> eras. (EDIT: Also, you still are not addressing
> the question posed: How did Vyse break into the
> boat pit?)
I assume, since you do not explain, that this question is important because there is a Khufu cartouche in the pit.
Vyse didn't need to break into the boat pit. The so-called Khufu cartouche had already been found by Wilkinson and supposedly by Leon de Laborde et Linat in the Sinai and published in "Voyage de l'Arabie Petrie" in 1830. I've not found a digital copy of this book to verify.
However, Wilkinson was the one who said THE cartouche belonged to the builder of G1, in his book "Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians" vol.3 pg.278 and also in vol.5 pg.41. In vol.3 he published this....
He concludes that one only needs to add an "S" to change the name into "Suphis" or "Cheops", which is the name given by Manetho to the builder of G1. From the 3rd cent a.d. up until Wilkinson it was believed that Suphis was one and the same as Herodotus' "Cheops", the pharaoh who built G1.
So Wilkinson adds an "S" and identifies the builder of G1. Now some have tried to argue, such as Stower, that Wilkinson's book wasn't published until 1837, the same year Vyse made his discovery. However, the month of publication is unknown, which would not matter anyway because of the time involved in publishing a book in 1837. The book was published in Malta, which as we know was part of the Mediterranean route. It has also been argued that Wilkinson was in England in 1837 and not in contact with Vyse. But as we have shown, Vyse was well connected to London via Hamilton and why was his book published in Malta when he was in England?
The objections are unfounded, communication did occur between Vyse and London and Vyse could have spoken with Wilkinson before he left for Egypt.
But back to the cartouche. Why Wilkinson said all one needed to do was add an "S" is beyond explanation. It seems it was just his fancy. And the evidence for Suphis being the builder is non existent coming solely from Manetho (via 2nd and 3rd hand accounts). So Wilkinson built a cartouche on a fictional Suphis and turned it into Shofo/Khof. Vyse conveniently discovered this exact cartouche, which had already been found around Giza, and Birch put the icing on the fiasco by pronouncing it was indeed Suphis/Khufu.
None of it had a lick of evidence to back it up, it was all conjecture. Yet Egyptology insists the other cartouches found verify the one in G1. In fact, the "others" were found before Vyse arrived in Egypt. It is ridiculous to use the others to verify Vyse's, or to use Vyse's to verify the others. It's circular nonsense.