Here, for reference, is an image of (part of) the relevant page, with the captions ringed in blue and the “cross-reference marks” ringed in red:
Creighton’s Figure 2 is his own drawing of the drawing captioned “in Campbell’s Chamber”. We may note in passing (as here) that Creighton has also drawn the reference mark, having evidently mistaken it for part of the inscription. Creighton’s Figure 2 is connected to the image of the original by the usual apparatus in this article of red dotted lines.
What does Creighton say about this?
“. . . The second cartouche (Figure 2), also found by Vyse, is presented only in his handwritten journal (he didn’t publish this) and has clearly been found somewhere else since it is slightly different from the cartouche in the Great Pyramid; i.e., it has no horizontal lines in the small circle on the right. Had the cartouche in Figure 2 been copied from the cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber, then Vyse most surely would have copied the small lines into the plain circle that we observe in the circle of Figure 1. That he did not copy these lines tells us he did not observe such lines in the circle of this cartouche in Figure 2, which implies, of course, that the cartouche in Figure 2 is from a different source than the one in Campbell’s Chamber (Figure 1).”
“. . . the cartouche in Figure 2 is from a different source than the one in Campbell’s Chamber . . .”
I will pose this as a question. Has Creighton not stated and argued, in the clearest possible terms, that the inscription represented by the smaller drawing, the one captioned “in Campbell’s Chamber”, is not the one in Campbell’s Chamber? Never mind the sheer eccentricity of this, which is merely a good predictor of what is to come.
Would not anyone reading this and looking at the evidence assume (and this on a charitable reading) that Creighton had overlooked the caption? Had simply not seen it?
Imagine my surprise, then, on reading this (on the final page of Creighton’s article):
“. . . On June 16 . . . he draws the plain blank disc again from the Chamber (we know this because of the two dots under the snake and also because Vyse writes alongside “in Campbell’s Chamber”).”
That’s right, folks. He’s talking about the same drawing. Saying that the caption “in Campbell’s Chamber” is next to it tells us so.
What is Creighton trying to pull here?
On a charitable reading, we would say that Creighton was very, very confused when he wrote this. Well, charity is exhausted and I’m going to say what I think.
Creighton knew perfectly well that the drawing is captioned “in Campbell’s Chamber” when he denied that it was of the inscription in Campbell’s Chamber. He chose (in this earlier part of the article) not to mention the caption. We have to ask why. It was certainly relevant — relevant in the sense that it flatly contradicts what Creighton says. The answer “which suggests itself” is that it didn’t suit his purpose — didn’t suit what he was trying to put over to (or put over on) the reader.
When it suits him, the drawing is of an inscription found outside the pyramid and when it suits him, the same drawing is of an inscription in Campbell’s Chamber, on grounds of the caption “in Campbell’s Chamber” (which hasn’t just magically appeared but was there all along).
Creighton alleges that Vyse contradicted himself. Well, sorry, no, Creighton, you don’t prove self-contradiction by engaging in it yourself. That’s not how it works.
Whatever Creighton’s murky thought process, hia argument is self-contradictory — and self-contradiction is grounds in LOGIC for chucking the whole thing out without further discussion. I suggest we do so.
Post Edited (03-Jun-14 22:42)