Khufu Cartouche in Great Pyramid 20,000 Years Old?

reply to post by Scott Creighton

Khufu Cartouche in Great Pyramid 20,000 Years Old?

Regardless, Egypt would never accept such a finding even if it was their own people who offered it. The pyramids, Sphinx and all those ruins and history are basically what keeps it afloat. To even suggest that those prizes dated before secured ancient Egyptian history would be, in their worst nightmares, giving it all away.

In the west, there isn't much chance because mainstream archaeology isn't about to accept anything like that. They exist in the same rough comfort zone where anything like this would demand a complete rewrite of human history and they ain't about to do that.

Finally, historic sites like those in Egypt and elsewhere are already under the oversight of the UN and it would take more than just convincing evidence to can-open that body into accepting another reality.

reply to post by Masterjaden

REALLY???? You are???? no wonder archeology is in the state it's in then. All of those contaminants that you mentioned would push the date forward in C14 dating, not backward. You would have to contaminate the sample with something that is older for an older date to be invalid. Jaden

quite right. nice catch.

adding in more recent material would simply make the date younger (more c14 atoms present). older things (which contain less c14) would need to contaminate the samples to make them appear older. it is highly unlikely that things older than 20,000 years were brought from a separate location to the pyramids so that contamination could falsify the dating.

reply to post by Scott Creighton


I have always been a fan of your threads and this is my first time to reply. I was thinking about doing a thread on this issue, but I wanted to see if you would mind commenting on it first, Scott Creighton.
I haven't read the thread all the way through yet, so forgive me if this has already been discussed and point me in the proper direction for the answer.

Have you ever researched the Magdalenian culture?
They supposedly date to 17,000 to 12,000 years ago and are obviously highly skilled at stonework, even being capable of manufacturing representations of objects through the application of abstract thought.
The Magdalenians were supposedly the last remaining Cro-Magnon species of European Early Modern Humans.
If one is to chart the timeline of the Magdalenians and their development of skilled stone work, it compares similarly, but seems slightly more advanced than both the Clovis and Solutrean cultures.
The Solutrean hypothesis states that the Americas were settled by the Solutreans, but they are mistakenly labeled the Clovis.
This, in effect, denies any connection between the two cultures.
Is this connection denied by modern academia perhaps accidentally on purpose, no different than the ochre paint going undated for so long?

According to the Solutrean hypothesis, people associated with the Solutrean culture migrated from Ice Age Europe to North America, bringing their methods of making stone tools with them and providing the basis for the later Clovis technology that spread throughout North America. The hypothesis rests upon proposed similarities between European Solutrean and Early American Clovis lithic technology. The presence of mtDNA Haplogroup X2A in Native American populations has also been adduced in support of the hypothesis.

Do you think that it is possible that these people were the ancestors of the culture of megalith builders left to rebuild after surviving the last great cataclysm?

The ancestors of the same culture that brought us all of the astronomically aligned earthen temple mounds, megaliths and city complex systems made of stone?
And this most certainly includes the Sphinx, the GP and the entirety of the Giza plateau Pyramid/Sphinx precession calender complex?

The Cro-Magnons had a larger cranial capacity than modern Homo Sapiens Sapiens and were built more robust, similar to the Neanderthals. It has been suggested that they were much stronger than modern humans.
They were semi-nomadic big game hunting omnivores that tracked and hunted Mammoth for food and clothing. They also had knowledge of edible plants that were a part of their diet.
They had knowledge of fire.
Animal bones are found charred in the many Solutrean caches strewn across Europe, as well as the similar Clovis caches found across North America.
They were highly skilled at bone work, crafting needles from bone used to sew animal hides together for clothing, as were the Clovis.

They lived off of a high protein diet of cooked animal meat and vegetables.
This diet would provide the body convertible fuel necessary to build the massive megaliths and carved stone temple complexes and calenders.
It would also supply the necessary nutrition for our evolved modern brain with its larger frontal lobe responsible for abstract thought and the executive functions of the pre-frontal cortex.
The ability to think long term would also allow for the development of a calender. This is the result of an evolved pre-frontal cortex.
Evidence of etched bone calenders tracking moon cycles manufactured by the Clovis, Solutrean and Magdalenian cultures have all been found.

Hypothetically, this would also allow for the development of mathematics, and perhaps language both spoken and written.
Although no evidence exists to validate language or mathematics, one cannot deny that a technology was developed and then passed unto successive generations. This would take some means of communication.
That cannot be denied.
But the greatest advantage that the ability to precisely manipulate objects using abstract thought would give these cultures is the ability to coordinate and organize group cooperation focusing on a singular goal.

That would tie-in the pyramids of the Americas, along with the mound building culture credited to the Mississippian Native American culture that supposedly built both earth and stone effigies and earthen mounds in precise astronomical alignments all along the East coast of North America.
I don't believe for one hot minute that the Incans encountered by the Spanish or the Etowah, Cherokee, Muskogee, etc... encountered by the English built these mound temples/pyramid/megalith complexes.
The natives themselves don't take credit for building these things. They credit it to the Gods, which are usually imagined in oral tradition as fair skinned with red to blonde hair and green eyes.

Like these red haired mummies of China.
A country that just happens to have a literal plethora of untouched earthen pyramids.
And they too speak of blue eyed sky Gods.

A massive drop off in manufacturing ability is seen in the succession of the Magdalenians to the Azilian Culture that lived alongside the Federmesser Culture and the Ahrensburg culture.
A very noticeable drop in skilled craftsmanship, in the manipulation of stone specifically, happens around this time.
Interestingly, the ability to engage in abstract thought processes used to create symbolic representations through a manipulated medium, also known as art, was mysteriously lost for some 10,000 years until the Egyptians and Sumerians popped up seemingly overnight.
This is supposedly due to poor diet created by the melting ice sheets that resulted in a dwindling food supply.
That makes no sense whatsoever to me because knowledge is not affected by nutrition.
Someone's ability to apply that knowledge fully is most certainly affected by nutrition, but what we see is an across the board loss of technological innovation.
These bursts of change are called stair step evolution or punctuated equilibrium as opposed to gradualism.
While I do think that this is a valid perception, punctuated equilibrium, if someone is to embrace this idea then the entire gross of our commonly accepted timeline charting the cultural and physical evolution of Homo Sapiens Sapiens can be thrown out like strike three.
And it also shows that highly evolved knowledge can be passed down and mastered in 10,000 hours, but then lost due to cataclysm and gone forever.
It sure does seem like it would be easy to forget something culturally, and then eventually through successive generations that which was forgotten is believed to have never existed.

There seems to be a common theme in all this.

Bilk22

JBA2848
So it all has to do with they want at least five figure donations in Euros? They say we have samples we took a long time ago. We just need money lots of money.

www.indiegogo.com...

I think all that proves is these guys were there with the full knowledge and permission from Egyptian authorities. It doesn't seem likely they would gain access with equipment depicted in that article. So someone isn't telling the truth here.

This is a good point. Something I'd like to throw out there:

Here's an episode of Cities Of The Underworld, in which host Josh Bernstein & Zahi Hawass ascend into the area above the King's Chamber to view the cartouche under discussion here (video wouldn't embed for some reason).

At 12:30 into the video, they begin the climb; at 18:30 the cartouche is featured. Bernstein states twice that the area has been "closed off" to tourists for years due to the increasing number of newer graffiti appearing when the area was available. Since Hawass is involved, the climb is made with special permission, according to Bernstein.

One question I'd like to ask: does anyone here have firsthand knowledge of whether or not "closed off" means something like a barred gate or other physical barrier being in place, or does it simply mean closed off in an administrative sense, with unauthorized access still possible?

Further, note the involved climb to the top of the "stress relief" chamber, as opposed to the quick scene of the 2 "adventurers" using a portable extension ladder in the video linked to in this post.

Here's the cartouche as pictured in the OP article:




Here's a screen capture showing the same cartouche as seen by Bernstein & Hawass:




Finally, a screen capture from the video about the taking of a paint sample:



The 3rd image doesn't look to me as though it's showing the same location.

Disclaimer: I know the Cities Of The Underworld video espouses Egyptian Archeology's "party line" about the origin of the structure; it's not my intention to support that view, as I don't fully agree with it.
The video serves to illustrate the mechanics of actually getting to the area in question, as well as to establish the info that the area has been "closed off", whatever its ultimate meaning may be.
The "closed off" issue aside, can we be sure these guys actually took a sample from that cartouche as they are claiming?

This discussion makes me wonder if people will refuse to believe that us stupid americans could make mt. Rushmore in 2000yrs.

Some people just won't believe that there was any kind of civilization before about 7,000 years ago, even though numerous things point to there being very old civilizations: Plato's time-frame of Atlantis matches up with carbon dating of a flood in North America around 10,000 BC - and possibly a meteor or comet impact into the North American glacial ice. A pyramid structure underwater off the coast of Japan that could only have been built when sea levels were a lot lower - such as during the Ice Age. The list goes on...

Chickensalad
This discussion makes me wonder if people will refuse to believe that us stupid americans could make mt. Rushmore in 2000yrs.

Um, it's "we".

And Mt. Rushmore is actually somewhat decrepit. It has huge cracks in it and stuff falls off all the time.

reply to post by Scott Creighton


" However, a new insight into some other evidence I had previously uncovered demonstrates that the Sphinx actually bisects the GPT a full half-cycle earlier (i.e. approx 13,000 years) at c.16,940 BCE (almost 19,000 years ago). "

Perhaps those dates correspond with the Theory that at that time , the Climate in the present Sahara Region of North Africa was somewhat Temporate , with abundant rainfall and lush vegatation , which has led some Researchers to propose that the present day Sphinx does show signs of Water Erosion upon it's surface , and which would also support their claim of a much later date for it's construction that Main Stream Science seems to dismiss for whatever reasons .....

tsingtao

AliceBleachWhite

Rosinitiate

I'm sorry but it discredits them? So they obtained 20,000 year pigment from where exactly?

Then the uproar over the vandalism is phooey? Or they damaged the pyramids in a grand hoax? Doesn't seem rational.

1. There is no chain of custody.

2. They claimed to have performed an illegal unsanctioned harmful act which begs question about what other sorts of deceptive and underhanded tactics they may have employed.

3. They CLAIM to have run tests, but, in actuality have they?

4. Even if real tests were run, there are plenty samples from archaeological sites all over the planet that could be taken; ash from a fire pit for example, that could be sent to any reputable lab that would then 'verify' the age of the sample, which could have come from anywhere.
These STUDENTS could then wave such results around, entirely out of context with the actual sample represented, to further whatever agenda they have.

5. Again, no legitimate chain of custody and no proof against contamination.

wow, so you say they/students, hoax the whole thing?

as to #1 and 5, this is not a criminal investigation.

no court of law, is involved.

you only need very little to date the pigment.

one could just scratch it and take it from under the fingernails.

Your response to that post made me chuckle! When I read "chain of custody" I thought of a urine sample leaving Egypt, heading off to be checked for DRUGS, not ancient Egyptian paint scrapings, lol. I find it especially funny when individuals use "big words/terms" in order to try and give their point more heft, more intelligence and it backfires into a huge fail.
Also, the fact that she claims "STUDENTS" could not possibly be skilled/qualified enough to legitimately do the research and run the tests speaks volumes (of disinformation) to me. Grad, PhD, hell even HIGH SCHOOL students have conducted research and run tests, which in turn, have changed the world. At least those "STUDENTS" have better things to do than to log onto ATS and poo all over someones parade!

Thanks for the laugh! And, to the OP, great topic! I hope it stays on task and isn't derailed by the "Alice" types on this site!

reply to post by Scott Creighton


You are closer to truth. Same pyramid has been used several times for burial.

However the "historians" will not agree with you, as this version is too far from official story.

SasquatchHunter
reply to post by Taggart

 

I think if you browse the art on the internet even art being created by students you will see truckloads being churned out daily that would have made Leonardos jaw drop.
The point being is that im using basic knowledge of one subject to dispel myths that some ancient civilation had advanced knowledge superior to what knowledge they actually had.

First you pass off Egyptian art as 'stickmen', now you are saying student internet art would make Da vinci Jaw drop.

WOW.

I think you need to google Da vinci or better yet WIKI

en.wikipedia.org...

Quote '' Leonardo is also renowned in the fields of civil engineering, chemistry, geology, geometry, hydrodynamics, mathematics, mechanical engineering, optics, physics, pyrotechnics, and zoology.''

I don't think the lack of photoshop hurt Da vinci.

Disclaimer/PSA:
To avoid getting lured into baited OFF-Topic personality remarks, as well as discussions on how observations and remarks makes anyone FEEL, since feelings are not the topic of discussion here, I will not be addressing anyone directly, especially those more interested in making personality comments and sniping remarks that contribute absolutely nothing toward the advancement of discussing the actual topic.
***************

For those interested; in using the term "chain of custody", the term was facilitated not for "big words" effect, but, actually the opposite in consideration that it's mundane and familiar terminology that the common uneducated layman can understand.

To be more precise, I should have, perhaps, employed the appropriate label of
"Provenance"

Provenance, from the French provenir, "to come from", refers to the chronology of the ownership, custody or location of a historical object. The term was originally mostly used in relation to works of art, but is now used in similar senses in a wide range of fields, including archaeology, paleontology, archives, manuscripts, printed books, and science and computing. The primary purpose of tracing the provenance of an object or entity is normally to provide contextual and circumstantial evidence for its original production or discovery, by establishing, as far as practicable, its later history, especially the sequences of its formal ownership, custody, and places of storage. The practice has a particular value in helping authenticate objects.

The importance of documentation from context, collection, type of packaging for collected samples, travel packaging, shipping, and the entire history of an artifact from situ to finality can not be stressed enough.

In a case such as these pigment samples;
1. Record of the sample as found in situ is recorded.
2. Collection in a contaminant-free, sterile, non-reactive, labelled container is recorded.
3. Containers are sealed against outside contamination while oversight documents the appropriate handling and containment if oversight isn't the acting facility in collection, and even then, whoever is doing the collecting regardless their accreditation, has oversight on them.
... observance and oversight of observance of these well established protocols in documenting all artifact/sample handling continues throughout the lifetime of the artifacts/samples.

This preserves context and mitigates concerns and questions about item contamination, forgeries, fakes, mis-represented or entirely fabricated claims, etc.

Such is extremely important in the handling of any samples/artifacts especially so where there may be controversy, or perceived agenda.

Further, STUDENTS was emphasized for not only questionable facility for understanding some extremely elementary concepts regarding the mandatory preservation of context, but also for the complete lack of any of the also mandatory oversight that sets the definition between Legitimacy, and Vandalism/Looting/Grave Robbery.

Additionally, these students will never see a legitimate day working in any concentration related to Archaeology if ever they had hopes for doing so now that they've thoroughly and completely destroyed their chances of ever being trusted around any historically sensitive sites and artifacts.
Their names associated with any future legitimate work would endanger the credibility and legitimacy of any research by association.
No one with any knowledge of this will ever hire these students due the automatic poison of their association, and it will be a miracle if their statuses as students at whichever University isn't revoked.

They had no approval, no license, no oversight, no proper documentation; nothing to legitimize anything.
No matter what they claim to have processed for dating, they may as well have sent dog droppings.

Anyone here, is of course more than welcome to pretend they think they know how things are done in a field already rich with debate, discussion, and even outright spirited passionate argument among fellow scientists. Fact of the matter, however, as it applies to Archaeology, that whole chain of custody thing, Provenance, well, this documentation and oversight of artifacts, especially sensitive and rarified samples can be degrees, levels and orders of magnitude more attentive to detail than a crime scene forensic investigation.
That attentiveness can vary from site to site, but, for any legitimacy there needs be oversight by experienced qualified accredited representatives in the field, and finds from even a single site, how they're handled, or mishandled can make or break careers.

I plan on addressing other issues brought up earlier in other replies at later posting.

CryHavoc
Some people just won't believe that there was any kind of civilization before about 7,000 years ago, even though numerous things point to there being very old civilizations: Plato's time-frame of Atlantis matches up with carbon dating of a flood in North America around 10,000 BC - and possibly a meteor or comet impact into the North American glacial ice. A pyramid structure underwater off the coast of Japan that could only have been built when sea levels were a lot lower - such as during the Ice Age. The list goes on...

the video series about the flood of noah being the black sea flood, has several points in it that pertain to this. for example, one of the geologists from oxford said the mediterranean has been a valley more than once, completely dried up with the nile flowing down into it like a waterfall. bet that was spectacular.

Curious69
What happened to Fukushima? it was flooded not damaged by the earthquake. it was not washed into the sea but stands perfectly as it was build, Why even use Fukushima as an example?

I was under the impression that one of the challenges now is followup damage from aftershocks and just the natural quakes in the region messing with the already damaged building.

Regardless if I'm right I'm right and if I'm wrong I'm wrong. These days we have engineering technology beyond what they had for the pyramids, we have rollers and springs for buildings in earthquake prone areas that can absorb a lot of the shock. I'm sure the Ancient Egyptians would have loved to have that technology but they didn't because for everyday use it's far superior to what they could construct. However their method of interlocking stones worked and it's not something that's easy to replicate because it goes completely against the idea of mass production and requires very precise stonework. Our tools now are barely up to that task, what it says to me is there's a method to stonework out there that they figured out which we just don't know about today.

reply to post by Aazadan


The rollers and springs corrode, and metals are subject to creep. The building will have to be 'maintained' forever.

You forget that pyramids have stood for so long without any care.

Pyramids are great feat of engineering, even from modern science perspective.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


yeah, the one problem with your post is, where would they get 20k yo paint?

i could see if the paint was blood, it could be contaminated, but what was used was most likely, mineral in base.

and the contaminates can be ignored.

unless it was made with shellfish.
wrong color, i think.


sorry, here is a link,
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by tsingtao


Dude, the test hasn't been done yet.

Ancient Egyptians didn't use the same style of Glyph for 16,000 years either.
Advancement in culture is expressed in arts and literature, these things evolve over time.
The evolution of Ancient Egyptian art and literature is very well documented too.
Look into the evolution of the English language or any other for that matter and you will see
this is true in all cultures, it is the order of progress.

I believe in an advanced civilization during the last ice age, but this cartouche won't
be anything that amounts to evidence.

reply to post by tsingtao


As stated before:

AliceBleachWhite

4. Even if real tests were run, there are plenty samples from archaeological sites all over the planet that could be taken; ash from a fire pit for example, that could be sent to any reputable lab that would then 'verify' the age of the sample, which could have come from anywhere.
These STUDENTS could then wave such results around, entirely out of context with the actual sample represented, to further whatever agenda they have.

5. Again, no legitimate chain of custody and no proof against contamination.

Now, if necessary, please refer back to the post I've authored just previous this in review of the importance of preserving context.

Due complete absence of fidelity and adherence to the necessity of established Provenance in responsibly preserving the context of the sample, the sample submitted has zero voucher of authenticity and could very well be a sample from something already on record with any desired date swapped and submitted out of context, or purposed as a contaminant to force whatever pre-determined result they desired to justify their claims.

20,000 Years ago, we're in the Mesolithic, or Middle Stone Age; coming right after the Paleolithic, and before the Neolithic, still a decent step away from the Early Bronze Age.

Samples from the Franchthi cave site, for instance, a site that records occupation between 22,000 years ago up to about 5000 years ago, could very well have yielded material on catalog in storage, all already nicely dated and possibly even available for Academic loan which these students may very well have obtained access to.

That, of course, is speculation, but, valid speculation in consideration of the broken Provenance such the sample tested could have come from anywhere, and/or been contaminated with anything.
Such is the importance of Provenance in mitigating such fraud.

Hoaxes, and fraudulent artifacts have been submitted in the past before we standardized procedures and checksums to prevent, or at least mitigate the same from occurring and again, thus, the importance of contextual fidelity.

Science in all fields is rigorously crash tested in the peer review process. Even after publication, any interested Scientist in a relevant field can call bovine poop should they have sufficient problem with anything from procedure, sampling methodology, means facilitated in harvesting data, or any aspect that could, can, and will bring something into contention.

There's, for instance, still a big row over the Egyptian Mummies found with American Drugs in their systems. I'm certain there's even a thread about it here on ATS since the controversy renewed the fringe argument concerning pre-columbian transoceanic trade.

Thus, scientific method and process tends to be fairly strict in observance of established protocols not only out of interest in reliable accurate data, but, also to preserve one's own career against an assault of other scientists picking your work apart.

Conspiracy Theories that run counter to paradigm?
They're nothing comparable to the inquisition presented by fellow experienced accredited researchers that know and 'speak the same specialized niche language' you do.

In simple terms, imagine two competing car mechanic places cross streets from one another. Either of them can car talk their customers into nonsense repairs, or perform substandard over charged repairs, but, as competitors, they keep each other honest, otherwise the one that slips loses all their business to the other.

Scientists in every concentration love to eat other Scientists for breakfast, lunch, dinner, or even just a snack if it frees up funding and gets their own projects notice for funding.
It's not as bloody as it sounds, but, at the same time, it is.
If there was a 20,000 year old pre-dynastic advanced civilization that could be proven, whoever could saddle that pony and ride it would have name-brand recognition the likes of Einstein, and no lack of funding.
The field has had generations and generations of eager minds chomping to make such discoveries and become part of History themselves in doing so.

reply to post by Scott Creighton


Good morning Scott.... just thought I would throw in my two cents....

Should we not first be attempting to establish the authenticity of the Cartouche??

As far as I am aware this particular Cartouche is the only, yes, THE ONLY piece of evidence that links Kufu to the great pyramid... which is highly unusual itself.. given the ancient Egyption's penchant for self promotion...

In A.D. 1837, when Sir Howard Vyse announced his discovery of these hieroglyphs in the Relief Chambers of the Great Pyramid, he himself was looking for a way to immortalise himself.... he had, in fact, been in this chamber himself for the first time the previous day, and had made no comment on the cartouche that evening.... it was following the second day in that particular chamber that he made his "discovery".....

I also remember reading that the glyphs used to portray Kufu actually contained basic errors that at the time were in-line with the understanding of hieroglyphs.. but which we now know to be incorrect... which points towards Vyse fabricating this mark himself to support his theories and to attempt to attain some elevated professional standing...

I suppose I am very interested in the results of their tests also thinking about it..... the tests could prove that the mark was created by Vyse just as easily as it could be proven to be 20K plus years old....

Any comments Scott?

Regards.

PerfectAnomoly.

Hi PerfectAnomaly,

PerfectAnomoly
reply to post by Scott Creighton

 

Good morning Scott.... just thought I would throw in my two cents....

Should we not first be attempting to establish the authenticity of the Cartouche??

As far as I am aware this particular Cartouche is the only, yes, THE ONLY piece of evidence that links Kufu to the great pyramid... which is highly unusual itself.. given the ancient Egyption's penchant for self promotion...

In A.D. 1837, when Sir Howard Vyse announced his discovery of these hieroglyphs in the Relief Chambers of the Great Pyramid, he himself was looking for a way to immortalise himself.... he had, in fact, been in this chamber himself for the first time the previous day, and had made no comment on the cartouche that evening.... it was following the second day in that particular chamber that he made his "discovery".....

I also remember reading that the glyphs used to portray Kufu actually contained basic errors that at the time were in-line with the understanding of hieroglyphs.. but which we now know to be incorrect... which points towards Vyse fabricating this mark himself to support his theories and to attempt to attain some elevated professional standing...

I suppose I am very interested in the results of their tests also thinking about it..... the tests could prove that the mark was created by Vyse just as easily as it could be proven to be 20K plus years old....

Any comments Scott?

Regards.

PerfectAnomoly.

Hi PerfectAnomaly,

I have previously started a thread on the whole Howard-Vyse fraud allegation and presented within that thread some new, recently discovered evidence, that casts the character of Howard-Vyse in a very poor light indeed. I think, at best, he can be described as a very 'unreliable witness'. You can read my own thoughts on the matter here:

Was Howard-Vyse a Fraudster?

Regards,

Scott