> 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?
All it proves is that as I said it must have occurred during a time when peoples were using red ochre quarry marks in such a way, which could easily have been several hundreds of years before.
> 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.
Red ochre was used in Egypt well into pre-dynastic times and is not exactly a "forgotten technology". It stands to reason the use of quarry marks would date to the beginnings of cut stone architecture being part and parcel of task. I find it unlikely the AE would have seen enough relatively hidden quarry marks to ascertain their value in stone construction, but rather a standard practise handed down from generation to generation. This is not to say this originated in Egypt and may have been a practise brought there by Mesopotamians whose use dates back over 8,000yrs.
> 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.
I fully agree and state as much several times in the post you quote.
What you are ignoring, however, is the actual main point of my post being the context of the 2 dozen or so other lines of hieroglyphs.
Can you please comment on this?
> 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
I agree. But you still have all those other lines of hieroglyphs to wrestle with.
> 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.
This is true, which I point out as well, but the greater context of all the hieroglyphs found and the use of the cartouche at the very least have a significant bearing on the era the relieving chambers were accessed. This must mean something. The simple fact of the matter is we are not just dealing with "one" line of hieroglyphs in the relieving chambers, but dozens. Without addressing these in equal measure I fail to see how this conversation can move forward.
Post Edited (17-Jul-14 23:29)