> Origyptian Wrote:
> > Unfortunately, while you keep accusing me of lying,
> > you don't seem to be able to cite a single instance.
> Which is pretty much a lie in itself, as yet again
> you’ve chosen to ignore the posts which give
> detail on your prevarications, in favour of the
> soft option of attacking a non-detailed comment.
I don't think I've ignored any posts. In a previous post you claimed that I believed Tallet is a "fraud" who's guilty of "forgery" (I believe no such thing). Meanwhile, you have not cited a single post to one of those many alleged lies. In truth, it is you who are misinterpreting what's being posted here.
You can cite all the evidence you want from Tallet et al. that shows those galleries were used in the 4th Dynasty and I'll continue to not disagree with that. Somehow you seem to think I'm denying those galleries were used in the 4th Dynasty, but I never said that, so I don't know where that's coming from. On the other hand, with all the rebutting from you, Thanos, etc., there's been zero proof presented regarding the actual provenance of those galleries, nor is there any definitive evidence regarding whether or when those "portcullis" blocks actually ever did seal any of those galleries as well as whether or when those blocks were actually breached, nor is there any definitive evidence that the harbor or galleries of el-Jarf did, in fact, participate in the original construction of G1.
I continue to contend that it's quite possible, according to all the physical evidence, that those galleries may have been created earlier than the artifacts suggest, and that's because a very common practice in human civilization is to repurpose older structures and objects while removing the presence of the previous occupant. When we move into our homes we remove evidence of the previous resident, when we move into a new office we remove evidence of the previous worker, when we update a factory we remove evidence of the older obsolete technology and products. According to Tallet's own hypothesis, the fact that he claims those galleries were used for "short-term storage" implies the necessity that everything in those galleries was there for only a "short-term" meaning that what was found there is only a snapshot of the residual rubble from the most recent "short-term storage" which apparently was during the 4th Dynasty. Why would Tallet expect to find any artifacts from an earlier era if the very presence of the artifacts was truly "short-term"?
Meanwhile, no one, including Tallet, has yet to rationalize how those dozens of galleries, located 5km away from the harbor, would have been originally designed as "short-term storage" for the harbor despite the fact that there were no wheeled vehicles available for transportation, and there are signs of portcullis blocks thought to have been cemented into place to seal access to each gallery which sharply contradicts the entire notion of "short-term storage".
I just don't see how anyone can so strongly object to the distinct possibility that those dozens of galleries, located a full 5km inland from the Red Sea harbor, sitting right there at the end of the enormous Wadi Araba conduit, hewn into limestone bedrock, were not originally built during the 4th Dynasty as "short-term storage" as part of the effort to service that harbor operation to assist in the construction of G1 when there is no direct evidence that exclusively confirms that provenance and purpose, no rationale that logically accounts for the enigmas in location and the state of the condition of the artifacts as discovered in situ, and no physical evidence that contradicts other possibilities.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 25-Sep-16 04:12 by Origyptian.