Sitchin's Folly: Graffiti in the Pyramid

[Scott Creighton]

Fair enough. However, if I may remark upon it, try to maybe present this more in that light, because some of your posts do make it sound more fact than possibility. I can totally understand the reaction of some other posters.

SC: See my earlier post on this issue:

SC: This is not to say that Howard-Vyse DID perpetrate a fraud, merely that he COULD have done it. My own view is that he probably DID perpetrate fraud and I come to this opinion on the following grounds: - from here.

I am clearly stating that Howard-Vyse COULD have perpetrated the fraud and then express my personal opinion that I think he "probably did". Personal opinions are not fact. So, I'm not quite sure how you think I am making this "more fact than possibility".

The simple POINT I am making here is that, to the Egypt-apologists, it simply was not possible for Howard-Vyse to have perpetrated such a fraud, the implication then being that the inscriptions bearing Khufu's name in these chambers must therefore be genuine.

I have shown how Howard-Vyse COULD have achieved such a fraud, ergo, contrary to the impossiblity of such asserted by the Egypt-apologists, it now becomes POSSIBLE that Howard-Vyse COULD have perpetrated a fraud, ergo, contrary to the claims of the Egypt-apologists, it now becomes possible that the inscriptions bearing Khufu's name in these chambers MAY not be genuine.

I am merely showing that what was regarded as an impossibility is actually quite possible.

Regards,

SC

Edited April 12, 2013 by Scott Creighton

[Quaentum]

A place of worship is different from a tomb. Religion is also a industry and a source of power and money for the one's heading it,there is enough selfish reasons to justify building places that would promote your religion and also your power.Now,if you would tell me that St. Peters Basilica was a tomb for a single Human,then i would say you are not making any sense.

Also a flipside is that if you consider that the Egyptians had the time,technology and organisational skills to build the Great Pyramid just as a tomb then what other great things they could have achieved inlcuding advance technology.

We know what st peters was built for and religion is an industry, now, but 2000 or even 5000 years from now, there may be nothing but bits and pieces to tell the future humans what st peters was used for and religion as we know it may not exist. Future researchers may study what they find and come to the conclusion that it was a place to worship a single god and one person, perhaps like yourself, will come to the conclusion that they wouldn't have spent so much time and effort to construct it for just that purpose. That is what I was getting at.

If the ancient Egyptian's did have advanced technology, why is there absolutely no reference anywhere in Egypt or in other countries or by those who visited of the supposed advanced technology?

[kmt_sesh]

Many of you have probably heard about the exciting find in the western Sinai. Archaeologists have found an ancient port dating to the time of Khufu as well as the now oldest-known hieroglyphic papyri. I needn't bog us down discussing the site as it does not pertain to the subject matter of this particular discussion, but for those interested I started a thread in the Archaeology forum.

It's possible the port is even older than the time of Khufu but what nails it to his reign is the fact that his birth name and Horus name were both found on papyri excavated at the site:

I did the color coding for the sake of convenience. Khufu's birth name, Khnum-Khuf, is seen in the red area. His Horus name, Medjedu, is seen in the blue area. LOL For Scott's amusement, note that the Aa1 glyph in the "Khuf" portion has striations.

For cladking's edification, other portions of the papyri documents record the shipments of costly stones to be "delivered to my pyramid tomb—yes, pyramid tomb!—in sacred Rosetau, where my exulted mummy—yes, mummy!—shall rest for eternity or until tomb robbers get to me, whichever comes first."

Okay, I made that up. But it goes to show you never know what's out there and what archaeologists will find next.

[DieChecker]

For cladking's edification, other portions of the papyri documents record the shipments of costly stones to be "delivered to my pyramid tomb—yes, pyramid tomb!—in sacred Rosetau, where my exulted mummy—yes, mummy!—shall rest for eternity or until tomb robbers get to me, whichever comes first."

Okay, I made that up. But it goes to show you never know what's out there and what archaeologists will find next.

Ha! Wish that were true. It would be interesting to read all the crow eating that would be going on.

Does this port count as some of the Science and Archeology that Cladkings says is not being done??

[kmt_sesh]

Ha! Wish that were true. It would be interesting to read all the crow eating that would be going on.

Giza is riddled with definitive evidence for burials, as is obvious. I mean, there are countless interments there, everything from lavish tombs to humble pit graves. The bottom line, however, is the fact that one needs to approach the issue with an understanding of the culture being discussed. And in ancient Egypt, the simple term "dead" for an honored and loved friend or family member was almost never used (although the same nicety was not bestowed on enemies slain in battle, of course). The Egyptians employed a wide variety of euphemisms to step around identification with death. Common terms such as wHm-anx, "repeating life," show how, in the ancient Egyptian mind, death was seen instead as new life, rebirth.

At the same time, there were discrete terms well in evidence for objects like coffins, sarcophagi, tomb statues, and of course tombs. There were quite a few different words for tomb.

Does this port count as some of the Science and Archeology that Cladkings says is not being done??

Yes, I suppose it does. The recent uprisings in the Middle East, Egypt included, have diminished the amount of field work taking place, understandably. But it still goes on. The University of Chicago continued its work there apace, and was not slowed too much by Egypt's problems. The ancient port where the papyri were found is being excavated by a joint French and Egyptian team, which shows cooperative efforts are continuing.

With respect, one of cladking's problems, I honestly believe, is that he thinks of ancient Egypt and sees nothing whatsoever than the Great Pyramid. I don't think cladking considers the centuries of history prior to the Great Pyramid and the many more following it. I love to discuss and debate the Great Pyramid as much as anyone, but the basic fact is, it is only one monument from one tiny stretch of time in a kingdom that lasted for more than 3,000 years. There are a hell of a lot more important research considerations than the Great Pyramid. At the end of the day, whether we find an internal ramp inside the pyramid or perhaps another chamber or two or even some caves below it, such a find will have very little impact on the overall research of ancient Egypt.

[cladking]

I did the color coding for the sake of convenience. Khufu's birth name, Khnum-Khuf, is seen in the red area. His Horus name, Medjedu, is seen in the blue area. LOL For Scott's amusement, note that the Aa1 glyph in the "Khuf" portion has striations.

For cladking's edification, other portions of the papyri documents record the shipments of costly stones to be "delivered to my pyramid tomb—yes, pyramid tomb!—in sacred Rosetau, where my exulted mummy—yes, mummy!—shall rest for eternity or until tomb robbers get to me, whichever comes first."

Okay, I made that up. But it goes to show you never know what's out there and what archaeologists will find next.

The problem is that even if someone were to say that the king was a mummy in the

pyramid it would be expressed in terms that would sound like gobblety gook to us.

Essentially everything they said is incomprehensible to us and this would probably

be no different.

It would be great to get some definitive answers but I believe they will have to come

from modern science rather than ancient writing. It's always possible that we might

finds a drawing of stones being dragged up ramps on a pyramid but with the perspec-

tive they used even this might be dependent of interpretation.

[cladking]

With respect, one of cladking's problems, I honestly believe, is that he thinks of ancient Egypt and sees nothing whatsoever than the Great Pyramid. I don't think cladking considers the centuries of history prior to the Great Pyramid and the many more following it. I love to discuss and debate the Great Pyramid as much as anyone, but the basic fact is, it is only one monument from one tiny stretch of time in a kingdom that lasted for more than 3,000 years.

The kind of research that needs to be done is scientific research. Don't get me wrong

I fully approve of the kind of digging and sifting for evidence that turned up these new facts

and even believe it probably could be stepped up and mechanized a little. The research not

being done is the type that would answer questions. There's no data coming out. If every word

that comes up is going to be unintelligible then it's unlikely that we can gain much information with-

out a means of understanding it.

[cladking]

Ha! Wish that were true. It would be interesting to read all the crow eating that would be going on.

Does this port count as some of the Science and Archeology that Cladkings says is not being done??

I know I might have to eat my words one day so do try to keep them palatable.

But I'm not collecting crow recipes yet.

[cormac mac airt]

The problem is that even if someone were to say that the king was a mummy in the

pyramid it would be expressed in terms that would sound like gobblety gook to us.

Essentially everything they said is incomprehensible to us and this would probably

be no different.

It would be great to get some definitive answers but I believe they will have to come

from modern science rather than ancient writing. It's always possible that we might

finds a drawing of stones being dragged up ramps on a pyramid but with the perspec-

tive they used even this might be dependent of interpretation.

While it's true there is still much that is unknown, cladking, you're only speaking for yourself. "Everything" is not incomprehensible to us, while much of it's evidently incomprehensible (read: over your head) to you so you presume to apply a different and more palatible (to you) meaning to it all. I'm sure more will be learned in the future, possibly even incorporating older and more complete writings, texts or other artifacts. But whatever's found still won't be as incomprehensible as you'd like others to believe.

cormac

[Harsh86_Patel]

We know what st peters was built for and religion is an industry, now, but 2000 or even 5000 years from now, there may be nothing but bits and pieces to tell the future humans what st peters was used for and religion as we know it may not exist. Future researchers may study what they find and come to the conclusion that it was a place to worship a single god and one person, perhaps like yourself, will come to the conclusion that they wouldn't have spent so much time and effort to construct it for just that purpose. That is what I was getting at.

If the ancient Egyptian's did have advanced technology, why is there absolutely no reference anywhere in Egypt or in other countries or by those who visited of the supposed advanced technology?

But the example of St Peter's does not correlate with the great pyramid being a tomb. St Peter's was built at a time when Christianity was a budding religion and it needed such great monuments for the purpose of propogation. The Church still spends billions of dollars for the propogation of Christianity through missionaries, St Peters's can be interpreted as one of it's first ventures.

Whether is was built to worship one God and one person is a secondary emotional consideration, since it was not built by the one God but people who had more worldly persuits.

[Scott Creighton]

.. the papyri documents record the shipments of costly stones to be "delivered to my pyramid tomb—yes, pyramid tomb!—in sacred Rosetau..."

Okay, I made that up. But it goes to show you never know what's out there and what archaeologists will find next

SC: To paraphrase...

...the papyri documents record the shipments of costly stones to be "delivered to my pyramid recovery vault—yes, pyramid recovery vault!—in sacred Rosetau...."

Okay, I made that up too. But it goes to show you never know what's out there and what archaeologists will find next.

And I wonder if this papyri will be C14 tested (if it has not not already taken place) and what the result will be? No doubt if such a C14 date conforms with the date ca.2,500 BCE then it will be quoted, but if way out it will not be quoted.

Makes you wonder too, if Howard-Vyse perhaps found some similar Khufu inscriptions outside the GP.

SC

Edited April 13, 2013 by Scott Creighton

[cladking]

While it's true there is still much that is unknown, cladking, you're only speaking for yourself. "Everything" is not incomprehensible to us, while much of it's evidently incomprehensible (read: over your head) to you so you presume to apply a different and more palatible (to you) meaning to it all. I'm sure more will be learned in the future, possibly even incorporating older and more complete writings, texts or other artifacts. But whatever's found still won't be as incomprehensible as you'd like others to believe.

You are mistaken. The only thing that survives from the era is the PT and no two

Egyptologists agree about the meaning of even the most basic term. New translations

of this work barely even resemble older translations so even if it were understood they'd

all be out of date in their understanding.

Whether or not more is found is highly dependent on luck. The nature of the writing that

is found will determine the likelyhood of it being understood. There probably are subjects

which we'd quickly recognize and decipher but many are going to be just as opaque as the

PT to us. There are, I believe, two things working against us here: I suspect that paper was

exceedingly expensive so was used sparingly and that there was never an attempt to pre-

serve ancient writing. If we find it then it will probably be in a tomb or chiseled into stone and

they certainly wouldn't chisel everything into stone.

"Systematic archaeology" would probably be far more effective in this instance. The ancients

can't guide us so we have to guide ourselves.

[kmt_sesh]

SC: To paraphrase...

...the papyri documents record the shipments of costly stones to be "delivered to my pyramid recovery vault—yes, pyramid recovery vault!—in sacred Rosetau...."

Okay, I made that up too. But it goes to show you never know what's out there and what archaeologists will find next.

Touche.

And I wonder if this papyri will be C14 tested (if it has not not already taken place) and what the result will be? No doubt if such a C14 date conforms with the date ca.2,500 BCE then it will be quoted, but if way out it will not be quoted.

Makes you wonder too, if Howard-Vyse perhaps found some similar Khufu inscriptions outside the GP.

SC

I have no idea if there are plans to carbon date the papryi. Not much information has been released yet and you're privy to the same web-based articles as I am. For the time being the papyri has been moved to the Suez Museum for conservation and study, but that could mean any number of things.

They could certainly subject the papyri to C14 analysis, given the tiny sample that would be necessary. I wouldn't mind seeing it done, but for myself it would be interesting to see the results compared to the C14 analyses that had been conducted on the Great Pyramid in the 1990s. The question would be in terms of motivation. No one in the orthodox community doubts that the king named Khnum-Khuf (Khufu) is responsible for the Great Pyramid, so in the end C14 analysis of the papyri might not be part of the agenda. We'll have to wait and see.

More important for now is the discovery of the oldest-known pharaonic port as well as the oldest-known hieroglyphic papyri.

[DieChecker]

There probably are numerous pieces of the papyrus that have no writing on them. They'll probably C-14 those pieces.

[SHaYap]

I haven't commented on the writing ... the scribe's got a wonderful script ... wonderfully beautiful hand

what kind of writing instrument do you guys think they used ?

[cormac mac airt]

I haven't commented on the writing ... the scribe's got a wonderful script ... wonderfully beautiful hand

what kind of writing instrument do you guys think they used ?

I believe they used reeds as writing implements.

cormac

[cladking]

I believe they used reeds as writing implements.

I suspect this is a mistranslation so I don't consider it the final word but ut is consistent with your contention;

1659a. Horus has given the gods to thee; he has caused them to ascend to thee, as (reed)-pens,

1659b. that they may illuminate thy face (cheer thee) as temples.

Even if this is misinterpreted there is other evidence that they used reed pens.

[DieChecker]

That is what I remember too... reeds were used to write with.

[kmt_sesh]

Yes, reeds were the principal writing instrument. There is abundant evidence for this and most any museum with a sizable Egyptian collection will have examples on display. Both the Field Museum and Oriental Institute in Chicago have very good examples.

Reeds could be sharpened to a point for fine details (e.g., writing) or mashed with one's teeth to produce broader strokes (e.g., fills). Such pens are often found with writing kits including a scribal palette with residues of pigments still in the recessed areas, and many of these reed pens still bear similar residues.

[Merc14]

Well done kmt_sesh, you explained a very arcane and complex subject to those of us with little knowledge of it. You then detailed the flaws in Sitchin's very popular theories and sealed the case with the Graham Hancock's retraction. Thanks for the lesson sir.

[SHaYap]

That is what I remember too... reeds were used to write with.

ever tried to copy those with a marker ?

Its fun ...

[TheSearcher]

ever tried to copy those with a marker ?

Its fun ...

Your definition of fun and mine must diverge at this point, I find the copying rather a pain in the backside lol

[Scott Creighton]

Well done kmt_sesh, you explained a very arcane and complex subject to those of us with little knowledge of it. You then detailed the flaws in Sitchin's very popular theories and sealed the case with the Graham Hancock's retraction. Thanks for the lesson sir.

"In Fingerprints I supported the Vyse forgery theory. Later when I got into the relieving chambers myself and saw that some quarry marks disappear far back into the gaps between the blocks I felt that I must be wrong to support the forgery theory -- because no one could have got a brush into those gaps to carry out the forgery. Therefore the quarry marks must be genuine and must have been put on the blocks before they were put into place in the chamber. Accordingly I retracted the position I had taken in Fingerprints.

It's possible I threw the baby out with the bathwater with that retraction. Unlike the unforgeable quarry marks positioned between the blocks, the Khufu cartouche is in plain view and could easily have been forged by Vyse.

I do not insist it was, I just accept that it could have been, and that some interesting doubts have been raised over its authenticity. I await further evidence one way or the other." - Graham Hancock (from here)

SC: And even those marks placed "...into the gaps between the blocks..." might not be so difficult to forge as some, including Hancock, imagine. In fact, getting those marks into those tight gaps might have been as simple as ABC. (see here).

SC

Edited April 16, 2013 by Scott Creighton

[Harsh86_Patel]

SC: I am saying that, IMO, Howard-Vyse perpetrated a fraud in these chambers of the Great Pyramid. I cannot prove that he did but there are circumstances around his activities that have brought me to that conclusion.

There is no graffiti (i.e. readable AE script) in the ‘air-shafts’. There are marks of unknown determination in the small recess at the end of the southern shaft. I find this also rather peculiar since it appears that the only place there is not readable AE script is in those ‘chambers’ Howard-Vyse did not have first access to.

The marks between the gaps in the granite stones of the ‘relieving chambers’ in no way proves Howard-Vyse could not have placed the other glyphs that are in plain sight. Besides which – it is often claimed that the marks observed through the small gap between the granite blocks could not have been forged since no forger could possibly get his brush into such a tight gap. Well I have heard of one theory that presents a plausible means of placing those marks onto the blocks in those tight gaps. Basically two lengths of thin board are used. Onto the first board are glued some string in the shape of a particular line of AE text. Red ochre is then painted onto the string and this first board is inserted into the gap. The second thin board is then jammed into the same gap, pressing the ochre-soaked string glyphs on the first board onto the blocks. The second board is removed and then the first board is removed. Voila – you have hieroglyphs pressed onto blocks in an otherwise inaccessible place and, as such, presenting a very convincing impression of originality.

SC: Well, we won’t know for certain if this is a “ridiculous” idea until such time as we actually TRY it.

Regards,

SC

I had given a very similar idea for the same involving some sort of printing block, which would be thin enough to be inserted in those gaps. Also it is important to question why would AE want to put glyphs in such inaccessible area when they had so many other options to paint them after placing the blocks,painting them on a the wrong side and then placing the blocks so that these glyphs get almost hidden from sight seems very implausible. Also it is important to point out what Graham Hancock also mentioned in his retraction that he maybe throwing the baby out along with the bathwater as the Khufu Cartouche are in plain sight and could easily have been forged by Vyse.It is easily noticceable that despite the mainstream insistence that the Great Pyramid were buisness as usual build by the Egyptians as a tomb, it stands out in a lot of respects compared to other Pyramid tombs build by later Pharoans, marked by the stark lack of Heiroglyphs and the sheer Scale and Accuracy. Edited April 16, 2013 by Harsh86_Patel

[Harsh86_Patel]

Few questions specifically in relation to the Glyphs in the cracks and not the easily accesible khufu cartouche's.

Can someone please highlight, who found the glyphs in the cracks first? Was it Hawass? I certainly don't trust the man after the way he has treated the Osiris Shaft find.

Do those Glyphs mention anything about Khufu?

Do they make any sense?

What is the language of the glyphs?

Are they just abstract symbols of the worker gangs,or those who actually made the pyramids?

Does somebody have pictures of the glyphs?

I feel that the argument against Sitchin's position is only strengthened by these glyphs(supposedly ancient egyptian) in the cracks, rest all could have been forged easily by Vyse, so it is important to discuss these glyphs in more detail.I would be very happy if Sesh or Scott can answer my querries.