Martin Stower wrote:

> My next question? Where do you get your ideas of “royal
> signage” from? Not from any systematic corpus of evidence,
> clearly. It appears on the contrary to be a genre you’ve made
> up, with characteristics chosen ad hoc to suit yourself. Why
> would the stela not fitting into your ill-motivated categories
> concern me in th least?

You are the one that posted the trivial question "Who is that next to the stone?" I simply assumed you were leading to a point, but perhaps not. If it's not royal signage, when who is responsible for it?


> You want data? What would a real scientist do? Consult the
> primary literature? Before spouting a halfbaked conspiracy
> theory?

I've consulted Shaw and Murray which were recommended in this discussion, and neither seem to agree on the composition of the stone, the translation of the glyphs, or the provenance of the stone. They've made no statement about the age of the engraving, or the purpose of the stone. Murray made it very clear how the condition of the stele is incompatible with the notion that it has been sitting out there for 4000 years. I consider all of that to be "data".

It's not at all clear what you consider to be "halfbaked" or "conspiracy". I've called nothing a conspiracy, and I'm basing my conclusions on the data I've read from the primary literature. It would seem like you are the one imagining things in this discussion, ignoring what the experts have written on the subject.


> Your having raised the question of data, where’s yours for
> your
> claims about earthquakes? Were you there, measuring
> them?

I'm reporting what the "experts" claimed happened. That area of Egypt average a mild earthquake every 50 years. That means many dozens of earthquakes over the millennia. If you don't like that data, feel free to ignore it. But don't deny hundreds of sand storms and weathering over the millennia that would impose wear and tear on the stone, the absence of which obviously astonished Murray.


> Those of us more inclined than you are to test theory by
> reference to data will see that what we have here is prima
> facie evidence that there were no earthquakes of
> sufficient magnitude to dislodge the stela or shiver the nearby
> ramps into disorganised heaps.

And there are also those of us less obsessed with displaying our Latin acumen and, rather, focus on logic and physical evidence to draw our conclusions. You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. Do not forget that simple truth.


> > By the way, with all your pomposity, you really have not
> > contributed any tangible information to this discussion so far.
>
> This from a “man” whose “contribution” to the discussion has
> been an unevidenced smear of Rex Engelbach and a drooling,
> drivelling conspiracy theory.

This is umpteenth time you have accused me of that, I've challenged you every time, and you have yet to produce a single shred of evidence to back up any of your allegations.



Post Edited (22-Jan-15 22:25)