> Martin Stower wrote:
> > Why did he not leave a signed affidavit?
> > Why is the evidence so weak?
> > M.
> It seems like you may be expecting a higher burden of proof
> from Humphries Brewer than you are from Howard Vyse.
> Where is the solid proof that Vyse discovered that cartouche
> intact as we see it today?
> Why didn't Vyse document the authenticity of his find publicly
> by having objective witnesses?
> Did Vyse sign a legal affidavit attesting to the authenticity
> of his find?
> Regarding Vyse's discovery, "Why is the evidence so
> weak?"...and yet still cherished so dearly among Egyptologists
> as being unquestionably authentic?
I’m looking for any proof at all from Humphries Brewer. There is none: not one scrap of material from the man himself, describing this Egyptian episode.
For Vyse, and Perring, and Hill, we have a mass of material which is undoubtedly of the period.
Remember the story? Humphries Brewer was so indignant that he had a face-to-face “dispute” with Hill and Raven — and then, for the rest of his life, silence. Why?
For Humphries Brewer to have put the story down on paper formally would have been appropriate for these reasons: (a) he supposedly cared, (b) he did not (as Vyse did) publish an account of the episode and (c) he would (if there is any truth to the story) have been making a serious accusation.
To consider what the evidence might have been in the ideal case is fair enough: it’s what I’m doing. But you’re asking for things which have never been part of archaeological protocol, whereas I’m merely asking for something which approaches equivalence with what we already have from Vyse, Perring, Hill and others.
Sorry, but if you’re serious about the equivalence you’re suggesting, you’ve thrown science and logic out of the window.