> I said nothing about what you believe.
> I talked about what you say, what you insinuate...
First of all, that's a clear contradiction. To infer that someone "insinuated" something is to attempt to visit their intentions beyond the actual merit of the words posted. You indeed are trying to claim you know what I believe. You do not.
Furthermore, when you say,
- "Let’s have some clarity on who you think forged the ˤprw names at Wadi al-Jarf (as forgery is plainly what you’re suggesting: 'the paint marks have no business being that legible after all that time” etc.)' "
In fact, if anything posted in this discussion can be construed as an insult to Tallet, we only need to witness what others here have claimed was observed and reported by Tallet, such as claiming he observed "unbreached" galleries, or that what he observed constituted proof of provenance of those galleries, or that he presented proof that el-Jarf had anything to do with the original construction of G1, when Tallet, in fact, reported no such definitive evidence. If Tallet actually did observe such definitive evidence but failed to report it (it's nowhere in his published papers), then yes, he would indeed be negligent as an investigator. I can only assume he did not observe such definitive evidence or else he would have reported it. And so anyone making such claims that he did make such obserrvations despite his lack of reporting them are the ones who are insulting Tallet.
Sure, I'm frustrated that Tallet is not more precise in his reporting. How many are "several dozens of storage jars", and how was that assessed amidst the field of shard rubble that remains as the only evidence of such jars? How big are "two large anchors"? Are they large enough to secure a boat hauling multi-ton cargo? How does lifting items off the ground by suspending them on wooden boards protect anything from moisture in an allegedly sealed chamber containing moisture? Just look at what happened to the wood in the "boat pits" when subjected to such moisture. One would think wood might have a bit more value in a desert than simply providing shelving for items being placed in "short-term storage" within a moist cave as part of a bustling harbor facility. What are the shapes, dimensions, and precise locations of those circular recesses in the floor and those single-course limestone walls within the floor grooves that are hewn into the bedrock? How does he describe an actual operation that uses such galleries 5km from the harbor as a short-term storage facility for the harbor despite the lack of an efficient transportation system? Why does a short-term storage system need such a "complex closure system" to permenantly seal it? Why hew such storage into solid bedrock so far away from the harbor when it would be so much easier and more functional to build them above ground with limestone blocks closer to the harbor? I assume the vague reporting style is customary and acceptable in the soft sciences and humanities, so I realize we need to accept that, but we still need to take care with how the conclusions are drawn from such vagueries.
Meanwhile, I'm not accusing Tallet of misrepresenting his observations, nor have I made any false or derogatory claims about him. Nor have I "insinuated" any such thing. I have not accused him of observing anything of critical importance that he deliberately chose not to report, such as a sealed gallery. Rather, I've given Tallet full credit for his observations. I've only disagreed with his conclusions which I'm not only entitled to do, but which I'm sure, as a resposible, professional investigator, Tallet fully expects and likely embraces in the spirit of scholarly discourse.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 25-Sep-16 16:17 by Origyptian.