For my wife, Louise, and my children , Jamie and Nina . forever . — THE — GREAT PYRAMID HOAX “Egyptologists consider the ochre-painted Khufu cartouche in the Great Pyramid as the ultimate proof that this pyramid belongs to the Fourth Dynasty pharaoh Khufu. But much controversy surrounds its authenticity. If the Khufu cartouche is indeed a hoax, then the implications are tremendous. Scott Creighton has undertaken a very bold and meticulous investigation into this mystery. The Great Pyramid Hoax is a must-read book for all seekers of truth.” ROBERT BAUVAL, AUTHOR OF THE SOUL OF ANCIENT EGYPT “An intriguing narrative, The Great Pyramid Hoax expertly weaves its way through the sands of time, as it revisits one of Egyptology’s most contentious issues—the dating of the Great Pyramid. In the best traditions of alternative research Creighton takes the reader on a personal journey of exploration, skillfully weaving powerful themes upon clear emotional expression, as he attempts to uncover the veracity behind one of Egypt’s most endearing mysteries. A must- read for those searching for the truth.” LORRAINE EVANS, EGYPTOLOGIST, DEATH HISTORIAN, AND AUTHOR OF KINGDOM OF THE ARK ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This book would not have been possible without the input, assistance, and encouragement of many individuals. I would first like to express my profound and sincere gratitude to the team at Inner Traditions r Bear & Company, whose professionalism and guidance took much of the pain out of producing this work. The late Zecharia Sitchin, a world-renowned scholar and international bestselling author, paved the way for this book, and without his early insights into this controversy, this work most likely would never have seen the light of day. This can be said equally of the late Alan F. Alford, whose dedicated research into this subject inspired much of my own investigations. In 1998, Alford wrote: My challenge to Egyptologists is this. Find the Howard Vyse diaries and show them to me. If I cannot find at least three incriminating statements in those diaries, I will drop my argument that the workmen’s graffiti was forged. It is with a considerable sense of regret that Alford, who departed this Earth much too soon, could not witness just how prophetic his words were to become as the evidence from three pages of Vyse’s private diary, presented later in this book, will demonstrate. Patricia Usick of the British Museum and Roger Bettridge of the Centre for Buckinghamshire Studies helped immensely by providing access to the Hill facsimiles and the Vyse family archive, respectively. I would particularly like to thank Mr. Bettridge for his great generosity in assisting me with the transcription of some difficult passages from Colonel Vyse’s private journal. A special mention and thanks must also be extended to the staff in the Archive Department of the Mitchell Library in Glasgow, who also helped transcribe some difficult passages. My good friend Sean Damer deserves credit here too for his unstinting support and encouragement over many years. And none of this would have been at all possible without the great help and assistance of George and Jim, who would tirelessly read and offer feedback to each draft of this manuscript. My children, Jamie and Nina, were both very young when all of this began. They would always listen (sometimes reluctantly it has to be said), but they were always curious and would often ask questions. I thank them both for some quite marvelous questions; questions that only a child can ask. Above all, my dearest wife, Louise, deserves all the plaudits for she has truly had to put up with the most—and it wasn’t always plain sailing. When things got tough she was always there to help. And when they got really tough she was always the first with her shoulder to the wheel. Not even a severe head injury, which so nearly took her life, would hold her back. There are no words that can ever encapsulate my sincere gratitude in having this truly remarkable woman in my life. I thank you all. SCOTT CREIGHTON , MIDSUMMER’S DAY , 2016 Louise Creighton (Photo: Scott Creighton) CONTENTS Title Page Dedication Epigraph Acknowledgments Foreword by Laird Scranton Introduction: A Controversial Claim Chapter 1. Making History AN IMPOSSIBLE FORGERY SITCHIN’S FORGERY CLAIM CHAPTER ONE SUMMARY Chapter 2. Seeking Suphis CHAPTER TWO SUMMARY Chapter 3. Man of Means QUESTIONS ABOUT VYSE’S CHARACTER CHAPTER THREE SUMMARY Chapter 4. Colonel Vyse’s Creation CHAPTER FOUR SUMMARY Chapter 5. EXHIBIT 1: Other Chambers, Other Texts" CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY Chapter 6. EXHIBIT 2: The Silent Journal CHAPTER SIX SUMMARY Chapter 7. EXHIBIT 3: The Eyewitness TIME AND PLACE THE WRONG NAME THE PAINTED NAMES CHAPTER SEVEN SUMMARY Chapter 8. EXHIBIT 4: Mystery Marks Made In Situ MARKS MADE TO MEASURE MISSING PARTS NOT SO IMPOSSIBLE MARKS MARKS PAINTED IN SITU A MYSTERY SIGN CHAPTER EIGHT SUMMARY Chapter 9. EXHIBIT 5: A Peculiar Distribution FURTHER DISTRIBUTION ANOMALIES CHAPTER NINE SUMMARY Chapter 10. EXHIBIT 6: The Lie of the Landscapes HILL’S ORIENTATIONS CHAPTER TEN SUMMARY Chapter 11. EXHIBIT 7: Cartouche Contradictions BLOCK ORIENTATION PAINT OVERLAP THE PAINT RUNNELS PAINT SPOTS THE PEBBLES THE PLASTER THE PENCIL CHAPTER ELEVEN SUMMARY Chapter 12. EXHIBIT 8: Signs Out of Time ANOTHER SIGN? THE TWO STAFFS CHAPTER TWELVE SUMMARY Chapter 13. EXHIBIT 9: The Journal Speaks MORE CARTOUCHE ANOMALIES JOURNAL ENTRY, MAY 27, 1837 JOURNAL ENTRY, JUNE 16, 1837 THE TWO SPELLINGS OF SUPHIS INSTRUCTING FRAUD WALTER ALLEN VINDICATED CHAPTER THIRTEEN SUMMARY Chapter 14. Evidence That Demands a Verdict Footnotes Endnotes Bibliography About the Author About Inner Traditions • Bear & Company Books of Related Interest Copyright & Permissions Index FOREWORD Work in the field of archaeology is somewhat like prospecting for gold. Both are disciplines of discovery that require the utmost care, patience, and perseverance but only occasionally reward the practitioner with a substantive return. When archaeological studies do produce such a return, a correct understanding of the significance of a finding may require specialized knowledge or rest on subtleties of understanding that the typical layperson may not possess. This means that the average person may not always be competent to evaluate the claims of competing researchers. Meanwhile, truly productive finds are the stuff from which archaeological careers are molded, academic reputations fostered, and theoretical ground staked. Knowing this, it seems clear that professional researchers must be subject to ongoing motivation to produce such claims. Likewise, Egyptology is a field in which a small number of professionals have historically exercised a high degree of control over such things as access to sites, distribution of financial resources, and publication of results. Great egos tend to flock to positions with this degree or quality of control. In such an environment, it seems inevitable that practitioners might sometimes be tempted to take personal advantage of their specialized knowledge or position and leverage it to influence a career-making claim. Structures on the Giza plateau in Egypt represent the most obvious reference points by which a modern observer may infer the outlook and intentions of our ancient ancestors. Foremost among these (second only to the incomparable Sphinx) is the Great Pyramid, or Pyramid of Khufu. Its sheer size, central position on the Giza plateau, and structural precision serve as an open invitation to students of ancient mysteries to make it a focus of their attention. The call of the Great Pyramid is made even more enticing by the many uncertainties that attend this great edifice, coupled with the relative sparseness of evidence on which these uncertainties often rest. For example, theories abound in relation to how the pyramid may have been built, what practical functions it might have served in ancient times, what undiscovered hidden chambers it might potentially house, whether slaves or paid workers were enlisted to construct it, what special qualities of electricity or resonance its stone blocks might possess, and so on. First among the mysteries of the Great Pyramid is the persistent question of who actually built it. To those of us who see likelihood in the existence of civilizations prior to ancient Egypt, there is a temptation to credit the Great Pyramid to some advanced culture now lost to the mists of time. However, from an academic perspective, the era of origin for the Great Pyramid is considered to be a closed question: the consensus is that it was commissioned by the second pharaoh of the Fourth Dynasty of Egypt, a king named Khufu who ruled circa 2550 BCE. However, some modern-day researchers express doubt about a view-point that casts as a royal tomb a structure that, to all outward evidences, never actually housed a pharaoh’s body. We might be inclined to simply set this inconvenient circumstance aside if we were confident that the official viewpoint was upheld by other unshakable evidence. But as we shall see as this book progresses, such does not always seem to be the case. Despite the often careful fieldwork that has historically been carried out by archaeologists, we could argue that there is a kind of myopia at work in the field of Egyptology that can limit official perspectives on the likely purposes of ancient structures. The prevailing mind-set is one from which we might imagine future archaeologists who explore cultures of the twenty-first century excavating “local temple complexes” and “palaces,” where today one sees only strip malls and Home Depots. In the real world, expectation can influence outcome. It has been famously said that if we choose to consult a surgeon with a problem, we can reasonably expect to hear a surgical solution proposed. The same is true in fields like Egyptology, where despite the arguably ethical intentions of researchers, findings can be influenced by strong personalities, personal motives, and academic specialties.