Who was Khufu?

reply to post by Byrd

From Previous.............

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?

Byrd: I can see a difference, yes.

SC: So, we can see in the Abydos table (in at least two examples) that the plain “Kh” disc is rendered smaller than the plain “Ra” disc. We have to agree then that the plain disc in the disputed cartouche is ALSO larger than the smaller “Kh” disc. We have to further agree that the plain disc in the disputed cartouche is perfectly equivalent in size to all the other known “Ra” discs in the Abydos table.

And yet, for all of this, Egyptologists insist that the disc in the disputed cartouche is to be read as “Kh”. I simply cannot accept that – I cannot go against what the evidence says.

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: 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.

SC: I will say once again - if lines were desired and could not be drawn in a circle so small then simply enlarge the circle to accommodate the lines. As for your “…impossible to draw lines (the ring, particularly)…”. Take a look at the image of the ring below (much enlarged). In particular, take a look at the very finely carved lines in and around some of the glyphs, some horizontal, some diagonal – an amazing piece of work to be sure.



Now note the COMPLETE ABSENCE of such lines in the plain disc of the King’s cartouche? This disc is not so much smaller than other areas of the ring where they managed to carve such intricate detail. So why not also in the disc of the King’s cartouche?

Note also – this is a gold ring. A plain gold disc is used to symbolise the God Ra. It could not be clearer and the ambiguity (if this was to be “Kh”) would not have been lost to the maker of this ring seal. They would HAVE to have hatched the differentiating horizontal lines into this plain gold disc for clarity and to ensure they were not using the god’s name invain, so to speak.

Byrd: *that there's a missing king

SC: We already know that there are.

Byrd: 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.

SC: Eusebios (using Africanus for his source) writing, "Fourth Dynasty of seventeen kings of Memphis, from another royal line…” That’s quite a number of missing kings of the Fourth Dynasty.

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.

Byrd: You haven't presented evidence of a "Raufu" …

SC: Then what have we been discussing these past 70+ posts?

Byrd: … -- what the name means (and you can't try "ufu=horizon" since we know that Ahket is horizon.)

SC: I will say again – Betro tells us “Akhet” does NOT mean “horizon”. To consider that the modern Egyptian-Arabic word “Oufou” or “Oufouk” (reverse a variant of “Khufu”) DOES mean “horizon” (and can be verified by simply asking a modern Egyptian) tells me someone screwed up in translating these glyphs in the past. Alas, however, that this interpretation has become so entrenched in Egyptology probably means it will stay that way and that is simply wrong and only serves to deny us the truth of our past.

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.

Byrd: It's the symbols right next to the cartouche.

SC: The symbols I see “right next to the cartouche” are the crested Ibis bird (“essence of light”) and the crossed-circle depicting the word “town”. The orthodox translation of this inscription reads “Pyramid Town Akhet Khufu”, the crested Ibis providing the “Kh” in this instance. I see no “duck” on this seal impression to give the “son of Re”.

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

Byrd: 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: Byrd – are we talking about the same thing here? I’m talking about this:




Please tell me that you can see that the plain “Kh” disc is significantly smaller than the plain disc of “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.

Byrd: 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: Please see above.

SC: 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”.

Byrd: 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.

SC: This seems to me simply the standard HoM answer. A dot in the circle is present in the epigrapher’s rendering of this cartouche. Why would they have placed it there in the drawing if they had not actually seen it in the original?

Byrd: 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...

SC: I know this. The town name is not what is being questioned. The centre dot in the cartouche is the point (no pun intended).

Regards,

Scott Creighton

(whap self)

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

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


Y'know, at this point someone should have kindly pointed out to me that somewhere in the tangle it WAS said that "Ofek" was Hebrew and linked the message. I am sending my brain cells to go off and sit in the corner for awhile.

My point still stands that it's not a borrow word from Egyptian but, man, that's a real failure of attention to have forgotten that the original claim was that "Ofek" was Hebrew. And here I've been going after it in Arabic! Oy!!

Of course, Hebrew and Arabic aren't that closely related, but ... still...

reply to post by Byrd

Hello Byrd,

My point still stands that it's not a borrow word from Egyptian but, man, that's a real failure of attention to have forgotten that the original claim was that "Ofek" was Hebrew. And here I've been going after it in Arabic! Oy!!

SC: Just to clarify:

"Oufouk" (a varient of "Khufu" reversed) is the modern Egyptian-Arabic word meaning "Horizon".

"Ofek" (a variant of "Oufouk") is the modern Hebrew word meaning "Horizon".

Byrd: Of course, Hebrew and Arabic aren't that closely related, but ... still...

SC: As has been pointed out in the thread -

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.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

Back to addressing the points, Scott.

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
"Oufouk" (a varient of "Khufu" reversed) is the modern Egyptian-Arabic word meaning "Horizon".

Uhm... that's not believable, particularly if you've studied linguistics. People don't "borrow" words (creoles, borrow words, etc) and REVERSE them. They use a mangled form of the pronunciation used by other people.

There are quite literally millions of words that are borrow words, including ones in Egyptian and into ancient Egyptian. It would completely undermine the reason for a borrow word to exist (linguistic exchange between two languages.)

Of course, you could disprove what I've just said by providing links by linguists showing that creoles and patois and borrow words where (for purposes of communication) they took a word into their language, reversed it, and made it common use among the people.

The Etymology of Ra'oufou and k'oufou’ – “We read and pronounce the glyphs as they are,...their pronouncements are very close to Arabic.

Yes. Makes more sense from a linguistic standpoint than using the letters derived from, say, Haida or Tlingit. However, as people discovered back in the 1700's, Coptic was the language to study to understand the Ancient Egyptian language. And there's still quite a bit of discussion about how close it is to Semetic languages:
en.wikipedia.org...

Egypt was the pivotal center of civilization dating to the years of Abraham up to the exodus of Moses.

Except that the beginnings of civilization in Egypt are far older than the lineage of the patriarchs... and that Sumer/Babylon would certainly contest the claim as the 'center of civilization', and so would the Harappans.

When there was famine, Egypt was the bread basket.

That came much later, I'm afraid (around the time of the conquest by Alexander the Great.) Not at the time of Khufu.

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.

In the Alexandria area, yes. It survived elsewhere and was wiped out by Arabic after the Muslim conquest of North Africa. Elsewhere along the borders there were variants in the language.

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.

It's hard to tell without references, but it looks as though you got your information from a nationalistic Arab site rather than from a neutral site. The Bedouin language has indeed changed, and they were not originally from Arabia (I linked some sites on their origins.) This can even be proven genetically.

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.

Can you point to some credible scholarly sources that indicate the Bedouin incorporated Egyptian traditions from as early as the 2nd Dynasty into their cultural ways? I believe you are contradicting your previous point that their culture and language survives uncorrupted.

We clearly know that is scientifically - that the original ancient Semitic language comes out of Egypt and is known as the proto-Sinai script.

I find that rather hard to believe, since proto-Sinaitic scripts didn't develop until long after the hieroglyphs and demotic alphabet developed.
en.wikipedia.org...

There is no clear evidence of its origin, but the Middle East seems to have been involved and it would appear that scholars don't believe Egypt is the source. Southern Arabia seems to be the main source for these languages:
en.wikipedia.org...

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.

You're saying then that the work of Champolleon and thousands of others who have been working on the scripts (including a lot of dual-inscription objects where there's the same message in two different scripts and languages) are completely wrong? And that their studies of structure and so forth (centuries worth) are wrong?

I find this difficult to believe, since when new material shows up (the tomb of the father and son recently discovered) the texts are easily read and make sense, even by a novice such as myself.

This field of Etymology especially when it comes to the Semitic language is still a baby in formation.

There are well over a hundred universities who would dispute this claim:
semitics.cua.edu...
www.gwu.edu/~csll/
www.yale.edu/nelc

In fact there are a number of journals on the Semitic language
jss.oxfordjournals.org/
academic.sun.ac.za/jnsl

And I see employment listings for Semitic language and etymology specialists on language job boards.

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.

While this might be true on the Graham Hancock board, I believe that Charles Cutler Torrey (American biblical scholar), Johannes Peder Ejler Pedersen (Danish scholar), Theodor Nöldeke (German linguist), the late Yochanan Muffs, and a host of others have a better claim to the title.



[edit on 25-7-2010 by Byrd]

returning to previous...

Originally posted by Scott Creighton

Byrd: You haven't presented evidence of a "Raufu" …

SC: Then what have we been discussing these past 70+ posts?

Your assertion that there's a king named "Raufu." We keep saying, "No there isn't."

Byrd: … -- what the name means (and you can't try "ufu=horizon" since we know that Ahket is horizon.)

SC: I will say again – Betro tells us “Akhet” does NOT mean “horizon”.

I find that fascinating, since the two books I own (Kamrin and Collier & Manley) as well as a lot of other resources say that it does.

To consider that the modern Egyptian-Arabic word “Oufou” or “Oufouk” (reverse a variant of “Khufu”) DOES mean “horizon” (and can be verified by simply asking a modern Egyptian) tells me someone screwed up in translating these glyphs in the past.

That ignores a lot of evidence, including the etymology of the Arabic language.

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.

Byrd: It's the symbols right next to the cartouche.

My bad. I was thinking of the tablet. I don't check pictures.

SC: The symbols I see “right next to the cartouche” are the crested Ibis bird (“essence of light”) and the crossed-circle depicting the word “town”. The orthodox translation of this inscription reads “Pyramid Town Akhet Khufu”, the crested Ibis providing the “Kh” in this instance. I see no “duck” on this seal impression to give the “son of Re”.

The ibis isn't "essence of light". It's the symbol for "ak." The inscription translation you give is a partial, because in the upper right is also the Golden Horus name for him ("Bky nub") which is unique to him.

SC: Byrd – are we talking about the same thing here? I’m talking about this:

No, we're not talking about the same thing. The example you gave was a name where they had to put a lot more letters into the same sized cartouche... and so the size varies greatly. In that case, they squeezed the "kh" (please note that it's a plain (unlined)) circle) in where they could.

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.

Byrd: 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: Please see above.

This would be an easier discussion if you knew how to read hieroglyphs. I'm not being unpleasant, here... if you could read them, we could better discuss the items. A number of the words on the ring are "standard formula", so we see "Servant of the god" on the ring (as well as the names of the gods Osiris and what seems to be Anubis. I have no idea why because my ability to read the inscriptions is not the best)

In either case, the ring does say "Khufu" and on the left is a formulaic term (which I believe reads "Nefer-ib-re" but please don't quote me on that) which does include the hieroglyph for "re."

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”.

And I would like to see the original. What else is there other than the cartouche?

Byrd: 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.

SC: This seems to me simply the standard HoM answer. A dot in the circle is present in the epigrapher’s rendering of this cartouche. Why would they have placed it there in the drawing if they had not actually seen it in the original?

Well, I don't know but I can read enough to know that Rosellini's translation of the town's name is incorrect. I would like to see what else is there (other than someone's drawing) on whatever object it was found. We see variations in spelling between "Olde English" and modern English and my hieroglyphs books clearly show changes in spelling throughout the ages (bilaterals, for instance, go from being two signs to just one sign over the course of a couple of centuries.)

Byrd: 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...

SC: I know this. The town name is not what is being questioned. The centre dot in the cartouche is the point (no pun intended).

Actually, the mistranslation of the town's name as well as Khufu's name clearly shows that he couldn't read the hieroglyphs correctly (not a surprise, since they were just beginning the translation work. I think a look at the WHOLE piece that this was found on (which might include clues such as the Golden Horus name and so forth) give a better picture.

I don't have access to that material or associated material, so I trust the judgment of those who have had the material in their hands, have worked on the translations and know the hieroglyphs far better than I do. I also know how far the understanding of the language has progressed in 300 years, making me trust more recent translations over translations made before a fraction of the material had been decyphered.

reply to post by Byrd

Hello Byrd,

Once again, thanks for your lengthy and detailed response. Most appreciated.

SC: "Oufouk" (a varient of "Khufu" reversed) is the modern Egyptian-Arabic word meaning "Horizon".

Byrd: Uhm... that's not believable, particularly if you've studied linguistics. People don't "borrow" words (creoles, borrow words, etc) and REVERSE them.

SC: I’m discussing, however, a possible missing king named Ra-ufu. Backwards or forwards, “ufu” still reads the same and means the same, “Horizon”.

Sharif Mor: ”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.

Byrd: It's hard to tell without references, but it looks as though you got your information from a nationalistic Arab site rather than from a neutral site.

SC: Not a web site; an Egyptian living in Cairo.

Byrd: The Bedouin language has indeed changed, and they were not originally from Arabia (I linked some sites on their origins.) This can even be proven genetically.

SC: I don’t doubt this. The point, however, is that the Bedouin were contemporaneous with the ancient Egyptians (as evidenced by the battle of Quadesh and the Letter of Ramses-nakht ) and could have picked up some of their language and traditions and may have preserved such into modern times.

Sharif Mor: “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.”

Byrd: Can you point to some credible scholarly sources that indicate the Bedouin incorporated Egyptian traditions from as early as the 2nd Dynasty into their cultural ways?

SC: Why would it require to be as early as the 2nd dynasty? If the ancient Bedouin picked up “ufu” from the ancient Egyptians c.1,274 BCE, they could have preserved that word into modern times, albeit the spelling changed to “oufou”. They do not need to go as far back as 2nd dynasty to pick up this word.

Byrd: I believe you are contradicting your previous point that their culture and language survives uncorrupted.

SC: It’s actually my source’s point. However, all cultures change but some hold onto to certain aspects of their culture/language etc better than others and often this is dependent upon how much contact they have with the outside world. The nomadic tradition of the Bedouin would largely have served to ‘insulate’ them from outside influences (although, of course, they would have had interactions with various peoples – no one lives in total isolation).

Sharif Mor: We clearly know that is scientifically - that the original ancient Semitic language comes out of Egypt and is known as the proto-Sinai script.

Byrd: I find that rather hard to believe, since proto-Sinaitic scripts didn't develop until long after the hieroglyphs and demotic alphabet developed.
en.wikipedia.org...

There is no clear evidence of its origin, but the Middle East seems to have been involved and it would appear that scholars don't believe Egypt is the source. Southern Arabia seems to be the main source for these languages:
en.wikipedia.org...

SC: I have no real opinion on this but I will pass this point on to my source to obtain his opinion.

Sharif Mor: “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.”

Byrd: You're saying then that the work of Champolleon and thousands of others who have been working on the scripts (including a lot of dual-inscription objects where there's the same message in two different scripts and languages) are completely wrong? And that their studies of structure and so forth (centuries worth) are wrong?

SC: I’m not saying anything in this regard and I don’t think my source is either.

Sharif Mor: “This field of Etymology especially when it comes to the Semitic language is still a baby in formation.”

Byrd: There are well over a hundred universities who would dispute this claim:
semitics.cua.edu...
www.gwu.edu/~csll/
www.yale.edu/nelc

In fact there are a number of journals on the Semitic language
jss.oxfordjournals.org/
academic.sun.ac.za/jnsl

SC: I think Sharif Mor is making particular reference to the language of the modern Bedouin here. Not sure how many universities actually study that and its ancient roots.

Byrd: You haven't presented evidence of a "Raufu" …

SC: Then what have we been discussing these past 70+ posts?

Byrd: Your assertion that there's a king named "Raufu." We keep saying, "No there isn't."

SC: With all due respect, Byrd, I give more than an assertion; I presented much evidence to back up my assertion. Your assertion that I have not presented any evidence of a “Raufu” is entirely false as anyone perusing this thread will easily see.

Byrd: … -- what the name means (and you can't try "ufu=horizon" since we know that Ahket is horizon.)

SC: I will say again – Betro tells us “Akhet” does NOT mean “horizon”.

Byrd: I find that fascinating, since the two books I own (Kamrin and Collier & Manley) as well as a lot of other resources say that it does.

SC: I am sure there are probably many, many more Egyptology books which say this – they are all simply repeating and perpetuating the same original mistake/misinterpretation.

SC: To consider that the modern Egyptian-Arabic word “Oufou” or “Oufouk” (reverse a variant of “Khufu”) DOES mean “horizon” (and can be verified by simply asking a modern Egyptian) tells me someone screwed up in translating these glyphs in the past.

Byrd: That ignores a lot of evidence, including the etymology of the Arabic language.

SC: And orthodoxy ignores the Bedouin link; the means through which such an ancient word could well have been preserved into the modern Egyptian-Arabic language.

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.

Byrd: It's the symbols right next to the cartouche.

Byrd: My bad. I was thinking of the tablet. I don't check pictures.

SC: Tablet? What tablet? Is it any wonder that you think I have not presented any evidence of Raufu if, as you say, you “…don’t check pictures.”?

SC: The symbols I see “right next to the cartouche” are the crested Ibis bird (“essence of light”) and the crossed-circle depicting the word “town”. The orthodox translation of this inscription reads “Pyramid Town Akhet Khufu”, the crested Ibis providing the “Kh” in this instance. I see no “duck” on this seal impression to give the “son of Re”.

Byrd: The ibis isn't "essence of light". It's the symbol for "ak."

SC: Actually, it’s more correctly “akh” but the AEs didn’t use vowels (as you know) which makes it “Kh”. And with the loaf symbol (‘t’) we have “akhet”. And there are numerous references to “akh” as “shining one”. I have seen other interpretations given as “essence of light” but can’t find the source at present.

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

reply to post by Byrd

Continued from previous……….

SC: Byrd – are we talking about the same thing here? I’m talking about this:



Byrd: No, we're not talking about the same thing. The example you gave was a name where they had to put a lot more letters into the same sized cartouche... and so the size varies greatly. In that case, they squeezed the "kh" (please note that it's a plain (unlined)) circle) in where they could.

SC: I noted the plain, unhatched circle in this cartouche long ago. Now, if I understand you correctly, you previously suggested that the plain disc of Ra/Re would always be made larger than the plain “Kh” disc, yes? Why then was the disc in the disputed cartouche (#21 in image below) - which you claim is “Kh” - not made smaller than the plain Ra discs immediately adjacent to it (see image below)? Why is this disc in the disputed cartouche - which you claim is “Kh” and which you further claim should have been made smaller - the same size as the known Ra discs in the Abydos table? Are you now trying to suggest that if they had more space in cartouche #45 (above image) that they would have made the Kh disc in this cartouche the same size as the plain Ra disc? You cannot have it both ways, Byrd.

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.

Byrd: 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: Please see above.

Byrd: This would be an easier discussion if you knew how to read hieroglyphs. I'm not being unpleasant, here... if you could read them, we could better discuss the items.

SC: As stated, my understanding is basic. I do, however, present a legitimate question relating to the supposed cartouche of “Khufu” in the Abydos table. I can easily see the name there does not read “Khufu”. If the ‘rule’ that the “Kh” disc should be smaller than the Ra disc is true (as you have suggested) then the disc in the disputed cartouche should be smaller than the known Ra discs. It's clearly not smaller and I do not require advanced hieroglyphic skills to notice such an obvious discrepancy.

Byrd: In either case, the ring does say "Khufu" and on the left is a formulaic term (which I believe reads "Nefer-ib-re" but please don't quote me on that) which does include the hieroglyph for "re."

SC: You say it reads “Khufu” but the EVIDENCE says otherwise. If the disc in the cartouche of the King on the ring seal was to say “Khufu” why then is this disc a plain, unhatched disc? You cannot say that the disc space was too small to have created the hatched lines because we can clearly see (image below) very finely hatched lines everywhere else on that ring and in places just as small as the disc in the king’s cartouche; finely hatched lines everywhere else but in the very place such lines SHOULD have been carved! Instead what we have is a plain, gold disc in the cartouche of the king. And, as we know, a plain gold disc is the symbol of Ra. Simple hatched lines (which they could easily have created in this ring) would have removed any ambiguity.



SC: Why also do we find a cartouche that reads “Raufu” inside a tomb where there is ALSO a cartouche (on the opposite wall) that reads “Khufu”? Why “Raufu” AND “Khufu” mentioned in the same tomb? Keep in mind here, there is a disc to the right of the “Raufu” cartouche that is clearly a hatched “Kh”. I guess they musta just forgot to carve the lines in the Raufu cartouche but remembered to carve them into the Khufu cartouche on the opposite wall. Hmm……………..

Tomb of KhafKhuf

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”.

Byrd: And I would like to see the original. What else is there other than the cartouche?

SC: Boy would I like to see the original of this epigrapher’s drawing too. Alas, I simply don’t know – sorry.

Byrd: 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.

SC: This seems to me simply the standard HoM answer. A dot in the circle is present in the epigrapher’s rendering of this cartouche. Why would they have placed it there in the drawing if they had not actually seen it in the original?

Byrd: Well, I don't know but I can read enough to know that Rosellini's translation of the town's name is incorrect.

SC: That Rosellini may wrongly have translated the town name does not actually mean he did not have the correct hieroglyphs or that these were not properly rendered by the epigrapher.

Byrd: I would like to see what else is there (other than someone's drawing) on whatever object it was found.

SC: Me too but I think this is all that we have – unfortunately.

SC: I know this. The town name is not what is being questioned. The centre dot in the cartouche is the point (no pun intended).

Byrd: Actually, the mistranslation of the town's name as well as Khufu's name …

SC: Sorry, again mistranslation does not mean the hieroglyphs were wrong – he mistranslated what he actually saw. And from the epigrapher’s drawing we can see that Rosellini saw a disc with a centre dot and not only that, but this part of the hieroglyphs HE DID correctly translate (albeit a slight variant, as “Reofe”). He translated the disc with the centre dot spot on – “Ra”.

Byrd: I think a look at the WHOLE piece that this was found on (which might include clues such as the Golden Horus name and so forth) give a better picture.

SC: I totally agree. Alas……

Byrd: I don't have access to that material or associated material, so I trust the judgment of those who have had the material in their hands, have worked on the translations and know the hieroglyphs far better than I do. I also know how far the understanding of the language has progressed in 300 years, making me trust more recent translations over translations made before a fraction of the material had been decyphered.

SC: Again, I would tend to concur with this although I do have to say that the AEs understood their own language far better than any modern scholar ever will. And that Rosellini saw a disc with a centre dot and translated it as “Re” is perfectly correct even by today’s standards.

Kind Regards,

Scott Creighton

Dear Scott,

are you still reading this thread?
I think your points are intriguing - worth to think about, well argued, still I am not convinced yet.
You title your thread "Who was Khufu", but this is never really discussed in this thread:
If we assume for a moment that there are in fact 2 kings, Ra-Ufu and Khufu, where do you place them? Was Ra-Ufu the king after Sneferu and before Khaf-Ra? Did Khufu built the great pyramid, but at some other point in time?
I would be interested to hear what your full theory is.

Best regards,
g

Originally posted by gavaxar
Dear Scott,

are you still reading this thread?
I think your points are intriguing - worth to think about, well argued, still I am not convinced yet.
You title your thread "Who was Khufu", but this is never really discussed in this thread:
If we assume for a moment that there are in fact 2 kings, Ra-Ufu and Khufu, where do you place them? Was Ra-Ufu the king after Sneferu and before Khaf-Ra? Did Khufu built the great pyramid, but at some other point in time?
I would be interested to hear what your full theory is.

Best regards,
g

Hi Gavaxar,

Given that the name 'Khufu' (circle with cross-hatchings) was found in Campbell's Chamber (only accessible from the 19th century) and assuming this was not forged why Col. Howard-Vyse, then we must accept that these inscriptions present evidence that Khufu was in some way connected with the Great Pyramid, probably as its builder.

However, as I have argued in this thread, the name 'Khufu' does not appear in the Abydos king List, the name inscribed there being Ra-ufu ('Horizon of Ra'). So, if the second king of the 4th dynasty ca.2,500 BCE is actually a king called Ra-Ufu, then who was Khufu and when did he live? If we cross-check the king lists of Eusabius and Africanus (using Manetho as their source) they present between them potentially 123 missing kings between dynasties 4-8. It rather seems to me that there is potentially some 2,000 years of missing AE history from this period alone.

Curiously, this ostrich egg (image below) is dated to the Naqada I period (ca. 4,400-3,000 BCE) some 500-1900 years BEFORE the Giza pyramids were supposedly built. But look closely at the egg-shell - is that the Giza Pyramids we see before us with the Nile Valley running down to the east of the pyramids with the bulge to the southwest of the Fayoum and continuing onwards south again into the Nile Valley? Could this be an ancient 'map' of the Gizamids in relation to the Nile and the Fayoum?





I think the answer to your question is difficult to answer although I am sure Consensus Egyptology would have us believe that they have it all neatly figured out. Given that there is so much missing from the picture, I rather doubt that.

Regards,

SC

Scott.

A nice thread, well researched and argued. Congrats.

I am with you on this one, but just one thing - the god-name is always shunted to the end of the name, so the name of the Abydos king is Ufura, and not Raufu.

If it were not like that, we would have a a king-list consisting of:
Raufu, Radjedef, Rakaf, and Ramenkau ....

But we don't, instead we have:
Ufu-ra, Djedef-ra, Kaf-ra, and Menkau-ra .....


And yes, the Abydos king list plainly gives this glyph as a Ra glyph, and not a Khu sieve glyph. If not, we should read the list as:
Kufu, Kudjedef, Kukaf, and Kumenkau ....

But we don't, we have:
Ufu-ra, Djedef-ra, Kaf-ra, and Menkau-ra .....



Which does, of course, bring into question the 'ownership' of the Great Pyramid. But of course there is NO QUESTION about the ownership of these pyramids, because they did not belong to any one king.

It is inconceivable that any pharaoh would be buried in a tomb that did not profusely glorify his name. But all the walls of the Giza pyramids a completely bare, including the sarcophagi, and so we know that the Giza pyramids are NOT tombs.

So what are these monuments? Quite obviously Giza is a grand temple complex, dedicated to the Sun and the Cosmos. And with the Great Pyramid having a flat summit, it was the best stellar observatory in the region - high above the smoke-fires of Kahara (Cairo). In which case, the Great Pyramid must have had a stairway to the top - a Stairway to Heaven, or a Jacob's Ladder. (I have previously proposed that this stairway spiraled up the sides of the pyramid.)

And if the Great Pyramid is released from the 4th dynasty, then it can be of any age. And since the Sphinx presumably honors the Great Month of Leo, one presumes that these pyramids were built in the era of Leo, or about 10,500 BC.

.

I also like your explanation for the Khu sieve glyph. It makes much more sense to represent the tropics on the Earth, especially since this same 'glyph' appears to have been continued into the Greek and Christian era. I refer here to the Chi Rho, where the parallel lines of the Khu glyph have given way to crossed lines that mark the same points of the tropics, on the perimeter of a globe:

Ralph