Alan Alford responds to Martin

Alan Alford

Hi Martin,

Sounds like I've got you worried!

Thank you for confirming that all three names of Khufu - including the
Horus Medjedu name - were inscribed together in an inscription in Sinai,
and reproduced in 'Voyage de l'Arabie Petree' - published in 1832 - 5
years BEFORE Vyse made his discovery.

I mentioned this only because it backs up the point which I previously
made - that Vyse could have copied ALL of the inscriptions from a location
outside the Great Pyramid to the Construction Chambers inside the Pyramid.

The Sinai inscriptions are relevant only as an example of how the names
were often written together.

Your contention that no-one could read the Horus names in 1837 is
irrelevant. It is my contention that Vyse copied what he saw, probably
from the nearby quarries or the tombs of Khufu's kinsfolk, and I would
suggest that he found the Horus-name written <without> the serekh.

Anyway, your note about Wilkinson is a little incomplete. Not only did he
observe that the serekhs 'relate to the kings' but he included Khufu's
serekh directly alongside the cartouche name for Khufu. He labelled them
"1a/1b the name of Shufu or Suphis". This was in his 1837 book, published
in the months BEFORE Vyse's 'discovery'.

As you well know, Wilkinson HAD made the connection in 1837 between the
readings Khufu/Shufu and Suphis/Cheops. And it had long been suspected
that Cheops was the king who had built the Great Pyramid - as related by
Herodotus.

So, IF Vyse saw Wilkinson's book - which you must admit as a probability
(or even a 'possibility' will suffice) - he could hardly have failed to
make the necessary connections from Cheops to the cartouches for
Shufu/Khufu AND to the serekh-name (which we now know to read 'Hor
Medjedu').

As for the Khnum-kuefui cartouche name, Wilkinson also reproduced this in
his 1837 book, directly alongside the names of Shufu, labelling it
'2.Numba-Khufu or Chembres'. So IF Vyse had seen this book, which I will
presume he did, he would have been intrigued by the 'Khufu' connection
between this name 'Numba-Khufu' and Shufu/Khufu/Cheops.

Now we know that Vyse spent months at Giza and had his men copying
inscriptions there. And we know from Birch and Wilkinson that these
cartouche names and the serekh had already been found at Giza (for
example, Wilkinson's plate of the names is captioned 'From the Tombs near
the Pyramids'). So it does not take a huge leap of faith to suppose that
Vyse had first-hand experience of ALL these names.

So, all we need is for Vyse to have found all three names together - in a
quarry or a tomb - to make the logical connection that they were all
related to the same king, Cheops, who was already supposed to have been
the owner of the Pyramid.

So, did Vyse forge the king's names? Let's just remind ourselves of a few
salient facts:

1. There were no proper archaeological controls or verification procedures
in operation to authenticate the marks that were found when the
Construction Chambers were opened by Vyse.

2. By 1837, all chambers inside the Great Pyramid had been thoroughly
explored and no other inscriptions had been found. Only the 'air shafts'
remained unexplored, and they were almost completely inaccessible. So
there was little likelihood of a fraud ever being subsequently exposed by
new, contrary evidence.

3. Vyse, by his own admission, was running out of time and money and was
desperate to make a discovery.

4. The red ochre paint which was used in the ancient inscriptions was
still readily available in 1837.

So did he do it? Did Vyse commit the forgery? On the evidence of what's in
the Great Pyramid alone, we may never know for certain. But there are
several things, Martin, which should make you feel uncomfortable with your
oh-so-confident assertion that the names are authentic:

(i) No graffiti marks were found in the lowest chamber - the only one NOT
opened by Vyse.

(ii) Arguably, the term 'craftsman' found in the crew names does not
belong in the context of a work gang engaged in lifting heavy stones, but
rather to craftsmanship as in making statues, furniture or other
artifacts, as might be found in temples or tombs. This seems to support my
hypothesis that the marks were copied from one location to another, but
I'd love to hear what you think.

(iii) The graffiti includes a lot of very strange stuff which you do know
about, Martin, but which you don't like to talk about. Please allow me to
remind you:

* In Nelson's Chamber, northern side of western wall, the cartouche which
should follow 'the Craftsmens 'Crew' symbols is almost entirely missing.

* In Arbuthnot's Chamber, northern side of western wall, there is a
genuinely malformed cartouche, which has nothing to do with Khufu. How
odd.

* In Arbuthnot's Chamber, southern side of western wall, there is a
confusing jumble of hieroglyphs, seemingly a crew name based on Horus
Medjedu which appears to have been partly obliterated and then repainted.
Why?
  
* In Arbuthnot's Chamber, northern wall, there are no less than SIX
attempts to produce the Khnum-kuefui cartouche, only ONE of which has been
properly completed. Mighty strange.

* In Arbuthnot's Chamber, southern wall, there are 2 fragmentary attempts
at the Horus Medjeru name, plus sundry other marks of uncertain character.
How peculiar.

Even if we leave to one side the whole battery of evidence that the Great
Pyramid dates centuries earlier than Khufu, the above facts must at the
very least cast considerable doubt on the authenticity of the
inscriptions.

All I can hope to do with this evidence is to demonstrate that the
orthodox argument for the authenticity of the inscriptions is by no means
a watertight case. Considerable doubt exists and should be acknowledged.

I would add that few people realise just to what extent the orthodox case
hangs on these Vyse inscriptions. I believe that I have demonstrated this
point amply in my book 'The Phoenix Solution'.

As you can see Martin, your abuse and threats don't worry me in the
slightest. The facts speak for themselves.

As for Hancock's statement, Martin, don't make me laugh! You have no
evidence, just hearsay, and some very vague hearsay at that. I suggest you
try and get some good photos because you're really going to need them. I
tell you what - if you manage to get you and me, both, a double written
invitation from Hawass to go up into the Construction Chambers, equipped
with proper lighting, I'll pay for your return flight to Egypt. How about
that for an 'honest attempt to discover the truth'?

*************************


T Bird