The Secret Chamber of Osiris: Lost Knowledge of the Sixteen Pyramids (15 page)

ANOMALIES IN THE CARTOUCHES

On the surface, the hieroglyphics within the two cartouches (the oval shapes) in figures 6.2a and 6.2b appear unremarkable. When we look at them a little closer, however, the simple truth they hold quickly becomes apparent.

The cartouche in figure 6.2a is a reproduction of the cartouche that we actually observe today in Campbell’s Chamber of the Great Pyramid; the cartouche Vyse presents in his published book and which he claimed to have found in the monument. But in Vyse’s handwritten journal another, slightly different, cartouche (figure 6.2b) is presented as having been found by him in Campbell’s Chamber. Indeed, in his journal Vyse writes alongside this slightly different cartouche “in Campbell’s chamber.” However, a close examination of the cartouche in Vyse’s written journal shows a clear and highly significant difference
between his journal entry and what is actually extant in the chamber, in
particular, the small circle at the end (right-hand side) of the cartouche
(figure 6.2b).

Figure 6.2a. Reproduction of the Khufu cartouche
as it appears (vertically) in Campbell’s Chamber of
the Great Pyramid. Note the disc has three small
lines.

Figure 6.2b. Reproduction of the Khufu cartouche allegedly from Campbell’s
Chamber as presented (horizontally) in Colonel Vyse’s journal on June 16th, 1837.
Note the disc does not contain any of the lines as noted in figure 6.2a—it is blank.

Whereas the vertical cartouche in the actual chamber (figure 6.2a)
has a circle containing three lines (hatchings), the circle in the horizontal
cartouche of Vyse’s handwritten journal (figure 6.2b) presents only
a
plain disc
with no center lines whatsoever. The question has to be
asked—why would Vyse draw the cartouche differently in his journal
from what we actually observe today in the chamber?

A number of possibilities to try to explain this anomaly have been proposed. Perhaps Vyse simply did not observe the lines in the disc in the chamber when he first made this entry in his journal on June 16th? However, this is unlikely for a number of reasons.

1. Vyse states quite categorically in his published book that Campbell’s Chamber, in which the Khufu cartouche was found, was “minutely examined” for markings. If the chamber was “minutely examined,” it seems unlikely that Vyse would have missed these markings in the disc.
   
2. Vyse manages to observe the two small dots under the snake glyph of the cartouche so one must presume that, having observed this small detail, he would have easily observed the much larger and more prominent lines in the disc glyph.
   
3. Vyse had already opened a number of other chambers before Campbell’s Chamber and in those other chambers had found a total of six cartouches of Khnum-Khuf,
   all
   of which had a disc with center markings of some kind. As such, when Vyse finally opened Campbell’s Chamber (the last chamber), he would surely have been fully anticipating finding the Khufu disc with similar center markings. Given his experience of the six marked discs found in the chambers below, finding no markings in the Khufu disc would most surely have piqued his curiosity and he would most certainly have double-checked it.
   
4. We observe elsewhere in Vyse’s journal that he has drawn the cartouche of Khnum-Khuf with a similar-size disc on the page, complete with center markings (albeit quite faint markings).
   
5. This wasn’t the only Khufu cartouche that Vyse drew in his journal without the three hatch lines. There were two such Khufu cartouches in his journal; one entry on May 27th and another on June 16th, 1837—both
   without
   the hatch lines. Furthermore, on May 30th, Vyse’s assistant, Mr. Hill, was tasked by Vyse to make a facsimile copy of the Khufu cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber. Mr. Hill’s drawing (which I viewed in the British Museum) contains the three lines in the disc and yet, on June 16th, more than two weeks after Hill’s drawing had been completed, Vyse
   again
   enters the Khufu cartouche into his journal with just a plain disc. Why did Vyse make a mistake and then repeat the same mistake, even though Mr. Hill’s facsimile would—presumably by this time—have shown him the three lines in the disc?
   

And yet, for all of this, in his written journal Vyse renders the Khufu cartouche from Campbell’s Chamber without
any
of the hatch lines we see in that cartouche today. Perhaps, as some have suggested, Vyse was merely making a rough note of the cartouche in his journal? Again this proposal does not stack up for the following reasons.

1. Vyse was detailed and meticulous enough to draw the two small dots under the snake glyph (which are actually a mistake and not part of Khufu’s name). If this was merely a rough drawing, why would Vyse be so precise with this small detail under the snake glyph and then be so casual with the more obvious detail within the disc?
   
2. Vyse would have been fully aware that he would be using his written journal (including the various drawings he made therein) as the basis from which to write his future book. Accuracy would have been of paramount importance to him and such detail would have been crucial to that accuracy—and especially so given that Vyse was in no way a specialist in this field. Neglecting to copy fairly obvious detail from the cartouche of a king could have caused serious interpretative consequences for scholars back in London, and Vyse would almost certainly have understood that. He wouldn’t have a second chance at this—he had to get it noted correctly the first time.
   

So, we have to ask: Why did Vyse, against all normal and rational expectation, copy the cartouche from Campbell’s Chamber into his journal and leave out the three lines from the cartouche disc? Why would he copy it down differently from what we actually see in the chamber today when detail and accuracy was paramount? And why would he copy it down this way
twice
in his journal when, surely, Mr. Hill’s facsimile drawing should have alerted him to the proper spelling?

There is but one rather simple explanation to all of this. The crucial point to understand here is that
both
these spellings of the Khufu name are, in fact,
correct
. This is to say that, according to mainstream Egyptology, the name Khufu can be written with either a hatched disc
or
a plain disc, and numerous examples of both spellings exist in the archaeological record. However, in 1837 this fact wasn’t yet fully understood, and this ambiguity in the spelling of Khufu is what resulted in Vyse having doubts and his subsequent deliberations. If he had sent a facsimile copy of the Khufu cartouche back to London with the wrong spelling, he would have been immediately discovered as a fraudster. If Vyse could be the first to empirically connect the Great Pyramid to Khufu then his name would be immortalized. He had to get it right.

Now, were it only the hatched-disc version of the Khufu disc that was extant in the historical record then the plain disc examples we find in Vyse’s journal could simply have been explained away as an incomplete diary entry; a simple mistake or oversight. But given that the plain disc version of the Khufu cartouche
also
exists in the archaeological record leads us to an intriguing possibility: Did Vyse originally find an example of a Khufu cartouche with just the
plain
disc, which he copied into his journal (and presumably into the Great Pyramid), believing this version of the Khufu cartouche to be the correct and only spelling of the king’s name? And did Vyse discover, some time later, that, in fact, there were examples of the Khufu cartouche with
hatched
discs, leading him to perhaps believe (wrongly) that the plain disc version he had originally found (and had placed in the Great Pyramid) had simply been an unfinished hatched disc (by the ancient Egyptian scribe who originally created it) and that to render the Khufu name fully and correctly required the plain disc to have hatched lines added? There is compelling evidence from Vyse’s journal that this does seem to have been the case, as we will see shortly.

As can be seen in figure 6.3, in his entry from June 16th, Vyse has drawn
two
Khufu cartouches on the same page of his journal,
both
of which he states are from Campbell’s Chamber and yet they have different discs in the cartouche.

However, because there is only
one
Khufu cartouche in Campbell’s Chamber, they cannot both be right. And so it is that here, on this page of his written journal, lies the very essence of Vyse’s doubt, contradiction, and his deliberation. Here on this page we observe Vyse contemplating a necessary change to what he once believed was the correct spelling of Khufu—the original plain disc version of the cartouche that he had written into his diary and had copied into the Great Pyramid actually required three lines to be added—or so he believed. Here on this page of Vyse’s diary we find the evidence that lays bare the hoax of all history.

Why these deliberations at all—and why now? This controversial diary entry had been made some three weeks
after
Vyse had opened and entered Campbell’s Chamber—what was it that had occurred to make Vyse suddenly interested and start deliberating the spelling of this cartouche some three weeks after he had found it? A clue is given in the journal entry from June 16th (figure 6.3), when Vyse writes:

Figure 6.3. Reproduction of Vyse journal entry from June 16th, 1837. Note:
there is more text on the original page of Vyse’s journal than is
shown in this reproduction.

Cartouches [plural] in tomb to the W. [west] of the first pyramid are different than Suphis [Khufu].
⁶

The above comment tells us two things.

1. Clearly from this comment Vyse already knew (or
   believed
   he knew) how the Khufu cartouche
   should
   be written and that he knew this long before the cartouche (i.e., Mr. Hill’s facsimile drawing of it) had been sent to the experts in London for verification. This also implies that Vyse had a secret source of fairly accurate information.
   
2. Vyse had now realized some Khufu cartouches were spelled slightly differently (with hatched disc) and was interested in this spelling variation enough to make a visit to this tomb (the “Tomb of the Trades”) to study this difference for himself.
   

But what had prompted Vyse to make this visit to this tomb to the west of the Great Pyramid in the first place? Why was he so interested in studying the Khufu cartouches there three weeks after its discovery in the Great Pyramid? Why was it now so important to him? Was it perhaps that he was up against a deadline? In just a few days time the cargo ship bound for London would be setting sail from the port at Alexandria, and Vyse wanted Mr. Hill’s facsimile drawing of the Khufu cartouche aboard that ship, spelled correctly, of course. If so, then Vyse had to make sure the cartouche was correctly written before sending off Mr. Hill’s facsimile to London, thus his late visit to the Tomb of the Trades is perhaps explained.

As noted above, in his journal Vyse writes that the Khufu cartouches in the tomb of the trades were “different than Suphis [Khufu].” However, on June 2nd (two weeks earlier) he had actually been sent drawings of the Khufu cartouches from this tomb by another of his assistants, Mr. Perring, showing two Khufu cartouches with hatched discs (figure 6.4). So Vyse had known for two weeks of the differently spelled Khufu cartouches in this tomb.