The evidence dossier
A compact guide to the principal statements in the archive: where the evidence can be inspected and how far each conclusion can go.
Where the record follows the chest—and where it follows the ship
- The object and removal. Vyse’s published description, drawings and extraction footnote can be inspected directly. They describe the chest and its handling. V83V84PLATE-SARC
- Embarkation. Vyse reports loading at Alexandria but names only a merchant-ship. Campbell’s letter, quoted through Boughton and Nielsen, links the shipment to Beatrice; its full original and precise date remain to be checked. V84CAMPJULYN24 · p. 317
- The vessel’s reported movements. Shipping notices concern Beatrice and its master. They do not, by themselves, provide an inspection of the chest aboard the vessel. MED1838ALB1839
- The loss account. Vyse transmits a supposition connected with missing news and reported wreckage. The reported insurance settlement concerns treatment of the shipment as lost. Neither supplies an examined eyewitness account of the sinking. V84MINUTES39
The access labels describe how a source has been consulted. They are not numerical confidence ratings. A contemporary author can transmit second-hand information; an institutional catalogue can contain an attribution rather than a fresh material test. Entries known through later studies remain transmitted reports requiring verification of the original; they are not independently established historical findings.
12 evidence entries
| Statement and access | Evidence and exact locator | Limits of the conclusion |
|---|---|---|
| E01The stone coffin was described as empty.Examined historical publication | Vyse II, pp. 83–84 The published account describes the coffin and its condition. V83 V84 | This does not establish the presence of an intact royal body at discovery. |
| E02The illustration reconstructs the lid.Examined historical publication | Vyse II, p. 85; sarcophagus plate The text records pieces found separately; the plate labels its restored lid. V85 PLATE-SARC | The picture does not document an intact lid at discovery or shipment. |
| E03The published external breadth is 3 ft 1 in.Examined historical publication | Vyse II, Appendix p. 123 The original measurement table gives external and internal dimensions. VYSE-APP123 | Converted metric values are calculations, not new measurements or verified manufacturing tolerances. |
| E04The wooden coffin and bones have a separate find account.Examined historical publication | Raven’s letter, 11 July 1838, in Vyse II, p. 86 Raven describes the upper-room finds; Vyse states he was absent. V86 | These are not documented contents of the empty stone coffin, and the account alone does not identify the remains as Menkaure. |
| E05Removal and timber packing are reported.Examined historical publication | Vyse II, pp. 83–84, footnote The account describes extraction and preparation for transport. V83 V84 | The author’s justification for removal is testimony to his position, not independent proof of its necessity. |
| E06EA6646 is catalogued as a surviving stone rim fragment.Institutional catalogue | British Museum, EA6646 / 1838,0113.5 The museum’s object record and six photographs can be consulted. BM6646 BM6647 | The attribution cannot by itself identify a future underwater find. EA6647 is a separate wooden coffin. |
| E07Campbell reported export permission and shipment.Historical report through a study | Letters cited in Nielsen, p. 317 The study quotes administrative correspondence and supplies archival references. N24 · p. 317 CAMPJULY | The original firman and full shipment documentation have not been independently examined in this archive. |
| E08Vyse mentioned departure from Leghorn on 12 October 1838.Examined historical publication | Vyse II, p. 84, footnote This is the date and port transmitted in his later published loss account. V84 | It is not an examined port-clearance document; the Malta report requires separate comparison. |
| E09A Malta newspaper lists departure on 13 October.Historical report through a study | Il Mediterraneo, 17 October 1838; reproduced in Nielsen, p. 323, fig. 4 The reproduced notice associates Beatrice with a Liverpool departure and the initials F. R. Whichelo. N24 · p. 323 MED1838 | The conflicting Livorno date and name initials remain unresolved. A continuous proven route cannot be derived from the notices alone. |
| E10The Cartagena loss location is expressed as a supposition.Examined historical publication | Vyse II, p. 84, footnote The account connects presumed loss with missing news and reported wreckage. V84 | No eyewitness sinking, exact position, depth or verified wreck-fragment identification is supplied. |
| E11An insurance payment of £148 net is recorded in the study.Historical report through a study | Nielsen, p. 323, n. 38; committee record of 29 June 1839 Nielsen cites British Museum Standing Committee vol. 17, reference 5125. N24 · p. 323 MINUTES39 | The complete original committee page has not been separately examined. Payment is not geographical or technical evidence of the sinking. |
| E12The 1997 proposed association was rejected.Published participant account | Negueruela 2003, pp. 163–164; ARQVA 2023, pp. 15–17 Published participant and institutional accounts distinguish the investigation from the separate Navidad wreck. NEG03 ARQVA | The operational dive logs and full search coverage still require consultation; a negative result does not exclude every possible area. |
No matching entries. Try another term or source-access filter.
Checked passages from Vyse
Line breaks are normalised and words split at line ends are joined. […] marks an editorial omission. These are selected checked excerpts, not a corrected transcription of the complete volume.
Empty interior, material description and ornament
It was entirely empty, and composed of basalt, which bore a fine polish of a shaded brown colour, but was blue where it had been chipped off, or broken. […] It was finely carved in compartments, and the ornaments upon it resembled in some degree the architectural decorations in the tomb of Numbers, and those carved upon two blocks of stone now exhibited in the British Museum, and which formerly belonged to the collection of the late Mr. Salt.
Vyse's published description. 'Basalt' is his material name, not a modern petrographic identification; the comparison of decoration is also his comparison. The two segments are separated by an explicit editorial omission.
V84Vyse’s stated reason for sending it to the Museum
As the sarcophagus would have been destroyed, had it remained in the pyramid, I resolved to send it to the British Museum.
This records Vyse's stated justification. It does not independently establish that destruction would have occurred, or establish the scope of export permission.
V83Extraction equipment and timber casing
One of the ramps in the inclined passage was to be removed in order to get it into the large apartment, where it was placed upon trucks, and the blocks in the anteroom having been got rid of, it arrived at the bottom of the entrance passage. By means of a number of men, and of a crab at the mouth of the pyramid, it had been conveyed half way up, when, owing to the roughness of the bottom, the trucks on one side gave way. As they could not be repaired for want of space, the sarcophagus was slowly lifted by levers, and got out by degrees; which, considering that its weight was nearly three tons, was an arduous undertaking. It was, however, at last safely hauled out, and placed on a proper carriage, in which, with the assistance of planks, it was drawn over the rocks and sands to the tents, and afterwards cased with strong timbers, to be sent to the British Museum.
Continuous excerpt across a printed page break. 'Crab', 'trucks', 'half way' and 'nearly three tons' preserve the wording; the excerpt does not establish modern equipment specifications or a measured mass.
V83V84Shipment and the reported loss
It was embarked at Alexandria in the autumn of 1838, on board a merchant-ship, which was supposed to have been lost off Carthagena, as she never was heard of after her departure from Leghorn on the 12th of October in that year, and as some parts of the wreck were picked up near the former port.
The sentence does not name Beatrice. Preserve 'supposed', Carthagena and Leghorn in the quotation; Cartagena and Livorno may be given separately as modern place names. The footnote supplies no named informant, wreckage identifier, eyewitness account, coordinates or observed sinking date.
V84Statement about inscriptions
The sarcophagus did not bear any inscription or hieroglyphics.
Read alongside the separate p. 83 report of Arabic words and characters on walls and inside the object. Do not paraphrase this as 'no marks of any kind'. See the supplementary context excerpt supplied below.
V85Lid fragments and their reported location
The lid was not found in the sepulchral chamber, but pieces of it were afterwards discovered. […] When the large apartment was finally cleared out, the greater part of the lid of the sarcophagus was found (as I have already stated) near the entrance of the passage descending to the sepulchral chamber; […]
The last segment is a deliberately finite clause; append a visible editorial omission marker after its semicolon. 'The greater part' does not establish one largest fragment. The excerpt does not justify describing the illustrated complete lid as an observed intact lid.
V85A piece sent to the British Museum
A piece of it has been sent to the British Museum.
Footnote 4, attached to the material and broken-surface description. The published note gives no current museum inventory number. The connection to EA6646 remains the museum catalogue attribution.
V84