> 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
Oh. I see. So, your malformed notion of civility is to fault me for your hasty and ill-considered post and for responding to yours a good deal less quickly than you did to mine. Pardon me if I doubt you have anything to teach me on the topic.
As for Marouard, allow me to remind you that your track record is one of grossly mispresenting what others have written, through prejudice or sheer ineptitude.
> 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.
Evasion, red herring.
> That papyrus is simply a record of where they worked
> and where they slept. Period.
Evasion, spurious reduction. It does not become what you would reduce it to simply through your adding the magic word “period”.
As should be obvious from my earlier comments, I am doing what you lack the competence to do, looking at the hieratic text and picking out relevant characters and phrases. It is a record of work on the pyramid 3ḫt Ḫwfw.
> 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,
Evasion, irrelevancy. That the building in question is G1 and that Merer was in some way involved in the work are the relevant considerations—while talk of “restoration” is unevidenced speculation and nothing but. (You really do need reminding of this, don’t you? Just because you keep saying it, doesn’t make it so.)
> another accessory building associated with a
> larger monument on Giza,
Are you aphasic?
It specifies the pyramid 3ḫt Ḫwfw. See above.
> or to even determine with
> certainty the provenance of that papyrus which was
> found in tatters, mixed in with the rubble.
An ancient papyrus in less than perfect condition? Imagine. Doubtless this invalidates its content.
This being what you say when not complaining that it’s too well preserved. Classic psychology of the prejudiced mind: damned if you don’t, damned if you do. Adorno et al. had this one nailed.
> Such circumstantial evidence is not a smoking gun
> regardless of what you "say it is".
You have persistently and remorselessly misrepresented these documents. The evasion is blatant. Clearly you feel a need to deny even their prima facie character. Now why is that?