why no hieroglyphs inside the great pyramid

[cladking]

You do not understand the nature of the evidence nor the culture that produced it. Therefore, common sense dictates you are simply not equipped to understand the evidence. Facts, not beliefs, come from evidence. Egyptology works from facts based on proper research and science. You yourself work from personal beliefs based on assumptions and speculations.

Egyptologists believe they understand the culture that built the

great pyramids.

Before they found the Pyramid Texts there was virtually no evidence

of any sort whatsoever about these builders other than the monuments

themselves. There was already extensive knowledge about later peoples

but nothing about the great pyramid builders. There's a simple reason

for this; papyrus didn't last for 4500 years. The great pyramids pro-

bably did not contain any writing.

But the egyptologists had numerous beliefs based on the scraps that were

known. They also believed ramps were the only way the builders could

have lifted the stones. (... and they still do) They believed the an-

cients were highly superstitious because the later works were obviously

written as incantation by very superstitious people. They believed that

the pyramids were tombs because this is what came down to us through the

ages including Herodotus.

They had a picture of the ancients despite a near vacuum of evidence.

When the PT was found it was most obviously an older version of the cof-

fin texts. Even before anyone ever sat down to translate it for the ve-

ry first time he knew it was an older version of the coffin texts! Even

though the coffin texts only look a little like incantation it's an older

version of the book of the dead which is obviously superstitious nonsense.

It was easy to put two and two together and come up three. And that's ex-

ctly what they came up with. So now they assumed the Pyramid Texts was al-

so superstition.

Since this fit their preconcieved notion that the great pyramid builders

were superstitious primitives willing to drag stones up ramps while risk-

ing their lives and the lives of their families to build a tomb for a king

who could walk through walls they simply never noticed that the next 150

years of evidence never fit their assumptions. The little dribs and drabs

of evidence found in this times is simply massaged to fit their ideas.

It's easy to see confirmation for one's beliefs but you're supposed to

look at all of the evidence. This is more fundamental to cience than even

analysis of experiment. Really it's a part of observation and this is the

very cornerstone of science. But orthodox thought does not look at all the

evidence but far worse it looks at the evidence in terms of what came later.

It's like trying to judge the formula of dynamite by studying shock waves.

It's like studying the biology of a forest by looking at used lumber.

The simple fact is that there's still almost no evidence related to the py-

ramid builders or how they built the pyramids and all that evidence suggests

that they used water. The literal meaning of the Pyramid Texts also sug-

gests they used water.

If they used water then it should follow that the literal meaning of all

their words were the intended ones and this means the pyramids were not tombs.

This would mean the evidence really is relevent rather than a red herring as

orthodoxy suggests.

Later on the rest...

[questionmark]

Just wanted to know...

maybe because at the time, it wasn't fashionable to do so??

Or maybe because the time of the big adorned monuments was about 1000 years later?

[Abramelin]

It's not the size that matters; rather it's what you do with it (the words I mean).

Go and get yourself a beer and chill a little my dear fellow.

I have had lots more than just a beer, but I see you just ignore me.

Fine.

I then hope someone will quote me when they respond to you....

"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."

Zoser, I have my own 'fantasies' about Doggerland, and some here already hate me for bringing it up again and again.

But to me Doggerland (and to many others the world over) is a proven fact, not some Sitchin/Von Daniken-like day-dream/hoax.

Edited June 11, 2010 by Abramelin

[kmt_sesh]

Egyptologists believe they understand the culture that built the

great pyramids.

Before they found the Pyramid Texts there was virtually no evidence

of any sort whatsoever about these builders other than the monuments

themselves. There was already extensive knowledge about later peoples

but nothing about the great pyramid builders. There's a simple reason

for this; papyrus didn't last for 4500 years. The great pyramids pro-

bably did not contain any writing.

But the egyptologists had numerous beliefs based on the scraps that were

known. They also believed ramps were the only way the builders could

have lifted the stones. (... and they still do) They believed the an-

cients were highly superstitious because the later works were obviously

written as incantation by very superstitious people. They believed that

the pyramids were tombs because this is what came down to us through the

ages including Herodotus.

They had a picture of the ancients despite a near vacuum of evidence.

When the PT was found it was most obviously an older version of the cof-

fin texts. Even before anyone ever sat down to translate it for the ve-

ry first time he knew it was an older version of the coffin texts! Even

though the coffin texts only look a little like incantation it's an older

version of the book of the dead which is obviously superstitious nonsense.

It was easy to put two and two together and come up three. And that's ex-

ctly what they came up with. So now they assumed the Pyramid Texts was al-

so superstition.

Since this fit their preconcieved notion that the great pyramid builders

were superstitious primitives willing to drag stones up ramps while risk-

ing their lives and the lives of their families to build a tomb for a king

who could walk through walls they simply never noticed that the next 150

years of evidence never fit their assumptions. The little dribs and drabs

of evidence found in this times is simply massaged to fit their ideas.

It's easy to see confirmation for one's beliefs but you're supposed to

look at all of the evidence. This is more fundamental to cience than even

analysis of experiment. Really it's a part of observation and this is the

very cornerstone of science. But orthodox thought does not look at all the

evidence but far worse it looks at the evidence in terms of what came later.

It's like trying to judge the formula of dynamite by studying shock waves.

It's like studying the biology of a forest by looking at used lumber.

The simple fact is that there's still almost no evidence related to the py-

ramid builders or how they built the pyramids and all that evidence suggests

that they used water. The literal meaning of the Pyramid Texts also sug-

gests they used water.

If they used water then it should follow that the literal meaning of all

their words were the intended ones and this means the pyramids were not tombs.

This would mean the evidence really is relevent rather than a red herring as

orthodoxy suggests.

Later on the rest...

Egyptologists are the best-equipped people to understand ancient Egypt. That's a given. But your breakdown of how this stuff has been studied is overly simplistic and somewhat backward. Around 1880 Maspero found the first examples of Pyramid Texts in the pyramid of Pepi I, and the sensation this caused led to their immediate study. The decipherment of hieroglyphs had occurred only around 60 years before that, so the early historians were hungry to translate anything they came across. The Pyramid Texts were some of the first religious texts to be studied. Papyri had already been filtering into Western museums in large quantities but years would pass before properly educated people sat down to examine and translate them.

It was only later, when historians were working with Coffins Texts and Books of the Dead, that clear associations were seen with the Pyramid Texts. Studying the combined corpi of the three, even a beginner student can see how one led to another. They're essentially the same spells, undergoing redactions and alterations but existing in Egypt in practically unbroken fashion for 3,000 years. You're confusing yourself with our modern terminology--Pyramid Texts, Coffin Texts, Book of the Dead--and thinking that these three thing are completely different and unrelated. That's not how the ancients viewed them. Other religious texts like the Amduat and Book of Gates grew from the same tradition. They were religious funerary spells from the very start, a fact about which there is no question.

The oldest papyrus ever found, by the way, was in a nobleman's tomb from Dynasty 1, at Saqqara. It's over 5,000 years old.

Just so we're clear going forward in this particular thread, out of respect to zoombie who initiated it and to the other posters taking part in it, I absolutely will not comment on your remarks about ramps and/or geysers. The subject matter is about neither, so neither you nor I should hijack this discussion for yet another diatribe about ramps and/or geysers. There have been far too many of those as it is, and frankly the subject has been beaten to a bloody, messy, meaningless pulp.

[cladking]

It was only later, when historians were working with Coffins Texts and Books of the Dead, that clear associations were seen with the Pyramid Texts. Studying the combined corpi of the three, even a beginner student can see how one led to another. They're essentially the same spells, undergoing redactions and alterations but existing in Egypt in practically unbroken fashion for 3,000 years.

This is a belief.

There is a literal meaning to the book of the dead and this meaning

is quite obviously as a book of incantation.

The book of the dead is derived from the earlier works.

These facts do not prove the Pyramid Texts are incantation. That they

can be taken literally alone suggests this might be the intent.

Perhaps they didn't have anything appropriate to engrave in the great

pyramids. If these weren't tombs and the Pyramid Texts weren't incan-

tations then there would be no point engraving them in the walls.

It is quite ironic that the oldest papyri is very much older than all

others and is, unfortunately, blank. I've toyed with the idea that it's

the ink causing these to suffer early failure and that perhaps it's not

really blank but contains some special sort of ink that is much less

visible. I suppose they'd look at this carefully with different light

and chemicals though to be sure.

The engraving actually on the pyramid can be found here near the bottom;

http://circulartimes.org/Circular%20Times.htm

I believe it was what Newton was looking for but never recognized, Spec-

ically a corrolary to Newton's third law of motion. Ek = Ep.

It's what I'd have written on the pyramid after I meant every word in

the Pyramid Texts.

[cladking]

Then there is the text known as the Instruction to King Merikare, something I've also described to you in the past. This text dates unquestionably to the First Intermediate Period. It comes from either Dynasty 9 or Dynasty 10, the uncertainty lying in which King Khety is being referred to in the text (several kings bore the name Khety in this timeframe). The Instruction to King Merikare is very long so I won't bother quoting any but one example that clearly supports ShadowSot's statement (from Lichtheim 1975: 102):

Troops will fight troops

As the ancestors foretold;

Egypt fought in the graveyard,

Destroying tombs in vengeful destruction.

As I did it, so it happened,

As is done to one who strays from god's path.

Do not deal evilly with the Southland,

You know what the residence foretold about it;

As this happened so that may happen.

Even if I grant this is really from the FIP which I'm uninclined to

do the facts remains it supports my views far better than yours. It

paints these people as being sophisticated and wise. Nowhere does it

say nor even imply that any great pyramid is a tomb. There's acually

a weak suggestion that THEY WERE NOT TOMBS. If there were loot to be

robbed in them then would expect the text to read the "tombs and pyra-

mids" rather than just tombs. It doesn't speak of plunder anyway. It

distinctly refers to vandalism.

Diseased and deprived is he who imprisons the evil gang (of rebels),

[*]124 (for) the enemy cannot be calm within Egypt.

[*]125 Troops will fight troops,

[*]126 as the ancestors foretold.

[*]127 Egypt fought in the necropolis,

[*]128 destroying tombs in vengeful destruction.

[*]129 I did the like, and the like happened,

[*]130 as is done to one who strays from the path of the god ... 12

http://www.maat.sofiatopia.org/merikare.htm

Troops fighting troops in the necropolis suggests something else.

"Destroying tomb" could imply erasing the walls of the pyramids if the

pyramids were tombs. There is no evidence the great pyramids were tombs

and the builders specifically said they were not. ...Repeatedly.

[kmt_sesh]

First of all, let me just said that i know very little about egyptian history/culture so please take everything i write with a grain of salt. What i write here is based on common sense, nothing more.

I have to disagree with you. The temples are there to worship the Gods, I'm not sure if you are religious but religious people do not blame their Gods for their misfortunes. If anything, at times of misfotune, especially natural disasters, they worship the Gods even more because they think that the Gods are angry and are punishing them. Put yourself in their shoes, would you dare to damage any temples and risk anger the Gods even more?

Actually it was common for nobles and kings to help themselves to the temples and other monuments built by earlier nobles and kings. In some cases it must've been for the sake of expediency but in others it appears to be a case of "borrowing" from the glory and prestige of an earlier ruler; that is, incorporating his greatness into your own monument.

The first ruler of Dynasty 12 was Amenemhat I (1994-1964 BCE). He built a pyramid at Lisht, quite a ways south of Cairo. When this poorly preserved pyramid was excavated in modern times, the descending passage proved to have inscribed stones taken from the temples and causeways of the pyramids of Khufu, Khafre, Unis, and Pepy I (or possibly Pepy II). One of these blocks of masonry contained Khufu's cartouche. These blocks didn't end up there for the sake of expediency, of course. The distance between Giza and Lisht is too great. Rather, Amenemhat I was probably borrowing on the greatness of these earlier kings and blessing his own monument with his stones. It also strongly suggests that by the time Amenemhat I was having his pyramid complex built, the pyramid complexes of these earlier kings were already falling into ruins.

We see the same sort of thing from many points in dynastic history. I would wager that in most cases it was for the sake of expediency. Sprawling temple complexes like Karnak are filled with stones reused from earlier versions of the temple; older inscriptions are found on the other sides of blocks of masonry and are discovered only during modern conservation and repair efforts. Recent excavations of the Temple of Khonsu at Karnak have revealed large stones used as floor paving with beautiful relief work on their undersides, from earlier constructions in the area.

In other cases it was out of pure spite, such as the countless talatats from the temples of the heretic king Akhenaten used as fill by later kings inside the massive pylon gateways they built. The once-large Aten temples built by Akhenaten ended up as convenient rubble and space-filler.

The ruling elite of Egypt were never above helping themselves to the masonry and architecture built by the earlier ruling elite. We cannot try to understand this under the misconception of modern sensibilities. Picture yourself as an Egyptian pharaoh. You weren't just a man but a divine emissary from the gods. You were Horus incarnate. Your every word was law. Every last object within Egypt was your personal property to do with as you wished. Therefore, every temple, every building, every construct within Egypt was yours, and it was perfectly legitimate to claim it as your own.

One could argue that the destruction takes place well after the old kingdom thus their society has changed to the point where the old belief system are no longer relevant. however, as far i know, their belief/culture continue on well after the old kingdom periods. The new kings continue to build temples/pyramids so it would be just as sacrilegeous to damage the temples now as it is then.

The belief system was never irrelevant, but it certainly changed. Pyramids, for example, were considered archaic by the New Kingdom. They no longer served a vital function to the monarchs living at that time. The belief in afterlife had changed considerably for both king and commoner. Kings like Tuthmosis III, Amunhotep III, and Ramesses II were many, many times wealthier and more powerful than Khufu had been in Dynasty 4, and yet they no longer built pyramids because pyramids wouldn't have served their religious needs. They still revered pyramids, however. Probably the pyramid most revered in the New Kingdom was Djoser's at Saqqara. It wasn't Khufu's, to be sure. By the time of the New Kingdom Giza was kind of a tourist attraction, to put it in modern terms, but really the only object at Giza that was the focus of important religious veneration was the Sphinx. This is when the Sphinx took on the name Horemakhet (Horus in the Horizon); we don't even know what it was called when it was brand new, in Dynasty 4. But countless Egyptians made pilgrimages to Djoser's Step Pyramid complex at Saqqara, which was a site of widespread veneration. It was so revered that powerful noblemen building their tombs a ways to the south used blocks of masonry from it in their tombs, to have a piece of this great man's complex in their own houses of eternity.

I just come up with another question, what happens to the palaces/houses where the Kings live? Do none of them survive?

Very few palaces are known from any point of dynastic history. I'm quite certain none have been found that date to the Old Kingdom. All palaces appear to have been made of mud brick, the same as the houses of common people. The exception are small palaces attached to major state temples, where the king would stay when visiting the temple; as with the rest of the temple, the adjoining palace was made of stone. But these were strictly religious structures, as tombs were, and they were meant to last for eternity--hence the masonry architecture.

Arguably the most important palace to have been excavated was Amunhotep III's in Western Thebes. It was huge. Little of it survives today because it, too, was made of mud brick. You can Google it and learn more, so search for the name by which it's known today: Malkata (photo and ground plan). It's floor plan is well understood and as with other wealthy mud-brick buildings it contained relief carvings cut in plaster, but we can't know for sure what it looked like when it was built in the fourteenth century BCE.

We've learned a lot about the houses occupied by average people from the excavations of numerous villages and towns. Unfortunately not many of these have been recovered either, so when they're found they are carefully studied. Good examples include:

• Mendes, dating from Old Kingdom on (photo of site)
  
• Kahun, dating to the reign of Senusret II, Dynasty 12 (diagram)
  
• Abydos, pyramid town dating to the reign of Senusret III, Dynasty 12 (satellite image and diagram)
  
• Deir el Medina, dating to the New Kingdom (photo and reconstruction)
  

Also very important is the workmen's village at Giza, dating to Dynasty 4 between the reigns of Khufu and Menkaure. Excavations are still ongoing; you can learn more about it and examine a detailed map on this page. The archaeology and research of the site have demonstrated how it was equipped to feed, supply, administer, and care for many thousands of laborers working at any one time.

[cladking]

Great post Kmt_Sesh.

Can you tell us more about how the stones in Amenemhat I's complex

were identifiable as being from Khufu's causeway? I was aware that

these were "decorated" but wasn't aware they contained writing and

am surprised they are identifiable.

I'm sure there's not a lot of useful information contained in them

but would appreciate an attempt to point me toward it if it's not too

much trouble.

[cormac mac airt]

It wasn't exactly an uncommon practice to take from other complexes, temples, etc., for the purposes of incorporating the best of a previous rulers reign into that of a current ruler.

cormac

Edited June 12, 2010 by cormac mac airt

[J4yD0r]

I recently saw a documentary on something like this. It mentioned one theory that states that the Great Pyramid was actually some sort of hydrogen reactor(!), which is why there aren`t any heiroglyphics on the inside. There was also some sort of salt build-up in some of the chambers too, which apparently corroborates their theory.

The documentary was called Ancient Aliens, and it`s a series of 8. The one with the Pyramid theory is the first one.

I have to say though, for the first half of ep. 1, the examples they use to ``prove`` their theory are...well...lets just say that they`re clutching at straws. Thankfully, it picks up after a bit

[kmt_sesh]

Great post Kmt_Sesh.

Can you tell us more about how the stones in Amenemhat I's complex

were identifiable as being from Khufu's causeway? I was aware that

these were "decorated" but wasn't aware they contained writing and

am surprised they are identifiable.

I'm sure there's not a lot of useful information contained in them

but would appreciate an attempt to point me toward it if it's not too

much trouble.

The photo of the inscribed block from my previous post (link repeated here) could've come from either the causeway or one of Khufu's temples. I don't think it's known for certain which one it was. Miroslav Verner goes on the record for an origin from one of Khufu's temples (2001: 206) and not the causeway, but other sources suggest the possibility of the latter.

I don't know of a website that sufficiently describes the details of Khufu's complex beyond the pyramid itself. I'm sure you and other posters are more adept at web searches than I am because I'm still a bookworm so I defer to the literature in my own library. Sources also differ on the degree to which the causeway was inscribed. Classical writers mention it, including Herodotus, but not all Egyptologists agree there was much inscriptional decoration. I remember that some argue none was present in the causeway. It's difficult to know for certain, however, because the lower portions of the causeway have never been excavated properly (ibid), so we're absent a complete analysis. To be sure, though, most inscriptional material excavated from the area of the pyramid has come from the ruins of the mortuary temple, on the east side of the monument (in the vicinity of the large basalt slabs there). No doubt the valley temple was also heavily inscribed but it, too, has never been excavated due to urban Cairo sprawl. Damn sprawl.

[kmt_sesh]

I recently saw a documentary on something like this. It mentioned one theory that states that the Great Pyramid was actually some sort of hydrogen reactor(!), which is why there aren`t any heiroglyphics on the inside. There was also some sort of salt build-up in some of the chambers too, which apparently corroborates their theory.

The documentary was called Ancient Aliens, and it`s a series of 8. The one with the Pyramid theory is the first one.

I have to say though, for the first half of ep. 1, the examples they use to ``prove`` their theory are...well...lets just say that they`re clutching at straws. Thankfully, it picks up after a bit

Eeeewwww! LOL Trust me, J4yD0r, any and every episode of Ancient Aliens provides you nothing but the worst and most misleading information. It is speculative, uncorroborated, sci-fi nonsense of the highest order. You will learn nothing useful or reliable from this program. I've watched a number of episodes, and aside from numerous moments when I have to restrain myself from pulling out my hair (which is in short supply to begin with), I spend most of the time laughing as I've watched them.

This is kind of sad to say but the average episode of Tutenstein will provide you more reliable information about anything pertaining to ancient Egypt. And no, honestly, I'm not exaggerating.

[kmt_sesh]

I wanted to contribute a post more germane to the OP, in which zoombie asked the oft-repeated question about why the Great Pyramid bears no interior inscriptional decorations. Well, neither did the exterior, but it's often suggested by posters at UM as potential evidence that the Great Pyramid was something other than what orthodox historians explain it to be. I was pleased to see that posters like Abramelin and ShadowSot have addressed this question really well, so I don't feel so alone. And in Post #8 Swede linked us to a rather well-written article from Hall of Maat that further reinforces the strength of the orthodox position. Nevertheless, I'm in a mood to write, so it can't hurt to summarize some important points for everyone to consider.

• Aside from minimal decoration plans in the subterranean spaces of the Step Pyramid complex of Djoser (2663-2643 BC) from Dynasty 3, which happens to be the first pyramid ever built, no pyramid until the time of Unis (2385-2355 BCE) at the end of Dynasty 5 contained inscriptions. This represents an almost uninterrupted time span of nearly 280 years during which royal pyramids contained no interior inscriptions. As zoombie inferred in the OP, it wasn't "fashionable" to do so. That's actually kind of a fair way to look at it.
  
• One cannot look at a pyramid alone and understand what's going on there. A pyramid is part of a larger complex, and the whole must be well understood to achieve an understanding of the parts. The Great Pyramid can be looked at as a massive burial chamber containing a burial chamber. The mass of masonry surrounding the King's Chamber, in which Khufu was laid to rest around 2524 BCE, can be thought of as an extension of that chamber. It was not until the end of Dynasty 5 that burial chambers began to be decorated with inscriptions and relief carvings. There are exceptions, of course, but this pertains to the burial chambers of nobles and not to pyramids.
  
• For the most part the only decorated portions of tombs in the time of Khufu were the offering chapels, where one would find the false door through which the soul of the deceased could be provided offerings. This was usually an integral part of a mastaba tomb or other tomb-type in which nobles were buried at the time. The Great Pyramid was really no different except for the fact that its offering chapel, which we call the mortuary temple, was affixed to the east side of the Great Pyramid. All that survives of this mortuary temple today are the basalt paving slabs of the floor, but enough of the floorplan survives for archaeologists to understand the general layout of the temple. This was in actuality the offering chapel for Khufu, and excavations of the vicinity have recovered a goodly supply of the walls and the generous relief carvings and inscriptions that once covered them.
  
• King Unis was the first to inscribe the interior spaces of his pyramid with what we call the Pyramid Texts. Scholars are certain these religious funerary formulae existed in one form or another, growing and changing through time, on papyrus scrolls before Unis had them carved into his walls. At least some form of these spells would've existed in the time of Khufu and would've been used in his funeral, but no one has yet been able to answer why Unis was the first to put them into stone. And not surprisingly, all the kings and several of the queens of the succeeding Dynasty 6 copied his idea and put these spells in their pyramids, too.
  

I also wanted to weigh in on the nature of the workmen's graffiti found in the upper relieving chambers above the King's Chamber in the Great Pyramid. Back in Post #3 Abramelin did a terrific job summarizing the controversy that has surrounded the graffiti and the reality behind why their authenticity cannot be questioned. I am simply stunned that people today still try to claim that the graffiti is a hoax. This tells me that such people might be deliberately avoiding reality by not taking the time to research the matter for themselves. It's as though if they close their eyes and cover their ears and scream "Na na na na na!" the myth behind the hoax might remain healthy. It will not. Sadly, there is not much we can do for these people if they choose to remain stubbornly ignorant of the facts, and all we can do is hope that they will search out the answers for themselves and admit they were wrong. Or in the least, cease and desist from trying to perpetuate this patently absurd myth.

As far as I have been able to determine the myth was started around twenty years ago with Zecharia Sitchin in his book The Stairway to Heaven. As Sitchin writes in the book and as Abramelin's Post #3 summarizes, the men who discovered the graffiti, Colonel Richard Howard Vyse and J.R. Hill, were painted as forgers. Back in January of this year I initiated a discussion in which I hoped to show why Sitchin is wrong.

The simple fact is, Zecharia Sitchin's argument for forgery is ridiculously inept. Anyone well acquainted with the situation and the history involved can make short work of tearing Sitchin's argument to shreds. Is it any wonder Sitchin isn't taken seriously by educated historians? Abramelin's Post #3 already explains well enough why the graffiti is in fact unarguably authentic, and I could fill several pages of posts going into more detail (which I already did, hence the reason for the above link to my own old thread instead of having to repeat myself). But there's only one thing I'd like to add here, and that's a reminder that Vyse and Hill discovered the graffiti in 1837. It was only fifteen years before then that Jean-François Champollion had deciphered hieroglyphs. Champollion himself had been to Egypt only a few years before Vyse and Hill to try to learn more about how hieroglyphs worked. And while it was possible for any number of people to start to be able to read some kings' names in the glyphs in Vyse and Hill's time in Egypt, it is simply unrealistic for any of us to expect that these two men, neither whom were really historians, were able to forge all of that graffiti. It is unlikely that Champollion could've made sense of all of it, and he died in 1832, never having seen the graffiti for himself. It's taken professional historians many years to make sense of all of the linear hieroglyphic script with which this graffiti was written, so this reality alone sinks any notion that Vyse and Hill forged it.

But the kind of addled nonsense folks like Sitchin write tends to spread like a virus and muddle people's ability to approach historical research appropriately. This is why I so strongly suggest that people close their web browsers, avoid fringe literature at all costs, and get their hands on literature written by trained, vetted, and respected historians. It is the only way one has a chance at achieving a reliable and useful understanding of history.

[zoser]

I think he's near-sighted.

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

So let's try another approach:

Abe - I may be missing something here, and I feel a bit like the child who stood out in the crowd in front of the King and told him he was actually naked but:

Vyse himself actually found the Cartouche - does that not make you suspicious?

I would comment on KMT's notes, but I truly don't understand the relevance of his writing in light of the thread. It just seems off topic - I am not ignoring you dear fellow - I just don't know where you are going.

[cladking]

Abe - I may be missing something here, and I feel a bit like the child who stood out in the crowd in front of the King and told him he was actually naked but:

Vyse himself actually found the Cartouche - does that not make you suspicious?

I would comment on KMT's notes, but I truly don't understand the relevance of his writing in light of the thread. It just seems off topic - I am not ignoring you dear fellow - I just don't know where you are going.

Almost everyone agrees that this writing is original with

the construction of the pyramid now because it goes back

underneath unmoveable stones.

Whatever they say and whatever they mean was there as the

pyramid was being built.

[daavin]

Almost everyone agrees that this writing is original with

the construction of the pyramid now because it goes back

underneath unmoveable stones.

Whatever they say and whatever they mean was there as the

pyramid was being built.

So here's another question if it is proven that stones from other buildings were used with the writing facing another direction could the stones at the great piramid be from a different building?

[ShadowSot]

So here's another question if it is proven that stones from other buildings were used with the writing facing another direction could the stones at the great piramid be from a different building?

Doubtful, we have the quarry the stones came from, and remains of a router from the quarry to the pyramids.

[cladking]

So here's another question if it is proven that stones from other buildings were used with the writing facing another direction could the stones at the great piramid be from a different building?

It's most difficult to know.

G1 was among the first things built at Giza. It's quite likely that

there's an older pyramid underneath it but even this isn't known with

certainty yet.

There is enough space in the two main quarries to account for the vol-

ume of the pyramid but it's entirely possible that it was pulled out

in multiple projects and some went into G1 or into structures incorpor-

ated into G1.

Also it should be remembered that a great deal of stone has been re-

moved from this site.

I think though that to the degree I trust the translators that there is

no real doubt that the ceiling slabs in the king's chamber had Khufu's

name written on them when they were emplaced. I find it interesting

that their weight wasn't painted on them as well.

[+DieChecker]

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.

I agree with ShadowSot and Qwazi, and kmt_sesh, everything I've read lead to the conclusion that they just did not put writing on the walls at that time. And the fact of the builder's graffiti lead me to believe it was not accidental, but purposefully left blank walled.

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".

The Pyramid Texts (PT) that were not written down in pyramids till a hundred and some years after (2400-2300 BC) the Great Pyramid (GP) was built (2560 BC)? Which pyramids were the PT in again? Oh right, the Pyramid of Unas was the earliest form of the PT. And... it seems that the Pyramid of Unas had a mummy in it. Why would they have instructions on the building of a great machine (The GP) using fantastical methods, when the Pyramid of Unas itself was clearly a tomb and relatively small.

I seems clear to me that pyramids were an architectual evolution on the mastaba tomb. Is there any mastaba tombs which were not used for tombs? Wasn't the GP surrounded by lots of smaller tombs? Tombs that have been confirmed as tombs.

There's still nothing suggesting the great pyramids were tombs. That they were tomnbs is an interpretation of egyptologists that is based on no direct evidence.

Only that all the smaller earlier and the later pyramids were tombs. And that the Great Pyramids are surrounded in their locations by tombs. And that all the ancient (Greek) writters said they were tombs.

Edited June 13, 2010 by DieChecker

[cladking]

Only that all the smaller earlier and the later pyramids were tombs. And that the Great Pyramids are surrounded in their locations by tombs. And that all the ancient (Greek) writters said they were tombs.

I don't really care if the great pyramids were tombs or not

but if anyone could show that they were tombs it would weaken

my argument that the Pyramid Texts were meant literally since

they say over and over and over that the pyramids were not tombs.

While I believe the case for having used counterweights to build

can stand on its own it does tie in quite nicely with the literal

meaning of what the builders actually said.

The builders also said that the pyramids were built in the necro-

polis but perhaps the necropolis was built where it was because

this is where they had a natural ballast to use in counterweights.

People have always wanted the finest land and with the best view

in which to be buried.

But this hardly proves the pyramids were tombs. And the lack of

writing inside is supportive of this view. The mastabas built at

the same time as G1 and at Giza all had writing inside.

Edited June 13, 2010 by cladking

[kmt_sesh]

Abe - I may be missing something here, and I feel a bit like the child who stood out in the crowd in front of the King and told him he was actually naked but:

Vyse himself actually found the Cartouche - does that not make you suspicious?

I would comment on KMT's notes, but I truly don't understand the relevance of his writing in light of the thread. It just seems off topic - I am not ignoring you dear fellow - I just don't know where you are going.

I don't think I can make it any simpler. The first part of my Post #38 (with the bullet list) is directly relevant to the topic put forth in the OP. I explained in very clear terms why the Great Pyramid itself contains no formal decoration plan of relief carvings or inscriptions. Other posters in the this discussion have emphasized some of the same points. If you prefer not to comment, that's fine by me.

The second part of my post (below the bullet list) is arguably not as relevant to the OP, but other posters before I came along in this discussion, yourself included, were debating the graffiti in the relieving chambers. All I did was add some of my thoughts on the issue. You are one of those folks who somehow thinks it's still acceptable to regard the graffiti as a hoax, despite the obvious and unquestionable evidence to prove that the graffiti is authentic. So that part of my post was aimed in an off-handed way at you and others who keep trying to perpetuate the myth of the hoax. If you prefer also not to comment on this, that's fine by me.

Vyse and Hill, by the way, discovered the upper relieving chambers. The graffiti was already there. If you go back and reread that portion of my Post #38 which deals with the graffiti, I explain why it wouldn't have been possible for either Vyse or Hill to have successfully forged what was found painted on the masonry in there. In that post I also provided a link to an old discussion I had initiated in which I specifically addressed Sitchin's fraud argument point by point, and tore it apart point by point. And if you return to the first page of this particular thread and reread Abramelin's Post #3, you will also find a very good summary of why the hoax myth is patently absurd.

Moreover, it wasn't just a lonely cartouche Vyse and Hill found in those chambers. Khufu's name in both formal and informal versions is found in numerous spots in the chambers. The names of work gangs are up there, as is other written material. And it's all authentic. There is simply no realistic way to argue that the graffiti was a fraud, for a myriad of reasons explained right in this discussion and other UM threads, not to mention in the professional literature.

Is that clear enough?

[questionmark]

Is that clear enough?

Doubt it will be for some, but does it not amaze you that things that have been responded to in this forum umpteen times keep popping back up?

[kmt_sesh]

The Pyramid Texts (PT) that were not written down in pyramids till a hundred and some years after (2400-2300 BC) the Great Pyramid (GP) was built (2560 BC)? Which pyramids were the PT in again? Oh right, the Pyramid of Unas was the earliest form of the PT. And... it seems that the Pyramid of Unas had a mummy in it. Why would they have instructions on the building of a great machine (The GP) using fantastical methods, when the Pyramid of Unas itself was clearly a tomb and relatively small.

I seems clear to me that pyramids were an architectual evolution on the mastaba tomb. Is there any mastaba tombs which were not used for tombs? Wasn't the GP surrounded by lots of smaller tombs? Tombs that have been confirmed as tombs.

Only that all the smaller earlier and the later pyramids were tombs. And that the Great Pyramids are surrounded in their locations by tombs. And that all the ancient (Greek) writters said they were tombs.

Well said, DieChecker. It should be emphasized that no respected and vetted historian believes the Egyptian pyramids to be anything other than tombs. The only people who do question this fact are those among the fringe camp, and it's not a camp we need to take seriously, of course. The burial of royal people is the one and only reason the Egyptians erected monumental pyramids, from Djoser in Dynasty 3 to at least Amenemhat III in Dynasty 12. There is simply no evidence, direct or circumstantial, that argues otherwise. In all fairness, however, we cannot say that each and every one of these pyramids ended up being used for a royal burial, especially in those cases where a king commissioned more than one burial monument for himself, which several kings did during the timespan I mentioned.

I have never heard of a mummified body being found in Unis' pyramid. Now, human remains have been recovered from several Old Kingdom pyramids, including Djoser's and Sneferu's. But as I understand it, in every case subsequent investigation has established that all of these bodies (or parts thereof, depending on what survived) date to later burials. The practice of what archaeologists call intrusive burial was very common in all points of pharaonic history, so it's not surprising that this may have happened in Old Kingdom pyramids.

This does not, however, give us license to doubt the essential purpose for any monumental pyramid, be it Djoser's or Khufu's or Unis'. It's clear what they were built for. People lacking a proper understanding of pharaonic Egypt often turn to the excuse that none of the pyramids contained the bodies of the kings that were supposed to have been interred in them, but this is an exceedingly poor argument to try to make. In fact, it's quite uninformed. For one thing, few mummies have survived from the Old Kingdom, period. Mummification was simply not yet well done in the culture, and bodies usually did not survive the millennia. For another things, tomb raiding was very common, and bodies were usually one of the prime objects inside a tomb to raid. As of late I've seen a couple of people cite daffy websites that claim these tomb robbers did not tend to mess with the bodies inside tombs, which is laughably erroneous. The bodies were one of the prime targets, given the jewelry and amulets their wrappings contained.

As I've tried to emphasize to cladking, and as you pointed out, no version or form of the Pyramid Texts has survived, to date, from Dynasty 4. Now, I agree with cladking that some form of these spells existed in Dynasty 4 and in fact much farther back than that--this is generally accepted by orthodox scholars. They were probably preserved on papyrus scrolls that did not survive. Were it not for Unis having the spells inscribed in his pyramid, and the kings of Dynasty 6 doing the same after him, it's possible we might not have learned about them. The Pyramid Texts grew into the Coffin Texts and later into the Book of the Dead, but we might be left wondering where these spells came from, so we're quite fortunate that Unis had the presence of mind to have them inscribed in stone. To be honest we don't know why he had this done, but thankfully he did. The problem for cladking is, the Pyramid Texts as they have come down to us do not appear in any context directly relevant to Dynasty 4 and its monuments, so we cannot really know what they read like or what they contained in the time of Khufu. No argument can be made from such an absence of evidence, so it's dangerous ground to tread.

[kmt_sesh]

Doubt it will be for some, but does it not amaze you that things that have been responded to in this forum umpteen times keep popping back up?

No, it really doesn't surprise me. Ignorance begets ignorance, but that doesn't make it acceptable. If posters like zoser wish to pretend scientific inquiry and evidence can be ignored, they do so at the risk of their own intellectual peril and with self-inflicted injury to their own credibility. Yes, I know they don't see it this way, but that doesn't change reality. And so for every fringe myth a poster tries to perpetuate, I have no problem responding in kind. I do get tired of repeating myself, but it's up to the rest of us to provide that necessary balance between fringe lunacy and scientific reality.

[daavin]

No, it really doesn't surprise me. Ignorance begets ignorance, but that doesn't make it acceptable. If posters like zoser wish to pretend scientific inquiry and evidence can be ignored, they do so at the risk of their own intellectual peril and with self-inflicted injury to their own credibility. Yes, I know they don't see it this way, but that doesn't change reality. And so for every fringe myth a poster tries to perpetuate, I have no problem responding in kind. I do get tired of repeating myself, but it's up to the rest of us to provide that necessary balance between fringe lunacy and scientific reality.

touche!