The context of JAW is developed by the fact that two titles are consistently in tandem. It is the tandemness which clues us in on a more limited set of choices in terms of what that symbol means and key is one of them considering we know what the first title means. You made it sound like it's an arbitrary choice which tells me you didn't get the title linkage. Also, there are ancient keys which look similar to this object....also in the paper. I built a lock with that key to show how it could work...also in the paper. I don't have to tell you that a lock and key, a clay seal, and a lion guard all have the same connotation...also in the paper. With all this, you write "no contextual nor logical argument is presented on how it can be interpreted as 'key'," Do you understand why I may venture to assume you didn't spend more than 5 minutes with this paper?
" ...the spurious addition of a specific timeframe ('11th M.') feels like a random insertion without any solid support for doing so"
This statement has no merit. "Spurious" means you brush over the very data of JAW and Schoch you say you know. We are not talking about furrows on rock here. These are seismic refraction data and geologists routinely use them to date subsurface weathering. In this case I recommend you contact Robert directly and argue with him why you feel the dating is "spurious".
I understand that this hits resistance and I am happy it does. No scientific inquiry would be necessary if all agreed. We need to probe that void to settle this one way (Khafre) or another (Younger Dryas).
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 26-Oct-17 06:12 by Manu.