> Look at iry-hr's name
> Falcon on a half-circle
The half circle is considered to be a mouth.
> Later, falcon on palace facade.
And? Apparently you do not understand the disagreement over Iry-Hor. Egyptologists are relatively split whether Iry-Hor was actually a ruler let alone even a person. For example, see Wilkinson:
The Identification of Tomb B1 at Abydos: Refuting the Existence of a King Ro/Iry-Hor
The epigraphic and ceramic evidence from Tomb B1 at Abydos is re-examined, yielding a date for the tomb of the reign of Narmer. The identity of the owner of B1 as a king is refuted; the group of signs previously identified as the name of a king *Iry-Hor is reinterpreted as a mark of the royal treasury.
You seem to believe such things are absolutes, but in reality far from it.
> I propose iry-hor ruled when the White Walls stood
> but weren't conquered yet. Upper Egypt unified
> before all of Egypt. This is the model. What
> argues against this?
Him not being an actual human being would be a start. I'm not sure what your point is as the white walls of Memphis were there before and long after the unification of Egypt.
> The Serekh's first appearance (your OP) comes
> after the conquest of Lower Egypt...
No, it actually says the opposite.
Since at least Dynasty 0, this building(s), in conjunction with the Horus falcon often sitting above it, as a rule were associated with kingship and was an integral component of the ruler's crest. As with writing in Egypt in general, the serekh was first a crude depiction which quickly evolved into a more detailed representation:
1st Dynasty Pharaoh Djet
"Since at least Dynasty 0" obviously means sometime before the unification of Egypt.
> Nethenhotep...that appears to be the earliest
> serkh if dating is correct...do you agree?
I'm not sure what you are reffering to as given her chronological position her serekh would obviously not be the oldest.
> Is there anything which contradicts this so
> far..can you show me a serekh which is proven to
> pre-date tomb B1/2 content?
At this point I'm not even sure what you are trying to say. You seem to have some kind of specific bias towards something though the point is unclear to me.
> Re medical...can you send me a reference which
> shows medical texts from Sumer which predate
> the content of the Ebers and Smith Papyri?
The Ebers and Smith Papyri, among others, are late MK/early NK documents which most are believed to have been copied from earlier documents dating back to around 1900BC. The notion the Smith papyrus dates before this period comes from Henry Breasted who I believe has been somewhat misquoted and uncritically repeated as saying it dated to a time between "3000-2500BC". To Breasted this represented the "Old Kingdom", which is obviously not accepted today. I don't know why these dates get attributed to the Smith Papyrus which may have come from erroneously attributing the date given in a photo Plate 1, The Edwin Smith Papyrus.. It shows a mandible with dental work which Breasted says is dated to the "Old Kingdom 3000-2500BC" which is a date given by some sources regarding the age of the Smith Papyrus, but this is not what Breasted actually says. P28-29, which he repeats to some degree in the addenda, according to him a few of the hieroglyphs are of a form which he says dated "between the close of the 12th Dynasty and the age of the Papyrus Ebers". If Breasted waxes poetic somewhere else within here imagining the Smith Papyrus may date to the time of Imhotep (3rd Dynasty/Djoser), I don't see it and do not really care regardless as it would appear otherwise worthless.
With that being said, any civilized culture will have medical practices and most certainly write about them. The Mesopotamians did and so did the AE as did everyone else. I do not think there is a mystery here. I have no interest in pursuing this further. The only point of responding was you said:
4) The treatment of ailments...next to no recorded knowledge from Sumer whence so much else was recorded....ample evidence by contrast from dynastic Egypt with possibly much earlier roots...Ebers Papyrus, Smith Papyrus...
Which is not true.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 24-Nov-16 17:09 by Thanos5150.