> There is already some compelling "context" to support the
> notion that those stray dots are planar leveling marks: They
> clearly are on peaks on the masonry, they are distributed
> fairly evenly across the surface, and they are on the planar
> surfaces across several blocks photographed in Campbell's
> chamber by Colette Dowell. They are not limited to the vicinity
> of any set of glyphs or on any specific block.
I agree which is why I find it interesting. However, Dowell's photographs in question only show one side of the gable wall in detail and really only do show these spots on a few blocks as that is all we have seen close up. This is not context enough, however, IMO and if this is true we would expect to find it elsewhere in Egypt.
> > ...if you had taken the time to find other examples
> outside G1 that
> > might help prove your theory by context, but apparently this
> > not required for you to believe something is true or not.
> More nastiness. incredible.
Not really. You more often than not argue against something, or make a statement of fact, without taking the time to actually look yourself. My apologies if past histories led to an unwarranted assumption.
But if you want to be done with the "nastiness" from here on out, I am more than happy to oblige.
> I did take the time to find other applicable examples and could
> not find any. Likewise, your examples, while appreciated, are
> not applicable either since they show very tarnished stone
> surfaces or are too low resolution to accurately view such fine
> detail, with one possible exception: On your "image-244.jpg", I
> have no idea how that surface was created, but it doesn't seem
> chiseled except for what appears to be newer chisel marks
> toward the center of the photo. Having said that, there still
> are signs of what appears to be residual red stray dots, and to
> see them I increased the image contrast and saturation
> without changing the color curve:
Not to be argumentative, but I do not see any stray dots anywhere on any photo and I honestly think these are of a good enough quality to see at least something relatable, particularly the Neferirkare store room. This is on my radar so if I find any more I will post them. But I also provide these to show as well that quarry marks and worker's graffiti are quite common in AE. If anything I find it curious not that the relieving chambers have them at all but the fact they have so many in such a relatively small area. And not just the nearly 2 dozen lines of full/partial lines of writing including several cartouches but as per Petrie they are all replate with dozens of various mason's lines, more than seems necessary to accomplish the task.
> The glyphs that are shown are simply the "gang" attribution.
> The "Khufu" cartouche with royal oval are not visible be cause
> they are allegedly "hidden" under the seam formed by the side
<strike>But there is no seam on the other side or the top.</strike>[ignore]
> Who ever said those visible glyphs were showing a pharaoh's
> name or that it should be enclosed in a royal oval?!
<strike>Well, if there were a pharaoh's name, and this is alleged to be the others "twin", then we certainly would expect to see it in a cartouche....The fact it is not in a cartouche a few feet over from one that is supposedly the same exact thing seems a little strange to me.</strike>[ignore]
Post Edited (12-Sep-14 00:39)