> Origyptian Wrote:
> What positive evidence can you provide Wadi
> al-Jarf predates the 4th Dynasty?
> What evidence would qualify under your as yet
> unknown "higher standard of proof" that could date
> Wadi al-Jarf or any other site for that matter?
First of all, I never said el-Jarf definitely predates the 4th Dynasty. I said it was possible, not definite. It's another possibility since it's not been proven in fact to have been built in the 4th Dynasty.
Second, you are incorrectly applying my standard of proof. My standard of proof simply says that insufficient proof has been offered to authenticate the claim that el-Jarf was indisputably constructed in the 4th Dynasty -- likewise, insufficient proof has been offered to substantiate the claim that all those "boat pits" were originally designed to house boats. Greater proof is required than the circumstantial evidence presented so far. For example, regarding el-Jarf and the boat pits:
- El-Jarf was already breached long ago, so whatever was found inside it (and the boat pits as well) is subject to the possibility of adaption.
Insufficient evidence has been discovered at el-Jarf to ascertain whether it was originally constructed to be a storage facility associated with that harbor. The walls of those galleries show signs of significant erosion which seem to contradict a 4th Dynasty provenance.
None of the evidence found at el-Jarf contradicts the possibility that any construction project implied by the glyphs found there might be referring to a restoration, repair, or additional ancillary construction on Giza rather than referring specifically to the original construction of the great monuments. The pyramids, Sphinx, etc. already may have been ancient during the use of el-Jarf as an OK harbor.
No explanation has been given for how red painted glyphs on the limestone blocks at el-Jarf could have survived so vividly for millennia out there in the open air with full access to the elements when Jenkins reported that glyphs found on limestone blocks that were protected inside the first boat pit (presumably since they were initially painted) suddenly became "almost illegible" after only 25 years of exposure to the environment, and that's after the glyphs had been coated with preservative and protected from the sun and weather by a series of wooden boards soon after the boat pit was opened.
No explanation has been given for rectangular vs. tapered boat pits as well as their wide assortment of sizes, construction, clustering, position, and orientation. I have difficulty with the associative dating method that seems to automatically attribute any boat pit to the OK since that's where all the others have been attributed. In my opinion, such a predilection to ensuring self-consistency without supporting it with definitive evidence can be extremely problematic and can result in contrivances such as "intermediate periods" in which we are expected to ignore notions such as "70 kings in 70 days" as a means to allow a flawed timeline to "catch up".
No explanation for why the ancients preferred the far greater effort to hew an open pit and quarry 600 tons of masonry to cover the pit rather than the far quicker, simpler, and cheaper approach of excavating an elongated cave which requires the removal of a significantly lower volume of stone, and which precludes the need to quarry, shape, and manipulate those dozens of 15 ton slabs that are far more problematic in establishing a "sealed" pit, and also would provide far greater security since it would be much more difficult to discern the existence of the pit from ground level.
Traditionalists have yet to adequately explain why some boats required the extra effort to be buried in an open pit covered with dozens of megalith blocks while others, such as at el-Jarf, seem to have been placed in caves hewn into bedrock while other caves have been shows to be used for funerary purposes. I realize you have drawn a distinction between "storage" and "grave", but I consider that to be speculation as a possible way to explain the discrepancy and not an indication of definitive evidence. There are plenty of "graves" that have been discovered in caves, such as those throughout the Valley of the Kings.
The above ground, mud-brick-walled, fleet-moored "boat graves" are a vastly different genre than the individual "boat pit" hewn entirely into bedrock.
There is scant evidence that boat pits were actually constructed for the funerary purpose attributed to them today.
From what I've seen in the evidence, adaption remains a distinct possibility.
> If in fact Wadi al-Jarf did predate the 4th
> Dynasty, which you must have some evidence for to
> keeping claiming such despite all the evidence to
> the contrary...
There is no evidence to the contrary. Everyting that's been attributed to the 4th Dynasty at el-Jarf could be the result of adapation. Nothing contradicts that possibility, and so it must remain a possibility.
> ...given as I have mentioned the
> numerous archaic Dynastic boat graves at Abydos...
A very different genre than the individual boat "pits" found around the megalithic monuments.
> ...(not to mention Helwan and Saqqara) and the
> predynastic rock art found between the Red Sea and
> Abydos depicting sailors dragging such boats
> across the desert; is not possible if most likely
> the AE of the OK merely reused an already existing
> harbor originally built in the archaic Dynastic
Likewise for the boat pits. But why stop at "archaic Dynastic"? The condition of the galleries at el-Jarf seem to date those galleries far older than anything dynastic. And there are many monoliths on Giza at 50, 75, or 100+ tons each, many made of Aswan granite, that contradict an early dynastic provenance. So yes, "reused", and for a purpose that may have been different than what was intended for the original construction. I've been proposing "adaption" (not just adoption) as a possibility for quite some time.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 10-Sep-16 17:42 by Origyptian.