> I understand why you say this. Try to understand
> why I say - IF the cartouches in the chambers are
> forgeries, then it cannot be said that G1 was
> built at the time you give.
Yes, if all the cartouches were fakes then this would give proponents a leg to stand on. This is one of the conditions I give in my list. Granted there are other "non-cartouche" lines of hieroglyphs which are period specific, but if all the cartouches were fakes I do not think they would have any credibility. If this interests you I suggest you read Here. Scroll down to fig18.
And I did not say the whole of G1, just from the RC and up. I don't remember where, long ago, but someone I read proposed G1 was only completed up to the KC and was used as an observatory, like others have proposed for Abu Roash or Zawyet El Aryan, and at some point the AE came along and finished it to a pyramid.
> I agree with you regarding "all the cartouches"
> but not with "the rest". Some of those markings
> are extremely different from the cartouches, in
> style and execution.
I would be interested to see you explore this which would also include the glyphs found in the "air shaft".
> This is a double edged sword. No one, alt or
> ortho, has been able to explain construction. I'm
> not sure why it's on your list, what does it have
> to do with the markings in the chambers?
We have to explain if authentic then how did they get there. There is no known access point to have done it after the fact therefore if not then it could have only happened during construction of at least that section and above.
> That wouldn't really be necessary. Are you
> speaking of the cartouche in general, or the Khufu
The cartouche in general. This is the ultimate point I have tried to make. Khufu or whatever else it says inside is irrelevant as to when it was built as it is dated by the cartouche in general.
> I don't follow you on this one. Can you clarify?
If the cartouches were not put there during construction then they must have been put there after the fact. Which leaves the question how did they get in there to do this?
> Well it will probably never be dead.
Ain't that the truth.
> But now can you tell me why no one is
> understanding my questions?
> My questions are about identifying a person, the
> builder of G1.
I understand what you are trying to say. I just don't think it matters to the grand picture, but I've always thought it interesting.
> A thought experiment : forget about Vyse and his
> Khufu cartouche in Campbells. Pretend it doesn't
> In 1837 the cartouche of the builder of G1 was
> known, obviously because Vyse wrote it in his
> journal. At some point before 1837, it was
> determined which cartouche belonged to the builder
> of G1.
A good question.
> Of all the cartouches on the Giza plateau, how did
> they know WHICH one belonged to the builder of G1?
> How did they know this in 1835 before Vyse
> arrived? If he had never found the chamber, would
> they have gone on with the belief that
> chick+viper+chick+circle was the name of the
> builder or the pharaoh of G1?
Explorers before Vyse, like Greaves, had read the works of the Greeks and would have known the Hellinized names associated with the Giza pharaohs. At what point those names became paired with the hieroglyphs found at Giza I don't know.
> Seriously Thanos, am I wording this badly?
Not at all. I get it and find it interesting. Where some people's brains shut off is equating this uncertainty to a predynastic origin of the builders which at this point in your search is unwarranted. If you want better traction on this I suggest keeping the two separated and when you find the answers you need then you can apply them to your ideas.
The oldest association I know relating "Suphis" (Cheops) with "Khufu" is from 1834 (1832?), I monumenti dell'Egitto e della Nubia, which Scott notes in his latest book. The question is how did Rosellini come to this conclusion?
> Isn't it true that first came the identification
> of the cartouche? Someone said THIS>>> look
> at THIS (pointing), it is the name of the pharaoh
> who built G1. How did they know THIS was it?
A good question. The rub, however, is that regardless of how this came to be, in the end it has still proven true as this same cartouche is found in relative abundance in the tombs of the Western (G1) Cemetery and most recently the Wadi al-Jarf papyri which at the very least associate both chick/circle guy and jug/ram guy with Giza. Not to mention the Giza grouping of cartouches are also found in the same grouping of later king lists. Before Vyse it was believed the cartouche enclosed the name of the king therefore whenever cartouches were found, regardless of who it was, it was understood it was the name of a king. If early explorers had entered the tombs of the Western Cemetery they would have seen this cartouche (or something nearly identical to it) many times in associative proximity to G1. They would have also seen it along with the jug/ram and serekh, as noted prior to Vyse, at Wadi Maghareh.
Which both chick/circle and jug/ram are found in G1.
What is curious to me, considering what you have said, is if Vyse forged the chick/circle, what would be the point of forging the jug/ram? This only confuses the issue for no apparent reason. But if so, then how did he know they belonged together not to mention the jug/ram is poorly represented at Giza if at all as I can;t think of any off the top of my head. I have to say, to accept the Khufu forgery, for sake of argument, I think it only makes sense if Vyse entered the RC and saw the jug/ram all over the place and did not like what he saw as he thought it needed to be the chick/circle to conform to what he saw in the tombs outside. At the time, directly following Vyse's discovery, it was not known for sure these represented the same person and was thought they may refer to different kings altogether which only makes Vyse's "forgery" even more unlikely if the goal was to conclusively "prove" Khufu was the builder as if by sheer numbers of cartouches it would appear the jug/ram guy was the dominant pharoah, ergo, the builder.
Anyhoo, don't get discouraged. Hopefully this helps and gives you something to think about.
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 12-Apr-17 01:02 by Thanos5150.