LA: I just don't understand why so much time is devoted to bickering ad nauseum over this one cartouche...
SC: I can see why you think that. I think that the answer is partially an historical hangover from the flawed forgery claim made by Sitchin concerning this particular cartouche back in the early 1980s. Sitchin really got it badly wrong, didn't do his research properly and I think seriously misrepresented the actual facts. But, for better or worse, his book ended up being a best seller and his forgery claim eventually lit up the internet by his adherents. So, in short, I think Sitchin is largely to blame for the concentration on this particular cartouche.
LA: 1) How do you (we) reconcile the other 2 dozen or so lines hieroglyphs in the greater context of pre-4th Dynasty construction?
SC: According to Walter Allen's family account, his great-grandfather, Humphries Brewer worked with Vyse and his assistants at Giza in 1837. Apparently Brewer had a fallout with Vyse, Raven and Hill about marks they were painting in the pyramid--"faint marks were repainted, some were new" is how Allen writes it in his family account. What this means, of course, is that there WERE markings in the Great Pyramid of some description (if we are to accept the Allen/Brewer family account). We just have to determine which ones were original and which were added.
As far as I can tell, there are not 2 dozen cartouches in the lower chambers. There are six full cartouches of Khnum-Khuf and crew names and a few partial cartouches. There are many other markings that are not names of any AE king--birds, deer (gazelle?), numbers etc. You can see some of these in the photos of Dr Colette Dowall and Dr Robert Schoch that others have posted in this thraed.
LA: 2) If we cannot, then what does this mean as to the state of construction G1 allowing access to these areas by the peoples of the 3rd-5th Dynasties?
SC: I think it would have been easily achievable for Vyse and his assistants to replicate 6 or 7 cartouches of royal names (notwithstanding the comments of others in this thread that these are indeed royal names). Vyse clearly had a secret source of information--his handwritten diary implies such i.e. he KNEW (or believed he knew) what the Khufu cartouche should look like. It is not at all inconceivable that he would also have had information about Khnum-Khuf also in the same context as Khufu in his 'secret' source.
I think, however, the bottom line comes down to one of credibility. We now know that Vyse was a man who would gladly resort to fraud to achieve his ends. If it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt (and I think that it can) that Vyse and/or his team faked just a few markings in this pyramid in 1837 then everything else claimed to have been discovered by his team becomes the fruit of the poisonous tree. It all beocmes tainted and, therefore, cannot be admissible as evidence.
Post Edited (17-Jul-14 23:48)