> [. . .] This glyph in Vyse's cartouche........
> looks like dashes to me. I couldn't believe it would be
> considered a sieve because the lines don't reach to the edge of
> the circle.
The (obsolete) notion that this character depicts a sieve goes back to Samuel Birch and Birch himself identified this specific instance as a sieve—so what’s your problem?
This is cursive script: scrappy, like handwriting very often is. How often do you see (say) a handwritten ‘A’ with the transverse line not meeting the others? Do you instantly declare that it’s not a real ‘A’?
For a source of valid comparisons, try (for one) Goedicke’s Old Hieratic Paleography.
The writing of “kh” (Gardiner Aa1) in the pyramid is unexceptional: for the lines not the reach the edge of the circle is commonplace in cursive renditions and is even sometimes seen in carved hieroglyphs.
> Martin Stower's incredibly pompous answer sent me
> searching. [. . .]
Already dealt with:
> Wow! Mr. Knowitall seems to be saying it doesn't matter what
> glyph is used in Khufu, as long as it is a circle.
If you want to know what I’m saying, try asking me.
Don’t just make something up and then pretend that knocking down a straw man of your own creation is in some way faulting my statements.
I’m not saying any such thing: I know (I suspect rather better than you do) that there are lots of circular hieroglyphs.
Of these, Aa1 is almost certainly the most common. Why? Because it is an “alphabetical” character, representing a single consonant (and quite a common one in ancient Egyptian).
What I’m saying is quite specific: in monumental (carved, sculpted) hieroglyphs, Aa1 can appear as a lined disc or (in lesser detail) as an unlined disc. If you want a textbook source on this, try Allen, Middle Egyptian—and I find (looking at real examples and not just what you see in standard hieroglyphic fonts) that this goes back to the Old Kingdom.
> In the above he cites Gardiner's list [. . .]
Gardiner warns explicitly against overreliance on the forms given in standard hieroglyphic fonts.
> but doesn't mention #O48 in the same
> list under the category of "Buildings".
Because there was absolutely no reason to.
First of all, let’s look at a clearer picture:
Gardiner O48 is a variant of O47. As regards meaning, it is the ideogram for Hierakonpolis (Nekhen)—which alone makes it quite an unlikely thing to appear within a royal name.
The character presents two (always two) short vertical lines within the circle. This is not what we see in the pyramid: what we see there is three horizontal lines (horizontal relative to the inscription).
> Wallis Budge also has
> Evidently the experts also notice differences.
Here we have the Budge effect—or, more generally, the effect of looking at older sources.
At 14 we see how one of the older hieroglyphic fonts represented a late form of the hieroglyph which appears in Gardiner’s list as O50. The earlier form (as found in more recent fonts—and by “more recent” I mean “going back decades”) is a circle with multiple dots within it, a stylised representation of a threshing floor. It appears as a deterimative in the writing of the word for threshing floor, spt and seems on that basis to have acquired the phonetic value sp—and hence appears as a “phonetic determinative” in the writing of the word sp and its cognates. Sometimes (variant writings) it represents the word all by itself.
The version shown by Budge being a late form rules it out at once as a reading of the character in the pyramid (but hey, if you wants to read the name as “Spoofu”, go right ahead).
The character shown at 15 is merely the older font’s version of Gardiner’s Aa1—and clearly you already have a glimmering that such standardised representations are not the end of the story.
There are of course other circular hieroglyphs, but I’ll leave it to you to identify them and work out why they are non-candidates.
> Vyse's glyph had 3 dashes, but it is still not a sieve and not a Kh.
Doubtless you know better than Birch and Lepsius and everyone else who’s seriously studied the question.
> The cartouche questioned at Abydos HAS to read "Khufu". The
> solar disc must become Kh, there is too much at stake
> for the Egyptologist if it doesn't.
I suggest you read this:
To summarise: in a preliminary survey of (good) photographs of the reliefs in the Temple of Seti at Abydos (the one with the list in it), every single identifiable instance of Aa1 is carved as a plain (unlined) disc.
So is every instance of N5 (“the solar disc”).
There is no sculptural difference between.
What we do find, where significant traces of paint remain, is that these two characters were painted different colours.
The most you can justifiably say about the disputed name in the list is that the round character within it is ambiguous.
> As Dr. Heinrich Brugsch Bey wrote:
Wow, Audrey, you’re really pushing the boat out on finding up-to-date sources, aren’t you?
> only have 5 king lists to establish the chronology and these
> are riddled with problems. If they can't reconcile these with
> Manetho, they don't have a name for THE pyramid builder.
Non sequitur: identification of Khufu as the builder of the pyramid Akhet Khufu is in no way dependent on the king lists. (Note the clue in the name.)
> Here's a clever description about this problem from an article in Blackwood's Edinburgh magazine:
We can cut to the chase on that source; here’s how the diatribe ends:
Your chosen source is a musty old exercise in cramped and fanatical religious apologetics: a crude exercise in the worst kind of anti-scholarly obscurantism. No author is specified, but it seems to be written, if not by John Taylor himself, then by someone of his school: you know, the people who claimed the pyramid was built by Biblical Patriarchs (or somesuch), under Divine Inspiration.
> Thank God we have the ancient authors who are the only
> ones to name the builders of the pyramids.
Wrong. There’s the Debehen inscription. There’s what’s implied by the names of the pyramids. There’s what’s implied by the names found in the pyramid complexes. There’s what’s implied by the names, relationships and titles of those in the surrounding cemeteries. There’s the name of Djedefre, found in the boat pit. There’s the thing which people like you are usually so fond of mentioning, the Inventory Stela.
> HERODOTUS...5th century B.C. "The Father of History"
> tells us Cheops/Kheops built G1 about 800 B.C., followed by
> Chephren. Or, Philition a shepherd built both G1 and G2.
> DIODORUS....1st century B.C., tells us Chemmis built G1
> and Cephres or Chabbryis followed him.
> MANETHO.....3rd century B.C., supposedly said
> Suphis/Saophis/Chamois built G1.
Saophis is (approximately, in Roman characters) the form found in the list of Eratosthenes. Chamois? Sorry, where do you get the idea that this name is connected with the pyramid?
> But wait a minute. None of them use the name Khufu. No problem.
> All these names can BECOME Khufu.
Oh, come on. These are Grecianised forms. The ‘s’ of ‘Kheops’ and the ‘is’ of ‘Suphis’ are Greek terminals. Names are often changed, when adopted into other languages; consider Haïti (Ayiti), turned into “Hatey” in US pronunciation (which our news media seem to have adopted wholesale).
Likely the late vocalistion of the name was something like “Khuf” or “Shuf”.
> As the Blackwood article tells us:
Yeah, right: the religious diatribe.
> Saqqara has 56 legible cartouches, 35 have the solar disc at
> the top. Abydos has 76 legible cartouches, 64 have the solar
> disc at the top. Not sieves, not dots, not dashes, just empty
> circles. Can you think of 64 king name that begin with Kh? Or
> is it Sh or Su or Ch or X.
Likely none of them: a sound not found in the sound system of English, but present to a near approximation in Semitic languages (about the only thing Sher gets right).
> Where is Robert Langdon when you need him?
> Let's not forget the Arabic authors. They have quite a bit to
> say on the pyramids. Such as Saurid was king for 107 years and
> built all 3 gizamids. Others wrote they were built before the
> Why are they ignored?
This is just a guess, but archaic concepts like the deluge might be one reason.
> To make matters worse, Column 1 of Turin is a list of the
> bodies in our solar system. Column 2 starts with synchronizing
> the calendar. Then follows the list of kings. BUT it begins
> with over 36,000 years of rulers before the 1st dynasty. This
> period is labeled as a list of "spirits and mythical kings".
> AND Manetho, the Palermo stone, Herodotus, the Sumerians and
> Babylonians list from 18,000 to 30,000 years of rulers before
> the 1st dynasty. All are ignored.
No, they’re not ignored. They’re not believed, which is something quite different.
> And some say that those of us who question the Egyptologists
> pick and choose which info WE want to believe ! It is the
> Egyptologists who have been a pickin & choosin.
Good for them: they sound like sensible people.
> According to Hawass, the entire inscription in Campbell's
> chamber reads from left to right:
> THE GANG - PRINCE OF - KHUFU If read from right to left it
> would be:
> KHUFU - PRINCE OF - THE GANG
According to Hawass where exactly? Could we have a cite for this?
The inscription reads from right to left: left to right would be backwards. The animal characters are a clue.
> Sounds like a superintendent of a construction crew.
Given the spurious reading “prince of” and ignoring the royal cartouche, yes.
> In answer to Scott's question; I can't find anything in
> pre-Vyse literature using the name "Khufu". After Vyse, Khufu
> seems to show up everywhere as Manetho's Suphis.
Neither does the name “Khufu” appear in Vyse’s book: the nearest there is Birch’s “Shoufou (Suphis) or Khoufou (Cheops)”—which is read from the hieroglyphs, not sought in advance of them.
> If you look closely at Vyse's cartouche, you'll see many red
> spots inside and out of the cartouche. Am I imagining things or
> was something erased, washed, doctored?
Yes, you are imagining things. It’s a scrappy, cursive inscription, very much like other scrappy, cursive inscriptions of the same general kind—if anything, rather neater than some.
> And there doesn't seem
> to be any other chicks like these in the chambers.
You have photographs?
They’re pretty standard, if Goedicke’s Old Hieratic Paleography is anything to go by (and I think it is).