there is a cartouche containing Khufu’s name, which clearly shows that Khufu’s men were there. These relieving chambers were never meant to be entered and had in fact been sealed at the time of the pyramid’s construction. Hence, they date back to the time the pyramids were built. The discovery of Khufu’s name inside thus provided definitive evidence that this pharaoh was responsible for the Great Pyramid.
In Zecharia Sitchin’s The Stairway to Heaven , published in 1980, the chapter “Forging the Pharaoh’s Name” argues that Colonel Richard Howard Vyse did not discover but instead forged a cartouche containing the name of Pharaoh Khufu. Vyse was credited with this groundbreaking discovery that placed his name in the annals of Egyptology in his book Operations Carried on at the Pyramids of Gizeh in 1837 . Sitchin said that the cartouche had not been seen by previous visitors to the relieving chamber in question. How could they have missed what Vyse so easily found? Furthermore, Sitchin writes, “Wasn’t it odd, I thought, that for centuries no markings of any kind were found by anyone, anywhere, in the pyramid, not even in Davison’s Chamber above the King’s Chamber—and only Vyse found such markings where only he first entered?”
Next point of debate: The cartouche was executed in red paint. The experts had difficulty distinguishing it from other—recent—inscriptions, and its possible status as a recent addition wasn’t helped with claims that people had been seen entering the structure with red paint. Perring’s memoirs, The Pyramids of Gizeh , do state that the red paint “was a composition of red ochre called by the Arabs moghrab which is still in use.... Such is the state of preservation of the marks in the quarries that it is difficult to distinguish the work of yesterday from one of three thousand years.”
But the best evidence, Sitchin argued, was that the name of Khufu was misspelled—conforming to a notorious misspelling in a book to which Vyse had access. He claims that the inscription reads Ra-ufu, not Khufu. This mistake would have been unthinkable for ancient Egyptian writers to make, but it is explainable if the inscription was done in 1837. That year, an academic book about hieroglyphics called Materia Hieroglyphica had been published, in which the name of Khufu was erroneously entered. The lines of the sieve were so close together that they appeared in the print like a massive disc, which is in fact another way of writing “Ra.” It is known that Vyse had this book with him.
Definitely, Vyse had the opportunity to commit this fraud. But in any crime, motive is an important consideration—and Sitchin is able to provide one: Vyse’s expedition was running short of funding, and had not uncovered any major revelation that would grab headlines, which is what he needed to receive more funding. The discovery of the cartouche was therefore a gift from heaven. Too good to be true?
Perhaps. However, it seems that accusations of forgery work both ways. Sitchin’s opponents have pointed out that the visual evidence for the misspelling that Sitchin provides is erroneous at best, and some claim Sitchin has actually forged evidence in support of his conclusions of forgery! His opponents point out that various other photographs, including those circulated by Rainer Stadelmann when he was working on the ventilation system in the Great Pyramid in the 1990s, reveal that the correct sign was used in the writing in the relieving chamber—hence, Ra-ufu is in fact Khufu. In their opinion, Sitchin, not Vyse, is guilty of forgery.
In Sitchin’s possible defense, when he first published his accusation in 1980, several photographs now in existence, including Stadelmann’s, had not yet been made; only drawings existed, and perhaps these showed the inaccuracy as well? Unfortunately for Sitchin, that is not the case: A sketch of the cartouche appearsin Perring’s book, published in 1839. Sitchin gives no
In Zecharia Sitchin’s The Stairway to Heaven , published in 1980, the chapter “Forging the Pharaoh’s Name” argues that Colonel Richard Howard Vyse did not discover but instead forged a cartouche containing the name of Pharaoh Khufu. Vyse was credited with this groundbreaking discovery that placed his name in the annals of Egyptology in his book Operations Carried on at the Pyramids of Gizeh in 1837 . Sitchin said that the cartouche had not been seen by previous visitors to the relieving chamber in question. How could they have missed what Vyse so easily found? Furthermore, Sitchin writes, “Wasn’t it odd, I thought, that for centuries no markings of any kind were found by anyone, anywhere, in the pyramid, not even in Davison’s Chamber above the King’s Chamber—and only Vyse found such markings where only he first entered?”
Next point of debate: The cartouche was executed in red paint. The experts had difficulty distinguishing it from other—recent—inscriptions, and its possible status as a recent addition wasn’t helped with claims that people had been seen entering the structure with red paint. Perring’s memoirs, The Pyramids of Gizeh , do state that the red paint “was a composition of red ochre called by the Arabs moghrab which is still in use.... Such is the state of preservation of the marks in the quarries that it is difficult to distinguish the work of yesterday from one of three thousand years.”
But the best evidence, Sitchin argued, was that the name of Khufu was misspelled—conforming to a notorious misspelling in a book to which Vyse had access. He claims that the inscription reads Ra-ufu, not Khufu. This mistake would have been unthinkable for ancient Egyptian writers to make, but it is explainable if the inscription was done in 1837. That year, an academic book about hieroglyphics called Materia Hieroglyphica had been published, in which the name of Khufu was erroneously entered. The lines of the sieve were so close together that they appeared in the print like a massive disc, which is in fact another way of writing “Ra.” It is known that Vyse had this book with him.
Definitely, Vyse had the opportunity to commit this fraud. But in any crime, motive is an important consideration—and Sitchin is able to provide one: Vyse’s expedition was running short of funding, and had not uncovered any major revelation that would grab headlines, which is what he needed to receive more funding. The discovery of the cartouche was therefore a gift from heaven. Too good to be true?
Perhaps. However, it seems that accusations of forgery work both ways. Sitchin’s opponents have pointed out that the visual evidence for the misspelling that Sitchin provides is erroneous at best, and some claim Sitchin has actually forged evidence in support of his conclusions of forgery! His opponents point out that various other photographs, including those circulated by Rainer Stadelmann when he was working on the ventilation system in the Great Pyramid in the 1990s, reveal that the correct sign was used in the writing in the relieving chamber—hence, Ra-ufu is in fact Khufu. In their opinion, Sitchin, not Vyse, is guilty of forgery.
In Sitchin’s possible defense, when he first published his accusation in 1980, several photographs now in existence, including Stadelmann’s, had not yet been made; only drawings existed, and perhaps these showed the inaccuracy as well? Unfortunately for Sitchin, that is not the case: A sketch of the cartouche appearsin Perring’s book, published in 1839. Sitchin gives no
Similar Books
