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.


- - - - -

SMSW KHUFU (Gang, followers of Khufu)

great pyramid hieroglyphs campbell\s chamber

  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#16    mstower

mstower

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 99 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2013

Posted 23 April 2014 - 08:57 PM

One question.

Given that Creighton’s rubbish was fully answered here:

http://www.grahamhan...331986&t=331942

http://www.grahamhan...332003&t=331942

—including the question of symmetry versus asymmetry, why is he persisting in it here (despite his “deadline”)?

Goedicke’s Old Hieratic Paleography tells me that the character in question is standardly rendered, not poorly rendered.

Like I said already, Creighton, you might just as well forget about hieratic, let alone demotic.  You’re not competent and you lack the application and humility to become competent.

M.


#17    mstower

mstower

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 99 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2013

Posted 23 April 2014 - 09:29 PM

 Kenemet, on 20 April 2014 - 03:07 AM, said:

There's a number of boards for Egyptologists around (and for students of hieroglyphs.)  What's the consensus on this?

The entire basis of this is a misreading by Hawass.  He’s muddled this up with a legitimate debate on the reading of a character in another name entirely.  The same character appears in a recently discovered crew name.

Creighton conveniently forgets that his epiphany on the topic is something I’ve been saying for some time:

http://www.hallofmaa...1787#msg-551787

The literature on smr is copious for so esoteric a topic and I see no suggestion of a variant translation “follower” (which I doubt iwould make sense in some contexts).

M.

Edited by mstower, 23 April 2014 - 09:30 PM.


#18    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 24 April 2014 - 07:48 AM

 mstower, on 23 April 2014 - 08:57 PM, said:

One question.

Given that Creighton’s rubbish was fully answered here:

http://www.grahamhan...331986&t=331942

http://www.grahamhan...332003&t=331942

—including the question of symmetry versus asymmetry, why is he persisting in it here (despite his “deadline”)?

Goedicke’s Old Hieratic Paleography tells me that the character in question is standardly rendered, not poorly rendered.

Like I said already, Creighton, you might just as well forget about hieratic, let alone demotic.  You’re not competent and you lack the application and humility to become competent.

M.

Mr Stower,

Your persitance and determination to personalise these discussions with snide, personal attacks does you no credit whatsoever. But we'll let it slide since it may be something you cannot help.

Now, much as I value your input to this discussion (and others), I also value the input of others which is why I raise this question on different discussion Boards. Yes, I have your opinion but I seek the opinion of other individuals knowledgeable in this area--particularly Kmt_Sesh who is trained in reading hieroglyphs and probably has as good an understanding of the paleography of Egyptian hieroglyphs, if not better, than you. You are not the fount of all knowledge in this area, Mr Stower. But I thank you for your input nonetheless.

Best wishes,

SC

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#19    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 24 April 2014 - 10:01 AM

 mstower, on 23 April 2014 - 09:29 PM, said:

The same character appears in a recently discovered crew name.

SC:But where is this one (blue box):

Posted Image

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 24 April 2014 - 10:28 AM.

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#20    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

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

  • It is later than you think.

Posted 24 April 2014 - 10:09 AM

 Scott Creighton, on 04 April 2014 - 12:53 PM, said:

Hi UM,

I wonder if anyone here (perhaps KMT_Sesh) can explain how the hieroglyphs in the inscription found in Campbell's Chamber of the Great Pyramid (see image below) spell out SMSW (follower). In particular the third glyph from the left doesn't look too much like Gardiner's T18 (which I believe it is supposed to be). Also, what is the first glyph on the left? Is this meant to be the biliteral šs? I can't see how but is the šs being used here as a phonetic compliment? I just don't see how these glyphs can make the word SMSW (follower).




Glad of any help with this with any examples from elsewhere.

Regards,

SC

The most likely explanation for this is that it was added when the pyramid was repaired; it's not convincing in the slightest to claim that this untidy 'scrawl' was the work of the original builders.

It could even be hoaxed.

Does it make sense that they went to the trouble of assembling a massive monument of precise accuracy then to scrawl that untidy mess in there?

Not really.  Neither is it evidence that the pyramid was the work of the Egyptians who as we all know loved to perform more elaborate, pictorial and colourful work.

Either way it presents huge contradictions to the mainstream theories.

Edited by zoser, 24 April 2014 - 10:09 AM.

Posted Image


#21    cladking

cladking

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,618 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2006
  • Location:Indiana

  • Tempus fugit.

Posted 24 April 2014 - 03:27 PM

 Scott Creighton, on 24 April 2014 - 10:01 AM, said:

SC:But where is this one (blue box):



I'm always struck by the way people go to all the trouble of translating these things but
then never seem to read them; "the powerful white crown of khnum khufu" crew, indeed.
Are we to believe they followed the white crown hither and yon while dragging stones?
How is the king's crown an appropriate name for a crew?  What did these people have
to believe in order to name a crew such a thing?  Such questions never seem to even be
considered.  It's all  just put in a sort of blender with all the other information and what
comes out is our beliefs and our interpretations of the incomprehensible.  No one seems
to notice that none of it is logical and none of our "understanding" makes predictions or
explains what is known.

We end up shaking our heads at how much different these people were than we are and
at how primitive and superstitious they were.  A white crown crew makes perfect sense
from this perspective.  What's in a name anyway?

Men fear the pyramid, time fears man.

#22    zoser

zoser

    Sapphire

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

  • It is later than you think.

Posted 24 April 2014 - 03:57 PM

 cladking, on 24 April 2014 - 03:27 PM, said:

I'm always struck by the way people go to all the trouble of translating these things but
then never seem to read them; "the powerful white crown of khnum khufu" crew, indeed.
Are we to believe they followed the white crown hither and yon while dragging stones?
How is the king's crown an appropriate name for a crew?  What did these people have
to believe in order to name a crew such a thing?  Such questions never seem to even be
considered.  It's all  just put in a sort of blender with all the other information and what
comes out is our beliefs and our interpretations of the incomprehensible.  No one seems
to notice that none of it is logical and none of our "understanding" makes predictions or
explains what is known.

We end up shaking our heads at how much different these people were than we are and
at how primitive and superstitious they were.  A white crown crew makes perfect sense
from this perspective.  What's in a name anyway?

Modern Egyptology takes so much on faith without questioning.  Then worse still it disgorges it to the public and expects everyone to swallow it wholesale.  Unfortunately too many do just that.

Edited by zoser, 24 April 2014 - 03:57 PM.

Posted Image


#23    mstower

mstower

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 99 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2013

Posted 24 April 2014 - 10:05 PM

 Scott Creighton, on 24 April 2014 - 07:48 AM, said:

Mr Stower,

Your persitance and determination to personalise these discussions with snide, personal attacks does you no credit whatsoever. But we'll let it slide since it may be something you cannot help.

Now, much as I value your input to this discussion (and others), I also value the input of others which is why I raise this question on different discussion Boards. Yes, I have your opinion but I seek the opinion of other individuals knowledgeable in this area--particularly Kmt_Sesh who is trained in reading hieroglyphs and probably has as good an understanding of the paleography of Egyptian hieroglyphs, if not better, than you. You are not the fount of all knowledge in this area, Mr Stower. But I thank you for your input nonetheless.

Best wishes,

SC

Creighton,

You haven’t  answered the question.

Why are you raising “points” here (such as, the one about symmetry) which I’ve already answered elsewhere?

My remarks concern your unsatisfactory approach to this topic.  If you don’t want your competence questioned, stop making claims which exceed your competence.

I’ve challenged your (risibly presumptuous) assertion that the cursive mr is “poorly rendered” and I’ve cited a source.  I don’t see your answer.

M.


#24    mstower

mstower

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 99 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2013

Posted 24 April 2014 - 10:10 PM

 Scott Creighton, on 24 April 2014 - 10:01 AM, said:

SC:But where is this one (blue box):

Posted Image

SC

Brilliant.  He’s complaining that the characters which are there aren’t the characters which aren’t there.

M.


#25    mstower

mstower

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 99 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2013

Posted 24 April 2014 - 10:15 PM

 zoser, on 24 April 2014 - 03:57 PM, said:

Modern Egyptology takes so much on faith without questioning.  Then worse still it disgorges it to the public and expects everyone to swallow it wholesale.  Unfortunately too many do just that.

Actually, zoser, it’s evident from your posts that you’ve taken a great many things of extremely low quality on faith.

M.


#26    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 24 April 2014 - 11:09 PM

 mstower, on 24 April 2014 - 10:10 PM, said:

Brilliant.  He’s complaining that the characters which are there aren’t the characters which aren’t there.

M.

mstower,

Complaint? How on god's good earth do you figure that one? It's far from a complaint, dear boy--just a simple observation. It was a rhetorical question.

Best wishes,

SC

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#27    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 24 April 2014 - 11:16 PM

 mstower, on 24 April 2014 - 10:05 PM, said:

Creighton,

You haven’t  answered the question.

SC: Oh dearie me. Does that upset you?

Quote

ms: Why are you raising “points” here (such as, the one about symmetry) which I’ve already answered elsewhere?

SC: No, mstower. You gave a response. That's not the same as answering a question. I don't accept your response unless you can actually back it up. And telling everyone to read Goedicke's Paleography at $400 a pop (which you've been doing for at least 12 years now) in order that we can all confirm YOUR assertions ain't going to crack it. Back up your own assertions. I even doubt you have a copy of said tome. But hey--you talk a good game, don'tcha.

Quote

ms: My remarks concern your unsatisfactory approach to this topic. If you don’t want your competence questioned, stop making claims which exceed your competence.

SC: You clearly think I give a hee-haw about your motor-mouthed, foul-mouthed, jacked-up opinions. I don't. Really--I don't. I stuffed you royally before in debate (guess you never quite got over that one) and I'll do it again. What was it you called me after that Glasgow kiss you took over on GHMB? Oh yes - I was "a ****er". That was the best you could do. I didn't know whether to feel really annoyed or totally privileged at being called "a Stower".

Trust me--you really don't wanna go there again. But hey--who am I to stop you? Sock it to me with your best tomes.

Quote

ms: I’ve challenged your (risibly presumptuous) assertion that the cursive mr is “poorly rendered” and I’ve cited a source.  I don’t see your answer.

SC: Erm... at least one other knowledgeable soul here on UM (Kmt_Sesh) agreed with me that that glyph is "poorly rendered". So--you've cited a source. Wow! Like that'll crack it. I should just roll over and shut up. Sheesh.............. you have to do much better. And I really know you can--I have confidence in you. Let's have your best now, mstower. You can do it.


Best wishes,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 25 April 2014 - 12:15 AM.

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#28    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Telekinetic

  • 7,287 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 25 April 2014 - 02:08 AM

 mstower, on 24 April 2014 - 10:05 PM, said:

...

I’ve challenged your (risibly presumptuous) assertion that the cursive mr is “poorly rendered” and I’ve cited a source.  I don’t see your answer.

M.

Hi, mstower. To be fair, the blame must be laid at my feet. I'm the one who suggested the mr glyph was badly rendered. It didn't occur to me that the glyph might be in hieratic form because the other glyphs do not seem to be, but are in cursive hieroglyphs. I arrived at smr ("companion") only because it made sense, regardless of how Hawass or others might have translated it.

Also to be fair, although I have formal training in hieroglyphs, I can't say the same for hieratic. While I can recognize individual characters based on their orthography, that's not the same thing as translating hieratic writing, as you know. I searched for a while but could not come up with clear examples for the hieratic rendering of the mr glyph, so I'm left at a loss on this particular issue.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#29    Scott Creighton

Scott Creighton

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 693 posts
  • Joined:22 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland, United Kingdom

  • Consensus opinion isn't fact.

Posted 25 April 2014 - 09:47 AM

Curious....

In reflecting a little more on the crew name from Wadi al-Jarf, we observe this:

Posted Image

Notice in the image above the small horizontal stroke within the red circle. Could it be that the "badly rendered" glyph in Campbell's Chamber was intended to be the glyph we see in the Wadi al-Jarf crew name? Kmt--any idea what this glyph in the Wadi al-Jarf crew name might be?  Looks very similar to the 's' glyph but has that small stroke sticking out and a small horizontal stroke at the base.  What's your thoughts?

Regards,

SC

"The man o' independent mind... is king o' men, for a' that." - Robert Burns

#30    mstower

mstower

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 99 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2013

Posted 25 April 2014 - 09:51 AM

 Scott Creighton, on 24 April 2014 - 11:16 PM, said:

SC: Oh dearie me. Does that upset you?



SC: No, mstower. You gave a response. That's not the same as answering a question. I don't accept your response unless you can actually back it up. And telling everyone to read Goedicke's Paleography at $400 a pop (which you've been doing for at least 12 years now) in order that we can all confirm YOUR assertions ain't going to crack it. Back up your own assertions. I even doubt you have a copy of said tome. But hey--you talk a good game, don'tcha.



SC: You clearly think I give a hee-haw about your motor-mouthed, foul-mouthed, jacked-up opinions. I don't. Really--I don't. I stuffed you royally before in debate (guess you never quite got over that one) and I'll do it again. What was it you called me after that Glasgow kiss you took over on GHMB? Oh yes - I was "a ****er". That was the best you could do. I didn't know whether to feel really annoyed or totally privileged at being called "a Stower".

Trust me--you really don't wanna go there again. But hey--who am I to stop you? Sock it to me with your best tomes.



SC: Erm... at least one other knowledgeable soul here on UM (Kmt_Sesh) agreed with me that that glyph is "poorly rendered". So--you've cited a source. Wow! Like that'll crack it. I should just roll over and shut up. Sheesh.............. you have to do much better. And I really know you can--I have confidence in you. Let's have your best now, mstower. You can do it.


Best wishes,

SC

Who’s “personalisting” now, Creighton?  Doesn’t take much to get you started, does it?

What’s happening here it that you’re getting back what you’ve been in the habit of dishing out—and you don’t like it a bit, do you?

I did suggest some time ago (what was it?) a moderation in your attitude.  Perhaps you should have taken the hint.  The link for the benefit of those who (as you know perfectly well) have better things to do than trawl through you old posts, to see where the “personalising” really comes from.

For your information:

There are such things as libraries.  This is how, in the old days, people gained access to rare and expensive books.

Consulting and citing informed sources is how scholarship works—as opposed to your implied principle, “I can’t afford it and Google doesn’t reach it, so it doesnt count.”

We may note that kmt_sesh (who suddenly you’ve appointed pontifical authority on the question) has explicitly disavowed having formal training in hieratic.  So much for your “answer”.

(As for hieratic versus cursive hieroglyphic, various terms have been used over the years.  Whatever we call it, the script in question is closely related to Old Kingdom hieratic—for example, it always reads from right to left.)

Hey, look at what I wrote about this in 2001 (search for “smrw”):

https://groups.googl...ws/yHX7kztExmAJ

M.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users