Originally posted by stereologist
Of course the stone containers held sarcophogi that held the mummies, but you know what I mean.
What I think is interesting is that the pyramids in general are not adorned. The tombs were, but not the pyramids.
I know what you mean with the sarcophagi in the stone tub, this is what I originally had in mind. When you say “The tombs were [adorned]” you mean
in the valley of the Kings, correct? Not the tombs in the pyramids.
Here is the real clincher in all of this, when Vyse found the graffiti it contained pieces of 'text' that were later figured out. Wouldn't
Vyse be a genius to create a forgery which was not understood at the time, but subsequently was figured out to be correct.
This is opposite to what I have read. I didn’t want to get into a discussion over the validity of Sir Howard Vyse’s claims. It was my intention to
simply bring up the fact that his claims were in question. Originally I was referring to an earlier claim of finding a mummy in one of the smaller
pyramids that was later found to be a hoax. I couldn’t find any online confirmation to this so I’ll need to refer back to my books, the source, to
see if I can find more on this. What I did find was some information on the graffiti we are discussing. Perhaps I am getting bad information here so
maybe you could help me out.
Even though this site doesn’t appear to be linked to Von Daniken, Sitchin nor Hancock it still looks a bit shaky. There is some good information
with names and dates though.
Source for quotes, Atlantis Rising
Only two months before, his [Vyse’s] rival, the Italian explorer Captain Caviglia, had stirred archaeological circles with his find of quarry
inscriptions in some of the tombs around the Great Pyramid. These quarry inscriptions took the form of hieroglyphs daubed on the building blocks
with a red paint, and had been used by the builders of the Old Kingdom...
The question has never been answered, why do inscriptions appear only in the air space chambers that Col. Howard- Vyse opened, but none were found in
Davison’s Chamber, with which the Colonel had nothing to do, discovered earlier, in 1765?
I was under the impression that there are five relieving chambers, four of which Vyse found and these are the only ones with graffiti found in them. I
have read this from other sources as well but your link claims (quoting Zahi Hawass) all five relieving chambers have graffiti.
Even so there are other problems.
Serious problems also arise when we examine the nature of the inscriptions themselves. Samuel Birch, a hieroglyph expert of the British Museum,
was among the first to analyze the air chamber paintings, and noted a number of peculiarities among them which remain unresolved to this day. These
"peculiarities" represent serious mistakes on the part of the forger. Birch noted, for example, that many of the daubings were not hieroglyphic but
In fact, Birch and later Egyptologists such as Carl Richard Lepsius and Sir Flinders Petrie were disturbed at the number of exceptions of usage in the
air space chamber, inscriptions found by Col. Howard-Vyse that have absolutely no parallel throughout 4,000 years of hieroglyphic writing.
Here are some names; Samuel Birch - hieroglyph expert of the British Museum, Carl Richard Lepsius and Sir Flinders Petrie –both Egyptologists.
These appear to be unique inscriptions found only by Vyse and in the chambers found only by Vyse. What about the mispronunciations?
...in Col. Howard-Vyse’s chambers one finds great confusion concerning the appearance of the name Khufu. At the time these chambers were being
opened, the Pharaoh’s cartouche had not yet been fully revealed from other excavations, and there were several possibilities to choose from. As a
result, a number of crude hybrid forms appear throughout the air chambers, such as "Khnem-Khuf," "Souphis," "Saufou," etc. The problem with the
first example, "Khnem-Khuf," is that we know today that it signifies "brother of Khufu" and refers to Khafre, Khufu’s eventual successor. For
years, this appearance of a second king’s name has not been explained, and as Gaston Maspero observed in The Dawn of Civilization: "The existence
of the two cartouches of Khufu and Khnem-Khufu on the same monument has caused much embarrassment to Egyptologists."
Scott Creighton did a thread on these inscriptions and some of their discrepancies, "Who
From Scott's thread;
The image below (right) is Stadelmann’s photograph of the Khufu inscription in Campbell’s Chamber of the Great Pyramid, first discovered in
1837 by R.W.H. Vyse. The image to the left shows the alleged “Khufu” inscription in the Abydos King List.
From the work that Scott did they look very different to me. Is this just another bad example or are there more of these discrepancies?
Adding to this further is the fact that, where the right hieroglyph name for Khufu does appear, it is spelled wrong. The hieroglyph sources
available to Col. Howard-Vyse in 1837, Sir John Gardner Wilkinson’s Material Hieroglyphia, and Leon de Laborde’s Voyage de l’Arabee Petree,
incorrectly depicted the first symbol of Khufu’s name as an open circle with a dot in the middle…
This is what we see in Scott's comparison above and it also contradicts the claim that Vyse got it correct before he could have known.
Who was Khufu and what part did he play in the Great Pyramid?
Actually, we have the testament of Pharaoh Khufu himself that he only did repair work on the Great Pyramid.
I have read about the inventory stele, found in 1857 by Auguste Mariette, yet I have not heard much else about it. This stele is said to be between
the paws of the Sphinx and tells of a dream Khufu had about rebuilding these monuments. Is this just another part of the big hoax set to undermine the
Khufu tomb theory or is it information that is being dismissed and ignored?
I think there is enough information here that we could look up, independently, and verify these claims if we wished to go this route. Even if the
claims I linked from this site are incorrect I don’t see how this proves the tomb theory but if they are correct then this destroys the theory of
tombs for the Pharaohs that has been accepted by mainstream archaeologists all of these decades.