Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Sir Wearer of Hats

The Case of the Contentious Cartouche

561 posts in this topic

As per Bennu's request .... a thread for the ongoing debate of the criminality (or lack thereof) in Howard Vyse's exploration and recording of cartouches in the Great Pyramid.

On one side we have Scott Creighton who say "the man's a proven fraud, there's a good chance he's created the cartouches".

On the other we have everyone else who ask things like "why?".

Personally, I still want to know what Vyse would have forged the cartouches. What does he gain?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sure knowledge that 8 people would be vigorously debating his discovery in the years to come?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As per Bennu's request .... a thread for the ongoing debate of the criminality (or lack thereof) in Howard Vyse's exploration and recording of cartouches in the Great Pyramid.

On one side we have Scott Creighton who say "the man's a proven fraud, there's a good chance he's created the cartouches".

On the other we have everyone else who ask things like "why?".

Personally, I still want to know what Vyse would have forged the cartouches. What does he gain?

Thanks. Though Scott's discussion was keeping my thread active, it wasn't in a way that was of much interest to me. Since Scott wouldn't start his own thread, thank goodness you did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

As per Bennu's request .... a thread for the ongoing debate of the criminality (or lack thereof) in Howard Vyse's exploration and recording of cartouches in the Great Pyramid.

On one side we have Scott Creighton who say "the man's a proven fraud, there's a good chance he's created the cartouches".

On the other we have everyone else who ask things like "why?".

Personally, I still want to know what Vyse would have forged the cartouches. What does he gain?

"All hopes of an important discovery were not given up." - Col. Vyse, "Operations", Vol 1, p.235

SC: Clearly Vyse wanted to make an important discovery. Connecting the GP to Khufu/Suphis with 'hard evidence' was an important *ahem* 'discovery'.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: Clearly Vyse wanted to make an important discovery. Connecting the GP to Khufu/Suphis with 'hard evidence' was an important *ahem* 'discovery'.

SC

By this logic, every historian or scientist who ever wanted to make an important discovery is suspect. I take it therefore that you live in seclusion, doubting the efficacy of germ theory, circulating blood, the Rosetta Stone, and gravity?

--Jaylemurph

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Scot said this: Clearly Vyse wanted to make an important discovery. Connecting the GP to Khufu/Suphis with 'hard evidence' was an important *ahem* 'discovery'.

Jaylemurpl said this: By this logic, every historian or scientist who ever wanted to make an important discovery is suspect. I take it therefore that you live in seclusion, doubting the efficacy of germ theory, circulating blood, the Rosetta Stone, and gravity?

So Scot you have said you have made an important discovery in regards to Vyse, so..... how do we know you aren't just making it up, or more properly misinterpreting it to have a 'important' discovery?

That said I'd like you to go over your claim of fraud in Vyse past, in particular can you provide evidence of his conviction for fraud? How do you account for the type of political actions he took being normal for that time? How come 1/3 of the British Parliament came from such arrangements and notables such as Lord Wellington did too and this system had existed for centuries. Can you also provide a list of how many people were convicted of this precise crime?

Edited by Hanslune
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As per Bennu's request .... a thread for the ongoing debate of the criminality (or lack thereof) in Howard Vyse's exploration and recording of cartouches in the Great Pyramid.

On one side we have Scott Creighton who say "the man's a proven fraud, there's a good chance he's created the cartouches".

On the other we have everyone else who ask things like "why?".

Personally, I still want to know what Vyse would have forged the cartouches. What does he gain?

A quest for fame would be a reasonable and realistic answer. But let's put things into perspective. As far as I've been able to determine over the years, the whole forgery theory began with Zecharia Sitchin in one of his books in 1980. Sitchin's entire argument was laughably sloppy and evidently at times outright dishonest, which is not surprising. Scott does not follow the details of Sitchin's argument but has developed his own, so while he and I rarely agree on things, one should give him credit for that.

But the amusing thing is, because of Sitchin's original attempts, many ordinary people of today who have even a peripheral interest in the Great Pyramid, have heard of Richard William Howard Vyse. However, when put into perspective, what is clear is that Vyse is one of the most minor figures from the early history of Egyptology. Most books and papers about the Great Pyramid rarely even mention him (at least the many I've read).

So the notoriety Vyse has today is almost completely thanks originally to Sitchin, but not to history.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quest for fame would be a reasonable and realistic answer. But let's put things into perspective. As far as I've been able to determine over the years, the whole forgery theory began with Zecharia Sitchin in one of his books in 1980. Sitchin's entire argument was laughably sloppy and evidently at times outright dishonest, which is not surprising. Scott does not follow the details of Sitchin's argument but has developed his own, so while he and I rarely agree on things, one should give him credit for that.

But the amusing thing is, because of Sitchin's original attempts, many ordinary people of today who have even a peripheral interest in the Great Pyramid, have heard of Richard William Howard Vyse. However, when put into perspective, what is clear is that Vyse is one of the most minor figures from the early history of Egyptology. Most books and papers about the Great Pyramid rarely even mention him (at least the many I've read).

So the notoriety Vyse has today is almost completely thanks originally to Sitchin, but not to history.

I've noted that others have spoken on the matter of Vyse and the drawings in the relieving chambers like this guy Rick Richards which I believe date to 2011

http://www.rickrichards.com/egypt/Egypt_1.htm

http://www.rickrichards.com/egypt/Egypt6.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read about this idea over and over in the various threads. I vote NO, the cartouche were not faked. I'm not an expert in any way on the subject, but logical thinking brings me to this conclusion.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read about this idea over and over in the various threads. I vote NO, the cartouche was not faked. I'm not an expert in any way on the subject, but logical thinking brings me to this conclusion.

(In Vyse's journal), I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what interests me more is story of Sinuhe based on true events or is purly fictional...

as for Vyse he have had motives as anyone-money. but what jaylemurph said.

Edited by Ichihara

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In his book The Stairway to Heaven, Sitchin accuses Vyse (and his assistants Mr. Hill and Mr. Perring) of perpetrating the forgery because of Vyse's "determination to obtain a major find as time and money were running out".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_William_Howard_Vyse#Controversy

Is this what we are basing his motivation on?

I question why anyone would document their own fraudulent course of conduct in a personal journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's something that suggests that the cartouche was not faked by Vyse; he drew it in his notebook with dots under the snake. Those dots are simply stray paint on the stone. There are actually numerous such dots on the cartouche, the ones Vyse copied are simply more obvious than the others. Now if they had drawn the cartouche on the stone, why would he or Hill have drawn those dots and why would he have copied them in his notebook? That makes no sense at all. If he or Hill had made them by being sloppy they could have simply wiped them off at the time. Those dots being there and being copied in the notebook are the proof that the cartouche was real.

Also, notice that the cartouches with the Khnum-Khufu name in them, which are in the lower chambers rather than Campbell's Chamber, have the chicks drawn in a different way than the Khufu cartouche in Campbell's Chamber. You can see Hill's drawings of them in Scott's thread. The Khnum-Khufu chicks have a pointy tail end. They are clearly different from the ones in the Khufu Cartouche, which happen to be drawn in identical style to ones found at the Harbour of Khufu. So what does this difference in chick style AND the dots under the snake mean? That Vyse and Hill may have faked the Khnum-Khufu cartouches in the lower chambers but then when they got to Campbell's Chamber they found a real Khufu cartouche. That one is actually genuine. The chicks in the Khnum-Khufu cartouches just look fake, while the ones in the Khufu cartouche look absolutely authentic. Why would Vyse or Hill use two completely different styles? The Khufu cartouche was clearly drawn by a different person than the Khnum-Khufu ones. It also has the sieve drawn more accurately.

This image shows what I mean. It's from Scott's own site. Compare the crude looking chick in the lower cartouche to the perfect 4th Dynasty Egyptian style in the upper one. Do you seriously think they were drawn by the same person?

Slide2.JPG

Edited by Bennu
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what interests me more is story of Sinuhe based on true events or is purly fictional…

...

A good question and there's an easy answer: no one is certain if it's factual. The consensus is, it is not, but not everyone agrees. The story is set in the aftermath of the assassination of Amenemhat I of Dynasty 12, but the oldest extant papyrus of the story dates to the time of Amunhotep III in Dynasty 18. That's a big stretch of time. It's always possible something like this did happen to a nobleman early in the Middle Kingdom, and the tale of Sinuhe preserves something about it. But there is no way to prove it one way or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Also, notice that the cartouches with the Khnum-Khufu name in them, which are in the lower chambers rather than Campbell's Chamber, have the chicks drawn in a different way than the Khufu cartouche in Campbell's Chamber. You can see Hill's drawings of them in Scott's thread. The Khnum-Khufu chicks have a pointy tail end. They are clearly different from the ones in the Khufu Cartouche, which happen to be drawn in identical style to ones found at the Harbour of Khufu. So what does this difference in chick style AND the dots under the snake mean? That Vyse and Hill may have faked the Khnum-Khufu cartouches in the lower chambers but then when they got to Campbell's Chamber they found a real Khufu cartouche. That one is actually genuine. The chicks in the Khnum-Khufu cartouches just look fake, while the ones in the Khufu cartouche look absolutely authentic. Why would Vyse or Hill use two completely different styles? The Khufu cartouche was clearly drawn by a different person than the Khnum-Khufu ones. It also has the sieve drawn more accurately.

This image shows what I mean. It's from Scott's own site. Compare the crude looking chick in the lower cartouche to the perfect 4th Dynasty Egyptian style in the upper one. Do you seriously think they were drawn by the same person?

*Image Snip*

What you've noticed is actually a good point. It's known that more than one hand drew the chambers' graffiti, so different craftsmen are going to produce noticeably different results. This is free-hand drawing, after all, and not state-regulated inscriptional work.

They're both authentic, of course. I prefer the style of the quail chicks in the Khufu cartouche but to be honest the quail chick in the Khnum-Khuf cartouche more closely resembles the way I myself draw them.

I've always wondered about the two dots below the horned viper. They mean nothing, so I'd side with you that they are just sloppy paint daubs by the ancient painter.

And let's all be clear that the Aa1 glyph in Khnum-Khuf is most certainly not the sun-disk symbol for Re. I can't put words in Scott's mouth but if I recall correctly he, too, has come to agree with this. It's based on an earlier thread in which this topic was debated, and as I recall it stems from inaccuracies or fraudulent work on the part of Sitchin. There was never a king called "Khnum Rafu," which by itself is nonsensical in the ancient Egyptian tongue. It doesn't mean anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points Bennu, re your first para: they were drawing exactly what they saw, they probably thought the extra dots were part of the symbols.

This doesn't sound like 2 ppl who knew enough of interpreting Glyphs, etc. to even attempt to pull off a believable forgery, esp. one w/ 'history changing' results.

Why would Vyse and Hill have faked the Khnum-Khufu cartouches, esp. w/ them knowing the genuine article could be seen above?

I agree you show 2 different drawing styles, but we should also take into account the human factor involved in all such drawings.We sometimes make mistakes in size, form, omit details, etc. when transferring what's on the stone to paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Vyse the first person to get into the GP?

Surely that's big enough a kudos? Unless Vyse was a rampaging egoist I suppose (and there is some evidence to that effect).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By this logic, every historian or scientist who ever wanted to make an important discovery is suspect. I take it therefore that you live in seclusion, doubting the efficacy of germ theory, circulating blood, the Rosetta Stone, and gravity?

--Jaylemurph

Has every historian/scientist declared in writing their desire to make an important discovery?

Has every historian/scientist spent, in today's terms, near half a million pounds (nearly a million US$) of their own money on their research?

Has every historian/scientist committed some form of fraud in their earlier life?

Perhaps the mounting expense and the desperation to make an important discovery brought out the darker side of Vyse's character i.e. his willingness to perpetrate fraud? If the "important discovery" wasn't coming to him of its own accord, perhaps he decided to help it on its way?

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the notoriety Vyse has today is almost completely thanks originally to Sitchin, but not to history.

SC: As the man who secured the connection of the Great Pyramid to Suphis/Khufu with *ahem* 'hard evidence', Vyse's place in history was assured. Anyone studying the history of the Great Pyramid will evetually learn of Vyse's name and of his involvement with the structure, of his great 'discovery'.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't think of any reasonable explanation for the quail's being drawn in two distinctly different styles. Even Hill's own drawings accurately duplicate both styles. If he drew them all himself why would he change his style so drastically? Makes no sense at all. Indeed, why do the two different styles exist? You can see examples of both in cartouches from the same time period even though they were obviously not all drawn by only the same two people. They are clearly two different standardized forms, one with a closed tail and round head and the other with an open tail and straight head. Yet every cartouche in the chambers employs the round headed quail except the Campbell's Chamber Khufu one. I also didn't see any examples of the straight headed open tailed quail in Rosellini's, Wilkinson's or DeLaborde's illustrations, which Vyse would presumably have been copying. The cartouche from the Tomb of Trades shown in Vyse's notebook has the closed tail form. Where did Vyse or Hill ever see the open tailed form? But you do see it in this actual cartouche found in 2008 at the Harbour of Khufu.

209lq2f.png

Edited by Bennu
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has every historian/scientist declared in writing their desire to make an important discovery?

Has every historian/scientist spent, in today's terms, near half a million pounds (nearly a million US$) of their own money on their research?

Has every historian/scientist committed some form of fraud in their earlier life?

Perhaps the mounting expense and the desperation to make an important discovery brought out the darker side of Vyse's character i.e. his willingness to perpetrate fraud? If the "important discovery" wasn't coming to him of its own accord, perhaps he decided to help it on its way?

SC

Ever been to grad school? The egos pop up all over the place. Some are there for the ride, but so many are spouting off about ideas they want to try out and how important the results are going to be.

As for fraud. Let me think of simple examples where people are committing fraud. They forget to mention income they earned. They "exaggerate" the amount they donate to charities. They use an old address on an application. They blame someone else for something they did. They do not acknowledge people in publications. That can be anything from taking credit for the idea being studied, to not mentioning that the mathematical work was done by someone else, to not listing a partner that worked on the effort.

People investing their own money in projects? Can you say Wolfram?

So your conclusion is a typical fringie one in which you simply list your fantasies without any corroborating evidence. I would expect no less from you.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SC: As the man who secured the connection of the Great Pyramid to Suphis/Khufu with *ahem* 'hard evidence', Vyse's place in history was assured. Anyone studying the history of the Great Pyramid will evetually learn of Vyse's name and of his involvement with the structure, of his great 'discovery'.

SC

Was it assured? As you say if people spend enough time looking into the GP they will learn about Vyse. But Vyse will never be as well known as Carter or Petrie or al-Ma'mun. Unless of course the fringies never stop broadcasting his name and then stand back and state that all of the attention to Vyse is Vyse's fault.

Edited by stereologist
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has every historian/scientist committed some form of fraud in their earlier life?

Scott I'm wondering if you missed my question in regards to Vyse's 'conviction for fraud', what again was the proof of this? I was wondering because 1/3 of Members of Parliament to include Wellington were also elected from such arrangements. How many convictions for this 'crime' where there from say 1808 to 1830? They used this same system for centuries.

So you're not taking that system out of context are you?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, then lets talk about contention, just checked the EXIF data of the picture shown in part 3 of the "Vyse is a gangster" thread and we come to the following:

Software for last modification: Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows

Date modified: 2014:07:28 23:11:48

Resolution 72 dots per inch

Compression: Old style JPEG

Which tells me that the picture is not original and modifications were done by somebody who is not very well versed in Photoshop.

The same image on Photobucket strangely has the same data, is larger and the same unprofessional resolution.

The no red line on Photobucket has no Exif data (Therefore was not modified by any known editor beyond being resized)

Which tell us: this is not an original photo

I am starting to smell something here.....

Edited by questionmark
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Bingo I found it!, this is an image taken by Colette Dowell of the same cartouche as seen by the fragmentary '48 on Scotts picture:

EECampHieroCeilgACMDx.JPG

and what do we see? The marking as normal, on the right and what was supposed to be a red line is but a discoloration of the rock.

Yo Scott, you would not have anything to do with that, would you?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.