Archaeologica.org

I appreciate the link, Doug. It took a while to hunt it down but I got it.
This is what I was afraid of. The translation above attempts to fill in the blanks....however, this one, gives us a translation of the actual words.

When he had finished this speech, this king's-son rawokel hearing thisa _ _. , he understood the words of this god, and he kept silent in his
heart. bHe said:b "Come, let us hasten to our house in the city; theyC
shall protect the oblations for this god lSdwhich we bring for him:
oxen 1-1 and all young vegetables; and we shall give praise [to] Wenn
~ f e r , ~ - - - Khaf[re],e the statue made for Atum-Harmakhis

In this translation we have no idea what if anything Khaf [re]? may have done or not done.

Anyway, as a poster called Beth wrote on the Guardian forum, "The "Dream Stela" is mostly a 'propaganda' announcement (probably intended to lend legitimacy to TIV's claim to the throne). " Whatever it said, it isn't an historical record of what happened a thousand years before it was carved.

Min - I see you found what you were looking for. Good.

It got too late for me. I'll be around later today.

Whatever it said, it isn't an historical record

And yet Egyptologists hold it up as proof that Khafre built the Sphinx.
This seems to be a contradiction.

Min, it's gonna be later before I get back. Weekends are demanding on my time.

Hey, Doug, well I did go back and read the discussion as you suggested....(it was waaayyy too late last night) and it was interesting. See the thread on History v Archaeology for an example of why the written word cannot always be relied upon.





[/quote]

Beagle wrote:

Whatever it said, it isn't an historical record

And yet Egyptologists hold it up as proof that Khafre built the Sphinx.
This seems to be a contradiction.

Min, it's gonna be later before I get back. Weekends are demanding on my time.

Well, as Breasted's translation shows, part of the name of Khafre appears at the very bottom of the readable text and gives absolutely no context for the name doing anything. It may have said Khafre built it. It could also just as easily have been an 18th Dynasty equivalent of "George Washington Slept Here." The tantalizing aspect is that had it been found even 50 years earlier the whole line of text may have still been legible. Unfortunate.

I have to confess Min, the last time we were posting here I nodded right out for a half hour. So I just went on to bed.

I have the advantage....it's earlier here.

We had finished talking about the lack of proof that Khafre is the originator of the Sphinx - or the pyramid for that matter. Did we settle up on Vyse?

Beagle wrote:We had finished talking about the lack of proof that Khafre is the originator of the Sphinx - or the pyramid for that matter. Did we settle up on Vyse?

What about Vyse?

Doug

On page 303 of the 1995 copyrighted edition, Hancock asks "Was Vyse a forger?"

Once again Doug, when we're done we may be able to spend a little time with you on this. I can tell you're having a tough time trying to figure out what we're talking about.

Be patient.

Beagle wrote:On page 303 of the 1995 copyrighted edition, Hancock asks "Was Vyse a forger?"

Once again Doug, when we're done we may be able to spend a little time with you on this. I can tell you're having a tough time trying to figure out what we're talking about.

Be patient.

Not really. But we can ignore that bit of the book because Hancock now says the answer is No, right?

Hancock now says the answer is No

Hancock never said the answer was Yes.

Testing.

Up and running for the moment - too bad we can't copy our comments from Monday.