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 -

Vyse's 'Secret Cache' - The Proof


Scott Creighton

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Hey UM,

One of the sillier arguments against the forgery hypothesis is that it can only be taken seriously if the original source marks (the ‘secret cache’ first posited by Alan F. Alford) that Vyse almost certainly had access to and had copied into the four chambers, is located and that, failing its discovery, there is somehow no case of fraud to answer.

This argumentation is not only disingenuous, but also absurd! It is akin to saying police investigators must find the shotgun to prove that a claimed shooting had occurred. Imagine the scene: The victim is lying on the ground with gunshot wounds, there are several empty shell casings around them, there’s blood everywhere, there’s shotgun residue, there’s eye-witness accounts that saw the shooting happen. But since the shooter ran off with the shotgun (the primary evidence), it seems that it cannot be determined that a shooting did, in fact, take place; the police would somehow ignore all the other secondary evidence surrounding the crime scene that points to a shooting actually having occurred. Which is, as stated, simply absurd.

That Vyse had access to a secret cache of ancient hieratic signs that had originally been found external to the pyramid and that he kept this discovery quiet, simply stands to reason. And this is so because there is simply no way Vyse himself could have concocted these signs or groupings of signs (crew names, etc), nor were there any books at this time showing the cursive hieratic writing style. If, then, the chamber markings are indeed fraudulent (as much secondary evidence strongly suggests), then it stands to reason that Vyse must have had access to a source of authentic ancient markings that he kept to himself and his small inner circle, ready to be strategically deployed at the most opportune moment. There’s simply no other way Vyse could have produced something so authentic-looking and orthographically correct without reference to authentic source markings that would serve as his guide or ‘template’.

“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.

As Vyse states (above), he tasked one of his assistants, Mr Hill, with making 1:1 facsimile drawings of the painted markings that were (ostensibly) upon the walls of the four Vyse Chambers. In total, Mr Hill made 28 1:1 facsimile drawings from the four chambers, and all of these can be cross-checked with the drawing surveys of John Perring (1837) and Egyptologist Alan Rowe (1931).

But here’s the thing. Mr Hill made a drawing (figure 1) ostensibly from Campbell’s Chamber. However, when we review the 2 surveys of the markings made by Perring and Rowe, this group of signs (figure 1) is entirely missing from the chambers.

                                                                                              image.jpeg.d8a49369a8ad53813537eb23a5c76f0a.jpeg

Fig. 1: Hill’s ‘Phantom Facs’

This group of signs appears to belong to the work gang the “White Crown of Khnum-Khuf”. Of such groups of signs, we find there are two similar groups in Campbell’s Chamber (on its northern wall – figure 2).

                                                                              image.jpeg.f757e5f7efa043e1eea8e13208a10ae7.jpeg

                                                                                     Fig.2 – The White Crown gang signs (Perring – Campbell’s Chamber, northern wall)

Now, of course, we should always expect minor variances between different artists copying the same original source material. What we should not expect to find, however, are significant differences of the type presented in figure 3 where we observe not just one, but three major differences between Hill & Perring which we will now consider. It was long believed that Hill’s H1 (below left) was a 1:1 facsimile copy of Perring’s (P1). But closer analysis of these two drawings (H1/P1) along with P2/H2 (for scale), show that H1 and P1 are simply not the same group of signs.

1)      Scale. Mr Hill’s two 1:1 facsimile drawings (fig.3, H1/H2) have been scaled relative to each other and with Perring’s P2.

                                        image.thumb.jpeg.5fc7291e6d2ee6008e3cbe17440075a6.jpeg

Fig.3 – The White Crown gang signs in Campbell’s Chamber Hill v Perring

What this means is that Hill’s H1 is scaled to Perring’s P1. Assuming Mr Hill made a 1:1 drawing of the wall markings here (as Vyse instructed him to do), then these are not the same wall markings since, at this orientation, there is simply no way that Hill’s H1 (of near identical dimensions with his H2) will fit into the small space where we see Perring’s P1. Theses are not the same group of signs. (A small aside here. Note how Perring's P2 signs are large, using most of the available space between floor and roof. Now look at his P1 - the signs are much smaller almost as though they were sized to fit into the smaller space. This suggests these markings were made in-situ and not at the quarry. And if that is so, why would anyone draw in-situ markings on their side? Surely with a whole blank wall in front of you, you'd write your name upright?).

2)      Middle sign. Looking closely at the middle sign in Hill’s H1 and Perring’s P1 (figure 3. below) we see that there also we find a significant difference – it is not the same sign.

                                                                                                              image.jpeg.99b244265dc8e2c497f516bbaef00fa0.jpeg

Fig. 3 – The Middle Sign between Perring (upper) and Hill (lower) are not the same. (Note: Perring's P1 rotated to horizontal for easier comparison).

This further suggests that these two groups of signs (H1 and P1) were copied from different source material - they're not the same group of signs.

3)      Orientation. Mr Hill used his signature to lock in the orientation of each group of wall signs he copied onto the sheets (I'm assuming here that he is copying from the 'secret cache' and signing each sheet at this stage, not the actual chambers). By rotating Mr Hill’s signature so that it can be properly read will automatically then present the wall signs as they are observed (from a standing position) in each of the chambers. Each group of signs can be oriented at 0°, 90°, 180° or 270°.  Mr Hill's signature scheme is, of course, an assumption but it is not a baseless assumption, it is not simply “wishful thinking” as some seem to think. With an analysis of Hill’s 28 sheets, we can be absolutely certain that he did indeed employ such a (common sense) measure. 

Of the 28 facsimile drawings made by Mr Hill, the orientations of 25 of them present the correct chamber view of the marks when Mr Hill’s signature is upright. Statistically, the chances of such an occurrence happening by random chance are so astronomically low as to be negligible. That Mr Hill employed this method is thus effectively proved.

Mr Hill signed his H1 (Phantom Facs – figure 1 above) as though he had viewed the original source of these markings horizontally (and not the vertical ones of Perring’s P1). Thus we have further evidence that Hill’s H1 and Perring’s P1 are not the same group of signs as their orientations are different.

That is three different metrics all indicating that H1 and P1 are not the same group of signs. Given that Hill’s H1 is apparently missing from Perring and Rowe’s surveys of the chamber markings, then we have to ask: Where exactly did Mr Hill copy this group of signs (his ‘Phantom Facs’) from, if not from any of the chambers?  It is suggestive, of course, of there being a ‘secret cache’ of signs and that the fakers, for whatever reason, seem to have overlooked copying this particular group of signs (Hill's 'Phantom Facs') onto any wall of the chambers.

Note: The 2 other facsimile sheets that Mr Hill’s signature does not fit into his orientation scheme are the Khufu cartouche (on one sheet) and its associated apr markings (on a second sheet). Here Mr Hill signed these 2 sheets as though he had originally observed the Khufu + apr markings in a horizontal orientation (not their vertical orientation we see in the chamber). When transferring the markings to Campbell’s Chamber, it seems Mr Hill – for whatever reason – decided to copy these 2 sheets onto the chamber roof block with a vertical orientation instead, not realising that his signature (probably already on the sheet at this point from when they were copied from the original source) would give the game away.

It is a nailed-on certainty that Hill used his signature to lock in the orientation of the markings as he witnessed them. Some 25 out of 28 conform to this scheme. There is 1 that doesn’t which apparently is missing from the chamber (therefore actually 25 out of 27 in the chambers that conform to Hill's signature). The other 2 (the Khufu cartouche etc) has a whole bunch of other question marks over its authenticity – that it has the wrong orientation (as per Hill’s signature scheme) is simply yet another nail in the coffin over the authenticity of these markings.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

That Vyse had access to a secret cache of ancient hieratic signs that had originally been found external to the pyramid and that he kept this discovery quiet, simply stands to reason. And this is so because there is simply no way Vyse himself could have concocted these signs or groupings of signs (crew names, etc)

This is fallacious A Priori reasoning. You're proceeding from the assumption it must've been faked and therefor only one way it could've been, when you've as yet failed to adequately prove the initial assertion. 

  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

You already gave a summary of this and I linked your "article" in response. HERE. 

Quote

Your "summary" is completely made up. Pure gobbledygook. And don't leave out the part in your fiction where the reason this magic imaginary "Tomb of Trades" cannot be found is because Vyse blew it up to hide his tracks. So stupid. The only one "dressing this up" by definition is you. 

 

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So no concrete proof they existed. Your definition of the word proof is substandard to put it mildly. Apparently my constantly bringing it up finally created a need in you to address it. Sadly after all that effort on my part it’s resulted in nothing except a misleading clickbait thread title and more of the same fan fiction on your part.

Next.

Edited by Antigonos
  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as expected instead of responding to this HERE, which makes it quite clear all of this is completely irrelevant to the provenance of the graffiti, you ignore it and pretend it never happened going so far as to start another thread copy and pasting your "article". 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There is no questioning the fact that the Great Pyramid relates to Khufu or Cheops. If one takes the building in Greece built at the largest altitude he would see that it's distance from the Great Pyramid is 1375 kilometers. But the isopsephy value of the name Cheops is 1375.

 

ΧΕΟΨ = 600+5+70+700

Edited by Spiros
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I explained to Scott about the fragile nature of the red ochre, but it wasn't what he wanted to hear. Everyone can make their own judgements accordingly.

The ironic part of this whole debacle is that modern Egyptology is to blame. They always disparage Vyse, the 'gunpowder archaeologist' because their own accomplishments are small by comparison. This narrative of 'bad guy Vyse' gave Creighton the idea or benefit of the doubt to craft a hoax narrative. We are incredibly lucky Vyse was the one to do the work that he did. Nobody else would have documented the work so thoroughly in 1837. Hoaxers don't document evidence, it makes it easier to prove them as frauds. For some reason everyone who has invented nonsense about the Great Pyramid never bothered to spend their personal fortune and risk their lives to document it in great detail. I wonder why that is...

 

 

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Granite said:

I explained to Scott about the fragile nature of the red ochre, but it wasn't what he wanted to hear. Everyone can make their own judgements accordingly.

The ironic part of this whole debacle is that modern Egyptology is to blame. They always disparage Vyse, the 'gunpowder archaeologist' because their own accomplishments are small by comparison. This narrative of 'bad guy Vyse' gave Creighton the idea or benefit of the doubt to craft a hoax narrative. We are incredibly lucky Vyse was the one to do the work that he did. Nobody else would have documented the work so thoroughly in 1837. Hoaxers don't document evidence, it makes it easier to prove them as frauds. For some reason everyone who has invented nonsense about the Great Pyramid never bothered to spend their personal fortune and risk their lives to document it in great detail. I wonder why that is...

Yes, you did explain that Granite. And you're not the first over the years to have made such a speculation. Ochre paint - all of it - falling off a wall and causing this entire 'Phantom Facs' to vanish in its entirety is simply not a credible explanation, imo. But, of course, just about anything is possible - this might be what happened. But here's the thing - it might not be what happened and what I propose might be what happened. I think with all of the other evidence from other sources suggesting fraudulent practices in those chambers, the probability, imo, rests in my favour. It's not just about the painted markings, Granite (though they are, of course, of primary importance). You have to take a much broader view. Or perhaps you just don't want to believe that there is anything wrong with any of these markings? 

As I have explained before (several times now), other markings have vanished from these chambers. All of these other markings that disappeared (in 1837) were completely anomalous within their particular setting/context (they shouldn't have been there). Now the odds of all 3 of those anomalous markings vanishing from the chamber due to their paint falling off the wall is vanishingly small. (See what I did there?)  That tells me those signs were selected and deliberately removed - and that can only be explained, imo, due to the fakers making false starts (and knowing so) that would later be removed (but not before they had been copied by Perring who, imo, was not directly involved but who probably turned a blind eye). The causal link in those 3 signs vanishing from the chambers shortly after they had been recorded as being there is the fact that they were all anomalous i.e. they were false starts (shouldn't be there) and the fakers knew so and had them removed deliberately to cover their tracks.

Nothing should be getting removed from those chambers. Those men are there to copy what's on the walls and move on. That's it. They're not there to add things in (Khufu cartouche) or remove anything (the 3 anomalous signs). But that is what we obsreve in the evidence. Thus we have these discrepancies creeping into the documentation. Forgers might not document their fraud per se (generally I agree with this), but they do make mistakes in the fraudulent material iteslf (check the Hitler's Diaries hoax for example). If you do not think this is so, then I've a couple of $20 bills I'd like to trade with you. 

And Vyse, imo, does appear to have documented this fraud (albeit fleetingly so and in a somewhat back-handed manner):

HxBB0kC.jpeg

"...Cartouche to inscribe over any plain ? trussing. . ."  This is my effort at transcribing this Vyse private journal passage and, naturally, my transcription is contested. But in my opinion "Cartouche to inscribe over any plain ..." is correct.  This is Vyse writing in the evening of the day after he first entered Campbell's Chamber. He draws a horizontal (not vertical) cartouche on the page here with no lines (just 2 dots) in the cartouche disk. That, right there, imo, is Vyse planning "to inscribe" a Khufu cartouche (from his secret cache) into Campbell's Chamber. The term "to inscribe" is future tense - something he has yet to do. As stated, my transcription here is contested and it may not be correct. But then again - what if it is correct?

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2024 at 12:07 PM, Scott Creighton said:

 #1 

...

That Vyse had access to a secret cache of ancient hieratic signs that had originally been found external to the pyramid and that he kept this discovery quiet, simply stands to reason.

...

 

Anyone wanting to explore this argument further might be interested (if they haven't seen it already) in this recent video discussion (43:31 onwards) of Scott's proposals concerning the so-called "secret cache."

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

 

Anyone wanting to explore this argument further might be interested (if they haven't seen it already) in this recent video discussion (43:31 onwards) of Scott's proposals concerning the so-called "secret cache."

For anyone wishing to read my response to Ancient Architect's comment on his video see below. I made this comment (below) on Matt's youtube channel about a week ago but, alas, it cannot be viewed. I'm not sure why my comment on his channel can't be viewed and have asked Matt to look into it which he said he would do. So I've reproduced it here:

Hi Matt - a very good video you have put together there. Sitchin - yes, indeed. The least said about the man, the better, I think. Even although he has put forward a couple of good points on this issue (yes, he has), he ultimately poisoned the well, so to speak, for those newer researchers who have decided to look into this issue in more depth. Many lazy folks, rather than look into what newer researchers are saying, simply roll their eyes and try and taint the new research with the "Sitchin brush". As I said - lazy. (BTW - I am fairly convinced that Khufu did build the GP, read my books).

I do, however, have to take issue with a few of the points you make. First though, for a more thorough in-depth analysis of this Vyse forgery issue, please allow me the right to respond here by linking to some videos of my own (appologies to all in advance for the AI narrator voice - they weren't that great a number of years ago. If you find the AI voice too off-putting, simply mute it and turn on subs).

Video 1: The Great Pyramid Hoax: Episode 1 - The Journal Speaks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Csa2CCWEOd0

Video 2: The Great Pyramid Hoax: Episode 2 - Conspiracy and Cover-up https://youtu.be/lcGUlPXuWxU

Video 3: The Great Pyramid Hoax: Episode 3 - Signs of the Crime https://youtu.be/0vLxg2PLZb8

You seemed to have difficulty finding the correct Puckler-Muskau quote that's in my book (The Great Pyramid Void Enigma - Inner Traditions 2021). Here's the full quote and reference for you:

"The hieroglyphics which Major Wyse* pretends to have just discovered in the great pyramid are not cut in the stone, but merely drawn on the wall, and perhaps recently too, with a finger, dipped in colour." - Travels and Adventures in Egypt: With Anecdotes of Mehemet Ali. Vol. II., London: Parry, Blenkarn and Co., 1847, p.237.

As you can see from the quote, Puckler-Muskau (for reasons known only to himself) believed that Vyse only pretended to have discovered the chamber markings. I go into this in some depth in my latest book, GPVE.

Regarding Mr Hill's facsimile sheet orientation scheme using his signature as his 'this way up' indicator (45:42) and your claim that "this is not actually correct - it is another assumption" (43:51). Well, let's consider the evidence, Matt and see whether my "assumption" has any merit.

Mr Hill made a total of 28 1:1 facsimile drawings (you can see all of these by appointment in the British Museum). Of these drawings, Mr Hill's signature on 25 of them locks in the correct orientation of the sheet to the actual orientation of the wall markings. Now here's a small experiment for you, Matt - work out the probability of that occurrence (keeping in mind that each sheet has four cardinal orientations where Hill could have signed it). Four possible orientations and 25 out of 28 correct. What are the chances of successfully achieving such an outcome? You can easily calculate this probability with any number of online probability calculators. You will find, Matt, that what they tell you is that it's an absolute nail-on certainty that Mr Hill used this scheme (his signature) to lock in the orientation of the marks and to allow those back in London to know the orientation of the marks as they appeared to Mr Hill in a standing posiiton.

Over and above which, it is just plain common sense that he would have some scheme for recording original orientations of the marks. So, it's not a baseless "assumption", Matt. The 3 facsimile sheets that do not conform to Mr Hill's orientation scheme is, imo, evidence that there was, in fact, a secret cache that these signs (all of them) had previously been copied from (and all 28 signed correctly by Hill as per that original 'secret cache' source). Two of these three sheets make up the Khufu cartouche and its associated gang signs.

As you know, there is evidence I present from other sources that places significant question marks over these particular markings (Vyse' private journal of 27th May and 16th June for starters). While we're here (30:55) - why would Vyse draw an entire new larger cartouche to simply correct the lines in the blank disk of the smaller cartouche on the main page? Why not simply place the X mark over the lined disk that is already in the margin? Don't you think drawing a whole new cartouche in the margin area to fix this small 'mistake' is overkill? If you agree it's overkill (which it is), then what actually is the purpose of that second base margin cartouche?

Why is there an X in the baseline of the base margin cartouche?

Why does the margin Khufu cartouche disk have a double-outline - the only disk on that page with a double outline?

And why do you think Vyse has placed 2 vertical strokes ( | | ) beneath the second Campbell's Chamber cartouche, the one in the bottom margin?

These are all questions that need to be addressed Matt and not simply glossed over in the manner you have done as they tell, quite clearly, exactly what Vyse was doing on that page. And it's not what you present in your video.

Moving on. The 3rd sheet that does not conform to Mr Hill's orientation scheme is what I have dubbed 'Hill's Phantom Facs'. This group of signs on this facsimile sheet are not in the chamber (as far as the two surveys of Perring 1837 and Rowe 1931 show us). And no, it is not the group of signs you circled in your video (46:49) - these are not the same group of markings. Yes, it's supposed to be these markings but there are 3 different metrics that go against them being the same group of markings, to wit:

1) They have the wrong orientation (as per Hill's signature - see above)

2) They are the wrong scale, half the size of the group of signs to their right. If you look at Mr Hill's 2 facsimile sheets with these groups of signs in Campbell's Chamber, you see that they are of comparable size. If one of Hill's 1:1 facsimile drawings was to represent your circled group, then the signs on Mr Hill's 'Phantom Facs' should be half the size than they actually are. And they're not. As I said - the scale is different.

3) The middle sign is different. Hill, by this time, has drawn this middle sign many times previously from the chambers below and would have been completely familiar with it. Perring drew it okay in candle light. Rowe drew it okay probably also in candle light (or oil lamp), so there's no reason why Hill would have gotten it so badly wrong on this occasion.

With the 2 surveys of Perring and Rowe, this is sufficent evidence, imo, to take the view that this group of signs was not present in any of those Vyse chambers. It seems to me, they somehow got mixed up or simply overlooked copying this missing group of signs (from a sheet) onto the wall into Campbell's Chamber. So, that being the case, we have to ask: Where did Mr Hill get this group of signs from (if not from any of the chambers)?

You missed a lot of the more important points from my own research (which is fair enough - I've made these videos myself and you can only cover so much). In 1837, Vyse, Hill and Perring made copies of three groups of wall signs. When we analyse these groups of signs, we find that in each group there is an erroneous sign i.e. a sign that shouldn't be there, it is anomalous to the context of the particular group of signs. They were all drawn by either Vyse/Hill/Perring.

But here's the thing - a short time later in 1837, all three of those erroneous signs seem to have vanished from the walls (if the drawings/surveys of Vyse, Perring, Hill and Rowe are correct). Now, there are about 20 signs in total in these 3 groups of signs. Why should aything be vanishing at all from these walls back in 1837? That itself is a mystery in itself and a highly suspicious one at that. But just what are the chances, Matt, that the 3 erroneous signs are the very ones that appear to have vanished a very short time after they were drawn? Time to get out the probability calculator again.

Regarding the Meddedu name that's not in a cartouche. So what - Vyse knew little of anyting of what he was copying. The gang aperu name isn't in a cartouche sign either - they were copied. The various numbers on the roof blocks aren't in a cartouche - they were copied. There was plenty of material not in a cartouche that was copied, Matt - not just the Meddedu name. If it was in the secret cache, Vyse copied it. The only thing Vyse absolutely needed to know was if these marks (in this hypothesised seceret cache) were related to Khufu. And they were.

Now, while he gives no indication of his knowing the Khufu cartouche in his published work (seems to me he was being quite coy about that knowledge - perhaps to feign ignorance of it), we know from his private journal that he absolutely did know the Khufu cartouche and where he obtained the knowledge from (it had been published years earlier by the Italian scholar, Rosselini) - Vyse had his book with him at Giza (again, not mentioned in his published account). So, if he stumbled across genuine quarry markings (say in the northern and southern rubble piles that were outside the Great Pyramid in 1837 - there's plenty of evidence from Giza and elsewhere that these were often painted on stones outside the Great Pyramid), saw the Khufu cartouche among many other marks - BINGO! Vyse didn't know what anything else said (including the Meddedu name) but simply had the lot copied.

I am pleased that you (unlike some other researchers) do actually acknowledge that there are discrepancies between what these men drew and what is actually present on the chamber walls. Clearly there were mistakes - I think we both acknowledge that. Where we differ is whether we consider the mistakes were innocent - or not. All of the other evidence I have gathered over the years and which I present in my various books (which you have merely scratched the surface of) suggests to me the latter.

Regards,

SC 

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

For anyone wishing to read my response to Ancient Architect's comment on his video see below. I made this comment (below) on Matt's youtube channel about a week ago but, alas, it cannot be viewed. I'm not sure why my comment on his channel can't be viewed and have asked Matt to look into it which he said he would do. So I've reproduced it here:

Hi Matt - a very good video you have put together there. Sitchin - yes, indeed. The least said about the man, the better, I think. Even although he has put forward a couple of good points on this issue (yes, he has), he ultimately poisoned the well, so to speak, for those newer researchers who have decided to look into this issue in more depth. Many lazy folks, rather than look into what newer researchers are saying, simply roll their eyes and try and taint the new research with the "Sitchin brush". As I said - lazy. (BTW - I am fairly convinced that Khufu did build the GP, read my books).

I do, however, have to take issue with a few of the points you make. First though, for a more thorough in-depth analysis of this Vyse forgery issue, please allow me the right to respond here by linking to some videos of my own (appologies to all in advance for the AI narrator voice - they weren't that great a number of years ago. If you find the AI voice too off-putting, simply mute it and turn on subs).

Video 1: The Great Pyramid Hoax: Episode 1 - The Journal Speaks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Csa2CCWEOd0

Video 2: The Great Pyramid Hoax: Episode 2 - Conspiracy and Cover-up https://youtu.be/lcGUlPXuWxU

Video 3: The Great Pyramid Hoax: Episode 3 - Signs of the Crime https://youtu.be/0vLxg2PLZb8

You seemed to have difficulty finding the correct Puckler-Muskau quote that's in my book (The Great Pyramid Void Enigma - Inner Traditions 2021). Here's the full quote and reference for you:

"The hieroglyphics which Major Wyse* pretends to have just discovered in the great pyramid are not cut in the stone, but merely drawn on the wall, and perhaps recently too, with a finger, dipped in colour." - Travels and Adventures in Egypt: With Anecdotes of Mehemet Ali. Vol. II., London: Parry, Blenkarn and Co., 1847, p.237.

As you can see from the quote, Puckler-Muskau (for reasons known only to himself) believed that Vyse only pretended to have discovered the chamber markings. I go into this in some depth in my latest book, GPVE.

Regarding Mr Hill's facsimile sheet orientation scheme using his signature as his 'this way up' indicator (45:42) and your claim that "this is not actually correct - it is another assumption" (43:51). Well, let's consider the evidence, Matt and see whether my "assumption" has any merit.

Mr Hill made a total of 28 1:1 facsimile drawings (you can see all of these by appointment in the British Museum). Of these drawings, Mr Hill's signature on 25 of them locks in the correct orientation of the sheet to the actual orientation of the wall markings. Now here's a small experiment for you, Matt - work out the probability of that occurrence (keeping in mind that each sheet has four cardinal orientations where Hill could have signed it). Four possible orientations and 25 out of 28 correct. What are the chances of successfully achieving such an outcome? You can easily calculate this probability with any number of online probability calculators. You will find, Matt, that what they tell you is that it's an absolute nail-on certainty that Mr Hill used this scheme (his signature) to lock in the orientation of the marks and to allow those back in London to know the orientation of the marks as they appeared to Mr Hill in a standing posiiton.

Over and above which, it is just plain common sense that he would have some scheme for recording original orientations of the marks. So, it's not a baseless "assumption", Matt. The 3 facsimile sheets that do not conform to Mr Hill's orientation scheme is, imo, evidence that there was, in fact, a secret cache that these signs (all of them) had previously been copied from (and all 28 signed correctly by Hill as per that original 'secret cache' source). Two of these three sheets make up the Khufu cartouche and its associated gang signs.

As you know, there is evidence I present from other sources that places significant question marks over these particular markings (Vyse' private journal of 27th May and 16th June for starters). While we're here (30:55) - why would Vyse draw an entire new larger cartouche to simply correct the lines in the blank disk of the smaller cartouche on the main page? Why not simply place the X mark over the lined disk that is already in the margin? Don't you think drawing a whole new cartouche in the margin area to fix this small 'mistake' is overkill? If you agree it's overkill (which it is), then what actually is the purpose of that second base margin cartouche?

Why is there an X in the baseline of the base margin cartouche?

Why does the margin Khufu cartouche disk have a double-outline - the only disk on that page with a double outline?

And why do you think Vyse has placed 2 vertical strokes ( | | ) beneath the second Campbell's Chamber cartouche, the one in the bottom margin?

These are all questions that need to be addressed Matt and not simply glossed over in the manner you have done as they tell, quite clearly, exactly what Vyse was doing on that page. And it's not what you present in your video.

Moving on. The 3rd sheet that does not conform to Mr Hill's orientation scheme is what I have dubbed 'Hill's Phantom Facs'. This group of signs on this facsimile sheet are not in the chamber (as far as the two surveys of Perring 1837 and Rowe 1931 show us). And no, it is not the group of signs you circled in your video (46:49) - these are not the same group of markings. Yes, it's supposed to be these markings but there are 3 different metrics that go against them being the same group of markings, to wit:

1) They have the wrong orientation (as per Hill's signature - see above)

2) They are the wrong scale, half the size of the group of signs to their right. If you look at Mr Hill's 2 facsimile sheets with these groups of signs in Campbell's Chamber, you see that they are of comparable size. If one of Hill's 1:1 facsimile drawings was to represent your circled group, then the signs on Mr Hill's 'Phantom Facs' should be half the size than they actually are. And they're not. As I said - the scale is different.

3) The middle sign is different. Hill, by this time, has drawn this middle sign many times previously from the chambers below and would have been completely familiar with it. Perring drew it okay in candle light. Rowe drew it okay probably also in candle light (or oil lamp), so there's no reason why Hill would have gotten it so badly wrong on this occasion.

With the 2 surveys of Perring and Rowe, this is sufficent evidence, imo, to take the view that this group of signs was not present in any of those Vyse chambers. It seems to me, they somehow got mixed up or simply overlooked copying this missing group of signs (from a sheet) onto the wall into Campbell's Chamber. So, that being the case, we have to ask: Where did Mr Hill get this group of signs from (if not from any of the chambers)?

You missed a lot of the more important points from my own research (which is fair enough - I've made these videos myself and you can only cover so much). In 1837, Vyse, Hill and Perring made copies of three groups of wall signs. When we analyse these groups of signs, we find that in each group there is an erroneous sign i.e. a sign that shouldn't be there, it is anomalous to the context of the particular group of signs. They were all drawn by either Vyse/Hill/Perring.

But here's the thing - a short time later in 1837, all three of those erroneous signs seem to have vanished from the walls (if the drawings/surveys of Vyse, Perring, Hill and Rowe are correct). Now, there are about 20 signs in total in these 3 groups of signs. Why should aything be vanishing at all from these walls back in 1837? That itself is a mystery in itself and a highly suspicious one at that. But just what are the chances, Matt, that the 3 erroneous signs are the very ones that appear to have vanished a very short time after they were drawn? Time to get out the probability calculator again.

Regarding the Meddedu name that's not in a cartouche. So what - Vyse knew little of anyting of what he was copying. The gang aperu name isn't in a cartouche sign either - they were copied. The various numbers on the roof blocks aren't in a cartouche - they were copied. There was plenty of material not in a cartouche that was copied, Matt - not just the Meddedu name. If it was in the secret cache, Vyse copied it. The only thing Vyse absolutely needed to know was if these marks (in this hypothesised seceret cache) were related to Khufu. And they were.

Now, while he gives no indication of his knowing the Khufu cartouche in his published work (seems to me he was being quite coy about that knowledge - perhaps to feign ignorance of it), we know from his private journal that he absolutely did know the Khufu cartouche and where he obtained the knowledge from (it had been published years earlier by the Italian scholar, Rosselini) - Vyse had his book with him at Giza (again, not mentioned in his published account). So, if he stumbled across genuine quarry markings (say in the northern and southern rubble piles that were outside the Great Pyramid in 1837 - there's plenty of evidence from Giza and elsewhere that these were often painted on stones outside the Great Pyramid), saw the Khufu cartouche among many other marks - BINGO! Vyse didn't know what anything else said (including the Meddedu name) but simply had the lot copied.

I am pleased that you (unlike some other researchers) do actually acknowledge that there are discrepancies between what these men drew and what is actually present on the chamber walls. Clearly there were mistakes - I think we both acknowledge that. Where we differ is whether we consider the mistakes were innocent - or not. All of the other evidence I have gathered over the years and which I present in my various books (which you have merely scratched the surface of) suggests to me the latter.

Regards,

SC 

K. Now back to the actual point. Disregarding all the attempts at subject changing…. So now where is this actual proof for the existence of your allegedly nonfictional Secret Cache again? 

Judging from the thread title, you obviously have access to accounts of its actual discovery? Photos of it? Articles about it in long existing respected journals like the Journal of Egyptian Archaeology? Or periodicals like KMT, Smithsonian or Archaeology? Academic papers or books? Which museum is it in again? Where are the press reports of its discovery?

 Obviously such a discovery would be momentous, eclipsing the discovery of something like the Merer diary, which is written about everywhere. Oh of course. It’s deliberately being hidden as part of the whole Vyse-cartouche-Beatrice-sarcophagus-journal-Brewer conspiracy. Silly me.

So is there anything real to your little story? Anything besides your word? Anything at all? Zip, nada, bupkis, nothing?

No? We didn’t think so.

How sad.  What a shame for you and your fantasies.

How’s the new book coming along btw? 

I hope for your sake there’s something more substantial to it than this.
 

 

 

Edited by Antigonos
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So, as explained at length in this thread (and elsewhere), statistically there can be little doubt that J. R. Hill used his signature to lock in the orientation of each set of markings as he copied them onto his facsimile sheets. Since 25 out of 28 facsimile sheets correctly conform to Mr Hill's signature orientation scheme, it is a statistical nail-on certainty that he used his signature as a "this way up" reference.

Of the 3 sheets that do not conform to his scheme we find that one of them (Hill's 'Phantom Facs') does not (seemingly) conform to his orientation scheme because, while the facsimile sheet itself suggests the marks he copied were horizontal, the chamber marks they are supposed to represent are aligned vertically. However, as shown in this thread (and elsewhere), there can be little doubt that the chamber marks that are supposedly those of Hill's 'Phantom Facs' are simply not the same group of markings since three different metrics (scale, orientation and a different middle sign) suggest the two sets of markings are not one and the same. In short, Mr Hill's 'Phantom Facs' is, according to 2 separate surveys of Perring (1837) and  Rowe (1931), actually missing entirely from the Vyse Chambers. Which, of course, raises the very pertinent question: If not from any of the four Vyse Chambers, then where exactly did Mr Hill copy these marks from?

The other two facsimile drawings that do not conform to Mr Hill's signature orientation scheme are the Khufu cartouche (below right) and its associated apr (gang) signs (below left). (Note: the numbers on the two sheets below, '1' & '2'" are numbers Hill has placed on these two sheets).

image.thumb.png.ec0c007d2faa106f9e71f826a4d23bef.png

Placing aside all of the other evidence that calls the Khufu cartouche (above) into question, there is also the fact here that Mr Hill has signed these cartouches as though he originally observed them in a horizontal orientation (as this is how his signature locks in these particular 2 sheets as per his orientation scheme).

And that's the thing here - these were probably among the very last facsimiles made by Hill.  By this time he would have been well accustomed to using his signature orientation scheme. So why sign both of these facsimiles as though he had observed them horizontally (the same way, incidentally, that Vyse always draws them in his private journal)?  It's unlikely that this is a simple mistake in using his orientation scheme because he has signed both of these sheets horizontaly (in complete contradiciton to his signature orientation scheme). This is to say that Mr Hill signed 2 sheets in a row with the (seemingly) wrong orientation. It's not like he signed one sheet giving it horizontal orientation by mistake and then immediately realised the mistake because he then signs the second sheet in exactly the same way, giving it also a horizontal orientation as per his signature. Did Hill completely forget all about his signature orientation scheme for both of these facsimile sheets? Two bites at the cherry here and he gets it wrong twice in a row?

I doubt that he did. I doubt it very much.

Hill almost certainly signed these sheets using his signature system as normal, and exactly as he originally saw these signs - somewhere outside Campbell's Chamber where they had been aligned horizontally, hence why he signed them as such. He almost certainly signed 28 out of 28 facsimle orientations correctly as per his orientation scheme in copying the secret cache. His mistake with the Khufu two was in rotating the sheets to copy them vertically onto a roof block of Campbell's Chamber (perhaps he felt there wasn't a wall block wide enough to accomodate the 2 sheets). In doing this, he failed to realise that his horizontal signature (already on the two sheets at this time) would betray his deception when he rotated the sheets and copied them vertically onto the roof block.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

statistically there can be little doubt

Well you know what Mark Twain said about that....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

 #10  (originally intended for Matt Sibson)

You seemed to have difficulty finding the correct Puckler-Muskau quote that's in my book (The Great Pyramid Void Enigma - Inner Traditions 2021). Here's the full quote and reference for you:

"The hieroglyphics which Major Wyse* pretends to have just discovered in the great pyramid are not cut in the stone, but merely drawn on the wall, and perhaps recently too, with a finger, dipped in colour." - Travels and Adventures in Egypt: With Anecdotes of Mehemet Ali. Vol. II., London: Parry, Blenkarn and Co., 1847, p.237.

As you can see from the quote, Puckler-Muskau (for reasons known only to himself) believed that Vyse only pretended to have discovered the chamber markings. I go into this in some depth in my latest book, GPVE.

...

This question was discussed in great detail on this very forum some years back, in 2019.

It was established that there were at least two different English translations of Puckler-Muskau’s German travelogues.

In  #615, you cited another of these versions (p. 243 [276]).

As I explained in #956  :

Quote

In 1845 there appeared two translations into English of Fürst von Pückler-Muskau's Aus Mehemed Ali's Reichwhich had been published the previous year (1844).

In  #10  (16 3 2024, to Matt S.), you’ve quoted the 1847 reissued version of one of these 1845 translations.

The point being made by Puckler-Muskau, however, is that the paint in the dipinti (which, as we know, had been shut away in the darkness for some 4,500 years) was so vivid that it made them look as if they had been freshly painted: perhaps like this example.

What Puckler-Muskau’s not saying is that this freshness of colour made him think that the crew-marks in the relieving chambers really had been freshly painted.

But, if he had indeed suspected some skullduggery, why did he not contact his compatriot and contemporary, Lepsius, author of (“Lettre au Traducteur sur les Inscriptions de la Grande Pyramide”; Éclaircissements sur le cercueil du roi memphite Mycérinus; 44-8), and inform him of his concerns?

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Oniomancer said:

Well you know what Mark Twain said about that....

Which is why I would urge anyone with any doubts on these probability stats to check the figures themselves. There are plenty of online probability calculators that can assist.

SC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Windowpane said:

*SNIP*

Let's cut to the chase:

"The hieroglyphics which Major Wyse* pretends to have just discovered..."

"The hieroglyphics which Major Wyse* pretends to have just discovered..."

"The hieroglyphics which Major Wyse* pretends to have just discovered..."

"The hieroglyphics which Major Wyse* pretends to have just discovered..."

"The hieroglyphics which Major Wyse* pretends to have just discovered..."

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Windowpane said:

 

What Puckler-Muskau’s not saying is that this freshness of colour made him think that the crew-marks in the relieving chambers really had been freshly painted.

 

Freshness of color is not an argument anyway. We’re still finding intact undisturbed  tombs at Giza and Saqqara from the same era with beautiful pristine artwork that looks as if it were just painted yesterday. 

Scott allegedly read Belzoni when attempting to argue his seed vault theory. I suggest he refreshes his memory and rereads what the man had to say about the artwork in Seti I’s tomb after entering it for the first time. Yes, that’s a later monument but it still stayed fresh looking after a span of millennia.

Talk about one of your “sillier” arguments.

Edited by Antigonos
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

Let's cut to the chase:

"The hieroglyphics which Major Wyse* pretends to have just discovered..."

"The hieroglyphics which Major Wyse* pretends to have just discovered..."

"The hieroglyphics which Major Wyse* pretends to have just discovered..."

"The hieroglyphics which Major Wyse* pretends to have just discovered..."

"The hieroglyphics which Major Wyse* pretends to have just discovered..."

SC

Repeating something ad nauseam doesn’t make it true no matter how many times you do it.

You of all people should know that by now.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the words of Puckler-Muskau and the "freshness" of the paint. He is not alone in expressing such sentiments about paint, be it used for hieroglyphs or artwork, and I'll quote perhaps the most famous example, from Howard Carter about KV62, and my bold.

Quote

Three thousand, four thousand years maybe, have passed and gone since human feet last trod that floor on which you stand, and yet, as you note the signs of recent life around you - the half-filled bowl of mortar for the door, the blackened lamp, the finger-mark upon the freshly painted surface, the farewell garland dropped upon the threshold - you feel it might have been but yesterday.

So, did Howard Carter, or persons unknown earlier in 1922 before the official announcement of the discovery, enter the tomb and did the painting? of course not.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Nerd note and an exercise in semantics.

In the pertinent footnote written by Puckler-Muskau he uses the German word "gepinfelt", which is "pinned" in English, in relation to the hieroglyphs. The translator of the English edition has used the word "pencilled" instead. The reason is that the German "gepinfelt", while fine to a German, does not work in English as we do not "pin" paint to a surface, we paint, daub, splash, spray or whatever, not pin. The meaning of what Puckler-Muskau wrote is the same in the English translation in the context that a surface has had paint applied to it, but I am pointing out that translators, even when translating from a language from the same language über group, West Germanic in this case, have to be creative in finding the right word at times, and so at times something is altered, lost even, in translation. Mercer did not adequately translate Sethe, who did not adequately translate the hieroglyphs of the Pyramid Texts, this is why only the most up to date translations, made by the translator directly from the original hieroglyphs, should be used.

So, getting back to Puckler-Muskau, when he uses the word "vielleicht", and the translator translates this into the English "possibly", in the context of how fresh the paint is, does this carry over the sense of what was meant? Is Puckler-Muskau stating that he thinks the paint is actually fresh, or is possibly fresh, or could be, or seems like, also a potential translation of vielleicht, of based on it's appearance, and is making his statement in the same sense as Carter about KV62.

Now I'm not stating that what I have pointed out is the only way Puckler-Muskau should be interpreted, but that, as in any translation, not everything is always clear cut, and there is mischief to be made in the cracks for those wishing to make mischief.

Edited by Wepwawet
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Antigonos said:

Freshness of color is not an argument anyway. We’re still finding intact undisturbed  tombs at Giza and Saqqara from the same era with beautiful pristine artwork that looks as if it were just painted yesterday. 

It is quite dishonest to suggest this is even a thing as any tomb found protected from the elements had this "freshly painted" look. Saqqara:

Five Ancient Egyptian Tombs Discovered In Saqqara

Never gets old to see these newly discovered tombs-over 4,000yrs old and the painting looks like it was made yesterday. Looking forward to seeing translations. 

One thing we notice from this tomb is how the depiction of the serekh building is by far the most prominent feature (left wall):

AVvXsEiKkCpSvri15EkmKvqANi0lqM96rfUwGyjQ

(Right wall):

AVvXsEiGYHsTLRrsAfAWAD4Zpv99Wth7kbTkhxAF

The pictures are great but you get a better sense of it from the video. 

As discussed at length before in several other threads, though its meaning poorly understood, the serekh building from the beginnings of Dynastic Egypt was the most important religious/state iconography through the OK. 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5th Dynasty tomb of Khuwy:

0r7ihmw6msq71.jpg

 

  

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

So, as explained at length in this thread (and elsewhere), statistically there can be little doubt that J. R. Hill used his signature to lock in the orientation of each set of markings as he copied them onto his facsimile sheets. Since 25 out of 28 facsimile sheets correctly conform to Mr Hill's signature orientation scheme, it is a statistical nail-on certainty that he used his signature as a "this way up" reference.

Of the 3 sheets that do not conform to his scheme we find that one of them (Hill's 'Phantom Facs') does not (seemingly) conform to his orientation scheme because, while the facsimile sheet itself suggests the marks he copied were horizontal, the chamber marks they are supposed to represent are aligned vertically. However, as shown in this thread (and elsewhere), there can be little doubt that the chamber marks that are supposedly those of Hill's 'Phantom Facs' are simply not the same group of markings since three different metrics (scale, orientation and a different middle sign) suggest the two sets of markings are not one and the same. In short, Mr Hill's 'Phantom Facs' is, according to 2 separate surveys of Perring (1837) and  Rowe (1931), actually missing entirely from the Vyse Chambers. Which, of course, raises the very pertinent question: If not from any of the four Vyse Chambers, then where exactly did Mr Hill copy these marks from?

The other two facsimile drawings that do not conform to Mr Hill's signature orientation scheme are the Khufu cartouche (below right) and its associated apr (gang) signs (below left). (Note: the numbers on the two sheets below, '1' & '2'" are numbers Hill has placed on these two sheets).

image.thumb.png.ec0c007d2faa106f9e71f826a4d23bef.png

Placing aside all of the other evidence that calls the Khufu cartouche (above) into question, there is also the fact here that Mr Hill has signed these cartouches as though he originally observed them in a horizontal orientation (as this is how his signature locks in these particular 2 sheets as per his orientation scheme).

And that's the thing here - these were probably among the very last facsimiles made by Hill.  By this time he would have been well accustomed to using his signature orientation scheme. So why sign both of these facsimiles as though he had observed them horizontally (the same way, incidentally, that Vyse always draws them in his private journal)?  It's unlikely that this is a simple mistake in using his orientation scheme because he has signed both of these sheets horizontaly (in complete contradiciton to his signature orientation scheme). This is to say that Mr Hill signed 2 sheets in a row with the (seemingly) wrong orientation. It's not like he signed one sheet giving it horizontal orientation by mistake and then immediately realised the mistake because he then signs the second sheet in exactly the same way, giving it also a horizontal orientation as per his signature. Did Hill completely forget all about his signature orientation scheme for both of these facsimile sheets? Two bites at the cherry here and he gets it wrong twice in a row?

I doubt that he did. I doubt it very much.

Hill almost certainly signed these sheets using his signature system as normal, and exactly as he originally saw these signs - somewhere outside Campbell's Chamber where they had been aligned horizontally, hence why he signed them as such. He almost certainly signed 28 out of 28 facsimle orientations correctly as per his orientation scheme in copying the secret cache. His mistake with the Khufu two was in rotating the sheets to copy them vertically onto a roof block of Campbell's Chamber (perhaps he felt there wasn't a wall block wide enough to accomodate the 2 sheets). In doing this, he failed to realise that his horizontal signature (already on the two sheets at this time) would betray his deception when he rotated the sheets and copied them vertically onto the roof block.

SC

One further small but very subtle point here about the Khufu crew name copied by Hill onto two facsimile sheers (below).

image.thumb.png.ec0c007d2faa106f9e71f826a4d23bef.png

                                               Figure 1: J. R. Hill Facsimile Drawings of Khufu Crew name on 2 Sheets

These marks (above) were copied from a single inscription painted acoss a single block (but copied across two sheets by Mr Hill because, presumably, he didn't have a single sheet that was wide enough for the full 1:1 copy of the source inscription). Just so folks unfamiliar with this topic, the actual marks in Campbell's Chamver are aligned vertically (i.e. not as Hill presents on his facsimile sheets - see below):

                                          image.png.6c85b8efb38c71b286becd9df8e97881.png

Khufu Cartouche (Cambell's Chamber - Actual Orientation from Standing Position)

As I said in my previous post - both facsimlie sheets (Fig. 1 above) are signed with Hill's signature (his orientation scheme) locking each into the horizontal view i.e. this then (according to Hill's signature) is how he actually observed this crew name at its original source (i.e. somewhere outside the GP).

Point is - Hill's two signatures on his 2 facsimile sheets actually work to corroborate the horizontal orientation of each of these two individual sheets - i.e. each of the 2 sheets effectively corroborates each other (with reference to the original source crew name) because that original source was just one stone.

SC

 

 

Edited by Scott Creighton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

#16 

...

"The hieroglyphics which Major Wyse* pretends to have just discovered..."

[etc. etc. etc.]

From  #740 :

SC wrote:

Quote

"The hieroglyphics, said to have been discovered by Colonel Vyse, in the interior of the Great Pyramid, are not carved in the stone, but only traced, as with a finger dipped in paint, and have perhaps been lately pencilled on the wall." 

Source.

 

"Pretend": as shown in your quote above, this would not necessarily have meant "feign," "deceive" or "mislead" to an English reader of earlier centuries.

Think, for instance, of the Old Pretender (1688-1766), who claimed the English, Irish and Scottish thrones.  His supporters would doubtless have been outraged if it had been suggested that this term meant "the Old Deceiver" ...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep ignoring all the posts that blow your theories apart, Scott.

While the Vyse Secret Cache remains strictly imaginary, there’s a huge amount of easily accessible evidence for the Creighton Echo Chamber here and on other forums. Future cultural historians are going to have a field day with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

It is quite dishonest to suggest this is even a thing as any tomb found protected from the elements had this "freshly painted" look. Saqqara:

Five Ancient Egyptian Tombs Discovered In Saqqara

Never gets old to see these newly discovered tombs-over 4,000yrs old and the painting looks like it was made yesterday. Looking forward to seeing translations. 

One thing we notice from this tomb is how the depiction of the serekh building is by far the most prominent feature (left wall):

AVvXsEiKkCpSvri15EkmKvqANi0lqM96rfUwGyjQ

(Right wall):

AVvXsEiGYHsTLRrsAfAWAD4Zpv99Wth7kbTkhxAF

The pictures are great but you get a better sense of it from the video. 

As discussed at length before in several other threads, though its meaning poorly understood, the serekh building from the beginnings of Dynastic Egypt was the most important religious/state iconography through the OK. 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5th Dynasty tomb of Khuwy:

0r7ihmw6msq71.jpg

 

  

Absolutely stunning. The word beautiful doesn’t even begin to describe it. It’s like the millennia separating us from the ancient artists are stripped away in a moment. It’s almost as if we just missed them leaving the tombs.

Now that I’m aware of it from your threads, the Great House is always the first thing my eye automatically spots on the walls. Thanks for that.

Edited by Antigonos
  • Like 1
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.