i think that the egyptians could have banished someone from their land and heard of a new land and sent them there. Then the banished person then traveled into australia and/or arizona and lived there, puting the heiroglyphs there. I mean you never kow unless you were in that time period and knew exactly what was happening with everyone and everything. but i do think that my idea is a possibility.

Yes, but there would be a record that banished people were sent to another "red land." There would have been a record. Or maybe we didn't find it yet.

Yeah. You gotta think with all the things that people have excavated, they've hardly done a thing! Think of all the things not right next to the Nile river, what about the Oases? I wonder how much more there is to discover?

Maybe the went the other way around the globe, maybe through the red sea, like you said, to Australia, and then to America, at the bottom of California, then they could have explored for a while before settling in the caves in the Grand Canyon before carving any Hieroglyphics.

And since there is so far no historical facts abotu this from Egypt, maybe it was a secret expedition.

Okay, I don't know, I'm just typing the first things that pop into my head. It's been a long day and I'm really tired, so if this sounds really stupid and utterly rediculus, that's why.

Good-night,

Well, the Pharoah would know about it. Besides rebellion, the people never did anything big without Pharoah's permission.

If the ancient egyptians went to arizona and wrote on the canyon dont you think we would have some evidence outside of the canyon writings?

I have been told most ancient sailors got very upset if they got out of sight of land - but I believe a canoe load of African fishermen did get blown to Brazil quite recently.
About Arizona - thats a long way inland isnt it?
About Australia - what are the prevailing winds & currents from anywhere the Egyptians would want to go deliberatly? And how far inland is the site?

If I was an ancient Egytian I would either be trying to get home or settling on a nice home like river bank if I did not think I could make it back.

This is an interesting link Osiris.

I would like to point one thing out that Dr.Gilbert wrote:

"The box on the right is headed by a Duck and Sun title which means 'Son of Re', while the name within the box is unknown but possible could be read as 'Neferankhru'. Interestingly this name is written similar to Khufu's fathers name Sneferu' but has used an Ankh sign instead of a Rolled linen sign. So if we were to believe this inscription we would think that it was of Khufu of the 4th dynasty, unfortunately the 'Son of Re' title was not used until the 5th dynasty and hence this creates a major problem in our believing this text. You should perhaps read the few pages on kings names in pages 267-73 of An Introduction to Egypt by T.G.H. James, which is available in most libraries. To summarise the text cannot be translated although it has several hieroglyphs which could represent names from several different periods of Egyptian history. "

I do believe Dr. Gilbert is incorrect. I am not at home and don't have my books with me but If I remember correctly, Djedefre (Redjedef) the 3rd king of the 4th dynasty, son of Khufu and brother of Khafre was the first to use the Sa Re or Son of Ra title. Now I am not saying the inscription is or is not a forgery but being that Djedefre was pharaoh before Khafre and in the 4th dynasty it makes Dr.Gilberts point on the included Son of Re title being a "major problem in our believing this text" null and void.

I will look into this when I get home.