories is even further strengthened, as we read in another portion of the inscription that the Great Pyramid was also called

"The Western Mountain of Hathor": Live Horus Mezdau; To King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Khufu,

Life is given.

For his mother Isis, the Divine Mother,

Mistress of "The Western Mountain of Hathor,"

he made (this) writing on a stela.

He gave (her) a new sacred offering.

He built (her) a House (temple) of stone,

renewed the Gods that were found in her temple.

Hathor, we will recall, was the mistress of the Sinai peninsula. If the highest peak of the peninsula was her Eastern Mountain, the Great Pyramid was her Western Mountain—the two acting as the anchors for the Landing Corridor.



This "Inventory Stela," as it came to be called, bears all the marks of authenticity.

Yet scholars at the time of its discovery (and many ever since) have been unable to reconcile themselves to its unavoidable conclusions.

Unwilling to upset the whole structure of Pyramidology, they proclaimed the Inventory Stela a forgery—an inscription made "long after the death of Khufu" (to quote Selim Hassan, Excavations at Giza), but invoking his name "to support some fictitious claim of the local priests."


www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

Do you also think that that stela is indeed a forgery?

Regards.


[edit on 16/7/10 by spacevisitor]



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Just my 2 cents for this interesting thread:

Khufu:


Sphinx:



posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor

What is your opinion of the limestone stela which was discovered by Auguste Mariette in the 1850s in the ruins of the temple of Isis, near the Great Pyramid.


According to the inscription on this stela (which is in the Cairo Museum), the Great Pyramid was already standing when Khufu arrived on the scene.

Your quote merely states the opinion of the author of that site and the author provides no reasoning behind his personal choice to interpret the statements on the Inventory Stela as referring to the Great Pyramid.

The Egyptians had a term they used to refer to the GP and that term is not used in the Inventory Stela, so there's no reason at all to think the stela refers to the GP anywhere in its text.

Also, unlike what the author claims, Egyptology did not "proclaim" the stela to be from a much later date. They determined that it was written at a much later date - most likely sometime in the 26th Dynasty, 2,000 years after the GP was built. They determined this from language and writing style found on the stela itself. This makes a lot of sense if you stop and consider the changes in language and writing styles that can occur in 2,000 years. Try comparing that time span to where we are today. Is anyone still writing like they were in the year 10 AD?

By the time the stela was carved, the Egyptians themselves had no idea of what means were used to build the GP.

Harte



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Hi Byrd,

Thanks once more for your lengthy reply.


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: From what time period and how many?

SC: There are numerous examples of Raufu – the 4th dynasty cylinder seal, its impressions, the Abydos King List, the ring sea, the tomb of Khaf-Khufu, tomb of Qar, a number of line drawings as well as the example of “Reofe” in 'I monumenti dell'Egitto e della Nubia' vol. 1 (1832), p.141, Rosellini. There are probably others yet to be identified.

Byrd: I'll dispute the cylinder seal, and restate that it's not possible to do the tiny lines of the "Kh" inside that symbol. I own a (real) ushabti and have several pieces that I bought from an Egyptologist who did digs back in the early 1920's. At the scale they were working, it WAS possible to (barely) do the symbol for town inside a circle. But there was no way to engrave a very thin line in the material.


SC: Again, I disagree. The cross in the other circle on the cylinder seal shows that such small detail could be carved and that circle is not that much larger than the circle in the king's cartouche. Furthermore – as I said previously – if lines were in fact required and it was so problematic to carve them in the smaller cartouche circle as you claim then surely (if indeed hatched lines were required) a larger circle would have been created in order to accommodate the engraving of the lines. That a larger circle was NOT created to accommodate such lines strongly suggests these hatched lines were NOT infact needed within this circle on the king's seal; that, in fact, a plain disc of the God “Ra” is what was intended, the very SAME DISC we find in the cartouche of the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty in the Abydos table - a thousand years of consistency.


SC: Secondly, there is no real discernable difference between the plain “Ra” disc of Menkaure and the plain “Ra” disc of “Raufu”.

Byrd: There's a size difference...


SC: It's minimal and can hardly be considered a decisive difference.


Byrd:....and had it been "Ra", the next word following the Khufu cartouche (which is "Son of the god (crested-ibis, Ra/sun symbol) would have had the "Ra" circle the same size as the "kh" circle inside the cartouche. There was plenty of room for a large sized Ra circle, had his name been "Ufu-Ra."


SC: Issues of honorific transposition aside, you well know the AEs could have written Raufu as Raufu or as UfuRa. Were the second king of the 4th dynasty to have regarded himself as Ra incarnate then there is every reason that we would have Raufu (as opposed to UfuRa) and that his sons/successors would have the Ra glyph at the end of their names (sons of Ra).


SC: Thirdly, there is no discernable difference in any of the plain discs of these kings in the Abydos table.

Byrd: And there are a number of errors. Remember that this list was constructed well over 1,000 years later, when some of the signs had changed.


SC: And there is also a very strong consistency – a 4th dynasty plain disc in the King's name and a 19th dynasty plain disc in the King's name. Again I find it truly remarkable that you have to resort to the AEs having made errors in their rendering of the names in the Abydos table in order to uphold the flawed orthodox position that the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty was known as “Khufu”; that you have to invoke the ridiculous notion that here in the 21st century we know better how to read AE script than the AEs themselves knew how to write it; that we knew what they MEANT to write rather than accepting what they ACTUALLY wrote That is simply preposterous.

Furthermore, invoking the great length of time between the two renderings of the disputed cartouche only serves to strengthen the case for the disputed disc in the Abydos table as having been fully intended as a plain disc. To claim this disc was made in error (when there is evidence to prove otherwise) is simply untenable – the Abydos wall relief of the King's names would have first been carefully chalked by the artisans/scribes, checked for accuracy before any sculptor was set loose on it. And why weren't the lines CARVED into the alleged Khufu disc (the AEs would have known the frailties of paint). Such lines could have been carved at ANY TIME after any supposed error was made. To imagine that such an error was made and never noticed and never corrected is simply not a viable position.

Orthodoxy has no problem accepting the Dream Stele as offering evidence of Khafre's hand in building the Sphinx and G2 when that stele was created a thousand years after the events it describes. How do you know there is no error in this stele? Cherry-picking and massaging of the evidence at its finest.


Byrd: So... in the manner of historians, let's divide the evidence into "first-hand information" (that created and associated with Khufu and done during his lifetime) and "second-hand information" (that done within a few centuries of his lifetime) and "third-hand information" (that done over 500 years later.)

The Abydos list falls into "third hand information."

Alas, my net connection is very unstable at the moment. Let me leave you with this list of "first hand sources" (where Khufu would be mentioned in some inscription associated with them) and return to this later when my internet connection isn't quite so out of whack:
euler.slu.edu...


SC: As I said before – I do not doubt Khufu existed and that later dynasties held him in high esteem and wrote down his name. But WHEN did he exist – THAT is the issue.


Byrd: One more thing -- as several of us have pointed out, Ancient Egyptian is NOT related well to modern Egyptian and is unrelated to the language of the Berbers. (and "Ufu" doesn't mean Horizon in Arabic, according to Arabic speaking friends.)

The closest language to ancient Egyptian is Coptic Egyptian... and it's not terribly close.


SC: "1. 'Ragoul Gadeed Fil Oufouk' (A New Man On the Horizon)" by Egyptian writer, Mona Helmy – see here.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 

Hi Spacevisitor,


Spacevisitor: What is your opinion of the limestone stela which was discovered by Auguste Mariette in the 1850s in the ruins of the temple of Isis, near the Great Pyramid.


SC: First of all I think this stele is dismissed far too quickly by Egyptology - in the words of Paul Jordan, as a "Pious Fake". I do not think there is any doubt that this stele was - just like the Dream Stele - created long after the events it describes. This is not to say, however, that it could not have been based upon a much more ancient original.

Secondly, if the conventional building sequence of the Gizamids as advocated by orthodox Egyptology is correct then there is a paradox. The Inventory Stele clearly states that Khufu repaired the Sphinx's head. Upon inspection of this by Zahi Hawass, ancient repair works have indeed been found on the back of the Sphinx's head (it was apparently struck by a bolt of lightning). So, far from being a "pious fake" by the Saite Priests of the 26th dynasty for political expediency, there is physical evidence to support what the text of the Inventory Stele tells us. Now, if Khufu REPAIRED the Sphinx how then is it possible that his son and eventual successor could have possibly constructed it? And if the Sphinx existed then it is likely that G2 existed and if G2 existed then - according to orthodox building sequence - G1 must also have existed. Go figure.

The second aspect of this Inventory Stele that causes some measure of discomfort in orthodox Egyptology is the very mention (numerous times) of the Goddess Isis in the same sentence as "Khufu", that they were contemporaneous. Mainstream Egyptology, however, holds that Isis (the consort of Osiris) did not rise to prominence until the 5th dynasty (i.e. AFTER Khufu), ergo, she could not possibly have been a goddess (nor Osiris a god) in the time of Khufu in the 4th dynasty. Of course, if Isis/Osiris were recognised as important deities this early in the 4th dynasty it has all sorts of ramifications for the Giza/Orion correlation which is summarily dismissed by orthodoxy on the grounds that the stellar cult of Osiris (Sah/Orion) was of no importance in the early 4th dynasty. The Inventory Stele, however, shows clearly that it was.

My own view regarding this artefact is that it may not actually be referring to "Khufu" (whom I believe built the Great Pyramid and possibly other Giza monuments) but may actually be referring to Raufu (Raufu being the name found on the king's official seal at this time and the name Rauf also found on the official Abydos King List). Unfortunately it is very difficult to obtain images of this stele and the image you posted is too low-res to make out clearly if the Khufu inscriptions on it in the top register have plain discs or hatched discs. I have asked an Egyptian friend to try and obtain better images of it. I rather suspect that, upon closer inspection, they will be found to be the plain disc i.e. Raufu.

In short then, I suggest that Khufu built the GP (as the inscription of his name in Campbell's Chamber would tend to support) but Raufu - the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty - appropriated the structure as his sons probably did with the other Giza monuments. The structures at Giza are - in my opinion - unquestionably older than the 4th dynasty and, indeed, the dynastic period.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 17/7/2010 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted 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]


I do not claim to be in anyway a qualified expert on Egyptian matters. So I am here as a student. Some times a fresh student can see something which the older professor might not notice ? Anyway I read [the above] and I immediately realised that the name of the pharaoh being debated here in this thread, is a reference to the profound mystical tradition of the pagan times. It is reference to what in Chinese is "MianYang" which means "to look at the stars in the sky reflected in the surface of a body of water". Basically what the name of the pharaoh is referring to is "Mirror Magic Meditation Method". I insert my video below to help you to understand this ancient pagan mystical tradition. The tradition involves interaction with the Quantum Entanglement found in the subconscious mind, where in there is no separation. Every atom and soul there of is at one with every other atom and soul there of. This is what Egyptian mystic called a "Stargate" symbolised by the RA "Solar Disc" symbol, which is actually reference to the polished perfect mirror surface of a disc of caste gold metal. That being what a pharaoh would use as a mirror. More importantly the Temple Virgins "Celestial Immortals" would have such a "Golden Disc" mirror "Telestarion" in every one of their Temple Sacred Garden "Hypaethium". It is the key to interaction with and communion with higher dimensionality. Albert Einstein called it "The Folding of the Fabric of Time and Space". Take a piece of paper. It is a two dimensional surface. A flat land environment, possessing only width and length. No height. We mark a point A and a point B. These two point are separated in time and space, in that it takes time to travel between point A and point B. However, if we introduce higher dimensionality, in the form of the third dimension, height, then we are able to fold the paper such that point A is immediately joined to point B. They are no longer separated. They become one point. Getting back to the refection in the name of pharoah khufu, a few years ago I observed that the name of "Canada" is such a reflection [meditation][stargate] word : XANAEDEANAX. Is this reference to Interstellar Communications using Quantum Entanglement Computers ?

Google Video Link


Google Video Link


The Great Pyramid at Giza is unique among pyramids in Egypt, in that it is the most perfect of all the pyramids, and yet within it there are no paintings or carvings what so ever, except the painted hieroglyphic in the Kings Chamber. How it got to be there is a mystery ? I was originally informed that it is a forgery, put there by french or british tourists when the pyramid was first broken into.


My own opinion is that the Great Pyramids at Giza Plateaux, and the Rose Pyramid further away, are actually the survival of a civilization that dates back to before the end of the Last Ice Age 15,000 BC, which the Bible records as being the Flood of Noah. The Bible records that there existed a race of Giants back then, and that those giant were Kings, and King of Kings, great men of renown, mighty men of that pre flood era. That they built the "Towers of Babel", which in my opinion is reference to PETRA, the ruins of which are in the Kingdom of Jordan. I insert some images supplied by Google Earth. The Pyramids were thus built way before the Pharaohs of Egypt even existed ? I put the Terrace at BaalBek in Lebanon in that same pre-flood era time category. The Egyptians were a continuation of a Lost Civilization that was destroyed by the global flood at the end of the Last Ice Age 15,000 BC. It is about time that the existence of PETRA was included when writing about ancient and not so ancient history. Unfortunately PETRA was destroyed by a gigantic earthquake in 363 AD.













[edit on 17/7/2010 by CAELENIUM]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Hello, Scott.

Back again with an improved internet connection.


SC: Again, I disagree. The cross in the other circle on the cylinder seal shows that such small detail could be carved and that circle is not that much larger than the circle in the king's cartouche.


They can be punched out with a small copper tool. But they can't scratch tiny lines there.


Furthermore – as I said previously – if lines were in fact required and it was so problematic to carve them in the smaller cartouche circle as you claim then surely (if indeed hatched lines were required) a larger circle would have been created in order to accommodate the engraving of the lines.


I don't think they would have. All the other signs that show circles (such as "threshing floor" (D17-D21) are small signs. The only single large circle is the one that denotes Ra.


That a larger circle was NOT created to accommodate such lines strongly suggests these hatched lines were NOT infact needed within this circle on the king's seal; that, in fact, a plain disc of the God “Ra” is what was intended, the very SAME DISC we find in the cartouche of the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty in the Abydos table - a thousand years of consistency.


Again, I disagree. They had no way of engraving the small lines on that seal. The area of the full inscription is much smaller than a square inch, and the size of that "Kh" in the cartouche is not very great. They didn't have the tools to cast or incise fine lines in something that tiny.



SC: Secondly, there is no real discernable difference between the plain “Ra” disc of Menkaure and the plain “Ra” disc of “Raufu”.

Byrd: There's a size difference...


SC: It's minimal and can hardly be considered a decisive difference.


I'd suggest that YOU might find it minimal, but to the ancient Egyptians the size was important. They were proponents of the aesthetic in art, but they were also quite religious.


SC: Issues of honorific transposition aside, you well know the AEs could have written Raufu as Raufu or as UfuRa.


They could have, yes. But they didn't.


Were the second king of the 4th dynasty to have regarded himself as Ra incarnate then there is every reason that we would have Raufu (as opposed to UfuRa) and that his sons/successors would have the Ra glyph at the end of their names (sons of Ra).


Alas, his predecessor (as you can see in the Kings List) is Neferkara (Huni.) Have a look at the inscription. It has the sun symbol at the top of the cartouche, and the circle is larger than the "Kh".

We should also remember that this is third generation material and was not carved at the time of Khufu's death or within a generation, but well over a thousand years later after language and spelling had changed. Might they have misread the name? Possible.



SC: And there is also a very strong consistency – a 4th dynasty plain disc in the King's name and a 19th dynasty plain disc in the King's name. Again I find it truly remarkable that you have to resort to the AEs having made errors in their rendering of the names in the Abydos table in order to uphold the flawed orthodox position that the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty was known as “Khufu”;


Actually, the errors in spelling are pretty plain. Djoser (#17) is a very weird approximation of his original name (click on the "show" on "titulary" on the right hand side of the page here: en.wikipedia.org... ), ditto Kakau (#10). I have read that there are others, but haven't checked every one.


that you have to invoke the ridiculous notion that here in the 21st century we know better how to read AE script than the AEs themselves knew how to write it; that we knew what they MEANT to write rather than accepting what they ACTUALLY wrote That is simply preposterous.


Isn't that your stance on your idea? As I recall, you are somewhat less familiar with hieroglyphs than I am, and I am NOWHERE decent enough at reading them (nor have I seen vast amounts of material and translated it) to match any Egyptologist of today... or even of Petrie's time.


Furthermore, invoking the great length of time between the two renderings of the disputed cartouche only serves to strengthen the case for the disputed disc in the Abydos table as having been fully intended as a plain disc.


Interesting point, and not one I'd debate. However, I think the name must have been preserved because Herodotus is told that the name is "Khufu" which he mangled into "Cheops' (probably because of linguistic differences and changes in Egyptian over the time.) Had it been "Ufu-ra" or "Ra-fu" or any of the other names you propose, he would have had a different name for ol' Khufu.


Orthodoxy has no problem accepting the Dream Stele as offering evidence of Khafre's hand in building the Sphinx and G2 when that stele was created a thousand years after the events it describes. How do you know there is no error in this stele? Cherry-picking and massaging of the evidence at its finest.


Actually, I went hunting for a good view of the stele and can't find one that's detailed enough to read the inscription. So I dropped it out of the discussion.



Alas, my net connection is very unstable at the moment. Let me leave you with this list of "first hand sources" (where Khufu would be mentioned in some inscription associated with them) and return to this later when my internet connection isn't quite so out of whack:
euler.slu.edu...

SC: As I said before – I do not doubt Khufu existed and that later dynasties held him in high esteem and wrote down his name. But WHEN did he exist – THAT is the issue.

Well, the first hand list of evidence places him right where the Egyptologists said. This is confirmed by wives and relatives and (more than that) by the high status workers who recorded that they worked for his father AND him (I notice you're not disputing his father) or for him and at least one successor.



Byrd: One more thing -- as several of us have pointed out, Ancient Egyptian is NOT related well to modern Egyptian and is unrelated to the language of the Berbers. (and "Ufu" doesn't mean Horizon in Arabic, according to Arabic speaking friends.)

The closest language to ancient Egyptian is Coptic Egyptian... and it's not terribly close.


SC: "1. 'Ragoul Gadeed Fil Oufouk' (A New Man On the Horizon)" by Egyptian writer, Mona Helmy – see here.

My (very badly made) point is that Arabic isn't related to the Egyptian language and the single word "ufu" isn't "horizon".
en.wikipedia.org...

Arabic became the official language of Egypt, and the ancient Egyptian language died completely. The closest approximation (as determined by every scholar since Champolleon) is Coptic. They couldn't have used a root word derived from a language that would only appear 3,000 years after Khufu lived.



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   
A point from something you wrote to Spacevisitor, Scott:


Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: First of all I think this stele is dismissed far too quickly by Egyptology - in the words of Paul Jordan, as a "Pious Fake". I do not think there is any doubt that this stele was - just like the Dream Stele - created long after the events it describes. This is not to say, however, that it could not have been based upon a much more ancient original.


I think here the language of "pious fake" may be a bone of contention. What they're saying is that it's a more modern tale and that it may indeed have been rewritten from something older OR may be a rendering of recorded/remembered history handed down for generations.


The Inventory Stele clearly states that Khufu repaired the Sphinx's head. ... So, far from being a "pious fake" by the Saite Priests of the 26th dynasty for political expediency, there is physical evidence to support what the text of the Inventory Stele tells us.


Well, SOMEONE repaired it. Legend apparently had it that Khufu did.


Now, if Khufu REPAIRED the Sphinx how then is it possible that his son and eventual successor could have possibly constructed it?


Remember (ala Westcar Papyrus) that many generations later he was considered a type of "folk hero" and the subject of a number of stories, and rather obviously fiction. We can't presume that the report he "repaired the sphynx" was accurate.


The second aspect of this Inventory Stele that causes some measure of discomfort in orthodox Egyptology is the very mention (numerous times) of the Goddess Isis in the same sentence as "Khufu", that they were contemporaneous.


Scott... that's an urban legend. No Egyptologist is uncomfortable with it since it's a method of more accurately dating the stele.


Of course, if Isis/Osiris were recognised as important deities this early in the 4th dynasty it has all sorts of ramifications for the Giza/Orion correlation which is summarily dismissed by orthodoxy on the grounds that the stellar cult of Osiris (Sah/Orion) was of no importance in the early 4th dynasty. The Inventory Stele, however, shows clearly that it was.


Actually, it doesn't show any of the above. Isis and Osiris weren't important deities in the 4th Dynasty (otherwise there'd be a zillion temples to them and their names would be in the tombs of the workers in the necropolis around the Great Pyramid. The connection between Osiris/Isis and Sah/Sopedet happens late in history.


My own view regarding this artefact is that it may not actually be referring to "Khufu" (whom I believe built the Great Pyramid and possibly other Giza monuments) but may actually be referring to Raufu


Except that there's no such "Raufu", and Khufu and his sons are shown in later contexts (such as line 10 of the Westcar papyrus, where the spelling of Khufu's name has been "modernized" and is not at all like the spelling shown in the graffiti on the Great Pyramid or other (earlier) places where his name appears.) www.rostau.org.uk...



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Hello Byrd,

Thank you for your reply. Alas I think we will end up going round in circles with this.


SC: Again, I disagree. The cross in the other circle on the cylinder seal shows that such small detail could be carved and that circle is not that much larger than the circle in the king's cartouche.

Byrd: They can be punched out with a small copper tool. But they can't scratch tiny lines there.


SC: You keep ignoring the fact that they managed to engrave a cross within a circle that is not that much smaller than the disc within the king’s cartouche. See below:







If they could engrave that cross in one disc then there is no reason to think that they could not have managed some small lines in the disc of the king’s cartouche.


SC: Furthermore – as I said previously – if lines were in fact required and it was so problematic to carve them in the smaller cartouche circle as you claim then surely (if indeed hatched lines were required) a larger circle would have been created in order to accommodate the engraving of the lines.

Byrd: I don't think they would have. All the other signs that show circles (such as "threshing floor" (D17-D21) are small signs. The only single large circle is the one that denotes Ra.


SC: First of all, if you check Gardiner’s glyph list on Wiki you will find that the Ra/Re disc (N5) (which we agree can be presented with or without the centre dot) is of little difference to Aa1 (the hatched disc). Furthermore, the plain disc of Ra can be any size as can be seen here:

Scene from Temple of Abydos (Seti)



Notice the greenish-blue disc (Kh) - second disc from bottom-left - is very similar in size to many of the Ra discs within the cartouches.


SC: That a larger circle was NOT created to accommodate such lines strongly suggests these hatched lines were NOT infact needed within this circle on the king's seal; that, in fact, a plain disc of the God “Ra” is what was intended, the very SAME DISC we find in the cartouche of the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty in the Abydos table - a thousand years of consistency.

Byrd: Again, I disagree. They had no way of engraving the small lines on that seal. The area of the full inscription is much smaller than a square inch, and the size of that "Kh" in the cartouche is not very great. They didn't have the tools to cast or incise fine lines in something that tiny.


SC: See above. They managed to carve a cross in the other circle of comparable size on the cylinder seal. If they could carve one with such fine detail, they could carve the other. That they did not carve the other disc in the King’s cartouche with horizontal hatchings – or at the very least create a larger circle to accommodate such fine detail – is indicative that such detail was NOT in fact required, that the plain disc rendered was FULLY INTENDED to be a plain disc i.e. the plain disc of Ra just as we see in the cartouche of this king in the Abydos table.


SC: Secondly, there is no real discernable difference between the plain “Ra” disc of Menkaure and the plain “Ra” disc of “Raufu”.

Byrd: There's a size difference...

SC: It's minimal and can hardly be considered a decisive difference.

Byrd: I'd suggest that YOU might find it minimal, but to the ancient Egyptians the size was important. They were proponents of the aesthetic in art, but they were also quite religious.


SC: No one is questioning how religious the AEs were. See the image above and you will see there are Ra discs of different size. Check Gardiner’s list on Wiki – you will find there is no discernable difference between the size of N5 and Aa1 glyphs.


SC: Issues of honorific transposition aside, you well know the AEs could have written Raufu as Raufu or as UfuRa.

Byrd: They could have, yes. But they didn't.


SC: You cannot possibly know that with any certainty.


SC: Were the second king of the 4th dynasty to have regarded himself as Ra incarnate then there is every reason that we would have Raufu (as opposed to UfuRa) and that his sons/successors would have the Ra glyph at the end of their names (sons of Ra).

Byrd: Alas, his predecessor (as you can see in the Kings List) is Neferkara (Huni.) Have a look at the inscription. It has the sun symbol at the top of the cartouche, and the circle is larger than the "Kh".


SC: Which only goes to prove my point that the disc in the cartouche of the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty is Ra and NOT “Kh”. This disc is the same size as the other Ra discs on this wall relief. If it was “Kh” then it would have been rendered smaller than the Re discs. If it was “Kh” it would have been rendered with carved horizontal hatchings (or at least painted hatchings). If it was “Kh” it would have been clearly differentiated from the other Ra discs. It was not. Here’s another example from Abydos:

Neferkare Khendu



Notice the very small “Kh” disc in the middle of the glyph (#45). This is much smaller than the Ra disc at the top of the cartouche and the Ra disc at the top of the cartouche is entirely comparable with the disc at the top of the disputed cartouche (#21):



In order to prop up the flawed orthodox notion that the cartouche of the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty in the Abydos table reads as “Khufu”, you are predicated to believe that the ancient artisans and scribes of the Abydos table made errors in size and in script in rendering the disc glyph. This plain disc in Abydos is supported by the official 4th dynasty cylinder seal of the king. It is supported by other examples also such as this in the tomb of Khaf-Khufu:



Note the clearly horizontally hatched disc (Kh) to the right and the clearly unhatched disc in the Raufu cartouche (bottom left)

Occam’s Razor – no mistakes were made by the ancients in writing their glyphs; mistakes are being made by modern Egyptology in reading their glyphs.


Byrd: We should also remember that this is third generation material and was not carved at the time of Khufu's death or within a generation, but well over a thousand years later after language and spelling had changed. Might they have misread the name? Possible.


SC: The seal of the King (and its impressions), the cartouche in the tomb of Khaf-Khufu suggests that the artisans, scribes and sculptors of Abydos made no mistake – they rendered the disc in precisely the same way as the Official seal of the king i.e. as the plain disc of Ra.


Continued in next post......

[edit on 18/7/2010 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Continued from previous......


SC: And there is also a very strong consistency – a 4th dynasty plain disc in the King's name and a 19th dynasty plain disc in the King's name. Again I find it truly remarkable that you have to resort to the AEs having made errors in their rendering of the names in the Abydos table in order to uphold the flawed orthodox position that the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty was known as “Khufu”;

Byrd: Actually, the errors in spelling are pretty plain. Djoser (#17) is a very weird approximation of his original name (click on the "show" on "titulary" on the right hand side of the page here: en.wikipedia.org... ), ditto Kakau (#10). I have read that there are others, but haven't checked every one.


SC: No one doubts mistakes were made, or the spelling of names changed slightly. We see this even in the disputed cartouche which contains only one quail chick. The POINT, however, is that for over a 1,000 years – from the 4th dynasty to the 19th dynasty – the disc of this king in OFFICIAL artefacts (King’s seal and the Abydos King List) bears only the plain disc of Ra. It remained consistent over this very long period of time.


SC: …that you have to invoke the ridiculous notion that here in the 21st century we know better how to read AE script than the AEs themselves knew how to write it; that we knew what they MEANT to write rather than accepting what they ACTUALLY wrote That is simply preposterous.

Byrd: Isn't that your stance on your idea? As I recall, you are somewhat less familiar with hieroglyphs than I am, and I am NOWHERE decent enough at reading them (nor have I seen vast amounts of material and translated it) to match any Egyptologist of today... or even of Petrie's time.


SC: I think both of us can tell the difference between a plain disc and a hatched disc. And I think we both can understand the logic of the King’s official seal – that the best way to have rendered clearly and unequivocally an “Kh” would have been to carve a circle large enough that it would accommodate the hatched lines. Leaving it as they did with a plain disc with no horizontal hatchings can only mean they meant the disc sign to be read as Re.


SC: Furthermore, invoking the great length of time between the two renderings of the disputed cartouche only serves to strengthen the case for the disputed disc in the Abydos table as having been fully intended as a plain disc.

Byrd: Interesting point, and not one I'd debate. However, I think the name must have been preserved because Herodotus is told that the name is "Khufu" which he mangled into "Cheops' (probably because of linguistic differences and changes in Egyptian over the time.) …


SC: Herodotus was told that Khufu built the Great Pyramid. That is not disputed.


Byrd: Had it been "Ufu-ra" or "Ra-fu" or any of the other names you propose, he would have had a different name for ol' Khufu.


SC: If Khufu built the Great Pyramid why would Herodotus have had a different name other than Khufu?


Byrd: Alas, my net connection is very unstable at the moment. Let me leave you with this list of "first hand sources" (where Khufu would be mentioned in some inscription associated with them) and return to this later when my internet connection isn't quite so out of whack:
euler.slu.edu...

SC: As I said before – I do not doubt Khufu existed and that later dynasties held him in high esteem and wrote down his name. But WHEN did he exist – THAT is the issue.

Byrd: Well, the first hand list of evidence places him right where the Egyptologists said. This is confirmed by wives and relatives and (more than that) by the high status workers who recorded that they worked for his father AND him (I notice you're not disputing his father) or for him and at least one successor.


SC: Let’s deal with one issue at a time. The chronology of the 4th dynasty is flimsy at best. The issue here is the cartouche in the Abydos table reads Rauf(u) NOT Khufu. Khufu (and his predecessors) are of another (earlier) age.


Byrd: One more thing -- as several of us have pointed out, Ancient Egyptian is NOT related well to modern Egyptian and is unrelated to the language of the Berbers. (and "Ufu" doesn't mean Horizon in Arabic, according to Arabic speaking friends.)

The closest language to ancient Egyptian is Coptic Egyptian... and it's not terribly close.

SC: "1. 'Ragoul Gadeed Fil Oufouk' (A New Man On the Horizon)" by Egyptian writer, Mona Helmy – see here.

Byrd: My (very badly made) point is that Arabic isn't related to the Egyptian language and the single word "ufu" isn't "horizon".
en.wikipedia.org...

Arabic became the official language of Egypt, and the ancient Egyptian language died completely. The closest approximation (as determined by every scholar since Champolleon) is Coptic. They couldn't have used a root word derived from a language that would only appear 3,000 years after Khufu lived.


SC: And as I pointed out already, the ancient Bedouin of the Sinai were steeped in the AE language and culture. It is not unreasonable to suppose that this nomadic people held onto many of the ancient words, some of which may even have been preserved into our modern era, “oufouk” (“horizon”) being one such word. The similarity of this word (Kuofuo in reverse) to “Khufu” is astonishing. Giza is known as “Khufu’s Horizon’ – just what are the odds that the modern Egyptian-Arabic word for “horizon” is “Oufouk”? I rather suspect something has been missed along the way in the translation of “Akhet Khufu”.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Hi Byrd,

Thanks for your input here.


SC: First of all I think this stele is dismissed far too quickly by Egyptology - in the words of Paul Jordan, as a "Pious Fake". I do not think there is any doubt that this stele was - just like the Dream Stele - created long after the events it describes. This is not to say, however, that it could not have been based upon a much more ancient original.

Byrd: I think here the language of "pious fake" may be a bone of contention. What they're saying is that it's a more modern tale and that it may indeed have been rewritten from something older OR may be a rendering of recorded/remembered history handed down for generations.


SC: If that is the case then it does not and should not imply that the text of the Inventory Stele is wrong or a fabrication.


SC: The Inventory Stele clearly states that Khufu repaired the Sphinx's head. ... So, far from being a "pious fake" by the Saite Priests of the 26th dynasty for political expediency, there is physical evidence to support what the text of the Inventory Stele tells us.

Byrd: Well, SOMEONE repaired it. Legend apparently had it that Khufu did.


SC: The Inventory Stele tell us – unequivocally – who repaired it. Simply because this does not sit well with orthodox chronology of the 4th dynasty should not imply the Inventory Stele is a fabrication. There is equally (if not more so) the possibility that Orthodox Egyptology has the chronology wrong and the Inventory Stele is correct.


SC: Now, if Khufu REPAIRED the Sphinx how then is it possible that his son and eventual successor could have possibly constructed it?

Byrd: Remember (ala Westcar Papyrus) that many generations later he was considered a type of "folk hero" and the subject of a number of stories, and rather obviously fiction. We can't presume that the report he "repaired the sphynx" was accurate.


SC: And neither can we presume that it was a fabrication. To do so, I would suggest, would be purely for reasons of political expediency in order to support the prevailing Orthodox view of this period. And how do you know then that – for example – the Dream Stele which allegedly indicates Khafre’s hand in constructing the Sphinx - is any less than “obviously fiction”? You are cherry-picking your evidence here, Byrd.


SC: The second aspect of this Inventory Stele that causes some measure of discomfort in orthodox Egyptology is the very mention (numerous times) of the Goddess Isis in the same sentence as "Khufu", that they were contemporaneous.

Byrd: Scott... that's an urban legend. No Egyptologist is uncomfortable with it since it's a method of more accurately dating the stele.


SC: And yet it nevertheless sits in an obscure corner of the Cairo museum! And I believe it was once kept out of sight altogether, locked away in a cupboard! Have you ever seen any other pictures of it other than the one in this thread?


SC: Of course, if Isis/Osiris were recognised as important deities this early in the 4th dynasty it has all sorts of ramifications for the Giza/Orion correlation which is summarily dismissed by orthodoxy on the grounds that the stellar cult of Osiris (Sah/Orion) was of no importance in the early 4th dynasty. The Inventory Stele, however, shows clearly that it was.

Byrd: Actually, it doesn't show any of the above. Isis and Osiris weren't important deities in the 4th Dynasty (otherwise there'd be a zillion temples to them and their names would be in the tombs of the workers in the necropolis around the Great Pyramid. The connection between Osiris/Isis and Sah/Sopedet happens late in history.


SC: Once again you are merely parroting the prevailing, orthodox view. Osiris/Isis are steeped in ancient Egyptian history and some eminent Egyptologists consider that they pre-date the 4th dynasty and some even the entire dynastic period, to wit:


“...while there is every likelihood that the Osirian material in the Pyramid Texts derives in part from a much earlier date, so far it has not proved possible to track down the god or his symbols tangibly to the First or Second dynasty...” (emphasis mine).

“...alhough there is a strong likelihood that the cult of Osiris began in or before the First Dynasty in connection with the royal funerals at Abydos, archaelogical evidence hitherto does not tangibly date the cult to an era before the Fifth Dynasty.” (emphasis mine).

- J.G. Griffiths, The Origins of Osiris and his Cult p.44



Noted Egyptologist, Walter B. Emery tells us:


“…the myth of Osiris seems to be an echo of long forgotten events which actually took place.” (Emphasis mine).

- Walter B. Emery,Archaic Egypt(1961), pp.122-123



And from Egyptologist, Jane B. Sellers, we have this:


“…much points to the conclusion that Osiris’s story was cloaked in the veil of distant antiquity even at this [5th dynasty] early date. The discovery at Helwan of a very early Djed symbol and the ‘girdle of Isis’ (Isis being his female counterpart) shows that during the Archaic Period (Dynasty 1 and 2) Osiris’s cult already existed.” (Emphasis mine).

– Jane B. Sellers, The Death of Gods in Ancient Egypt, Revised Edition 2007, p.6


Now, if an Osirian cult existed so early in AE history as these eminent Egyptologists suggest, then there is no reason not to consider the possibility (if not the probability) that by the 4th dynasty c.2,600 BCE, Osiris had indeed risen to the status of a god and his consort, Isis, a goddess; there is every reason to consider that the text of the Inventory Stele proclaiming Isis as a goddess in Raufu's time (i.e. in the much later 4th Dynasty period - Khufu IMO was much earlier) is actually quite correct.


SC: My own view regarding this artefact is that it may not actually be referring to "Khufu" (whom I believe built the Great Pyramid and possibly other Giza monuments) but may actually be referring to Raufu.

Byrd: Except that there's no such "Raufu", ….


SC: The evidence strongly suggests that you are wrong. The evidence clearly shows that the name in the official Abydos King List should be read as “Raufu” and NOT “Khufu”. The name on the king’s official seal in the 4th dynasty is “Raufu” NOT “Khufu”.


Byrd:… and Khufu and his sons are shown in later contexts (such as line 10 of the Westcar papyrus, where the spelling of Khufu's name has been "modernized" and is not at all like the spelling shown in the graffiti on the Great Pyramid or other (earlier) places where his name appears.) www.rostau.org.uk..


SC: And yet from the king’s official seal in the 4th dynasty, to the rendering of the king’s official cartouche in the Abydos King List in the 19th dynasty, the name changed very little and the all-important disc glyph over this immense period of time remained precisely the SAME – a PLAIN disc; the plain disc of the God, Ra.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 19/7/2010 by Scott Creighton]





new topics
top topics
 
19
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join