> Origyptian Wrote:
> > There's no evidence it's from the 4th dynasty
> > either. That's my point. Your entire premise seems
> > to be based on the accuracy of the dynastic
> > timeline which I see as the crux of the problem.
> All of the evidence points directly to the 4th
> Dynasty. This is not a "premise" nor is it "mine"
> as it is what it is.
"All of the evidence"? What evidence? You mean a few painted blocks out in the front yard where the paint marks have no business being that legible after all that time? Or do you mean those tattered fragments of papyri that say nothing about the nature of the alleged construction projects they seem to refer to? What kind of evidence is that, that you would draw such a huge extrapolation from something so circumstantial that could have been put there at any time after those galleries were originally constructed?
> To say there is no evidence is you just being
> dishonest as the only "doubt" it does not is only
> your own of of your own imagination. Nor does it
> have anything to do with the "accuracy of the
> dynastic timeline", which is nonsense.
Obviously, based om my prior comments, I meant that there's no evidence of the original construction. I have never doubted that those galleries may have been "used" by the 4th Dynasty. But there is nothing that "proves" el-Jarf was originally constructed in the 4th Daynasty or had anything at all to do with the original construction of G1. It's all speculation by Tallet (it's not even clear that Marouard subscribes to Tallets decrees about el-Jarf).
> > I have no idea why you're attempting to cite false
> > analogies like that. You know full well what's
> > going on here, so please stop the extreme examples
> > which have no relevance here.
> The analogy is spot on an no different than what
> you apply to anything you wish to pin on your LC
> so you can save your BS. "What is going on here"
> is you once again manically doubt mongering
> anything and everything to avoid acknowledging any
> reality that does not revolve and/or include your LC.
I heartily disagree. Your analogies are of different orders of magnitude in terms of scope, technology, and logistics.
> > There is simply zero proof of the provenance of
> those galleries at el-Jarf.
> This is a lie Origyptian. It is literally that
> simple. All of the relevant artifacts date to the
> 4th Dynasty and the wharf itself is consistent
> with AE abilities and construction of which
> directly relatable later examples of other wharfs
> are found in the same area.
Thanos, if my house is 200 years old, you won't find anything in it that's dated back 200 years to the original owner, or even the original builder. All evidence of the original date has long vanished from that house. How can you possibly call it a "lie" to suggest that squatters removed all artifacts left there by its previous owner before the new owners moved in? It's a very common occurrence throughout history. There is no evidence at el-Jarf that dates the creation of those galleries or ports. According to all the evidence reported by Tallet, et al., the notion that el-Jarf may be (far) older than the 4th Dynasty remains a distinct possibility despite all the ranting to the contrary.
> Sorry, but your doubt
> mongering nonsense does not qualify as a "higher
> standard of proof" let alone any "proof" at all.
You call it doubt mongering, I call it assessment of the physical evidence.
> First you argue Merrer's diary isn't reffering to
> the monuments of Giza (and if it does then you
> cover your ass...
Why do you always try to invent a sinister side to my comments? The record clearly shows that I'm only considering the possibilities. There is no "lie", contradiction, or hypocrisy in any of my comments here. You cannot cite any evidence that disproves the possibilities I have suggested. I have no vested interest in the narrative, traditional or otherwise.
> ...by also claiming it could just be
> for repairs),then you argue they aren't even
> reffering to a pharaoh Khufu, then you claim the
> diary and artifacts could have been merely placed
> there hundreds if not thousands of years after the
> fact (as discussed before complete and utter
> nonsense), and now for no reason whatsoever you
> want the wharf itself to be "far older" which in
> Origyptian parlance means tens of thousands of
> years old belonging to your magical LC.
There you go again. I never said I "wanted" it to be this or that way. I'm only considering what is possible according to the physical evidence. I find it fascinating that you are having a hard time with that simple point and, instead, feel the urge to paint my comments into some devious plot to deliberately circumnavigate traditional thought. You are not seeing the evidence with fresh eyes but rather are viewing it within a possibly obsolete context that was invented centuries ago before investigators fully understood the implications of what they were observing. As a result we have tapered pits that look like boats and therefore must be "boat pits". And there's also that Frankensteinesque timeline that continues to suck traditionalists further into the rabbit hole.
> The fact is, regardless of what they were actually
> doing with the stone, the Merrer diary is written
> proof the AE of the 4th Dynasty were quarrying,
> lifting, and transporting stone by boat just as
> the boat pits are physical proof the AE of the 4th
> Dynasty were quarrying, lifting, transporting, and
> placing at the very least 15-20 blocks. Despite
> the fact you will manically say anything and make
> up anything to make this not so, it does not
> change the fact it is.
And Merrer says absolutely nothing about how many stones, the size of those stones, or the size of the workforce. So where's the "proof" that Merrer's tattered spreadsheet had anything to do with the original construction of G1 vs. any number of ancillary and smaller construction projects up there on Giza long after G1, et al. were originally constructed?
> Could Wadi al-Jarf have been made prior to the 4th
> Dynasty? There is no evidence of it, but if so
> given the greater context of AE history prior,
> which I already talked about, it could have been
> made anytime during the archaic Dynastic period as
> they too sailed the Red Sea not to mention
> foreigners who came to Egypt at this time. But
> just like there is no evidence of your LC there is
> no evidence, if not common sense, to suggest this
> wharf was made by your LC as well as you are
"Common sense" is not a tool normally used to draw scientific conclusions of "fact" since it incorporates too many human flaws. Common sense is what got the timeline into trouble in the first place since it is based on the "common sense" of experts in religion, language, and art who lack relevant training in science, technology, and engineering. Physical evidence takes priority over common sense.
> > > And yet there is indisputably no evidence found
> > > that dates it prior to this time. If so, tell us
> > > what it is. This the question but of course you
> > > cannot because you never can.
> > My point exactly, there is no direct evidence that
> > "indisputably" dates those galleries. Period.
> This is obviously not my point which anyone
> can read for themselves you are merely
> misrepresenting what I said. Once again, provide
> evidence it is "far older" if not a day older than
> the 4th Dynasty.
I never said it definitely, conclusively, or incontrovertibly dates before the 4th Dynasty. I simply said it was "possible" based on the lack of any evidence to the contrary and lack of direct evidence (stray artifacts found in the area notwithstanding) that actually does directly date that stonework.
> You have nothing other than you want it to be.
I don't "want" anything except the truth. To arrive at the truth I need to shed all traditional presumptions and consider only the physical evidence. And I see nothing in the physical evidence that dates that stonework to the period you are so fixated on. Seriously, please tell me what specific evidence you see that you believe "proves" that those galleries were indisputably, or at least beyond any doubt, or even probably cut in the 4th Dynasty. I don't see it.
> At this point asking you to provide
> evidence of your claims is rhetorical
And that's because I've made no claims other than the fact that the evidence supports multiple possibilities.
> ... as we already know you have none. But herein lies the
> utter nonsense of your "higher standards of proof"
> is that just because almost nothing can be proved
> "indisputably" in ancient times therefore this
> means anything is possible which is just
> delusional self-serving BS. Which again I ask-how
> would YOU indisputably date an ancient site?
And once again you drag the discussion into something personal.
I think it's clear who's being self-serving here.
> > What "claims" have I made?
> You do nothing but heap your doubt mongering BS
> over everything to support your claims yet in the
> same breath pretend they are "non-claims". Save it.
OK, so you completely deflect the question and still haven't named any claims I've made.
> > I don't understand on
> > what basis you can argue so strongly that those
> > galleries couldn't have been made far earlier than
> > the 4th dynasty.
> Lol. How can you "argue so strongly" that they are
> if even one day older?
I'm not arguing that they are older! I'm arguing that we don't know with certainty how old they are, and so it's "possible" they may be older. Why are you unable or unwilling to make that distinction?
> There is literally no
> evidence whatsoever to support this claim and all
> of the evidence that is there points
> indisputably to the 4th Dynasty.
Again, what is "all the evidence" you keep mentioning. Surely you're not referring to those painted limestone blocks out there in the open (with perfectly legible glyphs after allegedly sitting out there for over 4 millennia). Sorry, I believe you are over-interpreting the physical evidence we see at el-Jarf.
> And why do
> you keep repeating the weasley "far older"?
And why do you keep making it personal? I didn't "weasel", I've only suggested the possibility.
> You mean, what-tens of thousands of years older
> belonging to your imaginary LC that otherwise does
> not exist? Uh...maybe that's one reason against it.
Yeah, it doesn't exist, just like Gobekli, Stonehenge, and the Baalbek Sanctuary foundation don't exist simply because we don't know who built them, eh?
> > Note the differences in erosion at different strata.
> So what? These galleries are nearly 5,000yrs old Origyptian.
And so are many of the other limestone structures along the nile, but they don't always show that kind of strata erosion even though they were allegedly exposed to the environment far longer than the inside of those galleries which were presumed to have been sealed by portcullis blocks for a major part of their existence, according to Tallet.
> > Without a written record of the recency of that
> > excavation, how would you know how old that cave
> > really is?
> Lol. You're a joke. So written evidence counts for
> something made in modern times but according to
> you never in ancient times? But how do we know
> they didn't just make it up to make it seem like
> they made it but they really didn't?
And again you make it personal. How do you expect to hold credibility when you incessantly reduce the dialog to insults and sarcasm?
Thanos, I believe Abe Lincoln served as POTUS according to the historic documents. There is plenty of corroborative evidence about his campaign, the debates (especially with Douglas), and the election, there are documents signed by him, and there are thousands of artifacts in physical evidence that attest to it. The evidence is so strong that I highly doubt there is a single intelligent person on Earth that denies Lincoln was President.
At some point, though, the historic documents start to show their dubious nature and require support from hard evidence. Clearly, Herodotus and other ancient classical historians may only be taken with tentative credibility. The way they report, it's almost as if just because it seemed "logical" to them or heard it from local lore, it must have been the truth. In fact, standards in Egyptology were low as recently as the early 20th century when Egyptologists still were allowed to make wild leaps in logic to arrive at their decrees which were then wholly embraced by the discipline but which turned out to be not entirely as accurate as originally believed when subjected to more modern scrutiny. This is fact, not my opinion.
I can't wait to see what happens to the tomb hypothesis and the dynastic timeline in the next decade now that the internet is on fire with open access across all disciplines.
> > And that's really my point. There's nothing about
> > those galleries that would definitively date them
> > as being "indisputably" or even "probably"
> > constructed originallyin the 4th dynasty.
> Why always the dishonesty with you?
And again with the personal insult. Have I insulted you personally even once this entire discussion? Do you even know you're being insulting by issuing such remarks?
I've said nothing "dishonest".
> I don't get it. "Indisputably"- little in ancient history is
> therefore we are often forced to rely on the
> preponderance of context and whatever scientific
> dating we can get, but to say it is not even
> "probably" constructed in the 4th Dynasty is just
> plain fraud as this is exactly what is not only
> most "probable" but most likely.
Respectfully, those "indisputably", "context", "preponderance", "probability", and "common sense" arguments are very easy to fall into but are extremely problematic and have gotten Egyptology in to the mess it's in today. Relying on context and the presumption of "probably" is a desperate measure to force a point in the absence of hard evidence. It's a fallback position, not a valid approach to arrive at the truth. Just because Egyptologists have spent a few centuries building their own contrived "context" doesn't make it correct. It only makes it "self-consistent", reality notwithstanding. It's so easy to see a bunch of tapered pits and rush to the conclusion that they kind of look like the hull of a boat, and then without any other evidence at all jump to the conclusion they were in fact "boat pits". Then, when another one is found, it's a breeze to say "well, it's obviously a boat pit since that's what all the other tapered pits are". And the irony is that the only pits in which any substantial amount of wooden components of boats was actually found are NOT tapered, but rather are rectangular!! So where does that leave all those tapered pits? Look no farther for a textbook example of "BS".
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 12-Sep-16 18:46 by Origyptian.