> Anomalous to which OTHER graffiti inscription of the name
> Khwfw, Philip?
> Answer: there is no other KHWFW graffiti inscription for you to
> compare it to.
> Therefore, your argument is completely without foundation and
> your notion of the glyph position being "anomalous" is both
> misleading and inaccurate.
> Just saying.
> Dissect that!
> As for your comment: "Are you suggesting it was painted up
> there in the rafters with a rotated horizontal format rather
> than just painting it vertically?"
> clearly you have never paid any regard to my many posts on this
> issue of how it was inscribed, linked to an understanding of
> established inscription conventions.
> Philip, does it not strike you as odd that if you believe the
> inscription to have been painted vertically that the scribe
> chose to break with convention by rotating the glyphs 90*
> They didn't write in this way - ever!
> One can infer, therefore, the inscription was daubed
> horizontally and it was the block itself which was then rotated
> 90* once in situ.
...you mean where the cartouche not only very coincidentally just fits above the wall block, where the paint from the cartouche coincidentally is dripping downward onto the wall block (which would be dripping to the RIGHT if they painted it horizontally at the quarry!), and with the painting of the cartouche oval started at the OUTER curve rather than where it anchors at the reed?
Yes, you have a very insightful read on those glyphs alright.