Hello Martin,

You write, '... the very selectivity of the treatment confers more credibility on Taylor and Smyth and the rest than they would have gained undiluted (and again, more than they merit, IMO).'

This afternoon I re-read the chapters in Tompkins' book concerning Howard-Vyse, Piazzi Smyth, Flinders Petrie et al.
I genuinely do not see any favouritism for any particular character or theory.

You continue, 'Plus, as noted by Warwick, putting the word ‘Secrets’ in the title does tend to detract from the studied neutrality of the approach - as does the inclusion of the appendix by Stecchini.'

Agreed. I would like to see a new edition of the book, but re-titled to, say, A History of The Great Pyramid, and sans Stecchini's appendix but with additional material from the last thirty years or so.

Regards,

MJ