Origyptian wrote:

> DScribr wrote:
>
> > Yes, this thread is another excellent example of Ori's use of
> > false inferences, speculations, and misguided opinions here
> to
> > try and throw the Stele's provenance, etc off the rail.
>
> "Off the rail"? What rail? The Stele was never on a rail except
> the one you're trying hard to put it on. From what I can tell
> neither Engelbach, Shaw, or Murray claim that stele was from
> the 4th Dynasty, so why are you? And even if they did, they
> would need to provide compelling evidence for making such a
> claim in the midst of all of the physical evidence to the
> contrary.
>
>
> > The Khufu Stele is made of Gniess, a metamorphic type of
> > stone....and you'd already know this IF you had bothered to
> > read the article.
>
> Show me any expert who has shown it's made of gneiss.
>
> The only reports I've seen have referred to it as either basalt
> or black granite.
>
> I'm afraid you may be the one that's gone off rail here.



DUH! The term, "Off the rail" IS YOURS ORI....apparently, you don't remember posting it a mere few hrs. ago.

The article stated that the Stele is made of Gniess.

It's still a good idea to read ALL posts in a thread in order to keep up w/ the discussion.

Helpful hint: Black Granite IS a type of Gniess.


YOU need to provide compelling evidence for making such a claim in the midst of all of the physical evidence to the contrary.

**********************************************************

Edit to add: Author: Origyptian (174.44.106.---)
Date: 22-Jan-15 16:57

sfbey wrote:

> I reread Shaw and realized he does NOT use the word basalt. I
> misread. He called the inscription found of Niuserra basalt.

Thanks for the corroboration, sfbey.

This is a fascinating stone, and it could very well serve as an archetype example of how false inferences can bring things off rail.



Post Edited (23-Jan-15 03:39)