Khufu Cartouche in GP Dated - Centuries Old

It's sad that on a site supposedly dedicated to "denying ignorance" all anyone does anymore is try to prove that they know something the experts don't. They then ignore all evidence which contradicts their own pet theory and keep moving the goal posts as needed to support their ill-informed opinion. Genuinely sad.

I'm certainly no expert, doesn't really matter to me-- I think "experts" are over-rated anyway. But it seems, as with most all ancient sites, there would be far more evidence of how these things were built, why and by whom. This evidence is sorely lacking. When at the same time there's an abundance of evidence supporting relatively minor achievements much older than popular opinion says these structures are.

I'm not gonna argue with anyone over my beliefs or suspicions, because you or they don't really know anymore about the truth than I do. But I do know I don't buy the current view that these things are only four or five thousand years old. That's my prerogative and I'll know when I am convinced otherwise.

AliceBleachWhite
There's already a wealth of evidence in the entire pyramid complex surrounding the GP to connect it to Cheops/Khufu.

We've also a fully intact boat recovered from one of the boat pits connected to Cheops/Khufu.
Khufu Ship
There, too, is another boat pit that was only recently discovered and has been kept unexcavated on purpose for some time, but, is undergoing recovery, catalog, and preservation now-ish.

Additionally, there's even diary entries found on preserved papyrus giving detail on retrieving limestone blocks specifically for the pyramid.
Ancient Diary

But one papyrus is much more intriguing: it's the diary of Merrer, an Old Kingdom official involved in the building of the Great Pyramid of Cheops.

From four different sheets and many fragments, the researchers were able to follow his daily activity for more that three months.

"He mainly reported about his many trips to the Turah limestone quarry to fetch block for the building of the pyramid," Tallet said.

“Although we will not learn anything new about the construction of Cheops monument, this diary provides for the first time an insight on this matter," Tallet said.

Dating the GP, and connecting it to Cheops/Khufu does NOT hinge on any one singular piece of evidence, but an entire foundation of materials, artifacts, and study.

ETA: Though admittedly speculation, Hawass is on record making statement he feels the true burial chamber of Cheops/Khufu is still undiscovered and intact inside the Great Pyramid:
Treasure in Great Pyramid Awaits ...

Ultimately, these shafts may point the way to a secret burial chamber where Khufu (Cheops) was buried, Hawass said. While the pyramid already has three known chambers (one of which contains a sarcophagus), he said the true burial place of the pharaoh has yet to be found.

"I really believe that Cheops chamber is not discovered yet and all the three chambers were just to deceive the thieves, and the treasures of Khufu [are] still hidden inside the Great Pyramid, and these three doors could be the key to open this burial chamber," he said in the interview.

Time, will of course tell if any of that goes anywhere. Hopefully, it does and we can put an end to all this "mysteries of the pyramids" stuff, and focus on the truly amazing History of real people.

edit on 12/4/2013 by AliceBleachWhite because: (no reason given)

Good day to you Alice... and thanks for the input... this certainly is a fascinating subject!

You are quite correct that there are boats attributed to Khufu that have been found in boat pits around the great pyramid.... his cartouche was plastered all over them... and several other ancillary structures that surrounded the pyramid itself... so please, tell me? Would logic not dictate that his greatest achievement, his piece de resistance, his monument for eternity would be covered in his name..... would be beautifully adorned with his glory?? It just does not make sense that he would put NO MARKINGS whatsoever anywhere within or on the external surface of this pyramid... it goes against everything we DO know about Egyption burial ritual and preservation of afterlife... Just consider this for a minute.... Nothing.... not a sausage....

Now, the "Inventory" Stella in the Cairo Museum talks of refurbishment works to the Great Pyramid... it talks of repairs... but this has always, to this day, been assumed to be a fake because this particular cartouche in the Great pyramid was assumed to be genuine... Now it has provisionally been proven to be a forgery then the Inventory Stella automatically becomes the premier reference on the subject..... and it clearly states that Khufu merely repaired structures, (the GP and the Sphinx), that were already there, and had been for many, many years....

Proving that Khufu built the boat pits and the Queens pyramids DOES NOT prove he built the pyramid at Giza.... just like trying to prove that the guy who sets up a hot dog stand outside the Colloseum built the entire structure....

I would like to see this "entire catalogue" of information that links the pyramid to Cheops, (Khufu)... as far as I am aware, apart from the papyrus you mention, "which many believe actually talks about the refurbishment, not the actual construction", and the inventory Stella, (Which again talks about the refurbishment), the only other item that has been found that corroborates the story is a three-inch high ivory figurine of Khufu found in a temple ruin of later period at Abydos in 1903.... I would suggest that the other information available to prove a link would be conjecture....

Again.... I ask the most pertinent question..... do you really believe that Khufu would have built this monument with absolutely NO reliefs, no paintings, no cartouches, no carving, nothing adorning its walls and flat surfaces... of which there are a multitude...??

And Hawass's comment is just ludicrous.... to think that he is still trying to convince people that the pyramids are tombs is just ludicrous... they clearly were not... if they ever actually found an original burial in a pyramid ever I would be more convinced.... but that has never happened... why you ask? Because Pharoah's didn't want their burial place to be known clearly... this goes against all they believed in... which is why the majority of them created tombs in the Valley of the Kings and similar hidden locations.... to suggest they would bury in king in such a visible, obvious place shows a severe lack of understanding of Egyption customs and culture...

PA

AliceBleachWhite
...Hopefully, it does and we can put an end to all this "mysteries of the pyramids" stuff, and focus on the truly amazing History of real people.

edit on 12/4/2013 by AliceBleachWhite because: (no reason given)

With all the respect,
Why do you care so much about what other people think or believe or focus to, and try to debunk their views
you can have your own oppinions and others can have their own...
You can focus on whatever you want but let others do the same
what is proof to you, is just poor and limited evidence to others and dispite mainstream claims
nothing is proved yet, about the most advanced ancient building on earth.

Why would you want to put an end to what others find fascinating and draw motivation from,
Imagination, questioning and diversity are some bright characteristics of the human nature

Finding the burial chamber would inteed be proof, but... What if we find the other chamber to be just like the others with no body inside?

Dr1Akula

AliceBleachWhite
...Hopefully, it does and we can put an end to all this "mysteries of the pyramids" stuff, and focus on the truly amazing History of real people.

edit on 12/4/2013 by AliceBleachWhite because: (no reason given)

With all the respect,
Why do you care so much about what other people think or believe or focus to, and try to debunk their views
you can have your own oppinions and others can have their own...
You can focus on whatever you want but let others do the same
what is proof to you, is just poor and limited evidence to others and dispite mainstream claims
nothing is proved yet, about the most advanced ancient building on earth.

Why would you want to put an end to what others find fascinating and draw motivation from,
Imagination, questioning and diversity are some bright characteristics of the human nature

Finding the burial chamber would inteed be proof, but... What if we find the other chamber to be just like the others with no body inside?

"With all due respect"...you're doing the exact same thing. You are trying to tear down what centuries of hands-on research has slowly built. All from the comfort of your couch without ever once having dug in the sand, walked in the pyramids, or reviewing ALL of the available materials.

reply to post by PerfectAnomoly


It's actually a little remarkable that no Egyptian King, period, put their mark on or inside the structure considering the habit of some Pharoah for hijacking the monuments of others, removing the original's name and replacing with theirs.
Of all the monuments in Egypt that have been built, dedicated, rededicated, hijacked and rededicated again, including proven tombs where previous occupants were swept out and deposited in caves for a new inhabitant to take 'ownership', the GP stands out as a fairly conspicuous target to go unmolested.

Without checking, I may be mistaken, but, the GP isn't the only pyramid without any hieroglyphs.
Adherents to fringe topics, however tend to focus on the GP, since, well, it is indeed quite conspicuous and inviting as a target for untutored, untrained, speculation and gawking.

The question of "WHY", including other arguments from positions of incredulity doesn't really give anyone free license to arbitrarily point to Atlantis, Aliens, Invisible Advanced Pre-dynastic cultures when there's no real supporting evidence for such.
Asking "WHY", and/or "WHY-NOT" in and of itself is unproductive.
Mating that "Why", or "Why-not" to some unsupported arbitrary value is fallacy.
Taking the same and proposing an answer on supporting evidence is another thing altogether.

Show us, for instance, evidence of artifacts attributed and confirmed with origin from Atlantis found in any contextual setting that would indicate association with the GP.
Show us, for instance, evidence of artifacts attributed and confirmed with ANY other alternatives found in any contextual setting that would indicate associate with the GP.

What-if, why, and why-nots can be played ad infinitum without any alternative evidence in any context so long as anyone anywhere has the slightest unfounded incredulity.
In the end, however, these what-ifs, whys, and why-nots typically have nothing supporting them, amusingly even less so than the paradigm they're attempting to challenge/replace.

reply to post by Scott Creighton


So.... who here is gonna be the first one to edit wikipedia?

hahahaha

AliceBleachWhite
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly

 

It's actually a little remarkable that no Egyptian King, period, put their mark on or inside the structure considering the habit of some Pharoah for hijacking the monuments of others, removing the original's name and replacing with theirs.
Of all the monuments in Egypt that have been built, dedicated, rededicated, hijacked and rededicated again, including proven tombs where previous occupants were swept out and deposited in caves for a new inhabitant to take 'ownership', the GP stands out as a fairly conspicuous target to go unmolested.

Maybe the ancestors knew better then to claim credit from those they revered. More respect than afforded their fellow "pharoh's".

The question of "WHY", including other arguments from positions of incredulity doesn't really give anyone free license to arbitrarily point to Atlantis, Aliens, Invisible Advanced Pre-dynastic cultures when there's no real supporting evidence for such.
Asking "WHY", and/or "WHY-NOT" in and of itself is unproductive.
Mating that "Why", or "Why-not" to some unsupported arbitrary value is fallacy.
Taking the same and proposing an answer on supporting evidence is another thing altogether.

I feel ya. "RUMPLESTILDKIN! RUMPLESTILDKIN!"

Hello ABW,

IABW: t's actually a little remarkable that no Egyptian King, period, put their mark on or inside the structure considering the habit of some Pharoah for hijacking the monuments of others, removing the original's name and replacing with theirs.
Of all the monuments in Egypt that have been built, dedicated, rededicated, hijacked and rededicated again, including proven tombs where previous occupants were swept out and deposited in caves for a new inhabitant to take 'ownership', the GP stands out as a fairly conspicuous target to go unmolested. Without checking, I may be mistaken, but, the GP isn't the only pyramid without any hieroglyphs.

SC: This is going slightly off-topic but 'll go with the flow for a bit here. It seems to me that you have not read the paper I referenced for you : 10 Facts that Contradict the Pyramid Tomb Theory. The paper answers a number of the points you have raised. I will address a couple of your points here.

None of the early giants pyarmids have any hieroglyphs within them. However, it is certainly evident that tombs (i.e. mastaba tombs, rock-cut tombs, shaft-tombs etc) from as early as the 3rd Dynasty were decorated. We find also that in the fourth dynasty Khufu's children decorated their mastaba tombs and engraved their sarcophagi with their names and titulary. Khafre's siblings did likewise.







All of the above examples beg the question--if it was the practice in the 4th dynasty to decorate the tomb and inscribe the names of the deceased, including their titulary, onto their sarcophagus, why was this not done for any of the sarcophagi in any of the pyramids from the same period? This is particularly odd given that it was vital that the king's soul ascend into the Afterlife to commune with the gods to secure the ongoing well-being of the country. The king's name (Ren) would help his Ba identify the correct tomb on its return each night. Without the king's name inscribed anywhere in the tomb the king's Ba could become lost and his Afterlife would terminate forthwith and he would die a second, final, death, thereby potentially plunging the kingdom into chaos. Why would they risk that? Surely the most sensible thing the king could have done was ensure that his name was placed somewhere in his tomb--preferably his sarcophagus--to aid his Ba identify the correct tomb.

ABW: Adherents to fringe topics, however tend to focus on the GP, since, well, it is indeed quite conspicuous and inviting as a target for untutored, untrained, speculation and gawking.

You might find these threads of interest which discusses all the Old Kingdom pyamids:

The Birth of Osiris

The Recovery Vault Theory (RVT)

ABW: Show us, for instance, evidence of artifacts attributed and confirmed with ANY other alternatives found in any contextual setting that would indicate associate with the GP.

SC: In 1818, Giovanni Belzoni became the first person in modern times to enter G2, the pyramid attributed by conventional Egyptology to Khafre. When Belzoni entered the so-called 'burial chamber' he found a stone container set into the floor which he presumed to be a sarcophagus. When he prised the lid from the container, Belzoni was disappointed to find that the container was filled only with earth, stones and fragments of bull bones. Belzoni concluded that some 'joker' in antiquity had removed the king's body and had went to the not inconsiderable trouble of then dragging bags of earth and stones to fill the stone container and then re-seal it.

Now, why am I telling you this you might wonder. Well, because it presents an alternative paradigm for these structures that did not involve a funerary function. Because what Belzoni did not realise when he found this stone box filled only with earth and stones is that this 'tradition' was found also in the Middle Kingdom where, during the Festival of Khoiak, the festival goers would take with them small 'replica' stone and wooden boxes filled with earth which they would bury in the ground under a large stone (symbolising the pyramid as the primeval mound). This was clearly a tradition that spanned many centuries and stemmed from the 'archetype' earth-filled container that had been placed in G2. Belzoni, without ANY evidence, merely assumed that the king's body had been stolen and an earth-filled stone container put in its place. But the evidence from later periods tells us that the ancient Egyptians understood perfectly well what had been placed in the pyramids and it became revered in later times as part of a deep, chthonic ritual.

There are other, better evidenced, paradigms that explain the ACTUAL evidence found in the pyramids and not the IMAGINARY evidence conventional Egyptology claims MUST have been robbed. We do not have to find some piece of fantastic new evidence to validate alternative views--we just need to properly interpret the actual evidence that is before us.

Regards,

SC

Scott Creighton
I felt it was important that this latest information on the Khufu Cartouch controversy be given a thread of its own as it is somewhat buried in the previous thread.

It now seems that paint WAS taken from the cartouche of Khufu and that it HAS been dated. The result... sit down folks... the result of the dating apparently dates the pigment from the Khufu cartouche to "centuries". Not millennia as you might expect but "centuries". Here is the Google translation from the Arabic of Professor Ahmed Saied (apparently of Cairo University) who has been following and commenting on this story:

Saied: "...they have analyzed samples of the cartouche of Khufu and reached the result, which is that Khufu did not build the Great Pyramid and that the ink used in the cartridges to jot down details constructed the pyramid is not old, but the age of the pyramid itself is larger than life, cartouche centuries, which confirms that the pyramid is not due to Khufu ..." - Source (4th paragraph).

It certainly seems that Professor Saied is saying that:

a) The paint samples were taken from the Khufu Cartouche (and it seems a this was done a number of years ago).
b) The samples HAVE been analysed (in Germany).
c) Results of the tests HAVE been returned and are known.
d) The paint "is not old" but "centuries".

The implications of this are far-reaching. If true, then this proves beyond doubt, as many alternative researchers have long suspected, that Col. Richard Howard-Vyse did indeed forge the Khufu Cartouche inside the Great Pyramid. This revelation also breaks the only tangible connection conventional Egyptology had that linked Khufu with the Great Pyramid.

Today there is a different landscape.

Regards,

SC

edit on 3/12/2013 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)

I believe that I first heard of this forgery, in one of Sitchin's books. It blew my mind, and made me angry, as I'd always been interested in archaeology. To think, someone would fool people like this. At least it's been proven to be a forgery, now. It's not like it will change what most people believe in, but it's good to know for sure now.

reply to post by PerfectAnomoly


Well id say part of the reason theres no inscriptions is you have to look at the historical context at the time the pyramid text didnt exist yet for one this doesnt appear to the end of the fifth dynasty to 6th. Prior to this burials were done differently in fact it was the cult of osiris they chopped the body apart and buried them in pieces thinking they would be resurrected like Osiris. Your comparing the beginning of Egyptian culture to the end of Egyptian culture. Now the inventory stella you are aware its on display in the cairo museum arent you? They wouldnt put a forgery on display i love it when people say forgery. What the inventory stella actually is a listing of artifacts supposedly contained in the temple of Isis. The stella was dated to the priest of the 26th dynasty around 664-524 BC.This can easily be shown do to changes in wrighting style.Its like reading something in english from the 1700 and today you can tell.As well as the inventory listed one thing is a portable bark shrine these didnt exist until the middle kingdom. Now lets actually look at the part you believe to say Koufu renovated an existing structure.

Live the Horus: Mezer, King of Upper and Lower Egypt: Khufu, who is given life. He found the house of Isis, Mistress of the Pyramid, beside the house of the Sphinx of [Harmakhis] on the north-west of the house of Osiris, Lord of Rosta. He built his pyramid beside the temple of this goddess, and he built a pyramid for the king's-daughter Henutsen beside this temple.

Notice here something interesting? What its saying is the temple of Isis was already existing before the pyramid was built since it mentions the great pyramid and the queens pyramid. This was attempt by the priests of Isis to give themselves legitimacy saying we all ways had a temple in giza. In fact were so bold that they claim they were around before the great pyramid you know priests if your going to lie make sure its for the glory of god.Now you need to understand there were different gods and different temples all vying for attention from the people and of course the pharaoh. Legitimacy was very important to priests so they can show there god as being the true god or goddess who should be worshiped.The problem the cult of Isis had is simple they were spawned from another cult. Isis is linked with Osiris and the Delta not giza nor did they have a temple there until much later. This is obvious because we would have found evidence of there burials or for that matter the temple they used.Later they take over the funerary temple started by Khufu but i wont go into that now.

So in short its not a forgery like conspiracy sites like to claim so they can say egyptologists are wrong. What it is is a lie created by the priests of Isis to say embellish their history. In no where in the stella does it say anyone other then khufu built the great pyramid but conspiracy sights like to make this claim do to misreading the text. There was no renovation of the great pyramid mentioned there claim is khufu chose this location because they had a temple all ready at giza.By the way the temple of Osiris has never been found i might add.

reply to post by dragonridr


And what do you get in response to your facts and knowledge? The sound of crickets...

The temples at Abydos have what I presume is original paint on the ceilings, relatively inaccessible to Brits in the 1800s. It would be interesting to get some of that paint and date it, although anything left for centuries open to tourists would presumably be highly contaminated with soot, modern pollen, etc.

Or is the Temple at Abydos' age not in question?

signalfire
The temples at Abydos have what I presume is original paint on the ceilings, relatively inaccessible to Brits in the 1800s. It would be interesting to get some of that paint and date it, although anything left for centuries open to tourists would presumably be highly contaminated with soot, modern pollen, etc.

Or is the Temple at Abydos' age not in question?

first its temple not temples its just huge. And as far as i know there is no question to the age seti the first started it. Though it is a temple built to Osiris so i guess i can see somewhat why you mentioned it if you read my post. But as i said a temple to Osiris has never been found in Giza even though the inventory stella mentions it. My theory is Osiris was actually a pre dynastic ruler and egyptian legends lends some credence to this.

While this is interesting (and I'm inclined to support the conclusion it appears to imply) it's just hearsay, not evidence.....Unless there's a link to some actual science that I missed?

I'd like it to be true (and believe it may be), but nothing I've seen here proves that it is so.....Sadly.

jaffo

"With all due respect"...you're doing the exact same thing. You are trying to tear down what centuries of hands-on research has slowly built.

No I am not... I just have a different personal oppinion about something not proved yet. I'm not telling others what they should think or accept.

jaffo
All from the comfort of your couch without ever once having dug in the sand, walked in the pyramids, or reviewing ALL of the available materials.

And because I haven't done all that I should accept any official story without questioning...
Is it illegal to think otherwise?
Ps. I've been inside the GP 4 times and I will go again...

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


No offense, but the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.

So if egyptologists claim the pyramids are tombs, or even representations of tombs, they'll still have to come up with a mummy burried in one, or say, rooms in that pyramid with drawings like those found in the valley of kings :$

I agree, aliens is a 'little' far fetched but that can be said about the pyramid tomb theory, aswell as the fact that khufu would have built it.

Tomb, Tomb... I will never buy the story that the Great Pyramid was a tomb.

2 Really big reasons, are

1) The lack of Hieroglyphics and Funary Art, that is every where a mummy is found.

2) And the most obvious, the Grand Gallery itself. It shows a huge ratcheting machine type structure, with the guts missing.

These 2 facts alone have to be explained fully, before ever calling that pyramid a tomb.


Another aspect to mystery of the Great Pyramid, some workers must have lost their lives in there in accidents where there were cave-ins or structural failure while building. There is a great possibility that some of them were entombed in them, because they were near impossible to recover. Are there any known areas inside the Great Pyramid that appear to be rubble piles or shafts that have been filled with rubble?

Recovering a killed worker, would certainly solve the problems of pyramid age.

devilzown
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

No offense, but the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.

So if egyptologists claim the pyramids are tombs, or even representations of tombs, they'll still have to come up with a mummy burried in one, or say, rooms in that pyramid with drawings like those found in the valley of kings :$

I agree, aliens is a 'little' far fetched

but that can be said about the pyramid tomb theory, aswell as the fact that khufu would have built it.

You make no sense it be just the opposite since bodies have been found in pyramids if you believe they were used for something else you would need to prove that. Not to mention how the bodies got in thee in the first place.

dragonridr

devilzown
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite

 

No offense, but the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.

So if egyptologists claim the pyramids are tombs, or even representations of tombs, they'll still have to come up with a mummy burried in one, or say, rooms in that pyramid with drawings like those found in the valley of kings :$

I agree, aliens is a 'little' far fetched

but that can be said about the pyramid tomb theory, aswell as the fact that khufu would have built it.

You make no sense it be just the opposite since bodies have been found in pyramids if you believe they were used for something else you would need to prove that. Not to mention how the bodies got in thee in the first place.

Hello Dragonridr,

SC: I do not think anyone disputes that fragments of human remains have been found in some of the pyramids. But what you omit to inform readers is that most of these have been identified as clear intrusive burials from later periods or that the provenance of the fragments is otherwise unknown or ambiguous. No ancient Egyptian pyramid has ever yielded an original, in-tact, undisturbed burial of any identifiable ancient Egyptian king. Tutankhamun, the only AE king ever found in-situ in a sealed, undisturbed tomb was not buried in a pyramid but in an underground shaft tomb in the Valley of the Kings.

If you want proof of what the stone containers were used for in these pyramids then look no further than the stone container found in G2 by G. Belzoni in 1818.

Regards,

SC