> Thanks guys, those of you who think my post is
> worth thinking about.
Please let me also offer my belated praise, 'join the chorus', of appreciation for at least demonstrating considerable thought and effort, even though it is from a critical standpoint. You know I have offered such (albeit likely worthless) in the past.
> "Overworking" is an understatement. It is theQuote
> Roth may be guilty of overworking the problem,
> BUT, to suppose that her finite conclusions being
> wrong has any bearing on how the Vyse cartouche
> fits into all this is to propose a false
> orthos who have used Roth as a way to authenticate
> the cartouche. If you see a "false dichotomy" I
> assume you are intelligent enough to say where you
> see it. If not, we can discard your "dichotomy".
I also have some difficulty in reaching consensus with Roth's hypothesis regarding the meaning of the distribution of the hieratic (or if you prefer cursive hieroglyphs) in the chambers. She might be dead wrong, but at least she looks at what is there and tries to figure a rationale for it and it's significance. Rather than trying to speculate about what is not there!
Her work is as far as I know hasn't specifically been used directly "as a way to authenticate the cartouche". I suspect you mean the famous CC one.
> You are not understanding the debate. Let's try a
> mind experiment....
I realise this was addressed to Warwick , excuse me for interjecting when time permits. It seems this thread is still mainly all about justifying grand forgery on a major scale?
> Pretend Vyse never found markings in G1, pretend
> they don't exist. Set aside your convictions (if
> possible) and tell us how.... of all the
> cartouches found on the plateau....anyone would
> know which one belonged to the builder of G1? HOW
> could one tell if a particular cartouche was
Audrey, I am aware this has been answered several times before directly to your questions.
Do you think somehow that as of 1837 the Khufu cartouche was not known?
If so, i.e. not known, how could Vyse possibly forge it?
Does "Rosellini's 'I monumenti dell'Egitto e della Nubia' vol. 1 (1832)" ring any bells?
However, does not mean, of itself, he built G1, or does it?
> Is it not true that in Vyse's time there was, and
> had been for a very long time, a search for the
> ones who built the great pyramids? Is it not true
> that finding the name of the builders would unlock
> the mysteries of the pyramids? Is it not true that
> every author from Scaligerie to Vyse, including
> Wilkinson & Champolliion & Kircher, had sought the
> answer to the question of who built the pyramids?
> Was this not a main quest at the time? Isn't it a
> big key in establishing Egypt's chronology and
> consequently the chronology for all of the ancient
True, they wanted to know who built them. However, these "alts" you talk of, seem obsessed with the notion that the CC cartouche is the main and seemingly only identifier. It definitely is not the sole "key establishing Egypt's chronology ..."
> Without this key, without Vyse's "discovery", they
> would still be searching for the ones who built
> the pyramids. Is it not this key that set the
> stage for the understanding of Egypt's history?
Serious question please consider (and answer) for your own benefit:
Do you dispute all the links found between a family dynasty of kings queens relations of Sneferu, Khufu, (Djedefre), Khafre, Menkaure?
Do you dispute that later AE' people wrote and considered great pyramids to belong to that dynasty?
Whether they forged the inscriptions on statues etc or NOT is there evidence later dynastic AE thought they built them?
If so, then how much did Vyse know about that in 1837?
> And if this key is the wrong key, if it is not in
> fact the builder of G1, wouldn't they be back to
> square one, still searching for it? And if the key
> doesn't fit, then wouldn't ALL their conclusions
> about the Giza plateau be incorrect since ALL is
> based on this one key?
Depending on your answers above, you "alts" might hope so, but regardless of that definitely NO!
Some more questions that might help in the underlying point of your thread.
Why would Vyse concoct many many forgeries (has to be all of the legible hieratic)in such a way that which opens up to the intriguing speculation about the meaning of the distribution of such which Roth attempts to resolve with her hypothesis?
How could the A Alford now claimed by SC as his original guess 'at finding secret documents, talk of such distribution of such names! Didn't it have a story or some other juicy stuff to copy? Why didn't Vyse &Co think such all ought have for his purpose the more recognisable (at the time) Khufu cartouche or modify them to be so, if tht was his sole intent?
Finally, how did he possibly know the Horus name could be written outside of a serekh, and/or otherwise not inclosed, in a cartouche? If in a "secret document" then how did he read it?