Sitchin's Folly: Graffiti in the Pyramid

[+DieChecker]

notice the width if the ring at lower right of image, the tips of the 'right feet' of the first and third characters gentlemen, looks 'brush' to me, if reeds then the paint or ink needs to be of a certain viscosity to both hold (on the reed) and flow (controlled)

I don't see dry application here at all .... ie charcoal

Probably the charcoal would be ground up to a fine powder and added to water and a binding agent of some kind. Just like anyone today would do if they made their own paint.

[kmt_sesh]

Probably the charcoal would be ground up to a fine powder and added to water and a binding agent of some kind. Just like anyone today would do if they made their own paint.

That's typically how it was done with all of the pigment minerals. This is evident in scribal palettes which have survived.

[jules99]

notice the width if the ring at lower right of image, the tips of the 'right feet' of the first and third characters gentlemen, looks 'brush' to me, if reeds then the paint or ink needs to be of a certain viscosity to both hold (on the reed) and flow (controlled)

I don't see dry application here at all .... ie charcoal

You know more about calligraphy than I do. What I think I see is a wet edge, surety of brush strokes, economy of brush strokes, all performed over a rough hewn limestone surface. To me the person who created this glyph was skilled and not a worker, I thought most Egyptians were illiterate during this era.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Rendering of the birds, particulary the right hand one, has an almost Zen like quality to it. I realise some people will see this, and others just see a roughly rendered bird glyph. I am reminded of the Simpsons episode were Marge starts a campaign against TV violence, but her supporters turn against her when she sees the genius in Michelangelo's David, and not "filth and pornography" as uneducated narrow minded people do.

[Harsh86_Patel]

The initial accusation, and that is all it was, is that he allegedly paid off voters to get his seat. The reasoning behind this is that the seat was always won by someone else easily. This wasn't proven, and there are many reasons fro voters to turn against an incumbent. Regardless, possible chicanery in mid-nineteenth century English politics has nothing to do with falsifying glyphs in a newly discovered chamber in the GP.

Using your burden of proof a person could say "I think I saw Mr.X put something in his pocket while shopping and therefore accuse him of murdering Mr. Y because a shoplifter is certainly capable of murdering someone."

The rest of your post shows us all that ou haven't read very much of this thread or have simply shut your mind to any argument against what you want to believe and will simply keep repeating the same disproved theory until no one bothers to respond any longer, at which point you will declare yourself in the right.

Sitchin accused Vyse of forgery and i stand by the allegation, though Sitchin might have been off on a few technical details.

No one can refute the fact that a bunch of Gold DIggers and Fame seekers could have got together and painted the cartouches's on the walls.

Until i see more proof of Khufu having built the great pyramids,i remain skeptical. There are many things about the greaat pyramid that do not fall into line with the other Egyptian pyramids.

Why are there such a small number of heiroglyphs in the great pyramid.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Sitchin accused Vyse of forgery and i stand by the allegation, though Sitchin might have been off on a few technical details.

[Merc14]

Sitchin accused Vyse of forgery and i stand by the allegation, though Sitchin might have been off on a few technical details.

No one can refute the fact that a bunch of Gold DIggers and Fame seekers could have got together and painted the cartouches's on the walls.

Until i see more proof of Khufu having built the great pyramids,i remain skeptical. There are many things about the greaat pyramid that do not fall into line with the other Egyptian pyramids.

Why are there such a small number of heiroglyphs in the great pyramid.

Everyone has a right to look foolish. Indulge yourself.

[Harsh86_Patel]

That is modern thinking being projected onto those who lived in the past. There is no evidence to support this idea of yours.

Maybe someday soon, someone will use a fiber optic cable to snake around and look for such glyphs.

Then likely accusations of tiny little paint brushes will come forward to explain how they were fraudulently created.

It almost looks like it was finger painted to me. Kids can make thin and thick lines of paint with just a finger, but usually the paint is not applied evenly...

I don't need any evidence to support what i observe, there are too few heiroglyphs in the so called tomb or the so called sarcophagus.

There is no decorations on the sarcophagus.

There was no mummy found in the sarcophagus.

The great pyramid differs from other egyptian pyramids.There is an ascending and descending shaft in the great pyramid which is an anomaly not observed in the other pyramids.

There are no direct contemporary refferences to the building of the great pyramids in any ancient texts.

The only way we link the great pyramid to khufu is a quickly drawn cartouche on a rough (the wall wasn't even smoothened) wall in plain sight and which is easily accesible to forgers.

[Harsh86_Patel]

It seems funny but there are two parts to Sitchin's claim regarding this issue.

1st claim: that Vyse had forged the glyphs. (which i believe and there is lot of circumstantial evidence to support it, not requiring any testimonies from sitchin)

2nd claim: the cartouche reads Ra-U- Fu and not Kh-U-Fu inorder to support the theory he had.The second claim is where the error is exposed and was recently clarified on this forum topic.

It is also important for us to question Sitchin's motives for falsely/incorrectly (we don't know yet) claiming that the Hill document actually read Ra-u-FU and not Kh-u-fu....since he had claimed that they were forgeries how would it make any difference to him.Maybe he was using it as evidence of the forgery,because he had no other empirical proof of the same.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Vyses version

I dont buy the ink blot assumtpion, as such assumptions can be used to justify anything.

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?

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

The second point I am least bothered about, rest of them are really interesting and here to stay. Whether Sitchin said it or not.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

It seems funny but there are two parts to Sitchin's claim regarding this issue.

1st claim: that Vyse had forged the glyphs. (which i believe and there is lot of circumstantial evidence to support it, not requiring any testimonies from sitchin)

2nd claim: the cartouche reads Ra-U- Fu and not Kh-U-Fu inorder to support the theory he had.The second claim is where the error is exposed and was recently clarified on this forum topic.

It is also important for us to question Sitchin's motives for falsely/incorrectly (we don't know yet) claiming that the Hill document actually read Ra-u-FU and not Kh-u-fu....since he had claimed that they were forgeries how would it make any difference to him.Maybe he was using it as evidence of the forgery,because he had no other empirical proof of the same.

Anything about Sitchin is funny, anything. As he lived in some alternate reality within his own mind, perhaps it did not suit him that GP is Khufu's so he invents "Ra-U-Fu", a nonexistant person about which he can spin any fantasy story. Sitchin was simply a charlatan and a fantasist, his words are worthless and have no place in rational debate.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Atentutankh-pasheri

[Harsh86_Patel]

Anything about Sitchin is funny, anything. As he lived in some alternate reality within his own mind, perhaps it did not suit him that GP is Khufu's so he invents "Ra-U-Fu", a nonexistant person about which he can spin any fantasy story. Sitchin was simply a charlatan and a fantasist, his words are worthless and have no place in rational debate.

Though you have a vary bad opinion about him, many of his suggestions made a lot of sense. I have said this before that no one completely right about everything.

I have said numerous times that ignoring everything that Sitchin had to say is not prudent.

Once again the problem you have with Sitchin is only because he insisted that his version of the summerian tablets is actual fact and not mythology.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Once again the problem you have with Sitchin is only because he insisted that his version of the summerian tablets is actual fact and not mythology.

Hmm, rather more the tablets. Here is the case laid out against Sitchin

http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/

[Harsh86_Patel]

Hmm, rather more the tablets. Here is the case laid out against Sitchin

http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/

Have gone through the Heiser link, heisers refutations are rather childish and not worth much. But lets not deviate from the topic.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Yes sir!!

[stereologist]

Have gone through the Heiser link, heisers refutations are rather childish and not worth much. But lets not deviate from the topic.

It seems that you find it hard to refute Heiser and instead resort to attacking Heiser. You have stated "Though you have a vary bad opinion about him, many of his suggestions made a lot of sense. I have said this before that no one completely right about everything."

It seems that you do not follow your own advice.

In addition to being quite wrong about nearly everything, Sitchin invented a planet that cannot exist. A planet with a highly eccentric orbit cannot last long in the solar system. Such a planet experiences a transfer of momentum that causes the orbit to become less eccentric with each revolution. This was used to show that the hypothetical Nemesis could not exist.

Sitchin made up fiction that he attempted to pass off as something other than his personal fantasy.

[Harsh86_Patel]

It seems that you find it hard to refute Heiser and instead resort to attacking Heiser. You have stated "Though you have a vary bad opinion about him, many of his suggestions made a lot of sense. I have said this before that no one completely right about everything."

It seems that you do not follow your own advice.

In addition to being quite wrong about nearly everything, Sitchin invented a planet that cannot exist. A planet with a highly eccentric orbit cannot last long in the solar system. Such a planet experiences a transfer of momentum that causes the orbit to become less eccentric with each revolution. This was used to show that the hypothetical Nemesis could not exist.

Sitchin made up fiction that he attempted to pass off as something other than his personal fantasy.

There are other thread where we have already debated this issue...i don't want a warning from Sesh again regarding deviating from the topic hence i am not going to answer you here.I have no beef with Heiser, but he surely has a lot of anger against Sitchin.

[Irna]

It is also important for us to question Sitchin's motives for falsely/incorrectly (we don't know yet) claiming that the Hill document actually read Ra-u-FU and not Kh-u-fu.

Sitchin's motive is quite evident: he sold books claiming that the pyramids were not kings' tombs, and were not constructed by AE; therefore Khufu's cartouches in the GP must be false...

...since he had claimed that they were forgeries how would it make any difference to him.Maybe he was using it as evidence of the forgery,because he had no other empirical proof of the same.

Exactly that: he used this so-called mistake of the "forger" as evidence, because he "had no other empirical proof". Lacking the proofs of any forgery, he forged one.

[mstower]

You are still holding to Vyse's past and that of his father's, in the election fraud years before events at Giza. I don't think anyone here doubts Vyse was of questionable character, although how much of this was put upon him years earlier by his father and their patron might need further research. I myself am not inclined (or interested) in doing so because the election issues do not concern Giza. So it seems to me, now that the paleographical end of the debate has been stripped from Sitchin and weighs more favorably in Vyse's direction, you're still set on viewing Vyse as a fraud not because of events at Giza but because of shady elections years earlier at the other end of the world.

Creighton’s overkill, contrary to what he imagines he’s achieving, gives the game away. His claims about Vyse go beyond what’s warranted by the evidence to an extent which crosses the borderline of the unhinged. He’s lost it, but he’s stuck with it: it’s only by wild overstatement that he can bring the events at Giza into the fallout zone.

Concluding for now, I'm not sure where you're going with Stower's assistance regarding the coloration of glyphs. He has been very helpful in this debate, and concerning the color issue has explained it the same way I would and, in fact, have: colors do not determine the sound values of glyphs. Their context in a word or name does.

Thanks.

M.

[mstower]

SC: Nope. Just dealing with the facts as they are, not how I would like them to be. You should try it.

Creighton,

I’ll consider taking instruction from you when you gain elementary literacy in the canons of rationality.

M.

[stereologist]

Even Graham Hancock agrees that the hieroglyphs in the GP are real. I don't consider his ideas in general worth anything at all, but when shown the relieving chambers by Hawass he saw that the paint on the blocks went around the corner and down into cracks where no one could have painted them without unstacking the pyramid and painting on the blocks and restacking the pyramid.

I wonder if it would be possible some day to construct a thin crack crawling bot that could explore the gaps and send back a scan of the surfaces so that more of the writing could be retrieved. That might shed more light on the people constructing the pyramids.

[Scott Creighton]

Creighton,

I’ll consider taking instruction from you when you gain elementary literacy in the canons of rationality.

M.

Still grumpy, I see.

You simply never learn, do you, dear boy? That you consider it necessary to resort to ad hominems is merely a sure indicator that you have lost the debate. And not for the first time. Tough. Get over it.

SC

Edited April 24, 2013 by Scott Creighton

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

"Grumpy" says

[SHaYap]

Probably the charcoal would be ground up to a fine powder and added to water and a binding agent of some kind. Just like anyone today would do if they made their own paint.

The ink/paint needs to be more than that ... this is a vertical wall and rough surface.

If lime stone ... even the paints of today don't work so well on damp but powdery and moisture resistant surfaces.

I got tired of trying to find out what stone is where nowadays, so much contradictory info out there on the webs, maybe you'll have better luck finding out what kind of stone the graffiti is painted on.

That's typically how it was done with all of the pigment minerals. This is evident in scribal palettes which have survived.

My thoughts here is the same as the difficulties faced by the Researchers in China, they know things were done using brushes but no 'evidence' of brushes were found. We know what they painted and what kind of symbolism the ancients used, but no evidence of literal written lingual usage were found. Somewhat fortunate alike of the luck of Babylonian ceramics, we have evidence of the painting techniques unmistakably made by 'brushes'. On further examination the 'paints' itself requires an unexpectedly sophisticated knowledge of chemistry/alchemy. Did the knowledge of paint/ink come first or the brush came first ? Why would they even thought of needing a brush ?

You know more about calligraphy than I do. What I think I see is a wet edge, surety of brush strokes, economy of brush strokes, all performed over a rough hewn limestone surface. To me the person who created this glyph was skilled and not a worker, I thought most Egyptians were illiterate during this era.

I took Fine Arts and Eastern/Oriental Art History, so i guess I cheated a bit here

Ink Calligraphy/Painting is highly abstract and has deep ties to philosophical paradigms.

Literacy as we define it today is not-existent in those days I don;t believe. The ones that knows of the 'cultural' symbolism are of only a very small select group. It does indicate to me though that the other cultural aspects of the times must also be more sophisticated that thus far we assumed them to be. We need a new method of translation now, not only 'literal' reading of the evidence but a more refined approach.

I have seen that graffiti before years ago and I still see that its only being seen as something someone said someone lied about and not. Nobody is looking at it as what it is.

The writing indicates someone who is a scribe, at least someone used to writing, not many reasons to write in those days except to copy 'holy' or revered testaments.

One of the puzzling thing here to me is, in all cultures of old, a 'name' is never to be written by any one else but the bearer more so if a ruler/king and I wonder if this applies to pharaohs too.. Nowadays we still don't address monarchs or rulers by name, so whoever wrote that graffiti either holds a very high station/status or is Khufu himself.

Rendering of the birds, particulary the right hand one, has an almost Zen like quality to it. I realise some people will see this, and others just see a roughly rendered bird glyph. I am reminded of the Simpsons episode were Marge starts a campaign against TV violence, but her supporters turn against her when she sees the genius in Michelangelo's David, and not "filth and pornography" as uneducated narrow minded people do.

It was done with a sure hand ... yes

The oval ring is the most impressive thing to me. Even on paper that is difficult enough. This on rock and vertical wall, notice 'no drips' ?

[mstower]

Still grumpy, I see.

You simply never learn, do you, dear boy? That you consider it necessary to resort to ad hominems is merely a sure indicator that you have lost the debate. And not for the first time. Tough. Get over it.

SC

Creighton,

Your entire approach to this issue is ad hominem. You can’t get Vyse on the evidence, so you attack his character.

And you’re complaining that I say unkind things about you?

You should learn what words mean before you use them.

M.