Giza Diagonal and The Great Giza Circle

[Scott Creighton]

7 hours ago, Kenemet said:

The thing is, I could do the same thing with the image of a teapot, since (like your circle) I can increase its size so that it doesn't touch any of the pyramids and still fits on the plateau.

I could do the same with an outline of the Eiffel Tower, Big Ben, Windsor Castle, the logo for Belstaff Leathers, the outline of a jar of Marmite, the LOGO off a jar of Marmite (particularly if I turn it upside down), a french fry (chip, I believe you call them), a slice of wheat bread, a drawing of a paramecium, a drawing of an amoeba (that would fit one of the height profiles, in fact), outline of a Cadbury egg, and the outline of Rudyard Kipling's head.

I could even (as you do) say that Hemiunu drew one of the above on his papyrus when he and Khufu were planning on mapping out the whole Giza plateau to reference the first three numbers of pi in the decimal system.

In order to prove that they intended a perfect circle around there, you have to come up with the evidence that they purposely drew a 1km circle instead of drawing a 1 km outline of a potato roll.

When you lose the arguement, deploy absurdum ad reductio.

You're fooling only yourself with your nonsense.

SC

[Kenemet]

11 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

When you lose the arguement, deploy absurdum ad reductio.

You're fooling only yourself with your nonsense.

SC

Nope.

The fact that YOU can draw a 1km circle around a feature is not proof that the ancients could or did do it.

That's my point.  You have supplied no evidence showing that a circle was there or was intended.  (Things that would support your argument, such as clearing the ground to a certain level all around the area of the circle or setting in boundary stones or markers would support it.  You haven't shown a thing other than you can draw a circle around the site.

I can fit it within the outline of a jar of marmite.  Using your metric, we're both right:  The GP is a circular feature that also reflects a love of marmite.

[Scott Creighton]

44 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

Nope.

The fact that YOU can draw a 1km circle around a feature is not proof that the ancients could or did do it.

That's my point.  You have supplied no evidence showing that a circle was there or was intended.  (Things that would support your argument, such as clearing the ground to a certain level all around the area of the circle or setting in boundary stones or markers would support it.  You haven't shown a thing other than you can draw a circle around the site.

I can fit it within the outline of a jar of marmite.  Using your metric, we're both right:  The GP is a circular feature that also reflects a love of marmite.

But as I and Thanos5150 have pointed out to you time and time again - the Great Giza Circle is simply implied from the arrangement of the other monuments (i.e. pyramids and Sphinx). That you say "...YOU can draw a 1km circle around a feature is not proof that the ancients could or did do it. That's my point" is entirely MOOT. How can you not understand this? The GGC is IMPLIED! (i.e. a 1km circle was never actually placed on the ground, only a small-scale circle was self-evidently placed in the original plan). I cannot explain/demonstrate this to you any more simply than I (or Thanos5150) have already done so. Is this registering yet? That YOU fail to 'get' it, is the problem here.

And, I think, is symptomatic of our wider education system for if, as Thanos5150 has said, that you once taught mathematics and you cannot understand this simple point, then we really are stuffed. Poor students.

THIS geometry (below) is NOT a coincidence, no matter how much you try to bleat that it is. It demonstrates, unequivocally, that Giza was a unified plan from start to finish (its underlying design imperative based upon Orion's Belt stars). (Note: I'm not saying Thanos5150 supports the Orion view, that's just my view).

Now just QUIT your tiresome, belligerent rubbish. You're just wasting everyone's time here. Go away and learn mathematics - PROPERLY. God those poor students of yours.

SC

Edited August 13 by Scott Creighton

[Kenemet]

 

10 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

But as I and Thanos5150 have pointed out to you time and time again - the Great Giza Circle is simply implied from the arrangement of the other monuments (i.e. pyramids and Sphinx). That you say "...YOU can draw a 1km circle around a feature is not proof that the ancients could or did do it. That's my point" is entirely MOOT. How can you not understand this? The GGC is IMPLIED! (i.e. a 1km circle was never actually placed on the ground, only a small-scale circle was self-evidently placed in the original plan). I cannot explain/demonstrate this to you any more simply than I (or Thanos5150) have already done so. Is this registering yet? That YOU fail to 'get' it, is the problem here.

And, I think, is symptomatic of our wider education system for if, as Thanos5150 has said, that you once taught mathematics and you cannot understand this simple point, then we really are stuffed. Poor students.

THIS geometry (below) is NOT a coincidence, no matter how much you try to bleat that it is. It demonstrates, unequivocally, that Giza was a unified plan from start to finish (its underlying design imperative based upon Orion's Belt stars). (Note: I'm not saying Thanos5150 supports the Orion view, that's just my view).

Now just QUIT your tiresome, belligerent rubbish. You're just wasting everyone's time here. Go away and learn mathematics - PROPERLY. God those poor students of yours.

SC

There's no sense pointing out to me what Thanos says (whatever it is.  I have said again and again that I have Thanos on ignore in order to help the board community by not contributing to or encouraging vitriol.  I don't see his posts. 

They might be the most brilliant posts in the history of the universe... but I've chosen to not see them. 

 

Look -- I have no problem with you drawing circles or squares or bottles of marmite around things.  That's cool and if you find it personally significant, that's great.  Sounds like a great hobby.  You can expand it to all sorts of things like the tourist areas in Portree or the Edinburgh castle or Stonehenge.  

But if you're going to try and insist that the ancient Egyptians did it and found it significant -- that's an "evidence-free" claim. 

We have a number of maps and plans that the ancient Egyptians drew and none of them show the degree of accuracy or sophistication that you're trying to champion.  (https://press.uchicago.edu/books/HOC/HOC_V1/HOC_VOLUME1_chapter7.pdf) 

(for those of you who don't want to read through the article, it offers up the Turin map and several other items from tombs and other documents and shows that they clearly did not have maps that could represent scales (i.e. no "one inch represents one mile" sort of thing.)  The Turin map - the image right below - shows a15 km stretch of Wadi Hammamat about 70 km from Thebes. The top  of the map is actually south, west is on the right side of the document.)

Here's what that place looks like in a standard (modern) map (source: https://egyptsitesblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/wadi-hammamat/)

 

 

 

Other documents, such as the plan of Ramesses IX's tomb (KV06), show that they did sketch things out and on the reverse wrote the desired dimensions... but if you look at the tomb itself, the result is not a match for the sketch here. 

(here's what they actually built)

 

So.. nobody minds if you draw circles or amoebas or whatevers around Giza; it's pretty easy to fit any outline you like, particularly when you ignore elevations and objects.  Sounds like a fun hobby.

But it does not prove a unified plan.  It just proves that "Scott can draw outlines around things."

 

Edited August 14 by Kenemet

[Wepwawet]

In the land of woo the image below of part of the Luxor Temple represents the olfactory region of the human brain. Isn't it amazing what can be done with a protractor and compass.

Round like a circle in a spiral, like a wheel within a wheel
Never ending or beginning on an ever spinning reel
Like a snowball down a mountain, or a carnival balloon
Like a carousel that's turning running rings around the moon
Like a clock whose hands are sweeping past the minutes of its face
And the world is like an apple whirling silently in space
Like the circles that you find in the windmills of your mind!
 

 

The Ancient Egyptians liked symmetry, so it's not difficult to come up with the fantasy above, or anywhere else. They also liked some things to face in specific directions, to be "joined" with a point, either directly, or if not possible, indirectly via a "relay". That circles and lines can be made at Giza can not be denied, that the Gizamids were built to a plan is very obvious, but why so much attention to looking at the plan from above, no matter if Orion's belt is present or not, when it is very clear that the SW to NE diagonals line up with Helipolis. Many other pyramids have a sightline to Heliopolis, and those that for topographic reasons do not, at least in the OK, have a sun temple to act as a "relay". I wonder what would have been more important to the Ancient Egyptians, the plan looking down, or that it is on an east to west axis and, if possible, is in sight of Heliopolis. Anything beyond that is pretty much conjecture, primarily to meet modern ideas that simply use the AE in a cynical fashion.

Edited August 14 by Wepwawet

[Thanos5150]

10 hours ago, Kenemet said:

There's no sense pointing out to me what Thanos says (whatever it is.  I have said again and again that I have Thanos on ignore in order to help the board community by not contributing to or encouraging vitriol.  I don't see his posts. 

My response from the last time you ironically made a point to say you were "ignoring" me:

You are not being honest which is unfortunate. The only "slings and arrows" thrown are at your well documented incompetency and insipid faux appeals to authority so please do not even try to suggest this is some kind of "personal" thing beyond that. You are responsible for your words no differently than the fringe folk you dump on all day day after day so don't complain or play the victim when you are held to the same standards and continually fall short making yourself look foolish. I am just the messenger and the fact you would "ignore" this says nothing about me. 

And now here you are being dishonest again. Please do not insult your fellow posters by pretending you are now some martyr sparing the boards from "vitriol", a tired underhanded trope I would hope most have wised up to by now not to mention ironic given your only point of being here it to be negative to others. Rather you are merely trying to spare yourself from further embarrassment and having to take responsibility for yourself which is weird as if "ignoring" it will somehow magically make your fellow posters not able to see it as well.  

Quote

They might be the most brilliant posts in the history of the universe... but I've chosen to not see them. 

They are but I also have the Infinity Gauntlet, so not exactly fair. 

[Kenemet]

Let me clarify, Scott, so that we're all on the same page.

Yes, I believe that Hemiunu and Khufu drew up plans for G1.  No question.  I believe that they followed that plan (and possibly modified things as time went on.)  The actual complex is fairly simple and doesn't account for other structures beyond what's around his pyramid.  He puts up a wall to block the Western Cemetery from his pyramid complex... but doesn't block on any other side and later courtiers and family members are allowed to bury their dead next to G1.  There's no big processional causeway.

Djedefre would have worked with his father at some point on G1 and is responsible for the boat pits at G1- but -Djedefre goes on to plan and build his pyramid complex at Abu Rawash (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djedefre) and apparently dies before it's completed.  So he's not following a "master plan.".  

A possible interim ruler (one of Djefre's sons, Bikheris) started a pyramid at Zawiyet el-Arian (which is unfinished.)  Clearly, the family and architects are not following a "Giza plan."

Khafre and his architect had more elaborate plans than Khufu.  He installs a smaller pyramid and walls that block and direct the view of visitors (and access to the Western Cemetery) and adds a long causeway and temples and the Sphinx (or starts it.)   Khafre seems to have "zoned" the area around his pyramid since (unlike Khufu) there are no other burials close to his pyramid.  

Menkaure (who comes along 40 years after his grandfather's death and more than 60 years after they started building G1) has a more modest pyramid with walls that block off access to the Western Cemetery and to views of the other pyramids.  My (unsourced) guess would be that due to his age he was eager to build something that could be finished by the time of his death rather than (like Djedefre or Bikheris) leave his monument unfinished.  The walls around his pyramid, interestingly enough, are not precisely east/west aligned and unlike the other two pyramids, when you reach his mortuary temple the walls of his complex block some of the view of the other pyramids.

So there's three different designs, and not built by three successive rulers.  Walls and causeways and land elevations shape the approach of mourners and officials and visitors.

SUMMARY:

• yes, I believe that all the complexes had architects and (if we could take the Tardis back i time) would have had plans drawn for each.
• the individualism of each complex doesn't support the idea that there was a master plan for the whole plateau.
• Being able to determine sight lines or draw circles around these things does not mean that there was a master plan set up by Khufu and irregularly implemented by his descendants.
• The structure of the walls and other graves around G1 suggests that it was not intended to be part of a grouping of pyramids (otherwise they'd have not permitted the other nearby graves.)

 

Image of the plateau for tax purposes;

[Scott Creighton]

5 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

In the land of woo the image below of part of the Luxor Temple represents the olfactory region of the human brain. Isn't it amazing what can be done with a protractor and compass.

 

In the land of woo?  Really?

These alignments (image above) were observed between disparate physical entities across ~1km of sloping plateau. An alignment observed by badge-carrying Egyptologists, no less. Try to learn the difference between what is clearly an intentional alignment between entities and what is extrapolated geometry within an entity. Or are you saying Lehner and Goedicke are wrong and the Giza Diagonal alignment they first observed puts them "in the land of woo"?

Take your time.

SC

 

Edited August 14 by Scott Creighton

[Wepwawet]

8 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

In the land of woo?  Really?

Clearly then you subscribe to the opinion that Luxor Temple is a "plan" of the human body and mind, an opinion that is mostly certainly from the land of woo, just like the Earth flipping upside down.

 

8 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

These alignments (image above) were observed between disparate physical entities across ~1km of sloping plateau. An alignment observed by badge-carrying Egyptologists, no less. Try to learn the difference between what is clearly an intentional alignment between entities and what is extrapolated geometry within an entity. Or are you saying Lehner and Goedicke are wrong and the Giza Diagonal alignment they first observed puts them "in the land of woo"?

Take your time.

No need to take any time over this as I am not disputing that there are alignments, to Heliopolis, and that the Giza layout was planned. Unlike you and others, I see no reason to complicate Giza, something you do, as a published author, along with others, for financial gain, so no wonder you get so over the top defensive about this.

[Scott Creighton]

13 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

Clearly then you subscribe to the opinion that Luxor Temple is a "plan" of the human body and mind, an opinion that is mostly certainly from the land of woo, just like the Earth flipping upside down.

 

No need to take any time over this as I am not disputing that there are alignments, to Heliopolis, and that the Giza layout was planned. Unlike you and others, I see no reason to complicate Giza, something you do, as a published author, along with others, for financial gain, so no wonder you get so over the top defensive about this.

I find it remarkable that some here think it would have been near impossible for the AE to have made these alignments at Giza over just ~1 Km of sloping plateau and yet, on the other hand, they insist it would have been no problem for them to make an alignment with monuments 35Km away.

Make your minds up.

SC

[Wepwawet]

2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

I find it remarkable that some here think it would have been near impossible for the AE to have made these alignments at Giza over just ~1 Km of sloping plateau and yet, on the other hand, they insist it would have been no problem for them to make an alignment with monuments 35Km away.

Why make this comment to me when I have not made any posts disputing this. Also, why would it have been a problem to see Heliopolis from Giza, a distance of about 23km.

I made my original post in order to show that the fringe like to draw lines and circles on Egyptian monuments, imposing their ideas on the AE, something that I dislike. I am not saying that lines and circles can not be made, as clearly they are, and I point out that this is not difficult when dealing with the monuments of a people who like symmetry. What I dispute is the impostion of modern ideas on the AE, particularly when these ideas are bonkers, such as trying to say that the Temple of Luxor forms a "plan" of the human body and mind. Do you agree with this fringe idea, I have no idea as you have ignored it.

For the record I simply do not care if Orion's Belt is replicated at Giza or not. If it is, then that is not a surprise as stars were important to them in their afterlife beliefs, but with you it goes beyond an afterlife belief, doesn't it, and it's your un-evidenced flood and Earth flipping ideas that I cannot accept.

[Spiros]

There are a number of things at Giza that don't make sense. One is the small size of Menkaure's pyramid. Based on the apparent magnitude of the belt star Mintaka 2.23 one would expect this pyramid to be larger. That is based on the apparent magnitude of the other belt stars and the size of the two larger pyramids at Giza.

Scott proposed his geometric solution which in essence required taking half the size of the larger pyramids. But there are a number of things that do no make it a complete solution. We first have to define the size of the larger pyramids. How was this set out?

Then we go to the Giza diagonal. When looking at Google Earth pics I note that the two satellite G1a and G3a pyramids do not align perfectly with the G1 South-East corner and the G3 South-East corner. Off course it have been noted and it is true that this line does not align with the G2 South-East corner. Is there more to this line? Does it merely relate to the precessional cycle and the orientation of the Orion belt stars as pointed out by Scott?

I would just like to mention that I have now found a correlation that defines the position of the Great Sphinx at Giza. We all know that while the Orion Correlation Theory maps the position of the three belt stars to the three main Giza pyramids there is no celestial object to map on to the Sphinx. Other theories like Andrew Collins Cygnus wing theory also does not come up with a celestial solution to the Sphinx.

I don't know of any theory that matches there 4 structures. We might take the position of planets aligning with the position of the pyramids or even the relative distance between them, but to my knowledge the Sphinx is missing.

So where does the Sphinx map on to?

The answer is to a mountain.

Let me just show the apparent magnitude (brightness) of the Orion belt stars as they relate to pyramids and mountains and you decide.

This is the true astronomically derived apparent magnitude (Wikipedia). As smaller number means more bright:

Alnitak: 1.77    
Alnilam: 1.69
Mintaka: 2.23

This is what is encoded at Giza based on the height of the pyramids:

Alnitak: 1.65
Alnilam: 1.69
Mintaka: 3.70

This is how my Greek mountain theory aligns with the Orion belt stars(mountain altitude is used):

Alnitak: 1.73
Alnilam: 1.69
Mintaka: 2.32

This is one mountain triad that I document in my book. The above data lead to the conclusion that OCT needs my theory to explain things better.

 

[Thanos5150]

On 8/14/2024 at 3:01 PM, Kenemet said:

Yes, I believe that Hemiunu and Khufu drew up plans for G1.  No question. 

#102:

Another [the other being Imhotep] would be Hemiunu also credited as "Khufu's architect" and "builder/architect of the Great Pyramid" because of one of his titles "Overseer of all the royal construction projects" yet there is no evidence to support this either nor is there that this is even what this title meant. 

See Romer The Great Pyramid Ancient Egypt Revisited p86-90

Edited August 18 by Thanos5150

[Wepwawet]

On 8/14/2024 at 11:01 PM, Kenemet said:

Yes, I believe that Hemiunu and Khufu drew up plans for G1

When we encounter terms such as Vizier I would agree with Romer that the 19th Century translators could have done better, but they liked to add a dash of orientalism and exoticism to the mix. It may be the case that Hemiunu's titles did not mean that he physically acted in a specific role, but if we translate his Egyptian title, Tjaty, to Prime Minister, or, Chief of Staff, then I think it adds some clarity to his role. I prefer to see him as Chief of Staff to Khufu in the way that Marshal Berthier was Chief of Staff to Napoleon, not a political appointment, but a personal one. I do not doubt that Khufu conceived the idea for what the Great Pyramid should be, it was for him after all. Khufu though does not organise the construction and all the logistics any more than Vespasian for the Colesseum, and this was mostly par for the course in times when only the name of the monarch the monument is for has any importance. Who built the medieval cathedrals, we don't know, we only know the name of the bishop who started it, but who would have drawn all the threads together, the dean more likely, in conjunction with the local artisans. Who is the dean if not the bishop's Chief of Staff.

So while Hemiunu held numerous titles, and would I am sure have worked closely with Khufu on the conception, he would have been reponsible for delegating the logistics and actual construction to others, and this would spread out down to the likes of Merer. There was very likely a very clever man who devised how to install the blocks for the King's chamber and chambers above it, but he does not have to be Heniunu, but somebody who reported to him up a chain of command, for no one man can control all the work going on.

Romer, in his book on the Great Pyramid and his rather ascerbic words about the translations of Heniunu's titles, misleads the reader I think. While he complains that the translations may not fit exactly what Heniunu actually did, he does not offer his own, and rather likes to play with the reader with a witicism about Winston Churchill being a Knight of the Bath, though Romer fails to use the title, and says that a literal translation would lead somebody unknowing into thinking that Churchill was in charge of the monarch's bath. There are connections in the origins of some of these titles, but they long ceased to refer to their origins. Romer also tells us that basically anybody could be a "King's son of his body" and that it does not mean that they are actually the son of the king. This is not true as the "body" part specifically means that he is the real son of the king. What Romer has failed to do is tell his readers that the AE had only one word for all of a person's male ancestors, and that word is "father". Therefore when Romer tells us that Hemiunu is the son of Snefru and Khufu at the same time, chortle chortle, this cannot be true. Well yes, it cannot be true, but as Hemiunu is the bodily son of Khufu, then Snefru, in AE terms, is also his father.

[Kenemet]

4 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

When we encounter terms such as Vizier I would agree with Romer that the 19th Century translators could have done better, but they liked to add a dash of orientalism and exoticism to the mix. It may be the case that Hemiunu's titles did not mean that he physically acted in a specific role, but if we translate his Egyptian title, Tjaty, to Prime Minister, or, Chief of Staff, then I think it adds some clarity to his role. I prefer to see him as Chief of Staff to Khufu in the way that Marshal Berthier was Chief of Staff to Napoleon, not a political appointment, but a personal one. I do not doubt that Khufu conceived the idea for what the Great Pyramid should be, it was for him after all. Khufu though does not organise the construction and all the logistics any more than Vespasian for the Colesseum, and this was mostly par for the course in times when only the name of the monarch the monument is for has any importance. Who built the medieval cathedrals, we don't know, we only know the name of the bishop who started it, but who would have drawn all the threads together, the dean more likely, in conjunction with the local artisans. Who is the dean if not the bishop's Chief of Staff.

So while Hemiunu held numerous titles, and would I am sure have worked closely with Khufu on the conception, he would have been reponsible for delegating the logistics and actual construction to others, and this would spread out down to the likes of Merer. There was very likely a very clever man who devised how to install the blocks for the King's chamber and chambers above it, but he does not have to be Heniunu, but somebody who reported to him up a chain of command, for no one man can control all the work going on.

Romer, in his book on the Great Pyramid and his rather ascerbic words about the translations of Heniunu's titles, misleads the reader I think. While he complains that the translations may not fit exactly what Heniunu actually did, he does not offer his own, and rather likes to play with the reader with a witicism about Winston Churchill being a Knight of the Bath, though Romer fails to use the title, and says that a literal translation would lead somebody unknowing into thinking that Churchill was in charge of the monarch's bath. There are connections in the origins of some of these titles, but they long ceased to refer to their origins. Romer also tells us that basically anybody could be a "King's son of his body" and that it does not mean that they are actually the son of the king. This is not true as the "body" part specifically means that he is the real son of the king. What Romer has failed to do is tell his readers that the AE had only one word for all of a person's male ancestors, and that word is "father". Therefore when Romer tells us that Hemiunu is the son of Snefru and Khufu at the same time, chortle chortle, this cannot be true. Well yes, it cannot be true, but as Hemiunu is the bodily son of Khufu, then Snefru, in AE terms, is also his father.

The cultural nuances can easily trip anyone up, particularly in dealing with events and people that far back in time.  Names and titles can become confused and conflated, and in this case I agree with your reasoning about Romer.  

I wonder if he also worked with Imhotep's successors.  Because architects are so scarce in the record (and there doesn't seem to be a word that matches "architect"), it's interesting to speculate whether it was a specialized trade like scribe (I would suspect it was an offshoot of scribal learning, personally) or whether it was one of those hereditary trades.

I am ignoring, by the way, the material by Seyfzadeh.  I did look at some of his papers (and started backing away when I saw Schoch associated with him.)  Seyfzadeh has made some interesting claims but I have a hard time accepting his conclusions.

Edited August 19 by Kenemet

[Thanos5150]

5 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Romer also tells us that basically anybody could be a "King's son of his body" and that it does not mean that they are actually the son of the king. This is not true as the "body" part specifically means that he is the real son of the king.

This is true. As Romer says this is a common title which there are several 4th Dynasty examples where it is thought it is not to be taken literally the least of which Hemiunu himself whose father is actually commonly accepted to be Nefermaat (Encyclopedia of Egyptian Architecture, Arnold p107). 

Quote

The Vizier and Eldest Son of the King, Nefermaat, had a son, Hemiunu, who was a grown man of perhaps eighteen with important titles when his father completed the decoration of his own tomb at Maidum. Hemiunu became vizier and was given the courtesy title of 'Prince'. Like Kawab and Khufukhaf he is represented as a fat man of advanced years in a statue of exceptional realism which must have been made when his tomb at Giza was nearing completion in the year 19 (HAt sp 10) of Cheops.2 If he were forty at the time, it is\ more likely that his father, Nefermaat, was a son of Huni rather than of Sneferu. (Cambridge Ancient History p24)

 

Edited August 19 by Thanos5150

[Wepwawet]

In the tomb of Nefermaat, a son of Sneferu, the names of his children are recorded. An adult male is named as Hemiunu, and this man is assumed to be Vizier Hemiunu. As Hemiunu only references Khufu as being his father, no matter that the term father applies to all his male ancestors, there is actually no direct evidence to say that Vizier Hemiunu is the same Hemiunu recorded as a son of Nefermaat in his tomb. Hemiunu does not reference Nefermaat in his own tomb.

Now I'm not going to be unrealistic just to try to prove a point, and will happily admit that both men named Hemiunu could be one and the same. If they are, they are, it doesn't bother me one way or the other. However, I will point out that no matter how compelling it seems that they are one and the same man, it is only an assumption, and is it worth nailing colours to the mast for an assumption, I think not. Many Egyptologists assumed for years that there was one male king at Amarna with the throne name Ankhkheperure, but they assumed wrongly and it transpired that there were two, one male and one female. Possibly Egyptologists fought duels over this, or at least traded blows with handbags. In Egyptology there are multiple opinions on any topic where the truth is not known 100%, and on this forum a browse through the Amarna thread will show this to be the case.

Even if we have just the one Hemiunu, and I accept that this may be the case, I still take issue with Romer stating that this epithet sA nswt n XT=f  "King's son of his body", also translated as "King's son of his loins" and "Kings true son" was widely used by men who were not the actual son of a king. I'm not an expert, but I have not come across this specific epithet used for anybody not the son of a king, and indeed in the huge festschrift for Zahi Hawass (Guardian of Ancient Egypt - Studies in Honor of Zahi Hawass),  there is, in volume 1, an article by Laurel Flentye about the eastern cemetery at Giza covering mid to late 4th Dynasty tombs which addresses this. Flentye discusses on page 440 whether the owners of some tombs were grandsons or sons of Khufu. She comes to the opinion that those who have the epithet sA nswt n XT=f  are in fact sons of Khufu, specifically because they have this epithet, exactly the same one that Vizier Hemiunu has.

If it can be proven that I am wrong about Hemiunu, or rather about the use of this epithet sA nswt n XT=f  then I'll accept it, otherwise, pistols at dawn 🙄

 

Edited August 19 by Wepwawet

[Thanos5150]

15 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

This is true. As Romer says this is a common title which there are several 4th Dynasty examples where it is thought it is not to be taken literally the least of which Hemiunu himself whose father is actually commonly accepted to be Nefermaat (Encyclopedia of Egyptian Architecture, Arnold p107). 

QMFE:

Hemiunu is named as one of Nefermaat's 15 children and one of the few depicted as an adult. In this scenario Nefermaat and Khufu would have been 1/2 brothers and Hemiunu, Nefermaat's son, would have grown up to be Khufu's vizier. Given he is depicted as an adult it stands to reason that Neferaat was alive at the time Khufu was king and Hemiuni was working for him. Curiously, Hemiunu is also given the title "king's son of his body", though his father is not a king, which is also the same title given to Nefermaat, "king's son of his body", which led Egyptologists to believe he was the son of Sneferu in the 1st place given his tomb is located next to the pyramid of Meidum attributed to Sneferu. 

Quote

As Hemiunu only references Khufu as being his father, no matter that the term father applies to all his male ancestors, there is actually no direct evidence to say that Vizier Hemiunu is the same Hemiunu recorded as a son of Nefermaat in his tomb. Hemiunu does not reference Nefermaat in his own tomb.

Not only does Hemiunu not reference Khufu as his father, Khufu's name is not found anywhere inside G 4000. His titles are known from the base of his statue which as anyone can see does not contain the name "Khufu". 

[Wepwawet]

Nowhere in the tomb of Hemiunu is the name of Nefermaat mentioned, therefore it can only be conjecture that the Hemiunu mentioned in the tomb of Nefermaat is also the Vizier Hemiunu. If at any time Hemiunu named Nefermaat as his father then this would be case closed, in fact it would never have needed to be opened.

To state that Hemiunu cannot be the son of Khufu because Khufu's name does not appear in his tomb must then mean that Hemiunu cannot be the son of Nefermaat as his name does not appear either. Had the name Hemiunu not appeared in the tomb of Nefermaat, then the evidence of the epithet alone would be sufficient to say that Hemiunu was at least the son of a king. However, there is his name in the tomb of Nefermaat, so we have fun and games with bold statements about Hemiunu being the son of Nefermaat when conclusive evidence is lacking. That it may well be likely that he was is not evidence, it's opinion.

When a man or woman has the epithet naming them as "King's son/daughter of his body", the name of the king is never given, therefore the name Khufu does not have to appear in the tomb of Hemiunu or anywhere else. This of course causes us problems, and a prominent example is with the talatat that presents us with "King's son of his body - Tutankhuaten" (aka Tutankhamun) and does not, as normal, name the king who is his father, so we have arguments about whether his father is Akhenaten or Smenkhkare.

Publications for the general reader such as Romer's book about the Great Pyramid tend to simplify things, otherwise books would need to be far longer than necessary to be able to fill in all the in depth information. While I like Romer, what he writes about this issue is rather shallow and flippant, and seems to be more about what he thinks of 19th Century translators rather than educate the reader. Going by Romer, the general reader would assume that none of the titles held by men like Hemiunu meant anything at all, just like the medals that royalty like to give each other, well, maybe, who knows, but there is no discussion about this, just flippant remarks to guide the reader to Romer's opinion, one of many, as can be seen below.

For reference here is what Flentye writes about this, though unfortunately she does not cover the tomb of Hemiunu.

 

Edited August 19 by Wepwawet

[Thanos5150]

1 hour ago, Wepwawet said:

To state that Hemiunu cannot be the son of Khufu because Khufu's name does not appear in his tomb must then mean that Hemiunu cannot be the son of Nefermaat as his name does not appear either.

Just so we understand, first you said this:

As Hemiunu only references Khufu as being his father, no matter that the term father applies to all his male ancestors, there is actually no direct evidence to say that Vizier Hemiunu is the same Hemiunu recorded as a son of Nefermaat in his tomb. Hemiunu does not reference Nefermaat in his own tomb.

So now that there is no reference to Khufu by Hemiunu as his father or otherwise you say this: 

To state that Hemiunu cannot be the son of Khufu because Khufu's name does not appear in his tomb must then mean that Hemiunu cannot be the son of Nefermaat as his name does not appear either.

But you just said the very reason Khufu was his father is because  "Hemiunu only references Khufu as being his father".

And furthermore, we would also note nowhere did I say the absence of Khufu's name excluded Khufu from being his father, the reasons he is thought to be the son of Nefermaat has nothing to do with it, with the point of noting this obviously to counter your claim of it being there did. 

....

Edited August 19 by Thanos5150

[Kenemet]

7 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

In the tomb of Nefermaat, a son of Sneferu, the names of his children are recorded. An adult male is named as Hemiunu, and this man is assumed to be Vizier Hemiunu. As Hemiunu only references Khufu as being his father, no matter that the term father applies to all his male ancestors, there is actually no direct evidence to say that Vizier Hemiunu is the same Hemiunu recorded as a son of Nefermaat in his tomb. Hemiunu does not reference Nefermaat in his own tomb.

Now I'm not going to be unrealistic just to try to prove a point, and will happily admit that both men named Hemiunu could be one and the same. If they are, they are, it doesn't bother me one way or the other. However, I will point out that no matter how compelling it seems that they are one and the same man, it is only an assumption, and is it worth nailing colours to the mast for an assumption, I think not. Many Egyptologists assumed for years that there was one male king at Amarna with the throne name Ankhkheperure, but they assumed wrongly and it transpired that there were two, one male and one female. Possibly Egyptologists fought duels over this, or at least traded blows with handbags. In Egyptology there are multiple opinions on any topic where the truth is not known 100%, and on this forum a browse through the Amarna thread will show this to be the case.

Even if we have just the one Hemiunu, and I accept that this may be the case, I still take issue with Romer stating that this epithet sA nswt n XT=f  "King's son of his body", also translated as "King's son of his loins" and "Kings true son" was widely used by men who were not the actual son of a king. I'm not an expert, but I have not come across this specific epithet used for anybody not the son of a king, and indeed in the huge festschrift for Zahi Hawass (Guardian of Ancient Egypt - Studies in Honor of Zahi Hawass),  there is, in volume 1, an article by Laurel Flentye about the eastern cemetery at Giza covering mid to late 4th Dynasty tombs which addresses this. Flentye discusses on page 440 whether the owners of some tombs were grandsons or sons of Khufu. She comes to the opinion that those who have the epithet sA nswt n XT=f  are in fact sons of Khufu, specifically because they have this epithet, exactly the same one that Vizier Hemiunu has.

If it can be proven that I am wrong about Hemiunu, or rather about the use of this epithet sA nswt n XT=f  then I'll accept it, otherwise, pistols at dawn 🙄

 

I haven't looked into the issue of Hemiunu and his relations, but I lean toward the idea that there were two of them, simply because of the span of time. 

 

[Wepwawet]

7 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

Just so we understand, first you said this:

As Hemiunu only references Khufu as being his father, no matter that the term father applies to all his male ancestors, there is actually no direct evidence to say that Vizier Hemiunu is the same Hemiunu recorded as a son of Nefermaat in his tomb. Hemiunu does not reference Nefermaat in his own tomb.

So now that there is no reference to Khufu by Hemiunu as his father or otherwise you say this: 

To state that Hemiunu cannot be the son of Khufu because Khufu's name does not appear in his tomb must then mean that Hemiunu cannot be the son of Nefermaat as his name does not appear either.

But you just said the very reason Khufu was his father is because  "Hemiunu only references Khufu as being his father".

And furthermore, we would also note nowhere did I say the absence of Khufu's name excluded Khufu from being his father, the reasons he is thought to be the son of Nefermaat has nothing to do with it, with the point of noting this obviously to counter your claim of it being there did. 

....

I'm doing no more or less than anybody else in taking a view of who his father may or may not be. Most people state that Tutankhamun is the son of Akhenaten, some that he may be the son of Smenkhkare. I usually state that he is the son of Akhenaten, yet there is zero hard evidence, just as with who the father of Hemiunu is. Why do I take this position, why does anybody, because it is the easy thing to do, it saves having to make umpteen caveats and make the sort of explanation that I have engaged these last few posts.

Odd, or not, how you move the focus onto me, yet you present nothing new, simply making statements, some not very clear, about who Hemiunu's father is, not backed up by facts. The focus should be on interpreting the evidence we have, should it not, and is what I have been doing.

So, just what have I been doing in these posts? I have been pointing out that what we read about X,Y or Z is often a simplified version for non professionals, and that the reality is more nuanced and complicated than a bold statement would have us believe. So, I'll state again that I actually do not care who Hemiunu's father is, it doesn't really have any importance, but his titles do, and is why I made my reply to Kenemet, into which you jumped.

You said this, which, while not explicitly denying that Khufu was the father of Hemiunu, certainly implies that you think this.

2 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

Not only does Hemiunu not reference Khufu as his father, Khufu's name is not found anywhere inside G 4000. His titles are known from the base of his statue which as anyone can see does not contain the name "Khufu".

And then you said this, which looks like a bit of a dodge.

31 minutes ago, Thanos5150 said:

And furthermore, we would also note nowhere did I say the absence of Khufu's name excluded Khufu from being his father, the reasons he is thought to be the son of Nefermaat has nothing to do with it, with the point of noting this obviously to counter your claim of it being there did.

So perhaps instead of engaging in this sort of game, and it is a game for you, perhaps you could bring something worthwhile to the discussion, something about the topic in hand instead of me. Can you, for instance, make clear your position on this, and, as I have done, present some evidence for why you hold your position, whatever it is as this is not exactly crystal clear.

Do you think Hemiunu is the son of Nefermaat or Khufu, or do you not know, my position, as hard evidence is lacking.

[Wepwawet]

13 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

I haven't looked into the issue of Hemiunu and his relations, but I lean toward the idea that there were two of them, simply because of the span of time. 

 

What we could do with are the dates of birth and death for him, but of course this was an alien concept for them, yet so many questions could be answered, and in a much wider field, if we knew these things. If he were a son of Nefermaat, he would, at least roughly, be similar in age to Khufu, and this would fit into him having some input into the construction of G1. But if he were a son of Khufu, he might not have been old enough to even have been an adult by the time construction began, or have any but a few of his many titles, perhaps just that of king's son.

To be fair, I have to say that on the very rough guess at even an approximate timeline for him, being a son of Nefermaat looks a better fit, but "looks" is not evidence, and the title of "King's son of his body" remains a factor that cannot be waved away.

[Kenemet]

2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

What we could do with are the dates of birth and death for him, but of course this was an alien concept for them, yet so many questions could be answered, and in a much wider field, if we knew these things. If he were a son of Nefermaat, he would, at least roughly, be similar in age to Khufu, and this would fit into him having some input into the construction of G1. But if he were a son of Khufu, he might not have been old enough to even have been an adult by the time construction began, or have any but a few of his many titles, perhaps just that of king's son.

To be fair, I have to say that on the very rough guess at even an approximate timeline for him, being a son of Nefermaat looks a better fit, but "looks" is not evidence, and the title of "King's son of his body" remains a factor that cannot be waved away.

The one (if there are two) who worked on Giza would have had some connection with Sneferu's (and possibly Djoser's) architects.  Projects like that aren't simple, and someone with little to no experience would likely make a hash of everything, and the team who built those structures had to deal with a lot of changes (ruined pyramid, Bent pyramid) and logistics... such as the interesting decision to use large blocks of stone for G1 rather than the smaller units used to build Djoser's pyramid.

If it's the same man, then he would have been fairly old by the time he started planning G1... and might not have lived to see it completed.  That's one of the reasons I lean toward their being two men rather than one -- but evidence could persuade me in either direction.

G3 would have had a new architect... but if there are two Hemiunus, then it's possible that H1 did G1 and H2 did G3.  

[Wepwawet]

7 hours ago, Kenemet said:

The one (if there are two) who worked on Giza would have had some connection with Sneferu's (and possibly Djoser's) architects.

A factor that interests me is that while in ancient times architects of grand projects are mostly annonymous, we do have some, or at least the name of a man who is very likely to have been the architect. Imhotep for the Step Pyramid and Amunhotep son of Hapu for the monuments of Amunhotep III. Both of these men were later deified, a bit of a clue that they did something of great value. Yet for the greatest construction project of them all, the Giza complex, the AE themselves give us nothing. We only have the names of the three kings because the three main pyramids were their tombs, there is nothing to state that X,Y or Z made them. Hemiunu is in the frame because of his titles and that his life coincided with the constructions at Giza, yet the AE do not proclaim him to be "The great builder", or anybody else, and this is in fact the same with Imhotep as it is only his name and titles on a statue of the king from those times that give us the idea that he was the architect. With Amunhotep son of Hapu this is all much clearer, not least that he was granted a memorial temple on the west bank at Thebes with those of kings.

I mention this to hightlight the fact that it is we in modern times who are stating who an architect was for these monuments in most cases, and we do so, primarily I think, because of the titles they held. Which I think is why if a person does not want one or all of these men to be the architect for whatever reason, they try to dismiss the titles, usually without giving a reasonable reason, or giving an alternate reading of these titles.