> SC: There is no "might" about it. From Vyse's private journal:
From your iffy transcription of a caption in the journal, actually:Quote
"Cartouches in tomb to the W.[est] of first pyramid are different than Suphis" R. W. Howard Vyse
Look at the strings which you’ve transcribed as “to the” and “than” respectively. They’re very similar. More likely this: “Cartouches in Tomb to the W. of Great Pyramid are different to the Suphis” or, glossing the ellipsis, “Cartouches in Tomb to the W. of Great Pyramid are different to the [cartouche of] Suphis”.
What does this tell us about what Vyse knew a day, or a week, or a month, before he wrote the caption? Does the name “Suphis” appear frequently in the journal? Do we find it earlier in the journal? If not, what does this tell us about Vyse’s supposed prior knowledge of the name?
> SC: To be able to recognise any differences, Vyse would HAVE to
> know (or think he knew) the correct spelling of Khufu (aka
Er, Creighton? One of the “different” cartouches is a cartouche of “Suphis”. Vyse drew it without lines in the disc. As we have seen, there are no detectable lines in the disc in the photographs and epigraphy of the cartouches in this tomb. So much for your idea that Vyse got the idea of lines from this source! What puzzled Vyse was that the pyramid example had lines while the other did not: this was one of the differences noted. Note also that Vyse included the characters following the cartouche, the ones which tell us (I don’t include you) that we are looking at a title: “hm ntr (priest) of Khufu”. Clearly Vyse did understand that the “gibberish” characters with the cartouche made a difference. So much for the idea that he’d copy “gibberish” characters which for all he knew might be wildly inappropriate.
> CM: < But how would he have been able to recognise the
> smrw apr component that accompanies it?
> SC: Why would he have to recognise it? He recognises the
> "Khufu" cartouche alongside some other gibberish glyphs which
> he doesn't understand. So what--by their proximity it is
> reasonable to conclude that the other 'gibberish glyphs' would
> clearly relate to Khufu (i.e. the one thing Vyse CAN
> recognise), so he copies it all.
These “gibberish glyphs” include multiple examples of two other crew names at least, one of them containing a whole other cartouche name, one which Vyse’s supposed guide in these matters, Rosellini, assigned to a supposed “brother of” Suphis and not to Suphis himself (the builder of the pyramid according to Manetho). If Vyse knew enough to recognise a given cartouche name, he knew enough to recognise a cartouche (and the journal bears this out). Why on earth would he use what his sources would have told him was the wrong name?
Note also that this conjectured “Alfordian” source is the presumable source of two significant characteristics of the crew names: (1) their arrangement in pairs and (2) their limitation to single blocks, not crossing block boundaries. In the simplest version of the Alfordian conjecture — all inscriptions copied en bloc into the pyramid — this would require an original context identically similar to the chambers in the pyramid. Have you identified such a context?
Absent such a context, we are back to Vyse using the material with discernment and not just copying it blindly. The considerations noted by Merrell apply.
Edited 2017-04-12 to fix link format.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12-Apr-17 09:06 by Martin Stower.