Dear Loveritas

loveritas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dear Corpuscles,
>
> Osburn saw the antiquarian world through the eyes
> of a scholar, more so, than an opportunistic
> soldier of fortune. As such, his work, errors or
> not, should be taken at face value. If you add
> "arches", of which there are none, so, read
> "gables", and add in "incline leading down to the
> inner chambers", my two cents worth (if you're
> willing to take the bet) is on the entrance.

I was merely offering an alternative which perhaps you or others had not considered. I did not mean to imply that I personally resolutely held any strong conviction of that possibility.

However, knowing you possess keen wit and sense of humour, I advise that would be the safest 2 cent bet I could chose to "take" up. I say this because as you realise the "quarry marks" definitely are no longer on the entrance and therefore it would be highly unlikely for you to be able to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that they ever were. On the other hand the ones in RC are still extant.

I gather you are suggesting that masonry removed from the pyramid entrance subsequent to Osburn time of visit, exhibited such quarry marks indicating royal names?

What? So Vyse and all others before him just waltzed passed the inscriptions not noticing them or ever mentioning them until Osburn? Or do you think Osburn disturbed masonry and find quarry marks. If so why did he not claim discovery thereof?


>
> However, Osburn says that the glyphs are "rudely
> written", meaning by the hand of someone not
> proficient in the art of inscription - most
> likely, a quarry worker using an ochre/adhesive
> mix.
>
> Osburn was very familiar with both cartouches,
> although mistaken as to the sole identity of the
> pharaoh thus inscribed, concluding that there were
> two separate kings ruling contemporaneously.
>
> He does not say that the name of Noh-Suphis (Khnum
> Khufu) as seen by him in the Great Pyramid was
> written in a cartouche, but was more like "quarry
> marks". This is probably the reason that Vyse
> ignored just the name of Noh-Suphis. He required
> the name to be in a cartouche to prove a pharaonic
> provenance.
>
> Allegedly, he discovered such a cartouche in
> Campbell's Chamber.
>
> What is puzzling is the fact that Vyse did
> discover the Khnum Khufu cartouche in Lady
> Arbuthnot's Chamber. Why didn't he claim the name
> of that king enclosed in that cartouche as the
> builder of the Great Pyramid? Eventually, it would
> have been found to have been the same person.
>
> Perhaps, he could not decipher it correctly, as it
> was upside down - the block was laid that way. Did
> he forge this one too?

Thank you. I think you and R Schoch are likely correct that it would have been difficult enough to see , let alone decipher and form a hypothesis.

Also I note you seem to be building a strong case that the quarry marks in RC were contempory at build. Good work.
Whilst I have in the past ignorantly entertained some possibility of forgery (without much study) I think the case for that is very VERY weak ! I wouldn't bet even 2 cents on that possibility.

As for the reason for two names? I think the jury is still out, so we are in total agreement on that as per your OP?

Was Khnum Khuf u supposed to be a throne name? Perhaps the quarry workers were not sufficently educated to include the protocol?

LOL!..... maybe it meant "this side up" or "handle with care government project" < insert silly emoticon>


>
> So, maybe Vyse went with the cartouche which he
> knew - the simple Khufu cartouche in Campbell's
> Chamber - and ignored the KK cartouche. It was a
> better bet, don't you think.

For sure. That is a safe bet! Collect 2 cents!!
>
> lover
>
> PS. Do they still make two cents any more?

No.... they are precious!!! and only exist in the mind of the beholder! :-)

Cheers