> Hi Scott
> Your choice of image of Neferkare Khendu's cartouche from the
> king list proves my point that it is probable that the
> horizontal lines were painted on ... otherwise, where are the
> lateral carvings on the 'ch' glyph while we know there should
> be none on the 'Ra' glyph positioned first in the cartouche.
> I know what you will argue .. the Ra glyph is positioned first
> on Raufu's cartouche, too.
> If that's the case, why isn't the 'ch' glyph carved on your
> illustrative example?
> Stalemate, I'd say.
Forgive me for butting in, but it seems to me that one could easily argue that the smaller disk implies "sieve" when it's co-resident with the larger disk which signifies "Ra". I admit I'm far more skilled in engineering than in linguistics, but considering how much flux is going on in current glyph translation methodology, who can say for sure? At least it's a formulaic rule that's more credible than insisting it was originally painted when there's not a single shred of evidence that any drop of paint was ever applied to that panel.