Martin Stower wrote:

> Origyptian wrote:
>
> > In retrospect, I'm not sure what to make of that block of
> > stone. As was pointed out earlier in this discussion, it seems
> > clear that this thin vertical fragment was roughly broken from
> > a larger slab before it was engraved. The engraving is
> > tentatively shallow and is hardly neat, shaped, and polished
> > compared to the more "deliberate", deeper, "official" artifacts
> > that pronounce such royalty, if this is to truly designate the
> > "hunting ground of Khufu".
> >
> > Also, that area of Egypt is reported to average a mild, but
> > physically detectable, earthquake (<5.0 Richter) every 50
> > years. After a few millennia, that averages to many dozens of
> > 'quakes under that stone, standing there in a top heavy posture
> > only loosely supported by the adjacent stones. That's a lot of
> > jostling and cajoling for such a thin, heavy stone to be
> > standing to erect, considering that it was only sitting in
> > maybe 10" of ground with maybe 80% still exposed vertically
> > when Engelbach "discovered" it out there in the open.
> >
> > It seems very problematic to consider the shallow engraving,
> > shallow implantation, and erect top-heavy posture of that
> > "gneiss" stone as being compelling evidence that its provenance
> > is anywhere near as far back as the 3rd millennium BC.
>
> I gather from the scare quotes around “discovered” that you’re
> now accusing Engelbach of forgery.

You would be incorrect. I never accused him of any wrongdoing, but I'm not convinced that stela was found in its original position, that it is authentic from the traditional OK, or that it is translated accurately. That stone apparently has been exposed in the open where many people may have walked by, handled, moved, and otherwise had their way with it, presumably over the past few millennia. So how does one construe that Engelbach "discovered" it in 1938? For that matter, who discovered the Great Pyramid? Or the Sphinx? Engelbach didn't find the stela in an unbreached chamber, lost since its own contemporary time. Do you think Engelbach truly was the first human to see that stone since the 2550s BC?


> Engelbach, I dare say, knew vastly, incomparably more than you
> do now or ever will about the varieties of ancient Egyptian
> inscription, including ‘the more “deliberate”, deeper,
> “official” artifacts that pronounce such royalty’ (which is, by
> the way, a poor description of the best Old Kingdom work:
> shallow relief in softer stone is more characteristic, while
> the hieroglyphic inscriptions on the statue of Khafre in
> presumably the same hard stone are not very deep either). So
> why, pray, if Englebach was going to fake something, would he
> fake it wrong?

You're imaging things. I never said he faked anything. And you have yet to present any evidence that proves the provenance or meaning of that stone. Meanwhile, the shape, condition, and positioning of that stone are very suspicious for something with a provenance over 4 millennia ago. And I hope modern glyph translation methods are in better shape than back when "hunting ground" and "workshop" were ambiguous.


> What exactly is it makes you imagine that your smattering of
> knowledge comes near to warranting such an accusation?

I've made no such accusation. But you've managed to imagine a hypothesis based on misinterpretations, and then proceed to not only consider it the truth, but you go even further and throw personal insults at me. We are all entitled to our perspective of the evidence. Get over it.



Post Edited (17-Jan-15 09:22)