Figure 6.3. Reproduction of Vyse journal entry from June 16th, 1837. Note: there is more text on the original page of Vyse’s journal than is shown in this reproduction.
Cartouches [plural] in tomb to the W. [west] of the first pyramid are different than Suphis [Khufu].6
The above comment tells us two things.
Clearly from this comment Vyse already knew (or believed he knew) how the Khufu cartouche should be written and that he knew this long before the cartouche (i.e., Mr. Hill’s facsimile drawing of it) had been sent to the experts in London for verification. This also implies that Vyse had a secret source of fairly accurate information.
Vyse had now realized some Khufu cartouches were spelled slightly differently (with hatched disc) and was interested in this spelling variation enough to make a visit to this tomb (the “Tomb of the Trades”) to study this difference for himself.
But what had prompted Vyse to make this visit to this tomb to the west of the Great Pyramid in the first place? Why was he so interested in studying the Khufu cartouches there three weeks after its discovery in the Great Pyramid? Why was it now so important to him? Was it perhaps that he was up against a deadline? In just a few days time the cargo ship bound for London would be setting sail from the port at Alexandria, and Vyse wanted Mr. Hill’s facsimile drawing of the Khufu cartouche aboard that ship, spelled correctly, of course. If so, then Vyse had to make sure the cartouche was correctly written before sending off Mr. Hill’s facsimile to London, thus his late visit to the Tomb of the Trades is perhaps explained.
As noted above, in his journal Vyse writes that the Khufu cartouches in the tomb of the trades were “different than Suphis [Khufu].” However, on June 2nd (two weeks earlier) he had actually been sent drawings of the Khufu cartouches from this tomb by another of his assistants, Mr. Perring, showing two Khufu cartouches with hatched discs (figure 6.4). So Vyse had known for two weeks of the differently spelled Khufu cartouches in this tomb.
Figure 6.4. Khufu cartouches (with hatched disc) from the Tomb of the Trades. Image from Vyse, “Operations,” Vol. II, 7–8.
Why did Vyse not simply accept Mr. Perring’s drawings of these Khufu cartouches sent to him on June 2nd? Did Vyse perhaps think that Perring had made a mistake in his drawings thereby forcing Vyse to go to this tomb to verify these cartouches for himself? Whatever his motivation, Vyse now learns of the difference in spelling between the different Khufu cartouches and makes a note of this in his journal: “Cartouches in tomb to the W. [west] of first pyramid are different than Suphis.” The Suphis/Khufu cartouche being referred to here would obviously be the cartouche that was in Campbell’s Chamber at that time, with only the plain disc, just as he had drawn it in his journal. Logically then, were the cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber to have contained a hatched disc at that time then Vyse would not have written that the cartouches in the Tomb of the Trades were different from Suphis/Khufu but that they were the same.
And so it is that this casual remark made by Vyse in his journal belies the truth of the situation—if the cartouches in this tomb contained hatched discs and were described by Vyse as “different,” it implies, logically, that the disc of the Khufu cartouche in the Great Pyramid must, at this time, have been blank.
And so, having now observed and verified the spelling of the cartouches in the Tomb of the Trades for himself, armed with this new information, Vyse now acts—he sets about making the necessary changes. His deliberations over these changes can clearly be observed in his journal, as I will demonstrate step by step in figures 6.5–6.9 (see pages 126–27).
First Vyse would have drawn onto this June 16th entry of his journal the original Khufu cartouche (from his secret source) with just the plain disc. He writes alongside this: “cartouche in Campbell’s” (for this is how he originally had it inscribed in the chamber; that is, with a blank disc). This is his master copy.
Next he creates an enlarged working copy of his master cartouche in the space at the bottom-left of the page—this will receive his revisions. At this point he copies the disc in the working copy exactly as it is in the master; that is, without any hatched lines. Underneath the working copy he writes: “Cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber.” So, at this point there is no contradiction between the two cartouches on the page as one is merely an enlarged working copy of the other (master), and, at this point in his deliberations, this was the cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber, with just a plain disc.
But now, armed with his new information from the Tomb of the Trades, Vyse then places an “X” under his working copy (see figure 6.5 on p. 126) at the bottom of the page, marking it “wrong.”
More specifically, however, Vyse then places a small “X” above each of the plain discs of the master and working copy of the cartouche—they are both “wrong” (see figure 6.6).
Next Vyse draws another circle within the plain circle of his working copy cartouche and within this inner circle, he places three hatched lines (figure 6.7).
Figure 6.5. Reproduction of Vyse’s June 16, 1837, journal entry showing the working copy cartouche (with blank disc) crossed through with an X, indicating that it is “wrong.”
Figure 6.6. Reproduction of Vyse’s June 16th, 1837, journal entry in which Vyse has placed an “X” (“wrong”) above the plain discs of both cartouches on the page.
Figure 6.7. Reproduction of Vyse’s June 16th, 1837, journal entry showing where Vyse inserts a hatched disc inside the plain disc of his working copy cartouche.
This is why, if we look closely at this page (figure 6.8), all other discs on the page are drawn with a single outline but the disc in the enlarged cartouche is drawn with a double outline—this hatched disc is essentially a composite image, a hatched disc on top of (or inserted into) what was once a plain disc—a disc within a disc.
Figure 6.8. Reproduction of Vyse’s June 16, 1837, journal entry showing how all discs on the page are drawn with a single outline except the disc in the working copy cartouche (bottom left), which has a double outline. This is the result of the hatched disc inserted into the hitherto plain disc—a composite disc within a disc.
Finally, Vyse cross-references his change by placing a small vertical stroke above each of the two hatched discs (figure 6.9).
The revised cartouche is now ready to be placed in Campbell’s Chamber; that is, three lines would now be added to the blank disc in the chamber cartouche (and, of course, a small update made also to Mr. Hill’s facsimile drawing of the cartouche from May 30th before it is sent to London).
Having now made all the necessary changes and cross-references, Vyse neglects to remove the legacy and now redundant X marks on the journal page. He also neglects to remove or strike out the comment: “in Campbell’s Chamber” from his master cartouche for this is no longer what is actually now in Campbell’s Chamber—after Vyse’s edit the original comment here now becomes a contradiction. But these are merely legacy marks and comments of a work in progress. No one except Vyse was ever meant to see this journal page and learn the truth of his last-minute edits, so there was little imperative for him to remove the contradictions this page of his journal now presents.
Figure 6.9. The small hatched disc inserted on the page above the cartouche is cross-referenced with the hatched disc in the revised cartouche using a small vertical stroke.
There is, however, something of an irony to all of this. Had Vyse simply kept the plain disc in the cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber (instead of believing it was an unfinished hatched disc), his deception would actually have been far more convincing, because, as stated, Egyptology now knows that the plain disc can in fact render the name Khufu. But, as stated earlier in this chapter, no one in 1837 fully understood that; and so Vyse, in his ignorance, felt compelled to make absolutely certain of the name by adding the three lines into the disc. He overegged the pudding.
But who would actually place the markings in Campbell’s Chamber and where would they be placed? Once again, Vyse’s journal seems reasonably clear
on the matter. In his May 27th entry—the day he first opened and inspected Campbell’s Chamber—he writes:
For Raven & Hill. These were my [?] marks from cartouche [image of cartouche with plain disc] to inscribe over any plain low [?] trussing.7
It is perhaps worth mentioning here that a trussing is a triangular support for holding up a structure. The triangular gabled roof of Campbell’s Chamber supports the weight of the pyramid above and, in this regard, could be considered a “trussing.” And it is a fact that the Khufu cartouche (and crew name) is to be found, painted vertically, on a low part of the gabled roof trussing.
It must be reiterated here, however, that Vyse’s handwriting, for the most part, is sorely difficult to comprehend and that the above transcript from his journal is the result of many weeks of studying and analyzing that piece of text by myself, my wife, a number of family members, work colleagues, and close friends, as well as a couple of handwriting experts. While it was impossible for anyone to be absolutely certain that the transcription presented above is entirely accurate, most agreed that it is a fair and reasonable transcription of this particular passage from Vyse’s journal. In fairness, though, and just to be perfectly clear, the difficulty in reading Vyse’s handwriting obviously means that this transcription may not be perfectly accurate and will most likely require other handwriting experts to study the material to determine the matter conclusively.
If, however, this transcription does accurately reflect Vyse’s May 27 journal entry (and, given the analysis of Vyse’s June 16 journal entry, I personally have little reason to think otherwise), then what we have here is essentially an explicit instruction from Vyse to his assistants, Raven and Hill, to render a cartouche of Khufu (with plain disc) onto a low part of the gabled roof within Campbell’s Chamber of the Great Pyramid—precisely where it is to be found today. As such this passage may well provide corroboration of Walter Allen’s account of his great-grandfather, Humphries Brewer, who, in 1837, had argued with Raven and Hill about painting marks in the pyramid. Accepting that it has been transcribed accurately, this passage then represents incontrovertible proof that the Khufu cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber of the Great Pyramid is a fake, placed there by Vyse and his team in 1837.
But the story does not end there. There is yet more evidence of this deception for consideration. As a consequence of the material uncovered in Vyse’s journal, further questions arose concerning the facsimile drawings Vyse instructed to be made by his assistant, J. R. Hill, of the hieroglyphics allegedly found in these hidden chambers. What was found in Hill’s facsimile drawings of the hieroglyphics in these hitherto hidden chambers was further evidence of the hoax.
THE LIE OF THE LANDSCAPES
This piece of evidence comes from something that is so obvious, no one ever actually notices it or, if they do, they think there is little relevance to it. It may seem something of a fastidious point, but the orientation of all three Khufu cartouches from Campbell’s Chamber we find in Vyse’s written journal are all oriented horizontally—but why should this be when the actual cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber (figure 6.2a) is vertically oriented at 90° to Vyse’s drawing of it (figure 6.2b)?
It may seem a trivial point, but when we consider Vyse’s entire journal, we find that he has drawn other hieroglyphics exactly and correctly as he would have observed them in the various chambers; sometimes upright, sometimes upside-down (i.e., rotated 180°), and sometimes sideways (i.e., rotated 90°). With his body as the frame of reference (head to top of chamber, feet to bottom of chamber), this then presents us with evidence of how Vyse instinctively would draw the glyphs he observed in the chambers along with their specific orientation relative to the axis of his body—in short, he drew in his journal exactly what was in front of him, maintaining the appropriate orientation of the glyphs as he saw and drew them in his journal.
We surely have to ask then, given the other examples of glyphs in his journal, why then did Vyse decide to draw the three Khufu cartouches we find in his diary some 90° differently from how this cartouche actually appears in the chamber? In short, the Khufu cartouche is painted vertically on a gabled ceiling block of the chamber, so why didn’t Vyse maintain its orientation (as he did with his other journal drawings) and draw the cartouche vertically in his journal rather than horizontally? Are we perhaps detecting here a clue as to how Vyse originally saw the Khufu cartouche and, therefore, why it takes this orientation in his written journal? Did Vyse originally copy a Khufu cartouche from some other place where the cartouche was horizontally aligned? Did Vyse simply copy what he had found in some other place into Campbell’s Chamber (by Raven and Hill) and, without fully thinking through the ramifications of the next decision, had the original horizontal cartouche rotated by 90°, placing the glyphs vertically into the chamber thereby creating the contradiction with his horizontal journal entries?
Admittedly, this particular line of questioning may seem somewhat pedantic, but, remarkably, we find that it is a behavioral pattern that is emulated in the facsimile drawings of his assistant, J. R. Hill, and to a quite remarkable degree.
HILL'S ORIENTATIONS
During some unrelated research in 2013, I had been sent copies of three of Mr. Hill’s facsimile drawings by Patricia Usick, Ph.D., of the British Museum. In studying these drawings I felt there was something odd about them, but, at the time, I couldn’t quite put my finger on what it was I felt was wrong. I subsequently contacted Dr. Usick again in April 2014, asking if she could send me scanned copies of Mr. Hill’s other facsimile drawings (twenty-eight in all) in order that I might be able to examine these to perhaps figure out what it was about them that was nagging in my mind. Unfortunately, Dr. Usick explained to me that there were no digital scans or photos of the other Hill facsimiles that she could send and that the only way I would be able to see them would be to arrange an appointment with her at the British Museum, which I duly did.
And so, on a beautiful spring day in May 2014, my wife, Louise, and I set off once again from our home in Glasgow, Scotland, for the British Museum in London (figure 6.10). This time it would be a round trip of about 1,000 miles. We didn’t know it then, but it was to be another trip filled with unexpected discovery.
After a couple of false starts searching the museum for Dr. Usick’s department, we eventually met with her at the museum’s information desk and she led us to the Egyptian and Near East Department’s study room via some incredibly tortuous labyrinth through the museum. Indeed, from the information desk it took us a full ten minutes or so to finally arrive at the study room, having passed through a number of long passageways, expansive hallways, and galleries, through a number of doors, up some stairs, through some other small rooms, down a service elevator, and finally into the room where Hill’s drawings were at last presented to us. All around us there were numerous students and museum staff employed in analyzing and cataloging all manner of ancient artifacts. Dr. Usick took us to a table where Hill’s facsimile drawings had already been laid out, awaiting our arrival. Once again we were permitted to photograph the material so long as we did not use flash photography.
Figure 6.10. The British Museum
The drawings had been placed in a very elaborate and robust folder whose dimensions were around two by three feet. A cream-colored panel on the front of the folder detailed the contents and was signed at the bottom “Colonel Howard Vyse” and below this, “1837.” Fortunately, with only twenty-eight drawings to photograph this would be a much easier task for us than the 600 pages of Vyse’s diary we had photographed the previous month. When, finally, we were able to view all twenty-eight of Hill’s drawings, they told their own story and confirmed my suspicions about Vyse’s horizontal diary entries of the Khufu cartouche—that the Khufu cartouche we find in his journal and in Campbell’s Chamber had been copied by Vyse and his team from an original secret source that had been oriented horizontally when Vyse and Hill first copied it.
But how could we possibly determine this from
only a brief study of Hill’s drawings? The realization began to dawn when Louise picked up one of the facsimiles and was confused as to which way up it should be held in order for me to properly photograph it; that is, with the correct orientation of the hieroglyphics as they would have appeared to someone observing them in the chamber. The hieroglyphics on this particular drawing were oriented 90° to the signatures of the various witnesses, including Mr. Hill’s signature (figure 6.11). I explained to Louise that many of the hieroglyphics in these chambers of the Great Pyramid were, in fact, painted upside-down or rotated at 90°. I further explained that Hill’s signature, as well as the signatures of the other witnesses, essentially tell us the correct orientation of the hieroglyphics; the signatures should always be the right way up (like the north indicator on a map), which will then correctly align the hieroglyphics as they would appear to an observer in the chamber. And so we carried on, carefully photographing each of Hill’s facsimile drawings, ensuring the signatures (our compass) on the facsimiles were the right way up, thereby presenting to us the correct orientation of the hieroglyphics as they would appear in the chamber.
Figure 6.11. Reproduction of the Hill facsimile showing hieroglyphics oriented 90° to Hill’s signature (and other signatures on original). This is how the hieroglyphics would appear to an observer standing or crouching in the chamber. The facsimile hieroglyphics are given their correct orientation by the signature of Mr. Hill and the other signatories.
When we had finished our work and were checking the drawings on our laptops against the plan drawings by Mr. Perring of the hieroglyphics in the various chambers,*3 the penny dropped and I finally realized now what it was that had been nagging me for the best part of a year. The drawings Hill had made of the Khufu cartouche, which I had seen the year before, and crew name from Campbell’s Chamber both had the wrong orientation relative to Hill’s signature on the facsimile drawing.
The Secret Chamber of Osiris: Lost Knowledge of the Sixteen Pyramids Page 13
