If it was written in situ, one has to question the orientation of the hieroglyphs themselves. An AE would NOT have written them in the orientation they appear. Simple.
Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic inscription could be vertical and always read from top to bottom, but NEVER with the glyphs themselves rotated 90 degrees clockwise from their lateral position as they are in the relieving chamber. So ...
the argument, as I understand it, is either:
* that the graffiti was added when quarried and, once the stone arrived to be positioned in the GP, it was the stone that was then oriented differently. It is reasonable to think that the quarry men would naturally not have known how the stone itself was to be positioned in situ, hence the unusual orientation of the glyphs once in situ;
* that the inscription is both modern and fraudulent because it breaks with the conventions of hieroglyphic inscription orientation.
As for the claims by another poster that the 'f' viper is ill-positioned in the cartouche, I would argue not - my reason being that the casual and broad brush strokes on the relieving chamber masonry, if one assumes it to be genuine, were never meant to be seen again once the stone itself was set in place. This script is a world away from the bas and sunk relief carved inscriptions which were carefully and slowly sculpted because they adorned temples and were meant to inspire awe.
It's like the care one takes over handwritten script intended for others to read and the more casual way one might compose notes only meant for oneself.
I do think, however, that the orientation of the glyphs begs further discussion.
Post Edited (16-Jul-14 21:28)