> Origyptian wrote:
> ...............omissis ..........
> > The traditional interpretation of the dynastic period is to
> > stuff everything we see there into a single civilization,
> > contrive a self-consistent model that attempts to make the
> > entire shebang develop in unison, and hand wave all of the
> > contradictions in the evidence that result from such
> > oversimplification, even contriving constructs like de novo
> > language, complex engineering projects, a "70 kings in 70
> > intermediate period, etc.
> > Rather, an increasing amount of physical evidence is starting
> > to reveal that what we might actually be seeing there are at
> > least two, and maybe more, layers of different cycles of
> > civilization, each layer more ancient then the next. This
> > the evidence of each of these civilization is indeed there.
> > It's before our eyes. We're looking right at it. And it
> > explains rather neatly all of the physical evidence and also
> > reconciles the contradictions to the "linear" model.
> I like this idea. It would actually explain a lot if that were
> the case. A lot of out there hypotheses have been expounded
> simply because it was always assumed that their civilization
> literally sprung up out of nowhere. But it can't have just
> sprung up out of nowhere.
> Do you have any links that indicate this is indeed the case?
> I'd be very interested in reading them. The AE, as I said
> upthread, aren't really my area of interest and I don't know a
> lot about them.
> > It could be that an initial, pragmatic, engineering society
> > developed much of the masonry infrastructure we see there for
> > the purpose of civil functionality, and following a
> > herd-thinning catastrophe was a period of dormancy during
> > technological amnesia took place, followed by the expansion
> > an adaption society that was more focused on art and religion
> > and which inherited the ancient infrastructure and repurposed
> > it according to their own cultural context (e.g., funerary,
> > etc.).
> In principle I have no argument with this whatsoever. Because
> it's realistic--that's exactly what would happen.
well at this point it could be Worth, IMHO, read this article posted few years ago
by Ronnie Gallagher with whom I shared not only the knowledge of Azerbaijan
reality, but also the Adji Kui findings (of which we discussed in differente Topics)
along with the BMAC findings related to the Civility of Oasis, which were dated
back more than 5000 year ago, as well as the Altai Flood and other Floods
which swepped up the entire Central Asia.
Azerbaijan: Land of Fire and Flood Ancient Mariners and a Deluged Landscape
in such article on the right there is a section related to Sir William Mathew Flinders Challenge
Such facts, as well as the reality of Eurasia Steppe are ignored by the media tam tam,Quote
Sir William Mathew Flinders Petrie observed in the 1920’s that there were definite connections between
ancient Egypt and southern Russia, more particularly with the Caucasus.
but among specialists and private researchers who know such areas, such reality is
well know ....... while there are more and more to brought to the light.
Actually what make the media tam tam run is:
> > Sure, there will be traditionalists who scratch and scream at
> > every turn in staunch resistance to such a model, but this is
> > expected and has already happened many times throughout
> > whenever there is a significant paradigm shift in the model.
> > any case, the current traditional "unison" model does not
> > account for all the evidence we see there, and does not
> > reconcile the conflicting evidence against it. The model
> > to be changed.
> Well...archaeologists aren't very good scientists most of the
> time. They build a mountain of conjecture (not even
> hypotheses!) on a molehill of evidence.
As usual Kristin, just out of box toughts of mine (and thanks god not only mine actually)
You can not solve a problem with the same kind of thinking that you used to create it.