I wonder if it’s worth commenting on this at all, but the simple fact is that you’ve succeeded in being wrong on every single point you raise. I will be brief:
Don Barone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Howard Vyse and his amazingly fortutitous find . . .
Why fortuitous? He looked for stuff, he found stuff.
> . . . of Khufu's heiroglyph . . .
The name ‘Khufu’ is (of course) composed of several hieroglyphs - and three names of this pharaoh were found:
Khnum-khufu (several examples)
Khufu (the shortened form, one example)
Hor Medjedu (the Horus name, several examples)
If Vyse even knew that the Horus name was a name, that alone would make him the leading Egyptologist of his day.
> on his last day of the dig...
It was not the last day - and even after leaving Egypt, Vyse continued to finance the further explorations of Perring.
> Howard Vyse went on an expedition to Egypt To find
> out who built the pyramid. . . .
He went to Egypt as a tourist.
> His father was also an explorer and rather successful.
There is no record of General Richard Vyse being an explorer. It is entirely unmentioned (for example) in the obituary notice which appeared in The Gentleman’s Magazine.
> One day Vyse went alone into the pyramid . . .
He did not go alone: he was measuring one of the chambers with the assistance of Perring and Mash.
> and emerged very excited proclaiming that he found an unusual glyph. ...
It’s clear from the entry in his manuscript journal that at first he didn’t know what he’d found or what its significance was.
This is what he wrote:
Quote
. . . In Wellington’s Chamber, there are markin[g]s in ?area of the ?Stones like Quarry Marks of ?rust paint, also the ?hgic of a Bird near them, but nothi[n]g like Hieglyhics.
M.
