The decision not to name the practitioner is revisited periodically. Not with doubt, but with the discipline of making sure it remains a choice rather than a habit. The reasons are the same as they were: the name invites the biographical reading, the psychoanalytic reading, the market reading. It reduces the work to the life, and the life is not the point.
But there is another reason that took longer to articulate. The oldest marks in this archive are unsigned. The Blombos maker, the Lascaux painter, the Nazca line-walker — none of them attached their name to the work, because the concept of artistic authorship as we understand it did not exist as a framework for their practice. The work was made within something larger than the individual: a tradition, a community, a cosmological orientation that the maker served rather than expressed. The practice behind Glyphoreum is not trying to disappear. The mark is the practitioner. But the name is withheld because the tradition this work belongs to is older than the habit of naming it.