Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Sitchin's Folly: Graffiti in the Pyramid


kmt_sesh

Recommended Posts

Perhaps I am missing something here. I realise that images of Hill's facsimiles is desirable here but I came up blank. Anyone care to respond?

SC

I'm still awaiting a response from the British Museum on the matter. They received my inquiry early yesterday and have forwarded it to the Egypt Department. They said I could expect a response soon, so I can't be of much help until then.

cormac

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This site by the unabashed Egypt-apologist, Frank Doernenburg, has been around for a number of years and is often referenced by the Sitchin bashers on this Board and elsewhere as proof-positive of Sitchin being the forger and not Howard-Vyse & Co.

SC: What on earth is this person Doernenburg talking about? Let us take a look at what Sitchin actually states in his book, Journeys to the Mythical Past:

In looking at Howard-Vyse’s “printed diary” (presumably Howard-Vyse’s printed book based on his written diary), the circle glyphs of the name ‘Khufu’ within the 'Relieving Chambers' are not at all clearly the sieve disk (they are too small to make out clearly and some do look like a circumpunct) so one can understand why Sitchin would seek out the original material in the British museum to have a better look. But this is not the point. The image below is from Sitchin’s book and shows the sieve and Ra circles—he clearly understood the difference.

Hills-Facsimilie.jpg

Now do you notice from the image above what Sitchin was actually comparing? He wasn’t comparing Vyse’s hand-written diary (or printed book) nor was he comparing the drawings made by Perring as claimed in Doernenburg’s site. No—Sitchin sought out and studied the original facsimiles made by Mr Hill (he's marked 'Hill's inscription' right there on his diagram that he copied from Hill's facsimile). It is these facsimiles from HILL that Sitchin checked and is comparing—NOT Perring and NOT Vyse’s handwritten diary. And, according to Sitchin, the facsimiles that Hill drew (and which had been authenticated by several people as true copies of the chamber glyphs) did not, according to Sitchin, present a correct KH sieve glyph but rather was presented with the circle with a centre circumpunct—Ra.

The question now is—does anyone have any photos of the facsimiles made by Hill? And, if so, do these bear out what Sitchin is saying? If Sitchin is correct in this then it will raise all manner of real difficult questions. Why, if Hill's drawings are true, do we have Ra-ufu in these chambers? The issue seems not so much to be that the Vyse and Perring drawings are different to what Sitchin presented in his book but why the Vyse and Perring drawings are apparently different to those of Mr Hill (Mr Hill’s having been authenticated as true by several people)?

Perhaps I am missing something here. I realise that images of Hill's facsimiles is desirable here but I came up blank. Anyone care to respond?

SC

I can say with confidence Sitchin will never raise all manner of difficult questions. Well, I guess that's obvious. The man is deceased, and although folks still buy his books, his entire body of work has never had any effect on academia or its research.

I enjoy Doernenburg's website and count it as one of the few actually worth reading, but I agree how he presented his argument about the graffiti is not explained well enough. However, in the end the argument of Sitchin's fraudulent approach still stands, for reasons I will explain.

I myself do not have photos of the graffiti, aside from those we can all find on the internet and small photos from books. I have the PDFs including Hill's drawings in Vyse's printed journal and Perring's drawings in the three-volune survey he published. It will be interesting to see what the British Museum will share with cormac, but for now the PDFs are more than sufficient (at least on my own monitor, which is very large and high-res).

I reviewed the drawings in the PDFs at high magnification in both Vyse's and Perring's publications, bearing in mind that Perring had already done transcription work before Vyse even commissioned Hill to do transcriptions for himself. The best-preserved instances of Khufu's name are in the two highest chambers: Lady Arbuthnot's and, at the top, Campbell's. It is the attestation in Campbell's Chamber that Sitchin used in his books (including The Stairway to Heaven, published years before Journeys to the Mythical Past). Specifically, the informal version "Khufu" appears in its cartouche on the south side of Campbell's Chamber.

The Aa1 glyph ("sieve") in this example does appear to contain an amorphous blob instead of neatly rendered striations. Sitchin is correct about pointing that out. But is it a dot to indicate the N5 glyph (sun disk)? Of course not.

Turning to Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber, the more formal spelling of Khnum-Khufu appears numerous times. For our purposes I will not include badly faded examples or those cases where variant renderings were painted. I also must exclude the example on the north side where the cartouche disappears mostly down below the floor blocks, and only the end of the name is visible. That said, there are two examples where the striations are clearly there and one where it's questionable, somewhat resembling the example in Campbell's Chamber.

In effect, then, Sitchin focused on only one example of Khufu's name. If he actually had viewed Hill's original full-sized drawings, he obviously ignored those examples which did not suit his purpose. This is why we can say with confidence that he falsified the evidence for his books.

In any case, as I have explained numerous times in numerous different discussions, the Aa1 glyph does not require striations. It might be entirely empty, it might contain an amorphous blob in cursive form to indicate the original orthography (something very common in the hieratic script, which often found its way into linear hieroglyphs and sometimes even formal decoration plans), or it might contain any number of striations drawn diagonally, vertically, or horizontally. The form of striations or lack thereof was ultimately irrelevant to the ancient scribe: what mattered was the context of the glyph within the word or name to which it belonged.

The risk here is obvious: one must not rely on a person who did not or does not understand even the basics of the ancient Egyptian scripts. And there was no king named Raufu. This doesn't even say anything in the ancient language (whereas Khnum-Khuf or Khnum-Khufu translates as "Khnum protects him" and the informal version Khufu basically as "He is protected").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy Doernenburg's website and count it as one of the few actually worth reading, but I agree how he presented his argument about the graffiti is not explained well enough.

SC: Something of an understatement I would say.

KMT: This is why we can say with confidence that he falsified the evidence for his books.

SC: I think I will reserve my judgement on Sitchin's integrity until such time as I actually see Hill's facsimiles and compare them to the photos of the glyphs in Campbell's Chamber. Sitchin's integrity most certainly cannot be questioned on the completely wrong argument presented by Frank Doernenburg who claims Sitchin changed Vyse and/or Perring drawings. He didn't--Sitchin is comparing the drawings of Mr Hill and no one seems able to present an image of Hill's drawings. I spent hours trying to find just one--to no avail.

If it turns out that Hill's drawings are the same as Sitchin presents in his own diagram (above), then I don't see how Sitchin can be accused of falsifying evidence. (I am not in any way a Sitchinite, btw, just someone who seeks the truth of things and it is important that we get to the bottom of this particular question of Hill's facsimiles to determine exactly the truth of this matter). Essentially Sitchin is claiming that Hill's authenticated drawings that he sent to the British Museum are different to what Vyse and Perring presented in their own works. A very peculiar situation indeed if it is as Sitchin says.

Sitchin states that none of Hill's drawings presented a cross-hatched disc and yet in Campbell's Chamber there is a very large version of such a glyph on the underside of the gabled ceiling. If that is what we see today, why did Sitchin apparently not see this in Hill's drawing of the same cartouche from that chamber? I think it more prudent to first see how Mr Hill actually drew that particular cartouche (which was then authenticated by independent witnesses) before passing judgement. If it turns out that Hill's drawing of that cartouche is different to what we observe in the chamber today then some serious questions will have to be asked. If it turns out that the three cross-hatched lines of the circle in that cartouche are perfectly clear, then Sitchin's claim that none of Hill's drawings presented such a circle is unfounded and plain wrong.

Let's wait and see.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still awaiting a response from the British Museum on the matter. They received my inquiry early yesterday and have forwarded it to the Egypt Department. They said I could expect a response soon, so I can't be of much help until then.

cormac

SC: Thanks for that although I have fired off a request to the BM myself (not just about Hill's facsimiles, but some other things too).

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SC: Thanks for that although I have fired off a request to the BM myself (not just about Hill's facsimiles, but some other things too).

SC

Hi Scott;

Does anyone know what J R Hills occupation/ Trade was?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Scott;

Does anyone know what J R Hills occupation/ Trade was?

I revisited the pyramids of Gizeh on the 13th February, 1836, and took with me Mr. Hill, a very intelligent person, who now keeps the hotel at Cairo, but who then was employed in the Pacha’s service as superintendant of some copper mills worked by steam in the citadel. – Howard-Vyse, Operations Carried out at Gizeh, p.3

SC: Hotelier, Engineer, Artist /Lithographer – jack-of-all-trades by the sounds of it.

SC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now do you notice from the image above what Sitchin was actually comparing? He wasn’t comparing Vyse’s hand-written diary (or printed book) nor was he comparing the drawings made by Perring as claimed in Doernenburg’s site. No—Sitchin sought out and studied the original facsimiles made by Mr Hill (he's marked 'Hill's inscription' right there on his diagram that he copied from Hill's facsimile). It is these facsimiles from HILL that Sitchin checked and is comparing—NOT Perring and NOT Vyse’s handwritten diary. And, according to Sitchin, the facsimiles that Hill drew (and which had been authenticated by several people as true copies of the chamber glyphs) did not, according to Sitchin, present a correct KH sieve glyph but rather was presented with the circle with a centre circumpunct—Ra.

Except that the text you yourself quote from "Journeys..." makes evident that the figure 19 is an excerpt from Vyse's printed diary:

As I was poring over Vyse’s printed diary, something odd struck me: The Royal name he showed was inscribed differently than on the Inventory Stela; instead of diagonal lines (a “sieve”) inside a circle which reads KH (and thus KH-U-F-U), Vyse’s finds were written with a circle with just a dot inside (fig. 19).

I am not a native English speaker, but it seems to me quite evident. Sitchin adds "Hill's inscription" because he says that Hill made the inscription (and, moreover, "Hill's inscription" is not the same thing as "Hill's facsimile"...).

And something strikes me as inconsistent: Sitchin says in "Journeys..." that he saw the Hill facsimiles in 1978; but in "Stairway to Heaven", published in 1980, he never mentions this visit to the British Museum? In "Stairway", the figures (the same as in "Journeys") are again copied from Vyse's printed diary, even if Sitchin never gives the source of his figures...

What evidence do we have that Sitchin ever saw the Hill facsimiles? Why didn't he ever publish a photograph, or at least drawings, of these?

There are numerous other examples of lies or inaccuracies in Sitchin; as when he says in "Journeys"

He named them in honor of Lord Nelson and Lady Arbuthnot - names recorded by Mr. Hill in the usual red paint.
As I read the diary entries again, the words "red paint" kept jumping out of the pages, as when Mr. Hill used it to inscribe the names "Lord Wellington", "Lady Arbuthnot", "Lord Nelson".

when nowhere in Vyse's diary could I find any mention of red paint used in that way - and when the said names are in fact painted in black...

Mr. Creighton, there is something I don't understand: yesterday you supposed that Howard Vyse could have copied the correct Khufu cartouche from Rosellini, today you imply that the cartouche was inscribed by Hill with the wrong symbol (which means, I think, that you also imply that someone, later, corrected the wrong spelling by transforming the Ra symbol in the sieve that we can see today?), a few days ago on another forum that I happened to read you seemed to insinuate that Vyse had copied the cartouche from a stone found outside the pyramid that he would have later broken so that nobody could detect the copying...

It really gives the impression that you are grasping at straws, desesperately trying to find any way to cast suspicion on this Khufu cartouche...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not a native English speaker, but it seems to me quite evident. Sitchin adds "Hill's inscription" because he says that Hill made the inscription (and, moreover, "Hill's inscription" is not the same thing as "Hill's facsimile"...).

SC: But Sitchin states in the text of his book (p.25-26) that his source was indeed Hill’s facsimiles. It is clearly Hill’s facsimiles he used to create the drawing (Ra-ufu) in his figure 19. There is no question about that. Doernenburg is the one spreading misinformation here. It wasn't Perring or Howard-Vyse that was the source for Sitchin's claims (as Doernenburg states)--it was Hill. And, as far as I can tell, no one in modern times other than Sitchin has ever seen Hill's authenticated facsimiles.

Irna: And something strikes me as inconsistent: Sitchin says in "Journeys..." that he saw the Hill facsimiles in 1978; but in "Stairway to Heaven", published in 1980, he never mentions this visit to the British Museum?

SC: So he’s guilty only of not revealing his source sooner. Hardly a crime.

Irna: In "Stairway", the figures (the same as in "Journeys") are again copied from Vyse's printed diary,..

SC: That is your unfounded speculation. According to you (see your quote below) Sitchin did not provide his source so how can you now claim his source was “…Vyse’s printed diary…”? But Sitchin DID give his source. It's there in the text and in his diagram of "Journeys".

Irna:…even if Sitchin never gives the source of his figures...

SC: I shall say again--Sitchin DOES give his source. Sitchin tells us in “Journeys” that initially he was analysing Howard-Vyse’s printed diary (I am presuming he is meaning Howard-Vyse's published Journal "Operations Vol 1 & 2" that was based on his hand-written log/diary) and that he noticed in that book that “…The Royal name he showed was inscribed differently than on the Inventory Stela; instead of diagonal lines (a “sieve”) inside a circle which reads KH (and thus KH-U-F-U), Vyse’s finds were written with a circle with just a dot inside…” Now, if you actually study the diagrams in Howard-Vyse’s "Operations" you will find for yourself that the circles printed in that publication are not in any way clear and DO look like dots inside a circle. It is not at all clear that they are hatchings. But because the images are so small, it is really difficult to tell. And it is THAT which puzzled Sitchin. He thought he was seeing the Ra disc in the diagrams in Howard-Vyse's book because they were so unclear (and still are). So, in order to clarify the situation, Sitchin gets himself down to the British Museum and asks for “Vyse’s Parchments” (not Vyse’s journal). The museum present Sitchin with the parchments (facsimiles) made by Mr Hill. And it is from the analysis of THESE facsimiles of Mr Hill that Sitchin realises that NONE of the cartouches presented in this source present the KH sieve/placenta glyph. (We shall have to wait and see for ourselves if that truly is the case). Ironically, had Howard-Vyse’s published journal made the disputed circles in the cartouches much clearer then Sitchin would have seen the cross-hatchings and most likely would never have bothered going to the British Museum and would never have asked to see Hill’s facsimiles and would never have found the contradiction (with Perring and Howard-Vyse) that he says is there in Hill's renderings.

The source for Sitchin is clearly Mr Hill’s facsimiles.

Irna: What evidence do we have that Sitchin ever saw the Hill facsimiles?

SC: Why would Sitchin make a bogus claim that he well knew could very easily be found to be untrue by anyone else checking his source i.e. analysing Hill’s facsimiles for themselves? He would be completely insane to do that. Sitchin claims he studied Hill’s facsimiles and he claims the Hill facsimiles do not present the KH hatched disc anywhere in his rendering of the inscriptions. But we will find out soon enough if he is fibbing, won’t we. (I am actually planning to take a trip to the BM in London to see these facsimiles for myself).

Irna: Why didn't he ever publish a photograph, or at least drawings, of these?

SC: Who knows? Perhaps there were copyright issues with the museum? Perhaps they didn’t allow flash photography which can damage old documents? There could be many reasons. But he reproduced what he apparently observed and published it in his book.

Irna: There are numerous other examples of lies or inaccuracies in Sitchin; as when he says in "Journeys"

SC: I’m not actually interested. I am interested only in determining if Hill’s facsimiles of the glyphs in Campbell’s Chamber are different (as Sitchin implies) to those published by Howard-Vyse and Perring and, of course, to those we see in the chamber today. If Hill's verified renderings are different to what Howard-Vyse and Perring published (and to what we see in the chamber today) then merry hell will break loose on this issue.

Irna: Mr. Creighton, there is something I don't understand: yesterday you supposed that Howard Vyse could have copied the correct Khufu cartouche from Rosellini, today you imply that the cartouche was inscribed by Hill with the wrong symbol (which means, I think, that you also imply that someone, later, corrected the wrong spelling by transforming the Ra symbol in the sieve that we can see today?), a few days ago on another forum that I happened to read you seemed to insinuate that Vyse had copied the cartouche from a stone found outside the pyramid that he would have later broken so that nobody could detect the copying... It really gives the impression that you are grasping at straws, desesperately trying to find any way to cast suspicion on this Khufu cartouche...

SC: Simply "desperately" (although that’s perhaps stretching it a bit) trying to get to the bottom of all this, to have answered these apparent contradictions and to find the real truth of this whole, sorry saga. I sincerely hope you don’t have a problem with that? One way or another, the truth of this will be outed.

If/when I get the results from the BM, I shall be sure to let you know here on UM. Until then……….

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SC: But Sitchin states in the text of his book (p.25-26) that his source was indeed Hill’s facsimiles. It is clearly Hill’s facsimiles he used to create the drawing (Ra-ufu) in his figure 19. There is no question about that. Doernenburg is the one spreading misinformation here. It wasn't Perring or Howard-Vyse that was the source for Sitchin's claims (as Doernenburg states)--it was Hill. And, as far as I can tell, no one in modern times other than Sitchin has ever seen Hill's authenticated facsimiles.

I think you assume too much here. Sitchin clearly refers to Vyse's diary:

As I was poring over Vyse’s printed diary, something odd struck me: The Royal name he showed...

The cartouche in fig.19 is exactly the same than in fig.18, and he is still clearly speaking of Vyse's diary. He mentions Hill's facsimiles only after.

Moreover, we have the same drawings exactly in "Stairway" (fig. 146), with the same enlargement of the cartouche than in 18a and 19 of "Journeys", with absolutely no mention in "Stairway" of the facsimile:

stairw148.gif

(source: http://www.bibliotec...s/stairw148.gif)

SC: Why would Sitchin make a bogus claim that he well knew could very easily be found to be untrue by anyone else checking his source i.e. analysing Hill’s facsimiles for themselves? He would be completely insane to do that.

Why did he make other bogus claims in the same book? See the part of my post that you were not "interested" in. Why did he write that the chambers names were inscribed in red paint, when it is easy to find it is untrue? Maybe he was totally insane! Or maybe he was counting of the fact that his readers would not be able or willing to verify?

If/when I get the results from the BM, I shall be sure to let you know here on UM. Until then……….

Till then, I've found some posts by someone who did see the Hill facsimiles in the British Museum, Martin Stower (it seems that he even had some photographs of them on his website, which is presently, unfortunately, unreachable). Here is what he says about them:

Hill's facsimiles, by the way, always show two or more lines within the circle, making it unambiguously `kh' (which wasn't always the case even within undoubtedly genuine Egyptian cursive script).

Irna

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

SC: I think I will reserve my judgement on Sitchin's integrity until such time as I actually see Hill's facsimiles and compare them to the photos of the glyphs in Campbell's Chamber. Sitchin's integrity most certainly cannot be questioned on the completely wrong argument presented by Frank Doernenburg who claims Sitchin changed Vyse and/or Perring drawings. He didn't--Sitchin is comparing the drawings of Mr Hill and no one seems able to present an image of Hill's drawings. I spent hours trying to find just one--to no avail.

If it turns out that Hill's drawings are the same as Sitchin presents in his own diagram (above), then I don't see how Sitchin can be accused of falsifying evidence. (I am not in any way a Sitchinite, btw, just someone who seeks the truth of things and it is important that we get to the bottom of this particular question of Hill's facsimiles to determine exactly the truth of this matter). Essentially Sitchin is claiming that Hill's authenticated drawings that he sent to the British Museum are different to what Vyse and Perring presented in their own works. A very peculiar situation indeed if it is as Sitchin says.

Sitchin states that none of Hill's drawings presented a cross-hatched disc and yet in Campbell's Chamber there is a very large version of such a glyph on the underside of the gabled ceiling. If that is what we see today, why did Sitchin apparently not see this in Hill's drawing of the same cartouche from that chamber? I think it more prudent to first see how Mr Hill actually drew that particular cartouche (which was then authenticated by independent witnesses) before passing judgement. If it turns out that Hill's drawing of that cartouche is different to what we observe in the chamber today then some serious questions will have to be asked. If it turns out that the three cross-hatched lines of the circle in that cartouche are perfectly clear, then Sitchin's claim that none of Hill's drawings presented such a circle is unfounded and plain wrong.

Let's wait and see.

SC

Hill's drawings are reproduced in Vyse's published journal, whose link has been posted more than once in this thread. I'm not sure who did the transcriptions for Perring's surveys—perhaps Perring himself—but they are also online. I've carefully reviewed all of these materials.

I understand where you're coming from, but my point is Sitchin isolated only one example of Khufu's name even though it's written numerous other times in the top two chambers. And in other examples, the Aa1 glyph does distinctly show striations. In other words, if Sitchin honestly did review the original transcriptions produced by Hill, Sitchin was obviously picking and choosing to suit his agenda. Either that or Sitchin never actually viewed the original drawings and wasn't aware of the other examples of Khufu's name. In either case, this constitutes a fraud on Sitchin's part.

In any case, Sitchin's entire approach to the issue lacks academic merit in the first place, for reasons I've already explained in sufficient detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

SC: Why would Sitchin make a bogus claim that he well knew could very easily be found to be untrue by anyone else checking his source i.e. analysing Hill’s facsimiles for themselves? He would be completely insane to do that.

...

What strikes me here as somewhat odd is how I could pretty much paraphrase your comment to fire it back at you:

"Why would Howard Vyse make a bogus claim that he well knew could very easily be found to be untrue by anyone else reading his published journal? He would be completely insane to do that."

In essence you're laying the same charges on Vyse while expressing Sitchin's innocence. Howard Vyse, who was rarely if ever alone during his explorations, including the relieving chambers. He could not have done most of his work alone, so he was pretty much always accompanied not only by Hill but by work teams composed of Egyptian natives, the Egyptologist and engineer John Perring, British aristocracy coming and going during their visits, and all manner of other folks.

In his journal Vyse writes that the glyphs were first noticed only when he and Perring and another man went in there to conduct measurements. Such an activity obviously takes several people to be done properly, so why on earth would Vyse lie that Perring was there when the glyphs were discovered? That would be a colossal mistake—and yet, no one ever went on the record to say Vyse was lying. This includes Perring.

I have to agree with Irna that you seem to be going to great lengths to do and write everything possible to sustain your side of the argument. What sticks out at me is that you're now somehow actually considering standing by the integrity of Zecharia Sitchin—a man who wrote the pyramids were alien landing pads and that all ancient civilizations were influenced by alien visitation. The stuff Sitchin wrote, quite frankly, extends far beyond the rational and descends into the ridiculous and intellectual vapidity. This is hardly someone whose "credibility" you want to profess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Till then, I've found some posts by someone who did see the Hill facsimiles in the British Museum, Martin Stower (it seems that he even had some photographs of them on his website, which is presently, unfortunately, unreachable). Here is what he says about them:

Irna

I couldn't get Stower's page to work either. Pity that, because I'd be interested in seeing it.

All I've ever studied is reduced-scale reproductions of Hill's and Perring's drawings, so it's possible even the Aa1 glyphs that look like they contain blobs might in fact be very small striations that don't reproduce well in the reduced scale. It doesn't much matter, however, because other instances of this glyph clearly show striations, which means Sitchin's entire line of argument is less than the full picture.

In the end it doesn't much matter. A proper understanding of the hieroglyphs is more important than someone's guessing at reduced-scale reproductions. The Aa1 glyph doesn't need to have the striations to represent the "kh" sound, which is the only sound this particular glyph ever represented (other glyphs could represent different sounds based on context within a word). There was never a king called Raufu or Ufura, neither of which even make sense. Sitchin is not a source to be trusted on this or most other issues. While he evidently possessed a rudimentary understanding of ancient Hebrew, Sitchin knew next to nothing about any of the languages expressed in cuneiform or of the scripts used in pharaonic Egypt (hieroglyphs included), or he would never have made such an asinine argument in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SC: But Sitchin states in the text of his book (p.25-26) that his source was indeed Hill’s facsimiles. It is clearly Hill’s facsimiles he used to create the drawing (Ra-ufu) in his figure 19. There is no question about that. Doernenburg is the one spreading misinformation here. It wasn't Perring or Howard-Vyse that was the source for Sitchin's claims (as Doernenburg states)--it was Hill. And, as far as I can tell, no one in modern times other than Sitchin has ever seen Hill's authenticated facsimiles.

Irna: I think you assume too much here. Sitchin clearly refers to Vyse's diary:

Quote

As I was poring over Vyse’s printed diary, something odd struck me: The Royal name he showed...

The cartouche in fig.19 is exactly the same than in fig.18, and he is still clearly speaking of Vyse's diary. He mentions Hill's facsimiles only after.

SC: I didn’t say Sitchin didn’t refer to Vyse’s diary. He did and he says he did. He had read BOTH, first Howard-Vyse’s “Operations” and then, finding the glyphs in that book unclear and puzzling (which they are), he then proceeds to examine Hill’s source material at the British Museum. As far as I am aware, Sitchin never saw the 1:1 drawings in Howard-Vyse’s or Perring’s books and would not have been aware that, though very unclear in the book form, they did in fact present the hatched disc. The POINT, however, is that he HAS seen the 1:1 drawings made by Mr Hill (which I would assume would have been very clear to him). And it is these very clear 1:1 drawings made by Hill that he could clearly see and become convinced that something was wrong—not one of these 1:1 drawings by Hill apparently presents the hatched disc, not one of Hill’s drawings apparently agrees with the drawings in Vyse or Perring’s book (even although Sitchin may not have realised that). He couldn’t have this perceived anomaly confirmed by what he observed in Vyse or Perring—the detail was simply too small. He needed other material. Sitchin may well have believed that the small, very unclear glyphs in Vyse and Perring’s book WERE solar discs and that Hill’s much clearer 1:1 drawings did confirm that (even though it actually didn’t confirm it all. What Hill’s material is doing, if Sitchin is correct, is actually contradicting Vyse and Perring--which actually presents a far bigger question and problem).

SC: If/when I get the results from the BM, I shall be sure to let you know here on UM. Until then……….

Irna: Till then, I've found some posts by someone who did see the Hill facsimiles in the British Museum, Martin Stower (it seems that he even had some photographs of them on his website, which is presently, unfortunately, unreachable). Here is what he says about them:

Quote

Hill's facsimiles, by the way, always show two or more lines within the circle, making it unambiguously `kh' (which wasn't always the case even within undoubtedly genuine Egyptian cursive script).

SC: I am well aware of Stower’s claims but I would rather see the source material for myself and, hopefully, be able to take some photos of the relevant sheets (without flash). I’ve seen Stower in the past claim what is clearly a single centre dot as being three individual lines all joined up with no spaces between the lines. I have to say, it wasn't very convincing. But there is simply no way that Hill could not have rendered the large Khufu cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber without placing three clear and distinct lines with spacing into the circle of that cartouche and have it signed off as a true copy if it wasn’t exactly what was in the chamber at that time. Why then didn’t Sitchin observe those three lines with spacing (that we see there today) in Hill’s drawing of that cartouche that had been signed of as a true copy? THAT is why I want to see Hill’s facsimiles with my own two eyes.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hill's drawings are reproduced in Vyse's published journal, whose link has been posted more than once in this thread. I'm not sure who did the transcriptions for Perring's surveys—perhaps Perring himself—but they are also online. I've carefully reviewed all of these materials.

I understand where you're coming from, but my point is Sitchin isolated only one example of Khufu's name even though it's written numerous other times in the top two chambers. And in other examples, the Aa1 glyph does distinctly show striations. In other words, if Sitchin honestly did review the original transcriptions produced by Hill, Sitchin was obviously picking and choosing to suit his agenda. Either that or Sitchin never actually viewed the original drawings and wasn't aware of the other examples of Khufu's name. In either case, this constitutes a fraud on Sitchin's part.

In any case, Sitchin's entire approach to the issue lacks academic merit in the first place, for reasons I've already explained in sufficient detail.

SC: There is simply no way that Hill could not have rendered the large Khufu cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber without placing three clear and distinct lines with proper spacing into the circle of that cartouche and have it signed off as a true copy if it wasn’t exactly what was in the chamber at that time. And there is simply no way that Sitchin could have failed to identify such a hatched disc on a 1:1 scale. Why then didn’t Sitchin observe those three lines with proper spacing (that we see there today) in Hill’s drawing of that cartouche that had been signed off as a true copy? Is Hill's 1:1 original drawing of this cartouche somehow different to what is in the chamber today? THAT is the implication (if Sitchin is right) and THAT is why I want to see Hill’s facsimiles with my own two eyes--and actually, why YOU should be wanting to see them too.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SC: I didn’t say Sitchin didn’t refer to Vyse’s diary. He did and he says he did. He had read BOTH, first Howard-Vyse’s “Operations” and then, finding the glyphs in that book unclear and puzzling (which they are), he then proceeds to examine Hill’s source material at the British Museum. As far as I am aware, Sitchin never saw the 1:1 drawings in Howard-Vyse’s or Perring’s books and would not have been aware that, though very unclear in the book form, they did in fact present the hatched disc. The POINT, however, is that he HAS seen the 1:1 drawings made by Mr Hill (which I would assume would have been very clear to him). And it is these very clear 1:1 drawings made by Hill that he could clearly see and become convinced that something was wrong—not one of these 1:1 drawings by Hill apparently presents the hatched disc, not one of Hill’s drawings apparently agrees with the drawings in Vyse or Perring’s book (even although Sitchin may not have realised that). He couldn’t have this perceived anomaly confirmed by what he observed in Vyse or Perring—the detail was simply too small. He needed other material. Sitchin may well have believed that the small, very unclear glyphs in Vyse and Perring’s book WERE solar discs and that Hill’s much clearer 1:1 drawings did confirm that (even though it actually didn’t confirm it all. What Hill’s material is doing, if Sitchin is correct, is actually contradicting Vyse and Perring--which actually presents a far bigger question and problem).

SC: I am well aware of Stower’s claims but I would rather see the source material for myself and, hopefully, be able to take some photos of the relevant sheets (without flash). I’ve seen Stower in the past claim what is clearly a single centre dot as being three individual lines all joined up with no spaces between the lines. I have to say, it wasn't very convincing. But there is simply no way that Hill could not have rendered the large Khufu cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber without placing three clear and distinct lines with spacing into the circle of that cartouche and have it signed off as a true copy if it wasn’t exactly what was in the chamber at that time. Why then didn’t Sitchin observe those three lines with spacing (that we see there today) in Hill’s drawing of that cartouche that had been signed of as a true copy? THAT is why I want to see Hill’s facsimiles with my own two eyes.

SC

Hi Scott;

From what Ive been reading about Vyse et al they wouldnt pretty much sign off and certify anything; for example; they were all prepared to certify this find without directly witnessing it themselves,

"Thus, despite the "certifications" of the others, Hill is the sole witness. Most modern authorities believe that Hill either falsified his testimony, or, more likely, a bit of modern iron somehow made its way into the rubble, convincing Hill that it had been there all along."

http://www.catchpenny.org/iron.html

Cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After seeing some of the drawings of the graffiti going below the floor of various relieving chambers, it would seem that it would be stupid to try to fake graffiti doing so. Anyone else that came along and blasted the nearby rock would show it to be a hoax. And apparently back then you could blast to prove such a thing. Thus, this seems logical evidence to support the idea that at least some of the graffiti is Real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After seeing some of the drawings of the graffiti going below the floor of various relieving chambers, it would seem that it would be stupid to try to fake graffiti doing so. Anyone else that came along and blasted the nearby rock would show it to be a hoax. And apparently back then you could blast to prove such a thing. Thus, this seems logical evidence to support the idea that at least some of the graffiti is Real.

Grafitti being real or not is not the only question, some of the graffiti can br real and very old say 10,500 BC. But with the Khufu Cartouches, the actual process of dating the glyphs has reached a standstill, the human mind has weaved a story and forgot the need of evidence. Everything fits in if the Cartouches's Say Khufu.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus, this seems logical evidence to support the idea that at least some of the graffiti is Real.

SC: Indeed. And this is what Humphries Brewer has said. "Faint marks were repainted, some were new." And it was this activity of Hill and Raven that he had a dispute about. It hardly seems credible that he had a dispute about painting the names of 'Arbuthnot', 'Campbell' etc. And how would these names have faded so soon? And why describe known names as "marks"?

Talk about contaminating the crime scene!!

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What strikes me here as somewhat odd is how I could pretty much paraphrase your comment to fire it back at you:

"Why would Howard Vyse make a bogus claim that he well knew could very easily be found to be untrue by anyone else reading his published journal? He would be completely insane to do that."

In essence you're laying the same charges on Vyse while expressing Sitchin's innocence. Howard Vyse, who was rarely if ever alone during his explorations, including the relieving chambers. He could not have done most of his work alone, so he was pretty much always accompanied not only by Hill but by work teams composed of Egyptian natives, the Egyptologist and engineer John Perring, British aristocracy coming and going during their visits, and all manner of other folks.

In his journal Vyse writes that the glyphs were first noticed only when he and Perring and another man went in there to conduct measurements. Such an activity obviously takes several people to be done properly, so why on earth would Vyse lie that Perring was there when the glyphs were discovered? That would be a colossal mistake—and yet, no one ever went on the record to say Vyse was lying. This includes Perring.

I have to agree with Irna that you seem to be going to great lengths to do and write everything possible to sustain your side of the argument. What sticks out at me is that you're now somehow actually considering standing by the integrity of Zecharia Sitchin—a man who wrote the pyramids were alien landing pads and that all ancient civilizations were influenced by alien visitation. The stuff Sitchin wrote, quite frankly, extends far beyond the rational and descends into the ridiculous and intellectual vapidity. This is hardly someone whose "credibility" you want to profess.

I have had the bad fortune of observing how an elaborate fraud is perpretated.

What makes a fraud more believable is the fact that something that was expected is forged.

For eg- the Pilt down man....an obvious hoax was hailed as the 'Missing link' for such a long time as the mainstream evolutionist at that point of time and still was desperately looking for such a missing link. The person who commited the fraud or misrepresented the evidence was clearly aware that "these people are depserately looking for the missing link"

Vyse could have very well been aware that there was a pharoan called Khufu who is spoken of by Egyptologist and whose cartouche sketch was available to him. He must have known that the great pyramids need to be assigned a Pharoan and Egyptologists must be looking for an answer.He could have intentionally forged Khufu Cartouches in the chambers that he blasted to feed the hunger of the Egyptologists.

Sometimes the scamster knows nothing of the actual subject but is very precise with the mechanics of the fraud,playing with other peoples emotion and expectations is a big part of any sucessful Fraud.

Like i said before, Sitchin translating the ancient texts to have talked of space travel is not very ridiculous....if you compare it with some of the AE mainstream translations. The fact that Sitchin insisted that these were facts, is what pokes most people alligned with the mainstream in the eye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What strikes me here as somewhat odd is how I could pretty much paraphrase your comment to fire it back at you:

"Why would Howard Vyse make a bogus claim that he well knew could very easily be found to be untrue by anyone else reading his published journal? He would be completely insane to do that."

In essence you're laying the same charges on Vyse while expressing Sitchin's innocence.

SC: I am not expressing Sitchin's innocence. I am in actual fact pointing to a way to prove his guilt or his innocence. Can you do likewise for Howard-Vyse? Are you even interested in doing such? Of course you're not. And that is the difference between the two scenarios of Sitchin and Howard-Vyse. You are happy to accept Vyse's alleged discovery no-matter how tainted it has become. Because it suits your agenda not to have these questions answered; it suits your agenda not to get to the truth.

How you can continue to imply that Howard-Vyse was a man of integrity simply beggars belief. The man had no integrity whatsoever and would do anything it took to get what he wanted as his wholly illegal electioneering practices aptly demonstrate. He was a crook and his writings should be placed in the big white bowl and flushed thrice (just to be sure). The general consensus on this board is that, if you commit fraud, then your trustworthiness as a reliable source is forfeit and that anything you write thereafter is not to be trusted (think EVD). So why should the written word of an an electoral fraudster like Howard-Vyse be considered any more favorably? Why should a fraudster like Howard-Vyse continue to receive and benefit from our trust whilst other fraudsters are simply cast aside? Or is it the case on this Board that Howard-Vyse is to be judged by different rules, different standards? One rule for 'them' and another rule for 'us'? I sincerely hope not.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what Hill’s drawings look like:

facsim40r.jpg

Copyright in this image remains with the British Museum; I wish they would photograph the rest of the material.

The ones in Operations (reduced-scale versions of the lithographs based on Perring’s drawings) look like this:

vk1grey.jpg

vk3grey.jpg

Note that Sitchin to a near certainty flat-out lied about both.

Creighton has elsewhere vehemently denied his dependency on Sitchin. Doubtless he will detail the steps he has taken to verify the claims he is making about Walter M. Allen and Humphries Brewer. Clearly he must have taken some, as otherwise he would be entirely dependent on Sitchin for this material.

“I’ve seen Stower in the past claim what is clearly a single centre dot as being three individual lines all joined up with no spaces between the lines.”

Doubtless Creighton will be able to specify (with appropriate links) where I claimed this. Given his claims about other people lacking integrity, I really think he should do this.

We may note that Creighton has elsewhere shown remarkable levels of naïveté about digital images, exemplified here:

http://www.grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=276808&t=276479

Also that his attitude to relevant questions of ancient Egyptian palaeography is as here:

http://www.grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?f=1&i=277261&t=276479

Er - let me make this perfectly clear to you so that there is no misunderstanding. I know precisely ZILCH about AE script and make no pretensions otherwise! I probably never will study it in any detail. It's just not my field of interest. . . .

M.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SC: I wondered how long it would take the word to get out to you. Welcome to UM - nice to see you here (if a little late).

MS: This is what Hill’s drawings look like:

Copyright in this image remains with the British Museum; I wish they would photograph the rest of the material.

SC: Thanks for that. It appears then that Sitchin was wrong to claim “…In no instance was the “Kh” inscribed correctly as a sieve with diagonal lines; instead there was a dot or a smudge inside a circle, spelling “Ra”.” I have already asked the BM to check this and am awaiting their response. Do you know who were the witnesses to this particular drawing of Hill?

MS: The ones in Operations (reduced-scale versions of the lithographs based on Perring’s drawings) look like this:

Note that Sitchin to a near certainty flat-out lied about both.

SC: “Near certainty”? Not quite conclusive though. (Not that Sitchen actually interests me--I'm merely interested in determining the veracity, or otherwise, of the inscriptions).

MS: Creighton has elsewhere vehemently denied his dependency on Sitchin. Doubtless he will detail the steps he has taken to verify the claims he is making about Walter M. Allen and Humphries Brewer. Clearly he must have taken some, as otherwise he would be entirely dependent on Sitchin for this material.

SC: That Sitchin was first to present such questions in no way implies that I necessarily share his interpretations of it. And you can rest assured that I am making my own investigations into the allegations. Do not fret so.

SC: “I’ve seen Stower in the past claim what is clearly a single centre dot as being three individual lines all joined up with no spaces between the lines.”

MS: Doubtless Creighton will be able to specify (with appropriate links) where I claimed this. Given his claims about other people lacking integrity, I really think he should do this.

SC: Here you go:

MS: Looks to me like the artist intended a stroke rather than a dot—or even two strokes, partly overlapping.(From here).

SC: This was in relation to the Khnum-Khuf in Arbuthnot’s (enlarged below):

Slide4.jpg

SC: And my reply:

SC: Certainly there appears to be three brush strokes but they clearly merge into one blob or dot. If the consensus opinion of orthodox Egyptology insist this is horizontal hatchings then I, for one, would very much like to see an original, hi-res photo of the actual inscription. … One has to wonder how "accepted consensus opinion" would change (if at all) were a hi-res photograph of this glyph to reveal the centre marking in the circle is indeed a dot (as it appears to be) and not cross-hatchings. (From here)
MS: We may note that Creighton has elsewhere shown remarkable levels of naïveté about digital images, exemplified here:

http://www.grahamhan...276808&t=276479

SC: And my response:

SC: Once again, NO - I saw a discrepency in Frank D's online page of Vyse's journal (he obtained from you). I am questioning what I saw on that page. How much simpler can I make this? It's NOTHING to do with SItchin's allegation. The observation I made on Frank D's site of Vyse's journal is my OWN observation made with my OWN TWO EYES. It did not look like the inscription in Stadelmann's photo of the inscription. I'm perfectly entitled to do such. It seems to me your attempt here to associate my question with Sitchin's allegation is without any foundation whatsoever and I question why you are even attempting to do such?” (From here)

Referring to the low resolution of Frank D’s image (below) of Vyse’s Journal which looked nothing like the hatched circle glyph in Stadelmann’s photo, to wit:

Vyse-Journal-Inscription2.jpg

SC: My question was perfectly legitimate and had nothing to do with Sitchin but everything to do with a poor copy of the image placed by Doernenburg on his site—as you well know. Frank D later corrected this on his site as a result of my question, placing a higher-res image (of your image) onto his site which made the hatched disc clearer.

(From here).

MS: Also that his attitude to relevant questions of ancient Egyptian palaeography is as here:

http://www.grahamhan...277261&t=276479

Quote

Er - let me make this perfectly clear to you so that there is no misunderstanding. I know precisely ZILCH about AE script and make no pretensions otherwise! I probably never will study it in any detail. It's just not my field of interest. . . .

SC: And yet I can tell the difference between a hatched disk and a plain disc. And I can tell when there is no obvious context available, as in the Abydos table of Kings.

And whilst you are here, can you do me a small favour? Can you explain to the Board here, in your opinion, what colour a blank circle “KH” would normally be painted? Pink, purple, blue, red, yellow, green, black? Much appreciated.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With thanks to 'mstower' for his Post #221 and having had questions myself on whether or not the British Museum actually had Hill's Facsimiles in their holdings (beyond any claim by Vyse) as well as any 'attestation to accuracy' witnessed and signed by others (and by whom) I received a reply from the British Museum this AM. This was Dr. Usick's response:

Dear Mr ********,

We do have the original Hill facsimiles in our departmental archive (AES Ar.1489) and we also have some proof photographs of them (AES Ar.474), however the photographs are not digital. Below is my catalogue entry for the facsimiles.

Two large, marbled, leather-edged boards (c.90cm x 60 cm.) containing copies of what are probably work-gang graffiti inscriptions found in the Relieving Chambers of the Great Pyramid by Colonel Howard Vyse in 1837. (Vyse named the chambers.) The original label on the front reads: 'Hill's Facsimiles / of the Characters found / in Wellington's - Nelson's Lady Arbuthnot's & Col: Campbell's / Chambers in the Great Pyramid / of Ghizeh - 1837. / Colonel Howard Vyse.' On the inside of the titled front board is stuck a complete 'List of the Drawings by Mr. Hill', signed 'Colonel Howard Vyse 1837', in which all 28 drawings are listed in groups by the chamber in which they were found. (They were not found by P. Usick in that order in 2010 and are listed as found.) There is some pencil under-drawing and some of the black ink descriptions have first been written in, now faint, pencil. All the sheets are stamped for the British Museum. Linen covers, attached to the front titled board, were folded over the individual sheets of drawings of inscriptions. These copies of graffiti have been signed by Vyse and witnesses. The queried initials are likely to be RK for Sir Robert Keith Arbuthnot.

1. A red ink and brush copy of the cartouche of Khufu, marked in black ink as '2'. In a fine hand in black ink below: 'Nos. 1 & 2 / On a Stone No. 7 S side. [signed] J.R. Hill.'

2. A red ink and brush copy of another cartouche marked: 'On a stone No. 1 on the / Northern Side. No.1 / Drawn by JR Hill' and top left, 'These are as far as circumstances will admit of / exact facsimiles of Characters found upon the walls / of Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber in the Great Pyramid / of Ghizeh opened on the 9th of May 1837. / Ghizeh May 19 1837 / [signed] [RK?] Arbuthnot / Col: Howard Vyse / Joseph Cartwright Brettell - Civil Engineer / Henry Raven'.

3. A red ink and brush copy of hieroglyphic graffiti. 'These are as far as circumstances will admit an exact / facsimiles (sic) of the characters which are found upon the / walls of Lady Arbuthnot's chamber in the Great / Pyramid of Ghizeh, opened on the 9th of May 1837 - / Ghizeh May 19th 1837. [signed] [RK?] Arbuthnot - / Col: Howard Vyse / Joseph Cartwright Brettell - Civil Engineer / Henry Raven.' 'On a Stone No. 2 on the Southern Side. / Drawn by JR Hill'.

4. A red ink and brush copy of hieroglyphic graffiti. 'These are, as far as circumstances will admit, an exact / facsimile of the characters which are found upon the walls / of Lady Arbuthnot's chamber in the Great Pyramid of / Ghizeh, opened on the 9th of May 1837 - / Ghizeh May 19th 1837. [signed] [RK?] Arbuthnot - / Col: Howard Vyse / Joseph Cartwright Brettell - Civil Engineer / Henry Raven.' 'On a Stone No. 1 on the Southern Side. / Drawn by JR Hill'.

5. A red ink and brush copy of Khufu's cartouche and hieroglyphic graffiti. 'These are, as far as circumstances / will admit of, exact facsimiles of characters found upon the walls of / Lady Arbuthnot's chamber in the Great / Pyramid of Ghizeh, opened on the 9th of / May 1837 - / Ghizeh May 19th 1837. [signed] [RK?] Arbuthnot - / Col: Howard Vyse / Joseph Cartwright Brettell - Civil Engineer / Henry Raven.' 'On a Stone No. 3 of the Northern Side. / Drawn by JR Hill'.

6. A red ink and brush copy of hieroglyphic graffiti 'on a Stone No.3 N Side [signed] JR Hill'.

7. A red ink and brush copy of hieroglyphic graffiti. 'These are as far as circumstances will admit an exact / fac-similes (sic) of the characters which are found upon the walls / of Lady Arbuthnot's chamber in the Great Pyramid of Ghizeh / opened on the 9th of May 1837 - / Ghizeh May 19th 1837. [signed] [RK?] Arbuthnot - / Col: Howard Vyse / Joseph Cartwright Brettell - Civil Engineer / Henry Raven.' 'On a Stone No. 1 of the Northern Side. No. 2 / Drawn by JR Hill'.

8. A red ink and brush copy of hieroglyphic graffiti 'on a Stone No.2 S Side [signed] JR Hill'.

9. A red ink and brush copy of hieroglyphic graffiti 'on a Stone No.4 N Side [signed] JR Hill'.

10. A red ink and brush copy of hieroglyphic graffiti 'on a Top Stone N Side / No.1 / [signed] JR Hill'.

11. A red ink and brush copy of hieroglyphic graffiti 'on a Stone No.3 S Side [signed] JR Hill'.

12. A red ink and brush copy of hieroglyphic graffiti 'on a Stone No.5 S Side [signed] JR Hill'.

13. A red ink and brush copy of hieroglyphic graffiti 'on a Stone No. 1 S Side [signed] JR Hill'.

14. A red ink and brush copy of hieroglyphic graffiti 'on a Stone No.6 S Side [signed] JR Hill'.

15. 'Wellington's Chamber - 1'. A red ink and brush copy of hieroglyphic graffiti. 'These are, as far as circumstances will admit, an exact / facsimiles (sic) of the characters which are found on the walls / of Wellington's chamber, in the Great Pyramid of Ghizeh / opened on the (sic) - / Ghizeh May 19th 1837. [signed] [RK?] Arbuthnot - / Col: Howard Vyse / Joseph Cartwright Brettell - Civil Engineer / Henry Raven.' 'On the last Stone towards the North / on the Western side.- / Drawn by JR Hill'.

16. A red ink and brush copy of hieroglyphic graffiti 'on a Stone No.4 S Side [signed] JR Hill'.

17. A red ink and brush copy of hieroglyphic graffiti. 'These are, as far as circumstances will admit, exact / fac-similes of the characters which are found on the walls of / Nelson's Chamber in the Great Pyramid of Ghizeh opened on / the 25th of April 1837 - / Ghizeh May 19th 1837. [signed] [RK?] Arbuthnot - / Col: Howard Vyse / Joseph Cartwright Brettell - Civil Engineer / Henry Raven.' 'on the Second Stone of the Western Side No.2. / Drawn by JR Hill'. In red ink: 'N.C. Nr.2'.

18. A red ink and brush copy of Khufu's cartouche and hieroglyphic graffiti. 'These are as far as circumstances will admit of / exact facsimiles of characters found upon the walls / of Lady Arbuthnot's chamber in the Great Pyramid / of Ghizeh, opened on the 9th of May 1837 - / Ghizeh May 19th 1837. [signed] [RK?] Arbuthnot - / Col: Howard Vyse / Joseph Cartwright Brettell - Civil Engineer / Henry Raven.' 'On a Stone No. 2 of the Northern Side. / Drawn by JR Hill'.

19. A red ink and brush copy of hieroglyphic graffiti. 'These are, as far as circumstances will admit an exact / facsimiles (sic) of the characters which are found on the walls / of Nelson's Chamber in the Great Pyramid of Ghizeh / opened on the 25th of April 1837 - / Ghizeh May 19th 1837. [signed] [RK?] Arbuthnot - / Col: Howard Vyse / Joseph Cartwright Brettell - Civil Engineer / Henry Raven.' 'on the Second Stone of the Western Side. No.1. / Drawn by JR Hill'. In red ink: 'N.C. N 3'.

20. A red ink and brush copy of hieroglyphic graffiti 'on a Stone No.1 E Side [signed] JR Hill'.

21. A red ink and brush copy of hieroglyphic graffiti 'on a Stone No.2 N Side [signed] JR Hill'.

22. A red ink and brush copy of hieroglyphic graffiti 'on a Stone No.8 S Side [signed] JR Hill'.

23. A red ink and brush copy of hieroglyphic graffiti 'on a Stone No.2 in the [?inside] stone E side. [signed] JR Hill'.

24. A red ink and brush copy of hieroglyphic graffiti 'on a Stone No.3 E Side [signed] JR Hill'.

25. A red ink and brush copy of hieroglyphic graffiti. 'These are, as far as circumstances / will admit an exact facsimiles (sic) of the characters which are found on the / walls of Nelson's Chamber in the / Great Pyramid of Ghizeh opened / on the 25th of April 1837 - / Signed Ghizeh May 19th 1837. [signed] [RK?] Arbuthnot - / Col: Howard Vyse / Joseph Cartwright Brettell - Civil Engineer / Henry Raven.' 'on the first Stone Western Side No.1. / Drawn by JR Hill'. In red ink: 'N.C No.5'.

26. A red ink and brush copy of hieroglyphic graffiti. 'These are as far as / circumstances will admit an exact / facsimiles (sic) of the characters which are found / on the walls of Nelson's Chamber in the / Great Pyramid of Ghizeh opened on the 25th / of April 1837 - / Ghizeh May 19th 1837. [signed] [RK?] Arbuthnot - / Col: Howard Vyse / Joseph Cartwright Brettell - Civil Engineer / Henry Raven.' 'on the first Stone of the Western Side No.2. / Drawn by JR Hill'. In red ink: 'N.C. No. 4.'

27. A red ink and brush copy of hieroglyphic graffiti. 'These are, as far as circumstances will / admit an exact facsimile of the / characters which are found on the / walls of Nelson's Chamber in the / Great Pyramid of Ghizeh opened on / the 25th of April 1837 - / Signed Ghizeh May 19th 1837. [signed] [RK?] Arbuthnot Bart.- / Col: Howard Vyse / Jos.h Cartwright Brettell - Civil Engineer / Henry Raven.' 'on the Second Stone of the Western Side No.3. / Drawn by JR Hill'. In red ink: 'N.C. No. 1'.

28. A red ink and brush copy of hieroglyphic graffiti 'on a Stone No.7 S side. [signed] JR Hill'. Marked in black ink '1' and 'Nos. 1 & 2'.

Yours,

Dr Patricia Usick, Honorary Archivist,

Department of Ancient Egypt and Sudan, the British Museum

I've since sent a follow-up question as to how, specifically, Khufu's name is given in the above and if/when I receive a reply I will post it here.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With thanks to 'mstower' for his Post #221 and having had questions myself on whether or not the British Museum actually had Hill's Facsimiles in their holdings (beyond any claim by Vyse) as well as any 'attestation to accuracy' witnessed and signed by others (and by whom) I received a reply from the British Museum this AM. This was Dr. Usick's response:

I've since sent a follow-up question as to how, specifically, Khufu's name is given in the above and if/when I receive a reply I will post it here.

cormac

Ditto.

SC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting. I believe they have also found mason marks on many of the great cathedrals of europe as well. Nothing odd weird or strange about it .I don't think anyone but the builders put the marks there as some sort of guide maybe in the assemby of the thing.Plus it might have been some of them saying that I Seti helped build the great lord Khufu's pyramid,sort of a Killroy was here type of thing.

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.