> In fairness to Graham, I'm assuming he knows full well about
> the dozens of other glyph passages in those rafters and that he
> really meant to say that Vyse's cartouche is the "only
> inscription" that has been used by Egyptologists to
> authenticate the owner of G1.
You would think so, but this is by no means what he is telling his audience and is something erroneously oft repeated by others without proper context so he is certainly not alone in this.
> Based on the physical evidence, I believe that inscription
> actually has no bearing at all on who built it, when it was
> built, or why it was built. It simply means there was an entity
> called "Khufu" that people wrote about. Doesn't even mean it
> was a person.
> In fact, I am actually uncomfortable with the debate about the
> authenticity of that particular cartouche because it
> erroneously lends a credibility to that painting that it simply
> does not deserve. Truth is, it doesn't matter whether Vyse
> forged anything on that cartouche because such a vague
> reference to "Khufu" actually does not say that a man named
> "Khufu" built the thing at all, let alone in the 4th Dynasty
> when they did not have the tools or means to build it, or that
> it was at all intended to be a tomb.
Which is why I keep steering towards the 2 dozen other hieroglyphs which repeatedly is just flat out ignored. Even by you in your responses to me about a post specifically devoted to it. Why?