Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Who was Khufu?

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 19 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Hello, Scott,

Yes, I think you're right about "going around in circles." Perhaps we could try another approach -- let me see if I can think of something clever later on. Right now, my cleverness factor isn't at an all time high.

We can agree on a few points:
* that our eyes aren't deceiving us
* that all of what you've presented is valid archaeological artifacts
* that they date from different time periods
* that the circles may or may not include dots/lines in them.
* we may need to look at other objects of similar size with similar letters in them.

...and it seems that we both agree that there was a king named Khufu. Where we differ is that you think there was a "Ufura" or "Raufu."


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.


I think we need to use the same list. When looking in my books the other day, I was somewhat dismayed at myself for not recognizing that one of them dealt with the Old Kingdom list and the other one seems to be either New Kingdom or a combined list with New Kingdom hieroglyphs.



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.


Actually, I can, because names had meaning (like Native American names that meant "Water Running" or "Two Horses" or "Sitting Bull.") The names you propose are not words in the ancient Egyptian language.

In order to prove your hypothesis, you have to show that:
* there are other artifacts (including painted walls in a good state of preservation so we can't dispute colors or whatever) showing that such a king existed.
* that there are still missing kings in the Kings' Lists (there may be)
* that the name you propose actually means something
* that the person with the name you propose is mentioned as father/son/prince/husband somewhere


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.


Actually, in looking at the hieroglyphs of the Westcar papyrus, I see that they spell Khufu in a manner that seems to read "Kh-f-u". So I see that the spelling of the name has changed over the centuries. This leads me to suspect that this same sort of modification of spelling is in play at Abydos.




posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Hello Byrd,

Once again, thank you for your time here. I do appreciate your critical eye in examining the evidence I present and in your questioning my thought process. It is most helpful.


Byrd: We can agree on a few points:

* that our eyes aren't deceiving us
* that all of what you've presented is valid archaeological artifacts
* that they date from different time periods
* that the circles may or may not include dots/lines in them.
* we may need to look at other objects of similar size with similar letters in them.

...and it seems that we both agree that there was a king named Khufu. Where we differ is that you think there was a "Ufura" or "Raufu."


SC: Agreed.


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.

Byrd: I think we need to use the same list. When looking in my books the other day, I was somewhat dismayed at myself for not recognizing that one of them dealt with the Old Kingdom list and the other one seems to be either New Kingdom or a combined list with New Kingdom hieroglyphs.


SC: Agreed.



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.

Byrd: Actually, I can, because names had meaning (like Native American names that meant "Water Running" or "Two Horses" or "Sitting Bull.") The names you propose are not words in the ancient Egyptian language.


SC: First of all, we do not know every word that was used in the ancient Egyptian language. Secondly, there are many ancient Egyptian words we do have that we are really only approximating their meaning and others still where we simply do not know. Finally – as I said before – the word “Oufouk” (“horizon”) may be an ancient Egyptian word preserved by the Bedouin into modern Egyptian-Arabic. Now modern Egyptians can write the word “horizon” as “Oufouk” or “Oufou”. The “k” is apparent only in some dialects. So the word “oufou” and “oufouk” BOTH mean “horizon”. “Raufu”, therefore, could simply mean “Ra [on the] horizon (ufu)” or “Ufu-Ra” could mean the “Horizon (ufu) [of] Ra”. And this actually makes sense considering that it can be demonstrated that the very dimensions – actual height and width of the Great Pyramid – can be determined from the sun (Ra) setting on the horizon at Giza on the autumn equinox. But that’s a whole other discussion.


Brd: In order to prove your hypothesis, you have to show that:

* there are other artifacts (including painted walls in a good state of preservation so we can't dispute colors or whatever) showing that such a king existed.
* that there are still missing kings in the Kings' Lists (there may be)
* that the name you propose actually means something
* that the person with the name you propose is mentioned as father/son/prince/husband somewhere


SC: This is not unreasonable and I would say is an eminently sensible and methodical approach although I would qualify this by adding that I will only ever be able to prove my hypothesis no more than orthodoxy can prove theirs. In fact, I am awaiting some clearer images of the Inventory Stele for, as I explained previously, I suspect this will be talking about Raufu’s repairs to the Sphinx etc, and NOT Khufu’s. As ever, the search for evidence to further support this hypothesis will go on, probably, I would venture, for many years!


SC: 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.

Byrd: Actually, in looking at the hieroglyphs of the Westcar papyrus, I see that they spell Khufu in a manner that seems to read "Kh-f-u". So I see that the spelling of the name has changed over the centuries. This leads me to suspect that this same sort of modification of spelling is in play at Abydos.


SC: How do you know Westcar is not the mistake and Abydos is correct – or, in fact, both? The point I keep making about Abydos is that the PLAIN disc in the king’s name has remained consistent for over a thousand years within OFFICIAL artefacts. It seems inconceivable to me that official renderings of the king’s name in the King’s seal (4th dyn) and the King List (19th dyn) could have been created in error. Certainly they changed slightly from one to the other (one less quail chick in Abydos) but the crucial PLAIN disc remained the SAME over this very long period of time.

I would just like to briefly summarise this thread by saying the following:

We are told by orthodox Egyptology that the plain disc in the disputed Abydos cartouche would have been painted bluish-green or painted with hatched lines (notwithstanding the fact that it would have been eminently more sensible and practical to have carved the hatched lines into the disputed disc) in order to render it as “Kh”. This notion of using paint to differentiate the “Kh” disc from the “Ra” disc in Abydos is refuted by the presence of the plain disc in the king’s seal of the 4th dynasty for in order to render “Kh” with a seal the most efficient way of so doing is simply to carve the hatched lines directly into the seal from the get-go so that, upon impression, the “kh” glyph is instantly rendered. It would be ludicrous to expect that the plain disc seal in the seal impressions had to be modified with bluish-green paint after they had been fired. To avoid such recourse a circle with the hatched lines is the most sensible, practical and efficient option. And it naturally follows that if carved lines were the most sensible means to render the disc as “Kh” then the disc should be made large enough in order to accommodate the hatched lines. A circle that would be too small to accommodate the hatched lines implies that hatched lines were NOT required ergo only a plain disc was required - that the plain disc of Ra was fully intended.

If size really does matter then we also see in the Abydos King List the disputed disc is entirely comparable and consistent with the other known Ra discs. And we further see that in at least two examples of the “Kh” disc in the Abydos table, the “Kh” disc is rendered much smaller than the Ra discs, including the disputed disc in the cartouche of the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty.

Overall, the disc in the King’s seal and the disc in the King’s list are consistent with and compliment each other. A logical examination of these artefacts forces us to view them as “Raufu” and NOT as “Khufu”. So, if Khufu built the Great Pyramid (as Herodotus informs us) but was NOT the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty, then WHO was he and WHEN was he? And - most important of all - when did Khufu construct the Great Pyramid if not in the 4th dynasty period and was it built as his tomb or for some other reason?

This is a serious question with an equally serious issue at stake here and one I would hope will eventually be taken up by orthodox Egyptology (though doubtful in my lifetime). In the meantime, however, I shall endeavour to uncover further evidence to either further prove or indeed, disprove, this hypothesis.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 20/7/2010 by Scott Creighton]

[edit on 20/7/2010 by Scott Creighton]

[edit on 20/7/2010 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

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.

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.


I am just curious, but can you tell me what the term is the Egyptians used to refer to the GP?

I try to find it but could not.


Originally posted by Harte
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.


Can you show me some examples of that or some information about how they did came to that conclusion, or where I can find it?


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


If the Egyptians themselves back then some 2,000 years after the GP was built had even no idea of what means were used to build it, how is it possible then that we were able to find that out?

How come that even Khufus son Djedefre did not seems to know that anymore.


2551 king 2 - Khufu (Cheops by the greeks, Suphis 1 by Manetho). Many accept a reign of 23 years acc. to the "Turin Papyrus of Kings" (13th century B.C.). Herodotus (5th century B.C.) reports 50 years and Manetho (3rd century B.C.) 63 years. Khufu was son of Sneferu and married to Mereyites and Henutsen.
His pyramid is also known as the Great Pyramid, and erected about 80 years after the Step Pyramid of Sneferu.

2528 king 3 - Djedefre. Son of Khufu. The pyramid is at Abu Roash, 8 km north of Giza, and the most northern of all pyramids and perhaps never finished.


www.khufu.dk...



Pyramid of Djedefre

en.wikipedia.org...

Then another son of Khufu named Khafra did as it seems suddenly knows how to build such a pyramid again.


2520 king 4 - Khafra (or Chephren). Son of Khufu. Pyramid erected about 175 meters SW of Khufu's on Giza.


www.khufu.dk...



Pyramid of Khafra

en.wikipedia.org...

I find that quite remarkable.



[edit on 20/7/10 by spacevisitor]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   
Just a quick note, Scott. Have to run off and do some stuff shortly.


Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: First of all, we do not know every word that was used in the ancient Egyptian language. Secondly, there are many ancient Egyptian words we do have that we are really only approximating their meaning and others still where we simply do not know. Finally – as I said before – the word “Oufouk” (“horizon”) may be an ancient Egyptian word preserved by the Bedouin into modern Egyptian-Arabic.


It isn't. Bedouin is a very modern language, and so is Arabic. "Oufouk" is not from the same roots as "ahket." Coptic is the closest language.


“Raufu”, therefore, could simply mean “Ra [on the] horizon (ufu)” or “Ufu-Ra” could mean the “Horizon (ufu) [of] Ra”. And this actually makes sense considering that it can be demonstrated that the very dimensions – actual height and width of the Great Pyramid – can be determined from the sun (Ra) setting on the horizon at Giza on the autumn equinox.


This concept is contradicted by quite a number of inscriptions such as "Khufu Ahket" and "Heru Ahket" and the lack of a word "ufu" in any inscription.


Brd: In order to prove your hypothesis, you have to show that:

* there are other artifacts (including painted walls in a good state of preservation so we can't dispute colors or whatever) showing that such a king existed.
* that there are still missing kings in the Kings' Lists (there may be)
* that the name you propose actually means something
* that the person with the name you propose is mentioned as father/son/prince/husband somewhere


SC: This is not unreasonable and I would say is an eminently sensible and methodical approach although I would qualify this by adding that I will only ever be able to prove my hypothesis no more than orthodoxy can prove theirs. In fact, I am awaiting some clearer images of the Inventory Stele for, as I explained previously, I suspect this will be talking about Raufu’s repairs to the Sphinx etc, and NOT Khufu’s. As ever, the search for evidence to further support this hypothesis will go on, probably, I would venture, for many years!

I did come up with one other qualification: You have to show that the king you propose was such a popular/legendary figure that they would neglect to put Khufu anywhere in the king's list (in spite of remembering his name on the pyramid) and instead insert another king in his place.



SC: How do you know Westcar is not the mistake and Abydos is correct – or, in fact, both?


In fact, I believe that BOTH are correct... for their time. That just as our English spelling has become standardized and has changed (remember the slight changes in spelling between British English and American English) over the past 600 years, the Egyptian language ALSO went through linguistic and spelling changes. I read the hieroglyphs badly, but I have less of a problem with the Old Kingdom inscriptions (which I know more about) than with the New Kingdom ones. And it's true that those who are very good with one era's hieroglyphs have to really work to get the meaning out of the other eras' hieroglyphs. That's why Egyptologists tend to specialize in only one section of the 3,000+ year history.


We are told by orthodox Egyptology that the plain disc in the disputed Abydos cartouche would have been painted bluish-green or painted with hatched lines (notwithstanding the fact that it would have been eminently more sensible and practical to have carved the hatched lines into the disputed disc) in order to render it as “Kh”. This notion of using paint to differentiate the “Kh” disc from the “Ra” disc in Abydos is refuted by the presence of the plain disc in the king’s seal of the 4th dynasty for in order to render “Kh” with a seal the most efficient way of so doing is simply to carve the hatched lines directly into the seal from the get-go so that, upon impression, the “kh” glyph is instantly rendered.


...remember, the spelling had changed as is shown in the Westcar Papyrus.



It would be ludicrous to expect that the plain disc seal in the seal impressions had to be modified with bluish-green paint after they had been fired.

Quite true (and gold isn't fired, by the way. It's poured.) But you still can't inscribe lines in that tiny area.


Overall, the disc in the King’s seal and the disc in the King’s list are consistent with and compliment each other. A logical examination of these artefacts forces us to view them as “Raufu” and NOT as “Khufu”.


Not really.


So, if Khufu built the Great Pyramid (as Herodotus informs us) but was NOT the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty, then WHO was he and WHEN was he? And - most important of all - when did Khufu construct the Great Pyramid if not in the 4th dynasty period and was it built as his tomb or for some other reason?


Agreed... and I have to run now. More later.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Hello Byrd,

Thank you once more for taking the time to reply to my post – I know you are a busy person.


SC: First of all, we do not know every word that was used in the ancient Egyptian language. Secondly, there are many ancient Egyptian words we do have that we are really only approximating their meaning and others still where we simply do not know. Finally – as I said before – the word “Oufouk” (“horizon”) may be an ancient Egyptian word preserved by the Bedouin into modern Egyptian-Arabic.

Byrd: It isn't.


SC: I have to disagree – there’s every possibility that this word “Oudouk” (horizon) has its roots in ancient Bedouin. See below.


Byrd: Bedouin is a very modern language, and so is Arabic. "Oufouk" is not from the same roots as "ahket." Coptic is the closest language.


SC: This issue was discussed some time ago on GHMB. See here the response from Sharif Mor, an Egtptian living in Cairo:


SM: ‘The Etymology of Ra'oufou and k'oufou’ – “We read and pronounce the glyphs as they are,...their pronouncements are very close to Arabic. Egypt was the pivotal center of civilization dating to the years of Abraham up to the exodus of Moses. When there was famine, Egypt was the bread basket. A bit like the current USA and the spread of its culture and the English language around the world. The fascinating point to this matter is that the Coptic Lingua was corrupted by the upcoming occupation [by] Greece with its culture and language and likewise by the upcoming Roman Empire. The Hebraic language went through the same corruption with the occupation by Babylonia then Rome. The only Semitic family that kept to its origin were the Bedouins due to the arid desolate landscape of the Arabian Peninsula including the Sinai and parts of Transjordania. These tribes were never conquered or even assimilated with its close neighbors due to Bedouin tradition.

Clearly meaning that the Bedouins incorporated the ancient Egyptian lingua and some of the cultural, and even religious traditions into their own culture, tradition and language. We clearly know that is scientifically - that the original ancient Semitic language comes out of Egypt and is known as the proto-Sinai script.

So if you want to decipher the ancient Egyptian glyphs, you have the original Arabic language as the bases to translate the meanings and pronunciations. This field of Etymology especially when it comes to the Semitic language is still a baby in formation. I repeat - I have been given the honour to decipher a holy Semitic stone that has surfaced in Egypt, 2 month of gruelling studies and research plus the chance to discover a new structure of an ancient language probably makes me one of the forefront personalities in the field of Semitic Etymology.” Source.



SC: “Raufu”, therefore, could simply mean “Ra [on the] horizon (ufu)” or “Ufu-Ra” could mean the “Horizon (ufu) [of] Ra”. And this actually makes sense considering that it can be demonstrated that the very dimensions – actual height and width of the Great Pyramid – can be determined from the sun (Ra) setting on the horizon at Giza on the autumn equinox.

Byrd: This concept is contradicted by quite a number of inscriptions such as "Khufu Ahket" and "Heru Ahket" and the lack of a word "ufu" in any inscription.


SC: But I have already shown you previously, there is some considerable doubt in Egyptology studies that “Akhet” actually means “horizon” as has been the accepted interpretation since Moses was a boy. The research of Betro indicates that the AE word “Akhet” is more likely to mean “setting (or rising) place”. The setting or rising place of what and of where? Of Ra on the horizon – Ra’ufu.


Byrd: In order to prove your hypothesis, you have to show that:

* there are other artifacts (including painted walls in a good state of preservation so we can't dispute colors or whatever) showing that such a king existed.
* that there are still missing kings in the Kings' Lists (there may be)
* that the name you propose actually means something
* that the person with the name you propose is mentioned as father/son/prince/husband somewhere

SC: This is not unreasonable and I would say is an eminently sensible and methodical approach although I would qualify this by adding that I will only ever be able to prove my hypothesis no more than orthodoxy can prove theirs. In fact, I am awaiting some clearer images of the Inventory Stele for, as I explained previously, I suspect this will be talking about Raufu’s repairs to the Sphinx etc, and NOT Khufu’s. As ever, the search for evidence to further support this hypothesis will go on, probably, I would venture, for many years!

Byrd: I did come up with one other qualification: You have to show that the king you propose was such a popular/legendary figure that they would neglect to put Khufu anywhere in the king's list (in spite of remembering his name on the pyramid) and instead insert another king in his place.


SC: The fact is, Byrd, there are numerous kings missing from the King List – the Abydos list is far from complete as I am sure you know (although it is the only list to include 7th and 8th dynasty rulers). Some names were deliberately erased, some were simply lost or forgotten. We have, for example, Eusebios (using Africanus for his source) writing, "Fourth Dynasty of seventeen kings of Memphis, from another royal line…”


SC: How do you know Westcar is not the mistake and Abydos is correct – or, in fact, both?

Byrd: In fact, I believe that BOTH are correct... for their time.


SC: And yet the disc we find in the Abydos table remained constant for over 1,000 years, as evidenced by the 4th dynasty King’s seal.


SC: We are told by orthodox Egyptology that the plain disc in the disputed Abydos cartouche would have been painted bluish-green or painted with hatched lines (notwithstanding the fact that it would have been eminently more sensible and practical to have carved the hatched lines into the disputed disc) in order to render it as “Kh”. This notion of using paint to differentiate the “Kh” disc from the “Ra” disc in Abydos is refuted by the presence of the plain disc in the king’s seal of the 4th dynasty for in order to render “Kh” with a seal the most efficient way of so doing is simply to carve the hatched lines directly into the seal from the get-go so that, upon impression, the “kh” glyph is instantly rendered.

Byrd: ...remember the spelling had changed as is shown in the Westcar Papyrus.


SC: The DISC remained constant.


SC: It would be ludicrous to expect that the plain disc seal in the seal impressions had to be modified with bluish-green paint after they had been fired.

Byrd: Quite true (and gold isn't fired, by the way. It's poured.)


SC: This is a clay impression of the 4th dynasty King’s seal (no gold):




Byrd: But you still can't inscribe lines in that tiny area.


SC: If lines were actually required they’d have made a larger disc to accommodate them. That such was not accomodated implies that lines WERE NOT REQUIRED. Simple logic. Remember to render "Kh" with a seal the most logical and practical thing to do to ensure the efficieny of the seal is to have placed the lines inside the disc of the king's name. They did not do that. The logic is devastatingly clear - a hatched disc (Kh) was NOT the intended disc. We are left to logically conclude that the fully desired plain disc is that of the sun god, Ra.

Continued.........



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


.......Continued from previous.


SC: Overall, the disc in the King’s seal and the disc in the King’s list are consistent with and compliment each other. A logical examination of these artefacts forces us to view them as “Raufu” and NOT as “Khufu”.

Byrd: Not really.


SC: Again, I have to disagree. Can you honestly say, hand on heart, that the plain disc in the cartouche of the 2nd King of the 4th dynasty in the Abydos table is undoubtedly “Kh”? Really? Be honest. Can you honestly say that the plain disc in the king’s seal is undoubtedly a “Kh”? Again, please be honest.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Hello, again, Scott. Returning for a few replies before headed back to work.


Originally posted by Scott Creighton
Finally – as I said before – the word “Oufouk” (“horizon”) may be an ancient Egyptian word preserved by the Bedouin into modern Egyptian-Arabic. Now modern Egyptians can write the word “horizon” as “Oufouk” or “Oufou”.


Can you provide some evidence that "oufouk/oufou" means "horizon"? I have tried many translation programs, and they indicate "oufouk" means "forgiveness" and "oufou" has no meaning at all. I don't read Arabic at all, and so this has been a frustrating quest. Can you help here?

Second, the idea of it being an ancient word preserved by the Bedouin is improbable. The Copts lived in and around Alexandria and were overrun by the Arabs. The nomadic Bedouin lived in the Arabian peninsula, after being shuffled down there from Israel:
en.wikipedia.org...:_population_and_history_1000_A.D_to_1948

They arrive far too late to have any borrow words from the Copts and never make it down to Alexandria. The Arabs lso arrive too late (700 years after the Greeks and Romans corrupted the language) to borrow words from ancient Egyptian. Alexandrian Greek would have had borrow words from Egyptian because of the 300 years of rule in Egypt.





Brd: In order to prove your hypothesis, you have to show that:

* there are other artifacts (including painted walls in a good state of preservation so we can't dispute colors or whatever) showing that such a king existed.
* that there are still missing kings in the Kings' Lists (there may be)
* that the name you propose actually means something
* that the person with the name you propose is mentioned as father/son/prince/husband somewhere


SC: This is not unreasonable and I would say is an eminently sensible and methodical approach although I would qualify this by adding that I will only ever be able to prove my hypothesis no more than orthodoxy can prove theirs.

This would be true if you learn enough to be able to read (and access) material in the original hieroglyphs. You can't do it in English or by looking at things. You need access to dig records and a big pile of artifacts.


I would just like to briefly summarise this thread by saying the following:

We are told by orthodox Egyptology that the plain disc in the disputed Abydos cartouche would have been painted bluish-green or painted with hatched lines (notwithstanding the fact that it would have been eminently more sensible and practical to have carved the hatched lines into the disputed disc) in order to render it as “Kh”.


May I point out that this is an assumption. Neither of us actually carves hieroglyphs in limestone with copper chisels, so we don't know first hand how much trouble it is to carve the lines or how quickly they had to have them in place. We don't know what their orders were.


This notion of using paint to differentiate the “Kh” disc from the “Ra” disc in Abydos is refuted by the presence of the plain disc in the king’s seal of the 4th dynasty for in order to render “Kh” with a seal the most efficient way of so doing is simply to carve the hatched lines directly into the seal from the get-go so that, upon impression, the “kh” glyph is instantly rendered.


The "Kh" circle is very small. I think you can prove this if you find an item of the same size where the "Kh" circle has lines inside it. I don't know of any, but perhaps you can find something from the same era and of the same dimensions where the lines are present.



It would be ludicrous to expect that the plain disc seal in the seal impressions had to be modified with bluish-green paint after they had been fired.


They wouldn't have done that. They WOULD have made it smaller so that it wasn't the same size as "Ra."


And it naturally follows that if carved lines were the most sensible means to render the disc as “Kh” then the disc should be made large enough in order to accommodate the hatched lines. A circle that would be too small to accommodate the hatched lines implies that hatched lines were NOT required ergo only a plain disc was required - that the plain disc of Ra was fully intended.


I suggest that this is your interpretation that they would enlarge the circle until they could make a disk large enough to draw lines in it. You can prove your idea if you find a seal or object of the same size which is carved or cast where the lines of the KH are present.


Overall, the disc in the King’s seal and the disc in the King’s list are consistent with and compliment each other. A logical examination of these artefacts forces us to view them as “Raufu” and NOT as “Khufu”. So, if Khufu built the Great Pyramid (as Herodotus informs us) but was NOT the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty, then WHO was he and WHEN was he?


...you also have to explain why and how we have a list of Khufu's wives and children and father and mother (including monuments and tombs)... but nothing of your presumed "Raufu" ... unless you can find inscriptions that indicate "Raufu"'s genealogy. Family affiliations were important in determining who was going to sit on the throne.

An additional point that you need to prove your thesis is you also have to find your presumed "Raufu"'s other names (since they had three to five names) ... and show that they are not the same associated names as Khufu.




This is a serious question with an equally serious issue at stake here and one I would hope will eventually be taken up by orthodox Egyptology (though doubtful in my lifetime).


I think you had a link somewhere to a source from the 1800's that gave a different translation for Khufu but can't recall where it was in all these messages. That would imply that in the very earliest stages of research this might have been a valid point, but the discovery of 200 years of additional material has settled this once and for all.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
I am just curious, but can you tell me what the term is the Egyptians used to refer to the GP?
I try to find it but could not.

In English, it is "Kuhfu's Horizon."
You can find this info here
here
here
or
on the first page of this thread.



Originally posted by Harte
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.


Can you show me some examples of that or some information about how they did came to that conclusion, or where I can find it?

Read this:
Sphinx: History of a Monument By Christiane Zivie-Coche, David Lorton (Link)
Discussion of the Inventory Stela begins on page 83. On page 87 a few reasons that the stela can't be from the old Kingdom are given.




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


If the Egyptians themselves back then some 2,000 years after the GP was built had even no idea of what means were used to build it, how is it possible then that we were able to find that out?

Quick answer - Egyptians in the 26th Dynasty didn't have dynamite.

Beyond that, I would point out that we, in fact, don't actually know either!

At any rate, I only said that because a hundred (or so) years later, Herodotus reports the method the Egyptians (in Herodotus' time) thought was used. 200,000 slaves, etc.

Turns out that this is not they way they did it.

This shows the Egyptians had forgotten. Of course they had. Do you have any idea how your ancestors in the year 200 AD built their homes? How long it took? How many people helped? Where they got the materials?

Answer without googling, please, if you actually do know this.


How come that even Khufus son Djedefre did not seems to know that anymore.

So, you're saying that because Djedefre's pyramid is in ruins or possibly was never finished, that means that Egyptians "forgot" how to do it for a few years, then "remembered" again immediately afterward?

That's a new one on me. My understanding is that it's likely that Djedefre's pyramid was quarried by Romans for the materials.

May we have a serious discussion, or do I have to revert to my usual ascerbic a-hole mode? The ridiculousness of the scenario you lay out above is a perfect example of why I take the attitude I often take (and have been often criticised for) here at ATS. If you have to reach into that kind of stupidity (Djedefre "forgot" how to build a pyramid) to maintain your point, then you actually have no point.

Harte

[edit on 7/21/2010 by Harte]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Hello Byrd,

Many thanks again for your lengthy reply.


SC: Finally – as I said before – the word “Oufouk” (“horizon”) may be an ancient Egyptian word preserved by the Bedouin into modern Egyptian-Arabic. Now modern Egyptians can write the word “horizon” as “Oufouk” or “Oufou”.

Byrd: Can you provide some evidence that "oufouk/oufou" means "horizon"? I have tried many translation programs, and they indicate "oufouk" means "forgiveness" and "oufou" has no meaning at all. I don't read Arabic at all, and so this has been a frustrating quest. Can you help here?


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

And there’s this from Sharif Mor:


‘Ofek’ [a variant of ‘Oufouk’] Means ‘Horizon’ in Hebrew…..

Both Arabic and Hebrew come from the same mother tongue which is Thamoudic or Bedouin from Transjordania/Sinai. They both lived and transacted with ancient Egypt: taking a lot of their religion, traditions, and even language from the ancient Egyptians. Such as the Arabs use oufouk or oufou as the word for Horizon, the Hebrews have taken the same word from ancient Egypt but with a slight change - the Hebrew word for Horizon is ‘Ofek’. Source
.


Byrd: Second, the idea of it being an ancient word preserved by the Bedouin is improbable. The Copts lived in and around Alexandria and were overrun by the Arabs. The nomadic Bedouin lived in the Arabian peninsula, after being shuffled down there from Israel:
en.wikipedia.org...:_population_and_history_1000_A.D_to_1948

They arrive far too late to have any borrow words from the Copts and never make it down to Alexandria. The Arabs lso arrive too late (700 years after the Greeks and Romans corrupted the language) to borrow words from ancient Egyptian. Alexandrian Greek would have had borrow words from Egyptian because of the 300 years of rule in Egypt.


SC: The Bedouin are an ancient people with an ancient language, to wit:


Letter by Ramses-nakht concerning supplies for the troops protecting gold miners in Nubia

“…The strong arm of Pharaoh, l.p.h., my lord, struck to the ground the enemies, the bedouins of Mu-qed, who had all settled in Qehqeh on the shore of the Sea, like Amen-Re, king of gods, this great god, lord of every land, accompanied you in order to lend you a hand. Rejoice therefore because of the numerous boons which Amen-Re, king of gods, has bestowed upon Pharaoh, l.p.h., his son, when he has struck the enemies, the bedouins which had come to devastate the land of Egypt, to the ground. Amen-Re, king of gods, praises you; Monthu praises you, the ka of Pharaoh, l.p.h., your lord, praises you, when you drove off the enemies, the bedouins who had come to devastate the land of Egypt, as you vanquished them…” Source.



Battle of Qadesh (1274 BCE)

“…Ramses neared Qadesh, Bedouins in the service of the Hittites mislead him about the location of the Hittite army…” (Emphasis mine) Source.




SC: We are told by orthodox Egyptology that the plain disc in the disputed Abydos cartouche would have been painted bluish-green or painted with hatched lines (notwithstanding the fact that it would have been eminently more sensible and practical to have carved the hatched lines into the disputed disc) in order to render it as “Kh”.

Byrd: May I point out that this is an assumption. Neither of us actually carves hieroglyphs in limestone with copper chisels, so we don't know first hand how much trouble it is to carve the lines or how quickly they had to have them in place. We don't know what their orders were.


SC: I seriously cannot believe you could consider that it would be difficult for the AE sculptors to carve some lines into a limestone disc. They managed to carve lines into the other (much smaller) disc (“town”) in the King’s seal in the 4th dynasty – a much harder stone. Have a look at the Abydos King List table and you will see an abundance of horizontal line carvings as part of other glyphs. You cannot be serious that they may have had difficulty in carving some simple horizontal lines.

And no – you are right; “we do not know what their orders were”. But I think it is fair to say that they would have been told to clearly render the name of the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty. And we can clearly see that they did NOT do that...... or did they?


SC: This notion of using paint to differentiate the “Kh” disc from the “Ra” disc in Abydos is refuted by the presence of the plain disc in the king’s seal of the 4th dynasty for in order to render “Kh” with a seal the most efficient way of so doing is simply to carve the hatched lines directly into the seal from the get-go so that, upon impression, the “kh” glyph is instantly rendered.

Byrd: The "Kh" circle is very small. I think you can prove this if you find an item of the same size where the "Kh" circle has lines inside it. I don't know of any, but perhaps you can find something from the same era and of the same dimensions where the lines are present.


SC: I think what I have presented thus far raises a significant question mark over the accepted chronology of Khufu and his Great Pyramid. I shall, of course, endeavour to uncover further evidence to determine this more conclusively (or not as the case may be).


SC: It would be ludicrous to expect that the plain disc seal in the seal impressions had to be modified with bluish-green paint after they had been fired.

Byrd: They wouldn't have done that. They WOULD have made it smaller so that it wasn't the same size as "Ra."


SC: But Ra (according to you) isn’t present on the king’s seal so there is NO WAY of making a size comparison on the seal between the plain “Kh” disc and the plain “Ra” disc. They are, however, BOTH present in the Abydos table and we can observe in the Abydos table that the plain “Kh” disc has been rendered smaller than the “Ra” discs in the king’s cartouches, including the disputed cartouche. Again, if you claim size matters then this implies the larger disc within the cartouche of the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty is indeed to be read as Ra-ufu.


SC: And it naturally follows that if carved lines were the most sensible means to render the disc as “Kh” then the disc should be made large enough in order to accommodate the hatched lines. A circle that would be too small to accommodate the hatched lines implies that hatched lines were NOT required ergo only a plain disc was required - that the plain disc of Ra was fully intended.

Byrd: I suggest that this is your interpretation that they would enlarge the circle until they could make a disk large enough to draw lines in it. You can prove your idea if you find a seal or object of the same size which is carved or cast where the lines of the KH are present.


SC: And I have to suggest otherwise. The ONLY way “Kh” can be rendered with a seal – clearly and unequivocally – is to create a disc into which lines are carved so that, upon impression, the Kh is clearly presented and there is no need for any recourse to painting the plain disc afterwards with bluish-green paint which would be simply absurd. There is no Ra disc present (according to you) in the seal to allow a size comparison so, once again, we are left with a plain disc with no point of reference, no ‘context’.


Continued...............

[edit on 22/7/2010 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Continued from previous.........


SC:Overall, the disc in the King’s seal and the disc in the King’s list are consistent with and compliment each other. A logical examination of these artefacts forces us to view them as “Raufu” and NOT as “Khufu”. So, if Khufu built the Great Pyramid (as Herodotus informs us) but was NOT the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty, then WHO was he and WHEN was he?

Byrd: ...you also have to explain why and how we have a list of Khufu's wives and children and father and mother (including monuments and tombs)...


SC: I think in light of what I am presenting, this evidence would need to be revisited to determine from those sources what references were made where the cartouche is presented with a plain disc and those with a hatched disc. It could simply be that there are those with plain discs where it has simply been assumed that the plain disc name is “Khufu”. As I said previously, it is my opinion that the Inventory Stele, for example, will speak of “Raufu” as opposed to the accepted “Khufu”.


Byrd: …but nothing of your presumed "Raufu" ... unless you can find inscriptions that indicate "Raufu"'s genealogy. Family affiliations were important in determining who was going to sit on the throne.


SC: See above.


SC: This is a serious question with an equally serious issue at stake here and one I would hope will eventually be taken up by orthodox Egyptology (though doubtful in my lifetime).

Byrd: I think you had a link somewhere to a source from the 1800's that gave a different translation for Khufu but can't recall where it was in all these messages. That would imply that in the very earliest stages of research this might have been a valid point, but the discovery of 200 years of additional material has settled this once and for all.


SC: This was an inscription of the “Birth town of Reufu” (see below):



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

Note that the disc within the king's cartouche clearly has a centre dot!

There are other inscriptions that are unequivocally “Raufu” so I don’t see how you can suggest this matter has been settled.

Tomb of Khaf-Khufu



Note the plain disc in the king’s cartouche bottom left (Ra) – Raufu. Note the much larger hatched disc (Kh) to the bottom right. Why place hatch lines into one disc and not the other?

Regards,

SC


[edit on 22/7/2010 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   
Oh dear, Scott...


Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: See this book, ‘1. 'Ragoul Gadeed Fil Oufouk' (A New Man On the Horizon)" by Egyptian writer, Mona Helmy – from here


Arabs don't write in the same word order in English. "A new man on the horizon" is a translation with the word order switched (and perhaps changed drastically) to appeal to the English reader. One of my favorite authors, Robert Asprin, ended up with the title of his book "Myth-Conceptions" translated as "Drachenfutter" (Dragon food, I believe) in German. I've seen other works of his in other languages and the re-titling is even stranger -- but it has something to do with finding a similar cultural concept.

...which would explain why I get "forgiveness" in multiple Arabic translators. They retitled the book in English.


And there’s this from Sharif Mor:


‘Ofek’ [a variant of ‘Oufouk’] Means ‘Horizon’ in Hebrew…..



I don't know the gentleman's credentials, but I can't seem to force a match in Hebrew dictionaries.


Both Arabic and Hebrew come from the same mother tongue which is Thamoudic or Bedouin from Transjordania/Sinai.


I believe your source is mistaken. Arabic doesn't arise until about 400 BC: www.indiana.edu... and by then, Classic Egyptian is dead and gone. The Bedouin language is a koine (or so I've read) of forms of Arabic, but the earliest appearances of it seems to be around 800 BC:
www.google.com...:1&tbo=u&ei=oc5ITMamCZDSsAOH6szXCw&oi=timeline_result &ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CE0Q5wIwCg

This is LONG after the word, "ahket" was used by ancient Egyptians. So the Bedouins/Arabs (if any) could not have added a word "Oufu" or "ufu" as "horizon" into ancient Egyptian.

They were 2,000 years too late to do that.



Letter by Ramses-nakht concerning supplies for the troops protecting gold miners in Nubia


That would be, I believe, Rameses II (combining the a portion of the Horus name, Kanakht, with his nomen (kind of dropping off the second part of his real name and inserting the second part of his Horus name. Oy!) In any case, this dates to 1200 BC or thereabouts. Beating up the bedouins (if indeed this is who they are... the actual word "bedouin" is NOT used in the hieroglyphs) doesn't indicate they were borrowing each others' languages. Nor does it indicate they were borrowing each others' languages 1000 years before that.





SC: I seriously cannot believe you could consider that it would be difficult for the AE sculptors to carve some lines into a limestone disc.


Argument from experience. We have lots and lots and lots of limestone here in Texas. I've done some sculpting work.


They managed to carve lines into the other (much smaller) disc (“town”) in the King’s seal in the 4th dynasty – a much harder stone.


a) those aren't lines. They're lumps left in the shape of an X by hammering out other areas.
b) it's faience. Not a harder stone.


Have a look at the Abydos King List table and you will see an abundance of horizontal line carvings as part of other glyphs.


I'm not seeing any horizontal lines inside circles there, but I'm undoubtedly looking at the wrong place. Can you show me which cartouches they carved line detail into circular hieroglyphs, please?

I do, however, see in the rest of the temple that colors were used inside the hieroglyphs: egyptsites.wordpress.com...

...and that they indeed did color plain circles with turquoise to indicate the Kh sign in other areas (first column, left side of this image):
egyptsites.files.wordpress.com...


And no – you are right; “we do not know what their orders were”. But I think it is fair to say that they would have been told to clearly render the name of the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty. And we can clearly see that they did NOT do that...... or did they?


I think they did (the "Khuf" is consistent with the way they wrote his name on the Westcar papyrus, the other sections of the temple show painted hieroglyphs (there is no reason why this would have been UNpainted since it was a completed temple) and show painted "Kh" symbols (as I showed you there in the previous examples.)



SC: I think what I have presented thus far raises a significant question mark over the accepted chronology of Khufu and his Great Pyramid. I shall, of course, endeavour to uncover further evidence to determine this more conclusively (or not as the case may be).


As I said, you have to show that
* "ufu" "oufu" was a real word in ancient Egyptian of that dynasty
* that there's a missing king
* that evidence for this missing king connects up to undated/unplaceable princes and princesses and queens/consorts and priests from a certain era.



SC: But Ra (according to you) isn’t present on the king’s seal so there is NO WAY of making a size comparison on the seal between the plain “Kh” disc and the plain “Ra” disc.


I pointed out that the symbol, "Son of Ra" was also on the seal and that the "Ra" circle was larger. It's the one over by the "duck".


Again, if you claim size matters then this implies the larger disc within the cartouche of the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty is indeed to be read as Ra-ufu.


I see it as smaller, but I'm not standing there with a measuring stick, y'know?



SC: And I have to suggest otherwise. The ONLY way “Kh” can be rendered with a seal – clearly and unequivocally – is to create a disc into which lines are carved so that, upon impression, the Kh is clearly presented and there is no need for any recourse to painting the plain disc afterwards with bluish-green paint which would be simply absurd. There is no Ra disc present (according to you) in the seal to allow a size comparison so, once again, we are left with a plain disc with no point of reference, no ‘context’.


Actually, we are, and that's the name in context. And again (on the seal and the ring) the Kh are smaller than the Ra.



posted on Jul, 22 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: This was an inscription of the “Birth town of Reufu” (see below):



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

Note that the disc within the king's cartouche clearly has a centre dot!


Aha! Yes, that's the one that's tickling my memory. The translation is wrong. The town's name is not "Tmoni" nor is the king's name "Reufu." The town's name begins with "Men" (not "Tm") I'm asking others to help me out, here.



There are other inscriptions that are unequivocally “Raufu” so I don’t see how you can suggest this matter has been settled.

Tomb of Khaf-Khufu



Note the plain disc in the king’s cartouche bottom left (Ra) – Raufu. Note the much larger hatched disc (Kh) to the bottom right. Why place hatch lines into one disc and not the other?


Y'know... I don't know. But I'll see if I can find out.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
May we have a serious discussion, or do I have to revert to my usual ascerbic a-hole mode? The ridiculousness of the scenario you lay out above is a perfect example of why I take the attitude I often take (and have been often criticised for) here at ATS. If you have to reach into that kind of stupidity (Djedefre "forgot" how to build a pyramid) to maintain your point, then you actually have no point.


Regarding the remarks you made here it is obvious that any further discussion between us is not wise.

Regarding my remark about Djedefre, I did not said that Djedefre "forgot" how to build a pyramid, you simply twisted my words.

When I look for example as I did many times to the pyramid time table as it is projected here, www.narmer.pl... I have some very serious question marks about that all.

But it’s clear to see what happens when I bring such things on the Egyptology table.

It’s obvious quite sensitive stuff.

Where did I see that before?



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Salutations Byrd,


Byrd: Oh dear, Scott...


SC: ???


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

Byrd: Arabs don't write in the same word order in English. "A new man on the horizon" is a translation with the word order switched (and perhaps changed drastically) to appeal to the English reader.


SC: The word order may have been altered, I don’t know since I don’t read/speak Arabic. Which does not mean, however, that “Oufouk” does not translate as “horizon”.


Byrd: ...which would explain why I get "forgiveness" in multiple Arabic translators. They retitled the book in English.


SC: I’m sure you won’t mind if I actually defer to those who, live, breathe, speak and write the language every day of their lives i.e. the native Egyptian-Arabic speakers who tell us “Oufou” or “Oufouk” in modern Egyptian-Arabic means “horizon”. You may be placing an undue reliance upon technology which is limited to the data it holds.


SC: And there’s this from Sharif Mor:

‘Ofek’ [a variant of ‘Oufouk’] Means ‘Horizon’ in Hebrew…..

Byrd: I don't know the gentleman's credentials, but I can't seem to force a match in Hebrew dictionaries.


SC: This site here shows “Ofek” translated as “Horizon”.


….Both Arabic and Hebrew come from the same mother tongue which is Thamoudic or Bedouin from Transjordania/Sinai.

Byrd: I believe your source is mistaken. Arabic doesn't arise until about 400 BC: www.indiana.edu... and by then, Classic Egyptian is dead and gone. The Bedouin language is a koine (or so I've read) of forms of Arabic, but the earliest appearances of it seems to be around 800 BC:
www.google.com...:1&tbo=u&ei=oc5ITMamCZDSsAOH6szXCw&oi=timeline_result &ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CE0Q5wIwCg

This is LONG after the word, "ahket" was used by ancient Egyptians. So the Bedouins/Arabs (if any) could not have added a word "Oufu" or "ufu" as "horizon" into ancient Egyptian. They were 2,000 years too late to do that.


SC: Again, I defer judgement on such matters to the native Egyptian-Arabic speakers who actually translate ancient script.


Letter by Ramses-nakht concerning supplies for the troops protecting gold miners in Nubia

Byrd: That would be, I believe, Rameses II (combining the a portion of the Horus name, Kanakht, with his nomen (kind of dropping off the second part of his real name and inserting the second part of his Horus name. Oy!) In any case, this dates to 1200 BC or thereabouts. Beating up the bedouins (if indeed this is who they are... the actual word "bedouin" is NOT used in the hieroglyphs) ….


SC: I haven’t seen the hieroglyphs for this translation and, once more, I have to defer to the experts who made the translation – I am sure they are better placed than either you or I to tell us what this letter says.


Byrd: ….doesn't indicate they were borrowing each others' languages. Nor does it indicate they were borrowing each others' languages 1000 years before that.


SC:: I didn’t say that it did – the point here is to demonstrate that your claim that the Bedouin are a modern people with a modern language is false and misleading. We cannot possibly know what words were picked up by them and transmitted through time into our modern age. The point is that it is entirely possible (if indeed probable) that some ancient Egyptian words may have been preserved by the Bedouin tradition and transmitted by them through the ages into modern Egyptian-Arabic.


SC: I seriously cannot believe you could consider that it would be difficult for the AE sculptors to carve some lines into a limestone disc.

Byrd: Argument from experience. We have lots and lots and lots of limestone here in Texas. I've done some sculpting work.





Byrd, look at cartouche #22 (Djedefre) in the image above of the Abydos table. See the finely carved horizontal bars of the Djed pillar? If they could carve those there is absolutely NO DOUBT they could have carved similar horizontal lines in the disc in cartouche #21. Look at the finely carved wavy line (phonetic ‘N’) in cartouche #24 (Menkaure). There is no question they could have carved horizontal lines into cartouche #21 had they so wished. They didn’t and we have to ask why.


SC: They managed to carve lines into the other (much smaller) disc (“town”) in the King’s seal in the 4th dynasty – a much harder stone.

Byrd: a) those aren't lines. They're lumps left in the shape of an X by hammering out other areas.


SC: The effect is the same.



Byrd: b) it's faience. Not a harder stone.


SC: Should have made it easier to carve the lines in the other disc then.


SC: Have a look at the Abydos King List table and you will see an abundance of horizontal line carvings as part of other glyphs.

Byrd: I'm not seeing any horizontal lines inside circles there, but I'm undoubtedly looking at the wrong place. Can you show me which cartouches they carved line detail into circular hieroglyphs, please?


SC: See above.


Byrd: I do, however, see in the rest of the temple that colors were used inside the hieroglyphs: egyptsites.wordpress.com...

...and that they indeed did color plain circles with turquoise to indicate the Kh sign in other areas (first column, left side of this image):
egyptsites.files.wordpress.com...


SC: We know this. I’ve made this point at least a dozen times in this thread. But you CANNOT use paint as a means to differentiate “Kh” from “Ra” in a king’s seal. The most practical means is to use the disc with hatched lines (unless, of course, you think it more sensible to paint every disc impression rendered from the seal a turquoise colour?)

Continued............



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Continued from previous.......


SC: And no – you are right; “we do not know what their orders were”. But I think it is fair to say that they would have been told to clearly render the name of the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty. And we can clearly see that they did NOT do that...... or did they?

Byrd: I think they did (the "Khuf" is consistent with the way they wrote his name on the Westcar papyrus, the other sections of the temple show painted hieroglyphs (there is no reason why this would have been UNpainted since it was a completed temple) and show painted "Kh" symbols (as I showed you there in the previous examples.)


SC: First of all the most sensible thing to have done with the disc in the disputed cartouche would have been to CARVE the lines. Paint is fragile and the Aes would have known this. They certainly would not have rendered a “Kh” the same size as the “Ra” disc, now would they? Afterall, we have (at least) two examples where the plain “Kh” disc is rendered much smaller in comparison to the disc of plain Ra. So, even without paint we can distinguish them. Isn’t that what you were telling me?


SC: I think what I have presented thus far raises a significant question mark over the accepted chronology of Khufu and his Great Pyramid. I shall, of course, endeavour to uncover further evidence to determine this more conclusively (or not as the case may be).

Byrd: As I said, you have to show that

* "ufu" "oufu" was a real word in ancient Egyptian of that dynasty


SC: I don’t doubt that it was (and still is even today). I think the plain discs in the King’s seal, the mastaba of Imery, the tomb of Qar, the tomb of Khaf-Khufu, the Ring of ‘Khufu’, the Abydos King List etc, etc show that it is improbable that the disc in the disputed cartouche can be read as anything other than “Ra”.


Byrd: *that there's a missing king


SC: We already know that there are.


Byrd: * that evidence for this missing king connects up to undated/unplaceable princes and princesses and queens/consorts and priests from a certain era.


SC: Khufu and Raufu are not ‘missing’ – both are testified in the evidence. All that is required is to disentangle them.


SC: But Ra (according to you) isn’t present on the king’s seal so there is NO WAY of making a size comparison on the seal between the plain “Kh” disc and the plain “Ra” disc.

Byrd: I pointed out that the symbol, "Son of Ra" was also on the seal and that the "Ra" circle was larger. It's the one over by the "duck".


SC: Okay – now you’ve lost me. I see no “duck” nor do I see “son of Ra” on the king’s seal. Please show me.



SC: Again, if you claim size matters then this implies the larger disc within the cartouche of the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty is indeed to be read as Ra-ufu.

Byrd: I see it as smaller, but I'm not standing there with a measuring stick, y'know?


SC: How can you possibly see the “Ra” disc as being smaller than the “Kh” disc? See here:




SC: And I have to suggest otherwise. The ONLY way “Kh” can be rendered with a seal – clearly and unequivocally – is to create a disc into which lines are carved so that, upon impression, the Kh is clearly presented and there is no need for any recourse to painting the plain disc afterwards with bluish-green paint which would be simply absurd. There is no Ra disc present (according to you) in the seal to allow a size comparison so, once again, we are left with a plain disc with no point of reference, no ‘context’.

Byrd: Actually, we are, and that's the name in context. And again (on the seal and the ring) the Kh are smaller than the Ra.


SC: Actually, the discs in the name on the ring or on the seal have no context because, unlike the Abydos table, they do not present examples of BOTH discs.


SC: This was an inscription of the “Birth town of Reufu” (see below):

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

Note that the disc within the king's cartouche clearly has a centre dot!

Byrd: Aha! Yes, that's the one that's tickling my memory. The translation is wrong. The town's name is not "Tmoni" nor is the king's name "Reufu."


SC: I disagree. Rosellini has had this drawing made with a centre dot in the disc. We have to assume this is what he actually saw in the original. The centre dot makes the inscription and the reading of the disc unequivocal (just as hatched lines would also make the reading of the “Kh” disc unequivocal) – this inscription clearly reads “Reufu”.


SC: There are other inscriptions that are unequivocally “Raufu” so I don’t see how you can suggest this matter has been settled.

Tomb of Khaf-Khufu



Note the plain disc in the king’s cartouche bottom left (Ra) – Raufu. Note the much larger hatched disc (Kh) to the bottom right. Why place hatch lines into one disc and not the other?

Byrd:L Y'know... I don't know. But I'll see if I can find out.


SC: Thanks. I look forward to hearing your suggestions.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 06:50 AM
link   
love you guys, SC and Byrd, don't know if i'm getting smarter or what!

just sayin...



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   
reply to post by fooks
 


Hi Fooks,

Many thanks for your post. I appreciate that you appreciate this discussion.

Very best wishes,

Scott Creighton



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Salutations, Scott.


Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: The word order may have been altered, I don’t know since I don’t read/speak Arabic. Which does not mean, however, that “Oufouk” does not translate as “horizon”.


Byrd: ...which would explain why I get "forgiveness" in multiple Arabic translators. They retitled the book in English.


SC: I’m sure you won’t mind if I actually defer to those who, live, breathe, speak and write the language every day of their lives i.e. the native Egyptian-Arabic speakers who tell us “Oufou” or “Oufouk” in modern Egyptian-Arabic means “horizon”. You may be placing an undue reliance upon technology which is limited to the data it holds.


Actually, I think that the book has been retitled (if you give that phrase to someone who speaks Arabic without telling them the translation, I suspect you won't get "horizon".) I'm not at school, so I can't ask my Arabic friends. But given the differences in word order, I suspect that this is not correct.

In either case, it's not relevant to "Ahket" because it couldn't have been a precursor to Ahket.



SC: This site here shows “Ofek” translated as “Horizon”.


Erm... Scott... that's Hebrew. Not Arabic.




….Both Arabic and Hebrew come from the same mother tongue which is Thamoudic or Bedouin from Transjordania/Sinai.

Byrd: I believe your source is mistaken. Arabic doesn't arise until about 400 BC: www.indiana.edu... and by then, Classic Egyptian is dead and gone. The Bedouin language is a koine (or so I've read) of forms of Arabic, but the earliest appearances of it seems to be around 800 BC:
www.google.com...:1&tbo=u&ei=oc5ITMamCZDSsAOH6szXCw&oi=timeline_result &ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CE0Q5wIwCg

This is LONG after the word, "ahket" was used by ancient Egyptians. So the Bedouins/Arabs (if any) could not have added a word "Oufu" or "ufu" as "horizon" into ancient Egyptian. They were 2,000 years too late to do that.


SC: Again, I defer judgement on such matters to the native Egyptian-Arabic speakers who actually translate ancient script.


May I point out that none of the sources are from scholars who are Egyptian-Arabic speakers who work as Egyptologists? There ARE a number of those. They don't seem to support your conclusion.


SC:: I didn’t say that it did – the point here is to demonstrate that your claim that the Bedouin are a modern people with a modern language is false and misleading. We cannot possibly know what words were picked up by them and transmitted through time into our modern age. The point is that it is entirely possible (if indeed probable) that some ancient Egyptian words may have been preserved by the Bedouin tradition and transmitted by them through the ages into modern Egyptian-Arabic.


The Bedouin aren't THAT old -- they're not 5,000 years old as a culture, which would be what was needed for them to have been borrowing from the earliest times. Furthermore, they lived far to the north and weren't "next door neighbors."

Modern Example: Here in Texas we have a lot of Spanish-English borrow words. We don't have any Ainu borrow words or Russian borrow words.




SC: They managed to carve lines into the other (much smaller) disc (“town”) in the King’s seal in the 4th dynasty – a much harder stone.

Byrd: a) those aren't lines. They're lumps left in the shape of an X by hammering out other areas.


SC: The effect is the same.

No. You can't hammer out fine lines that easily.




Byrd: b) it's faience. Not a harder stone.


SC: Should have made it easier to carve the lines in the other disc then.


It may have been. They may not have had the tools to make a fine line (which today, I believe, would need jeweler's loupe and a scribe).


SC: We know this. I’ve made this point at least a dozen times in this thread. But you CANNOT use paint as a means to differentiate “Kh” from “Ra” in a king’s seal. The most practical means is to use the disc with hatched lines (unless, of course, you think it more sensible to paint every disc impression rendered from the seal a turquoise colour?)


Well, it's rather obviously faster.

I don't have the original scribe's orders, either, so I won't presume to speak for them. I do know that on other monuments and other bits of evidence that the king's name given in that particular slot has been "Khufu" and that there are a number of spellings which may or may not include two quail chicks, etc.



posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: First of all the most sensible thing to have done with the disc in the disputed cartouche would have been to CARVE the lines. Paint is fragile and the Aes would have known this. They certainly would not have rendered a “Kh” the same size as the “Ra” disc, now would they? Afterall, we have (at least) two examples where the plain “Kh” disc is rendered much smaller in comparison to the disc of plain Ra. So, even without paint we can distinguish them. Isn’t that what you were telling me?


I can see a difference, yes.


SC: I don’t doubt that it was (and still is even today). I think the plain discs in the King’s seal, the mastaba of Imery, the tomb of Qar, the tomb of Khaf-Khufu, the Ring of ‘Khufu’, the Abydos King List etc, etc show that it is improbable that the disc in the disputed cartouche can be read as anything other than “Ra”.


I believe we've already concluded that in two of those pieces of evidence it's impossible to draw lines (the ring, particularly) and that the "Kh" is smaller than the "Ra" sign which is shown with it.



Byrd: *that there's a missing king


SC: We already know that there are.


Perhaps I should have said "a missing king in the 4th dynasty"... when we do have lists of all the names of the princes and so forth.



Byrd: * that evidence for this missing king connects up to undated/unplaceable princes and princesses and queens/consorts and priests from a certain era.


SC: Khufu and Raufu are not ‘missing’ – both are testified in the evidence. All that is required is to disentangle them.


You haven't presented evidence of a "Raufu" -- what the name means (and you can't try "ufu=horizon" since we know that Ahket is horizon.)



SC: But Ra (according to you) isn’t present on the king’s seal so there is NO WAY of making a size comparison on the seal between the plain “Kh” disc and the plain “Ra” disc.

Byrd: I pointed out that the symbol, "Son of Ra" was also on the seal and that the "Ra" circle was larger. It's the one over by the "duck".


SC: Okay – now you’ve lost me. I see no “duck” nor do I see “son of Ra” on the king’s seal. Please show me.


It's the symbols right next to the cartouche.



SC: How can you possibly see the “Ra” disc as being smaller than the “Kh” disc?


That's the way it appears to me. I can't walk there and put a measurement to it, alas, but what I see on the photographs makes it appear smaller. I won't attempt to measure the photos.



SC: Actually, the discs in the name on the ring or on the seal have no context because, unlike the Abydos table, they do not present examples of BOTH discs.


They do. You just have to learn to read hieroglyphs! Both of them include Ra and both include Kh as a smaller plain circle.



SC: This was an inscription of the “Birth town of Reufu” (see below):

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

Note that the disc within the king's cartouche clearly has a centre dot!

Byrd: Aha! Yes, that's the one that's tickling my memory. The translation is wrong. The town's name is not "Tmoni" nor is the king's name "Reufu."


SC: I disagree. Rosellini has had this drawing made with a centre dot in the disc. We have to assume this is what he actually saw in the original. The centre dot makes the inscription and the reading of the disc unequivocal (just as hatched lines would also make the reading of the “Kh” disc unequivocal) – this inscription clearly reads “Reufu”.


Okay... I have not found the original, but I have found translations. As I said, Rosellini was writing at a time when they were just beginning to understand how to read hieroglyphs. The hieroglyphs are the name of a town called "Menat Khufu" and it has stood for millennia, so there's more than one inscription around with that name on it (confirming Menat Khufu):
en.wikipedia.org...

I am told that there are other writings where Khaf-Khufu appears both ways (and with variant spellings) but I'm hunting and pecking my way through this, trying to get a handle on it all.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 

Hello Byrd,


SC: I’m sure you won’t mind if I actually defer to those who, live, breathe, speak and write the language every day of their lives i.e. the native Egyptian-Arabic speakers who tell us “Oufou” or “Oufouk” in modern Egyptian-Arabic means “horizon”. You may be placing an undue reliance upon technology which is limited to the data it holds.

Byrd: Actually, I think that the book has been retitled (if you give that phrase to someone who speaks Arabic without telling them the translation, I suspect you won't get "horizon".) I'm not at school, so I can't ask my Arabic friends. But given the differences in word order, I suspect that this is not correct.


SC: Byrd – Sharif Mor is a native Egyptian-Arabic speaker living in Cairo. He knows his own language. He assures us that in the language of Egypt TODAY, “Oufouk” translates as “horizon”. We also have an Egyptian author who uses “Oufouk” in the title of her book – the same word we are told by living and breathing Egyptians means “horizon” and which is also given as a translation by this author. Are you suggesting these people do not know their own language, that you know their language better than they do?


Byrd: In either case, it's not relevant to "Ahket" because it couldn't have been a precursor to Ahket.


SC: You’re absolutely correct. “Akhet Khufu” translates as “Horizon of Khufu” according to present orthodox thinking. It’s wrong. We know from Betro that “Akhet” should be translated as “rising (or setting) place” – NOT as “horizon”. So, if that’s the case, I wonder what the word for “horizon” might have been? “Oufouk” perhaps? Seems to me that something got seriously screwed up in the past attempts at translating this and it is an error that has been perpetuated by orthodoxy to this day. Talk about getting lost in translation! It needs to be fixed.


SC: This site here shows “Ofek” translated as “Horizon”.

Byrd: Erm... Scott... that's Hebrew. Not Arabic.


SC: Why wouldn’t it be in Hebrew? I am responding to the point here when you attempted to “…force a match [of Ofek] in Hebrew dictionaries”:


SC: And there’s this from Sharif Mor:

‘Ofek’ [a variant of ‘Oufouk’] Means ‘Horizon’ in Hebrew…..

Byrd: I don't know the gentleman's credentials, but I can't seem to force a match in Hebrew dictionaries.


SC: The link I provided took you to a Hebrew site (because we were actually discussing the Hebrew variant at this point) where there is a clear translation of “Ofek” (a variant of “Oufouk”) as “Horizon”.


Byrd: This is LONG after the word, "ahket" was used by ancient Egyptians. So the Bedouins/Arabs (if any) could not have added a word "Oufu" or "ufu" as "horizon" into ancient Egyptian. They were 2,000 years too late to do that.

SC: Again, I defer judgement on such matters to the native Egyptian-Arabic speakers who actually translate ancient script.

Byrd: May I point out that none of the sources are from scholars who are Egyptian-Arabic speakers who work as Egyptologists? There ARE a number of those. They don't seem to support your conclusion.


SC: I wouldn’t expect that they would. But if they are serious about getting things right, they should look into this not insignificant matter.


SC: I didn’t say that it did – the point here is to demonstrate that your claim that the Bedouin are a modern people with a modern language is false and misleading. We cannot possibly know what words were picked up by them and transmitted through time into our modern age. The point is that it is entirely possible (if indeed probable) that some ancient Egyptian words may have been preserved by the Bedouin tradition and transmitted by them through the ages into modern Egyptian-Arabic.

Byrd: The Bedouin aren't THAT old -- they're not 5,000 years old as a culture, which would be what was needed for them to have been borrowing from the earliest times.


SC: It has already been established that they are much older than you formerly believed them to be i.e. that the were contemporaneous with the AEs c.1,274 BCE (at least). This is the earliest testimony as to the existence of this people I could find but there may be other texts attesting to an even earlier existence. Notwithstanding this, if the word “oufouk” (horizon) existed in the much earlier 4th dynasty c.2,500 BCE, why would it not then exist later in 1,274 BCE for the Bedouin to pick it up (if, of course, they had not already done so much earlier)?


Byrd: Furthermore, they lived far to the north and weren't "next door neighbors."


SC: The Bedouin interacted with the ancient Egyptians – there is no doubt of that. The Sinai is right next door to Egypt and we do know the ancient Egyptians went there.


Byrd: Modern Example: Here in Texas we have a lot of Spanish-English borrow words. We don't have any Ainu borrow words or Russian borrow words.


SC: I am sure you have some ancient Latin words in there though.


SC: They managed to carve lines into the other (much smaller) disc (“town”) in the King’s seal in the 4th dynasty – a much harder stone.

Byrd: a) those aren't lines. They're lumps left in the shape of an X by hammering out other areas.
SC: The effect is the same.

Byrd: No. You can't hammer out fine lines that easily.


SC: They are only made fine by the size of the circle they carved in the seal. Had they wanted to carve lines within the circle then – according to your logic – a larger circle such as the circle of the word “town” present in the seal would have been the obvious solution to accommodate such lines. That they did not create a larger circle implies they did not need to accommodate any horizontal lines within the circle. That they did not want any horizontal lines implies the disc they wanted to render was NOT “Kh” but was the plain disc of the god “Ra”.


Byrd: b) it's faience. Not a harder stone.

SC: Should have made it easier to carve the lines in the other disc then.

Byrd: It may have been. They may not have had the tools to make a fine line (which today, I believe, would need jeweler's loupe and a scribe).


SC: Simply make a circle large enough to accommodate the lines – like they did with the other circle in the seal.


SC: We know this. I’ve made this point at least a dozen times in this thread. But you CANNOT use paint as a means to differentiate “Kh” from “Ra” in a king’s seal. The most practical means is to use the disc with hatched lines (unless, of course, you think it more sensible to paint every disc impression rendered from the seal a turquoise colour?)

Byrd: Well, it's rather obviously faster.


SC: Which is exactly the point! They knew it was impractical to differentiate a plain disc within the seal with the use of paint so, if “Kh” was the desired glyph, why not simply render horizontal lines in a slightly larger circle to make the meaning absolutely clear? Why didn’t they do that?


Byrd: I don't have the original scribe's orders, either, so I won't presume to speak for them. I do know that on other monuments and other bits of evidence that the king's name given in that particular slot has been "Khufu" and that there are a number of spellings which may or may not include two quail chicks, etc.


SC: I’m not disputing that inscriptions of “Khufu” exist elsewhere.

Continued........






top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join