GR: I see that Perring does indeed have the 2 dots but Vyse does not in their publications.
SC: Which appears to me that Perring was in two minds as regards these two particular dots, at first appearing to agree with Vyse and Hill and then later changing his mind.
GR: So he looked at them and thought they were part of the design.
SC: Or was persuaded by Vyse who perhaps showed Perring his 'master' cartouche which had two marks below the snake glyph.
SC: Given the abundance of these paint spots within and outwith this cartouche, it simply makes no sense why anyone could think those particular two spots were of any more significance than any of the others we observe.
GR: Except Perring must have thought so or he would not have published them.
SC: See above.
GR: Vyse on the other hand decided the two dots were not part of the design and dropped them.
SC: The question is why did he think they were part of the design in the FIRST place? Why did he not think that dots would just be paint drops/splatter? These dots do not appear any more prominent than other dots in that cartouche.
Vyse tells us in his published book that Campbell's Chamber was minutely examined for markings. This is to be expected after all the other markings he found in the chambers below. As such I do not see how Vyse could have missed those other dots in and out of this cartouche nor why he would have thought the two he drew were any more significant than the others.
SC: Of course, if these had been observed in a cartouche elsewhere and were the ONLY two markings under the snake glyph (i.e. there were no other splashes of paint to be seen) then it is easy to see in that circumstance why Vyse & Hill might have thought they were actually part of the king's name and hence why they would have copied them into their faked Khufu cartouche they inscribed onto the gabled trussing in Campbell's Chamber.
GR: Another cartouche with dots is not in evidence so just making one up to fit your theory is not cricket.
SC: I am NOT making it up. The other cartouche is right there in Vyse's private journal. Here:
Notice two things about the above cartouche:
1) Unlike the cartouche in Campbell's Chamber, this cartouche (drawn TWICE in Vyse's private journal), has no hatched lines in the disc.
2) Unlike the cartouche in Campbell's Chamber, this cartouche (again drawn TWICE in Vyse's private journal), has been drawn horizontally. The cartouche in Campbell's is vertical. In all his other cartouches and other hieroglyphs from these chambers Vyse made in his private journal, he always maintained the correct orienation of the drawing--except for this one cartouche (and its crew name).
The above image was Vyse's master (at least a copy of it); a cartouche that is not actually in Campbell's Chamber for the two reasons stated above.
SC: Perhaps Perring was initially persuaded by Vyse/Hill of the significance of those two dots (hence why they are in Perring's initial drawing) but later, perhaps after Vyse left Egypt, Perring had another look and changed his mind.
GR: Maybe. But then you are admitting that Perring seeing the dots, even with other dots present still thought they belonged in the design or out of caution included them because he could see them.
SC: And, as stated above, Perring may have been convinced of the significance of these two particular dots having been made privy to Vyse's master which only had these two dots. But we will likely never know for certain why they eventually decided the two dots were irrelevant. The point is, if they eventually concluded that they were not relevant to the design, why think in the first place that they WERE relevant to the design? What changed their minds?
SC: Speculation here, of course, but, as stated, it simply makes no sense that anyone could see these particular spots of paint as having any more significance than any of the others.
GR: And yet apparently Perring, Vyse and Hill did.
SC: Because on the 'master' they were probably the ONLY two dots.
GR: On many of the photographs the 2 dots do seem more prominent under certain lighting than they may be in fact.
SC: As stated, Vyse tells us Campbell's Chamber was minutely examined for markings. As such having seen these two dots he would surely have asked the question--are these just random paint drops or are they part of the name? Having asked that question of himself he would surely have looked much more closely to see if there were any other similar spots of paint--and would have found that there were many. As such he would have surely concluded that those two dots were of no more significance than the others. And, having minutely examined these markings, why did Vyse TWICE totally miss the hatched lines in the cartouche disc?
GR: They may initially have been included when Vyse and Hill looked at them because they were expecting to see a Khnum ram and with so many of the inscriptions in bad shape they may have thought the two dots were remnants of the ram.
SC: This 'expectation' then would surely have made Vyse pay particular attention to the disc of the Khufu cartouche. In six examples of Khnum-Khuf cartouches from the chambers below, the discs of those cartouches have lines in them. If Vyse was expecting to see something similar, why would he fail (on TWO occasions) to spot the lines in the Khufu disc? Are we to believe he could spot two small, isolated dots and think that these were important to note (several times) in his journal but that the lines in the disc were not? That is simply not a credible argument.
Post Edited (09-Sep-14 01:26)