Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tallet uses the cattle count to date Merer's
> spreadsheet at el-Jarf, which he uses, in turn, to
> fuel his claim (not hypothesis) that because the
> papyrus mentions the shipment of an unspecified
> number and size of limestone blocks to Giza
> (without stating the purpose of those blocks) and
> includes a Khufu cartouche (translation of context
> not provided), it therefore is (not "might
> be") contemporaneous with the construction of G1
> which, in turn, dates it to the end of Khufu's
> reign in 3rd mill. BC, which therefore makes it
> the oldest papyrus ever found, etc., etc., etc.,

As you already know, these are not the "only" reasons the papyri are dated to the 4th Dynasty, the least of which is Khufu's half brother is also mentioned in detail as an administrator. Again(8-16):

Quote

...the papyri notes Ankhhaf,half-brother of Khufu, was the administrator of the project who is well attested at Giza:

Owner of the unusually large eastern cemetery mastaba G 7150:

> To his credit, Marouard is not so optimistic.

Apparently porky pies are never out of season for some. Again, nowhere does Marouard express an iota of doubt regarding the provenance of the papyri. You said 8-16:
"Even Greg Marouard expressed his caution about making assumptions from the findings!"

I replied:

Quote

By saying these papyri could have been put there "anytime over the past few millennia" you are doubt mongering their provenance to the 4th Dynasty which is nonsense. Are you saying they are forgeries? Or, that someone a thousand years later, assumed all things 4th Dynasty down to placing Khufu's brother as the administrator of the project and made up some journal about mundane record keeping? You just said what I quote above yet you try and make it seem as if it never happened and ramble on about something else. It's crazy that you do this every single time.

Speaking of which, it is just plain dishonest, if not weird because you are the one quoting him, to say "Greg Marouard expressed his caution about making assumptions from the findings!" as it pertains to the provenance of the papyri as there is zero doubt in his mind this is when they are from and your own quote says he is specifically reffering to the casing stones. To refresh our memories:

Quote

"Sorry we have no idea about the size and number of blocks or the size and the number of boats used...the Merrer's journal is just a sort of "account of the time", with two columns for a single day in order to record where they have worked and where they slept every days. It give us an accurate timing for the stone deliveries and some ideas about the topography and the toponyms in the Memphite area at this time.

We have no clear idea about the men average in a team (phyle is a subdivision of an aper), we can estimate about 100 to 200 men, but most of the previous evaluations on the workforce for an aper (1000 or 2000 or less ?) are not strongly founded apparently.

Considering the casing, actually it's a little too early to be completely affirmative, caution must be exercised. We think about that because the global closure of the port site and the date delivered by the papyri in this final context of occupation, a terminus around the Year 27, could indicate the end of the construction project at Giza...and therefore the laying of the external casing."

Where does he say anything about the need not to "make assumptions" regarding the provenance of these papyri? See above in bold.

You need to be honest and stop misrepresenting Marouard.