mstower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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 name of the
> king 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.
>
> It has become increasingly evident that
> Creighton’s “answer” to this is to suggest that
> the later discoveries might “also” be forgeries.
> More on this to follow.
>
> M.
>
> (Ed. [Hermione] - formatting).

Yes I used to ask him about this very mark, and he would always change the subject or reply in demanding what you noted above.

It would be a bit hard to imagine Vyse placing that mark and not having it discovered until a century later. Scott loves to throw out possibilities but never considers plausibility and probability.