> "Had dispute with Raven and Hill about painted marks in
> pyramid. Faint marks were repainted, some were new. Did not
> find Tomb."
> this is a typical diary-style entry, with just enough info to
> jog the record-keepers memory. however, "marks were repainted,
> some were new" puts a paint brush in vyse' hand any way stower
> wants to spin it. not good.
Have you grasped that this is not from the diary of Humphries Brewer, but was written by his great-grandson?
Do you see the difference?
Humphries Brewer → William Marchant Brewer → Helen Pattengill (née Brewer) → Walter’s mother → Walter M. Allen
Do you understand how unlikely it is that an oral transmission of this kind would yield reliable detail? No other aspect of the family tradition regarding Humphries Brewer has yielded a list of names as this one has. (Walter Allen was familiar with Vyse’s book.)
According to Allen, Humphries Brewer was a former student of Carl Richard Lepsius, arguably the leading Egyptologist of his day. Again according to Allen, Lepsius invited Humphries to join his expedition of 1842 onwards (which implies contact or correspondence). If Allen’s story is true, Humphries Brewer had credibility with someone who really could have made a difference. It didn’t happen. Why not?
Lepsius was in England in 1838. One of the things he did there was view the Hill facsimiles in the British Museum. His itinerary also took him near (or even through) Wiltshire. Again, why didn’t heroically indignant Humphries take this perfect opportunity to expose the forgery?
Allen’s story self-destructs. No spin required.