To Scott and Audrey:

Hello,

I have made note of this point several times in discussion of the authenticity of the Khufu cartouche yet curiously cannot seem to inspire any comments to it from forgery proponents.

So, I ask you two directly:

Regardless of whether the cartouche is genuine or not, there are still roughly 2 dozens lines of hieroglyphs found in the relieving chambers which creates a much greater context than just this one cartouche. Are you suggesting all of the hieroglyphs are forgeries then? If so, it stands to reason examining each and every one of these would be equally necessary for building the case against the Khufu cartouche. If not, then we are left with one dubious cartouche which may or may not name the pharaoh Khufu and has no bearing of proof whether he actually built it or not regardless, amongst 2 dozen others that if authentic forge indisputable context the relieving chambers were constructed/repaired during not only the time of hieroglyphic writing but namely the time of placing such writing in cartouches which as far as I can tell the earliest examples date to the 3rd Dynasty.

Here are several examples from just one chamber alone:


Ironically, Graham in a lecture says "there are no other inscriptions in the Great Pyramid whatsoever" than just the one cartouche in question.
41:25 [www.youtube.com]
Wouldn't that be nice....

Regardless-are they too fakes? Forging one is one thing-but over 2 dozen? And fake or no-what do they all say? But if not fakes, which all things considered seems highly unlikely they are not, then the use of the cartouche (in conjunction with knowing what they say) clearly establishes the context of time they must have been written which would have been sometime between the 3rd and 5th Dynasties.

Obviously I am of the mind G1 does not date to the 4th Dynasty, but I also cannot wish away the inconvenient truth of 2 dozen other lines of hieroglyphs in favor of disproving just one that may or may not ambiguously refer to a pharaoh Khufu which either way does not prove he built it anyways.

And regardless of the writing in the in relieving chambers, we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that genuine red ochre quarry marks were used in the relieving chambers and "air shafts" which could have only been placed there during construction ultimately dating G1 from at least those sections upwards to a time when such red ochre quarry marks were used in this way.

If we accept G1 predates the 4th Dynasty, taking the relieving chambers hieroglyphs as a whole, we cannot dismiss the fact at the very least there must have been access to the relieving chambers sometime beginning in the 3rd Dynasty. If so, and if both are true, does this then not radically change the state of construction of G1 during the 3rd Dynasty and beyond? I have also raised the question several times of the paramount need to catalogue what the other hieroglyphs say so that true provenance can be determined which my understanding of it may in fact span the reigns of several pharaohs which may include co-regents. In doing so it may be established a range of pharaoh involvement instead of just attributing its construction to just one pharaoh which to many seems ludicrous anyways.

In summary:
1) How do you (we) reconcile the other 2 dozen or so lines hieroglyphs in the greater context of pre-4th Dynasty construction?
2) If we cannot, then what does this mean as to the state of construction G1 allowing access to these areas by the peoples of the 3rd-5th Dynasties?

I just don't understand why so much time is devoted to bickering ad nauseum over this one cartouche, which even if genuine is meaningless as to the provenance of the builder anyways, when there is a greater context of 2 dozen or more other lines hieroglyphs that as a whole must mean something greater than the one. Great-the Khufu cartouche is a fake-but ultimately so what? There still 2 dozen more to go....



Post Edited (17-Jul-14 22:13)