Giza

LadyV · Post by **LadyV** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:00 am

Whewwwww a lot of reading on this one...I have a bit of fetish concerning ancient Egypt and the pyramids! Since the age of about 5.....unless I missed it, which is a good possibility....lets not forget that the great pyramid had a layer of smooth polished limestone on the finished product... Smooth, very tall, very slick. There is also a bit of evidence to the thought that Khufu (Cheops) "restored" the pyramid...not built it!
The Inventory Stele, found in 1857 by Auguste Mariette just to the east of the Pyramid, dates to about 1500 B.C., but according to Maspero and other experts, shows evidence of having been copied from a far older stele contemporaneous with the Fourth Dynasty. In the Stele, Khufu himself tells of his discoveries made while clearing away the sands from the Pyramid and Sphinx. He dedicated the account to Isis, who he called the "Mistress of the Western Mountain," "Mistress of the Pyramid," and identified the Pyramid itself as the "House of Isis."

The Stele describes how Pharaoh Khufu, "gave to her (Isis) an offering anew, and he built again (to restore, renovate, reconstruct) her temple of stone." From there, the Pharaoh inspected the Sphinx, according to the text, and related the story of how in his time both the monument and a nearby sycamore tree had been struck by lightning. The bolt had knocked off part of the headdress of the Sphinx, which Khufu carefully restored. Egyptologist Selim Hassan, who dug out the Sphinx from the surrounding sands in the 1930's, observed there is indeed evidence that portions of the Sphinx were damaged by lightning, and the mark of ancient repairs is very apparent. Also, he noted, sycamore trees once grew to the south of the monument, which had been dated to a great age.

The Stele then ends with the story of how Khufu built small pyramids for himself and his daughters, wife and family, next to the Great Pyramid. Today, the ruins of three small pyramids are indeed situated on the east side of the monument. Archaeologists have found independent evidence that the southernmost of the three small pyramids flanking the Great Pyramid was in fact dedicated to Henutsen, a wife of Khufu. Everything in the inscription thus matches the known facts. If these facts can be believed as true, then the additional information that Khufu was only a restorer of the Great Pyramid and not its builder, must also be treated as historically true.

http://www.theglobaleducationproject.or ... totr3.html

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:06 am

"The Club" hates to be told about the Inventory Stele.

I'm glad you posted this. I was looking around for a good translation of it but now I guess I don't have to bother.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:21 am

"The Club" hates to be told about the Inventory Stele.

the Egyptology club
the imaginary qualified archaeology club that only exists in your head
or the Masons ?

LadyV · Post by **LadyV** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:21 am

[quote="Minimalist"]"The Club" hates to be told about the Inventory Stele.
[quote]

Really!? Why is that!?

I find it interesting, not to mention we are all in search of the truth and getting to bottom of things....the Stele is of great importance here!

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:30 am

Because they have decided that it is a fraud which upsets their carefully constructed theories and therefore dismiss it.

This is the same crew which unanimously accept's Howard Vyse's "quarry marks."

As Hancock says ( I have to put this in just to inflame marduk!)

"Why the double standard? Could it have been that the 'quarry marks' conformed strictly to orthodox opinion that the Great Pyramid had been built as a tomb for Khufu? whereas the Inventory Stele contradicted that opinion?"

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:30 am

we are all in search of the truth and getting to bottom of things

Do we?

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:59 am

"Why the double standard? Could it have been that the 'quarry marks' conformed strictly to orthodox opinion that the Great Pyramid had been built as a tomb for Khufu? whereas the Inventory Stele contradicted that opinion?"

did you check Hancocks source for that claim
you should have done
It was Z.Sitchin
roflmao

LadyV · Post by **LadyV** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:18 am

Minimalist wrote:
we are all in search of the truth and getting to bottom of things

Do we?

Damn..I hope we do....this is an archaeology site....is that not a huge part of archaeology..... truth!?

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:20 am

marduk wrote:
"Why the double standard? Could it have been that the 'quarry marks' conformed strictly to orthodox opinion that the Great Pyramid had been built as a tomb for Khufu? whereas the Inventory Stele contradicted that opinion?"
did you check Hancocks source for that claim
you should have done
It was Z.Sitchin
roflmao

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

I did not check it but I will.....you haven't shown much credibility when it comes to Hancock. One suspects it is personal.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:23 am

I never heard of Sitchin. You keep talking about him. Do you have a link?

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:43 am

As usual, marduk, when it comes to Hancock you misstate...deliberately I suspect.

The quote I posted is not footnoted at all. As Hancock is usually careful to footnote sources I assume that the comment in question is his own. The prior 4 footnotes are from James Henry Breasted's Ancient Records of Egypt then there are two from Sitchin's Stairway to Heaven.

Post by **Minimalist** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:59 am

Hmmm....

Nibiru (the planet associated with Marduk in Babylonian cosmology) is a central element of Sitchin's theory.

Seems like you and Sitchin should be great pals, marduk!

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:02 pm

Sicthin made the claim first

are you saying that Hancock discovered this independantly or would you like to admit you were wrong right now and save a little face

1. Readers should also be aware that I fundamentally disagree with Sitchin over the age of the Giza Pyramids. In order to support his revised chronology of mankind, and his contention that these pyramids were built as "ground markers" for the Anunnaki's incoming space flights, it was Sitchin who first suggested that Colonel Richard Howard Vyse faked the "Khufu quarry marks" in the Relieving Chambers in the Great Pyramid, some of which include the name Khufu. On proper investigation this proves to be one of the most appalling and distorted attacks on Vyse's character and integrity imaginable, and a full and highly detailed rebuttal of this nonsense can be found in Giza: The Truth, Chapter 2, pp. 94-113. Bearing in mind that it was this original attack by Sitchin which prompted so many other 'alternative Egyptologists' to repeat his accusations without question - although fortunately now most of them have seen the light - this saga perhaps more than any other tells us a very great deal about Sitchin and his work.

http://www.ianlawton.com/mes6f.htm

I never heard of Sitchin. You keep talking about him. Do you have a link?

http://www.sitchin.com/

Knock yourself out Frank

no seriously take some kind of anaesthetic before clicking on that link
you will certainly need it

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:19 pm

Ok it took me about 10 seconds to find out all I need to know about that guy. Sounds like Von Daniken on steroids.

Starflower · Post by **Starflower** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 12:56 pm

Frank Harrist wrote:Ok it took me about 10 seconds to find out all I need to know about that guy. Sounds like Von Daniken on steroids.

Ditto

Thanks for the links Marduk.

Archaeologica.org

Giza

Sitchin who?