Martin Stower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Herr Doktor Lügner schrieb:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > Martin Stower Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > The ˤprw names and Merer diary directly
> > > attest to workers and officials of the 4th dynasty
> > > participating in the construction of G1...
> >
> > Baloney.
>
> Well, thank you, Doctor Femano,
> for that considered comment, the product of as
> much as one second of what passes your lower
> standard of thought.
>
> What Doctor Femano left out:
> [broken link omitted]“. . . but of
> course you squirm your way around them in ways to
> which only someone lacking in integrity would
> resort.”
>
> See what I mean?
>
> Doctor Femano,
>
> Do not go imagining that your obvious ineptitude
> grants you licence to lie and lie and lie as you
> do.
>
> The ˤprw names and Merer diary are simply
> as I say they are and the only answer you have to
> them is (a) the idiotic “Vyse forgery” fantasy
> and (b) your own halfwitted variant of same in the
> case of the Merer diary.
>
> M.

If you weren't on the edge of your seat waiting for my reply, you'd have seen that I changed "Baloney" to "Not according to Greg Marouard." within seconds of my initlal post. God help me for attempting to be civil in these discussions.

Since you claim to be so thorough in your research, you surely must know that there is nothing in Merer's papyrus that says anything about the size and number of stones or boats. That papyrus is simply a record of where they worked and where they slept. Period. No other data is included in the daily log. Tallet simply interprets it to indicate the final phase of G1 construction based merely on a reference to "Year 27", and so the presumption is that it might be referring to casing stones, but the papyrus doesn't say that. And so there is no way to rule out a restoration project, another accessory building associated with a larger monument on Giza, or to even determine with certainty the provenance of that papyrus which was found in tatters, mixed in with the rubble.

Such circumstantial evidence is not a smoking gun regardless of what you "say it is".




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 17-Jan-17 00:35 by Origyptian.