Origyptian wrote:


> I don't know about you, Audrey, but this discussion has been
> very revealing to me. It has given us insight into the moment
> the stones were found, it shows us the uncertainties that
> really did exist at that time, the lower standards of the dig
> in those days, the non-committal nature of the primary
> citations compared to the assuredness of post-hoc orthodox
> readership due to the false inferences made by so many people
> today about the event.

Oh I agree. And this thread has been very informative, that's why I'm following it. Though I'm not at all surprised at the dead end it leads too. Tracking the origins of the Khufu have so far always led to a dead end.

> Denying that the concept of "physical evidence" as it applies
> to the forensics of Egyptology is simply laughable. Those who
> want the truth should simply steer clear of the "But he has
> experience and you don't" scapegoat mantra. The fact is, what
> I'm proposing is far more in line with Shaw and Murray, who
> also apparently were reluctant to commit to stating the
> provenance of those artifacts and who very likely realized the
> stonework of those two items did not happen back in the Old
> Kingdom but are more recent works.
>
> At least that's what I glean from the evidence so far.

All I see is a stone with glyphs carved on it. When it was carved or placed and by whom cannot be determined. And there seems to be disagreement about what it says. Hunting grounds? 600 miles away? At a quarry? Must have been some seriously good hunting.

I thought you would have been interested in the copper chisel found at the site. Just laying on a rock, for over 4,000 years.