>The king lists are
> irrelevant as to what is the OK and what is not
> therefore OK provenance can be solely derived
> archaeologically despite who the king lists say
> ruled when. Just because the king lists quibble
> over the minutia of the order of rulers does not
> change the archeological context of the OK meaning
> that because of these minor discrepancies
> therefore the OK can somehow be placed before the
> 1st Dynasty ect. This is nonsense.
> Thanos: Is there anything in any way other than
> the mere fact it is made of granite that would
> lead to any other conclusion and if so what is it
> specifically? What is the reason other than the
> material used, despite the overwhelming contextual
> and direct evidence to the contrary, that would
> suggest this sarcophagus was not made in the
> period it is ascribed to?
> The fact it is made of granite is the only
> reason you suggest it was not made in the OK so I
> think this qualifies as "merely".
> And as far as "overwhelming OK provenance", at the
> Giza cemeteries where this sarcophagus is found,
> the evidence of OK provenance is indeed
> "overwhelming". There is nothing for you to
> "disagree" with. There are several hundred
> mastabas and tombs on the Giza plateau and with
> the exception of a relative few, most after the
> fact, every single one is directly related to OK
> provenance. This does not mean the entirety of all
> the structures there date to this period, but the
> only people of which we find any evidence of
> clearly do. So for you to say all at Giza was the
> work of a lost civilization what this means is
> that people exclusively from the OK moved in and
> took the whole place over down to just about the
> last mastaba and removed all evidence of any prior
> cultural existence "lost" or otherwise. I would
> say this qualifies as "overwhelming".
> There is a small amount of evidence at Giza which
> directly or circumstantially suggests an earlier
> dynastic presence, but nothing beyond the
> historical period of the Dynastic era itself. I do
> beleive it possible a population existed in the
> area responsible for the Sphinx and associated
> temples et al that may have predated dynastic
> Egypt, but as said numerous times before a
> population sufficient enough to build the
> pyramids, 100's of mastabas, pave the place, make
> boat pits ect, ect just is not there. No amount of
> OK "squatters" could remove such a presence
> entirely from existence nor absorb the culture as
> to be otherwise indistinguishable from their own
> not to mention as you would have it to apply no
> different to the whole of Egyptian history
> wherever these is a big block, statue or piece of
Regarding this "archaeological context and evidence", is it not true that most of this does relate to heiroglyphs and in particular cartouches that are assigned to OK (or in particular 4th D?) ALSO other things like the potshards and jewelry other things are arbitrarily assigned to a dynasty?
Circular reasoning. eg If I find an old Aussie earthenware ginger beer bottle with a stamp on it "Woodies" I know I can date it possibly to late 19th Century. But if it is a strange item to me, and I arbitrarily say all pots with black drawings of animals are "X" dynasty dated to yyyy ,then assume because such is located in a tomb then the tomb must be X dynasty ......that is circular logic.
What else is there to establish when it made or was put there?
In your earlier reply to me (thanks for that appreciated!) the thrust of your conforming to convention points is there was a relatively brief period 100 to 200 yrs in OK when suddenly technology advanced rapidly to work granite and ...topic complete differnet design in basalt... then it apparently disappeared only for another spurt of phenomenal both volume and scale of stone working capability to arise in brief times such as Ramsees II and even later in Serepeum! (NK LOL!)
You know there are correlating evidence of unexplainable stonework all over the world similarly arbitrarily assigned a dating such as "Mayan" or "Aztec".
The Kings lists is the major guide and we do know when some such were created (such as Manetho )but did they have verifiable 2-3000 year old source information or were they also best guessing just like modern Eygptologists?
Why cant for example all granite boxes be say 2nd dynasty?.... is it because the potshards don't match? or the graffiti says someone claimed it?
There is potter near me who reproduces Chinese Ming copies... didn't A Egypt ever think of such revisionary nostalgia?
but as said numerous times before a population sufficient enough to build the pyramids, 100's of mastabas, pave the place, make boat pits ect, ect just is not there
They must have been there, because we can see such things today. It is just we call them 4th Dynasty AE.
There must have been a 4th Dynasty AE too but what did they do? Miraculous short term not to be repeated technological feats (apparently)! or adoptors who moved in , staked ownership and renovated?
Mate don't bust a boiler ...just sayin'