Re. the phrase used by one of your critics 'it supposes that the inscription
is complete and that the stone has not been reused from another location; in
both cases there is room for doubt'. A disppassionate view on that:
1) The bizarre location of the stone in a building that was constructed a
considerable time after the suppression of the Templar Order rather tends to
indicate that it was simply placed in its present position as reuseable
stone 'quaried' from a previous building that was most probably nearby,
possibly at the same site.
2) Being reused stone, there can be no degree of certainty whatsoever that
the inscription is comple. Even if it makes sense as an isolated
inscription, that dpoes not rule out the possibility, or in some eyes, the
probability that it was nonetheless part of a greater whole. Therefore until
such time as its 'completenes' can be proven, or the rest of the inscription
can be found, nothing is proved. However, the uncertainty surrounding it
demands further investigation. May I refer you to the thre large files on
previous investigations and excavations at the Temple site which are at the
Loanhead Museum. They may be of help in your ongoing search.
Best wishes
Tim
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@quarterman.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://sinclair.quarterman.org/list.html