January 24, 2015 By Joseph P. Farrell

I have to blog about this one, shared with us by Mr. M.D., because this website has "Giza" in its very name. It seems Dr. Zahi Hawass, Egypt's former minister of antiquities, is under fire once again:

Former Egyptian antiquities minister faces questions over theft from pyramid

There's so much fuel here for high octane speculation I scarcely know where to begin, but perhaps here is as safe as any:

"In April 2013, the three Germans – two amateur archaeologists and a film-making accomplice – crept inside the inner sanctum of the Great Pyramid at Giza, the last the seven wonders of the ancient world to remain relatively intact.

"The trio, conspiracy theorists Dominique Görlitz, Stefan Erdmann and Peter Hoefer, wanted to show that the pyramid was not the final resting place of the pharaoh Khufu, as has long been accepted, but was in fact a relic of an even older empire.

"In an attempt to prove this, they scraped off part of the pyramid’s cartouche – the insignia that denotes for whom the pyramid was built – and took it back to Germany for testing. Following an international outcry, the samples were later returned, and the men put on trial in absentia – along with five Egyptian officials accused of helping them to illegally access the pyramid.

"All eight were convicted on Tuesday, after a trial in which the five officials claimed that it was in fact Hawass, a controversial former antiquities minister, who had facilitated the theft of the samples, during his involvement in a documentary about the cartouche in 2010.

Now for those who don't know what is being referred to, the "cartouche" in question are the only "hieroglyphics" ever discovered in the Great Pyramid, in the so-called "relieving chambers" above the so-called "King's chamber" in the structure. (Note the names of the chambers, more or less "official" within Egyptology, were chosen to emphasize the Pyramid's role as a "tomb" and to divert attention from any functional purpose such chambers may once have held, other than for some sort of bizarre funeral rites). The cartouches were "discovered" in the first half of the 19th century by British Colonel Howard Vyse, and the discovery was not without controversy, for it is the only written evidence within the Pyramid itself connecting it and its construction to the Pharaoh Khufu and hence, Vyse's cartouche conveniently confirms the standard Egyptological explanations.

There were, however, "problems," not the least of which was that Vyse, having made the discovery, prevented anyone from seeing it until he could translate it, and this has fueled speculations that he in fact wrote or forged the cartouche in its red paint, and then subsequently made the announcement of his discovery to the world. Matters weren't helped by the allegations of some, including well-known "alternative researchers" Zechariah Sitchin and Alan Alford, that the cartouche shows signs of egregious errors, errors no self-respecting Egyptian would have made. Then there's the location of the cartouche itself: in the "relieving chambers" above the King's Chamber, which, prior to Vyse's dynamiting a channel to them, would simply never have been seen. By anyone. At any time. Contrast this to the very visible and accessible hieroglyphs on other Egyptian monuments, and you get the idea: in spite of the best efforts of standard Egyptology to deny it, there is a problem, and it just won't go away. (Let's point out, too, that not all alternative researchers share the view that the Great Pyramid predates dynastic Egypt. Chris Dunn, Graham Hancock, and others, are perfectly comfortable with the standard Egyptological dating of the structure.)

How to resolve it? Easy: simply have the red paint carbon-dated to see how old it is.

But there matters get murky,for  at one time attempts to date the paint were consistently blocked (and, to be fair, who in the alternative research community would believe the results if, say, the dating came back with an ancient date consistent with a dynastic origin of the structure during the period of Khufu, and hence, ancient origin, for the cartouche? One can hear the debate, if such had happened, even now: Vyse somehow managed to get his hands on some real ancient Egyptian red paint and simply painted the cartouche, or the results and data were contaminated, or there was no real chain of possession in evidence from the Pyramid to the testing laboratory, etc etc.)

Why am I bothering you with all of this? Very simply: the article states that Germans were involved - allegedly with the collusion of Dr Hawass - in precisely such an effort to date the ink of the Pyramid's cartouche, and presumably show the paint to have been of recent origin, and hence, to discredit Vyse's discovery, thereby opening the way for the redating of the Pyramid to a far older time than that of ancient dynastic Egypt. Don't get me wrong here: I have huge problems with Vyse's cartouche, as do most people in the alternative research community(problems I detailed in Giza Death Star Deployed). And I am certainly of the opinion that the structure is older than dynastic Egypt. But the idea that Dr Hawass would be involved in such a project, when he has been a consistent defender of standard Egyptological dating for the structure and a consistent defender of Khufu being the pharaoh responsible for it, is to my mind absurd, unless there's an even bigger double game going on than one can imagine.

I do find it very interesting that, once again, one has the involvement of Germans in a major archeological question, concerning the oldest monument on Earth, and the tallest man-made structure in the world until the Eiffel Tower was built. In short, there's a major game going on behind the scenes at Giza, and once again, it concerns the question of just how old that structure is. And that's a major question, for if it is older then dynastic Egypt, then its function must be other than that to entomb a pharaoh or enshrine his ego in a vast building construction project.

See you on the flip side...