Audrey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Martin Stower Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As you are not catching on, I will give you a
> > hint.
> >
> > This:
> >
> >
> >
> > Is it correct?
> >
> > Should you not have checked this without my
> > prompting? Should you be faulting Roth on the
> > strength of it?
> >
> > M.
>
> A nice well mannered person would have just told
> me that I had labeled it wrong, instead of using
> my mistake to insult someone else. It appears it
> is you who is playing games while simultaneously
> ignoring the evidence.
>
> Now does this corrected label make Roth's idea
> valid?
> Of course it doesn't.
> Have you anything at all to say about the validity
> of Roth's proposal? Or do you just accept it as
> fact because an authority figure said so?
>
> She clearly states :
>

Quote
Roth
> ... the end walls are divided in half and
> the blocks are marked with the name of the gang
> whose name is on the nearest side wall.
>

>
> Then in the very next statement she creates
> confusion by saying :
>

Quote
Roth
> This distribution is presented schematically in
> figure 7.2. The pattern suggests that the pyramid
> was constructed by gangs whose responsibility was
> divided between its northern and southern
> halves.
>

> Sounds like she's trying to cover all bases. If
> not, she has at the very least, worded it poorly.
> She based her entire conclusion on the north wall
> and half of the west wall. Can you show
> differently?
>
> How can one create a 'hypothesis' from less than
> half of the walls?
>

The marks we are discussing , if quarry marks, are not on walls per se. They are on blocks that make up those walls. They are also on 1000's of other blocks that are not exposed.

The sample is not sufficient to formulate a pattern imho


> Can you explain why this feeble hypothesis is
> proof that the Khufu cartouche is authentic? After
> all, it was you and Merrell who stressed the
> importance of the phyle names in authentication.


It is not a smoking gun.

No one is claiming otherwise, other than Laird Scranton and those who agree with him.

None of these hypothesis' stand on their own.

It is an intricate web of circumstantial evidence

But you already know that.


>
> And NO! What Scott writes about Roth in his book
> had NOTHING to do with me.

I don't need Roth's hypothesis to appreciate that I am looking at quarry marks

In this instance I think you and I can agree that Roth's work is not a definitive denominator

Warwick

Warwick