The Great Pyramid Hoax - Episode3 (Signs of the Crime)

[cladking]

49 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

Should anyone be in any doubt, we now have strong evidence of tampering of marks in Nelson's Chamber in 1837:

 

Note: On 19th May, 1837, all of the chamber markings (with the exception of those in Campbell's Chamber) as presented on Mr Hill's facsimile sheets, were attested as being correct by no less than 5 witnesses: Hill, Vyse, Brettel, Raven and Arbuthnot. They all saw that long line ('Nelson's Column') copied by Vyse and Hill.

So why didn't Perring see and copy this (now proven to be missing) line in the same way as all those other witnesses?  Why is that line (witnessed as being present by 5 men in May 1837), now gone? Why didn't Perring sign his own name attesting to the accuracy of any of Hill's facsimiles?

It sure looks suspicious (if that's the right word).  

It's hard to account for the transformations but it is not likely incompetence or sloppiness.  

[Oniomancer]

Interesting how 4 different copyists make 4 differing interpretations, with hill's being the most accurate overall.. Curious about that black blotch on the upper left in the photo. Shadow, soot or graffiti?

The immediate question I would think is, how does the presence or absence of the offending mark effect the reading of the passage in question? What significance does it lend other than looking suspicious?

Edited March 11 by Oniomancer

[Scott Creighton]

2 hours ago, cladking said:

It sure looks suspicious (if that's the right word).  

It's hard to account for the transformations but it is not likely incompetence or sloppiness.  

Hi CK,

Of course, it should also be remembered that this is not the only painted marking that has vanished from the Vyse Chambers.  There are other instances that appear to have also disappeared when compared against the drawings/surveys of others.  What's more interesting is that those missing signs are actually wrong in the context of their particular setting.  What are the chances that all the marks that are wrong in their particular context are the ones that have vanished?  Some markings have even been added (#4 below):

(Note: #1 above should read 'Rowe 1931'.

And, of course, this group of signs (below), aren't even in any of the chambers (according to 2 different surveys):

I will likely begin a new thread to discuss in more detail Hill's facsimile above.

I'm sure, however, to many on this board and elsewhere, there's "nothing to see here. Move along now."

SC

Edited March 11 by Scott Creighton

[Antigonos]

22 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

I'm sure, however, to many on this board and elsewhere, there's "nothing to see here. Move along now."

SC

You’re catching on.

[Antigonos]

Since you won’t answer Stower directly I’ve brought his post to you. 

 

Edited March 11 by Antigonos

[Antigonos]

Duplicate post 

Edited March 11 by Antigonos

[Kenemet]

5 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

They weren't there to try and understand the inscriptions and they certainly couldn't. So why would Perring remove something he didn't know was part of the inscription or not? That doesn't make any sense. Are you suggesting Mr Perring predicted its disappearance from that chamber wall?

He sees it. Doesn't understand it and simply copies it in full, in the same way Hill and Vyse did. That's all Perring should be doing.

So, what happened to that line - it's gone (if it was ever there on the wall in the first place).

SC

So you're saying that every single historically mis-copied inscription from all over Egypt is also part of some great hoax by Vyse?  

Or that nobody ever mis-copies hieroglyphs (adds things in, leaves things out)?

[Scott Creighton]

39 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

So you're saying that every single historically mis-copied inscription from all over Egypt is also part of some great hoax by Vyse?  

Or that nobody ever mis-copies hieroglyphs (adds things in, leaves things out)?

No. We're merely discussing here the incriptions Vyse claimed to have discovered within the Vyse Chambers.

If you think all of this is perfectly innocent, that is your perogative.

I take a different view.

Oh, and how  exactly was Hill able to miscopy a group of markings onto one of his 28 facsimile sheets (in the British Museum) that aren't even in any of the chambers (according to 2 separate surveys of the chamber markings)?

SC 

Edited March 11 by Scott Creighton

[Antigonos]

3 minutes ago, Scott Creighton said:

 

If you think all of this is perfectly innocent, that is your perogative.

I invented a different view.

SC 

If you want to write fan fiction, that’s yours.

Fixed it for you.

[Granite]

Hey Scott,

I'm not going to stay here for a long conversation, but I thought I should mention something very important which you have not considered.

First off, I know it sucks to have your research proven to be incorrect - even more so if you've published a book on it. Assuming you approached the topic in good-faith, I do appreciate you looking into the matter even though I disagree with both your premise and conclusions.

What you have failed to understand is that the red ochre lines in the pyramids can be extremely fragile. There are many variables that cannot be accounted for in understanding how they disappear, including the thickness in which they were originally painted, the particular chemical mixture of each batch of paint, and the amount of exposure they receive to light, moisture, wind, touch, etc.

There are red ochre lines in the Bent Pyramid that could be seen easily a decade ago which have already faded so much you wouldn't know they were there without looking for them. Sometimes one part of a marking is painted on stronger than another and thus is has more resilience. Some markings seem to not fade at all, and others can suddenly disappear with increased human activity despite having survived the first 4500 years. It's weird, but you see it everywhere once you look enough. I personally saw the Sneferu cartouche inside the Bent Pyramid magically reappear when light was shone upon it at just the right angle. Bits can be visible or invisible according to how closely you're looking and what you expect to see. These red ochre signatures were also often sloppy, made in haste, and self-corrected for mistakes on the fly. Scrutinizing them closely is impossible except in person, and even then can sometimes be impossible with enough deterioration. There are STRONG red ochres lines in the Edgar Bros photos of the Great Pyramid which are now completely gone. It's sad, but it's the reality.

I hope you will receive this difficult news with an open mind, and move forward with productive research instead of acting like Zahi Hawass and insisting you can never be wrong. There's no shame in being wrong, only in failing to admit when you are.

Yes, I am that 'Granite' on YouTube.

Best,

HfG

[Scott Creighton]

1 hour ago, Granite said:

Hey Scott,

I'm not going to stay here for a long conversation, but I thought I should mention something very important which you have not considered.

First off, I know it sucks to have your research proven to be incorrect - even more so if you've published a book on it. Assuming you approached the topic in good-faith, I do appreciate you looking into the matter even though I disagree with both your premise and conclusions.

What you have failed to understand is that the red ochre lines in the pyramids can be extremely fragile. There are many variables that cannot be accounted for in understanding how they disappear, including the thickness in which they were originally painted, the particular chemical mixture of each batch of paint, and the amount of exposure they receive to light, moisture, wind, touch, etc.

There are red ochre lines in the Bent Pyramid that could be seen easily a decade ago which have already faded so much you wouldn't know they were there without looking for them. Sometimes one part of a marking is painted on stronger than another and thus is has more resilience. Some markings seem to not fade at all, and others can suddenly disappear with increased human activity despite having survived the first 4500 years. It's weird, but you see it everywhere once you look enough. I personally saw the Sneferu cartouche inside the Bent Pyramid magically reappear when light was shone upon it at just the right angle. Bits can be visible or invisible according to how closely you're looking and what you expect to see. These red ochre signatures were also often sloppy, made in haste, and self-corrected for mistakes on the fly. Scrutinizing them closely is impossible except in person, and even then can sometimes be impossible with enough deterioration. There are STRONG red ochres lines in the Edgar Bros photos of the Great Pyramid which are now completely gone. It's sad, but it's the reality.

I hope you will receive this difficult news with an open mind, and move forward with productive research instead of acting like Zahi Hawass and insisting you can never be wrong. There's no shame in being wrong, only in failing to admit when you are.

Yes, I am that 'Granite' on YouTube.

Best,

HfG

Hi Granite,

All suggestions are welcome, as far as I'm concerned.

What you suggest may very well be an explanation for marks seemingly vanishing. But my own view of fraudulent activity as the reason is no less valid by your suggestion. Your possible solution does not disprove my solution for explaining all the anomalies we find in those chambers (and elsewhere) - there's really only one way to do that.

I still have my reservations that those marks were happily sitting on the walls and ceilings of those chambers for 4,500 years, were copied by people at the time and then days/weeks later simply vanished in the manner you suggest. I'm just not convinced by that. These disappearing marks all have the unique feature of being erroneous in their particular setting. Just what are the chances that all three erroneous markings just happen to also be the ones that have disappeared? I say there is a causal connection there. The fakers made mistakes (some false starts) and had to go back and erase them (but not before others had copied the false starts).

Also, your solution does not account for markings being in place and markings being added.

Nor does it explain why Mr Hill would have a facsimile sheet of a group of markings in his possession (you can see them in the British Museum)  that, according to 2 separate surveys, do not appear to be anywhere in the chamber. These markings are supposed to be a copy of a group in Campbell's Chamber but there are 3 different metrics that convince me they are not the same group of markings as those on Hill's fasimile sheet.

And why would all of the hieratic inscriptions in these four chambers be written right-to-left but the numbers suddenly being written left-to-right? (Hieratic, with very few exceptions, is written right-to-left).

And why did Vyse lie in his book about the inscription date in Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber? Why did he place May 9th on 6 of Hill's facsimile sheets from LA Chamber when the chamber was opened on 6th May?  Why, when entering on 6th May did neither Vyse or Raven make mention of any markings in this chamber when they were evidently examining the chamber's wall's and taking measurements etc at that time? Two men, saw nothing - seriously? This chamber has more markings than any of the other chambers but none were discovered until 3 days after the chamber was opened. Hmm - that 3 day thing again.

Anyway - I could go on and on here, pointing all these things out and more. Maybe just have a watch of my videos on the issue linked below:

Video 1: The Great Pyramid Hoax: Episode 1 - The Journal Speaks

Video 2: The Great Pyramid Hoax: Episode 2 - Conspiracy and Cover-up

Video 3: The Great Pyramid Hoax: Episode 3 - Signs of the Crime

Anyway - thanks for stopping by. I always appreciate people taking an interest no matter what their view on this. But it will take much more than what you have suggested here to convince me those markings are all genuine (I believe some are BTW and I believe Saurid/Suphis/Khufu built the GP).

Regards,

SC

Edited March 11 by Scott Creighton

[Granite]

Scott,

Markings can be added for exactly the reason I explained. Parts of them can be extremely difficult to see, and only noticed later under different or improved lighting conditions. Many markings can be easily missed unless you already know to look for them. Some markings would begin to fade immediately upon the opening of the relieving chambers. Some markings are self-corrected and written in haste. Put your critical eye towards the way 'Sneferu' is written in the Bent Pyramid in Fakhry's picture. It's as if the cartouche is spelled multiple ways, all incorrectly. We're not calling Fakhry a forgery as well are we? You're reading tea leaves in looking for mistakes in these things. Human error is everywhere, it's not that complicated.

Best,

HfG

[Scott Creighton]

37 minutes ago, Granite said:

Scott,

Markings can be added for exactly the reason I explained. Parts of them can be extremely difficult to see, and only noticed later under different or improved lighting conditions. Many markings can be easily missed unless you already know to look for them. Some markings would begin to fade immediately upon the opening of the relieving chambers. Some markings are self-corrected and written in haste. Put your critical eye towards the way 'Sneferu' is written in the Bent Pyramid in Fakhry's picture. It's as if the cartouche is spelled multiple ways, all incorrectly. We're not calling Fakhry a forgery as well are we? You're reading tea leaves in looking for mistakes in these things. Human error is everywhere, it's not that complicated.

Best,

HfG

Hi HfG,

Fakhry was never accused of fraud so I see no reason to doubt his work. Vyse was accused of fraud (and not just by Sitchin) hence why we should be seriously looking into his alleged discoveries.

I don't doubt what you say. But I simply do not think that is what happened here and would urge you to have a watch of the first video (link).

Regards,

SC

 

 

Edited March 11 by Scott Creighton

[Scott Creighton]

1 hour ago, Granite said:

Scott,

Markings can be added for exactly the reason I explained. Parts of them can be extremely difficult to see, and only noticed later under different or improved lighting conditions. Many markings can be easily missed unless you already know to look for them. Some markings would begin to fade immediately upon the opening of the relieving chambers. Some markings are self-corrected and written in haste. Put your critical eye towards the way 'Sneferu' is written in the Bent Pyramid in Fakhry's picture. It's as if the cartouche is spelled multiple ways, all incorrectly. We're not calling Fakhry a forgery as well are we? You're reading tea leaves in looking for mistakes in these things. Human error is everywhere, it's not that complicated.

Best,

HfG

Hi HfG,

I should have added this (below) as it's related to the first video (linked above). This is my transcription of Vyse's Private Journal of 27th May 1837 when he first entered Campbell's Chamber. (I should add that my transcription, naturally, is contested by others).

As you can see - Vyse's handwriting is not easy. With practice though, it becomes less difficult.

Regards,

SC

Edited March 11 by Scott Creighton

[Granite]

Scott,

I have watched your video. I see nothing that cannot be explained by people, including yourself, misinterpreting poorly written notes that were not designed to be understood by others at a later time.

The biggest mistake in the video, however, comes at 8:13 where it is stated that the cartouches were 'highly significant discoveries'. Vyse did not think they were highly significant, as Matt demonstrated quite conclusively in his video. Egyptologists do not think of them as significant, except for debunking alt-history people. This is why Gorlitz and Erdmann were put on trial for allegedly damaging the Khufu one, and the Sneferu one is left to decay with no Egyptologist bothering to look at it since its discovery. Citing Puckler-Muskau is particularly sloppy as well, as Muskau admits he has no idea what he's talking about with respect to Egyptian monuments. I don't think you realize how difficult Vyse's work was, and how hard it was to get the details correct with the tools at his disposal. I have just recently looked at Nathaniel Davison's private journals from 1765. Davison was extremely thorough, but he counts 206 courses on the Great Pyramid. Meaning 5 courses disappeared between 1765 and 1820 if he was correct. Petrie himself miscounted 203. The on-site work is really difficult today, let alone hundreds of years ago. It's a disservice to the entire history of pyramid research to overlook that aspect.

Best,

HfG

 

 

[Antigonos]

22 minutes ago, Granite said:

Scott,

I have watched your video. I see nothing that cannot be explained by people, including yourself, misinterpreting poorly written notes that were not designed to be understood by others at a later time.

The biggest mistake in the video, however, comes at 8:13 where it is stated that the cartouches were 'highly significant discoveries'. Vyse did not think they were highly significant, as Matt demonstrated quite conclusively in his video. Egyptologists do not think of them as significant, except for debunking alt-history people. This is why Gorlitz and Erdmann were put on trial for allegedly damaging the Khufu one, and the Sneferu one is left to decay with no Egyptologist bothering to look at it since its discovery. Citing Puckler-Muskau is particularly sloppy as well, as Muskau admits he has no idea what he's talking about with respect to Egyptian monuments. I don't think you realize how difficult Vyse's work was, and how hard it was to get the details correct with the tools at his disposal. I have just recently looked at Nathaniel Davison's private journals from 1765. Davison was extremely thorough, but he counts 206 courses on the Great Pyramid. Meaning 5 courses disappeared between 1765 and 1820 if he was correct. Petrie himself miscounted 203. The on-site work is really difficult today, let alone hundreds of years ago. It's a disservice to the entire history of pyramid research to overlook that aspect.

Best,

HfG

 

 

Well said.

[docyabut2]

 

[Scott Creighton]

1 hour ago, Granite said:

I have watched your video. I see nothing that cannot be explained by people, including yourself, misinterpreting poorly written notes that were not designed to be understood by others at a later time.

But they were designed to be understood by Vyse. And I can read his handwriting fairly well. I think my proposed editing sequence is a fair interpretation as it explains ALL of the curious edit marks on that page (unlike Matt's effort in his recent video).  Matt suggests that the small 'x' cross-check marks above the cartouche disks are to correct and reference Vyse's initial 'mistake' (of not placing the 3 lines in the main page Khufu cartouche) with a 'see larger cartouche'. I don't buy that explanation at all. Vyse wouldn't have needed to draw an entire new and large cartouche to fix the error of the unlined disk - he just draws a lined disk with the 'x' above it. In fact, there's actually one already in the margin! An entire cartouche to correct that small 'error' is just complete overkill and plain daft.

Over and above which - Vyse has already connected the 2 cartouches on the page as being from the same source by writing beside and under each "in Campbell's Chamber". He doesn't need an additional 'x' mark to lock them together.  That is why the 'x' marks are specifically identifying the DISK within the cartouches (not the entire cartouche itself).

Matt ignores the large 'X' mark through the base margin Khufu cartouche. I offer an explanation for it. Why place the 'X' in a Khufu cartouche that is actually correct? Why mark it wrong by placing this 'X' through its base? Because there was a point in the edit sequence when it was wrong - i.e. when it was blank (just like the blank Khufu disk on the main page). It's a legacy mark of when Vyse decided the Khufu cartouche with the blank disk was the wrong spelling and that it needed the 3 lines to be added (thus places the 'X' through the cartouche base - wrong and goes on to make his change).

What about the double-outline of the disk in the base margin Khufu cartouche? It's the only double-outlined disk on the page. Matt doesn't offer an explanation for that either. I do. That's the edit Vyse made - he placed a second disk (with lines) within the blank disk that had already been drawn there. Then he places two vertical strokes '|' beside each lined disk (in the margin) to cross-reference the actual change he has made. Then, having made the change, he places two vertical strokes '| |' beneath his revision - this was his 'mark | |' of the Khufu cartouche. Again, Matt does not go into any of this in his video. Which is a shame because I think any explanation for that page (and the 27th May page also with a Khufu cartouche with no lines) simply must take account of all the curious edit marks on it in a cogent and cohesive fashion. I may not have the editing sequence exactly correct but I think mine is mighty closer to what occurred on that page than Matt's effort.  

Quote

HfG: The biggest mistake in the video, however, comes at 8:13 where it is stated that the cartouches were 'highly significant discoveries'. Vyse did not think they were highly significant, as Matt demonstrated quite conclusively in his video.

Well, Matt made some blunders in his video, I'm afraid. Vyse most certainly did think these discoveries were important:

Quote

“I considered that facsimiles [of the chamber markings] in their original size would be desirable, as they were of great importance from their situation, and probably the most antient inscriptions in existence.” - Vyse, Richard Howard, Operations Vol I, p.259.

 

Quote

HfG: Egyptologists do not think of them as significant, except for debunking alt-history people.

Well, once again I have to disagree with you (even though I do not find you a disagreeable person):

Quote

“Since nobody had entered from the time Khufu’s workmen sealed it until Vyse blasted his way in, the gang names clinch the attribution of this pyramid to the 4th-dynasty pharaoh, Khufu.” - Lehner, TCP, p.53

Regards,

SC

Edited March 11 by Scott Creighton

[Antigonos]

5 hours ago, Antigonos said:

Since you won’t answer Stower directly I’ve brought his post to you. 

 

Still waiting Scott. 

[Zod YinYang]

The elephant in the room is that The Great Pyramid provides itself as a testament to its dating.

It provides its own proof that it was built just prior to the Younger Dryas Event, precisely to testify as to its occurrence.

It was thus effectively sealed from construction until burglary by Al Mamoun in 820AD, from which it was rescued by those thereafter to become its permanent guardians: The Templars.

So, given its construction predates Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics by several millennia, Scott Creighton is right to suspect that certain (viz all) cartouches were occasioned relatively recently, e.g. by 19^th century explorers.

To help consolidate the cover story of the GP as a crude Bronze age mausoleum, no doubt Vyse was encouraged and aided by The Templars in ‘discovering something’ that would corroborate this requirement.

It is a fait accompli. It cannot be undone.

All that can be done is for the individual to obtain a true understanding of the GP.

 

[Windowpane]

1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

...  [Vyse]  I can read his handwriting fairly well

....

That's an interesting comment, given how often in the past you've said how very difficult it is to read.

If you can now read it "fairly well," can you - as requested several times in the past - provide a transcription of a full page (or, better still, several consecutive full pages) with no omissions or guesswork?

[Granite]

2 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

But they were designed to be understood by Vyse.

Scott,

Yes, but importantly Vyse is not here to clarify them. Speaking of which, I almost forgot to ask - where is that color portrait of Vyse sourced from in your video? Might I use it in other videos when referencing him? Also, Vyse calls them important 'from their situation' meaning he thinks the chambers are important, and the inscriptions get their significance from them - not the other way around. After all, he never showed much interest in the study of hieroglyphics.

Best,

HfG

Edited March 11 by Granite

[Kenemet]

8 hours ago, Granite said:

Scott,

Markings can be added for exactly the reason I explained. Parts of them can be extremely difficult to see, and only noticed later under different or improved lighting conditions. Many markings can be easily missed unless you already know to look for them. Some markings would begin to fade immediately upon the opening of the relieving chambers. Some markings are self-corrected and written in haste. Put your critical eye towards the way 'Sneferu' is written in the Bent Pyramid in Fakhry's picture. It's as if the cartouche is spelled multiple ways, all incorrectly. We're not calling Fakhry a forgery as well are we? You're reading tea leaves in looking for mistakes in these things. Human error is everywhere, it's not that complicated.

Best,

HfG

You see the same thing in rock art recordings -- people who aren't familiar with the culture often miss subtle strokes and marks -- or misinterpret them entirely.  The whole corpus of hand-copied hieroglyphs includes many instances where the recorder draws "a bird" rather than "ibis/crested ibis/falcon/vulture" (etc).  Vyse's sketches could actually be any darn bird in Egypt (or a generic bird) rather than the specific quail chick sign.

[Scott Creighton]

13 hours ago, Windowpane said:

That's an interesting comment, given how often in the past you've said how very difficult it is to read.

If you can now read it "fairly well," can you - as requested several times in the past - provide a transcription of a full page (or, better still, several consecutive full pages) with no omissions or guesswork?

Let’s see. Does "fairly well" mean or imply I am an expert? No, it does not. And most reasonable and fair-minded folks will understand that. But not you - you have to try and somehow muddy the waters with your proficiency tests.

How was my ability in reading Vyse’s scrawl when I first obtained copies of his private journal many years ago? As I have previously said, not very good at all (although, ironically, I could easily understand the ancient hieroglyphics he drew on the pages and the ramifications of them). But there’s this thing called ‘progress’. And it usually occurs over time. My ability now, years later, in reading Vyse’s scrawl is not the same as it was years ago due to time and progress. I can now read his scrawl "fairly well".  That doesn't mean I'm saying I'm an expert, okay. When I'm uncertain of a particular word, usually I try to indicate that in some way though sometimes, due to time constraints or other, I may not have indicated such.

Furthermore, my ability in reading Vyse’s handwriting will not be bound or determined by your arbitrary benchmark of proficiency. What I can tell you is that, as far as I am presently aware, I have transcribed and published more passages than you or your co-author ever did. You gave up trying to read his handwriting. (You can correct me if I am wrong). In fact, I do recall, once or twice, I have even assisted your goodself (and your co-author) in reading some difficult words in particular passages in Vyse’s scrawl, so much so, that you felt my reading ability of Vyse’s handwriting was deserving of acknowledgement by you and your co-author. So please just quit with the silly proficiency demands.

SC

Edited March 12 by Scott Creighton

[Scott Creighton]

12 hours ago, Granite said:

I almost forgot to ask - where is that color portrait of Vyse sourced from in your video? 

You can find the original (B&W) image (a self-portrait of Vyse) in the book ‘Mountain of Pharaoh’ by Leonard Cottrell, p.129. I used it in my own book Great Pyramid Void Enigma and obtained permission from Cottrell’s publisher (which was a bit of a palaver). The colour image in my own video was colourised by Prometheus Studios from the B&W photo in that book. You will need to seek permission from them.

Quote

HfG: Also, Vyse calls them important 'from their situation' meaning he thinks the chambers are important, and the inscriptions get their significance from them - not the other way around.

No. That is not what is being said there. “their situation” is referring to the (hitherto) sealed chambers within the GP where the marks were (allegedly) found, as opposed to the marks being found exterior to the GP where they could, theoretically, have been placed at any time after the monument's construction. The importance is that these marks were found (allegedly) inside the monument thereby implying they are contemporary with its construction. That’s the implication of that passage and is what adds to the importance of the markings. If anything, he didn't think the discoveries of the chambers, per se, was important. What was really important to him was the discovery of Khufu's true burial in the GP. That's what he was really after. And failing to find that, then finding Khufu's name (allegedly) within the GP is the next best thing.

Quote

HfG: After all, he never showed much interest in the study of hieroglyphics.

Actually, Vyse did have an interest in hieroglyphics.

First of all, we now know from his private journal that he bought books by Champollion and Rosellini (at considerable expense) enroute to Egypt. Presumably he had an interest in hieroglyphics even at this early stage. Later at Giza, Vyse writes the following in his published account:

• May 3^rd.  I examined the rocky ground to the westward of the Great Pyramid, and the tombs and buildings to the north of the Second. Foundations might everywhere be traced under the sands; and shafts lined with unburnt bricks, amongst which probably a cartouche might be found, which would determine the date of the constructions.. . . Much information might possibly be obtained from the cartouches on the bricks in the various ruins in Egypt.
• “May 6. I copied some hieroglyphics which Mr. Perring had observed on the ruins of the temple eastward of the Second Pyramid.”

I think it’s fair to say, Vyse did possess an interest in Egyptian hieroglyphics.

Regards,

SC

Edited March 12 by Scott Creighton