[wl]

You're overconfident. The consensus view in Egyptology is you're wrong about this. Maybe the consensus view is wrong and your fringe theory is more accurate, but it's really hard to have confidence that your theory is the correct one when it is almost universally rejected by people who study this.

As someone who can read the inscriptions you're talking about: they're not crude at all.

[ncmncm]

As I said, we will need to wait for a generation of Egyptologists not so eager to attribute everything to whoever was last to scratch his name onto it.

[wl]

The technical term for someone carving their name on something someone else had built is "usurpation" and it's hardly an obscure topic in Egyptology. It is definitely something people think of when dating objects and monuments.

https://escholarship.org/content/qt5gj996k5/qt5gj996k5.pdf

[ncmncm]

Think of, sure. But act on? By the evidence, incentives run the other way.

[ncmncm]

Their physical execution is crude. We may presume they were transcribed from papyrus written by poets laureate of the period.

[wl]

I'm talking specifically about their physical execution. It's not crude. I've seen plenty of sloppy hieroglyphs. These aren't them.

[ncmncm]

A quick DDG image search turns up

https://www.ancient-code.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/saqq...

https://www.theancientconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2021...

[wl]

Are you expecting a fancier, embossed style or something? Those look like they're executed just fine.

[ncmncm]

I would describe them as pecked. The lines are not even straight.