Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 1 votes

why no hieroglyphs inside the great pyramid


  • Please log in to reply
351 replies to this topic

#1    zoombie

zoombie

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 112 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2009

Posted 08 June 2010 - 02:13 PM

Just wanted to know...
maybe because at the time, it wasn't fashionable to do so?? :)

Edited by zoombie, 08 June 2010 - 02:18 PM.


#2    :PsYKoTiC:BeHAvIoR:

:PsYKoTiC:BeHAvIoR:

    Deadliest of the Species

  • Member
  • 3,798 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Brunswick

Posted 08 June 2010 - 02:41 PM

 zoombie, on 08 June 2010 - 02:13 PM, said:

Just wanted to know...
maybe because at the time, it wasn't fashionable to do so?? :)

While there's no real explanation, in my opinion, the Great Pyramid was used to acquire knowledge from their Gods. I know many historians and archeologists leans on the Great Pyramid being a tomb fit for a Pharaoh, but many facts are telling us otherwise.

For one, no mummies or human remains have been found in the Great Pyramid and it is not likely that they were removed by Tomb robbers. The Great Pyramid is the only pyramid built with an ascending system of passages. All the other pyramids have only a descending system with the pharaoh buried below. Also it is the only pyramid with a Grand Gallery.

What would be its purpose in a tomb? As you mentioned, there are no hieroglyphics, paintings or inscriptions found inside. Almost all the other pyramids in Egypt are covered. Pharaohs discovered were plastered with all of the above as part of their accomplishments and memory of their passing to the afterlife.

My guess is the Great Pyramid was left without any inspcriptions of any kind so the knowledge recieved from the divine wouldn't be tainted or influenced in any way inside its walls.

But that's just my observations.

Edited by :PsYKoTiC:BeHAvIoR:, 08 June 2010 - 02:42 PM.

Posted Image
"I'd long heard rumors of an alien species that hunted men for sport. I'd always thought they were nothing but campfire tales."


#3    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,180 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 08 June 2010 - 02:52 PM

Who Built the Great Pyramid?

The Great Pyramid is largely anonymous, but controversial hieroglyphs hidden above the King's Chamber say who built the pyramid. We look at efforts to discredit the glyphs.



by Jason Colavito

For millennia, the Great Pyramid has stood in mute testimony to the architectural genius of its builders. Within its walls no hieroglyph proclaims the name of the architect and no cartouche celebrates the life of the pharoah for whom it was built. When the caliph Mamum forced his way in over a thousand years ago, he found no record of who had built the massive structure. Not in the Subterranean Chamber, nor the so-called Queen's Chamber or even in the much-vaunted King's Chamber. Not until 1837 did any marking or identifier turn up within the pyramid's walls, and only then deep inside the secret relieving chambers which keep the pyramid's bulk from crushing the flat roof of the King's Chamber. Many alternative researchers believe that these marks were faked to bolster the traditional identification of Khufu with the Great Pyramid. The first relieving chamber came to light in the 18th century, as Martin Stower says in Forging the Pharoah's Name:

"The four remaining compartments were discovered by Colonel Howard Vyse, and his assistants, in 1837; ... they had been sealed since the pyramid was built, and were reached only by tunnelling; this was done by hired quarrymen, using gunpowder."

Computer programmer and part-time amateur pyramidologist Tim Hunker gives the conspiracy theory of what happened next:

"'Quarry Marks' exist in the relieving chambers above the King's Chamber, including one mark which is reported to indicate Khufu, the pharaoh under whose reign the Great Pyramid was built. One source suggests that these quarry marks were faked by Howard Vyse in 1837. The reasons give[n] are many, but the main ones are: These marks appear only in the 4 relieving chambers opend by Vyse and not in the original relieving chamber opened by Davison in 1765. Vyse's diary for that day described a thorough examination of the relieving rooms but no mention of the hieroglyphics and quarry marks. The marks were mentioned only the next day, when Vyse returned with witnesses. There are problems with the hieroglyphics in that they are a mixture of styles and syntax/usage from differing time periods of Egypt. And finally, in the marks bearing Khufu's name, mistakes were made. Those same mistakes occur in the only two hieroglyphics references that would have been available to Vyse at that time."

An anonymous Geocities
web page takes this theory to heart, saying "The evidence outlined above shows beyond reasonable doubt that Vyse faked the inscription and that Khufu did not build the Great Pyramid." Of course, even if the inscriptions were fake, that alone does not disprove Khufu's ownership. If the "Made in China" sticker fell off a pair of sneakers, that does not mean that they suddenly sprang from Mexico instead.

While Hunker goes on to espouce a firm belief in pyramidology, the belief that the Great Pyramid holds profound meaning in its measurements. But where did he get this strange idea that the quarry marks are fakes? He says only in the text that "one source suggests" this is the case. Turning to the notes at the end of his article, he informs the reader that he gleaned this information from "The Message of the Sphinx, 1996, Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval, ISBN 0-517-70503-6"

Originally titled Keeper of Genesis in its first press run in Britian, Message of the Sphinx represents the first joint book by Fingerprints of the Gods author
Graham Hancock and Orion Mystery co-author Robert Bauval. Together, they combined their theorizing about a pre-Ice Age advanced civilization into a unified theory of ancient man. Briefly stated, the two men came to believe that an advanced culture disappeared during the Ice Age, and its survivors gained footholds throughout the world, establishing ancient cultures like the Egyptians, the Maya and the Easter Islanders. (see our article Dusting For Fingerprints)

The two authors devoted three pages to questioning the validity of the Vyse find, elaborating on the information summarized above. They then say the Egyptological acceptance of Vyse's quarry marks "verges on intellectual chicanery." They claim that while they raise troubling questions about the Vyse find, they "are frankly puzzled that such questions are never asked." They say, however, that the questions are irrelevant to their larger argument about who owns the pyramids:

"[E]ven if the quarry marks were not forged by Vyse, what do they really prove? Isn't attributing the Great Pyramid to Khufu on the basis of a few lines of graffiti a bit like handing over the keys of the Empire State Building to a man named 'Kilroy' just because his name was found spray-painted on the walls of the lift."

But Hancock and Bauval were not the first to market these theories. Alternative-history believer David Pratt explains where the authors got their ideas about the mason's quarry marks:

"The authenticity of these masons' markings has been challenged by Zecharia Sitchin, who argues that they were forged by Vyse and his assistants in the hope of gaining fame and fortune. He claims that the hieroglyphs are ungrammatical and misspelt (with the sign for 'ra', the supreme god of Egypt, being written instead of 'kh'), that the cursive script in which they were written dates from a later era, and that they were copied (complete with mistakes) from standard contemporary works on hieroglyphics. This argument has been repeated by several other writers, including Graham Hancock (though he has since rejected the forgery theory),
Eric von Däniken, and Colin Wilson."

We will return to Hancock's acceptance of the quarry marks in a moment.

Zecharia Sitchin is one of the most famous proponents of the ancient astronaut theory today, second only to the father of the theory, Erich von Däniken, in importance to true believers. Sitchin claims to be the only person who can "correctly" interpret Sumerian writings. While many have disputed his translations and conclusions, Sitchin maintains that the Sumerian writings show that aliens called Annunaki from an exploded planet visited earth and created humanity to mine gold for them. Author Ian Lawton:

"In order to support his revised chronology of mankind, and his contention that these pyramids were built as 'ground markers' for the Anunnaki's incoming space flights, it was Sitchin who first suggested that Colonel Richard Howard Vyse faked the hieroglyphics in the Relieving Chambers in the Great Pyramid, some of which include the name Khufu. "

Like von Däniken before him, Sitchin needed the Great Pyramid to represent something greater than a pharoah's magnificent construction. To "prove" the theory of alien intervention, it must be a construct of the alien visitors. As Martin Stower said, "Zecharia Sitchin - a writer in the 'Ancient Astronaut' genre - is by no means the first to see the problem these marks pose for 'alternative' accounts of the Great Pyramid. They show that the pyramid was built by Ancient Egyptians, for the Pharaoh Khufu. It was NOT built by aliens..."

Stower demolishes Sitchin's theory in clear and simple language:

"In 1837, even Samuel Birch [Vyse's assistant and Sitchin's assumed forger] couldn't have faked the quarry marks. They have features which even experts didn't understand, but which have become clear since. In fact they fit in perfectly with later discoveries and later analyses."

Stower shows that the hieroglyphs' "misspellings" and errors were actually imperfections in 19th century knowledge of hieroglyphs projected onto the correctly-spelled hieroglyphs themselves.

Nevertheless, the authority of Zecharia Sitchin gave free licence to over a dozen alternative authors to cite the "forged" quarry marks as proof that Khufu did not build the pyramid.

For this reason von Däniken could still say in 1996's Eyes of the Sphinx: "[T]he Great Pyramid is a huge, largely anonymous work... There is not a single inscription that would indicate how it was [built]. No one left behind even the briefest note to answer any of our questions regarding its construction. The pyramid itself features no heiroglyphics at all [emphasis added]."

As we have seen from the earlier discussion of the quarry marks, this is patently false. Whether they are genuine or not, the quarry marks do exist, and they are hieroglyphics.

While von Däniken sticks to the forgery line, Graham Hancock changed his mind in the light of "new" evidence known to Egyptology since the 19th century. Says Hancock:

"Cracks in some of the joints reveal hieroglyphs set far back into the masonry. No 'forger' could possibly have reached in there after the blocks had been set in place - blocks, I should add, that weigh tens of tons each and that are immovably interlinked with one another. The only reasonable conclusion is the one which orthodox Egyptologists have already long held - namely that the hieroglyphs are genuine Old Kingdom graffiti and that they were daubed on the blocks before construction began."

Hancock wrote those words in 1998, just months before the launch of his high-profile television series "Quest for the Lost Civilization" and his book Heaven's Mirror. Hancock seemed to be seeking credibility as a serious researcher at the time, and he revised his beliefs accordingly:

"Although I was still open to the erroneous forgery theory while Keeper/Message was being written, I was also very much open to the orthodox theory that the Giza pyramids were Fourth Dynasty work - irrespective of the provenance of the quarry marks."

This statement of 1998 does not seem to square with Hancock's 1996 claim that accepting quarry marks "verges on intellectual chicanery." To this reporter, that statement did not sound like someone who was "open to the orthodox theory."

Hancock sets the record straight about his beliefs about the Pyramid: "For the record I believe that Khufu did build the Great Pyramid - or anyway most of it (perhaps the subterranean chamber and some other rock-hewn parts of the structure may be earlier)."

And so we have come full-circle, from the Egyptological acceptance of Vyse's findings, to alternative history's rejection and then acceptance of them. Along the way, each author's acceptance of the Sitchin theory compounds the damage done. A Google search turned up 61 pages that repeat some iteration of the Sitchin theory, whether from the mouth of Sitchin, Alan Alford or Graham Hancock.

As Ian Lawton says, "Bearing in mind that it was this original attack by Sitchin which prompted so many other 'alternative Egyptologists' to repeat his accusations without question - although fortunately now most of them have seen the light - this saga perhaps more than any other tells us a very great deal about Sitchin and his work."

http://jcolavito.tri...tions/id10.html



#4    SlimJim22

SlimJim22

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,682 posts
  • Joined:10 Dec 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wales

  • "As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence is to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being." Carl Jung

Posted 08 June 2010 - 03:00 PM

I don't know but I suspect being allowed inside would have been a passage of initiation and to get there you would need to memorize whatever was to be said. No cheating is my theory.

Also, wasn't the Great Pyramid encased in stone that was covered with inscriptions, which were then taken away by arab looters. That was how I heard it but I don't know if it is true. Hopefully some of the resident experts will shed some light. Good question though.

"I belive no thing, I follow the Law of One. I am a Man-O'-Sion under construction."

#5    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

  • Member
  • 10,009 posts
  • Joined:19 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London UK

  • It is later than you think.

Posted 08 June 2010 - 03:28 PM

The so called cartouche written above the Kings Chamber in the GP has to be one of the biggest jokes in the whole of Egyptology.

It just doesn't stand up to any form of scrutiny, and has more to do with the furtherance of the career of one Howard Vyse, perhaps the biggest archaeological vandal and fraud of all time.  

If the builders were artistic and wanted to display themsleves and their culture within the worlds greatest monument then no doubt could easily have done so more dramatically and thoroughly.

So why didn't they?  Well quite simply they didn't need to.  Their communication was telepathic and mentally based, rather than the more crude vocal, written and pictorial.

Think:  Never will you see teeth shown in Egyptian art.  The clues abound for those with eyes to see.

Z


Posted Image


#6    Qwasz

Qwasz

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 142 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2010

Posted 08 June 2010 - 05:27 PM

I believe that none of the early pyramids had hieroglyphs in them.  That includes all of the pyramids leading up to Giza and then also beyond.


#7    shadowsot

shadowsot

    Nightstalker

  • Member
  • 9,113 posts
  • Joined:27 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

  • Oops.

Posted 08 June 2010 - 05:32 PM

Quote

What would be its purpose in a tomb? As you mentioned, there are no hieroglyphics, paintings or inscriptions found inside. Almost all the other pyramids in Egypt are covered. Pharaohs discovered were plastered with all of the above as part of their accomplishments and memory of their passing to the afterlife.
No, most of the writing is on the mortuary temples around the pyramids, no writing was found in pyramids until the 5th dynasty, when thye Pyramid texts came into play.
Previouse to that, none of the pyramds had writing n them.

Quote


For one, no mummies or human remains have been found in the Great Pyramid and it is not likely that they were removed by Tomb robbers.

Actually, it's fairly likely.
Mummies were buried with valuables even in their linens.  
During the first intermediate period, we have reports of the tombs being robbed, and the bodies being chucked out. The bodies were detroyed to gain the valuables about the bodies.

Quote

Pharaohs discovered were plastered with all of the above as part of their accomplishments and memory of their passing to the afterlife.

Pharaohs plastered their accomplishments on temples and other constructions, however even into the later dynastys when tehy were using the pyramid Texts, as their called, little or no references were made to their accomplishments in life.
Much of it was in the form of the treasures left with them, which would have been looted.

There is a lower chamber, like there was in earlier pyramids, however during construction they changed to a higher chamber, where the sarcophagus is found.

It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
-Terry Pratchett

#8    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,812 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 08 June 2010 - 06:33 PM

 zoombie, on 08 June 2010 - 02:13 PM, said:

Just wanted to know...
maybe because at the time, it wasn't fashionable to do so?? :)

The below addresses some aspects of the topic;

http://www.hallofmaa...=article&sid=17

.


#9    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,180 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 08 June 2010 - 06:41 PM

 zoser, on 08 June 2010 - 03:28 PM, said:

The so called cartouche written above the Kings Chamber in the GP has to be one of the biggest jokes in the whole of Egyptology.

It just doesn't stand up to any form of scrutiny, and has more to do with the furtherance of the career of one Howard Vyse, perhaps the biggest archaeological vandal and fraud of all time.  

If the builders were artistic and wanted to display themsleves and their culture within the worlds greatest monument then no doubt could easily have done so more dramatically and thoroughly.

So why didn't they?  Well quite simply they didn't need to.  Their communication was telepathic and mentally based, rather than the more crude vocal, written and pictorial.

Think:  Never will you see teeth shown in Egyptian art.  The clues abound for those with eyes to see.

Z


Please read my former post:

Quote

"Cracks in some of the joints reveal hieroglyphs set far back into the masonry. No 'forger' could possibly have reached in there after the blocks had been set in place - blocks, I should add, that weigh tens of tons each and that are immovably interlinked with one another. The only reasonable conclusion is the one which orthodox Egyptologists have already long held - namely that the hieroglyphs are genuine Old Kingdom graffiti and that they were daubed on the blocks before construction began."



#10    The_Spartan

The_Spartan

    Spartan Forever!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,779 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Abu Dhabi, UAE

  • Gravity is Arbitrary!!

Posted 08 June 2010 - 06:54 PM

i hate his large fonts..he surely has some sort of complex and feels insecure unless he expresses himself loudly and in big bold fonts. :rolleyes:

"Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent.-Napoleon Hill

Follow my stupid posts on Tumblr at Azrael's Ramblings

#11    Antimony

Antimony

    Her Most Delicious Purpleness

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,537 posts
  • Joined:11 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Catatonia

  • It's a Pony!

Posted 08 June 2010 - 07:04 PM

 zoser, on 08 June 2010 - 03:28 PM, said:



Think:  Never will you see teeth shown in Egyptian art.  The clues abound for those with eyes to see.

Z



The same applies to paintings of Joséphine de Beauharnais, first wife of Napoléon Bonaparte. But that's because she had horrible teeth.

There's searching too far and then there's searching way too far.

Posted Image
Claudine went to the Ladies to power her nose.

#12    cladking

cladking

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,498 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 08 June 2010 - 09:37 PM

 ShadowSot, on 08 June 2010 - 05:32 PM, said:


Actually, it's fairly likely.
Mummies were buried with valuables even in their linens.

But there's no evidence of comtemporary burials or valuables in the great
pyramids.  When the Caliphat Al Mamuum broke into G1, for instance, there
were no valuables nor evidence any had been there.

It might be possible to find evidence for valuables in the cracks of the
satones in the floor of the chambers but these excavations have not been
done using modern techniques.  
  

Quote

During the first intermediate period, we have reports of the tombs being robbed, and the bodies being chucked out. The bodies were detroyed to gain the valuables about the bodies.

No, this isn't true.  The "Admonitions of Ipuwer" are not known to have
copme from the FIP and date to a time many hundreds of years later.  There
is scant mention of pyramids here but there's no reason to believe these
are referencing the great pyramids and plenty of reason to suppose they
are not.  

Quote

Pharaohs plastered their accomplishments on temples and other constructions, however even into the later dynastys when tehy were using the pyramid Texts, as their called, little or no references were made to their accomplishments in life.
Much of it was in the form of the treasures left with them, which would have been looted.

There's almost nothing from before the 5th dynasty.  

Quote

There is a lower chamber, like there was in earlier pyramids, however during construction they changed to a higher chamber, where the sarcophagus is found.

Even that this is a tomb is an assumption.  It's not impossible but it seems
pretty odd that they'd build tombs gfor the king and then not say it was a tomb.
The builders built the pyramid of the king but nowhere does it say it was his
tomb.  The Pyramid Texts clearly state that the sky was the tomb of the king
and the pyramid was his ka.  It says this over and over in many different ways
so it would be hard to mistake.  "The king rests in heaven as a mountain, as
a support".

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#13    Abramelin

Abramelin

    -

  • Member
  • 18,180 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:"Here the tide is ruled, by the wind, the moon and us."

  • God created the world, but the Dutch created the Netherlands

Posted 08 June 2010 - 10:14 PM

 The Spartan, on 08 June 2010 - 06:54 PM, said:

i hate his large fonts..he surely has some sort of complex and feels insecure unless he expresses himself loudly and in big bold fonts. Posted Image


I think he's near-sighted.

That explains why he always conveniently skips info that contradict his dreams.

So let's try another approach:

Quote


"Cracks in some of the joints reveal hieroglyphs set far back into the masonry. No 'forger' could possibly have reached in there after the blocks had been set in place - blocks, I should add, that weigh tens of tons each and that are immovably interlinked with one another. The only reasonable conclusion is the one which orthodox Egyptologists have already long held - namely that the hieroglyphs are genuine Old Kingdom graffiti and that they were daubed on the blocks before construction began."



#14    zoombie

zoombie

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 112 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2009

Posted 09 June 2010 - 12:41 AM

 Swede, on 08 June 2010 - 06:33 PM, said:

The below addresses some aspects of the topic;

http://www.hallofmaa...=article&sid=17

.

That links provide an interesting theory. Not to discredit the author or his reference but I find the idea of pyramids being rip off its original stone highly doubtful. The Egyptian goes to great length to build these pyramids/temples for the afterlife, religion/spirituality is a big part of their everyday life thus any delibrate attempt to damage these structures are sacrileges at best. I find it hard to belief that any Egyptian would just take stones out of temples/pyramids and use them to build roads/bridges.
I've also noticed that the author of that link reference to the same author a few times to support this theory. Not suggesting that there is a flaw in the research but perhaps other members could enlighten me.


#15    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,812 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 09 June 2010 - 02:26 AM

 zoombie, on 09 June 2010 - 12:41 AM, said:

That links provide an interesting theory. Not to discredit the author or his reference but I find the idea of pyramids being rip off its original stone highly doubtful. The Egyptian goes to great length to build these pyramids/temples for the afterlife, religion/spirituality is a big part of their everyday life thus any delibrate attempt to damage these structures are sacrileges at best. I find it hard to belief that any Egyptian would just take stones out of temples/pyramids and use them to build roads/bridges.
I've also noticed that the author of that link reference to the same author a few times to support this theory. Not suggesting that there is a flaw in the research but perhaps other members could enlighten me.

My apologies for presenting such a highly condensed reference. The time-line and extent of socio-political changes during the period under consideration was admittedly not well addressed by said reference. The material presented is not so much a theory as a distillation of some of the currently understood data.

Am unsure as to which author you may be referring to, but should it be Lehner, the text noted would be well worth acquiring.

Am short on time (as always!), but you may find that an exploration of the following may be helpful. Lay-oriented, but may provide some perspective. I will speculate that kmt_sesh, cormac, Searcher, et. al. can add to further understanding.

http://wsu.edu/~dee/EGYPT/TIMELINE.HTM

.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users