Thanks for the reply.
Scott Creighton wrote:
> Hi Lee,
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
Is this why you concentrate on it so much? In fairness to Sitchin, at least he had the idea in the first place....
But no, this is not what I mean. I am referring to the greater context of concentrating on one cartouche at the expense of dozens of other hieroglyphics found in the chambers. If we are to determine the provenance of one it stands to reason we must do so for all.
LA: 1) How do you (we) reconcile the other 2 dozen or so
> lines hieroglyphs in the greater context of pre-4th Dynasty
> 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.
Ok. Interesting. So, if this account is accepted we can accept that some, most likely most, are genuine and were already there which is significant. And of the ones in dispute, some were just "retouched" implying they are still what they originally were just glossed over and not necessarily altered.
> As far as I can tell, there are not 2 dozen cartouches in the
> lower chambers.
I did not say there were 2 dozen cartouches but rather 2 dozen lines of hieroglyphic writing. A notable distinction.
>There are six full cartouches of Khnum-Khuf and
> crew names and a few partial cartouches.
But there are many other cartouches beyond these six, no? In the picture I post above I count 8 full or partial cartouches in just Lady Arbuthnot's chamber alone.
But one of the points I make is that the presence of the cartouche itself, regardless of what it says, is damning context in and of itself as it does not appear in AE until the 3rd Dynasty. So, unless Vyse and Co. faked every single cartouche would it not then be fair to say the presence of the cartouches date the provenance of access to these chambers to the 3rd Dynasty or later?
> 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.
I see that, but just in Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber there are several strings of symbols which must actually say something beyond just numbers or noting an animal.
> SC: I think it would have been easily achievable for Vyse and
> his assistants to easily replicate 6 or 7 cartouches of royal
> names (notwithstanding the comments of others in this thread
> that these are indeed royal names).
There appears to be more than that, but regardless, if so then should we not also find fault in most if not all of them as well? In fact, given the greater context should we not be compelled to find fault?
> 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 taht 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 thsi team
> becomes the fruit of the poisonous tree. None of it should be
> admissible as evidence.
I suppose this all plays into it, but given there are so many lines of hieroglyphs the greater burden falls in establishing their context as a whole and not just the "Khufu cartouche". For one, it would be required to prove all the cartouches are fakes as this would be necessary to establish a possible provenance prior to the 3rd Dynasty. Secondly, it would be necessary to compare the writing styles inside the cartouches with the hieroglyphs outside cartouches to compare and contrast any differences or similarities with more archaic forms of these symbols.
Don't get me wrong Scott, I appreciate the effort you and Audrey have put into this subject and find merit in it, but what is being lost to me is the greater context of all the writing found in the relieving chambers which on balance I believe dates them all. Ultimately this is my interest in the subject.
Post Edited (18-Jul-14 00:20)