1) There is disagreement as to whether the edifice on Djer's sealing has any relation to a structure at Giza alluded to by the Dream Stele.
We believe it does for the simple reason that it is a building-sized structure surmounted by an animal and that Gardiner V3 hints at Giza...(Ro)Stau. Petrie thought it was the Set animal and we expand why we think that's a harmless but consequential error...consequential for our thesis. Whether or not there is a palace facade with double axes is a side-issue. Pr-Ur may have been inspired by a monument at Giza and its use as a scribes' administration center of the early state makes perfect sense in our model.
2) There is disagreement on what the neck rings mean, but I think the poster is missing the main point...we are not saying the ring(s) were necessarily made that way on purpose 12,000 years ago. We are saying however they were created, by man or the elements, when the Mehit myth was created in AE, the rings were there and they inspired the lioness depiction as seen.
3) I agree with Laird that there is a semantic connection with the cubit and we mention that in one of the Figure captions....this is of special interest because I think the original monument bears strong associations with flooding and the measuring of Nile floods of course is a key feature of the dynastic state along with the civil calendar instead of the more archaic and less predictable timing using wp-rnpt and the lunar month.
4) There is disagreement with the logic of the rationale which first seemingly spuriously assigns "JAW" the lexical value of "key" and then uses that assumption to the build the rest of the case.
I couldn't disagree more with that opinion. First of all the symbol is obviously rare. We were up against a more acute problem then even Hermann Junker (and the symbol analysis I posted here for Madelaine) because there is no other context with which to compare this one to and mind you the symbol has been misclassified to make matters even worse. However, the dual title provides a certain set of plausible choices and key is clearly one of them especially because we also provide evidence that locks with similarly shaped keys existed and that MK Egyptians at least used locks with pin tumblers. I think Avry just didn't read the whole article and I do not in any way chide him for it. I just don't agree with his comment there.
His other comment likewise is without merit. Robert Schoch has published hard-core seismic data, with which other geologists btw have no problem because they understand the method well, which date the first exposure of the ditch surface to the elements to the 11th millenium BC. Avry needs to familiarize himself with those data and the validity of the method. The JAW/Schoch case does not soley rest on enclosure and Sphinx erosion lines and most people in this field rather strangely do not know this.
....and that's it for now. But all this back and forth on the details isn't really what matters. This paper does not settle the issue and it wasn't meant to. It was meant to formulate a testable hypothesis, not a lingering theory we can forever argue about like fake cartouches and paint runnels.
I was trained as a basic scientist, Thanos. I looked at this problem and asked myself what is a testable hypothesis, an unequivocal falsification test, of the idea that the Sphinx is as old as geology and astronomy tell us and why does the orthodox camp resist data of a non-archeological kind? I looked at Mark Lehner's entire argument from A-Z and to any well-trained scientist it doesn't hold water. The Khafre Theory may be a working model of a subset of all the data, but that's not how you make a scientific model. But ultimately an Egyptologist' gold standard is textual proof and I agreed that it was missing. If the Sphinx stood there in 3000 B.C., where was the awe of it carved and painted into ivory, clay, slate, wood, papyrus, Limestone and Granite before the Khufu clan came to power? Why did no one notice it? I propose all accept the dogma at face value and missed what has been in plain sight all along. And this is when I remembered something that had struck me previously but I passed it up (just like all those dogma-struck Egyptologists)...something on Hemiunu's pedestal....and the rest came together over breakfast with Robert Schoch and Robert Bauval.
I think we have now have more than enough probable cause to go back to the Sphinx and collect some real data (not those ill-placed probes made by Z.H. and M.L.)and eventually carefully and in an intelligent data-guided manner drill a small hole into that void beneath the left paw to see what's inside. That will make or break this thesis and that is how you do science. You put models to the test to break them and refine them. This paper is the mission statement to justify that test.
Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 26-Oct-17 04:43 by Manu.