The Smoking Gun
The drawing below is Khufu's cartouche as it was discovered in Campbell's Chamber and drawn (physically recorded) in Col. Vyse's journal on MAY 27, 1837.
The sieve (a circle with three vertical or diagonal crosshatches) is clearly INCORRECTLY DRAWN. This cartouche even contradicts the cartouches found earlier in Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber!
Some people may think this incorrectly drawn sieve is insignificant, but I believe it is very significant. During Pharaonic times, the Pharaoh's name (the King of Egypt !) would never be misspelled like this.
Fig. 3 is the drawing of the sieve of the cartouche in question. It was drawn in Col. Howard Vyse's journal on May 27, 1837. Fig. 4 is a modern-day "photograph" of the SAME sieve. The complete cartouche can be found on page 1 of this section.
Do the above sieves look the same to you?
No! They are significantly different. Why are they so different? If they are the same sieve, they should be nearly identical to each other, but they are not.
Under closer examination of the sieve in Fig.4, it appears to me that AT SOME POINT IN TIME THERE WAS ONE DOT in the center of that circle, which (coincidentally?) appears to match the center of the circle in Figure 3. Do you see what I see?
An Explanation for the Discrepancy ?
When was the modern-day photograph of the cartouche with the sieve (Fig.4) taken? Obviously it was not taken in 1837, therefore, we can accurately acknowledge that it was taken AFTER it was discovered (and drawn/recorded) by Vyse in 1837. This is very important to note.
Why is the photograph of the cartouche in Figure 4 NOT an accurate representation of the SAME CARTOUCHE as depicted in Figure 3?
Based on Col. Howard Vyse's authentic historical record (dated May 27, 1837) I believe the original cartouche discovered in Campbell's Chamber looked exactly like that drawn in Figure 3 (the glob of paint looks like excess paint to me.)
But why does the modern-day photograph look so different from the original drawing of the same cartouche?
I believe that days or years or centuries or millennia later, someone (Vyse? or a modern-day Egyptian restoration project?) realized the circle needed THREE crosshatches inside it in order to correctly spell the letters "Kh" (as in Khufu) and painted three (3) crosshatches in the circle, the middle crosshatch covering the ORIGINAL DOT in the center, which is depicted in Fig.3.
But, while the forger(s?) painted the new crosshatches, they inadvertently made another dreadful mistake - They didn't quite cover up the entire DOT in the center that was originally drawn! (see Fig.3)
Examine Fig.4 again, this time VERY CLOSELY. The middle crosshatch has a very obvious and suspicious bulge in its center. I believe this bulge WAS originally A DOT at one time, particularly on May 27, 1837 when the historic discovery was first made and recorded (drawn.)
If those of you that are sitting at your desk, standing at your stand up desk or viewing this page at any other place and time and wondering about the red, ochre paint used (by Vyse) to paint the inscriptions, interestingly enough, the same red, ochre paint the ancient Egyptians used was still in use in 1837.
Who would commit such a crime, and Why ?
When you look at ALL of the drawings of ALL the cartouches in ALL of the relieving chambers, you can easily see a pattern of discrepancies. If nothing else, the simple fact that the photographed cartouche (Fig.4) does not match Vyse's account of the SAME cartouche he found in May 1837 raises a RED FLAG all by itself!
I suspect SOMEONE at some point in time FORGED the cartouche of Khufu in Campbell's Chamber, as well as the cartouches discovered in Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber.
"But who would do such a criminal deed? and why?" you ask.
Many would, and many did. It is a historically known fact that plundering, forgery, bribery and other criminal acts ran rampant during the 1800s, especially when it came to ancient Egyptian artifacts. Additionally, Col. Vyse was under a lot of pressure from his British investors to discover something, especially when his adversary, Giovanni Belzoni was discovering a multitude of things all around the Great Pyramid while Vyse was discovering nothing.
The jealous rivalry between these Col. Vyse and Belzoni is worth reading about as it opens up a new can of worms about many of the [fraudulent?] discoveries these two men made during this period in an attempt to gain fame, fortune and glory.
Col. Howard Vyse had motive and opportunity to do the unthinkable.
However, to give Col. Vyse the benefit of some doubt, according to his drawings, some inscriptions in Lady Arbuthnot's Chamber (North Side) and in Campbell's Chamber (North Side) appear to be partially hidden behind blocks of granite. If there is NO space between the blocks of granite and the wall, AND it can be proven that these inscriptions continue behind the blocks, then THOSE inscriptions must have been made during the building of the Great Pyramid, and therefore, they must be authentic.
I believe some of these inscriptions have now been proven to continue behind the blocks so those must have been inscribed on the stone during the construction of the pyramid (before the stones were put into place.)
BUT that only proves THOSE INSCRIPTIONS were drawn when the Great Pyramid was built, and NOT ALL of the inscriptions, most importantly, the cartouche of Khufu in question !
Side fact: The relieving chambers were closed to public viewing for some time in the 1990s (for restoration work?) Figure 5 below is posted on Dr. Zahi Hawass' website as it supposedly appears in Campbell's Chamber TODAY. (Zahi Hawass is the Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities I love big fancy titles.)
Figure 5 is suppose to be/represent/duplicate? the exact same cartouche that Vyse recorded in his journal in 1837 (Figure 6.)
Does the sieve look the same to you?
Figure 5 has three picture-perfect cross-hatches in the center of the circle, whereas I cannot see ANY cross-hatches in Figure 6. Perhaps restoration meant more than just preserving the paint?
Zahi Hawass should be ashamed of himself. At least he should post an authentic photograph of the cartouche on his website, and not some silly artist rendition of it ! I post an authentic photograph on my website, yet he doesn't have the courage because he knows it will draw attention to something he wants to avoid at all cost. So I will do what the Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, Dr. Zahi Hawass, will not. Below is an authentic photograph of the cartouche in question.
Photo by Rainer Stadelmann
Btw, I watched a television show (in 2007?) on the History Channel with Josh __ (can't remember his last name) and he and Zahi Hawass climbed up into the relieving chamber of Campbell's Chamber to view and photograph it. Josh made a big deal about the experience, stating that few people have ever had the chance to do something like this, and that he was very thankful for Hawass to allow him the honor. This is important to know to understand what happened next.
I sat glued to my television screen, watching with great anticipation as the video camera panned the ceiling where the cartouche of Khufu was painted. The establishing (longer shot) of the ceiling with the cartouche showed the sieve portion of the cartouche in (convenient?) shadow.
I waited with baited breath as the closer (close up) shot panned across the cartouche. But then, much to my great astonishment, the camera stopped just short of where the sieve was located. I couldn't believe my eyes! Josh and his camera crew were obviously not prepared, unknowledgeable about what they were suppose to photograph, or maybe they were intimidated by Hawass' presence?
Then, during this same episode, Josh pulls a very small mirror out of his pocket and tries to view behind a block of stone that is set in place to see if there are any inscriptions on the back side, as I suggest right here on this very page! Had he viewed/read my website prior to the making of the show?
In any event, it looked fairly obvious to me that Hawass was not expecting Josh to do something like this, and Josh gave me the impression (on camera) that he didn't tell Hawass that he was going to do this either.
So Josh made his move fast. He held the mirror behind the block for about 2 seconds then said, "It looks like there is some writing on the backside." Satisfied, he promptly put the mirror back into his pocket.
Two seconds? Satisfied? Josh had been waiting for this moment for weeks perhaps months, then when his opportunity arrived, he spent only two seconds to explore what, if anything, is written on the backside of the blocks!!!! Two seconds!
I feel the reason Josh spent so little time viewing behind the block and stating there was writing on the backside wasn't because he could easily decipher any inscriptions on the block but to avoid any confrontation with an uncomfortable Hawass who was staring at him with a 'what are you doing?' expression, after all, it was Hawass who had invited Josh up into Campell's Chamber, and for Josh to have seen or not seen anything that might have embarrassed Hawass on camera would have been extremely rude. But then Josh isn't an archeological researcher; he's a television documentary personality. Had he or his camera crew discovered something controversial, I'm sure that would have been the end of their ability to ever return to Egypt for any future documentary work.
Let's Review the Problems
1. Several cartouches with different forms/spellings were discovered (or fraudulently inscribed) on the walls of the relieving chambers. These names are suppose to identify the owner and purpose of the Great Pyramid. These names are: Saufou or Shoufou (Supis), Khoufou (Cheops), SENeshoufou, Raufu, Khnem-Khufu (Chephren?), and Khufu. Which one is it?
2. Hieroglyphic script was of a semi-hieratic style, which was not practiced until the Middle Kingdom (2000 BC.)
3. No funerary text, hieroglyphics, or frescoes exists to depict the GP as a tomb. For the ancient Egyptians to spend so much time, energy and money to build such a monument and not spend one ounce of time or energy to decorate it in their customary elaborate, ornate funeral-ritualistic style to depict the awe-inspiring structure as a tomb for their great Pharaoh (King!) makes no common sense at all, especially since that is one of the most famous things the ancient Egyptians are so famous for! Think about that.
4. No physical evidence exists that proves a mummy was entombed in the stone Coffer, and no physical evidence of any personal possessions (artifacts) that were customarily placed in the tomb with the deceased has ever been found. Nothing. Nada. It's as if someone went through the entire pyramid and swept it clean with a broom. I find these equally strange.
5. No inscriptions or designs exist on the exterior of the Coffer. This is explained in detail on the following page.
6. Nathaniel Davison discovered the first relieving chamber in 1765 (72 years before Vyse). No hieroglyphic inscriptions were discovered in this chamber. On the other hand, Col. Vyse discovered all the chambers above Davison's Chamber, and oddly enough, they are the ONLY chambers with the ONLY hieroglyphic inscriptions that have ever been found inside the GP. Coincidence?
7. Why is the most important cartouche of Khufu found inside Campbell's Chamber and drawn by Vyse at the time of the discovery unlike the same cartouche that is painted on the wall in the same chamber today? Why is there three crosshatches inside the circle, depicting a sieve in the cartouche today when they did NOT exist at the time of it was discovered in 1837? Did this cartouche undergo some form of (fraudulent?) restoration?
As you can see, there are enough holes in the "Great Pyramid is Khufu Tomb Theory" to sink a boat, all of which are supported with plenty of (circumstantial?) evidence to warrant reasonable doubt. Therefore, IMO it can be said there is NOT enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Great Pyramid was a tomb for Pharaoh Khufu, or anyone else for that matter.
If the Great Pyramid was NOT a tomb,
then what was this granite vessel's purpose?