The Disappearing Quarry Marks of the GP

[Scott Creighton]

When Colonel Howard Vyse opened Lady Arbutnot's Chamber within the Great Pyramid on 6th May, 1837, he shortly afterwards commissioned John Shae Perring to make a survey of the marks (allegedly) discovered in-situ within this chamber (and the other Vyse chambers). In this regards Vyse writes:

Quote

"...Notwithstanding that the characters in these chambers were surveyed by Mr. Perring upon a reduced scale, I considered that facsimiles in their original size would be desirable, as they were of great importance from their situation, and probably the most antient inscriptions in existence. I requested, therefore, Mr. Hill to copy them..."

It seems fairly clear from Vyse's comment (above) that Perring began his survey drawings of the painted quarry marks in these chambers before Mr Hill began his 1:1 facsimiles of them. On one of the stones in Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber we find these marks:

Perring lithographic drawing(s):

As you can see from Perring's two different lithographic renderings (above), there is a peculiar upturned sign (Gardiner's AA20) on the bottom row, right side. This sign is peculiar because it is set among an inscription (the Gang, the Pure Ones of the Horus Medjedu) where the top row of signs are clearly upright. Indeed, it seems that the Egyptologist/Archaeologist, Alan Rowe, believes the bottom row of signs (like the top row) are all upright and attempts to fill in the gaps in the bottom row signs to try and make them clearer. However, in filling in the gaps of the bottom row signs, Rowe (making his drawing below ca. 1931), seemingly completely ignores the upturned Aa20 sign that is clearly visible in Perring's drawing(s):

Rowe's drawing:

As stated, in Rowe's drawing of these same marks (above) he omits the peculiar upturned Aa20 sign that is clearly present (twice) in Perring's lithographic renderings. (Note: it may be that Perring's two lithographic renderings were drawn from just one original drawing made by Perring although there are some (minor) differences between his two drawings to suggest that Perring made two different originals).

So, why did Rowe miss drawing this peculiar upturned  sign?

It is not as if Rowe simply opted to omit this peculiar sign from his own drawing for if we now consider J.R. Hill's facsimile drawing of these same marks, we see that Hill has ALSO omitted  this peculiar upturned Aa20 sign. And, as a result of the five witness signatures on Hill's facsimile sheet (5 men who actually witnessed that Hill's facsimile was a good likeness to the actual marks on this block in this chamber on May 19th 1837), then we have to accept that this peculiar sign was not, in fact, present when Hill made his drawing of these marks.

Artist Impression of Hill facsimile:

In short then, within a period of around 2 weeks in May 1837 this peculiar upturned AA20 sign was drawn by Perring (probably twice) but by the time Hill came to copy it, the peculiar sign mysteriously disappeared.

Can anyone here offer up a reasonable and rational explanation why this peculiar upturned sign which supposedly was in this chamber for 4,500 years would be drawn by one man and shortly afterwards had mysteriously vanished from the chamber as witnessed by no less than five different men?

Thanks.

SC

Edited March 6, 2018 by Scott Creighton

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Could the difference in heiroglyph be a result of misinterpreting something seen only in flickering torchlight?

[Scott Creighton]

1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Could the difference in heiroglyph be a result of misinterpreting something seen only in flickering torchlight?

It's a fair question, SWoH. But I think it is unlikely for a number of reasons.

Firstly, Perring would have been observing the marks on these blocks for a considerable time in order to give a good and fair representation of what was there - it was not a fleeting glimpse.

Secondly, having completed his copy of the block marks, the natural thing for anyone to then do would be to double-check that everything that had been drawn was all present and correct. It is one thing to miss something in poor lighting but an entirely different matter to observe and add something that (according to some) just wasn't there, especially given that Perring would have spent considerable time studying the signs on this block. 

Thirdly, we are being asked to accept that Perring drew something that didn't exist on that block and yet somehow he contrived to observe and draw a fully-fledged, perfectly formed AE hieratic Aa20 sign (albeit rotated 180*).

Finally, this mark isn't peculiar simply because it seems to have disappeared. It is peculiar for a second reason, namely that in this group of signs on this block (all of which are upright) this is the only sign among them that is upturned 180* and, as such, is something you do not see anywhere else in these chambers. So, just what are the odds that a sign that is uniquely and oddly presented is also the one that mysteriously disappears?

For these reasons, I don't regard this as an acceptable explanation to this anomaly.

SC

Edited March 7, 2018 by Scott Creighton

[kborissov]

Scott, All I know about this topic is only what I read from your post, so take what I say with a pinch of salt.

I see staggering differences in Peering 1 and Peering 2 sketches. In my opinion, someone copying those on a piece of paper while physically looking at those would not do. Could he really draw those from his memory, being off site? Adding symbols not present in the chamber and filling the gaps in meaning with extra symbols which he thought were there but were not? 

[Scott Creighton]

1 hour ago, kborissov said:

Scott, All I know about this topic is only what I read from your post, so take what I say with a pinch of salt.

I see staggering differences in Peering 1 and Peering 2 sketches. In my opinion, someone copying those on a piece of paper while physically looking at those would not do.

Hi kborisso,

Yes - there are a number of minor differences between Perring's two lithographic prints. We do not know if these slight differences were introduced by two different lithographers or by Perring making two different original drawings, one set in large-scale and another in small scale for Vyse's book.

What we can conclude from this, however, is that either Perring made two different original drawing sets of the marks from this block OR there was just one Perring original from which two different lithographs were made and prints produced.

Whatever the truth of this the upturned sign was contained in at least ONE of Perring's drawings and possibly two.

Quote

Could he really draw those from his memory, being off site? Adding symbols not present in the chamber and filling the gaps in meaning with extra symbols which he thought were there but were not?

This is highly unlikely as these weren't the only marks in this chamber - there were many marks. See here:

I don't think anyone would attempt to commit these to memory, especially given that the actual signs were hieratic script which Perring would have been almost entirely unfamiliar with. It's possible, yes - but I very much doubt this would have happened. 

SC

Edited March 7, 2018 by Scott Creighton

[mstower]

23 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

It's a fair question, SWoH. But I think it is unlikely for a number of reasons.

Firstly, Perring would have been observing the marks on these blocks for a considerable time in order to give a good and fair representation of what was there - it was not a fleeting glimpse.

So you say.  Were you there, looking over his shoulder?  I don’t think so.

What are the realities?

A note on the relevant lithograph in Operations tells us that Perring prepared his drawings of Lady Arbuthnot’s Chamber on May 10th, the day on which he and Hill surveyed the chamber.  Perring had plenty to do, just getting the architectural details right (which he couldn’t have done in advance of the survey), never mind the various marks.  This (as you know) is the chamber containing the greatest profusion of ˤprw names, all of which Perring recorded: he did not have time to sit for hours in front of this particular one.  A busy day for Perring and I’m going to suggest that what we see if anything is signs of a rush job.

23 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Secondly, having completed his copy of the block marks, the natural thing for anyone to then do would be to double-check that everything that had been drawn was all present and correct. It is one thing to miss something in poor lighting but an entirely different matter to observe and add something that (according to some) just wasn't there, especially given that Perring would have spent considerable time studying the signs on this block.

Here we slip from what was the case to what would have been the case, a condition whose relation to evidence is far more problematic.  What we get is procedural handwaving, with no basis in evidence.  With such (hypothetical) scrupulosity, it’s remarkable that Perring made any mistakes at all—and yet plainly he did.  One species of error is duplication: copying something twice.  Another is making something vague too definite.  My “could have been” is as good as your “would have been”—and allow me to remind you that Hill vindicates Rowe on the wˤb-priest.  Majority verdict of the evidence is that the strokes forming the figure of the priest are all that are there.

23 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Thirdly, we are being asked to accept that Perring drew something that didn't exist on that block and yet somehow he contrived to observe and draw a fully-fledged, perfectly formed AE hieratic Aa20 sign (albeit rotated 180*).

No one but you is asking us to accept that Perring drew any such thing.  Where lithographs A′ and A″ differ and the original A is missing, doubt regarding what was in A is irreducible.

Fully fledged?  Perfectly formed?  As if it were a detailed hieroglyph and not a scrappy collection of lines.  This is merely your usual procedure of talking up some arbitrary piece of alleged evidence,.  Pareidolia, wishful thinking.

23 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Finally, this mark isn't peculiar simply because it seems to have disappeared. It is peculiar for a second reason, namely that in this group of signs on this block (all of which are upright) this is the only sign among them that is upturned 180* and, as such, is something you do not see anywhere else in these chambers. So, just what are the odds that a sign that is uniquely and oddly presented is also the one that mysteriously disappears?

Again merely assuming that what Perring drew (itself in doubt) was accurate.

23 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

For these reasons, I don't regard this as an acceptable explanation to this anomaly.

SC

Which is worth whatever your judgement is worth.

M.

[mstower]

20 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Yes - there are a number of minor differences between Perring's two lithographic prints. We do not know if these slight differences were introduced by two different lithographers or by Perring making two different original drawings, one set in large-scale and another in small scale for Vyse's book.

What we can conclude from this, however, is that either Perring made two different original drawing sets of the marks from this block OR there was just one Perring original from which two different lithographs were made and prints produced.

Let’s remind these good people that there is no evidence whatsoever of Perring having made two sets of drawings (at differing scales).

Also that kborrisov considers the differences “staggering”, not “minor”.

20 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

This is highly unlikely as these weren't the only marks in this chamber - there were many marks. See here:

Hold on to that thought.

M.

[Scott Creighton]

I was not in those chambers in May 1837, Mr Stower, and neither were you. All we can work with is the evidence that is before us.

Quote

mstower: Again merely assuming that what Perring drew (itself in doubt) was accurate.

 

What Perring drew seems to be in doubt only by you, Mr Stower. The upturned Aa20 sign is there in those two lithographic prints, the original(s) of which being attributed to Perring. That anomalous sign is there in Perring’s drawing(s) and has vanished in Hill’s. That is the simple fact of the matter. That is the situation.

I find It simply inconceivable that a proof print from the lithographic block would not have been made and compared with Perring’s original drawing, the comparison being made either by the lithographer(s) involved or by Perring himself. Proof reading is part of the process in printing and publishing. It is simply not credible to imagine that the lithographer(s) involved would not have checked their work with Perring’s original artwork.

Furthermore, it is doubtful in the extreme that a lithographer would have added this sign simply for the hell of it. The lithographer’s job is to create a true and accurate impression from an original artwork. S/he would be out of work pretty quickly if they were found to be arbitrarily adding things to their lithograph that wasn’t true to the original artwork.

As such, it is reasonable to conclude that Perring’s original artwork included this anomalous upturned Aa20 sign.

So, accepting the sign was indeed present on at least one drawing made by Perring, the question now is why would Perring have drawn a sign on his sheet that no one else has evidenced and which, in so far as can be determined, seems not to be present on that block today.

For the reasons I give here, I do not consider Perring saw something that wasn't there, that he somehow imagined this upturned Aa20 sign.  How then can this 'mystery' be reasonably explained?

 SC

Edited March 8, 2018 by Scott Creighton

[mstower]

6 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

I was not in those chambers in May 1837, Mr Stower, . . .

Really?  We wouldn’t have known it, from the claim you made.

No need (by the way) to instruct me in working with the evidence.  That’s what I’ve been explaining to you.

8 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

What Perring drew seems to be in doubt only by you, Mr Stower. . . .

That this is the fallacy argumentum ad populum barely needs stating.

Otherwise a plank of your malformed method: subjectivism.  I’m not conducting an opinion poll.  Objectively, as a matter of evidence, what Perring drew is in doubt.  We do not have his drawing.  We do not have photographs of his drawing.  The lithographs differ.  How could it be otherwise?

9 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

I find It simply inconceivable . . .

Another plank (or part of the same one): serving up autobiography as argument.

The remainder is omitted (as mere “talking up”).

M.

[Scott Creighton]

Quote

mstower: Objectively, as a matter of evidence, what Perring drew is in doubt.  We do not have his drawing.  We do not have photographs of his drawing.

That we do not have Perring’s original artwork is entirely immaterial. We have the lithographic prints that show this sign. The lithographs themselves would have been made from Perring’s original artwork. When produced it is reasonable to presume that either Perring or the lithographer(s) would have made a proof check of the lithographic print against the original artwork. It is simply inconceivable that proof-checking would not have been done. Thus, even in absence of Perring’s original artwork, we can reasonably deduce that this sign is present in at least one original drawing made by Perring.

Injecting doubt over what Perring did or didn't draw seems to be the only counter-argument you can muster here while, at the same time, you fail to realise that, from my perspective, ‘doubt’ over the marks in these chambers is enough for me to continue asking questions about them and demanding better proof of their alleged authenticity. That you will surely disagree with this assessment is of no consequence to me.

 SC

Edited March 8, 2018 by Scott Creighton

[mstower]

2 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

That we do not have Perring’s original artwork is entirely immaterial. . . .

Such is your unprincipled treatment of evidence.

Now try telling us that not having photographs of the ˤpr name in question is immaterial.  That’s the real elephant absent from the room and you don’t seem all that keen on talking about it.  Look, you’ve left it to me to mention it.

M.

[Scott Creighton]

mstower:

Look, you’ve left it to me to mention it.

Mr Stower – it’s simple. My interest here is trying to establish why Perring’s lithographic drawing(s) of these particular marks include this upturned Aa20 sign and Hill’s drawing does not. That is all.

Now, if you are not willing to even accept the possibility that Perring did draw this upturned Aa20 sign in his original artwork then you are perfectly entitled to take that view. For the reasons given above, I take a different view and until such time as you can consider the possibility that Perring’s lithographer(s) included this sign in their lithograph was because it was present in Perring’s original drawing, then I’m afraid we have nothing further to discuss.

SC

[mstower]

16 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Mr Stower – it’s simple. My interest here is trying to establish why Perring’s lithographic drawing(s) [sic] of these particular marks include this upturned Aa20 sign [sic] and Hill’s drawing does not. That is all.

Not in seeking another weak excuse to shout “forgery”, then?

Let’s see.

M.

[mstower]

For the benefit of newcomers to the topic, an “upturned Aa20 sign” is nothing at all.  There is no such character.   Absent the correct orientation, the identification fails.

What Creighton claims is on a level with claiming that the infinity symbol ∞ is a number 8 fallen on its side.

M.

[Scott Creighton]

mstower: Not in seeking another weak excuse to shout “forgery”, then?

Let’s see.

I rather doubt anyone here at UM would be at all surprised to learn that I may well harbour suspicions here that this particular anomaly may well be explained as the result of forgery.

But we'll see.

SC

[Scott Creighton]

Quote

mstower: 

There is no such character.   Absent the correct orientation, the identification fails.

Except what Mr Stower has failed to inform you of is that there are many examples of this Aa20 sign elsewhere in these chambers, rotated to various degrees, some 90*, others 180* (just like the one in question here).

SC

Edited March 8, 2018 by Scott Creighton

[mstower]

1 minute ago, Scott Creighton said:

Except what mR Stower has failed to inform you of is that there are many examples of this Aa20 sign elsewhere in these chambers, rotated to various degrees, some 90*, others 180* (just like the one in question here).

Yes, Mr Creighton, I generallly fail to provide partial and misleading information.

There are many examples of the cursive ˤpr character, consistent in orientation with the inscriptions (ˤpr names) in which they appear.  This makes them unlike the one in question, which is what Mr Creigthon has failed to explain.

M.

[Scott Creighton]

mstower: 

There are many examples of the cursive ˤpr character, consistent in orientation with the inscriptions (ˤprnames) in which they appear.  This makes them unlike the one in question, which is what Mr Creigthon has failed to explain.

Nonsense.

SC: 

Finally, this mark isn't peculiar simply because it seems to have disappeared. It is peculiar for a second reason, namely that in this group of signs on this block (all of which are upright) this is the only sign among them that is upturned 180* and, as such, is something you do not see anywhere else in these chambers. So, just what are the odds that a sign that is uniquely and oddly presented is also the one that mysteriously disappears. - From above.

SC

[mstower]

1 minute ago, Scott Creighton said:

Nonsense.

M.

[Windowpane]

36 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

 

I rather doubt anyone here at UM would be at all surprised to learn that I may well harbour suspicions here that this particular anomaly may well be explained as the result of forgery.

 

 

So, in the same way that there was allegedly a witness to the forgery of the crewname with Khufu's cartouche, were there  any witnesses to this supposed forgery, as well?

[Scott Creighton]

25 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

 

So, in the same way that there was allegedly a witness to the forgery of the crewname with Khufu's cartouche, were there  any witnesses to this supposed forgery, as well?

Hi Windowpane,

The witness does not actually say which specific signs they saw being forged, only that, "Faint marks were repainted, some were new."

SC

[Windowpane]

1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

The witness does not actually say which specific signs they saw being forged, only that, "Faint marks were repainted, some were new."

 

 

Hi Scott,

Presumably you meant the alleged witness Humphries Brewer, rather than his great-grandson, Walter Allen, who I understand was not actually a witness ...

On 4/22/2013 at 9:57 am, Scott Creighton said:

 

...  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"?

 

 

 

[mstower]

4 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Except what Mr Stower has failed to inform you of is that there are many examples of this Aa20 sign elsewhere in these chambers, rotated to various degrees, some 90*, others 180* (just like the one in question here).

SC

Creighton,

Your having invoked as your missing explanation of this matter something in another post entirely, I will remind you that I have informed people of these facts many times over the years, starting before you so much as attached yourself to the topic.

M.

[mstower]

1 hour ago, Windowpane said:

Presumably you meant the alleged witness Humphries Brewer, rather than his great-grandson, Walter Allen, who I understand was not actually a witness ...

The words “Faint marks were repainted, some were new” are Allen’s, not Brewer’s.  They are not attributed to Brewer in Allen’s logbook.  How they can be attributed to “the witness” escapes me.

M.

[mstower]

5 hours ago, mstower said:

Now try telling us that not having photographs of the ˤpr name in question is immaterial.  That’s the real elephant absent from the room and you don’t seem all that keen on talking about it.  Look, you’ve left it to me to mention it.

M.

I notice that Creighton quoted my concluding sentence, while avoiding (to the reader’s undoubted surprise) any mention of the question of photographs.

Remarkable.

M.