Thanos5150 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Origyptian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > 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.

Yes, we've been through this before: stop trying to divine what I'm thinking and take my words on their own merit. If that's what I meant, why wouldn't I just say it? It's silly to keep pushing this "I can read your mind" contrivance.



> > It might be, but I
> > have trouble reconciling some of the physical
> > evidence with various assertions.
>
> Why might it not be?

Because it hasn't yet been proven TO be!

The silliness in these discussions is getting out of control.



> 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".

You don't seem to understand the basic and important difference between "is not" and "might not". In my opinion, this business about confusing a tentative possibility with a definite fact is what has gotten Egyptology into the mess it's in today.



> 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?

And again, the diary doesn't say that. Tallet does. He's made "various assertions" about what's in those payri, but from what I've seen in his publications so far, the papyri don't actually say that. How many times do we need to go through this same distinction?



> 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?

I'm not as convinced as you are about the traditional Khufu narrative.

But Khufu aside, I've already stated many times that those blocks may have simply been sent to Giza to make repairs, restorations, or for ancillary building projects and that there is nothing about those papyri that mention any specific construction, original or otherwise.



> 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.

Ugh, I'm done tracking the number of times you guys are claiming to be clairvoyant or that I'm not being honest and have some kind of dark, doubt mongering agenda.

I have no preconcieved notions here other than the notion that scrutiny definitely needs to be applied whenever someone cites as evidence an unverified claim, especially a claim that originated by an early investigator who applied a different standard of proof. I just don't understand why anyone would have a problem with such a simple concept.



> Doubt for doubts sake for no other purpose...
> than to cast even further doubt on the provenance of
> the diary and hieroglyphs...

...and that's your characterization, not mine. Sure, doubt is often a byproduct of the unverified until the claim has been verified. But we (or at least I) have no reason to simply "trust" such a claim without verifying that it's based on solid evidence. Even Einstein wasn't accepted (but was he "doubted"?) until his formulas were vindicated with real independent verification decades after he proposed them. This notion about simply accepting a claim as fact without verifying its validity may have served to keep the traditional narrative self-consistent for the past few centuries, but it's useless when trying to actually determine what's true.



> 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.

Again, that's your characterization, not mine.

And again with your self-proclaimed clairvoyance.

The diary is not the problem. For the umpteenth time, the problem is that Tallet's claims about what those papyri say doesn't seem to be what the papyri actually say.

I hope this long post finally gets that point across.

Meanwhile, some members here claim to be able to read the glyphs. There have been some significant segments of papyri published, so what do they say? Can anyone translate them? Or shall we wait until June and see what the author has to say about it?



> > > ...and contradict any argument against
> > > it. The lot of you didn't even know who Ankh-haf
> > > was or his significance in Merrer's diary until I
> > > brought it up months ago (ignored then), yet now
> > > all of a sudden you are all over it trying to deny
> > > Ankh-haf even belongs to the 4th Dynasty? How many
> > > times have we seen this before. But if you do have
> > > 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?

Then why mention it at all if you have no problem with some of us investigating the evidence about Ankh-haf? The fact that you don't question a 4th Dynasty provenance combined with your complaint that we are "all over" Ankh-haf suggested to me that you object to any additional scrutiny. And why invoke "original thought" here, other than the fact that we seem to be investigating Tallet's (and for that matter, Reisner's) "original thought"?



> 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.

More self-proclaimed clairvoyance.

And this is an odd time for you to get into self-aggrandizement; I assume you already know that I'm on record as having a problem with Tallet's el-Jarf claims long before you mentioned anything about Ankh-haf in the context of that "harbor" facility (which is located 5 km inland from the shoreline). But as I read up on Ankh-haf, it became clear that Reiser pulled another "Heterpheres' Tomb" presumption, this time on Ankh-haf's provenance.

By the way, I assume you don't believe that each of those mastabas was only claimed by a single owner/occupant/mummy throughout all those millennia.



> 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.

I still don't understand the basis for the claim of provenance. I mean, I realize the traditional timeline puts Khufu and Ankh-haf in the 4th dynasty, but I have a problem with that timeline largely due to its lack of consideration of technology and engineering, and so there still are some tenuous aspects to that provenance, especially as they are revisited in modern times (e.g., Lehner revisting the Tomb of Hetepheres, or Romer revisiting the stress relieving aspect of the RCs, not to mention Assmann revisiting Baalbek, etc.).

Regarding the mention of "Khufu", what's the context? Is it simply the presence of the cartouche in the papyrus or that the papyrus narrative actually cites him as a contemporaneous human (and yet still with no absolute dates)? After all, if you find a note today that simply says "I visited Washington yesterday to have lunch with Martha" do you automatically think the page dates back to ca. 1790 regarding a visit with the First Lady? As I've said many times, it's not clear to me that the mention of "Khufu" on those papyri is a reference to the man himself vs. a location, credential, administration/organization, etc.

I reserve further opinion until the volume of translations comes out in June.



> This implies to some it was for construction of G1.

Sure, it's a possibility.. Just don't claim that's what the papyri actually say (as Tallet did). He seems to have overinterpreted the evidence, and so must be challenged on that, unless, of course, he is basing his claims on evidence he hasn't presented yet, which is one reason I look forward to the translations coming in June.



> 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.

Your attempt to give the "doubt monger" meme traction might work for some, but not for everyone.

"Caution must be exercised..."
      - Greg Marouard

And how many times are we going to agree that the papyri don't indicate what the stones were used for?