Cannot follow your logic. The word "Khufu" did not exist until AFTER Vyse's forgery. The word "Khufu" will not be found in print prior to 1839 (?), so is impossible to "look for a prior source which assigns these other names to Khufu". Before 1837 it was known as Suphis, Sufis, etc. How these names were morphed into Khufu by egyptologists is another story, too detailed to go into here and warrants it's own thread.Quote
By all means look for a prior source which assigns these other names to Khufu. Rosellini assigned “Khnum-khufu” to the brother of Khufu, assumed to be Chephren, while the non-cartouche name “Medjedu” wasn’t even recognised as a name.
My point exactly. Except "understood" would not be accurate, 'created' would be more accurate, and it wasn't "many" years later, it was the following year.Quote
It concerns the script of the inscriptions and particular characters within the inscriptions. These are things which weren’t adequately undestood until many years later.
Coming up with explanations as to how Vyse's cartouche = Suphis after the fact was a fairly easy task, since Rosellini, Wilkinson, Champollion had already assigned the glyphs to Suphis. Vyse needed to produce Suphis.
Muddled??? Perhaps it appears so to you, because it's news to you.Quote
The Osburn is interesting, but muddled.
No record ??? You come to this conclusion less than 24 hours after learning of it. You are as quick to your conclusions as the antiquarians were.Quote
......it would be interesting to know exactly what Champollion said about this cartouche, but there seems to be no record of this.