It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by spacevisitor
Hi Spacevisitor,
I have seen those images on Rick's site before and I have to say that they are not very good renderings of the Khufu inscription in Campbell's Chamber drawn in Col. Howard-Vyse's diary. The link below presents a hi-res image of the drawing Col. Howard-Vyse made (this is from a photograph of the relevant diary page made by Martin Stower).
The Khufu Drawing of Col. Howard-Vyse
By using the zoom option on the image, you can clearly see, Col. Howard-Vyse drew three horizontal hatchings within the disc of Khufu's name - the same as we see in Stadelmann's photo of the Khufu inscription posted earlier by Byrd. Claims of forgery aside, it would seem then that Col. Howard-Vyse correctly copied what he saw in Campbell's Chamber of the Great Pyramid.
The problem for Egyptology, however, is that this name "Khufu" is not the name of the 2nd king of the 4th Dynasty we see in the Abydos King List or on 4th Dynasty seals bearing the King's name. That the name "Khufu" is not recorded in the AE King Lists would suggest that this king must have been of an earlier time than the 4th dynasty as must also the Great Pyramid. How much earlier is anyone's guess although radio-carbon 14 dating of the GIUza structures suggests perhaps around 400 years earlier (if we assume these C14 datings were not the result of a repair job on the pyramids).
Regards,
Scott Creighton
Originally posted by lostinspace
reply to post by Harte
I did not know those details Harte. I'm glad you enlightened me. I guess Hollywood got the best of me.
I wonder what was going through the AE worker's mind when he painted Khufu's cartouche in that hidden location? - Khufu was here and so was I. The poor guy was probably killed after Khufu's death, to be an eternal servant in the afterlife. Hopefully he didn't die that way and his only reasons were to let a future public know the truth about TGP.
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Byrd
Hello Byrd,
Good to hear from you. Been a while.
And, in any case, as AeJor_Mn has already pointed out, Ra/Re can be written with or without the centre dot just as we find in the glyphs of Ra/Re in the names of Djedfre, Khare and Menkaure in the Abydos King list (below)
SC: The typical explanation for this apparent anomally is that the scribes either made a mistake or that they left the work unfinished. I am unconvinced of this. There are simply too many unfinished RAUFU inscriptions out there.
SC: You are making the assumption here that the AE called the 2nd King of the 4th Dynasty “Khufu” – I am saying he was known to them as “Raufu”. The name on the monuments/artefacts IS Raufu NOT Khufu. It has been erroneously translated by “modern” scholars as “Khufu”.
It is a plain circle. It is fully intended to BE a plain circle. There is simply no way the maker of such a seal would have carved the intricate detail of the word “town” (the crossed circle) and not do likewise for the name of the God-King’s name.
This seal tells us, conclusively, that a PLAIN (not hatched) circle was intended for the name of the king. The seal is used for official business, a quick and efficient means of rendering the King’s official stamp. It is simply inconceivable that the seal impression would be made into clay
SC: The answer, however, could be startlingly simple. It is an answer that is associated with "Akhet" which is connected with the "essence of light" = the sun's annual journey. Here is what those three horizontal lines within the circle could mean:
The sign is a relatively recent creation of Egyptian writing, unknown in the Pyramid Texts, in which the sign that determines the word 3ht is the hieroglyph of a sandy island. The earliest known documentation of the sign is from the Fifth Dynasty, an epoch that saw the official affirmation of the solar cult. Thus the hieroglyph represents the point where the sun appears above the earth at daybreak and where it touches the earth again at sunset. This is the proper meaning of the ideogram, connected to the root 3h, 'to shine'.
So Betro informs us that “Akhet” does NOT mean “horizon” as has been believed but rather “sunrise” or “sunset”.
SC: The typical explanation for this apparent anomally is that the scribes either made a mistake or that they left the work unfinished. I am unconvinced of this. There are simply too many unfinished RAUFU inscriptions out there.
Byrd: From what time period and how many?
SC: You are making the assumption here that the AE called the 2nd King of the 4th Dynasty “Khufu” – I am saying he was known to them as “Raufu”. The name on the monuments/artefacts IS Raufu NOT Khufu. It has been erroneously translated by “modern” scholars as “Khufu”.
Byrd: Take a look at your example from the tomb of Qar. Right above Khufu's name IS a pharaoh with a "Re" in his name: Meryre. Notice how much larger the "Re" is. To the RIGHT of the cartouche with "Khufu" is the beginning title of "Son of" (ibis, symbol for Re.) Again, the "Re" is visibly larger than the "Kh" symbol. Even the "re" in Menukare (to the left of Khufu) is slightly larger. Likewise Khefre (below Menukare).
SC: It is a plain circle. It is fully intended to BE a plain circle. There is simply no way the maker of such a seal would have carved the intricate detail of the word “town” (the crossed circle) and not do likewise for the name of the God-King’s name.
Byrd: Given the material they were working with, a series of little lines may not have been possible.
Byrd: Take a look at the shrine priest's ring shown here -- again, the design is too small to actually put lines inside the "kh" symbol:
en.wikipedia.org...:Ring_of_Cheops.jpg
SC: This seal tells us, conclusively, that a PLAIN (not hatched) circle was intended for the name of the king. The seal is used for official business, a quick and efficient means of rendering the King’s official stamp. It is simply inconceivable that the seal impression would be made into clay
Byrd: ...it wasn't. That's carved and polished stone. They weren't able to make fine engraving marks on such a surface.
Byrd: In addition, there are other inscriptions with his other titles. For instance, there is a statue with his full name, Horus name, and full name on it:
www.semataui.de...
...the drawings (which I am going to assume are accurate) show lines in the "khu" part of the name and not a "ra."
Byrd: There are other objects where his name (or names) are given:
en.wikiversity.org...
Byrd: Then, there's the issue of the language. Rulers' names "meant" something -- they were words, not just pleasing sounds.
* in the usage of that time, the "ra" would go at the end of the name although it's the first symbol in the cartouche... making his name "ufu-ra".
Byrd: * Khufu's name makes sense. It means "to protect" and his full name "Khnum-khufu" means "Khnum protects me." "Khnum-rafu" would probably mean "Khnum goes 'rafu!', making the god sound like a cuckoo clock.
SC: The answer, however, could be startlingly simple. It is an answer that is associated with "Akhet" which is connected with the "essence of light" = the sun's annual journey. Here is what those three horizontal lines within the circle could mean:
Byrd: Scott, I think we'd find this more convincing if you tied it into the hieroglyphs themselves and the development of the hieroglyphs and the usage of the symbol rather than deciding that you knew what the ancient Egyptians were thinking.
Betro: The sign is a relatively recent creation of Egyptian writing, unknown in the Pyramid Texts, in which the sign that determines the word 3ht is the hieroglyph of a sandy island. The earliest known documentation of the sign is from the Fifth Dynasty, an epoch that saw the official affirmation of the solar cult. Thus the hieroglyph represents the point where the sun appears above the earth at daybreak and where it touches the earth again at sunset. This is the proper meaning of the ideogram, connected to the root 3h, 'to shine'.
SC: So Betro informs us that “Akhet” does NOT mean “horizon” as has been believed but rather “sunrise” or “sunset”.
Byrd: Quite true. But Ahket (as you so clearly showed with the example of the seal above) was spelled with the crested ibis (B37) at that time.
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by spacevisitor
Hi Spacevisitor,
I have seen those images on Rick's site before and I have to say that they are not very good renderings of the Khufu inscription in Campbell's Chamber drawn in Col. Howard-Vyse's diary. The link below presents a hi-res image of the drawing Col. Howard-Vyse made (this is from a photograph of the relevant diary page made by Martin Stower).
The Khufu Drawing of Col. Howard-Vyse
By using the zoom option on the image, you can clearly see, Col. Howard-Vyse drew three horizontal hatchings within the disc of Khufu's name - the same as we see in Stadelmann's photo of the Khufu inscription posted earlier by Byrd. Claims of forgery aside, it would seem then that Col. Howard-Vyse correctly copied what he saw in Campbell's Chamber of the Great Pyramid.
Originally posted by lostinspace
reply to post by Harte
I did not know those details Harte. I'm glad you enlightened me. I guess Hollywood got the best of me.
I wonder what was going through the AE worker's mind when he painted Khufu's cartouche in that hidden location? - Khufu was here and so was I. The poor guy was probably killed after Khufu's death, to be an eternal servant in the afterlife. Hopefully he didn't die that way and his only reasons were to let a future public know the truth about TGP.
The first pharaoh who used the cartouche for his birth- and throne name was Neferirkare, the third pharaoh of dynasty 5 (the names can be looked up in J.v. Beckeraths Handbuch der ägyptischen Königsnamen, MÄS 49, Zabern 1999).
And before that? Well, the pharaoh only had his birth name in a cartouche (which had, to complete the confusion, the bee-reed-titulatory in front which was later associated with the throne name), and the cartouche-less Horus name as throne name! Those Horus names were not recorded in the king lists of the New Kingdom, which are the main sources for those names. There only cartouche names are recorded, and so Khufu became known to us through his birth- and not his throne name! And this was the only name for the king known at Vyses time!
The throne name of Khufu, "Mddw", means something like "he who gives" - goods to his people. Neither the meaning nor the existence of this name was known around 1840, not even to Birch. Birch, according to Sitchin te greatest hieroglyphic expert of his time, had the name before his eyes. He thought it was "just some title". So how could a faker, who had no knowledge about hieroglyphics at all, know more than the worlds biggest expert of that trade?
As John West kindly reported in his open letter to Stower I have changed my views on the validity of the forgery theory. The relieving chambers are strictly off limits to the public and are extremely difficult to gain access to. I had been unable to obtain permission to visit them prior to the publication of Keeper/Message in 1996. However, in December 1997, Dr Zahi Hawass allowed me to spend an entire day exploring these chambers. There were no restrictions on where I looked and I had ample time to examine the hieroglyphs closely, under powerful lights. Cracks in some of the joints reveal hieroglyphs set far back into the masonry. No 'forger' could possibly have reached in there after the blocks had been set in place - blocks, I should add, that weigh tens of tons each and that are immovably interlinked with one another. The only reasonable conclusion is the one which orthodox Egyptologists have already long held - namely that the hieroglyphs are genuine Old Kingdom graffiti and that they were daubed on the blocks before construction began.
Spacevisitor: In the drawing in this link, which is again from the site of Rick Richards [which I found really very interesting] is the red circle placed around the spot where the “Khufu” inscription is painted.
"...Were these just fakes? Studying them closely, however, they looked authentically ancient to me. I could see later mineral crystals precipitated over them, a process that takes centuries or millennia, and the inscriptions continue under the overlying blocks...." Source
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: The typical explanation for this apparent anomally is that the scribes either made a mistake or that they left the work unfinished. I am unconvinced of this. There are simply too many unfinished RAUFU inscriptions out there.
Byrd: From what time period and how many?
SC: There are numerous examples of Raufu – the 4th dynasty cylinder seal, its impressions, the Abydos King List, the ring sea, the tomb of Khaf-Khufu, tomb of Qar, a number of line drawings as well as the example of “Reofe” in 'I monumenti dell'Egitto e della Nubia' vol. 1 (1832), p.141, Rosellini. There are probably others yet to be identified.
First of all the inscriptions on the walls of the tomb of Qar would likely have been painted just in the same manner orthodox folks claim the Abydos King List would also have been painted to differentiate plain “Kh” disc from the plain “Ra/Re” disc. How do you know the plain disc in the alleged “Khufu” inscription in the tomb of Qar would not have been painted gold or orange i.e. the colours of Re? In fact, now that I think of it, the discs of Menkaure and “Khufu” ARE orange!
I think you're focusing on the difference in color in the stone (an artifact of the flash used to take the picture.)
Secondly, there is no real discernable difference between the plain “Ra” disc of Menkaure and the plain “Ra” disc of “Raufu”.
There's a size difference... and had it been "Ra", the next word following the Khufu cartouche (which is "Son of the god (crested-ibis, Ra/sun symbol) would have had the "Ra" circle the same size as the "kh" circle inside the cartouche. There was plenty of room for a large sized Ra circle, had his name been "Ufu-Ra."
Thirdly, there is no discernable difference in any of the plain discs of these kings in the Abydos table.
And there are a number of errors. Remember that this list was constructed well over 1,000 years later, when some of the signs had changed.
So... in the manner of historians, let's divide the evidence into "first-hand information" (that created and associated with Khufu and done during his lifetime) and "second-hand information" (that done within a few centuries of his lifetime) and "third-hand information" (that done over 500 years later.)
The Abydos list falls into "third hand information."
Alas, my net connection is very unstable at the moment. Let me leave you with this list of "first hand sources" (where Khufu would be mentioned in some inscription associated with them) and return to this later when my internet connection isn't quite so out of whack:
euler.slu.edu...
One more thing -- as several of us have pointed out, Ancient Egyptian is NOT related well to modern Egyptian and is unrelated to the language of the Berbers. (and "Ufu" doesn't mean Horizon in Arabic, according to Arabic speaking friends.)
The closest language to ancient Egyptian is Coptic Egyptian... and it's not terribly close.
According to the inscription on this stela (which is in the Cairo Museum), the Great Pyramid was already standing when Khufu arrived on the scene.
Everything in the inscription thus matches the known facts; but the only pyramid-building claim made by Khufu is that he built the small pyramid for the princess.
The Great Pyramid, he states, was already there, as was the Sphinx (and, by inference, the other two pyramids as well).
Such support for our theories is even further strengthened, as we read in another portion of the inscription that the Great Pyramid was also called
"The Western Mountain of Hathor": Live Horus Mezdau; To King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Khufu,
Life is given.
For his mother Isis, the Divine Mother,
Mistress of "The Western Mountain of Hathor,"
he made (this) writing on a stela.
He gave (her) a new sacred offering.
He built (her) a House (temple) of stone,
renewed the Gods that were found in her temple.
Hathor, we will recall, was the mistress of the Sinai peninsula. If the highest peak of the peninsula was her Eastern Mountain, the Great Pyramid was her Western Mountain—the two acting as the anchors for the Landing Corridor.
This "Inventory Stela," as it came to be called, bears all the marks of authenticity.
Yet scholars at the time of its discovery (and many ever since) have been unable to reconcile themselves to its unavoidable conclusions.
Unwilling to upset the whole structure of Pyramidology, they proclaimed the Inventory Stela a forgery—an inscription made "long after the death of Khufu" (to quote Selim Hassan, Excavations at Giza), but invoking his name "to support some fictitious claim of the local priests."
Originally posted by spacevisitor
What is your opinion of the limestone stela which was discovered by Auguste Mariette in the 1850s in the ruins of the temple of Isis, near the Great Pyramid.
According to the inscription on this stela (which is in the Cairo Museum), the Great Pyramid was already standing when Khufu arrived on the scene.
SC: The typical explanation for this apparent anomally is that the scribes either made a mistake or that they left the work unfinished. I am unconvinced of this. There are simply too many unfinished RAUFU inscriptions out there.
Byrd: From what time period and how many?
SC: There are numerous examples of Raufu – the 4th dynasty cylinder seal, its impressions, the Abydos King List, the ring sea, the tomb of Khaf-Khufu, tomb of Qar, a number of line drawings as well as the example of “Reofe” in 'I monumenti dell'Egitto e della Nubia' vol. 1 (1832), p.141, Rosellini. There are probably others yet to be identified.
Byrd: I'll dispute the cylinder seal, and restate that it's not possible to do the tiny lines of the "Kh" inside that symbol. I own a (real) ushabti and have several pieces that I bought from an Egyptologist who did digs back in the early 1920's. At the scale they were working, it WAS possible to (barely) do the symbol for town inside a circle. But there was no way to engrave a very thin line in the material.
SC: Secondly, there is no real discernable difference between the plain “Ra” disc of Menkaure and the plain “Ra” disc of “Raufu”.
Byrd: There's a size difference...
Byrd:....and had it been "Ra", the next word following the Khufu cartouche (which is "Son of the god (crested-ibis, Ra/sun symbol) would have had the "Ra" circle the same size as the "kh" circle inside the cartouche. There was plenty of room for a large sized Ra circle, had his name been "Ufu-Ra."
SC: Thirdly, there is no discernable difference in any of the plain discs of these kings in the Abydos table.
Byrd: And there are a number of errors. Remember that this list was constructed well over 1,000 years later, when some of the signs had changed.
Byrd: So... in the manner of historians, let's divide the evidence into "first-hand information" (that created and associated with Khufu and done during his lifetime) and "second-hand information" (that done within a few centuries of his lifetime) and "third-hand information" (that done over 500 years later.)
The Abydos list falls into "third hand information."
Alas, my net connection is very unstable at the moment. Let me leave you with this list of "first hand sources" (where Khufu would be mentioned in some inscription associated with them) and return to this later when my internet connection isn't quite so out of whack:
euler.slu.edu...
Byrd: One more thing -- as several of us have pointed out, Ancient Egyptian is NOT related well to modern Egyptian and is unrelated to the language of the Berbers. (and "Ufu" doesn't mean Horizon in Arabic, according to Arabic speaking friends.)
The closest language to ancient Egyptian is Coptic Egyptian... and it's not terribly close.
Spacevisitor: What is your opinion of the limestone stela which was discovered by Auguste Mariette in the 1850s in the ruins of the temple of Isis, near the Great Pyramid.
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by serbsta
Hello Serbsta,
I am far from being an expert in AE hieroglyphs either - a complete novice in fact since it is not really my main field of interest. I did find this site (link below) to be quite a useful introduction to understanding AE glyphs. You might find it useful too.
I find the reading of the Abydos King List quite confusing since the glyphs are arranged vertically. When arranged horizontally they are read from the direction the animal or person is facing. As you have noticed, the sun glyph for Djedfre, Khafre and Menkaure are depicted at the top of the glyph which means we should read from the bottom to the top. But if we then read the alleged "Khufu" inscription from the bottom it would read "Ufra". If we assume the placenta glyph was intended i.e. the phonetic "Kh" then we would have "ufKh". (Quail = "U", viper="f" and placenta = "Kh" which is pronounced like the gutteral "ch" as in the Scottish word "loch"). Interestingly this "Ufkh" in modern Arabic means "horizon" and we know that Giza is referred to as "Khufu's Akhet" roughly translated as "Khufu's Horizon". Curious that "Akhet" apparently means "horizon" and "Khufu" (reversed) in modern Arabic also means "horizon". If this is coincidence then it surely has to be a truly remarkable one.
An Intro to AE Hieroglyphics
Kind regards,
Scott Creighton
[edit on 19/12/2009 by Scott Creighton]
Google Video Link |
Google Video Link |
SC: Again, I disagree. The cross in the other circle on the cylinder seal shows that such small detail could be carved and that circle is not that much larger than the circle in the king's cartouche.
Furthermore – as I said previously – if lines were in fact required and it was so problematic to carve them in the smaller cartouche circle as you claim then surely (if indeed hatched lines were required) a larger circle would have been created in order to accommodate the engraving of the lines.
That a larger circle was NOT created to accommodate such lines strongly suggests these hatched lines were NOT infact needed within this circle on the king's seal; that, in fact, a plain disc of the God “Ra” is what was intended, the very SAME DISC we find in the cartouche of the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty in the Abydos table - a thousand years of consistency.
SC: Secondly, there is no real discernable difference between the plain “Ra” disc of Menkaure and the plain “Ra” disc of “Raufu”.
Byrd: There's a size difference...
SC: It's minimal and can hardly be considered a decisive difference.
SC: Issues of honorific transposition aside, you well know the AEs could have written Raufu as Raufu or as UfuRa.
Were the second king of the 4th dynasty to have regarded himself as Ra incarnate then there is every reason that we would have Raufu (as opposed to UfuRa) and that his sons/successors would have the Ra glyph at the end of their names (sons of Ra).
SC: And there is also a very strong consistency – a 4th dynasty plain disc in the King's name and a 19th dynasty plain disc in the King's name. Again I find it truly remarkable that you have to resort to the AEs having made errors in their rendering of the names in the Abydos table in order to uphold the flawed orthodox position that the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty was known as “Khufu”;
that you have to invoke the ridiculous notion that here in the 21st century we know better how to read AE script than the AEs themselves knew how to write it; that we knew what they MEANT to write rather than accepting what they ACTUALLY wrote That is simply preposterous.
Furthermore, invoking the great length of time between the two renderings of the disputed cartouche only serves to strengthen the case for the disputed disc in the Abydos table as having been fully intended as a plain disc.
Orthodoxy has no problem accepting the Dream Stele as offering evidence of Khafre's hand in building the Sphinx and G2 when that stele was created a thousand years after the events it describes. How do you know there is no error in this stele? Cherry-picking and massaging of the evidence at its finest.
Byrd: One more thing -- as several of us have pointed out, Ancient Egyptian is NOT related well to modern Egyptian and is unrelated to the language of the Berbers. (and "Ufu" doesn't mean Horizon in Arabic, according to Arabic speaking friends.)
The closest language to ancient Egyptian is Coptic Egyptian... and it's not terribly close.
SC: "1. 'Ragoul Gadeed Fil Oufouk' (A New Man On the Horizon)" by Egyptian writer, Mona Helmy – see here.
Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: First of all I think this stele is dismissed far too quickly by Egyptology - in the words of Paul Jordan, as a "Pious Fake". I do not think there is any doubt that this stele was - just like the Dream Stele - created long after the events it describes. This is not to say, however, that it could not have been based upon a much more ancient original.
The Inventory Stele clearly states that Khufu repaired the Sphinx's head. ... So, far from being a "pious fake" by the Saite Priests of the 26th dynasty for political expediency, there is physical evidence to support what the text of the Inventory Stele tells us.
Now, if Khufu REPAIRED the Sphinx how then is it possible that his son and eventual successor could have possibly constructed it?
The second aspect of this Inventory Stele that causes some measure of discomfort in orthodox Egyptology is the very mention (numerous times) of the Goddess Isis in the same sentence as "Khufu", that they were contemporaneous.
Of course, if Isis/Osiris were recognised as important deities this early in the 4th dynasty it has all sorts of ramifications for the Giza/Orion correlation which is summarily dismissed by orthodoxy on the grounds that the stellar cult of Osiris (Sah/Orion) was of no importance in the early 4th dynasty. The Inventory Stele, however, shows clearly that it was.
My own view regarding this artefact is that it may not actually be referring to "Khufu" (whom I believe built the Great Pyramid and possibly other Giza monuments) but may actually be referring to Raufu
SC: Again, I disagree. The cross in the other circle on the cylinder seal shows that such small detail could be carved and that circle is not that much larger than the circle in the king's cartouche.
Byrd: They can be punched out with a small copper tool. But they can't scratch tiny lines there.
SC: Furthermore – as I said previously – if lines were in fact required and it was so problematic to carve them in the smaller cartouche circle as you claim then surely (if indeed hatched lines were required) a larger circle would have been created in order to accommodate the engraving of the lines.
Byrd: I don't think they would have. All the other signs that show circles (such as "threshing floor" (D17-D21) are small signs. The only single large circle is the one that denotes Ra.
SC: That a larger circle was NOT created to accommodate such lines strongly suggests these hatched lines were NOT infact needed within this circle on the king's seal; that, in fact, a plain disc of the God “Ra” is what was intended, the very SAME DISC we find in the cartouche of the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty in the Abydos table - a thousand years of consistency.
Byrd: Again, I disagree. They had no way of engraving the small lines on that seal. The area of the full inscription is much smaller than a square inch, and the size of that "Kh" in the cartouche is not very great. They didn't have the tools to cast or incise fine lines in something that tiny.
SC: Secondly, there is no real discernable difference between the plain “Ra” disc of Menkaure and the plain “Ra” disc of “Raufu”.
Byrd: There's a size difference...
SC: It's minimal and can hardly be considered a decisive difference.
Byrd: I'd suggest that YOU might find it minimal, but to the ancient Egyptians the size was important. They were proponents of the aesthetic in art, but they were also quite religious.
SC: Issues of honorific transposition aside, you well know the AEs could have written Raufu as Raufu or as UfuRa.
Byrd: They could have, yes. But they didn't.
SC: Were the second king of the 4th dynasty to have regarded himself as Ra incarnate then there is every reason that we would have Raufu (as opposed to UfuRa) and that his sons/successors would have the Ra glyph at the end of their names (sons of Ra).
Byrd: Alas, his predecessor (as you can see in the Kings List) is Neferkara (Huni.) Have a look at the inscription. It has the sun symbol at the top of the cartouche, and the circle is larger than the "Kh".
Byrd: We should also remember that this is third generation material and was not carved at the time of Khufu's death or within a generation, but well over a thousand years later after language and spelling had changed. Might they have misread the name? Possible.
SC: And there is also a very strong consistency – a 4th dynasty plain disc in the King's name and a 19th dynasty plain disc in the King's name. Again I find it truly remarkable that you have to resort to the AEs having made errors in their rendering of the names in the Abydos table in order to uphold the flawed orthodox position that the 2nd king of the 4th dynasty was known as “Khufu”;
Byrd: Actually, the errors in spelling are pretty plain. Djoser (#17) is a very weird approximation of his original name (click on the "show" on "titulary" on the right hand side of the page here: en.wikipedia.org... ), ditto Kakau (#10). I have read that there are others, but haven't checked every one.
SC: …that you have to invoke the ridiculous notion that here in the 21st century we know better how to read AE script than the AEs themselves knew how to write it; that we knew what they MEANT to write rather than accepting what they ACTUALLY wrote That is simply preposterous.
Byrd: Isn't that your stance on your idea? As I recall, you are somewhat less familiar with hieroglyphs than I am, and I am NOWHERE decent enough at reading them (nor have I seen vast amounts of material and translated it) to match any Egyptologist of today... or even of Petrie's time.
SC: Furthermore, invoking the great length of time between the two renderings of the disputed cartouche only serves to strengthen the case for the disputed disc in the Abydos table as having been fully intended as a plain disc.
Byrd: Interesting point, and not one I'd debate. However, I think the name must have been preserved because Herodotus is told that the name is "Khufu" which he mangled into "Cheops' (probably because of linguistic differences and changes in Egyptian over the time.) …
Byrd: Had it been "Ufu-ra" or "Ra-fu" or any of the other names you propose, he would have had a different name for ol' Khufu.
Byrd: Alas, my net connection is very unstable at the moment. Let me leave you with this list of "first hand sources" (where Khufu would be mentioned in some inscription associated with them) and return to this later when my internet connection isn't quite so out of whack:
euler.slu.edu...
SC: As I said before – I do not doubt Khufu existed and that later dynasties held him in high esteem and wrote down his name. But WHEN did he exist – THAT is the issue.
Byrd: Well, the first hand list of evidence places him right where the Egyptologists said. This is confirmed by wives and relatives and (more than that) by the high status workers who recorded that they worked for his father AND him (I notice you're not disputing his father) or for him and at least one successor.
Byrd: One more thing -- as several of us have pointed out, Ancient Egyptian is NOT related well to modern Egyptian and is unrelated to the language of the Berbers. (and "Ufu" doesn't mean Horizon in Arabic, according to Arabic speaking friends.)
The closest language to ancient Egyptian is Coptic Egyptian... and it's not terribly close.
SC: "1. 'Ragoul Gadeed Fil Oufouk' (A New Man On the Horizon)" by Egyptian writer, Mona Helmy – see here.
Byrd: My (very badly made) point is that Arabic isn't related to the Egyptian language and the single word "ufu" isn't "horizon".
en.wikipedia.org...
Arabic became the official language of Egypt, and the ancient Egyptian language died completely. The closest approximation (as determined by every scholar since Champolleon) is Coptic. They couldn't have used a root word derived from a language that would only appear 3,000 years after Khufu lived.
SC: First of all I think this stele is dismissed far too quickly by Egyptology - in the words of Paul Jordan, as a "Pious Fake". I do not think there is any doubt that this stele was - just like the Dream Stele - created long after the events it describes. This is not to say, however, that it could not have been based upon a much more ancient original.
Byrd: I think here the language of "pious fake" may be a bone of contention. What they're saying is that it's a more modern tale and that it may indeed have been rewritten from something older OR may be a rendering of recorded/remembered history handed down for generations.
SC: The Inventory Stele clearly states that Khufu repaired the Sphinx's head. ... So, far from being a "pious fake" by the Saite Priests of the 26th dynasty for political expediency, there is physical evidence to support what the text of the Inventory Stele tells us.
Byrd: Well, SOMEONE repaired it. Legend apparently had it that Khufu did.
SC: Now, if Khufu REPAIRED the Sphinx how then is it possible that his son and eventual successor could have possibly constructed it?
Byrd: Remember (ala Westcar Papyrus) that many generations later he was considered a type of "folk hero" and the subject of a number of stories, and rather obviously fiction. We can't presume that the report he "repaired the sphynx" was accurate.
SC: The second aspect of this Inventory Stele that causes some measure of discomfort in orthodox Egyptology is the very mention (numerous times) of the Goddess Isis in the same sentence as "Khufu", that they were contemporaneous.
Byrd: Scott... that's an urban legend. No Egyptologist is uncomfortable with it since it's a method of more accurately dating the stele.
SC: Of course, if Isis/Osiris were recognised as important deities this early in the 4th dynasty it has all sorts of ramifications for the Giza/Orion correlation which is summarily dismissed by orthodoxy on the grounds that the stellar cult of Osiris (Sah/Orion) was of no importance in the early 4th dynasty. The Inventory Stele, however, shows clearly that it was.
Byrd: Actually, it doesn't show any of the above. Isis and Osiris weren't important deities in the 4th Dynasty (otherwise there'd be a zillion temples to them and their names would be in the tombs of the workers in the necropolis around the Great Pyramid. The connection between Osiris/Isis and Sah/Sopedet happens late in history.
“...while there is every likelihood that the Osirian material in the Pyramid Texts derives in part from a much earlier date, so far it has not proved possible to track down the god or his symbols tangibly to the First or Second dynasty...” (emphasis mine).
“...alhough there is a strong likelihood that the cult of Osiris began in or before the First Dynasty in connection with the royal funerals at Abydos, archaelogical evidence hitherto does not tangibly date the cult to an era before the Fifth Dynasty.” (emphasis mine).
- J.G. Griffiths, The Origins of Osiris and his Cult p.44
“…the myth of Osiris seems to be an echo of long forgotten events which actually took place.” (Emphasis mine).
- Walter B. Emery,Archaic Egypt(1961), pp.122-123
“…much points to the conclusion that Osiris’s story was cloaked in the veil of distant antiquity even at this [5th dynasty] early date. The discovery at Helwan of a very early Djed symbol and the ‘girdle of Isis’ (Isis being his female counterpart) shows that during the Archaic Period (Dynasty 1 and 2) Osiris’s cult already existed.” (Emphasis mine).
– Jane B. Sellers, The Death of Gods in Ancient Egypt, Revised Edition 2007, p.6
SC: My own view regarding this artefact is that it may not actually be referring to "Khufu" (whom I believe built the Great Pyramid and possibly other Giza monuments) but may actually be referring to Raufu.
Byrd: Except that there's no such "Raufu", ….
Byrd:… and Khufu and his sons are shown in later contexts (such as line 10 of the Westcar papyrus, where the spelling of Khufu's name has been "modernized" and is not at all like the spelling shown in the graffiti on the Great Pyramid or other (earlier) places where his name appears.) www.rostau.org.uk..