> 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
I think too much emphasis is placed on "dynasties" rather than "periods". Its not as if one day I am in the 4th Dynasty and the next the 5th and things are somehow magically different therefore I can positively delineate between the two on an archeological basis. Personally I think lumping it together as "Early Dynastic", "Old Kingdom" and the like is more apt because it is within this period that is found a great enough distinction to consider the whole as a group in time regardless of what pharaoh ruled when or how long.
To your points, it's not always as "arbitrary" one might think for the simple reason there comes a time, before or after, where something either does not exist or fades away and is no longer seen in the archeological record. It's not just the cartouches, but the totality of what is found right along side these cartouches which creates context which when these artifacts are compared to periods directly before and after do not exist or become increasingly sparse or altered then this should tell us a lot about when they were made and by who.
> 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
If you found a strange bottle all by its lonesome without any other context then why would you arbitrarily date it to "X" Dynasty dated to yyyy? This is not how archeology works. But if this bottle was right alongside your Woodies bottle and other artifacts from the period and you didn't find this strange bottle any time anywhere before this period or after then what would this tell you? Of course it does not mean with 100% certainty it dates to this period but it certainly decreases the likelihood it was not. You also look at the way it was manufactured to find out the earliest time not only could it have been made but also when people stopped making them this way. But this isn't what Giza is about though is it? There are several hundred tombs, dozens of sarcophagi, paintings, reliefs, pots, bowls, on and on and on-thousands of examples which when taken as a whole provide a greater context that establishes provenance. This can be compared to other locations and grouping made to establish relative dating.
An interesting example I would give are the "Reserve Heads" found at Giza. 31 have been discovered so far and except for four, also from a 4th Dynasty context, all are found at Giza.
They seem to be unique portraits of individuals with similarities that suggest familiar relationships, but regardless they are only found in mastabas and nearly all in the Western Cemetery most of which coming from cemetery 4000. So here is your "X" bottle yet how should we date them? Can I say with 100% certainty they are from the 4th Dynasty? Maybe they are the faces of this lost civilization? Well, sure, these people could have went to 31 other tombs, "or wherever", before their time and found every single one of them and claimed them as their own...or maybe, just maybe they belong to the very context they are found of which not only is there no other context from any other period but neither are there any of these heads found elsewhere. Kind of reminds one of these sarcophagi does it not?
> What else is there to establish when it made or
> was put there?
There are many different methods: RCD, thermoluminescence, stratigraphy, cross-dating, astronomy, seriation, ect ect. The farther you go back in time absolute dating is virtually impossible so if this is one's "burden of proof" it is unrealistic. The best we can usually ever hope to attain is the highest rate of probability so to look at the monuments of Giza, when all things are considered which includes the context of history as a whole, the probability it was done sometime during the Naqada/Dynastic period is extremely high whereas the probability they were made tens of thousands of years ago by some unknown civilization is extremely if not infinitesimally low.
With that being said, I have also argued here many a time that the core structures of Giza and Dashur do in fact predate the 4th Dynasty (though still within the Dynastic period) and have placed the Sphinx and associated temples even farther back which may have even been shortly prior to 6,000BC. If anyone cares I can get into it, but the point is the disparity of the monuments with the technological ability of the AE of the time is not lost on me which is really not the argument to be made anyways as there is actual evidence at Giza that these structures predate the 4th Dynasty which strangely rarely gets discussed here. To me, the 4th Dynasty is not the beginning of the construction process but the end which is why it is only their name on the door (figuratively speaking).
> 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!)
Hard stone like granite and diorite was worked since the very beginnings of Dynastic Egypt. A 15 ton cut granite portcullis door, for example, was found in a 1st Dynasty tomb and of course a plethora of exquisitely made wares. But constructing entire structures in stone as seen in the 3rd Dynasty and after is completely absent despite the fact the archeological or cultural record provides no explanation for this sudden and dramatic departure that literally happened overnight. After it was established, however, it did not disappear, which is telling, just the scope and volume of the work waxed and waned which the (late) MK/NK was no doubt a renaissance of monumental stonework, something I do not think has ever been adequately explained.
> You know there are correlating evidence of
> unexplainable stonework all over the world
> similarly arbitrarily assigned a dating such as
> "Mayan" or "Aztec".
Of course. I have been to Mexico, Peru, and Bolivia and have seen many of these sites for myself. I am happy to discuss it, but there is a big difference in the capability of AE culture and that of the Meso/South Americans. And not only that, but most telling of all is often, like the Inca for example, you can see the different phases of construction with your own eyes clearly able to delineate what was "Inca" and what was not. This should be of note to any who hold the view the AE monuments were built by some antediluvian lost civilization as the Inca were clearly culturally and technologically inferior to the AE yet why do we not see inferior AE stonework on top of the superior work from this lost civilization? Though the AE supposedly "inherited" every single megalithic monument in their 3,000yr history they never built on top of them or made substandard repairs? They miraculously found each structure in perfect move-in condition right across their entire 3,000yr history? Kind of silly if you think about it. Everywhere you go all over the world when one culture has inherited the infrastructure from another you can clearly see a demarcation between the two which is part and parcel of the ancient human experience. But except for Egypt? This should speak volumes.
> 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?
See for yourself and make up your own mind:List of King Lists.
> 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 no context of granite or stone work in general of this calibre in the 2nd Dynasty which was basically limited to stoneware and a few examples of crude cut limestone flooring and low walls. This was a tyrpical sarcophagus of the 2nd Dynasty:
Note the similarity of lid shape with those of later OK examples.
Many many 1st-2nd Dynasty tombs have been explored yet not one contains a granite or stone box yet they are ubiquitous from the OK onward. Regardless of potshards or graffiti does this mean something or nothing?
> There is potter near me who reproduces Chinese
> Ming copies... didn't A Egypt ever think of such
> revisionary nostalgia?
Sure, but where are the originals? Oh, but those are the originals. Right.
> They must have been there, because we can see such
> things today. It is just we call them 4th Dynasty
So call them Klingons if you'd like, but does this change the context from the 3rd millennium to say the 14th? Or 50th? Again, I wouldn't get so hung up on the minutia of "dynasties" but focus more on the period.
> There must have been a 4th Dynasty AE too but what
> did they do?
How about this:
I wonder if one can do these things what else could they do? Could they make stone boxes to bury themselves in?
Here is a copy of a relief from an OK Giza mastaba depicting them pulling one of these very stone boxes to "presuambly" bury the person in that very mastaba:
So I guess this is proof they got these lost civilization stone boxes from somewhere else and dragged them to the underground chamber of their mastaba....?
> Miraculous short term not to be
> repeated technological feats (apparently)! or
> adoptors who moved in , staked ownership and
I bought this house 10yrs ago and have extensively renovated to where other than the framing, foundation, drywall, electrical, and a patch of stair carpet I am too lazy to replace there is no physical evidence left of the former owner or external proof this house was made prior to 2006. Digging in the back of my property, however, I have found an old tire, pots, various cans, pipes, ect ect all of which are well older than 10yrs. And all the people who did the work for me I could not do myself took their tools with them of which what I have of my own are barely capable of the task.
> Mate don't bust a boiler ...just sayin'
All good. This is what its all about friend.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11-Apr-16 03:50 by Thanos5150.