> I never claimed that it's not from the 4th
> Dynasty. I said I'm looking for evidence
> supporting the claim that it was from the
> 4th Dynasty in the first place.
We've already been through this with you. This is what you "say", but obviously not what you mean.
> It might be, but I
> have trouble reconciling some of the physical
> evidence with various assertions.
Why might it not be? You just said you never said it wasn't from the 4th Dynasty yet in the next sentence by direct inference suggest it "might not be". And what do the "various assertions" regarding the physical evidence have to do with the provenance of the diary itself? Again, where does the dairy say the stone was being used in the construction of G1? We know Khufu was a 4th Dynasty pharaoh and that his stank is in and around G1 so what is the problem with acknowledgement of his involvement at the site when we know in one way or another he was?
And let's be honest, the trouble you have "reconciling" this evidence is a means to an end to confirm your bias having nothing to do with the actual state of the evidence itself. Doubt for doubts sake for no other purpose than to cast even further doubt on the provenance of the diary and hieroglyphs. Given the otherwise crude stoneworking of the site, if the diary and hieroglyphs weren't found there you wouldn't give it a second thought, but the fact they are then up is down black is white and anything could mean anything. Whatever it takes to doubt monger the 4th Dynasty provenance of the diary and glyphs.
> > ...and contradict any argument against
> > it. The lot of you didn't even know who
> > was or his significance in Merrer's diary until
> > brought it up months ago (ignored then), yet
> > all of a sudden you are all over it trying to
> > Ankh-haf even belongs to the 4th Dynasty? How
> > times have we seen this before. But if you do
> > an original thought of your own, please, go
> > on....
> I don't understand your perspective. Are you
> saying that you don't think anyone should be
> allowed to scrutinize a claim by taking a look at
> the evidence before accepting it as true?
Where does what I said even remotely state or imply this? I doubt you are actually confused by what I meant. The problem with some of you, the point, is that your motivations for "scrutinizing a claim" in the first place is again nothing more than a means to an end, as if we are not 100% sure of something therefore it could mean anything which in turn "invalidates" any counter argument to your beliefs. If Ankh-haf wasn't mentioned by Merrer the lot of you would pay it no mind, but the fact he is means just like clock work the scurrying begins to cast doubt on him.
At Wadi al-Jarf papyri and hieroglyphs were found that name the 4th Dynasty pharaoh Khufu and the 4th Dynasty vizier Ankh-haf which gives an accounting of stone transport to Giza. This implies to some it was for construction of G1. What follows is the site itself is doubt mongered as not being from the 4th Dynasty to the last detail right down to the pottery and boat fragments. The papyri itself is doubt mongered as not being from the 4th Dynasty and "could have been put there at anytime by anyone". The same for the hieroglyphs on the exterior blocks- "we have no idea who put those there and when". Ankh-haf may not have been actually Khufu's half-brother. Doesn't matter. So then Ankh-kaf may have not even been from the 4th Dynasty. What does the Khufu cartouche "really" reffering to i.e. not an actual person? On and on it always goes for no reason other than doubt for doubt's sake. All for nothing as the diary makes no mention of what the stone was used for.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12-Mar-17 16:55 by Thanos5150.