> Firstly, I asked a somewhat similar type question
> of Thanos some long long 5yrs? ago.
> From very distant memory
> Q (Something naïve like) "Thanos5150... great
> work yada yada... I am wondering if there is a
> specific building in Mesopotamia that the style is
> based on?
> Answer: (Something like:) ....not one specific
> first building identified as still extant, but it
> singular may have existed. However there are
> rather many of them, both in ancient Mesopotamia
> and Egypt that conform to the general style.
"May have existed" and so no specific example of any building credibly dated before the first known use of the palace facade in a serekh. So how do you know which came first?
> Now for an analogy to see if this gets through?...
Why the need to resort to analogy if you believe that the physical evidence exists to support the primary assertion?
> Now pretend that for a thousand years instead of
> Lion etc that Buckingham palace façade was always
> on the CoA (analogy Palace façade)
How about, let's not "pretend" but instead point to actual physical evidence that supports the primary assertion? Do we know with certainty that the palace facade design on the serekh -- which in its earliest known form was far more abstract than more modern versions that clearly took on what appears to be more distinct architectural details -- was not created before the design appeared in the architecture?
> What do you reckon? Would they make the symbolic
> identifying crest Coat of Arms, out of a dreamt
> up, yet to be made imaginary building, or would
> the building in some form have been built or
> likely come first?...
"Dreamt up" and "likely" are your characterizations, not mine. The earliest version of a serekh has abstract lines that look no more like a building than a picket fence today, and I see no evidence that royalty has (or had) a monopoly on fences.
In my opinion, there is plenty of evidence mounting to suggest that Manetho's timeline is becoming increasingly problematic, and so we don't really know when the language was originally developed or the true original provenance of much of that architecture. And so according to your "dreamt up" assertion, how can you be sure that a later culture didn't stumble upon a pre-existing ancient infrastructure of megalithic architecture and language, made it their own, assigned their own interpretation to everything they found there, including strange paintings and inscriptions (glyphs), and developed a culture with its own subsequent architectural styles around that belief system? And nothing excludes the possibility that this might have happened several times.
> What you are likely asking though is has one or
> the other extant examples of either been found
> and dated dated as original and first?
> Well unless you have had a major change of
> perception or brain transplant recently, you
> almost invariably habitually doubt or dispute
> virtually any or most dating offered by any
> professional Archaeologist's or Egyptologist's
> anyway !
Again, that's your characterization, not mine.
I have a problem with dating by means of contextual association. Bones, food, and clothing found within a set of ruins very likely indicates the presence of the most recent culture that occupied those ruins and might have no bearing at all on the original construction of those ruins.
What dating do you subscribe to that answers that question satisfactorily for you?
> Or you might be alluding perhaps to this
> phenomena had nothing to do with either very
> ancient Mesopotamian or Egyptian cultures but
> belongs to a non attested unrelated "other"
> culture. This you will have to produce the
> evidence for yourself. Suggest start looking and
> digging at GT or Turkey!
I assume that by "phenomena" you are referring to the claim that the use of the palace facade in the serekh represents a pre-existing architectural style rather than its use preceeding a subsequent architectural style. In that case, I've seen no evidence to authenticate either scenario (ie, which came first). So it's still in Schödinger's Cat mode based on the evidence I've seen so far.
> Whilst I'm at it
Origyptian from Mastaba thread
> An adequate hypothesis for the initial use (Dyn 0
> & 1) of the serekh needs to explain not only the
> inclusion of Horus, but also entire enclosure
> complete with couryard, the uraeus in the
> courtyard, and the use of a place facade to
> represent the enclosed building rather than a
> better depiction of the actual structure at that
> end of the enclosure. From what I can tell, the
> earliest architectural examples of the palace
> facade is a very simple pleating of an enclosure
> wall, so why make the enclosure wall a straight
> line in the serekh rather than a rippled line
> indicating the pleating? Why focus on the
> engineering aspects of the surrounding wall rather
> than a more "meaningful" architectural feature of
> the building within that enclosure -- have any
> Dynasty 0 or Dynasty 1 buildings themselves (not
> the pleated enclosure wall) been found with a
> palace facade design
> It appears to me that you somewhat misunderstand
> what you are looking at. in reference to Djet
> The façade part is not plan view it is elevation
> view (façade) the glyph you refer to as "uraeus"
> is simply Djet Horus name . It is fair to think
> the "courtyard" is plan view and enclosure wall ,
> as some describe it like that but it is the
> outline forming a place that later serekhs
> included the glyph spelling of Kings Horus name
> were enclosed /written (previously outside or
> alongside. It also forms a perch for the almighty
> perhaps celestial symbol of royal power /God
> affiliated sanction the Horus falcon. Seen also in
> Mesopotamian art iconery symbols all over in
> somewhat different form.
Yes, of coure I realize that's the interpretation of what's being depicted. Aside from the origin of including the "name" in the serekh, my question about the palace facade is why go through the geometric contortion of including an "elevation view" (ie, side view) of the wall and reproduce that closeup detail atop a plan view of the wall that's misrepresented as a straight line instead of simply (and more acccurately) reproducing the ripples within the the plan view itself. It seems like an unnecessary contortion that is easily reconciled by the possibility that the "palace facade" originally represented something other than the architectural style of the "enclosure wall" which is represented as a straight rather than rippled line.
> Ok at least if I have made mistakes, I feel maybe
> if I ask nicely, Thanos will correct me. But my
> guess ....don't count on it.
> I hope that helps the nagging dilemma?
It doesn't seem like a dilemma to me.
> Edit PS: Now if you are thinking of a nah nah
> 'come back' something like.... there are no Lions
> in Britain or definitely no unicorns in Scotland!
> Then..... do you think they could have made a wild
> guess and dreamt up what a big cat might look like
> sight unseen and struck it lucky and it turned
> out consistent or they later bred or imported them
> , or that mythical unicorns were not already
> folklore before it made the Scottish Royal CoA?
Defaulting to such analogies, metaphors and essentially false equivalencies is often how such apparent dilemmas are created in the first place. That's one reason that I only consider the direct physical evidence. I just haven't seen it yet.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?