Mysteries :  The Official 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 2994 Rofhessa 26-Feb-17 11:39
Re: Imhotep 288 Lee McGiffen 27-Feb-17 12:15
Re: Imhotep 396 Origyptian 27-Feb-17 15:05
Re: Imhotep 315 Thanos5150 27-Feb-17 20:39
Re: Imhotep 277 Corpuscles 28-Feb-17 07:53
Re: Imhotep 240 Rofhessa 28-Feb-17 10:34
Re: Imhotep 240 Corpuscles 28-Feb-17 21:26
Re: Imhotep 196 Rofhessa 03-Mar-17 15:30
Re: Imhotep 173 eyeofhorus33 03-Mar-17 17:04
Re: Imhotep 207 Rofhessa 05-Mar-17 19:14
Re: Imhotep 217 Thanos5150 28-Feb-17 19:07
Re: Imhotep 180 Rofhessa 28-Feb-17 10:30
Re: Imhotep 213 Origyptian 28-Feb-17 15:05
Re: Imhotep 192 cladking 28-Feb-17 17:00
Re: Imhotep 267 eyeofhorus33 28-Feb-17 21:59
Re: Imhotep 233 cladking 28-Feb-17 23:08
Re: Imhotep 232 Origyptian 01-Mar-17 01:46
Re: Imhotep 183 cladking 01-Mar-17 15:08
Re: Imhotep 142 eyeofhorus33 28-Feb-17 21:47
Re: Imhotep 150 Origyptian 28-Feb-17 21:58
Re: Imhotep 144 eyeofhorus33 28-Feb-17 22:05
Re: Imhotep 161 Origyptian 28-Feb-17 22:14
Re: Imhotep 198 eyeofhorus33 28-Feb-17 22:25
Re: Imhotep 355 Origyptian 28-Feb-17 22:30
Re: Imhotep 210 eyeofhorus33 28-Feb-17 22:52
Re: Imhotep 256 Origyptian 28-Feb-17 22:58
Re: Imhotep 149 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 03:23
Re: Imhotep 199 Corpuscles 28-Feb-17 21:53
Re: Imhotep 173 Origyptian 28-Feb-17 22:09
Re: Imhotep 228 Corpuscles 28-Feb-17 23:08
Re: Imhotep 206 Audrey 01-Mar-17 01:10
Re: Imhotep 185 Origyptian 01-Mar-17 01:56
Re: Imhotep 193 Corpuscles 01-Mar-17 04:30
Re: Imhotep 262 Audrey 01-Mar-17 05:03
Re: Imhotep 186 Corpuscles 01-Mar-17 06:36
Re: Imhotep 198 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 16:04
Re: Imhotep 166 Audrey 01-Mar-17 16:42
Re: Imhotep 172 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 04:13
Re: Imhotep 172 Audrey 01-Mar-17 01:24
Re: Imhotep 197 Thanos5150 28-Feb-17 22:39
Re: Imhotep 195 Origyptian 28-Feb-17 22:55
Re: Imhotep 171 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 03:43
Re: Imhotep 165 Origyptian 01-Mar-17 14:07
Re: Imhotep 153 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 16:52
Re: Imhotep 206 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 03:20
Re: Imhotep 248 Audrey 01-Mar-17 04:43
Re: Imhotep 178 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 14:13
Re: Imhotep 282 Origyptian 01-Mar-17 14:35
Re: Imhotep 180 cladking 01-Mar-17 15:30
Re: Imhotep 184 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 15:57
Re: Imhotep 190 Origyptian 02-Mar-17 03:36
Re: Imhotep 164 Martin Stower 02-Mar-17 18:50
Re: Imhotep 139 Origyptian 02-Mar-17 21:33
Re: Imhotep 188 Martin Stower 02-Mar-17 21:38
Re: Imhotep 197 Origyptian 02-Mar-17 21:56
Re: Imhotep 138 Martin Stower 02-Mar-17 22:30
The weaselling continues. 127 Martin Stower 02-Mar-17 22:14
Re: The weaselling continues. 201 Origyptian 02-Mar-17 22:26
Re: The weaselling continues. 183 Martin Stower 02-Mar-17 22:51
Re: Imhotep 153 cladking 01-Mar-17 15:21
Re: Imhotep 167 Origyptian 01-Mar-17 15:50
Re: Imhotep 167 cladking 01-Mar-17 17:08
Re: Imhotep 158 Thanos5150 01-Mar-17 16:11
Re: Imhotep 134 cladking 01-Mar-17 16:30
Re: Imhotep 237 Thanos5150 01-Mar-17 17:18
Re: Imhotep 176 cladking 01-Mar-17 17:23
Re: Imhotep 204 sfbey 01-Mar-17 17:57
Re: Imhotep 193 cladking 01-Mar-17 19:31
Re: Imhotep 167 Corpuscles 01-Mar-17 21:53
Re: Imhotep 140 cladking 02-Mar-17 01:26
Utterance #373 255 cladking 02-Mar-17 01:52
Re: Utterance #373 141 Corpuscles 02-Mar-17 19:23
Re: Utterance #373 141 cladking 02-Mar-17 19:33
Re: Imhotep 209 cladking 01-Mar-17 16:44
Re: Imhotep 183 Thanos5150 01-Mar-17 19:32
Re: Imhotep 123 cladking 01-Mar-17 19:54
Re: Imhotep 250 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 16:26
Re: Imhotep 129 cladking 01-Mar-17 17:19
Re: Imhotep 163 Audrey 01-Mar-17 17:07
Re: Imhotep 136 Origyptian 01-Mar-17 17:23
Re: Imhotep 157 cladking 01-Mar-17 17:42
Re: Imhotep 201 Audrey 01-Mar-17 18:10
Great Post 173 cladking 01-Mar-17 19:45
Re: Imhotep 182 Martin Stower 01-Mar-17 23:05
Re: Imhotep 249 Thanos5150 01-Mar-17 18:12
Re: Imhotep 222 Audrey 02-Mar-17 06:48
Re: Imhotep 169 Martin Stower 02-Mar-17 11:32
Re: Imhotep 147 Audrey 02-Mar-17 16:51
Re: Imhotep 143 cladking 02-Mar-17 17:04
Imhotep's Sandals. 139 cladking 02-Mar-17 17:09
Re: Imhotep 121 Martin Stower 02-Mar-17 18:58
Re: Imhotep 116 Thanos5150 02-Mar-17 18:10
Re: Imhotep 146 Origyptian 02-Mar-17 18:19
Re: Imhotep 123 Thanos5150 02-Mar-17 18:40
Re: Imhotep 113 Origyptian 02-Mar-17 19:01
Re: Imhotep 163 Thanos5150 03-Mar-17 17:48
Re: Imhotep 175 Origyptian 03-Mar-17 21:19
Re: Imhotep 137 eyeofhorus33 03-Mar-17 22:28
Re: Imhotep 182 Origyptian 03-Mar-17 22:48
Re: Imhotep 151 Martin Stower 04-Mar-17 00:18
Re: Imhotep 134 Origyptian 04-Mar-17 02:40
Re: Imhotep 136 Martin Stower 04-Mar-17 03:38
Re: Imhotep 154 Thanos5150 04-Mar-17 02:33
Re: Imhotep 242 Origyptian 04-Mar-17 04:34
Re: Imhotep 177 Martin Stower 05-Mar-17 01:55
Re: Imhotep 171 Thanos5150 05-Mar-17 02:28
Re: Imhotep 336 Audrey 04-Mar-17 07:43
Re: Imhotep 187 Thanos5150 04-Mar-17 22:59
Re: Imhotep 156 Martin Stower 05-Mar-17 01:05
Re: Imhotep 123 Thanos5150 05-Mar-17 02:00
Re: Imhotep 231 Audrey 05-Mar-17 04:56
Re: Imhotep 119 Origyptian 05-Mar-17 05:32
Re: Imhotep 145 Audrey 05-Mar-17 23:51
Re: Imhotep 193 Thanos5150 05-Mar-17 06:23
Re: Imhotep 170 Martin Stower 05-Mar-17 15:22
Re: Imhotep 162 Thanos5150 05-Mar-17 16:14
Re: Imhotep 204 Audrey 06-Mar-17 02:50
Re: Imhotep 174 Thanos5150 06-Mar-17 05:38
Re: Imhotep 194 R Avry Wilson 06-Mar-17 07:06
Re: Imhotep 243 DUNE 06-Mar-17 14:49
Re: Imhotep 164 Jon Ellison 06-Mar-17 20:33
Re: Imhotep 160 DUNE 06-Mar-17 21:22
Re: Imhotep 158 Origyptian 06-Mar-17 21:38
Re: Imhotep 118 Jon Ellison 06-Mar-17 22:17
Re: Imhotep 113 Jon Ellison 06-Mar-17 22:12
Re: Imhotep 168 Thanos5150 06-Mar-17 23:32
Re: Imhotep 137 DUNE 06-Mar-17 23:56
Re: Imhotep 142 Jon Ellison 07-Mar-17 00:27
Re: Imhotep 137 Jon Ellison 07-Mar-17 01:07
Re: Imhotep 125 Jon Ellison 07-Mar-17 01:16
Re: Imhotep 202 Thanos5150 07-Mar-17 01:40
Re: Imhotep 161 Thanos5150 07-Mar-17 01:58
Re: Imhotep 181 DUNE 07-Mar-17 16:49
Re: Imhotep 160 Thanos5150 07-Mar-17 19:24
Re: Imhotep 132 Thanos5150 07-Mar-17 20:30
Re: Imhotep 205 Corpuscles 07-Mar-17 02:23
Re: Imhotep 207 Origyptian 07-Mar-17 04:45
Re: Imhotep 206 Martin Stower 07-Mar-17 11:11
Re: Imhotep 189 Origyptian 07-Mar-17 13:16
Re: Imhotep 183 Martin Stower 07-Mar-17 15:45
Re: Imhotep 195 Origyptian 07-Mar-17 16:44
Re: Imhotep 188 Martin Stower 07-Mar-17 18:40
Re: Imhotep 205 Corpuscles 07-Mar-17 21:53
Re: Imhotep 140 cladking 08-Mar-17 15:13
Re: Imhotep 256 Origyptian 08-Mar-17 16:29
Re: Imhotep 156 cladking 08-Mar-17 18:12
Re: Imhotep 203 Audrey 09-Mar-17 01:16
Interpretation vs Communication. 135 cladking 09-Mar-17 14:33
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 136 Origyptian 09-Mar-17 14:55
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 86 cladking 09-Mar-17 15:16
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 155 Origyptian 09-Mar-17 16:32
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 170 Jon Ellison 09-Mar-17 15:17
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 156 cladking 09-Mar-17 15:39
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 183 Jon Ellison 09-Mar-17 16:04
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 149 cladking 09-Mar-17 16:27
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 177 Jon Ellison 09-Mar-17 16:47
You Do the Math. 163 cladking 09-Mar-17 19:32
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 115 cladking 09-Mar-17 19:10
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 210 Jon Ellison 09-Mar-17 20:25
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 102 cladking 09-Mar-17 21:22
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 166 Jon Ellison 09-Mar-17 22:11
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 136 cladking 10-Mar-17 01:34
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 144 SandyJesse 11-Mar-17 02:15
Re: Interpretation vs Communication. 157 SandyJesse 10-Mar-17 00:31
In order to build the great pyramids... 127 Racho 10-Mar-17 01:14
Re: Imhotep 173 Corpuscles 08-Mar-17 18:18
Re: Imhotep 223 Martin Stower 08-Mar-17 19:15
Re: Imhotep 193 Origyptian 08-Mar-17 22:53
Re: Imhotep 155 Martin Stower 09-Mar-17 00:33
Re: Imhotep 144 Origyptian 09-Mar-17 03:35
Re: Imhotep 143 Jon Ellison 09-Mar-17 14:53
Re: Imhotep 114 Audrey 10-Mar-17 00:51
Re: Imhotep 169 Jon Ellison 10-Mar-17 03:42
Re: Imhotep 234 Audrey 11-Mar-17 06:22
Re: Imhotep 203 Martin Stower 11-Mar-17 11:22
Re: Imhotep 184 Audrey 12-Mar-17 02:40
Re: Imhotep 140 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 03:25
Re: Imhotep 161 Audrey 12-Mar-17 04:55
Re: Imhotep 198 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 13:14
Re: Imhotep 86 Warwick 13-Mar-17 16:12
Re: Imhotep 129 cladking 12-Mar-17 04:03
Re: Imhotep 135 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 04:07
Re: Imhotep 134 cladking 12-Mar-17 14:03
Re: Imhotep 125 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 15:10
Who Knew? 129 cladking 12-Mar-17 19:26
Re: Who Knew? 119 Warwick 13-Mar-17 16:05
Re: Imhotep 138 Origyptian 12-Mar-17 16:33
Re: Imhotep 169 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 16:53
Re: Imhotep 129 cladking 12-Mar-17 19:30
Re: Imhotep 155 Origyptian 12-Mar-17 07:03
Re: Imhotep 133 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 15:33
Re: Imhotep 112 Origyptian 12-Mar-17 18:13
Re: Imhotep 122 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 18:53
Re: Imhotep 161 Origyptian 12-Mar-17 19:33
Re: Imhotep 120 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 22:50
Re: Imhotep 133 Origyptian 12-Mar-17 23:24
Re: Imhotep 148 Corpuscles 12-Mar-17 23:44
Re: Imhotep 148 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 01:21
Re: Imhotep 136 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 00:26
Re: Imhotep 109 Warwick 13-Mar-17 13:53
Re: Imhotep 110 cladking 13-Mar-17 13:59
Re: Imhotep 121 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 14:16
Re: Imhotep 108 Warwick 13-Mar-17 14:26
Re: Imhotep 136 Origyptian 13-Mar-17 16:40
Re: Imhotep 101 Warwick 13-Mar-17 16:43
Re: Imhotep 140 cladking 13-Mar-17 17:18
Re: Imhotep 153 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 17:24
Re: Imhotep 127 cladking 13-Mar-17 18:26
Re: Imhotep 106 Warwick 13-Mar-17 18:42
Re: Imhotep 140 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 20:39
Re: Imhotep 92 Warwick 13-Mar-17 18:39
Re: Imhotep 143 Origyptian 11-Mar-17 14:03
Re: Imhotep 158 Merrell 11-Mar-17 14:29
Re: Imhotep 120 cladking 11-Mar-17 15:03
Re: Imhotep 118 Merrell 11-Mar-17 15:27
Re: Imhotep 142 cladking 11-Mar-17 15:35
Re: Imhotep 159 Merrell 11-Mar-17 16:15
Re: Imhotep 139 cladking 11-Mar-17 18:52
Re: Imhotep 106 Origyptian 11-Mar-17 15:53
Re: Imhotep 164 Thanos5150 11-Mar-17 17:27
Re: Imhotep 116 Warwick 11-Mar-17 17:43
Re: Imhotep 142 Origyptian 11-Mar-17 20:13
Re: Imhotep 134 Warwick 11-Mar-17 20:34
Re: Imhotep 147 Origyptian 12-Mar-17 00:45
Re: Imhotep 176 Thanos5150 13-Mar-17 02:49
Re: Funerary Cult 155 Thunderbird 13-Mar-17 05:02
Re: Funerary Cult 107 Thanos5150 13-Mar-17 21:31
Re: Funerary Cult 89 Origyptian 13-Mar-17 22:04
Re: Funerary Cult 93 Thanos5150 13-Mar-17 22:30
Re: Funerary Cult 121 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 23:51
Re: Funerary Cult 41 Origyptian 14-Mar-17 02:54
Re: Funerary Cult 106 Martin Stower 14-Mar-17 09:23
Re: Funerary Cult 63 Origyptian 14-Mar-17 14:01
Re: Funerary Cult 108 Martin Stower 14-Mar-17 21:35
Re: Funerary Cult 74 Origyptian 14-Mar-17 23:55
Re: Funerary Cult 131 Martin Stower 15-Mar-17 01:24
Re: Funerary Cult 148 Origyptian 15-Mar-17 03:26
Re: Funerary Cult 85 Martin Stower 15-Mar-17 13:00
Re: Funerary Cult 146 Origyptian 15-Mar-17 13:34
Re: Funerary Cult 115 Martin Stower 15-Mar-17 14:32
Re: Funerary Cult 79 Origyptian 15-Mar-17 15:38
Re: Funerary Cult 75 Martin Stower 15-Mar-17 16:06
Re: Funerary Cult 88 Corpuscles 15-Mar-17 16:51
Re: Funerary Cult 50 Origyptian 15-Mar-17 17:08
Re: Funerary Cult 99 Martin Stower 15-Mar-17 19:24
Re: Funerary Cult 86 Merrell 15-Mar-17 21:40
Re: Funerary Cult 49 Origyptian 16-Mar-17 00:12
Re: Funerary Cult 95 Martin Stower 16-Mar-17 00:53
Re: Funerary Cult 44 Warwick 15-Mar-17 19:01
Re: Funerary Cult 84 eyeofhorus33 15-Mar-17 18:19
Re: Funerary Cult 46 Origyptian 15-Mar-17 20:22
Re: Funerary Cult 56 Martin Stower 15-Mar-17 21:27
Re: Funerary Cult 121 Martin Stower 15-Mar-17 21:48
Re: Funerary Cult 198 R Avry Wilson 16-Mar-17 02:08
Re: Funerary Cult 76 Warwick 15-Mar-17 18:48
Re: Funerary Cult 60 Origyptian 15-Mar-17 20:19
Re: Funerary Cult 122 Martin Stower 15-Mar-17 20:23
Re: Funerary Cult 35 Warwick 15-Mar-17 21:08
Re: Funerary Cult 75 Audrey 14-Mar-17 02:55
Re: Funerary Cult 108 Thanos5150 14-Mar-17 05:30
Re: Funerary Cult 74 Warwick 14-Mar-17 18:12
Re: Half cartouche. 60 Jon Ellison 14-Mar-17 12:14
Re: Half cartouche. 73 Martin Stower 14-Mar-17 12:43
Re: Half cartouche. 54 Jon Ellison 14-Mar-17 12:56
Re: Half cartouche. 42 Martin Stower 14-Mar-17 13:37
Re: Half cartouche. 79 Jon Ellison 14-Mar-17 13:42
Re: Half cartouche. 80 Martin Stower 14-Mar-17 15:00
Re: Half cartouche. 52 Jon Ellison 14-Mar-17 15:52
Re: Half cartouche. 81 Martin Stower 14-Mar-17 16:34
Re: Half cartouche. 178 Jon Ellison 14-Mar-17 17:19
Re: Half cartouche. 124 Martin Stower 14-Mar-17 20:07
Re: Half cartouche. 66 Jon Ellison 14-Mar-17 22:50
Re: Imhotep 96 Warwick 13-Mar-17 14:00
Re: Imhotep 85 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 14:10
Re: Imhotep 138 Merrell 13-Mar-17 15:22
Re: Imhotep 29 Warwick 13-Mar-17 15:30
Re: Imhotep 38 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 15:35
Re: Imhotep 74 Origyptian 13-Mar-17 15:51
Re: Imhotep 34 Warwick 13-Mar-17 15:58
Re: Imhotep 40 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 16:10
Re: Imhotep 59 Merrell 13-Mar-17 18:27
Re: Imhotep 75 Warwick 13-Mar-17 18:31
Re: Imhotep 63 Origyptian 13-Mar-17 18:40
Re: Imhotep 40 Warwick 13-Mar-17 18:48
Re: Imhotep 81 Origyptian 13-Mar-17 20:17
Re: Imhotep 41 Thanos5150 13-Mar-17 16:50
Re: Imhotep 79 Warwick 13-Mar-17 16:57
Re: Imhotep 67 Origyptian 13-Mar-17 18:10
Re: Imhotep 30 Warwick 13-Mar-17 19:28
Re: Imhotep 65 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 19:54
Re: Imhotep 37 Origyptian 13-Mar-17 15:48
Re: Imhotep 106 Thanos5150 13-Mar-17 16:28
Re: Imhotep 31 Warwick 13-Mar-17 16:40
Re: Imhotep 76 Origyptian 13-Mar-17 19:15
Re: Imhotep 38 Warwick 13-Mar-17 19:22
Re: Imhotep 26 Origyptian 13-Mar-17 20:30
Re: Imhotep 104 Thanos5150 13-Mar-17 21:06
Re: Imhotep 37 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 21:29
Re: Imhotep 39 Thanos5150 13-Mar-17 21:34
Re: Imhotep 81 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 22:01
Re: Imhotep 94 Thanos5150 13-Mar-17 22:41
Re: Imhotep 38 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 23:43
Re: Imhotep 91 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 12:42
Re: Imhotep 39 Thanos5150 13-Mar-17 16:42
Re: Imhotep 86 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 15:02
Re: Imhotep 98 Martin Stower 11-Mar-17 21:07
Re: Imhotep 140 Thanos5150 11-Mar-17 21:19
Re: Imhotep 152 Martin Stower 11-Mar-17 22:12
Re: Imhotep 149 Audrey 12-Mar-17 00:24
Re: Imhotep 94 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 00:55
Re: Imhotep 115 Thanos5150 12-Mar-17 01:41
Re: Imhotep 114 Audrey 12-Mar-17 02:30
Re: Imhotep 127 Thanos5150 12-Mar-17 07:02
Re: Imhotep 102 Origyptian 12-Mar-17 08:49
Re: Imhotep 67 Thanos5150 12-Mar-17 16:52
Re: Imhotep 60 Origyptian 12-Mar-17 21:10
Re: Imhotep 38 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 22:02
Re: Imhotep 51 Origyptian 12-Mar-17 22:16
Re: Imhotep 63 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 23:51
Re: Imhotep 65 Origyptian 14-Mar-17 04:04
Re: Imhotep 47 Audrey 12-Mar-17 19:54
Re: Imhotep 61 Thanos5150 12-Mar-17 21:07
Re: Imhotep 90 Martin Stower 12-Mar-17 22:37
Re: Imhotep 63 Audrey 12-Mar-17 23:58
Re: Imhotep 97 Martin Stower 13-Mar-17 00:20
Papyri Wadi el-Jarf 71 Corpuscles 12-Mar-17 19:58
Re: Papyri Wadi el-Jarf 104 cladking 12-Mar-17 20:06
Re: Papyri Wadi el-Jarf 86 Corpuscles 12-Mar-17 21:07
Re: Papyri Wadi el-Jarf 37 cladking 12-Mar-17 22:32
Re: Papyri Wadi el-Jarf 44 Warwick 13-Mar-17 15:38
...In a Million Years. 103 cladking 13-Mar-17 17:36
Re: ...In a Million Years. 32 Warwick 13-Mar-17 17:57
Re: ...In a Million Years. 91 cladking 13-Mar-17 18:33
I will give you one last chance 33 Warwick 13-Mar-17 19:34