> Martin Stower wrote:
> > Did you read what Robert wrote?
> > What makes the graffiti significant is (a) its presence
> > within
> > architectural spaces closed from the time of building until
> > 1837 and (b) (Robert’s point) its presence at locations which
> > a
> > forger with a paintbrush couldn’t reach.
> Yes I read what Robert wrote.
> I am not questioning that the graffiti was probably in place at
> the time of construction of the pyramid; I am disputing that
> the content of the graffiti in any way confirms the identity of
> the builder of the pyramid..., or even the existence of a
> pharoah called 'Khufu'.
Then you need to know more about that content, which (in the relevant cases) consists of crew names - names of work gangs - of which the royal name is only a component. Such names are known from various sites and the overall picture gained is that the pharaoh named was always the reigning pharaoh (e.g. the crew names in Khufu's boat pit name, not Khufu, but his successor, Djedefre). I mean, come on, the graffiti appear in a pyramid bang in the middle of a cemetery populated by Khufu's family, officials, priests . . . which puts the burden of proof entirely on those who deny that this is an ordinary pharaonic name, appropriate in context to the owner of the pyramid.
Also they include three names of Khufu: not only the cartouche names (Khnum-khufu and the shortened form Khufu), but also his (otherwise attested) Horus name.
If you don't know what a cartouche means - or what a Horus name is - I suggest an introductory course on hieroglyphs (with emphasis on ancient Egyptian conventions for naming royalty).
> I example how graffiti can refer to identities or phenomena in
> totally different time frames to its actual creation
Your examples conflate two entirely different issues: (1) graffiti postdating the time of construction and (2) graffiti naming figures predating the time of construction.
On WWII graffiti, consider the following: