> Yes, it was. No one could get at where the
> cartouche is without lifting the covering block
> out of the pit—and to do that one would have to
> know that the pit is there in the first place.
> Evidence that this was known before 1954?
The cartouche, so claimed, was found on the side of a covering stone. Covering is not inside the pit, it is on top of it.
> Are you now going to tell us that Yoshimura is a
> Vyse-style forger?
Why do you go off on irrelevant tangents?
> Yes, it does. It undercuts the presumption which
> is the entire basis of the accusation levelled at
No it doesn't
> How many times do we have to explain to you that
> no one has claimed that the names (plural)
> reported by Vyse were previously unknown? So
> fixated are you on this straw man that you
> misperceive Warwick and Avry’s quite different
> point as an example of it.
I understand Warwick and Avry's lame point, it just doesn't hold water.
Stower May 20, 2013
This before we note the presence in the chambers of the Horus name of Khufu, Hr mDdw, which no one so much as recognised as a name in 1837.
Canonically, a Horus name appears in a serekh. Whoever wrote the relevant inscriptions knew, not only that is was a name but also that such a name could appear without the serekh in a linear (horizontal) inscription. This is nontrivial knowledge: anyone who possessed it in 1837 would have a strong claim to being the leading Egyptologist of the day —
As for the character which tells us that these names — comprising the royal names, plus the other characters — are crew names: that wasn’t understood until the early 20th century.
Yeah, right: first of all, he’d have to recognise them as the right inscriptions to copy.
Morten May 21, 2013
My point exactly. In order to commit fraud Vyse would have needed an inscription that depicted Khufu´s Horus name in a linear fashion.
For the allegations to be serious the fraud would have to be possible. And that brings us back to my question: Did Vyse have access to an inscription he could copy?
Merrell May 18, 2013
One argument goes that Howard-Vyse ordered the forgery so that he could proclaim himself the originator of a new and exciting discovery, and so claim a place in history. This would be fine as far as it goes, except that, at the time, no one, not even Samuel Birch, knew the details of how AE kings' names were written. H-V would have needed a TARDIS. So, besides revealing that H-V was a cad and a bounder willing to sacrifice the code of honour into which he had been born, confirmation that the quarry-marks were forgeries might be an indication of the existence of time-travel ...
> Which just goes to show that you share the
Since you can't give even one piece of evidence that this Khufu built G1, you switch to personal comments.
Whatever characteristics I have will not produce evidence that Khufu built G1.
Can you stay on subject?