Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).
Martin Stower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanos5150 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > To follow up with this thought, it has always
> > struck me odd that the Khufu Wadi al-Jarf
> papyrus
> > has both Khnum Khuf and Khufu cartouches not to
> > mention Khufu's serekh:
>
>
>
>
[
> /center]
>
> > Khnum Khuf also appears on the blocks:
>
>
[/center
> ]
>
> > So, on one piece the author Merer includes the
> > Khnum Khuf cartouche and his serekh but no
> Khufu
> > cartouche. Yet on the other it has only the
> Khufu
> > cartouche. This is Merer's journal, an
> accounting
> > ledger of sorts, which there seems little point
> he
> > would use all 3 names for one king when writing
> > for potentially only his own consumption and/or
> > the bean counters back home. Are we
> really
> > sure these all refer to the same person?
>
> Only just read this. Hope I am not duplicating.
>
> It depends very much on the context in which the
> royal name appears.
>
> It seems that when a royal name appeared as part
> of another name, one name variant was chosen and
> the names were not interchangeable. If the thing
> was “christened” as
> Khnum-Khufu-plus-other-characters, this was its
> fixed name.
>
> Khnum Khufu appears on the block in the context of
> an aprw name and this appears to be the
> case also (different aprw) on the upper
> papyrus.
>
> Khufu appears in all cases here in the context of
> the name of his pyramid and in this context it is
> always Khufu.
>
> The writing on the papyri differs considerably.
> On the upper, the characters are more fully
> formed, perhaps cursive hieroglyphic as opposed to
> the hieratic of the lower. We might take this as
> indicating greater formality.
>
> M.
Also...the King's name , and it's many variants,was often employed, after his passing, in reference to the Cult of the King, and/or the many estates associated with the upkeep of Pyramid complex and the temples therein. IMHO, the drain on the GDP of the ever increasing, generation by generation, Temples and Estates(not to mention the cost of Building these huge complexes) was a major contributing factor to the collapse at the end of the 6th Dynasty.
Warwick
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanos5150 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > To follow up with this thought, it has always
> > struck me odd that the Khufu Wadi al-Jarf
> papyrus
> > has both Khnum Khuf and Khufu cartouches not to
> > mention Khufu's serekh:
>
>

>
>

> /center]
>
> > Khnum Khuf also appears on the blocks:
>
>

> ]
>
> > So, on one piece the author Merer includes the
> > Khnum Khuf cartouche and his serekh but no
> Khufu
> > cartouche. Yet on the other it has only the
> Khufu
> > cartouche. This is Merer's journal, an
> accounting
> > ledger of sorts, which there seems little point
> he
> > would use all 3 names for one king when writing
> > for potentially only his own consumption and/or
> > the bean counters back home. Are we
> really
> > sure these all refer to the same person?
>
> Only just read this. Hope I am not duplicating.
>
> It depends very much on the context in which the
> royal name appears.
>
> It seems that when a royal name appeared as part
> of another name, one name variant was chosen and
> the names were not interchangeable. If the thing
> was “christened” as
> Khnum-Khufu-plus-other-characters, this was its
> fixed name.
>
> Khnum Khufu appears on the block in the context of
> an aprw name and this appears to be the
> case also (different aprw) on the upper
> papyrus.
>
> Khufu appears in all cases here in the context of
> the name of his pyramid and in this context it is
> always Khufu.
>
> The writing on the papyri differs considerably.
> On the upper, the characters are more fully
> formed, perhaps cursive hieroglyphic as opposed to
> the hieratic of the lower. We might take this as
> indicating greater formality.
>
> M.
Also...the King's name , and it's many variants,was often employed, after his passing, in reference to the Cult of the King, and/or the many estates associated with the upkeep of Pyramid complex and the temples therein. IMHO, the drain on the GDP of the ever increasing, generation by generation, Temples and Estates(not to mention the cost of Building these huge complexes) was a major contributing factor to the collapse at the end of the 6th Dynasty.
Warwick
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.