> I assume that these dots were transcribed by antiquarians who
> were NOT hieroglyph scholars because they are inside the
> cartouche and therefore were considered to be a part of the
> It is an assumption, like everyone else's, based in part on the
> fact that antiquarians had encountered the Khnum-Khufu
> cartouche but not its simpler Khufu form. It leads me to
> believe that, initially at least, they thought two dots formed
> part of this representation of the name. They later learned
> that this was wrong.
> I am not behaving like I am "all-knowing". I was, as I stated,
> simply correcting your error for that is what it is.
> You are laying claim to an idea which is not supported by
> relative spacing and sizing of other glyphs in the cartouche,
> nor by any evidence of the titulary Khnum-Khufu stacking the
> water vessel and quadruped glyphs in a horizontal inscription
> bearing this name anywhere else in the archaeological record.
> That is not me nit-picking. That is me using evidence to argue
> against your claim. I'm sorry that you take it so personally;
> there is no offence intended.
First, you didn't answer my question about why you believe the painters of that cartouche would allow stray dots to reside within such sacred real estate when all they had to do was a tiny amount of scraping to remove them. Especially in such a visible location. But that doesn't strike you odd at all, eh?
I also defy your flippant disregard for the high placement of that glyph. Nowhere else is the horned viper placed so high in the text flow in any other glyph in Egypt, let alone in side a royal cartouche, equal to the level of the chicks' heads. It is anomalous despite your denial.
Alright already, my "error" was the shorthand omission of "as in" Khnum. Also, there is no "Khnum-Khufu". There is only "Khnum-Khfu". Please make a note of it.