sfbey wrote:

> I don't understand your problem. The provenance ( by
> definition) is where it was found.

I'm pretty sure "provenance" refers to the history of something all the way back to its orignal place and time, and not just where it was found the moment someone happened to stumble upon it thousands of years later. "Provenance" refers to both place and time.


> It is made of basalt. You
> have been told this. See any article on it. They all say
> BASALT! It is attributed to the 4th Dynasty because it has
> Khufu's name on it in a quarry that has artifacts dating to
> early Dynastic. This is not difficult.
> ...
> and see this recent paper on
> ‘Quarrying and landscape at Gebel el-Asr in the Old and Middle
> Kingdoms’, Recent Discoveries and Latest Researches in
> Egyptology: Proceedings of the First Neapolitan Congress of
> Egyptology, Naples, June 18th-20th 2008, ed. F. Raffaele, M.
> Nuzzollo, and I. Incordino (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz,
> 2010), 293-312.
>
> [www.academia.edu]

Regarding what the Khufu Stele is made of, the only mention of it possibly being "basalt" anywhere in this discussion (other than in your most recent post) is in the original post by Dr. T., and it's put in quotes implying he's not sure about it really being basalt. And so I've asked this group several times for a reference for its composition and have gotten no replies. Now you say it might be mentioned in that article, but it is not.


> ed: His published paper may have info on the stele? I have not seen it.
> Engelbach, R. 1938 The quarries of the western Nubian Desert
> and the ancient road to Tushka.
> Annales duService des Antiquités de l'Egypte . 38. 369-90

And you are not sure whether Engelbach claims it's basalt, so what are you basing your belief on?