> Jon Ellison Wrote:
> > You seem to be saying that the AE or previous
> > cultures or just good old father time is
> > of totally eradicating any tooling or equipment
> > used by a hypothetical pre civilization in the
> > construction and manufacture of megalithic
> > monuments and precision hard stone statuary.
> Where do I say this "seemingly" or otherwise?
> Maybe if you quoted what the person said once in
> awhile with your response there would be less
> confusion for you.
> Which "previous cultures" do I refer to exactly?
> And why does this phenomenon only apply to a
> "hypothetical pre civilization" and not historical
> times? I believe this is the point I was making.
> > Conversely you are perfectly comfortable with
> > idea that the dynastic AE did in fact somehow
> > totally sanitize these construction sites of
> > own tooling, equipment and techniques leaving
> > evidence today of how they achieved such feats
> > engineering and manufacture.
> > No tools, no equipment, no techniques.
> > All lost over a mere 4500 years, yet the AE
> > artwork and the implements of ordinary life and
> > death remain in abundance.
> > How can that be?
OKAY I'll make it simple for you.
You ask.. Where's the evidence of construction by a previous civilisation?
I say .. Where's the evidence of construction by the 4th AE. 4500 years not being long enough to ensure the natural degradation and disappearance of all man made artifacts.
> Ask yourself- indeed, how could this be?
How could the 4th AE have totally sanitized the construction site and removed all physical evidence of construction methods, tooling and techniques.
> > What could possibly eradicate out of existence
> > artificial artifacts other than those made of
> > stone?
> We have had this conversation many times over.
> > How can you be certain that this was carved by
> > early dynastic AE?
> You are quick to question its provenance because
> all you see is a stone statue which could possibly
> not be made by "bronze age primitives", yet you
> have no interest in what it is meant to depict,
> who, why, what the inscriptions say, or even
> understand the context of the style of kilt,
> beard, hair, crowns, what they are holding in
> their hands, ect as if all this were somehow
> meaningless and/or because you know nothing of
> such things therefore it can be interpreted any
> which way one desires.
> > Do you believe that the glyphs are
> > with the sculpture?
> But one of many found at Giza dedicated to
> Menkaure alone:
> The inscription at the base says:
> "The Horus (Kakhet), King of Upper and Lower
> Egypt, Menkaura, beloved of Hathor, Mistress of
> the Sycamore. Recitation: I have given you all
> good things, all offerings, and all provisions in
> Upper Egypt, forever.”
All of which are crudely indented.
> You might note above the head of the smallest
> figure (which has meaning) on each statue is a
> glyph which represents the standard of the nome
> with which dedicated the statue the goddess is
> associated. Obviously these at the very least
> "contemporaneous" yet are these the marks of a
> lost civilization or do you think they might
> actually originate and have contemporary meaning
> the the AE? One would also easily note the largest
> goddess, which also has meaning, is Hathor
> identified by the sun-disk/Uraeus crown which she
> is distinguished by throughout the entirety of AE
All of which are carved in low relief.
Now ask yourself why would one choose to carve indented as opposed to low relief?
What is the reason for doing so?
> The biggest fallacy of the fresh thinking meme is
> that no one could possibly know anything about
> anything because they do not therefore all look at
> these artifacts with the same level of complete
> ignorance which leaves any and all to just make up
> whatever they want and therefore anyone could be
> "right or wrong". Is it truly lost on you how
> patently stupid this is?
Exactly, how could one be so stupid as to think that the crude carvings in the base were produced by the same craftsman or even technological culture that produced the low relief at the head. READ THE STONE.
> So, is it possible the inscription were not
> contemporaneous with the making of the statute
> i.e. the OK? Sure, this is "possible" however
> unlikely, but to the greater point could the
> statue itself predate Naqada/Dynastic history the
> odds are so infinitesimally small the answer is
> most certainly a "no".
What makes you say that?
Fashion, Style, Headdress, Pose?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11-Apr-16 21:15 by Jon Ellison.