> 1.) First of all, can anyone tell me if the issue of the
> spelling/misspelling of the Khufu cartouche is conclusively
You fill find this site interesting [www.rickrichards.com]
It has not been conclusively resolved.
> 2.) Does anyone have a good explanation as to why G1, G2, G3
> are lacking in internal hieroglyphs, unlike all the other
> pyramids, if they were built during the time of Khufu?
The Red and Bent Pyramids do not have hieroglyphs either, which is telling. I am waiting for a good explanation of this as well.
> 3.) Why did the high level of technology used in the
> construction G1, G2, G3 drop precipitously in subsequent
I think you need to include the Red and Bent pyramids in this group which are quite interesting in their own right. If we remove the 5 great pyramids there isn't much of a mystery any more and what is found before and after are economically and technologically congruent with one another. A more pointed question to ask is why is the technology of G1 so monumentally different compared to those directly before it and after. Regardless of its precision and geodesic, mathematical, and astronomical functions, G1 is the only pyramid with ascending passages and chambers and "air shafts" yet G2, nearly as large and built supposedly by the guy's son who no doubt would have been privy to such innovations, had none of these advancements. Other than the dubious well shaft in G1, there was no entrance to the ascending passage and upper chambers which were unknown at the time of the Greeks and Romans who entered it and described what they saw meaning at least until that time there was no access to the upper chambers except by way of the well shaft which was also unknown in Greek and Roman times despite Roman graffiti in the subterranean chamber. For all they knew, and as it stands to reason for all the AE knew as well, they did not exist so it is curious to think why if G1 was built in succession was it the only one to deviate from the standard plan employing features unknown to any other pyramid builder.
> 4.) Doesn't Graham currently believe that G1, G2, G3 were
> merely refurbished during Khufu's reign and were originally
> built thousands of years earlier than Khufu?
I think he now believes they were "mostly" built in the 4th Dynasty though laid out to a plan pointing to 10,500BC.
> 5.) Isn't Graham's opinion as articulated in his position
> statement based solely on Old Kingdom graffiti, not the Khufu
> cartouche itself?
It seems this way, but I believe his reversal on this matter was a bit premature and curiously misguided by this fact. There is a big difference between "graffiti" like the cartouches and "quarry marks" which are indiscriminate daubs of red ocher paint. There is no doubt the quarry marks were made during the construction process and like he says are certainly in inaccessible locations. The graffiti on the other hand is a whole different matter. Obviously Sitchin and now independently Robert Temple say they were forged. The matter could easily be resolved to carbon date the ocher but Zawass has firmly said no to that.
Regarding a forgery, it is interesting to look here at the drawing of the cartouche by Sitchin and Vyse and Perring here:[www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk] All different, and according to this article this demonstrates that Sitchin forged his own drawing because it is different than Vyse's. Problem though is that this guy is reproducing it directly from Vyse's journal and it looks like this: Fig 2 [www.rickrichards.com] Not even close to there being 3 lines as depicted on the 1st link saying Sitchin was wrong.
> 6.) Has the possibility of there being more than one Khufu been
> definitively ruled out?
No. Also, the appearance of multiple royal names in the cartouches of the relieving chambers was quite a bone of contention for Egyptologists back in the day which I fail to see has been resolved.
I suggest reading this:[www.atlantisrising.com]
> Because on one hand, if we say G1, G2, G3 were built when the
> orthodox Egyptologist say, then I fail to understand the vast
> differences in pyramid styles/size/technology between G1, G2,
> and G3 and everything else, not to mention the lack of
> hieroglyphs. Yet on the other hand, if they were built long
> before, as we know the Sphinx was, I have to assume that either
> there was an earlier Khufu or the Khufu cartouche was forged,
> and the Old Kingdom graffiti is identical to an earlier,
> pre-dynastic hieroglyphic writing style, or that it is actually
This is a conundrum to be sure. As we know it was common practice since early dynastic times for a pharaoh to profusely claim provenance over his works, not to mention one's tomb regardless of who they were, but of course the Great 5 have none of this and neither do the Sphinx, Valley, and Mortuary temples. I'm actually working on a article for a thread about this I'll post here soon hopefully. But we do find graffiti not only in the relieving chambers of G1 but some of the outer blocks of the BP and RP as well that attest to Snefuru's reign. Regardless of being forged by Vyse or not, the cartouches in the relieving chambers are problematic and by no means give provenance of G1 to Khufu. All things considered, there is no doubt as to a 4th Dynasty presence at the very least as restorers of existing monuments and the cartouches in the relieving chambers, even if genuine, are dubious as to Khufu being the builder of G1. We know there were repairs made to the upper chambers of G1 sometime after it was built so one has to wonder about what access to the reliving chambers after the fact those workers may have had.
Post Edited (24-Feb-13 00:38)