> I prefer the more complete definition of
> "provenance" which indicate [sic] the
> beginning of something's existence, including
> both place and time of origin, not just where it was
> "found" in more modern times. In that regard, you
> have not established the provenance of that
> evidence, and so you have not made a case for an
> authentic OK account of a pyramid.
Completely ignoring the following explicit addition to my post, on “provenience” (for me, a latter-day Americanism) versus “provenance”:
> > We know the provenience of the tablet. As for its
> > provenance—understood as the entire history of
> > an object—requiring that it be “established”
> > is a silly and unreasonable demand. What evidence
> > could establish it? In the general case, we do
> > not know the entire life story of an object.
> In which case it is "silly and unreasonable" for
> you to insist you know the true provenance
> of that evidence (sans innuendo), claim that it
> therefore indicates an indisputable OK reference
> to a pyramid, and continue to disallow any
> alternate interpretation of that evidence.
If the world met your insane requirements and the ancient Egyptians recorded in detail the curricula vitae of every object they produced, you would be quibbling on the provenance of their records.
In other words, we have an evidential regress. Either you are too stupid to spot it, or you are employing it with a conscious intent to make your requirement unmeetable. I suspect that in your muddy world of rationalisation, you are somewhere between the two.
What evidence could possibly begin to meet such a requirement? Other than the paranormal, as I noted here:
> > Consider a coin. We may be able to tell where and
> > when it was minted, but we are not going to know
> > (short of psychometry) the details of every
> > transaction in which it was used.
Femano’s missing the point entirely is omitted.
> > Demanding that “provenance” be
> > “established” is just another bogus
> > objection.
> So you are saying that it's "bogus" to object to
> your use of an inscription as "proof" that it's an
> Old Kingdom acknowledgement of a pyramid even
> though you acknolwedge [sic] that its provenance has not
> been established, and despite the doubt cast by
> the author himself?! That's an interesting
> standard of proof.
It’s a bogus objection for the reason given above. The requirement entails an infinite regress of evidence, making it unmeetable in principle.
You’ve lost it. Not only are you not paying attention to what I have said, you are not paying attention to what you have said. In the latter case is the only hint of judgement you have shown.
Try to get it into your head that NO ONE IS CLAIMING AN OLD KINGDOM ORIGIN FOR THIS TABLET:
I am addressing this claim:
“Regarding Herodotus, it is indeed conspicuous that there’s no documentation during the millennia before him in any of the inscriptions, paintings, or artifacts that make the slightest mention of any pyramid at all, let alone the notion that they were man made.”
As I surely made adequately evident here:
Not just the Old Kingdom, but all the way to Herodotus.
Do you follow now, or do I need to simplify it further?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04-Dec-16 19:39 by Martin Stower.