> Would somebody please explain why it really matters whether or
> not Howard Vyse (or indeed somebody else) forged this now
> infamous cartouche.
> If it is a genuine article, then all that it tells us is that a
> King Khufu was known about by some of the Great Pyramid's
> builders; critically, it does not prove by any means that the
> 4th dynasty Khufu was the Pyramid's builder.
It's unlikely that the work teams who built the GP would be known by such names as The-white-crown-of Khnumkhufu-is-powerful if they were working for another king.
> If it is a fake, then, well, so what?
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 ...
And, following on from this - if affirmations like e.g. those of Herodotus can be put to one side - proof that the quarry-marks were forged would theoretically also throw open the question of the GP's construction date, which might be important for proponents of Lost Civilisation theories seeking to argue that the Sphinx and the GP were in fact constructed in c. 10,500 BC.