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 6
The Puzzler

Great Pyramid not built by Khufu?

593 posts in this topic

Many things allude to this.

Can you devloped that please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggested that Vyse only painted the cartouche and not the glyphs.Also by names of worker gangs do you mean the names of individual workers or a single name representing the whole gang/guild?

I'll come back to your reply to my earlier post, Harsh, but it may have to wait till later today. For now I wanted to comment on the above, which you had addressed to Harte.

The cartouches and Khufu's Horus name are an integral part of a lot of the graffiti. It's not that Khufu's names were just indiscriminately slapped onto the blocks—they're part of sentences and phrases. So what you're suggesting is that workmen 4,500 years ago painted all of the graffiti but the names, leaving those spots blank—and then Vyse came along in the 1830s and filled them in, in the empty spaces.

It doesn't work, does it?

The names of the work gangs refer to the specific gangs, not to individual workers. Such graffiti is evident on other pyramids, Khafre's included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll come back to your reply to my earlier post, Harsh, but it may have to wait till later today. For now I wanted to comment on the above, which you had addressed to Harte.

The cartouches and Khufu's Horus name are an integral part of a lot of the graffiti. It's not that Khufu's names were just indiscriminately slapped onto the blocks—they're part of sentences and phrases. So what you're suggesting is that workmen 4,500 years ago painted all of the graffiti but the names, leaving those spots blank—and then Vyse came along in the 1830s and filled them in, in the empty spaces.

It doesn't work, does it?

The names of the work gangs refer to the specific gangs, not to individual workers. Such graffiti is evident on other pyramids, Khafre's included.

I just did a search for 3rd and 4th dynasty art. The skills clearly did exist in that time. Why none in the GP? Unless this is answered effectively and convincingly the whole question of Khufu, tombs, 2550BC will be in doubt, because it is severely contradictory to the customs of that time. I'm not trying to catch you out KMT but this is one of the major hinge points of the argument. I just don't see that it can be explained away. Off to bed now but back tomorrow I promise.

3rd_dynasty_of_egypt_painting_trapping_harvestin_hat-p148213529278290667zvlyq_400.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people still think that the Khufu cartouche in the GP is not accurate thus alluding to a forgery.

Many in the fringe camp do, yes. But almost no one in fringe circles has any practical training in or familiarity with ancient Egyptian scripts. For example, the case you cite originates (again) with Zecharia Sitchin, and involves the way the Aa1 glyph is drawn. I needn't go into a detailed explanation of it here because I've already done so. See the opening post in this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never come across a geological refutation of Schoch. Now you mention it I will look into it though. BRB

You got it yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never come across a geological refutation of Schoch. Now you mention it I will look into it though. BRB

Review this article by James Harrell. Harrell is a geologist and archaeogeologist with wide expertise in Egypt. Schoch is a properly trained geologist, but his understanding of ancient Egyptian archaeology and site development are exceedingly minimal. I've read a number of papers by geologists and other specialists who've refuted Schoch, but the short of it is, I've never read a paper by another geologist who supports Schoch.

His theory is simply not supported by either his own colleagues or by the evidence on the ground. In essence Schoch was looking at one, narrow approach while simultaneously ignoring all other associated evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting artifact from the Nubian Museum. It is an ostrich eggshell that dates from the Naqada I period (ca.4,400-3,000 BCE). This then is an artifact that has been archaeologically dated to between 500-1900 years older than the Giza Pyramids. And yet this artifact could easily be seen to represent a drawing of the Giza Pyramids far in advance of when these structures were supposed to have existed.

Slide1.JPG

Slide2.JPG

Of course, this is not proof that these are in fact the Giza pyramids being depicted--but it is interesting nevertheless.

From here: http://www.numibia.n...s.asp?p_Numb=40

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am aware of the bent pyramid and other half baked attempts of other egyptian pharoans at trying to replicate the great pyramids hence the doubt about khufu building the great pyramid gains more momentum in my mind.As you suggested yourself we cannot talk about the great pyramids in isolation,this is the premise on which my argument is based.Why isn't there any other pyramid which replicates the beauty and accuracy of the great pyramid,why aren't there heiroglyphics in the great pyramids as compared to these other pyramids including sneferu's pyramids which you state were made before the great pyramids?The ascending passage was blocked since the relatively modern explorations broke around it,can this be the reason the other pharoans never had ascending passages in their pyramids probably since they didn't know one existed?what does the present dillapitated conditions of the other pyramids when compared to the great pyramid tell you?If i write my name on one of the walls of the white house does it mean i built it?Did the art of pyramid building reach it's zenith during Khufu's time and was forgotten after two generations (which is highly unlikely)?Hence i agree with you when you say that the great pyramids cannot be studied in a cultural vaccum or in isolation.

Regarding carbon dating of the mortar i have already suggested that khufu could have carried out repairing work on the pyramid and the 'inventory stele' """can"""" be a documented proof for it.

Would you deny and explain away gravity if it's existence was stated by Sitchin and Hancock? When it comes to Sitchin a lot of his work and hypothesis is based on choosing between mainstream translations of sumerian tablets which according to me is not a very bad method.Also you might dislike their hypothesis as they are new and opposed to accepted knowledge and don't always have objective proof but so many things accepted by mainstream is not based on objective proof.This is evident as so many long standing notions held by the mainstream are revised from time to time

(but not without a lot of resistance and embarassment).Blanketing everything a person is saying because of your personal beliefs is not an objective technique according to me.

Michael Cremo gives an excellent example of this truth filteration that happens due to our existing Mainstream procedures in his book 'forbidden archeology'.Also if you consider human psychology you know that the 'power of suggestion' (often and forcibly invoked by mainstreamn academia through peer review)is almost hypnotic and also would impact mainstream archeologists and historians.Any institution of knowledge should indulge in giving credence to dissent to any generally accepted norm inorder to really strengthen it's credibility instead of crucifying the nay sayers.

Like i stated all new hypothesis or theory or facts are fringe when they are born(since they are not yet accepted by mainstream)so why not encourage fringe or how would you encourage new discoveries in any field?

PS- debating with you has always been a pleasure Sesh.

Have you taken the time to actually study the research by Bonani, et. al. (2001)?

Or would you be suggesting that Khufu "modified" some 29 early Egyptian constructions dating from the 1st through the 12th Dynasties with carefully derived and surprisingly accurate radiocarbon samples?

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting artifact from the Nubian Museum. It is an ostrich eggshell that dates from the Naqada I period (ca.4,400-3,000 BCE). This then is an artifact that has been archaeologically dated to between 500-1900 years older than the Giza Pyramids. And yet this artifact could easily be seen to represent a drawing of the Giza Pyramids far in advance of when these structures were supposed to have existed.

Slide1.JPG

Slide2.JPG

Of course, this is not proof that these are in fact the Giza pyramids being depicted--but it is interesting nevertheless.

From here: http://www.numibia.n...s.asp?p_Numb=40

SC

Cool picture. I have been asking for quite some time now for someone to show me ANY picture of the Pyramids, they seem to be lacking in the excess of artwork in Egypt, why, I have no idea, but yeah, it does look like them and the Nile, thanks for showing it.

Serer cosmology where the pyramid equates to the Universe itself...

150px-Serer_cosmogony_-_representation_of_the_universe.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serer_religion

Edited by The Puzzler
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am aware of the bent pyramid and other half baked attempts of other egyptian pharoans at trying to replicate the great pyramids hence the doubt about khufu building the great pyramid gains more momentum in my mind.As you suggested yourself we cannot talk about the great pyramids in isolation,this is the premise on which my argument is based.

Djoser's Step Pyramid as well as Sneferu's Meidum pyramid, Bent Pyramid, and Red Pyramid all predate the Great Pyramid. There can be no logical argument against this. Moreover, in sum total these earlier masonry pyramids demonstrate the evolution of pyramid building up to Khufu's masterpiece. With respect intended, it really does seem to me that you're viewing the Great Pyramid in a vacuum.

Why isn't there any other pyramid which replicates the beauty and accuracy of the great pyramid,

The Red Pyramid is not as large as the Great Pyramid but it is an engineering masterpiece, inside and out. This is where Sneferu reached a sort of perfection, and it's one of the most beautiful pyramids the Egyptians ever built. And which pyramid came next? The Great Pyramid.

why aren't there heiroglyphics in the great pyramids as compared to these other pyramids including sneferu's pyramids which you state were made before the great pyramids?

None of the masonry pyramids from Dynasty 3 and Dynasty 4 have any formal interior or exterior decoration plan—meaning hieroglyphic inscriptions. This includes the three erected by Sneferu. That was the nature of royal tombs going all the way back to Dynasty 1, long before there were pyramids. The attendant temples were the monuments inscribed with relief carvings. This is true for nearly all of the masonry pyramids.

It would remain true for the rest of Dynasty 4 (Khafre, Menkaure, Shepseskaf) and, in fact, would be the case for nearly all of the succeeding Dynasty 5. Pyramids grew a lot smaller after Dynasty 4 but it wasn't until Unis (2385-2355 BCE) at the end of Dynasty 5 that a pyramid would have a formal decoration plan of hieroglyphs in the interior spaces. The pyramids of the preceding eight kings in Dynasty 5 didn't have such inscriptions.

The ascending passage was blocked since the relatively modern explorations broke around it,can this be the reason the other pharoans never had ascending passages in their pyramids probably since they didn't know one existed?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Though most pyramids don't possess ascending corridors, nearly all of them have some sort of portcullis mechanism, like the Great Pyramid.

what does the present dillapitated conditions of the other pyramids when compared to the great pyramid tell you?

This isn't exactly a mystery. Following Dynasty 4 the power and authority of the state began to wane. These kings of the later Old Kingdom did not rule as prosperous and stable a state as Khufu did. It's probably not appropriate for me to use this space on a discourse about the nature of the weakened state throughout most of Dynasty 5 and Dynasty 6, but suffice it to say civil war erupted following Dynasty 6. These later kings could not erect massive pyramids because, well, they simply were not able to.

If i write my name on one of the walls of the white house does it mean i built it?

No, but according to pharaonic tradition, if a king did this, whatever monument to which he affixed his name (even if it involved re-carving cartouches), the monument became his.

If this is a reference to the graffiti inside the Great Pyramid, however, it cannot work as a coherent argument. The relieving chambers in which the graffiti was written, were sealed upon the completion of that level of the Great Pyramid, and were not entered again until Howard Vyse blasted his way into them in the early nineteenth century. The graffiti could have been put there only by Khufu's workmen, no one else.

Did the art of pyramid building reach it's zenith during Khufu's time and was forgotten after two generations (which is highly unlikely)?

More or less, yes, pyramid building reached its peak late in Dynasty 4 (you must also include Khafre's pyramid, which is practically as impressive as Khufu's). But pyramid building went on until the end of the Old Kingdom, into the First Intermediate Period, and also into the Middle Kingdom. Nothing was forgotten. I briefly explained above why pyramids in the late Old Kingdom were smaller. By the Middle Kingdom, when kings arose like Senwosret III who were a lot more powerful than Khufu, the state religion had changed to the extent that pyramid complexes became fairly standardized and building them to Khufu's size was no longer practical or necessary.

Regarding carbon dating of the mortar i have already suggested that khufu could have carried out repairing work on the pyramid and the 'inventory stele' """can"""" be a documented proof for it.

You're suggesting Khufu somehow removed countless tons of load-bearing stones throughout the Great Pyramid to "repair" it. This is impossible, of course. This mortar is found all over the pyramid and deep into its masonry, so obviously Khufu wasn't pulling out load-bearing stones to stick mortar farther in, without great chunks of the monument collapsing on his workmen's heads.

No, the Inventory Stela cannot stand as proof for this. It doesn't date to Dynasty 4 but to Dynasty 26, a point on which there is universal agreement by the Egyptologists and other specialists who've examined it in modern times. And there is nothing on the stela to prove it's a copy of an older document.

Would you deny and explain away gravity if it's existence was stated by Sitchin and Hancock?

Neither Sitchin nor Hancock would be likely to make such a comment. It's too logical.

When it comes to Sitchin a lot of his work and hypothesis is based on choosing between mainstream translations of sumerian tablets which according to me is not a very bad method.

Sitchin possessed neither training nor expertise in translating any form of cuneiform, especially Sumerian. Therefore, the logical mind would immediately judge Sitchin's conclusions to be dubious and unreliable. One of the key artifacts on which Sitchin based his Nibiru argument is the cylinder seal designated VA243, which does not present anything close to what he claims it shows.

Also you might dislike their hypothesis as they are new and opposed to accepted knowledge and don't always have objective proof but so many things accepted by mainstream is not based on objective proof.

I don't like their conclusions because they're not based on any form of proper analysis of extant evidence. They've turned evidence on its head and concocted their own themes for their own agendas.

Mainstream research must at times turn to speculation when evidence is weak, but even then, orthodox conclusions are based on what the evidence can tell us. If it cannot tell us much of anything, a properly trained historian will plainly state that his or her thoughts on a given subject are speculative. Folks like Sitchin and Hancock will not extend you the same courtesy: they strive to make you believe that their conclusions are rock-hard facts. It's the same sort of garbage you see on that idiotic program Ancient Aliens. This is not contributive historical analysis—it's whimsical science fiction.

Michael Cremo gives an excellent example of this truth filteration that happens due to our existing Mainstream procedures in his book 'forbidden archeology'.Also if you consider human psychology you know that the 'power of suggestion' (often and forcibly invoked by mainstreamn academia through peer review)is almost hypnotic and also would impact mainstream archeologists and historians.Any institution of knowledge should indulge in giving credence to dissent to any generally accepted norm inorder to really strengthen it's credibility instead of crucifying the nay sayers.

We've evaluated Cremo in a different thread. Cremo cannot be used as a reliable source in any form of legitimate scientific or historical research. You might as well rely on Dr. Seuss.

PS- debating with you has always been a pleasure Sesh.

Awfully kind of you to say, Harsh86_Patel. I would've thought by now you hated me. :lol:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just did a search for 3rd and 4th dynasty art. The skills clearly did exist in that time. Why none in the GP? Unless this is answered effectively and convincingly the whole question of Khufu, tombs, 2550BC will be in doubt, because it is severely contradictory to the customs of that time. I'm not trying to catch you out KMT but this is one of the major hinge points of the argument. I just don't see that it can be explained away. Off to bed now but back tomorrow I promise.

3rd_dynasty_of_egypt_painting_trapping_harvestin_hat-p148213529278290667zvlyq_400.jpg

I already touched on this in my preceding post to Harsh, but royal tombs going back to Dynasty 1 did not bear internal inscriptions. I can't recall off the top of my head and do not have the time tonight to double-check, but I think the one exception might be some brief inscriptions in the labyrinthine subterranean passages of Djoser's Step Pyramid (i.e., his name and titles inscribed on false doors). I might be thinking of his Southern Tomb instead, but can't be sure right now.

In any case, private tombs are a good example of this practice, too. In the early dynasties the only places usually provided with relief inscriptions were the offering chapels and their antechambers. Likewise, burial chambers were usually not decorated until late in the Old Kingdom. In this guise, a pyramid is very much like a burial chamber and its mortuary temple an offering chapel. The pyramids were not inscribed but the mortuary temples were, Khufu's included. This doesn't even include the mortuary temples, which were also inscribed, and the causeways, many if not most of which also seem to have been inscribed.

Why a shift occurred later in the Old Kingdom, no one can say for certain. But after Khufu followed several Dynasty 4 kings, none of whom had inscriptions within their burial monuments. Then came Dynasty 5. The pyramids of its first eight kings were much smaller but also contained no interior inscriptions. It changed with Unis at the end of Dynasty 5: his pyramid at Saqqara was the first to contain interior inscriptions, the Pyramid Texts.

This was the norm for most elite tombs till late in the Old Kingdom. The Great Pyramid was hardly unique in this regard.

P.S. I want that hat.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Djoser's Step Pyramid as well as Sneferu's Meidum pyramid, Bent Pyramid, and Red Pyramid all predate the Great Pyramid. There can be no logical argument against this. Moreover, in sum total these earlier masonry pyramids demonstrate the evolution of pyramid building up to Khufu's masterpiece. With respect intended, it really does seem to me that you're viewing the Great Pyramid in a vacuum.

The Red Pyramid is not as large as the Great Pyramid but it is an engineering masterpiece, inside and out. This is where Sneferu reached a sort of perfection, and it's one of the most beautiful pyramids the Egyptians ever built. And which pyramid came next? The Great Pyramid.

None of the masonry pyramids from Dynasty 3 and Dynasty 4 have any formal interior or exterior decoration plan—meaning hieroglyphic inscriptions. This includes the three erected by Sneferu. That was the nature of royal tombs going all the way back to Dynasty 1, long before there were pyramids. The attendant temples were the monuments inscribed with relief carvings. This is true for nearly all of the masonry pyramids.

It would remain true for the rest of Dynasty 4 (Khafre, Menkaure, Shepseskaf) and, in fact, would be the case for nearly all of the succeeding Dynasty 5. Pyramids grew a lot smaller after Dynasty 4 but it wasn't until Unis (2385-2355 BCE) at the end of Dynasty 5 that a pyramid would have a formal decoration plan of hieroglyphs in the interior spaces. The pyramids of the preceding eight kings in Dynasty 5 didn't have such inscriptions.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Though most pyramids don't possess ascending corridors, nearly all of them have some sort of portcullis mechanism, like the Great Pyramid.

This isn't exactly a mystery. Following Dynasty 4 the power and authority of the state began to wane. These kings of the later Old Kingdom did not rule as prosperous and stable a state as Khufu did. It's probably not appropriate for me to use this space on a discourse about the nature of the weakened state throughout most of Dynasty 5 and Dynasty 6, but suffice it to say civil war erupted following Dynasty 6. These later kings could not erect massive pyramids because, well, they simply were not able to.

No, but according to pharaonic tradition, if a king did this, whatever monument to which he affixed his name (even if it involved re-carving cartouches), the monument became his.

If this is a reference to the graffiti inside the Great Pyramid, however, it cannot work as a coherent argument. The relieving chambers in which the graffiti was written, were sealed upon the completion of that level of the Great Pyramid, and were not entered again until Howard Vyse blasted his way into them in the early nineteenth century. The graffiti could have been put there only by Khufu's workmen, no one else.

More or less, yes, pyramid building reached its peak late in Dynasty 4 (you must also include Khafre's pyramid, which is practically as impressive as Khufu's). But pyramid building went on until the end of the Old Kingdom, into the First Intermediate Period, and also into the Middle Kingdom. Nothing was forgotten. I briefly explained above why pyramids in the late Old Kingdom were smaller. By the Middle Kingdom, when kings arose like Senwosret III who were a lot more powerful than Khufu, the state religion had changed to the extent that pyramid complexes became fairly standardized and building them to Khufu's size was no longer practical or necessary.

You're suggesting Khufu somehow removed countless tons of load-bearing stones throughout the Great Pyramid to "repair" it. This is impossible, of course. This mortar is found all over the pyramid and deep into its masonry, so obviously Khufu wasn't pulling out load-bearing stones to stick mortar farther in, without great chunks of the monument collapsing on his workmen's heads.

No, the Inventory Stela cannot stand as proof for this. It doesn't date to Dynasty 4 but to Dynasty 26, a point on which there is universal agreement by the Egyptologists and other specialists who've examined it in modern times. And there is nothing on the stela to prove it's a copy of an older document.

Neither Sitchin nor Hancock would be likely to make such a comment. It's too logical.

Sitchin possessed neither training nor expertise in translating any form of cuneiform, especially Sumerian. Therefore, the logical mind would immediately judge Sitchin's conclusions to be dubious and unreliable. One of the key artifacts on which Sitchin based his Nibiru argument is the cylinder seal designated VA243, which does not present anything close to what he claims it shows.

I don't like their conclusions because they're not based on any form of proper analysis of extant evidence. They've turned evidence on its head and concocted their own themes for their own agendas.

Mainstream research must at times turn to speculation when evidence is weak, but even then, orthodox conclusions are based on what the evidence can tell us. If it cannot tell us much of anything, a properly trained historian will plainly state that his or her thoughts on a given subject are speculative. Folks like Sitchin and Hancock will not extend you the same courtesy: they strive to make you believe that their conclusions are rock-hard facts. It's the same sort of garbage you see on that idiotic program Ancient Aliens. This is not contributive historical analysis—it's whimsical science fiction.

We've evaluated Cremo in a different thread. Cremo cannot be used as a reliable source in any form of legitimate scientific or historical research. You might as well rely on Dr. Seuss.

Awfully kind of you to say, Harsh86_Patel. I would've thought by now you hated me. :lol:

Why can there be no logical argument against the currently accepted time line of the pyramids you stated?Also are you sure that there are no heiroglyphs inside or outside the other pyramids as compared to the great pyramid?And if mainstream historians are really open minded and accept all their speculations to be what they actually are i.e 'speculation' then how different would they be from Fringees,what be the options for student's of histories studying these speculations as hard proven facts and growing up to snub any arguments against these speculations?Do you agree that if the mainstream wanted to collectively ignore an alternative explaination about their current erroneous belief then they could have pretty much have manipulated the entire process to do exactly the same,it is more difficult now to supress things now due to the internet and other advances in communication but it was not the same for a really huge periods of time. Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if mainstream historians are really open minded and accept all their speculations to be what they actually are i.e 'speculation' then how different would they be from Fringees,

Mainstream historians view speculation as just that and await or look for evidence that can support that speculation. Fringees view speculation as fact even with no evidence to support it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will just leave you with this for now.

http://www.world-mys...com/mpl_2_4.htm

That was nice. Thanks.

First what comes to my mind is Al Biruni. I adore this guy. I read one book about him and heard one lecture beside what I found on internet.

What can we say about guy who wrote 1st anthropological work? (India)

Anyway never came upon this his quotation:

"The Persians and the great mass of Magians relate that the inhabitants of the west, when they were warned by their sages, constructed buildings of the King and the Giza Pyramids. The traces of the water of the Deluge and the effects of the waves are still visible on these pyramids halfway up, above which the water did not rise."

Also this

...Roman Marcellinus to the Coptic Al Masudi and the Arab Ibn Abd Alhokim, the recounters of the ancient legends tell how the Pyramid was built to preserve the knowledge of a magnificent civilization from destruction by a Flood.

Do you have anything to confirm this claims?

Not that I dont believe provided link but it realy amaze me those quotes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an interesting artifact from the Nubian Museum. It is an ostrich eggshell that dates from the Naqada I period (ca.4,400-3,000 BCE). This then is an artifact that has been archaeologically dated to between 500-1900 years older than the Giza Pyramids. And yet this artifact could easily be seen to represent a drawing of the Giza Pyramids far in advance of when these structures were supposed to have existed.

Slide1.JPG

Slide2.JPG

Of course, this is not proof that these are in fact the Giza pyramids being depicted--but it is interesting nevertheless.

From here: http://www.numibia.n...s.asp?p_Numb=40

SC

Interesting indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was you, Harte, who first showed me Hancock's public retraction about the graffiti. I actually respected the man for admitting this point.

We should've known better, however. In some recent thread of Scott Creighton's, he posted a link where Hancock had decided to retract his retraction. Hancock determined that because we can't see all of the graffiti in the joins between the blocks and can't determine if Khufu's cartouche is back in there, too, we should therefore be skeptical of those areas of the blocks completely open to viewing. In other words, while the graffiti between the blocks must be authentic, there's nothing to "prove" Khufu's workmen did the graffiti with the cartouches on the unobstructed blocks.

As I would sum it up: once an idiot, always an idiot. It's a chronic condition.

While it's true he recanted his belief that Vyse couldn't have forged it, he did not (and could not) recant the facts he stated, that there are Egyptian glyphs deep in narrow spaces between the stones.

Because the development of Hieroglyphics is fairly well known, what he stated can in no way be used to imply that some earlier civilization built the thing because the written language we see inside it didn't exist prior to the Egyptians.

No, the Inventory Stela cannot stand as proof for this. It doesn't date to Dynasty 4 but to Dynasty 26, a point on which there is universal agreement by the Egyptologists and other specialists who've examined it in modern times. And there is nothing on the stela to prove it's a copy of an older document.

Not to mention the (usually ignored) fact that the stela clearly states that Khufu built his pyramid at Giza.

People try to pretend that the stela calls the Great Pyramid the "Temple of Isis" (IIRC) but a moment's checking will show any interested party that this is simply not the case.

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand only thing that connect GP with AE/Khufu is graphiti?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand only thing that connect GP with AE/Khufu is graphiti?

Guess you missed part of Harte's post just before your own

Not to mention the (usually ignored) fact that the stela clearly states that Khufu built his pyramid at Giza.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess you missed part of Harte's post just before your own

Archaeologicly speaking graphiti is only conection. Inventory stela is written far later beside I understood re-built or repair it depends on source. Anyway it isnt from Khufu time. Far as I know could be earlist evidence of hoax. I often met people who argued things written century after actually happened as not reliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess you missed part of Harte's post just before your own

Harte: Not to mention the (usually ignored) fact that the stela clearly states that Khufu built his pyramid at Giza.

SC: And not to mention that the Invetory Stela ALSO states that Khufu repaired a number of monuments at Giza, including the Sphinx, thereby debarring Khafre (Djedefre's successor) as its creator, as believed by many an Egypt apologist.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: And not to mention that the Invetory Stela ALSO states that Khufu repaired a number of monuments at Giza, including the Sphinx, thereby debarring Khafre (Djedefre's successor) as its creator, as believed by many an Egypt apologist.

SC

But lets put aside it for a moment. Graphiti is only evidence that is built for Khufu?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But lets put aside it for a moment. Graphiti is only evidence that is built for Khufu?

SC: Just showing how Egypt apologists cherry pick data to make a point whilst completely ignoring other information presented by the Inventory Stela that contradicts completely consensus opinion with regards to the Sphinx.

As for the grafittii in the Relieving Chambers of the Great Pyramid--the veracity of the disputed Khufu cartouche can be easily determined. Vyse used dynamite to blast open these 'chambers'. As such, a fine layer of blast residue will be on top of these glyphs. If these glyphs were placed by Vyse then they would have been done so AFTER the blast, therefore, the blast residue will be UNDER the disputer glyphs. Forensic science should be able to test this quite easily. Curious why it has never been done.

Regards,

SC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But lets put aside it for a moment. Graphiti is only evidence that is built for Khufu?

That and the very real fact that the Ancient Egyptians have always said so.

And radiocarbon dates.

And pottery dates.

And masonry style dates.

And the temple in front of the Great Pyramid.

Harte

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 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.