I'm not saying the Palermo isn't important. I don't think I ever implied that, either.

I'm just saying we have to be careful what data we take from it "without question".

I'm perfectly content, for example, to take the Nile readings without much pause. No need for revisionism there. But when it comes to deity references and such, we have to be careful, that's all.

Certain things were definitely copied verbatim. The Palermo may have been one of them. It may not. We also may be looking at replicative fading... not even an intentional revision, but one that may change an important fact from the stone.

Basic prudence, nothing more.

Anthony

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.