Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
kmt_sesh

Sitchin's Folly: Graffiti in the Pyramid

477 posts in this topic

Hey,

was wondering what is the official line on the hieroglyphs resembling aerial craft at Abydos. I guess you'll all tell me they are modern forgeries but if they were genuine wouldn't that lend weight to the idea that all is connected and we have advanced even stellar origins?

http://www.hallofthegods.org/articles/mystery-abydos.html

http://www.catchpenny.org/abydos.html

What some see as a helicopter, is the result of one glyph being put in over another.

Save a direct link to this post in your favorites file. Keeps you from having to search for it this summer when it comes up again.

And again and again and again...

Edited by ShadowSot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A word of advice:

Save a direct link to this post in your favorites file. Keeps you from having to search for it this summer when it comes up again.

Harte

Good advice right there. Actually you should copy it to a document files as well, so you have a backup you can easely copy and paste... again and again and again :devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey,

was wondering what is the official line on the hieroglyphs resembling aerial craft at Abydos. I guess you'll all tell me they are modern forgeries but if they were genuine wouldn't that lend weight to the idea that all is connected and we have advanced even stellar origins?

http://www.hallofthegods.org/articles/mystery-abydos.html

ShadowSot's web page explains it as well as I could've. The temple was originally commissioned and inscribed by Seti I, second king of Dynasty 19, but was not completely finished when he died. One of the first prjects on which his son and successor, Ramesses II, embarked upon reaching the throne was the completion of this temple at Abydos. Along the way Ramesses II sprinkled inscriptions honoring himself here and there. Palimpsests such as this one are extremely common in pharaonic history, as each king strove to make a name for himself. It's not surprising that Ramesses II did this, even though the temple belonged to his father. He not only commissioned a lot of monuments but usurped plenty of them, too. This is why Egyptologists like to call Ramesses II "the chisler." Sounds like a character from a Batman movie.

The web page brings up a number of good points, one of which is the unlikely scenario that the Egyptians carved a helicopter and other aircraft only here and nowhere else. That is simply not how inscriptions worked. They were not just a hodgepodge of images but a cohesive unit of glyphs and images stating something in specific terms. This temple at Abydos has been exhaustively studied since the late nineteenth century and is very well understood. It was built to honor Osiris and to unite Osiris and Seti I as one entity--not to show caricatures of flying machines. :)

Good advice right there. Actually you should copy it to a document files as well, so you have a backup you can easely copy and paste... again and again and again :devil:

Good advice. I have done exactly that. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Colonel Vyse was not a scholar. He was not an Egyptologist, such as it was in the mid-nineteenth century. Sitchin's description of him is, I think, fair: an antiquarian. As with many Westerners of the time, he was in Egypt for the excitement of discovery. Although I find his use of dynamite and gunpowder reckless and deplorable, no other expedition or discovery of his in Egypt would lead one to suspect in any way that he was duplicitous or dishonest

SC: We don't have to look to Egypt to discover Howard-Vyse's dishonesty - it started much closer to home:

Note: Many of the ' f ' letters should be read as an ' s ' (Old English):

Slide1.JPG

Slide2.JPG

SC: "...guilty of bribery and corruption and corrupt practices...." Doesn't smell too nice, does it?

The Vyse's literally came from nowhere in the Beverley constituency. See here:

Howard-Vyse%20Election.jpg

This was a John Wharton safe seat. Then daddy Vyse makes an appearance on the scene (in the favour of the Duke of Cumberland). Doesn't win outright (although still elected as second candidate). But my oh my - look at Howard-Vyse's (the son's) vote - first time ever that anyone got into the thousands in this seat and, as such, was able to dislodge Wharton from first place (Wharton elected as second candidate). A vote like that for Howard-Vyse (which was never repeated by anyone before or after) totally reeks of impropriety and totally smacks of Howard-Vyse going in with all 'gifts' blazing to make sure he got the outcome he desired; to make sure that, where daddy had failed in securing first spot, Howard-Vyse would succeed. Or, Howard-Vyse wanted to make sure he didn't lose daddy's hard bought seat - the shame of it! No wonder Mr Staple complained to the House of Commons about corrupt practices of Howard-Vyse. And after Howard-Vyse departs Beverley for pastures new (the Honiton constituency), the seat returns to Wharton in first position on a much reduced winning vote. As for the Beverley constituency itself:

For much of the borough's history, elections in Beverley were notorious for their corruption. In 1727, one of the victorious candidates was unseated on petition, his agents were imprisoned and Parliament passed a new Bribery Act as a result. Between 1857 and 1868 six petitions were lodged against election results, of which three succeeded in voiding the election and unseating one or more of the victors. After the 1868 election, the writ for the borough was suspended and a Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the conduct of elections in Beverley; when it reported that it had found proof of extensive bribery, an Act of Parliament was passed permanently depriving Beverley of the right to return Members of Parliament, abolishing the constituency and incorporating it within the East Riding constituency.

The novelist Anthony Trollope was one of the defeated candidates in the final corrupt election for which Beverley was disfranchised. He drew on his experience directly for his description of the Percycross election in his novel Ralph the Heir, and also told the story in his Autobiography. He found that corruption was taken for granted and that the price of a vote was between 15 shillings and £1. - Source.

SC: And after Beverley, Howard-Vyse is parachuted into the Honiton seat completely unopposed.

Long before the general election of 1812 Cavendish Bradshaw, who went over to government on the establishment of the Regency, had decided that he could not afford another election for Honiton. Just after the dissolution Canning, who was staying with his friend Lord Boringdon at Saltram in Devon, received an overture from Honiton, probably through Flood, and was asked to nominate a friend who, he was assured, ‘might be returned for an expense of between £3,000 and £4,000’. He recommended George Abercrombie Robinson, a director of the East India Company, who came in unopposed for ‘not more than £1,500’— so Canning heard— along with Howard Vyse, a ministerialist, whose father was in the confidence of the Duke of Cumberland. The young radical Samuel Colleton Graves, invited to contest Honiton, had allowed himself to be waylaid at Taunton.

SC: "...allowed himself to be waylaid at Taunton"? Perhaps Mr Graves had been gratefully plied with copious amounts of good Taunton cider? In any case, the two seats in Honiton went unopposed. And when we consider the history of the Honiton seat, why should we not be surprised to find this:

Honiton had a reputation for shameless venality .... Source

SC: Howard-Vyse certainly knew what seats to target. His political aspirations totally reek -- doing precisely what he needed to do to ensure he got the outcome he desired. And where have we seen/heard that before?

Howard-Vyse was as corrupt as they come. The man has zero credibility and is even less a credible witness as far as his alleged discoveries in the Great Pyramid are concerned.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting stuff, Scott. I didn't know any of this about Vyse's history, but in a sense I'm not surprised. Anyone who would "investigate" an historical site with the use of blasting powder is not a credible person in the first place, in my opinion. In a disturbing way this reminds me an awful lot of politics in my own Chicago and the state of Illinois, which seems to send its fair share of politicians to prison.

I've already detailed my argument in previous posts so there's no sense in repeating it now, but the gist of it is, Vyse's questionable character does not mean he and/or his accomplice fabricated the graffiti in the relieving chambers. All they did was discover and draw it. Perhaps the most important thing to bear in mind is that Vyse would not have possessed the requisite linguistic abilities to have forged the graffiti, considering hieroglyphs had been decoded only fifteen years previous. Most legitimate historians contemporary to Vyse who viewed the graffiti did not even know how to translate it properly. Academia's ability to translate Egyptian scripts was still literally in its infancy, and Vyse was neither a linguist nor an historian—but just a guy running around blowing things up.

In other words, Vyse was just the very explosive tool which revealed the graffiti to the world. It would be years before the stuff could be properly translated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

KMS: Vyse's questionable character does not mean he and/or his accomplice fabricated the graffiti in the relieving chambers.

SC: But nevertheless, it is a good indicator of Vyse’s corrupt and fraudulent character. He was quite prepared to commit fraud in the Beverley election to get what he wanted.

KMS: All they did was discover and draw it. Perhaps the most important thing to bear in mind is that Vyse would not have possessed the requisite linguistic abilities to have forged the graffiti, considering hieroglyphs had been decoded only fifteen years previous.

SC: I have to say that I find your opinion somewhat naïve. You make the big assumption that Howard-Vyse had to understand how to read/write hieroglyphs in order to perpetrate such a fraud in Campbell’s Chamber. Nothing could be further from the truth.

All he needed to know was how to read the name of ‘Khufu’. And this name (with hatched disc) had been published in Rosellini’s book in 1832 - 5 years BEFORE Howard-Vyse ever went near Egypt. This knowledge would have given Howard-Vyse all the information he needed to perpetrate a fraud in the Great Pyramid. Howard-Vyse could simply have copied into Campbell’s Chamber inscriptions from an artefact he had found elsewhere outside the pyramid. And we know that Howard-Vyse DID find the fragment of at least one artefact bearing the quail chick outside the pyramid – he shows it in his book. That the Horus name would be found alongside the birth name on a stone slab would hardly be unusual. Howard-Vyse would not have known the other inscriptions were Khufu’s Horus name – but he knows whatever is being said on a stone found elsewhere is related to Khufu. That the inscriptions are later found to be Khufu’s Horus name is merely a serendipitous piece of luck for Howard-Vyse. But, as stated, it would not be unusual to find the birth and Horus names together on a block of stone. All Howard-Vyse needed to know was how to properly write Khufu.

In actual fact, it would have made Howard-Vyse’s case stronger were he to have found and presented to the world the Khufu cartouche with a plain disk for, as you well know, the plain disk CAN represent ‘Kh’ (when painted green/blue) and it seems quite certain from Howard-Vyse's own journal that Howard-Vyse did NOT know that.

Thus, that we find the hatched disc in Campbell's Chamber actually weakens Howard-Vyse’s claim since it may simply be a reflection of his (incorrect) view that the plain disc could ONLY mean ‘Re’ (i.e. Re-ufu) and thus could not, in his view, possibly be the correct glyph for 'Kh'ufu to place into the chamber. Logically then, in Howard-Vyse's view, there HAD to be another inscription for the first sign. And so, a serendipitous discovery outside the pyramid (or possibly from elsewhere e.g. Rosellini's 1832 book which shows the Khufu cartouche 5 years before Howard-Vyse's alleged discovery) combined with simple deduction could easily have given Howard-Vyse the correct inscription for Khufu. And the correct way to inscribe Khufu, as stated earlier, was all the info he needed.

And such an allegation of fraud was actually made against Howard-Vyse by Humphries Brewer, a stonemason who worked with Howard-Vyse at Giza, to wit:

Brewer%20Letter.jpg

And given the debacle of Howard-Vyse’s claimed discovery of the remains of Menkaure in G3 which totally smacks of attempted deception (coffin remains bearing Menkaure’s name found with bones wrapped in wool – both found to be from different eras none of which belonged to the 4th dynasty). .It is hardly surprising that this whole episode of Howard-Vyse’s activities in G3 are quietly being dropped by consensus Egyptology.

All things considered, things do not look good at all for Howard-Vyse and if I were a betting man I would most certainly bet that he perpetrated a fraud. He had the means, the motive and the character. No linguistic skills required.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the graphitti in the relieving chambers is typical of much of the rest of the pyramids blocks?

I wonder if increases in nano/micro robotics will lead to practically non-invasive examination showing thousands of such graphitti examples?

I would predict... Yes. And when it happens dozens of fringe theories will go down in flames like a Russian Meteor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: But nevertheless, it is a good indicator of Vyse’s corrupt and fraudulent character. He was quite prepared to commit fraud in the Beverley election to get what he wanted.

SC: I have to say that I find your opinion somewhat naïve. You make the big assumption that Howard-Vyse had to understand how to read/write hieroglyphs in order to perpetrate such a fraud in Campbell’s Chamber. Nothing could be further from the truth.

All he needed to know was how to read the name of ‘Khufu’. And this name (with hatched disc) had been published in Rosellini’s book in 1832 - 5 years BEFORE Howard-Vyse ever went near Egypt. This knowledge would have given Howard-Vyse all the information he needed to perpetrate a fraud in the Great Pyramid. Howard-Vyse could simply have copied into Campbell’s Chamber inscriptions from an artefact he had found elsewhere outside the pyramid. And we know that Howard-Vyse DID find the fragment of at least one artefact bearing the quail chick outside the pyramid – he shows it in his book. That the Horus name would be found alongside the birth name on a stone slab would hardly be unusual. Howard-Vyse would not have known the other inscriptions were Khufu’s Horus name – but he knows whatever is being said on a stone found elsewhere is related to Khufu. That the inscriptions are later found to be Khufu’s Horus name is merely a serendipitous piece of luck for Howard-Vyse. But, as stated, it would not be unusual to find the birth and Horus names together on a block of stone. All Howard-Vyse needed to know was how to properly write Khufu.

In actual fact, it would have made Howard-Vyse’s case stronger were he to have found and presented to the world the Khufu cartouche with a plain disk for, as you well know, the plain disk CAN represent ‘Kh’ (when painted green/blue) and it seems quite certain from Howard-Vyse's own journal that Howard-Vyse did NOT know that.

Thus, that we find the hatched disc in Campbell's Chamber actually weakens Howard-Vyse’s claim since it may simply be a reflection of his (incorrect) view that the plain disc could ONLY mean ‘Re’ (i.e. Re-ufu) and thus could not, in his view, possibly be the correct glyph for 'Kh'ufu to place into the chamber. Logically then, in Howard-Vyse's view, there HAD to be another inscription for the first sign. And so, a serendipitous discovery outside the pyramid (or possibly from elsewhere e.g. Rosellini's 1832 book which shows the Khufu cartouche 5 years before Howard-Vyse's alleged discovery) combined with simple deduction could easily have given Howard-Vyse the correct inscription for Khufu. And the correct way to inscribe Khufu, as stated earlier, was all the info he needed.

And such an allegation of fraud was actually made against Howard-Vyse by Humphries Brewer, a stonemason who worked with Howard-Vyse at Giza, to wit:

Brewer%20Letter.jpg

And given the debacle of Howard-Vyse’s claimed discovery of the remains of Menkaure in G3 which totally smacks of attempted deception (coffin remains bearing Menkaure’s name found with bones wrapped in wool – both found to be from different eras none of which belonged to the 4th dynasty). .It is hardly surprising that this whole episode of Howard-Vyse’s activities in G3 are quietly being dropped by consensus Egyptology.

All things considered, things do not look good at all for Howard-Vyse and if I were a betting man I would most certainly bet that he perpetrated a fraud. He had the means, the motive and the character. No linguistic skills required.

SC

You might actually have a case, Scott, if you had an understanding of the orthography of Egyptian scripts and, especially, if nothing but Khufu's name appeared in those relieving chambers. But neither is evidently the case in your argument. Let's start with the latter.

The graffiti constitutes a lot more than just Khufu's name slapped here and there. One wouldn't realistically expect this in the first place, but in point of fact the appearances of the name (all three versions of it) tend to be accompanied by phrases. So while Vyse might well have known what Khufu's cartouche looked like—something against which I've never argued—the full nature of the graffiti is quite complicated linguistically and would've been beyond his abilities to understand. The best source I can cite for this is Ann Macy Roth's Egyptian Phyles in the Old Kingdom: The Evolution of a Social Organization. You can download the book on this page. If you're interested, I do recommend a careful reading of it. In total the graffiti would not have been forgeable in 1837, because probably no one at that time (Vyse especially) possessed the requisite skill to translate and understand it.

Now, to the former, the matter of orthography. You're still holding to the fallacies begun by Zecharia Sitchin and his acolytes, who as far as I can determine are responsible for this unnecessary confusion. It doesn't matter what color a glyph was—color did not determine the phonetic values of glyphs—nor does it necessarily even matter whether the inscription was royal or private. The glyph designated Aa1 (sometimes theorized as a placenta), with the sound value of the "kh", did not necessarily have to have striations in it. My chart in the OP of this discussion shows that plain as day. Sometimes it has no striations, sometimes one, sometimes two, sometimes more. It does not affect the sound value: that is determined by context within a word—as, again, my chart in the OP demonstrates.

Also significant to this matter is the nature of the graffiti itself (its own orthography). This was, well, graffiti, not a formal decoration plan. Ancient Egyptian graffiti as well as the less formal linear hieroglyphs presented with innumerable quirks and variations because it was simply handwriting on an informal level. To expect exactitude in the character forms of glyphs in ancient graffiti would make about as much sense as expecting your or my cursive writing to be as exacting as block print.

There are many respected Egyptological linguists in our modern age who have acquired a remarkable understanding of the ancient Egyptian language and its scripts (e.g., James Allen, James Hoch), and it should tell you something when they don't see the graffiti as fraudulent. All I can say is, it's only logical to trust them over the questionable progenitors of this unnecessary confusion: Zecharia Sitchin et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the graphitti in the relieving chambers is typical of much of the rest of the pyramids blocks?

I wonder if increases in nano/micro robotics will lead to practically non-invasive examination showing thousands of such graphitti examples?

I would predict... Yes. And when it happens dozens of fringe theories will go down in flames like a Russian Meteor.

You're probably familiar with the discovery of a year or more ago of more graffiti found within one of the so-called "air shafts" of the Great Pyramid. While these loosely written glyphs do not appear to say anything in the manner of words or phrases and were probably builder's marks, it does show that more graffiti can and probably will be found. The markings in the air shafts were found robotically, so who knows what else might be there?

In addition, similar graffiti is known from all over the Giza Plateau, including on the pyramids of Khafre and Menkaure, and is also attested in the pyramids of Sneferu. The graffiti inside the relieving chambers of the Great Pyramid is significant because it appears in a greater number in one specific location, but it is hardly unique. Actually, there is graffiti all over the monuments of the Nile Valley, from all time periods of pharaonic history. I once read a lengthy paper about graffiti which appears all over the roofs of one large temple, which wasn't exactly a thrilling read but is a good reminder of how common ancient graffiti is—and how important it is to the field of ancient linguistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You might actually have a case, Scott, if you had an understanding of the orthography of Egyptian scripts and, especially, if nothing but Khufu's name appeared in those relieving chambers. But neither is evidently the case in your argument.

SC: First of all, this has nothing to do with Sitchin's argument - let's be clear on that. Secondly - you completely gloss over my argument.

The orthography simply does not matter. Howard-Vyse could have found a number of inscriptions (the white crown of Khufu is powerful, the workgang of Khnum-Khuf or whatever) from elsewhere, written in various script and simply copied these verbatim into the so-called Relieving Chambers. All that was needed of Howard-Vyse was the ability to recognise the name 'Khufu' amongst a line of script and he would know that whatever else the script was saying it was obviously related in some way to Khufu and thus he could feel secure enough to copy the script verbatim (style-and-all) into Campbell's Chamber and elsewhere. And Howard-Vyse was a good copier of script style as his own journal proves. All he needed to find were some texts that mentioned Khufu. And we know for a fact that he found a fragment of what could have been Khufu's name outside the pyramid under a pile of debris on its north face. Was it just a fragment he found or did he in fact find an entire line of text (or several) and simply copied these verbatim into the GP? Having done that he then breaks the stone into fragments and presents only one small piece of it? Afterall, it could look highly suspicious if he presented a stone slab with inscriptions that said exactly the same thing as was found in the GP and also written in the same style.

Howard-Vyse simply did not require knowledge of the orthography of AE scripts.He just needed to find some texts from elsewhere outside the pyramid that presented Khufu's name (which he would have recognised) and copy these scripts verbatim into the GP - and, as stated already, he was a good copier of style as his journal proves.

Such a fraud would have been the easiest thing in the world to perpetrate as the testimony of Humphries Brewers seems to indicate. And especially so for someone like Howard-Vyse who had the means, motive and devious moral character (as his political shenanigans proves) to do so. Only skill required - the ability to verbatim copy. And a good copier of style Howard-Vyse most certainly was.

On the issue of the marks found in the small cavities at the end of the QC southern shaft. There is no definitive interpretation of these marks. There have been some proposals as to what they might represent but no one seems to know for certain what they say, presuming they say anything at all. I find this situation rather odd. A couple of hidden chambers with a veritable plethora of perfectly readable, perfectly unambiguous markings and then another hidden 'chamber' where the obscure markings are, at best, highly ambiguous and contentious. Why are there no perfectly readable, perfectly unambiguous marks in this small, inaccessible 'chamber' at the end of this shaft? Makes you wonder.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It's a stormy day here in Chicago and I was not in the mood to try to negotiate a major snow storm and hundreds of idiot drivers, so I've stayed home for the day. This gives me the opportunity to submit another critique of material in Zacheria Sitchin's The Stairway to Heaven (April 2007 edition). I have previously initiated two threads, found here and here, about arguments Sitchin makes in Chapter 13, entitled "Forging the Pharaoh's Name." I am returning to this chapter and to the most important argument Sitchin makes, after which the chapter is called.

In March 1837 an enthusiast of the nascent field of Egyptology, Colonel Richard Howard Vyse, discovered several relieving chambers above the King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid. The lowest relieving chamber had been discovered in 1765 by Nathaniel Davison, and was thereafter known as Davison's Chamber, so Vyse logically suspected that more chambers might lie above this one. By inserting a reed through a crack in a joint of the ceiling of Davison's Chamber, Vyse was able to detect a void and knew he was onto something. On March 30, using gunpowder Vyse blasted a hole through the ceiling of Davison's Chamber, and entered a new chamber that had not been seen in 4,500 years. Vyse's exploits revealed that there were four more chambers above the one Davison had discovered over 70 years before.

The most astounding discovery, however, was the plethora of mason's marks and graffiti found in these higher chambers. The painted graffiti include the three names by which King Khufu was known. That Vyse was the first person to have entered these chambers since the building of the pyramid in 2,500 BCE shows that the graffiti was original to the builders, and thus firmly ties the Great Pyramid to the reign of Khufu.

Sitchin writes some rather enjoyable anecdotal and background information about Colonel Vyse, more so than I have read in most legitimate historical studies, but he maintains that Vyse and an accomplice, J.R. Hill, painted all of the graffiti themselves and are guilty of forging the pharaoh's name. Sitchin believes this is so because numerous exciting finds were being made at Giza at the same time, and they--Vyse and Hill--wanted in on the excitement and desired to be famous (Sitchin 2007: 361). It's one thing to besmirch the names of two men who are long dead and cannot defend themselves, but quite another to approach the accusation with truly faulty reasoning and exceedingly poor evidence to make such a claim. Herein lies the thrust of my own argument in this post: to demonstrate why the evidence Sitchin presents in defense of his position is misleading and faulty from the start.

I'll dispense with commenting on the conjectures Sitchin has dreamed up about Vyse's and Hill's methods and movements in crafting said forgery because in the end this is all pure speculation on Sitchin's part and there can be no evidence to support it. Instead, I'll comment on specifics about the graffiti and the linguistics involved, because the arguments one can make in favor of orthodox research will alone blow Sitchin's position out of the water.

In this segment of the chapter Sitchin continues to make the typical fringe error of consistently citing and, probably, misusing scholarly material from the earliest days of Egyptology. No current research is used because current research would reveal Sitchin's errors. A good example is the form of writing the graffiti in the relieving chambers takes, which could be called cursive hieroglyphs, linear hieroglyphs, or even hieratic.

Before continuing I have to stress very strongly that in 1837, when Vyse discovered the graffiti, the knowledge of hieroglyphs and other forms of ancient Egyptian writing was still in its infancy. After all, Jean-François Champollion had made the first successful translation only fifteen years before, in 1822. Scholars in Vyse's time were only beginning to unwrap the various ancient scripts and had a very incomplete understanding of them. For example, Sitchin makes a big deal over the cursive or linear nature of the graffiti, and cites one historian in the British Museum who claimed this form of writing would not exist in Egypt for centuries to come (ibid, 354). We know a lot more in this day and age. In fact, it is established fact that cursive or hieratic scripts are as old as hieroglyphs and first made their appearance in late prehistory (Parkinson 1999: 88; Allen 2001: 6; Wilkinson 1999: 40), dating to about 3,150 BCE. As with other forms of writing in ancient Egypt, hieratic can be broken into stages of development as pharaonic history progressed:

Old Hieratic: Late prehistory to 2000 BCE

Early Middle Hieratic: 2025-1700 BCE

Late Middle Hieratic (literary): Late Middle Kingdom (c. 1640 BCE)

Late Middle Hieratic (non-literary): Late Middle Kingdom (c. 1640 BCE)

Dynasty 18 Hieratic: 1550-1069 BCE

Ramesside Hieratic: 1298-1187 BCE

It goes on from there (Ramesside, in simple terms, equates to about Dynasty 19), but this carries the point. Hieratic script existed alongside hieroglyphs for much of pharaonic history. A case may be made that the graffiti in the relieving chambers is simply more cursive hieroglyphic than hieratic, which would only sink Sitchin's position further: cursive hieroglyphic script is, after all, merely hieroglyphs written by hand.

Sitchin further mentions the confusion early scholars had over some of the glyphs associated with the royal name in the graffiti. It would seem Sitchin is trying to use this fact as proof that Vyse and Hill were simply slapping some glyphs together based on a couple of books by John Gardiner Wilkinson they had at their disposal. This does not seem a reasonable position to suggest. Although glyphs were not yet well understood at the time, certainly Vyse and Hill would've understood that random hieroglyphs would be shown to be nonsensical and fraudulent sooner rather than later. Examples of the royal name and attendant glyphs are below (adapted from Ann Macy Roth's book Egyptian Phyles in the Old Kingdom):

Graffiti-Names.jpg

The top set is the name by which most of us know this king, the abbreviation Khufu. The center set is his full formal name, Khnum-Khuf. The bottom is his Horus name, Medjedu. The glyphs following the versions of the name are what puzzled the early scholars, and it's understandable. What we know now is that they are the individual names of phyles and work gangs, and these glyphs in the relieving chambers "...name three gangs, each based on a different form of the king's name" (Roth 1991: 125). The way the names of phyles and gangs are arranged on the walls can even provide hints as to how the great blocks of the relieving chambers were assembled and put in place, and which gangs were responsible for assembling different parts of the chambers (ibid, 127).

Sitchin makes note of the unusual positioning of some of the graffiti; that is, some of it is upside-down and some of it vertical. He uses this to argue that Vyse and Hill, unable to stand erect in the chambers, were forced to squat and assume other uncomfortable positions as they "forged" the graffiti. There is a much more logical explanation for this, but more on that later.

Refer again to the chart with the three versions of the name, above. Early scholars were confused by the appearance of a Khufu as well as a Khnum-Khuf and, as Sitchin states, were forced to wonder if two kings were being referred to (Stichin 2007: 356-359). Even Flinders Petrie was somewhat confused by this and attempted unsuccessfully to reconcile it in his own writings (Petrie 1883; 2007 ed: 152). Some early scholars even posited a co-regency between Khufu and a son named Khnum-Khuf; co-regencies were known to have existed, but as research would show in the decades to come, we have no definitive evidence for a co-regency before Dynasty 12, many centuries after Khufu's time.

The simple answer is, as we have known for a great many years now, Khufu was merely a short version of the formal name Khnum-Khuf (meaning "Khnum protects him"). Both names refer to the same king, of course. I couldn't help but notice in this chapter of Sitchin's book that the Horus name, Medjedu, is not even mentioned. It appears in the relieving chambers, too, as I've diagramed above. I am not sure why Sitchin goes to such lengths in muddying the waters with the old confusion over the name-versions because such detail does nothing to buttress his ultimate claim that the two large Giza pyramids were actually built by "Anunnaki aliens" long before the Egyptians existed.

This is an absurd notion, of course, but what Sitchin really desires by presenting the details about the names Khufu and Khnum-Khuf is what he regards as a clumsy error in the forging of the names. This brings me to what might be regarded as Sitchin's single weakest and most glaring error in the claim of forgery. This is the representation of the symbol in the graffiti that produces the "kh" sound in the name Khufu or Khuf. Sitchin calls it a sieve; most Egyptologists believe it to symbolize a placenta, but the truth is no one is sure. All we know for sure is that it represents the guttural "kh" sound. Its classical depiction is as a circle within which are hash marks, such as in the final, circle glyph in this word, "ankh."

In the graffiti, however, the circle glyph contains no hash marks--it is simply an empty circle, as seen in my chart above. Sitchin is correct that this makes it more closely resemble the glyph of the sun disk as in this spelling for the name of the god Re, but for the sake of his argument Sitchin maintains that in forging the graffiti Vyse and Hill bungled the job and used the sun-disk symbol instead of the sieve symbol, thereby spelling the name Reufu instead of Khufu. He further maintains that these two symbols were always perfectly employed by the Egyptians (Sitchin 2007: 368) and that no scribe would have ever made such an "error."

What this ultimately reveals is Sitchin's lack of training in and understanding of Egyptian hieroglyphs. He is completely incorrect. Recall that the graffiti is not an official, monumental inscription commissioned by the state but simply symbols hand-drawn by evidently mostly literate foremen of work gangs. As one leading linguist in Egyptology states: "In these handwritten texts it is very rare to find hieroglyphs made with the same detail as those in hieroglyphic inscriptions" (Allen 2001: 6). In texts written on papyrus or ostraca, painted onto wood or stone, and even carved into stone, it is in fact extremely common to show the "kh" glyph as an empty circle, as a circle with a blob somewhere within it, or as a circle containing any assortment of hash marks. Observe the examples below; the arrows point to examples of the "kh" glyph:

Kh-Glyphs.jpg

These are all examples from artifacts with which I am familiar at the Field Museum in Chicago. The examples I've selected range from Dynasty 4 to Dynasty 19-20, representing around 1,000 years of inscriptions. The Dynasty 4 example is from a section of a stone false door for a nobleman, and the "kh" glyph is classically rendered with numerous hash marks. The Dynasty 5 example is from a large stone false door of a prince whose tomb is in the Unis pyramid complex, and in both examples indicated the "kh" glyph is an empty circle filled in with paint. The Dynasty 12 examples is from a small stone stela and the "kh" glyph is an empty circle. Finally, the Dynasty 19-20 example is from a papyrus Book of the Dead of a priest, and in both examples indicated the "kh" circle, forming part of his name, includes the circle with three vertical hash marks.

I should hope this alone is enough to render this portion of Sitchin's argument defunct.

Earlier I mentioned Sitchin's point that some of the graffiti is upside-down and some vertically written, his point being that Vyse and Hill needed to squat or assume other odd positions in order to write the graffiti in the extremely cramped spaces. In fact, the positioning of other examples of graffiti in these chambers proves why some of it appears this way, and further proves beyond a doubt that the graffiti was written by the ancient builders themselves. This brings me to the conclusion of my post, and to this end it brings me great pleasure to provide an example of capitulation by none other than Graham Hancock, one of the leaders of modern-day fringe arguments and who formerly had supported the "forgery" argument of Sitchin's. In the late 1990s Zahi Hawass permitted Hancock unrestricted access to the relieving chambers of the Great Pyramid, and in that time Hancock was able to see for himself why the graffiti could not have been forged. Hancock's full retraction can be found on this page (scroll down to his "Position Statement"), but the gist of it is:

In other words, at least much of the graffiti had been written in 2,500 BCE on these great blocks before they were assembled in the relieving chambers. Other mason's marks show where and how the blocks were to be put in place, and the work crews "signed" the blocks that they themselves were to assemble above the King's Chamber. Graham Hancock has not surrendered all of his fringe beliefs, unfortunately, but I give him proper credit for admitting that Sitchin's forgery theory is demonstrably false.

I know this grew to be a beefy post. I hope at least some of you choose to read and digest it, and I hope you enjoy it. It was my wish to provide a firm stance on why Sitchin's claim cannot be taken seriously because I am constantly amazed that fringe adherents somehow still try to use the graffiti in the way Sitchin invented, even though he has been proven false. There is no wiggle room. This may be the last critique I write of The Stairway to Heaven because I've seen that my "Sitchin's Folly" threads have not generated much feedback, probably due to how long they are, but at least I can leave the endeavor having disproved this position of Zecharia Sitchin's.

I welcome comments and debate. :)

Maybe it was the aliens who built the great pyramids who put the Grafiti there which was later copied by the Egyptians.

Date the Graffiti paint.

Sitchin was also contacted by the Graffiti forgers great grand son,the ancestor was forced by Vyse to forge the graffiti.

Khufu didn't have the capabilities to build the great pyramid,he might have even copied his name from some other ancient King.It was very common for people to take credit for other people's achievements and that trend has continued even till today.

It is simple logic,if Khufu could build such great structures as his tomb then the 'Egomaniac' would have most definitely built a even bigger palace for himself to live in.

here is something to brood about,the related article is even better with photographs so please go through the same:

Let's Review the Problems

1. Several cartouches with different forms/spellings were discovered (or fraudulently inscribed) on the walls of the relieving chambers. These names are suppose to identify the owner and purpose of the Great Pyramid. These names are: Saufou or Shoufou (Supis), Khoufou (Cheops), SENeshoufou, Raufu, Khnem-Khufu (Chephren?), and Khufu. Which one is it?

2. Hieroglyphic script was of a semi-hieratic style, which was not practiced until the Middle Kingdom (2000 BC.)

3. No funerary text, hieroglyphics, or frescoes exists to depict the GP as a tomb. For the ancient Egyptians to spend so much time, energy and money to build such a monument and not spend one ounce of time or energy to decorate it in their customary elaborate, ornate funeral-ritualistic style to depict the awe-inspiring structure as a tomb for their great Pharaoh (King!) makes no common sense at all, especially since that is one of the most famous things the ancient Egyptians are so famous for! Think about that.

4. No physical evidence exists that proves a mummy was entombed in the stone Coffer, and no physical evidence of any personal possessions (artifacts) that were customarily placed in the tomb with the deceased has ever been found. Nothing. Nada. It's as if someone went through the entire pyramid and swept it clean with a broom. I find these equally strange.

5. No inscriptions or designs exist on the exterior of the Coffer. This is explained in detail on the following page.

6. Nathaniel Davison discovered the first relieving chamber in 1765 (72 years before Vyse). No hieroglyphic inscriptions were discovered in this chamber. On the other hand, Col. Vyse discovered all the chambers above Davison's Chamber, and oddly enough, they are the ONLY chambers with the ONLY hieroglyphic inscriptions that have ever been found inside the GP. Coincidence?

7. Why is the most important cartouche of Khufu found inside Campbell's Chamber and drawn by Vyse at the time of the discovery unlike the same cartouche that is painted on the wall in the same chamber today? Why is there three crosshatches inside the circle, depicting a sieve in the cartouche today when they did NOT exist at the time of it was discovered in 1837? Did this cartouche undergo some form of (fraudulent?) restoration?

As you can see, there are enough holes in the "Great Pyramid is Khufu Tomb Theory" to sink a boat, all of which are supported with plenty of (circumstantial?) evidence to warrant reasonable doubt. Therefore, IMO it can be said there is NOT enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Great Pyramid was a tomb for Pharaoh Khufu, or anyone else for that matter.

http://www.rickrichards.com/egypt/Egypt6.htm

p.s- Just playing the devils advocate.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Harsh, what, according to you, would be the possible reason for the construction of the Great Pyramid?

The most plausible explanation in general is that it was built as a tomb for Khufu.

Try the Occam's Razor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it was the aliens who built the great pyramids who put the Grafiti there which was later copied by the Egyptians.

Date the Graffiti paint.

Sitchin was also contacted by the Graffiti forgers great grand son,the ancestor was forced by Vyse to forge the graffiti.

Khufu didn't have the capabilities to build the great pyramid,he might have even copied his name from some other ancient King.It was very common for people to take credit for other people's achievements and that trend has continued even till today.

It is simple logic,if Khufu could build such great structures as his tomb then the 'Egomaniac' would have most definitely built a even bigger palace for himself to live in.

here is something to brood about,the related article is even better with photographs so please go through the same:

Let's Review the Problems

1. Several cartouches with different forms/spellings were discovered (or fraudulently inscribed) on the walls of the relieving chambers. These names are suppose to identify the owner and purpose of the Great Pyramid. These names are: Saufou or Shoufou (Supis), Khoufou (Cheops), SENeshoufou, Raufu, Khnem-Khufu (Chephren?), and Khufu. Which one is it?

The fact that the forms of Kuhfu's names, as acknowledged by various interested parties, has changed over the years means nothing in this context. This "various spellings" statement is not true. The fact is, different people have verbalized the phonetics of the name in different ways. Ever heard of Cheops?

2. Hieroglyphic script was of a semi-hieratic style, which was not practiced until the Middle Kingdom (2000 BC.)

This is in fact not true. At one time, it was thought to be so. Only a year or two after Vyse's discovery it was found to be untrue.

3. No funerary text, hieroglyphics, or frescoes exists to depict the GP as a tomb. For the ancient Egyptians to spend so much time, energy and money to build such a monument and not spend one ounce of time or energy to decorate it in their customary elaborate, ornate funeral-ritualistic style to depict the awe-inspiring structure as a tomb for their great Pharaoh (King!) makes no common sense at all, especially since that is one of the most famous things the ancient Egyptians are so famous for! Think about that.

Pure stupidity. Especially the part about "common sense" and "think about it." There were no funerary texts at the time.

Since when does Egyptological knowledge equate with "street smarts" or "common sense?" To whom are the minutiae of daily 4th dynasty life "common?"

No 4th dynasty tomb was decorated in that way.

4. No physical evidence exists that proves a mummy was entombed in the stone Coffer, and no physical evidence of any personal possessions (artifacts) that were customarily placed in the tomb with the deceased has ever been found. Nothing. Nada. It's as if someone went through the entire pyramid and swept it clean with a broom. I find these equally strange.

Yet the first people to enter the Great Pyramid, working under caliph Al Mamoun, described not one, but several mummies. AND loads of gold.

5. No inscriptions or designs exist on the exterior of the Coffer. This is explained in detail on the following page.

See above about decorations.

6. Nathaniel Davison discovered the first relieving chamber in 1765 (72 years before Vyse). No hieroglyphic inscriptions were discovered in this chamber. On the other hand, Col. Vyse discovered all the chambers above Davison's Chamber, and oddly enough, they are the ONLY chambers with the ONLY hieroglyphic inscriptions that have ever been found inside the GP. Coincidence?

They may have been the only ones found at the time the above was written. However, since then, glyphs have been found in other, completely inaccesible, places in the GP, as noted by the illustrious kmt_sesh in a previous post.

It should be noted that, wherever anyone has looked for such glyphs, they have been found. All over Giza and elswhere; at ancient Egyptian pyramid sites.

7. Why is the most important cartouche of Khufu found inside Campbell's Chamber and drawn by Vyse at the time of the discovery unlike the same cartouche that is painted on the wall in the same chamber today? Why is there three crosshatches inside the circle, depicting a sieve in the cartouche today when they did NOT exist at the time of it was discovered in 1837? Did this cartouche undergo some form of (fraudulent?) restoration?

Many times I've linked to a pic of the pertinant page of Vyse's own journal that proves that the above is simply a lie. Vyse reports finding the crosshatches, which his own notebook indicates he did not expect to see in that glyph. All previously explained a few posts back by kmt_sesh, again.

As you can see, there are enough holes in the "Great Pyramid is Khufu Tomb Theory" to sink a boat, all of which are supported with plenty of (circumstantial?) evidence to warrant reasonable doubt. Therefore, IMO it can be said there is NOT enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Great Pyramid was a tomb for Pharaoh Khufu, or anyone else for that matter.

There is not, and will never be, any evidence at any ancient site that archaeologists can use to "prove" anything. Evidence merely suggests. The evidence at Giza suggests the GP was Khufu's tomb.

"Proof" is a mathematical concept and doesn't even exist in the imperfect world.

Just arguing against a Devil's Advocate.

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pure stupidity. Especially the part about "common sense" and "think about it." There were no funerary texts at the time.

I thought that Egyptologists suspected that any such texts would have been in the funerary temple? Which is only ruins today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Harte and Kmt Sesh,

I totally agree with both of you, but don't try to push pure Math into the long grass, it may give you a black eye, you never know ha ha!

I agree with your thesis about Cheops, 100%, but be careful of MATH! It doesn't always fit into a imperfect world, but can hit you when you are not looking!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The math discussed is just the concept of "proof" itself, which cannot be applied at all in the real (and imperfect) world. Only in the perfect world of mathematics can one claim that anything at all has (or hasn't) been "proven.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Devil's Advocate" swings both ways, i have said i agree with you Harte, my complaint is bringing in Math, it doesn't always serve you bringing it in, unless you bring in area's for debate on topic and analysis, being your own work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pure stupidity. Especially the part about "common sense" and "think about it." There were no funerary texts at the time.

Since when does Egyptological knowledge equate with "street smarts" or "common sense?" To whom are the minutiae of daily 4th dynasty life "common?"

No 4th dynasty tomb was decorated in that way.

You know better than this. Most all of the nobles' tombs had all sorts of writing (primarily

just lists of titles) and various artwork.

There was the proto-pyramid texts at the time according to the majority of Egyptologists

and common sense.

Yet the first people to enter the Great Pyramid, working under caliph Al Mamoun, described not one, but several mummies. AND loads of gold.

There is not, and will never be, any evidence at any ancient site that archaeologists can use to "prove" anything. Evidence merely suggests. The evidence at Giza suggests the GP was Khufu's tomb.

"Proof" is a mathematical concept and doesn't even exist in the imperfect world.

Again this is untrue. It goes beyond mere semantics. Truth and proof most surely exist outside

math. It might be your opinion that the world is imperfect but the fact is that some things are known

to be true and some are believed to be true on the basis of logic and evidence. That the great pyra-

mids were not tombs will be well established (proven) someday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that Egyptologists suspected that any such texts would have been in the funerary temple? Which is only ruins today.

This is all strictly supposition. It's not established fact that there was a "funerary temple"

nor that the Pyramid Texts (proto-PT) is truly funerary in nature. This is all interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all strictly supposition. It's not established fact that there was a "funerary temple"

nor that the Pyramid Texts (proto-PT) is truly funerary in nature. This is all interpretation.

It's hard fact, actually. I have never been able to find photos but have read descriptions of the fragmented mortuary temple that once abutted the east side of the Great Pyramid. All that remains of the structure today—what the tourists see, that is—is the basalt paving stones. The fragmented portions of the mortuary temple reveal a full decoration plan, as one would expect for a funerary monument.

The Pyramid Texts and their nature are a different topic altogether. While they clearly express a mortuary purpose, this is not the thread for discussing them, nor will I permit this discussion to be sidetracked.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant to say in my previous post but I appreciate the contributions that have brought this old thread back to life. I also apologize for not keeping up, but time is tight these days. I intend to return and respond to some of the most recent comments, as soon as I am able.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard fact, actually. I have never been able to find photos but have read descriptions of the fragmented mortuary temple that once abutted the east side of the Great Pyramid. All that remains of the structure today—what the tourists see, that is—is the basalt paving stones. The fragmented portions of the mortuary temple reveal a full decoration plan, as one would expect for a funerary monument.

The Pyramid Texts and their nature are a different topic altogether. While they clearly express a mortuary purpose, this is not the thread for discussing them, nor will I permit this discussion to be sidetracked.

What design can possibly exist on the "mortuary temple" to establish as "hard fact" that

it is a mortuary temple. I won't even quibble about the fact that it's not known how these

stones adorned the "temple". Indeed, if it can be shown these designs can positively be

connected only to mortuary structures then I won't quibble about their nature either.

I know you've mentioned these before.

It wasn't appropriate nor accurate to suggest it is stupid to expect "decorations" because

there were no funerary texts at the time. The nature of the PT is irrelevant since they do

concern rituals associated with royal ascension. If there were a royal in the pyramid it

could be expected that there would be just these texts.

There simply is no direct evidence that any king was ever buried in a great pyramid. This

is mere interpretation of very scanty evidence. It is the belief common at the beginning of

the third millinium based primarily on 150 years of research and interpretation of evidence.

Some people do not believe the interpretation stands up to the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all strictly supposition. It's not established fact that there was a "funerary temple"

nor that the Pyramid Texts (proto-PT) is truly funerary in nature. This is all interpretation.

It is a supposition, but it is the suppostion of 90+% of the educated, experienced experts.

I know that you don't recognize education, experience or expertise as being relevent in fringe opinon, but myself, I tend to follow the majority, because the majority follows the physical evidence.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: First of all, this has nothing to do with Sitchin's argument - let's be clear on that...

I bring up Sitchin only because he is, in fact, the origin of the hoax myth as it stands today—in basically the same manner as you yourself have argued it. That's a simple fact. However, I don't pretend to know everything, so if you have information to the contrary (i.e., a writer previous to Sitchin who developed and presented the idea in such a manner that Sitchin might have borrowed from it), I welcome more information on that.

...Secondly - you completely gloss over my argument.

I did no such thing. I read your post a couple of times before I responded to it. The entirety of your argument was based on the name of Khufu and its variants, as though the name were the only salient point. I responded in kind. This is up to and including your caveat that the Aa1 glyph without striations can represent the "kh" sound so long as it's "painted green/blue," which is factually incorrect. The whole gist of my post was to put the name in context with the phrases in which it resides—which is something of which fringe writers who argue in favor of a hoax do not ever seem to be aware.

The orthography simply does not matter.

If you're discussing an ancient script and the manner in which it was written in ancient times, orthography always matters. It is essential to practically every proper analysis of ancient writing. That's Linguistics 101. And it has a direct bearing on the fringe approach in favor of the hoax.

Howard-Vyse could have found a number of inscriptions (the white crown of Khufu is powerful, the workgang of Khnum-Khuf or whatever) from elsewhere, written in various script and simply copied these verbatim into the so-called Relieving Chambers.

An historical investigation cannot properly operate from could have, should have, possibly, or maybe. Evidence on the ground is what matters. Speculation cannot guide the researcher to workable answers. I am not aware of examples of graffiti elsewhere in Khufu's pyramid complex that matches the graffiti in the relieving chambers, so this approach gets us nowhere. It cannot stand on its own.

...Afterall, it could look highly suspicious if he presented a stone slab with inscriptions that said exactly the same thing as was found in the GP and also written in the same style. Howard-Vyse simply did not require knowledge of the orthography of AE scripts.He just needed to find some texts from elsewhere outside the pyramid that presented Khufu's name (which he would have recognised) and copy these scripts verbatim into the GP - and, as stated already, he was a good copier of style as his journal proves.

My above argument stands here, too. You appear to be thinking out loud. That doesn't get us anywhere, nor can you use it as a reasonable line of corroboration.

On the issue of the marks found in the small cavities at the end of the QC southern shaft. There is no definitive interpretation of these marks. There have been some proposals as to what they might represent but no one seems to know for certain what they say, presuming they say anything at all. I find this situation rather odd. A couple of hidden chambers with a veritable plethora of perfectly readable, perfectly unambiguous markings and then another hidden 'chamber' where the obscure markings are, at best, highly ambiguous and contentious. Why are there no perfectly readable, perfectly unambiguous marks in this small, inaccessible 'chamber' at the end of this shaft? Makes you wonder.

SC

I've already explained the markings in the "air shafts" don't appear to say anything. I will add that they don't in all cases even seem to be hieroglyphs, which is why the leading theory is that they're builder's marks. And these marks are amply evidenced on pharaonic monuments from all periods.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that you don't recognize education, experience or expertise as being relevent in fringe opinon, but myself, I tend to follow the majority, because the majority follows the physical evidence.

This isn't about the PT.

The only things relevant to truth are facts, logic, and the ability of hypothesis or theory to

make accurate prediction. Education can spread knowledge and knowledge can be extremely

beneficial, especially when coupled with experience. Expertise is a thing of wonder that is not

often achieved but easily recognizable usually. The subject here is facts and logic and these

should not be confused with assumptions. I would love to see Kmt_Sesh's expertise reinforce

Harte's supposition but I don't believe this will happen. Even if it does the fact is some of the claims

are counter to the facts. It simply isn't logical or consistent with evidence to suggest that G1 isn't

decorated like a tomb because they didn't have anything to write on the walls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.