> There's no evidence it's from the 4th dynasty
> either. That's my point. Your entire premise seems
> to be based on the accuracy of the dynastic
> timeline which I see as the crux of the problem.
All of the evidence points directly to the 4th Dynasty. This is not a "premise" nor is it "mine" as it is what it is.
To say there is no evidence is you just being dishonest as the only "doubt" it does not is only your own of of your own imagination. Nor does it have anything to do with the "accuracy of the dynastic timeline", which is nonsense.
> I have no idea why you're attempting to cite false
> analogies like that. You know full well what's
> going on here, so please stop the extreme examples
> which have no relevance here.
The analogy is spot on an no different than what you apply to anything you wish to pin on your LC so you can save your BS. "What is going on here" is you once again manically doubt mongering anything and everything to avoid acknowledging any reality that does not revolve and/or include your LC.
> There is simply zero proof of the provenance of those galleries at el-Jarf.
This is a lie Origyptian. It is literally that simple. All of the relevant artifacts date to the 4th Dynasty and the wharf itself is consistent with AE abilities and construction of which directly relatable later examples of other wharfs are found in the same area. Sorry, but your doubt mongering nonsense does not qualify as a "higher standard of proof" let alone any "proof" at all.
First you argue Merrer's diary isn't reffering to the monuments of Giza (and if it does then you cover your ass by also claiming it could just be for repairs),then you argue they aren't even reffering to a pharaoh Khufu, then you claim the diary and artifacts could have been merely placed there hundreds if not thousands of years after the fact (as discussed before complete and utter nonsense), and now for no reason whatsoever you want the wharf itself to be "far older" which in Origyptian parlance means tens of thousands of years old belonging to your magical LC.
The fact is, regardless of what they were actually doing with the stone, the Merrer diary is written proof the AE of the 4th Dynasty were quarrying, lifting, and transporting stone by boat just as the boat pits are physical proof the AE of the 4th Dynasty were quarrying, lifting, transporting, and placing at the very least 15-20 blocks. Despite the fact you will manically say anything and make up anything to make this not so, it does not change the fact it is.
Could Wadi al-Jarf have been made prior to the 4th Dynasty? There is no evidence of it, but if so given the greater context of AE history prior, which I already talked about, it could have been made anytime during the archaic Dynastic period as they too sailed the Red Sea not to mention foreigners who came to Egypt at this time. But just like there is no evidence of your LC there is no evidence, if not common sense, to suggest this wharf was made by your LC as well as you are suggesting.
> > And yet there is indisputably no evidence found
> > that dates it prior to this time. If so, tell
> > what it is. This the question but of course you
> > cannot because you never can.
> My point exactly, there is no direct evidence that
> "indisputably" dates those galleries. Period.
This is obviously not my point which anyone can read for themselves you are merely misrepresenting what I said. Once again, provide evidence it is "far older" if not a day older than the 4th Dynasty. You have nothing other than you want it to be. At this point asking you to provide evidence of your claims is rhetorical as we already know you have none. But herein lies the utter nonsense of your "higher standards of proof" is that just because almost nothing can be proved "indisputably" in ancient times therefore this means anything is possible which is just delusional self-serving BS. Which again I ask-how would YOU indisputably date an ancient site?
> What "claims" have I made?
You do nothing but heap your doubt mongering BS over everything to support your claims yet in the same breath pretend they are "non-claims". Save it.
> I don't understand on
> what basis you can argue so strongly that those
> galleries couldn't have been made far earlier than
> the 4th dynasty.
Lol. How can you "argue so strongly" that they are if even one day older? There is literally no evidence whatsoever to support this claim and all of the evidence that is there points indisputably to the 4th Dynasty. And why do you keep repeating the weasley "far older"? You mean, what-tens of thousands of years older belonging to your imaginary LC that otherwise does not exist? Uh...maybe that's one reason against it.
> Note the differences in erosion at different
So what? These galleries are nearly 5,000yrs old Origyptian.
> Without a written record of the recency of that
> excavation, how would you know how old that cave
> really is?
Lol. You're a joke. So written evidence counts for something made in modern times but according to you never in ancient times? But how do we know they didn't just make it up to make it seem like they made it but they really didn't?
> And that's really my point. There's nothing about
> those galleries that would definitively date them
> as being "indisputably" or even "probably"
> constructed originallyin the 4th dynasty.
Why always the dishonesty with you? I don't get it. "Indisputably"- little in ancient history is therefore we are often forced to rely on the preponderance of context and whatever scientific dating we can get, but to say it is not even "probably" constructed in the 4th Dynasty is just plain fraud as this is exactly what is not only most "probable" but most likely.
> More irrelevant sarcasm.
Pfft. Funny how your logic and standards of proof are only "irrelevant" when applied to you.