In 1837, British adventurer and pyramid explorer, Col. Richard Howard Vyse became the first person to find written texts within any pyramid hitherto
explored at that time. These ancient Egyptian texts were found within some hidden chambers high above the King's Chamber and had to be blasted open
with the use of gunpowder. Vyse opened a total of 4 hidden chambers and within each a number of hieroglyphics were found.
Great Pyramid 'Relieving Chambers'
The lowest 'Davison's Chamber' was actually discovered by Nathaniel Davison in 1765 and was apparently open since the time of the pyramid's
construction. The opening to this small apartment was located at the very top of the southern end of the Grand Gallery and required a 20 foot ladder
to gain access. Davison only noticed it because he apparently saw some bats flying in and out of it.
Grand Gallery showing access to Davison's Chamber
Inside Davison's Chamber
Curiously, Davison found no writing of any kind in this first chamber. Dr Zahi Hawass claims to have seen some markings in this chamber but, to date,
he has presented nothing.
The hieroglyphics in the chambers opened by Vyse included the various names of the 4th dynasty king Khufu; the pharaoh that Egyptologists had long
believed (via the writings of Herodotus and some others) as the pyramid's builder. The discovery of this king's various names (cartouches) within
these sealed chamber was their 'Holy Grail' of evidence and proved, conclusively, that Khufu built the pyramid and thus its construction date could be
no later than ca.2550BC when Khufu ruled Egypt.
Almost from the time these hieroglyphs were discovered by Vyse there was suspicion around them. In 1980 this suspicion culminated in an investigation
by author, Zecharia Sitchin, who concluded that Vyse had faked the marks himself. However, as a result of the flawed nature of some aspects of
Sitchin's evidence, many who supported Sitchin's fraud theory (such as Graham Hancock), quickly backed away from the controversy and issued
However, my own investigation into this controversial issue over the past decade (or thereabouts) has found much more evidence to support the forgery
theory first proposed by Sitchin. One of the items of evidence Sitchin presented in his book, 'Journeys to the Mythical Past'
was a page from
the ham-radio logbook of a Mr Walter Allen of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Apparently Allen's great grandfather, Humphries Brewer, had worked with Vyse
at Giza in 1837 and it seems witnessed forgery taking place.
Walter Allen & Family - Allen Logbook on right.
There was a problem, however. Colonel Vyse published three volumes of his 'Operations at Gizeh 1837'
and there is not a single mention of
Brewer in any
volume. This absence has prompted some authors to question whether Brewer was with Vyse in Egypt at all in 1837, inferring that
Allen's account is a confused history or, at worst, a fabrication. Of course, if Brewer had indeed accused Vyse of perpetrating a fraud inside the
Great Pyramid in 1837 then it is perhaps understandable why Vyse would write him out of his published work - and especially so if there was any truth
to the allegations.
But it occurred to me that, while Vyse may have expunged Brewer's name from his published
work he may not have done so in his private
journal (which Vyse used as the basis of his published work). I tracked the journal to a small archive centre in Aylesbury to the north of London and,
with my wife Louise, went to read the journal, hoping to find Brewer's name in order to corroborate Walter Allen's logbook account. When Louise and I
eventually began looking at Vyse's worn pages, we discovered way more than we had ever anticipated. While Vyse's handwriting was extremely difficult
to read (it would take me a number of years to become comfortable with it), the hieroglyphics he had drawn on a number of pages told their own story -
a story that contradicted Vyse's official account. All of this evidence was presented in my book The Great Pyramid Hoax
(Bear & Co, 2017).
However, since HOAX was published, even more evidence has presented itself and it comes from Vyse's actual handwritten notes (which I am now
reasonably proficient at reading). Take, for example, this page (below) which is Vyse's handwritten account of his first visit to Campbell's Chamber
of the Great Pyramid where the famous Khufu cartouche was supposedly found:
As you can see, Vyse's handwriting is very difficult to read and there are even a few words in this text I am unsure of. Overall though, I am
confident I have given a fair transcription. Notice how Vyse, having described every aspect of the chamber then 'signs off' his description with the
comment, " : as it was within Campbell's Chamber, May 27, 1837."
But surely there is something missing in that description? Where is any mention of the supposed quarry marks or the famous Khufu cartouche from the
chamber? If these were indeed present at that time then surely the above description passage of the chamber was the most obvious and appropriate place
in Vyse's private journal to mention them. But no - they're not mentioned in this passage. And there's a good reason for that which we discover in the
passage that follows-on from the above (below):
Here we find the reason Vyse made no mention of the quarry marks in his description of Campbell's Chamber - they weren't there because what we see
above is effectively Vyse's 'note to self' to instruct his 2 assistants (Raven & Hill) "to inscribe" (note: future tense) the Khufu cartouche (which
Vyse likely found on some stones somewhere around the pyramid's exterior) onto a roof trussing of the chamber. Note also that this is to be carried
out by Raven & Hill, the same 2 men identified in Allen's logbook account from 1954 that his grandfather had the dispute with.
If my reading of these pages is correct (and I am fairly confident that they are), then what we are witnessing here is clear evidence of fraud having
taken place inside this chamber of the Great Pyramid in 1837. And it is through such unscrupulous actions that our history becomes subverted and
edit on 2/3/2019 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)