> unless people want to argue that this script was in use hundreds of years before we thought it was. Is that script attested in hundreds of other (dated) work

> unless people want to argue that this script was in use hundreds of years before we thought it was. Is that script attested in hundreds of other (dated) works, such that this really is absurd... or is it attested by two or three other works which might have been misdated themselves? I ask because I genuinely do not know. With one sort of answer, it seems like it could be as absurd as you suggest, but with the other sort of answer it seems like there could be the possibility of it being that old.