Scott Creighton wrote:
> Hi Lee,
> At the end of the day all I am interested in here is getting
> them officially scientifically tested.
But in lieu of this scientific testing we must rely on observation, comparison, and context of which the greater whole of the latter has been conveniently ignored. People on these boards go on and on and on and on about this one damn cartouche, but seriously if we can't address the others with equal verve the point is moot.
According to Robert Temple:
Here are the six whole cartouches which appear as graffiti in the ‘relieving chambers’ above the King’s Chamber inside the Great Pyramid, and which were forged by Howard Vyse and two of his assistants. Not one of the whole cartouches represented in these Great Pyramid graffiti is correct. Not one of them gives the name ‘Khufu’ (the Egyptian form of Cheops). Nowhere in the graffiti does the correct Egyptian hieroglyph for ‘kh’ appear. That hieroglyph is a circle with thin parallel stripes drawn across it diagonally, which is generally thought to represent a round reed sieve. When writing the name ‘Khufu’, one always begins with that and then follows with the signs for ‘u’, ‘f’, and ‘u’. The men who faked these graffiti did not understand correctly at that period in time that this was how the name of ‘Khufu’ was meant to be written. Instead, the circular hieroglyph is shown either with a dot in the centre (which was the sign for the sun, Ra or Re), with a dot and a line in the centre (which means nothing and is a sign which never existed), or with a splodge in the centre which is of indeterminate shape. When the solar hieroglyph is used in these graffiti, the reading is thus: ‘… -raf’, and is definitely not even ‘…khaf’, much less ‘khuf’. The little chicken used as a hieroglyph for ‘u’ by the Egyptians is so badly drawn that it looks more like an Egyptian vulture (which was a different hieroglyph entirely), or otherwise looks like a six year-old’s attempt to draw a fish. All of the whole cartouches found amongst these graffiti are erroneous and pathetic forgeries.
Here are the seven half-covered or partially-covered graffiti found in the ‘relieving chambers’ above the King’s Chamber inside the Great Pyramid. Once again, as with the whole cartouches, the name of ‘Khufu’ does not appear anywhere. There is one pathetic attempt to simulate it, but the hieroglyph which should have read ‘kh’ is again erroneously shown as a disc containing a horizontal line with a dot under it, which never existed as an Egyptian hieroglyph, and the chick at the end is barely even suggested, it is so badly drawn. These sketchy markings could easily have been painted up to the edge of an adjoining stone, and there is no evidence that they continue underneath. A few of the lines shown here do not even reach the edge, but stop short of it, though without inspecting the original graffiti, it is impossible to know whether this is true of the originals or is a failure of the modern artist in his copying. There is no feature of these graffiti which is in any way convincing, and all of them appear to be fakes made by Howard Vyse and his two assistants.
> You cannot seriously say
> there is not doubt here as to the provenance of these marks.
I have never said there was no doubt.
> Yes, some will undoubtedly be genuine--I have no problem with
> that. I just want to know which and do not think it at all
> unreasonable to ask that hard science be done on these markings
> to help move matters along.
I agree. I think just as the Khufu cartouche the others can be vetted as best they can without the aid of scientific testing.
On vacation-Thanos out!
Post Edited (18-Jul-14 07:33)