> Sirfiroth wrote:
> > Is there really a good reason to disturb and destroy graves
> > exploit the grave goods? Archeology does it all the time.
> For investigative and scientific reasons - but not all the
> time. See
> for example:
Following in the footsteps of Zammit,
> we decided to leave undisturbed archaeological deposits and
> strata for future generations.
> > do you draw a line at the preservation of an inscription?
> If there was a compelling reason to disturb it, then fine.
> In the absence of compelling reasons, it should be left alone.
So investigating the allegedly forged cartouche for the scientific reason of establishing validity in order to eliminate any controversy. Thereby providing evidence, proof positive, that could eliminate any intent to deceive by Howard Vyse, Mr Hill or any other member of his team. Because the way I see it is the absence of quarry marks in the Davidson chamber, not discovered by Vyse, remains a very strong counter-argument.