> Must have
> been a couple of years ago, around the time of
> PaintGate, when I suggested that those in charge
> simply scrape off a tiny portion of the graffiti
> and analyze.
By "PaintGate," did you mean the Görlitz and Erdmann affair of 2013?
1. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), the Egyptian authorities take a dim view of unauthorised interference with archaeological evidence. In this case, the taking of paint samples from a 5,000-year-old AE monument was considered a criminal act, with unfortunate consequences for anyone involved;
2. the samples taken were not from the cartouche name of Khufu itself: instead, what Görlitz and Erdmann actually damaged was an example of Gardiner U23,a chisel-shaped hieroglyphic character;
3. for dating tests to have any chance of success, there would have to be organic material present in the paint used in the crew-marks - and this in itself is still a matter of debate;
4. these particular samples weren't even of sufficient size to obtain any meaningful results;
5. as has frequently been pointed out, there is very little point anyway in carrying out this sort of investigation when there are perfectly adequate explanations for the presence of the crew-marks (see Roth, 125-7);
6. and, as has also been pointed out, other cartouche names of Khufu (forming components of crew-names) also appear on the core blocks, and in the second boat-pit (where they lay undisturbed for some 5,000 years before being uncovered).
Nonetheless, none of these considerations seem to have prevented Görlitz and Erdmann from continuing to place support on some surprising sources ...