> Hi Martin
> I agree with you that Origyptian was wrong to suggest the viper
> is ill-positioned in the cartouche and said so (Edited to
> include ... Origyptian speculates that the position of the
> viper is because it may originally have been a glyph of a
> quadruped animal. I think this is nonsense and the photographic
> evidence you provide in your post supports my view. There is
> nothing ill=positioned about the glyph. I argued that the
> glyphs themselves are drawn casually and in sweeping strokes
> because they were never intended to be viewed.)
> What's your position on the orientation of the glyphs? That the
> quarry men were simply unaware of the final position of the
> stone once in situ, hence the 'anomalous' 90 degree clockwise
More than a few of the inscriptions are completely inverted. Is someone going to say that the “forger” did this inadvertantly (apart from Sitchin, that is, who actually did make this bizarre claim)?
We may also consider the (oft-mentioned but essentially undocumented) characters visible in the gaps between the stones. Most people who’ve seen them (not excluding Graham Hancock) consider it a practical impossibility for these to have been painted after placement (although of course there is the usual queue of people with paper proposals of ingenious mechanisms by which Vyse could have “forged” these also).
So, discounting handwaving, the indications are that the inscriptions were painted before placement of the blocks, not necessarily at the quarry, as there seems to have been a system of marking the blocks with the names of the aprw responsible for their final placement (exemplified in the Menkaure temple also).
The script as far as I can tell is really just 4th-dynasty hieratic. (Creighton’s alleged counterexample isn’t even weakly suggestive.) I see some indications of different scribal hands.
Clearly the inscriptions are not formal hieroglyphic ones, intended for the longer term. They are ephemera and far from being the most scrappy examples of the genre.