Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

WHO BUILT THE GREAT PYRAMID? (was Alford forgery claim)

292 views

Skip to first unread message

Alan Alford

unread,

Sep 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/25/98

Martin,

I see you've conveniently let this matter drop.

> > M.Stower said:
> > Even within the confines of your own scenario - that the lucky forgers
> > found just the right inscriptions to copy, and copied them into the
> > pyramid - I could find no explanation of how anyone in 1837 could even
> > have recognised the names Hor Medjedu (when the Horus name as such was
> > unrecognised at the time) and Khnum-khufu (when the cartouche of that
> > form was assigned by contemporary expert opinion to Chepren) as names of
> > Cheops - let alone distinguish the names of aprw (crews) - which were
> > just the right things to use - from the later hieratic graffiti found at
> > many Old Kingdom sites.
> >
> > FINDING such inscriptions wouldn't be enough: they'd need also to
> > RECOGNISE them.

Could your failure to press this point have something to do with the fact
that all three of Khufu's names appear together (including the Hor Medjedu
name) in an inscription from Sinai reproduced in Leon de Laborde et
Linat's 'Voyage de l'Arabie Petree' published in 1832 - some 5 years
BEFORE Vyse made his 'discovery'?

Alan Alford

Martin Stower

unread,

Sep 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/25/98

Alan Alford wrote:

> Martin,
>
> I see you've conveniently let this matter drop.

I see you've conveniently failed to answer my questions in yet another post -
this being your eighth since I asked them. You find the time to pursue cheap
rhetorical points over MY delay in preparing a DETAILED commentary, yet I'm
still waiting for your presumably simple answers to my questions. I'll remind
you again:

(1) Why didn't you consult Vyse's book?

(2) Why are you still relying on Sitchin for information?

(3) Why didn't you trace the diary?

What's even more bizzarre is that you're prepared to post congratulating
yourself on being a two-faced shit. For reference:

http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/alfordcorrespondence.html

Strange behaviour for someone pretending to be a dedicated and rigorous
researcher.

The joke, Alan, is that you're the one who's made damaging admissions. Had you
made any effort at all to confront the evidence honestly, you'd know that the
stuff I told you is a matter of record, familiar to anyone who's SERIOUSLY
studied the topic. The first thing you've revealed is your continued abysmal
ignorance of the topic. The second thing you've revealed is just how little
your motivation in returning to the topic has to do with an honest attempt to
discover the truth, and how much it has to do with personal spite - resulting
from my exposing your ignorance and laxity on the topic when you last tried to
promote a book here.

Thank you, Alan, for coming back to get the pasting you deserve - because you
are well and truly going to get it.

Have you only just noticed that, Alan?

Name an expert who recognised the Horus name AS SUCH then. Birch didn't
recognise the Horus name of Djoser when he saw it - see Cottrell for a good
summary. The only royal names recognised AS SUCH in 1837 were those enclosed
in a cartouche - whereas what surrounds the Horus name is a serekh. Wilkinson
recognised that `these square banners . . . relate to the kings and not to the
deities', but that's as far as he went. On top of which, the Horus name
appears in some contexts without any distinctive surround, just like an ordinary
Egyptian name. Thus on the Narmer palette - you know, Alan, the one with that
(splutter) pyramid on it - we find the name Narmer both with the serekh and
without it. The Horus name of Khufu appears without the serekh in the crew
names and on the Inventory Stela - but it appears WITH the serekh in the Sinai
tablet.

Setting aside the problematical Horus name, we may next consider the two
cartouche names. Well, you've changed your tune. Not so long ago you were
endorsing as definitive Sitchin's claim that these names DON'T both belong to a
single Pharaoh. `Gods of the New Millennium', page 86:

It is also little know that Birch found the names of twopharaohs in
the inscriptions, . . .

Now you're telling us, not only that the opposite is true, but also that it must
have been obvious to Vyse in 1837!

You wouldn't by any chance be a moron when it comes to interpreting information,
would you?

You'll be aware that the Wadhi Maghara tablet has (or strictly had) a prominent
vertical division, making it at least debatable whether the two tablets formed
(each containing a different cartouche name) belonged to the same king. As you
should be aware (even from reading Sitchin) the attribution of both of these
names to Khufu was controversial well into this century. (Petrie changed his
mind about it more than once.) Mere proximity of distinct cartouche names
doesn't entail them belonging to the same Pharaoh (otherwise we'd have to assume
that the names in the king lists are all of one king). It's actually quite
common for names of different kings to be found together. I told you about one
good example on 28 November 1997: the tomb of Kar (aka Qar) where the cartouches
of four Pharaohs (within four pyramid names) were carved together in a neat
little group: Meryre (= Pepi I), Menkaure, Khufu and Khafre. It's only
knowledge of the language and the other data we have which allow us to sort out
what belongs to whom.

The AUTHORS, by the way, were Léon de Laborde and Louis Maurice Adolphe Linant.
You've reproduced Sitchin's error verbatim, confirming (what was already
obvious) that Sitchin is your source for this.

He of course claims that Vyse erroneously inferred from the illustration in the
book (of the Wadhi Maghara tablet) that both cartouche names belonged to Khufu.
All you've done is drop the claim that the inference was erroneous and add the
further implausibility of him spotting AS SUCH the Horus name.

To summarise: If Vyse inferred from the Wadhi Maghara tablet that both cartouche
names belonged to Khufu, he was well ahead of the experts. Had he been guided
by contemporary experts, he would (assuming a forgery scenario) have stuck to
the Khufu cartouche, rather than using in profusion the rarer and much riskier
Khnum-khufu variety. If Vyse inferred from the Wadhi Maghara tablet that the
symbols within the serekh were a name at all, he was well ahead of the experts
again. (Let's just set aside the problems of moving from the formal, carved
hieroglyphs in the tablet to the cursive equivalents we find in the chambers.)

If Vyse did all that, we now have an extraordinarily lucky guess to add to the
lucky finds (at unspecified locations) and the lucky contacts (with conveniently
anonymous Egyptian experts) that your scenario has him making. Yet when Vyse
reports a lucky find, you take that as suspicious in itself. Now why is that?

If you want your ineptitude and shabbiness exposed further, Alan, just come back
with another shot.

Martin Stower
http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/

SaddamHusseinsUncle

unread,

Sep 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/25/98

>M.Stower said:
>Even within the confines of your own scenario - that the lucky forgers
>found just the right inscriptions to copy, and copied them into the
>pyramid - I could find no explanation of how anyone in 1837 could even
>have recognised the names Hor Medjedu (when the Horus name as such was
>unrecognised at the time) and Khnum-khufu (when the cartouche of that
>form was assigned by contemporary expert opinion to Chepren) as names of
>Cheops - let alone distinguish the names of aprw (crews) - which were
>just the right things to use - from the later hieratic graffiti found at
>many Old Kingdom sites.

shortfu...@dialapipsqueak.com wrote:
>Could your failure to press this point have something to do with the fact
>that all three of Khufu's names appear together (including the Hor Medjedu
>name) in an inscription from Sinai reproduced in Leon de Laborde et
>Linat's 'Voyage de l'Arabie Petree' published in 1832 - some 5 years
>BEFORE Vyse made his 'discovery'?

***now hes got you by the balls Stower.
how you gonna answer that one ?

Martin Stower

unread,

Sep 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/25/98

I already did. Coming soon to a server near you.

Martin Stower

SaddamHusseinsUncle

unread,

Sep 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/25/98

>shortfu...@dialapipsqueak.com wrote:
>Could your failure to press this point have something to do with the fact
>that all three of Khufu's names appear together (including the Hor Medjedu
>name) in an inscription from Sinai reproduced in Leon de Laborde et
>Linat's 'Voyage de l'Arabie Petree' published in 1832 - some 5 years
>BEFORE Vyse made his 'discovery'?

>now hes got you by the balls Stower.
>how you gonna answer that one ?

>I already did. Coming soon to a server near you.

***yes youve got a valid point there.
this server does keep missing posts.

As for "epistemology",
im quite impressed you know how to spell that.
ill have to look at my map and find out where sheffield is....

Martin Stower

unread,

Sep 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/25/98

Supplementary to my other response:

Alan Alford wrote:

[. . .]

> Could your failure to press this point have something to do with the fact
> that all three of Khufu's names appear together (including the Hor Medjedu
> name) in an inscription from Sinai reproduced in Leon de Laborde et
> Linat's 'Voyage de l'Arabie Petree' published in 1832 - some 5 years
> BEFORE Vyse made his 'discovery'?

For your information, Alan, all five of his names appear there.

[. . .]

Martin Stower

Alan Alford

unread,

Sep 25, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/25/98

Hi Martin,

Sounds like I've got you worried!

Thank you for confirming that all three names of Khufu - including the
Horus Medjedu name - were inscribed together in an inscription in Sinai,
and reproduced in 'Voyage de l'Arabie Petree' - published in 1832 - 5
years BEFORE Vyse made his discovery.

I mentioned this only because it backs up the point which I previously
made - that Vyse could have copied ALL of the inscriptions from a location
outside the Great Pyramid to the Construction Chambers inside the Pyramid.

The Sinai inscriptions are relevant only as an example of how the names
were often written together.

Your contention that no-one could read the Horus names in 1837 is
irrelevant. It is my contention that Vyse copied what he saw, probably
from the nearby quarries or the tombs of Khufu's kinsfolk, and I would
suggest that he found the Horus-name written <without> the serekh.

Anyway, your note about Wilkinson is a little incomplete. Not only did he
observe that the serekhs 'relate to the kings' but he included Khufu's
serekh directly alongside the cartouche name for Khufu. He labelled them
"1a/1b the name of Shufu or Suphis". This was in his 1837 book, published
in the months BEFORE Vyse's 'discovery'.

As you well know, Wilkinson HAD made the connection in 1837 between the
readings Khufu/Shufu and Suphis/Cheops. And it had long been suspected
that Cheops was the king who had built the Great Pyramid - as related by
Herodotus.

So, IF Vyse saw Wilkinson's book - which you must admit as a probability
(or even a 'possibility' will suffice) - he could hardly have failed to
make the necessary connections from Cheops to the cartouches for
Shufu/Khufu AND to the serekh-name (which we now know to read 'Hor
Medjedu').

As for the Khnum-kuefui cartouche name, Wilkinson also reproduced this in
his 1837 book, directly alongside the names of Shufu, labelling it
'2.Numba-Khufu or Chembres'. So IF Vyse had seen this book, which I will
presume he did, he would have been intrigued by the 'Khufu' connection
between this name 'Numba-Khufu' and Shufu/Khufu/Cheops.

Now we know that Vyse spent months at Giza and had his men copying
inscriptions there. And we know from Birch and Wilkinson that these
cartouche names and the serekh had already been found at Giza (for
example, Wilkinson's plate of the names is captioned 'From the Tombs near
the Pyramids'). So it does not take a huge leap of faith to suppose that
Vyse had first-hand experience of ALL these names.

So, all we need is for Vyse to have found all three names together - in a
quarry or a tomb - to make the logical connection that they were all
related to the same king, Cheops, who was already supposed to have been
the owner of the Pyramid.

So, did Vyse forge the king's names? Let's just remind ourselves of a few
salient facts:

1. There were no proper archaeological controls or verification procedures
in operation to authenticate the marks that were found when the
Construction Chambers were opened by Vyse.

2. By 1837, all chambers inside the Great Pyramid had been thoroughly
explored and no other inscriptions had been found. Only the 'air shafts'
remained unexplored, and they were almost completely inaccessible. So
there was little likelihood of a fraud ever being subsequently exposed by
new, contrary evidence.

3. Vyse, by his own admission, was running out of time and money and was
desperate to make a discovery.

4. The red ochre paint which was used in the ancient inscriptions was
still readily available in 1837.

So did he do it? Did Vyse commit the forgery? On the evidence of what's in
the Great Pyramid alone, we may never know for certain. But there are
several things, Martin, which should make you feel uncomfortable with your
oh-so-confident assertion that the names are authentic:

(i) No graffiti marks were found in the lowest chamber - the only one NOT
opened by Vyse.

(ii) Arguably, the term 'craftsman' found in the crew names does not
belong in the context of a work gang engaged in lifting heavy stones, but
rather to craftsmanship as in making statues, furniture or other
artifacts, as might be found in temples or tombs. This seems to support my
hypothesis that the marks were copied from one location to another, but
I'd love to hear what you think.

(iii) The graffiti includes a lot of very strange stuff which you do know
about, Martin, but which you don't like to talk about. Please allow me to
remind you:

* In Nelson's Chamber, northern side of western wall, the cartouche which
should follow 'the Craftsmens 'Crew' symbols is almost entirely missing.

* In Arbuthnot's Chamber, northern side of western wall, there is a
genuinely malformed cartouche, which has nothing to do with Khufu. How
odd.

* In Arbuthnot's Chamber, southern side of western wall, there is a
confusing jumble of hieroglyphs, seemingly a crew name based on Horus
Medjedu which appears to have been partly obliterated and then repainted.
Why?

* In Arbuthnot's Chamber, northern wall, there are no less than SIX
attempts to produce the Khnum-kuefui cartouche, only ONE of which has been
properly completed. Mighty strange.

* In Arbuthnot's Chamber, southern wall, there are 2 fragmentary attempts
at the Horus Medjeru name, plus sundry other marks of uncertain character.
How peculiar.

Even if we leave to one side the whole battery of evidence that the Great
Pyramid dates centuries earlier than Khufu, the above facts must at the
very least cast considerable doubt on the authenticity of the
inscriptions.

All I can hope to do with this evidence is to demonstrate that the
orthodox argument for the authenticity of the inscriptions is by no means
a watertight case. Considerable doubt exists and should be acknowledged.

I would add that few people realise just to what extent the orthodox case
hangs on these Vyse inscriptions. I believe that I have demonstrated this
point amply in my book 'The Phoenix Solution'.

As you can see Martin, your abuse and threats don't worry me in the
slightest. The facts speak for themselves.

As for Hancock's statement, Martin, don't make me laugh! You have no
evidence, just hearsay, and some very vague hearsay at that. I suggest you
try and get some good photos because you're really going to need them. I
tell you what - if you manage to get you and me, both, a double written
invitation from Hawass to go up into the Construction Chambers, equipped
with proper lighting, I'll pay for your return flight to Egypt. How about
that for an 'honest attempt to discover the truth'?

Have a nice weekend ;-)

Alan F. Alford
Author 'The Phoenix Solution'
http://www.eridu.co.uk

Martin Stower

unread,

Sep 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/26/98

Alan Alford wrote:

> Hi Martin,
>
> Sounds like I've got you worried!

Read on, then.

> Thank you for confirming that all three names of Khufu - including the
> Horus Medjedu name - were inscribed together in an inscription in Sinai,
> and reproduced in 'Voyage de l'Arabie Petree' - published in 1832 - 5
> years BEFORE Vyse made his discovery.

FIVE names of Khufu, Alan. There were FIVE names there, but you recognised only
three of them - a perfect object lesson and illustration of my point. The other
two names were just incidental detail to you. Vyse in 1837 would be in the same
position vis-a-vis the Horus name. Having the things in front of you isn't
enough: you also need to RECOGNISE them.

> I mentioned this only because it backs up the point which I previously
> made - that Vyse could have copied ALL of the inscriptions from a location
> outside the Great Pyramid to the Construction Chambers inside the Pyramid.

Just like you could have copied the two names you didn't recognise.

> The Sinai inscriptions are relevant only as an example of how the names
> were often written together.

Names of different kings were often written together. See my other post.

> Your contention that no-one could read the Horus names in 1837 is
> irrelevant. It is my contention that Vyse copied what he saw, probably
> from the nearby quarries or the tombs of Khufu's kinsfolk, and I would
> suggest that he found the Horus-name written <without> the serekh.

So much more difficult then to correlate it with the Wadhi Maghara example. Just
matching the cursive forms with their hieroglyphic equivalents would be hard
enough.

How would he recognise it as one of the correct names to use? How would he
recognise it as a name at all? Picking out names from Egyptian texts is much
more difficult when (like most Egyptian names) they lack a distinguishing
surround. Your contention amounts to this: Vyse made a series of lucky guesses
and got them all right.

> Anyway, your note about Wilkinson is a little incomplete. Not only did he
> observe that the serekhs 'relate to the kings' but he included Khufu's
> serekh directly alongside the cartouche name for Khufu. He labelled them
> "1a/1b the name of Shufu or Suphis". This was in his 1837 book, published
> in the months BEFORE Vyse's 'discovery'.

Prat.

I'M talking about the original edition of 1837 - NOT the one Sitchin looked at,
which was the edition of 1878, FULLY FORTY-ONE YEARS after the first edition and
REVISED AND CORRECTED by none other than Samuel Birch.

The illustration from the original edition is reproduced at

http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/piccies/mac1.jpg

The illustration from the revised edition is reproduced at

http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/piccies/mac2.jpg

You'll see that in the ORIGINAL, the caption was as follows:

a, the name of Shofo, or Suphis.
5, 6, the name of Memphis; 7, 8, (Memphis, or) Ptah-ei, the abode of Ptah.

The caption in the REVISED AND CORRECTED EDITION - the one reproduced by Sitchin
- was (adjusted for space)

1. a, b, the name of Shufu, or Suphis. 2. Numba-khufu, or Chembes.
3. Asseskaf, or Shepeskaf. 4. Shafra, Khafra, or Kephren.
5, 6. The name of Memphis. 7, 8. (Memphis, or) Ptah-ei, the abode of Ptah.

You'll note that the information in the original was much more sparse. In
particular, there's NO indication that 1b was a name of Khufu - while 2, 3 and 4
are simply unidentified.

Here as elsewhere you adopt a tone of expertise on something you've NEVER looked
at - on the strength of Sitchin's reheated leftovers.

> As you well know, Wilkinson HAD made the connection in 1837 between the
> readings Khufu/Shufu and Suphis/Cheops. And it had long been suspected
> that Cheops was the king who had built the Great Pyramid - as related by
> Herodotus.

Rosellini made the connection, Alan. Wilkinson followed on. All the more
reason for a forger to stick to the Khufu cartouche - whereas in the chambers we
see one such cartouche only, but a profusion of Khnum-khufu cartouches and
several examples of the Horus name.

> So, IF Vyse saw Wilkinson's book - which you must admit as a probability
> (or even a 'possibility' will suffice) - he could hardly have failed to
> make the necessary connections from Cheops to the cartouches for
> Shufu/Khufu AND to the serekh-name (which we now know to read 'Hor
> Medjedu').

No I don't admit it as a probability. I doubt it was even a possibility.

You state with some confidence that Wilkinson's book was published `in the
months BEFORE' Vyse's discovery. Since it was published in 1837, the same year
as the discovery, the precise date of publication is crucial to your
contention. Doubtless you've verified that date - so, tell me, Alan, when
EXACTLY in 1837 was Wilkinson's `Manners and Customs' published?

(And answer came there none.)

That a book published in London in 1837 would inevitably be available in Cairo
within the same year is a dubious assumption.

> As for the Khnum-kuefui cartouche name, Wilkinson also reproduced this in
> his 1837 book, directly alongside the names of Shufu, labelling it
> '2.Numba-Khufu or Chembres'. So IF Vyse had seen this book, which I will
> presume he did, he would have been intrigued by the 'Khufu' connection
> between this name 'Numba-Khufu' and Shufu/Khufu/Cheops.

The caption you cite was added by Samuel Birch for an edition which appeared
FORTY-ONE YEARS AFTER the events we're discussing. Was Vyse blessed with
precognition? You know, Alan, that's a better theory than anything you've come
up with . . .

Collapse of your argument.

> Now we know that Vyse spent months at Giza and had his men copying
> inscriptions there. And we know from Birch and Wilkinson that these
> cartouche names and the serekh had already been found at Giza (for
> example, Wilkinson's plate of the names is captioned 'From the Tombs near
> the Pyramids'). So it does not take a huge leap of faith to suppose that
> Vyse had first-hand experience of ALL these names.

Only quite a large one.

> So, all we need is for Vyse to have found all three names together - in a
> quarry or a tomb

He did, Alan.

> - to make the logical connection that they were all
> related to the same king, Cheops, who was already supposed to have been
> the owner of the Pyramid.

A lucky find, a series of lucky guesses and everything going luckily to plan.
(I seem also to remember a lucky encounter with Cairene experts being mooted,
but that's no longer in evidence.)

> So, did Vyse forge the king's names? Let's just remind ourselves of a few
> salient facts:
>
> 1. There were no proper archaeological controls or verification procedures
> in operation to authenticate the marks that were found when the
> Construction Chambers were opened by Vyse.

Describe just one such control or procedure.

> 2. By 1837, all chambers inside the Great Pyramid had been thoroughly
> explored and no other inscriptions had been found. Only the 'air shafts'
> remained unexplored, and they were almost completely inaccessible. So
> there was little likelihood of a fraud ever being subsequently exposed by
> new, contrary evidence.

Yes, Alan, I know you try to spin-doctor your way round this, but the fact is
that Vyse himself was reaching parts of the pyramid that no other explorer had
reached, and he couldn't be sure what he'd find. Trot out your convoluted
workaround by all means; I could do with a good laugh.

> 3. Vyse, by his own admission, was running out of time and money and was
> desperate to make a discovery.

Source, Alan? We know it wasn't his manuscript journal, or even his book.

> 4. The red ochre paint which was used in the ancient inscriptions was
> still readily available in 1837.

Red ochre still available? Amazing! Perring mentioned the fact? Very
incriminating! Vyse too? Astonishing hubris!

> So did he do it? Did Vyse commit the forgery? On the evidence of what's in
> the Great Pyramid alone, we may never know for certain. But there are
> several things, Martin, which should make you feel uncomfortable with your
> oh-so-confident assertion that the names are authentic:
>
> (i) No graffiti marks were found in the lowest chamber - the only one NOT
> opened by Vyse.

Not true, according to Hawass:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/builders.html

> (ii) Arguably, the term 'craftsman' found in the crew names does not
> belong in the context of a work gang engaged in lifting heavy stones, but
> rather to craftsmanship as in making statues, furniture or other
> artifacts, as might be found in temples or tombs. This seems to support my
> hypothesis that the marks were copied from one location to another, but
> I'd love to hear what you think.

The Camden Lock theory of craftsmanship. This clown thinks a master mason or
master builder doesn't count as a master craftsman - an unwise assumption in
relation to the English word, let alone the Egyptian one. There's an excellent
article relevant to this topic by Chris Eyre: `Work and the Organisation of Work
in the Old Kingdom' (in Powell, M. A. [ed.] `Labor in the Ancient Near East').
Doubtless you'll consult it as carefully as you've consulted all the other works
I've recommended, i.e. not at all. Meanwhile, please feel free to detail your
extensive linguistic research on the extension of the term Hmt in Old Kingdom
Egyptian.

> (iii) The graffiti includes a lot of very strange stuff which you do know
> about, Martin, but which you don't like to talk about. Please allow me to
> remind you:

Oh, right, the damaged inscriptions again. Yeah, sure, Alan, I don't like to
talk about it. That's why I talked about it to you. That's why I posted the
following on sci.archaeology nearly two years ago:

On top of this, our forger would have to copy the inscriptions with
great accuracy: Sitchin's `clumsy' forger goes out of the window.
Our forger would also have to add several nice touches: painting
the crew-names on the limestone only; assigning different crew-names
to the north and south, consistent with ancient Egyptian practice
(see Ann Macy Roth, Egyptian Phyles in the Old Kingdom); painting
incomplete crew-names, just as if they'd been partially obliterated
during handling of the stones; painting _far_ more crew-names than
were strictly necessary to fulfill the forger's alleged agenda . . .

Recognise it, Alan? You should do. It's from my `Reply to Alford' of 17
January 1997. The post may be read at Deja News and here:

http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/replytoalford.html

Not only did I talk openly about the damaged inscriptions in a public forum, but
I talked about them TO YOU, months before you approached me by email for
information. All of which makes your current preening on supposedly tricking me
into a damaging admission look rather stupid, doesn't it, Alan? Not just a
sneak, but a stupid sneak as well.

Also apparent is that from the start I've presented a simple explanation for the
anomalies you're making so much of - an explanation which you've consistently
chosen to ignore: the marks were abraided and partially obliterated as the
chambers were being built. This was a BUILDING SITE. They were shifting and
placing multi-ton blocks - and you expect marks painted on those blocks to be
pristine?

You dunce!

So obviously is damage to the crew names a likelihood that if anything its
ABSENCE would be the suspicious thing. (Oops. Look out for the following in
Alanford's next book: the marks are TOO WELL preserved . . .)

> * In Nelson's Chamber, northern side of western wall, the cartouche which
> should follow 'the Craftsmens 'Crew' symbols is almost entirely missing.

Relative to the orientation of the script, the symbols follow the cartouche.
Can't you even get that right?

> * In Arbuthnot's Chamber, northern side of western wall, there is a
> genuinely malformed cartouche, which has nothing to do with Khufu. How
> odd.

My wording was as follows:

Now that cartouche - as rendered by Perring - is genuinely malformed
- but the corresponding sketch by Rowe, his `Cheops 36', lacks this
malformation; it's just one more partially damaged cartouche, of the
`Khnum-khufu' variety: same crewname as above.

Martin Stower

unread,

Sep 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/26/98

Supplementary to my other response:

Alan Alford wrote:

[. . .]

> Thank you for confirming that all three names of Khufu - including the

> Horus Medjedu name - were inscribed together in an inscription in Sinai,
> and reproduced in 'Voyage de l'Arabie Petree' - published in 1832 - 5
> years BEFORE Vyse made his discovery.
>
> I mentioned this only because it backs up the point which I previously
> made - that Vyse could have copied ALL of the inscriptions from a location
> outside the Great Pyramid to the Construction Chambers inside the Pyramid.
>
> The Sinai inscriptions are relevant only as an example of how the names
> were often written together.

So why the emphasis in the first paragraph above on WHEN the inscription was
published? To which you'd already devoted its own post? Availability of the
book to Vyse in 1837 clearly was an issue when you mooted the point. Now the
inscription (book unmentioned) is just `an example'.

Is it just me, or does this sound like someone who thought he had a knockdown
argument and is now retreating in disarray?

Frank Dörnenburg

unread,

Sep 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/26/98

Oh, wise Alan,

Can you please explain to a humble non-knowe like me, how forger Hill,
the hotelier, so dumb that he did not know the difference betwen "RE"
and "CH", could transform HIEROGLYPHIC names, even names not even
recognised as names then, PERFECTLY CORRECT into hieratic writing? And
explain, how this little dumbass could even know about the reversed
writing order in hieratic? And how he even knew about the correct
orientation of creature hieroglyphs in hieratic writings? And where he
got the knowlege from to resolve the horus name (not recognised as
name then) from a serech into a linear symbol chain? And that he not
only smeared some names into the chambers, but integrated them in
correct sentences like the working crew names? Ant how he was so
intelligent, only to write these names on Mokkatam-blocks and not on
other ones?
Please, Mr. I Know All, enlighten me by your word.

??
FD
Visit http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/FDoernenburg

Martin Stower

unread,

Sep 26, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/26/98

And how he knew to assign different crew names to north and south, consistent
with practice at other Old Kingdom sites?

Come on Frank, this one's dead easy! He didn't find the marks in THESE
chambers, but in some others, just like them! Then he used the Vyse-Hill
recursive copy algorithm. Obviously.

The evidence of erosion of the marks indicates that the erosion happened
somewhere else, to some other marks entirely! Clearly.

Martin Stower
Author 'The Linux Solution: Monolithic Kernels and Arguing with Nuts'
http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/

Frank Dörnenburg

unread,

Sep 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/27/98

On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 12:20:28 +0100, Martin Stower
<mst...@REMOVEnetcomuk.co.uk> wrote:

>Come on Frank, this one's dead easy! He didn't find the marks in THESE
>chambers, but in some others, just like them! Then he used the Vyse-Hill
>recursive copy algorithm. Obviously.

Stupid me, I must have thought of that. But then Alan the Enlighted
will surely be able to show us the other secret rooms, from where Hill
got his inspirations?????????????????

Bye,
FD
Visit http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/FDoernenburg

Martin Stower

unread,

Sep 27, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/27/98

Frank Dörnenburg wrote:
>
> On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 12:20:28 +0100, Martin Stower
> <mst...@REMOVEnetcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Come on Frank, this one's dead easy! He didn't find the marks in THESE
> >chambers, but in some others, just like them! Then he used the Vyse-Hill
> >recursive copy algorithm. Obviously.
>
> Stupid me, I must have thought of that. But then Alan the Enlighted
> will surely be able to show us the other secret rooms, from where Hill
> got his inspirations?????????????????

No, silly - Vyse scrubbed them clean with a scrubbing brush!

Faced with Alan's masterly research of secondary sources, we might just as well
give up on the crew names, Frank. We'll just have to rest our case on the
typical Old Kingdom mason's markings in the chambers - which he says are
genuine!

Martin Stower

unread,

Sep 28, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/28/98

Frank Dörnenburg wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 12:20:28 +0100, Martin Stower
> <mst...@REMOVEnetcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Come on Frank, this one's dead easy! He didn't find the marks in THESE
> >chambers, but in some others, just like them! Then he used the Vyse-Hill
> >recursive copy algorithm. Obviously.
>
> Stupid me, I must have thought of that. But then Alan the Enlighted
> will surely be able to show us the other secret rooms, from where Hill
> got his inspirations?????????????????

But then again, at the risk of getting serious, this is a good question.

Come on, Alan, be specific. Where do you think the most likely location is for
Vyse to have found these convenient names? It would have to be some piece of
architecture - crew names are found on blocks in buildings, but not in the
quarries - and large enough to warrant the presence of the three work crews
named. Where crew names are found in mastabas, it's just (correct me if I'm
wrong) the one crew per building. Only in the larger constructions - the
temples, or the pyramids themselves - would we expect to find multiple crews.
As indeed we do.

How about it, Alan? Care to specify a more likely location for the marks to be
than where they actually are?

Martin Stower

Alan Alford

unread,

Sep 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/29/98

In article <360C304F...@REMOVEnetcomuk.co.uk>, Martin Stower
<mst...@REMOVEnetcomuk.co.uk> wrote:

> FIVE names of Khufu, Alan. There were FIVE names there, but you
recognised only
> three of them - a perfect object lesson and illustration of my point.
The other
> two names were just incidental detail to you. Vyse in 1837 would be in
the same
> position vis-a-vis the Horus name. Having the things in front of you isn't
> enough: you also need to RECOGNISE them.
>

> > I mentioned this only because it backs up the point which I previously
> > made - that Vyse could have copied ALL of the inscriptions from a location
> > outside the Great Pyramid to the Construction Chambers inside the Pyramid.
>

> Just like you could have copied the two names you didn't recognise.
>

You're missing the point. I have suggested that Vyse copied what he saw,
not necessarily from a book.

Another point which you miss is that I am only trying to establish the
POSSIBILITY (or indeed probability) that there was a forgery. You expect
me to provide exact details of which books Vyse used, or which
inscriptions he copied from which temple or tomb. Of course I can't give
you such exact details - I wasn't there in 1837. And neither were you.

> > Your contention that no-one could read the Horus names in 1837 is
> > irrelevant. It is my contention that Vyse copied what he saw, probably
> > from the nearby quarries or the tombs of Khufu's kinsfolk, and I would
> > suggest that he found the Horus-name written <without> the serekh.
>
> So much more difficult then to correlate it with the Wadhi Maghara
example. Just
> matching the cursive forms with their hieroglyphic equivalents would be hard
> enough.
>
> How would he recognise it as one of the correct names to use? How would he
> recognise it as a name at all? Picking out names from Egyptian texts is much
> more difficult when (like most Egyptian names) they lack a distinguishing
> surround. Your contention amounts to this: Vyse made a series of lucky
guesses
> and got them all right.
>

I would say it was a well-informed guess, worth the risk.

> I'M talking about the original edition of 1837 - NOT the one Sitchin
looked at,
> which was the edition of 1878, FULLY FORTY-ONE YEARS after the first
edition and
> REVISED AND CORRECTED by none other than Samuel Birch.
>

> You'll see that in the ORIGINAL, the caption was as follows:
>
> a, the name of Shofo, or Suphis.
> 5, 6, the name of Memphis; 7, 8, (Memphis, or) Ptah-ei, the abode of Ptah.
>
> The caption in the REVISED AND CORRECTED EDITION - the one reproduced by
Sitchin
> - was (adjusted for space)
>
> 1. a, b, the name of Shufu, or Suphis. 2. Numba-khufu, or Chembes.
> 3. Asseskaf, or Shepeskaf. 4. Shafra, Khafra, or Kephren.
> 5, 6. The name of Memphis. 7, 8. (Memphis, or) Ptah-ei, the abode of Ptah.
>
> You'll note that the information in the original was much more sparse. In
> particular, there's NO indication that 1b was a name of Khufu - while 2,
3 and 4
> are simply unidentified.

OK, I withdraw my comment, which was an 'off the cuff' suggestion. As I
said earlier, it is impossible 161 years after the event to say exactly
what information was available to Vyse which gave him the confidence to
forge the names. Mind you, this level of uncertainty doesn't seem to stop
you from presuming that Vyse DIDN'T have the necessary sources of
information (e.g. you prefer to think that Wilkinson's 1837 book hadn't
reached Cairo by April-May, but you don't know one way or the other, and
you forget to allow for the lead time when a book is in draft form and at
the printers).

Perhaps you under-estimate Vyse's ability to correlate the books with
whatever inscriptions he personally found around the Giza plateau. The
Achilles-heel in your argument, Martin, is that you cannot refute the
possibility that Vyse did find an example of the Khufu cartouche alongside
the Khnum-kuefui cartouche.

If you presume that the masons would inscribe the Horus-name without the
serekh inside the Pyramid, then you cannot deny that the name was not
similarly inscribed outside the Pyramid.

> Rosellini made the connection, Alan. Wilkinson followed on. All the more
> reason for a forger to stick to the Khufu cartouche - whereas in the
chambers> we see one such cartouche only, but a profusion of Khnum-khufu
cartouches and
> several examples of the Horus name.
>

Hmm. Well perhaps you should try explaining it in terms of your theory
that the work-gang names were painted on the blocks to indicate which gang
had responsibility for which stone. Of the 24 roof blocks, there is only
this one gang-name referring to Khufu. But a stone has six faces, so we
ought to expect to see approximately four such names by the laws of
average - more if they painted them on more than one face (as you try to
suggest elsewhere). So where are these other gang names in Campbell's
Chamber? Or perhaps your theory is wrong.

> > So, IF Vyse saw Wilkinson's book - which you must admit as a probability
> > (or even a 'possibility' will suffice) - he could hardly have failed to
> > make the necessary connections from Cheops to the cartouches for
> > Shufu/Khufu AND to the serekh-name (which we now know to read 'Hor
> > Medjedu').
>
> No I don't admit it as a probability. I doubt it was even a possibility.
>

You 'doubt' it was even a possibility. In other words, you're not entirely
certain are you?

> > Now we know that Vyse spent months at Giza and had his men copying
> > inscriptions there. And we know from Birch and Wilkinson that these
> > cartouche names and the serekh had already been found at Giza (for
> > example, Wilkinson's plate of the names is captioned 'From the Tombs near
> > the Pyramids'). So it does not take a huge leap of faith to suppose that
> > Vyse had first-hand experience of ALL these names.
>
> Only quite a large one.
>

I disagree. I would say that Vyse almost certainly had first-hand
experience of all these names. The more relevant point, as you rightly
point out, is whether he was able to put 2-and-2 together to recognise
them as names of the king commonly known as Cheops. I suggest that he was
sufficiently informed to take this gamble.

> A lucky find, a series of lucky guesses and everything going luckily to plan.
> (I seem also to remember a lucky encounter with Cairene experts being mooted,
> but that's no longer in evidence.)

There's no luck about it. In my view, Vyse was determined to make a
discovery, specifically of the name of the builder. So it would not be a
matter of luck that he tracked down all relevant books and local
expertise.

>
> > (i) No graffiti marks were found in the lowest chamber - the only one NOT
> > opened by Vyse.
>
> Not true, according to Hawass:
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/builders.html
>

Hawass' statement is very vague, he says that all chambers contained
'typical graffiti'. He doesn't specifically say what can be found in the
lowest chamber. Care to enlighten us Martin?

> Also apparent is that from the start I've presented a simple explanation
for the
> anomalies you're making so much of - an explanation which you've consistently
> chosen to ignore: the marks were abraided and partially obliterated as the
> chambers were being built. This was a BUILDING SITE. They were shifting and
> placing multi-ton blocks - and you expect marks painted on those blocks to be
> pristine?

Ha ha ha! Excuse my mirth. I suggest readers take a look at the
inscriptions and judge for themselves (try:
www.rickrichards.com/Egypt.htm).

> > * In Arbuthnot's Chamber, southern side of western wall, there is a
> > confusing jumble of hieroglyphs, seemingly a crew name based on Horus
> > Medjedu which appears to have been partly obliterated and then repainted.
> > Why?
>
> Why indeed? Why would a forger do such a thing?
>

Because the 19th century forger made a mistake with an unfamiliar ancient
language. Why would an Egyptian scribe do such a thing with a language and
name which was familiar to him? Or put another way, who is more likely to
have made this mistake?

> > As for Hancock's statement, Martin, don't make me laugh! You have no
> > evidence, just hearsay, and some very vague hearsay at that.
>
> Really? I found his statement quite specific - and here, yet again, you
ignore
> what Hawass said, and you ignore what West said.
>

See my reply to your other post. Hancock, by the way, has always felt that
the Great Pyramid was built c. 2500 BC because of his mistaken presumption
that the shafts of the Pyramid were deliberately aligned to the stars at
that date. So he hasn't exactly reversed his preconceptions...

>
> I notice you haven't answered my three simple questions . . .

I would have done if they were relevant to the evidence. See my comments
on the other post.

Alan Alford

unread,

Sep 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/29/98

In article <360E794E...@REMOVEnetcomuk.co.uk>, Martin Stower
<mst...@REMOVEnetcomuk.co.uk> wrote:

> I will, however, comment on some of your points.
>
> On the Inventory Stela, you quote a `translation' (Sitchin's) which
>
> (1) covers only one of the texts on the stela;
> (2) garbles the grammar and strains the semantics to produce the spurious
> phrase `Mistress of The Western Mountain of Hathor'; and
> (3) gives `founded' where `found' should appear.
>
> - while bypassing a text which plainly refers to Khufu's building his own
> pyramid at Giza:
>
> Live the Horus: Medjedu, King of Upper and Lower Egypt: Khufu, who is given
> life. He found the house of Isis, Mistress of the Pyramid, beside the house
> of the Sphinx of [Hor-em-akhet] on the north-west of the House of Osiris,
> Lord of Rostau. He built his pyramid beside the temple of this goddess, and
> he built a pyramid for the king's-daughter Henutsen beside this temple.
> [following Breasted, `Ancient Records of Egypt']
>
Surely you're not suggesting that this was a reference to the Great
Pyramid! Excuse my mirth. It could be any pyramid! The wording suggests to
me two satellite pyramids, or two references to the same satellite
pyramid.

> > For example: why, according to a contemporary 4th Dynasty inscription,
> > was king Khufu building mastaba tombs for his bureaucrats in 'year 5' of
> > his reign, when he was supposedly engaged in the construction of a pyramid
> > of unprecedented size and complexity to ensure his own afterlife? (Highly
> > Probable Answer: the pyramid was already there and was adopted by Khufu.)
>
> Really.
>
> Alan, had you bothered to investigate the Debehen inscription BEYOND the small
> excerpt I gave you, you'd find - well, here's a good summary:
>
> The badly damaged text from the tomb of Debehni . . . preserves the most
> incidental detail concerning the royal provision of a private tomb.
> Mycerinus provided the tomb, or its site, on the approaches to his
> pyramid, among tombs of members of the royal family, for the sake of
> Debehni looking over the work done on the king's own tomb. Involved in
> the work were a royal master builder, two chief controllers of craftsmen,
> and a workforce. Fifty craftsmen (Hmw) are mentioned, working every day,
> by the royal command. . . . [from Eyre, C. J., `Work in the Old Kingdom'
> - in Powell, M. A. (ed.) `Labor in the Ancient Near East']
>
> (Note in passing that reference to craftsmen, Alan.)
>
Ahem. The reference to 'craftsmen' appears here with respect to a private
tomb, not to a giant pyramid. Just a slight difference methinks. A tomb
was a work of art, with paintings, statues and inscriptions. Whereas the
giant pyramids were huge built structures, with no artwork or
inscriptions.

> Is it really likely, Alan, that Khufu would court popularity by
proscribing the
> construction of private tombs for the entire duration of his pyramid project?
> Effectively denying his whole bureaucracy - from high officials (who WERE his
> relatives) downwards - THEIR stake in the afterlife? Do you think such
a boost
> to morale would obtain for Khufu's project `the highest degree of managerial
> control and co-ordination'? Do you really think the ancient Egyptians were
> that stupid? Your portrayal of Old Kingdom Egypt owes more to Hollywood than
> it does to the facts.
>
You seem to know very little about staff motivation. Have you ever had any
staff? I've managed 30 at one time, not on Khufu's scale, but I bet it's a
lot more than you. The best incentive to ensure support during the
construction of the Pyramid would have been for Khufu to promise his
supporters their mastabas AFTER the Pyramid was completed. Otherwise they
would have no incentive to see the project through to completion. We use
that kind of deferred-reward (or bonus) system in management today, and it
works very well. Cultures might change over thousands of years, but basic
human behaviour traits tend to remain the same IMHO.

You're going to have to come up with a much better argument than this,
Martin. You can squirm all you will, but the idea of Khufu diverting
resources to mastabas in 'year 5' of his reign simply doesn't gel with the
theory that he built the Great Pyramid himself. Before you respond, I
suggest you go and revise some facts and figures on the Great Pyramid,
including the estimates of how long it took to build. And check out the
length of Khufu's reign too.

> Alan has noticed that if, on a map of the pyramid field, a straight line is
> drawn connecting Seneferu's North Pyramid at Dahshur with Khufu's, and another
> connecting Seneferu's Bent Pyramid with Khafre's, the two lines will be
> parallel. He thinks that this can't be accidental, and that it implies
temporal
> priority of the large Giza pyramids.
>
> I checked this using a transparent ruler marked with longitudinal parallel
> lines; I found that the relationship is there, but, even on the scale of the
> map he used - the one in Lehner's `Complete Pyramids' - it's visibly
imperfect.
> Parallel lines passing dead centre through both pyramids at one site
won't pass
> dead centre through both at the other (although they will come close). Given
> the evidential burden being placed on this, I don't consider that good
enough.
> Mathematicians correct me if I'm wrong, but, as far as I can see, placement of
> the fourth pyramid is the only free variable here - the one that makes
or breaks
> the relationship, anyway.
>
> Take three points on a plane surface. Exclude the limiting case in which all
> three lie on a straight line. The following holds: three distinct straight
> lines will pass through two of the three points. For each of these lines, a
> parallel line will pass through the third point. We're asked to believe that
> it's a very remarkable thing if a fourth point happens to fall on (or
near) one
> of this second set of lines. Sorry, but I don't see it so. With so few data
> points involved I can't regard it as anything more than a mildly interesting
> coincidence.
>
But you miss the point (no pun intended) that the 4th point isn't a random
coincidence with the other three - the two Dahshur pyramids are staggered
some distance apart latudinally, but longitudinally they are neatly
aligned each side of a north-south axis running between them.(see p.53
'The Phoenix Solution', or see Lehner's 'The Complete Pyramids').

You also gloss over the colour co-ordination which ties each pair of
pyramids together. This also undermines your randomness scenario.

Thank you for at least acknowledging that 'the relationship is there',
even though you quibble about how accurate it is. But with 20 kms between
the two pyramid sites of Giza and Dahshur, it's not necessary to maintain
or demand extreme accuracy (my theory is that this was NOT carried out by
the same culture that aligned the Great Pyramid to an accuracy of within
4' of a degree off true north).

Your comment about 'mildly interesting coincidence' is just what I would
expect from someone who refuses to see what's there. Believing is seeing
isn't it Martin?

> But let's suppose you're right, Alan. Let's suppose that the relationship was
> deliberately contrived. Does temporal priority of the Giza pyramids follow?
> No. The relationship is strictly symmetrical. (This you discern but try to
> talk around.)
>
I maintain that it is intuitively obvious (though maybe not to folk here
on sci.arch who know which pyramids are SUPPOSED to have been built
first). The reason I say this is the tight grouping of the two Giza giants
on the Giza plateau, and the staggered positions of the two Dahshur
pyramids.

> Let's suppose nevertheless that the Giza reference points were established
> first. Does temporal priority of the Giza pyramids follow? No. We
could have
> a neo-Bauvalian scenario in which the whole arrangement is a master plan of
> Seneferu, or the Giza sites were marked in some other way.
>
Now THAT'S what I call a desperate and contrived argument! Remember that
there is hard archaeological evidence of Giza being important as early as
the 1st Dynasty, whereas there is no evidence (as yet) for the importance
of Dahshur prior to the 4th Dynasty.

> As for the supposed colour coding: insofar as it exists at all - and we're
> talking here about minor variations in the colour of Tura limestone - that
> relationship also is strictly symmetrical.
>
Well it impressed Petrie sufficiently for him to comment on it. Do you
question the word of this eminent Egyptologist?

> In summary: Alford's argument from `alignment' and `colour coding' to temporal
> priority of the Giza pyramids reduces to a series of non sequiturs.
>
On the contrary, the argument is solid as a rock, and you will need to try
again to introduce a non-sequitur. Try coming up with some facts rather
than resorting to imaginative fantasies.

The fact of the matter is that this alignment is yet another piece of
evidence which undermines your theory that Khufu built the Great Pyramid.

> > It's got nothing to do with 'special pleading'. If you look at the
> > inscriptions, some of them - the vertical marks, are clearly masons' marks
> > which were NECESSARY for the construction.
>
> You mean the typical Old Kingdom mason's marks? The lines and triangles? The
> ones parallelled at so many other Old Kingdom sites - such as, the Menkaure
> temple, the Sun Temple of Neuserre and the Unfinished Pyramid at Zawiyet el
> Aryan? The ones whose placement reveals use of the royal cubit? The ones
> accompanied in some cases by the cubit sign and Egyptian numerals?
>
You mean the same royal cubit as found in the construction of the Pyramid
itself! It is a corollary of my pyramid adoption theory that the Egyptians
would also adopt the same standard of measure found in the Pyramid, and
yes possibly even the same kind of mason's markings if they found those
written down somewhere. So it's no suprise to find a match in marks
between dynastic pyramids and a pre-dynastic Great Pyramid.

My hypothesis is that the Egyptians drew upon an earlier pyramid-building
culture - hence the radiocarbon datings at Giza, hence the unique
design/accuracy of the Great Pyramid, hence the weathering of the Sphinx,
hence the remarkably plausible scenario of exploded planets in the
Egyptian sacred texts and mythology. Do you suppose that this earlier
culture didn't bother with mason's markings (the lines and triangles)? Can
you categorically rule out the possibility that the later Egyptians were
using exactly the same kind of mason's markings as the earlier culture?

> But I'm puzzled, Alan. I can find stuff in your book about radiocarbon dating
> of the Khufu boat, but I can't find anything about these marks in the
boat pit -
> despite my telling you about them so long ago. Now why is that? Are we to
> suppose that Vyse spirited himself into the pit, floated over the timbers and
> painted the cartouche of Djedefre on the beams?
>
> > These are NOT Egyptian hieroglyphs.
>
> The cubit signs? The Egyptian numerals?
>
> > It is a mistake to confuse them with the hieroglyphs (including Khufu's
> ? names) which you say were painted on as workers' GRAFFITI.
>
> No, I don't say they were painted as workers' graffiti. That's your
error - one
> I corrected you on as long ago as 2 June 1997:
>
> http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/alfordcorrespondence.html
>
> Despite which, the same thing turns up in `The Phoenix Solution'.
>
OK, OK, no big deal. Hawass calls them 'graffiti'. You should know - it's
in the website reference which YOU posted.

There is some difference of opinion whether the boat was ever used or not,
so I wonder what was this boat doing between 3400 BC and the date Khufu
supposedly built the Great Pyramid. My adoption hypothesis would suggest
that Khufu ordered the boat pit to be opened up when he died, so that a
ritual could be performed on the boat to facilitate his ascension into the
Sky-Duat. Afterwards, the job would have fallen to his successor Djedefre
to seal up the boat pit. This would explain why we find the cartouche of
Djedefre on the roofing beams.

> > What has Hancock's opinion got to do with anything? How is this a 'further
> > indication' of authenticity? Hancock is a pratt - see his latest nonsense
> > about Angkor and Draco.
>
> The full text of Hancock's position statement is at
>
> http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/hancockps.html
>
> - but for present purposes, the relevant paragraph is this one:
>
> (3) As John West kindly reported in his open letter to Stower I have
> changed my views on the validity of the forgery theory. The relieving
> chambers are strictly off limits to the public and are extremely difficult
> to gain access to. I had been unable to obtain permission to visit them
> prior to the publication of Keeper/Message in 1996. However, in December
> 1997, Dr Zahi Hawass allowed me to spend an entire day exploring these
> chambers. There were no restrictions on where I looked and I had ample
> time to examine the hieroglyphs closely, under powerful lights. Cracks
> in some of the joints reveal hieroglyphs set far back into the masonry.
> No 'forger' could possibly have reached in there after the blocks had
> been set in place - blocks, I should add, that weigh tens of tons each
> and that are immovably interlinked with one another. The only reasonable
> conclusion is the one which orthodox Egyptologists have already long held
> - namely that the hieroglyphs are genuine Old Kingdom graffiti and that
> they were daubed on the blocks before construction began.
>
> Are you saying Hancock is lying about this, Alan? Are you saying he
can't tell
> a hieroglyph from a straight line?
>
What I am saying is that Hancock's judgement is certainly not to be
trusted. This is the man who is still convinced that the Sphinx was built
in 10500 BC. And I don't question Hancock with a lazy 'ad hominem' - I've
backed up my viewpoint with a detailed critique of his latest Angkor Wat
theory, which is, quite frankly, laughable.

Hancock and West are people who see what they want to see - for example,
they look at the Sphinx and they see the body of a lion, because a lion
fits their 'age of Leo' 10500 BC theory. But in reality the body of the
Sphinx is nothing like a lion, and lions were a dualistic concept in
ancient Egypt (but there's only one Sphinx). Do these guys think for
themselves? Or do they just nod when Egyptologists point to the Sphinx and
say 'there's a lion', and did they just nod when Hawass said 'look inside
the cracks, that's a hieroglyph'?

> PLEASE NOTE that this merely corroborates the prior remarks of Zahi
Hawass. As
> I mentioned in the text you ignored, Hawass's statement has been at
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/builders.html
>
It's a short statement and a vague one.
>
> > The marks which you refer to are presumably some kind of masons' marks,
> > which are partially visible inside a joint. But we WOULD expect to find
> > such masons' marks on the hidden faces of the stones. So what's the big
> > deal here?
>
> Presumably, Alan? Don't you KNOW?
>
> And if mason's marks could be visible inside a joint, why not hieroglyphs?
>
Well this is really a mutual exchange of ignorance because clearly we're
both guessing as to what's actually there. But note how vague is Hancock's
reference to 'hieroglyphs'. Does he tell us which hieroglyphs exactly? And
if he doesn't, can he really be sure exactly what the marks in the cracks
really are? Where does Hawass tell us which hieroglyphs are there? If they
can't read the marks, how can they see that they are 'hieroglyphs'? This
is all terribly vague and second-hand Martin - if you wish to pursue this
point you'll need to nail down some specifics.

Alan Alford

Martin Stower

unread,

Sep 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/29/98

Alan Alford wrote:

> In article <360E794E...@REMOVEnetcomuk.co.uk>, Martin Stower
> <mst...@REMOVEnetcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > I will, however, comment on some of your points.
> >
> > On the Inventory Stela, you quote a `translation' (Sitchin's) which
> >
> > (1) covers only one of the texts on the stela;
> > (2) garbles the grammar and strains the semantics to produce the spurious
> > phrase `Mistress of The Western Mountain of Hathor'; and
> > (3) gives `founded' where `found' should appear.
> >
> > - while bypassing a text which plainly refers to Khufu's building his own
> > pyramid at Giza:
> >
> > Live the Horus: Medjedu, King of Upper and Lower Egypt: Khufu, who is given
> > life. He found the house of Isis, Mistress of the Pyramid, beside the house
> > of the Sphinx of [Hor-em-akhet] on the north-west of the House of Osiris,
> > Lord of Rostau. He built his pyramid beside the temple of this goddess, and
> > he built a pyramid for the king's-daughter Henutsen beside this temple.
> > [following Breasted, `Ancient Records of Egypt']
> >
> Surely you're not suggesting that this was a reference to the Great
> Pyramid! Excuse my mirth. It could be any pyramid!

If so, why not the Great Pyramid, Alan? Try at least to be coherent.

You've claimed (following Sitchin) that the Stela LACKS any statement about
Khufu building the Great Pyramid. `The Phoenix Solution', p. 95:

This leads me to the single most significant aspect of the Inventory Stela
which has generally been overlooked in the heat of the argument. I am
referring to the conspicuous lack of any claim that Khufu actually built
the Great Pyramid. The Stela, written by priests of the cult of Khufu,
carefully recounts the good deeds of the king, including his renovation of
the Sphinx and the Temple of Isis, and his construction of a pyramid for
the Princess Henutsen (one of his wives) `beside the temple of the
goddess'. But why does it not list the construction of the Great Pyramid?
The likely bias in the inscription only adds to the mystery. It is the
omissions and not the contents of the Inventory Stela which are important.

Is that so? Interesting then that the Great Pyramid is so conspicuously absent
from the Stela's list of pre-existing structures:

http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/hancockis1.html

Conspicuously absent also is any mention in your book of a source (such as
Breasted) which gives this text - and reading the above paragraph, we can see
the result. You hadn't even read it, had you? You certainly didn't deign to
share it with your readers.

Which pyramid was known as Khufu's Horizon, Alan? Which pyramid do you think an
Egyptian reading that text would assume it referred to?

Was Khufu so committed to equality that he'd settle for a pyramid no bigger than
those of his queens? Despite size being an index of status in Old Kingdom art
and architecture otherwise?

You've made the STRONG claim - in evident ignorance of the text - that the Stela
LACKS a reference to Khufu's building the Great Pyramid. It's up to YOU to
prove that what I've quoted ISN'T such a reference.

Give up on this, Alan. You have nothing useful to say about the Inventory
Stela.

> The wording suggests to me two satellite pyramids, or two references to the
> same satellite pyramid.

No marks for comprehension, then.

> > > For example: why, according to a contemporary 4th Dynasty inscription,
> > > was king Khufu building mastaba tombs for his bureaucrats in 'year 5' of
> > > his reign, when he was supposedly engaged in the construction of a pyramid
> > > of unprecedented size and complexity to ensure his own afterlife? (Highly
> > > Probable Answer: the pyramid was already there and was adopted by Khufu.)
> >
> > Really.
> >
> > Alan, had you bothered to investigate the Debehen inscription BEYOND the small
> > excerpt I gave you, you'd find - well, here's a good summary:
> >
> > The badly damaged text from the tomb of Debehni . . . preserves the most
> > incidental detail concerning the royal provision of a private tomb.
> > Mycerinus provided the tomb, or its site, on the approaches to his
> > pyramid, among tombs of members of the royal family, for the sake of
> > Debehni looking over the work done on the king's own tomb. Involved in
> > the work were a royal master builder, two chief controllers of craftsmen,
> > and a workforce. Fifty craftsmen (Hmw) are mentioned, working every day,
> > by the royal command. . . . [from Eyre, C. J., `Work in the Old Kingdom'
> > - in Powell, M. A. (ed.) `Labor in the Ancient Near East']
> >
> > (Note in passing that reference to craftsmen, Alan.)
> >
> Ahem. The reference to 'craftsmen' appears here with respect to a private
> tomb, not to a giant pyramid. Just a slight difference methinks. A tomb
> was a work of art, with paintings, statues and inscriptions. Whereas the
> giant pyramids were huge built structures, with no artwork or
> inscriptions.

And no other classes of workers mentioned. You really haven't studied this,
have you? Prove me wrong, Alan. Show me that you've looked in detail into who
did and who didn't count as a craftsman in ancient Egypt. Show me where the
extension of the term Hmt terminated.

> > Is it really likely, Alan, that Khufu would court popularity by
> proscribing the
> > construction of private tombs for the entire duration of his pyramid project?
> > Effectively denying his whole bureaucracy - from high officials (who WERE his
> > relatives) downwards - THEIR stake in the afterlife? Do you think such
> a boost
> > to morale would obtain for Khufu's project `the highest degree of managerial
> > control and co-ordination'? Do you really think the ancient Egyptians were
> > that stupid? Your portrayal of Old Kingdom Egypt owes more to Hollywood than
> > it does to the facts.
> >
> You seem to know very little about staff motivation. Have you ever had any
> staff? I've managed 30 at one time, not on Khufu's scale, but I bet it's a
> lot more than you. The best incentive to ensure support during the
> construction of the Pyramid would have been for Khufu to promise his
> supporters their mastabas AFTER the Pyramid was completed. Otherwise they
> would have no incentive to see the project through to completion. We use
> that kind of deferred-reward (or bonus) system in management today, and it
> works very well. Cultures might change over thousands of years, but basic
> human behaviour traits tend to remain the same IMHO.

Don't tell me, Alan. You introduced a scheme to defer payment of wages until
retirement - and that's when you decided that writing books was more in you
line.

> You're going to have to come up with a much better argument than this,
> Martin.

Better than citing specific, documentary evidence of Old Kingdom practice?

> You can squirm all you will, but the idea of Khufu diverting
> resources to mastabas in 'year 5' of his reign simply doesn't gel with the
> theory that he built the Great Pyramid himself.

Mere reassertion of discredited contention.

Doubtless your experience in accountancy, Alan, frees you of any requirement to
consider documentary evidence - such as the Debehen inscription - of how IN FACT
the Old Kingdom Egyptians did things. You've certainly ignored it here.

> Before you respond, I suggest you go and revise some facts and figures on
> the Great Pyramid, including the estimates of how long it took to build.
> And check out the length of Khufu's reign too.

Try addressing my points in full, Alan, and I'll give some attention to yours.

[. . .]

> > Take three points on a plane surface. Exclude the limiting case in which all
> > three lie on a straight line. The following holds: three distinct straight
> > lines will pass through two of the three points. For each of these lines, a
> > parallel line will pass through the third point. We're asked to believe that
> > it's a very remarkable thing if a fourth point happens to fall on (or
> near) one
> > of this second set of lines. Sorry, but I don't see it so. With so few data
> > points involved I can't regard it as anything more than a mildly interesting
> > coincidence.
> >
> But you miss the point (no pun intended) that the 4th point isn't a random
> coincidence with the other three - the two Dahshur pyramids are staggered
> some distance apart latudinally, but longitudinally they are neatly
> aligned each side of a north-south axis running between them.(see p.53
> 'The Phoenix Solution', or see Lehner's 'The Complete Pyramids').

So?

Placement of the pyramids wasn't random, anyway. There are good practical
reasons for them clustering together. I noticed also that there's a similar
relationship between the Giza pyramids and those of Djoser and Sekhemkhet. The
fit's not quite as good, but the one you're making so much of isn't perfect
either. Does it mean anything? I doubt it.

> You also gloss over the colour co-ordination which ties each pair of
> pyramids together. This also undermines your randomness scenario.
>
> Thank you for at least acknowledging that 'the relationship is there',
> even though you quibble about how accurate it is. But with 20 kms between
> the two pyramid sites of Giza and Dahshur, it's not necessary to maintain
> or demand extreme accuracy (my theory is that this was NOT carried out by
> the same culture that aligned the Great Pyramid to an accuracy of within
> 4' of a degree off true north).

The better the surveyors of the Great Pyramid, the more readily they could pull
off the (supposed) alignment with Dashhur. What you're doing, Alan, is
artificially excluding alternative explanations which don't support your
interpretation.

> Your comment about 'mildly interesting coincidence' is just what I would
> expect from someone who refuses to see what's there. Believing is seeing
> isn't it Martin?

I've shown at some length that I've seen what's there. I've also demonstrated
that your argument from what's there to temporal priority of the Giza pyramids
is a series of non-sequiturs - a point of logic, Alan, which you refuse to see.

[. . .]

> > In summary: Alford's argument from `alignment' and `colour coding' to temporal
> > priority of the Giza pyramids reduces to a series of non sequiturs.
> >
> On the contrary, the argument is solid as a rock, and you will need to try
> again to introduce a non-sequitur. Try coming up with some facts rather
> than resorting to imaginative fantasies.

On the contrary, Alan, you've just shown that you can't follow a simple
demonstration of a logical point.

> The fact of the matter is that this alignment is yet another piece of
> evidence which undermines your theory that Khufu built the Great Pyramid.

Mere reassertion of refuted contention.

> > > It's got nothing to do with 'special pleading'. If you look at the
> > > inscriptions, some of them - the vertical marks, are clearly masons' marks
> > > which were NECESSARY for the construction.
> >
> > You mean the typical Old Kingdom mason's marks? The lines and triangles? The
> > ones parallelled at so many other Old Kingdom sites - such as, the Menkaure
> > temple, the Sun Temple of Neuserre and the Unfinished Pyramid at Zawiyet el
> > Aryan? The ones whose placement reveals use of the royal cubit? The ones
> > accompanied in some cases by the cubit sign and Egyptian numerals?
> >
> You mean the same royal cubit as found in the construction of the Pyramid
> itself! It is a corollary of my pyramid adoption theory that the Egyptians
> would also adopt the same standard of measure found in the Pyramid, and
> yes possibly even the same kind of mason's markings if they found those
> written down somewhere. So it's no suprise to find a match in marks
> between dynastic pyramids and a pre-dynastic Great Pyramid.

Cubit signs and Egyptian numerals ignored. Likewise the remainder of Alford's
waffle on the topic.

[. . .]

> There is some difference of opinion whether the boat was ever used or not,
> so I wonder what was this boat doing between 3400 BC and the date Khufu
> supposedly built the Great Pyramid. My adoption hypothesis would suggest
> that Khufu ordered the boat pit to be opened up when he died, so that a
> ritual could be performed on the boat to facilitate his ascension into the
> Sky-Duat. Afterwards, the job would have fallen to his successor Djedefre
> to seal up the boat pit. This would explain why we find the cartouche of
> Djedefre on the roofing beams.

This from Alan Alford, who tut-tutted just a few paragraphs back about
`resorting to imaginative fantasies'. Doubtless he'll be telling us next
how this conforms to the requirements of Occam's Razor.

[mere handwaving about Hancock and Hawass omitted]

Martin Stower
http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/

Frank Dörnenburg

unread,

Sep 29, 1998, 3:00:00 AM9/29/98

Oh, dear wise Allan!

Please answer your humble follower from Germany just the few simple
questions you try to ignore:

I would be pleased if you could answer just ONE of these questions!

Visit http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/FDoernenburg

Martin Stower

unread,

Oct 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/1/98

Alan Alford wrote:

[. . .]

> You're missing the point. I have suggested that Vyse copied what he saw,

> not necessarily from a book.

Copying what he saw would nine times out of ten give the wrong result.

> Another point which you miss is that I am only trying to establish the
> POSSIBILITY (or indeed probability) that there was a forgery. You expect
> me to provide exact details of which books Vyse used, or which
> inscriptions he copied from which temple or tomb. Of course I can't give
> you such exact details - I wasn't there in 1837. And neither were you.

And I'm not claiming forgery. It's up to you to identify a likely source - to
establish even the POSSIBILITY of forgery. I can point to where I think the
inscriptions were found. Can you?

[. . .]

> I would say it was a well-informed guess, worth the risk.

An entirely unnecessary risk. All he'd need was the Khufu cartouche.

[re Wilkinson's `Manners and Customs']

> OK, I withdraw my comment, which was an 'off the cuff' suggestion. As I
> said earlier, it is impossible 161 years after the event to say exactly
> what information was available to Vyse which gave him the confidence to
> forge the names. Mind you, this level of uncertainty doesn't seem to stop
> you from presuming that Vyse DIDN'T have the necessary sources of
> information (e.g. you prefer to think that Wilkinson's 1837 book hadn't
> reached Cairo by April-May, but you don't know one way or the other, and
> you forget to allow for the lead time when a book is in draft form and at
> the printers).

I doubt you're allowing for the likely delay between the book being published in
London and it reaching Vyse in Egypt, even in the optimum case.

With nothing more than the year of publication to go on, the odds are about 7 to
5 against the book even being published before Vyse's final discoveries in the
chambers. We need also to allow time for the book to reach Vyse. Even in the
optimum case, that could take a month, making the odds about 2 to 1 against the
book reaching him in time - and that's putting the allowable date of arrival as
late as possible. The odds against Vyse receiving the book by the date of the
first discovery (March 30) are nearer 5 to 1.

You're suggesting that Vyse saw Wilkinson's draft? How? He'd been away from
England since late 1835 at least. Someone would have to have sent him copies -
rather more difficult then than now. You think Vyse had a spy at John Murray?
Sorry, Alan, I know it's a carping, petty demand, but you'll need some serious
historical evidence to lift this scenario out of the realms of bad fiction.

Even if Wilkinson himself wrote to Vyse (and there's not the least evidence that
he did) it wouldn't help much. As I've already said, a forger relying on
Wilkinson's opinion wouldn't have used the Khnum-khufu cartouche.

> Perhaps you under-estimate Vyse's ability to correlate the books with
> whatever inscriptions he personally found around the Giza plateau. The
> Achilles-heel in your argument, Martin, is that you cannot refute the
> possibility that Vyse did find an example of the Khufu cartouche alongside
> the Khnum-kuefui cartouche.

Here we go again.

Names of DIFFERENT pharaohs were often found together.

It remained controversial well into this century whether or not both of these
cartouche names belonged to Khufu - and that's among people with extensive
knowledge of the relevant evidence.

> If you presume that the masons would inscribe the Horus-name without the
> serekh inside the Pyramid, then you cannot deny that the name was not
> similarly inscribed outside the Pyramid.

I haven't. I'm questioning the likelihood of Vyse recognising it.

Birch had several examples of the name Hor Medjedu to look at, including a clear
rendition by Hill, but still didn't recognise it. It's clear from his remarks
that he had difficulty with some of the cursive signs making up the name. He
recognised one of the following signs (the priest) but misidentified the falcon
sign as a swallow (fatal to recognising the Horus name, even if he'd known there
was such a thing) and had nothing at all to say about the cursive mDd (the major
component of Medjedu). This stuff can be difficult even now. It was more so in
1837.

There's nothing at all to suggest that Vyse was ahead of Birch and plenty to
suggest the opposite. His journal sketches - including the unpublished ones -
are those of someone new to hieroglyphs.

> > Rosellini made the connection, Alan. Wilkinson followed on. All the more
> > reason for a forger to stick to the Khufu cartouche - whereas in the
> chambers> we see one such cartouche only, but a profusion of Khnum-khufu
> cartouches and
> > several examples of the Horus name.
>
> Hmm. Well perhaps you should try explaining it in terms of your theory
> that the work-gang names were painted on the blocks to indicate which gang
> had responsibility for which stone. Of the 24 roof blocks, there is only
> this one gang-name referring to Khufu. But a stone has six faces, so we
> ought to expect to see approximately four such names by the laws of
> average - more if they painted them on more than one face (as you try to
> suggest elsewhere). So where are these other gang names in Campbell's
> Chamber? Or perhaps your theory is wrong.

Or perhaps there are so many unknowns here that it's futile to even attempt such
calculations. Futile also to predetermine on purely a priori grounds what
should be there - as you keep trying to do.

Some comments on the above:

(1) These are beams, not cubes.
(2) They're longer than the part visible in the chamber. If they form a true
cantilever system, they're about twice as long.
(3) The ends of the beams being relatively small and awkward, we can safely
exclude them from the calculation.
(4) What we must include is the lower half of each beam.
(5) For present purposes, we may make the simplifying assumption that there are
eight distinct areas on each beam on which a crew name might appear.
(6) There is (as I've outlined) an unquantified probability also that some of
the marks were obliterated during construction.
(7) Setting aside (6) for now, we'd expect by chance to see three crew names
on the beams (1/8 x 24).
(8) On the beam adjacent to that with the Khufu cartouche on it, we see the
same symbols that follow the cartouche repeated (while the cartouche
itself is lost beyond the joint).

With two crew names (or one-and-a-half, if you insist) I don't think we're doing
too badly. Of course if the placement of the crew names wasn't random, but
biased towards one end of the beam, the probabilities are up in the air anyway.
There's certainly nothing conspicuously improbable about what we see.

> > > So, IF Vyse saw Wilkinson's book - which you must admit as a probability
> > > (or even a 'possibility' will suffice) - he could hardly have failed to
> > > make the necessary connections from Cheops to the cartouches for
> > > Shufu/Khufu AND to the serekh-name (which we now know to read 'Hor
> > > Medjedu').
> >
> > No I don't admit it as a probability. I doubt it was even a possibility.
> >
> You 'doubt' it was even a possibility. In other words, you're not entirely
> certain are you?

As you know (or should know, Alan) the title page gives only the year of
publication. When books were advertised in advance, the exact date was given,
but I couldn't find such an advertisement for `Manners and Customs' in The Times
or The Athenaeum. The earliest review I found was in The Athenaeum, No. 532,
dated January 6, 1838. That to me suggests publication in late 1837, but I
can't be certain as yet. It's on the agenda.

> > > Now we know that Vyse spent months at Giza and had his men copying
> > > inscriptions there. And we know from Birch and Wilkinson that these
> > > cartouche names and the serekh had already been found at Giza (for
> > > example, Wilkinson's plate of the names is captioned 'From the Tombs near
> > > the Pyramids'). So it does not take a huge leap of faith to suppose that
> > > Vyse had first-hand experience of ALL these names.
> >
> > Only quite a large one.
>
> I disagree. I would say that Vyse almost certainly had first-hand
> experience of all these names. The more relevant point, as you rightly
> point out, is whether he was able to put 2-and-2 together to recognise
> them as names of the king commonly known as Cheops. I suggest that he was
> sufficiently informed to take this gamble.

Surmise upon surmise.

Why take a gamble at all? The Khufu cartouche alone would do the job.

What your theory posits, Alan, is someone very, VERY astute. Someone up there
with Rosellini and Wilkinson and Birch and the rest - and even ahead of them on
some points.

The trouble is, this hypothetical figure bears no resemblance whatsoever to the
historical Vyse. That's the Vyse I'm dealing with. I suggest you start doing
the same.

> > A lucky find, a series of lucky guesses and everything going luckily to plan.
> > (I seem also to remember a lucky encounter with Cairene experts being mooted,
> > but that's no longer in evidence.)
>
> There's no luck about it. In my view, Vyse was determined to make a
> discovery, specifically of the name of the builder. So it would not be a
> matter of luck that he tracked down all relevant books and local
> expertise.

Surmise upon surmise.

NAME these local experts.

> > > (i) No graffiti marks were found in the lowest chamber - the only one NOT
> > > opened by Vyse.
> >
> > Not true, according to Hawass:
> >
> > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/builders.html
> >
> Hawass' statement is very vague, he says that all chambers contained
> 'typical graffiti'. He doesn't specifically say what can be found in the
> lowest chamber. Care to enlighten us Martin?

Vague though it is, it puts a big question mark over your assertion, doesn't it?
Since Hawass has been up there and you haven't, I'm inclined to give more weight
to what he says. If you want the specifics, ask him. (I suspect, however, that
we'll all have to wait for his publication.)

> > Also apparent is that from the start I've presented a simple explanation
> for the
> > anomalies you're making so much of - an explanation which you've consistently
> > chosen to ignore: the marks were abraided and partially obliterated as the
> > chambers were being built. This was a BUILDING SITE. They were shifting and
> > placing multi-ton blocks - and you expect marks painted on those blocks to be
> > pristine?
>
> Ha ha ha! Excuse my mirth.

Look at the marks from other sites, Alan. You'll bust a gut.

> I suggest readers take a look at the
> inscriptions and judge for themselves (try:
> www.rickrichards.com/Egypt.htm).

Gifs of photocopies of lithographs of drawings of the inscriptions? That's
looking at the inscriptions, Alan? (You'd learn more by at least looking at
the lithographs directly - in Vyse's book.)

Well, there's no accounting for taste - except perhaps Alan's, whose motivation
for not seeing the obvious is all too obvious. It looks to me as if contiguous
areas of some of the inscriptions have been erased - as if by abrasion of that
part of the surface - but by all means make up your own minds.

What Alan's point is escapes me, since he claims that erosion in some other
unspecified place could have such effects. What erosional agency would have
such a patchy effect, other than the one I've posited, escapes me.

What kind of paint do you think this was, Alan? Tar-based? It was more like
poster paint than anything else - the kind of thing that would easily rub off.

I'll put it to you as a question: do you seriously expect such marks to be
pristine?

Alan Alford

unread,

Oct 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/2/98

In article <3612BDA0...@REMOVEnetcomuk.co.uk>, Martin Stower
<mst...@REMOVEnetcomuk.co.uk> wrote:

> Copying what he saw would nine times out of ten give the wrong result.
>

Eh? Have you been playing with your red crayons again?

> > Another point which you miss is that I am only trying to establish the
> > POSSIBILITY (or indeed probability) that there was a forgery. You expect
> > me to provide exact details of which books Vyse used, or which
> > inscriptions he copied from which temple or tomb. Of course I can't give
> > you such exact details - I wasn't there in 1837. And neither were you.
>
> And I'm not claiming forgery. It's up to you to identify a likely source - to
> establish even the POSSIBILITY of forgery. I can point to where I think the
> inscriptions were found. Can you?
>

The essence of our two theories is such that this is bound to be the case.
But experts such as Birch confirmed that the names were also found
outside, in the vicinity of the Pyramid, and we know that Vyse was engaged
in copying such inscriptions. That's good enough to raise the POSSIBILITY
of a forgery. And that's all I'm trying to do. I'm not trying to prove it
on the basis of the Vyse inscriptions. The 'proof' comes from an
accumulation of OTHER EVIDENCE which you prefer to dismiss on trivial
grounds or no grounds whatsoever.

> > If you presume that the masons would inscribe the Horus-name without the
> > serekh inside the Pyramid, then you cannot deny that the name was not
> > similarly inscribed outside the Pyramid.
>
> I haven't. I'm questioning the likelihood of Vyse recognising it.
> Birch had several examples of the name Hor Medjedu to look at, including
a clear
> rendition by Hill, but still didn't recognise it. It's clear from his remarks
> that he had difficulty with some of the cursive signs making up the name. He
> recognised one of the following signs (the priest) but misidentified the
falcon
> sign as a swallow (fatal to recognising the Horus name, even if he'd
known there
> was such a thing) and had nothing at all to say about the cursive mDd
(the major
> component of Medjedu). This stuff can be difficult even now. It was
more so in
> 1837.

> What your theory posits, Alan, is someone very, VERY astute. Someone up there
> with Rosellini and Wilkinson and Birch and the rest - and even ahead of
them on
> some points.
> The trouble is, this hypothetical figure bears no resemblance whatsoever
to the
> historical Vyse. That's the Vyse I'm dealing with. I suggest you start doing
> the same.
>

Our discussion has been interesting, and has established some boundaries
to possibilities, but it has gone well beyond what I wrote in 'The Phoenix
Solution', where I did NOT suggest that Vyse was a genius, or that he
recognised the meaning of what he was copying. What I suggested in the
book was that Vyse set out with the plan to cover the chambers in sundry
inscriptions, in order to prepare the way for a subsequent insertion of a
royal cartouche. So perhaps he picked up the Horus-name at that time
without knowing what it was.

I admit it was unnecessarily bold to then forge both the Khufu and
Khnum-Khufu cartouches. One would have sufficed. But who is to say what
went through Vyse's mind? I still find the forgery scenario 'possible',
and it is the OTHER EVIDENCE which leads me to consider it 'most likely'.

If you want to persuade me of your theory, give me chapter-and-verse on
how the POSITIONING of the king's names in the Construction Chambers
followed established Old Kingdom procedure. Then I might take your
proposition more seriously. This is the second time I've asked you, I
presume you're working on it...

> > > > (i) No graffiti marks were found in the lowest chamber - the only
one NOT
> > > > opened by Vyse.
> > >
> > > Not true, according to Hawass:
> > >
> > > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pyramid/explore/builders.html
> > >
> > Hawass' statement is very vague, he says that all chambers contained
> > 'typical graffiti'. He doesn't specifically say what can be found in the
> > lowest chamber. Care to enlighten us Martin?
>
> Vague though it is, it puts a big question mark over your assertion,
doesn't it?

Perhaps that's why he's said it. It seems odd that no-one ever mentioned
it before. Sounds like Hawass deliberately went looking for it... and it's
funny how people tend to 'find' things when they look hard enough.
Hancock's latest stuff on Angkor 10500 BC is a case in point.

Does it strike you as odd that BOTH Hawass and Hancock are now making such
VAGUE statements concerning 'graffiti' and 'hieroglyphs' in the Great
Pyramid - things that have strangely never cropped up before, despite this
debate being so high profile these last five years? Presumably you've
heard the rumours about what's going on with these two...

Alan Alford

unread,

Oct 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/2/98

In article <361141D5...@REMOVEnetcomuk.co.uk>, Martin Stower
<mst...@REMOVEnetcomuk.co.uk> wrote:

> You've claimed (following Sitchin) that the Stela LACKS any statement about
> Khufu building the Great Pyramid. `The Phoenix Solution', p. 95:
>
> This leads me to the single most significant aspect of the Inventory Stela
> which has generally been overlooked in the heat of the argument. I am
> referring to the conspicuous lack of any claim that Khufu actually built
> the Great Pyramid. The Stela, written by priests of the cult of Khufu,
> carefully recounts the good deeds of the king, including his renovation of
> the Sphinx and the Temple of Isis, and his construction of a pyramid for
> the Princess Henutsen (one of his wives) `beside the temple of the
> goddess'. But why does it not list the construction of the Great Pyramid?
> The likely bias in the inscription only adds to the mystery. It is the
> omissions and not the contents of the Inventory Stela which are
important.
>
> Is that so? Interesting then that the Great Pyramid is so conspicuously
absent
> from the Stela's list of pre-existing structures:
>
> http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/hancockis1.html
>

> You've made the STRONG claim - in evident ignorance of the text - that
the Stela
> LACKS a reference to Khufu's building the Great Pyramid. It's up to YOU to
> prove that what I've quoted ISN'T such a reference.
>
> Give up on this, Alan. You have nothing useful to say about the Inventory
> Stela.

When you plead for me to 'give up on something' it usually betrays your
concern that I might be onto something ;-)

I've checked out your website:

http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/hancockis1.html

You claim that 'the description "beside the temple of this goddess [Isis]"
fits the geographical position of the Great Pyramid perfectly', and
thereby argue that the Inventory Stela describes Khufu building the Great
Pyramid.

Where is 'the temple of this goddess [Isis]'? You state that it is the
temple adjoining one of the Great Pyramid's satellite pyramids, namely the
southernmost pyramid of Henutsen. You state that:

'The pyramid of Henutsen is uniquely related to the Isis temple, in that
the cult chapel of the pyramid is part of that temple.'

Your reading of the Inventory Stela suggests that Khufu built two pyramids
beside this temple.

You fail to inform your readers that the temple dates to the 21st Dynasty.
I quote from Edwards 'The Pyramids of Egypt' p.115:

'The third [satellite] pyramid was ascribed in later times to Queen
Henutsen... By the XXIst Dynasty she had been identified with the goddess
Isis and had been given the name Isis-Mistress-of-the-Pyramid. AT THAT
TIME ALSO the small chapel adjoining the pyramid was enlarged in order to
provide a suitable sanctuary for the goddess.'(emphasis added)

So, in other words, at the time of Khufu, all that existed on this spot
was a small chapel built alongside the satellite pyramid. There was no
'Isis temple'. It is an anachronism.

But ignoring this oversight on your part, how might we explain these two
references to Khufu building a pyramid? Read on...

> Was Khufu so committed to equality that he'd settle for a pyramid no
bigger than
> those of his queens? Despite size being an index of status in Old Kingdom art
> and architecture otherwise?
>

You miss the point of my thesis. The evidence suggests that the Great
Pyramid was already there.

If the Great Pyramid was already there, the reference in the Inventory
Stela to 'Khufu built his pyramid' would probably relate to the original
single satellite pyramid at the Great Pyramid's south-eastern corner - the
one discovered by Hawass in 1993.(PS Don't knock the size of it - it would
have had great symbolic meaning.)

Geographically, this pyramid and Queen Henutsen's pyramid were both
'beside' the Isis Temple, allowing for the anachronism. The description in
the inscription fits the two satellite pyramids perfectly.

As for the Great Pyramid's two other satellite pyramids, their origin is a
mystery. There's no definite evidence that Khufu built them.

So, try reading the text again:

'Live the Horus: Medjedu, King of Upper and Lower Egypt: Khufu, who is given

life. He found the house of Isis, Mistress of the Pyramid, beside the house
of the Sphinx of [Hor-em-akhet] on the north-west of the House of Osiris,

Lord of Rostau. He built his [corner satellite] pyramid beside the temple
of this goddess [anachronism], and he built a [satellite] pyramid for the
king's-daughter Henutsen beside this temple [anachronism].'

You're welcome to your interpretation that this text describes the
building of the Great Pyramid, but can you name one real Egyptologist who
agrees with you? In the absence of a response, I'll assume there isn't
one.

Seeing as the Inventory Stela 'does indicate that certain structures
existed at Giza before Khufu' (your words from your website, Khufu's
repair of the Sphinx being a case in point), I'm surprised that you don't
just sweep the Inventory Stela under the carpet as an unreliable and
biased source, as the Egyptologists do. You try to use the parts of the
Stela you like and ignore the parts you don't like, but you can't have it
both ways Martin.

With all of the evidence now stacking up in favour of a pre-4th dynasty
origin for the Great Pyramid, I challenge you to crawl out of your
microhabitat in the 'Construction Chambers', and list the evidence that
Khufu really did build the Great Pyramid. Here, I'll fill in the first one
for you:

1. Khufu's names appear in the Construction Chambers.

2. ...

Now, what else have you got? The word of Herodotus perhaps?

Alan Alford

unread,

Oct 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/2/98

In article <361141D5...@REMOVEnetcomuk.co.uk>, Martin Stower
<mst...@REMOVEnetcomuk.co.uk> wrote:

> Alan Alford wrote:
>
> > You seem to know very little about staff motivation. Have you ever had any
> > staff? I've managed 30 at one time, not on Khufu's scale, but I bet it's a
> > lot more than you. The best incentive to ensure support during the
> > construction of the Pyramid would have been for Khufu to promise his
> > supporters their mastabas AFTER the Pyramid was completed. Otherwise they
> > would have no incentive to see the project through to completion. We use
> > that kind of deferred-reward (or bonus) system in management today, and it
> > works very well. Cultures might change over thousands of years, but basic
> > human behaviour traits tend to remain the same IMHO.
>
> Don't tell me, Alan. You introduced a scheme to defer payment of wages until
> retirement - and that's when you decided that writing books was more in you
> line.
>

A very amusing way to avoid the point.

I'll assume then that you have no experience of staff management. And yet,
on the basis of your inexperience, you make some glib comment about Khufu
courting popularity by diverting resources from the building of his own
pyramid to the mastabas of his officials in year 5 of his reign. And then
you have the cheek to claim, based on this inane response, that my theory
is suddenly a 'discredited contention'. Perhaps you should apply to Tony
Blair to take on Peter Mandelssohn's old job!

Bottom line is that the idea of Khufu diverting resources to mastabas in

'year 5' of his reign simply doesn't gel with the theory that he built the

Great Pyramid himself. But it does support the other evidence that he
adopted a Pyramid that was already standing from a time before the 4th
Dynasty.

> > > Take three points on a plane surface. Exclude the limiting case in
which all
> > > three lie on a straight line. The following holds: three distinct
straight
> > > lines will pass through two of the three points. For each of these
lines, a
> > > parallel line will pass through the third point. We're asked to
believe that
> > > it's a very remarkable thing if a fourth point happens to fall on (or
> > near) one
> > > of this second set of lines. Sorry, but I don't see it so. With so
few data
> > > points involved I can't regard it as anything more than a mildly
interesting
> > > coincidence.
> > >
> > But you miss the point (no pun intended) that the 4th point isn't a random
> > coincidence with the other three - the two Dahshur pyramids are staggered
> > some distance apart latudinally, but longitudinally they are neatly
> > aligned each side of a north-south axis running between them.(see p.53
> > 'The Phoenix Solution', or see Lehner's 'The Complete Pyramids').
>
> So?
>

Is that your most intelligent effort, Martin? You make a lame attack, I
then put you right, and you say 'So?'

Right, I won't waste my breath anymore. People can see on p.53 of 'The
Phoenix Solution' exactly what's made you so evasive. Sorry Martin, but
it's a fatal blow to your theory, and I suspect that you know it. See more
below.

> Placement of the pyramids wasn't random, anyway. There are good practical
> reasons for them clustering together. I noticed also that there's a similar
> relationship between the Giza pyramids and those of Djoser and
Sekhemkhet. The
> fit's not quite as good, but the one you're making so much of isn't perfect
> either. Does it mean anything? I doubt it.
>

There's no comparison in the quality of the match-up:

1. The two Dahshur pyramids are a co-ordinated pair, built by a single
king (unlike the 3rd Dynasty pyramids you mention).

2. The two Dahshur pyramids each have casing stones colour-matched to the
Giza giants. The 3rd Dynasty pyramids have no such colour co-ordination.

3. The aligment of the Dahshur pyramids is very accurate. The 3rd Dynasty
pyramids are much closer to Giza, but do not have the same accuracy of
alignment.

4. The two Dahshur pyramids are staggered some distance apart latudinally,

but longitudinally they are neatly aligned each side of a north-south axis

running between them. Not so for the 3rd Dynasty pyramids...

5. A really obvious one this - the Dahshur pyramids are true smooth-sided
pyramids (supposedly the first such examples, you know my views on
Meidum). As are those at Giza. The 3rd Dynasty pyramids are step pyramids
- hardly modelled on the Giza giants.

6. The Dahshur pyramids stand 72% of the height of the Great Pyramid, and
are located geographically at an angle of 72 degrees from the Giza
pyramids; '72' was an important symbolic number to the Egyptians - e.g. in
the myth of the murder of Osiris. No such relationship exists with the 3rd
Dynasty pyramids.

It really hurts for you to admit that I've made an important discovery
here doesn't it Martin?

Alan Alford

Aron

unread,

Oct 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/2/98

>1. The two Dahshur pyramids are a co-ordinated pair, built by a single
>king (unlike the 3rd Dynasty pyramids you mention).
>
>2. The two Dahshur pyramids each have casing stones colour-matched to the
>Giza giants. The 3rd Dynasty pyramids have no such colour co-ordination.
>
>3. The aligment of the Dahshur pyramids is very accurate. The 3rd Dynasty
>pyramids are much closer to Giza, but do not have the same accuracy of
>alignment.
>
>4. The two Dahshur pyramids are staggered some distance apart latudinally,
>but longitudinally they are neatly aligned each side of a north-south axis
>running between them. Not so for the 3rd Dynasty pyramids...
>
>5. A really obvious one this - the Dahshur pyramids are true smooth-sided
>pyramids (supposedly the first such examples, you know my views on
>Meidum). As are those at Giza. The 3rd Dynasty pyramids are step pyramids
>- hardly modelled on the Giza giants.
>
>6. The Dahshur pyramids stand 72% of the height of the Great Pyramid, and
>are located geographically at an angle of 72 degrees from the Giza
>pyramids; '72' was an important symbolic number to the Egyptians - e.g. in
>the myth of the murder of Osiris. No such relationship exists with the 3rd
>Dynasty pyramids.

But the main point, Alan, is what does this all prove? Ok, let's say that
Khufu didn't build the GP (which I feel I could agree with) and that someone
else built it. What does the above six points actually prove to you? What do
the positions and alignments tell you? That someone scientific built it? So
what? If you don't know who, or why, or when? Then there's really no point
saying you have made a discovery until you know the full picture, and
because of that you really rushed to publish one semi-nonsense book full of
loony theories and then a second book that went to other extreme without
really proving anything.

I suggest you find a middle ground, Alan. You were kind of getting there,
then you went somewhere else. You completely missed the full picture and to
be honest with you, you are too late to do any better as my book will come
out soon and it will be too late for you to find that ground as you'll still
be arguing about pyramid graffiti.

Regards, Aron

Martin Stower

unread,

Oct 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/3/98

Alan Alford wrote:

[. . .]

> > Is that so? Interesting then that the Great Pyramid is so conspicuously

> > absent from the Stela's list of pre-existing structures:
> >
> > http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/hancockis1.html
> >
> > You've made the STRONG claim - in evident ignorance of the text - that
> > the Stela LACKS a reference to Khufu's building the Great Pyramid. It's
> > up to YOU to prove that what I've quoted ISN'T such a reference.
> >
> > Give up on this, Alan. You have nothing useful to say about the Inventory
> > Stela.
>
> When you plead for me to 'give up on something' it usually betrays your
> concern that I might be onto something ;-)

I see you're imitating Sitchin's trick of imputing a tone entirely absent from
the original text.

> I've checked out your website:
>
> http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/hancockis1.html
>
> You claim that 'the description "beside the temple of this goddess [Isis]"
> fits the geographical position of the Great Pyramid perfectly', and
> thereby argue that the Inventory Stela describes Khufu building the Great
> Pyramid.

Wrong. I argue that on several counts - the main one being that in a text
reading `he [i.e. Khufu] built his pyramid', the referent of `his pyramid' would
be obvious to an Egyptian reader without further elaboration.

> Where is 'the temple of this goddess [Isis]'? You state that it is the
> temple adjoining one of the Great Pyramid's satellite pyramids, namely the
> southernmost pyramid of Henutsen.

If you know of another Isis temple at Giza, Alan, I'm sure we'd all like to know
about it.

> You state that:
>
> 'The pyramid of Henutsen is uniquely related to the Isis temple, in that
> the cult chapel of the pyramid is part of that temple.'
>
> Your reading of the Inventory Stela suggests that Khufu built two pyramids
> beside this temple.

The presence of two `built-he pyramid' statements suggests it.

> You fail to inform your readers that the temple dates to the 21st Dynasty.

My wording was carefully chosen:

Setting aside questions about the palaeography, date, origin and reliability
of the Inventory Stela, let's just consider what it says, taken as a self-
consistent narrative.

The usual tack taken with the Stela is to emphasise the late date which may be
assigned to it on stylistic and other grounds. I've taken a different
approach. I've bracketed questions about its date to concentrate on what it
SAYS, taken as a self-consistent narrative - a story which would make sense to
an Egyptian reader. What I've shown is that it doesn't say what Sitchin claims
it says. I'm perfectly aware of the criteria by which the Inventory Stela and
the Isis temple where it was found are assigned a late date.

> I quote from Edwards 'The Pyramids of Egypt' p.115:
>
> 'The third [satellite] pyramid was ascribed in later times to Queen
> Henutsen... By the XXIst Dynasty she had been identified with the goddess
> Isis and had been given the name Isis-Mistress-of-the-Pyramid. AT THAT
> TIME ALSO the small chapel adjoining the pyramid was enlarged in order to
> provide a suitable sanctuary for the goddess.'(emphasis added)
>
> So, in other words, at the time of Khufu, all that existed on this spot
> was a small chapel built alongside the satellite pyramid. There was no
> 'Isis temple'. It is an anachronism.

Alford gets something right. A grateful world rejoices.

> But ignoring this oversight on your part, how might we explain these two
> references to Khufu building a pyramid? Read on...

No oversight, Alan - as my wording clearly indicates.

[mere waffle omitted]

> You're welcome to your interpretation that this text describes the
> building of the Great Pyramid, but can you name one real Egyptologist who
> agrees with you? In the absence of a response, I'll assume there isn't
> one.

Gardiner comments on this sentence:

. . . He built his pyramid beside the temple of this goddess, and he built
a pyramid for the king's daughter Henutsen (Hnwt-sn) beside this temple.

- with this footnote:

According to this statement, the little Isis-temple east of the Great
Pyramid was standing on the Gizeh plateau before any of the pyramids
were built! . . .

That he saw in the phrase a reference to the Great Pyramid is implicit.

Petrie commented to similar effect in `A History of Egypt':

. . . Also, it is implied that there were temples of Osiris and Isis here
before Khufu, which is very improbable, as there is no sign of earlier
remains at Gizeh before Khufu selected this site of open hill-desert, . . .

Now, Alan, more to the point, name an Egyptologist who DISAGREES.

> Seeing as the Inventory Stela 'does indicate that certain structures
> existed at Giza before Khufu' (your words from your website, Khufu's
> repair of the Sphinx being a case in point), I'm surprised that you don't
> just sweep the Inventory Stela under the carpet as an unreliable and
> biased source, as the Egyptologists do. You try to use the parts of the
> Stela you like and ignore the parts you don't like, but you can't have it
> both ways Martin.

My point flew well over your head, Alan. Concentrating on the date all too
often leaves claims about the CONTENT of the Stela unchallenged. I took a
different approach: establish the content first, then worry about the date.

Add the date back in and we see that the WHOLE POINT of the Stela is to
associate the Isis temple with Khufu and his Great Pyramid.

> With all of the evidence now stacking up in favour of a pre-4th dynasty
> origin for the Great Pyramid, I challenge you to crawl out of your
> microhabitat in the 'Construction Chambers',

Doubtless this dismissiveness explains your abject failure to consult a single
primary source on the topic.

> and list the evidence that
> Khufu really did build the Great Pyramid. Here, I'll fill in the first one
> for you:
>
> 1. Khufu's names appear in the Construction Chambers.
>
> 2. ...
>
> Now, what else have you got? The word of Herodotus perhaps?

Why not, Alan? He was right about Menkaure. What's your problem with
Herodotus, Alan? The tradition he reports is entirely consistent with the
numerous occurrences at Giza of the pyramid names `Khufu's Horizon', `Khafre is
Great' and `Menkaure is Divine'. His informants told him what they themselves
would naturally infer from reading the various inscriptions at Giza.

For late sources, we have also Manetho and Diodorus.

Let's play another game, Alan. Let's see you even put a name to the builder of
the Great Pyramid. Let's see you produce evidence of a society sophisticated
and organised enough even to be a candidate for having done the job. Let's
consider some of the characteristics the culture responsible for the Great
Pyramid must have had:

(1) It built pyramids.
(2) It used the royal cubit.
(3) It used a system of mason's marks exactly like that of the Old Kingdom.
(4) It used core-and-casing construction.
(5) It was able to transport stone from distant locations (Aswan, Tura) to
Giza.
(6) It was able to work granite.
(7) In working granite it used (among other things) tubular drilling.
(8) It left semicircular lifting/handling bosses on granite components.
(9) It didn't use the arch, but did use pent roofs and corbelling.

Need I go on? I can point to a candidate culture displaying all of these
characteristics. Can you?

Martin Stower
http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/

Martin Stower

unread,

Oct 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/3/98

Alan Alford wrote:

> In article <3612BDA0...@REMOVEnetcomuk.co.uk>, Martin Stower
> <mst...@REMOVEnetcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Copying what he saw would nine times out of ten give the wrong result.
> >
> Eh? Have you been playing with your red crayons again?

No. I've been acquainting myself with the relevant evidence. Try it.

The relevant evidence in this case is how pharaonic names typically appear at
Giza.

> The essence of our two theories is such that this is bound to be the case.
> But experts such as Birch confirmed that the names were also found
> outside, in the vicinity of the Pyramid, and we know that Vyse was engaged
> in copying such inscriptions.

Names of Khufu occur many times at Giza, in the tombs of his family, officials
and priests - usually as `Khufu', more rarely `Khnum-khufu'. They appear in
titles. They appear as components of pyramid names. They appear as components
of estate names. They appear as components of personal names. Names of other
pharaohs - Khafre, Menkaure, Shepseskaf and others - occur in the same way. The
result is that names of DIFFERENT pharaohs often appear together - creating a
minefield of potential mistakes for anyone attempting to assign names to a
single pharaoh on the basis of proximity alone. (How many times have I
explained this now?)

A concrete example: Vyse copied one inscription containing the cartouche names
`Khufu' and `Shepseskaf' in close proximity - he recorded this in his manuscript
journal and reported it in his book - but we DON'T find the cartouche of
Shepseskaf in the pyramid. Take another look at that illustration from
Wilkinson's `Manners and Customs', Alan. You'll find that the cartouche of
Shepseskaf was UNASSIGNED in 1837 - so it could (for all Vyse knew) have been a
second cartouche name of Khufu. (Most pharaohs had two completely different
cartouche names.) Col. `Lucky' Vyse once again avoided the pitfall.

These are all HIEROGLYPHIC inscriptions. Moving to the cursive script we find
in the pyramid crew names is a far from trivial step (as I've also explained,
more times than I care to remember). You know, Alan, it's not even clear that
anyone could read the mDd hieroglyph in 1837, let alone pick out the cursive
form. Consider Wilkinson's failure to provide any phonetic reading. Consider
Birch's silence on the cursive form.

Cursive forms of the kind your scenario requires are harder to find and harder
to read - and that's NOW, never mind in 1837. They're notoriously fragile: it's
only when they've been covered and protected in some way that they've survived
at all. Sealed chambers and undressed stone surfaces are just the kinds of
places we'd have some realistic hope of finding them.

> That's good enough to raise the POSSIBILITY of a forgery.

Serious consideration reveals its extreme improbability.

> And that's all I'm trying to do. I'm not trying to prove it on the basis of
> the Vyse inscriptions.

You mean you've stopped?

> The 'proof' comes from an accumulation of OTHER EVIDENCE which you prefer
> to dismiss on trivial grounds or no grounds whatsoever.

No, the `proof' comes from your INTERPRETATION of the evidence - your THEORY.

[. . .]

> Our discussion has been interesting, and has established some boundaries
> to possibilities, but it has gone well beyond what I wrote in 'The Phoenix
> Solution', where I did NOT suggest that Vyse was a genius, or that he
> recognised the meaning of what he was copying. What I suggested in the
> book was that Vyse set out with the plan to cover the chambers in sundry
> inscriptions, in order to prepare the way for a subsequent insertion of a
> royal cartouche. So perhaps he picked up the Horus-name at that time
> without knowing what it was.

Oh, so it WAS a lucky guess. So why did you claim otherwise?

Suggesting that Vyse achieved this without linguistic understanding puts this
firmly in the realms of fantasy.

> I admit it was unnecessarily bold to then forge both the Khufu and
> Khnum-Khufu cartouches. One would have sufficed. But who is to say what
> went through Vyse's mind?

Failure to consult a single primary source hasn't stopped you doing so.

> I still find the forgery scenario 'possible', and it is the OTHER EVIDENCE
> which leads me to consider it 'most likely'.
>
> If you want to persuade me of your theory, give me chapter-and-verse on
> how the POSITIONING of the king's names in the Construction Chambers
> followed established Old Kingdom procedure.

You want spoonfeeding? I've given you enough hints already:

http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/alfordcorrespondence.html

Since you cite Ann Macy Roth's `Egyptian Phyles in the Old Kingdom' (p. 433,
note 9), you're doubtless familiar with what she says about this question. I'm
sure we'd all like to read your chapter-and-verse commentary.

> Then I might take your proposition more seriously.

You misunderstand the position, Alan. The quesion is, should any of us take you
the least bit seriously.

> This is the second time I've asked you, I presume you're working on it...

The second time you've asked me what, Alan? You haven't asked any specific
question above.

[. . .]

> Perhaps that's why he's said it. It seems odd that no-one ever mentioned
> it before. Sounds like Hawass deliberately went looking for it... and it's
> funny how people tend to 'find' things when they look hard enough.
> Hancock's latest stuff on Angkor 10500 BC is a case in point.

Looking is a good way of finding things. Try it. Vyse's book is a good place
to start.

> Does it strike you as odd that BOTH Hawass and Hancock are now making such
> VAGUE statements concerning 'graffiti' and 'hieroglyphs' in the Great
> Pyramid - things that have strangely never cropped up before, despite this
> debate being so high profile these last five years? Presumably you've
> heard the rumours about what's going on with these two...

The marks never cropped up until 1993? Funny. I thought it was 1837.

Statements about the marks are what we'd expect from the debate. The only odd
thing is your finding it odd.

> Alan Alford

Martin Stower
http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/

EAdams8221

unread,

Oct 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/4/98

In article <36115aba...@news.nacamar.de>, fdoe...@ruhrgebiet.net (Frank
Dörnenburg) writes:

He might do if you were a little less patronising.

HTH

- Eric
---------
"Be wary of any book with no references and no index."
"Friedman's law is that progress comes from doing things differently in an
unpredictable way."
- Both by Stanton Friedman.

Martin Stower

unread,

Oct 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/4/98

Alan Alford wrote:

[. . .]

> > Don't tell me, Alan. You introduced a scheme to defer payment of wages until

> > retirement - and that's when you decided that writing books was more in you
> > line.
>
> A very amusing way to avoid the point.

No, Alan, a jocular way of making a point. Deferment of reward can be pushed
too far.

> I'll assume then that you have no experience of staff management.

Assume, Alan? Don't you know.

What you surely do know is that it doesn't take much investigation of management
theory to find a dissenter such as Deming roundly debunking the nostrums you
were expounding. That management styles and cultures differ. That different
industries and different social and cultural contexts produce different
management cultures. That `motivating' senior management, senior civil
servants, ministers of state - the kind of people whose near equivalents had
tombs at Giza - differs and differs necessarily from `motivating' a staff of
office dogsbodies.

As for inexperience, Alan, I'll just have to take what small comfort I can from
those occasions when people with practical experience of large-scale civil
engineering projects have agreed with things I've said.

Besides which, I'm relying not on general principles but on existing
inscriptional evidence of actual Old Kingdom practice.

> And yet, on the basis of your inexperience, you make some glib comment
> about Khufu courting popularity by diverting resources from the building
> of his own pyramid to the mastabas of his officials in year 5 of his reign.

No, Alan. On the basis of documentary evidence of Old Kingdom practice - your
ignorance of which is all too evident in your own glib comments and which you
choose to ignore even now.

[further trivia omitted]

> Bottom line is that the idea of Khufu diverting resources to mastabas in
> 'year 5' of his reign simply doesn't gel with the theory that he built the
> Great Pyramid himself. But it does support the other evidence that he
> adopted a Pyramid that was already standing from a time before the 4th
> Dynasty.

Contrary documentary evidence ignored. Second reassertion of discredited
contention.

[. . .]

> > > But you miss the point (no pun intended) that the 4th point isn't a random

> > > coincidence with the other three - the two Dahshur pyramids are staggered

> > > some distance apart latudinally, but longitudinally they are neatly

> > > aligned each side of a north-south axis running between them.(see p.53
> > > 'The Phoenix Solution', or see Lehner's 'The Complete Pyramids').
> >
> > So?
>
> Is that your most intelligent effort, Martin? You make a lame attack, I
> then put you right, and you say 'So?'

You'll find, Alan, that when no clear point has been made at all, asking for
clarification is an intelligent response.

> Right, I won't waste my breath anymore.

Please don't.

> People can see on p.53 of 'The Phoenix Solution' exactly what's made you
> so evasive.

No, Alan. I commented in detail on your proposal. Nothing evasive there.

What is evasive is your failure to answer my three simple questions:

(1) Why didn't you consult Vyse's book?

(2) Why are you still relying on Sitchin for information?

(3) Why didn't you trace the diary?

Remember them? You've put so much effort into avoiding them that you must,
indeed, be quite out of breath.

> Sorry Martin, but it's a fatal blow to your theory, and I suspect that you
> know it.

Alford leaves orbit and heads for outer space.

> See more below.
>
> > Placement of the pyramids wasn't random, anyway. There are good practical
> > reasons for them clustering together. I noticed also that there's a similar
> > relationship between the Giza pyramids and those of Djoser and
> > Sekhemkhet. The
> > fit's not quite as good, but the one you're making so much of isn't perfect
> > either. Does it mean anything? I doubt it.
>
> There's no comparison in the quality of the match-up:

. . . he says before comparing them.

> 1. The two Dahshur pyramids are a co-ordinated pair, built by a single
> king (unlike the 3rd Dynasty pyramids you mention).

But they are 3rd Dynasty pyramids, probably of successive monarchs. It's not
like I'm mixing the 3rd and 5th-Dynasty pyramids at Saqqara.

> 2. The two Dahshur pyramids each have casing stones colour-matched to the
> Giza giants. The 3rd Dynasty pyramids have no such colour co-ordination.

How d'you know, Alan? Sekhemkket's being unfinished? I'd like in any case to
see this colour difference specified more exactly.

> 3. The aligment of the Dahshur pyramids is very accurate. The 3rd Dynasty
> pyramids are much closer to Giza, but do not have the same accuracy of
> alignment.

How accurate, Alan? Care to put a figure on it?

> 4. The two Dahshur pyramids are staggered some distance apart latudinally,
> but longitudinally they are neatly aligned each side of a north-south axis
> running between them. Not so for the 3rd Dynasty pyramids...

This, however, is not the relationship in question.

> 5. A really obvious one this - the Dahshur pyramids are true smooth-sided
> pyramids (supposedly the first such examples, you know my views on
> Meidum). As are those at Giza. The 3rd Dynasty pyramids are step pyramids
> - hardly modelled on the Giza giants.

Er, yes, Alan. Mayhap you have missed another point.

> 6. The Dahshur pyramids stand 72% of the height of the Great Pyramid, and
> are located geographically at an angle of 72 degrees from the Giza
> pyramids; '72' was an important symbolic number to the Egyptians - e.g. in
> the myth of the murder of Osiris. No such relationship exists with the 3rd
> Dynasty pyramids.

Now we come to something more substantial.

Lehner gives the height of both Dahshur pyramids as 105 m. Stadelmann gives
104-105 m for Dahshur South.

If you want the height explaining, Alan, it might be worth noting that it
approximates closely to 200 royal cubits - which nice round number makes your
more elaborate explanation both superfluous and improbable.

Even supposing that the relative heights were contrived to make the Dahshur
height 72% of the Great Pyramid's height, we'd more naturally assume that
Dahshur (with its nice round figure of 200 cubits) came first. Or did it just
so happen to turn out like that? It's not exactly 72% anyway, as we see -
`heights carefully designed not to exceed 72 per cent' - in your book.

An angle of 72 degrees? How exactly did you arrive at this figure, Alan? My
best estimate using the Lehner map places Dahshur North at a bearing from Khufu
of less than 71 degrees south of east. The same goes for Dahshur South relative
to Khafre.

You're assuming in any case the Babylonian sexagesimal system for measuring
angles. The unit the Egyptians used was the seked.

In neither case do we actually get the neat integer value of 72. In neither
case is it clear that the builder would even have thought of it.

Here's a gift for you, Alan. A tangent of 3 - a number significant in many
mythologies - gives an angle of 71 degrees, 31 minutes, 54 seconds. I'm sure
you can work that in somehow.

Besides which, the correct answer is 42.

> It really hurts for you to admit that I've made an important discovery
> here doesn't it Martin?

I wouldn't know, since you haven't made one.

Martin Stower
http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/

Brian M. Scott

unread,

Oct 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/5/98

On 04 Oct 1998 18:17:18 GMT, eadam...@aol.com (EAdams8221) wrote:

>In article <36115aba...@news.nacamar.de>, fdoe...@ruhrgebiet.net (Frank
>Dörnenburg) writes:

>>Oh, dear wise Allan!

>>Please answer your humble follower from Germany just the few simple
>>questions you try to ignore:

>>Can you please explain to a humble non-knowe like me, how forger Hill,
>>the hotelier, so dumb that he did not know the difference betwen "RE"
>>and "CH", could transform HIEROGLYPHIC names, even names not even
>>recognised as names then, PERFECTLY CORRECT into hieratic writing? And
>>explain, how this little dumbass could even know about the reversed
>>writing order in hieratic? And how he even knew about the correct
>>orientation of creature hieroglyphs in hieratic writings? And where he
>>got the knowlege from to resolve the horus name (not recognised as
>>name then) from a serech into a linear symbol chain? And that he not
>>only smeared some names into the chambers, but integrated them in
>>correct sentences like the working crew names? Ant how he was so
>>intelligent, only to write these names on Mokkatam-blocks and not on
>>other ones?

>>I would be pleased if you could answer just ONE of these questions!

>He might do if you were a little less patronising.

The questions are a damning indictment; Mr. Alford *has* to answer
them or watch his case go west. (So far he's had much the worst of
it, however, and I don't expect much.)

Brian M. Scott

rbp...@my-dejanews.com

unread,

Oct 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/7/98

In article <36188280...@news.csuohio.edu>,

sc...@math.csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott) wrote:
> On 04 Oct 1998 18:17:18 GMT, eadam...@aol.com (EAdams8221) wrote:
>
> >In article <36115aba...@news.nacamar.de>, fdoe...@ruhrgebiet.net
(Frank
> >Dörnenburg) writes:
>
> >>Oh, dear wise Allan!
>
> >>Please answer your humble follower from Germany just the few simple
> >>questions you try to ignore:
>
> >>Can you please explain to a humble non-knowe like me, how forger Hill,
> >>the hotelier, so dumb that he did not know the difference betwen "RE"
> >>and "CH", could transform HIEROGLYPHIC names, even names not even
> >>recognised as names then, PERFECTLY CORRECT into hieratic writing? And
> >>explain, how this little dumbass could even know about the reversed
> >>writing order in hieratic? And how he even knew about the correct
> >>orientation of creature hieroglyphs in hieratic writings? And where he
> >>got the knowlege from to resolve the horus name (not recognised as
> >>name then) from a serech into a linear symbol chain? And that he not
> >>only smeared some names into the chambers, but integrated them in
> >>correct sentences like the working crew names? Ant how he was so
> >>intelligent, only to write these names on Mokkatam-blocks and not on
> >>other ones?
>
> >>I would be pleased if you could answer just ONE of these questions!

Perhaps the good man had the help of a highly educated cockalorum, and pompous
"Besserwisser" similar to our exceedingly humble, and self-proclaimed, Alan
Alford follower, Mr. Frank Doernenburg? After all, we all deserve our 15
minutes of fame sooner or later.

Doernenburg's question is, nevertheless, an interesting one and should be
dealt with - preferably not "ad hominem".

Bernd Pichulik

> The questions are a damning indictment; Mr. Alford *has* to answer
> them or watch his case go west. (So far he's had much the worst of
> it, however, and I don't expect much.)
>
> Brian M. Scott
>

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Brian M. Scott

unread,

Oct 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/7/98

rbp...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

[most snipped]

> Perhaps the good man had the help of a highly educated cockalorum, and pompous
> "Besserwisser" similar to our exceedingly humble, and self-proclaimed, Alan
> Alford follower, Mr. Frank Doernenburg?

Mr. Doernenburg is hardly an Alan Alford follower. (Auch ist er kein
pompoeser Besserwisser.) Perhaps you haven't read the whole thread.

Brian M. Scott

Frank Dörnenburg

unread,

Oct 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/7/98

Are you suggesting that I am an Alford-follower? My, where did you get
THIS idea. And in these details I mentioned, I think I am in fact a
"Besserwisser" (meaning to know something better than the other
person). In contrast to Alan I know something about the writing rules
in Hieratic etc (take a look at my homepage).

Visit http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/FDoernenburg

Martin Stower

unread,

Oct 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/7/98

Frank Dörnenburg wrote:

> Are you suggesting that I am an Alford-follower? My, where did you get

> THIS idea. [. . .]

You forgot the <irony> tags.

Martin Stower

rbp...@my-dejanews.com

unread,

Oct 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/8/98

In article <361B70...@math.csuohio.edu>,

I am sorry Brian! There I thought my rather unsubtle irony (the Alan Alford
follower) was totally transparent and more than obvious (offensichtlich!).

I felt that Frank Doernenburg, possibly, had a point but that the manner in
which he decided to express himself, deserved some comment. After all, does he
really think that his form of unbecoming (infantile?) sarcasm is a
manifestation of an evolved wit or subtle sense of humour? Can't we all
behave like adults in this news group?

And yes, I have read the whole thread!

Bernd Pichulik

rbp...@my-dejanews.com

unread,

Oct 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/8/98

In article <361bd3b2...@news.nacamar.de>,

fdoe...@ruhrgebiet.net (Frank Dörnenburg) wrote:
> Are you suggesting that I am an Alford-follower? My, where did you get

> THIS idea. And in these details I mentioned, I think I am in fact a
> "Besserwisser" (meaning to know something better than the other
> person). In contrast to Alan I know something about the writing rules
> in Hieratic etc (take a look at my homepage).
>
> FD
>
> Visit http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/FDoernenburg

My, My! I seem to have stepped into a hornet's nest. See my reply to Brian
Scott elsewhere in this news group. Your knowledge, real or imagined, was
never an issue - the way you expressed yourself was! If there was indeed a
forgery, it could have been perpetrated by someone who knew what he was
doing, otherwise it would be immediatly obvious to the layman, wouldn't it?

If it makes you feel better, I am happy to take back the "Besserwisser" (und
ja, ich glaube ich weiss was ein Besserwisser ist!). I am pleasantly
surprised that you have no problem with the other adjective, "cockalorum",
which the dictionary defines as: 'A little man with an unduly high opinion of
himself'.

Martin Stower

unread,

Oct 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/8/98

rbp...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

[. . .]

> And yes, I have read the whole thread!
>
> Bernd Pichulik

Have you read what preceded Alford's unilateral change of subject heading? Or
Alford's earlier posts (at Deja News)? Or

http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/alford.html ?

[. . .]

> My, My! I seem to have stepped into a hornet's nest. See my reply to Brian
> Scott elsewhere in this news group. Your knowledge, real or imagined, was
> never an issue - the way you expressed yourself was! If there was indeed a
> forgery, it could have been perpetrated by someone who knew what he was
> doing, otherwise it would be immediatly obvious to the layman, wouldn't it?

[. . .]

Such knowledge would be hard to come by in 1837. That's the whole point. The
forger would need to know (or get right by sheer chance) things that
contemporary experts didn't know.

Martin Stower

Brian M. Scott

unread,

Oct 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/8/98

On Thu, 08 Oct 1998 06:59:33 GMT, rbp...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

[snip]

>I am sorry Brian! There I thought my rather unsubtle irony (the Alan Alford
>follower) was totally transparent

I'm afraid not: it wouldn't be the first time that someone here had
come to a conclusion diametrically opposed to the truth.

>I felt that Frank Doernenburg, possibly, had a point but that the manner in
>which he decided to express himself, deserved some comment. After all, does he
>really think that his form of unbecoming (infantile?) sarcasm is a
>manifestation of an evolved wit or subtle sense of humour?

I'm inclined to think that it was deserved; Mr. Alford has been
ducking the issue for quite a while now.

> Can't we all
>behave like adults in this news group?

No. (Empirical observation.)

Brian M. Scott

rbp...@my-dejanews.com

unread,

Oct 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/9/98

In article <361CA908...@netcomuk.co.uk>,

Martin Stower <mst...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> rbp...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

[. . .]
>

> Have you read what preceded Alford's unilateral change of subject heading?
> Or Alford's earlier posts (at Deja News)? Or
>
> http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/alford.html ?
>

It is possible that I have missed some of the polemic - it has been going on
for some weeks, if not months, by now. My impression of this polemic is of
the generation of much heat, but only minute particles of light.

[. . .]

> > If there was indeed a forgery, it could have been perpetrated by someone
> > who knew what he was doing, otherwise it would be immediatly obvious to the
> > layman, wouldn't it?
>

> Such knowledge would be hard to come by in 1837. That's the whole point.
> The forger would need to know (or get right by sheer chance) things that
> contemporary experts didn't know.
>
> Martin Stower

Improbable in the 19th century? Perhaps! But not impossible. How about a
very old forgery, perpetrated perhaps during or shortly after the 4th
Dynasty? Could that be a possibility? After all if Khufu wanted to give the
impression to later generations that he had built and not adopted the great
Pyramid, he had to come up with something meatier than having his name
inscribed in a few structures surrounding the great Pyramid. As any forensic
psychiatrist will tell you, the human (criminal?) mind is capable of
astounding feats.

This brings me to the point that tempted me to enter this debate in the first
place. Why aren't you guys working together rather than sniping at each other
continuously. To the interested, and objective outside observer, both orthodox
archaeology in general, and orthodox egyptology in particular appear to be
suffering from a heavy bout of "post traumatic Schliemann syndrome".

Heterodox opinions expressed by "outsiders" like Alford, Bauval, West,
Hancock, Zitchin et al should be welcomed, thoroughly examined and put to
objective evidential scutiny, rather than ignored or attacked from nothing
more than a position of assumed superior knowledge. The culture of the closed
shop does not belong to intellectually honest enquiry.

MD

unread,

Oct 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/10/98

>This brings me to the point that tempted me to enter this debate in the
first
>place. Why aren't you guys working together rather than sniping at each
other
>continuously. To the interested, and objective outside observer, both
orthodox
>archaeology in general, and orthodox egyptology in particular appear to be
>suffering from a heavy bout of "post traumatic Schliemann syndrome".
>
> Heterodox opinions expressed by "outsiders" like Alford, Bauval, West,
>Hancock, Zitchin et al should be welcomed, thoroughly examined and put to
>objective evidential scutiny, rather than ignored or attacked from nothing
>more than a position of assumed superior knowledge. The culture of the
closed
>shop does not belong to intellectually honest enquiry.
>
>Bernd Pichulik

Some intelligent people in this group after all. Thanks Bernd.

There are two type of scientists:
=========================
1. Those who spend their life proving they know, the C- and the A+ grades.
2. Those who ask & listen to questions, try & listen to answers, all the
time, because they admit they will never know it all.

MichaelD

Alan Alford

unread,

Oct 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/11/98

In article <36167BC8...@REMOVEnetcomuk.co.uk>, Martin Stower
<mst...@REMOVEnetcomuk.co.uk> wrote:

> > You claim that 'the description "beside the temple of this goddess [Isis]"
> > fits the geographical position of the Great Pyramid perfectly', and
> > thereby argue that the Inventory Stela describes Khufu building the Great
> > Pyramid.
>
> Wrong. I argue that on several counts - the main one being that in a text
> reading `he [i.e. Khufu] built his pyramid', the referent of `his
pyramid' would
> be obvious to an Egyptian reader without further elaboration.
>

A very dodgy presumption. It might be argued that the whole pyramid
complex was seen as belonging to the king, including the single satellite
pyramid, and possibly any additional queens' pyramids. At the extreme, the
whole Giza plateau was called 'Kherit-Neter-Akhet-Khufu', and this might
imply that everything there 'belonged' to him.

Hence I was not being entirely flippant when I suggested earlier that the
inscription 'he built his pyramid...he built a pyramid for the king's
daughter' might be a repeated reference to the SAME satellite pyramid.
i.e. It was 'his' (i.e. Khufu's) pyramid, and yet at the same time he
built it in honour of Henutsen.

Alternatively, if you don't like that interpretation, then 'his pyramid'
could be the single satellite pyramid, as I said earlier.

Either way, you are sticking your neck out too far to presume that an
Egyptian reader would automatically recognise the Great Pyramid as the
subject of this inscription.

> > Where is 'the temple of this goddess [Isis]'? You state that it is the
> > temple adjoining one of the Great Pyramid's satellite pyramids, namely the
> > southernmost pyramid of Henutsen.
>

> If you know of another Isis temple at Giza, Alan, I'm sure we'd all like
to know
> about it.
>
I wasn't quibbling with the identification, just establishing some
background for interested readers.

> > You state that:
> >
> > 'The pyramid of Henutsen is uniquely related to the Isis temple, in that
> > the cult chapel of the pyramid is part of that temple.'
> >
> > Your reading of the Inventory Stela suggests that Khufu built two pyramids
> > beside this temple.
>
> The presence of two `built-he pyramid' statements suggests it.
>

Not necessarily (see above). It could be two adjacent satellite pyramids,
consistent with my 'adoption hypothesis' for the Great Pyramid itself.

> My wording was carefully chosen:
>
> Setting aside questions about the palaeography, date, origin and reliability
> of the Inventory Stela, let's just consider what it says, taken as a self-
> consistent narrative.
>
> The usual tack taken with the Stela is to emphasise the late date which may be
> assigned to it on stylistic and other grounds. I've taken a different
> approach. I've bracketed questions about its date to concentrate on what it
> SAYS, taken as a self-consistent narrative - a story which would make sense to
> an Egyptian reader. What I've shown is that it doesn't say what Sitchin
claims
> it says. I'm perfectly aware of the criteria by which the Inventory Stela and
> the Isis temple where it was found are assigned a late date.
>
>

> > But ignoring this oversight on your part, how might we explain these two
> > references to Khufu building a pyramid? Read on...
>
> No oversight, Alan - as my wording clearly indicates.
>
> [mere waffle omitted]

By 'waffle' you presumably meant my suggestion that the second of the two
pyramids mentioned in the inscription could have been the satellite
pyramid at the corner of the Great Pyramid. 'Mere waffle' indeed. Humph!

> > You're welcome to your interpretation that this text describes the
> > building of the Great Pyramid, but can you name one real Egyptologist who
> > agrees with you? In the absence of a response, I'll assume there isn't
> > one.
>
> Gardiner comments on this sentence:
>
> . . . He built his pyramid beside the temple of this goddess, and he built
> a pyramid for the king's daughter Henutsen (Hnwt-sn) beside this temple.
>
> - with this footnote:
>
> According to this statement, the little Isis-temple east of the Great
> Pyramid was standing on the Gizeh plateau before any of the pyramids
> were built! . . .
>
> That he saw in the phrase a reference to the Great Pyramid is implicit.
>

Sorry I beg to differ. It is NOT at all implicit in Gardiner's comment
that he thought one of the pyramids referred to in the inscription was the
Great Pyramid. He was just making a general statement concerning the
anachronism, that's all. His mention of the Great Pyramid was merely a
geographical fact relating to the little Isis-temple. There's nothing more
to it.

> Petrie commented to similar effect in `A History of Egypt':
>
> . . . Also, it is implied that there were temples of Osiris and Isis here
> before Khufu, which is very improbable, as there is no sign of earlier
> remains at Gizeh before Khufu selected this site of open hill-desert, . . .
>

Once again the cited inscription says nothing of any relevance to my
challenge to you, which was 'name one Egyptologist who agrees with you
that this text [the Inventory Stela] describes the building of the Great
Pyramid'.

By the way, I don't mean to say that your theory REQUIRES the support of
an Egyptologist - I'm just highlighting my suspicion that you're probably
out on your own with this interpretation of yours.

[.. mere waffle omitted...]

> My point flew well over your head, Alan. Concentrating on the date all too
> often leaves claims about the CONTENT of the Stela unchallenged. I took a
> different approach: establish the content first, then worry about the date.
>
> Add the date back in and we see that the WHOLE POINT of the Stela is to
> associate the Isis temple with Khufu and his Great Pyramid.

Jeez. Now you've really lost your marbles, Martin. That's like saying the
whole point of the Stela is to inform us that the Sphinx already existed
at the time of Khufu. Ooh er...

list the evidence that
> > Khufu really did build the Great Pyramid. Here, I'll fill in the first one
> > for you:
> >
> > 1. Khufu's names appear in the Construction Chambers.
> >
> > 2. ...
> >
> > Now, what else have you got? The word of Herodotus perhaps?
>
> Why not, Alan? He was right about Menkaure. What's your problem with
> Herodotus, Alan? The tradition he reports is entirely consistent with the
> numerous occurrences at Giza of the pyramid names `Khufu's Horizon',
`Khafre is
> Great' and `Menkaure is Divine'. His informants told him what they themselves
> would naturally infer from reading the various inscriptions at Giza.
>

And they were right to <associate> the Great Pyramid with 'Khufu', but
that's as far as logic ought to take us. Herodotus' words are not regarded
as reliable when it comes to his brief description of how the Great
Pyramid was built. And it's the builder of the Great Pyramid which is at
issue here.

> For late sources, we have also Manetho and Diodorus.

They're all late sources, 'late' being the operative word. 'Highly dodgy'
being two other words.

> Let's play another game, Alan. Let's see you even put a name to the
builder of
> the Great Pyramid.

But Martin, the first game was becoming so much fun! You've added only one
point to the list, that point being the second-hand reports of historians
who visited Giza two millennia after the time of Khufu. A point
incidentally which proves nothing about who actually BUILT the Great
Pyramid.

Let's see you produce evidence of a society sophisticated
> and organised enough even to be a candidate for having done the job. Let's
> consider some of the characteristics the culture responsible for the Great
> Pyramid must have had:
>
> (1) It built pyramids.
> (2) It used the royal cubit.
> (3) It used a system of mason's marks exactly like that of the Old Kingdom.
> (4) It used core-and-casing construction.
> (5) It was able to transport stone from distant locations (Aswan, Tura) to
> Giza.
> (6) It was able to work granite.
> (7) In working granite it used (among other things) tubular drilling.
> (8) It left semicircular lifting/handling bosses on granite components.
> (9) It didn't use the arch, but did use pent roofs and corbelling.
>
> Need I go on? I can point to a candidate culture displaying all of these
> characteristics. Can you?

But you miss the point that, according to my hypothesis (according to the
balance of the evidence), the Great Pyramid was the SOLE construction
project of this earlier culture. So the Great Pyramid itself bears witness
to the stone-handling capabilities etc of this earlier culture. It was a
one-off. They didn't need to build anything else. If there's a weak link
in my theory, it is that we cannot yet say precisely what the Great
Pyramid's function was, but at least that is more honest than repeating
the discredited assertion that it was a tomb.

If I'm right, then what you know as 'the ancient Egyptian civilisation'
was largely inspired by this fantastic pyramid in their midst, and it
inspired them to build their own true pyramids. No surprise then that they
adopted certain methods and systems of the earlier builders.

For those who are interested in following this thought-experiment through
to its logical conclusions, see my book 'The Phoenix Solution'. Many of
the results are very attractive to fans of Occams Razor. For example, the
orthodox pyramid-building chronology contains a serious discontinuity with
respect to the design and engineering of the Great Pyramid at Giza; we can
either continue to invent hundreds of explanations to get around these
anomalous facts, or we can solve the problem with one very simple
hypothesis which <is> supported by scientific evidence - namely that the
Great Pyramid was built by an earlier culture for an entirely different
purpose.

If that gives you a problem with the Vyse inscriptions, then tough - go
deal with it. For example, maybe the Pyramid which Khufu adopted was badly
damaged by earthquakes and was rebuilt by Khufu in accordance with its
original design (still a problem there with the radiocarbon dating
though).

This whole question of an earlier culture, and the nature of it, is fully
addressed in my book, as I'm sure you know. Among the points which I've
highlighted are: the existence of very ancient astronomy (the origins of
Stonehenge have been radiocarbon dated to c.8000 BC); the existence of
cultures moving large megaliths millennia before the pyramid age (e.g.
Carnac); the well-attested fact that humans do not require the invention
of writing to do good science; the existence throughout history of
cultures with widely differing skills in science and technology; and the
lack of any need to suppose a full-blown 'civilisation' in Egypt to build
the Pyramid.

Alan F. Alford

Alan Alford

unread,

Oct 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/11/98

In article <36167BCE...@REMOVEnetcomuk.co.uk>, Martin Stower
<mst...@REMOVEnetcomuk.co.uk> wrote:

> These are all HIEROGLYPHIC inscriptions. Moving to the cursive script we find
> in the pyramid crew names is a far from trivial step (as I've also explained,
> more times than I care to remember). You know, Alan, it's not even clear that
> anyone could read the mDd hieroglyph in 1837, let alone pick out the cursive
> form. Consider Wilkinson's failure to provide any phonetic reading. Consider
> Birch's silence on the cursive form.
>
> Cursive forms of the kind your scenario requires are harder to find and harder
> to read - and that's NOW, never mind in 1837. They're notoriously
fragile: it's
> only when they've been covered and protected in some way that they've survived
> at all. Sealed chambers and undressed stone surfaces are just the kinds of
> places we'd have some realistic hope of finding them.

It seems to me like you're trying to have your cake and eat it, Martin.

On the one hand, you seem to assert that the cursive script is rare. On
the other hand you confidently assert that we know enough about the
cursive form to be able to judge the authenticity of the cursive
inscriptions 'found' [sic] by Vyse.

In order to judge the authenticity, there must be a sufficient database of
cursive inscriptions.

Given a sufficient database of cursive inscriptions, it goes without
saying that some of them were preserved in and around the Giza necropolis.

It thus follows that Vyse could have had access to cursive inscriptions,
which he could have copied.

The cursive forms of Khufu's names are NOT so different from the
hieroglyphic forms. Any idiot can see that the cursive and hieroglyphic
forms of the 'Khufu' name and the 'Khnum-Khefui' name, respectively, are
essentially the same.

But your post inevitably begs the question of whether we really do have
enough data on cursive inscriptions to authenticate the meaning and
contextual legitimacy of the Vyse inscriptions. Comment?

Alan F. Alford

Alan Alford

unread,

Oct 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/11/98

In article <3617DEBC...@REMOVEnetcomuk.co.uk>, Martin Stower
<mst...@REMOVEnetcomuk.co.uk> wrote:

> > > Don't tell me, Alan. You introduced a scheme to defer payment of
wages until
> > > retirement - and that's when you decided that writing books was more
in you
> > > line.
> >
> > A very amusing way to avoid the point.
>
> No, Alan, a jocular way of making a point. Deferment of reward can be pushed
> too far.

My apologies. I now see that you were trying to make a serious point. But
you seem to imply a deferred wages scheme in which everything is delayed
until retirement, and that is a complete misrepresentation of what I have
said. I never said that normal 'wages' would not be paid during the
construction of the pyramid. My point concerned the withholding of a
'bonus' to be paid at the end of the job.

> What you surely do know is that it doesn't take much investigation of
management
> theory to find a dissenter such as Deming roundly debunking the nostrums you
> were expounding. That management styles and cultures differ. That different
> industries and different social and cultural contexts produce different
> management cultures. That `motivating' senior management, senior civil
> servants, ministers of state - the kind of people whose near equivalents had
> tombs at Giza - differs and differs necessarily from `motivating' a staff of
> office dogsbodies.
>

Yeah, yeah - for every expert there's supposedly an equal and opposite
expert. And we all know why that is.

But let's just try applying some common sense to the idea of wages and
deferred bonuses.

Go ask your friends with experience in civil engineering, or in any
factory that makes things, what is the key to production efficiency. Short
of that, try reading 'The Goal'.

The answer, as you may or may not know, is the management of bottlenecks.
No, that's not the ones you drink out of. I'm referring to the critical
resources in the production line that are the key constraints in
determining throughput.

Once you understand production management, you will appreciate that Khufu
would have to be stark staring bonkers to allow key resources to be
diverted from his own <extremely> ambitious pyramid project [as
hypothesised by the orthodox theory].

Only an idiot would believe that the divertion of key resources such as
landscape designers, engineers and stonemasons to the building of mastabas
at Giza for high officials in 'year 5' of Khufu's reign would not have
interfered with the production lead-time of his own pyramid.

It is widely agreed that the ancient Egyptians were absolute experts at
production management and logistics. I think this is self-evident from
Sneferu's amazing accomplishments at Dahshur.

To suppose that Khufu would have jeopardised his own pyramid and afterlife
to support the building of mastabas for his officials is to suppose a
bargaining power for the latter which is extremely improbable. The king's
promise of such a boon to them AFTER completion of the main pyramid would
have been quite sufficient to ensure the support and motivation of his
officials.

Bottom line is that the idea of Khufu diverting resources to mastabas in
'year 5' of his reign simply doesn't gel with the theory that he built the
Great Pyramid himself. But it does support the other evidence that he
adopted a Pyramid that was already standing from a time before the 4th
Dynasty.

> Contrary documentary evidence ignored. Second reassertion of discredited
> contention.

I haven't ignored the 'contrary evidence' at all. My general approach is
to try to reconcile the known facts and it's a pity a few others haven't
tried doing the same.

Your reference to 'discredited contention' is mere self-flattery.

Now for the stuff on the Dahshur-Giza alignment...

> > > > But you miss the point (no pun intended) that the 4th point isn't
a random
> > > > coincidence with the other three - the two Dahshur pyramids are
staggered
> > > > some distance apart latudinally, but longitudinally they are neatly
> > > > aligned each side of a north-south axis running between them.(see p.53
> > > > 'The Phoenix Solution', or see Lehner's 'The Complete Pyramids').
> > >
> > > So?
> >
> > Is that your most intelligent effort, Martin? You make a lame attack, I
> > then put you right, and you say 'So?'
>
> You'll find, Alan, that when no clear point has been made at all, asking for
> clarification is an intelligent response.
>
> > Right, I won't waste my breath anymore.
>
> Please don't.
>
> > People can see on p.53 of 'The Phoenix Solution' exactly what's made you
> > so evasive.
>
> No, Alan. I commented in detail on your proposal. Nothing evasive there.

On the contrary. Your comments are falling a long, long way short of
addressing the issue. And what follows immediately below perfectly
demonstrates your desire to be evasive on the subject under discussion -
the Dahshur-Giza alignment - which is so embarrassing to your
belief-system.

> What is evasive is your failure to answer my three simple questions:
>
> (1) Why didn't you consult Vyse's book?
>
> (2) Why are you still relying on Sitchin for information?
>
> (3) Why didn't you trace the diary?

Yawn. I've already commented on these 'questions' on an earlier thread.
And they are of no relevance whatosever to the discussion on the
Dahshur-Giza alignment. The fact that you have regurgitated them here
simply demonstrates your discomfort with the present, rather different
subject matter.

For further examples of your evasiveness, let's look at your response to
the following points:

> > 1. The two Dahshur pyramids are a co-ordinated pair, built by a single
> > king (unlike the 3rd Dynasty pyramids you mention).
>
> But they are 3rd Dynasty pyramids, probably of successive monarchs. It's not
> like I'm mixing the 3rd and 5th-Dynasty pyramids at Saqqara.

There is a really important point here which you can't squirm away from by
confusing the issue. I'll come back to it in a moment.

> > 2. The two Dahshur pyramids each have casing stones colour-matched to the
> > Giza giants. The 3rd Dynasty pyramids have no such colour co-ordination.
>
> How d'you know, Alan? Sekhemkket's being unfinished? I'd like in any case to
> see this colour difference specified more exactly.

This is unbelievable. I cite good evidence of the colour coding at Dahshur
and you offer nothing whatsoever in regard of any other pair of pyramids
in Egypt. But still you try to dismiss the point - even the word of
William Flinders Petrie is not good enough for you.

> > 3. The aligment of the Dahshur pyramids is very accurate. The 3rd Dynasty
> > pyramids are much closer to Giza, but do not have the same accuracy of
> > alignment.
>
> How accurate, Alan? Care to put a figure on it?

One thing about being a chartered accountant is that you learn to
recognise the limitations of figures and the importance of common sense.
Crunching numbers is often a form of displacement activity.

The accuracy of the Dahshur-Giza alignment is obvious to anyone looking at
the map in Lehner's book. Even you have admitted that 'the relationship is
there'. What gives the Dahshur-Giza relationship a prima facie legitimacy
is the fact that both pyramids at Dahshur were built by the same king - a
point which you prefer to pass over.

If you wish to compile some kind of numerical accuracy index, then go
ahead. It will no doubt serve as a very useful technique for distracting
yourself and everyone else on this thread from the relevant issue.

> > 4. The two Dahshur pyramids are staggered some distance apart latudinally,
> > but longitudinally they are neatly aligned each side of a north-south axis
> > running between them. Not so for the 3rd Dynasty pyramids...
>
> This, however, is not the relationship in question.

What kind of answer is that? This relationship is absolutely pivotal to
the overall Dahshur-Giza relationship. If you can't see that, you must be
thick. But methinks you are just blustering in the hope that no-one else
on this thread has got Lehner's book to hand, to see the considerable
merit of my argument. Methinks you are deliberately taking advantage of a
situation where I cannot post a map on this newsgroup. Maybe so, but the
following (not to scale) will serve to illustrate the nature of the
relationship of the two pairs of pyramids (X).

..............................................................GIZA....X
.......................................................................X
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
.................................................................-----> NORTH
.......................................................................
.......................................................................
...DAHSHUR.............................................................
.....................X.................................................
.........X.............................................................

(Readers can print this off and draw in the two parallel connecting lines).

Note how the two Giza pyramids are built very close together on a tight
diagonal on the Giza plateau. Note how the two Dahshur pyramids are
strangely offset from each other, but aligned longitudinally each side of

a north-south axis running between them.

> > 5. A really obvious one this - the Dahshur pyramids are true smooth-sided

> > pyramids (supposedly the first such examples, you know my views on
> > Meidum). As are those at Giza. The 3rd Dynasty pyramids are step pyramids
> > - hardly modelled on the Giza giants.
>
> Er, yes, Alan. Mayhap you have missed another point.

A point of relevance to the hypothesis under discussion? No, I thought not.

> > 6. The Dahshur pyramids stand 72% of the height of the Great Pyramid, and
> > are located geographically at an angle of 72 degrees from the Giza
> > pyramids; '72' was an important symbolic number to the Egyptians - e.g. in
> > the myth of the murder of Osiris. No such relationship exists with the 3rd
> > Dynasty pyramids.
>

[long-winded response omitted]

> > It really hurts for you to admit that I've made an important discovery
> > here doesn't it Martin?
>
> I wouldn't know, since you haven't made one.

Or rather you would never lose face by admitting it publicly.

Your stance on the Dahshur-Giza alignment is doing you no credit, Martin.
You come across as a reductionist who refuses to embrace the meaning of
the whole picture. For example, you seem to have no obvious appreciation
of the fact that Sneferu's DOUBLE-pyramid plan at Dahshur is one of the
greatest mysteries/anomalies of Egyptology. Sneferu's decision to build
such large pyramids was supposedly unprecedented (only the two at Dahshur
and the two at Giza, i.e. the four in the above alignment, truly qualify
as 'giant pyramids'), as was his decision to make them smooth-sided 'true'
pyramids despite the enormous additional cost of the work (see I.E.S.
Edwards' comment in 'The Pyramids' chapter 8 p.276: 'what were the
supposed advantages?' he asked, without supplying a satifactory answer).

And above all, why did Sneferu go to such immense trouble TWICE - building
a supposedly unprecedented PAIR of true pyramids at Dahshur? (NB. the old
idea that one of them was a 'defective' tomb is an entirely discredited
notion, as indeed is the idea that the Old Kingdom pyramids were 'tombs'
at all).

I've offered a highly plausible explanation as to what inspired Sneferu to
this ambitious and innovative design - namely the pre-existence of two
true-sided giant pyramids at Giza. My theory not only explains what
inspired the number, size and design of Sneferu's pyramids - it also
explains their enigmatic geographic positions. Egyptologists, meanwhile,
are still groping for answers to this puzzling mystery of Sneferu's
pyramids, even after several decades of head-scratching. In summary, since
no other theory explains the evidence at Dahshur anywhere near as well as
mine does, then my 'Giza pyramids adoption theory' ought to be taken very
seriously indeed.

Plenty to chew on - if you've got the appetite for it.

Martin Stower

unread,

Oct 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/11/98

Alan Alford wrote:

> In article <36167BCE...@REMOVEnetcomuk.co.uk>, Martin Stower

> <mst...@REMOVEnetcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > These are all HIEROGLYPHIC inscriptions. Moving to the cursive script we find
> > in the pyramid crew names is a far from trivial step (as I've also explained,
> > more times than I care to remember). You know, Alan, it's not even clear that
> > anyone could read the mDd hieroglyph in 1837, let alone pick out the cursive
> > form. Consider Wilkinson's failure to provide any phonetic reading. Consider
> > Birch's silence on the cursive form.
> >
> > Cursive forms of the kind your scenario requires are harder to find and harder
> > to read - and that's NOW, never mind in 1837. They're notoriously
> > fragile: it's
> > only when they've been covered and protected in some way that they've survived
> > at all. Sealed chambers and undressed stone surfaces are just the kinds of
> > places we'd have some realistic hope of finding them.
>
> It seems to me like you're trying to have your cake and eat it, Martin.

No, I'm taking account of the relative difficulty of finding hieroglyphic
inscriptions (in the tomb chapels) and finding crew names.

> On the one hand, you seem to assert that the cursive script is rare. On
> the other hand you confidently assert that we know enough about the
> cursive form to be able to judge the authenticity of the cursive
> inscriptions 'found' [sic] by Vyse.

No, I'm saying that cursive inscriptions of the relevant kind - aprw names
- are rarer than the hieroglyphic ones at Giza. It usually takes
substantial excavation to find them - on undressed stone surfaces,
protected from the elements in some way. The script itself isn't
significantly different from Old Kingdom hieratic - but don't make too
much of that. Your supposition is that Vyse operated without linguistic
understanding. He couldn't have made up the crew names from scratch.
He'd need to have found (by sheer luck) just the right inscriptions to
copy - and that means aprw names incorporating names of Khufu.

> In order to judge the authenticity, there must be a sufficient database of
> cursive inscriptions.

There is. A fair number of similar inscriptions has been found since 1837
and there's certainly enough old hieratic for an adequate palaeographical
database. Try actually looking at Goedicke's `Old Hieratic Paleography'.

> Given a sufficient database of cursive inscriptions, it goes without
> saying that some of them were preserved in and around the Giza necropolis.

They were - in the Menkaure complex, for example. It took dismantling of
the extempore mud-brick casing to uncover them; they've since been eroded
to effectively nothing - just traces of red ochre paint. Much the same
goes for the boat-pit inscriptions, despite preservation measures.

> It thus follows that Vyse could have had access to cursive inscriptions,
> which he could have copied.

He did - where his major excavation uncovered them. Hill and Perring
helped.

> The cursive forms of Khufu's names are NOT so different from the
> hieroglyphic forms. Any idiot can see that the cursive and hieroglyphic
> forms of the 'Khufu' name and the 'Khnum-Khefui' name, respectively, are
> essentially the same.

Sitchin couldn't. He made a big deal of the cursive script - and I didn't
notice you disagreeing with him in `Gods of the New Millennium'. These
things are so much clearer in retrospect. Some of the cursive signs in
the crew names are fairly obscure, compared to their hieroglyphic
equivalents. Bird signs are a problem - note Birch's confusion. The
cursive rendition of the chisel sign (U23, mr) in xwfw smrw is hard to
recognise as such - Birch didn't - but we now know it's amply parallelled.

Vyse in fact was greatly puzzled by the cursive script, when he first
encountered it.

What about the name `Hor Medjedu'? Birch didn't spot it. And why would
Vyse decide that `Khnum-khufu' was a name of Cheops, when even Wilkinson
came down against?

What comes across time and time again, Alan, is that you don't appreciate
the limitations imposed by the state of knowledge in 1837. Vyse (qua
forger) would have to get so much right by sheer luck that it's just now
worth considering.

> But your post inevitably begs the question of whether we really do have
> enough data on cursive inscriptions to authenticate the meaning and
> contextual legitimacy of the Vyse inscriptions. Comment?

Discoveries since 1837. Goedicke, `Old Hieratic Palaeography' - etc.

> Alan F. Alford

Martin Stower
http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/

Brian M. Scott

unread,

Oct 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/11/98

On Sun, 11 Oct 1998 11:47:24 +0100, alf...@dial.pipex.com (Alan
Alford) wrote:

[snip]

>But you miss the point that, according to my hypothesis (according to the
>balance of the evidence), the Great Pyramid was the SOLE construction
>project of this earlier culture.

That alone is unlikely enough to give any reasonable person pause.

Brian M. Scott

unread,

Oct 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/11/98

On Sun, 11 Oct 1998 12:06:08 +0100, alf...@dial.pipex.com (Alan
Alford) wrote:

>In article <3617DEBC...@REMOVEnetcomuk.co.uk>, Martin Stower
><mst...@REMOVEnetcomuk.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

>> What is evasive is your failure to answer my three simple questions:

>> (1) Why didn't you consult Vyse's book?

>> (2) Why are you still relying on Sitchin for information?

>> (3) Why didn't you trace the diary?

>Yawn. I've already commented on these 'questions' on an earlier thread.

Then you'll have no trouble commenting on them again for those of us
who apparently missed your previous comments.

>> > 3. The aligment of the Dahshur pyramids is very accurate. The 3rd Dynasty
>> > pyramids are much closer to Giza, but do not have the same accuracy of
>> > alignment.

>> How accurate, Alan? Care to put a figure on it?

>One thing about being a chartered accountant is that you learn to
>recognise the limitations of figures and the importance of common sense.
>Crunching numbers is often a form of displacement activity.

>The accuracy of the Dahshur-Giza alignment is obvious to anyone looking at
>the map in Lehner's book. Even you have admitted that 'the relationship is
>there'. What gives the Dahshur-Giza relationship a prima facie legitimacy
>is the fact that both pyramids at Dahshur were built by the same king - a
>point which you prefer to pass over.

>If you wish to compile some kind of numerical accuracy index, then go
>ahead. It will no doubt serve as a very useful technique for distracting
>yourself and everyone else on this thread from the relevant issue.

This strongly suggests that either you don't know the answer, or you
don't like the answer because it's insufficiently impressive. I
haven't even looked at the map, so I have no preconceptions here, but
it certainly seems to me that if you're going to compare the accuracy
of two proposed alignments, it behooves you to attach some sort of
measure to them.

>> > 6. The Dahshur pyramids stand 72% of the height of the Great Pyramid, and
>> > are located geographically at an angle of 72 degrees from the Giza
>> > pyramids; '72' was an important symbolic number to the Egyptians - e.g. in
>> > the myth of the murder of Osiris. No such relationship exists with the 3rd
>> > Dynasty pyramids.

>[long-winded response omitted]

But one requiring a response.

Brian M. Scott

Martin Stower

unread,

Oct 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/11/98

Alan Alford wrote:

[. . .]

> My apologies. I now see that you were trying to make a serious point. But

> you seem to imply a deferred wages scheme in which everything is delayed
> until retirement, and that is a complete misrepresentation of what I have
> said. I never said that normal 'wages' would not be paid during the
> construction of the pyramid. My point concerned the withholding of a
> 'bonus' to be paid at the end of the job.

This wasn't a money economy, Alan. Normal wages would be rations.
Otherwise it is a reasonably close analogy. Building a house of eternity
was of such importance to an Egyptian that deferring it until the end of
the most ambitious building project ever would <understatement>lack
credibility</understatement>. The longer it was deferred, the greater the
risk of dying with no tomb at all; the greater the risk also that Khufu
would die before completion, leaving enforcement of Khufu's promises to
the discretion of his successor - not something I'd want to rely on.
Having a tomb was more like health insurance for the afterlife than a
bonus - not something to be put off.

Discussing this in terms of general principles, without reference to the
evidence of actual Old Kingdom practice, is futile. You badly need to
look at that evidence.

[. . .]

> Only an idiot would believe that the divertion of key resources such as
> landscape designers, engineers and stonemasons to the building of mastabas
> at Giza for high officials in 'year 5' of Khufu's reign would not have
> interfered with the production lead-time of his own pyramid.

Assuming scarcity of resources. I doubt there was such scarcity. In
fact, the quality of work in Khufu's pyramid points to an ability to
select the very best masons from a pool of skilled labour. Creating and
maintaining such a pool entails a diversity of projects.

> It is widely agreed that the ancient Egyptians were absolute experts at
> production management and logistics. I think this is self-evident from
> Sneferu's amazing accomplishments at Dahshur.

Making them by far the best candidates for having built Khufu's.

[. . .]

> I haven't ignored the 'contrary evidence' at all. [. . .]

Doubtless I've overlooked your commentary on the inscriptional evidence of
Old Kingdom practice.

> Now for the stuff on the Dahshur-Giza alignment...

[. . .]

> > No, Alan. I commented in detail on your proposal. Nothing evasive there.
>
> On the contrary. Your comments are falling a long, long way short of

> addressing the issue. [. . .]

On the contrary, I addressed the issue immediately.

> > What is evasive is your failure to answer my three simple questions:
> >
> > (1) Why didn't you consult Vyse's book?
> >
> > (2) Why are you still relying on Sitchin for information?
> >
> > (3) Why didn't you trace the diary?
>
> Yawn. I've already commented on these 'questions' on an earlier thread.

Without answering them. Not only have you evaded them, you're evading
them now by throwing a charge of evasion at me. Your change of subject
(and unilateral change of subject line) is in itself an evasion. It's a
familiar pattern, Alan. When I challenged you the first time on your
repetition of Sitchin's forgery claim, you changed the subject.

[. . .]

> > How d'you know, Alan? Sekhemkket's being unfinished? I'd like in any case to
> > see this colour difference specified more exactly.
>
> This is unbelievable. I cite good evidence of the colour coding at Dahshur
> and you offer nothing whatsoever in regard of any other pair of pyramids
> in Egypt. But still you try to dismiss the point - even the word of
> William Flinders Petrie is not good enough for you.

I know perfectly well what Petrie says - and what he doesn't say. He says
that `white' Mokattam limestone was used for Khufu and Dahshur North and
`yellowish' Mokkatam limestone for Khafre and Dahshur South. Your reading
of this as `colour coding' is your own idea.

In this case (as in others) I don't find what Petrie says entirely
adequate. The surviving casing stones at Dahshur North and Khufu are by
and large near the base; through much of their existence they would have
been buried by drifts of sand and (later) debris. Dahshur South and
Khafre still have a substantial number of casing stones at higher levels.
This could make a difference, since limestone changes colour when exposed
to the atmosphere. A difference in shade could mean nothing more than
differential exposure. We need to be sure that like is being compared
with like - for which reason I'd like to see the colour difference and
other potential indicators of provenance specified more exactly.

The colour of a natural material like stone isn't at our discretion
anyway. It depends what's found in the quarry. Supposing the observed
difference in shade does represent a difference in the quarries, we could
have something like this: Seneferu's quarrymen opened up strata of white
limestone, which was used for Dahshur North. Khufu then exploited the
supply to exhaustion, obliging Khafre to return to the earlier quarry for
his materials.

Besides which, as I've already explained, this colour relationship is
perfectly symmetrical and tells us nothing at all about temporal priority.

Don't fixate on this Djoser-Sekhemkhet thing, Alan. It's just to show how
coincidences turn up when you start looking for them.

> > > 3. The aligment of the Dahshur pyramids is very accurate. The 3rd Dynasty
> > > pyramids are much closer to Giza, but do not have the same accuracy of
> > > alignment.
> >
> > How accurate, Alan? Care to put a figure on it?
>
> One thing about being a chartered accountant is that you learn to
> recognise the limitations of figures and the importance of common sense.
> Crunching numbers is often a form of displacement activity.

In other words, you're happy to say `very accurate' but shy away from
putting a figure to that accuracy.

[. . .]

> > > 4. The two Dahshur pyramids are staggered some distance apart latudinally,
> > > but longitudinally they are neatly aligned each side of a north-south axis
> > > running between them. Not so for the 3rd Dynasty pyramids...
> >
> > This, however, is not the relationship in question.
>
> What kind of answer is that? This relationship is absolutely pivotal to
> the overall Dahshur-Giza relationship. If you can't see that, you must be

> thick. [SNIP]

If you can't see my point, Alan, you must be a geometrical dunce. The
parallel-lines relationship doesn't depend on this other relationship in
the least. I know perfectly well why you're emphasising this other
relationship and I made it perfectly clear in my original commentary.
You're talking past what I said. You insist on this other relationship
because, thin as it is, it's your only argument from the geometry to
temporal priority of the Giza pyramids - an argument I've already exposed
as a non sequitur. Even supposing that the arrangement is deliberate -
which I doubt - there are other explanations, certainly no more
implausible than yours.

Other readers, please check this on a decent map. Alford's book gives
only a not-to-scale diagram, with no suggestion that the relationship is
other than perfect.

[. . .]

> > > 6. The Dahshur pyramids stand 72% of the height of the Great Pyramid, and
> > > are located geographically at an angle of 72 degrees from the Giza
> > > pyramids; '72' was an important symbolic number to the Egyptians - e.g. in
> > > the myth of the murder of Osiris. No such relationship exists with the 3rd
> > > Dynasty pyramids.
>
> [long-winded response omitted]

Translation: a factual response that Alford can't rebut. The Dahshur

pyramids stand < 72% of the height of the Great Pyramid, and are located

geographically at a bearing of < 72 degrees south of east of the Giza
pyramids. The height of the Dahshur pyramids is 200 royal cubits - a
figure that scarcely needs elaborate explanation.

> > > It really hurts for you to admit that I've made an important discovery
> > > here doesn't it Martin?
> >
> > I wouldn't know, since you haven't made one.
>
> Or rather you would never lose face by admitting it publicly.
>
> Your stance on the Dahshur-Giza alignment is doing you no credit, Martin.

How so, Alan? I've conceded the geometry. What I haven't conceded is
perfect accuracy and the theoretical baggage you've tried to load onto
this.

> You come across as a reductionist who refuses to embrace the meaning of
> the whole picture.

A picture built from scraps of misinformation. If refusing to embrace
that makes me a reductionist, so be it.

> For example, you seem to have no obvious appreciation
> of the fact that Sneferu's DOUBLE-pyramid plan at Dahshur is one of the

> greatest mysteries/anomalies of Egyptology. [. . .]

On the contrary, Alan, I'm quite aware of the peculiarities of Seneferu's
pyramid-building activity. Problem enough without muddying the water by
dragging in Sitchin's rubbish and exploded planets.

> I've offered a highly plausible explanation as to what inspired Sneferu to
> this ambitious and innovative design - namely the pre-existence of two

> true-sided giant pyramids at Giza. [. . .]

Now all you need is a remotely plausible theory to account for those
pyramids - by which I mean something other than `a culture came from
nowhere, built one building - the Great Pyramid! - and disappeared.'

Martin Stower
http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/

Alan Alford

unread,

Oct 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/16/98

In article <3620E63F...@netcomuk.co.uk>, Martin Stower
<mst...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:

> What about the name `Hor Medjedu'? Birch didn't spot it. And why would
> Vyse decide that `Khnum-khufu' was a name of Cheops, when even Wilkinson
> came down against?

I suppose he found the Khnum-khufu name alongside the Khufu name. We've
covered this point already, and we'll have to agree to differ on the
plausibility of Vyse finding the two names together and gambling on them
being the same king.

> What comes across time and time again, Alan, is that you don't appreciate
> the limitations imposed by the state of knowledge in 1837. Vyse (qua
> forger) would have to get so much right by sheer luck that it's just now
> worth considering.

But does 'the state of knowledge' that you refer to include the local
Egyptian expertise in Cairo? Are we putting too much reliance on the
European perspective?

Yes it is just NOW worth considering (sic).

Alan Alford

unread,

Oct 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/16/98

In article <3621326F...@netcomuk.co.uk>, Martin Stower
<mst...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:

> This wasn't a money economy, Alan. Normal wages would be rations.
> Otherwise it is a reasonably close analogy. Building a house of eternity
> was of such importance to an Egyptian that deferring it until the end of
> the most ambitious building project ever would <understatement>lack
> credibility</understatement>. The longer it was deferred, the greater the
> risk of dying with no tomb at all; the greater the risk also that Khufu
> would die before completion, leaving enforcement of Khufu's promises to
> the discretion of his successor - not something I'd want to rely on.
> Having a tomb was more like health insurance for the afterlife than a
> bonus - not something to be put off.

An interesting choice of analogy. Health insurance is a PROMISE of a
payout at a future time, contingent on certain events. That's what Khufu's
high officials would have got - a PROMISE of a mastaba, contingent on
their support in building the Great Pyramid [sic].

You really need to learn more about the nature of Egyptian kingship,
Martin. Although the afterlife was democratised to some extent during the
3,000-year history of ancient Egypt, the pharaoh was in a unique position
as the personification of the god Horus, and all other possible afterlife
beliefs during the Old Kingdom would have been subordinate to the
resurrection of the pharaoh himself - which required the building of the
Pyramid during the life of the pharaoh. The mastabas for the high
officials would not only have been secondary to this primary objective,
but would have interfered with it.

> > Only an idiot would believe that the divertion of key resources such as
> > landscape designers, engineers and stonemasons to the building of mastabas
> > at Giza for high officials in 'year 5' of Khufu's reign would not have
> > interfered with the production lead-time of his own pyramid.
>
> Assuming scarcity of resources. I doubt there was such scarcity. In
> fact, the quality of work in Khufu's pyramid points to an ability to
> select the very best masons from a pool of skilled labour. Creating and
> maintaining such a pool entails a diversity of projects.

A non-sequitur if ever I heard one. Your comment that you doubt a scarcity
of resources seems to imply a SURPLUS of resources. But why would there
possibly be a SURPLUS of resources at a time when, supposedly, the world's
most ambitious and unprecedented pyramid-construction had only just been
instigated?

> > It is widely agreed that the ancient Egyptians were absolute experts at
> > production management and logistics. I think this is self-evident from
> > Sneferu's amazing accomplishments at Dahshur.
>
> Making them by far the best candidates for having built Khufu's.

Funny you should mention that. When you compare the engineering of the
Dahshur pyramids with the Great Pyramid of Khufu, there really is no
comparison. The builders of the Great Pyramid were far more advanced. The
supposed development from Dahshur to Giza represents a discontinuity which
is, frankly, rather staggering, and there have been no adequate
explanations forthcoming from orthodox Egyptologists. The evidence is,
however, consistent with my hypothesis that the Great Pyramid was adopted
and not built by Khufu.

> > Yawn. I've already commented on these 'questions' on an earlier thread.
>
> Without answering them. Not only have you evaded them, you're evading
> them now by throwing a charge of evasion at me. Your change of subject
> (and unilateral change of subject line) is in itself an evasion. It's a
> familiar pattern, Alan. When I challenged you the first time on your
> repetition of Sitchin's forgery claim, you changed the subject.

If you wonder why it's becoming a familiar pattern, take a look at
yourself, and the way you conduct your arguments. Here is a perfect
example - we're discussing a very important alignment between the Giza and
Dahshur pyramids, and then suddenly you try to drag in what is clearly a
non-related and emotive issue of an 'ad-hominem' nature. Can you really
not see why I find that 'evasive'?

> I know perfectly well what Petrie says - and what he doesn't say. He says
> that `white' Mokattam limestone was used for Khufu and Dahshur North and
> `yellowish' Mokkatam limestone for Khafre and Dahshur South. Your reading
> of this as `colour coding' is your own idea.

Yes. And the correspondence which he claimed should at least make us pause
for thought.

> In this case (as in others) I don't find what Petrie says entirely
> adequate. The surviving casing stones at Dahshur North and Khufu are by
> and large near the base; through much of their existence they would have
> been buried by drifts of sand and (later) debris. Dahshur South and
> Khafre still have a substantial number of casing stones at higher levels.
> This could make a difference, since limestone changes colour when exposed
> to the atmosphere. A difference in shade could mean nothing more than
> differential exposure. We need to be sure that like is being compared
> with like - for which reason I'd like to see the colour difference and
> other potential indicators of provenance specified more exactly.
>
> The colour of a natural material like stone isn't at our discretion
> anyway. It depends what's found in the quarry. Supposing the observed
> difference in shade does represent a difference in the quarries, we could
> have something like this: Seneferu's quarrymen opened up strata of white
> limestone, which was used for Dahshur North. Khufu then exploited the
> supply to exhaustion, obliging Khafre to return to the earlier quarry for
> his materials.
>
> Besides which, as I've already explained, this colour relationship is
> perfectly symmetrical and tells us nothing at all about temporal priority.

The last point is agreed. But don't fixate on the colour relationship,
Martin. I have cited it here in support of the Dahshur-Giza alignment
being deliberate, and not random (as in your 3rd dynasty example). I
personally think you are questioning Petrie on trivial grounds. Anyway,
there are other good supports which I have already mentioned for the
alignment being deliberate, e.g. Sneferu's pyramids were designed as a
pair of true, giant pyramids, and in that sense they form a unique
double-pairing with the Giza giants.

> > > > 3. The aligment of the Dahshur pyramids is very accurate. The 3rd
Dynasty
> > > > pyramids are much closer to Giza, but do not have the same accuracy of
> > > > alignment.
> > >
> > > How accurate, Alan? Care to put a figure on it?
> >
> > One thing about being a chartered accountant is that you learn to
> > recognise the limitations of figures and the importance of common sense.
> > Crunching numbers is often a form of displacement activity.
>
> In other words, you're happy to say `very accurate' but shy away from
> putting a figure to that accuracy.

No. It's more a case of me having better things to do with my time than
provide meaningless figures. The geometry on the map speaks for itself.
OK, I don't see anyone on this newsgroup who appears to be listening, but
that's not a problem with the map, nor with my presentation of it.

For those who have 'eyes to see', here's the Giza-Dahshur pyramid
relationship once again (remember these are the only four truly giant
pyramids in the entire Nile valley):

(Readers can print this off and draw in the two parallel connecting lines,
which strongly suggest that the Dahshur pyramids were deliberately aligned
upon two pre-existing Giza pyramids - shock/horror!).

> > > > 4. The two Dahshur pyramids are staggered some distance apart
latudinally,
> > > > but longitudinally they are neatly aligned each side of a
north-south axis
> > > > running between them. Not so for the 3rd Dynasty pyramids...
> > >
> > > This, however, is not the relationship in question.
> >
> > What kind of answer is that? This relationship is absolutely pivotal to
> > the overall Dahshur-Giza relationship. If you can't see that, you must be
> > thick. [SNIP]
>
> If you can't see my point, Alan, you must be a geometrical dunce. The
> parallel-lines relationship doesn't depend on this other relationship in
> the least. I know perfectly well why you're emphasising this other
> relationship and I made it perfectly clear in my original commentary.
> You're talking past what I said. You insist on this other relationship
> because, thin as it is, it's your only argument from the geometry to
> temporal priority of the Giza pyramids - an argument I've already exposed
> as a non sequitur. Even supposing that the arrangement is deliberate -
> which I doubt - there are other explanations, certainly no more
> implausible than yours.

You exposed a non-sequitur? Dream on sunshine.

On the contrary, it adds a level of significance to what might otherwise
be dismissed by some as a coincidental aligment. And, in addition to that,
it establishes very strong grounds for the primacy of the Giza pyramids.
The reason you try to argue away the obvious is because, in your words

"it's your only argument from the geometry to temporal priority of the

Giza pyramids", and because it thus threatens to overturn the rather
sacrosanct theory that Khufu built the pyramid. Just for once, Martin, try
to assimilate the evidence rather than sweeping it under the carpet.

> Other readers, please check this on a decent map. Alford's book gives
> only a not-to-scale diagram, with no suggestion that the relationship is
> other than perfect.

I have already encouraged people to check the map in Lehner's book rather
than my own diagram, which I have openly acknowledged is not-to-scale. The
relationship is as perfect as we would expect it to be if Sneferu had set
out to link his pyramids geographically to those at Giza.

> > > > 6. The Dahshur pyramids stand 72% of the height of the Great
Pyramid, and
> > > > are located geographically at an angle of 72 degrees from the Giza
> > > > pyramids; '72' was an important symbolic number to the Egyptians -
e.g. in
> > > > the myth of the murder of Osiris. No such relationship exists with
the 3rd
> > > > Dynasty pyramids.
> >
> > [long-winded response omitted]
>
> Translation: a factual response that Alford can't rebut. The Dahshur
> pyramids stand < 72% of the height of the Great Pyramid, and are located
> geographically at a bearing of < 72 degrees south of east of the Giza
> pyramids. The height of the Dahshur pyramids is 200 royal cubits - a
> figure that scarcely needs elaborate explanation.

No. A reponse that I couldn't be bothered to rebut, because it is
non-critical to the overall theory.

> > > > It really hurts for you to admit that I've made an important discovery
> > > > here doesn't it Martin?
> > >
> > > I wouldn't know, since you haven't made one.
> >
> > Or rather you would never lose face by admitting it publicly.
> >
> > Your stance on the Dahshur-Giza alignment is doing you no credit, Martin.
>
> How so, Alan? I've conceded the geometry. What I haven't conceded is
> perfect accuracy and the theoretical baggage you've tried to load onto
> this.

And you don't have your own 'theoretical baggage' Martin? Excuse my mirth.

> > You come across as a reductionist who refuses to embrace the meaning of
> > the whole picture.
>
> A picture built from scraps of misinformation. If refusing to embrace
> that makes me a reductionist, so be it.

I amend to 'dogmatic reductionist'. The 'scraps of misinformation' which
you imagine are merely a product of your own preconceptions.

> > For example, you seem to have no obvious appreciation
> > of the fact that Sneferu's DOUBLE-pyramid plan at Dahshur is one of the
> > greatest mysteries/anomalies of Egyptology. [. . .]
>
> On the contrary, Alan, I'm quite aware of the peculiarities of Seneferu's
> pyramid-building activity. Problem enough without muddying the water by
> dragging in Sitchin's rubbish and exploded planets.

Now that is way-off subject! The subject is Dahshur-Giza. Sitchin doesn't
come into it at all. You're the one trying to muddy the picture. Why do
you do that Martin? [And the answer was:...'I asked you three
questions...' aaaarrrggghhh!]

By the way, the exploded planet theory offers a good explanation as to why
Sneferu built two pyramids. Read the book.

> > I've offered a highly plausible explanation as to what inspired Sneferu to
> > this ambitious and innovative design - namely the pre-existence of two
> > true-sided giant pyramids at Giza. [. . .]
>
> Now all you need is a remotely plausible theory to account for those
> pyramids - by which I mean something other than `a culture came from
> nowhere, built one building - the Great Pyramid! - and disappeared.'

No. What I need is a complete answer to WHY they built it. I don't claim
to have got it right in GOTNM, but it was a start. Chris Dunn has now
expanded on a similar idea with rather more engineering prowess than I can
boast myself. He doesn't claim to have it completely right either. Bauval,
another with more engineering prowess than myself, has also commented that
the Pyramid is akin to a giant machine. At least we're all trying, and we
will continue to approach this fascinating question with an open mind. Our
speculations might well be widely mocked by the establishment, but there
is little more merit in the establishment's own ridiculous theory that the
Pyramid is a 'tomb and nothing but a tomb'.

Brian M. Scott

unread,

Oct 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/16/98

Alan Alford wrote:

> In article <3621326F...@netcomuk.co.uk>, Martin Stower
> <mst...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

> > > Only an idiot would believe that the divertion of key resources such as
> > > landscape designers, engineers and stonemasons to the building of mastabas
> > > at Giza for high officials in 'year 5' of Khufu's reign would not have
> > > interfered with the production lead-time of his own pyramid.

> > Assuming scarcity of resources. I doubt there was such scarcity. In
> > fact, the quality of work in Khufu's pyramid points to an ability to
> > select the very best masons from a pool of skilled labour. Creating and
> > maintaining such a pool entails a diversity of projects.

> A non-sequitur if ever I heard one. Your comment that you doubt a scarcity
> of resources seems to imply a SURPLUS of resources. But why would there
> possibly be a SURPLUS of resources at a time when, supposedly, the world's
> most ambitious and unprecedented pyramid-construction had only just been
> instigated?

It is not a non sequitur. On the contrary, it's a colourable argument
for the existence of a surplus of skilled labour. There may be
legitimate counter-arguments, but simply ignoring it isn't one of them.

[snip]

> > It's a
> > familiar pattern, Alan. When I challenged you the first time on your
> > repetition of Sitchin's forgery claim, you changed the subject.

> If you wonder why it's becoming a familiar pattern, take a look at
> yourself, and the way you conduct your arguments.

I've been a mildly interested bystander for some time now, and this is
nonsense. You've been far more evasive than Martin. In particular,
you've never (that I have seen) answered those three basic questions.

> > > > > 3. The aligment of the Dahshur pyramids is very accurate. The 3rd
> Dynasty
> > > > > pyramids are much closer to Giza, but do not have the same accuracy of
> > > > > alignment.

> > > > How accurate, Alan? Care to put a figure on it?

> > > One thing about being a chartered accountant is that you learn to
> > > recognise the limitations of figures and the importance of common sense.
> > > Crunching numbers is often a form of displacement activity.

> > In other words, you're happy to say `very accurate' but shy away from
> > putting a figure to that accuracy.

> No. It's more a case of me having better things to do with my time than
> provide meaningless figures. The geometry on the map speaks for itself.

No, it doesn't. What speaks for itself is your unwillingness to provide
*relevant* figures. I don't care enough to go dig up the information
and do the calculations, but you do nothing to help your case by
claiming a 'very accurate' alignment and then refusing to back up the
claim quantitatively.

[snip]

> > > > > 6. The Dahshur pyramids stand 72% of the height of the Great
> Pyramid, and
> > > > > are located geographically at an angle of 72 degrees from the Giza
> > > > > pyramids; '72' was an important symbolic number to the Egyptians -
> e.g. in
> > > > > the myth of the murder of Osiris. No such relationship exists with
> the 3rd
> > > > > Dynasty pyramids.

> > > [long-winded response omitted]

> > Translation: a factual response that Alford can't rebut. The Dahshur
> > pyramids stand < 72% of the height of the Great Pyramid, and are located
> > geographically at a bearing of < 72 degrees south of east of the Giza
> > pyramids. The height of the Dahshur pyramids is 200 royal cubits - a
> > figure that scarcely needs elaborate explanation.

> No. A reponse that I couldn't be bothered to rebut, because it is
> non-critical to the overall theory.

Earlier in this post you were defending an argument based on guessing at
Old Kingdom thought patterns -- on mind-reading for short. Martin's
argument is also based on such 'mind-reading', but it seems much more
straightforward and less speculative argument. Either your argument
wasn't worth the electrons it used, or his warrants rebuttal. (And if
you keep dismissing points as non-critical to the overall theory, you'll
be left with no basis at all.)

[snip]

> Now that is way-off subject! The subject is Dahshur-Giza. Sitchin doesn't
> come into it at all. You're the one trying to muddy the picture. Why do
> you do that Martin? [And the answer was:...'I asked you three
> questions...' aaaarrrggghhh!]

If you'd answer them, Martin wouldn't keep raising them.

> By the way, the exploded planet theory offers a good explanation as to why
> Sneferu built two pyramids. Read the book.

GIGO, no matter how nice the outgoing garbage may look.

[snip]

Brian M. Scott

Martin Stower

unread,

Oct 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/16/98

Alan Alford wrote:

> An interesting choice of analogy. Health insurance is a PROMISE of a
> payout at a future time, contingent on certain events. That's what Khufu's
> high officials would have got - a PROMISE of a mastaba, contingent on
> their support in building the Great Pyramid [sic].

Inscriptional evidence of Old Kingdom practice ignored yet again.

[. . .]

> Funny you should mention that. When you compare the engineering of the
> Dahshur pyramids with the Great Pyramid of Khufu, there really is no
> comparison. The builders of the Great Pyramid were far more advanced.

Oh, right. So your way of rationalising this is to say it was the SOLE
building project of some unknown culture, which built the Great Pyramid
with NO preceding track record and then disappeared without trace - rather
than, say, a progression from the achievement at Dahshur.

[. . .]

> You exposed a non-sequitur? Dream on sunshine.

I exposed a non sequitur. If you can't see it, take a logic course.

> On the contrary, it adds a level of significance to what might otherwise
> be dismissed by some as a coincidental aligment. And, in addition to that,
> it establishes very strong grounds for the primacy of the Giza pyramids.

It does no such thing. Once you say the arrangement is deliberate -
planned - it throws the question wide open. All four could have been
planned in advance. It tells us nothing about what was BUILT first.

[. . .]

> I amend to 'dogmatic reductionist'. The 'scraps of misinformation' which
> you imagine are merely a product of your own preconceptions.

Oh. Really. Let's just ignore my documentation to date of your continued
reliance on Sitchin's misinformation.

[. . .]

I suggest you consider also Brian Scott's cogent comments.

Martin Stower
http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/

Martin Stower

unread,

Oct 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/16/98

Alan Alford wrote:

> In article <3620E63F...@netcomuk.co.uk>, Martin Stower
> <mst...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:

[. . .]

> > What comes across time and time again, Alan, is that you don't appreciate
> > the limitations imposed by the state of knowledge in 1837. Vyse (qua
> > forger) would have to get so much right by sheer luck that it's just now
> > worth considering.
>
> But does 'the state of knowledge' that you refer to include the local
> Egyptian expertise in Cairo? Are we putting too much reliance on the
> European perspective?

Again this fantasia about Egyptian experts from Cairo. Who were these
experts, Alan? Care to name them? Are we going to hear some nebulous
tale about Coptic Initiates preserving the ancient script?

If so, consider this: Wilkinson lived in Egypt for years. He studied both
Arabic and Coptic. HE never found these local experts - but you're
telling us Vyse did? Colonel `Lucky' Vyse does it again!

Don't waste our time with childish inventions. Produce some evidence of
this local expertise - or shut up about it.

Martin Stower
http://www.dcs.shef.ac.uk/~martins/Pyramid/

news.nwlink.com

unread,

Oct 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/21/98

I'm not sure if it's correct, but I heard it was a guy named Ed.

ELurio

unread,

Oct 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/21/98

<<I'm not sure if it's correct, but I heard it was a guy named Ed.>>

IT's not. It was the Super Mario Bros.

Pat@Home

unread,

Oct 22, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/22/98

ELurio wrote in message <19981021173542...@ng124.aol.com>...

><<I'm not sure if it's correct, but I heard it was a guy named Ed.>>
>
>IT's not. It was the Super Mario Bros

No - No - You are both wrong - it was > I < He whom has no
name -because
in the beginning there was no thingee to give me one
-( snif -snif :-)

Sue King

unread,

Oct 23, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/23/98

In a previous article, elu...@aol.com (ELurio) says:

><<I'm not sure if it's correct, but I heard it was a guy named Ed.>>
>

>IT's not. It was the Super Mario Bros.
>
I think Shirley, it was a cast of thousands, some of those thousands
seriously pre-dating the latter thousands, giving lie (or is it lay?) to
the masive lower blocks and the "air" or perhaps "sighting" shafts of the
later construction. :)

0 new messages