Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Thanos5150 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 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
> meaningless.

> > 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 ....
Quote
Thanos
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.

Quote
Thanos
...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
> support
> > 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
> was.
> > And don't give me that 'context' crap. The
> context
> > 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
> beliefs,

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
> alt.

> If the measure of such is the likes of yourself,
> Origyptian, Cladking et al, then I take that as a
> high compliment.

You're welcome

> 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
> "insult".

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

He who knows all the answers has not been asked all the questions - Confucius

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Imhotep 3062 Rofhessa 26-Feb-17 11:39
Re: Imhotep 308 Lee McGiffen 27-Feb-17 12:15
Re: Imhotep 431 Origyptian 27-Feb-17 15:05
Re: Imhotep 361 Thanos5150 27-Feb-17 20:39
Re: Imhotep 315 Corpuscles 28-Feb-17 07:53
Re: Imhotep 259 Rofhessa 28-Feb-17 10:34
Re: Imhotep 257 Corpuscles 28-Feb-17 21:26
Re: Imhotep 229 Rofhessa 03-Mar-17 15:30
Re: Imhotep 201 eyeofhorus33 03-Mar-17 17:04
Re: Imhotep 235 Rofhessa 05-Mar-17 19:14
Re: Imhotep 239 Thanos5150 28-Feb-17 19:07
Re: Imhotep 210 Rofhessa 28-Feb-17 10:30
Re: Imhotep 233 Origyptian 28-Feb-17 15:05
Re: Imhotep 223 cladking 28-Feb-17 17:00
Re: Imhotep 305 eyeofhorus33 28-Feb-17 21:59
Re: Imhotep 266 cladking 28-Feb-17 23:08
Re: Imhotep 248 Origyptian 01-Mar-17 01:46
Re: Imhotep 214 cladking 01-Mar-17 15:08
Re: Imhotep 166 eyeofhorus33 28-Feb-17 21:47
Re: Imhotep 170 Origyptian 28-Feb-17 21:58
Re: Imhotep 160 eyeofhorus33 28-Feb-17 22:05
Re: Imhotep 176 Origyptian 28-Feb-17 22:14
Re: Imhotep 233 eyeofhorus33 28-Feb-17 22:25
Re: Imhotep 389 Origyptian 28-Feb-17 22:30
Re: Imhotep 239 eyeofhorus33 28-Feb-17 22:52
Re: Imhotep 275 Origyptian 28-Feb-17 22:58
Re: Imhotep 167 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 03:23
Re: Imhotep 234 Corpuscles 28-Feb-17 21:53
Re: Imhotep 191 Origyptian 28-Feb-17 22:09
Re: Imhotep 245 Corpuscles 28-Feb-17 23:08
Re: Imhotep 224 Audrey 01-Mar-17 01:10
Re: Imhotep 219 Origyptian 01-Mar-17 01:56
Re: Imhotep 224 Corpuscles 01-Mar-17 04:30
Re: Imhotep 299 Audrey 01-Mar-17 05:03
Re: Imhotep 212 Corpuscles 01-Mar-17 06:36
Re: Imhotep 227 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 16:04
Re: Imhotep 191 Audrey 01-Mar-17 16:42
Re: Imhotep 190 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 04:13
Re: Imhotep 189 Audrey 01-Mar-17 01:24
Re: Imhotep 216 Thanos5150 28-Feb-17 22:39
Re: Imhotep 223 Origyptian 28-Feb-17 22:55
Re: Imhotep 184 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 03:43
Re: Imhotep 178 Origyptian 01-Mar-17 14:07
Re: Imhotep 169 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 16:52
Re: Imhotep 229 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 03:20
Re: Imhotep 271 Audrey 01-Mar-17 04:43
Re: Imhotep 205 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 14:13
Re: Imhotep 311 Origyptian 01-Mar-17 14:35
Re: Imhotep 205 cladking 01-Mar-17 15:30
Re: Imhotep 210 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 15:57
Re: Imhotep 222 Origyptian 02-Mar-17 03:36
Re: Imhotep 187 Martin Stower 02-Mar-17 18:50
Re: Imhotep 156 Origyptian 02-Mar-17 21:33
Re: Imhotep 214 Martin Stower 02-Mar-17 21:38
Re: Imhotep 219 Origyptian 02-Mar-17 21:56
Re: Imhotep 150 Martin Stower 02-Mar-17 22:30
The weaselling continues. 141 Martin Stower 02-Mar-17 22:14
Re: The weaselling continues. 224 Origyptian 02-Mar-17 22:26
Re: The weaselling continues. 200 Martin Stower 02-Mar-17 22:51
Re: Imhotep 174 cladking 01-Mar-17 15:21
Re: Imhotep 181 Origyptian 01-Mar-17 15:50
Re: Imhotep 206 cladking 01-Mar-17 17:08
Re: Imhotep 173 Thanos5150 01-Mar-17 16:11
Re: Imhotep 148 cladking 01-Mar-17 16:30
Re: Imhotep 259 Thanos5150 01-Mar-17 17:18
Re: Imhotep 197 cladking 01-Mar-17 17:23
Re: Imhotep 234 sfbey 01-Mar-17 17:57
Re: Imhotep 221 cladking 01-Mar-17 19:31
Re: Imhotep 176 Corpuscles 01-Mar-17 21:53
Re: Imhotep 153 cladking 02-Mar-17 01:26
Utterance #373 278 cladking 02-Mar-17 01:52
Re: Utterance #373 177 Corpuscles 02-Mar-17 19:23
Re: Utterance #373 153 cladking 02-Mar-17 19:33
Re: Imhotep 226 cladking 01-Mar-17 16:44
Re: Imhotep 212 Thanos5150 01-Mar-17 19:32
Re: Imhotep 137 cladking 01-Mar-17 19:54
Re: Imhotep 276 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 16:26
Re: Imhotep 149 cladking 01-Mar-17 17:19
Re: Imhotep 171 Audrey 01-Mar-17 17:07
Re: Imhotep 151 Origyptian 01-Mar-17 17:23
Re: Imhotep 179 cladking 01-Mar-17 17:42
Re: Imhotep 224 Audrey 01-Mar-17 18:10
Great Post 196 cladking 01-Mar-17 19:45
Re: Imhotep 202 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 23:05
Re: Imhotep 280 Thanos5150 01-Mar-17 18:12
Re: Imhotep 251 Audrey 02-Mar-17 06:48
Re: Imhotep 189 Martin Stower 02-Mar-17 11:32
Re: Imhotep 162 Audrey 02-Mar-17 16:51
Re: Imhotep 169 cladking 02-Mar-17 17:04
Imhotep's Sandals. 168 cladking 02-Mar-17 17:09
Re: Imhotep 137 Martin Stower 02-Mar-17 18:58
Re: Imhotep 133 Thanos5150 02-Mar-17 18:10
Re: Imhotep 181 Origyptian 02-Mar-17 18:19
Re: Imhotep 134 Thanos5150 02-Mar-17 18:40
Re: Imhotep 128 Origyptian 02-Mar-17 19:01
Re: Imhotep 198 Thanos5150 03-Mar-17 17:48
Re: Imhotep 204 Origyptian 03-Mar-17 21:19
Re: Imhotep 159 eyeofhorus33 03-Mar-17 22:28
Re: Imhotep 200 Origyptian 03-Mar-17 22:48
Re: Imhotep 176 Martin Stower 04-Mar-17 00:18
Re: Imhotep 143 Origyptian 04-Mar-17 02:40
Re: Imhotep 154 Martin Stower 04-Mar-17 03:38
Re: Imhotep 180 Thanos5150 04-Mar-17 02:33
Re: Imhotep 277 Origyptian 04-Mar-17 04:34
Re: Imhotep 207 Martin Stower 05-Mar-17 01:55
Re: Imhotep 193 Thanos5150 05-Mar-17 02:28
Re: Imhotep 354 Audrey 04-Mar-17 07:43
Re: Imhotep 221 Thanos5150 04-Mar-17 22:59
Re: Imhotep 183 Martin Stower 05-Mar-17 01:05
Re: Imhotep 130 Thanos5150 05-Mar-17 02:00
Re: Imhotep 270 Audrey 05-Mar-17 04:56
Re: Imhotep 133 Origyptian 05-Mar-17 05:32
Re: Imhotep 170 Audrey 05-Mar-17 23:51
Re: Imhotep 219 Thanos5150 05-Mar-17 06:23
Re: Imhotep 182 Martin Stower 05-Mar-17 15:22
Re: Imhotep 187 Thanos5150 05-Mar-17 16:14
Re: Imhotep 225 Audrey 06-Mar-17 02:50
Re: Imhotep 200 Thanos5150 06-Mar-17 05:38
Re: Imhotep 218 R Avry Wilson 06-Mar-17 07:06
Re: Imhotep 272 DUNE 06-Mar-17 14:49
Re: Imhotep 192 Jon Ellison 06-Mar-17 20:33
Re: Imhotep 186 DUNE 06-Mar-17 21:22
Re: Imhotep 186 Origyptian 06-Mar-17 21:38
Re: Imhotep 125 Jon Ellison 06-Mar-17 22:17
Re: Imhotep 125 Jon Ellison 06-Mar-17 22:12
Re: Imhotep 202 Thanos5150 06-Mar-17 23:32
Re: Imhotep 170 DUNE 06-Mar-17 23:56
Re: Imhotep 165 Jon Ellison 07-Mar-17 00:27
Re: Imhotep 159 Jon Ellison 07-Mar-17 01:07
Re: Imhotep 147 Jon Ellison 07-Mar-17 01:16
Re: Imhotep 256 Thanos5150 07-Mar-17 01:40
Re: Imhotep 190 Thanos5150 07-Mar-17 01:58
Re: Imhotep 204 DUNE 07-Mar-17 16:49
Re: Imhotep 181 Thanos5150 07-Mar-17 19:24
Re: Imhotep 158 Thanos5150 07-Mar-17 20:30
Re: Imhotep 234 Corpuscles 07-Mar-17 02:23
Re: Imhotep 232 Origyptian 07-Mar-17 04:45
Re: Imhotep 233 Martin Stower 07-Mar-17 11:11
Re: Imhotep 212 Origyptian 07-Mar-17 13:16
Re: Imhotep 212 Martin Stower 07-Mar-17 15:45
Re: Imhotep 214 Origyptian 07-Mar-17 16:44
Re: Imhotep 214 Martin Stower 07-Mar-17 18:40
Re: Imhotep 229 Corpuscles 07-Mar-17 21:53
Re: Imhotep 156 cladking 08-Mar-17 15:13
Re: Imhotep 279 Origyptian 08-Mar-17 16:29
Re: Imhotep 176 cladking 08-Mar-17 18:12
Re: Imhotep 228 Audrey 09-Mar-17 01:16
Interpretation vs Communication. 150 cladking 09-Mar-17 14:33
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 152 Origyptian 09-Mar-17 14:55
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 98 cladking 09-Mar-17 15:16
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 177 Origyptian 09-Mar-17 16:32
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 191 Jon Ellison 09-Mar-17 15:17
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 189 cladking 09-Mar-17 15:39
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 222 Jon Ellison 09-Mar-17 16:04
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 173 cladking 09-Mar-17 16:27
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 201 Jon Ellison 09-Mar-17 16:47
You Do the Math. 175 cladking 09-Mar-17 19:32
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 129 cladking 09-Mar-17 19:10
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 240 Jon Ellison 09-Mar-17 20:25
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 113 cladking 09-Mar-17 21:22
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 185 Jon Ellison 09-Mar-17 22:11
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 155 cladking 10-Mar-17 01:34
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 155 SandyJesse 11-Mar-17 02:15
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 185 SandyJesse 10-Mar-17 00:31
In order to build the great pyramids... 155 Racho 10-Mar-17 01:14
Re: Imhotep 194 Corpuscles 08-Mar-17 18:18
Re: Imhotep 243 Martin Stower 08-Mar-17 19:15
Re: Imhotep 211 Origyptian 08-Mar-17 22:53
Re: Imhotep 173 Martin Stower 09-Mar-17 00:33
Re: Imhotep 160 Origyptian 09-Mar-17 03:35
Re: Imhotep 163 Jon Ellison 09-Mar-17 14:53
Re: Imhotep 128 Audrey 10-Mar-17 00:51
Re: Imhotep 191 Jon Ellison 10-Mar-17 03:42
Re: Imhotep 247 Audrey 11-Mar-17 06:22
Re: Imhotep 238 Martin Stower 11-Mar-17 11:22
Re: Imhotep 208 Audrey 12-Mar-17 02:40
Re: Imhotep 156 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 03:25
Re: Imhotep 178 Audrey 12-Mar-17 04:55
Re: Imhotep 231 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 13:14
Re: Imhotep 100 Warwick 13-Mar-17 16:12
Re: Imhotep 143 cladking 12-Mar-17 04:03
Re: Imhotep 150 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 04:07
Re: Imhotep 159 cladking 12-Mar-17 14:03
Re: Imhotep 142 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 15:10
Who Knew? 141 cladking 12-Mar-17 19:26
Re: Who Knew? 132 Warwick 13-Mar-17 16:05
Re: Imhotep 159 Origyptian 12-Mar-17 16:33
Re: Imhotep 199 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 16:53
Re: Imhotep 154 cladking 12-Mar-17 19:30
Re: Imhotep 172 Origyptian 12-Mar-17 07:03
Re: Imhotep 148 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 15:33
Re: Imhotep 125 Origyptian 12-Mar-17 18:13
Re: Imhotep 135 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 18:53
Re: Imhotep 178 Origyptian 12-Mar-17 19:33
Re: Imhotep 132 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 22:50
Re: Imhotep 145 Origyptian 12-Mar-17 23:24
Re: Imhotep 174 Corpuscles 12-Mar-17 23:44
Re: Imhotep 168 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 01:21
Re: Imhotep 152 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 00:26
Re: Imhotep 128 Warwick 13-Mar-17 13:53
Re: Imhotep 124 cladking 13-Mar-17 13:59
Re: Imhotep 145 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 14:16
Re: Imhotep 123 Warwick 13-Mar-17 14:26
Re: Imhotep 159 Origyptian 13-Mar-17 16:40
Re: Imhotep 114 Warwick 13-Mar-17 16:43
Re: Imhotep 152 cladking 13-Mar-17 17:18
Re: Imhotep 172 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 17:24
Re: Imhotep 136 cladking 13-Mar-17 18:26
Re: Imhotep 118 Warwick 13-Mar-17 18:42
Re: Imhotep 162 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 20:39
Re: Imhotep 103 Warwick 13-Mar-17 18:39
Re: Imhotep 166 Origyptian 11-Mar-17 14:03
Re: Imhotep 182 Merrell 11-Mar-17 14:29
Re: Imhotep 149 cladking 11-Mar-17 15:03
Re: Imhotep 130 Merrell 11-Mar-17 15:27
Re: Imhotep 158 cladking 11-Mar-17 15:35
Re: Imhotep 184 Merrell 11-Mar-17 16:15
Re: Imhotep 161 cladking 11-Mar-17 18:52
Re: Imhotep 133 Origyptian 11-Mar-17 15:53
Re: Imhotep 207 Thanos5150 11-Mar-17 17:27
Re: Imhotep 144 Warwick 11-Mar-17 17:43
Re: Imhotep 159 Origyptian 11-Mar-17 20:13
Re: Imhotep 159 Warwick 11-Mar-17 20:34
Re: Imhotep 173 Origyptian 12-Mar-17 00:45
Re: Imhotep 205 Thanos5150 13-Mar-17 02:49
Re: Funerary Cult 182 Thunderbird 13-Mar-17 05:02
Re: Funerary Cult 123 Thanos5150 13-Mar-17 21:31
Re: Funerary Cult 97 Origyptian 13-Mar-17 22:04
Re: Funerary Cult 100 Thanos5150 13-Mar-17 22:30
Re: Funerary Cult 132 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 23:51
Re: Funerary Cult 58 Origyptian 14-Mar-17 02:54
Re: Funerary Cult 125 Martin Stower 14-Mar-17 09:23
Re: Funerary Cult 63 Origyptian 14-Mar-17 14:01
Re: Funerary Cult 122 Martin Stower 14-Mar-17 21:35
Re: Funerary Cult 87 Origyptian 14-Mar-17 23:55
Re: Funerary Cult 147 Martin Stower 15-Mar-17 01:24
Re: Funerary Cult 162 Origyptian 15-Mar-17 03:26
Re: Funerary Cult 101 Martin Stower 15-Mar-17 13:00
Re: Funerary Cult 172 Origyptian 15-Mar-17 13:34
Re: Funerary Cult 124 Martin Stower 15-Mar-17 14:32
Re: Funerary Cult 81 Origyptian 15-Mar-17 15:38
Re: Funerary Cult 85 Martin Stower 15-Mar-17 16:06
Re: Funerary Cult 97 Corpuscles 15-Mar-17 16:51
Re: Funerary Cult 52 Origyptian 15-Mar-17 17:08
Re: Funerary Cult 119 Martin Stower 15-Mar-17 19:24
Re: Funerary Cult 106 Merrell 15-Mar-17 21:40
Re: Funerary Cult 52 Origyptian 16-Mar-17 00:12
Re: Funerary Cult 118 Martin Stower 16-Mar-17 00:53
Re: Funerary Cult 46 Warwick 15-Mar-17 19:01
Re: Funerary Cult 94 eyeofhorus33 15-Mar-17 18:19
Re: Funerary Cult 63 Origyptian 15-Mar-17 20:22
Re: Funerary Cult 67 Martin Stower 15-Mar-17 21:27
Re: Funerary Cult 145 Martin Stower 15-Mar-17 21:48
Re: Funerary Cult 214 R Avry Wilson 16-Mar-17 02:08
Re: Funerary Cult 89 Warwick 15-Mar-17 18:48
Re: Funerary Cult 69 Origyptian 15-Mar-17 20:19
Re: Funerary Cult 147 Martin Stower 15-Mar-17 20:23
Re: Funerary Cult 46 Warwick 15-Mar-17 21:08
Re: Funerary Cult 88 Audrey 14-Mar-17 02:55
Re: Funerary Cult 112 Thanos5150 14-Mar-17 05:30
Re: Funerary Cult 95 Warwick 14-Mar-17 18:12
Re: Half cartouche. 60 Jon Ellison 14-Mar-17 12:14
Re: Half cartouche. 81 Martin Stower 14-Mar-17 12:43
Re: Half cartouche. 61 Jon Ellison 14-Mar-17 12:56
Re: Half cartouche. 42 Martin Stower 14-Mar-17 13:37
Re: Half cartouche. 94 Jon Ellison 14-Mar-17 13:42
Re: Half cartouche. 89 Martin Stower 14-Mar-17 15:00
Re: Half cartouche. 55 Jon Ellison 14-Mar-17 15:52
Re: Half cartouche. 95 Martin Stower 14-Mar-17 16:34
Re: Half cartouche. 203 Jon Ellison 14-Mar-17 17:19
Re: Half cartouche. 143 Martin Stower 14-Mar-17 20:07
Re: Half cartouche. 75 Jon Ellison 14-Mar-17 22:50
Re: Imhotep 115 Warwick 13-Mar-17 14:00
Re: Imhotep 105 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 14:10
Re: Imhotep 154 Merrell 13-Mar-17 15:22
Re: Imhotep 30 Warwick 13-Mar-17 15:30
Re: Imhotep 40 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 15:35
Re: Imhotep 86 Origyptian 13-Mar-17 15:51
Re: Imhotep 36 Warwick 13-Mar-17 15:58
Re: Imhotep 48 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 16:10
Re: Imhotep 67 Merrell 13-Mar-17 18:27
Re: Imhotep 92 Warwick 13-Mar-17 18:31
Re: Imhotep 78 Origyptian 13-Mar-17 18:40
Re: Imhotep 55 Warwick 13-Mar-17 18:48
Re: Imhotep 117 Origyptian 13-Mar-17 20:17
Re: Imhotep 42 Thanos5150 13-Mar-17 16:50
Re: Imhotep 86 Warwick 13-Mar-17 16:57
Re: Imhotep 81 Origyptian 13-Mar-17 18:10
Re: Imhotep 32 Warwick 13-Mar-17 19:28
Re: Imhotep 76 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 19:54
Re: Imhotep 37 Origyptian 13-Mar-17 15:48
Re: Imhotep 125 Thanos5150 13-Mar-17 16:28
Re: Imhotep 33 Warwick 13-Mar-17 16:40
Re: Imhotep 94 Origyptian 13-Mar-17 19:15
Re: Imhotep 47 Warwick 13-Mar-17 19:22
Re: Imhotep 33 Origyptian 13-Mar-17 20:30
Re: Imhotep 129 Thanos5150 13-Mar-17 21:06
Re: Imhotep 39 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 21:29
Re: Imhotep 42 Thanos5150 13-Mar-17 21:34
Re: Imhotep 89 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 22:01
Re: Imhotep 109 Thanos5150 13-Mar-17 22:41
Re: Imhotep 39 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 23:43
Re: Imhotep 99 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 12:42
Re: Imhotep 41 Thanos5150 13-Mar-17 16:42
Re: Imhotep 103 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 15:02
Re: Imhotep 110 Martin Stower 11-Mar-17 21:07
Re: Imhotep 166 Thanos5150 11-Mar-17 21:19
Re: Imhotep 172 Martin Stower 11-Mar-17 22:12
Re: Imhotep 169 Audrey 12-Mar-17 00:24
Re: Imhotep 109 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 00:55
Re: Imhotep 140 Thanos5150 12-Mar-17 01:41
Re: Imhotep 130 Audrey 12-Mar-17 02:30
Re: Imhotep 157 Thanos5150 12-Mar-17 07:02
Re: Imhotep 117 Origyptian 12-Mar-17 08:49
Re: Imhotep 77 Thanos5150 12-Mar-17 16:52
Re: Imhotep 72 Origyptian 12-Mar-17 21:10
Re: Imhotep 45 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 22:02
Re: Imhotep 53 Origyptian 12-Mar-17 22:16
Re: Imhotep 73 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 23:51
Re: Imhotep 75 Origyptian 14-Mar-17 04:04
Re: Imhotep 50 Audrey 12-Mar-17 19:54
Re: Imhotep 71 Thanos5150 12-Mar-17 21:07
Re: Imhotep 100 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 22:37
Re: Imhotep 65 Audrey 12-Mar-17 23:58
Re: Imhotep 118 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 00:20
Papyri Wadi el-Jarf 74 Corpuscles 12-Mar-17 19:58
Re: Papyri Wadi el-Jarf 127 cladking 12-Mar-17 20:06
Re: Papyri Wadi el-Jarf 102 Corpuscles 12-Mar-17 21:07
Re: Papyri Wadi el-Jarf 39 cladking 12-Mar-17 22:32
Re: Papyri Wadi el-Jarf 53 Warwick 13-Mar-17 15:38
...In a Million Years. 123 cladking 13-Mar-17 17:36
Re: ...In a Million Years. 34 Warwick 13-Mar-17 17:57
Re: ...In a Million Years. 110 cladking 13-Mar-17 18:33