Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> [academia.edu]
>
> It isn’t very often that a theory comes along that
> one single piece of evidence, one tiny little
> detail, can destroy the entire thesis.
>
> But here is one of them.
>
> In a nutshell, the author asserts that the
> pyramids were built centuries earlier over many
> generations for purposes unknown. This single
> sentence sums up what the author wishes were true,
> so that he could proceed with his baseless
> speculations:
>
> “The Great Pyramid itself did not contain any
> cartouche of Khufu.” (P.12)

Well, yes. The whole paragraph reads:

Quote

Not many people know it, but there is a pyramid further south along the Nile that does contain the cartouches of Khufu. This pyramid stands at El-Lisht, near Meidum, and has no associated pharaoh, although some have thought of King Seankhare, Nebtaire, and Amenemhat I. Strangely enough, although this pyramid contains many cartouches of Khufu in the related temple complex,their existence has been interpreted as the result of pillage from the Great Pyramid, which is absurd, considering the total lack of inscriptions in any of the three Giza pyramids and their satellite. There is no evidence whatsoever anywhere in the Great Pyramid or the causeway or the temple complexes from where these cartouches could have come. Under normal scientific scrutiny such inscriptions would automatically have instead led Egyptologists to assign the El-Lisht pyramid to this pharaoh. The pyramids of Dashur and Meidum have been assigned to Khufu’s father Snefru on much weaker grounds! But here it was maintained that the owner had plundered the stones of the Great Pyramid, although the Great Pyramid itself did not contain any cartouche of Khufu!

As is widely known, and contrary to Onvleen's claim, there is not only an example of the cartouche name Khufu in the relieving chambers, but also several of Khnum Khufu and several of the (non-cartouche) Horus name Medjedu.

For more on Excavations at Lisht, see Arthur C. Mace, The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, Vol. 17, No. 12, Part 2: The Egyptian Expedition MCMXXI-MCMXXII (Dec., 1922), pp. 4-18; 13 - [www.jstor.org].

See also these archive posts - [www.hallofmaat.com]; and [www.hallofmaat.com], which contains this link - [www.metmuseum.org].


> In order for Onvlee’s speculation to work (It
> really isn’t fair to even call it a theory,
> because it actually omits ample data we have in
> our possession), there must be no inscriptions
> inside Khufu’s pyramid at Giza. The simple
> existence of the cartouche in the Relieving
> Chambers remove all doubt that the pyramid was
> built in the Fourth Dynasty according to the
> proper chronology that has developed over the last
> 2000 years. This armchair researcher adds nothing
> to the conversation except a discussion of a few
> pyramids and the obvious acknowledgement that they
> are made of limestone.
>
> Oh wait. He actually brings up Davidovits, so he
> won’t even acknowledge that.
>
> I give this theory 3.5 Stargates out of 5.

Hermione
Director/Moderator - The Hall of Ma'at

Rules and Guidelines

hallofmaatforum@proton.me