Trying as usual to send us all in the wrong direction, Creighton asks the wrong question (and does so still).

He “asks” repeatedly to be told how the inscriptions reported by Goyon and Grinsell and the inscriptions found in the boat pits “prove” that the ones discovered by Vyse are “authentic”. His question is not “authentic” itself. No one has said that they do.

They are evidence relevant to an informed judgement on the question. The test of consistency with later discoveries is one the Vyse discoveries could have failed, but didn’t. Let’s see how this works.

The inscriptions reported by Goyon and Grinsell could have been in the script of some “lost civilisation”. They were not. They were in ancient Egyptian script. Going by the Goyon example—the one of which we have an illustration—they were names of aperu.



The cartouche name here is “Khnum Khufu”. Grinsell reported examples of this name and also of “Medjedu”. Both are names of Khufu and both of them are among Vyse’s discoveries, as components of aper names. The script, the system of organising labour represented and the king named are consistent with Vyse’s discoveries, where they might not have been. Passing this test is an argument in favour of his discoveries being exactly that.

Creighton’s “answer” to this has been to suggest that the later discoveries might “also” be forgeries. He may now be trying to have it both ways. More on this to follow.

M.

(Ed. [Hermione] - formatting).

Edited 2020-04-05: changed the final paragraph.

Edited 2020-04-05: “the king named”.

Edited 2020-04-14: formatting.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 04/14/2020 06:48AM by mstower.