So far, so good. In figure 5.3 we have the logogram for a marsh or flooded land with crops growing from it. This logogram on its own provides us with the idea of the land (the oval glyph) being covered with water to enable crops to emerge from the land. This is a reasonable logogram to symbolize the seasonal Nile inundation. This logogram is then reinforced with the signs of “kh” and “t” (the hatched circle and half-circle) to phonetically spell out the actual word akhet. Thus we have kh t or akhet, meaning “flood season” or “time of flood.”*2
Let us turn now to the second akhet image (figure 5.4), with the ibis. The signs are to be read from left to right, and where signs are placed one above the other, these should be read from top to bottom. As stated earlier, according to Lehner, the first sign—the crested ibis—presents a logogram for the idea of “spirit” or “spirit state,” or something along those lines. The hatched circle sign (kh) and the half-circle sign (t) give kh t. But in this version of akhet we do not find the flooded land logogram with crops emerging from the floodwaters, which would indicate the annual flood season but are instead presented with the ibis logogram. So logically this word kh t with the ibis logogram must have a different meaning than the seasonal “Nile inundation.” It is not unreasonable to suggest that with the ibis logogram what is being alluded to here is an inundation but an inundation of a quite different kind.
As previously stated, the ibis logogram is given the phonetic value “akh.” Once again it is spelled with the hatched-circle sign (“kh”) and the half-circle sign (“t”). Thus we have the word akhet. The additional sign of the strip of land with the pyramid on top is offered as a determinative to assist in the understanding of the word (the context) and has no phonetic value. It is believed that the strip of land glyph (some translations say “island”) is associated with “horizon,” while the pyramid glyph is believed to symbolize the tomb where the akh (“effective one”) is created.
It has to be said that the conventional understanding of this version of the word akhet as meaning “horizon” seems to be something of a tortuous and convoluted interpretation. We might well ask: How exactly does the crested ibis as a logogram easily and obviously convey the idea of “spirit” or “radiant light” (akh)? As previously stated, the basic concept of the logogram is that the sign itself should symbolize the idea of the word and that it should do so in as clear, simple, and unambiguous a fashion as possible. The use of the ibis as a logogram to symbolize “spirit” or “radiant light” is beyond a stretch, and these are not concepts that are at all easily conveyed with the use of such a symbol. Indeed, the idea of “radiant light” or “spirit” could have been better and more obviously conveyed with the use of a star sign (also known as an akh; see figure 5.7).
Figure 5.7. Akhet as “spirit” would be better conveyed with a star symbol.
The rendering of akh using a star logogram rather than an ibis logogram would make much more sense since a star is associated with light in a very clear and obvious way, and furthermore, it was believed by the ancient Egyptians that the king’s spirit would ascend to the starry realm via his pyramid to become a star (a god) himself.
So, we have to ask again: Why the use of the ibis to represent the abstract concept of akh (i.e., “effective spirit of light”) and not a star, which would have more clearly conveyed such an abstract idea? Is it possible that the crested ibis has been wrongly interpreted by the Egyptologists as meaning “spirit” and that this logogram might have some other meaning altogether?
And notice also the pyramid sitting atop the glyph for marsh or flooded land; why are these signs used as a determinative in this version of akhet? What idea are the pyramid and flooded-land as determinative signs trying to convey here? Could it be that the pyramid and flooded-land glyphs in this version of akhet are actually conveying the idea of the reemergence of the land from the coming deluge of Thoth (symbolized with the ibis), just as it had occurred in the earliest ancient Egyptian creation myth, and from that original mound (represented by the pyramid sign) everything in creation came forth?
Well, we know that the word for “time of flood” (akhet season) uses the phonetic complements of “kh” and “t,” so might not this term be used along with the ideogram for the crested ibis to also mean “time of flood,” but a different kind of flood?
It rather seems to me that the early interpreters of the word akhet with the crested ibis were too quick to want to associate it with “spirit light” and overlooked a rather important and obvious fact relating to this particular bird and one that I rather doubt the ancient Egyptians themselves would have overlooked. A little research would have informed them that, lo and behold, the crested ibis, as briefly mentioned earlier, is inextricably associated with the seasonal inundation of the Nile, because this particular bird was revered in ancient Egypt as the “harbinger of the inundation.”
Here are just a few examples.
People knew from long experience that this was about the time for the level of the Nile to start rising. Just before this, flocks of white ibises would have appeared on the fields as they returned from the south. If they came late or not at all, farmers would see this as a bad omen foreshadowing low floods and a poor harvest. So they regarded the wise bird that knew the secret of this vital phenomenon as an embodiment of the learned god Thoth.6
In Ancient Egypt, sacred ibis were heralds of the flood, and symbolized the god Thoth, god of wisdom and master of time. They were also of practical use to the villagers, making pools safe to bathe by feeding on the water snails that carried the bilharzias liver parasite.7
In Africa also we meet with the great Ibis (Tantalus ibis . . .), and the sacred ibis (I. religiosa), which is venerated in Egypt as the harbinger of the annual Inundation of the Nile, and was frequently embalmed and mummified.8
Given this rather unique quality of the ibis in “predicting” the imminent arrival of the annual Nile inundation, it is easy to understand how, in this sense, the ibis would be viewed by the ancient Egyptians as useful, beneficial, and illuminated. The Nile inundation was the lifeblood of the kingdom, and to have foreknowledge of its imminent arrival (or not) would have been most beneficial to ancient Egyptian farmers.
That conventional Egyptologists hold that the function of the early, giant pyramid was as an instrument of rebirth for the king is but an assumption that derives from their corresponding presumption that these pyramids were built as tombs for ancient Egyptian kings. If, however, we adopt the alternative view that the Giza pyramids (and all others of this period) were built not as instruments of rebirth for the king but rather as instruments of rebirth for the kingdom after the anticipated great deluge of Thoth (just as the Arab chronicles tell us), then in this sense Khufu’s akhet (Khufu’s “place of re-creation” or “place of reemergence”) is equally valid, if not more so, given the use of the ibis hieroglyph and the bird’s connection to Thoth and its wisdom as the harbinger or messenger of the coming deluge. And whereas the seasonal Nile flood (akhet) is symbolized by the use of the flooded land strip with plants sprouting forth, the great deluge or akhet spoken of by Thoth is symbolized by the ibis, the wise bird that was illuminated with the knowledge of Thoth and who knew of Thoth’s coming deluge, the bird as the harbinger of the flood. And to reinforce this idea, we are presented with a determinative of the pyramid “emerging” from the flooded land.
So it seems to me that the term akhet has three different meanings, all of which have the same underlying concept—reemergence (rebirth) from water, to wit:
1. Akhet: when the sun is reborn by reemerging from the waters of the watery underworld to shine again on the eastern horizon (figure 5.2).
2. Akhet: when the crops are reborn by reemerging from the waters of the annual Nile inundation (figure 5.3).
3. Akhet: when the kingdom (i.e., the primeval mound of the Earth symbolized by the pyramid and flooded-land determinative) is reborn by reemerging from the great deluge of Thoth, just as it did in the First Time of creatio
n (figure 5.4).
Akhet—when the sun, the crops, and the Earth are reborn or reemerge from water. And this idea may well explain the use of the hatched-disc glyph (kh), which some Egyptologists believe to be a placenta and is often colored red. Without the placenta, birth is not possible, and every human birth is preceded by waters; we are all born out of water.
So, whether it be depicted with the ibis or the land strip with growing plants or indeed as the later version of the sun disc between two mountains, the term akhet is to be related to rebirth or reemergence from water. Indeed, some versions of akhet with the sun disc between two mountains actually look more like the sun rising out of the sea, whereby the two “mountains” actually appear more like the crest of two waves with the sun rising from the trough in the middle—the sun emerging from the watery underworld.
In The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, James P. Allen noted this: “The Living One [the sun] became clean in the Akhet.”9
As arks, the early, giant pyramids were the means by which the kingdom itself could be re-created or could reemerge from the floodwaters of Thoth. In short akhet might not so much equate to “horizon” or “spirit,” as believed by conventional Egyptology, but actually to a “process of re-creation through a reemergence from water.” It should not, however, be automatically assumed that this re-creation or reemergence of Khufu’s akhet should be referring to the re-creation or reemergence of the king; it is equally possible, if not more so, that the re-creation or reemergence associated with the Great Pyramid in its name of Akhet Khufu is to be connected with the reemergence of the kingdom (the land) from a great deluge.
Akhet Khufu—the place of rebirth or re-creation of the kingdom. With this name applying to the entire space around the Giza pyramids it should be no surprise to find that an inscription on the Dream Stele that stands between the paws of the Sphinx tells us that Giza is “the Splendid Place of the First Time” (meaning “of creation”)—the place of Sp Tpy (pronounced Zep Tepi). By the ancient Egyptians construct-ing their great pyramid arks, creation (after Thoth’s deluge) might be assured again, and the pyramid arks, in mimicking the original primeval mound that arose from the primordial waters of creation and from which everything in existence came out of, would reenact this emergence from the flood waters that occurred at the First Time—the kingdom reborn a second time.
6
Gunpowder and Plot
Mr. Hill requested more gunpowder. . . . Two quarrymen were sent to blast over Wellington’s Chamber.
COLONEL RICHARD WILLIAM HOWARD VYSE
This book would not be complete without comment upon a situation that is fast becoming a major source of embarrassment for conventional Egyptology. By including this chapter I hope to add my voice to the growing international demand that Egyptology conduct a thorough, independent scientific analysis of the inscriptions found within the Great Pyramid in 1837 by British adventurer and antiquarian Colonel Richard William Howard Vyse (figure 6.1). The need to reassess these inscriptions is all the more pressing given new evidence that has recently come to light concerning this discovery and the people involved in it.
The inscriptions are an issue that has been hotly debated for decades, if not longer. In 1837, Colonel Vyse, with the help of some “gunpowder archaeology,” blasted his way into some hitherto-secret compartments above the King’s Chamber of the Great Pyramid. Inside he found numerous painted “quarry markings” (graffiti), the only writing ever discovered inside the monument. Among these unofficial quarry markings, Vyse and his team found a number of cartouches bearing the name of Khnum-Khuf, the full name of Khufu. In the topmost “Campbell’s Chamber” they found the cartouche of Khufu—the king who, according to mainstream Egyptology, built the Great Pyramid circa 2550 BCE. They also discovered Khufu’s “Horus name,” Mddw (pronounced “Mededu” or “Medjedu”); in 1837 no one even knew that such a thing existed. These markings provided Egyptologists with the only tangible pieces of hard evidence directly connecting Khufu to the Great Pyramid and thus the Great Pyramid to the era of circa 2550 BCE.
Figure 6.1. Colonel Richard William Howard Vyse
Curiously though, the lowest of these chambers, discovered some seventy-two years earlier by Nathaniel Davison, was completely devoid of any such markings. This curious situation led some to speculate that perhaps Vyse’s discovery was not so much a discovery at all but rather a fraud perpetrated by Vyse himself. However, Egyptologists reject such a notion based on two pieces of evidence.
No one in 1837 knew that the Horus name (the name the king took upon his ascension to the throne) existed let alone that Khufu’s Horus name was Mddw.
There are quarry marks in tight gaps between the 70-ton granite blocks where no forger could ever hope to use a brush.
These two objections, however, can be easily dispelled. In the case of the Horus name we find that this was often written along with the king’s birth name, that is, Khufu. First, if Vyse could recognize Khufu on a particular stone or document (and we shall see later in this chapter that he could recognize Khufu), then any other hieroglyphics that may have been written alongside—such as the Horus name—could also be copied. Vyse would know that whatever else was written—even although he couldn’t read or understand it—was related to what he could read and understand—Khufu.
Second, with regards to placing painted marks in the tight gaps between the immovable granite blocks—this is not so difficult a task Egyptologists imagine it to be. (It should be said here, for clarity, that there are no cartouches in any of these tight spaces, just random mason’s markings.) As independent researcher Dennis Payne informs us, by using a thin piece of wood, some string, and ochre paint a stencil could have been made. In this scenario the string forms the shapes of the relevant glyphs that are affixed onto a thin piece of wood and painted over with ochre paint. This thin wood with the painted marks is then inserted into the gap between the granite blocks. A thicker wooden board is then inserted behind the first board, jamming it against the granite block and thereby pressing the painted marks onto the block. When the wooden boards are removed we are left with the illusion of an impossible forgery—painted marks in a tight gap where no forger could ever use a brush. Thus Egyptology’s two key objections to the forgery hypothesis are debunked.
But what about the actual paint? In 1837 red ochre paint (called moghra) was still being made according to the same ancient formula or recipe. Alas, however, at that time there was no scientific means to analyze the paint used to create the markings found in these hidden pyramid chambers, and so Egyptology had little option but to accept the authenticity of Vyse’s discovery on simple trust, on his word.
QUESTIONS OVER VYSE'S CHARACTER
But was Vyse a man who could be trusted? Some thirty years earlier, in 1807, Vyse stood as a candidate in the Beverley constituency for the British Parliament. After Vyse won the seat (by a margin not seen before or since), Mr. Philip Staple (who finished a very poor third in the contest) presented a petition to Parliament, charging Vyse of electoral fraud.
A petition of Philip Staple, Esquire, was read, setting forth, That at the late Election for Members to serve in Parliament for the Borough of Beverley, in the County of York, John Wharton, Esquire, Richard William Howard Vyse, Esquire, and the Petitioner, were candidates to represent the said Borough; and that the said John Wharton and Richard William Howard Vyse . . . each of them was guilty of bribery and corruption and corrupt practices in order to their being elected to serve as Members for the said Borough in the present Parliament.1
Unfortunately for Mr. Staple, his petition was not upheld. With the benefit of time, however, we now know it should have been, for it was discovered that of the 1,010 votes Vyse obtained in that election, 932 of them he secured with bribes. It has to be said, though, that in 1807 this was not an uncommon practice in rotten boroughs such as Beverley. But it also has to be said that not everyone who stood for Parliament was prepared to commit electoral fraud in order to secure victory. So,
in this act, we have the first glimpse into Vyse’s character; that he was a man who would do whatever it took, including perpetrating fraud, to achieve his goals.
Another charge of fraud leveled against Vyse is presented in his own published book, to wit:
A slanderous paragraph, intended to be inserted in the English newspapers, was this day shown to me, which accused Colonel Campbell of having improperly laid himself under obligations to the Pacha by obtaining the firmaun [a permit to excavate]; and which implied the Colonel and myself intended to make our fortunes under the pretence of scientific researches . . .2
Vyse makes no mention here as to the precise nature of the allegations being made against him. In what way did Colonel Patrick Campbell improperly obtain the firmaun (a permit, in this instance, for excavating in the Pyramids of Giza that had been issued in the name of Captain Giovanni Caviglia)? What was the extent of Vyse’s involvement? How exactly were the two men planning to make fortunes “under the pretence of scientific research”? Who was behind these allegations, and what evidence did they have?
While Vyse’s published work remains silent on these key questions, what this episode demonstrates is that someone believed that Vyse’s activities in Egypt were improper, and this individual threatened, via the British press, to expose what Vyse was doing. Once again, Vyse’s moral character is brought into question.
A DUBIOUS DISCOVERY
During his excavation at the third largest pyramid at Giza, the pyramid of Menkaure (G3), Vyse and his team found some human remains and a coffin lid bearing the name of Menkaure (in Greek, Mycerinus). On the surface this discovery appeared to have been the remains of an ancient Egyptian king in his pyramid tomb and, at that time, would have been the first king ever found (Howard Carter did not discover Tutankhamun’s undisturbed shaft tomb in the Valley of the Kings until 1922). However, it was very quickly realized that the find was completely bogus. In this regard, renowned British Egyptologist Sir I. E. S. Edwards writes:
The Secret Chamber of Osiris: Lost Knowledge of the Sixteen Pyramids Page 11
