What is the evidence that the pyramid is a "tomb of Kyops"?

Originally posted by Manhandler12
reply to post by Scott Creighton

 

Than you Scott for posting the link for us.
Now how old do you think they are?

Just curious.

Hello Manhandler12,

I do not think this is an easy question to answer although Consensus Egyptology claims to know the answer but I do not think the real answer is as simple or straightforward as they make out as a number of sciences contradict the timeline they have contrived.

Let me give you just one small example. Have a look at the images below which show an Ostrich egg shell from the Nubian Museum.







The eggshell appears to present a 'map' of the Fayoum, the Nile Valley with the Giza pyramids to the top left. As you can see, the egg shell is dated to between 4,400-3,000 BCE which is between 500-1900 years BEFORE the Giza pyramids were supposedly built.

I think this is very much an open question and will likely remain so for a very long time.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

reply to post by Scott Creighton


Hey Scott.

Great reply.
I never knew about the egg. Great find.


I'm in the middle of writing a rather long thread myself.
Mind if I borrow that egg so to speak?

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Scott Creighton

 

Hey Scott.

Great reply.
I never knew about the egg. Great find.

I'm in the middle of writing a rather long thread myself.
Mind if I borrow that egg so to speak?

Hi Slayer,

It's a free-range egg so, feel free.

Best wishes,

SC

reply to post by NJoyZ


I think the best theory that I've seen yet is the Christopher Dunn theory. So much so, that I think his name will gain speed and stature through time. Unless somebody along those lines has more insight.

I was just looking at underground tunnels that we build through rock etc. in New York in 2013. i don't see that in the high tech structures on the pyramids etc. What I see is a temporary civilization that was jump started from another planet. So it was not their intention to stay here forever.

Almost like in the book "The Truth About Mars" were they said they built a colony on earth but it was not practical. That statement kind of haunts me. Such as Puma Punku, Pyramids etc. In other words you see high tech structures of stones etc. But not like a massive underground tunnel system etc.

Something like they came, they went and took their high tech tools with them.

Again though I am not a Unarian,
"The Truth About Mars" by Ernest Norman haunts me, in that they had their home base on mars and came down because of some cataclysmic event, thought that they could build here, maybe because they were not used to our atmosphere they left etc.

Originally posted by Heliophant
reply to post by RandyBragg

 

Yes, there is ONE piece of graffitti that bears Kufu's name in the pyramids. But that could be for many reasons...

Watch "The Pyramid Code", come back to discuss. This is addressed in the documentary.

No, there are several, and no way to explain them as having been hoaxed.

Khufu's name appears in the context of some of the names of the worker gangs, one of which translates as "Friends of Khufu."

These glyphs were found in chambers that were never meant to be accessed by anyone, not even Khufu, his priests or his subjects.

The chambers are merely void spaces created by a system designed to direct the immense weight of stone above the King's Chamber toward the side walls of that chamber to help prevent collapse of the ceiling.

Harte

Originally posted by rickymouse
They have lots of evidence. They have a whole bunch of specialists that believe it is true so their belief is evidence. Everything they find can be interpreted to reinforce their belief. True or not true this is the way it is. We have act like we accept consensus of the time to appear normal.

Was it designed as a tomb? Haven't a clue myself, I haven't personally seen the evidence, I have only heard their interpretation. I know more about how people see things differently than archeology.

We also have the ancient Egyptians telling us it is Khufu's tomb.

Harte

Originally posted by thePharaoh
khufu and snefru, were responsible for true shaped pyramids.

though there is no evidence to suggest he was buried in the kings chamber
there is very strong circumstantial evidence to suggest it was intended as his tomb..

but we do not know if he, or anyone else, was buried there....

as for the quarry marks
people need to know....that khufus name is in the pyramid....
but khnum-khufu is not. its written as khnum-khuf.....

mistake? who knows

I know.

Khnum-khuf was his name. There's no mistake.

Other names: Chembres;
Chemististes; Chemmis; Cheop;
Cheops; Comastes; Khembes;
Khemmes; Kheop; Kheops; Kheuf;
Khnem-Kheuf; Khnum-Kheuf; Khuf;
Khufu; Khufui; Khufwey; Kouf;
Koufou; Nem-Shufu; Noh-Suphis;
Saoph; Saophis; Sen-Suphis; Shofo;
Shure; Shufu; Soris; Suph; Suphis;
Surid; Xufu.

Source www.cheops.historyworlds.ru...

Harte

What exactly is being asked here?

Are you under the impression the documentary agrees with the stance that the pyramids were built in 20 years? Or are you jsut looking for confirmation or information for the established Egyptology side supporting their argument?

I can certainly help you with some real citable information as I feel I am rather responsible for spreading this documentary around here on ats.

There is very little actual evidence that they were ever said to be used as tombs AND MUCH LESS any physical evidence that they were built as such. The fact that the later dynasties of egypt may have used them as a tomb for some pharaoh is debatable but I don't think the fact they were not originally intended to be a tomb is even up for discussion at this point.

reply to post by Harte


So then that must mean aliens right?

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Heliophant
reply to post by RandyBragg

 

Yes, there is ONE piece of graffitti that bears Kufu's name in the pyramids. But that could be for many reasons...

Watch "The Pyramid Code", come back to discuss. This is addressed in the documentary.

No, there are several, and no way to explain them as having been hoaxed.

Khufu's name appears in the context of some of the names of the worker gangs, one of which translates as "Friends of Khufu."

These glyphs were found in chambers that were never meant to be accessed by anyone, not even Khufu, his priests or his subjects.


Harte

SC: There are many inscriptions of EIIR in hospitals, schools and other buildings all over the UK and elsewhere. Doesn't mean Her Majesty, The Queen, ever visited any of those buildings.

Harte: The chambers are merely void spaces created by a system designed to direct the immense weight of stone above the King's Chamber toward the side walls of that chamber to help prevent collapse of the ceiling.

SC: Here we have a fine example that if some piece of nonsense is regurgitated often enough, it becomes 'fact'. It is not fact. This is a completely outdated and flawed assumption. The roof of the so-called 'Queen's Chamber' has infinitely more weight pressing down on it and the builders saw no need for the placement of these so-called 'relieving blocks'. I guess this is what happens when Egyptologists try playing at being construction engineers.

Harte: We also have the ancient Egyptians telling us it is Khufu's tomb.

SC: Patent nonsense. There is no such evidence. And since when did Egyptologists and their Egypt-apologists start listening to what the AEs themselves actually said?

SC

Originally posted by RandyBragg
reply to post by Harte

 

So then that must mean aliens right?

You nailed it.

Khufu is an alien to us, being from a foreign country.

Harte

Originally posted by Scott Creighton

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Heliophant
reply to post by RandyBragg

 

Yes, there is ONE piece of graffitti that bears Kufu's name in the pyramids. But that could be for many reasons...

Watch "The Pyramid Code", come back to discuss. This is addressed in the documentary.

No, there are several, and no way to explain them as having been hoaxed.

Khufu's name appears in the context of some of the names of the worker gangs, one of which translates as "Friends of Khufu."

These glyphs were found in chambers that were never meant to be accessed by anyone, not even Khufu, his priests or his subjects.


Harte

SC: There are many inscriptions of EIIR in hospitals, schools and other buildings all over the UK and elsewhere. Doesn't mean Her Majesty, The Queen, ever visited any of those buildings.

True.

Typically, this graffiti is used to demonstrate that the GP must have (at least) been built during Khufu's reign, if not subsequently, and not to show that it was his tomb.

Originally posted by Scott Creighton

Harte: The chambers are merely void spaces created by a system designed to direct the immense weight of stone above the King's Chamber toward the side walls of that chamber to help prevent collapse of the ceiling.

SC: Here we have a fine example that if some piece of nonsense is regurgitated often enough, it becomes 'fact'. It is not fact. This is a completely outdated and flawed assumption. The roof of the so-called 'Queen's Chamber' has infinitely more weight pressing down on it and the builders saw no need for the placement of these so-called 'relieving blocks'. I guess this is what happens when Egyptologists try playing at being construction engineers.

Actually it's what happens when fringe wannabes pretend to know Egyptology. If we stop for a moment to note that the Queen's Chamber likely was a false chamber, we can see that concerns about its collapse would not have been foremost in the architect's mind.

Originally posted by Scott Creighton

Harte: We also have the ancient Egyptians telling us it is Khufu's tomb.

SC: Patent nonsense. There is no such evidence. And since when did Egyptologists and their Egypt-apologists start listening to what the AEs themselves actually said?

I'm not an Egyptologist. I've always listened to what any ancient record says.

The Ancient Egyptian name for the Great Pyramid translates (loosely) as "Khufu's Horizon."

The horizon is where the Sun sets. So is the Land of the Dead.

You'd do better to argue that the Khnum-Khuf name referred to the God, and not to a pharoah. That is at least a reasonable explanation for both the grafitti and the name of the GP.

Harte

reply to post by Harte

SC: There are many inscriptions of EIIR in hospitals, schools and other buildings all over the UK and elsewhere. Doesn't mean Her Majesty, The Queen, ever visited any of those buildings.

Hart: True. Typically, this graffiti is used to demonstrate that the GP must have (at least) been built during Khufu's reign, if not subsequently, and not to show that it was his tomb.

SC: I have no issue with Khufu having built the GP. It is more than likely that he did build it—just not as a tomb as you claim the AEs claimed.

Harte: The chambers are merely void spaces created by a system designed to direct the immense weight of stone above the King's Chamber toward the side walls of that chamber to help prevent collapse of the ceiling.

SC: Here we have a fine example that if some piece of nonsense is regurgitated often enough, it becomes 'fact'. It is not fact. This is a completely outdated and flawed assumption. The roof of the so-called 'Queen's Chamber' has infinitely more weight pressing down on it and the builders saw no need for the placement of these so-called 'relieving blocks'. I guess this is what happens when Egyptologists try playing at being construction engineers.

Harte: Actually it's what happens when fringe wannabes pretend to know Egyptology.

SC: I am hardly a “fringe wanabe”. I am, in fact, a Fringe author and more than happy as such. “Pretend to know Egyptology” – you just can’t help yourself, can you? Play the ball, not the man. Tsk, tsk.

Harte: If we stop for a moment to note that the Queen's Chamber likely was a false chamber, we can see that concerns about its collapse would not have been foremost in the architect's mind.

SC: If you actually take a moment to think just a tad deeper here, Harte, you will quickly realize the complete absurdity of your argument. Your argument is flawed in two very obvious ways:

1) The AEs would not have wanted any part of the pyramid to be at risk of “collapse” since such could have a knock-on-effect, making the rest of the structure unstable. The very thought of the architect not being concerned about the potential collapse of part of the structure is just plain bonkers.

2) There are no ‘relieving blocks’ above any other pyramid chamber. Was it okay then for the chambers in those pyramids without these ‘relieving blocks’ to collapse? The implication of your bizarre logic implies such.

Harte: We also have the ancient Egyptians telling us it is Khufu's tomb.

SC: Patent nonsense. There is no such evidence. And since when did Egyptologists and their Egypt-apologists start listening to what the AEs themselves actually said?

Harte: I'm not an Egyptologist. I've always listened to what any ancient record says. The Ancient Egyptian name for the Great Pyramid translates (loosely) as "Khufu's Horizon." The horizon is where the Sun sets. So is the Land of the Dead.

SC: Yes, ‘Akhet Khufu’ has been “loosely” translated in countless academic books as ‘Khufu’s Horizon’ and is NOT—as you claimed—translated as “Khufu’s tomb”.

But a pyramid is NOT a tomb as a perusal of this ancient Egyptian Dictionary will show you. I have taken the liberty of compiling a quick list of the ‘tomb’ hieroglyphs from the dictionary (link above):



SC: I am sure there are other AE dictionaries that will present the pyramid as meaning ‘tomb’ but it is simply incorrect.

There are NO AE texts that state the Great Pyramid is “Khufu’s tomb”. I do not blame you for this misunderstanding—you are merely regurgitating what you have been told by the Consensus Egyptologists without applying your own critical thought to what is actually being presented. Your leap from the word ‘horizon’ to ‘tomb’ makes the same fundamental mistake and presents the same misdirection presented in those countless Consensus Egyptology books.

Continued….

Continued from previous….

Here is an image of ‘Akhet Khufu’ from a 4th Dynasty Cylinder Seal impression:

Image 1:



’AKHET KHUFU’

And here is a fine example of the error and misdirection presented by the academics in translating ‘Akhet Khufu’:

“In Egyptian the pyramid of Cheops (whose Egyptian name was Khufu) is called akhet of Khufu. Akhet is the threshold region between the sky, the earth, and the underworld; in particular, akhet is the place where the sun rises. The etymological root of the word has the meaning of “blaze, be radiant”; likewise, the hieroglyph for akhet has nothing in common with the pyramid, but is a pictogram of the sun rising or setting between two mountains. The pyramid does not represent such an akhet, but symbolizes it in an aniconic way. The term of comparison between akhet and pyramid is the idea of ‘ascent to heaven.” As the sun god ascends from the underworld to the akhet and appears in the sky, so the king interred in the pyramid ascends to heaven by way of his akhet, his threshold of light.” - Professor Jan Assmann, 'The Mind of Egypt: History and Meaning in the Time of the Pharaohs', p.58

SC: All of the above is fine except for the not insignificant problem that the akhet ‘pictogram’ (image 2 below) of the sun rising between two mountains did not exist when Khufu was building his Great Pyramid, as is implied in Prof. Assmann’s quote above. Indeed, this ideogram only came into being around the end of the Fifth Dynasty, long after the completion of the early, giant pyramids and is not evident anywhere in the Pyramid Texts. The image below (‘Akhet’ sun on the horizon) is not the same as ‘Akhet’ in the cylinder seal (image 1) above of the ‘crested Ibis’ and ‘pyramid’.

Image 2



Egyptologist, Dr Mark Lehner, was probably the first to be honest enough to recognize the problem these two quite distinct versions of ‘Akhet’ presents. In Lehner’s view the term "akhet" with the 'crested ibis' and 'land sign' (and not the 'sun disc on the horizon which did not exist in the 4th dynasty) did not imply the 'horizon' but rather the 'spirit' (Axt/Akh) of Khufu.

But even Lehner fails to fully comprehend the term ‘Akhet’. It does not mean ‘horizon’ nor does it mean ‘spirit’. ‘Akhet’ simply means ‘re-creation’ or ‘place of re-creation/rebirth’. ‘Akhet’ is NOT about death but about ‘rebirth’. The sun rising on the horizon demonstrates ‘Akhet’ of the sun i.e. the re-creation/rebirth of the sun.

The ancient Egyptians even named one of their seasons ‘Akhet’ – the ‘Flood season’ or the season when the Nile flood arrives again and deposits new fertile soil onto the fields, allowing crops to grow. This is the rebirth/re-creation of the Nile as shown in their ‘Akhet’ (flood season) glyph:

Image 3:



So, contrary to what Prof Assmann states, ' re-creation/rebirth' rather than 'ascension to heaven' is, imo, the true term of comparison between the pyramid and 'akhet'. But it should not be implied that this rebirth has anything to do with the rebirth of the king (Khufu). It is about the rebirth/re-creation of the kingdom after the promised Flood of Thoth had drowned the entire kingdom and laid it desolate.

“I am going to blot out everything that I have made. This Earth shall enter into (i.e. be absorbed in) the watery abyss of Nu (or Nunu) by means of a raging flood, and will become even as it was in primeval time. I myself shall remain together with Osiris, but I shall transform myself into a small serpent, which can be neither comprehended nor seen; one day the Nile will rise and cover all Egypt with water, and drown the whole country; then, as in the beginning, there will be nothing to be seen except water.” - Budge W. E. A., 'From Fetish to God in Ancient Egypt', (Oxford University Press, 1934), p.198.

That is the proper interpretation of the 4th dynasty version of ‘Akhet’ with the Ibis bird and pyramid determinative (image 1). The Ibis represents the imminent Flood of Thoth the pyramid the means by which the land would recover from Thoth’s Flood. Let us look at this interpretation a little closer.

Continued….

Continued from previous….

In the Old Kingdom the word ‘akhet’ (interpreted by most Egyptologists—Lehner aside—as ‘horizon’) invokes the use of the ibis bird as an ‘Ax’ (Akh) as below:

Image 4



The ibis ideogram (logogram) has various translations, inter-alia: ‘intelligence’, ‘illumination’, ‘shining’, ‘beneficial’, ‘useful’ etc (Source). Of course, if the translation of the ibis glyph (Ax) truly means ‘intelligence’ (rather than ‘spirit’ as Lehner claims), then we can understand how the ibis bird ‘illuminates’ not so much with ‘spiritual light’ but rather with its ‘wisdom’. The AEs regarded the Ibis (symbolic of the AE god, Thoth) as an ‘enlightened’ bird blessed with the wisdom of Thoth; the wise bird that ‘heralded the inundation’ thus the Ibis knew when the time of Thoth’s Great Flood (akhet) of the Kingdom was imminent, to wit:

”People knew from long experience that this was about the time for the level of the Nile to start rising. Just before this, flocks of white ibises would have appeared on the fields as they returned from the south. If they came late or not at all, farmers would see this as a bad omen foreshadowing low floods and a poor harvest. So they regarded the wise bird that knew the secret of this vital phenomenon as an embodiment of the learned god Thoth”. (From here).

“In Ancient Egypt, sacred ibis were heralds of the flood, and symbolised the god Thoth, god of wisdom and master of time. They were also of practical use to the villagers, making pools safe to bathe by feeding on the water snails that carried the bilharzias liver parasite.” (From here).

“In Africa also we meet with the great Ibis (Tantalus ibis, fig.30), and the sacred ibis (I. religiosa), which is venerated in Egypt as the harbinger of the annual Inundation of the Nile, and was frequently embalmed and mummified.” (From here).

SC: The ibis should not be regarded as 'shining' in the sense of radiance like the sun or a star but rather as with what we would today call someone a 'bright spark', 'enlightened one' etc. In short, the ibis (Akh) should not be regarded as a 'spirit of light' but rather 'one that is ‘illuminated with wisdom'. The ibis bird, symbolising the AE god Thoth, was the harbinger of the great deluge of Thoth that promised to drown the entire country.

And Khufu's pyramid, ‘Khufu’s Akhet’, was built to ensure the re-creation (the Akhet) of the kingdom (as opposed to the king) after the worst effects of Thoth's deluge had subsided and the kingdom emerged again from the flood waters just as it did in the Sp Tpy the 'First Time of Creation' when everything in creation came forth from within the primeval mound, the archetype pyramid. The pyramid of Khufu would ensure the 'Second Time' of creation i.e. re-creation/rebirth (Akhet).

SC

Originally posted by Scott Creighton

Harte: If we stop for a moment to note that the Queen's Chamber likely was a false chamber, we can see that concerns about its collapse would not have been foremost in the architect's mind.

SC: If you actually take a moment to think just a tad deeper here, Harte, you will quickly realize the complete absurdity of your argument. Your argument is flawed in two very obvious ways:

1) The AEs would not have wanted any part of the pyramid to be at risk of “collapse” since such could have a knock-on-effect, making the rest of the structure unstable. The very thought of the architect not being concerned about the potential collapse of part of the structure is just plain bonkers.

Actually, the Queen's Chamber does have a lesser weight distribution system above it - the ceiling is in an "A" frame shape, distributing the load, again, to the walls of the chamber. Above this is another load distributor similar to the topmost chamber ceiling above the King's Chamber, but with no void space:



The lack of voided space is probably due to the significant load you mention.

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
2) There are no ‘relieving blocks’ above any other pyramid chamber. Was it okay then for the chambers in those pyramids without these ‘relieving blocks’ to collapse? The implication of your bizarre logic implies such.

Readers here should view the pic I linked, then decide whose logic is "bizarre" here.

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
SC: Yes, ‘Akhet Khufu’ has been “loosely” translated in countless academic books as ‘Khufu’s Horizon’ and is NOT—as you claimed—translated as “Khufu’s tomb”.

Your personal interpretation of the phrase is completely unimportant. After all, your own twistings of the meaning are necessary in order for you to manufacture a "mystery" to write about - as you (and I) noted you are attempting to join the ranks of those who mischaracterize and flatly lie about the past in order to make a living selling books to ignorant persons (and there's certainly no shortage of those.)

The idea of the horizon had significant and specific meanings to the Egyptians. The Sun both died and was reborn on the horizon every day. Again, I suggest readers here can make the connection between these ideas and the death (and subsequent resurrection) of the God-King. Hence "Khufu's Horizon." Of course, this sort logical reasoning is to be avoided at all costs among those that wish to profit from promulgating mischaracterizations of, and utter untruths about, the past - such as yourself.

Harte

Originally posted by geldib
I actually like the theory that it housed the Ark of the Covenant before the Israelites stole it during the exodus.

The problem with this theory is that most that we know about the so called Arc Of The Covenant comes from Hebrew sources. They give very exact dimensions of the AOTC, and the bottom line is it does not fit in the granite coffer in the King's Chamber. So if the AOTC wasn't stored in the granite coffer, what was in there and why wasn't the AOTC in the obvious (to me at least) centerpiece of the Pyramid?

In difference to what Zahi Hawass and Mark Lehner is trying to make everybody believe, the theory of The Great Pyramid being the tomb of Khufu is based on scant, circumstantial evidence. Although it is probable that the GP is an Old Kingdom edifice.

As far as I know, no carbon dating has been done on material from inside the Great Pyramid (that some wish to call Khufu's pyramid). Carbon dating has been done in 1984 on material from outside the pyramid, more precisely on organic material found in the Pyramids' mortar (its mortar joints are consistently 1/50 of an inch, there's practically no mortar to speak of). We're talking sooth flakes. Another carbon dating project was launched in 1995. More sooth flakes from the Pyramid mortar was tested, and also from excavations at the Giza plateau where two largely intact bakeries were discovered in 1991. The reasoning here is that the bakeries served the builders of the Pyramid, therefore if we date the bakery we can date the construction work of the Great Pyramid.
The 1984 radiocarbon dates averaged 374 years older than the dates of the kings with whom the presumed Old Kingdom pyramids are identified. If we rely on the scientific method used to date the construction, Khufu could not be the builder of the Great Pyramid.
The calibrated dates from the 1995 Old Kingdom pyramid samples tended to be 100 to 200 years older than the historical dates for the respective kings and about 200 years younger than our 1984 dates. Still no match with Khufu's reign.
Hawass/Lehner explained this by postulating that the builders used 'old wood' in the construction material. There's a possibility it is so, but it is speculation. Those who believe that the Great Pyramid is way older than the 4th Dynasty speculate that the mortar of the Pyramid was re-applied during the Old Kingdom. So it's speculation vs speculation.

The Cartouche

The mainstream theory clings to one single item as 'data', the quarry mark found inside the Great Pyramid containing Pharaoh Khufu's name. Someone tagged his name on a block of stone, therefore he built it. Many question the genuinity of this cartouche, but even if it is genuine it does not prove that Khufu built the Pyramid. Egyptologists know that Pharaohs had big egos and sometimes imposed their marks on other pharaohs' monuments. Take Ramses II as an example. We find his cartouche in a number of monuments that we know were built by earlier rulers. Had we no other data to reference it with, only the Ramses cartouche, we might be tempted to think he built it.

History is never a precise science, but the more reference data that we have, the more we can triangulate information and arrive at higher or lower probabilities. But with the Great Pyramid, we simply don't have enough data to go on, and it's not because Hawass and Lehner think it fits nicely with Khufu that makes it so.

Originally posted by Scott Creighton

The wrong turn the Egyptologists made nearly 200 years ago was believing that the stone boxes found in a few of these early, giant pyramids were 'sarcophagi', failing completely to understand and realise that the ancient Egyptians had another--more important--use for such stone boxes that had little to do with the burial of kings.

i am so intrigued

please do tell what the other theories about the sarcophigus are

thank you

Originally posted by Heliocentric
As far as I know, no carbon dating has been done on material from inside the Great Pyramid (that some wish to call Khufu's pyramid). Carbon dating has been done in 1984 on material from outside the pyramid, more precisely on organic material found in the Pyramids' mortar (its mortar joints are consistently 1/50 of an inch, there's practically no mortar to speak of).

Actually, huge gobs of mortar have been found dumped into void spaces behind the walls. These spaces were exposed by the first people that we know of to break in - some Arabs. If you enter the structure through their hole, you can see all this. Samples were taken from there as well.

Also, in spots, the mortar is as thick as a couple of inches. You can see where it oozed out about six or eight inches from the stones before it set. There are pics of mortar jutting out from between the stones near the base. One in particular has a local sitting on the stone. If I can find it again, I'll post it.

Originally posted by HeliocentricWe're talking sooth flakes. Another carbon dating project was launched in 1995. More sooth flakes from the Pyramid mortar was tested, and also from excavations at the Giza plateau where two largely intact bakeries were discovered in 1991.

Not soot at all, but chunks of charcoal that were swept into the mix. Limestone is burned to create lime, an ingredient. Hard to get the lime out without getting some charcoal along with it.

Originally posted by HeliocentricThe 1984 radiocarbon dates averaged 374 years older than the dates of the kings with whom the presumed Old Kingdom pyramids are identified. If we rely on the scientific method used to date the construction, Khufu could not be the builder of the Great Pyramid.

So you simply rule out the old wood problem? And you rule out that pehaps the timeline is 300 years off? That is, why do you think Khufu's time is set yet his pyramid's time is not?

The evidence for the dating of both the man and the structure is the same. You should at least acknowledge that the C14 date might mean that Khufu lived 300 (or so) years before we thought.

That wouldn't be unusual, by the way. Egyptology (in its youth) thought the pyramids to be a thousand or two thousand years older than we believe them to be today. Both the older and newer dates for the pyramid were and are based on the best available evidence we have.

Originally posted by Heliocentric
The mainstream theory clings to one single item as 'data', the quarry mark found inside the Great Pyramid containing Pharaoh Khufu's name. Someone tagged his name on a block of stone, therefore he built it. Many question the genuinity of this cartouche, but even if it is genuine it does not prove that Khufu built the Pyramid. Egyptologists know that Pharaohs had big egos and sometimes imposed their marks on other pharaohs' monuments. Take Ramses II as an example. We find his cartouche in a number of monuments that we know were built by earlier rulers. Had we no other data to reference it with, only the Ramses cartouche, we might be tempted to think he built it.

Yet we can deduce that such sites can date no further back than Ramses, right?

Originally posted by HeliocentricHistory is never a precise science, but the more reference data that we have, the more we can triangulate information and arrive at higher or lower probabilities. But with the Great Pyramid, we simply don't have enough data to go on, and it's not because Hawass and Lehner think it fits nicely with Khufu that makes it so.

Again, the dating of Khufu's reign depends on the same evidence we have for the dating of his pyramid.

Regarding what Egyptology thinks, you may think about refraining from putting words in their mouths:

According to Egyptologists, the findings of both the 1984 and 1995 David H. Koch Pyramids Radiocarbon Projects[7][8] may suggest that Egypt had to strip its forest and scrap every bit of wood it had to build the pyramids of Giza and other even earlier 4th Dynasty pyramids. Carbon dating samples from core blocks and other materials revealed that dates from the 1984 study averaged 374 years earlier than currently accepted and the 1995 dating averaging 100–200 years. As suggested by team members, "We thought that it was unlikely that the pyramid builders consistently used centuries-old wood as fuel in preparing mortar. The 1984 results left us with too little data to conclude that the historical chronology of the Old Kingdom was wrong by nearly 400 years, but we considered this at least a possibility".

wiki

Harte

reply to post by Harte

Harte: If we stop for a moment to note that the Queen's Chamber likely was a false chamber, we can see that concerns about its collapse would not have been foremost in the architect's mind.

SC: If you actually take a moment to think just a tad deeper here, Harte, you will quickly realize the complete absurdity of your argument. Your argument is flawed in two very obvious ways:

1) The AEs would not have wanted any part of the pyramid to be at risk of “collapse” since such could have a knock-on-effect, making the rest of the structure unstable. The very thought of the architect not being concerned about the potential collapse of part of the structure is just plain bonkers.

Harte: Actually, the Queen's Chamber does have a lesser weight distribution system above it - the ceiling is in an "A" frame shape, distributing the load, again, to the walls of the chamber. Above this is another load distributor similar to the topmost chamber ceiling above the King's Chamber, but with no void space:

The lack of voided space is probably due to the significant load you mention.

SC: Let us go back further still, just to remind you what the point being discussed actually is. You wrote:

Harte: The [relieving] chambers are merely void spaces created by a system designed to direct the immense weight of stone above the King's Chamber toward the side walls of that chamber to help prevent collapse of the ceiling.

SC: The discussion was about the so-called ‘relieving chambers’. It is the gabled blocks atop the ‘relieving chambers’ of the King’s Chamber that distribute the weight laterally (as do those atop the QC)—the ‘relieving chambers’ have zero effect in this regard and so Egyptologists should never have understood them and labelled them as ‘relieving chambers’ designed to relieve the weight over the King’s Chamber. That is my point. Egyptologists should stick to the history of Egypt and leave construction issues to those better qualified to discern such matters i.e. construction engineers.

SC: 2) There are no ‘relieving blocks’ above any other pyramid chamber. Was it okay then for the chambers in those pyramids without these ‘relieving blocks’ to collapse? The implication of your bizarre logic implies such.

Harte: Readers here should view the pic I linked, then decide whose logic is "bizarre" here.

SC: Indeed they should and they will find no so-called ‘relieving chambers’ like those being discussed above the KC in place above the QC and they will observe many more course layers (thus weight) from the pyramid core bearing down on the gabled roof of the Queen’s Chamber.

SC: Yes, ‘Akhet Khufu’ has been “loosely” translated in countless academic books as ‘Khufu’s Horizon’ and is NOT—as you claimed—translated as “Khufu’s tomb”.

Harte: Your personal interpretation of the phrase is completely unimportant.

SC: Given that Consensus Egyptologists themselves cannot agree on the meaning of ‘Akhet Khufu’ I think it is perfectly reasonable and acceptable that other interpretations be put forward and considered. And it may turn out to be that my “personal interpretation of the phrase” is entirely correct thus very important. I rather suspect your real problem here is that you do not like the Fringe rocking your little consensus boat—makes you sick to the stomach, doesn’t it. You naturally shy away from new ideas/interpretations in case, heaven forbid, they might actually be onto something. And then who knows where it will end?

I can, however, understand why you resist so hard—no one likes their religion questioned or undermined. To hell with the truth of the matter, you would rather strap on the blinkers, and stab fingers in your ears. If someone held up a candle to the dark, I rather suspect that you’d be among the first to blow it out.

Harte: After all, your own twistings of the meaning …

SC: Ah—now we are getting to kernel of your angst. You see me as “twisting” meanings. Well I don’t see that at all. What I see is an alternative interpretation of the culture supported by physical, empirical evidence. And I see an alternative interpretation that is far better evidenced by the culture in question than that offered by Consensus Egyptologists. If you want to see real “twisting” have a look at what Consensus Egyptology does. Tombs indeed!


Continued....