> So you think the location it's found among all the
> other tombs directly around it that point to the
> 4th Dynasty is "irrelevant" as to its provenance?
> Did you ever look to see the artifacts they found
> inside of it as well, or the architecture, which
> maybe is part of all that stylistic "mumbo-jumbo"
> Flentye was talking about? Of course, this is
> > YOU brought it up as evidence for such. Now you
> > say it's irrelevant. Make up your mind.
> No Audrey. Even Origyptian understands the minutia
> of his familial ties to Khufu is irrelevant
> regarding the provenance of the Merrer diary.
YOU said ....
As you already know, these are not the "only" reasons the papyri are dated to the 4th Dynasty, the least of which is Khufu's half brother is also mentioned in detail as an administrator. Again(8-16):
YOU brought it up as one of the reasons why the "papyri are dated to the 4th Dynasty". I didn't focus on his family ties, you have. I haven't stressed his family ties, you have.
...the papyri notes Ankhhaf,half-brother of Khufu, was the administrator of the project who is well attested at Giza:
Still waiting for how he is "well attested at Giza". Looks like he was well attested at Giza by Reisner, based on the location of his tomb. You aren't coming up with thing else that 'attests' him. In other words you are going by what Reisner thought was the lay out of the tombs.
> Not really. The only reason you are taking this
> tack is to support Origyptian's argument,
That's really too bad you think so. Your vision is not clear and may be clouded by your anger. No matter how emphatically I deny your assumption, you won't believe it, so it's a waste of time to try to change your mind.
> as usual, that the Merrer diary doesn't belong to the
> 4th Dynasty and contradict any argument against
> it. The lot of you didn't even know who Ankh-haf
> was or his significance in Merrer's diary until I
> brought it up months ago (ignored then), yet now
> all of a sudden you are all over it trying to deny
> Ankh-haf even belongs to the 4th Dynasty?
Because YOU used Ankh-haf as one factor dating the diary.
> > I think the dating of Wadi al-Jarf is
> > circumstantial, not a drop of science to
> > it. It's dated by the Khufu cartouche, period.
> What does the dating of Wadi al-Jarf have to do
> with the dating of the papyri?
Ask Tallet & Marouard, who for some reason title their papers with "Wadi al-Jarf", naming the site where the objects were found.
> So you omitted all the rest, which would be
> all the rest, that directly contradicts
> your opinion on purpose? My bad.
For some strange reason you think I should have posted the whole article. I gave the links so everyone could read it for themselves. Why on earth would I make unnecessary long posts when I made the articles available?
There is no need to post an entire article when the link is given. Then others can find within an article what they think are points to be discussed. If you don't like this technique, that's really your problem.
> You mean like the 700+ samples taken from the
> predynastic through the OK which clearly place
> their provenance in the 4th-3rd millenniums?
> Again, good to know the whole "science" thing is
> finally catching up with you.
They found 700+ samples at Wadi al-Jarf? We have been talking about that site, have you now gone sideways into a different subject?
> > A house of cards waiting for a breeze.
> Whatever you say Cladking.
I'm pretty sure that was my comment that I posted and not Cladkings. Unless ck can edit my posts.
> So I guess this means the tombs must date to the
> NK then. Good work Audrey.
You believe what the Egyptologists say, I'll make up my own mind, if it doesn't upset you too much
> > Now if they only had some proof of who Khufu
> > And don't give me that 'context' crap. The
> > was gathered after the fact to bolster
> > their guesses.
> Oyyy... Not this again.
It will be "this again" for some time to come. You thought the subject would go away because you & Stower spit on it?
> If this is all you think it is I can't help you.
> No one is claiming the KFC across the street was
> built in the 4th Dynasty-why do you think that is?
Why do you think that's a good analogy?
> The difference is that all it is these
> "others" know (if that) is that it sits next door
> and otherwise know nothing else about what
> connects them. Bravo-got me there. And these
> "others" would include the dynamic duo of who-you
> and Origyptian? Well, hot damn. That may be
> good enough for you, but sure as hell not
> enough for me nor anyone else not named Jon or
> Cladking here I suspect.
Yet you fail to mention anything else that connects Ankh-haf to the 4th dyn.
> Audrey, the new champion of "science". And if RCD
> said it dated to the 3rd millennium then rest
> assured your narrative would only be something
> else to naysay the provenance.
Not at all. I haven't expressed my opinion on when Ankh-haf lived. But evidently we will never know because Egyptology doesn't like to RCD
> Audrey, you cite multiple papers to contradict the
> opinion Ankh-haf is related to Khufu in some way
I DID NOT cite those papers to contradict his family ties. I cited them to show how Egyptology has placed him in the 4th dyn.
> yet ignore the fact not one word of it contradicts
> your greater point that you believe he does not
> date to the 4th Dynasty. You cherry pick-quotes to
> serve your narrative
I DID NOT cherry pick. I know this is one of the frequent complaints you use to invalidate the poster, but I was just the messenger. The articles were made available for everyone to read. I am not about to post the entire article just so you & Stower won't scream cherry picking.
> then ignore the rest in that
> otherwise there is no discrepancy as to the
> 4th Dynasty date of Ankh-haf. But please, quote
> one of your sources that supports this idea.
Why should I? The point is Egyptology says he is 4th dyn. It's not my job to disprove it. I'm only showing that the reason they say so is not based on good evidence let alone science. Why can't you guys understand the difference? It's that same old mindset of - no one can disagree unless they have a better idea.
> So I am to thank you for reciting papers written
> by Egyptologists you cherry pick from out of
> context to support your otherwise unsubstantiated
Nope, no need to be grateful. And no need to insult the messenger who just happened to not post the articles in a way that would be pleasing to YOU.
> yet if I were to quote them myself to
> support the opposing view then it is I that is
> somehow the lesser for it?
No at all and do not see why you would come to this conclusion. Boy, you're really pissed that I didn't post the entire article.
> I believe that's called
> "irony" among other things, but rest assured we
> can at least count on me to quote them accurately
> and honestly if and when I do.
Yes, Thanos the Savior. How quickly you worked yourself up to that status
> The simple truth is that you are not worth my time
> to write an expose regarding the context of the
> eastern cemetery and interconnectedness of the
> artifacts and architecture that no doubt you will
> surely not understand anyways and argue with me
> about it all the same. I'd say once in a week is
> enough. But since you are the one with such
> doubts, please tell us why the eastern cemetery
> and/or the people found in it do not belong to the
> 4th Dynasty.
Because there is nothing to say they do except location.
> Hint-the big one at the bottom labelled G7510
> would be Ankh-haf's.
I gave the tomb number G7510 in a previous post, but thanks for the help.
> Some quip to follow how it is I who am not
> worth your time? You'd be right.
I don't think like that, so I wouldn't say it. But if that imaginary conversation makes you feel good, go for it.
> Its funny to me though how the lot of you decry
> anything that dates the great pyrmaids to the
> Dynastic period, yet by the same token you equally
> deny anything that dates the 4th Dynasty to, well,
> the 4th Dynasty, as if this period was just a void
> in time. If the likes of Ankh-haf do not belong to
> the 4th Dynasty then I am curious-who did?
> No one? If not then where and who do you think
> they are?
The answer to that is too long to put in a post. It would require a book to answer.
> > There really isn't anything about you that is
> If the measure of such is the likes of yourself,
> Origyptian, Cladking et al, then I take that as a
> high compliment.
> Origpytian's attack parrot says what? If by
> "status quo" you mean the truth then yes, I agree.
> Wow, two compliments in one day. Your insults by
> way of saying the opposite of what you know is the
> truth because you think that's what will get under
> the other person's skin the most is quite tired at
> this point.
That's just silly. You're pseudo pyscho babble is what's tiring.
> Though you feel it clever, to the rest
> of us it's just plain dishonest which is a
> reflection of your character, not ours.
You use the word "dishonest" frequently yet how you use it is puzzling. Why call someone "dishonest" if they are posting what they truly believe?
> I fail to see how calling out belligerent
> intellectual frauds for what they are is an
WHO is being belligerent?
> The real insult is that the rest of us
> have to suffer it in the first place.
You don't have to "suffer" anything. You're not a victim. You choose to read and post here. If it's too much to bear, then don't do it. Your choice, no one's forcing you.
> And given
> these are the people you have cast your lot with
> and defend like a rabid dog every day, despite the
> fact I know you know they are full of shit- what
> does this say about you?
I cast my lot with those I share interests with. Unfortunately I did not consult Oracle Thanos for his approval first, who knows all truths and therefore knows who is full of shit.
I don't cast my lot with those who think they know everything.
> It's ok to be
> willfully ignorant intellectual frauds because
> they are on your "team"? Sounds like some of these
> "higher standards" we've heard so much about.
Brother, you're really pissed about nothing. I don't think tirades will further you points, but I could be wrong. Maybe less judgmental emotion and more objectivity would be better for a forum.
This is what I call... stupid; going back and forth trying to reason point by point with one of your tirades. It's got to be boring for the readers. Insult me, call me what your wish, I will not engage in anymore of your tantrums. And I will continue to form my own opinions outside of Egyptology. You can't stop that.
If you want to talk about the subjects, that's great. But the subject isn't ME. The subject WAS Ankh-haf and Wadi al-Jarf, which I think you have now effectively buried