> Origyptian Wrote:
> > > Thanos5150 Wrote:
> > > ...none of these storage galleries
> > > were made for complete boats...
> > There's no evidence that precludes the possibility
> > that those galleries may have been used to house
> > disassembled boats.
> Since when is "no evidence that precludes a
> possibility" of something evidence of that
> something? Is this one of your "higher standards
> of proof"?
Tallet clearly states:
- "...but we found hundreds of pieces of wood, fragments of oars, and sections of ropes that proves big boats were originally stored in those caves."
And in support of that I simply stated that there's no evidence that contradicts that possibility. I was contrasing "disassembled" with your use of "complete" just to be sure you knew I wasn't suggesting that assembled boats were placed inside those galleries.
> Previously, however, you questioned why they would
> not bury the Giza boats in one piece trying to
> cast doubt on the provenance of the boats and/or
> pits, yet now because they may have stored
> disassembled boats in maritime storage galleries
> to this somehow support your other doubt mongering
> question of "why bury the boats in a pit covered
> by blocks instead of an underground chamber"?
I was only suggesting that since Tallet has proposed that boats were placed in those galleries, and that that he dated those galleries to the time of construction of G1, that it would not be unreasonable to proposed that the boat pits around G1 might just as well have been similarly constructed galleries rather than open trenches with 40 monoliths, each weighing 15 tons, comprising the lid. I was simply addressing an issue of logical inconsistency in that argument and not what actually happened. And I realize you are trying to draw a distinction between a "grave" and "storage", but King Tut wasn't "stored" in KV62. Graves certainly can be caves and need not be relegated to open trenches covered with 600 tons of hewn megaliths.
But having said that, I personally think neither is actually the case: I highly doubt the Tallet's proposed provenance of the el-Jarf galleries and I highly doubt G1's southern pits were originally designed as "graves" for royal boats.
> These are boat graves, not storage galleries.
Says you and many traditionalists. I acknowledge it's possible those pits may have been used as boat "graves" at some point in time after those pits were hewn, but I see no compelling logic to the notion that they were originally designed to be boat graves. And nothing about the evidence there seems to preclude adaption, especially the keystones and slanted end ramp which, if anything, would direct runoff water into the pit rather than away from it...
...not to mention that many of the 35 known boat pits are tapered at the ends and not rectangular, several have concave floors while others' are flat, and some have multiple tiered "shelves" around the perimeter rather than a single ledge to support roof beams, and then there's that very wide "boat pit" east of G1 that couldn't possibly span beams of limestone without cracking unless suspended by pillars (for which there is no evidence).
> > The galleries
> > were already breached and essentially picked clean
> > by the time Tallet arrived. Tallet claimed those
> > galleries likely served as a kind of
> > long/short-term storage bins, but that's pure speculation.
> No it is not "pure speculation". There are other
> examples of maritime storage galleries very
> similar to these found at harbors elsewhere along
> the Red Sea later which there is direct evidence
> of this being their purpose and everything about
> Wadi al-Jarf says it is no different.
OK, I should have said there's no proof they were originally designed for storage. There's no proof they were hewn in the 3rd millennium BC. And I highly doubt those painted glyphs survived 4500 years on those limestone blocks out there in the open when the glyphs found in the 1st boat pit are already "almost illegible" after exposed to the atmosphere for only 25 years despite being coated with polyvinyl-acetate preservatative and with boards protecting them from the weather.
I'd love to hear how the provenance of the original caves was determined other than by association with those painted glyphs and stray fragments of papyrus which have all been openly accessible by anyone indefinitely. As far as I can tell, the erosion in those caves suggest a far older age.
Their use as a storage system cannot be ruled out as adaption. The evidence supports adaption and nothing significantly contradicts adaption.
> So in just one post you have used what you
> perceive as the lack of evidence as positive
> support of something that you want to be true and
> the same "lack of evidence" to support a negative
> of something you do not want to be true.
Again, you misinterpreted my post. It's one thing to contend there is evidence of something, and an another thing to say there also isn't any evidence to contradict that contention. For example, it's one thing to say the presence of al Mamoun's tunnel is evidence that he excavated his way into G1. However, that the main entrance was reported to have been accessed earlier by Romans and is located at a higher level than Mamoun's tunnel seems to contradict the "he dug into G1" contention.
> Which does not end however as in the very next
> sentence you argue the exact opposite of what you
> just said against Tallet:
And after all, those galleries are located
> relatively close to the harbor where one would
> expect to find boats in
> storage along with other things nautical.
> You seem to be having quite an argument with yourself.
I'm not arguing with myself. I'm simply pointing out what I consider to be inconsistencies in the orthodox argument.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?