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:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Origyptian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > I never claimed that it's not from the 4th
> > Dynasty. I said I'm looking for evidence
> > supporting the claim that it was from the
> > 4th Dynasty in the first place.
>
> We've already been through this with you. This is
> what you "say", but obviously not what you mean.

Yes, we've been through this before: stop trying to divine what I'm thinking and take my words on their own merit. If that's what I meant, why wouldn't I just say it? It's silly to keep pushing this "I can read your mind" contrivance.



> > It might be, but I
> > have trouble reconciling some of the physical
> > evidence with various assertions.
>
> Why might it not be?

Because it hasn't yet been proven TO be!

The silliness in these discussions is getting out of control.



> You just said you never said
> it wasn't from the 4th Dynasty yet in the next
> sentence by direct inference suggest it "might not
> be".

You don't seem to understand the basic and important difference between "is not" and "might not". In my opinion, this business about confusing a tentative possibility with a definite fact is what has gotten Egyptology into the mess it's in today.



> And what do the "various assertions"
> regarding the physical evidence have to do with
> the provenance of the diary itself? Again, where
> does the dairy say the stone was being used in the
> construction of G1?

And again, the diary doesn't say that. Tallet does. He's made "various assertions" about what's in those payri, but from what I've seen in his publications so far, the papyri don't actually say that. How many times do we need to go through this same distinction?



> We know Khufu was a 4th
> Dynasty pharaoh and that his stank is in and
> around G1 so what is the problem with
> acknowledgement of his involvement at the site
> when we know in one way or another he was?

I'm not as convinced as you are about the traditional Khufu narrative.

But Khufu aside, I've already stated many times that those blocks may have simply been sent to Giza to make repairs, restorations, or for ancillary building projects and that there is nothing about those papyri that mention any specific construction, original or otherwise.



> And let's be honest, the trouble you have
> "reconciling" this evidence is a means to an end
> to confirm your bias having nothing to do with the
> actual state of the evidence itself.

Ugh, I'm done tracking the number of times you guys are claiming to be clairvoyant or that I'm not being honest and have some kind of dark, doubt mongering agenda.

I have no preconcieved notions here other than the notion that scrutiny definitely needs to be applied whenever someone cites as evidence an unverified claim, especially a claim that originated by an early investigator who applied a different standard of proof. I just don't understand why anyone would have a problem with such a simple concept.



> Doubt for doubts sake for no other purpose...
> than to cast even further doubt on the provenance of
> the diary and hieroglyphs...

...and that's your characterization, not mine. Sure, doubt is often a byproduct of the unverified until the claim has been verified. But we (or at least I) have no reason to simply "trust" such a claim without verifying that it's based on solid evidence. Even Einstein wasn't accepted (but was he "doubted"?) until his formulas were vindicated with real independent verification decades after he proposed them. This notion about simply accepting a claim as fact without verifying its validity may have served to keep the traditional narrative self-consistent for the past few centuries, but it's useless when trying to actually determine what's true.



> Given the otherwise crude
> stoneworking of the site, if the diary and
> hieroglyphs weren't found there you wouldn't give
> it a second thought, but the fact they are then up
> is down black is white and anything could mean
> anything. Whatever it takes to doubt monger the
> 4th Dynasty provenance of the diary and glyphs.

Again, that's your characterization, not mine.

And again with your self-proclaimed clairvoyance.

The diary is not the problem. For the umpteenth time, the problem is that Tallet's claims about what those papyri say doesn't seem to be what the papyri actually say.

I hope this long post finally gets that point across.

Meanwhile, some members here claim to be able to read the glyphs. There have been some significant segments of papyri published, so what do they say? Can anyone translate them? Or shall we wait until June and see what the author has to say about it?



> > > ...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? How many
> > > times have we seen this before. But if you do have
> > > an original thought of your own, please, go on....
>
> > I don't understand your perspective. Are you
> > saying that you don't think anyone should be
> > allowed to scrutinize a claim by taking a look at
> > the evidence before accepting it as true?
>
> Where does what I said even remotely state or imply this?

Then why mention it at all if you have no problem with some of us investigating the evidence about Ankh-haf? The fact that you don't question a 4th Dynasty provenance combined with your complaint that we are "all over" Ankh-haf suggested to me that you object to any additional scrutiny. And why invoke "original thought" here, other than the fact that we seem to be investigating Tallet's (and for that matter, Reisner's) "original thought"?



> I doubt you are actually confused by
> what I meant. The problem with some of you, the
> point, is that your motivations for "scrutinizing
> a claim" in the first place is again nothing more
> than a means to an end, as if we are not 100% sure
> of something therefore it could mean anything
> which in turn "invalidates" any counter argument
> to your beliefs. If Ankh-haf wasn't mentioned by
> Merrer the lot of you would pay it no mind, but
> the fact he is means just like clock work the
> scurrying begins to cast doubt on him.

More self-proclaimed clairvoyance.

And this is an odd time for you to get into self-aggrandizement; I assume you already know that I'm on record as having a problem with Tallet's el-Jarf claims long before you mentioned anything about Ankh-haf in the context of that "harbor" facility (which is located 5 km inland from the shoreline). But as I read up on Ankh-haf, it became clear that Reiser pulled another "Heterpheres' Tomb" presumption, this time on Ankh-haf's provenance.

By the way, I assume you don't believe that each of those mastabas was only claimed by a single owner/occupant/mummy throughout all those millennia.



> At Wadi al-Jarf papyri and hieroglyphs were found
> that name the 4th Dynasty pharaoh Khufu and the
> 4th Dynasty vizier Ankh-haf which gives an
> accounting of stone transport to Giza.

I still don't understand the basis for the claim of provenance. I mean, I realize the traditional timeline puts Khufu and Ankh-haf in the 4th dynasty, but I have a problem with that timeline largely due to its lack of consideration of technology and engineering, and so there still are some tenuous aspects to that provenance, especially as they are revisited in modern times (e.g., Lehner revisting the Tomb of Hetepheres, or Romer revisiting the stress relieving aspect of the RCs, not to mention Assmann revisiting Baalbek, etc.).

Regarding the mention of "Khufu", what's the context? Is it simply the presence of the cartouche in the papyrus or that the papyrus narrative actually cites him as a contemporaneous human (and yet still with no absolute dates)? After all, if you find a note today that simply says "I visited Washington yesterday to have lunch with Martha" do you automatically think the page dates back to ca. 1790 regarding a visit with the First Lady? As I've said many times, it's not clear to me that the mention of "Khufu" on those papyri is a reference to the man himself vs. a location, credential, administration/organization, etc.

I reserve further opinion until the volume of translations comes out in June.



> This implies to some it was for construction of G1.

Sure, it's a possibility.. Just don't claim that's what the papyri actually say (as Tallet did). He seems to have overinterpreted the evidence, and so must be challenged on that, unless, of course, he is basing his claims on evidence he hasn't presented yet, which is one reason I look forward to the translations coming in June.



> What follows is the site itself is doubt mongered
> as not being from the 4th Dynasty to the last
> detail right down to the pottery and boat fragments.
> The papyri itself is doubt mongered as
> not being from the 4th Dynasty and "could have
> been put there at anytime by anyone". The same for
> the hieroglyphs on the exterior blocks- "we have
> no idea who put those there and when". Ankh-haf
> may not have been actually Khufu's half-brother.
> Doesn't matter. So then Ankh-kaf may have not even
> been from the 4th Dynasty. What does the Khufu
> cartouche "really" reffering to i.e. not an actual
> person? On and on it always goes for no reason
> other than doubt for doubt's sake. All for nothing
> as the diary makes no mention of what the stone
> was used for.

Your attempt to give the "doubt monger" meme traction might work for some, but not for everyone.

    "Caution must be exercised..."
          - Greg Marouard

And how many times are we going to agree that the papyri don't indicate what the stones were used for?

______________________________________________________________
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Imhotep 3090 Rofhessa 26-Feb-17 11:39
Re: Imhotep 322 Lee McGiffen 27-Feb-17 12:15
Re: Imhotep 445 Origyptian 27-Feb-17 15:05
Re: Imhotep 375 Thanos5150 27-Feb-17 20:39
Re: Imhotep 335 Corpuscles 28-Feb-17 07:53
Re: Imhotep 267 Rofhessa 28-Feb-17 10:34
Re: Imhotep 266 Corpuscles 28-Feb-17 21:26
Re: Imhotep 251 Rofhessa 03-Mar-17 15:30
Re: Imhotep 218 eyeofhorus33 03-Mar-17 17:04
Re: Imhotep 254 Rofhessa 05-Mar-17 19:14
Re: Imhotep 255 Thanos5150 28-Feb-17 19:07
Re: Imhotep 226 Rofhessa 28-Feb-17 10:30
Re: Imhotep 244 Origyptian 28-Feb-17 15:05
Re: Imhotep 240 cladking 28-Feb-17 17:00
Re: Imhotep 323 eyeofhorus33 28-Feb-17 21:59
Re: Imhotep 286 cladking 28-Feb-17 23:08
Re: Imhotep 260 Origyptian 01-Mar-17 01:46
Re: Imhotep 232 cladking 01-Mar-17 15:08
Re: Imhotep 183 eyeofhorus33 28-Feb-17 21:47
Re: Imhotep 181 Origyptian 28-Feb-17 21:58
Re: Imhotep 171 eyeofhorus33 28-Feb-17 22:05
Re: Imhotep 188 Origyptian 28-Feb-17 22:14
Re: Imhotep 249 eyeofhorus33 28-Feb-17 22:25
Re: Imhotep 401 Origyptian 28-Feb-17 22:30
Re: Imhotep 252 eyeofhorus33 28-Feb-17 22:52
Re: Imhotep 283 Origyptian 28-Feb-17 22:58
Re: Imhotep 178 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 03:23
Re: Imhotep 247 Corpuscles 28-Feb-17 21:53
Re: Imhotep 197 Origyptian 28-Feb-17 22:09
Re: Imhotep 253 Corpuscles 28-Feb-17 23:08
Re: Imhotep 233 Audrey 01-Mar-17 01:10
Re: Imhotep 235 Origyptian 01-Mar-17 01:56
Re: Imhotep 235 Corpuscles 01-Mar-17 04:30
Re: Imhotep 313 Audrey 01-Mar-17 05:03
Re: Imhotep 220 Corpuscles 01-Mar-17 06:36
Re: Imhotep 237 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 16:04
Re: Imhotep 209 Audrey 01-Mar-17 16:42
Re: Imhotep 204 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 04:13
Re: Imhotep 194 Audrey 01-Mar-17 01:24
Re: Imhotep 227 Thanos5150 28-Feb-17 22:39
Re: Imhotep 240 Origyptian 28-Feb-17 22:55
Re: Imhotep 193 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 03:43
Re: Imhotep 185 Origyptian 01-Mar-17 14:07
Re: Imhotep 179 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 16:52
Re: Imhotep 246 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 03:20
Re: Imhotep 282 Audrey 01-Mar-17 04:43
Re: Imhotep 220 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 14:13
Re: Imhotep 321 Origyptian 01-Mar-17 14:35
Re: Imhotep 218 cladking 01-Mar-17 15:30
Re: Imhotep 221 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 15:57
Re: Imhotep 235 Origyptian 02-Mar-17 03:36
Re: Imhotep 199 Martin Stower 02-Mar-17 18:50
Re: Imhotep 163 Origyptian 02-Mar-17 21:33
Re: Imhotep 227 Martin Stower 02-Mar-17 21:38
Re: Imhotep 235 Origyptian 02-Mar-17 21:56
Re: Imhotep 158 Martin Stower 02-Mar-17 22:30
The weaselling continues. 152 Martin Stower 02-Mar-17 22:14
Re: The weaselling continues. 241 Origyptian 02-Mar-17 22:26
Re: The weaselling continues. 209 Martin Stower 02-Mar-17 22:51
Re: Imhotep 182 cladking 01-Mar-17 15:21
Re: Imhotep 190 Origyptian 01-Mar-17 15:50
Re: Imhotep 230 cladking 01-Mar-17 17:08
Re: Imhotep 181 Thanos5150 01-Mar-17 16:11
Re: Imhotep 153 cladking 01-Mar-17 16:30
Re: Imhotep 272 Thanos5150 01-Mar-17 17:18
Re: Imhotep 208 cladking 01-Mar-17 17:23
Re: Imhotep 248 sfbey 01-Mar-17 17:57
Re: Imhotep 233 cladking 01-Mar-17 19:31
Re: Imhotep 183 Corpuscles 01-Mar-17 21:53
Re: Imhotep 163 cladking 02-Mar-17 01:26
Utterance #373 288 cladking 02-Mar-17 01:52
Re: Utterance #373 198 Corpuscles 02-Mar-17 19:23
Re: Utterance #373 163 cladking 02-Mar-17 19:33
Re: Imhotep 242 cladking 01-Mar-17 16:44
Re: Imhotep 226 Thanos5150 01-Mar-17 19:32
Re: Imhotep 145 cladking 01-Mar-17 19:54
Re: Imhotep 291 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 16:26
Re: Imhotep 162 cladking 01-Mar-17 17:19
Re: Imhotep 178 Audrey 01-Mar-17 17:07
Re: Imhotep 160 Origyptian 01-Mar-17 17:23
Re: Imhotep 192 cladking 01-Mar-17 17:42
Re: Imhotep 237 Audrey 01-Mar-17 18:10
Great Post 207 cladking 01-Mar-17 19:45
Re: Imhotep 212 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 23:05
Re: Imhotep 293 Thanos5150 01-Mar-17 18:12
Re: Imhotep 267 Audrey 02-Mar-17 06:48
Re: Imhotep 202 Martin Stower 02-Mar-17 11:32
Re: Imhotep 171 Audrey 02-Mar-17 16:51
Re: Imhotep 183 cladking 02-Mar-17 17:04
Imhotep's Sandals. 177 cladking 02-Mar-17 17:09
Re: Imhotep 144 Martin Stower 02-Mar-17 18:58
Re: Imhotep 140 Thanos5150 02-Mar-17 18:10
Re: Imhotep 201 Origyptian 02-Mar-17 18:19
Re: Imhotep 144 Thanos5150 02-Mar-17 18:40
Re: Imhotep 136 Origyptian 02-Mar-17 19:01
Re: Imhotep 214 Thanos5150 03-Mar-17 17:48
Re: Imhotep 226 Origyptian 03-Mar-17 21:19
Re: Imhotep 168 eyeofhorus33 03-Mar-17 22:28
Re: Imhotep 206 Origyptian 03-Mar-17 22:48
Re: Imhotep 187 Martin Stower 04-Mar-17 00:18
Re: Imhotep 149 Origyptian 04-Mar-17 02:40
Re: Imhotep 163 Martin Stower 04-Mar-17 03:38
Re: Imhotep 196 Thanos5150 04-Mar-17 02:33
Re: Imhotep 297 Origyptian 04-Mar-17 04:34
Re: Imhotep 221 Martin Stower 05-Mar-17 01:55
Re: Imhotep 208 Thanos5150 05-Mar-17 02:28
Re: Imhotep 369 Audrey 04-Mar-17 07:43
Re: Imhotep 241 Thanos5150 04-Mar-17 22:59
Re: Imhotep 197 Martin Stower 05-Mar-17 01:05
Re: Imhotep 137 Thanos5150 05-Mar-17 02:00
Re: Imhotep 294 Audrey 05-Mar-17 04:56
Re: Imhotep 143 Origyptian 05-Mar-17 05:32
Re: Imhotep 182 Audrey 05-Mar-17 23:51
Re: Imhotep 233 Thanos5150 05-Mar-17 06:23
Re: Imhotep 190 Martin Stower 05-Mar-17 15:22
Re: Imhotep 202 Thanos5150 05-Mar-17 16:14
Re: Imhotep 244 Audrey 06-Mar-17 02:50
Re: Imhotep 210 Thanos5150 06-Mar-17 05:38
Re: Imhotep 226 R Avry Wilson 06-Mar-17 07:06
Re: Imhotep 285 DUNE 06-Mar-17 14:49
Re: Imhotep 204 Jon Ellison 06-Mar-17 20:33
Re: Imhotep 203 DUNE 06-Mar-17 21:22
Re: Imhotep 201 Origyptian 06-Mar-17 21:38
Re: Imhotep 131 Jon Ellison 06-Mar-17 22:17
Re: Imhotep 134 Jon Ellison 06-Mar-17 22:12
Re: Imhotep 217 Thanos5150 06-Mar-17 23:32
Re: Imhotep 185 DUNE 06-Mar-17 23:56
Re: Imhotep 178 Jon Ellison 07-Mar-17 00:27
Re: Imhotep 175 Jon Ellison 07-Mar-17 01:07
Re: Imhotep 163 Jon Ellison 07-Mar-17 01:16
Re: Imhotep 296 Thanos5150 07-Mar-17 01:40
Re: Imhotep 203 Thanos5150 07-Mar-17 01:58
Re: Imhotep 217 DUNE 07-Mar-17 16:49
Re: Imhotep 198 Thanos5150 07-Mar-17 19:24
Re: Imhotep 172 Thanos5150 07-Mar-17 20:30
Re: Imhotep 255 Corpuscles 07-Mar-17 02:23
Re: Imhotep 247 Origyptian 07-Mar-17 04:45
Re: Imhotep 249 Martin Stower 07-Mar-17 11:11
Re: Imhotep 221 Origyptian 07-Mar-17 13:16
Re: Imhotep 227 Martin Stower 07-Mar-17 15:45
Re: Imhotep 228 Origyptian 07-Mar-17 16:44
Re: Imhotep 225 Martin Stower 07-Mar-17 18:40
Re: Imhotep 244 Corpuscles 07-Mar-17 21:53
Re: Imhotep 166 cladking 08-Mar-17 15:13
Re: Imhotep 296 Origyptian 08-Mar-17 16:29
Re: Imhotep 185 cladking 08-Mar-17 18:12
Re: Imhotep 242 Audrey 09-Mar-17 01:16
Interpretation vs Communication. 161 cladking 09-Mar-17 14:33
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 162 Origyptian 09-Mar-17 14:55
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 105 cladking 09-Mar-17 15:16
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 192 Origyptian 09-Mar-17 16:32
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 206 Jon Ellison 09-Mar-17 15:17
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 208 cladking 09-Mar-17 15:39
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 243 Jon Ellison 09-Mar-17 16:04
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 185 cladking 09-Mar-17 16:27
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 214 Jon Ellison 09-Mar-17 16:47
You Do the Math. 186 cladking 09-Mar-17 19:32
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 141 cladking 09-Mar-17 19:10
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 259 Jon Ellison 09-Mar-17 20:25
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 121 cladking 09-Mar-17 21:22
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 201 Jon Ellison 09-Mar-17 22:11
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 169 cladking 10-Mar-17 01:34
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 163 SandyJesse 11-Mar-17 02:15
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 198 SandyJesse 10-Mar-17 00:31
In order to build the great pyramids... 170 Racho 10-Mar-17 01:14
Re: Imhotep 206 Corpuscles 08-Mar-17 18:18
Re: Imhotep 258 Martin Stower 08-Mar-17 19:15
Re: Imhotep 229 Origyptian 08-Mar-17 22:53
Re: Imhotep 186 Martin Stower 09-Mar-17 00:33
Re: Imhotep 170 Origyptian 09-Mar-17 03:35
Re: Imhotep 176 Jon Ellison 09-Mar-17 14:53
Re: Imhotep 141 Audrey 10-Mar-17 00:51
Re: Imhotep 206 Jon Ellison 10-Mar-17 03:42
Re: Imhotep 255 Audrey 11-Mar-17 06:22
Re: Imhotep 261 Martin Stower 11-Mar-17 11:22
Re: Imhotep 222 Audrey 12-Mar-17 02:40
Re: Imhotep 163 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 03:25
Re: Imhotep 191 Audrey 12-Mar-17 04:55
Re: Imhotep 246 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 13:14
Re: Imhotep 108 Warwick 13-Mar-17 16:12
Re: Imhotep 149 cladking 12-Mar-17 04:03
Re: Imhotep 158 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 04:07
Re: Imhotep 171 cladking 12-Mar-17 14:03
Re: Imhotep 152 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 15:10
Who Knew? 151 cladking 12-Mar-17 19:26
Re: Who Knew? 141 Warwick 13-Mar-17 16:05
Re: Imhotep 176 Origyptian 12-Mar-17 16:33
Re: Imhotep 214 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 16:53
Re: Imhotep 163 cladking 12-Mar-17 19:30
Re: Imhotep 180 Origyptian 12-Mar-17 07:03
Re: Imhotep 154 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 15:33
Re: Imhotep 134 Origyptian 12-Mar-17 18:13
Re: Imhotep 144 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 18:53
Re: Imhotep 189 Origyptian 12-Mar-17 19:33
Re: Imhotep 144 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 22:50
Re: Imhotep 153 Origyptian 12-Mar-17 23:24
Re: Imhotep 192 Corpuscles 12-Mar-17 23:44
Re: Imhotep 182 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 01:21
Re: Imhotep 156 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 00:26
Re: Imhotep 143 Warwick 13-Mar-17 13:53
Re: Imhotep 130 cladking 13-Mar-17 13:59
Re: Imhotep 157 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 14:16
Re: Imhotep 135 Warwick 13-Mar-17 14:26
Re: Imhotep 174 Origyptian 13-Mar-17 16:40
Re: Imhotep 121 Warwick 13-Mar-17 16:43
Re: Imhotep 162 cladking 13-Mar-17 17:18
Re: Imhotep 187 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 17:24
Re: Imhotep 143 cladking 13-Mar-17 18:26
Re: Imhotep 135 Warwick 13-Mar-17 18:42
Re: Imhotep 180 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 20:39
Re: Imhotep 114 Warwick 13-Mar-17 18:39
Re: Imhotep 184 Origyptian 11-Mar-17 14:03
Re: Imhotep 198 Merrell 11-Mar-17 14:29
Re: Imhotep 163 cladking 11-Mar-17 15:03
Re: Imhotep 140 Merrell 11-Mar-17 15:27
Re: Imhotep 166 cladking 11-Mar-17 15:35
Re: Imhotep 196 Merrell 11-Mar-17 16:15
Re: Imhotep 176 cladking 11-Mar-17 18:52
Re: Imhotep 149 Origyptian 11-Mar-17 15:53
Re: Imhotep 222 Thanos5150 11-Mar-17 17:27
Re: Imhotep 156 Warwick 11-Mar-17 17:43
Re: Imhotep 171 Origyptian 11-Mar-17 20:13
Re: Imhotep 170 Warwick 11-Mar-17 20:34
Re: Imhotep 188 Origyptian 12-Mar-17 00:45
Re: Imhotep 220 Thanos5150 13-Mar-17 02:49
Re: Funerary Cult 196 Thunderbird 13-Mar-17 05:02
Re: Funerary Cult 131 Thanos5150 13-Mar-17 21:31
Re: Funerary Cult 107 Origyptian 13-Mar-17 22:04
Re: Funerary Cult 108 Thanos5150 13-Mar-17 22:30
Re: Funerary Cult 137 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 23:51
Re: Funerary Cult 69 Origyptian 14-Mar-17 02:54
Re: Funerary Cult 136 Martin Stower 14-Mar-17 09:23
Re: Funerary Cult 63 Origyptian 14-Mar-17 14:01
Re: Funerary Cult 130 Martin Stower 14-Mar-17 21:35
Re: Funerary Cult 91 Origyptian 14-Mar-17 23:55
Re: Funerary Cult 155 Martin Stower 15-Mar-17 01:24
Re: Funerary Cult 169 Origyptian 15-Mar-17 03:26
Re: Funerary Cult 109 Martin Stower 15-Mar-17 13:00
Re: Funerary Cult 180 Origyptian 15-Mar-17 13:34
Re: Funerary Cult 134 Martin Stower 15-Mar-17 14:32
Re: Funerary Cult 82 Origyptian 15-Mar-17 15:38
Re: Funerary Cult 99 Martin Stower 15-Mar-17 16:06
Re: Funerary Cult 105 Corpuscles 15-Mar-17 16:51
Re: Funerary Cult 53 Origyptian 15-Mar-17 17:08
Re: Funerary Cult 127 Martin Stower 15-Mar-17 19:24
Re: Funerary Cult 116 Merrell 15-Mar-17 21:40
Re: Funerary Cult 54 Origyptian 16-Mar-17 00:12
Re: Funerary Cult 135 Martin Stower 16-Mar-17 00:53
Re: Funerary Cult 47 Warwick 15-Mar-17 19:01
Re: Funerary Cult 103 eyeofhorus33 15-Mar-17 18:19
Re: Funerary Cult 70 Origyptian 15-Mar-17 20:22
Re: Funerary Cult 72 Martin Stower 15-Mar-17 21:27
Re: Funerary Cult 161 Martin Stower 15-Mar-17 21:48
Re: Funerary Cult 220 R Avry Wilson 16-Mar-17 02:08
Re: Funerary Cult 93 Warwick 15-Mar-17 18:48
Re: Funerary Cult 73 Origyptian 15-Mar-17 20:19
Re: Funerary Cult 158 Martin Stower 15-Mar-17 20:23
Re: Funerary Cult 47 Warwick 15-Mar-17 21:08
Re: Funerary Cult 99 Audrey 14-Mar-17 02:55
Re: Funerary Cult 115 Thanos5150 14-Mar-17 05:30
Re: Funerary Cult 106 Warwick 14-Mar-17 18:12
Re: Half cartouche. 62 Jon Ellison 14-Mar-17 12:14
Re: Half cartouche. 88 Martin Stower 14-Mar-17 12:43
Re: Half cartouche. 61 Jon Ellison 14-Mar-17 12:56
Re: Half cartouche. 44 Martin Stower 14-Mar-17 13:37
Re: Half cartouche. 98 Jon Ellison 14-Mar-17 13:42
Re: Half cartouche. 90 Martin Stower 14-Mar-17 15:00
Re: Half cartouche. 57 Jon Ellison 14-Mar-17 15:52
Re: Half cartouche. 106 Martin Stower 14-Mar-17 16:34
Re: Half cartouche. 216 Jon Ellison 14-Mar-17 17:19
Re: Half cartouche. 158 Martin Stower 14-Mar-17 20:07
Re: Half cartouche. 77 Jon Ellison 14-Mar-17 22:50
Re: Imhotep 129 Warwick 13-Mar-17 14:00
Re: Imhotep 119 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 14:10
Re: Imhotep 174 Merrell 13-Mar-17 15:22
Re: Imhotep 31 Warwick 13-Mar-17 15:30
Re: Imhotep 40 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 15:35
Re: Imhotep 93 Origyptian 13-Mar-17 15:51
Re: Imhotep 37 Warwick 13-Mar-17 15:58
Re: Imhotep 52 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 16:10
Re: Imhotep 80 Merrell 13-Mar-17 18:27
Re: Imhotep 100 Warwick 13-Mar-17 18:31
Re: Imhotep 88 Origyptian 13-Mar-17 18:40
Re: Imhotep 60 Warwick 13-Mar-17 18:48
Re: Imhotep 135 Origyptian 13-Mar-17 20:17
Re: Imhotep 43 Thanos5150 13-Mar-17 16:50
Re: Imhotep 91 Warwick 13-Mar-17 16:57
Re: Imhotep 87 Origyptian 13-Mar-17 18:10
Re: Imhotep 33 Warwick 13-Mar-17 19:28
Re: Imhotep 85 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 19:54
Re: Imhotep 38 Origyptian 13-Mar-17 15:48
Re: Imhotep 135 Thanos5150 13-Mar-17 16:28
Re: Imhotep 34 Warwick 13-Mar-17 16:40
Re: Imhotep 105 Origyptian 13-Mar-17 19:15
Re: Imhotep 56 Warwick 13-Mar-17 19:22
Re: Imhotep 34 Origyptian 13-Mar-17 20:30
Re: Imhotep 133 Thanos5150 13-Mar-17 21:06
Re: Imhotep 43 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 21:29
Re: Imhotep 42 Thanos5150 13-Mar-17 21:34
Re: Imhotep 97 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 22:01
Re: Imhotep 117 Thanos5150 13-Mar-17 22:41
Re: Imhotep 40 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 23:43
Re: Imhotep 103 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 12:42
Re: Imhotep 42 Thanos5150 13-Mar-17 16:42
Re: Imhotep 112 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 15:02
Re: Imhotep 118 Martin Stower 11-Mar-17 21:07
Re: Imhotep 173 Thanos5150 11-Mar-17 21:19
Re: Imhotep 184 Martin Stower 11-Mar-17 22:12
Re: Imhotep 183 Audrey 12-Mar-17 00:24
Re: Imhotep 126 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 00:55
Re: Imhotep 153 Thanos5150 12-Mar-17 01:41
Re: Imhotep 141 Audrey 12-Mar-17 02:30
Re: Imhotep 168 Thanos5150 12-Mar-17 07:02
Re: Imhotep 123 Origyptian 12-Mar-17 08:49
Re: Imhotep 87 Thanos5150 12-Mar-17 16:52
Re: Imhotep 79 Origyptian 12-Mar-17 21:10
Re: Imhotep 48 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 22:02
Re: Imhotep 54 Origyptian 12-Mar-17 22:16
Re: Imhotep 81 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 23:51
Re: Imhotep 80 Origyptian 14-Mar-17 04:04
Re: Imhotep 53 Audrey 12-Mar-17 19:54
Re: Imhotep 77 Thanos5150 12-Mar-17 21:07
Re: Imhotep 108 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 22:37
Re: Imhotep 66 Audrey 12-Mar-17 23:58
Re: Imhotep 135 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 00:20
Papyri Wadi el-Jarf 76 Corpuscles 12-Mar-17 19:58
Re: Papyri Wadi el-Jarf 138 cladking 12-Mar-17 20:06
Re: Papyri Wadi el-Jarf 112 Corpuscles 12-Mar-17 21:07
Re: Papyri Wadi el-Jarf 39 cladking 12-Mar-17 22:32
Re: Papyri Wadi el-Jarf 61 Warwick 13-Mar-17 15:38
...In a Million Years. 132 cladking 13-Mar-17 17:36
Re: ...In a Million Years. 36 Warwick 13-Mar-17 17:57
Re: ...In a Million Years. 121 cladking 13-Mar-17 18:33
I will give you one last chance 37 Warwick 13-Mar-17 19:34