You know you're objection above - well, that scholar's objection above - isn't a refutation of my point about the papyrus we were discussing yesterday.<quoted text> ''I don't know of any surviving papyrus documents from Egypt's delta, says Hoffmeier. It's too wet. And papyrus [made from the reed like plant of the same name] is where most of the records were kept. The inscriptions we see on statues temple facades tend to be propaganistic, what-we-want-you-to-know messages. And where papyrus records have survived they tend to be from the desert areas. So we have very few of the day to day court records of 3,000 years of Egyptian history.''
While direct evidence is missing there is circumstantial evidence.
This article quotes the scholars.
Because...we were discussing a *papyrus* and not a stone carving. You are aware of that, right?