Hi,
Can anyone reply if this statements are true about Giza pyramids:
To take the Pyramid of Khufu as an example, the evidence for the date of the Great Pyramid (who’s Egyptian name was Akhet-Khufu, “The Horizon of Khufu”, or, more literally, the place of the Akh of Khufu - the Horizon being the place of death and rebirth) lies in a number of strands of evidence all pointing independently to the same date, the 4th Dynasty. No one has ever managed to challenge this evidence, indeed no one has even tried to do so.
There is the place of the Giza pyramids in the continuous development of pyramid building, something which is confirmed by the 8 sided feature of the Great Pyramid which is shared with just one other pyramid, the Red Pyramid, which is the immediate predecessor of the Great Pyramid. This is just part of their close relationship to the Dahshur pyramids built by Sneferu which everyone concedes were made by the Egyptians.
Extensive Radiocarbon testing of samples of organic material in the mortar between the blocks of the Old Kingdom pyramids has consistently shown Old Kingdom dates supporting the chronology established through archaeological study of the building methods. As the article below shows, many tests have been done, and their consistent results are difficult to ignore, but are never addressed by the alternative writers who, as always, simply ignore this evidence.
[pdfs.semanticscholar.org]...
Then there is the papyrus of Merer, which specifically discusses part of the work on Akhet-Khufu, the Great Pyramid, and the other papyri found with it discussing the supply of food and drink. Most especially there are the discoveries from the excavations at Giza giving us evidence of the workmen, their accommodation, their tombs and bodies, the harbour and associated infrastructure. No such evidence is found that would support any other builders or time of building. Amongst other finds from these excavations have been inscriptions from the mortuary temple and causeway with the cartouche of Khufu.
Additionally you have the testimony of the Egyptians themselves as to when these monuments were built (not least the name of the pyramid as mentioned above, which also confirms its funerary function), such as the stela of Amenhotep II in his temple by the Sphinx, where he refers to both Khnum-Khufu and Khafre. Then there is the evidence of the numerous inscriptions in 4th Dynasty tombs at Giza referring to Khufu, and the Great Pyramid Akhet Khufu. The cumulative testimony of all these different strands of evidence is very powerful to any open minded person. But the most decisive evidence lies in the cartouches.
There are painted builders marks on a number of Limestone blocks over 4 chambers. These builders marks incorporate cartouches with the name of Khufu. The texts inscribed on the side walls of the relieving chambers of the Great Pyramid name three gangs, each based on a different form of the king's name. Seven blocks give a gang name based on his Horus name, Hr-Mddw; ten give a name based on the full form of his nswt-bjtj name, Khnum-Khufu; and two blocks give a name based on the abbreviated form of that name, Khufu. (For the details of the names and cartouches, see Ann Roth - Egyptian Phyles in the Old Kingdom, p125)
There are two very significant aspects of these cartouches which make them exceptionally decisive dating evidence. The first is that the chambers in which they are to be found were sealed in the process of building and so cannot have been accessed by anyone at any time until 19th century explorers tunnelled through the stone blocks to reach them. As a result if a civilisation earlier than Khufu built the Great Pyramid it would have been impossible for his name to have appeared in these chambers, as no ancient Egyptian could ever have accessed them.
The second crucial factor is that several of these cartouches are in positions between two blocks where it is physically impossible for anyone to have painted them onto the blocks at any time after the blocks were set in place. Some of them are beyond the reach of any human arm, others are in such tight gaps that no paintbrush could paint them. They can only have been painted onto the blocks before or during the building of the pyramid.
It is this physical context that is decisive. It rules out any possibility that Khufu added the marks to an existing structure, and it also rules out any possibility that Howard Vyse, or anyone else, forged them. It would be possible to argue from this evidence that the pyramid was built LATER than Khufu, utilising blocks that had his name on them (though other factors argue against this). It is not possible to argue that the pyramid was built BEFORE Khufu, as there is then no possible way for the cartouches to have been painted onto the blocks.
Another factor against the idea that the cartouches are forgeries is the fact that Vyse could not have known that such builders marks were commonly used at the time. Only decades later did discoveries from the 4th Dynasty pyramids at Dahshur show that the builders marks in the Great Pyramid are entirely consistent with those in use in Old Kingdom pyramids. How did Vyse know what Egyptian builders marks looked like decades before any had been found? How could he have created such perfectly forged versions of something that had not yet been discovered? Obviously enough he could not have done. Again the alternative writers ignore or are ignorant of this chronological impossibility.
It has been suggested that the form of the hieroglyphs in these builders’ marks is wrong, but the recent find of the Merer papyrus shows exactly the same forms, thus disproving the idea that the hieroglyphs are incorrect, and removing the ONLY argument that the builders marks are forged (in fact of course the alternative writers only ever claim one builders mark was forged, as they falsely claim that only one exists, but their sole argument that this particular cartouche is misspelled is now definitively disproved, though, as so often, they have chosen to ignore the evidence that proves this). Another example of these builders’ marks was found in the 1940s on the West side of the pyramid on the 71st block from the North corner in the 4th layer.
So, when you have so many different strands of evidence all pointing in exactly the same direction, some of them definitively, and none whatsoever pointing to any other date, how can you ignore this evidence in favour of a theory that cannot even show any evidence for the existence of an earlier civilisation capable of building these monuments? Yet this is exactly what the alternative writers and their followers do. The alternative writers make no effort to address this evidence or refute it, instead they simply ignore it and pretend it does not exist. Sometimes they even tell blatant lies about it (such as the unfortunately now widespread idea that only one builders mark with a cartouche of Khufu was found in the Great Pyramid, which has been shown above to be completely wrong), lies which unfortunately are too easily swallowed by their trusting followers. Those who are inclined to believe the alternative writers should be asking WHY the alternative writers refuse to address this evidence, why they tell lies about it, and why they decline to inform their followers that it even exists.
Mod Edit Note: Split Topic Retitled and Moved to the Mysteries Board/Dr. Troglodyte
Can anyone reply if this statements are true about Giza pyramids:
To take the Pyramid of Khufu as an example, the evidence for the date of the Great Pyramid (who’s Egyptian name was Akhet-Khufu, “The Horizon of Khufu”, or, more literally, the place of the Akh of Khufu - the Horizon being the place of death and rebirth) lies in a number of strands of evidence all pointing independently to the same date, the 4th Dynasty. No one has ever managed to challenge this evidence, indeed no one has even tried to do so.
There is the place of the Giza pyramids in the continuous development of pyramid building, something which is confirmed by the 8 sided feature of the Great Pyramid which is shared with just one other pyramid, the Red Pyramid, which is the immediate predecessor of the Great Pyramid. This is just part of their close relationship to the Dahshur pyramids built by Sneferu which everyone concedes were made by the Egyptians.
Extensive Radiocarbon testing of samples of organic material in the mortar between the blocks of the Old Kingdom pyramids has consistently shown Old Kingdom dates supporting the chronology established through archaeological study of the building methods. As the article below shows, many tests have been done, and their consistent results are difficult to ignore, but are never addressed by the alternative writers who, as always, simply ignore this evidence.
[pdfs.semanticscholar.org]...
Then there is the papyrus of Merer, which specifically discusses part of the work on Akhet-Khufu, the Great Pyramid, and the other papyri found with it discussing the supply of food and drink. Most especially there are the discoveries from the excavations at Giza giving us evidence of the workmen, their accommodation, their tombs and bodies, the harbour and associated infrastructure. No such evidence is found that would support any other builders or time of building. Amongst other finds from these excavations have been inscriptions from the mortuary temple and causeway with the cartouche of Khufu.
Additionally you have the testimony of the Egyptians themselves as to when these monuments were built (not least the name of the pyramid as mentioned above, which also confirms its funerary function), such as the stela of Amenhotep II in his temple by the Sphinx, where he refers to both Khnum-Khufu and Khafre. Then there is the evidence of the numerous inscriptions in 4th Dynasty tombs at Giza referring to Khufu, and the Great Pyramid Akhet Khufu. The cumulative testimony of all these different strands of evidence is very powerful to any open minded person. But the most decisive evidence lies in the cartouches.
There are painted builders marks on a number of Limestone blocks over 4 chambers. These builders marks incorporate cartouches with the name of Khufu. The texts inscribed on the side walls of the relieving chambers of the Great Pyramid name three gangs, each based on a different form of the king's name. Seven blocks give a gang name based on his Horus name, Hr-Mddw; ten give a name based on the full form of his nswt-bjtj name, Khnum-Khufu; and two blocks give a name based on the abbreviated form of that name, Khufu. (For the details of the names and cartouches, see Ann Roth - Egyptian Phyles in the Old Kingdom, p125)
There are two very significant aspects of these cartouches which make them exceptionally decisive dating evidence. The first is that the chambers in which they are to be found were sealed in the process of building and so cannot have been accessed by anyone at any time until 19th century explorers tunnelled through the stone blocks to reach them. As a result if a civilisation earlier than Khufu built the Great Pyramid it would have been impossible for his name to have appeared in these chambers, as no ancient Egyptian could ever have accessed them.
The second crucial factor is that several of these cartouches are in positions between two blocks where it is physically impossible for anyone to have painted them onto the blocks at any time after the blocks were set in place. Some of them are beyond the reach of any human arm, others are in such tight gaps that no paintbrush could paint them. They can only have been painted onto the blocks before or during the building of the pyramid.
It is this physical context that is decisive. It rules out any possibility that Khufu added the marks to an existing structure, and it also rules out any possibility that Howard Vyse, or anyone else, forged them. It would be possible to argue from this evidence that the pyramid was built LATER than Khufu, utilising blocks that had his name on them (though other factors argue against this). It is not possible to argue that the pyramid was built BEFORE Khufu, as there is then no possible way for the cartouches to have been painted onto the blocks.
Another factor against the idea that the cartouches are forgeries is the fact that Vyse could not have known that such builders marks were commonly used at the time. Only decades later did discoveries from the 4th Dynasty pyramids at Dahshur show that the builders marks in the Great Pyramid are entirely consistent with those in use in Old Kingdom pyramids. How did Vyse know what Egyptian builders marks looked like decades before any had been found? How could he have created such perfectly forged versions of something that had not yet been discovered? Obviously enough he could not have done. Again the alternative writers ignore or are ignorant of this chronological impossibility.
It has been suggested that the form of the hieroglyphs in these builders’ marks is wrong, but the recent find of the Merer papyrus shows exactly the same forms, thus disproving the idea that the hieroglyphs are incorrect, and removing the ONLY argument that the builders marks are forged (in fact of course the alternative writers only ever claim one builders mark was forged, as they falsely claim that only one exists, but their sole argument that this particular cartouche is misspelled is now definitively disproved, though, as so often, they have chosen to ignore the evidence that proves this). Another example of these builders’ marks was found in the 1940s on the West side of the pyramid on the 71st block from the North corner in the 4th layer.
So, when you have so many different strands of evidence all pointing in exactly the same direction, some of them definitively, and none whatsoever pointing to any other date, how can you ignore this evidence in favour of a theory that cannot even show any evidence for the existence of an earlier civilisation capable of building these monuments? Yet this is exactly what the alternative writers and their followers do. The alternative writers make no effort to address this evidence or refute it, instead they simply ignore it and pretend it does not exist. Sometimes they even tell blatant lies about it (such as the unfortunately now widespread idea that only one builders mark with a cartouche of Khufu was found in the Great Pyramid, which has been shown above to be completely wrong), lies which unfortunately are too easily swallowed by their trusting followers. Those who are inclined to believe the alternative writers should be asking WHY the alternative writers refuse to address this evidence, why they tell lies about it, and why they decline to inform their followers that it even exists.
Mod Edit Note: Split Topic Retitled and Moved to the Mysteries Board/Dr. Troglodyte