And yes, the text confirms that you are misrepresenting, by oversimplification, at the very least.
Prejudiced reading and unwarranted reduction are also in evidence. Marouard tells you that the journal specifies “where they have worked and where they slept every days [sic]”. He does not put “period” after it. He does not say (as you imply) that this is all there is to it.
(The one thing funnier than Americans playing this “period” trick is non-Americans copying it. Yes, you, Scott Creighton. Full stop.)
I’m sure Marouard did recognise the relevant characters and phrases. Allow me to remind you that you are not he. He’s a Research Associate in Egyptian Archaeology. He has the competence. He didn’t spell them out because he gave you the benefit of the doubt. He dealt with you as an intelligent interlocutor and not as a crank with an axe to grind. You fail to realise how much understanding he is taking for granted.
Casing: specifying the Tura quarries makes this a possibility. Contrary to your selective reading of what you reproduce only in part, it’s not just the date. (We should see Marouard’s message without ellipses, if you invoke it as evidence.)
As for the various evasions, red herrings and irrelevancies, try reading. I’ve already explained them.
I see (at time of this addition) that Herr Doktor Halbwitz has edited his post three times, emphasising selected phrases within Marouard’s message, without clearly stating (as required by scholarly protocol) that the emphasis is his and not Marouard’s. So much for the Herr Doktor’s standards.
Looking again, I see that there is a note on the emphasis being his, explicitly marked as an edit. Not sure when it appeared and it could be clearer.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 17-Jan-17 14:48 by Martin Stower.