GR: I see that Perring does indeed have the 2 dots but Vyse does not in their publications.
SC: Which appears to me that Perring was in two minds as regards these two particular dots, at first appearing to agree with Vyse and Hill and then later changing his mind.
Given the abundance of these paint spots within and outwith this cartouche, it simply makes no sense why anyone could think those particular two spots were of any more significance than any of the others we observe. Of course, if these had been observed in a cartouche elsewhere and were the ONLY two markings under the snake glyph (i.e. there were no other splashes of paint to be seen) then it is easy to see in that circumstance why Vyse & Hill might have thought they were actually part of the king's name and hence why they would have copied them into their faked Khufu cartouche they inscribed onto the gabled trussing in Campbell's Chamber. Perhaps Perring was initially persuaded by Vyse/Hill of the significance of those two dots (hence why they are in Perring's initial drawing) but later, perhaps after Vyse left Egypt, Perring had another look and changed his mind. Speculation here, of course, but, as stated, it simply makes no sense that anyone could see these particular spots of paint as having nay more significance than any of the others.
Post Edited (07-Sep-14 22:44)