What is the evidence that the pyramid is a "tomb of Kyops"?

From previous......

Harte:… are necessary in order for you to manufacture a "mystery" to write about - as you (and I) noted you are attempting to join the ranks of those who mischaracterize and flatly lie about the past in order to make a living selling books to ignorant persons (and there's certainly no shortage of those.)

SC: “…micharacterize and lie…”? Oh my! I really have touched a raw nerve, haven’t I. Why are you feeling so threatened, Harte? You should be welcoming these new interpretations. And rather than libelling yourself, you should simply be trying to counter my argument with a better one of your own. That would be eminently more constructive, don’t you think?

And as for “ignorant persons”. Folks are only as ignorant as the information presented to them by those who hold the keys to academia and to knowledge. And I do not “make a living selling books” –if only I could! I write books to highlight the complete lack of evidence to support the Consensus Egyptology view of the early Old Kingdom period; to highlight the anomalies, to demonstrate the square pegs in round holes. In short I write to inform people of the shortcomings of this so-called ‘science’ that it is very reluctant to make known itself.

So, my advice to you—do not find fault with people for their ignorance. Find fault with those such as Consensus Egyptologists who misinform them or don’t inform them at all.

Harte: The idea of the horizon had significant and specific meanings to the Egyptians. The Sun both died and was reborn on the horizon every day.

SC: No one, least of all me, denies that the sun was important to the AEs, especially its rising. The POINT, however, is that ‘Akhet Khufu’ does NOT mean ‘Horizon of Khufu’. Egyptologists, such as Lehner, are now coming round to realising this.

Harte: Again, I suggest readers here can make the connection between these ideas and the death (and subsequent resurrection) of the God-King. Hence "Khufu's Horizon." Of course, this sort logical reasoning is to be avoided at all costs among those that wish to profit from promulgating mischaracterizations of, and utter untruths about, the past - such as yourself.

SC: Except—and I’ll say again—‘Akhet Khufu’ does not mean ‘Horizon of Khufu’. The sun setting between two mounds is not testified until the end of the 5th dynasty, long after the GP was built. The phonetic 'Akhet' with Ibis bird logogram and Pyramid determinative that Consensus Egyptologists believe should be interpreted also as 'horizon' is, according to Lehner, something to do with the ‘soul of Khufu’ and has nothing to do with 'horizon'. Thus, if Lehner is to be believed, the entire premise of Consensus Egyptology of this meaning being 'horizon' with regard to the Great Pyramid is entirely flawed.

I happen to disagree with BOTH orthodox interpretations (i.e. 'horizon' and 'soul') and am confident that my own view is much better evidenced and that is the test of any good interpretation. Evidence, dear boy. Evidence!

SC

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by HeliocentricThe 1984 radiocarbon dates averaged 374 years older than the dates of the kings with whom the presumed Old Kingdom pyramids are identified. If we rely on the scientific method used to date the construction, Khufu could not be the builder of the Great Pyramid.

So you simply rule out the old wood problem? And you rule out that pehaps the timeline is 300 years off? That is, why do you think Khufu's time is set yet his pyramid's time is not?

If you look carefully at what I posted, it reads "Hawass/Lehner explained this by postulating that the builders used 'old wood' in the construction material. There's a possibility it is so, but it is speculation.¨

This answers your question. I still maintain that it is speculation, because the data does not fit with the theory. Instead of adapting the theory to the data, Hawass and Lehner have chosen to 'interpret' the data differently as to what it tells us so that it will fit with the theory. This is speculation at best and unscientific at worst.

I have not ruled out that the timeline of succeeding pharaos is wrong, but if so it undermines mainstream archaeology's interpretation of the various King's Lists. Either way you have a problem here, either the chronology mainstream archaeology has accepted of the pharaos is wrong, or the supposed age of the Great Pyramid. Hawass and Lehner have chosen to ignore the problem and pretend like it doesn't exist.

Another thing they've chosen to ignore is the iron plate that was found during the Howard-Vyse expedition in 1836-37. While blasting the outside of the Great Pyramid with explosives, a plate of iron measuring 26 x 8.8 cm and about 4mm thick was retrieved. The discovery of the iron plate was not made by Howard-Vyse himself but by an engineer called J.R. Hill, who was under Howard-Vyse's employment. Hill found the plate embedded in a joint on the south face of the monument near or within the entrance of the so-called air-channel. Hill was adamant that the iron plate must be contemporaneous with the construction of the pyramid since he had to blast away two outer tiers of blocks in order to reach it and extract it from a masonry joint near or within the mouth of the southern shaft. The iron plate was eventually donated to the British Museum along with an affidavit from Hill and also from others who had been present during the find. In 1926 Dr. A. Lucas examined the iron plate and, although at first agreed with Mr. Hill that it was contemporaneous with the pyramid, Lucas later changed his mind when he realized that the iron was not from meteoritic origin. It is generally believed that iron was unknown in the Pyramid Age and that the only possible source of iron was from iron-meteorites, which are composed of about 95 iron and 5 nickel. In 1989, however, two metallurgists, Dr. El Gayar of the faculty of Petroleum and Mineral in Suez, Egypt, and Dr. M.P. Jones of Imperial College London, asked the British Museum for a small sample of the iron plate so that they could conduct a full scientific examination. After El Gayar and Jones conducted a series of chemical and microscopic tests on the iron plate, these scientists concluded that the plate was incorporated within the pyramid at the time that structure was built' i.e. it was contemporaneous with the pyramid. The chemical and microscopic analyses of the iron plate also revealed very small traces of gold, suggesting that the plate had perhaps been originally gilded. The actual size of the plate was estimated to have been 26 x 26 cm., which is roughly the same size of the shaft's mouth, which in turn suggests that the iron plate possibly had served as some sort of cover or gate to the shaft's mouth. El Gayar and Jones also pointed out that the plate's dimension of 26 x 26 cm. implied it was sized in royal cubit, the measure used by the pyramid builders (half a royal cubit of 52.37 cm. gives 26.18 cm.).

everything2.com...

This is interesting in relation to the now famous quarry mark mentioning Khufu's work crew, because while mainstream archaeology has chosen to accept the cartouche as 'data' indicating that Khufu built the pyramid, it has chosen to ignore the iron plate as data suggesting that the Old Kingdom (or earlier dynasties) had iron technology.

This is cherry-picking data that you like to fit with whatever theory you prefer, and de-selecting that which doesn't. It is unscientific in approach and method.

And what about the other cartouches found? Several cartouches with different forms/spellings were discovered (or fraudulently inscribed) on the walls of the relieving chambers. These names are: Saufou or Shoufou (Supis), Khoufou (Cheops), SENeshoufou, Raufu, Khnem-Khufu (Chephren?), and Khufu. Are these all different names of the same Pharaoh? So the workers making these marks were in fact a bunch of poets excelling in the use of pharaonic pseudonyms?

Originally posted by Harte
Regarding what Egyptology thinks, you may think about refraining from putting words in their mouths:


According to Egyptologists, the findings of both the 1984 and 1995 David H. Koch Pyramids Radiocarbon Projects[7][8] may suggest that Egypt had to strip its forest and scrap every bit of wood it had to build the pyramids of Giza and other even earlier 4th Dynasty pyramids. Carbon dating samples from core blocks and other materials revealed that dates from the 1984 study averaged 374 years earlier than currently accepted and the 1995 dating averaging 100–200 years. As suggested by team members, "We thought that it was unlikely that the pyramid builders consistently used centuries-old wood as fuel in preparing mortar. The 1984 results left us with too little data to conclude that the historical chronology of the Old Kingdom was wrong by nearly 400 years, but we considered this at least a possibility".

I was referring to Hawass and Lehner's theory (which is evident if you read carefully), not the suggestions of any Egyptologist.

Originally posted by Scott Creighton

Harte:… are necessary in order for you to manufacture a "mystery" to write about - as you (and I) noted you are attempting to join the ranks of those who mischaracterize and flatly lie about the past in order to make a living selling books to ignorant persons (and there's certainly no shortage of those.)

SC: “…micharacterize and lie…”? Oh my! I really have touched a raw nerve, haven’t I. Why are you feeling so threatened, Harte? You should be welcoming these new interpretations. And rather than libelling yourself, you should simply be trying to counter my argument with a better one of your own. That would be eminently more constructive, don’t you think?

It's perfectly clear to me. And not threatening in the least.

Have you never seen the claim that quartz cannot be cut "across the grain?"

Have you never seen the claim that Pacal's sarcophagus lid represents an astronaut operating some sort of ship?

Have you never seen the claim that hundreds of mammoths were "flash frozen" by some strange event in Siberia?

All of the above are complete lies promulgated by the very types of authors that you declare to be your collegues.

Should I go on? Because you know I can.

You are correct about one thing, though. I do not appreciate being lied to by a con man trying to stir up a mystery where none exists in order to sell books.

Harte

reply to post by Scott Creighton

SC: Except—and I’ll say again—‘Akhet Khufu’ does not mean ‘Horizon of Khufu’. The sun setting between two mounds is not testified until the end of the 5th dynasty, long after the GP was built. The phonetic 'Akhet' with Ibis bird logogram and Pyramid determinative that Consensus Egyptologists believe should be interpreted also as 'horizon' is, according to Lehner, something to do with the ‘soul of Khufu’ and has nothing to do with 'horizon'. Thus, if Lehner is to be believed, the entire premise of Consensus Egyptology of this meaning being 'horizon' with regard to the Great Pyramid is entirely flawed.

More properly, the Akhet is the place were an immortal Akh 'soul' of the King is created, this was understood as a chamber beneath the horizon within the subterranean cavern of the mountain of the horizon, which should be understood as the triangular zodiacal light along the ecliptic plane seen before dusk and dawn.

Thus the Akhet is not the horizon per se, but a specific locale of time and place, a magical transformation in the pre-dawn etheral light.


In the pyramid this was represented by a specific Akhet chamber were the King would be expected to transform in same manner at the particular hour.

Originally posted by Heliocentric

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by HeliocentricThe 1984 radiocarbon dates averaged 374 years older than the dates of the kings with whom the presumed Old Kingdom pyramids are identified. If we rely on the scientific method used to date the construction, Khufu could not be the builder of the Great Pyramid.

So you simply rule out the old wood problem? And you rule out that pehaps the timeline is 300 years off? That is, why do you think Khufu's time is set yet his pyramid's time is not?

If you look carefully at what I posted, it reads "Hawass/Lehner explained this by postulating that the builders used 'old wood' in the construction material. There's a possibility it is so, but it is speculation.¨

This answers your question. I still maintain that it is speculation, because the data does not fit with the theory. Instead of adapting the theory to the data, Hawass and Lehner have chosen to 'interpret' the data differently as to what it tells us so that it will fit with the theory. This is speculation at best and unscientific at worst.

I have not ruled out that the timeline of succeeding pharaos is wrong, but if so it undermines mainstream archaeology's interpretation of the various King's Lists. Either way you have a problem here, either the chronology mainstream archaeology has accepted of the pharaos is wrong, or the supposed age of the Great Pyramid. Hawass and Lehner have chosen to ignore the problem and pretend like it doesn't exist.

Neither one ignores anything. They merely put forward an alternate explanation for the C14 date problem. As I quoted, the team doing the radiocarbon investigation theorized that the timeline might be off. Hawass and Lehner responded with an alternate possibility - that of the "old wood" problem.

Both fully explain the observed data. Is it your opinion that only one possibility should be considered? After all, at this point, both are equally possible are they not?

Regarding the iron plate, a single bit of evidence is simply not enough if it doesn't fit the rest of the data. Nobody ignores the iron plate but, until iron artifacts are found that were created by the Egyptians of the Old Kingdom, it is just silly to claim they had iron technology while they were utilizing only copper and later bronze in their everyday activities.

If they knew how to make iron, why didn't they make and use iron?

Until more samples of Old Kingdom iron are found, the plate remains an anomaly that is best explained through contamination. Vyse's was not the first group to enter the G.P.

Harte

reply to post by Harte

Harte:… are necessary in order for you to manufacture a "mystery" to write about - as you (and I) noted you are attempting to join the ranks of those who mischaracterize and flatly lie about the past in order to make a living selling books to ignorant persons (and there's certainly no shortage of those.)


SC: “…mischaracterize and lie…”? Oh my! I really have touched a raw nerve, haven’t I. Why are you feeling so threatened, Harte? You should be welcoming these new interpretations. And rather than libelling yourself, you should simply be trying to counter my argument with a better one of your own. That would be eminently more constructive, don’t you think?

Harte: It's perfectly clear to me. And not threatening in the least.

Have you never seen the claim that quartz cannot be cut "across the grain?"

SC: Nothing to do with me.

Harte: Have you never seen the claim that Pacal's sarcophagus lid represents an astronaut operating some sort of ship?

SC: Nothing to do with me.

Harte: Have you never seen the claim that hundreds of mammoths were "flash frozen" by some strange event in Siberia?

SC: Nothing to do with me.

Harte: All of the above are complete lies promulgated by the very types of authors that you declare to be your collegues.

SC: I do not know if they are all lies or not. What I do know is that they have zero to do with my own research and the arguments that I have put forward. And it is not I that has declared these “types of authors” to be my “colleagues”. That is YOU and your ilk that does that. Because it simply suits your ends to lump all authors that present challenges to Consensus Egyptology together in order that you may taint and tarnish them with the same broad and sweeping brush. Let me tell you something—you won’t fool anyone with such an insidious ploy.

Try dealing with the arguments that I present for that is, afterall, what is on the table here.

Harte: Should I go on? Because you know I can.

SC: Oh I am perfectly sure you could go on and on until the coos come home—but how long will it be before you actually begin to deal with the evidence that I HAVE PRESENTED?

Harte: You are correct about one thing, though. I do not appreciate being lied to by a con man trying to stir up a mystery where none exists in order to sell books.

SC: Well, I do not know to whom you refer to so I think, for your sake, it is best we leave it at that.

Best wishes,

SC

Originally posted by Kantzveldt
reply to post by Scott Creighton

 

SC: Except—and I’ll say again—‘Akhet Khufu’ does not mean ‘Horizon of Khufu’. The sun setting between two mounds is not testified until the end of the 5th dynasty, long after the GP was built. The phonetic 'Akhet' with Ibis bird logogram and Pyramid determinative that Consensus Egyptologists believe should be interpreted also as 'horizon' is, according to Lehner, something to do with the ‘soul of Khufu’ and has nothing to do with 'horizon'. Thus, if Lehner is to be believed, the entire premise of Consensus Egyptology of this meaning being 'horizon' with regard to the Great Pyramid is entirely flawed.

More properly, the Akhet is the place were an immortal Akh 'soul' of the King is created, this was understood as a chamber beneath the horizon within the subterranean cavern of the mountain of the horizon, which should be understood as the triangular zodiacal light along the ecliptic plane seen before dusk and dawn.

Thus the Akhet is not the horizon per se, but a specific locale of time and place, a magical transformation in the pre-dawn etheral light.


In the pyramid this was represented by a specific Akhet chamber were the King would be expected to transform in same manner at the particular hour.

SC: So the orthodox narrative goes. As far as 'Akhet Khufu' goes, I simply do not buy it. Such religious concepts may have emerged later with regard to later pyramids--but not the first, giant pyramids.

The Ibis glyph is symbolic of wisdom and, naturally, of the AE wisdom god, Thoth. This is to say that the Ibis bird did not symbolise "spirit" or "light" (as Lehner proposes) but rather "wisdom" (i.e. an 'enlightened one' or 'bright spark'). This bird heralded the Nile inundation and did so for thousands of years. It 'knew' when the flood was coming and its arrival before the inundation alerted the farmers to this. Therefore, in 'Aket Khufu' the Ibis symbolises the Great Nile Inundation of Thoth that was foretold would drown the entire kingdom. IMO. The pyramid determinative in 'Akhet Khufu' symbolises the means of the 're-creation' of the earth (kingdom) after the worst effects of Thoth's Flood had abated. The word 'akhet' with the sun between two mounds symbolises the re-creation of the sun. The word 'akhet' with the land glyph and growing plants symbolises the re-creation of the Nile. 'Akhet', imo, simply means 're-creation' or 'rebirth'.

Regards,

SC

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: So the orthodox narrative goes. As far as 'Akhet Khufu' goes, I simply do not buy it. Such religious concepts may have emerged later with regard to later pyramids--but not the first, giant pyramids.

So, what evidence are you using to support this -- that the "Akhet" does NOT mean horizon?

The Ibis glyph is symbolic of wisdom and, naturally, of the AE wisdom god, Thoth. This is to say that the Ibis bird did not symbolise "spirit" or "light" (as Lehner proposes) but rather "wisdom" (i.e. an 'enlightened one' or 'bright spark').

I did a little digging, and it seems that the first representations of Thoth are as a member of the Ogdoad system where he is associated with the moon

This bird heralded the Nile inundation and did so for thousands of years. It 'knew' when the flood was coming and its arrival before the inundation alerted the farmers to this.

Do you have a source for this? It's my understanding that it was the rising of Sirius that they used to mark the beginning of the flood season.

Therefore, in 'Aket Khufu' the Ibis symbolises the Great Nile Inundation of Thoth that was foretold would drown the entire kingdom. IMO.

Can you point to something that talks about a Great Nile Inundation? I'm not finding anything in the sources I know of or in the many titles of Thoth that suggests anything about an inundation or prophecy. The AE's really weren't much into prophecies.

The pyramid determinative in 'Akhet Khufu' symbolises the means of the 're-creation' of the earth (kingdom) after the worst effects of Thoth's Flood had abated. The word 'akhet' with the sun between two mounds symbolises the re-creation of the sun. The word 'akhet' with the land glyph and growing plants symbolises the re-creation of the Nile. 'Akhet', imo, simply means 're-creation' or 'rebirth'.

Are you confusing the word for the season (which has the "land glyph and growing plants" hieroglyph with that of the Aket (sun between two mountains)? They really are different things.

Also unaccounted for by your theory is material known to scholars: the Aker and the various symbols that make up the sign -- they appear in a number of inscriptions and are referenced in many places (and aren't associated with Thoth at all.) If that page is correct (I note that it references some outdated books) then the actual "horizon" symbol did not appear until after the Old Kingdom ended. As supporting evidence that the symbol is not as old as the pyramids, I will mention that I saw in one of the threads you started, a link (perhaps by you... I can't remember) of hieroglyphs indicating the town of "Khufu's Ahket" where it's spelled out with bird and lined circle and t-loaf. -- as it is here on another site (where it's shown as part of an administrator's title).

So you may be confusing two things. They really are as different as a spring (season) and a spring (mechanical thing that goes 'sproing')

Originally posted by Harte
Neither one ignores anything. They merely put forward an alternate explanation for the C14 date problem. As I quoted, the team doing the radiocarbon investigation theorized that the timeline might be off. Hawass and Lehner responded with an alternate possibility - that of the "old wood" problem.

Both fully explain the observed data. Is it your opinion that only one possibility should be considered? After all, at this point, both are equally possible are they not?

Yes, both theories are possible, and I have never expressed or insinuated that only one is possible. Read all my statements in this thread and it's evident.

We know very little about the Great Pyramid or Khufu for that matter, and the scant, circumstantial data that we have about its construction is what leaves plenty of room for various theories about how it was constructed and by whom.

The point I was making was, the theory about Khufu building the Great Pyramid is nothing but a theory, you can call it the standard theory if you like, but it is still nothing but a theory. Nevertheless, both Zahi Hawass and Mark Lehner have spent much time and effort marketing this theory as bonafide proof. You can look up just about any dictionary, and there it states that the Great Pyramid was built by Khufu, during the 4th Dynasty. All you need to do is to scrape a little on the surface of it, and you find that it's a house of cards that could easily collapse. I think you're very kind to both Hawass and Lehner when you say that they put forward «an alternative explanation », because there is nothing alternative about being (ex) Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Egyptian Antiquities, Director of Ancient Egypt Research Associates and the official voices of modern Egyptology. On the contrary, both these men have been busy clamping down on alternative theories as fast as they appear, and a lot of competent researchers have lost the opportunity to work in Egypt because they've challenged or opposed Hawass' interpretations in their professional work.
That said, I do not consider him incompetent, just despotic and prone not to listen when challenged. I also leave the door open to the possibility that he is right. Mark Lehner is also very competent and has done a good job documenting the Sphinx. It's almost ironic that he sat below the Sphinx for more than ten years mapping every nook and cranny, without seeing that the geological age of the Sphinx does not correspond with his and Hawass' theories about it.

Originally posted by Harte
Regarding the iron plate, a single bit of evidence is simply not enough if it doesn't fit the rest of the data.

It depends on the evidence and the context in which the evidence was revealed, but I basically agree with you. That said, it is not the rest of the data it does not fit with, but a theory constructed around the data.

Originally posted by Harte
until iron artifacts are found that were created by the Egyptians of the Old Kingdom, it is just silly to claim they had iron technology while they were utilizing only copper and later bronze in their everyday activities.

If they knew how to make iron, why didn't they make and use iron?

They had access to meteoritic iron so they knew what iron was. The oldest finds of use of iron in Egypt dates to the Chalcolithic Period (Copper Age), so we're talking 4000 - 3150 BC. This « metal of heaven » as they called it was highly revered and sought after.

If they had not yet figured out how to make it, perhaps someone else had. The Egyptians were great producers, but also great importers. They imported their silver from as far away as Mesopotamia, Crete and Cyphrus. In short, this non-meteoritic iron (if it is a genuine Old Kingdom artifact) could be imported.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. We have no proof of iron deposits in Egypt (primarily found in Aswan) being worked before the Late or Greco-Roman periods, but it could have been. In the Bahariya Oasis, inhabited since the Neolithic age, the Iron ore is easily avaible and still extracted to this day.

So they knew what it was, knew its utility, and they had access to it. In the light of this, how 'silly' is it to hypothesize that the iron plate is a genuine Old Kingdom artifact?

Originally posted by Harte
Until more samples of Old Kingdom iron are found, the plate remains an anomaly that is best explained through contamination. Vyse's was not the first group to enter the G.P.

The Howard-Vyse expedition was not the first to enter the Great Pyramid, but I believe they were the first to blast through it with dynamite, and that's how the iron plate was found. It's kind of silly to stipulate that someone would lodge a gold-plated iron plate deep behind a limestone block – an impossible feat after ithe construction if we're to believe Hill. Is that your theory?

reply to post by Scott Creighton

The Ibis glyph is symbolic of wisdom and, naturally, of the AE wisdom god, Thoth. This is to say that the Ibis bird did not symbolise "spirit" or "light" (as Lehner proposes) but rather "wisdom" (i.e. an 'enlightened one' or 'bright spark'). This bird heralded the Nile inundation and did so for thousands of years. It 'knew' when the flood was coming and its arrival before the inundation alerted the farmers to this. Therefore, in 'Aket Khufu' the Ibis symbolises the Great Nile Inundation of Thoth that was foretold would drown the entire kingdom. IMO. The pyramid determinative in 'Akhet Khufu' symbolises the means of the 're-creation' of the earth (kingdom) after the worst effects of Thoth's Flood had abated. The word 'akhet' with the sun between two mounds symbolises the re-creation of the sun. The word 'akhet' with the land glyph and growing plants symbolises the re-creation of the Nile. 'Akhet', imo, simply means 're-creation' or 'rebirth'.

The Ibis wasn't a symbol in that context it was a phonetic rendition hieroglyph, the symbol came later in the form of the sun between the two mountains of the horizon.


There was no such notion as 'the recreation of the Nile' and a great inundation of Thoth flooding the entire Kingdom....only you appear to have been 'foretold' of such strange fantasies

The Akhet is more than a zone of passage, however: It is literally the "place of becoming an akh," where the deceased's ba and the sun together are transformed into a newly effective (akh) mode of existence (cf., for example, Pyr, 152 ff., cite above). In the antechamber the king "becomes an akh in the Akhet" (Pyr. 350c), just as the sun "becomes akh again" in the cosmic Akhet". 4 This process of transformation is reflected in the generic term often applied to spells such as those of the Pyramid Texts: s3hw, literally, "akhifiers". Although there is some question whether the term referred to the entire corpus, it does seem to reflect the central purpose of these texts, just as the place of becoming an akh, the Akhet/antechamber, is central to the pyramid substructure.

(3) Rising from the Akhet at dawn. The New Kingdom "Book of the Dead" describes the sun rising "from the mouth of the Akhet's door" into the day-sky at the first hour of daylight. The same image is reflected in PT 311, at the end of the antechamber sequences (s), which speaks of opening "the door of the Akhet for the emergence of the day-bark" (Pyr. 496 a). This doorway in each case is both the exit from the Akhet and the entrance to the day-sky. Architecturally it corresponds to the door from the antechamber to the corridor: the first spell of the corridor envisions the king standing at this door (see Pyr. 502 as cited above). Like the sun, the king's ultimate goal is to be in possession of your akh emergent from the Akhet, and emergent in this day in the proper form of a living akh. (Pyr. 455b).

www.pyramidofman.com...

reply to post by punkinworks10

Is there a timeline to indicate that the burial pyramids came before the great pyramid and were not after-the-fact copycats? Records indicating worker compensation and things like that, do they specifically reference being related to the great pyramid or so we assume the great one because they reference the kind we assume it was built for (because his name is scrawled inside). what I'm asking is, how d owe know those records aren't in reference to a different tomb?

Originally posted by NJoyZ
reply to post by punkinworks10

 

Is there a timeline to indicate that the burial pyramids came before the great pyramid and were not after-the-fact copycats? Records indicating worker compensation and things like that, do they specifically reference being related to the great pyramid or so we assume the great one because they reference the kind we assume it was built for (because his name is scrawled inside). what I'm asking is, how d owe know those records aren't in reference to a different tomb?

Yes there is a documentable progression of style and engineering of tombs in Egypt.

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: So the orthodox narrative goes. As far as 'Akhet Khufu' goes, I simply do not buy it. Such religious concepts may have emerged later with regard to later pyramids--but not the first, giant pyramids.

So, what evidence are you using to support this -- that the "Akhet" does NOT mean horizon?

The Ibis glyph is symbolic of wisdom and, naturally, of the AE wisdom god, Thoth. This is to say that the Ibis bird did not symbolise "spirit" or "light" (as Lehner proposes) but rather "wisdom" (i.e. an 'enlightened one' or 'bright spark').

I did a little digging, and it seems that the first representations of Thoth are as a member of the Ogdoad system where he is associated with the moon

This bird heralded the Nile inundation and did so for thousands of years. It 'knew' when the flood was coming and its arrival before the inundation alerted the farmers to this.

Do you have a source for this? It's my understanding that it was the rising of Sirius that they used to mark the beginning of the flood season.

Therefore, in 'Aket Khufu' the Ibis symbolises the Great Nile Inundation of Thoth that was foretold would drown the entire kingdom. IMO.

Can you point to something that talks about a Great Nile Inundation? I'm not finding anything in the sources I know of or in the many titles of Thoth that suggests anything about an inundation or prophecy. The AE's really weren't much into prophecies.

The pyramid determinative in 'Akhet Khufu' symbolises the means of the 're-creation' of the earth (kingdom) after the worst effects of Thoth's Flood had abated. The word 'akhet' with the sun between two mounds symbolises the re-creation of the sun. The word 'akhet' with the land glyph and growing plants symbolises the re-creation of the Nile. 'Akhet', imo, simply means 're-creation' or 'rebirth'.

Are you confusing the word for the season (which has the "land glyph and growing plants" hieroglyph with that of the Aket (sun between two mountains)? They really are different things.

Also unaccounted for by your theory is material known to scholars: the Aker and the various symbols that make up the sign -- they appear in a number of inscriptions and are referenced in many places (and aren't associated with Thoth at all.) If that page is correct (I note that it references some outdated books) then the actual "horizon" symbol did not appear until after the Old Kingdom ended. As supporting evidence that the symbol is not as old as the pyramids, I will mention that I saw in one of the threads you started, a link (perhaps by you... I can't remember) of hieroglyphs indicating the town of "Khufu's Ahket" where it's spelled out with bird and lined circle and t-loaf. -- as it is here on another site (where it's shown as part of an administrator's title).

So you may be confusing two things. They really are as different as a spring (season) and a spring (mechanical thing that goes 'sproing')

Hello Byrd,

Long time no argument.

Rather than repeating everything again, perhaps if you go and read my earlier posts in this thread you will find the answers to your questions. One thing that I haven't touched upon though is your question re the Thoth/Moon association. Thoth was, of course, the 'Keeper of Time', the God of wisdom. It is also said that the connection of Thoth as the Ibis depicting the moon is the crescent-shaped bill of the ibis being similar to a crescent moon.

Regards,

SC

reply to post by Kantzveldt

SC: The Ibis glyph is symbolic of wisdom and, naturally, of the AE wisdom god, Thoth. This is to say that the Ibis bird did not symbolise "spirit" or "light" (as Lehner proposes) but rather "wisdom" (i.e. an 'enlightened one' or 'bright spark'). This bird heralded the Nile inundation and did so for thousands of years. It 'knew' when the flood was coming and its arrival before the inundation alerted the farmers to this. Therefore, in 'Aket Khufu' the Ibis symbolises the Great Nile Inundation of Thoth that was foretold would drown the entire kingdom. IMO. The pyramid determinative in 'Akhet Khufu' symbolises the means of the 're-creation' of the earth (kingdom) after the worst effects of Thoth's Flood had abated. The word 'akhet' with the sun between two mounds symbolises the re-creation of the sun. The word 'akhet' with the land glyph and growing plants symbolises the re-creation of the Nile. 'Akhet', imo, simply means 're-creation' or 'rebirth'.

Kantveldt: The Ibis wasn't a symbol in that context it was a phonetic rendition hieroglyph…

SC: The Ibis glyph in ‘Akhet’ (image 1 below) is what is known as a ‘logogram’ (or ideogram).

Image 1:



In this case, the phonetic complement 'x' (the hatched disc in the above image - Gardiner Aa1) allows us to determine the correct phonetic meaning of the ibis logogram, 'Ax'. Phonetic complements are typically employed for glyphs possessing more than one sound value. The crested ibis, for example, usually possessed the phonetc sound value of 'Ax' but the ibis glyph was also used in a variety of other words and did not always represent the 'Ax' sound, hence why the phonetic complements (phonograms) are so important. Phonetic complements merely confirm one or more consonants. When a logogram is used that is actually part of the AE phonetic alphabet (not all signs are phonetic) then it would be indicated as a logogram with the use of a vertical stroke under the glyph. The crested ibis logogram is not, however, part of the AE phonetic alphabet and so does not require the vertical stroke. Logograms (or ideograms) typically offer a single sign that represents a complete word or even an idea. In the example above it is my contention that the Ibis symbolises the god Thoth and also the idea of ‘harbinger of the flood’. Combine them and the idea of the Ibis in the term ‘Akhet Khufu’ is to convey the idea ’harbinger of the flood of Thoth’.

Kantzveldt: …the symbol came later in the form of the sun between the two mountains of the horizon.

SC: The ‘sun between the two mountains’ ‘Akhet’ ideogram (image 2 below) is completely different in time, style and meaning to the much earlier ‘Akhet Khufu’ glyphs (image 1). Even Lehner no longer believes that ‘Akhet’ with the Ibis bird means ‘horizon’ but something like ‘spirit’ or ‘light’. He is certainly along the right lines with the interpretation meaning ‘light’ but it is not to be understood as radiant light but rather the ‘light of wisdom’, ‘knowing’, ‘enlightened one’, ‘bright spark’ etc, for that is precisely what the Ibis bird represented – the Wisdom of Thoth. It ‘knew’ when the Nile was about to flood, hence why the ancient Egyptians regarded this as a sacred bird that ‘heralded the Nile inundation’ i.e. the Akhet or rebirth of the Nile (hence the flood season of ‘Akhet’ or rebirth of the Nile).

Image 2:



The image above demonstrates the sun rising from the horizon i.e. the ‘REBIRTH’ of the sun just as the variant form of ‘Akhet’ means the ‘flood season’ i.e. the rebirth of the Nile. ‘Akhet’ simply means ‘rebirth’ or ‘re-creation’ and NOT ‘horizon’ - imo.

Kandztveldt: There was no such notion as 'the recreation of the Nile' …

SC: I beg to differ. What do you think the season of 'Akhet' was?

Kandtveldt:… and a great inundation of Thoth flooding the entire Kingdom....only you appear to have been 'foretold' of such strange fantasies

SC: Again, I beg to differ:

“Then Thoth, being the tongue of the Great God declares that, acting for the Lord Tem, he is going to make a Flood. He says: ‘I am going to blot out everything that I have made. This Earth shall enter into (i.e. be absorbed in) the watery abyss of Nu (or Nunu) by means of a raging flood, and will become even as it was in primeval time. I myself shall remain together with Osiris, but I shall transform myself into a small serpent, which can be neither comprehended nor seen; one day the Nile will rise and cover all Egypt with water, and drown the whole country; then, as in the beginning, there will be nothing to be seen except water.’ - Budge W. E. A., 'From Fetish to God in Ancient Egypt', (Oxford University Press, 1934), p.198.

SC

Originally posted by Scott CreightonOne thing that I haven't touched upon though is your question re the Thoth/Moon association. Thoth was, of course, the 'Keeper of Time', the God of wisdom. It is also said that the connection of Thoth as the Ibis depicting the moon is the crescent-shaped bill of the ibis being similar to a crescent moon.

Agreed... but those were later interpretations of him, after he had essentially gained more power and respect. Initially he's the moon god, though and there is no association of him with a flood.

In checking on the "migration of ibises" idea, I don't find any support for it. They migrate in February and the rising of the Nile is in August. Unlike the rising of Sirius, the migration event varies depending on the weather... so it would be a rather loose association with these birds. Priests were assigned to look for the rising of Sirius, but no priests seem to have been assigned to announce the arrival of the birds.

At least, none that I find. Do you have links to a source?

reply to post by Scott Creighton



Yes, like i said then it's not a symbol of the Akhet but a phonetic rendering in hieroglyphs that preceded the adoption of a symbol. Ax does get translated as light, some see the overall sense as 'Mountain (of) light', the mountain of light being that seen on the horizon shortly before dawn, or as represented by a pyramid.


What transpired within the Akhet chamber was a preliminary aspect to the rebirth of the Sun, and not surprisingly the Akhet season coincided with the rebirth of the solar year, with the Nile inundation around the same time...again no surprises there.


That Wallis Budge translation of the Book of the Dead is not helpful... use a modern translation

reply to post by Scott Creighton


BTW... good to argue with you again, Scott.

I agree and disagree with some of your points.

SC: The crested ibis logogram is not, however, part of the AE phonetic alphabet and so does not require the vertical stroke.

I'm not sure where you're getting your sign list from, but it may be outdated. The ibis is G25 (ancientegyptonline.co.uk...) -- N15 is the logogram for the underworld (ancientegyptonline.co.uk...)

Logograms (or ideograms) typically offer a single sign that represents a complete word or even an idea. In the example above it is my contention that the Ibis symbolises the god Thoth and also the idea of ‘harbinger of the flood’. Combine them and the idea of the Ibis in the term ‘Akhet Khufu’ is to convey the idea ’harbinger of the flood of Thoth’.

There's a grammatical problem with this -- the logogram (and determinative) always appears AFTER the word it refers to... not before. Therefore the ibis, if a logogram, would refer to whatever the bird faced... not to what follows it. Remember that some of the textual rules changed over the 3,000 years of Egyptian history.

Even Lehner no longer believes that ‘Akhet’ with the Ibis bird means ‘horizon’ but something like ‘spirit’ or ‘light’.

Yes, I've read this elsewhere. I believe there are nuances that are not explored in this, that are text and context dependent.

It ‘knew’ when the Nile was about to flood, hence why the ancient Egyptians regarded this as a sacred bird that ‘heralded the Nile inundation’ i.e. the Akhet or rebirth of the Nile (hence the flood season of ‘Akhet’ or rebirth of the Nile).

As a hobbyist birder, I'm gonna disagree completely. Migratory birds don't have a very regular schedule (unlike the star, Sirius.) As any birder can tell you, the date of migration varies wildly -- by weeks in some cases. Although they return to nesting colonies (which makes finding them easier in breeding season) the arrival and breeding involves a range of dates (March through August.)

In addition, they begin breeding AFTER the rains, not before them. So the rains and early flood show up and then the birds show up and begin breeding. (see eol.org...) The Nile inundation is reliably tied to the appearance of Sirius in many texts, but nothing is said about birds.

“Then Thoth, being the tongue of the Great God declares that, acting for the Lord Tem, he is going to make a Flood. He says: ‘I am going to blot out everything that I have made. This Earth shall enter into (i.e. be absorbed in) the watery abyss of Nu (or Nunu) by means of a raging flood, and will become even as it was in primeval time. I myself shall remain together with Osiris, but I shall transform myself into a small serpent, which can be neither comprehended nor seen; one day the Nile will rise and cover all Egypt with water, and drown the whole country; then, as in the beginning, there will be nothing to be seen except water.’

This is a problematic text for you, because the chapter that Budge cites this from (the Chapter of Not Dying A Second Time -- Budge says this appears in the Papyrus of Ani) actually says something very different: www.touregypt.net... -- as multiple sources confirm. In addition, the Budge book that you cite says (just two pages before that quote you've used) that the flood is associated with Osiris -- not Thoth. Curiously, Budge himself disagrees with his own translation, giving something quite different for the Papyrus of Ani: www.africa.upenn.edu...

I'm not sure where Budge derived the quote from, but he later makes no reference to it -- and if you look at the sourcebook, Budge has made some pretty horrendous assumptions (Apep as the Devil, for one) that really didn't hold up.

reply to post by Heliocentric

I would have quoted you, but the editor says I can't because there's too many characters. I've run into this problem before, I'm supposed to get 5,000 characters but the editor decides your post is already 5,000 characters - I don't think it was.
Anyway, I use the term "alternative" in the normal way, not the fringey way, so the "old wood" theory is an alternative to that of the team, which was that the G.P. is 350 (or whatever) years older than thought.
I agree with you that these are all theories - in the general sense of the term. However, in the scientific sense, Egyptology has theories, the others - including Robert Schoch (to whom I assume you refer when mentioning Lehner and the sphinx) do not have theories, they have speculations, becfause they are unevidenced.
Regarding the iron plate, it's possible that the black powder forced the plate into the position in which it was found. I agree that it could have been imported, though. If it was, then that would have no bearing at all on the topic, would it? I mean, if the Egyptians actually didn't smelt the iron, then it says nothing about whether the G.P. was Khufu's tomb, right?
Figured out another way to quote you:

It depends on the evidence and the context in which the evidence was revealed, but I basically agree with you. That said, it is not the rest of the data it does not fit with, but a theory constructed around the data.

No, as you yourself state, the iron does not fit what is known about the Old Kingdom. What is known - not what is theorized.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. We have no proof of iron deposits in Egypt (primarily found in Aswan) being worked before the Late or Greco-Roman periods, but it could have been. In the Bahariya Oasis, inhabited since the Neolithic age, the Iron ore is easily avaible and still extracted to this day.
So they knew what it was, knew its utility, and they had access to it. In the light of this, how 'silly' is it to hypothesize that the iron plate is a genuine Old Kingdom artifact?

It's silly to hypothesize that it is an Old Kingdom Egyptian artifact, then. Is that more to your liking? That allows for the possibility of importation.
Note:

A more recent analysis of the plate, however, has cast doubt on the findings and conclusions of the study by El Gayar and Jones. In their article "Gizeh Iron Revisited" (Journal of the Historical Metallurgy Society, Vol. 27 No. 2, 1993, pp. 57-59), Paul Craddock and Janet Lang of the British Museum reported that they were at first unable to obtain the section cut by El Gayar and Jones, consequently the initial study was confined to the larger portion of the plate. A new section was cut adjacent to the original section, and it was examined under a scanning electron microscope both at the British Museum and independently at the Ancient Monuments Laboratory, English Heritage (the work was carried out there by Dr. G. McDonnell). It was also analyzed by x-ray fluorescence. Surprisingly, no gold was detected in the metal or in the corrosion. Craddock and Lang further wrote:
Since the last report the original section has been returned to the Museum and we have been able to carry out a thorough investigation. Once again we must report that despite extensive searches no trace of gold could be detected, and it is our firm opinion that the original report of gold is incorrect. [p. 57]

The authors agreed with El Gayar and Jones regarding the structure of the iron plate, but they did not agree on the interpretation.
The unusual features are the absence of slag stringers and the very large number of other inclusions. These are unusual in that they contain large quantities of calcium (up to 60%), phosphorus (up to 15%), and some sodium, silicon and potassium. A number of chlorine-rich areas were also found. However, we do not agree with the view of El Gayar and Jones, that these inclusions indicate ancient primitive manufacture -- careless maybe, but not primitive. [p. 57-58]
They believe that the structure is unfamiliar because the iron plate is representative of the largely unstudied period of iron manufacture that falls between "traditional" solid state bloomery iron and "modern" iron and steel of the late 19th century. The structure of the plate is consistent with iron-making in the post-medieval Islamic era.

Continued

Harte

Continued from above:

Craddock and Lang conclude:


Gold was neither observed nor detected anywhere on the plate. The composition and structure of the iron rules out any form of natural iron. Similarly iron smelted in the solid state is precluded as some form of molten slag would be essential, which could only be eradicated by melting the iron. A more mundane but tenable explanation of the observed features is that the iron ore was smelted to cast iron in a blast furnace, using charcoal as the fuel, resulting in a chemically much purer iron than smelted with coal or coke. This iron was then decarburized by the finery process to form solid wrought iron. The inclusions are likely to have originated either as deliberate additions during the fining, as specified in some European accounts, or inadvertently during the subsequent forging. The blast furnace process does not seem to have reached the Middle East until the post-medieval period, and this strongly suggests that the plate of iron from the Great Pyramid is of no great antiquity. [p. 58]

It would seem, then, that the iron plate found by J.R. Hill in 1837 is not contemporary with the construction of the pyramid, but rather dates to the post-medieval (Islamic) period sometime between the 16th and 18th centuries. It would be a matter for speculation just how such a plate might have found its way down a joint between the pyramid stones, but after the Arab conquest there was much activity at the Giza pyramids. Hill's report that the iron "was taken out by me from an inner joint, after having removed by blasting the two outer tiers of the stones" and "that no joint or opening of any sort was connected with the above-mentioned joint" was made ex post facto, and one may well wonder how closely he examined the joints before blasting considering he had no idea that he might find something there.

That is from Larry Orcutt's excellent site Catchpenny Mysteries of Ancient Egypt

As you can see, the iron plate is a questionable find, and much of the stuff you read about it is quite out of date now.

Harte