> So then, you are unaware of the fact that the only materials
> that don't corrode, degrade, and/or decompose within about 500
> years are solid stone and solid gold? Not to mention, the older
> a civilization is, the less there is artifact-wise, mainly
> because the archaeological record preserves only a very small
> fraction of objects that somehow manage to get buried in the
> first place. Just to name a few of the more obvious reasons...
In Egypt is was far worse yet. Wood of any size would be recovered almost immediately for use as fuel. Anything of sufficient size for lumber would not have been left behind initially. Copper and tin were very valuable and would also have been shipped out and recycled. The only thing left behind would be middens full of debris, small lost tools, and broken pottery. Modern people have economies founded on waste. Ancient people were far wiser and wasted very very little. Much of this "wisdom" was dictated by the nature of an economy that couldn't just leave a 500 lb copper object to simply weather away in the desert. They couln't afford to waste fuel and resources because all of them were precious. When we abandon a site we leave working 25 ton steam shovels lying behind. They wouldn't intentionally leave a 14 oz copper chisel.
There was a "Great Saw Palace". This is indisputable. That they used it for central meat packing in the days before refrigeration is a baseless and illogical claim when a pyramid stands before us with hundreds of thousands of saw cuts on it.
Egyptology needs to get unstuck from the 19th century that held these people were too primitive to understand simple physics or to understand the behaviour of materials that were all around them. They need to spend more time with the actual evidence and a lot less with their assumptions like anything that isn't in a museum can't exist.