> Obviously I am of the mind G1 does not date to the 4th Dynasty,
> but I also cannot wish away the inconvenient truth of 2 dozen
> other lines of hieroglyphs in favor of disproving just one that
> may or may not ambiguously refer to a pharaoh Khufu which
> either way does not prove he built it anyways.
> And regardless of the writing in the in relieving chambers, we
> know beyond a shadow of a doubt that genuine red ochre quarry
> marks were used in the relieving chambers and "air shafts"
> which could have only been placed there during construction
> ultimately dating the structures to a time when such red ochre
> quarry marks were used in this way.
> If we accept G1 predates the 4th Dynasty, taking the relieving
> chambers hieroglyphs as a whole, we cannot dismiss the fact at
> the very least there must have been access to the relieving
> chambers sometime beginning in the 3rd Dynasty. If so, and if
> both are true, does this then not radically change the state of
> construction of G1 during the 3rd Dynasty and beyond? I have
> also raised the question several times of the paramount need to
> catalogue what the other hieroglyphs say so that true
> provenance can be determined which my understanding of it may
> in fact span the reigns of several pharaohs which may include
> co-regents. In doing so it may be established a range of
> pharaoh involvement instead of just attributing its
> construction to just one pharaoh which to many seems ludicrous
> In summary:
> 1) How do you (we) reconcile the other 2 dozen or so lines
> hieroglyphs in the greater context of pre-4th Dynasty
> 2) If we cannot, then what does this mean as to the state of
> construction G1 allowing access to these areas by the peoples
> of the 3rd-5th Dynasties?
> I just don't understand why so much time is devoted to
> bickering ad nauseum over this one cartouche, which even if
> genuine is meaningless as to the provenance of the builder
> anyways, when there is a greater context of 2 dozen or more
> other lines hieroglyphs that as a whole must mean something
> greater than the one. Great-the Khufu cartouche is a fake-but
> ultimately so what? There still 2 dozen more to go....
So if we do postulate that G1 was built earlier then the 4th Dynasty (ie, by a civilization that DID have the tools and means to build it), and that those "quarry marks" were made during the construction, what does that prove? It could simply mean that such quarry marks were common all over Giza, including on blocks that were far more accessible than the Relieving Chambers, such as the casing stones which were readily removed. In that case, anyone during the entire Dynastic period would have learned the value of making quarry marks with readily available red ochre thereafter.
And the fact that Vyse's line of text simply reads something like "friends of Khufu" means absolutely nothing regarding the date, builder, or purpose of G1. As fas as we know, the term "Khufu" back then could be referring to any number of things. It could even be a form of "brand name" or ideology. And do we know for sure the true meaning of "friends" in that context. Perhaps "employees", or "believers", or "subscribers", etc.
As I've said many times before, we have no reason at all to believe that Sneferu created the name "Khufu" from scratch. Rather, it's at least as likely that Sneferu saw the name "Khnum-Khufu" inscribed on many stones already in his time, that such "branding" was strongly associated with G1, and that Sneferu therefore gave his son that namesake so that he (his son) would be imbued with the same association with that monument.
The presence of the "Khufu" cartouche in Campbell's Chamber, regardless of how it got there and regardless of who put it there, simply has ZERO bearing on who built that pyramid, why they built it, or when they built it.