I feel that for various reasons that the glyphs in the last of your photos is original and contemporary with the structure.
I have a number of doubts about the contentious glyph.
You are correct in that establishing a timeline or sequence of events is important, but that cannot determine true age.
The only evidence available that is really of any use. at least in terms of direct analyses is the Petrie reports and the Dowell photos.. best available.
I would like to determine exactly what Petrie was referring to when he mentioned "whitewash". or "like "whitewash"
If the yellow marks are not caused by abrasion through whitewash then they may be salts from the rock. That's a geology issue so out of my ball park..
However if the yellow stains are salts, why have they not destroyed the red marks in the same way that they appear to have in the corner glyph??..
The "splashes" I am referring to are about three feet to the lower left of the cartouch.. "splashes on the gable wall not "drips" . Your second photo shows the red line following the ledge block. Which in my opinion could only have been painted in situ along with the cartouch oval , after installation. So yes I agree with you on that one..
So maybe we should try to establish a time line..?? How about working backwards?? Ignore everything else, just look at the physical evidence??
For a start there is a graphite pencil mark on there, so that must be later than about 1820. Although I doubt that any forger would be dumb enough to leave that on there.
Yea I'm aware of the fair use policy.. But I can't go there .. really..
Post Edited (10-Sep-14 13:51)