Scott Creighton wrote:

> SC: If you are referring to the Khufu cartouche then that's
> very interesting, Jon and I'd be interested to see what you
> mean. Certainly what we see from Vyse's handwritten journal and
> Mr Hill's drawing of the cartouche (now in the British Museum),
> both were able to emulate the style of these marks quite well.
> What I think is of more significance is the glyphs in the crew
> name (presented above the cartouche in Campbell's Chamber)
> which presents a glyph that is not extant anywhere else outside
> this chamber until the 5th dynasty (at the earliest--yes,
> Stower--I've read Goedicke). Time machines aside, how is it
> possible to get a 5th dynasty glyph inside a 4th dynasty
> monument?

Here we see how wretchedly mean-spirited Creighton’s missives from La-La Land are. Now what’s held against Vyse and Hill is that (shock) they made good copies. (Certainly better than yours, Creighton, which amount to a classic case of lying with drawings.)

You’ve read Goedicke? Well done you. Perhaps next time you’ll do the research before (and not after) I’ve goaded you into doing so.

Now I’m obliged to check Goedicke. I note, however, that your reading of him is oddly at odds with Markus Pössel’s:

[www.markuspoessel.de]

Remember him? You started citing him, when you thought you could get away with twisting what he said, with no kind of comeback.

Now I’m sure that it won’t surprise or dismay you to learn that on the same scale of credibility, you don’t even register. Unless and until I’ve determined that Markus is mistaken in his reading, I’m going to discount what you say about this entirely.

But please don’t let me deter you from your frantic flailing after straws and amusing palaeographical fantasies.

M.